most people thought pitt was the nc winneer that year, plus anything pre ww1 wasnt seen in the same light. cfb took off in the 20s. im not trying to diminish the 1917 gt team, but what they did isnt the same as going all the way to l.a. and putting a beat down on the pac champ. it was a HUGE deal at the time, no southern team had ever been given a bid to play there before. everyone thought them to inferior. not sure where u got ur inf that the rose bowl wasnt a big deal.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by TxTiger82

Member since Sep 2004

33974 posts

Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:36 am to RightHook

quote:
most people thought pitt was the nc winneer that year,

That is incorrect. Pitt complained about it a lot.

quote:
plus anything pre ww1 wasnt seen in the same light

It has to be taken as its own thing. But we are talking about "what put Southern football on the map." The time period in which that happened seems irrelevant.

What is important is when the "cradle of football" (the east) recognized some other region as worthy competition.

This first started with the Midwest - Chicago, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It then spread to the South later - Georgia Tech, Alabama.

quote:
ut what they did isnt the same as going all the way to l.a. and putting a beat down on the pac champ

Two points: (a) Who is to say GT wouldn't have waxed whatever west coast team was put in front of them? (b) The Rose Bowl didn't have the significance in 1926 that is did in 1966.

quote:
no southern team had ever been given a bid to play there before

It had only been played for 10 years. Our collective memory of the game (i.e., what you are doing now), has imbued that game with more importance than it had. It was a big deal, yes. But it was not the "national championship game." Washington would not have been national champs had they won.