re: "If we counted championships like bammer does" - here's how many your team has

quote:

---

Generally speaking...

---

Just stop.

I only wanted to know if you were referring to being recognized by the school in which case I would've pointed out that LSU doesn't recognize the 1908 title as I believe it was awarded retroactively.

FYI:

Louisiana State 1908
Doc FentonThe National Championship Foundation has been the worst selector so far (1901-1907), but they've topped themselves with their selection of 10-0 Louisiana State to share the 1908 title with Penn (but no Harvard! Do they operate completely free of research?). Now yes, LSU had a perfect record, and Harvard, Penn, and Chicago did not, but the problem is that there are a half a dozen teams with perfect records every single season (more if you include all of the most minor schools). Kansas, for example, went 9-0 in 1908, and against a more credible schedule (which isn't saying much). The thing is, the 3 contenders discussed above played schedules so far beyond LSU's that it is like comparing FBS teams to a division II team.

LSU was the best team of the South in 1908, though, and they did gain some national recognition for pummeling their (weak) opponents by a combined score of 443-11. Their star was hall of fame quarterback and kicker Doc Fenton (pictured), an offensive machine who scored 132 points in 1908, and 298 points (36 touchdowns) in his 3 seasons 1907-'09. Their coach, Edgar Wingard, was 70-34-5 in his career, his 17-3 stint at LSU 1907-'08 being the highlight. Wingard can be credited with inventing the now-illegal tear away jersey, as he would soak Fenton's woolen game shirts in a mild acid solution to weaken the fabric before each game.

The big game (in fact, to a large degree the only game of merit, rendering LSU an effective 1-0) was at 6-1 Auburn, the second best team in the South by virtue of a 6-0 win over 4-1-3 Sewanee (who tied usual Southern champ Vanderbilt). LSU won that game 10-2 (the closest anyone else got to them was Louisiana Tech, who fell 22-0). But Auburn went ahead and claimed themselves the 1908 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association (SIAA) champions anyway.

That is because of an article published by the not-yet-famous Grantland Rice in the Nashville Tennessean that charged LSU with paying 7 ringers to play for them. LSU denied it, but Grantland Rice did not back down, saying that he had proof. Unfortunately, LSU declined to sue for slander, so we'll never know what that "proof" was. 7-1 Tulane subsequently refused to play LSU (not that it would have mattered-- Tulane was weak despite the nice record). After the season, the SIAA investigated LSU and found no wrongdoing.

For my part, I don't care if LSU was "cheating" or not. "Ringers" were as common on rosters in those days as JUCO transfers today, and pretty much every successful school, even the Ivies, had players who were paid and/or who did not bother to attend classes. So let's ignore all that and focus on LSU's "national championship" qualifications.

Why LSU Does Not Merit National Championship Consideration for 1908
LSU does not merit such consideration for the same reason that similar teams like 9-0 Vanderbilt and 10-0 Pittsburgh in 1904 and 11-0 St. Louis in 1906 don't (I covered all 3 of those teams in my 1904 and 1906 articles). LSU's 443-11 romp was all well and good, but Vanderbilt did better in '04, outscoring opponents 474-4 (and beating 7-1 Sewanee 27-0). Pitt '04 won their games 406-5, while St. Louis '06 won by 407-11. And like LSU in '08, they were all just regional powerhouses playing weak schedules-- big fish in small ponds, as they say. No one names any of those other teams national champions, as well they shouldn't.

In 1909, Washington will romp on all their Northwest opponents. In 1910, Colorado will romp on all their Rocky Mountain opponents. It is just not that unusual.

But leaving those sorts of teams aside, the National Championship Foundation has repeatedly ignored powerhouse teams that actually accomplished something schedule-wise, like 12-0 Harvard and 9-0 Wisconsin in '01, 10-0 Nebraska in '02, 14-0-1 Minnesota in '03 (who tied NCF "champion" Michigan that year!), 13-0 Minnesota in '04 (outscored opponents 725-12), 10-0 Yale in '05, 9-0-1 Yale in '06 (who tied NCF champion Princeton), and of course Harvard and Chicago in 1908. And yet now they select pond bully LSU to share the title with Penn? It is wholly without sense.

LSU played a 1-game schedule and won 10-2, and over an Auburn team that, while 6-1, we have no reason to see as particularly powerful. Auburn beat Sewanee 6-0, who tied Vanderbilt, who lost 17-6 to a mediocre Ohio State and 24-6 to Michigan. And Michigan was smashed by its two Eastern opponents. Sewanee also tied St. Louis, beaten handily at home by both the Eastern teams they played. Where is LSU's argument? Because running up the score on 9 patsies just doesn't cut it. LSU is not even a legitimate contender. But to the school's credit, they do not claim this "national championship." Alabama would already have made the banners and rings by now if it were them.

LINK