MikeTheTiger71
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 4412 |
| Registered on: | 12/8/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: 2019 Tigers - Second Best College Team in History
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/6/26 at 7:45 pm to Rainier Fog
quote:
Auburn must have been stakked that year
More like the only legitimate program Sewanee faced. It was much like LSU’s 10-2 win over Auburn in 1908. The rest of the teams on their schedule were bad.
0
re: 2019 Tigers - Second Best College Team in History
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/6/26 at 7:43 pm to Gonadballbarian
quote:
But they were the most dominant team in history is what he's saying. The era is what it is. They can't help that
The problem with that argument is that all the best teams were in the Northeast at that point in history. Many of the teams Sewanee beat look like big names in the modern era, but they weren’t back then. Many had been playing football for only a few years. The South was a backwater still more than two decades before their first significant win over an Eastern or Midwestern team. They were more like North Dakota St dominating FCS than they were like 2019 LSU.
re: No Home cooking for Chambliss
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/5/26 at 9:53 pm to sharkfhin
quote:
Well I guess I meant to say , he knew he wouldn't be the starter but yes your right.
I figured that was what you meant. I just wanted to drive home that point to show he didn’t lose anything due to the illness
re: No Home cooking for Chambliss
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/5/26 at 12:02 pm to Shiftyplus1
quote:
Chambliss has only actually played for 3 years. Other than the fact that it's Ole Miss and that we hate the Rebels, I really don't see what the big deal is.
So, your position is that players should just have an unlimited number of redshirt seasons?
re: No Home cooking for Chambliss
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/5/26 at 11:56 am to sharkfhin
quote:
The real story is he lost his starting position and opted out of dressing.
He didn’t lose something he didn’t have to begin with. He was a redshirt freshman stuck on the depth charts behind two QBs who each had 1500+ total yards that season on the way to a national title. The coaches said he didn’t play because of his stage of development and the competitive needs of the team. He only had 38 pass attempts the next season, so that tells you all you need to know about how much illness really affected his playing time.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/4/26 at 2:00 pm to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
The only thing I'll say against your argument is that the NCAA, on the most restrictive list, is effectively recognizing who they consider "Major Selectors"
I think they are still just presenting information. It’s not who THEY consider major selectors since they use the exact same term to describe the broadest list of selectors included in the NCAA Record Book. The narrower list is more an acknowledgment of the selectors with the most widespread popular acceptance across various eras. They aren’t imposing their own judgment. They’re deferring to public opinion and providing a variety of possible options for what might be considered a list of national champions.
quote:
For example, they only mention the CFP in the CFP era. When pre-BCS era they mention the AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI, etc. even for years with clear undisputed champions like 1995 Nebraska. Of course, the counter argument is 2003 where they list the BCS, AP, and FWAA.
I think it’s more a matter of the other sources falling in line with the BCS/CFP except in 2003, so they did not feel the need to list them all out separately except where they deviated. And, again, it’s more a deference to public opinion in that era.
I think what’s lost in all of this is that I don’t agree that the broader list is a reasonable source for national championship claims. I’m only stating that the legitimacy of a claim has nothing to do with being included on a published NCAA list. Legitimacy comes from broad public acceptance, not the NCAA.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/4/26 at 1:46 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
You’re not going to address the list of National Championships that the NCAA recognizes?
I don’t know if you lack reading comprehension skills or if you’re just a liar.
quote:
Stop trying to force your opinion on others here. Move to California for that type of nonsensical behavior. We follow facts here (as stated by providing MULTIPLE links to the NCAA records).
You aren’t very bright, are you? You clearly have no concept of what constitutes a fact vs. an opinion. The facts in this case are that the NCAA publishes multiple lists of national champions using different sets of selectors. Only one of us acknowledges that fact, and it isn’t you. The opinion in this case that the only list that counts is the one that fits your narrative. I’m not the one trying to force my opinion here.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/4/26 at 9:34 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
You haven’t addressed anything creditable. Like I said, your opinion doesn’t negate facts bud. NCAA does not recognize 2017 UCF nor 2016 Alabama as National Champions.
So you’re not going to explain how a list labeled NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT) isn’t really a list of national champions. I get it. You have no reasonable argument on that point and it blows your entire premise out of the water, so you just choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t exist.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/3/26 at 8:59 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
The NCAA lists National Champions (again, I’ve provided multiple links). Pay attention to details. UCF is not listed in 2017 just like Alabama is not listed in 2016.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the same thing and pretend I haven’t already addressed it, you have yet to refute the fact that the NCAA Record Book also has a list called NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT) that includes 2017 UCF, 1941 Alabama, and many other dubious national championship selections. You can try to assign meaning to asterisks and footnotes that isn’t there to fit your narrative, but you cannot erase the clear meaning the NCAA assigned to the list by the title they gave to the list. It’s a list of national champions. There is no ambiguity in that. Have you even addressed that? No, you just pretend I didn’t point that out and go back to your argument about the other links I have never disputed. It is also a list of national champions published by the NCAA. The problem you refuse to face is that the lists in the NCAA Record Book are also a list of national champions published by the NCAA. You see where we are now? You make a claim I have not disputed while I am presenting evidence you have not refuted or addressed. Until you disprove my point, your point has no meaning, because then you either have to accept that every champion on both lists is legitimate or you have to admit being on a list published by the NCAA has no implied legitimacy or authority. The legitimacy has to be established by some other means. So, unless or until you can show how a list of National Champion selections is not really a list of National Champion selections, then this discussion is over. You can go ahead and repeat your same inconsistent argument if you must, but I won’t waste any more time repeating the same counter-arguments I have already made multiple times.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/3/26 at 2:34 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Their name literally has an asterisk next to it. The same page also explains the asterisk.
Yes, to explain what selector chose the team. There is no asterisk next to the section heading saying “National Champion Selections”. You are engaging in all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to hold onto an untenable position. It’s a list of national championships selections from various selectors the NCAA chose for informational purposes. There is no implied endorsement or recognition for any of the lists, especially since they are all different.
quote:
Your opinion doesn’t negate the fact that the NCAA does not claim UCF as a National Champion.
The NCAA doesn’t claim any team as national champions. They just list who “major selectors” chose.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/3/26 at 12:37 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
UCF was the highest ranked team in another sector. They are not listed as as National Champions in any form listed from the NCAA (according to your list ) and the multiple NCAA links I have provided. Same as 2016 Alabama.
Go to page 112 of the NCAA Record Book. The header for the list of teams chosen by each selector is “NATIONAL CHAMPION MAJOR SELECTIONS (1896 TO PRESENT)”. That’s the context of that list. The selectors are defined as selectors of National Champions. I know you are trying really hard to differentiate a list that includes LSU from lists that include selections you don’t like, but there is no meaningful difference in the way the NCAA presents them. You just cannot use NCAA “recognition” to legitimize a claim in 1908 for LSU without opening the door for dozens of other claims similarly “recognized” by the NCAA. I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to make that case, but the NCAA isn’t one of them.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/3/26 at 9:52 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
You clearly don’t follow ncaa.com listings.
You are hard-headed, aren’t you? I KNOW the NCAA publishes that list. What you refuse to acknowledge is that they also publish 3 other lists in the NCAA Record Book that I have now linked for you twice. You are the one not following. Explain to me why the list you linked is valid, but the other lists in the NCAA Record Book I linked are not. It’s a simple question that you refuse to answer. You can’t just keep going back and saying, “But this link has LSU and not UCF.” I know that. That’s not true in the other source also published by the NCAA.
quote:
Also, read your own link. UCF was not listed as a National Champions. This is why they are listed: “ In years where a “major selector” had a team other than the CFP champion as highest ranked team in its final poll that team is listed below the CFP Champion.”
You are trying to make a distinction that the NCAA is not making here. They never say that the CFP Champion is the “National Champion” and a team chosen by another “major selector” is not. That’s been my point all along. The NCAA isn’t choosing sides or making “official” proclamations. They’re just presenting information. We are in 100% agreement that UCF was not a legitimate national champion in 2017. Where the argument breaks down here is that the NCAA still lists them as the champion of a “major selector”. That leaves you with two choices. Either you decide that any team listed by the NCAA is a national champion (including 2017 UCF) or you acknowledge that simply being included on a list of champions published by the NCAA does not confer legitimacy on a claim to being national champions.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 10:45 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Wrong. The NCAA does not claim UCF in 2017 nor Auburn’s false titles.
You clearly have no intention of educating yourself on this topic. I gave you the link to the NCAA Record Book which absolutely does list UCF in 2017. I agree with you the NCAA doesn’t “claim” anything. They’re just passing along information that you can decide for yourself whether it’s legitimate. What you can’t do is use being included in an NCAA link as proof of legitimacy since there are plenty of bogus selectors in the NCAA link below.
fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2022/FBS.pdf
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 9:58 pm to Geaux Tahel
quote:
LSU is recognized by legit entities (NCAA), not Bob the butchers poll.
Do you even know who the National Championship Foundation is that selected LSU in 1908? It wasn’t the NCAA. It was a self-appointed committee from the 1980s who went back and selected national championship retroactively. There aren’t many selectors to choose from for the pre-AP poll era, so the ones that do exist are granted some degree of legitimacy by default. The problem is that the NCF was quite often out of step with the other retroactive selectors, including being the only one to select LSU in 1908 and the only one not to select Penn alone. (They had them as co-champs.)
NCF Summary
From Wikipedia pulled from a referenced primary source:
quote:
National Championship Foundation (1980-2001): Established by Mike Riter of Hudson, New York, the foundation has more than 120 chapters in 47 states, with a membership base of more than 12,000.
So, it’s really just a bunch of fans who decided to get together and vote on who they think should have been the national champions 70+ years earlier. Sounds like exactly the kind of source you were mocking.
re: Main Contributors (80 pts or more) under Kim Mulkey
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 8:34 pm to AlecRock23
8 over 200 this season already when there was never more than 5 in any other season.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 3:55 pm to mdomingue
quote:
You are the one who wandered down the "official" path. I merely stated recognition, and I simply posted the links I used to justify that. I did not see the link that you posted.
The point is you are trying to use the publication of a list by the NCAA as a means of legitimizing an NC claim. The problem with that argument is that the NCAA publishes multiple lists with different sets of selectors in the NCAA Record Book every year, including the list you linked. If an NCAA link legitimizes an NC claim for LSU in 1908, then inclusion in the NCAA Record Book should legitimize the other bogus claims I mentioned using the same logic.
Here is the link. (I can’t use the link functionality because it doesn’t start with http.) Click on National Poll Rankings in the document and scroll through the following pages. You’ll find 1941 Alabama, 2017 UCF, and most of Auburn’s bogus claims.
fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2022/FBS.pdf
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 2:06 pm to mdomingue
quote:
The links I posted do not include either 1917 UCF, 1941 Alabama, and only the two legitimate Auburn NCs.
And the link to the NCAA Record Book I posted before includes lists of national champions that show those teams as NC winners. Why is one link “official” but the other is not?
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 1:08 pm to mdomingue
quote:
Those lists recognize legitimate selectors and their choices, which include the undefeated 10-0 1908 LSU Tigers and 11-0-1 1908 Penn Quakers.
That list is simply one of the 4 lists from the NCAA Record Book. If you are going to use inclusion in an NCAA publication to legitimize NC selections, then that includes 2017 UCF, 1941 Alabama, and 7 of the 9 titles Auburn now claims.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 12:38 pm to mdomingue
quote:
The NCAA recognizes it, that's the wild part.
What is your definition of NCAA recognition? They publish 4 lists with different sets of selectors included. None is in any sense of the word an “official” list of champions. It’s just informational.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 9:12 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Wrong. 1 of 3 selected LSU. 2 of 3 selected Penn. LSU clearly had a more dominant season as well.
Show me a selector who didn’t pick Penn. The NCF that selected LSU also selected Penn. The other 2 picked Penn alone. The NCF is considered a major selector in that era, but they made several very odd selections, including picking LSU as co-champs in 1908 when everyone else selected Penn alone.
re: 1908 national championship
Posted by MikeTheTiger71 on 2/2/26 at 9:09 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Yes, it is very obvious. Look at scores & competition.
I just went through a thorough examination of the competition. Did you not even look at it? They played 4 minor opponents, Haskell Indians who were 3-5-1 (1-4 vs major opponents), and 5 Southern opponents. Arkansas and Auburn were the only ones with winning records and Arkansas was only 5-4 (2-3 vs major opponents). Auburn had a good win over Sewanee who tied Vanderbilt, but it was a down year for those two Southern powers. Sewanee tied St Louis and Vandy lost to Michigan and Ohio State, who wasn’t even major at the time. For all LSU’s impressive victory margins, against that one quality opponent in Auburn, they only won 10-2. The South just weren’t at the level of the Northeast and Big 10 (Western Conference) at that point in time. They were at best G5 level, maybe even FCS.
Popular
9
