- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 1908 National Champions
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:36 pm to WikiTiger
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:36 pm to WikiTiger
Well, the SIAA wasn't so much a conference as it was the Southern version of the NCAA (which happened to predate the Northern version, the Roosevelt-driven IAAUS, by the way)--i.e., an association meant to formalize the rules and procedures of intercollegiate competition. ( LINK)
So while the North had the Western Conference (a.k.a., "The Big Ten"), the Great Plains had the MVIAA (a.k.a., "The Big 8"), and the Southwest had the SWC, I don't think there was a true conference in the South until the Southern Conference was formed before the 1922 season.
I do know that most, if not all, SIAA champions were "mythical," as the SIAA was not formed to declare a football champion, nor to even keep standings. ( LINK)
I remember reading somewhere that Auburn was declared the 1908 SIAA champs despite their loss to LSU, but unfortunately, now I can't remember my source. In any case, this would probably have been done by a newspaper somewhere, not by an official sports organization.
So since LSU embarrassingly won zero SoCo conference titles in the 11 seasons from 1922 - 1932, it's understandable that LSU would like to pretend that conference championships didn't exist prior to the formation of the SEC before the 1933 season.
Interestingly, CFB Data Warehouse lists LSU as the SIAA co-champions in 1896, and as the outright champs in 1908. ( LINK)
I had previously thought they listed Auburn, but maybe my memory is just bad, or maybe they just changed it. I don't know.
I might go to Wikipedia and edit my article using the Book of Finney, but I've never done that before. You've got to remember, I'm 120 years old, and all this Internet stuff still confuses me sometimes.
So while the North had the Western Conference (a.k.a., "The Big Ten"), the Great Plains had the MVIAA (a.k.a., "The Big 8"), and the Southwest had the SWC, I don't think there was a true conference in the South until the Southern Conference was formed before the 1922 season.
I do know that most, if not all, SIAA champions were "mythical," as the SIAA was not formed to declare a football champion, nor to even keep standings. ( LINK)
I remember reading somewhere that Auburn was declared the 1908 SIAA champs despite their loss to LSU, but unfortunately, now I can't remember my source. In any case, this would probably have been done by a newspaper somewhere, not by an official sports organization.
So since LSU embarrassingly won zero SoCo conference titles in the 11 seasons from 1922 - 1932, it's understandable that LSU would like to pretend that conference championships didn't exist prior to the formation of the SEC before the 1933 season.
Interestingly, CFB Data Warehouse lists LSU as the SIAA co-champions in 1896, and as the outright champs in 1908. ( LINK)
I had previously thought they listed Auburn, but maybe my memory is just bad, or maybe they just changed it. I don't know.
I might go to Wikipedia and edit my article using the Book of Finney, but I've never done that before. You've got to remember, I'm 120 years old, and all this Internet stuff still confuses me sometimes.
This post was edited on 11/21/07 at 4:45 pm
2
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:43 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Jackson Barracks
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:49 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
So since LSU embarrassingly won zero SoCo conference titles in the 11 seasons from 1922 - 1932
The media guide, again page 148, lists LSU as SIC (aka Southern Conference) co-champions in 1932.
Anyway, all this history you are spouting is really interesting and I find it hard to dig any of it up on the internet. I'm too cheap and modern to buy books (I do all things by the internet!!) so I love hearing your insights into LSU football history.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:51 pm to Doc Fenton
The charges against the 1908 team were these:
1. the players were recruited only to play football.
2. A number of players didn't go to classes and do the work or take any test.
To add to that Grantland Rice said more than one player was playing under a different name and had used up thier college time.
Charge
1. Never was held up, as if you said Fenton and other players were recruited then team like ND, Pitt, Maine had all gone to Penn before us and got players to transfer.
2. Was totally proven wrong by the large amount of paper work from each player and test score from each.
Grantland never proved his case and none of the 1908 team members, were ever proved of having played under other names (yes a 1907 player had).
The charge that got Wingard fired:
This charge had nothing to do with the orginal charges by Tulane-Vanderbilt or Rice; One player played summer baseball for money.
Wingard was banned from coaching in the SIAA for 2 years for letting a player on his team play for money.
BTW if you know anything on early football ALL OF THE PLAYERS WERE PLAYING BASEBALL IN THE SUMMER FOR MONEY.
And 80% of the coaches, football season didn't begin back then until mid Oct. That is because that is when baseball season ended and the players weren't free until then, as all of them needed the money for school, books, spending money etc.
1. the players were recruited only to play football.
2. A number of players didn't go to classes and do the work or take any test.
To add to that Grantland Rice said more than one player was playing under a different name and had used up thier college time.
Charge
1. Never was held up, as if you said Fenton and other players were recruited then team like ND, Pitt, Maine had all gone to Penn before us and got players to transfer.
2. Was totally proven wrong by the large amount of paper work from each player and test score from each.
Grantland never proved his case and none of the 1908 team members, were ever proved of having played under other names (yes a 1907 player had).
The charge that got Wingard fired:
This charge had nothing to do with the orginal charges by Tulane-Vanderbilt or Rice; One player played summer baseball for money.
Wingard was banned from coaching in the SIAA for 2 years for letting a player on his team play for money.
BTW if you know anything on early football ALL OF THE PLAYERS WERE PLAYING BASEBALL IN THE SUMMER FOR MONEY.
And 80% of the coaches, football season didn't begin back then until mid Oct. That is because that is when baseball season ended and the players weren't free until then, as all of them needed the money for school, books, spending money etc.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 4:58 pm to Louie T
Well, yes, Jackson Barracks was horrible, but I wouldn't laugh at the idea of college football teams playing U.S. troops in general.
Check out just some of the military organizations that fielded Division I teams: LINK. A lot of them have some pretty good records, such as the Mare Island Marines, who went 18-1, losing only their last game to Great Lakes Navy, which was undefeated in 1918, having tied Northwestern and Notre Dame. Even as late as 1965, the Quantico Marines went 6-4, beating such teams as Dayton, Villanova, and Memphis.
By the 1943 season, 7 military organizations made the final AP Top 20 (2 of which were Army and Navy).
And by the 1944 season, 12 military organizations made the final AP Top 20 (again, including Army and Navy). Many, many more played, including Fort Pierce(FL), where I think the Navy frogmen were trained. I think they may be one of the only teams with a perfect record for their Division I football history, and they still only ended 1944 ranked #18. They're not even one of the teams listed by J Howell's site.
The military teams are an interesting subject for football research, but the information is usually hard to come by, since most of the military locations were temporary, and had little interest in keeping football records and statistics.
Also, most people don't realize that the Coast Guard continues to play Division III football to this very day.
Check out just some of the military organizations that fielded Division I teams: LINK. A lot of them have some pretty good records, such as the Mare Island Marines, who went 18-1, losing only their last game to Great Lakes Navy, which was undefeated in 1918, having tied Northwestern and Notre Dame. Even as late as 1965, the Quantico Marines went 6-4, beating such teams as Dayton, Villanova, and Memphis.
By the 1943 season, 7 military organizations made the final AP Top 20 (2 of which were Army and Navy).
And by the 1944 season, 12 military organizations made the final AP Top 20 (again, including Army and Navy). Many, many more played, including Fort Pierce(FL), where I think the Navy frogmen were trained. I think they may be one of the only teams with a perfect record for their Division I football history, and they still only ended 1944 ranked #18. They're not even one of the teams listed by J Howell's site.
The military teams are an interesting subject for football research, but the information is usually hard to come by, since most of the military locations were temporary, and had little interest in keeping football records and statistics.
Also, most people don't realize that the Coast Guard continues to play Division III football to this very day.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:03 pm to Doc Fenton
Also, the 1918 and 1919 Rose Bowls were both games that pitted two military teams against each other.
1918 Mare Island - USMC 19 Camp Lewis - US Army 7
1919 Great Lakes - US Navy 17 Mare Island 0
1918 Mare Island - USMC 19 Camp Lewis - US Army 7
1919 Great Lakes - US Navy 17 Mare Island 0
This post was edited on 11/21/07 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:07 pm to CajunT
I say Harvard was the best that year. First off, the northeast bore the standard for football quality in those days. Harvard was undefeated, they beat Carlisle at Harvard Stadium that year (Jim Thorpe played in that game); their only non-win was a tie against Navy. And they were the only team to beat Yale.
Harvard 1908
LSU 1908
If you look there, I believe that Harvard had a much tougher schedule (and they allowed few points--8--than even LSU.).
Harvard 1908
LSU 1908
If you look there, I believe that Harvard had a much tougher schedule (and they allowed few points--8--than even LSU.).
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:15 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
The media guide, again page 148, lists LSU as SIC (aka Southern Conference) co-champions in 1932.
Sorry, I forgot about that, since the 1932 season was not a great season for the Tigers at all. LSU tied TCU, and lost to Rice, Centenary, and Oregon, that year, but was 4-0 in the SoCo, beating Mississippi State, Sewanee, South Carolina, and Tulane.
Meanwhile, Tennessee was 9-0-1 (6-0-1), having tied Vanderbilt 0-0 at Nashville, and Auburn was also 9-0-1 (6-0-1), having tied South Carolina 20-20 in the last game of the season in Birmingham.
So CFBDataWarehouse strangely lists all 3 teams as SoCo champs that year ( LINK), even though I think only LSU would be the champion if you were going by official SEC rules. Still, the 6-3-1 record was not impressive.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:16 pm to tigger1
Wow. Thanks for the info, Tigger. I didn't realize that. Perhaps you need to start writing and editing some Wikipedia articles!
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:25 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:Doc, I've been wondering about this kind of stuff for a long time. Ties were looked at differently back then (in the NFL, ties were virtually not counted, so 10-0-4 was the same as 14-0). I'm not sure if the SIAA/SoCon/SEC ever looked at it that way.
I think only LSU would be the champion if you were going by official SEC rules.
I do know that later in the Southern Conference (1966), West Virginia was 3-0 in SoCon play (3-5-2 overall), but William & Mary (4-1-1; 5-4-1) and East Carolina (4-1-1; 4-5-1) are listed as co-champions.
This post was edited on 11/21/07 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:26 pm to xiv
Well, almost nobody claims Harvard was the best team in 1908. How do you figure that Navy or Carlisle or Yale was as good as Auburn that year?
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:31 pm to xiv
Yeah, that's weird. To go 0-5-2 in OOC play is clearly embarrassing, but WVU did beat W&M that year. And it's not like WVU was a provisional member or anything like that, since they had been playing in the conference since 1950.
With the SEC, I can look at the champs and infer what the rules were. With the Southern Conference, I don't know what to think.
With the SEC, I can look at the champs and infer what the rules were. With the Southern Conference, I don't know what to think.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:34 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:Harvard & Penn lead the way.
Well, almost nobody claims Harvard was the best team in 1908. How do you figure that Navy or Carlisle or Yale was as good as Auburn that year?
I have absolutely no way of knowing that any team was better than any other team that far back. We all know that college football started in the northeast, and for a while most of the best teams were in the northeast. I can only name two players from 1908; Doc Fenton and Jim Thorpe (Carlisle).
In 1929, Yale visited Georgia, and that was a huge deal because northeast schools hardly ever went south because they had always been far better up north, and it wasn't until this era that the balance was shifting ( UGA won the game btw.)
Up until the 1920's, Harvard/Yale/Penn/Princeton pretty much owned college football.
This post was edited on 11/21/07 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:46 pm to CajunT
we are lsu... not bama... not ole miss... we are lsu
Posted on 11/21/07 at 5:49 pm to xiv
Posted on 11/21/07 at 6:20 pm to xiv
quote:
Up until the 1920's, Harvard/Yale/Penn/Princeton pretty much owned college football.
Yeah, but that just means there was less parity up North. Virginia Tech and Vanderbilt seemed to be the only schools around the 1906-1908 time period that played significant games against both Northern and Southern opponents, and the games seem to indicate that the two regions were pretty evenly matched.
For determining national champs, I also think you have to give more extra weight to perfect records than most computer models would allow. Thus, LSU can't claim a national championship in 1961, even though LSU probably performed better than Alabama that year. Most people don't like the idea of Ole Miss claiming a championship in 1959, even though they were clearly superior to Syracuse. Florida can't claim a 1984 national title, even though they were better than BYU. Auburn can't claim a national title in 1983, because Miami(FL) lost their first game--which was soon forgotten--and rolled after that like they were a completely different team.
You can go on and on and on. Bottom line, I don't think you should put Penn or Harvard in front of LSU, considering that nobody else scored against Auburn that year, and LSU played them on the road and virtually shut them out (as I explained above). In fact, there were no significant scores against LSU during the entire 1908 season, unless you consider 5 points significant in an 81-5 blowout, or 4 points significant in a 36-4 blowout in Little Rock.
This post was edited on 11/21/07 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 11/21/07 at 6:25 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
Well, yes, Jackson Barracks was horrible, but I wouldn't laugh at the idea of college football teams playing U.S. troops in general
But, you've got to admit, playing health clubs is pretty freaking hilarious.
Their first game was against YMGC-New Orleans. They're the precursor to the New Orleans Athletic Club, which is a health club in New Orleans, located on Rampart Street, now heavily frequented by gay men, and strippers. I used to work out there before the storm, but I'm neither a gay man nor a stripper. It's a neat place, though.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 6:36 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:I think it's more the fact that Auburn was the only good team LSU played that year. The way I see it (and how can either of us be even close to particularly accurate here?),
You can go on and on and on. Bottom line, I don't think you should put Penn or Harvard in front of LSU, considering that nobody else scored against Auburn that year, and LSU played them on the road and virtually shut them out (as I explained above). In fact, there were no significant scores against LSU during the entire 1908 season, unless you consider 5 points significant in an 81-5 blowout, or 4 points significant in a 36-4 blowout in Little Rock.
LSU 1908 : Kansas 2007 :: LSU 2007 : Harvard/Penn 1908
Posted on 11/21/07 at 6:46 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Only one person saw both Fenton and Thorpe play football and that person said Fenton was the better runner of the two.
Also Thorpe played for Carlisle 1907-1908 and then again from 1911-1912. This is after he went to Haskell Indian Nations University before 1904 and then first went to Carlisle in 1904.
Also Thorpe played for Carlisle 1907-1908 and then again from 1911-1912. This is after he went to Haskell Indian Nations University before 1904 and then first went to Carlisle in 1904.
Posted on 11/21/07 at 6:46 pm to xiv
Well, I don't think it's all that bad. I don't think Harvard's schedule was quite as tough as you make it out to be, and I think you're discounting the dominance of LSU that year.
I think a better analogy might be to awarding the national championship to Ohio State or Michigan last year, if neither one of them had to play their last 2 games.
I think a better analogy might be to awarding the national championship to Ohio State or Michigan last year, if neither one of them had to play their last 2 games.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News