- 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 championship
Posted on 2/1/26 at 11:25 am to DallasTiger11
Posted on 2/1/26 at 11:25 am to DallasTiger11
quote:Anyone who played on those teams or saw them play is dead. None of them are concerned. This is for your own odd pride
The 1908 team deserves more recognition at LSU.
1
Posted on 2/1/26 at 11:58 am to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Yes, the NCAA indeed does recognize both Penn & LSU as National Champions in 1908 utilizing 3 different formulas.
They also “recognize” UCF as National champions in 2017 since the Colley Matrix computer formula is one of the selectors included in the list they publish in the NCAA Record Book.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 12:47 pm to TigahTeeth
Their reasoning is literally, "We were national champions in 1957 and didn't lose a game." I have several Auburn friend connections, and it was brought up several times.
In part, they are lampooning Bama fans. However, they miss a big point: while most Bama fans say they should recognize 1966 for exactly that same reason (1965 champion that didn't lose in following year), the school does not claim 1966 because none of AP, UPI, or the NFCA assign the championship to Bama, only Notre Dame.
I told all of my Auburn friends that hiring Hugh Freeze was a mistake, as he was a snake oil salesman. Auburn fans became snake oil salesmen themselves instead.
GEAUX TIGERS!
In part, they are lampooning Bama fans. However, they miss a big point: while most Bama fans say they should recognize 1966 for exactly that same reason (1965 champion that didn't lose in following year), the school does not claim 1966 because none of AP, UPI, or the NFCA assign the championship to Bama, only Notre Dame.
I told all of my Auburn friends that hiring Hugh Freeze was a mistake, as he was a snake oil salesman. Auburn fans became snake oil salesmen themselves instead.
GEAUX TIGERS!
Posted on 2/1/26 at 1:22 pm to tigerburningbright75
quote:
I don't know of any Auburn fan that's embarrassed.
I would be.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 1:24 pm to LSUChamps03
quote:
I don't know of any Auburn fan that's embarrassed.
I would be.
faggies found two that they'd completely forgotten about the year that Johnny Doucheball was a flash in the pan, put 'em up on the side of the stadium
Posted on 2/1/26 at 2:43 pm to crotiger0307
quote:
Those men deserve to be honored just like any other championship team, and LSU would not look bad anywhere other than message boards and twitter.
I'm working on building a LSU Football 1908 National Championship poster for my man cave to go with the other four posters.
it doesn't matter what anyone else may think about it. Purple and Gold.
it's all about memorabilia and my LSU Tigers whether football or baseball.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 3:10 pm to MikeTheTiger71
No. The NCAA does not recognize UCF as a 2017 National Champion. They do recognize LSU as a 1908 National Champion.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 2/1/26 at 4:00 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
No. The NCAA does not recognize UCF as a 2017 National Champion. They do recognize LSU as a 1908 National Champion. LINK
There are 4 separate lists published by the NCAA. This is the most restrictive of the 4, but none of the 4 imply official recognition. See page 119 in the link for the listing of UCF in 2017.
fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2020/FBS.pdf
ETA: Fixed link
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:08 pm to MikeTheTiger71
Yes, it is officially recognized… by the most restrictive ncaa list.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 2/1/26 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:39 pm to lsutiger74
Why? What would it bring...were not auburn..were gonna see more.
I wish they HAD recognized it but it wouldn't do anything for me to recognize it now
I wish they HAD recognized it but it wouldn't do anything for me to recognize it now
Posted on 2/1/26 at 7:51 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
Yes, it is officially recognized… by the most restrictive ncaa list.
There are 4 lists. What makes you think that one is “official” but the other 3 are not? Either none of them are “official” (the correct answer) or all of them are. Now, what I will agree is that list is more universally accepted but you cannot try to use the NCAA to give it an air of legitimacy it just doesn’t have. The NCAA does not recognize FBS champions in any official capacity.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:01 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
two selected Penn
quote:
the consensus was that Penn was the champion
So 2 out of 3 is now a consensus?
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:05 pm to lsutiger74
"LSU needs to recognize this"
This was before they even had the one bar for a facemask
"Hey Quint, let it go"
This was before they even had the one bar for a facemask
"Hey Quint, let it go"
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:14 pm to Solo Cam
quote:Since you're going to take shots as those of us for wanting to claim it I'll just take the high road and say that you have just as many issues for not wanting to claim it. It's not as though it's going to cost us anything. What about honoring the memory of the guys on that team who represented LSU and played as well as any team in the nation?
Anyone who played on those teams or saw them play is dead. None of them are concerned. This is for your own odd pride
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:17 pm to atltiger6487
quote:Why don't you let it go? It works both ways.
good grief, let it go. It was 117 years ago, when the game was nothing like it was today, or even back in the 40s or 50s.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:21 pm to TheDude321
quote:
So 2 out of 3 is now a consensus?
No, 3 out of 3 is. The one selector that chose LSU also selected Penn. That said, consensus means a clear majority, not unanimous, so even if it were just 2 of 3 that would be a consensus. In this case, it was unanimous that Penn were national champions, but one selector decided LSU was a co-champion with Penn.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 8:33 pm to MikeTheTiger71
Back then, there was no National Championship game, therefore yes. both are recognized as National Champions.
FYI. If people would actually look at the record and stats of each team, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that LSU is a 1908 National Champion.
Penn. outscored its opponents 215 to 28.
LSU outscored its opponents 442 to 11…. Playing 2 fewer games!
FYI. If people would actually look at the record and stats of each team, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that LSU is a 1908 National Champion.
Penn. outscored its opponents 215 to 28.
LSU outscored its opponents 442 to 11…. Playing 2 fewer games!
Posted on 2/1/26 at 9:42 pm to BigNastyTiger417
quote:
FYI. If people would actually look at the record and stats of each team, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that LSU is a 1908 National Champion. Penn. outscored its opponents 215 to 28. LSU outscored its opponents 442 to 11…. Playing 2 fewer games!
It’s not obvious at all. The South was still a backwater in the college football world, while the Ivy League was the SEC of the day. Saying LSU was better because they had a higher scoring margin is akin to saying North Dakota St should have been FBS national champions during their great FCS run because they had a better margin of victory than the FBS champions.
At that point in history, the South had no major intersectional wins EVER. Vanderbilt was the major football power in the South at the time. Between 1905 and 1914, Vanderbilt was 0-7 against Michigan. From 1905-1907, Vandy’s only losses were to Michigan. They did manage a tie with 9-2-1 Navy in 1907. 1908 they also lost to Ohio St who wasn’t even considered a major program at the time and tied a Southern team in Sewanee (which allowed LSU to legitimately claim to be Southern champs). In 1909 they lost to Sewanee and Ohio State. In 1910 they managed a huge result by tying Yale. 1911 Michigan gave them their only loss again. 1912 their only loss was Harvard, though they tied Auburn. From 1904-1912, Vanderbilt had 1 loss and 2 ties against Southern teams. They were winless in intersectional games with two ties and 8 losses.
Sewanee was next in line in the South. They tied 6-2-2 St Louis in 1908 who was 0-2 against major teams outside the South. In 1909, Princeton handed them their only loss, 20-0. They fell in stature after that.
Auburn and LSU (briefly) were regional powers at the time but they played no intersectional opponents of consequence. LSU beat the Haskell Indians in 1908 (33-0), but they were only 3-5-1 that season with no wins over major opponents and a loss to non-major Washburn. LSU beat 4 non-major opponents and 5 Southern teams. Auburn and 5-4 Arkansas were the only major teams with winning records LSU beat and Arkansas was only 2-3 against major opponents with a loss to Oklahoma who wasn’t considered major at the time. All that really leaves is LSU beating Auburn 10-2 who in turn beat Sewanee who tied St Louis and Vanderbilt who lost to Michigan and non-major Ohio State. That’s just not much of a resume no matter how much they dominated.
Posted on 2/1/26 at 10:36 pm to lsutiger74
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/3/26 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 2/1/26 at 11:09 pm to TheBear60
quote:
Forget 1908...let's work on 2026.
Oh so it has to be one or the other
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News