- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 1/10/19 at 12:27 pm to nola000
quote:
I believe there are 2 other potential NCs that are unclaimed as well. Maybe in the 30s or 40s?
No 1908, 1958, 2003, and 2007 are the only legitimate ones LSU can claim.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 12:40 pm to Barrister
shite i'll take it
Posted on 1/10/19 at 12:45 pm to Barrister
If you make the argument that LSU should claim the national title in 1908 over Penn (or Harvard), then you should also argue that Boise State should claim the 2009 national title over Alabama.
Why?
Same scenario. The Ivy League back then was like the SEC now. And the only other teams that could compete were also on the east coast (e.g., Carlilse, Rutgers, Pitt).
The Michigan "Point-A-Minute" teams of the early 1900s are perhaps the best illustration of this. They dominated the Western Conference (predecessors to the Big 10). In fact, they didn't lose a game for three years between 1901 and 1904. But during that time, they only played a single eastern team (Carlilse, which they beat).
After a while, they started demanding matchups with the Ivy League's best. They finally got their wish in 1906 vs. Penn. They not only lost, they were shut out (bear in mind this was a program with a high powered offense). Penn shut out again in 1907 and 1908. In fact, they didn't beat an eastern team until their 5th try -- finally beating Penn in 1909 by the score of 12-6.
What is the point?
LSU's conference (SIAA, the predecessor to the SEC), was even more of a backwater than the Western Conference. If LSU had played Penn or Harvard in 1908, they would have been trounced. Sure, LSU had Doc Fenton. Penn and Harvard had rosters full of Doc Fentons.
It was a great season for LSU, no doubt. But claiming the national title is completely revisionist. Nobody at the time thought LSU was the best team. We were "awarded" some bullshite title well after the fact.
Just because Bama does it, doesn't mean we should.
Why?
Same scenario. The Ivy League back then was like the SEC now. And the only other teams that could compete were also on the east coast (e.g., Carlilse, Rutgers, Pitt).
The Michigan "Point-A-Minute" teams of the early 1900s are perhaps the best illustration of this. They dominated the Western Conference (predecessors to the Big 10). In fact, they didn't lose a game for three years between 1901 and 1904. But during that time, they only played a single eastern team (Carlilse, which they beat).
After a while, they started demanding matchups with the Ivy League's best. They finally got their wish in 1906 vs. Penn. They not only lost, they were shut out (bear in mind this was a program with a high powered offense). Penn shut out again in 1907 and 1908. In fact, they didn't beat an eastern team until their 5th try -- finally beating Penn in 1909 by the score of 12-6.
What is the point?
LSU's conference (SIAA, the predecessor to the SEC), was even more of a backwater than the Western Conference. If LSU had played Penn or Harvard in 1908, they would have been trounced. Sure, LSU had Doc Fenton. Penn and Harvard had rosters full of Doc Fentons.
It was a great season for LSU, no doubt. But claiming the national title is completely revisionist. Nobody at the time thought LSU was the best team. We were "awarded" some bullshite title well after the fact.
Just because Bama does it, doesn't mean we should.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 1/10/19 at 12:45 pm to Barrister
I completely agree we should claim it, but this has been discussed time and time again on this board.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 12:53 pm to TxTiger82
For those of you who are skeptical of my argument, here is an excellent article on the subject of the 1908 "championship." It is Harvard or Penn. The third best team was Chicago. LSU was an afterthought.
LINK
Sorry, I know how good it would feel to claim it.
LINK
Sorry, I know how good it would feel to claim it.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 3:36 pm to TxTiger82
TxTiger82
That alone shows you have no knowledge of football in that era.
Michigan is not as dominate as you think and by 1908 had many weak spots on it's roster, just like Vanderbilt, Penn has weak spots as well.
For your information I have studied all the major colleges teams from 1900-1914.
LSU one weak spot is Seip is playing with a bad sprain on one shoulder all season and is catching and tackling using his good shoulder side. Even playing with the injurie to his elbow on the same side as the bad shoulder he was our best receiver.
But what LSU team has is very good speed in the backfield and the line play.
I did post that Lally and Doc both are faster than Mathew of Brown and Mathew is an All American in Track and Field.
Also do you have any knowledge of the formations at that time? LSU is playing an early version of the wing T and stacked I, most college teams are not that advanced in their formations and the use of it to run outside and thrown outside to move the advance point away from the 7-9 man lines played at that time.
Carlisle beat many of this time using the pass (well before Notre Dame Army game of legend) and once Thorpe stepped on campus it made their running game become major factor. Thorpe and Carlisle beat Army using a run pass game before the Notre Dame game.
With LSU you are looking at the same type game, only LSU has two back with great speed and one a step slower in C. Smith. V. Smith is the blocking back leading the end round plays.
LSU is using a lot of the Carlisle tactics on offense and like Carlisle uses the pass. Texas A&M has Carlisle starting qb in 1908 (from the 1906-7 seasons if I remember correct).
Carlisle at times was playing with very light lines at time, LSU is playing with an average weight line until you get to Noblett at 225.
And what did little Carlisle do in those years verses the powerhouse teams of that time? And what happens when Thorpe leaves to play pro baseball in the Caroline's? And what happened when he came back to play?
Speed kills and Thorpe was very fast, I know about his 80 yard punt he caught on the run for a td. Punts are free balls whoever gets it owns possession at that time, just like kickoffs and LSU blocked many kickoffs in 1908.
Doc isn't Thorpe but is close to Gayle style runner, and Lally is the better back on the outside plays.
The article you link to is by a sport writer that has not studied 1908 football in depth or the knowledge of the lineups or formations played, his article is nice but he never factored in the Northern players playing in the south and that the better southern teams are made up of northern players and the two top spots for recruiting in those days were Penn and Michigan and Wingate stole 5 great ones out of Penn and 2 out of Michigan.
quote:
LSU's conference (SIAA, the predecessor to the SEC), was even more of a backwater than the Western Conference. If LSU had played Penn or Harvard in 1908, they would have been trounced. Sure, LSU had Doc Fenton. Penn and Harvard had rosters full of Doc Fentons.
That alone shows you have no knowledge of football in that era.
Michigan is not as dominate as you think and by 1908 had many weak spots on it's roster, just like Vanderbilt, Penn has weak spots as well.
For your information I have studied all the major colleges teams from 1900-1914.
LSU one weak spot is Seip is playing with a bad sprain on one shoulder all season and is catching and tackling using his good shoulder side. Even playing with the injurie to his elbow on the same side as the bad shoulder he was our best receiver.
But what LSU team has is very good speed in the backfield and the line play.
I did post that Lally and Doc both are faster than Mathew of Brown and Mathew is an All American in Track and Field.
Also do you have any knowledge of the formations at that time? LSU is playing an early version of the wing T and stacked I, most college teams are not that advanced in their formations and the use of it to run outside and thrown outside to move the advance point away from the 7-9 man lines played at that time.
Carlisle beat many of this time using the pass (well before Notre Dame Army game of legend) and once Thorpe stepped on campus it made their running game become major factor. Thorpe and Carlisle beat Army using a run pass game before the Notre Dame game.
With LSU you are looking at the same type game, only LSU has two back with great speed and one a step slower in C. Smith. V. Smith is the blocking back leading the end round plays.
LSU is using a lot of the Carlisle tactics on offense and like Carlisle uses the pass. Texas A&M has Carlisle starting qb in 1908 (from the 1906-7 seasons if I remember correct).
Carlisle at times was playing with very light lines at time, LSU is playing with an average weight line until you get to Noblett at 225.
And what did little Carlisle do in those years verses the powerhouse teams of that time? And what happens when Thorpe leaves to play pro baseball in the Caroline's? And what happened when he came back to play?
Speed kills and Thorpe was very fast, I know about his 80 yard punt he caught on the run for a td. Punts are free balls whoever gets it owns possession at that time, just like kickoffs and LSU blocked many kickoffs in 1908.
Doc isn't Thorpe but is close to Gayle style runner, and Lally is the better back on the outside plays.
The article you link to is by a sport writer that has not studied 1908 football in depth or the knowledge of the lineups or formations played, his article is nice but he never factored in the Northern players playing in the south and that the better southern teams are made up of northern players and the two top spots for recruiting in those days were Penn and Michigan and Wingate stole 5 great ones out of Penn and 2 out of Michigan.
This post was edited on 1/10/19 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 1/10/19 at 6:19 pm to tigger1
quote:
tigger1
No, you're wrong. The SIAA was simply not a good conference during that time. LSU essentially played a 1 game schedule that year (Auburn). The competition was very poor.
In fact, there wasn't a southern team that could compete with the eastern teams until 1917 Georgia Tech.
quote:
For your information I have studied all the major colleges teams from 1900-1914.
Then you should understand that Harvard and Penn would have absolutely destroyed LSU in 1908. Again -- we had Doc Fenton. They had Fenton-caliber players up and down their rosters. It would have been a bloodbath.
Sorry, bud.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 6:28 pm to Barrister
Penn was 11-0-1. They only outscored opponents 215-28. Clearly, eastern sports media bias.
LSU should lay claim to this MNC.
LSU should lay claim to this MNC.
Posted on 1/10/19 at 6:48 pm to Barrister
quote:That's impressive.
outscoring opponents 442-11
Posted on 1/10/19 at 8:19 pm to Barrister
I have always brought up the 1908 team- that championship should be counted!!
Posted on 1/10/19 at 9:16 pm to Barrister
This was a good discussion eight years ago as well:
Why doesn't LSU claim the 1908 football national championship?
Posted by Frankie Knuckles on 12/27/11 at 8:33 pm
quote:
After the 1893 season LSU went onto become the perennial powerhouse of the SIAA conference up until the 1908 season in which LSU not only dominated the SIAA conference but also the rest of the country, tae a look at what they did to the opposition,
Why doesn't LSU claim the 1908 football national championship?
Posted by Frankie Knuckles on 12/27/11 at 8:33 pm
quote:
After the 1893 season LSU went onto become the perennial powerhouse of the SIAA conference up until the 1908 season in which LSU not only dominated the SIAA conference but also the rest of the country, tae a look at what they did to the opposition,
Posted on 1/10/19 at 11:32 pm to weptiger
quote:
Penn was 11-0-1. They only outscored opponents 215-28. Clearly, eastern sports media bias.
LSU should lay claim to this MNC.
LSU doesn't need to "lay claim". Just needs to accept the FACT that the NCAA has named LSU as a co-champion of the 1908 season in the NCAA record book.
Posted on 1/11/19 at 9:18 am to G I Jeaux
quote:
Alabama says that if we don't want it they will take it.
Bwahahahahahaha!!! That was hilarious, thanks for the literal LOL.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News