Our Seven National Titles

Donate To GopherHole

I agree mostly, especially with 1904. It's debatable, but that's just how the era was. I think the claim is legit, but having it be shared makes total sense.

The 1960 season I disagree a bit. Head-to-head wins are always important to me, so I think beating Iowa automatically puts them ahead. I also think that within the system of that era, Minnesota's claim is legitimate.

The polls naming national champions before the post season made quite a few teams, on top of the Gophers have titles under their belt, even though they lost their bowl games. I don't think the loss in the Rose Bowl lessens that.

The video creator can claim that the Rose Bowl that year was the de facto national championship game, but during that era, that's simply not the case.

If a game has everything riding on it, the whole season is on the line for a national championship, I have to imagine there's more fire on that Gophers team to win that Rose Bowl. That wasn't the case, they had already won the national championship by that Rose Bowl.

I don't think that means they didn't show up against Washington or phoned it in, but one has to think that if that game was actually for the championship, hypothetically, Minnesota may have been more intense in their effort to win.

Overall, they won the national championship in the system of that day, and because college football went most of its history without an NCAA Tournament or BCS/CFP, the claims are always going to be up for debate regardless.
 


IceBoxGopher said:
I agree mostly, especially with 1904. It's debatable, but that's just how the era was. I think the claim is legit, but having it be shared makes total sense.

The 1960 season I disagree a bit. Head-to-head wins are always important to me, so I think beating Iowa automatically puts them ahead. I also think that within the system of that era, Minnesota's claim is legitimate.

The polls naming national champions before the post season made quite a few teams, on top of the Gophers have titles under their belt, even though they lost their bowl games. I don't think the loss in the Rose Bowl lessens that.

The video creator can claim that the Rose Bowl that year was the de facto national championship game, but during that era, that's simply not the case.

If a game has everything riding on it, the whole season is on the line for a national championship, I have to imagine there's more fire on that Gophers team to win that Rose Bowl. That wasn't the case, they had already won the national championship by that Rose Bowl.

I don't think that means they didn't show up against Washington or phoned it in, but one has to think that if that game was actually for the championship, hypothetically, Minnesota may have been more intense in their effort to win.

Overall, they won the national championship in the system of that day, and because college football went most of its history without an NCAA Tournament or BCS/CFP, the claims are always going to be up for debate regardless.
Click to expand...
Washington didn’t even claim the 1960 championship until 2007, that’s 47 years in which they believed they didn’t win it.

It’s also fairly well documented that the Gophers went to California like 2 weeks early and were wined and dined as National Champions. They truly treated the Rose Bowl game as an exhibition.

Near the end of the year Minnesota beat number 1 Iowa and moved back into first place. That should have been enough to solidify the Championship.

The author’s huge flaw was to consider any bowl game that was played after the final rankings were released.
 

IceBoxGopher said:
I agree mostly, especially with 1904. It's debatable, but that's just how the era was. I think the claim is legit, but having it be shared makes total sense.

The 1960 season I disagree a bit. Head-to-head wins are always important to me, so I think beating Iowa automatically puts them ahead. I also think that within the system of that era, Minnesota's claim is legitimate.

The polls naming national champions before the post season made quite a few teams, on top of the Gophers have titles under their belt, even though they lost their bowl games. I don't think the loss in the Rose Bowl lessens that.

The video creator can claim that the Rose Bowl that year was the de facto national championship game, but during that era, that's simply not the case.

If a game has everything riding on it, the whole season is on the line for a national championship, I have to imagine there's more fire on that Gophers team to win that Rose Bowl. That wasn't the case, they had already won the national championship by that Rose Bowl.

I don't think that means they didn't show up against Washington or phoned it in, but one has to think that if that game was actually for the championship, hypothetically, Minnesota may have been more intense in their effort to win.

Overall, they won the national championship in the system of that day, and because college football went most of its history without an NCAA Tournament or BCS/CFP, the claims are always going to be up for debate regardless.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 


Some guy said:
Spot on
Click to expand...
I have spoken with a few members of the ‘60 team about the ‘61 Rose Bowl. As much as they loved Coach Warmath they were critical of his approach to the game. He worked the team very hard—full pad, live-hitting scrimmages on a hard practice field. They were tired and had no legs by game day. The preparation was different for the ‘62 Rose Bowl: a much lighter practice schedule practicing with a more wide-open offense to create a more relaxed atmosphere. The team was fresh for the game and they dominated UCLA. (The Gophers power running was effective against the Bruins and the plays installed for the game were not used.). All that said, as you noted, the voting was based on the scheduled season. Claiming Washington won
the National Title is pure revisionism.





Ll
 


I agree with what the rest of you have said. I’m OK with Washington claiming that title, but that shouldn’t detract from ours. Great video overall
 





Married@SiebertField said:
I have spoken with a few members of the ‘60 team about the ‘61 Rose Bowl. As much as they loved Coach Warmath they were critical of his approach to the game. He worked the team very hard—full pad, live-hitting scrimmages on a hard practice field. They were tired and had no legs by game day. The preparation was different for the ‘62 Rose Bowl: a much lighter practice schedule practicing with a more wide-open offense to create a more relaxed atmosphere. The team was fresh for the game and they dominated UCLA. (The Gophers power running was effective against the Bruins and the plays installed for the game were not used.). All that said, as you noted, the voting was based on the scheduled season. Claiming Washington won
the National Title is pure revisionism.





Ll
Click to expand...
Really good info. In my previous post, I may have mixed up the preparation for the 2 Rose Bowls.
 

I would have put 1960 in the same category as 1904 personally. It is interesting that we went from number four to number one after beating Wisconsin, after I'm assuming was a bad loss to Purdue, but I think the Iowa win is the best regular season win any of the contenders have. We beat Iowa, Washington beat us, Ole Miss went undefeated with a tie. I can't remember which year in the three peat, I think 1935, but it seems odd we wouldn't played Stanford in the Rose bowl when both teams were undefeated. Did the Big ten not have a tie in to the Rose bowl yet?
 

Judging whether a college football team should have been champion based on how they did in a bowl game that was treated as an exhibition back then would be like retroactively figuring out which Super Bowl champion teams should have missed the playoffs because they lost exhibition games in August.

Also, the Minnesota Twins would not likely have been World Series champs if they had todays playoff format. Does that mean we put an asterisk on them? Of course not.

With all that said...it was still a fun video and exercise that the guy is doing.
 



DarrenTheGreek said:
Judging whether a college football team should have been champion based on how they did in a bowl game that was treated as an exhibition back then would be like retroactively figuring out which Super Bowl champion teams should have missed the playoffs because they lost exhibition games in August.

Also, the Minnesota Twins would not likely have been World Series champs if they had todays playoff format. Does that mean we put an asterisk on them? Of course not.

With all that said...it was still a fun video and exercise that the guy is doing.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say with the Twins, in 87 they absolutely caught fire, but after Viola and Bert the pitching was pretty shaky. The 91 team had the best record baseball, played great defense, had a lockdown bull pen and a bunch hitters who had career years. Not to mention Jack Morris, but Kevin Tapani won 18 games, Scott Erickson won 20, they were just loaded that year, mainly because they took advantage of owner collision in free agency to sign Chilli Davis and Jack Morris, plus Erickson and Knoblach came up, Shane Mack had the best year of his life as well
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
Judging whether a college football team should have been champion based on how they did in a bowl game that was treated as an exhibition back then would be like retroactively figuring out which Super Bowl champion teams should have missed the playoffs because they lost exhibition games in August.

Also, the Minnesota Twins would not likely have been World Series champs if they had todays playoff format. Does that mean we put an asterisk on them? Of course not.

With all that said...it was still a fun video and exercise that the guy is doing.
Click to expand...

First off, I agree with your post with regarding to how past Champions are viewed under different circumstances.

I would like to clarify that while the 1987 Twins (85 W - 77 L Reg Season) were huge benefactors of the Playoff system at the time (got to host the ALCS & WS) based solely on the luck of the alternating Divisions & League as Hosts, the 1991 Twins were a far more worthy Champion.

At 95-67 they had the best record in the American League and were only behind the Pirates who were 98-64 in all of MLB. The National League Pennant winning Braves were at 94-68, 1 better than the NL West Dodgers at 93-69 who missed the pre-Wild Card Playoffs. One of the reasons the WC was later implemented.

Sure the 1991 Twins would have had to survive another round of Playoffs, but with a 3-deep rotation and a solid to excellent bullpen, they would have been in a great position.

The Deliberate Stranger said:
It's hard to say with the Twins, in 87 they absolutely caught fire, but after Viola and Bert the pitching was pretty shaky. The 91 team had the best record baseball, played great defense, had a lockdown bull pen and a bunch hitters who had career years. Not to mention Jack Morris, but Kevin Tapani won 18 games, Scott Erickson won 20, they were just loaded that year, mainly because they took advantage of owner collision in free agency to sign Chilli Davis and Jack Morris, plus Erickson and Knoblach came up, Shane Mack had the best year of his life as well
Click to expand...

See above and attached regarding the Bucs. Agree with all your other points though.

www.baseball-reference.com

1991 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1991 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com
 

Outside of the 93 dodgers, it's really hard to feel sorry for anyone else that didn't make it, not sure how the tie breakers would have worked with the log jam 84-78 teams
 

The Deliberate Stranger said:
...not sure how the tie breakers would have worked with the log jam 84-78 teams
Click to expand...
For 1991 hard to say what would have happened in a 3 Division AL with 3 Wild Cards, because the schedule would have been completely different. Plus the Astros and Brewers have swapped leagues.

Operating under the assumption that W-L records would be the same, the current format for the AL would be:

#1 Seed - Twins / Central Champ (95 W) BYE
#2 Seed - Blue Jays / East Champ (91 W) BYE
----
#3 Seed - Rangers / West Champ (85 W)
#4 Seed - White Sox / Wild Card (87 W)

#5 & 6 Seeds Wild Cards would be 2 of Athletics, Tigers & Red Sox all with 84 Ws.

While not 100% sure, I think based on Head-to-Head the A's would get the nod followed by the Tigers.

Note, there are currently no longer Game 163 Tie-Breaking games.
 
Last edited:

Married@SiebertField said:
I have spoken with a few members of the ‘60 team about the ‘61 Rose Bowl. As much as they loved Coach Warmath they were critical of his approach to the game. He worked the team very hard—full pad, live-hitting scrimmages on a hard practice field. They were tired and had no legs by game day. The preparation was different for the ‘62 Rose Bowl: a much lighter practice schedule practicing with a more wide-open offense to create a more relaxed atmosphere. The team was fresh for the game and they dominated UCLA. (The Gophers power running was effective against the Bruins and the plays installed for the game were not used.). All that said, as you noted, the voting was based on the scheduled season. Claiming Washington won
the National Title is pure revisionism. . . .
Click to expand...

The idea that the coaches and players treated the first Rose Bowl as an exhibition is refuted by your information regarding the Gophers’ over-preparing for the first Rose Bowl. The exhibition mantra is an excuse for losing to Washington.

The Gophers were ecstatic to win the ‘62 Rose Bowl. Nobody tried to devalue the victory by saying it was just an exhibition. I talked at length with Tom Moe about the two Rose Bowl seasons (both 8-2, 6-1), and he said that Murray, the coaches and the players he knew (Moe played 1957-59) regarded 1961 as the better season because it was such a big deal to win the Rose Bowl, and that was a bigger achievement than winning the mythical national championship.

As far as claiming a share of the 1960 National Championship, the Gophers didn’t make the rules, so they have a claim, as do Ole Miss and Washington. Still, the Gophers are the only 2-loss AP and UPI national championship team from the pre-bowl selection era. The 1960 Gophers took the field twice when ranked # 1, and lost both games.

The Football Writers voted Ole Miss the national championship after the bowl games, not treating the bowls as meaningless exhibitions. The Football Writers voted the Gophers 5th, behind Ole Miss, Iowa, Washington and Missouri.
 

They d
Ope3 said:
For 1991 hard to say what would have happened in a 3 Division AL with 3 Wild Cards, because the schedule would have been completely different. Plus the Astros and Brewers have swapped leagues.

Operating under the assumption that W-L records would be the same, the current format for the AL would be:

#1 Seed - Twins / Central Champ (95 W) BYE
#2 Seed - Blue Jays / East Champ (91 W) BYE
----
#3 Seed - Rangers / West Champ (85 W)
#4 Seed - White Sox / Wild Card (87 W)

#5 & 6 Seeds Wild Cards would be 2 of Athletics, Tigers & Red Sox all with 84 Ws.

While not 100% sure, I think based on Head-to-Head the A's would get the nod followed by the Tigers.

Note, there are currently no longer Game 163 Tie-Breaking games.
Click to expand...
ont do 163 anymore it's based on head to head I believe. Would have been curious how interleague would have been, believe AL won the all star game, but not sure what the stronger league was
 

The Deliberate Stranger said:
They d
ont do 163 anymore it's based on head to head I believe. Would have been curious how interleague would have been, believe AL won the all star game, but not sure what the stronger league was
Click to expand...

Correct, on the no more Game 163 and going off Head-to-Head. What I am not sure is how they break it in a 3-way tie for 2 spots, with 1 of the teams in a different Division:

Athletics 8 over Tigers 4
Red Sox 7 over Athletics 6
Tigers 7 over Red Sox 6

A's have the best Winning percentage combined against the other 2. My understanding then is after the 3-way tie is broken the remaining 2 it goes Head-to-Head between them.

I would not bet my hypothetical life on this highly hypothetical scenario though.

www.mlb.com

How to determine playoff tiebreakers

With the 2022 expansion of the postseason field from 10 teams to 12 teams, tiebreaker games will no longer be used to resolve ties in the standings at the conclusion of the regular season. That means no more “Game 163.” Instead, ties will be broken by math, with specific outcomes
www.mlb.com www.mlb.com
 

The Deliberate Stranger said:
Outside of the 93 dodgers, it's really hard to feel sorry for anyone else that didn't make it..
Click to expand...
I think you actually mean the 100+W Giants, who finished on the outside looking in to the Braves in 1993.

Back then 2nd Place = 1st Loser.

www.baseball-reference.com

1993 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1993 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com

The only team I ever feel sorry for is the 1981 Cincinnati Reds. Best Winning Pct in the entire MLB.

Did not qualify for the Post-Season.

www.baseball-reference.com

1981 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1981 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com

Apologies for detailing this Gopher National Title thread.

Long live Henry L Williams, Bernie Bierman & Murray Warmath.
 

MonikerSchmoniker45 said:
There would be no problem claiming any of these titles individually by any other school. The problem is seven puts us with the big boys.
Click to expand...
Problem? It's a problem to be in an upper echelon of collegiate football?

I would say it is an unacknowledged athletic prowess and power that we have.

Ski-U-Mah!
Row The Boat!
Go Gophers!
 


Ope3 said:
I think you actually mean the 100+W Giants, who finished on the outside looking in to the Braves in 1993.

Back then 2nd Place = 1st Loser.

www.baseball-reference.com

1993 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1993 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com

The only team I ever feel sorry for is the 1981 Cincinnati Reds. Best Winning Pct in the entire MLB.

Did not qualify for the Post-Season.

www.baseball-reference.com

1981 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1981 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com

Apologies for detailing this Gopher National Title thread.

Long live Henry L Williams, Bernie Bierman & Murray Warmath.
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant 93 win dodgers in 1991, but yeah the 93 giants were very good, as were the 94 Expos
 


Ope3 said:
First off, I agree with your post with regarding to how past Champions are viewed under different circumstances.

I would like to clarify that while the 1987 Twins (85 W - 77 L Reg Season) were huge benefactors of the Playoff system at the time (got to host the ALCS & WS) based solely on the luck of the alternating Divisions & League as Hosts, the 1991 Twins were a far more worthy Champion.

At 95-67 they had the best record in the American League and were only behind the Pirates who were 98-64 in all of MLB. The National League Pennant winning Braves were at 94-68, 1 better than the NL West Dodgers at 93-69 who missed the pre-Wild Card Playoffs. One of the reasons the WC was later implemented.

Sure the 1991 Twins would have had to survive another round of Playoffs, but with a 3-deep rotation and a solid to excellent bullpen, they would have been in a great position.



See above and attached regarding the Bucs. Agree with all your other points though.

www.baseball-reference.com

1991 Major League Baseball Regular Season Standings | Baseball-Reference.com

Track the 1991 MLB Regular Season Standings, Stats, Team performances and more on Baseball-Reference.com
www.baseball-reference.com www.baseball-reference.com
Click to expand...
I've often thought the team that would have best benefitted from a wild card was the 1988 Twins. That team won 91 games and was one of the best Twins teams ever. Unfortunately they shared a division with the peak Bash Brothers A's.
 

disco said:
I've often thought the team that would have best benefitted from a wild card was the 1988 Twins. That team won 91 games and was one of the best Twins teams ever. Unfortunately they shared a division with the peak Bash Brothers A's.
Click to expand...

Agree, with peak Viola they could have done some post-season damage in 1988.

With those 91 Ws, they had the 2nd most in the AL and were 4th overall in MLB, best team to not make the Playoffs that year.

The 1992 Twins team also certainly would have qualified with a 3 Division/Wild Card format as they had 90 Ws and finished runner up to the A's again in the then AL West.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom