9 National Championships?? Why not 1911 and 1915?

Donate To GopherHole
g1976b

g1976b

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Points
16
At the risk of letting this get out of control, I'm seeking some clarification on something. From what I understand, we've recently decided to embrace the 1904 National Championship we won as per the Billingsley Report.

I was curious about this one so I looked it up on the internet. In digging a bit more, I discovered the Billingsley Report also voted us as the National Champions in 1911 and 1915. If that's the case, why are we going to only claim 1904?

See for yourselves:

http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/NC_Year_2011.htm
 

Obviously the plan is to roll out one new National Championship each year. Each year Wisky and Iowa just fall further, and further behind.

It is fun to look back at how we did in these seasons:

1904 we clearly dominated. We beat the piss out of Twin Cities Central High School and did unspeakable things to all Iowa schools.

1911 and 1915 no 100 point wins but no losses either.
 

It could be that the polls you listed were post-bowl rather than pre-bowl. Back in the day, pre-bowl rankings were used to determine national champions and I think the Billingsley Report recognizes Princeton as the 1911 champs and Oklahoma as the 1915 champs as a result.

But hey, that system helped us claim the 1960 title when we ended up losing the Rose Bowl to Washington but were already crowned national champs.
 

Well, if I'm reading this Billingsley report correctly, they have MN listed with 7 National Championshps: 1904, 1911, 1915, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1941.

In 1940, the Gophs were the National Champs according to the AP, but Billingsley gives the title that year to Stanford. In 1960, the Gophers were Nat'l Champs according to the AP and the Coaches' poll (taken B4 bowl games); the Billingsley report gives the Nat'l title to Mississippi.

So, if we count 1904, the Gophers are claiming 7 Nat'l Titles, and Billingsley gives them 7 Nat'l titles - but in different seasons.

Honestly, I can't get too worked up over this. It may be fun to contemplate for a few minutes, but it doesn't mean jack to most fans. They want to see results on the field in 2012 - not speculate about whether the Gophs won some mythical championship that no one alive today still remembers.
 

I'm not worked up about this in the least, but it's fun to talk about. And if there's a claim to 9 championships instead of 7, I'm all for it. :cool:

Also, it's not uncommon for schools to claim national championships from various sources. It's not like we must ONLY recognize Billingsley if we also lay claim to 1911 and 1915. So in theory we could claim the 7 from Billingsley and 2 from the AP, I would think.

If nothing else it's nice that we can have these discussions about whether it's 5, 7, 9 or whatever when our neighbors to the south and east cannot.
 


gophergrad said:
Obviously the plan is to roll out one new National Championship each year. Each year Wisky and Iowa just fall further, and further behind.

It is fun to look back at how we did in these seasons:

1904 we clearly dominated. We beat the piss out of Twin Cities Central High School and did unspeakable things to all Iowa schools.

1911 and 1915 no 100 point wins but no losses either.
Click to expand...

I just wonder what a 146-0 game even looks like
 

I think the OP has a legitimate question, and one that deserves an answer. Why claim 1904 now? And if so, why not also claim 1911 & 1915?

Has the U made an official press release about 1904? It seems weird to just see it slipped in on the list on gophersports.com http://www.gophersports.com/trads/championships.html
Phil Miller at the Strib reported on this here: http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/164827546.html?refer=y but that provides almost no detail about why this change was made

I think it's kind of silly to claim these now - I mean there hasn't been any news about these, has there? And if you're going to claim 1, why not all 3? Did the Billingsley Report go back recently and change who got the awards? Wikipedia lists other teams getting the Billingsley 1911 & 1915 titles.

Bottom line, it's dumb to make dubious claims because it cheapens the real claims. Wikipedia lists Iowa with 4 "titles" given to them by various obscure polls over the years and even Wisconsin had 1.
 


Golden Elephant said:
Bottom line, it's dumb to make dubious claims because it cheapens the real claims.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Whoever decided to claim this as a title for a school didn't really think of the consequences of doing so.
 



I agree. This title should not be claimed and it does cheapen the AP titles won in 1936, 1940, 1941, 1960, and also the 1934 and 1935 titles. Be proud of the 6 we've won and call it a day. Title #7 should come in the future, not 108 years ago.
 

DMB123 said:
I agree. This title should not be claimed and it does cheapen the AP titles won in 1936, 1940, 1941, 1960, and also the 1934 and 1935 titles. Be proud of the 6 we've won and call it a day. Title #7 should come in the future, not 108 years ago.
Click to expand...

Or claim all three when we win the next one. Go from 6 straight to ten.
 





g1976b said:
I'm not worked up about this in the least, but it's fun to talk about. And if there's a claim to 9 championships instead of 7, I'm all for it. :cool:

Also, it's not uncommon for schools to claim national championships from various sources. It's not like we must ONLY recognize Billingsley if we also lay claim to 1911 and 1915. So in theory we could claim the 7 from Billingsley and 2 from the AP, I would think.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit, chaps! You go ahead and claim whatever you want, I doubt anyone will even pay attention, given that you're still only talking about a measly single digit's worth of championships. I've actually found about a dozen more candidates for championships for old Nassau, but I'm still getting the multivariate analysis completed. Uniblab 2000 should have the numbers well and crunched by morning, but I think I can safely say that we'll be over 30 championships by this hour on the morrow. I'll be sure to keep you fellows posted. Excelsior!

g1976b said:
If nothing else it's nice that we can have these discussions about whether it's 5, 7, 9 or whatever when our neighbors to the south and east cannot.
Click to expand...

Yes, I stopped by the Badger board that you fellows so often speak about and were they talking about championships from 108 years ago? No, they were certainly not! Ha! No, they were embroiled in some inane banter about what might happen this season as if that matters to anyone. I mean, one win, ten wins -- every season ends the same if you don't bring home the championship after that bowl game (or before, I guess), am I right? I dare say, one should stop (for 80-104 years) and smell the roses, rather than living just for today.

Chip-chip,
Archie
 


ArchibaldMThrockmortonIII said:
That's the spirit, chaps! You go ahead and claim whatever you want, I doubt anyone will even pay attention, given that you're still only talking about a measly single digit's worth of championships. I've actually found about a dozen more candidates for championships for old Nassau, but I'm still getting the multivariate analysis completed. Uniblab 2000 should have the numbers well and crunched by morning, but I think I can safely say that we'll be over 30 championships by this hour on the morrow. I'll be sure to keep you fellows posted. Excelsior!



Yes, I stopped by the Badger board that you fellows so often speak about and were they talking about championships from 108 years ago? No, they were certainly not! Ha! No, they were embroiled in some inane banter about what might happen this season as if that matters to anyone. I mean, one win, ten wins -- every season ends the same if you don't bring home the championship after that bowl game (or before, I guess), am I right? I dare say, one should stop (for 80-104 years) and smell the roses, rather than living just for today.

Chip-chip,
Archie
Click to expand...

Whatever you Princeton fellows need to make yourselves feel better. Those of us that have some class and dignity prefer to not have something so hollow.

Eli
 


Yale Grad said:
Whatever you Princeton fellows need to make yourselves feel better. [We who] have some class and dignity prefer to not have something so hollow.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure I follow you, old bean. I'm terribly sorry, but what is it that you consider "hollow"? Are you referring to championships from 50+ years ago, 70+ years ago or 100+ years ago? I've made some edits to your "sentence" above to indicate how I was interpreting your approximation of English, but I must concede it's only a guess. I would appreciate a clarification if it's not too much trouble.

Genially,
Archie
 

ArchibaldMThrockmortonIII said:
Not quite sure I follow you, old bean. I'm terribly sorry, but what is it that you consider "hollow"? Are you referring to championships from 50+ years ago, 70+ years ago or 100+ years ago? I've made some edits to your "sentence" above to indicate how I was interpreting your approximation of English, but I must concede it's only a guess. I would appreciate a clarification if it's not too much trouble.

Genially,
Archie
Click to expand...

Apparently it isn't very difficult to get into Princeton since grammer skills are not necessary.
 



Where's Dr. Don? We have an old fashioned Ivy League "urination contest".
 


Billingsley is just one guy - denies us the NCAA-recognized championships in 1940 and 1960. The 1940 team defeated four teams that finished in the top ten. But when you get back to 1904, who's to say? Might as well take it.
 

I'm just glad that in both these teams 100 year history (Iowa, Wisconsin) they cannot claim one National Championship. That to me shows what a joke they really are!

GO GOPHERS
 

Iowa could claim 1958 when the Football Writers Association of America voted them champs. I don't think they do, but they could.
 

Great Plains Gopher said:
Billingsley is just one guy - denies us the NCAA-recognized championships in 1940 and 1960. The 1940 team defeated four teams that finished in the top ten. But when you get back to 1904, who's to say? Might as well take it.
Click to expand...

The NCAA doesn't recognize any football championships. Not even BCS.
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
The NCAA doesn't recognize any football championships. Not even BCS.
Click to expand...

The NCAA absolutely recognizes football championships, in Divisions III, II, and I-AA. You are correct that they don't recognize football championships in Division I-A, but it is worth noting that they do compile a list of who they consider "National Champion Major Selectors" and keep a list of who those selectors chose each year since 1869. (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/FBS.pdf - pp. 70-79).
 

I think we should also claim the 1911 and 1915 titles, especially if we claimed 1904. Those were good years and we were recognized as a NC from one of the major voting powers at that time. I dont think it cheapens the 36 and on titles from the AP because the AP and Coaches wasnt around during the 1911 and 1915 titles. Billingsley was and if Billingsley recognized us as NC then claim it and add a banner for the recognition of those teams and the hard work they put for those years in getting in that position.

Also I just noticed from the Wolverine Wiki page they also claim the 1904 title from Billingsley.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom