myhousekey Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 LOS ANGELES -- It seems that winning half the national championship last season made Southern California's football program hungry for more. The Trojans have gone back through the record books and are laying claim to a portion of the 1939 title. That season's undefeated team, though finishing No. 3 in the young Associated Press poll, ranked first in the Dickinson System, a now-defunct formula that was among the recognized polls of the era. "It was brought to our attention by various individuals that we should be claiming the 1939 Trojans among our national champions," athletic director Mike Garrett said Monday. "We took this matter seriously, did significant research and determined this to be true." USC is not alone in its assessment; the NCAA also lists the team among three champions named by 13 polls in existence then. Texas A&M (11-0) ranked atop 10 of the polls. Cornell (8-0) finished first in two. Legendary USC coach Howard Jones, with three previous titles, called the 1939 squad his best in terms of depth. The Trojans shut out six teams and allowed only 33 points, still a school record. They defeated No. 7 Notre Dame and No. 11 Oregon State, but tied Oregon and No. 9 UCLA. A 14-0 victory against No. 2 Tennessee in the Rose Bowl left USC 8-0-2. By USC's count, that brings its number of national football titles to 10. Five of its other teams ranked first in at least one poll but are not considered champions because none of those polls were considered as prominent as Dickinson's. Surviving members of the 1939 team will be honored at the Oct. 16 home game against Arizona State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynch Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 LMMFAO, you have got to be kidding. Talk about a sad sack school trying to snow job real undefeated teams, not one with 2 ties. USC couldnt beat an unranked Cal team, and played only a handful of ranked teams, and didnt deserve the half title last yr. Now they are trying to pad stats that dont even belong to them. 323367[/snapback] this happens all the time. The University of Kentucky which has one national titlein 1950 has talked about claiming a national title for one of it's two undefeated seasons. they choose not to but, they probably could have added another national title, there are lots of schools that do this because there wasn't a national champion back in the early days and schools had a tendency to claim to be the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 LMMFAO, you have got to be kidding. Talk about a sad sack school trying to snow job real undefeated teams, not one with 2 ties. USC couldnt beat an unranked Cal team, and played only a handful of ranked teams, and didnt deserve the half title last yr. Now they are trying to pad stats that dont even belong to them. 323367[/snapback] As an alum of USC, I'm a bit surprised at this, because I know a lot of us don't really care much about something that happened back in 1939. And I don't mind that the Aggies at 11-0 have claimed it up to now - they probably do deserve it a bit more, since we had 2 ties. But I strongly disagree with you about last year - we did deserve it, and everybody except Sooner fans wanted us in the Sugar last year. Ironically, the issue at hand in both scenarios is the old Strength of Schedule (SOS) argument, as in 'who did USC play in 1939 vs. who did the Aggies play'? Same with last year - and before you get started on which conference was/is better, let me just say I don't care - don't care, don't care, don't care. So save your breath (fingers.) Like I said, I care about now, not 1939. Until we get our playoffs, the BCS will use some sort of SOS formula. If its going to be used at all, the formula MUST be upgraded to include a lot more than the win-loss records of your opponents! Plenty of good ideas abound: Home losses should count more than Away losses, margin of victory (over ranked opps only, with maybe a 20 pt. cap,) etc. Most of this stuff is contemplated by the voters in their heads, which is why USC did so well in the polls last year. But it needs to be PUT IN THE MODEL, so the wanks who hate the voters can shut up. Anyway, I guess this is one way to keep the issue alive, isn't it? We haven't had much to discuss for the last 7 months or so here on the old College FB board. Let the games begin.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fury Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 As a USC alum, I was against the 10th at first but after reading about it, I think it's right. The Dickinson system was done after the bowl games, and the AP was not. The AP had No. 1 Texas A&M, No. 2 Tennessee, No. 3 USC before the bowl game. Texas A&M then beats AP No. 5 Tulane 14-13 in the Sugar Bowl. USC plays 10-0, unscored upon Tennessee (the team that really should have been the AP regular season No. 1) in the Rose Bowl and dominates 14-0 to end the Vols' 23-game winning streak. The Dickinson system correctly interprets this turn of events by putting USC No. 1. The AP doesn't come out with another poll. Other schools like Stanford (1926) and Michigan (1932) recognize a national championship based on the Dickinson system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansas State 2000 Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 About time ... I've been waiting for this for 65 years now. :g-bigshock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.