USC claims 1939 NC

[snp]

Without playing a down, the Trojans won another championship. Athletic director Mike Garrett said last month the Trojans were claiming the 1939 title, even though Texas A&M was ranked No. 1 by the Associated Press.
"It was brought to our attention by various individuals that we should be claiming the 1939 Trojans among our national champions in football," Garrett said. "We took this matter seriously, did significant research and determined this to be true. That 1939 team was one of the greatest in our history."
This claim to a national championship illustrates that determining a No. 1 team was just as difficult 65 years ago as it is today. The much-maligned Bowl Championship Series results in controversies, but selecting a champion was a far murkier proposition in 1939.
That year there were 13 polls, and USC wasn't on top of most of them. Texas A&M was No. 1 in 10 and, until USC's unilateral declaration, the team generally was acknowledged as champions.
Texas A&M went 11-0 that year and barely beat No. 5 Tulane 14-13 in the Sugar Bowl, while USC was 8-0-2. The Trojans shut out six teams and allowed only 33 points but tied Oregon and No. 9 UCLA. Cornell (8-0) was atop a few polls.
"From our standpoint, we feel very comfortable with the 1939 national championship," said Alan Cannon, associate athletic director at Texas A&M. "There were a number of polls that named us national champions, and when you have an accredited organization like Associated Press [which began its championship ratings in 1936] call you the national champion, it is something you can hang your hat on."
USC, however, is basing its claim on one of the most respected of college football's early ranking systems: the Dickinson Poll, created by University of Illinois economics professor Frank Dickinson, that ranked teams from 1926 to 1940.
"Dickinson was recognized as a legitimate national championship selector," said Tim Tessalone, USC sports communication director. "Our 1928 team, which we had always recognized as the national champions, was the recipient of the Dickinson No. 1 selection. We talked to people and did our research and came to the conclusion that, for whatever reason, the 1939 championship team had fallen through the cracks here. We wanted to rectify a wrong."
"We were not asking for a new championship," Schindler said. "This is just a re-instituted championship that was taken away. The school acknowledged we were national champions back then. In our yearbook we were referred to as national champions across the top of the photo. Somewhere along the line, in the next 20 years or so, we were eliminated by the school as national champions.
"We didn't realize it until they started putting up banners denoting championship teams, and our team was not there. We complained about it, but no one would listen, so we started collecting materials, and presented the case to Mike Garrett, who saw the value of our claim."
The 1939 championship claim by USC is far from clear-cut among current pollsters. Richard Billingsley, who directs one of the computer ranking systems used in the BCS calculations, has run the 1939 season through his system. Based on his formula, Texas A&M finished just ahead of USC 298-296. But Billingsley said he doesn't have a problem with USC laying claim for a piece of the title that season.
"They were very close," he said. "USC beat Tennessee in the Rose Bowl pretty convincingly [14-0, breaking the Volunteers' 23-game win streak], and Tennessee was ranked No. 1 going into the game."
But Kenneth Massey, who runs the Massey Ratings, questioned the validity of USC's claim.
"I'm quite surprised," he said. "Dickinson is an archaic system by today's standards, and none of the retro ratings I've consulted had USC No. 1. Besides, they had two blemishes, the two ties, on their record, whereas Texas A&M was perfect. Today's BCS system probably would have matched USC and Texas A&M in the championship game, but with Texas A&M the clear No. 1."
There is nothing to stop USC from claiming the 1939 national championship, though, because back then — as now — there was no declared NCAA champion in football, nor was there a playoff system.

First Alabama, now USC. Pretty soon there won't be any NC left to claim!

[shavedmarmoset]

Whats this from?

[Boomer.....]

Why was there no bitching about this in 1939? Everyone is just so damn trophy happy now-a-days.

[OSUAggie]

Didn't this happen many months ago? Or was that a different title they claimed back then?

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Has anyone claimed 1927 yet? If not, can I have it? :D

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

First Alabama, now USC. Pretty soon there won't be any NC left to claim!


Actually USC better be careful. Aggie is the one school that will sue them for it.

[snp]

Whats this from?

Sorry, forgot to include this in the OP. http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20040827-122159-1263r.htm

Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into posting this, I'm not sure how recent this article is.

[BASSooner]

I heard also that USC claimed a national championship when petey took the job

[Octavian]

That's embarrassing.


Claiming bogus national titles should be beneath a superpower like USC.


That bad part is (like tOSU and Bama)...they'll just keep repeating it until it's accepted as fact.


But it's fraudulent and they know it.


It's a good thing OU doesn't claim fake national championships. Not only would it diminish the legitimate titles we've won, but how would we showcase all the championship years?


The stadium would look awkward with a 20-story press box.

[OSUAggie]

Pre-season 2004 article.

[BigRedJed]

Pre-season 2004 article.
There's a season I wouldn't mind forgetting.

[setem]

I won the 1992 Masters!

I was only 8 years old, but I was one of the greatest in history!

[Pricetag]

I won the 1992 Masters!

I was only 8 years old, but I was one of the greatest in history!
Does your yearbook say it? There's no denying it, if it does.

[PDXsooner]

there has to be some kind of statute of limitations on this...

[yermom]

The Washington Times: Sports - August 27, 2004

heh, this was after the 2003 split fiasco and before the Auburn "People's National Champions"

OU has a ton we don't count...

http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=300&ATCLID=30520

Berryman picked us in 2003??

[Scott D]

Didn't this happen many months ago? Or was that a different title they claimed back then?

it happened just prior to the 2005 season.

[OSUAggie]

How did the Washington Post report it a year before that?

[AimForCenterMass]

Actually, Oklahoma has 23 National Titles total; 16 of which are semi-recognized by the NCAA, and seven that are recognized by the University of Oklahoma.

1915
1918
1949
1950
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1967
1972
1973
1974
1975
1977
1978
1980
1985
1986
2000
2002
2003

USC, according to this neutral website, has 19 NC's total. Referring to Oklahoma's success, I now know why they call the fifties and sixties the golden years.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/oklahoma/all_national_champs.php

[guzziguy]

see signature statement below

[poke4christ]

Upon further review, Oklahoma State University has decided to claim the 1945 National Championship where it went 9-0 and won the sugar bowl of st. mary's 33-15.

Schmidly was quoted as saying "We're going to ignore the fact that Army was considered the national champion by everyone else and claim this for ourselves. We feel we deserve it."

Suddenly Robert Allen awakes to find himself lying next to his bed with the room looking as if an earthquake had just hit.

"Dangit, it was just a dream!", Robert remarks. He then gets back into bed and goes to sleep.

Zach

[Jello Biafra]

Upon further review, Oklahoma State University has decided to claim the 1945 National Championship where it went 9-0 and won the sugar bowl of st. mary's 33-15.

Schmidly was quoted as saying "We're going to ignore the fact that Army was considered the national champion by everyone else and claim this for ourselves. We feel we deserve it."

Suddenly Robert Allen awakes to find himself lying next to his bed with the room looking as if an earthquake had just hit.

"Dangit, it was just a dream!", Robert remarks. He then get back into bed and goes to sleep.

Zach


by virtue of a team called the tulsa business men having perma scoreboard on your school, you gets none. dream or not.

[AlabamaSooner]

I've always noticed a lot of "hatin'" on teams that claim championships from the earlier part of the century. My question is, had OU won any of these same championships during these same years, would the fan base not be talking about it as well? I hardly think that if OU had won some of those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, fans would just be like, "Well that's a long time ago and it didn't really count. Let's not worry about those great teams and what they accomplished." It's really not an issue for OU fans since there weren't any championships won until 1950 anyway so I guess it's easy for most fans to flame at other teams about how they should just claim AP. Just stating a viewpoint from the other hypothetical end. *flame away*

[snp]

Doh. Sorry for the ancient post, saw this on another board and thought it was current. My bad.


I've always noticed a lot of "hatin'" on teams that claim championships from the earlier part of the century. My question is, had OU won any of these same championships during these same years, would the fan base not be talking about it as well? I hardly think that if OU had won some of those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, fans would just be like, "Well that's a long time ago and it didn't really count. Let's not worry about those great teams and what they accomplished." It's really not an issue for OU fans since there weren't any championships won until 1950 anyway so I guess it's easy for most fans to flame at other teams about how they should just claim AP. Just stating a viewpoint from the other hypothetical end. *flame away*

It wasn't the same game back then so I don't really care about people winning all those rugby championships back then.

[OSUAggie]

by virtue of a team called the tulsa business men having perma scoreboard on your school, you gets none. dream or not.

uhhhh..

There are much worse teams with perma-scoreboard on us than the Tulsa Businessmen, who were actually pretty salty back in the day. I believe even a couple of high schools have perma-scoreboard on us...

We were still better than Army in '45. We got screwed.

[snp]

I was just looking at OSU's 45 season and I noticed they didn't join the Big 8 until 1960. 32 years after OU. What took them so long?

[AlabamaSooner]

It wasn't the same game back then so I don't really care about people winning all those rugby championships back then.

Neither was baseball, but try to tell Yankees fans that they didn't win their first few championships early in the century. All sports evolve and change over time in some ways (although the only main change in football are the helments, pads, and athleticism). Doesn't take away how meaningful they are...now or then.

[AlabamaSooner]

I was just looking at OSU's 45 season and I noticed they didn't join the Big 8 until 1960. 32 years after OU. What took them so long?

Scared maybe? :P

[snp]

Neither was baseball, but try to tell Yankees fans that they didn't win their first few championships early in the century. All sports evolve and change over time in some ways (although the only main change in football are the helments, pads, and athleticism). Doesn't take away how meaningful they are...now or then.

That's really reaching right there. MLB is pretty much the same back when Ruth was kicking butt as it is now. The players have changed, but it's still the same.

Football as we know it would be tough to recognize from how they played back then. Lots of weird formations, like you said the equipment and players, and just weirdness.

[goingoneight]

poke4christ, that's damn funny, I don't kurrr who ye are!

[goingoneight]

I was just looking at OSU's 45 season and I noticed they didn't join the Big 8 until 1960. 32 years after OU. What took them so long?

They don't need to explain themselves, they're THE STATE'S UNIVERSITY... :rolleyes:

[poke4christ]

poke4christ, that's damn funny, I don't kurrr who ye are!

Thought you guys might appreciate that :D

[Ardmore_Sooner]

uhhhh..

There are much worse teams with perma-scoreboard on us than the Tulsa Businessmen, who were actually pretty salty back in the day. I believe even a couple of high schools have perma-scoreboard on us...

We were still better than Army in '45. We got screwed.

Army went three straight years without losing a game, they deserved all three titles that they were awarded. Any other thought is asinine.

[Octavian]

I've always noticed a lot of "hatin'" on teams that claim championships from the earlier part of the century. My question is, had OU won any of these same championships during these same years, would the fan base not be talking about it as well? I hardly think that if OU had won some of those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, fans would just be like, "Well that's a long time ago and it didn't really count. Let's not worry about those great teams and what they accomplished." It's really not an issue for OU fans since there weren't any championships won until 1950 anyway so I guess it's easy for most fans to flame at other teams about how they should just claim AP. Just stating a viewpoint from the other hypothetical end. *flame away*


It's not about the title coming during an era before OU was wininng NCs....it's about the polling eras.


Prior to 1936, there wasn't a nationally unified polling system. The great Notre Dame and Alabama teams of the '20s and '30s won legit titles....but during some of their years, they could share that title with multiple schools because of the absence of a nationally uniform polling system.


The pre-'36 titles aren't meaningless....they count. But many of those years may have multiple legit champions. They're not rock solid, but they count.



In this case, the title being claimed occurred after the advent of the AP poll.


From '36-'97, if an NC didn't come from the AP or the UPI (beginning in 1950).....it wasn't an NC.


(ex: tOSU claims 1970....although Texas and Nebraska were the UPI and AP winners that year.)

bogus.


So....USC claiming a title during the AP era (without it coming from the AP) is also bogus.



It's not that it's not a solid NC because it came during a time when there wasn't a uniform polling system....it's that it's fake.

[AimForCenterMass]

I've always noticed a lot of "hatin'" on teams that claim championships from the earlier part of the century. My question is, had OU won any of these same championships during these same years, would the fan base not be talking about it as well? I hardly think that if OU had won some of those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, fans would just be like, "Well that's a long time ago and it didn't really count. Let's not worry about those great teams and what they accomplished." It's really not an issue for OU fans since there weren't any championships won until 1950 anyway so I guess it's easy for most fans to flame at other teams about how they should just claim AP. Just stating a viewpoint from the other hypothetical end. *flame away*

Oklahoma was crowned National Champions three times before 1950. The only reason the titles aren't recognized by the university is because they're not AP.


Title Year
Record
Voter(s)
------------------------


1915
10-0-0
1st-N-Goal
Billingsley Report
Cliff Morgan


1918
6-0-0
James Howell


1949
11-0-0
Bob Kirlin
College Football Researchers Association
James Howell
Mel Smith
Ray Byrne


...and the rest is history.

source: www.cfbdatawarehouse.com

[PDXsooner]

I've always noticed a lot of "hatin'" on teams that claim championships from the earlier part of the century. My question is, had OU won any of these same championships during these same years, would the fan base not be talking about it as well? I hardly think that if OU had won some of those in the 20's, 30's, and 40's, fans would just be like, "Well that's a long time ago and it didn't really count. Let's not worry about those great teams and what they accomplished." It's really not an issue for OU fans since there weren't any championships won until 1950 anyway so I guess it's easy for most fans to flame at other teams about how they should just claim AP. Just stating a viewpoint from the other hypothetical end. *flame away*

of course they would. OU fans are as hypocritical as any fan base. don't kid yourselves into thinking OU fans are any different.

[pott_2]

Another good argument to support a playoff.

[BigRedJed]

of course they would. OU fans are as hypocritical as any fan base. don't kid yourselves into thinking OU fans are any different.
It' not about the fan base; it's about what the university itself claims. Have you ever noticed that whenever sports announcers acknowledge the number of championships a team has when calling a game, OU's claimed number (7) ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS matches up? And other schools mentioned in this thread almost NEVER do? It's not because OU doesn't have multiple titles that fit the criteria other schools use.

There are 15 seasons, if I remember right, in which at least one of the sources cited on the NCAA website named OU as the national champion. More, in fact, than Alabama. OU (the university, not the fans) only claims the titles that fit universally-accepted criteria. All of the schools mentioned count titles that DON'T fit universally-accepted criteria. They utilize their own criteria, and change it from year to year, to maximize their title count. One year they take one poll's results, the next year they ignore that poll and take the results of one they ignored the previous year.

OU is the only school of those named which stubbornly only accepts the titles that everyone accepts, and I hope they always do. The rest is self-serving revisionist history.

[OSUAggie]

I was just looking at OSU's 45 season and I noticed they didn't join the Big 8 until 1960. 32 years after OU. What took them so long?

Actually... The "Big 8" had its beginnings as the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association in the ancient days (early ot's I believe), before the conference split in the late 20's. OU, Kansas, K-State, Mizzou, Nebraska and Iowa State stayed in the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association but changed the name to the Big 6.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure it began as the Big 5, then allowed Iowa State in, making it the Big 6 at a later date, but Wikipedia claims it was originally the Big 6, so in order to not have someone "prove me wrong" by quoting that, I'll say it was originally the Big 6....)


OSU stayed with the rejects until '58, playing in the Missouri Valley Conference, then they joined the Big "6", which had become the Big "7" after Colorado joined, making them the Big 8 after OSU joined. Novel idea, Big 10ers, changing the # each time you had an institution.. Hell, the # was even changed when we graciously saved :texan: from mediocrity.



Army went three straight years without losing a game, they deserved all three titles that they were awarded. Any other thought is asinine.

I'll turn up my sarcasm meter next time.

[SteelClip49]

Mike Garrett did this back in the summer of 2004. It was on their website and I called up the USC athletic department and simply asked why. They said, or a woman said that it's a legit claim and that the AP WAS JUST STARTING OUT AND WASN'T FULLY RECOGNIZED ACROSS THE COUNTRY YET AND THAT DICKINSON HAD MORE PRESTIGE. lol is all I ever did. Mike Garrett (1 person) recognizes USC as the "national champion." National means many polls and the AP is a service poll which stopped many others staking the claim to a national title. It was the AP and only the AP that mattered.

Some USC fans I know do not claim the 1939 title. They just think it's a media thing and something to justify themselves as.

USC has been the 1939 national champion for 2.5 years so this is not a new thing.

[Crimson and Orange]

Well, following that logic (and any title the website below lists) means OU can add 15 titles to their long storied tradition, and Texas can add 8 more, plus 5 for undefeated seasons (we'll just give ourselves the "People's National Championship," Auburn-style, a century or so late).

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/year_by_year.php

1893 Texas 4-0, the People's National Champion
1895 Texas 5-0
1900 Texas 6-0,
1914 Texas
1915 Oklahoma
1918 Oklahoma
1918 Texas
1920 Texas 9-0
1923 Texas 8-0-1 (Hey, USC claims that 1939 titles with 2 ties
1941 Texas
1947 Texas
1949 Oklahoma
1953 Oklahoma
1954 Oklahoma
1957 Oklahoma
1958 Oklahoma
1961 Texas
1967 Oklahoma
1968 Texas
1972 Oklahoma
1973 Oklahoma
1977 Texas
1978 Oklahoma
1980 Oklahoma
1981 Texas
1986 Oklahoma
2002 Oklahoma
2003 Oklahoma

I'm sure OU can claim a couple more for undefeated seasons prior to WW I. I can't wait to see our newly-painted pressboxes and 18-wheelers.

Two other notable "National Champions" stood out from that site:

1944 Norman NAS (OK)
1944 Raldolph Field (TX)
1945 Oklahoma A&M

Actually, some of those 1950s titles should have been awarded to OU. 1973, too.

[OSUAggie]

The Nutshell Sports Football Ratings are obviously the only reputable source in the world.

[SteelClip49]

The Total Recognizable Count:

1. Domers 11
2. Tide 10
2. Trojans* 10
4. Sooners 7
5. Gophers 6 Wilkinson won 3 from 34-36


Minnesota is the only nationally recognized back to back to back natiobal champion.

[OK2LA]

Well, following that logic (and any title the website below lists) means OU can add 15 titles to their long storied tradition, and Texas can add 8 more, plus 5 for undefeated seasons (we'll just give ourselves the "People's National Championship," Auburn-style, a century or so late).



Who is we?

[Herr Scholz]

So, Sooner fans, you'll unanimously decline the 2004 title if USC is stripped of it because of Bush's ineligibility, right? Since you don't claim titles you didn't earn and all.

[Crimson and Orange]

Who is we?

Duh. Sorry. This is a schizophrenic username. I'm a UT grad. My wife, who also posts, is an OU grad.

I know, it's not right.....

[XingTheRubicon]

The Total Recognizable Count:

1. Domers 11
2. Tide 10
2. Trojans* 10
4. Sooners 7
5. Gophers 6 Wilkinson won 3 from 34-36


Minnesota is the only nationally recognized back to back to back natiobal champion.


The tide do not have 10 and the condoms do not have 10. At least 3 for each are make believe Dickinson poll BS. Same with the Domers, they have 8 AP.

[lexsooner]

So, Sooner fans, you'll unanimously decline the 2004 title if USC is stripped of it because of Bush's ineligibility, right? Since you don't claim titles you didn't earn and all.

Well, Scholzy, I don't think us fans have any such authority, nor does the university. If the BCS does reconvene and change its bylaws and strip USC and give it to OU, it will not be any reason to celebrate. However, on paper and in the records, it would be considered an eighth national title based on the criteria the university recognizes. I think most OU fans would not want the title and quite a few would refuse to recognize it themselves, but on paper and in the record books, it is what it is, regardless of what we ourselves wish.

[Scott D]

How did the Washington Post report it a year before that?

04, 05...it becomes a blur when you get older.

[Indy Sooner]

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cfchamps.shtml

The mighty Big Red of Cornell may have a claim to the 1939 MNC...but not SuC...

[Sooner_Havok]

Just got this in over the wire, USC to claim 2007-2012 national titles reguardless of the seasons outcomes and what this so called BCS might have to say.

[Duke o Brewery]

Just to toss my hat into the ring. I personally think that wire service titles are the only legit, nationally accepted football championships.... but, here is the official list of championship selectors that the NCAA 'recognizes' and there are the champions those selectors have crowned.

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

[OUDoc]

So, Sooner fans, you'll unanimously decline the 2004 title if USC is stripped of it because of Bush's ineligibility, right? Since you don't claim titles you didn't earn and all.
I will unanimously decline it. All of me would agree that we didn't earn it on the field. I don't know what OU would do, but looking at the past, you'd think there's a damn good chance we wouldn't claim it. Maybe an undefeated season, but I'm not sure we'd even do that.

[BigRedJed]

So, Sooner fans, you'll unanimously decline the 2004 title if USC is stripped of it because of Bush's ineligibility, right? Since you don't claim titles you didn't earn and all.
Those of us who were at the Orange Bowl for the beatdown surely will. I suspect the school and most fans would, too.

[BigRedJed]

Just to toss my hat into the ring. I personally think that wire service titles are the only legit, nationally accepted football championships.... but, here is the official list of championship selectors that the NCAA 'recognizes' and there are the champions those selectors have crowned.

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history
There was once another page on the NCAA site, I can't find it now, that listed ALL of the championships named by ALL of the recognized polls, foundations, etc. On many years you had five or six schools named for the title by various entities. This is the criteria I was talking about that Alabama obviously uses for its titles, because the numbers match up. As I mentioned, by using that criteria, OU looks to have something like 15 titles, more even than Alabama.

The problem is if you recognize every single time that somebody somewhere thinks you were the best team, and don't stay consistent, the whole idea is even more convoluted and useless than it already is. Even SC taking the AP title in '03 and ignoring the BCS, while loving all over the crystal football in '04 is a bit hypocritical, IMO, although I will agree that in certain years (especially the AP/UPI era) there have been true "split titles" by the rules set up by the powers that be.

[Seamus]

Duh. Sorry. This is a schizophrenic username. I'm a UT grad. My wife, who also posts, is an OU grad.

I know, it's not right.....


daaaamn, bet the kids have hooves ...