USC claims Aggies MNC in 1939 College Football!

[Phil C]

I know it has been mentioned before and most football fans don't pay much attention to it but USC is rediculous here. I know it is 1939 but the ones that were alive back then and knew more than we do at what was going on choose the Aggies in almost every poll including the then main one the AP. Plus Counting Bowl games.

They argue but it is week. USC had an 8-0-2 record that year and one of them was a weak Oregon team that wound up with a 3-4-1 loss that USC could only tie 7 to 7. USC did tie UCLA but UCLA had a 6-0-4 record. USC like A&M played against only three teams during the season that had winning records and USC was tied by one of them. The Aggies also played against three teams that had winning records and won them all.

USC did beat Tennessee in the Rose Bowl and Tenn. was highly ranked and was unscored on which was impressive but one must consider that during the the season Tenn. only played one team with a winning recordsand also two of their opponents were not even in the top division of that time.

In the Sugar Bowl the Aggies beat 5th ranked Tulane who had an 8-1-1 record but five of their opponents had winning records.

Also during the whole season including the bowls A&M scored 213 points while allowing only 31 points and had a perfect 11-0-0 record.

USC during the whole season scored 181 points and allowed 33 points.

I realize that the above are probably irrelevant arguments since the two teams never played each other but still the Aggies earned that MNC and USC has no right to it.

That is my opinion. Let the debate began. I know I argued it before but I have done more research as best I can.

[Darren]

So is USC saying that they deserve it and not aTm?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Phil C
I know it has been mentioned before and most football fans don't pay much attention to it but USC is rediculous here. I know it is 1939 but the ones that were alive back then and knew more than we do at what was going on choose the Aggies in almost every poll including the then main one the AP. Plus Counting Bowl games.

They argue but it is week. USC had an 8-0-2 record that year and one of them was a weak Oregon team that wound up with a 3-4-1 loss that USC could only tie 7 to 7. USC did tie UCLA but UCLA had a 6-0-4 record. USC like A&M played against only three teams during the season that had winning records and USC was tied by one of them. The Aggies also played against three teams that had winning records and won them all.

USC did beat Tennessee in the Rose Bowl and Tenn. was highly ranked and was unscored on which was impressive but one must consider that during the the season Tenn. only played one team with a winning recordsand also two of their opponents were not even in the top division of that time.

In the Sugar Bowl the Aggies beat 5th ranked Tulane who had an 8-1-1 record but five of their opponents had winning records.

Also during the whole season including the bowls A&M scored 213 points while allowing only 31 points and had a perfect 11-0-0 record.

USC during the whole season scored 181 points and allowed 33 points.

I realize that the above are probably irrelevant arguments since the two teams never played each other but still the Aggies earned that MNC and USC has no right to it.

That is my opinion. Let the debate began. I know I argued it before but I have done more research as best I can.

Agreed. It's a long time ago, but it's still a NC for the Aggies. It is pretty clear cut too based on above.

[sahen]

USC claiming other people's national titles? whats new?

[charlesrixey]

Originally posted by sahen
USC claiming other people's national titles? whats new?

good

does that mean oklahoma can claim the title in 2004 when bush was living in a house that was paid for by someone else?

[ILS1]

I believes he means when LSU won the BCS Championship Game in the 2003/2004 season. They beat Oklahoma in the 2004 Sugar Bowl 21-14. But the West Coast biased AP Sports Writers picked USC instead for an apparent split National Championship. But isn't that why they developed the BCS for this type of situation?? Isn't the BCS the one and true system that the NCAA uses?? In my eyes LSU were the Champs.


:D :D

[sahen]

Originally posted by ILS1
I believes he means when LSU won the BCS Championship Game in the 2003/2004 season. They beat Oklahoma in the 2004 Sugar Bowl 21-14. But the West Coast biased AP Sports Writers picked USC instead for an apparent split National Championship. But isn't that why they developed the BCS for this type of situation?? Isn't the BCS the one and true system that the NCAA uses?? In my eyes LSU were the Champs.


:D :D
bingo

[Phil C]

Originally posted by Darren
So is USC saying that they deserve it and not aTm?

Darren yes.

[Phil C]

Here is a link. I hope it works.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04210/352911.stm

[charlesrixey]

it still isn't working, phil
:(

[Phil C]

I am not sure if it is true but I think USC is just trying to go to the past to claim MNCs in football to catch up and pass Notre Dame.

[Phil C]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
it still isn't working, phil
:(

I think I got it now charles! :)

[3afan]

Originally posted by Phil C
Here is a link. I hope it works.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04210/352911.stm

this is from 2004 ...

[burnet44]

U niversity of S poiled C hildren

[Phil C]

Originally posted by burnet44
U niversity of S poiled C hildren

:eek:

[burnet44]

:eek:

lol