Got Question about Title of forum - Why is it 7 National Titles FB Forum, and not...

Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
987
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Ok, now that the season is over, I want to ask this question of anyone in the know, or of anyone who simply has an opinion on the subject.

Why is the title of this forum, "7 National Titles Football Forum"?

The AP recognizes 4 Titles for Minnesota. Most sites, sports almanacs, etc., list 6 for Minnesota, and our grand total, if you accept every single one ever bestowed upon our Grand University, then you would list 10.

For decades, it was ingrained in my mind, that we had 6 Recognized Titles, and 10 overall.
Now recently, the University itself, acknowledged the Title from 1904. Making it 7 titles that the University recognizes. This makes the issue more confusing for me, because now we have the 4 that the Press recognizes, the 6 that all reputable football entities recognize, the 10 overall, but now the 7 that the Univ of Minnesota recognizes as well.

Should I officially declare that I recognize 8 or 9 of the titles, just to add to the confusion, lol?!


Why the Title in 1904, is my question, I guess?

In my own humble opinion, the title in 1903 included a more impressive game, the tie with Natk Champions Michigan. But I understand only 2 selectors have UMn as Champs in 1903, compared to something like 7 who have them as Champs in 1904.
Is it because of the scoring record in 1904? The 1911 Title was recognized by 8 selectors, more than the 1904 Title, so why is it not recognized by the University? Or was it because of who the selectors were? Are Billingsley or Patrick Premo considered a major selector or more authoritative?! Or was recognizing 1904's title just a judgement call the university made for their own reasons? Are they going to recognize the 1911 Title a couple years down the road? Was recognizing 1904's title, when they did, a publicity stunt or a way to simply remind people of Minnesota's storied past?!


I am just curious. Have been talking alot about dynasties in cfb lately, and I've referred to UMn's Recognized Dynasty from 1934-41 as its 2nd Dynasty, and pointed to Henry William's pre-WW1 teams from 1900-1917 as our 1st Dynasty, with 4 Titles included during that time. I always make note of how both Dynasties were slowed down or hurt by or stopped by World Wars, and I don't think I'm making anything up when I state that. Makes for interesting and fun discussion. So all that discussion just got me wondering about this question. I'd appreciate any feedback, positive or negative, about my main question or anything else contained in this post.
 

CentralGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
77
Points
48
As long as that guy from Princeton doesn't show up again bragging about his schools number of supposed national titles again.
 

Lakeville Goldy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
81
Points
48
Ski U master - Can you elaborate? Why do you think it was a joke to add the 7th title? I'm honestly curious.
I'm not Ski U Master and I don't play him on TV, but I agree, so here are some of my thoughts:

1. It's over 100 years ago. There is no one alive that remembers those games. Not even Sid.

2. It seemed to be a way of trying to artificially bring glory to a program that hasn't seen any in roughly 40-50 years.

3. To my knowledge (I could be wrong) this championship and the others weren't just discovered last year. If they added it on the 100 year anniversary you could make an argument that it made sense. If they added it when they built the stadium you could make an argument that it made sense. Or Henry Williams' 150th (or whatever) birthday, etc. But to add it last year just seemed so random, especially when there are 3 more that weren't claimed. Are they saving those for the next 3 win season? Will they add one a year until they hope the program is good enough to make its own headlines?

If they had given an explanation of why they added the 7th title we may not be having this discussion. But the fact they just threw it out there with no reasoning kind of made it stupid, IMHO.

If any of the players who heard your statement might beg to differ.
If you mean players from the team, there aren't any players on that team who are still alive. Most of their children are likely not still alive. Recognizing it this long after the fact is borderline meaningless.

If you mean current players I would bet to a man it means nothing. Same argument - most and possibly all their grandparents weren't even alive back then.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
703
Points
113
This has been hashed out in several post about a year ago. Just go back and read those threads and it will tell the whole story.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,762
Reaction score
273
Points
83
Adding that 7th one this year is a joke.
Like Alabama claiming 14 (before their most recent), but they've just done it longer?

Their claims include their 9-2 1941 team over Bernie Bierman's 8-0 championship among others.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,762
Reaction score
273
Points
83
Why? I love talking Ivy League football with Archibald M. Throckmorton III.
Seriously? Archie is a Whiskey troll who is trying to equate Princeton's former glory with the history of "The U". He keeps showing up trying to insinuate that the ages old Princeton championships are the same as the championship titles claimed by "The U" because he has trouble dealing with this line from the Wikipedia entry about NCAA Football Champions:

"The following schools either make no apparent statement or claim regarding national championships, or clearly state no claims on a national championship, despite the listing of a national championship for that school in the official NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision Records: Arizona State, Centre, Colgate, Columbia, Detroit, Missouri, Purdue, Rutgers, Washington & Jefferson, and Wisconsin."
 
Top Bottom