(12-22-2010 10:28 AM)axeme Wrote: (12-22-2010 09:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote: (12-21-2010 04:54 PM)axeme Wrote: Several decades later those schools became the powers. Hardly the early years. Facts are not obtuse,
Go check their early year records. Facts most certainly aren't obtuse.
They certainly aren't. Facts are facts. THEIR early year records are not part of the early years of college football.
And that's where you're making the same mistake as the E Coast elites.
Obviously it was a big deal in St. Paul, Lincoln and Ann Arbor. Maybe it wasn't a "National" Championship (whatever that means when you're playing mostly local teams), but it mattered to these locales. They invested and re-invested. Built big stadiums, big followings, and solid recruiting.
And in the end, that's what won out.
Quote:Again, the point someone earlier made - -
Quote:If you read about the history of college football, you see early on how some schools took it more seriously than others. Those schools are the major powers today.
- -is just completely wrong. Completely. Decades later, I repeat, a few of today's traditional powers and other BCS teams became powers.
On the contrary, it's exactly right. And when any,
any of those early schools thought they arrived and could stop building, it cost them. Minnesota is a great example. They were dominant for many early years. Then they stopped investing, now they're a midling team.
Bud Wilkerson wouldn't even return to them when offered the job, b/c they weren't committed enough to winning. That sums it up right there.
Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Penn were dominant early. They didn't think they needed to invest, they weren't committed to winning compared to these other schools. Now they're college football footnotes.
Quote: The idea that you have to get in on the ground floor is false.
No one is claiming exactly that. What's being said is that if you don't commit and stay committed early, you'll be passed up.
Or you have
a lot of climbing to do to reach the upper echelons. Florida St in the 70s and 80s, Boise St now are examples of that.
Quote:I really have no idea what point you are trying to make, Scorchy. I'm not expressing opinions here. What do you object to?
This: You changed the early claim that Akron's early
committment didn't mean much b/c Harvard and Yale lost their prestige in football. You ignored the overt committment by Akron, and substituted it simply with "presence" to make your point. Harvard and Yale had a lot of
presence in the early days of football. That's not enough. Nebraska, Mich and Notre Dame had
committment and it has paid off for them.
Akron is showing an early committment, not just presence. That's what has earned them the legitimate compliment paid by BarnardHall.