AFCA Blue Ribbon Commission Champion 1928

Teams named national champions by NCAA-designated selectors
(Underline: claimed title season; +: co-champion/split selection)

	Detroit	Georgia Tech	Southern Cal	Tennessee
Overall Record	9-0	10-0	9-0-1	9-0-1
Opponent Win %	0.561	0.558	0.644	0.500
+.500 Opponents	4	7	9	6
Average PF-PA	29.7-3.0	22.1-4.7	26.7-5.9	24.9-5.1
FBS Record	3-0	9-0	6-0-1	6-0-1
FBS Opponent Win %	0.574	0.576	0.634	0.555
Average FBS PF-PA	26.3-4.3	20.6-4.4	21.6-6.6	15.7-6.3
Conference Record	Independent	7-0	4-0-1	6-0-1
Non-Home games	3	3	1	2
SOS (S-R/BR)	95/97	10/11	31/27	23/20

First of all, it’s clear that Detroit and Tennessee are definitely behind Georgia Tech and USC in the pecking order. The Titans undeniably had the most impressive performances on the scoreboard. The biggest gripe is the schedule, as they faced 6 teams considered non-FBS on the season and only 1 Top 25-caliber team (Georgetown). Keep in mind, Lafayette only played 2 non-FBS teams in their claimed 1926 title season and was considered non-FBS. I really don’t understand the process or threshold of determining who was FBS-equivalent and who wasn’t in the early 20th century. Tennessee played a tougher schedule than Detroit, with only 3 non-FBS foes, 3 games against Top 25-caliber teams (Alabama, Florida, Vanderbilt), and 2 others that were top 50 (Kentucky, Ole Miss). However, there weren’t as impressive in their margin of victories compared to the other contenders, and their scoring numbers took a noticeable dip when looking at FBS-only opposition. In addition, they played no intersectional games, and their tie against Kentucky is – in this case – the worst result of any of the contenders.

The debate between Georgia Tech and USC could’ve been settled on the field, as USC had a Rose Bowl bid locked up as PCC champion. The Trojans declined to play in the game, leading to runner-up California being chosen to play the Yellow Jackets. USC was named champions at the end of the regular season by the Dickinson System, benefitting from a strong year for the West region. Houlgate, the only other contemporary selector of the NCAA-designated selectors, would pick Georgia Tech. The other selectors that would be near contemporary, along with almost all the retroactive selectors, went with the Yellow Jackets as well. Both could have arguments for their SOS: Georgia Tech played only 1 non-FBS team (compared to 3 by USC), 4 games against Top 25-caliber teams (Alabama, California, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt), and more non-home games. USC played more teams with a winning record, 4 games against Top 25-caliber opposition (California, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Stanford), and a 5th against a team that would’ve been flirting with Top 25 consideration (Washington State). California and Notre Dame were common opponents of both teams this year. Both teams beat the Irish in home games by a 13-point margin, with Tech registering a shutout. Ultimately, California is the deciding factor. The Bears played the Trojans to a scoreless draw in USC’s only road contest of the year. Georgia Tech defeated the Bears at the Rose Bowl in front of a decidedly pro-Cal crowd. Even if folks try to say that the Yellow Jackets’ victory was because of the result of 1 play (Roy Riegel’s infamous wrong way run), Tech held an 8-0 lead in the game’s closing moments before Cal mounted a scoring drive down the length of the field to draw within a point. I think for the Blue Ribbon Commission, with those things in mind, Georgia Tech will clearly be the top choice for a retroactive Coaches Trophy. So Georgia Tech, get in touch with AFCA and get you another crystal ball to get on display. While I don’t think USC would be considered for co-champion, they would probably have the next best case to claim the trophy if Tech doesn’t ever step up to the plate.

Tier 1 (Best Case to be awarded AFCA Trophy): Georgia Tech
Tier 2 (Legitimate case for champion/co-champion): Southern California
Tier 3 (Minor Contender, could make a case): Detroit
Tier 4 (Not Serious Contenders): Tennessee