We’re back again on MNC Wednesday to extend this miniseries back in time: the mythical national championship analysis continues, although we have had to revise so many MNCs over the past handful of months since we started going backward in time from the start of the modern era (1936). Since the reverse-order journey started, we’ve only agreed with nine and “one third” of the designated champs. And from 1911-1927, that number shrinks to just two and a third. Yes, we’re critical of the experts here.

The 1910 MNC: Harvard (Helms, NCF-tie) & Pittsburgh (NCF-tie); Auburn (DMP)

For the third season in a row, we have a tie between a future Ivy League school and a college in Pennsylvania. Who had that on their MNC bingo card? We did not. Alas, both Harvard (8-0-1, No. 6 SRS, No. 31 SOS) and Pittsburgh (9-0, No. 5 SRS, No. 67 SOS) might have a shot here, based on their sabermetric profiles. Shocker, we know, as the recent dismissals early on of the crowned pretenders. Or maybe not, as those schedules aren’t great, especially the Panthers’ slate. Didn’t the experts review this?!

With only 74 major-college teams playing the 1910 season, we realize it may have been hard to schedule, considering regional travel limitations. Yet we have to provide an equitable evaluation process here in order to be fair—unlike the NCAA today—and consistent. So, we will start right now by tossing Pittsburgh, because that SOS is basically bottom-of-the-barrel bad. We will measure the Crimson against the following list of top sabermetric teams:

  • Auburn (6-1): No. 1 SRS, No. 5 SOS
  • Vanderbilt (8-0-1): No. 2 SRS, No. 16 SOS
  • Minnesota (6-1): No. 3 SRS, No. 38 SOS
  • Pennsylvania (9-1-1): No. 8 SRS, No. 29 SOS

These teams-under-consideration lists get shorter, perhaps, as we go back in time. The Golden Gophers and the Quakers have similar profiles to Harvard, obviously, and in truth, the entire trio just pales in comparison to the future SEC schools here. Also, technically, the Commodores don’t have the SOS to hang with the Tigers, in terms of the tie being better than the loss, etc. Yet we want to do a head-to-head here just to complete an official comparison. Right away, we see the key decider in the whole process.

Vanderbilt played three small-school opponents, beating them by a combined 71-0 score. The Commodores also played just two road games, including the tie against No. 22 Yale. Meanwhile, Auburn played a full slate of big-time opponents and competed away from home five times to boot. The Tigers lost one of those road games to No. 24 Texas, but it’s hard to overlook the SOS here when we consider that Vandy’s high SRS mark includes those shutouts of three weaklings. Auburn had no such advantage.

Thus, we award this MNC, without hesitation, to the Tigers—in our minds their third overall after the 1913 squad earned the school’s second legit title (yes, we had the stones to disqualify Auburn in 2010 when the NCAA and the SEC did not). Well done, War Eagle; we applaud this effort from 116 years ago. Let this be a testament to sabermetric evaluation of schedule strength, because in the end, it does matter a lot. For what it’s worth, Auburn would have been a 1.06-point favorites over Vanderbilt, too.