Talk:1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game

Kentucky-Arkansas game
The mention of this game was recently removed without discussion. I plan, post-discussion, on adding it back. It gives a very useful perspective on what it takes to get a very high-scoring game in the modern game. Captkrob 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

220 kickoff return yards?
How could Georgia Tech have 220 kickoff return yards? Cumberland would have only kicked off once, to start the second half, if they didn't score. I don't dispute the punt return yards. Jtw3unc 16:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know very little about football stats, but wouldn't Cumberland have kicked off after every score against them? Ben Hocking (talk 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the scoring team kicks off to the team that was scored upon. Therefore, Cumberland could theoretically have a whole bunch of return yards, because they would have returned kicks after every Tech score. Jtw3unc 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, I should have figured that one out. I wouldn't be surprised if the 220 was vandalism. I've already found a lot of it in this article. Check against the linked sources, if you haven't already. Ben Hocking (talk 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This page []l on the official GT athletics web site, lists 440 yards on kick returns. I haven't found out how many times Cumberland punted, but that stat must include punt return yards.Jtw3unc 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

now i am reading the play by play and i saw this. i didnt list everything but this is from the 1st quarter. Cumberland kicks off to GT after GT scores touchtowns? I dont get it

McDonald kicked off for Cumberland to Shaver who returned the ball 70 yards to the Cumberland 10. Strupper Got 9 yards at right end. Alexander scored from the 1. Preas' conversion made it 35-0 Georgia Tech.(taken from the play by play page)

McDonald kicked off for Cumberland again, this time to Carpenter who returned 5 yards to the Tech 40. Strupper ran 60 yards for the score. Preas converted. Tech 42, Cumberland 0.(taken from the play by play page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.231.147 (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible the rules were different then? Ben Hocking (talk 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be that the scoring team recevied the kickoff in those days. Kind of like "make it, take it." MrMurph101 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, Cumberland doesn't start kicking off after scores until after it's 35-0. I *believe* this rule is actually still on the books, but at least at the time, the team scored upon had a choice to kick off or to receive.  Cumberland from what I remember decided that, being unable to move the ball, they would try to pin Tech deeper into their own territory and hope for a mistake or a stalled drive.  Punting on third, second, or even first down wasn't uncommon in the old days of football. PeteF3 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 years later... at the entertainment reference desk, this question was posed, and as it turns out, it was legal at that time for the scored-upon team to kick off rather than receive. That is no longer the case. The rule apparently changed ca. 1922, to require the team just scored-upon to receive the kickoff. The NFL rule is the same. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting all that - it actually makes sense. Games in those days typically didn't have that many points, especially between evenly matched teams. Every yard was crucial, first downs were precious. Defenses were relatively much further ahead of offenses, at least compared with today's game. Under the circumstances, it makes sense that a team might choose to kick off rather than receive. Harry Yelreh (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember reading a sports book about this game when I was a teenager. In addition to Cumberland chosing to kick off after the Tech scores (a rarity even in those days albeit legal), their were other peculiarities of the game. One I remember is that Tech at some point began handing off the ball to their lineman, who—of course—also scored. The reason Tech did this we can only speculate, but I imagine it could have been an attempt to take it easy on Cumberland after the game was blown open or they were just having fun. Going back to the kickoff issue, I also remember reading that after Cumberland tried kicking off after scores and when that didn't work, they went back to receiving kickoffs again for a while which still didn't work. They then tried kicking off again with little or no improvement. So they were going back and forth in desperation, changing the only thing they seemingly had any control over. I wish I still had the book because it went into much more detail about this strange game. I can't even remember the title. I will do some research myself but does anyone know off-hand if we can find a source that covers some of the odd circumstances that took place during that game?--Racerx11 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

King College game
I deleted the following paragrpah added by due to OR, undue weight issues, etc: Worth noting, King College defeated Lenoir College 206-0 on October 21, 1922. Although this score is 16 points less than Georgia Tech's 222-0 victory, this game is considered here because King was robbed of 12 minutes of regular play. An article published the following day noted that, "[b]ecause of approaching darkness the game was called before it had been played full time." While the first and second quarters were both 15 minutes in length, the third quarter was shortened to 12 minutes and the fourth quarter was only six minutes. One can only speculate that with 12 more minutes King would have certainly scored more than 14 more points. Therefore, it can be argued that the King v. Lenoir game was the most Lopsided college football game. Not that we can't compare this game to others that came close, I just think that we could go about doing it in a better way. A few specific issues: —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The one ref doesn't have an article or author name. Just a newspaper and a date.
 * Words/phrases such as "robbed" "speculate" "it can be argued" scream OR and synthesis.
 * If that game is so notable, why isn't there an article about it?

It's also worth noting that Heisman agreed to shorten the second half of the GT-Cumberland game to 15 minutes, which means the game was 3 minutes shorter than the game you mention. 2601:0:8A00:2F:B546:502D:9D44:7DE7 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, 4 years later is better than never. And for his merciful shortening of the game, he should get a trophy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

12 defensive and special teams scores
The stats mention 28 rushing touchdowns and 0 passing touchdowns. That would mean there were actually 4 defensive / special teams touchdowns
 * This writeup from 2006, on the 90th anniversary, explicitly mentions two fumbles that were immediately returned for touchdowns, and it says Cumberland had 15 turnovers overall, of which 6 were interceptons. Obviously 222 does not divide evenly by 7, so either they missed a few PAT's or they stopped doing them after awhile. I've so far been unable to find a box score for this game. It might take some microfilm research. Or maybe someone at Georgia Tech would have it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This writeup says they scored 32 touchdowns and 30 conversions, and that adds up to 222. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment
The article notes that the $3,000 no-show penalty would be equivalent to $65,016 when adjusted for inflation. While I agree that providing an inflation-adjusted figure helps the contemporary reader grasp the significance of the penalty, the problem is that the correctness of that figure is inherently temporary. It will change every year. Is someone keeping on top of updating it? 76.170.162.114 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The template that's depending on defaults to the figures from the latest year. Everything's good. :) Disavian (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)