1931 Portsmouth Spartans discussion

[74_75_78_79_]

On the 'eve' of the League Championship Game era, 1931, you had Curly's Packers wrap up their three-peat with a 12-2 finish! In 2nd-place, also having played exactly fourteen games, you had the following year's playoff-participant, the soon-enough-to-be-Detroit Lions, finish one game out at 11-3! Oddly, neither team played against each other this campaign. But both they and the Pack seeming like the only two championship-caliber teams with the Bears in 3rd at 8-5, and quite a further drop-off from there with everyone else either being mediocre-or-less as well as most of them playing a significantly lesser amount of games.

GB started out 9-0 as Potsy's bunch started 8-0! The Pack pitched five shutouts as the Spartans one-upped them with six! Curly & Co seemed to have the noticeably better offense having scored 291 total points to Portsmouth's 175, but the future-Lions surrendered less points at 77 to GB's 87.

Whether the better net-points and/or the extra win, it seems fair enough that Green Bay was best yet again in '31. But just how close do you think Portsmouth was to them?

[Bob Gill]

The Packers and the Spartans were scheduled to play each other in the final game of the season, but for some reason -- presumably the late date -- it was considered a "tentative" date, and the Packers decided not to play after all. This caused a real uproar in Portsmouth, but Joe Carr agreed with the Green Bay people that the game was only tentative and could be canceled by either team. As for who would've won that game if they played it, I'd say it could've gone either way.

The folks in Portsmouth had the last laugh a year later, sort of, when the Packers lost their bid for a fourth straight championship despite winning four more games than the Spartans and the Bears. But that's the way things worked at the time.

Incidentally, back around 1980 somebody (a Packer fan, no doubt) wrote a three- or four-volume history of the team. They had it in the library at the Hall of Fame, and one time when I was up there they let me take the first volume back to my motel one night so I could look it over and bring it back the next day. It had some good information in it, but there was one glaring flaw: I think the book ended with the 1932 season, including a two-page rant in which the author blasted Joe Carr for denying the Packers their fourth championship because he "refused" to count all the Spartans' and the Bears' tie games as half a win and half a loss, the way he was supposed to.

You'd think somebody who went to all the trouble of researching and writing a multi-volume history of an NFL team would have known that the league didn't count tie games that way until 40 years later.

[74_75_78_79_]

The Packers and the Spartans were scheduled to play each other in the final game of the season, but for some reason -- presumably the late date -- it was considered a "tentative" date, and the Packers decided not to play after all. This caused a real uproar in Portsmouth, but Joe Carr agreed with the Green Bay people that the game was only tentative and could be canceled by either team. As for who would've won that game if they played it, I'd say it could've gone either way.

The folks in Portsmouth had the last laugh a year later, sort of, when the Packers lost their bid for a fourth straight championship despite winning four more games than the Spartans and the Bears. But that's the way things worked at the time.

Incidentally, back around 1980 somebody (a Packer fan, no doubt) wrote a three- or four-volume history of the team. They had it in the library at the Hall of Fame, and one time when I was up there they let me take the first volume back to my motel one night so I could look it over and bring it back the next day. It had some good information in it, but there was one glaring flaw: I think the book ended with the 1932 season, including a two-page rant in which the author blasted Joe Carr for denying the Packers their fourth championship because he "refused" to count all the Spartans' and the Bears' tie games as half a win and half a loss, the way he was supposed to.

You'd think somebody who went to all the trouble of researching and writing a multi-volume history of an NFL team would have known that the league didn't count tie games that way until 40 years later.

Nice anecdote, Bob! Just a little more looking, and I would have seen about that "tentative" final game. Just came across the old four-page '97 Coffin Corner article, 'The Game Not Played, the Championship Not Won: Packers vs. Spartans, 1931' by Carl Becker.

As for the following year, '32, it seems that Green Bay needed to win both their last two games - at Spartans and then at Bears for the finale - in order to, indeed, four-peat thus eliminate any such tiebreaker game. Even winning just one of those games would have given the title to the team whom they wouldn't beat of the two. Not a good system just the same for the Pack won 10 of their 14 whereas the Spartans won 6 of 11 going into that playoff with the Bears winning just 6 of...thirteen going in!

Despite the "count WINS first, then ties" idea still never having come into fruition even to this day (I'm guessing never even introduced by anyone), more even scheduling at least was definitely in order! '33 was, of course, an improvement (7-3-2 instead of 8-4-0 two years later notwithstanding) but '36 couldn't get here soon enough!

[ChrisBabcock]

I'm currently reading Chris Willis ' Dutch Clark biography (great book!) and the 1931 championship "controversy" is covered. I was going to mention something about the tentative game when I saw this thread but Bob beat me to it.

[rhickok1109]

The Packers and the Spartans were scheduled to play each other in the final game of the season, but for some reason -- presumably the late date -- it was considered a "tentative" date, and the Packers decided not to play after all. This caused a real uproar in Portsmouth, but Joe Carr agreed with the Green Bay people that the game was only tentative and could be canceled by either team. As for who would've won that game if they played it, I'd say it could've gone either way.

The folks in Portsmouth had the last laugh a year later, sort of, when the Packers lost their bid for a fourth straight championship despite winning four more games than the Spartans and the Bears. But that's the way things worked at the time.

Incidentally, back around 1980 somebody (a Packer fan, no doubt) wrote a three- or four-volume history of the team. They had it in the library at the Hall of Fame, and one time when I was up there they let me take the first volume back to my motel one night so I could look it over and bring it back the next day. It had some good information in it, but there was one glaring flaw: I think the book ended with the 1932 season, including a two-page rant in which the author blasted Joe Carr for denying the Packers their fourth championship because he "refused" to count all the Spartans' and the Bears' tie games as half a win and half a loss, the way he was supposed to.

You'd think somebody who went to all the trouble of researching and writing a multi-volume history of an NFL team would have known that the league didn't count tie games that way until 40 years later.

I suspect you're referring to Larry Names' history of the Packers.

Cliff Christl leads the list of people who are quite dismissive of his work. It's rather strange, because he did do an enormous amount of research, but he made some enormous leaps to rather foolish conclusions. And somehow, despite all his work, he missed a lot.

[Bob Gill]

I suspect you're referring to Larry Names' history of the Packers.

Cliff Christl leads the list of people who are quite dismissive of his work. It's rather strange, because he did do an enormous amount of research, but he made some enormous leaps to rather foolish conclusions. And somehow, despite all his work, he missed a lot.

Yes! That's the name. Do you know if he wrote three volumes or four? I'm guessing four, since I think the first one ended at 1932, so he still had quite a way to go.

Added later: I just found the books on Amazon, and there are actually SIX volumes, not three or four. Did not remember that.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Just came across the old four-page '97 Coffin Corner article, 'The Game Not Played, the Championship Not Won: Packers vs. Spartans, 1931' by Carl Becker.

Becker was a good historian. One of my favorite books: https://www.ohioswallow.com/author/Carl+M+Becker.

Bob also wrote a similar book that I was never able to find. Bob, was it about just the Tanks or the whole region?

P.S. I'll say Portsmouth 20 Green Bay 19

[Bob Gill]

Becker was a good historian. One of my favorite books: https://www.ohioswallow.com/author/Carl+M+Becker.

Bob also wrote a similar book that I was never able to find. Bob, was it about just the Tanks or the whole region?

P.S. I'll say Portsmouth 20 Green Bay 19

A win by Portsmouth would've left the two teams tied for first place, so I assume they would've had to meet again a week later to break that tie. I guess they would've played in Portsmouth rather than schedule such an important game for Green Bay in December, but who knows? Maybe the game would've wound up being played indoors a year before the Spartans-Bears game.

The book of mine I guess you're thinking of was called Down in the Valley. It was a year-by-year look at the teams in the unofficial Ohio Valley League, plus a few other teams from around the area. It was a PFRA publication, not of any general interest. If you're really looking for one, I can take a look around here, because they might have sent me two back when the book was printed.

[TanksAndSpartans]

A win by Portsmouth would've left the two teams tied for first place, so I assume they would've had to meet again a week later to break that tie. I guess they would've played in Portsmouth rather than schedule such an important game for Green Bay in December, but who knows? Maybe the game would've wound up being played indoors a year before the Spartans-Bears game.

Right, it makes the Packers position more defendable as you kind of have to implicitly agree to the 2nd game (if needed) as well so it's a lot to lose and not much to gain. When they finally met in '32, they would split the games. The Packers took the first one at home 15-10 and the Spartans won at home 19-0 (Clark and Presnell scored all the points). Potsy Clark was really proud of that second game. I think he had the team ready - he told them he would only use 11 and that's what he did. Might that be the last case of 11 players going the distance? And like Bob said, it did cost the Packers a 4th straight title and put the Spartans in what should probably be a more famous game. There was an episode of the History channel's Pawn Stars where a program from the '32 Bears/Spartans game surfaced. There aren't many around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op-fkWS3_lY

Down in the Valley....not of any general interest.

What? The public are idiots

If you're really looking for one, I can take a look around here, because they might have sent me two back when the book was printed.

Definitely let me know if it turns up. I've given away a couple good football books recently (one to a PFRA member) just because I don't reference them and probably won't read them again. I still have Joe Ziemba's Cardinals book I could offer in trade if you need that one.

[rhickok1109]

This is how Cliff Christl treats the issue in his definitive 4-volume history of the Packers:

The NFL schedule had been set on July 12 during a league meeting in Chicago. The next day, the Press-Gazette announced the Packers' schedule and it included 14 games, but none against Portsmouth. The Chicago Daily Tribune also stated in its story that the NFL season would end with the Packers-Bears game on December 6. However, when Portsmouth announced its schedule days later, it included a December 13 home matchup with Green Bay.
More than four months later, when the Packers beat Brooklyn on November 29 to improve to 12-1 and take a two-game lead with one to go, the Press-Gazette, the New York Times, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and both the Milwaukee Journal and the Milwaukee Sentinel, among countless other newspapers across the country, declared them three-time NFL champs.
But that same Sunday, Portsmouth beat the Bears, 3-0, and for whatever reason, Chicago's Tribune and several other newspapers, including some in Wisconsin, reported that Portsmouth still had an outside shot at sharing the title. The debate grew as Portsmouth stuck to its claim that the Packers had tentatively agreed before the start of the season to a December game.
Even Lambeau added to the confusion when he told the Press-Gazette two days before the Packers' finale against the Bears that he was open to playing an additional game.
"We do not plan to put our title in jeopardy," said Lambeau, "but if the Packers defeat the Chicago Bears, thereby clinching the pennant, we may follow through with a game against Portsmouth December 13."
But the Packers didn't beat the Bears.
They lost, 7-6, leaving them with a one-game cushion over the Spartans, who were idle in league play but crushed the Columbus Taxicabs, 101-7, in a practice game. The controversy only heated up.
Harry Snyder, Portsmouth's president, argued the two teams should settle the championship on the field.
"Several weeks ago when it seemed that we might keep pace with the Packers, they wanted to play us," said Snyder. "Now, however, when we can tie for the title by beating the Packers, they will not give us the opportunity, although the game is a sellout."
Packers president Lea Joannes countered the claim. "Green Bay never signed a contract to meet Portsmouth next Sunday," he said. "The whole proposition was verbal and tentative. Our boys have played 14 games this fall and we believe they have had enough football."
...
Finally, on Friday night, December 11, NFL president Joe Carr settled the dispute by declaring the Packers league champions from his office in Columbus.
"Although an additional postseason game between Portsmouth and Green Bay was scheduled," the Press-Gazette wrote in reference to Carr's ruling, "Green Bay exercised its right to cancel it because it was not on the official schedule."