Return to the 1900 season page

A&M played Guilford a second time in 1900, following their first 0-5 loss. Since they had last played A&M, Guilford had defeated William Bingham 34-0 and lost to South Carolina 0-11. Though the Guilford Collegian admitted that their team had been "somewhat outclassed" in their loss to South Carolina, the writer also opined that "The umpire was of a poor quality," allowing South Carolina to repeatedly start plays off-sides without a penalty. The South Carolina-based umpire "may have had something to do with the score," as the Collegian put it (The Guilford Collegian, Vol. XIII, No. 2 (December, 1900), p. 60).

This game was somewhat interesting in terms of A&M's games because it was the first game by A&M in Raleigh not played at the Fair Grounds since 1897. The reason the game was not played at the Fair Grounds was because of the Colored State Fair. Given the closeness of the game earlier in the season and the record of both teams, it was expected that Guilford would put up "a stiff fight," despite the fact that the Farmers outweighed the Quakers by an average of 156 pounds to 143 pounds (The (Raleigh) Morning Post, November 2nd, 1900, p. 5; The Visitor-Times, November 2nd, 1900, p. 1).

The pre-game summary written in the Guilford Collegian was quite dramatic, and worth reproducing here. It read:

"It was a silent crowd of boys who were met by Manager Barnhard at the Raleigh station on the morning of November 3 [sic] The fact that they had won a game from the 'Farmers' only a few weeks before, didn't seem to give them much comfort, for they were in enemy's country now, and that eye-opener of 5 to 0 of the previous game certainly would prove an incentive to the A. & M. boys to pile the score as high as they possibly could.

"To the question, 'What are we going to do to them?' there was only one answer: 'After the game they will know we have been here.'"

The weather for the game was described as "very threatening," with "no sun," but also free from wind.

Guilford kicked off to start the game. A&M carried the ball gradually until they reached about midfield. The Red and White "forced the game from the very first," driving the ball up the field "by well worked tricks and steady play." At somewhere between midfield and Guilford's 40 yard line, Guilford held the Farmers to no gain, at which point the Farmers kicked the ball away, sending the ball about 50 yards. There, the Crimson and Gray fumbled the punt, and A&M recovered the fumble, giving the Farmers the ball at the Guilford 10-yard line. After a few more runs, Gardner pushed the ball over the goal line, rushing between the blocks of Turner and Bowden. Lougee missed the goal kick and the score remained through the end of the first half 5-0 in favor of the Farmers, despite the fact that the score was reportedly made early in the half.

Of the four accounts of the game I found, none of them gave much description of the remainder of the first half. The Collegian wrote that for the remainder of the half the Quakers "fairly outplayed their opponents" but were unable to score despite their success. The Morning Post disagreed, writing "A. & M. College... kept the ball in Guilford territory most of the game." The writer of the Collegian partly blamed the success of the Crimson and Gray on the conceit of the Farmers, writing "Visions of 20 to 0 in their [A&M's] favor and a lack of team work, gave the game away before A. & M. realized that it was lost, and no amount of strong brace, or coaching from the side lines could make up for the overconfidence and under-training of the team."

The source of Guilford's success in the second half varied greatly from source to source. The News and Observer wrote that Guilford "got in her work" in the second half, though noted that "the A. and M. boys fumbled badly at critical times." The Charlotte Daily Observer, on the other hand, wrote "In the second half Guilford took a good brace," but acknowledged that the Quakers got there "by a combination fortune and good playing." The Guilford Collegian wrote "good fortune came her [Guilford's] way and the team was skillful enough to take advantage of it," though the writers did acknowledge that such "skill" was not "an out-and-out proof of good football" skill.

After ten minutes of rest between the halves, the teams were back to competing for supremacy on the gridiron. A&M kicked off the ball to start the second half. The Quakers advanced the ball to about the 40 yard line of the Red and White, at which point "the ball changed hands." At that point, A&M attempted to snap the ball back to start a play, but mishandled the snap. "A. and M. fumbled badly, the ball rolling some yards back of the line." Daniels, of Guilford, broke through the line and recovered the fumble, and ran the ball the remaining length of the field. Most descriptions said he ran the ball "more than half the length of the open field," though the Morning Post wrote that "The sturdy little fullback made a beautiful eighty-yard run for a touchdown." Daniels placed the ball between the goal posts. The News and Observer wrote that no goal was kicked, despite rule changes in the late 1880s requiring a goal to be attempted after a touchdown to prevent teams from "accidentally" missing the goal and going for a second touchdown. The Guilford Collegian wrote, "The goal missed fire, and the score stood a tie." Here, the author was saying that the goal "misfired," probably his way of explaning how Guilford missed what should have been an easy kick. The score was a 5-5, with the momentum in favor of the Greensboro team.

Again, A&M kicked off, and again the Crimson and Gray carried the ball to about midfield. After failing to gain 5 yards in their first two downs, Guilford decided to punt the ball downfield. Worth fumbled the catch and Short ran the ball in for a touchdown. Reports here don't line up exactly with each other, with the Morning Post writing that Short's run was 50 yards, a feat that would have been impossible if the Guilford Collegian's claim that the punt took place at midfield is to be believed. It is more likely that the punt was either not a long one or did not take place from midfield, as the Charlotte Daily Observer also wrote that the touchdown was made on "a long run." Either way, Short made the touchdown on a second terribly-timed fumble for the Farmers, and Daniels kicked the goal after to make the score 11-5 in favor of the Quakers. The News and Observer claimed Daniels also made the touchdown, but the Collegian and Morning Post both wrote that Short made the touchdown.

In the final minutes of the half, A&M kicked off and was able to stop Guilford's advances, but unable to score. "They worked hard, but were forced to kick and lose the ball on Guilford's 25-yard line." As the Collegian gloated, "Guilford had the ball at the call of time, and has it yet."

Most papers acknowledged that A&M deserved to win the game. "The loss of the game by the farmers," wrote the Morning Post, "may be attributed to fumbling." The News and Observer went further, writing "The odds at first seemed all in favor of A. and M., and indeed they seemed to play the better game throughout.... But the fumbling lost the day." While many of the observers were "disappointed at the defeat of the home college," the students were incensed. The following morning, a letter to the editor of the News and Observer by the students of A&M was published. The students wrote that the school joined the organization without the cognizance of the students, and that the students were displeased with the game under the tenure of the NC Athletic Association, writing "The playing has not been up to the standard this season. This fact has been clearly demonstrated by all the games played this year, especially in the one between the A. & M. and Guilford College on Friday. We think that this effort to improve athletes has been a failure and the students are in favor of withdrawing from the organization" (News and Observer, November 3rd, 1900, p. 5). An important note of interest is that the students felt this way nearly two weeks before their game against Oak Ridge had been officially ruled out. The Collegian mocked the Red and White's complaint to the Association, writing "The A. & M. team could never see it. They don't know yet [how they lost]. First, they lay it to the State Association, and then, to Providence."

The star of the game for A&M was, for the second time, Gardner. "Gardner put up a fine game, making gains almost every time he was given the ball." The Morning Post wrote that "while the whole team played well together" (notably an outright contradiction of the narrative written by the Collegian), Gardner and McCanless were "the stars." The Charlotte Daily Observer, on the other hand, credited Gardner and Wooten as having played the best game for the Farmers. Even the Collegian noted Gardner's success, writing "Gardner, A. & M.'s big fullback, though he was absolutely new to the position [previously playing as a guard], played a great game," and also wrote that Wooten played "faultless half." The Guilford periodical also gave laurels to Lougee and McCanless, but noted that "the line men of mighty fame did not materialize to any dangerous extent."

The Guilford team "played a ragged game at times, but on the whole played faster ball." Daniels, Hill, and Shepard were honored by the papers, while Guilford also applauded the efforts of other members of their team, writing "Holton and Shepard for the first time really got into the game. Martin made long gains through the line. Morton ran his plays well. Harry [Daniels] was in every play, while the way Jim Lewis and Charlie Short went down the field under Harry's drives was a sight to see. Even Jack Love, (who didn't get into the game until the last minute) while he was linesman threw away his marking stick and gave the side lines a cake walk after each touch down."

Most papers claimed that each half was 20 minutes, but the Collegian wrote that the halves were 25 minutes each. The game was refereed by former A&M coach Perrin Busbee, umpired by former A&M coach John McKee, and timed by A&M's Prof. Henry M. Wilson, instructor in Cotton Manufacturing. The game was reportedly watched by a "good crowd" (News and Observer, November 3rd, 1900, p. 5; The (Raleigh) Morning Post, November 3rd, 1900, p. 2; Charlotte Daily Observer, November 3rd, 1900, p. 2; The Guilford Collegian, Vol. XIII, No. 2 (December, 1900), pp. 61-62).

Guilford would go on to play one more game that season. A Thanksgiving matchup with Oak Ridge Institute in Greensboro, Guilford won 10-0, giving the Quakers an overall record of 4-2.