75 Years Ago, UT won their first National Championship

[DC Vol]

I don't really think that USC should be in the discussion. But their schedule was tougher.

And while Tennesse played more teams that were ranked at the time, they did not play any teams that finished ranked. A&M did. And Tennessee happened to miss all of the strong teams in the SEC that year; their best SEC opponent, Kentucky, finished 6th in the conference standings.

That doesn't matter. UT didn't pick their schedule. It was what it was. Just because there were better teams in the SEC that year shouldn't matter.

There were no other outstanding teams in the Southwest Conference and that conference itself was much smaller (7 versus 13 members).

Of course, this was before conference championship games to do away with this conjecture and in the end, the games were what they were. You can only judge a team by what they did on the field.

Also, what team did A&M beat that finished ranked?

 

[bamawriter]

That doesn't hold a candle to the football powerhouses Oklahoma A&M (though now OkSt), Centarary, Villanova and Santa Clara.

Texas A&M had a grueling OOC schedule.


TAM or UT. UT played better against just about equal opponents. UT wins this one.

Santa Clara finished ranked, and Villanova went 6-2.

As I pointed out before, UT's OOC opponents went a combined 11-24-1. A&M's went 18-16-5. UT's only played one OOC opponent with a winning record, while A&M played three. A&M's OOC slate was much, much tougher than Tennessee's.

 

[bamawriter]

Of course, this was before conference championship games to do away with this conjecture and in the end, the games were what they were. You can only judge a team by what they did on the field.

And that's why Tennessee missed out. Things were even more subjective back then than they are today.

And you are incorrect about the conference slate: back then each team did pick their conference opponents. That's how Alabama and Auburn went more than 40 years without playing each other.

 

[DC Vol]

Santa Clara finished ranked, and Villanova went 6-2.

As I pointed out before, UT's OOC opponents went a combined 11-24-1. A&M's went 18-16-5. UT's only played one OOC opponent with a winning record, while A&M played three. A&M's OOC slate was much, much tougher than Tennessee's.

I'll give you that. I initially dismissed Santa Clara but they actually played a pretty tough schedule. I'm thinking in 2013 terms, not 1939 terms.

 

[DC Vol]

And that's why Tennessee missed out. Things were even more subjective back then than they are today.

And you are incorrect about the conference slate: back then each team did pick their conference opponents. That's how Alabama and Auburn went more than 40 years without playing each other.

When did they pick the slate?

 

[bamawriter]

When did they pick the slate?

The SEC put a permanent schedule rotation in place in 1974. Before that, the individual members picked their own conference schedules. That's why you would see some teams playing 8 conference games in a season while others only played 5.

But even after 1974, for a few years the league allowed Bama and Ole Miss to play an extra conference game against one another after the schools complained that the SEC hadn't made them permanent opponents.

 

[bamawriter]

I'll give you that. I initially dismissed Santa Clara but they actually played a pretty tough schedule. I'm thinking in 2013 terms, not 1939 terms.

Yeah. It's hard to look back at that time and realize that there weren't really different levels of football like there are today. Santa Clara was a fantastic football program for several decades in the early part of the 20th centrury, and they don't even field a team today.

And I don't say any of this to suggest that Tennessee wouldn't have deserved that title had anyone chosen them. I simply understand why the selectors chose A&M.

 

[DC Vol]

The SEC put a permanent schedule rotation in place in 1974. Before that, the individual members picked their own conference schedules. That's why you would see some teams playing 8 conference games in a season while others only played 5.

But even after 1974, for a few years the league allowed Bama and Ole Miss to play an extra conference game against one another after the schools complained that the SEC hadn't made them permanent opponents.

I was asking when, relative to the season, did these teams pick their Conference schedule.

 

[bamawriter]

I was asking when, relative to the season, did these teams pick their Conference schedule.

From having read through some old records in the Bryant Museum, it appears that Alabama usually negotiated their Fall schedule over the prior Spring. I would guess that most other programs at the time did the same. But I can't say that I've ever looked into it enough to say for sure.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Only on Volnation could you get a debate about who played the toughest schedule in 1939.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[UT_Dutchman]

And that's why Tennessee missed out. Things were even more subjective back then than they are today.

And you are incorrect about the conference slate: back then each team did pick their conference opponents. That's how Alabama and Auburn went more than 40 years without playing each other.

You are right about the subjective nature of sports writers then, thats why USC got the nod over UT. Most of them; United Press associates and Associated Press lived in the northeast, Fl, and Cali. So middle of the country teams were often overlooked.

 

[DC Vol]

Only on Volnation could you get a debate about who played the toughest schedule in 1939.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Bringing up actual history instead of circumstantial #tradition?

If this was truly a VN thread it would have devolved into a uniform spat about 3 hours ago.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Bringing up actual history instead of circumstantial #tradition?

If this was truly a VN thread it would have devolved into a uniform spat about 3 hours ago.

I get that. I just find it kind of funny that we're debating the merits of who deserved to win the NC for a season that none of the participants was alive to see.
Posted via VolNation Mobile