TENNESSEE VOLS - 1939!

#51
#51
unfrozencvmanvol said:
We do claim 1950 already though. To my knowledge no one is arguing we shouldn't claim 1951.
Click to expand...

Yes, we claim 1950. But the AP had us as #4.

If anybody does argue that we lost to Maryland in the 1952 Sugar Bowl and don’t deserve the 1951 NC then the same logic should apply to the 1950 NC (and the 1951 Cotton Bowl) and we should be ahead of Texas and Oklahoma. Army being in the mix just shows how convoluted and biased the voting was 75 years ago. The northeast media has always loved the Big 10 and discounts the SEC.
 
#52
#52
In the 1960s and 1970s there were basically 2 polls and they published their “Top 20” instead of 25. The AP (Associated Press (writers)) and the UPI (United Press International (coaches)). Then USA Today eventually took over the coaches poll.

I didn’t realize that Rev Moon and the Moonies ended up owning UPI.
 
#53
#53
bamawriter said:
The schedule UT played in 1939 wasn't very good. Not necessarily their fault, but it's the truth. UT only played 2 teams with a winning record and none of their opponents finished ranked.
Click to expand...
Who knows stuff like this? lol
 
#55
#55
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Yes, we claim 1950. But the AP had us as #4.

If anybody does argue that we lost to Maryland in the 1952 Sugar Bowl and don’t deserve the 1951 NC then the same logic should apply to the 1950 NC (and the 1951 Cotton Bowl) and we should be ahead of Texas and Oklahoma. Army being in the mix just shows how convoluted and biased the voting was 75 years ago. The northeast media has always loved the Big 10 and discounts the SEC.
Click to expand...
I agree there has always been an Anti-Southern bias, however on the issue of the service academies, they had legit teams back then before the forward pass was much of a thing, and when WW2 and Korea resulted in alot of athletes matriculating there. Really, I think college football history can be divided into two pretty distinct historical periods. Before full integration and after, the game isn't really comparable between those two eras.
 
#56
#56
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I agree there has always been an Anti-Southern bias, however on the issue of the service academies, they had legit teams back then before the forward pass was much of a thing, and when WW2 and Korea resulted in alot of athletes matriculating there. Really, I think college football history can be divided into two pretty distinct historical periods. Before full integration and after, the game isn't really comparable between those two eras.
Click to expand...

In 1950 Army lost to 3-6 Navy.
 
#58
#58
One of things that hurt our schedule in that era was one of the best teams in the SEC aside from us was Tulane, but we hardly ever played them.
 
#60
#60
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The Associated Press acted like they had a problem with us claiming 1950.
Click to expand...
Again, they gave out the title before the bowls then, that's why we didn't have a better shot. In 1950, that rule hurt us, but in 1951 it helped us. If they'd give it out after the bowls in 1951, we would not have won the AP title that year. As a Tennessee fan, I am all for having it both ways to claim both, but the AP was consistent. They recognized the title before the bowl games. They didn't disregard losses by northern teams in bowls, but count losses by southern teams in bowls to deprive southern teams of the title. They disregarded bowl losses entirely.
 
#61
#61
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Again, they gave out the title before the bowls then, that's why we didn't have a better shot. In 1950, that rule hurt us, but in 1951 it helped us. If they'd give it out after the bowls in 1951, we would not have won the AP title that year. As a Tennessee fan, I am all for having it both ways to claim both, but the AP was consistent. They recognized the title before the bowl games. They didn't disregard losses by northern teams in bowls, but count losses by southern teams in bowls to deprive southern teams of the title. They disregarded bowl losses entirely.
Click to expand...

Again, if the AP took back 1951 because we lost the bowl game, then they should give us 1950.

I understand how the timing of NC rankings and bowl games worked. You don’t need to give me a lesson.
 
#62
#62
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Again, if the AP took back 1951 because we lost the bowl game, then they should give us 1950.

I understand how the timing of NC rankings and bowl games worked. You don’t need to give me a lesson.
Click to expand...
You are tilting at windmills in this thread and I honestly don't know what the point of any of your comments have been. They haven't informed anyone of anything of note.
 
#65
#65
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The thread is about recognizing and claiming NCs. I honestly don’t know why you’re triggered.
Click to expand...
People get triggered about a lot these days.

You can argue UT titles based on claiming them from some "rating systems or poll" but you could also have a legitimate argument for some teams (like 1931, 1939, 1956, hell even 1989) based on other things too..it might not "count" towards the AP or UPI or NCAA but college football didn't have a true national title until 1998 and after
 
#66
#66
Rickyvol77 said:
People get triggered about a lot these days.

You can argue UT titles based on claiming them from some "rating systems or poll" but you could also have a legitimate argument for some teams (like 1931, 1939, 1956, hell even 1989) based on other things too..it might not "count" towards the AP or UPI or NCAA but college football didn't have a true national title until 1998 and after
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5590.jpeg
    IMG_5590.jpeg
    126.8 KB · Views: 9
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#70
#70
EverythingOrange said:
I’m not stuck on the past - but it deserves to be Recognized. — You want to talk about Re-Claiming a National Championship?!!!!!

TENNESSEE - 1939!!!!!

In 1938 Tennessee was the reigning football National Champion.

In 1939 The VOLS (in a 10 game season) went undefeated, un-tied and UN-SCORED upon!!!

Yes, they lost a bowl game to USC (14-0) after traveling across the country- by train, to California - But, back then a bowl game was just a “local festival” anyway.

WHY-O-WHY has TENNESSEE never claimed 1939 as a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP????!!!!

They accomplished a feat that will NEVER be repeated!!!!!
Click to expand...
The 39 team was not viewed (see attached example) nationally a well as the 1938 team was. The 39 played a losing regular season schedule (38-52-7) ; the 38 team handed three teams their only season loss... Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma (62-42-3 opponent)
 

Attachments

  • 40 01 03 - St Ptete EI1.PNG
    40 01 03 - St Ptete EI1.PNG
    443.7 KB · Views: 7
  • Like
Reactions: TrueOrange and jsc1973
#71
#71
EverythingOrange said:
I’m not stuck on the past - but it deserves to be Recognized. — You want to talk about Re-Claiming a National Championship?!!!!!

TENNESSEE - 1939!!!!!

In 1938 Tennessee was the reigning football National Champion.

In 1939 The VOLS (in a 10 game season) went undefeated, un-tied and UN-SCORED upon!!!

Yes, they lost a bowl game to USC (14-0) after traveling across the country- by train, to California - But, back then a bowl game was just a “local festival” anyway.

WHY-O-WHY has TENNESSEE never claimed 1939 as a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP????!!!!

They accomplished a feat that will NEVER be repeated!!!!!
Click to expand...
Dude, Duke did the exact same thing one year before and then also lost the Rose Bowl to USC, 7-3. The Trojans hit four straight passes with a backup QB at the end of the game and beat the "Iron Dukes" with 40 seconds left in the game.

And no one that I know of chose Tennessee as the national champion in 1938. The reason we (validly) claim it now is because college football historians and latter-day rating systems all clearly agree that UT was a stronger team than TCU that year, and at least deserves a share of the title.

No system chose the Vols in '39, even ones that don't count the bowls. A few of them did have Tennessee #1 in 1940, even though they lost the Sugar Bowl. The Vols actually have a stronger claim for 1931 if they wanted to just arbitrarily claim something no one chose them for.

Tennessee doesn't claim the 1939 natty because they have no basis for doing so. Maybe if George Cafego had been healthy, the Vols win the Rose Bowl, but if that had happened, I am sure someone, probably several someones, would have rated that team #1. Injuries happen.
 
#75
#75
There was a bias in those days that teams in the South were inferior to teams in other parts of the country. Especially in Big 10 territory in including Notre Dame and Army. It was written about often in the sports pages in the 50s and 60s when the South was becoming more nationally recognized.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top