Question on the history of Tennessee Football teams...

#1
mooreaj21

mooreaj21

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
13,807
Likes
77
#1
I love to look back on the history of our program each year & just see how much we have really accomplished. From the golden era of Robery Neyland to the decade of dominance with Phillip Fulmer we have had alot of ups & downs. I have a couple questions about some of our past Tennessee teams that I hope someone can answer for me.

1939 - How in the he** were we not named National Champions for the '39 season!!? We were coming off the '38 season in which the team went 11-0 & won the National Title. We started out the '39 season ranked #5, all we did that season was go undefeated & unscored upon. The last team in NCAA history to go a whole season w/out giving up a point. Granted we lost to USC in the Rose Bowl 14-0 but back then they handed out National Championships before the Bowl games were even played. Texas A&M was named National Champion in '39, they started off the season unranked. In 1940, Tennessee went undefeated again through the season but this time were crowned National Champions. We then lost the Bowl game.
 
#2
#2
because polls were a bigger joke then than they are now.....which is saying something
 
#3
#3
The thing is, we were actually named National Champions by a couple polls. The Athletic Department doesnt claim it though. We actually have 8 additional seasons that we have been named National Champions by various polls, but the AD wont claim them. A few of them I think we should claim.

What is funny is that we will claim the 1967 Championship in which we went 9-2, but we wont claim the 1939 one.
 
#5
#5
Tennessee outscored its opponents 212-0 in the regular season in '39. Pretty impressive.
 
#6
#6
jmoore_21 said:
The thing is, we were actually named National Champions by a couple polls. The Athletic Department doesnt claim it though. We actually have 8 additional seasons that we have been named National Champions by various polls, but the AD wont claim them. A few of them I think we should claim.

What is funny is that we will claim the 1967 Championship in which we went 9-2, but we wont claim the 1939 one.
Click to expand...

We can claim it now! Start printing the 39 National Champs t-shirts.
 
#7
#7
Partying like it is 1999. How about playing defense like it is 1939! Great for a tee shirt!
 
#8
#8
Actually...Golden Flake named Bama National Champs in '39, '40, as well as '41-'45 due to the fact that inbred blood meant you couldn't participate in the war efforts. While Neyland was commanding his 3 tours, Bama stockpiled NC's, having played the likes of many women's normal schools.
 
#9
#9
Serious answer.

Because Texas A&M played a MUCH tougher schedule that was filled with the perennial powers of the day. IMO, if A&M hadn't played and beaten a team from the north (Villanova), Tennessee would have pulled more votes than the Aggies. Tennessee's only impressive win of that season( 21-0 over a 5-5-1 Bama team) was no more impressive than A&Ms wins over Villanova, SMU, Rice, and Baylor.
 
#10
#10
Truth is, both teams had bad schedules, with neither us nor A&M playing a single opponent that finished the season ranked. Three teams finished the regular season unranked and untied -- Texas A&M, Tennessee & Cornell. We were ranked #1 from mid-October until late November. All of our opponents ended up unranked by season's end. Same with A&M. Mostly, A&M benefited from beating the defending national champion (TCU, which actually ended up a weak team that year). More than anything, it appears a quasi-close game (13-0) to a perceived-to-be bad Vandy team hurt us the most, as almost half the voters switched their vote after that game to A&M.
 
#14
#14
VegasVol said:
Truth is, both teams had bad schedules, with neither us nor A&M playing a single opponent that finished the season ranked. Three teams finished the regular season unranked and untied -- Texas A&M, Tennessee & Cornell. We were ranked #1 from mid-October until late November. All of our opponents ended up unranked by season's end. Same with A&M. Mostly, A&M benefited from beating the defending national champion (TCU, which actually ended up a weak team that year). More than anything, it appears a quasi-close game (13-0) to a perceived-to-be bad Vandy team hurt us the most, as almost half the voters switched their vote after that game to A&M.
Click to expand...

I don't care if we were playing high schools back then. We were UNSCORED UPON. The other teams that had weak schedules, were probably scored upon and had close games. If we had Rod Wilks back then, we would have won the NC in '39, '40, '41, and '42.
 
#16
#16
Only one time in SEC history since its beginning in 1933 has one school had three straight perfect regular seasons (unbeaten and untied) - the 1938, 1939 and 1940 Volunteers! Bama, Florida, GA, LSU, Auburn (no other SEC school) has ever accomplished that feat.
Vols are the greatest!
 
#18
#18
There was a large stretch of time during the first half of the century when Alabama was pretty much the only Southern school who had a chance in the national title picture. The region was simply not respected. Unfortunately for Tennessee, their run in the late 30s was hampered by beating Bama teams that weren't as strong as they'd been pre-1935.
 
#19
#19
supersmo18 said:
I don't care if we were playing high schools back then. We were UNSCORED UPON. The other teams that had weak schedules, were probably scored upon and had close games. If we had Rod Wilks back then, we would have won the NC in '39, '40, '41, and '42.
Click to expand...

I agree. Stupid Bama claims a championship for every year they have suited up a team. What a disgrace to southern football.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
bamawriter said:
Yeah! Screw Alabama for putting southern football on the map!
Click to expand...

Georgia Tech did that, not Alabama. Some guy named Heisman was their coach. He's got a trophy of some sort named after him now. As far as that goes, neither Tech nor Bama has anything on the 1899 Sewanee team.

As for the original question...

Neyland's teams in his first and second stints as head coach were often down-rated in the rankings due to weak schedules. The first AP poll was in 1938, and you note that Tennessee wasn't ranked No. 1 in it despite the fact that any computer system you care to name rates the Vols as the best team that season, even before we shut out 10-0 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.

Also note that the same thing happened to Duke in 1938 that happened to UT in '39. Duke didn't allow a single point all season (against a much better schedule than we played in '39), but finished No. 3 in the AP poll and is usually third or fourth in computer ratings as well. Also, like UT, they lost the Rose Bowl to USC.

Tennessee shouldn't try to claim the 1939 national title. We weren't the best team that season. I think the Vols would have beaten USC if George Cafego hadn't been hurt (he meant as much to UT in those days as Cam Newton did to Auburn), but that's part of the game.
 
#22
#22
It's always bothered me that we lost that Rose Bowl game, thereby tarnishing an otherwise perfect season. I always chalked it up to train-travel fatigue mingled with culture shock. It was a home game for them after all.

We are 0-4 all-time versus the USC Trojans, with two of those losses coming in Rose Bowl games of that pre-WWII era. Of course, we also dropped a couple to SC in the early 80s, including a faceplant in the Coliseum, albeit against a very strong, Marcus Allen-led Trojan squad.

One of these days - when, frankly, both programs are strong and leaving aside the Kiffen grief - I would love to get another shot at them.
 
#23
#23
bamawriter said:
There was a large stretch of time during the first half of the century when Alabama was pretty much the only Southern school who had a chance in the national title picture. The region was simply not respected. Unfortunately for Tennessee, their run in the late 30s was hampered by beating Bama teams that weren't as strong as they'd been pre-1935.
Click to expand...

That was in substantial part a reflection of schedule. From 1937 to 1940, we didn't play a single opponent that would be ranked at the time we played them and by season's end. We only played 3 such teams in bowl games, and lost 2 of those 3. The General was not strongest in bowl games (which carried more media weight in those days as one of the few times out-of-conference reporters covered Tennessee in person), where he only won 2 bowl games in his tenure, going 2-5 overall.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
VegasVol said:
That was in substantial part a reflection of schedule. From 1937 to 1940, we didn't play a single opponent that would be ranked at the time we played them and by season's end. We only played 3 such teams in bowl games, and lost 2 of those 3. The General was not strongest in bowl games (which carried more media weight in those days as one of the few times out-of-conference reporters covered Tennessee in person), where he only won 2 bowl games in his tenure, going 2-5 overall.
Click to expand...

Where did you find that bit of information? Every other source out there says that bowl games were even more glorified exhibition games since they factored into nothing at all. In fact several teams (including tennessee's teams) didn't play substantial amounts of their starts in bowl games at all.

Not sure where you got that from but it's pretty conflicting from everything else I've heard.
 
#25
#25
Time to make some new history boys. Fulmer era gone, Kiffin error (puke), hopefully all the tires stay up on the "Dooley" for a while.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top