75 Years Ago, UT won their first National Championship

#7
#7
Undefeated, untied and unscored-upon.

I'd say we can lay claim.

Especially if 'bama can claim retroactively awarded titles from the Tuscaloosa Gazette.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#9
#9
In 1945 I remember laying on the floor listening to this game against U.S.C. on a battery powered radio with the antena tied to 2 trees. We had no electricity,and I was heart broken at the loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#11
#11
NMVol said:
The 1914 Vols were retroactively awarded a national championship by 1st-N-Goal, though this remains largely unrecognized.

1914 TENNESSEE VOLUNTEERS FOOTBALL TEAM INFORMATION | News Archive Reference Encyclopedia Data | Text and images on this page are not copyrighted and can be used royalty free | Webot.org
Click to expand...

General Jack said:
Undefeated, untied and unscored-upon.

I'd say we can lay claim.

Especially if 'bama can claim retroactively awarded titles from the Tuscaloosa Gazette.
Click to expand...

Just following up on this, we were in a completely different Athletic Association then. The "National Championship" is for NCAA titles proper. UT wasn't in the NCAA in 1914, it was in the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

Tennessee would eventually join the Southern Conference which competes in the NCAA in 1921.

So, given our legit SIAA title would lead to a claim at an NCAA title which we technically couldn't have... there is no claim. It'd be like Carson Newman going up to Div-1 and trying to say it's Div-II titles are the same. They aren't.
 
#14
#14
Funny to think that Tulane used to be a power in football. And that the University of the South used to in the SEC (but finished last routinely).

Also, if you look at the early years of college football, gigantic conferences weren't that unusual. In fact, the Southern Conference had 23 teams in 1931. The SoCo split up, but by 1938, it was back to having 15 teams, while the SEC had 13 teams. It makes 14- and 16- team conferences seem not that unusual.
 
#15
#15
DiderotsGhost said:
Funny to think that Tulane used to be a power in football. And that the University of the South used to in the SEC (but finished last routinely).

Also, if you look at the early years of college football, gigantic conferences weren't that unusual. In fact, the Southern Conference had 23 teams in 1931. The SoCo split up, but by 1938, it was back to having 15 teams, while the SEC had 13 teams. It makes 14- and 16- team conferences seem not that unusual.
Click to expand...




Swanee was a powerhouse.
 
#16
#16
Volosaurus rex said:
We were undefeated and untied but not unscored upon in 1938; we surrendered 16 points that season and then proceeded to defeat Oklahoma in the 1939 Orange Bowl, 17-0. See Tennessee Historical Scores.
Click to expand...

You are correct, it was the '39 team that went the regular season unscored on, undefeated, and untied. Should have been 3 straight nat'l titles of some sort awarded, but we were only recognized in '38 and '40 as NC's. GBO!
 
#17
#17
I would really like to hear the voters' discussion regarding awarding the NC in 1939.

Pollsters: "Next up, Tennessee. What makes them qualified?"

Answer: "They won all of their games."

Pollsters: "Anything else?"

Answer: "Well, they didn't give up a single point all season."

Pollsters: "Who else you got?"

WTF? That's always been a mystery to me.
 
#19
#19
Boca Vol said:
I would really like to hear the voters' discussion regarding awarding the NC in 1939.

Pollsters: "Next up, Tennessee. What makes them qualified?"

Answer: "They won all of their games."

Pollsters: "Anything else?"

Answer: "Well, they didn't give up a single point all season."

Pollsters: "Who else you got?"

WTF? That's always been a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Not only did we not give up any points, we scored more points (212 versus 198 for TAM and 141 for USC) than the 2 voted for National Champs.
 
#20
#20
DC Vol said:
Not only did we not give up any points, we scored more points (212 versus 198 for TAM and 141 for USC) than the 2 voted for National Champs.
Click to expand...

UT has a solid argument or '39. But A&M and USC played considerably tougher schedules.
 
#22
#22
bamawriter said:
UT has a solid argument or '39. But A&M and USC played considerably tougher schedules.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. USC had 7 wins and 2 ties. UT had all wins. Winning is what matters.

TAM only played 1 team that was ranked and their conference opponent record was a combined 26-31.

UT's conference opponent record was a combined 25-27. Not much better or worse than TAM.

So then you put their record versus ranked (UT played and won 2, TAM played and won one) and their offense/defense stats.

UT definitely has a much better argument than you're letting across and the fact that USC got votes with a worse record is insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
DC Vol said:
Doesn't matter. USC had 7 wins and 2 ties. UT had all wins. Winning is what matters.

TAM only played 1 team that was ranked and their conference opponent record was a combined 26-31.

UT's conference opponent record was a combined 25-27. Not much better or worse than TAM.

So then you put their record versus ranked (UT played and won 2, TAM played and won one) and their offense/defense stats.

UT definitely has a much better argument than you're letting across and the fact that USC got votes with a worse record is insane.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#25
#25
bamawriter said:
Facts are facts. UT was hurt by playing a terrible conference slate within the SEC. And their 4 OOC opponents went a combined 11-24-1.
Click to expand...

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.

USC's OOC was more legit but they tied 2 games. If USC had won out, they should have the national title without dispute. They tied 2 games. They didn't win. They tied. Illinois was 3-4-1 and Notre Dame was 7-2.

And USC's in-conference combined record was 30-29. So it's not like they were much better than TAM or UT. And, again, they tied 2 games. TAM and UT both won all of their regular season games. It shouldn't be a debate.

TAM or UT. UT played better against just about equal opponents. UT wins this one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top