I have no clue who won the MNC in 1950, other than round up the usual suspects. ND? USC? Michigan? Anybody here know without looking? We have yet to see much from Texas and only some from Oklahoma, who I think had a streak or something back whenever. Ohio State is just starting to be relevant. Minnesota might still be relevant. OK, let's use this cool Internet thing and find out.Oklahoma.
Yeah, there is a point to be made that bowls were exhibitions back then and should not be included.I understand your point.
I do enjoy this guy's "analysis" though, I'll go with his stuff for now. He says Tennessee.
some folks seem to think of the bowls as meaningless these daysThey are, if the Dawgs lose. You probably know my list of excuses. I about wore them out against Texas.
1) Maryland 10-0 | +2 |
2) Tennessee 10-1 | -1 |
3) Michigan State 9-0 | -1 |
4) Illinois 9-0-1 | -- |
5) Georgia Tech 11-0-1 | -- |
6) Princeton 9-0 | -- |
7) Wisconsin 7-1-1 | +1 |
8) Stanford 9-2 | -1 |
9) California 8-2 | +3 |
10) Baylor 8-2-1 | -1 |
11) Texas 7-3 | IN |
12) Oklahoma 8-2 | -2 |
13) Kentucky 8-4 | +2 |
14) Virginia 8-1 | -1 |
15) San Francisco 9-0 | -1 |
16) UCLA 5-3-1 | +1 |
17) Southern Cal 7-3 | IN |
18) Washington State 7-3 | -- |
19) Notre Dame 7-2-1 | IN |
20) Purdue 5-4 | IN |
21) Ohio State 4-3-2 | IN |
22) Northwestern 5-4 | IN |
23) Colorado 7-3 | IN |
24) Kansas 8-2 | IN |
25) Texas Christian 6-5 | -14 |
cheatersSoccer flopping pansies.
@utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) would not approve!
Pictured above is the Michigan State field goal that beat 2-7 Oregon State 17-14 in Portland on the last play of the game. It was the closest call for Michigan State on the way to its 2nd straight 9-0 season and first-ever finish atop the AP poll. They also topped the UPI coaches' poll, leaving 12-0 Georgia Tech #2 in both major polls. However, Georgia Tech finished #1 in the International News Service poll of sportswriters, and they claim their own mythical national championship (MNC) for this season based on that. This was the debut season for the INS poll. It was only around for 6 seasons, as the INS merged with the UPI in 1958.I think I'm correcting the historical record here. I believe that UPI was the result of a merger of what was then the UP with the INS.
The Iowa at Notre Dame game most likely led to this season ending rivalry game ending after 1969 and thereafter being replaced on Iowa's schedule by Iowa State. Ugh, Iowa State.
The major poll selections of Maryland are understandable, as those polls didn't count bowl games, and Maryland was 10-0 when they voted (though Maryland had not played a single team that was rated in the final AP poll). The selection of Oklahoma by the College Football Researchers Association, on the other hand, is a real head-scratcher, given that Notre Dame had a better record and defeated Oklahoma in Norman. And in addition to the head-to-head result, Notre Dame's tie came to 5-3-1 Iowa, rated #9, while Oklahoma's tie came to 3-5-1 Pittsburgh, a team Notre Dame beat 23-14 the next week. Oklahoma had 4 close wins (touchdown or less), and Notre Dame had 1. The fact is, Oklahoma is a simply awful selection as 1953 MNC, an embarrassment for the CFRA.
I don't, so I do not consider Oklahoma 1950 to be a national champion, mythical or otherwise. But who is?Nope.
The #2 team was Army, 8-0 at the time of the last poll, but the AP poll didn't just end before the bowl games, it ended before the regular season was even over, and Army was upset by 3-6 Navy a week after the poll ended, finishing them at 8-1. The #3 team was 9-2 Texas, but they lost to Oklahoma during the regular season, and they lost to 11-1 Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl.
11-1 Tennessee, who was #4, is therefore our rightful national champion of the 1950 season. They took an upset loss to 4-5 Mississippi State early in the season, but they bounced back with 4 wins over AP-rated teams, more than anyone else attained this season. The biggest win came 7-0 over 11-1 Kentucky, as Kentucky gave #1 Oklahoma their only loss in the Sugar Bowl. Tennessee's victory over #3 Texas in the Cotton Bowl was just icing on the cake.
1) Oklahoma 10-0 | -- |
2) Iowa 9-1 | +1 |
3) Texas A&M 9-0-1 | +2 |
4) Baylor 9-2 | +7 |
5) Tennessee 10-1 | -3 |
6) Georgia Tech 10-1 | -2 |
7) Minnesota 6-1-2 | +5 |
8) Michigan 7-2 | -1 |
9) Michigan State 7-2 | -- |
10) Pittsburgh 7-3-1 | +3 |
11) Miami (Florida) 8-1-1 | -5 |
12) Texas Christian 8-3 | +2 |
13) Syracuse 7-2 | -5 |
14) Army 5-3-1 | IN |
15) Penn State 6-2-1 | IN |
16) Ohio State 6-3 | -1 |
17) Oregon State 7-3-1 | -7 |
18) Southern Cal 8-2 | -- |
19) UCLA 7-3 | IN |
20) Navy 6-1-2 | -4 |
21) Oregon 4-4-2 | IN |
22) Colorado 8-2-1 | -2 |
23) Clemson 7-2-2 | -4 |
24) Florida 6-3-1 | IN |
25) Auburn 7-3 | IN |
You think Army didn't "go all out" because the final poll was done?This phrasing makes it seem like they didn't try. Yes, they tried. Yes, they did their assignments and played to their ability level.
Who was the worst team in each major conference over the span of that decade?That would be tough to answer I think. We'd need The Bobs. Auburn was 0-10 in 1950, so they are off to a good start.
Neither UCLA nor OU played in a bowl game that year ....It seems that for awhile the then-Big 7 had a rule against teams repeating bowl trips. Or maybe it was just when the trip was to the Orange Bowl. OU went 10-0 in 1950 and went to the Sugar Bowl, losing to Kentucky. In 1951, OU went 8-2, was undisputed conference champ, and stayed home. In 1952, OU went 8-1-1, was undisputed conference champ, and stayed home again. In 1953, OU went 8-1-1, undisputed conference champ, and went to the Orange Bowl, beating Syracuse. In 1954, OU went 10-0 and stayed home. In 1955, OU went 10-0 and went to the Orange Bowl, beating Maryland. In 1956, OU went 10-0 and stayed home. In 1967, OU went 9-1, undisputed conference champ, and went to the Orange Bowl, beating Duke.
This phrasing makes it seem like they didn't try. Yes, they tried. Yes, they did their assignments and played to their ability level.You might have a good argument for other games, but this was Army-Navy. While I wouldn't say it is as rabid as Ohio State-Michigan, there is no way that Army would not have been slobbering, panicked, adrenaline, snot-bubble, wolves-are-chasing-me trying anytime they play Navy.
But there's trying and there's slobbering, panicked, adrenaline, snot-bubble, wolves-are-chasing-me trying...and teams tend not to do that when everything isn't on the line.
.
And every time I suggest it, it's refuted, and I'll keep on suggesting it.
1) Syracuse 11-0 | -- |
2) Mississippi 10-1 | -- |
3) Louisiana State 9-2 | -- |
4) Texas 9-2 | -- |
5) Georgia 10-1 | -- |
6) Washington 10-1 | +2 |
7) Arkansas 9-2 | +2 |
8) Texas Christian 8-3 | -1 |
9) Clemson 9-2 | +2 |
10) Penn State 9-2 | +2 |
11) Alabama 7-2-2 | -1 |
12) Southern Cal 8-2 | +2 |
13) Pittsburgh 6-4 | +7 |
14) Auburn 7-3 | IN |
15) Georgia Tech 6-5 | IN |
16) Wyoming 9-1 | -- |
17) UCLA 5-4-1 | IN |
18) Purdue 5-2-2 | IN |
19) Wisconsin 7-3 | -13 |
20) Illinois 5-3-1 | -7 |
21) Northwestern 6-3 | IN |
22) Notre Dame 5-5 | -5 |
23) Iowa 5-4 | IN |
24) Oklahoma 7-3 | -9 |
25) Tennessee 5-4-1 | IN |
14) Florida 6-4-1I should check this, but teams back then may not have played 3 pastries out of their ten games. A mediocre team today can beat 3 pastries OOC and win say 5 conference games against weaker opponents and finish 8-4 and perhaps be ranked with a bowl win. Take 2 pastries out and they are 6-4.
22) Notre Dame 5-5
must have been some tough schedules and close explainable losses
1959-Notre Dame (Independent) | |||||
9/26 | vs. | North Carolina (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/NorthCarolina.htm#1959) (5-5) | W | 28 | 8 |
10/3 | @ | Purdue (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Purdue.htm#1959) (5-2-2) | L | 7 | 28 |
10/10 | @ | California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/California.htm#1959) (2-8) | W | 28 | 6 |
10/17 | @ | Michigan State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/MichiganState.htm#1959) (5-4) | L | 0 | 19 |
10/24 | vs. | Northwestern (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Northwestern.htm#1959) (6-3) | L | 24 | 30 |
10/31 | vs. | Navy (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Navy.htm#1959) (5-4-1) | W | 25 | 22 |
11/7 | vs. | Georgia Tech (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/GeorgiaTech.htm#1959) (6-5) | L | 10 | 14 |
11/14 | @ | Pittsburgh (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Pittsburgh.htm#1959) (6-4) | L | 13 | 28 |
11/21 | @ | Iowa (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Iowa.htm#1959) (5-4) | W | 20 | 19 |
11/28 | vs. | Southern California (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/SouthernCalifornia.htm#1959) (8-2) | W | 16 | 6 |
5-5-0 | 171 | 180 |
1959-Florida (SEC) | ||||||
9/18 | @ | *Tulane (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Tulane.htm#1959) (3-6-1) | W | 30 | 0 | |
9/26 | vs. | *Mississippi State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/MississippiState.htm#1959) (2-7) | W | 14 | 13 | |
10/3 | vs. | Virginia (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Virginia.htm#1959) (0-10) | W | 55 | 10 | |
10/10 | @ | Rice (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Rice.htm#1959) (1-7-2) | T | 13 | 13 | |
10/17 | @ | *Vanderbilt (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Vanderbilt.htm#1959) (5-3-2) | L | 6 | 13 | |
10/24 | vs. | *Louisiana State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/LouisianaState.htm#1959) (9-2) | L | 0 | 9 | |
10/31 | @ | *Auburn (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Auburn.htm#1959) (7-3) | L | 0 | 6 | |
11/7 | vs. | *Georgia (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Georgia.htm#1959) (10-1) | L | 10 | 21 | @ Jacksonville, FL |
11/21 | vs. | Florida State (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/FloridaState.htm#1959) (4-6) | W | 18 | 8 | |
11/28 | vs. | Miami (Florida) (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Miami(Florida).htm#1959) (6-4) | W | 23 | 14 | @ Jacksonville, FL |
5-4-1 | 169 | 107 |
40's and 50's were the Husker's two toughest decadesIt is interesting to me that the 1950's were a rough decade for nearly all of the schools that we consider "helmet" schools today. Looking at the list, the helmets (correct me if I miss any or include too many):
don't fret, the 60's are up next and the arrival of the BobFather!!!
Top-25 by winning percentage for the decade:Has there ever been a decade with one team so dominant as was the case in the '50s?
- .89524 Oklahoma 93-10-2
- .79348 Miami, OH 72-18-2
- .77830 Ole Miss 80-21-5
- .76630 MSU 70-21-1
- .75000 Princeton 67-22-1
- .74020 ASU 74-25-3
- .73874 GaTech 79-26-6
- .73762 Wyoming 72-24-5
- .72872 CentMI 68-25-1
- .72596 SoMiss 75-28-1
- .71649 UCLA 68-26-3
- .71196 tOSU 63-24-5
- .69159 Tenn 72-31-4
- .68085 PSU 62-28-4
- .67895 LaTech 62-28-5
- .67822 Maryland 67-31-3
- .67742 Cuse 62-29-2
- .67222 Army 58-27-5
- .66832 Cincy 64-30-7
- .66667 NotreDame 64-31-4
- .65842 Clemson 64-32-5
- .65761 Wisconsin 57-28-7
- .65000 Kent 57-30-3
- .64356 Colorado 62-33-6
- .64216 Dook 62-33-7
Some conspicuous absences from the top-25:
- #32 Texas .625, 64-38-2
- #36 USC .60784, 60-38-4
- #40 Michigan .58791, 52-36-3
- #67 Bama .50926, 50-48-10
- #108 Nebraska .40500, 39-58-3
I think you'd have to go back to maybe 1900 to see something comparable. Maybe.Well, the data is there, but who wants to do all the arithmetic?
https://cfbalmanac.com/michigan-1900-1909-football-schedules-and-scores/ (https://cfbalmanac.com/michigan-1900-1909-football-schedules-and-scores/)
Has there ever been a decade with one team so dominant as was the case in the '50s?This stuff is interesting to me.
I suspect that there have been some teams with better decades than Oklahoma in the '50s, but there were other teams having really good stretches at the same time. Nobody else in the '50s is within 10 percentage points of Oklahoma. Granted, the Big Seven wasn't the toughest conference in all the land.
This stuff is interesting to me.It's a little clearer if you take it year by year.
I find it interesting how much Oklahoma bounces around. They were #1 by a mile in the '50's and #1 again in the '70's but in between they were decidedly mediocre in the '60's.
I also find it interesting that the '70's were REALLY good for pretty much all of the Helmet teams.
It's a little clearer if you take it year by year.One of my plans for this off-season was to do a 10-year rolling winning percentage chart for at least all of the helmets (maybe Mandel's Kings and Barons) to look at this in more detail. Just using decades can be highly misleading because if a team was REALLY good from say 1955-1965 and REALLY bad in the early 1950's and late 1960's then the 50's and 60's are going going to look mediocre when in fact that team wasn't mediocre for those 10 years they were REALLY good in the middle and bad outside of that.
Oklahoma was good out of the blocks post-WWII, and was a team that could have been named national champs (at 11-0) in 1949.
Starting with the 10-1 1948 team, it had its greatest stretch ever going through the '58 (10-1) season. 107-8-2 over that 11-year stretch. But the Wilkinson magic faded (not just coincidentally as Bud's former player Darrell Royal really got it going in Austin) and Bud finished 7-3, 3-6-1, 5-5, 8-3, 8-2. That went through the '63 season. Bud's successor was long-time assistant poor old Gomer Jones, who went 9-11-1 over two years. The rest of the '60s were "OK," but just that, with the exception of the overachieving '67 team that was 3 missed FGs against Texas in a 9-7 loss from being undefeated and possibly national champs. Then seasons of 7-4 and 6-4 closed out the '60s.
Then, in 1970, in the bye week before the RRS, OU installed Texas' wishbone offense (only emphasizing more speed and less power) and ended up with a 7-4-1 season and momentum. Then they ripped off a great decade, with Barry Switzer taking over from Chuck Fairbanks for the '73 season. 11-1, 11-1, 10-0-1, 11-0, 11-1, 9-2-1, 10-2, 11-1, 11-1, with 2 MNCs in there. (Bama had a lower winning percentage, but won 3 MNCs, over the same period.) The '80s were a down-up-down decade. Subpar recruiting led to a 10-2, 7-4-1, 8-4, 8-4 start. Then, '85 through '87, they went 33-3 with an MNC in '85 and losing to Miami in the '87 MNC game. But then a decline at the end, 9-3, Switzer getting forced out, and closing out with 7-4 under Gary Gibbs in '89. The '90s then made the '60s look like a roaring success story. 8-3, 9-3, 5-4-2, 9-3, 6-6, and Gibbs getting fired. A 5-5-1 season under Howard Smellsofbourbon, and then the worst 3-year span in the program's history under John Blake, 3-8, 4-8, 5-6. Bob Stoops' first year, at 7-5, closed out the decade. 2000 brought 13-0 and an NC, and another nice run--albeit with disappointing performances in NC games--from that point through the 2019 season.
So, up at the end of the '40s, down at the end of the '50s carrying into the mid-1960s, a one-year spike, then back to mediocrity for the rest of the decade, then a great decade in the '70s, a good decade in the '80s, a lousy decade in the '90s, a great start to the '00s, and a good run since then.
Maybe the 1970s was the decade where the current Helmet Teams were "cemented" into modernity? Teams that did well in that decade became HTs???I don't know.
As noted Ohio State and Oklahoma and Texas were nothing remarkable until 1950 or so. The list of HT Programs evolves, slowly. It would be interesting to contrive such a list by decade, starting say in 1910. You might see a list including UM but also Yale and Vandy and Princeton back then, not sure.
One of my plans for this off-season was to do a 10-year rolling winning percentage chart for at least all of the helmets (maybe Mandel's Kings and Barons) to look at this in more detail. Just using decades can be highly misleading because if a team was REALLY good from say 1955-1965 and REALLY bad in the early 1950's and late 1960's then the 50's and 60's are going going to look mediocre when in fact that team wasn't mediocre for those 10 years they were REALLY good in the middle and bad outside of that.Seems like the old College Football Data Warehouse may have had that feature. Maybe a rolling 25-year average too.
Seems like the old College Football Data Warehouse may have had that feature. Maybe a rolling 25-year average too.I can get the data keyed in at least for the Helmets and maybe the semi-helmets. Once I get it keyed in, I could switch from 10-year rolling winning percentage to 25-year rolling winning percentage pretty easily.
Alas, it is no more!
I can get the data keyed in at least for the Helmets and maybe the semi-helmets. Once I get it keyed in, I could switch from 10-year rolling winning percentage to 25-year rolling winning percentage pretty easily.I think your reasoning on what you are doing is solid, Medina.
The main shortcoming to me doing it is that it would be limited to ONLY those schools that I chose to include. Ie, I'm not keying in every single college football program that ever existed. I'm just not.
My thought was to do it for every school that has a case to be a "helmet". Ie, using Stewart Mandel's Kings, Barons, Knights, and Peasants I'd include every school that had been listed as a King on any of Mandel's lists:
- Alabama (all three lists)
- Florida (3)
- FSU (3)
- Miami (3)
- Michigan (3)
- Notre Dame (3)
- Ohio State (3)
- Oklahoma (3)
- Penn State (3)
- Texas (3)
- USC (3)
- Tennessee (2, 2017 deletion)
- Nebraska (2, 2017 deletion)
- LSU (2, 2012 addition)
- Clemson (1, 2017 addition)
Of the schools included on all three of Mandel's lists (2007 (https://www.si.com/college/2007/08/08/program-pecking-order-bcs-teams-hierarchy), 2012 (https://www.si.com/college/2012/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag), 2017 (https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-program-pecking-order-3-0-dividing-all-66-bcs-teams-into-four-tier-hierarchy-052517)) I think the three most frequently questioned are the three Florida Schools. Florida, Florida State, and Miami have been very good for quite some time now but there are still plenty of living fans who can remember when UF, FSU, and Miami were not nationally relevant. Then there are the four that Mandel added or deleted:
- Tennessee: I think they are somewhat of a borderline helmet. They have a lot of great history but this is a REALLY strong group and when you compare Tennessee to the other "Kings" they tend to fall near the bottom in most metrics.
- Nebraska: When Mandel took Nebraska off of his list of Helmets in 2017 he said this: "I’m 41 years old. In my teens, 20s and early-to-mid 30s, you could never have convinced me Nebraska would one day be viewed as anything less than college football royalty. But today’s recruits were not even born the last time the Huskers won even a conference championship, in 1999, much less Tom Osborne’s three national titles in four years from 1994-97." I'm almost exactly his age and I feel much the same. Nebraska's run from 1962-2003 under Devaney, Osborne, and Solich was incredible. For those ~4 decades they were among the top two or three on nearly any metric you could choose to rate programs. The problem is that they also have a lot of decidedly mediocre performance outside of those ~4 decades and it has been a REALLY long time since Nebraska has looked like a true helmet.
- LSU: Their NC this year makes Mandel look pretty smart for including them back in 2017 but I still have my doubts. LSU isn't up with the rest of this group on most long-term comparisons. If they keep performing at their current level then they'll be an obvious helmet eventually but if they sink back to mediocrity . . .
- Clemson: I strongly disagree with this decision. Clemson has been phenomenal over the past decade or so but their overall history is simply nowhere close to most of the rest of the helmets. Maybe this is their new normal and they are a helmet but it is also possible that many years from now Clemson fans will still be looking back wishing they could have this back. We'll see.
I think I dropped Nebraska into the near helmet group myself inadvertently. I think USC should be on the fence also, teetering.That's why I'm pissed that we haven't scheduled a series with the Trojans. First, we owe them some payback and, second, if we're going to play a series with some lousy-ass southern California team, why don't we make it USC instead of UCLA?
The current "Three Kings" are Bama, Clemson, and Ohio State, I think. Oklahoma could be fourth. Those three seem to be 1, 2, 3 in some order each preseason, and fairly often post season.
I suspect for most of us if we woke up and learned we signed for an H&A series with any of them, we'd think "Whoa.".
If you signed with USC, you might think "Cool, we'll probably be able to beat them twice and get some luster.".
Yeah, I think the Dawgs have a series with Cal or UCLA, I can't even remember and don't care. Meh. If we had one with USC I'd remember.That right there is why they are a helmet.
friggin youngsters - 41 years oldWell, that was a few years ago.
That right there is why they are a helmet.Egg-zackly!
If your team beat a 5-7 USC you'd be more excited than if they beat an 8-4 Cal/UCLA.