AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Minnesota: 8-0-0 -- None
2. Duke: 9-1-0 -- L, Rose, 16-20
3. Notre Dame: 8-0-1 -- None
4. Texas: 8-1-1 -- None
5. Michigan: 6-1-1 -- None
6. Fordham: 8-1-0 -- W, Sugar, 2-0
7. Missouri: 8-2-0 -- L, Sugar, 0-2
8. Duquesne: 8-0-0 -- None
9. Texas A&M: 9-2-0 -- L, Cotton, 21-29
10. Navy: 7-1-1 -- None
Okay, this is an interesting year, to be sure.
Let's start with Duke, simply because they should have won this walking away. They were undefeated in the regular season, which only Minnesota and Duquesne could match. They were playing in a bowl game, which neither Minnesota nor Duquesne were doing. AND? They had the bowl game AT HOME, since Pearl Harbor forced the Rose Bowl out of California for the only time in history.
So what did the Dookies do? They lost. Id0ts.
So this really just leaves us with three options, since all the bowl winners had at least one loss while we have three unbeaten teams who didn't play in bowl games: Minnesota, Notre Dame and Duquesne.
Just for fun, let's look at Duquesne first so we can eliminate them right away. Or maybe not? The Dukes beat #16 Mississippi State to close out their regular season, and they shut them out, 16-0. MSU was the SEC champion in 1941, so you know the Dukes were for real. They also beat St. Mary's on the road, and while this wasn't St. Mary's best season at all (5-4-0), it was a big road win. But that's it for the schedule. Is that 16-0 win over the SEC champion enough to give Duquesne the McMNC?
Stay tuned.
Notre Dame was 8-0-1, and their schedule was so-so. They beat unranked Arizona and Indiana, they had a 20-point shutout win at 3-6-0 Georgia Tech, and the Irish had 16-0 win at 0-3-0 Carnegie Tech. Not exactly "big" wins. They hammered 2-6-0 Illinois by 35 points, they tied 5-3-1 Army in a scoreless game, they beat #10 Navy on the road by a TD, and they edged #11 Northwestern (5-3-0) by a point on the road (7-6). Finally, they closed with a two-point win over USC at home, but the Trojans were only 2-6-1 in 1941. Overall, this is a mixed bag and not very impressive on the whole: close wins over good teams, big wins over bad teams, a strange tie and a close win over a bad team in a big rivalry game.
They have more "big" wins than Duquesne, however, so the Dukes are out of the discussion, leaving us with just Minnesota -- and I've already deprived the Golden Gophers of two MNCs.
First, Minnesota's record is unblemished, while Notre Dame has that one tie. So that works in Minnesota's favor. The Gophers beat Illinois, too, by 28 points at home. That's a wash, for all intents and purposes. Minnesota beat #5 Michigan by a TD on the road, and they beat #11 Northwestern at home by a point. All other wins were over losing teams, save their season-opening, 14-8 win on the road against Washington (5-4-0). The Northwestern win is a wash with Notre Dame's, leaving us to judge the win over Michigan versus Notre Dame's win over Navy. Both wins were on the road by the same margin, so Minnesota gets the edge because Michigan was better than Navy.
Throw in Notre Dame's tie and mediocre win over USC, and you have the Minnesota Golden Gophers winning their first McMNC.
McMNC Revisions
1. Minnesota
2. Notre Dame
3. Duquesne
4. Duke
5. Fordham
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Stanford: +1940
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Texas A&M: =1939
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
TCU: -1938
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
1940 McMNC: Stanford Indians
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Minnesota: 8-0-0 -- None
2. Stanford: 10-0-0 -- W, Rose, 21-13
3. Michigan: 7-1-0 -- None
4. Tennessee: 10-1-0 -- L, Sugar, 13-19
5. Boston College: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 19-13
6. Texas A&M: 9-1-0 -- W, Cotton, 13-12
7. Nebraska: 8-2-0 -- L, Rose, 13-21
8. Northwestern: 6-2-0 -- None
9. Mississippi State: 10-0-1 -- W, Orange, 14-7
10. Washington: 7-2-0 -- None
This is a tricky season to dissect, for several reasons. You have a Big Ten champ which went undefeated, but didn't play in a bowl game. You have a PCC champ which went undefeated and won the Rose Bowl. You have an independent which went undefeated and won the Sugar Bowl. And you have an SEC champ who didn't lose a game while winning the Orange Bowl. That's four teams with a legitimate claim to the McMNC.
Oh, we need a playoff, don't we?
Minnesota, Stanford, Boston College and Mississippi State all have claim here, but we need to pick them apart. Where to start?
It sucks for Minnesota, but again, they didn't have to lay it on the line in a bowl game while the other three teams did so successfully. And a fifth team (Tennessee) laid their perfect record on the line, only to lose in their bowl game. So, Minnesota is out. I'm sorry to do this to the Golden Gophers again, but reality is that it's more impressive to play a bowl game with everything on the line than it is to stay at home and rest on your laurels.
It sucks for Mississippi State, too, because they didn't win their conference. Tennessee, with a 5-0 conference record, won the SEC. The two teams didn't play, of course, which highlights the problem with unbalanced schedules (again), but that's the way it is (and it sucks for the Bulldogs). MSU went 4-0-1 in league play, tying a 6-4-1 Auburn team on the road, and that tie cost them a shot at the McMNC. Bummer.
Interesting side note: clearly, the AP voters didn't think much of the SEC in 1940, since a one-loss Michigan team was ranked higher than the undefeated SEC champion. For the record, Minnesota beat both Michigan and Northwestern by a single point each in 1940, so the Western Conference (precursor to the Big Ten) looked good to AP voters.
But I digress again.
That leaves us with Stanford and Boston College as finalists here. Both went undefeated, so which team had the "better" bowl win? Stanford beat the one-loss Big Six champion Nebraska by eight points, while BC beat the undefeated SEC champion Tennessee by six points. Nebraska's only loss was by six points on the road to Minnesota, actually. So in the voters' eyes, that was a good team. Not as good as Michigan and its one-point road loss to the Gophers, of course, but five points isn't much difference here between #3 Michigan and #7 Nebraska. Yet AP voters put Tennessee somewhere in the middle of those five points. Interesting, eh? The bowl wins might be a draw, or at least inconclusive at best.
So schedules: Stanford won the PCC, while BC was an independent. There are some interesting notes on Boston College's schedule. To wit, the only ranked team BC beat in the regular season was #13 Georgetown (don't laugh). The score? 19-18, in Chestnut Hill. That one-point home win for BC gave them a eight-spot advantage in the final AP poll over the Hoyas, which doesn't jibe with the Minnesota-Michigan voter pattern at all. So something is amiss. BC did beat two SEC teams, Tulane (27-7 on the road) and Auburn (33-7 at home), convincingly. SEC champion Tennessee played neither team in 1940, but clearly, BC was the SEC champion in 1940, beating these three teams by a combined 52 points (ouch). As noted, Mississippi State tied Auburn, so clearly, the SEC wasn't perceived very well in this season. So BC's schedule, including their win over Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl? Eh. By the way, BC played eight home games in the regular season, and one of the road games was at Boston University. Talk about a cushy schedule! Tulane was their only real road trip.
Stanford beat two ranked teams in 1940: they beat #10 Washington at home, 20-10, and they beat #11 Santa Clara (6-1-1) at home, 7-6. Throw in the Rose Bowl win over one-loss Nebraska, and despite not really dominating anyone, Stanford still has a scheduling edge on Boston College. BC beat #4 and #13, while Stanford beat #7, #10 and #11. It's not a big edge, but it's what we have so far. The problem here, and we'll see this many times, is you have a conference champ against an independent school. Stanford went 7-0 against the PCC, and their two OOC opponents were locals: Santa Clara and San Francisco. The Dons were terrible, but the Broncos were ranked #11.
In the end, Boston College's schedule is weaker, simply because they stayed at home for most of it, and the schedule featured teams like Centre College (1-4), St. Anselm (2-2) and Manhattan (3-6) -- not to mention BU (1-2) and Holy Cross (4-5-1). Half of BC's wins were against these teams, some of which didn't even play full schedules. That's like playing high school teams! Throw in a 60-0 win over Idaho, the PCC doormat in 1940, and you have a really weak schedule. Just for comparative sake, Oregon State beat Idaho, 41-0, and Stanford beat Oregon State, 28-14. Since Idaho had to travel by train to Boston to play the Golden Eagles, well ... you can see what kind of schedule BC had in 1940: weak. With cream puffs filling 60% of the regular season schedule, also-ran SEC teams teams filling 20% of the schedule and 85% of the schedule at home, Boston College really should have won all its games in 1940! The only good team BC did play may have been Georgetown, and a one-point home win is not that convincing.
So Stanford wins the 1940 McMNC ... Who knew? Because after all, Stanford sucks.
McMNC Revisions
1. Stanford
2. Boston College
3. Minnesota
4. Mississippi State
5. Texas A&M
6. Tennessee
7. Michigan
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Stanford: +1940
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Texas A&M: =1939
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
TCU: -1938
Minnesota: -1936, -1940
1. Minnesota: 8-0-0 -- None
2. Stanford: 10-0-0 -- W, Rose, 21-13
3. Michigan: 7-1-0 -- None
4. Tennessee: 10-1-0 -- L, Sugar, 13-19
5. Boston College: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 19-13
6. Texas A&M: 9-1-0 -- W, Cotton, 13-12
7. Nebraska: 8-2-0 -- L, Rose, 13-21
8. Northwestern: 6-2-0 -- None
9. Mississippi State: 10-0-1 -- W, Orange, 14-7
10. Washington: 7-2-0 -- None
This is a tricky season to dissect, for several reasons. You have a Big Ten champ which went undefeated, but didn't play in a bowl game. You have a PCC champ which went undefeated and won the Rose Bowl. You have an independent which went undefeated and won the Sugar Bowl. And you have an SEC champ who didn't lose a game while winning the Orange Bowl. That's four teams with a legitimate claim to the McMNC.
Oh, we need a playoff, don't we?
Minnesota, Stanford, Boston College and Mississippi State all have claim here, but we need to pick them apart. Where to start?
It sucks for Minnesota, but again, they didn't have to lay it on the line in a bowl game while the other three teams did so successfully. And a fifth team (Tennessee) laid their perfect record on the line, only to lose in their bowl game. So, Minnesota is out. I'm sorry to do this to the Golden Gophers again, but reality is that it's more impressive to play a bowl game with everything on the line than it is to stay at home and rest on your laurels.
It sucks for Mississippi State, too, because they didn't win their conference. Tennessee, with a 5-0 conference record, won the SEC. The two teams didn't play, of course, which highlights the problem with unbalanced schedules (again), but that's the way it is (and it sucks for the Bulldogs). MSU went 4-0-1 in league play, tying a 6-4-1 Auburn team on the road, and that tie cost them a shot at the McMNC. Bummer.
Interesting side note: clearly, the AP voters didn't think much of the SEC in 1940, since a one-loss Michigan team was ranked higher than the undefeated SEC champion. For the record, Minnesota beat both Michigan and Northwestern by a single point each in 1940, so the Western Conference (precursor to the Big Ten) looked good to AP voters.
But I digress again.
That leaves us with Stanford and Boston College as finalists here. Both went undefeated, so which team had the "better" bowl win? Stanford beat the one-loss Big Six champion Nebraska by eight points, while BC beat the undefeated SEC champion Tennessee by six points. Nebraska's only loss was by six points on the road to Minnesota, actually. So in the voters' eyes, that was a good team. Not as good as Michigan and its one-point road loss to the Gophers, of course, but five points isn't much difference here between #3 Michigan and #7 Nebraska. Yet AP voters put Tennessee somewhere in the middle of those five points. Interesting, eh? The bowl wins might be a draw, or at least inconclusive at best.
So schedules: Stanford won the PCC, while BC was an independent. There are some interesting notes on Boston College's schedule. To wit, the only ranked team BC beat in the regular season was #13 Georgetown (don't laugh). The score? 19-18, in Chestnut Hill. That one-point home win for BC gave them a eight-spot advantage in the final AP poll over the Hoyas, which doesn't jibe with the Minnesota-Michigan voter pattern at all. So something is amiss. BC did beat two SEC teams, Tulane (27-7 on the road) and Auburn (33-7 at home), convincingly. SEC champion Tennessee played neither team in 1940, but clearly, BC was the SEC champion in 1940, beating these three teams by a combined 52 points (ouch). As noted, Mississippi State tied Auburn, so clearly, the SEC wasn't perceived very well in this season. So BC's schedule, including their win over Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl? Eh. By the way, BC played eight home games in the regular season, and one of the road games was at Boston University. Talk about a cushy schedule! Tulane was their only real road trip.
Stanford beat two ranked teams in 1940: they beat #10 Washington at home, 20-10, and they beat #11 Santa Clara (6-1-1) at home, 7-6. Throw in the Rose Bowl win over one-loss Nebraska, and despite not really dominating anyone, Stanford still has a scheduling edge on Boston College. BC beat #4 and #13, while Stanford beat #7, #10 and #11. It's not a big edge, but it's what we have so far. The problem here, and we'll see this many times, is you have a conference champ against an independent school. Stanford went 7-0 against the PCC, and their two OOC opponents were locals: Santa Clara and San Francisco. The Dons were terrible, but the Broncos were ranked #11.
In the end, Boston College's schedule is weaker, simply because they stayed at home for most of it, and the schedule featured teams like Centre College (1-4), St. Anselm (2-2) and Manhattan (3-6) -- not to mention BU (1-2) and Holy Cross (4-5-1). Half of BC's wins were against these teams, some of which didn't even play full schedules. That's like playing high school teams! Throw in a 60-0 win over Idaho, the PCC doormat in 1940, and you have a really weak schedule. Just for comparative sake, Oregon State beat Idaho, 41-0, and Stanford beat Oregon State, 28-14. Since Idaho had to travel by train to Boston to play the Golden Eagles, well ... you can see what kind of schedule BC had in 1940: weak. With cream puffs filling 60% of the regular season schedule, also-ran SEC teams teams filling 20% of the schedule and 85% of the schedule at home, Boston College really should have won all its games in 1940! The only good team BC did play may have been Georgetown, and a one-point home win is not that convincing.
So Stanford wins the 1940 McMNC ... Who knew? Because after all, Stanford sucks.
McMNC Revisions
1. Stanford
2. Boston College
3. Minnesota
4. Mississippi State
5. Texas A&M
6. Tennessee
7. Michigan
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Stanford: +1940
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Texas A&M: =1939
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
TCU: -1938
Minnesota: -1936, -1940
Thursday, January 24, 2008
1939 McMNC: Texas A&M Aggies
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Texas A&M: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 14-13
2. Tennessee: 10-1-0 -- L, Rose, 0-14
3. USC: 8-0-2 -- W, Rose, 14-0
4. Cornell: 8-0-0 -- None
5. Tulane: 8-1-1 -- L, Sugar, 13-14
6. Missouri: 8-2-0 -- L, Orange, 7-21
7. UCLA: 6-0-4 -- None
8. Duke: 8-1-0 -- None
9. Iowa: 6-1-1 -- None
10. Duquesne: 8-0-1 -- None
I find it amusing that Duquesne finished in the Top 10. But hey, it was 1939, right?
By the usual standards, this is a debate (perhaps) between Texas A&M and USC. Both teams won their bowl games; both teams finished without a loss. On the surface, the Aggies' 11-0 finish should trump USC's 8-0-2 finish, because wins are always better than ties. But USC had a significantly better bowl win, which is the primary reason this is even open for debate in my mind. Whitewashing the defending (and undefeated) McMNC champion in the Rose Bowl is huge, especially when considering A&M barely beat Tulane, a "lesser" SEC team, in the Sugar Bowl.
So let's peruse.
First, Tennessee (6-0), Georgia Tech (6-0) and Tulane (5-0) were all credited as the SEC champions in 1939. Incidentally, Georgia Tech finished 8-2 with a dominating Orange Bowl win over Missouri. Tulane was 8-0-1 before losing to Texas A&M in the Sugar Bowl, and Tennessee was undefeated before losing to the USC in the Rose Bowl. Overall, you would think that's a pretty strong conference, but clearly, the three teams didn't play each other so we really don't know much except the two teams which won their OOC games in the regular season also lost their OOC bowl games. Perhaps it was weak overall, with some bullies who couldn't hack it outside the neighborhood. So it's hard to tell which SEC opponent was "tougher" for A&M and USC. But the Trojans pounded their SEC champion, while the Aggies squeaked by theirs.
The Southwest Conference doesn't appear to be very good in 1939, as no other SWC team made the Top 20. So who else did A&M play in 1939? The Aggies did beat #14 Santa Clara on the road, 7-3 (the Broncos finished 5-1-3). And the only time all season they gave up more than seven points was in the bowl win over Tulane; in fact, they had six shutouts on the season. Impressive, but the narrow win in the Sugar Bowl leaves an opening for USC, since A&M's schedule was average, at best, with the two wins over ranked teams by a combined five points.
USC was co-champion of the PCC with a 5-0-2 conference record, while UCLA was 5-0-3 in league play (don't ask about the strange scheduling, because I don't know). USC tied Oregon at home in the season opener, 7-7, and the UCLA game finished in a 0-0 tie (the Bruins were the home team, although that hardly matters). UCLA finished #7 in the AP Poll, and USC also beat #13 Notre Dame on the road, 20-12. Add in USC's dominant win over #2 Tennessee in the Rose Bowl, and they get closer to A&M, winning two games over ranked teams by a combined 22 points and tying a third top team on the "road". Also, USC finished the season with six shutouts, too, including that bowl shutout of undefeated Tennessee and the 0-0 tie with UCLA (hard to qualify a scoreless tie as a shutout, but it technically is a shutout).
This could come down to a judgment call, based on subjective bias. I have two thoughts left: 1) An attempt at comparative scores; 2) Performance in the two seasons bookending this one.
In the first avenue, USC beat Stanford 33-0 at home; Stanford lost to Santa Clara, 27-7, at home; Texas A&M beat Santa Clara on the road, 7-3, as noted above. Can we learn anything from these scores? Not really, but it's what we have. On the road, we can assume the Trojans would still beat Stanford by about 30 points, and at home, Santa Clara would beat Stanford by about 23 points. That's a seven-point difference for USC over Santa Clara on a neutral field. So A&M would beat Santa Clara by about seven points at home? Maybe, what this all says is that Texas A&M and USC were pretty close in quality, and it's splitting hairs to choose one of them.
The second concept is sketchy, since rosters and schedules and other teams (!) change, but let's examine it anyway: in 1938, USC was 9-2-0 with a Rose Bowl win and a #7 AP ranking, while A&M was 4-4-1. Edge? USC. In 1940, A&M was 9-1-0 with a Cotton Bowl win and a #6 AP ranking, while USC was 3-4-2. Edge? A&M. So that's a wash (and maybe that's a good thing, because it's dicey logic).
In the end, USC played a slightly tougher schedule with more dominating results, but they had the two ties. A&M won all its games, albeit against lesser teams and by slightly less-dominant margins. It depends on your point-of-view, but there's one last piece of evidence to consider.
Oregon.
The Ducks were only 3-4-1 on the season, and for USC to tie them is just not McMNC-worthy. The Ducks only beat Stanford, 10-0, as well, so Oregon was clearly an inferior team. USC should have beaten them, period. If USC had beaten Oregon to finish 9-0-1, I would be inclined to choose them as my McMNC for 1939, but they didn't. They tied a weak Ducks team at home. Like the 2007 loss to Stanford at home, you just can't excuse the Trojans for that transgression.
So Texas A&M gets to keep its 1939 MNC; the system worked this year, although it was pretty close in the end.
McMNC Revisions
1. Texas A&M
2. USC
3. Clemson (9-1-0, with a Cotton Bowl win)
4. Tennessee
5. Tulane
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Texas A&M: =1939
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
TCU: -1938
1. Texas A&M: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 14-13
2. Tennessee: 10-1-0 -- L, Rose, 0-14
3. USC: 8-0-2 -- W, Rose, 14-0
4. Cornell: 8-0-0 -- None
5. Tulane: 8-1-1 -- L, Sugar, 13-14
6. Missouri: 8-2-0 -- L, Orange, 7-21
7. UCLA: 6-0-4 -- None
8. Duke: 8-1-0 -- None
9. Iowa: 6-1-1 -- None
10. Duquesne: 8-0-1 -- None
I find it amusing that Duquesne finished in the Top 10. But hey, it was 1939, right?
By the usual standards, this is a debate (perhaps) between Texas A&M and USC. Both teams won their bowl games; both teams finished without a loss. On the surface, the Aggies' 11-0 finish should trump USC's 8-0-2 finish, because wins are always better than ties. But USC had a significantly better bowl win, which is the primary reason this is even open for debate in my mind. Whitewashing the defending (and undefeated) McMNC champion in the Rose Bowl is huge, especially when considering A&M barely beat Tulane, a "lesser" SEC team, in the Sugar Bowl.
So let's peruse.
First, Tennessee (6-0), Georgia Tech (6-0) and Tulane (5-0) were all credited as the SEC champions in 1939. Incidentally, Georgia Tech finished 8-2 with a dominating Orange Bowl win over Missouri. Tulane was 8-0-1 before losing to Texas A&M in the Sugar Bowl, and Tennessee was undefeated before losing to the USC in the Rose Bowl. Overall, you would think that's a pretty strong conference, but clearly, the three teams didn't play each other so we really don't know much except the two teams which won their OOC games in the regular season also lost their OOC bowl games. Perhaps it was weak overall, with some bullies who couldn't hack it outside the neighborhood. So it's hard to tell which SEC opponent was "tougher" for A&M and USC. But the Trojans pounded their SEC champion, while the Aggies squeaked by theirs.
The Southwest Conference doesn't appear to be very good in 1939, as no other SWC team made the Top 20. So who else did A&M play in 1939? The Aggies did beat #14 Santa Clara on the road, 7-3 (the Broncos finished 5-1-3). And the only time all season they gave up more than seven points was in the bowl win over Tulane; in fact, they had six shutouts on the season. Impressive, but the narrow win in the Sugar Bowl leaves an opening for USC, since A&M's schedule was average, at best, with the two wins over ranked teams by a combined five points.
USC was co-champion of the PCC with a 5-0-2 conference record, while UCLA was 5-0-3 in league play (don't ask about the strange scheduling, because I don't know). USC tied Oregon at home in the season opener, 7-7, and the UCLA game finished in a 0-0 tie (the Bruins were the home team, although that hardly matters). UCLA finished #7 in the AP Poll, and USC also beat #13 Notre Dame on the road, 20-12. Add in USC's dominant win over #2 Tennessee in the Rose Bowl, and they get closer to A&M, winning two games over ranked teams by a combined 22 points and tying a third top team on the "road". Also, USC finished the season with six shutouts, too, including that bowl shutout of undefeated Tennessee and the 0-0 tie with UCLA (hard to qualify a scoreless tie as a shutout, but it technically is a shutout).
This could come down to a judgment call, based on subjective bias. I have two thoughts left: 1) An attempt at comparative scores; 2) Performance in the two seasons bookending this one.
In the first avenue, USC beat Stanford 33-0 at home; Stanford lost to Santa Clara, 27-7, at home; Texas A&M beat Santa Clara on the road, 7-3, as noted above. Can we learn anything from these scores? Not really, but it's what we have. On the road, we can assume the Trojans would still beat Stanford by about 30 points, and at home, Santa Clara would beat Stanford by about 23 points. That's a seven-point difference for USC over Santa Clara on a neutral field. So A&M would beat Santa Clara by about seven points at home? Maybe, what this all says is that Texas A&M and USC were pretty close in quality, and it's splitting hairs to choose one of them.
The second concept is sketchy, since rosters and schedules and other teams (!) change, but let's examine it anyway: in 1938, USC was 9-2-0 with a Rose Bowl win and a #7 AP ranking, while A&M was 4-4-1. Edge? USC. In 1940, A&M was 9-1-0 with a Cotton Bowl win and a #6 AP ranking, while USC was 3-4-2. Edge? A&M. So that's a wash (and maybe that's a good thing, because it's dicey logic).
In the end, USC played a slightly tougher schedule with more dominating results, but they had the two ties. A&M won all its games, albeit against lesser teams and by slightly less-dominant margins. It depends on your point-of-view, but there's one last piece of evidence to consider.
Oregon.
The Ducks were only 3-4-1 on the season, and for USC to tie them is just not McMNC-worthy. The Ducks only beat Stanford, 10-0, as well, so Oregon was clearly an inferior team. USC should have beaten them, period. If USC had beaten Oregon to finish 9-0-1, I would be inclined to choose them as my McMNC for 1939, but they didn't. They tied a weak Ducks team at home. Like the 2007 loss to Stanford at home, you just can't excuse the Trojans for that transgression.
So Texas A&M gets to keep its 1939 MNC; the system worked this year, although it was pretty close in the end.
McMNC Revisions
1. Texas A&M
2. USC
3. Clemson (9-1-0, with a Cotton Bowl win)
4. Tennessee
5. Tulane
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Texas A&M: =1939
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
TCU: -1938
Monday, January 21, 2008
1938 McMNC: Tennessee Volunteers
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. TCU: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 15-7
2. Tennessee: 11-0-0 -- W, Orange, 17-0
3. Duke: 9-1-0 -- L, Rose, 3-7
4. Oklahoma: 10-1-0 -- L, Orange, 0-17
5. Notre Dame: 8-1-0 -- None
6. Carnegie Tech: 7-2-0 -- L, Sugar, 7-15
7. USC: 9-2-0 -- W, Rose, 7-3
8. Pittsburgh: 8-2-0 -- None
9. Holy Cross: 8-1-0 -- None
10. Minnesota: 6-2-0 -- None
Side note: Texas Tech finished the regular season ranked #11 with a 10-0-0 record, but lost the Cotton Bowl to unranked St. Mary's, 20-13. I'm not ignoring them, but since they lost their bowl game, they're out of consideration, anyway. This is just a note for posterity.
This really comes down to two undefeated, untied teams which won their bowl games: TCU and Tennessee. No one else is in the running. So let's look at the facts:
1) Tennessee had the better bowl win, dominating #4 Oklahoma which entered the game undefeated and untied as well. With a 17-0 shutout, Tennessee made it clear they were a damn good team. On the contrary, TCU only beat the #6 team, Carnegie Tech, by a 15-7 score. That's a weaker win over a weaker team, period;
2) TCU got a lot of voter love in 1938 thanks to Davey O'Brien, the Heisman Trophy winner. We cannot underestimate that love in considering the AP voters' mindset;
3) TCU played in the SWC, and Tennessee played in the SEC. The SWC had no other teams in the AP Top 20 in 1938; its second-place team, SMU, finished 6-4. The SEC placed Alabama (7-1-1, #13) and Tulane (7-2-1, #19) in the AP Top 20. Arguably, the SEC was the better conference. For what it's worth, Tennessee beat Alabama, 13-0, on the road in 1938, and they didn't play Tulane;
4) The teams had no common opponents in 1938;
All things considered, Tennessee looks like the better team in 1938, where the voters were clearly swayed by Davey O'Brien's presence on the Horned Frogs' roster. This sucks for TCU, since it would have been great to see them get a chance to face Tennessee head-to-head. Arguably, this is the first year where a true playoff would have been a great idea.
And in the 69 years since, we're still getting shafted by college football.
McMNC Revisions
1. Tennessee
2. TCU
3. California (10-1-0, with a bowl win)
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas Tech
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
TCU: -1938
1. TCU: 11-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 15-7
2. Tennessee: 11-0-0 -- W, Orange, 17-0
3. Duke: 9-1-0 -- L, Rose, 3-7
4. Oklahoma: 10-1-0 -- L, Orange, 0-17
5. Notre Dame: 8-1-0 -- None
6. Carnegie Tech: 7-2-0 -- L, Sugar, 7-15
7. USC: 9-2-0 -- W, Rose, 7-3
8. Pittsburgh: 8-2-0 -- None
9. Holy Cross: 8-1-0 -- None
10. Minnesota: 6-2-0 -- None
Side note: Texas Tech finished the regular season ranked #11 with a 10-0-0 record, but lost the Cotton Bowl to unranked St. Mary's, 20-13. I'm not ignoring them, but since they lost their bowl game, they're out of consideration, anyway. This is just a note for posterity.
This really comes down to two undefeated, untied teams which won their bowl games: TCU and Tennessee. No one else is in the running. So let's look at the facts:
1) Tennessee had the better bowl win, dominating #4 Oklahoma which entered the game undefeated and untied as well. With a 17-0 shutout, Tennessee made it clear they were a damn good team. On the contrary, TCU only beat the #6 team, Carnegie Tech, by a 15-7 score. That's a weaker win over a weaker team, period;
2) TCU got a lot of voter love in 1938 thanks to Davey O'Brien, the Heisman Trophy winner. We cannot underestimate that love in considering the AP voters' mindset;
3) TCU played in the SWC, and Tennessee played in the SEC. The SWC had no other teams in the AP Top 20 in 1938; its second-place team, SMU, finished 6-4. The SEC placed Alabama (7-1-1, #13) and Tulane (7-2-1, #19) in the AP Top 20. Arguably, the SEC was the better conference. For what it's worth, Tennessee beat Alabama, 13-0, on the road in 1938, and they didn't play Tulane;
4) The teams had no common opponents in 1938;
All things considered, Tennessee looks like the better team in 1938, where the voters were clearly swayed by Davey O'Brien's presence on the Horned Frogs' roster. This sucks for TCU, since it would have been great to see them get a chance to face Tennessee head-to-head. Arguably, this is the first year where a true playoff would have been a great idea.
And in the 69 years since, we're still getting shafted by college football.
McMNC Revisions
1. Tennessee
2. TCU
3. California (10-1-0, with a bowl win)
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas Tech
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Tennessee: +1938
California: +1937
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
TCU: -1938
Thursday, January 17, 2008
1937 McMNC: California Bears
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Pittsburgh: 9-0-1 -- None
2. California: 10-0-1 -- W, Rose, 13-0
3. Fordham: 7-0-1 -- None
4. Alabama: 9-1-0 -- L, Rose, 0-13
5. Minnesota: 6-2-0 -- None
6. Villanova: 8-0-1 -- None
7. Dartmouth: 7-0-2 -- None
8. LSU: 9-2-0 -- L, Sugar, 0-6
9. Notre Dame: 6-2-1 -- None
(tie) Santa Clara: 9-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 6-0
The good McMisanthrope giveth, and he taketh away.
Pittsburgh may have won my 1936 McMNC, but that doesn’t mean they get a pass for 1937. While their 9-0-1 record is impressive, they didn’t win a bowl game. Also, since another team won a bowl game and finished with an equally impressive record, that other team (California) is going to get the edge on Pittsburgh for the 1937 title.
By beating a 9-0-0 Alabama team in the Rose Bowl, California proved it was the best team in the country in 1937. Yes, they have a tie on their record, just as Pittsburgh does. But California put their record on the line in a bowl game, and while I know that’s not the fault of the Pittsburgh players themselves, reality is it means a lot more to go 10-0-1 with that last, pressure-packed win being over an undefeated, untied Alabama team in the Rose Bowl than it does to go 9-0-1 and rest on your laurels through the holiday season.
The only other school with a legitimate claim to the 1937 McMNC is Santa Clara. Sound familiar? You'd think after Santa Clara beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl in 1936 that the voters would give them some respect in 1937. But no. Voters are just as stupid then as they are now, and the Broncos were buried in the Top 10, actually tying for #9 with a two-loss, one-tie Notre Dame team. But Santa Clara proved itself (again) with a Sugar Bowl win over a 9-1-0 LSU team, traveling across the country for the second year in a row, to beat an SEC team.
So it comes down to California and Santa Clara, two school separated by about 50 miles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Heck, Santa Clara cut its football program years ago, IIRC. Too bad, because they had a nice tradition to reflect upon. Their coach, Buck Shaw, later coached California for one season before being the first coach of the San Francisco 49ers in the AAFC and then the NFL. He ended up his career with the NFL’s Eagles, winning the 1960 NFL title with the help of Chuck Bednarik. Amazing career.
But I digress. A quick glance at the two schedules shows us that neither California nor Santa Clara played a “tough” schedule. In fact, seven of California’s ten regular season games were at home. The PCC was down that year, as no other league team made the AP Top 20. However, Santa Clara played a weaker schedule of small-school California teams. Two common opponents for California and Santa Clara help us analyze this: Stanford and St. Mary’s. Both teams beat Stanford on the road, California winning 13-0 and Santa Clara winning 13-7. So California gets the slight edge there. Both teams beat the Gaels at home, Santa Clara shutting them out 7-0 and California romping, 30-7. That’s a big edge for California.
Thrown in the reality that California beat a better team more convincingly in the bowl games, and in the end, it has to be California. Santa Clara finishes second for the second year in a row, though: not bad for a small school which traveled long and far to beat the big boys two years in a row.
Side note: Fordham’s 1937 team featured the renowned “Seven Blocks of Granite”, although the 1936 team probably deserves the title more. Coached by one of the Four Horsemen, Jim Crowley, this team had a lineman named Vince Lombardi on the squad.
McMNC Revisions
1. California
2. Santa Clara
3. Pittsburgh
4. Fordham
5. Villanova
6. Dartmouth
RUNNING SCORECARD:
California: +1937
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
1. Pittsburgh: 9-0-1 -- None
2. California: 10-0-1 -- W, Rose, 13-0
3. Fordham: 7-0-1 -- None
4. Alabama: 9-1-0 -- L, Rose, 0-13
5. Minnesota: 6-2-0 -- None
6. Villanova: 8-0-1 -- None
7. Dartmouth: 7-0-2 -- None
8. LSU: 9-2-0 -- L, Sugar, 0-6
9. Notre Dame: 6-2-1 -- None
(tie) Santa Clara: 9-0-0 -- W, Sugar, 6-0
The good McMisanthrope giveth, and he taketh away.
Pittsburgh may have won my 1936 McMNC, but that doesn’t mean they get a pass for 1937. While their 9-0-1 record is impressive, they didn’t win a bowl game. Also, since another team won a bowl game and finished with an equally impressive record, that other team (California) is going to get the edge on Pittsburgh for the 1937 title.
By beating a 9-0-0 Alabama team in the Rose Bowl, California proved it was the best team in the country in 1937. Yes, they have a tie on their record, just as Pittsburgh does. But California put their record on the line in a bowl game, and while I know that’s not the fault of the Pittsburgh players themselves, reality is it means a lot more to go 10-0-1 with that last, pressure-packed win being over an undefeated, untied Alabama team in the Rose Bowl than it does to go 9-0-1 and rest on your laurels through the holiday season.
The only other school with a legitimate claim to the 1937 McMNC is Santa Clara. Sound familiar? You'd think after Santa Clara beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl in 1936 that the voters would give them some respect in 1937. But no. Voters are just as stupid then as they are now, and the Broncos were buried in the Top 10, actually tying for #9 with a two-loss, one-tie Notre Dame team. But Santa Clara proved itself (again) with a Sugar Bowl win over a 9-1-0 LSU team, traveling across the country for the second year in a row, to beat an SEC team.
So it comes down to California and Santa Clara, two school separated by about 50 miles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Heck, Santa Clara cut its football program years ago, IIRC. Too bad, because they had a nice tradition to reflect upon. Their coach, Buck Shaw, later coached California for one season before being the first coach of the San Francisco 49ers in the AAFC and then the NFL. He ended up his career with the NFL’s Eagles, winning the 1960 NFL title with the help of Chuck Bednarik. Amazing career.
But I digress. A quick glance at the two schedules shows us that neither California nor Santa Clara played a “tough” schedule. In fact, seven of California’s ten regular season games were at home. The PCC was down that year, as no other league team made the AP Top 20. However, Santa Clara played a weaker schedule of small-school California teams. Two common opponents for California and Santa Clara help us analyze this: Stanford and St. Mary’s. Both teams beat Stanford on the road, California winning 13-0 and Santa Clara winning 13-7. So California gets the slight edge there. Both teams beat the Gaels at home, Santa Clara shutting them out 7-0 and California romping, 30-7. That’s a big edge for California.
Thrown in the reality that California beat a better team more convincingly in the bowl games, and in the end, it has to be California. Santa Clara finishes second for the second year in a row, though: not bad for a small school which traveled long and far to beat the big boys two years in a row.
Side note: Fordham’s 1937 team featured the renowned “Seven Blocks of Granite”, although the 1936 team probably deserves the title more. Coached by one of the Four Horsemen, Jim Crowley, this team had a lineman named Vince Lombardi on the squad.
McMNC Revisions
1. California
2. Santa Clara
3. Pittsburgh
4. Fordham
5. Villanova
6. Dartmouth
RUNNING SCORECARD:
California: +1937
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937
Minnesota: -1936
Monday, January 14, 2008
1936 McMNC: Pittsburgh Panthers
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Minnesota: 7-1-0 -- None
2. LSU: 9-1-1 -- L, Sugar, 14-21
3. Pittsburgh: 8-1-1 -- W, Rose, 21-0
4. Alabama: 8-0-1 -- None
5. Washington: 7-2-1 -- L, Rose, 0-21
6. Santa Clara: 8-1-0 -- W, Sugar, 21-14
7. Northwestern: 7-1-0 -- None
8. Notre Dame: 6-2-1 -- None
9. Nebraska: 7-2-0 -- None
10. Penn: 7-1-0 -- None
Prior to the 1960s, the AP’s final vote was in late November or early December, thereby eliminating any bowl games from impacting the vote. Bowl game participation wasn’t plentiful, either, so not all top teams played in them, obviously.
Immediately, the problems are clear: Minnesota didn’t have to defend its #1 ranking in a bowl game, and Alabama didn’t put its near-perfect record on the line a bowl game, either. Beyond those two teams, only two top teams won their bowl games: Pittsburgh and Santa Clara. I know what you’re thinking.
Add a new wrinkle: Northwestern was the Big Ten champion of record that season, with a 6-0 league mark and a win OVER the Gophers. Minnesota didn’t even win its conference, yet it was ranked ahead of the team that did win the conference and the H2H matchup. I know Minnesota only gave up six points all conference season, but those six points were against Northwestern in a 6-0 loss. That's the breaks: you don't get the edge over a team that beat you and won your conference no matter what else you did all season (unless you have a superior record, of course, which the Gophers do not). Sorry! Minnesota is eliminated from McMNC consideration, in favor of Northwestern. But the Wildcats face the same challenge: they didn’t play in a bowl game, either.
The SEC was strong, too, in 1936. But the league champion of record, LSU with a 6-0 conference record, didn’t win its bowl game. Alabama didn’t win the league, so both teams are eliminated from McMNC consideration.
This really comes down to Pittsburgh and Santa Clara, and the schedule comparisons aren’t even close. Pitt beat Notre Dame, Nebraska and Washington – all Top 10 teams. Santa Clara beat LSU, and no one else special. Plus, Pittsburgh’s bowl win was more dominating.
Thus, the 8-1-1 Panthers deserve the McMNC more than Minnesota does for the 1936 season.
McMNC Revisions
1. Pittsburgh
2. Santa Clara
3. Alabama
4. Northwestern
5. Minnesota
6. LSU
7. Washington
1. Minnesota: 7-1-0 -- None
2. LSU: 9-1-1 -- L, Sugar, 14-21
3. Pittsburgh: 8-1-1 -- W, Rose, 21-0
4. Alabama: 8-0-1 -- None
5. Washington: 7-2-1 -- L, Rose, 0-21
6. Santa Clara: 8-1-0 -- W, Sugar, 21-14
7. Northwestern: 7-1-0 -- None
8. Notre Dame: 6-2-1 -- None
9. Nebraska: 7-2-0 -- None
10. Penn: 7-1-0 -- None
Prior to the 1960s, the AP’s final vote was in late November or early December, thereby eliminating any bowl games from impacting the vote. Bowl game participation wasn’t plentiful, either, so not all top teams played in them, obviously.
Immediately, the problems are clear: Minnesota didn’t have to defend its #1 ranking in a bowl game, and Alabama didn’t put its near-perfect record on the line a bowl game, either. Beyond those two teams, only two top teams won their bowl games: Pittsburgh and Santa Clara. I know what you’re thinking.
Add a new wrinkle: Northwestern was the Big Ten champion of record that season, with a 6-0 league mark and a win OVER the Gophers. Minnesota didn’t even win its conference, yet it was ranked ahead of the team that did win the conference and the H2H matchup. I know Minnesota only gave up six points all conference season, but those six points were against Northwestern in a 6-0 loss. That's the breaks: you don't get the edge over a team that beat you and won your conference no matter what else you did all season (unless you have a superior record, of course, which the Gophers do not). Sorry! Minnesota is eliminated from McMNC consideration, in favor of Northwestern. But the Wildcats face the same challenge: they didn’t play in a bowl game, either.
The SEC was strong, too, in 1936. But the league champion of record, LSU with a 6-0 conference record, didn’t win its bowl game. Alabama didn’t win the league, so both teams are eliminated from McMNC consideration.
This really comes down to Pittsburgh and Santa Clara, and the schedule comparisons aren’t even close. Pitt beat Notre Dame, Nebraska and Washington – all Top 10 teams. Santa Clara beat LSU, and no one else special. Plus, Pittsburgh’s bowl win was more dominating.
Thus, the 8-1-1 Panthers deserve the McMNC more than Minnesota does for the 1936 season.
McMNC Revisions
1. Pittsburgh
2. Santa Clara
3. Alabama
4. Northwestern
5. Minnesota
6. LSU
7. Washington
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Introduction
All this BCS bungling of the MNC got me thinking (a novel concept, to be sure) about the MNCs over the years. I don’t even bother with the pre-1936 stuff, when Harvard, Yale and Princeton were winning “MNCs”. That’s just not connected to modern college football at all. When the AP “title” was awarded in 1936, it was really the beginning of the systems we have now have in place today.
Over the years, a lot of highly debatable MNCs were awarded. This laughable web site (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) is just the beginning of the madness, though, since we all know the NCAA doesn’t sanction a true big-time college football champion. The AP title, however, is a good place to start, since it’s been in place the longest and most consistently.
But it has its problems, of course: whether it was the awarding of MNCs prior to bowl games for 30+ years or the recent issues (2003’s BCS disagreement, 2004’s BCS corruption or 2007’s BCS bandwagoning), the AP poll is also severely flawed.
What will follow is one attempt to rectify the ills of the past by revising MNCs from 1936 through 2007, using different criteria. It’s not scientific, I don’t claim it to be “right”, and I don’t think my perspective is universal. But I know there are mistakes in the process, which I attempted to rectify with what follows. But these “McMNCs”, if you will, are better than the real MNCs in many ways.
I am re-ranking the Top 5 teams every year from 1936 to 2007, based on the following offered in no firm order:
And that’s it. Over the next few months (until the offseason ends around August 18), I will be awarding the McMNCs retroactively based on these thoughts. Some teams will lose out, some teams will benefit, and some teams won’t be affected at all (that means you, Stanford, because you suck). But at least the record will finally be set straight, and future generations will know my version of the truth.
Over the years, a lot of highly debatable MNCs were awarded. This laughable web site (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) is just the beginning of the madness, though, since we all know the NCAA doesn’t sanction a true big-time college football champion. The AP title, however, is a good place to start, since it’s been in place the longest and most consistently.
But it has its problems, of course: whether it was the awarding of MNCs prior to bowl games for 30+ years or the recent issues (2003’s BCS disagreement, 2004’s BCS corruption or 2007’s BCS bandwagoning), the AP poll is also severely flawed.
What will follow is one attempt to rectify the ills of the past by revising MNCs from 1936 through 2007, using different criteria. It’s not scientific, I don’t claim it to be “right”, and I don’t think my perspective is universal. But I know there are mistakes in the process, which I attempted to rectify with what follows. But these “McMNCs”, if you will, are better than the real MNCs in many ways.
I am re-ranking the Top 5 teams every year from 1936 to 2007, based on the following offered in no firm order:
- Overall record: In the end, wins and losses are concrete. Student-athletes themselves have no control over the schedule they play. Athletic departments solidify schedules in advance. You cannot penalize the student-athlete for something they are not responsible for. If you do, you don’t understand the concepts of amateur athletics at all, and you clearly never played a collegiate sport yourself. All the kids can do is beat who is put on the field in front of them. In some cases, a half-game difference (in the era of ties) is negotiable depending on the situation, but generally teams with more losses than other legitimate teams will not beat those teams out for the McMNC. Using the term “legitimate” is, of course, subjective, but as all RSFCkers know, some teams are not created equally.
- Bowl performance: Reality is that teams which compete in and win bowl games deserve more credit than teams that did not play in bowl games. While this mostly applies to the past, it also applies to teams on probation or teams which lost their bowl games. Yes, I know some teams couldn’t play in bowl games, and that jibes with what I wrote above – it’s not fair to the kids. But in some close cases, if Team B went out and beat the crap out of Team C in the Rose Bowl while Team A didn’t play in a bowl game at all, you have to give some love to Team B for performing with all the marbles on the line. MOV and opponent will be taken into consideration in situations where multiple qualified teams won bowl games. Basically, ending the season with strong momentum matters.
- Probation: More of a problem in the past, but no team on probation will win an McMNC, period.
- Quality of conference play: In some years, there are closely-matched teams. Depending on which team played in a tougher conference that year (based on AP standings of conference foes, for example), an edge might be given. This hurts independents, of course, and some schedule research will be undertaken to determine the quality of opponents for relevant independent teams over the years (Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami-FL, etc.). Also, it’s not just about today’s BCS conferences, of course; it’s about the ol’ SWC, the Big Eight, and other defunct conferences. It does matter if Podunk State goes 12-0 against the Weenie League, while Money U. goes 11-1 against the big boys.
- Winning your conference: This is important, since there are some strange cases in the past, especially with the playing of unbalanced schedules over the years. Needless to say, winning your conference – especially if it’s a good one – will help you, while not winning it – or if it’s a weak one – won’t help you.
- H2H consideration: This is one of those crazy things about the polls, especially in recent years like 2000. If two teams are matched evenly, if one of the has the edge against the other H2H, you know what that means in the McMNC race.
- Connective scores: This is a game some RSFCkers like, and others despise it. But it does matter: if Team A beat Team C, and Team C beat Team B, but Team A didn’t play Team B, I’m going to give the edge to Team A. That’s just the way it is. The McMNC focuses a lot on the finish, but to be in position to win the race, you have to have a decent start and strong middle drive, too.
- MNC consideration from others: In extremely close cases, I will consult the list provided above at the NCAA site to break close ties. It does help to know how other people see things, although when Harris still gives their 2005 MNC to USC over Texas, you have to wonder. Any way, this is a last-gasp resort to sort out tougher seasons.
And that’s it. Over the next few months (until the offseason ends around August 18), I will be awarding the McMNCs retroactively based on these thoughts. Some teams will lose out, some teams will benefit, and some teams won’t be affected at all (that means you, Stanford, because you suck). But at least the record will finally be set straight, and future generations will know my version of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)