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