Started By
Message
Historical question: 1946 MNC
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:00 pm
Why doesn't Georgia claim the 1946 NC?
We were the only unbeaten/untied team to receive NC votes, and among the three that received NC votes (UGA, Army and Notre Dame) we were the only one to play in and win a bowl game.
I know the easy answer is AP didn't name us champs, but considering some of the other NCs our SEC brethren claim it seems like we should have that one
We were the only unbeaten/untied team to receive NC votes, and among the three that received NC votes (UGA, Army and Notre Dame) we were the only one to play in and win a bowl game.
I know the easy answer is AP didn't name us champs, but considering some of the other NCs our SEC brethren claim it seems like we should have that one
This post was edited on 8/17/16 at 3:04 pm
8
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:04 pm to BranchDawg
I guess it's a pretty good question since Army barely beat a 1-7 Navy team the last week of the season, while Georgia beat Ga Tech who was ranked #7.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:06 pm to BranchDawg
We can't technically claim is as a concensus NC... Fwiw, Chas Trippi also didn't win the Hiesman and he should have. Polls were skewed towards NE teams from what I recall.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:08 pm to BranchDawg
Agree,!have asked the same question myself...
But that was before my dad was even born...
But that was before my dad was even born...
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:11 pm to S1C EM
It was the year after WW 2.., Glenn Davis was with Army and was good, but being with Army is why they voted for him instead of Trippi... ND was also a national team... It was even more crooked than it is now.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:12 pm to BranchDawg
quote:
Why doesn't Georgia claim the 1946 NC?
UGA officially only claims the 2 that we are a concensus on. There are 3 other years (including 46) that we were selected #1 by at least one voting entity, so they are recognized but not counted officially.
Back in the 40s, things weren't like today. Often the champ was given before the bowl games, and there was a HEAVY bias towards northern teams at the time. UGA went 11-0-0. Notre dame (the "champion") went 8-0-1 and didn't even play in a bowl. Army went 9-0-1 and didn't play in a bowl (they were #2).
It really is a sham that we don't count that, and it's another reason why the AP is a joke.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:23 pm to BranchDawg
I think Auburn claimed it.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:27 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
UGA officially only claims the 2 that we are a concensus on.
But what is consensus? AP didn't give us 1942 either, but we claim that one.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:32 pm to BranchDawg
quote:
But what is consensus?
More than half
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:37 pm to Broncothor
quote:
I think Auburn claimed it.
Of course they did...
Posted on 8/17/16 at 3:49 pm to BranchDawg
17 years before my time.... Sorry I can't help you ask Dallas I think he was at that game....
Posted on 8/17/16 at 7:44 pm to BranchDawg
In 42 , UGA and OSU were both ranked first in 6 polls out of 12.
The AP was one of the 12 and ranked OSU first. We recognize it because it was split 6-6 overall.
The AP was one of the 12 and ranked OSU first. We recognize it because it was split 6-6 overall.
Posted on 8/23/16 at 6:06 pm to BranchDawg
I studied up on the history of this season a little.
Comparing Georgia with Army and Notre Dame in 1946 based on scores is hard because they had no common opponents.
We are left with the who beat who transitive property...not a good basis for analysis.
Nevertheless, I did find this:
Army beat Duke 19-0. This is close to the same result as Georgia Tech and North Carolina.
The flies beat Duke that year 14-0 and North Carolina beat them 22-7.
This suggests Army was just a little better than those 2 teams, but not by much.
Georgia smeared Tech 35-7 and beat N.C. 20-10.
On a good day Georgia could have beaten Army and Notre Dame. Both schools never played bowl games, however, and UGA was experienced in bowls.
I'd give Georgia the edge, in a head to head matchup against either in a post season game.
Certainly, they should win in a computer simulation. And of course they should have been named National Champs that year.
Comparing Georgia with Army and Notre Dame in 1946 based on scores is hard because they had no common opponents.
We are left with the who beat who transitive property...not a good basis for analysis.
Nevertheless, I did find this:
Army beat Duke 19-0. This is close to the same result as Georgia Tech and North Carolina.
The flies beat Duke that year 14-0 and North Carolina beat them 22-7.
This suggests Army was just a little better than those 2 teams, but not by much.
Georgia smeared Tech 35-7 and beat N.C. 20-10.
On a good day Georgia could have beaten Army and Notre Dame. Both schools never played bowl games, however, and UGA was experienced in bowls.
I'd give Georgia the edge, in a head to head matchup against either in a post season game.
Certainly, they should win in a computer simulation. And of course they should have been named National Champs that year.
Posted on 8/25/16 at 7:54 am to BranchDawg
We are 2 seasons away (I think my math is correct) from having gone longer between national titles than we have since we won the first one....with that in mind....do y'all think Smart wins a title in 5 years? My father is 76 years old and pretty healthy and he says he is sticking around until UGA wins at least one more national title...I hope he lives to be 120 but I really hope he lives long enough to see the DAWGS on top again....hell I am 51 and I am starting to hope the same thing for me.....I was around in 1980 (I was 15) and 1942 seemed like ancient history to me....yet we are only 2 years away from the same length of time between the title in 1980 and 1942...
Posted on 8/25/16 at 8:10 am to germandawg
quote:
.do y'all think Smart wins a title in 5 years?
Look at the handful of teams that have made it to the playoffs so far. And then look at UGA.
We're not anywhere close to where any of those teams are/were.
And we don't even know if Kirby is capable of getting a team on the same level as those teams for what it takes just to make the playoffs. And even if he is capable of doing it, how long does it take to get a program from where we are currently to that next level? Probably another 3 years or so, minimum?
Long story short, anything can happen, but the odds aren't very good. Just enjoy the ride..
Posted on 8/26/16 at 7:30 am to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
Look at the handful of teams that have made it to the playoffs so far. And then look at UGA.
We're not anywhere close to where any of those teams are/were.
And we don't even know if Kirby is capable of getting a team on the same level as those teams for what it takes just to make the playoffs. And even if he is capable of doing it, how long does it take to get a program from where we are currently to that next level? Probably another 3 years or so, minimum?
Long story short, anything can happen, but the odds aren't very good. Just enjoy the ride..
I agree....I think the playoffs have made it exponentially more difficult....I like the playoff system but I think if it stays the way it is now for 20 years there will be about 6 teams that are in it almost every year and an occasional outlier.....and I think our only hope is to be one of the latter occasionally....
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News