Started By
Message
1950: Who DESERVED the National Title
Posted on 7/24/25 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 7/24/25 at 12:58 pm
Disclaimer: Oklahoma owns the right to this title, winning the AP Trophy, so no other team has a right to claim it IMO.
With that said, this is one of those trickier seasons to go back and try to determine who DESERVED it.
The teams that have an argument:
Kentucky (11-1)
Tennessee (11-1)
Oklahoma (10-1)
Oklahoma was awarded the AP Trophy with a 10-0 record before the bowl game, but then went to the Sugar Bowl and lost to Kentucky, 7-13.
Meanwhile, Kentucky’s lone loss of the season came at Tennessee (11-1) in Knoxville by the score of 0-7.
On its face, you would think: Tennessee > Kentucky > Oklahoma due to the head-to-head results. However, you need to also look at who Tennessee lost to that season.
The Vols lone loss came to a very bad Mississippi State team (4-5) in Starkville, 0-7. It’s worth noting that Kentucky also played MSU in Starkville, and they won handily, 48-21.
The only other common opponents that year between the three were these:
Both Kentucky and Tennessee played Ole Miss (5-5) at home, Tennessee winning 35-0 and Kentucky winning 27-0.
Oklahoma beat Texas in Dallas, 14-13 while Tennessee beat the same Texas team in Dallas, 20-14.
Conclusion:
It’s about as close as it gets. I feel like the true national champion, Oklahoma, was probably the least deserving of the three. On the one hand, I typically would then lean to the head to head outcome of Kentucky vs Tennessee and pick the Vols, but it was a one score game played in Knoxville. Had the game been played on Lexington, would Kentucky have won? Possibly.
What’s tough to get past is the bad loss at Miss State for Tennessee… especially knowing Kentucky beat the same team by nearly 4 TD.
For that reason, and the fact that UK was the only one of the three to play both of the other teams in question, I’m going with Kentucky.
IMO, had the National Title been awarded after the bowls and had I had a vote, my Final Top 4 teams would have been:
1. Kentucky
2. Tennessee
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas
With that said, this is one of those trickier seasons to go back and try to determine who DESERVED it.
The teams that have an argument:
Kentucky (11-1)
Tennessee (11-1)
Oklahoma (10-1)
Oklahoma was awarded the AP Trophy with a 10-0 record before the bowl game, but then went to the Sugar Bowl and lost to Kentucky, 7-13.
Meanwhile, Kentucky’s lone loss of the season came at Tennessee (11-1) in Knoxville by the score of 0-7.
On its face, you would think: Tennessee > Kentucky > Oklahoma due to the head-to-head results. However, you need to also look at who Tennessee lost to that season.
The Vols lone loss came to a very bad Mississippi State team (4-5) in Starkville, 0-7. It’s worth noting that Kentucky also played MSU in Starkville, and they won handily, 48-21.
The only other common opponents that year between the three were these:
Both Kentucky and Tennessee played Ole Miss (5-5) at home, Tennessee winning 35-0 and Kentucky winning 27-0.
Oklahoma beat Texas in Dallas, 14-13 while Tennessee beat the same Texas team in Dallas, 20-14.
Conclusion:
It’s about as close as it gets. I feel like the true national champion, Oklahoma, was probably the least deserving of the three. On the one hand, I typically would then lean to the head to head outcome of Kentucky vs Tennessee and pick the Vols, but it was a one score game played in Knoxville. Had the game been played on Lexington, would Kentucky have won? Possibly.
What’s tough to get past is the bad loss at Miss State for Tennessee… especially knowing Kentucky beat the same team by nearly 4 TD.
For that reason, and the fact that UK was the only one of the three to play both of the other teams in question, I’m going with Kentucky.
IMO, had the National Title been awarded after the bowls and had I had a vote, my Final Top 4 teams would have been:
1. Kentucky
2. Tennessee
3. Oklahoma
4. Texas
This post was edited on 7/24/25 at 1:07 pm
25
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:30 pm to AUTiger789
Why did Kentucky get the sugar bowl bid over Tennessee if Tenn won the head to head?
Did they both play the same # of SEC games?
I realize there was not a tiebreaking procedure prior to the SECCG in 1992. See 1988. The Sugar Bowl picked a 10-1 Auburn team over 8-3 LSU even though we had the head to head.
Did they both play the same # of SEC games?
I realize there was not a tiebreaking procedure prior to the SECCG in 1992. See 1988. The Sugar Bowl picked a 10-1 Auburn team over 8-3 LSU even though we had the head to head.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:34 pm to clamdip
It looks like UK was 5-1 in SEC play while Tennessee was 4-1.
Therefor Kentucky was the outright SEC Champion that year and Tennessee has no claim to the SEC title.
1972 Auburn is in the same boat. We were 5-1 in SEC play and beat Bama head-to-head, but they played an extra SEC game in Vanderbilt to finish 6-1 so they get the SEC title to themselves.
Crazy how little guidelines there were in those days around scheduling.
Therefor Kentucky was the outright SEC Champion that year and Tennessee has no claim to the SEC title.
1972 Auburn is in the same boat. We were 5-1 in SEC play and beat Bama head-to-head, but they played an extra SEC game in Vanderbilt to finish 6-1 so they get the SEC title to themselves.
Crazy how little guidelines there were in those days around scheduling.
This post was edited on 7/24/25 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:38 pm to AUTiger789
Stuff like this is why many older SEC fans harped for years on anti-SEC bias in the media. My dad (in his 80's) HATED Kirk Herbstreit for the longest time, and now just barely tolerates him. It's also why he hates Notre Dame with a passion - in a time when champions were crowned by subjectivity from a base of voters, some teams got the benefit of the doubt that SEC teams did not.
The last 27 seasons have more than shown that there should not have been an anti-SEC bias, but now it's come almost a complete 180 - SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt now.
The last 27 seasons have more than shown that there should not have been an anti-SEC bias, but now it's come almost a complete 180 - SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt now.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:46 pm to AUTiger789
Good stuff. UK's Sugar Bowl victory also snapped OU's 31 game winning streak. I believe future LSU HC Charles McClendon (Cholly Mac) was on that team too.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:50 pm to AUTiger789
It's crazy how that 1950 Kentucky team might just be the best in program history. Had the polls waited until after the bowl games to vote on #1, there's a possibility Kentucky could have split the title with Tennessee or won it outright.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 1:58 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
1950: Who DESERVED the National Title
This is why teams happily claim any NC title in the beauty pageant era. Which Kentucky does. Had this been a BCS game, Kentucky would be the champ based on Sugar Bowl results.
Kentucky won the SEC so that solved that. And Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant was the head coach. That's 7 National Championships for the Bear if anyone is counting.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:01 pm to AUTiger789
Oklahoma. You don't go back and apply different rules to a past era. It is impossible to know if either team would have played differently had the title not already been awarded.
This post was edited on 7/24/25 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:04 pm to linewar
quote:
My dad (in his 80's) HATED Kirk Herbstreit for the longest time, and now just barely tolerates him.
I can’t stand Herbstreit for the same reason.
In 2004, when Auburn went into Knoxville and beat the tar out of Tennessee, he said from the College Gameday postgame set, “If Auburn wins out they will absolutely deserve to play for the national title and they would have my vote.” He was an AP voter that year, and his and ESPN’s opinions majorly sway other voter’s opinions.
With each passing week he would keep moving the goalpost…. “If Auburn can beat Georgia, they absolutely should be in the Top 2.” Auburn then pounds Georgia 24-6 and after the game be says, “Well they still need to go into their rivalry game against Alabama and win before I’m ready to put them in my Top 2.”
We then proceed to beat Bama in a closer than it should have been game and he says our 8 point win was too close (mind you USC beat a bad UCLA team by 5 points in their rivalry game and the margin didn’t matter to him).
He then proclaimed that if Auburn beat Tennessee a second time in Atlanta, then they would absolutely have one of his Top 2 votes. Auburn then goes and does that (convincingly) and after the game he basically said, “Sorry Auburn you should just be happy being #3.”
I get it. In 2004 there was always going to be a team that undeservingly got left out. None of the 3 deserved it. But instead of advocating for system changes he was basically coming down on Auburn fans for being upset and said we needed to move on.
I can’t stand that guy.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:05 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Had the polls waited until after the bowl games to vote on #1, there's a possibility Kentucky could have split the title with Tennessee or won it outright.
One of them would have won it outright because the UPI didn’t originate until the next season. The AP was the only major poll that year.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:09 pm to AUTiger789
Alabama
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:10 pm to Dawgs2122
quote:
Oklahoma. You don't go back and apply different rules to a past era. It is impossible to know if either team would have played differently had the title not already been awarded.
As I said, Oklahoma is the only team that should claim this trophy since they were the only ones to be awarded it.
But that doesn’t mean they were the most deserving. One should assume that if a team is going to play in a bowl game, they enter that game with the intent to win. And UK beat the Sooners head to head on a neutral field. That absolutely makes UK more deserving IMO. Not national champions, but more deserving.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:14 pm to AUTiger789
Let's break it down:
Tenn only loss was to Miss St, wins over Bama, UNC, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy, Texas, Duke and S Miss
Also played Chattanooga, Tenn Tech and Washington & Lee University
Those three alone eliminate Vols
UK lost to Tenn but beat OU 13-7
Also played LSU, Ole Miss, Ga Tech, Florida, MSU, and Tenn
Other teams included North Texas, Cincy and North Dakota.
I guess the schedule makers got confused and thought it was a basketball opponent because they also scheduled Villanova and Dayton.
Eliminated
OU lost to UK
Beat Boston College, A&M (was it a girls school?), Texas, KSU, ISU, Colorado, Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OSU
I think the voters got it right
Tenn only loss was to Miss St, wins over Bama, UNC, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy, Texas, Duke and S Miss
Also played Chattanooga, Tenn Tech and Washington & Lee University
Those three alone eliminate Vols
UK lost to Tenn but beat OU 13-7
Also played LSU, Ole Miss, Ga Tech, Florida, MSU, and Tenn
Other teams included North Texas, Cincy and North Dakota.
I guess the schedule makers got confused and thought it was a basketball opponent because they also scheduled Villanova and Dayton.
Eliminated
OU lost to UK
Beat Boston College, A&M (was it a girls school?), Texas, KSU, ISU, Colorado, Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OSU
I think the voters got it right
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:29 pm to AUTiger789
How about 1949 OU went 11-0, beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl 35-0...
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:33 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
Tenn only loss was to Miss St, wins over Bama, UNC, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy, Texas, Duke and S Miss Also played Chattanooga, Tenn Tech and Washington & Lee University Those three alone eliminate Vols
Washington & Lee was ranked #18 in the Final AP Top 20 that year, so I’m not sure why that would be a disqualification.
quote:
OU lost to UK Beat Boston College, A&M (was it a girls school?), Texas, KSU, ISU, Colorado, Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, OSU I think the voters got it right
The Big 7 was hot garbage in those days… which was a main reason why the Sooners rattled off their 47-game winning streak in the ‘50s.
OU’s conference games in 1950:
Kansas St. (1-9-1)
Iowa St. (3-6-1)
Colorado (5-4-1)
Kansas (6-4)
Missouri (4-5-1)
Nebraska (6-2-1)
Nebraska was the only decent conference opponent. They finished #17 in the final AP poll.
There OOC slate was
Boston College (0-9-1)
Oklahoma St (4-6-1)
Texas A&M (7-4)
Texas (9-2)
In total, looking at the final AP poll:
UK played #1 and #4
TN played #3, #7, and #18
OU played #3, #7, and #17
Not a ton of difference there.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:39 pm to Yukons Worst
quote:
How about 1949 OU went 11-0, beat LSU in the Sugar Bowl 35-0...
OU didn't win the NC in 1949 despite a perfect record. This is because a couple of other teams also went undefeated.
In 1950 OU was undefeated team during the regular season and all the other top teams had a loss. If Kentucky or Tennessee hadn't lost a regular season game... maybe they would have won it.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:42 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
had the National Title been awarded after the bowls
then maybe each team plays differently
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:44 pm to AUTiger789
I love that I’m about to argue something that is 74 years old. But head to head has to be the defining credential. Tennessee and Kentucky decided the matter on the field, everything else is just conjecture.
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:48 pm to GreatPumpkin
quote:
But head to head has to be the defining credential.
Agree. But venue of that game does matter. If UT had beat KY in Lexington there’d be no debate, but there was an advantage in playing at home.
This post was edited on 7/24/25 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 7/24/25 at 2:50 pm to AUTiger789
I've got an idea and I'm just spitballin here, maybe Kentucky fans can all pitch in and pay for one of those planes that pull a banner behind it to fly around Oklahoma's GF Memorial Stadium during their next home game with a message like "13-7" on it. That would show em!
Oh wait, didn't some Texas fans already do something like this?
Oh wait, didn't some Texas fans already do something like this?
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News