re: Kentucky's NC in football came at the Sooner's expense

quote:

---

1. Oklahoma
2. Army
3. Texas
4. Tennessee
5. California
6. Princeton
7. Kentucky

---

Poll was voted in November of 1950 before even some regular season games had been played and certainly before the bowl games of January 1951. By your twisted logic the polls taken today before the end of the season, the CCG's, and the bowls games would be the final standing for the year, hence Alabama would already be the final #1 team for 2016 prior to the SEC CCG and the 2 CFP games!

Lets go team by team, shall we?

1. Oklahoma played only 2 ranked teams in the regular season (9-2-0) Texas and (6-2-1) Nebraska and both were on pro OU grounds in the RRR @ Dallas and Norman. They were defeated AFTER the final season game (Bedlam, where OU has a massive edge on the Pokes) by a Bear lead Kentucky game in front of 80,000 in a neutral bowl game. Under todays method of determining #1, UK easily makes a solid claim after beating a OU team who had not lost in 3 years. See only a decent Buckeye team slipping in and beating Bama on an off day and claiming a CFP MNC. Oklahoma only played 10 regular season games. Their 4 road games were Iowa State, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma State. Road games were kittens and puppies that year.

2. Army lost on 12/02/49 in regular game of the season to Navy | 2-14
Clearly if polls had been cast at the end of the season, Army would have fallen below #2 as it was their only loss of the season and ruined their perfect season. Here is the fault of the polls at the time and the fault in your argument. Also, at the time Army only played a 9 game season.

3. Texas - Texas was beaten by Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl 14-20. Clearly they would not be renamed above them if the vote had been taken at the end of bowl season as it is today. Winner head to head on a neutral field should never allow Texas to be above Tennessee.

4. Tennessee - See above concerning the texas win and being above Texas, which they are not. Vols lost to State that year early in the season and it allied them to rise as the season progressed. They did have the luxury of playing and winning 9 of 11 regular season games in the confines of TN and were soundly routed @ Duke that year. One would argue only the Vols or Cats would have a claim to #1 if voted the way they do today instead of before the end of the regular season as in the past.

5. California - Cal was was 9-0-1 in the old Pacific Coast conference, and Saint Mary's hung 25 points on them. A late tie game with Stanford meant a drop in the polls, then they lost to Michigan in the Rose Bowl. In the modern system, they probably would not have finished in the Top 10 with their last 2 games both counting. They played only 10 regular season games that year.

6. Princeton - Princeton was undefeated but only played 9 games that season and 7 of the 9 were played in the friendly confines of Palmer Stadium. None of Princeton's opponents were ranked that year and while they put lots of points on the scoreboard that year, none were impressive wins. Beating the Crimson of Harvard 63-26 may have been a big deal in the 1920's, but not in the 1950's at the national level.

7. Kentucky - UK played 11 regular season games that year. They beat State 48-21 (the team the Vols were unable to put a single point on that season) and #17 Florida 40-6. Cats beat both Georgia Tech (28-14), who was a force in the SEC before they went ACC, and State (48-21) on the road and their only loss was a season ending loss to the #9 Vols in Knoxville (0-7) which caused their hard fall in the final poll taken before the end of the regular season.

In summary
* Cats lost by a single score on the road to their biggest rival the week of the polls
* Polls were final before even the last game of the season, an upset of undefeated Army by Navy
* Cats beat an OU team on a neutral field that had not lost a game for 3 YEARS!
* Under the current system, Tennessee would be ahead of Texas by virtue of beating them
* In those days you had only a handful of bowls and they mattered even if you claim they did not.
(Dad was playing what is now FBS D-1 ball back then and it sure seemed to matter to him)

Viewing yesterdays polls by todays metrics clearly shows change was needed

You're logic is flawed. You completely left out the EFFECT of naming the national BEFORE the bowls. If you think it had no effect on the outcome you're fooling yourself. The bowl games were like exhibitions back then. It was a completely different era. Some of OU's finest teams in the 50s didn't even go to bowl games. Conference champions i'm talking about. A conference rule at the time prevented consecutive trips to the Orange Bowl. Do you understand this. I'm talking about teams that went 94-4-2 over a ten year stretch. We should have more titles from the 50s actually. Win streaks of 47 and 31 during that time. Do some research dude.