They beat The Champion Penn State I believe on the road. The polls didn't move them up after they got to number seven and they were not included in the last Poll.. I guess the probation keeps them out of the polls. But without the Probation they probably play unbeaten and No. 1 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl for the Championship of both The Sec and the NCAA. Of course we know it is because of Probation but just reminiscing
Why not declare 1977 team National Champion?
- Thread starter cat888
- Start date
No respect from the writers due to lack of tradition kept them from moving higher than they did, IMO. They got clobbered at Baylor very early which hurt, but then ran through the conference relatively easily.
I'm still baffled as to why an 'extra' conference game between Alabama and Miss St counted as an official conference game and is why Bama at 7-0 is considered the champion and not co-champion with 6-0 UK.
I'm still baffled as to why an 'extra' conference game between Alabama and Miss St counted as an official conference game and is why Bama at 7-0 is considered the champion and not co-champion with 6-0 UK.
Bear always had Bama play 7 conference games instead of 6 for the very reason to be a tie breaker. If we had not been on probation we would not have played Bama because we would have been the SEC representative not Bama. In those days if two teams tied in percentages the team that had not been to the Sugar Bowl the longest went. So the only way we would have been able to play Bama is if they were the at large team.
In 1977 Bama was 7-0 in SEC play and the Cats 6-0. By rules back then Bama was the SEC champ by virtue of playing (and winning) the extra game. Probation aside, a 6-0 UK team would have been champion over a 6-1 AL team. At that time, league rules required a minimum of 6 SEC games (but you could play more, presumably to enhance your league championship prospects)
Besides I'm not sure the Sugar Bowl would have gone for an SEC v. SEC match up in those days. There weren't too many bowls and they were primarily focused on inter-league games.
Peace
Besides I'm not sure the Sugar Bowl would have gone for an SEC v. SEC match up in those days. There weren't too many bowls and they were primarily focused on inter-league games.
Peace
Sugar Bowl was very Pro SEC No way of knowing whether they would have taken 2 SEC teams but it would have been a natural game. If UK got the automatic bid it would be hard to see them not taking Number one and unbeaten Alabama as the at large team especially since UK had beaten number 2 Penn State.
We actually benefited from the extra conference game in 1950. We finished 5-1 in conference and UT finished 4-1, so even though they beat us head to head, we were named SEC champs because we played, and won, an extra game. So weird back then. That year Bama played 8 SEC games and UT played 5.
I was at tyhe Baylor game, they did not get clobbered, Baylor blocked two punts to get 2 of their Td's and they had a linebacker by the name of Mike Singletary which kept the Cats at bay. The final score was 21-7. It was the only game o the season that shut down the Cats. It was blazing hot that day in Waco, the game started at 4pm. The Cats lost their best running back for the season early in that game.
The TU game was played in Knoxville that year, and UK was shut out 7-0, it is hard to imagine them not having several chances to score with Babe Parilla at QB. Also interesting that TU lost to MSU by a shutout while UK scored 48 points against MSU. If anyone hadn't noticed lots of times the best team doesn't win the game. Of course Oklahoma could make the same argument.
We were on probation in 77...that seems like a stretch. I still can't wrap my head around how Tennessee thinks they have a claim to the 1950 title though. They lost to 4-5 Mississippi State and did not even win the SEC. In what world do they think that qualifies them? Both Kentucky and Oklahoma lost to 10 win teams that season, but Oklahoma's was to us in the final decisive game of the year. It seems pretty cut and dry through today's lense. Back then all of these speculative polls held the weight but they are so arbitrary.
In today's playoff system even if Kentucky loses that last regular season game to Tennessee is there anyone here who believes the playoff committee sends Tennessee over Kentucky to the playoffs when comparing their two resumes? Anyone?
In today's playoff system even if Kentucky loses that last regular season game to Tennessee is there anyone here who believes the playoff committee sends Tennessee over Kentucky to the playoffs when comparing their two resumes? Anyone?
It's so hard to compare schedules between eras. The biggest difference that year is that we played 6 conference games and UT played 5. We were SEC champs because of that extra game. I'm not so sure overall record didn't trump conference record in those days due to the inconsistency in scheduling.
Honestly, in today's playoff system (assuming both teams play the same amount of SEC games), if both of those teams finished the season 10-1 (like they did), if UT was ranked #4 and we were ranked #7 (like we were) and if UT beat us head-to-head (like they did), we don't beat anyone that finished the season ranked and UT beats the #16, #18 & #7 ranked team in the nation (like they did), then yes, UT gets in and we don't.