SMU sells out Rose Bowl allotment 75 years before TCU

[PonyTime]

So TCU has finally made it to the Rose Bowl - 75 years after SMU accomplished the feat. Great job frogs!

Notes on the 1936 Rose Bowl:
The game was the first sellout for the Rose Bowl Game with all 84,784 seats filled with a large portion of fans from Texas to watch their Mustangs play. According to the Pasadena Tournament of Roses, there was a request for additional 200,000 tickets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Rose_Bowl

[smupony94]

I would trade the 1936 Rose Bowl for the 2010 Rose Bowl

[PonyTime]

One critical difference ... SMU was playing for the National Championship in that game. TCU is not.

[PonyKai]

I'd still trade.

[CalallenStang]

One critical difference ... SMU was playing for the National Championship in that game. TCU is not.

Somewhat correct. Actually, SMU won the national championship be defeating TCU in Amon Carter Stadium. At that time, national titles were awarded before bowl games, which were considered "post-season exhibitions," thus rendering them useless from crowning a season's champion, at least as far as the polls were concerned. This tradition continued on for many, many years. A prominent later example is when Texas was awarded the national championship after beating Arkansas in 1969. They then went on to play their bowl game, national title in hand.

[Pony ^]

1936...

[PonyTime]

BTW - most SMU fans took the TRAIN to Los Angeles for that game. Quite impressive that we had a good showing at a game that took days to travel to and from.

If you cannot find the time to make it to Ford Stadium for the AFB - think about that.

[Treadway21]

Funny.

For you history buffs, here is the Grantland Rice article on the SMU/TCU game in '35. The Bill Cunningham article is even better - talk about 20's reporter guy, Cunningham hit it out of the park...

Led by their lizard-legged little bundle of mobile murder, Bobby Wilson, who looks much too frail to be playing with all these big rough boys,...

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLib ... v09n1g.pdf

[PK]

Great read. Those reporters of that era had a way with words.

Luckily for SMU Slinging Sammy Baugh didn't have the caliber of receivers we all have today. He evidently was a very accurate passer, but was only able to amass 17 completions out of 43 attempts.

[Deep Purple]

One critical difference ... SMU was playing for the National Championship in that game. TCU is not.

Somewhat correct. Actually, SMU won the national championship be defeating TCU in Amon Carter Stadium. At that time, national titles were awarded before bowl games, which were considered "post-season exhibitions," thus rendering them useless from crowning a season's champion, at least as far as the polls were concerned. This tradition continued on for many, many years. A prominent later example is when Texas was awarded the national championship after beating Arkansas in 1969. They then went on to play their bowl game, national title in hand.

Somewhat correct. Actually, among the major ranking systems in 1935-36, the Williamson was the only one that issued a post-bowl ranking and factored in bowl results. SMU lost to Stanford in the Rose Bowl. TCU defeated LSU in the Sugar Bowl. In the final ranking of the 1935-36 season, Williamson had TCU at #1 and SMU at #2.

[PK]

One critical difference ... SMU was playing for the National Championship in that game. TCU is not.

Somewhat correct. Actually, SMU won the national championship be defeating TCU in Amon Carter Stadium. At that time, national titles were awarded before bowl games, which were considered "post-season exhibitions," thus rendering them useless from crowning a season's champion, at least as far as the polls were concerned. This tradition continued on for many, many years. A prominent later example is when Texas was awarded the national championship after beating Arkansas in 1969. They then went on to play their bowl game, national title in hand.

Somewhat correct. Actually, among the major ranking systems in 1935-36, the Williamson was the only one that issued a post-bowl ranking and factored in bowl results. SMU lost to Stanford in the Rose Bowl. TCU defeated LSU in the Sugar Bowl. In the final ranking of the 1935-36 season, Williamson had TCU at #1 and SMU at #2.

Bottom line, SMU beat TCU. Those were great times for both schools. Both National power houses. Way before my time, but maybe before I die we will both be national power houses again. Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

[Stallion]

Making TCU the only school to ever claim a National Championship by scoring 3 points in a bowl game and winning by 1 point

[PurplFrawg]

So TCU has finally made it to the Rose Bowl - 75 years after SMU accomplished the feat. Great job frogs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Rose_Bowl

Thanks for the kudo. Did you know that going to the Rose Bowl means TCU has now played in all 5 major bowls? Only 9 other schools can say the same.

[Treadway21]

quote="Deep Purple"]

One critical difference ... SMU was playing for the National Championship in that game. TCU is not.

Somewhat correct. Actually, SMU won the national championship be defeating TCU in Amon Carter Stadium. At that time, national titles were awarded before bowl games, which were considered "post-season exhibitions," thus rendering them useless from crowning a season's champion, at least as far as the polls were concerned. This tradition continued on for many, many years. A prominent later example is when Texas was awarded the national championship after beating Arkansas in 1969. They then went on to play their bowl game, national title in hand.

Somewhat correct. Actually, among the major ranking systems in 1935-36, the Williamson was the only one that issued a post-bowl ranking and factored in bowl results. SMU lost to Stanford in the Rose Bowl. TCU defeated LSU in the Sugar Bowl. In the final ranking of the 1935-36 season, Williamson had TCU at #1 and SMU at #2.[/quote]

Not quite froggie- we won the dickinson, which was the major poll at the time.

The earliest contemporaneous polls can be traced to Caspar Whitney, Charles Patterson and The Sun in 1901.[8] Thus the concept of polls and national champions predated the mathematical system, but Frank Dickinson's math system was the first to be widely popularized. His system named 10–0 Stanford the national champion of 1926, prior to their tie with Alabama in the Rose Bowl. A curious Knute Rockne, then coach of Notre Dame, had Dickinson backdate two seasons, which produced Notre Dame as the 1924 national champion and Dartmouth in 1925.

A number of other mathematical systems were born in the 1920s and 1930s and were the only organized methods selecting national champions until the Associated Press began polling sportswriters in 1936 to obtain rankings. Alan J. Gould, the creator of the AP Poll, named Minnesota, Princeton, and SMU tri-champions in 1935

In power rankings - TCU #3 behind SMU and Stanford:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf1935.htm

Lastly:
1935 LSU 9–2 Bernie Moore WS
Minnesota 8–0 Bernie Bierman BR, BS, CFRA, HAF, L, NCF, PS
Princeton 9–0 Fritz Crisler DuS
SMU 12–1 Matty Bell DiS, HS, SR
TCU 12–1 Dutch Meyer WS

where
DiS =Dickinson System 1924–1925, 1926–1940
HS =Houlgate System 1885, 1887–1905, 1907–1926, 1927–1949
SR =Sagarin Ratings 1919–1977, 1978–present
WS =Williamson System 1931, 1932–1963

Preponderance of the evidence - SMU National Champs 1935