PDA

View Full Version : History and Duke football wins



Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 09:24 AM
A topic of conversation these days is the record of the current football team with comparisons to the 1941 team's record. Discussions about Duke's first back to back bowl games began to surface recently as well. Most such comparisons and conversations are made with little context other than this moment in time. Lewis Bowling, Wallace Wade biographer, has an article in the Durham Herald this morning which adds some historical perspective. Duke has a very rich football history, worthy of learning about.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x201536162/Lewis-Bowling-2013-Duke-good-but-not-close-to-41-Devils

nyesq83
11-27-2013, 10:30 AM
As I wrote in another thread, I think Ross Cockrell and his talented, dedicated, and hardworking teammates are making history.

Duke Football: Making History one day at a time, one play at a time, one game at a time.

OldPhiKap
11-27-2013, 10:51 AM
A topic of conversation these days is the record of the current football team with comparisons to the 1941 team's record. Discussions about Duke's first back to back bowl games began to surface recently as well. Most such comparisons and conversations are made with little context other than this moment in time. Lewis Bowling, Wallace Wade biographer, has an article in the Durham Herald this morning which adds some historical perspective. Duke has a very rich football history, worthy of learning about.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x201536162/Lewis-Bowling-2013-Duke-good-but-not-close-to-41-Devils

Very good reminder of our rich history.

Makes it even more tragic that our program was allowed to fade and wallow for so long.

As with many sports, it is difficult to compare eras that are twenty years apart -- let alone fifty, sixty, seventy years apart. What Wade did was phenominal. What Cut has done, under modern circumstances, is also extremely impressive.

Of course, Cut's not done.

loran16
11-27-2013, 10:58 AM
Very good reminder of our rich history.

Makes it even more tragic that our program was allowed to fade and wallow for so long.

As with many sports, it is difficult to compare eras that are twenty years apart -- let alone fifty, sixty, seventy years apart. What Wade did was phenominal. What Cut has done, under modern circumstances, is also extremely impressive.

Of course, Cut's not done.

As a student from 05-09 (3 years of Roof, 1 of Cut), I used to be a caller for the Duke Annual Fund. Every now and then I'd call an older alumnus from the good old football days, and they would complain to me for 10 minutes about Duke Football.

Some of those alumni may no longer be with us, but I hope somewhere Annual Fund callers are calling some of these guys who are now beaming about how proud they are once again.

Dev11
11-27-2013, 11:06 AM
As a student from 05-09 (3 years of Roof, 1 of Cut), I used to be a caller for the Duke Annual Fund. Every now and then I'd call an older alumnus from the good old football days, and they would complain to me for 10 minutes about Duke Football.

Some of those alumni may no longer be with us, but I hope somewhere Annual Fund callers are calling some of these guys who are now beaming about how proud they are once again.

I recall before a game in 2010 talking to some guys who played in the Cotton and Orange Bowls for Duke. They seemed excited about Cutcliffe and what he was doing. Smart fellows.

Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 11:20 AM
Duke football during the 30s and 40s was at the top nationally, shaping college football (organization of practices, plays, strength and conditioning), accumulating amazing records and accomplishments. I used to hear that Coach Wade regularly started the second team who would dominate their opponents early and then he'd put in the feared first team. You have to be pretty good to take the lead with the second team, game after game!

From post WWII through the 60s Duke was still very good, but gradually declining. Only in very recent years of the expansion was another ACC program able to pass Duke in the number of conference football championships. I think I'm remembering that correctly.... maybe Jim Sumner can verify. ..... quite an accomplishment to hold such a record while stuck in the cellar for decades.

sagegrouse
11-27-2013, 11:23 AM
Here is Duke's record during Wade's best run, 1936 through 1941. The AP rankings began in 1936.



Year W L T AP
1936 9 1 11
1937 7 2 1 20
1938 9 1 3
1939 8 1 8
1940 7 2 18
1941 9 1 2
Tot 49 8 1


The winning percentage was 85.3 percent. Duke's two best teams, which could easily have been ranked number one at the end of the regular seasons, lost in upsets in the Rose Bowl.

sagegrouse

Newton_14
11-27-2013, 11:54 AM
Here is Duke's record during Wade's best run, 1936 through 1941. The AP rankings began in 1936.



Year W L T AP
1936 9 1 11
1937 7 2 1 20
1938 9 1 3
1939 8 1 8
1940 7 2 18
1941 9 1 2
Tot 49 8 1


The winning percentage was 85.3 percent. Duke's two best teams, which could easily have been ranked number one at the end of the regular seasons, lost in upsets in the Rose Bowl.

sagegrouse

Sorry for being too lazy to look it up, but what was the year in which the team went unbeaten, untied, and unscored upon in the regular season, and then got upset 3-0 in the Rose Bowl?

Also, I think it worth pointing out that Duke would have gone to numerous bowl games back then, including long strings of back to back to back years of making a bowl under different circumstances. Back then, unless they got an offer to one of the 4 major bowls (Rose, Orange, Cotton, Sugar) they turned it down due to travel expenses. I did not realize that until a couple of weeks ago when I saw it in the news. Kind of stinks as our bowl attendance and record could be far more impressive than it is.

Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 11:59 AM
Sorry for being too lazy to look it up, but what was the year in which the team went unbeaten, untied, and unscored upon in the regular season, and then got upset 3-0 in the Rose Bowl?

Also, I think it worth pointing out that Duke would have gone to numerous bowl games back then, including long strings of back to back to back years of making a bowl under different circumstances. Back then, unless they got an offer to one of the 4 major bowls (Rose, Orange, Cotton, Sugar) they turned it down due to travel expenses. I did not realize that until a couple of weeks ago when I saw it in the news. Kind of stinks as our bowl attendance and record could be far more impressive than it is.
1938 Iron Duke Team

Newton_14
11-27-2013, 12:03 PM
1938 Iron Duke Team

Thanks DitBD! I had grown up thinking that this was the season the Rose Bowl was played in WW but read a story about the Rose/WW game a few weeks back and learned Duke was not undefeated that year and the game score was different, so I then had no idea which season it was.

Dev11
11-27-2013, 12:13 PM
Thanks DitBD! I had grown up thinking that this was the season the Rose Bowl was played in WW but read a story about the Rose/WW game a few weeks back and learned Duke was not undefeated that year and the game score was different, so I then had no idea which season it was.

7-3. USC scored in the final minute of the game. If we hadn't given up that late TD, we could have a football national championship almost as impressive as UNC's Helms title.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/1999/10/07/iron-dukes-so-close-perfection-1938

davekay1971
11-27-2013, 12:23 PM
7-3. USC scored in the final minute of the game. If we hadn't given up that late TD, we could have a football national championship almost as impressive as UNC's Helms title.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/1999/10/07/iron-dukes-so-close-perfection-1938

We actually won the Kay National Championship Award in 1938. I'm as big of a college football fan as Helms was a college basketball fan, and as such I've decided to retroactively award teams with national championships in college football, starting in 1938 and working my way backwards. After careful consideration, I've selected the Duke University Blue Devils as the national champions in 1938. Despite giving up that late TD, they were clearly the best team in the nation and therefore are deserving of the national championship, imho, which is the only opinion that matters for selecting Kay Awards.

As soon as the trophy gets delivered to me from trophydepot.com, I'll run it up to Durham.

Duke can now go ahead and fly their National Champions, 1938 flag above WW stadium. They should make sure not to clarify that it's a Kay National Championship Award, because why be completely open and forthright when, after all, "To Seem, not To Be".

Congratulations Duke University, on your 1938 football national championship.

jimsumner
11-27-2013, 01:43 PM
We actually won the Kay National Championship Award in 1938. I'm as big of a college football fan as Helms was a college basketball fan, and as such I've decided to retroactively award teams with national championships in college football, starting in 1938 and working my way backwards. After careful consideration, I've selected the Duke University Blue Devils as the national champions in 1938. Despite giving up that late TD, they were clearly the best team in the nation and therefore are deserving of the national championship, imho, which is the only opinion that matters for selecting Kay Awards.

As soon as the trophy gets delivered to me from trophydepot.com, I'll run it up to Durham.

Duke can now go ahead and fly their National Champions, 1938 flag above WW stadium. They should make sure not to clarify that it's a Kay National Championship Award, because why be completely open and forthright when, after all, "To Seem, not To Be".

Congratulations Duke University, on your 1938 football national championship.

Duke would not have won the AP title with a win in the Rose Bowl. Duke went into that game ranked third behind TCU and Tennessee. Both teams ahead of Duke won their bowl games, both against teams ranked higher then No. 7 Southern Cal.

CameronBlue
11-27-2013, 01:57 PM
Duke would not have won the AP title with a win in the Rose Bowl. Duke went into that game ranked third behind TCU and Tennessee. Both teams ahead of Duke won their bowl games, both against teams ranked higher then No. 7 Southern Cal.

How does that happen? No one has even scored on you all year and you're ranked 3rd? Wonder how many points TCU and Tennessee had given up?

jimsumner
11-27-2013, 02:06 PM
How does that happen? No one has even scored on you all year and you're ranked 3rd? Wonder how many points TCU and Tennessee had given up?

TCU had the great Davey O'Brien, who won the 1938 Heisman. Going into the Sugar Bowl, they had outscored opponents 254-53. They defeated Carnegie Tech 15-7.

Going into the Orange Bowl, Tennessee had outscored their opponents 276-16. They defeated Oklahoma 17-0.

Going into the Rose Bowl, Duke had outscored their opponents 114-0.

So, Duke was well behind both those teams in point differential. The rankings were not irrational.

loran16
11-27-2013, 02:30 PM
TCU had the great Davey O'Brien, who won the 1938 Heisman. Going into the Sugar Bowl, they had outscored opponents 254-53. They defeated Carnegie Tech 15-7.

Going into the Orange Bowl, Tennessee had outscored their opponents 276-16. They defeated Oklahoma 17-0.

Going into the Rose Bowl, Duke had outscored their opponents 114-0.

So, Duke was well behind both those teams in point differential. The rankings were not irrational.

The real point is for a long time in college football, teams didn't play another often enough to really tell apart a bunch of undefeated teams.

Almost like today.

Lauderdevil
11-27-2013, 02:40 PM
Duke would not have won the AP title with a win in the Rose Bowl. Duke went into that game ranked third behind TCU and Tennessee. Both teams ahead of Duke won their bowl games, both against teams ranked higher then No. 7 Southern Cal.

True, but the Kay National Championship award has never aligned precisely with the AP.

jimsumner
11-27-2013, 03:23 PM
True, but the Kay National Championship award has never aligned precisely with the AP.

Does this mean I'll have to start using Kay-style instead of AP style?

OldPhiKap
11-27-2013, 03:41 PM
The real point is for a long time in college football, teams didn't play another often enough to really tell apart a bunch of undefeated teams.

Almost like today.

Let alone let the voters even see the teams.

"Boy, they sounded good on the radio" -- if they were even broadcast.

Mike Corey
11-27-2013, 04:10 PM
TCU had the great Davey O'Brien, who won the 1938 Heisman. Going into the Sugar Bowl, they had outscored opponents 254-53. They defeated Carnegie Tech 15-7.

Going into the Orange Bowl, Tennessee had outscored their opponents 276-16. They defeated Oklahoma 17-0.

Going into the Rose Bowl, Duke had outscored their opponents 114-0.

So, Duke was well behind both those teams in point differential. The rankings were not irrational.

I'm so glad we have a resource like you around.

NYBri
11-27-2013, 04:12 PM
Here is Duke's record during Wade's best run, 1936 through 1941. The AP rankings began in 1936.



Year W L T AP
1936 9 1 11
1937 7 2 1 20
1938 9 1 3
1939 8 1 8
1940 7 2 18
1941 9 1 2
Tot 49 8 1


The winning percentage was 85.3 percent. Duke's two best teams, which could easily have been ranked number one at the end of the regular seasons, lost in upsets in the Rose Bowl.

sagegrouse

WWS is named after a coach who certainly put up some numbers. Potentially a new stadium someday would be called "The Cut."

Dev11
11-27-2013, 04:21 PM
WWS is named after a coach who certainly put up some numbers. Potentially a new stadium someday would be called "The Cut."

I wouldn't mind if the team started playing at "David Cutcliffe Field at Wallace Wade Stadium." It certainly works in basketball.

jv001
11-27-2013, 04:31 PM
7-3. USC scored in the final minute of the game. If we hadn't given up that late TD, we could have a football national championship almost as impressive as UNC's Helms title.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/1999/10/07/iron-dukes-so-close-perfection-1938

didn't USC bring in a 2nd string QB that led them to that TD that cost Duke and undefeated/unscored on season? Jim? GoDuke!

jimsumner
11-27-2013, 04:36 PM
didn't USC bring in a 2nd string QB that led them to that TD that cost Duke and undefeated/unscored on season? Jim? GoDuke!

Yep. Doyle Nave. A better passer than the starter.

The story is that Wade didn't actually see the TD. He was sitting down and one of his players stood up and blocked him out.

So, maybe it never really happened. :)

jv001
11-27-2013, 04:48 PM
Yep. Doyle Nave. A better passer than the starter.

The story is that Wade didn't actually see the TD. He was sitting down and one of his players stood up and blocked him out.

So, maybe it never really happened. :)

If anyone knew the answer to my question, I thought it would be you. And not because of age, lol. Thanks and have a Happy Thanksgiving. GoDuke!

Olympic Fan
11-27-2013, 05:27 PM
Just a few points --

-- Doyle Nave was actually the third-team quarterback. The TD pass was caught by second-team end Al Kreuger ... who did go on to be an All-American the next year.

-- Duke's final No. 3 ranking had nothing to do with the loss -- the final polls were taken in that era BEFORE the bowls. When Maryland won the 1953 AP and UPI national title, the Terps lost their bowl game -- falling 7-0 to Oklahoma in the regular season. But just to show how things balance out, undefeated Maryland finished second to Tennessee in 1952 -- and stayed No. 2 even after the Vols lost their bowl game. I'm not sure exactly when the polls starting re-voting after the bowls, but it was not that long ago.

-- Davekay, you don't have to invent a bogus national title for Duke football. Duke actually won two national titles in that era -- in 1936, James Howell (a syndicated football writer) voted 9-1 Duke as his national title. In 1941, Ray Byrne, who ran another major football subscription service picked 9-0 (before the bowls) Duke as his national champ:

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/acc/duke/all_national_champs.php

Are those valid national titles? I would argue that they are MORE valid than UNC's Helms title in basketball, which was awarded 18 years after the fact by the business manager of a bread company, who had zero basketball experience. These two national titles were awarded by acknowledged football experts and (more significantly) were awarded at the end of the season -- not 18 years later. I've seen both Alabama and Georgia Tech include the Byrne title in their list of championships. The Football Data Warehouse lists the Byrne and Howell awards in the same category as ther Herlms Foundation -- as "Discontinued national championship awards."

So if UNC is going to hang a banner for their phony-baloney national championship, I believe Duke should hang banners for its TWO equally valid football nation al championships.

Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 05:43 PM
Speaking of banners.... Duke was the conference football champion more times than any other conference member until relatively recently. Banners for conference championships would certainly reflect actual achievements.

jimsumner
11-27-2013, 06:07 PM
Speaking of banners.... Duke was the conference football champion more times than any other conference member until relatively recently. Banners for conference championships would certainly reflect actual achievements.

Not always. Duke finished first on the field in the ACC in 1965, at 4-2, tying South Carolina, but with a win over South Carolina. Following the season it was determined that South Carolina had used an ineligible player. They had to forfeit their wins.

Since Duke had defeated South Carolina that year, the forfeits didn't benefit Duke. But South Carolina's on-field wins over NC State and Clemson became NC State and Clemson wins. So those two teams flipped from 4-3 in the ACC to 5-2, thus leap-frogging Duke.

The ACC recognizes NC State and Clemson as ACC co-champions for that season.

FWIW.

Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 06:12 PM
Not always. Duke finished first on the field in the ACC in 1965, at 4-2, tying South Carolina, but with a win over South Carolina. Following the season it was determined that South Carolina had used an ineligible player. They had to forfeit their wins.

Since Duke had defeated South Carolina that year, the forfeits didn't benefit Duke. But South Carolina's on-field wins over NC State and Clemson became NC State and Clemson wins. So those two teams flipped from 4-3 in the ACC to 5-2, thus leap-frogging Duke.

The ACC recognizes NC State and Clemson as ACC co-champions for that season.

FWIW.

That is true. Duke did hold the record for number of conference championships, a fact conveniently overlooked by many not associated with Duke. Most happened in the early years of The ACC.

Olympic Fan
11-27-2013, 06:31 PM
That is true. Duke did hold the record for number of conference championships, a fact conveniently overlooked by many not associated with Duke. Most happened in the early years of The ACC.

Duke won or shared six of the first 10 ACC titles. Officially, the current count for ACC titles is:

Clemson 14 (actually 13)
FSU 12
Maryland 9
Duke 7 (actually eight)
N.C. State 7 (actually six)
UNC 5
VPI 4
Virginia 2
Wake 2
South Carolina 1

The reason I dispute the official total in 1965. Duke finished that season at 4-2 ... tied with South Carolina. N.C. State and Clemson finished tied for third at 4-3. Six months later, long after the title was awarded, new South Carolina AD Paul Dietzel reported that his predecessor, Marvin Bass, had used two ineligible players. Although they were inconsequential players, ACC Commissioner Jim Weaver dictated that South Carolina forfeit its six ACC games. That didn't help Duke, which had beaten South Carolina on the field, but it did help N.C. State and Clemson, which had both lost to the Gamecocks. The decision made their ACC record 5-2 ... so Weaver awarded them the championship -- essentially, Duke was robbed because South Carolina cheated! I( should also point out that when North Carolina was penalized for two years of ineligible players, their games were vacated, not forfeited -- meaning nobody improved their record Had the ACC applied the same rules to the Tar Heels, several division champions in 2008 and 2009 would have been different.

Anyway, I count 1965 among Duke's eight ACC titles. Duke also won 10 Southern Conference titles -- 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1952.

That's 18 ... I don't know the number of SC titles for Clemson, but it's very possible that Duke still has more conference titles than any other current ACC school.

Devil in the Blue Dress
11-27-2013, 06:58 PM
Duke won or shared six of the first 10 ACC titles. Officially, the current count for ACC titles is:

Clemson 14 (actually 13)
FSU 12
Maryland 9
Duke 7 (actually eight)
N.C. State 7 (actually six)
UNC 5
VPI 4
Virginia 2
Wake 2
South Carolina 1

The reason I dispute the official total in 1965. Duke finished that season at 4-2 ... tied with South Carolina. N.C. State and Clemson finished tied for third at 4-3. Six months later, long after the title was awarded, new South Carolina AD Paul Dietzel reported that his predecessor, Marvin Bass, had used two ineligible players. Although they were inconsequential players, ACC Commissioner Jim Weaver dictated that South Carolina forfeit its six ACC games. That didn't help Duke, which had beaten South Carolina on the field, but it did help N.C. State and Clemson, which had both lost to the Gamecocks. The decision made their ACC record 5-2 ... so Weaver awarded them the championship -- essentially, Duke was robbed because South Carolina cheated! I( should also point out that when North Carolina was penalized for two years of ineligible players, their games were vacated, not forfeited -- meaning nobody improved their record Had the ACC applied the same rules to the Tar Heels, several division champions in 2008 and 2009 would have been different.

Anyway, I count 1965 among Duke's eight ACC titles. Duke also won 10 Southern Conference titles -- 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1952.

That's 18 ... I don't know the number of SC titles for Clemson, but it's very possible that Duke still has more conference titles than any other current ACC school.
Bravo!

Acymetric
11-28-2013, 02:43 AM
Duke won or shared six of the first 10 ACC titles. Officially, the current count for ACC titles is:

Clemson 14 (actually 13)
FSU 12
Maryland 9
Duke 7 (actually eight)
N.C. State 7 (actually six)
UNC 5
VPI 4
Virginia 2
Wake 2
South Carolina 1

The reason I dispute the official total in 1965. Duke finished that season at 4-2 ... tied with South Carolina. N.C. State and Clemson finished tied for third at 4-3. Six months later, long after the title was awarded, new South Carolina AD Paul Dietzel reported that his predecessor, Marvin Bass, had used two ineligible players. Although they were inconsequential players, ACC Commissioner Jim Weaver dictated that South Carolina forfeit its six ACC games. That didn't help Duke, which had beaten South Carolina on the field, but it did help N.C. State and Clemson, which had both lost to the Gamecocks. The decision made their ACC record 5-2 ... so Weaver awarded them the championship -- essentially, Duke was robbed because South Carolina cheated! I( should also point out that when North Carolina was penalized for two years of ineligible players, their games were vacated, not forfeited -- meaning nobody improved their record Had the ACC applied the same rules to the Tar Heels, several division champions in 2008 and 2009 would have been different.

Anyway, I count 1965 among Duke's eight ACC titles. Duke also won 10 Southern Conference titles -- 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1952.

That's 18 ... I don't know the number of SC titles for Clemson, but it's very possible that Duke still has more conference titles than any other current ACC school.

This is why it makes more sense to vacate wins than to retroactively convert the games to forfeits.