This one is going to be much more difficult than the other ones.
College football in the 1960s was an entirely different game than now - almost to the point you'd think you were watching cricket as opposed to baseball. There are going to be several contributing factors to the overall assessment, and I'll use this data to determine an ultimate conclusion. This is just one guy's interpretation of the data and given how VERY CLOSE the results were in the other decades (except for the 2010s), I expect no less in the 1960s.
1) CFB was primarily a REGIONAL sport in the 1960s.
Cross country games with each other (like say Michigan vs USC) were extremely rare in the 1960s. The first sustained nonstop air flights in the USA began in 1953, and air travel was VERY expensive. Most schools did not have the luxury of playing – or risking to play – a team across the country with a venue half the size of the one on their own campus. Alabama could bring Southern Mississippi to town during those days of 43,000 seats in Bryant-Denny Stadium and pack the stadium and boost the local economy, get a win (4-0 in the 60s) and pocket a chunk of change for both schools. Had the Tide opted to travel to Nebraska back in those days, it would have cost UA a fortune and very likely would not have been shown on television (see more below).
2) Teams made their own schedules without control from a central conference office.
Modern apologists for their own mediocre SEC teams that always go to “the SEC offices are in Birmingham” (as if conspiracy theories are proof of, well, anything) don’t seem to realize that prior to 1970, SEC teams were in charge of their own schedules. There was one rule: you had to play AT LEAST six opponents within the conference to remain both eligible for the conference title and in the conference.
Alabama – as seems to always be the case – took a lot of criticism that in retrospect is just plain ludicrous. Not a word was ever said about Alabama’s schedule when the Tide was winning four games in three years under Ears Whitworth. But the moment that Alabama began winning national championships with more regularity than a strong laxative, all of a sudden the crying began about the Tide’s schedule, a cry that continues to this day regardless of whom Alabama beats. Yes, IT IS TRUE – Alabama and Ole Miss played ONE REGULAR SEASON GAME (and one Sugar Bowl) in the 32-year span of 1933-1965. That’s true.
But how is that Alabama’s fault?
LSU and Alabama had a somewhat similar story though not as extreme. From 1895-1945 (51 seasons), the two teams met 18 times and the Tide had a 12-3-3 advantage. From 1946-1968 (13 seasons), the teams met 9 times with LSU holding a 5-3-1 advantage that included the worst years in the history of Alabama football (which were 2 of those 5 wins). Then the two teams did not meet 1959-1963. Alabama started winning like crazy in 1960 and – all of a sudden – the tale became, “But Alabama doesn’t play LSU.”
Again – how is this Alabama’s fault?
The proof, of course, is in the pudding. Amazingly enough, Ole Miss and LSU were winning national championships like crazy……right up to the point both got Alabama on THEIR schedules every year (or almost). Alabama, by contrast, started winning titles left and right.
So in context, who’s to blame for this?
Of course, I’m willing to be fair and say nobody is really to “blame” for….well, what? What blame is there to go around? Remember – teams also had an incentive to not play one another and hope to match up in one of the bowl games, too.
Georgia Tech finished in the top ten five times in seven years from 1951-1957. The Ramblin’ Wreck went 6-1 against Alabama during that time frame. Paul Bryant walked through the door AND PLAYED GEORGIA TECH EVERY SINGLE YEAR from 1958-1964 and won 6 of 7 games, losing one only because of a failed 2-point conversion. Tech then left the conference (though to be fair there were other issues involved besides “we can’t beat Alabama now”). Bear in mind that Alabama played in a conference that produced national champions every single year 1957-1960 and then won one themselves in 1961. But they didn’t stop playing Auburn just because the Tigers won a national title. And then they added Ole Miss and LSU, so who exactly was afraid?
And that leads to another issue…..
3) Segregation (while not just a Southern phenomenon) was also a complicating factor in scheduling opponents.
Another fact of life when it came to scheduling college football games was simple: a number of the teams from the Eastern United States flat out refused to play road (some ANY) games with Southern teams because of the realities of Jim Crow and segregation. Boston College was one of the more outspoken ones, but the truth was that teams had legitimate concerns that something might happen to one or more of their players or teams. At the same time, SEC teams were refusing to play integrated teams, and credit goes to Kentucky for announcing in 1963 that they would seek games with integrated opponents.
Again, I don’t bring this up to excuse anything but merely to provide context. People can get angry that Alabama and Michigan State – two powers of the early 60s – never faced one another on the gridiron, but how could it have been any different? If Southern teams won’t play integrated ones and vice versa, you’re simply not going to get some of the games you should. Since the Big Ten (at that time) had a “no repeat” rule for the Rose Bowl and didn’t play other bowl games, the chances of Alabama and Michigan State meeting on the field were pretty much zilch. By the time Alabama integrated (even minimally), the Spartans were no longer a national power.
5) From 1962 to 1967, the AP only ranked ten teams.
Technically, they only “officially” ranked 10 teams in 1961, but you can see how the rankings panned out by seeing which teams wound up where in the “others receiving votes” in the final poll. Consequently, for 1962-1967, I will use the UPI poll (now called the coach’s poll). In those days, teams on probation were ineligible to be ranked, so this has the potential of affecting the final results as well.
6) The AP ranking system was not nearly as formalized as it is nowadays.
It was not uncommon for a number of the AP sportswriters to sit out the regular season voting and then suddenly submit a ballot for tabulation in the final rankings. While this never vaulted an unranked team to number one, it is a reality of the times.
7) Reminder: except for 1965, the AP poll did not begin counting the bowl games in the final rankings until 1968 while the UPI poll did not begin counting the bowl games until 1974. Which leads us to….
8) Bowl games and TV appearances were extremely limited, and bowl games were exhibition games that did not count in the standings.
In 1960, there were NINE bowl games – seven of them played across the days of December 30 through January 1. By the end of the decade, there were still only 11 bowls, and several conferences (Big Ten, Pac Eight) plus Notre Dame either forbid their teams from playing in them or they forbid them from playing in any but the bowl for the conference champion (e.g. Rose for the Big Ten/Pac Eight).
As I’ve said before, it is always amusing that Alabama gets ripped for the 1964 title while earlier teams that lost (including 1960 Minnesota) get a free pass. The anger over 1964 – ironically – wound up giving the Tide back-to-back titles when the AP went to a one-year “include the bowls” process for ranking.
9) Context is everything
All of the preceding narrative is simply to make the point that we shouldn’t expect to find a lot of games between top five teams, plus the narrowed rankings system will necessarily reduce the potential matchups. Don’t judge these teams or their ADs harshly by modern standards. Understand and interpret reality by the context of their time.
I’m fond of using baseball analogies as a number of folks know. Some are good, some are not so good. But you can’t look at the period of 1920-1941 when baseball had nine .400 hitters (6 different players) and conclude that hitters were better in the 20s and 30s than nowdays. You also can’t look at Carl Yastrzemski’s .301 batting average that won the 1968 AL batting title and conclude the hitters of the 1960s were a bunch of scrubs. Note that the most eye-popping PITCHING stats occurred during the same time frame. That doesn’t mean all the great pitchers were in the 60s or that Denny McLain was a better hurler than Greg Maddux (not even for one season).
Context matters!
Remember, everything squares directly at .500 in analysis.
Every point scored by an offense is a point surrendered by a defense.
Every game won by one team is a game lost by another team.
Every upset by an unranked team against #1 is ALSO a loss by a ranked team to an unranked team.
And so on………
College football in the 1960s was an entirely different game than now - almost to the point you'd think you were watching cricket as opposed to baseball. There are going to be several contributing factors to the overall assessment, and I'll use this data to determine an ultimate conclusion. This is just one guy's interpretation of the data and given how VERY CLOSE the results were in the other decades (except for the 2010s), I expect no less in the 1960s.
1) CFB was primarily a REGIONAL sport in the 1960s.
Cross country games with each other (like say Michigan vs USC) were extremely rare in the 1960s. The first sustained nonstop air flights in the USA began in 1953, and air travel was VERY expensive. Most schools did not have the luxury of playing – or risking to play – a team across the country with a venue half the size of the one on their own campus. Alabama could bring Southern Mississippi to town during those days of 43,000 seats in Bryant-Denny Stadium and pack the stadium and boost the local economy, get a win (4-0 in the 60s) and pocket a chunk of change for both schools. Had the Tide opted to travel to Nebraska back in those days, it would have cost UA a fortune and very likely would not have been shown on television (see more below).
2) Teams made their own schedules without control from a central conference office.
Modern apologists for their own mediocre SEC teams that always go to “the SEC offices are in Birmingham” (as if conspiracy theories are proof of, well, anything) don’t seem to realize that prior to 1970, SEC teams were in charge of their own schedules. There was one rule: you had to play AT LEAST six opponents within the conference to remain both eligible for the conference title and in the conference.
Alabama – as seems to always be the case – took a lot of criticism that in retrospect is just plain ludicrous. Not a word was ever said about Alabama’s schedule when the Tide was winning four games in three years under Ears Whitworth. But the moment that Alabama began winning national championships with more regularity than a strong laxative, all of a sudden the crying began about the Tide’s schedule, a cry that continues to this day regardless of whom Alabama beats. Yes, IT IS TRUE – Alabama and Ole Miss played ONE REGULAR SEASON GAME (and one Sugar Bowl) in the 32-year span of 1933-1965. That’s true.
But how is that Alabama’s fault?
LSU and Alabama had a somewhat similar story though not as extreme. From 1895-1945 (51 seasons), the two teams met 18 times and the Tide had a 12-3-3 advantage. From 1946-1968 (13 seasons), the teams met 9 times with LSU holding a 5-3-1 advantage that included the worst years in the history of Alabama football (which were 2 of those 5 wins). Then the two teams did not meet 1959-1963. Alabama started winning like crazy in 1960 and – all of a sudden – the tale became, “But Alabama doesn’t play LSU.”
Again – how is this Alabama’s fault?
The proof, of course, is in the pudding. Amazingly enough, Ole Miss and LSU were winning national championships like crazy……right up to the point both got Alabama on THEIR schedules every year (or almost). Alabama, by contrast, started winning titles left and right.
So in context, who’s to blame for this?
Of course, I’m willing to be fair and say nobody is really to “blame” for….well, what? What blame is there to go around? Remember – teams also had an incentive to not play one another and hope to match up in one of the bowl games, too.
Georgia Tech finished in the top ten five times in seven years from 1951-1957. The Ramblin’ Wreck went 6-1 against Alabama during that time frame. Paul Bryant walked through the door AND PLAYED GEORGIA TECH EVERY SINGLE YEAR from 1958-1964 and won 6 of 7 games, losing one only because of a failed 2-point conversion. Tech then left the conference (though to be fair there were other issues involved besides “we can’t beat Alabama now”). Bear in mind that Alabama played in a conference that produced national champions every single year 1957-1960 and then won one themselves in 1961. But they didn’t stop playing Auburn just because the Tigers won a national title. And then they added Ole Miss and LSU, so who exactly was afraid?
And that leads to another issue…..
3) Segregation (while not just a Southern phenomenon) was also a complicating factor in scheduling opponents.
Another fact of life when it came to scheduling college football games was simple: a number of the teams from the Eastern United States flat out refused to play road (some ANY) games with Southern teams because of the realities of Jim Crow and segregation. Boston College was one of the more outspoken ones, but the truth was that teams had legitimate concerns that something might happen to one or more of their players or teams. At the same time, SEC teams were refusing to play integrated teams, and credit goes to Kentucky for announcing in 1963 that they would seek games with integrated opponents.
Again, I don’t bring this up to excuse anything but merely to provide context. People can get angry that Alabama and Michigan State – two powers of the early 60s – never faced one another on the gridiron, but how could it have been any different? If Southern teams won’t play integrated ones and vice versa, you’re simply not going to get some of the games you should. Since the Big Ten (at that time) had a “no repeat” rule for the Rose Bowl and didn’t play other bowl games, the chances of Alabama and Michigan State meeting on the field were pretty much zilch. By the time Alabama integrated (even minimally), the Spartans were no longer a national power.
5) From 1962 to 1967, the AP only ranked ten teams.
Technically, they only “officially” ranked 10 teams in 1961, but you can see how the rankings panned out by seeing which teams wound up where in the “others receiving votes” in the final poll. Consequently, for 1962-1967, I will use the UPI poll (now called the coach’s poll). In those days, teams on probation were ineligible to be ranked, so this has the potential of affecting the final results as well.
6) The AP ranking system was not nearly as formalized as it is nowadays.
It was not uncommon for a number of the AP sportswriters to sit out the regular season voting and then suddenly submit a ballot for tabulation in the final rankings. While this never vaulted an unranked team to number one, it is a reality of the times.
7) Reminder: except for 1965, the AP poll did not begin counting the bowl games in the final rankings until 1968 while the UPI poll did not begin counting the bowl games until 1974. Which leads us to….
8) Bowl games and TV appearances were extremely limited, and bowl games were exhibition games that did not count in the standings.
In 1960, there were NINE bowl games – seven of them played across the days of December 30 through January 1. By the end of the decade, there were still only 11 bowls, and several conferences (Big Ten, Pac Eight) plus Notre Dame either forbid their teams from playing in them or they forbid them from playing in any but the bowl for the conference champion (e.g. Rose for the Big Ten/Pac Eight).
As I’ve said before, it is always amusing that Alabama gets ripped for the 1964 title while earlier teams that lost (including 1960 Minnesota) get a free pass. The anger over 1964 – ironically – wound up giving the Tide back-to-back titles when the AP went to a one-year “include the bowls” process for ranking.
9) Context is everything
All of the preceding narrative is simply to make the point that we shouldn’t expect to find a lot of games between top five teams, plus the narrowed rankings system will necessarily reduce the potential matchups. Don’t judge these teams or their ADs harshly by modern standards. Understand and interpret reality by the context of their time.
I’m fond of using baseball analogies as a number of folks know. Some are good, some are not so good. But you can’t look at the period of 1920-1941 when baseball had nine .400 hitters (6 different players) and conclude that hitters were better in the 20s and 30s than nowdays. You also can’t look at Carl Yastrzemski’s .301 batting average that won the 1968 AL batting title and conclude the hitters of the 1960s were a bunch of scrubs. Note that the most eye-popping PITCHING stats occurred during the same time frame. That doesn’t mean all the great pitchers were in the 60s or that Denny McLain was a better hurler than Greg Maddux (not even for one season).
Context matters!
Remember, everything squares directly at .500 in analysis.
Every point scored by an offense is a point surrendered by a defense.
Every game won by one team is a game lost by another team.
Every upset by an unranked team against #1 is ALSO a loss by a ranked team to an unranked team.
And so on………
