PAGE 10

1935 SOUTHERN METHODISTRESEARCH PROBLEM IN THE POLLS

By James Mark Purcell

Most people who join organizations like the CFHS have in mind the preservation or restorationof past glories. So let me give an advance warning that the last part of this essay may disturbany member with hot Texas blood, or for that matter, cool Texas blood.

Of the prewar national college football champions in the official polls (after 1926), the earliestunacceptable choice is Illinois of 1927, which that season was only the third best team in its ownMidwest region, behind Minnesota and Notre Dame. Some other serious candidates, likeTennessee in 1939, benefit from the prewar rule that polls then closed before the bowl gamesso that defeat in a bowl game - like Tennessee's to USC - came too late to change any voter'smind. The team I wish to discuss now is Southern Methodist of 1935, which as in the Tennesseecase went unbeaten-untied in the regular season, had some serious support for national honorsin the voting, and (after the voting) blew the Rose Bowl game.

In 1935 SMU was hyped for the Rose Bowl game by the press and the bowl game promoters -not merely by the SMU athletic publicity office - as a glamorous big-passing team with an All-American tailback, Bobby Wilson, and an Ail-American line. Yet the contemporary play-by-playsin the newspapers for all their key games suggest that this hype is almost the reverse of theanalytic truth about this team. Their real strengths lay elsewhere.

Contemporaries perceived that the new SMU coach, Matty Bell, had by luck inherited a seniorpowerhouse from the departing coach, Ray Morrison, who only quit for personal reasons aftera good 8-2-2 season in 1934. My own judgement is that in fact Bell got the extreme possible valueout of some good players, then lost the Rose Bowl game on merit to a physically stronger team,and was robbed of the 1935 NCAA Coaches Award. The previous 1934 team had graduated tenseniors, including an end, Ray Fuqua, who was a starter and regular on the next summer'sCollege All-Star team. (The All-Star games of the 1930s were the real indicators of All-Americans based upon the playing time in the game against the professionals.)

This left new coach Bell in 1935 with only six backfield men and 9-10 linemen who could reallyplay major college football (The "60-minute" player of prewar college football was by the 1930sa near-myth. Major teams in major games as a rule played 22 men in two alternate teams, partlybecause they were cramped by the prewar limits on how often you could substitute the sameplayer in one game). These players were classroom smart and about a third of them had playedtogether since boyhood. They could all pass and catch, though by the 1930s this was almostautomatic with any Southwest team. They were also lighter in physical weight than the firstnine opponents on their schedule (and their bowl foe, Stanford, where this handicap finallycaught up with them) and their official tailback, Wilson, was below contemporary weightstandards for major college football outside the Southwest.

The line for SMU seems to have been anchored by the two tackles, Truman Spain (the All-American) and Maurice Orr, the placekicker, and the captain and guard, J.C. Wetzel. Thebackfield, when healthy, aligned John Sprague as the blocking-back quarterback and HarryShuford at (mostly) blocking fullback. Shuford called signals and no doubt had some influenceon the future game smartness of his young hero-worshipper Ewell "Doak" Walker, one of theWaterboys for this 1935 team. At the tailback and right halfback (wingback) positions - which,

PAGE 11

with Shuford, did the running, passing, and some of the receiving - were the glamour boy senior,Wilson, plus Bob Finley, Shelley Burt, and J.R. "Jackrabbit" Smith.

Going into the season, Bell would have been the target (on a 12-game schedule) as key dates formeetings with Rice, the 1934 conference champ, which was returning both of its star backs, BillWallace and John McCauley; Texas Christian, returning Sammy Baugh on what was Baugh'sstrongest college team, and the major intersectional game with UCLA on the coast. SMU beatall these teams, with only Baugh's TCU making it close in a legendary late-season 20-14 shootout,and was the logical candidate for the Rose Bowl after the promoters first two choices --Minnesota and Princeton - were ineligible by conference or school rules.

The Rose Bowl people thought they were getting a typical Southwest Conference passingsensation team, and as I said, the 1935 media thought that Bell had been coaching an All-Americatailback and an All-America line. In fact, 1935 Stanford with Bobby Grayson as a senior, shutSMU down in a 7-0 sleeper of a Rose Bowl game. My own guess is that the Stanford coach,

Thornhill, who saw the UCLA game, came to somescouting conclusions two months ahead of the press atthe Rose Bowl. What were they?

SMU's 1935 team stats look huge for the 1930s becausethey played that long 12-game schedule (with, notice,only three really tough opponents). The significantfigures - their per-game averages -- were respectively208.25 rushing yards per game, 101.6 passing yards, and309.85 total yards per game. For 1935 - two years beforewe have official NCAA nationally comparative figuresstarting in 1937 - the passing and rushing yardageaverages are probably top ten or maybe top five in rank.The SMU team rushing stats were very possibly top tenin 1935 but on a comparative scale less impressive thantheir passing yards and total yards.

Yet the key s ta ts were what happened when theOTHER team had the ball. For the seven games onwhich I have play-by-plays - including all their majortests - SMU averaged three defensive pass interceptionsa game, its offense depending on these turnovers toproduce some scores.. In a 35-6 win over Washington (StLouis), two of the five SMU touchdowns came on long

interception returns. Opponents' punts were funneled to the big-play runner, Wilson, who brokelong returns in two key games and who in my seven games has more punt return yards than hedoes from scrimmage (391-312).

The SMU team passing offense seems to have been, much of it, a short pass and lateral offense,very common in the 1930s and familiar even in the North from Andy Kerr's Colgate powerhouses- and of course, Francis Schmidt at Ohio State. The main passing, shared evenly, was by Wilsonand Finley - with about 170 yards apiece total for the seven games, an average passing yardagethat might have sneaked both of them into the top ten or top 15 in 1935 after 12 games. Therewas no primary receiver just as there was no one key defensive back making all thoseinterceptions.

After Wilson, the seven-game rushing totals for the other four running backs are all 125-150

PAGE 12

yards apiece. And at a time when even major powers did not customarily have a reliable fieldgoal kicker or even good extra-point percentages, SMU's second-best tackle, Orr, kicked fieldgoals in key games against Rice and Baylor. SMU of 1935 also passed another test of your soundteam - how to adjust to a key injury. Their fullback-quarterback Shuford went out hurt in gamenine (UCLA), and SMU still beat TCU without him.

So what went wrong against Stanford? One common perception is that the bowl game pressurefroze up SMU. Another (by the Mustang players) was that they just missed breaking their usuallong interception return or punt return by Wilson on two specific occasions. Shuford was backfor the Stanford game, but this means he probably played hurt, and SMU lost a touchdown whenhe either fumbled or had the ball stripped from him on a first-and-five situation.

What else went wrong? I think Stanford figured them out (meaning the coach who scouted theUCLA game). The first point about SMU is that they were more dangerous when the other teamhad the football, if (as was usually the case in the SWC) you passed or punted it their way.

Second, related, was that their pass defense backfield was moreof a threat than their line. Remember, the line was overall alightweight and lacked the true two-team 14-man depth a JockSutherland at Pittsburgh or Bernie Bierman at Minnesota inthat period would have considered essential. In other words,you could run on SMU but you couldn't pass; Stanford passedonly five times in the bowl game in what seems to have beenthe least risky times and places.

As for the "All American" line against Stanford, SMU wasfacing at least four legit AA candidates on the Stanford teamin Bob Reynolds at tackle, Wes Muller at center, and MonkMoscrip and Keith Topping at ends. Stanford simply shut SMUdown by crashing the ends. Shuford's fatal fumble came fromhis getting hit by a penetrating Stanford player on a delaylateral play which had worked all season against SouthwestConference lines.

In their November showcase game against UCLA, SMU hadthrown 29 passes for 183 yards, which is fairly respectable. Butback home, beyond the eyes of the bowl promoters, in tightgames, the SMU passing yardage stats run to 4 of 6 for 96

yards vs TCU, 4 of 10 for 22 against Rice, and 3 of 4 for 70 yds against Texas A&M. The keyplays in the SWC game reports were usually a field goal by Orr or a long-yardage punt returnby Wilson. What Bell had developed was a flashy crowd-pleasing offense and a pass-defense"offense" which concealed, I think, the fact that by SWC standards he had no star passer. Andthis brings up the delicate matter of the Ail-American credentials of his senior star Wilson.

Bobby Wilson, it should be said, came into 1935 with big-play long-run credentials from the 1933and 1934 seasons. He was certainly the key to the 1935 SMU offense. At the same time, SMUdidn't throw to him (in 1935 anyway) which is why his pass reception to win the 20-14 TCUgame was such a shock to his opponents. An aside from not being in the Baugh-Robbins classas a SWC conference passer, Bobby was not a real work-horse running back either. He did notreally supply the inside rushing yardage that most coaches then demanded of their tailback, letalone the workhorse rushing yardage and passing yardage stats you find for other 1935 tailbackslike Don Jackson of North Carolina or Tuffy Leemans of George Washington, neither of whommade All-America in 1935.

PAGE 13

The final verdict is that Wilson did play well in pressure games but the SMU team did not reallydepend on him in the usual manner of 1930-era tailback offenses. Against Stanford in the RoseBowl, Wilson rushed for either 21 yards on 15 carries or 22 yards on 12 carries, depending onwhose play-by-play you trust; and also had eight punt returns for 73 yards. The SMU teampassing yardage in the bowl game is 10 of 29 for 106 yards; starting the key play that put theMustangs on the Stanford five yard line with a short forward pass. It's just that with SammyBaugh's record in bowl and all-star games, one can bet not that TCU would have licked Stanford,but that the score would not have been 7-0 either. To review the overall team record, SMU wonits key game against TCU for the conference championship and national honors on merit (andwith the help of a bunch of dropped passes by the TCU receivers); in its first big test in Octoberagainst Rice, the returning 1934 champ, SMU caught BOTH of the Owls' star backs -- Wallaceand McCauley - playing hurt as part-time subs.

The UCLA game was more of a freak occurrence. In 1935 the three top Pacific Coast powers --Stanford, UCLA, and California - all went 1-1 against each other and were all comparable. Butin midseason the UCLA offense was disrupted when Ted Key - a strongman fullback, their leadblocker and most probably a top linebacker as well - was discovered having covered up an extraseason of play at another college by using falsified transfer credits. This came out after UCLAbeat Stanford 7-6. So SMU scored 21 points and tallied 361 yards of total offense against adisrupted UCLA defense. The later great win over TCU is not tainted in any way, except thatSMU's ability to move the ball on the ground (225 rushing yards) implies a TCU defensive lineNOT comparable with the monster unit at Stanford.

For the historian of the college polls, 1935 is strangely comparable to 1932 in that the acceptedtop teams - Southern Cal in 1932 and Minnesota in 1935 - are both inferior to the teams thosesame schools had in 1931 and 1934 respectively. Under modern conditions, both the 1932 and the1935 college championships would have been settled by a post-season duel between the Big Tenchamp (Michigan in 1932 and Minnesota in 1935) and the Pacific Coast leaders (USC in 1932 andStanford in 1935). A collision between the 1935 Minnesota and Stanford lines would probably havejarred loose the stadium foundation.

Nevertheless, on raw talent, preseason, Southern Methodist may have been only the third bestteam in their own conference behind Texas Christian and Rice. As a team though, SMU showsall the signs of a great full-season coaching job by Matty Bell - until the Mustangs ran intoStanford's "Vow Boys" in the 1936 Rose Bowl.

On November 3, 1973, at Gunnison, Colorado, Mike Flater of Colorado Mines - helped by a 30mph wind at his back - kicked a 62-yard field goal in his team's 27-12 loss to Western StateCollege. His kick tied the national mark at the time which had been set in 1971 by ChesterMarcol of Hillsdale College. This distance record has since been eclipsed several times.

In 1989 at Louisville, on the last play of the game Bret Favre of Southern Mississippi threw a79-yard "Hail Mary" pass that was tipped into the hands of teammate Darryl Tillman who wasbehind the secondary. Tillman continued on in for the touchdown to give Southern Miss astunning 16-10 win over the Louisville Cardinals.

Dan Rebsch of Miami (Ohio) intercepted five passes in a 38-8, 1972 win over Western Michigan.

In 1950 the matchup between South Carolina and George Washington at Washington D.C. wasmarred after the final play of the game when a brawl broke out in front of the GWU bench. Bothteams raced onto the field to take part in the riot which lasted nearly two minutes before police

d the coaches could restore order. Oh yes, South Carolina won the game 34-20.