1954 Sooners

[Geekboy]

Why didn't OU play in a bowl game or for the national title in '54? I've googled but can't find out.

[yermom]

i believe it was because they had gone to the Orange Bowl the year before... there was a rule about going in back to back years

UCLA and tOSU split that year, we were #3

we won the MNC in 56 without going to a bowl game after going in 55 and winning one

[KingBarry]

The Big 7 (or was it still Big 6?) Conference had a rule that no school could represent the conference in a bowl game in consecutive seasons.

The reasoning is that there were only about six bowl games, and only one team from within the conference would likely get a bowl bid each year. That would normally be the conference champion, and it looked like Oklahoma would win the championship about every year.

The rule grew directly from the Sooners' experiences attending the Sugar Bowl for three consecutive seasons -- 1949, 1950 and 1951. After three trips to New Orleans, the Sooners weren't so excited anymore, and the N'awlins locals seemed fed up of OU. The main story in the papers was how Coach Wilkinson forced his players, on the sidelines, to remain standing throughout the game -- and they thus blocked the views of the fans in the lower rows.

OU President George Lynn Cross instigated the rule, because he thought it would lead to better relations between his school and the bowl they attended, and give more scholar-athletes the chance to attend a bowl game.

Seems questionable today, but with only a handfull of bowls, it was a different world.

Note: A few details may be off, and I apologize, but I didn't have time to look anything up. My source is "President's Can't Punt," by George Lynn Cross. I highly recommend this very readable book for anyone interested in what it means to manage a major college football program.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe the Sooners shouldn't be allowed to come to the Fiesta Bowl this yr.??!

[OU_Sooners75]

The Big 7 (or was it still Big 6?) Conference had a rule that no school could represent the conference in a bowl game in consecutive seasons.

The reasoning is that there were only about six bowl games, and only one team from within the conference would likely get a bowl bid each year. That would normally be the conference champion, and it looked like Oklahoma would win the championship about every year.

The rule grew directly from the Sooners' experiences attending the Sugar Bowl for three consecutive seasons -- 1949, 1950 and 1951. After three trips to New Orleans, the Sooners weren't so excited anymore, and the N'awlins locals seemed fed up of OU. The main story in the papers was how Coach Wilkinson forced his players, on the sidelines, to remain standing throughout the game -- and they thus blocked the views of the fans in the lower rows.

OU President George Lynn Cross instigated the rule, because he thought it would lead to better relations between his school and the bowl they attended, and give more scholar-athletes the chance to attend a bowl game.

Seems questionable today, but with only a handfull of bowls, it was a different world.

Note: A few details may be off, and I apologize, but I didn't have time to look anything up. My source is "President's Can't Punt," by George Lynn Cross. I highly recommend this very readable book for anyone interested in what it means to manage a major college football program.

This changed after 1957 then. Because OU went to Bowls in 1958 and 1959.

[OU_Sooners75]

Maybe the Sooners shouldn't be allowed to come to the Fiesta Bowl this yr.??!

Kinda. I think theere should be no ties to the BCS Bowls.

Just at-large.

[KingBarry]

This changed after 1957 then. Because OU went to Bowls in 1958 and 1959.

1959 was a special deal. The Orange Bowl really wanted Oklahoma, and begged the conference to rescind the rule for one year. I believe the excuse they came up with was that it was a special anniversary year for the Orange Bowl -- I believe the 25th game. I don't know when the rule was changed.

[Octavian]

UCLA and tOSU split that year, we were #3


Yeah, that happened a couple times to Bud...and in '54 it was really too bad because OU could have 3-peated -- and it still would be the only post-Nagasaki 3-peat in college football. (Alabama's '66 team would object to this -- with Notre Dame as the benefactor again)


OU went undefeated and untied from 10/10/53 to 11/16/57. That's insane. Bud's Sooners also went undefeated in 1949 (11-0) with Darrell Royal at quarterback, but Notre Dame was named the AP champs.


In the 11 year stretch of '48 to '58, OU had 5 undefeated seasons and only 8 losses. Bud's Sooners were one of the great dynasties in sports. If not for the short end in '49 and '54...and a couple close losses to Notre Dame...OU might being going for #11 or #12. NCs are just hard to win.

[OU_Sooners75]

Didnt OU beat Maryland in the OB after Maryland was crowned the NC?

LMFAO at crowning a national title before the season was over.

[CincySooner]

Didnt OU beat Maryland in the OB after Maryland was crowned the NC?

LMFAO at crowning a national title before the season was over.

You do realize that OU did the exact same thing in 1950, right? OU won the national title then lost the Sugar Bowl to Kentucky.

[OUDoc]

Bowl games didn't really count for much back then. Didn't we just get the bowl games stats counting toward season totals just recently?

[olevetonahill]

Bowl games didn't really count for much back then. Didn't we just get the bowl games stats counting toward season totals just recently?

Im not sure when Doc , But back then a Bowl Game was a reward for the Players and Gave the teams extra Cash

[yermom]

yeah, it was more of an exhibition game back then, from what i understand

[boomermagic]

It really is amazing what Bud's teams did.. Barry didn't do too bad himself..

[Jdog]

Bowl games were exhibition game back in the 50's - the final polls came out in December, before the bowl games.

I had a stepfather who played for OkA&M back in the early 40's when they played TCU in the Cotton bowl. Back then the Bowls gave players little trinkets - he received a little football pendent and a watch.

If you're really interested in Buds teams you should read Jim Dents book, The Undefeated - it is truly a remarkable story.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you're really interested in Buds teams you should read Jim Dents book, The Undefeated - it is truly a remarkable story.For Sure. It's a great read, even for non-Soonerfans who are just sports fans.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

If you're really interested in Buds teams you should read Jim Dents book, The Undefeated - it is truly a remarkable story.

Heh. Yeah, well watch out. I read it and liked it, but I told that to one of the old players that was listed in the book and he went off. He said it was a load of garbage and that Jim Dent was a liar and that the old players were all glad that he got thrown in jail. (DUI or something)

So, I am not sure if there was some embellishment or if the book just said a few truths that pissed them off. I was a little uncomfortable with all of that and I don't recommend the book any more.

[KingBarry]

Heh. Yeah, well watch out. I read it and liked it, but I told that to one of the old players that was listed in the book and he went off. He said it was a load of garbage and that Jim Dent was a liar and that the old players were all glad that he got thrown in jail. (DUI or something)

So, I am not sure if there was some embellishment or if the book just said a few truths that pissed them off. I was a little uncomfortable with all of that and I don't recommend the book any more.

From what I understood from reading the papers, Bud Wilkinson's players were mostly angry that Wilkinson himself was portrayed as something of a womanizer. You know, I wasn't there, I don't know what's true.

But what I do know is that Bud Wilkinson was very famous (he was the first football coach to have his own TV show), he was well paid, he dressed great, and was considered to be exceptionally friendly and the "life of the party."

What that all means to me is that he probably had plenty of opportunities to womanize if he wanted to, and let's face it, most men will occasionally take advantage if they have enough opportunities.

[NOTE: Fortunately, I'm neither good looking nor interesting, so I don't have to deal much with the temptation.]

I thought it was unfair that Dent's book was trashed basically only for its portrayal of Wilkinson's private life, as it is a great read. At the same time, to those young guys in the 50's, you just don't talk about people's private sex lives.

I haven't said anything that made much sense, so I'll stop typing now, but I would still recommend the book.

[TMcGee86]

Yeah I think the book is fantastic. I can't see how anyone can read it and come away with anything but awe and admiration of Bud.

The stories about him when he was young and in military school alone tell you what an amazing individual he was. (They used to sleep with the windows open in sub-freezing weather (Minn) to prove to each other how tough they were).

But I thought the real beef people had was with the talk regarding the slush fund they had and how open and obvious it supposedly was. I remember someone I talked with saying people were very upset that he would say that or even imply it. (Even if Dent did basically say that every school did it back then and that's just the way things were).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I loved the book, and sure don't think anyone, at least nowadays, would come away from reading it with a negative impression of OU or Bud's Sooners.

[SbOrOiNaEnR]

Honestly, when I read Dent's book, and learned all that stuff about Bud's lifestyle...true or not, it made me like him that much more. :D