Great college football teams from the 1930's-50's & the NFL

[Bryan]

I have an old Sporting News book from the late 80's which lists the alleged 25 greatest college football teams of all-time. Its an interesting book with a ton of information, even if the rankings are kind of weird (Jimmy Johnson's 1986-1987 Miami Hurricanes teams are ranked behind the 1976 Tony Dorsett Pitt Panthers, which is like listing the 1985 Bears behind the 1945 Rams).

Anyways, some of these great college teams from the late 30's to late 50's didn't have much in the way of NFL talent on their roster. General Neyland's U of Tennessee teams had only a couple marginal NFL players on their 1938 team. Biggie Munn's 1952 Michigan State team had two AFL/NFL backup QBs in Tom Yewcic and Willie Thrower but little else. The big names on the 1954 UCLA Bruins didn't have much impact in the NFL outside of LBs Don Shinnick and Bob Long.

Did the NFL have difficulty in attracting the top college players to continue playing football as a full-time profession in the 1930's-1950's? Did some players simply give up football like Jay Berwanger and devote themselves to something other than football? Were some of these great old college teams somewhat overrated in retrospect?

When did the NFL become the perfunctory extension of a great college football career as opposed to just one of several post-college career options for college football players?

[Reaser]

Were some of these great old college teams somewhat overrated in retrospect?

I remember a somewhat similar discussion on the old forums, about players we would have liked to have 'seen' play in the NFL, specifically I remember myself mentioning Nile Kinnick.

Besides the other career options, the levels of football were different unlike today where HS, CFB, NFL it mostly all looks the same with shotgun/spread, no defense allowed, etc ... Being good at the college level of course doesn't mean that it will translate to the NFL but today with more teams and roster spots and a million players in training camp most players with a 'name' in college will at least get in a camp. Of course the money aspect surely plays a part, as well.

I wouldn't say those teams were overrated, football is a team sport, you can see good HS teams have no players get offers from D1(FBS) schools while an average HS team can have 2-3 guys. Same then with college to NFL, it doesn't make the college players/teams less talented (for that level of football) or overrated that they didn't have guys go on to the NFL.

Someone can look this up to confirm if they want, but while typing this it reminds me of something that's interesting about Stanford.

With Luck: No conference championships, 2012 NFL draft he was one of two 1st round picks from Stanford and they also had two 2nd round picks.

Post-Luck: Two conference championships, zero 1st round picks and in two years a combined two 2nd round picks.

Stanford in 2011 had more NFL 'talent' and didn't accomplish as much as a team. In 2012 and 2013 they accomplished more as a team and had less (numbers and skill) NFL 'talent' ...

[conace21]

I recall a Jeff Davis (??) biography of George Halas; a passage about Johnny Lujack. Lujack had enjoyed early success in professional football, but an arm or shoulder injury left him hampered throwing the ball in 1950. He threw 4 TD's and 21 INT's (yet, according to PFR, he made his first Pro Bowl???) He was still effective running the ball, as he led the league with 11 rushing TD's. Lujack played just one more season before retiring due to his injuries. Davis wrote that Lujack could have continued to play as a runner or defensive specialist, but Halas wasn't about to pay him top QB wages for that. Lujack apparently had a promising business career going and decided to focus on that instead of playing pro ball for the lower wages. That was in 1952.
(Note, Lujack did become an assistant coach at Notre Dame for two years, and I've heard elsewhere that bad knees may have forced his premature retirement.)

[Bob Gill]

Besides the other career options, the levels of football were different unlike today where HS, CFB, NFL it mostly all looks the same with shotgun/spread, no defense allowed, etc ... Being good at the college level of course doesn't mean that it will translate to the NFL but today with more teams and roster spots and a million players in training camp most players with a 'name' in college will at least get in a camp. Of course the money aspect surely plays a part, as well.

I wouldn't say those teams were overrated, football is a team sport, you can see good HS teams have no players get offers from D1(FBS) schools while an average HS team can have 2-3 guys. Same then with college to NFL, it doesn't make the college players/teams less talented (for that level of football) or overrated that they didn't have guys go on to the NFL.

All true. But as far as the original question goes, I think the first sentence might be the most important. Over the last twenty years or so the style of play in football at all significant levels has become sort of homogenized, but in earlier years I believe the college game was more different from the NFL game. (This would apply at least through the '60s and '70s.) A lot of players excelled at the NCAA level but couldn't make the jump to the NFL, not because of a LACK of talent, but because their talent fit the one game but not the other. I'm sure that still happens today occasionally, but with all the colleges playing basically an NFL offense, it can't be as big a factor as it used to be.

Of course, if we're looking back at the 1930s, '40s and '50s, the relative lack of money involved made the NFL a less appealing option for college stars who could parlay their marquee names into well-paying positions in the business world,

[Bryan]

I wouldn't say those teams were overrated, football is a team sport, you can see good HS teams have no players get offers from D1(FBS) schools while an average HS team can have 2-3 guys. Same then with college to NFL, it doesn't make the college players/teams less talented (for that level of football) or overrated that they didn't have guys go on to the NFL.

I get your point, but I think there is a difference between talking about a good HS team and one of the best HS teams in history. I would expect the best HS teams to have the best players.

[Reaser]

I get your point, but I think there is a difference between talking about a good HS team and one of the best HS teams in history. I would expect the best HS teams to have the best players.

Here's De La Salle's roster from 2003 when they were once again 'National Champions' (counting all 'selectors' their 6th in a row) ... how many names do you recognize that were major college football stars or went to the NFL?

http://www.hsfdatabase.com/ca_delasalleroster2003.htm

One of the best dynasties in HS football history, here's a list of the top 15 players in the programs history (note: not all played at the same time, obviously): http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recru ... e-la-salle

You'll note all the college HOF'ers and future PFHOF'ers . . . or the guys who didn't make it at the college level yet are some of the greatest HS players to play and they did it while playing for one of the best HS teams our country has ever seen.

Though if you're me, you can make the argument that they beat up on CA HS's, and once they played a HS from WA their record 151 game winning streak ended, because the best High School football in the West is played in the Great State of Washington.

[Bryan]

I get your point, but I think there is a difference between talking about a good HS team and one of the best HS teams in history. I would expect the best HS teams to have the best players.

Here's De La Salle's roster from 2003 when they were once again 'National Champions' (counting all 'selectors' their 6th in a row) ... how many names do you recognize that were major college football stars or went to the NFL?

http://www.hsfdatabase.com/ca_delasalleroster2003.htm

One of the best dynasties in HS football history, here's a list of the top 15 players in the programs history (note: not all played at the same time, obviously): http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recru ... e-la-salle

You'll note all the college HOF'ers and future PFHOF'ers . . . or the guys who didn't make it at the college level yet are some of the greatest HS players to play and they did it while playing for one of the best HS teams our country has ever seen.

Though if you're me, you can make the argument that they beat up on CA HS's, and once they played a HS from WA their record 151 game winning streak ended, because the best High School football in the West is played in the Great State of Washington.

Interesting....thanks for the info. I live in the Chicago area, and the HS football here is kind of strange. You have these Chicago Public League schools that will 1 or 2 top college recruits, but then they'll play some all-white suburban team and lose by 30.

[Reaser]

Interesting....thanks for the info. I live in the Chicago area, and the HS football here is kind of strange. You have these Chicago Public League schools that will 1 or 2 top college recruits, but then they'll play some all-white suburban team and lose by 30.

Yup, you got it then, it's the best teams that win and not necessarily the teams with the best player(s) ... Plus of course the actual on the field best HS players aren't always the ones recruited/deemed the 'best' players for college football.

One more example just because I saw the all-league team this morning. There's a junior LB in our state (WA) that's already got offers from Tennessee and pretty much all the Pac-12 schools, based off that one would probably make the argument that he's the best LB'er in the state if not the best defensive player, right? (and he is pretty good) ...

Well his team plays in one of the weaker 1A (small) leagues in the state, and his team went 2-7 this season, he was named 2nd-team all-league and there was - due to ties - a ridiculous SIX first-team all-league LB'ers in that league this year. So at best, on the HS football field, he was considered the 7th best LB'er in an 8-team weak 1A league.

However, he's the the 'best' college player/prospect in that league. Which is what I'm saying, he's not even the best High School level LB in his own HS league but years from now when people look at HS football from the CFB point of view they'll (projecting) say he was the best LB in the entire state, because he's the best projected to college level LB'er. None of the 6 LB'ers deemed by that leagues coaches to be better than him on the field this season will be going 'D1', so again, the best HS players doesn't necessarily mean they'll be the best college players. Just as numerous players that dominated college football - or were part of the best CFB teams in history - don't end up as the best professional players.