Return to the 1894 season page

After their stunning loss to UNC on the 12th, the A&M team set to work. The second game played between the two teams, announced by October 17th, was lauded in Raleigh with promises such as "The college boys are doing hard practice work and say that the score this time will be much less than 44 to 0" (Evening Visitor, October 17th, 1894, p. 1). An article the next day hyped up Raleigh's football enthusiasts with the following enthralling preview:

"Next Saturday the A. & M. college and the University [of North Carolina] will play a game of football at Athletic park. It will be the only game of football played here this season and besides it will be no mean struggle.... The college boys are not disheartened and, while not expecting to win, promise the public that they will play good, honest football."

Though the article did mention that the Farmers had learned a great deal in their one game of the season so far, the main incentive for Raleighites to attend the game was because "It costs money for a football team to journey to Raleigh to play and Raleigh people should show their appreciation of the university boys' trouble by giving them a good crowd" (Evening Visitor, October 18th, 1894, p. 1).

A slightly more optimistic preview of the game appeared in the News and Observer but was unfortunately published the morning after the game had taken place. It said that the two teams were "very equally matched in size and strength" but that UNC had shown better coaching during their game the previous Friday (News and Observer, October 21st, 1894, p. 6).

While A&M's poor showing in their first game likely caused some of this lackluster encouragement of attendance for the game, part of the monetary-based incentivization of attendance was probably made with the hope that a good showing for this game would encourage bigger and better matchups--such as that year’s Trinity (Duke)-UNC game, which Raleigh had been courting for some time--to schedule neutral-site games in Raleigh* (Evening Visitor, October 17th, 1894, p. 1).

Though A&M this time held UNC to a score of just 16-0, the playing of UNC was described as "a decided disappointment" (Evening Visitor, October 20th, 1894, p. 1). In contrast to last Friday's game, the weather for the Raleigh game was described as "rather warm for foot ball." To add to the negative atmosphere of the game, the field was described as "in a pitiable condition," with The Tar Heel alluding indirectly that the poor condition of the field was to be blamed for the low score. Finally, the attendance of the game was "quite slim," with most of the fans at the game being A&M students (The Tar Heel, October 25th, 1894, p. 1).

There is some disagreement about key aspects of this game. Though the Evening Visitor says two twenty-minute halves were played, The Tar Heel says that the latter period was fifteen minutes. Additionally, Beezley writes that this loss was actually to UNC's second team (or scrubs); by looking at the make-up of UNC's team, this not exactly true. UNC's first game against A&M featured Rankin, Moore, Collier, Sharpe, Guion, Pugh, Gregory, Slocumb, Denson, Graham, Stanly, and Baskerville; in the second game, UNC replaced Gregory, Slocumb, and Graham with Merritt, Baird, and Stephens. While Graham and Slocumb had been powerful forces in the first UNC game, most of the players were the same.

UNC scored her first point six-and-a-half minutes into the first half. No more scoring took place in that first half, with UNC's other two touchdowns coming in the second half. Denson and Stephens made the touchdowns for UNC, and Baskerville again kicked, making 2 of his 3 attempts. The other recorded key contributor to UNC's win was Guion. In general, UNC's team was described as lacking spirit, having poor kicking and passing, and lacking "ginger."

For A&M, the team was described as showing improvement for individuals "in some directions," but overall played with less cohesion than in their previous game; the only especially noted A&M player was Whitaker. Though A&M's ball-carrying backs succeeded in making it through UNC's line a few times, they never managed to score.

Not much else remains regarding a summary of the game. It is known that UNC's team did not even stay the day in Raleigh; instead, they arrived by train in the morning and left the same way later that afternoon Daily Tar Heel, October 18th, 1894, p. 3). The game was also watched with interest by a number of Trinity students (News and Observer, October 23rd, 1894, p. 1).

UNC would go on to have a fairly successful football team for the year. With A&M serving as their opening two games, UNC would go on to defeat Trinity (Duke) 28-0 in Chapel Hill, win against Sewanee in a neutral-site game in Asheville, NC, 36-4, win at Georgetown 20-4, and beat Richmond in a game played in Greensboro 28-0. They did however have losses to Lehigh and Rutgers, as well as a massive 34-0 thumping to Virginia.