2009 Season Determines Team of the Decade
by RMHorn on Nov 16, 2009 2:44 PM CST
Email
PrintIf the pressure of being in a National Championship hunt where the biggest challenge remaining is themselves isn't enough, the 2009 season will determine what school gets team of the decade bragging rights. By most any measure the Texas Longhorns belong in the middle of that conversation, along with Florida, Louisiana State, Southern California, Oklahoma and Ohio State. No other schools got anywhere near this elite level in the first decade of the 21st century.
The facts 2000-2009*:
Most Wins:
Boise St 108, Oklahoma 108, Texas 107, USC 101, Ohio St 100, LSU 98, Florida 97
Best Winning %:
Boise St 86.4, Texas 85.6, Oklahoma 82.44, USC 80.8, Ohio St 80.0, LSU 77.17, Florida 76.98
Most National Championships:
Florida 2, LSU 2, USC 1.5, Texas 1, Oklahoma 1, Ohio St 1, Miami 1
Most National Championship Appearances:
Oklahoma 4, Ohio St 3, USC 2.5, Florida 2, LSU 2, Texas 1, Miami 2, Nebraska 1, Florida St 1
If Florida wins out then no doubt about it with 3 NC's the Gators get T-O-D honors.
But if Texas wins out then we'll have three teams holding 2 NC's apiece, with the Longhorns holding the most overall wins and best overall winning percentage of them all.
Sure, both OU and tOSU will have been there more often (UT missed by a whisker in both 2004 and 2008). But when the T-O-D chatter starts in December as they hype builds for Pasadena our Texas Longhorns are probably playing the Florida Gators for the elite of elite honors: 2000-2009 Team of the Decade!
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll let it play out
Hard to say it’s NOT Southern Cal if Florida misses title No. 3 . . . Trojans got jobbed out of playing for MNC in 2003, had only one down season early (2009 might get there) . . . Texas vs. OU is for No. 2 if Horns finish 14-0. NCs to us, Big 12 titles to Sooners, wins and percentage to us, head-to-head I believe is 6-4 OU.
Like that you line-out Boise State. What do you suppose Colorado’s record would be if Buffs played Hawaii, Fresno, Utah State, etc., every year?
If Texas beats Fla for MNC.
I say it is Texas. Head to head over USC and Florida and most wins of the four teams with 2 MNC not to mention 4-0 in BCS games and 8-2 in Bowls.
That's Right! And That Reminds Me..
Probably Best Stat Supporting Texas – IF defeats Florida in NC this year:
If Texas plays Florida in the NC this year the Longhorns will be the only one of the elite teams of the decade to have faced every single other one, AND Defeated them all!!
Texas v: (8-6 overall, 3-0 Bowls)
OKL – 2000-9, 4-6
tOSU – 2005-6, 1-1; 2008, 1-0 (BCS Fiesta)
USC – 2005 1-0 (Rose NC)
LSU – 2003, 1-0 (Cotton)
FL – Never 2009
OU v: (6-7 overall, 0-3 Bowls)
TEXAS – 2000-9, 6-4
LSU – 2004, 0-1 (Sugar NC)
FL – 2008, 0-1 (BCS NC)
USC – 2004, 0-1 (Orange NC)
tOSU – Never
FL v: (8-4 overall, 2-0 Bowls)
LSU – 2000-9, 6-4
OU – 2008, 1-0 (BCS NC)
tOSU – 2006, 1-0 (BCS NC)
TEXAS – Never 2009
USC – Never
LSU v: (6-7 overall, 1-2 Bowls)
FL – 2000-9, 4-6
OU – 2004, 1-0 (Sugar NC)
tOSU – 2007, 1-0 (BCS NC)
TEXAS – 2003, 0-1 (Cotton)
USC – Never
USC v: (3-1 overall, 1-1 Bowls)
tOSU – 2008-9, 2-0
OU – 2004, 1-0 (Orange NC)
TEXAS – 2005, 0-1 (Rose NC)
LSU – Never
FL – Never
tOSU v: (1-6 overall, 0-3 Bowls)
TEXAS – 2005-6, 1-1; 2008, 0-1 (BCS Fiesta)
USC – 2008-0, 0-2
LSU – 2007, 0-1 (BCS NC)
FL – 2006, 0-1 (BCS NC)
OU – Never
Oh, while I gave USC a .5 credit for 2003, in reality (my bias) the Trojans were no more hosed in 2003 than the Horns were in 2008, in fact by getting the AP title they were treated better.
Stat Correction
tOSU has it’s 2002 NC win over Miami I left off here, so they’re 2-7 overall, 1-3 in bowls, having appeared in 3 NC games.
Also, Texas’s record overall is 8-7, did math wrong there.
Lack of Conference Championships
That’s what will kill the Horns’ chances. The most we will have is 2. USC will have like 8 or 9, Florida 5 or 6. Sill though, would be a helluva decade for the Horns.
Meh
The lack of championships will hurt our chances, but having the most wins without playing in the conference championship game most years is pretty impressive
by shaqui chan on Nov 16, 2009 10:17 PM CST up reply actions
Personally
I do not think lack of conference championships is important. We do not play in the same conference as USC so we are not comparing apples to apples in regard to a Pac 10 title versus a Big 12 title.
Agreed
By conference championships both OU and USC have ruled the Big 12 and Pac 10, respectively, but how would you say which one was better based on that? T-O-D both squads are ahead of UT right now – but not by that much, and with a win over Florida in this year’s BCS NC, Texas moves ahead.
My order of teams right now:
USC
UF
OU
LSU
TEXAS
tOSU.
A UT win over UF I believe is enough for Texas to jump every team ahead of them, though.
Might also want to throw in BCS bowl wins. USC probably gets the edge for playing in the Rose every year.
I think even if we win the NC this year, I might put Texas 2nd
behind USC. Their record with bowl wins and OOC is pretty dang dominant, as well as wiping their conference clean for 7 years in a row.
I’m somewhat jealous of the run they’ve been on, and hope that we’re getting to that level now, and will be the dominant team of the NEXT decade.
Lets win 7/10 of the next Big 12 conference championships and 4-5 BCS games with 1-2 more NC’s sprinkled in.
Bookends to Decade Hurt USC
Pretty mediocre to average bookends for USC (2000 5-7, 2001 6-6, 2009 7-3*). Great immaculate stretch between, but Texas more consistently outstanding.
For Jerry Seinfeld's sake
I feel the need to point out that there was no year 0 so really the decade runs from 2001-2010.
That said, It feels to me like USC was consistently a top 4 team for the bulk of the decade and for that reason I’d lean toward handing it to them. Also, 3 heismans (deserved or not) helps leave an impression
No
The “aughts” (I’m 0% sure I spelled that right) is from 2000-2009, because while there was no year zero, there definitely was a year 2000, IIRC. The year 2010 is the beginning of the teens, unless you want to count 2000 as part of the nineties.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
So what you're saying is that the first decade had only 9 years in it,
and every decade since has had 10?
Basically
If you are choosing to start your decade-counting from year 1CE, then counting forward until now, then your decades would, in increments of ten, be 1991-2000, 2001-2010, etc., but nobody does that. It is pretty universal that when you are referring a proper decade, such as the fifties or eighties, you are referring to all of the years within that block of ten years where the 10-digit is the same (1950-59, 1980-89). If you ask anybody when the nineties took place, nobody is going to say 1991-2000. Following this to its logical conclusion, yes, the “first” decade of the CE (and last of BCE) are going to be nine-year decades, based on the criteria of what we are considering a decade within the context of this conversation. Of course if somebody was born on January 1st, 1CE, the first “decade” of their life is going to end on Jan 1st, 11CE, but the usage of decade is different in that context, referring to simply a ten-year period, and not a particular ten-years whose grouping is predicated on the numbering of the Gregorian Calendar.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
It's the Newmanium
I agree with you. I only threw it out there as an homage to Seinfeld.
We have a chance to be the only twice undefeated champion of the decade.
If only we won more stupid Big 12 championships…that’s the one big knock on us!
"Football's so important in Texas. On the West Coast, it's a social. On the East Coast, it's a culture. Here, it's a religion."
-- Major Applewhite
Average final ranking
Don’t forget average final ranking, a stat that if you can accept the fact that it is largely a function of votes, takes into account a lot of things other than MNC’s and winning percentage. And if you want to talk about a team of the decade you have to take both good and bad years into account, which average final ranking does.
If the season ended today with the current rankings, Texas would have by far the best average final ranking in the 2000’s -
Texas 7.1, OU 9, USC 9.2, tOSU 10.9, FL 11.7, LSU 12.1
Collectively
You guys are making a strong case.
If we beat FL this year at the MNC then the head to head, MNC Titles, Overall Bowl record, & Average Final ranking would be enough in my honest and substantive opinion to boast to all my other collegiate friends of Texas being the team of the decade.
Even if Florida wins a 3rd national champsionship, I'd still give it to USC.
Any team coached by Ron Zook for 30% of a time period cannot be considered the team of that time period. I’m sorry. Especially a team that has yet to have an undefeated season in that time period. They’re most definitely the team of the second half of the decade. No doubt at all. But they have the worst win percentage over the decade of all the candidates and the fewest wins. They have 3 consecutive years of 8-5, 8-5 and 7-5 records.
If Texas wins the championship this year, then it’s a tossup between UT and USC. If Texas doesn’t win, it’s gotta be the Trojans.
by billyzane on Nov 16, 2009 7:56 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
agreed...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Nov 16, 2009 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
I'd be pretty happy with simply being the Team of 2009
and hoisting the crystal football in pasadena. You’ll have a handful of different opinions on team of the decade no matter how this season unfolds. it’s going to be one of those “best player”, “best team”, “best whatever” arguments that no one ever really wins.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
Look at the conference affiliations of the teams in the running...
Now look at the two teams with most wins and best winning percentages. Both those teams aren’t just in the same conference, they are in the same division! Imagine if either OU or Texas didn’t play each other every year. We could have 6 more wins and OU could have 4. Florida and LSU also play every year but they at least could end up playing for the conference championship if they were ever both really good at the same time. If the Big 12 were set up similarly to the SEC and we were in a different division from OU, we probably would have played them 5 or 6 times in the Big 12 championship game.
USC and Ohio State have dominated in conferences that have a revolving door of contending teams and in some years just don’t have any other dominant teams. Even Florida and LSU don’t seem be ‘up’ in the same years. UT and OU are the only teams that have had to spend most of the decade contending with one of the other dominant powers in the nation in their own conference. I think we have acquitted ourselves better on the national stage than OU and if we win out this year some consideration should be given to the fact that we would be the only 2-time champ to have another team with well over 100 wins in their conference.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
