"College Team of The Decade"
by orangetower on Aug 27, 2009 11:19 AM CDT
Email
PrintHere is the latest from Rivals re; "College Team of The Decade"
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=980370
How much would a win over Florida this year do for our case? Dumb question maybe, but do we get the love winning the MNC this year or would we need a Big 12 repeat next year to pull it out as the team of the decade?
Whatever the case, we must take it out of the hands of any smacking of a BCS tie-breaker!!! How can we pull it off?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
68 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think if any of the following teams win the MNC this year they will lay claim to the team of the decade
USC
Oklahoma
Texas
Ohio State
LSU
Florida
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
I think you should have MNCs in there rather than BCS bowl wins...
There is too much overlap with conference champs and BCS bowls.
If Florida wins another MNC I don’t care if they didn’t win more than 3 SEC titles or didn’t make an appearance in another BCS bowl or if they went 6-6 in between their championships. 3 nation titles, even ones as stupidly rendered as they currently are, is just too great an achievement to put behind a team that wins 10 conferences titles and therefore gets 10 BCS bowl trips especially in a conference like the Pac 10 or a latter day Big 10. Winning a Big East title is worth about as much as winning the MWC…maybe less.
Interesting
If Florida wins again this year, my vote assuredly goes to them. If they don’t, I’m leaning towards USC. Just my opinion.
In order of the options presented, I’d put overall wins #1, BCS wins #2, and conference championships last. Some conference championships (Pac 10) are a lot easier to win than others.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 27, 2009 12:23 PM CDT reply actions
Is a win in a non-championship BCS bowl game better than a loss in the BCS championship game? i.e. (Did the Ravens have a better year than the Cardinals last season)
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
It's different
To lose in the Super Bowl, the Cardinals had to first win in the conference championship game.
To be in the CFB “Super Bowl” (i.e., the BCS Championship game) is based on regular season prowess and (relatively) arbitrary computer and human opinion. Thus, the winner of a BCS Bowl game is not equivalent to the winner of the conference championship game, since the CFB winner has no chance of going on to lose in the Championship game.
But I’ll agree with the point that the Cardinals had a better season than the Ravens did.
Oh, I agree they aren't the same thing
But it was the closest I could get to it
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
What about
Who had the better season last year, USC or OU?
USC
If USC wins the national title and goes unbeaten its not even close they are the team of the decade. Even if they do what they usually do go 12-1 with a blowout win over a Big Eleven team in the Rose Bowl they still would be my favorites to be team of the decade. Say what you want about the Pac 10, its still really impressive what USC has done and to go potentially 7-1 in BCS games is remarkable. It does not matter that they play crappy Big Eleven teams its still remarkable especially when they keep playing in the same one. Look what happened to Texas in the 2004 Holiday Bowl. It was that senior class’s third trip to San Diego and they just did not want to be there. Look at USC, they have played in the same bowl for the past 4 years and 5 out of the last 6 and only lost one. You would think the players wouldn’t show up for it, but they do.
Even if Florida wins another title you just can’t take a team that was largely mediocre for the first half of the decade while USC has been a juggernaut since the 2002 season.
Its tough for Texas to be in the argument even if they run the table because they would only have two conference titles this whole decade even though they would have two undisputed national titles and go 4-0 in BCS games. But the two conference titles would hold them back.
There was a firefight!!!!
I don’t think the lack of conference titles should hurt Texas anymore than the lack of BCS wins should hurt OU. I certainly respect what USC did in the Pac-10 but they had no foil like OU and Texas were for each other.
I would look at these categories:
Win- Loss % –
Best season –
Worst season -
Bad losses (losses to teams with less than 7 wins) -
Good wins – (wins over teams with more than 10 wins) -
- of 10 win seasons –
Conference Championships –
National Championships –
BCS games –
BCS wins –
Bowl wins -
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
That’s supposed to be number of 10 win seasons but it didn’t like my number symbol
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
But conference titles are tangible
I do agree that OU’s choke jobs in the bowl games hurts them and that is why I don’t think you can argue for them to be team of the decade, but its hard to make an argument for Texas to be team of the decade when they aren’t the team of decade (debatable certainly) in their own conference.
There was a firefight!!!!
by ThePhenomenon on Aug 27, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd sort of take Ralphie's earlier Super Bowl analogy and apply it here...
Even though the MNC game is a much more arbitrary affair than getting to the Super Bowl, I think the analogy would stand. No one really remembers who won the AFC or NFC any given year, much less the divisions, but they will remember the Super Bowl winner. While conference champs in college have a little more cache than their pro counterparts, I think 1 MNC is equal to at least 3 conference titles.
Now if Texas wins it all this year I am not sure they are the obvious ‘Team of the Decade’ since not only are there 2 other teams with 2 MNCs who each would have more conference titles, but there are teams like USC, Ohio State and, yes, OU who certainly have other trophies to their credit to go along with a single MNC. Now if any of those three wins it all this year, then they would likely get the TOD nod unless Florida or LSU wins the SEC. I am not a big SEC pumper, but I do think it has been the most difficult conference to win over the past decade and I think an SEC conference championship is worth more than one in any other conference.
I think if any of Wolodrow's list of teams wins the championship this year undefeated - they are probably the team of the decade (except maybe LSU)
Florida and USC would have 3 titles (one undefeated) – either of these is clearly at the top
UT, OU, or tOSU would have 2 titles (two undefeated) – UF and USC would still have an argument, but I think UF’s lack of an undefeated season would hurt them
LSU would have two titles (one undefeated and one 2 loss) – it would be a difficult argument
USC would have two
They went undefeated in ’04.
Like I said before LSU’s ’07 title really should not count. That was a horrific team.
There was a firefight!!!!
by ThePhenomenon on Aug 27, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
They were the best team that year, in my opinion
Certainly wouldn’t put them up there with the all-time greats, but they had a good team. Luckily for them, they got to play Ohio State. The champion every year is not always going to be some grand, memorable team.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 27, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t think they were the best team. Not at all. They backed into a title game they didn’t deserve, and they won it against a team that just plain didn’t show up. I think UGA was a better team, and deserved the bid over LSU.
by burntorangehorn on Aug 28, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
If I'm following what you said correctly, LSU would have 3 titles-2003, 2007, 2009.
Yes, the 2 win title is a joke, but they had a pretty awesome defense back in 03, but I believe they are a longshot for 09 without an experienced QB.
Thats what I don't really take them seriously
They have arguably have had the two weakest national title teams in the BCS era and this decade. The ‘03 team was pretty good, but in my opinion they USC was much much better than LSU and LSU benefited from playing an OU squad that got exposed and beat up by KSU. They weren’t that bad, but their quarterback sucked and their offense was fairly unimpressive and still barely beat an OU team that did not belong in that game. The ‘07 team needed a serious of ridiculous events to even play in that game and lucked out by playing an Ohio State team that didn’t play anybody instead of ’SC, Georgia, or maybe OU. Also win a national title and a BCS game without playing in the pit that is New Orleans full of drunk, rabid, Cajuns.
If they somehow do get a title this year (no chance in my opinion) they would be in the mix for sure and they would have 5 SEC titles overall and be undefeated in BCS games, but their two national title teams were really average and they had seasons where they just fell off the map that its hard to put them up their. Thats why I believe their should be more emphasis on consistency then winning a couple of national titles and then have a couple of 8-5 or 8-4 seasons.
There was a firefight!!!!
by ThePhenomenon on Aug 27, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't see how you can give USC two...
Especially if you are going to call LSU’s ‘07 title a joke. LSU played 7 ranked teams in ’07! Granted they lost to one of the 7 and lost to unranked Arkansas, but they played what might one of the toughest schedules in college football history. I think USC’s claimed 2003 title is the most undeserving of the decade.
Just to be clear, I forgot that LSU won the title in 2003 (my bad)
I wasn’t trying to slight them – although I do think the 2007 title is the most controversial.
My list goes as:
- BCS Championships (Florida, LSU, and USC tied at 2)
- Overall record (OU has the best, Texas the second best)
- Conference Championships (USC has the most, OSU and OU right up there with them)
- BCS bowls & record (Texas and USC I believe have the best..with maybe LSU and Florida right with them)
If Florida or USC win this year, it’s theirs.
If Texas or OU win, then there will be like 5 teams in the discussion (OU, Texas, USC, Florida and LSU).
"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
I agree.
But I think that if OU or Texas wins this year that they will eliminate the other from the discussion
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
Good point.
Sorry about that!
"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
One thing that seems forgotten is that if Texas were to win and beat Florida in the MNC
then Texas would have 2 undefeated championships and will have beaten two of the suppossed greatest teams of all time. I think that would way heavily in Texas’ favor, and put them on top over USC and Florida since they had won the head to head..
USC has conference championships....
more Heismans…
more NFL draft picks…
if we dig deep down into everything USC still might end up the program of the decade.
"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
We should have two Heismans
Just wanted to throw that out there.
And I honestly don’t think NFL draft picks have any meaning in this discussion.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 27, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Who cares about draft picks?
This is about best team, not most talent. Look at this year’s preseason All Big 12, there’s like twice as many sooners as there is horns, but that didn’t keep Texas from being ranked ahead of OU.
I agree 2 Cor...
That’s so long as head to head wins on a neutral field truly mean something. I think if we run the table and beat Florida then we should take the crown, especially when dethroning the kings of the hill twice in one decade.
I couldn't care less who the team of the decade is
All I want is to be team of the year.
ANY year.
But this year in particular.
Oh, almost forgot: Hook ’em.
by edsp on Aug 27, 2009 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
which look like this so far
Average final ranking in AP poll from 2000-2008 (I gave a team a score of 26 if it finished unranked):
OU = 7.11
TX = 7.56
USC = 7.78
tOSU = 10.78
LSU = 12.11
FL = 12.89
USC finished in the top four every year after 2001. In 2000 and 2001 it was unranked, otherwise the Trojans would have smoked everyone else.
The Horns are the only team without a finish higher than 13 in any year this decade.
I dont see how you have Texas over OU going into this season
When OU has more wins, higher average final ranking, 6 conf champ’s to 1, and 4 appearances in the MNC compared to 1.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
I unfortunately agree with WW.
"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
LSU, Tex. OU, Fla. USC They're all so close it's really hard to say. I vote Notre Dame. HAHAHAHA
You can't spell COCKSUCKER without OU.
If I were to rank victories, it would go ( in terms of importance )
1. National Titles ( best vs. the best ) ( 5 points )
2. BCS Wins / Titles ( likely a conference champ vs. conference champ ) ( 2 points )
3. Conference Titles ( best of conference ) ( 1 point )
I don’t think an “appearence” anywhere gets you anything. All that counts is what’s in your trophy room at the end of the year.
The ultimate fail train would be OU’s 2003 run where they lost the conference title and lost the championship too… You took away nothing!
OU – (1)5 + (1)2 + (6)1 = 13 victory points
UT – (1)5 + (2)2 + (1)1 = 10 victory points
USC – (1)5 + (5)2 + (7)1 = 22 victory points
Florida – (2)5 + (1)2 + (3)1 = 15 victory points
LSU – (2)5 + (2)2 + (3)1 = 17 victory points
Ohio State – (1)5 + (3)2 + (5)1 = 16 victory points
I started out doing 3/2/1, but I think the national titles need to be weighed heavier due to the difficulty of getting to and winning that game.
USC also looks like it benefits from dominating the Big 10 as well as its own conference, but there’s really no evidence that it would do that in any BCS game / conference. I think they’re a runaway winner.
To catch up with OU, we need another BCS win and a conference title to tie things up. A championship and a conference title would put us up in the conversation with LSU/Florida/USC
I think it would also be fair to not count "co-champion"
In which case, tOSU and USC would lose a couple points each maybe.
Maybe 3/1/1 could be accurate too
That would make:
OU – 10
UT – 6
USC – 15
Florida – 10
LSU – 11
tOSU – 11
Which could put UT even further behind. Needing a conf. title and national title to gain parity. USC is still in a league of its own.
If you're going to count tOSU's co-championships where they lost the tie-breaker (2008)
You have to count Texas’ to be fair.
There is no way OSU’s 2008 Big Ten title is more legitimate than Texas’. Come on, they lost to Penn State head to head and there was no tiebreaking controversy – they just lost.
consistency
MNC’s, or even BCS wins, or even conference titles, don’t tell the whole story of a decade. They are in the mix but they don’t ultimately paint the picture. If a team won three or even four MNC’s but were unranked the other six or seven years, would they be the team of the decade? Maybe, but IMO, if another team finished top three or four in every season, with an MNC or two thrown in, that would be a better body of work for a DECADE. Florida for example has been the best team the last three years but were pretty pedestrian the first half of the decade – see average final ranking. You have to consider every year, including the “bad” ones.
When you think back to Florida State's glory days
when they had 14 consecutive Top 5 finishes in a row, but only one MNC, I think they were clearly the best team of that era, even though Nebraska had two outright MNC’s and one shared. You’ve got to be consistent year in and year out and no matter how many championships Bowden won or didn’t win during that run, that has got to be the most incredible runs ever.
FSU has two
national titles in that run: 1993 and 1999.
It is
but Nebraskas run of 31 strait top 20 finishes (I am estimating, ‘cause I don’t know the exact numbers) was pretty impressive as well. So I can see why they got it.
Plus FSU’s run overlapped a decade, which is probably why they got slighted in this little “Decade” thing. But during that span, they were clearly the best. They were my favorite (Non-UT) team from childhood.
Personally, I don’t really care about this “Decade stuff” although it is intersting conversation fodder, I completely agree with edsp above. Lets just win this year.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
Since 2002
USC is 82-9, has only lost 2 non-conference games (Kansas State in early 2002—really before this run began—and Texas in the Rose Bowl) and hasn’t lost a game by more than 7 points. They consistently play a quality non-conference schedule and while the Pac-10 isn’t as strong as the SEC or Big XII, it’s better than the other conferences (17-11 in bowl games since 2003).
Now if you want to include the entire decade (2000 and 2001), I think a lot of teams enter the discussion. But since 2002 it’s USC’s world and everyone else is just living in it.
Just as a schedule example, in the last 7 years Texas has beaten 57 BCS opponents, USC has beaten 75.
I disagree Double B
They are 82-9 playing out of the Pac-10, we are 77-13 in the Big 12. During this span of years (since 2002) I think that is pretty comparable considering the fact that we play in the same division as another team with around 80 wins in that span. There is a reason they feel like they have to play good OOC games. Look how they were able to dominate their conference with a record that is so close to ours in that span. And we have 1 Conf Championship. That should tell you something.
Are they better, yeah. But its not by a crazy amount. I don’t think we are just “Livin in their world”.
And I think our Head-to-head win against them in a Championship game has to put us even closer if not even. On this site at least….. head-to-head means something.
Plus, I think that you have to at least count 2001 (Carroll’s first year I think) since Carroll took over then.
Anyway, I think they are great, and if I had to vote (assuming they don’t fall apart this year) they would probably get my vote. But I don’t think it a runaway, even if you take out ’00 and ’01.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
Sagarin’s schedule rating by year (2002-2008):
USC (1, 19, 7, 8, 2, 29, 16)
Texas (20, 47, 28, 13, 61, 47, 14)
USC had a tougher schedule every year but one: 2008. And in most years, the schedules aren’t that close. Whatever you think of the Pac-10, USC’s non-conference schedule more than makes up for it.
If you want to count 2000 and 2001, then like I said above it’s an open race (one I’m not sure USC wins—I’d guess Oklahoma off the top of my head).
The head-to-head Rose Bowl is meaningless other than what it is (a national title for Texas). Texas was better in 2005. I don’t question that. Using EITHER the final AP or Coaches poll, USC was "better " in every other year in that span. It’s a body of work issue and USC clearly has a better body of work in the last 7 years: more total wins with a tougher schedule, a LOT more BCS wins, more conference titles, more national titles.
So Texas
has 3 1/2 national titles as opposed to 4?
You said more national titles like it is some great chasm,
when all they have is a split title more. Something Texas could have easily had last year considering they were in the same position as SC was in ’03.
I simply said they have more national titles in the last 7 years than Texas.
The chasm wasn’t implied by having more national titles, it was implied by having more of “everything.”
And if Texas could have had a national title last year, couldn’t USC make that same argument about last year as well.
It seems to me as though you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Couldn’t Auburn make the same argument in ‘04? It’s subjective.
Yes, you simply said more national titles, but that’s plural and implies more than one.
Again
I admit they are a little better, but I just don’t think it is a runaway. First of all they play Notre Dame every year. During this span of time, they have been the most overrated team in the country, so USC gets to play a team ranked 10th, that is really only top 30-35 good. That is always nice for SOS. I would love to get them on our schedule every year.
And if you are conceding the Pac-10 has been weak during USC’s run, then you really have to take their Conference titles with somewhat of a a grain of salt. You can’t have it both ways. Plug OU into the Pac-10 in Arizona States place and how many conf titles does USC win? Or switch USC and Texas and then compare conf titles. Anyone think if we switched places with USC in 2002 we don’t have 7 conference championships now? Come on. So now your argument is just BCS wins and 1/2 more Nat’l Titles. Hardly a landslide.
And did you just use the phrase “2005 Rose Bowl” and the word “meaningless” in the same sentence….. seriously? Yes, when looking at this question from a general sense, it is a “body of work” question. But if you are just comparing UT to USC, you can’t disregard the head-to-head, even if there has only been 1.
Like I said, they would get my vote, right now, but I don’t think there is there is a “chasm” between them and any of the 4-5 teams with 80 or so wins and a title in that span.
I guess we just disagree.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
BTW
If you do count 2001, since it was Pete’s first year, Pete Carroll is 88-15 at USC. Mack Brown at Texas is….. 88-15. Bob Stoops at OU is 89-17. Just saying.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
P.S. 45-35
Are you serious Double B?
Use the whole canvas to paint a picture Double B. You are trying to argue the team of the decade by leaving out 2 years? Wouldn’t that be like an Octade or something?
You also want to negate a Rose Bowl NC game which had a geographical positioning station of somewhere in the southern region of a state called California? What does USC stand for anyway? Dude? The table is set my friend. A decade is still 10 years and head to head National Championships, won or lost, do matter.
You take a USC “Best Team of All Time” and put them head to head with a team that somehow found it’s way over from the other side of your “chasm”. Put them on the biggest stage in College sports with a NC, 3peat, and 2 heisman reputations on the line in your own backyard. You lose the game and then in a Leinartish whine suggest the “chasm” is just too great for us to lose ala “we had the better team” in a post game loser statement.
The argument we hear is “that was just one game”. I suggest that was “the” one game which knocked your 3peater in the sand, sent your hiesman’s lowing, and your case for boasting busted!
Immortal as you would like to self esteem, I assure you the rest of the footballing empire has your number. We see your achilles heel, the chinc in your armour, and the vacuum of cerebral chasm. It’s like the black hole in the universe of common sense!
Please, we’ll do the math, you get back to your easel….You missed a spot!
Wow, where to begin
I argued that, SINCE the 2002 season, it’s not even close who has the best resume. I still believe that and frankly nobody has come up with any statistical argument to counteract it—just a belief that the Pac-10 and ND are inferior and some semantic argument about my verbiage of “titles” instead of “title.”
I’m not a USC fan, but I do respect their accomplishments over the last 7 years. They’ve had a remarkable run in the mold of Nebraska (93-97, 60-3 and 3 national titles) and FSU (87-2000, 14 consecutive years in the top 5 of the AP poll).
So I’m curious how I’m clouding the picture here when I’ve stated that my analysis, for lack of a better word, is from 2002-2008.
Texas winning a national championship in 2005 doesn’t make Texas better from 2002-2008. I really don’t see how difficult this concept is to understand.
Yeah, yeah,
He jumped on you a little without reading the fact that you prefaced your statements with “Since 2002” and totally left behind the “Decade” thing of the post.
I also conceded that they were better in that span. I just don’t think it is a runaway like you do.
And I was using the fact that just adding one more season to your time frame (2001) – which btw I think is fair since it was under Carroll – puts them dead even with 2 other programs that are in a harder conference during that span as evidence of how close it really is.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
CFN has USC #1 for the past 5 years...
and Texas #2. They consider a bunch of factors and it has USC #1 by a large margin. Some good food for thought over the past 5 years. Maybe someone can do some analysis and come up with something like that. (I don’t care for the NFL daft part of their formula). They do mention…and I do remember that the ’05 Texas team is the best team ever. But that is another read.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/892659.html
We're Texas...and you're NOT
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
