ESPN's Schlabach ranks the BCS National Champions

For my third post in a row on the topic (sorry about that) I present:

The Right Answer

wink.gif


1. 2005 Texas
2. 2001 Miami
3. 1999 Florida St.
4. 2004 Southern Cal
5. 2000 Oklahoma
6. 1998 Tennessee
7. 2003 LSU
8. 2006 Florida
9. 2002 Ohio St.
10. 2007 LSU
 
Since73 posted:
"Seriously, I can think of at least 5 OU teams alone that didn't win the NC that could handle 05 UT pretty good."

Possibly the most wild-assed homerism I've read in the last 10 years.
 
2000 ou sucked relative to that list. heupel is probably the worst qb on the list. they didn't beat miami, but a shorthanded fsu team.
it's basically a fact that they are the shittiest team of the bcs champions and the only argument is whether they would only lose to tennessee by single digits.
 
That's convenient, Hornstradamus, how you ignore the part of my post where I say people put too much stock into what teams looked like on paper as opposed to what they actually did on the field. Football is a team sport, right?

Okay, so here are the facts:

2001 Miami Hurricanes
33-7 @ Penn State
61-0 Rutgers
43-21 @ Pittsburgh
38-7 Troy
49-21 @ #14 Florida State
45-3 West Virginia
38-0 Temple
18-7 @ Boston College
59-0 #14 Syracuse
65-7 #12 Washington
26-24 @ #14 Virginia Tech
37-14 #4 Nebraska at the Rose Bowl

2005 Texas Longhorns
60-3 Louisiana-Lafayette
25-22 @ #4 Ohio State
51-10 Rice
51-20 Missouri
45-12 Oklahoma
42-17 #24 Colorado
52-17 #10 Texas Tech
47-28 @Oklahoma State
62-0 @Baylor
66-14 Kansas
40-29 @ Texas A&M
70-3 Colorado
41-38 #1 USC at the Rose Bowl

Like I said, when you consider who Texas beat and where, and the fact that no game was even close outside of USC and Ohio State (maybe A&M, though Kyle Field is a tough place to play), I think Texas clearly had a more impressive season than Miami. Nobody Miami beat even comes close to the level of 2005 USC and Ohio State. And yet they had close shaves vs. Virginia Tech and Boston College. And the Nebraska team they beat by 23 in the Rose Bowl had just gotten 62 points hung on them in their last game. And let's not forget the OU team Texas trounced came back to beat Oregon in the Holiday Bowl.

Maybe Miami looked better on paper. Just like maybe USC looked better on paper. But the game is played on the field. And on the field, nobody has had a season as good as the '05 Horns since the '95 Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Period. End of story.
 
Oh yeah, the one where we had 70 points midway through the third quarter? Well, now I have definitely made my point!
wink.gif


Seriously, though, people pop off about NFL talent and win streaks, etc. Just look at what the teams did on the field.

Listening to people say how great '01 Miami is compared to Texas is like hearing people talk up USC before the Rose Bowl.

I guess they just still don't know how gangsta we are.
rose.gif
 
Look at Miami's road wins, including close shaves vs. Boston College and Virginia. Their impressive blowouts against ranked opponents came at home.

They would not have beaten '05 Ohio State in the Shoe or '05 USC in the Rose Bowl. Only one team in the BCS era could have accomplished that feat.
 
The 2003 USC defense was not nearly as good as you seem to recall. Certainly nowhere near "out of this world" as you stated.

In 2003 the Trojans scored 534 points and allowed 239 in 13 games for an average score of 41-18. In 2005 it was 638 and 297 for an average score of 49-23.

The 2003 USC defense held only four opponents to 14 points or fewer. This is compared to eight opponents in 2004 and three opponents in 2005.

So without getting into too much detail, the answer is that the 2003 defense wasn't nearly as good as you think. They shut out Auburn in the season opener, so that may have something to do with your recollection. That Auburn offense went on to be held to 10 points or fewer three more times that season as they finished 8-5. They were highly rated in the preseason but ended up not being that good.

I'm not sure why you would think I would use ESPN garbage in an argument by the way. Would never occur to me. What I will note, however, is that there's not a computer system in the world that rates 2003 USC ahead of 2005. The gap between the 2005 offense and the 2003 defense is MUCH larger than the gap between the 2003 defense and the 2005 defense.
 
Think about it this way: if '05 USC had actually beaten '05 Texas in the Rose Bowl, would they not be widely regarded today as the best of all time? Of course they would, especially after the lovefest all season and leading up to the Rose Bowl (2 Heisman winners in the same backfield - wowsers!). But now, because they lost, and the media and the majority of college football fans were forced to eat crow, the trend is to go back and try to discredit that '05 team. All of a sudden, the '03 and '04 USC teams were better, so you see, '05 Texas really wasn't all that great. Where were these sentiments while that season was actually going on? I certainly don't remember hearing any talk back then like the ridiculous arguments we hear today.
 
Just to let you know that 2005 PSU team finished the season #3 in the final polls and that game vs OSU was in Happy Valley so it's not like OSU lost to some cream puff (although that PSU team came out of no where that year). That PSU team (just like most others) loses if that game is played in The Shoe against that OSU team.

~~~~~~~ JJBoyd
 
Again, look at how the teams performed, not how they looked on paper. You're telling me a Miami offense that scored only 18 points at Boston College would have fared better at the Shoe against OSU's D? Or would have outscored USC in Pasadena? Even the 37 they scored on Nebraska doesn't look that impressive when you consider what the Buffaloes did to the Huskers a month earlier.

I'm not sure Oregon wouldn't have given Miami a run for their money if the stupid BCS computers hadn't screwed us out of a true championship game.
 
Who needs to get this worked up over hypothetical situations???

Oh and for you Since73 & Nuclearbear...
zzz.gif
Trying to salvage whatever sense of inadequacies for your teams by trying to now jump all over these hypothetical nonsense is grade school. Especially on a Longhorn board. Jeez, at least go spit your banter over at your own peeps & allow us to debate this crap article amongst ourselves.


[Long Duck Dong]...MARRIED... JEEZ!!![/Long Duck Dong]
 
You are calling beating tOSU by 3 in the Shoe a "hiccup?" You really have to stretch that far to make your argument? Wow.

Winning a close game at unranked, 8-4 Boston College is in no way comparable to the win over tOSU in '05. By no stretch. That tOSU team is rated by Sagarin as the best team under Tressel and better than this past year's national champion.

You just made my argument for me. To say '01 Miami was better means you have to stretch the results and make excuses. Again, I don't care how impressive they looked. I care how they played. And no team has played as impressive a season as '05 Texas since '95 Nebraska.

If I was to make an all-time greatest list, I would rank them this way:

1. '95 Nebraska
2. '71 Nebraska
3. '72 USC
4. '05 Texas
5. '45 Army
 
All this talk about subjective rankings make me laugh, not for the ranking themselves but of people getting worked up about other's opinion.

Here is mine anyhow.

For a team to be considered a GOAT it has to at the very least battled against other GOAT contenders, or at the very least the second best team of the season (subjective of course).

Thanks to the BCS
01 Miami ducked Oregon
00 OU ducked Miami
04 USC ducked Auburn
03 USC ducked LSU
99 FSU ducked Nebraska.

Seriously if anything you can be guaranteed that the BCS will screw things up, and it only worked in 05 because all season the subjective #1 and #2 teams stayed undefeated wire to wire(and were the only teams to stay undefeated.)

The only other team to have done something similar is 95 Nebraska beating what many consider the best Florida team of all time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top