ESPN's Schlabach ranks the BCS National Champions

few if any thought USC would blow out OU. They had a good chance to blow out Auburn also who escaped LSU 10-9 that year and had a boring defensive dominated 16-13 win over VT.

Also, all you have to do is look in state at Alabama's 1992 squad to see a more dominant SEC team that beat the heck out of Miami.
 
Well, USC also played VT and not only didn't blow them out, but trailed for 19:28. Auburn trailed VT for 0:00 of its game. Corso and Herbstreit didn't expect USC to blow out OU. Football fans weren't at all surprised.
 
I didn't expect USC to beat OU in the '05 Orange Bowl, so I was very surprised with their ease of victory. However, it was just one game. It wasn't indicative of how they played all season long. If it had been, then sure they'd be up there with the all-time greats.

And let's face it, that egg OU dropped is the main reason USC was talked up as unbeatable in '05 and why so many thought they would beat us. OU had a lot to do with the making of USC's aura this decade.
 
No, saying Smith was no more effective than Zwick makes my point. Smith was exposed by a really top-notch, pass-rushing defense, as he would be 1 1/2 years later against Florida.

It wasn't that Smith was that bad. Its that Texas' D was that good.
 
Utah was also better than Oklahoma in 2004.

And while I'm not completely convinced the above statement is true, I'd like to see someone argue that Stoops wouldn't have been outcoached by a talented mid-major coach in a bowl game.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence good enough to prove that the intial statement is not true, either.
 
Okay, maybe the DB play helped buy the DL time to get to Smith. Whatever the case, '05 was a great defense and '06 was nowhere near as good. That is a fact.
 
Yes, matchups are key in football. But we're discussing the best teams of all-time. So a single game matchup is less important than the thought exercise of a round robin between every team in college football history.

Even if we agree that 2005 Texas would have trouble against 2004 USC (which we don't - well, relatively speaking), 2004 USC would have trouble with another great team from the past. Hell, 2004 USC had trouble with a 4-7 Stanford team, a 7-5 Oregon State team, and a 6-6 UCLA team. If a team struggled with not one but three mediocre teams in its own season, how can we really expect to believe that they would handle a schedule filled with all-time great teams?
 
many on this board were laughing at the USC 2005 defense DURING the Fresno game and absolutely after it. We were drooling about how VY was going to rip USC to pieces, which he did. Why are people forgetting this phenomenon ?

#48 defense in the land. Thats just about average by definition Huge dropoff from the prior year.

Right, blame the refs. VT could have beaten Auburn, but not USC in 2004; your "time of possession in the lead" argument is pretty silly considering it means nothing (see Okie st - UT)

UT also had a lot of first round offensive talent that OU systematically killed in 2000-04 (VY, Limas, Roy, Big Davis, Mike Williams) etc etc. Still, Auburn was a good but not very good offense. Remember someone (you?) said 2004 Auburn was dominant like no other SEC EVAR!!! nope, 1992 Bama was better.

what USC 2004 had was the key idea of greatness on both sides "balance" . Hit you with the right hand, hit you just as hard with the left. That's hard to beat.
 
There's no doubt that USC's defense in 2005 was not typical of a great team. There's also no doubt, though, that their offense was ridiculously good. The problem for them was that the 2005 Texas offense was better.

The two best offenses since 1995 Nebraska faced off against each other that night. And they both had defenses that weren't as good. The difference is that both Texas' offense and defense were better. I know that people now try to use hindsight to justify devaluing those two teams because of their defensive shortcomings. The problem, though, is that those people are viewing the teams based on the age-old but incorrect belief that defenses are far more important than defenses. What that night really showed, however, was that world-class offenses make up for defenses the same way world-class defenses make up for offenses.

And, yes, Ohio State's offense improved throughout the year. But so did Texas' defense. So does every unit on every team (excepting injuries and outliers, of course).

If either team had had a great defense then the season would have been a joke. 1995 Nebraska-type domination would have ensued. But not being as dominant as 1995 Nebraska doesn't make for a weak team.

And 2004 USC was not as balanced as you like to think. They had a great defense. But their offense was "merely" very good, especially in a discussion about all-time greatness.
 
YES, buckhorn is tip-toeing about very delicately but what he really means in his heart of hearts is:

he thinks at the end of the year the Buckeyes would beat Texas on a neutral field.

I disagree. IMO UT was the best team of 2005. Were it not for Melton's Harlem Globetrotter sillyness at the goalline which faked out the refs, score should have been 30-22 @ Columbus AT NIGHT. Yes, the Buckeye WR/TE guy dropped a TD but that is part of the game, you make plays or you don't.

IMO, the win @ Columbus was even more impressive than vs. USC. I was kind of disappointed in the 41-38 final score as I thought UT should have won by more but I blame the dinky passing game set up by Davis instead of letting VY run on a soft run defense (when he did in crunch time, UT won ie F the playbook).

If the game was @ Reliant, UT beats USC 45-28.
 
I think the original list is pretty good, although it overrates '99 FSU, underrates '05 Texas, and also underrates '02 Ohio State, IMO.

Two facts that tend to get lost in these discussions are that a team's quality is fluid, and upsets can and do happen. The truth is that any of these undefeated teams could have beaten any other of the undefeated teams on any given Saturday....And of course there are teams that were amazing at certain points of the season (i.e. Oklahoma '03) that didn't have the mojo to finish. And then there are injuries - if Willis McGahee didn't go down against OSU, the '02 Hurricanes would probably be in this discussion also as people would debate which of those Cane teams was actually better.

There are many ways to rank them, but there are 3 teams that tend to come out on top consistently - '05 Texas, '04 USC and '01 Miami.

I think an argument can be made that '00 Oklahoma proved the most, and winning 5 games against teams that finished in the top-12 (with 4 on the road) is ultimately a harder achievement than any of the others. Further, the close games were in part result from a wounded QB whose play deteriorated as he battled an elbow injury. Prior to that injury, OU was destroying high quality teams. So one could argue that the '00 Sooner team had the best season.

But ultimately, they fall short because of too many mediocre performances against mediocre teams, and the lack of an elite, balanced offense with a strong running game.

Between the top-3 it is really hard to rank them, and there are all kinds of different arguments for each team.

But this is how I would ultimately bet on them:

1, '01 Miami
This team didn't prove much against elite competition because Nebraska was the only top-10 team they played. If you throw out margin of victories, highlight reels and NFL talent, and just ask yourself, "Who did they have to beat?", their record is nowhere near as impressive as 2000 OU. They had the weakest schedule of the 3 contenders, however they did have a credible schedule with many decent teams, including 6 Sagarin top-30 teams.

I think defense is the most important thing, and their defense was incredible, giving up just 9.4 points per game.. It is worth noting that their rushing defense was not particularly strong, suggesting that Vince Young with '05 Texas might have burned them. But, they did shut down the #1 rushing offense in the country when they had to.

It is hard to look past Miami's '01 defense. Defense wins championships, and Miami's '01 defense was in a different class when it came to keeping other teams from scoring. While their offense didn't put up some of the gaudy stats of others, they were balanced, could run and pass, had the #3 scoring offense, and protected the ball. #1 scoring defense (best of the era) with the #3 scoring offense, and #1 turnover margin (with the best ball hawking defense of the era) results in the #1 spot.

2.'04 USC
'04 USC had some close games against relatively mediocre teams, and their bowl blowout vs. Oklahoma was aided by a bunch of unforced Oklahoma turnovers early. However, their Orange Bowl blowout was the most impressive single game performance, and they had the hardest schedule overall - ranked #7 by Sagarin with 3 top-10 victories and 5 wins over Sagarin top-30 teams.

On paper, there are many reasons why I would rank '05 Texas over '04 USC. The '04 USC offense was not near as potent as '05 because their rushing attack was pretty pedestrian in '04. However, when I analyze the change in USC from '04 to '05 against the Rose Bowl game, it seems that the changes were a big benefit to Texas.

The '05 Texas offense was led by an incredible rushing attack which opened up passing options for defenses that were over matched defending the run. When Vince Young's offenses stalled, it was because because of solid rushing defenses. It was Texas' rushing attack that primarily burned USC in the Rose Bowl, accounting for 8 yards per attempt. This opened up some passing, but it was Texas' ability to run that won the game.

USC's rushing defense was #1 in the country in '04, and fell to #31 in '05. The 2005 Trojans gave up about 50% more yards per rushing attempt than the 2004 Trojans. It isn't just that the 2004 defense was much better (it clearly was), but that it was specifically better at the very skills they needed for dealing with Vince Young. USC's rushing defense in '04 was better than any Vince Young ever faced in college, but in '05 they were pretty mediocre.

On the other side, the USC offense was much better in '05 than in '04 because they had a much more solid rushing attack. However, from a passing perspective, they weren't really any better in '05. The difference between the '04 USC offense and the '05 USC offense is that the '05 version ran the ball much, much better. However, Texas' defense stifled USC's run game fairly well. It was the USC passing game that gave Texas trouble - and Leinart's passing efficiency in '04 was pretty much identical to '05.

Generally speaking, I think improved offense and worse defense is a net negative. And while I don't think USC's improved run game in '05 helped them that much against Texas, I think their gutted rushing defense hurt them bad.

3. Texas
There are many good arguments to put Texas at the top of the list. And in many ways, I think they might matchup better with '01 Miami than with '04 USC.

Texas played two real high quality opponents and won both in nail biters. And they blew out everyone else. However, they ultimately just played 4 top-30 teams, and so they weren't really tested on a consistent basis. Further complicating things is the fact that when they played OU and OSU, both of those teams had inept offenses with green QBs. And in OU's case, Adrian Peterson was out and the offensive line was completely decimated with injuries. That isn't to say Texas wasn't better than OSU or Oklahoma - clearly they were. But it is undeniable that both OU and OSU improved a lot on offense as the season wore on and their relative rank is a result of big improvements in the 2nd half of the season.

Ultimately, it is hard to judge between those 3 teams - but that is how I would bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top