True but 37 is still a LOT of points by the standards of 20 or more years ago and Michigan's defense was one of the best in the country this year.
....
My argument here is that teams can no longer succeed in that fashion. Georgia and Michigan had great defenses this year. TCU scored 37 on Michigan's defense (not counting defensive scores) and Ohio State scored 41 on Georgia’s defense. Michigan needed more offense to beat TCU and Georgia only beat Ohio State because they were able to put up 42 points.
You got me thinking about the bcs game between LSU and Oklahoma in 2003. Both sides of the ball were great for each team. OU had the #1 defense while LSU had the #1 scoring defense. Both teams had soul-crushing defensive lines. OU had a boa-constrictor type scheme reminiscent of many of Alabama's recent teams, while LSU had an encyclopedia of insane blitzes.
But OU had as much buzz for their offense. They hung half a hundred like 6 times, which we probably wouldn't blink at today, but that was hot stuff for 2003. They just ran over people and/or took their top off. LSU wasn't thought of as explosive even by 2003 standards, but they were extremely efficient, averaging 35 ppg prior to the title game against OU, and they routinely piled up those points in the first half as a matter of gameplan. Saban liked to blitzkrieg teams early on and then let his defense and special teams account for boring second halves to kill the clock. There were a couple of teams--notably Florida and Ole Miss--that gave LSU's offense problems, but overall they did well. OU just trucked everybody they played, until K-State in the B12CG.
Obviously the defenses prevailed in their match, each offense scoring only 14 points.
I don't mean to diminish either of those defenses--they really were great--but it's my belief that today's best offenses would easily put 30 on them, probably at a minimum. As good as those offenses were, they didn't offer enough conflict or confusion for a defense and were much easier for the defenses to diagnose pre-snap. And....caveat: I don't know this for a fact....like I previously mentioned, I believe QBs White and Mauck were only reading half the field at a given time, and QBs today aren't nearly so confined to that and will more often find and exploit busts or a winning matchup on the play.
Where I think things have changed the most is in how defenses cause the most havoc and what QBs can do to mitigate it. Both of those defenses caused havoc on the line and made life miserable for QBs. And that's partly because White, Mauck and their contemporaries wilted when guys came free or whipped the lineman in front of them. QBs today look way more comfortable facing enormous pressure consistently and still keep the chains moving.
The 2018 (?) title game between Clemson and Alabama was really something. Clemson couldn't run well, and Alabama teed off on Trevor Lawrence and they knocked him off his spot or put him on the run a lot of the day. In days gone by, that's a landslide victory for Alabama. But Lawrence burned them over, and over and over, a little at a time. Add in a few turnovers by Bama, and Clemson wins big without even being able to run much or protect the QB like you'd want. Stetson Bennett just did it to us in the SECCG....LSU harassed him well enough in the early goings and did a good job stuffing their run....Bennett just kept hitting plays under duress and c'est la vie.
