Author
Topic: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs
(Read 5865 times)

ELA · « **Reply #42 on:** July 30, 2018, 12:30:03 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 30, 2018, 11:55:49 AM

Most people understand that those early 2000's Miami teams were loaded but think of Ohio State's 2002 team as a bunch of nobodies. They are wrong.
I think the main reason that this is such an enduring misconception is that neither fanbase really has a motivation to correct it. Generally:
Miami fans (and tOSU haters) think/argue that '02 Miami was loaded with stars and was robbed of a title by the Refs.
Ohio State fans (and Miami haters) think/argue that '02 Ohio State just had a magical season and was the "David" to Miami's "Goliath".

I think it's also that Miami was bludgeoning teams all year, while OSU had a lot of nailbiters, some against some not great teams. Plus expectations are formed in the preseason, and Miami was coming off a national title, while OSU was coming off an Outback Bowl. Looking back, we now know all of the OSU names, but we didn't at the time.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #43 on:** July 30, 2018, 12:51:53 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 30, 2018, 11:55:49 AM

Most people understand that those early 2000's Miami teams were loaded but think of Ohio State's 2002 team as a bunch of nobodies. They are wrong.
I think the main reason that this is such an enduring misconception is that neither fanbase really has a motivation to correct it. Generally:
Miami fans (and tOSU haters) think/argue that '02 Miami was loaded with stars and was robbed of a title by the Refs.
Ohio State fans (and Miami haters) think/argue that '02 Ohio State just had a magical season and was the "David" to Miami's "Goliath".

I thought that team had some names. I recall Doss, Jenkins and Wilhelm having college level hype coming in, maybe a few other defenders. Clarett and Gamble quickly became things.
But considering all that talent, OSU didn’t make it easy.
Down to start the fourth vs mediocre UW with a backup WB, needing a 88-yard drive to take the lead and then letting UW get inside the 30.
Slipping past PSU 13-7 after trailing the first half.
Needed a 4th and 1 conversion with 1:36 left to edge Purdue.
Needed OT to beat Illinois
Needed a rather impressive late drive to edge Michigan, and had a chance to lose in the final seconds.

OSU might’ve had all that talent, but it spent the second half of the season not playing like it.

fezzador · « **Reply #44 on:** July 30, 2018, 01:02:03 PM »

Both OSU and Miami were lucky they didn't play USC in January that season. They lost a couple of early games IIRC but were a machine by November.

ELA · « **Reply #45 on:** July 30, 2018, 01:13:35 PM »

Quote from: fezzador on July 30, 2018, 01:02:03 PM

Both OSU and Miami were lucky they didn't play USC in January that season. They lost a couple of early games IIRC but were a machine by November.

When we went over how the four team CFP would have retroactively changed things, that was the example most quickly pointed to. I think USC would have won the thing, and possibly convincingly. I still think Michigan would have given FSU a better game in '99 than VT did.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #46 on:** July 30, 2018, 02:21:40 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 30, 2018, 12:27:24 PM

Huh? I simply meant Alabama didn't close that way last year with 3 big wins (CCG, Semi, NCG). They lost their finale, then didn't even play in their CCG. That's the second time in 7ish years they won a national title without playing in their CCG. So I was just pointing out that it isn't universally the case.

you said in the previous post that the new champs would have (paraphrasing) 3 top 10 wins to close season (ccg + 2 cfp games)... except bama, hinting at bama not having to play in ccg to get into playoffs.
i was simply pointing out that bama isn't the only one to get that benefit in cfp, nor were they in the bcs. nor were they the first for either (neb missing the bigxii title game in 01 and playing for bcs, and the aforementioned osu in cfp)

ELA · « **Reply #47 on:** July 30, 2018, 02:39:03 PM »

Yeah, we were just discussing a comparative ranking of national champs. I said I thought all of the more recent ones, and going forward were naturally going to be higher because they all faced that 3 game gauntlet starting with the CCG, except for Alabama. Unless I'm forgetting someone, nobody in the BCS/CFP era except Alabama has won a national championship while not playing in their own CCG, right? So they would be the lone exception in these rankings. The Nebraska and OSU teams you brought up didn't win a national title, so they wouldn't be in these rankings, so I'm not sure how that's relevant?

rolltidefan · « **Reply #48 on:** July 30, 2018, 02:58:37 PM »

yeah, as we've both pointed out, neither won the titles in the years they got in without playing in ccg. i read it as meaning future winners would need to beat 3 top 10 teams to end season... except bama. just pointing out bama wasn't only one to get that opportunity. if i misread, my apologies.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 30, 2018, 03:08:25 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 30, 2018, 01:13:35 PM

When we went over how the four team CFP would have retroactively changed things, that was the example most quickly pointed to. I think USC would have won the thing, and possibly convincingly. I still think Michigan would have given FSU a better game in '99 than VT did.

I'm not completely convinced that USC would have gotten into a four-team playoff. The pre-bowl AP poll was as follows:

12-0 Miami, BigE Champion
13-0 Ohio State, Big11Ten Champion
11-1 Iowa, Big11Ten Co-Champion
12-1 Georgia, SEC Champion
10-2 USC, Pac10 Co-Champion
10-2 Kansas State (had a H2H win over USC)
10-2 Washington State, Pac10 Champion (had a H2H win over USC)
11-2 Oklahoma, B12 Champion
10-2 Texas
9-3 Penn State

I think we can all agree that the first three teams in the playoff would have been Miami, Ohio State, and Georgia. After that it gets really messy. OU and WSU both had championships to hold over USC while KSU and WSU both had H2H wins. Iowa, like USC was a co-Champ but the Hawkeyes had a better record. I don't think Texas or Penn State would have had a good case but the argument among the other five teams (IA, USC, KSU, WSU, OU) for that last playoff spot would have been epic.

That said, if they had managed to get into the playoff they would have had a very good chance. That was Pete Carroll's first great USC team. The year before the Trojans had gone 6-6 with a bowl loss to Utah in Pete Carroll's first year.

USC started pretty slow in 2002:

One TD home win over an Auburn team that would finish 9-4.
40-3 blowout over a Colorado team that would finish 9-5.
One TD road loss to a Kansas State team that would finish 11-2.
22-0 shutout of an Oregon State team that would finish 8-5.
FG road loss to eventual Pac10 Champion Washington State.
Two point home win over a Cal team that would finish 7-5.
20 point win over a Washington team that would finish 7-6.
11 point win over an Oregon team that would finish 7-6.
32 point win over a Stanford team that would finish 2-9.

None of the above results are terribly impressive, then they hit their stride:

21 point win over an ASU team that would finish 8-6.
31 point road win over a UCLA team that would finish 8-5.
31 point home win over an ND team that would finish 10-3.
21 point bowl win over an Iowa team that finished 11-2.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #50 on:** July 30, 2018, 08:27:48 PM »

In '84, they should've had Washington play Florida in the Bluebonnet Bowl for the NC. Pell was gone, UF was undefeated with Hall at the helm (0-1-1 to 9-1-1).

Gotta love the wisdom of the NCAA penalizing the school and not the offending coach.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #51 on:** July 30, 2018, 08:29:07 PM »

Quote from: ELA on July 30, 2018, 01:13:35 PM

When we went over how the four team CFP would have retroactively changed things, that was the example most quickly pointed to. I think USC would have won the thing, and possibly convincingly. I still think Michigan would have given FSU a better game in '99 than VT did.

Oregon, Florida, or Tennessee would've given Miami a tougher game in '01.
A half-dozen teams would've given Bama a better game than ND in '12.

ELA · « **Reply #52 on:** July 31, 2018, 12:08:56 AM »

You could never count on getting their A game, but I think Tennessee's A game in 2001 was about the only shot to beat the Canes.

What a down year across the map for college football. Does make for a lot of fun though.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #53 on:** July 31, 2018, 12:22:39 AM »

Florida had the caveat of being 10-0 with its starting RB and 0-2 without him. He played in the bowl game.

MarqHusker · « **Reply #54 on:** July 31, 2018, 12:55:21 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 30, 2018, 12:19:07 PM

BYU's 1984 title is a joke. They beat the worst team of Bo's tenure in their bowl by a TD. If that was good for a NC in 1984 then all of the following teams should also have gotten one:
Iowa - beat Michigan by 26
Ohio State - beat Michigan by 15
Michigan State - beat Michigan by 12
Washington - beat Michigan by 9

How and why BYU won the NC in 1984:
Their season opener against Pittsburgh happened when Pitt was ranked #3. The Panthers were coming off of a solid 8-3-1 season and expected to be contenders. Therefore, BYU's upset (at the time) win over them propelled BYU from unranked all the way up to #7. In retrospect, Pitt was a horrible team that finished 3-7-1.
#1 just kept losing.
preseason #1 Auburn lost the kickoff classic to Miami.
Miami moved to #1 then promptly lost to Michigan.
Nebraska moved to #1 then lost to Syracuse.
Texas moved to #1 then tied Oklahoma.
Washington moved to #1 then lost to USC.
Nebraska moved back to #1 then lost to Oklahoma.
BYU took over the top spot with the 11/20/84 poll. Here are the other ranked teams with less than two losses at that point and what happened to them:
#2 Oklahoma 8-1-1: Beat OkSU, lost to Washington, finished 9-2-1 and #6
#3 Oklahoma State 9-1: Lost to OU, beat USCe, finished 10-2 and #7.
#4 Florida 8-1-1: Beat FSU, finished 9-1-1 and #3.
#5 Washington 10-1: Beat Oklahoma, finished 11-1 and #2.
#6 Texas 7-1-1: Lost to Baylor, Lost to aTm, lost to Iowa, finished 7-4-1 and unranked.
#9 USCe 9-1: Beat Clemson, Lost to OkSU, finished 10-2 and #11.

This post (either exact, or substantially similar) by either me, you or others has probably appeared on this CFB board, and the old board no fewer than six times. We've solved the '84 season.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #55 on:** July 31, 2018, 07:30:28 AM »

Title looks legit to me. Nobody else wanted it. The other contenders kept losing.

As far as the stretch run, they won two throw out the records rivalry games, and beat Michigan.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

ELA

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

bayareabadger

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

fezzador

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

ELA

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

rolltidefan

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

ELA

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

rolltidefan

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

medinabuckeye1

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

OrangeAfroMan

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

OrangeAfroMan

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

ELA

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

OrangeAfroMan

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

MarqHusker

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs

Brutus Buckeye

Re: ESPN's Rating the 21 BCS-to-Now Champs