FWIW (nothing), I feel like lists like these need to completely set aside pro careers. For instance, as noted above, I don't know how Jerry Rice makes this list. So the best arguments will come for players who were starters for three or even four years. Barry Sanders is one of the greatest RBs of all time, but did he do enough as a college player to be on the college list? Weighting the number of years played benefits the older guys because the best players don't stick around anymore.
With that in mind, where are our OSU fans arguing for Archie Griffen?
Saban over either Rockne or Bryant. I argue that Saban is clearly the GOAT of college football coaches. Sure, we're nostalgic, but Saban's accomplishments are insane given the current state of the game.
What about Vince Young as a college QB? (Not in place of Tebow, I don't think, but with as many RBs as are on this list, how about a two-deep at QB?
I agree that JT was the best back to play at Wisconsin, but as far as college careers go, was his better than Dayne's? Would I take either of them over Jim Brown? (No.)
And yeah, I have no idea how to evaluate Glenn Davis. Best player on the best team? Yes. Playing during an unusually skewed era (the war years)? Yes. Playing in a completely different environment than today's game. Were his--not his team's--collegiate accomplishments better than Archie Griffin's, or Ricky Williams', or ...
My list would definitely skew more modern, with an old-timers' list that probably cuts off in the 1950s or so. Once you get to a Jim Brown, Alan Page, Lynn Swan, Butkus, etc., those guys feel like they could be modern football players. (Yes, they would have to be bigger and faster, but the game feels a lot closer than what was happening in the Glenn Davis era).
