CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 10, 2020, 10:04:40 PM
-
I sort of cut out most of the 70s, where in any given season, there were like 6 helmet teams with no more than 1 loss. So maybe don't worry about them, unless you reeeeally want to.
-
I voted for '71 Oklahoma because I know it best. A whisker worse than '71 Nebraska, which I think is one of the top-5 best teams ever.
My 2nd vote, if I had one, would be for '86 Miami. They delivered the lone loss to one of Switzer's best OU teams.
So, yes, I voted like a homer.
-
71 Oklahoma is the obvious pick here
but, I went with 94 Penn St. because they were undefeated and I always thought they could have had a split title with Nebraska
71 OU is probably the best team w/o a title all-time
-
The final '94 polls will forever be odd to me. There had been finagling in both 1990 and 1991 to get split championships, with the Coaches Poll being the adaptive one, awarding the 'other' deserving team a NC.
In 1990, CU was easily #1 in both polls until the last Coaches poll. Look-a-here:
1990 AP Poll
Dec 4:
1 - Colorado (42 first place votes)
2 - GA Tech (16)
3 - Texas (2)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Colorado (39)
2 - GA Tech (20)
3 - Miami (1)
.
1990 Coaches Poll
Dec 4:
1 - Colorado (38)
2 - GA Tech (7)
3 - Texas
4 - Miami (2)
.
Jan 3:
1 - GA Tech (30)
2 - Colorado (27)
3 - Miami (2)
.
Colorado's bowl opponent was #5 ND. GT's was #19 Nebraska. Yet somehow, GT got a bunch more votes in the final poll. No, the same number of coaches didn't vote week-to-week, but that was the case back then. Each week throughout the season didn't add up to the same number, so it's not just that.
.
Let's look at 1991.
1991 AP Poll:
Dec 2:
1 - Miami (37)
2 - Washington (23)
.
Jan 3:
Miami (32)
Washington (28)....Huskies gained some votes, but still #2.
.
1991 Coaches Poll (we have to go back another week to understand this one):
Nov 25:
1 - Miami (32)
2 - Washington (27)
.
Dec 2:
1 - Washington (29)
2 - Miami (30)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Washington (33.5)
2 - Miami (25.5)
.
This is sort of a crazy one. The week before the Nov 25th poll, Miami had a close win vs BC and their big first-place vote lead shrunk. But then, they beat a Marshall Faulk-led SDST team by 27 points to end their regular season while UW didn't play...and dropped to #2. Not just dropped, but dropped while having more 1st place votes! So some coaches were ranking the Canes 3rd or worse. And then some jack-wagon couldn't pick one and split his vote.
.
Okay, so say what you want about either of those, they happened. I think we all assumed it set a precedent . In 1993, Auburn went undefeated, but finished 4th, but that was a probation thing, we all understood that. So 1994 rolls around....
1994 AP Poll:
Dec 6:
1 - Nebraska (38)
2 - Penn State (24)
.
Jan 3:
1 - Nebraska (51.5)
2 - Penn State (10.5)
So Nebraska jumped to #1 after they blew out #2 CU in October, then maintained a consistent lead the rest of the year, which I'd label all of that as normal. What's odd here, is after the bowls, Nebraska gains a lot more support.
.
Moving on to the 1994 Coaches Poll:
Dec 5:
1 - Nebraska (44)
2 - Penn State (18)
Here is the same situation as 1990. The higher-ranked team is playing a better opponent in the bowl. We even get the same general results as 1990: the higher-ranked team wins a close game vs the better opponent, the #2 team blows out the weaker opponent. The logic that wasn't applied in 1990 was suddenly applied in 1994:
Jan 3:
1 - Nebraska (54)
2 - Penn State (8)
Instead of being pushed up to snag a share of the NC, like GA Tech was, Penn St loses support. It WOULD make sense if 1990 never happened.
.
Having looked at all that, we all know Penn St lost support due to their close game vs Indiana, in which the Hoosiers scored 2 late TDs. Yes, that was the case in the Coaches Poll, they were punitive. But what we see here, or at least what I shared here, is that the AP poll was not punitive against Penn State, it rewarded Nebraska for their big win vs CU. The coaches downgraded Penn State the week after the media voters did AND they didn't stay consistent with what they had previously done in 1990 and 1991.
.
My opinion is that in 1991, a lot of coaches didn't care for the way Miami did things, so they lifted UW up. And they probably liked Bobby Ross, GT's coach, which is probably the only reason they lifted GT up. Logically, if the #1 team beats the tougher opponent in the bowl game, there is no reason for them to be jumped. And while ignoring that logic in 1991, they employed it in 1994. That MIGHT make sense to me if 1994 Miami (Nebraska's bowl opponent) was some big, bad team, but they weren't. Alabama embarrassed them the 2 years before, they weren't great in '93, and their QB had as many INTs as TDs - they were not a perceived colossus.
Now, I don't know what, if anything, the coaches had against Penn State, but for that team to not get a share of the NC was odd, based on the precedent.
.
What I hope it was not - was getting Osborne his first NC, because Paterno already had a couple. That's the same asinine reasoning of not awarding the Heisman to an underclassman. It's just stupid.
-
I don't think it was anything against Paterno and PSU. It was Osborne's slaying of the Canes on their home field.
While you may not think of the 94 Canes as a colossus in hindsight, at the time they were VERY highly thought of. Ranked #3 with the #1 ranked defense and 17 point favorites by vegas. Not many thought Osborne had a chance in that game.
Meanwhile, the Nits played a mediocre Oregon Duck team in the Rose - winning by 18
-
The Huskers were a big underdog simply because they had failed 7 straight times in bowls vs southern teams. It didn't have to do with how good Miami was, it had to do with the fact that it was Miami.
Bowl Opp, Year
L to FSU in '87
L to Miami in '88
L to FSU in '89
L to GT in '90
L to Miami in '91
L to FSU in '92
L to FSU in '93
-
Went with that FSU team because it was beastly and seemed interesting. OU was second for me, and the slight bump in points allowed was a reason, though maybe that was all backups.
-
Yeah, these are all legit, national championship-quality choices. I could have chosen more, but then I doubt any one team would get a ton of votes.
.
It would be interesting for everyone to give their all-time top 10 teams that didn't win a share of the NC.
-
IMO, OSU was better in 1995 than 1996
-
The Huskers were a big underdog simply because they had failed 7 straight times in bowls vs southern teams. It didn't have to do with how good Miami was, it had to do with the fact that it was Miami.
Bowl Opp, Year
L to FSU in '87
L to Miami in '88
L to FSU in '89
L to GT in '90
L to Miami in '91
L to FSU in '92
L to FSU in '93
ed Zachery
-
IMO, OSU was better in 1995 than 1996
Tim Biakabutuka just scored again...
-
Tim Biakabutuka just scored again...
At least '95 OSU got into the end zone themselves.
-
Timmy was better than Eddie
Timmy didn't win a hypesman
-
IMO, OSU was better in 1995 than 1996
Tim Biakabutuka just scored again...
At least '95 OSU got into the end zone themselves.
FWIW, I am of the opinion that Ohio State's 1998 team was better than both of those but all three (1995, 1996, 1998) were great teams that came up just a little short.
1995:
The Buckeyes started out #12 and climbed all the way to 11-0 and #2 (behind Nebraska) before losing 31-23 to #18 Michigan then 20-14 to #4 Tennessee to finish #6. Even with the two losses, Ohio State outscored their opponents 475-220. The schedule looked great on paper with BC, Washington, Pitt, and ND OOC but of those only ND was good (finished 9-3 and #11). Washington finished over .500 but not by much (7-4-1) and unranked while BC and Pitt were flat awful (4-8 and 2-9 respectively).
Of note, despite giving up basically everything he wanted to Tshimanga Biakabutuka (313 yards), the Buckeyes were still in the game almost to the very end.
1996:
The Buckeyes started out #9, dropped to #10 on September 2 (they got passed by Syracuse despite neither team having played a game yet) then climbed all the way to 10-0 and #2 (behind Florida) before losing 13-9 to Michigan (again). The end of the season was pretty wild at the top of the poll. Here is the top of the poll as of 11/18/96 and what each team did from there:
- 10-0 Florida. DNP on 11/23, stayed #1. Lost 24-21 to #2 FSU on 11/30, dropped to #4. Beat Auburn in the SECCG on 12/7, rose to #3. Beat #1 FSU 52-20 in the Sugar Bowl on 1/2, finished #1.
- 10-0 Ohio State. Lost 13-9 to #21 Michigan on 11/23, dropped to #6. DNP on 11/30, climbed to #5 (Colorado lose to UNL), DNP on 12/7, climbed to #4 (UNL lost to UT), beat #2 ASU 20-17 1/1, finished #2.
- 9-0 Florida State. Beat Maryland 48-10 on 11/23, climbed to #2. Beat #1 Florida 24-21 on 11/30, climbed to #1. DNP on 12/7, stayed #1, lost 52-20 to #3 Florida in the Sugar Bowl on 1/2, finished #3.
- 10-0 Arizona State. Beat Arizona 56-14 on 11/23, climbed to #3. DNP on 11/30 or 12/7, climbed to #2 and stayed there. Lost to #4 Ohio State 20-17 on 1/1 in the Rose Bowl, finished #4.
- 9-1 Nebraska DNP on 11/23, climbed to #4. Beat #5 Colorado 17-12 on 11/29, climbed to #3. Lost 37-27 to UT in the B12CG on 12/7, dropped to #6. Beat #10 VaTech 41-21 in the Orange Bowl on 12/31, finished #6.
I've always found it interesting because the top-4 were the exact same in the final poll as they had been on 11/18 but they jumped around a bunch to get there.
1998:
The Buckeyes started out #1, and stayed there through the 11/2 poll at which point they were 8-0. Then the lost 28-24 to unranked MSU (coached by some guy named Saban), dropped to #7, climbed back to #3 in the last regular season poll (barely missed the very first BCSNCG), and finished #2. That loss to MSU is one of the most inexplicable losses in Ohio State history. The Spartans were a mediocre team that finished 6-6 but they came into Ohio Stadium on November 7 and put together a comback win for the ages.
The thing about that season that will always annoy Ohio State fans is that the Buckeyes were thisclose to the BCSNCG. The rankings in the 11/30 poll (last before CG's) were:
- 11-0 Tennessee (v MissSt in SECCG)
- 11-0 Kansas State (v aTm in B12CG)
- 10-0 UCLA (@Miami, FL to make up for a game posponed due to a hurricane)
- 11-1 Florida State (no CG)
- 10-1 Ohio State (no CG)
- 11-1 Arizona (no CG)
- 9-2 Florida (no CG)
- 10-1 Wisconsin (no CG)
Ohio State needed a LOT of help, but they got most of it:
- #2 KSU lost 36-33 to aTm dropping them out of the running (and all the way down to the Alamo Bowl which they lost to Purdue)
- #3 UCLA lost 49-45 to Miami dropping them out of the running (they lost the Rose Bowl to Wisconsin)
That moved FSU into the BCSNCG and if MissSt had defeated Tennessee it would have been tOSU v FSU. Mississippi State took a 14-10 lead in the fourth quarter but lost when Tennesse scored two TD's in 32 seconds after that. After the first of Tennessee's fourth quarter TD's MissSt got the ball back with about six minutes remaining. I was obviously a VERY interested MissSt fan but they fumbled on the next play and on the play after that Tennessee scored again to extend their lead to 24-14 and that was how the game ended.
The 1998 Buckeyes outscored their opponents 430-144.
Those three teams compared:
- 1995: Outscored opponents 475-220 with a great on paper, decent in reality SoS. Lost their last two games, 31-23 to M and 20-14 to TN.
- 1996: Outscored opponents 455-131 with a decent SoS (ND OOC). Lost 13-9 to M, beat ASU in RB.
- 1998: Outscored opponents 430-144 with a decent SoS (WVU, Mizzou OOC), lost 28-24 to MSU, beat aTm in SugarBowl.
I think 1998 was the best of the bunch and, IMHO, it is between that and 1996 with 1995 being a step back from those two. The biggest reason I think 1998 and 1996 were better is that if you replayed the 1996 tOSU/M game nine more times I'm confident that tOSU would easily win at least six of the ten and probably closer to 8 or 9. If you replayed the 1998 tOSU/MSU game nine more times I'm confident that tOSU would win all nine. If you replayed the 1995 tOSU/M game nine more times I think Biakabtuka would probably run for 2,500 more yards.
-
The other thing about 1998 that makes me lean toward that team is that the B1G was amazing that year.
- 7-1 Ohio State (lost to MSU): Beat B12 Champ aTm 24-14 in Sugar Bowl
- 7-1 Wisconsin (lost to M): Beat P10 Champ UCLA 38-31 in Rose Bowl
- 7-1 Michigan (lost to tOSU): Beat Arkansas 45-31 in Citrus Bowl
- 6-2 Purdue (lost to UW, PSU): Beat KSU 37-34 in Alamo Bowl
- 5-3 Penn State (lost to tOSU, M, UW): Beat Kentucky 26-14 in Outback Bowl
-
I am still convinced the best Ohio state non-national Championship is the 1975 team.
-
I am still convinced the best Ohio state non-national Championship is the 1975 team.
Personally, I think it was 1973.
All time, I think it is between that one, 1973, 1969, and 1970.
- 1975: Outscored opponents 384-102, finished 11-1. The loss was in a Rose Bowl rematch with UCLA. The Buckeyes beat the Bruins handily (41-20) in the Rose Bowl (stadium not game) in early October but lost to them in the Rose Bowl (stadium and game) 23-10.
- 1973: Outscored opponents 413-64, finished 10-0-1. The tie was with Michigan in Ann Arbor and was also Michigan's only blemish. Final AP #1 Notre Dame beat USC 23-14 in South Bend, Ohio State beat them 42-21 in the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame also struggled with MSU, beating them 14-10 in South Bend, Ohio State beat them 35-0 in Columbus. Notre Dame beat Purdue 20-7 in West Lafayette. Ohio State didn't play Purdue but Michigan beat them 34-9 in Ann Arbor. Finally, Notre Dame beat Northwestern 44-0. That sounds impressive but Ohio State beat them 60-0.
- 1970: Ohio State started #1 and held it until 10/26 when the got jumped by Texas. Then they got jumped by ND to drop to #3 on 11/2. They held there until a weak showing in a 10-7 win over sub .500 Purdue dropped them to #5 in the 11/16 poll (behind Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Michigan). The next week tOSU jumped back to #2 after Notre Dame barely beat LSU and Nebraska barely beat a sub par OU. Ohio State stayed at #2 (including a win over undefeated #4 Michigan) until the bowls. In the bowls #1 Texas lost to #6 ND, #2 tOSU lost to #12 Stanford, and #3 Nebraska beat #5 LSU to win the NC. The Buckeyes outscored their opponents 290-120.
- 1969: Ohio State was the defending National Champion and beat their first eight opponents by a combined 371-69 then lost 24-12 to Michigan to finish 8-1 having outscored their opponents 383-93.
1968-1975 was a phenomenal run for the Buckeyes and it is amazing that, as good as those eight teams were they only managed to win one NC. They were probably the best team in the country in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, and 1975.
-
I agree, it's the 73 team
I was only 11 at the time, but I was a big Buckeye fan
the 70 Huskers vs the 70 Buckeyes would have been a great game
back in 1970 I would have been rooting for the Bucks against most of my relatives
today I'll say the 1970 Huskers would have earned the victory! HAH!
-
I chuckled a few times that Old Timey Edition" went back to 1971.
-
Well the further back you go, the more obscure, claimed NCs you find...
-
I agree, it's the 73 team
I was only 11 at the time, but I was a big Buckeye fan
the 70 Huskers vs the 70 Buckeyes would have been a great game
back in 1970 I would have been rooting for the Bucks against most of my relatives
today I'll say the 1970 Huskers would have earned the victory! HAH!
I think Ohio State and Michigan were just REALLY unlucky to have great teams in the same season that year. Ohio State outscored opponents 413-64 as mentioned above and Michigan was not much worse at 330-68.
USC is very interesting that year. They finished 9-2-1 and were #8 in the final AP Poll but the thing is that their losses and tie were to the top-3:
- Lost 23-14 AT Notre Dame (final #1)
- Lost 42-21 in the Rose Bowl to Ohio State (final #2)
- Tied 7-7 at home with Oklahoma (final #3)
Their other game against a ranked team was a 23-13 win at home over UCLA (final #12).
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Michigan all finished undefeated although each except ND and PSU had a tie. However, the ties were not bad:
- 11-0 Notre Dame beat #1 (final #4) Bama in the Sugar Bowl
- 10-0-1 Ohio State tied (final) #6 Michigan 10-10 in Ann Arbor
- 10-0-1 Oklahoma tied (final) #8 USC 7-7 in LA
- 11-1 Bama lost to ND 24-23
- 12-0 Penn State played two ranked (final) teams: Beat #16 NCST 35-29 at home, beat #13 LSU 16-9 in the Orange Bowl.
- 10-0-1 Michigan tied #2 tOSU 10-10 at home
-
I think Ohio State and Michigan were just REALLY unlucky to have great teams in the same season that year. Ohio State outscored opponents 413-64 as mentioned above and Michigan was not much worse at 330-68.
USC is very interesting that year. They finished 9-2-1 and were #8 in the final AP Poll but the thing is that their losses and tie were to the top-3:
- Lost 23-14 AT Notre Dame (final #1)
- Lost 42-21 in the Rose Bowl to Ohio State (final #2)
- Tied 7-7 at home with Oklahoma (final #3)
Their other game against a ranked team was a 23-13 win at home over UCLA (final #12).
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Michigan all finished undefeated although each except ND and PSU had a tie. However, the ties were not bad:
- 11-0 Notre Dame beat #1 (final #4) Bama in the Sugar Bowl
- 10-0-1 Ohio State tied (final) #6 Michigan 10-10 in Ann Arbor
- 10-0-1 Oklahoma tied (final) #8 USC 7-7 in LA
- 11-1 Bama lost to ND 24-23
- 12-0 Penn State played two ranked (final) teams: Beat #16 NCST 35-29 at home, beat #13 LSU 16-9 in the Orange Bowl.
- 10-0-1 Michigan tied #2 tOSU 10-10 at home
That Oklahoma team was sophomore-heavy, with QB Steve Davis, HB Joe Washington, SE Tinker Owens, DT's Lee Roy and Dewey Selmon, DE Jimbo Elrod, K Tony DiRienzo, S Eric Van Camp, OT Mike Vaughan, and OG Terry Webb all sophomore starters.
The USC game was Barry Switzer's 2nd game as HFC. He had a conservative game plan and the play-calling was conservative. He said afterward that if he had known how good the team was, he would have opened up the offense more.
That was the game in which Joe Washington ran about 80 yards to lose 8 on a punt return.
I've always wondered what might have been in the final rankings had OU won that game, but the Sooners were on probation, and the punishment began with not being allowed to go to a bowl game. I don't think that an 11-0 Oklahoma that hadn't played in a month would have passed 11-0 Notre Dame, victor over Bama in the Sugar Bowl.
Still, that was a better Sooner team than the '75 MNC team.
-
1973 was a great season - back when the top teams were playing each other
the Huskers played 7 ranked teams - won 5
opening with #10 UCLA in Osborne's debut - 40-13 win
2nd non-con was #14 UNC
Wisconsin and Minnesota finished the non-con schedule
lost to #12 Mizzou in Columbia - by a point, went for two in the final minute after a sensational comeback and missed.
beat #18 Kansas
Tied Okie St in Stillwater
beat #17 Colorado
lost to #3 OU in Norman
beat the #8 ranked Longhorns in the Cotton
-
1973 was a great season - back when the top teams were playing each other
the Huskers played 7 ranked teams - won 5
opening with #10 UCLA in Osborne's debut - 40-13 win
2nd non-con was #14 UNC
Wisconsin and Minnesota finished the non-con schedule
lost to #12 Mizzou in Columbia - by a point, went for two in the final minute after a sensational comeback and missed.
beat #18 Kansas
Tied Okie St in Stillwater
beat #17 Colorado
lost to #3 OU in Norman
beat the #8 ranked Longhorns in the Cotton
The Huskers usually played a great OOC schedule back then. The Sooners only played two great OOC opponents in '73--USC and Texas. The other two were Baylor and Miami, neither of which were good. Only played five teams that finished ranked.
It was after the game with Nebraska in Norman that DC Larry Lacewell said he'd take that defense and go fight the Russians.
Some great, and some just colorful, HFCs of the opponents that year. Grant Teaff at Baylor. Jim McKay at USC. Pete Elliot at Miami. Darrel Royal at Texas. Eddie Crowder at Colorado. Vince Gibson at K-State. Earle Bruce at Iowa State. Al Onofrio at Mizzou. Don Fambrough at Kansas. Dr. Tom in Lincoln in his 1st season as HFC. Jim Stanley (the "Stanley Steamer") at oSu.
-
It was after the game with Nebraska in Norman that DC Larry Lacewell said he'd take that defense and go fight the Russians.
part of Husker/Sooner lore
-
Great lore it is.
-
mostly be forgotten when us old guys are gone, unfortunately
-
Some of the best was preserved on good ole low-definition TV.
-
1983 - Auburn. No guarantees they would have beaten either Miami FL or the 'skers, but they would have given both of them a game.
1984 - Florida. The real natty should have been Washington v. Florida. Florida started slow (loss to Miami FL and tied LSU to start 0-1-1), but went on a tear afterwards. They would have absolutely shredded BYU, and probably Washington too.
2002 - USC - a pair of early losses effectively knocked them out of the MNC picture, but by late November they were looking damn near unbeatable.
-
Voted other and will go slightly before the 70's with 1966 Bama. Two time defending NC goes undefeated and finishes third to ND and MSU who played to a 10-10 tie. Keith Dunnavant wrote a book ('The Missing Ring') about the season.
"The Missing Ring is more than a football book. It is both a story of a changing era and of an extraordinary team on a championship quest."
https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Ring-Alabama-Crimson-Footballs/dp/0312374321 (https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Ring-Alabama-Crimson-Footballs/dp/0312374321)
-
I always think they get lost in the shuffle, behind that version of the Game of the Century. Glad someone wrote a book about it. Imagine playing on that '66 Bama team and someone says you're the 3rd-best team. I'd tell them to F-off, lol.
-
I've always read that it had to do with black folks getting hit with billy clubs, firehoses, police dogs, bullets, and the like when they marched for civil rights. The Bama football team was getting punished for the sins of Alabama and the rest of the Deep South.
-
It took longer than it should for the south in general to gain traction nationally in football, because of those same reasons, I'm sure. Until Alabama in 1926, southern teams were treated 'less than'. Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt had some legit teams in the teens and early 20s and weren't exactly getting the royal treatment, nationally.
-
I always think they get lost in the shuffle, behind that version of the Game of the Century. Glad someone wrote a book about it. Imagine playing on that '66 Bama team and someone says you're the 3rd-best team. I'd tell them to F-off, lol.
The AP Pollsters were determined that Bama would not repeat. Although they had Bama #1 in the Preseason Poll, they had dropped them to #3 before Bama had played a game. In no small part because of the 13th hour replacement of an SEC opponent with a non-1A opponent for the opener.
Tulane was scheduled to be the opening game opponent, but asked to be removed from the schedule when they left the conference on June 1. 1966. They were replaced that Summer by La Tech, a non-1A at the time.
(https://www.amazon.com/Missing-Ring-Alabama-Crimson-Footballs/dp/0312374321)http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=310#.XpZYMv1KiUk
(http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=310#.XpZYMv1KiUk)Furthermore, they even dropped Bama to #4 in the third week's Poll. Unbelievable because the consensus public mindset during that era was that a #1 team remained #1 until they were beaten.
http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=312#.XpZcFP1KiUk (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=312#.XpZcFP1KiUk)
Coach Bryant was on record as saying it was the best team he ever had.
-
It took longer than it should for the south in general to gain traction nationally in football, because of those same reasons, I'm sure. Until Alabama in 1926, southern teams were treated 'less than'. Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt had some legit teams in the teens and early 20s and weren't exactly getting the royal treatment, nationally.
Did the midwestern teams go through that a couple of decades earlier--where they were having to prove themselves against the Ivy League and other northeastern elites?
-
That's difficult to say, because it's less a regional bias thing and more of a full-schedule, stability thing.
In the 1800s, college football was all Ivy League. They were good, but they also played a full schedule (8-9-10 games). No one else did. So you'd have midwestern, southern, and western teams going 4-0 or 5-0 or whatever, but they were unknown commodities and didn't get the benefit of the doubt because they played relatively few games.
So the midwestern schools forming the Big Ten in 1896 and just 5 years later, Michigan is a RECOGNIZED national power.
.
Now teams in the south and west were then playing 7-8-9 games, but not getting any play. The midwest had Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, ND......the east still had the Ivies going strong, plus Pitt. (the Ivies weren't "The Ivy League" as a conference, but they all played each other and were good)
.
More conferences begin (1905-1915), in the plains, the SWC, and out west. Western teams like early 20s Cal, Stanford, and USC became a power before the south got any due. GA Tech was recognized in 1917, but that was a WWI thing.
.
The Southern Conference began in 1922, so you could point to that being the thing that kept them down as much as being socially backwards.
.
.
Another aspect was travel/money. Remember, football didn't exactly have permanence early on. T.Roosevelt had to intervene to keep it going early in the 1900s. So we couldn't criticize a school if it didn't want to pay for its team to hop a train to travel very far.
Looking at schedules back then, the southern and western teams were very regional. They had to be. The furthest I see teams travelling pre-1920 is Texas playing Alabama and Auburn. West coast teams were exclusively regional until the Rose Bowl began. It was the Rose Bowl, and beating those credible Big Ten school that allowed the west coast schools to get respect earlier than the southern schools.
.
The midwest schools who happened to sort of bet on football remaining a thing traveled east - playing the likes of Pitt and some even crossing the Appalachians, playing Virginia, Penn, Syracuse and Yale. I really think the birth of the helmet program was with those schools willing to travel. ND played @Nebraska, @Army, and @Texas in 1915. Why was little Vanderbilt the SEC's first power? They played Michigan for a few consecutive years, raising their notoriety. GA Tech played ND. It was all about money-travel-exposure-respect.
.
-
As others have pointed out, the Southern Conference had some odd scheduling practices that carried over into the SEC for a long time.
Or am I just thinking about the SEC?
-
Well the Southern Conference (precursor to the SEC) lacked moderation. It had like 20 teams, so scheduling would still be wildly imbalanced.
But yeah, like in the 50s, Tulane was in the SEC and they had a different number of conference games every year.
-
HA! So I'm totally randomly looking up 1977 Florida's schedule, to see if the Gators played any non-conference games vs SEC foes, and I find this Wikipedia gem:
(https://i.imgur.com/jEmOfKJ.jpg)
.
I mean, that is RANDOM.
-
Lebron gets around.
-
must be true
wasn't reported by CNN
-
It must have been some other LeBron James, because he wasn't even born until 1984.
-
2002 - USC - a pair of early losses effectively knocked them out of the MNC picture, but by late November they were looking damn near unbeatable.
So 2002 is "old timey" now?
-
So 2002 is "old timey" now?
Well, Carson Palmer's in his 40s now...
-
Well, Carson Palmer's in his 40s now...
So is Tom Brady
-
can we at least use the year 2000 as the cutoff?
-
So 2002 is "old timey" now?
Well I went to do this thinking I'd pick 5 teams from the past 50 years or so, but it quickly became obvious there were a lot more that made sense to be included.
-
I' surprised to see '94 Penn State leading (in a tie). I thought '71 OU or Other would run away with it. And there was a reason the '87 Fiesta Bowl was such a big upset...
-
well, 94 PSU was undefeated, untied, and had a record breaking offense
and they were in the correct conference
-
I thought yous guys respected defense. Great offense - 2 good WRs, a short-range threat at TE, a truly great RB and a QB to distribute the ball. But 70th in total defense that year.
.
Luckily for them, they didn't play any big-boy defenses in 1994. The best defense they faced was Illinois. The Illini weren't really a threat, yet PSU only won by 4. Maybe that outcome was less of a fluke and more of a legit challenge. Ohio State had the next-best defense they faced, and their 63 points there was a genuinely elite performance. The rest of the Big Ten had average-to-crappy defenses.
-
Everyone should look at this - all the team statistics from the NCAA website for 1994. It's PDFs of that old-school printout paper with the green and white rows, all slanted and sloppy.
The NCAA is one lazy MFer.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf)
-
I thought yous guys respected defense. Great offense - 2 good WRs, a short-range threat at TE, a truly great RB and a QB to distribute the ball. But 70th in total defense that year.
.
Luckily for them, they didn't play any big-boy defenses in 1994. The best defense they faced was Illinois. The Illini weren't really a threat, yet PSU only won by 4. Maybe that outcome was less of a fluke and more of a legit challenge. Ohio State had the next-best defense they faced, and their 63 points there was a genuinely elite performance. The rest of the Big Ten had average-to-crappy defenses.
your other quote regarding 94 PSU...........................
Now, I don't know what, if anything, the coaches had against Penn State, but for that team to not get a share of the NC was odd, based on the precedent.
_________________________________________________ ________
perhaps the coaches voting in the 1994 final poll respected defense????
-
That'd be great....if they had shown that behavior previously.
-
or since then?
-
Everyone should look at this - all the team statistics from the NCAA website for 1994. It's PDFs of that old-school printout paper with the green and white rows, all slanted and sloppy.
The NCAA is one lazy MFer.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf)
Wow.
That's truly pathetic.
-
Everyone should look at this - all the team statistics from the NCAA website for 1994. It's PDFs of that old-school printout paper with the green and white rows, all slanted and sloppy.
The NCAA is one lazy MFer.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/archive/fbs/1994team.pdf)
Dayum! Bama was 53rd in Rushing Offense and 75th in Passing Offense and was 11-1-0. Lol. I believe Stallings' standard instructions to the OC was. "Don't do anything to lose the game. My defense will win it."
-
Yep. And that's WITH a much-improved Jay Barker at QB. His stats in the '92 NC season are putrid.
-
And I wasn't criticizing Penn State getting votes, I was just surprised. Surprises are good.
-
so, you weren't surprised that they got fewer votes than Nebraska?