CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on January 13, 2019, 08:38:47 PM
-
It's early December, the SEC just had college football's first conference championship game, and the playoff field is set.
1 Miami vs 4 Texas A&M
2 Alabama vs 3 FSU
-
-
-
Who would you pick to win the 1992 college football playoff? No bowl results - here are the resumes:
The teams:
#1 - Miami, 11-0, Big East Champions
13th in scoring offense
5th in scoring defense
29th in strength of schedule
The The Canes enter the playoff on a 29-game winning streak, going back to 1990. The defending national champs faced 4 ranked opponents this year, pummeling #23 Iowa and close wins at #8 Syracuse, at #9 Penn State and #3 FSU (Wide Right II). The defense held seven opponents to 10 points or less, and the offense posted 30+ points in seven games as well.
The traditional Miami pro-set offense averaged over 300 yards passing as usual, but struggled to run the ball effectively - the 3 leading carriers averaged only 3.8 yards per carry. But Heisman-winner QB Torretta spread the ball around - four different receivers had 40+ catches. They had a good return game, but Prewitt the kicker was no Huerta.
-
#2 - Alabama, 12-0, SEC Champions
22nd in scoring offense
1st in scoring defense
32nd in strength of schedule
The Tide began the year 9th, but didn't lose a game, thanks to a great defense. Nine games into the season, the most points anyone had scored against them was 11. Alabama had four wins of seven points or less. Against three ranked opponents, Alabama had close wins over #13 Tennessee, #16 Miss State, and #12 Florida in the 1st ever SECCG in Birmingham.
On offense, the Tide relied on a sturdy running game, spreading the ball among 4 running backs. This is because the passing game was awful. QB Jay Barker threw more INTs than TDs and had a putrid rating, but even though opponents knew the Tide were going to run, run, and run some more, they were still effective doing so. RB/WR David Palmer was a spark for the offense, leading the main ball-carriers with 9.2 yards per touch.
What made this team special, however, was the defense. Allowing just 140 yards passing per game and 55 rushing, nothing came easy. QBs completed under 50% of their passes and RBs couldn't average 2 yards per rush against the Tide. An elite defensive backfield picked off passes and brought 3 of them back for TDs. DEs Copeland and Curry each had over 10 sacks, creating a savage pass-rush. Palmer was a good returner, and the kicking game was average.
-
#3 - FSU, 10-1, ACC Champions
2nd in scoring offense
15th in scoring defense
12th in strength of schedule
Another new development in 1992, besides the SECCG, was FSU joining the ACC. The Noles came right in and laid waste to their new brethren, going 8-0 in conference play. Overall, six ranked opponents were in FSU's way, and only one - Miami - beat the Noles (and that was by one point, on a missed FG at the end). Road games at #15 Clemson, #16 NC State, #16 GA Tech, and #23 Virginia all ended in Seminole victories. They also beat in-state rival #6 Florida in Tallahassee to end the regular season.
The offense was fairly balanced, averaging 250 passing and 200 yards rushing per game. Led by QB Charlie Ward, a great playmaker, FSU was adept at putting points up quickly. The first-year starter did struggle with 17 INTs, though. The running game was helped by Ward's legs and 500 yards rushing and RBs all averaging 5 yards per carry. The ball was also spread around through the air, with no one, dominant WR.
The defense allowed under 300 total yards per game, with ball-hawks in the backfield and opponents getting only 100 yards per game on the ground, thanks to Butkus winner Marvin Jones. FSU ran 5 kicks/punts back on the year, but FG kicking was their achillies' heel.
-
#4 Texas A&M, 12-0, SWC Champions
27th in scoring offense
10th in scoring defense
59th in strength of schedule
The Aggies were in the top 10 all year and didn't lose a game. However, they only faced one ranked team, in the opener vs #17 Stanford. Winning it by 3, A&M went on to run roughshod over the conference, scoring 30+ points seven times. Despite the SWC only providing meager foes, the Aggies had 3 close calls in conference play.
The offense had a 2-headed monster at QB, with neither posting very good passing or rushing numbers. Granger and Pullig combined to complete under 50% of their passes with a poor rating. Neither ran the ball effectively, either. Luckily, A&M had two talented RBs to carry the load in Greg Hill and Rodney Thomas. The pair combined for 2000+ yards and 30 TDs.
The "Wrecking Crew" defense was the prime reason A&M was able to go 12-0, with very talented members in the defensive backfield (CB Glenn, S Bates, CB Mickens) and pressure the QB with DE Sam Adams. The return game was terrific, and the kicking game was fine.
-
-
-
Players of interest:
QB Gino Torretta, Miami (Heisman, O'Brien, Unitas, Maxwell, Camp, All-American)
LB Marvin Jones, FSU (Butkus, Lombardi, AA)
HC Gene Stallings, Alabama (Coach of the Year)
DE John Copeland, Alabama (AA)
DE Eric Curry, Alabama (AA)
LB Micheal Barrow, Miami (AA)
LB Marcus Buckley, Texas A&M (AA)
CB Ryan McNeil, Miami (AA)
-
Might we have a rematch of a regular season game in the NCG?
Could A&M surprise?
-
Remember, the Sugar Bowl never happened in this exercise....who would have won?
-
Noles over the Canes in a rematch that doesn't come down to a field goal.
Texas A&M gets blown out in the semis.
-
Miami did not play Houston in 1992, they played in 1991. Either way, Houston being top 10 win would be based on a Sept poll. Both seasons Houston finished 4-7. Penn st. Wasn't that great either. Bama is kicking everybody's ass. Best defense in my lifetime. FSU wasn't bad at all. I remember that A&M well, they wouldn't beat any of these teams imo. Unless at Kyle Field.
-
Beware of clicking the back button while shooting back and forth within a website, lol. I'll edit Miami's schedule section in a moment.
-
I recall watching that '92 Canes at PSU game, Sacca threw one of the worst pick sixes I've ever seen, which was the difference maker in a game that ended 17-14. That was also the same day Peter Gardere hit the superfecta in beating OU 4 straight years, but I digress.
-
Miami beats aTm in the first quarter while Bama and FSU play a bloodbath 4 quarter game. Miami beats Bama for the title a week later.
-
It would have been reeeally fun seeing FSU’s offense vs that Tide defense.
-
that bama d was one of the best I've seen... at least in their bowl game vs Miami.
-
I've always thought of that 1992 Alabama team as being similar to Ohio State's National Championship team a decade later. The offense wasn't anything special but the defense was phenomenal and they just always did what they needed to do to win. They had a number of close calls:
- Beat USM by only a TD
- Beat LaTech by only 13
- Beat Tennessee by only a TD
- Beat Florida by only a TD (by comparison, FSU beat the Gators by 3 TD's)
The SWC was WEAK in 1992 and aTm's perfect record was nothing but a product of playing in a weak conference.
Semi-finals:
- Miami slaughters aTm without breaking a sweat
- Bama/FSU pay a bloodbath of a heavyweight title fight type game, I think Bama wins.
Championship:
I think that Miami's MUCH easier semi-final would help the Canes. They would head into the Championship rested while Bama/FSU would head into the game beat up. I think that would be enough for Miami to win.
-
Yeah, I think by 1992 it was obvious the SWC was on the brink of collapse (by that time Arkansas had already bailed). SMU's downfall really effed the rest of the conference over. Today's boosters look like choir boys compared to the cheatin' going on in the 1980s (and the SWC was by far the worst).
FWIW, I picked Bama. I think FSU-Bama would have been a doozy of a matchup, and while the Noles may well have been able to beat Bama, but in college football, elite defenses tend to trump elite offenses.
-
Winner of Bama, FSU, and I suspect it's Bama. Defense wins championships. Or something.
-
It wouldn't have been the Wolverines.
-
that bama d was one of the best I've seen... at least in their bowl game vs Miami.
When I think of great college defenses that is still the first one that pops in my head. They were great.
-
Yeah, I think by 1992 it was obvious the SWC was on the brink of collapse (by that time Arkansas had already bailed). SMU's downfall really effed the rest of the conference over.
A big part of the SWC's collapse was that their major traditional power (Texas) simply wasn't very good for the last decade or so of the SWC's existence.
-
I think it was all of the cheating that did that conference in.
-
The FSU offense was good, but it wasn't as good as 1993's. Ward was already Ward, but he was turnover-prone. The RBs averaged 5 ypc, but the next year, they'd average 6 and 7 (Dunn as the backup), etc.
That being said, the Noles would move the ball some on Bama, but Langham, Teague, & Co. would snag some INTs. It would be fun seeing if Curry & Copeland could corral Ward, or if he'd wear them out.
That Miami team was one-dimensional, and a lot of its warts were muffled by the 29-game willing streak. They couldn't run the ball and much of the passing game wound up being "throw a 50/50 ball up and my guy will get it".....except that doesn't work against really good defenses. They only scored 19 on FSU. But their defense was legit - did any other college teams have 3 starters at LB that would go on to start 10+ years in the NFL?
-
I think it was all of the cheating that did that conference in.
if that were the case the SEC SEC SEC would have collapsed by now
-
A grest sidebar from this season is the story of Corky Simpson. The Tucson writer and AP voter caught all kinds of grief and flak for voting Bama #1 All season. Yes, there was a time when the national media did not worship the SEC.
-
if that were the case the SEC SEC SEC would have collapsed by now
The moral of the story is, if you're going to cheat, don't be stupid about it like the SWC was. It wasn't the fact that they were cheating, but they were so brazen about it and still continued to cheat even after getting caught.
If SMU even pretended to abide by the rules, it might be in the Big 12 now.
-
Well what are the last official cheats in the SEC? Ole Miss and their obvious, multiple-5 star kids class and then Miss State before that, with Cam and his pappy. The 2 lowest non-Vandy programs trying to get some traction.
-
No gas-lighting.
-
Remember, the Sugar Bowl never happened in this exercise....who would have won?
So I'm still trying to process what this means. Isn't the result of a game actually played as good an indication as we could have of what the result would be in a hypothetical match up? It's far from perfect, but, for instance, if we know that aTm's gaudy record came against a weak schedule and that when aTm played a top ten team in its bowl game it did not fare well, isn't that a data point about what we think would happen if the top four ranked teams played each other? If we think that Miami might well end up playing Alabama in the championship game, isn't the result of those two teams playing each other in a bowl game relevant to what we think the result would be if they played each other in a championship game?
If the exercise is to try to guess, based on what we knew about these teams (e.g., "I remember the '89 Canes converting a third and 42 against the Irish--that team was unstoppable in crunch time," or some such thing) how could we excise what our memory tells us about those teams' bowl game results (where our memory necessarily includes the bowl game results)?
I'm not trying to sharp shoot this exercise, I'm just trying to understand what it's after.
-
You're playing the role of a prognosticator during that season. It's December 9th, 1992, and you're being asked to pick a winner of the playoff for that season.
As for knowing the outcome of a game and using it to predict the winner of a matchup of the same 2 teams, well, I guess that depends on the person. Alabama beat Miami 34-13 in the Sugar Bowl that year. Some people might think if they played again 10 times, Alabama would usually win by 20, and some might even think the Tide would win again by that same score.
I happen to think they could play 100 times and that score wouldn't be repeated. A 34-13 score in a game actually played might lead someone to think Alabama would beat Miami 8 out of 10 or something like that, but it's probably closer to 6 out of 10, imo.
Anyways, the reason we're ignoring the bowl outcomes is that using them takes it out of your hands and you have less to "chew on". If you happen to think a bowl outcome was odd and you think it would go down differently if played again, then here's your chance to say so and predict as such. For the Sugar Bowl specifically, what if George Teague hadn't run down Lamar Thomas and stripped him? What if Miami scores there and it opens up the offense for the rest of the game? What if Teague didn't have a pick-6 right before that? You'd have a 20-13 game instead of 27-6. How often does the same WR fumble twice in a game?
This isn't supposed to be a what-if contest leaning to either team, but I'm trying to show that when what actually happened involves unlikely outcomes here and there, the winner of a game and the margin of victory are...delicate. The important thing is, you can think Alabama was better and pick them to win the "what if" playoff without citing the Sugar Bowl. I don't want anyone to use the outcome of the bowl game, shrug their shoulders, and think "well I guess I have to say Alabama (or Team-X) would win the rematch." No, the team you think would win is who you should choose.
-
btw, we're all crapping on A&M, but look at their team - it's a lot like Bama's. A LOT.
Can't pass at all.
Can run it really well with a group of backs.
Several close wins.
Very good defense with All-American types from front to back.
12-0
Just sayin'.... :sign0099:
-
At that point, much like with Osborne and some of his teams in bowl games against elite talent, I was no longer convinced A&M had enough offense to hang around in a big time bowl game. I know they wasted BYU shortly before in a Holiday Bowl, but they laid a massive egg vs FSU in the prior Cotton Bowl and I don't see any difference in '92.
-
I went with the Noles
-
btw, we're all crapping on A&M, but look at their team - it's a lot like Bama's. A LOT.
Can't pass at all.
Can run it really well with a group of backs.
Several close wins.
Very good defense with All-American types from front to back.
12-0
Just sayin'.... :sign0099:
Their schedule was almost as bad as UCF's this year. Here are their opponents sorted by final record along with how aTm did against them:
- 10-3 Stanford: won by a FG at a neutral site
- 7-5 Baylor: won by 6 at home
- 6-5 Texas: won by 21 on the road
- 6-5 Rice: won by 26 at home
- 5-6 Louisville: won by 22 at home
- 5-6 SMU: won by 34 at a neutral site
- 5-6 TxTech: won by 2 at home
- 4-7 Houston: won by 8 on the road
- 4-7 Tulsa: won by 10 at home
- 3-8 Mizzou: won by 13 on the road
- 2-8-1 TCU: won by 27 at home
- 2-9 LSU: won by 9 on the road
Of their opponents only Stanford and Baylor went to bowl games. There just isn't much here.
-
Their schedule was almost as bad as UCF's this year. Here are their opponents sorted by final record along with how aTm did against them:
- 10-3 Stanford: won by a FG at a neutral site
- 7-5 Baylor: won by 6 at home
- 6-5 Texas: won by 21 on the road
- 6-5 Rice: won by 26 at home
- 5-6 Louisville: won by 22 at home
- 5-6 SMU: won by 34 at a neutral site
- 5-6 TxTech: won by 2 at home
- 4-7 Houston: won by 8 on the road
- 4-7 Tulsa: won by 10 at home
- 3-8 Mizzou: won by 13 on the road
- 2-8-1 TCU: won by 27 at home
- 2-9 LSU: won by 9 on the road
Of their opponents only Stanford and Baylor went to bowl games. There just isn't much here.
Lost to #5 ND in the Cotton Bowl by 25. Kicked a field goal in the 4th quarter, when down 21-0. Lost 28-3.
I get OAM's point that the outcome of a single game doesn't determine what would happen if they played again, but an outcome like this one--or the Sugar Bowl--does indicate that some of these teams were probably substantially better than others. Not necessarily, but probably.
Incidentally, many people believed Notre Dame didn't deserve the invite to play aTm; they felt aTm should have played FSU. #5 over #3 for ratings purposes (especially since aTm played FSU in the prior Cotton Bowl) was probably not egregious. But coming off the Sugar Bowl the year before (in which #18 ND upset #3 Florida--ND fans call it the "Cheerios Bowl"--speaking of a game result that probably wouldn't repeat every time), it's easy to see why people thought ND was getting favors.
-
no chance vs the Canes in round one
-
no chance vs the Canes in round one
That's what many said about Alabama before the Sugar Bowl....
-
Not exactly ironic, but I just realized that the reason ND is #5 and not in the top four for 1992 was its loss to Stanford earlier in the year (the Irish were 9-1-1, with a tie to Michigan and a loss at home to Stanford). Why does this matter? Well, as one of the resident ND supporters around here...
This was my freshman year at UW and my parents were in Madison for Parents' Day. My dad graduated from and worked (still works) at Stanford, and as a teenager my mom and I had season tickets to Stanford games. My mom grew up something of a Penn State fan, and that, combined with Stanford's then relatively new series with ND meant she didn't like ND--so I didn't like ND, either. Ok, and Lou Holtz ND was easy to not like, particularly with the NBC contract and all that.
So anyway, on this day in history, October 3, 1992, my parents and I sat in the upper deck at Camp Randall and watched Wisconsin upset #12 Ohio State, quarterbacked by Kirk Herbstreit. This was the program's biggest win since Barry Alvarez came to town. We left Camp Randall and walked to my parents' friend's house where her tailgate had never quit (she lived a couple blocks off of Breese Terrace--very close to the stadium), and watched Stanford knock off the mighty Notre Dame in South Bend.
It was a good football day for the family.
It wasn't until SFIrish came along several years later that I began to shift my allegiances from Stanford to the Irish.
All these playoff what ifs also remind me just how good Miami and ND were in the late 80s and early 90s. 88-93 the Irish were beasts; with their worst finish the year ND upset #3 Florida by 11 in the Sugar Bowl (1991 season). Miami even more so (81-94); FSU (87-2000); Nebraska (93-01). I guess there's always someone at the top that everyone else wants to knock down.
-
That's what many said about Alabama before the Sugar Bowl....
As you know...... I'm certainly not one of the many
-
Yeah, see I think determining who the four teams would be is something done without the benefit of bowl results. But when trying to figure out who wins those games, bowl results are worthy data points. Sure, people thought Alabama was the heavy favorite, but now? We know that if we were handicapping the 2018 CFP, Clemson would be the favorite. Not that Clemson would necessarily win, but it would be the favorite.
So in '92, aTm got in--and deserved to--but they weren't likely to win it.
-
Do most of us think that if Clemson and Bama played again this Saturday that Clemson would win?
I don't
-
Not with all the junk Clemson's team just ate...
-
Yeah, see I think determining who the four teams would be is something done without the benefit of bowl results. But when trying to figure out who wins those games, bowl results are worthy data points.
I agree with this. It isn't fair to use bowl results to determine who should have been in the hypothetical 1992 CFP because people at that time wouldn't have had that information. However, when we are discussing who would have won it is highly relevant that in the actual event:
- #1 Miami lost to #2 Alabama by 21 points in the Sugar Bowl
- #2 Alabama beat #1 Miami by 21 points in the Sugar Bowl
- #3 Florida State beat #11 Nebraska by 13 in the Orange Bowl
- #4 aTm lost to #5 Notre Dame by 25 in the Cotton Bowl
In retrospect it is clear that aTm didn't belong in with the other three and realistically should have been replaced by Notre Dame. That is one of the reasons that all of us excluded them almost automatically.
Note to @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) : In 1992 9-4 Florida finished #10. Their losses were to (final rank):
- #1 Alabama by 7
- #2 Florida State by 21
- #12 Tennessee by 17
- #23 Mississippi State by 24
They had wins over (final rank):
- #8 Georgia by 2
- #17 NCST by 17
- #31 (orv) Southern Mississippi by 4
-
So Alabama finished the season unbeaten. One other major conference team also finished unbeaten and had a margin of victory of 29 points in its wins, played only major conference teams, and wasn't on probation. Michigan. Truth. Undefeated, and left out of the top 5...
Michigan tied three times: to Notre Dame, Illinois, and Ohio State. Started the season with the tie at ND (between teams ranked 3 and 5), was ranked #3 when Michigan needed a late field goal to tie Illinois in the penultimate week of the season, then dropped to #8 and tied #16 Ohio State the next week (Cooper didn't go for two when the Buckeyes scored with about 4 minutes to play thinking OSU would have another shot--they did, and went 3 and out). Finished with a quality win over #11 Washington in the Rose Bowl, to finish at #7--and still unbeaten.
-
I looked and saw that exact thing (9-0-3 Michigan) last night and the comparison that came to mind was "yeah, Michigan was undefeated kind of how the FL seminole tribe is 'unconquered'".......as in having 3 ties is like being pinned into a tiny strip of swampland and clinging on to something no one else wants. Meh.
A 9-1-1 ND team wouldn't have gotten in over a 12-0 A&M, especially with their Stanford connection.
-
Agree on both points. Mostly I was surprised to see an unbeaten team with three ties. I had forgotten that about 1992 Michigan.
-
Finished with a quality win over #11 Washington in the Rose Bowl, to finish at #7--and still unbeaten.
lack of respect - #7?
-
9-0-3 isn't like kissing your sister...it's like making out with her.
-
lack of respect - #7?
Yeah, seems harsh considering a 4 loss team was #10
-
While UM did go undefeated, they also had a win% of only .750......so maybe #7 wasn't so bad.
-
S&P+ has them #6, behind a pair of 3 loss teams in Nebraska and Washington. But ahead of Miami (#7) and well ahead of Texas A&M (#16).
It really liked the Pac 10 that year. Not just 3 loss Washington at #5, but a pair of 6-5-1 teams in Arizona and USC at #10 and #12
-
While UM did go undefeated, they also had a win% of only .750......so maybe #7 wasn't so bad.
In the modern era (at least in the Big Ten / Big11Ten) ties were considered 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss for purposes of calculating winning percentage so Michigan's 9-0-3 record is mathematically 10.5-1.5 or .875.
Looking at the B1G Media Guide (https://bigten.org/documents/2018/8/22/2018_BIG_TEN_FOOTBALL_MEDIA_GUIDE.pdf):
- In 1914 Chicago went 4-2-1 and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .667. They just ignored ties because mathematically they won .571 of their total games (4/7) and if you treated ties as 1/2 of a win their winning percentage would be .643.
- Similarly, in 1915 Minnesota went 3-0-1 and Illinois went 3-0-2 and both were recorded as having a 1.000 winning percentage. The ties were ignored.
- In 1992 Michigan went 6-0-2 in conference and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .875 which mathematically means that they treated the ties as 1/2 of a win such that Michigan's record for computational purposes was 7-1 (7/8=.875).
There is a note in the B1G Media guide stating that "Beginning in 1946, ties counted as half-win, half-loss" I do not know if the treatment of ties as 1/2 of a win was universal in CFB or limited to the BigTen.
-
Michigan's schedule was also not very impressive. The Wolverines played three ranked teams, including Washington in the bowl game. They tied a top 5 Irish team in week one, tied the teen-ranked Buckeyes, and beat a good Washington team in the Rose Bowl by one score. They crushed most of the teams they played, but only beat Purdue by one score and, of course, tied Illinois (that's really the game that bit them, I think; the pollsters dropped them from #3 to #8 for that).
-
In the modern era (at least in the Big Ten / Big11Ten) ties were considered 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss for purposes of calculating winning percentage so Michigan's 9-0-3 record is mathematically 10.5-1.5 or .875.
Looking at the B1G Media Guide (https://bigten.org/documents/2018/8/22/2018_BIG_TEN_FOOTBALL_MEDIA_GUIDE.pdf):
- In 1914 Chicago went 4-2-1 and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .667. They just ignored ties because mathematically they won .571 of their total games (4/7) and if you treated ties as 1/2 of a win their winning percentage would be .643.
- Similarly, in 1915 Minnesota went 3-0-1 and Illinois went 3-0-2 and both were recorded as having a 1.000 winning percentage. The ties were ignored.
- In 1992 Michigan went 6-0-2 in conference and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .875 which mathematically means that they treated the ties as 1/2 of a win such that Michigan's record for computational purposes was 7-1 (7/8=.875).
There is a note in the B1G Media guide stating that "Beginning in 1946, ties counted as half-win, half-loss" I do not know if the treatment of ties as 1/2 of a win was universal in CFB or limited to the BigTen.
Yeah, I get all that, and I guess it makes sense in terms of what place you might finish in a conference or something, but I also know math, and if you played 12 games and only won 9 of them, your WINNING % is .750.
-
Agreed. Ties do funny things to winning percentage. Is a team that is 5-5-1 .500? It depends on what that .500 means: not .500 in winning or losing, but even in outcomes. So a team that is 11-1 has the same winning percentage as a team that is 11-0-1, but obviously they don't have the same record.
-
it's not called losing percentage
a pet peeve of mine......... Huskers are up at the half 21-16 in the Shoe
announcers give the score and say Nebraska is winning 21-16
They were NOT winning, they were merely ahead at the half, they lost 36-31.
-
Yeah, I get all that, and I guess it makes sense in terms of what place you might finish in a conference or something, but I also know math, and if you played 12 games and only won 9 of them, your WINNING % is .750.
I get that but my objection is that it treats Michigan's 9-0-3 as being the same as 9-3 or in @SFBadger96 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=51) 's example, 11-1 = 11-0-1. To me those aren't the same things.
I don't like the old method of basically ignoring ties. I think the newer method is the best compromise. A tie is better than a loss (ie, 9-0-3 is better than 9-3 and 11-0-1>11-1) but worse than a win.
-
If it’s 3 ties and they’re half win/half loss, that’s 1.5 wins/losses and we have to round for an actual record, so it’s 11-2.
Messy.
Undefeated.
.750 win %
Yeah, making out with your own sister.
-
The 97 one will be epic on this board.
-
be patient, grasshopper
-
I was thinking of flopping back and forth between going back further and progressing as we have, so do an '82 CFP poll then a '93, back to '81 before '94, and so on. Mix it up a bit. Thoughts?
-
I love the 80's
-
You should do every year except 1997.
-
The 97 one will be epic on this board.
Speech!
-
Scott Frost Nebraska Head Coach - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy1M0kncB1I)
-
The problem with 97 Michigan playing 97 Nebraska is that UM had an elite pass defense and telling Nebraska it shouldn't pass is like telling a gourmet chef he can't use bologna.
-
The problem with 97 Michigan playing 97 Nebraska is that UM had an elite pass defense and telling Nebraska it shouldn't pass is like telling a gourmet chef he can't use bologna.
With the other problem being Florida State was probably better than both of them, but had to play a road game far tougher than either of those teams did, and lost by 3 on a TD in the final 2 minutes.
-
There are some real good ones coming up: 93, 94, 96, 97, and 98 all have some interesting story lines among the top 4. 95 and 99 look pretty straight forward...
It's no wonder people were clambering for a better way to name champions than the polls.
-
With the other problem being Florida State was probably better than both of them, but had to play a road game far tougher than either of those teams did, and lost by 3 on a TD in the final 2 minutes.
Nope, if it's one thing these brilliant voters have taught us, it's that when you lose, you're automatically worse than anyone that hasn't lost. Duh.
I've gone back and watched the final drive of FSU's loss in the Swamp that year, and funniest part is McDonough's voice breaking a number of times. Janikowski was one of the first to mock the chomp, and to have it thrown back in his face was sweet. Ruining FSU's nattie was the very next best thing to winning one of our own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nMz5bpvOZs
Vid is 10 min, but the first 3 is all you need to watch.
-
That's the way it is though. Remember 2002? I'll take it to my grave that USC would have pounded either Miami or OSU by the end of that season. We'll never know, obviously, but man. They were rocking.
-
For me, that's an argument against a playoff - teams gelling or getting hot...inherently makes the games in September matter less. That's wrong.
-
Well in 02 OSU beat Wazzou 25-7, and Wazzou beat USCw in OT. In October.
So by the transitive property OSU'd've beaten USC by at least a hundred thousand million points.
-
The whole, who's best vs. who had the best season is an intriguing question.
But 2002 USC? #5 in AP and Coaches poll to close the regular season. They probably don't get a chance because Iowa and Georgia come first. Unless you think the committee takes the 2-loss Pac-10 runner up (Wazzu won the Pac-10 with the same conference record and the head-to-head victory) over the 1-loss Big Ten runner up.
USC had a much better resume as far as ranked teams. Iowa played (and beat) two, including winning at #12 Penn State in OT, and throttling #8 Michigan in Ann Arbor (by 25); the Hawkeyes lost to unranked Iowa State (at home). USC lost at #25 K-State (by one score) and at #17 Wazzu (in OT), but beat #18 Colorado (at Colorado, by 37), #23 Oregon State (22-0), #22 Washington (by 20), at #14 Oregon (by 11), at #25 UCLA (by 31), and #7 Notre Dame (by 31).
-
For me, that's an argument against a playoff - teams gelling or getting hot...inherently makes the games in September matter less. That's wrong.
Agreed. It's more fun to discuss or argue about it. Here I am, 16+ years later, still talking about it. Think I'm gonna talk about Clempsup in 16 years? F no.
-
Well Georgia fans wouldn't shut up about how "hot" they were at the end of 2002.....well maybe you should've beaten lowly, unranked Florida, huh?
-
The whole, who's best vs. who had the best season is an intriguing question.
But 2002 USC? #5 in AP and Coaches poll to close the regular season. They probably don't get a chance because Iowa and Georgia come first. Unless you think the committee takes the 2-loss Pac-10 champion over the 1-loss Big Ten runner up. Interesting question.
To me there isn't any doubt they'd take USC over Iowa that year. USC played exactly one team with a losing record. Iowa lost to a .500 team and played 5 with losing records.
-
See my edits above...
-
To me there isn't any doubt they'd take USC over Iowa that year. USC played exactly one team with a losing record. Iowa lost to a .500 team and played 5 with losing records.
and as Utee knows, USC has much more helmet than the hawks
-
Yeah I was gonna say “helmet”.
-
With the other problem being Florida State was probably better than both of them, but had to play a road game far tougher than either of those teams did, and lost by 3 on a TD in the final 2 minutes.
I'd give the Noles more of a chance to beat those Huskers than Michigan
but, the Vols weren't chopped liver - don't think any team was going to beat Osborne's Huskers in his last game
-
The Noles' run D that year was all-time great....until Fred Taylor carved them up for 160 yards and 4 TD. I want to say they were allowing 55 yards per game, something like that. Would have been good viewing vs Nebraska's option.
-
1997 rushing defense yards allowed per game
1- FSU 55.9
2- Florida 70.7
3- Nebraska 79.4
4- North Carolina 77.9
5- Cincinnati 84.5
6- Clemson 88.3
7- Michigan 91.0
8- Tennessee 93.3
-
I'd give the Noles more of a chance to beat those Huskers than Michigan
but, the Vols weren't chopped liver - don't think any team was going to beat Osborne's Huskers in his last game
I mean, Missouri beat them, but...
Kind of funny how two national champiobs in a 7 year span would have had their title chances ruined by Missouri save for a reffing blunder at the end
-
I mean, Missouri beat them, but...
Kind of funny how two national champiobs in a 7 year span would have had their title chances ruined by Missouri save for a reffing blunder at the end
5th down!!!
-
I mean, Missouri beat them, but...
Kind of funny how two national champiobs in a 7 year span would have had their title chances ruined by Missouri save for a reffing blunder at the end
Mizzou deserved it
and everyone knows the "kick" was inadvertent - call was good
-
I watched that FSU UF game in a hunting shack on a 13 inch black and white w rabbit ears after a day of duck hunting. Snowy fuzz reception. Great memories.
Few MNCs were crowned w/o said team pulling a horshoe out of an opponents posterior somewhere during the season.
-
Actually, I never thought about it that way, but our entire college football postseason changed because Missouri got screwed twice.
-
Mizzou deserved it
and everyone knows the "kick" was inadvertent - call was good
I don’t think it mattered if it was inadvertent or not. I never considered that an illegal play. A receiver can use any part of his body he wants or needs to secure a catch.
-
I don’t think it mattered if it was inadvertent or not. I never considered that an illegal play. A receiver can use any part of his body he wants or needs to secure a catch.
No, an intentional kick was a penalty, a 15 yarder I believe
Taken from an article after the game
After the game, which Nebraska won in overtime 45-38, Wiggins admitted that he kicked the ball intentionally after the game, saying “I looked down and saw the Missouri guy about to catch it and I just wanted to keep it alive.” While his truthfulness is appreciated, it made an excusable judgment call look incorrect.
Athlon a couple years ago had the two anti-Missouri calls as two of the 4 worst officiating calls in college football history. Resulted in two split national championships, and 3 split championships in a 7 year period, rather than just one. So back to my original point, if you miss the old bowl system, blame the fact that Missouri got screwed twice.
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/5-worst-officiating-decisions-college-football-history
-
So back to my original point, if you miss the old bowl system, blame the fact that Missouri got screwed twice.
I do miss the old bowl system, but if you put it this way, I'd rather have the split in 97 than still have the old bowl system
-
No, an intentional kick was a penalty, a 15 yarder I believe
Taken from an article after the game
After the game, which Nebraska won in overtime 45-38, Wiggins admitted that he kicked the ball intentionally after the game, saying “I looked down and saw the Missouri guy about to catch it and I just wanted to keep it alive.” While his truthfulness is appreciated, it made an excusable judgment call look incorrect.
Athlon a couple years ago had the two anti-Missouri calls as two of the 4 worst officiating calls in college football history. Resulted in two split national championships, and 3 split championships in a 7 year period, rather than just one. So back to my original point, if you miss the old bowl system, blame the fact that Missouri got screwed twice.
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/5-worst-officiating-decisions-college-football-history
Nah, I guess you’re right. But for Athlon to put the kick play in the same category as awarding a team a 5th down is nowhere in the same stratosphere. Nobody even knew what the hell had just happened when the play happened live. I didn’t know the ball had been kicked until I saw the replay.
-
I'd like the old way and if there is a split title, those teams wind up playing. It's scheduled before the season as a "just in case" - so there's a date and venue available, and most years it's unnecessary, but it's there.
The simple +1 model, except instead of annual, just in the few cases we have a split NC.
-
yup, it's perfect and was proposed back in that day
unfortunately the NCAA got in the way and wouldn't allow it
the $$ was there to make it happen, obviously
-
Well in 02 OSU beat Wazzou 25-7, and Wazzou beat USCw in OT. In October.
So by the transitive property OSU'd've beaten USC by at least a hundred thousand million points.
Testify Brutus Testify
-
1997 rushing defense yards allowed per game
1- FSU 55.9
2- Florida 70.7
3- Nebraska 79.4
4- North Carolina 77.9
5- Cincinnati 84.5
6- Clemson 88.3
7- Michigan 91.0
8- Tennessee 93.3
Good memory I guess, lol.
Boy, those mid-90s Tar Heels had some salty defenses and have exactly bubkiss to show for it.....no championships of any kind.
-
The 97 team was coached by Mack Brown finished the season 11–1 overall, 7–1 in the conference.
At the end of the season, Mack Brown left for Texas and as a result, did not coach in the Gator Bowl victory over Virginia Tech. Carl Torbush, who was the defensive coordinator during the regular season, became the head coach when Brown left. North Carolina credits the regular season to Mack Brown and the Gator Bowl victory to Carl Torbush.
-
Yeah, I remember it was 96 or 97, they had FSU at home, at night, but lost 13-10 or 13-0 even, and I knew right then their chance had been lost. They were never going to beat FSU. They were the Noles' bitch. The defense was stifling and talented and salty, but it didn't matter. They couldn't move the ball at all. It was a big pooper.
-
Yeah, I remember it was 96 or 97, they had FSU at home, at night, but lost 13-10 or 13-0 even, and I knew right then their chance had been lost. They were never going to beat FSU. They were the Noles' bitch. The defense was stifling and talented and salty, but it didn't matter. They couldn't move the ball at all. It was a big pooper.
13-0 was 96, but in Tallahassee.
'97 was their best team, and they had them at home. It was ESPNs showdown Saturday with two games between too 5 teams, and both wound up being duds. Michigan went into Happy Valley and killed Penn State, and FSU beat UNC soundly in Chapel Hill. The only good game involving a top 5 team that day was the Nebraska-Missouri game we've been talking about.