CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on May 02, 2019, 01:32:41 AM
-
It's December 9th, 2002. The playoff is set, who wins?
1 Miami vs 4 USC
2 Ohio St vs 3 Georgia
-
-
-
The teams:
#1 Miami, 12-0, Big East Champions
4th in scoring offense
22nd in scoring defense
37th strength of schedule
-
The defending national champs went through the 2002 season undefeated and have won 34 straight games. The Canes faced four ranked foes this year, with a blowout win @ #6 Florida, and 1-point victory over #9 FSU, and two close wins vs #17 Pitt and #18 VT. They beat the hell out of everyone else they played.
The offense was prolific, with a 3,000 yard passer (QB Dorsey), 1700 yard rusher (RB McGahee), and 1000 yard receiver (WR Johnson). Dorsey was efficient, McGahee averaged 6.2 ypc, and Johnson had TE Winslow to take attention away from him.
The defense was great, allowing just 285 yds per game. The pass D was incredible again, allowing just 120 yards through the air @ a 46% completion rate. The run D was the weakness, with teams gut-punching Miami for 165 yds per game. While the Canes created far fewer turnovers than the year before, they still simply shut down opponents' passing games (1st, nationally).
The special teams were ordinary, although PR Parrish's 14.5 yds per punt return were strong. K Sievers hit just 59% of FGs.
-
#2 Ohio St, 13-0, Big Ten Co-Champions
41st in scoring offense
2nd in scoring defense
21st strength of schedule
-
OSU began the year ranked 13th, but gradually worked its way up to 2nd. They easily beat #10 Washington St early before close calls vs unranked Cincinnati and Wisconsin. #18 Penn St was a 6-point win, but #23 Minnesota was a blowout. Closing out the year, the Buckeyes defeated #12 UM by 5.
OSU's offense was run-heavy. Freshman RB Clarett led the team in carries, yards (1,237), ypc (5.6), and TD (16). Backup RB Ross averaged just 3.7 ypc. The passing game was efficient, but unremarkable. It did yield a 1,000 yard receiver (WR Jenkins). CB Gamble was used in lieu of other playmakers, contributing 500 yds himself to the offense. QB Krenzel did little to win games for OSU, but he also did little to lose any.
The defense shut down enemy running games, allowing just 78 yards per game on the ground (3rd, nationally). OSU was susceptible through the air, allowing 243 yds per game. They did pick off 18 passes, bringing 3 back for TDs, though.
The Buckeyes' return game was average, but the kicking game was good, with K Nugent hitting 89% of FG attempts and P Groom booming 45 yard punts, on average.
-
#3 Georgia, 12-1, SEC Champions
22nd in scoring offense
4th in scoring defense
24th strength of schedule
-
Georgia spent the season ranked in the top 10 and made it into the playoff by winning the SEC. Along the way, UGA had close wins at #22 Alabama and vs #10 Tennessee, as well as at #24 Auburn. All of those one-score wins were punctuated by a blowout win in the SECCG vs #22 Arkansas. Georgia's lone blemish was a 7-point loss to Florida in Jacksonville.
The Dawgs' offense was pass-heavy, with reliable QB Greene at the helm. He kept the chains moving, thanks to WRs Edwards (1000 yds) and Gibson (750 yds). Running the ball was RB Musa Smith (1300 yds) at 5.1 ypc. The offense overall didn't gain 400 yds per game, but it got the points when it had to.
Defensively, UGA held teams under 200 yds passing and 115 rushing. Four of the team's 16 INTs went back for TDs. DE Pollack had a big year as the anchor.
KR Gibson and PR Gary proved able, as both ran back a kick for a TD, with good averages for the season. K Bennett made 26 FGs (79%) and P Kilgo had a decent average (42 yds).
-
#4 USC, 10-2, Pac-10 Co-Champions
9th in scoring offense
17th in scoring defense
1st strength of schedule
These Men of Troy aren't the Leinart/Bush crew of a few years prior, but they definitely earned their way into the playoff by facing 8 ranked teams.
Beginning 20th in the preseason poll, USC used its #1 toughest schedule to work its way up, despite a couple of hiccups along the way. In its first four ranked tests, USC went 2-2, with wins at #18 CU and vs #23 Oregon St and losses at #25 KSU and #17 WSU. A close win vs unranked Cal followed, but then the Trojans got going, closing out 2002 with six big wins, including over #22 Washington, at #14 Oregon, at #25 UCLA, and #7 ND, all blowouts.
Heisman-winner QB Palmer led the charge, at 300+ yards per game passing for USC. He had two targets go over 1,000 yards on the season in WRs Colbert and M.Williams. Running the ball were RBs McCullough and Fargas, both averaging about 4.5 ypc. The offense was the strength of the team.
Defensively, the Trojans were stout against the run (83 yds allowed). Versus the pass, however, despite allowing just under a 50% completion rate, opponents gained 200 yds per game. The DBs were able to snag 17 INTs, though.
Oddly, the USC return game was very poor. The kicking game was better, though.
-
-
-
The major players:
C Brett Romberg, Miami - Rimington, All-American
QB Carson Palmer, USC - Heisman, Unitas, AA
HC Jim Tressel, OSU - AFCA, Robinson, Bryant Coach of the Year
RB Willis McGahee, Miami - AA
K Mike Nugent, OSU - AA
DE David Pollack, Georgia - AA
LB Matt Wilhelm, OSU - AA
S Mike Doss, OSU - AA
S Troy Polamalu, USC - AA
-
-
-
Who wins it all?
-
Trojans. Lost two tough road games early, then rolled. Won 8 in a row, 5 of which were top 30 teams, by an average of 22 points.
In terms of S&P+, USC had the #1 offense and #4 defense.
-
Remind me - what are the standards for picking these teams? Final AP? After the fact the Trojans are a strong contender, but I don't know if at the time they would have been a favorite to make the playoffs. Wazzu and Iowa also had strong arguments.
-
Remind me - what are the standards for picking these teams? Final AP? After the fact the Trojans are a strong contender, but I don't know if at the time they would have been a favorite to make the playoffs. Wazzu and Iowa also had strong arguments.
I was wondering the same thing. I agree with @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's point. IF USC got into the playoff, they were probably the best team at the end of the season, but that is a BIG "if".
Undefeated BigEast and Big11Ten Champions Miami and Ohio State would obviously get in along with 1-loss SEC Champion UGA. The fourth spot, who knows. The contenders:
#3 AP, Big11Ten co-Champion Iowa: The Hawkeyes lost early at home to a .500 ISU team in a rivalry game. They also had an early close-call against a middling MAC team but after the loss they reeled off nine straight wins including a road win at Penn State (#10 in the Dec 8 AP) and a 34-9 win at Michigan (#12 in the Dec 8 AP).
#5 AP, PAC co-Champion USC: As discussed above, USC certainly has the SoS to get in, but they have three major problems. Problem #1 is that they lost H2H to Washington State. Thus, they are NOT the PAC Champions. Problem #2 is that Iowa has less losses and IS a major conference Champion. Either Iowa or WSU would be likely to be picked ahead of the Trojans. Additionally, USC can't really blame their extra loss on SoS because WSU's OOC loss (@tOSU) was "better" than USC's (@ #6 KSU).
#6 AP, Kansas State: They didn't win the B12-N because they lost H2H to Colorado but both of their losses were close and to good teams (by 3 to final #9 Texas and by 4 to final #14 Colorado).
#7 AP, PAC Champion Washington State: The Cougars lost in Columbus by 18 early and lost the Apple Cup late by a FG to a mediocre Washington team but they do have that H2H trump card over USC.
#8 AP, B12 Champion Oklahoma: The Sooners had two head scratching losses. They lost on the road to a .500 aTm squad then lost the Bedlam game on the road by 10 points. OTOH, they beat a solid Bama team, beat Texas, and beat Colorado twice.
I think that is all of the plausibly realistic contenders. I honestly don't think the committee would put USC in the mix. I think that either:
WSU with their H2H win over USC and PAC Championship, or
Iowa with their better record, or
Oklahoma with their better record and conference title
would get in instead.
-
It's the final BCS rankings
-
USC. For the reasons stated above. And it would have been picked. At the end of that regular season, everyone knew that USC was on a tear. USC would get the nod for the 4th spot.
-
Ahh, the olden days, when you didn’t treat the spots below the top 2 as totally counting
-
Maybe - Iowa also finished on a tear, had a better record, and also had the added bonus of being in the 2/3 game with OSU. They were ranked higher than USC and I think it rather unlikely that USC would have jumped them for the playoff.
-
These seedings are going by the model used at the time - so for years up to 1997, it was the AP poll. Frim 1998 until it ended, I use the final regular season BCS rankings.
The BCS had USC over Iowa. There would be some outcry to give Big Ten Co-Champ Iowa a shot vs OSU, but the USC helmet trumps that, in all likelihood.
-
I keep thinking that was the Iowa team with Tavian Banks.
Anyway, I don't give a damn who is on a roll or not, I treat the season as a whole. I'd have USC in because of their SOS. I don't think their RBs could take advantage of Miami's relative weakness defending the run. It would be fun to see Carson Palmer and his pair of 1,00 yard WRs vs Miami's secondary.
OSU vs UGA would be a relative snoozer.
Miami beats whichever one wins that. Pretty ho-hum playoff, imo.
-
I see after 8 votes, I'm the first to pick Miami. Are we mentally unable to ignore what happened in the bowls or what? I give up hope of that. And it's not about me approving of your picks or there being a right or wrong pick.
OSU was 12 point underdogs in that title game and 4 of you have decided to take them straight up. It's dishonest at best.
-
I took USC. But if I were to pick a different team it would be Miami.
-
I keep thinking that was the Iowa team with Tavian Banks.
Anyway, I don't give a damn who is on a roll or not, I treat the season as a whole. I'd have USC in because of their SOS. I don't think their RBs could take advantage of Miami's relative weakness defending the run. It would be fun to see Carson Palmer and his pair of 1,00 yard WRs vs Miami's secondary.
OSU vs UGA would be a relative snoozer.
Miami beats whichever one wins that. Pretty ho-hum playoff, imo.
Though Miami and USC play each other first, so it's tough to pick either one with any confidence.
-
OSU was 12 underdogs in that title game and 4 of you have decided to take them straight up. It's dishonest at best.
it's a big ten board
and, no one liked the CoCanes
-
Trojans. Lost two tough road games early, then rolled.
Just win baby,two teams beat them
-
it's a big ten board
and, no one liked the CoCanes
We're also adults...
-
speak for yourself
-
OSU vs UGA would be a relative snoozer.
Miami beats whichever one wins that. Pretty ho-hum playoff, imo.
Put that thing out you'll burn your fingers.Nothing like h2h to send that comment swirling the drain.I'm not sure anyone knows which fantasy league your residing in
OSU was 12 underdogs in that title game and 4 of you have decided to take them straight up. It's dishonest at best.
This is laughable it's not okay for NFL execs and media to project their beliefs about a draft pick(according to you).But it is perfectly acceptable for you to project your very bias opinions on others beliefs on Ohio State in a game they won.If you were a pinball machine you'd read "TILT"Understand something Ohio State got screwed in that game in regulation and more than a few times with calls the 1st cane interception you can see another cane in the backgroud interferring with a recevier before the pick.It was very obvious and was brought up the next day.Chris gamble got held not once but twice with 2:25 to play that never got called either time and it appeared he made the 1st down anyway.That forced Ohio State to punt the ball that Miami returned to set up the game tying field goal
-
told ya this was a big ten board
-
I see after 8 votes, I'm the first to pick Miami. Are we mentally unable to ignore what happened in the bowls or what? I give up hope of that. And it's not about me approving of your picks or there being a right or wrong pick.
OSU was 12 underdogs in that title game and 4 of you have decided to take them straight up. It's dishonest at best.
I'll take this:
I have a somewhat unusual take on that 2002 title game. Most people, on both sides, start from the premise that Miami was "Goliath" and Ohio State was "David". For Miami fans this works with their argument that their all-time-great team got screwed and for Ohio State fans this works with their argument that their "David" slew the mighty "Goliath".
My take is that Miami was considerably overrated. The 2001 version was "all-time-great" but I think that the 2002 version was not nearly as good as most people think/thought. Added to that, I think that Ohio State was a LOT better than most people think/thought. That game featured a plethora of future NFL stars on BOTH sides. Miami had no monopoly in that department.
I also think that the Big11Ten was significantly underrated and that impacted people's view of Ohio State's schedule. In the bowls that year:
A Wisconsin team that went 7-6 beat B12CG loser Colorado in the Alamo Bowl.
A Minnesota team that went 7-5 beat SECCG loser Arkansas in the Music City Bowl.
Purdue beat Washington in the Sun Bowl.
Michigan beat Florida in the Outback Bowl.
Ohio State beat Miami in the Fiesta/BCSNCG.
The Big11Ten's only bowl losers were PSU losing by one score to Auburn in the Capital One Bowl and Iowa getting beat up by USC in the Orange Bowl. Miami, of course, played in the BigEast where none of the other teams would have finished above 4th in the Big11Ten. They had difficult sounding OOC games against the two Florida Schools but both of them lost five games that year so that wasn't exactly as tough as it would usually be.
-
Put that thing out you'll burn your fingers.Nothing like h2h to send that comment swirling the drain.I'm not sure anyone knows which fantasy league your residing in
This is laughable it's not okay for NFL execs and media to project their beliefs about a draft pick(according to you).But it is perfectly acceptable for you to project your very bias opinions on others beliefs on Ohio State in a game they won.If you were a pinball machine you'd read "TILT"Understand something Ohio State got screwed in that game in regulation and more than a few times with calls the 1st cane interception you can see another cane in the backgroud interferring with a recevier before the pick.It was very obvious and was brought up the next day.Chris gamble got held not once but twice with 2:25 to play that never got called either time and it appeared he made the 1st down anyway.That forced Ohio State to punt the ball that Miami returned to set up the game tying field goal
Are you done? This is a great example of you missing the boat.
You're fixated on a game that never happened, given the parameters of these "what if" posts. And if we must refer to an outcome that isn't supposed to be taken into account, I merely stated the fact that OSU was a 12 point dog and mused that no one choosing the 12 point favorite was dishonest. I stand by that, easily.
-
I'll take this:
I have a somewhat unusual take on that 2002 title game. Most people, on both sides, start from the premise that Miami was "Goliath" and Ohio State was "David". For Miami fans this works with their argument that their all-time-great team got screwed and for Ohio State fans this works with their argument that their "David" slew the mighty "Goliath".
My take is that Miami was considerably overrated. The 2001 version was "all-time-great" but I think that the 2002 version was not nearly as good as most people think/thought.
I couldn't agree more. Miami was overrated, as I'd argue, all defending national champs are, before their first loss the next season. But instead of starting 2002 going 3-0 or 4-0 before a loss, Miami happened to go 12-0. Their run D was porous. They forced less than half the turnovers as 2001. But for a population of people to go only with a double-digit underdog, after the fact, is childish. If not childish, then overtly subjective.
Let's not pretend if they played 10 times, that OSU would win half the time. They'd win maybe 2 of 10? 3?
I just have higher expectations of you guys.
-
Are you done? This is a great example of you missing the boat.
You're fixated on a game that never happened, given the parameters of these "what if" posts. And if we must refer to an outcome that isn't supposed to be taken into account, I merely stated the fact that OSU was a 12 point dog and mused that no one choosing the 12 point favorite was dishonest. I stand by that, easily.
One almost needs a bucket when you post.And a step backward, after making a wrong turn, is not a step in the right direction.Great example of you missing the point in your fantasy world.Basically referring to others as liars who stand by their opinions based on reality.After you cajole them into joining in on your little foray into this hallucination then correct them for doing so.That 2002 Buckeye team put at least as many guys in the NFL as the canes.You hold your polluted views as Gospel and those that disagree as heresy - get a grip
-
It wouldn't have been the Wolverines.
-
The Big11Ten's only bowl losers were PSU losing by one score to Auburn in the Capital One Bowl and Iowa getting beat up by USC in the Orange Bowl. Miami, of course, played in the BigEast where none of the other teams would have finished above 4th in the Big11Ten. They had difficult sounding OOC games against the two Florida Schools but both of them lost five games that year so that wasn't exactly as tough as it would usually be.
Well said MB - you get a cookie,oh and it's your turn to change the diapers
-
One almost needs a bucket when you post.And a step backward, after making a wrong turn, is not a step in the right direction.Great example of you missing the point in your fantasy world.Basically referring to others as liars who stand by their opinions based on reality.After you cajole them into joining in on your little foray into this hallucination then correct them for doing so.That 2002 Buckeye team put at least as many guys in the NFL as the canes.You hold your polluted views as Gospel and those that disagree as heresy - get a grip
I have zero love for Miami. And again, as I find is the case time after time on here, one of us is being objective and the other is pitching a fit while not playing by the rules, while being mired in subjectivity. Sigh.
Oh, and this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/university-of-miami-hurricanes-college-football/
I (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/university-of-miami-hurricanes-college-football/) know I shouldn't bother, it's full of statistics and objective facts...things you'd call gobbly gook.
-
2003 Draft (I'm bored enough to explore this tangent, despite it having nothing to do with anything)....
Players selected (1st rounders)
8 Miami (4)
5 Ohio St (0)
-
2004 Draft
9 Miami (6)
14 Ohio St (3)
-
2005 Draft
5 Miami (1)
3 Ohio St (3)
-
I guess on sheer volume, what you said is sort of correct. But the discrepancy in first rounders is massive (11 to 6). I could do an 'average draft pick' for each draft, but I think we know how that would go.
There was a reason Miami was a 12 point favorite. There is also a reason you're so adamant about picking against a 12 point favorite, and it's silly.
-
Buckeyes taken in the 2003 NFL draft Mike Doss,Kenny Peterson,Cie Grant,Matt Wilhelm,Don Nickey
Buckeyes taken in the 2004 NFL Draft Will Smith,Chris Gamble,Michael Jenkins,Ben Hartstock,Tim Anderson,BJ Sander,Darian Scott,Alex Stepanovich,Will Allen,Drew Carter,Rob Reynolds,Shane Olivea,Adrian Clarke,Craig Krenzel
thats 19 Jr's & Sr's from the 2002 Team
Canes taken in the 2003 draft Jerome McDougle,Andre Johnson,William Joseph,Willis McGahee, Andrew Williams,Jammal Green,Matt Walters,Ken Dorsey,
Canes taken in the 2004 draft Sean Taylor,Kellon Winslow,Jonathon Vilma,DJ Williams,Vernon Carey,Vince Wilfork,,Darryl McClover,Alphonso Marshall,Carlos Joseph
thats 17 Jr's & Sr's from the 2002 Team
This isn't about liking the hurricanes.It's about making assinine assumptions and passing them off as astute observations.Do you get in online to pick fights with people just to have someone to talk to?Oh and the greatest team still lost
you really are a wormy fuck aren't you? I guess the people you refer to as liars have a case after all - even in your fantasy world.Kellon Winslow oh ya great one there saw his handy work here in Cleveland got hurt 1st time he took the field.Then wipes out on a motor cycle evidently as part of his rehab and is still getting arrested.Oh did I mention the Canes still lost can you even admit that in your alternate universe.Yup,wormy fuck,oh and I'm getting bored
-
Your simplistic valuation pretends a 7th-rounder is the same as a 1st. That's all I need to put there.
You're bringing up NFL injuries and vehicle accidents to discredit the production of a college football player. It reads like you're foaming at the mouth. Miami did lose to Ohio St, BUT NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXERCISE. I cannot dumb it down any further, nor to I care to.
I've learned that this crowd cannot seem to put itself in a hypothetical situation very well. Cool. I'll get over it. Your frothy post is hilarious, though.
-
I've learned that this crowd cannot seem to put itself in a hypothetical situation very well.
Says the guy who asks others to join him on Fantasy Island then basically dresses them down as liars when they do.
-
Says the guy who asks others to join him on Fantasy Island then basically dresses them down as liars when they do.
If 1 out of 4 picked OSU here on Fantasy Island, great, fine, I can buy that. But when 4 out of 4 pick the 12-point underdog, no, I'm not going to pretend everyone is performing the same thought experiment. Many here are unwilling and/or unable to do it.
And for some reason, you see me pointing this out as some sort of crime.
-
In fairness, you are unwilling/unable to change the question to what you actually want? It still says "Who would win the 2002 CFP?" The question you are asking is "Who would you have picked at the time to win the 2002 CFP?" Those are completely different questions
-
Highly shocking that OSU fans would pick OSU to win the national championship in a year they won the national championship
-
In fairness, you are unwilling/unable to change the question to what you actually want? It still says "Who would win the 2002 CFP?" The question you are asking is "Who would you have picked at the time to win the 2002 CFP?" Those are completely different questions
I don't know that they are different questions. If you don't think USC would make the playoff, tough to pick them to win the playoff.
-
I don't know that they are different questions. If you don't think USC would make the playoff, tough to pick them to win the playoff.
No, he's saying nobody would have picked Ohio State to win the CFP, which is fair. Nobody was picking them. Then ask that question.
-
At the beginning of every one of these threads, I post what the fictional date is for this exercise. I thought that was enough. Silly me.
"It's December 9th, 2002. The playoff is set, who wins?"
Literally the first sentences of this thread.
-
Please vote as if it's December 10th, 2001. The Huskers lost their last game, but are still #2, etc. No bowls have been played.
-Posted at the top of the 2001 thread.....c'mon guys, you can't be this lazy. And while your initial reaction to being called lazy will be a negative one, please keep in mind - the above is how deliberate I'm still being after doing over 20 of these polls. I don't think I'm being out of order here.
-
Oh, and this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/university-of-miami-hurricanes-college-football/
I (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/university-of-miami-hurricanes-college-football/) know I shouldn't bother, it's full of statistics and objective facts...things you'd call gobbly gook.
It will surprise nobody on here, but I find this fascinating. I like Nate Silver's stuff, both political and not, because I like his style of analysis.
The link lists the top-30 "most talented" CFB teams ever based on NFL drafts. I'll start with my team:
Ohio State's "most talented" team was 2005 which clocks in at #18. That makes sense to me because I always thought that the 2005 version of tOSU was Tressel's best team. Interestingly, however, that team lost twice so they almost never get mentioned in terms of all-time great teams. My answer to that is to point out that while the 2005 Buckeyes lost two games, they were by three to a team that went 13-0 and won the NC and by a TD on the road to a team that went 11-1 so they are both "good" losses. It is also interesting that although 2005 tOSU was the 18th most talented team all-time they were only second that year behind #8 USC which also lost to the same 13-0 NC that the 2005 Buckeyes lost to. Oh, and the team that beat both the #8 and #18 most talented teams of all time, 2005 Texas is nowhere on the list.
It is interesting how many of these "most talented" teams of all time did NOT win the NC.
#1, 2001 Miami: won NC
#2, 1986 Miami: lost to Penn State in the Fiesta Bowl/NC, finished #2
#3, 2000 Miami: lost early at Washington, missed NC, finished #2
#4, 2002 Miami: lost to tOSU in the Fiesta Bowl/BCSNCG, finished #2
#5, 2007 USC: lost TWICE: to a respectable Oregon team that finished 9-4 and once to a dreadful Stanford team that finished 4-8, finished #3
#6, 1967 USC: won NC
#7, 2010 Bama: lost THRICE: to a respectable USCe team that finished 9-5, to a very good LSU team that finished 11-2, and to NC Auburn, finished #10
#8, 2005 USC: lost RoseBowl/BCSNCG, finished #2
#9, 1979 USC: tied a .500 Stanford team and finished #2
#10, 1992 ND: tied a very good (9-0-3) Michigan team and lost to a good (10-3) Stanford team and finished #4
#11, 2003 Miami: lost TWICE: to a decent VaTech team and to a good TN team and missed the BCSNCG and finished #5
#12, 1996 FSU: lost to UF in a rematch in the SugarBowl/BCANCG after beating them in Tallahassee earlier, finished #3
#13, 2009 Bama: won NC
#14, 1987 Miami: won NC
#15, 1991 ND: lost THRICE: to very good Michigan, Tennessee, and Penn State teams, finished #13
#16, 1976 USC: lost early to a bad Mizzou team, finished #2
#17, 1990 ND: lost THRICE: to a bad Stanford team, to a good Penn State team, and to a very good Colorado team, finished #6
#18, 2005 Ohio State (note, that this is the first team listed that was NOT the "most talented" in that year): lost TWICE to very good Texas and Penn State teams, finished #4
#19, 2004 USC: won NC
#20, 1994 Ohio State: lost FOUR TIMES: to mediocre Washington and Illinois teams and very good PSU and Bama teams, finished #14
#21, 2003 Ohio State: lost TWICE: to a mediocre Wisconsin team and to a good Michigan team, finished #4
#22, 1997 FSU: lost to UF in the Swamp, finished #3
#23, 2006 USC: lost TWICE: to a good OrSU team and a mediocre UCLA team, finished #4
#24, 1999 Tennessee: lost THRICE: to good UF and Ark teams and a very good UNL team, finished #9
#25, 1966 ND: won NC (famous tie game with MSU)
#26, 1999 Miami: lost FOUR TIMES: to very good FSU and VaTech teams and good PSU and ECU teams, finished #15
#27, 1980 USC: lost TWICE and tied once: lost to good UW and UCLA teams, tied a mediocre Oregon team, finished #11
#28, 1981 PSU: lost TWICE: to very good Miami and Bama teams, finished #3
#29, 1993 Ohio State: lost once and tied once: lost to a decent Michigan team, tied a very good Wisconsin team, finished #11
#30, 1999 FSU: won NC
-
Please vote as if it's December 10th, 2001. The Huskers lost their last game, but are still #2, etc. No bowls have been played.
-Posted at the top of the 2001 thread.....c'mon guys, you can't be this lazy. And while your initial reaction to being called lazy will be a negative one, please keep in mind - the above is how deliberate I'm still being after doing over 20 of these polls. I don't think I'm being out of order here.
And yet you still haven't actually changed the question to be what you actually want people to answer, yet call others lazy. Seems weird to me
You literally could just change "Who would win the 2002 CFP?" to "Who would you have predicted to win the 2002 CFP?"
-
If 1 out of 4 picked OSU here on Fantasy Island, great, fine, I can buy that. But when 4 out of 4 pick the 12-point underdog, no, I'm not going to pretend everyone is performing the same thought experiment. Many here are unwilling and/or unable to do it.
And for some reason, you see me pointing this out as some sort of crime.
I think the key here, at least for me, is the actual game proved that the 12 pt dog was totally wrong. I watched the game and I am convinced that Ohio State would win 6 or 7 out of 10 times. Miami was totally overrated and Ohio State was totally underrated. Ohio State was the better team that day and the better team period.
-
I'm done
-
I think the key here, at least for me, is the actual game proved that the 12 pt dog was totally wrong. I watched the game and I am convinced that Ohio State would win 6 or 7 out of 10 times. Miami was totally overrated and Ohio State was totally underrated. Ohio State was the better team that day and the better team period.
The fact you think that any one, individual, data point can prove anything shows you don't have a full grasp of the situation.
-
you mean like the data point of a vegas betting line?
-
:34:
-
data points such as how many players were drafted by the NFL can also be very meaningless
the 1995 Husker team ranks highly on most folk's list of greatest of all-time
not known for the number of high draft picks
-
And yet you still haven't actually changed the question to be what you actually want people to answer, yet call others lazy. Seems weird to me
You literally could just change "Who would win the 2002 CFP?" to "Who would you have predicted to win the 2002 CFP?"
To me, this is the fundamental issue with this series of posts, which--by the way--I really enjoy.
Whether its what OAF intended, I'm taking it from the perspective of what I think would have happened, not what I would have expected in December of that year. The whole point of arguing over who is in the playoff or not is the idea that in a league where most of the best teams don't play each other, you have to guess at who really belongs. To me, ignoring the bowl results is silly, because that told us how they performed against other good team--in some cases the teams that are in these playoffs. (I know OAF has repeated that instruction ad naseum--I just choose to ignore it). In instances where two of these teams played each other and the result was very close, I'm less inclined to assume the result would be the same a second time. So here, if Ohio State and Miami were to play each other again, I think it's reasonable to conclude that either team had a good shot at the other--and if you are an OSU fan, you'll pick OSU; if you're not, maybe you think Miami was really the better team, or whatever.
So, yeah, USC crushing co-BigTen champ Iowa is further evidence that should USC have been in this playoff, it would have been a force to be reckoned with, notwithstanding its losses earlier in the year. And I remember believing at the time that USC was by far the best team that wasn't involved. Just as Oregon was the year before.
If the question is who would have been predicted to win, why bother--just look at the odds. Here, the odds makers thought Miami would stomp on OSU. We know that. There's no reason to ask an OSU-heavy board who the odds makers picked; we know the answer.
-
It is sort of difficult to figure out what to ignore or not ignore. ELA pointed to USC's S&P+. But S&P+ didn't exist in 2002. Very hard to ignore the fact that USC went on a run of dominance starting in 2002 and Miami went on to become pretty crappy. Yes, OSU was a big underdog, but they also were a strong team and nearly everyone on that team got drafted. Ignore? Not ignore? Hard to tell.
-
Highly shocking that OSU fans would pick OSU to win the national championship in a year they won the national championship
Agreed i had them on the money line :96:
-
data points such as how many players were drafted by the NFL can also be very meaningless
the 1995 Husker team ranks highly on most folk's list of greatest of all-time
not known for the number of high draft picks
I agree, someone else brought that argument to the stage.
-
To me, this is the fundamental issue with this series of posts, which--by the way--I really enjoy.
Whether its what OAF intended, I'm taking it from the perspective of what I think would have happened, not what I would have expected in December of that year. The whole point of arguing over who is in the playoff or not is the idea that in a league where most of the best teams don't play each other, you have to guess at who really belongs. To me, ignoring the bowl results is silly, because that told us how they performed against other good team--in some cases the teams that are in these playoffs. (I know OAF has repeated that instruction ad naseum--I just choose to ignore it). In instances where two of these teams played each other and the result was very close, I'm less inclined to assume the result would be the same a second time. So here, if Ohio State and Miami were to play each other again, I think it's reasonable to conclude that either team had a good shot at the other--and if you are an OSU fan, you'll pick OSU; if you're not, maybe you think Miami was really the better team, or whatever.
So, yeah, USC crushing co-BigTen champ Iowa is further evidence that should USC have been in this playoff, it would have been a force to be reckoned with, notwithstanding its losses earlier in the year. And I remember believing at the time that USC was by far the best team that wasn't involved. Just as Oregon was the year before.
If the question is who would have been predicted to win, why bother--just look at the odds. Here, the odds makers thought Miami would stomp on OSU. We know that. There's no reason to ask an OSU-heavy board who the odds makers picked; we know the answer.
I can at least respect this.
He's not calling me names or whining or bitching about the points I bring up. He just shares that he ignores the parameters I set up. Great. Fine.
What bothers me is that many on this board acknowledge its bias and then just shrugs its collective shoulders as if that's just how it is. We (or you) as a group don't have to be biased. My problem isn't about Miami or Ohio State, but by this "welp, that's just how we are" idea. But that's on me, I need to learn to not expect more of people.
*the betting line is one data point, but all that goes into it is far more than that. The draft stuff is another, but also margin of victory and all statistical analyses favored Miami.
-
All this back-and-forth would be great on a podcast segment. As it is, I'll just have to discuss it myself. Oh well.
I haven't done a 2nd one yet, because I've had a cough that won't go away.
-
*the betting line is one data point, but all that goes into it is far more than that. The draft stuff is another, but also margin of victory and all statistical analyses favored Miami.
agreed, but there is also bias that goes into the betting line. And as discussed many times, this line is set to make money for the book, not for any other reason.
In 1993 Bowden's FSU squad led by Hypesman winner Charlie Ward was a 17 1/2 point favorite over the Huskers
the Huskers lost a nail-biter, I won money, and to many it was apparent that the Huskers were the better team on the field that night in the Orange Bowl
-
agreed, but there is also bias that goes into the betting line. And as discussed many times, this line is set to make money for the book, not for any other reason.
In 1993 Bowden's FSU squad led by Hypesman winner Charlie Ward was a 17 1/2 point favorite over the Huskers
the Huskers lost a nail-biter, I won money, and to many it was apparent that the Huskers were the better team on the field that night in the Orange Bowl
Don't ask the Irish fans about that one... :-)
-
There's another piece to this, which is how the playoff works, as opposed to the week-to-week season, and bowl games more generally. Some coaches are definitely better than others at preparing for bowl games. And there's a difference between the three weeks between the conference championship games and the first playoff game, and the week between the semi-final and the finals. So Jim Tressel, as I recall (and my memory might be off--it often is) was pretty good at prepping teams for bowls. But he would have prepped OSU for the Georgia game, then, assuming a win, had a week to prep for Miami/USC. Very different situation. Same for Miami, of course. And, matchups matter, too. So I think the discussion around 1997 centered on what Nebraska and Michigan were good at (as well as Tennessee and...someone). I recall looking at those write-ups and thinking, "yeah, probably not Michigan."
And there's a difference between what got the team into the playoff, and what the playoff rewards. Getting into the playoff takes consistency every week (which is why people are questioning USC as an entrant in 2002), but winning the playoff means playing the best two games. Not the same as qualifying--as we used to discuss ad naseum before there was a playoff. In the English Premier League, the title is won based on the regular season effort (which is fine when all the teams play each other twice, one home and one away). The FA Cup that is played for at the same time is an elimination based playoff, and often has a different champion than the Premier League. It's a big deal to with the FA Cup, but it's not nearly as prestigious as the league crown. This playoff system we use is a hybrid, so rewards a little of both.
In hockey the regular season is just a prelude because what wins night after night for six months isn't the same as what wins in the playoffs. Baseball is similar; basketball not quite as much because the individual talent differences are more pronounced. Football is probably somewhere in between baseball and hockey on one side and basketball on the other for how playoffs differ from the regular season.
Anyhoo...I still think USC in 2002.
-
especially Boo Hoo Lou
the whining neck brace
the Huskers would have put a beating on the Irish that season - IMHO
Bowden after the Orange Bowl said the Huskers were the best team they had faced that season, probably just to poke Lou
-
yup, I understand what OrangeMan wants here in this exercise......... it's the playoff
some don't agree with the 4 teams he selects, that's fair, but those are the 4 teams
I try to give an honest vote using his criteria. Many times I post a smart ass remark about the Canes or some other reason I may vote for a certain team, but it's not true, I'm just pulling his chain.
obviously each to his own, but I try to give the correct answer within the parameters.
-
The correct answer is one that agrees with the OP's narrative - ask him.Regardless of how many opine to the contrary.Well it's 5 O'Clock somewhere
-
It stimulates good traffic. I'm slightly entertained by the discussion, well, perhaps amused is the better term.
-
I don't know about all this...
I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that Notre Dame sucks.
-
Meh, it's an odd case.
OSU was put down historically, which leads to some kind of stretching of things to get them in good graces. I was an OSU fan that year. It's hard to use a team that lived on the razor's edge
On the other hand Miami's defense was clearly lacking in a couple spots, but overall was still highly impressive (third in yards per play allowed), but gave up points at a much more modest rate.
USC clearly felt great and Georgia probably never quite got its due. I wonder if in retrospect, USC gets a tad overrated, though that scoring margin and schedule say something.
-
The correct answer is one that agrees with the OP's narrative - ask him.Regardless of how many opine to the contrary.Well it's 5 O'Clock somewhere
Christ, you're petty.
There is no "correct" answer. But when a trend occurs that goes against all prudence and reason, yeah, I'm allowed to question it. I actually appreciate the people who acknowledge bias at work here. I don't understand it, but at least it's honest.
-
I can at least respect this.
He's not calling me names or whining or bitching about the points I bring up.
You have the memorey span of a gnat - your ignorance is astounding it really is.I simply don't know if you are a diva,dunce or a deviant.My fault I didn't realize you were the kid who got the wedgies/swhirlies at recess.Fire away child I've had my say,in before the lock
-
(https://i.imgur.com/kdE8vR5.jpg)
-
You have the memorey span of a gnat - your ignorance is astounding it really is.I simply don't know if you are a diva,dunce or a deviant.My fault I didn't realize you were the kid who got the wedgies/swhirlies at recess.Fire away child I've had my say,in before the lock
(https://i.imgur.com/qno6Z4f.jpg)