Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Unleash Hell, Jun 26, 2011.
USC 2 (was 3)
Penn St. 2
Florida St. 2
it's not really that hard.
Almost half of the NFL has won a Super bowl in that span. I don't know, it just seems hard to me.
with or with out cheating?
"I could do a flip if i wanted to." -my grandfather.
"Cool! Do a flip." -me.
"I don't want to." -my grandfather.
All you need is $180,000+
As far as team sports, I would say College football is definitely among the hardest to get through. It usually takes an undefeated season--but not always, see Auburn in '05--and a hell of a lot of luck; if Ingram's fumble bounces out of bounds after it got stripped then Bama would have scored to seal that game in last year's Iron Bowl.
The team that has won the national championship hasn't always been the best team in the nation. While that can be said for the NFL (see Giants vs Pats in 08?), in college football I would say it happens more than not.
You really think so? I'd say if you win the MNC in college football, you're probably the best team. There may be some arguments back and forth, but most of the time, I'd say they get it right. Auburn was the best team last year. I wouldn't argue that point.
I think Oregon beats Auburn last year if theres not a month and a half break.
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
Auburn was very lucky to win that game. Oregon very easily could have won had it not been for that fluke run to put Auburn in FG range.
How many split titles were there before the BCS? Until there's a playoff a lot of who gets the bids to the game will be political if there's any turmoil (multiple 1 loss teams, etc...). Hell, they were saying Michigan and OSU should have a rematch a few years back for the title and then OSU gets blown out by UF.
One other thing. Teams have won the national championship AFTER losing their bowl game! Oklahoma and USC are two examples.
Ok, here is some food for thought.
There have been 19 split national titles
9 teams have won the national title after losing their bowl (programs that include Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama X2, Michigan state, Minnesota, Maryland and SMU).
In 1946 the AP voted Notre Dame #1, then took a second vote and gave the title to Michigan.
Still say the best team usually wins the title in CF?
Take some Lithium. You are turning into the TBD of college football.
if, shoulda woulda coulda
Just trying to make the point that Auburn wasn't clearly the best team in college football.
Hard to argue that they weren't the best team since they did go undefeated, but in a playoff system I doubt they win it all even with a homefield advantage. As I said before, luck is a huge factor in having an undefeated season. Consistency definitely matters, but winning 12 games straight is incredibly difficult. Luck played a huge factor in our MNC season giving us a 5th down. Yeah we wouldn't have spiked the ball had we known it was 4th down, but the refs colossal screw-up made the 5th down possible (and there are plenty of people that dispute the resulting TD). It happens. Doesn't mean that CU wasn't the best team in the nation given that we won just about every game, tying the SEC champs, beating the Pac10 champs (UDub) and losing to the Big10 champs (UofI) by 1 point and going into DKR and Lincoln and winning on the road at 2 of the hardest places to win at in college football.
I dont think Auburn was the best team in college football but they had the best player hands down. That dude, and im not a big fan of his, got that team there period. They survived the SEC and won the game they had to, whether someone else was better is irrelevant. They have the ring, end of story.
The examples you're giving are all very dated, but point taken. I'll re-state my opinion to say that in the BCS era, if you win the MNC, you're the best team in the country. Again, there will always be debate, and this is just my opinion. Any argument that states that Auburn wasn't the best team in the country last year seems a little crazy to me, though. They beat every team they played. They played in the toughest conference in the country and beat the defending national champions in the process. Hard to argue that, if you ask me.
So what team was better? Cannot be Oregon because Auburn beat them. Even if there was a playoff system, the best team does not always win. Look at Basketball this year. I think Uconn finished 9th in their conference during the regular season. They certainly were hot at the right time.
People may of not liked the lack of a playoff in Football but the you have to be a pretty good team to make it to the championship game in most years.
How about the best teams aren't even playing in the title game ( Oregon 2001, Auburn 2004)
Or teams that don't deserve to be in the title game because they couldn't even win their conference (Nebraska 2001, Oklahoma 2003)
Are you actually making the argument that Oregon was better than Miami in 2001, and that Auburn was better than Southern Cal in 2004? I mean, hey, if that's the case have at it. I think that's a pretty big hill to climb, though.
I think Texas won in '68 after either tying or losing to Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl.
No, I'm saying they didn't matchup the best teams, so no one really knows the best team that year. I can tell you one thing, Oregon would have given Miami a much better game than Nebraska did. Miami won that game with big plays early and Nebraska made a slight comeback in the second half. Had it been a high scoring offense like Oregon, they could have played with Miami better IMO.
And on Auburn, they were an SEC team that went undefeated.
you tell me sackman, is that right?
Undoubtedly. But there's a reason why they didn't play in the MNC game. This whole discussion is about whether teams that won the BCS championship are the best teams that year. I'd personally be hard pressed to say that any of them weren't. USC would have thottled them, just like they throttled OU. It wouldn't have made a difference. Miami was unstoppable in 2001. It wouldn't have made any difference who they played. They were the better team. If you want to have a discussion about who the second best team was in any given year, you're free to take on that task.
Not sure I agree. you or I don't know. Again AUburn went undefeated in the SEC.
So you're saying Auburn was better than USC? That's the issue here. Not whether they picked the best game or not.
You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Auburn would have beaten USC. I think they played the next year, in fact. And USC hung 50+ on them in Auburn. That USC team was unreal.
One interesting point is that the BCS actually helps to ensure the best overall teams are playing for the National Title, instead of the hot teams at the end of the year. I'm all for a playoff because it would be much more entertaining, but the BCS does a relatively good job at picking the best teams from the regular season.
The reason it is so painful to play in the BCS system, is because you lose one game, or even have a close game down the stretch and you're out for the year.
Separate names with a comma.