Towards Dynasty

[EvilVodka]

FSU and Nebraska had dynasties throughout the 90's that spanned several years...Miami had a dynasty in the 80's....Who's going to step forward and claim the next dynasty? Here are some current contenders:

USC '02-
2 National Championships
2 Championship game appearances
7 PAC 10 Championships
6 BCS bowl wins
34 game winning streak from '03-'05
3 Heisman Trophy winners

LSU '01-
2 National Championships
2 Championship game appearances
3 SEC Championships
4 BCS bowl wins

Florida '06-
2 National Championships
2 SEC Championships
2 BCS bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner

Oklahoma '00-
1 National Championship
4 Championship game appearances
6 Big XII Championships
2 BCS bowl wins
2 Heisman Trophy winners

Ohio State '02-
1 National Championship
3 Championship game appearances
4 Big 10 Championships
3 BCS bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner

Texas '04-
1 National Championship
1 Big XII Championship
3 BCS bowl wins

================================================== ===================
For sh!ts and giggles, here are Miami's '83-'94, FSU's '87-'00, and Nebraska's '93-'01 stats:

Miami '83-'94
4 National Championships
5 Championship game Appearances (not sure about '89 and '91)
10 10-win+ seasons
5 Major Bowl wins
2 Heisman Trophy winners

Florida State '87-'00
2 National Championships
5 Championship Game Appearances
14 straight Top 4 Finishes
9 ACC Championships
10 Major Bowl wins
2 Heisman Trophy winners

Nebraska '93-'01
3 National Championships
4 Championship Game Appearances (not sure about '97)
5 Big 8/Big XII Championships
26 game win streak '04-'06
8 10-win+ seasons
5 Major Bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner

[Hubbs]

USC gets 1 more NC in the next 3 years and 2 Pac 10 titles and they are a dynasty. Dig deeper who is the next team yet to win even a conference championship in the last 10 years to emerge much like USC did in 2002?

[aufan59]

USC has a similar formula as FSU. Dominate a weak conference and win the MNC as long as you don't mess up.

[HellYeahHokie]

USC has a similar formula as FSU. Dominate a weak conference and win the MNC as long as you don't mess up.

You are absolutely correct, and they also make sure that their out of conference schedule is equally weak, so that they don't have to worry about those games.

06
Arkansas : 50-14!!!!
Notre Dame : 44-24

05
Arkansas: 70-17!!!!
Notre Dame: 34-31

04
Virginia Tech: 24-13
Notre Dame: 41-10

03
Auburn: 23-0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (at Auburn)
Notre Dame: 45-14

02
Auburn: 24-17
Notre Dame: 44-13

Combined score against SEC teams = 167-48.

Well, thank goodness the Trojans didn't schedule the rough and tumble Maine Black Bears, given what they did to the physically tough MSU.

God it must be easy to be delusional than actually admit the truth.

[EvilVodka]

USC has a similar formula as FSU. Dominate a weak conference and win the MNC as long as you don't mess up.

Well, FSU beat the SEC Champ 7 times in that span, including your Auburn Tigers 3 times ('87-'89)...so exactly which weak conference are you talking about? :D

[EvilVodka]

I added some more stats, such as Heisman Trophy winners....its really hard to not see USC as a dynasty in motion...OU and Ohio State don't look too shabby either

[buckeyejim]

Right now USC is clearly THE Dynasty if there is one. They have many more future NFL players on their 2007 roster than any other school. They travel to and win more games against top notch non-conference opponents than any other program. USC is easily the #1 college football program in America right now.

[jeff4bucks]

USC has a similar formula as FSU. Dominate a weak conference and win the MNC as long as you don't mess up.

Time to let it go, Aufan. Pac 10 isn't so weak, and USC has stepped up against other conferences as well.

[Blue Hen]

That's been the common perception of the talent on USC's recent rosters but it still hasn't come to fruition as far as USC kids on NFL rosters. For example, 12 other CF programs could claim as many or more NFLers last season as USC. We'll see .

[buckeyejim]

That's been the common perception of the talent on USC's recent rosters but it still hasn't come to fruition as far as USC kids on NFL rosters. For example, 12 other CF programs could claim as many or more NFLers last season as USC. We'll see .

When I say that USC has more future NFL prospects on the 2007 roster that includes those who will be drafted in 2008; 2009; 2010 and 2011. It counts ALL on the 2007 roster Seniors, Juniors, Sophomores and Freshmen.

[aufan59]

Well, FSU beat the SEC Champ 7 times in that span, including your Auburn Tigers 3 times ('87-'89)...so exactly which weak conference are you talking about? :D

FSU had 1-2 game seasons and could do it. USC has 0-1 game seasons so they should be able to do it better than FSU.

[sc69er]

most loses came to PX teams while Auburn contributed to there win column.

[buckeyejim]

FSU had 1-2 game seasons and could do it. USC has 0-1 game seasons so they should be able to do it better than FSU.

Now THAT is a crazy statement!

[TommyTrojan]

When I say that USC has more future NFL prospects on the 2007 roster that includes those who will be drafted in 2008; 2009; 2010 and 2011. It counts ALL on the 2007 roster Seniors, Juniors, Sophomores and Freshmen.

IMO, LSU and Texas have a little more NFL talent than USC at this moment. However, USC guys perform well in college (when it counts for us CFB fans) and sometimes fall short on draft day (see Dwayne Jarrett).

[TommyTrojan]

most loses came to PX teams while Auburn contributed to there win column.

Aufan sounds like that AU lineman(monreko?? whatever) before the '-3 contest.

"Their D ain't got nothin on ours!"

23-0, and AU crosses midfield twice...on the plains

[GatorGrad]

The current USC Dynasty and the FSU Dynasty from 1987-2000 both featured very very very strong programs. Either dynasty could have thrived in ANY conference. That said, I would have to agree that FSU's numbers would have not looked as good had they not been able to play in what was a very weak ACC during the 90's. Going 8-0 in their conference was pretty much a done deal as there was no other legit program to consistently challenge them. And with no CCG, it really was usually all about their games with Miami and Florida. If they could take care of business in those two games, their chances of playing for a MNC were very good.

Unfortunately, it FSU had a tough time beating BOTH Miami AND Florida in the same seasons. Miami was down during the 95, 96, 97, and 98 seasons, but Florida was strong during those years. Miami was stronger than Florida overall before the mid 90's. FSU's two MNC's came in 1993 & 1999, two of the few years where FSU beat both schools in the same year. FSU rarely had any competition coming from the ACC and had to go outside of the conference to get a challenge. You can't really compare the old ACC to the current PAC 10. The PAC 10 is much stronger than the old ACC.

FSU certainly could have, and probably would have still won both MNC's in 93 and 99 had they played in a stronger conference such as the SEC, but I guarantee you that they wouldn't have boasted nearly as many conference championships or top five finishes. They would have had to play 3-4 more conference games a year against teams that actually had a shot at beating them which surely would have resulted in a few more losses. I'm not taking anything away from the amazing years from 1987-2000 that FSU enjoyed, but just pointing out that things could have been slightly different had FSU joined the SEC rather than the ACC back in 1992.

Just my three cents.

[Blue Hen]

A couple of little things about the ACC 1990s

4 different ACC teams won or shared ACC conference championships in the 1990s (44% of the league )
Only 3 different SEC teams won or shared SEC championships in the 1990s ( 25% of league)
....interesting, don't you think ?

Florida State's ACC winning percentage in the 90s was a dominant .969
Florida's SEC winning percentage in the 90's was almost as dominant - .888

Now, considering that Florida could only win 33% of its games vs FSU in the 90s ..well, you see the point.

I guess I'm maybe suggesting that if the 90's ACC was " very weak " as you suggest ,based on FSU's dominance, would the 90's SEC have been significantly stronger based on Florida's dominance ?

The head to head PSEG match-ups between the leagues in the 90s favored the SEC 10-7.........not really dominantly one sided.

..just a few extra cents thrown in.

[buckeyejim]

IMO, LSU and Texas have a little more NFL talent than USC at this moment. However, USC guys perform well in college (when it counts for us CFB fans) and sometimes fall short on draft day (see Dwayne Jarrett).

I know I'll get killed on this forum for this, but here it goes. I got my information by listening to Mel Kiper. He said that there are more future NFL players on the 2007 USC roster than any other school in the nation and that the #2 school isn't even close.

[Blue Hen]

Kiper is a legitimate source. Thanks for sharing.

[GatorGrad]

A couple of little things about the ACC 1990s

4 different ACC teams won or shared ACC conference championships in the 1990s (44% of the league )
Only 3 different SEC teams won or shared SEC championships in the 1990s ( 25% of league)
....interesting, don't you think ?

Florida State's ACC winning percentage in the 90s was a dominant .969
Florida's SEC winning percentage in the 90's was almost as dominant - .888

Now, considering that Florida could only win 33% of its games vs FSU in the 90s ..well, you see the point.

I guess I'm maybe suggesting that if the 90's ACC was " very weak " as you suggest ,based on FSU's dominance, would the 90's SEC have been significantly stronger based on Florida's dominance ?

The head to head PSEG match-ups between the leagues in the 90s favored the SEC 10-7.........not really dominantly one sided.

..just a few extra cents thrown in.

Hen,

Why would you include GaTech of 1990 and Clemson in 1991? Both were before FSU entered the ACC in 1992 which is what I was discussing. From 1992-2000, FSU won the ACC Championship every single season going 8-0 in most years, and 7-1 in two of the years (1995 and 1998 when they shared the title with UVA and GaTech.) So they were ACC Champs for their first NINE seasons in the ACC! And they were ACC Champs for 11 of their first 12 seasons in the ACC. Talk about a one-team conference. The only season where they were not ACC Champs for their first 12 seasons of ACC play was 2001 when Maryland won the title before giving 50+ points in a loss to the Spurrier/Grossman SEC East 2nd place team in the Orange Bowl.

Outside of FSU, the ACC was a very weak conference before their recent expansion. Combine that with FSU being one of the best programs in the country, and you had a great scenario. FSU didn't have to worry too much about conference games. It was all about the 2-3 OOC games per year against teams like Miami, Florida, etc. That's a great recipe for winning MNC's. Frankly, I can't believe that they were only able to win two MNC's during this time. Their teams in the late 80's, 91, 92, 96, and 97 could have been the best in the country if it weren't for either Miami or Florida knocking them off.

Again, this isn't a slight on FSU. They certainly would have competed in ANY conference during those years and still likely would have won the 1993 and 1999 MNC. But I find it hard to believe that they would have won 9 straight (or 11 out of 12) conference championships in any other major conference other than the ACC. Certainly not in the SEC, Big Ten, or PAC 10. Not the Big East either given that Miami would have been there winning some conference titles of their own. FSU's great teams combined with a weak ACC was a great situation. FSU fans are now learning what it's like to have to compete in a legit conference and in a conference with a CCG. It's not quite as easy!

[Blue Hen]

Fair question, GG. I included the entire 1990s because your post made reference to the entire 1990s


If FSU played .969 ACC ball in the 90s and was obviously better than UF in the 90s, which played .888 SEC ball in the 90s I think FSU would have probably cruised through the SEC just about as easy as it cruised through the ACC. Just speculation.

As far as those MNCs....well, I believe by seasons end that FSU would have been the favorite ( betting odds ) to win a D1A national championship in 1999, 1993,1992, 1989, and 1987. I think the Noles would have won more real ones than the 'pretend' ones allotted it.

[GatorGrad]

If FSU played .969 ACC ball in the 90s and was obviously better than UF in the 90s, which played .888 SEC ball in the 90s I think FSU would have probably cruised through the SEC just about as easy as it cruised through the ACC. Just speculation.

As far as those MNCs....well, I believe by seasons end that FSU would have been the favorite ( betting odds ) to win a D1A national championship in 1999, 1993,1992, 1989, and 1987. I think the Noles would have won more real ones than the 'pretend' ones allotted it.

I agree with your second paragraph - if there was a playoff, FSU would have had a great shot at the title if there was a playoff. But I strongly disagree with your first paragraph that FSU would have "cruised" through the SEC as easy as it did the ACC. FSU won 9 straight ACC Titles and 11 total in their first 12 seasons of ACC play. While nobody can predict for sure what would have happened, I think we can have a good idea of how FSU would have performed in the SEC in those 9-12 years. Stay with me here...this will be fun:

1992 - 50/50 chance that FSU would have won the SEC Title this year. It would have likely been between between FSU and Alabama who went unbeaten and crushed Miami in the MNC Game (Miami beat FSU earlier in the year.)

1993 - FSU's MNC team would likely have also won the SEC Championship given their win over SEC Champion Florida in The Swamp. Alabama, unbeaten Auburn, and Tennessee could have provided better competition than the ACC, but FSU's 1993 team likely would have won the SEC Championship.

1994 - I would put their odds at around 60% for an SEC Title this year. Florida tied them in Tallahassee 31-31 (Florida was up 31-3 in the 4th Qtr) before losing a close rematch game in the Sugar Bowl. Alabama vs FSU would have been a great matchup too.

1995 - SEC Champion Florida beat FSU 35-24. FSU lost to UVA this year. Tennessee probably would have beaten FSU as well. No SEC title in 1995 for sure.

1996 - Like 1994, this one is tricky. FSU beat SEC Champ Florida 24-21 in Tallahassee before losing to them 52-20 in a Sugar Bowl rematch. FSU could have ironically won the SEC in 1996. Alabama and Tennessee would have provided good games for FSU as well.

1997 - Florida beat FSU. Tennessee was the SEC Champion. FSU was a great team, but winning the SEC Title instead of Tennessee wouldn't have been a given given their loss to Florida who beat Tennessee who won the SEC in Peyton Manning's senior season.

1998 - FSU lost to SEC Champion Tennessee in the MNC Game. Gotta conclude that Tennessee would have still been SEC Champ had FSU been in the SEC.

1999 - A likely FSU SEC Title given their win over SEC East Champ Florida. But SEC Champion Alabama (who beat Florida by more than FSU did) certainly would have given FSU a good game.

2000 - A likely FSU SEC Title considering their win over SEC Champ Florida.

2001 - No way they win SEC Title obviously (Maryland won the ACC, Florida crushed Maryland and FSU.)

2002 - SEC Champ Georgia beat ACC Champ FSU in the Sugar Bowl. Hard to say anything would have been different had FSU played in the SEC. That Georgia team was one game away from finishing unbeaten and possibly playing for the MNC.

2003 - FSU wasn't going to be SEC Champ this year either given LSU's MNC team.

Years that we can conclude that FSU would have won the SEC: 1993, 1999, 2000

Years that we can conclude that FSU would not have won the SEC: 1995, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003

Years that are open for debate: 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997.

So lets say that 50% of the "open for debate years" went to FSU and they won the SEC Title in those years. That would give FSU five (5) SEC Championships from 1992-2000. Very impressive, but not quite the same as winning nine (9) titles in a row like they did in the ACC. That's all I am saying. No way does FSU dominate the SEC like they did the ACC. No way they win 9 in a row or 11 of 12. They likely would have never won more then 2-3 SEC Titles in a row, and "only" 5 SEC Titles in their first 12 years of SEC play. Still good, but not nearly as dominant.

It would have been the same in the Big East. In all of the years where Miami beat FSU and won the Big East, FSU is looking at a 2nd or 3rd place finish. They wouldn't have won 11 of 12 conference titles in the Big East either. I can't prove it, but I would probably say the same for had they played in the PAC 10, Big Ten, or Big 12 as well. The ACC simply did not catch up to FSU until recently. It was a smart move by FSU to join the ACC instead of the SEC back in 1992. Bobby Bowden even noted that he would rather be called a coward by joining the ACC instead of the SEC. I can find you the exact quote if you wish!

[Blue Hen]

Wow that's impressive reaearch GG. Ok I'll defer to your speculation.

Mine (speculation ) was simply based on the UF/FSU relationship ( small sample :-) ....FSU was clearly better than UF in the 90s ( based on its 7-4-1 head to head record) UF cruised through the SEC at a .888 clip........therefore a better team than UF would likely cruise through the SEC at a better rate...perhaps a .900-.950 clip ?

We'll never know how any team would fare in any other conference, but it is fun to speculate.

[GatorGrad]

We'll never know how any team would fare in any other conference, but it is fun to speculate.

True, we'll never know for sure. I guess my point was that even if UF only won four games against FSU during the 90's as you pointed out, those four wins alone should be reason enough to conclude that FSU wouldn't have won the SEC as many times as they won the ACC if for no other reason than they lost to the SEC Champ (Florida) in 3 of those 4 wins. So it's hard to say that FSU would have won the SEC in any year where Florida won the SEC and beat FSU (91, 95, and 96.) Same situation if you put FSU in the Big East with Miami. Any year that Miami won the Big East and beat FSU, you have to assume that FSU would not have won the Big East in those seasons, right?

And I know you'll think I am being biased, but I think you would even have to agree that the SEC would have provided a few more tough games for FSU in the 90's than the ACC did. Schools like Florida, Alabama, Tennessee were very strong in the 90's. Outside of FSU, the ACC didn't provide any such competition. Who did FSU play in conference? Georgia was good in the early 90's before they went into their funk. Auburn was very strong in 93 and 94 as well.

In conclusion, although I can't prove it, I would bet my life savings that:

1) FSU would not have as many conference championships had they joined the SEC back in 1992.

2) FSU would not have as many total wins or top four finishes had they joined the SEC back in 1992.

That is all.

[TommyTrojan]

I know I'll get killed on this forum for this, but here it goes. I got my information by listening to Mel Kiper. He said that there are more future NFL players on the 2007 USC roster than any other school in the nation and that the #2 school isn't even close.

Man, I hope so!

I dont see a big difference between Texas and LSU, but I am glad Kiper sees that type of talent

[EvilVodka]

I agree with your second paragraph - if there was a playoff, FSU would have had a great shot at the title if there was a playoff. But I strongly disagree with your first paragraph that FSU would have "cruised" through the SEC as easy as it did the ACC. FSU won 9 straight ACC Titles and 11 total in their first 12 seasons of ACC play. While nobody can predict for sure what would have happened, I think we can have a good idea of how FSU would have performed in the SEC in those 9-12 years.
So lets say that 50% of the "open for debate years" went to FSU and they won the SEC Title in those years. That would give FSU five (5) SEC Championships from 1992-2000. Very impressive, but not quite the same as winning nine (9) titles in a row like they did in the ACC. That's all I am saying. No way does FSU dominate the SEC like they did the ACC. No way they win 9 in a row or 11 of 12. They likely would have never won more then 2-3 SEC Titles in a row, and "only" 5 SEC Titles in their first 12 years of SEC play. Still good, but not nearly as dominant.

The ACC simply did not catch up to FSU until recently. It was a smart move by FSU to join the ACC instead of the SEC back in 1992. Bobby Bowden even noted that he would rather be called a coward by joining the ACC instead of the SEC. I can find you the exact quote if you wish!

I do think the SEC would have provided a better challenge, but everyone looks down on the ACC in the 90's, and they weren't exactly chop liver...

Here's a breakdown on how many other teams besides FSU finished in the top 25 between 92-00:

AP/Coaches Poll

1992
#17/15 North Carolina St.
#19/18 North Carolina
#25/25 Wake Forest

1993
#19/21 North Carolina
#23/22 Clemson

1994
#15/13 Virginia
#17/17 North Carolina St.
NR/#21 North Carolina

1995
#16/17 Virginia

1996
#10/10 North Carolina

1997
#6/4 North Carolina
#25/NR Georgia Tech

1998
#9/11 Georgia Tech
#18/18 Virginia

1999
#20/21 Georgia Tech

2000
#16/14 Clemson
#17/19 Georgia Tech

The ACC produced teams besides FSU that had pretty good years...Mack Brown helped North Carolina break the top 5, and Georgia Tech and Virginia each shared ACC titles in '98 and '95 respectively. It wasn't a juggernaut conference, but it wasn't a cakewalk either...FSU had some battles. Personally, the game that scared me the most in '99 was Georgia Tech and Joey Hamilton...they just wouldn't go away....Clemson was hard that year too, because of all the Bowden bowl hoopla

[EvilVodka]

1998 - FSU lost to SEC Champion Tennessee in the MNC Game. Gotta conclude that Tennessee would have still been SEC Champ had FSU been in the SEC.

2001 - No way they win SEC Title obviously (Maryland won the ACC, Florida crushed Maryland and FSU.)

2002 - SEC Champ Georgia beat ACC Champ FSU in the Sugar Bowl. Hard to say anything would have been different had FSU played in the SEC. That Georgia team was one game away from finishing unbeaten and possibly playing for the MNC.

2003 - FSU wasn't going to be SEC Champ this year either given LSU's MNC team.



Fun and interesting speculation here....let me add that '98 would have depended on when they played Tennessee and if Weinke had been hurt...Just my opinion, but a healthy Weinke puts FSU over the Vols, although I think he got hurt early in the season at North Carolina St., but if FSU is in the SEC, they don't play NC State...

Also my opinion, but you can throw '01-'03 out...FSU wasn't the same when Richt left, and Rix became QB...the dynasty unofficially ended in 2000

[EvilVodka]

CFN's take on USC as a dynasty:

"Was just reading an article on LSU fans griping about USC and its dynasty status (and of course, the '03 title) and it got me thinking … Do you feel USC is really a college football dynasty? I don't hear anyone claiming dynasty status for the Hurricanes from 00-03, and yet the accomplishments are almost identical, except in 2000 FSU lost to Oklahoma whereas in 2003 Oklahoma lost (twice) giving USC the shared title Miami would have gotten in 2000. Would Butch Davis never going to the NFL led to him and Pete Carroll being pronounced East/West rulers of college football recruiting and program building? – JC

A: Let’s put it all on the table here … USC has only one real national title under Pete Carroll. I don’t care about 2003. We live in a BCS world, like it or not, and anyone else named a national champion is just for show. However, yes, this is absolutely a dynasty under Carroll. You go 69-6 over a five-year span, and you’re doing something right. There are two other ways of looking at what a monster the program has become. First, of those six losses, all were by less than a touchdown. USC is 22 points away from winning 75 straight. Second, USC is roughly three plays away from being the undisputed four-time national champion. Knowing that this will open up the floodgates of e-mail, I’d take last year’s USC team over Florida."

http://cfn.scout.com/2/658335.html

[tigercpa]

CFN's take on USC as a dynasty:

"Was just reading an article on LSU fans griping about USC and its dynasty status (and of course, the '03 title) and it got me thinking … Do you feel USC is really a college football dynasty? I don't hear anyone claiming dynasty status for the Hurricanes from 00-03, and yet the accomplishments are almost identical, except in 2000 FSU lost to Oklahoma whereas in 2003 Oklahoma lost (twice) giving USC the shared title Miami would have gotten in 2000. Would Butch Davis never going to the NFL led to him and Pete Carroll being pronounced East/West rulers of college football recruiting and program building? – JC

A: Let’s put it all on the table here … USC has only one real national title under Pete Carroll. I don’t care about 2003. We live in a BCS world, like it or not, and anyone else named a national champion is just for show. However, yes, this is absolutely a dynasty under Carroll. You go 69-6 over a five-year span, and you’re doing something right. There are two other ways of looking at what a monster the program has become. First, of those six losses, all were by less than a touchdown. USC is 22 points away from winning 75 straight. Second, USC is roughly three plays away from being the undisputed four-time national champion. Knowing that this will open up the floodgates of e-mail, I’d take last year’s USC team over Florida."

http://cfn.scout.com/2/658335.html

Who knew that Les Miles and Pete Fiutak were birds of a feather?

Yeah, never mind that--BCS agreement notwithstanding--there is no offical NCAA title in college football and that the AP has been naming champions since the mid-1930s. Never mind that the winner of the BCS game merely crowns the winner of the coaches poll. Never mind that the coaches are contractually obligated to "vote" for the winner.

Let's ignore all that.

This was the same spin that Fiutak took immediately after the 2003 season, but he learned to mute this line of reasoning for a couple years once it became apparent just how ludicrous it was to the rest of us in the mainstream. Really, no one outside of Baton Rouge and Fiutak thinks that USC didn't win A title in 2003.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, despite a college football history full of split titles, despite the fact that the BCS website itself says that the 2003 title was split, despite the fact that only the coaches poll is bound by the BCS, we still get bombarded with weird statements like these about every 6 months or so.

[AJBuckeye]

Just because Auburn is in a position that they will never be looked at as a dynasty does not mean you should belittle those that are. Here are the basic facts:
Auburn is in Alabama which isn't considered to be a hotbed for recruiting
Auburn has to compete against Alabama for all local talent that want to stay at home.
Auburn is NOT one of those programs where they are able to attract the national talent like programs such as USC
Auburn at will best will be a consistently competetive team but will never be in a situation where it will be a consistent top 10 over time. There is just not enough talent in the state or attraction from athletes out of the state.
If Auburn does win a national title you should savor the moment because more than on just isn't going to happen in your lifetime.

[ktffan]

From 1987-2000 Florida State played:

Played 35 teams that finished in the top 10, more than all but 2 teams.

Played 67 teams that finished ranked, more than all but 3 teams.

Played 104 teams that finished with a winning record, at least 5 more than all other teams.

Played 90 teams that went to bowls, more than all but one team.

Over that period Florida State's opponents combined for a .640 winning percentage (minus head-to-head games). That .640 winning percentage is .036 point higher than any team.

You guys saying Florida State played 1 or 2 games a year are ignorant.

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1987&thy=2000&tIA=on

[ktffan]

How the NCAA defines a dynasty:

http://www.cfb-trivia.netfirms.com/dynasties/Dynasties.htm

[EvilVodka]

Who knew that Les Miles and Pete Fiutak were birds of a feather?

Yeah, never mind that--BCS agreement notwithstanding--there is no offical NCAA title in college football and that the AP has been naming champions since the mid-1930s. Never mind that the winner of the BCS game merely crowns the winner of the coaches poll. Never mind that the coaches are contractually obligated to "vote" for the winner.

Let's ignore all that.

This was the same spin that Fiutak took immediately after the 2003 season, but he learned to mute this line of reasoning for a couple years once it became apparent just how ludicrous it was to the rest of us in the mainstream. Really, no one outside of Baton Rouge and Fiutak thinks that USC didn't win A title in 2003.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, despite a college football history full of split titles, despite the fact that the BCS website itself says that the 2003 title was split, despite the fact that only the coaches poll is bound by the BCS, we still get bombarded with weird statements like these about every 6 months or so.

2 things--

Nick Saban won the '03 Championship with LSU, not Les Miles...

and the bulk of the post is how USC is a dynasty, not if they should be considered one...

[EvilVodka]

How the NCAA defines a dynasty:

http://www.cfb-trivia.netfirms.com/dynasties/Dynasties.htm

Interesting...seems like it needs to be updated though...IMO, Nebraska and FSU's runs seem to fit right in with that crowd

[tigercpa]

2 things--

Nick Saban won the '03 Championship with LSU, not Les Miles...

and the bulk of the post is how USC is a dynasty, not if they should be considered one...

Agree on both counts. I was merely drawing the similarity between Miles' recent comments and Fiutak's article. Both appear extremely ill-informed as to how national championships are deteremined now, as they always have been, by the votes of the two major polls.

One poll organization gets to think freely and vote independently, while one vote is forced.

[CJHawkeyes]

Agree on both counts. I was merely drawing the similarity between Miles' recent comments and Fiutak's article. Both appear extremely ill-informed as to how national championships are deteremined now, as they always have been, by the votes of the two major polls.

One poll organization gets to think freely and vote independently, while one vote is forced.

Once again, the BCS title game determines a portion of the national title. The mandated vote is not needed to recognize the winner of said game. It is merely a formality.

[tigercpa]

Once again, the BCS title game determines a portion of the national title. The mandated vote is not needed to recognize the winner of said game. It is merely a formality.

Not true.

If every coach who voted USC as #1 prior to the bowl games had felt able to break the contract, take on legal risk and continue that vote after the bowls, LSU could have received the Coaches' Trophy at the end of the Sugar Bowl, but not been the Coaches' Champion for the year.

In 2003, for the first and only time in BCS history, the BCS Champion was not a unanimous #1 in the final Coaches Poll.

Getting the glass ball does not mean you win a NC, you have to be ranked #1 in the coaches poll to earn the "AFCA NC".

[ktffan]

Not true.

If every coach who voted USC as #1 prior to the bowl games had felt able to break the contract, take on legal risk and continue that vote after the bowls, LSU could have received the Coaches' Trophy at the end of the Sugar Bowl, but not been the Coaches' Champion for the year.

In 2003, for the first and only time in BCS history, the BCS Champion was not a unanimous #1 in the final Coaches Poll.

Getting the glass ball does not mean you win a NC, you have to be ranked #1 in the coaches poll to earn the "AFCA NC".

Since the glass ball is the AFCA's trophy, would they take it away from the team they gave it to if this happened?

[GatorGrad]

From 1987-2000 Florida State played:

Played 35 teams that finished in the top 10, more than all but 2 teams.

Played 67 teams that finished ranked, more than all but 3 teams.

Played 104 teams that finished with a winning record, at least 5 more than all other teams.

Played 90 teams that went to bowls, more than all but one team.

Over that period Florida State's opponents combined for a .640 winning percentage (minus head-to-head games). That .640 winning percentage is .036 point higher than any team.

You guys saying Florida State played 1 or 2 games a year are ignorant.

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1987&thy=2000&tIA=on

I assume these numbers include OOC games and bowl games. If you are talking about me, please note that my argument centered around FSU playing in the ACC. And that FSU woudn't have won 9 conference titles in a row or 11 out of 12 titles had they played in the SEC or really any other major conference. Again, it doesn't mean that FSU wasn't a great team. They were. They played and beat many good teams like Florida, Miami, and bowl opponents on a fairly consistent basis. But they sure didn't have to worry about much within their own conference.

[CJHawkeyes]

Not true.

If every coach who voted USC as #1 prior to the bowl games had felt able to break the contract, take on legal risk and continue that vote after the bowls, LSU could have received the Coaches' Trophy at the end of the Sugar Bowl, but not been the Coaches' Champion for the year.

In 2003, for the first and only time in BCS history, the BCS Champion was not a unanimous #1 in the final Coaches Poll.

Getting the glass ball does not mean you win a NC, you have to be ranked #1 in the coaches poll to earn the "AFCA NC".

There was no legal risk. If someone voted USC #1, their vote would have been changed to a #2. However, the bigger point is that the coaches poll is used to help determine the title game participants. After that, the coaches are limited to voting 2-25. LSU won the BCS national title by virtue of finishing 2nd at the conclusion of the regular season and beating #1 in the title game, not because of a mandated vote. Like I said before, if no agreement was reached between the BCS and AFCA, the BCS would have simply released a post-bowl standings (as they should have) and awarded their own trophy to LSU rather than sharing a trophy with the coaches.

If, for example, the BCS ranked teams by records, matched the top two teams with the winner guaranteed first place in the post bowl standings while the two polls operated independently, would the BCS champion be any less of a national champion if the polls disagreed and voted in favor of a team that did not qualify for the BCS title game? The argument that LSU's national title is the byproduct of a mandated vote and therefore less legitimate is ridiculous.

[Blue Hen]

How do you know, GG , how FSU would have fared in the 90s vs SEC ?

FSU was definitely stronger than UF in the 90s based on the head to head games. UF breezed through the SEC at a .888 clip in the 90s. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that 'better' FSU would have breezed through the same conference with even greater ease ? No way to tell how many championships FSU could have won.

[GatorGrad]

How do you know, GG , how FSU would have fared in the 90s vs SEC ?

FSU was definitely stronger than UF in the 90s based on the head to head games. UF breezed through the SEC at a .888 clip in the 90s. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that 'better' FSU would have breezed through the same conference with even greater ease ? No way to tell how many championships FSU could have won.

Hen,

I have already outlined year by year why I believe FSU would NOT have won 9 straight ACC Titles or 11 out of 12 ACC Titles had they been in the SEC. If you're going to use head to head records between FSU and UF in the 90's to determine FSU's probability for success in the SEC in the 90's, then you also have to conclude that in the years where UF beat FSU, FSU would not have won the SEC...especially if UF was the SEC Champ. We can't assume that FSU would have won the SEC in any year that they lost to Florida or the SEC Champion, can we? FSU lost to the SEC Champ in 1991, 1995, 1996, and 1998. Same for the years that Miami beat FSU if you want to imagine FSU in the Big East. Miami would have won the Big East over FSU, in any year where Miami beat FSU and won the Big East Title, had FSU played in the Big East. FSU did not have a team like Miami or Florida playing in the ACC. Thus, they were able to rattle off nine in a row.

[Blue Hen]

ok on titles. Given that UF played`.888 SEC ball in the 90s, what would be your guess for FSU's success rate in that league for the same period ?

[buckeyejim]

Here is my opinion great college football programs. They would be great vs ANY competition or conference.

The Oklahoma teams or the '50's would have been dominate in ANY conference back then.

The Nebraska teams of the '90's would have been dominate in ANY conference in the '90's.

The FSU teams of the late '80's and the '90's would have been dominate in ANY conference during that span.

It would have been interesting to see which program would have been the MOST dominate if Nebraska and FSU had been in the same conference back in the '90's.

The Southern California teams of this decade would be dominate in ANY conference these days.

Would these schools win any conference EVERY year? No, but they sure would win it more often than the rest.

[GatorGrad]

ok on titles. Given that UF played`.888 SEC ball in the 90s, what would be your guess for FSU's success rate in that league for the same period ?

If I had to guess FSU's winning % had they played in the SEC in the 90's, I would say that it would be slightly higher than UF's winning %. My entire point is that FSU would not have won nine conference titles in a row playing in the SEC.

We can't conclude that they would have won the SEC in 1991 when they lost to SEC Champion Florida.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1992 when they lost to Miami who got crushed by unbeaten SEC Champion Alabama in the MNC Sugar Bowl Game.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1995 when they lost to unbeaten SEC Champion Florida.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1998 when they lost to unbeaten SEC Champion Tennessee in the MNC Fiesta Bowl Game.

1994, 1996, and 1997 are tough calls to make as well as it would probably depend on what division of the SEC they played in.

We can assume that FSU would have won the SEC in 1990, 1993, and 1999. Not that they couldn't have won more, but these are the only years where you can say that FSU would have most likely won the SEC. The ACC in the 90's simply didn't have programs like Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to compete with for conference titles.

Again, I am not taking away from what FSU did from 87-00. They certainly deserve to be called a dynasty during that time period and certainly would have won their share of titles playing in any conference. But "nine straight conference championships" wouldn't have happened in any other major conference other than the ACC IMO.

[buckeyejim]

If I had to guess FSU's winning % had they played in the SEC in the 90's, I would say that it would be slightly higher than UF's winning %. My entire point is that FSU would not have won nine conference titles in a row playing in the SEC.

We can't conclude that they would have won the SEC in 1991 when they lost to SEC Champion Florida.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1992 when they lost to Miami who got crushed by unbeaten SEC Champion Alabama in the MNC Sugar Bowl Game.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1995 when they lost to unbeaten SEC Champion Florida.

We can't assume that they would have won the SEC in 1998 when they lost to unbeaten SEC Champion Tennessee in the MNC Fiesta Bowl Game.

1994, 1996, and 1997 are tough calls to make as well as it would probably depend on what division of the SEC they played in.

We can assume that FSU would have won the SEC in 1990, 1993, and 1999. Not that they couldn't have won more, but these are the only years where you can say that FSU would have most likely won the SEC. The ACC in the 90's simply didn't have programs like Tennessee, Alabama, or Florida to compete with for conference titles.

Again, I am not taking away from what FSU did from 87-00. They certainly deserve to be called a dynasty during that time period and certainly would have won their share of titles playing in any conference. But "nine straight conference championships" wouldn't have happened in any other major conference other than the ACC IMO.

For the most part, I agree with the above statements. Do I think that Florida State would have been THE dominate team in the SEC during the '90's? Yes. Do I think that Florida State would have won 9 consecutive SEC titles? No. In the history of the Southeastern Conference, no school has EVER won 9 consecutive league titles. The Alabama team of the '70's didn't even win the SEC 9 consecutive years. Going out on a limb, I'd guess that FSU would have won the SEC title maybe 5 times in the '90's but this is simply a guess. Florida, Alabama and Tennessee from the '90's were definately better than the teams FSU had face in the ACC during the '90's. That being said, this is all just guess work because we simply don't REALLY know.

[Blue Hen]

Ok.....I think I see your point, but I'm glad that you guess that FSU would have been more successful ( wp ) than any SEC team , with a 90% plus WP had they played 90s`SEC ball.

[ktffan]

Hen,

I have already outlined year by year why I believe FSU would NOT have won 9 straight ACC Titles or 11 out of 12 ACC Titles had they been in the SEC.

Hard to dispute that. Any team not in the ACC wouldn't have won an ACC title.

[ktffan]

There was no legal risk. If someone voted USC #1, their vote would have been changed to a #2.



There's no if here. People did vote USC #1 and their vote was not changed to #2.

[GatorGrad]

Hard to dispute that. Any team not in the ACC wouldn't have won an ACC title.

Obviously that was a typo...should have left out ACC and just said "conference" titles...

[ktffan]

Obviously that was a typo...should have left out ACC and just said "conference" titles...


I know. Just having fun.

[CJHawkeyes]

There's no if here. People did vote USC #1 and their vote was not changed to #2.

So, if a voter in the coaches poll submitted a post bowl ballot with USC listed first, it would remain a first place vote? Just curious. Nevertheless, LSU's national title is not less legitimate due to a mandated vote when the vote was completely unnecessary for the BCS title to be recognized. It is a formality. Obviously, I think polls are worthless anyway. Therefore, I have no concern about pollsters not being able to vote as they see fit. The BCS is stupid for using polls altogether and for not having their own rules completely independent of the polls. If we had an AP title, coaches title, and BCS title and USC won the first two while LSU won the latter, what would change? What difference does it make if the coaches agreed to have their final poll formally recognize the BCS champion as their champion? The argument seems to imply that LSU only won because of a mandated vote. That's absurd.

[buckeyejim]

So, if a voter in the coaches poll submitted a post bowl ballot with USC listed first, it would remain a first place vote? Just curious. Nevertheless, LSU's national title is not less legitimate due to a mandated vote when the vote was completely unnecessary for the BCS title to be recognized. It is a formality. Obviously, I think polls are worthless anyway. Therefore, I have no concern about pollsters not being able to vote as they see fit. The BCS is stupid for using polls altogether and for not having their own rules completely independent of the polls. If we had an AP title, coaches title, and BCS title and USC won the first two while LSU won the latter, what would change? What difference does it make if the coaches agreed to have their final poll formally recognize the BCS champion as their champion? The argument seems to imply that LSU only won because of a mandated vote. That's absurd.

Not only is it not absurd it's the truth. After USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and LSU beat Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, there were several coaches who said that they would change their vote from USC to LSU only because they agreed to do so because they accepted the rules before the season began. Many coaches felt that USC was the better team which was reflective in USC have more 1st place votes in the final regular season poll in December of 2003.

Only two times has a team been #1 in the final regular season Coaches poll, won their bowl game and NOT been voted #1 in the post bowl poll. In 1997 Michigan was #1, beat Washington State in the Rose Bowl and finished #2 to Nebraska. Then it happend to USC but in 2003, the final #1 slot in 2003 was required to be the winner of the Sugar Bowl between Oklahoma and LSU so that one was not a surprise. The vote in 1997 was a surprise.

[CJHawkeyes]

Not only is it not absurd it's the truth. After USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and LSU beat Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, there were several coaches who said that they would change their vote from USC to LSU only because they agreed to do so because they accepted the rules before the season began. Many coaches felt that USC was the better team which was reflective in USC have more 1st place votes in the final regular season poll in December of 2003.

Only two times has a team been #1 in the final regular season Coaches poll, won their bowl game and NOT been voted #1 in the post bowl poll. In 1997 Michigan was #1, beat Washington State in the Rose Bowl and finished #2 to Nebraska. Then it happend to USC but in 2003, the final #1 slot in 2003 was required to be the winner of the Sugar Bowl between Oklahoma and LSU so that one was not a surprise. The vote in 1997 was a surprise.

If the vote is about who the better team is, it is already a worthless vote. However, the argument against LSU appears to be that they ONLY won a share of the national title because of a mandated vote. That argument is absurd. LSU won a share of the national title because they won the BCS title game which they qualified for under BCS rules. The fact that BCS officials were too stupid to see that using the coaches poll to formally recognize their own champion rather than releasing a post-bowl BCS standings would allow some fans to argue that LSU did not win a share of national title does not mean that LSU only won a share because of a mandated vote.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that I had convinced the BCS to adopt the rules I devised and the winner between the top two teams at the end of the regular season was guaranteed first place in the post-bowl standings and the two polls operated independently. LSU wins under BCS rules and USC wins the two polls. What would change? LSU would still be the BCS national champions by virtue of winning the BCS title game it qualified for under BCS rules. How the title is formally recognized is inconsequential. If there no was agreement between the coaches and BCS, the BCS would have (as it should have) formally recognized its own champion in some other manner.

[buckeyejim]

Here are the last two coaches polls from 2003. USC had 37 coaches voting them #1, beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and finished #2 (they had 3 coaches who broke the rules and voted USC #1 in the Final Poll even though all the #1 votes were supposed to go to LSU-Oklahoma winner).


Final Coaches Poll
Team Final Record Points

1. USC (37) 11-1
2. LSU (18) 12-1
3. Oklahoma (8) 12-1
4. Michigan 10-2
5. Texas 10-2
6. Ohio State 10-2
7. Tennessee 10-2
8. Florida State 10-2
9. Miami (FL) 10-2
10. Kansas State 11-3
11. Georgia 10-3
12. Iowa 9-3
13. Purdue 9-3
14. Washington State 9-3
15. Miami (OH) 12-1
16. Boise State 12-1
17. Florida 8-4
18. Mississippi 9-3
19. TCU 11-1
20. Minnesota 9-3
21. Nebraska 9-3
22. Oklahoma State 9-3
23. West Virginia 8-4
24. Maryland 9-3
25. Utah 9-2


Final Coaches Poll
Team Final Record Points

1. LSU (60) 13-1 1,572
2. USC (3) 12-1 1,514
3. Oklahoma 12-2 1,429
4. Ohio State 11-2 1,370
5. Miami (FL) 11-2 1,306
6. Georgia 11-3 1,183
7. Michigan 10-3 1,140
8. Iowa 10-3 1,119
9. Washington State 10-3 983
10. Florida State 10-3 929
11. Texas 10-3 894
12. Miami (OH) 13-1 800
13. Kansas State 11-4 746
14. Mississippi 10-3 730
15. Boise State 13-1 704
16. Tennessee 10-3 684
17. Minnesota 10-3 553
18. Nebraska 10-3 532
19. Purdue 9-4 510
20. Maryland 10-3 462
21. Utah 10-2 327
22. Clemson 9-4 219
23. Bowling Green 11-3 170
24. TCU 11-2 145
25. Florida 8-5 124

[ktffan]

It was big news at the time. I believe the AFCA did announce that they'd only allow 24 choices on the ballot, giving #1 to the winner, but the got knocked down. It was big news at the time that the coaches (some of them) were not happy that they had to vote for USC. I still have the link to the story on the ESPN page, but they story has since been taken down. Those were fun times.

Also about that period, Jeff Sagarin comes out and admits that USC was robbed by the computers because some of them were not taking into account that it was harder to play on the road in their SOS. I can just imagine, this buffoon, who many people think it is the king of ratings, slapping himself on the forehead and saying, "By Jove, I've just discovered it's harder to play on the road than at home, I must tell somebody."

[CJHawkeyes]

Here are the last two coaches polls from 2003. USC had 37 coaches voting them #1, beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and finished #2 (they had 3 coaches who broke the rules and voted USC #1 in the Final Poll even though all the #1 votes were supposed to go to LSU-Oklahoma winner).


Final Coaches Poll
Team Final Record Points

1. USC (37) 11-1
2. LSU (18) 12-1
3. Oklahoma (8) 12-1
4. Michigan 10-2
5. Texas 10-2
6. Ohio State 10-2
7. Tennessee 10-2
8. Florida State 10-2
9. Miami (FL) 10-2
10. Kansas State 11-3
11. Georgia 10-3
12. Iowa 9-3
13. Purdue 9-3
14. Washington State 9-3
15. Miami (OH) 12-1
16. Boise State 12-1
17. Florida 8-4
18. Mississippi 9-3
19. TCU 11-1
20. Minnesota 9-3
21. Nebraska 9-3
22. Oklahoma State 9-3
23. West Virginia 8-4
24. Maryland 9-3
25. Utah 9-2


Final Coaches Poll
Team Final Record Points

1. LSU (60) 13-1 1,572
2. USC (3) 12-1 1,514
3. Oklahoma 12-2 1,429
4. Ohio State 11-2 1,370
5. Miami (FL) 11-2 1,306
6. Georgia 11-3 1,183
7. Michigan 10-3 1,140
8. Iowa 10-3 1,119
9. Washington State 10-3 983
10. Florida State 10-3 929
11. Texas 10-3 894
12. Miami (OH) 13-1 800
13. Kansas State 11-4 746
14. Mississippi 10-3 730
15. Boise State 13-1 704
16. Tennessee 10-3 684
17. Minnesota 10-3 553
18. Nebraska 10-3 532
19. Purdue 9-4 510
20. Maryland 10-3 462
21. Utah 10-2 327
22. Clemson 9-4 219
23. Bowling Green 11-3 170
24. TCU 11-2 145
25. Florida 8-5 124

It is fair to say that LSU won the coaches poll due to a mandated vote, but they did not win a share of the national title due to it. Again, LSU won the BCS national title by winning the BCS title game it qualified for under BCS rules. I certainly believe the BCS was stupid to use the coaches poll to formally recognize their own champion. However, what difference does it really make? If the coaches poll did not agree to formally recognize the BCS title game winner, the winner would have been recognized in some other fashion such as a post bowl BCS standings which must make too much sense to the idiots that ru(i)n this sport.

[CJHawkeyes]

It was big news at the time. I believe the AFCA did announce that they'd only allow 24 choices on the ballot, giving #1 to the winner, but the got knocked down. It was big news at the time that the coaches (some of them) were not happy that they had to vote for USC. I still have the link to the story on the ESPN page, but they story has since been taken down. Those were fun times.

Also about that period, Jeff Sagarin comes out and admits that USC was robbed by the computers because some of them were not taking into account that it was harder to play on the road in their SOS. I can just imagine, this buffoon, who many people think it is the king of ratings, slapping himself on the forehead and saying, "By Jove, I've just discovered it's harder to play on the road than at home, I must tell somebody."

USC is not robbed because location is ignored. Ideally, all teams should play balanced home and away schedules. Nevertheless, if location is ignored and teams are aware of such, it would be their responsibility to schedule accordingly. I certainly don't put Sagarin on a pedestal. His system is predictive. Therefore, it does not guarantee that all wins are greater than all losses and it should not used to determine a sport's standings.

[buckeyejim]

Remember this. The BCS simply sets up the 2 schools that will compete in the designated championship game and they they are finished for the year. Basically, the BCS is done on the first Sunday in December. After the bowls are set up, it reverts back to the polls (like it has for years and years). The only exception is that the #1 slot in the coaches poll is reserved for the winning team of the designated championship game. It's not a final BCS poll. It's the final Associated press Poll and the final USA Today/Coaches Poll. The Harris Interactive Poll doesn't even conduct a poll after the bowl games are played. Think of it like this, in the final post bowl polls the...

AP voters vote for #1, #2, #3......#25 (25 open slots)
Coaches vote for #2, #3, #4......#25 (24 open slots except for the top slot)

It's still votes that detemine the final rankings. (well almost)

[buckeyejim]

What's amazing about the final regular season poll from 2003 are the 8 coaches who voted Oklahoma #1. Kansas State had drilled OU 35-7 on Saturday night and on Sunday, those 8 coaches still thought that Oklahoma was the best team in the country. Amazing.

[buckeyejim]

Here is a link to an article from back then. Very interesting read.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2003-12-10-brennan_x.htm

[ktffan]

This was in the LA times:

Coaches Backed Into a Corner
An agreement requires that they vote the winner of BCS title game No. 1, but some are asking if they can keep USC at the top.

By Chris Dufresne, Times Staff Writer

Jeff Tedford is one of 37 coaches who voted USC at No. 1 this week in the USA Today/ESPN coaches' poll.

No surprise there.

The California coach is somewhat of an expert on the Trojans.

His team handed USC its only defeat, a 34-31, triple-overtime thriller in Berkeley on Sept. 27.

"I don't get to watch the other teams much," Tedford said by phone Tuesday, "but without a doubt, they should be playing in the national-title game.''

The surprise is Tedford's vote may not mean much.

Absurd as it sounds, the voting coaches are bound through their governing body, the American Football Coaches Assn., to award their championship trophy to the winner of the Jan. 4 Sugar Bowl in New Orleans.

Ah, one slight problem … USC isn't in the game, it's in the Rose Bowl.

USC finished No. 1 in the writers' and coaches' polls, but third in the bowl championships series standings, which are used to determine the BCS title-game participants.

When the BCS was formed in 1998 to match No. 1 and No. 2 in a title game, no one ever imagined No. 1 would be No. 3.

At the time, the AFCA agreed to award its championship to the BCS title-game winner.

The Associated Press poll is used in the BCS formula but not obligated to crown the BCS champion.

Grant Teaff, the AFCA's executive director, said in a statement this week that the coaches agreed to this deal "by an overwhelming majority."

Today, though, the credibility of the coaches' poll, and the media organizations that sponsor it, is in question.

Instead of playing in the Sugar Bowl, No. 1 USC will play No. 4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Even if USC trounces Michigan, by mandate the 37 coaches who had USC at No. 1 are supposed to cast their votes to the Oklahoma-Louisiana State winner. But what if they don't?

Jim Welch, the USA Today deputy manager of sports in charge of overseeing the coaches' poll, said Tuesday his newspaper intends to publish an honest accounting of the coaches' opinions.

"It's a real dilemma for them," Welch said of the coaches. "Obviously, they are members in that organization and they have an agreement. Essentially, I suppose, it's a decision they'll have to make."

In other words, Welch says USC could stay No. 1 in the coaches' poll if that's what the coaches want.

If you think this predicament has made many coaches confused and uncomfortable, you would be right.

"If they win, I would still say I'd like to vote for them as the national champions," Tedford said. "But you can't do that."

Well, no, Welch says you can.

Tedford said when the coaches call in their final ballots to USA Today, they are supposed to vote No. 2 through No. 25, with the top spot being reserved for the BCS title-game winner.

Welch said that's what the AFCA, not USA Today, tells the coaches to do.

One voting coach has privately suggested he would simply ignore the edict and vote USC at the top spot.

Welch said his newspaper is "not at all comfortable" with its role in this potential controversy.

He said if USC wins the Rose Bowl and enough coaches want USC to stay at No. 1, USA Today's final poll will reflect that opinion even if the AFCA awards its trophy to the Sugar Bowl winner.

"We value our relationship with the AFCA," Welch said. "But at this particular moment our interests diverge."

This means it is possible USC could claim top spot in the Associated Press and coaches' polls while the Sugar Bowl winner would end up with a fairly meaningless hunk of crystal.

Welch said USA Today will be monitoring final ballots closely.

If USC wins convincingly and loses all or most of its 37 first-place votes, USA Today may choose not to run a final tabulation.

"It would be absurd to label something like that a poll," Welch said.

Welch understands why coaches are torn and confused.

Tedford, for one, said he would grudgingly honor the AFCA's contract with the BCS.

"It's what you have to do," Tedford said. "I'm not going to protest or anything like that. It's part of the agreement. Until a different system comes along, you kind of abide by what's happening. It is what it is."

Oregon Coach Mike Bellotti has said he would not know what to do if faced with the situation of having to negate his No. 1 vote for USC.

The debate will be moot if Michigan defeats USC. In that scenario, the Sugar Bowl would then become a true battle for the top spot.

If USC wins, however, the vested interests of the coaches and their governing body could be at odds.

"It makes it look insignificant in a way," Tedford said of the coaches' poll. "It's a perfect example of, no matter what the coaches feel, that's not what it's going to come down to. In the end, it's insignificant."

In his statement this week, however, Teaff of the AFCA said the Sugar Bowl winner would be a credible recipient of the Sears Trophy.

"The crystal football has become the symbol of the national championship," Teaff said. "Coaches, players and fans look forward to receiving the trophy immediately after that game."

Teaff is resigned to the fact there may not be unanimous consent after the Sugar Bowl.

"The Associated Press voters in the past have made their decision following the outcome of all the bowl games," Teaff said. "Therefore, a split national championship is always a possibility. Split championships have happened before."

The last split title occurred in 1997, when Michigan won the AP championship and Nebraska claimed the coaches' share.

If USC wins the Rose Bowl but loses its No. 1 spot in the coaches' poll, a split national title may be the least of the AFCA worries.

"At the end of the current BCS contract [after the 2005 season], the AFCA and Division I-A coaches will reevaluate the role of the coaches' poll within the BCS system," Teaff said.

[CJHawkeyes]

What difference does any of these articles make? The original argument is that LSU's national title is somewhat diminished due to a mandated vote which if not agreed to would likely have led to USC winning both polls. Even so, LSU would still be BCS national champions and fans could decide which of three titles to value most. So what if the coaches and BCS unnecessarily agreed to formally recognize the BCS champion in the coaches poll? Both polls release final rankings following the NCAA BB tournament too, but the NCAA doesn't need either poll to validate the winner of said tournament any more than the BCS needs the coaches poll to validate the winner of the BCS title game. Why they have it do so rather than using the same rules used to determine the title game participants can easily be chalked up to stupidity.

On a side note, the BCS did not match 1 vs 3 in 2003 as the article suggests. It matched 1 vs 2 based on its own rules no matter how badly designed those rules are. The fact that the two polls disagreed with the final two is irrelevant since their role in the BCS was to serve among several deciding factors rather than THE deciding factors in the BCS. The BCS isn't accountable to the polls. It can play by its own rules.

[CJHawkeyes]

What's amazing about the final regular season poll from 2003 are the 8 coaches who voted Oklahoma #1. Kansas State had drilled OU 35-7 on Saturday night and on Sunday, those 8 coaches still thought that Oklahoma was the best team in the country. Amazing.


Why? Oklahoma owned an equal or better record than both LSU and USC and played an objectively stronger schedule. In fact, against I-A competition, the Sooners owned a better record, opps' record, opps' opps' record, and average MOV than USC. Therefore, it can hardly be described as "amazing" that some voters would favor Oklahoma's resume over USC's. Such voters would not need to subscribe to the irrelevant "best team" argument to justify their vote.

[ktffan]

What difference does any of these articles make?

???

They were interesting. It does seem you need to be reminded of what actually happened at the time, though.

LSU would not have won the coaches poll had the vote not been mandated. You say they have the BCS championship, but the BCS does not have it's own championship. Plus, the NCAA does not list a BCS championship in their record book:

2003
LSU: Billingsley, Colley Matrix, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT,
Massey, NFF, Sagarin, Sagarin (ELO-Chess), Seattle
Times, USA/ESPN, Wolfe
Oklahoma: Berryman
Southern California: AP, Eck, FW, Matthews, NY
Times, Sporting News

The BCS's ability to name a championship and the trophy they give out both belong to the AFCA poll, administered by USA Today. Had the vote not gone their way, I'm not sure we consider them champions. The only championship they had besides with any juice was NFF.

[buckeyejim]

Why? Oklahoma owned an equal or better record than both LSU and USC and played an objectively stronger schedule. In fact, against I-A competition, the Sooners owned a better record, opps' record, opps' opps' record, and average MOV than USC. Therefore, it can hardly be described as "amazing" that some voters would favor Oklahoma's resume over USC's. Such voters would not need to subscribe to the irrelevant "best team" argument to justify their vote.

However, in Oklahoma's most recent game prior to that vote, the Sooners had been completely dominated by Kansas State 35-7. If OU had lost that Big 12 Championship game by a score of, let's say 28-27, then I could completely understand coaches and/or writers still voting Oklahoma #1, but the got beat 35 to 7! I mean, come on!

[CJHawkeyes]

???

They were interesting. It does seem you need to be reminded of what actually happened at the time, though.

LSU would not have won the coaches poll had the vote not been mandated. You say they have the BCS championship, but the BCS does not have it's own championship. Plus, the NCAA does not list a BCS championship in their record book:



The BCS's ability to name a championship and the trophy they give out both belong to the AFCA poll, administered by USA Today. Had the vote not gone their way, I'm not sure we consider them champions. The only championship they had besides with any juice was NFF.

I don't need to be reminded of what happened. Do you seriously believe the BCS would have been created without some formal recognition of its champion? What difference does it make that the coaches poll agreed to serve this purpose rather than the BCS releasing (as it should have) post-bowl standings based on the same formula used to determine the title game participants? This is a phony controversy.

[CJHawkeyes]

However, in Oklahoma's most recent game prior to that vote, the Sooners had been completely dominated by Kansas State 35-7. If OU had lost that Big 12 Championship game by a score of, let's say 28-27, then I could completely understand coaches and/or writers still voting Oklahoma #1, but the got beat 35 to 7! I mean, come on!

Does Kansas State receive a larger trophy based on margin of victory? The importance you place on MOV is not shared by everyone else. Even then, a 28 point loss to a top ten opponent does not necessarily negate the fact that the Sooners own the Trojans in the most important win-loss and scoring statistics. If there are rules that would have placed Oklahoma third, so be it. But from an objective POV, it is entirely reasonable to favor Oklahoma as the #1 team even after the egg the Sooners laid against Kansas State.

[ktffan]

I don't need to be reminded of what happened. Do you seriously believe the BCS would have been created without some formal recognition of its champion?

It wasn't. To legimize themselved, they signed one of the two established polls that people saw as THE titles. They signed the coaches poll and that was the 'formal' step it took. That agreement held and gave them the formal recognition it had. Given that the BCS had no other formal recognition, steps were taken (see above and others) to make sure that LSU won the coaches' poll.

BTW, I think you do need to be reminded. You seem very confused on this.

[CJHawkeyes]

It wasn't. To legimize themselved, they signed one of the two established polls that people saw as THE titles. They signed the coaches poll and that was the 'formal' step it took. That agreement held and gave them the formal recognition it had. Given that the BCS had no other formal recognition, steps were taken (see above and others) to make sure that LSU won the coaches' poll.

BTW, I think you do need to be reminded. You seem very confused on this.

Why would I need to be reminded of what happened when I need to know as much in order to argue that what happened was completely unnecessary? The mandated vote is a stupid rule. Polls themselves are the worst idea to happen to organized sport. If the BCS felt the need to use one of the polls to legitimize their own champion, it only demonstrates just how stupid the people in charge of this sport are. Conferences do not need the polls to validate their champions. Therefore, why would all I-A teams as a group need the polls to legitimize their own champion? The BCS should have adopted rules completely independent of the two polls, matched the top two teams, and awarded first place to the winner in the post-bowl standings based on the same rules, awarded their own trophy, and let the polls do as they wish. If fans are going to give more credence to freely voted polls anyway, then the BCS serves no purpose. Even if one poll served as the BCS formula, there would be a need to mandate the winner of 1-2 in the final regular season poll as #1 in the post-bowl poll. Otherwise, voters that favored a third team at the end of the regular season, would likely still vote that team #1 assuming it won its bowl. As such, using polls prevents a definitive title game because the inventors of this phony controversy would whine if first place were mandated to the winner in the final poll thereby preventing voters that originally favored a third team or might change their vote to a third team for any reason from freely voting their conscience.

Ultimately, this phony controversy seems to suggest the I-A teams cannot agree to play by their own rules without getting a stamp of approval from one of two worthless major polls. How sad is that?

[buckeyejim]

Does Kansas State receive a larger trophy based on margin of victory? The importance you place on MOV is not shared by everyone else. Even then, a 28 point loss to a top ten opponent does not necessarily negate the fact that the Sooners own the Trojans in the most important win-loss and scoring statistics. If there are rules that would have placed Oklahoma third, so be it. But from an objective POV, it is entirely reasonable to favor Oklahoma as the #1 team even after the egg the Sooners laid against Kansas State.

All I'm saying is that 8 coaches saw (well at least we assume they saw) Kansas State blow out Oklahoma on Saturday night and on Sunday they still thought that the Sooners were the BEST team in the country. Maybe, I'm crazy, but I can not imagine the BEST team losing by 28 points. It's possible that the 8 coaches had been beat by Oklahoma earlier in 2003 or were friends of Bob Stoops. I don't know. Really, it's not that important. It was just something that surprised me.

[CJHawkeyes]

All I'm saying is that 8 coaches saw (well at least we assume they saw) Kansas State blow out Oklahoma on Saturday night and on Sunday they still thought that the Sooners were the BEST team in the country. Maybe, I'm crazy, but I can not imagine the BEST team losing by 28 points. It's possible that the 8 coaches had been beat by Oklahoma earlier in 2003 or were friends of Bob Stoops. I don't know. Really, it's not that important. It was just something that surprised me.

If they voted Oklahoma #1 because they believed the Sooners to be the best team, I can see why that might surprise you. However, it is possible they voted the Sooners #1 for a different and possibly relevant reason.

[Blue Hen]

Polls are not for 'thinking' college football fans. TCU opened the 05 season 'AT' Oklahoma and whipped the Sooners...next coaches poll : 0-1 Oklahoma is still ranked higher than 1-0 TCU. What a joke.

[GatorGrad]

I agree w/ Hen here. Why are you guys spending so much time worrying about this silliness? If you need legit standings to determine a champ, then just follow CONFERENCE races.

[CJHawkeyes]

I agree w/ Hen here. Why are you guys spending so much time worrying about this silliness? If you need legit standings to determine a champ, then just follow CONFERENCE races.

I agree with Hen too. I hate polls. I also hate the BCS formula and I think the BCS was stupid for not adopting rules completely independent of the two major polls. I just think the idea that LSU "only" won the national title due to a mandated vote is a phony controversy. The agreement between the coaches poll and BCS was completely unnecessary and the "intelligence" behind it is staggeringly low. But I have come to expect that from a sport that continues to embrace unaccountable, internally inconsistent polls that reward irrelevance while inventing their own mandated rules to fit the moment. There is no reason college football cannot have legit national standings too except for the fact that polls have taught fans to think differently about how teams should be placed then they do when discussing other sports. Therefore, they reject ideas that do not conform to the answers they have for an unrelated question.

[GatorGrad]

CJ - Has there ever been any discussion about using some sort of objective standings system, like the one you suggest, for the BCS instead of using polls? I agree that subjective polls should not determine who plays for the national championship. And now that I think of it, I am honestly surprised that polls are still used for anything more than entertainment. I agree that it would be great to have an actual mathmatical formula, based mostly on winning % with strength of schedule somehow included, to rank the DI-A teams in college football.

[CJHawkeyes]

CJ - Has there ever been any discussion about using some sort of objective standings system, like the one you suggest, for the BCS instead of using polls? I agree that subjective polls should not determine who plays for the national championship. And now that I think of it, I am honestly surprised that polls are still used for anything more than entertainment. I agree that it would be great to have an actual mathmatical formula, based mostly on winning % with strength of schedule somehow included, to rank the DI-A teams in college football.

I don't know and I'm surprised there isn't someone with some influence that thinks like I do on this subject. Of course, I'm convinced that the lack of objectivity allows BCS schools to retain control of this sport. Therefore, there may be no interest in objective rules from BCS schools for that reason. Of course, nonBCS schools should be demanding transparent objective rules. From my perspective, the college football season is a "game" and objective rules would serve to determine undisputed winners of said game. However, too many others seem locked into the idea that it is all about determining the best team and any rules that produce a winner other than the best team are dismissed as wrong. Many of the same people also dismiss rules that disregard the same things and act in the same manner as rules everywhere else in sports. It amazes me how many time since the BCS was created that I have read someone criticize computers for failing to measure "heart". WTF? How does someone come to believe something like "heart" should have any bearing on how teams are placed? Another example is when people complain about computers awarding equal credit for a win against an opponent with or without its starting QB. That happens everywhere in sports and everyone has to play the hand they are dealt, good or bad, but only in college football do things ignored by every other sport become of great importance. There are countless examples like these and I find it amazing how polls have influenced they way college football fans think.

[GatorGrad]

I agree with everything you just said.

So...how do we take down the polls?

This sounds like a Jedi Mission!

[EvilVodka]

FSU and Nebraska had dynasties throughout the 90's that spanned several years...Miami had a dynasty in the 80's....Who's going to step forward and claim the next dynasty? Here are some current contenders:

USC '02-
2 National Championships
2 Championship game appearances
5 PAC 10 Championships
4 BCS bowl wins
34 game winning streak from '03-'05
3 Heisman Trophy winners

They've got the best chance IMO to become a dynasty, and you've gotta expect Pete Carroll to eventually grab another National Championship

Oklahoma '00-
1 National Championship
3 Championship game appearances
4 Big XII Championships
2 BCS bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner

Bob Stoops has done a great job at OU, and another National Championship would give Oklahoma an argument

Ohio State '02-
1 National Championship
2 Championship game appearances
3 Big 10 Championships
3 BCS bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner

Jim Tressel is slowly building his resume for a dynasty

LSU '01-
1 National Championship
2 SEC Championships
3 BCS bowl wins

LSU needs to dominate the SEC more if they want to be included in dynasty talk

Texas '04-
1 National Championship
1 Big XII Championship
2 BCS bowl wins

Like LSU, they need more Big XII Championships under their belt, as well as more opportunites to play for the National Championship

(For sh!ts and giggles, here are Miami's '83-'94, FSU's '87-'00, and Nebraska's '93-'01 stats:

Miami '83-'94
4 National Championships
5 Championship game Appearances (not sure about '89 and '91)
10 10-win+ seasons
5 Major Bowl wins
2 Heisman Trophy winners

Florida State '87-'00
2 National Championships
5 Championship Game Appearances
14 straight Top 4 Finishes
9 ACC Championships
10 Major Bowl wins
2 Heisman Trophy winners

Nebraska '93-'01
3 National Championships
4 Championship Game Appearances (not sure about '97)
5 Big 8/Big XII Championships
26 game win streak '04-'06
8 10-win+ seasons
5 Major Bowl wins
1 Heisman Trophy winner
)

Thought I would revive this thread...there's been some talk on other threads about USC this decade, and who would be #2 behind them...so here's some stats

[EvilVodka]

LSU can certainly add to their case with another National championship this year
:cool:

[Bucs90]

HYH, don't forget Auburn wasn't that good in 02/03 when USC beat them.

I think Ohio State has the best chance to be our modern dynasty. They are more stable than OSU. If OSU can win it this year, they'll have two BCS titles in 5 years, went to a BCS game many times, and IMO, they can have the stability to keep reloading, whereas IMO USC is beginning their downward turn.

[buckeyejim]

HYH, don't forget Auburn wasn't that good in 02/03 when USC beat them.

I think Ohio State has the best chance to be our modern dynasty. They are more stable than USC. If OSU can win it this year, they'll have two BCS titles in 5 years, went to a BCS game many times, and IMO, they can have the stability to keep reloading, whereas IMO USC is beginning their downward turn.

I love to believe that but even as an Ohio State fan I'd still give Southern Cal the advantage as far as a current dynasty.

[Bucs90]

Mmmm.....not if OSU wins it this year. By the rules assigned to the sport, OSU will have 2 BCS NC's and will have appeared 3 times. USC has only 1 BCS NC and has appeared 2 times. Also, it appears USC is falling into a slide, much like FSU, Nebraska and Miami did. I don't see OSU falling into that. They are a very stable program right now. Nebraska and Miami fell, IMO, due to coaching changes. FSU fell because they are in the state of Florida, and the recruiting battle with UF and Miami killed them. Look at that state- one of the Big 3 is always down, and one is alway up. It rotates.

OSU, however, has no major recruiting foe aside from Michigan and PSU. A kid in that region of the country, if he's is a top caliber player, is likely only going to one of those 3 schools. Which is good for OSU and it's stability.

[Bucs90]

AJ, you posted this a while back:

"Auburn is in Alabama which isn't considered to be a hotbed for recruiting
Auburn has to compete against Alabama for all local talent that want to stay at home.
Auburn is NOT one of those programs where they are able to attract the national talent like programs such as USC
Auburn at will best will be a consistently competetive team but will never be in a situation where it will be a consistent top 10 over time. There is just not enough talent in the state or attraction from athletes out of the state."

I must disagree. Alabama is in the top 15 states in per capita NFL player production. 12th I believe. 8 Southern states are in the top 15 states of per capita NFL player production, with only Tennessee, which was 20th. North Carolina was 15th.

And, Auburn does have recruiting pull throughout the South. They've raided South Carolina for years. Stole 1993 National High School Player of the Year from Spartanburg, SC, Steven Davis away from Clemson. Maybe not a national name, but Auburn is a huge name in the South. They can recruit anywhere in the South, which is important. I think Alabama, Auburn and LSU are in the same situation as FSU, UF and Miami. They are in a 3 way recruiting war zone. Georgia, Tennessee and Clemson were for a while in the 90's. However, during the 90's, it was Florida State who was absolutely destroying everyone in recruiting the South. They could raid any state anywhere to steal studs: Warrick Dunn out of Louisiana, Peter and Micheal Bouleware out of South Carolina, Chris Weinke from Minnesota (I think), monster center Kevin Long from S.C., and we can't even speak about how they recraped the state of Georgia!!!!

[EvilVodka]

I updated all of the dynasty stats for USC, LSU, Ohio State, and OU

[AJBuckeye]

It is pretty interesting what the LSU win and the OSU loss in the championship game does as far as looking who are the dynasties. If OSU wins they arguably number 1 as far as dynasties. With LSU wins they can now make that claim.

My 2 cents regarding the 2000's dynasties
USC
LSU Close 2nd
OSU and Oklahama can make statements in the next upcoming seasons.

[Bucs90]

Not bad, although I still think USC is getting too much hype. I could argue OSU has done better than USC. OSU has less chokes in the regular season. They just hit a couple roadbumps with UF and LSU. But USC chokes in the regular season against bad teams. At least OSU's losses are to freakin' stout teams like UF, LSU, Texas, and to a pretty good Illinois team.

[AJBuckeye]

I appreciate the kudos to tOSU but looking at what USC done I just think their track record is more impressive. OSU has a golden opportunity next year playing USC next year. Although it is in LA the Buckeyes have virtually the entire team coming back where USC will be finding there QB.

Another team not mentioned is UF. If they make a run next year then you got another team well in the mix.

[ZOOMBAG]

Kansas returns 16 starters and Missouri returns 17 and both return their all-everyting QB's.... Both will be "in the mix".

[TommyTrojan]

Not bad, although I still think USC is getting too much hype. I could argue OSU has done better than USC. OSU has less chokes in the regular season. They just hit a couple roadbumps with UF and LSU. But USC chokes in the regular season against bad teams. At least OSU's losses are to freakin' stout teams like UF, LSU, Texas, and to a pretty good Illinois team.

70-8 the last 6 years, but they're getting too much hype. OK?

[AJBuckeye]

Tommy nobody is doubting that USC has had a great track record and the numbers you throw out there are impressive, but every year after the season is over all of the commentators throw out their 2 cents about how USC is the best team in the country. It has happened every year since 2002 when they weren't in the championship game. I'm sorry but when you lose a game to a 40 point dog and have 2 losses there is no reason to be mentioning USC as the best team in the country.

[ZOOMBAG]

Still got a way to go...

Nebraska 1993-2002 102-12 over 10 seasons. And that includes a 9-4 year. Not sure anyone, even those old Army teams from WWII era could top that....

Maybe a ten year stretch in the 14 year run by Florida St might...153-19 over 14 years....that's simply unbelievable...

But USC has some work to do yet to equal those...

[TommyTrojan]

Tommy nobody is doubting that USC has had a great track record and the numbers you throw out there are impressive, but every year after the season is over all of the commentators throw out their 2 cents about how USC is the best team in the country. It has happened every year since 2002 when they weren't in the championship game. I'm sorry but when you lose a game to a 40 point dog and have 2 losses there is no reason to be mentioning USC as the best team in the country.

You'll get no argument from me in regards to the Stanford game. A terrible loss, one of the worst defeats by any team I can ever remember. But, every year since 2002, USC HAS been one of the strongest teams at the end of the year. Carroll's teams always peak at that point, which is why they've romped everyone, save Texas, in their bowl games.

Iowa by 17
Michigan by 14
Oklahoma 36
Michigan by 14
Illinois by 32

I won't say they "shoulda been national champs" because of how they were playing, BUT if this sport wasn't so behind the times and had a playoff, USC would have been the favorite to win it a more than a few times. A loss in early October has very little indication to how the team is playing at the end of the season.

[Bucs90]

Again, no one arguing USC hasn't been a great team, and a consistent top 10 team. But it does seem like an annual event now. The media proclaims USC the best team. Why? They have hyped recruiting classes, and they end their years typically with a win over an overmatched opponent in the Rose. The 2004 season was legit. But other than that, they haven't done anything better than LSU, Florida or OSU. Yet they are hyped as the team that shoulda been NC every year. You may not do that, but a lot of media does. I'm just saying they are way overhyped, but a legit top 10 program over the last 8 years.

[Blue Hen]

Although I haven't seen any betting 'odds' for an 07 hypothetical national championship ( like sometimes you do see ) I feel that USC would have been the slight favorite to win it all, followed by LSU.

[Don]

Still got a way to go...

Nebraska 1993-2002 102-12 over 10 seasons. And that includes a 9-4 year. Not sure anyone, even those old Army teams from WWII era could top that....

Maybe a ten year stretch in the 14 year run by Florida St might...153-19 over 14 years....that's simply unbelievable...

But USC has some work to do yet to equal those...


From 1993 to 2002 Nebraska was not 102-12 but 109-19-0 overall and 103-15-0 in the regular season and Nebraska didn't play as tough of a schedule as FSU!

Here are the top 5 over that span.

Overall
1. Nebraska (109-19-0)--0.85156 (38.3-16.3) (816-570-8)--0.588
2. Florida St. (105-19-1)--0.84400 (37.1-16.3) (867-499-2)--0.635
3. Florida (102-24-1)--0.80709 (37.6-18.3) (849-514-8)--0.622
4. Tennessee (99-25-0)--0.79839 (32.4-17.7) (778-561-4)--0.581
5. Kansas St. (98-25-1)--0.79435 (35.4-15.4) (752-588-6)--0.561


Regular season
1. Nebraska (103-15-0)--0.87288 (38.7-15.8) (717-554-8)--0.564
2. Florida St. (99-15-1)--0.86522 (38.4-15.7) (761-489-1)--0.609
3. Florida (97-19-1)--0.83333 (38.0-17.6) (752-501-7)--0.600
4. Tennessee (94-20-0)--0.82456 (33.0-16.9) (679-542-4)--0.556
5. Kansas St. (92-21-1)--0.81140 (36.0-14.8) (668-555-5)--0.546

Furthermore, if you look at 1990-1999 (also a 10 years span) you will see that BOTH Nebraska and FSU had better records than the span you took. and that FSU has the better of the two records!.

1. Florida St. (109-13-1)--0.89024 (37.8-15.2) (827-483-9)--0.630
2. Nebraska (108-16-1)--0.86800 (38.9-15.3) (770-539-20)--0.587
3. Florida (102-22-1)--0.82000 (36.2-18.0) (820-494-15)--0.623
4. Tennessee (99-22-2)--0.81301 (33.4-17.4) (766-538-6)--0.587
5. Penn St. (97-26-0)--0.78862 (32.6-17.9) (737-563-20)--0.566

[ZOOMBAG]

Yea, in either case, USC has some work to do yet to get into that neighborhood.

[Don]

Just out of curosity, why hasn't Florida been discussed as a "dynasty"?

From 1993 to 2007 UF has a better record than FSU, Nebraska, LSU, Miami and every other team except OSU.
UF won 7 SEC championships
2 NC
had 2 Heisman winners

Played more ranked opponents than any other team (86 total or 13 more than the next nearest team, 14 more than FSU, 24 more than Miami, 23 more than OSU, and 27 more than both Nebraska and USC ). 45% of UF opponents ended the season ranked over that span.

Played more top 10 teams (45 total or 10 more than the next nearest team, 14 more than FSU, 16 more than Miami, 19 more than USC and 20 more than OSU).

Lost to fewer unranked teams than anyone. UF was 148-42-1 over that span and 100-5-0 vs unranked teams (the best in college football). (Spurrier lost 1, Meyer lost 1 and Zook lost 3).

[jeff4bucks]

they were a dynasty in the mid 90s in the SEC don.

[Blue Hen]

The only team to dominate its conference in the 90s more than Florida did was FSU.....and by a narrow margin. Florida's .885 winning percentage in 90s
SEC games was flat out dominant. However, outside of the SEC , the Gators got roughed up winning only 8 of 20 non conference games vs other 'majors' .....therefore, I'd say
SEC dynasty in 90s.....yes
National dynasty in 90s....probably not

[AJBuckeye]

In the BCS era Florida is a top 5 with Oklahoma, OSU,LSU, and USC. After that you have Miami and FSU.

[Don]

The only team to dominate its conference in the 90s more than Florida did was FSU.....and by a narrow margin. Florida's .885 winning percentage in 90s
SEC games was flat out dominant. However, outside of the SEC , the Gators got roughed up winning only 8 of 20 non conference games vs other 'majors' .....therefore, I'd say
SEC dynasty in 90s.....yes
National dynasty in 90s....probably not

I see what you are saying except...

Nebraska was 8-8 in OOC games vs ranked opponents from 1990-1999.
OSU was 7-7 in OOC games vs ranked opponents from 1990-1999.
Miami was 10-11 in OOC games vs ranked opponents from 1990-1999.
UF was 9-11-1 in OOC games vs ranked opponents from 1990-1999.

How about the fact that UF gave 6 BCS teams their ONLY loss of the season over that span which is more than any other team and did so by an average margin of more than 3 tds! FSU and Nebraska are next best with 4 times. Of the 6 teams that UF beat 3 were OCC compared to 1 OOC for Nebraska over that span (Nebraska beat UF while UF beat FSU 2x and WVU 1x).

[Bucs90]

Hen, note who Florida's losses were to. FSU in the 90's accounted for several. Thats a huge factor.

[AJBuckeye]

I think Georgia has a very good shot next season to get one of those thingies you are talking about. You could certainly argue that they have been the most consistent team in the SEC. One other team I failed to mention was Texas.

[Don]

Georgia's winning percentage during the BCS era is higher than Florida's and LSU's (and all other SEC schools), and Georgia's OOC winning percentage in the BCS era is the highest in all of Div I-A. LSU's got one more SEC championship (3) than UGA and UF. All we lack is one or two of those BCS championship thingies.

Georgia has also had an easier "row to hoe" so to speak.

Yes, UGa has the best OOC record in the SEC from 1998-2007.
Georgia 39-5-0
LSU 36-6-0
Tennessee
Arkansas 33-9-0
Auburn 32-10-0
Mississippi 29-10-0
Florida 31-13-0
Kentucky 26-12-0
South Carolina 25-13-0
Alabama 28-15-0
Mississippi St. 24-14-0
Vanderbilt 20-14-0

And yes, UGa even has the best OOC record in the SEC from 1998-2007 against ranked teams.
Georgia 9-5-0
LSU 7-4-0
Tennessee 7-7-0
Alabama 3-4-0
Florida 7-13-0
Auburn 3-6-0
Arkansas 3-7-0
Mississippi 0-2-0
Vanderbilt 0-3-0
Kentucky 0-5-0
Mississippi St. 0-4-0
South Carolina 0-5-0

But, here is a look at the number of top 10 teams played OOC over that span and the %age of the schedule these games comprised.

Florida 12-(27.3%)
Arkansas 6-(14.3%)
Tennessee 6-(14.0%)
LSU 5-(11.9%)
Auburn 4-(9.5%)
Alabama 3-(7.0%)
Mississippi St. 2-(5.3%)
Kentucky 2-(5.3%)
Georgia 2-(4.5%)
Vanderbilt 1-(2.9%)
Mississippi 1-(2.6%)
South Carolina 0-(0.0%)

Thus UF played 10 more teams OOC that ended up in the top 10 than did UGa. That's 1 top 10 team EACH year that UGa DIDN'T have to play that UF did.

[Blue Hen]

I quit reading posts when folks start using 'ranked' to make a point. meaningless mythical term.

Still, your data would suggest that FSU was`probably the only legitimate national 1990s 'dynasty'.

What was Nebraska's and Miami's total record vs 1990 OOC 'majors' ?

[Blue Hen]

In OOC competition vs BCS peer conferences, Wisconsin still edges out Georgia, .789 to .783 ( USC ,also, is .783 vs same )

Wisconsin .789
Southern Cal .783
Georgia .783
Louisiana St. .769



Florida .409

[Blue Hen]

Your post suggests to me that maybe FSU was the only true national dynasty in the 90s.....but don, you are an astute poster so please try not to use 'rankings, ranked this & that etc.' in making your points. Abstract, biased name brand recognition, subjectively opinionated 'rankings' have absolutely zero factual value in making points like this.

NCT's point that FSU was better than GT, does explain the UGA & UF records, somewhat.

[Blue Hen]

Certainly. FSU was your 90's dynasty...if there ever was one.



If Webster offered a definition of CF dynasty it would be Mt Union

[jeff4bucks]

Hen, Don will give the "UF played more ranked opponents...." argument till the cows come home...
I don't you'll ever see a Mount Union type of dynasty in D1A. Your comparing apples and oranges.

[Blue Hen]

I appreciate Don 's arguement for UF but I just have to drop out of debates and discussions when that 'ranked' stuff is referenced. I've always been more interested in results than opinions.

[copycat]

Personally, the game that scared me the most in '99 was Georgia Tech and Joey Hamilton...they just wouldn't go away....Clemson was hard that year too, because of all the Bowden bowl hoopla

man I remember that one... it came down to an onside kick at the end, and Bowden's face was priceless after that last touchdown (a one-armed catch by Kelly Campbell to make it 41-35). Oddly enough, FSU never trailed in the game.

[ktffan]

Just out of curosity, why hasn't Florida been discussed as a "dynasty"?


The NCAA has them listed as a dynasty for their period in the 90s.

[Don]

I quit reading posts when folks start using 'ranked' to make a point. meaningless mythical term.

Still, your data would suggest that FSU was`probably the only legitimate national 1990s 'dynasty'.

What was Nebraska's and Miami's total record vs 1990 OOC 'majors' ?


but what IS meaningless is to throw out W-L records WITHOUT some sort of context. Beating a 12-1 Marshall team is NOT the same as beating a 12-1 Nebraska or 12-1 FSU or 12-1 USCV or 12-1 Miami or 12-1 OSU, etc. What the polls DO provide at least is a statement that a group of about 60 coaches or sports writers think these teams are good compared to ONE PERSON'S opinion of the teams worth.

And, I WAS not trying to say that FSU was the ONLY dynasty of the 90's.

[Don]

[QUOTE=Blue Hen;18231
What was Nebraska's and Miami's total record vs 1990 OOC 'majors' ?[/QUOTE]

1990-99 OOC vs "majors"
Florida St. (22-7-1)--0.75000
Nebraska (24-8-0)--0.75000
Miami (FL) (22-13-0)--0.62857
and for my benefit
Florida (10-11-1)--0.47727.

1990-99 OOC vs "Ranked majors"
Florida St. (17-7-1)--0.70000
Nebraska (7-8-0)--0.46667
Miami (FL) (9-11-0)--0.45000
and for my benefit
Florida (8-11-1)--0.42500

Thus by subtraction...

1990 OOC vs "Unranked majors"
Nebraska (17-0-0)--1.00000
Florida St. (5-0-0)--1.00000
Miami (FL) (13-2-0)--0.86667
and for my benefit
Florida (2-0-0)--1.00000

Do you still think all you need to look at it "major" when comparing schedlues?

[Blue Hen]

I see your point, Don
However, many of these games vs 'ranked' teams are early season games vs 'pre-season' ranked teams ...or teams that maintain high rankings based on 'free' pre-season rankings. And, you know that name brand recognition is pretty much what drives pre-season 'free' rankings. W-L data vs final 'ranked' teams would certainly tell more than W-L records vs 'ranked at time' teams...and still there is another problem. The games vs these 'ranked' teams often determine the new ranking position of those opponents. It's mush ! It's fuzzy numbers`! I think straight W-L records in very large samples , and over time, might have some value in determining patterns and trends. For example, the SEC's very average 50.8% success rate vs BCS conf peers includes a balanced mixed of strong , average and weakish opponents in those 181 games, played by a nice balance of strong, average and weakish SEC teams...although the H&A factor is way out of balance in favor of the SEC. W-L records, only , in small numerical samples probably aren't worth much in identifying trends and patterns.
Anyway, Don, I'm a stubborn old fart and will probably never be convinced that perceptions and opinions of strength and 'name' imagery......'rankings' ,would ever be worth a flip in determining anything.
Thanks for your good posts , though.

[CJHawkeyes]

but what IS meaningless is to throw out W-L records WITHOUT some sort of context. Beating a 12-1 Marshall team is NOT the same as beating a 12-1 Nebraska or 12-1 FSU or 12-1 USCV or 12-1 Miami or 12-1 OSU, etc. What the polls DO provide at least is a statement that a group of about 60 coaches or sports writers think these teams are good compared to ONE PERSON'S opinion of the teams worth.

And, I WAS not trying to say that FSU was the ONLY dynasty of the 90's.

That's odd, my point system treats a win versus a 12-1 Marshall the same as the others you mentioned and I have no doubt it does a better job of encouraging and rewarding stronger scheduling than pollsters do. Polls provide nothing. How "good" a team is is irrelevant. Nowhere in sports is the objective value of a win or loss tied to how good a particular opponent is. There is no reason college football must be different in this regard.

[EvilVodka]

I added Florida to the list with #2 for Urban Meyer

I think Oklahoma and Ohio State are starting to see cracks in anything called a dynasty...

USC is still running strong IMO

LSU needs to maintain itself as a dominant program in the SEC

Texas kind of got screwed this year, but I don't think that should preclude them from the dynasty talk

[ZOOMBAG]

PAC 10 actually has a higher average conference power rating over the past 10 years than the SEC does.