Started By
Message
re: all time records? "modern era" of football? what's relevant?
Posted on 8/25/14 at 9:47 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 8/25/14 at 9:47 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Post integration seems like a good starting point if you want to include old stuff, but not "ancient" history.
For the current era I would say 1992 is a good start b/c that includes the expansion and SECCG.
For the current era I would say 1992 is a good start b/c that includes the expansion and SECCG.
0
Posted on 8/25/14 at 10:49 pm to skrangeo
Just go with the current century. No need to dwell on the past. What counts the most is now.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 11:13 pm to skrangeo
Which one makes LSU look better?
Scruffy is gonna go with that one.
Scruffy is gonna go with that one.
Posted on 8/25/14 at 11:41 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Before that, who cares? Those teams couldn't hang with modern teams. It was a different thing altogether.
Very few teams from 20 years ago could hang with the teams of today. Different rules, different speeds, different philosophies.
The same thing will be true of this era 20 years hence.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 12:24 am to skrangeo
There's no correct answer, it's completely subjective. Many people, including those in the media, use 1936 as a line of demarcation between the "old day" and "modern football" since that's when the AP poll began and at that point the rules were well standardized and college football was a very big sport all across the country.
For the SEC of course 1992 is a big deal because of divisions.
Also, 1992 is significant because that was when the Bowl Coalition was formed and we began having an "official" national championship game at the end of the year.
For the SEC of course 1992 is a big deal because of divisions.
Also, 1992 is significant because that was when the Bowl Coalition was formed and we began having an "official" national championship game at the end of the year.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 12:26 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 2:26 am to skrangeo
Post 2009. 2010- our next losing season will forever be fondly remembered as the "$andstorm Era" at USC. 
Posted on 8/26/14 at 4:26 am to BoardReader
All-time.
You can't just conveniently gloss over periods in which you're not fond of. You have to take the bad as well as the good.
What's next? More revisionist history in all things? Should we only consider the USA's relevance since the Civil War, WWII?
Dumb idea.....you are what you are.
You can't just conveniently gloss over periods in which you're not fond of. You have to take the bad as well as the good.
What's next? More revisionist history in all things? Should we only consider the USA's relevance since the Civil War, WWII?
Dumb idea.....you are what you are.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 4:33 am to kudzoo
The one that ranks Yale and Princeton as the GOATs.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:17 am to IAmReality
quote:
There's no correct answer, it's completely subjective.
This is the truth.
If you go by anything other than alltime, it will be arbitrary and difficult to defend. If you go alltime, you are including records by teams which literally played high school opponents and it was a different sport altogether.
There is no clear answer. It will always be debatable.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:23 am to skrangeo
It's all age dependent. If you're 20 years old do you really give a damn about what happened in 1940?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:29 am to skrangeo
I'm only 33, so to me the "modern" era of football to me is 1990 or so forward.
To be honest, even an older person would have a hard time making a case than anything before 1980-90 falls under any definition of "modern"
To be honest, even an older person would have a hard time making a case than anything before 1980-90 falls under any definition of "modern"
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 7:33 am
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:32 am to skrangeo
is this about big brother beating you the last time yall played?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:36 am to DropKick70
quote:
It's all age dependent. If you're 20 years old do you really give a damn about what happened in 1940?
Do 20 year olds give a damn about ANYTHING important?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 7:39 am to Crimson Legend
quote:Does anyone consider what a college football team did in 1940 to be important?
Do 20 year olds give a damn about ANYTHING important?
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:06 am to Politiceaux
quote:
Does anyone consider what a college football team did in 1940 to be important?
On the grand scheme, of course not. But is 1941 important but 1940 isn't? Is 1960 important? Do you realize the average size of the linemen and the number of forward passes in 1960?
None of this is important. And there's a damn good argument that 1940 isn't relevant at all in counting titles. But that same argument applies in varying levels all the way up to the current season.
If you draw the line at 1941, would you say that football in 1941 was more similar to 1901 or 1981? I would argue 1901.
Any line is arbitrary. As long as the person isn't blatantly defining the era to his own team's advantage, I have no problem however you want to slice it.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:35 am to Politiceaux
quote:
Does anyone consider what a college football team did in 1940 to be important?
The only thing important is the next game. Even last year's games are done and over, useful only for internet bragging rights.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:37 am to skrangeo
modern era? hmm... i think it started when A&M and Mizzou joined the SEC 
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:40 am to skrangeo
its all relevant.
obviously to most folks "now" is more relevant, but it wont be "tomorrow".
as far a national titles, if a school has received a majority of votes from the pre wire service polls (ap 1936, coaches 1950) then i think they should count if a school wants to use em, like the 4 bama claim pre 1936, but any after 1935 shouldnt because we had the ap poll. why bama counts 1941 i have no idea.
i start in 1947, post ww2 because a lot of programs stopped playing "big time" cfb, plus recruiting became a bit different as far as pay, etc. also, army and nd teams from ww2 (also aTm) where full of guys trying to get out of going to war and had their rosters stocked with draft dodgers, aTm tried to curb this by putting out inferior officers with brief training programs. "military college" during the war years is always associated with entitled, connected kids who could get out of the war or put it off and they all stockpiled the talent from around the country. theres nothing patriotic about army and its bullshite draft dodging nattys from the 40s.
obviously to most folks "now" is more relevant, but it wont be "tomorrow".
as far a national titles, if a school has received a majority of votes from the pre wire service polls (ap 1936, coaches 1950) then i think they should count if a school wants to use em, like the 4 bama claim pre 1936, but any after 1935 shouldnt because we had the ap poll. why bama counts 1941 i have no idea.
i start in 1947, post ww2 because a lot of programs stopped playing "big time" cfb, plus recruiting became a bit different as far as pay, etc. also, army and nd teams from ww2 (also aTm) where full of guys trying to get out of going to war and had their rosters stocked with draft dodgers, aTm tried to curb this by putting out inferior officers with brief training programs. "military college" during the war years is always associated with entitled, connected kids who could get out of the war or put it off and they all stockpiled the talent from around the country. theres nothing patriotic about army and its bullshite draft dodging nattys from the 40s.
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:43 am to skrangeo
quote:
...how would you define the modern era of football?
Personally, I'd define it as from 1965 onward...that was the beginning of the 2-platoon (unlimited substitution) era. Prior to that, you were very limited in substituting and most players had to play both ways...
While there was a period of 'bout 10 years, from around '40 to '50, where 2-platoon was implemented, they went back to 1-platoon in the early '50's. When the NCAA enforced the 2-platoon system again in '65, college football, as far as having separate offensive, defensive, and special teams units, has pretty much remained the same...
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:59 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Very few teams from 20 years ago could hang with the teams of today. Different rules, different speeds, different philosophies.
The same thing will be true of this era 20 years hence.
I disagree with this completely. The thing you have to remember about the "integration criterion" is that there is a bit of a delayed effect.
While integration was fully implemented in the 1970s, it took about a decade for the its effects to really take root. CFB completely opened up in the 1980s. This was a product of integration, along with the fact that the elite football powers had lost sway over the perceptions of the voters.
The 1980s saw, for the first time, the emergence of truly elite athletes like Herschel and Bo. These guys would be able to step on the field today and be just as dominant as they were back then.
The 1980s also witnessed the emergence of elite athletic teams like Miami. A team like 1986-89 Miami would probably beat the best teams in CFB today.
And none of this would have been possible without integration, frankly.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News