Started By
Message
re: No 'great' team in college this year
Posted on 10/18/10 at 12:28 pm to MattP598
Posted on 10/18/10 at 12:28 pm to MattP598
Yep.
And if he was talking to me, *I* didn't say AU 2004 was better than bammer 2009 either.
What I did say was that AU was more dominant IN 2004 than bammer was dominant IN 2009.
And if he was talking to me, *I* didn't say AU 2004 was better than bammer 2009 either.
What I did say was that AU was more dominant IN 2004 than bammer was dominant IN 2009.
This post was edited on 10/18/10 at 12:29 pm
1
Posted on 10/18/10 at 12:34 pm to beatbammer
quote:
What I did say was that AU was more dominant IN 2004 than bammer was dominant IN 2009.
Which again, is false. I haven't even mentioned the fact that Auburn played 3 teams during the regular season who had winning records. Re-read that. 3 of 11 teams finished better than.500 on the season.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 2:21 pm to superman
quote:
Which again, is false. I haven't even mentioned the fact that Auburn played 3 teams during the regular season who had winning records. Re-read that. 3 of 11 teams finished better than.500 on the season.
I see what you did there.
Its almost as if we didn't actually play (and beat) a 10-win Va Tech team that year.
And we also beat a 10-win Tennessee team TWICE (a team that was 10-1 in games NOT against Auburn).
And it ain't our fault that bammer sucked dicks so bad that year that couldn't even beat an average Minnesota team to finish with a winning record. But, since you didn't count our bowl game, why count bammers bowl game? That being the case, you guys DID have a winning record! So why don't we shift those goalposts back where you put'em originally and say 4 of 11 had winning records?
But three of those 4 finished the regular season with nine wins or more. Care to guess how many nine win teams bammer played in the regular season in 2009?
Posted on 10/18/10 at 2:45 pm to superman
quote:
Their NC run in 2004 included several wins by a touchdown or less.
I honestly think they're a bit overrated because the win over Oklahoma looked so good. In an ESPN article this past year they were listed as the best team of the decade, but I think the 2001 Canes beat them easily if they played.
quote:
Their 2005 season ended with a loss to Texas.
They had some mediocre performances during the season, too.
quote:
2009 Crimson Tide and Texas Longhorns of 2005
Those teams go head to head, I'm tempted to take Bama, although it's a tough call.
This post was edited on 10/18/10 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 10/18/10 at 2:45 pm to beatbammer
quote:
(a team that was 10-1 in games NOT against Auburn).
And the game we lost was due to a quarterback injury. That being said, we probably weren't as good as our record looked.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:04 pm to beatbammer
quote:
But, since you didn't count our bowl game, why count bammers bowl game? That being the case, you guys DID have a winning record! So why don't we shift those goalposts back where you put'em originally and say 4 of 11 had winning records?
No, then it becomes 4 of 12 (33%) if you count UT once. If you count UT twice, it's 5 of 13 (38%). If you want it that way, that's fine with me.
8 of Alabama's 12 regular season games were against teams with winning records in 2009 (67%). If you count the last two games, 10 of our 14 (71%) games came against teams who finished with winning records.
And out of that 71%, only two of those teams finished within one score of Bama.
This post was edited on 10/18/10 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:11 pm to m2pro
quote:
fair point. but still... name me one team that blows your fricking mind this year?
name me one team that blew my mind last year.. or in 2008.. 2007..or any year except for 2005 USC/2001 Miami.
This post was edited on 10/18/10 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:13 pm to Billy Mays
quote:
Just like last year.
Not sure if serious. Bama was a great team last year.
At this point last year Bama still had questions at QB IMO - and they hadn't cemented their status as the best running team in college football either
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:15 pm to molsusports
quote:
At this point last year Bama still had questions at QB IMO - and they hadn't cemented their status as the best running team in college football either
There's a huge difference between being good and being great. The difference between 2001 Miami and 2007 LSU for example.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:16 pm to bmy
quote:
2005 USC
How did they blow your mind? They were lucky to bet Notre Dame, gave up 42 points to Fresno State, and lost the national title game in their backyard. (And yes, I know the Rose Bowl isn't their actual stadium.)
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:19 pm to bmy
quote:
name me one team that blew my mind last year.. or in 2008.. 2007..or any year except for 2005 USC/2001 Miami.
Teams may not have blown your mind, but I feel like all BCS era national champions, save the 2002 Buckeyes, 2006 Gators, and 2007 Tigers, looked much better than any team does this year.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:19 pm to ohiovol
quote:
How did they blow your mind? They were lucky to bet Notre Dame, gave up 42 points to Fresno State, and lost the national title game in their backyard. (And yes, I know the Rose Bowl isn't their actual stadium.)
They were very-very good. The got beat by Vince Young in an unreal performance.
That USC team averaged almost 50 points a game. Had they not scored so often their defense would not have given up so many points.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:20 pm to bmy
quote:
That USC team averaged almost 50 points a game. Had they not scored so often their defense would not have given up so many points.
True, but they aren't remotely on the level of the 2001 Canes. The 2004 Trojans beat the 2005 edition as well, IMO. The 2005 Trojans didn't destroy everyone they played, either. For a few seconds, people even thought ND beat them.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:23 pm to ohiovol
quote:
Teams may not have blown your mind, but I feel like all BCS era national champions, save the 2002 Buckeyes, 2006 Gators, and 2007 Tigers, looked much better than any team does this year.
Not gonna include '98 Tenn with LSU and the others?
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:24 pm to ohiovol
quote:
True, but they aren't remotely on the level of the 2001 Canes. The 2004 Trojans beat the 2005 edition as well, IMO. The 2005 Trojans didn't destroy everyone they played, either. For a few seconds, people even thought ND beat them.
2001 Miami is either the best or second best team to have ever played the game in college. They're on an entirely different level than even the 'great' teams.
Point is.. 'great' teams are few and far between. And people say that CFB seems 'down' every year. I'm of the opinion that CFB is up, personally. I think that there's more good teams than usual.
This post was edited on 10/18/10 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:26 pm to bmy
quote:
Not gonna include '98 Tenn with LSU and the others?
The 98 Vols were better than those other teams.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:27 pm to bmy
2004 USC >> 2005 USC
2005 USC was able to win because they had a great offense and a lot of upperclassmen who expected to find a way to win
Their special teams and defense were mediocre - they were not close to being an all time team (no matter what nonsense ESPN wanted to market for their own profit)
2005 USC was able to win because they had a great offense and a lot of upperclassmen who expected to find a way to win
Their special teams and defense were mediocre - they were not close to being an all time team (no matter what nonsense ESPN wanted to market for their own profit)
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:28 pm to bmy
quote:
2001 Miami is either the best or second best team to have ever played the game in college. They're on an entirely different level than even the 'great' teams.
Agreed. I have them at the top, and think they beat any team other college football team by 2 scores, even the 95 Huskers.
quote:Look at Auburn. I doubt they win it all, but some people think they have a chance. They wouldn't in another season.
Point is.. 'great' teams are few and far between. And people say that CFB seems 'down' every year. I'm of the opinion that CFB is up, personally. I think that there's more good teams than usual.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:28 pm to molsusports
quote:
Their special teams and defense were mediocre - they were not close to being an all time team (no matter what nonsense ESPN wanted to market for their own profit)
Completely agree.
Posted on 10/18/10 at 3:32 pm to ohiovol
quote:
Look at Auburn. I doubt they win it all, but some people think they have a chance. They wouldn't in another season.
why not? alabama didn't exactly dominate their opponents last year, what's the difference?
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News