Started By
Message
re: 11 greatest dynasties in the SEC
Posted on 3/4/11 at 5:46 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 3/4/11 at 5:46 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
And now there are 4 significant bowls plus a national championship game. All the other bowl games are pretty much meaningless.
NOT true. The EXPOSURE is the Key. You Say the Cotton is not on the same page as the Tostitos? The Cotton was always a better bowl.
The Cap 1 and Cotton are outstanding bowls as good as any BCS bowl.
1
Posted on 3/4/11 at 5:53 pm to ThaKaptin
quote:
This one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Football started in the mid to late 70's? Sounds to me like you just wanna take out any years in which LSU wasnt relevant. Football has been around MANY years, and has been worth plenty. The 40's and 50's defined football as we know it. There has been very little change since then other than trending back and forth between run heavy, pass heavy, big slow defense, small fast defense, etc. Saying that all those years dont matter is ignorance to the nth degree.
Edit to respond to later post: You realize that most coaches hand their ballots to their coaching assistant to fill out right? They are busy doing more important things, like coaching thair football teams.
There was little to no integration in the 50's for example.
Look we were as good as any tema in the 50's 58 and 59 we lost 1 game. lost 3 I think over those 3 years.
What I said was exposure today, from the 80s really and $$$ has made college football grow during the last 30 years more than any other period in sports.
Most of that was directly related to cable vision, espn, and the internet.
The fact that we are discussing college football today, March 3 (year round), through this medium is a great proof of my point.
When I was in college in the early to mid 80's I took a fortran and basic class on computers that didn't have hard drives!
I want you to go look at old photos of people at college football games in the 50s and 60s and look today. Not even close to being th meyhem (FANATICALS - FAN) as we see today.
With more knowledge comes more power.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 5:54 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
11 greatest dynasties in the SEC
Final AP Poll
1 Auburn (56) 14-0 1472
2 TCU (3) 13-0 1392
3 Oregon 12-1 1379
4 Stanford 12-1 1300
5 Ohio State 12-1 1220
6 Oklahoma 12-2 1108
7 Wisconsin 11-2 1055
8 LSU 11-2 1051
9 Boise State 12-1 1031
10 Alabama 10-3 961
Final USA Today/Coaches Poll
1 Auburn (56) 14-0 1424
2 TCU (1) 13-0 1336
3 Oregon 12-1 1333
4 Stanford 12-1 1254
5 Ohio State 12-1 1197
6 Oklahoma 12-2 1096
7 Boise State 12-1 1012
8 LSU 11-2 1007
8 Wisconsin 11-2 1007
10 Oklahoma State 11-2 883
11 Alabama 10-3 860
look at the top 2 and tell me what is wrong with that picture...
voting does that
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:01 pm to Jaketigger
quote:
There was little to no integration in the 50's for example.
Look we were as good as any tema in the 50's 58 and 59 we lost 1 game. lost 3 I think over those 3 years.
What I said was exposure today, from the 80s really and $$$ has made college football grow during the last 30 years more than any other period in sports.
Most of that was directly related to cable vision, espn, and the internet.
The fact that we are discussing college football today, March 3 (year round), through this medium is a great proof of my point.
When I was in college in the early to mid 80's I took a fortran and basic class on computers that didn't have hard drives!
I want you to go look at old photos of people at college football games in the 50s and 60s and look today. Not even close to being th meyhem (FANATICALS - FAN) as we see today.
With more knowledge comes more power.
What you're saying has nothing to do with how relevant football was bfore the 70's. So black people didnt play in the 50's. Does that change the way the game was played? No, just the color of the guys on the field.
Has the qiuality of the game gotten BETTER? Sure, but that means nothing when talking about the old days. All it does is make me thankful for the old days because they are responsible for where we are today.
knowledge is power, but knowledge wasnt invented in the 70's either.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:02 pm to Jaketigger
quote:
NONE of us beleive that the game is even close to being worth anything until the mid to late 70's and really 1980's.
You can't say "none", because a lot of us do believe college football started before the 70's or 80's
Isn't it funny that a lot of Bama rivals that were beaten by Coach Bryant are the ones that say that modern football began in the 80's.
Best way to change history, destroy the records, burn the books, pretend it never happened.
You can't count only part of a whole. You can't draw a line and only count part because your team may not have done as good as a rival's before that time period.
I've seen a lot of Auburn fans writing articles and blogs trying to set the start of college football in 1980's, the decade that Coach Bryant died and Alabama didn't do as good. But it was a good decade for Auburn.
They want to completely shut out Coach Bryant's accomplishments. Won't happen.
Take baseball, for instance. They don't have a cut off time in the 1990's for the World Series. Maybe none of those World Series should count. Modern baseball is different than it use to be. Maybe it should start with the steroid age, 1980's or 90's? Throw the rest of the records out.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:08 pm to Jaketigger
quote:
You Say the Cotton is not on the same page as the Tostitos? The Cotton was always a better bowl.
Not anymore
quote:Ridiculous
The Cap 1 and Cotton are outstanding bowls as good as any BCS bowl.
This post was edited on 3/4/11 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:29 pm to jatebe
quote:
You can't say "none", because a lot of us do believe college football started before the 70's or 80's
Isn't it funny that a lot of Bama rivals that were beaten by Coach Bryant are the ones that say that modern football began in the 80's.
Best way to change history, destroy the records, burn the books, pretend it never happened
Not saying that at all, in fact just the opposite.
What I am saying is make a comparison to UCLA Basketball for example.
We know teams will not make a run like they did ever again.
They dominated a sport that wasn't the sport it is today. But the one difference is they settled it on the court and not in the media.
Before the BCS the media, if they liked you, not because of who you played, voted your team higher than others. It is simple. You hear SC or Bama, you vote SC or Bama only because of tradition and no other valid reason as long as they didn't screw-up too bad and lose a game or 2. SoS meant absolutely nothing to them AND MOST IMPORTANTLY they didn't watch all of those games.
So they were not informed...
On the otherhand, the Media, first and foremost exposure, has changed all of that.
We watch high schoolers on ESPN now. That is just insane to me.
Can you honestly say college football has not changed in the 30 years for teh better? Ironically it was after Coach Bryant retired...
I wish he was still coaching today. I really liked to watch him coach...
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:50 pm to Jaketigger
all of this pissing and moaning about when college football really started is stupid.
if you are a true college football fan then you love and appreciate all of it....primitive football in the late 1800's made football in the early 1900's, the 19oo's paved the way for the '20's, and on and on....
it's all relevant to it's time and it's all relevant to today. football, like everything else, had to evolve. the great players & coaches a hundred years ago or 80 or 30 years ago would still be great today. they used their smarts and their drive and their charisma & leadership, their natural ability along with whatever was the state of the art training at the time to excel. just like today.
on the "media problem"...the media was actually a huge factor in determining who the "great" teams were in the early days. a lot of it wasn't fair, much of it was biased to the teams above the mason dixon. but when the southern teams proved themselves, the media had to get on the bandwagon. in short, there has always been media bias, but great accomplishments usually win out.
30 years from now, a bunch of nubs on whatever will be the social networking of the day will be arguing about whether the teams and champions of the '00's are relevant and whether the bsc national championships should really count.
think about that.
if you are a true college football fan then you love and appreciate all of it....primitive football in the late 1800's made football in the early 1900's, the 19oo's paved the way for the '20's, and on and on....
it's all relevant to it's time and it's all relevant to today. football, like everything else, had to evolve. the great players & coaches a hundred years ago or 80 or 30 years ago would still be great today. they used their smarts and their drive and their charisma & leadership, their natural ability along with whatever was the state of the art training at the time to excel. just like today.
on the "media problem"...the media was actually a huge factor in determining who the "great" teams were in the early days. a lot of it wasn't fair, much of it was biased to the teams above the mason dixon. but when the southern teams proved themselves, the media had to get on the bandwagon. in short, there has always been media bias, but great accomplishments usually win out.
30 years from now, a bunch of nubs on whatever will be the social networking of the day will be arguing about whether the teams and champions of the '00's are relevant and whether the bsc national championships should really count.
think about that.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:51 pm to Jaketigger
Exactly, Oregon should be 2.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 6:53 pm to Jaketigger
quote:
Before the BCS the media, if they liked you, not because of who you played, voted your team higher than others. It is simple. You hear SC or Bama, you vote SC or Bama only because of tradition and no other valid reason as long as they didn't screw-up too bad and lose a game or 2. SoS meant absolutely nothing to them AND MOST IMPORTANTLY they didn't watch all of those games.
So they were not informed...
That was the way it was done back then. You can complain and say you didn't like the way a national champion was chosen, but you can't go back and change history, because you didn't like it.
The teams picked as the national champion are in the books and were chosen by the coaches and the media. There wasn't a playoff. Different media, polls, and coaches decided to crown a national champion. The colleges were fine with the way it was done at that time. Not as many colleges played then as they do now.
As the game evolved and more colleges got into the game, changes were made and the Bowl Alliance, Coaliation and finally the BCS was born.
Probably in a few years, a playoff system will be made and the BCS will be obsolete. Then, should we throw out the national championships that were won with this method?
The NCAA does recognize certain NC's determined by different polls.
Posted on 3/4/11 at 7:27 pm to jatebe
quote:
Before the BCS the media, if they liked you, not because of who you played, voted your team higher than others. It is simple. You hear SC or Bama, you vote SC or Bama only because of tradition and no other valid reason as long as they didn't screw-up too bad and lose a game or 2.
How is that any different from what is going on today? Teams like TCU and Boise State will never get in over a 1-loss Ohio State, Texas, or Alabama in the BCS if things came down to the wire.
Why? Because of the name recognition that is associated with those programs. Things haven't changed much even after all of these years.
This post was edited on 3/4/11 at 7:28 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News