BuzzerBeater Forums

So is this best teams of alltime or just the BCS era, cause '95 nebraska has my vote. Though '01 Miami was stacked. To say '02 was the same team is a bit misleading, they notably lost: Shockey, Reed, McKinnie, Rumph, and Portis.

It's just as misleading as listing all of the stars for the '01 team, even if they didn't start or play significant minutes. McGahee Replaced Portis and was better. Winslow replaced Shockey and was just as good. Sean Taylor replaced Ed Reed (might have slid to the opposite safety, but he did not start the previous year), Vernon Carey and Antrell Rolle did not start that season either and did in '02. Those are all guys that didn't start that came in and were great players and in some cases better than their predecessor. Probably not McKinnie, but in college Sean Taylor was every bit as good as Reed imo. Combine all of this with the fact that the defense brought back almost their entire front 7 (only replaced an undrafted strong side LB) plus many of the backups including Wilfork and I'm thinking they were as good or BETTER. Jennings took over for Rumph and was also a higher draft pick than Rumph, just as Taylor was over Reed. Dorsey was a year older which is huge for a QB as well and he had another year with Andre Johnson...and we all know that the longer WR and QB's work together, the better the combo gets.

So yes, they lost 2 hall of famers and 2 pro bowlers plus Rumph. However, you aren't going to convince me that '01 was that much better than '02. AND I never said they were the same team, I said basically the same team (I think...i may not have even said that, i'm just too lazy to look lol).

I must say, I think Alabama is better than LSU, but I still am pretty upset with the rematch. OkSt lost 1 game, in overtime, and pretty well handled the rest of their schedule (albeit not a gauntlet of a schedule by any means), and doesnt get a shot. We get to watch 2 teams play again, essentially making the fact that LSU beat Alabama on the road earlier in the year entirely meaningless. Should be a rule that no 2 teams from the same conference can play in a title game, because they would have already played earlier in the season.

I agree with the sentiment behind this. I hate rematches for title games, and even though Florida won their first title on a rematch, at least that wasn't a 1-2 game and only came about because the PAC-10 wouldn't play with the Bowl Coalition. So I would prefer, for sure, that someone other than Alabama got a shot.

The problem is, when the polls came out the day after Alabama lost, there were a total of fourteen teams with one or zero losses: LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, Stanford, Boise State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Arkansas, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Houston, Penn State, Southern Miss and Cincinnati. (I am fairly certain that is all, but any others will fall into my extended point in a minute anyhow). So those are the teams that are worth considering for a title (since we know no two-loss team deserves it). Now, in the time since then, do you know how many teams haven't lost? Two: LSU and Alabama. Every other team that could have been considered for the title game after Alabama's loss went out and lost themselves -- so while the popular argument is that the rematch made the Alabama loss "meaningless" choosing someone who lost even later would be equally or more meaningless.

Of course, the BCS is a stupid institution. But if the job is to match #1 and #2 , they got it right -- because everyone who feels like they should have had a shot at #2 lost out by losing *after* the 'bama loss. I'd still rather see LSU get to play Oklahoma State, or better yet just give LSU the title and have Oklahoma State-'bama play for second.

All I listed were the players taken in the first round of the '02 draft(Portis was 2nd round). And you may argue to your hearts content about the '02 team having the same talent level as the '01 team. But when I look at it at the end of the day the '01 team played better than the '02 team.

Finally '02 Miami lost. '01 Miami did not. I can't see the sense in making a reasonable arguement for a team as one of the greatest if they didn't win their championship.

Edit: Apologies to Mr.Buchanon as well

Last edited by Eminence Front at 12/10/2011 8:52:19 PM

In no way did I argue that the '02 team was the greatest. Not sure why you thought that. As for the '01 team playing better....I can't say I agree. The '02 OSU team that beat Miami was better than the Nebraska team Miami beat in '01. I'm an OU fan and lived in Oklahoma so I had a ton of chances to see that Nebraska team play, and they just weren't as good. When it comes down to it, '01 did win the national title and I can't argue against that. However, even in my last post, my argument wasn't that they were better, but that the '02 team was very close if not equal to '01.

I'm cutting out your text because despite it being a very good post, I need the character count. ;)

If the team at #1 was not LSU, though (say, for example, West Virginia had beaten them and ran the table to finish #1), would you still say Oklahoma State should go over LSU? Or do you think Alabama is the #2 team but shouldn't get to go specifically because of who is #1?

I think the BCS is ridiculous, personally. I think any team in I-A who finishes the season undefeated (and untied, when that mattered), wins their bowl game, and is not ineligible because of NCAA violations should be considered at worst co-champions. Boise State, Utah, Auburn a few years back, Tulane, etc., all have shares of national titles in the past decade or so in my book. The fact that these schools won't claim them disappoints me. And I think, if it were up to me, I'd put Oklahoma State in the title game. But I think that the one thing they have right is that Alabama is the #2 team in the country, and if it weren't for the fact that the #1 is a team they lost to, there'd be no complaints at all. Same thing if Florida had lost in the '05 SEC championship game after USC had already gotten beaten by UCLA.

Consider the alternative to your critique of "every game matters" : what if every other team in the nation had two losses? Should LSU and Alabama still not have a rematch even though there's no doubt at all in that scenario who should be #1 and #2? How about if everyone has three losses? Obviously, these are hypothetical, but the point is that it is ridiculously easy to construct a scenario where the "every game matters" mantra is simply impossible to uphold no matter what. Which, of course, is why a playoff is the best answer -- because any scenario where a team can not play for a championship is not one that deserves to award something called a championship in the first place.

The BCS' stated purpose (as opposed to the real purpose, financial enrichment of the big boys), is to pair up the #1 and #2 teams. Period. Not to protect the notion that every game matters, to determine the best matchup or the fairest one, just to get the team considered #1 and the team considered #2 and play them against each other. And they actually got that part right this time, no matter how much I dislike that.

As far as the last question, if Alabama beats LSU, as far as I am concerned LSU won the title in the regular season and I hope the AP at least gives them a share of the championship. My ultimate doomsday scenario would be something like Florida losing at LSU in the regular season, beating them in Atlanta in the SEC CG, and then a rematch in Miami (or flip it so LSU loses at Florida and has the rematch at the Sugar Bowl). If Alabama had come onto Florida's schedule a year earlier, there could have been a similar scenario there. Unfortunately, as a Florida fan I know that's not happening any time soon, since the team sucks specifically and the SEC East sucks in general.

I agree that there should be a playoff but everyone should be allowed to have a chance to win it all. Even if they are from a smaller conference like the Sun Belt. Then you can prove that teams like Boise don't deserve a chance to win it all.