T1B

Blueblood wrote:They turned down an "Orange Bowl" appearance and a MNC for the betterment of humanity.

They may have turned down an Orange Bowl berth, but they didn't turn down the MNC. They weren't awarded one.

TheJON wrote:Agreed. Its fine during the offseason but once the season comes around he should be banned. His act is childish and annoying and it would be nice to keep the discussion on football this season. Didn't Babs get banned from here for doing the same crap m2 is doing? There's no way I'm posting on this site during football season if the mods are going to allow him to continue spamming this board.

Pot tonguing kettle.

Blueblood wrote:The University of San Francisco.... 1951.

10 of the players went on to play in the NFL... and 3 went on to the NFL Hall of Fame.

The 1951 University of San Francisco Dons football team is widely regarded by many to be one of the greatest teams in college football history. The 1951 squad went undefeated, with a record of 9-0, and the team produced ten future NFL players (Ollie Matson, Gino Marchetti, Bob St. Clair, Dick Stanfel, Ed Brown, Lou Stephens, Burl Toler, Joe Scudero, Roy Barni, Mike Mergen, Merrill Peacock, and Ralph Thomas). Five became NFL Pro-Bowlers,

Ummmm.... that San Francisco team.... only had 38 players on it, with 10 of them playing in the NFL and 3 becoming Hall of Famer's.

1 out of every 4 players on the team went on to play in the NFL. This one isn't even close.

38-10-3.... can't be beat.

Let me know when a team can field 1 out of 3 to 4 players on the team that makes it in the NFL.

The Dons were the greatest College team in Football History...

Let me know... when a team of 38 players... and not 100 players like the teams mentioned 20 years later..

Can field 10 NFL players and 3 Hall of Famer's ?

It's the greatest team in College Football history... hands down.

Sorry, m2, but that's what you posted. Beginning with your initial post and then all throughout the thread you posted statistics of their NFL achievements. Those statistics were what you used as your argument for how they were hands down the greatest college football team ever.

The racial component thing, the political component thing, that was a tangential issue. That was what made them 'special', but what made them 'the greatest', according to you, was the number of NFL players they produced, from such a small roster.

Those were your words, mangled as they were.

TheJON wrote:Jesus, Gramps, a team from only 30 years ago? Surprised you're not referencing a team from the 1930's.

mTool's already done that for us before.

So have ND, Michigan and Princeton fan.

This thread has surfaced in one form or another several times over the years. To me the conversation starts and ends here:

object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VojVTyYWGds&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VojVTyYWGds&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Blueblood wrote:By the way, does anyone know why they were so famous other than being so dominate on the football field ???

Because every last one of them was a flaming faggot?

Killian wrote:And fuck, Portis must be good if you can pencil him into Cooperstown!

jon doesn't even read his own posts, much less proofread them.

95 Nebraska is the best team I've seen in my lifetime. I can't speak for the others mentioned here.

You know, Bama used to be pretty damn good.

:D

I still don't get the fascination with there always having to be a "greatest ever" in anything. I'm not trying to quell dialogue here, but why not just say "in my opinion is that [insert team here] was the greatest ever" and be done with it. List your criteria on why you think so if you must. We can all read what YOU think. I just don't get why just because someone doesn't agree with someone else's take that they feel the need to attempt to change their mind.

I guess I would just suck at debate because this back and forth shit all the time saying the same things over and over I could never do. Just too god damned boring.

IndyFrisco wrote:I still don't get the fascination with there always having to be a "greatest ever" in anything. I'm not trying to quell dialogue here, but why not just say "in my opinion is that [insert team here] was the greatest ever" and be done with it. List your criteria on why you think so if you must. We can all read what YOU think. I just don't get why just because someone doesn't agree with someone else's take that they feel the need to attempt to change their mind.

I guess I would just suck at debate because this back and forth shit all the time saying the same things over and over I could never do. Just too god damned boring.

It's that whole "my opinion" thing that gets a lot of people. If someone qualifies their statement with that, there can be a discussion or even a debate. But when someone posts like JON does ("X team is the best ever, period, flat out, peace out, rack me"), the plungers need to be broken out.

I think it goes back to what I said.

I still don't get the fascination with there always having to be a "greatest ever" in anything.

I didn't finish my thought on that.

I think it's the ESPNfluence. All they ever fucking talk about is who was the greatest ever? What team was the greatest ever? Where does so and so rank on the all time list?

I don't fucking care. And I don't get why others care so much about it. Why can't we just watch the games and enjoy them for what they are? You can do that and still be passionate. I think it is just ESPN talking heads trying to keep a job because other than reporting the news, they gotta have some thing else. Let's fill time with fucking lists. That's the ticket!

These "lists" and "greatest ever" arguments are so...

Once any debate over greatness attempts to bridge generations then it becomes nothing more than fun watercooler/barstool/internet converation fodder. There is clearly no way to compare teams from the '50s with teams from the '70s, just as there's no way to compare teams from the '70s with teams from today.

In baseball, okay, maybe. I might attempt to compare The Big Red Machine with today's teams. They players and the game haven't changed that much. Johnny Bench, Pete Rose and Joe Morgan are superstars today, even as they were then.

Football? As good as the '72 Trojans or '71 Huskers were, c'mon, they're a good 40-70 lbs smaller in the trenches and 30 lbs lighter at the LB positions, compared to today's players. College, or pro, same thing. There were no Taylor Mays type physical specimins playing safety back then.

In those instances, all one can do is measure how a team fared against the teams of its day, then compare it to how teams from other eras fared in those eras.

It is pointless, but so is porn. Fun is fun.

I don't think it's an ESPN thing, I just think it's a sports thing. Think of all the bar room discussions about who would win, Joe Louis or Ali? Or all of the discussions growing up in the Bronx on the best center fielder, Willy, Micky or the Duke? These types of debates are as old as sports themselves, and frankly, what make sports so damn fun to follow. No one questions anyone's passion on here (now that Cicero is gone), and everyone wants their team to be the best. So when one of us actually has their team win a championship, our first reaction is to think how they compare to past champions at the school, and through out the history of the sport. The internet give us another avenue to debate these until the cows come home. ESPN takes it to another level by turning into their Chicago Sports fans discussing a hurricane against mini-Carrol, but these debates have been around forever.

The only point of any television show's countdowns (Top 40 hits, 10 Greatest Linebackers, 20 Sexiest Beaches, 10 Greatest Teams Of All Time, etc) is simply to fill air time with easy programming. It's an excuse to fill an hour with slickly edited highlight reels.

It's a TV producer's path of least resistance.

On the radio, it's the easiest way to fill airtime, with callers adding their two cents.

On the internet, it's the easiest way to generate responses.

It's just reminiscing, in the guise of competition.

Killian wrote:So when one of us actually has their team win a championship, our first reaction is to think how they compare to past champions at the school, and through out the history of the sport.

Maybe that's why I don't get it. :( x infinity

IndyFrisco wrote:

Killian wrote:So when one of us actually has their team win a championship, our first reaction is to think how they compare to past champions at the school, and through out the history of the sport.

Maybe that's why I don't get it. :( x infinity

:polite golf applause:

Mace wrote:The '51 SF team may have been undefeated but the only reason they became a footnote in CFB history is because of their refusal to play in a bowl game.

Disagree with this. ND did not go to bowl games 50 years and won at least 5 MNC's in that time.

I can't read very well. My mistake.

Mace wrote:Mtool's question seems to have been based on numbers/percentages but comparing a 38 man roster from the no-platoon days of college football to modern day 85 scholarship teams is a ridiculous comparison in and of itself. The '51 SF team may have been undefeated but the only reason they became a footnote in CFB history is because of their refusal to play in a bowl game. Comparing players from that era who were drafted into the NFL during the league's infancy, where many of the greatest of college players chose to pursue other careers over a low paying pro football job, is equally ridiculous. Baseball was the game in 1951 and virtually no one gave two shits about the NFL until the '58 title game was televised. That's when the NFL came of age and began competing for the entertainment dollars.

One of the better posts in ages.

Killian wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:I still don't get the fascination with there always having to be a "greatest ever" in anything. I'm not trying to quell dialogue here, but why not just say "in my opinion is that [insert team here] was the greatest ever" and be done with it. List your criteria on why you think so if you must. We can all read what YOU think. I just don't get why just because someone doesn't agree with someone else's take that they feel the need to attempt to change their mind.

I guess I would just suck at debate because this back and forth shit all the time saying the same things over and over I could never do. Just too god damned boring.

It's that whole "my opinion" thing that gets a lot of people. If someone qualifies their statement with that, there can be a discussion or even a debate. But when someone posts like JON does ("X team is the best ever, period, flat out, peace out, rack me"), the plungers need to be broken out.

Wait a sec, Killian........... I have not done that in this thread at all.

I have not one time debated who the best team of all-time is. Why? Because there's no way anyone can make an argument about a bunch of teams they've never seen (unless you're 120 years old). It's hard to compare teams from different generations. That's why I've said that in my lifetime the best team I've ever seen in person was 2002 USC and the best team(s) I've ever seen on TV were 2001 Miami and 1995 Nebraska. To me, those were the best of my generation. I think anyone that tries to claim that some team from before they were born or when they were too young to remember is simply silly.

My argument was simply based on who had produced more NFL talent and I based that off numbers and future/current NFL HOF'ers. You can compare those things.

Like I said.......

Miami 2001 had 30+ players of a 101 man roster make the NFL. 21 of those were 1st day draft picks. 16 were 1st rounders. 3-5 of them will certainly end up in the HOF. Many have been all-pro. There is not one team EVER that has topped that. These numbers I posted are facts, not opinion. Look at the numbers and find me another team that has ever beaten those numbers. If you find one, props to you. But I haven't.

I never said they were the best team of all-time, though I will say that I would find it difficult to believe many teams throughout history would have beaten them.

Mace wrote:

Killian wrote:I can't read very well. My mistake.

No problem. You were probably blinded by the glow from 4th Down Jesus. :)

FTFY

Sudden Sam wrote: Worst rip in UA history that #5 Notre Dame beat #1 Texas and vaulted over Bama for the MNC. I don't think a single voter watched the Sugar Bowl.

Fuck Bama, cry me a river, if that cocksucker Bryant hadnt cried to the press about retiring they would have never voted those pricks #1 over a USC team that went to Bama and buttfucked the tide in the mouth infront of all their hillbilly fans. You want to cry about 77 then you have to give up 78. and the 79 trojan team would have wasted Bama too

Killian wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:I'm not trying to quell dialogue here, but why not just say "in my opinion is that [insert team here] was the greatest ever" and be done with it.

It's that whole "my opinion" thing that gets a lot of people. If someone qualifies their statement with that, there can be a discussion or even a debate. But when someone posts like JON does ("X team is the best ever, period, flat out, peace out, rack me"), the plungers need to be broken out.

I've done the "IMO" superfluous thingy trying to cover my ass and immediately felt like a puss. And I'll probably do it again. :doh:

Well, duh.... of fucking course it's just my opinion. That's what we do here. No need to qualify every statement with that, is there?

As for 'spray saying he's been following CFB since he was 6... dude, at 6 you were still playing with GI Joes and Rock-em-sock-em Robots and didn't know squat about football. The Chiefs won the SB when I had just turned 8 and I barely even knew there was a game on.

Jsc810 wrote:Hey don't worry about the actual results, USC fan.

Just because Alabama actually won the national championship that year doesn't mean you can't claim it as well.

No team has EVER won a national championship in college football. There is no such thing.

USC had 1 loss, LSU had 1 loss. LSU and USC did not play. How is LSU champs and USC not? Or how is USC champs and LSU not?

There's only a fake champion every year.

Jsc810 wrote:Hey don't worry about the actual results, USC fan.

Just because Alabama actually won the national championship that year doesn't mean you can't claim it as well.

What are you talking about, Jsc? '78, which is the year he's talking about, saw a split title. Bama won the AP title and USC won the UPI title. The NCAA considers that year to be a split title.

The point there is that USC went into Bama that year and beat them, head to head. Jesus, how much more of a tie-breaker do you need?? How the fuck does Bama earn a share of the title there, having lost at home to the team with whom they're sharing it??

Insanity.

Btw, a really funny thing is Jon's definition of a 'fact', especially when this...

3-5 of them ('01 Miami players) will certainly end up in the HOF.

...is his idea of a 'fact'. There is no certainty to three HOF-ers from that group, much less five. Currently, there isn't a certainty to even one of them being enshrined in Canton. Ed Reed and Andre Johnson are not certainties, not yet, and neither is Clinton Portis. They don't have a sure fire HOF-er (Brady, Manning, T.O., Marvin Harrison, etc) yet.

Screw_Michigan wrote:It's cheap, easy and lazy journalism.

I'd argue it's not even jounalism. Just a waste of bandwidth.

WW wrote:Well, duh.... of fucking course it's just my opinion. That's what we do here. No need to qualify every statement with that, is there?

Agreed. No need to preface everything with "IMO." We know it's your opinion, unless you're quoting someone.

Killian is correct though, in that there's a difference between stating an opinion versus making stupid, iron clad blanket statements, of the type Jon specializes in.

As for 'spray saying he's been following CFB since he was 6... dude, at 6 you were still playing with GI Joes and Rock-em-sock-em Robots and didn't know squat about football.

Bullshit. By that age I was already dissecting Brain Salad Surgery, and I'd already had my first urethra scraping, thanks to this one redheaded truck stop waitress.

-'Spray

Killian is correct though, in that there's a difference between stating an opinion versus making stupid, iron clad blanket statements, of the type Jon specializes in.

Sincerely,
USC losing to Stanford because of injuries????


I'm glad you think my statements are of the "stupid, iron clad blanket" variety. You're dumber than shit, so that probably means my statements are nothing at all like you say. Thanks, dolt.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:It's cheap, easy and lazy journalism.

I'd argue it's not even jounalism. Just a waste of bandwidth.

it's actually more devious. in today's personal media, "two-way communication" blogoworld.....CNNSI runs a top 25 whatever and it pisses off a lot of fans. in a spat of angst, those fans will sign up for a user-name/login (offering demographic information to register a username) and post some nonsense about how "their team" was really better than teams x, y, and z....or for the simple pleasure of calling Greg Doyal, Ivan Maisel or Mike DeCourcey an idiot. that demographic information is then sold to marketing research firms as raw data which is then sold to advertisers.

that's it's main purpose. or to also draw out a countdown over a month to keep getting hits on the site (when there's really nothing else going on in the off-season) which the site then can pimp as a number-of-hits rate when they sell ad space to would-be advertisers.

Jsc810 wrote:That said, I do give props to USC for having the best program in the BCS era.

LSU - 2 glass footballs. Florida - 2 glass footballs. USC - 1 glass football.

Fuck you, traitor.

Jsc810 wrote:Yeah but that loss to ASU doesn't count because <insert excuse here>.


And by the way, since the BCS era started, there have been and will be no split NCs.

That said, I do give props to USC for having the best program in the BCS era.

Yes there has. You choose to recognize the BCS championship, USC and college football fans recognize the AP championship as well.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Van wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Hey don't worry about the actual results, USC fan.

Just because Alabama actually won the national championship that year doesn't mean you can't claim it as well.

What are you talking about, Jsc? '78, which is the year he's talking about, saw a split title. Bama won the AP title and USC won the UPI title. The NCAA considers that year to be a split title.

The point there is that USC went into Bama that year and beat them, head to head. Jesus, how much more of a tie-breaker do you need?? How the fuck does Bama earn a share of the title there, having lost at home to the team with whom they're sharing it??

USC lost to Arizona State. That's how.

Sincerely,
Notre Dame beating FSU in 1993 but losing to Boston College.

Oh wait, that's the exact same thing but Notre Dame was screwed. Well, that's because they lost to a team ranked lower than them when they played.

Sincerely,
Miami 1989

Oh wait, they lost to a team ranked lower than them and won the NC because ND pounded #1 Colorado in the polls.

You lose a game, you lose the right to bitch because it's no longer in your hands. Oh well.

Killian wrote: You lose a game, you lose the right to bitch because it's no longer in your hands. Oh well.

unless you are Texas fan where YOUR loss doesn't count because the team you beat head-to-head beat the team you LOST TO by half a hunnerd.

t.u.Fan has come out looking REAL bad after last year. However, I don't think OUFan would have fared much better had the tables been turned.

IndyFrisco wrote:t.u.Fan has come out looking REAL bad after last year. However, I don't think OUFan would have fared much better had the tables been turned.

i agree. we have as many idiots as anyone else. though, i don't know about the asterisk thing. that's trademark "We're Texas" stuff.

Yeah, the asterisk thing weighed in on me saying OUFan wouldn't have fared "much" better. For the most part, I've always thought t.u.Fan and OUFan on this board have represented well. And both still do. I expected that reaction from Bill, but not Harv or phoneboy. And I would not expect it from any of the OU contingency, but as I said, had the tables been turned, I think it would be about the same.

In any case, color me green as I would love to at least have the opportunity to be a whiny bitch.

Fuck, I may make that my sig.

King Crimson wrote:i agree. we have as many idiots as anyone else. though, i don't know about the asterisk thing. that's trademark "We're Texas" stuff.

I was driving behind a truck yesterday with one of those big ass "Don't Mess With Texas" bumper stickers. I wasn't scared until I spotted the Yosemite Sam mud flaps telling me to back off. I was like, "fuck, this dude means business. I better change lanes."

Mgo,

Do you know what the Don't Mess With Texas bumper stickers are for? It was an ad campaign (and damn good one) so people wouldn't litter. Had nothing to do with t.u. Course, some of them have ripped the slogan.