T1B

Now I am not sure that I can say they are the best ever, but they are one of the best. I also know that the Texas team today would kill any national champions prior to 1990. There is just to much speed and size today compared with 15 years ago, and as such this ranking leans heavily towards recent champs.

Have fun discussing this. Yeah, it is a computer ranking, but keep in mind this was the same system that had Texas winning the Rose Bowl.

Best Ever

1. 2005 Texas 13 0 0 9 2.5 0 1 0 652 213 4.39 1.00 29.64
2. 1995 Nebraska 12 0 0 6 5 0 4 0 638 174 4.64 1.00 27.64
3. 2000 Oklahoma 13 0 0 8 3.5 0 4 0 481 194 2.87 1.00 27.37
4. 1971 Nebraska 13 0 0 6 3.5 0 1 0 507 104 4.03 1.00 27.28
5. 1993 Florida St. 12 1 0 7 3.5 0 3 1 536 129 4.07 0.92 26.99
6. 1930 Notre Dame 10 0 0 9 5 0 1 0 265 74 1.91 1.00 26.66
7. 1978 USC 12 1 0 10 2.5 0 2 0 318 153 1.65 0.92 26.57
8. 1998 Tennessee 13 0 0 8 3 0 4 0 431 189 2.42 1.00 26.42
9. 1991 Miami 12 0 0 6 5 0 2 0 386 100 2.86 1.00 26.36
10. 1996 Florida 12 1 0 6 3.5 0 2 1 611 221 3.9 0.92 26.07
11. 2005 USC 12 1 0 6 3.5 0 2 1 638 297 3.41 0.92 25.58
12. 1991 Washington 12 0 0 6 3.5 0 3 0 495 115 3.8 1.00 25.55
13. 2002 Ohio State 14 0 0 8 1 0 3 0 410 183 2.27 1.00 25.52
14. 2001 Miami 12 0 0 8 1 0 2 0 512 117 3.95 1.00 25.45
15. 1983 Auburn 11 1 0 9 3.5 0 2 1 311 186 1.25 0.92 25.42
16. 1994 Nebraska 13 0 0 6 3 0 3 0 459 162 2.97 1.00 25.22
17. 1997 Nebraska 13 0 0 6 2 0 3 0 607 214 3.93 1.00 25.18
18. 2003 LSU 13 1 0 6 3 0 4 0 475 154 3.21 0.93 25.14
19. 1932 USC 10 0 0 8 4.5 0 1 0 201 13 1.88 1.00 25.13
20. 1982 Penn State 11 1 0 8 3 0 1 0 395 196 1.99 0.92 24.66
21. 1972 USC 12 0 0 7 2 0 3 0 467 134 3.33 1.00 24.58
22. 2004 Auburn 13 0 0 5 3.5 0 3 0 417 147 2.7 1.00 24.45
23. 1995 Florida 12 1 0 6 3 0 3 1 558 263 2.95 0.92 24.27
24. 1988 Notre Dame 12 0 0 6 3.5 0 3 0 393 156 2.37 1.00 24.12
25. 1983 Nebraska 12 1 0 7 0 0 2 1 654 217 4.37 0.92 24.04
26. 2004 USC 13 0 0 5 2 0 2 0 496 169 3.27 1.00 23.77
27. 1992 Alabama 13 0 0 6 2 0 3 0 366 122 2.44 1.00 23.69
28. 1997 Michigan 12 0 0 7 2 0 3 0 322 114 2.08 1.00 23.33
29. 1977 Notre Dame 11 1 0 7 2 0 2 0 420 139 2.81 0.92 23.23
30. 1981 Clemson 12 0 0 5 3.5 0 3 0 338 105 2.33 1.00 23.08
31. 1975 Oklahom 11 1 0 7 3 0 3 0 344 154 1.9 0.92 23.07
32. 1999 Florida St. 12 0 0 7 1 0 2 0 458 203 2.55 1.00 23.05
33. 1987 Miami 12 0 0 5 2.5 0 2 0 412 125 2.87 1.00 22.87
34. 1990 Colorado 11 1 1 5 4.5 0 1 0 399 229 1.7 0.88 22.83
35. 1945 Army 9 0 0 6 3.5 0 2 0 412 46 3.66 1.00 22.66
36. 2003 USC 12 1 0 5 2 0 1 0 534 239 2.95 0.92 22.62
37. 1974 Oklahoma 11 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 473 92 3.81 1.00 22.56
38. 1989 Miami 11 1 0 6 2 0 3 1 426 127 2.99 0.92 22.41
38. 1990 Ga Tech 11 0 1 7 2 0 2 0 379 186 1.93 0.96 22.39
40. 1985 Oklahoma 11 1 0 7 1 0 2 1 371 103 2.68 0.92 22.35
41. 1902 Michigan 11 0 0 4 1.5 0 6 0 644 12 6.32 1.00 22.32
42. 1948 Michigan 9 0 0 5 5.5 0 4 0 252 44 2.08 1.00 21.58
43. 1924 Notre Dame 10 0 0 6 3 0 3 0 285 54 2.31 1.00 21.56
44. 1947 Michigan 10 0 0 6 2 0 4 0 394 53 3.41 1.00 21.41
45. 1994 Penn St. 12 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 564 252 3.12 1.00 21.37
46. 1901 Michigan 11 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 550 0 5.5 1.00 21.25
47. 1944 Army 9 0 0 5 2 0 2 0 504 35 4.69 1.00 21.19
48. 1979 Alabama 12 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 383 67 3.16 1.00 21.16
49. 1961 Alabama 11 0 0 5 1 0 3 0 397 25 3.72 1.00 20.97
50. 1986 Penn St. 12 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 340 133 2.07 1.00 20.82
51. 1978 Alabama 11 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 345 168 1.77 0.92 20.69
52. 1976 Pitt 12 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 381 133 2.48 1.00 19.98
53. 1962 USC 11 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 361 92 2.69 1.00 19.94
54. 1970 Nebraska 11 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 426 189 2.37 0.96 19.83
55. 1984 BYU 13 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 456 183 2.73 1.00 19.73
56. 1983 Miami 11 1 0 6 1 0 4 0 313 136 1.77 0.92 19.69
57. 1973 Notre Dame 11 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 382 89 2.93 1.00 19.68
58. 1969 Texas 11 0 0 3 2.5 0 5 0 435 119 3.16 1.00 19.41
T59. 1949 Notre Dame 10 0 0 5 1 0 2 0 360 86 2.74 1.00 19.24
T59. 1984 Washington 11 1 0 5 1 0 3 0 352 145 2.07 0.92 19.24
61. 1974 USC 10 1 1 5 2 0 4 0 363 142 2.21 0.88 19.09
62. 1968 Ohio State 10 0 0 4 3 0 3 0 323 150 1.73 1.00 18.98
63. 1980 Georgia 12 0 0 4 1 0 5 0 333 137 1.96 1.00 18.71
64. 1909 Yale 10 0 0 5 1.5 0 4 0 209 0 2.09 1.00 18.59
65. 1938 TCU 11 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 269 60 2.09 1.00 18.09
66. 1940 Minnesota 8 0 0 4 4.5 0 1 0 154 71 0.83 1.00 18.08
67. 1955 Oklahoma 11 0 0 3 1 0 5 0 385 60 3.25 1.00 18.00
68. 1993 Auburn 11 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 353 192 1.61 1.00 15.86
69. 1956 Oklahoma 10 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 466 51 4.15 1.00 15.65
70. 1947 Notre Dame 9 0 0 3 1 0 5 0 291 52 2.39 1.00 15.14

Glass Dick

How did you not notice PrimeX's post? Not like there were fifty new topics to sift through. :D

Ummmm, USC led Texas by twelve with only six minutes to go and if they only hadn't gone into a Prevent Everything, well...

Sooooo, if Texas is #1 I have a pretty strong suspicion that the 2005 USC team is just a liiiiitle higher than number eleven...



Anyway, last year's healthier USC team was better than this year's anyway and judging by what this year's squad did to Texas, nah, Texas ain't #1 all time...

Also, call me crazy but I'm pretty sure this year's USC team coulda taken the 1930 Notre Dame squad!!

The formula used by collegefootballnews.com is not really a comparison of one champion to another but rather what team had the most dominating year. In that regard I can see how Texas fared so well.

So how then does this year's USC team fall to #11 in this poll? They said USC would've ended up winning the whole thing had they beaten Texas so how do they go from being #1 all time all the way down to eleven (behind three other one loss teams) just from a last play loss to the eventual #1?

Van wrote:So how then does this year's USC team fall to #11 in this poll? They said USC would've ended up winning the whole thing had they beaten Texas so how do they go from being #1 all time all the way down to eleven (behind three other one loss teams) just from a last play loss to the eventual #1?

Because they weren't a national champion, as opposed to those other 1 loss teams. I guess the poll puts stock into teams who won a title. Go figure.

Face it, #11 is pretty high for a non title winning team. I'd be happy with that (that is, if I cared about the validity of such a poll).

Agreed, about the (non) validity of the poll.

Nonetheless, there's no mention that extra points were awarded or subtracted based on winning/losing the MNC during any of those seasons.

You're right, I guess there's no mention of that. And why should we assume a team gets bonus points for winning the biggest/most significant game of the season? That's just not a reasonable assumption. It's not like anyone ever factors in winning NCs into discussions of the greatest teams or anything.

Your sarcasm is so very winning and all, granted, but the fact remains that they were ready to call USC the #1 team of all time were it not for one fourth down and eight play that didn't go their way.

Being #1 all time and then losing by a single play to #1 all time doesn't drop you to eleven, not when there's three other one loss teams ahead of you.

Anyway, no biggie. Just conversation fodder for a dreary off season.

We've already lost Leinart, which was a given. Now we've lost Bush, and White, so there goes our entire backfield. Matua just announced he's going pro, and soon so will Darnell Bing and Winston Justice.

There goes our best defender and our two best offensive lineman.

Five juniors, just...gone. Man, I'm really starting to hate where CF is heading...

Yeah, but to go by the logic you're using to counter the logic by the creators of this poll, I can say that they were also a single play away from winding up with 2 losses (ND game)...which, with 2 losses, surely would keep them out of any sort of greatest teams list. If we're talking about "single plays" making and breaking a team, you have to count the one that almost resulted in a loss, as well as the one that almost resulted in a win. It's only fair.

Well, to be technical, had SC lost to ND, they probably would have wound up with just one loss still, because they would've won their runner up BCS bowl game (likely). But that's not important...

I wasn't able to watch the Fresno game so I really have no idea if SC almost legitimately lost that game or not, as well.

What was that impliable, creaky sound?

The Sound of a Juggernaut Bandwagon Losing Its Cargo wrote:Man, I'm really starting to hate where CF is heading...

:P

Methinks SC will reload quite well.

They'll reload, sure, but it's never going to be the same as when guys like Ronnie Lott, Earl Campbell, Anthony Munoz and Joe Montana stayed through their senior seasons.

Those senior season match ups were special; much moreso than when some sophomore or junior stud loses his Big Game and then just blithely says, "Oh well...Grandma says there's a Lexus out there with her name on it! C-Ya!"

I realize I'm starting to sound like every old dude who's always saying things were better back in "my day" but yeah, things were better back when guys like Bush and VY would meet again in their season season and in their final collegiate game...and there were no ifs, ands or buts about it.

It's about built up rivalries, and we're losing 'em. Sure, the uniforms carry on in those rivalries but how much better would it be to see Texas-USC II, with Bush and White hoping to exact their revenge against White and the Longhorns?

With all the key players leaving early this year there's basically no chance now of Texas-USC II.

Yes, I'm getting bitter. Planned Mediocrity cynically badged as "parity" has gone a long way towards ruining the NFL for me. Seriously. I thought the nadir had been reached when we saw Trent Dilfer beating Kerry Collins in a Super Bowl but hey, now we've got the absolutely average Seattle Seahawks hosting the invisible wild card winning Carolina Panthers in an NFC title game.

I don't know where the bottom of this well is anymore.

I already lost one major lifelong interest with NCAA hoops going down the drain. What do you think the Perkins-Worthy-Jordan Tar Heels would've done to any current college team?

Now my favorite sport of all, CF, is rushing headlong in the same forsaken direction...

SoCal, you're the same age as me. You remember Freeman McNeil, Kenny Easley, Marques Johnson and even Bill Walton. You remember all those guys playing huge games as seniors, against equally huge names. You remember seeing those rivalries carry into second and even third seasons.

You've been there, same as me. Don't you also feel this whole thing now turning into a money driven pile of medium brown shit?

Money is the reason. 20-30 years ago, missing out on a 300-400k salary wasnt that big of a deal. Now, guys could lose 40-50 mil if they get hurt and the money gets in the way of loyalty. I dont know if CFB is going to suffer like CBB, b/c guys have to stay at least 3 years. I have noticed this year that a lot more underclassmen opted for the draft.

Honestly, was it any different in the late 60's - early 70's? Back then, Freshman couldn't even play varsity ball, so we still only got to see 3 years for most players. Now, the Freshman play, but leave after their Junior year. We only saw about a 10-15 year window where the truly great players played 4 seasons.

Cicero wrote:Money is the reason. 20-30 years ago, missing out on a 300-400k salary wasnt that big of a deal. Now, guys could lose 40-50 mil if they get hurt and the money gets in the way of loyalty. I dont know if CFB is going to suffer like CBB, b/c guys have to stay at least 3 years. I have noticed this year that a lot more underclassmen opted for the draft.

Actually, the NFL didn't allow players to leave early until the late 80's-early 90's anyway. Before that, it simply wasn't an option.

Van,

Killian's right, when you think about it. Wasn't that long ago that the NCAA didn't allow freshmen to play varsity, so the players back then only got three seasons anyway, just a different three seasons (sophomore-junior-senior vice freshman-sophomore-junior) than they get now. There was only about a 15-20 year window where they got all four seasons. Unfortunately, that's the window where guys like you and me came of age as fans, so that's where our focus tends to lie.

Can't compare missing your freshman season with skipping your senior season so no, Killian's not right. They're not the same thing at all.

Missing your freshman season? Hell, who knows how much you would've played and how well you would've played?

Missing your senior season? Huge difference. By your senior season you've established yourself and you've established rivalries. You've become the focal point of your team. Your absense takes a much greater toll on your program because they've come to count on you.

You haven't even affected your program yet when you're merely the equivalent of a redshirt freshman. You've taken up a scholarship, is all.

Matt Leinart the senior is a much more valuable commodity to his program than Matt Leinart the bench riding freshman. LenDale White, had he played next season? Reggie Bush?

VY?

No comparison, vs being forced to sit out their freshman season.

What a worthless endeavor. Best ever? Favorite color?


I hate SuC with endless passion, but the 1972 Usc team has to be in the top 2.

Sure there is. Consider that when freshman couldn't play varsity ball, they still only had 3 years to establish the rivalries and contribute to the team as you mentioned. Also, I'd be willing to wager that the average sophomore back then played as much as the average freshman does today.

Back then, they were essentially forced to take a redshirt year without the benefit of being able to come back for a 5th year of eligibility. So they were essentially redshirt juniors when they were forced to leave. They were only on the field for 3 seasons, same as a Reggie Bush or LenDale White today.

3 seasons to establish the rivalries and make an impact on your team and effect the results on the field.

Van,

I don't disagree but it is what it is. Upper-classmen have shirked their letterman jackets and whistful renditions of "Be True to Your School" and gone the way of the Dodo. The multi-billions of dollars that drive our sports-crazed culture have seen to it that college football is now what it has long been suspected of being; a de facto NFL minor league system.

Listen, it's MLK's day to shine so in my best Johnny Cochran voice...

"When the money goes away, the players will stay."

Jsc810 wrote:That team would not be in the 2006 top 25. Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster.

Great call!

Sin,

I'm just happy Clarrett lost his lawsuit. Having to be in college three years keeps CFB from going downhill like CBB did.

By the way, '95 Neb didn't have one close game. Their closest win was by 14pts to WSU and it was only that close because they scored on our back-ups. I think you have to give credit for no team coming remotely close to beating them.

Also, as much as I hate the canes their 2001 team should be much higher. In terms of talent on both sides of the ball they were as loaded as it gets.

Media just trying to put hype where there shouldn't be any. You can not ever compare teams from one era to another. I find it hard to compare teams from one year to the next when the teams change so much.

Just as the media got on USC's jock in 2005, they will do so in 2006 for texas, until someone knocks them off.

IndyFrisco wrote:Media just trying to put hype where there shouldn't be any. You can not ever compare teams from one era to another. I find it hard to compare teams from one year to the next when the teams change so much.

Just as the media got on USC's jock in 2005, they will do so in 2006 for texas, until someone knocks them off.

So two weeks or six?

Two.