Per ESPN's poll.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2947988
Let the debate begin.
Breakdown of the top 25.
5 teams
Big 10 (OSU #2, Michigan #6, Wisconsin #13t, Penn St. #21, Iowa #25)
SEC (Fla. #4, LSU #9, Tenn. #10, Ga. #11, Auburn #15)
4 teams
ACC (FSU #7, Miami #8, Va Tech #12, Boston College #22)
Big 12 (UT #3, OU #5, Nebraska #13t, K-State #20)
2 teams
Big East (Louisville #18, West Virginia #19)
Pac-10 (USC #1, Oregon #17)
Everyone else
Boise State (#16)
Notre Dame (#23)
TCU (#24)
I think the SEC proved itself as the best overall of the last decade with 5 of the top 15 despite just two national les (one of which was shared)
USC was a no brainer, IMO, for the top spot. They were a 1 yard stop and 10 yard run away from a three-peat.
I was a little surprised at Texas over OU because of the 4 conference les to 1 but they each have a national le and over the last 10 years are 5-5 against each other. Texas has a three win lead over OU but OU just had 8 wins taken away which would have given them a 5 win edge. UT also has a better bowl record at 6-4. If you put back OU's 05 Holiday Bowl win, they are still only 5-4.
I think the fact its 10 years makes it hard to keep things in perpsective, especially in the case of programs like Miami, FSU and to a lesser extent Nebraska. They have fallen pretty far.
USC is a no-brainer because of the 2 National les... but again they are more the team of the last 5 years which propels them to the top of a 10 year ranking.
Mikey, OU's wins actually include the 8 vacated. They only combined for 9 wins in 1997 and 1998 (Pre-Stoops), so that dings their record.
Boise State I think is actually a little low. They are #2 in wins in this era (and I recall reading that since the Stoops era began, they are #2 in wins behind Oklahoma, so if it were an 8 year ranking they'd have more wins than Texas). Obviously they play against inferior compe ion, but they win year in and year out. I'd put them ahead of Nebraska, FSU, Miami, Tennessee and Georgia just because of consistency's sake.
As for the SEC, just watching those teams play is evidence that the level of play in that conference is on another level than the rest of the NCAA, especially in recent years. The non-SEC members of the top 5 are the only schools I think could even compete for an SEC le year in and year out. A school like Michigan would be looking at 8-4 every year.
.Mikey, OU's wins actually include the 8 vacated. They only combined for 9 wins in 1997 and 1998 (Pre-Stoops), so that dings their record
My bad....I was trying to give your boys the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks brah... we'll go ahead and cash in your generousity on Oct 6.
My bad....I was trying to give your boys the benefit of the doubt.
Hahahahahaha!
Yeah I already have a bet on that one.
As if the Big 10 bias wasn't already apparent at ESPN...
SEC deserves 5 - I don't think the Big 10 does
ROFL
the big ten is becoming as horrendously overrated (as a whole) as the pac10
oooo stanford, california, wisconsin, iowa those teams scare the outta me
Iowa?
K-State cracks the top 25.
Sc.
USC also plays a cake conference schedule. USC would have 3 or 4 losses a season in the Big 10 or SEC. Lucky for them they only have to play 2 or 3 good games a season to win a national le. Congratulations on that one. Two words... Oregon State.
Well, then, you're incredibly wrong. There's a reason SEC scores are 7 to 3 every week. And it isn't because they have NFL defenses.
Don't get me wrong, the SEC is the second highest rated in my eyes, but Big Ten football is far and away above everyone else. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. You can't name a conference with 3 programs that prestigious. On top of that you have Wisconsin and Iowa... even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.
I somewhat agree. Back in the 90's you didn't have this whole debate becuase the SEC wasn't what it is now. The Big 10 has gone through some down years, but that's not to say that the SEC won't feel the same types of pains in the future. The SEC is the "in" conference right now, but we will see if it lasts. They will always be a good conference dont get me wrong, but I doubt we continue to write off every other conference in their glory in the future.
Moron...
Last time I checked Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska were in the Big XII.
All Time Winningest College Football Teams:
1. Michigan 853 wins
2. Notre Dame 812 wins
3. Texas 797 wins
4. Nebraska 795 wins
5. Alabama 764 wins
6. tOSU 782 wins
7. Penn St 769 wins
8. Oklahoma 760 wins
9. Tennessee 755 wins
10. USC 731 wins
And I won't even go there regarding Iowa, Minny and the other retreads you mentioned.
While I won't disagree with the point you're making, your list is wrong as the following teams have over 800 wins...
860 - Michigan
821 - Notre Dame
813 - Texas
810 - Nebraska
Are you kidding? I went to the MSU-Minnesota game this past season. Watching old people would have been more entertaining.even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.
Seriously though....I like the Big 10 but I would hardly call what these two schools have done the last 10 years "highly successful".
Minnesota is barely over .500 at 64-57 and MSU is at .500 with a 59-59 record.
Last edited by samikeyp; 08-02-2007 at 12:27 PM.
Historical wins don't mean . It's such a skewd stat becuase not all programs started at the same time. For all we know Rice could have started back in the 1850's and during the time when football was new they killed every team that just started a football program. So if Rice went 500-50 from 1850-1950, and then went 50-200 there after, do they belong up at the tops of college programs becuase they have more wins than another team? Now, I know non of the numbers add up, but I'm just trying to make the point that you can't judge a program by career wins. Michigan is one of the oldest programs around. Ohio St. and Michigan people argue all the time, about everything, and they (Michigan) always boast about how they lead the series over Ohio St. Now, that is statistically true, however, when you look into the numbers it should be expected for them becuase they had 10 years under their belt before football was even introduced at Ohio St. Thats what I'm saying, is Michigan might have the most wins, but they have had 10 years on everyone else. So think about it, it took and extra 5-10 years just for teams to be competable against them. The same logic holds true for every other program. The first programs will always have more wins than a newer one. Its the same logic as Michael Jordan's brother probably beat him in basketball everytime they played untill Jordan got older.
That said, you should compare winning percentage from the time when football became football. The forward pass was ins uted in 1904(I think I may be a year off). So wins from 1870-1904 are basically wins as a rugby team beating up on teams who are new to the sport. So, if you want to count those, go ahead, but if your truley looking and comparing football as we know it today, you should do winning percentage since 1904
Last edited by Thunder Dan; 08-02-2007 at 12:09 PM.
Ask, and you shall recieve.
Note - Only includes current I-A teams.Code:I-A Winning Percentage 1904-2006 (103 years) ---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- ----- Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games ---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- ----- 1 Notre Dame 0.74617 762 248 34 1044 2 Michigan 0.73640 729 251 31 1011 3 Ohio State 0.72960 720 253 44 1017 4 Alabama 0.71950 758 283 41 1082 5 Oklahoma 0.71194 733 282 49 1064 6 Texas 0.71190 752 296 28 1076 7 Southern Cal 0.70678 715 282 50 1047 8 Nebraska 0.70403 733 298 35 1066 9 Tennessee 0.70251 730 295 49 1074 10 Penn State 0.70000 714 296 35 1045 11 Florida State 0.67288 443 211 17 671 12 Georgia 0.64934 669 350 49 1068 13 Miami-Ohio 0.64170 614 334 40 988 14 Miami-Florida 0.63856 532 297 19 848 15 Louisiana State 0.63684 649 360 47 1056 16 Auburn 0.63135 638 364 41 1043 17 Washington 0.62881 618 356 43 1017 18 Florida 0.62220 619 368 40 1027 19 Arizona State 0.61400 518 321 25 864 20 Georgia Tech 0.60807 637 404 37 1078 21 Central Michigan 0.60586 521 333 34 888 22 Texas A&M 0.60235 620 402 43 1065 23 Colorado 0.59671 581 387 35 1003 24 Fresno State 0.59590 523 350 29 902 25 Syracuse 0.59563 594 397 39 1030
Last edited by SrA Husker; 08-02-2007 at 12:35 PM.
so then the Big 10 doesn't look so bad now does it? The 3 that guy named are in the Top 10
thanks husker dude....that's what i get for being in a hurry.
Unfortunately, that doesn't take any type of strength of schedule into account. Using Notre Dame for example, when they play 4-5 creampuffs a year ATLEAST.....
And the 3 names for the big 12 all have more wins.
not only that, but the Big 12 has 5 teams in the Top 25.
As for the big 10...that powerhouse of a conference has 3 just like the PAC 10.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
