Fanblogs.com: Who are the most undeserving National Champions?
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
BYU, 1984 (first)
UofMSnowboarder
· 1 year ago
To say Nebraska was more deserving than Michigan is laughable. Nebraska would have lost to Missouri had the rules been followed.
CU probably was the least clear cut win.
Goodolnuma5
· 1 year ago
UofM, youve got to be kidding,....laughable? Huskers were still Mike Tysonish then. UM was on a roll that year. Would they have beaten LLoyd? (chuckle),......we'll never know, (chuckle)
Husker_Chris
· 1 year ago
Laughable exactly how "Snowboarder"? I've met very few people even from the Big 10 that think Michigan could have even competed against the Huskers that year...
UofMSnowboarder
· 1 year ago
Because the BigTen was much stronger than the Big12 that year (7-0), in common opponents between Michigan and Nebraska, Michigan has a PF and PA advantage, and Nebraska won the Missouri game on a illegally kicked ball.
jake
· 1 year ago
I'm a big 10 fan and a michigan native, and even I agree with Husker_Chris. That's like saying Ohio State has been better than most of the SEC in the past few years. As college football has evidently shown this nation, just because you win doesn't mean you are deserving. Quality of wins is the name of the game.
Joe
· 1 year ago
It is hard to argue that Washinton should have been National Champions in 1984. They were invited to play BYU and turned down the chance to play the number one team in the Holiday Bowl in order to get a larger paycheck. They chose money over a National Championship. They both got what they wanted. Washington got more money and BYU got the National Championship. Obviously BYU did not have a great SOS that year. If you want to argue that someone else "could have" won it or that they had a better team, fine--but don't make a NC claim for a team that refused to proove it on the field.
jake
· 1 year ago
Can you provide supporting evidence that Washington was in fact invited to play BYU? BYU ended up playing a 6-5 Michigan team. I imagine any quality program would rather play true competition, such as #2 Oklahoma, than play in a bowl against perceived lesser competition for less money. If BYU was invited to the mediocre Holiday Bowl, apparently Washington shared the perception of the bowl chairmen that BYU was overrated.
WestCoaster
· 1 year ago
I don't know how legitimate a source this is since it is Wikipedia, and the assertion has no reference article but...
I am assuming Washington thought that if they played and beat BYU and, concurrently, OU won its bowl game, it would leave OU at #1 and Washington at #2. It seems like a better strategy to just take the money AND play quality opponents in hopes that the NC recognition would work itself out - apparently it didn't.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
These lists typically lean towards discrediting an undefeated team that did not face stiff competition in a year no one else stepped up.
What about years when no one steps up? Do years exist that don't deserve a champion? By this criterion LSU 2007 qualifies, as no one deserved it last year.
JB
· 1 year ago
Didnt deserve it??? Maybe not in a normal year...but Mizzouri and WVU dropped the ball, so somebody had to deserve it........and i think they proved it ...........once again showing that tOSU needs to be left out of BCS considerations
grcunning
· 1 year ago
left out of BCS consideration???? I want some of whatever it is you are smoking. I do think that LSU deserved it, though, it will give them something to stare at for the next year or two.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
ROFL. That's great.
jake
· 1 year ago
LSU deserved to win it, and it is ignorant to say OSU "needs to be left out of BCS consideration." OSU just has Stoops-syndrome, only at a higher level. They can get there but just can't win it when it counts.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I agree it would be difficult to find a better team last year. My point is more that some years don't really deserve a champion.
I don't accept that every year someone deserves the championship.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Hey JB I like LSU, but I dont really understand your statement-that Missu dropped the ball? Missu had 2- losses LSU had 2-losses KU had 1 loss UH had 0 losses Yall won the MNC OK and yall had a great season thats it The OSU lost to LSU & ILL LSU lost to Ark & KY Missu beat ARk and beat ILL Two loss teams-very competative More of an arguement for a CFB bowl playoff
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
I agree Louisiana State last year.
Regan
· 1 year ago
LSU didn't deserve it in 2007. My vote would have gone to Kansas. LSU didn't even deserve to play in the darned game. I would rather have seen Ohio State-Hawaii.
The simple fact is that a national champion with two losses has cheapened the sport.
The_Central_Scrutinizer
· 1 year ago
Kansas? Really?
So you're OK with the 3rd place finish in B12 instead of a bona fide conference champion in the Big Dance? Putting an also-ran in the CG wouldn't cheapen the sport? Help me understand that logic.
Regan
· 1 year ago
Kansas was a 1-loss team; the only other 1-loss team besides Ohio State.
There is a historical context to my argument - you lose twice, you shouldn't play for the National Championship. It's never been an issue until 2007. Now, I am hoping that that mythical 'barrier' hasn't gotten into the spirit of the sport.
In CFB, every game matters. If it gets into the popular mindset that you can blow it not once, but twice and still make the NC game, then the sport has been cheapened.
It has nothing to do with 2007. It is a thread of the game itself I am pointing out.
The_Central_Scrutinizer
· 1 year ago
How cheapened is the sport if it gets into the popular mindset that you can ride a weak schedule into a 1-loss record, place 3rd in your conference and still contend for the crystal? I contend that the "Popular Mindset", as represented by 120 some-odd active coaches and pedigreed football experts, voted rather overwhelmingly to pair Champions in spite of battle scars rather than pretty records.
Regan
· 1 year ago
Hey, you're right about that 100%.
I only put Kansas in there as an alternative to WAC Champ Hawaii, and there is some justification for this given Kansas' performance in the Orange Bowl to beat ACC Champ Virginia Tech.
As I have stated on many, many, many occasions on Playoff Threads, I have only 2x Qualifications for who deserves to play for a national championship:
#1: Teams must have either 0-Losses or 1-Loss #2: Teams must be Conference Champions
#1 is more important to me than #2; but both are important. Very important.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
I'm with the Srutinizer on this one.
Your #1 being more important than #2 is the rationale that had OU playing against (and getting their asses kicked inside out by) USCw, instead of--who was it, LSU?
...it's the same rationale that ALMOST sent a 1 loss Michigan to re-play OSU in '06, instead of UF (comparable records, disregard confrence championship status...). UM of course got dismantled by USCw...you know the rest.
Conference Championships are the FIRST weed out. Think of the possibility of having a 2nd or 3rd place team in a conference be declared National Champion? That would be a farce beyond anything we've ever seen to date.
A two loss conference champ as NC is no big deal; it's like having a AL team win the World Series though they had an inferior record than the NL team they beat. No big deal. Champ v. champ.
Now how about the Second place team in the AL beats the NL Champ--where the hell does that leave you? Second place team in NFC beats AFC champ--again, where's that leave you? That's why both of those leagues go champ v. champ.
A one loss, 2nd place team in conference as "National Champ"--simply defies logic. Even if a 3 loss conference champ wins the MNC, at least there's no one in their conference who can claim superiority over the National Champ.
Point bieng: it is a logical impossibility to pretend to be the best in the universe, when you can't logically claim to be the best in a sub-universe of said universe.
Champ v. Champ. Everyhing else is secondary.
GO GATORS!!
Regan
· 1 year ago
My example to defend my earlier statements is: 2005 FSU.
They made it to 7-1 and clinched the ACC Atlantic; then lost 3 straight games, but managed to beat VT to get a BCS Berth. I point out when arguing against a (true) playoff that if all is based on Conference Champions, it’s entirely possible that in 2005 FSU could have run the table and become a 4-Loss National Champ.
I’d rather have a 1-Loss Kansas that placed 3rd in the Big 12 than a 4-Loss National Champ. That’s my opinion…
I’ll take your points one at a time:
2003/4 – I’m not certain which year you’re referring to; OU lost to LSU in ’03 and SCAL in ’04. SCAL was the odd man out in ’03, and AUB was in ’04. In both cases, all three teams that were vying for the two spots had the same number of losses (1-Loss in ’03 and 0-Losses in ’04).
Thus, my #1 criteria was met in both years with no problems, as the criteria itself doesn’t care WHO the teams are, so long as they have either 0-Losses or 1-Loss.
The exact same scenario existed in 2006, when FLA jumped MICH to play OHST in the Title Game. Both FLA and MICH had 1 loss – no problem. FLA jumped MICH for reasons external to the number of losses. Had MICH had only 1 loss and every other team in the country had 2+ Losses, I could have dealt with an OHST-MICH rematch.
I agree wholeheartedly that Conference Championships are a great weed-out, and I have harked on that numerous times.
However, there is a degree of inherent weeding-out by combining my #1 and #2 clauses.
The ONLY way I would part with the #2 clause is if a situation arose like the one last year did, where a 2-Loss team appears in a NC game – I said Kansas because I was desperate for an alternative to Hawaii, given the latter’s poor Bowl performance.
My plan had OHST playing HAW. I had to find some way to square that.... Since we agree 100% in the importance of Clause #2, I owed ya an explanation. :)
CFB is so intense because and only because every game matters as much as it does. One Loss puts national title aspirations straight into life-support. Two Losses should be a death knell to those aspirations.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
Regan,
Hawaii & Ohio State deserved it? LSU WIPED THE FLOOR WITH THE BUCKEYES.
What makes you think-after watching them get OWNED for 60 minutes-that they deserved to be there?
Hawaii got TROUNCED in their bowl game...
Neither of those teams could've held a candle to the team you say doesn't even deserve it?
That take is more effed up than a gumbo sandwich on top of a pile of coathangers...
Zac
· 1 year ago
Now, now, TE, LSU didn't exactly own OSU for the whole 60 minutes. LSU spotted OSU 10 points before going on a 31 pt tear. After that it was coast-down time, given OSU couldn't get any closer than 14.
Look, given LSU was placed in the NC game against one of only 2 one-loss teams (KS only had 1 loss.), and given they won, ya haffta say they deserved it. However, if ever there was a year a mini-play-off (1-4) should have been played that was it. That, however, is a subject for another debate.
I am curious about one thing. Had Boise St played and beaten OSU in January 2007, would we be saying they didn't deserve it either?
Regan
· 1 year ago
TE, apologies for hitting close to home, but I stand by my statement for one reason: I don't believe any two-loss team should be a national champion.
"National Champion" means different things to different people; some believe it means 'who the best team was'. That's fair. To me, however, it is a statement of the entire body of work for the whole season - who went through a gauntlet of quality competition either unscathed or only one slip-up (at most).
That's my opinion, and frankly the way CFB has crowned it's national champions for over 100 years. It's the same reason why I see LSU as the 2003 champ over Southern Cal - they both had 1-loss, but LSU played more quality opponents.
Sorry, but where it counts - the record, Ohio State should have played either Hawaii or Kansas. The only reason why Hawaii is on the table is because they won their conference and there were neither 0- nor 1- loss teams out there.
That's my opinion...feel free to make gumbo sandwich comments. :)
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Kevin That Colo team that you mentioned-Heck I was at that CU vs UT game that year and that was one of the two times I've seen the Horns lose a game in person in my life, it just doesnt happen very often and I remember that game, ya they were running the option round like the old Rice and UT couldnt stop them. They must have been a NC team to beat UT at home-rare event. BTW FSU did purty good last year with wins against Bama and Colo- ha ha
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
Sorry TC, but one loss, one tie, and one 5th down-tainted victory, and CU doesn't look a national champion even after beating UT.
(end of obviously biaised, homerific opinion)
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Thanks RG Your right, my post was homerific-5th down conversion I remember now. Thanks gotta go now and listen to Zappa records Adios Tomcat
Zac
· 1 year ago
"BTW FSU did purty good last year with wins against Bama and Colo- ha ha"
Interesting point, TC, but as I recall, KS St beat TX in Austin before loosing the rest of their games. As for FSU, they managed to beat CO in Boulder; something OK couldn't do (another team which beat your Long Horns). It was indeed a crazy year.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Hey Zac lets not start another daisy chain Texas beat Texas Tech OK ST beat Texas Tech Texas beat OK st Texas Tech beats OU OU beat Texas Colo beat OU Texas beat IA st IA st beat Colo OU beat Missu Missu beat Ark Ark beat LSU ILL beat OSU Missu beat ILL App st beat Mich Mich beat Fla Stanford beat USC TCU beat Stanford Texas beat TCU A&M beat UL Monroe UL Monroe beat Bama Pitt beat WVU Texas beat AZ st BU beat Rice Rice beat S Miss Troy beat OK State
The_Central_Scrutinizer
· 1 year ago
Too early to vote for 2004 USC?
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Love your photo man you look familiar? 2004 is the year that will cause debate and generate blog topics for eons 4 undefeated teams + a Texas team that was only 12 points from being undefeated Had Texas beat OU that year V.Y .would have rallied the troops and won against anybody!! Now that being said, some 2 -loss MNC teams fans are salivating and other teams are crying about how good they are KU,Missu,UGA etc.etc 2004 was a perfect reason for the institution of a CFB playoff-nuff said AU and Utah and others have a legetiment gripe and the thought of undefeated non-champions leaves a unpleasent taste in my mouth. Its kinda like every body in America knows that V.Y. deserved the Heisman. Hookem-Horns
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Texas didn't beat Oklahoma so get over it! Bang-bang-bang! CREAM & CRIMSON GLORY! Was that the game Quinton Griffin just ran wild with that same ol' frog draw play? Book 'em Horns!
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
ROTLMAO!!
BTW, like your name. Makes me want to pull out my old Zappa LPs. Of course, I'd have to buy a record player for that.
The_Central_Scrutinizer
· 1 year ago
If you have to do that, go to the White Zone. You'll love it. It's a Way of Life.
Eh - Twain, Zappa, same thing, different eras, different media.
Now, say something about Football or we'll get h'd by Bald-Headed John, King of the Plookers.
Zac
· 1 year ago
Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow.
Regan
· 1 year ago
LOL...Beat me to it :-)
Regan
· 1 year ago
In 1871, no team was selected as a National Champion. That was absurd. On behalf of the College of Charleston, DIBS - WE CLAIM IT. OURS. CASE CLOSED.
The most undeserved National Championship? Don't go there. :)
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
Regan, I would have swore Alabama already claimed it, I guess I could have just dreamed it.........
jake
· 1 year ago
Ron, I bet they did! I was walking down the street the other day and found a dollar. When I went to pick it up, an Alabama fan came out of no where, snatched it, and said "I claim this and whatever else is in your wallet"
. . . jk
CommonManCommonSense
· 1 year ago
BYU and Washington played in the first game of 1985 with many starters returning for both teams and BYU won the game 31-3. While SOS is important, teams can't always determine the SOS in advance. At the time BYU played Pitt in 1984, they were ranked #3. It is not BYU's fault that Pitt had a bad year, they tried to improve their SOS only to have a team on their schedule lay and egg.
Until we have a NC playoff system that gives every team a litigimate chance at playing for the title, the NC will continue to be determined by tradition and TV market size. It's too bad that playoff systems don't work in NCAA basketball, baseball, swimming, field hockey, chess.....oh, wait - they do!!! I think it would be great to let the sports writers and coaches decide the NFL champs, NBA Champs and give out the cup of Lord Stanley. Why do these sports waste so much time determining champions when writers and coaches are so much smarter?
Sorry - I realize I missed the point - it is all about academics!!!
jake
· 1 year ago
CommonMan, I'm with you on that. It's hard not to get on the playoff topic when talking about undeserving NCs. I always wondered, why don't they just take ever bowl and put them in two playoff brackets (like the BB with NCAA and the NIT); knock off a few conference games (so each conference game played becomes more special); and just play a tourney style resulting in a NCAA-like and NIT-like champion.
WestCoaster
· 1 year ago
Just curious to know where you got the data about most of Washington's starters being back for the 1985 game? According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Division_1A_F..., which has no source linked itself, it states that 17 of Washington's starters were gone from the 1984 team.
CommonManCommonSense
· 1 year ago
Obviously you missed the point. I don't intend to defend or refute BYU's NC. Every team loses seniors every year. Many of the players on the 1985 UW team had significant playing experience (I know as a UW fan). That is not the point. Comparing the December 1984 team with the September 1985 team is just a matter of media coverage and market size. BYU played by the rules established at the time and became a consensus NC. Can't blame them only the system.
My point is we are saps for letting a bunch of know it all writers and coaches who don't even watch the games decide the champion of our favorite sport. What a bunch of losers that makes us.
jake
· 1 year ago
By the way, Washington lost SEVENTEEN starters when they played BYU in 1985
CommonManCommonSense
· 1 year ago
Again that is my point. BYU lost TWELVE starters. Game by game is speculative, you have to play it on the field. Don't blame OU, Washington or BYU for that fiasco. It was the men in funny suits who decide the matchups and get paid big bucks to "rig" the system. Football was once a sport and is now just politics and we are the suckers who accept it.
jake
· 1 year ago
Different season. Different teams. I agree, though, it's all politics. The men in the funny suits are stupid for not having a playoff system. It would be much more lucrative.
1 Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Thanks Ramblin- That 5th down score-Thanks man your right-guess I was kinda homerific. I cant stand Colo, its purty easy to convince me they didnt deserve it. Sorry bout them uniforms man- could be worse- Did you see UNLV's ?
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
Actually, I'm the one being homerific. By discrediting CU's share of the 1990 title, I could enhance GT's share of the 1990 title.
Guess I better go to confession now. Wait a tick, I'm not Catholic!
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
1940 - Stanford AND Minnesota.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I know this isn't the National Championship, but ...
BYU hands down. AT least the other schools played teams with winning records and some bowl teams. BYU, Hawaii, Utah should be automatically left out of any NC conversation until they start playing better schedules on a consistent basis.
CommonManCommonSense
· 1 year ago
Marko do your homework. Since 1990, it would be hard to find a more difficult non-conference schdule that BYU. As a fan of the Pac-10 I wish they would add BYU and Utah because the Pac-10 would become the premere conference without argument. BYU' s non-conf. schedule since 1990 includes:
1990 - Miami, Washington State and Oregon 1991 - Florida State, UCLA and Penn. St. 1992 - UCLA, Notre Dame and Penn. St. 1993 - UCLA and Notre Dame 1994 - Notre Dame and Arizona State 1995 - UCLA and Arizona State 1996 - Texas A&M and Washington 1997 - Washington and Arizona State 1998 - Alabama, Arizona State and Washington 1999 - Washington, Virginia and California 2000 - Florida State, Virginia, Miss. St. and Syracuse 2001 - California and Miss. St. 2002 - Syracuse and Georgia Tech 2003 - Georgia Tech, USC, Stanford and Boise State 2004 - Notre Dame, Stanford, USC, Boise State 2005 - Boston College and Notre Dame 2006 - Arizona State and Boston College 2007 - Arizona and UCLA
They seem to head out to SEC and Big East country a lot more than those teams head out west. BYU has done everything possible to play a good non-conf. schedule.
Ramblin' Gator
· 1 year ago
Very true, but your list does not include the 1984 season, which featured no opponents with a record better than 500. If memory serves, the best team (by record) BYU played that year was Michigan who was 6-6 after losing to BYU in the Holiday Bowl.
CommonManCommonSense
· 1 year ago
You are correct. Actually, I think BYU used their mythical NC to build a better program. They could not have handled the schedules they play now in the 1980's. As stated above, I can't defend their NC, but as it stands today, if the Pac-10 would pick up BYU and Utah, they would be the strongest conference in the land in almost every sport.
BYU brings a solid football and basketball program along with some NC's in golf, men's volleyball and track. Utah has improved a lot in football, has been the Final Four four times and has several skiing and women's gymnastics NC's. Utah is one of the four fastest growing states and their geographic location creates another great rivalry.
Just think about the new competition between the Pac-10 and the SEC for supremecy. I think the Big 10 (11), ACC and Big 12 would take a back seat.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Your argument is very BYU heavy.
While Utah has not had the quantity of good opponents, they have had more quality results.
Both teams are legitimate top 25 contenders every year. They would easily be in the top half of the PAC 10 in football and basketball.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Ben Prather, is that you?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am definitely not a common man, and have proved my lack of common sense.
More of an odd ball with a screw loose.
TigerEducated
· 1 year ago
Who are any teams that played as The University of Alabama that claimed a title, Alex?
RIGHT...
I'll take, "American Collegiate Football Programs More Crooked Than William Tell's Arrow," for $500,000, Alex...
The Answer is, "Albert Means of Memphis, Tennessee..."
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
Alabama probably deserve one they did not get it in 1966. Not that they had proof they were better than Michigan State & Notre Dame, but they had tied. Which leads to an undeserved national championship by none other than Notre Dame. Why? because they made no effort to win the game out of fear of losing it! I can't stand that! Also BYU in 1984, and FSU in 1993 when there only touchdown was a fumble, not a touchdown!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Alabama defintely got shafted in 1966 by ND and MSU, especially since they were coming off back-to-back titles in '64 and '65. I think the voters were trying to make a statement about Civil Rights issues in Dixie rather than concentrating on who the best team in the land was...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Very interesting article from the Bleacher Report. He lays out convincing arguments for all the teams, but I'd have to disagree with the Ga Tech opinion. I think they were deserving that year, especially over a Colorado team that had one loss, one tie, and one extra down... Had I been an AP voter, I would have penalized them for an illegitimate win...
He limited to the last 25 years. I think we can go back further than that...
1) If so much flak is given about Colorado being the first AP champion to have one loss and one tie, then certainly you have to look at LSU getting the shot with two losses last year. I don't have any particular dislike for LSU or begrudge them their title, but as a CFB purist, I think they never should have been in there, although part of me is glad a SEC team was given such consideration.
2) 1983 Miami, jumping four spots to number one in the final AP poll over #3 ranked Auburn, who had a far superior strength of schedule that year. The only ranked team that Miami played that year was Florida, who drubbed them 24-3, while Auburn beat Florida. Talk about BYU playing a cupcake schedule in 1984...
Auburn's only loss that year was to #2 Texas, in Austin. Most of Auburn's schedule was ranked at some point in the season, including Georgia (#4 final poll), Florida (#6, final poll) and Alabama (#15 final poll) What a travesty, but Miami Vice was the sexier choice. I think Crocket and Tubbs handed the title to Schnellenburger...
3) 1941 Alabama, 8-2 record, #20, final AP poll, but they fly a national championship banner for this one. Sorry, you'll have to ask them...
4) 1973 Alabama, UPI title. The Tide lost the Sugar bowl to Notre Dame, who was the AP champion. The UPI was still choosing champions before the bowls were played, but Alabama still has the balls to proclaim themselves co-champions after getting beaten by the real champions. Again, they're the ones who'll have to explain it to you...
5) Anyone do the research on Clemson's 1981 title? Regan, lay out your case for me...
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I've never heard anyone dispute our title. What's the problem with it?
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Clemson's 1981 team was 12-0 with victories over #4 Georgia, and #8 North Carolina in the regular season. Then they went on to defeat #4 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. After the victory over Nebraska, the AP, FWAA, UPI, and the NFF selected Clemson as the consensus national champions.
Clemson was put on suspension the next season for recruiting violations. However, somehow Georgia didn't receive them for Hershel Walker. To me, it really seems like all of the premier programs at that time could've easily been tagged with recruiting violations.
Either way, consensus is consensus.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I wasn't disputing it. I had just never heard much about it...
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Right on. Well, there you go.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
I was at Death Valley when we lost to you guys 13 to 3. I think we turned it over 6 times in that game. I have never heard of any violations that involved Hershel. We did get in trouble later due to the allegations,( apparently confirmed) of Jan Kemp which led to probation and self imposed restrictions on recruiting that caused more problems for us in the early 90's.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
The whole thing surrounding his recruiting was just shady. He wanted to go to Clemson, his g/f went to Clemson, and then all of a sudden on the last day he was enrolled at Georgia and his mom had new things. I really don't care one way or the other. He was an outstanding player, and seems to be a great guy. However, he, just like George Rogers, never scored a touchdown against us.
My point is only that the suspensions seem to be bogus since they only hit certain teams and missed others, even though it was quite obvious that other schools were in violation. Of course, that's not so different from today, is it? Anyway, that has been quite a while and probably didn't have very much effect on the teams of today.
I certainly do miss the quality of those Georgia/Clemson games back then. I really wish that rivalry would become an annual event again. At least we get a taste of it again in a few years.
By the way, I think it's interesting that Mark Richt's son will be playing for us in the fall. I really don't know how that transpired but I'm sure it has something to do with Coach Richt's respect for the way Tommy Bowden runs his program. If Tommy gets the team to live up to expectations this season, I'll be happy, but I'll still be jealous of Georgia for having Richt.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
I have friends who bleed orange that enjoy, whenever the opportunity presents itself, mentioning that the Georgia icon never scored a touchdown against Clemson. It’s true, can’t argue with that, in fact when Walker played for the NY Giants, they had a preseason game against the Panthers in Death Valley, he didn’t score in that game either. The Clemson fans at the game were loving it.
All I can say is, in two of those three games we didn’t need him to score…. we won anyway.
Richt said that there was absolutely no way he would coach his son. There would be way too much controversy/pressure. I’m sure as well, the Bowden connection had a lot to do with the school selection.
Did a guy in an orange jumpsuit tell you the Walker recruiting saga over a couple of pitchers of beer at Tiger Town?
My only thing is, we won three SEC titles and a NC with Walker. Why wouldn't GA Tech, Tenn., Auburn, Alabama, Florida, etc. who had to face Walker turn us in if we cheated, especially if it was so blatant.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I really don't know why they wouldn't turn in Georgia, except for the fact that they didn't take Walker from them. It was never about those schools, just Clemson and Georgia.
To be honest with you, I didn't go to Tiger Town that much. I had a few other bars that I frequented much more often. I actually heard the story from quite a few people, including but not limited to, my father, a former governor of SC, and Danny Ford (he had an interesting take on the whole thing). By the way, that man is awesome to hang out with. His property is a good time to be had by all who go. Anyway, also, when Walker was interviewed about it, he didn't say much to dispute the claims and even admitted that he wanted to go to Clemson and that his mother virtually made the decision for him. Her many new possessions may not have had anything to do with it, but it was terribly ironic.
That is true about y'all winning 2 of 3 of those games. Even though it's fun to talk about Walker not scoring against us, in actuality, there weren't many touchdowns in those Clemson/Georgia games at all. It always seemed to be a battle of defense and kickers. Speaking of, I always thought it was cool that Kevin Butler and Chris Gardocki played together with the Bears years later. You really couldn't ask for a much better kicker/punter combo than that.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
How bout share the other spots in Clemson. I have a buddy that we coordinate schedules and I try make at least one Clemson game a year. He went to Clemson, I believe he graduated in 1985 or 86, not sure. We have always gone to Tiger Town before the game. If you know some better spots that would be some good information.
Speaking of kickers, that could be a problem for us this year, it's apparently going to be left up to a true freshman. Clemson and Georgia have had some really good kickers over the years. Tommy, though seems be struggling a little in that area. I know we struggled with Donnan's kickers. Richt seems to put a little more emphasis on that part of the game than Donnan.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Absolutely man. TTT is much better now than it was when I was there. I have enjoyed it the past few times that I've been. Backstreets is great if you enjoy "finer" beers, but it's a hippie place so the scenery isn't that great. Keith Street has some of the best food in town and boasts a pretty solid drink selection as well. I'm sure you know about the Esso. It's pretty difficult to get in and out of on game days but it's a good time. TD's is a mainstay, but I never really like it that much. Mellow Mushroom is very difficult to get into as well (because of its proximity to the stadium, much like the Esso Club) but that's one of my favorites. By the way, Ancheaux's has a phenomenal wrap (Moe's style, but Moe's is child's play compared to Ancheaux's) that is great for soaking up the alcohol.
Usually I don't go to the bars when I go up there anymore. We just tailgate. However for the rare occasion that I do, we go to Keith Street to get something to eat and drink in relative peace, and then we walk over to TTT, Backstreets, Esso, or Mellow to pregame it.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
"...suspension...for recruiting violations...", compliments of good ol' Charlie Pell, RIP.
Yeah, we got summa' that. Here's the part that sticks in my craw about that whole mess: guess who turned us in?
Ala-f$%&n-bama....the very program from whence cheat'n Charlie dun learnt his trade. Don't get me wrong; we got what we had com'n to us; we bought every bit of that kick in the nuts the NCAA layed on us....
...but St. Paul "Bear" Bryant's name goes in history annals, virginal and unblemished, while his prodigy's is smeared for eternity.
That's just wrong.
GO GATORS!!
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I agree, It is very wrong.
I'll take Ford over Pell any day.
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
You ever read "The Junction Boys" it mentions, they would stuff bales of hay with money, wrapped with the school flag and drop it from planes in the front yard of prospects. Texas and Texas A & M battling for recruits.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Naw; just saw the movie, and I don't recall any such scenes.
Figures they'd clean it up (i.e.--compromise the truth), so as not to blemish the Bear's image. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
GO GATORS!!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Bales of hay dropped from planes? Why, that could kill somebody...
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
On second thought, I think they may have included a scene along those lines...
...guees I'll just have to watch it again. It was a great movie; Tom Berenger did a great job as the Bear.
..but the point stands; Pell learned how to "attract" talent from his mentor. Apparently, he was quite the student--he learned his craft so well, that his former employer (UA) knew exactly where to direct the bloodhounds to start sniffing (for some inexplicable reason, the words "deal" and "immunity" come screaming to mind...). Perhaps a more astute and innovative cheater would have deviated enough from the original game plan, so as not to be so easily traced.
Oh well; all's well that ends well. It was a painfully expensive lesson, but it stuck--and (indirectly) paved the way for hiring Steve Spurrier, and it rendered us hypersentifive to all things NCAA (which, b/t/w, cost Galen Hall his job).
GO GATORS!!
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Hey blackdawg Didn't know bout that story, but I know how it used to work down here two words Pontiac Firebird
blackdawg
· 1 year ago
I've heard that rumor before.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Props Kev; once again, you've demonstrated a commendable objectivity by calling your own team out.
Regardless of what one thinks of the NC, I'll say this about the '93 sqaud: Charlie Ward was the most ellusive QB I've ever seen, save perhaps, Michael Vick. Against UF, the Gators' DL continually penetrated the line....only to have CW running roughshod in the backfield...and our DL (sometimes even our db's and lb's) running into each other like keystone cops.
Maybe there's a slight taint to the NC, but certainly not the Heisman. CW was the man, no doubt about it.
Shame we never got to see him in the NFL.
GO GATORS!!
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Oops...silly me. Thought that was your article; didn't realize you incorporated whole parts of the B/R article. So let me amend the "props", for at least posting it, and not selectively hiding it, or feeling compelled to butcher it on the spot, or something along those lines.
GO GATORS!!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Mad Props to you for admitting your mistake, TG.
Ahh. Good ole Mad.... I really miss his wit and Swedish accented posts... Who knew that they had blimp service from Reykjavik to Stockholm? Airship service just hasn't been the same since the Hindenburg torched and Goodyear sold all their overseas routes to concentrate on the domestic football game coverage...
Mark May would say that UGA's national championship in 1980 is undeserved. I would say that Mark May being considered a college football analyst for ESPN is undeserved.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
...and I would agree with you. Georgia definitely deserved the 1980 championship.
TampaGator
· 1 year ago
Hysterical!
GO GATORS!!
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I always liked his former counterpart, former Nebraska linebacker Trev Alberts. I heard that he got axed for complaining that Corso and Herbstreit get all the fun and credit, but I don't know for sure. He lives down in Augusta I believe, but I haven't seen or heard anything from him since then. They really should bring him back.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Clemson Joe He is on CSTV-now known as CBS College they broadcast alot of C-USA games and a few MWC games. They actually do a much better job than the ABC/ESPN guys IMO. If you dont have that channel get it- a must for CFB fans. adios Tomcat
PittsburghTiger
· 1 year ago
That loss to BYU in the opener began Pitt's descent into too many years of crappy ball. If I remember correctly it was a late pass from Bosco.
I think Pitt was about 14th all-time in victories heading into the 1984 season. They are not there anymore.
All Comments
Nebraska would have lost to Missouri had the rules been followed.
CU probably was the least clear cut win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Division_1A_F...
Read the third paragraph.
What about years when no one steps up? Do years exist that don't deserve a champion? By this criterion LSU 2007 qualifies, as no one deserved it last year.
I want some of whatever it is you are smoking.
I do think that LSU deserved it, though, it will give them something to stare at for the next year or two.
I don't accept that every year someone deserves the championship.
Yall won the MNC OK and yall had a great season thats it
The OSU lost to LSU & ILL
LSU lost to Ark & KY
Missu beat ARk and beat ILL Two loss teams-very competative
More of an arguement for a CFB bowl playoff
The simple fact is that a national champion with two losses has cheapened the sport.
So you're OK with the 3rd place finish in B12 instead of a bona fide conference champion in the Big Dance? Putting an also-ran in the CG wouldn't cheapen the sport?
Help me understand that logic.
There is a historical context to my argument - you lose twice, you shouldn't play for the National Championship. It's never been an issue until 2007. Now, I am hoping that that mythical 'barrier' hasn't gotten into the spirit of the sport.
In CFB, every game matters. If it gets into the popular mindset that you can blow it not once, but twice and still make the NC game, then the sport has been cheapened.
It has nothing to do with 2007. It is a thread of the game itself I am pointing out.
I only put Kansas in there as an alternative to WAC Champ Hawaii, and there is some justification for this given Kansas' performance in the Orange Bowl to beat ACC Champ Virginia Tech.
As I have stated on many, many, many occasions on Playoff Threads, I have only 2x Qualifications for who deserves to play for a national championship:
#1: Teams must have either 0-Losses or 1-Loss
#2: Teams must be Conference Champions
#1 is more important to me than #2; but both are important. Very important.
Your #1 being more important than #2 is the rationale that had OU playing against (and getting their asses kicked inside out by) USCw, instead of--who was it, LSU?
...it's the same rationale that ALMOST sent a 1 loss Michigan to re-play OSU in '06, instead of UF (comparable records, disregard confrence championship status...). UM of course got dismantled by USCw...you know the rest.
Conference Championships are the FIRST weed out. Think of the possibility of having a 2nd or 3rd place team in a conference be declared National Champion? That would be a farce beyond anything we've ever seen to date.
A two loss conference champ as NC is no big deal; it's like having a AL team win the World Series though they had an inferior record than the NL team they beat. No big deal. Champ v. champ.
Now how about the Second place team in the AL beats the NL Champ--where the hell does that leave you? Second place team in NFC beats AFC champ--again, where's that leave you? That's why both of those leagues go champ v. champ.
A one loss, 2nd place team in conference as "National Champ"--simply defies logic. Even if a 3 loss conference champ wins the MNC, at least there's no one in their conference who can claim superiority over the National Champ.
Point bieng: it is a logical impossibility to pretend to be the best in the universe, when you can't logically claim to be the best in a sub-universe of said universe.
Champ v. Champ. Everyhing else is secondary.
GO GATORS!!
They made it to 7-1 and clinched the ACC Atlantic; then lost 3 straight games, but managed to beat VT to get a BCS Berth. I point out when arguing against a (true) playoff that if all is based on Conference Champions, it’s entirely possible that in 2005 FSU could have run the table and become a 4-Loss National Champ.
I’d rather have a 1-Loss Kansas that placed 3rd in the Big 12 than a 4-Loss National Champ. That’s my opinion…
I’ll take your points one at a time:
2003/4 – I’m not certain which year you’re referring to; OU lost to LSU in ’03 and SCAL in ’04. SCAL was the odd man out in ’03, and AUB was in ’04. In both cases, all three teams that were vying for the two spots had the same number of losses (1-Loss in ’03 and 0-Losses in ’04).
Thus, my #1 criteria was met in both years with no problems, as the criteria itself doesn’t care WHO the teams are, so long as they have either 0-Losses or 1-Loss.
The exact same scenario existed in 2006, when FLA jumped MICH to play OHST in the Title Game. Both FLA and MICH had 1 loss – no problem. FLA jumped MICH for reasons external to the number of losses. Had MICH had only 1 loss and every other team in the country had 2+ Losses, I could have dealt with an OHST-MICH rematch.
I agree wholeheartedly that Conference Championships are a great weed-out, and I have harked on that numerous times.
However, there is a degree of inherent weeding-out by combining my #1 and #2 clauses.
The ONLY way I would part with the #2 clause is if a situation arose like the one last year did, where a 2-Loss team appears in a NC game – I said Kansas because I was desperate for an alternative to Hawaii, given the latter’s poor Bowl performance.
My plan had OHST playing HAW. I had to find some way to square that.... Since we agree 100% in the importance of Clause #2, I owed ya an explanation. :)
CFB is so intense because and only because every game matters as much as it does. One Loss puts national title aspirations straight into life-support. Two Losses should be a death knell to those aspirations.
Hawaii & Ohio State deserved it? LSU WIPED THE FLOOR WITH THE BUCKEYES.
What makes you think-after watching them get OWNED for 60 minutes-that they deserved to be there?
Hawaii got TROUNCED in their bowl game...
Neither of those teams could've held a candle to the team you say doesn't even deserve it?
That take is more effed up than a gumbo sandwich on top of a pile of coathangers...
Look, given LSU was placed in the NC game against one of only 2 one-loss teams (KS only had 1 loss.), and given they won, ya haffta say they deserved it. However, if ever there was a year a mini-play-off (1-4) should have been played that was it. That, however, is a subject for another debate.
I am curious about one thing. Had Boise St played and beaten OSU in January 2007, would we be saying they didn't deserve it either?
"National Champion" means different things to different people; some believe it means 'who the best team was'. That's fair. To me, however, it is a statement of the entire body of work for the whole season - who went through a gauntlet of quality competition either unscathed or only one slip-up (at most).
That's my opinion, and frankly the way CFB has crowned it's national champions for over 100 years. It's the same reason why I see LSU as the 2003 champ over Southern Cal - they both had 1-loss, but LSU played more quality opponents.
Sorry, but where it counts - the record, Ohio State should have played either Hawaii or Kansas. The only reason why Hawaii is on the table is because they won their conference and there were neither 0- nor 1- loss teams out there.
That's my opinion...feel free to make gumbo sandwich comments. :)
BTW FSU did purty good last year with wins against Bama and Colo- ha ha
(end of obviously biaised, homerific opinion)
Thanks gotta go now and listen to Zappa records
Adios Tomcat
Interesting point, TC, but as I recall, KS St beat TX in Austin before loosing the rest of their games. As for FSU, they managed to beat CO in Boulder; something OK couldn't do (another team which beat your Long Horns). It was indeed a crazy year.
Texas beat Texas Tech
OK ST beat Texas Tech
Texas beat OK st
Texas Tech beats OU
OU beat Texas
Colo beat OU
Texas beat IA st
IA st beat Colo
OU beat Missu
Missu beat Ark
Ark beat LSU
ILL beat OSU
Missu beat ILL
App st beat Mich
Mich beat Fla
Stanford beat USC
TCU beat Stanford
Texas beat TCU
A&M beat UL Monroe
UL Monroe beat Bama
Pitt beat WVU
Texas beat AZ st
BU beat Rice
Rice beat S Miss
Troy beat OK State
2004 is the year that will cause debate and generate blog topics for eons
4 undefeated teams + a Texas team that was only 12 points from being undefeated
Had Texas beat OU that year V.Y .would have rallied the troops and won against anybody!!
Now that being said, some 2 -loss MNC teams fans are salivating and other teams are crying about how good they are KU,Missu,UGA etc.etc
2004 was a perfect reason for the institution of a CFB playoff-nuff said AU and Utah and others have a legetiment gripe and the thought of undefeated non-champions leaves a unpleasent taste in my mouth. Its kinda like every body in America knows that V.Y. deserved the Heisman.
Hookem-Horns
BTW, like your name. Makes me want to pull out my old Zappa LPs. Of course, I'd have to buy a record player for that.
Eh - Twain, Zappa, same thing, different eras, different media.
Now, say something about Football or we'll get h'd by Bald-Headed John, King of the Plookers.
The most undeserved National Championship? Don't go there. :)
. . . jk
Until we have a NC playoff system that gives every team a litigimate chance at playing for the title, the NC will continue to be determined by tradition and TV market size. It's too bad that playoff systems don't work in NCAA basketball, baseball, swimming, field hockey, chess.....oh, wait - they do!!! I think it would be great to let the sports writers and coaches decide the NFL champs, NBA Champs and give out the cup of Lord Stanley. Why do these sports waste so much time determining champions when writers and coaches are so much smarter?
Sorry - I realize I missed the point - it is all about academics!!!
My point is we are saps for letting a bunch of know it all writers and coaches who don't even watch the games decide the champion of our favorite sport. What a bunch of losers that makes us.
Guess I better go to confession now. Wait a tick, I'm not Catholic!
Maryland - 1985 ACC Championship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXpJ1o0e2g4&NR=1
1990 - Miami, Washington State and Oregon
1991 - Florida State, UCLA and Penn. St.
1992 - UCLA, Notre Dame and Penn. St.
1993 - UCLA and Notre Dame
1994 - Notre Dame and Arizona State
1995 - UCLA and Arizona State
1996 - Texas A&M and Washington
1997 - Washington and Arizona State
1998 - Alabama, Arizona State and Washington
1999 - Washington, Virginia and California
2000 - Florida State, Virginia, Miss. St. and Syracuse
2001 - California and Miss. St.
2002 - Syracuse and Georgia Tech
2003 - Georgia Tech, USC, Stanford and Boise State
2004 - Notre Dame, Stanford, USC, Boise State
2005 - Boston College and Notre Dame
2006 - Arizona State and Boston College
2007 - Arizona and UCLA
They seem to head out to SEC and Big East country a lot more than those teams head out west. BYU has done everything possible to play a good non-conf. schedule.
BYU brings a solid football and basketball program along with some NC's in golf, men's volleyball and track. Utah has improved a lot in football, has been the Final Four four times and has several skiing and women's gymnastics NC's. Utah is one of the four fastest growing states and their geographic location creates another great rivalry.
Just think about the new competition between the Pac-10 and the SEC for supremecy. I think the Big 10 (11), ACC and Big 12 would take a back seat.
While Utah has not had the quantity of good opponents, they have had more quality results.
Both teams are legitimate top 25 contenders every year. They would easily be in the top half of the PAC 10 in football and basketball.
More of an odd ball with a screw loose.
RIGHT...
I'll take, "American Collegiate Football Programs More Crooked Than William Tell's Arrow," for $500,000, Alex...
The Answer is, "Albert Means of Memphis, Tennessee..."
He limited to the last 25 years. I think we can go back further than that...
1) If so much flak is given about Colorado being the first AP champion to have one loss and one tie, then certainly you have to look at LSU getting the shot with two losses last year. I don't have any particular dislike for LSU or begrudge them their title, but as a CFB purist, I think they never should have been in there, although part of me is glad a SEC team was given such consideration.
2) 1983 Miami, jumping four spots to number one in the final AP poll over #3 ranked Auburn, who had a far superior strength of schedule that year. The only ranked team that Miami played that year was Florida, who drubbed them 24-3, while Auburn beat Florida. Talk about BYU playing a cupcake schedule in 1984...
Auburn's only loss that year was to #2 Texas, in Austin. Most of Auburn's schedule was ranked at some point in the season, including Georgia (#4 final poll), Florida (#6, final poll) and Alabama (#15 final poll) What a travesty, but Miami Vice was the sexier choice. I think Crocket and Tubbs handed the title to Schnellenburger...
3) 1941 Alabama, 8-2 record, #20, final AP poll, but they fly a national championship banner for this one. Sorry, you'll have to ask them...
4) 1973 Alabama, UPI title. The Tide lost the Sugar bowl to Notre Dame, who was the AP champion. The UPI was still choosing champions before the bowls were played, but Alabama still has the balls to proclaim themselves co-champions after getting beaten by the real champions. Again, they're the ones who'll have to explain it to you...
5) Anyone do the research on Clemson's 1981 title? Regan, lay out your case for me...
Clemson was put on suspension the next season for recruiting violations. However, somehow Georgia didn't receive them for Hershel Walker. To me, it really seems like all of the premier programs at that time could've easily been tagged with recruiting violations.
Either way, consensus is consensus.
My point is only that the suspensions seem to be bogus since they only hit certain teams and missed others, even though it was quite obvious that other schools were in violation. Of course, that's not so different from today, is it? Anyway, that has been quite a while and probably didn't have very much effect on the teams of today.
I certainly do miss the quality of those Georgia/Clemson games back then. I really wish that rivalry would become an annual event again. At least we get a taste of it again in a few years.
By the way, I think it's interesting that Mark Richt's son will be playing for us in the fall. I really don't know how that transpired but I'm sure it has something to do with Coach Richt's respect for the way Tommy Bowden runs his program. If Tommy gets the team to live up to expectations this season, I'll be happy, but I'll still be jealous of Georgia for having Richt.
All I can say is, in two of those three games we didn’t need him to score…. we won anyway.
Richt said that there was absolutely no way he would coach his son. There would be way too much controversy/pressure. I’m sure as well, the Bowden connection had a lot to do with the school selection.
Did a guy in an orange jumpsuit tell you the Walker recruiting saga over a couple of pitchers of beer at Tiger Town?
My only thing is, we won three SEC titles and a NC with Walker. Why wouldn't GA Tech, Tenn., Auburn, Alabama, Florida, etc. who had to face Walker turn us in if we cheated, especially if it was so blatant.
To be honest with you, I didn't go to Tiger Town that much. I had a few other bars that I frequented much more often. I actually heard the story from quite a few people, including but not limited to, my father, a former governor of SC, and Danny Ford (he had an interesting take on the whole thing). By the way, that man is awesome to hang out with. His property is a good time to be had by all who go. Anyway, also, when Walker was interviewed about it, he didn't say much to dispute the claims and even admitted that he wanted to go to Clemson and that his mother virtually made the decision for him. Her many new possessions may not have had anything to do with it, but it was terribly ironic.
That is true about y'all winning 2 of 3 of those games. Even though it's fun to talk about Walker not scoring against us, in actuality, there weren't many touchdowns in those Clemson/Georgia games at all. It always seemed to be a battle of defense and kickers. Speaking of, I always thought it was cool that Kevin Butler and Chris Gardocki played together with the Bears years later. You really couldn't ask for a much better kicker/punter combo than that.
Speaking of kickers, that could be a problem for us this year, it's apparently going to be left up to a true freshman. Clemson and Georgia have had some really good kickers over the years. Tommy, though seems be struggling a little in that area. I know we struggled with Donnan's kickers. Richt seems to put a little more emphasis on that part of the game than Donnan.
Usually I don't go to the bars when I go up there anymore. We just tailgate. However for the rare occasion that I do, we go to Keith Street to get something to eat and drink in relative peace, and then we walk over to TTT, Backstreets, Esso, or Mellow to pregame it.
Yeah, we got summa' that. Here's the part that sticks in my craw about that whole mess: guess who turned us in?
Ala-f$%&n-bama....the very program from whence cheat'n Charlie dun learnt his trade. Don't get me wrong; we got what we had com'n to us; we bought every bit of that kick in the nuts the NCAA layed on us....
...but St. Paul "Bear" Bryant's name goes in history annals, virginal and unblemished, while his prodigy's is smeared for eternity.
That's just wrong.
GO GATORS!!
I'll take Ford over Pell any day.
Figures they'd clean it up (i.e.--compromise the truth), so as not to blemish the Bear's image. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
GO GATORS!!
...guees I'll just have to watch it again. It was a great movie; Tom Berenger did a great job as the Bear.
..but the point stands; Pell learned how to "attract" talent from his mentor. Apparently, he was quite the student--he learned his craft so well, that his former employer (UA) knew exactly where to direct the bloodhounds to start sniffing (for some inexplicable reason, the words "deal" and "immunity" come screaming to mind...). Perhaps a more astute and innovative cheater would have deviated enough from the original game plan, so as not to be so easily traced.
Oh well; all's well that ends well. It was a painfully expensive lesson, but it stuck--and (indirectly) paved the way for hiring Steve Spurrier, and it rendered us hypersentifive to all things NCAA (which, b/t/w, cost Galen Hall his job).
GO GATORS!!
Regardless of what one thinks of the NC, I'll say this about the '93 sqaud: Charlie Ward was the most ellusive QB I've ever seen, save perhaps, Michael Vick. Against UF, the Gators' DL continually penetrated the line....only to have CW running roughshod in the backfield...and our DL (sometimes even our db's and lb's) running into each other like keystone cops.
Maybe there's a slight taint to the NC, but certainly not the Heisman. CW was the man, no doubt about it.
Shame we never got to see him in the NFL.
GO GATORS!!
GO GATORS!!
Ahh. Good ole Mad.... I really miss his wit and Swedish accented posts... Who knew that they had blimp service from Reykjavik to Stockholm? Airship service just hasn't been the same since the Hindenburg torched and Goodyear sold all their overseas routes to concentrate on the domestic football game coverage...
Start at until 1968 under college football.
GO GATORS!!
adios Tomcat
I think Pitt was about 14th all-time in victories heading into the 1984 season. They are not there anymore.