Top 10 College Football teams of Last Decade...

[SoonerinSouthlake]

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/pgStory?contentId=8439384&MSNHPHMA#sport=COLLEGE%20FOOTBALL&photo=8439082

[OUmillenium]

I was expecting to see stats for the 90s?

How about top 10 teams of the current decade as a title?

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Oklahoma (102-28; .785)

It's tough to call a team with as stellar record as the Oklahoma Sooners a team in decline, but it seems that this where they may be headed. While Oklahoma had made a boatload of January bowls and took home yet another national title for the program in 2000, the Sooners have been on the wrong end of some seriously non-competitive BCS bowl games, including two losses in games for the national championship, a loss to non-BCS Boise and getting routed once again last year by West Virginia. While once again, the Sooners will be near the top of the polls we have to question whether they have done enough to be competitive outside of the Big 12. While Oklahoma started this 10-year run not as well as some of the others, the biggest difference seems to be that the Sooners used to play five road games in an 11-game schedule, now they play at the most four in a 12-game schedule. Hmmmm... — miamimitchdotcom, Bleacher Report


Ok, that guy is an idiot. Guess who number one is? Well, I think it should be App State, so SUCK IT MITCH. BTW, how did Miami do last year anyway???

[TexasLidig8r]

That had to be 5 wasted minutes of my life that I will never get back.. and I am dumber for having read that.

The only thing that could possibly salvage that is the inevitable comedic melt down on here which will occur when you look at the team ranked number 1.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

That list sucked. MITCH SUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MichiganSooner]

What an idiotic article. Where is LSU? Miami among the most succesful of the past 10 years? And #1 on the list.....?

[SoonerinSouthlake]

I agree its really a silly article. ....Its just that he was so on the money with his description of the WHORNS

If recruiting rankings mean anything, Texas would be the national champion almost every year. The Longhorns and head coach Mack Brown are outstanding at bringing in some of the best-ranked talent year after year. If you listened to the guys on TV and if you just looked at records, you would think Texas was a powerhouse, a regular machine; this is far from the case. Of schools ranked within the top 10 winners, Texas has gone to the fewest BCS bowl games (two) of any of the schools on the list from BCS conferences (which is nine of them). What this shows us is that while Texas looks great on paper especially against lesser foes, they seldom bring it to the table when it's time to lay their chips down. It will be interesting to see just how long the faithful in Austin will be satisfied with going to the Holiday Bowl and San Antonio Bowl as regularly as they do. — miamimitchdotcom, Bleacher Report

[TopDawg]

Ok, that guy is an idiot. Guess who number one is? Well, I think it should be App State, so SUCK IT MITCH. BTW, how did Miami do last year anyway???

He's not an idiot because Boise State is #1. It looks like he went strictly by win percentage. Maybe he's an idiot for choosing that as his criteria...but his real idiotness shines through with this statement:


the Sooners have been on the wrong end of some seriously non-competitive BCS bowl games, including two losses in games for the national championship, a loss to non-BCS Boise and getting routed once again last year by West Virginia.

He listed 4 games there as being seriously non-competitive. In one of those games we lost by 7 points, in the other one we lost by 1 in OT. Granted, all four losses were really hard to swallow, but only two were non-competitive.

[KantoSooner]

Look, it is easy to judge the content,in this case, by simply looking at the author: Mitch in Miami.

Unless they are talking about Miami, Oklahoma, there is no one in the Florida Miami who knows crepes about football.

Two and half weeks until it's put up or shut up time.

[soonermix]

well the up side is based on the win percentage of the last 10 years we will only get better once we get the '98 year off the criteria.

[cheezyq]

He listed 4 games there as being seriously non-competitive. In one of those games we lost by 7 points, in the other one we lost by 1 in OT. Granted, all four losses were really hard to swallow, but only two were non-competitive.

Not only that, but against LSU, we were a dropped pass from tying the game with just a few minutes left. Boise State had to pull off the craziest set of trick plays to overcome our storming back from behind with a QB who didn't start the season at QB and a studly RB that didn't play for nearly 2/3 of the season.

DAMN WE SUCK! Guys, I think we should convince the OU athletic department to drop football entirely and just quit before we get further behind. :rolleyes:

Consider the fact that we're in BCS bowls nearly every year (6 in the last decade) and that UT has only been in two...the fact that we pretty much own UT the last decade, and there's no mention of LSU, when the Bulldogs and Hokies are listed...this list is just plain dumb.

[TopDawg]

I was expecting to see stats for the 90s?

How about top 10 teams of the current decade as a title?

Of course the decade of the 90's is a decade, but the decade of 1998 - 2007 is also a decade. And, it seems to me, it would be the "last" (meaning most recent) decade.

;)

[yermom]

calling the top 10 as the top 10 in win% is a bit off, but i guess it fits

we'll gain some ground when '98 and '99 drop off, but i doubt anyone will catch Boise for a while.

you have to hand it to them though, when they did play a real team they got it done. but yeah, if they were in the Big 12, or any BCS conference they would not have that record

[Octavian]

Yeah, that was a waste of time.


Making a list strictly on winning % doesn't make much sense. It provides no context and doesn't take into account too many important factors. But that's not the worst part about it.


I understand the list was meant to show us the full last 10 years...but "Team of the Decade" lists are measured as teams of a decade. No one ever analyzes the '68-'77 period and formulates a decade ranking list. And 20 or 30 years from now, no one will look back and make a '98-'07 list.


Nothing in the '90s should have any bearing on this sort of list. We're 8 years in now....there's only 2 seasons left. It's not like FoxSports doesn't know enough about the '00 decade at this point to take a stab at it.

[TopDawg]

Well there's also no sense in making a Team of the Decade list before the decade is over.

I don't have a problem with "Top 10 Teams of the Past Decade" taking into account the last 10 years. The criteria he chose is dumb, but it's not inaccurate. Remember, it's a Top 10 list...not a "Best" list. Strictly speaking, those 10 teams are the Top 10 Teams of the Past Decade in terms of winning percentage. Maybe he should've made that more clear in the beginning.

I agree, though...it was pretty much a waste of time. Sorta like the time I've spent talking about it. :D

[IronHorseSooner]

Unless they are talking about Miami, Oklahoma, there is no one in the Florida Miami who knows crepes about football.

I'm from Miami, OK, and I pray that this guy isn't from my hometown.;)

[StormySooner-IN]

If recruiting rankings mean anything, Texas would be the national champion almost every year.

Well, guess what, they don't....so screw you.

[JLEW1818]

Boise State is a 500 team in the big 12. .. or less.

[rainiersooner]

I particularly liked that his evidence of us being on the decline rested party upon the fact that we lost - in overtime - by one point to the team he declared to be the best team of the last decade. Very rational.

[soonermix]

well we are on the decline if you only look at the 2000 season

[badger]

The list:
10. Tennessee (93-34; .732)
Analysis: Tenn's abysmality has been largely exaggerated, but nobody elite fears them, either.
9. Michigan (93-32; .744)
Analysis: Phail to the Victors since tOSU got Tressell.
8. USC (93-32; .744)
Analysis: Did not start winning or cheating until the recently.
7. Miami (95-30; .760)
Analysis: Foreshadows what happens when thugginess takes over an elite program.
6. Georgia (99-30; .767)
Analysis: Our brothers in faith for a better NCAA suffer from SEC strongholding.
5. Virginia Tech (99-29; .773)
Analysis: Two Vicks and a lot of prevail
4. Ohio State (98-27; .784)
Analysis: OU > Mizzou > Illini > tOSU. Notice how the Big 12 BCS/almost BCS teams are greater than the Big 10 BCS teams.
3. Oklahoma (102-28; .785)
Analysis: A "program in decline?" Have you heard Stoops' press conferences lately reminding you about our conference championships?!
2. Texas (103-25; .805)
Analysis: They have especially strong showings against Rice and the Holiday Bowl opponents :rolleyes:
1. B*** S*** (102-24; .809)
Analysis: No, I didn't forget a few asterisks :mad:

[Jason White's Third Knee]

He's not an idiot because Boise State is #1. It looks like he went strictly by win percentage. Maybe he's an idiot for choosing that as his criteria...but his real idiotness shines through with this statement:



He listed 4 games there as being seriously non-competitive. In one of those games we lost by 7 points, in the other one we lost by 1 in OT. Granted, all four losses were really hard to swallow, but only two were non-competitive.


Slice it up however you like, I stand by my name calling.

[josh09]

Team in decline? Honestly. And when i saw the title of this, i didnt know it meant by record.

[nytehorn]

This is based on winning percentage alone, which is not a good indicator of the overall success of the program. Championships is what count, and in my opinion, would put OU at the top, though I have not researched it. Here is the comment I faulted HIS lack of research on, based on Rivals.

"If recruiting rankings mean anything, Texas would be the national champion almost every year."

These are the top schools in recruiting year in and year out. Here are the results. Looks to me like Florida St or LSU, should battle USC in the title game every year! I only went back 5 years, as these are the kids that were playing through last year...Texas ranked 14th per Rivals this year. I'm just tired of the media saying Mack is "Mr. February", when we consistantly have lesser classes, other than Ohio St. I just threw in N/D because I hate them.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/nytejag/scan.jpg

[Jason White's Third Knee]

This is based on winning percentage alone, which is not a good indicator of the overall success of the program. Championships is what count, and in my opinion, would put OU at the top, though I have not researched it. Here is the comment I faulted HIS lack of research on, based on Rivals.

"If recruiting rankings mean anything, Texas would be the national champion almost every year."

These are the top schools in recruiting year in and year out. Here are the results. Looks to me like Florida St or LSU, should battle USC in the title game every year! I only went back 5 years, as these are the kids that were playing through last year...Texas ranked 14th per Rivals this year. I'm just tired of the media saying Mack is "Mr. February", when we consistantly have lesser classes, other than Ohio St. I just threw in N/D because I hate them.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b135/nytejag/scan.jpg


Nice work.










You weirdo.