1970's The Best Decade?

[SteelClip49]

My question is, would the 70's be the best College Football decade ever? The top powerhouses in college football won championships and had some lethal teams.

70- Nebraska, Texas
71- Nebraska
72- USC
73- NDame, Alabama
74- Oklahoma, USC (10-1-1 and can thank OU)
75- Oklahoma
76- Pittsburgh
77- Notre Dame
78- USC, Alabama
79- Alabama

Could any of these national champions compete with and possibly beat teams from 1995 Nebraska up to 2006 Florida? I know they are different eras but I would think some of these teams could keep up with today's players.

[snp]

Even though I wasn't even alive in the 70s I am going with an emphatic no. The players and systems have totally improved.

[OSUAggie]

If you think 235-260# lineman could handle a modern line on either side of the ball, then sure, the teams could compete.

[AlbqSooner]

If you think 235-260# lineman could handle a modern line on either side of the ball, then sure, the teams could compete.
When Mike Vaughan was an OT at OU, he was called USS Vaughan because he was a Mammoth 275 lb. lineman. The other thing is that during the 70s and before, teams put all their fastest and best athletes on Offense. Defenses did not have the speed burners they do today.

[King Crimson]

My question is, would the 70's be the best College Football decade ever? The top powerhouse in college football won championships and had some lethal teams.

70- Alabama
71- Alabama
72- Alabama
73- Alabama
74- Alabama
75- Alabama
76- Alabama
77- Alabama
78- Alabama
79- Alabama


FIFY.

[VMG]

When Mike Vaughan was an OT at OU, he was called USS Vaughan because he was a Mammoth 275 lb. lineman. The other thing is that during the 70s and before, teams put all their fastest and best athletes on Offense. Defenses did not have the speed burners they do today.

...and Mike was larger than the average by a considerable amount. However, "fastest and best" athletes were on both sides of the line of scrimmage -- the Selmons, Randy Hughes, Rod Shoate, Durwood Keeton, Zac Henderson, and Tony Peters are but a few of many examples.

IMO, the (nearly) year-round strength and conditioning programs that begin at the HS level and expand at the collegiate level have made modern athletes generally bigger, faster and better conditioned all around. What is truly awe inspiring to watch are some of the freakish combinations of both size and speed that we routinely see in modern athletes -- Jevon Kearse being but one example. For reference, as a freshman LeeRoy Selmon was about 260 and ran 4.7.

[Rogue]

The '95 Nebraska team is the best I've ever seen so, no I don't think any team from the '70s could beat them.

[King Crimson]

The '95 Nebraska team is the best I've ever seen so, no I don't think any team from the '70s could beat them.

the 95 Bugeaters were the best i've seen.

[BajaOklahoma]

I've always thought it was difficult to justify the Best decade as so many factors are different - size, speed, sets, facilities, training.

However, if you want to talk about Favorite Decade, then yes. Washington, Pruitt, the Option. The list of great plays and players would take days to complete and I would still omit someone or something important. The only thing that sucked was the lack of TV coverage.

[Suerreal]

The 1970s era OU teams were tremendously fun to watch. You felt vaguely let down at halftime if they hadn't "hung half a hundred" by then. Every offensive play had a serious chance of being a touchdown. Or a fumble.

- Sue

[stoopified]

The 1970s era OU teams were tremendously fun to watch. You felt vaguely let down at halftime if they hadn't "hung half a hundred" by then. Every offensive play had a serious chance of being a touchdown. Or a fumble.

- SueAh,the memories.

[XingTheRubicon]

Leroy Selmon would go ahead and letter in football today.


but most defenses back then couldn't touch todays D's with 240 lb 4.5 linebackers

[XingTheRubicon]

The 1970s era OU teams were tremendously fun to watch. You felt vaguely let down at halftime if they hadn't "hung half a hundred" by then. Every offensive play had a serious chance of being a touchdown. Or a fumble.

- Sue


Very well said.



That, of course all changed when Gaylon Hall started calling the plays. Remember the first play of every game. Fullback dive up the middle....."2nd down and 8 for the Sooners...."

[tulsaoilerfan]

Leroy Selmon would go ahead and letter in football today.


but most defenses back then couldn't touch todays D's with 240 lb 4.5 linebackers
True, but if the studs from the 70's were playing today, think about how good they would be; Lee Roy would probably be a 290 lb DE that ran a 4.7.

[MojoRisen]

4.5 speed even the the 80s was blistering. Although with all the speed now adays- form tackling has gone by the wayside.

[snp]

Watching highlights from the 70s, I'd say tackling has improved vastly. People can't break 25 tackles in one play like Earl Cambell could back in the day.

[Rogue]

Watching highlights from the 70s, I'd say tackling has improved vastly. People can't break 25 tackles in one play like Earl Cambell could back in the day.

There's this kid that played at OU the last couple of years...

[jk the sooner fan]

we had the highest winning percentage in college football in the 70's......

[SoonerRoads]

My question is, would the 70's be the best College Football decade ever? The top powerhouses in college football won championships and had some lethal teams.

70- Nebraska, Texas
71- Nebraska
72- USC
73- NDame, Alabama
74- Oklahoma, USC (10-1-1 and can thank OU)
75- Oklahoma
76- Pittsburgh
77- Notre Dame
78- USC, Alabama
79- Alabama

Could any of these national champions compete with and possibly beat teams from 1995 Nebraska up to 2006 Florida? I know they are different eras but I would think some of these teams could keep up with today's players.

Ahhhhhhhhh, the 70's...........what a great decade. Yes, it was wonderful time to be a Sooner fan. There were several guys I played ball with or against in high school and Jr. College at NEO A&M who got to play at OU and what team's they had! OU had that "fast break" wishbone they ran and baby, it was awesome. Barry Switzer in his big fur coat doing his recruiting thing. And at that time, and for that time in history, OU usually had more speed and better athletes than anyone on the field...offense or defense, linemen or backs. What a great time to be a Sooner fan.

Now could they compete with the athletes of today? Some of those athletes and their abilities were so far ahead of their time that they could compete today, but for the most part, no. Linemen were not huge like they are today but they relied more on quickness off the ball. It is a different concept today brought on by different schemes. For instance, pass blocking today is more of a wrestling match than it was then. Linemen of that time agressively pass blocked, meaning they actually struck a proactive blow against the rushing defensive player, instead of stepping back and waiting for them to come and then rooster fighting with them as they do today. The pass blocking of today requires more size and more upper body strength.......thus, 320 lb. behomoths. But I suggest that this is also the reason that there are more knee injuries too. Bodies have gotten bigger on the same size joints that people have always had. In the 70's in college, I was a 225 lb. offensive guard and sometime slotback/fullback. I depended on being extremely quick and having enormous leg strength. I held my own, won more battles than I lost, but today, heck, there are backs that weigh 230 and run 4.3 40's. 4.5 was fast when I played. A former team mate of mine, Terry Webb, was a 2-time All American at OU at offensive guard. Terry was a great player and when he left Muskogee for OU, he weighed about 190 and stood 6'0" and ran a 4.8 40. They got him at OU on the training table and he got up to 260 and still ran the same 4.8. Could he compete today.......with all due respect to Terry......no. D-Linemen and LB's are just too much bigger and faster.

It is a different game today so it is like comparing apples and oranges. In terms of football glory.........the 70's are my favorite time....though I am waiting for another dominating succession of years for OU to come along. But as far as talent goes, none of us who played college ball during that time, with few exceptions, could compete with the athletes of today.

Just my take.

[Flagstaffsooner]

It is a different game today so it is like comparing apples and oranges. In terms of football glory.........the 70's are my favorite time....though I am waiting for another dominating succession of years for OU to come along. I couldn't agree with you more, Roads.

[MyT Oklahoma]

I first became a Sooner fan in the fall of 1971 so yeah there are a hell of a lot of great OU memories from that decade.
_________________________________________
"This is the voice of the Sooner Football Network." << I also first heard that line in the 1970's.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Leroy Selmon would go ahead and letter in football today.

Yup.


but most defenses back then couldn't touch todays D's with 240 lb 4.5 linebackers

When are we going to get some of those guys?

[XingTheRubicon]

we had the highest winning percentage in college football in the 70's......


I remember a "team of the decade" show on ABC back in the '80's. OU, of course was the 50's, but they mentioned other schools. In the 60's, Alabama and "all white U" and others were mentioned. Then they listed the best of the 70's. Not one mention of OU.....still p*sses me off to this day.

[HUSKERSOCAL]

we had the highest winning percentage in college football in the 70's......
Yep, but NEBRASKA had the most wins overall for the decade - Even though SOONER MAGIC killed me more times than not.

[SteelClip49]

Nebraska had 98, Oklahoma 99, Alabama 103 in the 70s.

[SteelClip49]

Speaking of the decade, do any of you remember the 1975 game against Pittsburgh with Dorsett? I noticed the score was 46-10 and of course it was a title year for OU. What was Dorsett like in that game?

Also kind of interesting about 1975: Pittsburgh beats Kansas in the Sun Bowl by 14 and OU loses to KU during the season by 20, ugh. All I know is, thanks to UCLA beating tOSU, the Sooners got #5.

[AlbqSooner]

Watching highlights from the 70s, I'd say tackling has improved vastly. People can't break 25 tackles in one play like Earl Cambell could back in the day.
Earl Campbell was a freak of a back. He would have that kind of performance even against today's backs.

[AlbqSooner]

Speaking of the decade, do any of you remember the 1975 game against Pittsburgh with Dorsett?
That game is the reason I got a letter to the editor published in Sports Illustrated a few years later. They did a cover article on Dorsett and made the statement that Cosell often made: "Dorsett was never stopped in college ball." I pointed out that Dorsett had the displeasure of playing in Norman when he was in college. After Scott Hill dropped out of the sky ala TRRW on Simms, Dorsett was knocked back about 3 yards. Result, Dorsett had 12 carries for 17 yards that day. He was stopped!

[MamaMia]

I was a full time student and a part time waitress at the Mont during the mid to late seventies. Those were the good ole days indeed for school, OU football, and parties. :)

[Desert Sapper]

There's a reason everybody get's compared to Little Joe, Greg Pruitt, Billy, the Selmons, etc.... They were that good. Any of the Sooner legends would start on today's team. Given that today's team is at the top of the college football universe, I'd say yes. Yes the teams from the '70s could hang with today's teams.

The only difference between then and now is strength and conditioning. Only a few programs had world-class weight rooms back then. Now even Aggie Lite has that. So those same players from the '70s would be BFS (Bigger Faster Stronger) today.

The offense we ran (and a few of those teams on the list of champions) was one that a defense had to react to. Any option offense is dangerous, especially with the right players. And it requires 'smaller' offensive linemen that are quick enough to get in front of a jitterbug fast RB and spring him. If you ran the same wishbone as we did in the '70s today, it would tear defenses apart in the same way. Especially since teams aren't used to seeing it. You take the world-class athletes we had back then running the same offense that...oh...I don't know...UAB ran against us. It's kind of scary. Teams only really see some form of a pro offense with lots of passing these days. Even in 1995, Nebraska destroyed everybody they played (including superfast Florida) using what? The option.

It isn't the players that are better or the systems that are better. It is the training. Any team from the 1970s, if magically brought forward in time, would have the same or similar facilities at their disposal. Therefore, yes. Any super team from the 1970s (with the same conditioning facilities AND the same scholly limitations) could compete with the top tier of today's teams.

[OSUAggie]

There's a reason everybody get's compared to Little Joe, Greg Pruitt, Billy, the Selmons, etc.... They were that good. Any of the Sooner legends would start on today's team. Given that today's team is at the top of the college football universe, I'd say yes. Yes the teams from the '70s could hang with today's teams.

The only difference between then and now is strength and conditioning. Only a few programs had world-class weight rooms back then. Now even Aggie Lite has that. So those same players from the '70s would be BFS (Bigger Faster Stronger) today.

The offense we ran (and a few of those teams on the list of champions) was one that a defense had to react to. Any option offense is dangerous, especially with the right players. And it requires 'smaller' offensive linemen that are quick enough to get in front of a jitterbug fast RB and spring him. If you ran the same wishbone as we did in the '70s today, it would tear defenses apart in the same way. Especially since teams aren't used to seeing it. You take the world-class athletes we had back then running the same offense that...oh...I don't know...UAB ran against us. It's kind of scary. Teams only really see some form of a pro offense with lots of passing these days. Even in 1995, Nebraska destroyed everybody they played (including superfast Florida) using what? The option.

It isn't the players that are better or the systems that are better. It is the training. Any team from the 1970s, if magically brought forward in time, would have the same or similar facilities at their disposal. Therefore, yes. Any super team from the 1970s (with the same conditioning facilities AND the same scholly limitations) could compete with the top tier of today's teams.

You're arguing something totally different. The teams of the 70s couldn't compete today because of all the reasons you listed (weight rooms, training, etc). It's not an argument about whether or not humanity has evolved into superfreak athletes, but would those teams (in their 1970 state) be able to compete with the teams that roam the fields today. I say no way.

Sure, there are exceptions when you break it down to players. Most of those players would be skill position guys. The linemen wouldn't be able to hold up against a modern line, though.

[SoonerRoads]

There's a reason everybody get's compared to Little Joe, Greg Pruitt, Billy, the Selmons, etc.... They were that good. Any of the Sooner legends would start on today's team. Given that today's team is at the top of the college football universe, I'd say yes. Yes the teams from the '70s could hang with today's teams.

The only difference between then and now is strength and conditioning. Only a few programs had world-class weight rooms back then. Now even Aggie Lite has that. So those same players from the '70s would be BFS (Bigger Faster Stronger) today.

The offense we ran (and a few of those teams on the list of champions) was one that a defense had to react to. Any option offense is dangerous, especially with the right players. And it requires 'smaller' offensive linemen that are quick enough to get in front of a jitterbug fast RB and spring him. If you ran the same wishbone as we did in the '70s today, it would tear defenses apart in the same way. Especially since teams aren't used to seeing it. You take the world-class athletes we had back then running the same offense that...oh...I don't know...UAB ran against us. It's kind of scary. Teams only really see some form of a pro offense with lots of passing these days. Even in 1995, Nebraska destroyed everybody they played (including superfast Florida) using what? The option.

It isn't the players that are better or the systems that are better. It is the training. Any team from the 1970s, if magically brought forward in time, would have the same or similar facilities at their disposal. Therefore, yes. Any super team from the 1970s (with the same conditioning facilities AND the same scholly limitations) could compete with the top tier of today's teams.

I see your point and as I said in my post...."some" but not all could play today and excel as they did in the 70's. Everyone talk about Leroy and Dewey Selmon but some forget that big brother Lucious, may have been the meanest and strongest man in college football in his day. All three were great athletes, strong, cat-like in their reflexes.....but I think that even they might have had a harder time today. When you talk about backs, well of course, guys like Greg Pruitt, Joe Washington and Billy Sims would have been great backs even today. But if they were playing today, they would have bigger, stronger, faster linemen blocking for them and coming after them from the other side of the ball. Still, they would do well. But there is something that I have noticed over the years and some of you may agree or disagree, but the average size of players in general has increased substantially. Whether that has to do with these kids growing up eating meats and chicken and eggs and the like that contained steroids to make the cattle and chickens so much bigger and more profitable, I don't know. What I do know is that, about 5-10 years after I was out of college, the average size of linemen and linebackers just grew tremendously and along with that, came greater speed, agility and quickness. Part of it can be attributed to advances in medical science and healthier kids and part to better facilities and weight training, but whatever combination of things contributed to it, it nonetheless occured. I played next to a guy who had started the year before in the Big 8 and at 6-3 and 275, running a 4.9, he was considered a pretty big, fast lineman. He and I were talking recently and he agrees that it would be difficult to compete with the athlete's of today.

Some of the great athletes of the time would still be able to excel but most could not.

Just my take.

[Desert Sapper]

I see your point and as I said in my post...."some" but not all could play today and excel as they did in the 70's. ...

Some of the great athletes of the time would still be able to excel but most could not.

Just my take.

I agree with you. I just figured somebody had to take the devil's advocate position and I didn't see anybody stepping up. The only way the athletes of any previous era could compete in any later era is conditional. But, damn was it fun to watch the Sooners in the '70s. And '80s.

There's only a handful of guys in the last 10 years that could even compare to this guy right here (DeMarco Murray looks like he's heading that direction):

Little Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lbuUTz2IUY&feature=PlayList&p=513039E7E9A1B7EE&index=7)

This guy was really amazing:

Billy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DyMRbrJRNk)

[snp]

I would love to see a 70s defense go up against our offensive line this year that averages 6-5 316.

or see the secondary match up against recievers that could average 6-5 220 with JJF, Gresham, MK, Iglesis and Tennel out there.


Really, I just wanted to find out some averages for our team.

[Octavian]

Pretty good book entitled Oklahoma Football: The Winningest Team of the Seventies (http://www.soonerstats.com/shopping/book/index.cfm) goes through our dominant run in the decade.


As for XTR's point, yeah that's crap...and others do the same.


In their decade-by-decade ranking system, College Football Data WareHouse has us ranked #3 (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979) in the '70s.

[Octavian]

We were hurt in those rankings because of our "forfeited" games in '72 and USC was helped because they were handed a piece of the '74 title because DKR and some others initiated the UPI rule which banned teams on probation (ie. Oklahoma) from winning a NC in their poll


..so USC got a bogus title even though we were the only undefeated team in the country.

[East Coast Bias]

The game has changed from run dominant to pass dominant also.. In those days the run game was the ticket for all the championship teams. There was also a lot of unlimited scholarship teams that feasted on poor competition, week in and out. The game today is more fun to watch because of the balance and pass game. Unless you enjoy watching someone getting hung with half a hundred.......

[East Coast Bias]

Also the old-timers may not have been as big or fast but they seemed to be tougher. Steve Owens, Jim Brown, Jack Lambert and Butkus come to mind. Jim Brown never ran out of bounds in his career, and Butkus and Lambert were not big enought to play LB today, but were mean and hungry all the time. Don't think for a minute Leeroy Selmon wouldn't dominate today, he was always hungry and tough....

[snp]

It's real easy to look tough when you aren't being hit that hard.

[SoonerRoads]

I agree with you. I just figured somebody had to take the devil's advocate position and I didn't see anybody stepping up. The only way the athletes of any previous era could compete in any later era is conditional. But, damn was it fun to watch the Sooners in the '70s. And '80s.

There's only a handful of guys in the last 10 years that could even compare to this guy right here (DeMarco Murray looks like he's heading that direction):

Little Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lbuUTz2IUY&feature=PlayList&p=513039E7E9A1B7EE&index=7)

This guy was really amazing:

Billy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DyMRbrJRNk)

I am with you my friend. I can remember after college, being stationed in West Berlin and staying up til all hours when they were broadcasting an OU game and just being thrilled to watch the Sooners run that option all over anyone that they played. Simple line blocking(everyone reaches) and the fast break is on at the snap of the ball! But the part I liked best was when we ran left, ran right, ran left, ran right, BOOM up the middle and just when they thought we were going to go left again, the two step drop off the fake to the fullback and lofting it downfield to a wide open receiver! Oh baby, THOSE were the days! Hang a half a hundred on them baby! You had to love it!

Just my take.

[tommie15]

The game has changed from run dominant to pass dominant also.. In those days the run game was the ticket for all the championship teams. There was also a lot of unlimited scholarship teams that feasted on poor competition, week in and out. The game today is more fun to watch because of the balance and pass game. Unless you enjoy watching someone getting hung with half a hundred.......

Pass game more fun to watch the option/wishbone? BLASPHEMY!!!!! Nothing is more fun to watch than a finely tuned option team running up and down the field.

[Desert Sapper]

It's real easy to look tough when you aren't being hit that hard.

I'd like to see you tell the 64-year old Dick Butkus that to his face. Nevermind the 24-year old Butkus who once suggested that he wanted to literally remove a head and see it on the ground every time he hit someone. Keep in mind also, that the 'toughest' players to ever play the game are generally regarded as the ones that had just returned from fighting in World War II. They may not have been as big, but they were a hell of a lot meaner and played with reckless abandon, because they had spent four whole years facing death. I'd like to see the result of the 6'4" 250 lb 'mean' LB facing up against the 6'1" 220 lb guy that just got back from the most devastating war in the history of the world. Gut check and ferocity would win out over second hand steroid ingestion. I guarandamntee it.

[goingoneight]

When Mike Vaughan was an OT at OU, he was called USS Vaughan because he was a Mammoth 275 lb. lineman. The other thing is that during the 70s and before, teams put all their fastest and best athletes on Offense. Defenses did not have the speed burners they do today.

Mike Vaughan = Snack for Tha LOAD. No offense, Mikey. :D

[SteelClip49]

What was the best Oklahoma team?

1971? 1973? 1974? 1975? 1978?

[goingoneight]

What was the best Oklahoma team?

1971? 1973? 1974? 1975? 1978?

I'll take Billy Sims for $300, Alex.

:D Naw, that's the only season I have tape on. :D

[cvsooner]

What was the best Oklahoma team?

1971? 1973? 1974? 1975? 1978?

IMNSHO....1974 was the best OU team I personally saw on the field. '75 a close second....

[SteelClip49]

Even though I was not around until 1983, I would say OU knocking off the Seminoles in the 80 Orange Bowl capped off a fantastic decade. OU prevented FSU from a possible national title.

Sooners and Noles in 2010 and 2011 I believe. I wonder if Bowden would want to stick around that long just to try and beat OU once considering he is 0-3 right now.

[SoonerRoads]

IMNSHO....1974 was the best OU team I personally saw on the field. '75 a close second....


I agree....those were absolutely GREAT years! I was blessed to have been able to play with two of the starters off those teams.....Jim Littrell(FB) and Terry Webb(OG). I was so happy for them to see them have such great success with the team we all grew up idolizing.

Just my take.

[crimson&cream]

If you'll check the winningest team of the 70's overall.
was
OU 102-13-3 .877%
Bama was second on this list.

ck the 50's winningest team again

OU 93-10-2 .895%