- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FBS Thesis: It was easier for "cinderellas" to win NC in the pre-BCS era
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:29 pm to TexasTiger08
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:29 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
Notre Dame a cinderella in 88'?
They are pretty much a special case.
quote:
Miami's program rose quickly...so that one is debatable. But then again, Boise and TCU rose pretty damn fast too
TCU faster than Boise. For Boise it has been a 20 year process.
Miami's rise was pretty phenomenal. Like the sport had never seen before and hasn't seen since.
quote:
What about LSU in 03'
1) Already addressed. We were in the SEC, and winning the SEC gets you cred.
2) We had won the SEC two years before, so not a cinderella.
quote:
Penn State was an established power going to major bowl games left and right. How the hell are they a cinderella?
They were basically a Boise State back then. They kept going undefeated and kept getting snubbed by the polls. 1982 was the first time they broke through.
So I would disagree that Penn State was an established power. They were an independent team that had never won a championship.
quote:
And seriously...you are messed up if you don't include 1990 Georgia Tech.
Also see my "major conference" theory. The ACC back then was better than now anyways.
2
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:29 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
They finished in the top 4 every year from 1987-1992, they were #1 most of the 93 season.
Yet, they didn't win the championship until they became a member of the ACC.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:29 pm to DelU249
quote:
but other than 04,
you mean Jan 04, so the 03 season?
Cause in 2004 the best 2 teams before the bowls were USC and OU
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:37 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Yet, they didn't win the championship until they became a member of the ACC.
yeah, that was it not being in the ACC is why FSU didn't win the NC in those years, it wasn't because they lost to Miami in 87, 88, 91, 92, years Miami either won the NC (87,91) or lost to the team that did(ND 88, Bama 92) , or that they lost 2 games in 89, and 90, nope, it was that they weren't in the ACC.
Its not like Independents (like FSU was) won the NC in 82,83,86,87,88,89 and 91 or anything.
The world was different back then, there were way more independents prior to 91 or so and they were considered powers.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:39 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
TCU faster than Boise. For Boise it has been a 20 year process.
Miami's rise was pretty phenomenal. Like the sport had never seen before and hasn't seen since.
I agree...but watching the 30-for-30 and understanding the reality of what talent there was in the Miami area gives it some credibility.
quote:
1) Already addressed. We were in the SEC, and winning the SEC gets you cred.
Auburn in 2004 agrees.
quote:
2) We had won the SEC two years before, so not a cinderella.
And Penn State had been playing in Sugar and Orange Bowls before 1982...
quote:
So I would disagree that Penn State was an established power. They were an independent team that had never won a championship.
An established power doesn't mean you are JUST winning championships. It means you are routinely having great seasons against solid competition.
quote:
Also see my "major conference" theory. The ACC back then was better than now anyways
That was pre-FSU. Virginia was good...but the book on UVa doesn't exactly include more than 9-win seasons.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:40 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
yeah, that was it not being in the ACC is why FSU didn't win the NC in those years, it wasn't because they lost to Miami in 87, 88, 91, 92, years Miami either won the NC (87,91) or lost to the team that did(ND 88, Bama 92) , or that they lost 2 games in 89, and 90, nope, it was that they weren't in the ACC.
Hmmm...yes. You are right. This actually fits my thesis, however. If FSU was close to winning, and would have won but for a game here or a game there, that means it was easier for them back then than it would be if they were trying to do the same thing today.
I think the "scheduling your arse off" is the best explanation of why so many teams "surged" in the 1980s. It fits for Miami, FSU, and Penn State anyways.
Lord knows how BYU ended up winning.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:41 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
The ACC back then was better than now anyways.
first of all, that's debatable, but even if it was, it was viewed that way. It was regarded like maybe the Big East is now at best. The ACC went to the Citrus Bowl for a while.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:41 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
2) We had won the SEC two years before, so not a cinderella.
And Penn State had been playing in Sugar and Orange Bowls before 1982...
quote:
So I would disagree that Penn State was an established power. They were an independent team that had never won a championship.
An established power doesn't mean you are JUST winning championships. It means you are routinely having great seasons against solid competition.
OK. You've convinced me about Penn State.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:43 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
OK. You've convinced me about Penn State
Good thread going here though. Nice debate...BYU 84' really does make you scratch your head a bit.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:46 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
I think the "scheduling your arse off" is the best explanation of why so many teams "surged" in the 1980s. It fits for Miami, FSU, and Penn State anyways.
I agree. It was before you payed a crapload of money to a ULL, App State, etc. Back then it was a little less about the money, and more about kicking a good team's arse.
But being independent makes that possible. As much as I dislike Notre Dame, they have so many rivalries because of what indy-scheduling has allowed them to do. They can keep their rivalry with a Stanford or USC, then renew the FSU rivalry (and if the AD ever grew balls, the Miami rivalry in the reg season). They have so many options to play solid teams all around.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:47 pm to TexasTiger08
Thank you.
The 1980s have fascinated me for a while now and I want to learn more.
I was born in 82. I went to my first LSU game in 87.
So cognitively speaking, I missed most of the 80s. I remember bits and pieces. Specifically, I remember Miami winning in 87. That, along with the bowl we played against S Car, was my first cfb memory.
Anyways. There is something strange about that decade. The 70s were dominated by major powers. But in the 80s all these different teams got in there.
Georgia had a renewal with Herschel. Clemson in 81. Penn State. Miami. Florida State.
And the strangest part of all....no split championships. The entire decade. None.
There was some in the 70s, and there were some in the 90s. None in the 80s. Makes you wonder.
The 1980s have fascinated me for a while now and I want to learn more.
I was born in 82. I went to my first LSU game in 87.
So cognitively speaking, I missed most of the 80s. I remember bits and pieces. Specifically, I remember Miami winning in 87. That, along with the bowl we played against S Car, was my first cfb memory.
Anyways. There is something strange about that decade. The 70s were dominated by major powers. But in the 80s all these different teams got in there.
Georgia had a renewal with Herschel. Clemson in 81. Penn State. Miami. Florida State.
And the strangest part of all....no split championships. The entire decade. None.
There was some in the 70s, and there were some in the 90s. None in the 80s. Makes you wonder.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 3:52 pm to TxTiger82
I am in the minority when I say this, but the split titles never did bother me too much. I think that is why some teams scheduled such difficult games...they knew in the long run it would matter.
Also, I think after looking at the AP polls, writers were less hesitant to reward teams for winning big games. For example...nowadays, if #2 Ohio State beats Toledo 28-12 in a not-so-difficult-but-ugly win, and #3 Texas goes to Happy Valley and squashes #22 Penn State by a margin of 45-6...Ohio State would still presumably be #1. Okay...that's a stretch, but stay with me.
Back then, if that went down, you see the #3 team jump over #2 for next week's #1. The most recent time I saw this go down (and I agreed) was when Texas beat #1 Oklahoma in 2008...UT jumped from 5-1 I believe, and they deserved it.
I think the polls are more stock now in the way they simply "slide" teams up and not "jump" them.
And I am an 80's guy too...but most of my football memories begin around 92' or 93'...still good times.
Also, I think after looking at the AP polls, writers were less hesitant to reward teams for winning big games. For example...nowadays, if #2 Ohio State beats Toledo 28-12 in a not-so-difficult-but-ugly win, and #3 Texas goes to Happy Valley and squashes #22 Penn State by a margin of 45-6...Ohio State would still presumably be #1. Okay...that's a stretch, but stay with me.
Back then, if that went down, you see the #3 team jump over #2 for next week's #1. The most recent time I saw this go down (and I agreed) was when Texas beat #1 Oklahoma in 2008...UT jumped from 5-1 I believe, and they deserved it.
I think the polls are more stock now in the way they simply "slide" teams up and not "jump" them.
And I am an 80's guy too...but most of my football memories begin around 92' or 93'...still good times.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 4:43 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
If FSU was close to winning, and would have won but for a game here or a game there, that means it was easier for them back then than it would be if they were trying to do the same thing today.
I'm not sure what you mean. FSU was close to winning in a lot of years the way say Florida was close to winning in 2009, or Texas in a handful of years or Ohio State a few years back in the 90's.
In other words, it wasn't that they were treated as 2nd tier like Boise or TCU today, but because they lost that kept FSU from winning the NC prior to 93. In 87, they blew a big 4Q lead vs Miami, if they had won that game, they would have played OU in the Orange Bowl for the MNC. They started the 88 season #1 and go clobbered by Miami.
Someone mentioned Penn State. They were treated like Boise today, in the late 60's, early 70's. Ariz State, before joining the Pac 10, had a couple of undefetead seasons and nothing. That's why they started the Fiesta Bowl btw. By the 80's though PSU was considered a power house program. They won the MNC in 82, they were 11-1, SMU was 11-0-1. Penn State was not a step child program.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 4:51 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Anyways. There is something strange about that decade. The 70s were dominated by major powers. But in the 80s all these different teams got in there.
Georgia had a renewal with Herschel. Clemson in 81. Penn State. Miami. Florida State.
2 big changes to CFB occured in the early 80's. Scholarship limits and the CFA. Prior to the CFA, the NCAA negotiated the TV deals and limited teams to 1 or 2 TV games a year. Schools filed suit and won the right for schools and conferences to negoitate TV deals and teams to be on TV as many times a year as they wanted.
quote:
And the strangest part of all....no split championships. The entire decade. None.
so? With so many independents dominating, they were able to get more 1 vs 2 match ups in bowls. Just off the top of my head I think 82, 86, 87 were all 1 v 2 and 88 was #1 ND vs #3 WVU. Miami was #2, ND beat Miami during the year.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 4:52 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
TCU possibly would have split a national championship this year without the BCS matching up #1 and #2.
only if they would have beaten Auburn
Posted on 1/26/11 at 4:54 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
TCU possibly would have split a national championship this year without the BCS matching up #1 and #2.
more likely Auburn and Oregon would have split the title, since they wouldn;t have played and tCU probably wouldn't have been in a big bowl.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 4:57 pm to H-Town Tiger
#3TCU would have played #1Auburn in the Sugar Bowl
Posted on 1/26/11 at 5:00 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
you mean Jan 04, so the 03 season?
Cause in 2004 the best 2 teams before the bowls were USC and OU
No, he probably means after the '04 season, when an undefeated Auburn was left out of the championship game, and an Oklahoma team that choked the year before made it in.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 5:03 pm to wadewilson
quote:
No, he probably means after the '04 season, when an undefeated Auburn was left out of the championship game, and an Oklahoma team that choked the year before made it in.
then he's wrong, because the 2 best teams in 2004 were USC and OU. What happened the year before is not relevant. Oh and OU didn't "choke" the year before, they got beat by a better team.
Posted on 1/26/11 at 5:05 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
#3TCU would have played #1Auburn in the Sugar Bowl
Maybe, but I'm guessing the Sugar Bowl would have taken tOSU and their large traveling party.
In 1980 The Sugar Bowl had #1 UGA vs #4 ND and not #2 Pitt. I'll let you guess why.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News