re: Ranking FBS national champions since 1990

quote:

---

, the 09 Tide finished undefeated against the nation's toughest schedule and defeated opponents by a 21 pt average. Therefore, they amounted to the best team that year, that decade, and since 1990.

---

first off it was he #2 SOS that year and all that in no way means any of your subsequent claims are true

It is great that you are looking at advanced stats and using them to back up your argument but there are big flaws in your analysis namely your are put way too much stock into the SOS component and worse using it to make your own hypotheticals. The only metric 09 Bama has over 95 NU is SOS, NU frankly obliterates them in all other measures but you ignore that and claim it is due to the SOS difference (a hypothetical). NU SOS was 24, that's Top 20% that year, not 2 overall but not cupcake city either.

Your other big flaw is looking only a macro and ignoring micro. If you look at the game results and not just the averages NU won 11 games by +23, their closest game was 14. Bama had 4 games less than 14 including 2 by less than 1 score and those were against not top 5 teams, but mediocre one, who yes made Bowls but there were 34 Bowls in 2009 vs 18 in 1995.

Also look at the title game. Both played the #3 SRS team from that year. 95 Florida had a better SOS and SRS than 09 Texas. NU won by 38, Bama by 16, but if we go micro we see that Nebraskas win was way more dominant. Bama was not really dominant at all vs Texas. Nebraska obliterated Florida. NU had 27 first downs and 629 yards to Fla 15 and 269. Bama had 16 and 262 to 15 and 273 for Texas. The score was 24-21 and Texas had the ball with less than 5 minutes to go. A sack fumble and Int on successive drives and the MOV is 16. Throw in an ill advised shovel pass Int and returned for a TD and that's 20 points off turnovers. Credit their D for making plays but that's not dominating. BTW NU won by 38 and gave up a KO TD after going up 62-17.

By pretty much every measure 95 Nebraska dominated the season like no one else.

Never used or created hypotheticals, I used the team's statistics relative to 2009 and presented them to support my argument.

You said 95!Nebraska played a considerably weaker schedule than 09 Bama, and that explains the 53-14 ppg difference. That's purely subjective, particularly since "considerably" is not a defined term. Bama did have a tougher schedule, but at 24 NU was still a top 20% (tougher than 80% of other teams). I fail to see how you can prove the considerably better MOV of 38 vs 21 and ypg differential of +295 to +158 can be accounted for solely by a difference in SOS btwn 2 and 24 (or 1.6% vs 20%) hence it is a hypothetical.

It is not a straw man to point out Nebraska was way more dominant in the title game and I was pointing out the relative level of competition for both was essentially equally least you try and claim they had an easier opponent.

Considerably is a subjective term weather 2 is considerably better than 24 depends on context as is looking only at avg.

Bamas schedule was tougher but mostly in the middle, Nebraska played a couple more really bad teams and Bama played 1 more top 25 team, the top 4 for each was similar.

Bama also had 4 more close games, including 2 against mediocre teams. Unlike other posters I think a case can be made for 09 Bama, but overall I don't think they compare to 95 NU. Bama has a better SOS and that's it. NU s dominance in all other categories more than makes up for it.

quote:

---

Surprisingly, Washington didn't win or at least split with BYU that year

---

Probably because they didn't win their conference. #2 OU lost in the Orange and we were banned so BYU got it after beating 6-5 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl.
Also, I've read that Washington (being at-large since they weren't obligated to the Rose Bowl because they didn't win the Pac 10) could've played BYU in the Holiday but turned it down. Sucks for them.

I submitted other stats too and, last time I checked, no criteria exists by which to establish which team is the best since 1990. All any of us can do is present the best, most persuasive case we can for the team we determine is the best from that specific year henceforth. I presented my opening argument and consequently my rebuttal and consider it persuasive pursuant to the application of facts to prove my point.

Boom game over!!!!!!!!!!!!



H-Town has just took you to school boy.........

You assess the teams that are at issue and compare them, eschewing all this context crap we're not gonna transpose "contexts" onto separate eras and engage in those unproven hypotheticals. You take teams as they are, eggshell skull doctrine style.

quote:

---

2009 Alabama struggled with a lot of teams (VT, Kentucky, LSU, Auburn, USC, and Tennessee).

---

I disagree with a couple of these. Virginia Tech, Kentucky, and South Carolina were games that were really never in doubt. For instance...the Hokies led us 17-16 going into the fourth quarter, but we outgained them on the stat sheet 498-155. What kept them in the game were three long kickoff returns (one for a touchdown) that gave them short fields to work with. You also had that McElroy interception that put them 1st & Goal inside the 10-yard line. They only got a field goal out of that.

Against Kentucky we led in the game by scores of 31-6 and 38-13 respectively. They never had a chance. It was 21-6 at halftime as well.

As one who enjoys analyzing stats and college football, it's difficult for anyone to overlook the fact that the 95 Huskers played less winning teams and had a lower TO margin than the 09 Bama team. To dominate the nation's 2nd toughest schedule with a 21 pt MOV is an accomplishment that should never be diminished just because it wasn't 38-39, it was a tougher schedule and 3 TDs is 3 TDs no matter how you attempt to spin it. It appears to me people are downgrading teams bc they don't win by 40 against a much tougher schedule. So if a team wins by 30 PPG and they played a slightly tougher schedule than 95 Nebraska, you'd rank them lower than 95 Nebraska? I don't get this logic.