2009 College Football Predictions

[jazzcyclist]

On ESPN's College Gameday Season Preview this morning, Lou Holtz picked Florida to UPSET Notre Dame in the national championship game. :shock: Has he gotten senile? Lee Corso picked Texas over Florida, and Robert Smith and Kirk Herbstreit picked Florida over Texas. So I guess it's unanimous that Florida will be in the big game. Let the debate begin.

[bman]

I suspect the final game will be SEC vs. Big XII because those two conference's teams will be the first to get in with one loss. Texas will underachieve again. It doesn't take a genius to see a pattern there.

I pick Florida vs. Oklahoma.

[Marlow]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm really starting to think that Florida may be better than any other team in the history of NCAA football, but only third best this year behind Texas and Oklahoma (pick 'em). And then there's USC, which has been picked to be #1 by the computer. In other years LSU and maybe even Ohio St might have dominated.

The same is true for QBs. Tebow, McCoy, Bradford - best EVER??!! :shock:

I'm more pumped for this season since any other since Mr. Plunkett led the Farm Boys to the Promised Land with me in the student seats every week.

[jazzcyclist]

I don't know about Florida being the best team in history. IMO, the '95 Cornhuskers set the standard for modern day football. None of their games were even close and they finished it off by completely dismantling an undefeated Florida team that had gone through the SEC like a warm knife through butter. Before I can consider a team the best ever, they must dominate wire to wire like the '95 Huskers did.

[Marlow]

Before I can consider a team the best ever, they must dominate wire to wire like the '95 Huskers did.

That has no logic. What if the standard of ball this year really is higher across the board? Clearly one would have to run the board to be considered for GOATness, but ANY win over a juggernaut may be more signicant this year, than winning by large margins in other years. The 1972 Nebraska team (71? whenever they beat OK 35-31 and both has crushed everyone else) HAS to go down as a hot candidate for the GOAT, but any of this year's Big 3 would annihilate that team.

I'm not talking relative strength for its era - I'm talking BEST EVER straight-up (which always favors recent teams in any sport because of the development of the sport).

I'll go one better - any of these 3 teams could have won the first Super Bowl! (if you doubt that, look at the roster sizes (ht/wt/speed) from then (pro) and now (NCAA)).

[jazzcyclist]

Before I can consider a team the best ever, they must dominate wire to wire like the '95 Huskers did.

That has no logic. What if the standard of ball this year really is higher across the board? Clearly one would have to go run the board to be considered for GOATness, but ANY win over a juggernaut may be more signicant this year, than winning by large margins in other years. The 1972 Nebraska team (71? whenever they beat OK 35-31 and both has crushed everyone else) HAS to go down as a hot candidate for the GOAT, but any of this year's Big 3 would annihilate that team.

I'm not talking relative strength for its era - I'm talking BEST EVER straight-up (which always favors recent teams in any sport because of the development of the sport).

I'll go one better - any of these 3 teams could have won the first Super Bowl! (if you doubt that, look at the roster sizes (ht/wt/speed) from then (pro) and now (NCAA)).

I respectfully disagree with your logic, especially the idea that recent teams have an inherent advantage over teams of yore for no other reason than they are more recent. I think Johnny Rodgers' Huskers are worthy of mention, but college football was not yet fully integrated back then, so that team falls just outside of the modern era by my definition. However, college football of the 1990's drew talent from just as deep a talent pool as college football today. Therefore, I see no reason why that team, which competed at a time when Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Colorado, and Tennessee were perennial title contenders, would have a problem competing with today's teams if all the individuals on that team had been born 14 years later.

[Marlow]

I respectfully disagree with your logic, especially the idea that recent teams have an inherent advantage over teams of yore for no other reason than they are more recent.

That's not what I said. I said that the standard is constantly being raised. The top NCAA teams are now bigger (ht/wt), faster AND more spohisticated than ever before, even more so than PRO teams of only 40 years ago (and CERTAINLY NCAA teams).

So the question is: was a team of, say, 2000 so much better than any other team then, that they'd even beat the best team this year, straight up?

In T&F it's obvious in one way, the record book. But when you factor in surfaces and equipment, an argument could be made that Bob Hayes is still in the top 5 of all time, because he COULD have run 9.7x on the Berlin track with Bolt's shoes on, with no other changes. (that for illustration's sake, but I do sorta believe it )

[jazzcyclist]

I respectfully disagree with your logic, especially the idea that recent teams have an inherent advantage over teams of yore for no other reason than they are more recent.

That's not what I said. I said that the standard is constantly being raised. The top NCAA teams are now bigger (ht/wt), faster AND more spohisticated than ever before, even more so than PRO teams of only 40 years ago.

You should reread my previous post in its entirety, paying close attention to the last 13 words.

[Marlow]

paying close attention to the last 13 words.

this is NOT about 13 or 25 or 50 years later, this is about outfitting that team in today's equipment and playing a game. Nebraska 95 would lose to at least 5 teams today. Nebraska 71 would lose to 20 teams today. But . . . Nebraska 71 is still 'a' GOAT because AT THE TIME they were more better ( ) than all the other the other teams of that entire era.

[richxx87]

Re: 2009 College Football Predictions

Lou Holtz picked Florida to UPSET Notre Dame in the national championship game...

The thing about ND is that they have an incredibly easy schedule. The only game where they won't be favored is against USC. But even so, they get USC in South Bend this year and the trojies are starting a Freshman QB.

So it's forseeable that they could go undefeated, or maybe have one loss. However, with their S.O.S. being so weak, the computers will have them quite low.

Regardless of what the Irish, Gators, Trojies or 'Horns do, I've gotta go with UCLA to win it all again.

[jazzcyclist]

paying close attention to the last 13 words.

this is NOT about 13 or 25 or 50 years later, this is about outfitting that team in today's equipment and playing a game. Nebraska 95 would lose to at least 5 teams today. Nebraska 71 would lose to 20 teams today. But . . . Nebraska 71 is still 'a' GOAT because AT THE TIME they were more better ( ) than all the other the other teams of that entire era.

'
Using you parameters, in which you transport athletes through time and outfit them with today's equipment, wasn't the '95 Husker team as dominant in its era as the '71 Husker team was in its era? I say yes. Furthermore, I believe that the difference between the '71 Huskers and the '95 Huskers is much greater than the difference between the '95 Huskers and the '09 Gators. Look at the heights and weights of the athletes from those three teams and you'll see what I'm talking about. Unlike the '71 Huskers, the '95 Huskers came of age during the year-round-weightlifting, creatine, steroid, HGH and everything-else era just like the '09 Gators. I believe the advances made in training, nutrition and pharmaceuticals in the last 14 years are minimal. However, if you use my parameters, which call for those athletes being born 14 years later, there would be no difference. The only fair thing to do is compare their relative dominance in their respective eras or adjust the heights, weights, strength and speed accordingly.

[jazzcyclist]

In T&F it's obvious in one way, the record book. But when you factor in surfaces and equipment, an argument could be made that Bob Hayes is still in the top 5 of all time, because he COULD have run 9.7x on the Berlin track with Bolt's shoes on, with no other changes. (that for illustration's sake, but I do sorta believe it )

How do you think Bob Hayes would compete with Usain Bolt if he had been born 45 years later?

[jazzcyclist]

Re: 2009 College Football Predictions

Lou Holtz picked Florida to UPSET Notre Dame in the national championship game...

The thing about ND is that they have an incredibly easy schedule. The only game where they won't be favored is against USC. But even so, they get USC in South Bend this year and the trojies are starting a Freshman QB.

So it's forseeable that they could go undefeated, or maybe have one loss. However, with their S.O.S. being so weak, the computers will have them quite low.

Regardless of what the Irish, Gators, Trojies or 'Horns do, I've gotta go with UCLA to win it all again.

Spoken Like A True Bruin

[Marlow]

How do you think Bob Hayes would compete with Usain Bolt if he had been born 45 years later?

Up until about August of 2008, I was unwilling to cede the title of m100 GOAT to anyone but Hayes. In the OG last year, I became a bolt Believer. This year, the argument is dead and buried.

If Hayes were in his prime right now, and had seen Bolt's race last year, and was fully prepared to take on Bolt, Hayes would have finished in third in about 9.75. Just my own little WAG! Hats off to Gay for also 'beating' Hayes! 8-)

[jazzcyclist]

How do you think Bob Hayes would compete with Usain Bolt if he had been born 45 years later?

Up until about August of 2008, I was unwilling to cede the title of m100 GOAT to anyone but Hayes. In the OG last year, I became a bolt Believer. This year, the argument is dead and buried.

If Hayes were in his prime right now, and had seen Bolt's race last year, and was fully prepared to take on Bolt, Hayes would have finished in third in about 9.75. Just my own little WAG! Hats off to Gay for also 'beating' Hayes! 8-)

If you consider the time lost in Beijing due to the premature celebration in the 100 and the stiff headwind in the 200, Bolt's Berlin performances are probably no better than his Beijing performances. Having said that, I just want to make sure you understand that when I say "born 45 years later", I mean that Hayes would have had all the advantages in medicine, nutrition, financial compensation, training methods, running surfaces and equipment that athletes of this generation have. Do you really believe all that is only worth 0.31s?