ESPN top 150 college football teams of all time
Thought this was at least somewhat interesting if you need something to kill a little time.
They conducted a poll of 150 "experts" (media/coaches/ex players etc) and came up with this.https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/CFB150teams/the-150-greatest-teams-college-football-150-year-history
If you dont feel like reading but are curious:
Top 10
1-1971 Nebraska
2-2004 USC
3-1972 USC
4-1995 Nebraska
5-2018 Clemson
6- 2005 Texas
7-2001 Miami
8-1979 Alabama
9-1956 Oklahoma
10-2009 Alabama
Michigan teams
43 -1997 (The 97 Nebraska team was 24, dumb)
90-1948
92-1901
96-1902
97-1947
103-1973
September 10th, 2019 at 11:55 AM ^
The 97 Nebraska team being 19 spots ahead of the 97 Michigan team is the most hilarious thing I've read in a while. Peak ESPN, right there!
September 10th, 2019 at 12:08 PM ^
Essentially everyone that isn't a Michigan fan thinks Nebraska was the more dominant team that year. Blowing teams out matters in perception
September 10th, 2019 at 12:28 PM ^
I would add Missouri fans to the list that think Michigan was more dominant.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:32 PM ^
So does SOS. Nebraska faced only four ranked teams. Michigan played seven.
Oh, and Nebraska needed OT and an illegal play to beat unranked Missouri. And squeaked out a win against unranked Colorado.
Yeah, the list is stupid.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:46 PM ^
I mean sure but I'm just saying what the perception is. Blame Peyton Manning, if Tennessee has a pulse this never happens.
September 10th, 2019 at 5:23 PM ^
Manning wasn't suburb that game - but he only had 1 interception for the game and I don't blame him for the UT blowout loss. People forget, he hurt his knee in the SEC Title Game and it wasn't even certain he'd play in the Orange Bowl until a couple days prior.
Nebraska led 14-3 at the half. But that was with a 3-1 turnover advantage. 1 INT and 2 fumbles for the Vols. Both Cornhusker TDs came on drives immediately following a turnover.
Manning was only "responsible" for 1 of the turnovers. It was really Jeremaine Copeland - he flubbed a "right on his damn hands" pass on the last play of the 1st Quarter.
At the time of that pick, it was 7-0 Nebraska w/ Tennessee driving. Nebraska then makes it 14-0. And they are "rolling downhill" for much of the rest of the game.
If Tennessee isn't -2 but instead even on turnovers in the 1st half, I think it's more of a 10-7 game at the half. Nebraska still wins in the long run, but it's not a blowout. And without the blowout, probably not a split MNC.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:48 PM ^
Nebraska played some terrible teams that year: Akron, Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas, and Oklahoma were awful.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:17 PM ^
Ranking when played is kind of misleading. One thing Michigan suffered from perception wise in 1997 was that only 4 Big Ten teams ended up ranked in the final poll with Michigan having not played one of them (Purdue). The Big Ten finished bowl season 2-5, and the fact the Big Ten had 7 bowl teams and faced some the best opponents during the bowls (#3 FSU, #4 Florida, #9 Washington St, #10 Georgia, #14 Arizona St, #18 Washington, and #24 Oklahoma St) was ignored.
The Big 12 had only 5 teams qualify for bowl games despite having one more team in conference, didn't play the same caliber teams in bowls (#5 UCLA, #7 Tennessee, #15 Purdue, #16 Colorado St, #21 Syracuse) and still finished 2-3 in bowl season.
The Big Ten was 7-0 vs the Big 12 that year as well.
September 10th, 2019 at 5:49 PM ^
The same Colorado team we pasted. Michigan played the toughest schedule that year also
September 10th, 2019 at 12:35 PM ^
Except there was an illegal play call the flea kicker that saved them vs Missouri.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:38 PM ^
For apples to apples comparison of common opponents:
Colorado
Michigan 27-3; Nebraska 27-24
Baylor
Michigan 38-3; Nebraska 49-21
Michigan won by a larger margin in both. Which team was more dominant again?
September 10th, 2019 at 12:44 PM ^
I think the perception is more due to the previous Nebraska National Championship teams in 1994 and 1995. Nebraska had more close calls in 1997 playing in a worse conference than Michigan did. Michigan played two Big 12 teams in the nonconference (Baylor and Colorado) and destroyed them. Nebraska beat Colorado by 3 points and needed a miracle kick against Missouri to send a game to OT.
In their defense, they did have to play an extra conference championship game against Texas A&M, but they had avoided them and Oklahoma St during the regular season in favor of terrible Baylor and Oklahoma teams.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:00 PM ^
I'd like to think at this point we can all agree that common consensus can be wrong.
September 11th, 2019 at 10:28 PM ^
Nebraska needed a miracle catch off a kicked ball to win a game? Forget about that blowout?
September 10th, 2019 at 4:52 PM ^
I would take 1997 Michigan over 1997 Nebraska. Yes.
But - and perhaps I'll get negative votes for this --- I still wouldn't take 1997 Michigan in a 4-team playoff. Give me Florida State instead.
They lost 32-29 in the Swamp in the regular season finale and that (unfairly, they should have still been ranked #3, ahead of Tennessee, given each school's performance against Florida) eliminated them from MNC contention.
But FSU would have made a 4-team playoff had it existed. They would have been the #4.
ESPN just has an opinion on 1997. Same as me and everyone else. The teams never met on the field, so we'll never truly know.
September 10th, 2019 at 11:59 AM ^
Sounds about as objective as the coaches poll.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:03 PM ^
Did Tom Osborn retire again? Did he join Keith Jackson at the big stadium in the sky? There’s no other explanation for that discrepancy.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
Give me 2001 Miami everytime.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
Some of the recent teams that jump out at me are the 2001 Miami team, the 2004 USC team and the 1995 Nebraska team. Alabama has had some nice teams from the last decade but that Miami team went about 3 deep with NFL players.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
Anytime one of these lists comes out without 01 Miami at #1, it is just trolling. They would absolutely wipe the floor with every other team listed.
September 10th, 2019 at 5:53 PM ^
Except for 2002 Ohio State? Are they on there?
September 10th, 2019 at 12:23 PM ^
The 1869 Rutgers Queensmen might've made the list, but they blew it by getting shut out 8-0 by Princeton the week after winning the season opener 6-4 that year. LINK
September 10th, 2019 at 12:33 PM ^
The 1997 team was ranked lower than the 2002 OSU team. They should've lost to Cincinnati and Purdue that year.
So much #logic that I don't know what to do.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:36 PM ^
If you take out steroids, how many teams from the 80's and teams from Nebraska crack the top 50?
September 10th, 2019 at 2:34 PM ^
You act like teams aren't using performance enhancing drugs now. All you can really compare is how dominant they were relative to the competition operating under the same conditions.
September 10th, 2019 at 12:46 PM ^
no way 2018 Clemson is that high. Give me 2001 Miami for the win.
September 10th, 2019 at 6:07 PM ^
First 15-0 team ever, beat teams by an average of 31.1 points per game, won the semi final 30-3, the National Title game 44-16, and also had conference wins of 77-16, 63-3, and 59-10. They had 6 players drafted, including 3 DL all in the top 20 picks. They had 4 running backs get at least 50 carries and average at least 5 ypc, Travis Etienne had 204 carries for 1658 yards, 24 touchdowns and 8.1 YPC, they have one of the most hyped and impressive quarterbacks in the history of college football, 30 touchdowns to 4 ints and carving up a Nick Saban defense. They'll have another 10-12 players picked this year, and another 6-8 after that. I have no problem with Clemson being that high, they're incredible.
September 10th, 2019 at 1:09 PM ^
1901 Michigan outscored opponents 550-0. Yeah, there were unquestionably 91 teams better than that team...
September 10th, 2019 at 1:56 PM ^
2001 Miami vs 2004 USC (even though you could argue '05 USC was actually more talented) is the greatest hypothetical matchup of teams from the 2000 onward.
September 10th, 2019 at 2:03 PM ^
“They conducted a poll of 150 dipshits”
FIFY
September 10th, 2019 at 3:13 PM ^
Can't believe we're still hashing out the 97' debate. WE HAD COMMON OPPONENTS PEOPLE!
Fact is Lloyd, as much as some of us love and respect him, was a total fuckin curmudgeon with the media. Osborne was some home spun Prairie Home Companion myth that the media ate up. Fact is he probably woulda stabbed his mother in the face with an ice pick if it would have meant 1 win over Kansas. Nebrasker was great that year. Michigan was never losing to anyone.
September 11th, 2019 at 7:19 AM ^
Can’t blame the media for it, as Michigan won the AP poll. It was the coaches (particularly Phil Fulmer) that picked Nebraska.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:35 PM ^
This is the dumbest-ass list ever.
September 10th, 2019 at 3:51 PM ^
Yeah, ok.. No OSU early Woody team ? That list sucks.
September 10th, 2019 at 4:27 PM ^
43 -1997 (The 97 Nebraska team was 24, dumb)
I am not sure I want to see this list now if it is going to do something like this. How is this possible? What would be their reason for this? Do we need to set a ballot ablaze on Tom Osborne's front porch at the start of every football season now?
September 10th, 2019 at 4:51 PM ^
2013 FSU is a top-10 team. That team dominated every game aside from the championship game. They had two starting NFL RBs, a heisman winning QB, first round receiver, all American receiver, Mackey award winning TE, and NFL talent all over the defense
September 10th, 2019 at 4:58 PM ^
The Mad Magicians got robbed here. The 1947 Irish, the team they beat out in the AP's first post-bowl poll for Number 1, are ranked 40 spots ahead of them.
September 10th, 2019 at 5:31 PM ^
Screw the Cornsuckers, I hate Frost. I’m so glad they lost last weekend.
September 10th, 2019 at 7:51 PM ^
I don't do espn