The "U" thread

#26
#26
(therealUT @ Jul 5 said:
If you play six teams with a losing record in one year, it does not matter to me who else you play. Miami might as well have just had a 5 game schedule in '83 and '87.
Click to expand...
I look at how many top tier teams you beat. I couldn't care less how many 7-5 teams you beat. Miami beat the best teams in the country in '83 and '87. How they filled out their schedules doesn't really matter. Show me someone who will argue Miami wasn't the best team in the country in '87 and I'll show you someone in need of a very long stint in rehab.
 
#27
#27
1983: (11-1)
Florida (9-3)
Houston (4-7)
Purdue (3-7-1)
Notre Dame (7-5)
Duke (3-8)
Louisville (3-8)
Miss. St. (3-8)
Cincinatti (4-6-1)
West Virginia (9-3)
East Carolina (8-3)
FSU (8-4)
Nebraska (12-1)

1987: (12-0)
Florida (6-6)
Arkansas (9-4)
FSU (11-1)
Maryland (4-7)
Cincinatti (4-7)
East Carolina (5-6)
Miami (OH) (5-6)
Va. Tech (2-9)
Toledo (3-7)
Notre Dame (8-4)
South Carolina (8-4)
Oklahoma (11-1)

1989: (11-1)
Wisconsin (2-9)
Cal (4-7)
Missouri (2-9)
Michigan St. (8-4)
Cincinatti (1-9) <--a Miami favorite
San Jose St. (6-5)
FSU (10-2)
East Carolina (5-5)
Pittsburg (8-3-1)
San Diego St. (6-5-1)
Notre Dame (12-1)
Alabama (10-2)

1991: (12-0)
Arkansas (6-6)
Houston (4-7)
Tulsa (10-2)
Oklahoma St. (0-10)
Penn St. (11-2)
Cal St.-Longbeach
Arizona (4-7)
W. Virginia (6-5)
FSU (11-2)
BC (4-7) &#61663;missed that one earlier
San Diego St. (8-4-1)
Nebraska (9-2-1)

2001:(12-0)
Penn St. (5-6)
Rutgers (2-9)
Pittsburg (7-5)
Troy St. (7-4)
FSU (8-4)
W. Virginia (3-8)
Temple (4-7)
BC (8-4)
Syracuse (10-3)
Washington (8-4)
Va. Tech (8-4)
Nebraska (11-2)

Tennessee, 1998: (13-0)
Syracuse (8-4)
Florida (10-2)
Houston (3-8)
Auburn (3-8)
UGA (9-3)
Bama (7-5)
South Carolina (1-10)
UAB (4-7)
Arkansas (9-3)
Kentucky (7-5)
Vandy (2-9)
Miss. St. (8-5)
FSU (11-2)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would put our &#39;98 schedule up against any of Miami&#39;s championship teams.
 
#28
#28
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Yeah, I would put our &#39;98 schedule up against any of Miami&#39;s championship teams.
Click to expand...
I&#39;d forgotten how bad Auburn was in &#39;98.
 
#29
#29
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
Ah, time to educate. Ann Arbor? The Canes have gone there and won. Knoxville? Check. State College? That&#39;s an affirmative. Tallahassee? Many times. Gainesville? When the Gators aren&#39;t to scared to play them. Norman? There too. The myth that Miami has played easy schedules, especially prior to their joining the Big East, simply isn&#39;t borne out by the numbers. They play anybody, anywhere, anytime.
Click to expand...

The point behind the thinking Miami has had easy schedules is really two-fold. First they played in the Big East for along time that included 8 schools (BC, Miami, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, VaTech, and WV) therefore Miami got to schedule 7 games against these schools. Pretty straight forward. The second point is while playing in the Big East they had the luxury of many open weeks to schedule OOC opponents with only 7 weeks out of 14-15 weeks being filled up from conference games. With this luxury, they could indeed schedule Oklahoma, ND, Tennessee, Penn State, etc and put a Florida A&M, LaTech, East Carolina, etc either before the big OOC game, after the big OOC game, or both. It is kinda like the luxury Penn State had will being an Independent but they see how much tougher it is in the Big 10 versus a Temple, Alabama, Rutgers in successive weeks.
 
#30
#30
(CobbVol &#064; Jul 5 said:
The point behind the thinking Miami has had easy schedules is really two-fold. First they played in the Big East for along time that included 8 schools (BC, Miami, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, VaTech, and WV) therefore Miami got to schedule 7 games against these schools. Pretty straight forward. The second point is while playing in the Big East they had the luxury of many open weeks to schedule OOC opponents with only 7 weeks out of 14-15 weeks being filled up from conference games. With this luxury, they could indeed schedule Oklahoma, ND, Tennessee, Penn State, etc and put a Florida A&M, LaTech, East Carolina, etc either before the big OOC game, after the big OOC game, or both. It is kinda like the luxury Penn State had will being an Independent but they see how much tougher it is in the Big 10 versus a Temple, Alabama, Rutgers in successive weeks.
Click to expand...
You&#39;re forgetting that they played Florida State every year during a period the Seminoles finished in the top 5 something like 15 straight years.
 
#31
#31
(CobbVol &#064; Jul 5 said:
The point behind the thinking Miami has had easy schedules is really two-fold. First they played in the Big East for along time that included 8 schools (BC, Miami, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, VaTech, and WV) therefore Miami got to schedule 7 games against these schools. Pretty straight forward. The second point is while playing in the Big East they had the luxury of many open weeks to schedule OOC opponents with only 7 weeks out of 14-15 weeks being filled up from conference games. With this luxury, they could indeed schedule Oklahoma, ND, Tennessee, Penn State, etc and put a Florida A&M, LaTech, East Carolina, etc either before the big OOC game, after the big OOC game, or both. It is kinda like the luxury Penn State had will being an Independent but they see how much tougher it is in the Big 10 versus a Temple, Alabama, Rutgers in successive weeks.
Click to expand...

Miami didn&#39;t enter the Big East until 1991. Prior to, they were independent and could schedule whoever they wanted. Therefore, they chose to schedule such weak opponents, and won 3 national championships by playing only 4 decent teams a year.
 
#32
#32
I think tough non-conference schedules are a recent trend. It reminds me of why rasslin took off in late 80&#39;s and early 90s. Vince McMahon finally started putting marquee matchups on television.

The networks and colleges have learned to do the same thing over the last few years, and the BCS rewards them greatly. Ten or even twenty years ago in the pre BCS years you were rewarded for beating the hell out of lesser teams ala Nebraska.

Miami was absolutley fierce, but their road was no easier or harder to the NC than anyone else.
 
#33
#33
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Miami didn&#39;t enter the Big East until 1991. Prior to, they were independent and could schedule whoever they wanted. Therefore, they chose to schedule such weak opponents, and won 3 national championships by playing only 4 decent teams a year.
Click to expand...
You act like scheduling is a one way street. I seriously doubt Miami had many SEC teams begging to come play in the Orange Bowl.
 
#34
#34
(Lexvol &#064; Jul 5 said:
I think tough non-conference schedules are a recent trend. It reminds me of why rasslin took off in late 80&#39;s and early 90s. Vince McMahon finally started putting marquee matchups on television.

The networks and colleges have learned to do the same thing over the last few years, and the BCS rewards them greatly. Ten or even twenty years ago in the pre BCS years you were rewarded for beating the hell out of lesser teams ala Nebraska.

Miami was absolutley fierce, but their road was no easier or harder to the NC than anyone else.
Click to expand...
I liked the old days when we had jobbers in both sports. Temple was the equivalent of the Brooklyn Brawler.
 
#35
#35
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
You act like scheduling is a one way street. I seriously doubt Miami had many SEC teams begging to come play in the Orange Bowl.
Click to expand...

So now it is everyone elses fault that Miami played such weak schedules?
 
#36
#36
Also Hat, a little hypocritical of you to discount weak schedules when it comes to Miami, yet in any conversation about Neyland you inevitably bring up the fact that "he built his record against Sewanee."
 
#37
#37
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Also Hat, a little hypocritical of you to discount weak schedules when it comes to Miami, yet in any conversation about Neyland you inevitably bring up the fact that "he built his record against Sewanee."
Click to expand...

The more I think about the BCS and its inception the more I remember about scheduling. It seems like the BCS was invented to cure the strength of schedule problem everyone had with the Cornhuskers.
 
#38
#38
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Also Hat, a little hypocritical of you to discount weak schedules when it comes to Miami, yet in any conversation about Neyland you inevitably bring up the fact that "he built his record against Sewanee."
Click to expand...
I&#39;ve never said Neyland "built his record against Sewanee." I simply point out wins in the &#39;30s against the William & Marys of the world have absolutely no relevance to the state of the program today. Neyland&#39;s record against the big boys of his day was respectable. My main point about Miami is that, in every one of the National Title years except when they shared the title with Washington, they beat every other worthy contender to the throne. For example, in &#39;87 Miami, Oklahoma, and FSU were head and shoulders better than everyone else. OU and the Seminoles each lost one game. The Canes dealt out both of those defeats. Show me an arguement that Miami wasn&#39;t a deserving champion in any of those seasons and I might give your point more credence.
 
#39
#39
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
So now it is everyone elses fault that Miami played such weak schedules?
Click to expand...
Is there a way to force teams to schedule you that I&#39;m not aware of? I&#39;ll turn it around. If the SEC powers were so bothered by Miami&#39;s "weak" schedule, why didn&#39;t they simply demand Miami play them? Miami had to beg Florida for the better part of twenty years to get a game.
 
#40
#40
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
I&#39;ve never said Neyland "built his record against Sewanee." I simply point out wins in the &#39;30s against the William & Marys of the world have absolutely no relevance to the state of the program today. Neyland&#39;s record against the big boys of his day was respectable. My main point about Miami is that, in every one of the National Title years except when they shared the title with Washington, they beat every other worthy contender to the throne. For example, in &#39;87 Miami, Oklahoma, and FSU were head and shoulders better than everyone else. OU and the Seminoles each lost one game. The Canes dealt out both of those defeats. Show me an arguement that Miami wasn&#39;t a deserving champion in any of those seasons and I might give your point more credence.
Click to expand...

Teams that could have legitimately beaten Miami:
1983:
Miami (11-1)
Georgia (10-1-1)
Auburn (11-1)

1987:
Miami (12-0)
Considering exactly how weak The U&#39;s schedule was in &#39;87, the following teams probably could have beaten them:
UCLA (10-2)
Auburn (9-1-2)
Nebraska (10-2)

1989:
Miami (11-1)
Auburn (10-2)
USC (9-2-1)
Michigan (10-2)

1991:
Miami (12-0)
Do the Washington Huskies ring a bell???

2001:
Miami (12-0)
Isn&#39;t that the bowl game that Nebraska backpedaled in to? That&#39;s what I thought.
 
#41
#41
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Teams that could have legitimately beaten Miami:
1983:
Miami (11-1)
Georgia (10-1-1)
Auburn (11-1)

1987:
Miami (12-0)
Considering exactly how weak The U&#39;s schedule was in &#39;87, the following teams probably could have beaten them:
UCLA (10-2)
Auburn (9-1-2)
Nebraska (10-2)

1989:
Miami (11-1)
Auburn (10-2)
USC (9-2-1)
Michigan (10-2)

1991:
Miami (12-0)
Do the Washington Huskies ring a bell???

2001:
Miami (12-0)
Isn&#39;t that the bowl game that Nebraska backpedaled in to? That&#39;s what I thought.
Click to expand...
You lose all credibility with your analysis of &#39;87. Miami, OU, and FSU were two touchdowns better than everybody else. You look especially silly taking shots at the &#39;01 team, one universally regarded as one of the 10 best of all time. Just admit you&#39;re a success hating SEC shill and move on. You&#39;re embarassing yourself.
 
#42
#42
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
You lose all credibility with your analysis of &#39;87. Miami, OU, and FSU were two touchdowns better than everybody else. You look especially silly taking shots at the &#39;01 team, one universally regarded as one of the 10 best of all time. Just admit you&#39;re a success hating SEC shill and move on. You&#39;re embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...
The &#39;87 Nebraska team? You mean the one Oklahoma destroyed in the regular reason finale and FSU annihilated in the Fiesta Bowl? Are you even attempting to do your homework on this issue?
 
#43
#43
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
You lose all credibility with your analysis of &#39;87. Miami, OU, and FSU were two touchdowns better than everybody else. You look especially silly taking shots at the &#39;01 team, one universally regarded as one of the 10 best of all time. Just admit you&#39;re a success hating SEC shill and move on. You&#39;re embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that &#39;87 Auburn team was just epic. I can see how you would think a team that failed to win three games on its schedule could handle a team whose roster reads like an NFL register. What a joke.
 
#44
#44
I am a big fan of success. However, padding your record by beating up on patsies all year, then playing a game against FSU, is not exactly excellent in my book. Also, I do recall that you said the following:

Show me an arguement that Miami wasn&#39;t a deserving champion in any of those seasons and I might give your point more credence.
Click to expand...

I would say the fact that there were 2 other 1 loss teams in &#39;83 presents a more than valid argument that there were other teams that could stake claim to championship.

Also, playing seven teams with records at or below .500 in &#39;87 kind of makes them more than worthless.
 
#45
#45
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
I am a big fan of success. However, padding your record by beating up on patsies all year, then playing a game against FSU, is not exactly excellent in my book. Also, I do recall that you said the following:
I would say the fact that there were 2 other 1 loss teams in &#39;83 presents a more than valid argument that there were other teams that could stake claim to championship.

Also, playing seven teams with records at or below .500 in &#39;87 kind of makes them more than worthless.
Click to expand...
The &#39;87 Auburn team you were honking up? Their loss in &#39;87- A 34-6 destruction at the hands of Florida State.
 
#46
#46
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
The &#39;87 Nebraska team? You mean the one Oklahoma destroyed in the regular reason finale and FSU annihilated in the Fiesta Bowl? Are you even attempting to do your homework on this issue?
Click to expand...

Homework...funny you mention it. They lost 17-7 to OU, then played Colorado the next week, and then went to the bowl game. So, not exactly destroyed and not exactly in the regular season finale. Remind me, never to hire you on as legal counsel.
 
#47
#47
(hatvol96 &#064; Jul 5 said:
The &#39;87 Auburn team you were honking up? Their loss in &#39;87- A 34-6 destruction at the hands of Florida State.
Click to expand...

And Miami lost 28-3 to a 6-6 Florida team in 1983...
 
#48
#48
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
I am a big fan of success. However, padding your record by beating up on patsies all year, then playing a game against FSU, is not exactly excellent in my book. Also, I do recall that you said the following:
I would say the fact that there were 2 other 1 loss teams in &#39;83 presents a more than valid argument that there were other teams that could stake claim to championship.

Also, playing seven teams with records at or below .500 in &#39;87 kind of makes them more than worthless.
Click to expand...
Are you going to name some more teams from &#39;87 that could have beaten Miami? I like swatting away your choices. Hey, why not mention UT? They won 10 games that year. Lost to Boston College, but they tied that powerhouse Auburn you were talking up.
 
#49
#49
Well if it is easy to swat away Auburn from contending for the title for losing 34-6 to a 1 loss FSU team, then I your own logic would state that Miami was undeserving of the &#39;83 title for losing 28-3 to a .500 team.
 
#50
#50
(therealUT &#064; Jul 5 said:
Homework...funny you mention it. They lost 17-7 to OU, then played Colorado the next week, and then went to the bowl game. So, not exactly destroyed and not exactly in the regular season finale. Remind me, never to hire you on as legal counsel.
Click to expand...
Well if you had actually seen the &#39;87 OU-Nebraska game, you would know OU turned the ball over three times inside the Nebraska twenty and held the Huskers to about 70 yards total offense in the second half. How many regular season games did OU play after that one? None. I couldn&#39;t care less how many Nebraska played because they were irrelevant. Don&#39;t worry, you couldn&#39;t afford the initial consultation fee.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top