CBSSports.com's Team of the Decade Rankings

[DragonFire]

OK, so ignore the little fact that the decade has one (or two depending on your definition of when it started) year left. What say you about these ranks? I can agree with #1. Not so much with who #4 & #5 are behind.....

 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12007461

[GrizzlyAdams]

I agree with USC number 1. I thought that UF would be 2 though not 4.

[CatsCatsCats]

USC has to be number one. They have the most wins, have two titles, and nearly a decade long streak of PAC 10 titles. LSU and UF have to be number two and three in my mind, as they are the only two teams that have won two BCS titles in that amount of time. Oklahmoma should be four, they have been more consistent than Texas over the decade. Texas at five. What about Boise in the top 10? They haven't won any titles (not really like they can), but they have been very consistent.

 

As much as I love the U, I don't know if you can realistically put them at 7 and not have an evil smirk on your face. Maybe having the greatest collection of college talent of all-time (2000-2002) is enough, I don't know.

[DragonFire]

At best, USC has 1.5 titles. The same could be said of LSU. If we give USC 2 titles (which under what I'm about to say would actually be 2.5), then Florida has 4, as they were unanimous each time.

[CatsCatsCats]

I agree with USC number 1. I thought that UF would be 2 though not 4.

 

I think that LSU has just as good of a claim to it. 2 MNC's, 3 SEC titles, 5 division titles, 7-2 in bowl games, 90-27 record this decade.

 

UF has 2 MNC's this decade, along with 3 SEC titles, 3 division titles, 4-5 in bowl games, 87-29 record from 2000-present.

 

It's close but statistically speaking I think that LSU would have to have the advantage. Remember it's the entire decade just not the last 3 years.

 

Just for giggles....

 

USC- 2 MNC's (1 BCS), 94-21 record, 7 PAC-10 titles, 6-2 in bowl games (6-1 in BCS games), 7 straight years of being in the top 4 in the AP poll at the end of the year. The team of the decade without argument has to be USC.

 

On a side note, can you make a case for a better coach today than Pete Carroll. Name the only PAC-10 team that didn't finish a single season during the 90's as ranked in the AP top 10? USC! What Carroll has restored at USC is simply amazing.

 

Oklahoma- I stand corrected, Oklahoma has more wins this decade than USC. They are 102-18 since 2000! They have only one MNC this decade, along with 7 conference titles. They are only 4-5 in bowls this decade, including 2-4 in BCS games so you have to keep that in mind.

 

Texas- 1 MNC, 97-18 record, 3 conference titles (with two more shared division titles), 7-2 in bowl games.

 

Just some food for thought in the top 5 programs of the decade.

[CatsCatsCats]

At best, USC has 1.5 titles. The same could be said of LSU. If we give USC 2 titles (which under what I'm about to say would actually be 2.5), then Florida has 4, as they were unanimous each time.

 

Titles are awarded by two sources. If you win one, you get one. USC, LSU, and UF have two.

[DragonFire]

Titles are awarded by two sources. If you win one, you get one. USC, LSU, and UF have two.

 

OK, so if titles are awarded by two sources, and we count USC's AP title and LSU's BCS title equally, then how come Florida isn't credited with two each year, one for the AP title, one for the BCS?

[RowdyRedRam]

Louisville is number 18. Take out the Krag years I think we might break the top ten.

[Original Rookie]

OK, so if titles are awarded by two sources, and we count USC's AP title and LSU's BCS title equally, then how come Florida isn't credited with two each year, one for the AP title, one for the BCS?

 

:thumb:

[swamprat]

Look who's at 35! Not bad for a program that had only been in existence 3 seasons before the decade began.

[CatsCatsCats]

OK, so if titles are awarded by two sources, and we count USC's AP title and LSU's BCS title equally, then how come Florida isn't credited with two each year, one for the AP title, one for the BCS?

 

That is a ridiculous argument. The split title came when both teams were equally deserving. USC was the higher ranked team, but the computers decided to not let them in the BCS championship. LSU was in the title and won it. UF was played the consensus #1 team in the country both times they won a title. Now you could give a title to USC, Texas or Utah last year, but UF won the BCS title, and was voted number one in the coaches. 1 team, 1 national title. Even Big Spikes (the biggest Gator fan on earth) would have to agree.

 

Count titles how ever you want. To be the only way that you can truly be the undisputed champion is to be the only team that goes undefeated all season, and win the BCS championship. That is the only real way you could not argue it going by the current system.

 

Playoffs would be the only thing to solve this. The only problem is that people would get sick of seeing USC win the title year in and year out.

 

But on that scale I guess the U would have 9 championships, so okay. Actually going by these rules the 2001 team was the greatest team in college football history so I think that counts as 10 championships that season.

[CatsCatsCats]

And if you are trying to make a case for UF as better than USC this decade...You can't do it.

 

Only 3 times in the last 9 seasons did UF have a better season that USC. That was 2000, 2001, and 2006. 2006 was a year that UF lost one game and won the MNC. USC was 11-2, and had it not have been for a huge upset by UCLA would have played for and won the title rather than the Gators (remember that UF was a FG away from losing their season at South Carolina). 2000 and 2001 were really a wash for USC it was the end of the Hackett era which had produced really subpar teams to USC standards.

 

You can make a case for UF being > than LSU (sort of a toss up IMO), but no team has been as consistent this decade as USC. Come on, Carroll has been at USC for 8 years, and he has averaged 11 wins per season. In that time span UF is averaging just under 9 wins per season. It's not close. How about this, the USC team that split the title would have beaten any team that played in the title game, and IMHO, had they been allowed to play UF in the BCS title game last season I think there would be no argument.

[jvdfc]

And if you are trying to make a case for UF as better than USC this decade...You can't do it.

 

Only 3 times in the last 9 seasons did UF have a better season that USC. That was 2000, 2001, and 2006. 2006 was a year that UF lost one game and won the MNC. USC was 11-2, and had it not have been for a huge upset by UCLA would have played for and won the title rather than the Gators (remember that UF was a FG away from losing their season at South Carolina). 2000 and 2001 were really a wash for USC it was the end of the Hackett era which had produced really subpar teams to USC standards.

 

You can make a case for UF being > than LSU (sort of a toss up IMO), but no team has been as consistent this decade as USC. Come on, Carroll has been at USC for 8 years, and he has averaged 11 wins per season. In that time span UF is averaging just under 9 wins per season. It's not close. How about this, the USC team that split the title would have beaten any team that played in the title game, and IMHO, had they been allowed to play UF in the BCS title game last season I think there would be no argument.

 

You do realize that you are not always right, don't you? :ohbrother:

[DragonFire]

That is a ridiculous argument. The split title came when both teams were equally deserving. USC was the higher ranked team, but the computers decided to not let them in the BCS championship. LSU was in the title and won it. UF was played the consensus #1 team in the country both times they won a title. Now you could give a title to USC, Texas or Utah last year, but UF won the BCS title, and was voted number one in the coaches. 1 team, 1 national title. Even Big Spikes (the biggest Gator fan on earth) would have to agree.

 

Count titles how ever you want. To be the only way that you can truly be the undisputed champion is to be the only team that goes undefeated all season, and win the BCS championship. That is the only real way you could not argue it going by the current system.

 

Playoffs would be the only thing to solve this. The only problem is that people would get sick of seeing USC win the title year in and year out.

 

But on that scale I guess the U would have 9 championships, so okay. Actually going by these rules the 2001 team was the greatest team in college football history so I think that counts as 10 championships that season.

 

And if you are trying to make a case for UF as better than USC this decade...You can't do it.

 

Only 3 times in the last 9 seasons did UF have a better season that USC. That was 2000, 2001, and 2006. 2006 was a year that UF lost one game and won the MNC. USC was 11-2, and had it not have been for a huge upset by UCLA would have played for and won the title rather than the Gators (remember that UF was a FG away from losing their season at South Carolina). 2000 and 2001 were really a wash for USC it was the end of the Hackett era which had produced really subpar teams to USC standards.

 

You can make a case for UF being > than LSU (sort of a toss up IMO), but no team has been as consistent this decade as USC. Come on, Carroll has been at USC for 8 years, and he has averaged 11 wins per season. In that time span UF is averaging just under 9 wins per season. It's not close. How about this, the USC team that split the title would have beaten any team that played in the title game, and IMHO, had they been allowed to play UF in the BCS title game last season I think there would be no argument.

 

I mean, you know that I said in post #1 that I agreed with #1, right? I said I can agree with #1. I simply didn't agree with who Florida was behind. But any way you slice it (and you're slicing it an awful lot), USC does not have two national titles that are equal to Florida's. Florida has two undisputed and consensus national titles. USC has one, and one that was a split title. It's your insistence that USC has two titles and Florida has two, which to the lay person indicates you think they are equal. They are not. It's called a split national title for a reason.

 

I cannot understand how you possibly think that you should count USC and Florida as having the same number and quality of championships.

[CatsCatsCats]

I mean, you know that I said in post #1 that I agreed with #1, right? I said I can agree with #1. I simply didn't agree with who Florida was behind. But any way you slice it (and you're slicing it an awful lot), USC does not have two national titles that are equal to Florida's. Florida has two undisputed and consensus national titles. USC has one, and one that was a split title. It's your insistence that USC has two titles and Florida has two, which to the lay person indicates you think they are equal. They are not. It's called a split national title for a reason.

 

I cannot understand how you possibly think that you should count USC and Florida as having the same number and quality of championships.

 

You do not get 1/2 of a National title for winning a title. There is no playoff. If you win a title you win a title.