Could the best college sports teams beat the worst pro teams?

Cafe Society
21

Assume, for the moment, that you could put find or assemble together a pro team in any major sport that really CARED about winning a game against the collegians.

That would be the hard part, afetr all. The main reason they stopped holding those exhibition games pitting NFL teams against college all-stars was that NFL players hated them. They regarded such games as a waste of time at best, and no one wanted to risk getting injured in a meaningless exhibition.

Could this year’s Ohio State Buckeyes beat the Cincinnati Bengals (assuming the Bengals’ starters were available, and actually wanted to win)? Not a chance. The Bengals would run roughshod over them. If they played 100 games, the Bengals would win 100 times.

Could the Arizona Wildcats beat the LA Clippers? Again, not a chance. The Clippers, if motivated, would annihilate the Wildcats 100 times out of 100.

Now, what about baseball? Well… here, a decent college team would probably beat a bad (or even a very good) major league team, every now and then. If a highly ranked college team like the Texas Longhorns played the KC Royals 100 times, I imagine the Longhorns could win 5 games.

I say that because every top-ranked college baseball team has an ace pitcher or two, one who’s not yet ready to be a regular starter in the big leagues, but who has the talent to make it there eventually. And in baseball, you can win a game with little more than good pitching.

Over the long haul, even the worst major league team would bury the best college baseball team. But in a few games, here and there, a top-notch college pitcher might have unhittable “stuff”, and shut down those big-league bats. If that happened, and the collegians manged to scratch out a few hits, they could win an occasional 1-0 or 2-1 game, even if they played against even the Angels, Braves or Yankees.

22

This doesn’t really add to the OP, but it’s a good story nevertheless:

When the Green Bay Packers won a Super Bowl in the 60s, coach Vince Lombardi was asked if his was the best football team ever. Lombardi said, “I don’t know. We still haven’t played Alabama.”

Did someone in this thread actually say that the defense of a pro basketball team would outclass a college basketball team? I didn’t realize they played defense in the pros. At least, not until the playoffs start.

23

Neurotik and Ol’Gaffer correctly comment on the speed in pro football being superior to the speed on a college football team. This applies at all positions. Pro defensive ends and linebackers can often range sideline to sideline, while few of their college analogs can do the same.

Arm strength of the QB is also a consideration. College QBs are used to having an extra split second to get the ball to their receivers. College QBs are also unaccstomed to linebackers being consistently athletic enough to play the short pass well. Few college QBs have the arm strength – and the resulting velocity – to get the football to their receivers through the narrower windows a pro defense offers.

Another huge advantage pro football teams have over their collegiate counterparts is in the quality of their special teams play. Pro place-kickers can kick more accurately and further than most all NCAA kickers. A 40-yard field goal for a lot of college kickers is an adventure – for a pro, it’s routine. Professional punters outkick most of their college peers by about 10 yards or so – and with better hang-time and accuracy. Pro kick/punt coverage squads, with their across-the-board speed advantage, would consistently pin back the college offenses a good bit further than normal. NFL special teams play would overwhelm a college squad, and the all-important field position battle would virtually always go in favor of the pros.

24

You didn’t realize they played defense? Please. Defense in the pros is always better than defense in college. Well, usually better. It’s just much harder to defend someone. If NBA teams weren’t playing defense then teams would regularly be scoring in the 130s.

25

I would say absolutely no way. Pro teams are made of the cream of the crop from the college ranks. An NCAA football team might have 3-4 All-Americans max, an NFL team is swimming with them, add in years more of experience and you have a major ass-whoopin’ every time. Same goes for basketball.

Maybe in hockey or baseball if the college goaltender is standing on his head, or a college pitcher has four pitches going for strikes, but probably not even then. Heck, in these two sports the best players often do not EVEN go to college (not as much in baseball as years past), they go straight to the minors.

26

There’s a lot more to line play than just being big. Playing center, right tackle or tight end requires as much physical skill and practice as any position except quarterback. (Playing guard is a little different. They’re typically the biggest, strongest players on the field, at any position.)
Lionemen have to come out of their stance in the right position. They have to get leverage on the defensive linemen with both their hands and shoulders, while maintaining control with their feet. They also may have multiple assignments that can change immediately if the defense runs a stunt.
Case in point: the Super Bowl where the Broncos played the Green Bay Packers. I believe the Broncos line was outweighed by an average of about 15 pounds per man. Yet Terrell Davis ran for 157 yards and 3 TDs while his line dominated down the stretch.
They would do the same, or worse, to Nebraska. Big does not equal skilled.

27

Case in point: Bob Feller. In his first game for the Cleveland Indians, he struck out 8 of 9 batters he faced. he was 17 years old. in his first start later that year, he had 15 Ks. He won 100 games before he turned 20 years old, a record that will probably never be equalled.

Of course, that’s why he’s in the HoF.

28

My facts are wrong. He won 107 games by the time he was 23. My bad.

That’s still averaging about 21 wins a year in his first five seasons.

29

What a great bunch of US Citizens most of us seem to be. What about the other football? How much difference is there between your average college and average world cup team? Any soccer fans?

30

There’s a point I haven’t seen anyone mention here, and that’s experience. Pro players have more years under their belt, and simply know the game better at the highest level. Your typical college senior is what, 23 or so? I’m 31, and I’m better at just about everything I do than I was at 23. (Insert sex joke of your choice here.) Not because of physical conditioning, but because I’m more mature and I’ve got more experience in life. I’m sure the same thing applies after 10 years as an NFL player.

The Cincinnati Bengals may have had a horrible record last year, but they were playing against experienced professionals; Ohio State had a perfect record, but they were playing against binge-drinking sophomores. I’ll take the Bengals by 35 points.

31

There was an article this week on the ESPN website about Carson Palmer. I guess he met up with Ron Jaworski to get some tips on how to breakdown game film (apparently Jaws is some kind of genius at this). Anyways, Jaws pauses the tape on some receiver with his back to the QB with a DB all over him and asks Palmer if he knows what that is called.

Palmer says no.

Jaws tells him that’s called ‘being open’ in the NFL.

32

A quick analysis of the Denver Nuggets roster shows they would beat the everliving crap out of Kentucky or Arizona or any other college team. Marcus Camby and Juwan Howard were both superstars in college. Camby pretty much single-handedly led UMass to a final four. Juwan Howard was part of the Fab Five at Michigan and one of the most talented on that team. Another Final Four team. Predrag Savovic was a scoring machine for Hawaii. They would not have even been in the tournament without him. I think they pulled off an upset, but I’m not sure. Donnell Harvey was at Florida for only one year, but he was incredible during that time. He was one of the best rebounders I’ve seen in college. He wasn’t the superstar of that team, but its not a coincidence that the Gators were in the national title game the year he was there. Vincent Yarbrough was one of the best players in the SEC by his last year at Tenn. I think they got to the Elite Eight that year, but I’m not sure.

I don’t know as much about Arizona, but I’d wager that in their best college seasons all of those players could start for Kentucky. Who does Kentucky have this year? Keith Bogans is good, but he’s no superstar like a lot of these guys were. Camara would be eaten alive by Harvey. And all these players are even better now! They’ve spent years in the NBA playing against the best players in the game all the time. And this doesn’t even take into consideration Nene Hilario and the other foreign guy, but I’m sure they are better than anyone on Kentucky. In short, this wouldn’t be close, If the Nuggets were trying, they’d dominate any college team.

33

My opinion? The pros kick, badly. In order of chance of a college win:

  1. Basketball. You can play 7 or 8 men, so one great player has a chance to dominate.It’s also the sport you see one or two rookies turn around a team the fastest.

  2. Baseball. One pitcher who is hot can win a game or two. He doesn’t even have to be that great overall. Heck, only one MLB baseball pitcher threw consecutive no-hitters, and he had a losing career record. The talent will tell, though - straight to the pros? Someone mentioned Olerud. I also recall Winfield, Bob Hoerner, and I think Kaline was the last before them (disregard the Clydes as publicity stunts) . Olerud has been an allstar several times, gave .400 a run. Hoerner was hurt a lot. The other two are HOFers.

  3. Hockey - a hot goalie could, but you have 19 guys playing each game - much more than baseball and basketball. Depth tells.

P.S. NYR407 - Tikanov should never have lifted Tretiak. And the USSR would’ve won 8 of 10 easy. probably 9.

  1. Football. You don’t need a big arm to win in the pros at QB - Montana didn’t have one, and Kosar certainly didn’t. Speed kills, though - a lot of the rookies say they are surprised at the pace - colege had big guys, and fast guys, but very few big, fast guys. The pros have plenty. And Zen noted the College All Stars - note even their ALL STARS - presumably better than any one team - lost the last 12 matches. they also use the most players each game (depth favors the pros) and it seems the better team will dominate more - division leaders often play to record like 12-4 (.750) How many teams in baseball have played there? The Cubs in 1906? That’s the equvalent of 120-40. How many teams have won 120? none. Heck, in 2000, no one played .600 ball. I don’t think many hockey and basketball teams go 61-21, either.
    (     note - in baseball arguments, if you say it hasn’t been done since the Cubs did it, you usually win the argument. Most teams have bad years - they have bad centuries)
34

lurkernomore, the Bulls went 72-10 one year, or 88%. Of course, that may have (note, may not trying to start a debate) been the greatest team to ever play basketball, and isn’t normal. Da Bulls!

To the OP, this topic has come up here many times in the past, and the answer always seems to be that the pros win. I agree. Football is the worst mismatch, basketball is probably the only one that might possibly once in a blue moon be close. The possibility of a great pitcher on a college team might be interesting, but over a series the pros win.

35

I don’t know what comparison you could make for soccer since collegiate soccer only exists with any quality in the U.S.

That said, the NCAA men’s champ this year, UCLA, would lose most games to the MLS champ, the L.A. Galaxy. Although which rules being used would make a difference. There is more substitution in college soccer.

Now if you stuck UCLA up against Man U, the Bruins would lose by as many goals as Man U cared to score before losing interest.

If baseball were the game of choice, I would fear seeing Barry Bonds with an aluminum bat in his hands if I were a pitcher.

36

Point taken. I don’t know basketball quite as well, but there have been an undeated football team, others like (presumably) your Bears at 15-1 IIRC in 85, and a few14-2 teams.

As for hockey, 60 wins have been the 95-96 Wings 76-77 Habs, and then you get to the point where they still only had 6 teams. A few other teams might make it if you discount ties. Event Gretzky’s Oiler teams didn’t make 60. Rare.

37

I could believe a college team with an up and coming pitcher COULD win a game - Roger Clemens in college was already a hell of a pitcher, for instance.

But a pitcher can’t pitch every game of a 7-game series.

38

IMO: In baseball, there is a very good chance a college team could win one game IF AND ONLY IF it had an outstanding pitcher who was on top of his game that day and good defense. The pros can’t do much if there are 15-20 K’s. Give a college team two outstanding hurlers and it might win a series. However, I find it highly unlikely, for the reasons stated by RickJay, that a college program is going to have such hurlers.

There have been a few college basketball teams that I think could take out some of the lesser pro teams and give others a good battle. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s UCLA squad, the 1948 Kentucky Wildcats, Indiana’s unbeaten team. However, we’re talking about the immortals of college hoops here, in all cases coached by one of the truly great college coaches in his prime. The average NCAA winner doesn’t have a chance in hell.

Football. No way. Not only because of the professionals’ speed and size, but because football is a game where a team has to have a lot of players.

39

Let me go out on a limb:
I think in decades past a very rare, exceptional college basketball team, might very well have been able to beat the very worst NBA teams in a seven game series. This is not true anymore and has not been since the early 80’s. But these examples illustrate more clearly where I’m coming from:

In 1968 the NBA expansion Milwaukee Bucks finished 26-56, 30 games out of 1st place. Their best players were Flynn Robinson, Jon (the Correct answer is) Mcglocklin, Len Chappell & Fred Hertzel. The same year UCLA went (29-1) Houston ended UCLA’s 47-game win streak during the season but the Kareem-led Bruins came back to blow the Cougars away, 101-69, for the title.

I think a plausible argument could be made that UCLA could have beat the Bucks. In fact, the very next year, with Kareem, the Bucks reverse their record to 56-26 and come in 2nd in the Division. I don’t think it is a huge stretch to say the outcome of a seven game series might have been tilted UCLA’s way the year before – but maybe not.

Far less clearly - I’d add these two exceptional college teams vs. the worse NBA teams of their era as having a shot to have prevailed in a seven game series:

The 1973 NCAA CHAMPS: UCLA (30-0) Center Bill Walton. Coach John Wooden. Enough said. NBA’s worst* Philadelphia 9-73 Fred Carter was their MVP & they started Manny Leaks, and John Q. Trapp. I think it is plausible to speculate that Wooden and Walton would have taken them. *This team makes all “NBA worst team ever” lists - usually as 1 or 2.

The 1976 NCAA CHAMPS: Indiana (32-0) Hoosiers featured three All-Americans Kent Benson, Scott May, and Quinn Buckner and had Tom Abernathy. In 1976 the worst NBA team was the Bob Love, Jerry Sloan & Norm van Lier led Chicago Bulls who went 24-58. Could that IU team have taken ‘em to 7? Maybe. Not surely.

40

]Now if you stuck UCLA up against Man U, the Bruins would lose by as many goals as Man U cared to score before losing interest.
**
[/QUOTE]

Soccer being the low scoring sport that it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if UCLA could get the occasional result against an MLS quality team (despite being totally outclassed). But over the long haul, even the worst MLS team would dominate the best college teams. The top Euro teams would just toy with UCLA.