Zeldar
July 16, 2011, 3:00pm
1
The full article at http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1240853 can provide the thinking behind this summary list, but I’m wondering how SDMB thinking differs from the Rivals staff’s analysis.
Which team(s) on this list would you replace with the one(s) that you feel were substantially better that year or that need to be considered among the top 25 of the decade?
And if all you think is that the order is not right, how would you change that?
July 16, 2011
Rivals.com Staff
On Friday, we wrote about how difficult it was to put together a list of the top 25 college players during the Rivals.com era (2001 season through 2010 season).
Frankly, though, that was like doing first-grade math compared to picking the top 25 teams of the decade. (We did not rank programs; instead, it was best one-season teams). It took a week or so - and a ton of e-mail strings - but we finally finished.
Let the arguments begin.
UTAH 2004
PENN STATE 2005
OKLAHOMA 2008
BOISE STATE 2009
OHIO STATE 2006
FLORIDA 2009
USC 2008
LSU 2007
TCU 2010
UTAH 2008
TEXAS 2009
OREGON 2010
FLORIDA 2006
USC 2003
LSU 2003
MIAMI 2002
OHIO STATE 2002
FLORIDA 2008
AUBURN 2004
AUBURN 2010
ALABAMA 2009
USC 2005
TEXAS 2005
USC 2004
MIAMI 2001
NOTE: Rankings and team capsules by staff writers Olin Buchanan, Tom Dienhart, David Fox, Mike Huguenin and Steve Megargee.
obviously flawed. No SEC team in the top 4. Funny a team that did win the Nat’l championship is #7 .
Zeldar
July 16, 2011, 3:20pm
3
Indeed! The fact that they have the best two Auburn teams of the decade on the list is a small measure of compensation. I would just love to see a playoff of these teams and settle all that on the field.