Tuesday, April 07, 2009
College team of the decade?
The poll question on ESPN.com this morning is an interesting one: which college team has been the most dominating in its sport this decade: UConn women's basketball, USC football, Florida football, or UNC basketball? As a red blooded American, given the uniquely American obsession with being No. 1 and overall desire to just rank things in general; I was naturally forced to give this some thought. I first ruled out UConn because I don't really care about women's basketball, and frankly I don't know many sports fans who do. While it is certainly true that the Huskies have been dominant, I submit that it is easier to be dominant in a sport with a lower public profile and a more limited talent pool. There simply is less competition for the top spot which makes dominance a function of merely defeating a few select rivals rather than navigating the entirety of a difficult season. Plus, I'm know for a fact that there are some minor sports where one school has been more dominant than UConn has been in women's hoops. (Cough, Gym Dawgs, 5 NCs this decade.)
I got your team of the decade right here.
I ruled out Florida football because they were coached by Ron Zook for three years this decade. Ron Zook is a clown who recruits well. His teams have talent and will occasionally pull off big upsets, but ultimately he'll never win anything because of a lack of team discipline and poor scheming. While their current peak may be a little higher than USC's peak in the middle of the aughts, they took about four years off: the three Zook years and Urban's first season when they were re-tooling.
For the same reason, I ruled out UNC because of Matt Doherty era, or error as some UNC alums I know call it. That left me by process of elimination with USC football, which has been consistently outstanding since 2002.
The poll question does raise an interesting dynamic for this season in that Florida and USC could be playing for the title of team of the decade. For that reason, it's too bad that Mark Sanchez didn't come back to school, because a season in which Florida and USC were #1 and #2 in August and then went on a collision course all year would be fascinating to watch. It would be not unlike 2005 when USC and Texas hurtled towards one another like runaway comets in the cosmos for four months, before putting on arguably the greatest national title game ever.
LSU really should also be in this discussion, since a national title and SEC title for the Tigers in 2009 would give them three national titles, four SEC titles, and five BCS bowl wins in the decade. (One caveat to that last number: all four of LSU's previous BCS bowl wins have come in virtual home games in the Superdome.)
Now let's take a gander at the teams with the top winning percentages of the decade so far:
1. Boise State - 0.85217
2. Texas - 0.84348
3. Oklahoma - 0.84298
4. Southern Cal - 0.80870
5. Ohio State - 0.79825
6. Georgia - 0.77586
7. Louisiana State - 0.76923
8. Virginia Tech - 0.75424
9. Florida - 0.75000
10. Texas Christian - 0.74775
Although USC and Florida were the two contenders at first glance for team of the decade, that might have been a little bit of recent history clouding my judgment over the longer view (or maybe I shouldn't rely on ESPN for sports research). LSU certainly deserves consideration. If Texas, Oklahoma, or Ohio State were to win the title this year, then those programs would have a pair of national titles to match LSU, Florida, and USC and they would also likely have an advantage in winning percentage. That said, Texas has only won one conference title in the decade, additionally Oklahoma and Ohio State have been absolutely awful in BCS games, so these three do appear on some examination to be pretenders to the crown.
It's also interesting that Florida is being considered for team of the decade for the nation while only having the third best winning percentage in the SEC. LSU is interestingly only second. The team with the best winning percentage Georgia really isn't in the discussion but does offer an interesting what if? How different would our discussion be if Georgia had found its way into the national title game in 2002 and then won it? Moreover, if we accept the idea that winning a national title requires a significant amount of fortuitous timing, isn't Georgia just really unlucky? After all, Georgia went 12-1 in 2002 and didn't get to play for the national title because two major conference teams went unbeaten, but LSU and Florida got to play for the title in 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with one loss (and in one case, two losses). And that's before we get to the point that Georgia could have been a one-loss team in 2005 absent the D.J. Shockley injury, but they still would have been frozen out of the title game because they would have again had the misfortune of being a one-loss SEC champion in a year in which two major programs went unbeaten.
We could've been the team of the decade!
I got your team of the decade right here.
I ruled out Florida football because they were coached by Ron Zook for three years this decade. Ron Zook is a clown who recruits well. His teams have talent and will occasionally pull off big upsets, but ultimately he'll never win anything because of a lack of team discipline and poor scheming. While their current peak may be a little higher than USC's peak in the middle of the aughts, they took about four years off: the three Zook years and Urban's first season when they were re-tooling.
For the same reason, I ruled out UNC because of Matt Doherty era, or error as some UNC alums I know call it. That left me by process of elimination with USC football, which has been consistently outstanding since 2002.
The poll question does raise an interesting dynamic for this season in that Florida and USC could be playing for the title of team of the decade. For that reason, it's too bad that Mark Sanchez didn't come back to school, because a season in which Florida and USC were #1 and #2 in August and then went on a collision course all year would be fascinating to watch. It would be not unlike 2005 when USC and Texas hurtled towards one another like runaway comets in the cosmos for four months, before putting on arguably the greatest national title game ever.
LSU really should also be in this discussion, since a national title and SEC title for the Tigers in 2009 would give them three national titles, four SEC titles, and five BCS bowl wins in the decade. (One caveat to that last number: all four of LSU's previous BCS bowl wins have come in virtual home games in the Superdome.)
Now let's take a gander at the teams with the top winning percentages of the decade so far:
1. Boise State - 0.85217
2. Texas - 0.84348
3. Oklahoma - 0.84298
4. Southern Cal - 0.80870
5. Ohio State - 0.79825
6. Georgia - 0.77586
7. Louisiana State - 0.76923
8. Virginia Tech - 0.75424
9. Florida - 0.75000
10. Texas Christian - 0.74775
Although USC and Florida were the two contenders at first glance for team of the decade, that might have been a little bit of recent history clouding my judgment over the longer view (or maybe I shouldn't rely on ESPN for sports research). LSU certainly deserves consideration. If Texas, Oklahoma, or Ohio State were to win the title this year, then those programs would have a pair of national titles to match LSU, Florida, and USC and they would also likely have an advantage in winning percentage. That said, Texas has only won one conference title in the decade, additionally Oklahoma and Ohio State have been absolutely awful in BCS games, so these three do appear on some examination to be pretenders to the crown.
It's also interesting that Florida is being considered for team of the decade for the nation while only having the third best winning percentage in the SEC. LSU is interestingly only second. The team with the best winning percentage Georgia really isn't in the discussion but does offer an interesting what if? How different would our discussion be if Georgia had found its way into the national title game in 2002 and then won it? Moreover, if we accept the idea that winning a national title requires a significant amount of fortuitous timing, isn't Georgia just really unlucky? After all, Georgia went 12-1 in 2002 and didn't get to play for the national title because two major conference teams went unbeaten, but LSU and Florida got to play for the title in 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with one loss (and in one case, two losses). And that's before we get to the point that Georgia could have been a one-loss team in 2005 absent the D.J. Shockley injury, but they still would have been frozen out of the title game because they would have again had the misfortune of being a one-loss SEC champion in a year in which two major programs went unbeaten.
We could've been the team of the decade!
