Who do you like for the National Championship Game?

[colorado_loves_football]

Their worst team, I believe actually came under Bill McCartney, 1984, his third season. So, if you are looking for a 'scapegoat' maybe it's him? He didn't start to win until relatively late in his tenure as head coach. I find that odd, myself.

McCartney does a fair job of summing up his early years in the program in his book "Ashes to Glory".

Yeah, I know, I have a copy, and I've read it cover to cover, and I was also a student at the University of Colorado during the time Colorado 'turned' the corner.
Chuck Fairbanks was supposed to be the one who would return the University of Colorado to national prominence. That didn't happen, but he was viewed in some circles as an offensive 'genious'.
Now, they are bringing in a coach who has a similar resume, and you don't think I'm worried?
Bill McCartney, likely wasn't the reason the University of Colorado did so well, but he was responsible for bringing in the necessary talent. He was a strong 'recruiter'. I'm taking nothing away from him, but the more success he had, I believe, the worse he did from a coaching standpoint.
His overall numbers against Nebraska weren't that great.
One thing he did do, however (that I thought was smart) was name Gary Barnett offensive coordinator for the 1991 Orange Bowl. Later, hiring him, I think was smart.
It remains to be seen how well Hawkins will do as Colorado's coach, but I wish him all the success in the world.
Now, as far as your other comments, I think they border on being belligerent. Yeah, I know you didn't write that one comment, but I've spent so much time directing my attention at you, I figured 'leave it in'.
Nebraska has done exceptionally well preparing for Colorado.
Even the year (1989) Colorado beat them for the Big 8 title, Nebraska probably was the better team. So, only a relatively few years has Colorado demonstrated superiority. 1990, and 2001 are two notable examples. By-and-large, Nebraska has had CU's #. McCartney beat Nebraska a relatively few times.
Barnett would still be CU's coach if they had beaten Nebraska, last year.

[ktffan]

His overall numbers against Nebraska weren't that great.

Now come on. Nebraska went 135-24-1 during McCarney's tenure at Colorado. Who's numbers against them were great?

Of the 11 teams that best Nebraska over that period, only 5 did so more than once and only 4 teams had 3 wins or more against them, Colorado was one of them. They had the ninth best winning percentage against Nebraska over that period, 4th best if you count teams with 3 or more games. Three wins and a tie was pretty good.

[colorado_loves_football]

Now come on. Nebraska went 135-24-1 during McCarney's tenure at Colorado. Who's numbers against them were great?

Well, I guess I'm basing my opinion on the fact that Rick Neuheisel did pretty well, against Nebraska with what I considered to be 'inferior' teams. McCartney did ok vs. Nebraska, but they never dominated them. Maybe that's too much to ask, but I was disappointed, myself. One year (1994), I think it was, Nebraska beat Colorado so bad it was embarrassing.

Of the 11 teams that best Nebraska over that period, only 5 did so more than once and only 4 teams had 3 wins or more against them, Colorado was one of them. They had the ninth best winning percentage against Nebraska over that period, 4th best if you count teams with 3 or more games. Three wins and a tie was pretty good.

I never said it was 'bad', but given how far Colorado had come, I don't think it was too much to ask for them to beat them in years they needed to. One year, Colorado had national championship aspirations, couldn't stop Nebraska.
Nebraska played for the national championship. Colorado played in the Fiesta Bowl (I was disappointed). I said there were exceptions.
Colorado beating Nebraska 2001 was notable. But that's one year, and it happened in Boulder. Colorado losing to Nebraska last year was a huge setback for the program. It's the primary reason Barnett was fired.

[Spence]

In other words, you maybe are being too hard on the Wolverines. And didn't they nearly beat Ohio St?

Ohio State kept Michigan in the game with turnovers. Turnovers were the reason Ohio State had all the trouble they had last season. The game in Ann Arbor was never really as close as the score. I never got the feeling that Ohio State was going to lose that game. Eric would probably say the same thing.

Still you can't judge Ohio State or Michigan by that game. Records do not matter in that game. they never have. Both teams know each other so well and both teams base their whole seasons worth on that game. Ohio State and Michigan watch tape of each other the whole season preparing. They even spend some time each week practicing for each other. Michigan - Ohio St. is a rivary 365 days a year. not just the week or two before the game. The pressure on the coaches to win in this game is 100 times greater then any other game they play. Including the bowl game or even the NC game if one of the two gets there. There aren't many rivalry games that compare with this one in any sport. Historically these are 2 of the top 5 programs all time and they play every year, the last game of the season, usually for high stakes. That game almost always has a hand in deciding the conference.

[colorado_loves_football]

Quote:
I thought McCartney lost an 'edge' toward the end, as far as Nebraska is concerned. Rick Neuheisel never seemed to 'capture' it. Gary Barnett had it, but lost it, over time. The benchmark in what defines a 'good' coach for Colorado is beating Nebraska. So it goes along with what you are saying as far as coaching at Ohio St and/or Michigan is concerned.
If you don't win that game, occasionally, you're likely gone. But, I do'nt agree that any coach can be expected to win every game. That's setting the competitive 'bar' too high. Had Barnett beaten Nebraska, or even kept it 'close' it's possible, even likely he's retained as head coach.

The bar was set a long time ago with Ohio State - Michigan. I don't think setting the bar high is a bad thing. If you want to remain among the best in the nation, the bar has to be set high. No ones job is safe. You must prove yourself every year all over again. It is what separates the elite teams from the average teams.

No, I don't think it's ever a bad idea to set you priorities high, but not too high.
One mistake I think Ohio State has made is they have dismissed coaches that were likely still pretty good. When Earle Bruce went to CSU he basically was able to resurrect a team that prior to his tenure was 'lukewarm'.
Leon Fuller did beat CU, in 1986. That year, Colorado challenged for the Big Eight title, but for a loss to Oklahoma, they 'win' it outright.
When Earle Bruce came to CSU, I remember first game against CU (in Boulder) they were tough. Colorado won, but not easily, in fact I think credit should be given to him for making the Colorado-Colorado State rivalry what it is today, one of the more 'prominent' rivalries in all of I-A.

[colorado_loves_football]

Still you can't judge Ohio State or Michigan by that game. Records do not matter in that game. they never have. Both teams know each other so well and both teams base their whole seasons worth on that game. Ohio State and Michigan watch tape of each other the whole season preparing. They even spend some time each week practicing for each other. Michigan - Ohio St. is a rivary 365 days a year. not just the week or two before the game. The pressure on the coaches to win in this game is 100 times greater then any other game they play. Including the bowl game or even the NC game if one of the two gets there. There aren't many rivalry games that compare with this one in any sport. Historically these are 2 of the top 5 programs all time and they play every year, the last game of the season, usually for high stakes. That game almost always has a hand in deciding the conference.

I agree that when 'heated' rivals face off, you can throw tradition out the window. That's one reason why the Colorado vs. Nebraska rivalry is so intriguing. And Nebraska doesn't lose to Colorado very often, but Barnett did ok (as did McCartney).

Rick Neuheisel never beat Nebraska. That (along with recruiting violations) was why he was systematically removed from the head coaching position. You can't remain a head coach at the University of Colorado and not beat Nebraska, intermittently. To his credit, he kept the games 'close', unless you count 1995, a year Colorado was beaten by a much superior team, in Boulder. Even so, I think Coloado has mostly kept the series close. Nebraska holds a sizable lead, obviously but Colorado still keeps the games 'interesting'.

I thought McCartney lost an 'edge' toward the end, as far as Nebraska is concerned. Rick Neuheisel never seemed to 'capture' it. Gary Barnett had it, but lost it, over time. The benchmark in what defines a 'good' coach for Colorado is beating Nebraska. So it goes along with what you are saying as far as coaching at Ohio St and/or Michigan is concerned.
If you don't win that game, occasionally, you're likely gone. But, I do'nt agree that any coach can be expected to win every game. That's setting the competitive 'bar' too high. Had Barnett beaten Nebraska, or even kept it 'close' it's possible, even likely he's retained as head coach.

[Spence]

I thought McCartney lost an 'edge' toward the end, as far as Nebraska is concerned. Rick Neuheisel never seemed to 'capture' it. Gary Barnett had it, but lost it, over time. The benchmark in what defines a 'good' coach for Colorado is beating Nebraska. So it goes along with what you are saying as far as coaching at Ohio St and/or Michigan is concerned.
If you don't win that game, occasionally, you're likely gone. But, I do'nt agree that any coach can be expected to win every game. That's setting the competitive 'bar' too high. Had Barnett beaten Nebraska, or even kept it 'close' it's possible, even likely he's retained as head coach.

The bar was set a long time ago with Ohio State - Michigan. I don't think setting the bar high is a bad thing. If you want to remain among the best in the nation, the bar has to be set high. No ones job is safe. You must prove yourself every year all over again. It is what separates the elite teams from the average teams.

[Spence]

National Championships are one factor that determine elite teams. Most of the elite teams have one multible NCs. Still a team that is consistantly in the top 10 year after year is a better way to determine the elite teams. It isn't hard to pick out the best of the best. Most everyone know the teams that belong. An example would be Nebraska. They are one of the historical elites that is in an uncommon down cycle. The only way they lose that status is if they fall on decades of hard times. I don't see that happening because the fans and alumni will make sure it doesn't. They expect greatness from the program and won't rest until they get it. They have set the bar high and that is why they will remain an elite team.

[Spence]

I would even make the argument for Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Penn State and LSU to make that list.

I would put those teams on the list and probably Georgia and UCLA also. Teams in the SEC I would give more slack to because they play such tough conference schedules.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yes indeed, and I personally appreciate that.

Schools that I personally consider elite would be schools like.
Oklahoma
Florida State
Miami
Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
Alabama
USC

I would even make the argument for Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Penn State and LSU to make that list.

Others like Colorado, Washington, Georgia, Clemson, BYU, Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas A&M, and Airzona State are teams that I consider to have very good programs, but a step or two behind the elites. Still that potential to become elite remains if they start winning multiple Confence, Bowls, and National Titles consecutively, and finish in the Top 10 consecutively.

Just so I understand, we are trying to find the 'defining' characteristic that sets a team apart from the rest?

I will 'stick' with my position that a national championship is a 'fair' measure of an outstanding football program. I had forgotten that Texas A&M won a NC in 1939. If you guys review the NCAA athletics webpage (www. ncaa.org) you'll find out there are teams that have 'recognized' national championships (like Arizona St). So, I should 'amend' my position to reflect that, also.

But, obviously, that's not the 'only' way to assess the quality of a football team. If it was, TCU would be in trouble (despite their 1938 NC).

We've been all around this argument before, but Kttfan posted an 'offensive' post that suggested scoring a lot of points might be one way to 'size up' a team. Another might be point differential.

Surely, there must be a way to combine all these things together, and create a 'barometer' whereby a team can be gauged? That's why I make remarks like I do. Raw data, while useful, doesn't say much, if anything about good the team was.

Wins and losses, obviously count for something. But, as in the case of TCU, they have to be 'gauged' accordingly. If we could think (collectively) about a way to assess the quality of a football team, then incorporate it into some kind of 'formula' we could produce our own 'ranking'. Not that it hasn't been done before, but one we can agree on, collectively. Kttfan has the #s. We just need to sort them out.

[Jason G]

I went looking for this topic from last summer because I thought it would be interesting to read what evryone thought back then compared to the way things actually played out.

So much for my West Virginia prediction.

[billybud]

LOL...Yeah, me too. I led with WVU. I had WVU with a one game season (Louisville)....thought they had a good shot. Turns out that the odds makers were right about Ohio State...they had Florida in the Top 6, so I'd say the line wasn't bad to start.

[RazorHawk]

I had predicted the winner of the W Virginia vs Louisville game, due to their schedules. Don't remember who I had them playing and don't care enough to wade through 9 pages of posts, or use the search tool either.

Sure glad I was wrong.

[Spence]

I wasn't wrong about Ohio State. It just turned out that the beginning of the schedule turned out to be much weaker then it looked on paper. Ohio State definitely benefited from some teams not being as good as advertised.