Who do you like for the National Championship Game?

[ktffan]

All time records

Michigan- Wins 848(1st. all time) Losses- 281, Ties 36 Winning pct .743

Ohio State- Wins 775(5th. all time) Losses- 300, Ties 53 Winning pct .711

Colorado- Wins 651(15th. all time) Losses- 402, Ties 36 Winning pct .614

Michigan has 849 wins, only 280 losses.

[colorado_loves_football]

All time records

Michigan- Wins 848(1st. all time) Losses- 281, Ties 36 Winning pct .743

Ohio State- Wins 775(5th. all time) Losses- 300, Ties 53 Winning pct .711

Colorado- Wins 651(15th. all time) Losses- 402, Ties 36 Winning pct .614

Michigan has 849 wins, only 280 losses.

This is an example of relevant information, and I appreciate it being posted here, believe it or not.
It gives a relative comparison between the football programs, although they don't play in the same conference (obviously).
Nevertheless, it does give a basis for comparison, which would suggest that Colorado, while not necessarily in OSU & Michigan's 'league' neverthless is 'competitive' relative to the rest of the NCAA, overall.
And that's sort of what I suspected, but didn't have the information to back it up.
I appreciate it when data is presented in this fashion. 'Blanket' statements don't go very far in my book. Top-15 is a pretty good standard, in my opinion, about how good a team likely is, relative to the rest of the NCAA.

[ktffan]

All time records

Michigan- Wins 848(1st. all time) Losses- 281, Ties 36 Winning pct .743

Ohio State- Wins 775(5th. all time) Losses- 300, Ties 53 Winning pct .711

Colorado- Wins 651(15th. all time) Losses- 402, Ties 36 Winning pct .614

Michigan has 849 wins, only 280 losses.

See, now that at least is relevant information, but it doesn't nessarily 'prove' anything, unless the argument being made is that Michigan and Ohio St are 'superior' to Colorado (a point I never necessarily made).
Thanks Kttfan, I do appreciate your data, when it validates a position (I do!).
I wasn't aware Colorado ranked that high, actually, I would have guessed somewhere in the 75th percentile.
Where does that put them? Looks like it's closer to the 90th percentile.

You're not going to like my assessment, but as always, I'll give you an honest opinion based on facts.

Colorado has an all-time record of 650-402-36. This puts them at #21 on the all-time winning percentage list, which is fairly respectable. It does put them behind Boise State and Miami of Ohio, though, and Colorado has had a better program than either, so that tells you what it's worth.

Of the 650 wins, 597 were obtained when Colorado was considered a big time program, or essentially I-A equivient (there's opinion in when they were big time). If you compare their winning percentage as a "I-A" program, which would place them at #22 on that list, as well, so there's not much win padding there.

Where Colorado got a lot of their wins was their years in the Rocky Mountain Conference and the Skyline. Since joining the Big 8 and becoming a major program they've won 369, lost 264 and tied 14. This winning percentage of .581 would put them at #28 on the list of programs as "majors". Not bad, but notable in all this is their lack of Big 8 titles. Of their 5 that they won, 3 were in their run of the late 80s, early 90s. Only two in the years other than that. Colorado's only dominate period was those few years.

[colorado_loves_football]

You're not going to like my assessment, but as always, I'll give you an honest opinion based on facts.

Colorado has an all-time record of 650-402-36. This puts them at #21 on the all-time winning percentage list, which is fairly respectable. It does put them behind Boise State and Miami of Ohio, though, and Colorado has had a better program than either, so that tells you what it's worth.

Of the 650 wins, 597 were obtained when Colorado was considered a big time program, or essentially I-A equivient (there's opinion in when they were big time). If you compare their winning percentage as a "I-A" program, which would place them at #22 on that list, as well, so there's not much win padding there.

Where Colorado got a lot of their wins was their years in the Rocky Mountain Conference and the Skyline. Since joining the Big 8 and becoming a major program they've won 369, lost 264 and tied 14. This winning percentage of .581 would put them at #28 on the list of programs as "majors". Not bad, but notable in all this is their lack of Big 8 titles. Of their 5 that they won, 3 were in their run of the late 80s, early 90s. Only two in the years other than that. Colorado's only dominate period was those few years.

No, I dont' necessarily mind you 'assessment' provided it's based on relevant data.
How does Colorado go from being #15 to #21, in one post? Actually, however that's closer to where I thought they'd be, anyway, so it's not altogether surprising, but it's one reason why I 'queston' your data, anyway.
And as far as Boise St, and Miami (OH) are concerned, I'm not sure how that matters, unless you are trying to do a side-by-side comparison between the programs (I think Boise St. and Miami (OH) are comparable in talent and ability, myself). So, there is some relevancy there, in my opinion.
Now, you 'quantify' your data, which is cool, I suppose, but I think you do it to put Colorado in a 'lesser' light. I don't particuularly like that, but if it's based on 'solid' infomation, maybe it's an 'accurate' assessment of where they stand, relative to the rest of the NCAA. So, fair is fair, after all.
I knew Colorado began as a Rocky Mountain Conference member. I think they played against such schools as University of Denver, along with Colorado School of Mines. The problem with how you 'size-it-up' is it says nothing, whatsoever about how likely 'good' any of those programs were, at the time. I'm not saying it to be critical, necessarily, but is it possible those were relatively 'decent' if not good teams?
All-time figures dont' really mean much to me, anyway, unless they are somehow quantified. DU doesn't even have a team now. Doesn't mean they weren't 'any good' when they played Colorado, does it?
They are national champions in hockey. Maybe says a little about how good they might have been at the time.
Anyway, I wish you would simply present data that is verifyable, and present it in a 'fair' way, rather than back-track and 're-present' it, in a different manner, that supports your position. If that offends you, I apologize.

[ktffan]

No, I dont' necessarily mind you 'assessment' provided it's based on relevant data.
How does Colorado go from being #15 to #21, in one post?

They are #15 in wins (for I-A teams) and #21 for winning percentage (for I-A teams). My assessment was based on winning percentage.

I'm not saying it to be critical, necessarily, but is it possible those were relatively 'decent' if not good teams?

While everything's "possible" in theory, in fact the Rocky Mountain Conference was not good. During Colorado's tenure in the conference, the conference won only .447 of their non-conference games against I-A teams. The better conferences were around .600 at the time. Teams from the conference were 3-11-2 against The Big 8 (Big 6/7 actually), 0-8 against the Big Ten, 5-32-3 against the PAC-10 and 1-2 against the SouthWest. The conference was a tier or two down.

Anyway, I wish you would simply present data that is verifyable, and present it in a 'fair' way, rather than back-track and 're-present' it, in a different manner, that supports your position. If that offends you, I apologize.

While you may refuse to verify the information I give you, that doesn't not mean it's not verifiable. You've got a big mouth for someone with no action.

Since most everything you "say" is gibberish, you have no chance of offending me.

[Eric]

It does support ktffan's opinion because he bases it on facts.

I really can't see how this should make anyone irritable. Colorado has a good program, we all think that. Just not with the USCs, Notre Dames, and Ohio States. And I agree with you that they could compete at times with those teams, in regards to the historical aspect.

As for right now, they still appear to be pretty good, but I've been hearing about some quarterback issues from a Colorado fan I know of. What do you think of that playing out, CLF?

As for Michigan being the #1 program of all time, whatever. But as of right now, they are in that tier below the elites because they have potential, but they don't do the best they possibly can with it. They have 3 consensus national championships, beginning from 1936. So historically, before that time, they were very good, and they continue to be very good today, just in the last quarter century, they obviously haven't maximized on potential.

[Spence]

Colorado is a relevant team, no question. It is just that the program doesn't rise to the level of what I consider an elite team. Iowa doesn't either , but that doesn't take away what they have accomplished in the past 4 years. It also doesn't mean they can't earn their way in.

Pitt. has won several NC's, but I would consider them elite. Elite is doing over the long haul. Yea in and year out. Every team has a bad stretch here or there, but the great ones don't have many.

[Spence]

There are a lot of competitive teams in D-1. They compete for single games, over the course of a season, and over several years. I take nothing aaway from those teams, but to be an elite team, I believe that you should have at least twenty years of being consistantly good. That is what the teams I have mentioned have done.

[Spence]

Colorado has been a good mid level team. they have had some really good teams and some not so hot teams. Mostly they are average. They can give anyone a game, but rarely can they give everyone a game.

[ktffan]

I sometimes disreguard overall win/loss records, at least in my own mind. The reason being, is that so many of those hundreds of accumulated wins and losses occured in the stone ages. (Or pre-modern era of football) I guess I would put more personal stake in a win/loss record from say 1950-Present, Conference Titles Won in that time frame, Bowls won in that Time frame, and National Championships won in that time frame. That is what really sells a team for me, but I'm one man.

No, that opinion tends to be pretty common among Husker fans. In it you are joined by Ohio State fans, Miami fans and Florida State fans. Usually Huskers use 1960, though. Miami uses 1983, Florida State 1975.

[colorado_loves_football]

I may be wrong, but didn't Colorado have a pretty long "lull" between 1970 and 1990? I know they had a few decent squads in that time period, but I thought, (If memory serves me correctly, doesn't mean that it does) That CU was struggling in that time frame.

They weren't a 'bad' team until relatively late in the '70s. They played in the 1977 Orange Bowl (losing to Ohio St 27-10). They also played in the Bluebonnet Bowl, not long before. But, their president thought they weren't doing as well as they could, so they hired Chuck Fairbanks, who I believe was an assistant coach for the New England Patriots. (the Patriots at the time were one of the better AFC teams, their QB was Steve Grogan). Anyway, long story sort, it never paid off.
The offense he tried to introduce put up big numbers, but did little in terms of wins. Actually, Colorado did worse, initially with Bill McCartney than they did with Fairbanks, so I doubt it was one person's fault. It wasn't until after McCartney ditched the pro-set for the wishbone they began to have some success. They modeled it, believe it or not, on such teams as Army, Texas Christian, and Air Force.

I can't imagine a world without the Nebraska/Colorado rivalry. You might have noticed there is a little bad blood between the two programs... nah........ Colorado does have that National Championship to their name, does that qualify them to be considered on that uppder tier? Maybe, maybe not. I'm biased, and have no legitimate stake to say yes or no.

If the question is 'does a national championship make a team a contender? I think the answer to that is 'yes'. Anytime a team wins one is a notable accomplishment, regardless of the circumstances being applied.

I sometimes disreguard overall win/loss records, at least in my own mind. The reason being, is that so many of those hundreds of accumulated wins and losses occured in the stone ages. (Or pre-modern era of football) I guess I would put more personal stake in a win/loss record from say 1950-Present, Conference Titles Won in that time frame, Bowls won in that Time frame, and National Championships won in that time frame. That is what really sells a team for me, but I'm one man.

I agree with you 1000% (if that were possible). W/L only means something if it is put into some kind of context.

Colorado is a relevant team, no question. It is just that the program doesn't rise to the level of what I consider an elite team. Iowa doesn't either , but that doesn't take away what they have accomplished in the past 4 years. It also doesn't mean they can't earn their way in.

Pitt. has won several NC's, but I would consider them elite. Elite is doing over the long haul. Yea in and year out. Every team has a bad stretch here or there, but the great ones don't have many.

Pitt is a national 'contender'. So is Colorado. One reason the Fiesta Bowl selected Pitt (in 2004) was because of their pedigree. How many championships has BC won? Taking nothing away from them, I don't think they were as good as Pitt. (and still don't).

I concur with that.

I can also agree with that assesment of teams like Iowa and Colorado. I think there are a lot of others teams that fit the same criteria. They have had great spells of success, just not the consistency of the greats. Texas A&M comes to mind, so does Arizona State and BYU. I'm sure there are others I'm not considering.

Again, I think you are incorrect. Arizona State could have won a national championship, but lost to Ohio St. There's a reason why some teams have national championships and some don't (in my opinion). Don't put BYU in that same category. They won a legitimate national championship, 1984. They have had some outstanding teams, prior and since. 2001, they were likely BCS 'good' but weren't selected. Texas A&M, in my opinion is a 'pretender' to the throne. Good at times, but rarely outstanding. They did, however have what I considered to be a very good football team, 1990. They played BYU in the Holiday Bowl, and dominated them, beginning-to-end. That team might have had NC aspirations (yet anohter reason I prefer a playoff).

[colorado_loves_football]

It does support ktffan's opinion because he bases it on facts.

No, it doesn't. It is based on his 'loose' interpretation of those numbers, questionable numbers, I might add, given how they 'change' from post-to-post.

I really can't see how this should make anyone irritable. Colorado has a good program, we all think that. Just not with the USCs, Notre Dames, and Ohio States. And I agree with you that they could compete at times with those teams, in regards to the historical aspect.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Colorado can play with those teams, but if you are saying that there is an 'advantage' to being USC, I agree. Doesn't mean Colorado can't beat them.

As for right now, they still appear to be pretty good, but I've been hearing about some quarterback issues from a Colorado fan I know of. What do you think of that playing out, CLF?

I was impressed with how White played against Clemson. I don't like controversy, but they recruited Cody Hawkins to Colorado. His other option was Boise St. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that there is 'favoritism' being applied. I don't know what to make of it. I like White.

As for Michigan being the #1 program of all time, whatever. But as of right now, they are in that tier below the elites because they have potential, but they don't do the best they possibly can with it. They have 3 consensus national championships, beginning from 1936. So historically, before that time, they were very good, and they continue to be very good today, just in the last quarter century, they obviously haven't maximized on potential

Not necessarily. I think Michigan has been very competitive overall, on the national stage. You are forgetting how close the Rose Bowl was, last year (when Texas beat Michigan). It's very possible the team Michigan lost to in San Antonio will win the Big XII this year (not predicting it, mind you). In other words, you maybe are being too hard on the Wolverines. And didn't they nearly beat Ohio St? They should have beaten Nebraska. It was something of a miracle they didn't. It remains to be seen how good Nebraska will be.
But they start out their year against USC.

They are #15 in wins (for I-A teams) and #21 for winning percentage (for I-A teams). My assessment was based on winning percentage.

Even if that's true, I still think you are manipulating the data to suit your position (fair only in terms of how you look at it). Nevertheless, #21 overall is likely 'pretty good'.

While everything's "possible" in theory, in fact the Rocky Mountain Conference was not good. During Colorado's tenure in the conference, the conference won only .447 of their non-conference games against I-A teams. The better conferences were around .600 at the time. Teams from the conference were 3-11-2 against The Big 8 (Big 6/7 actually), 0-8 against the Big Ten, 5-32-3 against the PAC-10 and 1-2 against the SouthWest. The conference was a tier or two down.

The Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference is still around. I'ts also one of the more competitive conferences in Division II. .447 is near .50. That's not so bad. Colorado Mines was one of the members. I think you need to re-assess how likely 'good' they were, if you are going to make 'blanket' statements. 0-8 against the Big Ten. Well, I guess the Big Ten had their #. Nevertheless, I think you are likely manipulating the numbers to suit your position. I don't think they are a 'fair' reflection of how competitive the conference was, overall.

While you may refuse to verify the information I give you, that doesn't not mean it's not verifiable. You've got a big mouth for someone with no action.

I think I could probably find contradictions if I looked hard enough. Your numbers are hard to interpret. 0-8 against the Big Ten. That doesn't really say much, other than that the Big Ten is 'better'. If your argument was 'fair' it would give a breakdown of those numbers, but it isn't. Neverthless, I'll grant you that if you are saying the Big Ten was 'superior' that's probably a 'fair' argument. But it doesn't mean Colorado was a bad team, for being in the RMAC. And it doesn't mean the RMAC was 'bad' either, just not as competitive overall. A team doesn't have to win to be 'competitive'.

Since most everything you "say" is gibberish, you have no chance of offending me.

Tha'ts good, because your figures are probably 'greased'. You don't offend me, either.

[ktffan]

They are #15 in wins (for I-A teams) and #21 for winning percentage (for I-A teams). My assessment was based on winning percentage.

I checked it againt a 'reliable' source. I think you have the numbers reversed, but either way, I don't think you apply a 'fair' standard.
Your numbers aren't infallible.

First of all, I'd love to see the bumpkin source you consider reliable. Second of all, I do not have them reversed. Third of all, they are not my numbers, they are Colorado's and the NCAA's.

.447? That's not bad when you consider who was in the conference.

Well, golly gee, I was considering who was in the conference. That's why I pointed out how weak it was.

I simply haven't had the time to verify your data, yet

Then shut up.

Not likely. You throw data out there, then you have to 'modify' it to suit your position.

More gibberish. Keep it up.

[ktffan]

I may be wrong, but didn't Colorado have a pretty long "lull" between 1970 and 1990? I know they had a few decent squads in that time period, but I thought, (If memory serves me correctly, doesn't mean that it does) That CU was struggling in that time frame.

Colorado played in the Orange Bowl, in 1977, against Ohio St. You are being far too critical in how you 'size-up' the Buffaloes.

I didn't write that.

More gibberish.

[ktffan]

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".