Toggle sidebar

ESPN's History in the Making

G

GetWell_4RTR

BamaNation Citizen
Nov 9, 2005
43
0
0
56
Does anyone know if they plan on matching any of the 12 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP teams against USC of 2005 ?? I personally think that Most of Coach Bryants 6 National Title Teams could match up well and beat USC!! What do yall think???

Roll Tide Roll!!!!
 
GetWell_4RTR said:
Does anyone know if they plan on matching any of the 12 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP teams against USC of 2005 ?? I personally think that Most of Coach Bryants 6 National Title Teams could match up well and beat USC!! What do yall think???

Roll Tide Roll!!!!
Click to expand...

i think the '79 team is in the mix as the #3 seed.
 
I predict the majority of voters will go with 2005 USC on every single team in history that they are matched up against. People are just too hyped up about whats going on "right now" rather than teams of the past where their hype has long since worn off. Its also pointless to matchup these teams because players are so different from the older eras of football. You didnt have 6'4" monster quarterbacks and 300lb linemen back in the day.

On a side note, the 92 Bama team would beat them 31-17
 
GetWell_4RTR said:
Does anyone know if they plan on matching any of the 12 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP teams against USC of 2005 ?? I personally think that Most of Coach Bryants 6 National Title Teams could match up well and beat USC!! What do yall think???

Roll Tide Roll!!!!
Click to expand...
USC would be beaten by the Bama teams of 92, 79, but for sure 1966. No brag, just fact.

RTR :biggrin:
 
I don't think you can compare athletes from different decades. The only Tide title team that could athletically hang with the 05 USC team is our most recent champions - the 92 team. The only way you can really compare some of the best title teams is to compare their relative dominance in their time. Personally, I think the mid-1950's OU dynasty and last-1970's Alabama dynasty were as dominant as USC's dynasty.
 
I agree about it being hard to compare teams, and considering that a win or lose can sometimes come down to nothing more then which team is having a better day. I do think that the 92' and 79' teams could beat them, but a lot of people who vote in these things either were not born in 79' or were too young to remember things like the Goal Line Stand.
 
rgw said:
I don't think you can compare athletes from different decades. The only Tide title team that could athletically hang with the 05 USC team is our most recent champions - the 92 team. The only way you can really compare some of the best title teams is to compare their relative dominance in their time. Personally, I think the mid-1950's OU dynasty and last-1970's Alabama dynasty were as dominant as USC's dynasty.
Click to expand...


I totally agree. Football players today (from middle school, highschool, college to the pros) are so much bigger, stronger and faster than in the past. I'm only 30 years old and graduated highschool in 1994 and remember that a player 200 lbs and 6'1 was considered to be "big". Today, that same size player is one of the average to smaller players on the team. OL'men in highschool are every bit of 6'3 and between 285-300lbs.

Many of the top ranked college teams of today (in my opinion) would dominate some of the great championship teams of the 50's, 60's and 70's. The athletes are physically superior. The speed of today's athlete from position to position has so dramatically increased over the years that I don't think the teams of the above era's could compete. They would not have the team speed to match up with today's athlete's. Also factor in the size and strength difference and you'd probably have a blow out.

Kind of like comparing homerun hitters of today's time with that of Ruth, Aaron and Mantle. The game in and of itself hasn't changed but the players that play the game certainly have changed.
 
Bamabuzzard said:
I totally agree. Football players today (from middle school, highschool, college to the pros) are so much bigger, stronger and faster than in the past. I'm only 30 years old and graduated highschool in 1994 and remember that a player 200 lbs and 6'1 was considered to be "big". Today, that same size player is one of the average to smaller players on the team. OL'men in highschool are every bit of 6'3 and between 285-300lbs.

Many of the top ranked college teams of today (in my opinion) would dominate some of the great championship teams of the 50's, 60's and 70's. The athletes are physically superior. The speed of today's athlete from position to position has so dramatically increased over the years that I don't think the teams of the above era's could compete. They would not have the team speed to match up with today's athlete's. Also factor in the size and strength difference and you'd probably have a blow out.

Kind of like comparing homerun hitters of today's time with that of Ruth, Aaron and Mantle. The game in and of itself hasn't changed but the players that play the game certainly have changed.
Click to expand...

i agree. but mantle, ruth and aaron would be successful today as well. but not sure if they would have hit as many. the stadiums were smaller back then.
 
Last edited:
Littlewing said:
i agree. but mantle, ruth and aaron would be successful today as well. but not sure if they would have hit as many. the stadiums were smaller back then.
Click to expand...


Bad analogy on my part. Not to sharp at thinking on the go. :biggrin2:

However, the athletes coming through middle school, highschool and college in todays time (in regards to football) are so much more advanced physically than during the 50's, 60's, 70's and I would go as far to say the 80's and part of the early 90's as well.

I watch a lot of highschool football here in Shreveport, LA and I'm just amazed at the size and speed at which these kids are playing the game. It is simply amazing how much bigger and faster they are today compared to 15 years ago.
 
Actually ballparks are being built smaller and smaller today much more like they were when Fenway and Wrigley were built then they were in the 60's, 70's and 80's so comparing numbers today in baseball would be very similar except for the steroids.
 
Since we're talking ifs and buts

I think pitching overall is much better today, but who knows.
I would be willing to bet on the 79 and 92 teams...... To go one step further I'd take a mirror USC team today with Coach Bryant HC, Coach Donahue DC and even Coach Moore OC and bet the farm.
 
The argument or discussion over Ruth, Mantle & Aaron is interesting, but it should be noted that the balls today are juiced compared to when they played...especially Ruth & Mantle! Aaron played in the 70's and the balls were becoming juiced in the early 70's. Today, they are totally juiced compared to earlier times! Also, the Stadiums were much bigger back then.

As for the pitching...it is harder to hit today's pitcher because they only throw 5 or 6 innings on average, while the pitchers of times gone by threw the entire games.

I guess the botton line, is that it is almost impossible to compared generations.
 
IMO one of the best NC teams of all time was left off this competition. The 1972 Nebraska team that trounced a very good Alabama team 38-6 in the Orange Bowl. That team blew us off the map and we were ranked 2nd as I recall.
 
Actually those were the 1971 Nebraska and Alabama teams in the 1972 Orange Bowl.
USC, the unbeaten champion of 1972, was one of the best college football teams ever, going 12-0, outscoring their opponents 467-134, trouncing Ohio State 42-17 in the 1973 Rose Bowl, and never trailing in the second half of any game.
 
Still, our starting center on many of our championship teams were probably smaller than the safeties for Texas and USC. That kind of physical mismatch is near impossible to overcome no matter if you have one of the best coaches of all-time on the sideline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back