Great teams you can't believe didn't win a championship (1 Viewer)

[Tiger Fan]

2011 LSU

They beat 3 teams who finished in the top 5. 5 teams who finished in the top 25. 4 of those away from Baton Rouge.

However, they'll best be know. For getting raped by Bama in the championship game. A team they beat on the road earlier in the year. Any other team, and LSU wins and is i discussion for one of the greatest seasons ever.

 

[Koya]

Can't think of a specific year, but the fact that the 90's Supersonics w/ Payton and Kemp NOR the Jazz during the Malone-Stockton era.

Sonics won it 96. It was awesome.

Oof. Must have been a banner crop that year, Don't remember a thing.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Can't think of a specific year, but the fact that the 90's Supersonics w/ Payton and Kemp NOR the Jazz during the Malone-Stockton era.

Sonics won it 96. It was awesome.

Oof. Must have been a banner crop that year, Don't remember a thing.

He is joking, my man.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Can't think of a specific year, but the fact that the 90's Supersonics w/ Payton and Kemp NOR the Jazz during the Malone-Stockton era.

Sonics won it 96. It was awesome.

Oof. Must have been a banner crop that year, Don't remember a thing.

Probably a lot you've missed over the years.

Pretty sure the Washington Mystics won the WNBA attendance crown in 2008. If you visit the Verizon Center, you're gonna see the banner hanging proudly right next the all the Caps Southeast Division Champs banners.

 

[optionmaven]

1976 New England Patriots.

For all that's made out of the Tuck Rule and what that did to the Raiders in 2001, it comes in second place to the Ben Drieth playoff game.

Sam "Bam" Cunningham and Russ Francis were a couple of my favorite players as a kid.

The Steelers teams went on a run of 4 Superbowl wins in 6 years. Their best team though got snake bitten by Ken Stabler . Back in 76 or 77 I think.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

2014 UCLA

 

[rockaction]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag among champs for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

 

[bentley]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

How are the 87 Twins not the undisputed answer to this question? Didn't they have a negative run differential?

 

[rockaction]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

How are the 87 Twins not the undisputed answer to this question? Didn't they have a negative run differential?

Apparently they did. That's surprising.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag among champs for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

Danial Nava, Felix Doubrount, Jared Saltalamacchia

The takeaway was that the Red Sox had either four or five of their top 15 players fall into their top 10% best-case scenarios of what could have been expected at the outset of the season.

Luck doesn’t have to be a team with 86 wins popping champagne or a team with an even run differential getting to 86 wins. While it doesn’t feel good to celebrate that, and the concerns about the meaninglessness of the 162-game season are legitimate, if we aren’t going to celebrate teams that got lucky, the 2013 Red Sox show we won’t be celebrating much at all, and that’s not much fun.

-BP

I can't link the full article because it's a pay site. However the bottom line if when you sandwich a WS championship between two 70 win seasons, you have a great deal of fortune. When you consider what happened in game 2 of the ALCS, it is multiplied exponentially. Red Sox should have been swept, they were far from the best team.

But that's baseball, and as I said up front in the thread, the best team rarely wins. If I'm a fan of those teams, I'm not sure I would care at all.

 

[rockaction]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag among champs for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

Danial Nava, Felix Doubrount, Jared Saltalamacchia

The takeaway was that the Red Sox had either four or five of their top 15 players fall into their top 10% best-case scenarios of what could have been expected at the outset of the season.

Luck doesn’t have to be a team with 86 wins popping champagne or a team with an even run differential getting to 86 wins. While it doesn’t feel good to celebrate that, and the concerns about the meaninglessness of the 162-game season are legitimate, if we aren’t going to celebrate teams that got lucky, the 2013 Red Sox show we won’t be celebrating much at all, and that’s not much fun.

-BP

I can't link the full article because it's a pay site. However the bottom line if when you sandwich a WS championship between two 70 win seasons, you have a great deal of fortune. When you consider what happened in game 2 of the ALCS, it is multiplied exponentially. Red Sox should have been swept, they were far from the best team.

But that's baseball, and as I said up front in the thread, the best team rarely wins. If I'm a fan of those teams, I'm not sure I would care at all.

You said they were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years. That's different from being eminently qualified after many roster moves. Ellsbury was hurt the year before, we didn't have Victorino. That's 2/3 of our starting outfield. Napoli was hurt all year. Lester stunk in 2012, Lackey was out with elbow surgery. In 2014, we had neither of those guys after the deadline. We threw Uehara and Breslow's arm off.

It's individual. Our pythag was 100-62, pure stats back it up, and if a publication (BP) can't figure out that roster turnover and the individual, singular year has a lot to do with it, then forget them. Because we had the highest pythag of the entire past fifteen years prior to that, I think.

Hey, if they want to rail against their own advanced stats, then let's figure it all out and stop scorning the guys who are against advanced stats. But don't tweak it when it doesn't meet common sense nor your eye test. Let's stick with it.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

2003 Boston Red Sox

The 2013 Red Sox were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years to win a championship, let's call it even.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013.shtml

They beg to differ a bit.

Baseball Prospectus has had several pieces on this topic. Have a look, homer.

So, the team with the Pythag of 100 wins was worse than the champs of the year before (SF) with a Pythag of 88 wins?

We were tops in +RC of 115 in 2013, too. Every advanced hitting statistic, we generally led in. wOBA, ISO, etc.

This is homerism. Your pitching in Detroit was better. We had Uehara, Breslow, et al.

eta* Actually, I went back about a seven years, and then stopped. We have a better pythag among champs for at least seven years.

eta2* Yeah, and our pythag was actually better than the Tigers in '13, which seems strange, but is. 100 games to your 99.

We won...everything!!!!

Danial Nava, Felix Doubrount, Jared Saltalamacchia

The takeaway was that the Red Sox had either four or five of their top 15 players fall into their top 10% best-case scenarios of what could have been expected at the outset of the season.

Luck doesn’t have to be a team with 86 wins popping champagne or a team with an even run differential getting to 86 wins. While it doesn’t feel good to celebrate that, and the concerns about the meaninglessness of the 162-game season are legitimate, if we aren’t going to celebrate teams that got lucky, the 2013 Red Sox show we won’t be celebrating much at all, and that’s not much fun.

-BP

I can't link the full article because it's a pay site. However the bottom line if when you sandwich a WS championship between two 70 win seasons, you have a great deal of fortune. When you consider what happened in game 2 of the ALCS, it is multiplied exponentially. Red Sox should have been swept, they were far from the best team.

But that's baseball, and as I said up front in the thread, the best team rarely wins. If I'm a fan of those teams, I'm not sure I would care at all.

They were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years.

Pretty much a 97 win team hiding in a 70 win body.

ETA: Serious question. Do you think the '13 team was even close to the other two Red Sox champions?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Rockaction if it makes you feel any better, I think last year's Bruins and a few of the recent Pats teams were the best teams that didn't win the championship that particular year. See, I'm not all bad.

 

[rockaction]

The takeaway was that the Red Sox had either four or five of their top 15 players fall into their top 10% best-case scenarios of what could have been expected at the outset of the season.

Luck doesn’t have to be a team with 86 wins popping champagne or a team with an even run differential getting to 86 wins. While it doesn’t feel good to celebrate that, and the concerns about the meaninglessness of the 162-game season are legitimate, if we aren’t going to celebrate teams that got lucky, the 2013 Red Sox show we won’t be celebrating much at all, and that’s not much fun.

-BP

I can't link the full article because it's a pay site. However the bottom line if when you sandwich a WS championship between two 70 win seasons, you have a great deal of fortune. When you consider what happened in game 2 of the ALCS, it is multiplied exponentially. Red Sox should have been swept, they were far from the best team.

But that's baseball, and as I said up front in the thread, the best team rarely wins. If I'm a fan of those teams, I'm not sure I would care at all.

They were one of the worst teams in the past 40 years.

Pretty much a 97 win team hiding in a 70 win body.

ETA: Serious question. Do you think the '13 team was even close to the other two Red Sox champions?

I think the 2003 team was the best. I think we had an historically bad manager, one who couldn't even guide that L.A. team (I forget which, my friends were furious) to a division championship and was promptly fired.

Rockaction if it makes you feel any better, I think last year's Bruins and a few of the recent Pats teams were the best teams that didn't win the championship that particular year. See, I'm not all bad.

I hate the Patriots. I know you're not bad. It's just that none of the stats bear out the '13 team being even remotely bad. That's reserved for other '00s NL teams like the Cardinals.

If we're going PECOTA, then that's fine, but you can't take five of the best players out of the lineup for the two sandwich years, include an historic closer, get your former MVP at second base healthy, sign a bunch of other platoon guys and bullpen guys, and say that the resulting team was one of the worst teams in 40 years. In that particular year, they were better. It's not like they stunk competitively compared to the other teams.

I would say that forty years and the worst of it is an awfully big comment.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I think the sports are broken down like this:

Best team sometimes wins, but getting a player hot (goalie, 3 point shooter) makes a big difference, regular season means little and home advantage is important but not paramount:

NHL and NCAA hoops

Best team sometimes wins, regular season means some and home advantage means a lot:

NFL

Best team almost always wins, regular season means a lot and home advantage means a lot:

NBA, CFB

Best team rarely wins, regular season means less than it should and home advantage is muted:

MLB

Thoughts?

Not sure where the WNBA fits in there, I'm sure some Washington fans could tell us since they are the experts.

 

[Riversco]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

No way. The Ravens were in a total tailspin at the end of the year. They lost 4 of 5. They had just been trashed by the Broncos 34-17 at home in week 15. It was considered a miracle they beat the Broncos in Denver. They managed to only win the Super Bowl by 3 points, mostly because Kapernick sucked. If they had any kind of QB, they win that game easily.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

No way. The Ravens were in a total tailspin at the end of the year. They lost 4 of 5. They had just been trashed by the Broncos 34-17 at home in week 15. It was considered a miracle they beat the Broncos in Denver. They managed to only win the Super Bowl by 3 points, mostly because Kapernick sucked. If they had any kind of QB, they win that game easily.

I won a lot of money on the Ravens that post-season so I'm likely biased. I thought they were gonna win it going into the playoffs, just seemed like a team that was sleepwalking to get to the playoffs where they could show how good they were.

 

[seahawk 17]

2010 Oregon Ducks.

You play until you hear a whistle.

 

[Riversco]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

No way. The Ravens were in a total tailspin at the end of the year. They lost 4 of 5. They had just been trashed by the Broncos 34-17 at home in week 15. It was considered a miracle they beat the Broncos in Denver. They managed to only win the Super Bowl by 3 points, mostly because Kapernick sucked. If they had any kind of QB, they win that game easily.

I won a lot of money on the Ravens that post-season so I'm likely biased. I thought they were gonna win it going into the playoffs, just seemed like a team that was sleepwalking to get to the playoffs where they could show how good they were.

They were sleepwalking in week 17, but only because their playoff fate was decided. They were locked as the 4th seed. Doesn't explain all the other late season losses tho.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

1980 CCCP hockey (glad they didn't but still)

 

[Ilov80s]

1980 CCCP hockey (glad they didn't but still)

This is probably the right answer. They were loaded.

 

[Ilov80s]

How about the 04 Dream Team? They really sucked for how loaded they were. Definitely the most stacked team to fall short relative to the competition. Iverson, Duncan, Wade, Lebron, Carmelo.

 

[pats3in4]

90-91 UNLV

At the time, absolutely. In hindsight, freshman Grant Hill was exactly the type of athletic player needed against that UNLV team that was sorely missed in the title game the year prior. Plus, Laettner continued to make the leap his junior year towards becoming one of the best college players ever.

I don't think that Duke team beating UNLV compares to Falcons/Vikings and Gary Anderson's miss.

That Duke team had 7 losses and were not the great team they were the following year. UNLV had crushed them the previous year, and were one of the best teams in NCAA history.

And if these upsets hadn't occurred, I'd easily put my money on UNLV taking out Kansas rather than Minnesota beating a great Denver team in the Super Bowl.

The game

Duke both coached and played this game like the great team they were the following year. Putting Grant Hill in the backcourt with Bobby Hurley paid huge dividends as his interior passing to Laettner was outstanding and by playing out high he was in position to defend Stacey Augmon, a James Worthy-like finisher off the wing during his time there, on the break. And then there was Laettner: He pretty much had his way with UNLV inside, much like he gave the Fab Five fits the following year. UNLV struggled to defend him down low, especially on those high-low passes from Hill.

And it's not like UNLV played poorly. They owned the glass, especially the offensive boards. Anderson Hunt and Greg Anthony played huge. Augmon and Larry Johnson spent more time defending than attacking thanks to Laettner and Hill, but still put in solid efforts.

If there is one big "what if" from this game, it has to be what if Greg Anthony didn't foul out with just under 4 minutes left. Admittedly, that was huge as Hunt couldn't spot up to shoot as he became the point guard and he had been great at that throughout the game. Still, it's not like UNLV was up 10 at the time and Anthony's loss allowed a big comeback. UNLV extended its 3-point lead to 5 with Anthony out before Duke came back.

Usually we think of upsets as "if these teams played 10 times, UNLV would win 9 and this just happened to be the time Duke won." I don't think this is the case here. Grant Hill was a huge difference maker that was sorely needed the year prior and both Laettner and Hurley played great which was no surprise given their college careers. This Duke team had found its championship form that would carry them to two consecutive titles.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

This is a big problem with sports. Football Suffers from this due to their inability to play series and thus rely on single games. Same w college basketball.

Baseball also shows up because of the horrible 5 game divisional round and the fact that a 7 game series just isn't enough to determine things in a league where the best teams only win like 60 percent of their games.

Notice what is rarely mentioned, the nba. That league isn't perfect but their playoff format gets it right a lot more often than most leagues.

What is so right about the NBA? That the league determines who makes it to the championship and sometimes who wins it or the fact that there are only nine different teams that have won the NBA championship in 34 years?Winners:

Lakers - 10

Bulls - 6

Spurs - 5

Celtics - 4

Pistons - 3

Heat - 3

Rockets - 2y

76ers - 1

When you're the best you win the title. There are rarely upsets because the game is played in an indoor controlled environment and there are so many scoring chances that decrease randomness.

Football is a joke with it's one off format, unbalanced schedules, oblong ball, etc.

Baseball is the type of sport that needs like best of 13 or ideally no playoffs.

The ncaa tourney should take 32 teams and have best of threes.

There is no good solution for football

Indoor controlled?

Is that NBA talk for referee and league official controlled because that is what goes on in the NBA.

Hell, the WWE is more real than the NBA

 

[Jules Winnfield]

2002 Kings

2000-2001 Milwaukee BucksRefs screwed them big time. Bucks might have swept the Lakers that year. Screw Stern.

Has to be shtick.

Nope. No schtick at all. And, people around the country know this too.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-nba-conspiracy-theories-2013-6

And, the Bucks beat the Lakers both times they played. (109-105 in LA and 107-100 in Mil)

Worse than the Montreal Screwjob.

Just looks like a bunch of conspiracy theories dude. Either way, you weren't beating the Lakers in a playoff series.

Stern made sure of that time and time again

 

[Glass Joe]

I think the sports are broken down like this:

Best team sometimes wins, but getting a player hot (goalie, 3 point shooter) makes a big difference, regular season means little and home advantage is important but not paramount:

NHL and NCAA hoops

Best team sometimes wins, regular season means some and home advantage means a lot:

NFL

Best team almost always wins, regular season means a lot and home advantage means a lot:

NBA, CFB

Best team rarely wins, regular season means less than it should and home advantage is muted:

MLB

Thoughts?

Not sure where the WNBA fits in there, I'm sure some Washington fans could tell us since they are the experts.

Interesting post. I think CFB needs to be moved into the "best team sometimes wins" - home field plays a far bigger part in the decision. And with bowl games, a month off changes everything with injuries, preparedness, etc also factored in the outcome.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

All because Indiana came back and PSU lost "style points" to Nebraska.

They actually fell to number 2 the previous week, when Nebraska beat Colorado in a 2 vs 3 match up.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

But Osborne had never won....Who did PSU beat in the bowl game...the ducks sucked....

They only beat Indiana by 6 (albbeit 2 TDs were in garbage time)....



PSU '95 grad who traveled across the country for the Rose Bowl- :stillbitter:

I had to look this up. Nebraska beat #2 ranked Colorado (ended up 3rd) in the regular season and the 3rd ranked Hurricanes (finished 6th) in the Orange Bowl (!). The best win PSU had was over then #5 Michigan (#12).

You guys really are delusional about everything, aren't you?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994-schedule.htmlhttp://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/nebraska/1994.html

Uh...maybe you want to check to see who had the overall stronger schedule, and better team when evaluated by the computers.

And what are we delusional about exactly? Do tell.

There was no comparing the final opponents, and that's what voters really looked at.

Actually at the time (which sucked pre-BCS as noted by GoFish, Nebraska was No.1 going into the bowl game and had never won a title. The thought process was that if they won against the 'Canes, how do you knock him down a peg. A No. 1 should not lose No. 1 with a win. PSU was punished by being a prisoner to the Rose Bowl and having to play the PAC-10 champion in a weak year for the PAC-10.The only problem was that PSU was No. 1 that same year and lost the spot to Nebraska because they played a "close" game against a ####ty Indiana (that was only close because of garbage time, the game was never in doubt).

We can go down that road. If we're being consistent, PSU should never have lost #1. That's the only time I've EVER seen #1 get ousted for winning a game.

So if a team is erroneously voted number 1 the previous week, when there were less data points, then we just go with it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

All because Indiana came back and PSU lost "style points" to Nebraska.

They actually fell to number 2 the previous week, when Nebraska beat Colorado in a 2 vs 3 match up.

That PSU team was fantastic. I think Nebraska was better, but that's why NCAAFB is almost unpossible to say anything for certain.

I posted this upthread, and no one outside of Maryland would care, but the 1969 Orioles won 109 games (no wild card back then, kids) and dominated all season - only to lose to a mediocre Mets team.The 1971 team had FOUR 20 game winners, but lost to a much better team than the '69 Mets.

Hell, the '82 Os were probably the best team in the Majors but lost to the Brewers on the last day of the regular season. They made up for it the next season.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

But Osborne had never won....Who did PSU beat in the bowl game...the ducks sucked....

They only beat Indiana by 6 (albbeit 2 TDs were in garbage time)....



PSU '95 grad who traveled across the country for the Rose Bowl- :stillbitter:

I had to look this up. Nebraska beat #2 ranked Colorado (ended up 3rd) in the regular season and the 3rd ranked Hurricanes (finished 6th) in the Orange Bowl (!). The best win PSU had was over then #5 Michigan (#12).

You guys really are delusional about everything, aren't you?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994-schedule.htmlhttp://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/nebraska/1994.html

Uh...maybe you want to check to see who had the overall stronger schedule, and better team when evaluated by the computers.

And what are we delusional about exactly? Do tell.

There was no comparing the final opponents, and that's what voters really looked at.

Actually at the time (which sucked pre-BCS as noted by GoFish, Nebraska was No.1 going into the bowl game and had never won a title. The thought process was that if they won against the 'Canes, how do you knock him down a peg. A No. 1 should not lose No. 1 with a win. PSU was punished by being a prisoner to the Rose Bowl and having to play the PAC-10 champion in a weak year for the PAC-10.

The only problem was that PSU was No. 1 that same year and lost the spot to Nebraska because they played a "close" game against a ####ty Indiana (that was only close because of garbage time, the game was never in doubt).

Pretty sure they won a title in 70 or 71 when the Big 8 had the 3 top ranked teams at the end of the season.

 

[rockaction]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

All because Indiana came back and PSU lost "style points" to Nebraska.

They actually fell to number 2 the previous week, when Nebraska beat Colorado in a 2 vs 3 match up.

That PSU team was fantastic. I think Nebraska was better, but that's why NCAAFB is almost unpossible to say anything for certain.

I posted this upthread, and no one outside of Maryland would care, but the 1969 Orioles won 109 games (no wild card back then, kids) and dominated all season - only to lose to a mediocre Mets team.The 1971 team had FOUR 20 game winners, but lost to a much better team than the '69 Mets.

Hell, the '82 Os were probably the best team in the Majors but lost to the Brewers on the last day of the regular season. They made up for it the next season.

No, that was my parents' shocking baseball moment of their lives, actually. New York cared. As a baseball lover, that was the vox populi stunner until decades later.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

1983 Nebraska Cornhuskers

####### Irving Fryar.

 

[thecatch]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

I'm not sure there's any metric under which BAL was better but even as a Niners fan I wouldn't contend that team belongs in this conversation.

 

[thecatch]

2002 Kings

2000-2001 Milwaukee BucksRefs screwed them big time. Bucks might have swept the Lakers that year. Screw Stern.

Has to be shtick.

Nope. No schtick at all. And, people around the country know this too.http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-nba-conspiracy-theories-2013-6

And, the Bucks beat the Lakers both times they played. (109-105 in LA and 107-100 in Mil)

Worse than the Montreal Screwjob.

Just looks like a bunch of conspiracy theories dude. Either way, you weren't beating the Lakers in a playoff series.

Stern made sure of that time and time again

The lakers certainly benefited from an inordinate share of calls but that 00-01 Lakers team was probably one of the five best NBA teams ever.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

I'm not sure there's any metric under which BAL was better but even as a Niners fan I wouldn't contend that team belongs in this conversation.

The Ravens caught lightening in a bottle during that playoff run but I don't think anyone was shocked they won once they got there.

Not even close to the Jets beating the Colts in '69. I'm the last person to believe in conspiracies, but that game would be your best argument if you were trying to convince me.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

All because Indiana came back and PSU lost "style points" to Nebraska.

They actually fell to number 2 the previous week, when Nebraska beat Colorado in a 2 vs 3 match up.

That PSU team was fantastic. I think Nebraska was better, but that's why NCAAFB is almost unpossible to say anything for certain.

I posted this upthread, and no one outside of Maryland would care, but the 1969 Orioles won 109 games (no wild card back then, kids) and dominated all season - only to lose to a mediocre Mets team.The 1971 team had FOUR 20 game winners, but lost to a much better team than the '69 Mets.

Hell, the '82 Os were probably the best team in the Majors but lost to the Brewers on the last day of the regular season. They made up for it the next season.

No, that was my parents' shocking baseball moment of their lives, actually. New York cared. As a baseball lover, that was the vox populi stunner until decades later.

Ron friggin Swaboda - who couldn't catch a cold in Alaska - turned into Willie Mays in that series. Tommy Agee and Cleon Jones......man, my blood pressure goes up just thinking about those guys. I was 7 years old and that was my 2nd realization that the "best team" doesn't always win.

The 1st time was 10 months earlier.

 

[PIK95]

Rockaction if it makes you feel any better, I think last year's Bruins and a few of the recent Pats teams were the best teams that didn't win the championship that particular year. See, I'm not all bad.

I'm a huge Red Sox fan and I had that team pegged for last place. They were really lacking on talent. I still can't believe they won it all. I wonder if they all were doing roids or something down the stretch.

 

[jon_mx]

McCain-Palin 2008.

 

[badmojo1006]

McCain-Palin 2008.

 

[Dentist]

I was surprised the 49ers didn't beat the Ravens.

If the 49ers had a quarterback over the past 3 years, they probably are working on a 4 peat right now. If Peyton Manning had gone to the 49ers, he'd be working on a 3 peat right now. That team is so loaded outside of QB.

Ravens were the better team that year, Seattle was better last year. They probably should have beat the Giants the year prior though.

No way. The Ravens were in a total tailspin at the end of the year. They lost 4 of 5. They had just been trashed by the Broncos 34-17 at home in week 15. It was considered a miracle they beat the Broncos in Denver. They managed to only win the Super Bowl by 3 points, mostly because Kapernick sucked. If they had any kind of QB, they win that game easily.

I like the Ravens and was glad they beat the 49ers, but they are definitely on par to me with the recent Giants teams as some of the worst teams ever to have won a superbowl.

There was nothing memorable about that team that made them "championship" worthy.

Really, they just got fairly lucky on a fluke play against the Broncos (which would still devastate me to this day if I gave a crap about the Broncos) and then rode a wave of momentum all the way.

The NFL wanted parity, and they got parity.... but what they have sacrificed is historically dominant and interesting teams like the 90's cowboys, 80's 49ers, 70's steelers... or even back to back worthy teams like the late 90's broncos, or early 2000's Pats.

It used to be that the best teams were so much better than the other teams that it was easy to differentiate the good from the bad... now the differences are so minimal that it's hard to know with such a small sample size of games. I mean Arizona is 9-2 but I wouldn't trust them to win a single playoff game. We have a division where an under .500 team is going to make the playoffs because there are way too many effing divisions.

I will be rooting HARD for the under .500 team to win the superbowl... because it's going to take more absurd crap like that and 9-7 teams winning superbowls to get any real change.

 

[Tom Servo]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

But Osborne had never won....Who did PSU beat in the bowl game...the ducks sucked....

They only beat Indiana by 6 (albbeit 2 TDs were in garbage time)....



PSU '95 grad who traveled across the country for the Rose Bowl- :stillbitter:

I had to look this up. Nebraska beat #2 ranked Colorado (ended up 3rd) in the regular season and the 3rd ranked Hurricanes (finished 6th) in the Orange Bowl (!). The best win PSU had was over then #5 Michigan (#12).

You guys really are delusional about everything, aren't you?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994-schedule.htmlhttp://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/nebraska/1994.html

Uh...maybe you want to check to see who had the overall stronger schedule, and better team when evaluated by the computers.

And what are we delusional about exactly? Do tell.

There was no comparing the final opponents, and that's what voters really looked at.

Actually at the time (which sucked pre-BCS as noted by GoFish, Nebraska was No.1 going into the bowl game and had never won a title. The thought process was that if they won against the 'Canes, how do you knock him down a peg. A No. 1 should not lose No. 1 with a win. PSU was punished by being a prisoner to the Rose Bowl and having to play the PAC-10 champion in a weak year for the PAC-10.The only problem was that PSU was No. 1 that same year and lost the spot to Nebraska because they played a "close" game against a ####ty Indiana (that was only close because of garbage time, the game was never in doubt).

We can go down that road. If we're being consistent, PSU should never have lost #1. That's the only time I've EVER seen #1 get ousted for winning a game.

So if a team is erroneously voted number 1 the previous week, when there were less data points, then we just go with it.

at "erroneously voted number 1". That's rich.

 

[Tom Servo]

McCain-Palin 2008.

 

[Koya]

My lord last night was a doozy.

Did Seattle clinch yet?

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

But Osborne had never won....Who did PSU beat in the bowl game...the ducks sucked....

They only beat Indiana by 6 (albbeit 2 TDs were in garbage time)....



PSU '95 grad who traveled across the country for the Rose Bowl- :stillbitter:

I had to look this up. Nebraska beat #2 ranked Colorado (ended up 3rd) in the regular season and the 3rd ranked Hurricanes (finished 6th) in the Orange Bowl (!). The best win PSU had was over then #5 Michigan (#12).

You guys really are delusional about everything, aren't you?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994-schedule.htmlhttp://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/nebraska/1994.html

Uh...maybe you want to check to see who had the overall stronger schedule, and better team when evaluated by the computers.

And what are we delusional about exactly? Do tell.

There was no comparing the final opponents, and that's what voters really looked at.

Actually at the time (which sucked pre-BCS as noted by GoFish, Nebraska was No.1 going into the bowl game and had never won a title. The thought process was that if they won against the 'Canes, how do you knock him down a peg. A No. 1 should not lose No. 1 with a win. PSU was punished by being a prisoner to the Rose Bowl and having to play the PAC-10 champion in a weak year for the PAC-10.The only problem was that PSU was No. 1 that same year and lost the spot to Nebraska because they played a "close" game against a ####ty Indiana (that was only close because of garbage time, the game was never in doubt).

We can go down that road. If we're being consistent, PSU should never have lost #1. That's the only time I've EVER seen #1 get ousted for winning a game.

So if a team is erroneously voted number 1 the previous week, when there were less data points, then we just go with it.

at "erroneously voted number 1". That's rich.

The week before Nebraska took the top spot, the number one votes were split pretty evenly between the top 3. Nebraska actually had more top votes than PSU and CU yet were number 3. That pretty much tells you that they were behind CU on most of the ballots where they did not receive the number one. By beating CU, they either jumped to 2, or jumped from 3 to 1. If a ballot had NU at 3 and CU at 1 it is not unreasonable to put NU at 1 when they beat the top team on your ballot handily. PSU actually picked up first place votes that week when they dropped to 2 but NU had more to gain, given the distribution of the first place votes.

 

[Raider Nation]

 

[Insein]

I figured we just did this.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Please merge this with about 5 other threads.

 

[apalmer]

1994 Penn State football. 12-0, averaged 47 points a game and gave up 21. Their strength of schedule that year was eigth in the country.http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994.html

But Osborne had never won....Who did PSU beat in the bowl game...the ducks sucked....

They only beat Indiana by 6 (albbeit 2 TDs were in garbage time)....



PSU '95 grad who traveled across the country for the Rose Bowl- :stillbitter:

I had to look this up. Nebraska beat #2 ranked Colorado (ended up 3rd) in the regular season and the 3rd ranked Hurricanes (finished 6th) in the Orange Bowl (!). The best win PSU had was over then #5 Michigan (#12).

You guys really are delusional about everything, aren't you?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/1994-schedule.htmlhttp://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/nebraska/1994.html

Uh...maybe you want to check to see who had the overall stronger schedule, and better team when evaluated by the computers.

And what are we delusional about exactly? Do tell.

There was no comparing the final opponents, and that's what voters really looked at.

Actually at the time (which sucked pre-BCS as noted by GoFish, Nebraska was No.1 going into the bowl game and had never won a title. The thought process was that if they won against the 'Canes, how do you knock him down a peg. A No. 1 should not lose No. 1 with a win. PSU was punished by being a prisoner to the Rose Bowl and having to play the PAC-10 champion in a weak year for the PAC-10.The only problem was that PSU was No. 1 that same year and lost the spot to Nebraska because they played a "close" game against a ####ty Indiana (that was only close because of garbage time, the game was never in doubt).

We can go down that road. If we're being consistent, PSU should never have lost #1. That's the only time I've EVER seen #1 get ousted for winning a game.

1982 Pitt team started the season as #1. Beat #5 NC in their first game (7-6) and dropped to #2. The next week, they won at Florida State by 20 and dropped to #3. Of course, it was the 1980 Pitt team that belongs in this thread.