> > > > > > 1991 is a complete dead heat. Two completely equal resumes in just > > > > > > about every respect. To act like one team was definetely better than > > > > > > the other or definetely did more is silly......
> > > > > Miami wins on pure entertainment factor, however.
> > > > washington was probably the more "entertaining" team that > > > > year.......miami had the better defense, washington the more polished > > > > offense.
> > > You couldn't be more wrong, and it exposes your love of stats. James > > > was never a RUTS kind of guy--and the second and third teams were > > > usually on the field by the second half. Take away Wheatley's 63 yard > > > run late in the game against the second teamers, and UM gets held to 9 > > > yards net rushing in the Rose Bowl. That D held 10 of 12 opponents > > > under 100 yards rushing, 8 of 12 under 80 yards rushing, and K-State > > > was held to -17 yards rushing.
> > Also, Michigan HAD to be thinking they still had an outside shot at > > winning the MNC. They were ranked #4 with one loss, and if they won > > the Rose Bowl -- while Miami lost and Florida lost later in the day in > > the Orange and Sugar, respectively -- they would have taken the title. > > They surely were ready to play, and they got their asses kicked by > > that defense.
> > > Had Emtman played 4 quarters every game, he would have set NCAA TFL > > > records--his TFLs per minute played is still untouched. I worked with > > > a contractor in Chicago who wore an Iowa Rose Bowl ring from the '91 > > > game. He told me that Emtman got by him before he even came out of > > > his stance.
> > > That team stomped the terra--one of the best I ever saw.
> > At various times in the 1990s, I had occasion to be friends with two > > players on that UW team: Billy Joe Hobert and Eric Bjornson. While I > > never believed a word that came out of Hobert's mouth (horrible human > > being), Eric -- like his family who I have known since the early 1990s > > -- was pretty down to earth and honest. He was always surprised there > > was ever even a consideration in voters' minds that Miami was as good > > as the Huskies in 1991.
> Considering how miami and washington had identical resumes(both had a > few sorta close games, both had a few very marquee wins, both went > unbeaten in very similar fashion), I'm surprised he was surprised.
> All the "washington would have killed miami" talk today is rewriting > history.....Washington didn't kill California that year for example, > and while california was a very quality team, they were not nearly as > good as miami. Likewise miami had a few challenges during the year > with good teams who werent as talented as Washington, such as penn > state.
> All the evidence indicates that the teams were pretty much dead even > in terms of matchup and accomplishments.....which is probably why it > was a spilt title.
I didn't say he was "right". Of course, he has his insight into his own team much more firmly than anyone posting here, however. Either way, he's got an MNC and a Super Bowl ring to his credit, so his opinion means more to me than yours ever would on this subject.
FWIW, did you even see either Washington or Cal play in 1991? I doubt it. I, OTOH, saw both teams play (in addition to three other Cal games that year). Winning at Cal's Memorial Stadium is rarely easy when the fans are involved -- ask 2007 SEC East "champ" Tennessee. And other than the bad road loss at Stanford, the Bears were damn good. They smacked the ACC champ in the Citrus Bowl by 24 points to put an exclamation point on the season; they beat USC by 22 points, while mighty Notre Dame only beat them by four points. Cal _was_ very good in 1991.
You also write as if a "split title" were normal when teams are evenly matched. But they weren't evenly matched: while both teams had excellent defenses, the Huskies had a *significantly* better offense. For example, Washington beat Arizona by twice as many points as Miami did, in addition to shutting the Wildcats out. Washington also scored 100 more points than Miami did on the season. This Miami team is arguably the worst of their title teams, in fact. Sure, I'd take Miami if the two teams were playing in the Orange Bowl, but on a neutral field, I would have taken the Huskies.
To close: Your problem (among many, of course), mianderson, is that you write in absolutes and yet you won't tolerate anyone else writing in absolutes -- particularly when their absolutes are contrary to yours. If you're prepping to be a wannabe Dr. Jed Hill-like surgeon, that may fly in your OR, but it's never going to fly with people who know more than you do about a great many things, including college football.
On Jul 28, 6:31 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All the evidence indicates that the teams were pretty much dead even > > in terms of matchup and accomplishments.....which is probably why it > > was a spilt title.
> I didn't say he was "right". Of course, he has his insight into his > own team much more firmly than anyone posting here, however. Either > way, he's got an MNC and a Super Bowl ring to his credit, so his > opinion means more to me than yours ever would on this subject.
Im SHOCKED that a member of the 91 UW team would believe his team to be much superior to the 91 miami team. Jesus Kotex, I'm sure that members of the 91 miami team feel exactly the same way about how Miami should have been the clear choice........so no, I don't think an opinion by a husky player that year should mean much to anyone.
> FWIW, did you even see either Washington or Cal play in 1991?
yes......one great team, one good to very good team.
I doubt
> it.
you doubt wrong.
And other
> than the bad road loss at Stanford, the Bears were damn good. They > smacked the ACC champ in the Citrus Bowl by 24 points to put an > exclamation point on the season; they beat USC by 22 points, while > mighty Notre Dame only beat them by four points. Cal _was_ very good > in 1991.
they were good.....you can't just write off that horrific stanford game though. It takes them from a "very very good" team to a very solid team having an excellent season.
But they finished the year ranked lower than two of miami's opponents that washington didn't play(PSU and FSU), so i seem no reason to believe that they were as good as either of those two non-common opponents.
> You also write as if a "split title" were normal when teams are evenly > matched. But they weren't evenly matched: while both teams had > excellent defenses, the Huskies had a *significantly* better offense.
miami- very good offense, great defense washington- great offense, very good defense
And the statistics back this up. Take the nebraska game for example. Nebraska was unable to do *anything* in that miami game. When nebraska and Washington played, Nebraska moved the ball at various times throughout the game and got three td's, none of which were in "garbage time"(they didnt score in the 4th qtr). In fact until game 7 none of washington's points allowed were in the fourth quarter.
> For example, Washington beat Arizona by twice as many points as Miami > did, in addition to shutting the Wildcats out.
wtf cares whether you beat a 4 win team by 7 td's or 4? Neither of those games were particularly competitive....trying to make an argument for washington on the basis of a worthless game against a bad team is ridiculous.
Washington also scored
> 100 more points than Miami did on the season. This Miami team is > arguably the worst of their title teams, in fact.
this is laughable. Other than the unbeaten coker team, it might be their second best. It's at worst their third best title team. Their other title years didn't even feature unbeaten seasons.....sheeesh kotex.
Sure, I'd take Miami
> if the two teams were playing in the Orange Bowl, but on a neutral > field, I would have taken the Huskies.
first off, it's important to differentiate miami playing a home game in the regular season in the orange bowl at that time and them playing at the orange bowl for the orange bowl. One is a much bigger advantage than the other. Hell the place only held what....65k or so at the time(I might be a little off) and visiting teams get a substantial number of tickets and there are lots of corporate people and such there as well. It's an advantage, but it's nothing close to the same.
> To close: Your problem (among many, of course), mianderson, is that > you write in absolutes and yet you won't tolerate anyone else writing > in absolutes -- particularly when their absolutes are contrary to > yours.
No, Im not. Im stating pertinent reasons based on *what happened* and evaluating the positives and negatives of two teams.
In Miami's favor: 1) Miami beat the final AP teams #3, #4, #15 and #21 vs. Washington beating #6, #8, #15, and #22. This is obviously *very* close, but then again neither team has a big game by game advantage in anything we're only left to deal with the smallest edges. 2) Miami beat nebraska by a larger margin, and the margin was really larger than it was because miami shut them out. Washington gave up 21 pts. In fairness to washington, the miami game was a bowl game in the orange bowl and the washington game was in lincoln, but miami was the more impressive team on the one head to head opponent that wasn't a garbage game.
In washington's favor: 1) the least impressive game played by either team was played by miami, a 19-14 win at boston college. Washington didn't have a similarly close game from such an opponent. Although in fairness to miami, they were never in serious danger of dropping that game. 2) Of the two best non-common opponents on the schedule, Miami played close games against both(FSU and PSU) while Washington played a close game only against Cal and not MIchigan. Although in defense of Miami, FSU was the #1 team at the time and probably the best team either Miami or Washington played, especially considering it was on the road. @FSU was the most losable game on either teams schedule.
I find 2 relatively trivial advantages for both teams, and even calling them trivial might be overdoing it. Everything else is pretty much dead equal. If you had to assign a "point value" to each win based on it's quality, the teams would be closer than two teams have ever been(as I described such minute differences above) that it would be like trying to decide the presidential election in 2006.
If you're prepping to be a wannabe Dr. Jed Hill-like surgeon,
> that may fly in your OR, but it's never going to fly with people who > know more than you do about a great many things, including college > football.
(snip a bunch of stuff not related to UW-Miami....maybe you lost your train of thought in the middle of your foot long sub with 6 spoonfuls of mayannaise)
> > > > > > > 1991 is a complete dead heat. Two completely equal resumes in just > > > > > > > about every respect. To act like one team was definetely better than > > > > > > > the other or definetely did more is silly......
> > > > > > Miami wins on pure entertainment factor, however.
> > > > > washington was probably the more "entertaining" team that > > > > > year.......miami had the better defense, washington the more polished > > > > > offense.
> > > > You couldn't be more wrong, and it exposes your love of stats. James > > > > was never a RUTS kind of guy--and the second and third teams were > > > > usually on the field by the second half. Take away Wheatley's 63 yard > > > > run late in the game against the second teamers, and UM gets held to 9 > > > > yards net rushing in the Rose Bowl. That D held 10 of 12 opponents > > > > under 100 yards rushing, 8 of 12 under 80 yards rushing, and K-State > > > > was held to -17 yards rushing.
> > > Also, Michigan HAD to be thinking they still had an outside shot at > > > winning the MNC. They were ranked #4 with one loss, and if they won > > > the Rose Bowl -- while Miami lost and Florida lost later in the day in > > > the Orange and Sugar, respectively -- they would have taken the title. > > > They surely were ready to play, and they got their asses kicked by > > > that defense.
> > > > Had Emtman played 4 quarters every game, he would have set NCAA TFL > > > > records--his TFLs per minute played is still untouched. I worked with > > > > a contractor in Chicago who wore an Iowa Rose Bowl ring from the '91 > > > > game. He told me that Emtman got by him before he even came out of > > > > his stance.
> > > > That team stomped the terra--one of the best I ever saw.
> > > At various times in the 1990s, I had occasion to be friends with two > > > players on that UW team: Billy Joe Hobert and Eric Bjornson. While I > > > never believed a word that came out of Hobert's mouth (horrible human > > > being), Eric -- like his family who I have known since the early 1990s > > > -- was pretty down to earth and honest. He was always surprised there > > > was ever even a consideration in voters' minds that Miami was as good > > > as the Huskies in 1991.
> > Considering how miami and washington had identical resumes(both had a > > few sorta close games, both had a few very marquee wins, both went > > unbeaten in very similar fashion), I'm surprised he was surprised.
> > All the "washington would have killed miami" talk today is rewriting > > history.....Washington didn't kill California that year for example, > > and while california was a very quality team, they were not nearly as > > good as miami. Likewise miami had a few challenges during the year > > with good teams who werent as talented as Washington, such as penn > > state.
> > All the evidence indicates that the teams were pretty much dead even > > in terms of matchup and accomplishments.....which is probably why it > > was a spilt title.
> I didn't say he was "right". Of course, he has his insight into his > own team much more firmly than anyone posting here, however.
Remember though, with that insight comes bias.
That being said, I saw both teams play multiple times and I think UW was a better team than UM. I base that opinion on nothing but eyeballing.
> > > > > > > > 1991 is a complete dead heat. Two completely equal resumes in just > > > > > > > > about every respect. To act like one team was definetely better than > > > > > > > > the other or definetely did more is silly......
> > > > > > > Miami wins on pure entertainment factor, however.
> > > > > > washington was probably the more "entertaining" team that > > > > > > year.......miami had the better defense, washington the more polished > > > > > > offense.
> > > > > You couldn't be more wrong, and it exposes your love of stats. James > > > > > was never a RUTS kind of guy--and the second and third teams were > > > > > usually on the field by the second half. Take away Wheatley's 63 yard > > > > > run late in the game against the second teamers, and UM gets held to 9 > > > > > yards net rushing in the Rose Bowl. That D held 10 of 12 opponents > > > > > under 100 yards rushing, 8 of 12 under 80 yards rushing, and K-State > > > > > was held to -17 yards rushing.
> > > > Also, Michigan HAD to be thinking they still had an outside shot at > > > > winning the MNC. They were ranked #4 with one loss, and if they won > > > > the Rose Bowl -- while Miami lost and Florida lost later in the day in > > > > the Orange and Sugar, respectively -- they would have taken the title. > > > > They surely were ready to play, and they got their asses kicked by > > > > that defense.
> > > > > Had Emtman played 4 quarters every game, he would have set NCAA TFL > > > > > records--his TFLs per minute played is still untouched. I worked with > > > > > a contractor in Chicago who wore an Iowa Rose Bowl ring from the '91 > > > > > game. He told me that Emtman got by him before he even came out of > > > > > his stance.
> > > > > That team stomped the terra--one of the best I ever saw.
> > > > At various times in the 1990s, I had occasion to be friends with two > > > > players on that UW team: Billy Joe Hobert and Eric Bjornson. While I > > > > never believed a word that came out of Hobert's mouth (horrible human > > > > being), Eric -- like his family who I have known since the early 1990s > > > > -- was pretty down to earth and honest. He was always surprised there > > > > was ever even a consideration in voters' minds that Miami was as good > > > > as the Huskies in 1991.
> > > Considering how miami and washington had identical resumes(both had a > > > few sorta close games, both had a few very marquee wins, both went > > > unbeaten in very similar fashion), I'm surprised he was surprised.
> > > All the "washington would have killed miami" talk today is rewriting > > > history.....Washington didn't kill California that year for example, > > > and while california was a very quality team, they were not nearly as > > > good as miami. Likewise miami had a few challenges during the year > > > with good teams who werent as talented as Washington, such as penn > > > state.
> > > All the evidence indicates that the teams were pretty much dead even > > > in terms of matchup and accomplishments.....which is probably why it > > > was a spilt title.
> > I didn't say he was "right". Of course, he has his insight into his > > own team much more firmly than anyone posting here, however.
> Remember though, with that insight comes bias.
> That being said, I saw both teams play multiple times and I think UW > was a better team than UM. I base that opinion on nothing but > eyeballing.
1) And by my "eyeballing", I think Miami was *marginally* better. Well not even marginally better. Mainly because I was more impressed with how they looked against their one common(meaningful common) opponent, and I was more impressed with their defense. Im not sure Washington could have gone into tallahassee against that FSU team and given up 16 points. 2) That being said, I look at the results and how identical they are game by game and I cant really justify giving the mnc to miami over washington. Miami's biggest negative is the BC game, but imo FSU and PSU are marginally better than California and Michigan that year to pretty much cancel it out.
> > > All the evidence indicates that the teams were pretty much dead even > > > in terms of matchup and accomplishments.....which is probably why it > > > was a spilt title.
> > I didn't say he was "right". Of course, he has his insight into his > > own team much more firmly than anyone posting here, however. Either > > way, he's got an MNC and a Super Bowl ring to his credit, so his > > opinion means more to me than yours ever would on this subject.
> Im SHOCKED that a member of the 91 UW team would believe his team to > be much superior to the 91 miami team. Jesus Kotex, I'm sure that > members of the 91 miami team feel exactly the same way about how Miami > should have been the clear choice........so no, I don't think an > opinion by a husky player that year should mean much to anyone.
> > FWIW, did you even see either Washington or Cal play in 1991?
> yes......one great team, one good to very good team.
> I doubt
> > it.
> you doubt wrong.
> And other
> > than the bad road loss at Stanford, the Bears were damn good. > They > > smacked the ACC champ in the Citrus Bowl by 24 points to put an > > exclamation point on the season; they beat USC by 22 points, while > > mighty Notre Dame only beat them by four points. Cal _was_ very good > > in 1991.
> they were good.....you can't just write off that horrific stanford > game though. It takes them from a "very very good" team to a very > solid team having an excellent season.
> But they finished the year ranked lower than two of miami's opponents > that washington didn't play(PSU and FSU), so i seem no reason to > believe that they were as good as either of those two non-common > opponents.
> > You also write as if a "split title" were normal when teams are evenly > > matched. But they weren't evenly matched: while both teams had > > excellent defenses, the Huskies had a *significantly* better offense.
> miami- very good offense, great defense > washington- great offense, very good defense
> And the statistics back this up. Take the nebraska game for example. > Nebraska was unable to do *anything* in that miami game. When > nebraska and Washington played, Nebraska moved the ball at various > times throughout the game and got three td's, none of which were in > "garbage time"(they didnt score in the 4th qtr). In fact until game 7 > none of washington's points allowed were in the fourth quarter.
> > For example, Washington beat Arizona by twice as many points as Miami > > did, in addition to shutting the Wildcats out.
> wtf cares whether you beat a 4 win team by 7 td's or 4? Neither of > those games were particularly competitive....trying to make an > argument for washington on the basis of a worthless game against a bad > team is ridiculous.
> Washington also scored
> > 100 more points than Miami did on the season. This Miami team is > > arguably the worst of their title teams, in fact.
> this is laughable. Other than the unbeaten coker team, it might be > their second best. It's at worst their third best title team. Their > other title years didn't even feature unbeaten seasons.....sheeesh > kotex.
> Sure, I'd take Miami
> > if the two teams were playing in the Orange Bowl, but on a neutral > > field, I would have taken the Huskies.
> first off, it's important to differentiate miami playing a home game > in the regular season in the orange bowl at that time and them playing > at the orange bowl for the orange bowl. One is a much bigger > advantage than the other. Hell the place only held what....65k or so > at the time(I might be a little off) and visiting teams get a > substantial number of tickets and there are lots of corporate people > and such there as well. It's an advantage, but it's nothing close to > the same.
> > To close: Your problem (among many, of course), mianderson, is that > > you write in absolutes and yet you won't tolerate anyone else writing > > in absolutes -- particularly when their absolutes are contrary to > > yours.
> No, Im not. Im stating pertinent reasons based on *what happened* and > evaluating the positives and negatives of two teams.
> In Miami's favor: > 1) Miami beat the final AP teams #3, #4, #15 and #21 vs. Washington > beating #6, #8, #15, and #22. This is obviously *very* close, but > then again neither team has a big game by game advantage in anything > we're only left to deal with the smallest edges. > 2) Miami beat nebraska by a larger margin, and the margin was really > larger than it was because miami shut them out. Washington gave up 21 > pts. In fairness to washington, the miami game was a bowl game in the > orange bowl and the washington game was in lincoln, but miami was the > more impressive team on the one head to head opponent that wasn't a > garbage game.
> In washington's favor: > 1) the least impressive game played by either team was played by > miami, a 19-14 win at boston college. Washington didn't have a > similarly close game from such an opponent. Although in fairness to > miami, they were never in serious danger of dropping that game. > 2) Of the two best non-common opponents on the schedule, Miami played > close games against both(FSU and PSU) while Washington played a close > game only against Cal and not MIchigan. Although in defense of Miami, > FSU was the #1 team at the time and probably the best team either > Miami or Washington played, especially considering it was on the > road. @FSU was the most losable game on either teams schedule.
> I find 2 relatively trivial advantages for both teams, and even > calling them trivial might be overdoing it. Everything else is pretty > much dead equal. If you had to assign a "point value" to each win > based on it's quality, the teams would be closer than two teams have > ever been(as I described such minute differences above) that it would > be like trying to decide the presidential election in 2006.
> If you're prepping to be a wannabe Dr. Jed Hill-like surgeon,
> > that may fly in your OR, but it's never going to fly with people who > > know more than you do about a great many things, including college > > football.
> (snip a bunch of stuff not related to UW-Miami....maybe you lost your > train of thought in the middle of your foot long sub with 6 spoonfuls > of mayannaise)
