Bradshaw, Montana, Brady, AikmanI've been meaning to post this for awhile, but things have came up in news. And it's the offseason.
So I'm apart of some trivia teams and I've noticed some questions in which my team is one of the few to get it right in which I felt it was common knowledge questions. Here are some
1) who are the 4 qbs with 3+ super bowl rings. My team was 1 of 17 teams to get it right
I'm not 100% sure. I'd think Notre Dame leads and are you counting Bush at USC or not?2) rank these teams in order from most to least of Heisman winners. USC, ND, Stanford, Alabama. My team was the only one to get it right Many put Bama at #1
I'll say: Notre Dame/USC/Alabama/Stanford
the Steel Curtain of the 1970s3) name the team that had the only run which had 4 SB wins in 6 years. 20% got it right while the most put Pats and Cowboys
We won: 1992, 1999, 2009, 2015, 20164) what is the record between Bama and Florida in the SECCG. Was one of the 4 to get it right out of 20.
They won: 1993, 1994, 1996, 2008
Right about the time..... never mindThere are plenty more, but these were some I thought were very big headscratchers. The age range is 21-70 of these contestants with the median around 35-45 range.
Not to sound insulting but part of the reason for the fading memory is that folks old enough to recall the 1960s Packers are either dead, dementia'ed, or de-interested. And that number moves each year.There have been plenty of articles in the last 3 years come out from Espn, Fox, and others suggesting these runs are bad for football. So I thought this might be a fun topic.
So here is the question," are these runs making runs like Steelers 70's, 49ers 80's, Cowboys 90's, Miami's 80's, and the 90's Nebraska runs more forgotten due to the dominance of the current runs by Bama and the Patriots?"
Fwiw I think not, but I'm finding less folks rembering the dominance of those others I listed. And I find it odd because I was only alive for the Cowboys and Husker runs but still knew a lot about the others.
I think another issue is that people my age (47) who are not fans of particular dynasties - 80s Miami, 90s Nebraska - note that these were accidents of history to a large degree. You're well aware of my beef with Miami, but for the unfamiliar, I'll re-state it. While Miami was without a doubt a VERY good team and certainly a team you had to deal with, they were a fraud of a dynasty for the most part.
Let me speak bluntly - they weren't very good against GOOD teams away from home.
1983 - I know it's an unpopular opinion but Auburn should have been the national champion. But let's set that aside and ignore it. In today's world, Miami is out of sight and mind because Nebraska plays Texas and the winner is the champion. You can't blame Miami, but this was 1977 Notre Dame all over again.
1986 - they went unbeaten and I admit they looked like the best team in the country. But Penn State beat them despite getting outgained by almost 300 yards, getting only 162 yards total offense, and only eight first downs. Vinny T was a choker.
1987 - I have no problem with this year, they were the best team in the country and deserved it. That's one.
1988 - They might have been the best team this year, too, but they lost a classic in South Bend. Showing what a putz he actually was, Jimmy Johnson whined before the 1 Notre Dame vs 3 West Virginia Fiesta Bowl battle of the unbeatens that if WVA won then Miami should be the national champion. (He did this same crap in 1985......and then got blown out in the Sugar Bowl by Tennessee).
1989 - every year in college football history that a team beat number one head to head and had basically the same record, they became number one. In 1978, Alabama beat Penn State and became number one despite losing head to head with the other competitor, USC. But in 1989, the "rules" were set aside and when Notre Dame beat number one Colorado, Miami became number one on the basis of "they beat the Irish head to head." Fair enough, but that argument wasn't used in 1978 or 1993 or any other time I can think of.
Throw in the fact the referees gave Miami some much needed help against an overmatched Alabama team coached by a mediocrity, and they did not deserve this one, either.
1990 - made the mistake of scheduling good teams on the road and lost twice.
1991 - Miami and Washington both go unbeaten on the regular season. They can't play each other. Miami ducks Florida in the Sugar Bowl (given what happened to the Canes in 1985 and 1992, I think I know why) and opts for Nebraska's inflated rep in the Orange Bowl, their home. They actually lose 1/2 the title because of this disgusting act of cowardice. And let's face it, Miami was ranked number one because: a) they were in the East where most of the media is and Washington is in the FAR West; b) most of the press didn't watch the Huskies play; c) the recent history of Miami being ranked highly; and d) Miami beat #1 Florida State in the game of the year on a missed field goal.
Of course, Florida had an easier time with FSU than Miami did, too, in Spurrier's first SEC title year. Don't think Miami didn't notice that, either.
A group of cowards as far as I'm concerned in 1991.
And then George Teague ripped the dynasty right out of Lamar Thomas' hands, and it's been dead forever save for that three-year run in 2000s.
I have no regard for that team of that era and regard them as little more than accidents of history. Go look at their bowl record during that time outside of their home field. A loss to UCLA in the Fiesta, a ref-aided win in 1989 in the Sugar, blowout losses to underdog Alabama and Tennessee in the Sugar, and a shutout in the Fiesta Bowl in 1993.
Quite frankly, they were 1-4 outside the Orange Bowl post-season games 1985-1993. They should have been 0-5 and now you know why they ducked Florida.
Nebraska is a little more accomplished, which is good for them since they'll never again see a national title game without watching it on TV. But the problem with Nebraska's dynasty is something else - it's really nothing more than 2-3 stellar recruiting classes in a row. Then remember:
1) they didn't play Penn State in 1994, though it wasn't their fault. Penn St had the misfortune of playing Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Had they thumped a 6-win USC or UCLA back then it would have been more regarded than if they'd beaten an undefeated Oregon team. The East Coast press assumed the Ducks had to be second rate. But that was a high powered offense at PSU.
2) best team in the country in 1995. But any clowns who wish to argue that was the best team of all-time on the basis of the irrelevant stat of "nobody was even close," I pointed out that since 1991 (I didn't go back any further) only something like six teams that won national titles played easier schedules than 1995 Nebraska did. I'm sorry, but if you don't actually beat a decent team, you're not the best team ever.
3) in 1997, they got voted another share of a title based on the reputation.
The problem for them is that the game has evolved into something those guys cannot possibly even recognize now. Colorado won the title in 1990 with what essentially a wishbone attack (a variant of it). But the game changed and brought in passing quarterbacks on an unusual scale with Matt Leinart, a fact Bill Walsh noted when he said the OU blowout at the hands of USC would change the college game forever.
Nebraska was a running team and probably the only reason folks remember Tommie Frazier is that run against Florida, which was a clinic on poor tackling as much as anything. For Pete's sake, Nebraska won a game in 1994 with Frazier AND backup Brook Berringer out - because the competition wasn't that good.
Nebraska had a four-year run. Miami a manufactured decade.
We're on the tenth year.
1960s Alabama
1970s Alabama
1980s Miami
1987-2002 FSU
Current Alabama
Those are actual dynasties of varying degrees.