The best CF national champion teams (SRS rating)

[NU_FTW]

I will still go to my grave thinking the 1999 team could have been Nebraska's best team ever

That would have been the year if the CFP was around we would have won as the 3 seed. We were full of studs then too.

 

[ralphiewvu]

2001 Miami deserves to be up there. They are definitely one of the best.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

My Top 3:

1995 Nebraska
2001 Miami
2018 Clemson

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Obviously, I'm biased, but I'm really torn about this one. I think what Nebraska did in 1995 was incredibly impressive. They beat their opponents by an average score of 53-15. Their smallest margin of victory was 14 points. They also beat four top 10 teams by an average score of 30.75. On Clemson's side, I do think the Kelly Bryant games are a blemish on their season. Because of those games, Clemson beat their opponents by an average of 44-13. They also had two games within a touchdown. I think the fact that Clemson did it in a playoff system (which did seem to capture the four best teams) and crushed both opponents adds to the legitimacy. However, I do think 1995 Nebraska is the greatest team of all time.

However, the OP said best, not greatest. And I think that means we have to look at Clemson with all their pieces in place. Under Lawrence, Clemson played 8 7 win or more teams. They beat them by an average of 48-11, including all teams by 20 or more. This is despite Dabo's practice of benching the starters as soon as the game is in control (they played a larger portion of their team than any team in history). Nebraska left their starters in for far longer, and Tommie Frazier and Ihman Green played in the second half in every game, and in the fourth in 8 of the 12. This holding back is also why Clemson performed at a much higher level against big opponents, including being the first team in over 40 years to beat two AP top 5 teams by 25 or more.

Looking at the teams, I honestly don't believe 1995 Nebraska could beat 2018 Clemson. This was a team based almost entirely on the run (Roughly 75% of the team's offensive production was on the ground (4400 of the teams 6100 yards were rushing)). Clemson had the greatest defensive line in history, with four future first rounders (since it would be shocking if Xavier Thomas were not) and up to seven future NFL players rotating in. They only allowed 2.5 ypc, despite playing a number of running-based teams (6 in the top 25) and superstar running backs. They shut them all down, allowing only 8 rushing touchdowns in 15 games.

Nebraska also had a great rushing defense. However, offensively, Clemson was extremely well-balanced, with top 10 passing and rushing offenses under Trevor Lawrence. Statistically, Alabama's passing defense this year was similar to 1995 Nebraska (and the same yards per attempt and 1.25 TDs per game (NU) vs 1.4 (Bama)) and Notre Dame was better than both (5.5 yards per pass (vs. 6.2) and .76 TDs per game). Clemson averaged 337 yards passing with 3 touchdowns, 0 INTs, and 9.5 yards per attempt. Clemson also ran well even against dominant rushing defenses. Ultimately, I just think Clemson would be much better positioned to exploit Nebraska's weaknesses and counter their strengths than vice versa. Finally, I think we'll see more Tigers playing on Sundays than we did on Nebraska's team (though NU did well there).

So yeah, I'll say Nebraska is the greatest team ever, but I think Clemson is probably the best.

I hear ya and I have nothing against Clemson, they're the only ACC team I rooted for before they got this good lol.

But as we all know, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Two completely different eras. Two completely different ways the game is played, two different post season systems, etc. I will admit that Nebraskas schedule really was a half and half weird one. Played half the top 10 and dominated, but the other half of the schedule was filled with really bad teams... and a couple mediocre ones all obviously dominated.

I wasn't following the Clemson QB situation, but looking at the schedule it does appear that the A&M and Syracuse games are what would hold Clemson back. Winning both games by a combined 6 points hurts this standing.

But about keeping players in... I don't truly KNOW the situation of the rotation, sitting, or whatever, but in an ESPN interview after Osborne retired he was asked....

Miller: Was there ever a game where you were embarrassed by how bad you beat a team?

Osborne: Well we had one, one game up in Minneapolis where we uh, we scored 84 points and they ended up with 20 or something like that, but their approach was that they were going to blitz every play. I think they felt that in order to stay with us they were going to have to do that. So if they guessed right, we lost two yards. If they guessed wrong, we scored a touchdown. Because, you know, in option football when you're committing your linebackers, you're dead if you go the wrong way. And so, it got out of hand and we ended up actually playing our second team in the second quarter. But we ended up putting our first team back in the fourth quarter which made a lot of people mad, but they didn't realize that our second team was tired because they played the second and third quarter and they were running out of gas. And so, that was a weird game.

So again, I don't know for certain, but given the beatdowns that ensued throughout that year... you may have been seeing the starters in because the second team was getting tired lol.

Ultimately, I just think Clemson would be much better positioned to exploit Nebraska's weaknesses and counter their strengths than vice versa.

Florida thought that too

In regards to the 'playing on sundays comment', that is irrelevant. It's a team sport. It's the best team that wins the game, not the best player. This is the same argument made by 01 Miami fans... still doesn't account for those close games that are holding those teams back. Don't get me wrong, 2018 Clemson and 2001 Miami are very talented teams, but just may not have the chemistry that set them apart from Nebraska.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

No love to the 1971 Nebraska team? ONLY close game was against #2 Oklahoma. They won games by an average of 39-8. Only 3 teams scored in double digits: Oklahoma State (41-13), #2 Oklahoma (35-31), Kansas State (44-17).

Beat #2 Bear Bryant Alabama team 38-6 in the Orange Bowl.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

2001 Miami deserves to be up there. They are definitely one of the best.

I think they are one of the best. Certainly the most overall talented to this point. I don't think they can get credit for being the absolute best though. When people think of them, they think of the great games they had against Syracuse and Washington. However, they struggled a lot against Boston College, with Dorsey being a complete joke in that game. They also very nearly lost to Virginia Tech, and only beat 1 top 10 team. That was Nebraska, who was #4 and pretty good, but had no right to be in that game, having gotten horribly humiliated by an only okay Colorado the game before (worse than they lost to Miami). And this was at the second half of the season, when a team should have their issues sorted out. A great team, but not the best. I think they'd be like 4 or 5 for me (I do really like 1991 Washington and 2004 USC, and don't know where I'd rank those three).

I hear ya and I have nothing against Clemson, they're the only ACC team I rooted for before they got this good lol.

But as we all know, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Two completely different eras. Two completely different ways the game is played, two different post season systems, etc. I will admit that Nebraskas schedule really was a half and half weird one. Played half the top 10 and dominated, but the other half of the schedule was filled with really bad teams... and a couple mediocre ones all obviously dominated.

I wasn't following the Clemson QB situation, but looking at the schedule it does appear that the A&M and Syracuse games are what would hold Clemson back. Winning both games by a combined 6 points hurts this standing.

But about keeping players in... I don't truly KNOW the situation of the rotation, sitting, or whatever, but in an ESPN interview after Osborne retired he was asked....



So again, I don't know for certain, but given the beatdowns that ensued throughout that year... you may have been seeing the starters in because the second team was getting tired lol.



Florida thought that too

In regards to the 'playing on sundays comment', that is irrelevant. It's a team sport. It's the best team that wins the game, not the best player. This is the same argument made by 01 Miami fans... still doesn't account for those close games that are holding those teams back. Don't get me wrong, 2018 Clemson and 2001 Miami are very talented teams, but just may not have the chemistry that set them apart from Nebraska.

I appreciate the response. You gave a more reasoned response than your compatriot. I think you and I are defining best differently. Again, based on your definition, which I would call greatest, not best, I think you're right. As I said, the Kelly Bryant games hurt Clemson in that regard. But I don't think you can say "best" and mean greatest, because they're different words with different meanings. You have to say, who, at their best, was better. And I think you have to ultimately say, who'd beat the other. Football hasn't evolved that dramatically since 1995, short of more penalties. It would be different if I said Clemson and Nebraska would crush 1945 Army. In 1995, there were run based teams, option teams, the air raid, etc. Humanity hasn't evolved since then, and I doubt there were significant differences in training. The post season system was different, though I think Nebraska and Florida would have also played in the BCS system. So I think a comparison in that regard (stats/head to head) is absolutely fine. And in that regard, I don't think 1995 Nebraska matches up, though I think they're a strong second even by that standard.

You know what you do when the second string gets tired? Put in the third string. You don't put your starters back in to score some more. Lawrence-led Clemson and Nebraska have very similar statistics (with Clemson having a slightly better defense, and Nebraska scoring slightly more points), with Clemson regularly benching their starters at halftime, while Nebraska did not. From the time Lawrence started against Wake Forest, to the Carolina game, the starters allowed 1 touchdown. And I'm sure Florida thought that, but they were the underdog that game, had only played one elite running back (Warrick Dunn), who did very well against them, and they had not seen an option attack. Clemson saw several of each, and had a far better front 7 than Florida. And I agree with you that talent isn't the end-all, be all. Team chemistry is huge. But I'm taking it in the aggregate. I'm comparing stats of the two teams, trying to figure out the head to head result, taking into account the different post-seasons (which does add legitimacy), and looking at overall talent level. And when all together, I think Clemson wins this. So I'd say 1995 Nebraska is greater, but 2018 Clemson was better. But of course, we're all biased, and are really splitting hairs.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

No love to the 1971 Nebraska team? ONLY close game was against #2 Oklahoma. They won games by an average of 39-8. Only 3 teams scored in double digits: Oklahoma State (41-13), #2 Oklahoma (35-31), Kansas State (44-17).

Beat #2 Bear Bryant Alabama team 38-6 in the Orange Bowl.

I'd have them really high as well. Maybe 5 or 6. That defense was insane. I'm curious where 1901 Michigan fits into everything, given them clearly using best to mean greatest. They played 10 games, and won them by an average score of 55-0.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

No love to the 1971 Nebraska team? ONLY close game was against #2 Oklahoma. They won games by an average of 39-8. Only 3 teams scored in double digits: Oklahoma State (41-13), #2 Oklahoma (35-31), Kansas State (44-17).

Beat #2 Bear Bryant Alabama team 38-6 in the Orange Bowl.

I'd say you make a valid point other than the fact nobody in this thread is sucking UW's '91 team's pecker .. so I won't say shit.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I think they are one of the best. Certainly the most overall talented to this point. I don't think they can get credit for being the absolute best though. When people think of them, they think of the great games they had against Syracuse and Washington. However, they struggled a lot against Boston College, with Dorsey being a complete joke in that game. They also very nearly lost to Virginia Tech, and only beat 1 top 10 team. That was Nebraska, who was #4 and pretty good, but had no right to be in that game, having gotten horribly humiliated by an only okay Colorado the game before (worse than they lost to Miami). And this was at the second half of the season, when a team should have their issues sorted out. A great team, but not the best. I think they'd be like 4 or 5 for me (I do really like 1991 Washington and 2004 USC, and don't know where I'd rank those three).



I appreciate the response. You gave a more reasoned response than your compatriot. I think you and I are defining best differently. Again, based on your definition, which I would call greatest, not best, I think you're right. As I said, the Kelly Bryant games hurt Clemson in that regard. But I don't think you can say "best" and mean greatest, because they're different words with different meanings. You have to say, who, at their best, was better. And I think you have to ultimately say, who'd beat the other. Football hasn't evolved that dramatically since 1995, short of more penalties. It would be different if I said Clemson and Nebraska would crush 1945 Army. In 1995, there were run based teams, option teams, the air raid, etc. Humanity hasn't evolved since then, and I doubt there were significant differences in training. The post season system was different, though I think Nebraska and Florida would have also played in the BCS system. So I think a comparison in that regard (stats/head to head) is absolutely fine. And in that regard, I don't think 1995 Nebraska matches up, though I think they're a strong second even by that standard.

You know what you do when the second string gets tired? Put in the third string. You don't put your starters back in to score some more. Lawrence-led Clemson and Nebraska have very similar statistics (with Clemson having a slightly better defense, and Nebraska scoring slightly more points), with Clemson regularly benching their starters at halftime, while Nebraska did not. From the time Lawrence started against Wake Forest, to the Carolina game, the starters allowed 1 touchdown. And I'm sure Florida thought that, but they were the underdog that game, had only played one elite running back (Warrick Dunn), who did very well against them, and they had not seen an option attack. Clemson saw several of each, and had a far better front 7 than Florida. And I agree with you that talent isn't the end-all, be all. Team chemistry is huge. But I'm taking it in the aggregate. I'm comparing stats of the two teams, trying to figure out the head to head result, taking into account the different post-seasons (which does add legitimacy), and looking at overall talent level. And when all together, I think Clemson wins this. So I'd say 1995 Nebraska is greater, but 2018 Clemson was better. But of course, we're all biased, and are really splitting hairs.

Sure, if you mean best as in how a head to head now would look... I mean that is so tough to say. There is no doubt that Clemson has talented atheletes, but the weight lifting/training, nutrition, etc have evolved so much. More information on these various subjects exists today. Perhaps not a lot, but again when you are talking about 'splitting hairs' I would say that every little bit matters. Who knows if the 95 Nebraska team would look the same with the way training is conducted nowadays.

Pretty sure I argued against this stance before though lol. I think I am just tired of comparing. I will say this, I was telling my friends and family that last years Bama team might be able to take the top spot. Being as how they won every regular season game by 22 points (or something like that), played a fair amount of ranked teams including the SEC championship game and two more in the playoff... but losing to Clemson nullified that, especially losing the way they did. Your team REALLY pleased a lot of college football fans lol and I am not just talking about Auburn fans.

It is something that is fun to think about, but simply just no way to know anything beyond comparative stats. And when you are doing that in a different era, with a different number of games, it (in my opinion) becomes a different environment or landscape. Comparing 2018 Clemson to 1995 Nebraska is like comparing 1971 Nebraska to 1995 Nebraska. Damn near equal in distance, but sure stuff has changed that has allowed for greater learning, gains, etc.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I'd say you make a valid point other than the fact nobody in this thread is sucking UW's '91 team's pecker .. so I won't say shit.

91... who?

UW... who?

 

[Kaplony]

Nebraska was BEST. (period)

Your logic is beyond flawed. It is your opinion though. Congrats!

Nebraska won 12 games. Clemson won 15, and beat the doors off the greatest college football team in history in the last win.

Alabama’s Only Worthy Opponent Is History

Is this the best Bama team ever? (Just don't ask Nick Saban)

How Alabama compares to the best college football teams ever

 

[TheReal_NU]

91... who?

UW... who?

I looked it up.

1991 Wisconsin was 5-6. 2-6 in conference.
I don’t think they belong in the conversation at all.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I think they are one of the best. Certainly the most overall talented to this point. I don't think they can get credit for being the absolute best though. When people think of them, they think of the great games they had against Syracuse and Washington. However, they struggled a lot against Boston College, with Dorsey being a complete joke in that game. They also very nearly lost to Virginia Tech, and only beat 1 top 10 team. That was Nebraska, who was #4 and pretty good, but had no right to be in that game, having gotten horribly humiliated by an only okay Colorado the game before (worse than they lost to Miami). And this was at the second half of the season, when a team should have their issues sorted out. A great team, but not the best. I think they'd be like 4 or 5 for me (I do really like 1991 Washington and 2004 USC, and don't know where I'd rank those three).[\QUOTE]

Dude BC finished 9-3 and the game really wasn’t as close as the score. VPI finished a top 15 team. Both of those games were road games. They beat 5 teams that finished in the top 25. They were ridiculously talented. No chance was 91 Washington or 04 SC better. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I'd quote the poster above me but apparently he's having posting problems. '91 Washington sent 12 guys to the NFL at the end of the season. The only close game they had was @ Cal.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

I'd quote the poster above me but apparently he's having posting problems. '91 Washington sent 12 guys to the NFL at the end of the season. The only close game they had was @ Cal.

Who was a really good team and #7 in the country. All their other games were 2 scores+. They beat three top 10 teams, winning by an average score of 41-9. Add in the talent, and I think they have an argument to be above 2001 Miami. I would have them at #3. 2004 USC (who I do think was worse than 1991 Washington) didn't blow teams out by quite the same margin as 2018 Clemson, 1995 Nebraska, 1991 Washington, or 2001 Miami (average score of 38-13). However, they did win what I think was the biggest championship blowout in history over a really good Oklahoma team and beat the really good ACC champ by double digits. The fact that Pete Carroll was coaching (one of the all time greats who could recruit on an elite level and has succeeded in the NFL - something most college coaches are not good enough to do) and the talent also weighs in here. They had two heisman winners on their roster at QB and RB. They had 5 NFL wide receivers, 6 NFL O-linemen (5 of whom were drafted in the first or second rounds), 2 NFL tight ends, 2 NFL running backs behind Reggie Bush, and 21 NFL defensive players. They have an argument too.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Cot damnit! My response is in the quoted.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I'd quote the poster above me but apparently he's having posting problems. '91 Washington sent 12 guys to the NFL at the end of the season. The only close game they had was @ Cal.

There were 17 players on the 2001 Miami team that got drafted, IN THE FIRST ROUND.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

2004 USC (who I do think was worse than 1991 Washington) didn't blow teams out by quite the same margin as 2018 Clemson, 1995 Nebraska, 1991 Washington, or 2001 Miami (average score of 38-13). However, they did win what I think was the biggest championship blowout in history over a really good Oklahoma team and beat the really good ACC champ by double digits.

Uh.... USC won by 36 over Oklahoma.... 95 Nebraska beat Florida by 38.

There were 17 players on the 2001 Miami team that got drafted, IN THE FIRST ROUND.

Why is this comment ALWAYS made when 01 Miami is brought up in the 'greatest ever' conversation? Wow, you mean to tell me that the Miami players made a life choice after the season and THAT should somehwo factor into how good that team played on the field in college at that time?

Um, no. Yes, they were clearly talented, I don't think anyone would deny that. But Syracuse and Va Tech games bring much into question when we are talking about ALL TIME.

 

[DeafOranguntan]

Uh.... USC won by 36 over Oklahoma.... 95 Nebraska beat Florida by 38.

Yeah, I said championship. Nebraska never played a championship.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Yeah, I said championship. Nebraska never played a championship.

Um... Nebraska was #1, Florida was #2... it was for the National Championship, but because it wasn't the BCS it doesn't count? Even though the only point behind the BCS was to ensure that #1 and #2 played for the title every year.

Um.... semantics?