forums

Ready for a good laugh?

DTP said:
I’ve actually learned a bit about the pre championship years from some of the old timers here. I was born in 79 so I had no idea about anything UM football related in the old days besides occasional articles. From what I’ve gathered (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong older guys who remember the 60’s and 70’s) UM was a decent football program through 1950’s and 60’s. Not a championship caliber program by any means but a decent program that usually had a winning record and some occasional all American talent. The wheels started falling off in the late 60’s and the 70’s were generally a crap fest.
Click to expand...
Can’t remember the exact year, but there was talk of ending the football program altogether in the 70’s. And you’re correct about the 50’s and 60’s. We didn’t suck and would pull off an upset now and then, but were not blue bloods by any stretch.
 
Advertisement
423Hurricane said:
Before 1983, it was Miami who? We had absolutely NO history of championship caliber football. Sure, we had a few AA’s, but never came close to a even sniffin’ a natty Many of today’s fans have no clue about our history before 1983.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Known for nice beaches & pretty women. That’s it. Although I became a fan in ‘87, I FULLY embraced The U, which meant I looked at all aspects of the university, prior to ‘87 to fully grasp the true history. I do that w/ all my teams; I respect the past while embracing the present.

So anyone not understanding the context of this list don’t understand the full history. 20 yrs don’t put u in top 2. Again, if we continued to dominate for another 20 yrs, then let’s talk. But fact is, we weren’t remotely a traditional power, and u would be hard pressed to find any old school football fan that associated CFB w/ Miami prior to ‘83. Hence, we were hated b/c we kicked the chit out of their darling blue bloods for 20 yrs.

But that’s it.
 
Rellyrell said:
B/c none of those aforementioned teams won a National championship or been close to competing for a National championship post WWII. Lol. Most of Yale’s national titles came when it was like a league of 8. Lol.

Anyways, SC just won their division this season, bruh. And the point is, again, all time. It’s a miracle we’ve positioned ourselves as a tier 3 in a window of 30 yrs! These programs r still synonymous w/ College Football, recency biased be damned. We are not a traditional power; we were & are a flash in the pan program that had a Bama like run from the early 80’s - early 2000’s. Literally 20 years. We have done CHIT since then. U don’t become a tier 1 or 2 program for 20 years of work! Get over it.

Had we continued our dominance, ****, not even winning National championships, but rather be at least in the ACCCG during these last close to 20 yrs, I’m going to assume we bump up to the next tier.

The fact we are ahead of Clemson, and Clemson has been a solid - dominant program for the past decade is all u need to know regarding the OVERALL body of these school’s pedigrees, champ! I’m going to also assume, Heismans, National Awards, All Americans, Draft picks, HOFers produced over the last 75 years are all being taken into consideration.

So instead of u or any others getting defensive, u should be honored to know that we’re considered in the top 3 tiers when we’ve only had a 20 year run.
Click to expand...
LOL - So now the arbitrary cut off date is ww2? You’re discounting Yale’s titles when 8 teams were playing, but giving full credit to Texas for winning when there were only ~40 teams with/against only white guys in 1969? Seems a little inconsistent - all I’m saying.

Yeah, and we had the best record in the “coastal” last year. Point is, again, sc is no more relevant than us, today.
 
Ajcane8 said:
LOL - So now the arbitrary cut off date is ww2? You’re discounting Yale’s titles when 8 teams were playing, but giving full credit to Texas for winning when there were only ~40 teams with/against only white guys in 1969? Seems a little inconsistent - all I’m saying.

Yeah, and we had the best record in the “coastal” last year. Point is, again, sc is no more relevant than us, today.
Click to expand...

What?

Nvm dog; u too caught up in ur glasses. Whatever u feel.
 
Rellyrell said:
What?

Nvm dog; u too caught up in ur glasses. Whatever u feel.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But I don't know how to say it any clearer. You're the one moving the dates of what "counts" as relevant, not me.

I'm not caught up in anything (except for the our lady hate, that's probably emotional). Just having a conversation. Tier 2 seems particularly arbitrary to me. That's all. Doesn't mean either of us is wearing any glasses. In my experience, though, the person calling everybody that disagrees with them "emotional" is usually the one that's in their feelings. The lady doth protest too much...
 
Advertisement
Michigan is WAYYYYYYYY too high

I wanna say Nebraska is too high too, but their run of dominance was so ridiculous they deserve the ranking
 
Ajcane8 said:
Fair enough. But I don't know how to say it any clearer. You're the one moving the dates of what "counts" as relevant, not me.

I'm not caught up in anything (except for the our lady hate, that's probably emotional). Just having a conversation. Tier 2 seems particularly arbitrary to me. That's all. Doesn't mean either of us is wearing any glasses. In my experience, though, the person calling everybody that disagrees with them "emotional" is usually the one that's in their feelings. The lady doth protest too much...
Click to expand...

How am I moving the date? There’s something called modern & pre modern era. Why don’t u think the NFL consider those NFL championships prior to the SB? Lol. They are recognized through history, but it’s real easy to win a title when games were in their infancy. ****, teams that won NFL championships one year, folded the following yr! Lol.

Yale, Harvard, Navy, Army....they played against teams that are not even in collegiate sports anymore. Now, it would be totally different if those same teams won during that time, AND they kept up that same winning tradition, not so much winning national titles per say, but just involved in being D1 bowl games during a time where FBS had expanded & integration took place. They did not. (More on this in a second)

Those tier 2 programs have been considered blue bloods b/c of accolades achieved w/in the program, National Championships, and the shear amount of participation in big time bowl games for yrs, consistently. U forget, Texas was in The BCS championship game in 2009 against Bama. Those guys have been to countless, as we know today, NY6 bowl games for decades, man. Same as SC. Nebraska appeared in like 30 something straight bowl games from the 1960’s til the early 2000’s, which if I’m not mistaken was or maybe is a NCAA record. Many of those bowls were NY6 games.

Again, u are looking at a 20 yr window for Miami vs. a 50 yr window for those other programs, & the reason they are tier two, is b/c like us, in recent yrs they have fallen on hard times. Michigan should not be in tier 1; they should be in tier 2. I mean Michigan was one of those “Yale-like” schools winning National Championships pre WWII; but the difference is “Fck Blue” continued to win its conference, vie for other big bowl games, & play in other National Championship games where they were the losers. Regardless, they have been on hard times recently, like 30 yrs worth w/o sniffing a national title, hence why I feel SC should be above them. They won’t b/c Michigan have played in a chit load of NY6 bowl games for forever, and is one of the founding programs of CFB.
 
DTP said:
Michigan gets the bump because they’re the all time winningest program. Hard to argue against the team that has won more games than everyone.
Click to expand...
Actually it's not hard to argue against them. They've just been around. They have one national title since 1948 and have rarely been a national contender during that time. Good teams? Sure. But rarely anything more.
 
Rellyrell said:
How am I moving the date? There’s something called modern & pre modern era. Why don’t u think the NFL consider those NFL championships prior to the SB? Lol. They are recognized through history, but it’s real easy to win a title when games were in their infancy. ****, teams that won NFL championships one year, folded the following yr! Lol.

Yale, Harvard, Navy, Army....they played against teams that are not even in collegiate sports anymore. Now, it would be totally different if those same teams won during that time, AND they kept up that same winning tradition, not so much winning national titles per say, but just involved in being D1 bowl games during a time where FBS had expanded & integration took place. They did not. (More on this in a second)

Those tier 2 programs have been considered blue bloods b/c of accolades achieved w/in the program, National Championships, and the shear amount of participation in big time bowl games for yrs, consistently. U forget, Texas was in The BCS championship game in 2009 against Bama. Those guys have been to countless, as we know today, NY6 bowl games for decades, man. Same as SC. Nebraska appeared in like 30 something straight bowl games from the 1960’s til the early 2000’s, which if I’m not mistaken was or maybe is a NCAA record. Many of those bowls were NY6 games.

Again, u are looking at a 20 yr window for Miami vs. a 50 yr window for those other programs, & the reason they are tier two, is b/c like us, in recent yrs they have fallen on hard times. Michigan should not be in tier 1; they should be in tier 2. I mean Michigan was one of those “Yale-like” schools winning National Championships pre WWII; but the difference is “Fck Blue” continued to win its conference, vie for other big bowl games, & play in other National Championship games where they were the losers. Regardless, they have been on hard times recently, like 30 yrs worth w/o sniffing a national title, hence why I feel SC should be above them. They won’t b/c Michigan have played in a chit load of NY6 bowl games for forever, and is one of the founding programs of CFB.
Click to expand...
Who was the first person to mention ww2? I get it. It helps your argument to just dismiss everything before point X (the same way it helps mine to dismiss everything before point y). I guess we just don’t agree on what the definition of “modern era” is.

The reason why pre-post merger professional football accomplishments aren’t counted equally is probably the same reason why I would argue much of the accomplishments pre integration/scholarship limits shouldn’t be counted as equal, or even similar, to those post integration/scholarship limit. The game is completely different. The people playing are different. The rules are different. The funding is different.

If the list is just who has the most wins in the history of amateur football - fine, though it’d be a lot easier to just Wikipedia that fact. But I don’t think that’s what the publishers were getting at. Take Miami out of the equation and my argument doesn’t change - at all. The tier 2 teams (as well as Michigan and our lady) just don’t pass muster as being superior all time programs to most of those in tier 3. They’ve won more games and been to more bowls... cool. Nebraska (70-01) and Texas (even earlier) and Michigan (before Texas) each had a dominant ~30 year stretch, and have done little else of substance in the other 6/7 decades they’ve been playing, including being complete non-factors the last 10 years... kind of like Miami and Florida and LSU, and...

Except for, like you said, SC. Couple their sustained success with being the torch bearer for west coast football at the time when the modern game (by my definition) was beginning to flourish and I could argue that their influence is sufficient enough to be considered an all time program.
 
JeddTheFisch said:
Actually it's not hard to argue against them. They've just been around. They have one national title since 1948 and have rarely been a national contender during that time. Good teams? Sure. But rarely anything more.
Click to expand...
They’re fifth all time in win percentage and they have to play the team who’s first every season. I consider them the Don Shula of college football teams. They’ve won more games than anyone and even though recent history wasn’t as good they’re still considered one of the all time greats.
 
Ajcane8 said:
Who was the first person to mention ww2? I get it. It helps your argument to just dismiss everything before point X (the same way it helps mine to dismiss everything before point y). I guess we just don’t agree on what the definition of “modern era” is.

The reason why pre-post merger professional football accomplishments aren’t counted equally is probably the same reason why I would argue much of the accomplishments pre integration/scholarship limits shouldn’t be counted as equal, or even similar, to those post integration/scholarship limit. The game is completely different. The people playing are different. The rules are different. The funding is different.

If the list is just who has the most wins in the history of amateur football - fine, though it’d be a lot easier to just Wikipedia that fact. But I don’t think that’s what the publishers were getting at. Take Miami out of the equation and my argument doesn’t change - at all. The tier 2 teams (as well as Michigan and our lady) just don’t pass muster as being superior all time programs to most of those in tier 3. They’ve won more games and been to more bowls... cool. Nebraska (70-01) and Texas (even earlier) and Michigan (before Texas) each had a dominant ~30 year stretch, and have done little else of substance in the other 6/7 decades they’ve been playing, including being complete non-factors the last 10 years... kind of like Miami and Florida and LSU, and...

Except for, like you said, SC. Couple their sustained success with being the torch bearer for west coast football at the time when the modern game (by my definition) was beginning to flourish and I could argue that their influence is sufficient enough to be considered an all time program.
Click to expand...

Fck it....fck WWII or anything like that.

It’s called ALL-TIME.

So Yale’s last national championship was 1927, almost 100 yrs ago.

Harvard last championship in 1920, over 100 yrs ago

Navy’s one & only National Title was 1926, almost 100 yrs ago

Army’s last national championship was in 1946, and they had a 3 yr run of 44, 45, & 46. That was almost 80 yrs ago!

So u wanna include programs that r non factors & have been non factors for longer than practically any living person on earth in this argument?? Lol. Have it.

Again, it’s called ALL TIME, not a period of time. If u wanna include those guys as tier of importance, regarding the historicity of getting football as an American sport, for sure. But for this particular list....


U know what bro; like I said two post ago, w/e u feel bruh bruh. It’s ur world.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Fck it....fck WWII or anything like that.

It’s called ALL-TIME.

So Yale’s last national championship was 1927, almost 100 yrs ago.

Harvard last championship in 1920, over 100 yrs ago

Navy’s one & only National Title was 1926, almost 100 yrs ago

Army’s last national championship was in 1946, and they had a 3 yr run of 44, 45, & 46. That was almost 80 yrs ago!

So u wanna include programs that r non factors & have been non factors for longer than practically any living person on earth in this argument?? Lol. Have it.

Again, it’s called ALL TIME, not a period of time. If u wanna include those guys as tier of importance, regarding the historicity of getting football as an American sport, for sure. But for this particular list....


U know what bro; like I said two post ago, w/e u feel bruh bruh. It’s ur world.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s either all time, or it isn’t. Perhaps those teams do belong on an “all-time” list, if it is indeed an all-time list.

That said, What does the Nebraska or Texas program have, in terms of their all-time impact on the game, over the Florida schools - besides a head start? Nothing.

And, there’s no need to add the dismissive post script if you’re just going to continue responding. Obviously, I feel the way I feel and you feel the way you do - that’s how a discussion works.
 
Last edited:
Ajcane8 said:
Exactly. It’s either all time, or it isn’t. I’m not the one cherry picking. Perhaps those teams do belong on an “all-time” list, if it is indeed an all-time list.

That said, What does the Nebraska or Texas program have, in terms of their all-time impact on the game, over the Florida schools - besides a head start? Nothing.

And, there’s no need to add the dismissive post script if you’re just going to continue responding. Obviously, I feel the way I feel and you feel the way you do - that’s how a discussion works.
Click to expand...

Let’s be clear; u responded to my post, my ninja. Then u accuse me of “moving dates” & some bull chit to fit a narrative. I don’t ever have to fit any narrative, but on the contrary, my guy; I was trying to simplify why the four **** pour examples u used to justify “all time” are just that, **** poor. U seem incapable of comprehending context.

So just, a post or so ago, I was trying to expand on the simplification to help u to see why ur examples weren’t included b/c they’ve been irrelevant for 1 hundred Fcking years! CFB have been around for 150 yrs, which means for **** near 70% of their existence, they’ve been a non-factor! So how in thee fck can they be considered an all timer?? Yale has 27 National Championships; half of them were won during the age of football clubs, where there was no coach, no forward pass, no anything! So are they important to the HISTORY of the game? Yes, b/c they were Pioneers in getting this bih started; but what they started, they couldn’t continue & have been non factors for almost 100 yrs, STR8!

So, my post script wasn’t dismissive; no...it was real. This ain’t a discussion, U’re being a contrarian to justify why Miami should be ahead of Nebraska & Texas, by throwing in some 1800’s chit that have been IRRELEVANT for almost 100 yrs to make an argument.

Again, the OP was regarding all-time, not 20 yrs, not 30 yrs, but all time. But let me back it up, since u wanted to throw shade at my modern day example.

Most historians consider the modern era of football as ‘82 - now. So fck WWII; let’s just go what most consider modern to see why Nebraska, SC, & Texas are in tier two.

Since ‘82 -

Miami: 338-131 (.720)
5x Nat’l Champion
10x NY6 winner
19x NY6 bowl invitee (including Peach Bowl pre NY6 arrangement to simplify)
15-18 overall bowl record
10 conference titles
1 division title
2 Heismans


Nebraska: 354-134-1 (.709)
3x Nat’l Champion
8x NY6 winner
18x NY6 bowl invitee
15-18 overall bowl record
11 conference titles
10 division titles
2 Heismans

USC: 315-134-5 (.694)
2x Nat’l Champion
12x NY6 bowl winner
15x NY6 bowl invitee
16-12 overall bowl record
13 conference titles
3 division titles
3 Heismans (yes, I’m including Bush)

Texas: 318-159-3 (.662)
1x Nat’l Champion
6x NY6 winner
12x NY6 bowl invitee
16-13 overall bowl record
7 conference titles
5 division titles
1 Heisman winners

So even if we throw out the past, the tier 2 guys were pretty formidable since 1982 in regards to what we accomplished. Our accomplishments were from ‘83 - 03. From ‘04 & beyond it’s been famine. Even Nebraska has had a “bit” more fortune than us since ‘04, and fa sho, SC & UT have had better fortunes than us since ‘04.

So NOW, when u add in what they’ve done in their all-time history....

Miami started in ‘27
From ‘27 - ‘81 we went 306-239-19 (.548), 0 conference titles due to Independent Status, 0 Nat’l Titles, 11 bowl game invites

Nebraska started in 1892
From 1892 - 1981 they went 551-266-39 (.643), 35 conference titles, 2x Nat’l champion

SC started in 1888
From 1888 - 1981 they went 536-218-49 (.667), 25 conference titles, 9x Nat’l champion

Texas started in 1893
From 1893 - 1981 they went 605-219-30 (.708), 23 conference titles, 3x Nat’l champion

So, again, prior to us becoming “The U” on football scene in ‘83, those programs were very successful. During our U run, these programs did not fall off the map, they were still right there.

But u can feel how u want; but don’t try to shade me to act like I was pushing dates around to make an argument. I don’t have to fudge chit to make a point. Miami is tier 1 from ‘83-03. B/c of our lack of success prior to ‘83 & lack of it after ‘04, that’s why we r ranked where we are ALL TIME.
 
Rellyrell said:
Let’s be clear; u responded to my post, my ninja. Then u accuse me of “moving dates” & some bull chit to fit a narrative. I don’t ever have to fit any narrative, but on the contrary, my guy; I was trying to simplify why the four **** pour examples u used to justify “all time” are just that, **** poor. U seem incapable of comprehending context.

So just, a post or so ago, I was trying to expand on the simplification to help u to see why ur examples weren’t included b/c they’ve been irrelevant for 1 hundred Fcking years! CFB have been around for 150 yrs, which means for **** near 70% of their existence, they’ve been a non-factor! So how in thee fck can they be considered an all timer?? Yale has 27 National Championships; half of them were won during the age of football clubs, where there was no coach, no forward pass, no anything! So are they important to the HISTORY of the game? Yes, b/c they were Pioneers in getting this bih started; but what they started, they couldn’t continue & have been non factors for almost 100 yrs, STR8!

So, my post script wasn’t dismissive; no...it was real. This ain’t a discussion, U’re being a contrarian to justify why Miami should be ahead of Nebraska & Texas, by throwing in some 1800’s chit that have been IRRELEVANT for almost 100 yrs to make an argument.

Again, the OP was regarding all-time, not 20 yrs, not 30 yrs, but all time. But let me back it up, since u wanted to throw shade at my modern day example.

Most historians consider the modern era of football as ‘82 - now. So fck WWII; let’s just go what most consider modern to see why Nebraska, SC, & Texas are in tier two.

Since ‘82 -

Miami: 338-131 (.720)
5x Nat’l Champion
10x NY6 winner
19x NY6 bowl invitee (including Peach Bowl pre NY6 arrangement to simplify)
15-18 overall bowl record
10 conference titles
1 division title
2 Heismans


Nebraska: 354-134-1 (.709)
3x Nat’l Champion
8x NY6 winner
18x NY6 bowl invitee
15-18 overall bowl record
11 conference titles
10 division titles
2 Heismans

USC: 315-134-5 (.694)
2x Nat’l Champion
12x NY6 bowl winner
15x NY6 bowl invitee
16-12 overall bowl record
13 conference titles
3 division titles
3 Heismans (yes, I’m including Bush)

Texas: 318-159-3 (.662)
1x Nat’l Champion
6x NY6 winner
12x NY6 bowl invitee
16-13 overall bowl record
7 conference titles
5 division titles
1 Heisman winners

So even if we throw out the past, the tier 2 guys were pretty formidable since 1982 in regards to what we accomplished. Our accomplishments were from ‘83 - 03. From ‘04 & beyond it’s been famine. Even Nebraska has had a “bit” more fortune than us since ‘04, and fa sho, SC & UT have had better fortunes than us since ‘04.

So NOW, when u add in what they’ve done in their all-time history....

Miami started in ‘27
From ‘27 - ‘81 we went 306-239-19 (.548), 0 conference titles due to Independent Status, 0 Nat’l Titles, 11 bowl game invites

Nebraska started in 1892
From 1892 - 1981 they went 551-266-39 (.643), 35 conference titles, 2x Nat’l champion

SC started in 1888
From 1888 - 1981 they went 536-218-49 (.667), 25 conference titles, 9x Nat’l champion

Texas started in 1893
From 1893 - 1981 they went 605-219-30 (.708), 23 conference titles, 3x Nat’l champion

So, again, prior to us becoming “The U” on football scene in ‘83, those programs were very successful. During our U run, these programs did not fall off the map, they were still right there.

But u can feel how u want; but don’t try to shade me to act like I was pushing dates around to make an argument. I don’t have to fudge chit to make a point. Miami is tier 1 from ‘83-03. B/c of our lack of success prior to ‘83 & lack of it after ‘04, that’s why we r ranked where we are ALL TIME.
Click to expand...
So, again, a ton of blah blah blah just to say it’s a quasi-all time list. Got it.

Now hit me with another 2,000 words that show me how unemotional you are.
 
Ajcane8 said:
So, again, a ton of blah blah blah just to say it’s a quasi-all time list. Got it.

Now hit me with another 2,000 words that show me how unemotional you are.
Click to expand...

Thank you for showing u true colors. Ya’ll not hard to snuff out when facts are presented. Aye, just don’t hide behind the bytch made “I’m just having trying to have a discussion” bull chit, next time. Just say, Miami should be #2 b/c I don’t care about history, I just care about this O&G. Would’ve saved both us plenty of time.
 
Back
Top