Best Buckeye Team Of The Decade?

[LordJeffBuck]

In terms of anything other than W-L record 2002 is perhaps the most overrated team in school history. If that is all that counts change the poll to "What team won the most games in this decade" and be done with it.

I hate to strongly disagree with such a well-respected poster, but.....

According to Billingsley's, a college football archivist and BCS computer pollster, the 2002 Ohio State squad was the best Buckeye team every, and the 18th best in the entire history of college football. Below is a complete listing of Buckeye teams that made Billingsley's Top 200:

2002: #18
1954: #40
1968: #60
1996: #76
1973: #103
1975: #104
1944: #125
2006: #143
1961: #147
1957: #152
1970: #159
1998: #175
1949: #193

Obviously, there are some interesting and debatable selections on Billingsley's list (the omission of the 1942 NC squad, the inclusion of the unheralded 1949 team, the rather low ranking for the Super Sophs, etc.), but clearly this list is a strong piece of evidence in favor of the 2002 team as being not only the best of the decade ... but the best all time.

The 2002 team was the best that I have seen, with perhaps the exception of the 1973 squad, which IMHO is the best team in the history of college football not to have won a recognized national championship.

PS - let's hope that 2008 changes everyone's opinion on this subject.

 

[Taosman]

The 2002 Buckeyes may have been the greatest defense in Ohio State history, but anyone who remembers the offensive struggles would doubt it's being the best Buckeye team ever. Best in decade...sure.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Jax, my only beef with you is how snooty you are towards those of us that believe this team has a chance to go down as one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, in Buckeye history. I think most of us have respect for your "wait and see" approach yet you aren't reciprocating it. And, I think we've given plenty of valid reasons for why we should be allowed to expect an incredible year.

If I came across as snooty I apologize. It was never my intent.

I respect your point of view, I just don't share it.

I can appreciate the "' '07 was really good and returns intact so 2008 should be great" school of thought. Its sound logic IF you believe the 2007 defense was really good. I do not.

2006 and 2007 have left me firmly of the belief we had two pretty good but not great teams that were exposed badly once they played somebody.

I'm hoping 2008 is a team for the ages that plays well against what looks to be a much tougher schedule but untill I see it, I'm not buying.

 

[Mike80]

I can appreciate the "' '07 was really good and returns intact so 2008 should be great" school of thought. Its sound logic IF you believe the 2007 defense was really good. I do not.

I was with you up to this point. 2008 will take care of itself - the over-arching hype isn't for me but anyone else can feel free to partake. I don't usually get wrapped into those things.

That said, 2007 was a good defense without a doubt. Not great but certainly they were better than "pretty good" or whatever the scale is.....

That team had enough talent to be a very good defense but still had some room to grow. Hopefully that happened and we will see.....

2006 and 2007 have left me firmly of the belief we had two pretty good but not great teams that were exposed badly once they played somebody.

2006 more than 2007. The 2007 squad had much deeper talent on the field, especially in the secondary.

I'm hoping 2008 is a team for the ages that plays well against what looks to be a much tougher schedule but untill I see it, I'm not buying.

I'm not buying, but I am saving space just in case

 

[Oh8ch]

According to Billingsley's, a college football archivist and BCS computer pollster, the 2002 Ohio State squad was the best Buckeye team every, and the 18th best in the entire history of college football. Below is a complete listing of Buckeye teams that made Billingsley's Top 200:

It is not my fault that Billingsley is full of shit.

What on God's earth are his criteria? 1968 is # 60 but 1969 - a much better team by any reasonable measurement of talent and ability - is not even in his top 193? All because they lost one game to an incredibly motivated Michigan team with a coach who blindsided Woody with his game planning? If my life is on the line I take that team over anybody on his list.

I love the 2002 Buckeyes. They were magical. They are probably in my top 5 of favorite teams. But they were so damn lucky it isn't even fair. I know - I get beat up every time I go down this particular less traveled road. But it is what I believe.

Up until the Michigan game in 1969 nobody came within 27 points of beating that team. That's three TDs and two field goals.

In 2002 we had to guard our end zone in the final minutes to keep a 7-7 Cincy team from pulling the upset. We had similar wins against Michigan and Penn ST. OT against a 5-7 Illinois team. A miracle play against 7-6 Purdue. And every imaginable combination of circumstances to win the NC in double OT.

How can you not love that team? But by the same token how can you argue that pulling games out of your ass week after week makes you better than a team that wins by three TDs and two FGs every week? That is six games that could have gone the other way on one play. If the 1969 team struggled against Illinois and Wisky I don't make this argument. But they didn't. They crushed them.

Ah - but they lost to Michigan! And in 2002 we won them all. Fine. Rank them by W-L record and be done with it if that is all that matters. But if you care to look a little closer at what the team was capable of doing on any given Saturday - and that is what this poll is about - then don't bring your weak ass 2002 squad on to the field against my 1969 Buckeyes.

The problem is that our minds prefer drama. Many subscribe to the chowder headed notion that this team was able to will itself to victory. That it was destiny. Fate.

Sorry. It was just an incredible sequence of events that make 2002 the most magical season in school history. The team could easily have lost 3-4 games. And if they had they would be ranked about where they belong in the annals of great OSU squads.

I was in the South Stands in 1996 when Shawn Springs went down and Tai Streets ran right at me to my increasing horror with every step. (I was also in the South Stands when we lost to MSU in 1998 - you folks better hope I stay in C Deck where I belong). One player loses his footing during the course of an entire season and a NC is gone. It wasn't fate. It wasn't Michigan willing themselves to victory. It was a slip. It was shit happening. But under the terms of this thread - which team is the better team head to head - that slip made them no better and no worse.

The 2005 2006 and 2007 teams were all better than 2002 - with 2006 the best of the lot. And 2002 is not in the top 10 of all time Buckeye teams as defined for this poll. Not in my book.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

How can you not love that team? But by the same token how can you argue that pulling games out of your ass week after week makes you better than a team that wins by three TDs and two FGs every week?

Um, you mean every week but one ... and that one still counts.

That is six games that could have gone the other way on one play. If the 1969 team struggled against Illinois and Wisky I don't make this argument. But they didn't. They crushed them.

... and they lost to Michigan by 12 points ... and it was hardly a game "that could have gone the other way on one play".

The problem is that our minds prefer drama.

Computer minds don't prefer drama ... and Billingsley's is a computer ranking.

I was in the South Stands in 1996 when Shawn Springs went down and Tai Streets ran right at me to my increasing horror with every step.

If he was running right at you, then you should have gotten off of your fat ass and tackled him, dammit.

And 2002 is not in the top 10 of all time Buckeye teams as defined for this poll. Not in my book.

Sorry - I'm not buying your book.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I was with you up to this point. 2008 will take care of itself - the over-arching hype isn't for me but anyone else can feel free to partake. I don't usually get wrapped into those things.

That said, 2007 was a good defense without a doubt. Not great but certainly they were better than "pretty good" or whatever the scale is.....

I could have said it better.

I think a lot of folks are of the opinion the '07 team was just a notch below dominant and with the expected year to year improvement will become dominant in '08.

I am of the opinion the '07 team was several notches below dominant and the expected year over yer improvement will still leave us short of dominant.

The most important point is that I 100%, fully and wholeheartedly want to be wrong. I want to see a '69, '73 or even '98 gap in talent bewteen us and every opponent we face but I want to see Tress avoid the one bad game that Woody and John F fell prey to.

In short I want to see 13 McNeelings of opponents this fall without pulling a Munson along the way.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I could have said it better.

I think a lot of folks are of the opinion the '07 team was just a notch below dominant and with the expected year to year improvement will become dominant in '08.

I am of the opinion the '07 team was several notches below dominant and the expected year over yer improvement will still leave us short of dominant.

The most important point is that I 100%, fully and wholeheartedly want to be wrong. I want to see a '69, '73 or even '98 gap in talent bewteen us and every opponent we face but I want to see Tress avoid the one bad game that Woody and John F fell prey to.

In short I want to see 13 McNeelings of opponents this fall without pulling a Munson along the way.

Very well put.

There was only one place where you might not have expressed my p.o.v. perfectly. I agree with you that '07 was several notches below dominant. I post stats to show that they weren't a total crap-fest, but I know that stats don't tell the whole story. Where we disagree is in how much improvement we think is reasonable.

And we are agreed that we both want you to be wrong.


I will add -

I expect a 10 point or so victory in L.A. I'm probably the most optimistic guy on the whole board about that game; but I really believe that they are typically a slow-starting team, this is their most inexperienced team in years, and they haven't played a team as good as the '08 Buckeyes this early during the Pete Carroll era.

That being said, in that 1-in-a-kajillion-billion chance that they go out and beat USC by 3 touchdowns; I still won't be ready to say you were wrong.

You may be proven right at any point during the season, and we both hope that doesn't happen.

The earliest you can be proven wrong is in January of 2009.

When that day comes, you're buying.
:cheers:

 

[Jaxbuck]

The earliest you can be proven wrong is in January of 2009.

When that day comes, you're buying.
:cheers:

I'll start saving now.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I love to re-watch the Championship game. That team had TONS of of talent. TONS. I haven't actually done the analysis, but think about how many players on that roster were drafted? The % has to be very high relative to college teams. TONS of talent and the absolute will to win. People get caught up in the way they won games, but they won them all. What's the difference between a close win over Purdue in 2002 versus tough games against Texas and PSU in 2005? Illinois in 2007? The W. Speculation is for shit.

2002, probably by a lot.


That being said, I love what we have going into this season. And 2010. And whenever my boy Renfro is in his junior/senior season.

 

[Oh8ch]

Computer minds don't prefer drama ... and Billingsley's is a computer ranking.

Then Billingsley's algorithm is full of crap. The core of the 1968 championship team was my graduating class (class of 1971). The same kids were there in 1969 and 1970 and they just got better. Everybody - including Woody - believed the 1969 and 1970 teams were better than 1968. The failure of Billingsley to come close to recognizing that qualifies him for the dung heap.

Um, you mean every week but one ... and that one still counts.

My overarching point is that in the context of this thread - no, it doesn't count.

The question was not who won all their games. It was who had the better team. And that requires you to look beyond the result and the ability and talent of the players. App St was not a better team than UM last year. Cal was not better team than USC. And in 1969 UM was not better than OSU.

And in 2002 OSU was not a better team than Miami. Sorry. We caught them flat the same way Florida caught us flat.

This is why I am opposed to playoffs. Two teams can play 10 times and one of them wins 9 games but if the other team wins one - but if that one is the NC game that team is the NC. (witness Villanova-Georgetowm).

Problem is, when teams only play only once a year that one game may just be the one in 10 that the lesser team wins. i.e. UM over OSU in 1969.


So to get back on topic - look beyond the W-L record. 2002 struggled with far too many teams to be seriously considered as a dominant football team. All those folks voting for them are voting for a myth. They were magical. They ARE the 2002 National Champs. But BY THE CRITERIA SET OUT FOR THIS POLL they are overrated.

 

[BB73]

It would be nice to have a season which combines dominance and perfection. Here's an update of something I wrote in '06.

While many Ohio State teams have reached November with a perfect record, only four have finished the season unblemished. Here is a list of every Buckeye team that started 8-0, how they finished, and an indication of how dominant their wins were:

tOSU teams that finished with a perfect record
1944 - finished 9-0 (AP #2), 4 of 9 wins by less than 17, including TSUN
1954 - finished 10-0 (AP #1), 5 of 10 wins by less than 17, including TSUN
1968 - finished 10-0 (AP #1), 6 of 10 wins by less than 17, 50-14 over TSUN ("couldn't go for 3')
2002 - finished 14-0 (AP #1), 8 of 14 wins by less than 17, including TSUN

tOSU teams that started 8-0, didn't win game 9
1969 - finished 8-1 (AP #4), all wins by at least 27 points, lost 12-24 to TSUN
1974 - finished 10-2 (AP #4), 2 of 10 wins by less than 17, lost to MSU, USC in the Rose Bowl
1993 - finished 10-1-1 (AP #11), 5 of 10 wins by less than 17, tied at Wiscy, lost to TSUN
1998 - finished 11-1 (AP #2), all of first 8 wins by 17 or more, lost to MSU

tOSU teams that started 9-0, didn't win game 10
1970 - finished 9-1 (AP #5), 3 of 9 wins by less than 17, lost to Stanford in Rose Bowl
1973 - finished 10-0-1 (AP #2), all wins by 21 or more, had 10-10 tie in Ann Arbor

tOSU teams that started 10-0, didn't win game 11
1996 - finished 11-1 (AP #2), 5 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to TSUN
2007 - finished 11-2 (AP #5), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to Illinois, LSU in BCS Title Game

tOSU teams that started 11-0, didn't win game 12
1975 - finished 11-1 (AP #4), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost Rose Bowl to UCLA
1979 - finished 11-1 (AP #4), 4 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost Rose bowl to USC
1995 - finished 11-2 (AP #6), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to TSUN, Tennecleat in the Citrus bowl

tOSU teams that started 12-0, didn't win game 13
2006 - finished 12-1 (AP #2), 2 of 12 wins by less than 17, lost BCS Title Game to Florida (only team ever to win a pair of AP poll #1 vs. #2 games to not finish #1 in the AP poll)

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

It would be nice to have a season which combines dominance and perfection. Here's an update of something I wrote in '06.

While many Ohio State teams have reached November with a perfect record, only four have finished the season unblemished. Here is a list of every Buckeye team that started 8-0, how they finished, and an indication of how dominant their wins were:

tOSU teams that finished with a perfect record
1944 - finished 9-0 (AP #2), 4 of 9 wins by less than 17, including TSUN
1954 - finished 10-0 (AP #1), 5 of 10 wins by less than 17, including TSUN
1968 - finished 10-0 (AP #1), 6 of 10 wins by less than 17, 50-14 over TSUN ("couldn't go for 3')
2002 - finished 14-0 (AP #1), 8 of 14 wins by less than 17, including TSUN

tOSU teams that started 8-0, didn't win game 9
1969 - finished 8-1 (AP #4), all wins by at least 27 points, lost 12-24 to TSUN
1974 - finished 10-2 (AP #4), 2 of 10 wins by less than 17, lost to MSU, USC in the Rose Bowl
1993 - finished 10-1-1 (AP #11), 5 of 10 wins by less than 17, tied at Wiscy, lost to TSUN
1998 - finished 11-1 (AP #2), all of first 8 wins by 17 or more, lost to MSU

tOSU teams that started 9-0, didn't win game 10
1970 - finished 9-1 (AP #5), 3 of 9 wins by less than 17, lost to Stanford in Rose Bowl
1973 - finished 10-0-1 (AP #2), all wins by 21 or more, had 10-10 tie in Ann Arbor

tOSU teams that started 10-0, didn't win game 11
1996 - finished 11-1 (AP #2), 5 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to TSUN
2007 - finished 11-2 (AP #5), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to Illinois, LSU in BCS Title Game

tOSU teams that started 11-0, didn't win game 12
1975 - finished 11-1 (AP #4), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost Rose Bowl to UCLA
1979 - finished 11-1 (AP #4), 4 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost Rose bowl to USC
1995 - finished 11-2 (AP #6), 3 of 11 wins by less than 17, lost to TSUN, Tennecleat in the Citrus bowl

tOSU teams that started 12-0, didn't win game 13
2006 - finished 12-1 (AP #2), 2 of 12 wins by less than 17, lost BCS Title Game to Florida (only team ever to win a pair of AP poll #1 vs. #2 games to not finish #1 in the AP poll)

GPA both for the information and the effort to compile it

 

[Dryden]

And in 2002 OSU was not a better team than Miami. Sorry. We caught them flat the same way Florida caught us flat.

I disagree with this. The 2002 Miami team was a Jekyll & Hyde bunch that was a shadow of the 2000 & 2001 teams. The 2002 'Cane lines were overrated and the secondary was not as disciplined. That team made the title game because they flat-out just had better athletes than everybody else. What that 2002 team didn't have was Clinton Portis, Ed Reed, McKinnie, Shockey, Davenport, etc , etc ... Their schedule was an absolute disaster that year and the only team they played with a pulse, Florida State, battled them to the bitter end. IIRC that defense in particular surrendered 21 points or more in half their games.

2002 OSU was not, IMHO, a better squad than the 2001 Hurricanes, but I believe they proved on the field that they were indeed a better team than the 2002 edition. The result of that game was not a fluke. I believe if those two teams would have lined up and played the proverbial ten times, OSU would've won > 50%.

I think you're selling the 2002 team short considering the closeness of the final scores in the games over the back half of the season could be attributed directly to the absence of Clarett for a significant portion of the meaningful snaps.

IMHO, we clearly saw across 2002-2003 the difference between that OSU team w/ Clarett at 100%, 75%, only 50%, vs no Clarett at all. With Clarett at 100%, that team was unbeatable.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but if Clarett doesn't have the knee surgery and the shoulder stinger during the season, and if he doesn't get into trouble after, we're not even having this discussion -- we're not debating whether the 2002 team was the best of the decade. We'd instead be arguing whether the 2002 & 2003 OSU teams are among the greatest CFB teams/dynasties of all time, because they surely would have repeated in '03 if they had a running game, after all they damn near did anyway without one.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

"Best Buckeye"

is the Team of the decade?

Way to go, BB!