Top Undefeated Teams of the Decade?

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

Didn't 02 tOSU beat 02 Miami? I'd fathom to guess that the apparent controversy surrounding the circumstances of the final game of their undefeated season, right or wrong, as a reason that people are hesitant to bring them further into play in the conversation. Another factor is that they didn't really have a star like Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Ken Dorsey, Vince Young, etc. Certainly they had great players, but none that got the media attention of the above few. Finally, and more subjectively, I've never really been thoroughly impressed with this decade's Buckeye squads compared to the other recent college football superpowers. Maybe it's that they aren't as flashy as the other teams, maybe it's their recent struggles in national title games... not really sure, but I'm reluctant to put them above the other teams mentioned in this conversation.

You know what I meant.

The marquee player comment was interesting. They DID have marquee players on that squad. He flamed out, but Maurice Clarett was a great football player his freshmen year. Mike Doss was a stud in college as well. Alot of players just didn't get the media coverage that year because of the fawning over Miami, OU, and Notre Dame.

It's also interesting, because that Ohio St. team has probably the most tried and true system of winning games at that level. A very efficient offense that could run the ball and a defense with the ability to shut down almost any offense you could throw at it.

[Husker_OS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Psyblast

They were the luckiest team. They were the Luckeyes. The 2005 team was the most talented.

No kidding. I remember watching their games thinking at some point, they were going to lose one of those close games. It was annoying since I love seeing upsets throughout the season and yet they would always hold on in the final minute.

Half of their wins came by a touchdown or less.

[P2K]

Sometimes, I think people need to go back and look over the entire '01 Miami roster. You will get overwhelmed on just the offensive backfield alone.

And then, after looking at the roster...remember who the head coach was and what could've been.

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by boisejames

How is 2000 not part of the decade? You include 1990 in the 90's, 1980 in the 80's etc. don't you?

you dont count 0-9, you count 1-10. We still have a year left in this decade.

many people consider '90 and '00 as part of the next decade, but that's not how it should be. Maybe it's Prince's fault for putting out that song.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZB9

you dont count 0-9, you count 1-10. We still have a year left in this decade. many people consider '90 and '00 as part of the next decade, but that's not how it should be. Maybe it's Prince's fault for putting out that song.

You count 90-99 as the 90s and 2000-2009 as the 2000s.

Ask wikipedia.

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

You count 90-99 as the 90s and 2000-2009 as the 2000s. Ask wikipedia.

LOL i dont give a **** what wiki says. Much of popular culture has started considering the year 00 or the year 10 as the first year of the decade but that isnt how it is in mathematical reality.

Kelson broke it down pretty well:
"When you start counting, you start at 1. Let's look at the first year. Would you expect that was year 0, or year 1? If the first year was year 1, then the first decade was 1-10. For what it's worth, this is the accepted way of counting.

Every subsequent decade follows the same rules. The first century was years 1 - 100, not 0 - 99, because we didn't call the first year 'year 0'. The first millenium was years 1-1000, not years 0-999, because we didn't call the first year 'year 0'. We are now in the ninth year of the first decade of the third millenium (2009). Next year, year 10 of this millenium, will be the tenth year of the decade, the tenth year of the century, and the tenth year of the millenium.

If you wish to argue that the first year was in fact 'year 0', I will agree with you all day long, on the 0th of July..."


anyway, you can count year 00 as the first year of a decade if you want. Many people do. If we put '00 0U in this decade, then I would put it like this:

1. 2001 Miami
2. 2005 Texas
3. 2004 USC
4. 2004 Auburn
5. 2000 0U

[Cebby]

You start centuries and millenniums in the year 01.

You start decades in X0. Saying the 1990s don't include 1990 and do include 2000 just makes you look silly.

[sportsbuck]

Quote: Originally Posted by Psyblast

They were the luckiest team. They were the Luckeyes. The 2005 team was the most talented.

This.

[Abar22]

04 Auburn. Bias for sure but they were a fantastic team.

95 Nebraska beats any team from any decade. Just look up the scoreline of their games. They scored 196 points in their 4 games against top 10 opponents and gave up only 73. That's a 49-18 average score against top 10 opponents.

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

You start centuries and millenniums in the year 01.

you make no sense

if you start centuries in year 01, then you have to start decades in year 01

Quote:

You start decades in X0. Saying the 1990s don't include 1990 and do include 2000 just makes you look silly.

LOL would you say 2010' was the last year of this decade or the first year of the next decade? We are in the ninth year of the 201st decade and still have a year left in this decade. If you count '00 and '10 as part of this decade, then this decade will have 11 years

however, like "DodgingLions" said, it is widely accepted in popular culture today to consider decades to be 10-19, 20-29, or in this case 2000-2009, but that's really a matter of personal preference as it would make the first decade consist of only 9 years.