Top Undefeated Teams of the Decade?

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZB9

you make no sense if you start centuries in year 01, then you have to start decades in year 01

No you don't.

There have been 21 numbered centuries.

Nobody says "in the 182nd decade."

The decades of the 90s started in 1990 and ended in 1999. The 2000s started in 2000 and end in 2009.

If you can find people who count by decades like they do with centuries, I'll agree with you.

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

No you don't. There have been 21 numbered centuries. Nobody says "in the 182nd decade." The decades of the 90s started in 1990 and ended in 1999. The 2000s started in 2000 and end in 2009. If you can find people who count by decades like they do with centuries, I'll agree with you.

There have been 200 different 10 year periods ending with the close of 2000. What you're suggesting gives us 199 different 10 year periods and 1 nine year period.

In popular culture, people classify things differently...but in mathematical reality, we are in the 9th year of the 201st decade.

[NinerFan1983]

It's amazing how this thread went from talking about top undefeated college football teams of the decade to arguing over which number a decade starts with.

[AuburnAlumni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

No you don't. There have been 21 numbered centuries. Nobody says "in the 182nd decade." The decades of the 90s started in 1990 and ended in 1999. The 2000s started in 2000 and end in 2009. If you can find people who count by decades like they do with centuries, I'll agree with you.

Most. boring. argument. EVER.

[boisejames]

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by ZB9

There have been 200 different 10 year periods ending with the close of 2000. What you're suggesting gives us 199 different 10 year periods and 1 nine year period. In popular culture, people classify things differently...but in mathematical reality, we are in the 9th year of the 201st decade.

Actually, I'm a math major and every single math problem is based on 0-9, not 1-10. We are actually supposed to count from 0-9 instead. If we all taught our children to count that way then there wouldn't be so many people who struggle with math.

I do agree though that technically we probably did start with year 1 and not 0, even though it should have been. So you're probably right that the 201st decade is technically 2001-2010 but that's not the way most people see it.

[BigDofBA]

Can we get back to hating on each other? This isn't math class.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportsbuck

This.

Maybe so. But finding a way to win close games is a special trait in football. Sometimes a team that's really never been tested (the 2006 OSU team) can look worse when they go up against a strong opponent while a team that's been tested over and over can rise to the occasion against a strong team.

[Maxattax3]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigDofBA

Can we get back to hating on each other? This isn't math class.

here ill help.

2005 Texas was the best by far. They would beat any of the other teams on the list. Vince Young was better than your QB. I bet if you asked the QB from your team who was better in college, them or VY, they would say Vince Young. None of the other teams matter. 2005 was basically the only year this decade that the BCS system actually worked and placed the 2 best teams in the NC. Who won that game? Oh yea, Texas... Come on its science.

Look at Texas' defensive roster from that year. All pros. Now look at their offensive roster... in the words of Kobe Bryant "What they gon' do?"

[ZB9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

I don't think you want to look at the players in the pros. The 05 Texas team probably ranks dead last in that regard among the BCS teams.

you would be wrong of course

23 players currently in the pros from the '05 Texas team

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZB9

you would be wrong of course 23 players currently in the pros from the '05 Texas team

You're right.

They're probably above 2000 Oklahoma.

They aren't even in the same stratosphere as 01 Miami (then again, nobody is), and I don't see them above 02 OSU or either of the 04 teams.