College football national championship

[politicalfootball]

The Crimson tide and the Tigers. It's should be a close shoot out lots of offense to go around for everyone. I just want to see the game and relax. Not rooting for either team.

[politicalfootball]

Wow ! Who would have thought that would happen ? It's the changing of an era. The passing of the baton. Clemson blew them out. Their QB is for real he looked good. We are seeing the future in Lawrence. Can't believe he is a freshman. Alabama was definitely the second best team in the nation. Lost too many players to the NFL last year and they flat out got outplayed.

Can't wait to see what happens next year, who will win the whole thing then. I still see these two as favored. What Do you think ?

[RiverDog]

Yea, that result caught a lot of people by surprise. I loved seeing 'Bama get trashed like that, although I would have preferred it had been done by a lessor known school vs. Clemson, which has a bit of a dynasty of their own now.

Currently FBS football is biased towards the southeastern part of the country. The Pac 12 is an embarrassment.

[idhawkman]

Yea, that result caught a lot of people by surprise. I loved seeing 'Bama get trashed like that, although I would have preferred it had been done by a lessor known school vs. Clemson, which has a bit of a dynasty of their own now.

Currently FBS football is biased towards the southeastern part of the country. The Pac 12 is an embarrassment.

Yep, that score is going to hurt their recruitment efforts at Bama. I agree a lesser school like Boise State would have been better but I'm ok with Clemson doing it. The ACC was a crap conference a few years ago so I'm happy that they have someone doing well. The Pac 12 will rise again. Currently their talent is being raided by the SEC so as soon as they can get some wins on the west coast of big games, they'll be back.

[politicalfootball]

I like Washington, Oregon and Boise state in this coming decade sometime to go all the way. My money is on Oregon to do it.

I am glad that bama does not have a stranglehold on the national championship anymore. Perhaps and I hope they will go to a 8 team playoff soon then the pac 12 will have a decent chance.

[RiverDog]

I like Washington, Oregon and Boise state in this coming decade sometime to go all the way. My money is on Oregon to do it.

Don't put too much money on your hunch. Since they started playing football way back in 1869 (yes, no spelling errors, that's 4 years after the Civil War), only once has a college from the Northwest won the D1 national championship in football(Washington in 1991). Judging by the results of interconference/bowl games in 2018, the Pac 12 has a long way to go.

[RiverDog]

[quote'"RiverDog"]The Pac 12 is an embarrassment.[/quote]

The Pac 12 will rise again. Currently their talent is being raided by the SEC so as soon as they can get some wins on the west coast of big games, they'll be back.

They're going to have to start scheduling and winning games against recognizable non conference Power 5 schools. WSU's non conerence opponents included Wyoming, Eastern Washington, and San Jose State, while Oregon played San Jose State, Bowling Green, and Portland State. Washington played one Power 5 non conference school in Auburn, and lost, and Boise State played one, Oklahoma State, and lost.

College football is still very much a beauty contest, and the Pac 12 isn't going to get any respect until they start winning games against the Ohio States and Notre Dames of the world.

[NorthHawk]

There were some players on both sides that should do well in the NFL next year.
That Clemson DL, along with the Alabama DL should produce some solid starters at worst and maybe some stars in the next few years.
Christian Wilkins, Quinnen Williams, Austin Bryant, and Clelin Ferrell are guys we should watch.
Unfortunately, they probably won't be around for us when we select (if the Juniors enter the draft), but they should make some teams
pretty happy.

[politicalfootball]

Thanks I didn't remember WSU won it all in '91. I sorta do anyway I know dad remembers it he was born in Washington I was born in Oregon. My dad is 86 we were watching it back when I got out of the navy. Yes it's coming back to me now.

Weren't the huskies ranked #9 in 2018 ? I really thought that they had a chance for the #4 slot ,too bad maybe we have an 8 team playoff soon then we'll see.

[burrrton]

Thanks I didn't remember WSU won it all in '91.

That's because they didn't. Washington did, and did so with arguably the best college football player to ever play, at least on the defensive side of the ball: Steve Emtman.

That he fizzled in the pros (roids would be my guess) doesn't change the fact that there has never been a guy who could so dominate a game.

[RiverDog]

That's because they didn't. Washington did, and did so with arguably the best college football player to ever play, at least on the defensive side of the ball: Steve Emtman.

That he fizzled in the pros (roids would be my guess) doesn't change the fact that there has never been a guy who could so dominate a game.

Emtman fizzled because of two devasting knee injuries on opposite knees in two successive seasons. Even if he did 'roids, I doubt that they had anything to do with those injuries.

[burrrton]

Even if he did 'roids, I doubt that they had anything to do with those injuries.

Steroids were heavily implicated in those types of injuries. There was some thought about them weakening the structures themselves, but I'm not sure if that was ever more than theory, but there were a ton of studies indicating building muscle so quickly and extensively would 'overwhelm' the ligaments' ability to hold, especially in unpredictable, explosive motions with blows coming from all directions.

[edit]

One source, but there are/were a million more:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ne ... 009-02-20/

[idhawkman]

Don't think Boise or Oregon will win a championship but Washington could. As River points out though, thye have to schedule harder games first though.

[RiverDog]

Steroids were heavily implicated in those types of injuries. There was some thought about them weakening the structures themselves, but I'm not sure if that was ever more than theory, but there were a ton of studies indicating building muscle so quickly and extensively would 'overwhelm' the ligaments' ability to hold, especially in unpredictable, explosive motions with blows coming from all directions.

[edit]

One source, but there are/were a million more:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ne ... 009-02-20/

I'm not sure I buy that theory. There could be other factors contributing to the increase in injury rate, especially bulky guys like Entman that are going to be subjecting their joints to more stress anyway. For example, the 'roids use could parallel the advent of artificial surfaces, especially the early generations of Astro Turf that Entman played on, which were much less forgiving than Field Turf that was adapted in the 2000's. Another factor is that there was much less weight training back in the 40's when data for this study was collected. Players weren't the workout warriors back then like they became in later decades. The higher injury rate could have been a natural occurrence related to the increase of plain 'ole body building and not having anything to do with steroids. Additionally, players in general were much bigger in the early '90's than they were when my old man played in the '40's. 'Big' back then meant 250 lbs. More weight equals more stress on the joints.

Interesting read, though, and I'll admit that there is some sound logic in the theory. It's not a case where there's evidence of prior use like there was with Brian Bosworth, who was suspended for steroids use in the mid 80's several years before Entman was in college.

In any event, your assertation that Entman's career was likely ruined by steroid use is completely speculative. It's a lot more accurate to say that it was ruined by two successive knee injuries. As far as I know, he has never admitted to using steroids even though he's been out of the game for over 2 decades.

[idhawkman]

I don't think reconstruction of knees was as successful back then either. They've come a long way since the 90s with that stuff.

[burrrton]

In any event, your assertation that Entman's career was likely ruined by steroid use is completely speculative.

Of course, but the fact that roids made you injury prone is not some wild fantasy I cooked up- it's accepted as a given in the medical community, or at least was (I worked in orthopedic rehab for 10 years).

As far as I know, he has never admitted to using steroids even though he's been out of the game for over 2 decades.

I played with him in high school and was a friend of his in college- you're going to have to trust me on this one.

[idhawkman]

Of course, but the fact that roids made you injury prone is not some wild fantasy I cooked up- it's accepted as a given in the medical community, or at least was (I worked in orthopedic rehab for 10 years).



I played with him in high school and was a friend of his in college- you're going to have to trust me on this one.

I could be wrong on this but if I remember correctly, the roids made you put on muscle mass faster than the joints could hold up or support the extra weight and that's what made the joints weak. They just weren't used to all the weight or werent' big enough to support it.

[RiverDog]

In any event, your assertation that Entman's career was likely ruined by steroid use is completely speculative.

Of course, but the fact that roids made you injury prone is not some wild fantasy I cooked up- it's accepted as a given in the medical community, or at least was (I worked in orthopedic rehab for 10 years).

Oh, I don't think that it's "cooked up". I was being critical of the study you submitted.

As far as I know, he has never admitted to using steroids even though he's been out of the game for over 2 decades.

I played with him in high school and was a friend of his in college- you're going to have to trust me on this one.

Of course, I'll trust what you're saying as being first hand information. I was just saying that a lot of athletes, as your study shows, admitted after their playing careers, I assume to clear their conscience and to bring attention to the problem, that they doped up.

[burrrton]

Oh, I don't think that it's "cooked up". I was being critical of the study you submitted.

Fair. Like I (think) I said, though, that's one of many. Not something argued about in medical circles.

Of course, I'll trust what you're saying as being first hand information. I was just saying that a lot of athletes, as your study shows, admitted after their playing careers, I assume to clear their conscience and to bring attention to the problem, that they doped up.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is (:)), but I'm just saying: he was on steroids. That isn't up for debate.

[Hawktawk]

Steve Emtman had a brother he outweighed by 100’pounds when he went pro. I think
He went to HS in Cheney and was about 225 when he was recruited. He was a lightning quick 300 pound guy with male pattern baldness when drafted. I loved the guy but he was a poster child for old school harsh destructive roids. Boz was a pea in a pod as well. Of course steroids cost their bodies but it made them filthy rich winners first.

On another note if im an NFL GM looking for a coach I back up the brinks truck to Dabos door .

[burrrton]

Steve Emtman had a brother he outweighed by 100’pounds when he went pro. I think

Yeah, but he was always bigger than Rusty from 8th grade on. Not by 100#, but they were always a completely different body type regardless of the roids.

[burrrton]

I could be wrong on this but if I remember correctly, the roids made you put on muscle mass faster than the joints could hold up or support the extra weight and that's what made the joints weak. They just weren't used to all the weight or werent' big enough to support it.

In broad strokes, yes. It was more the strength and explosiveness (rather than sheer weight) that were assumed to overwhelm the strength of those structures that didn't respond nearly as quickly to conditioning as muscle, but... yeah.

[politicalfootball]

I hardly remember Steve Emtman, what made him so good ? Why did they win the championship ?

[RiverDog]

On another note if im an NFL GM looking for a coach I back up the brinks truck to Dabos door .

Hiring a college coach for an NFL gig is a mixed bag. Pete has done well here, but he had extensive experience in the NFL before his USC job. Hairball cut his coaching teeth in the college game and was successful in the NFL as well. But then you have the Nick Sabans and Steve Spurriers of the world. That's why there's the tedoncy for the NFL to stay "in house" for their HC positions.

[idhawkman]

Hiring a college coach for an NFL gig is a mixed bag. Pete has done well here, but he had extensive experience in the NFL before his USC job. Hairball cut his coaching teeth in the college game and was successful in the NFL as well. But then you have the Nick Sabans and Steve Spurriers of the world. That's why there's the tedoncy for the NFL to stay "in house" for their HC positions.

I'd agree with this. I do think though that the NFL has started to change a bit and look more like college games since Spurrier and Saban tried to enter the league.

That said, we have seen this week and his first year at bama what Saban teams do if they can't just physically be dominant over an opponent. He needs to learn how to win with weaker teams if he is to make it in the pros.

[NorthHawk]

I think that Kingsbury might have a little difficulty getting the types of coaches he wants at the NFL level simply because he doesn't have all the contacts a former HC in the NFL would have.
In a couple of years he will probably have his staff set, but NFL teams often don't wait a long time without success before making changes.
Sweeny would probably have a similar issue early if he jumped to the NFL, but I don't doubt he might think he wants to try some day. He's still pretty young as Head Coaches go.

[burrrton]

I hardly remember Steve Emtman, what made him so good ?

He was big, unbelievably strong, unbelievably fast for a D-lineman, and played with a viciousness you don't see very often.

I think he ended up 3rd in HEISMAN balloting (and was iirc the first defensive player that was considered to be a legitimate contender for it). Think about that: a defensive lineman 3rd in the Heisman.

[edit]

Check that- he was 4th in Heisman balloting, but got ~50% more 1st-place votes than Weldon and Detmer ahead of him (29 to 19).

[politicalfootball]

Yeah now I remember him clearly he ruled offensive line and have a command of the game.

Yeah I remember now and I watched Washington win the championship.

[Hawktawk]

I remember Emtman picking off Dan Marino from about ten feet away, just reached up and squeezed a fastball and then housed it from a long way out. What could have been

[politicalfootball]

Pardon my ignorance but does anyone know off the top of your head who was the last PAC 12 team to win a national championship.

[burrrton]

Pardon my ignorance but does anyone know off the top of your head who was the last PAC 12 team to win a national championship.

One of Pete's USC teams, wasn't it?

[edit]

Yup- SC in '04.

[RiverDog]

Pardon my ignorance but does anyone know off the top of your head who was the last PAC 12 team to win a national championship.

Yup- SC in '04.

That one was vacated by the BCS.

[c_hawkbob]

The question was the last Pac 12 team to have won it, not that still holds the title.

[RiverDog]

The question was the last Pac 12 team to have won it, not that still holds the title.

It was a relevant point and pertinent to this discussion.

[burrrton]

That one was vacated by the BCS.

I had forgotten all about that.

[c_hawkbob]

It was a relevant point and pertinent to this discussion.

But it didn't alter the the fact that it was still the correct answer to the question as asked. You seemed to have made your 'pertinent point' as though it were a correction to the answer given.

[RiverDog]

It was a relevant point and pertinent to this discussion.

But it didn't alter the the fact that it was still the correct answer to the question as asked. You seemed to have made your 'pertinent point' as though it were a correction to the answer given.

It didn't alter the fact, but it did qualify it. It would be no different than someone saying that UW won the NC in 1991 and a later addition noting that it was a shared NC with U of Miami. It was an asterisk, not a strike out.

I guess I'm a little befuddled as to your objecting to my contribution to this discussion. What was wrong with my pointing out a key fact that's not normally associated with national championships?

[burrrton]

Incidentally, UW would have absolutely *waxed* Miami that year had they played.

It was a joke handing them a share of UW's NC.

[RiverDog]

Incidentally, UW would have absolutely *waxed* Miami that year had they played.

It was a joke handing them a share of UW's NC.

I'm not prepared to say that UW would have waxed Miami had they played, but the way the Hurricanes won it was a bit disengenious.

Washington was committed by conference agreement to the Rose Bowl and drew #6 Michigan, and as a consequence, they had to travel over 1,000 miles. The game was a blow out as the Huskies absouletely dismantled the Big 10 champ in a contest that even with a 20 point margin wasn't as close as the final score would indicate.

Miami had an option for their NYD game. They could have gone to the Sugar Bowl and faced #3 Florida, and had they done so and won, they probably would have won the NC outright, and deservedly so. But rather than take a chance on losing, they decided to stay on their home field at the Orange Bowl and host a lower ranked opponent in #11 Nebraska, a team that UW had beaten decisively on the road earlier in the season. They essentially took the path of least resistance and you could say that they submitted a low ball bid for the NC. Had I known nothing else about the two teams other than those facts, I would have voted for UW based on Miami's gutless decision on which bowl to play in.

So although I disagree that one can conclusively decide that one team would have *waxed* the other, I agree with you that it was a travesty to give Miami a share of the NC. They didn't deserve it. It was an east coast bias if there ever was one, as Miami won the AP poll of sportswriters and broadcasters while UW won the (arguably) more objective Coaches Poll.

[burrrton]

Of course there's no way to know *conclusively* the outcome of a hypothetical like that, RD, but yeah, the situation you describe is true.

For their bowl, UW faced a far better team on a neutral field and absolutely dismantled them (yukking it up and mocking them by late in the 2nd quarter iirc- anyone remember Mario Bailey mimicking Desmond Howard's Heisman pose?), while Miami *chose* to play a 2nd-ten team at the Orange Bowl and pulled one out (which, to Erickson's credit, was the smart choice).

To anyone who watched, outside of Miami homers, UW was the dominant team in D1 that year, and it wasn't close to being close. Miami getting a share of the title was a stain on the process.

[edit]

And honestly, I think that year was a big reason the 'playoff' push got started. People started thinking "This can't be left up to J-school flunkies if they're going to botch the voting this badly".