Top 10 College Football teams of the last decade

[MSUcougar]

So ESPN is ranking all 119 D1-A college football teams this week based on their performance over the past 10 seasons (97-06). I made a bet with a coworker about who could most closely predict their top 10. Our guesses ended up being completely different from each other, so I'm curious to see what top 10 you guys can come up with based on this criteria:

[ QUOTE ]
What are the top programs of the last decade? That's the question ESPN.com has attempted to answer this week. Fifteen college football experts and analysts ranked all 119 Division I-A programs, taking into account record, traditions, recruiting, facilities, coaches, attendance and support, among other criteria.

Editor's note: The rankings reflect the average from the 15 ballots cast and are not the writer's individual ballot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's see your Top 10... (ESPN's will be revealed on Friday)

Mine:
<font color="white">1. Michigan
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Miami
5. USC
6. Florida St
7. Oklahoma
8. Ohio St
9. Nebraska
10. Georgia</font>

[MacGuyV]

Well I hate the Florida schools but I think if you've got Michigan &amp; Texas ahead of the U &amp; FSU you're favoring the most recent history of the last 10 yrs too much.

Surely Georgia can't be in the mix ahead of some of their SEC counterparts - LSU, Tennessee?

edit: Not sure I understand the "tradition/facilities" criteria. This means they're looking at more than the last 10 years, or awarding tie-breakers to which team has the nicer weight room?

[MSUcougar]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I hate the Florida schools but I think if you've got Michigan &amp; Texas ahead of the U &amp; FSU you're favoring the most recent history of the last 10 yrs too much.

Surely Georgia can't be in the mix ahead of some of their SEC counterparts - LSU, Tennessee?

edit: Not sure I understand the "tradition/facilities" criteria. This means they're looking at more than the last 10 years, or awarding tie-breakers to which team has the nicer weight room?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just copy/pasted the "criteria" from ESPN... I'm not sure how subjective the ESPN experts will be. I would think they'd have to use some sort of computer based ranking system to rank all 119 teams.

I'll probably discuss my choices/reasoning after a few responses.

[Dudd]

LOL at Michigan at number 1. Shouldn't a team have to be better than .500 against their rivals and have more than 1 BCS win to be the best team of the past decade? I don't know who exactly I'd put at number 1, probably 1 of USC, Oklahoma, Miami, or Ohio State, but I can't see any argument for Michigan.

[MSUcougar]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at Michigan at number 1. Shouldn't a team have to be better than .500 against their rivals and have more than 1 BCS win to be the best team of the past decade? I don't know who exactly I'd put at number 1, probably 1 of USC, Oklahoma, Miami, or Ohio State, but I can't see any argument for Michigan.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was surprised when I got done looking at the numbers... remember it's the last 10 seasons, most of the schools had at least a couple subpar seasons...

But ya this is obviously open for debate...

[Dudd]

I think sustained goodness is worse than being great for 4-5 years, decent for a few others, and bad for 1 or 2. Michigan to me, besides 1997 when they were split champs, has been the good but not great team, usually losing to either ND at the beginning of the year or OSU+bowl at the end of the year. I'd much rather be someone like USC with dominance over their rivals or Oklahoma who dominated Texas for a sustained period in the middle of the last 10 years plus BCS wins and multiple championship game appearances.

[Your Mom]

hard to say, b/c all of the good teams have had some down years in the last decade. Nebraska sucked balls for a couple of years there, USC sucked in the first half of this decade as did OU and Texas. Florida St. sucks now. Michigan and Ohio St. have been good most of the time, but they have disappointed quite a few of those years. Florida had the Ron Zook era, though I think they may still be the best choice. Natl' champs in 96 and 06.

[MSUcougar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think sustained goodness is worse than being great for 4-5 years, decent for a few others, and bad for 1 or 2. Michigan to me, besides 1997 when they were split champs, has been the good but not great team, usually losing to either ND at the beginning of the year or OSU+bowl at the end of the year. I'd much rather be someone like USC with dominance over their rivals or Oklahoma who dominated Texas for a sustained period in the middle of the last 10 years plus BCS wins and multiple championship game appearances.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where it gets tough IMO, cuz I formulated my top 10 by looking at end of year rankings for the 10 years and averaging that, as a starting point. Michigan finished in the top 25 all 10 years (top 10 for 5 of those), with the 1 split NC. USC had 5 years where they finished out of the top 25, but obviously were pretty dominant for the other 5. I don't really know how ESPN will compare those, and I'm not sure which is "correct". I was confident with my Michigan pick but I can see the merits of not even having them in the top 10.

Pretty fun debate topic...

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at Michigan at number 1. Shouldn't a team have to be better than .500 against their rivals and have more than 1 BCS win to be the best team of the past decade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nitty points:

Michigan has two BCS wins over the past decade &gt;&gt; 1998 Rose Bowl &amp; the 2000 Orange Bowl

Records against rivals since 1997:

vs OSU: 4-6
vs MSU: 8-2
vs ND: 4-4

Total: 16-12 (.571)

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
Records against rivals since 1997:

vs OSU: 4-6
vs MSU: 8-2
vs ND: 4-4

Total: 16-12 (.571)

[/ QUOTE ]


lol