Which college has the best all-decade team (2000-2009)?

[walksalone]

I am not saying Nebraska is top 5 in terms of being successful...I am saying if you take all our best players at all the positions throughout the decade, our talent would be top 5 IMO. Nebraska would possibly have the best DLine in the country with Kyle Vanden Bosch, Adam Carricker, Ndamukong Suh & Jared Crick. LBers would be solid with Carlos Polk, Demorrio Williams, Barrett Ruud. Keyuo Craver & Josh Bullocks give us 2 All-Americans in the secondary so the defense looks solid top to bottom; with arguably the best DLine in the country.

 

Then add an offense led by Heisman trophy winner Eric Crouch & 3 All-Americans on the OLine (Russ Hochstein, Dominic Raiola, Tonui Fonoti).

 

IMO our defense would be straight up nasty & that alone makes us a top 10 team. A top 10-15 offense led by a game changer like Eric Crouch (say what you want about Crouch but the dude won games by himself) makes us a top 5 team IMO, or at least real close.

 

and if we could have only got those guys on the field all at the same time...

[HuskerNationNick]

Oklahoma

110-24 82%, 6 Conference Championships, 8 BCS Bowl Appearances (3 won), 1 MNC, 2 Heisman winners, 8 Divisional Champs

 

USC

103-24 81%, 7 Conference Championships, 7 Divisional Champs, 7 BCS Appearances (6 of them won), 2 MNCs, 3 Heisman winners.

 

Pretty comparable for these two programs if you ask me. The only part that puts my favor in Oklahoma's court, is the fact we can say they did it without paying players or their families. Clean program over a dirty one any day.

 

 

Oh and to the OP, there is no way I would even consider NU being top 10. Callahan alone ruins this, then to add the debacle we had against Colorado and Miami in back to back games.

The "USC pays players" stuff is blown way out of proportion and is unjustified. USC has more than enough means to attract quality players to the program without having to pay them.

So, just because the weak NCAA couldn't get enough evidence doesn't mean it wasn't true? So out of every student, Bush was the only player that got these special treatments? Not buying it. Some people are smarter than these kids who get caught. If your going going to leave a paper trail, your going to get busted. Period. You have your opinion, I have mine.

 

I do realize special treatments happen at every school, even Nebraska. If its not money, its killer deals on cars, bars (alcohol/cover), apparel, tattoos and other things like that. No school is completely innocent.

[Hujan]

Oklahoma

110-24 82%, 6 Conference Championships, 8 BCS Bowl Appearances (3 won), 1 MNC, 2 Heisman winners, 8 Divisional Champs

 

USC

103-24 81%, 7 Conference Championships, 7 Divisional Champs, 7 BCS Appearances (6 of them won), 2 MNCs, 3 Heisman winners.

 

Pretty comparable for these two programs if you ask me. The only part that puts my favor in Oklahoma's court, is the fact we can say they did it without paying players or their families. Clean program over a dirty one any day.

 

 

Oh and to the OP, there is no way I would even consider NU being top 10. Callahan alone ruins this, then to add the debacle we had against Colorado and Miami in back to back games.

The "USC pays players" stuff is blown way out of proportion and is unjustified. USC has more than enough means to attract quality players to the program without having to pay them.

So, just because the weak NCAA couldn't get enough evidence doesn't mean it wasn't true? So out of every student, Bush was the only player that got these special treatments? Not buying it. Some people are smarter than these kids who get caught. If your going going to leave a paper trail, your going to get busted. Period. You have your opinion, I have mine.

 

I do realize special treatments happen at every school, even Nebraska. If its not money, its killer deals on cars, bars (alcohol/cover), apparel, tattoos and other things like that. No school is completely innocent.

 

Just so long as you admit that you have no basis to support your opinion other than rank speculation which, let's be honest, is based largely on the fact that USC had tremendous success during Pete Carroll's tenure. Not coincidentally, Carroll just won the Super Bowl in his third year in the league.

 

And if you don't think that the NCAA was looking for any possible shred of a theory to nail USC, however tenuous, then you weren't paying attention. The NCAA did everything short of (and possibly including) fabricating evidence just to float the Bush case (which, again, had nothing to do with USC).

[AngryHusker88]

I agree with a lot of what you said Hajan. I think its ridiculous that the NCAA 'stripped' USC of its 2004 national title. It's completely unjust to strip the school & the 2004 USC players of what they earned on the field. Take away a Heisman, oh well (not saying I agree or disagree with Bush having to forfeit the Heisman). But its a much, much bigger deal to take away a National Championship & that shouldn't have been done. It was won on the field, cut and dry.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Which college has the best all-decade team (2000-2009)?

 

 

Not Nebraska. We aren't close.

 

We might be top 15. The sheer amount of talent has been much lower here than at any of the schools listed above.

 

Now the 90s are a different story and I like our chances of moving up this decade. Ameer, Gregory, David, Stanley, Q, Kenny Bell, Burkhead, T-Magic, etc.

[Notre Dame Joe]

I agree with a lot of what you said Hajan. I think its ridiculous that the NCAA 'stripped' USC of its 2004 national title. It's completely unjust to strip the school & the 2004 USC players of what they earned on the field. Take away a Heisman, oh well (not saying I agree or disagree with Bush having to forfeit the Heisman). But its a much, much bigger deal to take away a National Championship & that shouldn't have been done. It was won on the field, cut and dry.

 

Southern Cal never beat Auburn.