JT3bucky All American 23258 Posts user info edit post |
USC winning and going 35-0 or Indy winning and going 19-0
A or B 12/7/2005 12:04:38 AM |
goalielax All American 11252 Posts user info edit post |
A 12/7/2005 12:13:08 AM |
wolfNstein All American 2353 Posts user info edit post |
Quote : | "Indy winning and going 19-0" |
12/7/2005 12:13:35 AM |
bumpintahoe All American 2077 Posts user info edit post |
B, in the NFL it is so much more difficult to build a team dominant enough and balanced enough in all aspects to go 19-0, what with free agency, salary caps, quality of competition week in and week out, etc.
USC keeps winning, keeps getting the best players because they are winning, then keeps winning some more because they always have the best players.
Thats how I see it... 12/7/2005 12:17:35 AM |
ballinlb All American 1412 Posts user info edit post |
B because USC plays maybe 1 or 2 tough teams each year 12/7/2005 1:40:43 AM |
strudle66 All American 1573 Posts user info edit post |
B because college teams have gone undefeated for longer (oklahoma 47-0) and no one has gone 19-0 in the NFL 12/7/2005 1:53:58 AM |
SipnOnSyzurp All American 8923 Posts user info edit post |
jesus
INDY INDY INDY 12/7/2005 2:04:32 AM |
rufus All American 3583 Posts user info edit post |
^^ the dolphins went undeafeted in 72 (yes, 17 games i know, but the same thing basically) and if i remember correctly the patriots had a 19 game winning streak through two seasons (maybe more) 12/7/2005 2:48:44 AM |
UberComedian All American 642 Posts user info edit post |
As much as I hate pro ball, I'm going with B, with A in a strong second, which I hope they get this year. 12/7/2005 3:28:00 AM |
ncWOLFsu Gottfather FTL 12586 Posts user info edit post |
^^it was 22 including playoff games, but that is definitely not the same as going 19-0 in a single season. you're talking about an absolutely perfect season. 19-0 over a two year span is not as impressive as 16-0 regular season, 3-0 playoffs with a super bowl win.
i don't think 19-0 will happen for the colts, but it would be more impressive if it did. 12/7/2005 5:32:51 AM |
strudle66 All American 1573 Posts user info edit post |
^ that's what i was goin at 12/7/2005 7:20:12 AM |
stoncuttr All American 2149 Posts user info edit post |
B, no contest because the Pac-10 is so weak. If you USC played in the SEC or Big Ten the would lose atleast one each year. 12/7/2005 8:36:33 AM |
goalielax All American 11252 Posts user info edit post |
^hey look ma, I know nothing about football! 12/7/2005 9:53:43 AM |
UJustWait84 All American 25821 Posts user info edit post |
B of course, the phrase any given sunday didn't come out of nowhere
and people really need to shut the fuck up about the Pac-10 being a weak conference, i guess people will shut up when USC waxes Texas 12/7/2005 11:11:26 AM |
goalielax All American 11252 Posts user info edit post |
lord knows the SEC and Big 12 were powerhouses...the B12 North champ lost their last three games by retarded margins, the SEC had two 1 win teams...oh yeah, huge difference in power there 12/7/2005 11:26:37 AM |
phishnlou All American 13446 Posts user info edit post |
Quote : | "^hey look ma, I know nothing about football!" |
gg
i would say (B) because it just doesn't seem possible. (A) is pretty freaking impressive too, and quite a bit more likely12/7/2005 2:00:19 PM |