CanadianGuitarist Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Posted November 28, 2008 I'll run it. Submit your picks, baby. 64-team tournament. Any team, any sport - name two or three picks, tell us why.
Guest Czecherbear Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Do we need to run a tournament for this? I'm wary of overdoing the mechanism here with this, the '60s songs, POTY coming up in January, so on, so forth. I don't want the draft backlash.
Brett Favre Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 I'll go with teams I've seen. 1998 New York Yankees: It seemed like everyone in the lineup hit 20 HRs. They were first in OBP, first in ERA, and they went 125-50 overall including the playoffs 1996 Chicago Bulls: 72-10.
CanadianGuitarist Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Posted November 28, 2008 Do we need to run a tournament for this? I'm wary of overdoing the mechanism here with this, the '60s songs, POTY coming up in January, so on, so forth. I don't want the draft backlash. It's called for. PotY should be in March anyway.
Psycho Penguin Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Interesting. A worst team ever tournament would be fun too. NCAA Football: 1995 Nebraska - Completely steamrolled almost everyone. Best college football offense I've seen. 2001 Miami - This team set records and only got tested twice all year, and one was a 11 point win. They beat #14 FSU 49-27, and on back to back weeks beat #14 Syracuse 59-0 and #12 Washington 65-7. That 124-7 margin of victory over 2 straight top 15 BCS teams remains a record that might last forever. They are the most talented college team I've seen.
CanadianGuitarist Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Posted November 28, 2008 I'll just pick hockey teams, since I'm sure there's plenty of good teams that will be mentioned in sports I'm not an expert on. * 78 Habs * 85 Oilers * 02 Team Canada
Guest Czecherbear Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Well, it's January now. Better way to wrap up the year. If I'm allowed to do any editorial steering here, I'd rather just go with ongoing spirited discussion than a fortnight of mostly empty vote-posts. We're just rabblerousing here at the TSM Neighborhood Tavern.
Psycho Penguin Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Then relative to their respective competition, the NBA team in question established supremacy at a higher level of basketball than did the college football team in question, inasmuch as the Bulls were the best in a league of professionals who are the very best in the world at what they do. The Hurricanes were the best developmental-tier football team among hundreds of teams with players spanning from prospective professionals to student athletes who happen to be good at football. I don't know. You tell me. That was just facetious chest-thumping about the Bulls, though. Duh. 72-10 Bulls are the best NBA team of all time, and 2001 Miami is the best college football team ever, so again, voters mindsets and all that.
CanadianGuitarist Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Posted November 28, 2008 If voting dwindles early or we don't get enough teams or interest, shut 'er down. I think this'll work; What else has caused such uproar in a CWDWAT in any folder before?
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Interesting. A worst team ever tournament would be fun too. NCAA Football: 1995 Nebraska - Completely steamrolled almost everyone. Best college football offense I've seen. 2001 Miami - This team set records and only got tested twice all year, and one was a 11 point win. They beat #14 FSU 49-27, and on back to back weeks beat #14 Syracuse 59-0 and #12 Washington 65-7. That 144-7 margin of victory over 2 straight top 15 BCS teams remains a record that might last forever. They are the most talented college team I've seen. What about the Wuerffel-led Gators of the late 90s? They bested PEYTON MANNING.
Guest Czecherbear Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 C.G.: It could work, it's just that I think there's more compelling discussion to be had from back-and-forths than voting. Sometimes it's hard to get interplay in tournament threads, and the discussion in the other thread is good stuff. I'd rather see more of that good stuff than sifting through ballots, sometimes sans justifications, for days and days. It's just something to consider. Since we're not going to get a decisive answer to something as silly as cross-sports arguments, it's better to just have infinite debate. Which format engenders more and better debate?
Guest Czecherbear Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Okay, you said that already, so I'll say it again: in professional vs. developmentals, we're talking about such disparate plateaux of competition that to succeed in one is obviously more significant than to succeed in the other. Would you ever in your wildest dreams put the best seasons of the Toledo Mud Hens or London Knights in the same conversation with the Montreal Canadiens or the Chicago Bulls? Of course you wouldn't; that'd be absolutely nanners. The best of the best aren't in a conversation with teams that prepare kids to play pro hockey, so why should anyone afford such praise to a team that prepares kids to play pro football?
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 Yeah, the 2001 Hurricanes wouldn't beat the 2007 Dolphins. How is that being the best team, period?
the max Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 This best team ever tournament will no doubt give birth to a "Best Team Ever Draft".
HarleyQuinn Posted November 28, 2008 Report Posted November 28, 2008 To represent the NHL... 1976 Montreal Canadiens: 60-8-12 record and won SC: Coached by Scotty Bowman with Guy Lafleur topping out at 136 points. Steve Shutt scored 60 goals. Goalie Ken Dryden had 10 shut outs. 1977 Montreal Canadiens: 59-10-11 record and won SC: Guy had 132 points and again coached by Bowman. Shutt had 49 goals and Dryden was even better with a 2.05 GAA with 5 SO. 1983 Edmonton Oilers: 57-18-5 record and won SC: Stacked with Paul Coffey, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, and Glenn Anderson. Had 4 players over 100 points *Gretzky topped 200* with Anderson at 99. Grant Fuhr and Andy Moog tag teamed at goalie.
Guest Smues Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 I'm not interested in another tourny, nor arguing about better teams, especially if we're going accross sports. So I'm just gonna say the 95-96 bulls rock, and leave this thread.
Hogan Made Wrestling Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 I'll just pick hockey teams, since I'm sure there's plenty of good teams that will be mentioned in sports I'm not an expert on. * 78 Habs * 85 Oilers * 02 Team Canada A team that got blown out once in a 6 game tournament and was average at best until the final two games has no business in a "greatest team ever" conversation.
Guest Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 Teams I wasn't alive to see Showtime Lakers, 86-87 or 87-88 versions. The second of those was the first team to repeat as NBA Champions in 20 years. The first of those saw Magic win both the NBA MVP and the NBA Finals MVP. Aforementioned 83-84 Oilers. So many Hall of Famers on those Oiler teams. Teams I saw 2001 Miami Hurricanes. Glad to see those guys mentioned, all the reasons previously given are why. 2001-2002 Detroit Red Wings. I'm going to count the Hall of Fame players (and coach) on this team, including those who haven't entered yet, but certainly will. Brenden Shanahan Sergei Fedorov Steve Yzerman Brett Hull Nicklas Lidstrom Luc Robitaille Chris Chelios Igor Larionov Scotty Bowman Dominik Hasek I don't think we'll see a collection of talent like that ever again in professional sports. That's 10, btw. I liked that team quite a bit too. Gotta root for Lucky Luc. I'm trying to put this in terms of domination within their game, so don't bitch at me over the Miami inclusion.
The Niggardly King Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 The '96 Bulls could beat a college team at football if they wanted to, I betcha. Only if Ditka is QB.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 After seeing the 2001 Hurricanes mentioned, I checked to see how well the 2004 USC team fared. While I'd probably rate Miami #1, that 2004 USC team was almost as dominant, and beat a #2 team a lot more convincingly to win the title than Miami did beating a #4 team. USC only scored 16 less points than that Miami team. Although I'd say the Miami defense obviously performed a lot better (allowing only 117 points to USC's 165ish)
Psycho Penguin Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 After seeing the 2001 Hurricanes mentioned, I checked to see how well the 2004 USC team fared. While I'd probably rate Miami #1, that 2004 USC team was almost as dominant, and beat a #2 team a lot more convincingly to win the title than Miami did beating a #4 team. USC only scored 16 less points than that Miami team. Although I'd say the Miami defense obviously performed a lot better (allowing only 117 points to USC's 165ish) Both teams were fantastic. I gave the edge to Miami because of that dominating back to back performance and the fact they had a crazy amount of talent (they probably set a record for draft picks off that team), but I should have mentioned 2004 USC. I will do more research on NCAA teams, I just picked two I thought of off the top of my head. I know FSU and UF had some badass teams in the 90s too.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 Yeah I rated Miami #1 as I said, but I fail to see the connection between how many players went on to be NFL picks and how dominant the team is. Some teams are so dominant and they boast very few superstars, because they mesh so well and was incredibly coached.
CanadianGuitarist Posted November 29, 2008 Author Report Posted November 29, 2008 I'll just pick hockey teams, since I'm sure there's plenty of good teams that will be mentioned in sports I'm not an expert on. * 78 Habs * 85 Oilers * 02 Team Canada A team that got blown out once in a 6 game tournament and was average at best until the final two games has no business in a "greatest team ever" conversation. Baby, we got a stew goin! History forgets games 1 and 2, but remembers possibly the greatest collection of talent in hockey history... In hindsight, a more apropos pick would have been the '04 World Cup team.
CanadianGuitarist Posted November 29, 2008 Author Report Posted November 29, 2008 I'd forgot all about Lucky Luc on the '02 Wings - I remembered Hasek and Hull from that year.
HarleyQuinn Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 Another hockey candidate... 1988 Calgary Flames (54-17-9): Allowed only 226 goals and scored 354. Had stars like Doug Gilmour, Joe Nieuwendyk, and Al MacInnis. Goalie Mike Vernon went 37-6 with a 2.65 GAA.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 I agree with Czech. This sort of thread is MUCH better done as open debate. Besides, I'd be completely useless evaluating hockey teams beyond looking at win/loss records. I can't see selecting national teams as part of this sort of thing. I think a team has to play in a valid professional season to qualify. Two things to consider in a debate beyond simple win/loss and postseason records. One is the quality of the league, the second is long term success. In the case of the former, let's take an obvious example. The 1884 St. Louis Maroons went 94-19 in the Union Association. This is by far the best winning percentage ever posted in a major league. However, it was a weak league, when baseball was an undeveloped sport. The same team essentially joined the National League the next season and finished last. Along the same line, there is a timeline argument to consider. Now, players in the past would measure up to players of today because they would have access to the same training methods. But often earlier leagues were undeveloped and not as competitive. Two-way players existed in the NFL not because they were superior athletes, but because the leagues were easier to dominate. This is not an integration argument. If you look at today's game, professional and amateur leagues are highly structured, with the best players filtered into the highest leagues. In an earlier era, the system was not as defined, and many MLB caliber stars would make just as much money starring for minor league teams. Long term records are important in separating true talent from the one year wonders. The 1984 Tigers went 104-58 and dominated the postseason. But they only won one other division title the entire decade. A team doesn't need to win back-to-back championships necessarily, but they should post records at or near the top of their completion continuously.
cd213 Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 The 1994 Rangers need to get some love. They had a hell of a season that year. Best team in the NHL that year, and they won the Cup to boot. I hate the Yankees, but the 1998 team gets my vote as well. They were just awesome.
Psycho Penguin Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 Yeah I rated Miami #1 as I said, but I fail to see the connection between how many players went on to be NFL picks and how dominant the team is. Some teams are so dominant and they boast very few superstars, because they mesh so well and was incredibly coached. When you're comparing two teams that completely dominated, it comes down to comparing talent in my eyes at that point, and that's why I give Miami the edge. That and the complete raping they gave top 15 teams that year.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 The problem is, before the title game, the highest ranked team they faced was 12th. They faced three separate teams that came in at #14. That said, wouldn't it have been more impressive to dominate with less superstars?
Slayer Posted November 29, 2008 Report Posted November 29, 2008 Not like any Canadian team won the Cup since 1993! Practically all of them are Canadian teams
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now