The Lions' Pride

Watching it too.

Looking back on it...no question we did. Look at what SMU was doing.

Yes.
The Sugar Bowl was #2 PSU vs. #1 Georgia.
To get to the game, PSU beat #2 UNL, #5 Pitt (yup, a shocker, Pitt used to be good), #13 ND, #13 WVU. A pretty tough schedule. So PSU ends up beating the #1, #2, #5, #13, and #13 teams in the country. Lost early in the year to #4 Bama.

SMU beat two ranked teams (Pitt and #19 Texas), tied a third ranked team (Ark), and played two D1AA teams (UTEP and North Texas).

Lastly, in some sort of prescient, karmic righteousness, the pollsters realized that SMU was lead by a team of cheaters, including the f**kwad Craig James. Cheaters don't deserve to win. Ever.

PSU deserved the title.

True, I agree with you that SMU didn't deserve the title. Technically they were all ineligible anyway, so the entire season should have been negated.

However, it wasn't, at the time they were seen as eligible, and they were undefeated when their schedule wasn't really that bad. They dominated aTm when they were a very respected program, they dominated Texas in Austin, and they tied an extremely good Arkansas team. Not to mention beating the same Pitt team as PSU.

Undefeated is seen as a pretty big deal, and at the end of the day SMU had no losses, Penn State did.

I'm not saying that PSU wouldn't have beaten SMU, honestly we'll never know. However, once again, the MNC is given to the best team, not to the most deserving.

If we went by most deserving, Miami would have zero championships, OSU would be significantly less important to the world of CFB, and Duke/EWashington/James Madison/whoever, would have at least one next to their name.

And Penn State got dominated by Alabama in Tuscaloosa by three touchdowns. SMU never got dominated.

Their record wasn't great, but the general perception of aTm at the time was pretty positive.

Once again, they weren't deserving, and they might not have been the best team in the nation, but they were extremely talented and had a legitimate argument as to why they were the best.

Honestly, if their worst performance was a 17-17 tie against the third ranked team at their place, I'd say that trumped the thumping PSU took that year. Again, JMO.

Also, I don't mean to be that guy, but there always has been and always will be a bias toward the established powers of college football. SMU was not one of those schools.

That's one season.

Compare that team to Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, Temple, & NC State.

Personally, I'd take the reputation of aTm over any of those schools. JMO.

So my basic belief is that if you finish undefeated, you should claim a title. When it comes to poll, I don't see you can justify any 1 loss team being ranked ahead of a team that finished undefeated - even if they did finish tied.

Personally, I wish we could take the 94 title, and let SMU have the one in 82...after all they spent a lot of money for it!

TLion - I'm a homer for Syracuse, because they were my first love - I grew up an Orangemen fan...and I gotta disagree. All time, I think Syracuse is top 20. Don't think that would apply to A&M. Especially look at the history of the players there.

Gotta say that's a pretty weak argument.
You're trying to say that smu played a quality schedule, and beat quality teams. And supporting that argument by sayinf they beat a "well repected" T A.M. Team that went 5-6 against weak opponents, and had 2 of their 5 wins against d1aa teams. And then saying that T AM had better seasons in different years. This seems pretty silly to me.

Let's face facts. In 1982, psu played a tougher schedule than smu. As discussed above, there can be little debate on this fact. Psu lost to a "well repected" Bama team ranked #4, and won all of their other games, including those against the #1,2,and5 teams.

But hey, its just a matter of opinion. If you think those cheating slimebags deserved a #1 ranking, despite playing a far inferior schedule (think Boise State quality) that's your opinion.

I can't remember the site, but a few years ago somebody did the strength of schedule for all National champions in college football back to somewhere in the 50s or 60s. Anyway, they determined that the hardest schedule for a National champion over the past 60 years was Penn State's in 1982.

Now I don't know included Alabama a couple years ago, but the fact that over a 50 year span Penn State's strength of schedule was harder than ANY National champion in the last 60 years tells me that their schedule was probably as little harder than a team that played TWO D1AA teams and beat only 2 ranked teams.

Of the "bad" teams you listed on Penn State's schedule, Maryland was lead by Boomer Esiason and they were a real good team that year. They were better than 5-6 and had more than 3 wins over D1A teams.

SMU had talent, but so did Penn State. I would take Penn State any day of the week over SMU in 82. Penn State did lose, but they weren't destroyed. Sure the score was 42-21, but if you watch the game (and I have since I have it on DVD) you will see a much closer game until 1 fluke play. That one play flipped the entire game. Some time the ball bounces your way, that one bounce right off the up blocker on a punt.

Anyway, just my 2 cents on the 82 MNC.

Fair enough.

Honestly I think its more of a regional perspective than anything. Having been born and raised a Texan, I've always held aTm in semi-high regard, while I regard Syracuse as a non-factor. We never see them down there, we never play them down there, so they're the same to us as UConn or Washington State to me. Not knocking the program, but in my 19 years I haven't seen anything to hold them in higher regard than I do now.

I understand your sentiment though, home-town teams are always held in higher regard than outsiders.

So being undefeated and beating a top 5 team in Pitt in the bowl game isn't a legitimate argument to be number one?

I understand PSU had a great team and a ridiculously hard schedule, believe me I do.

All I'm saying is SMU had/has a legit argument as to why they should've won it.

Nothing anybody says can change the fact that SMU had a damn good football team, and IMO I think that a PSU-SMU game would've been a great game.

Re: "I think its a pretty weak argument to pick one game in a schedule and really beat down the fact that they were in a slump as a program. JMO though."

Am I getting stupid, or did you not bring up the quality of Texas A &M as defense of smu strength of schedule?

Lets see.

Team A goes 11-1, and beats the #1,2,5,13,12 teams in the country. Loses to #4 in an early season game. As stated above, plays the toughest schedule of any #1 team in 60 years.

Team B goes 11-0-1, beats the #5, 19 team in the country, and gets 2 wins over D1AA schools. Ties the #9 team (because their coach doesnt' have the courage to go for the win).

These are facts, not opinions.

Which team is better?

Not close. 94/5 team was the best in the nation. '82 SMU was a bunch of scum-bags that played a weak local schedule.