ESPN's Top 150 CFB Players of All Time (1 Viewer)

225Saint

Veteran Starter
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
387
Reaction score
631
Age
34
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Offline

I know this gets said a lot but this is legitimately the worst list I've ever seen.

First of all, our beloved Deuce McAllister isn't even on it. You know, that guy who set every school rushing record imaginable for Ole Miss and was an unstoppable monster his entire time there.

Reggie Bush at #61?!!?? Reggie is UNQUESTIONABLY a top 5 college football player of all time. Honestly, you could make the argument that he is #1! How the media continues to try to discredit Reggie is absolutely pathetic.

Tim Tebow at #76 is also ridiculous. Guy is top 10, bottom line.

All these obscure names and no Irby Curry from Vanderbilt. If you never heard of him, check out his Wiki. There's not a sports biopic I would like to see more than his.

And Joe Burrow of course now deserves to be on it. Very, very high, too.

But yeah... the list is all around terrible. Just take a gander at it and have a nice facepalm.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
4,338
Reaction score
6,454
Offline
The whole idea is stupid anyway.

1) its hard enough comparing QBs from different eras much less trying to say this QB from 1958 is better than this LB from 1996. What is the basis for the comparisons? There is no possible objective measure

2) are they looking at total career stats or average stats per year? If total career stats, then those who started for 4 years get an unfair advantage over those that started for less years

The whole thing is bullshirt
 

black_floyd

Veteran Starter
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
2,104
Offline
The whole idea is stupid anyway.

1) its hard enough comparing QBs from different eras much less trying to say this QB from 1958 is better than this LB from 1996. What is the basis for the comparisons? There is no possible objective measure

2) are they looking at total career stats or average stats per year? If total career stats, then those who started for 4 years get an unfair advantage over those that started for less years

The whole thing is bullshirt
It's likely all biased opinions or, if they are even using empirical data in any manner, they're probably constantly moving the goalposts until the data reflects results that adhere to the biases they came into it with.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
4,338
Reaction score
6,454
Offline
It's likely all biased opinions or, if they are even using empirical data in any manner, they're probably constantly moving the goalposts until the data reflects results that adhere to the biases they came into it with.
You likely have the right of it
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom