1990's real National Champion

GT65_UGA89

GT65_UGA89

THWG 2024
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
12,419
Mike Knobler: From the ajc tech blog:
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/tech/entries/2007/10/10/1990s_real_nati.html

The coaches got it right that year when they voted Tech No. 1. :greenclap:

From the Colorado Buffaloes athletic site: 3/4 of the page down, column titled, "Now We Cheated?"
https://admin.xosn.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=4457&SPID=274&DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=1256210

By the way, once again, we were consensus national champions and played the nation’s toughest schedule. The other “champion” came nowhere close to beating who we had to in earning its share of the crown. :angryfire:

Dave's email --I'm sure he'd love to hear from you --as he already has from me:
david.plati@colorado.edu
 
What a circus they had out there back then. There coach was/is a fanatical kook. His daughter banged the entire team and had 2-3 kids by different fathers. Then theres that whole "Sal" thing. Hell, i can't remember all the details. Freaking wierdo's
 
JOJATEC#1 said:
What a circus they had out there back then. There coach was/is a fanatical kook. His daughter banged the entire team and had 2-3 kids by different fathers. Then theres that whole "Sal" thing. Hell, i can't remember all the details. Freaking wierdo's
Click to expand...
lol :bowdown::bowdown:
 
Some bulldog claimed to be the son of a Citrus Bowl rep, who told him, Tech could've opted out of the Citrus.

Go to ajc archives, "Georgia Tech" Citrus Bowl

Dates: Nov. 01,1990 to Nov.30,1990.

The AJC had plenty of stories about Tech's inability to go anywhere but the Citrus
 
Last edited:
This Plati guy can't even put up a decent argument or converse in a little friendly debate.

Check out my recent exchanges with Plati:

David:

Sorry guy but you're off--

If any team should put an asterisk on its claim to the 1990 title, it should be Colorado. Colorado went 11-1-1. Georgia Tech went 11-0-1. That "nation's toughest schedule" comment contains some 'revisionist history' my friend --Colorado's schedule included six games against teams that finished with losing records, so I don't think your Buffaloes played the "nation's toughest schedule" in 1990. Georgia Tech played only three games against teams that finished with losing records. Georgia Tech and Colorado had one common opponent: Georgia Tech 45, Nebraska 21. Colorado 27, Nebraska 12.

And Georgia Tech had to play all season with only four downs for every first down it gained. Officials gave Colorado a fifth down against Missouri, or the Buffaloes would have been 10-2-1.

Yes, Colorado deserved credit for playing nine-win Tennessee, 10-win Texas, 10-win Washington and nine-win Notre Dame. But Georgia Tech beat 10-win Clemson and won a November game at then-No. 1 Virginia. Most important of all, Georgia Tech never lost. Other than for all practical purposes losing to Missouri, Colorado lost to an 8-4 Illinois team that got blitzed 30-0 by Clemson in the Hall of Fame Bowl --a Clemson team that Georgia Tech defeated 21-19.

The coaches got it right that year when they voted Georgia Tech No. 1 and Colorado No. 2. Believe me --your Buffaloes would not have had a chance against a Georgia Tech team that had no weaknesses. '90 Wreck trumps the '90 Buffs by two TD's easily.

Mark
 
Plati's response:

Thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry I can't personally respond to all e-mails, but almost all agreed with me that Colorado by far played the tougher schedule and would have easily gone 13-0 had it played the cakewalk Georgia Tech had that season. Thank you for reading Plati-'Tudes!

Dave
 
My response:

...but almost all agreed with me that Colorado by far played the tougher schedule and would have easily gone 13-0 had it played the cakewalk Georgia Tech had that season...

It's one thing to state that "almost all agreed with me", but it's another thing to present facts:

*Combined winning % of GT's opponents- .548, Colorado's opponents- .587.
*GT faced nine teams over .500, Colorado faced seven.
*Teams GT faced went 2-2-1 in bowl games, teams Colorado faced 2-4.
*Like opponents, 1- Nebraska --GT 45-21, Colorado 27-12.
*W-L- GT 11-0-1, Colorado 11-1-1.

The facts reveal that Colorado in no way "by far played the tougher schedule". The comment "and would have easily gone 13-0 had it played the cakewalk Georgia Tech had that season", is just a foolish statement.

Fact is the UPI got it right --thankfully-- and GT was awarded their rightful claim the 1990 National Championship.

Mark
 
Plati's response:

Give it a rest, I'm right and the four of you whining to me have me laughing... CU goes 13-0 playing that weak Georgia Tech ACC cupcake schedule in 1990... Ga Tech never steps out of the box to travel anywhere either. Leave your time zone once in a while and maybe I'll listen.

Buzzzzzzzzzzz................

He sent a second response for some reason:

Oh yeah--most of the cupcakes on Tech's schedule that yeat played cupcakes to even get winning records. THAT IS FACT. Typical of many ACC/SEC schools--too chicken to leave the South and play real non-conference schedules.

Comes across like a real dill-hole doesn't he?

 
My response this evening:

Give it a rest? YOU brought it up when you wrote about it. Someone like me calls you out by presenting a few facts and you revert to what most do when the facts get in the way of their opinion --belittle those presenting the facts, --i.e. "I'm right and the four of you whining have me laughing".

Nice analogy, I'm enlightened by the intellect there and the facts you have presented. "CU goes 13-0 blah, blah, blah" --uh, no they wouldn't --and no they didn't --and no, they never have.

GT 11-0-1
1990 National Champions

Buzz that...
 
I engaged with him as well. (must have been one of the "four.") But I went a little more basic using his own words from his blog against him rather than stats. (BTW, I am proclaiming GT National Champion of 1984 because we "would have gone undefeated" if we had played BYU's schedule. I am as certain of it as Buffalo Butt is about Colorado in 1990. Here's my thread in reverse order. (I didn't feel the need to bring up the other two games when fortune smiled on CU (the phantom touchdown against Stanford and the phantom clip against ND.))

...

Apologies.

I did make some unfounded assumptions on the mathematical skills of your coaching staff at the time.

Since you would have "easily gone undefeated with Ga Tech's schedule" I now grasp that you did in fact deserve the championship. In fact, I am surprised they even bothered to play the games since you know what "would have happened."
Unfortunately, the majority of the coaches disagreed with your clairvoyance that year in evaluating the best team. You know the coaches. They are the ones who know something about football and watch more games than the writers according to someone I recently read on that interweb thing:

"You here (sic) things like the coaches don’t watch as many games as the writers. Let’s put that in it proper perspective: the writers don’t watch as many games as the coaches. That is fact. And that doesn’t even include the game video that coaches pour through weekly, viewing not only their next opponent, but all the teams they have played that season. By the end of any given season, a head coach has seen probably between 25 and 30 schools in-depth on video. To my knowledge, very few if any writers watch much video, and Hawk uses what he sees to a great extent in determining his poll."

So, to review, the coaches *know* more about football, *watch* more football to establish their opinions of which team is better. And yet, for this one special shining moment *they were wrong*. And *you* KNOW they were wrong, because you know that Colorado would have "easily gone undefeated" with GT's schedule. And we all need to "just grasp that." Does that sum it up?

Someone is definitely grasping here. That is certain.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Plati [mailto:David.Plati@colorado.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:33 PM
Subject: RE: Counting
Yeah, you're sure and you weren't there. Right. Get real, guy. Colorado was the better team in '90, NO QUESTION about it. We played the better schedule hands down--we'd have easily gone undefeated with Ga Tech''s schedule and you all need to grasp that.
________________________________
To: David Plati
Subject: Counting


Let me spell it out: W-e a-r-e n-o-t g-o-i-n-g t-o s-p-i-k-e t-h-e b-a-l-l o-n f-o-u-r-t-h d-o-w-n h-a-d w-e k-n-o-w-n, w-e w-o-u-l-d h-a-v-e r-u-n a p-l-a-y.


Let me spell it out: A-r-e y-o-u r-e-a-l-l-y t-r-y-i-n-g t-o t-e-l-l m-e y-o-u-r c-o-a-c-h-e-s d-o n-o-t k-n-o-w h-o-w t-o c-o-u-n-t t-o f-o-u-r?

Yeah, it's not their job to inform the officials of a mistake. Mizzou was stupid not to protest immediately. But I am pretty sure Colorado coaches knew they were getting away with something.
 
Last edited:
Hey --nice to meet another member of 'the four'. Nothing like using Prati's own words against him --good job lonestar-j.

I take it he hasn't responded to that last e-mail?
 
He responded. It was lame, just one line.

"I accept your apology, appreciate you know that I am right."

My guess is that the "everyone" who apparently agrees with him are all Colorado alumni. It certainly wasn't the coaches. :-)

Colorado did play a strong OOC schedule that year, but it was negated by a weak conference the same year. According to Sagarin's ratings, the ACC had the strongest conference in 1990. (I know that fact flies against the sensibilities of many who "just know" that their conference is always stronger.)

It also doesn't matter how strong your schedule might be when you effectively lose three games.
 
Someone should send him a link to the Cornell-Dartmouth game in 1940. Cornell seemingly won 7-3, but it was later revealed on tape that they received an erroneous 5th down. The players voted to forfeit the game to Dartmouth. Now that's sportsmanship. What did Colorado do in 1990 with it's 5th down???
 
More Plati:

dude, give it a rest. You won't change my mind, I'm right, end of story. See ya later, tough e-mail guy. It took you FOUR days to come up with that response? Ha! That's even funnier than your weak argument. I apparently have affected your life, you haven't made a dent in mine. Find me an expert that agrees with you, besides som AJC blogger who wouldn't know research if it bit him in he butt.


All that said, I always wish the Yellow Jackets good luck. Most of their fans, too. I have had some nice, cordial exchanges on this top with some classy people. You're not among them. Good day sir.
 
Tonight:

You won't change my mind, I'm right, end of story.

Actually I am right --of the two persons here exchanging e-mails I am certainly the only one who has presented facts; Stats and facts from Mark -- “I’m right, end of story” from Dave.


It took you FOUR days to come up with that response?

Wha? The day I opened your e-mail is the day I responded. I do not wake up in the morning and check my inbox to see if I have an e-mail from Dave that demands my immediate attention. You seem to take my responses that way --but I have other things to do.

I apparently have affected your life, you haven't made a dent in mine.

No. I think that may be the other way around --heh-heh. You are nothing more than comic relief.


Find me an expert that agrees with you, besides som AJC blogger who wouldn't know research if it bit him in he butt.

There are plenty of experts who agree with me --in fact, several of them held UPI ballots during the 1990 college football season --and I think every single one of them coached NCAA Division I college football that same year.


I have had some nice, cordial exchanges on this top with some classy people. You're not among them. Good day sir.

Yawn.
 
GT65_UGA89 said:
dude, give it a rest. You won't change my mind, I'm right, end of story. See ya later, tough e-mail guy. It took you FOUR days to come up with that response? Ha! That's even funnier than your weak argument. I apparently have affected your life, you haven't made a dent in mine. Find me an expert that agrees with you, besides som AJC blogger who wouldn't know research if it bit him in he butt.


All that said, I always wish the Yellow Jackets good luck. Most of their fans, too. I have had some nice, cordial exchanges on this top with some classy people. You're not among them. Good day sir.
Click to expand...

He is right. It is tough to find "an expert" that agrees with you other than the AJC blogger, unless you count the coaches who voted for GT that year. Do they count as "experts"?


No matter how tough your schedule might be (VERY debatable given the weak Big Eight that year), when you lose THREE GAMES it doesn't matter. The rub is you actually have to win that tough schedule for it to count. And while horrible officiating might not change the official record, it can certainly change the "expert" opinion of a coach voting in a poll. So, in my mind and in the mind of many voters, CU's record was 9-3-1 in 1990.

Anyway, at this point he is just jerking your chain and playing the "you know I'm right" weak argument people often use when they have nowhere to go yet cannot concede.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top