1979 UE Football or 1985 BHS Football Team?

[Guest Guest]

Dumcoff, we played all the local teams like you did. Vestal and EFA you only beat by 10 each. U.E. played powerfull Ithaca and Vestal teams and shut them out, they did not have to settle for 10 point wins. Ithaca was UNSCORED on until the big game with U.E. Well the Tigers put a 35 spot on the board. Ithaca was shut out and incredibly did not move the ball into U.E. territory the whole game. JC was ranked 19th in the State. U.E. was up 28-0 in the first quarter before coasting to the 55 points with the subs in. U.E. slaughtered a North team that was good enough to beat 10th ranked Chenango Forks. BHS gave up more points in the EFA and Vestal games then U.E. allowed in its entire season.

The fact that your #10 ranked team lost to a 4-4-1 North team only emphasizes the point that the rankings meant NOTHING back then. They still mean nothing, but back then especially they meant ZERO. They were based on nothing but hearsay as most people doing the rankings NEVER EVEN SAW THE TEAMS PLAY!!!! The rankings are bogus!!!!!!! What the hell is so hard to comprehend here???? "State ranked" means "most hyped."

[I.M.]

Just so you know, actual final records in red

Sweet Home 47-0, 5-4, likely 5-4

Norwich 34-0, 4-4, 4-4

Central 78-0, 1-7, 1-8

North 63-14, 3-4-1, 4-4-1

Wagner 34-6, 4-5, likely 4-5

Johnson City 55-6, 6-1-1, 6-2-1

Maine–Endwell 51-0, 2-6, 3-6

Ithaca 35-0, 5-2-1, 6-2-1

Vestal 16-0, 6-1-1, 6-2-1

 

 

 

 

 

are you guys serious,[/size] The best record of the list was 6-2-1, none of these teams won more that six games, 60% of the teams you played were 500. or below, BHS had played and beaten 4 ranked teams. and you are saying it doesn't correllate to a better team, you have got to be kidding me

 

The scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is a verifiable observation, in contrast with theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

 

 

Take the generic scientific statements on this topic based only on data supporting Team B:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact)

Both teams were undefeated (fact)

Therefore Team B is better than Team A (theory)

 

From these statements, one cannot conclude which team is better simply by strength of schedule. Sure Team B went undefeated playing a tougher schedule, that does not mean that Team A could not go undefeated playing a similarly tough or even tougher schedule than Team B. They did not have the chance so we will never know. It does not diminish Team A’s accomplishment.

 

 

A more realistic scientific set of statements based on the actual facts presented in this thread could read more like this:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact) Team B 1 point

Team A scored more points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A allowed fewer points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more All State Players than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more players play college football than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

 

Simply add the points to reach a conclusion.

 

It is not a coincidence that Team A represents U-E and Team B represents Binghamton

 

[Guest Switzerland]

The scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is a verifiable observation, in contrast with theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

 

 

Take the generic scientific statements on this topic based only on data supporting Team B:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact)

Both teams were undefeated (fact)

Therefore Team B is better than Team A (theory)

 

From these statements, one cannot conclude which team is better simply by strength of schedule. Sure Team B went undefeated playing a tougher schedule, that does not mean that Team A could not go undefeated playing a similarly tough or even tougher schedule than Team B. They did not have the chance so we will never know. It does not diminish Team A’s accomplishment.

 

 

A more realistic scientific set of statements based on the actual facts presented in this thread could read more like this:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact) Team B 1 point

Team A scored more points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A allowed fewer points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more All State Players than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more players play college football than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

 

Simply add the points to reach a conclusion.

 

It is not a coincidence that Team A represents U-E and Team B represents Binghamton

 

Perhaps the most ridiculous post in BCVoice history. People on both sides of the debate are now reaching and it's now quite humerous. I want a list of all the players on both teams. Their heights, weights, strength, speed, etc... Even that's not going to prove anything.

 

The only way to settle this debate is to go back in time and have both teams play each other. We all know that's not going to happen. Who was better: Babe Ruth or Willie Mays? Ali or Tyson? Jim Brown or Barry Sanders? '79 UE or '85 BHS? We'll never know. All we can do is debate about it. Nice to see some names and history from the past, but that's all it is. In the past.

 

I think you folks are going to have to agree to disagree. Neither side can get the other to change their minds.

[Guest Judd Blanchard]

The scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is a verifiable observation, in contrast with theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

 

 

Take the generic scientific statements on this topic based only on data supporting Team B:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact)

Both teams were undefeated (fact)

Therefore Team B is better than Team A (theory)

 

From these statements, one cannot conclude which team is better simply by strength of schedule. Sure Team B went undefeated playing a tougher schedule, that does not mean that Team A could not go undefeated playing a similarly tough or even tougher schedule than Team B. They did not have the chance so we will never know. It does not diminish Team A’s accomplishment.

 

 

A more realistic scientific set of statements based on the actual facts presented in this thread could read more like this:

Team A played a weaker schedule than Team B (fact) Team B 1 point

Team A scored more points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A allowed fewer points per game than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more All State Players than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

Team A had more players play college football than Team B (fact) Team A 1 point

 

Simply add the points to reach a conclusion.

 

It is not a coincidence that Team A represents U-E and Team B represents Binghamton

 

 

 

This a a very well thought out and well reasoned position.

[Guest Guest]

This a a very well thought out and well reasoned position.

 

Now hes pattin himself on the back!!

[Guest Guest]

The older teams can't even compare to the newer teams. The game has changed so much that it's almost impossible to compare different years.

[Guest OMG 79]

This a a very well thought out and well reasoned position.

 

 

HAHAHHAAHAHAAH!!!!!, ARE YOU SERIOUS...PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE, ALL THAT TYPING AND OR WHAT. TO LOOK EVEN MORE FOOLISH

THAN BEFORE, I MEAN WOW,LOL!!!!

 

I FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT

 

TO BE A STATE CHAMP IN THE EYES OF UE FANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE FOLLOWING FORMULA

 

BE 6'4 ALL, AND WEAR OVER SIZED SHOULDER PADS, USE NFL HIGHLIGHT MUSIC ON YOU TUBE, PLAY NO-BODIES, ANS HAVE A GREAT SALESMAN COACH

 

YOUR RIGHT WE ARE TEAM-B, B FOR BEST

[Guest The hype of 79]

This a a very well thought out and well reasoned position.

 

 

Since you guys keep bringing up college let me ask you this

the BCS bases their ranking system on toughness of schedule

 

 

if they had seen who you played you would ranked 21 out of 25,

[Guest Guest]

U-E - 1989, 1995, 2000, 1979, 2007...in that order...

[Guest Guest]

The older teams can't even compare to the newer teams. The game has changed so much that it's almost impossible to compare different years.

 

 

The older teams drew from larger enrolments back when the baby boom was passing through the high schools. The more bodies you have to pick from the better your overall talent. Vestal is the best example of this in BC. They used to be the largest school in BC and were a NYS football power. Now they don’t have much at all and have fallen to A ball. I go to several AA games a year and there are less players on the teams today than there were on the JV teams in the early seventies.

 

The bottom line is that on most of today’s teams your 9-11th player on O & D aren’t real football players, they are just filling a spot. There was much more depth on the top Ithaca, Vestal and I’ll add the ’79 teams of the past. The ’85 BHS team was a rare gathering of talent.

 

.

[Guest Guest]

The older teams drew from larger enrolments back when the baby boom was passing through the high schools. The more bodies you have to pick from the better your overall talent. Vestal is the best example of this in BC. They used to be the largest school in BC and were a NYS football power. Now they don’t have much at all and have fallen to A ball. I go to several AA games a year and there are less players on the teams today than there were on the JV teams in the early seventies.

 

The bottom line is that on most of today’s teams your 9-11th player on O & D aren’t real football players, they are just filling a spot. There was much more depth on the top Ithaca, Vestal and I’ll add the ’79 teams of the past. The ’85 BHS team was a rare gathering of talent.

 

.

 

So what. Bigger enrollment back then? Also scrawnier, weaker linemen and slower, less talented skill position players. Don't forget the teams of the '70s were missing the "black athlete" with true speed and athleticism. Again, those teams back then couldn't hang with the strength, speed, and talent of teams of today, whether they had a little more "depth" or not. Don't forget coaching has evolved and is much better today than it was back then. The philosophies of "yesterdays" game no longer apply because they simply DO NOT WORK now that the game has evolved with bigger, stronger, faster atheltes. Fran's offense would get punished by today's more complex defensive schemes.

[Guest Guest]

Binghamton 2008 was better than U-E '79 as well. Binghamton '08 was probably the 2nd or 3rd best team the Broome County area has ever had. Big strong linemen and a great, prolific offense. I'm a U-E fan and alum, but that '08 team from Binghamton was special!!

[Guest Guest]

Binghamton 2008 was better than U-E '79 as well. Binghamton '08 was probably the 2nd or 3rd best team the Broome County area has ever had. Big strong linemen and a great, prolific offense. I'm a U-E fan and alum, but that '08 team from Binghamton was special!!

 

 

You are not from U.E. liar. That 2008 Binghaton beat a crappy U.E. team 21-20 in the finals

[Guest Guest]

So what. Bigger enrollment back then? Also scrawnier, weaker linemen and slower, less talented skill position players. Don't forget the teams of the '70s were missing the "black athlete" with true speed and athleticism. Again, those teams back then couldn't hang with the strength, speed, and talent of teams of today, whether they had a little more "depth" or not. Don't forget coaching has evolved and is much better today than it was back then. The philosophies of "yesterdays" game no longer apply because they simply DO NOT WORK now that the game has evolved with bigger, stronger, faster atheltes. Fran's offense would get punished by today's more complex defensive schemes.

 

 

There were black players in the 70s.

[Guest Guest]

There were black players in the 70s.

 

Not on U-E there weren't.

[Guest Guest]

So what. Bigger enrollment back then? Also scrawnier, weaker linemen and slower, less talented skill position players. Don't forget the teams of the '70s were missing the "black athlete" with true speed and athleticism. Again, those teams back then couldn't hang with the strength, speed, and talent of teams of today, whether they had a little more "depth" or not. Don't forget coaching has evolved and is much better today than it was back then. The philosophies of "yesterdays" game no longer apply because they simply DO NOT WORK now that the game has evolved with bigger, stronger, faster atheltes. Fran's offense would get punished by today's more complex defensive schemes.

 

 

This post is 90% crap. The players in college, the pro’s and in some HS football hot spots are bigger, faster and stronger. That’s from improved training techniques. The human species has not evolved a hair since the 70’s.

 

That does not apply here. With a few exceptions, the talent sucks. It is almost painful to watch some of the teams around here play.

 

.

 

[Guest Guest]

You are not from U.E. liar. That 2008 Binghaton beat a crappy U.E. team 21-20 in the finals

 

After blowing them out the first time. Rivals always play to farely close games. It's called familiarity, tendencies, and film study. It's also called "getting up for the big game." U-E didn't belong on the same field as Binghamton in '08, but gamed planned well and played their guts out. Binghamton '85 is the only other school that could say they had a similar talent and depth at the skill positions. Smith, Feggins, and Jones all in the same backfield? No U-E team has ever had that kind of speed and depth in the backfield, along with a QB who could throw and a 6'4 target at WR. Don't let a close game from a division rival in the Championship fool you. Even the 1989 U-E Tigers had a tough game against a much smaller Corning East team, winning 21-19. Binghamton blew out everybody else they played that year until meeting State Champ Orchard Park in a frozen Paetec Park.

 

Legendary teams don't become legendary until 10-15 years AFTER they're gone. In 10-15 years we'll still be talking about Binghamton '08, and I'm sure they will get better and more dominant as the years pass, just as the '79 U-E and '85 Binghamton teams have.

 

And yes, I was raised a Tiger and still bleed orange and black all these years later. People like you are the reason everyone hates U-E. Because you feel like the only way to show your school pride is to boast that they were the best ever. It's embarassing.

[Guest Guest]

This post is 90% crap. The players in college, the pro’s and in some HS football hot spots are bigger, faster and stronger. That’s from improved training techniques. The human species has not evolved a hair since the 70’s.

 

That does not apply here. With a few exceptions, the talent sucks. It is almost painful to watch some of the teams around here play.

 

.

 

Ever stop to think that maybe sports have ALWAYS been better in the South than they were in the Northeast? The talent here is better than it was back in the '70s. The only difference was that back in the '70s you didn't know about sports in the South. There was no ESPN. There was no HS games on TV. There was no Internet. Only over the past 15 years or so has the Northeast started taking notice of how much better sports are in the South and in the West than they are here. The training and coaching has improved in this area just as it has everywhere else. It's called a learning curve.

[Guest Guest]

The talent has evolved so much more rapidly in the South than it has in the Northeast because of their ability to play and practice year-round, along with different standards for sports. The gap in talent between the North and South is much more extreme than it ever was. Now that we have taken notice of the South and can view it for our own eyes, we notice the big discrepency and it makes the talent in the North look relatively awful compared to the South. If you could have watched football in Texas and Florida back in the '70s you'd be saying the talent in New York sucked then, too, and maybe you'd come back to earth a bit on how "great" the teams of yester-year were. Players are bigger stronger and faster now. Deal with it. Your kids are better than you were. Deal with it.

[Guest Guest]

Ever stop to think that maybe sports have ALWAYS been better in the South than they were in the Northeast? The talent here is better than it was back in the '70s. The only difference was that back in the '70s you didn't know about sports in the South. There was no ESPN. There was no HS games on TV. There was no Internet. Only over the past 15 years or so has the Northeast started taking notice of how much better sports are in the South and in the West than they are here. The training and coaching has improved in this area just as it has everywhere else. It's called a learning curve.

 

 

In college I played with players from the South. In my recruiting class alone we had 3 from FL, 2 from TX and a few singles from other Southeastern states. 2 from OH also, but I guess they must have sucked since OH is above the MD line.

 

I played with southern players, no learning curve required!

 

.

[Guest Guest]

Ohio football always has been and always will be light years better than New York football. It simply means more to them than it does in NY.

[Guest Judd Blanchard]

Not on U-E there weren't.

 

 

 

Fred Felton, Andy Felton, Jim Howard, Charlie May, Carl Norris, Chris Jackson, Thad Johnson were all black players on U.E. in the 70s.

[Guest Guest]

We all know that CC '74 or '88 is the best ever, you heathens.

 

[Guest Guest]

Fred Felton, Andy Felton, Jim Howard, Charlie May, Carl Norris, Chris Jackson, Thad Johnson were all black players on U.E. in the 70s.

 

Wowwwww 6 players in a 10-year span?? LMFAO!!!! Lots of black talent on U-E in the '70s I guess, huh?

[Guest Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcm8PcHCdcc

 

There was exactly ONE black player on the '79 team. You're right, they were loaded with black talent back then. Idiot.

 

And how disrespectful is this video anyways? "Once upon a time there was a football team...blah blah blah blah blah," as if the school failed to exist after they played nobody 30 years ago. What a joke. Look at these clowns. This team sucks and would get trampeled by today's teams.