Anyone else think it's absurd that there are no selectees from the first half century? None.
Instead of an honest attempt at a comprehensive PAC-12 team, we have a USuC recruiting flyer.
How much do we pay these doofus in the PAC-12 office? In my opinion if they are un-payed volunteers they make too much.

CaliforniaGoldenBear;842607790 said:

---

Anyone else think it's absurd that there are no selectees from the first half century? None.
Instead of an honest attempt at a comprehensive PAC-12 team, we have a USuC recruiting flyer.
How much do we pay these doofus in the PAC-12 office? In my opinion if they are un-payed volunteers they make too much.

---

Pat Haden was the only guy voting .

Very SC and Stanfoo heavy. These kinds of things always skew towards more recent and more high profile stars- people wont watch if you talk too much about the distant past and name names they've never heard of. It'd be interesting to see an early years team, though, especially from the days before platooning, when players had to play both offense and defense. Whole different world of skill sets- and very under appreciated today.

It was a terrible selection process. Chuck Muncie couldn't squeeze in to supplant Charles White? The only Cal guy I saw was Tony G. Tarik Glenn was every bit the OT that Ron Yary was. You don't keep Pat Barnes or Peyton Manning upright for 14 years without doing something right. I turned it off when I realized everything was going to be Trojan. Who'd they pick for QB?

6bear6;842607833 said:

---

It was a terrible selection process. Chuck Muncie couldn't squeeze in to supplant Charles White? The only Cal guy I saw was Tony G. Tarik Glenn was every bit the OT that Ron Yary was. You don't keep Pat Barnes or Peyton Manning upright for 14 years without doing something right. I turned it off when I realized everything was going to be Trojan. Who'd they pick for QB?

---

Hosre Teeth, Plunket, Leinart, and Cave Man (Luck). Absurd indeed.

Didn't watch because I knew it would be horse sh*t and horse teeth.

So did they mention OJ?

Otherwise I blame society for its ahistoric world view. America can't remember 10 years ago.

No Rodgers? Unbelievable.

Glad this guy made it:

[video=youtube;J2-vm-L_dk4][/video]

6bear6;842607868 said:

---

No Rodgers? Unbelievable.

---

It was a PAC 12 show.

6bear6;842607868 said:

---

No Rodgers? Unbelievable.

---

He may end up being the greatest Pro QB to come from the Pac (and that's saying a lot considering some of the greats), but his college achievements are mostly only notable to Cal fans. He had one amazing season in which we didn't even win the conference title or go to a BCS bowl game.

I love Rodgers as much as the next guy (or not, considering how many of you are Butte hurt), but I can understand him being left off the list.

kaplanfx;842607904 said:

---

He may end up being the greatest Pro QB to come from the Pac (and that's saying a lot considering some of the greats), but his college achievements are mostly only notable to Cal fans. He had one amazing season in which we didn't even win the conference title or go to a BCS bowl game.

I love Rodgers as much as the next guy (or not, considering how many of you are Butte hurt), but I can understand him being left off the list.

---

OK, but John Elway?

BancroftSteps;842607911 said:

---

OK, but John Elway?

---

I'm no Elway fan, but he had a pretty distinguished career. From wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Elway's 24 touchdown passes in 1982 led the nation, and he graduated with nearly every Stanford and Pacific-10 career record for passing and total offense. He won Pac-10 Player of the Year honors in 1980 and 1982, was a consensus All-American, and finished second in Heisman Trophy balloting as a senior.[16] In 2000, Elway was enshrined in the College Football Hall of Fame. In 2007, Elway was ranked #15 on ESPN's Top 25 Players In College Football History list.

---

I haven't seen the show, but wouldn't the "all-century" players be from pre-2000 only?

As soon as I saw who the finalists were, I knew this was a joke.

This isn't an all-Century team. It is an all-TV era team, and it far too much emphasizes the guys who had success in the pros over how the guys did in college.

Good grief, John Elway as offensive player of the century? Even best QB of the Century is really stupid. Not based on the college career. A guy who NEVER led his team to a winning conference record? Really?

And that isn't an anti-Stanford rant. In 2004, the Chonicle ranked the top 10 Stanford QB's of all time, and Elway was ONLY THIRD on the list. They had Plunkett as #1 and Frankie Albert as #2, and both deserved to be picked ahead of Elway. I thought Brodie might deserve #3 over Elway instead of #4 based on his college career, but I was OK with Elway at #3. How do you rank a guy that the Chronicle rated in 2004 as Stanford's 3rd best QB of all time as not just the QB of the century but the offensive player of the century? Wrong. Just wrong. If Plunkett was the #1 QB of the century in the conference, I'd be OK with that, even if he is a Stanford guy, but the guy who is at best the #3 Stanford QB of all time? Ouch.

And Matt Leinart? Matt Leinart? How is he a finalist? Leinart wasn't in the top 2 QB's in the conference the year he won the Heisman, he just had good pieces around him. This conference has had a hell of a lot of great QB's, over the course of 100 years, Matt Leinart probably doesn't make the top 50, much less the top 10. Matt Leinart is a finalist and Frankie Albert and John Brodie aren't?

And as much as I want to see a Cal guy in there, I don't think Tony G deserves the #1 TE of the 100 years of the conference. Among those whose careers are over, the best pass-catching TE in NFL history? Yeah, probably, Best college tight end in the 100 years of the conference? I have a little trouble with that.

In any event, a terrible selection process, and a joke of an all-century team.

Son-of-California;842607917 said:

---

I haven't seen the show, but wouldn't the "all-century" players be from pre-2000 only?

---

The conference is celebrating its 100th anniversary, the "century" refers to the 100 years of the conference, not the 20th or 21st century.

Cal8285;842607923 said:

---

As soon as I saw who the finalists were, I knew this was a joke.

This isn't an all-Century team. It is an all-TV era team, and it far too much emphasizes the guys who had success in the pros over how the guys did in college.

Good grief, John Elway as offensive player of the century? Even best QB of the Century is really stupid. Not based on the college career. A guy who NEVER led his team to a winning conference record? Really?

And that isn't an anti-Stanford rant. In 2004, the Chonicle ranked the top 10 Stanford QB's of all time, and Elway was ONLY THIRD on the list. They had Plunkett as #1 and Frankie Albert as #2, and both deserved to be picked ahead of Elway. I thought Brodie might deserve #3 over Elway instead of #4 based on his college career, but I was OK with Elway at #3. How do you rank a guy that the Chronicle rated in 2004 as Stanford's 3rd best QB of all time as not just the QB of the century but the offensive player of the century? Wrong. Just wrong. If Plunkett was the #1 QB of the century in the conference, I'd be OK with that, even if he is a Stanford guy, but the guy who is at best the #3 Stanford QB of all time? Ouch.

And Matt Leinart? Matt Leinart? How is he a finalist? Leinart wasn't in the top 2 QB's in the conference the year he won the Heisman, he just had good pieces around him. This conference has had a hell of a lot of great QB's, over the course of 100 years, Matt Leinart probably doesn't make the top 50, much less the top 10. Matt Leinart is a finalist and Frankie Albert and John Brodie aren't?

And as much as I want to see a Cal guy in there, I don't think Tony G deserves the #1 TE of the 100 years of the conference. Among those whose careers are over, the best pass-catching TE in NFL history? Yeah, probably, Best college tight end in the 100 years of the conference? I have a little trouble with that.

In any event, a terrible selection process, and a joke of an all-century team.

---

It's tough to weight the various criteria. For example, you downgrade Mr. Ed because he didn't win at Stanford, then you downgrade Leinart because... he did win? (No need to defend your position. I get it. Just saying...)

Tony G gets it on the basis of how he did as a pro. That's always part of it, even though it probably shouldn't be. Look at all the Heisman winners that flopped in the NFL: There's... ah, can't remember their names anymore (that's the point), but they were great in college. Cal players we remember fondly, partly because of their pro careers: Aaron Rodgers and Kevin Johnson. Tarik Glenn, mentioned above: How great was he at Cal? (Had a very good senior year, IIRC).

6bear6;842607868 said:

---

No Rodgers? Unbelievable.

---

As a Cal man, let me step out of my comfort zone and exclaim:
No Ernie Nevers? Unbelievable.

okaydo;842607901 said:

---

Glad this guy made it:

[video=youtube;J2-vm-L_dk4][/video]

---

FWIW, the guy is the best running back I've actually seen play (I start in 1962.)