September 6, 2006
What are the premiere programs in the country?
Two conversations this weekend sparked a little controversy amongst some fellow fans this weekend as we tried to determine what are the top college football programs in the country?
Forget the polls and the white noise that accompanies your "one hit wonders" making a nice little run. I'm talking about the PREMIERE teams - with the core ingredients of recent success, legend, and football lore. I don't care about academics, or where your grandma's uncle's nephew went... we're talking about THE big time football schools of our era.
Let's come up with the top 20 programs nationwide. I want to know -- if your son was going to play for any school (REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN LOYALTIES) -- what offer letters you would be proud to see in his mailbox?
In no particular order, here's my premiere 20 programs in the country:
| Ohio State | Michigan | Penn State | Wisconsin | Notre Dame |
| USC | Texas | Oklahoma | Nebraska | Texas A&M |
| Auburn | Alabama | Florida | Tennessee | Georgia |
| LSU | Florida State | Miami | Virginia Tech | West Virgina |
How close am I? I think you would have a hard time arguing any of my Premiere 20. You could argue that this list should be longer and "x" school should be on it, but -- c'mon -- these are the premiere schools of our era, right?
With the PREMIERE teams established, who's on the bubble? What teams have the pedigree but are just lacking a few good years from breaking into (or maybe back into...) the upper crust? Here's my stab at the next 5 - brining our list to twenty-five teams so far.
Clemson
Georgia Tech
TCU
Colorado
UCLA
Here's where the argument gets juicy, because there are several teams that could easily be "on the cusp". I'm thinking Iowa, Navy, Michigan State, Kansas State, Pitt, Arkansas, Oregon, Arizona State, and a few others are really close to being on this "cusp" list. And --with all due respect-- you can keep your Boise State's, South Carolina's and Louisville's to yourself.
I'll probably catch some flack for TCU, but you cannot ignore TCU's past history, legendary players, and their success over the past eight years. Navy, Pitt and Arkansas match them closely enough for history points, but lack the recent success. Michigan State, Iowa, Oregon, and ASU are very comparable in terms of recent success, but lack some of the legend & lore that TCU brings with it's National Championships & notable alums.
So that's my list of the top programs in the country. Have I missed on the PREMIERE teams? Who else is on the cusp? Tell me where I'm wrong.
Comments:
Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 6, 2006 1:59 PM — 216.46.212.20 — link — abuse?
Michigan? hmmm They scare me! Coach carr looks great one week and get's praise from Michigan fans,but the next week you have to wonder if he was sober! They can hang with any team in the country,but you always have to wonder....will carr strike again! he is an OK coach who will have many more Rosebowls,but I wonder if Michigan will ever make another NC under Carr? hmmm oh well I like the Rosebowl!
Michigan vs. USC jan 01 rematch! Bring it on!Chuck said:
posted on September 6, 2006 2:08 PM — 65.28.0.241 — link — abuse?
Virginia Tech? West Virginia?
Virginia Tech: 0-34 vs. Top 10 opponents. 7-12 in bowls. They've only won 5 conference championships and they've played in the Big East and ACC. 0 National Championships.
West Virginia: 2-12 in their last 14 bowl games. They've only been able to muster 3 Big East chapmionships. C'mon, it's the Big East. 0 National Championships.
Who would I replace them with? Illinois...4 National Championships, 15 conference championships. Georgia Tech...3 National Championships, 15 Conference Championships, 22-12 in bowl games, been to a bowl 9 years in a row.
posted on September 6, 2006 2:33 PM — 64.3.228.130 — link — abuse?John Ludwig said:
I just can't see UCLA as the first Pac-10 team after USC to make the list. They perpetually underperform, have been a revolving door of coaches, don't even have a stadium on campus, ...
Cal, Oregon certainly belong ahead of them. Heck I'd even consider an Arizona school or a Washington school ahead of them.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 6, 2006 3:48 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
What do you mean when you stat "big time football schools of our era"? Some of the schools that you listed as top 20 or the additional 5 haven't had good programs since the 60s and 70s. That can't be considered the average readers era. You should put a better time frame on your listing.
Evan said:
posted on September 6, 2006 3:55 PM — 71.56.42.66 — link — abuse?
I just don't think there are 20 programs. Clearly, Virginia Tech (aka, The Running Michael Vicks) and West Viginia (Amous Zeroe??) don't belong in the same class of the OSUs, USCs and Notre Dames. Additionally, Georgia is a Herchel Walker away from being South Carolina.
DK said:
posted on September 6, 2006 4:29 PM — 198.82.17.117 — link — abuse?
Chuck, you can't be serious. First your numbers about VT are startlingly wrong which makes me think it was intentional. I'm not going to go look up the record against the top 10 but just off the top of my head, two years ago VT beat a #6 WVU team and a #9 Miami team. In the years before that there are plenty of other examples, not that you care about accuracy. You also use GT as an example of a premiere team citing in part their 9 straight bowls. Well VT has now been to 13 straight, the third longest such streak in the nation. Illinois? Is that a joke? The post is about the CURRENT premiere programs. National titles won more than 30 years ago wouldn't seem to have any bearing on that. If that is your criteria, where is Army?
posted on September 6, 2006 4:47 PM — link — abuse?
I'll take 'em in order:
Michigan State - They're on the cusp of something. They may/may not ever get there.
Michigan - Regardless of what you think of their current coach, Michigan is --without question or reservation-- a premiere football school.
Va Tech - Given their history and performance in the last 10-15 years, how can you not include the Hokies? True, the VPI is 7-12 in bowls, but 5 losses were pre-1984 and their 7-7 bowl record is pretty salty when you look at who they played, where, and when. A three point loss to Auburn & Cal aren't knocks on VaTech. A National Championship game loss to an FSU that was the first ever wire-to-wire champs? I gotta disagree that the Hokies aren't a top team.
WVU - If there was one squeaker in the bunch, WVU was it. WVU has four BE titles, two of which were during the salad days of the Big East, with the 'Canes & Hokies. WVU has a winning record against the Big XII, Big East, and SEC. Throw VaTech & UM back into the Big East and the Mountaineers have a winning record against 4 of the 6 BCS conferences. Not too shabby. Are there others that can hold that line - yeah, probably so.
UCLA - In the Pac10, UCLA has its' conference stablemates (with the exception of USC) bested easily in history, legend & lore. The Bruins could be on the cusp of getting back into the national spotlight BIG TIME if they can swing together a few good years. Can ASU say that? Maybe not.
In retrospect, Chuck makes a good point and has the facts to back it up. Maybe we should move GT up for WVU. Anybody??
Regan said:
posted on September 6, 2006 4:53 PM — 192.24.243.21 — link — abuse?
We seem to be defining the premiere programs differently. My definitions are:
1) Teams with historically strong (or at least decent) programs, if not always on the National stage, at least regionally strong.
2) Teams that have performed particularly well during the past 10 years or so, and
3) Teams that seem to have bright futures.My 20 would be:
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, LSU, Miami (FL), Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn State, S. California, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
I’d put Nebraska, UCLA, and Louisville on the bubble.
Clemson and Georgia Tech have strong histories and legendary stadiums; the two teams are regular nightmares for powerhouse teams and are strong year-in-and-out. Their only issue has been consistency, and the two programs appear to be solid for years to come with incoming talent.
Oregon has had a tremendous program under Bellotti, should have gotten a chance to lose to Miami in 2001 NC game, and have been solid for several years now despite a brief drop-off after Harrington left. Anyone with the Ducks on their schedule have the date circled, trust me (and I’m an East Coast guy, FYI).
Nebraska will be back on the list soon enough, there is too much tradition and hysteria in that state for it to all of a sudden find a new hobby – and who would have thought that the spread offense might actually be working in Lincoln? I don’t think they are there just yet; OU and Texas are too strong to really let Nebraska’s stars shine too brightly just yet.
Texas A&M has the history and reputation for playing a tough game, but have not appeared to be able to handle their schedule well enough in the past 6-7 years or so. They should not have gotten rid of Slocum.
Wisconsin owes Alvarez more than anyone can know, but outside of a Rose Bowl win far too long ago and a good win percentage, the Badgers really haven’t done that much to impress me lately. Then again, I admit I don't really know much about them, so I won't take offense if anyone disagrees.
All of these IMHO, of course. :)
posted on September 6, 2006 4:56 PM — 70.5.219.241 — link — abuse?
Canning VT and WVU? Somebody's cherrypicking stats (and incorrect ones at that... I seem to recall Miami being #3 when VT knocked them off in '03). When you're counting conference championships, remember that neither of those schools had a conference to play in from 1954 until 1991.
That's really irrelevant, though, because the key requirement in this discussion is current success -- without it, you don't even qualify. What has Illinois done in the past fifteen years? Not bloody much. Conversely, all the conference championships you point out for VT and WVU took place within the past fifteen seasons, and if you want to quote bowl streaks, VT's current run is at thirteen (6-7 by my memory). You've got a slightly better argument for Georgia Tech, but I'd put them on the cusp... with a better coach they'd be in the discussion, though.
I can't believe I just defended West Virginia.
Tom Blogical said:
posted on September 6, 2006 5:19 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?
I have no qualms with your list, other than I think Nebraska may be slipping onto the bubble list. We'll see how their season goes this year. I agree with Regan's points.
This is a great topic, however, (and I say this with as much politeness as possible, and don't want to hijack the thread) I am very surprised that this site hasn't mentioned anything about this news and the affect on this week's 1 vs. 2 matchup:
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/5938096
I've been checking here every day for more details, as this is the place to go for College Football news.
Chuck said:
posted on September 6, 2006 5:34 PM — 65.28.0.241 — link — abuse?
DK, sorry I didn't clarify. That stat, 0-34, is based on end-of-season rankings not the rankings of the week they played them. In 2004, West Virginia didn't even finish in the Top 25 and Miami finished #11. I did miss a couple, though, because I didn't realize the site I got that off of was a couple of years old. In 2003, they Beat Miami who finished fifth, but in 2004 lost to USC and lost to Auburn. So, the correct record would be 1-36. I think we can agree that that is less than impressive.
And, if this list is completely about current teams, why is Nebraska on there? Their last conference championship was in '99. Illinois won the Big 10 in 2001. Why is Alabama on there? Last year was their first good year in quite a while. Smae thing goes for Penn State. And, if you're going to go by recent history, Texas A&M should definitely not be on there.
brownsrodeo88 said:
posted on September 6, 2006 7:33 PM — 205.188.116.133 — link — abuse?
Canes alum,
I beleive Alabama and Auburn both finished top 10 last year. Is that recent enough?
If my son were being recruited at a major D-1 level, I'd want him to play for a team like Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, something like that. A team that has an inescapable aura of tradition and pride that cannot be touched by most teams.
Anyone who says teams like Penn State, Bama, Nebraska, shouldn't be there needs to look into what those campus and locker rooms are like, what the alums expect and how the programs are run.
Those teams have only been down for a short while and they will inevitably be back becuase the alumni will not stand for mediocrity, or even good play. They demand greatness in every aspect: athletics, academics, class, and pride.
Nick Righter said:
posted on September 6, 2006 7:41 PM — 71.48.72.91 — link — abuse?
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Notre Dame
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas
6. Nebraska
7. USC
8. Florida State
9. Florida
10. Miami, FL
11. Tennessee
12. Auburn
13. LSU
14. Georgia
15. Iowa
16. Texas Christian
17. Wisconsin
18. Colorado
19. Alabama
20. WisconsinWB said:
posted on September 6, 2006 7:53 PM — 71.14.120.150 — link — abuse?
Clemson? CLEMSON? You must be kidding me. Clemson won a national championship 25 years ago, and basically has been a decent/not good team since. How could they possibly be in "the next 5"? I am a South Carolina fan, but I will readily admit that SC isn't even in the conversation for any of this. I'm being objective about Clemson. CLEMSON? Puuuuleeeeease.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on September 6, 2006 9:14 PM — 206.135.38.195 — link — abuse?
A program is good for more than two years you know? Therefore, since West Virginia has only recently inquired, they might be dropped from the list. For that matter: why not include Louisville? Oregon has matched USC in the Pac-10 for the last ten years or so and has had a number of very highly regarded teams. Where are they? I'd say that Texas A&M is probably on the bubble also. What have they done in quite awhile? And, Colorado on the bubble? Come on! Fresno State would massacre that team. But, I'm just nitpicking the bottom feeders. Truly, Oregon has probably got to be included and Texas A&M ought to get the boot. Or, maybe Texas Tech gets included. They have been on the rise for some time.
Tommie T
lsutiger08 said:
posted on September 6, 2006 11:55 PM — 68.222.48.221 — link — abuse?
TCU??!!
What is all that about? I thought we were talking about the best programs of OUR era. All I know about TCU football is that they beat LSU 3-2 in a Sugar Bowl back in the 1930s. Oh yeah...give 'em credit for their 1938 National Championship. WHAT?! I think my grandmother was in diapers back then. They were great in those days, but those teams can't be compared to some of the teams of the last 20 years...or even the last half century!!
True, the frogs have had SOME success in recent years, but what is considered success? A middle-of-the-road bowl game is great for a C-USA team, but it just doesn't compare to the other great progams from power conferences. I wanta see BCS, baby!!!!!!!!
You can't honestly say that TCU's recent "success" even comes close to matching, say, the Washington teams of the early '90s (a major omission, by the way).The Mayor said:
posted on September 7, 2006 5:03 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Oregon would have to win another 100 games over the next ten years to make the list. Anyone who was there from 1969 to 1990 knows what a dismal program it was. Thanks to all of you Nike consumers, we have the facilities now to attract players, coaches and put some butts in the seats. Still with that history behind us, we can't be consider a Top Tier program historically. Also our Bowl Record is sub par. Too much time at Disneyland, Zoo and Sea World I guess.
I did see Phil Knight at the UO game this weekend. All that Nike money and he still dresses like a bad stand up comic (ratty sports coat, jeans and white tennis shoes? In 92 degrees? Even Jerry Seinfeld has moved on to grown up clothes).
Chris Jackson said:
posted on September 7, 2006 6:30 AM — 199.31.3.197 — link — abuse?
I am sick and tired of people talking junk about WVU. If you want to live in the past and talk about bowl history, you have some growing up to do. WVU has a bad bowl history, this is true. But they also had a different coach, with a different philosophy on how the big games should be won, different ways of motivating his players to get up for the game. Rich Rodriguez is no joke. He leads the Mountaineers with his play-calling, and leads them even better in the off-season by bringing in players that WANT to play for the blue and gold. Enough about that. I would LOVE to see WVU play the "powerhouses" of college football. The problem is, those "powerhouses" would be most unwilling to schedule the Mountaineers as a non-conference game. With the Big East seen as an inferior conference, those traditional powers would lose all credibility in the BCS race should they suffer a loss. Example: Northern Illinois ran absolutely "Buck-wild" on the Buckeyes, what makes you think the Buckeye defense can stop one of the premier running attacks in football? Don't sleep on WVU, that's what Georgia did in the Sugar Bowl. Turns out they were dead wrong.
posted on September 7, 2006 10:36 AM — link — abuse?
I'm with The Mayor, Oregon stunk it up for a good long time. If losing 4 games a year or so makes one a premiere team, then we're going to need a much longer list.
Please don't bring up Texas Tech. SO.NOT.WORTHY.
Neville said:
posted on September 7, 2006 10:38 AM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
I went through this exercize a couple years back just before OU and USC played in the Orange bowl (they came out tied for #1 at the time). The criteria I had was to weight 50% for short term success (BCS era) and 50% for long term success. Inside the long term I counted total number of national titles claimed (80%) (ignoring stuff prior to 1930s - AP poll era), heisman trophies (5%) and conference championships (15%). For the short term I counted BCS bowl success / appearances.
At the time I ran it the list looked like this:
1 Oklahoma
1 Southern Cal.
3 Miami, Fla.
4 Ohio State
5 Florida State
6 Nebraska
7 LSU
8 Tennessee
9 Notre Dame
10 Alabama
11 Texas
12 Michigan
13 Minnesota
14 Florida
15 Pittsburgh
16 Army
17 Penn State
18 Auburn
19 Washington
20 Colorado
21 Maryland
22 Syracuse
23 Texas A&M
24 UCLA
25 Brigham Young
26 Clemson
27 Georgia
28 Georgia Tech
29 Michigan State
30 TCU
31 Virginia Tech
32 Wisconsin
33 Oregon
34 Oregon State
35 Utah
36 Illinois
37 Iowa
38 Kansas State
39 Purdue
40 Stanford
41 Washington State
The full list and spreadsheet is here .I never did enter in heisman data or conference championships, or update it for the last two years, so if someone has a lot of time on their hands today and wants to do that great! Also, you can sound off on my formula if you want. The formula is in the spreadsheet.
Neville said:
posted on September 7, 2006 10:42 AM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
Opps wrong link for the spreadsheet. The full spreadsheet / formula is here.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 7, 2006 11:29 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
AUfan036002 you may have went 13-0 but do you have anything to show for it? The only thing that matters is national championships and unless I am mistaken you don't have any do you? With the loser mentality of the SEC fans that a conference championship is good enough, you may think that number 2 in the nation is good, but the only place that gets remembered is #1.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 7, 2006 11:35 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Neville tht is a well thought out post. I'm glad to see someone actually take the time to calculate a formula instead of being biased towards conferences. I believe that Miami at number three is a deserving locating due to their success in the past 25 years, but nothing earlier than that.
1fan4WVU said:
posted on September 7, 2006 11:47 AM — 24.140.92.2 — link — abuse?
Preach on Chris Jackson, Preach on!!!!!
Bowl history is not great for my mountaineers, this much is true. It is also true the HOF Coach Don Nehlen is no longer running things in Morgantown. Coach Rod has built excitement up throughout the state for WV and it's a great time to be a Mountaineer fan. The entire country now knows about WVU and the super sophomores, watching media coverage it looks like we are finally getting to the point where some folks have a positive view on WVU football.
WVU is one of the premiere programs in the country. Period.
Jim said:
posted on September 7, 2006 12:44 PM — 65.103.109.75 — link — abuse?
I don't know Kevin, Texas Tech caught my eye after they tore Cal a new one. I'm gonna have to go with Tommy on this one, they haven't had a losing season in 11 or 12 years. They still don't do well in bowls but I would consider them on the cusp of the cusp. (they tear up my Aggies year after year, it's getting real old).
Still kinda torn on TCU, I think they would have a hard time playing in a BCS conference, sure they beat Baylor this year, but hey it's Baylor.
Gerald said:
posted on September 7, 2006 12:51 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tampa Hurricane:
Well, they may not have been handed the national title by the media, but Auburn did one thing that year: they beat ACC champs Virginia Tech. Who, lest we forget, beat Miami that year. In Miami. Speaking of national title games, boy Gino Torreta sure showed that he deserved the Heisman over Marshall Faulk and Garrison Hearst in that infamous national title game against Alabama, right? And no one in the media gave Alabama a chance in that game, remember? Just like no one gave Texas a chance last year, and no one gave Nebraska a chance in that 1995 62 - 24 wipeout. I bet the same people who voted Auburn over USC were the ones who had Cal ranked #9 going into Tennessee last weekend. Well, if such objective experts and historically accurate prognosticators say that it is so, then I guess it is, and we should not complain or dissent. SEC fans are just fine accepting that Auburn was the Sugar Bowl champs ... and victors against ACC champs Virginia Tech. Who beat Miami IN Miami. But do not worry Tampa Hurricane. Butch Davis will be back at Miami rebuilding that program into a national contender in about six months. Just hope that he is able to hold onto your defensive coordinator, who has pretty much been the only person keeping your program running during Coker's benign neglect.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 7, 2006 1:01 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
What is this, are all the SEC losers going to start in trying to make it seem like not winning the national championship is a good thing? Gerald I could care less about who Auburn defeated that year, they also played an easy out of conference schedule that cost them any chance to play for the national championship. When you usually play terrible teams for your out of conference schedule like SEC teams are prone to do, you can make all the excuses you want to about being overlooked. It all comes down to the fact that if they had played one tough out of conference game, they would have been in the championship game instead of a game that didn't matter. The SEC has a losers mentality, with second place being good enough for its fans.
Brettski said:
posted on September 7, 2006 1:16 PM — 63.198.5.174 — link — abuse?
Man, that spread sheet is a joke! Michigan has like 10 national titles, not two. And they have won the Big Ten BY FAR more than any other team. How can they be twelve on your list when they have also made
4 BCS appearances and won a national title not even 10 years ago?Gerald said:
posted on September 7, 2006 2:05 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Neville:
Any formula that ranks BYU over UGA is flawed. It obviously fails to include, for instance, the number and/or percentage of victories of other ranked teams. Of course, such a formula would be extremely unwieldly, because you would have to know each opponent for each of the 117 I - A teams. You would also have to run the numbers twice: once to generate a raw 1 - 117 list, and then again including the data for quality of opponents. Argh! Even if it were possible, it would be a real waste of time gathering and entering the data and programming the models.
Greg said:
posted on September 7, 2006 3:22 PM — 152.163.100.196 — link — abuse?
Dante's inferno
While I admire the progress the Florida schools have made in the past twenty five or so years, one must remember the Notre Dames, USC'S, Nebraska's, Ohio st.'s, Alabama's never really go away. Their programs have been well established from the days of leather helmets until today.
Neville said:
posted on September 7, 2006 3:49 PM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
Gerald, actually BYU and Georgia are tied with a .3 total rating, based on each having 1 national title. If this was updated it would leap Georgia ahead since last year they had a BCS bowl appearance.
I would love for someone else to enter the data, as that is the hard part.
Here is the formula I came up with, and this is where I would be interested in feedback (the formula, not the teams)
50% of the rating goes to long term success, defined as success from 1936 (the 1st year of the AP poll) on. The 1936 requirment pulls out Harvard and Yale, which would dominate this list if you included national titles back to the 1800s. It also hurts USC since they claim national titles back then that I do not give them credit for.Of the long term number what I am interested in is championships. I gave an 80% weight to number of national titles, 15% to number of conference titles and 5% to heismans. The way I do that is look at the leader in one category and they get all points possible, the other get a percentage. For example, Notre Dame has the most national championships (8). They get a full 1 point (which then get the 80% weight which then get the 50% weight). So, the overall effect of NDs 8 national titles is 1*.8*.5 = .4 Michigan has 2 national titles. In my world I gave them .5 for their title score, so the total factor for them is .5*.8*.5 = .2 Notice I gave this on a sliding scale. I figure it is much more important for a programs greatness going from 0 national titles to 1, as opposed to from 4 national titles to 5.
As I look at this now, I am thinking my initial weights were too tilted to national titles. If I were redoing this today I'd give, say, 60% to national titles, 25% to conference championships, and 15% to heisman trophies.
For the short term, my intent was to do BCS era on, only. That becomes harsh if you are a Nebraska fan since they won a couple titles in the mid 90s but have no crystal ball. Those titles get the same treatment as Minnesota's titles back in the 50s. I figure this is good because 1- everyone wants a crystal ball, and 2 the 17 year old kids finishing high school today have about the same level of memory for things like the 4 horsemen of Notre Dame and Nebraska running all over Florida in that championship game. It is all ancient history if you are in high school / early college today.so for the 50% short term (defined as BCS - 1998 on) I gave 10 points for a national title, 5 points for a BCS runner up, 3 points for winning a BCS (non championship) bowl and 2 points for losing a BCS non championship bowl.
My intent was also to count the number of bowl games played in since 1998 and give a number of points for that - 10 points if you played in a bowl every year since 1998 down to 0 points if you played 0 bowls in the past 8 years. Add those numbers up and give each team a percentage of the team with the maximum points. I kind of muddling through the explanation, but I really don't have the time to invest right now in a good explanation. Anybody who has read the formula for the colley matrix and understands that, well my formula is baby food compared to that.
I guess I can count this as the computer poll to go along with the human votes on this subject. And, yes the colley matrix is by far the coolest computer poll out there.
Again, if someone wants to enter the data and post here, have at it!
posted on September 7, 2006 4:34 PM — 67.135.221.54 — link — abuse?
#10 Regan, are you kidding me. Your three stated criteria would make Nebraska #1. Lets review them:
1) Teams with historically strong (or at least decent) programs, if not always on the National stage, at least regionally strong. >> No question Nebraska one of the tops for this criteria.
2) Teams that have performed particularly well during the past 10 years or so >> Well, does anyone have more than three NCs (should have been another NC in 1993 as well) since 19943) Teams that seem to have bright futures. >> No question the future is bright based on end of last year...still remains to be seen, however, but your criteria is speculative as well.
Gerald said:
posted on September 7, 2006 5:04 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Neville:
You did a lot of hard work there buddy! I suppose that I want to give, say, USC more credit for their wins over, say, Notre Dame, than I want to give BYU credit for their wins over Utah State and Idaho. But that brings up another question: do we want to say that Vanderbilt is a better program than Marshall just because Vanderbilt is in the SEC? Not picking on Vandy or glorifying Marshall; just naming what has traditionally been a bad major school and a very good mid - major one. This is especially a good point considering that I - A and I - AA did not split until 1978. Before 1978, you had schools that are now considered I - AA outposts playing in major bowl games and winning national titles (Georgia Tech was in the Southern Conference, which now has I - AA powerhouses like Appalachian State, Furman, and Georgia Southern and once had Marshall when they won their national titles in the Bobby Dodd era). So yes, I think I like your model pretty good, even if it does make BYU equal with UGA.
Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 7, 2006 5:29 PM — 216.46.210.75 — link — abuse?
Hey Greg!
Michigan all time W/L record-849-280!
first football game-1879!
National Champions-11 times!
Big Ten Championships-42!
Rose Bowls-19!
W/L record against non conf. SEC,Pac Ten,ACC,Big Twelve,Big East- 103-41!
Consecutive Bowl games-31!
last season with a losing record-1967!
W/L record against the SEC,America's best conf. 22-5! Yeah Baby!
Last Ohio State Big Ten Championships-2001-2002!
Last Michigan Big Ten Championships-2000-2003-2004!
State Penn was the 2005 Big Ten Champions losing only to Michigan!
Michigan-Notre dame Rivalry-Mich Leads 18-14!
Michigan-Ohio State Rivalry-Mich leads 57-39..so Ohio State only has to win for the next 18 years to tie it up!
Oh well...maybe your just another Ohio State fan who hates Michigan becouse they have beat you so many times! =) UofM GOBLUE! 1-0
Robstan said:
posted on September 7, 2006 5:30 PM — 66.0.85.89 — link — abuse?
Tampa Hurricane,
You are so biased it is clouded your judgement. What makes you think that the SEC is used to finishing second. In the past 15 years, the SEC has won 4 National Championships:
'92 - Alabama
'96 - Florida
'98 - Tennessee
'03 - LSUThe most by any other conference is the Big 12 with 4 as well (2 by Nebraska, 1 by Oklahoma, and 1 by Texas). You shouldn't make general comments about a conference! After all there are 12 teams in the SEC with a lot of differences.
You're just upset about getting killed by SEC member LSU in the Peach Bowl last year by their backup quarterback.
Oh, and Auburn probably wouldn't have ever played for a National Championship in 2004 because USC and Oklahoma were ranked above them all season long. Auburn started ranked 17. I don't really think it mattered who they played, voters wouldn't have moved them up...
Get over your bias and respect the teams that deserve it! I can't stand Alabama, but I can respect that they have a football program worthy of being included in the elite.
Mooka said:
posted on September 7, 2006 6:49 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
YEAH, Just as I thought. There are others out there who recognize 6 teams out of SEC to be "Premiere Programs." I would also keep 3 more teams outside the cusp in South Carolina, Arkansas, and Ole Miss. Only ingnorant people say SEC is hype.
LARRY IN FL said:
posted on September 7, 2006 7:20 PM — 70.46.7.202 — link — abuse?
As shown in the previous 48 comments we all have a list of who we think should make this list. Whether our team (mine is Florida) is #1 or 20 or 100 we have the best entertainment in the world and gives us a reason to look forward to the tail gate parties and Saturday. No one player, coach or school can make this game. Every school and it's fans consider them self #1 and that what make the game so exciting.
vtstudent said:
posted on September 7, 2006 7:27 PM — 69.174.75.112 — link — abuse?
I think its thats a good selection, but TCU??? no, I also do not think GA Tech or Colorado should be up there either. Iowa should replace at least one of those teams... and also I'm not sure I agree with the selection of Wisconsin, I'm not familiar with their latest stats but I'd consider them a decent team not quite worthy of a top 20. Go Hokies!
Brownsrodeo88 said:
posted on September 7, 2006 7:48 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
Roll Tide,
Notre Dame has more championships than Bama, so go ahead and quit saying got twelve?
What matters is Bama has 12 times as many championships as Auburn. Twice as many as Miami, including one huge national championship win over Miami.
Robstan,
Alabama was a very mediocre/bad team in 2004, with 34 players on the IR on one time or another. In the Auburn game, Bama was missing starting, qb, tailback, halfback and offensive linemen. They were unranked and had a 1st year head coach.
And I'm pretty sure that Alabama's nickname is the Crimson Tide, not the Roll Tides.... or is that some lame thing like calling the Blue Devils the Dookies?
And yet they still played Auburn closer than anyone that year. I beleive it was like 24-18 or something, and Bama lead at the half. I could be wrong.
And if it wasnt for that miracle season, Tommy Tubberville would still be considered a totally average coach, as he should be. Instead, Auburn quit interviewing coaches behind his back and kept him, becuase he can recruit talent thats good enough to keep his team afloat. The only reason they were even close to 13-0 that year was becuase they had a great backfield, not becuase of good coaching or play calling.
As far as SEC fans settling for 2nd place... uh, no. The fact that you would say that with a straight face pretty much nullifies any of your opinions becuase your view of college football is obviously a highly perverted one.
The SEC demands alot out their coaches and players, more than any conference with the only potential exception being the Big 10, who has the same legacy of excellence that the SEC has.
Oh, and btw, Vanderbilt easily has a better program than Marshall... as a Troy (formerly Troy State) fan, I can remember when Marshall went into Movie Gallery Stadium and got beat by second year D-1 team. Then I remember as an Orlando resident when they went into the Citrus Bowl and got owned by a UCF team that hadnt won a game in 17 straight attempts.
At least Vandy has some tradition.
rolltideroll said:
posted on September 7, 2006 8:55 PM — 4.153.92.230 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame has 11 national championships. Alabama has twelve. Auburn has 1.. that was shared. Auburn has been good the past four years. We have been adjusting to a new coach, going through injuries, etc. Auburn can say "fear the thumb" and go ahead and win 5 in a row.. it will be a first time accomplishment. Alabama has had several 4 year streaks and a 10 year streak against auburn in the 70's. So auburn fans can say that is ALL IN THE PAST.. but dont be hypocritical.. those 4 wins are ALL IN THE PAST. Alabama has a better tradition than auburn so au fans stop bickering. Oh and 1993 sugar bowl.. ALABAMA 34 MIAMI 13.. that was one of the best games ive attended. GINO who???
Pig Sooie said:
posted on September 7, 2006 9:45 PM — 66.32.112.211 — link — abuse?
As a Razorback (who have been disappointing in the recent past), living in Miami, I must say that the Miami Hurricanes only have such a great past history, b/c they were in a weak weak conference. How easy was it for the Hurricanes to go undefeated in conference play in the Big East?!! Take a team from the SEC (the best conference in the nation) and try to go undefeated. It is extremely tough. Would Miami have won so many titles if they had a tough game every week. I think not. The ACC will be good to Miami (even though it is no SEC) in that they will now have tougher and less winning seasons for years to come.
BUCKEYE MARK said:
posted on September 7, 2006 9:53 PM — 65.24.61.71 — link — abuse?
How about this formula?
Stadium size says a lot about a program
1-point per 1,000 stadium capacity
1-point per win in last ten years
victories over ranked teams last ten years 25 points for beating #1 24 for #2 and so on
15 points for "NC"
10 points for BCS bowl win
5 points for BCS loss
5 points for Bowl win
2 ponts for bowl loss
Zac said:
posted on September 7, 2006 10:21 PM — 65.31.229.230 — link — abuse?
I must say, Mr. Donahue, you might have aroused more controversy had you discussed, the US in the Middle East, Abortion, or Gun Control, but I'm doubting it. It doesn't matter who you are, Coach, Sports Media, Historian, or Arm-Chair-Quarterback. I challenge you to get two people to agree on any top 20 or 25 teams you name. And your criteria: "...core ingredients of recent success, legend, and football lore..." There are so few teams which meet the criteria. Speaking of which, how did you miss Florida St? And given your criteria, you could argue Army should be among the teams listed. They had quite the competitive bunch throughout the coach Cahill years, till his last year, that is. What about BC during the Flutie years? It's arguable Maryland deserves consideration. And lets not forget; North Carolina had an undefeated team once. Even as a Mountaineer fan, and believe me; I appreciate the plug; I have to say you've mis-listed them. They belong with the up-and-coming. True, they had some good years when Sam Huff was a player, or when Carlin, Bowden, and Nehlan were coaches, but they were hardly consistently on par with the Alabamas, Michigans, Nebraskas, Notre Dames, or Oakalhomas of college football. Coach "Rod" my have them going in the right direction, but they still may be a year away. The point is; if you were looking for some agreement, this article is loose/loose. On the other hand, if you were looking for controversy, you definitely got yourself a winner. On that, I think we can all agree.
lsutiger08 said:
posted on September 7, 2006 10:24 PM — 68.222.48.221 — link — abuse?
Mayor:
I don't know if Herbstreit and Corso are the curse, but it sure looks that way. In the first Ore. St. game they've called since 2004, kicker Serna misses a 36 yard chip shot.Ahh...brings back good memories,eh.
Neville said:
posted on September 8, 2006 12:00 AM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
OK, I went ahead and entered the data. I included national titles, heisman trophies, number of bowl games played, bcs title games, bcs bowls (rose, fiesta, orange, sugar) in the last 8 years, and number of bowl appearances in the last 8 years. I came up with this list:
Rank School Total Points:
1 Southern Cal. 1.75
2 Oklahoma 1.69
3 Ohio State 1.60
4 Miami, Fla. 1.55
5 Florida State 1.47
6 Texas 1.38
7 Nebraska 1.15
8 Notre Dame 1.08
9 LSU 1.05
10 Tennessee 1.05
11 Michigan 1.00
12 Florida 0.91
13 Alabama 0.83
14 Georgia 0.75
15 Minnesota 0.69
16 Auburn 0.63
17 Penn State 0.61
18 Pittsburgh 0.59
19 Georgia Tech 0.57
20 Colorado 0.56
21 UCLA 0.56
22 TCU 0.55
23 Wisconsin 0.54
24 Virginia Tech 0.54
25 Texas A&M 0.51
26 Washington 0.47
27 Syracuse 0.46
28 Army 0.44
29 Clemson 0.43
30 Brigham Young 0.41
The full list is still here
Some interesting things I noticed:
-Alabama and Tennessee have *zero* heisman winners. You would expect more, since those are generally regarded as elite.-Pittsburgh outranks Va Tech by 6 spots. If you inspect it, Pittsburgh has 2 national titles, 1 heisman, has been to 24 overall bowls and has played in 1 BCS level bowl since the BCS. VA tech claims 0 national titles (although they have a spot reseved for the trophy in their trophy room!) 0 heismans, 19 total bowls and have played in 2 BCS level bowls since 1998. Pittsburgh being ahead of Va Tech is something I would not have predicted.
- Ohio State beats Michigan handily (7 vs 2 national titles, 6 vs 3 heismans). Of course Michigan is hurt by my arbitrary designation of their 1997 title as long term (not short term success)
- The best school in the SEC? LSU (the power of the crystal football). Alabama is #4 in the SEC.
- Yes, with the data in there Georgia #14, BYU #30. All is well in the world now...
So to Kevin's original list of 20, my computer says:
Lose Wisconsin, Va Tech, Tx A&M and West Virginia from your top 20 (I can't believe you included W Va).
Move in Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Ga Tech, and Colorado (even though they lost to Montana State last week - heck, what does a computer know anyways!)
posted on September 8, 2006 1:06 AM — 69.55.136.18 — link — abuse?
I cannot believe all the HYPE the Sooners and Fighting Irish are getting.They both nearly got bushwacked by mediocre teams.Without Bomar,the Chokelahoma Sooners are a total has been outfit.Quite frankly they and Notre Dame shock me ,as being a Nebraska fan, I firmly believe Notre Dame and Oklahoma have the two best coaches in the nation.If these two outfits play the remainder of their games like they did the first one they are destined to meet in the Toilet Bowl.
BUCKEYE MARK said:
posted on September 8, 2006 3:13 AM — 65.24.61.71 — link — abuse?
here is a list I put together based on past ten seasons final rankings #1=25 points #2=24 points and so on
#1 Florida St 160
#2 Miami (FL) 147
#3 Florida 137
#3 Ohio St 137
#5 Michigan 136
#6 Texas 134
#7 Tennesee 134
#8 Nebraska 119
#9 Oklahoma 116
10 Georgia 115
11 Kansas St 111
11 Virginia Tech 111
13 Louisianna St 104
14 Southern Cal 96
15 Pennsylvania St 86
16 Auburn 73
17 Alabama 66
17 Washington St 66
19 Wisconsin 65
20 Oregon 6321 Iowa 62
22 UCLA 49
23 Washigton 48
23 Notre Dame 48
25 Arizona St 41
25 Colorado 41Texas A+m and West Virginia not even on Cusps @24,22
Cusps teams mentioned not cutting it
TCU 24
Arkansas 19
michigan St 19
Clemson 19
Pitt 8
Navy 2"Keep it to yourself"
Louisville 36
Boise St 33
South Carolina 20Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 8:41 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
MIKE MACKAN how could anyone with brain activity think that that is a good top 10. You have Florida with their 1 national championship and FSU with their 2, but you don't have Miami and their 5 in the past 25 years?!? Please tell me that your reasoning for this is. The only acceptable answer is you had a massive head trama and were just typing gibberish.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 8:43 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Mooka, how could you say "3 more teams outside the cusp in South Carolina, Arkansas, and Ole Miss"? What are your next three teams on the cusp, Central Michigan, Duke, and FA(I)U? Believing that those three teams are on the cusp is what I would call overhyping the SEC!
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 9:37 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Robstan, your numbers are crap. Sorry but there is no nicer way to state it. Using your period of the past 15 years, there have been a total 17 national championship teams because in two years there was a split title. The break down for current conference affiliation is as follows:
ACC - 4
Big 10 - 2
Big 12 - 5
Pac 10 - 2
SEC - 4As you can see your statistics are totally skewed towards the SEC which tied for second in that period not first as you claimed.
Robstan said:
posted on September 8, 2006 9:46 AM — 66.0.85.89 — link — abuse?
Brownsrodeo88,
Keep in mind that I think the SEC is an excellent conference with a ton of tradition. I'm not saying that the fans settle for 2nd - that's what Tampa Hurricane was mentioning and I was wondering what part of Busch Gardens he spent too much time in!
And as for coaching, no, no no. Coaching is extremely important and any knowledgeable fan knows that. Even though USC has world class talent each year, do you honestly think they would play as well as they have without Carroll (and Chow, etc)? Auburn struggled in 2003 with basically the same team as 2004. The difference was coaching - Borges. So, don't sell the coaches short. They are the ones who build programs, the players come and go. The players win games, but the coaches are what helps make them successful.
Think what you want about Tubberville, but Auburn has won at least a tie of the SEC West nearly every year since he's been at Auburn. Very consistent for a division that is usually all over the place...
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 9:48 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Robstan to continue with my point I have listed the national championship teams for the past 25 years along with current conference affiliation to show you the stronger conferences when it comes to national titles.
2005 Texas Big 12
2004 USC Pac 10
2003 LSU SEC / USC Pac 10
2002 Ohio State Big 10
2001 Miami ACC
2000 Oklahoma Big 12
1999 FSU ACC
1998 Tennessee SEC
1997 Michigan Big 10 / Nebraska Big 12
1996 Florida SEC
1995 Nebraska Big 12
1994 Nebraska Big 12
1993 FSU ACC
1992 Alabama SEC
1991 Miami ACC
1990 Colorado Big 12
1989 Miami ACC
1988 Notre Dame independant
1987 Miami ACC
1986 Penn State Big 10
1985 Oklahoma Big 12
1984 BYU Mountain West
1983 Miami ACC
1982 Penn State Big 10
1981 Clemson ACCDuring that 25 year period there were 27 national championship teams. There current conference affiliations are as follows:
ACC - 8 (29.63%)
Big 10 - 4 (14.81%)
Big 12 - 7 (25.93%)
Independant - 1 (3.70%)
Mountain West - 1 (3.70%)
Pac 10 - 2 (7.41%)
SEC 4 - (14.81%)How does this show dominance in national championships like you claim?!? The SEC is tied with the Big 10 for 3rd place! The ACC and Big 12 have dominated in the past 25 years!
AU03 said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:10 AM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
If Auburn counted NC's like BAMA did, they'd have around 6 and not 1.
What other school would count a NC given by a group called the Football Thesaurus after being shut out by two conference teams? (1941)
They still have 11, but you also have to take into account the fact that NC's used to be given before bowl games, and BAMA lost bowl games a few of those other years. It would have been like USC getting the NC last year before playing Texas
it kind of defeats the purpose of playing the bowl game.I will say, however, that BAMA is arguably the most accomplished football program of all time, certainly one of the top 5, and anyone who thinks they should not be included in these rankings(Tampa Hurricane, I'm looking at you) is a moron.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:18 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
AU03 you are the moron. This listing is for the premiere programs "of our era." All the success of Alabama (which they do have a lot) is far from during my era. That success all happened before most of the bloggers on this site were even born. AU03 hopefully you can look up what our era means and realize that success in the 40s through 60s isn't in the era of a lot of readers. If this posting was for the premiere programs of all time, then Alabama should be included. However, it is for the premiere programs of my era and they are far off that list!
Gerald said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:35 AM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Tampa Hurricane:
Claiming Miami's national titles won as an INDEPENDENT and as a Big East member for the ACC is absurd and dishonest and you know it. Miami didn't even play any ACC schools back then, especially when they were independent, because back then FSU was independent too.
Until FSU joined the ACC, they had two national titles in their history: Clemson in 1981, and Georgia Tech in 1990. When FSU joined, they won 2 more. Period. And until Coker gets replaced with either Randy Shannon or Butch Davis, they are going to stay at 4 until the cows come home.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:47 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Gerald,
I stated that the national titles are with current affiliations. In every statistic with national titles, you consider them with the conference that the plays for now. Taking your line of reasoning, when a team won a title for the Big-8 does it not count now for the Big-12? The ACC teams have 8 national titles in the past 25 years. I know this is a hard statistic for an SEC fan to comprehend due to the fact that your conference looks below average in national titles within the past 25 years, but quit crying about it.
Tampa Hurricane said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:50 AM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse?
Gerald, are you just upset that your weak SEC is only 3 national titles ahead of the powerhouse Mountain West Conference in the past 25 years? Maybe the SEC should consider the Mountian West their type of opponent and nearest rival in skill level?
Greg said:
posted on September 8, 2006 11:24 AM — 152.163.100.196 — link — abuse?
Mgoblue
I would certainly include Michigan,whose fight song along with Notre Dame's and USC'S are the best,among the all time elite.My regrets also to any sooner fan out there. By the way I am an Alabama graduate who just loves college football.Hail to the victors and Roll tide
Mooka said:
posted on September 8, 2006 11:32 AM — 138.163.0.37 — link — abuse?
Tampa,
I'm not talking about recent accomplishments for SC, ARK, and Ole Miss. I'm talking about overall accomplishments that put those programs outside the cusp. Did Duke, FA, and whoever else ever win a NC? No, but these teams did and SC is only a few years away from getting there.
Tomcat said:
posted on September 8, 2006 12:04 PM — 70.249.42.116 — link — abuse?
Hey guys Seems like everyone here has their own formula.I dont have any formula.Check out these facts, note these do not include last weeks games for example Texas has 801 wins not 800
NCAA Div I-A all time lists
Victories
1. Michigan 849 wins .744 pct.
2.Notre Dame 811 wins .744 pct.
3.Texas 800 wins .714 pct.
4.Nebraska 794 wins .707 pct.
5.Alabama 774 wins .711 pct.
NCAA Div I-A winning percentage
1. Michigan .744
2. Notre Dame .744
3. Texas .714
4. Oklahoma .713
5.Alabama .711All time Bowl Appearances
1. Alabama 53 .594 win pct.
2. Tennessee 45 .533 win pct.
3. Texas 45 .511 win pct.
4. USC 44 .636 win pct
5. Nebraska 43 .512 win pct.All Time Bowl Victories
1. Alabama 30
2.USC 28
3.Tennessee 24
Oklahoma 24
Penn State 24
6.Texas 22
Georgia 22
Georgia Tech 22
Nebraska 22
10. Mississippi 19sorry Florida teams dont make any of these list
Texas is 2-2 vs Miami 2-0 vs Florida
Texas is 7-0-1 vs Alabama Texas is 59-39-5 vs OK
Texas is 55-21 vs Ark Texas is 6-4 vs Neb
Texas is 1-0 vs Ohio State Texas 1-0 vs Mich
Texas is 9-7-1 vs LSU Texas 2-1 vs Tenn
Texas is 60-20 vs TCU Texas is 41-14 vs TTechHookem -Horns #10 or #11 on some peoples list
thats okay, looks like we are in the top five of everything all time
Recent Times
11-2 11-2 10-3 11-1 13-0 Hookem-HornsThe Mayor said:
posted on September 8, 2006 12:19 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
lsutiger08
I really enjoyed the first 6 minutes of the Beaver Bronco game last night. Even though I am a Duck, I root for the Pac-10 in out of conference games. I was impressed with the way Justin Wilcox (Defensive Coordinator for the Broncos, former Duck and son of Hall of Famer Dave Wilcox) got the defense for Boise State back in the game.
Yes, Serna's kick and the subsequent replays of his performance at LSU two years ago, brought back memories...great memories, I was in Maui watching that game at a beach bar. "Ease his pain." I thought, 6 longboard beers did the trick just fine.
So far this season it looks like the Trojans + 9 conference again, aaauuuuggghhhh, an entire season of taunting from SEC fans. I have the stones, I can take it though.
Ducks over the Bulldogs on Saturday in a close one, take the over (54).
The Mayor said:
posted on September 8, 2006 12:29 PM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Neville,
Interesting spreadsheet. Might want to double check your entries though. The Ducks were the BCS Runner Up in 2001-2002 yet you did not give them any credit for that. It jumps them up to 26th place on your list.
Pac 10 apologist said:
posted on September 8, 2006 1:13 PM — 66.195.220.211 — link — abuse?
One thing is evident about this list how poor the Pac 10 and teams out west really are. Last night's Oregon St debacle further exemplifies the soft rep the Pac 10 has is patently accurate. The media tries to sweep aside what is so obvious that the Pac 10 sucks, and USC would have zero national titles if they played in a real conference week in and week out.
AU03 said:
posted on September 8, 2006 1:27 PM — 205.255.224.10 — link — abuse?
TampaHurricane, did you watch the 1993 Sugar Bowl?
Would you consider that "our era?"In addition, a lot of the people posting here were alive in the late 70's (not myself), but many were. The SEC won NC's in '78, '79, and '80, the 3 years before your list begins.
To defend Auburn, they've had two perfect seasons in the past 13 years- no other 1-A college football team can say that. They've also gone 16-1 in the SEC in the past 2, which hasn't been done since in around a decade
Miami's had a grat run in the past quarter century- they didn't deserve the 1983 NC- they played one good team in the regular season that year, and lost to them by 25 points, a team that Auburn beat, but still a great run. Had Miami have had Auburn's schedule in 1983, they would have lost at least 3 games.
Auburn and Alabama both belong here, though. For you to think otherwise is absurd.
TankBlack said:
posted on September 8, 2006 2:48 PM — 171.161.224.10 — link — abuse?
Clemson? Come on. They have done nothing in the last twenty years. They roughed up a very weak ACC in the 80s, but have done little since. The last few years, the have been to the Champs Sports Bowl, the Humanitarian Bowl and the Tangerine Bowl. How many elite schools would call that a success?
I do not get Wisconsin or Texas A&M either.
Anonymous IV said:
posted on September 8, 2006 3:40 PM — 71.15.112.79 — link — abuse?
The amount of conference re-alignment makes an objective view of this rather difficult. Even looking at individual schools one also has to view the schedule they played. There is also is a large amount of media bias involved.
Brownsrodeo88 said:
posted on September 8, 2006 3:48 PM — 64.12.116.199 — link — abuse?
Robstan,
Look at the 1999 Bama team. That coach blew like a Category 5 hurricane, and the team finished top 10 with an SEC Championship.
Then when, Shaun Alexander and Andrew Zow and some big defensive players left, the team blew, and the coach is now a D-3 coordinator after a few years coaching high school and furthering his name as an anus.
Gerald said:
posted on September 8, 2006 3:51 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Tampa Hurricane:
If adding Miami's national titles as an independent to the ACC national title total so that you will have some way of claiming superiority over the SEC makes you happy, then go ahead. I will say that regarding the Big 12, the Big 12 is merely the old Big 8 that added 4 Southwestern Conference teams when the SWC went bankrupt. So, the Colorado, Oklahoma, and Nebraska national titles in the Big 8 still count because they never changed conferences. But the Texas 1969 national title does not count towards the Big 12 total because in 1969 Texas was not in any incarnation of the current conference but in another conference altogether.
By the same token, the SEC has no claim on George Rogers' Heisman Trophy, because South Carolina was an independent. Nor do they have any claim on any success that South Carolina had when they were in the ACC. And likewise the ACC has no claim on the excellent seasons that Georgia Tech and Clemson had when those schools were in the SEC and the Southern Conference.
But again, hey, who cares. Add Miami's 4 national titles to the ACC's haul if you choose; it means nothing to me. What WILL mean something to me will be the outcomes of the Georgia - Georgia Tech, Florida - FSU, South Carolina - Clemson, and the Peach Bowl games, and also if the SEC plays the ACC in a BCS game. Those have, er, tended to go the SEC's way the past few years, going way back to Tennessee beating FSU for the national title in 1998 and climaxing with that Peach Bowl debacle last year. Do you disagree? It appears that your ACC needs to go back to its roots and rediscover its historical dominance, just as the SEC had to after an extended down period in the 1980s during which they won only 1 national title. Then again, even during that down period, Tennessee still managed to destroy defending national champions Miami in the 1985 Sugar Bowl. So the more things change, the more things stay the same ...
posted on September 8, 2006 5:09 PM — 68.35.226.201 — link — abuse?
USC
Texas
Ohio State
Penn State
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Virginia Tech
FSU
Florida
Miami
Georgia
West Virginia
Michigan
LSU
Auburn
AlabamaBring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 8, 2006 5:09 PM — 216.46.212.153 — link — abuse?
Hey Buckeye Mark!
Post 56 was great!.... What were you thinking?
You said stadium size says a lot about a program!
Everbody knows Michigan stadium is bigger than the shoe!
Michigan stadium record crowd-112,118 (against the Buckeyes =)
The HorseShoe-105,565-against Texas.
C'mon man don't ever give Michigan an advantage!
That's...that's ..LIKE A TOTAL BUCKEYE SIN!
PUNISHABLE BY DEATH...IF YOU LIVE IN COLUMBUS OHIO! hahaha I have too much fun with Buckeyes ! Good luck against Texas Saturday! Go Buckeyes! UofM GOBLUE! And NO I DON'T HATE THE BUCKEYES!.....
I just don't like em!Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 8, 2006 5:29 PM — 216.46.212.153 — link — abuse?
Notre Dame should sooo not be ranked in the top 5!
here's my event's list for Notre Dame!
#1 Michigan will Burn Their BCS Bowl invite!
#2 Penn State will Burn Brady Quinn's Hiesman invite!
#3 Michigan State is going to beat them for the 3rd straight year!
#4 USC is going to bump them off the top 25!Sorry to all you Notre Dame fan's! Why don't you join the Big Ten? Much better chance of a descent bowl game! Your already playing 4 big ten games this year. although after you lose to three of them...you will be reeeaal happy you only play 4 =)
Detroit ND FAN said:
posted on September 8, 2006 5:39 PM — 71.79.126.192 — link — abuse?
Tampa, you sure are bold. But its pretty funny.
Cool Hand Mike said:
posted on September 8, 2006 5:45 PM — 204.29.117.4 — link — abuse?
Canes Alum:
Alabama hasn't done much except spanking that Miami ass in the Sugar Bowl for a national championship.
neville said:
posted on September 8, 2006 6:16 PM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
Mayor (77), sorry the way I set it up gives the loser of the BCS championship game more points (5) than the team that comes in #2 in the final polls (3 points, in that case). In 2001 a very undeserving Nebraska team got the BCS runner up status (as I am defining it).
That was a highway robbery year. Oregon should have played. Still though- in general, USC is the only program in the top 20 (human or computer)
neville said:
posted on September 8, 2006 6:31 PM — 70.167.26.232 — link — abuse?
Tomcat 75 - that is junk. Why don't you post Texas' all time record vs Notre Dame, BYU or for that matter Colorado College? The Florida schools have been good enough for long enough to be considered right there with Texas.
By the way TX is still 1/2 of Oklahoma in terms of total national titles and Heismans. Have fun looking up at Oklahoma for many years to come.
Plus, can any school be taken seriously with Mack Brown as a head coach?
Paragon SC said:
posted on September 8, 2006 7:09 PM — 68.37.204.187 — link — abuse?
I have a problem with Navy being on the cusp. Because of the necessity of a congressional appointment to attend Annapolis and the five year commitment post graduaion they just don't recruit top notch "players". Its a great place for an education and molds character and maturity but very few academy grads see a future in football.
Zac said:
posted on September 8, 2006 10:57 PM — 65.31.229.230 — link — abuse?
Mr. Donahue: Remember what I said about achieving any agreement? I rest my case. If anyone does come up with a formula for figuring the best teams of "our era", one that's fair, valid, and accurate, give the BCS a call. They're the ones who really need it.
Mooka said:
posted on September 8, 2006 11:56 PM — 68.107.102.29 — link — abuse?
LOL @ PAC-10 apologist. Let no other network ever, ever try to hype up the PAC-10 again!!!! Just be/c USC is good does not mean any of those other teams are good. Isn't it ironic one of the best teams come from the weakest conference? Sorry PAC-10ers I'm not trying to bash too hard, but the only team I halfway respect besides USC is UCLA and I don't even know about them.
BUCKEYE MARK said:
posted on September 9, 2006 12:08 AM — 65.24.61.71 — link — abuse?
Brady I know Michigan has a bigger Stadium not by much though and I respect Michigan as much as I hate them and they should be in the top 5 programs of all time top 10 in the current era
only four teams have stadiums with over 100,000 capacity
Michigan
Penn ST
Ohio St
Tennesee
and all four are from the only two conferences that are truly competitive every yearThe Mayor said:
posted on September 9, 2006 12:10 AM — 24.23.202.200 — link — abuse?
Neville,
No problem, your criteria are your criteria, like I said earlier, between Len Casanova and Mike Bellotti it was dismal time, so bad that if we won 100 games over 10 years we still would not be not worthy of calling us a premium program in history of college football.
In my four years at Oregon we won 12 games, 12 total games! That is what the makes the recent success so sweet...not like spoiled fans at other schools that scream for their coaches head after a .850 winning percentage. Good lord, we stuck with Rich Brooks for a lifetime and all we got was one Rose Bowl loss to Kijana Carter.
Silas Walker said:
posted on September 9, 2006 7:57 AM — 74.241.169.46 — link — abuse?
Hey add Oklahoma State yes they are in the shawdow of Oklahoma but they do live in the big 12. I believe it is one of if not the toughest conference in the country. Sure Nebraska and Colorado are down the last few years. Not only has OSU produced a couple of heisman winners it also has produced a bunch of excellent coaches. So why shouldn't it be on the "cusp" Stillwater is a great small college town just a couple of hours away from one of the country's greatest colleges, OU.
posted on September 9, 2006 8:32 AM — link — abuse?
Zac - #1, drop the Mr. Donahue stuff. It's Kevin. Mr. Donahue is my father, regardless of how old I keep getting every damn year.
#2 - FSU is on the initial list. There's no way you can leave the Seminoles off. Even if you did a top 5 of the last 20 years, FSU is on the list.
Robby Bonfire said:
posted on September 9, 2006 9:04 PM — 70.100.231.35 — link — abuse?
UCLA a revolving door of coaches? Let's see, since 1977 the Bruins have employed: Terry Donohue, Bob Toledo, and Karl Dorrell. Three coaches in 29 years. Not exactly a "revolving door." Regarding not having a stadium on campus, well they do commute to a little yard called THE ROSE BOWL. Or is that ancient concrete palace on the other side of town, located right in the middle of crack house row, and where local anti-Korean street riots erupt on occasion, a more desirable venue?
By the way, McKay, Tollner, Robinson, and now Pete Carroll - the Trojans have had more coaches than the Bruins over the last three decades.
okhurricane said:
posted on September 9, 2006 11:33 PM — 69.129.235.155 — link — abuse?
Some are wanting to knock Miami for various reasons; but if you look at the statistics, for the past 25 years no other program comes close to their success. Five national titles, 2 Heismans, a 58-game home winning streak (NCAA record), a 34 game winning streak, one of the top in NFL draft picks, top in first round draft picks, etc.
Let me say that for all the arguments about top conferences and top programs, ranking them in order is difficult at best. I think the list is pretty solid. Some of the arguments made fit in the history section, but leave them out of the modern era.
Gerald said:
posted on September 9, 2006 11:42 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Robby Bonfire:
You left off Paul Hackett and Larry Smith from the list of USC coaches in that era. Hackett was between Robinson and Carroll, Smith between Robinson and I believe Tollner. Further, Robinson was USC's coach TWICE between 77 and now. But I am not certain that McKay belongs on your list. I am relatively certain that McKay won the 73 USC title and Robinson the 78 one, so I think that by 77 McKay was coaching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the NFL. Didn't McKay draft Grambling State's Doug Williams in 1978 for the Bucs? I am relatively certain of it. But in any case, your point is still good.
Gerald said:
posted on September 10, 2006 12:05 AM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Neville:
"Plus, can any school be taken seriously with Mack Brown as a head coach?"
I can name you three schools that would very much disagree with you. North Carolina and Tulane both very much wish that Mack Brown was still coaching their schools. School #3? Southern Cal, who also wishes that Mack Brown were still coaching at Tulane or North Carolina instead of at Texas last year. Then again, had Mack Brown stayed at UNC or Tulane, he would have have simply built national title winning programs at those.
People who denigrate Mack Brown just do not look at where Tulane, UNC, and Texas were before Mack Brown arrived, nor do they look at where Tulane and UNC are now. Especially UNC. In Mack Brown's last year there, they were 11 - 1 and ranked #3 in the country. Look at them now ... losing to Rutgers.
The guy took a skinny kid from the inner city that every other major program would have moved to wide receiver in five seconds, and turned him into a 2 time Rose Bowl MVP and the #3 pick in the NFL draft. It is ridiculous that guys like Rick Neuheisel get revered as coaching geniuses while Mack Brown is regarded as a numbskull.
Aufan322006 said:
posted on September 10, 2006 12:16 AM — 208.45.204.72 — link — abuse?
TampaHurricane
Auburn may have had a light nonconference schedule that year but we beat four teams ranked in the top ten that year. USC and OU played four between them. And besides we started out the season ranked 17 instead of 1 and 2. Now had Auburn played USC in the Title game it would have been alot better than OU.
And still what has Miami done in the last couple years. oh yea lose the big games and beat up on the little guys when they can. Sounds more like bullies than a football team.OU Fan said:
posted on September 10, 2006 1:16 AM — 69.179.197.88 — link — abuse?
The Mayor, man I'm not going to try to predict next weekend dude. I really don't know what will happen. It will be a good game, and I can't wait. The Ducks will be a tough team for the Sooners to beat. If I were you though I would be thinking the same thing. Don't underestimate Paul Thompson. Go Sooners!!!
Neville said:
posted on September 10, 2006 2:02 AM — 70.167.26.232 — link</
Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 6, 2006 1:50 PM — 216.46.212.20 — link — abuse?Michigan State! aahhhhahaha I have to laugh every time they are mentioned as being one of the up and coming teams!
OK I live in Michigan! I live not too far from Michigan State....and they will beat any top ten team they play! great huh? no no no! if they played division 2 ball they would lose every game! Yes they have talent! yes they have a good coach! yes they should be a top 25 team with the talent they have! But they blow out #5 Wisconsin and the next weak they are blown out by Northwestern! Let's make the Spartans prove they can beat the little teams along with the Big boys! =) then let's talk Spartan football! U of M GO BLUE! 1-0