55 replies to this topic

[TomRicardo]

Cutting out to new thread:

Top Tier Historic Programs

USC
Texas
Oklahoma
Michigan
tOSU
Michigan St.
Penn St.
Nebraska
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Notre Dame
Florida St.
Miami

Second Tier:

Tennessee
Arkansas
South Carolina
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Virginia Tech
Boise St.
BYU
Oregon
Stanford
Oregon St.
Army
Texas A&M
West Virginia

Third Tier:

Pittsburgh
Boston College
TCU
Texas Tech
Iowa
Navy
Washington
UCLA
Colorado
California
Illinois
Purdue
Missouri
Ole Miss
SMU
Houston

[WayBackVazquez]

Cutting out to new thread:

Top Tier Historic Programs

USC
Texas
Oklahoma
Michigan
tOSU
Michigan St.
Penn St.
Nebraska
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Notre Dame
Florida St.
Miami

Second Tier:

Tennessee
Arkansas
South Carolina
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Virginia Tech
Boise St.
BYU
Oregon
Stanford
Oregon St.
Army
Texas A&M
West Virginia

Third Tier:

Pittsburgh
Boston College
TCU
Texas Tech
Iowa
Navy
Washington
UCLA
Colorado
California
Illinois
Purdue
Missouri
Ole Miss
SMU
Houston

You lost a lot of credibility right off the bat.

[ngruz25]

If Army is Second Tier, why is Pittsburgh, for example, Third Tier?

[Infield Infidel]

In my mind, there are two kinds of national programs.

1. There are those that, with a decent coach, will compete for 10 wins, a top ten ranking, conference titles and BCS bowls at least 3 out of every 5 years. These are programs where the potential is easy to tap, because high-caliber recruits and great assistant coaches just flock there as long as the head coach is decent. They might fuck up a hire and be down for a few years, but if they get someone at least above-avg to coach, they will succeed.

In this category I'd put:
Ohio St, Michigan, USC, Florida, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, Florida St. (I look at the last 4 years of Bobby Bowden as a bad coaching hire, Jimbo is recruiting like mad).

Wisconsin and Oregon are getting to this level, with success under consecutive coaches (a big factor), and good ADs in Alvarez and Bellotti (w/ Phil Knight money). And their coaches aren't going anywhere.

Mack Brown, Brady Hoke, Les Miles, Bret Bielema aren't wizards like Urban or Saban, but they don't need to be, they just need to be good coaches and their programs will succeed.

2. These are programs that have the same potential, but tapping that potential is much more difficult. A decent, above avg coach won't have more than middling success; they need a top tier coach. You also need to recruit harder to get the same quality recruits those in the first level get more easily. Often, these programs have a tough time sustaining success after a coaching change.

This is a larger category, in which I'd put:
Notre Dame, Penn St, Miami, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma St, West Virginia, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M, Clemson, Tennessee, Iowa, Boise St, Washington, Utah, Stanford

VaTech is here because I'd like to see where they are post-Beamer before I put them in the top.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 08 December 2011 - 10:09 PM.

[snowmanny]

If Army is Second Tier, why is Pittsburgh, for example, Third Tier?

Pitt was a power in the early part of the century (including when Pop Warner was coach), won a national title more recently than Army, and is presently generally more competitive, so yeah, I agree.

Edit:I also agree with WayBack on Michigan State. They are somewhere between Colgate and Vassar.

Edited by snowmanny, 08 December 2011 - 09:56 PM.

[mikcou]

If Army is Second Tier, why is Pittsburgh, for example, Third Tier?

Or umm half of third tier. In no world is Army a better football program than Navy. Navy is by far the best of the service academies and has dominated Army for years.

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Tier I:

Michigan
Ohio State
Texas
Southern California

Tier II:

Penn State
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana State
Tennessee

Tier III

Wisconsin
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
California
Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Texas A&M
Auburn

Tier IV:

Pittsburgh
West Virginia
UCLA
Colorado
Washington
Oregon
Arkansas
South Carolina
Missouri
Purdue
Virginia
Maryland
North Carolina
Miami (Florida)
Boston College

Tier V:

Other major conference schools

(the question here is historic - schools like Florida State and Miami have no history going back more than 30 years - obviously they move up quite a bit by other criteria)

[SMU_Sox]

If we're talking national programs shouldn't this be broken down by recruits in the last decade? % 5-star recruits, %5-star recruits in-state, % 5-star recruits out of state. Then you do this for all the other tiers. You might also look at tv ratings for how big a draw a university has. These lists seem overly subjective even if they're basically capturing the same common sense observations. In my own opinion, getting into college football only 5 years ago my view is SEC centric. I view the national programs as the ones with big followings like Texas, USCal, Notre Dame (seems like a sinking power), Ohio State, and Michigan, but I also view the more successful programs in that light too. My first bowl game I saw on TV was the Texas USCAL Rose Bowl. Since then my opinion of the national programs is that there is a lot of hype for the top teams in conferences that might be a bit overrated. I won't name names here because I don't want anyone like Sach, and Wayback jumping on me but I think you can get my point.
Anyway - I hope my perspective as a new fan can bring something to the table here. I also hope that, a lot like the rise I'd the mid majors in college hoops, we will see more parity in football programs.

[SMU_Sox]

Looking at Chemistry Schemistry's list as a newer fan I'm surprised how many teams I see on his list that my first thought is: they've been mediocre and/or irrelevant for a while. Boston college is on there but not Boise St? Why should we care about history more than other, I'd argue, more relevant factors?

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

If we're only looking at on-field performance over the last 20 years, my lists would be very different.

[Royal Reader]

Tennessee is a more powerful program than Auburn, historically - they're just in the doldrums right now. And I say this as someone who hates both, so there's no bias involved.

[SumnerH]

Cutting out to new thread:

Top Tier Historic Programs

USC
Texas
Oklahoma
Michigan
tOSU
Michigan St.
Penn St.
Nebraska
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Notre Dame
Florida St.
Miami

Obviously not the only factor, and needs tweaking based on exactly how historical you want to go (split national titles awarded to both/all schools):

Schools ranked by number of championships

1 Princeton	28
2 Yale	27
3 Michigan	22
4 Notre Dame	21
5 Alabama	17
6 Oklahoma	17
7 USC	17
8 Ohio State	13
9 Harvard	12
10 Nebraska	11
11 Pittsburgh	11
12 Miami	9
13 Texas	9
14 Florida State	7
15 LSU	7
16 Minnesota	7
17 Penn State	7
18 Tennessee	7
19 Georgia Tech	6
20 Michigan State	6
21 Penn	6
22 Army	5
23 Auburn	5
24 Florida	5
25 Georgia	5
26 California	5
27 Cornell	5
28 Illinois	5

Edited by SumnerH, 09 December 2011 - 08:01 AM.

[RingoOSU]

College football reference has its own ELO rating. It takes into account a school's overall historical record, and it's all fan opinion, but it's interesting, and gives a ballpark estimate on a school's national respect.
http://www.sports-re...riv/ratings.cgi

[canderson]

If we're talking national programs shouldn't this be broken down by recruits in the last decade? % 5-star recruits, %5-star recruits in-state, % 5-star recruits out of state.

I don't think this is wise, because a few key factors:

1) Players have different rating based on different rating sites
2) Rating with these kids is highly subjective
3) Overall class ratings are skewed heavily because quantity of schools' recruits, if you only fifer 7 scholarships and 5 are to highly ranked recruits you will be rated belw a class with 20 kids quite often.

I kind of started this debate talking about a potential Texas coaching opening. I totally forgot about OSU somehow when I said it'd be the biggest opening btw far in the past few years. So yeah sorry for my mental fuckup, but it's a fun conversation nevertheless.

Tier 1 for me is:
Texas
ND
Michigan
Alabama
USC

I struggle putting Oklahoma, tOSU and Nebraska here, but an argument could be made they deserve a spot.

[TomRicardo]

If Army is Second Tier, why is Pittsburgh, for example, Third Tier?

Army still has a National Televised game every year and can still get Yankee Stadium games. 3 Heisman winners was the biggest part.

One thing I didn't think about was HoF players. Pittsburgh has a Ditka, Marino, and Dorsett

Edited by TomRicardo, 09 December 2011 - 10:44 AM.

[TomRicardo]

College football reference has its own ELO rating. It takes into account a school's overall historical record, and it's all fan opinion, but it's interesting, and gives a ballpark estimate on a school's national respect.
http://www.sports-re...riv/ratings.cgi

Notre Dame on National Television every week and has 8 National Titles is 46? That is a piece of garbage.

[RingoOSU]

And T Ric just told me to kill myself for posting this. Never mind, Last time I try to join a discussion.

[TomRicardo]

And T Ric just told me to kill myself for posting this. Never mind, Last time I try to join a discussion.

To be fair I was just doing that to turn me on.

[canderson]

Notre Dame on National Television every week and has 8 National Titles is 46? That is a piece of garbage.

I like Boise State and Washington being ahead of ND and Penn State.

[TomRicardo]

Syracuse ahead of Notre Dame I think says it all.

[WayBackVazquez]

Looking at Chemistry Schemistry's list as a newer fan I'm surprised how many teams I see on his list that my first thought is: they've been mediocre and/or irrelevant for a while. Boston college is on there but not Boise St? Why should we care about history more than other, I'd argue, more relevant factors?

Relevant to what? I'm not going to jump on you for pointing out that Michigan was bad for three years prior to this season. It's true. But the fact that you notice/think we're overrated by everyone should clue you in to something. History matters in college football because it's the difference between having a successful team because you have a charismatic coach and having a successful program because of the appeal of the program. Michigan can only fail because its coach -- for whatever reason -- fails. Most schools down the list can only succeed because the coach is special. The default for Michigan is excellence. Now, you can certainly note that we've only won (half of) one national championship in the last several decades. Again true. But also, not really the question we're discussing, I don't think. If you want to discuss the most successful programs over the past x years, it's pretty easy to check win/loss records and average end-of-season rankings over those x years. If you want to talk about historical PROGRAMS, I think it's a different conversation.

[WayBackVazquez]

And Tom, I don't want to pile on too much, because I'm sure you made your list off the top of your head, and maybe you were staring at a basketball and got distracted, but I think it's funny that the teams we were discussing that led to this thread (BC and Utah) have each won at least as many bowl games in the past decade as MSU has won in its history.

If you've only won 7 bowl games in Your history, you're not a historical top-tier program.
If you've beaten your main rival less than one-third of the times you've played, you're not a historical top-tier program.
If your all-time winning percentage is under 60, you're not a historical top-tier program.

If all three of these things are true, you're probably not tier two.

[SumnerH]

If you've only won 7 bowl games in Your history, you're not a historical top-tier program.

This is unfair to historical programs. For instance, Michigan State won at least a share of consecutive national titles in 1951 and 1952 (going undefeated both years, and being the consensus AP and Coaches' poll champion in 1952), but didn't go to a bowl in either year. Even for teams that did go to bowls back then, they were viewed purely as exhibitions--the final AP Poll took place before the bowls and obviously didn't take their results into account when selecting a national title.

Even more recently, the number of bowls has expanded greatly (from 15 in 1980 to 35 in 2010). If you were a solid team throughout the 70s and 80s and a powerhouse in the 90s and 00s, you're probably going to have fewer bowl appearances and victories than if you were a powerhouse in the 70s and 80s and solid in the 90s and 2000s.

I'm not saying that MSU is top-tier, just pointing out that if you're interested in historical evaluation you shouldn't weight bowls too heavily.

[ethangl]

Having more or less permanent bitch status in your own state should automatically preclude eligibility for any kind of top tier status nationally. Off the top of my head this applies to Sparty, Aggy, UCLA (not that anybody's putting UCLA in the first tier) and Auburn. And Ringo State.

[RingoOSU]

Having more or less permanent bitch status in your own state should automatically preclude eligibility for any kind of top tier status nationally. Off the top of my head this applies to Sparty, Aggy, UCLA (not that anybody's putting UCLA in the first tier) and Auburn. And Ringo State.

Hell, Ringo State is probably 50% against fucking Tulsa. So no argument there.

[WayBackVazquez]

This is unfair to historical programs. For instance, Michigan State won at least a share of consecutive national titles in 1951 and 1952 (going undefeated both years, and being the consensus AP and Coaches' poll champion in 1952), but didn't go to a bowl in either year. Even for teams that did go to bowls back then, they were viewed purely as exhibitions--the final AP Poll took place before the bowls and obviously didn't take their results into account when selecting a national title.

Even more recently, the number of bowls has expanded greatly (from 15 in 1980 to 35 in 2010). If you were a solid team throughout the 70s and 80s and a powerhouse in the 90s and 00s, you're probably going to have fewer bowl appearances and victories than if you were a powerhouse in the 70s and 80s and solid in the 90s and 2000s.

I'm not saying that MSU is top-tier, just pointing out that if you're interested in historical evaluation you shouldn't weight bowls too heavily.

Number 1, it's a reach to say Sparty had a share of the National Title in 1951. Nobody considered a Helms nomination significant then, and they don't now. There was an AP and a UPI champ, and neither was MSU. More to your point, the question is how can you consider yourself a top-tier national program if you weren't getting invited to Bowl Games? In the beginning, MSU wasn't invited into the Big Ten (because it wasn't a National Power). If you were not getting invited to bowl games in the 70s and 80s, it's because your teams weren't that good. So how can you consider yourself a national power if you went two decades without being good enough to get invited?

I never said bowl games was the only criterion or that if you DO have x number of bowl games, you ARE top-tier. But if you have fewer than 10, I don't know how you could even make a straight-face argument. All of the other programs in even Tom's list have won more than twice as many Bowl games as MSU. You think that's an unrelated coincidence? I know you're "not saying MSU is top-tier," so can you give me an example of a team that you DO consider to be top-tier that doesn't have a significant number of bowl appearances or wins?

[SumnerH]

Number 1, it's a reach to say Sparty had a share of the National Title in 1951. Nobody considered a Helms nomination significant then, and they don't now. There was an AP and a UPI champ, and neither was MSU.

Ignore 1951, then. In 1952 they were the AP and UPI champs, and yet didn't go to a bowl. That counts a lot more than being the winner of Florida International vs. Marshall in the Beef'o'Brady's Bowl this year. The discussion was in the context of historical greatness; bowls didn't even exist until 1930 and even in 1980 were still way more limited than they are today. So naturally looking at number of bowl wins is going to skew results against programs who were historically great but haven't been in recent years.

More to your point, the question is how can you consider yourself a top-tier national program if you weren't getting invited to Bowl Games?

You can't these days. Historically it was common, which was kind of the point.

But if you have fewer than 10, I don't know how you could even make a straight-face argument. All of the other programs in even Tom's list have won more than twice as many Bowl games as MSU. You think that's an unrelated coincidence? I know you're "not saying MSU is top-tier," so can you give me an example of a team that you DO consider to be top-tier that doesn't have a significant number of bowl appearances or wins?

Tom's list isn't a coincidence, it's the exact same bias: overrating recent success, which is fine as a topic but skewed when discussing "Top Tier Historic Programs".

Army, Cornell, Princeton, and Yale combine for a 3-2 record in bowls (all Army's appearances) but are all arguably top-tier programs historically.

It's not just small fish that are affected, either; Michigan and Notre Dame, to name a couple, look even more impressive when you step back and look at the whole body of work.

[RingoOSU]

I know Notre Dame had a no bowl policy until 1969. Did any other schools have a similar policy?

[WayBackVazquez]

Ignore 1951, then. In 1952 they were the AP and UPI champs, and yet didn't go to a bowl. That counts a lot more than being the winner of Florida International vs. Marshall in the Beef'o'Brady's Bowl this year. The discussion was in the context of historical greatness; bowls didn't even exist until 1930 and even in 1980 were still way more limited than they are today. So naturally looking at number of bowl wins is going to skew results against programs who were historically great but haven't been in recent years.



You can't these days. Historically it was common, which was kind of the point.



Tom's list isn't a coincidence, it's the exact same bias: overrating recent success, which is fine as a topic but skewed when discussing "Top Tier Historic Programs".

Sorry, still not buying it. Every team that can stake a legitimate claim for historical top-tier status had more bowl wins by 1990 than MSU has today. If you want to call Yale a top-tier program, then you're talking about something nobody else here is. The 1800s were great.

I'll just restate my original claim, which is that if you have only seven bowl wins, you're not a top-tier program. If your argument for being top-tier is based solely on your performance before 1930, then you're not a top-tier program. If we were having this discussion in 1935, maybe. But these last 75 years have happened, and they count, too. If Michigan and Notre Dame average 3 wins a year over the next 50 years, they're going to be out of the club as well.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 09 December 2011 - 04:36 PM.

[gtg807y]

Tier I:

Michigan
Ohio State
Texas
Southern California
Alabama
Oklahoma
Florida
Oregon

Tier II:

Penn State*
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana State
Tennessee (at the very bottom of this tier)
Auburn

Tier III

Wisconsin
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
California
Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Texas A&M
Auburn
West Virginia

Tier IV:

Pittsburgh
West Virginia
UCLA
Colorado
Washington
Oregon
Arkansas
South Carolina
Missouri
Purdue
Virginia
Maryland
North Carolina
Miami (Florida)
Boston College
Boise State
TCU
Stanford
California

Tier V:

UCLA
Colorado
Purdue
Boston College
Houston
Minnesota
Other major conference schools

(the question here is historic - schools like Florida State and Miami have no history going back more than 30 years - obviously they move up quite a bit by other criteria)

I went of Chem's list, and give a little less weight to history. The "tier V" teams are mostly ones that, in my opinion, have a lot of history/tradition/facilities but are fairly dormant right now. For example, Colorado has titles and tradition and major conference affiliation, but that hasn't done them a lot of good for about a decade now.

For obvious reasons, I consider Penn State's "prestige" to be in a state of flux right now. It'll be a while before we see just how extensively the Sandusky scandal drags down their program.

[SumnerH]

Sorry, still not buying it. Every team that can stake a legitimate claim for historical top-tier status had more bowl wins by 1990 than MSU has today. If you want to call Yale a top-tier program, then you're talking about something nobody else here is. The 1800s were great.

I'll just restate my original claim, which is that if you have only seven bowl wins, you're not a top-tier program. If your argument for being top-tier is based solely on your performance before 1930, then you're not a top-tier program. If we were having this discussion in 1935, maybe. But these last 75 years have happened, and they count, too. If Michigan and Notre Dame average 3 wins a year over the next 50 years, they're going to be out of the club as well.

The topic is "historical top tier programs"--it was split out from a conversation that had 2 different discussions, one for historical programs and one for current top tier programs. Army and Princeton obviously aren't on the latter list, but in the context of the first post in this thread they absolutely deserve mention. If you're talking about current top tier programs, looking at bowl performance is more reasonable (though with the proliferation of bowls it's still a little wonky).

[bowiac]

I think people are underrating Notre Dame here a good bit. The fact that they've been down for as long as they have, and are still pulling in as good recruiting classes as they are is a pretty good sign that their prestige is top tier in the minds of the public. Viewing it in terms of destination jobs would work too: what job can you not imagine someone walking away from without some weird circumstance? I would have also put Penn State in that category before recent turns of events.

[TomRicardo]

Number 1, it's a reach to say Sparty had a share of the National Title in 1951. Nobody considered a Helms nomination significant then, and they don't now. There was an AP and a UPI champ, and neither was MSU. More to your point, the question is how can you consider yourself a top-tier national program if you weren't getting invited to Bowl Games? In the beginning, MSU wasn't invited into the Big Ten (because it wasn't a National Power). If you were not getting invited to bowl games in the 70s and 80s, it's because your teams weren't that good. So how can you consider yourself a national power if you went two decades without being good enough to get invited?

Your love for shitting on Michigan St. aside. Michigan St was a powerhouse in the 50s and 60s with multiple National Title Claims that BC and Utah never had. They were also 13th in number of players drafted by the NFL ahead of LSU.

The bowl game argument is strange considering you are a Big 10 and should know that in the height of Michigan St.'s power a team could not go to the Rose Bowl twice and Big 10 teams could only go to the Rose Bowl. They were easily blocked at least 2 Rose Bowl wins because of the rule not to mention several bowl games they would have got into the years they didn't win the Big 10. (Michigan was not a good team in the 50s and was only bowl eligible half the time. They probably wouldn't have been picked anyway)

[TomRicardo]

I know Notre Dame had a no bowl policy until 1969. Did any other schools have a similar policy?

Big 10 had one for a while and would only play in the Rose Bowl until the 70s

[behindthepen]

Tier 1 for me is:
Texas
ND
Michigan
Alabama
USC

I struggle putting Oklahoma, tOSU and Nebraska here, but an argument could be made they deserve a spot.

that's a pretty interesting list given that outside of USC, none of them usually even wins their own conference. They may have better TV ratings, but i don't even think their recruiting classes are that impressive compared to the teams you're leaving out.

[maufman]

Sometimes it's hard to know how strong a school's history is. Before Nick Saban arrived, you could have made a strong argument for booting Alabama from the first tier. I define the first tier as those schools that comprise college football's current "royalty," together with those who would regain those heights with a Saban-like coaching hire.

By that definition, I agree with T-Ric's first tier with only one change -- I'd swap out Michigan St. for Tennessee.

The efforts to define a smaller first tier illustrate that college football doesn't have permanent royalty, like men's basketball does. There's no subset in football that's comparable to the top 4-6 basketball programs (Kentucky/UNC/Kansas/UCLA for sure, and perhaps Duke/Indiana).

In the second and third tiers, where by definition you aren't dealing with blue-chip programs, I'd give more weight to conference affiliation. Most SEC and Big Ten schools belong in the second tier, along with the stronger schools from the other major conferences. Small-conference stars like TCU and Boise belong in the third tier, along with the weaker big-conference schools and the service academies.

The Ivies and other historically strong programs that are irrelevant today don't belong in this discussion, imo. Sure, Auburn's accomplishments on the football field pale in comparison to Yale's, but does that tell us anything meaningful?

[WayBackVazquez]

Your love for shitting on Michigan St. aside. Michigan St was a powerhouse in the 50s and 60s with multiple National Title Claims that BC and Utah never had. They were also 13th in number of players drafted by the NFL ahead of LSU.

The bowl game argument is strange considering you are a Big 10 and should know that in the height of Michigan St.'s power a team could not go to the Rose Bowl twice and Big 10 teams could only go to the Rose Bowl. They were easily blocked at least 2 Rose Bowl wins because of the rule not to mention several bowl games they would have got into the years they didn't win the Big 10. (Michigan was not a good team in the 50s and was only bowl eligible half the time. They probably wouldn't have been picked anyway)

Don't erect silly straw men concerning BC and Utah, Tom. Of course MSU is a better historical program than those two. My comment was illustrative. But that you are actually sticking by MSU as a top tier program after having a chance to look it over is disappointing. You should concede obviously unreasonable positions to garner credibility you can use to support your other more colorable (though probably wrong) stances, like whether the Big East will be a top 3 basketball conference going forward.

I'm pretty sure MSU was kept out of the Rose Bowl exactly one time by that rule in its history. Hard to say they would easily win that game, since they lost the year before (during one of their "Multiple National Title Claims" -- of course, that claim is based on UPI, since it voted before the Bowl Games. Had they waited, they, like the AP voters, would not have voted for MSU), but okay. Let's live in an imaginary world where Sparty has 8 Bowl wins. Now they're top tier, I guess. With a .59x all-time winning percentage, maybe BC can actually get there, too.

MSU was not a powerhouse in the 50s and 60s; it was strong in the first half of the 50s, and for 2 years in the 60s. In the 17 seasons from the time it joined the Big Ten in 1953 to 1969, it won 2 outright Big Ten titles, and one half-share. The same as Iowa (Michigan also won 2.5 in the 50s and 60s, even though it was, as you say, not a good team.) Now you are right in that's its best time period, but that doesn't make it a top tier program, unless your tier is humongous, in which case, you've left out a whole lot of programs, including teams like Ole Miss, Tennessee, hell even Iowa and Arizona State. Basically, in its best 2-decade stretch, MSU won 70% of its games. The real top tier, of course, has won about that percentage for its entire history.

[WayBackVazquez]

The efforts to define a smaller first tier illustrate that college football doesn't have permanent royalty, like men's basketball does. There's no subset in football that's comparable to the top 4-6 basketball programs (Kentucky/UNC/Kansas/UCLA for sure, and perhaps Duke/Indiana).

Why? What is the difference between those basketball programs and Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, OSU and USC? UCLA basketball has one National Championship in the last 35 years. Kansas only has 3 titles since the tournament began. Indiana hasn't won a National title in 25 years, and has only won its conference once in the last 18. I'm not saying those aren't the college basketball royalty, I'm just wondering how they're any different from Michigan or Notre Dame.

[WayBackVazquez]

For me, the top tier, based on long term performance and prestige of the program is, in no particular order:

Michigan
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Alabama
Tennessee
Notre Dame
USC
Penn State
Texas

Nebraska is a bubble team for me. I could go either way.

I think people underrate the long history of greatness of the Tennessee program. I get that people might not think PSU belongs because of relatively few national titles, but since 1940, only OSU and Oklahoma have won at a better clip.

[maufman]

Why? What is the difference between those basketball programs and Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, OSU and USC? UCLA basketball has one National Championship in the last 35 years. Kansas only has 3 titles since the tournament began. Indiana hasn't won a National title in 25 years, and has only won its conference once in the last 18. I'm not saying those aren't the college basketball royalty, I'm just wondering how they're any different from Michigan or Notre Dame.

You're right about Indiana, but those other five schools stand apart from just about anyone else. (Duke is only on the bubble because the overwhelming majority of their resume was built on the watch of one coach, though I suppose you could say the same for UCLA.)

UCLA has made three Final Four appearances in the past six years and holds the all-time record for both championships and Final Four appearances. Kansas has made 13 Final Fours, including 7 in the past 25 years.

Those numbers stand out from the crowd more than, say, Michigan's football heritage stands out from the rest of the FBS.

[WayBackVazquez]

Those numbers stand out from the crowd more than, say, Michigan's football heritage stands out from the rest of the FBS.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Michigan and Oklahoma have each appeared in the Top 10 of the final AP poll 37 times. The number 10 team on that list (Tennessee) has done so 23 times. Michigan has done so multiple times in every decade since the 40s. To me that stands out. In comparison, Kansas went through a nearly 3-decade period from the early 50s to early 80s where it didn't even make the tournament most years, let alone win a title. Yes, it was smaller and tougher to get into, but I'm not sure why its 3 titles or 7 Final Fours in the last 25 years make it stand out relative to Michigan or Oklahoma or Notre Dame football.

Michigan, even a relatively down period has 5 Top 5 AP finishes in the last 25 years; OSU has 9; Oklahoma has 8; Nebraska has 6; and each of those schools has at least as many National Championships overall and in the last 20 years in football as Kansas does in basketball.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 12 December 2011 - 09:47 PM.

[PaulinMyrBch]

Be careful ranking Clemson...Orange looks pretty, I've got season tickets, but they just won their first conference championship in 20 years, and that conference is the acc. Ugh...

[Domer]

My shot, I probably missed a few schools.

Tier I
Alabama
Florida
Florida State
LSU
Miami
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Southern Cal
Texas

Tier II
Auburn
Georgia
Michigan
Nebraska
Oregon
Penn State
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
Wisconsin

Tier III
Boise State
Clemson
Iowa
Stanford
Texas A&M
TCU
Utah
West Virginia

Tier IV
Arkansas
BYU
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Illinois
Michigan State
Ole Miss
Missouri
Pittsburgh
Washington

Tier V
Boston College
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Oklahoma State
Oregon State
Purdue
South Carolina
Syracuse
Texas Tech
UCLA
Washington State

Tier VI
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
California
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Mississippi State
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Northwestern
Virginia

Tier VII
Connecticut
Duke
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisville
Maryland
Rutgers
USF
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

[WayBackVazquez]

My shot, I probably missed a few schools.

Tier I
Alabama
Florida
Florida State
LSU
Miami
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Southern Cal
Texas

Tier II
Auburn
Georgia
Michigan
Nebraska
Oregon
Penn State
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
Wisconsin

Tier III
Boise State
Clemson
Iowa
Stanford
Texas A&M
TCU
Utah
West Virginia

Tier IV
Arkansas
BYU
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Illinois
Michigan State
Ole Miss
Missouri
Pittsburgh
Washington

Tier V
Boston College
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Oklahoma State
Oregon State
Purdue
South Carolina
Syracuse
Texas Tech
UCLA
Washington State

Tier VI
Arizona
Arizona State
Baylor
California
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Mississippi State
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Northwestern
Virginia

Tier VII
Connecticut
Duke
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisville
Maryland
Rutgers
USF
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest

Wow, you're a troll.

[Domer]

Wow, you're a troll.

How so?

[TomRicardo]

How so?

My guess would be Miami over Michigan

[Domer]

My guess would be Miami over Michigan

I think you made that same point in the other thread. Miami has won five national championships in the last half century, while Michigan has won point-five.

[Greg29fan]

Nebraska has nearly 850 football wins, 5 national titles, were great before WWI, great in the 20s-40s, great in the early 70s, had another juggernaut in the 83 team that unfortunately didn't win the Orange Bowl and lost the national title because of it, the greatest team in college football history (the 95 team) and won three national titles in four years (94,95, and 97 - and yeah Nebraska would've beaten Michigan that year) and yet some people have them ranked below Johnny Come Latelys like Florida and Florida State, hell even Tennessee who couldn't beat the University of Nebraska on their best day.

I feel pretty confident even if you don't have Nebraska in a top group, I'll line that 95 team up against any other school's greatest team in the history of the program and the 95 team would win.

Edited by Greg29fan, 12 December 2011 - 11:32 PM.

[WayBackVazquez]

I think you made that same point in the other thread. Miami has won five national championships in the last half century, while Michigan has won point-five.

And Notre Dame has been a punch line for the last 30 years.

It's funny that you would call Michigan out for ancient history, when Michigan has a better record than ND since 2000, since 1990, since 1980, since 1970, since 1960, since 1950, since 1940, since even 1930. You have to include all the way back to 1920 to get over the hump.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 12 December 2011 - 11:43 PM.

[Domer]

And Notre Dame has been a punch line for the last 30 years.

It's funny that you would call Michigan out for ancient history, when Michigan has a better record than ND since 2000, since 1990, since 1980, since 1970, since 1960, since 1950, since 1940, since even 1930. You have to include all the way back to 1920 to get over the hump.

or just 2008