CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Orange Afro Man on July 14, 2017, 01:45:05 AM
-
All results thus far:
Penn St, LSU, Oregon
Alabama, Michigan, USC
Washington, Clemson, A&M
Georgia, Wisconsin, Stanford
Ohio St, Texas, Miami
Auburn, UCLA, Syracuse
Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida
Notre Dame, Florida St, Tennessee
Arkansas, Iowa, Arizona St
Michigan St, Colorado, BYU
Pitt, Ga Tech, TCU
Va Tech, West Va, Ole Miss
Nebraska, Florida St, LSU
Notre Dame, Alabama, Pitt
Miami, Stanford, BYU
Michigan, Texas, Ga Tech
Penn St, Georgia, Washington
Florida, Syracuse, Arizona St
Clemson, Wisconsin, UCLA
Ohio St, Auburn, Va Tech
Tennessee, Oregon, TCU
West Va, Iowa, Colorado
Oklahoma, Michigan St, Arkansas
USC, A&M, Ole Miss
-
Need more voting.
-
yeah, I'm not sure what to do at the moment. If I start posting trios here, not enough people will vote. If I post them on the other site, we'll get more participation, but it may suddenly disappear.
What to do!?!
-
Sorry for the 2 accounts thing, I'll only use this one.
-
no worries about the accounts...
i'm thinking, though, this would fit better in the general football board... and i'm also thinking that all these conference boards might just have to go unless people show up starting Sunday.....
we'll see?
-
Can you post the trios on both, but only list results here? That way you get the votes, and we encourage posters to come over. :72:
-
I was thinking of doing something like that...I just don't think ppl are going to come over until they have to. I'll try it.
Does the general football board get nearly the same traffic as the B10 board?
-
Next trio (in alphabetical order):
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma
-
Please only vote once. Either here OR at the CFN board. Thanks.
-
I voted over there. :sign0144:
-
Next trio (in alphabetical order):
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
-
I'm a little shocked, I thought with the amount of "ND is the greatest helmet of all" crowd that the Doomers would win running away.
But, all the peeps who list ND as #1, have OSU as #2. And there is a significant minority (myself included) for various reasons have stated the ND gold shine has tarnished, they mostly have OSU as #1 and ND down at #3.
So, even though the OSU #1 crowd is smaller, this is turning out to be a really close vote.
-
Re-post from other board.
Here is my list of Helmets (prestigious teams, modified from Mandel's King list) I believe it is changeable, but it takes a decade of dominance with national titles (to get on,) or a decade of irrelevancy (to slid off) for change to happen.
1) Alabama SEC
2) Ohio State B1G
3) Texas B12
4) USC P12
5) Oklahoma B12
6) Florida State ACC
7) Michigan B1G
8 )Florida SEC
9) LSU SEC
10)Penn State B1G
11) Notre Dame Ind
SEC - 3
B1G - 3
B12 - 2
ACC - 1
P12 - 1
Ind - 1
My "On The Cusp" group:
12) Nebraska
13) Clemson
14) Tennessee
15) Oregon
16) Miami
-
Like your 1-10 list
-
Re=post from other board.
Here is my list of Helmets (prestigious teams, modified from Mandel's King list) I believe it is changeable, but it takes a decade of dominance with national titles, or a decade of irrelevancy for change to happen.
1) Alabama SEC
2) Ohio State B1G
3) Texas B12
4) USC P12
5) Oklahoma B12
6) Florida State ACC
7) Michigan B1G
8 ) Florida SEC
9) LSU SEC
10)Penn State B1G
11) Notre Dame Ind
SEC - 3
B1G - 3
B12 - 2
ACC - 1
P12 - 1
Ind - 1
My "On The Cusp" group:
12) Nebraska
13) Clemson
14) Tennessee
15) Oregon
16) Miami
So, what?
-
Well 1st off, the decade drawn line is not a hard line; it's more of a fuzzy math. And IMHO once your on the helmet list "double digit win" seasons is needed to be consider to perform at helmet level (10 win seasons doesn't get you on the list, but will keep you there.)
Keeping them high on my list even with current non-helmet performances:
Texas - 2 great seasons and a natty in the last decade, if Hermon bombs out they slid on my list.
USC - 4 Rose Bowl Wins in the last decade.
Sliding down on my Prestige list:
7-10 - Helmets in my book, but not performing as well as the teams above them. Meat-chicken under Harbaugh is right there, but not winning against OSU, repeat 3rd place Big Ten East finishes, and losing their only "Big" bowl, says they have not returned to the mountain top.
Notre Dame - Haven't performed at helmet since Lou Holtz circa '93. Personally I think their 2012 season was lucky and getting crushed by Alabama confirmed that for me.
Slipped off my Helmet list:
Nebraska - Solich had a couple great years ... last millennium.
Tennessee - Fulmer won them a natty ... last millennium.
Miami - Amazing 20 year run ... in the Big East, haven't been a contender for 15 years of ACC.
-
USC and Texas and Michigan just don't carry the same cache to me as they did 10 years ago.
I think USC has the right coach now, but we'll see. Things can change in a hurry out there, as we've seen.
Michigan seems to have the right coach, but can he sustain without burning out himself, his coaches and his players?
I'm not sold on Hermann just yet. He did good things at Houston for sure, but he was also had a foundation built for him when he got there. Sumlin did a good job there too, as did Briles before him. The other guy before Hermann.. not so much. He was not a good coach.
-
*ich - I think OSU's accession has paralleled skunk-weasel's demise.
When one side is dominating the rivalry it's hard to apply helmet status to the other.
USC - won the Rose last year, and the early pick to make the playoff this year. That's recent on field success and a helmet ranking for the next year. They had some lean years but they are solid. Also no one in the Pac 12 south has stepped up to displace USC.
Texas - I'll acknowledge I'm giving them more grace than you are; I want to see how the next 3 years play out before I lower their prestige status.
-
Your reasoning is more an indication of conference strength than helmet status.
USC is going to be all alone in the South for a while I think. The AZ schools are a mess, and UCLA achieves less with more, than probably any school I can think of over the years. I don't know what the long term looks like for Colorado and Utah.
I think Washington is going to be a beast for a while. Great coach and great school, like Stanford, but better access to talent.
As for the XII.. I don't know what to think anymore. The Oklahoma schools seem to be the pick for the top this season. Baylor is burning at the stake... Texas really needs to make hay this season in my opinion.
-
Time to move it over here.
So, will Michigan be Minnesota in 37 years?
Minnesota is celebrating 50 years without a conference title.
Michigan is celebrating 13.
Have at it.
-
Gophs getting ready to spring the trap
-
Last call on the big, sexy trio....
-
Are we doing this here now?
-
Are we doing this here now?
Why not? The old thread reached its maximum posts and the old place is closing on 7/26 according to CBS.
-
ND
OSU
OU
I think that is still open.
-
Well 1st off, the decade drawn line is not a hard line; it's more of a fuzzy math. And IMHO once your on the helmet list "double digit win" seasons is needed to be consider to perform at helmet level (10 win seasons doesn't get you on the list, but will keep you there.)
I made this point on the old thread in a discussion with dude. I think it is why the list appears fairly static. I worded it somewhat differently: To maintain helmet status a team needs only to PLAY in big nationally relevant games. To attain helmet status a team needs to WIN big nationally relevant games.
Example, Michigan:
In the past 11 years Michigan has played two huge, nationally relevant games with Ohio State (2006&2016) and lost both. Insofar as Michigan's helmet status is concerned I'm not sure that the fact that they lost both games really matters. They were already a helmet and getting into games like that affirmed their helmet status. Now, if Ohio State's opponent in those games had been a school like Indiana then the result would have been enormously important to Indiana. Indiana isn't a helmet and they can't become a helmet by PLAYING in huge, nationally relevant games. Indiana could only become a helmet by WINNING huge, nationally relevant games.
Last 11 Ohio State/Michigan games:
- 2016: #2 Ohio State v #3 Michigan (tOSU won)
2015: #8 Ohio State v #10 Michigan (tOSU won)
2014: #6 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won)
2013: #3 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won)
2012: n/r (ineligible) Ohio State v #19 Michigan (tOSU won)
2011: n/r Ohio State v #15 Michigan (Michigan won)
2010: #8 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won, subsequently vacated)
2009: #10 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won)
2008: #10 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won)
2007: #7 Ohio State v n/r Michigan (tOSU won)
2006: #1 Ohio State v #2 Michigan (tOSU won)
There were three top-10 match-ups in the last 11 years but the 2015 game wasn't really nationally relevant because neither team had a realistic chance at the NC. The winner (either way) needed Penn State to upset Michigan State to even get to the B1GCG. The 2016 and 2006 games, however, were huge games. They were nationally relevant because both teams had a realistic chance at the NC.
-
Time to move it over here.
So, will Michigan be Minnesota in 37 years?
Minnesota is celebrating 50 years without a conference title.
Michigan is celebrating 13.
Have at it.
The comparison is even better than that. Minnesota's last conference title (1967) was a co-championship just like Michigan's (2004). Additionally, both teams won their last NC seven seasons prior to their last conference title (1960 for Minnesota, 1997 for Michigan) and both of those are also claimed by other schools.
I do not think that Michigan WILL be celebrating the 50th anniversary of their last conference title and the 57th anniversary of their last NC in 2054 but I strongly feel that if they ARE, they will be a non-helmet just like Minnesota is now.
-
Yeah, I don't see it happening either. M puts too many resources into the program to let it fall apart.
But I don't think they will ever go on a clip like they used to be, winning conference titles almost every year. The conference is much better/deeper than it was back in those days.
Ohio State is on another level and likely will be for some time.
-
But I don't think they will ever go on a clip like they used to be, winning conference titles almost every year. The conference is much better/deeper than it was back in those days.
Nobody will but that isn't just because the conference is better/deeper, it is also because there are no more co-championships. Per the B1G Media guide (link: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf) the Wolverines have 42 league titles. By my quick count, 26 or more than half were co-championships.
Consider this another way:
Per the aforementioned B1G Media guide, heading into the 2016 season there had been 172 league champions. Subtract the five won by UW, MSU, and tOSU in the B1GCG era and you get 167 in the pre-CG era. Then add one for tOSU's vacated 2010 title and you get 168 league titles awarded in the 115 years from 1896-2010. On average that works out to just under 1.5 league titles awarded per year. Thus, with the advent of the B1GCG the total number of league titles awarded has been reduced by about 0.5 per year.
Getting back to Michigan:
In my opinion your characterization of the way Michigan used to be as "winning conference titles almost every year" somewhat exaggerates the Wolverines historical success. I submit that it should be amended to "winning conference titles about every other year."
AFAIK, the Wolverines never won more than five-straight. They accomplished that from 1988-1992. I think you make a good point. It would be a lot harder to do that now. Ohio State was (relatively) down at that time, Wisconsin was a bottom-feeder, Penn State was an independent, Nebraska was in the Big8, etc. That was also the best Michigan ever did in terms of league titles. Overall Michigan has been in the league for 111 years (11 from 1896-1906 and 100 from 1917-2016). They have won 42 league titles which works out to a little better than one every three years.
The Wolverines have two major league title droughts. They won only one title in the 18 years from 1951 through 1968 and they haven't won any in the 12 years since 2004. If you back out those 30 years and that one title they won 41 league titles in their other 81 years in the league. That is a rate of almost exactly one every other year.
-
Not too many years ago, the SEC champs were varied as well. All sorts of teams in the top 6 won it.
Now, it's pretty much one team and a bunch of also runs. Such things do tend to cycle a bit to some extent. We don't expect UK to win the SEC in say 2023, but it would not be a shock if any of the top 6 did and Alabama was say 10-3.
-
I know I exaggerated M's prosperity a bit, but I was trying to make a point. That's all.
The point still stands though. They will not win at a clip like they did moving forward. Too many things stacked against them to do that.
Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.
-
Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.
That has and will continue to happen a lot now that we have a CG.
2011: Old rules it would have been MSU, with the CG it was UW.
2012: Old rules it would have been Nebraska (because tOSU was ineligible), with the CG it was UW.
2013: Old rules it would have been tOSU and MSU as co-champs, with the CG it was MSU.
2014: Ohio State either way.
2015: Old rules it would have been Iowa, with the CG it was MSU.
2016: Old rules it would have been tOSU and PSU as co-champs, with the CG it was PSU.
In the six years we have had a CG we have obviously had six champions: UW(2), MSU(2), tOSU, PSU. With no CG we would have had eight: tOSU(3), MSU(2), UNL, IA, PSU.
-
Just checking to make sure this thing works...
-
Not too many years ago, the SEC champs were varied as well. All sorts of teams in the top 6 won it.
Now, it's pretty much one team and a bunch of also runs. Such things do tend to cycle a bit to some extent. We don't expect UK to win the SEC in say 2023, but it would not be a shock if any of the top 6 did and Alabama was say 10-3.
I'll very curious to see which of the "others" in the SEC finally wins the conference. It's got to happen sometime, right? Arkansas has come the closest in '08 I think, losing by 10. The other non-6 teams to get to Atlanta all got trounced.
-
I know I exaggerated M's prosperity a bit, but I was trying to make a point. That's all.
The point still stands though. They will not win at a clip like they did moving forward. Too many things stacked against them to do that.
Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.
I can't tell what you mean:
(1) If your point is that no one will win at that clip, then I agree. But that's not really interesting or meaningful. The CCGs prevent that for everyone. What is interesting is whether Michigan will over the next 100 years have the most Big Ten championships (as they have so far) or a much more modest ranking. Whether they arrive at the same rate as the first 42 is irrelevant if 100 years from now we see that they still arrived more often for Michigan than anyone else.
(2) On the other hand, if your point is that Michigan "will not" be one of the conference's obvious two best teams over long stretches of time, then your wording is far too certain -- it's dishonestly certain. No one can know that. As a hypothesis, sure. Anything is possible, but I'd say it is more probable that you are misinterpreting a historically anomalous stretch as...not anomalous and closer to a new standard.
About #2: Check back in ten years. Not because something great will "hopefully" start then, but because there's good evidence that it recently and already has. And that amount of time will make it more difficult for us to use short-sighted metrics.
-
I'll very curious to see which of the "others" in the SEC finally wins the conference. It's got to happen sometime, right? Arkansas has come the closest in '08 I think, losing by 10. The other non-6 teams to get to Atlanta all got trounced.
The 2012 championship game seemed to me to be pretty close.
-
I can't tell what you mean:
(1) If your point is that no one will win at that clip, then I agree. But that's not really interesting or meaningful. The CCGs prevent that for everyone. What is interesting is whether Michigan will over the next 100 years have the most Big Ten championships (as they have so far) or a much more modest ranking. Whether they arrive at the same rate as the first 42 is irrelevant if 100 years from now we see that they still arrived more often for Michigan than anyone else.
(2) On the other hand, if your point is that Michigan "will not" be one of the conference's obvious two best teams over long stretches of time, then your wording is far too certain -- it's dishonestly certain. No one can know that. As a hypothesis, sure. Anything is possible, but I'd say it is more probable that you are misinterpreting a historically anomalous stretch as...not anomalous and closer to a new standard.
About #2: Check back in ten years. Not because something great will "hopefully" start then, but because there's good evidence that it recently and already has. And that amount of time will make it more difficult for us to use short-sighted metrics.
The odds are stacked against anyone winning 42 titles in 100 years. As I said, OSU was the best team last year and even they got tripped up. Michigan was probably 2nd best, and a loss at IOWA tripped them up.
M won a lot of championships when it was the Big 2/Little 8. There might still be a Little 8, but now there is a pretty clear top 6 (or even 7 or 8) that can beat anyone on any given day. It didn't used to be like that.
-
The most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close. So far, that's been Michigan. You are conflating (a) "but they won't keep winning them at the same rate" with (b) "Michigan won't still be #1."
"(a)" is boring because not only is it true for everyone, but it is also an apples to oranges comparison. "(b)" is the point the matters.
Michigan will be just as giddily cheeky in 100 years if, over that next stretch, it again has the most conference championships. Whether that means 18 or 25 over 100 years is immaterial. All that matters is whether it is the most. And if not #1, what matters is the margin between Michigan's titles over the next 100 years and whichever opponent is #1 instead.
TL;DR(...)
I guess my point is that when you say something like "42 so far isn't sustainable going forward," you are sharing a comment with very little content. The raw number is much less significant than its conference rank.
You need to decide whether you want your comment to be "In my opinion, Michigan won't be #1 in conference titles going forward," then ante up.
-
Hah!
I just found out that typing an 8 next to a ) gives you that "cool" smiley face above.
Ante up what? I'll be 150 in 100 years. Good luck collecting.
-
The most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close. So far, that's been Michigan. You are conflating (a) "but they won't keep winning them at the same rate" with (b) "Michigan won't still be #1."
"(a)" is boring because not only is it true for everyone, but it is also an apples to oranges comparison. "(b)" is the point the matters.
Michigan will be just as giddily cheeky in 100 years if, over that next stretch, it again has the most conference championships. Whether that means 18 or 25 over 100 years is immaterial. All that matters is whether it is the most. And if not #1, what matters is the margin between Michigan's titles over the next 100 years and whichever opponent is #1 instead.
TL;DR(...)
I guess my point is that when you say something like "42 so far isn't sustainable going forward," you are sharing a comment with very little content. The raw number is much less significant than its conference rank.
You need to decide whether you want your comment to be "In my opinion, Michigan won't be #1 in conference titles going forward," then ante up.
Michigan isn't #1 and hasn't been for 50+ years or arguably ever.
From the establishment of the conference in 1896 up through when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI) league titles were as follows:
- 16 Minnesota
- 15 Michigan
- 8 Illinois
- 7 Chicago
From 1942 through 2016 conference titles are as follows:
- 30 Ohio State
- 27 Michigan
- 9 Michigan State
- 9 Wisconsin
-
USC and Texas and Michigan just don't carry the same cache to me as they did 10 years ago.
I think USC has the right coach now, but we'll see. Things can change in a hurry out there, as we've seen.
Michigan seems to have the right coach, but can he sustain without burning out himself, his coaches and his players?
I'm not sold on Hermann just yet. He did good things at Houston for sure, but he was also had a foundation built for him when he got there. Sumlin did a good job there too, as did Briles before him. The other guy before Hermann.. not so much. He was not a good coach.
I don't disagree, but who are you going to replace them with? Who are you going to move up, to move those three down?
-
Hah!
I just found out that typing an 8 next to a ) gives you that "cool" smiley face above.
Ante up what? I'll be 150 in 100 years. Good luck collecting.
I'm guessing that your comment doesn't mean what you think it means. I think you mean to predict that Michigan is going to fall back. But by focusing on rate-of-Big-Ten-titles, that's not what you are saying at all. Michigan could easily have a lesser rate of championships and still have the best rate of championships.
The raw number for the rate isn't as important as the ranking of that rate.
-
Look at Medina's post.
As yes, I don't think M will lead the conference it titles moving forward. They will (and should, given the resources) content nearly every season, however.
-
Michigan isn't #1 and hasn't been for 50+ years or arguably ever.
From the establishment of the conference in 1896 up through when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI) league titles were as follows:
- 16 Minnesota
- 15 Michigan
- 8 Illinois
- 7 Chicago
From 1942 through 2016 conference titles are as follows:
- 30 Ohio State
- 27 Michigan
- 9 Michigan State
- 9 Wisconsin
In the period of "beginning until now," Michigan has the most Big Ten championships. That was my data source.
1. Michigan - 42
2. Ohio State -35
3. Minnesota -18
Your date range provides a different window, and different windows can be interesting, but I'd call the chosen years arbitrary. I call all chosen years except "all of them" arbitrary. We've had that conversation (innumerable times) before, though, and do not agree.
-
In the period of "beginning until now," Michigan has the most Big Ten championships. That was my data source.
1. Michigan - 42
2. Ohio State -35
3. Minnesota -18
Your date range provides a different window, and different windows can be interesting, but I'd call the chosen years arbitrary. I call all chosen years except "all of them" arbitrary. We've had that conversation (innumerable times) before, though, and do not agree.
By your theory the best college football programs in the country are:
- Princeton (28 NC's)
- Yale (27 NC's)
Unless you are prepared to defend the idea that Princeton and Yale are the best two college football programs in the country you cannot argue that ONLY all-time can be used.
Ok, now that we have established that it is silly to look only at all-time records because recency has relevance we are only left with the decision of "how recent?"
From 1896 through 1926 Michigan won 11 league titles and Ohio State won three. Since then Michigan has won 31 and Ohio State has won 32. Thus, on any time-frame of about 90 years or less, Ohio State is #1.
-
I can happily defend that:
First, you changed the topic -- twice. You switched to NCs and you left the Big Ten.
Second, if you insist on talking about all conferences and NCs**, there are a bunch of ways to reconcile it feeling "weird" that Princeton and Yale are on top. For that, feel free to scoot to the final paragraph. But my preferred method would begin here by ranking the NC getters by their rate of NC-acquisition (total NCs [FBS or Div.I] divided by years spent in FBS orDiv.I).
Adding context to those lists does not require a treatment with specially chosen years. Princeton and Yale left Div.I a looooong time ago. That makes their concentration of titles even more impressive than the raw numbers you reference. They were more dominant in their era than any team in any era. So if we rank all teams across all-time by their rate of NCs, of course they deserve to be ranked at the top.
Now, if you ask me to propose how to change that list (without changing its years) to make it perfectly relevant to today, I'd merely ask you to exclude all teams who are not currently in the FBS. Excluding Princeton and Yale in this way is quite natural. In many senses, they've already excluded themselves.
**(which I'm cool with, and it's certainly true I find the "all-time CFB" span the least arbitrary for those topics, too)
-
It doesn't entirely belong in this thread, but I'll express that for our conference in all 4 combinations, since I had the time and found it fun:
BIG TEN TITLE RATE (All members)
1. Michigan --- 0.378 per year
2. Ohio State --- 0.333
3. Penn State --- 0.167
4. Chicago --- 0.159
5. Minnesota --- 0.149
6. Michigan State --- 0.141
7. Illinois --- 0.124
8. Wisconsin --- 0.116
9. Iowa --- 0.094
10. Northwestern --- 0.066
10. Purdue --- 0.066
12. Indiana --- 0.017
13. Nebraska --- 0.000
13. Maryland --- 0.000
13. Rutgers --- 0.000
BIG TEN TITLE RATE (Current members only)
1. Michigan --- 0.378 per year
2. Ohio State --- 0.333
3. Penn State --- 0.167
4. Minnesota --- 0.149
5. Michigan State --- 0.141
6. Illinois --- 0.124
7. Wisconsin --- 0.116
8. Iowa --- 0.094
9. Northwestern --- 0.066
9. Purdue --- 0.066
11. Indiana --- 0.017
12. Nebraska --- 0.000
12. Maryland --- 0.000
12. Rutgers --- 0.000
BIG TEN TITLES (All members)
1. Michigan --- 42 total
2. Ohio State --- 35
3. Minnesota --- 18
4. Illinois --- 15
5. Wisconsin --- 14
6. Iowa --- 11
7. Michigan State --- 9
8. Northwestern --- 8
8. Purdue --- 8
10. Chicago --- 7
11. Penn State --- 4
12. Indiana --- 2
13. Nebraska --- 0
13. Maryland --- 0
13. Rutgers --- 0
BIG TEN TITLES (Current members only)
1. Michigan --- 42 total
2. Ohio State --- 35
3. Minnesota --- 18
4. Illinois --- 15
5. Wisconsin --- 14
6. Iowa --- 11
7. Michigan State --- 9
8. Northwestern --- 8
8. Purdue --- 8
10. Penn State --- 4
11. Indiana --- 2
12. Nebraska --- 0
12. Maryland --- 0
12. Rutgers --- 0
YEARS OF FOOTBALL MEMBERSHIP
1. Illinois --- 121 years
1. Minnesota --- 121
1. Northwestern --- 121
1. Purdue --- 121
1. Wisconsin --- 121
6. Indiana --- 117
6. Iowa --- 117
8. Michigan --- 111
9. Ohio State --- 105
10. Michigan State --- 64
11. Chicago --- 44
12. Penn State --- 24
13. Nebraska --- 6
14. Maryland --- 3
15. Rutgers --- 3
-
The 2012 championship game seemed to me to be pretty close.
You misunderstood - I said "non-6"......UGA is one of the six schools that have won the SEC since '92. So the 2012 game has nothing to do with one of the have-nots finally winning the conference.
-
Last call:
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma
Rank 'em.
-
Last call on the big, sexy trio....
You already made a last call on this trio
-
I know, but the transition, I fear, may delay some.
-
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Ohio State is higher right now, but if success evens out, Notre Dame moves back to the top (which over the long run, it should; at least to a degree).
-
D@mn it all. I think you have more votes on this trio than any other. And with the 2 final calls both of them garnered a vote for ND. Allowing those creepy Doomers to take the lead.
hmmm. I went to edit this comment to add a smiley to show I'm not super serious about the above, but when you go to edit the message it take to the quick edit where instead of the original make a post and I don't see where to add smileys.
-
As discussed, ND is the classic definition of a helmet team that may not align with "recent history", and does suggest this quality has considerable endurance, though it is not permanent in my opinion.
I think if in ten years ND doesn't finish in the top five 2-3 times, and has some 7-6 type seasons, they will be in danger of sliding out. Maybe 20.
The UGA game for them this year is perhaps pivotal in a sense. If they fail to defeat a half decent SEC team at home, the allure will suffer.
Last I checked, they are favored over the Dawgs.
-
Maybe it's the just the circle I run in. No one talks about ND 'cept for the one guy whose parents are Catholic.
I see other helmets getting more hype than the Doomers. I think playing other Helmets as more prestigious.
This season, would you rather beat: Ohio State, Alabama, or Notre Dame?
-
Heh, I'd vote for my team beating all three. That would be a something.
:93:
This is obviously a tough group, so I have no problem with any order, but I'm trying to think about helmetosity, the intangible, rather than recent performance, which would have ND at the end of the pack.
-
Maybe it's the just the circle I run in. No one talks about ND 'cept for the one guy whose parents are Catholic.
I see other helmets getting more hype than the Doomers. I think playing other Helmets as more prestigious.
This season, would you rather beat: Ohio State, Alabama, or Notre Dame?
Horns currently have scoreboard on both Notre Dame and Ohio State, so I'll go with Alabama. Definitely owe them for that 2009 MNC title game, and also they're the consistent top dog in college football right now.
Overall though, like Cincy I think ND is pretty much the definition of the college football helmet team, because they can be down for decades, and still garner a ton of attention. Even though both Texas and ND turned out to be awful last year, beating them at home in the season opener was a highlight of the past decade for me.
-
ND hasn't won a Jan bowl game since 1994...
-
I can happily defend that:
First, you changed the topic -- twice. You switched to NCs and you left the Big Ten.
Second, if you insist on talking about all conferences and NCs**, there are a bunch of ways to reconcile it feeling "weird" that Princeton and Yale are on top. For that, feel free to scoot to the final paragraph. But my preferred method would begin here by ranking the NC getters by their rate of NC-acquisition (total NCs [FBS or Div.I] divided by years spent in FBS orDiv.I).
Adding context to those lists does not require a treatment with specially chosen years. Princeton and Yale left Div.I a looooong time ago. That makes their concentration of titles even more impressive than the raw numbers you reference. They were more dominant in their era than any team in any era. So if we rank all teams across all-time by their rate of NCs, of course they deserve to be ranked at the top.
Now, if you ask me to propose how to change that list (without changing its years) to make it perfectly relevant to today, I'd merely ask you to exclude all teams who are not currently in the FBS. Excluding Princeton and Yale in this way is quite natural. In many senses, they've already excluded themselves.
**(which I'm cool with, and it's certainly true I find the "all-time CFB" span the least arbitrary for those topics, too)
Yes I changed topic, but I didn't change concept. Your argument is that Michigan has the most league titles and therefore Michigan is #1 in the league. Ok, using that exact logic Princeton and Yale have the most national titles and are #1 and #2 nationally.
I would submit that excluding teams no longer competing is arbitrary too. They are part of the history so excluding them from their own history is arbitrary. Similarly, Georgia leads Florida in their all-time series by eight games, 50-42-2. Basically nobody believes that Georgia is a better program. Georgia leads the all-time series because they dominated up through and a little after WWII. Through 1951 the Dawgs led the Gators 24-5-1. Since then the Gators lead 37-26-1.
The same thing obviously applies to Ohio State and Michigan or to B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles. Michigan leads the M/tOSU series and has the most league titles for the same reason that Georgia leads the UGA/UF series, because they were better a really long time ago.
Over any current time-frame of more than 10 and less than 90 years Ohio State is #1 in B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles.
I do not believe that Michigan's pre-1926 titles are completely irrelevant but I strongly believe that they are VASTLY less relevant than PSU's, MSU's, tOSU's, and UW's titles in the last five years.
You started out by saying that "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close." Then you stated that that was Michigan.
I disagree because "winning" is a term in present tense. At the present time Michigan is far from "*the* team winning the most championships", they aren't even close. In the last 12 seasons that would be:
6 Ohio State
3 each: Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State
There are 15 in 12 years because Ohio State and Penn State were co-champions in 2005 and 2008 while Michigan State and Wisconsin were co-champions in 2010. As you go back further Michigan catches the second place teams and moves into second place but they don't move into first place until you go back 91 years.
Using past tense, Michigan is the team that has won the most league titles but using present tense, for the past 90 years Ohio State has been the team winning the most league titles.
-
...and a 29-year NC drought. That wouldn't be as damning if they were able to win a number of conference titles, but without that, there's no bump-ups in their measure of win%.
-
...and a 29-year NC drought. That wouldn't be as damning if they were able to win a number of conference titles, but without that, there's no bump-ups in their measure of win%.
It is 19 not 29, 1997 wasn't that long ago. On the other hand that 1997 split title is Michigan's only NC in nearly 70 years.
-
It is 19 not 29, 1997 wasn't that long ago. On the other hand that 1997 split title is Michigan's only NC in nearly 70 years.
and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?
Leaves quickly..
-
and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?
Leaves quickly..
Washington State wasn't THAT bad and they were a major conference champion. It isn't fair to compare them to BYU because when BYU barely beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the 1984 Holiday Bowl that was literally the best team BYU played all year.
-
Yeah, that BYU MNC is probably the most dubious one of my lifetime. I'd have to think hard to come up with another.
-
Yeah, that BYU MNC is probably the most dubious one of my lifetime. I'd have to think hard to come up with another.
It is EASILY the most ridiculous one since the advent of the Polls. That BYU team shouldn't have been in the top-10 let alone declared NC.
-
and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?
Leaves quickly..
First, WSU was #7/#8. So the 1984 BYU thing (versus an unranked team) is off by magnitudes. Second, 1997 was one year before the standardization of NC opponents. So there was no such thing as an NC game.
Michigan's title was, sure, impossible if they hadn't been undefeated, but with another undefeated team, going undefeated was probably always going to be insufficient. The rest of the context included the intense strength of schedule. I haven't gone back to view the final rankings but as of game time, 1997 Michigan took down four Top 10 teams and three more in the Top 25.
-
Over any current time-frame of more than 10 and less than 90 years Ohio State is #1 in B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles.
I never denied that. I just acknowledged that those time frames are arbitrarily constructed.
You started out by saying that "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close." Then you stated that that was Michigan.
You misunderstood. I was expressing that the most meaningful thing going forward (future tense) is to be the team that wins the conference championships the most frequently. And if we had that conversation in 1896, at the dawn of Big Ten football, we'd learn that by now (until now), that title would be held by Michigan.
Using past tense, Michigan is the team that has won the most league titles but using present tense, for the past 90 years Ohio State has been the team winning the most league titles.
Also true. But still arbitrarily bounded.
-
Not as a distraction but as a second conversation, I expected you to be more interested in the championship rates compilation. Our conversation doesn't hinge on it. But it's interesting on its own. MSU looks shockingly great. Chicago way less impressive than expected. The future rate contributions of UNL and PSU should be fascinating, too.
-
You can call it arbitrary all you want but the fact is that you want to say "rah rah, my school is #1" and the ONLY way you can do that is by going back into the mists of ancient history.
If you asked any even remotely neutral fan "which is the best program in the B1G right now?" they would say Ohio State without hesitation.
I'll put it another way. Penn State has only ever won four league titles (1994, 2005, 2008, 2016). No imagine for a minute that Penn State took over starting with 2016 and dominated the way their fans told us they would back in 1993 when they joined. Imagine further that Ohio State and Michigan both sunk into mediocre to bottom-feeder status and that over the next 50 years those three schools won:
- 0 league titles for Michigan
- 7 league titles for Ohio State
- 36 league titles for Penn State
After those 50 years the B1G title leader board would look as follows:
- 42 Ohio State
- (tie) 42 Michigan
- 40 Penn State
Nobody would say "Ohio State and Michigan are winning the most B1G titles". It would be correct to say "Ohio State and Michigan have won the most B1G titles" but it would also be irrelevant. Penn State would clearly be THE team in the B1G. That is why I referred back to your original statement: "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close." That team, as you described, is NOT the team that has the most all-time, it is the team that is currently winning the most.
-
Not as a distraction but as a second conversation, I expected you to be more interested in the championship rates compilation. Our conversation doesn't hinge on it. But it's interesting on its own. MSU looks shockingly great. Chicago way less impressive than expected. The future rate contributions of UNL and PSU should be fascinating, too.
I did find it interesting but, since I'm not a Michigan fan, I really don't care much for the "all-time" rate. Years ago I did a similar compilation but I used a rolling rate. Championships per 10-25 years would be a lot more interesting to me. Ie:
From 2007-2016 the rates are:
- 4 per 10 years, Ohio State
- 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin and Michigan State
- 2 per 10 years, Penn State
- 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team
It adds up to 12 in 10 years because the 2010 title was shared by UW and MSU while the 2008 title was shared by tOSU and PSU.
Then the next 10 year period to look at would be 2006-2015 where the rates are:
- 5 per 10 years, Ohio State
- 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin and Michigan State
- 1 per 10 years, Penn State
- 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team
Then 2005-2014:
- 6 per 10 years, Ohio State
- 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin
- 2 per 10 years, Penn State and Michigan State
- 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team
Then 2004-2013:
- 5 per 10 years, Ohio State
- 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin
- 2 per 10 years, Penn State and Michigan State
- 1 per 10 years, Iowa and Michigan
- 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team
-
You can call it arbitrary all you want but the fact is that you want to say "rah rah, my school is #1" and the ONLY way you can do that is by going back into the mists of ancient history.
That may be how you see it through the rival lens, but I'd rather call it an unfortunate disservice to our conversation that I can't realistically switch to a different fanbase for a moment. Because then my objectively solid point couldn't be superficially torn just because "meh you're a fan; this feels predictable; my fingers go in my ears; I can't hear you."
Just as I prefer that we cite the global view of the 247 Composite rather than biasedly cherry-picking a single site (that favors our interests), I prefer the global view of "take all the years," rather than biasedly selecting boundaries within those years. Just as with a good experiment of some factor measured over time, I'd never cover up the first half of its graph, electing to disregard it as "less informationally dense than the second half."
I consider myself consistent in that respect.
You might read that and wish to counter-argue that the second paragraph was merely a reversed example of "meh you're a fan and this is predictable" (where I take that hose you pointed at me but point it at you), but the important distinction is bolded above. Taking an all-time scale is objectively less arbitrary than every chosen scale of smaller size.
This isn't to say that interesting trends and the value of recency can't be better gleaned by selecting boundaries that highlight some number fewer than "all the years," but it is to say that such boundaries (even benign appearing ones like "ever since the inaugural AP poll") are always more arbitrary than taking them all together.
If you asked any even remotely neutral fan "which is the best program in the B1G right now?" they would say Ohio State without hesitation.
I don't understand why that is relevant. I don't disagree. It's also a different topic.
Perhaps you are sensitive to the possibility that I am claiming that arbitrarily drawn lines are meaningless or wrong, but I'm not making that kind of value judgment. I had tried and hoped I was clear in this regard. Maybe not.
I'm merely acknowledging semantically that arbitrarily drawn lines are arbitrarily drawn. I'm not trying to demean them. I'm just trying to give them that contextual stamp. To me, that's a quite small but incontrovertibly true matter.
-
Gotta be DudeK
-
Gotta be DudeK
:- D
-
It is 19 not 29, 1997 wasn't that long ago. On the other hand that 1997 split title is Michigan's only NC in nearly 70 years.
Yeah, I was referring to ND, not Michigan.
I guess while I responded to Entropy's post, you posted in between ours.
-
1942 doesn't seem arbitrary to me. A buttload of changes occurred as the result of World War 2 (also not arbitrary) in the college football landscape.
It even affected teams and kids directly at the time.
I mean, a Badger kid called "Crazy Legs" was forced to wear a silly helmet.
-
It is EASILY the most ridiculous one since the advent of the Polls. That BYU team shouldn't have been in the top-10 let alone declared NC.
Flutie may have been in the top 10 or even top 5 best players in 84, but not the hypesman winner in my opinion
-
The University of Tennessee Volunteers have won the second-most SEC football championships with 13. Other schools with double-digit trophies to their names include the University of Georgia Bulldogs with 12 and the Louisiana State Tigers with 11. The Gators have won a total of eight SEC titles.
Sources: secsports.go.com wikipedia.org
Alabama has really dominated the SEC, which is not a shock. The Vols are second though in numbers of SEC championships, and LSU and Florida are 4th and 5th.
-
Yeah, stuff seems to matter more when it happens after WWII, color TV, disco music, or motorized carriages.
-
I can get on board with admitting that CFB events since ~1942 share more in common with today than the events preceding that time. But that doesn't mean the year isn't arbitrary. A person is selecting those years for...reasons they decide to choose. That's automatically more arbitrary than not doing that.
As a separate idea: this thread should highly value the first decades of college football more than any other thread. Because in terms of Helmet prestige, those early solar system decades were the ones that decided which teams would be planets today and which would be asteroids or dust.
-
Results:
46 Notre Dame (13-0-7)
45 Ohio State (6-13-1)
29 Oklahoma (1-7-12)
Sorry for the delay, I was traveling and then counting all the votes up on 2 boards. ND had zero 2nd-place votes - I doubt that happens again for a winner.
*Feel free to check my tabulation, it'd be easy to mess it up
-
Next trio:
Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State
-
I've been kind of dreading a UNL-PSU trio. Both are Helmets and separating them feels impossible.
Michigan
UNL
PSU
I feel perfectly unconfident about those two.
-
Same:
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
Michigan and Nebraska have slipped a bit more recently, as did Penn State, but PSU looks to be back, perhaps. Nebraska had such a storied run in the 1990s it's hard not to count that as a something.
They were also really good before that.
Michigan may win this on "pure helmet" more than performance on the field.
-
I know there's a "helmet status" vs performance debate on this, but please keep in mind that there isn't a correct answer. Just vote on your feel for the pecking order of these programs in your mind. A school can have fewer NCs, Heismans, and a lower win% than another, but is more prestigious in your mind, and that's okay.
You may support your vote when asked by a fellow poster, but you're not required to in any way. "I just feel this way" is a perfectly fine answer. There's so many things to take into account, and we all utilize a different group of them to influence our votes.
All-time Win%
All-time NCs
poll-era win%
poll-era NCs
"my lifetime" results
last 50 years results
since WWII results
Heismans
TV appearances
conference championships
consistency
peaks
NCs spread among multiple coaches
recent success
distant past success
all-americans
identifiable helmet (literal)
bully of the conference
bully of the state
Taking these into account (and many more) and coming to your own conclusion is what makes this fun.
-
Michigan
UNL
PSU
-
M*ch*g*n
Penn State
Nebraska
Things I think about not on OAM's list:
Who gets more press coverage.
Who gets ranked high by name recognition alone.
Who other schools would be more excited to play/beat.
Hall of Fame coaches
BCS Wins / Playoff Appearances
Things I consider from OAM's list:
All time wins
National Titles
Heisman's
Recent success
Conference Titles
-
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn St
Michigan was an easy #1, the other 2 were very close.
-
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
-
I expected this to be a lot tighter between PSU and UNL. Only 15% to 20% of the polls are in, but it looks like a route.
-
It's odd that they are close, but in my mind it's clear.
I've said I don't think either qualifies for my list of helmets, but they are the first two out with Nebraska #8 and PSU #9
-
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
-
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn St
-
Would Nebraska have been higher in say 1995? Penn State? Michigan?
I think these three programs are examples of how this metric can diminish over two decades or so.
Give it another 20 years and if any continue with rather lackluster performance, I think they will drop further (duh) and be surpassed by a program like Clemson or FSU if they keep it up.
-
Would Penn State have been higher with out the Sandusky atrocities?
Putting my 1995 glasses on, I don't think UNL passes *ich. *ich was operating at a pretty high level in the 90ies as well. in '95 UNL was just finishing up there best 3 year run ever, a type of run that gets in the discussion of being a helmet, but when your already a helmet the type of run expected, and 1 super class does not vault you past the all time winning-est team, who is also playing at high rate.
-
I meant higher overall. I agree they would not have been above Michigan then.
They might have edged out say Oklahoma or Ohio State back in 1997 or so?
Speculation. I'm pondering how much mobility there is in these rankings, e.g., how long it takes to drop or gain a tier.
And it's not a zero sum game. Tier One for example would contain 7,8,9,10 programs, perhaps.
-
I meant higher overall. I agree they would not have been above Michigan then.
They might have edged out say Oklahoma or Ohio State back in 1997 or so?
Speculation. I'm pondering how much mobility there is in these rankings, e.g., how long it takes to drop or gain a tier.
And it's not a zero sum game. Tier One for example would contain 7,8,9,10 programs, perhaps.
I think there would have been good discussion after the 99 season that Nebraska might have passed or on the verge of passing OU, but not tOSU
then Bobby Stoops came up with the 2000 championship
-
It gets too complex, but our ranking might change if done each decade, even not meaning 1940.
Would we have had Ole Miss and Minny "up there" in 1960? Oklahoma might then have been 1 or 2.
Of course, part of the helmet thing is having "been there" over many decades. That is why many have FSU just shy. FSU in 1970 would be well down, Miami as well. Nebraska in 1970 would still be up there.
That top tier changes slowly, I think, which is why it is a top tier and rarified air.
-
Would Nebraska have been higher in say 1995? Penn State? Michigan?
I think these three programs are examples of how this metric can diminish over two decades or so.
Give it another 20 years and if any continue with rather lackluster performance, I think they will drop further (duh) and be surpassed by a program like Clemson or FSU if they keep it up.
They way I see it, dreaming of becoming a Helmet may be boringly hopeless for outsiders and being discarded may be boringly impossible for insiders.
By observation, I think there are presently 10 Helmet teams (ND, Michigan, Texas, OSU, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, UNL, PSU, and Tennessee) whose prestige was "permanently set," roughly around the year 1970, making them the first such examples (of permanently set prestige) in CFB history. And as no one has entered or left my set of Helmet club membership since, we don't have any evidence that it could happen.
So I'm not convinced that 20-straight lackluster-on-average seasons could accomplish anything to drop them. 20+ certainly hasn't done that for Notre Dame. To make engaging those possibilities useful, we first need evidence of an unequivocal transition in or out.
-
Michigan
Penn State
Nebraska
-
They way I see it, dreaming of becoming a Helmet may be boringly hopeless for outsiders and being discarded may be boringly impossible for insiders.
By observation, I think there are presently 10 Helmet teams (ND, Michigan, Texas, OSU, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, UNL, PSU, and Tennessee) whose prestige was "permanently set," roughly around the year 1970, making them the first such examples (of permanently set prestige) in CFB history. And as no one has entered or left my set of Helmet club membership since, we don't have any evidence that it could happen.
So I'm not convinced that 20-straight lackluster-on-average seasons could accomplish anything to drop them. 20+ certainly hasn't done that for Notre Dame. To make engaging those possibilities useful, we first need evidence of an unequivocal transition in or out.
Well, I have 11 helmets on my list (see page 1) And I have Tennessee and Nebraska sitting on the outside. ND is a special non-football case they are the "Catholic Team" and stay culturally relevant because of religious affiliation.
-
Guys, once we have an ordered list, we'll vote on the cutoff for helmet status. Patience.
-
I see more flux in this than some apparently. It may take 3-4 decades, but I think the list can change, has changed, and will change.
The list in 1940 would be considerably different from the list today.
The list from 1970 might be some different than today.
I think in 2000 it would remain the same, with a few voters changing their list.
-
I think the *continuing* impact of religious affiliation on the perception of ND's modern Helmet affiliation is overstated. That certainly was a defining characteristic of its original fan base size. But, now, I'd sooner say that their current fan base is a product of the same forces as all of ours. Fandom is passed down family lines and by the formation of new families as future alumni matriculate each year.
My guess is that there are far more incoming Irish students each year than newcomers to CFB (or turncoat fans who switch teams), who've never previously rooted for Notre Dame but choose to each year with the reasoning "I'm new to this and that's the Catholic team, so that's who I'm pulling for."
In that sense, Catholicism is part of the massiveness of ND's origin story more than any other mechanism contributing to their current relevance.
And my take is that all a Helmet needed was to have a massive origin story and not mess it up before ~1970.
-
As religion wanes and matters less and less (look at the stats), won't ND's status do the same? Wouldn't that be frustrating - knowing your status is tied to results less than anyone else's? Sort of a turnabout from the decades of advantage they've received, no?
-
As religion wanes and matters less and less (look at the stats), won't ND's status do the same? Wouldn't that be frustrating - knowing your status is tied to results less than anyone else's? Sort of a turnabout from the decades of advantage they've received, no?
If the value of religion to Notre Dame's Helmet status is not continuous, if instead it was merely to get the ball rolling (by applying a critical mass of interest in the Irish Football across the first half of CFB history), then neither a putative decrease in Catholic population nor in Catholic social relevance should have any effect on Notre Dame's Helmet.
By that theory, now that they are in Helmet maintenance mode, they don't rely on anything, including their faith, to keep their fanbase large or their program prestige going.
Of course, if Catholic social relevance diminishes to such an extent that Notre Dame can no longer matriculate full classes of incoming freshmen, then, sure, this might over long time periods change. But the periods of time necessary to experience that (assuming it's at all possible) are likely on the order of plural hundreds of years.
-
As religion wanes and matters less and less (look at the stats), won't ND's status do the same? Wouldn't that be frustrating - knowing your status is tied to results less than anyone else's? Sort of a turnabout from the decades of advantage they've received, no?
The amount of people attending church has decreased, but the number of people claiming they are Catholic still increases, it's almost like an ethnicity now. You don't have to go to mass on Sunday to root for the Doomers on Saturday.
-
full classes of incoming freshmen
by this logic, Notre Dame, has been and will be going forward, losing ground to all the other "helmet" programs since they are a small school
and fandom is certainly handed down by families, but runs of impressive winning, such as FSU or Miami, possibly Clemson currently bring hordes of new fans with no family ties.
-
If the value of religion to Notre Dame's Helmet status is not continuous, if instead it was merely to get the ball rolling (by applying a critical mass of interest in the Irish Football across the first half of CFB history), then neither a putative decrease in Catholic population nor in Catholic social relevance should have any effect on Notre Dame's Helmet.
By that theory, now that they are in Helmet maintenance mode, they don't rely on anything, including their faith, to keep their fanbase large or their program prestige going.
Of course, if Catholic social relevance diminishes to such an extent that Notre Dame can no longer matriculate full classes of incoming freshmen, then, sure, this might over long time periods change. But the periods of time necessary to experience that (assuming it's at all possible) are likely on the order of plural hundreds of years.
It would be more generational, wouldn't it? More like stairs and not a steady decline. Just a thought.
-
full classes of incoming freshmen
by this logic, Notre Dame, has been and will be going forward, losing ground to all the other "helmet" programs since they are a small school
That part about matriculants was just a hypothetical about what it might *possibly* take for them to lose their heavy fan base. The more I think about it, that was a dumb thing to write. Just based on family ties, even if there were zero non-football matriculants, we'd expect their fan base to stay plenty fat and healthy. After all, we all know the average american has more than one child to pass his football interest to.
-
It would be more generational, wouldn't it? More like stairs and not a steady decline. Just a thought.
Maybe. I don't think I've thought it over formally/rigorously enough to really say one way or the other. Still, my guess is that the first step or meaningful slope down is an absurdly long way away.
-
I think the larger influence is winning consistently. If ND experiences a further 20 year record of relative mediocrity, the shine will fade from the dome. They have a lot of tradition, but so does Army and Yale.
If ND goes 20 years from today with zero NY6 bowl appearances, I think they slide.
-
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
-
For ND, I think it's contingent on NBC. NBC could delay or hasten their drop in relevance quickly. Now sure, it's tied to winning, if ND goes 3-9 the next 5 years or whatever, and NBC doesn't extend their deal, the days of being special are flat out over.
There is a difference between watching them on NBC every week vs. scrambling to find them on ESPN3 or FoxSportsRustBelt.
-
I think the larger influence is winning consistently. If ND experiences a further 20 year record of relative mediocrity, the shine will fade from the dome. They have a lot of tradition, but so does Army and Yale.
If ND goes 20 years from today with zero NY6 bowl appearances, I think they slide.
By Staying Independent ND can choose to make a schedule that will allow them to get to that magical 12-0, 11-1 to get into a big bowl. They won't go 20 years without justly or unjustly getting to NY6 bowl.
-
It would be more generational, wouldn't it? More like stairs and not a steady decline. Just a thought.
Probably, but I also wouldn't tie religious identity as closely to religious practice as you do, particularly with Catholicism. Living in such a "heavy Catholic" city as Pittsburgh has taught me this. I've known people for a decade who I had no idea had any religious affiliation, until it was time to go to church for the first time in a decade to get their kid baptized.
I've got extended "Catholic" family here who probably haven't been to church outside of a funeral mass since the 70s who are still die hard "ND Catholics" and their kids are too.
-
mich
neb
psu
-
Next trio:
Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State
Michigan
Nebraska
Penn State
-
As religion wanes and matters less and less (look at the stats), won't ND's status do the same? Wouldn't that be frustrating - knowing your status is tied to results less than anyone else's? Sort of a turnabout from the decades of advantage they've received, no?
I agree and I've made almost this exact same point before but I think there is a significant delay.
It was already pointed out that church attendance is declining/has declined a lot more than religious self identification. Those non-churchgoing people that still call themselves Catholics probably still cheer for "their" team.
There is also a generational angle.
-
By Staying Independent ND can choose to make a schedule that will allow them to get to that magical 12-0, 11-1 to get into a big bowl. They won't go 20 years without justly or unjustly getting to NY6 bowl.
They could, especially if they end their ACC dalliance, but they show no signs of doing that. Their schedule this year looks pretty tough to me. A mediocre team won't go 12-0 with that slate, or even 10-2. A mediocre team would probably lose to UGA, USC, NC State, Miami FL, and Stanford. A pretty decent team might win two of those I mark as losses, maybe 3.
Sat, Sep 2 vs Temple
Sat, Sep 9 vs Georgia
Sat, Sep 16 @ Boston College
Sat, Sep 23 @ MI State
Sat, Sep 30 vs Miami OH
Sat, Oct 7 @ UNC
Sat, Oct 21 vs USC
Sat, Oct 28 vs NC State
Sat, Nov 4 vs Wake Forest
Sat, Nov 11 @ Miami FL
Sat, Nov 18 vs Navy
Sat, Nov 25 @ Stanford
-
afro, how many more trio's do we have this round?
-
I know we don't need to explain, but I feel like I should explain why I placed PSU ahead of UNL in this thing.
A non-helmet would not have gone through NCAA sanctions and climb out with a conference title 4 years later. Big bump for PSU on that. Plus, they have 3 conference titles since UNL last sniffed one. Those things, to me, placed PSU ahead of UNL.
-
Michigan
UNL
PSU
-
A non-helmet would not have had their sanctions wiped away a couple years later
FIFY
-
Michigan
NU
PSU
-
Response to various Anonymous Coward points:
You know I respect you and I'm happy and debating not mad and hateful, right?
Ok, just checking:
I get that anything less than "all-time" is "arbitrary". However, I believe that this point of yours is much more powerful against someone who cherry-picks a very specific group of years in order to say "My team is the best over the past __ years". I understand that 10-90 is "arbitrary" but it is definitely NOT cherry-picking. I'm letting you (or anyone else) select the number within a very wide range.
Your original statement dealt with "the team that is winning". I think that present tense "winning" is inappropriate when we are talking about 90+ years. Thus I think that it is misleading to say that "Michigan is winning the most league titles". They have won the most, but they are NOT currently winning the most. Currently that would be:
- Penn State over the past year
- Penn State and Michigan State over the past two years
- Penn State, Michigan State, and Ohio State over the past three years
- Michigan State over the past 4-5 years
- Michigan State and Wisconsin over the past 6-9 years
- Ohio State over the past 10-90 years
I respect you as a poster enough to not entirely stick my fingers in my ears and say "meh, you're a fan, this feels predictable." With that said, I commented a LONG time ago in the old version of this thread on the old board that it is interesting that for most fans the time-period that they find relevant is suspiciously convenient in reference to their team. The specific reference I used was that it seems:
- Most Florida fans seem to think the world started in 1990
- Michigan fans tend to see that and say "no, you have to go back to pre-1900 history:
- Ohio State fans tend to settle on a middle ground that acknowledges the very old history and gives it SOME weight while still having a "bonus" of some sort for recency.
For each of our teams, these positions are suspiciously convenient. You made an objective argument for including all history with no recency bias. A Florida fan can make an equally objective argument for ignoring everything that happened more than 27 years ago and an Ohio State fan can make an equally objective argument for using a middle-ground time-frame of something like 25, 50, or 75 years. It doesn't mean that all of us or any of us are being intentionally deceitful, it just means that we all tend to settle on positions that are good for our points.
-
And my take is that all a Helmet needed was to have a massive origin story and not mess it up before ~1970.
Just in case anyone thinks I have changed my mind, I haven't. I still strongly disagree with this theory. Things can and will continue to change.
With that said, the pace of change is slower because the longer that CFB has existed the more static things like "all time wins" and "total NC's" become. Ex:
Per Stassen (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2016&rpct=75&min=5&se=on&by=Wins), Michigan is #1 in all-time wins by:
- 39 wins over ND #2
- 44 wins over Texas #3
- 46 wins over Nebraska #4
- 49 wins over Ohio State #5
- 57 wins over Alabama #6
- 63 wins over Oklahoma #7
- 68 wins over Penn State #8
Michigan couldn't be caught in less than four years even if they went 0-12 every year. If Michigan was simply decent (avg 8 wins per year) then no team could gain by more than seven wins per year. Obviously no team is ever going to average 15-0 every year. Over the last five years Bama has been on a phenomenal tear and they have averaged just under 13 wins per year. Ohio State has averaged just over 12 wins per year over the past five years. At that rate and with Michigan averaging just eight wins per year it would still take the Tide or Buckeyes more than a dozen years to catch the Wolverines.
It is fairly static at this point because there is a LOT of history. That doesn't mean it is not changing, just that the pace of change is slow.
-
Michigan couldn't be caught in less than four years even if they went 0-12 every year. "
All those seasons before Wilbur & Orrville took to the air in Dayton
-
I don't think having the most wins keeps a team on the top tier list. My guess is that it takes about thirty years of futility and mediocrity to drop from the top tier. At some point, HS recruits, who have no clue 1920 existed, just stop even thinking about the U. of X.
I don't know if Minny and Ole Miss were ever "top tier" (probably not), but only devoted fans even know they were at one time competing for NC routinely.
The same is true for Army (and Iowa Preflight, if you get a bit narrow).
When is the last time Army finished in the top ten of the polls?
Once you lost that luster and recruits don't even put you on their initial list of potentials, you are in trouble. How many 4-5 star HS guys today have Nebraska on their list (other than kids affiliated with the program)? Penn State may be clawing its way back and Michigan has recruited well after JH.
How is ND recruiting? I know Kelly made a run, but last year? Today? How often is ND in the top of the recruiting ranks? (Yes, I know recruiting isn't everything, but OSU and Bama stay at the top by recruiting combined with great coaching and depth).
Once the HS athletes don't know you exist, your patina is tarnishing and spiraling down. Us old guys may have you in Tier One, but even that may not last much longer.
-
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%2Fi%2F131503291125-0-1%2Fs-l1000.jpg&hash=6148f4ecb8ea380b1a7b4d154cc1020b)
-
I don't think having the most wins keeps a team on the top tier list. My guess is that it takes about thirty years of futility and mediocrity to drop from the top tier. At some point, HS recruits, who have no clue 1920 existed, just stop even thinking about the U. of X.
I don't know if Minny and Ole Miss were ever "top tier" (probably not), but only devoted fans even know they were at one time competing for NC routinely.
The same is true for Army (and Iowa Preflight, if you get a bit narrow).
When is the last time Army finished in the top ten of the polls?
Once you lost that luster and recruits don't even put you on their initial list of potentials, you are in trouble. How many 4-5 star HS guys today have Nebraska on their list (other than kids affiliated with the program)? Penn State may be clawing its way back and Michigan has recruited well after JH.
How is ND recruiting? I know Kelly made a run, but last year? Today? How often is ND in the top of the recruiting ranks? (Yes, I know recruiting isn't everything, but OSU and Bama stay at the top by recruiting combined with great coaching and depth).
Once the HS athletes don't know you exist, your patina is tarnishing and spiraling down. Us old guys may have you in Tier One, but even that may not last much longer.
Does helmet matter less to kids? I think so. I don't think they particularly care how great Nebraska or Penn State or whoever once was. But what that status gives them is a massive fan base. If you didn't go to college, or didn't go to one with a major football program, chances are you root for a helmet school, or at least a program that is close to being one. Big fan bases equals big ratings equals more coverage and more ticket sales and more merchandise sales and more money.
They can use that clout and that money to upgrade facilities, pay for better coaches. Coaches who are generally one to two generations older than the players they coach, and do remember how great all of these programs were.
So do recruits care that Penn State is Penn State, or that Michigan is Michigan or that Texas is Texas? Probably not. But they do care about the coaches that those schools can attract, the increased attention and coverage those programs demand, and the perks those programs can buy.
-
Well, that's my point really. The "storied programs" have fan support outside their alumni only so long as they are "relevant" and winning (with the possible exception of ND). But, a top tier program can go through 4-5-6 mediocre coaching hires and find that base eroding, rather quickly, and if HS kids forget who they ever were, they become like Minnesota.
The the spiral starts - unable to recruit, unable to attract top tier coaches, unable to sustain fan interest, and attendance, and money, and mediocrity beckons.
If not mediocrity, a label as being a pretty good program that is not top tier, a program that will be 9-3 on year and 7-5 the next. Three decades is my rough guess of how long it would take.
If Michigan for example in 2047 still had the most wins, but only one or two NY6 bowl game appearances, 5 or more losing seasons, and a lot of 7-5 seasons, they in my opinion would have dropped, and part of that would mean inability to recover because of recruiting.
-
Well, that's my point really. The "storied programs" have fan support outside their alumni only so long as they are "relevant" and winning (with the possible exception of ND). But, a top tier program can go through 4-5-6 mediocre coaching hires and find that base eroding, rather quickly, and if HS kids forget who they ever were, they become like Minnesota.
The the spiral starts - unable to recruit, unable to attract top tier coaches, unable to sustain fan interest, and attendance, and money, and mediocrity beckons.
If not mediocrity, a label as being a pretty good program that is not top tier, a program that will be 9-3 on year and 7-5 the next. Three decades is my rough guess of how long it would take.
If Michigan for example in 2047 still had the most wins, but only one or two NY6 bowl game appearances, 5 or more losing seasons, and a lot of 7-5 seasons, they in my opinion would have dropped, and part of that would mean inability to recover because of recruiting.
That's the thing so, they have to totally whiff for a very long time. The have the resources, both tangible and intangible, to cover up any mistake they make. Michigan made back to back bad coaching hires, haven't won even a conference title in 14 years (2003 I think?), but they can afford Harbaugh, and that helmet attracts Harbaugh (or something similar if he hadn't been available), and a staff of top paid assistants, and it's like they never skipped a beat.
Flip side, MSU misses on some kids, has one bad year, coming off 3 Big Ten titles, another CCG appearance, a CFP appearance and a pair of BCS/NY6 bowl wins, and it totally undoes those 6 years. And they can't afford to go flip their whole staff like an OSU can and simply bring in a Wilson/Schiano duo because CFP semifinal losses aren't good enough.
So hypothetically, sure. But some of these things are so ingrained, that to think UM could miss badly, with the resources they have on like 20 straight years, and that MSU could overcome the odds to be on top for 20 straight years, or whatever, that to me it's like wondering if UM would vote to drop football all together.
Then mix in that because of the ratings they draw, they will get every benefit of the doubt, it's hard for them to really fall. See Michigan getting an Orange Bowl over MSU in 1999 or a Sugar Bowl over MSU in 2011. There's just too much momentum in one direction for me to believe at this point that things could reverse for a long enough period of time that these things would ever really change.
-
I generally agree with your point ELA, but I disagree when you say that you don't think these things could ever really change. Forever is a REALLY long time.
In the context of your example, MSU passing Michigan, maybe not. On the other hand, Oregon or Florida passing Michigan, I think it could happen in ~30 years.
I think that Nebraska was a helmet but I'm not sure that they are anymore. They haven't won a NC since 1997 and haven't won a conference title since 1999.
The thing that makes me hesitate on Nebraska is that they've done this before and recovered. They were awful for about two decades in the 40's and 50's (no conference titles from 1941 through 1962 and then came roaring back under Devaney and Osborne in the 60's through the 90's. Can they do that again? Is there a new Devaney out there somewhere that can bring them back again?
-
I generally agree with your point ELA, but I disagree when you say that you don't think these things could ever really change. Forever is a REALLY long time.
In the context of your example, MSU passing Michigan, maybe not. On the other hand, Oregon or Florida passing Michigan, I think it could happen in ~30 years.
I think that Nebraska was a helmet but I'm not sure that they are anymore. They haven't won a NC since 1997 and haven't won a conference title since 1999.
The thing that makes me hesitate on Nebraska is that they've done this before and recovered. They were awful for about two decades in the 40's and 50's (no conference titles from 1941 through 1962 and then came roaring back under Devaney and Osborne in the 60's through the 90's. Can they do that again? Is there a new Devaney out there somewhere that can bring them back again?
Football doesn't have enough time left for it to change.
-
Football doesn't have enough time left for it to change.
That is a definite possibility.
-
Bob Devaney would not have survived the back-to-back 6-4 seasons (67-68) in today's climate.
Hell, many of them already want Riley gone.
-
That is a definite possibility.
Aren't we all cheerful today ....
:smiley_confused1:
-
Aren't we all cheerful today ....
:smiley_confused1:
Take a look at this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-nfl-players-brain-disease-cte-20170725-story.html
-
Ttun
Penn St
Nebraska
I'd wager that the notion that Catholicism will vanish in spite of a heavy influx from Latin America is wishful thinking by the anti-religion crowd. ND will be fine.
-
Response to various Anonymous Coward points:
You know I respect you and I'm happy and debating not mad and hateful, right?
Ok, just checking:
Of course. Even when needling, we're basically family.
As a separate stylistic and continuity issue: in a conversation with this many words and claims, I would prefer you to (whenever possible) individually quote the sections you are responding to, rather than "respond variously" or in general.
Your original statement dealt with "the team that is winning". I think that present tense "winning" is inappropriate when we are talking about 90+ years. Thus I think that it is misleading to say that "Michigan is winning the most league titles". They have won the most, but they are NOT currently winning the most.
You skipped over my response about how my intention was not for that claim to be read in the present tense. You should respond to that response: ;)
"You misunderstood. I was expressing that the most meaningful thing going forward (future tense) is to be the team that wins the conference championships the most frequently. (By extension, my point was to discuss it this way...) if we had that conversation in 1896, at the dawn of Big Ten football, we'd learn that by now (until now), that title would be held by Michigan."
Response to various Anonymous Coward points:
I get that anything less than "all-time" is "arbitrary".
That's correct.
I respect you as a poster enough to not entirely stick my fingers in my ears and say "meh, you're a fan, this feels predictable." (...) It doesn't mean that all of us or any of us are being intentionally deceitful, it just means that we all tend to settle on positions that are good for our points.
This is no doubt true and does obscure conversations. But as a coincidence which is sometimes convenient for Michigan fans (but in persuading you of my motivations, inconvenient for me), the all-time span which shines the brightest for Michigan is also the least arbitrary.
-
I'd wager that the notion that Catholicism will vanish in spite of a heavy influx from Latin America is wishful thinking by the anti-religion crowd. ND will be fine.
I feel the same, though I'd never thought about that aspect of our population change.
-
Take a look at this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-nfl-players-brain-disease-cte-20170725-story.html
That's a tough read. I think everyone else is going to infuse the appropriate amount of compassion and concern, which I also feel, so instead of being redundant, I want to briefly talk about the experimental design and how this was a "convenience study" of post-mortem samples from individuals that were clinically suspected to have CTE, but could not until after autopsy be diagnosed as such. So the "99%" value, which is the story's eye popper statement was actually rather predictable and therefore misleading without proper context.
-
I should add that we really need a pre-mortem assay that correlates to chronic traumatic encephalopathy. I am unpersuaded that improvements in brain imaging will accomplish that. My guess is that the best tests (high sensitivity [likelihood to detect it], high specificity [unlikelihood of being incorrect]) will involve assessment of blood plasma of cerebrospinal fluid for "bio-markers" or CTE -- some unique molecular signature like a protein fragment or metabolite (that we've probably never yet bothered to identify) that builds up in these fluids either because (1) it washes away from CTE-damaged brains or (2) it is generated by non-CTE affected cells in response to their interaction with CTE affected cells.
I anticipate we'll get there. But the timing is urgent.
-
Just in case anyone thinks I have changed my mind, I haven't. I still strongly disagree with this theory. Things can and will continue to change.
That's a totally legitimate alternative hypothesis. It also requires a waiting game to be proven.
-
Does helmet matter less to kids? I think so. I don't think they particularly care how great Nebraska or Penn State or whoever once was. But what that status gives them is a massive fan base. If you didn't go to college, or didn't go to one with a major football program, chances are you root for a helmet school, or at least a program that is close to being one. Big fan bases equals big ratings equals more coverage and more ticket sales and more merchandise sales and more money.
They can use that clout and that money to upgrade facilities, pay for better coaches. Coaches who are generally one to two generations older than the players they coach, and do remember how great all of these programs were.
So do recruits care that Penn State is Penn State, or that Michigan is Michigan or that Texas is Texas? Probably not. But they do care about the coaches that those schools can attract, the increased attention and coverage those programs demand, and the perks those programs can buy.
That's right. The kids don't care who won big before they were born. They care about the flashy things associated with programs that won big before they were born. And those things are self-proliferating.
The inertias that characterize a Helmet are tremendous. Now, sure, "eventually," even our 8 planets will be engulfed or their orbits will decay into the sun, but not on scales that matter to you and I. Just as "eventually," on some true scale, college football or the U.S. will cease to be extant.
-
In the context of your example, MSU passing Michigan, maybe not. On the other hand, Oregon or Florida passing Michigan, I think it could happen in ~30 years.
I think that Nebraska was a helmet but I'm not sure that they are anymore. They haven't won a NC since 1997 and haven't won a conference title since 1999.
OSU didn't win a title from 1970 to 2002, and in the 90ies had a 2-10-1 against their rival. Did OSU lose their Helmet status during that 30 year run?
-
I feel the same, though I'd never thought about that aspect of our population change.
The other side of that coin is that most latin american immigrants, when they hear the word football, do not think of a non-spherical pigskin and college football but rather the world cup.
-
The other side of that coin is that most latin american immigrants, when they hear the word football, do not think of a non-spherical pigskin and college football but rather the world cup.
I assumed that was the point, that the demos where Catholicism will continue to be strong is probably not where Notre Dame will draw football fans from.
However, IF people from that demo discover a love of football, it's as good a bet as any that they'll be Notre Dame fans, with a totally blank fanship slate to that point.
-
My mom would not let me play football. She probably knew something even back then. I played backyard football of course, usually touch. Our HS football coach asked me to come play TE for him my senior year. I was playing BBall and Baseball reasonably well and had a tall, if very skinny, frame.
The team was 0-11-1 that year, no doubt because I declined. They would have lost their tie otherwise. Curiously, that school has won several state HSCs and played in several more, including last year. It is a pipeline school to the NCAA and NFL today, suburban ATL.
I'm still playing baseball, albeit once a year, at a Fantasy Camp in Orlando. It's amazing how sore I get playing baseball even after trying hard to get into shape. I can still hit a bit, at least at Fantasy Camp competition levels, and can pitch, albeit with nothing in my arm any more.
I was out digging in the yard this morning and about killed myself. Early 60s now.
-
The other side of that coin is that most latin american immigrants, when they hear the word football, do not think of a non-spherical pigskin and college football but rather the world cup.
That's fair, though just as 3rd generation immigrants tend to have close to zero connection to their grandparents' first language, we could hypothesize that they'd have much less connection to their grandparents' first sport. Both dynamics involve peer pressure. The new thing (English, CFB) is far more popular in the U.S. than their ancestor's thing. Of course, this factor can be muted in insular communities. But 3rd generation immigrants are less tied to those on average as well.
As for my post's wording. It was a bit sloppy. I was "feeling the same" about people overestimating the decline of religious influence in the U.S. and Notre Dame's decline. The latin american bit was just an add-on about a dynamic I hadn't considered. But now that we're in that conversation, I'm happy to keep it going.
-
My mom would not let me play football. She probably knew something even back then. I played backyard football of course, usually touch. Our HS football coach asked me to come play TE for him my senior year. I was playing BBall and Baseball reasonably well and had a tall, if very skinny, frame.
The team was 0-11-1 that year, no doubt because I declined. They would have lost their tie otherwise. Curiously, that school has won several state HSCs and played in several more, including last year. It is a pipeline school to the NCAA and NFL today, suburban ATL.
I'm still playing baseball, albeit once a year, at a Fantasy Camp in Orlando. It's amazing how sore I get playing baseball even after trying hard to get into shape. I can still hit a bit, at least at Fantasy Camp competition levels, and can pitch, albeit with nothing in my arm any more.
I was out digging in the yard this morning and about killed myself. Early 60s now.
My parents wouldn't either, although their fear was paralysis, not CTE
-
You skipped over my response about how my intention was not for that claim to be read in the present tense. You should respond to that response: ;)
"You misunderstood. I was expressing that the most meaningful thing going forward (future tense) is to be the team that wins the conference championships the most frequently. (By extension, my point was to discuss it this way...) if we had that conversation in 1896, at the dawn of Big Ten football, we'd learn that by now (until now), that title would be held by Michigan."
At any given point in time I believe that the most relevant thing to the conference brass is who "is winning" the most championships. All time the list is as follows (from B1G 2016 media guide with an adjustment for PSU's 2016 title, pg 104 (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf)):
- 42 Michigan - last in 2004
- 35 Ohio State - last in 2014
- 18 Minnesota - last in 1967
- 15 Illinois - last in 2001
- 14 Wisconsin - last in 2012
- 11 Iowa - last in 2004
- 9 Michigan State - last in 2015
- 8 Northwestern - last in 2000
- 8 Purdue - last in 2000
- 7 Chicago - last in 1924
- 4 Penn State - last in 2016
- 2 Indiana - last in 1967
- still waiting: Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers
Completely aside from the point: I find it odd how the most recents are so clustered:
- 2016: Penn State
- 2015: Michigan State
- 2014: Ohio State
- 2012: Wisconsin
- 2004: Michigan and Iowa
- 2001: Illinois
- 2000: Northwestern and Purdue
- 1967: Minnesota and Indiana
- 1924: Chicago
Ok, back to my point:
Ignore Ohio State and Michigan for a minute because that has too much of a tendency between us to devolve into the aforementioned issue of our own points tending to benefit our own schools. Excluding those two, who would you define as "the school winning the most B1G Championships currently"?
The all-time answer, of course, is Minnesota but this year they are celebrating the 50th anniversary of their most recent league championship team. I just don't think that fits the definition of "currently". Personally, I think the relevant answer to that question requires one to look at something like a rolling 10-25 year picture.
For this purpose I chose to use 20 years but now that I have the data entered it is pretty easy to switch to another number of years (ties are all broken in favor of the most recent winner, then the tiebreaker winner in that most recent year).
For the most recent 20-year period (1997-2016):
- 8 Ohio State
- 5 Wisconsin
- 5 Michigan
- 3 Penn State
- 3 Michigan State
- 1 Illinois
- 1 Purdue
- 1 Northwestern
The most recent period in which Ohio State did not hold the lead was 1989-2008:
- 9 Michigan
- 8 Ohio State
- 3 Penn State
- 3 Iowa
- 3 Northwestern
- 3 Wisconsin
- 2 Illinois
- 1 Purdue
- 1 Michigan State
Michigan then held the lead back through 1970-1989. Ohio State and Michigan were tied for 1969-1988 at 12 each. Here is 1968-1987:
- 13 Ohio State
- 11 Michigan
- 2 Michigan State
- 2 Iowa
- 1 Illinois
Prior to that the lead was held by either Ohio State or a tie between Ohio State and Michigan all the way back through 1935-1954. Here is 1934-1953:
- 6 Minnesota
- 5 Michigan
- 5 Ohio State
- 3 Illinois
- 2 Purdue
- 1 Michigan State
- 1 Wisconsin
- 1 Indiana
- 1 Northwestern
Another interesting little tid-bit that I discovered in compiling this:
From the earliest that it would have been possible (1896-1915) up through 1956-1975 no team ever managed to win 10 or more titles in any 20-year period. Then it became common for both Ohio State and Michigan for a while:
- Ohio State won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1957-1976 through 1960-1979.
- Ohio State and Michigan won at least 10 titles each in each of the 20-year periods from 1961-1980 through 1972-1991.
- Michigan won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1973-1992 through 1982-2001.
- Michigan again won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1984-2003 through 1988-2007.
Since then Michigan hit nine once (1989-2008) and Ohio State has hit nine in six of the nine 20-year periods since 1988-2007 but no team has hit double-digits.
FWIW: Other than Ohio State and Michigan no school has ever won more than eight titles in any 20-year period. The only times another school has won eight were:
- The six 20-year periods from 1922-1941 through 1927-1946 by Minnesota
- The two 20-year periods from 1909-1928 and 1910-1929 by Illinois
- The five 20-year periods from 1896-1915 through 1900-1919 by Minnesota
The most titles in any 20-year period by school:
- 13 Ohio State and Michigan
- 8 Minnesota and Illinois
- 6 Wisconsin and Chicago
- 4 Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue
- 3 Michigan State and Penn State
- 1 Indiana
-
OSU didn't win a title from 1970 to 2002, and in the 90ies had a 2-10-1 against their rival. Did OSU lose their Helmet status during that 30 year run?
Going 2-10-1 against our rival sucked but Cooper didn't sink Ohio State into general mediocrity or worse like RRod and Hoke did to Michigan. Over Cooper's 12 years the Buckeyes still averaged a league title every four years and seriously competed for NC's several times. In short, the Buckeyes were still relevant and a lot of "being a helmet" is about "being relevant".
-
That's the thing so, they have to totally whiff for a very long time. The have the resources, both tangible and intangible, to cover up any mistake they make. Michigan made back to back bad coaching hires, haven't won even a conference title in 14 years (2003 I think?), but they can afford Harbaugh, and that helmet attracts Harbaugh (or something similar if he hadn't been available), and a staff of top paid assistants, and it's like they never skipped a beat.
This is all true. The true helmets and even Nebraska and Tennessee have the resources to right the ship and win at a high level again.
Unless, the fan base and the school become uninterested in keeping the status. Obviously, this hasn't happened much. The Vols are still trying to put together a great team.
-
Another little tid-bit on league titles:
For nine years from 1907 through 1915 neither Michigan nor Ohio State won a league title. This was, of course, partially because the two teams were not in the conference for part of that time. Ohio State joined in time for the 1913 football season so they were only in the conference for three of those years. Michigan dropped out after winning the 1906 league title and returned for the 1917 season so they were out for the entire nine year stretch during which neither team won a league title.
Outside of that nine year stretch the most number of consecutive seasons without the Buckeyes or Wolverines winning the league title was the four seasons from 2010-2013. During those four seasons titles were won by Wisconsin (3) and Michigan State (2). Since Ohio State's first league title in 1916 that is the ONLY four year stretch in which neither Michigan nor Ohio State won a league title. The three-year stretches of consecutive seasons without the Buckeyes or Wolverines winning the league title are:
- 1965-1967, titles won by MSU (2), MN, PU, IU
- 1958-1960, titles won by Iowa (2), UW. MN
- 1951-1953, titles won by ILL (2), UW, MSU, PU
- 1936-1938, titles won by MN (2), NU
- 1927-1929, titles won by ILL (2), MN, PU
-
Another little tid-bit on league titles:
Outside of that nine year stretch the most number of consecutive seasons without the Buckeyes or Wolverines winning the league title was the four seasons from 2010-2013. During those four seasons titles were won by Wisconsin (3) and Michigan State (2). Since Ohio State's first league title in 1916 that is the ONLY four year stretch in which neither Michigan nor Ohio State won a league title.
So, things did change recently? ;)
-
I'm not convinced football is going anywhere. Due to the increased awareness of CTE, rule changes, equipment improvements, practice protocol, etc footfall is safer than it's ever been.
There are still scores of former college and pro players who apparently either don't have CTE or if they do the symptoms are so mild it doesn't have any effect on their daily lives.
-
I'd like to see a Reply button directly below the current last message. I only see quote.
Wrong thread I know.
There is only so much a helmet can do without growing in size. You can't decelerate sufficiently in the inch or so distance a helmet provided in padding today.
-
Michigan
Penn State
Nebraska
Nebraska and Penn State are close, but I think Penn State is helped by a larger population enough to take the 2nd spot (they have a defacto following on east coast of both lovers and haters).
-
At any given point in time I believe that the most relevant thing to the conference brass is who "is winning" the most championships. All time the list is as follows (from B1G 2016 media guide with an adjustment for PSU's 2016 title, pg 104 (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf)):
- 42 Michigan - last in 2004
- 35 Ohio State - last in 2014
- 18 Minnesota - last in 1967
- 15 Illinois - last in 2001
- 14 Wisconsin - last in 2012
- 11 Iowa - last in 2004
- 9 Michigan State - last in 2015
- 8 Northwestern - last in 2000
- 8 Purdue - last in 2000
- 7 Chicago - last in 1924
- 4 Penn State - last in 2016
- 2 Indiana - last in 1967
- still waiting: Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers
<br> Well I guess we just need OSU to win the next 8 titles and settle this silly discrepancy once and for all. :88:
-
Illinois has 15 B1G championships? Granted, I'm sure many of them were split and won before the JFK administration, but considering how blah they've been in my lifetime, it just seems improbable.
Minnesota's 18 at least seems plausible because they were a legitimate powerhouse in the first half of the 20th century.
-
At any given point in time I believe that the most relevant thing to the conference brass is who "is winning" the most championships. All time the list is as follows (from B1G 2016 media guide with an adjustment for PSU's 2016 title, pg 104 (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf)):
- 42 Michigan - last in 2004
- 35 Ohio State - last in 2014
- 18 Minnesota - last in 1967
- 15 Illinois - last in 2001
- 14 Wisconsin - last in 2012
- 11 Iowa - last in 2004
- 9 Michigan State - last in 2015
- 8 Northwestern - last in 2000
- 8 Purdue - last in 2000
- 7 Chicago - last in 1924
- 4 Penn State - last in 2016
- 2 Indiana - last in 1967
- still waiting: Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers
Completely aside from the point: I find it odd how the most recents are so clustered:
- 2016: Penn State
- 2015: Michigan State
- 2014: Ohio State
- 2012: Wisconsin
- 2004: Michigan and Iowa
- 2001: Illinois
- 2000: Northwestern and Purdue
- 1967: Minnesota and Indiana
- 1924: Chicago
Ok, back to my point:
Ignore Ohio State and Michigan for a minute because that has too much of a tendency between us to devolve into the aforementioned issue of our own points tending to benefit our own schools. Excluding those two, who would you define as "the school winning the most B1G Championships currently"?
The all-time answer, of course, is Minnesota but this year they are celebrating the 50th anniversary of their most recent league championship team. I just don't think that fits the definition of "currently". Personally, I think the relevant answer to that question requires one to look at something like a rolling 10-25 year picture.
For this purpose I chose to use 20 years but now that I have the data entered it is pretty easy to switch to another number of years (ties are all broken in favor of the most recent winner, then the tiebreaker winner in that most recent year).
For the most recent 20-year period (1997-2016):
- 8 Ohio State
- 5 Wisconsin
- 5 Michigan
- 3 Penn State
- 3 Michigan State
- 1 Illinois
- 1 Purdue
- 1 Northwestern
The most recent period in which Ohio State did not hold the lead was 1989-2008:
- 9 Michigan
- 8 Ohio State
- 3 Penn State
- 3 Iowa
- 3 Northwestern
- 3 Wisconsin
- 2 Illinois
- 1 Purdue
- 1 Michigan State
Michigan then held the lead back through 1970-1989. Ohio State and Michigan were tied for 1969-1988 at 12 each. Here is 1968-1987:
- 13 Ohio State
- 11 Michigan
- 2 Michigan State
- 2 Iowa
- 1 Illinois
Prior to that the lead was held by either Ohio State or a tie between Ohio State and Michigan all the way back through 1935-1954. Here is 1934-1953:
- 6 Minnesota
- 5 Michigan
- 5 Ohio State
- 3 Illinois
- 2 Purdue
- 1 Michigan State
- 1 Wisconsin
- 1 Indiana
- 1 Northwestern
Another interesting little tid-bit that I discovered in compiling this:
From the earliest that it would have been possible (1896-1915) up through 1956-1975 no team ever managed to win 10 or more titles in any 20-year period. Then it became common for both Ohio State and Michigan for a while:
- Ohio State won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1957-1976 through 1960-1979.
- Ohio State and Michigan won at least 10 titles each in each of the 20-year periods from 1961-1980 through 1972-1991.
- Michigan won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1973-1992 through 1982-2001.
- Michigan again won at least 10 titles in each of the 20-year periods from 1984-2003 through 1988-2007.
Since then Michigan hit nine once (1989-2008) and Ohio State has hit nine in six of the nine 20-year periods since 1988-2007 but no team has hit double-digits.
FWIW: Other than Ohio State and Michigan no school has ever won more than eight titles in any 20-year period. The only times another school has won eight were:
- The six 20-year periods from 1922-1941 through 1927-1946 by Minnesota
- The two 20-year periods from 1909-1928 and 1910-1929 by Illinois
- The five 20-year periods from 1896-1915 through 1900-1919 by Minnesota
The most titles in any 20-year period by school:
- 13 Ohio State and Michigan
- 8 Minnesota and Illinois
- 6 Wisconsin and Chicago
- 4 Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue
- 3 Michigan State and Penn State
- 1 Indiana
Not sure how you are counting, but if you are counting co-champions, I believe you should be showing Iowa having 2 conference championships in the last 20 years
-
Illinois has 15 B1G championships? Granted, I'm sure many of them were split and won before the JFK administration, but considering how blah they've been in my lifetime, it just seems improbable.
Minnesota's 18 at least seems plausible because they were a legitimate powerhouse in the first half of the 20th century.
Minnesota won their 16th in 1941. That was also their second consecutive and 4th in five years (37, 38, 40, 41). At that point they led the league (League titles, 1896-1941):
- 16 Minnesota
- 15 Michigan
- 8 Illinois
- 7 Chicago
- 5 Ohio State
- 5 Northwestern
- 5 Wisconsin
- 4 Purdue
- 3 Iowa
Since then Minnesota has only won two (League titles, 1942-2016):
- 30 Ohio State
- 27 Michigan
- 9 Michigan State
- 9 Wisconsin
- 8 Iowa
- 7 Illinois
- 4 Penn State
- 4 Purdue
- 3 Northwestern
- 2 Indiana
- 2 Minnesota
Illinois is less surprising to me than it apparently is to you. For one thing, if you look at their history Illinois has tended to be feast-or-famine in that when they are good they are league title level good and the rest of the time they just suck. Consequently, their overall record is really bad but they do have a decent number of championships because when they are good they tend to win those.
Illinois' league titles:
- 1910 shared with Minnesota
- 1914
- 1915 shared with Minnesota
- 1918 shared with Michigan and Purdue
- 1919
- 1923 shared with Michigan
- 1927 shared with Minnesota
- 1928
- 1946
- 1951
- 1953 shared with Michigan State
- 1963
- 1983
- 1990 shared with Michigan, Iowa, and Michigan State
- 2001
-
Not sure how you are counting, but if you are counting co-champions, I believe you should be showing Iowa having 2 conference championships in the last 20 years
You are right, they do (2002&2004) and I just missed them and left them off my list. I went back and double-checked that list and I included all the others, just missed Iowa.
-
Michigan
Penn State
Nebraska
Nebraska and Penn State are close, but I think Penn State is helped by a larger population enough to take the 2nd spot (they have a defacto following on east coast of both lovers and haters).
Funny, b/c I put UNL ahead of PSU exactly b/c of their fans, whom I regard as the best in the country. I think historically speaking the two programs are about as equal as you can get (including the split national title in 1994 ;)), but I think how the Husker fans bring to the game is unmatched.
-
I'd like to see a Reply button directly below the current last message. I only see quote.
Wrong thread I know.
There is only so much a helmet can do without growing in size. You can't decelerate sufficiently in the inch or so distance a helmet provided in padding today.
[member=1]Drew4UTk[/member] (trying this again)
also, for those that haven't been here long, you can 'call' a poster to a convo by typing @ and then start typing their name, a list of users will pop up, select which one you want. correct me if i'm wrong, drew.
-
right on [member=12]rolltidefan[/member] ... nailed it...
[member=870]Cincydawg[/member] , i must say your suggestion has already come in handy..
-
Nebraska and Penn State are two venues I would like to see (not the only 2, but high on the list).
The night games at PSU look pretty cool on TV.
-
This is all true. The true helmets and even Nebraska and Tennessee have the resources to right the ship and win at a high level again.
Unless, the fan base and the school become uninterested in keeping the status. Obviously, this hasn't happened much. The Vols are still trying to put together a great team.
or the fanbase fails to realize the rebuild needed and remains on this coaching carousel..
-
Another little tid-bit on league titles:
The Husker's new media guide claims 46 conference championships - an NCAA record
-
HA! Alabama claims AT LEAST that many national championships!
-
The problem for a "near" helmet program comes when you change coaches. I don't know what the odds are of success in that for those programs, maybe 50-50 or so for a modest success. Thus, the odds are decent you will have two bad hires in a row covering about 8 years of mediocrity. Then you hire another FNG and hope, and initially enthusiasm is high, but expectations take over and you end up 9-4 when your fans wanted at least a conference championship. The next year you are 7-6 and fans want ANOTHER change, and pickings are slim, and now you have another FNG and repeat the cycle.
When expectations are HIGH you have a much better chance of missing them even for an upper level program. UGA fired a coach who had posted two ten win seasons in a row because that was not enough. When you get fired for winning 20 in two years, that means your success level is higher than that, which means it is less likely with the FNG.
A "Tennessee" can indeed IMHO slide back even with their resources. It just takes about 4 bad coaching hires. Then your huge stadium starts not to fill up for each game and perhaps expectations get lowered and you stay with a coach who goes 9-4 and 8-5.
-
Are you saying M*ch*g*n is one more bad hire away from becoming a non-helmet?
-
I have roughly guessed that it takes 30 years of mediocrity for a helmet to drop. Borderline near helmet programs can drop faster of course. So, yes, I think Michigan could be one more coach away from dropping, if they don't have some rather successful seasons soon. You can't just poke along at 9-4 and 10-3 forever, obviously, because most upper level programs want more and will fire a coach who does that, and the crap shoot starts again.
You need some top ten finishes, some playoff appearances, some conference championships, etc.
-
Notre Dame has been mostly mediocre for nearly 30 years, but they're still the most helmety-of the helmets (and it probably isn't even close). Whether fairly or unfairly, they're afforded protection that the other helmets don't get. They're very much like the New York Yankees - there is no middle ground, you either love them or you hate them, and still make lots of money from TV and merchandise even when they suck.
For pretty much the same reasons as above, Michigan is probably right next to ND, but the degree of helmet-immunity is probably a bit less.
For either of them to drop, it would take a scandal bigger than we've seen to date, where the NCAA would dole out sanctions so crippling that it would take not just years, but decades to recover from.
-
Notre Dame has been mostly mediocre for nearly 30 years, but they're still the most helmety-of the helmets (and it probably isn't even close). Whether fairly or unfairly, they're afforded protection that the other helmets don't get. They're very much like the New York Yankees - there is no middle ground, you either love them or you hate them, and still make lots of money from TV and merchandise even when they suck.
For pretty much the same reasons as above, Michigan is probably right next to ND, but the degree of helmet-immunity is probably a bit less.
For either of them to drop, it would take a scandal bigger than we've seen to date, where the NCAA would dole out sanctions so crippling that it would take not just years, but decades to recover from.
I think that's the only possible thing. Because even when UM, ND, Texas, etc are down, it feels like they could be back at any minute, because the recruits are always there, the pollsters want to show them love, they just need to get their ducks in a row.
Put bad sanctions on them, and it sort of removes that part of it.
Not to mention, depending on the nature of the sanctions, you could hurt their non-alumni fan base size.
That's where the quick reversal of the PSU sanctions may have saved their position. You let those run, and the long term prospects get worse. Plus the nature of the allegations, how many non-PSU alums, were deciding "Yeah, I support Penn State?"
-
I think that's the only possible thing. Because even when UM, ND, Texas, etc are down, it feels like they could be back at any minute, because the recruits are always there, the pollsters want to show them love, they just need to get their ducks in a row.
Put bad sanctions on them, and it sort of removes that part of it.
Not to mention, depending on the nature of the sanctions, you could hurt their non-alumni fan base size.
That's where the quick reversal of the PSU sanctions may have saved their position. You let those run, and the long term prospects get worse. Plus the nature of the allegations, how many non-PSU alums, were deciding "Yeah, I support Penn State?"
Penn State shouldn't have had those sanctions to begin with. Yes, what happened was disgusting, but it also gave them no competitive advantage over any other school. This situation should have been left to the legal system. It would have still hurt them athletically, but in an indirect manner. Even Baylor survived the murder cover-up in MBB a few years ago, and they were hit pretty hard.
-
Taking my guess to an extreme, would we not all agree that ANY helmet team that went 100 years with consecutive losing records would drop hard and out of the helmet group, right? That means it is possible, but leaves the question open as to how long and how much must happen. For a Notre Dame, they probably would suffer longest and worst of any before becoming "irrelevant".
If a Penn State or Nebraska or Florida or FSU went 20 years with no better than a 9-4 record and a lot of 4-8 records, they'd be out of being on the fringe. I think USC lost some status here of late, as has Michigan. Ohio State and Alabama have probably gained status of late.
So, a qualitative measure of helmetosity is how many years of however poor records a team would need to suffer before becoming "just another team with a past", like say Minnesota or Ole Miss.
-
I have roughly guessed that it takes 30 years of mediocrity for a helmet to drop. Borderline near helmet programs can drop faster of course. So, yes, I think Michigan could be one more coach away from dropping, if they don't have some rather successful seasons soon. You can't just poke along at 9-4 and 10-3 forever, obviously, because most upper level programs want more and will fire a coach who does that, and the crap shoot starts again.
You need some top ten finishes, some playoff appearances, some conference championships, etc.
Fundamentally, I agree with you that Michigan (or any "helmet" with the current exception of ND) *COULD* drop. Unfortunately, however, I think that we are farther from witnessing that glorious day than you seem to believe.
In terms of NC's Michigan is now 20 years and counting from their last one. That isn't good for a helmet, but it isn't awful and Michigan previously endured a substantially longer NC drought.
In terms of conference titles Michigan is now 12 years and counting from their last one. That is REALLY bad for a helmet. Compare to the last time the other generally agreed upon helmets won a conference title:
- 2016: Bama, Oklahoma
- 2014: Ohio State
- 2009: Texas
- 2008: USC
- 2004: Michigan
- N/A: Notre Dame
Here is the last time each of the generally agreed upon helmets won an NC:
- 2015: Bama
- 2014: Ohio State
- 2005: Texas
- 2004: USC
- 2000: Oklahoma
- 1997: Michigan
- 1988: Notre Dame
Michigan is clearly light on "hardware" as compared to the other helmet teams over the past 12-20 years but I believe that it takes more than a lack of hardware to lose helmet status. It takes a fall from relevance.
Since Michigan's last conference (2004) and national (1997) titles they have:
Top-10 finishes:
They have also been ranked in the top-10 a lot more frequently than that and they have played two enormous games that got major national attention:
- 2016: A #3 v #2 matchup against Ohio State with major playoff implications for both teams and, by extension, a whole bunch of other teams.
- 2006: A #1 v #2 matchup against Ohio State with major BCSNCG implications for both teams and, by extension, a whole bunch of other teams.
My point is that while Michigan clearly does not have the level of hardware over the past 12-20 years that we expect from a helmet team, they haven't sunken into long-term irrelevance. They have continued to have a periodic presence in the NC discussion and finish ranked and in the top-10. When Michigan goes 20 years without finishing ranked in the top-10, we'll talk. Until then they are a helmet.
-
I believe that is what I said, 20 years or so of mediocrity and little or no national relevance.
If Michigan went 20 years without ever being ranked in the top ten even midseason, I think they would be dropped. I think if they go another 10 years with 9-4 and 8-5 kinds of seasons interspersed with a few non-bowl years, they get dropped, by most.
If they insert some 11 win years in there, they remain on the radar. It takes sustained mediocrity perhaps more than really bad years and really good years. You can't be an 8-5 kind of program and remain a helmet forever.
-
Penn State shouldn't have had those sanctions to begin with. Yes, what happened was disgusting, but it also gave them no competitive advantage over any other school. This situation should have been left to the legal system. It would have still hurt them athletically, but in an indirect manner. Even Baylor survived the murder cover-up in MBB a few years ago, and they were hit pretty hard.
I'm not speaking to the legitimacy of the sanctions, merely what their effect would have been if left in place.
-
Taking my guess to an extreme, would we not all agree that ANY helmet team that went 100 years with consecutive losing records would drop hard and out of the helmet group, right? That means it is possible, but leaves the question open as to how long and how much must happen. For a Notre Dame, they probably would suffer longest and worst of any before becoming "irrelevant".
If a Penn State or Nebraska or Florida or FSU went 20 years with no better than a 9-4 record and a lot of 4-8 records, they'd be out of being on the fringe. I think USC lost some status here of late, as has Michigan. Ohio State and Alabama have probably gained status of late.
So, a qualitative measure of helmetosity is how many years of however poor records a team would need to suffer before becoming "just another team with a past", like say Minnesota or Ole Miss.
I can't figure out how to do the thing where you reference a poster. I wanted to reference Annonymous Coward (formerly dudekd) here.
The above is essentially my argument against his belief that the "helmets" were fixed as of about 1970 and are no longer capable of change.
I agree with Cincydawg. It is possible for a helmet to lose helmet status and I'll add that it is possible for a non-helmet to attain helmet status.
That said, it is harder to do it today for the simple reason that there is more history to overcome. Furthermore, I believe that it takes a lot more for a non-helmet to become a helmet than it does for a helmet to maintain their status.
Bottom line:
If Michigan fails to finish above .500 for the next 50 years then in 2067 the Wolverines will clearly be a non-helmet. Conversely, if some team that is obviously not a helmet today has the best record in cfb over the next 50 years and wins double-digit NC's then in 2067 they clearly will be a helmet. The complication, of course, is that those are very extreme examples and the tougher calls are in the middle where the actual results are likely to be.
-
I'm not speaking to the legitimacy of the sanctions, merely what their effect would have been if left in place.
SMU hasn't made it back from severe sanctions
-
I believe that is what I said, 20 years or so of mediocrity and little or no national relevance.
If Michigan went 20 years without ever being ranked in the top ten even midseason, I think they would be dropped. I think if they go another 10 years with 9-4 and 8-5 kinds of seasons interspersed with a few non-bowl years, they get dropped, by most.
If they insert some 11 win years in there, they remain on the radar. It takes sustained mediocrity perhaps more than really bad years and really good years. You can't be an 8-5 kind of program and remain a helmet forever.
I think you will agree with this (and you somewhat incorporated it with your "20 years without ever being ranked in the top ten even midseason" comment) so this is not an argument but a clarification.
I think the key issue in determining a given program's continuing helmet status is the issue of relevance. Therefore, I am hesitant to say, as you did, that you "can't be an 8-5 kind of program and remain a helmet forever."
My first reservation with that statement is that it depends somewhat on SoS. If you go 8-5 with two OOC regular season losses to top-10 teams and a bowl loss to a top-10 team and only two conference losses (which are likely to both be top-10 level losses) then you might be a darn good and quite relevant team. OTOH, if you only play two top-10 level teams, lose to both of those, and also go 8-3 against your 11 unranked and barely ranked opponents then you aren't very good and you aren't relevant.
The second reservation is timing. You said 9-4 and 8-5 seasons for the next 10 years wouldn't be enough for Michigan to drop. My response is that it depends. Look at their 2017 schedule for a great example:
If they go 9-4 or 8-5 by losing to Florida (first game), Penn State (mid-season), and Wisconsin and Ohio State (last two regular season games) then I agree, that isn't maintaining their helmet because they'll basically be irrelevant all year.
- The Florida loss will knock them back to (unranked/barely ranked).
- They'll head into PSU at 5-1 and closing in on the top-10 but losing will knock them back to (unranked/barely ranked).
- They'll head into Wisconsin at 8-2 and closing in on the top-10 but losing will knock them back to ~20.
- They'll head into the Ohio State game at 8-3 and probably ranked but losing will knock them back to (unranked/barely ranked).
Now consider instead the alternative that they go 9-4 by splitting the UF/PSU games and losing their last three (UW, tOSU, bowl):
- Coming out of the PSU game they'll be 6-1 and top-10.
- They'll head into Wisconsin at 9-1 and probably top-5 or close to it. The loss will probably leave them either barely in or barely out of the top-10.
- They'll head into the Ohio State game at 9-2 and ranked around #10. The loss will knock them back to a lower ranking.
- They'll head into their bowl at 9-3 and still ranked. The loss will leave them (unranked/barely ranked).
In both examples the Wolverines finish 9-4 but how they get there makes a big difference in terms of helmet. In the former example the Wolverines are basically irrelevant all year and their helmet diminishes a bit. In the latter example they are highly relevant for most of the season and their helmet is reaffirmed.
-
SMU hasn't made it back from severe sanctions
Where PSU is today speaks volumes louder about the University community than it ever does the severity of the sanctions. There are, maybe, no more than 10 (and may be closer to 5) other schools in the country that do what PSU has done the past 5 years. Most it would take at least 10 to climb out of, many would have fared even worse (SMU-like).
My new annoyance (and not directly at this board or this post or anything) is that now people tend to easily forget just how damaging things were, and how helpless it felt 5 years ago last week - the one year free agency period being the worst. Maybe it's b/c PSU didn't just survive, but is now thriving, but that no less diminishes just how hard it was to climb out of it.
-
Where PSU is today speaks volumes louder about the University community than it ever does the severity of the sanctions. There are, maybe, no more than 10 (and may be closer to 5) other schools in the country that do what PSU has done the past 5 years. Most it would take at least 10 to climb out of, many would have fared even worse (SMU-like).
My new annoyance (and not directly at this board or this post or anything) is that now people tend to easily forget just how damaging things were, and how helpless it felt 5 years ago last week - the one year free agency period being the worst. Maybe it's b/c PSU didn't just survive, but is now thriving, but that no less diminishes just how hard it was to climb out of it.
I remember. I'm certain my school would still be struggling mightily.
-
Penn State shouldn't have had those sanctions to begin with. Yes, what happened was disgusting, but it also gave them no competitive advantage over any other school. This situation should have been left to the legal system. It would have still hurt them athletically, but in an indirect manner. Even Baylor survived the murder cover-up in MBB a few years ago, and they were hit pretty hard.
I think that's the only possible thing. Because even when UM, ND, Texas, etc are down, it feels like they could be back at any minute, because the recruits are always there, the pollsters want to show them love, they just need to get their ducks in a row.
Put bad sanctions on them, and it sort of removes that part of it.
Not to mention, depending on the nature of the sanctions, you could hurt their non-alumni fan base size.
That's where the quick reversal of the PSU sanctions may have saved their position. You let those run, and the long term prospects get worse. Plus the nature of the allegations, how many non-PSU alums, were deciding "Yeah, I support Penn State?"
Hard to say right? I think the bulk the damage was done very early - the immediate drop to 60 guys (and at one point <50 thru attrition), the free agency period. PSU definitely survived that, but another 2-4 years of the small roster would have been hard to stay above water with that in place.
But again, have to remember what they had to deal with from a personnel standpoint - plucking all walk ons from special tryouts on campus. The free agency was the worst sanction of all - one full year, open slate to come and go as you please, even quit outright and keep your scholarship (which at least 8 guys did) and STILL count against the new lower level?
-
Hard to say right? I think the bulk the damage was done very early - the immediate drop to 60 guys (and at one point <50 thru attrition), the free agency period. PSU definitely survived that, but another 2-4 years of the small roster would have been hard to stay above water with that in place.
But again, have to remember what they had to deal with from a personnel standpoint - plucking all walk ons from special tryouts on campus. The free agency was the worst sanction of all - one full year, open slate to come and go as you please, even quit outright and keep your scholarship (which at least 8 guys did) and STILL count against the new lower level?
Yes, but it was short. A lesser helmet school would have had a harder time climbing back out, even with the shorter term. For PSU, once they were lifted, while there were still hurdles, they could lean on their status more. My question was what if they had been in place for the full term, that's more of classes of trying to convince kids to come play for nothing, more years of limited schollies, and by the time they were over, a longer period of time since PSU had been relevant.
-
Since helmet is perception, "facts" may not matter. I think after a number of years of mediocrity, or worse, that status erodes significantly. I think we'd all agree with that qualitative statement. Putting numbers to what that means quantitatively is more difficult.
I think Army was a helmet team in circa 1950. When did that stop? Probably fairly quickly in part as noted because they had less history then than teams do today.
I'd have a few helmet teams on "helmet watch" today, meaning their status is ebbing, and if they don't come up with some top ten finishes in the next few years, they could earn "helmet warning" status, and then in the next few years become has beens.
Notre Dame is a special case for reasons noted.
-
PSU came through the sanctions better because of two men, Bob O'Brien & James Franklin. Or possibly 3 men including the man that hired the two aforementioned men.
-
Next trio:
Auburn, Clemson, Georgia
-
Results:
48 Michigan (16-0-0)
28 Nebraska (0-12-4)
20 Penn State (0-4-12)
-
afro, how many more trio's do we have this round?
I'm super sorry I missed this, was the last post on page 4.
For this round, we've done 2 trios so far. From the original number of schools we started with, 4 of them can be dropped, as they finished 3rd (last) in both of the trios they were in. These are BYU, TCU, ASU, and Ole Miss.
We're starting back up at the top, so our first trio of this round was among 3 of the 4 schools that had finished 1st in both of their trios.
To answer your question, about 10. The third trio of the round just started.
-
Tough at the top
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
UGA and AU have a neat history, if you care to read about it. They've played 120 times, and the series was tied as recently as 2 years ago. Both school's best coach of the 80s attended the other school (AU's Dye-UGA, UGA's Dooley-AU). Been an even series from the start and only separated by a few hours' drive.
Clemson has '81 and '16, and is closer to Athens than Auburn is. Good trio imo.
-
AU
UGA
Clemson
-
Clemson
Georgia
Auburn
-
Auburn
UGA
Clemson
-
Alrighty, after 4 votes, all 3 schools have at least 1 first-place vote. This is fun!
-
Dawgs
War Eagle
Crotch grabbing Buckeye slayers
-
Auburn
Georgia
Clemson
-
Why 1942 as a reference point?
I would think that the end of the war is a better reference. The G.I. bill was after the war. No males were in college between 1942 and 1945(exaggeration). Coaches of the age enlisted. The war ended in 1945 with one of the winners having and continuing college football. That would make 1945 a good place but most veterans were not cashiered until 1946 or later so I use 1946 as the start of the modern era of college football.
-
Georgia - has more SEC championships, larger stadium
Auburn
Clemson - before about 1975 really not a very good football program
Close bunch.
-
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
Clemson
Auburn
Georgia
-
Next trio:
Auburn, Clemson, Georgia
This is really tough. I'll go:
Clemson
Georgia
Auburn
-
Just as an example, we moved into our new house a couple weeks ago and were meeting the neighbors across the street. I had noticed he had an M GO BLUE plate frame, so figured that was a pretty good ice breaker, mentioning I was from Ann Arbor, did he go there? Was he from Michigan?
Nope
Not only did he not go there, nor was he from Michigan, he went to Penn State!
That's helmet right there.
I'm used to the helmets attracting the bulk of the non-alum fans, but usually ones from the area and/or ones who went to a smaller school, or a MAC school or something like that. But here you have a fan who not only didn't go there, didn't ever live near Ann Arbor, and didn't go to a lesser school, he went to an arguably different, albeit lesser, helmet school.
That's why I don't think these things are moving that quickly.
-
PSU came through the sanctions better because of two men, Bob O'Brien & James Franklin. Or possibly 3 men including the man that hired the two aforementioned men.
Who's Bob?
I think you mean Bill?
-
sorry, Bill
got used to calling him B.OB
-
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
Georgia
Clemson
Auburn
-
uga
au
clemson
uga and au are so close, and clemson isn't far behind either. this is a good group.
-
Once again, many rank them in order of all time wins: 791 744 709.
I think that is all we are doing here with some minor changes.
-
This one still open?
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
Once again, many rank them in order of all time wins: 791 744 709.
I think that is all we are doing here with some minor changes.
Counting the deceased board, I think you've posted this about 17 times on this thread. We get it, thanks.
-
You're not just gonna sit there and take that, are ya CincyDawg?
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
well, if one program has 699 wins and another program has 799 wins, it could be expected that the program with more wins would have more stature
it gets interesting when the win totals are closer or if a program like Florida St. got a later start and therefore many fewer wins
-
sorry, Bill
got used to calling him B.OB
Fans forgetting your coach's name = not helmet
-
well, if one program has 699 wins and another program has 799 wins, it could be expected that the program with more wins would have more stature
it gets interesting when the win totals are closer or if a program like Florida St. got a later start and therefore many fewer wins
I think once you get past those first 7-10, it's not "helmet" anymore.
Ranking the helmet status of non-helmet schools is misleading.
I think beyond those top 7-10 we are simply ranking our perception of the programs, which is why it will largely mirror those lists. Those 7-10 at the top are a little difference because we are measuring how their status is in the absence of results, to measure strength.
When the group is UM, Texas, Oklahoma, we are measuring "helmet."
When the group is MSU, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, we are measuring program perception.
I think there is a difference.
-
We will determine the cutoff for helmet status, but not until we have an ordered list. Let's not skip to the last step...
-
We will determine the cutoff for helmet status, but not until we have an ordered list. Let's not skip to the last step...
Right, I'm just saying, I think we are measuring different things at the top than for the rest of the list.
I think there are certain determiners of helmet status, and only helmet (maybe the borderline ones) have it, so beyond that all schools are equal in terms of helmetness, so we are ranking something different in these other groups.
-
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfb51.com%2Fscroller%2Fhelmet%2Fgeorgia.gif&hash=2d5a78e4bf2ec93cc50611251ee7ac30)
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%2Fwww.cfb51.com%2Fscroller%2Fhelmet%2Fauburn.gif&hash=ab41388fdc48d59ebb7e4f2bef4bb364)
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%2Fwww.cfb51.com%2Fscroller%2Fhelmet%2Fclemson.gif&hash=92e7d1ce4d706d3287fcc7fcafe2171e)
I needed help with these, as perception (and what we're using?) was so very close... But, the metric I went with is all time bowl win percentage. These aren't really that close. I kinda blew it wide open.
-
Prettyyyyy
-
My key notion of "helmetosity" is how readily pollsters rank a team higher than it otherwise would be. This doesn't have some magical cut off in my opinion, but shades of gray. When a program like Boise State has some success, folks find it a lot easier to rank them 3-4-5 spots higher than otherwise, if not more.
I don't think pollsters put much thought into rankings, especially once they get below about 10. They read a little bit and see that Team X has Y starters returning off an 8-5 squad last year and figure they will be around 12th, or 14th, or 18th, who really cares? It's not as if there is accountability for anything.
So they get to 20-25 and are throwing darts, but they are going to find it easier to rank a "Georgia" 20th than they are a Kansas State 20th just because of the helmet.
I doubt they bother to think much about an Alabama or an Ohio State other than a very cursory "Who's back?" glance, and then they go top five every year. Until their helmet loses luster. Then they start out 12th. Until the luster really tarnishes.
-
Auburn
UGA
Clemson
-
Georgia
Auburn
Clemson
-
Last call on this trio. Next one will be posted tonight.
-
Both Auburn and Clemson are, arguably, little brothers in their own states. UGA is not and is in a bigger state.
UGA
Clem
AU
-
Both Auburn and Clemson are, arguably, little brothers in their own states. UGA is not and is in a bigger state.
UGA
Clem
AU
That's true. But that's also an indictment on the bulldogs if they are little bros in smaller states and still comparable to uga.
-
That's true. But that's also an indictment on the bulldogs if they are little bros in smaller states and still comparable to uga.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F000%2F681%2Fwhat-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg&hash=8d2221a0ed3945a1ac27294c0300580d)
-
Next Trio:
Alabama, Michigan State, West Virginia
-
Alabama
.
.
.
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
Results:
49 Georgia
38 Auburn
27 Clemson
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
Bama
MSU
WVU
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
Roll Tide
Sparty
WVU
WVU merits consideration I think for second, but i don't see it.
I like MSU because of their coach, much as I like Kansas State. Georgia played MSU in a bowl game a few years back and jumped out to a 16-0 lead but their star RB got hurt. Richt tried to sit on his lead but couldn't. Dantonio completely outcoached him.
I saw that happen to often under Richt, who I think is a fine individual and mediocre coach.
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
WVU being a realignment afterthought hurts them here, I wonder if I would have more seriously considered them for 2nd in 2009
-
Roll Tide
Sparty
WVU
WVU merits consideration I think for second, but i don't see it.
I like MSU because of their coach, much as I like Kansas State. Georgia played MSU in a bowl game a few years back and jumped out to a 16-0 lead but their star RB got hurt. Richt tried to sit on his lead but couldn't. Dantonio completely outcoached him.
I saw that happen to often under Richt, who I think is a fine individual and mediocre coach.
I think that has become BTN's most played replay. I cringe at this point when I see it there, and my team won that game. I simply can't watch it again.
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
MSU/WVU are fairly close IMHO, but MSU just has more hardware.
-
Bama
Msu
Wvu
Pretty easy
-
Can we move onto the next the group, this one seems pretty rote with everyone towing the company line of Pachyderm - Spartan - Mountaineer
-
Can we move onto the next the group, this one seems pretty rote with everyone towing the company line of Pachyderm - Spartan - Mountaineer
Huh? Easy there. It hasn't even been posted for 10 hours, and this is the first chance I've had to look at it. Give folks a chance, not everybody logs in at midnight...
Anyway, my response:
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
Everyone SHOULD log on at midnight. What else do we have to do?
-
Everyone SHOULD log on at midnight. What else do we have to do?
right. We're all married..
-
Bama
MSU
WV
-
Can we move onto the next the group, this one seems pretty rote with everyone towing the company line of Pachyderm - Spartan - Mountaineer
No need to rush anything. This has been a great distraction during the slow summer, and may go on into the season.
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
Biggest gap yet for me among all three.
-
Bama
MSU
WVU
-
No need to rush anything. This has been a great distraction during the slow summer, and may go on into the season.
If we still had a "post of the year" award, I'm certain this thread/idea would get a nomination.
-
Yeah, this is one of the most interesting thread ideas I can recall, despite my occasional carping (which I won't repeat for the 18th time). It has been interesting for me to ponder why I think Program X has more helmet than Y at times.
-
No need to rush anything. This has been a great distraction during the slow summer, and may go on into the season.
Not rushing anything, just calling a spade a spade. We as a collective board so far are unanimous in our rankings of these 3. We don't have dawdle on the obvious.
-
right. We're all married..
not all of us
-
Dedicated fans know CFB is more important than any relationships.
-
Alright, I'll be the one to throw a monkey wrench into the gears.
Bama
WV
Sparty
-
Alright, I'll be the one to throw a monkey wrench into the gears.
Bama
WV
Sparty
In what universe is WVU a helmet school?
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
-
The same universe that Sparty is a helmet school?
-
By my definition, that universe would be one where WVU has decent prospects and Memphis has the same exact prospects, and WVU gets ranked 20th preseason and Memphis gets "Others receiving votes".
-
MSU would get ranked 16th, and Alabama would get ranked 8th.
-
Bama
MSU
WVU
-
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
There's no contest between Bama and Sparty/WVU, but at least it's close between the last two. Over the past 15-ish years, MSU and WVU have been pretty much neck-and-neck, but Sparty's glory years in the 60s trump anything the Mountaineers have ever done.
-
In what universe is WVU a helmet school?
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
Depending on your age and background WVU over Michigan St as far as helmet perception isn't really a big reach. In my lifetime WVU has been more consistently successful than MSU. Michigan St's heyday in the 50s and 60s was before my time. Now, some may argue MSU has been in a tougher conference playing tougher schedules and that argument may have merit but the fact is people my age have seen WVU win more often and be ranked more often than Michigan St.
I gave MSU the edge because of what they have accomplished since 2008 and the fact that WVU lost some of its luster playing Big 12 competition but it was close in my mind.
Between MSU's terrific run that ended in '66 and '08 there were about 40 years of "meh" seasons. And, again, like I said in the WVU/Iowa comparison, this isn't about if WVU is helmet. They categorically aren't. It's about if they are more helmet than MSU. Ten years ago I would have had WVU above them. Ten years from now I may again.
-
In what universe is WVU a helmet school?
Alabama
Michigan State
West Virginia
In no universe. Penn State leads the series 48–9–2. There's no possible way a school that is flat out dominated by any other can be considered one.
-
In no universe. Penn State leads the series 48–9–2. There's no possible way a school that is flat out dominated by any other can be considered one.
latest meeting was 1992
next meeting 2023
-
Depending on your age and background WVU over Michigan St as far as helmet perception isn't really a big reach. In my lifetime WVU has been more consistently successful than MSU. Michigan St's heyday in the 50s and 60s was before my time. Now, some may argue MSU has been in a tougher conference playing tougher schedules and that argument may have merit but the fact is people my age have seen WVU win more often and be ranked more often than Michigan St.
I gave MSU the edge because of what they have accomplished since 2008 and the fact that WVU lost some of its luster playing Big 12 competition but it was close in my mind.
Between MSU's terrific run that ended in '66 and '08 there were about 40 years of "meh" seasons. And, again, like I said in the WVU/Iowa comparison, this isn't about if WVU is helmet. They categorically aren't. It's about if they are more helmet than MSU. Ten years ago I would have had WVU above them. Ten years from now I may again.
Recency bias certainly matters once you get outside that top 10.
-
Recency bias certainly matters once you get outside that top 10.
which means they aren't helmets.
on a side note, it's starting to sound like we're arguing 'program strength' versus 'name recognition', whihc is what most of helmet is.
i'm willing to bet msu comes in a good bit higher on that scale than wvu. might have something to do with them being in b1g, or their rivals (mich/nd/osu vs vatech/maryland/pitt), or history, or whatever. but it's there.
-
which means they aren't helmets.
on a side note, it's starting to sound like we're arguing 'program strength' versus 'name recognition', whihc is what most of helmet is.
i'm willing to bet msu comes in a good bit higher on that scale than wvu. might have something to do with them being in b1g, or their rivals (mich/nd/osu vs vatech/maryland/pitt), or history, or whatever. but it's there.
Right, I've said that many times. That the factors that make schools "helmets" simply don't exist in the not helmets. So ranking "helmet" status between MSU and WVU is a non starter. They both have none. We are just rating program reputation or something, like you said. MSU (prior to 2016) probably rated somewhat closer to Notre Dame in program reputation. In "helmet" it's no comparison. But when comparing two non-helmets, like MSU and WVU, you have to base it on something. Otherwise you'd have your helmets, then everyone else would be tied.
-
Dedicated fans know CFB is more important than any relationships.
Testify CD Testify
-
preaching to the choir
-
The total pool of schools was around 30, so no, all of them are not "helmet schools". But we're building a hierarchy of these 30 and once that's in place, then we can determine the cutoff between 'helmet' and not.
These were the last 3 of the group of schools who have a first and second-place finish through the first 2 rounds of our little exercise.
-
let's GO!
-
http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/08/usa-today-coaches-poll-college-football-rankings-greatest-programs-all-time
USA Today Coaches Poll/UPI Final Rankings Greatest Teams Of All-Time
1 Oklahoma 927 Big 12
2 Ohio State 916 Big Ten
3 Alabama 895 SEC
4 Michigan 764 Big Ten
5 Nebraska 736 Big Ten
6 USC 715 Pac-12
7 Texas 691 Big 12
8 Penn State 671 Big Ten
9 Notre Dame 654 Ind
10 Florida State 617 ACC
11 Tennessee 551 SEC
12 Miami 504 ACC
13 LSU 499 SEC
14 Georgia 487 SEC
15 Auburn 480 SEC
16 UCLA 475 Pac-12
17 Florida 464 SEC
18 Arkansas 428 SEC
19 Michigan State 426 Big Ten
20 Wisconsin 367 Big Ten
21 Iowa 320 Big Ten
22 Ole Miss 319 SEC
23 Washington 304 Pac-12
24 Clemson 290 ACC
25 Texas A&M 283 SEC
Others Receiving Votes
26 Georgia Tech 269 ACC
27 Colorado 268 Pac-12
28 Arizona State 251 Pac-12
29 Oregon 245 Pac-12
29 Stanford 245 Pac-12
31 Syracuse 240 ACC
32 Pittsburgh 238 ACC
33 TCU 237 Big 12
34 Virginia Tech 234 ACC
35 Missouri 228 SEC
36 Maryland 214 Big Ten
37 Purdue 212 Big Ten
38 BYU 208 Ind
39 West Virginia 196 Big 12
40 Baylor 189 Big 12
41 Kansas State 187 Big 12
42 Houston 180 American
43 Illinois 169 Big Ten
44 North Carolina 164 ACC
45 Oklahoma State 158 Big 12
46 Boise State 154 MW
47 Navy 133 American
48 Minnesota 122 Big Ten
49 Oregon State 118 Pac-12
50 Louisville 113 ACC
51 Washington State 111 Pac-12
52 Texas Tech 110 Big 12
52 Utah 110 Pac-12
53 California 109 Pac-12
54 SMU 107 American
55 South Carolina 105 SEC
56 Kansas 103 Big 12
57 Army 99 Ind
57 Duke 99 ACC
59 Boston College 97 ACC
60 NC State 92 ACC
61 Arizona 91 Pac-12
62 Air Force 84 MW
63 Wyoming 81 MW
64 Mississippi State 77 SEC
65 Northwestern 72 Big Ten
66 Kentucky 67 SEC
67 Virginia 65 ACC
68 Princeton 63 Ivy
69 Miami Univ. 55 MAC
70 Rice 46 C-USA
71 Indiana 43 Big Ten
72 Cincinnati 41 American
73 Southern Miss 34 C-USA
74 Colorado State 33 MW
75 Marshall 32 C-USA
75 Utah State 32 MW
77 Tulane 30 American
77 Tulsa 30 American
79 Rutgers 29 Big Ten
79 San Diego State 29 MW
81 Toledo 28 MAC
82 East Carolina 20 American
82 Iowa State 20 Big 12
82 UCF 20 American
85 Fresno State 18 MW
85 Hawaii 18 MW
85 Louisiana 18 Sun Belt
88 Yale 17 Ivy
89 Dartmouth 13 Ivy
89 Memphis 13 American
89 Nevada 13 MW
92 San Francisco 12 D-II
93 San Jose State 11 MW
94 New Mexico 10 MW
94 North Texas 10 C-USA
96 Holy Cross 9 Patriot
96 Temple 9 American
96 Vanderbilt 9 SEC
96 Wake Forest 9 ACC
100 Denver 8 CAA
100 Western Michigan 8 MAC
100 Ohio 8 MAC
100 Washington & Lee 8 ODAC
104 South Florida 7 AAC
104 New Mexico State 7 Sun Belt
106 Cornell 6 Ivy
107 Bowling Green 3 MAC
108 Central Michigan 2 MAC
108 Northern Illinois 2 MAC
-
perfect gauge of program strength since 1950
I doubt it changes from the AP poll since 1950 or 1936
-
Results:
48 Alabama
31 Michigan State
17 West Virginia
-
Next trio:
Iowa, Miami, Washington
-
The U
UDub
Iowa
-
Washington
Iowa
Miami
-
This one might be the hardest one yet
-
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
I don't feel like this one is hard, even though Miami and Washington were down in the last decade, there is plenty of history there, especially with Miami's 5 national championships from 1983-2001.
Washington should get the nod over Iowa for many reasons, including the fact that Washington is 2-0 against Iowa in Rose Bowls.
Another trivia note. It was almost Iowa vs. Miami for the 2002 national championship. Iowa was 8-0 in the Big Ten but did not play OSU that season, so OSU was also 8-0 in the Big Ten and 12-0 overall, so OSU got the nod over Iowa and Georgia for the NCG. Who knows what might have happened if the Big Ten had a CCG in 2002. Anyway...
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
If Miami plays a game and nobody shows up, did it really happen?
-
If Miami plays a game and nobody shows up, did it really happen?
Idk, ask the 90s.... :67:
-
It's 2017. The 90's don't care.
Where is Don Johnson?
-
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F08%2F06%2Farticle-0-04F912140000044D-861_306x423.jpg&hash=0b45346aa5865c1ca73db7c38cdbae78)
-
Washington
Iowa
Miami
-
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
2017 version (or close enough)
-
Why in the holy hell can't I post pictures here, ever!?!?!?!?!?!
-
(https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_geFGmmpo3_M/S7QrRa713kI/AAAAAAAAAgc/fuY4hQ-RMss/s1600/miami+vice.jpg)
-
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
Miami is tough because they sit in the most fertile recruiting spot in the country. Do they really have a national presence? Do they even seek one out. They have almost no fan base, and very little success now in 15 years despite whatever they did in the 80s, early 90s, then again under Butch. Their history basically is totally tied to about 15 years of being great, which seems to hold very little capital today.
Washington has no business having the history they have. They are a very underrated helmet IMO.
Washington
Iowa
Miami
-
Next trio:
Iowa, Miami, Washington
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
Tough one...
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
Why in the holy hell can't I post pictures here, ever!?!?!?!?!?!
Yeah, I dunno. That is weird.
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
-
Miami is tough because they sit in the most fertile recruiting spot in the country. Do they really have a national presence? Do they even seek one out. They have almost no fan base, and very little success now in 15 years despite whatever they did in the 80s, early 90s, then again under Butch. Their history basically is totally tied to about 15 years of being great, which seems to hold very little capital today.
Washington has no business having the history they have. They are a very underrated helmet IMO.
Part of what makes a helmet team is recognition. That's where the term came from. Instant recognition of a team from the helmet. Miami got there in the 80's, although they are definitely fading.
-
Yeah, I dunno. That is weird.
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
hey, this dirt farmer can do it..............
-
(https://content-static.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/2017-projections/big-ten-projections.jpg)
-
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
might be regional bias, but miami is still a big name down here.
miami
washington (underrated, imo)
iowa
-
Part of what makes a helmet team is recognition. That's where the term came from. Instant recognition of a team from the helmet. Miami got there in the 80's, although they are definitely fading.
Miami was there because they were winning, just like Oregon. The ability to maintain that status when not winning is more important, and Miami suffers big time. If anything IMO they are one of the smallest helmet schools in the P5.
-
but, when a Texas or California recruit hears Miami or Iowa...
and I'm not sure Mark Richt would have been interested in coaching at Iowa City
probably because of the 5 MNCs in the recent past
I also think I know what program ESPN would rather talk about
-
Ten years ago I would have had Miami well ahead, but now it's pretty close.
Still though
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
but, when a Texas or California recruit hears Miami or Iowa...
and I'm not sure Mark Richt would have been interested in coaching at Iowa City
probably because of the 5 MNCs in the recent past
I also think I know what program ESPN would rather talk about
I'm not sure he would have been interested in coaching at Miami if it wasn't his alma mater.
I mean as of late they were hiring coaches away from Temple.
Plus there are other built in advantages at Miami that have nothing to do with helmet, namely more backyard talent than any program in the country.
-
and I'm not sure Mark Richt would have been interested in coaching at Iowa City
You're probably right, but he does have Midwest ties. Nebraska and Iowa don't offer beach front property, but they have fan support, and lots of it. They're two of the most passionate fan bases in the land.
From what I gather he's a great guy and runs about as tight a ship as can be reasonably expected. He might not ever get over the hump, but he's at the very least made multiple conference championship game appearances.
-
I'm not sure he would have been interested in coaching at Miami if it wasn't his alma mater.
I mean as of late they were hiring coaches away from Temple.
Plus there are other built in advantages at Miami that have nothing to do with helmet, namely more backyard talent than any program in the country.
I've read some state that recruiting is part of helmet, such as Notre Dame recruiting well even when down.
I'm a believer in coaches going where they can recruit, even over other nice variables such as fan base or alma matter
-
You're probably right, but he does have Midwest ties. Nebraska and Iowa don't offer beach front property, but they have fan support, and lots of it. They're two of the most passionate fan bases in the land.
From what I gather he's a great guy and runs about as tight a ship as can be reasonably expected. He might not ever get over the hump, but he's at the very least made multiple conference championship game appearances.
Since he's been successful and was born in Omaha, Mark's name always comes up in Lincoln when discussing potential coaches. Miami got Mark and UNL got Mike Riley.
I've also heard others mention the ability to lure top coaching talent as a part of helmet
Not sure what will happen in Lincoln when Riley leaves, but most of us think Brian will take over for Kirk when the time comes.
-
Miami has a swagger that can't be matched, when they are good.
The recruiting base, the helmet decals, the mirrored visors, the camos, the crazy alumni, the big steamed helmet entry...
If Miami and Washington had the same record, I'd much rather draw The Canes in a bowl game.
(unless of course it's the Rose, then I'd take UDub, for the sake of tradition)
-
The "U" went hard after King Barry when Donna was the Prez.
NO was the answer.
Not helmet.
Also said NO to Notre Dame and UNL. Kaptain Kirk said no to repeated NFL offers.
Washington got the best available coach when they were looking - one who turned down USC. THE USC.
Helmet.
Miami hires also-rans and guys who put them on probation. Not that any of their 369 fans would notice.
Not helmet.
-
C'mon Badge a little more conviction next time.The U has vans full of fans even if they're Paddy Wagons
-
Also said NO to Notre Dame and UNL. Kaptain Kirk said no to repeated NFL offers.
doesn't necessarily mean that was the right answer
-
If Miami ever hired an actual big-time coach, it'd be the late 80s all over again. And they only sellout when playing FSU or Florida.
-
like Mark Richt?
Or like some cheatin scoundrel ?
-
The "U" went hard after King Barry when Donna was the Prez.
NO was the answer.
Not helmet.
Also said NO to Notre Dame and UNL. Kaptain Kirk said no to repeated NFL offers.
So Miami isn't a helmet because something happened to them that also happened to Notre Dame and Nebraska?
Washington got the best available coach when they were looking - one who turned down USC. THE USC.
Helmet.
Only because USC hired the coach that Washington already had.
-
The "U" went hard after King Barry when Donna was the Prez.
NO was the answer.
Not helmet.
Also said NO to Notre Dame and UNL. Kaptain Kirk said no to repeated NFL offers.
Washington got the best available coach when they were looking - one who turned down USC. THE USC.
Helmet.
Miami hires also-rans and guys who put them on probation. Not that any of their 369 fans would notice.
Not helmet.
Washington is not a helmet. At all. Not even close.
You may certainly argue that at this time they're at a higher level than Miami, if you like.
But Washington isn't a helmet. Never has been. Highly unlikely they ever will be.
-
It's highly unlikely that any school becomes a helmet that isn't one. You get awfully passionate about things that are inherent.
-
Washington
Iowa
Miami
-
The fact that Badge is arguing so vehemently that Miami isn't helmet sort of solidifies in my mind why they are. Even though they have been pretty average for over a decade they still stir emotions. People revel in the fact that they are down.
When Iowa is down no one really takes great pleasure in it. No one views it as some sort of come uppance.
I still think when people hear "Miami" they think of dancing, bragging, swagger, and winning.
-
So Miami isn't a helmet because something happened to them that also happened to Notre Dame and Nebraska?
Only because USC hired the coach that Washington already had.
ND and UNL began their runs much earlier than Miami. Miami was a flash in the pan and had to cheat to win. Not helmet.
Sark was a USC coach under Pete for a long time. It's not the same.
-
Washington is not a helmet. At all. Not even close.
Never said they were. All I meant was that going out and getting the best available coach (who turned USC down, by the way) is acting helmet.
-
When Iowa is down no one really takes great pleasure in it. No one views it as some sort of come uppance.
I still think when people hear "Miami" they think of dancing, bragging, swagger, and winning.
I don't mind Iowa being down, but I'd rather have them be good. Heh.
As for "people" thinking of Miami.. well, my kids don't. Ever.
-
When Iowa is down no one really takes great pleasure in it. No one views it as some sort of come uppance.
I still think when people hear "Miami" they think of dancing, bragging, swagger, and winning.
Interesting point.
I love it when Notre Dame is down. A lot of people love it when Ohio State is down. A lot of people love it when Bama is down. I love it when Miami is down.
Outside of rivals (Wisconsin&Minnesota mostly), does anyone get joy out of Iowa being down? Outside of rivals (WSU) does anyone get joy out of Washington being down?
Lots of people love it when Miami is down. Helmet.
-
If Miami ever hired an actual big-time coach, it'd be the late 80s all over again. And they only sellout when playing FSU or Florida.
So any big time coach could win big time at Miami, yet they can't find one who wants to? And people are arguing UP their helmet status?
-
Miami
Washington
Iowa
-
coaching hires can be a decent measure, but can also be faulty.
aTm stole a coach from bama. one that bama wanted to keep and was doing seemingly good job. anyone wanna argue aTm over bama?
petersen told usc no/wash yes for some very personal reasons from what i've heard/read.
and there are a ton of schools that if they had the right coach, blah blah blah, but can't find him. nd, anyone? nebraska? tennessee is in that right now. texas if this one doesn't work out. bama was for about 15 years before saban. usc looks like they might be coming out of that, but suggest this last year and everyone laughs at you. looking for the right coach doesn't mean you aren't helmet.
-
coaching hires can be a decent measure, but can also be faulty.
aTm stole a coach from bama. one that bama wanted to keep and was doing seemingly good job. anyone wanna argue aTm over bama?
petersen told usc no/wash yes for some very personal reasons from what i've heard/read.
and there are a ton of schools that if they had the right coach, blah blah blah, but can't find him. nd, anyone? nebraska? tennessee is in that right now. texas if this one doesn't work out. bama was for about 15 years before saban. usc looks like they might be coming out of that, but suggest this last year and everyone laughs at you. looking for the right coach doesn't mean you aren't helmet.
Miami
Washington
Iowa
Agree.
-
coaching hires can be a decent measure, but can also be faulty.
This is very true, but it's just another measure and every measure we use for this thing could be deemed faulty - much like considering an assload of wins before WWII.
Right?
-
This is very true, but it's just another measure and every measure we use for this thing could be deemed faulty - much like considering an assload of wins before WWII.
Right?
yes but you seem to be putting extreme significance on that one part.
-
Not really. I was trying to make a point. And then those who argue that wins before WWII try to make their point.
And then what do you do with Miami and others who came to prominence so "late" in the game??
Iowa joined the Western Conference in 1899. Washington is a charter member of the PAC-12. That is relevant in this discussion.
Miami is a founding member of thuggery and brashness. It's been on probation after every run of success its ever had, yet it is being discussed as a helmet school in this thread.
All because it's been in the news for all the wrong reasons and is universally despised by almost every college football fan aside from its own 378 fans?
-
All because it's been in the news for all the wrong reasons and is universally despised by almost every college football fan aside from its own 378 fans?
As to this, the first part actually strengthens its helmet argument, but the second part is a big detraction.
We've discussed the massive fan bases all of these helmet schools have as part of their power. Miami has one of the worst/smallest.
-
That's what I'm saying.
Apparently you can thug and cheat your way to helmet status in many views. I do not share this view, but that should be obvious based on my arguments.
-
Miami's fame or infamy or whatever you want to call it, largely due to their actions and the ensuing media coverage shouldn't play into helmetosity, but it does. If ND's NBC deal matters, then so does the Miami Thug Machine.
They were newsworthy for winning and their crimes against humanity. But party of that made them a name. A recognizable helmet/logo/uniform. An expectation.
All of it is tied into helmet.
-
Last call for this trio, I'll post a new one tonight.
-
I loved it when Thug U showed up in Tempe in full cammo and Penn State took them down.
-
Ya know how the Miami guys get on the NFL introductions and they always say "The U" when they reference where they were manufactured as football players?
They are really saying "Thug U". It just sounds close.
Just thought I'd clear that up for everyone.
-
I loved it when Thug U showed up in Tempe in full cammo and Penn State took them down.
Agree with you there, that was fun. I also pulled heavily for Alabama against them in the 1993 Sugar Bowl.
-
Yo.. Dood.
Get your CNN buddies to show up here. Dammit. We need more peeps.
-
Apparently you can thug and cheat your way to helmet status in many views. I do not share this view, but that should be obvious based on my arguments.
hah, the canes are not the first thug U.
That might have been Princeton or Michigan or Harvard or Rutgers back one hundred years ago
probably the fisheaters from Notre Dame
all part of the history of college football
and part of the winning it takes to become a Helmet team
-
Just kidding, I passed out super early yesterday. New trio this evening.
-
Miami's fame or infamy or whatever you want to call it, largely due to their actions and the ensuing media coverage shouldn't play into helmetosity, but it does. If ND's NBC deal matters, then so does the Miami Thug Machine.
They were newsworthy for winning and their crimes against humanity. But party of that made them a name. A recognizable helmet/logo/uniform. An expectation.
All of it is tied into helmet.
I agree, I think it helps them. I think them, plus Oregon with the Nike uniforms thing before everyone did that give them a mid-tier bump among clearly non-helmet teams.
But then Miami is docked points, because for as much as they won, they really aren't a national recruiting presence. They have zero fan base. Even with the deepest pool of backyard talent of any P5 program, nobody wants to coach there.
-
I loved it when Thug U showed up in Tempe in full cammo and Penn State took them down.
If you've ever seen the 30/30 on 'The U' they only talk about this game sparingly, and obviously slanted towards Miami. Many players on that team will tell you it was the worst loss of their entire careers, including Jimmy Johnson. They'll also tell you they lost that game, not Penn State won it.
If you go back and watch it, it was a classic bend but don't break PSU win - they had MANY that year. PSU never cared how many yards per game they gave up back then, they wanted to hit you and hit you hard. Ray Isom was a missile and physically pounded Miami's receivers all game. They baited and baited Testaverde and it paid off, big time. In some ways, it was a prelude to how Testaverde would play in the NFL - A gagillion yards, a whole lot of INT's, and not a lot of wins.
Miami's defense was other wordly that night, I'll give that credit. But PSU's defensive gameplan was executed perfect, and put them into position to take advantage of short fields when they had the chance.
-
Agree with you there, that was fun. I also pulled heavily for Alabama against them in the 1993 Sugar Bowl.
it's been hard, but i finally found a reason to like you. :)
-
Just kidding, I passed out super early yesterday. New trio this evening.
are we into the 3rd round of trios?
-
it's been hard, but i finally found a reason to like you. :)
Why, I oughtta....
-
I am pondering, without any conclusion, how much the recent woes of ND, Texas, and USC - and perhaps Michigan and Penn State and Nebraska - have diluted their helmetosity.
Would our view of FSU and Miami be/have been different in 2000?
USC is still a helmet kind of team even if they have been "quiet" until last season, out of sight out of mind.
Notre Dame was 4-8 last year. It's back to the debate about how much and how fast a team can move up or down.
-
I am pondering, without any conclusion, how much the recent woes of ND, Texas, and USC - and perhaps Michigan and Penn State and Nebraska - have diluted their helmetosity.
Would our view of FSU and Miami be/have been different in 2000?
USC is still a helmet kind of team even if they have been "quiet" until last season, out of sight out of mind.
Notre Dame was 4-8 last year. It's back to the debate about how much and how fast a team can move up or down.
Nah, their extreme relevancy while being on the field irrelevant only strengthens their helmet argument. Likewise Miami being relevant when good is a non-factor. The fact that they a.) aren't relevant when down and b.) can't stay good despite their local talent or attract a big time coach makes them not a helmet at all for me.
-
are we into the 3rd round of trios?
Yes
-
Next trio:
Florida, Pitt, Wisconsin
-
Results:
37 Miami (11-0-4)
34 Washington (4-11-0)
19 Iowa (0-4-11)
There were only 2 different ballots cast:
Miami-Washington-Iowa AND Washington-Iowa-Miami. Weird.
-
Results:
37 Miami (11-0-4)
34 Washington (4-11-0)
19 Iowa (0-4-11)
There were only 2 different ballots cast:
Miami-Washington-Iowa AND Washington-Iowa-Miami. Weird.
Interesting. I still honestly think the Miami third place votes are more a product of not liking them which screams helmet to me.
Moving on.
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Helmets don't host Friday night games
Chancellor Ronnie Green (http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/after-this-season-nebraska-may-be-done-with-games-on/article_95969c99-e575-54f1-af4b-c85cfb9891cd.html)* says Nebraska doesn't plan on hosting (https://hailvarsity.com/s/1855/no-friday-night-games-in-lincoln) any Friday night (http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/nebraska-chancellor-expects-huskers-will-never-host-a-friday-night/article_c75562fc-7eb2-11e7-a76b-a3021ca05b85.html) games.
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Interesting. I still honestly think the Miami third place votes are more a product of not liking them which screams helmet to me.
Moving on.
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
I'd go the opposite way and say the first place Miami votes are result of lack of differentiation between program history and helmet status.
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
i'd be mildly surprised with any variation on this one.
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
Although... performing this exercise in 1980 would probably yield different results.
-
1937 as well.....
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
Pitt is maybe closer to Wisconsin that I had thought earlier, but helmet is not about thinking, sort of.
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
Pitt is maybe closer to Wisconsin that I had thought earlier, but helmet is not about thinking, sort of.
Pitt is only quasi relevant in its own city. I don't think it's close. Now Pitt's history vs. Wisconsin's history is a legit debate. Helmet status now? I don't think so.
-
I argued for Pitt to be higher on the old board. Looking at their past there is a lot of hardware in the closet. But the demotion to the ACC and subsequent not performing there, with the current rise of the Badgers over the last 20 years makes it hard to helmet the panthers.
-
Pitt hasn't been in the AP Top 5 in almost 40 years.
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Which isn't really relevant
-
Pitt hasn't been in the AP Top 5 in almost 40 years.
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
I recall they beat Georgia rather decisively in the Sugar Bowl in 1976 with some running back who was pretty good. I presume they were in the top five then. They beat Georgia in the last seconds in 1981 as I recall, probably the Dawg's best team. They had the won and Marino threw a fourth down pass into blown coverage on fourth and forever. But Pitt was in position to win and had a great team.
That of course is nearly 40 years ago, hard as it is to believe.
-
Pitt was never a national brand, and once the jobs and people left Pittsburgh in the early 80s and you could no longer field a great team on WPIAL talent alone, they were done.
-
Before looking it up, I thought Pitt was better historically than it actually was. Hmmmph.
-
Before looking it up, I thought Pitt was better historically than it actually was. Hmmmph.
Aren't they one of the big time violaters in claimed national championships? Or did I make that up
-
Put me down for a Florida Wisconsin Pitt as well.
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
I am pondering, without any conclusion, how much the recent woes of ND, Texas, and USC - and perhaps Michigan and Penn State and Nebraska - have diluted their helmetosity.
Would our view of FSU and Miami be/have been different in 2000?
USC is still a helmet kind of team even if they have been "quiet" until last season, out of sight out of mind.
Notre Dame was 4-8 last year. It's back to the debate about how much and how fast a team can move up or down.
i'll go on record again as saying helmet status can be attained (and lost) relatively quickly. but once attained and sustained for a long period of time, it likewise takes a long time to lose.
basically, there is reciprocity in how long you've had helmet status with how fast you can lose it. but it's faster down hill. so, say 1 to .5 ratio. 10 years to gain, 5 to lose it. 1 year gain, half to lose it. 50 years gained, 25 to lose it.
helmet status defined as ability to get benefit of the doubt in rankings.
examples of each:
quick risers and fallers (1-10 years gained, will dissipate just as quickly): oregon, boise
middle road (10-30 years gained, likewise couple decades to lose): fsu, miami
long time (30+ years gained, long time to lose): nd, neb
-
Next trio:
Florida, Pitt, Wisconsin
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
The Panther's hardware advantage over the Badgers made me think about putting them ahead but it has just been too long. I also tend to dock teams that aren't a clear #1 in their own state and, as ELA points out, it isn't even clear that Pitt is #1 in their own city let alone state.
-
Aren't they one of the big time violaters in claimed national championships? Or did I make that up
they claim 9. 2 are ap/coach (also unanimous). 4 are chosen only by 1 poll, parke davis. other 3 only by other minor polls/systems. they also have 3 other awarded titles they don't claim.
-
uf
wisky
pitt
-
Florida
Wisconsin
pitt
-
they claim 9. 2 are ap/coach (also unanimous). 4 are chosen only by 1 poll, parke davis. other 3 only by other minor polls/systems. they also have 3 other awarded titles they don't claim.
They claim 8 before 1940, and the 76 team is legitimate with Dorsett, who is remarkably under rated when you talk about the best RB's ever in CFB. Pitt had 3 starting QB's that season and won the MNC - think about that. How good did he have to be to overcome that?
In Pitt's defense, The teams from the early 70's thru the early 80's were outstanding and the program was as strong as any in the country. They were #1 a few times in that span, and the 1980 team with Hugh Greene, Marino and the OL was stupid good. That team lost a freaky game early in the season to Florida State (before it was FLORIDA STATE, and actually Bowden always said this was the win that put FSU on the map) and they mauled everyone the rest of the year. Instead of getting the obvious choice to the Sugar Bowl against Georgia, since they were #2 in the nation, The Sugar selected a pedestrian ND team. Pitt went to the Gator Bowl and finshed #2. Had Pitt won the MNC that season, they'd arguably be talked about as one of the best teams of all time, I believe that.
The 1981 team was subsequently very good as well, but they got pounded by Penn St 48-14 in the last game of the year as #1. Frankly, the program never rebounded after that loss. They hit rock bottom in the late 90's and basically are what they are now for the past 15 years - put together a nice season here and there, make a run at the Top 15 and division crown every so often, but mostly their a 7-5/8-4 program.
-
yes, from 1974-1982 (9 year span) Pitt was #3 in winning percentage
impressive run
Florida could probably boast a run that good, Wisconsin, maybe not
-
They claim 8 before 1940, and the 76 team is legitimate with Dorsett, who is remarkably under rated when you talk about the best RB's ever in CFB. Pitt had 3 starting QB's that season and won the MNC - think about that. How good did he have to be to overcome that?
In Pitt's defense, The teams from the early 70's thru the early 80's were outstanding and the program was as strong as any in the country. They were #1 a few times in that span, and the 1980 team with Hugh Greene, Marino and the OL was stupid good. That team lost a freaky game early in the season to Florida State (before it was FLORIDA STATE, and actually Bowden always said this was the win that put FSU on the map) and they mauled everyone the rest of the year. Instead of getting the obvious choice to the Sugar Bowl against Georgia, since they were #2 in the nation, The Sugar selected a pedestrian ND team. Pitt went to the Gator Bowl and finshed #2. Had Pitt won the MNC that season, they'd arguably be talked about as one of the best teams of all time, I believe that.
The 1981 team was subsequently very good as well, but they got pounded by Penn St 48-14 in the last game of the year as #1. Frankly, the program never rebounded after that loss. They hit rock bottom in the late 90's and basically are what they are now for the past 15 years - put together a nice season here and there, make a run at the Top 15 and division crown every so often, but mostly their a 7-5/8-4 program.
As the amount of college football on YouTube continues to expand, here's that game in its entirety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC99YZMkM-E
-
well, that game obviously helped, but if FSU was ranked #11, they were already on the map
-
Florida
Wisconsin
Pitt
-
One thing about Pitt:
In this exercise I am always concerned that I will be biased by Ohio State's experiences against a particular team. For example, if you judged Clemson based solely on Ohio State's performance against them they would be a MAJOR Helmet team. Pitt is pretty much the opposite.
All-time, Ohio State is 19-5-1 against the Panthers. Furthermore, the first four games (1929-1936) included two losses and a tie. Since then the Buckeyes are an even more impressive 18-3 against Pitt.
It is a rather peculiar series. The two teams played 18 times in 26 years from 1929-1954 including every year for 13 years from 1940-1952. Since 1954 the teams have played seven times:
- A Fiesta-bowl and a home-and-home in the 1980's
- A four year double home-and-home from 1993-1996
The four games that I am most familiar with are the four from the 1990's because I was at Ohio State when those were played. I attended the two of them played in Ohio Stadium and watched the other two on TV. Ohio State won all four easily. The scores were:
- 72-0 in 1996
- 54-14 in 1995
- 27-3 in 1994
- 63-28 in 1993
Based on those four games I would consider Pitt to be a bottom-feeder. To be fair to Pitt though, 1993-1996 may well be the absolute low-point in the whole history of Pitt football. In those four years they went 12-32 and their best record was 4-7 in 1996.
-
yes, from 1974-1982 (9 year span) Pitt was #3 in winning percentage
impressive run
Florida could probably boast a run that good, Wisconsin, maybe not
Florida had a 20-year run with the #1 win%.
-
Wasn't Curtis Martin on those awful Pitt teams? I always liked their script Pitt logo and yellow/blue color scheme, but sometime in the 90s the yellow turned to piss/puke yellow-green and looked terrible. And then they changed to the navy/old gold which is okay....I wish they'd go back to their original 80s scheme.
-
Wasn't Curtis Martin on those awful Pitt teams? I always liked their script Pitt logo and yellow/blue color scheme, but sometime in the 90s the yellow turned to piss/puke yellow-green and looked terrible. And then they changed to the navy/old gold which is okay....I wish they'd go back to their original 80s scheme.
I personally like the script Pitt with the navy/gold, like they have now. Have wanted it for a while. I have to admit, their throwbacks last year were badass enough that I wouldn't mind them coming back fully time.
(https://cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/pitt-panthers-brian-oneill.jpg)
-
Florida had a 20-year run with the #1 win%.
24 years if you don't count Boise
which I don't
-
Last 20 years, not including G5 or recently moved up P5, by winning percentage (traditional "helmets" in bold):
1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma
3. FSU
4. Georgia
5. LSU
5. Oregon
7. Florida
8. Virginia Tech
9. Wisconsin
10. USC
11. Texas
12. Nebraska
13. Alabama
14. Michigan
15. Miami
16. Clemson
17. Auburn
18. Kansas State
19. Penn State
20. Tennessee
-
Where are the Irish?
-
floundering
-
The fact that Brian Kelly is responsible for more deaths than championships, and is still there for his 9th (?) season is staggering.
-
Where are the Irish?
Actually, 31st. But that includes some teams such as Utah and BYU.
behind West Virginia and Oklahoma St. and Georgia Tech
narrowly ahead of Michigan St and Texas A&M
a few games ahead of Iowa and Missouri
-
The fact that Brian Kelly is responsible for more deaths than championships, and is still there for his 9th (?) season is staggering.
within that 9 years, LSU, Georgia, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, and Miami have fired coaches
-
Where are the Irish?
At the top of the helmet list, because you asked, apparently.
-
within that 9 years, LSU, Georgia, Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, and Miami have fired coaches
Texas and Michigan have fired multiple coaches right? If you don't buy Mack Brown's "retirement."
-
Actually, 31st. But that includes some teams such as Utah and BYU.
behind West Virginia and Oklahoma St. and Georgia Tech
narrowly ahead of Michigan St and Texas A&M
a few games ahead of Iowa and Missouri
Which also brings up an interesting point about MSU.
Considering we've seen people post that the Dantonio era, the last 10 seasons, are the peak of MSU football, yet even accounting for half of the total of the past 20 years, MSU's winning percentage over those 20 years is still below their all-time ranking. The prior 10 years were far more out of whack with MSU's historical profile (in a bad way) than the last 10 years were. They are probably between #18-#22 all-time program, and over the past decade, what are they, maybe borderline top 10? So 10ish spots above their historical placing. But over the previous 10 are they even in the top 50? The decade prior to Dantonio's arrival was much more of an MSU outlier than the 10 years of Dantonio,
-
Wasn't Curtis Martin on those awful Pitt teams? I always liked their script Pitt logo and yellow/blue color scheme, but sometime in the 90s the yellow turned to piss/puke yellow-green and looked terrible. And then they changed to the navy/old gold which is okay....I wish they'd go back to their original 80s scheme.
Yessir, he was. The Paul Hackett era was gloriously terrible for Pitt, they got pounded a ton those 3 years.
Couple of other Pitt responses:
1. I LOVE the old script PITT logo and really wanted them to wear those throwbacks against PSU last year to reignite the rivalry. Not sure why Pitt didn't do that, it would have gone over crazy good.
2. DYK - Pitt has produced the third most NFL HOFers (eight) tied with Michigan and Alabama. They also currently have one sure fired guy (Fitzgerald) and a better-than-not to get in guy in Darrelle Revis in the league now. That is quite impressive.
-
Which also brings up an interesting point about MSU.
Considering we've seen people post that the Dantonio era, the last 10 seasons, are the peak of MSU football, yet even accounting for half of the total of the past 20 years, MSU's winning percentage over those 20 years is still below their all-time ranking. The prior 10 years were far more out of whack with MSU's historical profile (in a bad way) than the last 10 years were. They are probably between #18-#22 all-time program, and over the past decade, what are they, maybe borderline top 10? So 10ish spots above their historical placing. But over the previous 10 are they even in the top 50? The decade prior to Dantonio's arrival was much more of an MSU outlier than the 10 years of Dantonio,
Better than the Duffy Daugherty years even?
-
Better than the Duffy Daugherty years even?
I've never said it was peak MSU, but people have posted that. The mid 50's through mid 60s were better IMO. But MD-era is closer to MSU's all time average than the decade prior to his arrival was. That yes, some regression to the mean was bound to come. But that is still a top 25 team, not back to Bobby Williams/JLS.
-
Texas and Michigan have fired multiple coaches right? If you don't buy Mack Brown's "retirement."
Yeah, Mack Brown didn't retire.
Texas has fired 2 coaches in the past 4 years. Sure hope we're done with that for a while.
-
Pshht. That's nuthin'
The last OSU head FB coach to not get fired, you ask?
Paul Brown, 1943.
-
I'm still not sure I buy Bob Stoops retirement
-
24 years if you don't count Boise
which I don't
No, none of the win% lists from the past 30 years should include Boise. My 5A high school in FL had tougher schedules than the Broncos most years.
-
I'm still not sure I buy Bob Stoops retirement
Maybe it's just the times, but I'm waiting for there to be a 19-year old girl involved somehow. Or I'm overly jaded. Hell, the last 3 women I've spent time with were early-mid 20s...can't keep your hands off 'em, lol.
-
I've never said it was peak MSU, but people have posted that. The mid 50's through mid 60s were better IMO. But MD-era is closer to MSU's all time average than the decade prior to his arrival was. That yes, some regression to the mean was bound to come. But that is still a top 25 team, not back to Bobby Williams/JLS.
I have a lot of respect for MD, but you have to go with the hardware.
-
In Pitt's defense, The teams from the early 70's thru the early 80's were outstanding and the program was as strong as any in the country. They were #1 a few times in that span, and the 1980 team with Hugh Greene, Marino and the OL was stupid good. That team lost a freaky game early in the season to Florida State (before it was FLORIDA STATE, and actually Bowden always said this was the win that put FSU on the map) and they mauled everyone the rest of the year. Instead of getting the obvious choice to the Sugar Bowl against Georgia, since they were #2 in the nation, The Sugar selected a pedestrian ND team. Pitt went to the Gator Bowl and finshed #2. Had Pitt won the MNC that season, they'd arguably be talked about as one of the best teams of all time, I believe that.
That 1980 Pitt team was indeed very very good and UGA was probably lucky to have missed them. Notre Dame was pretty good that year, but UGA needed a couple of breaks, and a defensive stand late, to win.
The 1981 UGA team was better than the 1980 team IMHO and had Pitt beat until a late Marino fourth down pass upset the Dawgs.
The 1980-1982 UGA team of course is highlighted by a certain running back, but they were 10-1-1 in 1984 after he left and beat Texas in the Cotton Bowl denying Texas a clear NC they should have won. Texas had a nasty nasty defense that year. The Horns dropped a punt with about 3 minutes left and UGA somehow scored a TD with a QB who was not very good but managed one run in his career and that was it.
Anyway, Pitt merits consideration in all of this, IF we were talking about how good the program has been over time. However, we aren't.
-
In Pitt's defense, The teams from the early 70's thru the early 80's were outstanding and the program was as strong as any in the country. They were #1 a few times in that span, and the 1980 team with Hugh Greene, Marino and the OL was stupid good. That team lost a freaky game early in the season to Florida State (before it was FLORIDA STATE, and actually Bowden always said this was the win that put FSU on the map) and they mauled everyone the rest of the year. Instead of getting the obvious choice to the Sugar Bowl against Georgia, since they were #2 in the nation, The Sugar selected a pedestrian ND team. Pitt went to the Gator Bowl and finshed #2. Had Pitt won the MNC that season, they'd arguably be talked about as one of the best teams of all time, I believe that.
Heh, I think we literally had this exact post a page back
-
I think he was trying to quote. It is verbatim.
-
That makes more sense
-
I think he was trying to quote. It is verbatim.
Yeah, I tried to shorten the quote and lost the identifiers. Sorry.
-
so...this thread died.
-
Sorry, been distracted by interest in my college football board game I made from scratch. Answering questions and sharing files and all that.
Results:
48 Florida (16-0-0)
32 Wisconsin (0-16-0)
16 Pitt (0-0-16)
Sorry if some of the trios are like this one, we've got a glut of diverse schools that have finished both 1st in one trio and 3rd in another, and we're sorting through them now, with schools that have two 2nd-place finishes as well.
-
Next trio:
Arkansas, Texas, USCw
-
Horns & Trojans - very close
Horns
Trojans
Razorbacks
-
Cali has fair weather fans. Texas doesn't.
schLonghorns
Trojans
Hawgs
-
Texas
Some California directional school of no particular note
Some Kansas directional school of no particular note.
I guess the last state was named by a pirate living in Kansas, which makes no sense to me.
-
USC and Texas are both helmets. Texas has been off my radar for football stuff for about a decade now. USC just won the Rose I'll give them a recency bump.
USC
Texas
Arkansas - should be every voters 3rd place
-
Texas- fading but it's a tall mountain they have to slide down
USC- same as above only not quite as high and they seem to have found a ledge to cling to
Ark- big hill they are rolling off
-
USC and Texas are close for me several reasons. But one is those are the major helmets I wasn't really exposed to or aware of as much when I was a kid. They are the two most western helmets and back in the 80s I just didn't see much of either team. These are two schools whose history I didn't have an appreciation of until I was an adult.
Anyway, USC gets the edge for me for a couple reasons. USC sort of had an aura about them for that stretch in the early 00s. They reminded me of Miami in the 80s where it almost felt like they were fielding a quasi pro team. Their A game felt better than anyone else's. The irony of Texas being the school to end that isn't lost on me. Nevertheless, I never felt that watching Texas.
The other thing is since WVU entered the Big 12 I haven't experienced "helmet" Texas. I'm sure that is coming at some point and I will despise it but WVU has taken 3 of 5 and that shapes my perception.
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
I wonder if the Cotton Bowl being relegated to irrelevance the last 20 years hinders Texas in something like this...random, I know. But it may.
-
Texas
USC
Arkansas
-
Texas and USC are very close. Like others have mentioned, I'd say it's the bits aside from historical on-field results that make the biggest difference. So I'll say
Texas
USC
piggy u
-
USC and Texas are both helmets. Texas has been off my radar for football stuff for about a decade now. USC just won the Rose I'll give them a recency bump.
USC
Texas
Arkansas - should be every voters 3rd place
Scoreboard beeyotch. :)
-
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
Scoreboard beeyotch. :)
Heh, I was sooooo about to ask if you were scorboarding me on Vince Young Vs OSU, or Vince Young Vs USC; and comment that I said about a decade ago... Totally forgetting the 2009 Fiesta Bowl, that was a great game and a very good win by UT. Scoreboard indeed.
(But I'm not changing my helmet vote till Texas can put together consecutive seasons that are better than USC.
-
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
I'm sticking to my top 3 of Notre Dame, Texas, Michigan, but I've liked some of the USC arguments. I think they've solidified themselves as my #4. Still trying to round out the rest of my clear 7 helmets (Alabama, OSU, Oklahoma)
-
USC
Texas
Arky
-
Next trio:
Arkansas, Texas, USCw
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
I wonder if the Cotton Bowl being relegated to irrelevance the last 20 years hinders Texas in something like this...random, I know. But it may.
I think it does somewhat because if you look at Texas' history you see a bunch of Cotton Bowls and today's Cotton Bowl isn't what it once was so those look less impressive than they should. Meanwhile all of USC's RoseBowl wins still look great.
-
Having the Cotton Bowl slip out for a few years is interesting. Now it's back.
I doubt a Peach Bowl win in 1972 is going to gain any allure though.
-
I never thought I'd see some directional school over Texas.
-
I think it does somewhat because if you look at Texas' history you see a bunch of Cotton Bowls and today's Cotton Bowl isn't what it once was so those look less impressive than they should. Meanwhile all of USC's RoseBowl wins still look great.
That's a pretty B1G-centric view.
There were periods in the 80s and 90s when national perception of the Rose Bowl was low due to perceived lack of strength in the PAC and B10. The term "Doze Bowl" was extremely common in the 90s.
-
I never thought I'd see some directional school over Texas.
Sucking pretty badly for the past 7 years has taken its toll, no doubt. I could see putting any and all of these teams ahead of Texas in a helmet ranking right now:
Notre Dame
USC
Michigan
Ohio State
Alabama
Oklahoma
-
That's a pretty B1G-centric view.
There were periods in the 80s and 90s when national perception of the Rose Bowl was low due to perceived lack of strength in the PAC and B10. The term "Doze Bowl" was extremely common in the 90s.
I don't think it is B1G centric. The specific question I was answering was this:
"I wonder if the Cotton Bowl being relegated to irrelevance the last 20 years hinders Texas in something like this"
Of the last 20 Cotton Bowls (Jan 1, 2008 through Jan 2, 2017) only one had a team ranked higher than #4 (December, 2015 when it was a CFP playoff game). Here are the rankings for the last 20:
- #8 v #12
- 2 v 3 (the CFP game)
- 4 v 7
- 9 v 13
- 9 v 11
- 7 v 11
- 11 v 18
- 21 v nr
- 8 v 20
- 7 v 25
- 10 v 22
- 8 v 20
- 15 v 22
- 16 v 21
- 9 v nr
- 10 v nr
- 11 v 21
- 14 v 24
- 20 v 25
- 5 v 20
Only the CFP game had any impact on the NC. Compare to the Rose:
- #5 v #9
- 5 v 6
- 2 v 3 (CFP playoff game)
- 4 v 5
- 8 v nr
- 6 v 9
- 3 v 4
- 7 v 8
- 5 v 6
- 6 v 13
- 3 v 8
- 1 v 2 (BCSNCG)
- 6 v 13
- 1 v 4 (the year that USC was #1 in the AP but not in the BCSNCG)
- 7 v 8
- 1 v 4 (BCSNCG)
- 4 v 14
- 4 v 22
- 6 v 9
- 1 v 8
That is five Rosebowls with an impact on the NC compared to only one Cotton Bowl. Comparing year-to-year the Rose was the bigger game (in terms of where the teams were ranked) almost every year.
-
Your comment was "all of USC's Rose Bowls still look great" and I'm disagreeing with that. Nationally, the PAC and/or B1G were considered inferior conferences many years during the 80s and 90s, and Rose Bowls were considered to be real snoozers.
-
That's a pretty B1G-centric view.
There were periods in the 80s and 90s when national perception of the Rose Bowl was low due to perceived lack of strength in the PAC and B10. The term "Doze Bowl" was extremely common in the 90s.
I have literally never heard that term "Doze Bowl" before.
January 1, 1990 #3 Michigan
January 1, 1992 #2 Washington #4 Michigan
January 2, 1995 #2 Penn State
January 1, 1996 #3 Northwestern
January 1, 1997 #2 Arizona State #4 Ohio State
January 1, 1998 #1 Michigan
Not being part of the almost BCS the Rose still featured 8 teams ranked in the top 4 for the decade and 6 of the games were decided by les than a score. I can't fathom how or why anyone would use that term, especially in relation to the non-important Cotton Bowl.
-
I've heard and used the term "Doze Bowl" many times.
Probably a Big 12 thing
I think it was coined because for a good time, the Rose had little say in the national championship
while one team in the contest may have been ranked in the top ten, usually not both teams.
the Orange and Sugar were many times matching 2 top 5 teams or even 2 top 3 teams and some times #1 vs #2 matchups
-
I've heard and used the term "Doze Bowl" many times.
Probably a Big 12 thing
I think it was coined because for a good time, the Rose had little say in the national championship
while one team in the contest may have been ranked in the top ten, usually not both teams.
the Orange and Sugar were many times matching 2 top 5 teams or even 2 top 3 teams and some times #1 vs #2 matchups
It wasn't a B12 thing. It was an "everyone in the country except the B10" thing.
And I didn't include PAC above, because PAC fans have always been few and far between no matter where you looked. Football just isn't as important to them.
-
I used to torment Big Ten Hawkeye fans back in the day
but, no longer....... we're Big Ten West brothers today!
-
I used to torment Big Ten Hawkeye fans back in the day
but, no longer....... we're Big Ten West brothers today!
Yeah. Good luck with that.
I, on the other hand, used to defend the B10 and the Rose Bowl from the rest of the country. I've always liked the Rose Bowl, even when it was boring as shit because the B10 and PAC were bad.
-
Bevo
Spoiled Children
Bert
-
My indicator for Texas' slide coincides when they instituted that self imposed tv ban w BevoTv.
USC
TEXAS
ARK
-
I've never heard "Doze Bowl", but growing up in Florida, I'd watch the Citrus over the Rose. The Rose always came on at a weird time, like 4:00 or something like that.
My first bowl memories was the 10-9 CU-ND game where Rocket ran it back, but it didn't count. That same year (1990 season), living in Jacksonville, I recall Michigan running all over Ole Miss in the Gator Bowl.
In the '91 bowl season, I wanted Michigan to beat Washington, but my main memories are Bettis and ND running all over Florida in the Sugar that year.
The only Roses I remember really sitting down and watching were:
95 season - pulling for underdog Northwestern losing to USC
96 season - OSU beating ASU, making the Sugar the de facto NC game
01 season - NC game - Miami all over UNL
Since then, I'd say any playoff or NC games, but I don't remember #1 USC vs Michigan in the 03 season. I liked the Dayne games for Wisconsin, but I had no clue the Badgers beat UCLA 5 years earlier in the Rose as well.
Hmmph. Just a share.
-
Your comment was "all of USC's Rose Bowls still look great" and I'm disagreeing with that. Nationally, the PAC and/or B1G were considered inferior conferences many years during the 80s and 90s, and Rose Bowls were considered to be real snoozers.
to be fair, there's probably a lot of regionality in that. i bet the midwest and west coast didn't think of the rose like the bigxii, sec and east coast did.
usc
texas
arky
-
USC
Texas
Ark
-
Having the Cotton Bowl slip out for a few years is interesting. Now it's back.
I doubt a Peach Bowl win in 1972 is going to gain any allure though.
ASU 1970 Peach Bowl Champs! Suck it, North Carolina.
-
Your comment was "all of USC's Rose Bowls still look great" and I'm disagreeing with that. Nationally, the PAC and/or B1G were considered inferior conferences many years during the 80s and 90s, and Rose Bowls were considered to be real snoozers.
He asked about the Cotton Bowl's current slide possibly making past Cotton Bowl wins look less impressive. What I was getting at with my answer was that I think some fans, especially younger ones, might tend to look at Texas' history of Cotton Bowls and USC's history of Rose Bowls and just assume that USC's Rose Bowl wins were bigger because the Rose has been decidedly bigger for the past ~20 years.
Summary of the last 20 years worth of Rose and Cotton Bowls:
- The Rose has hosted four #1's, the Cotton none.
- The Rose has hosted two #2's, the Cotton one.
- The Rose has hosted three #3's, the Cotton one.
- The Rose has hosted six #4's, the Cotton one.
- The Rose has hosted four #5's, the Cotton one. Total for top-5: Rose: 19; Cotton: 4
- The Rose has hosted six #6's, the Cotton none.
- The Rose has hosted two #7's, the Cotton three.
- The Rose has hosted five #8's, the Cotton three.
- The Rose has hosted three #9's, the Cotton three.
- The Rose has not hosted #10, the Cotton has hosted two #10's. Total for top-10: Rose: 35; Cotton: 15
- The Rose has not hosted #11, the Cotton has hosted four #11's.
- The Rose has not hosted #12, the Cotton has hosted one #12.
- The Rose has hosted two #13's, the Cotton has hosted one.
- The Rose has hosted one #14, the Cotton one.
- The Rose has not hosted #15, the Cotton has hosted one #15.
- The Rose has not hosted #16, the Cotton has hosted one #16.
- The Rose has not hosted #17, neither has the Cotton.
- The Rose has not hosted #18, the Cotton has hosted one #18.
- The Rose has not hosted #19, neither has the Cotton.
- The Rose has not hosted #20, the Cotton has hosted four #20's.
- The Rose has not hosted #21, the Cotton has hosted three #21's.
- The Rose has hosted one #22, the Cotton has hosted two.
- The Rose has not hosted #23, neither has the Cotton.
- The Rose has not hosted #24, the Cotton has hosted one #24.
- The Rose has not hosted #25, the Cotton has hosted two #25's. Total for top-25: Rose: 39; Cotton 37
- The Rose has hosted one unranked team, the Cotton three.
I get what you are saying about the 80's and (early) 90's but the original question specifically referenced the "Cotton Bowl being relegated to irrelevance the last 20 years." That is the bowls for the 1997 and subsequent seasons. There are no 80's era seasons included and there are only three 90's era seasons. In those three seasons in the 90's (97-99) the Rose Bowl hosted one team (Michigan, 1997 season/1998 Rose Bowl) that was ranked #1 and playing for a NC. The highest ranked team that the Cotton Bowl hosted was #5 UCLA. Ironically, UCLA was only available for the Cotton Bowl because they were NOT the PAC Champion. That UCLA team lost H2H to Washington State. Washington State was the PAC Champion and they lost the Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Aside from #5 UCLA in the 1997 season the other five teams that played in the Cotton Bowl in the 1997-1999 seasons were ranked #14, #20 (twice), #24, and #25. The Cotton Bowl, for the past 20 years has been almost completely irrelevant.
-
Just to clarify for Utee:
I acknowledge and respect the Cotton Bowl's history. There have been some really great Cotton Bowls over the years. Also, it appears that the Cotton Bowl is now trending back up so twenty years from now they may well be one of the biggest bowls in the Country again. My posts about the Cotton Bowl are only in reference to the "last twenty years" time-frame established by the first post on the subject. In THAT time-frame specifically, the Cotton Bowl (as I have demonstrated) has been largely irrelevant. They lost their SWC tie-in and were not part of the BCS so they missed out on the highly ranked teams for most of that period.
The SWC's decline and eventual dissolution led to the Cotton Bowl's decline. They went from hosting a major conference Champion and frequently being in the NC discussion to hosting a B12 also-ran against either a WAC Champion or a PAC or SEC also-ran. That just doesn't match up with the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose Bowls.
-
To further the Cotton discussion.. Until recently it was on the same plane as the Holiday Bowl. Hence the reference by Big 12 (mostly UT) fans as the HoliCotton Bowl.
Now the Cotton is a NYD 6 Bowl (because of where it's now played) and the Holiday is another B1G/PAC bowl.
I don't believe the Rose (or Sugar) are ever subject to take a G5 school. Correct?
-
Eh, when they stopped playing the Cotton Bowl in the Cotton Bowl, I stopped paying attention. I suppose I'd watch it if Texas were playing in it. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless to me now.
-
Eh, when they stopped playing the Cotton Bowl in the Cotton Bowl, I stopped paying attention. I suppose I'd watch it if Texas were playing in it. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless to me now.
I like the new Cotton Bowl about half the time :86: :'(
-
Honestly.. last year felt like a punishment when UW got sent there.
-
USC
Texas
Arkansas
-
Last call on this one, will post results and next trio tonight.
-
Next trio:
LSU, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
-
Results:
47 USC (11-7-0)
43 Texas (7-11-0)
18 Arkansas (0-0-18)
-
I don't believe the Rose (or Sugar) are ever subject to take a G5 school. Correct?
Well Hawai'i played in the Sugar that one year they were undefeated. Got pantsed vs. a big-boy UGA team.
-
Well Hawai'i played in the Sugar that one year they were undefeated. Got pantsed vs. a big-boy UGA team.
I'm talking about now. TCU (then in the MWC I think) got to play in the Rose and beat an unsuspecting Wisconsin team one year. I don't think that would be in play today.
-
LSU
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
-
LSU
UT
VT
-
UT
LSU
VT
-
LSU
Tennessee
Virginia Tech
-
LSU - LSU may be at their crossroads. With 'bama so dominate, and LSU making the big splashy hire of promoting their coordinator...
Tennessee - 1 Chip Kelly hire from returing to to the top.
Virginia Tech - gonna find out if this was just Beamer or really one of the better teams in the ACC.
-
Rocky Top
The Bengal Tigers
Hokies
-
Next trio:
LSU, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
LSU
UT
VaTech
IMHO, LSU and UT is very close. UT has better overall history but nothing lately. LSU gets the nod from me based on recency but they need to keep it going or else Tennessee's overall better history would put them back ahead.
WRT VaTech, I'm always a little skeptical of teams that basically only have good history with one coach. Outside of Beamer I don't believe that VaTech ever had a sustained level of success. We'll see over the coming years.
-
really surprised by all the lsu above ut. to much recency bias imo.
ut is in same boat as psu to me, without the recent success. if there are 8 sure fire blue bloods (bama, nd, ou, osu, mich, usc, neb, texas, not necessarily in order) they are right on fringe at 9-10. lsu more in the 15-20 range.
ut
lsu
vt
-
Well Hawai'i played in the Sugar that one year they were undefeated. Got pantsed vs. a big-boy UGA team.
I'm talking about now. TCU (then in the MWC I think) got to play in the Rose and beat an unsuspecting Wisconsin team one year. I don't think that would be in play today.
I think that was a short lived caveat after the other bowls got mad that the Rose was the only one of the four with two tie-ins, so they were previously protected from ever having to take the mid-major.
-
Tennessee
LSU
Virginia Tech
Kind of puzzled by the LSU over Tennessee votes
-
really surprised by all the lsu above ut. to much recency bias imo.
ut is in same boat as psu to me, without the recent success. if there are 8 sure fire blue bloods (bama, nd, ou, osu, mich, usc, neb, texas, not necessarily in order) they are right on fringe at 9-10. lsu more in the 15-20 range.
ut
lsu
vt
Your top-8 are the top-8 in all-time winning percentage. Tennessee is 11th and LSU is 12th. Granted, there is a BIG gap between Tennessee and LSU:
- .730 Michigan
- .728 Notre Dame
- .724 Ohio State
- .721 Oklahoma
- .721 Alabama
- .701 Texas
- .700 USC
- .699 Nebraska
- .686 PSU
- .682 Florida State (way less games played than the others)
- .681 Tennessee
- .650 LSU
The 800 wins club (and LSU which is likely next to join):
- 935 Michigan
- 896 Notre Dame
- 891 Texas
- 889 Nebraska
- 886 Ohio State
- 878 Alabama
- 872 Oklahoma
- 867 Penn State
- 829 Tennessee
- 823 USC
- 803 Georgia
- 778 LSU
There is a historical gap between LSU and Tennessee with Tennessee being clearly ahead all-time but I just don't think the overall gap is all that big. I think it is small enough for recency to make up for it.
-
Medina sums up my reasoning.
-
My lifetime (50 years)
14. Tennessee 0.678
17. LSU 0.664
21. VT 0.622
20 years
6. LSU 0.724
8. VT 0.716
26. Tennessee 0.640
-
LSU and UTenn are really, really close for me. When I think about who probably gets more "lift" in the human polls from their relative helmet status right now, I'd say it's probably LSU. And when I think about who I'd be more excited to play in a home-and-home right now, it's also LSU (although I'd be happy to see UTenn on the schedule as well).
So I I'll say:
LSU (by just a smidge)
UTenn
VT
-
Tennessee (a lot more history and conference titles)
LSU
VaTech
Also, my Momma was a Tenn grad. I still don't much like them though.
-
Tenn
LSU
VT
-
Medina sums up my reasoning.
Mine too. All time Tennessee gets the edge but it's pretty close. Cincydawg mentions a lot more history and conference titles but I don't see it. College football reference credits UT with 13 and LSU with 11. Maybe a different source has different numbers.
UT has started going down an anti-helmet road for me. Any good start for the Vols I find myself thinking it's a matter of time before reality sets in. I'll believe they're a national title contender again when I see it. I'm not at that point with LSU.
-
No right or wrong answers, guys. All-time results, great. Recency bias? Okay.
-
LSU
Tenn
VT
-
Tenn
LSU
Va Tech
-
No right or wrong answers, guys. All-time results, great. Recency bias? Okay.
i don't have a problem with it. it's subjective by nature anyway, so it's not wrong anyway you slice it.
just surprised me.
-
Putting VA Tech first in this trio is an example of a way that it could be wrong.
-
i present to you the result of helmet status:
http://collegepolltracker.com/football/pollster/mitch-vingle/2017/pre-season (http://collegepolltracker.com/football/pollster/mitch-vingle/2017/pre-season)
check out texas, uf, lsu and nd (holy hell, what does this guy know that no one else knows?)
-
I prefer variability in preseason polls. If they're going to exist, then 60 votes of the herd mentality 'general consensus' is pretty stupid. The UF beat guy has Okie State 2nd. He'll probably be wrong, but this is the preseason AP poll....it's meaningless now.
-
i don't have a problem with it. it's subjective by nature anyway, so it's not wrong anyway you slice it.
just surprised me.
Me too, but it's all good. There's been a few surprises imo. It's nice to just steward this and observe the diversity.
-
LSU by a slim margin because of more recent success
UTenn
Va Tech
-
I thought LSU and Tenn were equal before my time. Sue me. I was wrong. Since then and now my vote.
LSU
Tenn
VT
VT mostly a bridesmaid. Thats prolly wrong too.
-
This cfb winning % since 1945. Post season is added as well
wp since 1945 (http://college-football-results.com/ncaa_1a.htm)
-
UT
LSU
VT
-
I thought LSU and Tenn were equal before my time. Sue me. I was wrong. Since then and now my vote.
LSU
Tenn
VT
VT mostly a bridesmaid. Thats prolly wrong too.
You can't be wrong. Post your initial impression without doing any research (IMHO). I looked into some stuff after I posted and realized my memory was incorrect, which is fine.
Tennessee has more conference championships than any team in the SEC not named Bama. UGA is nipping at their heels in third.
-
this from the Husker media release for the Oregon game
Helmet status
Nebraska Football Top 10
• Nebraska is 890-372-40 all-time, one of only 10 schools with 800 wins.
• The Cornhuskers rank fourth all-time with their 890 victories.
• Nebraska has won five national titles (1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997).
• The Huskers have won 46 conference championships.
• Nebraska’s 53 all-time bowl appearances rank second in NCAA history.
• Three Huskers have won the Heisman Trophy (Rodgers, Rozier, Crouch).
• Nebraska’s 107 football Academic All-Americans lead the nation.
• The Huskers have 110 first-team All-Americans in school history.
• Nebraska football is the only team in any sport in NCAA history to total 100 athletic and academic All-Americans.
• Memorial Stadium has been sold out every game since Nov. 2, 1962, a streak of 355 consecutive sellouts.
-
The BIG RED trophy resides in Madison. :88:
-
very true, but the BIG RED "HELMET" lives in Lincoln, NE
-
Denison is the real Big Red.
That's actually the name of their team.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3263198441/4acc7c76fa82eacbe42c70b22f22e64b.jpeg)
-
Cornell too. Need to get them in the B1G.
-
<(https://thumb.ibb.co/dMAhia/Big_Red_soda_four_pack.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dMAhia)
I like to drink Big Red whilst eating BBQ.
-
<(https://thumb.ibb.co/dMAhia/Big_Red_soda_four_pack.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dMAhia)
I like to drink Big Red whilst eating BBQ.
Yuck.
My Dad used to buy that crap.
It tasted exactly like that stale pink gum that is included in a pack of baseball cards.
About all it was good for was target practice.
Shake one of those cans up until it stops making a sloshing sound, then blast it with a pellet gun.
Good times.
-
You shut your whore mouth.
Big Red is delicious and a national treasure.
-
I used to hook my friends up with it, just so that I could see the confused look of horror and disappointment on their face as they took the first sip.
That never got old.
-
It's certainly a unique flavor. I grew up on the stuff, like a lot of Texans did. It's a staple to go along with brisket around here.
-
Ah. So it's an aquired taste? Like Cincinnati "chili"?
What flavor are they going for?
It tastes exactly like cheap pink gum to me.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/xRgAAOSwxKtYAUC0/s-l300.jpg)
-
Yeah, it's definitely a bubble gummy flavor.
-
probably bearable mixed 50/50 with Tito's
-
I prefer Dr. Thunder, myself.
-
I'm not sure what to do with this thread. It was a great diversion, but plenty is going on now. We could just stick it somewhere and start it back up again in January or keep it going.
What say you?
-
your thread, your choice
-
probably bearable mixed 50/50 with Tito's
Pretty much anything is better mixed 50/50 with Tito's.
-
Ed Zachery
I did some Tito's mixing last night during the 2nd half of the Oregon debacle
Budweiser wasn't strong enough to deaden the pain
-
What If College Football Hadn’t Wasted Decades On Polls And Just Used A Stinking Playoff?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-college-football-hadnt-wasted-decades-on-polls-and-just-used-a-stinking-playoff/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-college-football-hadnt-wasted-decades-on-polls-and-just-used-a-stinking-playoff/)
-
I was going to get this back going after the season. Thanks for saving me the trouble of finding it.
Good to see Florida would've led the nation in playoff appearances :72:
-
Not to be a homer, but I don't see any way the committee would have put in Alabama over MSU in 2013.
In their methodology they are ignoring how the AP poll, in the CFP era seemed to adjust to match what the committee was doing.
-
Their method went 16 for 16, so I don't see a reason to just say "nuh uh" and have them change their methodology.
-
Yes, but their methodology ignores that the AP voters have changed how they've voted in the CFP era.
They wanted to assemble the data as quickly as possible, and that's fine. And it's a stats blog, they want to find a stats based methodology. But they also could have gotten together and actually broke it down year by year and probably done a better job. I don't think a single person here thinks in a million years a 1 loss P5 champ would ever be omitted unless all 5 P5 champs had 1 or fewer losses. Maybe in their limited sample size, their model fits. But there are several different methodologies you could use with such a limited sample size and also get a perfect fit.
-
I think only going back to 1989 was lazy.
-
they also explained only going back to 89
merely for consistency
yes, they could have put much more work into it
-
If I wanted to go through and nitpick with what I feel would've happened....
1990 Miami and FSU should have much higher percentages.
91 Washington should have the highest chance.
1993 WV should be 4th or worse. ND (2nd) beat FSU (1st) h2h.
1995 N'western would have no shot. I know 12% isn't much, but it's still too high vs those 3 teams above it.
1998 OSU should be 2nd.
That 99 Alabama team could beat anybody. But why is VT so low? They finished 1st in total O and D that year.
2001 Florida should be 2nd over Oregon.
How in the holy hell is 2002 Miami 4th?
2003 LSU/USC are even...but USC would've been a healthy favorite if they had played, no?
This system seriously would've had Florida a heavy favorite to win it, not knowing the outcome vs OSU? Wow (2008).
As with '95, 2009 Cincinnati had a zero % chance of winning a playoff with those 3 teams - NONE.
2010- Arkansas was the 2nd-best team, really? 47th in scoring D. C'mon, man.
-
I guess brand strength is similar, but I have no idea the methodology for this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVh-RS4U8AAErFQ.jpg)
-
I guess brand strength is similar, but I have no idea the methodology for this
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVh-RS4U8AAErFQ.jpg)
So basically they asked 200+ recruits, if they were the #1 recruit in the country, and had offers from every single school, to rank them.
http://picksixpreviews.com/how_to_win_in_recruiting.html
Also, not a surprise is the correlation between brand strength and revenue
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicksixpreviews.com%2Fuploads%2F3%2F4%2F4%2F2%2F34426520%2Fgraph_1_orig.png&hash=5b5efc09a427b0a2ac24de2a9f7d03a1)
-
But also it makes no sense. How is Alabama that low? My guess is that it's skewed by the few who want to "stick it to them" and put them all the way at the bottom or something.
-
Yep, you poll a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds about anything, the results can likely be described as not making sense.....
-
Hmmm, looking at where Auburn/Alabama are, this makes me think the polling was equally distributed around the country.
As we all know, an inordinate amount of top recruits come from the southeast, so maybe therein lies the "problem".
-
Also, not a surprise is the correlation between brand strength and revenue
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicksixpreviews.com%2Fuploads%2F3%2F4%2F4%2F2%2F34426520%2Fgraph_1_orig.png&hash=5b5efc09a427b0a2ac24de2a9f7d03a1)
so, obviously better to be above the line
be harder for Nebraska next year after receiving a full Big Ten share of $$$
hopefully, Coach Frost can enhance the brand
-
Hmmm, looking at where Auburn/Alabama are, this makes me think the polling was equally distributed around the country.
As we all know, an inordinate amount of top recruits come from the southeast, so maybe therein lies the "problem".
Yeah, except Georgia is high, but perhaps this was done very recently? But that doesn't explain Alabama.
Recruits also can consider where they can go to play as freshmen.
-
A "sensible" response would probably be to have Stanford at Number One in my view. If you are a top player, you should get PT early and shine and make the NFL. And oh by the way if you work a bit academically you get that name on your diploma.
-
Hah, Cincy was probably that sensible as a high school senior
but, he wasn't a 4-star LB
-
Nope, I wasn't. I had decent talent for high school in baseball, but my shoulder went bad my junior year. In basketball, I was decent but blew out an ankle my senior year, missed 9 games and was still named co-MVP. My ankle still bothers me.
But, if you get an athletic scholarship to Stanford, just go.
-
that's what I would have done in 1981, but wasn't offered
for many reasons, academically and athletically