Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

they have good ganja,good beer,good looking cheerleaders,stoners voted twice

Well the stoners didn't deliberately vote twice to skew the results.

They just forgot they'd voted the first time...

They also have good money, and decent success on the field.

If only using this study. I think the B1G should boot Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern and Rutgers. And invite Notre Dame (The real Chicago University...) Oregon (next largest fan base), Syracuse (replace Rutgers) and Washington (travel partner for Oregon.)

Florida State, Miami and Virginia.

We don't know how they arrived at the figures, so they could be mostly fabrications.  I agree Auburn's fan base probably is closer to that of South Carolina or Ole Miss than Tennessee.  UGA at 4 million sounds plausible to me.

It would be fun to see how the figures have evolved over time.

As for this slide (below), do you guys agree with what’s said about Michigan? Perhaps there’s a growing divide according to differing priorities between UM Admins – academics, politics, recruiting a larger international presence within the student body – and the devoted, lifelong Wolverine fans across the Midwest? Maybe there’s a disconnect, but there’s no way Michigan admins disregard just how much their football brand can elevate University. Michigan football might be the most prevalent sports brand across the state, to include the pro sports teams. And if you’re in a city like Phoenix, heavy with transplants from the Great Lakes states and the Rust Belt, the Michigan “M” is more visible than any other sports brand seen from Michigan. When I went to a Diamondbacks interleague baseball game Vs the Tigers last summer, just as many of the visiting team’s fans turning out across the Valley to root for their hometown Tigers were wearing Michigan Wolverines gear. Michigan’s admins know their sports are worth maintaining.

BTW, everything this slide says about Stanford or Cal can also be said about UCLA, though to a lesser extent. The “changing population base” that “has never been engaged by the school” is in reference to the ever increasing Asian population throughout the student body. One point never openly discussed is how the changed demographics of the UCLA student body might be translating to lack of interest in UCLA sports. At UCLA there's little undergrad interest in attending the football games. The population is not just Asian(-American) heavy, but also boasts large foreign Asian numbers (China mostly) who culturally never grew up with football. I don’t expect the Cal Bears to ever be good at football again, or its football program to last another dozen years.

Another fan base that is disappearing is that of Georgia Tech.  It's the largest university in the state by student population, and many of them are Chinese/Asian with no affinity for football.  Tech once was on a par with UGA in football, arguably ahead of back in the day.  They'd have more fans with some success of course, but they have nearly the worst possible situation.

I think GT didn't make the list above because folks forget they exist.

yup, Michigan in question is redickerous

Nebraska way down the list is strange at best

Perhaps Fauci put this together with science

yup, Michigan in question is redickerous

But . . . why? 

FWIW, as an Ohio State fan I'd love for Michigan to just fall off a cliff in terms of football fanbase and performance (not unrelated) but that isn't why I'm asking.  I'm asking more as a general issue.  What causes some to fall off an others to stay strong? 

In this regard, Michigan has demonstrated the best staying power in the sport.  If you thawed out a frozen college football fan from 120 years ago and showed them the 2022 CFP teams I think they'd say:

• Georgia? Really, that is surprising. 
• Ohio State?  Really, that is surprising too. 
• TCU?  What does that stand for? 
• Michigan, yep, I recognize that name. 

My go-to comparison here is always Minnesota. 


When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor the Wolverines already had 15 league titles and Minnesota won their 16th a few weeks prior to the attack.  The Gophers' 1941 League title was their 16th overall, second consecutive, fourth in five years, and seventh in nine years. 

During the war Michigan caught back up to Minnesota, winning their 16th in 1943.  Then, in the immediate post-war period Michigan pulled ahead for good with four straight league titles from 1947-1950.  Three were outright with the 1949 title shared with the upstart (and they were very much upstarts back then) Buckeyes.  The last of those (1950) was won in a blizzard in Columbus in a game ever-after known as the Snow Bowl. 

Then for the bulk of the 1950's and 1960's BOTH programs faded to near-irrelevance.  In the 18 years from 1951-1968 Michigan won only one league title (1964 outright) while Minnesota won two (1960, 1967 both shared).  For comparison, league titles from 1951-1968:

• 5 Ohio State
• 3 Illinois
• 3 Wisconsin
• 3 Iowa
• 3 Michigan State
• 2 Purdue
• 2 Minnesota
• 1 Michigan

When the Gophers won their 18th league title in 1967 (split with IU and PU) they were second in the league behind only Michigan (21) and note that they they only trailed #1 Michigan by three titles while leading #3 (tOSU and IL with 12 each) by six titles.  In the 55 seasons since Minnesota, Indiana, and Purdue split the title in 1967:

• 27 Ohio State
• 23 Michigan
• 6 Wisconsin
• 6 Michigan State
• 5 Iowa
• 4 Penn State
• 3 Illinois
• 3 Northwestern
• 1 Purdue
• 0 Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers

Michigan faded into mediocrity in the 1950's and 1960's, hired Bo Schembehler, and came back.  Minnesota faded into mediocrity in the 1940's and they are still there.  Why? 

To make the comparison even more glaring, Michigan now appears to have returned from the brink twice.  Big Ten Football started in 1896 so there have been 127 seasons of it.  Michigan has won 44 league titles which works out to a little better than one every three years.  That is impressive.  However, it is even more impressive when you back out the years that they won no titles surrounding their temporary exit from the league (no titles in the 11 years from 1907-1917) and their two major dips (1 title in 18 years from 1951-1968 and no titles in 16 years from 2005-2020) you are left with 43 titles in 82 years, a blistering pace of roughly one title every other year. 

Imagine a Minnesota fan born in 1929.  The year that he turned 12 his Gophers won their 7th title of his lifetime.  He is now 94 and he's only seen two more titles both of which occurred when he was in his 30's. 

Michigan has endured not one but two nearly 20-year long periods of mediocrity just in the postwar era and returned to winning titles after both.  What caused Michigan to get back to winning and/or what prevented Minnesota from doing the same?