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

Michigan is an interesting case.

I'm confused why UM isn't synonymous with choking.  They ALWAYS lost that 1 extra game under Bo that would have gotten them a NC or 3. 

But yet they've still legitimately held onto their helmet status.  Despite the 1 NC in the past 70 years, they're 5th in overall win% in that time.
Behind them, there's nothing but multiple NC winners, even way behind:
5 - UM
6 - Neb (5 NCs)
7 - Texas (4)
8 - USC (7)
9 - UGA (3)
10 - ND (4)
12 - Florida (3)
13 - FSU (3)
14 - LSU (4)
17 - Miami (5)

Other programs like UM, with "only" 1 in the last 70 years?
25 - Warshington
38 - GT
48 - CU

UM has an obvious NC deficiency.  But having the 5th-best record over 70 years is hardcore. 

this is 100% spot on.

they constantly choked in big games as favorites under Bo and Lloyd Carr. hell they just did it last year vs TCU.

Neb & Tenn are kind of in the same boat.  Both were IN 20 years ago and even had their last NCs in consecutive seasons (97 & 98).
Neb had more NCs, obviously, but they were both clearly in the top 10 programs, all-time.

Since then (1999)?
.610 Neb, 1 conf championship (1999)
.574 Tenn, 0 conf championships

So they've fallen off a relative cliff, but they're not like IU or Vandy or something.
But they're both in the USS Uh Oh.

As a t-shirt Michigan fan it has always perplexed me as well.  Relative to brand, history, expectations, and resources, Michigan really has under-achieved in a surprising number of years.  I say this as a Texas fan, and I believe the same is true of my own alma mater.  Hmmm... perhaps I'M the problem?

I will say, that the only blue blood helmets that have an archrival that is a regional border rival that is ALSO a helmet, are Texas/OU and Michigan/Ohio State.  And  by  most metrics, OU and Ohio State have been more successful and more consistent than their main rivals Texas and Michigan.  So perhaps there's something contributing there.

Interesting observation.
The thing is that within the analogy I see TX/tOSU and M/OU as the similar situations.

We have talked before about the concept of a "College Football Reset". Texas and Ohio are fertile recruiting areas and UT/tOSU are the natural and obvious "flagship" schools in those states. No matter how many times you "started over" I think that tOSU/TX would almost always end up as "helmets" or at least "helmet adjacent".

Michigan and Oklahoma, as I see it, are very different. Their states are not loaded with talent. I once read that supposedly Fielding Yost was approached by or in communication with Ohio State. The tOSU angle isn't important here. The issue/question is would OU/M be "helmets" today if they hadn't ever hired Bennie Owen / Fielding Yost?

Michigan and Oklahoma, as I see it, are very different. Their states are not loaded with talent.

while this is obviously true, there is far more talent in Michigan than Oklahoma. Ann Arbor is also very close to two major urban areas/cities that produce tons of talent, Chicago (little over 3 hrs) and Detroit (little under an hr). Detroit by the way has the 3rd most active NFL players of all US cities with 16. Only Houston and Miami have more. Michigan used to clean up in Chicago area recruiting, but it's been a rough go for them in that area lately. 

Michigan State really hurts Michigan greatly in this whole equation. Ohio State has had a major advantage of being the only game in town in-state and basically every Ohio kid that Ohio State wants....automatically just goes to Ohio State. There isn't another P5 in-state program to pick-off even 1 or 2 or 3 of those kids a year that OSU wants off. In the past, the few times those kids would get picked off- Michigan had been the one to do it. Michigan used to do it quite frequently actually, but OSU's complete domination of Lloyd Carr's final days all the way up until the last couple years before Harbaugh broke through has allowed them to put up a great wall around Ohio.

All of the above makes sense to me.

As far as OU, coaches at Texas universities, tend to view and treat them as another de facto Texas school, because that's the way the recruits view them.  Over the decades, OU has been very effective at making itself into another "local" option for recruits within the state of Texas.  They've been deliberate about it, and it has paid off for them.

yeah OU has to do that, there just hardly isn't any talent in-state. And while there is far more talent in Michigan, those bastards at Sparty pick off a few here and there- OU has that problem to a lesser degree with Pokie St- but their border state has a lot more talent. Ohio produces talent, but not like Texas. Not even close. Only Florida produces more talent than Texas.

NIL?

The Dawgs have some Texas players, including one of my favorites, Terry Hoague.

yeah OU has to do that, there just hardly isn't any talent in-state. And while there is far more talent in Michigan, those bastards at Sparty pick off a few here and there- OU has that problem to a lesser degree with Pokie St- but their border state has a lot more talent. Ohio produces talent, but not like Texas. Not even close. Only Florida produces more talent than Texas.

Texas produces more talent than Ohio, no question about it. However, there is also more competition for it with Texas, aTm, a slew of lesser but still decent P5's, and OU. I've always more-or-less considered OU to be a "Texas" school for purposes of recruiting analysis and what @utee94 said above confirms that view.

Where I think OU and M differ from TX and tOSU is that the ability of Oklahoma/Michigan to successfully recruit TX/Chicago is dependent on their being helmets.

The issue/question is would OU/M be "helmets" today if they hadn't ever hired Bennie Owen / Fielding Yost?

If you started over I'm pretty confident that Texas and Ohio State would succeed because the talent is local. Eventually they'll probably stumble into a pretty good coach and when they do, they'll be a helmet.

If Oklahoma/Michigan never hired the guys that built their brands (Owen/Yost) they might not be even today.