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

well, if there's no movement, no need for another article

Interesting that you categorized A&M as an “ almost helmet”. For sure we haven’t been in the top 10 much in the last 20 years but have probably been in the top 25 mostly.  What is the cutoff point for being considered a helmet?  Revenue?  Stadium size?  Fan base?  Geography?  Wins?  Heisman?  MNC?

By your criteria was Clemson a helmet ~10 years ago? 

I'm late responding to this, but OAM and CWS pretty much covered what I want to say in response.  

First, I don't mean to pick on your team, aTm is a very good program.  In my initial post on the issue I categorized them as "just shy of 'helmet'" and I stand by that.  To me, "Helmet" is a distinction that only about 8-12 schools can claim.  Looking at Stewart Mandel's lists from 2007, 2012, and 2017 here are his "kings" which is pretty much analogous to what we, on this board, generally refer to as the "helmet" programs:

• Bama - all three lists
• Florida - all three lists
• Florida State - all three lists
• Miami - all three lists
• Michigan - all three lists
• Notre Dame - all three lists
• Ohio State - all three lists
• Oklahoma - all three lists
• Penn State - all three lists
• Texas - all three lists
• USC - all three lists
• LSU - on in 2012 and 2017
• Clemson - on in 2017
• Nebraska - on in 2007 and 2012, off in 2017
• Tennessee - on in 2007, off in 2012 and 2017

Note that there are 11 schools on all three lists.  Eight of those, IMHO, are no-brainers.  The three that get some questions here are the three Florida schools:  Florida, Florida State, and Miami.  Those schools get some questions here because they lack the longevity of the other eight.  The other eight have been competing at a very high level for at least 50+ years while 50 years ago the three Florida schools were complete afterthoughts in CFB.  

Thus, as I see it, there are eight schools that are blue bloods / helmets / kings whatever you want to call them that pretty much everybody agrees on (alphabetical order):

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

After that comes a group of near-helmets including:

• Florida
• Florida State
• Miami
• LSU
• Clemson
• Nebraska
• Tennessee

I would also include aTm among this group along with the rest of Stewart Mandel's "Barons":

• Auburn
• Georgia
• Michigan State
• Oregon
• Stanford
• UCLA
• VaTech
• Wisconsin

My take on potential moves into out out of the "helmet" group:
Moves out:
The eight programs that I treat as "consensus" helmet programs are the top-7 in all-time winning percentage and #9 Penn State.  Personally, I think that Penn State is the most tenuous of the eight helmets both because they are the only one not among the top-7 in all-time winning percentage and because the bulk of their success is under just one coach, Joe Paterno.  The further away from JoPa we get, the more legitimate the question of "Can PSU compete at the highest levels without JoPa?" becomes.  


Moves in:
Nebraska:  The Cornhuskers are #8 in all-time winning percentage and if Scott Frost gets them back to competing at the highest level they could rejoin the helmets fairly quickly.  The other thing that high-level success under Scott Frost would do is to demonstrate that Nebraska can compete at the highest levels without Bob Devaney or Tom Osborne.  Unless/until they do, that is an open question.  

Tennessee:  The Volunteers are #10 in all-time winning percentage and if they can get back to competing at the highest level they could also rejoin the helmets fairly quickly.  

LSU:  The Tigers are tied with UGA for #11 in all-time winning percentage but when you add that to their multiple NC's in multiple eras, I think they are the closest to moving up right now.  

Georgia:  The Bulldogs are farther away from the top group in all-time winning percentage.  Their .654 is good, of course, but the lowest for a consensus "helmet" is PSU's .690.  I put UGA behind LSU because LSU has more NC's.  

Miami/Florida/Florida State:  I grouped the "Florida Schools" together because they are all in roughly the same situation.  Some people think that they are already helmets because they have each generally been competing at a "helmet" level for most of the last 30-40 years.  If they can continue that for another decade or two then they'll be in without question.  

Clemson:  The Tigers clearly are at the top of the heap of late but, as I see it, there are two things holding them back from being considered a true "helmet".  First, they don't have the longevity of the helmets.  Their all-time winning percentage of .616 is substantially below even the lowest of the helmets.  Second, there is a question of staying power.  Dabo Swinney has obviously done extremely well at Clemson but prior to his arrival they had only one NC and were nowhere close to a helmet.  Even if Swinney stays and continues to compete at a high level for a long time it would still be a fair question as to whether or not they can do that without him.  

The intersection of teams in the top 10 in all-time wins, and in the top 10 in all time win%, are what I consider the helmets.

It is the same ten teams either way:

That adds Nebraska and Tennessee to the eight that I listed to get ten helmets.  Here are the other 20 teams that are in the top-25 in either wins or winning percentage or both:

I still of the opinion that Nebraska and Tennessee are still in the group of Helmets in that they are widely recognized by the average CFB fan. Their history and tradition still has staying power. However, I do believe that they are the first 2 that are in serious danger of moving back out of the Helmet status. But overall, I do like your criteria Medina and would have no problem with your analysis. 

Nebraska - 2 coaches won big there, none since Osborne.  Last top 5 finish:  1999
Tennessee - 2 coaches won big there, none since Fulmer.  Last top 5 finish:  2001
.
These two are in the same boat.  These are the helmets most likely to repeat what happened to Minnesota back from the 60s.  The Gophers were a 2-loss NC in '60, good in'61 and '62, then dropped off.  They replaced that NC coach with someone else, and never mattered again (until this year, actually). 
.
Nebraska is on its 5th coach since Dr. Tom.
Tennessee is on its 4th since Fat Phil.
.
Neither has mattered since. Neither can fall back on in-state recruiting.  That's a big problem.

These are the helmets most likely to repeat what happened to Minnesota back from the 60s.  The Gophers were a 2-loss NC in '60, good in'61 and '62, then dropped off.  They replaced that NC coach with someone else, and never mattered again (until this year, actually).  

I used to think that Minnesota's drop-off started either after their last NC in 1960 or their last conference title in 1967 but it didn't.  It started long before that.  The 1960 season was basically a fluke.  They won the NC only because the vote was pre-bowl.  Beyond that, they had some help to win the B1G.  Minnesota went 6-1 while Iowa went 5-1 in conference, here are the teams that each of them missed, Iowa:

• 3-4 Michigan
• 3-4 Illinois
• 0-7 Indiana

Minnesota:

• 6-2 Ohio State
• 4-2 Michigan State

Note that Minnesota hosted Iowa and missed both third place Ohio State and fourth place Michigan State.  Four teams tied for fifth place at 3-4.  Against those four Minnesota:

• Lost at home to Purdue
• Beat Illinois at home
• Beat Northwestern at home
• Beat Michigan on the road

Against the top four teams in the league the Hawkeyes went 2-1 with a road loss, a road win, and a home win.  The Gophers went 1-0 with a home win.  My point is that the Hawkeyes played a VASTLY tougher schedule because the Gophers missed the third and fourth place teams.  

Then in 1967 Minnesota's title was another odd season.  Indiana, Minnesota, and Purdue all shared the title at 6-1.  It remains the most recent league title for both the Gophers and the Hoosiers while Purdue has won just one since (another three-way split with NU and M in 2000).  Ohio State finished fourth at 5-2 while all other league teams were below .500.  Here are the games among the top-4 for each:
Purdue:

• Beat Ohio State on the road 41-6
• Beat Minnesota at home 41-12
• Lost on the road to Indiana 19-14

Indiana:

• Beat Purdue at home 19-14
• Lost at Minnesota 33-7
• Did not play Ohio State

Minnesota:

• Beat IU at home 33-7
• Lost at Purdue 41-12
• Did not play Ohio State

Ohio State:

• Lost to Purdue at home 41-6
• Did not play Indiana
• Did not play Minnesota

Purdue was CLEARLY the best team in the league but they lost a rivalry game on the road at the end of the season.  That upset loss and the fact that both the Hoosiers and the Gophers missed the Buckeyes added up to a three-way split title.  Indiana won the old "longest loser" tiebreaker and went to the Rose Bowl where they got predictably drilled by the Trojans.  

Minnesota's collapse is directly tied to WWII.  In 1941 the Gophers went 8-0 and won league and national titles.  Their 1941 NC was their second in a row, fifth in eight years (also 34, 35, 36, and 40), and sixth overall.  Their 1941 league title was their second in a row, seventh in nine years (also 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 40), and 16th overall.  Since then their good seasons have been EXTREMELY rare.  They have one NC and two league titles all of which came in odd circumstances.  

From 1936-1941 Minnesota:

• Appeared in 38 of 47 AP Polls, 80.9%, 4th nationally behind only Duke, ND, and Fordham.  
• Appeared in 34 of 47 AP top-10's, 72.3%, 1st nationally.  
• Appeared in 27 of 47 AP top-5's, 57.4%, 1st nationally.  
• Appeared at #1 in 15 of 47 AP polls, 31.9%, 1st nationally.  

From 1942-1967 Minnesota:

• Appeared in 81 of 286 AP Polls, 28.3%, 21st nationally.  
• Appeared in 45 of 286 AP top-10's, 15.7%, 23rd nationally.  
• Appeared in 19 of 286 AP top-5's, 6.6%, 25th nationally.  
• Appeared at #1 in 3 of 286 AP Polls, 1%, tied for 17th-20th nationally.  

My point is that while Minnesota was decent overall from 1942-1967 they were nowhere close to where they had been in the first six years of the AP Poll.  

it's also much tougher to attract the next great coach, becuase ALL coaches know their success will be based on the talent they will be able to recruit.