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

I'll give an example.  I remember back in the late 1990's sometime I think it was Nebraska was very highly ranked and they were about to play Oklahoma. 

Oklahoma had a great run that ended with three consecutive 11-1 seasons from 1985-1987.  They lost to Miami, FL in each of those seasons (Orange Bowl in 1987, road in 1986, home in 1985 and finished ranked #1, #3 behind PSU and Miami, FL, and #3 behind Miami, FL and FSU.  Oklahoma had been consistently elite from shortly after WWII up through 1987.  From 1948-1987 they were:

• #1 in win% by a LARGE margin over #2 PSU. 
• #1 in AP Appearances over #2 tOSU
• #1 in AP top-10 appearances over #2 tOSU

The point is that they were REALLY good from 1948-1987.  Then they pretty much sucked from 1988-1999.  Their best seasons in those 11 years were 9-3 campaigns in 1988, 1991, and 1993 and they were:

• #41 in win %
• #20 in AP Appearances
• #18 in AP top-10's

As the Oklahoma/Nebraska game in (I think) 1997 was approaching I was desperately hoping for a Nebraska loss because the Cornhuskers were ranked ahead of Ohio State and a Nebraska loss was one of the things on my mental list of everything that needed to happen for tOSU to win the NC. 

I was talking with my dad and he said something to the effect of "Well Oklahoma is pretty good."  This statement made absolutely no sense to me.  I only had a vague recollection of the very end of Oklahoma's great run up through 1987.  Most of my CFB fandom coincided with the 1988-1997 and Oklahoma had been generally terrible.  They finished .500 in 1994 and 1995 then went 3-8 in 1996 and they were below .500 in 1997 as well.  Additionally, they hadn't beaten Nebraska since 1990 and this was when they still played every year so six consecutive losses from 1991-1996.  Worse, the recent losses hadn't even been close.  Oklahoma lost to Nebraska 37-0 in 1995 and 73-21 in 1996.  From my youthful perspective, Nebraska was a major National Power and Oklahoma was chopped liver.  My dad, being much older, remembered Oklahoma's great run.  To him, as a casual fan, Oklahoma was a major national power even though they hadn't actually been a major national power in about a decade. 

That right there is "Helmet". 

Oklahoma's greatness was great enough and long enough that casual fans like my dad still thought of them as a great team even when they weren't. 

Now consider a school like Clemson.  They've been phenomenal under Dabo Swinney.  They haven't finished with more than two losses since 2011 and they've been Alabama's main competitor in the CFP era.  They've won 2 CFPNC's and played in five CFPNCG's.  Their pinnacle is very high but their success hasn't lasted very long.  I mentioned that they haven't finished with more than two losses since 2011 but from 2001-2011 they never finished with less than four.  Their current great run is 10 years.  Oklahoma's post WWII great run was 40.  If Clemson now enters a decade like what Oklahoma had from 1988-1997 will fans in 2030 still think of them as a great team (like my dad thought of Oklahoma) or will we think of them as an "ok team that had that one great run back, when was it?" 

Yes, and if you asked my wife about the Dallas Cowboys she'd say "They're pretty good".  So if helmet status means that you live on your past accomplishments then so be it.  It doesn't automatically make you a contender.  

Uh, in the 70's and 80's Penn State regularly played Pitt, which was a powerhouse at the time, and Notre Dame.

In the 90's, Penn State started playing Ohio State and Michigan annually, once they joined the Big Ten.

Also played a lot of games against Bama and Miami. Some with Nebraska, and tUSC.

PSU has also played UW 19 times, and holds a 10-9 advantage in the series.

PSU has nothing to be ashamed of here.

Uh, in the 70's and 80's Penn State regularly played Pitt, which was a powerhouse at the time, and Notre Dame.

In the 90's, Penn State started playing Ohio State and Michigan annually, once they joined the Big Ten.

Per Stassen, Penn State's all time record against Pitt is 52-43-4 or .545
Penn State's all time record against Pitt is 52-43-4 or .545 so that sounds like a reasonably even series.  For comparison, Michigan is 58-52-6 or .526 against Ohio State.  

The thing is that Pitt's wins in the series seem to have come in bunches.  From 1913-1938 Pitt just dominated the series, going 20-1-2 and up through about 1965 Pitt was still around 50/50 so in total Pitt went 32-15-3 from 1913-1965.  

Medina's breakdown of the PSU/Pitt series:

• 11-3 Penn State dominated early, from 1896-1912
• 1-20-2 Penn State got dominated pre-WWII from 1913-1938
• 14-12-1 Series pretty even from a little before WWII through the mid 60's, 1939-1965
• 12-1 Penn State dominated at a time that roughly corresponds to the Ten Year War between Woody and Bo, 1966-1978
• 4-5-1 Series pretty even through roughly the 80's, 1979-1988
• 10-2 Penn State has dominated since just before joining the Big11Ten, 1989-2019
• 52-43-4 overall

While the series is fairly even overall that is only because Pitt absolutely dominated 80+ years ago.  Within the living memory of basically anyone, the only time that PSU wasn't just flat dominating this series was a brief competitive interlude from 1979-1988.  

The bottom line is that Pitt is simply NOT a helmet.  In @OrangeAfroMan 's comparison above all of those helmets have been playing another helmet (or near helmet, nearer than Pitt) every year for decades and were doing so long before PSU joined the Big11Ten.  Pitt simply doesn't fit that description.  Here are all of the "Helmets" and "near-helmets" that PSU has played at least 10 times:

• 36 vs tOSU, 14-22 from 1912-2020, eight before joining the league
• 24 vs Michigan, 10-14 from 1993-2020
• 19 vs Notre Dame, 9-9-1 from 1913-2007
• 17 vs Nebraska, 8-9 from 1920-2017

• 15 vs Alabama, 5-10 from 1959-2011
• 13 vs Miami, FL, 7-6 from 1961-2001
• 10 vs USC, 4-6 from 1922-2016

Also played a lot of games against Bama and Miami. Some with Nebraska, and tUSC.

PSU has also played UW 19 times, and holds a 10-9 advantage in the series.

PSU has nothing to be ashamed of here.

I'm not, and I don't think that OAM was arguing that PSU had something to be ashamed of.  His point (I think) and mine (I know) is that those rivalry series between helmets like OU/UNL, ND/USC, tOSU/M, etc kept both teams "in the news" even when they weren't all that great.  PSU really didn't have a similar thing until they started playing tOSU every year (and Michigan most years) starting in 1993.  

I really think Helmetosity is basically perception, and all the data is not necessarily relevant to the discussion.  A program that had great success over years 50 years back but slipped into mediocrity over the past 20 likely is still perceived as a Helmet team by many, much as the Dallas Cowboys are a helmet team.

The dedicated fan knows Nebraska is not currently very good, but the casual fan sees that helmet and figures they probably are tough, even if they know they have slipped a bit in recent years.  It takes a while for that patina to wear off.

ok, you're in charge of telling the rest of the nation that those opinions are not valid

as you know, the nation as a whole, college football fans of simply the unwashed masses are largely ill-informed

I might be forgetting somebody, like Easter Michigan.

WOFFORD COLLEGE

ok, you're in charge of telling the rest of the nation that those opinions are not valid

as you know, the nation as a whole, college football fans of simply the unwashed masses are largely ill-informed

Correct, when their opinions are demonstrably false, they don't count as much.  It's not complicated.