CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: jgvol on September 06, 2023, 12:28:31 PM
-
I see the "helmet teams" tossed around over here on the B1G board quite frequently.
Who are they?
Obviously, Michigan, Ohio St., ND, Bama, USC ..... some go without saying.
How far does the list go? Who is on it?
Gimme a list.
-
Could probably start here.
From Georgia, finally elevated, to 5 teams now peasants: Stew Mandel’s Kings & Barons - The Athletic (https://theathletic.com/3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/)
-
I'll also add this: As much as we like lists and will argue about where Kings end and Barons start, reality doesn't actually work that way.
It is a mistake to look at the current top-25 and say that Clemson (#25) is great because they are ranked while Iowa (first ORV) sucks because they aren't.
-
Could probably start here.
From Georgia, finally elevated, to 5 teams now peasants: Stew Mandel’s Kings & Barons - The Athletic (https://theathletic.com/3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/)
Cant start there without a sub. :)
-
If you can afford $75/year, it's well worth it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/O2GpkFF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/OmQGDNU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fbxaN4K.png)
-
Those tiers are dumb. Putting Clemson in the same tier as the other "Kings" is silly.
-
Mandel admits that it's recency bias.
-
Cant start there without a sub. :)
Put a period after .com and before the slash, and you'll get in.
https://theathletic.com./3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/
-
I'd say there are like 15 teams, with 3 a cut above the rest....
The triumvirate:
Bama
OSU
Georgia
those 3 run shit right now, basically land whoever they want in recruiting, have sustained high level success for the past decade and a half.
Blue Bloods:
Michigan
Notre Dame
USC
Texas
Oklahoma
Helmets:
LSU
Penn State
Florida State
Florida
Tennessee
Clemson
Oregon
Nebraska used to be on this list, think they might've lost their spot. Miami was on this list too, but they've fallen off the map too. Clemson and Oregon probably took those spots.
-
Explain to me why ND is on this list even though they haven't done anything this century to deserve it?
-
Explain to me why ND is on this list even though they haven't done anything this century to deserve it?
Which college football programs were the most-watched in 2022? | by Zach Miller | Run It Back With Zach | Medium
(https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd)Not the greatest measurement but it's a start.
Maryland, for example, plays UM, OSU and PSU every year. Of course, their ratings look better than some.
-
Explain to me why ND is on this list even though they haven't done anything this century to deserve it?
it's ND...they are always going to be on the list. whether you, me, or anyone like it. they are a foundational cornerstone brand of the sport. they are way up there on all-time wins, winning %, heismans, national titles, 1st round picks, NFL HOFers. they can recruit nationally and land top 10 classes. not every school can do that. massive national fan base. huge tv ratings.
as for what they've done this century, well they have been to the playoff, and they also went to the bcs national title game a decade or so ago.
-
Explain to me why ND is on this list even though they haven't done anything this century to deserve it?
Huh? Notre Dame has made it into the CFP twice, including as recently as 2020/2021.
But that aside, people still watch and talk about helmet teams even when they suck. It's part of the definition.
IMO, it's what makes Notre Dame the biggest helmet of them all.
-
Which college football programs were the most-watched in 2022? | by Zach Miller | Run It Back With Zach | Medium
(https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2022-94eca4f6acbd)Not the greatest measurement but it's a start.
Maryland, for example, plays UM, OSU and PSU every year. Of course, their ratings look better than some.
Yeah I almost posted that upthread. It's an interesting cut of the data for sure, but there's also so many other factors. As you point out, just playing 3 of the top teams, is going to make you look like a top team. And then there's also the issue of which network the game was on, what else was on at the time, etc.
But it's still at least directionally correct in most cases.
-
Put a period after .com and before the slash, and you'll get in.
https://theathletic.com./3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/
Can one use this manuever on all the open sesamees?
-
Can one use this manuever on all the open sesamees?
Once I found out about this (on another Athletic article) I've tried it on other sites, and so far haven't had luck.
-
I'd say there are like 15 teams, with 3 a cut above the rest....
The triumvirate:
Bama
OSU
Georgia
those 3 run shit right now, basically land whoever they want in recruiting, have sustained high level success for the past decade and a half.
If you look at 247's team talent composite (https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/) you find this.
Here are the top-15:
- 1,015 Bama
- 978 UGA
- 975 tOSU
- 926 aTm
- 918 Clemson
- 913 Texas
- 899 LSU
- 896 USC
- 885 Oklahoma
- 875 Oregon
- 871 Notre Dame
- 860 Miami
- 858 Penn State
- 850 Michigan
- 845 Florida
I said in another thread that talent creates a ceiling but not a floor. Florida has enough talent that they should EASILY be a top-25 team but they looked like a G5 also-ran in their opener. It happens.
The talent composite confirms your ranking. Note that while Ohio State is third they are closer (40 points) to #1 Bama than they are to #4 aTm (49 points). And note that the gap between tOSU and aTm is bigger (49 points) than the gap between #4 aTm and #9 Oklahoma (41 points).
Here is what I think this all means. As I see it, the Tide, Bulldogs, and Buckeyes are realistic threats to win the NC in ANY given year. A lot of us thought preseason that Bama had issues at QB. A lot of people think based on tOSU's performance in their opener that the Buckeyes have issues at Oline and QB. Those things could be true but there is enough talent in Tuscaloosa and Columbus that those questions could plausibly be worked out and Alabama or Ohio State could win the NC this year. I'm not saying that they will, or even that they'll be contenders. Maybe those are serious issues for one or both of them, I'm just saying that it is plausible for either of them to contend or win the NC this year.
For the next group, IMHO they have enough talent to potentially win an NC in what I would call a "peak year". 2023 appears to be a "peak year" for Michigan. They could plausibly win the NC this year but then after this year they'll lose a ton of experience and they are NOT, IMHO, a plausible or realistic threat to win the NC in 2024 because next year is NOT a peak year for them. The same can be said for the entire group from #4 aTm down through #15 UF and possibly a little beyond.
Then there are teams like the next few B1G teams on the list, #21 UNL, #27 MSU, and #30 UW. These teams have enough talent to potentially knock off any team above them and potentially even to win their league if everything breaks right for them but they aren't going to win back-to-back CFP games.
-
Ehh, I'm no Golden Domer defender, but they've gone 12-0 twice in the past 11 years. There's a short list of programs that have done that.
Of course, they get curb-stomped by big-boy programs, but who doesn't?
-
If you look at 247's team talent composite (https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/) you find this.
Here are the top-15:
- 1,015 Bama
- 978 UGA
- 975 tOSU
- 926 aTm
- 918 Clemson
- 913 Texas
- 899 LSU
- 896 USC
- 885 Oklahoma
- 875 Oregon
- 871 Notre Dame
- 860 Miami
- 858 Penn State
- 850 Michigan
- 845 Florida
I said in another thread that talent creates a ceiling but not a floor. Florida has enough talent that they should EASILY be a top-25 team but they looked like a G5 also-ran in their opener. It happens.
The talent composite confirms your ranking. Note that while Ohio State is third they are closer (40 points) to #1 Bama than they are to #4 aTm (49 points). And note that the gap between tOSU and aTm is bigger (49 points) than the gap between #4 aTm and #9 Oklahoma (41 points).
Here is what I think this all means. As I see it, the Tide, Bulldogs, and Buckeyes are realistic threats to win the NC in ANY given year. A lot of us thought preseason that Bama had issues at QB. A lot of people think based on tOSU's performance in their opener that the Buckeyes have issues at Oline and QB. Those things could be true but there is enough talent in Tuscaloosa and Columbus that those questions could plausibly be worked out and Alabama or Ohio State could win the NC this year. I'm not saying that they will, or even that they'll be contenders. Maybe those are serious issues for one or both of them, I'm just saying that it is plausible for either of them to contend or win the NC this year.
For the next group, IMHO they have enough talent to potentially win an NC in what I would call a "peak year". 2023 appears to be a "peak year" for Michigan. They could plausibly win the NC this year but then after this year they'll lose a ton of experience and they are NOT, IMHO, a plausible or realistic threat to win the NC in 2024 because next year is NOT a peak year for them. The same can be said for the entire group from #4 aTm down through #15 UF and possibly a little beyond.
Then there are teams like the next few B1G teams on the list, #21 UNL, #27 MSU, and #30 UW. These teams have enough talent to potentially knock off any team above them and potentially even to win their league if everything breaks right for them but they aren't going to win back-to-back CFP games.
Yeah, I like that list because if "the right guy" comes in as HC, they don't have to wait around to recruit "their guys," they can win a NC with the guys already on campus.
I don't think helmetosity matters unless that's the case.
As long as you have a high-enough % of hombres on the roster to beat 10 opponents on talent and the great HC to navigate past another 1-2, you're a legit program.
-
Yeah, I like that list because if "the right guy" comes in as HC, they don't have to wait around to recruit "their guys," they can win a NC with the guys already on campus.
I don't think helmetosity matters unless that's the case.
As long as you have a high-enough % of hombres on the roster to beat 10 opponents on talent and the great HC to navigate past another 1-2, you're a legit program.
Sunbelt Billy ain’t one of them. 😎
-
I think everytime this comes up most people--including on this site--try to take far too logical approach to it. How dominant is x-program. In my mind that's not what a helmet program really is. A helmet program is one that gets a huge amount of respect, publicity, and attention not because of how dominant it is right now, but because of...wait for it...the HELMET they wear. Now, this is impacted by the program's dominance, but it's more its historical and cultural dominance, than it is the actual wins and losses.
So Alabama is a helmet school because (1) it has an easily recogonizable helmet, the basics of which will not change because that crimson helmet with a single white stripe and the nubers is a brand identity that Alabama fans would lose their minds over if someone suggested changing it; and (2) Alabama built that brand identity through decades of impressive football results. That's really what this is about: brand identity as expressed through helmets.
Other helmet teams: Notre Dame (sure, they change the shade of gold, but the helmet retains its brand identity, regardless of the shade); Ohio State--grey, red, and buckeye stickers; Michigan (stolen from Princeton or something?), Oklahoma, Univ. of Southern California, Penn State. These are teams that have recognizable brand identity, based on their helmet design (notwithstanding tweaks they may make), and an association with historic wins.
Others: Nebraska. Notwithstanding the last decade, people still recognize that plain N on a white background with a red stripe, and they think: college football royalty. On hard times? Sure, but still part of the brand. Texas. People just want to believe Texas is great. Florida State and Miami. I think because they were so strong as TV rights and CFB were coming of age. Actual helmets with brand identity that is associated with college football dominance, even if it isn't especially current.
I think those are the true helmets. Do others deserve to be discussed? Probably.
In the conversation: LSU, Tennessee, Florida, aTm (even the way I write that suggets the strong helmet brand identity), UCLA, Washington. Lingering around: Oregon, Wisconsin, Auburn, maybe Tennessee (surely it included Tennessee a while ago, but that brand has waned a little)...
I'm sure there are others, but that's my hot take.
-
lol to me it’s a team consistently over rated
-
I'm sure there are others, but that's my hot take.
Good take.
-
A helmet team will get ranked early at say 8 when a TCU would be 20th with the same team
-
lol to me it’s a team consistently over rated
A helmet team will get ranked early at say 8 when a TCU would be 20th with the same team
Absolutely. The lingering halo effect of branding, is one of the main identifiers of a helmet team.
-
lol to me it’s a team consistently over rated
Related to that, and @SFBadger96 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=51) 's post touches on this is something @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) said years ago in one of these discussions which is that "Helmet" teams can quickly recover from a period of sucking.
Texas has generally sucked for a while but a big reason that I consider them a helmet is that if they get the right coach (they might already have him), they are back.
Michigan generally sucked for the better part of two decades from 1951-1968, hired Bo in 1969, and played a RB for the NC in 1971.
Alabama went through a lot of irrelevance between Stallings and Saban and look at them now.
-
Related to that, and @SFBadger96 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=51) 's post touches on this is something @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) said years ago in one of these discussions which is that "Helmet" teams can quickly recover from a period of sucking.
Texas has generally sucked for a while but a big reason that I consider them a helmet is that if they get the right coach (they might already have him), they are back.
Michigan generally sucked for the better part of two decades from 1951-1968, hired Bo in 1969, and played a RB for the NC in 1971.
Alabama went through a lot of irrelevance between Stallings and Saban and look at them now.
And even the wrong coach can do some damage. Anyone care to guess who was the last non-SEC team to beat the mighty Georgia Bulldogs?
-
Related to that, and @SFBadger96 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=51) 's post touches on this is something @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) said years ago in one of these discussions which is that "Helmet" teams can quickly recover from a period of sucking.
Texas has generally sucked for a while but a big reason that I consider them a helmet is that if they get the right coach (they might already have him), they are back.
Michigan generally sucked for the better part of two decades from 1951-1968, hired Bo in 1969, and played a RB for the NC in 1971.
Alabama went through a lot of irrelevance between Stallings and Saban and look at them now.
Oklahoma after Switzer. Tennessee after Fulmer. Florida after Meyer. USC. PSU. The list goes on and on.
-
Huh? Notre Dame has made it into the CFP twice, including as recently as 2020/2021.
Boy, you sure know how to pour the salt in the wound on that one don't ya?
-
Boy, you sure know how to pour the salt in the wound on that one don't ya?
Heh... my apologies. Was certainly not my intent. But of course, it could be considered as a very real, direct, and recent example, of the power of Helmetosity.
-
Oklahoma after Switzer. Tennessee after Fulmer. Florida after Meyer. USC. PSU. The list goes on and on.
Yep, Ohio State is really the only of those typically considered "helmets" that hasn't demonstrated an ability to recover from a period of prolonged irrelevance only because the Buckeyes have been fortunate enough to not really have any prolonged periods of irrelevance in the last 80+ years. The closest they've come:
- At the dawn of the AP Poll (1936) the Buckeyes hadn't ever been REALLY good but within a few years they won their first NC in 1942.
- Post-war the Buckeyes were pretty mediocre but they won an NC in 1942, went undefeated and were called "Civilian National Champions" in 1944, then won again in 1954 so it wasn't all that long.
- Earle 9-3 Bruce lost three games each year for a long stretch in the 1980's and that isn't great but 9-3 also isn't awful so it isn't like they were sub .500 irrelevant they were just not elite. Also some of those they lost three games early and were out of the conversation but others like 1980 they went into the Michigan game at 9-1, #5, and very much in the NC conversation but fell out by losing their last two.
- Bruce's last year and Cooper's first few were pretty mediocre but that wasn't all that long.
- Cooper famously sucked against Michigan and in Bowls but after his first 4-5 years (1988-1991 or 1992) his teams were very much in the National Conversation up until those games.
As an Ohio State fan I assume that the Buckeyes could recover from a period of prolonged irrelevance but that is only an assumption because we've never actually seen it and I hope we never do.
-
Coming in late to this dialogue, but I believe it was @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) a few years ago who said, and whose definition of a Helmet School I like to steal: "A Helmet program is a program too big to fail." That's my favorite short definition to throw around at a sports bar.
With that said, I class Helmet schools two different ways:
1. Untouchable Helmets who stay helmets no matter what, save for 20 years of sustained mediocrity. Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, USC, and Oklahoma to name a few. LSU? Georgia? Notice this definition puts Nebraska at risk of losing Untouchable Helmet status. By this same definition Minnesota would've lost their similar status by about the 60s?
2. Conditional Helmets are Helmets when they are performing at a championship level but, more fluidly, are one poor coaching hire away from not being current Helmets: Florida, Florida State, Tennessee, Miami, Auburn, Penn State, Clemson, etc. Texas A&M? Oregon? Wisconsin? Kansas State under Bill Snyder? Virginia Tech under Frank Beamer?
-
Pollsters are more comfortable ranking any Helmet higher than they should be. ND? Well, they must be good, I'll put them at 7. Colorado? They haven't been decent in decades, no shot.
TCU? No Chance, until this year preseason, when perhaps they didn't merit it.
The Blue Bloods are all Helmets, the Next Level teams have some helmetosity but it can ebb and flow. UGA has quite a bit today, but it could fade faster than OSU's.
-
Harvard, Princeton and Yale lost their helmet status prior to the invention of the helmet.
-
A helmet team will get ranked early at say 8 when a TCU would be 20th with the same team
The voters are dumb?
No argument here.
-
Lazier more than dumb
-
Another thing that is important to understanding "Helmet" is that Helmet status is MUCH easier to maintain than it is to obtain.
A look at TCU and Michigan last year makes for a great example:
TCU did better than Michigan last year. They flat out beat Michigan H2H and thus they played in the NC. Doesn't matter. TCU was not and is not a helmet and last year did little or nothing to alter that because the blowout loss to UGA simply confirmed that they aren't a helmet.
Michigan clearly did worse. The flat out lost to TCU and thus did NOT play for the NC. Doesn't matter. Michigan was a helmet and remains a helmet because it is about "brand" and "brand" is more about being in the conversation.
Michigan actually makes a great example of this. They won an NC right after WWII and in the almost eight decades since they have one split NC. That is terrible by helmet standards. They also had two prolonged periods of mediocrity. For 18 years from 1951-1968 they only won one league title and were generally irrelevant. Then after winning the league in 2004 they went 16 seasons (2005-2020) with zero league titles. By Helmet standards that is BAD. For comparison in those same 16 years (2005-2020) the other helmet in the league won 10 league titles. Penn State also won three as did lowly (by helmet standards) MSU and Wisconsin.
The proof that Michigan is a helmet anyway is that in they won back-to-back league titles in both the two years prior to those 16 (2003/4) AND the two years after that (2021/2). So if you look at league titles for the 20 years from 2003-2022:
- 10 tOSU
- 4 Michigan
- 3 Wisconsin
- 3 Michigan State
- 3 Penn State
- 1 Iowa
- 0 MN, IL, NU, PU, IU
Sure, Michigan isn't keeping up with the Buckeyes but I've also cherry-picked the years (it is last 20 but still) and they are STILL second. Four titles in 20 years isn't all that good by helmet standards but this is also the worst stretch of Michigan Football since 1951-1968. That IS their bad times and it is still second best in the B1G.
I want everyone to understand something here. I'm using Michigan as the example because they are local and convenient not because I want to. I'm an Ohio State guy. I ALWAYS root against Michigan. The only exception is when they play Notre Dame and in that case I root for an asteroid strike. I'm not one of those guys who wants a strong Michigan for the sake of the rivalry. I NEVER want them to win. We had a conversation about rivalries a long time ago and I think it was @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) who said how I feel (he was talking his TX/OU but same concept). I want Michigan to lose every game they play. I want to see their fans cry on National Television, especially the children. I would LOVE for Michigan to no longer be a helmet.
In the depths of their post-Lloyd issues I thought (and truth be told hoped) that they would fall from the ranks of the helmets. After their Covid-year debacle it really looked like Harbaugh wasn't going to work out. They'd gone 16 years without a league title, 23 years (1998-2020) without playing for an NC, and just generally looked lost. They had just wrapped up a sub .500 season in which the only reason they didn't lose to tOSU was that they used COVID as an excuse to duck a beatdown. For comparison, in the 16 years that Michigan hadn't won a league title Ohio State had won 10 (see above) and in the 23 years (1998-2020) of the BCS and CFP where Michigan had NEVER made it, Ohio State had gotten to the BCSNCG or CFP seven times (2002, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2016, 2019, 2020) and won it all twice.
As I said upthread though, Helmet status is MUCH easier to maintain than it is to obtain. If a non-helmet had Michigan's record over the last quarter-century (1998-2022) they would CLEARLY still be a non-helmet. That record isn't enough to OBTAIN helmet status but it is enough to MAINTAIN helmet status because maintaining helmet status is really just about keeping your brand in the discussion enough to introduce a new generation of fans to your brand as a helmet. Michigan's #1vs2 game against tOSU in 2006 and their CFP appearances the last two years did that. It doesn't matter that they lost the #1vs2 game and have yet to win a CFP game. Simply getting there was enough to remind people that Michigan IS a helmet. I hate it and I wish it weren't so but the fact is that they've renewed that membership in the helmet club for another generation.
-
Yeah, it's really not fair at all and I get it, but the Blue Blood helmets were basically established in the "Golden Years" of football, and it's an exclusive club that's tough to join and also tough to leave.
-
It’s not fair
-
fair's got nuttin to do wit it
-
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.
-
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.
-
My top helmets are my BBs of course:
ND
UM
OSU
USC
Bama
Texas
OU
On the fringe:
Nebbie
PSU
Near the fringe:
UGA
LSU
Auburn
Tenn
Florida
FSU
Clemson
Somebody else
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
As long as they border talented states, they'd at least be fine.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yeah but the state of Texas also has a LOT more D1-A programs. It think it's up to 11 now, and if you count OU, that's 12 D1-A programs all mining the state. Not to mention all of the more distant blue bloods that successfully cherry-pick some Texas talent every year.
I have no idea WHY a talented Texas high school player would choose Baylor or Texas Tech or TCU, over UT, and yet it happens every year.
-
NIL?
The Dawgs have some Texas players, including one of my favorites, Terry Hoague.
-
NIL?
The Dawgs have some Texas players, including one of my favorites, Terry Hoague.
I don't think you have to get too complicated with that. I think Texas players going to Georgia (or Ohio State or Alabama) are simply going where they see chances to win championships and get into the NFL. UT and the other Texas schools haven't offered that very reliably in recent years.
Now, Texas is definitely losing some NIL recruitments to some OTHER schools, but highly successful programs like Georgia, sell themselves.
-
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 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 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.
-
Texas, aTm, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, SMU, Rice, Houston, UNT, UTEP, UTSA, Texas State, Oklahoma. That's 13. LSU and Arkansas are also "sort-of" Texas schools, when it comes to recruiting.
Now don't get me wrong, schools like UNT, UTEP, UTSA, and Texas State, aren't pulling many top recruits from the top tier of football schools in the state, but they do occasionally snag one or two, and it makes an impact.
-
I'm not so sure Texas would still be the helmet school, because from about 1940-1970's they were pretty much the only flagship school in the state. In the 60's A&M was basically equivalent to what the Citadel is today. A small military feeder college that didn't admit women (IDK if the Citadel admits women now). A&M was winning championships from the inception of the SWC all the way up to WWII, and in fact won the 2nd MNC (AP Poll) in 1939 just before WWII for the United States. Coincidentally TCU won the first.
The War changed the CFB landscape, Army scooped up most of the best recruits, and A&M was hardly ever the same. After the war most students and recruits wanted to forget war and all the things that go along with being in something like the Corps of Cadets.
In the 50's we got kinda close with an all-time coach (Bear Bryant) but mamma called and we were a non-factor until the 70's. In the 80's and 90's we won 9/10 from UT and a bunch of SWC championships.
Given that we went from about 6K students in the early 70's to 70,000 students now do you think Texas would have the same huge head-start? Hell, even with all those things working against us we're still a top 20 all time program, and I could easily see us sliding down to the low teens a-la LSU or Florida.
-
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.
I think this was more true in the past than it is today. With every team having TV exposure, travel being more affordable and accessible to players and families, scholly limitations, etc...and now NIL....I think it's changed enough to where the schools that keep kids home have to be given more credit for it than in years gone by.
People always say the same thing about LSU you're saying about Ohio State. No in-state rival, all state kids want to go there, etc. We still lose a lot of kids to Alabama, A&M, and others. I don't deny that there are still LA kids who grow up loving LSU and dreaming of playing there, but it's not like it used to be. LSU works its butt off to keep the kids it keeps, and I suspect the same is true for Ohio State. The hard work and deliberate effort factors in more than the sheer undeniable draw of the place for Ohio talent. If they let up, I believe a significant number of those kids would go elsewhere. Michigan, or hell....anywhere, almost....just isn't that far away in today's world.
-
The major football HS's in Cincy are Catholic, and I think in the past their best players dreamed of going to ND, but I suspect that is less so today as well.
-
The major football HS's in Cincy are Catholic, and I think in the past their best players dreamed of going to ND, but I suspect that is less so today as well.
yeah, the best players used to be catholic at those catholic schools back in the day. today...well they are not.
-
The major football HS's in Cincy are Catholic, and I think in the past their best players dreamed of going to ND, but I suspect that is less so today as well.
Yes, that is true. Not only did Ohio State have to deal with Michigan coming into Toledo and Cleveland with a lot of success, but ND pretty much had complete control of the Cincinnati recruiting scene. Even today, most people that live in and around Cincinnati are NOT Ohio State fans.
-
It’s more a pro town
-
It’s more a pro town
Yes it as as is Cleveland. All I am saying is that the college fans in Cincinnati are more likely UC or ND fans than Ohio State. Cleveland is more Ohio State than any other school, but that is secondary to their love of the Browns.
-
I dunno the pecker heads think we should pay billionaire jerks like Hasbeen to pay for his playgrounds - I hope the leave for good next time
-
Yes it as as is Cleveland. All I am saying is that the college fans in Cincinnati are more likely UC or ND fans than Ohio State. Cleveland is more Ohio State than any other school, but that is secondary to their love of the Browns.
Of the CFB fans I knew, most were Ohio State fans, by a good measure (in Cincy). I'd note many of them were alums. Two of my good friends are big OSU fans and one was an alum, they other went to Dayton. Oddly my kids went to OSU and are apparently now Dawg fans. One called me and woke me up when the Dawgs came back on OSU pretty excited. I was a bit shocked, and sleepy.
-
There's a word for that.
-
Detroit is now the city with most NFL players...
(https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/640/976/11976640.jpeg?width=600&fit=bounds)
-
Of the CFB fans I knew, most were Ohio State fans, by a good measure (in Cincy). I'd note many of them were alums. Two of my good friends are big OSU fans and one was an alum, they other went to Dayton. Oddly my kids went to OSU and are apparently now Dawg fans. One called me and woke me up when the Dawgs came back on OSU pretty excited. I was a bit shocked, and sleepy.
In my 23 years in Cincinnati, I didn't notice most of the CFB fans being Ohio State. Seemed much more ND, UC and even UK.
-
5 FL cities in top 11.
Duh.
-
In my 23 years in Cincinnati, I didn't notice most of the CFB fans being Ohio State. Seemed much more ND, UC and even UK.
I may have known personally a nonrepresentative sample, most were coworkers with degrees from OSU. I still hang with two of them (one coworker one not). They are big OSU fans. There were 6-7 other coworkers who were big fans, we'd chat CFB "over lunch". We didn't hire many from Cincy or UK. I do think it was mostly a Bengals/Reds fan base.
-
5 FL cities in top 11.
Duh.
Bradenton shouldn't count imo. That's all IMG Academy and none of those kids are actually from there, they are from all over the US.
-
I wouldn't so much look at cities as states. "Atlanta" for example apparently is the metro area with over 6 million folks. Yeah, they'll have a lot of players there. Per capita is usually more meaningful.
-
Bradenton shouldn't count imo. That's all IMG Academy and none of those kids are actually from there, they are from all over the US.
Tommie Frazier
-
the 19 active NFL players on 53 man rosters from Detroit;
Brandon Graham, DE, Eagles (Michigan) - 5* recruit
William Gholston, DE, Buccaneers (Michigan State) - 5* recruit
Allen Robinson, WR, Steelers (Penn State) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
Avonte Maddox, CB, Eagles (Pittsburgh) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
Tavierre Thomas, DB, Texans (Ferris State) - NR (0*) recruit, M/MSU never offered
Cameron Lewis, DB, Bills (Buffalo) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
Donovan Peoples-Jones, WR, Browns (Michigan) - 5* recruit
Michael Danna, DE, Chiefs (Michigan) - 3* recruit, signed with CMU in HS, transferred to Michigan
Jaylon Moore, OL, 49ers (Western Michigan) - 2* recruit, M/MSU never offered
Chauncey Golston, DE, Cowboys (Iowa) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
Ambry Thomas, CB, 49ers (Michigan) - 4*, top 100 recruit
Larry Borom, OL, Bears (Missouri) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
*Sauce Gardner, CB, Jets (Cincinatti) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered (huge miss)*
Samuel Womack, CB, 49ers (Toledo) - NR (0*), M/MSU never offered
Desmond King, DB, Steelers (Iowa) - 3*, M/MSU never offered
Jourdan Lewis, DB, Cowboys (Michigan) - 4*, top 100 recruit
Michael Onwenu, OL, Patriots (Michigan) - 4*, top 100 recruit
Khalid Kareem, DL, Bears (Notre Dame) - 4*, top 250 recruit
Tre Herndon, CB, Jaguars (Vanderbilt) - 3* recruit, M/MSU never offered
7 of the 19 active NFL players from Detroit were high level big-time national recruits (approx. 37%), the other 12 were players ranked very low that both Michigan and Michigan State never even offered out of high school, one of which was Defensive Rookie of the Year and is looking like a perennial All-Pro at CB and potential future HOF'er after only one year in the NFL in Sauce Gardner.
-
That is surprising to me.
-
Bradenton shouldn't count imo. That's all IMG Academy and none of those kids are actually from there, they are from all over the US.
Yeah, they should track down every recruit that moves during their 4 years of high school.........
-
Who are the least helmetiest teams in each P5 conference?
Obviously Wazzou and OSU3 in the Pac 12...
-
Vandy is not very, I'd go Wake Forest, Kansas, NW ...
-
Who are the least helmetiest teams in each P5 conference?
Obviously Wazzou and OSU3 in the Pac 12...
The ones that will be on the outside looking in during the next explosion.
-
If so, it's a huge mistake. Everyone cant be elite at the same time w/o the have-nots in the mix.
-
I figure the next round shrinks things to about 40 "schools".
8+/- helmets and then the trickle down from there.
PAC (as-is now) gets USC, UCLA, Warsh, UO, UU and ASU.
The Big 12 (as-is now) is BIG, but who gets a seat at the table down the road? Texas and OU?
Pick more from this:
(https://i.imgur.com/ihREL9X.png)
WVU, BYU, KSU, oSu, TTU?
-
If so, it's a huge mistake. Everyone cant be elite at the same time w/o the have-nots in the mix.
yup, gotta have pastries to fill up the win column
I could see a 40 team league split into 4 regional conferences that plays 9 conference games and then pays the 3 pastries to come to campus for a beating.
similar to Northern Illinois coming to Lincoln last night
-
In most conferences it would probably be the smart school and the basketball school.
Northwestern/Indiana
Vanderbilt/Kentucky
Wake Forest/Duke
-
Duke is a good extant example. They are 3-0, with an excellent win, and were ranked 21 last week, might get to 18 or so this week.
FSU has a nice win, and close win over BC, and was ranked #3, might be 4-5 now. More helmet.
-
Who is the strongest non-helmet Big Ten program?
Likely between Wisconsin and Michigan State.
Without deep diving into the stats, the "feel" is that Wisconsin is more consistent, whereas Michigan State has a higher ceiling/lower floor.
Wisconsin is usually good for 8-10 wins, maybe 11 on a phenomenal year, and no worse than 5 or 6 wins on a really bad year.
Michigan State can rack up 11 wins and win/contend for a Big Ten Title on a good year, but then they'll have like a 3 or 4 win season.
-
Duke is a good extant example. They are 3-0, with an excellent win, and were ranked 21 last week, might get to 18 or so this week.
FSU has a nice win, and close win over BC, and was ranked #3, might be 4-5 now. More helmet.
That's not more helmet, that's preseason poll based on recent history. Has nothing to do with helmet. If you traded their 2022 records, Duke would be ranked highly and FSU barely ranked. You know this.
-
Who is the strongest non-helmet Big Ten program?
Likely between Wisconsin and Michigan State.
Without deep diving into the stats, the "feel" is that Wisconsin is more consistent, whereas Michigan State has a higher ceiling/lower floor.
Wisconsin is usually good for 8-10 wins, maybe 11 on a phenomenal year, and no worse than 5 or 6 wins on a really bad year.
Michigan State can rack up 11 wins and win/contend for a Big Ten Title on a good year, but then they'll have like a 3 or 4 win season.
Wisconsin has not had a losing season since 2001, but they were 1-0 against Ohio State that season.
-
It would be interesting to rank teams this year SOLELY on this year, and not last year, or how good they were in 1996.
-
It would be interesting to rank teams this year SOLELY on this year, and not last year, or how good they were in 1996.
Never gonna happen. But it's a lovely dream.
-
I think 4 or 5 year history might be helpful
-
I'm just curious what things would be, but of course, we wouldn't know the win by Duke over Clemson was an anything, so perhaps using the past five years is also necessary. Otherwise it's just Ws and Ls.
The only reason UGA is at #1 is last year, and the year before, and some helmet. I think were they coming over 10-3 seasons they be around 10.
-
It would be interesting to rank teams this year SOLELY on this year, and not last year, or how good they were in 1996.
There's plenty of those out there - resume-only rankings. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKCt_TW-7yE
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKCt_TW-7yE)
-
I'm just curious what things would be, but of course, we wouldn't know the win by Duke over Clemson was an anything, so perhaps using the past five years is also necessary. Otherwise it's just Ws and Ls.
The only reason UGA is at #1 is last year, and the year before, and some helmet. I think were they coming over 10-3 seasons they be around 10.
You're talking about a sport that has even given out Heisman trophies a year late...