CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on July 28, 2026, 10:33:34 AM
-
The AP Poll started in 1936. From then through 1941 or 1942 the Gophers were really THE dominant team.
AP Poll NC's, 1936-1942:
- 3 Minnesota (1936, 1940, 1941)
- 1 Ohio State (1942)
- 1 Texas A&M (1939)
- 1 TCU (1938)
- 1 Pittsburgh (1937)
AP Poll total Appearances, 1936-1942 (55 total polls):
- 48 Notre Dame
- 46 Minnesota
- 43 Duke
- 40 Bama
- 39 Tennessee
- 39 Fordham (NY)
- 39 Santa Clara (CA)
- 38 Michigan
- 33 Northwestern
- 32 Ohio State
AP Poll top-10 appearances, 1936-1942 (55 polls):
- 39 Notre Dame
- 37 Minnesota
- 27 Tennessee
- 26 Michigan
- 24 Texas A&M
- 23 Pittsburgh
- 23 Northwestern
- 22 Alabama
- 22 Duke
- 20 Fordham (NY)
AP Poll top-5 appearances, 1936-1942 (55):
- 27 Minnesota
- 20 Pittsburgh
- 20 Texas A&M
- 20 Notre Dame
- 19 Tennessee
- 14 Alabama
- 14 Michigan
- 13 Cornell (NY)
- 13 Duke
- 12 Fordham (NY)
AP Poll #1 appearances, 1936-1942 (55):
- 15 Minnesota
- 8 Pittsburgh
- 4 Cornell (NY)
- 4 Ohio State
- 4 Tennessee
- 4 Texas A&M
- 3 California
- 3 Georgia
- 3 Northwestern
- 3 Notre Dame
- 2 TCU
- 2 Texas
- 1 Boston College
- 1 USC
Up until the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (https://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI?si=-7PmMUgiyoU0lzP-) and for a short time thereafter the Gophers were THE dominant team in the Country.
Things got wonky for a lot of teams during WWII but most of the top teams got back to being top teams once the war was over, not Minnesota. Here is a short version of their seasons from 1943-1960:
- 1943 ranked in 3/9 polls, finished 5-4 and unranked
- 1944 not ranked at all, finished 5-3-1
- 1945 ranked in 5/9 polls, finished 4-5 and unranked
- 1946 not ranked at all, finished 5-4
- 1947 ranked in 4/10 polls, finished 6-3 and unranked
- 1948 ranked in 9/9 polls, finished 7-2 and #16
- 1949 ranked in 8/9 polls, finished 7-2 and #8
- 1950 ranked in 1/10 polls, finished 1-7-1 and unranked
- 1951 not ranked at all, finished 2-6-1
- 1952 not ranked at all, finished 4-3-2
- 1953 ranked in 3/11 polls, finished 4-4-1 and unranked
- 1954 ranked in 7/12 polls, finished 7-2 and unranked
- 1955 not ranked at all, finished 3-6
- 1956 ranked in 7/12 polls, finished 6-1-2 and #12
- 1957 ranked in 6/12 polls, finished 4-5 and unranked
- 1958 not ranked at all, finished 1-8
- 1959 not ranked at all, finished 2-7
- 1960 ranked in 10/12 polls, finished 8-2 and #1
The 1960 NC is highly dubious especially by modern standards. The top-6 each had one blemish:
- Minnesota was 8-1 with a loss to #19 Purdue
- Ole Miss was 9-0-1 with a tie with unranked LSU
- Iowa was 8-1 with a loss to #1 Minnesota
- Navy was 8-1 with a loss to #10 Duke
- Mizzou was 9-1 with a loss to #11 Kansas
- Washington was 9-1 with a loss to #4 Navy
Back then the final poll was BEFORE the bowls. After the final poll came out:
- Minnesota lost 17-7 to #6 Washington in the Rose Bowl
- Ole Miss beat unranked Rice 14-6 in the Sugar Bowl
- Iowa had no bowl
- Navy beat unranked Army then lost 21-14 to #5 Mizzou in the Orange Bowl
- Mizzou beat #4 Navy 21-14 in the Orange Bowl
- Washington beat #1 Minnesota 17-7 in the Rose Bowl
In a modern context the final poll would probably be Washington then Mizzou then Ole Miss but that is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that #1 would absolutely not be Minnesota after their bowl loss to Washington.
The reason I went through all of this is because a lot of people see Minnesota's "NC" in 1960 and assume that they were good up through 1960 THEN fell apart. My assertion is that the 1960 MNC was both a flash in the pan as opposed to representing sustained success AND highly dubious at least by modern standards. Thus, Minnesota wasn't good up through 1960, they stopped being a serious contender long before WWII ended and they never really recovered thereafter.
-
Back then the final poll was BEFORE the bowls. After the final poll came out:
- Minnesota lost 17-7 to #6 Washington in the Rose Bowl
- Ole Miss beat unranked Rice 14-6 in the Sugar Bowl
- Iowa had no bowl
- Navy beat unranked Army then lost 21-14 to #5 Mizzou in the Orange Bowl
- Mizzou beat #4 Navy 21-14 in the Orange Bowl
- Washington beat #1 Minnesota 17-7 in the Rose Bowl
In a modern context the final poll would probably be Washington then Mizzou then Ole Miss but that is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that #1 would absolutely not be Minnesota after their bowl loss to Washington.
Wow, that's no less than criminal.
I just watched a reel that listed 5 teams that will never be what they once were.
Colorado
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
Army
and #1, Nebraska
Tough medicine, but seemed sound.
-
I doubt any program will have a run like Nebraska had in the mid-90s
-
I doubt any program will have a run like Nebraska had in the mid-90s
Bama?
Didn't the Sooners have a killer run with Wilkenson?
-
Bama?
Didn't the Sooners have a killer run with Wilkenson?
Far be it for me to speak for the pot-stirrer, but I speak dirt farmer.
I believe he meant from now forward.
-
badge says its because their Nazi NIL pipeline dried up
-
It would be perhaps interesting to note by "era" which team was dominant, of perhaps 2-3 teams. Not by decade, by 5-6-7-8 periods.
Who took over from Minnesota? Was it due to a population shift? Coaching? Lack of support?
-
It would be perhaps interesting to note by "era" which team was dominant, of perhaps 2-3 teams. Not by decade, by 5-6-7-8 periods.
Who took over from Minnesota? Was it due to a population shift? Coaching? Lack of support?
Well, immediately after Minnesota you get to the WWII teams and that era is a big historical anomaly. In the final 1943 poll Notre Dame was #1 but they subsequently lost to Great Lakes Naval. Great Lakes Naval was #6 in the final poll which also included:
- #2 Iowa Pre-Flight
- #4 Navy
- #8 Del Monte Pre-Flight
- #10 March Field/4th AF
- #11 Army
- #17 Bainbridge Naval
In 1944 six of the top-10 were military schools or installations:
- Army
- Ohio State
- Randolph Field
- Navy
- Bainbridge Naval
- Iowa Pre-Flight
- USC
- Michigan
- Notre Dame
- March Field/4th AF
Also in the 1944 final poll were:
- #13 Norman Pre-Flight
- #16 El Toro Marines
- #17 Great Lakes Naval
- #18 Fort Pierce Naval
- #19 St. Mary's Pre-Flight
- #20 2nd AF
The war in Europe was over in May of 1945 and Japan surrendered in September of 1945 but the 1945 season had already started by then so Army's 1945 NC still falls in the "War era" from my perspective.
After that the Irish really took over. From 1946-1949 they finished 1, 1, 2, 1.
I think you run into a cherry picking problem after that. You could avoid that with some kind of rolling comparison where you looked at (per your suggestion) rolling 5-6-7-8 year periods.
-
I love that I've been able to create 5 of those service teams for WNCFG.
Thanks, AI!!!
-
So, ND kinda knocked Minnie down, somewhat, and then we saw Oklahoma, USC came one, Ohio State never left, then Alabama started up ...I'm sure I'm missing some.
-
Far be it for me to speak for the pot-stirrer, but I speak dirt farmer.
I believe he meant from now forward.
Ed Zachery
yes, Saban had a run as good - he's the only one since Osborne - really don't think we will see another one but,..........
Curt is gonna try like hell with the Hoosiers
-
Thanks to the playoff, no one will win 3 out of 4 NCs, no. Just by sheer statistics, it won't happen. Playing 3 straight games vs top-10 caliber opponents makes each playoff season unlikely for even the top seed to win it. Doing it 3 of 4 years? The math doesn't math.
-
1993 through 1997, the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team achieved a dominant overall record of 60 wins and 3 losses (60–3)
3 losses in 4 seasons???
that would be tough
-
1993 through 1997, the Nebraska Cornhuskers football team achieved a dominant overall record of 60 wins and 3 losses (60–3)
3 losses in 4 seasons???
that would be tough
Sure, but that is far from apples-to-spples. Nebraska played less high end teams in each of those seasons than a team at that level today would play in the playoffs alone.
Even on the question of championships though, I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) above. Even if one program managed to field the best team four years in a row the chances that they'd make it through three 12-yeam playoffs aren't very good because beating high-end opponents back-to-back-to-back is pretty unlikely even if your team is the best.
-
I think it's as simple as their great coach left. He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same.
When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it? John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State. I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.
It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs. Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever. That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs.
Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012. The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck. From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall. Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s. Meyer won 2 NCs. Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year.
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run.
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too. 1970-2001. Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times. Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
-
I think it's as simple as their great coach left. He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same.
When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it? John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State. I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.
It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs. Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever. That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs.
Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012. The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck. From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall. Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s. Meyer won 2 NCs. Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year.
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run.
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too. 1970-2001. Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times. Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
Greg Schiano comes to mind, although the teams he's up against now are far superior to what he was up against in the depleted Big Easy.
-
Sure, but that is far from apples-to-spples. Nebraska played less high end teams in each of those seasons than a team at that level today would play in the playoffs alone.
Even on the question of championships though, I generally agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) above. Even if one program managed to field the best team four years in a row the chances that they'd make it through three 12-yeam playoffs aren't very good because beating high-end opponents back-to-back-to-back is pretty unlikely even if your team is the best.
Ed Zachery
not apples to apples - the game has changed and become much more competitive
Saban bailed out
conference championships for example - winning the Big 10, or Big 8, or SEC or even the Big 12, (5) seasons in a decade was much easier before they had 18 teams
-
conference championships for example - winning the Big 10, or Big 8, or SEC or even the Big 12, (5) seasons in a decade was much easier before they had 18 teams
WRT Conference Championships I think the bigger change (even bigger than expansion to 18 teams) is the pre/post CCG issue because before CCGs you had split titles.
For example, during the famed 10-Year-War between Woody and his apprentice the Buckeyes and Wolverines won eight conference titles EACH.
- 8 Ohio State: 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977
- 8 Michigan: 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978
- 1 Michigan State: 1978
In that entire 10 years the only outright titles were:
- 1970 Ohio State, one game ahead of Michigan
- 1971 Michigan, two and a half games ahead of Northwestern
- 1975 Ohio State, one game ahead of Michigan
The Big Ten awarded 17 conference titles in the 10 years from 1969-1978. That isn't just unlikely now, it is mathematically impossible. Now there are only a maximum of 10 titles to go around each 10 years.
-
The Big Ten awarded 17 conference titles in the 10 years from 1969-1978. That isn't just unlikely now, it is mathematically impossible. Now there are only a maximum of 10 titles to go around each 10 years.
The Commish said yesterday that if they go to 24 teams in the playoff that the B1G championship game would go away.
Which would mean... you know.
-
The Commish said yesterday that if they go to 24 teams in the playoff that the B1G championship game would go away.
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
- Oregon won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, lost in the quarterfinals to #8 seed Ohio State.
- Penn State lost it and got the #6 seed in the CFP, beat #11 seed SMU, beat #3 seed BoiseSt in the quarterfinals, lost to #7 seed ND in the semi-finals.
2025:
- Indiana won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, beat #9 Bama in the quarterfinals, beat #5 Oregon in the semifinals, beat #10 Miami in the NC.
- Ohio State lost it and got the #2 seed in the CFP, lost to #10 Miami in the quarterfinals.
It didn't make much difference.
-
I think it's as simple as their great coach left. He didn't coach there during WWII, and when he came back, it wasn't the same.
When HCs return to a previous stop, it never seems to go as well as the first time, does it? John Robinson at USC, Bill Snyder at K-State. I'm sure there are plenty of other WWII examples like Bernie Bierman, but I really do just think that's it.
It's also a major indicator that a school is actually an elite program vs a one-coach peak when they have multiple elite runs under different HCs. Minnesota had that from the 1910s-1940ish, but it's simply highly unlikely to continue that forever. That's a good 30-year run of multiple peaks under multiple HCs.
Florida had a great 30-year run under multiple HCs, from the early 80s to 2012. The ebbs are fun, but the flows afterward suck. From 83-85, the Gators went 27-4-3 under Pell and then Hall. Spurrier won 102 games in the 90s. Meyer won 2 NCs. Hell, even Muschamp had us at #3 going into the bowls one year.
But that time ended, and it happened to be 70 years after Minnesota's run.
Nebraska's run was about 30 years, too. 1970-2001. Only 2 HCs, but both reached the pinnacle multiple times. Idk, maybe there's something to 30-year runs.
I'm sure that is part of it but . . .
Ohio State was one of the top teams from 1936-1942 (see above). They lost a great coach, Paul Brown*. The Buckeyes weren't great in the late 40s but they weren't awful and then they took off under Woody starting in 1951.
*Paul Brown: IMHO, Paul Brown is the greatest football coach of all time. The guy was successful at the HS, College, and NFL levels and introduced a lot of things that are still in use today. He won an NC at Ohio State in 1942 then got drafted into the Navy and coached the Great Lakes Bluejackets during WWII. Ohio State expected him to come back post-war but he got a humongous (at the time) money offer from the brand new NFL franchise in Cleveland and went there instead. He dominated pro football in the late 40s and early 50s.
My point is that Ohio State lost a phenomenal coach to WWII but returned to prominence anyway because the underlying structure remained. Similarly, Michigan was pretty good from 1936-1942 and roared back post-war. It seems to me that most of the teams that were very good immediately before WWII returned to being very good post-war but Minnesota simply didn't.
-
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
- Oregon won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, lost in the quarterfinals to #8 seed Ohio State.
- Penn State lost it and got the #6 seed in the CFP, beat #11 seed SMU, beat #3 seed BoiseSt in the quarterfinals, lost to #7 seed ND in the semi-finals.
2025:
- Indiana won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, beat #9 Bama in the quarterfinals, beat #5 Oregon in the semifinals, beat #10 Miami in the NC.
- Ohio State lost it and got the #2 seed in the CFP, lost to #10 Miami in the quarterfinals.
It didn't make much difference.
Just saying that we will once again see co-champs in the conference.
-
still much tougher to be a co-chump with 18 teams
-
still much tougher to be a co-chump with 18 teams
Tougher? Maybe.
Much tougher? I don't think so.
There are more teams but you aren't playing all of them. With a nine-game schedule and 18 teams in the league you are missing fully half of them (yourself included) so you could end up with a 4-way tie at 8-1 or 7-2. One of those teams might not even be all that good, they might just pull off one upset and miss a slew of top teams and get to eight wins mostly by beating up doormats.
-
Things look different from year-to-year too now. I don't know who is even on what team anymore. I know 2026 looks to be much different than 2025.
(https://i.imgur.com/qglNK0g.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0fQRNQI.png)
Iowa and Minnesota will always be on the Wisconsin schedule, so the other 7 games rotate.
No IU, UM, UfO, or OSU this year.
-
Things look different from year-to-year too now. I don't know who is even on what team anymore. I know 2026 looks to be much different than 2025.
I don't even know what teams are in the Big Ten anymore. Have a hard enough time remembering the total number of teams is 18.
How does the Big Ten make its schedules now? Front-office fiat decisions every year? Some rotation schedule?
-
Rotation teams are home/away over two seasons. Wisconsin has 7 rotation games every year.
There is no rhyme or reason.
-
It doesn't serve much of a purpose even in the 12-team era:
2024:
- Oregon won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, lost in the quarterfinals to #8 seed Ohio State.
- Penn State lost it and got the #6 seed in the CFP, beat #11 seed SMU, beat #3 seed BoiseSt in the quarterfinals, lost to #7 seed ND in the semi-finals.
2025:
- Indiana won it and got the #1 seed in the CFP, beat #9 Bama in the quarterfinals, beat #5 Oregon in the semifinals, beat #10 Miami in the NC.
- Ohio State lost it and got the #2 seed in the CFP, lost to #10 Miami in the quarterfinals.
It didn't make much difference.
But the winner gets a trophy. Of course if they get rid of the CCG, then they both get a trophy.
-
There is no rhyme or reason.
There is *SOME* rhyme/reason because as you pointed out:
Iowa and Minnesota will always be on the Wisconsin schedule, so the other 7 games rotate.
I think that every team has a few that are always on the schedule.
I don't know and don't care to look up all the ins and outs but most of the major rivalries will be played every year then each team will rotate through all the rest. Also, I think the four western teams all play each other every year to minimize travel costs.
-
I was wondering if everybody had perma-rivals the way the SEC now does, and if the B1G teams have the same number of them, as does the SEC with it's three perma-rivals per team.
-
I was wondering if everybody had perma-rivals the way the SEC now does, and if the B1G teams have the same number of them, as does the SEC with it's three perma-rivals per team.
TBH, I don't know and don't care enough to look it up. I don't think it is that many though (except for the Western teams who have each other = 3) because with 18 teams and 3 perma-rivals and 9 games that works out to:
- 17 potential opponents
- 3 each year
- 14 rotational
- 9 games-3 permanent rivals =6 to schedule
You aren't playing those other 14 teams very often.
If you have two permanent rivals as @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) stated that Wisconsin does then you get:
- 17 potential opponents
- Iowa and Minnesota each year
- 7 games left to schedule against 15 potential opponents so you almost play all of them every four years, you should only be missing one.
-
Right, sorry, I don't think I worded that well.
I didn't mean "If Big Ten teams have perma-rivals, do they have 3 perma-rivals like the SEC does?"
I meant "If Big Ten teams have perma-rivals, do they all have the same number of perma-rivals as each other Big Ten team, similar to how all SEC teams have exactly 3 perma-rivals?" As in, do all Big Ten teams have 2, or 3, or 4, etc. perma-rivals? Or do some Big Ten teams have 3 perma-rivals and some might only have 2?
-
I don't think anyone has 3 perma-rivals except the PAC refugee mooches.
-
I was musing about other strong programs "back when" that are still around P4 but much weaker than then. Georgia Tech is one, I think, they were not often a national "power", but they would get a major bowl fairly often, now ... clearly some of this is coaching, they had a streak of fairly mediocre coaches after Dodd, and then got a shared NC in 1990 or so, then faded again. Paul Johnson got them back on the map a little with the quirky offense. I do like their currrent coach, I think he's solid, but they don't recruit at the elite level broadly speaking.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/iZ9q3Ca.png)
-
Why did Bama get to 12 when most others sum to 11 or 10?
-
More post-season games?
-
I was musing about other strong programs "back when" that are still around P4 but much weaker than then. Georgia Tech is one, I think, they were not often a national "power", but they would get a major bowl fairly often, now ... clearly some of this is coaching, they had a streak of fairly mediocre coaches after Dodd, and then got a shared NC in 1990 or so, then faded again. Paul Johnson got them back on the map a little with the quirky offense. I do like their currrent coach, I think he's solid, but they don't recruit at the elite level broadly speaking.
UCLA is another one.
The Bruins are 16th in total AP Poll appearances with 553 appearances out of 1,267 polls. They've been included in 43.6% of all the AP Polls released. That sounds pretty good but . . .
In the first 63 years of the AP Poll UCLA appeared in 433 of 822 polls from 1936-1998. That was more than half at 52.7% and good for 11th in the nation behind only the blue-blood big-helmet and blue-blood adjacent teams of ND, M, tOSU, Bama, UNL, USC, OU, TX, PSU, and TN.
Since then things have not been good for them. In the 27 years from 1999-2025 the Bruins were only ranked in 120 out of 445 polls. That is only 27% which is about half of their pace from 1936-1998 and ranks 37th nationally between GaTech and ASU. They also haven't been ranked since October of 2023 and only finished in the top-10 once since finishing 8th in 1998 (10th in 2014).
-
(https://i.imgur.com/oumC8SZ.png)
-
Since then things have not been good for them. In the 27 years from 1999-2025 the Bruins were only ranked in 120 out of 445 polls. That is only 27% which is about half of their pace from 1936-1998 and ranks 37th nationally between GaTech and ASU. They also haven't been ranked since October of 2023 and only finished in the top-10 once since finishing 8th in 1998 (10th in 2014).
Yeah, in my mind, UCLA is a "competent program". But they probably aren't. In their case it may be apathy.
I think that has impacted Tech also because they have a LOT of Asian students who don't care.
-
Yeah, in my mind, UCLA is a "competent program". But they probably aren't. In their case it may be apathy.
I think that has impacted Tech also because they have a LOT of Asian students who don't care.
My guess is that apathy is a major part of the problem for UCLA. California isn't all that football-crazed to begin with and I would guess that their student body is comprised of at least as many Asian students as GaTech and you are probably right, most of them don't care. I will say that when I was at Ohio State one of the biggest football fanatics I knew was a first generation Asian immigrant but he was more the exception than the rule.
-
It is also 45 minutes from Westwood to Pasadena on a good day.
The only benefit of them moving to SoFi is that is' only 25 minutes down the 405.
I'll have more thoughts on this topic tomorrow when I get a chance to type.
-
UCLA had a strong program until the late 1990s/early 2000s when the administration decided not to keep up with the football arms race.
Way back when I was working on my athletics case (back in the aughts), it was well understood that UCLA had de-emphasized football spending. I think they may be trying to right that ship, but it's proven difficult.
-
The two platoon system
-
I've noted before that 4 or 5 poor coaching hires in sucession can just about kill a program, I think that has changed with NIL though. Back in the day, a program that fell off the map just wouldn't get "noticed" by elite athletes. They'd all want to go to "Bama" or "OSU".
Now, consider Oregon, I think we'd all agree they are "significant", and why" Money, it's much more a factor today of course than when Nike took an interest. Someone with billions might look at Minnesota and decide to make them relevant again, would take a few years, I think it's doable.
-
if it was possible at Indiana, it's possible anywhere
anywhere there is money
-
if it was possible at Indiana, it's possible anywhere
anywhere there is money
Yes, and I think there is a snowball effect.
Consider this:
According to the AI Overview on a google search of "purdue football nil spending", Purdue's NIL was around $15M for football. According to a similar search Ohio State's is around $25M. I'm not vouching for the accuracy of any of this but the example isn't all that dependent on the numbers being exactly right it is just dependent on the ratio being somewhat close.
Now suppose that our most frequently posting Purdue grad had the kind of cash to spend $2-3M/yr on Purdue's Football NIL. If he does, that moves Purdue's NIL from $15M or 60% of tOSU's up to $17-18M or 68-72% of tOSU's. As I see it, this probably has an immaterial or at best minimal impact on Purdue's competitiveness. Looking at last year's results, with a few million more worth of roster they *might* improve enough to win the Minnesota (lost 27-20) and Rutgers (lost 27-24) games and they might even upset Michigan (lost 21-16) but their other seven losses were all by double-digits so AT BEST, that extra $2-3M probably only gets them to 3-6/5-7 rather than 0-9/2-10. @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's RoI is practically nil (get it, NIL/nil).
As I see it, it only makes sense for Brad to throw in that $2-3M if he or the school can also convince two or three other similarly situated Purdue supporters to also kick in an extra $2-3M each because then you'd be looking at increasing Purdue's Football NIL from ~$15M to approximately $21-27M. That would be enough to put you up in the Championship stratosphere. As we all know, that doesn't guarantee a Championship nor even double-digit wins but it at least brings those things within the realm of possibility.
I called it a "snowball effect" because if those hypothetical three or four wealthy Purdue grads are contributing in that range then each additional contribution has at least the potential to have a meaningful impact. Maybe an extra $1M gets you the safety that makes the stop that wins the NC. However, at Purdue's current level an extra $1M does no more than *MAYBE* get you the safety that wins you the Rutgers game so you finish 1-8/3-9 instead of 0-9/2-10. Who freaking cares?
-
OSU is over $40M now.
Wisconsin is at ~$30M.
-
Also, as I'm sure we've covered, money, by itself, is not enough. They don't grow Curt Cignettis in orchards. You've got to find the rare one in a forest of average ones.
-
Probably start with Saban's assistants and go from there.
I'd say Meyer, but.. Fickell.
-
Also, as I'm sure we've covered, money, by itself, is not enough. They don't grow Curt Cignettis in orchards. You've got to find the rare one in a forest of average ones.
I'd say money is necessary but not sufficient, to coin a term, heh. But deep pockets obviously allows one to attract very good POTENTIAL coaches like Dan Lanning and Cignetti. You might bust out a couple coaches who were too fickle before finding a smart one ....
-
OSU is over $40M now.
Wisconsin is at ~$30M.
I think the hypothetical example still works.
If you had an extra $2-3M laying around that you could spend on UW's NIL what would it get you? Wisconsin's 2025 losses sorted by margin:
- 10 at Minnesota, 17-7
- 14 at Michigan, 24-10
- 14 at Oregon, 21-7
- 17 vs Maryland, 27-10
- 24 at Bama, 38-14
- 24 at Indiana, 31-7
- 34 to Ohio State, 34-0
- 37 to Iowa, 37-0
So if you dropped $2-3M on UW's NIL the Badgers would still be well short of Ohio State's NIL. The Badgers still wouldn't be anywhere near the level needed to realistically compete for a NC. At best it *MIGHT* flip the three 2-score losses and get UW to a crappy bowl at 7-5/5-4. So what?
It only makes an appreciable difference if UW has a group of you who contribute an extra $10+M in the aggregate.
Also, as I'm sure we've covered, money, by itself, is not enough. They don't grow Curt Cignettis in orchards. You've got to find the rare one in a forest of average ones.
Absolutely agreed, as I stated:
As we all know, that doesn't guarantee a Championship nor even double-digit wins but it at least brings those things within the realm of possibility.
This is how I see it. Having championship level NIL is definitely not a guarantee of success. We all know this. OTOH, no matter how good your coach is you aren't realistically going to compete for an NC with an NIL of say <$20M.
-
I'd say money is necessary but not sufficient, to coin a term, heh. But deep pockets obviously allows one to attract very good POTENTIAL coaches like Dan Lanning and Cignetti. You might bust out a couple coaches who were too fickle before finding a smart one ....
I think this is a good way to put it.
-
Say I personally have $20 billion, and like CFB. I could obviously float the boat myself. Need a new facility? Here's $80 million. NIL? Here's $30. Ancillary costs? Here's another $50. Oh dear, now I'm only worth $18, and change, a lot of change, but my stocks went up more.
-
Last year, Wisconsin spent ~$10M in NIL. @medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547)
The money went up significantly this year, obviously, and without my help.
-
I think the hypothetical example still works.
If you had an extra $2-3M laying around that you could spend on UW's NIL what would it get you? Wisconsin's 2025 losses sorted by margin:
- 10 at Minnesota, 17-7
- 14 at Michigan, 24-10
- 14 at Oregon, 21-7
- 17 vs Maryland, 27-10
- 24 at Bama, 38-14
- 24 at Indiana, 31-7
- 34 to Ohio State, 34-0
- 37 to Iowa, 37-0
So if you dropped $2-3M on UW's NIL the Badgers would still be well short of Ohio State's NIL. The Badgers still wouldn't be anywhere near the level needed to realistically compete for a NC. At best it *MIGHT* flip the three 2-score losses and get UW to a crappy bowl at 7-5/5-4. So what?
It only makes an appreciable difference if UW has a group of you who contribute an extra $10+M in the aggregate.
Absolutely agreed, as I stated:This is how I see it. Having championship level NIL is definitely not a guarantee of success. We all know this. OTOH, no matter how good your coach is you aren't realistically going to compete for an NC with an NIL of say <$20M.
True, but I don't know how different this is than the pre-NIL recruiting world in which the Blue Bloods routinely pulled in the 5- and 4-star recruits, while the rest of us developed the 3-stars, and celebrated the occasional higher-level recruiting win (often an in-state/homegrown talent). There's a reason that they are the Blue Bloods, and the rest of us aren't.
BUT...in the olden times we could develop and keep the diamonds in the rough. So a Chris Borland or Jonathan Taylor stays at Wisconsin. Now? Highest bidder, baby.
-
True, but I don't know how different this is than the pre-NIL recruiting world in which the Blue Bloods routinely pulled in the 5- and 4-star recruits, while the rest of us developed the 3-stars, and celebrated the occasional higher-level recruiting win (often an in-state/homegrown talent). There's a reason that they are the Blue Bloods, and the rest of us aren't.
BUT...in the olden times we could develop and keep the diamonds in the rough. So a Chris Borland or Jonathan Taylor stays at Wisconsin. Now? Highest bidder, baby.
I think it IS different for two main reasons. One is the reason that you stated, can a Wisconsin keep those 3* players that they develop into great players or are those guys going to end up on a blue blood roster as JRs/Srs?
The other is that the Portal allows schools like Ohio State and Michigan to erase/correct their mistakes/misses. In the old days Ohio State might miss on a couple LBer recruits or maybe have a 5* LBer turn out to be a bust or maybe have a recruit who gets injured and can't play and if you get a few of those things stacked on top of each other at one position pretty soon Ohio State is playing with a significant weakness at LBer. At the same time maybe Michigan misses on a couple DB recruits or maybe has a 5* DB turn out to be a bust or maybe has a recruit who gets injured and can't play and if you get a few of those things stacked on tope of each other at one position pretty soon Michigan is playing with a significant weakness at DB. In those cases Ohio State with their weakness at LBer is vulnerable to a powerful running team like some from Wisconsin and Michigan with their weakness at DB is vulnerable to a basketball on grass throwing team like some from Purdue.
In today's game if Ohio State has a weak LBer room and Michigan has a weak DB room well the Buckeyes and Wolverines will just go spend some cash in the portal and that will be fixed.
-
Say I personally have $20 billion, and like CFB. I could obviously float the boat myself. Need a new facility? Here's $80 million. NIL? Here's $30. Ancillary costs? Here's another $50. Oh dear, now I'm only worth $18, and change, a lot of change, but my stocks went up more.
I sure wish Warren Buffett ($145.1B) would like CFB
-
I sure wish Warren Buffett ($145.1B) would like CFB
He'd be voted king of Nebraska (yes, an oxymoron, I know) if he donated a ton of money AND required the option to be brought back.
-
The answer to the original question is that World War II didn't kill the Gopher program.
Need I remind you that the Gophers went back to the Rose Bowl the following year after the tOSU faculty voted to decline the Tournament of Roses' invitation. They should have been tied with Ohio State for the title were it not for a phantom roughing-the-passer penalty in the 1961 Axe. The Gophers also tied for another in the fall of 1967. Incidentally, they beat co-tier with Indiana, who then went to the Rose Bowl on the last-to-Pasadena tiebreaker.
Ryan Barland at the Daily Gopher wrote an article in 2017 (https://www.thedailygopher.com/2017/8/3/16085146/minnesota-gophers-malcolm-moos-athletics-villain) attempting to answer the question. His synopsis was that the athletic department was awash in red ink and physical plant was ignored during the post-WWII boom, long before Malcom Moos ascended the presidency.
The Vikings started playing out at Met Stadium in Bloomington in the fall of 1960. It took them a while to get going, but in 1969 they went 12-2, won their first NFL title, and were the victims of what many considered the upset of the century in Super Bowl IV. Couple 3 more Super Bowl appearances in the 70s with terrible play from the Gophers, and it didn't take very long before the bottom had fallen out.
-
Probably start with Saban's assistants and go from there.
I'd say Meyer, but.. Fickell.
So Whittingham is going to be a dumpster fire of RichRod/Hoke proportions?
:098:
-
I don't think it will be a dumpster fire, but I also don't think it's a home run.
-
On an aside, isn't it crazy that a council of faculty representatives had control over Ohio State's postseason?
-
I sure wish Warren Buffett ($145.1B) would like CFB
he prolly does but is not goated into fanboi nonsense. No one handed him 1 million smackers when he turned 18
-
I don't think it will be a dumpster fire, but I also don't think it's a home run.
IMHO he's what they need now,steady,solid nose to the grindstone type nothing flashy. And I hope I'm entirely wrong here
-
On an aside, isn't it crazy that a council of faculty representatives had control over Ohio State's postseason?
That's how it was back in the day, up until 1980-ish.
-
he prolly does but is not goated into fanboi nonsense. No one handed him 1 million smackers when he turned 18
true
he also thinks there are a few other things more important that football
-
So, could this happen to some current major program? We've seen some BBs slip obviously, in recent history.
-
if a west coast program like USC or Oregon could decide to not spend the money because of lack of interest