(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

Texas has more titles then Michigan the last 50 years.

(11-23-2015 06:24 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

Texas has more titles then Michigan the last 50 years.

I'm sorry; I misspoke.

Trade ND for Michigan.

Texas is the single biggest underachiever in college football. Years and years of beating other Texas schools has grossly exaggerated their all time wins record. The truth is they have very little to show for any of that.

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

What's your point? Ohio State went from 1968-02. Michigan went a long time before 1997. Nebraska had great teams every year but went about a quarter century without one. Championships don't grow on trees and its made tougher by college football's system which doesn't crown a consensus champion, even as the postseason has become more geared on narrowing down a champion (it's still not a clear champion by the way, just an accepted one).

Texas is down but in the grand scheme of things elite. No other school has its own TV network (Notre Dame does have a similar special deal).

(11-23-2015 06:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

What's your point? Ohio State went from 1968-02. Michigan went a long time before 1997. Nebraska had great teams every year but went about a quarter century without one. Championships don't grow on trees and its made tougher by college football's system which doesn't crown a consensus champion, even as the postseason has become more geared on narrowing down a champion (it's still not a clear champion by the way, just an accepted one).

Texas is down but in the grand scheme of things elite. No other school has its own TV network (Notre Dame does have a similar special deal).

Hmmmm

You're helping me out. I'm trying to be generous here and not piss some folks off.

Let's keep cutting down who is elite because take a look and you'll see some stand head and shoulders above others, even great ones.

You're talking checkbook again, which is fine but it speaks to my underachieving point.

(11-23-2015 06:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm sorry; I misspoke.

Trade ND for Michigan.

Texas is the single biggest underachiever in college football. Years and years of beating other Texas schools has grossly exaggerated their all time wins record. The truth is they have very little to show for any of that.

You know there are more measures in this stake than counting championships, especially given the way college football has historically crowned them (BYU has one after playing no one for example).

Michigan has been in the top ten basically every year for a long time, puts 100,000 in the stands and recruits nationally. They aren't Notre Dame but they come close to representing college football. When they don't win 10 games, people ask what's wrong. They send people to NY for the Heisman ceremony, as meaningless as that award has become recently.

Florida State has more titles since the turn of the century and has even put Michigan to shame recently and UM is still more elite.

It's kinda like how some places have more people than NYC and are important in their own right and hotter yet still don't displace the Big Apple internationally in rank.

(11-23-2015 06:37 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 06:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm sorry; I misspoke.

Trade ND for Michigan.

Texas is the single biggest underachiever in college football. Years and years of beating other Texas schools has grossly exaggerated their all time wins record. The truth is they have very little to show for any of that.

You know there are more measures in this stake than counting championships, especially given the way college football has historically crowned them (BYU has one after playing no one for example).

Michigan has been in the top ten basically every year for a long time, puts 100,000 in the stands and recruits nationally. They aren't Notre Dame but they come close to representing college football. When they don't win 10 games, people ask what's wrong. They send people to NY for the Heisman ceremony, as meaningless as that award has become recently.

Florida State has more titles since the turn of the century and has even put Michigan to shame recently and UM is still more elite.

It's kinda like how some places have more people than NYC and are important in their own right and hotter yet still don't displace the Big Apple internationally in rank.

Take a look at bowl appearances and wins. You can relegate NCs to a smaller factor. I didn't intend for that to be the measuring stick. There is a lot more to consider. But, the ultimate question has to be, what do you have to show for it all?

You'll see the true elite and it's very clearly just three programs.

Alabama
USC
Oklahoma

Then you have the rest. Those are the elite programs. It's no dig on the like of the other programs but that's what elite means, the most successful of the successful.

If you look at those programs they have more bowl wins and appearances and on top of it even more NC than their second tier group, which are still excellent.

There's no way you can't put Notre Dame on there. No...way. Not possible. Past, present, future potential and as a bonus popular culture impact and overall popularity.

It says something that a program can be a shell of itself for an entire generation and still vault back to being considered elite with one great season. I'll let Michigan slide, I guess, but not Notre Dame.

Your criteria is too stringent and would be better suited in trying to figure out the best program overall.

(11-23-2015 06:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  There's no way you can't put Notre Dame on there. No...way. Not possible. Past, present, future potential and as a bonus popular culture impact and overall popularity.

It says something that a program can be a shell of itself for an entire generation and still vault back to being considered elite with one great season. I'll let Michigan slide, I guess, but not Notre Dame.

You're criteria is too stringent and would be better suited in trying to figure out the best program overall.

That's fair enough but take a look, ND is 17-17 in bowl games.

Those top programs I mentioned have all won 28-35 bowl games. That's a big difference.

Notre Dame also chose not to go to bowl games for a very long time and bowls didn't always mean a whole lot historically. National titles used to be awarded before bowl season and crowned national champions used to lose what used to be considered pure exhibition games.

That and bowl records are overblown for what is sometimes a pure mismatch. You should have argued their record in bowl games with national title implications in them or against highly ranked teams, that's more telling.

(11-23-2015 07:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Notre Dame also chose not to go to bowl games for a very long time and bowls didn't always mean a whole lot historically. National titles used to be awarded before bowl season and crowned national champions used to lose what used to be considered pure exhibition games.

That and bowl records are overblown for what is sometimes a pure mismatch. You should have argued their record in bowl games with national title implications in them or against highly ranked teams, that's more telling.

Well, why don't you run the numbers for us and take a look. I'll bet real money the conclusion is the same, 3 teams.

This sounds lazy but I shouldn't have to run the numbers, as Notre Dame is one of the primary reasons college football is as popular as it is, with national titles in numerous different eras and a major popular culture impact.

Not saying I can't run the numbers, it was my job to be a researcher years back but I don't think the effort is worth it in this case. I will say I no longer considered them elite until they were resurrected by Brian Kelly.

(11-23-2015 07:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  This sounds lazy but I shouldn't have to run the numbers, as Notre Dame is one of the primary reasons college football is as popular as it is, with national titles in numerous different eras and a major popular culture impact.

Not saying I can't run the numbers, it was my job to be a researcher years back but I don't think the effort is worth it in this case. I will say I no longer considered them elite until they were resurrected by Brian Kelly.

That's fair.

How about this...

Let's give ND a number of appearances that puts them into the very top realm of most bowl appearances, that's 20. I think you will struggle to show ND turned down 20 bowls, but I'll give that to you.

Let's say they won half of them, which is their current win percentage, and a good one in itself.

That gives them 27 bowl wins, fewer than any other programs I mentioned.

The elite programs are the ones that have the most to show for their existence.

Anything else is just an advantage, wether it is Miami's location, Texas' money, or Florida's recruiting grounds. Advantages don't make programs elite, results do. In results, there are three and then everybody else.

I certainly won't deny that Texas has more money than anybody else, but that doesn't make them elite. It makes them the biggest underachiever in college football.

I won't deny that ND embodied college football for a very long time, but it's been long enough that others have surpassed them.

I won't deny that Michigan has won more games than anybody else, etc, etc.

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

Michigan has won 1/2 of a national title in 65 years.

(11-23-2015 07:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 06:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  There's no way you can't put Notre Dame on there. No...way. Not possible. Past, present, future potential and as a bonus popular culture impact and overall popularity.

It says something that a program can be a shell of itself for an entire generation and still vault back to being considered elite with one great season. I'll let Michigan slide, I guess, but not Notre Dame.

You're criteria is too stringent and would be better suited in trying to figure out the best program overall.

That's fair enough but take a look, ND is 17-17 in bowl games.

Those top programs I mentioned have all won 28-35 bowl games. That's a big difference.

Notre Dame didn't play in bowl games for 42 years.

(11-23-2015 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Notre Dame didn't play in bowl games for 42 years.

45 years and read the thread more in full before posting, you're adding lots of extra space and long quotes for small comments that have basically been covered.

Mods, can we get a split thread, somehow we've veered off course from talking Les Miles to judging college football's elite programs. I ran some numbers anyways:

---The Irish did not play in bowl games for a very long time. They abstained from bowls from the 4 Horseman era until desegregation in the late 60's.

---In that first bowl game since the 20's, they played eventual champion Texas and lost a close Cotton Bowl 21-17. Speaking of desegregation, that was the last all-white national championship team in college football history.

---The next year, they denied UT a title in the Cotton Bowl. 2 years later, they defeated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl for a title and would deny them again in '74. ND rolled Texas again in the Cotton and won a title in '77. In 1980-81, Herschel Walker defeated them for a title in the Sugar. They won the 1989 Fiesta for a title.

---Into the 90's, they denied CU a title in the 1990 Orange Bowl before losing to them in the same game the next year. A season later, they ruined any shot Spurrier's Florida had at a title in the Sugar and ditto for A&M the next season.

---Then, there was the 2012 BCS title game, an obvious flop.

So in total, Notre Dame is actually an impressive 9-4 in bowl games with national title game implications.

As for Texas, they're also elite in my book even if not that in every sense of the word at the moment. JMO

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

you'd have to put Texas in the top 10 best traditional programs....

And now Texas is growing into a monster...they are turning into a premier program. It doesn't show on the field yet, but they're one of the top destination jobs

KINGS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL: Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma

Overall Elites: USC, FSU, Florida, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas

Top Programs: LSU, Clemson, Oregon, Auburn, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Penn St

Dominant Programs: Ole Miss, Arkansas, UCLA, BYU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Tennessee, Michigan State, Iowa, Georgia Tech, Boise State, Texas A&M, TCU, Stanford, Utah

(11-23-2015 08:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 06:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:33 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It depends on where you draw the line. If the "very elite" is the top 5, then no, LSU isn't in there. But who is? Notre Dame, USC, Alabama for sure, then maybe Oklahoma and Ohio State? That leaves out programs like Penn State, Miami, FSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Michigan, Texas, and Nebraska that most think of as "elite" as well.

IOW's, to exclude LSU, you have to draw a very fine line, very fine, one that excludes several other "elites" as well. It's splitting hairs.

Past, present and future potential combined:

Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama are your elites.

Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Georgia, Tennessee, UCLA, Penn. State, Nebraska, Auburn and LSU just miss the cut.

I was uneasy about Texas A&M, Oregon, Miami and Arkansas, so I don't give them an HM (though in a way, I just did).

(11-23-2015 12:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Look at LSU in the 80s and 90s. Elite programs don't have decades that bad.

LSU is in the 2nd group with UGA, Auburn, Tennessee and maybe a couple of others. But they aren't with Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Texas and Nebraska. And not with Florida or Florida St. either (who weren't elite 30 years ago). I wouldn't put them on a level with Miami, but Miami is trying to lower themselves down.

I'm guessing you missed Notre Dame and USC in the 90's and 2000's for the former. Notre Dame is the timeless elite, still the definition of it in college football.

I wouldn't call Texas elite.

No program that goes from 1970 to 2005 without a NC is elite.

Texas has won a lot of games and doesn't have much to show for it.

People put them in the elite status because of their checkbook.

The true elites are USC, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State. That's elite, no just excellent or way above average. Those are the programs that find themselves on top time and time again.

Michigan has won 1/2 of a national title in 65 years.

there's no such thing as 1/2 a national title

They won a NC in '97