(05-26-2017 09:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I've already noted how I still believe Miami is a king, as well. Frankly, Mandel's original "kings" list still holds up to be accurate since I look at "kings" as those where recent on-the-field play actually *doesn't* matter as much and their brands and programs can stand the test of time. The point is that it's NOT solely meritocratic. Indeed, the whole notion of a "king" itself is that it's aristocratic and you can't remove them just because they've had poor performance --- you essentially need them to die for them to vacate the throne.

Recent performance has to be a factor. Obviously it's not just a matter of looking at the last 2 or 5 years of results, but if recent success is irrelevant, then you'd be putting Army and their 3 national titles in the king category.

So the question for teams like Nebraska is, how long does it have to be before their past football glory seems as distant as Army's.

The King of G5 for the past several years have to be Boise State. Since 1999, they have never had a losing season. None of the P5 schools can claim that since they had 1 to 3 losing seasons since 1999.

Miami, Florida is down to Knights. They do not have the following like they did of the 1980s. What hurt them the most was their constant rules violations. The last one had to do with that Ponzi Scheme figure where the donated money that was giving to the school and to the athletic's department was tainted, illegal money.

Reading these responses, I take it amny of you read the list, and didn;t actually read his reasoning for the changes....

(05-26-2017 11:23 AM)Wedge Wrote:  So the question for teams like Nebraska is, how long does it have to be before their past football glory seems as distant as Army's.

I look at it like this. Last year, or maybe it was the year before, Miami started 4-0 or 5-0, beating absolute nobodies, and it was THE top story in college football. "Is the U Back?" Things liek that. When Miami wins three games in a row, they become a national topic. With Notre Dame, all it takes is them winning two games in a row. Nebraska was in the top ten at one point last year, and I bet hardly anyone outside of Nebraska remembers it.

That is how I would compare the two.

Miami is similar to the Dallas Cowboys, in terms of they are always a part of the discussion, no matter how well they are actually doing.

(05-25-2017 10:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:22 AM)YNot Wrote:  Updated CFB Pecking Order

In the King's category, the following changes should be made:

OUT: Miami, Clemson, Penn State

IN: Texas A&M, Georgia

Penn State's brand suffered mightily from the Paterno scandal and has not recovered. Miami hasn't been a King for a while now.

Georgia? They've been a blue-blood since forever, and TAMU has risen up mightily.

Clemson? Two straight national title games doesn't vault them into the top row.

Anyone who thinks Clemson is a more valuable football brand than Georgia or Tennessee for that matter isn't thinking straight.

A school that hasn't won even a division title since 1999 is NOT a king. A&M has consistently been middle of the pack in the SEC West, just like they were in the Big 12 South. They are actually down from where they were in the 90s. They are closer to moving down to Knight than moving up to King.

And Clemson still is a baron. They were a solid baron before, but still there.

(05-25-2017 12:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, if you count Notre Dame as 5/8ths ACC...

Conf..Kings
ACC...3.625
B1G...3
SEC...3
Pac...1
XII...1

K3, P2, G5

ACC math? Or did the Dude of Minnesota tell you that Texas or OU has already left the Big 12?

(05-25-2017 09:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:07 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Example: Cincinnati has had a better team than Illinois, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Purdue for 12 of the last 15 years. Does that mean we're a much better program than them? Of course not. They still have larger fanbases and can afford better coaches than we can.

I'd say yes, Cincinnati DOES have a better program than Illinois, Kentucky, and Purdue. Minnesota is closer, but the Gophers are also pretty hapless. Kentucky's ability to throw more money at the problem is due purely to hoops money and SEC TV money. Neither are which are competitive advantages that come out of the football program. Cincinnati doesn't just do more with less than these guys ... they're flat out better.

Kentucky typically averages about 60k (in other words, more than Georgia Tech and nearly all of the ACC). They are generally top 25 in attendance. UK football generates a lot of money on its own.

(05-25-2017 09:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This whole ranking system is stupid.

Blue Bloods are 70,000+ and up attendance schools. These are the schools the foundation of Saturday College Football afternoons are built on. There are about 30 P5 schools at that stadium size and common in the B1G/SEC.

Nebraska is still very much a blue blood football school in this regard.

Blue Blood conversation is much different in basketball where its perhaps limited to 10 programs; UCLA, Kansas, Duke, UNC....Arizona, UConn, Syracuse, Michigan St.....maybe a couple more depending on who is hot like Villanova under Jay Wright.

You forgot one. Interesting how many of the blue bloods share that color-the first 6 you listed and the obvious one you missed.

(05-25-2017 09:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This whole ranking system is stupid.

Blue Bloods are 70,000+ and up attendance schools. These are the schools the foundation of Saturday College Football afternoons are built on. There are about 30 P5 schools at that stadium size and common in the B1G/SEC.

Nebraska is still very much a blue blood football school in this regard.

Blue Blood conversation is much different in basketball where its perhaps limited to 10 programs; UCLA, Kansas, Duke, UNC....Arizona, UConn, Syracuse, Michigan St.....maybe a couple more depending on who is hot like Villanova under Jay Wright.

You can't base it entirely on attendance, but there is a high correlation.

I'd say the Blue Bloods mostly attract 80-100K+ attendance. There are at least a few schools that get 70K attendance that are clearly a notch below the Kings - South Carolina, Michigan St., Iowa, Arkansas.

In addition to attendance, the Kings are worthy of ABC, CBS FOX, and ESPN broadcasts almost regardless of who they are playing any given week. These are the Kings and the schools that make everyone that affiliates with them as conference mates part of the Power collective. The SEC has 6-7. The B1G has 5-6. The Big 12, ACC, and PAC each have 2-3.

I question Miami as a King because they only get 50-60K attendance and can longer attract an OTA broadcast on their own - they need a solid opponent to get that call.

(05-26-2017 09:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:42 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 11:04 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

Mandel is a pretty good writer --- but Miami is a pretty big miss, I think. They just don't have that aura or swagger any more. Much of that is simply due to the move from the Orange Bowl to bland and boring Dolphins Stadium.

Totally disagree about the general comments about Miami going down a notch. When you're looking at the value of programs themselves, Miami is still VERY high. They might be in a current competitive down period compared to their normal standards, but when you look at TV value, Miami is still one of the most valuable brands out there. It's also located directly in arguably the single best recruiting area of the entire country and still produces NFL talent at a high clip. When Miami is playing well, there are few schools other than Notre Dame that can draw as much *national* interest.

I don't think there's much evidence that Miami moves the TV needle much. Notre Dame is a different animal in that it spans generations and has history. Miami doesn't mean a lot to anyone whose formative years weren't in the late 80s or 90s.

(05-26-2017 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, if you count Notre Dame as 5/8ths ACC...

Conf..Kings
ACC...3.625
B1G...3
SEC...3
Pac...1
XII...1

K3, P2, G5

ACC math? Or did the Dude of Minnesota tell you that Texas or OU has already left the Big 12?

Maybe because Boren has been babbling so long, he assumed OU has already left.

Boren is like the guy at a college party who walks around telling everyone, "This party sucks, I'm gonna go find another one," and keeps saying that for so long that after a while people mistakenly think he already left.

(05-26-2017 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kentucky typically averages about 60k (in other words, more than Georgia Tech and nearly all of the ACC). They are generally top 25 in attendance. UK football generates a lot of money on its own.

South Carolina will pack in 80,000 for a 0-11 team. Having lots of fans in the stands to see a loss doesn't make it any less a loss. This doesn't make the football program any better. It just gives it somewhat better cash flow.

(05-25-2017 10:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  No offense but I don't see Clemson or Miami as Kings. That would be akin to making UConn or Louisville as Kings in basketball because of their success of the past 20-25 years. Clemson is definitely a Baron... Miami might even be a Knight right now.

You don't see Clemson as a King? Clemson though out history has taught universities how to compete. IPTAY? The best facilities? Great coaching? Great players?

And, wow! Miami got the better end of the deal with his firing at Georgia. Miami got Richt and Georgia got Kirby Smart. Miami is building a national championship level program.

Clemson, Florida State, and, now, Miami are in striking distance to a national championship.

(05-26-2017 01:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  Kentucky typically averages about 60k (in other words, more than Georgia Tech and nearly all of the ACC). They are generally top 25 in attendance. UK football generates a lot of money on its own.

South Carolina will pack in 80,000 for a 0-11 team. Having lots of fans in the stands to see a loss doesn't make it any less a loss. This doesn't make the football program any better. It just gives it somewhat better cash flow.

Anything over 70,000 in my eyes in significant because it takes a huge groundswell of support to pull in those number, usually full statewide support.

This is when people really care.

It's pretty easy I think in a big metro to scrape together 35,000 people and call it 50,000 in paid tickets, IMO. People do not live and die for that.

My school puts a nice crowd in the stands on fall Saturdays. 25,000 in a 20,000 seat stadium is a nice crowd. But after the game is done nobody is into it until the next game. It's just casual fans and a load of students.

To get to 70, 80, 90 thousand you need to have groundswell .

(05-25-2017 11:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:49 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't have a problem with it other than maybe the Boise demotion. And I hate Clemson.

Truth is, despite the last three years, Clemson football isn't more fundamentally valuable than South Carolina football.

Mandel says the purpose of his list is to "rank the nation’s power-conference schools by prestige and place in the national scene.”

By that standard, Clemson is in the right place. I wouldn't compare them to South Carolina at this point.

Disagree. Where Clemson rates as a King right now is in terms of "recent performance on the field". That's it. Stuff like "prestige and place .." are more enduring long-run factors, which is why Notre Dame still belongs.

Georgia and Auburn surely trump Clemson on those long term factors. Tennessee does too.

Mandel's list is way too nouveaux-riche/ ACC-centric.

(05-25-2017 05:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  lol @ all the butthurt UGA fans proclaiming their spot as kings.

The University of Georgia isn't even the best football program in its own state. It has lost 2 of the last 3 to GT, and 3 of the last 4 is looking like a good possibility.

Herschel hasn't put on a red jersey in almost 30 years. And GT still has more National Championships and a more recent one. Get over it.

It doesn't matter. Georgia is still college football royalty, well above Georgia Tech or Clemson. That's just the way it actually is.

If Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Clemson were all to come on the "open market", so to speak, in terms of conference membership, such that they could each leave their current conference and join another immediately without penalty, and other conferences including their current ones could bid on them, Georgia would attract for more interest and would be offered far and away a higher bid than either of the other two. No comparison.

Heck, the ACC would bid considerably more on Georgia than GT or Clemson.

(05-26-2017 01:42 PM)chess Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  No offense but I don't see Clemson or Miami as Kings. That would be akin to making UConn or Louisville as Kings in basketball because of their success of the past 20-25 years. Clemson is definitely a Baron... Miami might even be a Knight right now.

You don't see Clemson as a King? Clemson though out history has taught universities how to compete. IPTAY? The best facilities? Great coaching? Great players?

And, wow! Miami got the better end of the deal with his firing at Georgia. Miami got Richt and Georgia got Kirby Smart. Miami is building a national championship level program.

Clemson, Florida State, and, now, Miami are in striking distance to a national championship.

IMHO the Kings are a very small group who have decades upon decades of success. In basketball there are only 6-7 schools accepted as Blue Bloods and most lists don't include Louisville and UConn who have won 4-5 NC's and pack 20k in the house.

To me Clemson is just like on the outside of being a king. Great program but not quite football royalty like Alabama, Ohio State, , Michigan, and a few others.

(05-25-2017 09:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This whole ranking system is stupid.

Blue Bloods are 70,000+ and up attendance schools. These are the schools the foundation of Saturday College Football afternoons are built on. There are about 30 P5 schools at that stadium size and common in the B1G/SEC.

Nebraska is still very much a blue blood football school in this regard.

Agree, except it is 70,000 or so in attendance, not merely stadium size.

UNL is definitely still a King, no question.

These lists are nothing more than popularity contests. I would expect that t-shirt sales at the local Walmart would offer a strong correlation to this list.
CJ

(05-27-2017 09:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:42 PM)chess Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  No offense but I don't see Clemson or Miami as Kings. That would be akin to making UConn or Louisville as Kings in basketball because of their success of the past 20-25 years. Clemson is definitely a Baron... Miami might even be a Knight right now.

You don't see Clemson as a King? Clemson though out history has taught universities how to compete. IPTAY? The best facilities? Great coaching? Great players?

And, wow! Miami got the better end of the deal with his firing at Georgia. Miami got Richt and Georgia got Kirby Smart. Miami is building a national championship level program.

Clemson, Florida State, and, now, Miami are in striking distance to a national championship.

IMHO the Kings are a very small group who have decades upon decades of success. In basketball there are only 6-7 schools accepted as Blue Bloods and most lists don't include Louisville and UConn who have won 4-5 NC's and pack 20k in the house.

To me Clemson is just like on the outside of being a king. Great program but not quite football royalty like Alabama, Ohio State, , Michigan, and a few others.

LOL how long have you been watching basketball? Find me 3 lists that don't have Louisville in the Top 7 in basketball. Louisville has been relevant more than the last 20-25 years too. The 1944 does seem like only yesterday...