Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: What will the Pac-12 do?
Stay at 10.
Add Gonzaga.
Add SDSU and SMU.
Add Gonzaga, SDSU, and SMU.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
Author Message
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,229
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #361
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.
01-24-2023 05:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,229
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #362
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
The PAC on the other hand is still searching for a financier or anybody to sell content to.
The PAC now has four major problems 1) a population that is more inclined to follow pro sports than college and 2) the loss of the biggest single market in their entire footprint, 3) compatibility issues with the only other conference that they abut, 4) limited windows in which to be able to sell their content to other markets.
01-24-2023 05:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fresno Fanatic Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 512
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Fresno State, MWC, MAC
Location:
Post: #363
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC on the other hand is still searching for a financier or anybody to sell content to.
The PAC now has four major problems 1) a population that is more inclined to follow pro sports than college and 2) the loss of the biggest single market in their entire footprint, 3) compatibility issues with the only other conference that they abut, 4) limited windows in which to be able to sell their content to other markets.

And it has me scratching my head why the 5 primary western conferences don’t work together in some way to reinvigorate western collegiate sports.

Why look for answers from the east. They’d rather pluck a couple/few, whereas, those couple/few schools will be at a disadvantage compared to the main eastern bloc(s) of the conference(s). They will be on an island, especially their non-football sports. I can’t wait until inflation and wild spending catches up with USCLA’s big tv pay increase. When that point happens, look for those two to fall even further and struggle mightily. Then they’d own BigTen large exit fees. Smart BigTen.

Nobody wants to work with the perceived “lower” conference. It looks desperate in a society that demands it’s better to spit on the perceived lower classes than work with them.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 08:34 AM by Fresno Fanatic.)
01-24-2023 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PlayBall! Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,511
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 142
I Root For: Kansas & Big XII
Location:
Post: #364
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 08:30 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Why look for answers from the east[?]

Because of this:

[Image: FI0Wsp85BWxM3cEExyPnqOquVEC_k1_8CflcvsNc...4051cef1e7]
01-24-2023 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #365
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.
01-24-2023 09:24 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #366
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 02:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-21-2023 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  Your snide comment is uncalled for. You basically agreed with him.
Both of your comments are basically true.

There are 8 or 9 blue-bloods (depending on whether you include Penn St.). FSU is not one of them. FSU is near the top of the next group with Florida, Miami, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and Clemson. And both the Big 10 and SEC have a strong series of schools in the next group, as you mentioned.

LSU has 3 titles with 3 different coaches in the past 20 years, I don't see how you could include PSU and not LSU.

LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 10:13 AM by quo vadis.)
01-24-2023 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,635
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #367
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 04:54 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  If the PAC wants to go big, the call is a deep pass on first down.

First wave
– Texas Tech
– OK State
– Kansas State
– Kansas
– San Diego

The league keeps a southern California presence while establishing the eastern edge of an expansive new conference footprint. A risky play—but if the PAC can get at least some of that, it can easily fill in the rest of the footprint from there to define a new Grand Western conference. For example:

Second wave
– UNLV
– Nevada
– Wyoming

... and on from there.

The main questions to ask are of course media questions. Does it help to add content in more time zones? How do any benefits balance for streaming and cable?

07-coffee3

I dunno about that second wave, but add SDSU's rival Fresno state to the first wave (and probably Gonzaga too, if they can) and that looks like best they're going to do.
01-24-2023 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #368
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 02:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  LSU has 3 titles with 3 different coaches in the past 20 years, I don't see how you could include PSU and not LSU.

LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas. Blue blood families *don't* have to work!
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 12:49 PM by Frank the Tank.)
01-24-2023 12:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #369
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas. Blue blood families *don't* have to work!

I guess I just disagree about the "star" thing.

IMO, if LSU were to visit USF, USF would regard that as much of a "star" showing up as if Penn State did, perhaps even moreso. Ditto for FSU. I think the same is true if LSU visited ECU or Washington State compared to PSU and FSU as well.

IMO, LSU has more "star power" than just about anyone right now, save for Alabama. Even more than Ohio State and Texas.

As for low points, let's compare to Alabama recently, since 1997.

Since 1997, Alabama has had four losing seasons, LSU has had three. Alabama has had three seasons of four or fewer wins, meaning a really bad season, LSU has had two. Those low points seem pretty close to me.

And this is compared to Alabama, and includes the Saban dynasty, a higher standard of comparison than for even other blue-bloods. IMO, to say LSU has a lower floor than Alabama is a very strict standard, because by that standard just about everyone else does too. FWIW, Florida has 3 and 2 as well, and that's a time frame for them that included Spurrier and Urban, arguably the absolute peak of Florida football.

Yes, LSU fired two coaches recently, but Les Miles was there for 12 years. Not many coaches last 12 years anywhere. Les wasn't fired for really being that bad. He got canned three games in to the 2016 season after finishing 9-3 the year before. Ed Orgeron was just a weird case.

Anyway, that's just MO about LSU. To me, with all the big stars they have in the NFL - Burrow, Chase, OBJ, Jefferson etc - hyping the name all the time, LSU is about as star-spangled a place as there is right now.

I mean, they were able to poach a successful HC from blue-blood Notre Dame. That IMO speaks to their level of regard right now.

All of that said, I don't regard LSU as being in the eight or so grouping of historical all-time blue bloods. Penn State neither.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 01:11 PM by quo vadis.)
01-24-2023 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #370
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-22-2023 06:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  LSU is clearly NOT a blue blood any more than Miami is, who has had more success than LSU in the last 30 years. From 1974-1999, they only had 14 winning seasons. 8 years were 4 wins or less. Penn St. has only 8 non-winning season going back to 1938 and only 3 years with 4 wins or less in that time frame, including the 4-5 covid year.

So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well, and it is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 01:52 PM by JRsec.)
01-24-2023 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #371
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
I think those 7 are it.

I think Oklahoma is the only one that could potentially slip like Nebraska or FSU. They’re currently the most dependent on winning to maintain their elevated status, and winning won’t be as easy in the SEC.
01-24-2023 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #372
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).
01-24-2023 01:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,229
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #373
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

I'm no SEC expert, but I don't recall Florida being very good in football until Spurrier left Duke to become the head coach at Florida.
Prior to Spurrier the most notable thing about Gator football was about Charlie Pell and NCAA violations.
01-24-2023 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #374
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

We all tend to view the world from the years in which we lived it. That's just part of the human condition and experience. Culturally I was fortunate to sit at table with great grandparents who were born in the 1880's. When they passed it was my grandparents views I heard. Much of my horizon, as I'm sure with others, was stretched only due to their recollections and my interest. LSU's history is littered with bouts of greatness and bouts of squalor. They were once too connected to Huey P. Long, and in the 50's they were solid, and again in the first half of the 70's. One thing which LSU and Auburn shared was that both had to play Alabama annually. Florida and Georgia did not. The problem for Auburn was that it also played Florida and Georgia. The old SEC schedules were screwy and heavily politicized within the conference. That didn't begin to change until the early 70's.

My grandfathers had buddies who went to LSU and would tell Texas A&M jokes and vice versa. A&M and LSU were early 20th century rivals.

As the schools have grown the consolidation at the top essentially became inevitable due to economic forces and regional interest. I think the networks just recognized it a bit earlier and took advantage of the natural direction things were headed.

When I lived in Battle Creek, Oscoda, and Sault Sainte Marie Michigan we adopted the Spartans, but looked for the SEC scores weekly. Tulane and Georgia Tech were still in the SEC at the time. When in San Antonio we adopted the Aggies. If you live in enough places you get the flavor and find a rooting interest, but you never abandon your roots!

My perspectives are different than most here because at 50 I had lived outside the SEC about as long as I had lived inside it. When in Florida and Georgia it was still Auburn. I'll still tune in the Michigan / Michigan State game annually to pull for the Spartans. I'll do the same for the Aggies when the Horns are on the docket. But none of them will trump Auburn. I had a Florida grad for a roommate in post graduate work. He never stopped being a Gator and I never stopped being a Tiger. When I was on the coast of Georgia a plant engineer at Hercules would have lunch with me the Friday before the Iron Bowl because he was a Tide fan and he said I was the only one over there who understood how big the game was.

This is what makes sports great no matter where you are. Heck, I still have $2 bills with orange paw prints on them from when Clemson came to the Gator Bowl and their fans spent those $2 bills all over Jacksonville to show local merchants the impact they could derive from inviting Clemson.

What's sad to me, however, is that the more corporate college sports become the more we lose the flavor and feel of it.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 03:28 PM by JRsec.)
01-24-2023 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,635
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #375
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:38 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I think those 7 are it.

I think Oklahoma is the only one that could potentially slip like Nebraska or FSU. They’re currently the most dependent on winning to maintain their elevated status, and winning won’t be as easy in the SEC.

If we're being neutrally honest, and that's the criteria, I think Alabama could near that in the future too.

Before everyone throws stones - lol - If so many schools are getting better, then usually that means others drop a bit.

And, while I don't think Alabama is anywhere near that yet, it has been showing that potential.

It's not a direct line comparison at all, but just thinking about Nebraska and Oklahoma, and thinking about the others on that "top 7" list, and other "power" schools of the past...
01-24-2023 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #376
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 09:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 11:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:36 PM)Herdforlife Wrote:  IMO I think a P4 works better than a P5, I wouldn’t be opposed to the ACC and PAC12 go after the Big12 together.

ACC takes: WVU, Kansas, K State and Iowa St.

PAC12 takes: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, San Diego St and SMU.

You forgot arguably the 3 biggest non-SEC brands in Texas: Baylor, TCU and UH.

The ACC and Pac could have had any big12 schools 18 months ago and passed, now it's too late for them. I wonder if some of the 4c will start thinking about this as time goes on and we continue to hear deafening silence from Kliavkoff.

18 months ago Jim Phillips would have been on the job for 6 months and he was still getting up to speed on the ACC. Had the Presidents hired an ACC guy..............
The bottom line is that the ACC could have had any school that ESPN was willing to pay for. Obviously ESPN preferred to have what was left of the Big 12 stay together and add a few schools, and why not they are getting that league for half price. Since FOX and ESPN have agreed to continue to split the Big 12, each network gets the content they want without having to foot the entire cost.
For FOX and ESPN it's like renting instead of buying.

Yeah - I believe that one of the biggest misnomers in conference realignment discussions is the fan belief that the TV networks *want* consolidation and superconferences. They absolutely do not. If they had their druthers, they'd want the situation of the BCS/early-CFP era where there were 5 conferences with relatively equal branding power and relatively equal valuations. The Big Ten and SEC were still more valuable at that time, but not dramatically so. It's basic economics that if there are fewer suppliers of the top product, then the price of that top product goes way up... and consolidation means fewer suppliers.

So, none of these TV networks are paying for Big Ten and SEC rights because they *like* doing it. They're only paying them because they're now down to 2 choices for the top product in college football as opposed to 5.

I agree. They actively worked against the Pac 16. They were vocal about not wanting it to happen and assertively did an early renewal on the Big 12 to stop it.
01-24-2023 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,635
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #377
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

Just from my impressions on this board (and this very much a gross generalization) - but it seems to me that Big10 fans seem to assign much more "value" to Florida, than SEC fans do.

I think part of that (again, generalizing) is that SEC fans seem to rate school "value" much more on field performance, while B10 fans ascribe more to "brand" value.

I think this stems a bit from the north valuing professional teams even if they regularly lose.

It's not a criticism at all.

Look at baseball - the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the Boston Red Sox, the Minnesota Twins. Or Football, like the Cleveland Browns.

This is not to say that Florida isn't valued by southern fans, it just seems to be "different".

Think of this this way - I just made a comment about Alabama on this thread, that I think there will be those who will very much not agree with - which is totally fine, we all see (and analyze) the world through our own lens.

But had I said the same thing about Florida, would the overall general reaction be equal, greater, or less?

I've said in the past that - due to AAU, institutional fit, etc. - if any school were to leave the SEC to go to the Big10, Florida is that school.

The above are also reasons why. I think the Florida might find that they are valued more in a way that they may find to be more comfortable with.

To put it another way, I think Florida seems more like a B10 school than any other school in the SEC or the ACC. And it's not even close.

But of course, as always, others' opinions may vary.
01-24-2023 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #378
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  So, LSU has been better in the past 25 years, and PSU was better in the 25-50 years ago window?

Look at their all time records, LSU has won about 2/3 of their games, PSU, more like 71%. Small advantage PSU. In Championships, PSU has 2 since 1912 and 4 overall, LSU has 4 since 1958 and 5 overall. A bit bigger advantage LSU.

They've both been in one of the 2 highest profile conferences for 30 years. During that time period, PSU has won 4 and LSU has won 5.

I'll admit, I thought that LSU would look much stronger than PSU, but they actually end up looking very similar overall. I'm not trying to say that SEC Titles mean more than B1G Titles, but they certainly don't mean less, and LSU has more Conference and National Titles across any time period you care to name. Based upon this, I wouldn't say that PSU is a "blue blood" while LSU is not. Or, rather, I'd say that if PSU is a blue blood, then so is LSU.

Bluebloods don't have 25 year periods as rough as LSU had, unless they were before WWII. From the NCAA record book 2021. PSU is virtually tied with Nebraska (and probably passed them in 2022). LSU is behind Tennessee, Georgia and relative newby FSU.

Rank Team Yrs. Won Lost Tied Pct. Games
1. Ohio St.* 131 931 327 53 .730 1,311
2. Alabama* 126 929 331 43 .729 1,303
3. Boise St. 53 465 172 2 .729 639
4. Notre Dame* 131 918 328 42 .729 1,288
5. Michigan 141 964 350 36 .727 1,350
6. Oklahoma 126 917 329 53 .726 1,299
7. Texas 128 923 378 33 .704 1,334
8. Southern California* 127 852 352 54 .699 1,258
9. Nebraska 131 905 400 40 .688 1,345
10. Penn St. 134 902 398 41 .688 1,341
11. Tennessee 124 849 402 53 .671 1,304
12. Florida St.* 74 553 270 17 .668 840
13. Georgia 127 839 427 54 .656 1,320
14. LSU 127 817 420 47 .655 1,284
15. App State 91 639 339 29 .649 1,007
16. Coastal Carolina 18 138 78 0 .639 216
17. Ga. Southern* 57 403 230 10 .635 643
18. Miami (FL) 95 644 370 19 .633 1,033
19. Florida 114 741 424 40 .632 1,205
20. Auburn 128 782 450 47 .630 1,279
21. Clemson 125 768 462 45 .620 1,275
22. Washington 131 746 455 50 .616 1,251

In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well, and it is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I'm with Frank on star power. And from Texas, Penn St. had more star power than LSU. So I don't see Penn St. as a "regional star," even if those in SEC territory view LSU as higher profile. But if you include them in the blue bloods, clearly, they would be the last one in. FSU and Miami aren't bluebloods, but they still have more star power than the rest of your 2nd group. Nobody but Alabama has had such a dominant period as those two did in the 80s and 90s. Look at all the interest NIL has put on Miami despite a relatively unsuccessful last couple of decades.

Looking at the number of top 5 rankings in the last 55 years, which covers the memory of almost everyone under retirement age, the 3 Florida schools make a top 12 with PSU (but note--this listing pretty much follows the top two groups JRSEC mentioned above)

1 OSU 24
2 OU 21
2 AL 21
4 FSU 16
5 USC 15
6 PSU 13
7 Miami 12
7 NE 12
7 TX 12
7 ND 12
11 FL 11
11 UM 11

13 GA 10
14 Clemson 7
15 LSU 6
15 AU 6
15 OR 6
15 TN 6
19 CO 5
20 WA 5

21 TCU 3
21 Pitt 3
21 AZ St. 3
21 UCLA 3
01-24-2023 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #379
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 12:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a sense, I think both Penn State and LSU are being underrated in this discussion.

I like to look at NFL data, as this is IMO a healthy indicator of the quality of players that a program has attracted over time, something that in my view compensates for SOS in a way that straight win % does not.

Looking at Pro Football Reference ...

"Players in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 427 .... #6
LSU .... 413 .... #8

For context, on this criteria ND is #1, USC #2, Ohio State #3, Michigan #5, Alabama #7 and Oklahoma #9. That's blue-blood company.


"Games played in NFL" all-time ...

PSU ..... 23,270 ... #4
LSU ..... 21, 868 .. #6

"Touchdowns scored in NFL" all-time ...

PSU .... 1390 ....... #9
LSU .... 1748 ....... #5

These are blue-blood level ratings on some IMO key NFL criteria. If we look at Hall of Famers, both are tied at #10 all-time with six each.

In the end, I agree with those who say there are basically 8 or so true blue-bloods, and neither LSU or PSU qualify. But they are definitely in the second-tier, just behind the top tier, and their blood is quite purple, LOL.

Ha! It's interesting that our debates on the CFP rankings seem to come down to me (and others) pointing to wins, losses and other data, while you seem to apply the "eye test" more (in the sense that if you think Team A would beat Team B, you'd put in Team A even if Team B objectively has better results and data supporting them).

In contrast, you've put out all of this data on whether a school is a historical blue blood or not... and I see "blue blood status" as largely about the eye test (or at least *perceived* status). At a guttural level, if Team A is coming to town and they're unranked and not your acknowledged rival, is that still one of the biggest games of the year for you simply based on their name?

I perceive that to be the case with Penn State, but not as much the case with LSU. I'd put LSU into a similar category as, say, Tennessee - they have had long periods of success, but their name itself is not enough to maintain their brand when they go through down periods. Even during this century where they've had a ton of national success, they've still fired two(!) coaches that actually won national championships for them because the program simply has a lower floor compared to a place like Alabama. They also don't have the location that can be leveraged to very quickly turn themselves around (or sell to others that they have the potential to quickly turn themselves around) in the way that Texas, Florida and USC can. An unranked Texas team coming to town is still a high wattage game in the way that an unranked LSU team isn't.

In a movie sense, it's about star quality. There often isn't an objective reason why someone is a star versus someone that isn't a star. In fact, there's a whole slew of great actors that *aren't* stars while there are a bunch of less accomplished actors that are very much stars. Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest actor of his generation, but he's not a *star* in the way that Tom Hanks is a star, much less Tom Cruise. You know a star when you see them.

That's the same way with college football: there can be great teams or programs, but that's different than being a *star*. Notre Dame and Texas are stars in a way that TCU and Cincinnati aren't stars even though the latter schools have had much more success this century. Ohio State and Alabama are obviously stars. I still see Penn State as a star - even an unranked Penn State team is going to get the juices (and TV viewers) flowing in a way that I don't think that an unranked LSU team does. Heck, I think that Florida State and Miami are stars in a way that LSU isn't (despite acknowledging that LSU has been *much* better than both programs on-the-field during the past 20 years).

That's not a knock on LSU. They're an amazing program with incredible fan and financial support. It's just that I think they have to always keep *grinding* for its success in a way that's more like Tennessee (in terms of relatively recent SEC history) than it is for how Alabama is just a rolling juggernaut. Heck, I think LSU knows that more than anyone considering how quickly they've fired multiple national championship winning coaches when things turn mediocre. True star schools like Alabama and Florida have a very high floor whereas LSU has a lower floor (even though it has reached a very high ceiling over the years). LSU always has to work to maintain its brand name, unlike places like Notre Dame and Texas.

The fact that who was played is not considered in that list enables Boise State to gain a position higher than that of Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, etc. and it allows Coastal Carolina, App State, and Georgia Southern to rate above many of those as well is indicative of the fallacy of equivalency in wins and losses.

It's who you played and how you fared!

So Frank, we are in agreement about the contradictions and though you didn't expressly state it, the absurdity of such a list.

As to your view of LSU though, PSU and LSU are essentially in the same grouping. Your juices flow over Penn State because they are a Big 10 alternative which rises up often enough. LSU is the same, only in the SEC. Both fill 100,000 plus stadia, both have won championships, both have had downtimes, and both have strong regional appeal. Nobody up North gives a hoot about LSU and nobody down South gives a hoot about Penn State. To me you are a blue blood when you have people in every part of the nation stop to find out what you did this week.

That list may have half a dozen or so names and while Florida has a higher floor, they aren't one of them.

For football and in no particular order, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, U.S.C., Notre Dame are the slam dunks historically. Everyone else is more of a regional favorite, though some are rising: Florida, Georgia, Clemson, LSU, Penn State. Some have fallen: Florida State (which looks to be turning it around), Nebraska (who 25 years ago was in the top list), Washington, U.C.L.A., Auburn, Tennessee.

But I believe the first 7 would be near unanimous picks for most sports literate fans.

I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

I'm no SEC expert, but I don't recall Florida being very good in football until Spurrier left Duke to become the head coach at Florida.
Prior to Spurrier the most notable thing about Gator football was about Charlie Pell and NCAA violations.

Well prior to Spurrier, Florida had fewer SEC titles than Kentucky, Mississippi St., Georgia Tech and Tulane and was tied with Vanderbilt at zero (since Pell's in 84 didn't officially count). But like Miami, they have had such a good period since then they have elevated, much like Minnesota post 1960, slipped down (would you be surprised to know that Minnesota has 4 MNCs in the AP poll era--behind only Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio St. and USC?). As Frank says, they have the resources and location so that they are expected to continue to be strong.
01-24-2023 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #380
RE: Realistic options for Pac-12 going forward.
(01-24-2023 03:39 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 01:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that list of 7 is actually quite good, although even as Big Ten guy, I think Florida is being underrated. I'm about as Northern as they come and always saw Florida as a huge national brand name on par with those other 7. I'm looking at it from the outside of the SEC: I've always perceived that the truly entrenched powers were Alabama and Florida while everyone else would rise and fall (whether it's Georgia now or LSU or Auburn or Tennessee in the past). Florida hasn't performed up to its expectations in recent years, but they're much more like Texas or USC to me where they just have too great of a combo of location and brand to ever fall out of that top tier.

Granted, I'm a child of the late-80s/1990s, so that will admittedly skew my perception because that overlaps with a lot of the golden years of Florida (and FSU and Miami, for that matter). In contrast, that's the exact period where LSU was essentially lost in the wilderness, so that also likely skews my perception about them in a more negative way (as I actually do remember a fairly long period where they were a true non-entity nationally). So, I understand that I may be applying some childhood biases there (as I probably also subconsciously overrate Tennessee's status and underrate Georgia's status due to those formative years).

Just from my impressions on this board (and this very much a gross generalization) - but it seems to me that Big10 fans seem to assign much more "value" to Florida, than SEC fans do.

I think part of that (again, generalizing) is that SEC fans seem to rate school "value" much more on field performance, while B10 fans ascribe more to "brand" value.

I think this stems a bit from the north valuing professional teams even if they regularly lose.

It's not a criticism at all.

Look at baseball - the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Chicago Cubs, the Boston Red Sox, the Minnesota Twins. Or Football, like the Cleveland Browns.

This is not to say that Florida isn't valued by southern fans, it just seems to be "different".

Think of this this way - I just made a comment about Alabama on this thread, that I think there will be those who will very much not agree with - which is totally fine, we all see (and analyze) the world through our own lens.

But had I said the same thing about Florida, would the overall general reaction be equal, greater, or less?

I've said in the past that - due to AAU, institutional fit, etc. - if any school were to leave the SEC to go to the Big10, Florida is that school.

The above are also reasons why. I think the Florida might find that they are valued more in a way that they may find to be more comfortable with.

To put it another way, I think Florida seems more like a B10 school than any other school in the SEC or the ACC. And it's not even close.

But of course, as always, others' opinions may vary.

Perhaps to some extent it has to do with what JRSEC and Frank have mentioned, that we are all a product of the period in which we grew up. I'm old enough to remember the announcers treating Minnesota being a big deal in 1967, but that was probably their last good year. UCLA was quite successful in the 60s and 70s. And people younger might not remember the 80s and 90s when Miami and FSU were as dominant as Alabama has been under Saban. The pecking order in the SEC growing up was roughly:
Alabama

Tennessee
Georgia/Auburn/LSU
Ole Miss
Florida

Miss. St./Kentucky/Vandy

But if you grew up in the 90s, Florida and Tennessee were at the top. Ole Miss was so far removed from Archie Manning that they slipped almost to the MSU/UK/VU tier.
01-24-2023 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.