There's often discussions about the most underperforming P5 programs...those programs with money, fans, tradition, and recruiting that can rarely or never get over the top. The list always ends up with some combination of Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, UCLA, and a handful of others. We're not talking about the Iowa States and Mississippi States of the world, even if those programs have been gifted far more than they ever have achieved (or will achieve despite all those boons).

So accepting that the G5 has a lot more limitations and it's very difficult to consistently dominate a league since most G5 programs have to reload occasionally, we can nevertheless still point to some underperforming programs. What are some G5 programs that should be winning their conference consistently and competing with the P5 that for whatever reason don't?

Until the past few years, San Diego State comes to my mind. They're in a rich recruiting area with a major metro area unto themselves, yet they were rarely a top program in the WAC or MWC. They've really come on lately and may get the NY6 bid this year, so we'll see if it's a flash in the pan.

But what are some others?

(10-06-2017 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's often discussions about the most underperforming P5 programs...those programs with money, fans, tradition, and recruiting that can rarely or never get over the top. The list always ends up with some combination of Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, UCLA, and a handful of others. We're not talking about the Iowa States and Mississippi States of the world, even if those programs have been gifted far more than they ever have achieved (or will achieve despite all those boons).

So accepting that the G5 has a lot more limitations and it's very difficult to consistently dominate a league since most G5 programs have to reload occasionally, we can nevertheless still point to some underperforming programs. What are some G5 programs that should be winning their conference consistently and competing with the P5 that for whatever reason don't?

Until the past few years, San Diego State comes to my mind. They're in a rich recruiting area with a major metro area unto themselves, yet they were rarely a top program in the WAC or MWC. They've really come on lately and may get the NY6 bid this year, so we'll see if it's a flash in the pan.

But what are some others?

UCONN- highest budget, least return. They do less with more than any other G5 school. They had years of CFB welfare and have great tradition in basketball. Now, both are underperforming. Considering budgets, history, subsidies from the state, they have more advantages than any other G5 and have failed to consistently perform.

(10-06-2017 12:36 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  There's often discussions about the most underperforming P5 programs...those programs with money, fans, tradition, and recruiting that can rarely or never get over the top. The list always ends up with some combination of Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, UCLA, and a handful of others. We're not talking about the Iowa States and Mississippi States of the world, even if those programs have been gifted far more than they ever have achieved (or will achieve despite all those boons).

So accepting that the G5 has a lot more limitations and it's very difficult to consistently dominate a league since most G5 programs have to reload occasionally, we can nevertheless still point to some underperforming programs. What are some G5 programs that should be winning their conference consistently and competing with the P5 that for whatever reason don't?

Until the past few years, San Diego State comes to my mind. They're in a rich recruiting area with a major metro area unto themselves, yet they were rarely a top program in the WAC or MWC. They've really come on lately and may get the NY6 bid this year, so we'll see if it's a flash in the pan.

But what are some others?

UCONN- highest budget, least return. They do less with more than any other G5 school. They had years of CFB welfare and have great tradition in basketball. Now, both are underperforming. Considering budgets, history, subsidies from the state, they have more advantages than any other G5 and have failed to consistently perform.

Maybe it is because Memphis is killing the RPI for most teams in the league? LOL

Anyway, the UConn men won their last championship in 2014 (their four championships in the last 20 years are more than any other school in that period). The UConn women practically win the championship every year.

As for football, UConn was in the Fiesta Bowl in 2010 and hasn't been great since then. That said, Memphis was historically horrible up until about three years ago. Memphis also has yet to be in a NY6 bowl.

The only teams in the AAC that are getting anything done are UConn in bball and Houston and UCF in football. No other AAC schools can lay claim to any real achievements.

(10-06-2017 12:36 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  UCONN- highest budget, least return. They do less with more than any other G5 school. They had years of CFB welfare and have great tradition in basketball. Now, both are underperforming. Considering budgets, history, subsidies from the state, they have more advantages than any other G5 and have failed to consistently perform.

UConn FB definitely has struggled lately. Sometimes that's just about bad coaching hires...was there anyone outside of the UConn administration that thought Pasqualoni was a good hire? He seemed totally over the hill. Diaco seemed like a good hire, but obviously that didn't work out.

And what's UConn's realistic ceiling recruiting now without the BCS tag? I've argued previously that Edsall will not be successful there, because he can't recruit without the BCS label. He was a mediocre recruiter in his previous stint, but he still beat out a lot of non-AQ teams for the right players in his system because of the AQ tag. Now he doesn't have that, and while he's apparently updated his offense some, he's more or less like his mentor, George O'Leary.

Could the right coach win consistently at UConn? What is the ceiling even if you're a top recruiter given how little talent is in your backyard?

(10-06-2017 12:48 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 12:36 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  UCONN- highest budget, least return. They do less with more than any other G5 school. They had years of CFB welfare and have great tradition in basketball. Now, both are underperforming. Considering budgets, history, subsidies from the state, they have more advantages than any other G5 and have failed to consistently perform.

UConn FB definitely has struggled lately. Sometimes that's just about bad coaching hires...was there anyone outside of the UConn administration that thought Pasqualoni was a good hire? He seemed totally over the hill. Diaco seemed like a good hire, but obviously that didn't work out.

And what's UConn's realistic ceiling recruiting now without the BCS tag? I've argued previously that Edsall will not be successful there, because he can't recruit without the BCS label. He was a mediocre recruiter in his previous stint, but he still beat out a lot of non-AQ teams for the right players in his system because of the AQ tag. Now he doesn't have that, and while he's apparently updated his offense some, he's more or less like his mentor, George O'Leary.

Could the right coach win consistently at UConn? What is the ceiling even if you're a top recruiter given how little talent is in your backyard?

WHAAAA? He is nothing like George O'Leary. O'Leary was a joke. That dude was all run, run, pass, punt.

Rhett Lashlee has done more than update the UConn offense "some" - UConn's numbers on offense are near the top of FBS in some categories. UConn's problem is that our defense stinks (and defense has never been an issue before since you can recruit solid defensive players in New England). If we can keep Lashlee around for a few years to keep our new offense on track and then get our defense back, we would be a ranked team again.

I would say Rice, Tulane, and maybe SMU. All 3 are private schools in large markets with nearby access to a ton of talent. All 3 could be more like Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

(10-06-2017 12:18 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Until the past few years, San Diego State comes to my mind. They're in a rich recruiting area with a major metro area unto themselves, yet they were rarely a top program in the WAC or MWC. They've really come on lately and may get the NY6 bid this year, so we'll see if it's a flash in the pan.

But what are some others?

San Diego is not a rich recruiting area. High school football just isn't very popular here.

In the 2018 recruiting class, Rivals only ranks 13 high schoolers in SD County as 3-star or above. In comparison, the City of Cincinnati, with 1/10th the population of SD County, has 10.

SDSU has only 4 players on their roster from the city of San Diego. There's 16 from other parts of SD or Imperial Counties. That sounds like a lot until you realize that they have 109 players on their roster. They get almost as many from Texas (13) as they do from their own backyard.

I wouldnt' call UConn underperforming. They transitionted to FBS in 2000, went to a bowl game within 4 years, and won a share of the Big East and the BCS bid within 10 years.

Things went a little south for them after Edsall left. But it's not a hotbed of talent for football.

Basketball was built by Calhoun. it remains to be seen if UConn can keep it up now that he has retired, or the last season was a blip in the radar. It's hard to replace a legend, and the strength of recruiting that they would have had in the Big East may not be there. Telling Northeast kids that they're playing against Syracuse and Georgetown isn't the same as telling them they're playing USF, SMU and Houston.

I would throw my Alma Mater in there at the moment. Miami University. They set the foundation for greatness of "small" schools back in the 70s by beating three straight SEC teams in bowl games, a huge upset of LSU in 1986 and an AP Top Ten ranking in 2003 with Roethlisberger, and was on the list of the Top 25 all time wins, but have now since hit the crapper since 2003 (save for a couple bowl games 2010,2016). Did have 6 straight wins last year, but gift wrapped the bowl win last year to Mississippi State, have now lost 12 straight to the Bearcats and off to a grim 2-3 start this year. The climb back to respect seems to still be a mountain in front of us!

(10-06-2017 12:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I would say Rice, Tulane, and maybe SMU. All 3 are private schools in large markets with nearby access to a ton of talent. All 3 could be more like Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

Rice and Tulane for sure.

Rice and Tulane are small schools with high standards in pro sports markets. They aren't underperforming.

Miami U. has underperformed over the last decade, but that may just be coaching issues.

UNLV is the school I would list as underperforming. They are large, have resources and are right next door to California.

Second on the list would be Memphis. They have done well the last 3 years, but not the prior 100. They have some of the best fan support, no pro sports and Enormous State University is all the way across the state.

El Paso

UNLV
Fresno State
New Mexico
UTEP
Colorado State
San Jose State
Hawaii
Memphis
Temple
UConn
Ohio
Buffalo

(10-06-2017 02:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Rice and Tulane are small schools with high standards in pro sports markets. They aren't underperforming.

Miami U. has underperformed over the last decade, but that may just be coaching issues.

UNLV is the school I would list as underperforming. They are large, have resources and are right next door to California.

Second on the list would be Memphis. They have done well the last 3 years, but not the prior 100. They have some of the best fan support, no pro sports and Enormous State University is all the way across the state.

I respectfully disagree.

Northwestern is in the 3rd largest combined statistical area with 5 professional big 4 sports teams. USNWR Ranking #11. ~8,400 undergrads.

Stanford is in the 5th largest combined statistical area with 6 professional big 4 sports teams. USNWR Ranking #5. ~7,000 undergrads.

Duke is the 29th largest combined statistical area with 1 professional big 4 sports team. USNWR Ranking #9. ~6,500 undergrads.

-

SMU is in the 7th largest combined statistical area with 4 professional big 4 sports teams. USNWR Ranking #61. ~6,500 undergrads.

Rice is in the 9th largest combined statistical area with 3 professional big 4 sports teams. USNWR Ranking #14. ~4,000 undergrads.

Tulane is in the 36th largest combined statistical area with 2 professional big 4 sports teams. USNWR Ranking #40. ~8,500 undergrads.

---

It would seem to me the biggest difference is academic rankings.

I would say UConn football isn't living up to expectations. I was there in the 1st Edsal years UConn was always decent I would say slightly above average. 8-5 or whatever. UConn spends a lot of money you want some return. We get plenty of you're average college kids from New Jersey you'd think we could pull some of the football players.

(10-06-2017 02:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Rice and Tulane are small schools with high standards in pro sports markets. They aren't underperforming.

Miami U. has underperformed over the last decade, but that may just be coaching issues.

UNLV is the school I would list as underperforming. They are large, have resources and are right next door to California.

Second on the list would be Memphis. They have done well the last 3 years, but not the prior 100. They have some of the best fan support, no pro sports and Enormous State University is all the way across the state.

Memphis did nothing in football the last 100 years? By what measure? We were nationally relevant and competitive in the '60s and '70s, and were ranked #14 in 1963, with a 9-0-1 record, the tie being to #2 Ole Miss, who finished ranked #3 that year. We also have beaten every team in the SEC except one, whom we haven't played yet.

We didn't go to bowl games for decades b/c we played as independents in football (not in basketball), and you had to win a league most times to go to a bowl.

We were also pretty damn good in the 2000s, going to 5 bowl games in 6 years (2003-08), and also the last 3.

Not the greatest football program ever, but sure as hell not irrelevant for 100 years, and only appearing in the last 3.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/memphis/

The bottom line is, if your school administration wants to make sports a priority you will be successful, if they don't it is difficult. At TCU I've have lived through both. These schools that you think should be successful and are not, probably have an administration that pays lip service to sports. The results are predictable.

(10-06-2017 01:37 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  I would throw my Alma Mater in there at the moment. Miami University. They set the foundation for greatness of "small" schools back in the 70s by beating three straight SEC teams in bowl games, a huge upset of LSU in 1986 and an AP Top Ten ranking in 2003 with Roethlisberger, and was on the list of the Top 25 all time wins, but have now since hit the crapper since 2003 (save for a couple bowl games 2010,2016). Did have 6 straight wins last year, but gift wrapped the bowl win last year to Mississippi State, have now lost 12 straight to the Bearcats and off to a grim 2-3 start this year. The climb back to respect seems to still be a mountain in front of us!

I agree with this. Reading up on Miami of Ohio's history, it's insane how good they used to be. (Then from what I understand, basically it was deemed only Ohio St could have graduate programs which killed Miami of Ohio and Ohio U - and presumably Cinci too)

Toledo, Western Michigan, Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan and Northern Illinois all are up and down like a Yo-Yo. They all are like a P5 killers at times, but at the end, wind up losing. Central Michigan beat Oklahoma State, and wound up 6-6 on the season. They usually under-perform in the bowls as well after having better win records.

Sadly, Boise State just under-perform the last few years. Harsin was not their answer to replaced Petersen. They should have gotten somebody that was coaching under him when he left to continue where he left off.

(10-06-2017 04:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Toledo, Western Michigan, Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan and Northern Illinois all are up and down like a Yo-Yo. They all are like a P5 killers at times, but at the end, wind up losing. Central Michigan beat Oklahoma State, and wound up 6-6 on the season. They usually under-perform in the bowls as well after having better win records.

Sadly, Boise State just under-perform the last few years. Harsin was not their answer to replaced Petersen. They should have gotten somebody that was coaching under him when he left to continue where he left off.

All our coaches leave. We all work from the same budget. Central Michigan might be 10-2 one year, their coach is hired away, and they go 6-6 the next year. Meanwhile, Ball St's hired a great coach and they go from 6-6 the year CMU went 10-2 and go 11-1 the year CMU goes 6-6. (as an example)

It's why Bowling Green St can steamroll Indiana one year, then go 2-10 the next.

Also, looking at Harsin's resume, looks to me like he was very qualified (and had ties to Boise St too). I can see why they went with him. Also, is it possible the coach before Harsin took a lot of his coordinators and the like to Washington? (That's what Fleck did when he left WMU and went to Minnesota. I think there was like one coordinator who didn't go, and he went to UMASS)