Historically Underperforming Programs

[bruin228]

I think Cal is a good one. Yeah, they have high academic standards but look at the list of CFB powers: OSU, Miami, UM, USC, Bama, Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Penn State, Florida, FSU. Are the standards at Cal really THAT much higher than Michigan, USC(now), or Texas? It must not be, looking at Rivals, Cal has pulled in classes ranging from #17 to #32 the last 8 or so years. That's not Bama or Texas levels but you can definitely win with that talent. How is Stanford getting top classes with their academic standards? Cal may not have the largest fan support but I think it would definitely be higher if they played up to their talent level.

Georgia is definitely a good one. Tons of fan support, tons of financial support, and they can recruit GA, FL, SC, NC, VA, and some other places. They should definitely win more with what they have.

Rutgers and Cuse might be good ones. I dunno how much talent there is in the Northeast outside of NJ and PA though.

I wonder about putting UDub or Colorado on this list. For some reason, I've always seen them as not quite the elite of CFB, but in the upper echelon, but they don't really have much to show for it.

If we're putting ASU on here, Zona should be here as well, as they have everything ASU has aside from a Rose Bowl appearance.

 

[bruin228]

It's interesting to me that so many people have listed UCLA as one. I've never even considered that they should be a power. Then again, the greatest UCLA game I witnessed growing up was a 13-9 win in a 7-6 season.

 

[whiteyc_77]

I'm not sure that we are making fun of Klimpson at the appropriate amount.

 

[BasinBictory]

It's interesting to me that so many people have listed UCLA as one. I've never even considered that they should be a power. Then again, the greatest UCLA game I witnessed growing up was a 13-9 win in a 7-6 season.

This sums up the typical UCLA fan mentality.

It it is why, IMO, they'll never be a powerhouse, despite having all the same advantages (and more - Westwood is a nicer part of town than University Park) as their crosstown rivals. The #1 goal of a UCLA football team a the start of each season (in the minds of the majority of their fans) is to beat USC. Not conference championships, not Rose Bowls, not national championships. That is how a 7-6 team is celebrated fondly, but the team the year before, which won 10 games, many in exciting, come-from-behind fashion, is mostly forgotten.

 

[bruin228]

This sums up the typical UCLA fan mentality.

It it is why, IMO, they'll never be a powerhouse, despite having all the same advantages (and more - Westwood is a nicer part of town than University Park) as their crosstown rivals. The #1 goal of a UCLA football team a the start of each season (in the minds of the majority of their fans) is to beat USC. Not conference championships, not Rose Bowls, not national championships. That is how a 7-6 team is celebrated fondly, but the team the year before, which won 10 games, many in exciting, come-from-behind fashion, is mostly forgotten.

I said greatest game, not greatest season

Greatest season in my life (that I remember) was probably last year because they won 10 games, beat SC, won a bowl, and Hundley and Mora came back so I had things to look forward to next season.

 

[bruin]

Cal. lol.

ninjas please.

 

[TXHusker05]

This sums up the typical UCLA fan mentality.

It it is why, IMO, they'll never be a powerhouse, despite having all the same advantages (and more - Westwood is a nicer part of town than University Park) as their crosstown rivals. The #1 goal of a UCLA football team a the start of each season (in the minds of the majority of their fans) is to beat USC. Not conference championships, not Rose Bowls, not national championships. That is how a 7-6 team is celebrated fondly, but the team the year before, which won 10 games, many in exciting, come-from-behind fashion, is mostly forgotten.

Yup. UCLA is one of those programs that I think is perfectly content with cranking out the occasional 10 win season, maybe showing up at a Pac-12 Championship once in a while just happy to be there, beating USC and raking in the money. A 1-12 season with a dramatic come from behind win over USC > 10-2 losing in the Pac-12 title to UCLA. I guess that's cool to not really have expectations of greatness because then you can never be let down and when you do happen to do something great, it's awesome. But because of that, we can't really call UCLA an underachieving, underperforming team. They are performing right where they are happy being.

IF (big IF) UCLA actually wanted to create a championship caliber football culture, they have all the advantages in place to do so. Honestly, if UCLA actually cared to try, they could very easily jump into that USC, Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame type of level as a brand. Will they ever care? Fuck no.

 

[digs]

I believe @digs said it on the old board, but I could be wrong, that ASU had the chance to be like a West Coast Miami. Graham has done well there, but overall they've left a lot to be desired. Makes you wonder what could have been after '97. Damn Joe Germaine and David Boston.

I hear the UCLA is the West Coast Clemson comparisons a lot. Maybe. Except UCLA actually beats their rival.

I've had this conversation a lot, probably on the forums before. Puzzles me that ASU isn't a perennially top 25 team, given climate, school culture etc.

UA has a lot of the same things that ASU does, but Tucson is such a dump.

 

[Bama]

#1 is Texas A&M. Look at that program's resources compared to their accomplishments, going back to when Bear Bryant left in the late 50s...but especially in the last 20 years. 1 conference title. Ridiculous for a school with that much $ behind them.

 

[R2D2]

What about Oklahoma? They've had a lot of talent over the years, but haven't out right won a MNC since 2000.

 

[Bama]

What about Oklahoma? They've had a lot of talent over the years, but haven't out right won a MNC since 2000.

Oklahoma has been arguably the most consistent program of this millennium. Before this year began Stoops led all active coaches in wins per season.

Conference titles are far more relevant because in 99% of cases you control your own destiny there. The NC has much more luck involved...plus OU has been to the title game 3 times and lost.

Theyre not even in the conversation

 

[DeadMan]

What about Oklahoma? They've had a lot of talent over the years, but haven't out right won a MNC since 2000.

Since WWII, they've had, what, one bad decade? Other than that, they're probably the most consistently good program in the country.

 

[bruin]

yeah, OU was down in the 90's. That's about it.

 

[DeadMan]

I'm not sure I agree about UCLA. They've had 14 conference titles and a national title since WWII. Texas A&M doesn't have a national title and 10 conference titles - none since 1998. Florida only has 8 conference titles (although they do have 3 national titles) - all after 1990.

Arizona State might be a good choice - only 3 conference titles in a major conference. But they were in a WAC for a while after WWII, so they haven't been at the level of a program like Florida or Daddy A&M for as long.

Georgia Tech only has 5 conference titles and 2 national titles (one split, but not really because 1990 Colorado) since WWII. They have a great location and a pretty good alumni base, but I think it's being a little harsh because they don't seem to care about football all that much.

Wisconsin was also pretty terrible until Alavarez got there in the early 90s. But I don't think their recruiting location is that great compared to Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Florida, or Daddy A&M.

 

[bruin]

I've said it numerous times, but the dismal 2000's for UCLA changed the perception of the program to people. Especially in the ESPN era.

 

[silverwheels]

Oklahoma has more of a place in the "historically overachieving programs" than they do here. For OU to have the amount of success they've had without being in one of the more talent-rich states is impressive. They lead the country in 10-win and 11-win seasons and have the fewest losing seasons of any school. They've been ranked #1 in the AP poll and in the top 5 more than any other school. 7 claimed national titles (could claim more) and 5 Heisman winners. Also the only school with 4 100-win coaches. Don't see how they have underperformed at all.

 

[Renegade]

In my opinion, Georgia Tech is what it is. They have high academic standards, and they don't care about competing at the top. Their sole goal every year is to beat Georgia. When OLeary was coach there he said, "it's hard to be Miami on Saturday and Harvard Sunday through Friday."

 

[R2D2]

I'm also pretty sure no one wants to play in the option, or at least the big boys don't.

 

[Renegade]

I'm also pretty sure no one wants to play in the option, or at least the big boys don't.

Well, that's a very recent phenomenon, both in terms of Tech running the option and the option not being a popular offense.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Just throwing these three out here as well (that have not been mentioned yet) without knowing how much talent is actually in the areas where they are:

Maryland, Virginia and Memphis

 

[BasinBictory]

What about Oklahoma? They've had a lot of talent over the years, but haven't out right won a MNC since 2000.

Well, yes. They're sort of the Holland of CFB. Always in the hunt, always among the most talented teams, but very little to show for it in the trophy case. But in absolute terms, they've done just about as well as can be reasonably expected over the past 15 or so years.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

I think Arsenal or Paris might be a better soccer comparison to Oklahoma.

 

[BasinBictory]

What about Aussie Rules Football teams?

Srs though - agree with whoever said Oklahoma is an overachiever in CFB, considering what they're working with. I'd say they and Nebraska are in that category of schools that don't seem to have a lot of "natural resources," but consistently do very well.

Also in the category of overachievers might be Boise State. Even though they play in a lesser conference, within their region, it can be reasonably argued that many other mid-majors in their region and conference have more natural resources than they do.

 

[bruin228]

Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, Boise State, Oregon, Oklahoma State, and Mizzou are all overachievers.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Disagree on Missouri, they've been a bad to above-average program since I've been around. There are two pretty decent sized cities in that state as well. I'd actually lean to underachieving for them.

Also Basin, Collingwood would be the AFL equivalent to Oklahoma.

 

[BasinBictory]

Oregon was also quite bad until Nike money made them what they are today. The Oregon schools were perennial conference doormats for most of the 70's and 80's and early 90's.

 

[bruin228]

Oregon was also quite bad until Nike money made them what they are today. The Oregon schools were perennial conference doormats for most of the 70's and 80's and early 90's.

Yeah, but how much in-state talent is in Oregon?

Plus, people have been saying that programs have boosters and still aren't successful. Once Oregon got money, they started winning and now are a perenniel top 10 team.

 

[BasinBictory]

Yeah, but how much in-state talent is in Oregon?

Plus, people have been saying that programs have boosters and still aren't successful. Once Oregon got money, they started winning and now are a perenniel top 10 team.

Outside of California, NONE of the western states have a large talent pool. California basically supplies all of the D1 footbaw programs west of the Rockies. So any school in the west that is having success is generally good at getting California talent to come play for them. When UW was good, it was with a lot of CA players. When Colorado won their national championship, their backfield was all from the Los Angeles area.

In terms of boosters, having Phil Knight as a backer is several orders of magnitude greater than a gaggle of successful doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who donate modest amounts of money to their alma maters.

Oregon is like those soccer teams that were perennially middle-of-the-table and occasionally having to stave off relegation, but were suddenly bought by some oil sheik gazillionaire who started buying all the best players.

IOW, with the resources Oregon now has, it is nearly inconceivable that they would be unsuccessful.

And - despite their recent success, they have yet to hold aloft that crystal footbaw.

 

[PrimoReemo]

Just throwing these three out here as well (that have not been mentioned yet) without knowing how much talent is actually in the areas where they are:

Maryland, Virginia and Memphis

Memphis has always been a basketball school and always will be. However, you would think they would at least be just not as terrible as they have been. There are 3 periods in Memphis football history that I matter: the Issac Bruce years, the Deangelo Williams years, and that time they beat Peyton Manning.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Agreed, being awful when you should be reasonably competitive is also underachieving.

 

[Wooly]

When we talk about major programs during most of the time period mentioned (post WWII), we are only talking about maybe 25 programs in the country. They are just the few teams who are/were regularly at the top of their conf and have major program support. Off the top of my head I think that limits the discussion to USC, UCLA, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, LSU, Ark, Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, Notre Dame. Ark and Syracuse are borderline, but they probably belong historically, while Clemson is borderline but has been good and near the top of the ACC since the late 70s, which is long enough to be in the list I guess. Miami is tempting to include, but they have so little program support I don't think they count as major; I am not sure Pitt, Tenn, VT, or S. Car have been good long enough (someone give me their history). By long enough I mean duration, not lately. I don't think there are any teams west of Texas that count as "major/elite programs" during most of the time range mentioned (post WWI) except USC and UCLA. I don't think ASU or Zona has ever been major, including now. So that is 20 teams or so to start with. Maybe we should just call these "elite programs" instead of major.

On top of being major, the topic also was looking at schools that have good recruiting areas. That means CA, TX, the south, and OH/PA. None one else is in a good recruiting area. That reduces the teams in the conversation by eliminating Nebraska, Mich, MSU, Syracuse, and Notre Dame. You could argue, however, that the state of Mich was a decent recruiting area in the few decades after WWII (before everyone fled). Mich has been seeing people flee since the 60s actually. Oklahoma has some talent, but being so close to Texas I think tips them into the good recruiting area list.

So what teams are left in the discussion: USC, UCLA, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, OSU, PSU, LSU, Ark, Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, FSU, Clemson. Wasington, due to popular demand, and a pretty good argument.
Given the criteria, who else would you argue belong in this list?

 

[bruin228]

Arkansas is definitely not even remotely a major power. Good lord

 

[Snorky's Shame]

If you are including Arkansas, I don't see how you can leave out Tennessee. I'd even put Washington on this list before Arkansas.

 

[Wooly]

Arkansas is definitely not even remotely a major power. Good lord

What is their history? I have not looked it up, but I remember them being at the top of the SWC along with Texas and A&M. They were among the best teams in the country in the 60's and 70s, and early 80s. That includes being the MNC hunt several years. I believe they were up and down from the mid 80s to 2000, but then have also had several years near the top of the SEC. They have significant program support, even if it's not at the level of an OSU or Bama. You might argue that they are borderline and don't belong, but you I don't see how you can argue that they are not in consideration.


Give me your list of the teams that qualify given the criteria, and your reasoning. We'll talk.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

To be fair Wooly, I think Arkansas belongs but if they're in, Tennessee should be as well. Arkansas has the slight edge in conference titles but Tennessee has a couple of MNC titles and the SEC is tougher than the SWC was.

 

[Wooly]

If you are including Arkansas, I don't see how you can leave out Tennessee. I'd even put Washington on this list before Arkansas.

A fair argument. You will notice I punted on Tenn, including them in my list of teams that I don't know their history well enough. I don't know what they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The duration of time we are talking is about 60 years. Were they among the top teams in their conf the majority of those 60 years. If so, I would put them in the list. This is an art form, not a science.

People may forget that Ark was one of three teams that dominated the SWC (along with Tex and A&M) for decades before they joined the SEC. They have a significant winning history with lots of conf champs, a national title, and several years competing. And while in the SEC they have had several years of being at the top, though they have had some down years in the SEC too.

I left Washington out from one blanket staement: I don't think there are any major/elite teams in the West historically other than USC and UCLA. Maybe that is too harsh, or wrong, but it seems to me that historically the country as a whole doesn't care about anybody out west except those two teams. Teams in the west have to outperform other teams just to have even the same consideration as those other teams. It's just the way it is.

 

[BasinBictory]

Maybe @coogrfan can enlighten us, but wouldn't Houston be considered an underachiever considering they're in the biggest city in the biggest recruiting state? They're also a large school with a large enrollment, so I'd imagine there should be some decent fan support, and a sizable alumni base. They once were part of the SWC, but dropped out and were essentially a mid-major ever since.

 

[Southpaw]

Wooly listing schools like Arkansas Clemson Georgia aTm and hell even auburn and LSU but leaving out tennessee? Makes me cry.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Maybe @coogrfan can enlighten us, but wouldn't Houston be considered an underachiever considering they're in the biggest city in the biggest recruiting state? They're also a large school with a large enrollment, so I'd imagine there should be some decent fan support, and a sizable alumni base. They once were part of the SWC, but dropped out and were essentially a mid-major ever since.

IIRC, they only joined the SWC in the 70's and they were on probation for part of their stay.

Washington was probably the only school that consistently challenged Southern California and UCLA post-WII. They were the only non-California school included when the Pac reformed in the 60's. Being out west and in Seattle didn't help them in terms of exposure.

 

[Wooly]

Sorry paw. They were in my short list of borderline teams, which I deferred on due to not knowing enough of their history. So they did get mentioned. They definitely have the program support to be on the list.

 

[BasinBictory]

Wooly, I'd definitely include Washington in the list of major programs. They're easily #3 in the conference in terms of fan interest and support, as well as historical success. I'd argue that they're #2, since UCLA, since the Terry Donahue era, have been more preoccupied with beating USC, instead of chasing conference and national championships, the way they were in the Red Sanders and Tommy Prothro eras. Washington has 11 conference titles since WW2 and were definitely on the scene before WW2 as well. They are sort of analogous to Tennessee in that they have had a decent amount of success, with much of it coming when the traditional in-Conference Goliath (USC / Alabama) were in down periods.

 

[Southpaw]

Well they also have the total wins and winning pct. and bowl wins. Better than all those other teams I mentioned.

 

[Wooly]

Maybe @coogrfan can enlighten us, but wouldn't Houston be considered an underachiever considering they're in the biggest city in the biggest recruiting state? They're also a large school with a large enrollment, so I'd imagine there should be some decent fan support, and a sizable alumni base. They once were part of the SWC, but dropped out and were essentially a mid-major ever since.

You could definitely argue they underachieve, but I don't think you can consider them a major program at any point. They were an also ran in the SWC more years than not. Basically a constant mid-major. As to whether they should have been better, that seems the case, but it's hard to know. Texas football has established power teams early in the 1900s. I don't know when, but Texas, A&M, Rice, maybe Baylor were the top schools early on. Houston came along much later IIRC. Rice and Baylor had already started to decline by the time Houston became a decent program, so Houston was always playing catch up. Most importantly, Texas just has so many schools fighting the talent in Houston, and obviously Texas and A&M take the lions share and always have. Then you have some pesky SEC neighbors stealing talent too. It's pretty damn hard to rise up against that. Houston is a state school with all the problems of being way down the list in priority. Until recently they had little funding for facilities relative to the big players. I believe a few years ago the state of Texas released a strategic plan for increased funding to a few schools, naming Houston as one of their teir 1 state schools now, so things are looking better. Cougarfan can probably edit a lot of my post, but I believe those are the issues Houston has faced.

 

[Wooly]

Right. Washington is on the list now.

 

[bruin228]

What is their history? I have not looked it up, but I remember them being at the top of the SWC along with Texas and A&M. They were among the best teams in the country in the 60's and 70s, and early 80s. That includes being the MNC hunt several years. I believe they were up and down from the mid 80s to 2000, but then have also had several years near the top of the SEC. They have significant program support, even if it's not at the level of an OSU or Bama. You might argue that they are borderline and don't belong, but you I don't see how you can argue that they are not in consideration.


Give me your list of the teams that qualify given the criteria, and your reasoning. We'll talk.

Arkansas: 1 claimed national title (1964, also claimed by Bama), 13 conference titles
Washington: 2 claimed national titles and 3 unclaimed, 15 conference titles
Colorado: 1 claimed national title, 26 conference titles
Tennessee: 6 claimed national titles, 16 conference titles
Illinois: 5 claimed national titles, 15 conference titles
Michigan State: 6 claimed national titles, 10 conference titles
Pittsburgh: 9 claimed national titles, 8 unclaimed, 2 conference titles (they were independent until 1990 though)

Arkansas does not fit in the group that you listed at all. You have some of the winningest programs in CFB history, teams with the most titles in CFB history, and you want to include Arkansas. There are about 30 teams I would include before considering Arkansas.

 

[BasinBictory]

Right. Washington is on the list now.

"Why thank you, Wooly. Now just keep those hicks from Pullman out!"

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Most of Colorado's conference titles were pre WWII. They haven't won many in the Big 8/12 or Pac-12.

How many Lambert Trophies has Pittsburgh won? That's sort of a conference title equivalent out east. Penn State has won a ton of those.

 

[DeadMan]

Yeah, Colorado has had 6 titles in a power conference (all 6 after WWII). I wouldn't call them an underperforming program, because they don't have the support or recruiting base for it. They have to get scraps from Texas and California, and college football simply isn't a big deal in Colorado, even when CU football was really good.

 

[Southpaw]

All time Div 1 A Wins

1. Michigan: 910-321-36
2. Texas: 875-338-33
3. Notre Dame: 874-305-42
4. Nebraska: 860-354-40
5. Ohio State: 849-316-53
6. Oklahoma: 836-310-53
7. Alabama: 832-321-43
8. Tennessee: 804-361-55
9. USC: 786-319-54
10. Georgia 759-402-54

[xtable=skin1]
{tbody}
{tr}
{td}School{/td}
{td}Bowl Wins{/td}
{td}Bowl Record{/td}
{td}Bowl Winning%{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Alabama{/td}
{td}35{/td}
{td}35-23-3{/td}
{td}.574{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}USC{/td}
{td}33{/td}
{td}33-17{/td}
{td}.660{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Oklahoma{/td}
{td}28{/td}
{td}28-18-1{/td}
{td}.596{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Texas{/td}
{td}27{/td}
{td}27-23-2{/td}
{td}.519{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Georgia{/td}
{td}27{/td}
{td}27-19-3{/td}
{td}.551{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Penn State{/td}
{td}27*{/td}
{td}27-15-2{/td}
{td}.636{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Tennessee{/td}
{td}25{/td}
{td}25-24{/td}
{td}.510{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Florida State{/td}
{td}26{/td}
{td}26-14-2{/td}
{td}.619{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Nebraska{/td}
{td}25{/td}
{td}25-25{/td}
{td}.500{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}Georgia Tech{/td}
{td}23{/td}
{td}23-19{/td}
{td}.548{/td}
{/tr}
{tr}
{td}LSU{/td}
{td}23{/td}
{td}23-21-1{/td}
{td}.523{/td}
{/tr}
{/tbody}
[/xtable]
Arkansas has 13 bowl wins all time with a .372 winning pct fyi.

https://www.football.com/en-us/all-time-bowl-wins/


smh @Wooly

 

[bruin228]

Most of Colorado's conference titles were pre WWII. They haven't won many in the Big 8/12 or Pac-12.

How many Lambert Trophies has Pittsburgh won? That's sort of a conference title equivalent out east. Penn State has won a ton of those.

6, which is 3rd most behind PSU and Army (who hasn't won one since 1958).