The TidesofWar Top 25 College Football Programs (1 Viewer)

[TidesofWar]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

Commish, you probably just didn't expect to see Texas there...It seems to have all fallen apart a bit here in the top 10, but I realize one could make good arguments for all kinds of different orders. Splitting hairs & all.

However, leaving off Princeton & Yale, which seemingly will happen, seems kinda crazy, imho.

My reasoning with regards to dealing with the Ivy Leaguers...................................They did dominate Football in the early years, but the game was different in the early years - the game was not played everywhere, not played the same way in some cases, especially early on.

I believe the last Ivy League team to win a NC was Cornell in 1922, and the old eastern powers have not been players on the National Scene probably since the AP was established in 1936.

And it is possible those teams will never be involved on a National Scale again.

As noted, I feel the Championships won by the now passed by Eastern powers, and to a degree by teams like Michigan at the turn of the century, were more regional in nature.

One important point of demarcation, in my eyes, was the invitation of Alabama to play in the 1925 Rose Bowl. LSU and Ga Tech had received some national recognition in 1908 and 1917, but Southern Football really began receiving respect and some of its due after Southern teams began playing in Pasadena.

I feel the game turned more "National" in scope at that point - though there are numerous evidences of regional and media biases for many decades to follow.

Nevertheless, those are some of my reasons for deciding to leave the Penns and Yales of teh early football world off this list.

 

[Moe.]

OU = number 4.

I expected them to be #1 or #2 given they are the only ones to win "championships" in all the different eras and given how much value TOW puts on "championships"I have no idea what the order is for the rest. Actions and words are not meeting here.

Well, USC's and ND's championships span a longer period than OU's I think.When was the last time Bama won one?

Yes....they do. Wasn't the criteria we were given...or at least as I understood. That criteria being winning in the different eras. OU has "championships" in all the eras...no other team does...at least teams that are left. Bama is missing from the current era and USC from the 80s-90s era. That's why I am not really understanding.

you dont always have to be such a stick in the mud. it's not like this is some scientific process or anything, calm down.

 

[The Commish]

Maybe I should state that the three Programs ahead of OU all have more National Championships, and they were won in a more diverse time frame.

Again...OU is the only one to span ALL the eras. Others have more "championships" total, but none span all the eras. I guess I should be myself for being gullible enough to assume what I did. I'll know better for next time I guess

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I could poop a better top 3 than what is left.

 

[The Commish]

OU = number 4.

I expected them to be #1 or #2 given they are the only ones to win "championships" in all the different eras and given how much value TOW puts on "championships"I have no idea what the order is for the rest. Actions and words are not meeting here.

Well, USC's and ND's championships span a longer period than OU's I think.When was the last time Bama won one?

Yes....they do. Wasn't the criteria we were given...or at least as I understood. That criteria being winning in the different eras. OU has "championships" in all the eras...no other team does...at least teams that are left. Bama is missing from the current era and USC from the 80s-90s era. That's why I am not really understanding.

you dont always have to be such a stick in the mud. it's not like this is some scientific process or anything, calm down.

If stick in the mud = taking a guy at his word and then questioning him when actions/words don't match, so be it. Somehow I have to calm down?? Cool as a cucumber here.

 

[kupcho1]

I could poop a better top 3 than what is left.

.... .. .... .... .... . . .. .. ...... .. .......

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

####### notre dame. first they end the winning streak, now this. not sure which is worse.

It could always be worse... you could be a Domer who had your home stadium look like this when they hosted Nebraska a few years ago.

holy ####, is that real?

Totally. Here's someone's blog from the game, including video.Link

 

[The Commish]

####### notre dame. first they end the winning streak, now this. not sure which is worse.

It could always be worse... you could be a Domer who had your home stadium look like this when they hosted Nebraska a few years ago.

holy ####, is that real?

Totally. Here's someone's blog from the game, including video.Link

Been to a couple ND/UM games in the last 15 years and the UM garb has outnumbered the ND garb by a significant amount. Fortunately, the blues are too similar for a pic to do it justice.

 

[TidesofWar]

Maybe I should state that the three Programs ahead of OU all have more National Championships, and they were won in a more diverse time frame.

Again...OU is the only one to span ALL the eras. Others have more "championships" total, but none span all the eras. I guess I should be myself for being gullible enough to assume what I did. I'll know better for next time I guess

The fact OU has no titles before 1950 was a consideration, as noted, they are the anti-Michigan in that regard - stacked more on the back end than the front.If I was willing to make a consderation that UM had only one NC in the last 6 decades, why should I also not consider that OU had zero before 1950?Also, I do not consider one decade of the BCS as an era.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

 

[madhatter]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

 

[The Commish]

Maybe I should state that the three Programs ahead of OU all have more National Championships, and they were won in a more diverse time frame.

Again...OU is the only one to span ALL the eras. Others have more "championships" total, but none span all the eras. I guess I should be myself for being gullible enough to assume what I did. I'll know better for next time I guess

The fact OU has no titles before 1950 was a consideration, as noted, they are the anti-Michigan in that regard - stacked more on the back end than the front.If I was willing to make a consderation that UM had only one NC in the last 6 decades, why should I also not consider that OU had zero before 1950?Also, I do not consider one decade of the BCS as an era.

That's my problem...not sure what "era" is for you. To me it's the style of the game. Style didn't really change up until the 50s. Then there was a progression from the 60s thru the 70s and another progression from the 80s thru the 90s. Those were all similar simply because "championships" were determined in a similar fashion. With the inception of the BCS that determination was turned on it's ear....don't see how one could justify comparing "championships" during that era with the others even though style of the game hasn't changed all that much. Just like I wouldn't consider comparing champions of a playoff format with the BCS....it would be apples to oranges.So understanding where your eras begin and end would help greatly and reasons for why you chose your breaking points would be great too....TIA.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

OU = number 4.

I expected them to be #1 or #2 given they are the only ones to win "championships" in all the different eras and given how much value TOW puts on "championships"I have no idea what the order is for the rest. Actions and words are not meeting here.

Well, USC's and ND's championships span a longer period than OU's I think.When was the last time Bama won one?

1992...then back to 1979

1979?!? Does a championship count when the opposing coaches changes his offensive strategy all game of running straight into the line on the last, crucial play to.....running straight into the line.?

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

Commish, you probably just didn't expect to see Texas there...It seems to have all fallen apart a bit here in the top 10, but I realize one could make good arguments for all kinds of different orders. Splitting hairs & all.

However, leaving off Princeton & Yale, which seemingly will happen, seems kinda crazy, imho.

My reasoning with regards to dealing with the Ivy Leaguers...................................They did dominate Football in the early years, but the game was different in the early years - the game was not played everywhere, not played the same way in some cases, especially early on.

I believe the last Ivy League team to win a NC was Cornell in 1922, and the old eastern powers have not been players on the National Scene probably since the AP was established in 1936.

And it is possible those teams will never be involved on a National Scale again.

As noted, I feel the Championships won by the now passed by Eastern powers, and to a degree by teams like Michigan at the turn of the century, were more regional in nature.

One important point of demarcation, in my eyes, was the invitation of Alabama to play in the 1925 Rose Bowl. LSU and Ga Tech had received some national recognition in 1908 and 1917, but Southern Football really began receiving respect and some of its due after Southern teams began playing in Pasadena.

I feel the game turned more "National" in scope at that point - though there are numerous evidences of regional and media biases for many decades to follow.

Nevertheless, those are some of my reasons for deciding to leave the Penns and Yales of teh early football world off this list.

"Non-Eastern" teams recognized for NCs in the years leading up to 1925:

1924: ND

1923: Illinois, Cal, Michigan

1922: Cal

1921: Cal, Iowa

1920: Cal, ND

1919: ND, Illinois, Texas A&M

1918: Michigan

1917: GT

1916: Army

1915: OU

1914: Texas, Illinois, Army

1913: Auburn, Chicago

1912:

1911:

1910:

1909:

1908: LSU

1907:

1906:

1905: Chicago

1904: Michigan, Minnesota

1903: Michigan

1902: Michigan

1901: Michigan

To me, any real point of demarcation would seem to appear at 1901 or 1913.

 

[gump]

Why are people getting their panties in a bunch because a guy from Montgomery Alabama is arbitrarily ranking college football teams?

Because college football is Serious Business

This could be the most imporant statment made in this thread. The entire FFA for that matter.

getting your panties in a bunch over this gives this idiot credence. All this thread is, is a chance for "Bogie" to say how great bamer is in his opinion.

Jebus your bitter. You did go 3-and-whateever last year...and followed that up by hiring Gene friggin Chizik...but still.

 

[GDogg]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

Commish, you probably just didn't expect to see Texas there...It seems to have all fallen apart a bit here in the top 10, but I realize one could make good arguments for all kinds of different orders. Splitting hairs & all.

However, leaving off Princeton & Yale, which seemingly will happen, seems kinda crazy, imho.

My reasoning with regards to dealing with the Ivy Leaguers...................................They did dominate Football in the early years, but the game was different in the early years - the game was not played everywhere, not played the same way in some cases, especially early on.

I believe the last Ivy League team to win a NC was Cornell in 1922, and the old eastern powers have not been players on the National Scene probably since the AP was established in 1936.

And it is possible those teams will never be involved on a National Scale again.

As noted, I feel the Championships won by the now passed by Eastern powers, and to a degree by teams like Michigan at the turn of the century, were more regional in nature.

One important point of demarcation, in my eyes, was the invitation of Alabama to play in the 1925 Rose Bowl. LSU and Ga Tech had received some national recognition in 1908 and 1917, but Southern Football really began receiving respect and some of its due after Southern teams began playing in Pasadena.

I feel the game turned more "National" in scope at that point - though there are numerous evidences of regional and media biases for many decades to follow.

Nevertheless, those are some of my reasons for deciding to leave the Penns and Yales of teh early football world off this list.

An even better reason would be that they haven't been a part of Division I (what is now the FBS) football in 30 years.

 

[gump]

One important point of demarcation, in my eyes, was the invitation of Alabama to play in the 1925 Rose Bowl. LSU and Ga Tech had received some national recognition in 1908 and 1917, but Southern Football really began receiving respect and some of its due after Southern teams began playing in Pasadena.

I was going to wait for your summary...but this is a very good and important fact....and should carry plenty of weight when looking at programs and how significant they are 'all-time'.That game is commonly referred to as "the game that changed the South"...and the UA team was cheered across the south on the train back from CA.

 

[TidesofWar]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

 

[madhatter]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

2003 is not a national title for usc, no matter what ESPN says.

 

[The Commish]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.

Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

Shouldn't stuff like this be a warning flag to you when you put so much value on "championships"? CFB is riddled with this nonsense.

 

[The Commish]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

2003 is not a national title for usc, no matter what ESPN says.

Of course it is. It's no less legit than the BCS title.

 

[gump]

not bitter at all. where he ranked auburn is correct. somewhere in the 15-20 range. that's what the program is. i'm just saying the guy can't look at this unbiasedly.he's one of two alabama fans on this board i don't care for. i admit that freely.eta: we won 5 games damnit, with a heartbreaker to vandy.

Didn't know there was a history. Plenty of opinions would rank UA top 5 though...not saying he isn't biased, but it's not really a reach either.eta: Vandy's Super Bowl...so did you think Tubs had to go? Lost his fire?

 

[GDogg]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

2003 is not a national title for usc, no matter what ESPN says.

Of course it is. It's no less legit than the BCS title.

Other than the fact that USC through its president and the commissioner of the Pac-10 has taken the stance that the BCS is how they will "crown" a national champion in football.

 

[saintsfan]

Some of you guys are crazy. National championships are important, but ALL national chamionships should be taken a bit with a grain of salt since they aren't really decided on the field. They are all mythical championships.

As such, you could certainly make a case for his likely top 3 AND you could make a case for some of the teams between 4-7 being higher, but I don't see anything ridiculously off. Just because he is a Bama fan doesn't mean Bama doesn't deserve top 3 status. I would put them VERY high. Probably higher than anyone he's named so far except for maybe Michigan and even then, he has a point. Half of Michigan's championships are in an era where football clearly was a regional sport..

 

[The Commish]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

2003 is not a national title for usc, no matter what ESPN says.

Of course it is. It's no less legit than the BCS title.

Other than the fact that USC through its president and the commissioner of the Pac-10 has taken the stance that the BCS is how they will "crown" a national champion in football.

Well crap....this is the first bit of hypocrisy I have ever seen in the NCAA or by a CFB program.....I don't know what to do! The fact that this hypocrisy is allowed to even exist should tell you something about the system.

 

[gump]

The way Tuberville was handled was a cluster. Did he need to go? Probably. He was getting a lax recruiting and wasn't even trying to compete with Saban in state. His "resigning" could have been handled better, obviously. At least Chizik, as bad a rap as he's gotten so far, is willing to compete with Saban for recruits. He'll lose most battles until he wins games, if he ever wins at all. It's nice to see a little recruiting effort by the staff regardless.

Yea...I always respected Tubs, but he didn't seem to be the right fit for what was needed now.

 

[TidesofWar]

"Non-Eastern" teams recognized for NCs in the years leading up to 1925:1924: ND1923: Illinois, Cal, Michigan1922: Cal1921: Cal, Iowa1920: Cal, ND1919: ND, Illinois, Texas A&M1918: Michigan1917: GT1916: Army1915: OU1914: Texas, Illinois, Army1913: Auburn, Chicago1912: 1911:1910:1909:1908: LSU1907:1906:1905: Chicago1904: Michigan, Minnesota1903: Michigan1902: Michigan1901: MichiganTo me, any real point of demarcation would seem to appear at 1901 or 1913...esp 1901.

Ivy League teams and East Coast teams were considered dominant in the early years, then slowly faded out of real national consideration through the 20s. With the Michigan teams of the early 1900s, Midwestern teams like UM, Illinois, Chicago, ND, etc, became to be considered equals of the east coast powers.Around 1920, or a little before, west coast teams like Cal, Washington, Stanford, and the like started receiving their due as "Powers" - in part due to the Rose Bowl and its influence.The list you quote above does show more Southern influence than I alluded to - but I believe most if not all of the titles attributed to the likes of Auburn, Texas, Ou, etc, were done so retroactively - so it is deceptive to use that list as an indication of how football outside the east, upper midwest, and west coast were viewed.In addition, I know Auburn, OU, Texas, Texas A&M do not officially claim those years as "Championships"

 

[saintsfan]

Well crap....this is the first bit of hypocrisy I have ever seen in the NCAA or by a CFB program.....I don't know what to do! The fact that this hypocrisy is allowed to even exist should tell you something about the system.

What's even funnier is myopic college football fans claiming that if their beloved team won the AP title, they wouldn't claim a national title.If history shows anything, it shows that universities and their fanbases will claim ANYTHING that they think gives them claim on a "championship." Somehow the BCS scheduling mechanism made this go away?? Yeah, OK. At least USC fans are honest.

 

[John Mamula]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

2003 is not a national title for usc, no matter what ESPN says.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matte how wrong it is. I would suggest looking up what the BCS does and does not do. But I am a nice guy so I will save you the trouble. It is not a "title" in and of itself. It is an agreement that arranges bowl games to place the top two BCS rated teams to play each other regardless of previous conference tie ins. It does not replace the AP and coaches poll. It does force the coaches poll to vote the winner of that game as their title winner. It does not force the AP poll to do so, although it is assumed that in most cases they will follow along, and in most years they do. :thumbup;

 

[Ilov80s]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

USC has only two National Championships since 1972....2 during the 60s...none in the 40s and 50s....this argument is losing steam.

The above information is not correct - 1978, 2003, and 2004, and won the 1974 UPI titleIn 1974 USC was 10-1-1, and Oklahoma 11-0 - but UPI did not rate Oklahoma at all, because OU was on probation and banned from post-season play.Personally, I consider OU the true Champ, though USC officially claims their UPI Title, and consider that claim to be a part of the Oklahoma penalty.

The above information is quite correct. I am referring to undisputed National Championships, so split titles aren't included. I guess I forgot to mention that in my criteria...that's okay with you isn't it...I mean using fluid criteria to make a point.

 

[The Commish]

That's my problem...not sure what "era" is for you.

What the hell...... "bump"

 

[kupcho1]

Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

Penn State doesn't count since he's only considering traditional rivals. HTH

 

[bentley]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

 

[bentley]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

It's going to be 58-40-5 after this year. But hey, congrats on finishing ahead of the Horns in the Crimson Farce.

 

[Christo]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

But the helmet has wings!

 

[Christo]

It's going to be 58-40-5 after this year.

Ha!

 

[bentley]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

But the helmet has wings!

I was wondering why Delaware was #23.

 

[wadegarrett]

ETA: can you update the first page?

 

[Ilov80s]

Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

Penn State doesn't count since he's only considering traditional rivals. HTH

True, but for the last 19 years a very good Penn State team has been part of the Big Ten and a regular opponent for Michigan. I was just trying to balance out the perception that Michigan's winning % comes from playing weak teams. If there was a team with a winning % I would challenge, it is USC. They play ND, but there are no other Pac 10 powerhouses. Then they get a home game for every Rose Bowl.

 

[Ilov80s]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

To me intangibles do play a role, especially a game built on history and tradition. He has been taking the time to list traditions of teams and it seems that part has been considered. Check post #1

Finally, I also weigh what I call the tapestry of Collegiate Football - Great Coaches and Players, traditions, influences on the game through its history, and the like.

 

[Moe.]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

It's going to be 58-40-5 after this year. But hey, congrats on finishing ahead of the Horns in the Crimson Farce.

Are they playing at the Cowboys' new stadium this year or still at the Cotton Bowl? I think it's weird that the inaugural game in the new stadium is BYU-OU.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I'm pretty excited...I didn't think Syracuse was going to be a Top 3 team....but here we are...

 

[whoknew]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

I was going to post a funny, sarcastic post demonstrating why Michigan and its alumni are just better than everything and everyone else - but I actually strenuously disagree with your post.One of the things that makes college football great is the pomp, circumstance and tradition. It's what separates NCAA Football from the NFL. Bands, tradition, cheerleaders, tailgaiting, students, uniforms, fight songs - whatever. All of that makes college football what it is. Pageantry matters in college football. It's part of what makes it great.

I'm quite sure the usuals will disagree ---- but they will be wrong on this point.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Hell, as an OU fan I'll take anything in the Top 10 as long as they're ahead of Texas & Nebraska.

What about one out of two?? ETA: Holy crap...NM...I missed Texas at #7

bump for bentley

It's going to be 58-40-5 after this year. But hey, congrats on finishing ahead of the Horns in the Crimson Farce.

Are they playing at the Cowboys' new stadium this year or still at the Cotton Bowl? I think it's weird that the inaugural game in the new stadium is BYU-OU.

If you're referring to Texas-OU, it's staying in the Cotton Bowl, where it should be.Screw Jerry Jones.

 

[bentley]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

I was going to post a funny, sarcastic post demonstrating why Michigan and its alumni are just better than everything and everyone else - but I actually strenuously disagree with your post.One of the things that makes college football great is the pomp, circumstance and tradition. It's what separates NCAA Football from the NFL. Bands, tradition, cheerleaders, tailgaiting, students, uniforms, fight songs - whatever. All of that makes college football what it is. Pageantry matters in college football. It's part of what makes it great.

I'm quite sure the usuals will disagree ---- but they will be wrong on this point.

The Aggies can have all the yell leaders, 12th men, chants, Revilles, military bands and other magical traditions that they want. I prefer beating their ### 70% of the time. Reliance on tradition is a crutch of a losing team.

The reason that those Michigan traditions are known throughout college football is because of their success on the field, not because they're really any better than anyone else's. Iowa State may do some great stuff before games, but nobody knows about it.

Every college football fan is going to think that their traditions are the greatest, so I don't think it's much of a metric. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three non-Longhorn traditions that are synonymous with the spectacle of college football: Notre Dame's fight song, the Florida State flaming spear, and Boomer Sooner finger: to Quentin Griffin).

 

[Christo]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

I was going to post a funny, sarcastic post demonstrating why Michigan and its alumni are just better than everything and everyone else - but I actually strenuously disagree with your post.One of the things that makes college football great is the pomp, circumstance and tradition. It's what separates NCAA Football from the NFL. Bands, tradition, cheerleaders, tailgaiting, students, uniforms, fight songs - whatever. All of that makes college football what it is. Pageantry matters in college football. It's part of what makes it great.

I'm quite sure the usuals will disagree ---- but they will be wrong on this point.

Don't disagree that it's all part of the mystique. But I'll see you with OU's Boomer Sooner, the Sooner Schooner and the Cotton Bowl the first Saturday of October every year. When you get in the rarified air, there's not much difference between the schools.

 

[saintsfan]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

I was going to post a funny, sarcastic post demonstrating why Michigan and its alumni are just better than everything and everyone else - but I actually strenuously disagree with your post.One of the things that makes college football great is the pomp, circumstance and tradition. It's what separates NCAA Football from the NFL. Bands, tradition, cheerleaders, tailgaiting, students, uniforms, fight songs - whatever. All of that makes college football what it is. Pageantry matters in college football. It's part of what makes it great.

I'm quite sure the usuals will disagree ---- but they will be wrong on this point.

The Aggies can have all the yell leaders, 12th men, chants, Revilles, military bands and other magical traditions that they want. I prefer beating their ### 70% of the time. Reliance on tradition is a crutch of a losing team.

The reason that those Michigan traditions are known throughout college football is because of their success on the field, not because they're really any better than anyone else's. Iowa State may do some great stuff before games, but nobody knows about it.

Every college football fan is going to think that their traditions are the greatest, so I don't think it's much of a metric. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three non-Longhorn traditions that are synonymous with the spectacle of college football: Notre Dame's fight song, the Florida State flaming spear, and Boomer Sooner finger: to Quentin Griffin).

Couldn't agree more.Tradition is important, but only if you win and everyone has their own traditions and they are not better than anyone else's.

Except, the food at LSU's tailgaiting is better than anyone else's. That, at least, can be judged objectively.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

I know everyone has already #####ed about Michigan, but I'll join in.

1) Maybe the rest of the Big Ten's winning % are so low because Michigan and tOSU have been sooooo dominant over the last 100 years? Its not like Michigan plays a junk schedule. tOSU and ND are the two biggest rivals and both are among the top 10 programs of all time. Consider that Penn State is in the Big Ten as well, thats a third rival among the top 10 programs ever.

2) Consistency. UofM has won a conf. title in every decade since the 1890s. Of their 129 seasons of football, only 11 losing seasons.

3) Screw the SEC. Michigan has owned the SEC, check the record books...and I'm not just talking in the 1930s. Historically, the only team to really have UM's # is USC (USC is at home every time the teams play).

4) Intangibles: Hail to the Victors, Winged Helmets, and the Big House are 3 of the most recognized, historic, and beloved pieces of college football tradition Find me a beter uniform, better fight song, bigger stadium, or more wins....can't do it.

Hopefully these are meaningless. They have no business in this conversation.

I was going to post a funny, sarcastic post demonstrating why Michigan and its alumni are just better than everything and everyone else - but I actually strenuously disagree with your post.One of the things that makes college football great is the pomp, circumstance and tradition. It's what separates NCAA Football from the NFL. Bands, tradition, cheerleaders, tailgaiting, students, uniforms, fight songs - whatever. All of that makes college football what it is. Pageantry matters in college football. It's part of what makes it great.

I'm quite sure the usuals will disagree ---- but they will be wrong on this point.

The Aggies can have all the yell leaders, 12th men, chants, Revilles, military bands and other magical traditions that they want. I prefer beating their ### 70% of the time. Reliance on tradition is a crutch of a losing team.

The reason that those Michigan traditions are known throughout college football is because of their success on the field, not because they're really any better than anyone else's. Iowa State may do some great stuff before games, but nobody knows about it.

Every college football fan is going to think that their traditions are the greatest, so I don't think it's much of a metric. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three non-Longhorn traditions that are synonymous with the spectacle of college football: Notre Dame's fight song, the Florida State flaming spear, and Boomer Sooner finger: to Quentin Griffin).

I swear to God that little sob greased his effing jersey.

 

[Moe.]

If you're referring to Texas-OU, it's staying in the Cotton Bowl, where it should be.Screw Jerry Jones.

actually I was referring to OU-Texas. Get it right.