The TidesofWar Top 25 College Football Programs (7 Viewers)

[the hairy scotsman]

I think you have Pete Carroll goggles on. Prior to him arriving, USC hadn't been a national power since the 70s. Hell, they had a 13 year losing streak against ND and an eight year losing streak against UCLA during that time period.

Believe me, I loved beating USC eight years in a row. I attended every one of those games (UCLA/USC). But every one of the coaches between John Robinson and Pete Carroll had success and managed the Trojans to the Rose Bowl. It's true that they did not, at the end of most years, contend for the National Championship, but they were always a prominent team with all sorts of star players. They were relevant. Much more relevant, I would argue, than the stretch for Oklahoma between between Switzer and Stoops.

Between 1981 and 2001 (21 years) they finished the season unranked more often than they were ranked. And that's giving them credit for a year when they were #25 in one poll and unranked in the other. Give it up. For comparison's sake, I looked at Texas. I'd argue that the 80s and 90s were among the darkest periods in the program's history and they still finished in the top 25 more times than USC did during that period.

...and dude, that David McWilliams/John Mackovick stretch was BLEAK for Texas.

 

[TidesofWar]

I have no ties to the Michigan program (I'm a UCLA fan) but I think they belong in the #1 slot. Notre Dame's been mediocre for the last 20 years, and I think this ought to be considered as a factor. Alabama was a racist program for most of it's existence, and deserves no respect for it's program before around 1970, and it's been pretty mediocre since then. Frankly, they wouldn't make my top 10.

1. Michigan

2. USC

3. Ohio State

4. Notre Dame

5. Oklahoma

6. Nebraska

After these 6, it really drops off.

Programs are not Racist, people are.I bet even some people in your beloved LaLa Land.

You have posted somethings I would like to respond to - but I am off to play a round of Golf, so addressing those things will have to wait till later this afternoon.

The next thing I am addressing is the Golf Ball, in the #1 Tee Box.

Alabama was a racist program by definition, because it did not allow Black players. To Bear Bryant's credit, he was opposed to this, but overruled by the administration. It wasn't until the Tide got whipped by USC and Sam Cunningham that they changed their rules, and that was in 1970, well past the height of the Civil Rights movement. During the years prior to this, I think it's fair to regard Alabama as a great regional team, certainly the best team in the SEC, but a team that was consistently inferior to the best integrated teams of the time, such as Notre Dame, Michigan State, USC etc.

At Tim giving a lecture on Civil Rights and Football in Alabama Let me help set the record straight, so you can speak factually on this matter.

USC beating Alabama 42-21 in Birmingham probably had some influence on some Alabamians attitudes towards integration, but had nothing to do with The University of Alabama integrating its athletics Programs.

Alabama had signed an African-American Basketball player, Wendell Hudson, for the 1969 season.

And when Sam Cunningham played in Legion Field that day in 1970, Alabama had already inked its first Black Football Player - Wilbur Jackson signed on December 13, 1969, and was actually in the stands with other team members to support Alabama against USC.

This whole Sam Cunningham thing borders on an absurd fairy tale. Cunningham had a good game, along the lines of 135 yards and two touchdowns - but saying "He Ran All Over Alabama" is a bit of a stretch. I have seen Bo Jackson and Emmitt Smith do that, but would not classify the Cunningham performance as dominant.

USC was just a better football team.

It amazes me how the USC types and West Coast media liberals like to paint this story as if USC "Came to Birmingham and made the poor, uneducated Alabama rubes see the light, and singlehandedly created a swell that crested with integration"

That is patently false - and is frankly an insult to Wilbur Jackson, who had already signed, was on Campus, and was and IS beloved by Alabama fans. Wilbur was an outstanding running back, who went on to 9 years in the NFL.

Jackson played for San Fran and the Redskins, and owns a Super Bowl Ring he earned with Washington.

In fact, if you want to discuss the implications of racism and bigotry infused in the 1970 Alabama - USC game, there is an interesting bit of racial generalization that comes not from the Southern, but the West Coast perspective.

True Fact - unsure and distrustful about Southern Whites, one black USC player packed a gun into his travel gear, and had it on the sidelines with him during the game.

 

[The Commish]

In fact, if you want to discuss the implications of racism and bigotry infused in the 1970 Alabama - USC game, there is an interesting bit of racial generalization that comes not from the Southern, but the West Coast perspective.True Fact - unsure and distrustful about Southern Whites, one black USC player packed a gun into his travel gear, and had it on the sidelines with him during the game.

So, to be clear, it was the USC player's "racial generalization" that strikes you here? Is the fact that segregation being deemed unconstitutional two whole years prior escaping you? I'd say he had the right to be "unsure and distrustful"

 

[TidesofWar]

In fact, if you want to discuss the implications of racism and bigotry infused in the 1970 Alabama - USC game, there is an interesting bit of racial generalization that comes not from the Southern, but the West Coast perspective.True Fact - unsure and distrustful about Southern Whites, one black USC player packed a gun into his travel gear, and had it on the sidelines with him during the game.

So, to be clear, it was the USC player's "racial generalization" that strikes you here? Is the fact that segregation being deemed unconstitutional two whole years prior escaping you? I'd say he had the right to be "unsure and distrustful"

It also never ceases to amaze me at the generalizations and racial sterotypes of whites that people from other areas of the nation, who have often never spent any meaningful time in the South, have.Amazed, and saddened

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the info Tides. You're relating some stuff that I did not know, and in fact is in direct contradiction to what I thought I did know, which makes either you wrong or my previous sources wrong. But you have piqued my interest and I will look into it.

However, you didn't comment on my main point: Alabama did not integrate until after 1970. I thought it was because of the USC game, but whatever. This means that all the great teams of the 1960's and before were lily white, and I believe that makes them inferior to the great integrated teams of the time, which I think that USC team demonstrated. That along with their relative mediocrity of the last 2 decades (relative only in relation to most of the other teams in your top ten) means I think you have them ranked far too high.

 

[timschochet]

Tides of War is right about Wilbur Jackson. So the story about Sam Cunningham causing the integration of Alabama football is incorrect, though his effect on the public acceptance of Jackson and other Black players is certainly important. Jerry Claiborne, a Bryant assistant, said, "Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King did in 20 years."

1970 still seems like a long time for Alabama to have waited to integrate. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this makes Alabama the last major team in the South to integrate.

 

[TidesofWar]

Thanks for the info Tides. You're relating some stuff that I did not know, and in fact is in direct contradiction to what I thought I did know, which makes either you wrong or my previous sources wrong. But you have piqued my interest and I will look into it. However, you didn't comment on my main point: Alabama did not integrate until after 1970. I thought it was because of the USC game, but whatever. This means that all the great teams of the 1960's and before were lily white, and I believe that makes them inferior to the great integrated teams of the time, which I think that USC team demonstrated. That along with their relative mediocrity of the last 2 decades (relative only in relation to most of the other teams in your top ten) means I think you have them ranked far too high.

I completely disagree - and you do realize that this "Inferior" Program went to LA the next year and beat SC 17-10, right?And to save you the trouble, I am right.If you want, I can provide some links to books or other sources that will prove such.How about this for racism, and sterotypying, while we are "Integrating" such into this thread, apparently.After Coach Bryant retired, Alabama went through a mediocre 1983 and losing 1984 seasons, and fell twice to Boston College and Doug Flutie. The 1983 game was in a snowstorm that caused a power outage in Foxboro, and the 84 game in Birmingham, where a great Flutie performance led BC back from a deficit to win.A couple of year slater, I was in the BC Athletic offices, and noticed they had framed some newspaper accounts of the game.One particular account, I believe by a Globe writer, described in the opening paragraph Alabama fans as "Rednecks" - and went on to use the term several more times in the article.Appalling

 

[gump]

That along with their relative mediocrity of the last 2 decades (relative only in relation to most of the other teams in your top ten) means I think you have them ranked far too high.

Oh...now it's the last 2 decades.

 

[GDogg]

For me, the number of national championships and conference championships is less important than whether or not a team is relevant during any given year. I regard relevance as being in the national championship and conference championship discussion towards the end of the season. In this regard, with the sole exception of last year, Michigan has been relevant every year that I can remember. If you add that to their record of championships in the first half of the 20th century, they are the clear cut #1. No other team is even close to being this consistently relevant.Alabama has had long recent stretches of irrelevancy, and Notre Dame even more so. The most relevant teams of the last 30 years have been USC, Miami, Florida State, Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, and Tennessee. But the Florida schools don't have the long term consistency to be high on this list, and neither do the Vols.

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

 

[gump]

1970 still seems like a long time for Alabama to have waited to integrate. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this makes Alabama the last major team in the South to integrate.

Alabama was the first SEC school to integrate the football team.

 

[timschochet]

1970 still seems like a long time for Alabama to have waited to integrate. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this makes Alabama the last major team in the South to integrate.

Alabama was the first SEC school to integrate the football team.

Wow. Is this really true? This is even a bigger embarrassment than I thought (not for Alabama, for the entire SEC). You're telling me that it wasn't until the early or mid 1970s that the rest of the SEC integrated?

 

[gump]

1970 still seems like a long time for Alabama to have waited to integrate. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this makes Alabama the last major team in the South to integrate.

Alabama was the first SEC school to integrate the football team.

Wow. Is this really true? This is even a bigger embarrassment than I thought (not for Alabama, for the entire SEC). You're telling me that it wasn't until the early or mid 1970s that the rest of the SEC integrated?

It is true. You're guess was close though.You probably had the thought because Alabama is the face of Southern Football...which should cement their place among the top programs in the country.

 

[timschochet]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

SC went to 2 Rose Bowls and several other Bowls in the 90's. A couple of top 5 finishes.Oklahoma did fine under Gibbs, not so fine under Schnellenberger and Blake. Neither school performed as well as they had done previously or now. But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

 

[whoknew]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

If by that you mean they weren't an outstanding, top tier University nestled in one of America's great cities with lots of beautiful co-eds around - a place where all American high school students long to attend - then yes, I'd have to agree. They weren't Vanderbilt.

 

[timschochet]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

If by that you mean they weren't an outstanding, top tier University nestled in one of America's great cities with lots of beautiful co-eds around - a place where all American high school students long to attend - then yes, I'd have to agree. They weren't Vanderbilt.

I guess I need to watch who I'm ripping here. I'm sure it's a great school. It's been a lousy football school in it's history, despite a very good year here and there. That's all I was saying.

 

[whoknew]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

If by that you mean they weren't an outstanding, top tier University nestled in one of America's great cities with lots of beautiful co-eds around - a place where all American high school students long to attend - then yes, I'd have to agree. They weren't Vanderbilt.

I guess I need to watch who I'm ripping here. I'm sure it's a great school. It's been a lousy football school in it's history, despite a very good year here and there. That's all I was saying.

I was just joking. No worries. The Commodores are back, though! Music City Bowl Champions!

 

[GDogg]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

SC went to 2 Rose Bowls and several other Bowls in the 90's. A couple of top 5 finishes.Oklahoma did fine under Gibbs, not so fine under Schnellenberger and Blake. Neither school performed as well as they had done previously or now. But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

No, they weren't. SC was more like East Carolina or Southern Miss. Or even your hated UCLA Bruins. SC had the 5th highest winning % in the 90s among Pac-10 teams. They never finished in the Top 5 in the 90s. They finished #20 in 1990, #13 in 1994 and #12 in 1995. They were unranked in the other seven seasons during the 90s.Oklahoma was more like Louisiana Tech or Mississippi St. Oklahoma had the 6th highest winning % in the 90s among current Big 12 teams. Oklahoma finished ranked #17 in 1990, #16 in 1991, #17 in 1993, and #24 in 1997.

 

[timschochet]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

SC went to 2 Rose Bowls and several other Bowls in the 90's. A couple of top 5 finishes.Oklahoma did fine under Gibbs, not so fine under Schnellenberger and Blake.

Neither school performed as well as they had done previously or now. But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

No, they weren't. SC was more like East Carolina or Southern Miss. Or even your hated UCLA Bruins. SC had the 5th highest winning % in the 90s among Pac-10 teams. They never finished in the Top 5 in the 90s. They finished #20 in 1990, #13 in 1994 and #12 in 1995. They were unranked in the other seven seasons during the 90s.Oklahoma was more like Louisiana Tech or Mississippi St. Oklahoma had the 6th highest winning % in the 90s among current Big 12 teams. Oklahoma finished ranked #17 in 1990, #16 in 1991, #17 in 1993, and #24 in 1997.

It's beloved UCLA Bruins. USC is the one I hate. Why can't we return to the 90's?

 

[GDogg]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

SC went to 2 Rose Bowls and several other Bowls in the 90's. A couple of top 5 finishes.Oklahoma did fine under Gibbs, not so fine under Schnellenberger and Blake.

Neither school performed as well as they had done previously or now. But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

No, they weren't. SC was more like East Carolina or Southern Miss. Or even your hated UCLA Bruins. SC had the 5th highest winning % in the 90s among Pac-10 teams. They never finished in the Top 5 in the 90s. They finished #20 in 1990, #13 in 1994 and #12 in 1995. They were unranked in the other seven seasons during the 90s.Oklahoma was more like Louisiana Tech or Mississippi St. Oklahoma had the 6th highest winning % in the 90s among current Big 12 teams. Oklahoma finished ranked #17 in 1990, #16 in 1991, #17 in 1993, and #24 in 1997.

It's beloved UCLA Bruins. USC is the one I hate. Why can't we return to the 90's?

Oh. It was tough for me to tell.

 

[TidesofWar]

SC was not good for pretty much the entire decade of the 90s. Oklahoma was also not very good for pretty much that entire decade.

SC went to 2 Rose Bowls and several other Bowls in the 90's. A couple of top 5 finishes.Oklahoma did fine under Gibbs, not so fine under Schnellenberger and Blake.

Neither school performed as well as they had done previously or now. But they weren't exactly Vanderbilt, either.

No, they weren't. SC was more like East Carolina or Southern Miss. Or even your hated UCLA Bruins. SC had the 5th highest winning % in the 90s among Pac-10 teams. They never finished in the Top 5 in the 90s. They finished #20 in 1990, #13 in 1994 and #12 in 1995. They were unranked in the other seven seasons during the 90s.Oklahoma was more like Louisiana Tech or Mississippi St. Oklahoma had the 6th highest winning % in the 90s among current Big 12 teams. Oklahoma finished ranked #17 in 1990, #16 in 1991, #17 in 1993, and #24 in 1997.

It's beloved UCLA Bruins. USC is the one I hate. Why can't we return to the 90's?

Oh. It was tough for me to tell.

Yeah - Tim just Hates God and The SouthRoll Tide Tim

 

[timschochet]

Yeah - Tim just Hates God and The SouthRoll Tide Tim

I notice the way you write that, it sounds like they're connected!For what it's worth, I don't hate God, nor people that believe in God. I certainly don't hate the South. It is the home of most of my favorite authors, and I can't wait to visit there, especially South Carolina, Lousiana, Tennessee, and Virginia. (I've been to Orlando- do you consider that to be the South?)As far as the Tide go, I root neither for or against. But I am rooting for them strongly this year to crush Tennessee, because I hate Lane Kiffin. Do you think my Bruins have a shot against Tennessee? (Sept 12)

 

[The Commish]

Lot's of pretty damn bad fishing broke out eh??

 

[TidesofWar]

Yeah - Tim just Hates God and The South

Roll Tide Tim

As far as the Tide go, I root neither for or against. But I am rooting for them strongly this year to crush Tennessee, because I hate Lane Kiffin. Do you think my Bruins have a shot against Tennessee? (Sept 12)

I sure as Hell hope so - GO BRUINS!!!

 

[GDogg]

Yeah - Tim just Hates God and The South

Roll Tide Tim

As far as the Tide go, I root neither for or against. But I am rooting for them strongly this year to crush Tennessee, because I hate Lane Kiffin. Do you think my Bruins have a shot against Tennessee? (Sept 12)

I sure as Hell hope so - GO BRUINS!!!

Especially since Tennessee doesn't have any WRs.

 

[bentley]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

 

[whoknew]

- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.

I don't think this fact is limited to ND, right? I'm not sure about other conferences or bowls but I know that prior to about 1975 or 76 the Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to a bowl game - the Rose Bowl. And even then there were weird rules because, for example, MI won the Big Ten in '47, '48, '49 (tied) and '50 but only went to a bowl game in 1950. Not exactly sure how that worked.

 

[GDogg]

- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.

I don't think this fact is limited to ND, right? I'm not sure about other conferences or bowls but I know that prior to about 1975 or 76 the Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to a bowl game - the Rose Bowl. And even then there were weird rules because, for example, MI won the Big Ten in '47, '48, '49 (tied) and '50 but only went to a bowl game in 1950. Not exactly sure how that worked.

It may have been because of the "no repeat" rule that was in effect for the Rose Bowl for both the Pac-10 and the Big 10. It's a big part of the reason UCLA split their only national title. They weren't eligible for the Rose Bowl that year because they'd gone the previous year.

 

[Christo]

- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.

I don't think this fact is limited to ND, right? I'm not sure about other conferences or bowls but I know that prior to about 1975 or 76 the Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to a bowl game - the Rose Bowl. And even then there were weird rules because, for example, MI won the Big Ten in '47, '48, '49 (tied) and '50 but only went to a bowl game in 1950. Not exactly sure how that worked.

It may have been because of the "no repeat" rule that was in effect for the Rose Bowl for both the Pac-10 and the Big 10. It's a big part of the reason UCLA split their only national title. They weren't eligible for the Rose Bowl that year because they'd gone the previous year.

AP & UPI put out their final polls before the bowl games the 50s.

 

[GDogg]

- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.

I don't think this fact is limited to ND, right? I'm not sure about other conferences or bowls but I know that prior to about 1975 or 76 the Big Ten only allowed its champion to go to a bowl game - the Rose Bowl. And even then there were weird rules because, for example, MI won the Big Ten in '47, '48, '49 (tied) and '50 but only went to a bowl game in 1950. Not exactly sure how that worked.

It may have been because of the "no repeat" rule that was in effect for the Rose Bowl for both the Pac-10 and the Big 10. It's a big part of the reason UCLA split their only national title. They weren't eligible for the Rose Bowl that year because they'd gone the previous year.

AP & UPI put out their final polls before the bowl games the 50s.

Don't be confused. It was clearly an error in UCLA fan folklore that has been passed down. You are correct.In any case, UCLA got screwed.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

 

[GDogg]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

Are you sure you follow UCLA?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

Are you sure you follow UCLA?

My mother, father, brother, and wife all attended UCLA. I went to UCI, but we don't have a football team. I've been going to home games at the Rose Bowl (and before that the Colisseum) since I was 4 years old. There was a time when I never missed a home game, but since the birth of my children I can't say that anymore. Still, I go to 1 or 2 every year, and NEVER miss the UCLA/USC game. I have personally witnessed some great classics there. Last year was the worst UCLA team I can remember. Kevin Craft was without doubt the worst starting QB we have ever had at UCLA. And the loss to BYU (59-0) was the most embarrassing loss in UCLA history, IMO.

 

[TidesofWar]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

The reason I did not incorporate All-American and Heisman selections is because the media bias skews it even more to the advantage of the Midwest and West Coast teams. Paul Hornung???How can Alabama be rated even with Tennessee??? That alone shows the idea is flawed.Alabama trumps UT in National Titles, Conference titles, wins, winning percentage, Bowls, and Bowl wins - yet they end up tied?? No way.Quite clear the 60 and 20 year windows were agenda driven All Time Is All Time - and ND, Bama, and USC have best shown an ability to win big throughout history. But ND is in danger of sliding down.I stand by my list

 

[GDogg]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

Are you sure you follow UCLA?

My mother, father, brother, and wife all attended UCLA. I went to UCI, but we don't have a football team. I've been going to home games at the Rose Bowl (and before that the Colisseum) since I was 4 years old. There was a time when I never missed a home game, but since the birth of my children I can't say that anymore. Still, I go to 1 or 2 every year, and NEVER miss the UCLA/USC game. I have personally witnessed some great classics there. Last year was the worst UCLA team I can remember. Kevin Craft was without doubt the worst starting QB we have ever had at UCLA. And the loss to BYU (59-0) was the most embarrassing loss in UCLA history, IMO.

Fair enough, but you really seem to either not recognize, know or not remember anything positive about UCLA. You seem to gush over SC. It's almost like the posts I see from you with the Lakers and Celtics.The Bruins have had a rough decade and an up and down 90's. But, the four decades prior to that were pretty damn good.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

Are you sure you follow UCLA?

My mother, father, brother, and wife all attended UCLA. I went to UCI, but we don't have a football team. I've been going to home games at the Rose Bowl (and before that the Colisseum) since I was 4 years old. There was a time when I never missed a home game, but since the birth of my children I can't say that anymore. Still, I go to 1 or 2 every year, and NEVER miss the UCLA/USC game. I have personally witnessed some great classics there. Last year was the worst UCLA team I can remember. Kevin Craft was without doubt the worst starting QB we have ever had at UCLA. And the loss to BYU (59-0) was the most embarrassing loss in UCLA history, IMO.

Fair enough, but you really seem to either not recognize, know or not remember anything positive about UCLA. You seem to gush over SC. It's almost like the posts I see from you with the Lakers and Celtics.The Bruins have had a rough decade and an up and down 90's. But, the four decades prior to that were pretty damn good.

I'm not gushing over USC. I find myself a little defensive at times over what I consider an anti West Coast bias. But if you read through this thread, my main defense has been for Michigan. It's the Wolverines that I believe are the #1 football program of all time. UCLA has the best basketball program of all time, and I will argue that against any silly Kentucky, North Carolina, or Duke fans.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

Great job Bentley, thanks! Love the method (although I would have found a way to get Penn State ahead of Tennessee. I mean, come on.) Alabama and Notre Dame seem a little lower than they should be, but I think they're probably the two most over-exposed programs, so that makes some sense.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I think you have Pete Carroll goggles on. Prior to him arriving, USC hadn't been a national power since the 70s. Hell, they had a 13 year losing streak against ND and an eight year losing streak against UCLA during that time period.

Believe me, I loved beating USC eight years in a row. I attended every one of those games (UCLA/USC). But every one of the coaches between John Robinson and Pete Carroll had success and managed the Trojans to the Rose Bowl. It's true that they did not, at the end of most years, contend for the National Championship, but they were always a prominent team with all sorts of star players. They were relevant. Much more relevant, I would argue, than the stretch for Oklahoma between between Switzer and Stoops.

Between 1981 and 2001 (21 years) they finished the season unranked more often than they were ranked. And that's giving them credit for a year when they were #25 in one poll and unranked in the other. Give it up. For comparison's sake, I looked at Texas. I'd argue that the 80s and 90s were among the darkest periods in the program's history and they still finished in the top 25 more times than USC did during that period.

Absolutely mind-boggling.

You know what? I'm not going to argue with you guys.

 

[TidesofWar]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

Great job Bentley, thanks! Love the method (although I would have found a way to get Penn State ahead of Tennessee. I mean, come on.) Alabama and Notre Dame seem a little lower than they should be, but I think they're probably the two most over-exposed programs, so that makes some sense.

Alabama has more wins, a better winning percentage, more bowls, equal bowl wins, more National Championships, and a better winning percentage than #1 USC. There is far too much weight here in All-Americans and Heisman trophys.

 

[gump]

There is far too much weight here in All-Americans and Heisman trophys.

"At Alabama our players do not Heisman Trophies, our teams win championships."

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

Great job Bentley, thanks! Love the method (although I would have found a way to get Penn State ahead of Tennessee. I mean, come on.) Alabama and Notre Dame seem a little lower than they should be, but I think they're probably the two most over-exposed programs, so that makes some sense.

Alabama has more wins, a better winning percentage, more bowls, equal bowl wins, more National Championships, and a better winning percentage than #1 USC. There is far too much weight here in All-Americans and Heisman trophys.

And yet Notre Dame is pretty far down and they are the poster child for undeserved Heisman's and All-Americans. I thought his categories were right on. And he said he gave double credit for National Titles. Bentley, do you have the scores from each category?

 

[The Commish]

The reason I did not incorporate All-American and Heisman selections is because the media bias skews it even more to the advantage of the Midwest and West Coast teams. Paul Hornung???

How can Alabama be rated even with Tennessee??? That alone shows the idea is flawed.

Alabama trumps UT in National Titles, Conference titles, wins, winning percentage, Bowls, and Bowl wins - yet they end up tied?? No way.

Quite clear the 60 and 20 year windows were agenda driven

All Time Is All Time - and ND, Bama, and USC have best shown an ability to win big throughout history. But ND is in danger of sliding down.

I stand by my list

But you are perfectly fine with putting so much weight on "championships" that are just as skewed if not moreso by the media?? Do you really need to see more evidence of the "polls" being nothing more than a popularity contest?

 

[The Commish]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

FWIW....I appreciate the effort here bentley I would have done things similarly. Probably not put as much weight on championships, and done another winn % at 80 years and maybe weighted All-Americans over Heisman winners a little bit. Good job

 

[gump]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

 

[The Commish]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

 

[bentley]

Appreciate the effort here even if I don't agree. I'm more of a ranking guy though, than just a general idea guy, when it comes to explaining my methods. So I'd love to find time to put all the things we would consider in something like this, such as wins, MNCs, tradition, All-Americans, NFL Players, defined success in different eras, etc, into a spreadsheet, weigh the categories and then rank the programs. That may lead to the same result as here, but I'd feel better about reading it.

OK. So I was bored this evening because the baby is actually sleeping and did this. I'd appreciate feedback and reserve the right to bump this in the morning if nobody's responded.Here are the categories I used.-Wins (All Time)-Win% (All Time)-Win% (Last 60 Years)-Win% (Last 20 Years)-Consensus All Americans-Heisman Trophy Winners-College Football Data Warehouse National Titles (This seemed like a neutral source better than "claimed" titles by schools)-Bowl Games Played-Bowl Games WonI took the top 30 (and ties) in each of these categories and assigned them points 30-1. I gave double credit for national titles since it seemed out of balance with the other categories to me.Here's the top 30.1. Southern Cal 2592. Oklahoma 2553. Michigan 2524. Ohio State 2525. Texas 2466. Nebraska 2457. Notre Dame 2328. Alabama 2079. Tennessee 20710. Penn State 20411. Georgia 18512. Florida 18213. Miami (FL) 16614. Florida State 15815. LSU 15716. Auburn 15117. Georgia Tech 10418. Texas A&M 10419. Pittsburgh 9320. Army 7921. Colorado 7922. Minnesota 7623. Arkansas 6824. UCLA 6525. Syracuse 6326. Washington 5927. Clemson 5428. West Virginia 5429. Boise State 5230. Mississippi 51My quick observations:- Notre Dame would have been #1 if they'd played in bowl games throughout their history.- Army was really good in the 40s. The national titles and Heisman Trophies from that decade alone put them in the top 30.- I'm surprised Alabama didn't rate out higher. They were low in all the win and win% categories along with the individual player categories. They excelled only in national titles and bowl games.- Boise State has a pretty sweet all-time win%.Others receiving votes:BYU, Virginia Tech, Illinois, California, Navy, Arizona St, Miami-Ohio, Michigan St, SMU, Stanford, TCU, Boston College, Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma St, North Carolina, Central Michigan, Houston, Oregon St, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Southern Miss, Oregon, Fresno State, Marshall, Utah, Missouri, Kansas State, South Florida, NC State, Toledo, Bowling Green, Virginia

Great job Bentley, thanks! Love the method (although I would have found a way to get Penn State ahead of Tennessee. I mean, come on.) Alabama and Notre Dame seem a little lower than they should be, but I think they're probably the two most over-exposed programs, so that makes some sense.

Alabama has more wins, a better winning percentage, more bowls, equal bowl wins, more National Championships, and a better winning percentage than #1 USC. There is far too much weight here in All-Americans and Heisman trophys.

And yet Notre Dame is pretty far down and they are the poster child for undeserved Heisman's and All-Americans. I thought his categories were right on. And he said he gave double credit for National Titles. Bentley, do you have the scores from each category?

Thanks for the feedback.The data's on my home computer, but I can post it tonight.ToW - I think you did a great job, and as a former student at the University of Texas (along with just about every other school in central Texas), I can assure you that I have no bias in favor of the other UT.I used "Last 60 Years" because of some discussion in this thread about when the "modern era" of college football started. I used "Last 20 Years" because it is harder to win these days with scholarship restrictions and such. I struggled the most with this one. I could have just as easily used Last 25 or Last 30.Since it's all in Excel, if y'all keep talking, I'll keep thinking about making revisions. The Last 20 vs. 25 vs. 30 is something I'm particularly interested in.

 

[Christo]

Thanks for the work, Bentley. I'm rather amazed my Bruins made that list. I suppose it's because of the streak of Bowl games they won with Terry Donahue.

Are you sure you follow UCLA?

Given his contributions to the thread I'm not sure he even knows that college football exists.

 

[gump]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

I think you can see where I'm going. Miami gets 'individual' credit for Gino Toretta, but Alabama gets none for Bear Bryant.

 

[The Commish]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

I think you can see where I'm going. Miami gets 'individual' credit for Gino Toretta, but Alabama gets none for Bear Bryant.

What awards did he win that you feel are worthy of consideration? Why is it so hard for people to answer questions around here?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

I think you can see where I'm going. Miami gets 'individual' credit for Gino Toretta, but Alabama gets none for Bear Bryant.

What awards did he win that you feel are worthy of consideration? Why is it so hard for people to answer questions around here?

Because they're hiding something?

 

[gump]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

I think you can see where I'm going. Miami gets 'individual' credit for Gino Toretta, but Alabama gets none for Bear Bryant.

What awards did he win that you feel are worthy of consideration? Why is it so hard for people to answer questions around here?

AFCA, Paul Bryant award, etc...I see no difference between that and a Heisman. Not to mention the logic behind giving a program credit for Andre Ware and none for Joe Paterno.