quote:

No offense, but I don't agree.

Bama has a national title in 1992, that is on another planet from where Clemson was four years ago or where A&M is today.

Plus Bama is one of those brands that needs a fifty year gap to take it down a peg. I wouldn't call Notre Dame a sleeping giant for the same reason, it is a program that anyone anywhere thinks could POSSIBLY win a national title.

Programs like A&M or Clemson in 2013 have people who deny its even possible to win a national title. That makes it hard to convince recruits it can happen and to sign with you over some other program

I am offended, so I guess we're meeting behind Sonic. Just a warning, I'm a master of that Israeli martial art thing. The krav magneb? The crab mabed? Whatever it's called, I'm a 98.6 degree black belt.

My point is, there are always reasons why a particular program rises or falls, but the factors for a program becoming top-tier are pretty consistent. Yes, Bama and ND have history, but so do Army and Minnesota. There will always be reasons why a given program falls, never to rise again. Bama's return to the top was in no way inevitable. They could just as easily be mired in Tennessee-like mediocrity still. ND's recent renaissance (such as it is) also had to depend on pieces falling into place because one of the major reasons for their historical success was also one of the major (and generally irreversible) reasons for their decline, i.e. their national appeal was no longer unique to them in modern college athletics and communications.) There will always be blue-bloods that can't hack it any longer (see UTk_) and sleeping giants that can. Relying too heavily on history and tradition to define the tiers leads to Nebraska.