Started By
Message
Does the number of championships make one program more “elite” than others?
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:11 pm
Obviously programs like Alabama who claim a championship every year elite status has its foundation laid on the number of rings they have.
But what about teams like Oregon compared to Auburn. Auburn has two more rings than Oregon does, but does that make the Tiger football team more of an “elite” program than the Ducks?
But what about teams like Oregon compared to Auburn. Auburn has two more rings than Oregon does, but does that make the Tiger football team more of an “elite” program than the Ducks?
23
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:14 pm to AshleySchaeffer
it's obviously a big factor. I think all time wins, conference wins, conference titles, etc. also play a major factor as well.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:21 pm to AshleySchaeffer
quote:
does that make the Tiger football team more of an “elite” program than the Ducks?
Yes. As much as it pains me to say it, Auburn is perennial, while Oregon has been just a flash in the pan, and only in the past decade since Chip Kelly raised them from the dead. If your all-time winning percentage is less than 60%, you've been to fewer than 35 bowls, you lost more than half those, and you do not have multiple national championships, you are not elite.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:23 pm to AshleySchaeffer
All-time winning percentage says more about a program overall.
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:25 pm to AshleySchaeffer
quote:
Obviously programs like Alabama.....has its foundation laid on the number of rings they have.
And number of wins, and winning %, and number of conference titles, and number of bowl games, and head to head vs everyone in the league........
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:31 pm to AshleySchaeffer
Other things like overall wins top 25 seasons ect are important too but championships are the most important accomplishment.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:32 pm to AshleySchaeffer
National championships are the only thing that matters. Everything else is meaningless.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:40 pm to NCDawg52
quote:
Everything else is meaningless.
well I certainly don't agree with that, as a measure of comparing 2 programs anyway. Let's look at UGA and AU for comparison. Both schools have 2 "legit" national titles, but for the sake of this exercise let's pretend we only had 1 and they had 2. Or us 5 and them 6, whatever, just them having 1 more than us. We also see that:
-uga has a better all time win %
-uga has more all time wins
-uga has 5 more SEC championships
-uga has been to more bowl games, has more bowl wins, and a better bowl win %
-uga has more weeks being ranked overall
-uga has more weeks being ranked #1
by just about any metric possible relating to winning on the field uga has the edge in every conceivable category. But in this hypothetical AU having 1 more national titles means they're the better program? I just don't buy it. I think if you have 2 programs that are VERY similar across the board in all the important categories then sure, national titles are the trump card. Likewise if team A has a bit of an edge in lots of categoires but team B has like 5 more national titles, that's also a trump card. But the quesiton in teh OP of "what makes a program more elite than another", I don't htink that it's simply "national titles or bust" here.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:45 pm to WG_Dawg
I see what you are saying, but I just think college football is a sport with numerous teams but only one winner.
There is an argument that in the old days of CFB, all the other factors were more important. But, at least since the BCS era, I simply think that nothing but national titles matters and nothing but national titles makes you a national power.
There is an argument that in the old days of CFB, all the other factors were more important. But, at least since the BCS era, I simply think that nothing but national titles matters and nothing but national titles makes you a national power.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:45 pm to AshleySchaeffer
quote:
Does the number of championships make one program more “elite” than others?
Since there's no 'official' definition of "elite", it's all subjective anyway. Anyone can make the case that their team is elite. People may agree or disagree, but no one is 'wrong'.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:48 pm to AshleySchaeffer
I wouldn’t say so. Look at basketball for example. Schools like Oklahoma State and NC State have each won the NCAA tournament twice before but no one considers them to be elite programs.
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:53 pm to AshleySchaeffer
Dumbest question I’ve seen here yet.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:56 pm to AshleySchaeffer
quote:
But what about teams like Oregon compared to Auburn. Auburn has two more rings than Oregon does, but does that make the Tiger football team more of an “elite” program than the Ducks?
Oregon has nice facilities, but Auburn is better in pretty much every other way. (Granted I have no idea what Auburn's facilities look like, but I have seen Oregon's and they will make your eyes pop out)
Posted on 8/8/19 at 2:58 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Both schools have 2 "legit" national titles,
quote:most of these were retroactive
Georgia was named national champion by NCAA-designated major selectors of Berryman, Billingsley, DeVold, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, Sagarin, Sagarin (ELO-Chess), and Williamson
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:00 pm to AshleySchaeffer
quote:
But what about teams like Oregon compared to Auburn.
Probably should use a better example. Oregon football pretty much started in the late 90s
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:05 pm to NCDawg52
quote:
But, at least since the BCS era, I simply think that nothing but national titles matters and nothing but national titles makes you a national power.
The Georgia fans who disagree with you are already putting forth the excuses for when they don't win one in the next decade.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:07 pm to NCDawg52
quote:
National championships are the only thing that matters. Everything else is meaningless.
quote:
Georgia Fan
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:09 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
most of these were retroactive
They started claiming 1942 sometime in the 80s. This seems to upset certain posters.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:15 pm to Korin
Hilariously, 1942 is the year that the entire country was fighting a war except for Georgia, who managed to get draft deferments.
Florida didn't even field a team in 1943 due to losing so many players and staff to the war effort.
Florida didn't even field a team in 1943 due to losing so many players and staff to the war effort.
quote:
The Bulldogs, on the other hand, still had many veteran players thanks to the draft deferments of the players who were enrolled in the University of Georgia's ROTC program
quote:
Florida did not field a team in 1943 due to the lack of available players, for the first and only autumn since the modern University of Florida opened its Gainesville campus in 1906. Florida was one of seven Southeastern Conference schools that did not field a squad during the 1943 season.[119] The 1945 backfield was made up entirely of freshmen.[95] During the war, Tiger Mayberry's fighter plane was shot down over the Pacific and he died in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp; Fergie Ferguson was seriously wounded leading an infantry assault during the D-Day landings in France and died from complications of his injuries ten years later.[120]
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:23 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Hilariously, 1942 is the year that the entire country was fighting a war except for Georgia, who managed to get draft deferments.
Hmm... Florida played 10 games in 1942...
Looks like the majority of the country did as well... SEC schools at the time that finished the season ranked:
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Alabama
Tennessee
Auburn
Mississippi St
All played 9 or more games... odd hill to die on.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News