Started By
Message
Historically underachieving programs
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:03 pm
Obviously aTm is #1.
I’d say UCLA is #2. Why can’t a team in LA do more?
I’d say UCLA is #2. Why can’t a team in LA do more?
8
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:04 pm to Dude88
How is A&M #1 when Miss State exists?
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:07 pm to Dude88
Georgia. In a world that made sense, Georgia ought to be what Alabama is.
Posted on 10/17/19 at 11:11 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Va Tech-talent in tidewater area is legit and uva is the Vanderbilt in that state.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 12:10 am to Dude88
VANDERBILT & RICE come to mind before any others
Posted on 10/18/19 at 12:12 am to Dude88
It makes sense for say A&M has underachieved from 98-now, in general, but we were pretty good in the late 80s and 90s. Go too far before that we’re underachieved some but then you keep going and we’re this small all male military type school.
You layout where we sit historically and it’s top 20. Maybe we underachieved some, but far from #1.
You layout where we sit historically and it’s top 20. Maybe we underachieved some, but far from #1.
This post was edited on 10/18/19 at 12:13 am
Posted on 10/18/19 at 12:15 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
Georgia. In a world that made sense, Georgia ought to be what Alabama is.
Same could be said forLSU. Tulane & Georgia Tech left the SEC in the mid 60s,two.
years apart. What in-state competition was left for LSU & UGA?
Posted on 10/18/19 at 1:06 am to Dude88
Lol we hired the Butch Jones of Penn State and still somehow won 8 games. We'll be fun witha. Competent coach
Posted on 10/18/19 at 1:24 am to Dude88
Texas A&M, UCLA, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon fit the billing of underachieving. Each should have more accolades, some even at least one national title if not more, and have completely bit the dust in that category.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 1:29 am to Oklahomey
quote:
Texas A&M, UCLA, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon fit the billing of underachieving. Each should have more accolades, some even at least one national title if not more, and have completely bit the dust in that category.
Honestly the State of Texas as they have only won one NC since 1970. All that talent, and one in 50 years?
Posted on 10/18/19 at 1:29 am to Oklahomey
quote:
Texas A&M, UCLA, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon fit the billing of underachieving. Each should have more accolades, some even at least one national title if not more, and have completely bit the dust in that category.
Know how I know your college football knowledge started after 2000?
Posted on 10/18/19 at 1:33 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
Honestly the State of Texas as they have only won one NC since 1970. All that talent, and one in 50 years?
The talent is too spread out.
A&M, UT, Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU. And for most of college football history they all played against each other in the same conference.
No on program has ever been able to really establish itself as THE college football program of the state, to the point where top talent just naturally gravitates to one campus, or even to two.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 2:01 am to Krampus
quote:
The talent is too spread out
Not really buying that.
Couldn't the same be said about California and the multiple in state schools? Not to mention other schools that rely on CA talent.Yet USC has multiple NC's
Oklahoma has also won NC's in that 50 year time frame with tons of talent from Texas.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 5:44 am to Krampus
quote:
No on program has ever been able to really establish itself as THE college football program of the state, to the point where top talent just naturally gravitates to one campus, or even to two.
bullshite.
Texas is the premiere program and they have underachieved. They should be at least on OU’s level historically.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 6:14 am to Rip N Lip
quote:
Same could be said forLSU. Tulane & Georgia Tech left the SEC in the mid 60s,two.
years apart. What in-state competition was left for LSU & UGA?
I agree. Underachieving doesn’t mean you are not winning the NC every season... but no reason for UGA and LSU to have losing seasons like they did in the 90’s.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 6:38 am to Dude88
A&M
Texas
Georgia
UCLA
Michigan since 1949
Penn State
Maryland
North Carolina
Oregon with all of that Nike money can't get a championship
Texas
Georgia
UCLA
Michigan since 1949
Penn State
Maryland
North Carolina
Oregon with all of that Nike money can't get a championship
Posted on 10/18/19 at 6:44 am to GeauxTigerNation
quote:
How is A&M #1 when Miss State exists?
Because no one thinks Miss State has a high ceiling. They achieve to their capabilities.
UCLA was once a player. Moo U, not so much.
Posted on 10/18/19 at 6:50 am to Krampus
You nailed it...Too many damn schools in TX.
A few examples:
Baylor- Mike Singletary ; RGIII
SMU- Eric Dickerson ; Jerry Ball
Tech- Mahomes ; Crabtree
UH- Andre Ware ; Ed Oliver
TCU- L. Tomlinson ; A. Dalton
That's 3 HOFers, 2 Heisman trophies and NFL MVPs at the "other schools" in TX....
If the State of Texas only had 2 or 3 major schools instead of 8 and those guys only go to UT or A&M then there might be more CFB NC's in-state.
Notice how UF, FSU, The U have all been less competitive since UCF, USF, FAU and FIU have come along
A few examples:
Baylor- Mike Singletary ; RGIII
SMU- Eric Dickerson ; Jerry Ball
Tech- Mahomes ; Crabtree
UH- Andre Ware ; Ed Oliver
TCU- L. Tomlinson ; A. Dalton
That's 3 HOFers, 2 Heisman trophies and NFL MVPs at the "other schools" in TX....
If the State of Texas only had 2 or 3 major schools instead of 8 and those guys only go to UT or A&M then there might be more CFB NC's in-state.
Notice how UF, FSU, The U have all been less competitive since UCF, USF, FAU and FIU have come along
This post was edited on 10/18/19 at 7:50 am
Posted on 10/18/19 at 6:50 am to LB84
quote:
Oregon with all of that Nike money can't get a championship
This has surprised me for quite some time now.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News