Started By
Message
re: Is Ohio State the most underachieving program of all time?
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:48 am to themetalreb
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:48 am to themetalreb
Hate to say it but I would put Mizzou up for this. Last football Conference Title was 1969. Only D-I program in a state with 2 major cities.
0
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:57 am to themetalreb
Of the bluebloods (or the ones called bluebloods)
I would say
Michigan (2 NC since 1948, 48 and 97)
Texas (4 NC all-time)
would fit the bill
Georgia is not a national powerhouse, more like tier two.
I would say
Michigan (2 NC since 1948, 48 and 97)
Texas (4 NC all-time)
would fit the bill
Georgia is not a national powerhouse, more like tier two.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 7:59 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
Well, 6 of those NC were before 1970. If OSU has been AP #1 so many times, why so few NCs?
I do not think OSU is the most underachieving program, but that fact puts an interesting spin on it.
That must be one hell of a list you have for the elite teams. Who you got above Ohio State historically?
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:02 am to TideFaninFl
I had Georgia because the state is rich in talent, they have had really good squads dating back to Dooley. Even Goff had a couple of number one recruiting classes. I think it qualifies as underachievers. But your point is very valid.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:03 am to bamameister
quote:
That must be one hell of a list you have for the elite teams. Who you got above Ohio State historically?
It is not that, it is the fact that OSU has had so many weeks at AP #1 you would think they would have closed the deal more.
However, since you asked, I would put Alabama, USCw and Oklahoma above OSU.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:06 am to TideFaninFl
Spurrier for all he did, likely underachieved. He either won or played for the sec just about every year and only got 1 National title out of it.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:14 am to pirate75
quote:
You could swap Georgia for Texas and still be correct.
Or Auburn. I mean you obviously have the same advantages and disadvantages as Alabama, yet they have 16 National Championships and Auburn has two. And Auburn was on probation for paying players for their first NC and investigated during the second one, so, my vote is your team.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:16 am to lewis and herschel
Yep, I'd throw FSU/Bowden in there. Crazy that a private school in south Florida did better on the national level.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:19 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
It is not that, it is the fact that OSU has had so many weeks at AP #1 you would think they would have closed the deal more.
However, since you asked, I would put Alabama, USCw and Oklahoma above OSU.
So you have Ohio State at #4 all-time in college football in your rankings and they've underachieved?
125 years of pure politics and nothing less than a beauty contest during the so-called "bowl era" in picking national champions in college football, and they are the poster child of underachieving?
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:19 am to themetalreb
I would say Georgia and Texas. We have to remember a few things about Georgia though:
- The state wasn't what it is now as far as talent and population 30 years ago
- Until Kirby there wasn't the true institutional support like you have at places like Alabama and Ohio State
- Take the greatest coach of all time out of the picture and Georgia likely has 1 or 2 championships right along with Ohio State and LSU
- The state wasn't what it is now as far as talent and population 30 years ago
- Until Kirby there wasn't the true institutional support like you have at places like Alabama and Ohio State
- Take the greatest coach of all time out of the picture and Georgia likely has 1 or 2 championships right along with Ohio State and LSU
This post was edited on 10/21/21 at 8:24 am
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:21 am to themetalreb
If the mutts don't win it all this year, they take the top spot from OSU.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:37 am to pirate75
quote:
You could swap Georgia for Texas and still be correct.
I am mixed on this. The floor of underachievement for the Dawgs seems a bit higher. They have never lost to a Kansas for instance.
That being said, Kirby has consistently recruited at a more elite level than the best of Mack Brown squads and they have achieved less.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:40 am to TideFaninFl
quote:
Of the bluebloods (or the ones called bluebloods)
I would say
Michigan (2 NC since 1948, 48 and 97)
Texas (4 NC all-time)
would fit the bill
Georgia is not a national powerhouse, more like tier two.
This is why the concept of a blue blood is just dumb. Any program having to look back multiple decades for real success is probably past its historical prime.
It is like saying Xerox was once a great company and could be again because of all the cash flow it generated in the 1980s. Meanwhile Amazon. Alphabet, and Microsoft roll up the world.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 8:44 am to Windy City
quote:
This is why the concept of a blue blood is just dumb. Any program having to look back multiple decades for real success is probably past its historical prime.
Then what is the definition of college football "real success?"
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:08 am to bamameister
quote:
Then what is the definition of college football "real success?"
LOL, an Aggie wouldn't even know where to begin answering this question.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:18 am to RedDirtSooner
quote:
LOL, an Aggie wouldn't even know where to begin answering this question.
You know, it was pretty funny watching ex-Sooner Charles Thompson cheer his team on in the Texas stands. It is a good reminder that unless the Sooners keep their full-on illegal benefits, raping, drug dealing culture in overdrive they will quickly shrink to irrelevance ala Miami and Nebraska.
I will give Stoops his one title . . .the whole Switzer regime is basically deserving of a war crimes tribunal and the NCAA was as usual a bunch of self-dealing poons taking SMU to the graveyard while ignoring even worse behavior up in Norman.
Stepping down from the Soapbox now. My dad did go to OU and promised me that the Bud Wilkinson regime was really something in the 1950s.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:24 am to bamameister
Either Georgia or Texas is the correct answer. The premier Universities in their respective states with rich recruiting grounds. The argument that it is Georgia could be even greater considering Texas has to has other in-state schools they have to battle in recruiting.
Texas has a money advantage yet they still suck. Texas does have a better winning percentage all time than Georgia does.
I don't think anyone can put Ohio State in this conversation. I think they have the highest all time winning percentage and 8 national titles.
Texas has a money advantage yet they still suck. Texas does have a better winning percentage all time than Georgia does.
I don't think anyone can put Ohio State in this conversation. I think they have the highest all time winning percentage and 8 national titles.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:25 am to Windy City
Solid melt.
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:28 am to themetalreb
Texas
Posted on 10/21/21 at 9:31 am to bamameister
quote:
Then what is the definition of college football "real success?"
Fair question . . . .given how much the game has changed and how much the college landscape has changed, it doesn't seem all that smart to reward programs that achieved success 3-4 decades ago and have since been fairly mediocre.
I think what gets people is the narrowness or ancient nature of certain stats waived around to justify the blueblood term.
For example, you would agree that comparing Alabama to Michigan is not the same as comparing Alabama to Ohio State? Michigan's last national title was in 1997 and it had not won one prior since 1948 prior. Meatchicken has not won a conference title since 2004.
They are similar to the Longhorns in that they had a real ascendant 20 year stretch under bo Schembechler mainly and that accounts for nearly all their post-WWII success. They have been flat to down ever since. Texas was that way with Darrell Royal.
Almost all the stats outside of that occurs from pre-1950 which seems all but irrelevant. Army was a world-beater then.
So I guess it is long-term consistency that matters most in my mind. Winning consistently through all the various decades and periods of college football.
That is what separates Ohio State as a true blue-blood as compared to a Nebraska or Michigan.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News