College Football Off-Season and into 2010

[Rhom]

Continuing the discussion on the hierarchy of college football coaching jobs/programs; on another message board, someone posted this list.

Below is a list of all of the CFBDW recognized national championships from 1869-present.

School Championships Seasons

Princeton 26 1869, 1870, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1889, 1893, 1896, 1898, 1899, 1903, 1906, 1911, 1920, 1922, 1933, 1935

Yale 18 1874, 1876, 1877, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1900, 1907, 1909, 1927

Notre Dame 13 1919, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1977, 1988

Alabama 12 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009

Michigan 11 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1918, 1923, 1932, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997

USC 10 1928, 1931, 1932, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978, 2003, 2004

Pittsburgh 9 1910, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1929, 1931, 1936, 1937, 1976

Harvard 8 1875, 1890, 1898, 1899, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1919

Ohio State 7 1942, 1954, 1957, 1961, 1968, 1970, 2002

Oklahoma 7 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000

Minnesota 6 1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, 1960

Pennsylvania 6 1894, 1895, 1897, 1904, 1907, 1908

Army 5 1914, 1916, 1944, 1945, 1946

Miami 5 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001

Nebraska 5 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997

California 4 1920, 1921, 1922, 1937

Georgia Tech 4 1917, 1928, 1952, 1990

Illinois 4 1914, 1919, 1923, 1927

LSU 4 1908, 1958, 2003, 2007

Michigan St 4 1951, 1952, 1965, 1966

Penn State 4 1911, 1912, 1982, 1986

Tennessee 4 1938, 1950, 1951, 1998

Texas 4 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005

Cornell 3 1915, 1921, 1922

Florida 3 1996, 2006, 2008

Lafayette 3 1896, 1921, 1926

Auburn 2 1913, 1957

FSU 2 1993, 1999

Georgia 2 1942, 1980

Mississippi 2 1960, 1962

Texas A&M 2 1919, 1939

Arkansas 1 1964

Boston College 1 1940

BYU 1 1984

Chicago 1 1905

Clemson 1 1981

Colorado 1 1990

Dartmouth 1 1925

Iowa 1 1958

Maryland 1 1953

SMU 1 1935

Stanford 1 1926

Syracuse 1 1959

TCU 1 1938

UCLA 1 1954

Washington 1 1991

It was certainly eye-opening. There seems to be a lot of teams with a claim to great history. Its also amusing to note that Princeton has more national champions than anyone else. :lol:

[S John]

Continuing the discussion on the hierarchy of college football coaching jobs/programs; on another message board, someone posted this list.

It was certainly eye-opening. There seems to be a lot of teams with a claim to great history. Its also amusing to note that Princeton has more national champions than anyone else. :lol:

Very interesting. A lot of the schools that are often touted as having great tradition don't have nearly as many as their fans might lead you to believe.

And still, the Mountaineers continue to hold the dubious distinction of most all time wins without a National Title. :crying:

So close in 2007. And with college football going the way its going, I'm starting to think that it may never happen. At least I think it'll be a while before WVU gets that close again. Sigh.

Anyway, looks like Skip Holtz will be coaching at USF next year. I wonder what will come of that. Leavitt seemed to have our number, so maybe we can get that monkey off our back with Skippy in charge. Or maybe it'll get worse.

On the Leavitt situation. So they say he slapped a kid. Are we talking like an open handed slap or a closed fist thing? Cause honestly I'd consider a little open handed smack on the face to say 'hey get your head in the fucking game!' to be acceptable as a football coach. Sure you wouldn't want to make a habit of it, but losing your job over it? I'm not so sure that I agree with that. I mean, the second the kid steps on the field the 11 guys on the other team are going to try to pummel him, so I don't think a little slap does more than bruise his ego.

lol @ your subtitle, by the way.

[Rhom]

Very interesting. A lot of the schools that are often touted as having great tradition don't have nearly as many as their fans might lead you to believe.

Yeah, I especially found the Florida schools to be particularly interesting. Nothing of note until Miami in 1983. And if you take Miami, Florida, and FSU combined... they have just two more national titles than Harvard! :lol:

Its kind of interesting as a study in the demographics of the country. As the population shifted south in the 1980's through today, you can see clearly that the talent has obviously shifted from the Northeast to Dixie.

As I was reading more about this today, I checked out Pete Carrol's wikipedia page and was reading about the status of USC when he took over in 2000. I found this quote to be interesting:

The criticism of Pete Carroll became louder when Carroll's first USC team opened the 2001 season going 2–5, with some sportswriters writing off the once-dominant Trojans, who were the only Pac-10 football team to never finish in the national top 10 during the previous decade, as a dying program.

In the previous thread, someone listed USC, Texas, and Florida as the obvious choices for best programs; and yet, just ten years ago, many thought that USC was a dieing breed. So is it too early to write off Notre Dame entirely? What makes us think they will go the way of Harvard instead of USC?

What program currently in decline is poised to be the gem of college football in 2020?

I think programs to watch could very seriously be South Florida and Central Florida. The talent base is there, and not all of them will play for the big three in the state. I think Skip Holtz is on the right path for a future national championship at South Florida. As compared to the other Florida schools, the route to the BCS title game is definitely easier overall in the Big East than the SEC or even the ACC. Hell, UofL was one missed field goal against Rutgers away from playing Ohio State for the championship instead of Florida.

On the Leavitt situation. So they say he slapped a kid. Are we talking like an open handed slap or a closed fist thing? Cause honestly I'd consider a little open handed smack on the face to say 'hey get your head in the fucking game!' to be acceptable as a football coach. Sure you wouldn't want to make a habit of it, but losing your job over it? I'm not so sure that I agree with that. I mean, the second the kid steps on the field the 11 guys on the other team are going to try to pummel him, so I don't think a little slap does more than bruise his ego.

I can't believe he did anything significantly worse than Kansas State coach Frank Martin. (The video is here.) I know he's suing the school for his old job back, but I don't see how that would work out. Maybe sue and get some cash and vindication, but getting the job back would be just awkward all around. In the world of Mark Mangino and Mike Leach though, I suppose its a new day.

lol @ your subtitle, by the way.

I liked it. ;)

[Kalbear]

I think Nebraska is going to be on the rise. Nebraska was a ridiculously dominant program that bordered on the unfair, that fell back after Title IX. I think they're ready to go back to prominence, especially with how successful their defense has been. They're not that far away.

Other than that, I think it's got to be a NE school. There's just too much talent out there that isn't being utilized.

[Rhom]

A different poster responded to the list of titles that I posted above with this:

Just for fun, I trimmed off schools that haven't been voted a championship in 21 years Why 21? These are the schools that have been voted champions within the lifetime of current players and recruits. (Due to repeat winners, this actually covers the last 22 years.)

Notre Dame 13 1919, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1977, 1988

Alabama 12 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009

Michigan 11 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1918, 1923, 1932, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997

USC 10 1928, 1931, 1932, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978, 2003, 2004

Ohio State 7 1942, 1954, 1957, 1961, 1968, 1970, 2002

Oklahoma 7 1950, 1955, 1956, 1974, 1975, 1985, 2000

Miami 5 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001

Nebraska 5 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997

Georgia Tech 4 1917, 1928, 1952, 1990

LSU 4 1908, 1958, 2003, 2007

Tennessee 4 1938, 1950, 1951, 1998

Texas 4 1963, 1969, 1970, 2005

Florida 3 1996, 2006, 2008

FSU 2 1993, 1999

Colorado 1 1990

Washington 1 1991

I think that tells the story right there. ‘Bama, USC, Miami, Nebraska, LSU, Florida, and Florida State have won multiple championships within this period. Others, like Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, and Texas, have (relatively) long traditions and have remained (to some extent) relevant. Notre Dame tops the list, but they also just barely made it, having last won in 1988, so I’d put them at the top of the latter group.

So, ordered within each tier by total championships, we have:

Top tier: Alabama, USC, Miami, Nebraska, LSU, Florida, Florida State.

Second tier: Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Texas

Obviously national championships don’t tell the whole story, but I think that’s a good starting place.

I thought that was interesting as well.

[Rhom]

I think Nebraska is going to be on the rise. Nebraska was a ridiculously dominant program that bordered on the unfair, that fell back after Title IX. I think they're ready to go back to prominence, especially with how successful their defense has been. They're not that far away.

Other than that, I think it's got to be a NE school. There's just too much talent out there that isn't being utilized.

They certainly looked ascendant against Arizona. :stunned:

You're right. Nebraska was too good for too long for me to believe that they're done. I think now that Tom Osbourne is more involved in the program again, they're headed back in the right direction. It certainly doesn't hurt that they're in the weaker part of the Big XII currently.

[Kalbear]

Saying Tennessee is relevant because it won 1 championship in the 90s and then 3 in 1950 is crazy. They're as relevant as Washington in that scheme of things. Same goes for Georgia Tech.

I'm surprised Michigan is so..not there. Wow.

[Rhom]

Saying Tennessee is relevant because it won 1 championship in the 90s and then 3 in 1950 is crazy. They're as relevant as Washington in that scheme of things. Same goes for Georgia Tech.

I'm surprised Michigan is so..not there. Wow.

True. I think what that guy was looking at was schools with a "history" that have at least won a title fairly recently also. Sure, its a subjective measure... but it trimmed off the Ivy League schools that dominated college sports in the 19th century.

[S John]

I'm surprised Michigan is so..not there. Wow.

Wow indeed, I just noticed that. Before '97 you've gotta go back to the 40's. I met some Michigan fans in Chicago a few years back and I think they failed to mention that 10 of those 11 national championships were pre-Korean War.

[Ken Stone]

They certainly looked ascendant against Arizona. :stunned:

You're right. Nebraska was too good for too long for me to believe that they're done. I think now that Tom Osbourne is more involved in the program again, they're headed back in the right direction. It certainly doesn't hurt that they're in the weaker part of the Big XII currently.

Talk around here is that Defense will be better next year. Personally I have a hard time believing that. However if the Offensive improves to something even resembling average, then there won't be a team that we can't beat (not that we will win them all, but they will all be winnable).

With Gill taking over Kansas, and Snyder back at K State, there is going to be more parity between the two B12 divisions. In the past it seemed like the OK/Texas game pretty much determined the B12 championship, but I don't expect that trend to last.

[Kalbear]

I also think that measuring a program's relevance (at least for recent times) should either be done by conference championships or BCS appearances. So USC is clearly up there, as is Florida - but so is OSU, PSU, West Virginia, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Utah and Boise State.

[Arakasi]

I was the one who listed Florida, Texas and USC in the last thread Rhom.

The qualifications for a dominant program are fairly obvious.

1) They have to have won the national title and/or multiple conference championships in the last 30 years, preferably last 20.

2) They have to be able to recruit on the basis of their school name. USC yes was down at that time, but they were still USC and still recruited at the top. It's annoying being an Oregon fan because of this. Even if Oregon does great, it won't translate into top recruiting. Ohio State and USC will always recruit in the top 10-15, regardless of their coach. Zook is recruiting greatly at Illinois, but that's because he's Mr Recruiter, not because Illinois is a good football school or because he's any good at coaching.

3) They must have regional relevence with their location to highschool football hotbeds. Football (highschool football) is pretty much 3 major areas. The top is Texas, next is Florida or California, take your pick. Some people might have read a few months ago a study done that showed relationships between where a player signs and where they went to school. It is very highly correlated, even among the teams everyone says recruits cross country (USC, Florida, etc) This is where once again it sucks to be in the NW or in the NE. Those are the weakest areas for highschool football. The midwest and Big 10 area is pretty decent, but they don't compare to Texas, Florida and California.

4) They must not have rules built into their school that penalizes them in maintaining all of the top 3. ND has the tradition and can recruit on it, but they are in a bad part of the country and their academic and religious requirements hurts them.

So no, no ND at the top level. (although they are very close, probably on the level of teams like Washington or Pitt/WVU.

Also no non major conference teams. Boise State, Utah and TCU among them don't fit in that top tier either. You can almost wipe out the entire ACC for the same reason. NE sucks for college football as recruiting goes. We all know how the ACC has done recently when their tops go against other tops. Miami and FSU are the best from there in where they're situated, and VT has the most success recently, and in no way do they compare with Texas, USC and Florida.

Speaking of the Big East before, it's hard to put any of the teams there. They are in a bad location, none of them recruit well, it is a basketball dominated conference for nearly all teams in there, and the only schools they have with title success left the conference. I also have a hard time putting any basketball schools in there. UCLA can't even sell out their games.

So the short list after taking out most of the obvious:

Florida, Alabama, LSU, maybe Tennessee (recent title, great recruiting (even under Fulmer when he was declining they recruited top 15)), maybe Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Penn State, maybe VT, Texas, OU, Nebraska, USC and thats it. I can see putting ND at the bottom of this group.

You can definitely put Tennessee, Georgia, VT, Penn State, Nebraska in a lower tier then the others because of location, not as much tradition and so on.

Which leaves Texas, OU, Florida, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan and USC.

Florida is in a great recruiting position, is a school with recent tradition in both major sports. USC is in a similar situation. OU, Ohio State and Michigan have the tradition and recent success, but are in worse places for highschool football then the other 3. Texas is probably in the best spot. They have the recent tradition, they have the best location in the country. LSU has a great spot where they can regionally poach from Texas and from Florida. Alabama is well Alabama. You can probably order those schools however you want, but I would put Michigan and OU towards the bottom of it and Texas, USC and Florida to the top of it.

My top 10 would be:

1) Texas

2) USC

3) Florida

4) Alabama

5) LSU

6) Ohio State

7) OU

8) Michigan

9) Nebraska

10) ??? Dunno, any number of schools could fit there. Really I think the line between 8 and 9 is huge.

Also couldn't think of a second Pac 10 school to put in there sadly. Washington and UCLA are both top 20, but near the bottom of the top 20 imo. Bad region or being a basketball school doesn't help that.

[Xalinor]

Notre Dame doesn't have religious requirements.

[ztemhead]

I heard an interview with Kiffen today on The Herd. While ostensibly I have no problem with the mercenary nature of college sports, that guy came off like His Majesty, King of the Weasels. He makes Mark Mcgwire sound like the paragon of forthrightness and honesty and a role model for young people everywhere. Cowherd should feel like a used jizz rag for giving Kiffen the airtime that he used to attempt to shamelessly poach kids away from Tennessee.

[Rhom]

He's signed through 2019 so he's there for life it would seem.

Famous last words. :lol:

I heard an interview with Kiffen today on The Herd. While ostensibly I have no problem with the mercenary nature of college sports, that guy came off like His Majesty, King of the Weasels. He makes Mark Mcgwire sound like the paragon of forthrightness and honesty and a role model for young people everywhere. Cowherd should feel like a used jizz rag for giving Kiffen the airtime that he used to attempt to shamelessly poach kids away from Tennessee.

Fundamentally, I agree with the premise that people should be able to leave their jobs when better offers come along. I broke a four year contract after two years when it became apparent that I would be better off leaving and starting my own practice. However, there is something to be said for the fact that these coaches are building their reputations on the backs of teenagers. Kiffin and Co have spent the last 12 months sitting in the living rooms of 17 year old kids and telling them how committed they are to them... and then they bolt at the first sign of greener pastures. It definitely leaves a bad taste in yout mouth.

Colin Cowherd pretty much is a used jizz rag, so its really nothing new.

[Rhom]

Cutcliffe turns down Tennessee. That's 0-2 now. Its gotta be frustrating for their fans. Considering the AD's assertion that he wants to have a coach in place by the weekend when recruiting can begin, this is the point where I would be getting nervous as a fan that desperation is setting in.

Its situations like this when you end up hiring Billy Gillispie. :leaving:

[Arakasi]

No ND doesn't have religious requirements. But it is a catholic school and that does affect recruiting to a degree. Obviously not as much as their academic standards do. It is a good draw to football players who are catholic. Thing is there is not really many of those.

[S John]

No ND doesn't have religious requirements. But it is a catholic school and that does affect recruiting to a degree. Obviously not as much as their academic standards do. It is a good draw to football players who are catholic. Thing is there is not really many of those.

When the rust belt was booming I'd imagine there were quite a few Catholic athletes coming from places like Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland with whom that could have been a big deal. But these days I'd say its almost a non-factor in recruiting, as the South is probably the biggest hot-bed and isn't exactly the most Catholic of locales.

For the record I grew up Catholic, but I also grew up hating Notre Dame. I would stop hating them if they weren't treated like football royalty, or maybe if they actually lived up to the greatness that they claim.

[Bronn Stone]

Not huge national news, but you all probably heard that Oregon State's Mike Riley was rumored in the USC job. He shut those rumors down pretty quickly, but not before the AD sprung a nice extension for him. He's signed through 2019 so he's there for life it would seem.

What may not have received as much national attention in that story is that the OSU coaching staff has a very close-knit thing going that undoubtedly has helped to explain how they've been so solid for the last four years. Their coordinators have been offered other jobs (for more money) and decided to stay in little Corvalis Oregon. Their O-Coordinator donated his freaking kidney to their O-line coach's wife who needed a transplant. We'll see if any of their major coaches leave before Riley does, but it feels like they may not.

I see Riley actually playing out that contract. He left once for the Chargers and I think he learned his lesson there. Sometimes the college jobs are better ones.

[Rhom]

Tennessee appears to be closing in on a deal with Louisiana Tech's head coach. What I found most interesting in the article was this snippet:

One of the planes carrying Tennessee officials was in Salt Lake City on Thursday night. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Utah's Kyle Whittingham turned down an offer from Tennessee.

So that makes three "No" answers from coaches that should consider Tennessee to be an upgrade.