Oregon and what the NC means to the program

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I've always been one to think in terms of lists, ranks, pecking order, as subjective as they can be. As well, I tend to look as college football programs historically as being separated into 5 tiers. (Basketball as well). Depending on who your team is you may or may not agree with my particular ranking but you get more or less where I'm coming from.

My first disclaimer...I put virtually no stock in any of those retro awarded national titles for programs like Yale and Harvard prior to the poll era. I don't think college football was invented in the 1930's but I think 1936 with the first AP champion is a great arbitrary point to start with.

My second disclaimer: I put little stock in other ancillary titles, like computer rankings titles. I'm an Oklahoma fan but they are credited with a national title in 2003 when they lost their last 2 games. As much respect I have for a program like Alabama who is the king, they do not have 15 national titles any more than Yale has 27 and Harvard 7.

All that said I see programs in 5-tiers. The first tier are the blue blood, elite programs with a long history or winning and multiple national titles. IMO here is that group.

1. Bama
2. Notre Dame (though sliding down)
3. USC
4. Ohio St (win or lose tonight...that's why I focus on Oregon)
5. Oklahoma
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan
8. Texas

The second tier is a small group of programs that have been very good for a long time, have won multiple titles but not as many as the top group. My group here is:

9. Miami (based on 5 titles, not in top group because of longevity)
10. Florida St (similar to Miami, better other than they have 3 titles to Miami's 5, a title this year might have moved them into the next group.
11 LSU
12 Penn St
13 Florida

3rd tier are programs very good and have a least a title
14 Tenn
15 Georiga
16 Auburn
17 UCLA
18 Washington
19 Arkanasas
20 Texas A&M
21 Ga Tech
22 Mich St
23 Clemson
24 BYU
25 Pitt
26 TCU


The 4th tier are top programs without a NC and a few programs like Syracuse, Army, Minnesota,etc that have titles but have not been good for a very long time. Of those programs I think the top programs without a title are :

1. Va tech
2. West Virginia
3. Oregon
4. Missouri
5. Stanford
6. Ole Miss
7. Oklahoma st

5th tier is everyone else.

An Ohio St win tonight and pretty much the rich just get richer but if Oregon wins then they move way up the program pecking order historically.


Of course if you look at college football programs in terms of the last 5, 10, or 25 years then a lot of these programs fall in line a lot differently. Oregon has been a top program the last 10-15 years without a doubt but having a NC will certainly raise their profile.

 

[bullitpdq68]

I like most of it besides that third tier. I would put Tenn Georgia Auburn with your second Tier. Then lump the rest with the others. Washington has not been relevant since Don James??

Notre Dame???They have not been a serious contender since Lou Holtz either so they should be second tier based on that, third if you want to take out the biased media rankings.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by bullitpdq68:
I like most of it besides that third tier. I would put Tenn Georgia Auburn with your second Tier. Then lump the rest with the others. Washington has not been relevant since Don James??

Notre Dame???They have not been a serious contender since Lou Holtz either so they should be second tier based on that, third if you want to take out the biased media rankings.

You're throwing out factors of Corn Frogs formula. ND is still a top tier program and still draws big names and interest. They still draw the interest with big name recruits. All it takes is the right coach and scheme and Notre Dame could go on another extended run. Same with Miami, Florida, Michigan etc.

 

[vbsideout]

Not sure would have Arky in 3rd tier

 

[bullitpdq68]

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

Originally posted by bullitpdq68:
I like most of it besides that third tier. I would put Tenn Georgia Auburn with your second Tier. Then lump the rest with the others. Washington has not been relevant since Don James??

Notre Dame???They have not been a serious contender since Lou Holtz either so they should be second tier based on that, third if you want to take out the biased media rankings.

You're throwing out factors of Corn Frogs formula. ND is still a top tier program and still draws big names and interest. They still draw the interest with big name recruits. All it takes is the right coach and scheme and Notre Dame could go on another extended run. Same with Miami, Florida, Michigan etc.

Do they draw big time recruits? or does the players rankings get skewed because ND shows interest in them?

 

[SadButTrue]

Originally posted by vbsideout:

Not sure would have Arky in 3rd tier

As much right as most all of the teams in that list.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Love the discussion.

Notre Dame is going to be in the top tier historically even if they struggle the next 20 years on the strength of their national titles. If this thread were circa 1988 ND would be at the top at the list. Mind you I'm no fan of ND but 8 National Titles (as I recognize them) keeps them in the conversation for a long time.

I agree also that Washington has not been a great program since Don James left but they have a NC in 1991. I suppose a better question would be why include Washington and not Colorado who has a title in 1990. Washington has 3 of those retro/computer national titles as well.

Arky has a NC and I would say other than some struggles they have had mostly in the last 15 years. From the mid 50's until about 1990 they were a perinnial powerhouse.

I suppose a lot of this depends on how much weight you put on recent history as compared to the past. Prior to 1980 the Miami Hurricanes were probably a 5th tier program. From 1983-2003 they were probably the #1 program in college football.

Army was a powerhouse until the 50's and they have been below average since. Minnesota was similar. Stanford has been a decent program for a long long time but apart from a few recent years hasn't really stood out.

Oregon really doesn't have a distinguished history prior to 2000 but since they have won everything but a NC. I could admittedly be putting a little too much weight into winning one title but I do think it is a program elevating win.

 

[bullitpdq68]

Originally posted by Rock Hard Corn Frog:
Love the discussion.

Notre Dame is going to be in the top tier historically even if they struggle the next 20 years on the strength of their national titles. If this thread were circa 1988 ND would be at the top at the list. Mind you I'm no fan of ND but 8 National Titles (as I recognize them) keeps them in the conversation for a long time.

So just history is keeping them there, I think if we were talking 10 years after Lou left then yes they belong, but so far history has shown they cannot no matter who they hire to coach get back to being a contender. The one year they did they were proven to be not a contender but a pretender. Probable a top tier team but to me they would be on the last rung hold on with one finger.

I agree also that Washington has not been a great program since Don James left but they have a NC in 1991. I suppose a better question would be why include Washington and not Colorado who has a title in 1990. Washington has 3 of those retro/computer national titles as well.

1991 there are alot of people on this board that were not alive for that. I remember them being a great program but that was so long ago.... I just also happen to read some history on Colorado today and really just take a few years in the 90',s and an extra 5th down they were good, take those away???

Arky has a NC and I would say other than some struggles they have had mostly in the last 15 years. From the mid 50's until about 1990 they were a perinnial powerhouse.

How do you define perennial powerhouse? Good yes better than some but not a powerhouse by any definition of the word.

I suppose a lot of this depends on how much weight you put on recent history as compared to the past. Prior to 1980 the Miami Hurricanes were probably a 5th tier program. From 1983-2003 they were probably the #1 program in college football.

You have to take it as a whole but more weight has to be for what have you done for me lately, and I would say what would count as more weight is what you have done the last 10 years possible go back 20. However Look at Stoops and Oklahoma, you can only breath life into that one national title before people start looking at the here and now .....

Army was a powerhouse until the 50's and they have been below average since. Minnesota was similar. Stanford has been a decent program for a long long time but apart from a few recent years hasn't really stood out.

Oregon really doesn't have a distinguished history prior to 2000 but since they have won everything but a NC. I could admittedly be putting a little too much weight into winning one title but I do think it is a program elevating win.

I agree totally with you if Oregon wins it could cement them as a national power, and that could go for alot of schools. I think if OSU wins it could go along way for their program and get the B1G some respect in football that they have lost over the years.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Arkansas has won no AP or UPI titles.

 

[revno]

Ole Miss won or shared a title sometime in the 60's.

Thanks for not including Colorado's fraudulent claim to a NC.

Would think Pitt should be relegated a bit lower. One conference title since Nixon for Mizzou would be an argument for a higher rank (tier) for the Tigers. Good list.

 

[HannibalLector]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:
Arkansas has won no AP or UPI titles.

What do you care what Arkansas has done or not done? Are you a hater?

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:
Arkansas has won no AP or UPI titles.

You really want to go down that road again? You still have tire marks on your back from last time.

This post was edited on 1/12 8:31 PM by Rock Hard Corn Frog

 

[anon_utvqikut1knht]

This is really well thought out...........only nitpicking I may do is argue a little bit for Arizona State being tier 4 and a stronger one for Iowa.

Kansas State would be another one but they were so awful pre-Snyder they cannot qualify.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by bullitpdq68:

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

Originally posted by bullitpdq68:
I like most of it besides that third tier. I would put Tenn Georgia Auburn with your second Tier. Then lump the rest with the others. Washington has not been relevant since Don James??

Notre Dame???They have not been a serious contender since Lou Holtz either so they should be second tier based on that, third if you want to take out the biased media rankings.

You're throwing out factors of Corn Frogs formula. ND is still a top tier program and still draws big names and interest. They still draw the interest with big name recruits. All it takes is the right coach and scheme and Notre Dame could go on another extended run. Same with Miami, Florida, Michigan etc.

Do they draw big time recruits? or does the players rankings get skewed because ND shows interest in them?

I don't know you tell me? Coaching goes a long ways. All it took was a switch in coaching to Fisher, and FSU is back in the spot light. It's not like they ever recruited terribly under Bowden, he just fell out touch with this generation of players. It was obvious.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Originally posted by HannibalLector:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:
Arkansas has won no AP or UPI titles.

What do you care what Arkansas has done or not done? Are you a hater?

They are in a tier with NCs. Facts are relevant.

 

[HannibalLector]

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:

Originally posted by HannibalLector:

Originally posted by Veer2Eternity:
Arkansas has won no AP or UPI titles.

What do you care what Arkansas has done or not done? Are you a hater?

They are in a tier with NCs. Facts are relevant.

On page 5 of the KC Star today under, Past College Football National Champions, it
clearly states, "Starting with the Associated Press poll era." 1964
National Champion Alabama, Arkansas, Notre Dame. This same list
includes other multiple winners so don't go there. You know the only
reason they weren't the sole NC that year was because some of the voting
was done at the end of the of the regular season prior to the bowl games (no longer done). Bama lost their bowl game and Arkansas won, but hate if you must. Facts are relevant.

 

[wcowherd]

I don't think Arkansas' national title in '64 makes their program fundamentally better in 2015. I think what your program has done in the past 10 years is much more important than what they did 50 years ago.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

1964

#1 Alabama lost to #3 Texas in Orange Bowl.
Notre Dame lost their final regular season game to USC and then declined to play in a bowl game (as per usual at that time)
#2 Arkansas beat #6 Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl

Arkansas was the only undefeated team. Texas' only loss was at home to Arkansas.

Arkansas is the only true and legit national champion in 1964. Case closed, finished, done.


I do agree with cowherd that a National Title in 1964 does not make Arkansas a top program today but I don't have them as a top program. I see them in that tier 3. I do think more recent titles carry a little more weight than titles won 50-60 years ago but I also think there is a difference between a program that hasn't won a title in a long time and one that never has.

As big a fan of Oklahoma basketball as I am I think they are one of the better programs but they aren't going to be considered with the top 15-20 programs until if/when they win an NCAA tourney.