Top 5 underachieving programs of all time
Comments
-
Oregon just needs more time to become the Buffalo Bills of college football
And yes I would rather lose the natty 5 times in a row than watch what I have watched here for 12 years -
I don't get the LA distraction as an excuse for being soft vz. The sec farm boy shtick.
SC in the PC glory years had snoop dog performing at frat parties with the players and they still won a natty(ies).
You win or you don't. UCLA hasn't wanted it bad enough. Similar to modern Washington but without the excuse of being located in an area devoid of an abundance of talent -
Don't forget when talking about Miami how much the cocaine wars in the late 70's and early 80's made Miami a place ripe with cash and an exciting place to be ... particularly for kids that didn't have a problem breaking some rules.
-
-
I'd put Michigan at #2 behind UCLA.
1) You played 11 or 12 games per year over the last 40 years. You have more talent (usually by far) than arguably everybody except 2 teams on your schedule (OSU and ND sometimes). You play in front of the biggest crowd in the country at home and have a college major basically designed to keep everyone eligible (kinesiology).
2) You create the easiest schedule for yourself possible. You refuse to play in the southeastern part of the country (last regular season game there in 1985) and basically are boycotting the west (where you're 0-7 since 1998 when you get there - usually to lose the Rose Bowl). Many years you play your four road games in states which are bordering Michigan (like Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin). You play FSU and Miami at home and never give them a home game. You play Florida and Alabama only at neutral sites.
3) You're 4-12 in Rose Bowls in the last 50 years. You've won 1/2 a national championship in the last 67 years.
4) Since 1975, you have had only ONE season of one or less loss or tie (you know, something that Coach Petersen has done FIVE FUCKING TIMES ALREADY). You think you could just fall into seasons like that every few years with all these advantages. -
Re: ASU
This Quook faggot (he was dumber and more annoying than Pdx, OneFineDuck, and many others) kept acting like Phoenix had this gigantic amount of talent. I don't follow TBS enough to know if that's true. I know we usually get a couple of guys from there, AZ gets maybe four , and ASU gets several? It's an area of 4,000,000 or maybe a little more so there aren't hundreds of d 1 players. -
It's starting to produce more and more talent. Arguably even more talent than the PNW. Only problem is none of them want to play for ASU or AZ. It's a major problem for Graham. They go to the LA schools, Stanford, A&M, Oregon, etc.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Re: ASU
This Quook faggot (he was dumber and more annoying than Pdx, OneFineDuck, and many others) kept acting like Phoenix had this gigantic amount of talent. I don't follow TBS enough to know if that's true. I know we usually get a couple of guys from there, AZ gets maybe four , and ASU gets several? It's an area of 4,000,000 or maybe a little more so there aren't hundreds of d 1 players.
-
Arizona produces more talent than any other state out west after California. People keep moving there. I hear the weather is great.BallSacked said:
It's starting to produce more and more talent. Arguably even more talent than the PNW. Only problem is none of them want to play for ASU or AZ. It's a major problem for Graham. They go to the LA schools, Stanford, A&M, Oregon, etc.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Re: ASU
This Quook faggot (he was dumber and more annoying than Pdx, OneFineDuck, and many others) kept acting like Phoenix had this gigantic amount of talent. I don't follow TBS enough to know if that's true. I know we usually get a couple of guys from there, AZ gets maybe four , and ASU gets several? It's an area of 4,000,000 or maybe a little more so there aren't hundreds of d 1 players. -
Illinois is in a big state and they're usually the ninth place Big 10 team. Their only competition is a small poindexter school with high standards and directional schools. Again, I don't follow non-Warshington and Pac 12 TBS but maybe Notre Shame, OSU, and Michigan raid the Chicago area, but the right coach coukd keep some talent.
-
They do tend to play teams like Utah, BC, and Syracuse instead of the big boys, but they were pretty dominant in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and up until about 2006. They owned Ohio State in the 90s. Some pretty bland, average coaches owned John Cooper. It was like Oregon vs. UW.Gladstone said:I'd put Michigan at #2 behind UCLA.
1) You played 11 or 12 games per year over the last 40 years. You have more talent (usually by far) than arguably everybody except 2 teams on your schedule (OSU and ND sometimes). You play in front of the biggest crowd in the country at home and have a college major basically designed to keep everyone eligible (kinesiology).
2) You create the easiest schedule for yourself possible. You refuse to play in the southeastern part of the country (last regular season game there in 1985) and basically are boycotting the west (where you're 0-7 since 1998 when you get there - usually to lose the Rose Bowl). Many years you play your four road games in states which are bordering Michigan (like Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin). You play FSU and Miami at home and never give them a home game. You play Florida and Alabama only at neutral sites.
3) You're 4-12 in Rose Bowls in the last 50 years. You've won 1/2 a national championship in the last 67 years.
4) Since 1975, you have had only ONE season of one or less loss or tie (you know, something that Coach Petersen has done FIVE FUCKING TIMES ALREADY). You think you could just fall into seasons like that every few years with all these advantages.
They suck in Rose Bowels but they have made a ton and they did win the NC in '97.
