Programs that I view as having legitimate opportunities to win a National Championship by conference (blue bloods being bolded as they have the best shots when all things line up right for them:
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
Programs that I view as having legitimate opportunities to win a National Championship by conference (blue bloods being bolded as they have the best shots when all things line up right for them:
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
Look, I know you're fucking stupid. But all Cane joking aside, do you not realize that, even though they have been tripping over their lips for the last 14 years, Miami still has more impact players in the NFL than ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY? Yes, more than LSU, Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Florida State ... any of them. And most of the 2001 guys are out of the league now.
As shitty as they've been, and they have been butt stink shitty, they routinely throw first, second and third round guys into the NFL, and those guys blow the fuck up when they get there.
How is it that you can't perceive a scenario where THAT program, with all its history and accomplishment, can't consistently compete for a title, but Texas can???????? Texas has all the shit you listed, and has always had it, and look at them. Before 2005, nobody under the age of 40 knew that they had ever been good. And 2005 was 12 years ago and they haven't done shit since.
It ain't about the money dummy. Oregon has proven that. It ain't about the size of your stadium and how many asses are in the seats. Michigan has proven that. Nebraska has proven that.
It's about who you can recruit and who is coaching them. Alabama has proven that. USC has proven that. LSU has proven that. Florida State has proven that.
Speaking of stadiums not mattering, how is the Hard Rock Cafe thing working out? Has a team ever won a NT leasing out an NFL stadium? Coliseum and Orange Bowl don't count. Though not on campus facilities , nor owned by the respective universities, both were primarily college venues first, that NFL teams borrowed. Didn't the Canes used to have some kind of home field advantage? If the Dawgs had moved to Century Link we'd be fucking done forever.
I'd be more inclined to lean towards Miami still being Blue Blood because of the 80's through early 2000's and being in close proximity to so much HS football talent. But the stadium situation is fucking garbage.
Programs that I view as having legitimate opportunities to win a National Championship by conference (blue bloods being bolded as they have the best shots when all things line up right for them:
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
Look, I know you're fucking stupid. But all Cane joking aside, do you not realize that, even though they have been tripping over their lips for the last 14 years, Miami still has more impact players in the NFL than ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY? Yes, more than LSU, Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Florida State ... any of them. And most of the 2001 guys are out of the league now.
As shitty as they've been, and they have been butt stink shitty, they routinely throw first, second and third round guys into the NFL, and those guys blow the fuck up when they get there.
How is it that you can't perceive a scenario where THAT program, with all its history and accomplishment, can't consistently compete for a title, but Texas can???????? Texas has all the shit you listed, and has always had it, and look at them. Before 2005, nobody under the age of 40 knew that they had ever been good. And 2005 was 12 years ago and they haven't done shit since.
It ain't about the money dummy. Oregon has proven that. It ain't about the size of your stadium and how many asses are in the seats. Michigan has proven that. Nebraska has proven that.
It's about who you can recruit and who is coaching them. Alabama has proven that. USC has proven that. LSU has proven that. Florida State has proven that.
Speaking of stadiums not mattering, how is the Hard Rock Cafe thing working out? Has a team ever won a NT leasing out an NFL stadium? Coliseum and Orange Bowl don't count. Though not on campus facilities , nor owned by the respective universities, both were primarily college venues first, that NFL teams borrowed. Didn't the Canes used to have some kind of home field advantage? If the Dawgs had moved to Century Link we'd be fucking done forever.
Notre Dame was in the National Title Game in the last 5-7 years and been in the hunt a few other years.
Texas always has the talent and resources ... when everything is working right with them they have as high of a ceiling as anybody.
Penn St has a very fertile recruiting ground and insane levels of support.
All 3 have had SIGNIFCANT periods of success throughout history ... their success is a question of not IF but WHEN ...
Miami had about a 20 year run from the early 80s through early 00s where they were at an elite level ... before that nothing and after that above average. I wouldn't claim that anybody that thinks Miami is a blue blood is insane ... but it's certainly very debatable.
You are grasping. These are the arguments offered by REALLY old men who don't really know what they're talking about, but want to convert their general impressions formed 3 decades earlier to axiomatic truth.
As I've said, and supported, "insane levels of support" means, really, nothing. Nobody gets more support than Michigan, and it doesn't translate. And nobody, not even USC or Texas, much less Penn State, has a better recruiting ground than Miami.
Miami's run may have begun relatively recently, but, as an intellectual matter, you've failed to make that relevant. Minnesota was a national power house once upon a time. The fact that a program won something in the 60s, 50s or earlier really has no bearing on anything. The game, society and demographics have changed.
Whenever it started, they've won 5, FIVE, titles, come within an eyelash of two more, played for an additional two more, knocked off some of the greatest teams in history, produced some of the greatest teams in history, produced unprecedented amounts of talent and been part of some of the biggest games in the sport's history. All of that, w/o "insane levels of support" and your other made up shit. Until you can write that off as not likely to return, you'll have to excuse me while I flush a turd that is more thought provoking than your post.
All that with four different coaches. I would think if there is such a thing as an "inevitable" program anywhere, it's Miami.
Penn State has won exactly two titles, both in the 80s, and disappears from dominance for extensive periods of time. Terrible example.
Your example of Texas, in particular, though, is horrible, and honestly, HH joking aside, rather pedestrian.
Programs that I view as having legitimate opportunities to win a National Championship by conference (blue bloods being bolded as they have the best shots when all things line up right for them:
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
Look, I know you're fucking stupid. But all Cane joking aside, do you not realize that, even though they have been tripping over their lips for the last 14 years, Miami still has more impact players in the NFL than ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY? Yes, more than LSU, Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Florida State ... any of them. And most of the 2001 guys are out of the league now.
As shitty as they've been, and they have been butt stink shitty, they routinely throw first, second and third round guys into the NFL, and those guys blow the fuck up when they get there.
How is it that you can't perceive a scenario where THAT program, with all its history and accomplishment, can't consistently compete for a title, but Texas can???????? Texas has all the shit you listed, and has always had it, and look at them. Before 2005, nobody under the age of 40 knew that they had ever been good. And 2005 was 12 years ago and they haven't done shit since.
It ain't about the money dummy. Oregon has proven that. It ain't about the size of your stadium and how many asses are in the seats. Michigan has proven that. Nebraska has proven that.
It's about who you can recruit and who is coaching them. Alabama has proven that. USC has proven that. LSU has proven that. Florida State has proven that.
Are you saying Miami football is like UW basketball?
Right now, yes, except for the winning history part.
Notre Dame was in the National Title Game in the last 5-7 years and been in the hunt a few other years.
Texas always has the talent and resources ... when everything is working right with them they have as high of a ceiling as anybody.
Penn St has a very fertile recruiting ground and insane levels of support.
All 3 have had SIGNIFCANT periods of success throughout history ... their success is a question of not IF but WHEN ...
Miami had about a 20 year run from the early 80s through early 00s where they were at an elite level ... before that nothing and after that above average. I wouldn't claim that anybody that thinks Miami is a blue blood is insane ... but it's certainly very debatable.
You are grasssping. These are the arguments offered by REALLY old men who don't really know what they're talking about, but want to convert their general impreshuns formed 3 decades earlier to axiomatic trooth.
As I've said, and supported, "insane levels of support" means, really, nothing. Nobody gets more support than Michigan, and it doesn't translate. And nobody, not even USC or Texas, much less Penn State, has a better recruiting ground than Miami.
Miami's run may have begun relatively recently, but, as an intellecshual matter, you've failed to make that relevant. Minnesota was a nashunal power house once upon a time. The fact that a program won something in the 60s, 50s or earlier really has no bearing on anything. The gheym, society and demographics have changed.
Whenever it started, they've won 5, FIVE, titles FAGGOT! come within an eyelash of two more, played for an additional two more, knocked off some of the greatest teems in history, produced some of the greatest teems in history, produced unprecedented amounts of talent and been part of some of the biggest gheyms in the sport's history. All of that, w/o "insane levels of support" and your other made up shit. Until you can write that off as not likely to return, you'll have to excuse me while I flush a turd that is more thought provoking than your post.
All that with four different coaches. I would think if there is such a thing as an "inevitable" program anywhere, it's the kewgs.
@creepycoug I get it that you disagree with me on Miami ... it's not that I view teams as having PAST success as being the only indication of FUTURE success ... but what I am looking at is if you can see programs that have had a historical track record of success throughout time that tells me that the underlying infrastructure is in place to be successful. Of course, that comes with judgement. If you take my above criteria, a program like Nebraska should be on the list. But I have them off the list because there's a very big question that they have had going on 15-20 years now tied to their ability to recruit nationally.
As for Penn State, they've been in the Big 10 now for 24 years. Given their direct competition in Ohio St and Michigan, if you win the Big 10 you are right in the discussion for being able to be in the national title picture. They've won the Big 10 4 times during that interval and their division once. No question that they are in a tier behind Ohio State as Ohio State to me is an ultimate blue blood. Why do I have Penn St in that area? Because in those 24 years, Penn St has won 9 or more games 15 of those 24 years and that's despite going through one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports. Yet, we have evidence that they've been able to get through that scandal and be fine going forward. They have significant $$$ backing the program and their ability to recruit not only the State of Pennsylvania but also the Eastern seaboard notably in the New York and New Jersey markets puts them in a strong position to have the kind of talent necessary to be capable of winning the Big 10 - which I view very similar to some of the SEC programs behind Alabama.
The Texas argument is even more ridiculous to me. As can be proven with any program, if you hire the wrong coach you can set the program back in the short term. However, make no mistake that Texas is the pre-eminent school in the State of Texas and there is no greater source of recruiting talent than Texas (Florida and California are right there in the same discussion). The short-term view is that Texas has fallen back since winning the National Title with Vince Young and then falling short to Alabama in the 2009 season. I view the current state of Texas similar to where USC was for most of the 1990s ... still plenty of talent but directionless. Here's why I have no problem putting Texas on the list of blue bloods. Prior to the Charlie Strong era, you have to go back to the 1930's and the era of Jack Chevigny (1934-1936) to find a head coach at the University of Texas that did not win a conference championship. If that isn't a blue blood, then I don't know what is.
You also called out Michigan being a blue blood. They lost their way for a little bit with the Rich Rod and Brady Hoke hires. Similar to Texas, you have to go a long way back in history to find a coach that didn't win a conference championship at Michigan. It's a job that you can win and win big at. That's the reality. And I have no doubt that Harbaugh will continue to put Michigan in that position going forward.
Getting back to Miami, their heights are as high as any program in the history of college football not named Alabama and the run they are currently on under Saban. Prior to the 1980s, over a 50+ year period they only had 6 seasons of 1 loss football in a season. The history of success wasn't there. Since Larry Coker won the Big East in the 2003 season, Miami has shared a divisional conference championship ONCE since then with ZERO outright conference championships and only ONCE in that period (2005) have they lost less than 3 games IN CONFERENCE. That's far from elite and being in that national championship picture. The talent that they have available to them is indisputable. But it also has to be noted that the heights of their program coincided with the 1980 and 1990 time periods where Miami was infused with significant drug money and the $$$ handed out within the program is the stuff of legend. Point being that Miami has NEVER proven that they can CONSISTENTLY run a high end program without committing significant NCAA violations. There are also significant questions surrounding the University support of the program and the support of the program within the local community, etc. The ceiling is vast ... but the evidence suggests that Miami may be more of a shooting star than something that is sustainable over the long haul.
@creepycoug I get it that you disagree with me on Miami ... it's not that I view teams as having PAST success as being the only indication of FUTURE success ... but what I am looking at is if you can see programs that have had a historical track record of success throughout time that tells me that the underlying infrastructure is in place to be successful. Of course, that comes with judgement. If you take my above criteria, a program like Nebraska should be on the list. But I have them off the list because there's a very big question that they have had going on 15-20 years now tied to their ability to recruit nationally.
As for Penn State, they've been in the Big 10 now for 24 years. Given their direct competition in Ohio St and Michigan, if you win the Big 10 you are right in the discussion for being able to be in the national title picture. They've won the Big 10 4 times during that interval and their division once. No question that they are in a tier behind Ohio State as Ohio State to me is an ultimate blue blood. Why do I have Penn St in that area? Because in those 24 years, Penn St has won 9 or more games 15 of those 24 years and that's despite going through one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports. Yet, we have evidence that they've been able to get through that scandal and be fine going forward. They have significant $$$ backing the program and their ability to recruit not only the State of Pennsylvania but also the Eastern seaboard notably in the New York and New Jersey markets puts them in a strong position to have the kind of talent necessary to be capable of winning the Big 10 - which I view very similar to some of the SEC programs behind Alabama.
The Texas argument is even more ridiculous to me. As can be proven with any program, if you hire the wrong coach you can set the program back in the short term. However, make no mistake that Texas is the pre-eminent school in the State of Texas and there is no greater source of recruiting talent than Texas (Florida and California are right there in the same discussion). The short-term view is that Texas has fallen back since winning the National Title with Vince Young and then falling short to Alabama in the 2009 season. I view the current state of Texas similar to where USC was for most of the 1990s ... still plenty of talent but directionless. Here's why I have no problem putting Texas on the list of blue bloods. Prior to the Charlie Strong era, you have to go back to the 1930's and the era of Jack Chevigny (1934-1936) to find a head coach at the University of Texas that did not win a conference championship. If that isn't a blue blood, then I don't know what is.
You also called out Michigan being a blue blood. They lost their way for a little bit with the Rich Rod and Brady Hoke hires. Similar to Texas, you have to go a long way back in history to find a coach that didn't win a conference championship at Michigan. It's a job that you can win and win big at. That's the reality. And I have no doubt that Harbaugh will continue to put Michigan in that position going forward.
Getting back to Miami, their heights are as high as any program in the history of college football not named Alabama and the run they are currently on under Saban. Prior to the 1980s, over a 50+ year period they only had 6 seasons of 1 loss football in a season. The history of success wasn't there. Since Larry Coker won the Big East in the 2003 season, Miami has shared a divisional conference championship ONCE since then with ZERO outright conference championships and only ONCE in that period (2005) have they lost less than 3 games IN CONFERENCE. That's far from elite and being in that national championship picture. The talent that they have available to them is indisputable. But it also has to be noted that the heights of their program coincided with the 1980 and 1990 time periods where Miami was infused with significant drug money and the $$$ handed out within the program is the stuff of legend. Point being that Miami has NEVER proven that they can CONSISTENTLY run a high end program without committing significant NCAA violations. There are also significant questions surrounding the University support of the program and the support of the program within the local community, etc. The ceiling is vast ... but the evidence suggests that Miami may be more of a shooting star than something that is sustainable over the long haul.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Programs that I view as having legitimate opportunities to win a National Championship by conference (blue bloods being bolded as they have the best shots when all things line up right for them:
It's possible for some other programs to jump in from time to time, but at this point, these are the programs that I see as having some combination of the requisite size, support, recruiting capabilities, etc. to be National Championship caliber programs on a consistent basis. Toughest calls for me were leaving Georgia and Clemson off of being blue bloods as they have a lot of things going for them but they need a good amount to go right for them to be legit national championship caliber programs.
Look, I know you're fucking stupid. But all Cane joking aside, do you not realize that, even though they have been tripping over their lips for the last 14 years, Miami still has more impact players in the NFL than ANY OTHER PROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY? Yes, more than LSU, Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Florida State ... any of them. And most of the 2001 guys are out of the league now.
As shitty as they've been, and they have been butt stink shitty, they routinely throw first, second and third round guys into the NFL, and those guys blow the fuck up when they get there.
How is it that you can't perceive a scenario where THAT program, with all its history and accomplishment, can't consistently compete for a title, but Texas can???????? Texas has all the shit you listed, and has always had it, and look at them. Before 2005, nobody under the age of 40 knew that they had ever been good. And 2005 was 12 years ago and they haven't done shit since.
It ain't about the money dummy. Oregon has proven that. It ain't about the size of your stadium and how many asses are in the seats. Michigan has proven that. Nebraska has proven that.
It's about who you can recruit and who is coaching them. Alabama has proven that. USC has proven that. LSU has proven that. Florida State has proven that.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Excellent analogy even if the Iowa class battleships never squared off Battle of Jutland style against the Yamoto class ships.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Excellent analogy even if the Iowa class battleships never squared off Battle of Jutland style against the Yamoto class ships.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Excellent analogy even if the Iowa class battleships never squared off Battle of Jutland style against the Yamoto class ships.
Fucksakes. Creepycoug aboard the Mighty Mo sails up and fires a 16", 2-ton volley of words at Teq on the Yamamoto, only to retaliate with an 18", 2.5-ton broadside.
Excellent analogy even if the Iowa class battleships never squared off Battle of Jutland style against the Yamoto class ships.
World War Two naval battle superiority guy
Can't help it; my parents got me VHS tapes of Victory and Sea to watch when I was a little boy.
Early Saban at MSU was pretty Sarky record-wise, but by year 5 he had a top 10 season with wins over some very good teams. This is something Sark never came even close to doing in 5 years.
Comments
I'd be more inclined to lean towards Miami still being Blue Blood because of the 80's through early 2000's and being in close proximity to so much HS football talent. But the stadium situation is fucking garbage.
As I've said, and supported, "insane levels of support" means, really, nothing. Nobody gets more support than Michigan, and it doesn't translate. And nobody, not even USC or Texas, much less Penn State, has a better recruiting ground than Miami.
Miami's run may have begun relatively recently, but, as an intellectual matter, you've failed to make that relevant. Minnesota was a national power house once upon a time. The fact that a program won something in the 60s, 50s or earlier really has no bearing on anything. The game, society and demographics have changed.
Whenever it started, they've won 5, FIVE, titles, come within an eyelash of two more, played for an additional two more, knocked off some of the greatest teams in history, produced some of the greatest teams in history, produced unprecedented amounts of talent and been part of some of the biggest games in the sport's history. All of that, w/o "insane levels of support" and your other made up shit. Until you can write that off as not likely to return, you'll have to excuse me while I flush a turd that is more thought provoking than your post.
All that with four different coaches. I would think if there is such a thing as an "inevitable" program anywhere, it's Miami.
Penn State has won exactly two titles, both in the 80s, and disappears from dominance for extensive periods of time. Terrible example.
Your example of Texas, in particular, though, is horrible, and honestly, HH joking aside, rather pedestrian.
Not one of your better efforts.
CrispedCreeped.As for Penn State, they've been in the Big 10 now for 24 years. Given their direct competition in Ohio St and Michigan, if you win the Big 10 you are right in the discussion for being able to be in the national title picture. They've won the Big 10 4 times during that interval and their division once. No question that they are in a tier behind Ohio State as Ohio State to me is an ultimate blue blood. Why do I have Penn St in that area? Because in those 24 years, Penn St has won 9 or more games 15 of those 24 years and that's despite going through one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports. Yet, we have evidence that they've been able to get through that scandal and be fine going forward. They have significant $$$ backing the program and their ability to recruit not only the State of Pennsylvania but also the Eastern seaboard notably in the New York and New Jersey markets puts them in a strong position to have the kind of talent necessary to be capable of winning the Big 10 - which I view very similar to some of the SEC programs behind Alabama.
The Texas argument is even more ridiculous to me. As can be proven with any program, if you hire the wrong coach you can set the program back in the short term. However, make no mistake that Texas is the pre-eminent school in the State of Texas and there is no greater source of recruiting talent than Texas (Florida and California are right there in the same discussion). The short-term view is that Texas has fallen back since winning the National Title with Vince Young and then falling short to Alabama in the 2009 season. I view the current state of Texas similar to where USC was for most of the 1990s ... still plenty of talent but directionless. Here's why I have no problem putting Texas on the list of blue bloods. Prior to the Charlie Strong era, you have to go back to the 1930's and the era of Jack Chevigny (1934-1936) to find a head coach at the University of Texas that did not win a conference championship. If that isn't a blue blood, then I don't know what is.
You also called out Michigan being a blue blood. They lost their way for a little bit with the Rich Rod and Brady Hoke hires. Similar to Texas, you have to go a long way back in history to find a coach that didn't win a conference championship at Michigan. It's a job that you can win and win big at. That's the reality. And I have no doubt that Harbaugh will continue to put Michigan in that position going forward.
Getting back to Miami, their heights are as high as any program in the history of college football not named Alabama and the run they are currently on under Saban. Prior to the 1980s, over a 50+ year period they only had 6 seasons of 1 loss football in a season. The history of success wasn't there. Since Larry Coker won the Big East in the 2003 season, Miami has shared a divisional conference championship ONCE since then with ZERO outright conference championships and only ONCE in that period (2005) have they lost less than 3 games IN CONFERENCE. That's far from elite and being in that national championship picture. The talent that they have available to them is indisputable. But it also has to be noted that the heights of their program coincided with the 1980 and 1990 time periods where Miami was infused with significant drug money and the $$$ handed out within the program is the stuff of legend. Point being that Miami has NEVER proven that they can CONSISTENTLY run a high end program without committing significant NCAA violations. There are also significant questions surrounding the University support of the program and the support of the program within the local community, etc. The ceiling is vast ... but the evidence suggests that Miami may be more of a shooting star than something that is sustainable over the long haul.
Also, I skimmed and only read like 3 lines total.
Living on the edge of danger...