Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you compare teams from yesterday, to the teams of today?
I know it's a wierd question but work with me here.
Citing success of your beloved program seems tricky sometimes. On the one hand the fans of Alabama, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, USC, etc. have the right to gloat big time.
But the game was different in terms of number of matches played, scholarships allowed, bowl game eligibilty, "parity" etc.
Take the major turning points of the NFL; You have it's inception.
Competition with AFL
Merger with AFL=forming MODERN Super Bowl era, which is everyones beginning point. Most people I talk to, even old timers only really cite Super Bowl and not previous NFL championships.
Is there some turning point in the sport that we could dub the beginning of the "modern age" for college ball?
The first real scholarship reductions in the 70s? Or the creation of the CFA in the 80s, or even later with the canonization of the dual AP/UPI poll in the 50s. Or even much more recently with the forming of Bowl Coalition/Alliance/BCS in the 90s?
One perspective of a UW fansite took a look at it by scholarship reductions.
(IMHO keeping with the large trend of "parity" amongst the game today, I try to look back primarily towards the 70s when they started reducing scholarships. Looking over records, you seemed to have a wider range of teams competing for elite spots).
Call me an over thinking ninny but I find it interesting and I think it's important when judging relative success of your favorite team throughout history.
I think most people consider 1950 as the beginning of the modern age of college football. That is starting to change though as I hear more and more of pre-BCS and BCS era. I don't think the scholarship reduction has had as much an impact as people believe. This is all by percentages:
All-time best records: 1. Michigan 2. Notre Dame 3. Texas 4. Ohio State 5. Oklahoma 6. Alabama 7. USC 8. Nebraska 9. Tennessee 10. Penn St
Since 1950: 1. Ohio State 2. Oklahoma 3. Penn St 4. Nebraska 5. Texas 6. Michigan 7. Alabama 8. USC 9. Tennesse 10. Florida
Not much has changed. The scholarship thing has evened things a bit. But most kids still want to go to Florida, USC, Ohio State, Nebraska etc. The traditional powers still get the best players. Even some of the teams that changed didn't move all that much. Notre Dame is the 11th winningest program since 1950. Florida is top 15 all-time. LSU is right there with Florida.
I think college football will always be dominated by about 20 teams. No matter how much the NCAA trys to even it out.
Yea, I guess you're right. Still it seems like from the late 70s onward you had the rise of teams like Washington and Iowa and later in the 90s like Kansas State and Syracuse. But then again I guess that's all down to the individual schools i guess.
I just feel like the press is like if youre not in this elite group; don't kid your selves, we only talk about you cause we have to even if you do play ball as good as anyone else.
Also just wondering, whos in your top 20?
I always thought it was a "Sweet Sixteen" based off records, prestige and media hype;
Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Miami
LSU
Texas
Southern Cal.
Oh well, I'll still pull for my underdogs to do well and provide those upsets at least.
The thing with the scholarships is that it prevents schools like UT,OU,and USC from scarfing up talent just to sit on the bench,so as to keep other schools from getting those guys and playing them against them.UT used to have players that would start for anyone else in the old SWC at 4th on the depth charts at skilled positions.
Modern pro football started in about the mid-1950s. That's when its popularity started to significantly grow nationally (though it had been growing decently in the decade or so prior to that, after WWII). Television (obviously) played a major role in the NFL's growth, as did the league's focus on competitive parity. It's also the period when some key rule changes (like a ball carrier being down when his knee hits the ground) and significant equipment changes (facemasks) were introduced.
Yea, I guess you're right. Still it seems like from the late 70s onward you had the rise of teams like Washington and Iowa and later in the 90s like Kansas State and Syracuse. But then again I guess that's all down to the individual schools i guess.
I just feel like the press is like if youre not in this elite group; don't kid your selves, we only talk about you cause we have to even if you do play ball as good as anyone else.
Also just wondering, whos in your top 20?
I always thought it was a "Sweet Sixteen" based off records, prestige and media hype;
Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Miami
LSU
Texas
Southern Cal.
Oh well, I'll still pull for my underdogs to do well and provide those upsets at least.
I would take Auburn out and replace them with Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. I'd put Auburn in the 20-30 range as far as all-time programs go.
I'd put a bunch of teams ahead of Georgia. GaTech, Clemson, VaTech, UCLA, Washington, Minnesota all come to mind. The Bulldogs are way overrated and always have been. I'd put them in the 30s along with Michigan State and Oklahoma State.........Georgia fans just whine and cry so much they get some national attention. They really don't do much on the football field except lose to Florida.
I tried to take into account the fuzzy memories of stuff before the 50s but primarily the things from 55 onward.
Bowl game wins were huge, but I also looked at win totals and conference championships, along with concequently who the media fawns over.
Vah Tech didn't really break out till the mid to late 90s.
GTech is a good choice cause they won two nat champs yet, ioono, UGA just seems bigger in history with the Vince Dooley era. Back in those days, Florida was hardly the behemoth it is now.
I can see how you find Auburn iffy with only one real NatChamp ranking but number 14 in wins aint no slouch.
I can see your Clemson vouch.
UCLA is another one I could see worthy, they aren't just a basketball school by any means with all those roses. Although not as golden a record, Washington is up there too.
But whats up with Minnesota, haven't done ANYTHING scince the 60s.
I tried to take into account the fuzzy memories of stuff before the 50s but primarily the things from 55 onward.
Bowl game wins were huge, but I also looked at win totals and conference championships, along with concequently who the media fawns over.
Vah Tech didn't really break out till the mid to late 90s.
GTech is a good choice cause they won two nat champs yet, ioono, UGA just seems bigger in history with the Vince Dooley era. Back in those days, Florida was hardly the behemoth it is now.
I can see how you find Auburn iffy with only one real NatChamp ranking but number 14 in wins aint no slouch.
I can see your Clemson vouch.
UCLA is another one I could see worthy, they aren't just a basketball school by any means with all those roses. Although not as golden a record, Washington is up there too.
But whats up with Minnesota, haven't done ANYTHING scince the 60s.
Minnesota has 6 national titles. I'm talking all-time rankings. Guess you're right about VaTech. I sometimes think they been around forever.
Georgia didn't play any out of conference game outside the state of Georgia or South Carolina for over 40 years until they went to Arizona in 2009. That right there should exclude them from any list. How can you be considered a top national program if you don't travel? And Georgia is usually 3rd or 4th in the SEC. Again not really what I would call a national power.
I think it been since 1985 that Florida has left the southeast for a game. That was to play Rutgers. LOLs. I wish these schools would be banned from BCS bowls unless they schedule one decent opponent out of conference and travel.
I am an ACC guy so I don't have a dog in the fight. But outside of bowl games, did OSU do a lot a travel scince the 50s?
An SEC guy would counter that Georgia wouldn't have to travel out of conference to prove it's worth just being in the SEC and playing GT every year is a challenge. Although that argument is overblown, I see how it could have some relevance in the pre-division SEC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
