Top 25 College Football Programs [Archive]

samikeyp

07-27-2007, 02:45 PM

Breakdown of the top 25.

5 teams
Big 10 (OSU #2, Michigan #6, Wisconsin #13t, Penn St. #21, Iowa #25)
SEC (Fla. #4, LSU #9, Tenn. #10, Ga. #11, Auburn #15)

4 teams
ACC (FSU #7, Miami #8, Va Tech #12, Boston College #22)
Big 12 (UT #3, OU #5, Nebraska #13t, K-State #20)

2 teams
Big East (Louisville #18, West Virginia #19)
Pac-10 (USC #1, Oregon #17)

Everyone else
Boise State (#16)
Notre Dame (#23)
TCU (#24)

samikeyp

07-27-2007, 02:54 PM

I think the SEC proved itself as the best overall of the last decade with 5 of the top 15 despite just two national titles (one of which was shared)

USC was a no brainer, IMO, for the top spot. They were a 1 yard stop and 10 yard run away from a three-peat.

I was a little surprised at Texas over OU because of the 4 conference titles to 1 but they each have a national title and over the last 10 years are 5-5 against each other. Texas has a three win lead over OU but OU just had 8 wins taken away which would have given them a 5 win edge. UT also has a better bowl record at 6-4. If you put back OU's 05 Holiday Bowl win, they are still only 5-4.

scott

07-27-2007, 05:45 PM

I think the fact its 10 years makes it hard to keep things in perpsective, especially in the case of programs like Miami, FSU and to a lesser extent Nebraska. They have fallen pretty far.

USC is a no-brainer because of the 2 National Titles... but again they are more the team of the last 5 years which propels them to the top of a 10 year ranking.

Mikey, OU's wins actually include the 8 vacated. They only combined for 9 wins in 1997 and 1998 (Pre-Stoops), so that dings their record.

Boise State I think is actually a little low. They are #2 in wins in this era (and I recall reading that since the Stoops era began, they are #2 in wins behind Oklahoma, so if it were an 8 year ranking they'd have more wins than Texas). Obviously they play against inferior competition, but they win year in and year out. I'd put them ahead of Nebraska, FSU, Miami, Tennessee and Georgia just because of consistency's sake.

As for the SEC, just watching those teams play is evidence that the level of play in that conference is on another level than the rest of the NCAA, especially in recent years. The non-SEC members of the top 5 are the only schools I think could even compete for an SEC title year in and year out. A school like Michigan would be looking at 8-4 every year.

samikeyp

07-27-2007, 05:52 PM

Mikey, OU's wins actually include the 8 vacated. They only combined for 9 wins in 1997 and 1998 (Pre-Stoops), so that dings their record.

My bad....I was trying to give your boys the benefit of the doubt. :)

scott

07-27-2007, 06:33 PM

.

My bad....I was trying to give your boys the benefit of the doubt. :)

Thanks brah... we'll go ahead and cash in your generousity on Oct 6

samikeyp

07-27-2007, 06:33 PM

Hahahahahaha!

Yeah I already have a bet on that one.

RonMexico

07-28-2007, 07:40 PM

Breakdown of the top 25.

5 teams
Big 10 (OSU #2, Michigan #6, Wisconsin #13, Penn St. #21, Iowa #25)

As if the Big 10 bias wasn't already apparent at ESPN...

SEC deserves 5 - I don't think the Big 10 does

Cant_Be_Faded

07-29-2007, 01:09 PM

ROFL

the big ten is becoming as horrendously overrated (as a whole) as the pac10

oooo stanford, california, wisconsin, iowa those teams scare the shit outta me

scott

07-29-2007, 06:45 PM

Iowa?

dallaskd

07-29-2007, 10:37 PM

K-State cracks the top 25. :clap

johngateswhiteley

07-30-2007, 08:09 PM

Sc.

TheAuthority

08-02-2007, 04:56 AM

USC also plays a cake conference schedule. USC would have 3 or 4 losses a season in the Big 10 or SEC. Lucky for them they only have to play 2 or 3 good games a season to win a national title. Congratulations on that one. Two words... Oregon State.

TheAuthority

08-02-2007, 05:06 AM

As if the Big 10 bias wasn't already apparent at ESPN...

SEC deserves 5 - I don't think the Big 10 does

Well, then, you're incredibly wrong. There's a reason SEC scores are 7 to 3 every week. And it isn't because they have NFL defenses.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC is the second highest rated in my eyes, but Big Ten football is far and away above everyone else. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. You can't name a conference with 3 programs that prestigious. On top of that you have Wisconsin and Iowa... hell even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.

Thunder Dan

08-02-2007, 09:07 AM

Well, then, you're incredibly wrong. There's a reason SEC scores are 7 to 3 every week. And it isn't because they have NFL defenses.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC is the second highest rated in my eyes, but Big Ten football is far and away above everyone else. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. You can't name a conference with 3 programs that prestigious. On top of that you have Wisconsin and Iowa... hell even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.

I somewhat agree. Back in the 90's you didn't have this whole debate becuase the SEC wasn't what it is now. The Big 10 has gone through some down years, but that's not to say that the SEC won't feel the same types of pains in the future. The SEC is the "in" conference right now, but we will see if it lasts. They will always be a good conference dont get me wrong, but I doubt we continue to write off every other conference in their glory in the future.

degenerate_gambler

08-02-2007, 09:20 AM

but Big Ten football is far and away above everyone else. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State. You can't name a conference with 3 programs that prestigious. On top of that you have Wisconsin and Iowa... hell even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.

Moron...

Last time I checked Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska were in the Big XII.

All Time Winningest College Football Teams:

1. Michigan 853 wins
2. Notre Dame 812 wins
3. Texas 797 wins
4. Nebraska 795 wins
5. Alabama 764 wins
6. tOSU 782 wins
7. Penn St 769 wins
8. Oklahoma 760 wins
9. Tennessee 755 wins
10. USC 731 wins

And I won't even go there regarding Iowa, Minny and the other retreads you mentioned.

SrA Husker

08-02-2007, 11:29 AM

Moron...

Last time I checked Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska were in the Big XII.

All Time Winningest College Football Teams:

1. Michigan 853 wins
2. Notre Dame 812 wins
3. Texas 797 wins
4. Nebraska 795 wins
5. Alabama 764 wins
6. tOSU 782 wins
7. Penn St 769 wins
8. Oklahoma 760 wins
9. Tennessee 755 wins
10. USC 731 wins

And I won't even go there regarding Iowa, Minny and the other retreads you mentioned.

While I won't disagree with the point you're making, your list is wrong as the following teams have over 800 wins...

860 - Michigan
821 - Notre Dame
813 - Texas
810 - Nebraska

samikeyp

08-02-2007, 11:48 AM

hell even Minnesota and Michigan State always have a highly talented squad.

Are you kidding? I went to the MSU-Minnesota game this past season. Watching old people fuck would have been more entertaining. :lol

Seriously though....I like the Big 10 but I would hardly call what these two schools have done the last 10 years "highly successful".

Minnesota is barely over .500 at 64-57 and MSU is at .500 with a 59-59 record.

Thunder Dan

08-02-2007, 11:55 AM

While I won't disagree with the point you're making, your list is wrong as the following teams have over 800 wins...

860 - Michigan
821 - Notre Dame
813 - Texas
810 - Nebraska

Historical wins don't mean shit. It's such a skewd stat becuase not all programs started at the same time. For all we know Rice could have started back in the 1850's and during the time when football was new they killed every team that just started a football program. So if Rice went 500-50 from 1850-1950, and then went 50-200 there after, do they belong up at the tops of college programs becuase they have more wins than another team? Now, I know non of the numbers add up, but I'm just trying to make the point that you can't judge a program by career wins. Michigan is one of the oldest programs around. Ohio St. and Michigan people argue all the time, about everything, and they (Michigan) always boast about how they lead the series over Ohio St. Now, that is statistically true, however, when you look into the numbers it should be expected for them becuase they had 10 years under their belt before football was even introduced at Ohio St. Thats what I'm saying, is Michigan might have the most wins, but they have had 10 years on everyone else. So think about it, it took and extra 5-10 years just for teams to be competable against them. The same logic holds true for every other program. The first programs will always have more wins than a newer one. Its the same logic as Michael Jordan's brother probably beat him in basketball everytime they played untill Jordan got older.

That said, you should compare winning percentage from the time when football became football. The forward pass was instituted in 1904(I think I may be a year off). So wins from 1870-1904 are basically wins as a rugby team beating up on teams who are new to the sport. So, if you want to count those, go ahead, but if your truley looking and comparing football as we know it today, you should do winning percentage since 1904

SrA Husker

08-02-2007, 12:24 PM

So, if you want to count those, go ahead, but if your truley looking and comparing football as we know it today, you should do winning percentage since 1904

Ask, and you shall recieve.

I-A Winning Percentage 1904-2006 (103 years)

---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- -----
Rank Team name Win-Pct Won Lost Tied Games
---- ----------------------- ------- ---- ---- ---- -----
1 Notre Dame 0.74617 762 248 34 1044
2 Michigan 0.73640 729 251 31 1011
3 Ohio State 0.72960 720 253 44 1017
4 Alabama 0.71950 758 283 41 1082
5 Oklahoma 0.71194 733 282 49 1064
6 Texas 0.71190 752 296 28 1076
7 Southern Cal 0.70678 715 282 50 1047
8 Nebraska 0.70403 733 298 35 1066
9 Tennessee 0.70251 730 295 49 1074
10 Penn State 0.70000 714 296 35 1045
11 Florida State 0.67288 443 211 17 671
12 Georgia 0.64934 669 350 49 1068
13 Miami-Ohio 0.64170 614 334 40 988
14 Miami-Florida 0.63856 532 297 19 848
15 Louisiana State 0.63684 649 360 47 1056
16 Auburn 0.63135 638 364 41 1043
17 Washington 0.62881 618 356 43 1017
18 Florida 0.62220 619 368 40 1027
19 Arizona State 0.61400 518 321 25 864
20 Georgia Tech 0.60807 637 404 37 1078
21 Central Michigan 0.60586 521 333 34 888
22 Texas A&M 0.60235 620 402 43 1065
23 Colorado 0.59671 581 387 35 1003
24 Fresno State 0.59590 523 350 29 902
25 Syracuse 0.59563 594 397 39 1030

Note - Only includes current I-A teams.

Thunder Dan

08-02-2007, 12:39 PM

so then the Big 10 doesn't look so bad now does it? The 3 that guy named are in the Top 10

degenerate_gambler

08-02-2007, 01:17 PM

While I won't disagree with the point you're making, your list is wrong as the following teams have over 800 wins...

860 - Michigan
821 - Notre Dame
813 - Texas
810 - Nebraska

thanks husker dude....that's what i get for being in a hurry.

SrA Husker

08-02-2007, 01:45 PM

so then the Big 10 doesn't look so bad now does it? The 3 that guy named are in the Top 10

Unfortunately, that doesn't take any type of strength of schedule into account. Using Notre Dame for example, when they play 4-5 creampuffs a year ATLEAST.....

Holmes_Fans

08-02-2007, 02:01 PM

so then the Big 10 doesn't look so bad now does it? The 3 that guy named are in the Top 10
And the 3 names for the big 12 all have more wins.

degenerate_gambler

08-02-2007, 02:08 PM

And the 3 names for the big 12 all have more wins.

not only that, but the Big 12 has 5 teams in the Top 25.

As for the big 10...that powerhouse of a conference has 3 just like the PAC 10.

TheAuthority

08-03-2007, 05:31 AM

Are you kidding? I went to the MSU-Minnesota game this past season. Watching old people fuck would have been more entertaining. :lol

Seriously though....I like the Big 10 but I would hardly call what these two schools have done the last 10 years "highly successful".

Minnesota is barely over .500 at 64-57 and MSU is at .500 with a 59-59 record.

I didn't say they were national championship material. The point I was making, even teams that are that talented, they won't have a chance in the Big 10, because of exactly that, the conference being so talented... top to bottom. For example Michigan State should have, by all accounts, beaten Notre Dame last season. That in itself is proof of the Big 10's depth. Penn State was 2 seconds away from a possible national championship appearance a few years ago, if Lloyd Carr wasn't sucking the referees off on the sideline to get more time put back on the clock, they would have been right there. If Penn State ever gets a good quarterback again, it's over. Their defense is filthy good, every year.

Brutalis

08-04-2007, 10:03 PM

that is a horrible list.

i can go on for paragraphs but to start with the last... iowa??? put them in the sec would they have ever been anything? another smu is what. the whole list is gank.

TheAuthority

08-05-2007, 09:02 AM

Brutalis

08-05-2007, 08:50 PM

Who are you? Nick Cannon?

I understand we're talking about 'in the last 10 years.' So on that note, consider Iowa being in the SEC or taking some SEC schools into the 'Pac-10.' Iowa wouldn't have done crap in one, and worse in the other. Even in the last decade.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-05-2007, 09:14 PM

It's funny because more and more you hear these little green dicked 16 year olds talk about subjects (SPORTS especially) like they're a world war II vet. Plus on the web they're (non intentional) newbie posts make them seem like such douches.

It's like that little wannabe chodebloading freak who posts articles on foxsports.com, like he's the savior of sports.

Flo-Rida

08-08-2007, 11:25 AM

Tha U is gonna surprise a lot of people this year

samikeyp

08-08-2007, 12:19 PM

Who are you? Nick Cannon?

He's hilaarious. :lol

DNS Error

08-08-2007, 11:49 PM

Something I came across..of course this is one dude's opinion...

the question-what makes a national power, a national power?

4 tiers-kings barons knights and peasants..

Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee*, Texas and USC.

* Tennessee is the lone school in the group that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately. In the end, I figured those 100 fans in Montana still know "Rocky Top," the checkered end zones and that Peyton Manning went there.

Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU*, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.

* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group.

Knights
Arizona State, Arkansas, Boston College, Cal, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse*, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington State.

* In normal times, Syracuse would qualify as one of the barons, but they're just so darn bad and so irrelevant right now.

Peasants
Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers*, South Florida*, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt.

* Rutgers is another program that could be on its way up a tier, and South Florida is here by default because it's essentially a start-up.

There is one school intentionally missing from the list, and that's because I have no idea where to put it: Louisville. History-wise, the Cardinals are peasants, but the program has completely reinvented itself over the past decade and now gets mentioned with the kings and barons. For now, we'll just say: TBD.

Thunder Dan

08-09-2007, 08:29 AM

Iowa:

Appearances in the final Associated Press Poll
2002 – 8th
2003 – 8th
2004 – 8th

Players: Bob Sanders, Brad Banks (Big Ten and AP Player of the Year), Dallas Clark (#24 pick in the draft, Mackey Award Winner), Nate Kaeding (Groza Award Winner), Robert Gallery (#2 pick in the draft, Outland Award Winner), Chad Greenway (#17 pick in the draft)

So... yeah... next...

I'm all for supporting the Big 10, but Iowa sucks. I have never seen Iowa win anything with any meaning in the last 10 years. All I can remember is the beatdowns they took from Ohio State last year and in 2005. The only years Iowa is any "good" is when they don't have OSU or Michigan on their schedule. Their biggest feather in their cap was beating Ohio State during a rebuilding year in 2004. Iowa beat a team with 4 losses, and was not a good team. After the win you would have thought they won the Super Bowl; just by that display the Iowa fans a players were subconsciously admitting their program's medioracty. It's like when Bobcat fans get excited about beating the Lakers. It's not a big deal anymore to any other team, but the Bobcats see it as a huge win.

Also, Robert Gallery is one of the biggest busts in the last 10 years of the draft. If you were a true Iowa fan you should have dropped Eric Steinbach's name, not Gallery. But even so, every school gives the NFL talent.

Brutalis

08-09-2007, 09:16 PM

Brutalis

08-09-2007, 09:17 PM

And another thing.

Would Iowa have beat Auburn in any year in the last 10? No. Yet Arkansas does on a regular basis. Just venting still..

Brutalis

08-09-2007, 09:21 PM

Tha U is gonna surprise a lot of people this year
Yeaaa, you know.. you're so right.. I mean Miami is the shit every year and stuff...

Thunder Dan

08-11-2007, 08:48 AM

And another thing.

Would Iowa have beat Auburn in any year in the last 10? No. Yet Arkansas does on a regular basis. Just venting still..

Arkansas is no better than Iowa. To my memory Arkansas had one good year since I was born (last year) and no National Titles that I can remember. I thought this was an argument about Iowa being elite, not a comparison to Arkansas. I'll argue the rest of my life that Iowa has a better program than Arkansas. They have a better coach, a better history, more NFL talent, they even have a Heisman, something Arkansas had their best chance of getting last year when McFadden had a line to block for him.

Plus, your program doesn't gain credibility just by beating Auburn. Go beat USC (or atleast come within 30 points this year) then talk to me about beating a significant team. Auburn is decent, but not worthy of boasting about.

Brutalis

08-11-2007, 07:12 PM

Arkansas is no better than Iowa. To my memory Arkansas had one good year since I was born (last year) and no National Titles that I can remember. I thought this was an argument about Iowa being elite, not a comparison to Arkansas. I'll argue the rest of my life that Iowa has a better program than Arkansas. They have a better coach, a better history, more NFL talent, they even have a Heisman, something Arkansas had their best chance of getting last year when McFadden had a line to block for him.

Plus, your program doesn't gain credibility just by beating Auburn. Go beat USC (or atleast come within 30 points this year) then talk to me about beating a significant team. Auburn is decent, but not worthy of boasting about.
You are a fucking retard if you think Iowa Football is better than Arkansas Football. Not in the last 10 years, not in the last 100. Period. And I'm willing to bet several folks would say the same.

Just because Iowa has had more success in the last 10 means shit. Like I said, put them in the SEC and they are another Kentyucky and Misstake. Put Arkansas in the Pac10 and it would have equaled more wins.

Brutalis

08-11-2007, 07:13 PM

Another thing, you obviously are around 16 years old if Arkansas' only good year to you was last. Hahahah retarded.

Thunder Dan

08-13-2007, 09:28 AM

You are a fucking retard if you think Iowa Football is better than Arkansas Football. Not in the last 10 years, not in the last 100. Period. And I'm willing to bet several folks would say the same.

Just because Iowa has had more success in the last 10 means shit. Like I said, put them in the SEC and they are another Kentyucky and Misstake. Put Arkansas in the Pac10 and it would have equaled more wins.

I'm 24 so I remember most of the 90's on. Here is the difference between Iowa and Arkansas. Arkansas has to buy their top recruits by giving people jobs. Once they get into the program they try, along with others, to get out of the program to get away from that coach. Iowa on the other hand has a coach guys would love to play for, and is probably one of the top 5 coaches in college football in terms of getting guys ready for the NFL.

If they put you in the Pac 10 you would get lit up again and again. A weak USC(in relation to other years) came into your house and beat the Hogs 50-14. It was John David Booty's first game! His first game at a quarterback in NCAA football, on the road, against (what you feel) is an elite program. Your team let that rookie put 50 points on the board. Again, thats 50 points on your own turf. If you joined the Pac 10 you would probably be the 4th best team behind USC, Cal, and UCLA.

Don't be so narrow sighted with your views. It's cool you like the Razorbacks, but just becuase you like them doesnt mean they are some great program envied by others, becuase frankly it's not. Once McFadden is gone it's all down hill from there.

*note I probably would have been able to prove their mediocrity by finding the numbers, but Wikipedia only had 5 pages made on individual seasons(2006,1977,1978,1979,1980) of the 114 years of Razorback football. I guess I didn't need to explain their relevance, Wikipedia did it for me. I guess going to the Capitol One Bowl (and losing) is considered worthy of a breakdown by some adoring Hog fan.

TheAuthority

08-16-2007, 02:39 AM

I'm all for supporting the Big 10, but Iowa sucks. I have never seen Iowa win anything with any meaning in the last 10 years. All I can remember is the beatdowns they took from Ohio State last year and in 2005. The only years Iowa is any "good" is when they don't have OSU or Michigan on their schedule. Their biggest feather in their cap was beating Ohio State during a rebuilding year in 2004. Iowa beat a team with 4 losses, and was not a good team. After the win you would have thought they won the Super Bowl; just by that display the Iowa fans a players were subconsciously admitting their program's medioracty. It's like when Bobcat fans get excited about beating the Lakers. It's not a big deal anymore to any other team, but the Bobcats see it as a huge win.

Also, Robert Gallery is one of the biggest busts in the last 10 years of the draft. If you were a true Iowa fan you should have dropped Eric Steinbach's name, not Gallery. But even so, every school gives the NFL talent.

Iowa does not suck, you are butthurt from them beating Ohio State. I'm not an Iowa fan. I'm a Penn State fan. It's irrelevant whether Gallery is a bust. Most people had him as the best offensive line prospect in the last 10 years going into that draft. He got his paycheck and cashed in... or out. He also plays in the shittiest football environment possible. And yes, all teams provide the NFL with talent. Not all of them provide them with the #2 pick in the draft.

TheAuthority

08-16-2007, 02:44 AM

Thunder Dan

08-16-2007, 05:42 PM

Iowa does not suck, you are butthurt from them beating Ohio State. I'm not an Iowa fan. I'm a Penn State fan. It's irrelevant whether Gallery is a bust. Most people had him as the best offensive line prospect in the last 10 years going into that draft. He got his paycheck and cashed in... or out. He also plays in the shittiest football environment possible. And yes, all teams provide the NFL with talent. Not all of them provide them with the #2 pick in the draft.

Ohio State lost to Iowa one time in like 10 years, I don't think I'm too caught up in it. I just wouldn't consider Iowa a top program in college football becuase of having guys in the NFL.