Historically Underperforming Programs

[Renegade]

What program with traditional advantages (location, recruiting base, money, conference) has underperformed the most over the past 70 years (post-WW2).

This isn't to say simply a team that has sucked for its entire history, which may be to other factors, but a program that generally doesn't succeed at the level it should/doesn't live up to expectations?

 

[Renegade]

Personally I'd go with Georgia. Only 1 national title and not many SEC titles despite sitting in all that talent. Seems like every year they want to talk MNC and end up with 2-3 losses. Other contenders f0r me would be UNC, UCLA, aTm, South Carolina, and Clemson.

Clemson's like Georgia, got everything going for it, money, fans, recruiting location, an easier conference, yet they've got 1 MNC and always seem like a contender but drop a few games or just can't win the big one they need.

 

[bruin228]

Pittsburgh. 8 claimed titles before World War II, 1 since.

 

[TrojanMan]

UCLA. They should have won more conference titles, Rose Bowls, perhaps national titles, etc. than they have. They're sort of like USC basketball ---- to be fair, UCLA football over the last 70 years hasn't been as awful as SC basketball. Rarely is their football team embarrassing, and our hoops team is just that fairly regularly. The point is, given the location, the resources, the weather, the girls, the tradition, the local recruiting base, etc., their football program should've accomplished a lot more....just like our basketball program.

 

[Soonerfan09]

Texas.

 

[jdlikewhoa]

Clemson. Texas. Notre Dame. Virginia Tech.

 

[BasinBictory]

Clemson, Texas A&M, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas, and Arkansas are all programs which, to me, seem to have huge, passionate fanbases, are in talent-rich regions, (maybe less so Arkansas, but they're next door to Texas, just as Oklahoma is, and also have Louisianastan to the south) and presumably have lots of high-dollar alumni willing to fork up cash to see their footbaw team be successful.

Yet all of these schools have only moderate success relative to how much fan interest and athletic department funding there is.

UCLA I would put in a similar category as North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. They're basketball schools, and even though, in the case of UNC and UK, they're in footbaw-mad regions, the alumni of the school care more about hardwood success than gridiron success. Kansas basketball could be analogous to Nebraska footbaw. Both are in High Plains states with small populations and thus generally have to recruit well outside their area for their teams to be successful, but their name and reputation in their respective sports ensures that they'll get a fair share of recruits based on that name alone.

 

[kella]

Internet Explorer.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Texas.

Texas has been a big disappointment plenty of times, but no way is it among the biggest.

I'd say the list that Renegade came up with is pretty spot on.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Clemson, Texas A&M, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas, and Arkansas are all programs which, to me, seem to have huge, passionate fanbases, are in talent-rich regions, (maybe less so Arkansas, but they're next door to Texas, just as Oklahoma is, and also have Louisianastan to the south) and presumably have lots of high-dollar alumni willing to fork up cash to see their footbaw team be successful.

Yet all of these schools have only moderate success relative to how much fan interest and athletic department funding there is.

UCLA I would put in a similar category as North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. They're basketball schools, and even though, in the case of UNC and UK, they're in footbaw-mad regions, the alumni of the school care more about hardwood success than gridiron success. Kansas basketball could be analogous to Nebraska footbaw. Both are in High Plains states with small populations and thus generally have to recruit well outside their area for their teams to be successful, but their name and reputation in their respective sports ensures that they'll get a fair share of recruits based on that name alone.

Texas has won 3 or 4 legit (depending on how you define that) national titles since 1963 and has a couple others that Bama would claim, as well as a few other near misses.

I am no Mack Brown apologist, his teams probably underperformed their talent on hand by at least several conference titles and one more MNC title appearance, but I don't think you can put Texas in the same category as a Georgia or a Clemson. Most of the other coaches since Royal have been awful, but the Akers era had its moments (mainly two near misses against Georgia and ND).

 

[TrojanMan]

UCLA I would put in a similar category as North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. They're basketball schools, and even though, in the case of UNC and UK, they're in footbaw-mad regions, the alumni of the school care more about hardwood success than gridiron success. Kansas basketball could be analogous to Nebraska footbaw. Both are in High Plains states with small populations and thus generally have to recruit well outside their area for their teams to be successful, but their name and reputation in their respective sports ensures that they'll get a fair share of recruits based on that name alone.

Most of the UCLA fans/alums I know pay more attention to the football team. They just lean on the basketball program for moral support.

And unlike UNC, UK, etc., UCLA isn't competing against the entire SEC, ACC, Big East (when it was good), etc. for recruits. It's just us, really. Washington has had its spurts too, and Oregon has been good most of this decade, but other than SC, there's no 'permanent' Goliath out here sucking up all the recruits.

Again, same with our hoops team. I know we share a city with the school that has the most NC's in that sport, but they can't take every kid in SoCal, or even in LA. SC should've done way better bringing in talent over the years.

 

[TrojanMan]

Internet Explorer.

This fucking rules.

 

[bruin]

comparing UCLA historically in football to Duke, Kentucky, Kansas...

 

[bruin]

I believe @digs said it on the old board, but I could be wrong, that ASU had the chance to be like a West Coast Miami. Graham has done well there, but overall they've left a lot to be desired. Makes you wonder what could have been after '97. Damn Joe Germaine and David Boston.

I hear the UCLA is the West Coast Clemson comparisons a lot. Maybe. Except UCLA actually beats their rival.

 

[BasinBictory]

Most of the UCLA fans/alums I know pay more attention to the football team. They just lean on the basketball program for moral support.

And unlike UNC, UK, etc., UCLA isn't competing against the entire SEC, ACC, Big East (when it was good), etc. for recruits. It's just us, really. Washington has had its spurts too, and Oregon has been good most of this decade, but other than SC, there's no 'permanent' Goliath out here sucking up all the recruits.

Again, same with our hoops team. I know we share a city with the school that has the most NC's in that sport, but they can't take every kid in SoCal, or even in LA. SC should've done way better bringing in talent over the years.

True. USC basketball has criminally underperformed, given the fact that we obstensibly have the same recruiting advantages as our crosstown rivals, who are the most historically successful NCAA hoops program. However, until the recently-built Galen Center, USC basketball played in the crumbling Sports Arena, where home attendance was so sparse that they hung these huge black curtains to hide the empty seats. It felt like playing inside a cave. Additionally, the team practiced in the old North Gym, which honest-to-God looked like the set of Hoosiers, and I don't mean then they played in the great big stadium at the film's climax. Try selling that crap to recruits. Throw in two longtime coaches who were known as strict disciplinarians (George Raveling and Henry Bibby), and it's easy to see why some high school hoops hotshot, even one from LA, who wanted to stay in LA, but wasn't offered by UCLA, might not be too enthused with the prospect of playing basketball for USC. Then of course, there was the whole dynamic with UCLA basketball, which has mostly been quite one-sided.

In a very real sense, playing hoops for USC was like playing for the Donald Sterling (pre-2008) Clippers.

UCLA football, conversely, has fairly regularly competed for conference titles and such. However, IMO, UCLA football has been hampered by the attitude infused in them by Terry Donahue that beating USC is the primary goal every season. A UCLA football team could win 10+ games, win a nice bowl game, but lose to USC, and Bruin fans would consider it a disappointment. Conversely, a Bruin team that was a 4-8 embarrassment, but upset USC to wreck a Rose Bowl bid would be celebrated. Don't believe me? Ask UCLA fans whether they liked the 2005 team or the 2006 team better.

Dont know any A&M or Auburn fans, by I wonder if they take almost all their football joy out of beating their rivals. I suspect no, as I think both those programs have wider horizons than simply beating Texas or Alabama.

 

[Wooly]

I will add LSU, since so many of the others have been mentioned already. Yeah, they have been pretty good for the past decade, but for a good 20 years or more they were under performing annually. A bunch of 3 and 4 loss teams is not acceptable with such a fertile recruiting ground and passionate fan base. You might even say this past decade has been a disappointment too, considering how few MNCs and SEC titles they have won with Top 5 talent for years and years.

Good discussion topic BTW.

 

[BasinBictory]

comparing UCLA historically in football to Duke, Kentucky, Kansas...

Never mentioned Duke.

However, I do wonder if, once Krzyzewski leaves, just how badly Duke will do. Almost all their hoops success has been Coach K. UCLA has won only one title since Wooden left - almost 40 years ago.

 

[Wooly]

Texas has been a big disappointment plenty of times, but no way is it among the biggest.

I'd say the list that Renegade came up with is pretty spot on.

I would throw both Texas and A&M in the list. I say that because they have underperformed so often for the advantages they have. Sure they had a great run in the late 60s and early 70s, and were pretty strong in the mid 2000s, but what happened during the 80s and 90s? There are a good 25 years there where Texas only occasionally was a serious MNC contender. That is just unacceptable for being the number one program in the best recruiting state in the country...ESPECIALLY before they joined the Big 12, when they played in a SWC where their only legitimate rival was A&M. 2-3 loss teams are unacceptable for Texas in those circumstances, and they had a lot of those years. Texas is the best job in the country I think, and I don't even think it's that close. In any 10 year span, Texas should be in the MNC hunt 7-8 times.

So basically Texas makes the list because they have huge advantages and expectations (even more than LSU which I posted), even compared with other power programs like UCLA. When UCLA disappears for a decade, it's just not as bad as when Texas does it.

 

[atlbraves]

Pitt

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I would throw both Texas and A&M in the list. I say that because they have underperformed so often for the advantages they have. Sure they had a great run in the late 60s and early 70s, and were pretty strong in the mid 2000s, but what happened during the 80s and 90s? There are a good 25 years there where Texas only occasionally was a serious MNC contender. That is just unacceptable for being the number one program in the best recruiting state in the country...ESPECIALLY before they joined the Big 12, when they played in a SWC where their only legitimate rival was A&M. 2-3 loss teams are unacceptable for Texas in those circumstances, and they had a lot of those years. Texas is the best job in the country I think, and I don't even think it's that close. In any 10 year span, Texas should be in the MNC hunt 7-8 times.

So basically Texas makes the list because they have huge advantages and expectations (even more than LSU which I posted), even compared with other power programs like UCLA. When UCLA disappears for a decade, it's just not as bad as when Texas does it.

I get that argument and I don't totally disagree with it, but it is one of degrees. When you compare Texas to Georgia, for instance, there is just no comparison.

UGA is the undisputed top program in a very talented state and it took Hershel Walker to bring them their lone national title. And they haven't won the SEC that often either (9 times since 1950).

 

[Southpaw]

South Carolina tops my list. South Carolina was one of the historically worst football programs in the nation until very recently. No excuse for that. They've been to more bowl games since 2001 than they had in their entire history, with only 1 bowl win in that 100 years of football.

 

[TrojanMan]

I hear the UCLA is the West Coast Clemson comparisons a lot. Maybe. Except UCLA actually beats their rival.

Clemson versus USCeast: 65-42-4
UCLA versus USCwest: 30-44-7

 

[Wooly]

I get that argument and I don't totally disagree with it, but it is one of degrees. When you compare Texas to Georgia, for instance, there is just no comparison.

UGA is the undisputed top program in a very talented state and it took Hershel Walker to bring them their lone national title. And they haven't won the SEC that often either (9 times since 1950).

I can go with that. Georgia's resume of futility is hard to beat.

 

[Travis7401]

Tennessee has been doing a bang up job lately.

 

[DeadMan]

In terms of national championships, Michigan has to be up there. They won the Big Ten all the time, but have one national title to show for it since the 1940s. Doesn't compare to programs like Daddy A&M or Georgia, though, because at least they won their conference.

 

[kella]

With all the heroes Army has they sure are fucking shitty.

 

[goblue96]

In terms of national championships, Michigan has to be up there. They won the Big Ten all the time, but have one national title to show for it since the 1940s. Doesn't compare to programs like Daddy A&M or Georgia, though, because at least they won their conference.

Not a deep in-state recruiting base.

 

[TXHusker05]

Georgia would be at the top of this list and no other program would be even remotely close. One of the best recruiting grounds in CFB, only competitive program in the state, great facilities and obviously dat S-E-C logo on the field. No program in college football consistently does less with more than Georgia.

Clemson would be a distant second. I give Clemson a bit of a pass just because they have to compete against South Carolina in just about everything they do and I can't imagine having a huge SEC in-state rival to compete against is easy. There will always be "Clemsoning" but that's more of a factor of a team just not mentally prepared to get over the hump. In Georgia's case, I just don't think they are all that great of a football team. They routinely underperform. They don't choke, they just don't play very well consistently.

I don't know about UCLA. They'll always be little brother even in their own city and football will always be the little brother to basketball in their own athletic department. That said, they should be doing better with the money they spend on football and the gigantic recruiting base. I'm just not sure what a realistic expectation is for UCLA football.

Agree with Wooly about Texas A&M though. Given the recruiting grounds, support and financial backing that program has, they should be doing better. They'd probably be #3 on my list.

I don't think programs like Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame and to a lesser extent Nebraska belong here. I think there is a difference between routinely and criminally underperforming and just suffering recent setbacks. I also think the internal expectations for these programs far exceeds realistic expectations. All 4 of those schools have a lot going for them and should be competing at a high level, but it doesn't matter how good they do because if they aren't winning titles their season is a failure.

@jdlikewhoa mentioned them but Virginia Tech is a team that absolutely belongs on this list. They seem perfectly content with who they are though.

A team I'd like to add, BYU. That's a program with a very proud football history, a devout fan base and markets itself as the Notre Dame of West that has done absolutely nothing since 1984 despite routinely playing inferior competition. The move to independent status hasn't helped much.

Honorable mention: Tennessee and Penn State.

 

[Rutgers Mike]

not Rutgers

 

[TrojanMan]

I don't know about UCLA. They'll always be little brother even in their own city and football will always be the little brother to basketball in their own athletic department. That said, they should be doing better with the money they spend on football and the gigantic recruiting base. I'm just not sure what a realistic expectation is for UCLA football.

I disagree. Football, in any given year, brings in 2x to 4x the revenue of basketball at UCLA. And it typically turns a healthy profit, whereas basketball there is generally a break-even or net negative. Their A.D. absolutely cares about the football the most, because it's what pays the bills.

IMO, UCLA should be relevant and 'in the hunt' almost every year.

 

[goblue96]

not Rutgers

They're on the list "historically shitty teams who rarely over perform."

 

[Rutgers Mike]

They're on the list "historically shitty teams who rarely over perform."

No, they were playing the equivalent of Patriot League football for over 100 years of their existence, yet still had some good years. They also turned down bowl bids in the 50s thru 70s period. Based on in-state talent tho, they should have been better then what they were pre-Schiano, but they only had one truly terrible stretch.

 

[DeadMan]

Florida could be on the list, too. Of course, since basically 1990, they've been a top program, but before then, it looks bad for them. They have 8 conference titles, all 8 came after 1990. 3 national titles, same thing. They were basically awful from WWII until 1990. And then great from 1990 until now.

 

[goblue96]

No, they were playing the equivalent of Patriot League football for over 100 years of their existence, yet still had some good years. They also turned down bowl bids in the 50s thru 70s period. Based on in-state talent tho, they should have been better then what they were pre-Schiano, but they only had one truly terrible stretch.

1978 Garden State Bowl....finalist.

 

[TXHusker05]

I disagree. Football, in any given year, brings in 2x to 4x the revenue of basketball at UCLA. And it typically turns a healthy profit, whereas basketball there is generally a break-even or net negative. Their A.D. absolutely cares about the football the most, because it's what pays the bills.

IMO, UCLA should be relevant and 'in the hunt' almost every year.

Couldn't that be said for the majority of FBS level athletic departments though? Thanks to conference and television funding, most Power 5 football programs will out-earn basketball regardless of which program is more dominant on the field/court. Even at schools that are historically "basketball schools", football is usually the primary breadwinner.

There are a few exceptions like Louisville and Kansas (Louisville's basketball program alone out-earns most FBS football programs and Kansas' football program loses money) but look at a school like Kentucky. A historically garbage football program and historically elite basketball program but the football program out-earns basketball 3 to 1 last I saw.

I could only find numbers for the 2010-11 season but UCLA's football and basketball programs bring in nearly identical profits ($5.1M to $4.9M). That may have changed some recently, but it provides a good baseline. At the time, that $4.9M would make UCLA the 2nd most profitable basketball program in the Pac-12 behind Arizona, whose basketball program is the 2nd most profitable athletic program in the entire conference for all sports. On the flip side, that $5.1M would make UCLA's football program the 10th most profitable football program in the Pac-12, leading only Stanford and Washington State.

 

[Southpaw]

Tennessee has been doing a bang up job lately.

Historically!!

as shitty as they've been the last 10 years, they still have more wins than any program since 1940.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Illinois, UCLA, Arizona State, Rutgers, California, Syracuse and maybe even Texas and Texas A&M.

EDIT: Add Georgia. Even the MNC they won in 1980, they weren't the best team that year. No way Georgia beats Pittsburgh in 1980.

 

[BasinBictory]

Illinois, Rutgers, and Cal?

None of those programs seem to have the fan (and therefore monetary) support to sustain much long-term success.

While I wouldn't call them historically underperforming (since expectations are low), a team which I always figured should have become a powerhouse but somehow never did is San Diego State. They're in the middle of a recruiting hotbed (Marcus Allen, Reggie Bush, Terrell Davis, Junior Seau are all from the San Diego area), they have even better weather than LA, relaxed admission standards compared to the PAC-12 schools to the north, and are still a D1 program.

 

[goblue96]

Illinois, UCLA, Arizona State, Rutgers, California, Syracuse and maybe even Texas and Texas A&M.

EDIT: Add Georgia. Even the MNC they won in 1980, they weren't the best team that year. No way Georgia beats Pittsburgh in 1980.

Pitt got royally fucked over in 1980 by the bowls.

From wiki:

Although there were still games left to be played, the major bowls extended their invitations. Top ranked Georgia earned a Sugar Bowl berth by virue of its SEC championship and Notre Dame was invited to play them in a 1 vs. 2 matchup. #5 Oklahoma earned the Big 8's Orange Bowl berth and would play #3 Florida State. 6th ranked Michigan would face #16 Washington in the Rose Bowl, while #7 Baylor earned the Cotton Bowl berth by winning the SWC. Most people assumed #4 Pittsburgh would earn a major bowl bid and face Baylor, but the Cotton Bowl opted for #9 Alabama instead. The Fiesta Bowl also passed over Pitt, inviting #11 Ohio State and #10 Penn State (who had just lost to Pittsburgh). Thus, Pittsburgh had to settle for a Gator Bowl bid vs. #18 South Carolina and Heisman Trophy winner George Rogers.

On November 29, #17 USC spoiled the 1 vs. 2 Sugar Bowl matchup by upsetting #2 Notre Dame by a score of 20-3. The final regular season top five was 1. Georgia, 2. Florida State, 3. Pittsburgh, 4. Oklahoma, and 5. Michigan.

But in the bowls defense, that 1980 Pitt team had Mark "Cock Walrus" May on it. So, I'm okay with them getting fucked over.

 

[Snorky's Shame]

Illinois, Rutgers, and Cal?

None of those programs seem to have the fan (and therefore monetary) support to sustain much long-term success.

While I wouldn't call them historically underperforming (since expectations are low), a team which I always figured should have become a powerhouse but somehow never did is San Diego State. They're in the middle of a recruiting hotbed (Marcus Allen, Reggie Bush, Terrell Davis, Junior Seau are all from the San Diego area), they have even better weather than LA, relaxed admission standards compared to the PAC-12 schools to the north, and are still a D1 program.

I added those three because of population. You'd figure you could find some players amongst a local population of 5-10 million people. I also don't think alumni money would be hard to find considering they're the flagship public institution in their states.

I can only speak for Illinois but their major problem is they are not the most popular team in Chicago. Illinois is more of a downstate thing, you won't find very many Illinois fans without links to the school. Another problem is they can't keep the talent at home. Personally, I don't think you can win on Illinois talent alone, but if you can keep the good talent at home and supplement it with second-tier talent from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania you should be OK.

 

[BasinBictory]

I added those three because of population. You'd figure you could find some players amongst a local population of 5-10 million people. I also don't think alumni money would be hard to find considering they're the flagship public institution in their states.

I can only speak for Illinois but their major problem is they are not the most popular team in Chicago. Illinois is more of a downstate thing, you won't find very many Illinois fans without links to the school. Another problem is they can't keep the talent at home. Personally, I don't think you can win on Illinois talent alone, but if you can keep the good talent at home and supplement it with second-tier talent from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania you should be OK.

Dont know about Rutgers, but in the case of Cal, they've basically been a middle-of-the-pack and lower team for most of their history in the AAWU/PAC-8/10/12. They're probably the least glamorous of the 4 California Pac-12 schools, and recruits would probably rather play in Eugene or Seattle before wanting to play in Berkely. Cal is also academically rigorous, and its fans in general aren't known for being passionate football fans. Even in their down years, Autzen Stadium was known as a tough place to play. Strawberry Canyon got more press for its beautiful scenery. The Bay Area is like New York and Chicago in the sense that the average sports fan in those cities tend to root for their local pro teams, and the college teams get very short shrift.

 

[TrojanMan]

Couldn't that be said for the majority of FBS level athletic departments though? Thanks to conference and television funding, most Power 5 football programs will out-earn basketball regardless of which program is more dominant on the field/court. Even at schools that are historically "basketball schools", football is usually the primary breadwinner.

There are a few exceptions like Louisville and Kansas (Louisville's basketball program alone out-earns most FBS football programs and Kansas' football program loses money) but look at a school like Kentucky. A historically garbage football program and historically elite basketball program but the football program out-earns basketball 3 to 1 last I saw.

I could only find numbers for the 2010-11 season but UCLA's football and basketball programs bring in nearly identical profits ($5.1M to $4.9M). That may have changed some recently, but it provides a good baseline. At the time, that $4.9M would make UCLA the 2nd most profitable basketball program in the Pac-12 behind Arizona, whose basketball program is the 2nd most profitable athletic program in the entire conference for all sports. On the flip side, that $5.1M would make UCLA's football program the 10th most profitable football program in the Pac-12, leading only Stanford and Washington State.

2013 - UCLA's football program made a $15m profit, and its basketball program lost money.

And yes, I realize football is the breadwinner at damn near every school now. That's kind of the point. Even a school like UCLA, where basketball tradition clearly trumps football, football is still going to be the #1 priority for the athletic department. And that's not going to change any time soon. CFB gets more and more popular, while CBB has fewer and fewer viewers (during the season; March Madness will always be a big deal).

 

[fsuprime]

This thread is really missing diegos enthusiam

 

[TXHusker05]

2013 - UCLA's football program made a $15m profit, and its basketball program lost money.

And yes, I realize football is the breadwinner at damn near every school now. That's kind of the point. Even a school like UCLA, where basketball tradition clearly trumps football, football is still going to be the #1 priority for the athletic department. And that's not going to change any time soon. CFB gets more and more popular, while CBB has fewer and fewer viewers (during the season; March Madness will always be a big deal).

I think that's two different arguments though. The financial role football plays within an athletic department and the expectations of that football team on the field. CFB is one of the most popular sports in the country, it only gets more and more popular and every school realizes money is made via football. There are very few programs where football is not the primary breadwinner (Louisville comes to mind). However, many of those schools also recognize that they simply aren't going to compete in football so for them, football is a means to an end. Whether that be funding other sports they might be more competitive in or covering the deficits less popular sports run.

UCLA has absolutely no excuse to not be competing for championships. They have all the resources in place to put a championship caliber football team on the field every single year. The facilities, the money and a loaded pool of recruits in their backyard. That said, do they (or their fans) really care if they don't put a championship caliber football team on the field? I really don't think so. I think they're perfectly content with cruising along and making money. Contrast that with the expectations levels across town at USC. USC expects championships. They have a strong football tradition, a winning tradition and they are accustomed to a certain level of play and expect that on a yearly basis. The same can be said for Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, etc. Those programs aren't content with just raking in the money, they want to win championships.

So I guess my question would be, can a program really underperform/underachieve if they have no real expectations to perform at the highest level? I think cruising along making money and occasionally competing for Pac-12 titles is exactly where UCLA is content with performing. Whether or not that is actually the case, I do not know, that is just the sense I get from that program and others like them (Virginia Tech). Maybe @bruin228 can shed some light on that.

 

[Brick]

At far as modern history goes: UCLA, and it ain't even close.

Since their Pac-10 championship in 1998, they have been ranked twice in the postseason, and never higher than #13.

Their most notable postseason win is in the Sun Bowl.

They have had 2 ten win seasons.

lol at people saying Georgia and Texas.

BYU? They basically can't recruit black folks.

 

[goblue96]

BYU? They basically can't recruit black folks.

White running backs can run just as well as black running backs behind big-ass Samoan lineman that can do The Humpty Dance.

 

[ZeekLTK]

2013 - UCLA's football program made a $15m profit, and its basketball program lost money.

And yes, I realize football is the breadwinner at damn near every school now. That's kind of the point. Even a school like UCLA, where basketball tradition clearly trumps football, football is still going to be the #1 priority for the athletic department. And that's not going to change any time soon. CFB gets more and more popular, while CBB has fewer and fewer viewers (during the season; March Madness will always be a big deal).

Timeouts are killing basketball. There is an automatic timeout every 4 minutes and then each team has like 5-6 timeouts each. That's 18-20 timeouts per game for a game that only goes for 40 minutes. It's insane, and just about unwatchable.

 

[doh]

Illinois, UCLA, Arizona State, Rutgers, California, Syracuse and maybe even Texas and Texas A&M.

EDIT: Add Georgia. Even the MNC they won in 1980, they weren't the best team that year. No way Georgia beats Pittsburgh in 1980.

I think this is a good list. Arizona State to me (along with UGA) are the two biggest. ASU can let anyone in, has boosters who actually care, are close enough to TX/CA to recruit both, has hot ass chicks and this may sound insane but they have about 1,000 academic programs so guys can major in anything they want.

Re: Syracuse-- they had some dominant years in the 50s/a very good run from the early 80s to late 90s. Their prblem is they fell behind in terms of facilites by a lot, they don't have a ton of boosters and Rutgers becoming good, Connecticut/Buffalo going FBS, Penn State becoming dominant have all hurt them a lot. I think Connecticut especially they used to own that state and got some really good players from there including Dwight Freeney I believe. I think not having their own system hurts. A terrible AD has hurt too. I don't think Syracuse is a top 10-15 program but all-time they're top 25 in wins and NFL talent wise they're top 10 all-time. I think how they were in the 90s isn't out the question.

Illinois, Rutgers, and Cal?

None of those programs seem to have the fan (and therefore monetary) support to sustain much long-term success.

While I wouldn't call them historically underperforming (since expectations are low), a team which I always figured should have become a powerhouse but somehow never did is San Diego State. They're in the middle of a recruiting hotbed (Marcus Allen, Reggie Bush, Terrell Davis, Junior Seau are all from the San Diego area), they have even better weather than LA, relaxed admission standards compared to the PAC-12 schools to the north, and are still a D1 program.

Cal is a strange place. On one hand football players do not fit in there at all which is huge. It's a really nice campus/place but it isn't exactly what 18-21 year olds want I think. Their facilities and stadium until recently were up to date in the 1940s. They've lost good HCs. Historically they've had to compete with tons of UC/CSUs too (until rather recently most of them dropped football). They have zero support it seems from admin/professors who hate football and sports. And they've been a "basketball" school although not that good at that.

On the plus side: They have the minimum UC requirements for football. Stanford hasn't been consistently good ever until now. They've produced a good amount of NFL players. As that new stadium showed, they do have resources they can use. I disagree with fans statement. Cal has always drawn good crowds and when they were good 2003-08 they sold out a lot of games in a 70k seat stadium in an area that is all about pro sports. They have a giant alumni base in the bay area and if they're good, they get money and crowds.

I think San Diego State is a great call for mid-majors. Playing at Qualcomm has hurt I bet. But there was a good story I read about them firing a really good HC and never being the same. Don Coryell maybe?

 

[fsuprime]

Bork thinks anyone here cares about west coast footbaw besides usc

 

[DeadMan]

Michigan State might be a decent case, too. They were actually really good right after WWII, but since 1966, they've had 5 conference titles (only 3 outright), and no national titles. They have a pretty fertile recruiting area, with Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Big alumni base. I feel like if there was a Big Ten team to challenge Michigan and Ohio State during the big 2, little 8 era, it would have been Michigan State.