• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

Historically Underperforming Programs

PSUEagle

PSUEagle

Well-Known Member
I can't believe none of you have mentioned UVA.

It's arguably the best public school in the nation, in a very fertile recruiting area, and has tons of rich old money alumni to draw from. Absolutely no reason they can't be a "Stanford-East" type program and recruit academically driven kids nationally who are good at football. Sure they can't push kids through jock majors, but their advantages should make up for that. Instead they're a bottom tier type program that basically makes a bowl game every 2-3 years. Unacceptable for a school like that.

Also, LOL at schools like UGA, PSU, and VT being on a list like this. Especially VT. Everyone likes to make fun of flubberneck for losing a retarded OOC game every year, but until recently they went like eight straight years with ten or more wins and a bunch of ACC championships. They've also made like 20 straight bowl games. That's not underachieving for any program, much less one that didn't have a pot to piss in tradition wise prior to Beamer showing up.
 
Last edited:
bruin228

bruin228

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
In fairness, @Snorky's Shame did mention UVA, as well as Maryland, who seems like they're right in that boat, too. Hell, they have more advantages, since they can be Oregon East with Under Armour instead of Nike. They're a good academic school but they don't have as many restrictions as UVA. Same recruiting area too, with probably more access to PA.
 
Snorky's Shame

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
As traditional as Virginia Tech tries to be, I consider them as "new money". The Big East was the first major conference they were in.

If only the Metro Conference sponsored football...
 
PSUEagle

PSUEagle

Well-Known Member
bruin228 said:
In fairness, @Snorky's Shame did mention UVA, as well as Maryland, who seems like they're right in that boat, too. Hell, they have more advantages, since they can be Oregon East with Under Armour instead of Nike. They're a good academic school but they don't have as many restrictions as UVA. Same recruiting area too, with probably more access to PA.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about Maryland, FWIW.

My best friend works in their athletic department: basically says they've struggled mightily forging an identity for their athletic department. They also whiffed on the Edsall hire: if you're going to fire arguably the best coach you've ever had who was coming off a COY award with a young team, you better nail the replacement.
 
PSUEagle

PSUEagle

Well-Known Member
While we're talking about this I'll throw another candidate in for discussion: Tulane (sister graduated from there).

Other than that magical year in 1998 where Rich Rod was unleashing the very beginnings of the spread to run offense, they've basically done nothing since the 1940's, other than producing three straight NFL first round busts at QB (Shaun King, Patrick Ramsey, JP Losman).

With it's location (easily the most attractive of any CUSA school when that league was around: it's fucking New Orleans), alumni (the guy who founded Serta mattresses donated $60 million to build their new stadium) and academics (elite nationally and only Rice was comparable/better in conference) it's pretty ridiculous that they've made like two bowl games in over a decade. With the amount of talent Louisiana produces (most NFL players per capita) that should be an eight win a year program, minimum. Instead they go out and hire washed up has-beens like Bob Toledo:rolleyes:
 
DeadMan

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
PSUEagle said:
I can't believe none of you have mentioned UVA.

It's arguably the best public school in the nation, in a very fertile recruiting area, and has tons of rich old money alumni to draw from. Absolutely no reason they can't be a "Stanford-East" type program and recruit academically driven kids nationally who are good at football. Sure they can't push kids through jock majors, but their advantages should make up for that. Instead they're a bottom tier type program that basically makes a bowl game every 2-3 years. Unacceptable for a school like that.

Also, LOL at schools like UGA, PSU, and VT being on a list like this. Especially VT. Everyone likes to make fun of flubberneck for losing a retarded OOC game every year, but until recently they went like eight straight years with ten or more wins and a bunch of ACC championships. They've also made like 20 straight bowl games. That's not underachieving for any program, much less one that didn't have a pot to piss in tradition wise prior to Beamer showing up.
Click to expand...

Uh, Stanford hasn't ever really been a good program (until the last 5ish years). Although they have been better than UVA, that's not really saying much. UVA being Stanford-East would mean about 3 more conference titles for them since WWII.

I think the reason I don't think of Virginia for this is that I don't know how fertile that recruiting area really is. Especially when compared to the big recruiting states like Ohio, Texas, and California. Certainly, they've underachieved, but I don't think it's that bad in comparison to a program like Daddy A&M or Florida.
 
DeadMan

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
See, when I look at this, I'm basically looking at schools that are in or near the big recruiting states (Ohio, Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, the deep south) with a lot of alumni that could support a good football team. I'm really thinking of programs that are average but you think should be better based on location and alumni support. I'm really looking at programs that have one or fewer national titles and then less than 10 conference titles. Daddy A&M is a good one, because you'd expect them to be the second best team in the SWC, and probably a top 4 program in the Big 12, and they were neither.
 
PSUEagle

PSUEagle

Well-Known Member
DeadMan said:
Uh, Stanford hasn't ever really been a good program (until the last 5ish years). Although they have been better than UVA, that's not really saying much. UVA being Stanford-East would mean about 3 more conference titles for them since WWII.

I think the reason I don't think of Virginia for this is that I don't know how fertile that recruiting area really is. Especially when compared to the big recruiting states like Ohio, Texas, and California. Certainly, they've underachieved, but I don't think it's that bad in comparison to a program like Daddy A&M or Florida.
Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse: I'm talking about present day Stanford.

TAMU I can see a valid argument as an underachieving program. But UF? GTFO.

In the last quarter century the Gators have won eight SEC titles and three MNC's, with only Alabama boasting comparable success. Sure they've hit a rough patch with Coach Boom, but odds are they'll be right back to elite once they shit can him and replace him with someone better. Christ, if that's underachieving then no program is producing at an acceptable rate by those standards.

Florida definitely underachieved pre-Spurrier, but I'd say their last 25 years matches up with anyone and means they shouldn't be anywhere near a list like this.
 
DeadMan

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
Don't be obtuse - this is about historical performance since WWII. Stanford has been bad pretty much that entire time. And I personally expect them to go back to being bad very shortly. I don't buy into David Shaw as a corch at all. So when we're talking about historic program success, saying they could be Stanford of the East is saying pretty much nothing.

Florida was by far the number 1 underachieving program between the end of WWII and 1990. Every single one of those titles ocurred after 1990. Even with the success, they have fewer conference titles than Daddy or UCLA have. It's basically a school that has had two great coachs in Spurrier and Meyer and no other history to speak of at all. Take away 1 of those national titles and I wouldn't have any problem calling them the most underachieving.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
PSUEagle said:
I can't believe none of you have mentioned UVA.

It's arguably the best public school in the nation, in a very fertile recruiting area, and has tons of rich old money alumni to draw from. Absolutely no reason they can't be a "Stanford-East" type program and recruit academically driven kids nationally who are good at football. Sure they can't push kids through jock majors, but their advantages should make up for that. Instead they're a bottom tier type program that basically makes a bowl game every 2-3 years. Unacceptable for a school like that.

Also, LOL at schools like UGA, PSU, and VT being on a list like this. Especially VT. Everyone likes to make fun of flubberneck for losing a retarded OOC game every year, but until recently they went like eight straight years with ten or more wins and a bunch of ACC championships. They've also made like 20 straight bowl games. That's not underachieving for any program, much less one that didn't have a pot to piss in tradition wise prior to Beamer showing up.
Click to expand...

I can see the argument for Virginia Tech not being on the list (I disagree with your assessment but VT is borderline) but how can you LOL at UGA being on the list?

Georgia is the 5th richest football program in the nation, in the most prestigious conference in the nation, in one of the single best high school football recruiting grounds and most years they are the ONLY competitive FBS program in their state. What do they have to show for all of that? Absolutely nothing. One National Championship since WWII, 2 Conference Championships in the last 32 years. Sure they regularly compete for their division, sure they go to bowl games every year and sure it is a tough conference but Georgia should be miles and miles and miles above where they are. Going to bowl games every year is not the level of performance I would expect from a program like Georgia. Georgia is the definition of historically underperforming.

I agree with you about Penn State though. They should probably be better than they have been recently, but I'd never put them on a historically underperforming list, even if the refs had to help win them that National Championship. :emo:

 
coogrfan

coogrfan

Well-Known Member
Wooly said:
You could definitely argue they underachieve, but I don't think you can consider them a major program at any point. They were an also ran in the SWC more years than not. Basically a constant mid-major. As to whether they should have been better, that seems the case, but it's hard to know. Texas football has established power teams early in the 1900s. I don't know when, but Texas, A&M, Rice, maybe Baylor were the top schools early on. Houston came along much later IIRC. Rice and Baylor had already started to decline by the time Houston became a decent program, so Houston was always playing catch up. Most importantly, Texas just has so many schools fighting the talent in Houston, and obviously Texas and A&M take the lions share and always have. Then you have some pesky SEC neighbors stealing talent too. It's pretty damn hard to rise up against that. Houston is a state school with all the problems of being way down the list in priority. Until recently they had little funding for facilities relative to the big players. I believe a few years ago the state of Texas released a strategic plan for increased funding to a few schools, naming Houston as one of their teir 1 state schools now, so things are looking better. Cougarfan can probably edit a lot of my post, but I believe those are the issues Houston has faced.
Click to expand...

Basically correct, except for the part about UH being an also ran in the SWC. UH was a member of the SWC from 1975 until it's demise following the 95 season:

Cotton Bowl appearances 75-95:

TAMU 6
Texas 4
UH 4
Arkansas 3
Baylor 1
SMU 1
Texas Tech 1

When the Coogs were on a level playing field with the other schools in Texas we more than held our own.
 
boom248

boom248

New Member
I just saw this thread, so I thought that I would throw my 2 cents in, on Clemson anyways. I am not really sure what criteria that you guys are using to judge (seems like mostly perceptions). My initial thought was that Clemson probably belongs on the list due to how passionate the fan base is and the resources that the athletic department has. So I decided to look at the yearly records. Since 1945 Clemson has won 15 conference championships (14 in the ACC). The 14 ACC championships is tied for the most with FSU (not really fair to compare because FSU hasn't been in the conference nearly as long). Next I looked overall record since 1945. Clemson is 477-287-16 with a 62.4% win percentage. This would put us 20th on the all time win percentage list. Is Clemson really better than the 20th best program in the nation? Should we be achieving at a higher lever than this? I really wish that we were, but even with orange tinted glasses I am not sure that I can make that proclamation. This isn't even factoring the states population compared to other states (24th highest population and making up about 1% of the countries total population) and having to share the limited number of prospects with another in state FBS school. Or the fact that Clemson is a relatively small school as well (18,000 total enrollment versus 57,000 at anOSU). After all of this, I am not sure where I stand on Clemson belonging on this list. I am curious to hear what you guys think.
 
whiteyc_77

whiteyc_77

The Skeleton Debator
Mod Alumni
boom248 said:
I just saw this thread, so I thought that I would throw my 2 cents in, on Clemson anyways. I am not really sure what criteria that you guys are using to judge (seems like mostly perceptions). My initial thought was that Clemson probably belongs on the list due to how passionate the fan base is and the resources that the athletic department has. So I decided to look at the yearly records. Since 1945 Clemson has won 15 conference championships (14 in the ACC). The 14 ACC championships is tied for the most with FSU (not really fair to compare because FSU hasn't been in the conference nearly as long). Next I looked overall record since 1945. Clemson is 477-287-16 with a 62.4% win percentage. This would put us 20th on the all time win percentage list. Is Clemson really better than the 20th best program in the nation? Should we be achieving at a higher lever than this? I really wish that we were, but even with orange tinted glasses I am not sure that I can make that proclamation. This isn't even factoring the states population compared to other states (24th highest population and making up about 1% of the countries total population) and having to share the limited number of prospects with another in state FBS school. Or the fact that Clemson is a relatively small school as well (18,000 total enrollment versus 57,000 at anOSU). After all of this, I am not sure where I stand on Clemson belonging on this list. I am curious to hear what you guys think.
Click to expand...

Very fair assessment, and i'm as critical of Klimpson as anybody.

One of the "worst" things to happen to Klimpson was winning the national title in 1981. It was such a convergence of factors that allowed it to happen, that it can set up unrealistic expectations in the fanbase.

-YTC
 
whiteyc_77

whiteyc_77

The Skeleton Debator
Mod Alumni
Honest question: Which program is more historically significant: Klimpson or Georgia Tech?

-YTC
 
boom248

boom248

New Member
whiteyc_77 said:
Very fair assessment, and i'm as critical of Klimpson as anybody.

One of the "worst" things to happen to Klimpson was winning the national title in 1981. It was such a convergence of factors that allowed it to happen, that it can set up unrealistic expectations in the fanbase.

-YTC
Click to expand...

After looking through the records again, I found that we have had 3 undefeated seasons since 1945 as well. We all know about 1981, but we also went undefeated in 1948 and 1950. In 1948 we were 11-0 and in 1950 we were 9-0-1. So naturally, I looked to see who won the MNC in 48 and it was Michigan with a 9-0-0 record. Clemson finished #11. The final poll looked like this:
  1. Michigan 9-0-0
  2. Notre Dame 9-0-1
  3. UNC 9-1-1
  4. Cal 10-1-1
  5. Oklahoma 10-1-0
  6. Army 8-0-1
  7. Northwestern 8-2-0
  8. Georgia 9-2-0
  9. Oregon 9-2-0
  10. SMU 9-1-1
  11. Clemson 11-0
We were clearly deserving of the MNC that year. We were screwed! Ha Ha. As far as I am concerned, we have 2 shampships now.
 
boom248

boom248

New Member
goblue96 said:
Who did Clemson beat in '48 to go 11-0 and only finish ranked #11?
Click to expand...
A ranked Wake Forest team and essentially no one else. I was being sarcastic with that post about getting screwed. I guess that I will lay it on thicker next time. The butt hurt over Hoke in Ann Arbor is strong these days.
 
goblue96

goblue96

Disney and Curling Expert
boom248 said:
A ranked Wake Forest team and essentially no one else. I was being sarcastic with that post about getting screwed. I guess that I will lay it on thicker next time. The butt hurt over Hoke in Ann Arbor is strong these days.
Click to expand...

No butt hurt. I really just wanted to know who they played to end the year undefeated and only ranked #11.
 
boom248

boom248

New Member
goblue96 said:
No butt hurt. I really just wanted to know who they played to end the year undefeated and only ranked #11.
Click to expand...
We actually beat Auburn, Miss St, BC, Wake, NC St, South Carolina, and Missouri in the bowl game. Not a bad schedule by today's standards. Those teams must have been awful back then though. Clemson was ranked as high as 9 but dropped after beating Auburn. I am so glad that we don't crown the shampship this way anymore.
 
Snorky's Shame

Snorky's Shame

Well-Known Member
The only thing I can think of is Clemson was still in the Southern Conference back then, not the ACC which was formed a few years later. Maybe the Southern Conference was the equivalent to the AAC or MWC back then.
 
bruin228

bruin228

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
In the last 15 years, they've been to 15 straight bowl games, 6 of those BCS games, and won 5 conference titles. They were a quarter away from winning the title in 2000. What are their expectations supposed to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top