What are the most important programs in the history of college football?
It's a thorny, fun, fascinating question that we posed to 12 of our writers. We asked them to rate every current FBS program on a scale of 1-10, based on each school's overall impact on the history of college football.
The rankings below list the school, then their average score. The top five finished with unanimous 10 scores, and we rounded up from 9.5 for those that just missed a perfect score.
The end result? Eight schools qualify for what we're calling blue bloods -- the royalty of the game.
Not sure how Arkansas is above teams who have won or played for a National Championship.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Arkansas is without a Heisman Trophy or a national championship. The Razorbacks have never won an SEC conference title and won 13 conference crowns while a member of the Southwest Conference.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
TSL had an interesting bit about Shegog as the whip today, and in it CC mentioned he's just the victim of bad timing. Not something I've thought about much, but the point was raised that the '99 Hokies team would have handled either the '98 or 2000 champ, but just had the misfortune to be good just in time to run into the buzzsaw that was the 1999 FSU Seminoles. It'd be interesting to see where we'd be (in so many ways) if that FSU team had been a year ahead or behind.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Hokies vs Vols for the Natty in 98? I don't think the Vols would have manhandled the Hokies, but they would have scored more points. 7-10 more. Tee Martin and Peerless Price had that team on all cylinders in 1998, but could the defense have stopped MV7? Could the OL have stopped Corey Moore? Not sure.
As for the 2000 OU Sooners? I don't know or remember enough about them.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Clemson is not a blue blood. They bought an NC in the 80's (it's common knowledge almost, but I work with a guy who was on the 81 team) and since I was born in 1992 we have been better than them overall.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As in almost all all-time lists, it is heavily biased toward the most recent, and the memories of the voters. The top ten is hard to argue with, and would have been similar if done 30 years ago. The rest of the list is just who has the best chance to become a blue-blood if they are winning when our kids are our age.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Not sure how Arkansas is above teams who have won or played for a National Championship.
yeah that's strange...didn't they have a really good running back a while back?
Maybe, but their description sounds more like the reason they'd be #65 and not #25.
Run DMc, Felix Jones, and Peyton Hillis all went to Arkansas
Arkansas beget Jerry Jones who beget the biggest damn video screen ever. They got that at least.
(I thought they won a NC back then)
Yea....even the write-up is kinda sad:
29 is about right. I would prefer to think of us as low 20's but no complaints.
TSL had an interesting bit about Shegog as the whip today, and in it CC mentioned he's just the victim of bad timing. Not something I've thought about much, but the point was raised that the '99 Hokies team would have handled either the '98 or 2000 champ, but just had the misfortune to be good just in time to run into the buzzsaw that was the 1999 FSU Seminoles. It'd be interesting to see where we'd be (in so many ways) if that FSU team had been a year ahead or behind.
Hokies vs Vols for the Natty in 98? I don't think the Vols would have manhandled the Hokies, but they would have scored more points. 7-10 more. Tee Martin and Peerless Price had that team on all cylinders in 1998, but could the defense have stopped MV7? Could the OL have stopped Corey Moore? Not sure.
As for the 2000 OU Sooners? I don't know or remember enough about them.
Georgia Tech is not a better program than us. Period.
Delends on the age of the writer(s). I was born in 1990. For some/most of them, those are the good old days upon which they look back fondly.
John Heisman? The Cumberland beat down? A National title? Only school to ever up and leave the SEC?
Sure, justifiable.
Ranking blue bloods past around 10 is pointless. At that point they aren't really blue bloods.
Oh, I would say the opposite. I would extend the upper tier to 17 with Clemson. Those teams between 10 and 17 are fantastic.
I would prefer the top 6 thru USC, then the next tier through Clemson.
Clemson is not a blue blood. They bought an NC in the 80's (it's common knowledge almost, but I work with a guy who was on the 81 team) and since I was born in 1992 we have been better than them overall.
As in almost all all-time lists, it is heavily biased toward the most recent, and the memories of the voters. The top ten is hard to argue with, and would have been similar if done 30 years ago. The rest of the list is just who has the best chance to become a blue-blood if they are winning when our kids are our age.
I would have thought a lot of teams bought themselves championships back in the day
At 55, loluva is still too high.
It can never be said enough