More off-season discussion fodder. Starting in 2007, Mandel has separated Power 5 schools (or BCS, as it were) into tiers of college football royalty every 5 years. This is interesting because we actually have some sense of progression over time. We can see schools like Nebraska fall from grace as each year we get further from their mid-nineties reign of dominance. We can see WVU fall from a tier 2 "Baron" to a tier 3 with their dubious move to the Big 12.
While I am a little untrusting of any ranking system that puts LOLUVa anywhere short of dead last, I suppose we can fill the time discussing this it anyway.
Results tabulated below. Formatting is from Mandel so asterix means he wasn't sure about putting them in that category (either they may belong below or above where they ended up) and strike through means they fell out of that category since the last list. Any errors are his, I think.
Kings
| 2017 | 2012 | 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Alabama | Alabama |
| Clemson | Florida | Florida |
| Florida | Florida State | Florida State |
| Florida State | LSU | Miami |
| LSU | Miami | Michigan |
| Miami | Michigan | Nebraska |
| Michigan | Nebraska | Notre Dame |
| Notre Dame | Ohio State | |
| Notre Dame | Ohio State | Oklahoma |
| Ohio State | Oklahoma | Penn State |
| Oklahoma | Penn State | Tennessee |
| Penn State | Texas | |
| Texas | Texas | USC |
| USC | USC |
Barons
| 2017 | 2012 | 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Auburn | Auburn | Auburn |
| Georgia | Clemson | Clemson |
| Michigan State | Colorado | |
| Nebraska | Georgia | Georgia |
| Oregon | Oregon | LSU* |
| Stanford | Tennessee | Texas A&M |
| Tennessee | Texas A&M | UCLA |
| Texas A&M | UCLA | Virginia Tech |
| UCLA | Virginia Tech | Washington |
| Virginia Tech | Wisconsin | |
| West Virginia | ||
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin. |
Knights
| 2017 | 2012 | 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona State | Arizona State | Arizona State |
| Arkansas | Arkansas | Arkansas |
| Baylor | Boise State | Boston College |
| Boston College | California | |
| BYU | Georgia Tech | |
| BYU | Cal | Illinois |
| Cal | Colorado | Iowa |
| Colorado | Georgia Tech | Kansas State |
| Georgia Tech | Illinois | Maryland |
| Illinois | Iowa | Michigan State |
| Iowa | Kansas State | Missouri |
| Kansas State | Maryland | N.C. State |
| Louisville | Michigan State | Oklahoma State |
| Maryland | Missouri | Ole Miss |
| Missouri | NC State | Oregon |
| North Carolina | Oklahoma State | Oregon State |
| NC State | Ole Miss | Pittsburgh |
| Northwestern | Oregon State | Purdue |
| Oklahoma State | Pittsburgh | Stanford |
| Ole Miss | Purdue | Syracuse* |
| Stanford | South Carolina | |
| Pittsburgh | Syracuse | Texas Tech |
| South Carolina | Virginia | |
| Syracuse | TCU | West Virginia |
| South Carolina | Texas Tech | Washington State |
| TCU | Utah | |
| Texas Tech | Virginia | |
| Utah | Washington | |
| West Virginia | ||
| Virginia | ||
| Washington |
Peasants
| 2017 | 2012 | 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Arizona | Arizona |
| Boston College | Baylor | Baylor |
| Duke | Cincinnati | Cincinnati |
| Minnesota | Connecticut | Connecticut |
| Indiana | Duke | Duke |
| Iowa State | Minnesota | Minnesota |
| Kansas | Indiana | Indiana |
| Kentucky | Iowa State | Iowa State |
| Mississippi State | Kansas | Kansas |
| Oregon State | Kentucky | Kentucky |
| Purdue | Louisville | Mississippi State |
| Rutgers | Mississippi State | North Carolina |
| Wake Forest | North Carolina | Northwestern |
| Washington State | Northwestern | Rutgers* |
| Vanderbilt | Rutgers | South Florida* |
| Temple | Wake Forest | |
| USF | Vanderbilt | |
| Wake Forest | ||
| Washington State | ||
| Vanderbilt |
Comments
If Nebraska has done too little to drop down a tier, so should Miami. There's also no reason for Auburn and Penn St to be on different tiers.
I'd also expect Washington to join our tier by the next list
Came here to say exactly that. Also UVA and Maryland are ranked
TooDamnHigh.jpg
Definitely agree on Miami. They historically have the titles and wins, but they have been pretty mediocre the past 10-12 years or so. Nothing they have done recently should justify them being a top-tier program anymore. Penn St had a great season last year, but outside of that and two BCS appearances in the 2000s, I don't see what puts them in the same category as Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc.
This is about perception, not reality. With a school like PSU, everyone assumes they are great, just like people did for Nebraska for so many years of mediocrity. When PSU has a great season, it's seen as a return to the status quo. On the flip side, Duke can rattle off a series of great seasons (for them) and every one is just waiting for them to return to 2-10 campaigns. Even with LOLUVa's awful history, I think they are still coasting a little on the George Welsh years where they were an average team so everyone assumes they will be average, despite the evidence to the contrary. In some ways, we benefit as well. Everyone assumes we will be above average and competitive because Frank had us performing at that level for the better part of two decades. Nebraska only fell as far as they have because it's been too long since they had Alabama levels of dominance.
Looking back at the long history of LOLUVA football, I would argue that the George Welsh years were the aberration rather than the normal. They have a storied record of mediocrity that rivals Duke. Every school has potential. LOLUVA just does less with it.
yes, long history. But Welsh had them up to average long enough to shift public perception. I'm not saying it was the golden age of LOLUVa football like those tools over on lesabre, but it was their high water mark and lasted longer than, say, the good Cutcliffe years at Duke did.
No one hears "UVa football" and thinks "football powerhouse," but few people outside the VT-LOLUVa rivalry immediately think "haven't they dropped to FCS yet?"
Colin Cowherd begs to differ.
As does a random person on reddit replying to this post in a thread about a corporation (the game's version of "guilds" or similar from games like WoW) named EVE University:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3r4ayj/name_some_reasons_not_to_jo...
Stumbled upon that gem a few months ago.
So the dude gets a Super Bowl ring on ebay and think he knows college football.......not so fast, my friend.
I don't disagree, and Stew acknowledges that Miami has gone downhill, but gives explanation:
You gotta love a ranking system that puts UVA above Duke after the last half decade or so.
It's about potential and perception, not accomplishments. Duke's done well, but as soon as they lose Cutcliffe they'll likely go back to being an extremely hard job. UVA on the other hand does have potential, they just happen to be hopelessly inept at the moment.
I think we can move up into the kings. Just gotta win the natty first!
Clemson and Auburn should be in the same tier
Miami isn't a King anymore, and hasn't been for 10 years
When they are as far from relevance as Nebraska is, I'll agree with you. Right now, people still remember their glory days. Recruits today grew up with parents saying "Just a couple years ago we were the top dog." On top of that, as a school, they have done a fantastic job keeping up the image even as the program behind the image has sunk into mediocrity. We are 20 years since Nebraska's last natty. Without a significant change in performance, Miami will fade when it is 20 years out as well (4 years from now).
Look at Miami recruiting.
I wouldn't count them out.
They've been recruiting well forever. They had the top class in the nation in 2008. The talent just isn't translating into wins. Now I think that Richt might very well start doing that, but I don't think they are ever going to be what they were in the 80s/early 90s and early 2000s again.
As long as they recruit at that level, they're always going to be at least a latent threat.
I'd think of them more as a Baron than a King at this point, though.
We'll see what Richt can do at Miami. He got top recruiting classes year after year at UGA (His last 10 class rankings were: 3, 9, 7, 5, 11, 6, 8, 12, 8, 5) and was only able to translate that into 2 SEC Champ Game appearances and 0 SEC titles. I know the SEC is tough, but the heavyweights in the last decade have been in the West. He should've been running the show in the SEC East with those kind of recruiting classes. Instead, Missouri was able to come in and start beating UGA for SEC East titles.
Those recruiting rankings may have been inflated due to SEC bias, and besides, it's not like they were atrocious, they were in contention up until late in the season almost every year.
Now he's at Miami, which has only been in contention for the division a few times over the last 13 years, and which also has an inherent recruiting advantage over Georgia. I wouldn't be surprised to see him turn Miami around. Then again, I also wouldn't be surprised to see them continue to languish as a mid-Coastal team.
Not saying UGA was atrocious, just saying Richt has very consistently underperformed on the field as compared to his recruiting classes. In his last 10 seasons at UGA, half the time they weren't ranked in one of the polls in the final week of the season. That is incomprehensible given the talent he had.
There's no question to me he will make Miami better than they were under Golden, I was just pointing out that he is not the type of coach that outperform expectations.
He won 10 games a year for a long time. UGA did fall off a bit towards the end, but they were very good for 10+ years, he just wasn't as good as Saban and Meyer. So he's not elite, but he's proved he can be a notch below that.
He wasn't good enough to get them to the SEC East that often.
They had good seasons throughout, but in his last 10 seasons at UGA, they only won 10+ games five times despite all those great recruiting classes. By the end he couldn't beat SEC East newcomers Gary Pinkel or Jim McElwain.
Honestly IMO the best comparison from him is Butch Davis. Great recruiter who is a master of making the whole less than the sum of its parts.
I know a lot of people will disagree on Miami staying in the top tier while Nebraska gets bumped, but recruiting rankings at this moment are proof that the U is still a big deal. They got their first good coach in over a decade and they are immediately a national force in recruiting. You don't get that without a good level of prestige and national brand which is what this is measuring. And we are exactly where we should be, will probably take another 20 years of sustained success or a string of championships to move up.
That's a good point about Miami's recruiting. Would an exciting new coach at Nebraska be enough to bring them back up? Your comment about a timeline for our ascension makes me wonder about the inverse. How long do Penn State, Miami, and all of them need to be largely irrelevant results-wise to finally drop?
I've wondered if Nebraska could ever truly be Nebraska again with the right coach. Recruiting has always been at a disadvantage because of location, but what made that program work was Osborne going out and finding athletes that fit his I-option system. QBs like Frazier, Frost, Crouch, etc that weren't going to be NFL QBs, but could execute the option offense to perfection. It would be intriguing to see what someone like Paul Johnson with his option system could do there. If he can make it work at GT, I'm sure he could at Nebraska.
PJ has won more Coastal Titles than Miami...
I've read that a lack of scholarship limits helped them immensely as well. They would regularly field teams of 150+ kids, mostly farm-boy walk-ons and find the gems from the crowd. PJ or the Navy guy would for sure be intriguing there
Their perception has to change drastically and permanently. I think this would require 5 years without competing for a division title, 5 seasons without a 'big' win, annual losses to divisional/local rivals and (perhaps most importantly) a drop off in brand name (due to conference change, coaching change, etc) and TV ratings.
If PSU goes 8-5 last season, they drop down a tier. Instead, they won 11(?) games with 2-3 EXCITING wins over top 10 teams. Even their Rose Bowl loss was a win for the program; they showed the nation (fans and recruits) that they are a fun team to watch. They are a 'cool' but still 'classic'.
Conversely, if we look at Nebraska and WVU, we see that both schools joined new conferences without natural rivalries, resulting in a hit to their 'brand'. Nebraska made a mediocre (boring) hire, and WVU has not been able to find RichRod 2.0. Neither team sustained consistent results, and neither has had any major wins.
Finally, I think VT drops down a tier if any of the following happens:
How is UVA not a peasant in 2017?
Duke is a peasant in 2017, but UVa and Maryland are knights?
Don't see that as an accurate reflection of reality.
Not enough change over time here for me. Miami hasn't been near "king" status since 2005. And Mississippi State is not in the same tier as UVA (he has them one below). This is a team that was number one in the nation for several the weeks straight only a year or two ago, and has gone to several bcs bowls. They've done more in the past 5-10 years than UVA has in 30
Miami drops when them being "bak" every July is not a thing.
Which I don't think will ever happen while ESPN keeps pumping out Miami propaganda films like "The U" ,parts 1 and 2, and "Catholics vs. Convicts."
You can argue it's a chicken/egg issue, but people love the Miami Propaganda films (myself included). When I googled "best 30 for 30s," three of the first five hits include a Miami piece in their top 10.
I thought we might get King status in 2007 when we were kings of the ACC and had multiple BCS games and top 10 finishes. After 2007 though we had talent and kept the 10 win streak alive, but I agree with our ranking in 2012 and 2017.
I think this past year was a turning point. Had we continued the skid, we probably would have been downgraded. Instead, we gave the national champions a run for their money and got back up to our expected form (10 wins, but not seriously in the playoff discussion).
You're right, though. Had we broken through even once in that 1999-2007 stretch and not had the past three years, I would argue we should be in a higher tier.
Since this is a preseason thing, the 2012 preseason would've been the closest we were to that top tier. The 2007-2011 seasons were our best 5-year stretch in program history: 5 10-win seasons, 4 ACC Coastal titles, 3 ACC titles, 3 Orange Bowls, and a Sugar Bowl. And you could make a legitimate argument that our best team in that 5-year window may have been the 2009 team that didn't win the division or go to a BCS game.
I think it would/will take more than just top 10 finishes. Let's look at Clemson's results in the last 5 years (2011/12 season through 2016/17 season):
I wonder if these rankings are supposed to be predictive at all. It's hard to see Oregon as being ranked so far ahead of Washington if so.
It is entirely based upon one man's idea of "overall team prestige". Nothing more, nothing less.
Agree completely. They have USC in the "Kings" even though they have been a complete non-factor since the Leinart/Carroll days. This is about perceived potential, perception and prestige not performance.
The rankings are surprisngly fair. TBH I think Clemson, VT, and Oregon are baseline Barons who have potential to be kings depending on performance.
Im pleasently surprised to see the "national perception" of little ol blacksburg virginias team is in a second tier. Thats pretty sweet...meaningless, but sweet.