Characteristics of an Elite Program?

[HuskerShark]

Elite programs as of right now:

Bama

Oregon

Ohio State

Stanford

LSU

My definition of an elite level program would be long-term sustained success (3 to 5 years) at or around the National Championship level. In other words, these would be the cream of the crop in college football in recent history.

A couple more on the cusp of elite:

Florida State

Clemson

Georgia

South Carolina

Wisconsin in recent years

 

[tschu]

Add Oklahoma to the cusp list for sure

 

[Comish]

What ever your team's past is in terms of championships can't be taken away.

Mostly agree, but I think many of Michigan's early 1900s "national championships" are quite questionable.

That's what I question. Even Pitt would have 5 championships but no where near what Nebraska is, as a program.

Although they do share an incestuous athletic directorship with us...............

 

[HuskerShark]

Add Oklahoma to the cusp list for sure

I'd probably put them on the next tier lower. They really haven't had all that much success since Sam Bradford left. They're kind of on the downward track.

 

[TGHusker]

When I think of elite, I'm thinking of schools with long term consistency.

Elite programs historically - Each has had its low time - maybe even a decade of such but have come back to play at a high level:

Mich, Texas, ND, NU, OSU, OU, PSU, USC, Bama,

More recent additions would be those added based on the last 20 years:

FSU, Florida, Miami

Newcomers (past 10 years) capable of competing & maintaining at the same level (colleges that seem poised to maintain a high level of play - not flash in the pan programs)

Oregon, Stanford, LSU, Wisc

Honorable mention - these haven't made the full leap yet

Georgia, S.Car, Ok State (boone pickens money) They are capable of being consistently competitive in their conference championship picture and having national relevance

 

[Cornfed]

Elite in the past. Certainly not now. Don't see it in the future; not with the conference we are in. The bloom is off the rose.

You were that guy in the late 70's saying the same thing...yawn. I would hate to be as pessimistic about the team I love as much as you.

 

[knapplc]

What ever your team's past is in terms of championships can't be taken away.

Mostly agree, but I think many of Michigan's early 1900s "national championships" are quite questionable.

If it's okay for you to question championships from 100 years ago others can question the ones from 20-40 years ago. While our championship teams could easily whip our current team I doubt they would be on the same field with the current elite teams.

Do you know why I question those "national championships?" And why I'm not remotely alone in questioning them?

 

[hangdog]

What ever your team's past is in terms of championships can't be taken away.

Mostly agree, but I think many of Michigan's early 1900s "national championships" are quite questionable.

If it's okay for you to question championships from 100 years ago others can question the ones from 20-40 years ago. While our championship teams could easily whip our current team I doubt they would be on the same field with the current elite teams.

Do you know why I question those "national championships?" And why I'm not remotely alone in questioning them?

Please enlighten me.

 

[knapplc]

It's pretty basic stuff. It's not like we're talking chemistry or physics here.

You really don't know?

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

It's pretty basic stuff. It's not like we're talking chemistry or physics here.

You really don't know?

what?

you aren't impressed with them beating "Physicians and Surgeons"(whatever the hell that is) 72-0 in 1904?

how about beating "American Medical" by the exact same score later in that season?

 

[The Dude]

you aren't impressed with them beating "Physicians and Surgeons"(whatever the hell that is) 72-0 in 1904?

how about beating "American Medical" by the exact same score later in that season?

I'm impressed with them beating West Virginia (whatever the hell that is) 130-0.

 

[Creighton Duke]

It's pretty basic stuff. It's not like we're talking chemistry or physics here.

You really don't know?

what?

you aren't impressed with them beating "Physicians and Surgeons"(whatever the hell that is) 72-0 in 1904?

how about beating "American Medical" by the exact same score later in that season?

Hey! American Medical was pretty good that year! I think they had Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman on the roster!

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Same deal with USC and Notre Dame. If you play high school football teams some years( and in USC's case at least, LOSE TO THEM) then why are you claiming collegiate national championships?

 

[Redux]

Bama claims about what 4 nonsense National Championships? There was a poll that consisted of like 2 guys that named them champions after losses or something.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

It's pretty basic stuff. It's not like we're talking chemistry or physics here.

You really don't know?

what?

you aren't impressed with them beating "Physicians and Surgeons"(whatever the hell that is) 72-0 in 1904?

how about beating "American Medical" by the exact same score later in that season?

Hey! American Medical was pretty good that year! I think they had Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman on the roster!

I still want another shot at Indiana Artillery. The criteria we have on the Irish boards is that an Elite program is always one good coaching hire away from being a national championship contender. So a school like UGA is elite even if they haven't hit that right man for a long time.