How sad, but true, that a handful of college football teams have doled out handfuls of mediocre seasons that don't amount to a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. This applies to FBS and 1-AA/FCS teams.
Montana? Yep. Ever since that awful scandal in 2012, Montana has not been the powerhouse 1-AA team people heard about in the past. How much longer is this mediocrity going to continue before Kent Haslam wakes his sorry ass up and shakes up the Montana locker room and gets these boys back to a winning atmosphere? I don't know that for sure.
U-Conn makes this case, as if the loss to Holy Cross wasn't any more apparent.
Let's see. How about UCLA and USC? Oh, yes.
Know of any more teams miring its fandom in mediocrity?
Kansas, Vandy
I'm going to a UNLV game next week, but it's mostly to see an event in Allegiant Stadium and check that place out. You would think UNLV would be an attractive school for football players but they have had a good team basically never.
I am a University of California, Berkeley alum. We were great in the 1920s leather helmet era. We were still very successful on the field post-WWII through the 1950s. Then Berkeley got sidetracked with other issues and football has never been the same. There have been a few sporadic successes, particularly when we had Aaron Rodgers and Marshawn Lynch with Jeff Tedford's early teams, but the sad fact is the upcoming January 1 Rose Bowl will be the 63rd consecutive Rose Bowl without Cal playing in it.
It seems like UConn was cursed by early success in joining div 1-A, with an NFL-caliber QB and RB, good coaching, and the feeling that since they created a champion in basketball, they could do the same in football. The first decade was a lot of fun:
2002: beat Iowa State 37-20 on the road; football fans in general were saying "what the f--k?"
2003: 9-3 season, though the schedule was not tough
2004: beat Pitt on the way to 8-4 record and a bowl game win
2007: beat two top 25 teams; peaked at #13 ranking; 9-4 record
2009: beat Notre Dame in South Bend; beat South Carolina 20-7 on Jan. 2 bowl game
2010: Big East conference co-champion; play in a BCS bowl (Oklahoma kicks their ass, but not a surprise)
That all seems very distant now.
UMass wishes it could be mediocre
Minnesota, with the longest drought of any B1G team in Rose Bowl appearances (excluding Maryland and Rutgers; Nebraska appeared as a member of the Big 12). Yes, even Indiana has been to a Rose Bowl more recently than Minnesota has.
Many of the teams mentioned need to win quite a bit more often in order to reach mediocrity
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 08, 2021, 04:55:57 PM
Minnesota, with the longest drought of any B1G team in Rose Bowl appearances (excluding Maryland and Rutgers; Nebraska appeared as a member of the Big 12). Yes, even Indiana has been to a Rose Bowl more recently than Minnesota has.
I'd say the entire Big Ten West except for Wisconsin and Iowa has been mired in mediocrity lately.
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
If we're talking teams that are hardly ever in the Top 25 then the likes of; Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland and West Virginia come to mind out of the Big Ten. Indiana, Minnesota and Northwestern seem to have a competitive team every couple years as of late.
Quote from: Alps on October 08, 2021, 04:10:45 PM
Kansas, Vandy
These two are terrible, not mediocre.
Better examples would be Wake Forest, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, and Texas Tech.
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
The value of both is debatable these days.
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
One day, the Nebraska fan base might wake up and discover they're mediocre now and then stop selling out every game.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
Which is the exact reason why I'm baffled that people choose the Ivy League.
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 08:39:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
Which is the exact reason why I'm baffled that people choose the Ivy League.
While it's not actually an Ivy League school, I applied for MIT and didn't get in. They'll make sure you can afford it even if you don't have that much money. Unless you have a lot of money already, it actually costs a lot
more to go to the easy-to-graduate schools (e.g. University of Phoenix).
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 08:39:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it’s for matter way more than where it’s from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
Which is the exact reason why I'm baffled that people choose the Ivy League.
Prestige. I have family in the northeast and every time I talk about this kind of thing with them, it sounds like the upper-class society there places a whole lot of value on how prestigious of a college you went to. And whether you get in and at which schools often depends on how well-connected you and your family are.
Hell, the same thing happens with
high schools. Wealthy parents will pay tens of thousands of dollars for their kids to go to highly selective high schools, many of which are boarding schools. Just a very different culture than we have out west.
Quote from: US 89 on October 09, 2021, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 08:39:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
Which is the exact reason why I'm baffled that people choose the Ivy League.
Prestige. I have family in the northeast and every time I talk about this kind of thing with them, it sounds like the upper-class society there places a whole lot of value on how prestigious of a college you went to. And whether you get in and at which schools often depends on how well-connected you and your family are.
Hell, the same thing happens with high schools. Wealthy parents will pay tens of thousands of dollars for their kids to go to highly selective high schools, many of which are boarding schools. Just a very different culture than we have out west.
I'm going to share a fun story about "fake prestige"
Had two friends in life that each had an MS in special ed and became special ed teachers.
One spent six years at BC, racked up over $250K in debt, got a job teaching special ed in Marlboro, MA.
The other, spent 4 years undergrad at Bridgewater State, 2 years grad at Salem State. Since this was the early 2000's and the state had a teacher shortage, her 4 years at Bridgewater State were 100% paid for. She racked up $15K in debt at Salem State. She got a job teaching special ed in Haverhill, MA.
Two people taking two different routes to get to the same exact point, where one wasted a ton of money on the prestige, but a school system in reality doesn't give two buffalo turds as to where you got your degree because the difference is nearly meaningless. Now for different majors maybe it's different, but I'm going to de damned if we have to comp these outstanding bills for people who thought more about prestige instead of common sense.
Quote from: SectorZ on October 09, 2021, 10:12:33 AM
One spent six years at BC, racked up over $250K in debt, got a job teaching special ed in Marlboro, MA.
This doesn't sound right. I believe my debt is about $40K, 5 1/2 years, and as I said, really good schools (this doesn't include mine) make sure that you're able to afford it if you're low income. (I live at home and commute to campus, but that shouldn't make a 6× difference.)
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2021, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 09, 2021, 10:12:33 AM
One spent six years at BC, racked up over $250K in debt, got a job teaching special ed in Marlboro, MA.
This doesn't sound right. I believe my debt is about $40K, 5 1/2 years, and as I said, really good schools (this doesn't include mine) make sure that you're able to afford it if you're low income. (I live at home and commute to campus, but that shouldn't make a 6× difference.)
As someone who went to a fairly selective private university (and then flunked out) trust me, plenty of debt can be accummulated going to an expensive private school that likes to claim that "you're able to afford it" - sure, with 50-100k$ of debt notes. I paid off all my remaining debt the last year or two/I'm in my late 30s
Glad I didn't finish the degree. I enjoy working outside in the trades, anyway. Not sure what life would have looked like with a degree and an office job, and really, I don't care to know at this point
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2021, 08:42:38 AM
Quote from: thspfc on October 09, 2021, 08:39:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2021, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: thspfc on October 08, 2021, 07:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2021, 05:46:26 PM
Good academics and mediocre football is much better than vice versa.
A college degree is a college degree. Whether or not you have one and what it's for matter way more than where it's from.
I would be more concerned with debt accumulated to obtain said degree versus return on investment via career options.
Which is the exact reason why I'm baffled that people choose the Ivy League.
While it's not actually an Ivy League school, I applied for MIT and didn't get in. They'll make sure you can afford it even if you don't have that much money. Unless you have a lot of money already, it actually costs a lot more to go to the easy-to-graduate schools (e.g. University of Phoenix).
Getting OT, just going to MIT got me my NJDOT internship (I cold called, they said they don't do internships but when I mentioned where I'm from they said hold on a moment)... which introduced me to people at my current company... who then recognized my resume when I applied there for an internship. I never actually interviewed for a job in my life!
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2021, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 09, 2021, 10:12:33 AM
One spent six years at BC, racked up over $250K in debt, got a job teaching special ed in Marlboro, MA.
This doesn't sound right. I believe my debt is about $40K, 5 1/2 years, and as I said, really good schools (this doesn't include mine) make sure that you're able to afford it if you're low income. (I live at home and commute to campus, but that shouldn't make a 6× difference.)
How does it not sound right? The school cost about $50K/year at the time. That's $300K in tuition. BC is Boston College if that's what your confused on, which is very much not a state school. Schools do not give two craps about whether you can afford it or not. They literally have no interest or concern in where your financial state is when you are done.
Much of the ACC teams are mediocre. The conference as a whole has been. In the 90s, it was Florida State and everyone else. In the 2010's, Clemson and everyone else.
I would argue that Kentucky is still mediocre, notwithstanding recent success, because of the overall strength of the SEC. Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and LSU are what i would consider the traditional powers (noting that three of those teams had subpar years), with Tennessee slightly behind them, and of the new members since the conference expanded, Arkansas. UK probably rates with Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and South Carolina. Vandy brings up the rear, and I don't think Missouri or Texas A&M have been around long enough as SEC members to properly rate them in the hierarchy.
It used to be a big thing if UK got invited to a bowl game, but the growing number of them and the loosened criteria for being invited to one has cheapened the appearance in a bowl on a program's resume. Two decades ago, Kentucky and Vandy shared the SEC cellar. UK has improved, but even though the Wildcats finished second in the SEC East and played Georgia closer than pretty much anyone else, I don't think the program has been built as much as many like to think. When the Cats were ranked 11th, prior to the loss to Georgia that was followed by two more defeats, I knew that was an inflated ranking.
The entire Pac-12 qualifies for the mediocrity label after going 0-fer in bowl games.
Rick
Michigan and a few more Big Ten teams once USC joins. Texas once they join the SEC.
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2022, 05:39:28 PM
Michigan and a few more Big Ten teams once USC joins. Texas once they join the SEC.
I wouldn't give USC that much credit yet. They've consistently underperformed relative to expectations at least the last dozen seasons. Looking at pre-season vs. final AP polls, there's four seasons since 2010 where they've started off top-15 and ended outside the top 25 (including 2012, where they were the pre-season #1).
I see only two seasons (2011 and 2016) where they've significantly exceeded expectations, 3 seasons where they've "met" expectations (and all three of those put them outside the top 15), and seven seasons where they've fallen short (final poll is eight spots or more lower than pre-season).
Now they're going to a conference where the competition is, on the whole, significantly more challenging, coming off a 4-8 season (yes, I know this is a couple of seasons away), and having to play several cold-weather games each year. I would be completely unsurprised if they stay in the middle of the Big 10 pack for the first six to eight years.
Quote from: ran4sh on July 01, 2022, 05:39:28 PM
Michigan and a few more Big Ten teams once USC joins. Texas once they join the SEC.
I'm amazed to hear UCLA and USC are joining Big Ten. I get that they're going nationally but damn. I disagree USC is gonna hurt Big Ten. They'll vie for the championship but ya know... Michigan and O*io are east. UCLA and USC are west. So in the end it won't matter much.
The Big Ten could merge with the Pac-12. Split into two divisions and have the first-place teams meet in a championship game. But it'll be December, so they probably ought to pick someplace warm. I hear Pasadena has a big stadium that might work.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2022, 09:45:32 AM
The Big Ten could merge with the Pac-12. Split into two divisions and have the first-place teams meet in a championship game. But it'll be December, so they probably ought to pick someplace warm. I hear Pasadena has a big stadium that might work.
Here's a problem that we're rapidly approaching: you can play at most 9 conference games per season. In a 16-team conference, you can play 9/15 possible opponents, or 60%. If we get to 18-team conferences you can play 9/17, or 53%. When you're only playing half the teams in your conference, you essentially have two separate conferences whose champions agree to play each other. It's just taking the Rose Bowl and playing it in December instead of January.
Schools like Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana sell season tickets based on having Ohio State or Michigan on the schedule. As some of those schools have those teams replaced on their schedule with UCLA or (potentially) Washington, that hurts their ticket sales.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on July 02, 2022, 10:11:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2022, 09:45:32 AM
The Big Ten could merge with the Pac-12. Split into two divisions and have the first-place teams meet in a championship game. But it'll be December, so they probably ought to pick someplace warm. I hear Pasadena has a big stadium that might work.
Here's a problem that we're rapidly approaching: you can play at most 9 conference games per season. In a 16-team conference, you can play 9/15 possible opponents, or 60%. If we get to 18-team conferences you can play 9/17, or 53%. When you're only playing half the teams in your conference, you essentially have two separate conferences whose champions agree to play each other. It's just taking the Rose Bowl and playing it in December instead of January.
Schools like Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana sell season tickets based on having Ohio State or Michigan on the schedule. As some of those schools have those teams replaced on their schedule with UCLA or (potentially) Washington, that hurts their ticket sales.
Oh, I understand completely. It's one of the things that's been a drag about conference realignments in the past–splitting into divisions means you don't see some longtime rivals but once every six years. Takes away some of the interest factor. The new NCAA rule that allows elimination of divisions with the top two teams in the standings meeting for the conference championship might help with that, at least in theory.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2022, 11:12:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on July 02, 2022, 10:11:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2022, 09:45:32 AM
The Big Ten could merge with the Pac-12. Split into two divisions and have the first-place teams meet in a championship game. But it'll be December, so they probably ought to pick someplace warm. I hear Pasadena has a big stadium that might work.
Here's a problem that we're rapidly approaching: you can play at most 9 conference games per season. In a 16-team conference, you can play 9/15 possible opponents, or 60%. If we get to 18-team conferences you can play 9/17, or 53%. When you're only playing half the teams in your conference, you essentially have two separate conferences whose champions agree to play each other. It's just taking the Rose Bowl and playing it in December instead of January.
Schools like Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana sell season tickets based on having Ohio State or Michigan on the schedule. As some of those schools have those teams replaced on their schedule with UCLA or (potentially) Washington, that hurts their ticket sales.
Oh, I understand completely. It's one of the things that's been a drag about conference realignments in the past–splitting into divisions means you don't see some longtime rivals but once every six years. Takes away some of the interest factor. The new NCAA rule that allows elimination of divisions with the top two teams in the standings meeting for the conference championship might help with that, at least in theory.
Yes, that helps some. If in a nine game conference schedule you assume that in any given year, one of OSU is playing 5 road games and UM is playing 4, that's 9 road games between them, so that's 9 teams hosting them. On average, you can get one of them at home every other year. That may help grease the skids a bit (in addition to the money).