41
« on: September 19, 2018, 08:03:33 PM »
Since the 1990s, when you can (conservatively) say the modern era of college football began -- conferences start to grow in size, scholarship restrictions ensure that you don't just dominate with partial qualifiers and more total schollies -- Texas is not meeting expectations. Texas has been a dominant college football team less than half the time since 1990. What Mack did in the 2000's should be nearly an every decade occurrence at a school with such resources and geography. Just for arguments sake, in terms of defining elite, let's look at...
Seasons of 10 or more wins since 1993:
Ohio State 18
Oklahoma 15
Florida State 15
Alabama 15
Florida 13
Nebraska 12
Georgia 12
Wisconsin 12
Texas 10
LSU 10
USC 10
Kansas State 9
Michigan 9
Penn State 9
Auburn 7
Clemson 7
Notre Dame 6
Oklahoma State 6
Texas A&M 4
I'm probably forgetting some relevant schools here. And this is obviously only one way to measure dominance. Five of those schools won 10 or more at least half or more of the seasons since 1993. Not every program is structurally situated to win 10 or more a season, but I'd say Texas is one of the few, along with Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Georgia, Florida, and Florida State. So, those 7, to me, are the programs that have resources and geography ALWAYS working in their favor. So, by my account, ND, UT, UGA, and USC are all loser fake good programs since 1993. Feel free to argue with me, as this is total back of the napkin calculation at this point. I have no idea what to make of A&M, obvious geographic advantage and major resources...they may be the biggest fake good program, in a class of their own below UT and the others.
Show Posts
