The Ten Greatest Programs in College Football History

[Red_Alert]

Michigan has the most wins ever ... a powerhouse 100+ years ... history didn't start 20 years ago ... look it up.

Maybe you don't give a shit, but others won't deny "College Football History". Should Michigan be #1 ... No, because of recent history. Alabama is a good choice for #1. Get over it, history matters.

The past 70 years should carry a lot more weight than 1890, 1910, 1920.

In the past 70 years, Michigan has half a national championship (1997) in which they didn't even have to play any of the Top 7 teams available to get it. As others have said, to give that much weight to football that was played 80, 90, 100 years ago, they might as well put Princeton and Harvard in the poll.

I'd put Oklahoma #2 or #3 and move Michigan somewhere around 8th.

Not sure Texas even belongs at #4. ND and USC could make arguments for that spot.

 

[LawDawg]

Then we would have to bump Georgia off the list (reading the list again) ... oops, sorry ... I didn't realize. Now I understand your butthurt.

Reading comprehension is hard, I get it. Nowhere did I say that UGa should be on the list, and I did say that your team should be on the list. That said, I'll take our current situation over UM's right now.

 

[Voltaire26]

The past 70 years should carry a lot more weight than 1890, 1910, 1920.

In the past 70 years, Michigan has half a national championship (1997) in which they didn't even have to play any of the Top 7 teams available to get it. As others have said, to give that much weight to football that was played 80, 90, 100 years ago, they might as well put Princeton and Harvard in the poll.

I'd put Oklahoma #2 or #3 and move Michigan somewhere around 8th.

Not sure Texas even belongs at #4. ND and USC could make arguments for that spot.

So, history starts at the most desirable time for people who wish to disregard Michigan.

 

[Wamu]

When does “All Time” begin?

Why you gonna make me repeat myself? One more time. Other than you (and your pals mNb09 & trustme) nobody is talking about their teams accomplishments from so long ago. I wonder why that is?

 

[Voltaire26]

Reading comprehension is hard, I get it. Nowhere did I say that UGa should be on the list, and I did say that your team should be on the list. That said, I'll take our current situation over UM's right now.

This I can agree with. You guys have a couple of great recruiting classes in a row and a fine, young head coach.

 

[LawDawg]

For the UM crowd, history does matter and I think it is a great part of college football. The tradition is one of the things that separates it from the NFL, IMO. That said, I'd love to hear from the Michigan folks as to what you are going to do to turn your program into a winner. The things that made you a traditional winner don't exist anymore. The demographics of championship football are against you, and there is no indication that they will turn around any time soon. Because of your tradition, if any of the "old time" schools can turn it around, you, ND, and Nebraska would be at the top of the list. But, I just don't see that happening. Please educate me on how you think it will be done.

 

[Voltaire26]

When does “All Time” begin?

The past 70 years should carry a lot more weight than 1890, 1910, 1920.

In the past 70 years, Michigan has half a national championship (1997) in which they didn't even have to play any of the Top 7 teams available to get it. As others have said, to give that much weight to football that was played 80, 90, 100 years ago, they might as well put Princeton and Harvard in the poll.

I'd put Oklahoma #2 or #3 and move Michigan somewhere around 8th.

Not sure Texas even belongs at #4. ND and USC could make arguments for that spot.

Why you gonna make me repeat myself? One more time. Other than you (and your pals mNb09 & trustme) nobody is talking about their teams accomplishments from so long ago. I wonder why that is?

@Wamu take a look at @Red_Alert post ... see how he intelligently answered the question. I can disagree with him, but I respect his rationale.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

Nobody gives a shit about leather helmet and no face mask days

Dude that's just wrong. "History" is the key word. Why would a program's entire body of work not be a factor????

 

[Red_Alert]

The past 70 years should carry a lot more weight than 1890, 1910, 1920.

In the past 70 years, Michigan has half a national championship (1997) in which they didn't even have to play any of the Top 7 teams available to get it. As others have said, to give that much weight to football that was played 80, 90, 100 years ago, they might as well put Princeton and Harvard in the poll.

I'd put Oklahoma #2 or #3 and move Michigan somewhere around 8th.

Not sure Texas even belongs at #4. ND and USC could make arguments for that spot.

So, history starts at the most desirable time for people who wish to disregard Michigan.

I clearly said "more weight".

I'm not ignoring Michigan's dominance when Army, Princeton, and Harvard, were dominating too. Without that 1890, 1910, 1920 credit Michigan wouldn't even be Top 10. They'd be BYU.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Dude that's just wrong. "History" is the key word. Why would a program's entire body of work not be a factor????

It does. The last 70 years matter too and have far more weight.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

For the UM crowd, history does matter and I think it is a great part of college football. The tradition is one of the things that separates it from the NFL, IMO. That said, I'd love to hear from the Michigan folks as to what you are going to do to turn your program into a winner. The things that made you a traditional winner don't exist anymore. The demographics of championship football are against you, and there is no indication that they will turn around any time soon. Because of your tradition, if any of the "old time" schools can turn it around, you, ND, and Nebraska would be at the top of the list. But, I just don't see that happening. Please educate me on how you think it will be done.

It can be done...Michigan has the financial resources, alumni, fan base and yes tradition to make it happen. I will probably step on some toes by writing this, but it's not with Harbaugh. He has made improvements beyond Hoke, RichRod, but he's not the guy to bring them back to prominence, whatever your definition of that is. They are going to need a young coach who is going to run an offense from this century, recruit the south and west coast well

 

[Wamu]

@Wamu take a look at @Red_Alert post ... see how he intelligently answered the question. I can disagree with him, but I respect his rationale.

And what exactly have I said that's wrong? Sorry if the truth bothers you so much. Sure UoFM's Natty's from so long ago are legit. But that's all you can hang your hat on right now. Can you possibly be a little more relevent when talking about your team? I'm not sure that you can.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

It does. The last 70 years matter too and have far more weight.

Okay, and I am pretty happy with Michigan's last 70 years

 

[tnapucco]

Everyone is ignoring the fact that AG posted a list that didn’t have Washington in it.

Ah, but you see it slights OU in some way/shape/form...which is directly behind Husky sunshine-pumping in his posting frequency.

Some of my brethren are easily lured into the fray.

He has posted more about the Cowpokes, tornado-birds, hornytoads and dongers than their own fans here have.

 

[LawDawg]

So, history starts at the most desirable time for people who wish to disregard Michigan.

Nah, anyone who understands college football history has to put UM on the top 10 list. And, as a traditionalist who grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the few college football games that were televised each week, UM was a team that was often on and I enjoyed watching them. Your place in history, today, is solid.

But, unless you do something to turn things around, in 50 years UM won't be on the list.

 

[Voltaire26]

And what exactly have I said that's wrong? Sorry if the truth bothers you so much. Sure UoFM's Natty's from so long ago are legit. But that's all you can hang your hat on right now. Can you possibly be a little more relevent when talking about your team? I'm not sure that you can.

Here’s a new top ten history list.

Tied for 1st Alabama & Clemson

Tied for 3rd, the next 128 teams.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

Michigan has their place in history. Right there with Army, Harvard, and Princeton

Okay? They have a place in history. What of it?

 

[Voltaire26]

Nah, anyone who understands college football history has to put UM on the top 10 list. And, as a traditionalist who grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the few college football games that were televised each week, UM was a team that was often on and I enjoyed watching them. Your place in history, today, is solid.

But, unless you do something to turn things around, in 50 years UM won't be on the list.

I agree.

 

[Bullitt08]

most wins and highest winning percentage. Try again.

So mostest with the leastest??

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

Nah, anyone who understands college football history has to put UM on the top 10 list. And, as a traditionalist who grew up in the 60s and 70s watching the few college football games that were televised each week, UM was a team that was often on and I enjoyed watching them. Your place in history, today, is solid.

But, unless you do something to turn things around, in 50 years UM won't be on the list.

Of course not, I agree with your statement here. Winning a natty cures a lot of ills and reshapes the perception of a program's legacy.

Let me ask you this:

Program A: averages 10 wins a season, never wins a natty but is generally in the picture

vs.

Program B: averages 5-7 wins a year but within that decade pulls it together and wins 1 natty.

Who is the better program overall?