Your top 5 most disappointing programs of all time

[TexasExes98]

1. Texas A&M - has access to the same resources their big bro has (money, large alumni and fan base, sits in state full of talent, also a flagship school) yet only 1 NC to show for it, 1 conference title in the last 20 years, 1 top 5 finish since the 50's, losing bowl record and no major bowls in 20 years.

2. UCLA - Refer to Aggy. Only 7 conference titles in the last 40 years, 17-17 bowl record and 1 NC to show for it. Like Aggy, has access to everything their big bro does.

3. UGA - located in talent rich state, yet only 1 NC to show for it. Only 4 conference titles since 1980. Does not have to compete with any in state schools for the top athletes in the state either. Does have a winning bowl record though and have came close to competing for NC's under Richt. Still an underachieving program.

4. Arizona State - The campus and women alone sells itself. Grant it, the state of Arizona does not produce enough talent, but refer to OU. OU would have to drop football altogether if they had to rely on homegrown talent, but they make it work and have won 7 NC's. ASU is located next to California and has access to blue chip players. 0 NC's and only 4 conference titles since 1975.

5. Arkansas - Sits next door to the Lone Star State and has always recruited Texas excellent, but only has 1 NC to show for it, 3 conference titles since 1975 and has an awful bowl record (14-23-3). Has had legendary coaches in the past (Holtz, Broyles) and talent, just can't put it together. Excellent support from fans and alumni and has money, but just a major underachiever.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Hold on, let me go get my lounge chair...

 

[lilchi721]

1. Texas A&M - has access to the same resources their big bro has (money, large alumni and fan base, sits in state full of talent, also a flagship school) yet only 1 NC to show for it, 1 conference title in the last 20 years, 1 top 5 finish since the 50's, losing bowl record and no major bowls in 20 years.

2. UCLA - Refer to Aggy. Only 7 conference titles in the last 40 years, 17-17 bowl record and 1 NC to show for it. Like Aggy, has access to everything their big bro does.

3. UGA - located in talent rich state, yet only 1 NC to show for it. Only 4 conference titles since 1980. Does not have to compete with any in state schools for the top athletes in the state either. Does have a winning bowl record though and have came close to competing for NC's under Richt. Still an underachieving program.

4. Arizona State - The campus and women alone sells itself. Grant it, the state of Arizona does not produce enough talent, but refer to OU. OU would have to drop football altogether if they had to rely on homegrown talent, but they make it work and have won 7 NC's. ASU is located next to California and has access to blue chip players. 0 NC's and only 4 conference titles since 1975.

5. Arkansas - Sits next door to the Lone Star State and has always recruited Texas excellent, but only has 1 NC to show for it, 3 conference titles since 1975 and has an awful bowl record (14-23-3). Has had legendary coaches in the past (Holtz, Broyles) and talent, just can't put it together. Excellent support from fans and alumni and has money, but just a major underachiever.

Actually A&M has 3 National Titles, 17 SWC titles,2 Big 12 South titles three if you count 2010, 1 Big 12 title and A&M could not compete with Texas in recruiting while in the Big 12 since the league was formed cause Texas had the money and the it factor at the time. But since A&M left it's been different A&M is now becoming more of the hot school since Sumlin has taken over.

 

[Wamu]

Hold on, let me go get my lounge chair...

 

[OregonDucks]

I agree with all but texas AM...before the move to sec the aggies were little bros to texas and there really is no reason texas am should be the go to program. Sumlin has done a great job there.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Leave it to a condescending UT fan to make such a thread. Seems to me that the Steers ought to be pretty disappointed themselves about the past several seasons.

 

[OregonDucks]

Very true, texas since performance since 2010 makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Codaxx]

Actually A&M has 3 National Titles, 17 SWC titles,2 Big 12 South titles three if you count 2010, 1 Big 12 title and A&M could not compete with Texas in recruiting while in the Big 12 since the league was formed cause Texas had the money and the it factor at the time. But since A&M left it's been different A&M is now becoming more of the hot school since Sumlin has taken over.

-
This whole thread is kind of silly, but this is some serious BS. 3 Big 12 titles? 2010? 2 of the national titles being claimed are within the past 3 years after every team member was dead. Dont fall into a troll thread and embarrass yourself

 

[Codaxx]

Very true, texas since performance since 2010 makes absolutely no sense.

Texas has a new coach now for that exact reason

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Surrslee, how many programs have annually high expectations and good-to-great recruiting classes and yet only have one or fewer SHAMpionships?

College football titles have been monopolized by a few programs, with about a dozen or so outliers who evidently lucked into one once and haven't been heard from since.

Even if you want to restrict it to "legit!" titles, or rather AP/Coaches poll champs since 1936, that's only 30 teams -- and 11 of them only have one title. 48 championships since 1936 are held by 7 schools: Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Ohio State, Miami, Nebraska...all with 5 or more titles each.

Since the BCS era, EVERY title has been won by a school that already owned at least one championship in their history. And 8 of the titles in the BCS/playoff era were won by those same seven schools listed above with more than 5 titles.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

Arizona State doesn't put money into their program. Recently that is starting to change a little bit but that combined with not a great tradition and not much in-state talent (the talent here leaves anyways).

Graham is doing a nice job. But I wonder how long before he leaves cause the AD is cheap.

With the girls and HUGE alumni base ASU has, they could be a contenders for the Pac every year if they put the resources and effort towards that, but it really isn't a priority.

 

[HuskerOC]

Did a Texas fan seriously create this thread?

 

[trojanfan12]

I'm not sure I agree about UCLA for a couple of reasons. First of all, UCLA is considered a basketball school. USC is considered a football school. So, UCLA has the same problem when they target a football player that USC wants as USC does when they target a basketball recruit that UCLA wants. They'll get one of them every now and then, but not enough to really change the balance of power.

Additionally, UCLA isn't just competing with USC for California recruits. They are also competing with the entire PAC-12. USC still pulls in the bulk of the top California talent and also has enough of a brand that we can and do go national in our recruiting as well. That leaves UCLA competing with the rest of the PAC for the recruits that USC didn't sign.

Besides all of the above, what football player wants to spend his career wearing powder blue and gold with a teddy bear as the mascot?

 

[Codaxx]

Arizona State doesn't put money into their program. Recently that is starting to change a little bit but that combined with not a great tradition and not much in-state talent (the talent here leaves anyways).

Graham is doing a nice job. But I wonder how long before he leaves cause the AD is cheap.

-
ASU and the Pac as a whole has really started to put money into their programs. Population trends are moving west. Too early to call any non-California school an under-achiever. The results are just now starting to show

 

[jonvi]

How can you not have Syracuse Football in this discussion? An NC in 1950. Has seven NFL HOF's that went to schoold at SU.

The likes of Jim Brown, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis, Joe Morris, Larry Csonka, Art Monk and Al Davis were all orangemen from the day.

There was a time when Coach Boeheim was starting out as the HC of the Bball program and was told he didn't stand a chance at SU because Syracuse was a football school.

 

[Clayton]

Georgia and Arkansas were the first two that came to mind. Arkansas in particular dumps a lot of money into things and doesn't get much, to my knowledge.

Not sure any of them beat Mizzou's basketball program, though

 

[WABLTY]

ASU made 2 very bad hires that cost them the better part of 20 years. It used to be a bigger deal than it has been recently. A lot of things changed after they were forced to fire Kush, who at the time was younger and had more career wins than Paterno. Then John Cooper decided he didn't like recruiting, cashed in on Darryl Rogers guys and bailed to tOSU, which lead to a promotion for Larry Marmie. Marmie set the program back a huge amount and it's never really recovered apart from the odd decent season.

Ship seems to be righting itself finally though.

 

[Mistaken4193]

I would say Texas is the most disappointing. I mean with all the money they have and being the top school in the most talented recruiting state in America, how have they only won 1 national title in the last 45 years????? That's fucking pathetic. (No Offense)

 

[Tin Man]

Hold on, let me go get my lounge chair...

And a cooler of beer... Bed pan or empty 2 litre bottle? No?

Oh, right. keepin' it real...

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I would say Texas is the most disappointing. I mean with all the money they have and being the top school in the most talented recruiting state in America, how have they only won 1 national title in the last 45 years????? That's fucking pathetic. (No Offense)

Using this criteria, we should probably include Michigan. They have traditionally dominated the Midwest recruiting grounds like UT has done in Texas, and with only two titles (one of them split) since 1948.