What Defines A College Football Program?

[Red_Alert]

Program
noun

1. a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim.

For the most part, I agree with rmilia1. But, the "set or related measures" part seems to indicate that, if multiple down years appeared in succession, then nearly all of them were not "great" programs under said coach. Tradition was still there, but the program had gone down the shitter by the results compared to the standards or measures used.

Now, my team would love the results.

 

[rmilia1]

All of those programs you listed as "great" have had down periods (no "conference or national titles") depending on who the coach was at the time.

I think all of them have won natties/ multiple conference titles under more than one coach . If I'm wrong strike that team from the list . Maybe Penn St hasn't . Since Paterno was there 100 years

 

[Red_Alert]

Does one team beating another make them a "Better Program" that year? Nope, but beat them consistently does (see Michigan/ohio state).

Who has the Biggest Program? Probably Michigan

Who has the Best Program? Alabama or Clemson

So you're saying Ohio St has a "better program" than Michigan because they've beaten them consistently as of late. Would you say Iowa has a "better program" than Nebraska since they've beaten Nebraska 5 out of the last 6?

I'd have probably said tejas for "biggest program". Although they under-achieve like no other, they have piles of cash, massive recruiting grounds, and the largest fan base in tejas.

I agree with Alabama having the "best program" followed closely by Oklahoma & Ohio St.

Clemson would never have entered my mind as 'best program". They've been a great program for 8 years now, but not so much before that. In there situation a coach (Swinney) has indeed made the program.

 

[Red_Alert]

I think all of them have won natties/ multiple conference titles under more than one coach . If I'm wrong strike that team from the list . Maybe Penn St hasn't . Since Paterno was there 100 years

Perhaps I misunderstand your point that great programs "win titles regardless of who the coach is".

"To me a great program wins titles ( conference and natty ) regardless of who the coach is , recruits at a great level regardless of who the coach is, stays at or near the top for an extended period of time." - rmilia1

Nebraska didn't win titles under Callahan, Pelini, or Riley.
Alabama didn't win titles under Shula, Franchione, or DuBose
Oklahoma didn't win titles under Blake, Schnellenberger, or Gibbs

Those aren't sporadic periods, they are successive.

I could make similar points for the other teams you listed.

 

[rmilia1]

Perhaps I misunderstand your point that great programs "win titles regardless of who the coach is".

"To me a great program wins titles ( conference and natty ) regardless of who the coach is , recruits at a great level regardless of who the coach is, stays at or near the top for an extended period of time." - rmilia1

Nebraska didn't win titles under Callahan, Pelini, or Riley.
Alabama didn't win titles under Shula, Franchione, or DuBose
Oklahoma didn't win titles under Blake, Schnellenberger, or Gibbs

Those aren't sporadic periods, they are successive.

I could make similar points for the other teams you listed.

I was trying to exclude programs who's great dominance cake only under 1 coach . Or push them further down the list if the majority of their dominance came under 1 coach . It's tougher to do with schools who had 1 guy for 30+ years though .

 

[Red_Alert]

I was trying to exclude programs who's great dominance came only under 1 coach . Or push them further down the list if the majority of their dominance came under 1 coach . It's tougher to do with schools who had 1 guy for 30+ years though .

Understood.

A 'great program' does not automatically make a coach successful though. Agreed?

 

[outofyourmind]

Understood.

A 'great program' does not automatically make a coach successful though. Agreed?

I've always felt like Great Coaches make Great Programs. Not the other way around. Probably exceptions to it.

 

[rmilia1]

Understood.

A 'great program' does not automatically make a coach successful though. Agreed?

For sure

 

[Red_Alert]

I've always felt like Great Coaches make Great Programs. Not the other way around. Probably exceptions to it.

I like that......

Obviously some exceptions to the rule...... Nebraska's sell-out streak since 1962 even though we've gone through Callahan, Pelini, and Riley.

Some coaches (regardless of program resources) just can't seem to put all the pieces together and keep a program competitively relevant.

 

[Voltaire26]

(1) So you're saying ohio st has a "better program" than Michigan because they've beaten them consistently as of late. Would you say Iowa has a "better program" than Nebraska since they've beaten Nebraska 5 out of the last 6?

(2) I'd have probably said tejas for "biggest program". Although they under-achieve like no other, they have piles of cash, massive recruiting grounds, and the largest fan base in tejas.

(3) I agree with Alabama having the "best program" followed closely by Oklahoma & Ohio St.

Clemson would never have entered my mind as 'best program". They've been a great program for 8 years now, but not so much before that. In there situation a coach (Swinney) has indeed made the program.

(1) Hard to argue ... that is exactly what I'm saying.

(2) I tried not to be a homer, but Michigan is big and loyal (as evidenced by the first paragraph). Michigan has the best fight song and iconic helmets ... if only we could beat ohio state.

(3) I would put Clemson ahead of Oklahoma and ohio state while being behind only Alabama. Recent history is big in the 3rd question.

 

[batchaps4me]

I've always felt like Great Coaches make Great Programs. Not the other way around. Probably exceptions to it.

I agree with this and would like to say that what makes a great program is the ability to recognize and hire great coaches and provide the tools for that coach to shine.

 

[Red_Alert]

(1) Hard to argue ... that is exactly what I'm saying.

(2) I tried not to be a homer, but Michigan is big and loyal (as evidenced by the first paragraph). Michigan has the best fight song and iconic helmets ... if only we could beat ohio state.

(3) I would put Clemson ahead of Oklahoma and ohio state while being behind only Alabama. Recent history is big in the 3rd question.

1) OK. Iowa a greater program than Nebraska then?

2) I'd go with Notre Dame on fight song.

3) No way on Clemson. That is laughable that 8 years overrides DECADES.

 

[iowajerms]

ESPN will let you know.

 

[Voltaire26]

1) OK. Iowa a greater program than Nebraska then?

2) I'd go with Notre Dame on fight song.

3) No way on Clemson. That is laughable that 8 years overrides DECADES.

(1) Nebraska has had a couple of rough seasons, I don’t expect many more. Nebraska was not the same team at the end of the season, that they were at the beginning.

(2) The only thing I give Notre Dame an edge in is Touchdown Jesus!!!

(3) I see you point.

 

[Red_Alert]

(1) Nebraska has had a couple of rough seasons, I don’t expect many more. Nebraska was not the same team at the end of the season, that they were at the beginning.

(2) The only thing I give Notre Dame an edge in is Touchdown Jesus!!!

(3) I see you point.

Could be just me, but Victory March is always first to pop in my head when someone mentions a fight song.

 

[Kevin12773]

Unless your band plays it after every single freaking play no matter what happens.

You are not wrong

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I'm pretty sure the more your fight song is hated, the better your program is.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

@rmilia1

is your list all time? current? combo? Cuuuuuuz I got problems with it.

 

[rmilia1]

@rmilia1

is your list all time? current? combo? Cuuuuuuz I got problems with it.

Probably since the 50s/60s til now . Obviously if i go back further I'd look at Army, Minnesota etc .

What's your thoughts ?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Probably since the 50s/60s til now . Obviously if i go back further I'd look at Army, Minnesota etc .

What's your thoughts ?

Well when I think of "great programs" I am thinking about Blue Bloods. So no offense to some of these teams, but I wouldn't have Clemson on there. Nor Auburn. Not sure about UGA, Penn St, and FSU. Don't get me wrong, all of these teams have Nattys and have had really great squads, just when I think about it... I am thinking all-time and don't think some teams like Clemson should be named along side others. UGA, PSU, and FSU definitely have an argument though. I also think Michigan and Texas are too high. I know you didn't rank them, but they should be on the bottom side of any all time top 10 list in my opinion (when they both are typically listed in the middle). Both routinely underperform for the recruits and attention they get.

I hate to say it, but I would probably agree with the 'greatest programs'.