Teams that have been down way too long

[Wild Turkey]

GT has a NC in the 90s but hasn't been heard of since and they should be a contender every year in the ACC.

 

[yeodonie]

I'd like to see the Huskies become dominant again.

No thank you

 

[Tharvot]

Texas has been "down" for what, 4 years? That's not really long. Most programs are down for like a decade or two

Thats a long-ass time for a school like Texas. There is no reason whatsoever that they should be down more than 1 year...well aside from shitty coaching and poor recruiting.

 

[BigRedMoe]

Of your list there, to be fair, Michigan deserves to be on there no more than Oklahoma. Since they booted Rich Rod and hired Fatboy Hoke, they have all of 1 less win overall than Oklahoma while winning a BCS bowl more recently, so you may need to take a look at your Sooners for this list if Michigan is there.

What the hell are you talking about? Oklahoma won the Big XII last year and has won 2 of the last 3 conference titles.

Put an asterisk by that one. You tied for the championship with a team that beat you at home.

 

[Sox33OSU]

Put an asterisk by that one. You tied for the championship with a team that beat you at home.

Good point. I don't recall seeing them in the Fiesta Bowl.

 

[Goldbug]

Oklahoma should definitely be on the list.

1. It's been 13 years since Oklahoma last won a NC.

2. It's been a hoot to watch OU consistently lose every NC game they have played in since then.

3. It's been a "big deal" when OU finally won a BCS game (against a pathetic Connecticut team).

4. Oklahoma brags about winning the conference championship when they actually tied for one.

5. OU is back to getting its ass thumped by Texas.

Guess what the following consensus All-America players all have in common:
Roy Williams
Tommie Harris
Teddy Lehman
Jamaal Brown
Mark Clayton
Antonio Perkins
Derrick Strait
Jason White
Adrian Peterson
Duke Robinson
Curtis Lofton
Sam Bradford
Jermaine Gresham
Trent Williams
Gerald McCoy
Quinton Carter
Ryan Broyles

Answer: None of them ever won a National Championship at OU. We're talking Heisman Trophy winners in there, folks, along with Adrian Peterson, etc. And in many games they were beaten by teams with a hell of a lot less talent. Having Bob Stoops as the head football coach guarantees OU will remain an under-achiever until the day he shuffles off with more millions of dollars in his pocket from an Oklahoma program that is a shadow of its former self.

 

[BeaverShaver]

Florida State and Miami seem to be pulling themselves out of the ditch.
Tennessee looked like an improved team until they played Alabama.
Nebraska just still looks like shit even though they are winning 9-10 games a year.
Washington finally is making some strides.
Oklahoma and Texas are idling around mediocre.
Michigan seems a lot like Nebraska.

How exactly is Washington making strides? Starting the season 4-0 then losing 3 straight for 4 consecutive years once they start playing decent teams? This program is no better than they were 4 years ago. No end in sight. Their roster is upper-classmen heavy and they may fire/lose their head coach and DC after another 7 win season. I see it taking another 5 years before this program is relevant again. And my relevant I mean relevant AFTER games in September.

To answer the original question, I think Texas and Michigan have the best chance to be dominant again just due to who they are. Historically dominant teams with strong recruiting areas and pipelines and the money to make things happen. As an Oregon fan, I would love to play Michigan in a big bowl game, or Texas for that matter.

 

[963BUSC]

Not that I mind, but Minnesota.

I was thinking of Minnesota too. Its been so long since they've been even "ok" that people forget they had a great program at one time.

Whatever happened to Minnesota?

 

[Wishbone]

True, Minnesota has as many National Titles as texas.

 

[cane_man]

Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan, Texas, Washington, and Tennessee.

I think that covers it. Serious drought with some of these with no end in sight.

Which teams here have a chance to be national title contenders the quickest?

Texas????

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

True, Minnesota has as many National Titles as texas.

More...

 

[Codaxx]

True, Minnesota has as many National Titles as texas.

-
claim 7, so it is not a small number. Last one is prior to Bowls counting.

 

[BigRedMoe]

True, Minnesota has as many National Titles as texas.

6 of 'em including a three-peat from '34-'36; back to back in '40 and '41; and the last in '60

 

[WizardHawk]

How exactly is Washington making strides? Starting the season 4-0 then losing 3 straight for 4 consecutive years once they start playing decent teams? This program is no better than they were 4 years ago. No end in sight. Their roster is upper-classmen heavy and they may fire/lose their head coach and DC after another 7 win season. I see it taking another 5 years before this program is relevant again. And my relevant I mean relevant AFTER games in September.

To answer the original question, I think Texas and Michigan have the best chance to be dominant again just due to who they are. Historically dominant teams with strong recruiting areas and pipelines and the money to make things happen. As an Oregon fan, I would love to play Michigan in a big bowl game, or Texas for that matter.

God I love idiot homer duck fans, doesn't everyone? How is UW full of upper-classmen? How many seniors does UW have as starters this year vs what Oregon has? (psst, the answer might shock you). UW isn't as young as they were the last few years when they were forced to start a lot of freshmen and sophomores, but they are hardly fully in the cycle of red shirting quality kids and starting mostly upper classmen AND having uppers as backups.

Did you know UW doesn't have a single senior offensive lineman on the roster? In his first recruiting class Sark wasn't able to find a single lineman. It was a late class and over half of it was JC transfers that have long since left.

I realize duck tards really really really want UW to stay in the willingham days forever, but the truth is they are rebuilding and making strides in the right direction. What really do you expect from a team in the first year of a new offense and the second year of actually playing anything that resembles defense? Progress is what you expect. Any thoughts that UW would go 10 wins was unrealistic. I said 8 before the season started and that's still about what I expect.

Can't wait to read the response to this. Have to have my daily fill of ducktard soup.

 

[yeodonie]

I for one hope all Husky fans are happy with the current "progress"

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Texas has been awarded 9 national titles. They only claim 4 because retroactive titles are bullshit. If you didn't win it the year it happened your title claim is shit. For Minnesota to claim they have 7, by that standard, Texas has 9. Also, Notre Dame has 22, Alabama has 19, Oklahoma and USC have 17, etc etc

Hell some of these are freaking Jeff Sagarin awarded titles. Are people really hanging their hat on that??? Some MIT geek gets to decide who was champion 80 years after it happened? GTFO

 

[BigRedMoe]

OK
Winsipedia - Minnesota Golden Gophers vs. Texas Longhorns football series history

 

[WizardHawk]

I for one hope all Husky fans are happy with the current "progress"

No one is 'happy', but we do understand it is a process. Oregon didn't get where they were overnight. You all claim '94 was the start of your rise and how long did it take before everyone else in the country actually took notice? Right, it was more than 3-4 years wasn't it.

 

[BeaverShaver]

God I love idiot homer duck fans, doesn't everyone? How is UW full of upper-classmen? How many seniors does UW have as starters this year vs what Oregon has? (psst, the answer might shock you). UW isn't as young as they were the last few years when they were forced to start a lot of freshmen and sophomores, but they are hardly fully in the cycle of red shirting quality kids and starting mostly upper classmen AND having uppers as backups.

Did you know UW doesn't have a single senior offensive lineman on the roster? In his first recruiting class Sark wasn't able to find a single lineman. It was a late class and over half of it was JC transfers that have long since left.

I realize duck tards really really really want UW to stay in the willingham days forever, but the truth is they are rebuilding and making strides in the right direction. What really do you expect from a team in the first year of a new offense and the second year of actually playing anything that resembles defense? Progress is what you expect. Any thoughts that UW would go 10 wins was unrealistic. I said 8 before the season started and that's still about what I expect.

Can't wait to read the response to this. Have to have my daily fill of ducktard soup.

And cue the angry Husky fan......now....

Here's the deal Wiz, upperclassmen means Juniors and Seniors, and for the purposes of this thread, I would include early NFL entries as well. It was YOU that brought Oregon into the discussion, not me. But since you asked, we are doing just fine recruiting players to fit our system. We have a backlog of redshirting freshmen who will make an impact for years to come. As for UW, lets take a look shall we...

On offense....

You will lose your starting QB (sr), starting RB (NFL), maybe one or 2 WR's (Williams may leave for NFL, but due to injury who knows) your starting TE (NFL) and your kicker. I will give you your point on the OL, your right, they suck and they are all Juniors and younger.

On defense...(which is much harder for a non-UW fan to find an accurate depth chart)

You will lose 1-2 DL/DT's, you may not lose any LB's unless Timo goes pro (doubtful), and you will lose 2-3 DB's.

MY POINT is this, I don't see much progress. Now you may have youth on the roster, I do see a lot of sophomores and freshman, but your recruiting has not matched your style, and now that you have switched offenses, you will have to start over. It is likely that your DC will leave in the next year or two tops, and with your fan base calling for Sarks' head and his track record of 7 wins per year, who knows, maybe you start over again.

Progress is when you move forward, not stay in one place.

 

[WizardHawk]

And cue the angry Husky fan......now....

Here's the deal Wiz, upperclassmen means Juniors and Seniors, and for the purposes of this thread, I would include early NFL entries as well. It was YOU that brought Oregon into the discussion, not me. But since you asked, we are doing just fine recruiting players to fit our system. We have a backlog of redshirting freshmen who will make an impact for years to come. As for UW, lets take a look shall we...

On offense....

You will lose your starting QB (sr), starting RB (NFL), maybe one or 2 WR's (Williams may leave for NFL, but due to injury who knows) your starting TE (NFL) and your kicker. I will give you your point on the OL, your right, they suck and they are all Juniors and younger.

On defense...(which is much harder for a non-UW fan to find an accurate depth chart)

You will lose 1-2 DL/DT's, you may not lose any LB's unless Timo goes pro (doubtful), and you will lose 2-3 DB's.

MY POINT is this, I don't see much progress. Now you may have youth on the roster, I do see a lot of sophomores and freshman, but your recruiting has not matched your style, and now that you have switched offenses, you will have to start over. It is likely that your DC will leave in the next year or two tops, and with your fan base calling for Sarks' head and his track record of 7 wins per year, who knows, maybe you start over again.

Progress is when you move forward, not stay in one place.

I know what an underclassmen is. My point was you use that instead of talking about seniors or NFL departing jr's for a reason and you know it. Our offense has a sr QB and one sr WR and that's it. How many 4 or 5 year seniors is Oregon using on offense? A lot more than 2. As for KW, there is zero chance he goes to the NFL now as he will need to prove he can recover and be as effective after this injury. ASJ? Wouldn't call that a slam dunk departure now given how quiet he has been so far this season. He may need to come back to get his stock back up to a first rounder. Again, who knows, but that's it on departing players. When you add Sankey that's 4-5 total leaving this squad. How many are you losing?

You can split hairs all you like, but UW is nothing that resembles a completed team yet and anyone with a half an ounce of football IQ knows it. This is the 5th year of Sark's tenure, but his first couple of classes were thin given where the program was coming from. The seniors we have right now came to us after the 0-12 season and that wasn't a great class. The last 3 have been pretty good to darned good.

You measure a program on wins, but also recruiting and that is what you and your ill prepared to have a rational discussion compatriots always miss. The recruiting has been improving every year and for each of those classes it is at least 3 years before you see the fruits of it.

Why did I bring up Oregon? Because if you want to measure progress you must take into account who you are trailing. Common sense no? If we are to overtake the NW where we belong we have to pass them up. Unlike your boys who got there on the backs of total garbage sanctions on our program and the money your sugar daddy threw around, UW is building it up through hard work.

We know how hard the road is and no one knows if Sark can develop into the guy to take us there. We do know the staff is working on the schemes and personnel to keep up with the changing times. Will it pay off soon? Good question. Any answer you give is nothing but pure hate filled wishes. Any answer I give is probably homer optimism. The real answer will come on the field over the next couple of years.

You may now safely go back under your rock. You are dismissed.