What program does the most with the least / least with most?

[TexasExes98]

Least with the most: Notre Dame and Texas in that order.

Most with the least:lot of candidates. Boise has to be up there, Northern Illinois has a place in the discussion, ULL the last few years but they haven't really beaten any of the big boys but are worth mentioning.

Texas has played for 2 NC's and won 1 and has won 2 conference titles within the last 10 years; I can count on one hand how many programs have played for 2 NC's in the same time frame. Obviously the last 4 years have been below Texas standards but I have a hard time saying programs like Mich State, Baylor, etc do more with less b/c they have only won 1 outright conference title in the last 25 plus years. No Ill is a product of playing in a shitty conference (refer to Boise State, but at least BSU has whipped some big boy programs). I used to think TCU did more with less, but come to find out, it was due to playing in a shitty conference all those years. Do we include KU doing more with less b/c one year they went 12-1 and won a BCS bowl game?

 

[TexasExes98]

I understand why you feel that way, and I hope you understand why everyone not associated with Texas disagrees with your feelings.

This coming from a fan of a school that is easily the #1 most underachieving, disappointing football program ever.....

 

[occupant]

Boizse st/texas

That was easy.

 

[iowajerms]

Michigan State only makes sense for these past 5-6 years. Before that, they hadn't gone to a January bowl since 1987. Kirk Ferentz has taken Iowa to 7 January bowl games since he took over. During that same time period, MSU has gone to 4. Their recruiting is very much the same. Dantonio has admitted that he used Iowa to model MSU.

Under Saban

1995 - 6-5-1 (4-3-1 B1G) - L at Independence Bowl
1996 - 6-6 (5-3)
1997 - 7-5 (4-4) - L at Aloha Bowl
1998 - 6-6 (4-4)
1999 - 10-2 (6-2) - W at Florida Citrus Bowl (Bobby Williams as coach)

Bobby Williams

2000 - 5-6 (2-6)
2001 - 7-5 (3-5) - W at Silicon Valley Classic
2002 - 4-8 (2-6)

John L Smith

2003 - 8-5 (5-3) - L at Alamo Bowl
2004 - 5-7 (4-4)
2005 - 5-6 (2-6)
2006 - 4-8 (1-7)

Mark Dantonio

2007 - 7-6 (3-5) - L at Champ Sports Bowl
2008 - 9-4 (6-2) - L at Capitol One Bowl
2009 - 6-7 (4-4) - L at Alamo Bowl
2010 - 11-2 (7-1) - tied 1st in B1G - L at Capitol One Bowl
2011 - 11-3 (7-1) - W Legends; L B1G Championship - W at Outback Bowl
2012 - 7-6 (3-5) - W at Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl
2013 - 13-1 (8-0) - B1G Champs - W at Rose Bowl

 

[theSabanator20]

OU has conference titles in 2010 and 2012.

Not counting 2012... Lost to K State which was tiebreaker. I'll give you 2010.


Okay, none of those teams have won their conference since 2010.

 

[Pariah]

Not counting 2012... Lost to K State which was tiebreaker. I'll give you 2010.


Okay, none of those teams have won their conference since 2010.

I'll let OU and the Big XII know.

 

[smilesid]

Forbes magazine did a study several years ago, in which they compared total budget with win-loss records. They found that the cellar dwellers of the B1G, SEC, and PAC were the worst return on the money, while top teams like Boise, Louisville, KSU, and N. Illinois excelled in the best bang for the buck category.

I find it amusing since a lot of folks seem to think that stadium and budget size translate directly into talent. Many of these schools are big time collegiate welfare recipients, Vandy, WSU, Illinois, Indiana, and other perennial also ran programs rake in millions in conference payouts every year, but then have to deal with getting beat by FCS or low end FBS schools who have budgets a fraction of the size.

 

[WestEndVol]

Wonder if jerms thinks Iowa does more with less..

 

[TexasExes98]

Forbes magazine did a study several years ago, in which they compared total budget with win-loss records. They found that the cellar dwellers of the B1G, SEC, and PAC were the worst return on the money, while top teams like Boise, Louisville, KSU, and N. Illinois excelled in the best bang for the buck category.

I find it amusing since a lot of folks seem to think that stadium and budget size translate directly into talent. Many of these schools are big time collegiate welfare recipients, Vandy, WSU, Illinois, Indiana, and other perennial also ran programs rake in millions in conference payouts every year, but then have to deal with getting beat by FCS or low end FBS schools who have budgets a fraction of the size.

Regarding BSU, stadium or budget size has nothing to do with their success. It's the shitty, weak as fuck conference they play in. TCU used to dominate in the same conference; now look what happened when they joined a big boy conference. N. Illinois had 15 minutes of fame, then were blown out when they had to face real competition in their BCS bowl, so N. Illinois, like BSU, is a product of playing weak as shit competition year in and year out, will rarely play more than 1 team with NFL talent, and plays in a conference, like BSU, where the games are rarely sold out and where the fans rarely ever travel. Dont' believe me, refer to TCU and refer to former BSU coaches who dominated at BSU and failed miserably when they left to coach in a real conference. If BSU ever has an opportunity to join a real, big boy FBS conference, they will fall into irrelevancy just like the others.

 

[TexasExes98]

I'll let OU and the Big XII know.

KSU won the Big 12 in '12, not OU. Don't give a shit if OU claims a shared title, that was KSU. KSU played in a BCS bowl that year, you boys were blown out, embarrassed, bukkakeed all over and raped by Aggy in a 2nd tier bowl.

 

[HizzleRocker]

Delends with Texas. If we are talking historically, then it was only a few years ago we were setting records for consecutive 10 win seasons, winning multiple BCS bowls, including a natty.

If we are talking a about the last few years I'm not sure that any team has done less with more.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

I am sure that TEXAS should be entirely judged on the last 4 mediocre seasons anymore than Bama should be judged on the 4 seasons prior to Saban.


Pay no attention to the 1998-2009 historic run of sustained success.


14 consecutive 10 win seasons, 9 bowl wins, 1 NC, 2 NC appearances, 5 top 3 finishes, Heisman Winner, 2 Heisman runners up, ranked in the final top 15 every season, ranked in every single BCS weekly ranking


Of the 120 programs, there is less than 5 that were even close to those accomplishments.


And when Texas had a 4 year downturn, they took bold strokes to correct it.

 

[night]

Most with the least: Duke
Least with the most: Tejas

 

[Pariah]

KSU won the Big 12 in '12, not OU. Don't give a shit if OU claims a shared title, that was KSU. KSU played in a BCS bowl that year, you boys were blown out, embarrassed, bukkakeed all over and raped by Aggy in a 2nd tier bowl.

Still counts, not really a debate.

Michigan claims 26 conference co-champs, USC 11, Ohio State 17.

 

[7Samurai13]

Texas has played for 2 NC's and won 1 and has won 2 conference titles within the last 10 years; I can count on one hand how many programs have played for 2 NC's in the same time frame. Obviously the last 4 years have been below Texas standards but I have a hard time saying programs like Mich State, Baylor, etc do more with less b/c they have only won 1 outright conference title in the last 25 plus years. No Ill is a product of playing in a shitty conference (refer to Boise State, but at least BSU has whipped some big boy programs). I used to think TCU did more with less, but come to find out, it was due to playing in a shitty conference all those years. Do we include KU doing more with less b/c one year they went 12-1 and won a BCS bowl game?

I guess by your definition Alabama has done the most with the least because they won conference and national titles, sometimes not in the same year. Because it's all about wins, right? Who are your doing the most with the least teams? USC, Bama, Texas, Oregon, Ohio State right?

Texas is an extremely underachieving team, whether you want to admit it or not, based on the fact that despite being in the biggest hot bed of talent in the United States, having top 25 teams every single year that Rivals has been rating classes and nearly half of those classes being top 5 classes has managed one national title, and two title appearances. Hey, lets just overlook a DEAD LAST in their DIVISION. I think someone is just upset that everyone keeps picking on their team who starts every single season ranked in the top 25 even after not being bowl eligible the previous season. Yet you want teams like Michigan State who has two top 25 classes (one of which hasn't touched the field yet) and got their first 5 star recruit ever and Baylor who has never had a top 25 ranking and has been above 50 more time than below 50 to be winning conference titles every year when they have 2-3 star talent teams going against 4-5 star talent teams.

If you don't understand what the thread is about, maybe you shouldn't comment in it.

 

[TexasExes98]

I guess by your definition Alabama has done the most with the least because they won conference and national titles, sometimes not in the same year. Because it's all about wins, right? Who are your doing the most with the least teams? USC, Bama, Texas, Oregon, Ohio State right?

Texas is an extremely underachieving team, whether you want to admit it or not, based on the fact that despite being in the biggest hot bed of talent in the United States, having top 25 teams every single year that Rivals has been rating classes and nearly half of those classes being top 5 classes has managed one national title, and two title appearances. Hey, lets just overlook a DEAD LAST in their DIVISION. I think someone is just upset that everyone keeps picking on their team who starts every single season ranked in the top 25 even after not being bowl eligible the previous season. Yet you want teams like Michigan State who has two top 25 classes (one of which hasn't touched the field yet) and got their first 5 star recruit ever and Baylor who has never had a top 25 ranking and has been above 50 more time than below 50 to be winning conference titles every year when they have 2-3 star talent teams going against 4-5 star talent teams.

If you don't understand what the thread is about, maybe you shouldn't comment in it.

I understand this thread completely. If we're talking about the last 4 years, then Texas is clearly doing less with more. But I don't understand Michigan State doing more with less. The Spartans just won their 1st outright title in 25 years, basically, you boys have had 1 good year out of the last 25 years. You're not doing more with less, MSU just had a fluke good season. So did KU back in 2007. What I'm saying is, MSU or Baylor do not need to win conference titles every year, however, they need to have 1 good season more than every 25 plus years in order to be classified as "doing more with less".

 

[iowajerms]

Ai don't think either one should be in this discussion unless we're talking about recent history.

 

[7Samurai13]

I understand this thread completely. If we're talking about the last 4 years, then Texas is clearly doing less with more. But I don't understand Michigan State doing more with less. The Spartans just won their 1st outright title in 25 years, basically, you boys have had 1 good year out of the last 25 years. You're not doing more with less, MSU just had a fluke good season. So did KU back in 2007. What I'm saying is, MSU or Baylor do not need to win conference titles every year, however, they need to have 1 good season more than every 25 plus years in order to be classified as "doing more with less".

Michigan State has as many undefeated regular season conference schedules in the last 3 years as Texas has in the last 17. Again who is your list of doing more with less? Alabama, Oregon, Texas, Ohio State, Florida State? Michigan State has also had 3 11+ wins in the last 4 years. That's a fluke? I guess by your standards, Wisconsin had a good season in 2012 because they won their conference outright. I guess by your standards that Texas in the BCS era is a fluke team since they only had 2 good seasons in 15 years. Again, since you have never answered the question and are too pussy to write it, who are the teams who do the most with the least?

TexasStampede, 10 win season are shitty seasons according to TexasExes so yes they should be thrown out.

 

[7Samurai13]

Ai don't think either one should be in this discussion unless we're talking about recent history.

That's fine. But you at least have the guts to write who should be up there, TE seems to only put who does the least with the most, but of course can't admit that his team only has had two good years, based on his criteria of 12+ win seasons, in 15 years despite having top 5 recruiting nearly half the time.

 

[Codaxx]

Michigan State has as many undefeated regular season conference schedules in the last 3 years as Texas has in the last 17. Again who is your list of doing more with less? Alabama, Oregon, Texas, Ohio State, Florida State? Michigan State has also had 3 11+ wins in the last 4 years. That's a fluke? I guess by your standards, Wisconsin had a good season in 2012 because they won their conference outright. I guess by your standards that Texas in the BCS era is a fluke team since they only had 2 good seasons in 15 years. Again, since you have never answered the question and are too pussy to write it, who are the teams who do the most with the least?

TexasStampede, 10 win season are shitty seasons according to TexasExes so yes they should be thrown out.

I wouldnt put MSU on this list, because it is kind of insulting. MSU has a solid history that stretches decades. When a think less with more, I think of no tradition, marginal facilities, and poor access to recruits. That isnt MSU. They are just a solid program hitting their stride. If the win a title, it wont be there first. Less with more would be Kansas State.