Online Now 4234

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1689
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3486
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Alabama v. Notre Dame v. USC

  • bigwilly64 said...

    You Mich fans are hilarious trying to hang onto what little relevance you have left. You only lead in wins and winning % because you started your program before Alabama. Bama has been the better team easily for 110 years....a fact that will become painfully obvious in Dallas.

    You might want to actually check your facts before you post. Michigan has 895 wins total. Bama has 814. Michigan had a grand total of 27 wins before Bama's first season of play. Which means since 1892(the year Bama began playing football) Michigan has 868 wins compared to Bama's 814.

    Also, what in the heck does winning % have to do with when your program starts?

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine

  • msucan'tmakebcs said...

    except we only had like 40 wins when you started your program and we also have a higher winning percentage.

    .

    This post was edited by hubcitytider on 7/7/2012 at 3:17 AM

    hubcitytider ●

  • hubcitytider said...

    .

    excellent point

    signature image signature image signature image

    AUBonner

  • Notre Dame?

    The Romans had a good thing going once too but they aren't winning many battles now.

    signature image signature image signature image

    And because Auburn men and women believe in these things, I believe in Auburn and love it. -George Petrie (1945)

    Turn2

  • MrWoodson said...

    Michigan has a winning record all-time against Bama (2-1) and all of those games have been played in the past 15 years. We also have the highest winning percentage of any FBS program despite playing the toughest schedule and in the toughest conference for more than 130 years. The problem with most of Bama's victories and championships is that you earned them playing in a second rate league. Take Bama out of the mix and the SEC is barely distinguishable from the ACC. UF didn't win its first natty until the mid 90s (see FSU) and LSU historically has been no better than Georgia Tech. The SEC has had a nice run the past six years, but that is a mere puss-filled pimple on the backside of CFB history. The B10 is back, baby, and I sense the P12 is not far behind. The decade of the redneck is over. The true kings of CFB are coming to reclaim our crown.

    This ^^^^

    I would add to the last part IMO, that with USC's re-emergence under CPC, it helped the PAC put the finishing touches on being the top dog over the last 50 or so years starting in 1960. The B1G being the top dog from the early 1900's to 1960. Should be interesting to see which conference will lead the way over the next 50 years, the Conference of Champions or the most tradition rich conference in the nation, the Big Ten.

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • WillyWolverine said...

    You might want to actually check your facts before you post. Michigan has 895 wins total. Bama has 814. Michigan had a grand total of 27 wins before Bama's first season of play. Which means since 1892(the year Bama began playing football) Michigan has 868 wins compared to Bama's 814.

    Also, what in the heck does winning % have to do with when your program starts?

    Actually, on the field of play, Alabama has 843 wins. Yes, I know, they don't count, are gone, can't use them, etc...

    Anyway, that has absolutely no effect on Bama overtaking Michigan in 1903, as far as winning percentage goes, because their first games weren't vacated or forfeited until 1993 and the calculations I gave for winning percentage didn't include the forfeits anyway.

    So, in real life as far as things that actually happened, Michigan has 868 wins compared to Alabama's 843 since 1892. Anyway, it's always Michigan fans crowing about how National Championships are meaningless and only winning percentage matters. That's the only reason I mentioned that, since 1903, Alabama holds the advantage in winning percentage over Michigan, even with the 29 wins that were vacated and forfeited.

    signature image

    http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/CtrlAltieDel/Bama/

    CtrlAltDel

  • maize&blue21 said...

    Michigan is basically a better Notre Dame except for Heismans, yet you have Michigan as #4 and Notre Dame as #1.

    roflmao that's funny..

    This post was edited by star69 on 7/7/2012 at 5:39 AM

    signature image

    star69

  • CtrlAltDel said...

    That's the only reason I mentioned that, since 1903, Alabama holds the advantage in winning percentage over Michigan, even with the 29 wins that were vacated and forfeited.

    Wrong - Nice try liar

    Wow, you Bama fans are something else.

    Less than 24 hrs after not being able to provide even 1 example to back the allegation that "I was making stats up" as the Bama fans pathetically claimed yet provided no proof, no examples, nothing, the first post I see from you is wrong and completely misleading.

    Talk about instant karma.

    Since 1903 Michigan's win % is .728 and Alabama's is .718. The only way Alabama's win % since 1903 beats Michigan is if you ADD IN the 29 vacated wins and SUBTRACT the forfeited losses, which is the total opposite of what you just claimed. Once you give Bama the wins back and take out the losses, then they have a win % of .731.

    Man you chumps will say anthing.
    No integrity.

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • MrWoodson said...

    Michigan has a winning record all-time against Bama (2-1) and all of those games have been played in the past 15 years. We also have the highest winning percentage of any FBS program despite playing the toughest schedule and in the toughest conference for more than 130 years. The problem with most of Bama's victories and championships is that you earned them playing in a second rate league. Take Bama out of the mix and the SEC is barely distinguishable from the ACC. UF didn't win its first natty until the mid 90s (see FSU) and LSU historically has been no better than Georgia Tech. The SEC has had a nice run the past six years, but that is a mere puss-filled pimple on the backside of CFB history. The B10 is back, baby, and I sense the P12 is not far behind. The decade of the redneck is over. The true kings of CFB are coming to reclaim our crown.

    I've heard it all now. Michigan and Ohio State made up the Big 10 for most of it's existence, just as Alabama and Tennessee did for the SEC. As if the Big 10 was just really stuffed full of super high quality teams and the SEC was just chopped meat. Give me a break.

    The SEC is 80-67-6 against the Big 10 All-Time, in games dating all the way back to the 1930's. And that's not even including Georgia Tech's or Sewanee's or Tulane's win/loss record while they were in the SEC. It would be worse then.

    You would do better not talking about things that you don't know about just to try to sound super cool. In fact, the only teams in the SEC that the mighty Big 10 has a winning percentage advantage over are Arkansas (SEC Newbie), Kentucky (long time basketball school and they are only four games short of being even at 16-20), Ole Miss, and Mississippi State.

    That's it. That's pitiful. Even lowly Vanderbilt stands even with the Big 10 at 8-8-2.

    This post was edited by CtrlAltDel on 7/7/2012 at 6:32 AM

    signature image

    http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/CtrlAltieDel/Bama/

    CtrlAltDel

  • CtrlAltDel said...

    But we have a better winning percentage since 1903. I thought that is how Michigan fans figured out which team was best?

    Don't feel bad about it though, we have a better winning percentage than Notre Dame since 1892, the year Alabama started playing football. Of course, Notre Dame also has a better overall winning percentage than Alabama. Notre Dame, naturally, being second to only Michigan in overall winning percentage.

    Overall Winning Percentage, 1892-2011

    Team Win% gm W L T Alabama 0.729 1164 828 294 42

    Overall Winning Percentage, 1892-2011

    Team Win% gm W L T Notre Dame 0.724 1094 776 285 33


    Since 1892 you say Alabama is 828-294-42 ???

    Nice magic trick, where did you hide Bama's other 26 losses,
    or 17 losses if you don't count any of the forfeits.

    Since 1892
    Notre Dame (.732) = 851-297-42
    Alabama (.709) = 814-320-43
    or (.722) 843-311-43 if you disregard the ncaa forfeits and gave Bama back the vacated wins.
    (which I don't have a problem with but even then ND is still ahead of Bama in win %. .732 to .722

    Man, you are telling the some fairytales today. A really big fish, a whopper.

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    Since 1892 you say Alabama is 828-294-42 ???

    Nice magic trick, where did you hide Bama's other 26 losses, or 17 losses if you don't count any of the forfeits.

    Since 1892 Notre Dame (.732) = 851-297-42 Alabama (.709) = 814-320-43 or (.722) 843-311-43 if you disregard the ncaa forfeits and gave Bama back the vacated wins. (which I don't have a problem with but even then ND is still ahead of Bama in win %. .732 to .722

    Man, you are telling the some fairytales today. A really big fish, a whopper.

    Okay, I see what happened. It was an honest mistake on my part, seriously. I went back and checked the fine print on Stassen's site and it says you may not get exactly correct stats because he only uses a time period when he considered teams to be "big boys."

    http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/h-win-pct.pl?start=1892&end=2011&team=Alabama

    http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/h-win-pct.pl?start=1892&end=2011&team=NotreDame

    signature image

    http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/CtrlAltieDel/Bama/

    CtrlAltDel

  • As a Michigan fan, I have no problem being considered 4th. That's better than the rivals, and that's good by me.

    A2Wolverines

  • MrWoodson said...

    Michigan has a winning record all-time against Bama (2-1) and all of those games have been played in the past 15 years. We also have the highest winning percentage of any FBS program despite playing the toughest schedule and in the toughest conference for more than 130 years. The problem with most of Bama's victories and championships is that you earned them playing in a second rate league. Take Bama out of the mix and the SEC is barely distinguishable from the ACC. UF didn't win its first natty until the mid 90s (see FSU) and LSU historically has been no better than Georgia Tech. The SEC has had a nice run the past six years, but that is a mere puss-filled pimple on the backside of CFB history. The B10 is back, baby, and I sense the P12 is not far behind. The decade of the redneck is over. The true kings of CFB are coming to reclaim our crown.

    1988 hall of fame bowl, 97 citrus bowl following the 96 season...2000 orange bowl makes it in. and it's 2012
    you haven't had the toughest schedule or been in the toughest conference..for years it was the big 2 and little 8.
    why do you think the rose made made an arrangement with the big 10? They got sick of Alabama's 4-1-1 record and wanted the pac 8,10,12 to win 80% of the rose bowls instead of losing them. makes sense.
    look um is a great program, i used to take naps at um football practices as a kid. i like um.
    But um has this arrogance that they shouldn't have. trust me having lived in ann arbor and tuscaloosa, bham for a majority of my life...give me dixie all freaking day long. I just hate the stereotype the nation was fed of the deep south in the 60's and 70's.

    hubcitytider ●

  • Historically the Big Ten has been the best conference in CFB. The SEC became good about 1980 and then had a downturn in the 90's and have been great the last six years.

    Always find it funny when people give their "alltime " rankings and then put Michigan lower because of fewer titles since 1947. If that's your criteria then make it a post 1947 poll and not alltime.

    Also find it funny when they count all titles from every marginal source pre Major 4 Polls for their school and leave them off other schools. If you counted all the minor polls that USC and Bama do then Ohio State would have 17 NC's and they also have more wins, better WP% and more Heismans then both schools.

    Bottom line is this subject is an opinion and there is no right or wrong answer

    OrlandoBuckeye

  • LOL! I can't wait for the season to start. All-Time or not...I love football!

    Ledrick_1914

  • Oh look... A bunch of fans having a circle-jerk over shit that happened 30+ years ago. How thrilling.

    The "best program in history" discussion blows. Every fanbase has their own criteria and dubious claims to justify how they're the best, and the argument never goes anywhere. Notre Dame isn't just now "on their way out," they haven't been truly relevant in 20 years. Michigan loves to talk about their "most wins of all time," but they ignore the fact that a huge chunk of those came in exhibition games against high schools (they actually count wins over the Michigan School for the Deaf) and amateur clubs before the forward pass was legal. USC has both recent and past success, but if you think Reggie Bush was the only one getting paid I have a bridge to sell you.

    As of right now, 'Bama seems to be the only team with a semi-legitimate claim to historical and current dominance, but they've had their share of violations, too.

    Y'all can go ahead and keep thinking your schools' shit doesn't stink, but fans on the outside can smell the bullshit.

    signature image

    tRCMB's resident Wayne State Warrior and Sam's Club Spartan fan.

    fishrose ●

  • SC911 said...

    IMHO these 3 programs stand out as the top-3 in college football history; here's how they stack up. (Note: I had Michigan as #4. The Wolverines have a badass program and the best record of all time. But, they've also played almost 100 games more than USC or Bama. And the majority of their NC's are pre-wire era--of '47/'48/'97 only '48 was considered consensus. Again, it's no insult to be a solid top-5 program, and one that is apparently on the rise.)

    Notre Dame: 853-349-41 (.731); 11-National Championships; conference champs: N/A; 15-16 post-season; AP Top 25/10/5 finishes: 49/35/21; 10+/11+ seasons: 15/5; 7-Heisman winners; 176 AA's (96 consensus..1st all-time); 43- College Hall of Fame (1st all-time); 10-Pro Football Hall of Fame (2nd all-time); 473-draft picks (63-1st round). BCS Era: 100-82; 0-3 BCS games.

    Alabama: 814-312-43 (.710); 14-National Champions; conference champs: 26; 34-22-3 post-season; AP Top 25/10/5 finishes: 50/38/19; 10+/11+ seasons: 31/15; 1- Heisman winner; 103 AA's (47 consensus); 18-College Hall of Fame (T-14th all-time); 7-Pro Football Hall of Fame; 302-draft picks (45-1st round). BCS Era: 118-60; 2-2 BCS games.

    USC: 779-315-54 (.703); 11-National Championships; conference champs: 38; 31-16 post-season; AP Top 25/10/5 finishes: 45/28/20; 10+/11+ seasons: 24/12; 6/7*-Heisman winners; 157 AA's (78-consensus); 28-College Hall of Fame (3rd all-time); 11-Pro Football Hall of Fame (1st all-time); 477 draft picks (77-1st round..1st all-time). BCS Era: 132-44; 5/6*-1 in BCS games.

    The stats I pulled seem the most fair to objectively analyze historical success. Some may feel draft picks have no bearing, but I disagree for two reasons. 1. Getting kids to the draft is one of the most important de facto things a program is supposed to do. 2. When you enter a football complex, they prominently display NFL jerseys of former players (if they're going to consider it part of the program's success, it should be taken into consideration with other accomplishments).

    Final Thoughts:

    1. As of today, Notre Dame is still the most prestigious program of all-time. However, their reign at the top is drawing to an end. They stand almost no chance of replicating the success they had in the 20th century, and will be eventually passed. (As a USC fan, there was a time many thought we'd never catch them in any category. Now we look at it more as a question of when, not if.)

    2. Alabama is an all-time great program, but can't truly call themselves #1 yet when looking at their lack of Heismans, consensus All-Americans, Hall of Famers and Draft picks. Having said that, if Saban wins 1 or 2 more titles and continues stocking the draft over the next 7+ seasons, I'd have zero problem with Bama fans claiming they're the best of all-time.

    3. USC is in a tough spot trying to claim the crown for now. As I stated, we're going to eventually pass our arch-rival in every category during the next decade (in 4 years we'll be the 1st school to 500 draft picks and nearly 100 1st rounders. 'Bama has zero chance of catching up in either category for at least 25+ years).

    1. ND (the old man is on life support)
    2a. Bama
    2b. USC

    JMO but I think you unfavorably weigh the individual achievements over team achievements, which when comparing programs, doesn't make sense to me. After all how many if those guys would have won Heismans or been AAs at other programs?

    Probably most. So in reality you're lauding the school for their recruiting than anything they really did to make those players great.

    And when you compare team accomplishments, Bama is #1. 3 more NCs than ND, which IMO if you equate 1 NC to 100 wins more than makes up for that disparity. Plus we have twice as many 10 and 11 win seasons. And ND is 0-2 in BCS games. Bama is 2-2 with 3 titles since ND had their last 1!

    TalHawkins112

  • MarineMountie said...

    Reminds me of 95% of the Bama fans on here...

    Say something that isn't sucking off Bama, and boy oh boy.... ITS ON!!!

    We are a passionate lot - to say the least! Amidst all the chest thumping and pompousness; we are like pretty much any other fan base: we will go to the ends of the earth for our program.

    rolltideroll

    Man_A _War

  • TalHawkins112 said...

    JMO but I think you unfavorably weigh the individual achievements over team achievements, which when comparing programs, doesn't make sense to me. After all how many if those guys would have won Heismans or been AAs at other programs?

    Probably most. So in reality you're lauding the school for their recruiting than anything they really did to make those players great.

    And when you compare team accomplishments, Bama is #1. 3 more NCs than ND, which IMO if you equate 1 NC to 100 wins more than makes up for that disparity. Plus we have twice as many 10 and 11 win seasons. And ND is 0-2 in BCS games. Bama is 2-2 with 3 titles since ND had their last 1!

    I addressed this in my OP; individual accomplishments are very relevant as they are often in the same trophy room as the NC trophies. I'm not advocating draft picks over nc's. Winning a NC is the ultimate prize, but that doesn't mean whoever has the most NC's is the clear cut #1.

    There have been many great teams who were literally driven by one or a few key guys--who later went one to win end of season awards. Off the top of my head: '10 Cam Newton, '07-'09 Tebow, '05 Young, etc. To say that the "team" is still more important than these players doesn't tell the whole story.

    SC911

  • A^2Wolverines said...

    As a Michigan fan, I have no problem being considered 4th. That's better than the rivals, and that's good by me.

    And as I've said, it's by no means over. Hoke did a remarkable job last year and is bringing in one hell of a class...future looks bright.

    SC911

  • SC911 said...

    I addressed this in my OP; individual accomplishments are very relevant as they are often in the same trophy room as the NC trophies. I'm not advocating draft picks over nc's. Winning a NC is the ultimate prize, but that doesn't mean whoever has the most NC's is the clear cut #1.

    There have been many great teams who were literally driven by one or a few key guys--who later went one to win end of season awards. Off the top of my head: '10 Cam Newton, '07-'09 Tebow, '05 Young, etc. To say that the "team" is still more important than these players doesn't tell the whole story.

    I understand that they should be counted, but as I said, they shouldn't be weighed as evenly as team accomplishments.

    Particularly considering, and especially in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, these individual recognitions could be politically motivated. Or even something as simple as some teams receiving much more attention in those days when there wasn't 24/7 sports coverage.

    For example can you tell me why the NCAA all time sacks leader isn't in the CFB HoF?

    TalHawkins112

  • The one national title in 65 years gets us. Hopefully we're on track for one soon. We had the talent to win one in 2006 and 2007 (we were picked to win the title in 2007 by espn grumble)

    I'd still say ND is the most prestigious program, but they are on track to get passed in a hurry.

    Also the fact that Alabama claims that nc in 1941 when they finished #20 irks me.

    UMWolverines

  • UMWolverines said...

    The one national title in 65 years gets us. Hopefully we're on track for one soon. We had the talent to win one in 2006 and 2007 (we were picked to win the title in 2007 by espn grumble)

    I'd still say ND is the most prestigious program, but they are on track to get passed in a hurry.

    Also the fact that Alabama claims that nc in 1941 when they finished #20 irks me.

    In reality we should drop '41 and claim '66 when we were the only undefeated and untied team in the country.

    TalHawkins112

  • UMWolverines said...

    The one national title in 65 years gets us. Hopefully we're on track for one soon. We had the talent to win one in 2006 and 2007 (we were picked to win the title in 2007 by espn grumble)

    I'd still say ND is the most prestigious program, but they are on track to get passed in a hurry.

    Also the fact that Alabama claims that nc in 1941 when they finished #20 irks me.

    If you're going all time the only thing Bama's got on us is NCs. We've got more all time wins, a much higher winning percentage, more conference titles, more all americans, and more heismans.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898

    msucantmakebcs

  • fishrose said...

    Oh look... A bunch of fans having a circle-jerk over shit that happened 30+ years ago. How thrilling.

    The "best program in history" discussion blows. Every fanbase has their own criteria and dubious claims to justify how they're the best, and the argument never goes anywhere. Notre Dame isn't just now "on their way out," they haven't been truly relevant in 20 years. Michigan loves to talk about their "most wins of all time," but they ignore the fact that a huge chunk of those came in exhibition games against high schools (they actually count wins over the Michigan School for the Deaf) and amateur clubs before the forward pass was legal. USC has both recent and past success, but if you think Reggie Bush was the only one getting paid I have a bridge to sell you.

    As of right now, 'Bama seems to be the only team with a semi-legitimate claim to historical and current dominance, but they've had their share of violations, too.

    Y'all can go ahead and keep thinking your schools' shit doesn't stink, but fans on the outside can smell the bullshit.

    Oh look, sparty came to play. So I guess msu didn't win a game until the 50s? Go look at your schedules from the 1900s.

    UMWolverines

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports