Online Now 4095

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 1994
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3669
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

CFB Teams that can not win it all, regardless of the coach

  • I don't think you could say never with any program. Lots of luck is involved, but with the right combination of conditions, it can happen. Any program that's considered a blue blood now wasn't necessarily entitled to that position. Lots of things had to go right at some point for them to get some success and sustain it.

    signature image signature image

    daildog

  • daildog said...

    I don't think you could say never with any program. Lots of luck is involved, but with the right combination of conditions, it can happen. Any program that's considered a blue blood now wasn't necessarily entitled to that position. Lots of things had to go right at some point for them to get some success and sustain it.

    Boise State has proven that.
    With the new "Final Four", it will be easier for those 'non-AQ' teams to get a chance. A couple of good years in a row and then one great one. All they need is one or two decent wins a year and the rest of big conferences to beat themselves out of the race.

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • RockyRaccoon said...

    Boise State has proven that. With the new "Final Four", it will be easier for those 'non-AQ' teams to get a chance. A couple of good years in a row and then one great one. All they need is one or two decent wins a year and the rest of big conferences to beat themselves out of the race.

    Boise State wouldn't have ever played in the "Final Four" under the new format. I believe.

    xxmgobluexx

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    Boise State wouldn't have ever played in the "Final Four" under the new format. I believe.

    Not Boise specifically, but theoretically an undefeated non-AQ would have played in the Final Four in 2007.

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • RockyRaccoon said...

    Boise State has proven that. With the new "Final Four", it will be easier for those 'non-AQ' teams to get a chance. A couple of good years in a row and then one great one. All they need is one or two decent wins a year and the rest of big conferences to beat themselves out of the race.

    Wrong. the new format gives them No chance. Their SOS would never be strong enough.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Landohusker

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    Utah, lmao. The rest, you are talking over a decade since they did squat. I realize you're a Buff fan, but they are no longer relevent.

    Did I say we were relevant? No I did not. CU wasn't relevant from 1979-1984 (14-51 during that time), but look what happened after McCartney went 7-5 in 1985. You said CU could never win a national title (eventhough we did in 1990 and should have won more under McCartney, damn Nebraska and Slick Rick). We have struggled since the Boulder media made up a scandal (yes, nothing was ever proven during the investigation. No names, nothing.) and then we hired Halk (big mistake). You are using the past five, now six years, to determine CU's future and history. Can CU win another national title? Yup. Is it highly likely? Probably not. CU is a sleeping giant. Great academics, great location, very good fan support (not on the level of Michigan, Alabama, etc), but we still averaged 50,000 (91% capacity) capacity during a 10 loss season. Just like every school, it just takes the right coach at the right time. Saying CU has zero shot at winning another title is just plain stupid. CU will also be announcing a $250-$275M facility upgrade this September in all likelyhood as well.

    And for your Utah comment, they finished 12-0 (#4/#5) in 2004 with a Fiesta Bowl win and in 2008 they finished 13-0 (#2/#4) and beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. I don't think they will win a national title, but they can't be thrown into the category of "they never will".

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • baylor

    signature image signature image signature image

    SEC SEC SEC!!!

    USMCAG ●

  • stiff bon air said...

    Did I say we were relevant? No I did not. CU wasn't relevant from 1979-1984 (14-51 during that time), but look what happened after McCartney went 7-5 in 1985. You said CU could never win a national title (eventhough we did in 1990 and should have won more under McCartney, damn Nebraska and Slick Rick). We have struggled since the Boulder media made up a scandal (yes, nothing was ever proven during the investigation. No names, nothing.) and then we hired Halk (big mistake). You are using the past five, now six years, to determine CU's future and history. Can CU win another national title? Yup. Is it highly likely? Probably not. CU is a sleeping giant. Great academics, great location, very good fan support (not on the level of Michigan, Alabama, etc), but we still averaged 50,000 (91% capacity) capacity during a 10 loss season. Just like every school, it just takes the right coach at the right time. Saying CU has zero shot at winning another title is just plain stupid. CU will also be announcing a $250-$275M facility upgrade this September in all likelyhood as well.

    And for your Utah comment, they finished 12-0 (#4/#5) in 2004 with a Fiesta Bowl win and in 2008 they finished 13-0 (#2/#4) and beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. I don't think they will win a national title, but they can't be thrown into the category of "they never will".

    All Colorado is lacking is an administration desirous of winning in College Football. Facilities, coaching staffs, etc. costs a lot of money.
    I think this is the great inhibitor for most college football programs.

    Alabama doesn't win simply because Nick Saban is a great coach. The University President Witt is committed to winning. The AD Mal Moore is committed to winning. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the program.
    Combine that with a fanbase that is, obviously, committed to winning and they win and turn a profit.

    This post was edited by RockyRaccoon on 7/2/2012 at 3:12 PM

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • stiff bon air said...

    Did I say we were relevant? No I did not. CU wasn't relevant from 1979-1984 (14-51 during that time), but look what happened after McCartney went 7-5 in 1985. You said CU could never win a national title (eventhough we did in 1990 and should have won more under McCartney, damn Nebraska and Slick Rick). We have struggled since the Boulder media made up a scandal (yes, nothing was ever proven during the investigation. No names, nothing.) and then we hired Halk (big mistake). You are using the past five, now six years, to determine CU's future and history. Can CU win another national title? Yup. Is it highly likely? Probably not. CU is a sleeping giant. Great academics, great location, very good fan support (not on the level of Michigan, Alabama, etc), but we still averaged 50,000 (91% capacity) capacity during a 10 loss season. Just like every school, it just takes the right coach at the right time. Saying CU has zero shot at winning another title is just plain stupid. CU will also be announcing a $250-$275M facility upgrade this September in all likelyhood as well.

    And for your Utah comment, they finished 12-0 (#4/#5) in 2004 with a Fiesta Bowl win and in 2008 they finished 13-0 (#2/#4) and beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. I don't think they will win a national title, but they can't be thrown into the category of "they never will".

    Utah doesn't play in the MWC anymore, they won't run the table in the PAC12, they are another also ran.

    CU, good for them that they put 50,000 asses in a the seats during a 10 loss season, that won't win them any games. Hell, Michigan put over 108,500 asses in the seats during an 8 loss season. CU isn't a sleeping giant, Penn State is, ND is, Miami is, Tennessee is, CU is just another program in college football.

    xxmgobluexx

  • RockyRaccoon said...

    All Colorado is lacking is an administration desirous of winning in College Football. Facilities, coaching staffs, etc. costs a lot of money. I think this is the great inhibitor for most college football programs.

    Alabama doesn't win simply because Nick Saban is a great coach. The University President Witt is committed to winning. The AD Mal Moore is committed to winning. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the program. Combine that with a fanbase that is, obviously, committed to winning and they win and turn a profit.

    Very true, and you are 100% correct on the part that we don't have a dedicated administration. CU fans are however finally starting to get vocal about it with the regent election coming up soon.

    The culture is also very different in the South when compared to Boulder. We are making the investments in facilities here in the coming months.

    I'm not saying we are a lock to win another one (although our chances, IMO, are better now that we are in the Pac 12 near our recruiting base and seperate from NU and OU).

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • stiff bon air said...

    Very true, and you are 100% correct on the part that we don't have a dedicated administration. CU fans are however finally starting to get vocal about it with the regent election coming up soon.

    The culture is also very different in the South when compared to Boulder. We are making the investments in facilities here in the coming months.

    I'm not saying we are a lock to win another one (although our chances, IMO, are better now that we are in the Pac 12 near our recruiting base and seperate from NU and OU).

    You hit on a key item here, recruiting. CU doesn't recruit good enough to win it all, imo. We have had this discussion in other threads, and I believe since the inception of the BCS, no team has won it all without a top-10 recruiting class.

    xxmgobluexx

  • stiff bon air said...

    The culture is also very different in the South when compared to Boulder.

    Understated.

    But good to hear changes are afloat. College football is the greatest ad campaign a school could ever run. The sooner they realize this, the better. And it doesn't take hundreds of millions to win. The SEC overspends because of the competition and because they have to do something with all that money.
    I've been a distant Colorado fan since the Darian Hagan and Eric Bieniemy days. So I am rooting for them.

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    You hit on a key item here, recruiting. CU doesn't recruit good enough to win it all, imo. We have had this discussion in other threads, and I believe since the inception of the BCS, no team has won it all without a top-10 recruiting class.

    Really? CU can't recruit?

    1991 TOP CLASSES

    1. Michigan
    2. Florida State
    3. Penn State
    4. Tennessee
    5. Colorado
    6. Texas A&M
    7. Florida
    8. Georgia
    9. Washington
    10. Alabama

    1992 TOP CLASSES

    1. Florida
    2. Miami
    3. Colorado
    4. Michigan
    5. Texas A&M
    6. Clemson
    7. Notre Dame
    8. Florida State
    9. Texas
    10. Oklahoma

    1995 TOP CLASSES

    1. Notre Dame
    2. Florida State
    3. Penn State
    4. Texas A&M
    5. Florida
    6. Michigan
    7. Auburn
    8. Alabama
    9. Colorado
    10. USC

    1996 TOP CLASSES

    1. Penn State
    2. Nebraska
    3. Florida State
    4. USC
    5. Notre Dame
    6. Ohio State
    7. Michigan
    8. Tennessee
    9. Colorado
    10. LSU

    1997 TOP CLASSES

    1. Tennessee
    2. Florida State
    3. Florida
    4. Penn State
    5. Michigan
    6. Texas
    7. Colorado
    8. North Carolina
    9. USC
    10. Notre Dame

    SuperPrep:

    1995: #9
    1996: #9
    1997: #5

    Rivals:
    2002: #10

    You know what CU's major issue is (hint, it's not recruiting)? It's the fact that since 1994, we have had four coaches (Slick Rick, Barnett, Halk, and now Embree), that's a new coach every 4.5 years. That's a major issue to go along with the scandal that has made the school very conservative regarding sports.

    Also, take note how a team that won three national titles only appears on there once (1996).

    If I had to guess, if someone told you that CU would win 24 games in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 and make the tournament in 2011-2012 and would be pulling in top 25 classes after the 2006-2007 or the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 seasons you would not have believed it. College athletics are not static. Oregon wasn't anything before 1994, look where they are now.

    This post was edited by 92Buff on 7/2/2012 at 3:39 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • stiff bon air said...

    Really? CU can't recruit?

    1991 TOP CLASSES

    1. Michigan 2. Florida State 3. Penn State 4. Tennessee 5. Colorado 6. Texas A&M 7. Florida 8. Georgia 9. Washington 10. Alabama

    1992 TOP CLASSES

    1. Florida 2. Miami 3. Colorado 4. Michigan 5. Texas A&M 6. Clemson 7. Notre Dame 8. Florida State 9. Texas 10. Oklahoma

    1995 TOP CLASSES

    1. Notre Dame 2. Florida State 3. Penn State 4. Texas A&M 5. Florida 6. Michigan 7. Auburn 8. Alabama 9. Colorado 10. USC

    1996 TOP CLASSES

    1. Penn State 2. Nebraska 3. Florida State 4. USC 5. Notre Dame 6. Ohio State 7. Michigan 8. Tennessee 9. Colorado 10. LSU

    1997 TOP CLASSES

    1. Tennessee 2. Florida State 3. Florida 4. Penn State 5. Michigan 6. Texas 7. Colorado 8. North Carolina 9. USC 10. Notre Dame

    SuperPrep:

    1995: #9 1996: #9 1997: #5

    Rivals: 2002: #10

    You know what CU's major issue is (hint, it's not recruiting)? It's the fact that since 1994, we have had four coaches (Slick Rick, Barnett, Halk, and now Embree), that's a new coach every 4.5 years. That's a major issue to go along with the scandal that has made the school very conservative regarding sports.

    Also, take note how a team that won three national titles only appears on there once (1996).

    If I had to guess, if someone told you that CU would win 24 games in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 and make the tournament in 2011-2012 and would be pulling in top 25 classes after the 2006-2007 or the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 seasons you would not have believed it. College athletics are not static. Oregon wasn't anything before 1994, look where they are now.

    fingergun All a decade or more ago.

    xxmgobluexx

  • RockyRaccoon said...

    Understated.

    But good to hear changes are afloat. College football is the greatest ad campaign a school could ever run. The sooner they realize this, the better. And it doesn't take hundreds of millions to win. The SEC overspends because of the competition and because they have to do something with all that money. I've been a distant Colorado fan since the Darian Hagan and Eric Bieniemy days. So I am rooting for them.

    Agree 100%. I think I saw something about a year ago about how many more kids applied to Boise State after they won the Fiesta Bowl in 2007. It was crazy. Same can be said for Oregon. CU's academic prestige has actually gone down since the 90's. Does that have any correlation? Not sure but it probably hasn't helped. Another big issue is that the administration and people of Boulder (good thing they don't have any say really in what the university does) is that you can't have a good football program and have good academics, even if you say that Stanford, USC, Michigan, tOSU, Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, etc are all excellent schools that also have very good football programs.

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    fingergun All a decade or more ago.

    You said CU can't recruit. Obviously CU's name doesn't have the same weight as Michigan's or Alabama's, but saying CU can't recruit is very ignorant. Obviously we haven't recruited well, but we've also haven't had a winning season since 2005 but when we are winning, CU can recruit very well.

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • stiff bon air said...

    College athletics are not static. Oregon wasn't anything before 1994, look where they are now.

    Virginia Tech before Beamer.
    Wisconsin before Alvarez.
    LSU before Saban.
    Florida State before Bowden.
    Florida before Spurrier.
    Miami before Schnellenberger.
    No one even knew Boise State was a school before 2002.

    The list could go on and on.
    It all has to start somewhere.

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • stiff bon air said...

    You said CU can't recruit. Obviously CU's name doesn't have the same weight as Michigan's or Alabama's, but saying CU can't recruit is very ignorant. Obviously we haven't recruited well, but we've also haven't had a winning season since 2005 but when we are winning, CU can recruit very well.

    Agreed then, CU can't recruit right now. I don't see it changing anytime soon, you dream that it will.

    xxmgobluexx

  • Idaho, Eastern Michigan, North Texas

    signature image signature image signature image

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

    msucantmakebcs

  • RockyRaccoon said...

    Virginia Tech before Beamer. Wisconsin before Alvarez. LSU before Saban. Florida State before Bowden. Florida before Spurrier. Miami before Schnellenberger. No one even knew Boise State was a school before 2002.

    The list could go on and on. It all has to start somewhere.

    Exactly. CU isn't going to just all of a sudden have top 10 classes every year. That'd be nice, but it's not gonna happen. It's a process that we are in the middle of. CU's last two recruiting classes (2012 and 2013, 2011 doesn't really count since the staff had 13 days of actual recruiting time) aren't going to get them to BCS games barring excellent coaching and development, but they will be enough to get to 7-8 wins, and will platform to better recruiting which should mean more wins.

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    Agreed then, CU can't recruit right now. I don't see it changing anytime soon, you dream that it will.

    And why is that?

    signature image signature image signature image

    92Buff

  • xxmgobluexx said...

    Agreed then, CU can't recruit right now. I don't see it changing anytime soon, you dream that it will.

    It is possible that Colorado is in a better position for future growth than Nebraska is. We aren't really talking about what is or isn't. We are primarily talking about what is and isn't possible in the future.

    signature image

    “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

    RockyRaccoon

  • daildog said...

    I don't think you could say never with any program. Lots of luck is involved, but with the right combination of conditions, it can happen. Any program that's considered a blue blood now wasn't necessarily entitled to that position. Lots of things had to go right at some point for them to get some success and sustain it.

    This. Forever is a long time.

    signature image

    Hawkifish ●

  • Hoffelcopter said...

    Alabama.

    clap

    IDWIW

  • IDWIW

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports