In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
The place for discussion on the NFL
The place for discussion on college baseball
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Win % is just as subjective when you have to consider strength of schedule, conference schedule, etc. Take Wisconsin for example....it seems like they don't have to play several big boys in Big 10 a good amount of seasons. How is that?
What about a team that loses 4 regular season games, but wins the conference title game....you actually put more stock in that than an NC? Oooookkkkk.....
Oh really, just how recent is recent when you say that NC's are a recent phenomenon?
This post was edited by CtrlAltDel 2 years ago
Well there are some football sites that think Michigan has the hardest strenght of schedule historically speaking.
Yes i do because teams win a conference title on the field. There is no voting involved.
Yep, this is completely futile. Nonetheless, it is interesting.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
I agree that you cannot objectively prove whta team has been most successful.
However, I will say that in the other major sports(Hockey, Basketball, Baseball) I value National championship as the highest value of sucess. Michigan only has 1 basketball NC total and I think 1 in baseball but i am not even sure on that.
The other thread on this same topic a while ago had a link which compared success for teams. Bama won according to them, but Michigan's SOS rating was the highest of anybody else. So while I don't give a shit about what others rate the schools as, Michigan's win % can not be ignored as an inflated statistic.
Enough with the sanctimonious drivel about the auNecks in '04 and how they "dones gots cheated."
They didn't have that impressive of a season, that is why the voters and the computers did not give them a shot at the NC. Notice that Hawaii didn't get a shot this year either, even though many thought they had an impressive year.
9/4 vs. Louisiana-Monroe (5-6) W 31 0
9/11 @ *Mississippi State (3-8) W 43 14
9/18 vs. *Louisiana State (9-3) W 10 9
9/25 vs. Citadel (non-IA) W 33 3
10/2 @ *Tennessee (10-3) W 34 10
10/9 vs. Louisiana Tech (6-6) W 52 7
10/16 vs. *Arkansas (5-6) W 38 20
10/23 vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 42 10
10/30 @ *Mississippi (4-7) W 35 14
11/13 vs. *Georgia (10-2) W 24 6
11/20 @ *Alabama (6-6) W 21 13
12/4 vs. *Tennessee (10-3) W 38 28
They played 6 teams with losing seasons,
one Double A team,
a 3-8 Ms. State, a 2-9 Kentucky, a 4-7 Mississippi, a 5-6 Arky,
2 teams with break even seasons,
played one good team twice, and finally,
they scheduled Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Monroe, & Citadel all in the same season,
bugging my eyes out at this last one:
LT, LM, and Citadel all in the same season, damn.
Impressive season? I don't think so, and not many voters did either.
IMO Citadel = Bama of whatever league they play in. And I thought that the SEC was the greatest? Anybody who could go undefeated in it is amazing.
I'm not getting into this, it's been handled by every fanbase that has a legit claim so far. However, I gotta ask...why do Heismans really matter? You could take the best football player in the world, every single year, and put him on the worst team with the worst history along with his scrub teammates, and they'd still suck as a team/program. It takes a lot of guys to win, and individuality is the antithesis of winning in any team sport.
I was thrilled for Mark Ingram, but he was 1 of dozens of guys that helped us win for those 3 years. Charles Woodson was amazing, but he had a fantastic supporting cast, without which they would have stunk. Take either player and put them on the roster at Buffalo for those years and it would still be Buffalo.
"At Alabama, our players don't win Heisman Trophies. Our teams win National Championships."
--Bear Bryant after being asked why no Alabama player has ever won a Heisman Trophy
I never said it was; my point was that Michigan is top-5, period. It's fluid, Hoke wins a title you guys are right back in the conversation for the top spot. But, as of today, it's just hard to see how UM jumps 1. 2a. 2b.
Well, in fairness, that could be construed as Bear doing a good job to deflect negative attention away from his players--as any good coach should do. Something tells me, though, had Bama won 9 or 10 there would've been a different soundbite.
Why do you hate the American Civil Liberties Union nvm I don't want an argument
Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898
except we only had like 40 wins when you started your program and we also have a higher winning percentage.
Maybe, but even now you hear Bama fans talking about 2 NC's in 3 yrs, but you don't hear much about Ingy's Heisman....
I meant to say caring about/putting a lot of stock into them. It used to be that most people we're happy with a conference championship and didn't care as much about national implications.
the only thing Bama has on us is NCs and most of those are disputed for both teams anyway
Heisman adv: Michigan (no matter how much you guys hate them)
all time wins: adv Michigan
conference titles since the SEC started: adv Michigan
winning percentage: adv Michigan
With your 1 title in the last 60 years, I can see why Michigan fans don't care about winning them.
The correct top 3 are Alabama, ND, and USC, and can go in pretty much any order.
This post was edited by RTR22 2 years ago
Meh. Give me an 8 team playoff and national titles will mean something.
With your 1 heisman winner in Alabama history, I can see why Alabama fans don't care about winning them.
The correct top 3 are Michigan, ND, and USC, and can go in pretty much any order.
This thread is going the same way as the last one.
Still don't see why an individual talent has so much to do with the value of a program built on the backs of thousands of players. It's a team sport. If you go 0-12 and your QB wins the Heisman, does that actually help your status?
At least with this one people are arguing about the correct thing as this one is about success and the past one was about tradition.
I agree that Alabama, ND, and USC are more successful programs than Michigan
However I'd say that Michigan(or maybe ND, its very close) has the best tradition, which includes more intangible things("best fight song and helmets/uniforms," biggest stadium, football innovation, etc.)
Why would anyone expect anything different? Anyone with a legit claim to the top 5 is going to think it's their program.
It doesn't, programs can achieve great success without Heisman winners, however the Heisman is important in the public eyes and can help further memorialize players and turn them into legends.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports