In today’s Meeting of the Minds (MOTM), the Crystal Ball posse gathers to look at programs who have a proud tradition, but haven’t lived up to it in recent years.
So what they’re doing is living off their reputation and not their production.
Let’s see who that may be.
Tom Perry: There was a time when the top-tier college football programs could be counted on two hands. Some of those are still reflected in today’s rankings, but there are many who remain “relevant” because of their name and not because of the the results. The easy one right now is Notre Dame, who started the season ranked but has dropped two straight to start the season—mainly because the Irish can’t hold onto the ball.
However, Notre Dame is not alone and others should be called out for not producing. Is it Texas? UCLA? Or even Ohio State?
Kevin McGuire: It can’t be Ohio State because they have certainly produced on the field. Maybe they have come up shy in some of their big BCS games but how many Big Ten titles have they at least shared in a row? Two straight BCS wins (leaving out the vacated games factor) and I don’t think we can say Ohio State has gotten by on name alone. I don’t think anyone really considers UCLA relevant right now. In fact it wasn’t all that long ago we discussed why they aren’t relevant in college football, was it not?
The name that first comes to my mind, and perhaps this is because I follow them closer than most, is Penn State. We all know that Penn State is not the Penn State they were in the 1980s, when they won two national titles against Georgia and Miami and were one of the elite programs of the decade. They have had some good runs in recent years with a couple Big Ten titles and BCS appearances but Penn State has now lost their last nine games against ranked opponents after being shelled by Alabama for the second year in a row. I think Penn State has the ability to return to the top stage in college football, but right now they are living off of their past as far as I am concerned.
I’m curious what others think about that.
Aaron Torres: Kevin, I think it’s so interesting to me that you mention Penn State. For so long, I’d probably just describe them as “entity,” in college football; not really good, not really bad, just the kind of there. For the most part they seem to be a team that basically goes 7-5 most years, never bottoms out at worse than 6-6, and if all the stars align perfectly, can go 11-1 and end up in a Rose Bowl.
What’s incredible is that you’re right though, while the current coach (God bess his soul) has the program in a “fine” place, a really good coach could have them in an elite place. The full assortment of advantages they have, including being a state school with lots of funding, a huge alumni base (Penn State’s is the largest in the country I believe, a natural recruiting base, generations of kids growing up wanting to play there, and no in-state (or in city) rival, reminds me of only two schools in college football: Ohio State and LSU. Well, for the last decade, those two schools have been BCS bowl game mainstays. No reason that Penn State can’t or won’t be when the current coach retires and the next one comes in.
Interestingly, to Tom’s point of a school “living off their name,” the one that most stands out to me is one that’s pretty darn topical right now: Texas A&M.
Honestly, I’m entering my late 20’s now, and the last time that A&M was a team that was truly relevant nationally, I was eating paste and drawing on walls in grade school. Since the Big XII formed in 1996, they’ve won a grand total of two division titles, and just one Big XII title overall.
Why that is? Quite frankly, I’m not totally sure. I don’t know the dynamics of Texas, where resources are allocated etc. (I’ll defer to Allen on that). What I will say though, is that I have yet to really receive a sound explanation as to why Texas A&M hasn’t been good for nearly two decades. The recruiting base is there, it’s a massive school with rabid fans, and let’s be honest, you’ve really only got to beat two teams to win a Big XII title year in and year out. Yet somehow, Texas A&M has virtually been unable to do that. Maybe now they are turning a corner under Mike Sherman. Honestly, I don’t know.
And really, I’ll wrap with one final thought. What I’ve found most fascinating about the Texas A&M to the SEC story has been how A&M perceives themselves, versus how outsiders do. Again, I don’t know the dynamics within the state, so I won’t speak on them, but it seems like the A&M brass believe they’re more relevant than most of the outside world does. I also find it ironic that A&M fans have given Athletics Director Billy Byrne crap throughout this whole process because of the rumor that he was against the move to the SEC. Could it be because if his school goes to the SEC and gets their butts kicked in football every week, he knows he won’t have a job? I’d say so.
As for the SEC, I’ve talked to enough of their fans, to know that nobody is really for or against the move. Most understand the financial ramifications, and that this is just where the sport is headed. I find it interesting though, that not a single one of them that I’ve talked to (except maybe an Ole Miss fan or two), seems really concerned about A&M as being an actual threat on the football field though.
Tom Perry: Let me add another program into the mix: USC.
Each year we hear about the top recruits and how the Trojans are to be reckoned with, but for about three to four years now USC really hasn’t scared anyone. The Trojans couldn’t even go undefeated in the old Pac-10.
Now look at their two performances this year. Lane Kiffin’s team had to hold on to beat Minnesota 19-17 and struggled to beat Utah 23-14. There’s just nothing special about USC any more. The Trojans had a nice 5-6 year run where you knew they were the most talented team and if they didn’t hurt themselves then USC would win.
There’s nothing scary about USC these days.
Aaron Torres: USC is an interesting case, but I don’t necessarily think it’s fair to put lump them in with the teams we’re talking about here.
Are they the USC of 7-8 years ago? Absolutely not. But nobody stays on top forever, and I think even casual fans will concede that at least for the time being, Oregon and Stanford have both passed them. But with that said, they’ve still won 17 games over the last two years, and done so with a coaching change, NCAA sanctions, massive transfers and in one year, starting a freshman quarterback. There aren’t many teams that win that many games without all those problems, so to do that, I think is a testament to the reservoir of talent that Pete Carroll built up before he left, and before the NCAA sanctions really hit.
To your point though Tom, there is some “mystique,” around USC that casual fans can’t seem to get over. People still think that because they’re USC, they can just show up against inferior teams and win by three touchdowns. That’s just not who they are anymore. Part of it is that their depth is next to non-existent thanks to sanctions and transfers, and the other is that the coaching has, in all likelihood taken a step back too. Still, the idea that people still have them in the Top 25, especially after two weeks in laughable. They’re a good, solid team that’ll probably win seven or eight games. They are certainly not a team that should be considered one of the 25 best in the country though.
Michael Felder: On USC they’re running a skeleton crew. They still have elite talent but they don’t have near as much as before. Let’s not lump them into the UCLA category as a floundering program or with Notre Dame as over inflated squad.
With regards to Notre Dame the issue comes down to coaching. They have talent. They have players. They just aren’t being coached up and that’s clear in their sloppy play.
