Joey Harrington, the third overall pick from the same draft and highly touted who was supposed to be the quarterback for the Lions and instead he's been with three different teams over the last six years and he, much like Carr, has tossed more balls to the other team than he has for touchdowns.
Also, let's not forget the train wreck that was the 1999 QB draft : Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, and Daunte Culpepper. Let's recap how those all worked out.
Couch (Kentucky) #1 overall, hasn't played in the league since 2003. Had a dead arm. Struggled behind the Browns porous O-Line and never really got his career rolling.
McNabb (Syracuse) #2 overall, has been a success. Taken his team to the Super Bowl and multiple NFC championship games, no matter how much he is hated in Philly.
Smith
Culpepper (Central Florida) #5 overall, had three really good seasons. The jury is still out on him though. He happened to play with Cris Carter and Randy Moss, maybe the best receiving tandem in history. A knee injury in 2004 may keep us from ever knowing for sure what Culpepper was.
Now it's not to say that there aren't rare exceptions (Ben Roethliberger for example) where a great QB ends up at a non-football or smaller football school. However, with the internet and nationwide recruiting, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that a true diamond in the rough will fly under big school's radar. In days where coaches can convince Troy Smith and Justin Zwick in to the same QB competition. Even Big Ben had bigger offers than Miami, Ohio but he wanted to play with a friend who could go no bigger than MU.
Sure, there are big, football school, quarterbacks who don't work out but it is far less common to see one of them flop nearly as hard as we've seen top picks from smaller schools. So as we move towards draft day, pray your team doesn't go digging for the small school boy who seems to be all the rave.
94 comments:
Great post. Smith, while awful, actually went to Oregon, just like Harrington.
Akili Smith went to Oregon, not Tulane...
My fault, that was Shaun King. Just about equal in terms of NFL success.
while i get what you were trying to say, i've got to disagree with your premise. there are many bad QBs from big programs... just as there are great QBs (r-berger, romo, eli, rivers, etc.) from smaller football programs?
Shaun King is probably the Tulane QB you're thinkin about. Although, I'm not sure how high he was drafted. Tim Couch was drafted to an expansion team w/ no offensive line and not one stand-out WR. He had a different RB every yr w/ the Browns. His career was doomed from day one. I'm not saying he would've been Elway or Montana but he would've certainly been better than Carr or Akili if he could've been drafted to a team with atleast some decent players. Oh yeah, he also took the Browns to the playoffs and went 9-7.
Ben went to play with a friend and Eli was following in Daddy's footsteps. Tony Romo is an anomaly. Rivers has ridden the coat tails of all pro players (LT, Neal, Gates).
anonymous, I'm with you on Couch. I noted his awful offensive line.
Did anyone know he signed with the Jaguars recently and was a part of their organization?
OK then... how about derek anderson, cutler, favre, garrard, garcia, hasselbeck.
Favre, Garrard, Romo, Cutler, and Warner would like a word with you.
Kitna will probably keep his mouth shut on this one.
Giovanni Carmazzi would like to disagree with you...he also would like to know if your drink needs refilling.
Favre is a beast, no argument there. (He was a second round pick though)
Anderson, Cutler, and Garrard have some proving yet to do.
Anderson was a 6th round pick, not a highly hyped early first. Garrard was a 4th rounder.
Warner played out of his mind for a couple years and has since returned to form. He also wasn't super hyped .
Hasselback has never wowed me but has shown himself to be a solid pro but he did go to Boston College.
Hasselback was a 6th rounder as well.
And (recent failure aside) since when is Syracuse a "non-football" team? undefeated in 1987, national championship in 1959, Ernie Davis? Jim F*ing Brown?!?
If Steve McNair (Alcorn State, #3 overall) could stand up of his own volition at this point, he would likely disagree...
Since Carmello won them a basketball Championship. Aside from McNabb what has their football success been since 87?
crunk raconteur: +1. Steve McNair aches.
Aside from McNabb what has their football success been since 87?
Marvin Harrison
As a school. And I did say McNabb had success. No doubting that.
How do you justify calling Oregon a non-football school?
I'm wondering why Oregon is considered a non-football school. They've been overshadowed by USC in the Pac-10, but they've been a good program for about a decade.
oregon is not a small school--it's in the pac-10 and is a football power every year. this post is retarded.
Oregon has 2 outright and one co- PAC 10 titles. They've been part of the conference since 1964. 2.5 of 43 isn't exactly impressive.
They have 4 PCC co-titles before that.
7 conference championships since 1919 doesn't exactly blow me away.
Since their 1916 Rose Bowl win, the Ducks have as many BCS bowl wins as Boise State and Utah.
Oregon has only missed out on a bowl game once since '95. They are constantly near the top of the Pac-10. Ask Michigan and Oklahoma about Oregon being a big-time school.
As for the rest of the article itself, you know, it might have been great if you did some math or something, show some percentages of small-school QB failure, versus just tossing off random names.
This past year 64 of 119 FBS (D-I) teams made bowls.
More than half.
Not impressed.
@ nic: Also they missed in 96 and 04.
And they are 4-9 in bowls since 1990.
Big Ben only played QB his senior year in high school, the coach's son was ahead of him. Miami offered him in the summer after a camp. He got an offer from Ohio State, but stayed with Miami out of loyalty.
Go Steelers.
As noted in the post, Big Ben had bigger offers but still went Miami.
Frankly, I'm just excited that we have 28 comments.
Also, I'm loathe to put Big Ben in an elite group. He's prone as hell to killer interceptions.
Wow, that was pretty damn dumb. I have a better theory that people might like better. QB's (no matter where they went to school) end up better if they go to good teams then if they go to bad teams.
Tom,
The reason teams pick high in the draft is...wait for it...because they are bad.
You're right Joe Montana to the 2-14 49ers didn't work out at all.
Brett Favre went to a Packers team that was 4-12 the year before and 3-6 in 92 before he began starting and reeled off 6 straight wins.
Tom Brady to the 5-11 Patriots.
Good call.
no cade mcnown in the 99 draft class?
Seriously, you throw out a short list- small sample size and cough it up as truth?
The truth is the vast majority of quarterbacks-- from ALL SCHOOLS-- fail, regardless of size of school they are drafted from.
There are 32 teams in the NFL, figure 3 qb's per team plus 1 in the practice squad, so 4. 4x32= 128 total in the league.
How about this as a small listing.
QB's Drafted:
2003-13
2004-17
2005-14
2006-12
2007-11
67/5 = 13.4 drafted a year.
13.4 a year are drafted, EVERY YEAR. Seems the vast majority don't stick around, otherwise we'd have 1/2 the qb's in the league be in the league for less than 5 years, yet the majority of starting qb's take at least 2 years to gain starting status and you could make an argument qb's start to enter their prime around age 29.
Your post sucks. You don't even approach a logical thought to prove your point other than logically weak vagueries and then your defense in the message thread was even weaker.
But hey, at least you got some of us to read it, so you got that going for you, which is nice.
And another thing, calling Oregon a small school and saying Matt Hasselbeck has never impressed you already discredits you beyond belief. Hass is without a doubt a top 5 in the NFC qb. Of course, he played for a major university (check BC vs ND the past several years for verification of that.)
Oregon is in the Pac 10, and last I checked was one of the upper teams.
What the hell constitutes a major college in your eyes? BCS conference? Check. Top 25 ranking on a regular basis. Check. Top 30 recruiting classes on a regular basis? Check. Plenty of NFL drafted players? Check. Plays nationally televised games? Check.
Jesus. Calling Oregon a non-major college?!? Seriously, you're an idiot and your evidence is... meh. I'm done. You suck.
And we have a winner for the most angry commenter with the award going whiskeychainsaw
Oregon is absolutely a football school and citing the fact that they sucked prior to 1950 is pretty dumb. Is Joey Harrington's QB development hampered by the Duck's record in the the 60's?
They have an upper tier football program in their recent history, which is what matters.
2007- 2
2006- 3
2005- 3
2004- 4
2003- 3
2002- 3
2001- 1
2000- 1
1999- 5
Quarterbacks taken in the first round. If you go back and read the first line of the post it says drafting them high.
In the 88 years Oregon has been a member of a conference they have won 2 outright titles. 1/44 is not good enough for me to call them a football school.
This is the most asinine post I've ever seen. It took me about five minutes to track every 1st round quarterback taken from 1990-2004. Of those quarterbacks, 18 came from BCS schools, 13 from non-BCS schools. Of the 18 BCS QBs, 6 are good. Of the 13 non-BCS QBs, 5 are good. So non-BCS QBs have a 5 percent better chance of being good.
This obviously isn't perfect (Michael Vick may not be bad, Daunte Culpepper may not be good), but for every McNabb and Manning there's a McNown, or a Mirer or a Druckenmiller, or Akili Smith, or a Marinovich, or a Shuler, or a Leaf, or a Boller, or a Grossman, etc.
Since when does what a program did 80 years ago matter when your considering them a major program or not? These people aren't even alive, let alone involved somehow.
In the past 10-15 years, the Ducks are a regular fixture in the top 25 regularly get good recruiting classes, regularly sell out their stadium and spend a ton of cash on football.
They were 1 bad knee away from a national title this year.
Interesting premise, but calling Oregon a small-time football program is just ignorant.
Well, I was showing qb's in general, because you are as likely to see a successful qb out of a later round as the first, and everyone will agree it is a crapshoot drafting ALL quarterbacks.
I will grant you your first line. Nice work there.
But your small/big school ranking is a complete farce. That I will not adjust on.
Oh, and for reference, history bears little connection to modern college football so anything prior to 1980 I would throw away entirely as far as your quoting of Oregon's records.
Ask recruiting experts and recruited players if Oregon is a major player. Hell, ask Terrell Pryor this year's top recruit if Oregon is a major football school. He may not go there, but he is considering them, even if you are not.
Oh, also... how many "outright titles" has Notre Dame won the last 25 years? Because I assume you consider them major, right?
Since you apparently banned me or my work computers suck, another comment from whiskeychainsaw.
(Oh, and I'm not really mad, just bored enough to comment.)
Well, ND isn't in a conference, so they can't win conference titles. Also ND hasn't been a relevant school since Holtz left.
Whiskey, not banned at all. I don't even know how to do that.
15 times since 1980 (since Dan used that a reference) Oregon has made a bowl game. Right around 54% which is average since 54 % of all teams make it (64/119).
There bowl win this year was their first since 2001.
Boise State has a better bowl record and has only been Division I since 1996. And has the same amount of BCS wins.
I don't consider them a football powerhouse either.
After having read this post and comments, all I have to say is that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I could've done an ab workout instead. While the criticisms are valid, it's a shame so much brainpower had to be expended dissecting such a mindlessly cherry-picked and most likely entirely inaccurate conclusion. Way to pluck only the examples that fit. I don't have the energy to pick out the likely countless examples that don't support your harebrained supposed proven assertion. Thank goodness some guys above me bothered to offer a small sample. That Akili Smith/Shaun King slip-up makes me think you don't really know as much as you imagine about football. Nothing like confusing black QBs, one the 3rd overall pick who was considered a superior athlete with no brain and another a 2nd rounder who was not much of an athlete but considered intelligent, to inspire credibility.
Anonymous,
Of course you bring up VY's wonderelic score.
(And for all the haters, that was a joke. I know he's talking about Akili Smith)
Sorry, both had what were supposed to be great college careers and didn't amount to anything in the NFL.
Discounting the last two years here are 1st round QB’s taken back to ‘99.
I’m leaving out the last two classes because you can’t really judge them yet.
05: Alex Smith - Sucks – Smaller School (Utah)
05: Aaron Rodgers - Hasn’t seen the field (see: Favre) Jury is out – Bigger School (Cal)
05: Jason Campbell – Has been decent not spectacular, the next couple years will determine his fate – Bigger School (Aubrun)
04:Eli Manning – been discussed.
04:Philip Rivers- successful- Not a football school- (NC State)
04: Ben Roethlisberger- been discussed.
03: Carson Palmer – Successful- Big football school (USC)
03: Kyle Boller – Sucks – Big School (Cal)
02: Carr, Harrington, Patrick Ramsey (Freson State, Oregon, Tulane)- All Suck
01: Michael Vick – Successful (Wins) – Football School – (Va Tech)
00: Chad Pennington – Call a Jets fan for analysis – Small School – (Marshall)
1999: Cade McNown – sucked (he was the 5th QB picked)- Big School – (Cal)
I think your analysis of this subject and writing of this article was done way too quickly.
I, too, would disagree about your analysis of Oregon, but that's somewhat irrelavant now.
I do, however, think that what you posted in your last comment justifies your argument in the post. I doubt you would have this many arguments (or comments - so maybe you did it a little bit on purpose) if that would have been the data you provided in the first place.
Something I'd also be interested to know is in the last 10-15 years just how many first round quarterbacks (either big school or small) have been "successful." I bet it probably is a small success rate unfortunately.
And what do you think of Joe Flacco's chances? Since I would guess this is where this post originated from.
Mostly I just assumed that people wouldn't have come on to complain without doing their own research. I'm not a big fan of reading a list of stats in place of an article.
Joe Flacco has a decent chance. I didn't delve in to later rounds and quarterback choices. The reason was because if a third round QB choice from Delaware doesn't work out, it's not such a huge deal. (I'm not saying he's a third rounder; just an example)
It's when Tim Couch and David Carr are selected as #1 overalls and flop hard when teams get effected.
Oregon doesn't have a football tradition (like say, Alabama) nor a high enough recent level of success to justify calling them a football school.
So if you were the Atlanta Falcons with an obvious quarterback need and the #3 pick in the NFL Draft, would you take either Brian Brohm (Louisville - I guess you wouldn't consider to be a football tradition school), Matt Ryan (BC - some tradition), Andre Woodson (Kentucky - I know he's slipped but people actually discussed it previously), or pass on all three?
As a Falcons' fan, I'd rather pass on all three and hope to get someone like Flacco in a later round, but I'm curious what u think.
Truthfully they have so many needs I would be trading down and taking my chances.
I haven't researched how QBs do in later rounds. I would probably trade down and if I can get a guy I think could be good, pick him up later.
They have too many needs to use a #3 pick. Trade down for quantity at this point.
I'm not buying Syracuse as a "small school." They haven't been good in a while, but don't forget, McNabb's freshman year he had some WR who Peyton Manning now seems to like to throw to.
MEforeman, I will say I'm not as well read on Syracuse as I would like to be. I just know when you talk perennial powers or people with rich football traditions Syracuse doesn't jump to my mind.
If it was considered a bigger school, it supports my point, so maybe I'll have to reconsider ;)
Pretty sure Cade McNown went to UCLA. Do you watch college football?
Useless professional career from a big school.
Your logic with Oregon doesn't make any sense. You factor in BCS appearances, even though that system is flawed beyond belief and has been around for less then a decade. I guess Alabama or Auburn aren't football schools since they have only one BCS appearance each.
Oregon did suck at football for several years, but the program has been one of the better one's in the Pac-10. West coast games must be to late for you?
You might want to consider that Matt Leinart out of USC has been subpar thus far in his career. Programs don't get much better then USC, and uarterbacks don't get to be much more mediocre than Leinart.
BCS games in general, not just under the BCS system. Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, and Fiesta combined.
Not just since the BCS started.Also, as I stated above: Oregon doesn't have a rich football tradition (Like Alabama or Auburn) nor do they have a high enough level of recent success for me to call them a football school.
Alan, I'm with you, Leinhart has not been good but it's pretty tough to say his career sucks.
He hasn't been around long enough.
Jury is out on Leinart. Injury plagued last season, looked like there was some promise before that.
And with your "Akili Smith went to Tulane" and "Cade McNown went to Cal" and "Oregon isn't a football school." I will just assume you aren't too close to the west coast.
So please don't pretend to know whether Oregon is or isn't a football school. The #1 recruit in the country has them on his short list of 4 schools. They were a Dennis Dixon knee injury short of the national title this year. And they sell out their stadium every game (which is arguably the most hostile atmosphere and toughest place to play in college football.)
Oregon has been an upper tier program in a big conference for the past 10-15 years. When your talking about guys like Harrington and Smith, that's what matters.
They don't have a rich football history.
They don't have a high level of recent success.
Oregon in the last 10 years when they've been so great they have 1 outright title in the PAC 10 and 1 shared title.
They are 1-4 in their last 5 bowl games in huge bowls like Las Vegas, Holiday, Sun, and Seattle Bowls. With losses to major programs like BYU, Minnesota, and Wake Forrest.
Pryor has Oregon on his short list because they run an offense conducive to his skills.
Alabama
Auburn
Cal
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Miami
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Penn State
Stanford
Tennessee
Texas
USC
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
A short list of teams with better recent success or better history than Oregon.
You forgot Cade McNown, who was picked right after Culpepper.
Not only did he suck, he lost out on Heather Kozar to Tim Couch.
Brock Huard, Joe Germaine, and Michael Bishop are hurt that you did not conduct an analysis of their NFL careers, by the way.
Again, not high draft picks.
In the 12 years Mike Bellotti has coached Oregon, they have 106 wins and have finished in the top half of the Pac-10 11 times.
Nope...averaging 8 wins a season isn't a successful program at all. Is Oregon at the same level as USC or LSU? Not quite. But to suggest they haven't had any success or is not a football school is absurd.
Your list of prgrams that have been better in recent years then Oregon is laughable at best. You can use your reasoning with Oregon to take out Alabama and Auburn, because they have only 1 BCS appearance each...just like Oregon. Somehow though, two SEC schools are on your list of quality programs, but not a Pac-10 team.
You do include Stanford though which is laughable at best. Since 2002, the Cardinal's highest finish in the Pac 10 is sixth, and they haven't made a bowl game since 2001. I guess you figure their win over USC this year somehow vaults them into powerhouse talk.
Just admit you know jack about Pac-10 football.
Like I said the list is of people who have better football tradition (Like Alabama,Auburn, and Standford)
or have better recent history.
Reading comprehension not a strong suit apparently.
Please give up the history argument here or explain how Oregon's record in the 50's affected Joey Harrington's development as a quarterback.
You have a good foundation for a point here but you are missing it slightly. Harrington played the same opponents as Carson Palmer. They both play in the same conference. Now someone from Tulane or say Delaware wouldn't be playing that level of opposition and their numbers could be misleading.
Also, just admit you don't watch much west coast football. It's OK.
Says the man who listed Akili Smith as being from Tulane.
Alan,
That's rather presumptuous. How do you know WTP isn't a girl?
Also, being wrong about a QB's school from memory (which is what I think WTP did here) is a little different than just misreading what he wrote.
And averaging 8 wins a season gets you fired at a big football school. That, or not beating Michigan.
That and Stanford's history is fairly comparable to Oregon's. Stanford has 20 bowl appearances, Oregon has 21. The difference is, Stanford has 7 bowl appearances since 1980. Oregon has 15. Recent history matters more in this case then things that happened in the
60's if your going to say "quarterbacks from these schools are busts..."
I also find it funny that you've been knocked around quite a bit on including Joey Harrington as a bust from Oregon, when the Pac-10 yields a qb that was drafted high from a school with a traditionally weak football program. Did Washington State's Ryan Leaf not suit your fancy for this list? As a Cougar fan, I know the football program is bad, save a few bright spots.
See also: Boeller, Kyle. When he was drafted out of Cal, the Bears were just beginning to climb out of the rut they had been in, but for several years they were the laughing stock of the Pac-10. There are quarterbacks who you can use to make your argument, but you haven't selected them.
@ Brave Sir Robbin
If WTP is going to try to make a valid point, he should look up information instead of just trying to recall schools. I know bloggers aren't journalists, but the first rule of journalism is "if you're mother says she loves you, double check."
Good thing Oregon doesn't have to worry too much about that "Not beating Michigan thing" lately...
Yeah, that beat down they put on Michigan saved their coach...for now! DUN DUN DUN!
@ Alan
I'm pretty sure the first rule of journalism is "If it bleeds, it leads."
That and "Remember the Maine!"
(It was my work computer, I guess.)
Also, I want to say I appreciate the fact that you put your words out there and talk with your readers, I merely criticize and have no site of my own...
Okay, some additional information on Oregon Football, because I'm a hell of a nice guy who wants to give you the chance to have an educated opinion. And also, understand I'm from Washington, so I HATE Oregon sports.
According to their site, there are currently 30 Oregon Ducks in the pros. 30. That's a hell of a lot for a "non football school" don't you think? And the numbers are not cushioned up. I can tell you this because I know Jordan Kent is on the Seahawks practice squad but is not on that list...
There was actually a great point made about Mike Belotti's era by someone else and that the team has being quite successful over the past decade, even if bowl records have not portrayed this.
From 1995-2005 (update all parts of your official site, boys) there have been 25 First team All-Pac10 Players. That seems respectable to me.
From Rivals.com - Recruiting Rankings of incoming players.
2008 - 19th
2007 - 11th
2006 - 49th
2005 - 28th
2004 - 12th
2003 - 26th
2002 - 49th
Perennially in the top 25, with some higher (and obviously lower) assessments. But being in the top 25 yearly means they are a national "player" on the recruiting scene. Meaning RECRUITS, IE PLAYERS SEE THEM AS A "FOOTBALL SCHOOL."
Unless of course top 25 level players go to Oregon for the strong academic programs.
Just as a comparison of sorts, your "football factory" of West Virginia (which if you recall just lost their coach due to his view they were not large enough to compete on the national recruiting scene) has 20 current NFL players.
If I recall, Belotti has been courted or had his name thrown out for "higher prestige" jobs several times and failed to show any interest.
The fact that you list Virginia Tech and West Virginia but not Oregon or Washington, yet you list Stanford... Dawg, you are all across the board. Apparently the Virginia Tech and West Virginia recent success counts, but not Oregon's. Washington's history doesn't count, but Penn State and Nebraska's do. Or is it Penn State and Nebraska's recent success? Oh, wait, nevermind.
Look at it this way. By simply admitting that Oregon (and the rest of the Pac 10, for that matter) are "football schools" or at least in a "football conference" since they are a BCS conference, you will automatically add credence to your argument. (Although you will have to alter it since it takes JoeyH and Akili away from your argument about successes/failures in large/small schools.)
Simply put, there is no logical and rational way you can NOT define Oregon as a large/major school. You are simply flinging an irrational half cocked rationalizations, and I hope you put more attention to the detail.
You have a potentially valid point, if you would.
Well, why don't I add Washington to the "why the hell ain't they on your list" too, since I touched upon them briefly.
Admittedly no heismann trophies, but this isn't a bad list of nationally recognized players since 1980.
* Doak Walker Award
Greg Lewis - 1990
* Lombardi Award
Steve Emtman - 1991
* Morris Trophy Offense
Bern Brostek - 1989
Lincoln Kennedy - 1991
Lincoln Kennedy - 1992
Bob Sapp - 1996
Olin Kreutz - 1997
Chad Ward - 2000
* Morris Trophy Defense
Fletcher Jenkins - 1981
Ron Holmes - 1984
Reggie Rogers - 1986
Steve Emtman - 1990
Steve Emtman - 1991
D'Marco Farr - 1993
* Outland Trophy
Steve Emtman - 1991
I count 8 "modern era" qb's that made the NFL.
Mark Brunell
Chris Chandler
Warren Moon
Brock Huard
Damon Huard
Isaiah Stanbeck (albeit converted to WR)
Marques Tuiasosopo
Cody Pickett
That's obviously only QB's. But I'm curious, are they from a "big" or "small" school?!?
Just so everyone knows, WTP is traveling this afternoon/evening and may not have internet where he ends up. That's why he's not responding. He's not hiding or ducking your responses.
I'm also not going to get into it with people about the content of the post (maybe poke fun at a couple of comments) because it's not my post and we're fairly independent when it comes to our individual posts on theories/ideas/arguments.
Anyway, check back Monday and I'm sure WTP will have said something to you by then.
I would also like to invite everyone to the live blog for the NO/Utah game I'll be doing in about 2 hours. Thanks for commenting and making this the most commented thread in our history.
@Alan: Ryan Leaf is from farther back than I traveled. Like I mentioned before I didn't want the post to read as a stat sheet so I didn't included every QB ever drafted. I added Boller in the comments above yours.
@whiskeyc: See, we don't hate you. Your office does. They do have a good number of players in the NFL. I won't question that. As far as saying top 25 recruiting classes I thought it was funny the list you gave:
2008 - 19th
2007 - 11th
2006 - 49th
2005 - 28th
2004 - 12th
2003 - 26th
2002 - 49th
Has less top 25 classes than it has top 25 classes.
Standford has been in double digits Rose Bowls. Their current state is not good, I'll grant you that, but neither is Alabama's and I would still call them a football school.
Stanford might be in double digit Rose Bowls, but again, when eight of those happen before 1950, it doesn't do a whole in terms of today. Thats something nice to put into the media guide, but I highly doubt it has much bearing on the state of the program today.
To give another example, there's a school thats won 3 national titles. That sounds impressive. It isn't Notre Dame or USC impressive, but three is a respectable number. Would you say that school is a football power? Its a borderline call, until you realize that school is Army. No one is going to call Army a football school. It might have a strong football history, but I don't think what happened in the 50s, 50s and 60s impacts recruiting (which you elude to in the post with big time schools not having guys go under their radar as much anymore) then a program's history from the 80s on is.
There are a few programs that have stood the test of time: Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, USC, ect. But, I think you'll find that every decade or so, there will be a group of programs that are a step below that. Programs that many would consider to be top flight. These would be schools like Oregon, Wisconsin, Texas A&M. Schools that may not be the most storied or most successful, but have a decent combination of the two to make themselves, in the eyes of many people, a good football program. You'll even find that the programs that are seemingly always good have down years. As a Pac-10 fan, I remember before Pete Carroll arrived, USC was nowhere near what it is today. There's always a state of flux with the top programs in the country. In ten years, some new team will have a run of success, and we'll have the same argument then about that school.
My point is, I think that in a list like this, in determining what is or what isn't a top program has a lot more to do with its recent history then the state of the program 30, 40 years ago. Army has more national titles then Oregon does, but I don't think you'll find many recruits choosing the Black Knights over the Ducks.
I'm not arguing they don't have recent success. I'm just saying it isn't good enough to put it in the list of schools either of us gave.
They had 4 straight bowl losses before this year. They've only one their conference outright in 40 years. Those aren't things I associate with a top football program.
Can we all just agree that WTP isn't really an authority on the Pac-10 and it doesn't really matter where he considers Oregon on his scale of "big timey-ness?"
From your numerous mess ups you just don't know the conference. If you did you would know that Pete Carroll considers Mike Bellotti his chief rival in the Pac-10. Carroll hates him. Of course the new coaching blood in the Pac-10 may change that. I would never underestimate the hatability of Rick Neuheisel.
Belloti's record against Carroll is?
2 wins 3 losses.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's a much better clip than any other coach in the Pac-10. It was actually a big reason why UCLA wanted Bellotti so badly was his success against their cross town rival.
5 times in 13 years? Seems unusual.
Note that in the Pac-10 only recently did everyone play everyone each year.
Also, Pete Carroll has not coached USC for 13 years...
Bellotti is 4-4 versus USC overall, with and without Carroll.
And if it wasn't mentioned earlier, Oregon also has one of the best training facilities in the country. Something to do with that Phil Knight guy...
So UCLA was hard after a guy to beat USC 1 out of every two times?
(And oonly 40% of the time against their current head coach?)
Seems like not the kind of hire a football power in the East would make(Michigan didn't hire RR to beat OSU every other year).
First off Michigan would be happy to win 50% of the time vs. Ohio St. because it would be a nice upgrade.
Second off, yes UCLA was hot after a guy that batted .500 against USC. Because ya see, .500 vs. USC is fan-freakin-tastic when you take their overall record into account.
Here's a link to them wanting Bellotti (most would say he used them for a long term deal from Oregon, which seems to be the case.)
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke21dec21,1,110339.column?coll=la-headlines-sports
The SEC bats .000 versus USC and Carroll but you don't hear me saying that Auburn (twice) and Arkansas (twice, very very badly) aren't big football schools because of it.
Link got cut off.
Just google LA Times and Plaschke.
"Michigan would be happy to win 50% of the time vs. Ohio St."
WHAT?
Not the case at all. All real football programs expect to win. If they thought RR would win 50% against OSU (or any of their opponents) they wouldn't have hired him.
They may want to beat Ohio St. every time out but they would be happy with it being a more even matchup than it's been recently.
They would be ecstatic if they could turn things around completely, but baby steps for now.
They would just like to not have to see a graphic displaying Lloyd Carr's record vs. the sweater vest every year.
OSU didn't take that approach with hiring the sweater vest. I'm sure Michigan didn't with RR either.
Now you're just picking at nits. Of course they want to beat Ohio St. every time out, but it's not the only thing that will make them happy.
I just don't feel like that kind of "success" is acceptable at a football school.
Post a Comment