College Football Power Structure

[Sir Stealth]

There is a small handful of schools mentioned in the first breath of great college football programs. Michigan. Ohio State. Notre Dame. USC. Alabama. Oklahoma. Maybe (maybe) Nebraska, Florida, and FSU, but even those three are stretching it. That's it.

Then there's a group of schools with very good, but not great, programs. Those would include LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Miami, Penn State, UCLA, Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Texas, Texas A&M. You'll notice that those are all very good football programs, and it's not a group to be ashamed to be a part of. No one is "trashing" UGA by saying that they're a part of this group. Nor is it a criticism to Georgia to say that they are not the equal of the great teams listed above.

I'm a big UGA football fan and I think that that's a very fair assessment. I do think that it's trashing the program to say that it's no closer to Ohio St. than it is farther from Ole Miss, but I see that that probably wasn't intended to that degree. I think that the next couple of years look really bright for the Dawgs - they have been as successful in terms of wins as any program in the country during Mark Richt's tenure, and hopefully they can take it to the next echelon in the coming years and deserve to be listed in that highest echelon down the road.

[Olympic Fan]

[QUOTE=Indoor66;69708]

I have never heard of Duke claiming national titles in Football. Please site.

Go to the College Football Data Wharehouse and click on national titles:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php

They list "recognized" national titles and "all" national titles.

Duke did not win and does not claim any recognized national titles. But in 1936, when Duke went 9-1 (losing 15-13 on a late punt return at Tennessee), Duke was one of seven one-loss teams to get national title consideration. Minnesota is the generally recognized champion (and finished No. 1 in the first AP poll), but James Howell's magazine named Duke as his champion.

In 1941, Duke finished the regular season 9-0 (in those days, national titles were almost always determined in the regular season) and was named national champion by Ray Byrne. Duke finished No. 2 to Minnesota in the final AP poll that season.

There were A LOT of publications and organizations that picked national champions in those days. Now, Duke doesn't claim national titles in these years because neither is legit (although I do wish they'd at least list them in their brochure). Georgia's claim to national titles in seasons like 1968 and 1966 and 1946 just makes them look as foolish as UNC looks for claiming their 1924 national title awarded retroactively in 1942 by a Los Angeles bakery.

I don't mean to trash Georgia football either -- it's a strong program with a great history. But this thread is originally about the delusions of Georgia fans thinking they are in the first rank of college programs with Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, Southern Cal ...

Georgia football is good, but it's not that good.