Reasonable expectations in college football

LSU had a losing record in the 1990s. LSU had one SEC co-championship in the 1980s, 1 SEC championship in the 1980s, 1 SEC championship in the 1970s, and 1 SEC co-championship in the 1960s. Since 2001, they have 2 national championships and 3 SEC championships.

 

What does "reasonable" have to do with college football?

 

Missouri belongs to this tier, and Colorado and UCLA should be nowhere near it.

 

I always think about it with respect to how many wins that are virtual locks before the season even begins. Yes, there's the occasional App State-Michigan or James Madison-VT blip (not ignoring others, but those are the most recent that come to mind), but by and large the "better" schools in your BCS leagues start with three wins in the bag. So if you play a nine-game "real" season, eight wins means you played a bit better than .500 ball. That's not all that impressive. It's not embarassing, don't get me wrong, but that's not the level of performance your BCS-level coaches get paid to deliver.

 

Missouri really should be able to have consistent success being the only major program in a big state, but for some reason it didn't for a long time until Pinkel got settled in there. Moddy, I'd say VT fans should be able to expect 10 wins most years and ACC championships at least every few years, but should they be happy with that level or expect to take the next step?

 

Seven conference titles since 1995. I'd put them in top tier.

 

Yeah, Virginia Tech should be in the top tier. The only reason I didn't was because Tech has never won a title.

 

If it's about program and fan expectation, UCLA absolutely belongs in this tier.

 

Colorado has contended for a national title 4-5 times in the last 21 years. The program is horseshit now, but still has a national reputation. I thought I had Missouri on that second list. Oops.

 

And Miami -- the major target of the ACC's raid of the Big East -- hasn't won diddly fucking poo.