Reasonable expectations in college football

Here it is a little more thought out:

Tier 1 - Consistently win 10 games, play in a BCS bowl and have won or played for a national title or an undefeated season in the last 25-30 years. Fans expect them to win conferences or contend for national title on a regular basis.

These are not in order.

1. Florida
2. Alabama
3. LSU
4. Georgia
5. Tennessee
6. Auburn
7. Texas
8. Oklahoma
9. Nebraska
10. Florida State
11. Miami
12. Michigan
13. Ohio State
14. Penn State
15. Oregon
16. Southern Cal
17. Notre Dame
18. Boise State
19. Virginia Tech

I tried really hard to find a 20th team. Couldn't justify moving another from Tier 2 to Tier 1.

Tier 2 - Has tradition. May have won or played for titles, but have been inconsistent at times. Fans expect 10 wins in most seasons, but 8-9 is usually more realistic. May be a program that was once great and is now down or a program that was once mediocre and is now becoming a more consistent winner.

1. Arkansas
2. Ole Miss
3. Mississippi State
4. South Carolina
5. Texas A&M
6. Clemson
7. Wisconsin
8. Air Force
9. Colorado
10. Georgia Tech
11. Kansas State
12. Missouri
13. Syracuse
14. Pittsburgh
15. Louisville
16. West Virginia
17. Iowa
18. TCU
19. BYU
20. UCLA
21. Texas Tech
22. Washington
23. Utah
24. Boston College
25. Michigan State
26. Oklahoma State
27. North Carolina
28. North Carolina State
29. Purdue
30. Arizona

Near misses: Stanford, Cal, Arizona State, Kansas, Virginia, Oregon State, Maryland

 

Virginia?

 

Mizzou - I realize you're talking about expectations, not results. But UNC simply can't be in a tier ahead of UVa. There's just no way. This year's result aside, if there's a difference in the programs, the Heels need to be behind the Hoos.

I'd say the same thing about State, but they're Georgia north in the "unrealistic expectations" club.

 

If Kansas and Maryland are in that discussion, UVa has to be. I know those two programs went to BCS bowls, but I'll take a team that was a consistent 7-8 game winner until fairly recently over two bottom-feeders with fluke BCS appearances. (Sorry, Jake and other KU fans.)

 

Unfortunately, I think Mizzou is giving Kansas, Virginia and Maryland too much credit, though I think KU and UVa have potential to be second-tier programs if they have the right coaches.

UNC is a weird situation, I don't see any reason why that can't be a very good program year after year. It might be the only place in the country where the fans expectations aren't high enough.

 

Virginia sucks, but there's pressure to win there.

Both NC schools do the whole, "No, we actually care about football." dance enough and make enough noise at times to make the list, albeit at the very bottom.

 

Again, I realize this is about expectations, not results. But I think you're vastly overstating the noise those teams make, especially Chapel Hill. I'm having a hard time thinking of a program that's been tabbed for greatness and fallen on its face more consistently in recent years.

 

Sure, there's pressure to win at U.Va., but since they rarely win.....

I'm interested to see what London can do from here on out, though.

 

Jake, I haven't followed KU nearly as closely as you have, so I'll defer to you on that. I actually think Maryland fits that description as well, with the caveat that despite a good 2010, I don't think Friedgen is the right coach to get MD there. He had a nice year, but it probably saved his job.

 

I wouldn't say they "rarely" win. The timeframe we're talking about on this thread is the last 25 years, right? UVa has had, off the top of my head, five losing seasons in that span (including, it must be said, the last three). They've been ranked No. 1 in the country and gone to the Sugar Bowl in that timeframe.

They've sucked out loud the last three years, to be sure. But they absolutely belong in that second tier. I'm not putting them in Tier 1. or even close. Nobody's putting them in a class with Virginia Tech anywhere but the NCAA directory.

 

Fair enough. And to be even more fair, neither of us can be taken seriously on this topic.

 

I haven't followed Maryland closely enough to know, but from what I've seen the facilities there aren't anything close to what they have at Kansas and Virginia. Kansas is in a tricky situation because there isn't room for KU, K-State and Missouri to all be good at the same time. Missouri is on solid ground, but KU has a lot of built-in advantages over Kansas State, depending on who replaces Snyder the second time around. I think K-State is going to have a hard time finding somebody that rivals the success of Snyder unless it can convince Gary Patterson to come back.