College Football Kings

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:20 pm

seems like a rural clergy or small land owners or cobblers or proto merchant class category might fill in some space between knights and peasants.

all-time, KSU is a stretch at knights....the Cats have some hideous stat about how many seasons in a row they'd have to go undefeated to get to .500 as a program.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:51 pm

[quote="T REX"
Interesting......why UF and not Miami and FSU as well?
[/quote]
Because FSU and Miami were relevant before the 1990 season.

At least UF can go back to the 60's with Spurrier......Miami had NOTHING prior to Schellenberger and FSU nothing prior to what....1978?

Spurrious? I think FSU had a guy in the 60s. I think he has a trophy named after him....hmmm....oh yeah....Fred Biletnikoff.

Does any gate player have a national trophy named after them?

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:17 pm

Wow.....FSU's record for 1962 was 1-8-1, 1963 was 5-5, 1964 9-1-1, and 1965 4-5-1.....

Ok.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:29 pm

King Crimson wrote:seems like a rural clergy or small land owners or cobblers or proto merchant class category might fill in some space between knights and peasants.

You may have a point. There were 25 "knights" and 17 "peasants," as opposed to 13 "kings" and 10 "barons." A fifth class would have evened out the numbers a bit.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:24 pm

I'd also have a hard time with Mandel's codicil that Syracuse is (minus Greg Robinson) baron-esque.

over Arkansas, MSU, Purdue....."all time". thereby in the same league with LSU and ATM etc.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:45 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
King Crimson wrote:seems like a rural clergy or small land owners or cobblers or proto merchant class category might fill in some space between knights and peasants.
You may have a point. There were 25 "knights" and 17 "peasants," as opposed to 13 "kings" and 10 "barons." A fifth class would have evened out the numbers a bit.

Where is John Ball when ya need him?

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:34 pm

King Crimson wrote:I'd also have a hard time with Mandel's codicil that Syracuse is (minus Greg Robinson) baron-esque.

over Arkansas, MSU, Purdue....."all time". thereby in the same league with LSU and ATM etc.

In fairness, there is quite a discrepancy in the program strength, from top to bottom, at both the "barons" and "knights" level. For example, both LSU and Washington are "barons," and both West Virginia and Illinois are "knights." And there have been some very good Syracuse teams in a number of eras.

OTOH, the Robinson era is not the first time Syracuse has sucked, either. I've said on more than one occasion that part of the reason -- not the only reason, but certainly part of it -- why I'm a ND fan is that Syracuse was just plain godawful at the time I first became cognizant of sports in the early 70's.

All in all, I'd have to agree with you. Even if you were to restrict the analysis to members of the Big East alone, West Virginia, Rutgers and USF each has a stronger argument for moving up a class from where Maisel has them than does Syracuse.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:46 pm

T REX wrote:Wow.....FSU's record for 1962 was 1-8-1, 1963 was 5-5, 1964 9-1-1, and 1965 4-5-1.....

Ok.

you only mentioned spurrious as your reason why the gates were so great, trixie.....

I responded by dropping a name too. The name so happened to have a trophy named after him.

Does spurrious have a national trophy named after him?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:07 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:nebraska and penn state are flake entries in the kings catagory as well.
Are you kidding?

The criteria was based on "instant program recognition." Whether you agree with the selection of criteria or not is a whole 'nother discussion, but based on the reasoning he chose, I think most people would put Penn St and Nebraska into that category. Not far-fetched in the least.

well i guess if we're talking about "instant program recognition," then mandel's list is perfect and impeccable and cannot be argued with. in the mid to late 90s when miami was getting their asses kicked by FSU to the tune of 50 points and having 5-6 seasons, did they still have the same "instant program recognition?"

this whole concept is full of fucking shit. "instant program recognition?" what a load of fucking horseshit. and although i have no bias against the nittany lions, i just don't think they are a "baron" of college football. anthony morrelli out front should have told you.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:01 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:in the mid to late 90s when miami was getting their asses kicked by FSU to the tune of 50 points and having 5-6 seasons, did they still have the same "instant program recognition?"

What the fuck does this have to do with Penn St or Nebraska not equating to a "king" in your eyes? Your method here of just streaming random thoughts would make IB jealous.

Based on your logic though, NO program should be considered a "king" if they suffered even a single isolated "low point" throughout their existence.

this whole concept is full of fucking shit. "instant program recognition?" what a load of fucking horseshit.

Well, duh.

Did you skip over this part?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Whether you agree with the selection of criteria or not is a whole 'nother discussion

Jaysus man, ADD much?

and although i have no bias against the nittany lions, i just don't think they are a "baron" of college football. anthony morrelli out front should have told you.

He didn't list them as a "baron," dumbfuck.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:02 am

I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Sin,
T Boone Pickens and his personal quest for the Holy Grail

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:39 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Auburn shared a national title in 1957, while on probation. That's it for them. All they've ever won. They're where they should be.
Not an Auburn fan, but in their defense they had near misses in '83, '87 and '04.
No doubt they've had some really good teams over the last 20 years, but this list is national perception. The KINGS. They don't belong. And I'm not saying that as an Alabama fan.

I don't like Michigan either, but I know good and well they are one of the elite programs.

There is one top tier and Mandel got it right.

Okay I am definatly not a bama fan and I'll say it Allbarn does not belong!!!

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:04 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:Auburn's undoing the last 15-20 years has been their performance(s) against big name OOC teams. They've lost too many season openers (Texas) and other games where they could have made a big impresssion nationwide. They've had some great teams, but too often they've stumbled when the pressure was on.

didn't they lose at home to USC in Leinart's first year as a starter? that was a big-time matchup.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:14 pm

Anthony Morelli's reign as QB starter is the swing point for PSU's inclusion? Ya, ok...