Underachieving college FB programs

[Indy Coug]

BYU

[DrumNFeather]

Pitt maybe?

This season aside, it seems like Pitt should be able to have a Big East winning program every year.

[TripletDaddy]

My vote is for Texas Agriculture and Mining.

These crackers are the #2 program in one of the top 3 talent pools in the country. They have a massive stadium, their traditions are well known throughout college football, the fan base is rabid, their main rival is a national power (Vince young's knee was down, btw), people have been crushed to death trying to show their school spirit, and putting them on the schedule is always considered a quality opponent.

Yet for some reason they rarely, if ever, seem to be relevant, Esp not on a consistent basis.

Ucla is my second choice for the same reasons listen above, although at least ucla has won a fair share of rose bowls. A&m can lay no such claim.

[RC Vikings]

BYU

I would make the case that BYU has been a huge overachiever all these years. Notre Dame, USC and Miami are the only three private schools that have had more success in the last 40 years then BYU and they don't have to deal with a HC. They also have a much bigger pool of players to recruit. Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Duke, Baylor, Syracuse all suck. TCU is having a nice little run but they suffered a long downturn.

[jay santos]

Good answers here. T A&M probably the biggest. Colorado, Washington, Syracuse.

Of the lower programs: SDSU and UNLV for sure. There's no reason those guys can't be top 50 programs. Marshall was the first Boise State and then they fizzled.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My vote is for Texas Agriculture and Mining.

These crackers are the #2 program in one of the top 3 talent pools in the country. They have a massive stadium, their traditions are well known throughout college football, the fan base is rabid, their main rival is a national power (Vince young's knee was down, btw), people have been crushed to death trying to show their school spirit, and putting them on the schedule is always considered a quality opponent.

Yet for some reason they rarely, if ever, seem to be relevant, Esp not on a consistent basis.

Ucla is my second choice for the same reasons listen above, although at least ucla has won a fair share of rose bowls. A&m can lay no such claim.

Bingo. Stupid aggies.

[BoylenOver]

Even though DNF said the ACC, I'll say Miami and Florida St. With the talent and prestige both schools have, they should be doing more than what they have in recent years.

I'll also say Cal. All the NFL talent Tedford has brought in during the last decade, and all they have to show for it is a #9 ranking at the end of 2004 and a Holiday Bowl loss.

[Hot Lunch]

My list would include a lot of what has been said already. Here is mine.

Arizona St.
Miami
FSU
SDSU
UNLV
Michigan
UDUB
Texas A&M
Notre Dame
Maryland (lots of talent in the D.C./Baltimore area)
UNC (Butch Davis has pretty much solidified the death of this program recently)
CU

[Babs]

My vote is for Texas Agriculture and Mining.

I would have gone with Texas Ag and Mechanical, myself. But then your choice is good, too - they so consistently underachieve that I didn't even know they exist.

[pellegrino]

I'm always surprised North Carolina doesn't have a top ten program every year. Good weather, good population base to pull from and a good school.

you and me both. I think part of it is the institution itself hasn't been committed to excellence in football. The ascension of Dean Smith's basketball program was accompanied by a decline in the football program, which was a perennial top ten team in the 40s and 50s. The decline wasn't that big of a concern, so long as they were competitive in conference (which they were) because basketball has always ruled the sports scene, particularly for the students. It's one of the reasons they go there. Unlike other southern states, North Carolina isn't a big football state. The sports culture has centered on basketball practically since the game was invented. My cousins growing up cared primarily about two sports: basketball and NASCAR. Most rural high schools (and there were/are many) didn't have any sort of football program until well into the 60s. Growing up, my father didn't have the option to play football, basketball and baseball dominated.

I had high hopes with Butch Davis and he's done well. Unfortunately he'll likely be fired and we'll start from scratch with some other guy. Had he been better at either keeping it under control (interpret that however you want to) I think they'd have definitely been in the top ten, possibly in the mix for a national championship. As is, they have had a chance to win every game and came up short on the first two. I'm pleased with the results, and they're a fun team to watch. The defense has come around and the offense has some good players that have made some fantastic plays.

[TripletDaddy]

I would have gone with Texas Ag and Mechanical, myself. But then your choice is good, too - they so consistently underachieve that I didn't even know they exist.

Is it mechanical? They underachieve so much that their name isn't even well known.

My knowledge of college football is laughable.

[Babs]

Is it mechanical? They underachieve so much that their name isn't even well known.

My knowledge of college football is laughable.

It truly is. You should consider becoming a student of my posts.

[Art Vandelay]

I would have gone with Texas Ag and Mechanical, myself. But then your choice is good, too - they so consistently underachieve that I didn't even know they exist.

Just wait a couple years until you do your post-grad work there, they will be your new favorite team. You could even be referred to as Ms TmA.

[cougjunkie]

I also look at natural recruiting base when I think of underachieving teams. If you are in Florida and Texas and you do not compete year in and year out you are underachieving.

TAMU not only sucks at building bonfires but they suck at football as well.
Rutgers has a very fertile recruiting land but they really lack tradition and have never done much other than the Ray Rice years.
South Carolina always solid, never elite. See also Clemson.
UCLA

[Pheidippides]

I also look at natural recruiting base when I think of underachieving teams. If you are in Florida and Texas and you do not compete year in and year out you are underachieving.

TAMU not only sucks at building bonfires but they suck at football as well.
Rutgers has a very fertile recruiting land but they really lack tradition and have never done much other than the Ray Rice years.
South Carolina always solid, never elite. See also Clemson.
UCLA

I was going to say rutgers too. Home of the first ever football game, great recruiting area. Vile fans though (I went to a few games when I lived there).