T1B

Mandel names off the Kings of college football

Ranking the "prestige level" of all 66 BCS schools (including Notre Dame) by dividing them into four tiers...


Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee, Texas and USC.

Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.

Knights
Arizona State, Arkansas, Boston College, Cal, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington State.

Peasants
Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers*, South Florida*, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt.

He leaves off Louisville because he doesnt know where to place them. I say knights.

So what say you ND fan of old, who still doesnt believe there is a state of florida involved in college football?

I would swap LSU and Alabama just based on recent success....depends on criteria as always.

I'd replace Clemson with Arkansas, but other than that, pretty accurate I think.

Not bad.

i like mandel but obviously he was lazy and was inspired to do a "who's now" of college football. lame.


...yeah, washington is a real "baron" of college football. 1-11 seasons prove that. illinois and k-state were cute additions too.

nebraska and penn state are flake entries in the kings catagory as well.

The problem with generating a list like this is simply this: what is your criteria? Is it tradition or recent performance, or both? And if it's both, how much do you weigh the two comparatively? Obviously, Mandel's list was weighted more heavily toward tradition, but even that doesn't explain things completely. For example, Florida probably doesn't merit mention with the kings based on tradition alone.

Fwiw, ND Nation tried a similar ranking recently during the scheduling debate, only using three tiers instead of four. The problem with that analysis was that Tier II became the default tier.

As far as actual rankings of schools go, I would've put Illinois in with the peasants, Washington with the knights (although probably a peasant based solely on recent performance), and West Virginia to the barons (they're headed in that direction, although it might be a bit premature to include them there just yet).

Terry in Crapchester wrote: For example, Florida probably doesn't merit mention with the kings based on tradition alone.

Interesting......why UF and not Miami and FSU as well?

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?

ND has been OFF the map for over a decade......just curious to your reasoning one over another.

nebraska and penn state are flake entries in the kings catagory as well.

Fair enough, based on recent seasons. Bothe teams went through down eras, and appear to be on the road back. The rich tradition of the two schools merits the king status, IMO. Prior to the late 90s, both of them woul d have been no-brainers.

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.

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.

Thank you, that got a WTF? Out of me as well. We are not a current national power but we are a ranked program with more tradition and name-recognition than 95% of the teams in the country. We went from the 60's past the millenium with consecutive 9-win seasons and we have by-far the longest sell-out streak in college football. It isn't like the other programs on that "kings" list haven't had dry years as well.

This list is bullshit...KAL should be the supreme being.

Sin,

m2oooL

not a whole lot I disagree with here...most are placed about right...I know Zona has been down recently but as a peasant a little rough...I mean many years of desert swarm, etc...they have recognition just not the W/L record to go along with it recently...so perhaps they should be a Knight possibly???

T REX wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: For example, Florida probably doesn't merit mention with the kings based on tradition alone.

Interesting......why UF and not Miami and FSU as well?

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?

ND has been OFF the map for over a decade......just curious to your reasoning one over another.

Note that I mentioned tradition alone. Florida had never won a national title prior to '96.

Fwiw, I probably would've had all the schools Maisel had in the first tier, and I would've included LSU and (possibly) Auburn based on more recent performance.

Ranking these schools is not an exact science, by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Agreed with Sam. Give them another decade and a national title and Auburn might be on the cusp. Auburn is bigtime in the south, but from a national viewpoint, I don't think they're widely considered as one of the undeniable MAJOR players. Not at the level of a OU, USC, Ohio St, etc.

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.

[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?

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

Ok.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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