|
Replies: 22
| visibility 26
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 12:25 PM
|
|
up?
If you look at Clemson's Titles all-time, we're pretty far down the list (T-17th) since there are teams like Pitt who has 9 but 8 are before 1938; or Minnesota, who has 7, but all before 1960. Michigan is 2nd All-Time with 11 Titles but they've won ONE since 1948!
So where does Clemson stack up in the "Modern Era"--I chose 1973 as the cutoff as that's when the NCAA implemented a 105-player scholarship limit for the first time.
National Titles Since 1973:
Alabama: 9 (1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017)
Miami: 5 (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)
Oklahoma: 4 (1974, 1975, 1984, 2000)
The Real USC: 4* (1974, 1978, 2003*, 2004*)
Clemson: 3 (1981, 2016, 2018)
Nebraska: 3 (1994, 1995, 1997)
FSU: 3 (1993, 1999, 2013)
Notre Dame: 3 (1973, 1977, 1988)
Florida: 3 (1996, 2006, 2008)
LSU: 2 (2003, 2007)
Penn State: 2 (1982, 1986)
An Ohio State University: 2 (2002, 2014)
GT: 1 (1990)
BYU: 1 (1984)
Michigan: 1 (1997)
Tennessee: 1 (1998)
Pitt: 1 (1976)
Auburn: 1 (2010)
Washington: 1 (1991)
Colorado: 1 (1990)
Texas: 1 (2005)
UGA: 1 (1980)
So when you adjust for the modern era, we're tied for 5th Most National Titles, not too shabby. Also note some real "Blue Bloods" are behind us, including Michigan, OSU, LSU, and Texas. We've of course won 3 since the last time UGA won any.
Also, where does Dabo stack up against some of the all-time greats and HOFers in the "Modern Era" (this isn't every one who won but most of the notable coaches)?
"Modern Coaches" with National Titles:
Nick Saban: 6
Urban Meyer: 3
Bear Bryant: 3
Tom Osborne: 3
Barry Switzer: 3
Dabo Swinney: 2
Joe Paterno: 2
Bobby Bowden: 2
Dennis Erickson: 2
Pete Carroll: "2*"
Steve Spurrier: 1
Vince Dooley: 1
Les Miles: 1
Mack Brown: 1
Bob Stoops: 1
Bobby Ross: 1
Jim Tressel: 1
Phillip Fulmer: 1
Jimmy Johnson: 1
Lloyd Carr: 1
Lou Holtz: 1
Gene Stallings: 1
Jimbo Fisher: 1
A lot of great coaches on that list who made it to the mountaintop once but never got back.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [23994]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 10556
Joined: 2017
|
Nice copy and paste
May 16, 2019, 12:27 PM
|
|
from whoever posted this a few months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
Definitely more plausible that I would dig up someone
May 16, 2019, 12:38 PM
|
|
else's post from "a few months ago" and copy it than have the same independent thought on a slow day in the offseason...
I appreciate the Post Police chiming in though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 11103
Joined: 2012
|
You must be knew hear
May 16, 2019, 12:40 PM
|
|
The modern era of college football started in 1981
HTHIA
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [146415]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 34862
Joined: 2010
|
^ Experts have confirmed this. ***
May 16, 2019, 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 26231
Joined: 2011
|
And imbeciles have disagreed with it.***
May 16, 2019, 9:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1006]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 12:44 PM
|
|
An Ohio State University. I like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16315]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Nice work Ace, but........
May 16, 2019, 1:00 PM
|
|
I think 73 is a bit early to call the modern era here in 2019. 73 was 46 years ago. That's pretty far back to call 'the modern era' of anything including college football. If you divided all of football up into 46 year era's then 72 was in the same era as 1926. It just seems too long.
I also think that perhaps a better way to think about the integration of black athletes into college sports. The game has certainly been significantly better since the black athletes started to play at previously largely white schools. Certainly the game in the south changed entirely whan black athletes were fully integrated into southern white college athletes.
While the first black football players for both Alabama and Clemson started to play in 1971, I do not think black players were common across the south at previously all white schools until late in the 70s.
It's an arbitrary pick, but I go with 1980 right now as the start of the modern era. This doesn't impact your results much at all, it's just a discussion point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
1980's not a bad year to start but I picked '73 because it
May 16, 2019, 1:34 PM
|
|
was the first time the NCAA started trying to force parity into college football.
You could certainly argue the beginning of the BCS or even 2014--the first CFB Playoff--as the start of the modern game in which case we're tied as the winningest program of the era!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41702]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43380
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23157]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
I chose 1975, but of course that's arbitrary. My reasoning:
May 17, 2019, 8:58 AM
[ in reply to Nice work Ace, but........ ] |
|
A lot of things happened in the early 70's that created more parity, leveled the playing field, and normalized the naming of a nat'l champ. 1975 was the first year the UPI Coaches Poll waited until after bowl season to release their final poll. As crazy as that seems, prior to 1975 the UPI could name a national champ and then see them lose their bowl game. Scholarship limits were first established in 1973, which prevented elite teams with unlimited funding from just stockpiling all the talent. In 1972 the ACC finally dropped the 800 SAT Score eligibility requirement... other schools had lower requirements and signed kids we couldn’t. And full integration had kicked in by the mid 70's in the deep south... kickstarted by that game in 1970 in which Sou Cal smoked Bama's nuts with an all-black backfield.
https://www.tigernet.com/forum/thread/*UPDATED*--where-Clemson-stacks-up-in-the-CFB-modern-era-1877247
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [444]
TigerPulse: 90%
17
|
Shouldn't Danny Ford be on the list of coaches who have won
May 16, 2019, 1:08 PM
|
|
a National tile in the modern era? I mean this is a Clemson site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
Left him off because everyone should know that!***
May 16, 2019, 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 2:17 PM
|
|
The "modern era" to me was when Bill Snyder took over KSU and before that Bowden at FSU. I always used "modern" by the longest tenured coach at their current school. I guess Iowa's Ferentz and 1999 is the new standard. If the year does not have at least one coach one current school, then it isn't "modern".
National Titles Since 1999:
Alabama: 5 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017)
Clemson: 2 (2016, 2018)
A 31-0hio State University: 2 (2002, 2014)
FSU: 2 (1999, 2013)
Florida: 2 (2006, 2008)
LSU: 2 (2003, 2007)
Auburn: 1 (2010)
Texas: 1 (2005)
Miami: 1( 2001)
Oklahoma: 1 (2000)
USC (both): 0*
You also have to be active to be a "modern" coach.
"Modern Coaches" with National Titles:
Nick Saban: 6
Dabo Swinney: 2
Les Miles: 1
Mack Brown: 1
Jimbo Fisher: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [426]
TigerPulse: 93%
17
|
Re: Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 6:41 PM
|
|
You all do know that before the playoff era it was determined by votes, so in the revisionist history, Bama will claim it for this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [450]
TigerPulse: 98%
18
|
Re: Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 6:47 PM
|
|
Good work.. thnx
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [796]
TigerPulse: 86%
22
|
“Modern” vs. “Relevant”
May 16, 2019, 9:31 PM
|
|
It’s worth discussing the difference.
Looks like only 11 of the teams on this list have won a national championship in the last 20 years ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [515]
TigerPulse: 86%
19
|
Re: Clemson National Titles in "Modern Era"--Where do we stack
May 16, 2019, 10:03 PM
|
|
I would consider the modern era to be a little further back than '73, perhaps as far back as the mid 60's when more games started to be televised. Prior to our most recent championships I considered us to be a top 20-25 all-time type program. With our recent championships I would now put us as a solid top 15 all-time program. The only thing we're lacking to be higher than that is a Heisman trophy winner. That could soon change with TL in the next couple years. If we get that, I would move us up a couple spots, perhaps in the top 12. If we get a Heisman and add a 4th championship I would put us in the top 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16790]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 13322
Joined: 1998
|
Hey Dilbert...where's Danny Ford...you the Anti-Clemson-Conf
May 16, 2019, 10:18 PM
|
|
...or somethin'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23157]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
So that's the post I was accused of plagiarizing!
May 17, 2019, 9:20 AM
|
|
Your methodology is a little more thorough, and presentation better--nice work!
I think somewhere in the mid-70s is a good place to set modern college football.
It definitely irks me that teams like Michigan get so much mileage out of things they did almost exclusively before 1950. But by that logic, teams like Army, Pitt, Minnesota, and Illinois should be still revered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14935]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 12319
Joined: 2006
|
Also, in your metric, I'd give 2003 LSU 1 whole Title and
May 17, 2019, 9:23 AM
[ in reply to I picked 1975, but that's just splitting hairs... and I only ] |
|
USC a half. I know the math doesn't add up but LSU winning the BCS was a legit title whereas USC's is a technicality. Doesn't seem fair to punish LSU for winning it on the field just because of the AP voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23157]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
I get that, it's a valid point. It just bugs me that Sou Cal got
May 17, 2019, 12:29 PM
|
|
screwed by the 7 computer rankings that made up the BCS formula. They were 12-1 just like LSU & Okla. Only loss was in 3 OT's, and they beat a bunch of ranked teams... Notre Dame, Auburn, Wash St, Michigan, etc. And didn't just beat em... freaking crushed em. Their "resume" was as good as anybody's and they were actually ranked #1 in both final human polls. It was only when the "computer rankings" were tallied up that they came in 3rd and left out of the title game.
And having spent a lifetime in the software industry, I am very skeptical of "computer rankings"... they're only as good as the algorithms that are programmed in. I've seen a lot of chitty code in my time. I trust the "human eye test" of experienced football observers a lot more than some pencil-necked geek programmer with coke bottle glasses. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 26
|
|
|
50
