In partnership with CBSSports.com
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Do you think it's possible for schools to build it anymore?
There seem to be some schools (Alabama, Nebraska, ND), who many seem to consider "traditional powerhouses," whether or not they're doing well in the current year. Some schools live off of success that they had and reputation that they built decades ago.
Is it possible (or likely) for schools who don't have that "traditional powerhouse" reputation to build it these days?
I do. You can see it with Wisky, Oregon and even BSU. It takes time... 10-20 years, IMO. And you can't have down periods during that time of more than a few seasons.
Boise State is one I was thinking of. So do you think they'd still be seen as a power if Petersen went elsewhere?
I agree, time is obviously the key ingredient. You need generations and schools of alumni/fans who "grew up" watching/cheering for a school. Clearly some schools have tradition on their side going back to the 30s - 70s. But look at schools like FSU and Florida--their best tradition-building years were in the 90s. But that's now more than 20 years ago, so you have a whole generation of 20-somethings who, to them, UF and FSU have ALWAYS been good. That type of tradition and winning football sustained over that period of time helps to build tradition that doesn't go as far back as ND, UM, OSU, NEB, Bama, USC, PSU, etc. etc.
It depends... if they continue to win, I think so... but they may need to get into the PAC-12 to be fully validated.
The interesting thing about BSU is that they were a power back in their D1-AA days. So they do have a history of winning unlike Oregon or Wisky (pre 90's).
Have to look and see who has been consistent in years past.
For example, who was Miamis before 1980s? I wouldnt consider them a traditional power, but some would (at least before the disaster theyve been on the field for awhile).
The traditional powers for the most part have been the most consistent teams over a long period of time. Also, many of the traditional powers have been the instruments for massive changes for college football over the years, some good, some bad. Not sure who can make that impact anymore.
Will Oregon be looked at as a "traditional power" in 30 years? Who knows, they obviously do not have the "traditional power" traits such as uniforms, but can they build that tradition on the field and the atmosphere? Can they be consistent? What happens when they lose Kelly?
It also seems a lot of traditional powers sit in prime recruiting territories, with some outliers such as Nebraska.
It seems like the beds have been made and already being slept in. If you look at non-traditional powers rise, there usually are a few reasons for that:
1. They are cheating (UNC -- though they were still mediocre, but still a big step up. Supposedly Oregon and without a doubt Miami over the past 30 years). This is not sustainable in the long-run to build a traditional power, IMO. However, I do believe a lot of the traditional powers got to where they were by bending the rules. I just think its much tougher to do nowadays.
2. They have an outstanding head coach (Boise St). Coaches at non-traditional powers usually can get better pay by going to a traditional power (among many other reasons why they would want to jump to a traditional power than building a program consistently over many years like Paterno).
3. Down years in conference or across the country. I think Wisky and MSU have benefitted from this recently, and the BT as a whole benefited from Paterno staying too long.
4. They are just that good.
Lets look at Wisky. Will we see them as a traditional power in 30 years? Its tough to say, but can they be consistent? Will they win conference championships if PSU/OSU/Mich make a resurgence? Can they actually win a NC?
Lets not forget how important winning MNC is to becoming a traditional power. The past 10 years, all that have won are considered traditional powers. Also take into account conference titles, all americans, etc...
I dunno, tough question. I think their is a lot more parody in CFB now, but for the most part it is still traditional powers at the top.
"Whoever’s trying to kill me isn’t getting the job done. But one day, I’m going to punch that f___r in the face."
Even though you probably meant parity, this word also works and might be more appropriate.
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
Hate to say it but Wisky is doing a really nice job the past couple decades in distancing themselves from the 2nd tier B1G teams. IMO, they are closing the gap on OSU/UM/PSU/Nebraska. I think Wisky is easily the best of the next tier and is on the cusp (another 5 seasons ) of being in that top group. JMO
I don't think MNC is as necessary as consistent BCS birth and going forward, conference champs.
To me the "powerhouses" are currently based on number of wins historically... so the last decade really hurts us. You don't need to get in the overall top ten for consideration as that will be tough for newer programs. I think a 50 year look back window could be appropriate.
Great topic. I think there are actually two different issues here. First is the focus of the OP's question - can schools build a WINNING tradition and place themselves into the category of "traditional power". I think that's a definite yes - Oregon and Boise State are two schools that everyone has referenced that come to mind. Sustained success over a long enough period of time (10-20 years?) will allow any school to be considered "elite" and a "traditional powerhouse".
More interesting to me is whether a new school could now build real depth of tradition and meaningful cultural ties like those at schools like Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Texas, PSU, etc. What I mean by this is that while schools may become "elite" by winning, it's MUCH harder to build up a set of cultural touchpoints, shared memories and traditions, etc that become folklore and build that air of mystique and legend around a program. FSU is a great example of this. When I attended inn the early 90's there wasn't a tremendous tradition. Bobby had been successful in the 80's, and there was pride around the upset road wins against big traditional powers, the "punt-rooskie", things like that, but there wasn't that tremendous depth of feeling, that "family" atmosphere that exists elsewhere. FSU only began playing football in 1948. Burt Reynolds was by far the most recognizable FSU player at that time, and not because of his athletic achievements. Fast forward twenty years - FSU had an amazing run off success, won a couple of national championships, and placed itself firmly in the "elite" class of college football programs, but still doesn't have that legend and mystique. Chief Osceola and Renegade, the "Chop" etc have become somewhat iconic, but there's no sense of deep tradition even still.
When you think about what made up those traditions and contributed to the "mystique", I seriously doubt you will see the same kinds of culture develop in other places. The "Champions of the West", "Hail to the Victors", Knute Rockne, the Four Horsemen, the Galloping Ghost - these are the kinds of icons that built the mystique, and they came out of a time of black and white photos, eloquent sportswriters, and limited entertainment options. Even PSU and Alabama built lore later on larger-than-life personas like Bryant and Paterno that belonged to a different age. I just don't see the same kind of culture of tradition being built anywhere else, even after a hundred years of sustained success - we don't really do legend-building very well any more, sadly, and there's very little mystique in the modern world. Thoughts?
another key ingredient to being a traditional powerhouse is having a rival, i feel.. now with teams switching conferences every year all that is going away.. nebraska, psu, a&m are a few schools who no longer play their rivals and takes a little bit of the fun out of it for the fans, IMO..
People are naming Wisconsin, Boise State, and Oregon as examples. I guess that's fine, but to me, a traditional powerhouse truly stands the test of time. That is, if their current success fades a bit, will they still come to mind as a really good program, or will they fade? I'm not sure any of those schools are at the point yet where we can say for sure they've reached that top tier and are there to stay permanently.
Heck, those teams haven't even won MNC's yet. Look at Alabama - it took 13 years after Bryant to get a MNC, then another 17 years after Stallings. 10+ years from now, if Wisconsin has some Mike DuBose type of years, would they still be considered a "traditional powerhouse"?
IMO, "tradition" is relative and the teams have have winning traditions dating back 100 years will always have an advantage of being a "traditional power", even if they are in a slump. I think benefits those teams in that they can ride multi-year slumps and still maintain the moniker of being a traditional power. Teams with less history don't have that luxury. They need to create it by consistently winning over a long stretch. The problem for those teams is that doing that is increasingly more difficult for any team AND they must do it against the exsiting "traditional powers".
In short, I think it can be done but it's a real struggle and even with success, they likely won't be on the same level of tradition as teams that earned it over the past 100 years.
Agreed. Tradition has to be built on the successes of multiple regimes/coaches. Florida State had nothing before Bowden and haven't accomplished much since he left (as of yet). Boise had some good coaches before Petersen in Koetter and Hawkins but neither made Boise a national "power".
Do you think Boise could ever be thought of consistently as a power? If so, what would it take?
10-20 of good-great football against a legit schedule.
Unfortunately a big part, that I didn't see in this thread (though i admittedly skimmed), is your fan and alumni base. Boise will always lack there big time. Its in Idaho.
I think we're on the same wavelength with this.
But playing devil's advocate here...PSU is/was considered a traditional power, but we spent many years as an independent with a supposed easy schedule. Do you think the schedule really matters that much or do you think there's more "analysis" of schedules now than there was back in the 80's and 90's?
Agree on fan/alumni base.
Well I would say we didn't play as much. But we also played one or two guys a year then that were big names. Boise does that to an extent, but it is like VaTech or MSU or Oregon. Those names aren't like Pitt (then), ND, and the like. But I think a lot has to do with how teams and schedules are looked at now. Then there were more conferences and Indies, not there is a few big conferences and Boise is in the WAC/BigLeast.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports