(06-13-2014 11:50 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Miami, USC, Florida, Texas and I'll throw in Clemson (They should have done better and have the Orange Bowl beat down to live down). I'm sure there are more deserving but those are off the top of my head.

Not sure if serious.

Other than 2010 when we went 6-7 we've won 10, 11, and 11 games. The last two years the only losses we have are against teams that finished that season in the Top 10.

If that's underachieving then sign me up.

(06-13-2014 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:50 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Miami, USC, Florida, Texas and I'll throw in Clemson (They should have done better and have the Orange Bowl beat down to live down). I'm sure there are more deserving but those are off the top of my head.

Not sure if serious.

Other than 2010 when we went 6-7 we've won 10, 11, and 11 games. The last two years the only losses we have are against teams that finished that season in the Top 10.

If that's underachieving then sign me up.

I think a lot of people outside of the SE only big exposure to Clemson the past few years was the WVU debacle and the FSU game last season.

I agree that Clemson has not underperformed but they got absolutely demolished in their two biggest games.

Yet a lot of people overlook that LSU game for whatever reason. That was a huge W for Clemson in my opinion.

(06-13-2014 11:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  Which P5 schools do you think have underachieved on the field over the past four seasons? And by underachieved I don't just mean the ones with the worst record. I mean teams that should have done better given the talent they had available to them.

Let's rank them 1-5. Your rationale would be nice, too.

UNC - the talent has been there as the NFL draft has shown

LSU - as much talent as anywhere in the country

Texas - absolutely no reason they should have had the struggles they have had

LSU played for a NC.

(06-13-2014 12:21 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Pitt -- they should have been a lot better at the end of the Wannstedt years
[/b]WVU[b]
South Florida (AQ conference)
Michigan -- but RichRod just wasn't the right match there.

WTF? One bad year and all of a sudden we are a top 5 underachieving program in your eyes? We won a BCS bowl 3 seasons ago. It's not like we have a history of churning out top 10 recruiting classes and just crapping up our backs. As a matter of fact I would argue we are overachievers. Our entire state is lucky to produce one FBS prospect a year but somehow we are top 15 in all time football wins.

If we are a top 5 underachieving program then wtf does that make Rutgers?

Michigan, Pitt, Tennessee, Texas and Georgia

(06-13-2014 01:23 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 12:21 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Pitt -- they should have been a lot better at the end of the Wannstedt years
[/b]WVU[b]
South Florida (AQ conference)
Michigan -- but RichRod just wasn't the right match there.

WTF? One bad year and all of a sudden we are a top 5 underachieving program in your eyes? We won a BCS bowl 3 seasons ago. It's not like we have a history of churning out top 10 recruiting classes and just crapping up our backs. As a matter of fact I would argue we are overachievers. Our entire state is lucky to produce one FBS prospect a year but somehow we are top 15 in all time football wins.

If we are a top 5 underachieving program then wtf does that make Rutgers?

I agree. WVU does very well with how little in state talent they have. I guess they get a lot of the Western PA/Ohio talent, but it's still impressive for the most part in my opinion.

I'm not sure why USC would be on anyone's list. They've been hampered by sanctions the past few years. Why they were pre season #1 in 2012 I'll never know.

Tennessee, Colorado, Cal, Unc, Nc st, Washington, Miami, Michigan, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Uva, Vt imo. In some cases it's not that they were bad, I just think they could've been better. Take VT for example. They've been pretty good the past few years, but with their support, recruits, coaches, etc., I think they could've been better. Im no expert on the hokies but a different qb could've made all the difference between top 30 and top 10. Most of the schools I mentioned have strong support, money, facilities, coaches and recruiting(some may lack a category). I don't think it's fair to say schools like Wazzu or WF belong here, b/c they may lack in two or more categories. Those without the competitive resources should be expected to struggle.

Edit: I may be a llittle unfair to the pack here, but I know their fans expect more out of their program than what they've been seeing. Trying to be as unbiased as possible.

(06-13-2014 01:23 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 12:21 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Pitt -- they should have been a lot better at the end of the Wannstedt years
[/b]WVU[b]
South Florida (AQ conference)
Michigan -- but RichRod just wasn't the right match there.

WTF? One bad year and all of a sudden we are a top 5 underachieving program in your eyes? We won a BCS bowl 3 seasons ago. It's not like we have a history of churning out top 10 recruiting classes and just crapping up our backs. As a matter of fact I would argue we are overachievers. Our entire state is lucky to produce one FBS prospect a year but somehow we are top 15 in all time football wins.

If we are a top 5 underachieving program then wtf does that make Rutgers?

The WVU fanbase was disappointed with the Bill Stewart years on the whole, yes you had the BCS game/wins against Clemson but the move to the Big 12 hasn't been great.

This is JMO but WVU should have won the Big East each year.

As far as Rutgers goes, the only person in the country who would think that Rutgers underachieved is the delusional Rivals poster RutgersAl since he thinks we're winning a NC every year.

I couldn't agree more with those who thought Virginia was underperforming. That state is stacked in the east and south, and the Belt and northward has been there for them to pluck whatever Maryland couldn't quite grasp. And it's Virginia...it's such a fine school, this should be easier for them. Definite #1 for me.

#2 is Cal. It's harder to recruit with a Stanford that knows its place and when USC and UCLA are both competitive, but...it's Cal. I know the pickings are slim in other western states, but Cal shouldn't be this bad.

#3: Illinois. Maybe not a perpetual powerhouse in the Big Ten, but it's a school with some flare for greatness from time to time, and it's in a good location to pull from any number of directions.

#4 is UMFL. I think they had to cut the bad culture that put them on the map in the 80's, as the ACC went right by them for FSU when it did decide to expand (despite their AD chasing them out to AZ, iirc, for their meetings). They've kind of been a dud ever since. Their recruiting footprint grew when they joined the ACC, and now it's expanded even more. They should be making the ACC more interesting, and they aren't.

#5: a tie between Kansas and Iowa. Kansas I feel...their location and conference affiliation should be bringing more kids into the program. I know they've been the historic punching bag for Nebraska and Colorado all those years, and they're a basketball school...still, it's confusing. Iowa...some of the smartest playing in FBS when they click on all cylinders...when they click on all cylinders...

Honorable mention:

1) (tie) Arkansas and Ole Miss: I know the surroundings are what they are, but I'd love to see one of those schools be more of a wildcard like TAMU already is.

3) South Carolina: What if Steve Spurrier will be the best thing that ever happened for that program?

4) Penn State (especially the late JoePa years): He should have been fired after the 2003 or '04 season, even if the '05 team might have been one of his best. But, even then, Joe just could almost NEVER get an easy one on Lloyd Carr. And Iowa seemed to find their way under his skin, too. By the time he's gone, and new coaches come in to make it interesting, they're an irrelevant club. People legitimately thought PSU was going to do in the Big Ten what FSU was/would do in the ACC during the 90's. Well, FSU did their part. PSU? Choke. They contribute to the pro rosters...they should have visited Pasadena more often, I think.

5) Arizona. Even in a spliced conference, they sit in the middle or bottom. And I don't know why...

South Carolina not recently but 1967 is the last conference championship.

(06-13-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In terms of resources and failing to capitalize...

Texas
Iowa
USC
Miami
Colorado

Texas- All the money in the world and not much to show for it.
Iowa- Coach gets paid a fortune and they still are only average.
USC- Money can't buy wins, but it can buy out a coach.
Miami- Miami can buy things, especially for players but it's not a good strategy.
Colorado- Has it all just waiting to be put together. Poor John E..

sorry but colorado does not have the resources. their recruiting is literally one step ahead of MWC levels and 5 steps behind pac levels.

i blame the majority of it on our facilities being legitimately out of date.

we have a bubble for a practice facility, a basketball stadium that is about 35 years out of date, and no basketball practice facility which causes headaches for practice times for multiple teams.

we don't have player dorms, the football players live in the same dorms that everyone else uses.

as for our stadium, they just upgraded the video monitors, but in terms of concession, atmosphere it is well below standards. one side looks really nice, but the rest of the stadium is super ******.

colorado just started $100 mill in athletic upgrades, but those upgrades are only meant to get us to where we should already be, not something that will make us noticeable.

colorado should not be on your list because they do not have the amount of resources that you are giving them credit for.

i love bashing CU and their incompetence, and when there is a problem i would love to highlight it for all of yall. but this is not one of them.

4 years is such a short period of time. A more interesting discussion would be all time underachievers

All these have had some recent success, but have a long history of underachieving,

Kansas state, Baylor, Northwestern,
Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Iowa State, Indiana

Then there are programs you just expect to be better given their location and resources.

Illinois, North Carolina, Cal

Reading this board, has taught me a few underachieving schools that I wouldn't have thought about.

Cal - as previously mentioned
UVA - as previously mentioned
Texas - as previously mentioned
UNC - as previously mentioned
UMD - Their only in-state competition is Navy in a state that produces a good amount of FBS prospects every year and they're the most media covered in D.C. They should be decent to very good every year.

Ones I don't agree with :
Clemson - as previously mentioned by Kaplony
USC-E - This has been their best 4 year period in over 125 years of football, how is that underachieving
LSU - Played for a NC in the last 4 years
Penn State - I believe is way over achieving considering the sanctions against the program.
USC - They were on probation too.
Ole Miss - I wouldn't expect them to be good although they've had some good recruiting classes.
Arizona - I wouldn't expect them to be good either.
WVU - They do very well for their in state recruiting limitations.
Michigan - Won 11 games 3 years ago
Florida - won 11 games 2 years ago
Nebraska - Have won 10 9 10 9 games the last 4 years. That's not underachieving for any one.

(06-13-2014 04:29 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Reading this board, has taught me a few underachieving schools that I wouldn't have thought about.

Cal - as previously mentioned
UVA - as previously mentioned
Texas - as previously mentioned
UNC - as previously mentioned
UMD - Their only in-state competition is Navy in a state that produces a good amount of FBS prospects every year and they're the most media covered in D.C. They should be decent to very good every year.

Ones I don't agree with :
Clemson - as previously mentioned by Kaplony
USC-E - This has been their best 4 year period in over 125 years of football, how is that underachieving
LSU - Played for a NC in the last 4 years
Penn State - I believe is way over achieving considering the sanctions against the program.
USC - They were on probation too.
Ole Miss - I wouldn't expect them to be good although they've had some good recruiting classes.
Arizona - I wouldn't expect them to be good either.
WVU - They do very well for their in state recruiting limitations.
Michigan - Won 11 games 3 years ago
Florida - won 11 games 2 years ago
Nebraska - Have won 10 9 10 9 games the last 4 years. That's not underachieving for any one.

But in the other three seasons, they were only a combined 19-19. For a team that is a perennial top ten in both recruiting and in NFL draftees (only five schools put more in the NFL) it's hard to say they didn't under achieve.

(06-13-2014 06:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 04:29 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Reading this board, has taught me a few underachieving schools that I wouldn't have thought about.

Cal - as previously mentioned
UVA - as previously mentioned
Texas - as previously mentioned
UNC - as previously mentioned
UMD - Their only in-state competition is Navy in a state that produces a good amount of FBS prospects every year and they're the most media covered in D.C. They should be decent to very good every year.

Ones I don't agree with :
Clemson - as previously mentioned by Kaplony
USC-E - This has been their best 4 year period in over 125 years of football, how is that underachieving
LSU - Played for a NC in the last 4 years
Penn State - I believe is way over achieving considering the sanctions against the program.
USC - They were on probation too.
Ole Miss - I wouldn't expect them to be good although they've had some good recruiting classes.
Arizona - I wouldn't expect them to be good either.
WVU - They do very well for their in state recruiting limitations.
Michigan - Won 11 games 3 years ago
Florida - won 11 games 2 years ago
Nebraska - Have won 10 9 10 9 games the last 4 years. That's not underachieving for any one.

But in the other three seasons, they were only a combined 19-19. For a team that is a perennial top ten in both recruiting and in NFL draftees (only five schools put more in the NFL) it's hard to say they didn't under achieve.

Georgia Southern beat them. One of the biggest programs in the SEC should not be losing to the So Con.

(06-13-2014 06:47 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:43 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 04:29 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Reading this board, has taught me a few underachieving schools that I wouldn't have thought about.

Cal - as previously mentioned
UVA - as previously mentioned
Texas - as previously mentioned
UNC - as previously mentioned
UMD - Their only in-state competition is Navy in a state that produces a good amount of FBS prospects every year and they're the most media covered in D.C. They should be decent to very good every year.

Ones I don't agree with :
Clemson - as previously mentioned by Kaplony
USC-E - This has been their best 4 year period in over 125 years of football, how is that underachieving
LSU - Played for a NC in the last 4 years
Penn State - I believe is way over achieving considering the sanctions against the program.
USC - They were on probation too.
Ole Miss - I wouldn't expect them to be good although they've had some good recruiting classes.
Arizona - I wouldn't expect them to be good either.
WVU - They do very well for their in state recruiting limitations.
Michigan - Won 11 games 3 years ago
Florida - won 11 games 2 years ago
Nebraska - Have won 10 9 10 9 games the last 4 years. That's not underachieving for any one.

But in the other three seasons, they were only a combined 19-19. For a team that is a perennial top ten in both recruiting and in NFL draftees (only five schools put more in the NFL) it's hard to say they didn't under achieve.

Georgia Southern beat them. One of the biggest programs in the SEC should not be losing to the So Con.

Yes and I am sure that loss stings but it was just one more in a bad season for Florida. Frankly Florida was not the only P5 team to take Georgia Southern lightly over the years but they were the first not to be able to pull it out in the 4th.


As to the OP my top five under achievers would be:
1. Georgia
2. Kentucky
3. Virginia
4. Pitt
5. Maryland

No one has mentioned Notre Dame? The exclusive NBC television contract football school and all-around national media darlings? They would be #1 on my list based on recent history, brand recognition, recruiting strength and students/alumni/fans expectations that include bowl wins and national championships....Lost 9 straight bowls from 1994-2006 and 11 out of their last 14 bowls including getting smoked by Bama in the 2012 BCS Championship. Last national championship 1988.