(10-05-2020 06:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 05:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 11:56 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 11:09 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I understand what you are saying, I don’t think USC has the gravitas nationally that an Ohio State, Texas or Michigan do anymore. We’ll see, but I think it is unlikely the Trojans go undefeated anyway.

If USC does not have "the gravitas nationally," how does Texas and Michigan have it? USC has struggled, but there is still a lot of talent there.

Yes, that makes no sense. If USC isn't a bona-fide football blue-blood than nobody is.

Like any blue-blood, they are just one good coaching hire away from being back on top again.

A blue-blood does not average under 60,000 fans a game. Even in an off year. USC has done it two years in a row.

Attendance, 2019:
Michigan, 111,459
Texas: 96,306
USC: 59,358

Attendance, 2018:
Michigan: 110,737
Texas: 97,713
USC: 55,449

Their 5 year average is over 66,000. More importantly USC claims 11 national championships (T-2) and is top 10 in wins, win percentage, conference championships, all-americans, bowl appearances, players drafted, Heisman winners, and weeks ranked. They are absolutely on the shortest of short lists of elite programs.

Miami has 5 national titles since 1980. Are they blue-blood?

Of course not.

Why not? Because they when they stopped winning, their fanbase disappeared.


USC is going through the same thing now that Minnesota did in the 60s (6 titles 1934-1960) and Pitt did in the 80s (9 titles 1910-1976).

USC had 23 players on NFL rosters to start the 2020 season. 4th in the PAC, 22nd in CFB. Well below Miami (30) and just barely ahead of Mississippi State (21) and Temple (20).

USC's athletic revenues in 2018 were 116.9 million. 5th in the PAC, 30th in CFB.

USC just took 16,000 seats out of their stadium. Similar to has-been programs like Illinois and Minnesota. Schools like Alabama and Michigan have added 5,000-10,000 seats in their recent expansions. Texas A&M added 20,000.

USC's 2019 recruiting class was 4th in the PAC according to 247. The 2020 class was 12th in the PAC, 64th in the country. 2020 was a small class, but even if you rank by averages it was 5th in the PAC-12. That means they had low numbers because they couldn't get the quality.

USC's decline is not inevitable or irreversible. They had a down patch in the 90s too. But the trend is really bad, and it's across the board.

(10-06-2020 03:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 06:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 05:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 11:56 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  If USC does not have "the gravitas nationally," how does Texas and Michigan have it? USC has struggled, but there is still a lot of talent there.

Yes, that makes no sense. If USC isn't a bona-fide football blue-blood than nobody is.

Like any blue-blood, they are just one good coaching hire away from being back on top again.

A blue-blood does not average under 60,000 fans a game. Even in an off year. USC has done it two years in a row.

Attendance, 2019:
Michigan, 111,459
Texas: 96,306
USC: 59,358

Attendance, 2018:
Michigan: 110,737
Texas: 97,713
USC: 55,449

Their 5 year average is over 66,000. More importantly USC claims 11 national championships (T-2) and is top 10 in wins, win percentage, conference championships, all-americans, bowl appearances, players drafted, Heisman winners, and weeks ranked. They are absolutely on the shortest of short lists of elite programs.

Miami has 5 national titles since 1980. Are they blue-blood?

Of course not.

Why not? Because they when they stopped winning, their fanbase disappeared.


USC is going through the same thing now that Minnesota did in the 60s (6 titles 1934-1960) and Pitt did in the 80s (9 titles 1910-1976).

USC had 23 players on NFL rosters to start the 2020 season. 4th in the PAC, 22nd in CFB. Well below Miami (30) and just barely ahead of Mississippi State (21) and Temple (20).

USC's athletic revenues in 2018 were 116.9 million. 5th in the PAC, 30th in CFB.

USC just took 16,000 seats out of their stadium. Similar to has-been programs like Illinois and Minnesota. Schools like Alabama and Michigan have added 5,000-10,000 seats in their recent expansions. Texas A&M added 20,000.

USC's 2019 recruiting class was 4th in the PAC according to 247. The 2020 class was 12th in the PAC, 64th in the country. 2020 was a small class, but even if you rank by averages it was 5th in the PAC-12. That means they had low numbers because they couldn't get the quality.

USC's decline is not inevitable or irreversible. They had a down patch in the 90s too. But the trend is really bad, and it's across the board.

Their current recruiting class is #8 in the nation. Their 2018 and 2017 class were #4 in the nation.

Miami isn't a blue blood because they had almost zero history before 1980. USC is college football royalty. They were winning natty's before Miami was even fielding a team. Even with their decline and the Pac's lackluster TV deal they are still valued as the #19 most profitable college football program.

Under Carroll (which really wasn't all that long ago) they finished in the top 5 seven consecutive seasons, went 6-1 in major bowls, and won two titles. Thats more recent success than like 90% of the country. Carroll's departure majorly hurt that program. Not only because they had to replace a top 5 all time HC, but because they were getting slapped heavy with violations. They've been mediocre by their own standard as of late but they still been ranked 5 of the last 10 seasons, with two top 10 rankings. They're still just a good hire away from being right back to a thorn in everyone's side.

College football royalty: Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, UT

They aren't usually worthy even in a regular or normal season... even less so in this strange one.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-06-2020 04:24 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 03:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 06:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 05:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, that makes no sense. If USC isn't a bona-fide football blue-blood than nobody is.

Like any blue-blood, they are just one good coaching hire away from being back on top again.

A blue-blood does not average under 60,000 fans a game. Even in an off year. USC has done it two years in a row.

Attendance, 2019:
Michigan, 111,459
Texas: 96,306
USC: 59,358

Attendance, 2018:
Michigan: 110,737
Texas: 97,713
USC: 55,449

Their 5 year average is over 66,000. More importantly USC claims 11 national championships (T-2) and is top 10 in wins, win percentage, conference championships, all-americans, bowl appearances, players drafted, Heisman winners, and weeks ranked. They are absolutely on the shortest of short lists of elite programs.

Miami has 5 national titles since 1980. Are they blue-blood?

Of course not.

Why not? Because they when they stopped winning, their fanbase disappeared.


USC is going through the same thing now that Minnesota did in the 60s (6 titles 1934-1960) and Pitt did in the 80s (9 titles 1910-1976).

USC had 23 players on NFL rosters to start the 2020 season. 4th in the PAC, 22nd in CFB. Well below Miami (30) and just barely ahead of Mississippi State (21) and Temple (20).

USC's athletic revenues in 2018 were 116.9 million. 5th in the PAC, 30th in CFB.

USC just took 16,000 seats out of their stadium. Similar to has-been programs like Illinois and Minnesota. Schools like Alabama and Michigan have added 5,000-10,000 seats in their recent expansions. Texas A&M added 20,000.

USC's 2019 recruiting class was 4th in the PAC according to 247. The 2020 class was 12th in the PAC, 64th in the country. 2020 was a small class, but even if you rank by averages it was 5th in the PAC-12. That means they had low numbers because they couldn't get the quality.

USC's decline is not inevitable or irreversible. They had a down patch in the 90s too. But the trend is really bad, and it's across the board.

Their current recruiting class is #8 in the nation. Their 2018 and 2017 class were #4 in the nation.

Miami isn't a blue blood because they had almost zero history before 1980. USC is college football royalty. They were winning natty's before Miami was even fielding a team. Even with their decline and the Pac's lackluster TV deal they are still valued as the #19 most profitable college football program.

Under Carroll (which really wasn't all that long ago) they finished in the top 5 seven consecutive seasons, went 6-1 in major bowls, and won two titles. Thats more recent success than like 90% of the country. Carroll's departure majorly hurt that program. Not only because they had to replace a top 5 all time HC, but because they were getting slapped heavy with violations. They've been mediocre by their own standard as of late but they still been ranked 5 of the last 10 seasons, with two top 10 rankings. They're still just a good hire away from being right back to a thorn in everyone's side.

College football royalty: Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, UT

10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But teams can demote themselves from "royalty." Pitt won 9 national titles from 1919 to 1976, and has a legitimate claim to the 1980 title. They were top-5 in NFL players produced in the 70s and 80s. Miami joined the Big East mostly because of Pitt. But in the 90s, Pitt declined. Nobody today considers Pitt a blue blood.

Right now, I'd put schools like LSU, Auburn, Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Florida ahead of USC on the "royalty" scale. Nebraska is at risk of falling off though.

Florida State & Clemson are similar in quality to those others, but they're nouveau riche. Oregon and Georgia could get there too if they win a national title. Texas A&M could quickly elevate itself; they have everything but the performance on the field.

(10-06-2020 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But teams can demote themselves from "royalty." Pitt won 9 national titles from 1919 to 1976, and has a legitimate claim to the 1980 title. They were top-5 in NFL players produced in the 70s and 80s. Miami joined the Big East mostly because of Pitt. But in the 90s, Pitt declined. Nobody today considers Pitt a blue blood.

Right now, I'd put schools like LSU, Auburn, Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Florida ahead of USC on the "royalty" scale. Nebraska is at risk of falling off though.

Florida State & Clemson are similar in quality to those others, but they're nouveau riche. Oregon and Georgia could get there too if they win a national title. Texas A&M could quickly elevate itself; they have everything but the performance on the field.

I agree but USC isn't there yet. I mean the titles they won under Carroll aren't that old. Nebraska and Penn St. haven't had near the recent success as USC and they didn't have near the ancient success either. Programs can absolutely rise and fall but when you have a body of work as good as USC you can afford to have a mediocre decade here and there. If they continue to suck for another twenty years then we can have this conversation.


Edit: Seriously what are you even talking about with Nebraska. They've been way worse since 2000 than USC has. USC was the top program in the country from about 2002-2009. Nebraska has one top 10 finish since 2000. Penn State has 6. Florida has 7. Auburn has 5. LSU has 9. Of that group LSU and Florida have two titles and Auburn has one. USC has 9 top ten finishes and two titles. I can respect you saying those programs have been on USC's level recently but when you factor in USC's deeper history they obviously stand in another tier.

Also Pitt is a another terrible comp. They are no longer considered a blue blood because they've had one ten win seasons since 1981 and only finished ranked a handful times. They have been performing at a mediocre clip for forty years. That isn't even remotely similar to USC's ten years of mediocrity in which they still finished ranked five times and had four 10 win seasons.

If we’re looking for schools that have fallen off the map look no further than the University of Tennessee.

They won the first BCS championship.

I would put Nebraska and Miami on the next tier.

It would take more mediocrity from USC to join those three. I just don’t see the fans and boosters allow it. Since Carroll left, they’ve made three questionable hires in Kiffin, Sarkasian and Helton. They might go after Urban Meyer if he’s still available.

Hell No

(10-06-2020 04:45 PM)forphase1 Wrote:  They aren't usually worthy even in a regular or normal season... even less so in this strange one.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Spot On

(10-06-2020 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But teams can demote themselves from "royalty." Pitt won 9 national titles from 1919 to 1976, and has a legitimate claim to the 1980 title. They were top-5 in NFL players produced in the 70s and 80s. Miami joined the Big East mostly because of Pitt. But in the 90s, Pitt declined. Nobody today considers Pitt a blue blood.

Right now, I'd put schools like LSU, Auburn, Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Florida ahead of USC on the "royalty" scale. Nebraska is at risk of falling off though.

Florida State & Clemson are similar in quality to those others, but they're nouveau riche. Oregon and Georgia could get there too if they win a national title. Texas A&M could quickly elevate itself; they have everything but the performance on the field.

Nebraska has not won a conference championship since 1999. Florida has not won a conference championship since 2008. USC last won a conference championship in 2017. They won seven consecutive conference championships from 2002 through 2008. Over the past decade (2010-2019), USC was 86-45 and Florida was 81-46.

I have a lot of great memories of Nebraska football and Florida has had some great teams. But USC is a blue blood and ahead of Nebraska on any scale. Nebraska may be a blue blood based on historical success, but then so is USC. Florida may or may not be a blue blood. But compared to USC, it is not really close.

As far as programs that have slipped, but could come back, I have a hard time seeing Nebraska coming back in the Big 10. I hope they do, but Nebraska has to go out of state for talent and they are up against schools like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. Florida and USC have plenty of home grown talent to pull from.

(10-06-2020 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But teams can demote themselves from "royalty." Pitt won 9 national titles from 1919 to 1976, and has a legitimate claim to the 1980 title. They were top-5 in NFL players produced in the 70s and 80s. Miami joined the Big East mostly because of Pitt. But in the 90s, Pitt declined. Nobody today but Pitt fans considers Pitt a blue blood.

FIFY

(10-06-2020 05:43 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 05:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

But teams can demote themselves from "royalty." Pitt won 9 national titles from 1919 to 1976, and has a legitimate claim to the 1980 title. They were top-5 in NFL players produced in the 70s and 80s. Miami joined the Big East mostly because of Pitt. But in the 90s, Pitt declined. Nobody today considers Pitt a blue blood.

Right now, I'd put schools like LSU, Auburn, Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Florida ahead of USC on the "royalty" scale. Nebraska is at risk of falling off though.

Florida State & Clemson are similar in quality to those others, but they're nouveau riche. Oregon and Georgia could get there too if they win a national title. Texas A&M could quickly elevate itself; they have everything but the performance on the field.

I agree but USC isn't there yet. I mean the titles they won under Carroll aren't that old. Nebraska and Penn St. haven't had near the recent success as USC and they didn't have near the ancient success either. Programs can absolutely rise and fall but when you have a body of work as good as USC you can afford to have a mediocre decade here and there. If they continue to suck for another twenty years then we can have this conversation.


Edit: Seriously what are you even talking about with Nebraska. They've been way worse since 2000 than USC has. USC was the top program in the country from about 2002-2009. Nebraska has one top 10 finish since 2000. Penn State has 6. Florida has 7. Auburn has 5. LSU has 9. Of that group LSU and Florida have two titles and Auburn has one. USC has 9 top ten finishes and two titles. I can respect you saying those programs have been on USC's level recently but when you factor in USC's deeper history they obviously stand in another tier.

Also Pitt is a another terrible comp. They are no longer considered a blue blood because they've had one ten win seasons since 1981 and only finished ranked a handful times. They have been performing at a mediocre clip for forty years. That isn't even remotely similar to USC's ten years of mediocrity in which they still finished ranked five times and had four 10 win seasons.

Good point about Nebraska.

I wasn't saying USC is like Pitt now. I'm saying that USC 2020 might be going through what Pitt did in the late 80s/early 90s.

In 1990, Pitt's most recent title was either 10 or 14 years old. Their most recent top 10 finish was 8 years old (1982). They finished ranked in 4 of the last 10 years.

USC's most recent title was 16 years ago. Their most recent top-10 was 4 years ago. They finished ranked in 5 of the last 10 years.

They both have similar issues with stadiums and lack of fan support.

There are five main differences, and all of them favor Pitt:
1) Pitt had more elite talent. Pitt had 1st round NFL draft picks every year from 1983-1989. USC only had 1st round draft picks in 4 of the last 8 years.
2) Pitt was putting more players in the NFL. Pitt had 29 players make NFL debuts from 1987-1990, and 16 of them still played in 1990. USC had has had 23 players make NFL debuts since 2017, and 11 of them are still playing in 2020.
3) Pitt had more high profile NFL players. 3 NFL Hall of Famers from Pitt were in the prime of their careers in 1990 (Dan Marino, Chris Doleman, Ricky Jackson). Tony Dorsett had just retired in 1988. USC's best 2020 NFL players are all linemen, and none of them are going to Canton. USC's best recent NFL player was Carson Palmer, and he retired 3 years ago without ever winning a playoff game. Troy Polamalu was great, but he's been retired for 6 years.
4) USC's last title was tainted and the school no longer claims it.
5) USC has decided to keep a mediocre football coach for a 6th year (whereas Pitt never kept a mediocre coach for the 5th year).

(10-08-2020 03:25 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I wasn't saying USC is like Pitt now. I'm saying that USC 2020 might be going through what Pitt did in the late 80s/early 90s.

Or... USC is going through what every program goes through when they lose an all time coach like Pete Carroll, a few mediocre hires. UT went through it after Royal and now brown. Va Tech is going through after Beamer. They are plenty of other examples but you can look those up. Its a perfectly normal thing for a school to need 3-4 hires to land another great coach. The only real difference between USC and those other historical examples is usually the great coach stays for 15+ years. Carroll because of the scandal left early but had he not USC would've probably won a few more nattys. As for the two titles getting stripped who cares. We all know they were the best team in that era. Taking away the title, just like taking away Bush's heisman does nothing. USC is still the brand and program on the west coast. You seem to have a low opinion of West Coast football, so maybe that doesn't mean that much to you, but California is still a top three producer of prospects. USC isn't going anywhere. They're the West Coast UT, with less money, but more hardware.

(10-06-2020 04:24 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 03:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 06:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 05:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 01:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, that makes no sense. If USC isn't a bona-fide football blue-blood than nobody is.

Like any blue-blood, they are just one good coaching hire away from being back on top again.

A blue-blood does not average under 60,000 fans a game. Even in an off year. USC has done it two years in a row.

Attendance, 2019:
Michigan, 111,459
Texas: 96,306
USC: 59,358

Attendance, 2018:
Michigan: 110,737
Texas: 97,713
USC: 55,449

Their 5 year average is over 66,000. More importantly USC claims 11 national championships (T-2) and is top 10 in wins, win percentage, conference championships, all-americans, bowl appearances, players drafted, Heisman winners, and weeks ranked. They are absolutely on the shortest of short lists of elite programs.

Miami has 5 national titles since 1980. Are they blue-blood?

Of course not.

Why not? Because they when they stopped winning, their fanbase disappeared.


USC is going through the same thing now that Minnesota did in the 60s (6 titles 1934-1960) and Pitt did in the 80s (9 titles 1910-1976).

USC had 23 players on NFL rosters to start the 2020 season. 4th in the PAC, 22nd in CFB. Well below Miami (30) and just barely ahead of Mississippi State (21) and Temple (20).

USC's athletic revenues in 2018 were 116.9 million. 5th in the PAC, 30th in CFB.

USC just took 16,000 seats out of their stadium. Similar to has-been programs like Illinois and Minnesota. Schools like Alabama and Michigan have added 5,000-10,000 seats in their recent expansions. Texas A&M added 20,000.

USC's 2019 recruiting class was 4th in the PAC according to 247. The 2020 class was 12th in the PAC, 64th in the country. 2020 was a small class, but even if you rank by averages it was 5th in the PAC-12. That means they had low numbers because they couldn't get the quality.

USC's decline is not inevitable or irreversible. They had a down patch in the 90s too. But the trend is really bad, and it's across the board.

Their current recruiting class is #8 in the nation. Their 2018 and 2017 class were #4 in the nation.

Miami isn't a blue blood because they had almost zero history before 1980. USC is college football royalty. They were winning natty's before Miami was even fielding a team. Even with their decline and the Pac's lackluster TV deal they are still valued as the #19 most profitable college football program.

Under Carroll (which really wasn't all that long ago) they finished in the top 5 seven consecutive seasons, went 6-1 in major bowls, and won two titles. Thats more recent success than like 90% of the country. Carroll's departure majorly hurt that program. Not only because they had to replace a top 5 all time HC, but because they were getting slapped heavy with violations. They've been mediocre by their own standard as of late but they still been ranked 5 of the last 10 seasons, with two top 10 rankings. They're still just a good hire away from being right back to a thorn in everyone's side.

College football royalty: Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, UT

Penn St. and Nebraska are as well. Florida, FSU and Miami are noveaux rich.

(10-06-2020 06:21 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  If we’re looking for schools that have fallen off the map look no further than the University of Tennessee.

They won the first BCS championship.

I would put Nebraska and Miami on the next tier.

It would take more mediocrity from USC to join those three. I just don’t see the fans and boosters allow it. Since Carroll left, they’ve made three questionable hires in Kiffin, Sarkasian and Helton. They might go after Urban Meyer if he’s still available.

Minnesota and Army are schools that were powers in the 30s/40s/50s that gradually fell off the map.

(10-08-2020 05:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 04:24 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-06-2020 03:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 06:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 05:50 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A blue-blood does not average under 60,000 fans a game. Even in an off year. USC has done it two years in a row.

Attendance, 2019:
Michigan, 111,459
Texas: 96,306
USC: 59,358

Attendance, 2018:
Michigan: 110,737
Texas: 97,713
USC: 55,449

Their 5 year average is over 66,000. More importantly USC claims 11 national championships (T-2) and is top 10 in wins, win percentage, conference championships, all-americans, bowl appearances, players drafted, Heisman winners, and weeks ranked. They are absolutely on the shortest of short lists of elite programs.

Miami has 5 national titles since 1980. Are they blue-blood?

Of course not.

Why not? Because they when they stopped winning, their fanbase disappeared.


USC is going through the same thing now that Minnesota did in the 60s (6 titles 1934-1960) and Pitt did in the 80s (9 titles 1910-1976).

USC had 23 players on NFL rosters to start the 2020 season. 4th in the PAC, 22nd in CFB. Well below Miami (30) and just barely ahead of Mississippi State (21) and Temple (20).

USC's athletic revenues in 2018 were 116.9 million. 5th in the PAC, 30th in CFB.

USC just took 16,000 seats out of their stadium. Similar to has-been programs like Illinois and Minnesota. Schools like Alabama and Michigan have added 5,000-10,000 seats in their recent expansions. Texas A&M added 20,000.

USC's 2019 recruiting class was 4th in the PAC according to 247. The 2020 class was 12th in the PAC, 64th in the country. 2020 was a small class, but even if you rank by averages it was 5th in the PAC-12. That means they had low numbers because they couldn't get the quality.

USC's decline is not inevitable or irreversible. They had a down patch in the 90s too. But the trend is really bad, and it's across the board.

Their current recruiting class is #8 in the nation. Their 2018 and 2017 class were #4 in the nation.

Miami isn't a blue blood because they had almost zero history before 1980. USC is college football royalty. They were winning natty's before Miami was even fielding a team. Even with their decline and the Pac's lackluster TV deal they are still valued as the #19 most profitable college football program.

Under Carroll (which really wasn't all that long ago) they finished in the top 5 seven consecutive seasons, went 6-1 in major bowls, and won two titles. Thats more recent success than like 90% of the country. Carroll's departure majorly hurt that program. Not only because they had to replace a top 5 all time HC, but because they were getting slapped heavy with violations. They've been mediocre by their own standard as of late but they still been ranked 5 of the last 10 seasons, with two top 10 rankings. They're still just a good hire away from being right back to a thorn in everyone's side.

College football royalty: Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, UT

Penn St. and Nebraska are as well. Florida, FSU and Miami are noveaux rich.

Nebraska is borderline for me but I don't object to anyone grouping them amongst the top tier. Penn St. should be shut down for making the world safer for pedophiles. I refuse to acknowledge their accomplishments. The big three Florida schools are all great programs, probably top 20.