UCLA a "Baron" in the BCS Landscape?

by Ajax on Aug 9, 2007 11:02 AM PDT in Football Comment 17 comments

With apologies to B-Dizzle...

SI.com's Stewart Mandel, responding to a reader's Email inquiry regarding "rankings of schools and their prestige and place in the national scene," established a sort of hierarchy of college football teams in terms "national power":

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

* Tennessee is the lone school in the group that caused any hesitation. The Vols would have been a no-brainer 10 years ago, but they have fallen off the map a bit lately. In the end, I figured those 100 fans in Montana still know "Rocky Top," the checkered end zones and that Peyton Manning went there.

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

* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings. However, if the Tigers were to add another national title here in the next couple of years, they may well graduate to that group.

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.

* In normal times, Syracuse would qualify as one of the barons, but they're just so darn bad and so irrelevant right now.

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

* Rutgers is another program that could be on its way up a tier, and South Florida is here by default because it's essentially a start-up.

There is one school intentionally missing from the list, and that's because I have no idea where to put it: Louisville. History-wise, the Cardinals are peasants, but the program has completely reinvented itself over the past decade and now gets mentioned with the kings and barons. For now, we'll just say: TBD.

Already anticipating what may be my biggest barrage of hate mail yet, all I ask is that you spare me any lists of all-time winning percentages, bowl wins, conference titles and whatnot. Remember -- being called a "powerhouse" is more about public perception than it is reality. Better yet, just apply the Montana test.

I agree that the Bruins certainly do not have the national championships to support membership in the "King" class, but UCLA absolutely has the cachet deserving of the highest ranking, at least according to Mandel's (admittedly un-scientific) "Montanta test."

What do you think?

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think

that the "Montanta test" will have us dancing around for a while :)

by tasser10 on Aug 9, 2007 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ha!

That entire list is a joke. Not including Georgia in the "King" list is ridiculous. You're telling me Nebraska still remains in the kings list, despite essentially falling off the face of the earth in the past 10 years?

Alabama? Alabama's still there? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Penn State?

What the hell is this ranking based on? MAndel himself even says he doesn't know where he got these - it would be like if I essentially went "Here are the teams I think are the most important, just because", and then passed this off as journalism.

This entire ranking is so ridiculous on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. The entire ranking is Mandel's idea of what he thinks a national power should be. It's a freakin' joke. An absolute atrocity of ranking.

by CAJason80 on Aug 9, 2007 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And yes,

I perfectly understand that Mandel's entire point was that UGA fans have an inflated sense of self, but his entire 'Montana' test is even more ridiculous.

Stewart, if 100 college football fans from Montana were shown a picture of Uga in a G sweater, I'm about 99% positive nearly every single one of them would go "Hey, that's Uga!"

by CAJason80 on Aug 9, 2007 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't you go to UGa?

I think that may be why you are a bit miffed :)

Who cares anyway, it's not like this list is scientific. All it shows is that, at least in the eyes of one writer in the MSM, the UCLA name is well recognized. Now let's get the kind of team that our reputation deserves.

by tasser10 on Aug 9, 2007 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kings indeed

With Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno and the kind of history those two schools have had, Alabama and Penn State will always be "Kings" in college football. That's just reputation. Just like, despite the Lavins and other coaches, Wooden ensured that UCLA would always be a King in college hoops, even if it was a fallen king at times. This isn't scientific...it's a Mailbag...

by tasser10 on Aug 9, 2007 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nebraska

1994- National Champion (AP, USA/CNN)
1995- National Champion (AP, USA/CNN)
1997- National Champion (USA/ESPN)
2001- Lost in Championship Game

All in the last 13 years.

by SuperBruinMan on Aug 9, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

pretty fair

I think the ranking is pretty reasonable. We have produced our fair share of outstanding NFL players, solid teams, bowl wins, etc., but our recent history is pretty weak and with only one national title (and a split one at that) in roughly 75 years of playing college football I don't see how we merit a higher designation. The programs in the "King" tier all have extraordinary histories-no getting around the fact that UCLA just doesn't have that kind of background.

by ucladj89 on Aug 10, 2007 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering

we have exactly one bowl victory on or after Jan 1st in the last 20 years (Cotton '97), I would say our inclusion on the Knight list is rather generous. Most of the other teams that share our spot on that list have either won a NC, played in the NC game, or had an undefeated season during that time span.

"..you've got to abide by the rules sometimes" -Reggie Bush

by godblesstyus95 on Aug 9, 2007 1:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I meant Barons

"..you've got to abide by the rules sometimes" -Reggie Bush

by godblesstyus95 on Aug 9, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, God Blees YOU

'95. Thanks for stating what I try to, but only succeed in really pissing people off with.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Aug 9, 2007 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

No offense, Gymnast, but when you call people's polls "stupid," that is offensive. No way around that one. You seem intelligent enough to realize this.

The second thing is your screen name. Perhaps there is an innocent explanation for it, but it is offensive to me, and Nestor has commented on it, too.

Perhaps there is a completely innocent explanation for it, and YES, you are entitled to call yourself whatever you like, but unless you are a die-hard gymnastics fan (which I doubt), it seems like its intended to be a "finger in the eye" of all of us who consider UCLA to be a little bit more than a "great gymnastics school." That is something the SuCsters would say, frankly.

I have less than zero interest in starting a war over these fairly unimportant observations, but I think it merits this mention.

by Barnes2JJ on Aug 9, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I don't intend

on pissing anyone off. Hopefully I won't.

Historically, I think one can make a credible argument that we more than hold our own on the Baron list. In the last 20 years though, I feel it may be a slight stretch.

As Bruin fans, we should expect this program to play like Kings. I would love nothing more to bring in a talented, experienced coach to bump us up into that category.

"..you've got to abide by the rules sometimes" -Reggie Bush

by godblesstyus95 on Aug 9, 2007 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WASHINGTON!?!

This is what's pop'n

by PopnFried on Aug 9, 2007 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Washington used to be great. They used to go to the Rose Bowl in the 90's. They even won (shared) a NC.

Again, I think what this list is intending to demonstrate is the perception of each of those schools. Some names are just better known than others in football, be it because of history, reputation, whatever.

by tasser10 on Aug 10, 2007 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WU

For those of old enough to remember, in the 50's the PAC-10 (or PAC-8) was pummeled annually in the Rose Bowl. In 1960, WU came with Bob Scholet (sp?) and beat Wisconsin 44-8. The next year they came back and beat the BIG-10 team by one or two touchdowns. There was a big deal made at the time that they more or less "bailed out" the west coast as far as having competitive football wsa concerned. That set the stage for the PAC-10 to more than hold its own in the next decade, with UCLA winning in 1966 over MSU (Bob Stiles making the tackle on the two point conversion). As far as west coast football, WU has a long history of good teams....
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Aug 11, 2007 9:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Brilliant

thanks Bill and Fox for those stories!!

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Aug 12, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember him

It's Bob Schloredt. He had an eye problem - more than being color blind. I think he was blind in one eye. The Huskies had their receivers wear really distinctive helmets. I think they wore gold helmets and the linemen wore purple helmets or something like that.

I can't remember the years, but I remember it vividly, because those were the only non-UCLA teams I ever rooted for in the Rose Bowl, just because I liked Schloredt. (Even as a callow youth I had the inherent virtue and wisdom to despite justsc.)

by Fox 71 on Aug 11, 2007 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs