cnnsi: Cincinnati = Peasant

[Pruke]

I've officially had it with these turkey outlets that cowtow to the power the television.

From here on out, I'm 100% following UC football and throwing a 'couldn't care less about their BCS standing and chicken head typist opinions' attitude from outlets including cnnsi, espn and others.

Absolutely ridiculous write up. Football equivalents to Duke? Temple? WHAT-EVA!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...&sct=hp_t11_a0

How much can the perception of a program change over a half-decade? I'm not talking about the usual on-field ebbs and flows of going 10-2 one year and 7-5 the next. I'm talking about a real change in the national prestige (or lack thereof) a team established over decades due to its level of play in the past five seasons.

Plenty of you must be wondering, since I've been getting regular requests over the past year or so to revisit my "Program Pecking Order" Mailbag from August 2007 that divvied up the nation's BCS-conference schools into a four-tiered Feudal society. This seems as good a time as any to do it. The genesis of the idea was a reader debate over whether Georgia should be considered a "national power." My answer in '07 was no (turning me into a permanent enemy of certain Bulldogs bloggers), and that hasn't changed in the last five years.

As a refresher: The goal here is not to rank programs based on winning percentage, national championships, bowl wins or any other quantitative measure, though those things undoubtedly matter. As I wrote in '07, a national power carries "... a certain cachet or aura. It's the way a program is perceived by the public. Let me put it to you this way. Suppose we went to, say, Montana. And suppose we found 100 'average' college football fans (not necessarily message-board crazies, but not twice-a-year viewers, either) and put them in a room. If I held up a Michigan helmet, my guess is all 100 would know exactly what it was. ... But if I held up a Georgia 'G' helmet, how many of them do you think would be able to identify it off the top of their heads?"

As you're about to find out, things haven't changed dramatically in five years. In fact, I'd argue they haven't changed much at all. Most of the programs that rose or fell here had already begun to shift in the five years prior, but it took a little longer to be sure it was truly a trend. There are a couple exceptions, however, largely due to the massive conference realignment wave of the past couple years.

For the purposes of this exercise, I've included all current AQ-conference programs, major independents and a certain blue-clad team that falls somewhere in between.

Formatting note: Bolded teams moved up to that rank or are making their debut; strikethrough teams fell out of that rank.

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

Ten years ago, LSU was coming off its first outright SEC championship in 15 years, having upset Phillip Fulmer's second-ranked Tennessee squad. Four months after this column ran, the Tigers knocked off the Vols in Atlanta again en route to their second BCS championship in five years. While LSU solidified itself as a bona fide national power, Tennessee fired Fulmer a year later and sank further into a decade-long bout of mediocrity.

It will be interesting to see where Penn State lands on this list if we revisit it five years down the road. The now-scandal-ridden program's identity was so closely tied to the late Joe Paterno that it may never again carry the same clout.

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

Some might wonder how Colorado and Washington were in this tier to begin with, but both programs won national titles in the '90s. I couldn't have known then just how far the once-mighty would fall. Oregon's rise was a no-brainer, with Chip Kelly building on Mike Bellotti's momentum and taking the Ducks to three consecutive BCS games. West Virginia has three BCS wins since 2005, but its move to the Big 12 helps its profile as much as those.

Knights
* Arizona State, Arkansas, Boise State, Boston College, BYU, Cal, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Washington State.

This is the landing spot for recent BCS crashers and upwardly mobile Boise State, TCU and Utah, as well as ever-consistent, now independent BYU. While no one would argue that Boise has been far more successful lately than, say, UCLA, it will take many more years of sustained success for the Broncos to be viewed as the same type of "big boys" as the history-laden Bruins. Oklahoma State and/or Stanford could be the next to move up, while Washington State is now too far removed from its last run of respectability to avoid the bottom rung.

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

Five years ago I wasn't sure where to place Louisville, which was coming off a 12-1 season and Orange Bowl win. Now it's clear the Cardinals aren't too different from the rest of their Big East brethren, seven of whom sit here. None can seem to sustain success. We'll see if it's possible for any to make inroads once the Big East loses its AQ status.

All told, three of the 71 schools moved up, four moved down and six made their debuts. The conclusion: At this point it's more feasible for a young program like Boise State to make a splash and create a new identity than it is for a more established program to alter a perception built over 100-plus years.

[mjv780]

Originally Posted by Pruke

I've officially had it with these turkey outlets that cowtow to the power the television.

From here on out, I'm 100% following UC football and throwing a 'couldn't care less about their BCS standing and chicken head typist opinions' attitude from outlets including cnnsi, espn and others.

Absolutely ridiculous write up. Football equivalents to Duke? Temple? WHAT-EVA!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...&sct=hp_t11_a0

The validity of this list can be measured in the fact that the writer has Pitt and Syracuse in a higher category than UC... I suppose that's due to their invitation to the "superior" ACC, but seriously - that proves that this list is totally meaningless.

[GoUC11]

I'm not defending him but more of defending his ignorance. This smacks of something written from an East Coast guy who only recalls the old guard of the Big East. Any informed and knowledgable college football fan would regard the 'new' leaders of the Big East to be Louisville (I debate them..heavily. But that's perception), Cincinnati, and soon to be Boise.

In fact, one could argue we are the only team that isn't a peasant in the BE.

People who regard Pitt and Syracuse as the marquee teams of the BE aren't living in todays world or even the 2000's. They are living in the 1980's and could still be driving a 1985 Chrysler minivan.

In fact, next time you are on vacation outside of 'Cincinnati' territory and talk to a local who knows football. Say Cincinnati and they'll usually have high praise for what the school has done.

[Binturong05]

Interesting article and discussion. Obviously there's no correct, objective answer here. This is one writer's opinion and if you asked 20 different people to compose a similar list you'd likely get 20 different responses.

I find it odd he has Tennessee as both a King and a Baron. But i suppose that's a typo. Using the last ten years as a predicate the Vols are not Kings so that leaves them at least one rung lower. The problem with this list for Cincinnati fans is he's looking over a 10 to 20 year period. UC's success - and I'm talking national media attention, not the Motor City Bowl - has been confined to the last half decade or so.

With that being said I would make a few changes. MSU has a decade+ of being in the national spotlight off and on therefore I would move them up to the Barons level. Colorado is a joke and struggles every year to recruit out of California since it's own state is not a hot bed of talent. They were the doormat of the BigXII before moving to the PAC12 and will likely muddle around the bottom in that conference. They should be at best in the Knights category.

Lastly, going off the last ten year I would move L'Ville and UC up to Knights status. Going off the last 20 years? They probably deserve to be where they're at.

[JDBEARCAT]

I don't care what this ***** thinks.

[Bearcattitue92]

The aspect that validates this article as Horse *&%@ is that this clown used to write for the enquirer. As a Northwestern grad who never put on a helmet he knows all about college football. The sad part is that he is from Cincinnati. Which reinforces the fact that we need to get more respect from our local PRINT Media. Best place for this junk is the bathroom for emergency paper.

GO CATS!!!

[CaptainProbasco]

Originally Posted by Binturong05

Interesting article and discussion. Obviously there's no correct, objective answer here. This is one writer's opinion and if you asked 20 different people to compose a similar list you'd likely get 20 different responses.

I find it odd he has Tennessee as both a King and a Baron. But i suppose that's a typo. Using the last ten years as a predicate the Vols are not Kings so that leaves them at least one rung lower. The problem with this list for Cincinnati fans is he's looking over a 10 to 20 year period. UC's success - and I'm talking national media attention, not the Motor City Bowl - has been confined to the last half decade or so.

With that being said I would make a few changes. MSU has a decade+ of being in the national spotlight off and on therefore I would move them up to the Barons level. Colorado is a joke and struggles every year to recruit out of California since it's own state is not a hot bed of talent. They were the doormat of the BigXII before moving to the PAC12 and will likely muddle around the bottom in that conference. They should be at best in the Knights category.

Lastly, going off the last ten year I would move L'Ville and UC up to Knights status. Going off the last 20 years? They probably deserve to be where they're at.

He lowered Tennessee down a level. Five years ago, they were a King, but he moved them to Barons this time. Sounds about right to me.

Other than that, I would move Iowa and Michigan State up to Barons. Syracuse and Colorado down to Peasants, and about half of the peasants up to knights (leaving peasants with just Syracuse, Colorado, Arizona, Baylor, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Rutgers, Temple, USF, Wake Forest, and Washington State).

[DMoney1080]

I don't agree with all of this, but let's face some facts here - perception is what gets the press. Until you will championships consistently and win OOC games against better than average opponents, you are not going to get credit with the media.

If you win, you change that perception. Look at Colorado - 20 yrs ago, they won a national title, contended for a few B12 titles, but never came close again. Now they are the laughing stock of the Pac12.

The opportunity for us this year is Va Tech. Pitt is going to be tough as well because a new system, is going to be hard to prepare for. If we win games that we are not favored, and continue to win them, you move up. He's not writing on facts, but public perception. Right, wrong, indifferent, you have to move off it and focus on the task at hand, which is win the OOC games, content for the BE title and did I mention winning.

You can rant/rave all you want, as it may be wrong, but you have to continue to build. I think what Jones is building here is a recipe for success. Recruits are coming, we are getting better talent and we are not getting the bad press that comes with questionable recruits. Was LSU a power house 15 years ago - no - they were not, FL and UT were. Now look at what has happened. It's about consistency and you have to improve your program, we are getting there. This year will be a barometer for future success of UC football - can we continue to compete. I think we can, and I think we should content for a BE title.

[cpawstoney]

Originally Posted by DMoney1080

I don't agree with all of this, but let's face some facts here - perception is what gets the press. Until you will championships consistently and win OOC games against better than average opponents, you are not going to get credit with the media.

If you win, you change that perception. Look at Colorado - 20 yrs ago, they won a national title, contended for a few B12 titles, but never came close again. Now they are the laughing stock of the Pac12.

The opportunity for us this year is Va Tech. Pitt is going to be tough as well because a new system, is going to be hard to prepare for. If we win games that we are not favored, and continue to win them, you move up. He's not writing on facts, but public perception. Right, wrong, indifferent, you have to move off it and focus on the task at hand, which is win the OOC games, content for the BE title and did I mention winning.

You can rant/rave all you want, as it may be wrong, but you have to continue to build. I think what Jones is building here is a recipe for success. Recruits are coming, we are getting better talent and we are not getting the bad press that comes with questionable recruits. Was LSU a power house 15 years ago - no - they were not, FL and UT were. Now look at what has happened. It's about consistency and you have to improve your program, we are getting there. This year will be a barometer for future success of UC football - can we continue to compete. I think we can, and I think we should content for a BE title.

We have to remember that these are college kids, not professionals, and every single regular season game counts,” Jones said. “It’s not like that in college basketball.”

http://www.allegannews.com/articles/...r_sports/1.txt

[CaptainProbasco]

Originally Posted by DMoney1080

Until you will championships consistently and win OOC games against better than average opponents, you are not going to get credit with the media.

We have done really well in-conference over the past several years, but we have not been giant slayers. Right or wrong, consistently beating the average teams is given the same respect as consistently beating poor or mediocre teams. We get about as much respect for winning 3 of the last 4 Big East championships (2 of them outright) as Boise gets for winning 3 of the last 4 WAC championships (2 of them outright).

Wining just one of the Oklahoma games or one of the BCS bowls would probably have us higher than Boise or TCU, perception-wise.

[UcatsRick]

So now we're ranking football programs on helmet recognition? That would put UK and UCLA in the Kings list automatically. Me thinks after watching countless reruns of Appalachian St beating Michigan on the Big10Network would result in the Mountaineers (Not those other Mountaineers) being immediately recognizable since so many people worldwide watch that cable network.

[UcatsRick]

Just curious, when is the last time an Indiana team won anything on the football field? And was that on TV?

[Carin's Dad]

Some of us can remember when we wouldn't have even been mentioned on a list like this. Progress folks. We're going in the right direction but perceptions take time to change.

[Pruke]

Just hits the point home that we're going to have to win a national championship a few years in a row or come close before we get the proper national recognition. Get used to it - should not be a huge surprise.

Wasn't it strange last year how well we did and in the coaches poll, we still struggled to get votes?

It's all very strange to me - but then again, if I am a decent football prospect, I'd say Temple is an ideal destination too...