CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Notre Dame (1919-30)
101-11-3 (.891)
three national titles
4 winning streaks over 15 games

Minnesota (1933-41)
58-9-5 (.840)
five national titles
five undefeated teams
winning streak or 28 games
23 shutouts in the 72 games

Notre Dame (1946-53)
63-8-6 (.837)
three national championships
unbeaten streak of 39 games

Oklahoma (1948-58)
107-8-2 (.923)
three consensus national titles
47 game winning streak

Alabama (1959-67)
83-10-6 (.869)
three national titles
1963-67 teams never lost a home game

Southern Cal (1967-79)
122-23-7 (.826)
four national titles
unbeaten streak of 28 games

Alabama (1971-80)
107-13-0 (.892)
three national championships

Oklahoma (1971-80)
102-14-2 (.873)
Back-to-back national titles



Miami (Fla.) (1983-92)
107-13-0 (.892)
four national titles

As Keith Jackson might say, "That's the stuff of legends".

Georgia (1980-1983)
1 National Title
3 Sec Titles

Ok...so that's not that great

ktffan wrote:Notre Dame (1919-30)
101-11-3 (.891)
three national titles
4 winning streaks over 15 games

Minnesota (1933-41)
58-9-5 (.840)
five national titles
five undefeated teams
winning streak or 28 games
23 shutouts in the 72 games

Notre Dame (1946-53)
63-8-6 (.837)
three national championships
unbeaten streak of 39 games

Oklahoma (1948-58)
107-8-2 (.923)
three consensus national titles
47 game winning streak

Alabama (1959-67)
83-10-6 (.869)
three national titles
1963-67 teams never lost a home game

Southern Cal (1967-79)
122-23-7 (.826)
four national titles
unbeaten streak of 28 games

Alabama (1971-80)
107-13-0 (.892)
three national championships

Oklahoma (1971-80)
102-14-2 (.873)
Back-to-back national titles



Miami (Fla.) (1983-92)
107-13-0 (.892)
four national titles

You are forgetting TCU, 1928-1938
98-19-9 (.813)
Three undefeated teams (1929, 1932, 1938).
Four winning streaks of ten games or longer.
One national championship, 1938.
1935 lost national championship to SMU. (only loss that year).

colorado_loves_football wrote:You are forgetting TCU, 1935-1938.

I didn't create the list. Talk to the NCAA.

ktffan wrote:

colorado_loves_football wrote:You are forgetting TCU, 1935-1938.

I didn't create the list. Talk to the NCAA.

Another fairly impressive 'streak' for TCU was 1955-1959
39-14-2 (.71)
That's coincidentally, about how good they've been since 1998
68-28 (.71)
Three 'dynasties' for TCU. Not too bad, for a 'mid-major'.

CLF brings up some good points about the TCU team from the 30s, but it's a stretch. 29-38? In order to be a dyansty, they should be winning more championships than that for a span of 9 years. A dynasty is a team that absolutely dominates for usually a shorter period of time.

71%? That's pretty good, but a stretch to be called a dynasty.....

Welcome aboard!

You do bring up some good points as well, maybe a dynasty. One of the best? Eh, maybe; it's a stretch though. No doubt a great run though. They did win 2 championship games in 14 years.

Eric wrote:CLF brings up some good points about the TCU team from the 30s, but it's a stretch. 29-38? In order to be a dyansty, they should be winning more championships than that for a span of 9 years. A dynasty is a team that absolutely dominates for usually a shorter period of time.

71%? That's pretty good, but a stretch to be called a dynasty.....

Actually, I was being a little facetious. I don't necessarily consider TCU to be a 'dynasty' but they are improving.
My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s. They didn't win any championships then, either. But I think it's fair to say they were a 'dynasty' of a sort, from 1928 to 1938, if the numbers are weighed fairly.

Yes Welcome Warchant, I would include Florida St. also. I don't know the criteria used, but USC and Alabama had periods where they absolutely dominated the sport.

By the criteria met on the list, both Nebraska and Florida State of the 90s would count as well.

colorado_loves_football wrote:My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s.

The competition they played back then was far better than what they are playing now.

ktffan wrote:

colorado_loves_football wrote:My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s.

The competition they played back then was far better than what they are playing now.

You might be correct, but I found a place where in general the Mountain West Confernece is viewed fairly favorably.
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm
It's a ranking of teams that takes into account strength of schedule, I believe. Although it would appear at first glance to support the BCS approach, there are exceptions, most notably 1999. I believe 1997 is another example of a year where two conferences were ranked highly.
(the WAC in 1997 was 'combined' with the MWC). But, that's also where TCU was located. So, there is some evidence to refute what you say.

CFL, cool site. Always nice to find a new stat. site.

colorado_loves_football wrote:

ktffan wrote:

colorado_loves_football wrote:My point with the % was that they are likely as competitive as they were in the '50s.

The competition they played back then was far better than what they are playing now.

You might be correct, but I found a place where in general the Mountain West Confernece is viewed fairly favorably.
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm
It's a ranking of teams that takes into account strength of schedule, I believe. Although it would appear at first glance to support the BCS approach, there are exceptions, most notably 1999. I believe 1997 is another example of a year where two conferences were ranked highly.
(the WAC in 1997 was 'combined' with the MWC). But, that's also where TCU was located. So, there is some evidence to refute what you say.

Computer rankings are a dime a dozen. If you don't like one, you can find another that might support you, but anyways how can you "refute" what I say when the source you are quoting doesn't even rank the period in question? Give me a break. I'm not slamming the MWC as much as I'm telling you that the Southwest was a very good conference. From 1936-1940, TCU played 9 top 20 teams, from 1951-1955 they played 19, from 2001-2005, they only played only 5. From 1936-1940 their opponents combined for a 0.578 winning percentage. From 1951-1955 they combined for 0.554 and from 2001-2005 they combined for a 0.467.


As for that ranking system, you say it takes into account strength of schedule, but if so, it's heavily biased by wins and losses. The Mountain West may have had a higher winning percentage in OOC games then the PAC-10, but the most certainly did not play a tougher schedule. It was a bad year for the PAC-10 for sure, but I'm highly skeptical of any ranking system that ranked the MWC above them based on the facts.