uart Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Now that Notre Dame sucks, is USC the only private school that is consistently competitive in College football? Is there a disadvantage to being a private university in FBS football? If so, how big is that disadvantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Now that Notre Dame sucks, is USC the only private school that is consistently competitive in College football? Is there a disadvantage to being a private university in FBS football? If so, how big is that disadvantage? Define competitive? BC is a private Catholic School and they are competitive. I think it is all about location, location, location. -While both have a rich history they can play on, one is located in California and the other is in Indiana. -One can draw from an almost bottomless well of talent, while the other is drawing from a far shallower pool. -USC is king of western third of the United States for big time college football. What is the closest school that can match them for recent success and staure? Oklahoma and Texas? They can probably get their foot into every 5-star recruit's door in the Mountain and Western time zones. Notre Dame is not in a conference and sandwiched between the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12. USC will probably be the most successful and consistent private school until they make a bad choice for HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Define competitive? BC is a private Catholic School and they are competitive. I think it is all about location, location, location. -While both have a rich history they can play on, one is located in California and the other is in Indiana. -One can draw from an almost bottomless well of talent, while the other is drawing from a far shallower pool. -USC is king of western third of the United States for big time college football. What is the closest school that can match them for recent success and staure? Oklahoma and Texas? They can probably get their foot into every 5-star recruit's door in the Mountain and Western time zones. Notre Dame is not in a conference and sandwiched between the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12. USC will probably be the most successful and consistent private school until they make a bad choice for HC. USC is not a state school? did not know that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 USC is not a state school? did not know that Nope. Didnt know it either nor did i really give a flying f#ck. Carroll and his stuffed beaver can have their fun in L.A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 Define competitive? Competitive are schools that are able to attain BCS Bowl appearances and/or play for the national championship. Schools where, when that happens, it isn't a surprise. -While both have a rich history they can play on, one is located in California and the other is in Indiana. -One can draw from an almost bottomless well of talent, while the other is drawing from a far shallower pool. The midwest doesn't have talent? I mean, Michigan had a down year, but the Big 10 is usually a strong conference of predominantly midwestern teams. Notre Dame, in theory, has the same recruiting footprint as those schools. Anyway, you pretty much answered why USC is successful, but is there a reason why other private schools aren't? Recently USC has usually been the only Private university to participate in a BCS bowl game. USC is the only private school in the top-10 of the BCS standings, with TCU coming in at 11, BYU at 16 and Northwestern and BC at 23/24. Boston College did not make the AP or Coaches polls. 84% of the top-25 are public universities... 90% of the top-10. There are 15 private schools in Division 1 FBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 USC is not a state school? did not know that Yep. University of Pennsylvania is private too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 Boston College, BYU, Duke, University of Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian (TCU), Tulane, USC, Vanderbilt & Wake Forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Babe Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 wow, i didn't know USC was private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Babe Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Boston College, BYU, Duke, University of Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian (TCU), Tulane, USC, Vanderbilt & Wake Forest. are those considered competitive teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 USC is not a state school? did not know that Me either. Competitive are schools that are able to attain BCS Bowl appearances and/or play for the national championship. Schools where, when that happens, it isn't a surprise. The midwest doesn't have talent? I mean, Michigan had a down year, but the Big 10 is usually a strong conference of predominantly midwestern teams. Notre Dame, in theory, has the same recruiting footprint as those schools. Anyway, you pretty much answered why USC is successful, but is there a reason why other private schools aren't? Recently USC has usually been the only Private university to participate in a BCS bowl game. USC is the only private school in the top-10 of the BCS standings, with TCU coming in at 11, BYU at 16 and Northwestern and BC at 23/24. Boston College did not make the AP or Coaches polls. 84% of the top-25 are public universities... 90% of the top-10. There are 15 private schools in Division 1 FBS. That is the problem. ND is competing with, at best, peers in Michigan and OSU for the same players. That is not including SEC teams and Big 12 schools (to a lesser extent ACC and Big East) poaching the same players. USC is king of the West. Other PAC 10 teams will pull players as will Big 12 and MWC teams, but USC is the big fish in one of the deepest talent pools. I am not saying midwest has no talent, just not as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 are those considered competitive teams? No, that is a list of all of the private schools in Division I-A (FBS) college football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Babe Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 No, that is a list of all of the private schools in Division I-A (FBS) college football. oh, i was gonna say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uart Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 Me either. That is the problem. ND is competing with, at best, peers in Michigan and OSU for the same players. That is not including SEC teams and Big 12 schools (to a lesser extent ACC and Big East) poaching the same players. USC is king of the West. Other PAC 10 teams will pull players as will Big 12 and MWC teams, but USC is the big fish in one of the deepest talent pools. I am not saying midwest has no talent, just not as much. Until recently though, Notre Dame was a pretty big fish... I mean Miami used to be pretty damn good too, and they've fallen off the radar, at the same time Florida's program has grown. Is it money that is the difference between Big Fish and mediocrity? Notre Dame has plenty of money... hell, Duke has more money than USC, and they blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.