I wonder what are some theories of why teams fall from greatness? What are the causes?

For example Minnesota. If the internet was around in 1967 and I stated that Minnesota was going to sink to mediocrity there would have been total outrage. They had 18 Big Ten titles and 4 National titles they were a powerhouse in football.

More recently you see Nebraska who was a power and if told in 1997 they would fall into mediocrity again a backlash.

Michigan and Florida St could be the newest teams to fall into the land of the mediocre.

What are the leading theories for why they fall from glory?

The Colorado Buffaloes had a great run in the late 80's thru mid-90's. Then McCartney left and it all went downhill. Violations by his successors led to probations and things have never been the same.

Mainly coaching. Either it changes or the current coaches who been around for a while is living in the past too much.

mallymal614 wrote: Mainly coaching. Either it changes or the current coaches who been around for a while is living in the past too much.

I would tend to agree with this. Nebraska had an aging Tom Osborne who hung it up near the beginning of their fall. Michigan had some success under Lloyd Carr but then he retired as well as the forcing out of Bobby Bowden.

Big time programs find success with a coach and stick with him till he retires and then it is a crapshoot with the new guy. Teams like Miami were losing coaches to the NFL when they were dominating year in and year out and the coaches had nothing more to prove in the college ranks.

Mid-major/less prestigious BCS schools are never going to have a long run of success because once it has been sustained for 3-5 years the head coaches are being poached away for a bigger payday than the current school can provide.

Back in the day, if a great player came to play for a Michigan or Notre Dame or Ohio State or any of the other traditional football "powers", they would play there for four years. They would be identified as a Buckeye or Wolverine, or whatever they were and there would be a sense of pride in the team who's uniform they wore. Back in the day, if a coach accepted a position at a school, he would honor his commitment and stay there, building the very best program he could, not for him so much but for the alumni and for the players that he would bring in each year. The team and coach would be mentioned in the same breath and they would be synonomous. every fan would honor the team and the coach and put their faith and trust in everyone involved, never dreaming that a player or coach would simply use the school as a launching pad for individual wants and desires of the players and coach, and the team be damned. Also, there weren't nearly as many Bowl Games back in the day. A Bowl Game was an honor, not a financial magnet for promoters, boosters, and all the rest. It took more than 6-6 to get into a Bowl Game. There was an emphasis placed on athletic and academic excellence that seems to have been replaced today by MONEY. CASH. COIN OF THE REALM. call it what you will but it is very hard to develop any continuity for the smaller schools today because successful coaches leave and abandon the hand that fed them so that they can be fed millions, rather than paltry thousands. to sum it up, coaches without loyalty, players without loyalty, greedy boosters who circumvent the law, get caught and the new "less well known" coach is left to try and win with a program under sanctions. also, the weather and pretty girls on beaches and at booster parties don't help the cause of Schools in the cold weather climes of say South Bend or Columbus, or Ann Arbor. It's hard to maintain much consistent winning when this type of thing exists practically everywhere. To me, this makes the accomplishments of guys like Jim Tressel even more incredible than just the raw statistics would suggest. I give the utmost respect to guys like Larry Kehres. He has been the face of Mount Union Football for a long time. Look at the record he has amassed there.

Swamp Fox wrote: Back in the day, if a great player came to play for a Michigan or Notre Dame or Ohio State or any of the other traditional football "powers", they would play there for four years.

"Back in the day" freshmen were ineligible to play, so they only played 3 years. Just sayin.

^^^Also back in the day the players stayed all 4 seasons and THEN became eligible for the NFL draft...back in the day.

Because nothing lasts forever. What goes up must come down. The ebb and flow of the tidal wave. etc.

Coaching.

There aren't too many coaches now-a-days that get a job and you just know they will be there for 30 years and refuse to go elsewhere. A dream job for them I guess you could say. Everyone seems to be looking elsewhere or at least keeping their options open. Tom Osborne, Jo Pa, Bobby, etc. seemed content where they were. In the case of Osborne, not only did he remain loyal, almost every one of his assistant coaches stuck by his side for 25+ years. Many people forget that Solich spent a couple decades as a Nebraska assistant, got them 9-10 wins a year after Osborne, and even played in a national title game. The AD they hired set them back a few years because they fired Solich for Bill Callahan. Bo Pelini is doing wonders there getting them back in the limelight, but he's not a Nebraska guy. The first sign of an OSU job opening and he will leave because I think he's still a Buckeye.

Minnesota went downhill due to a lot of factors, but institutional support is at the top of the list. It got so bad that in the 70s the administration actually suggested dropping football in favor of men's soccer. Something like that would not likely happen in this day and age of huge TV coverage/contracts/money, but back then it wasn't so far fetched.

parity

Coaching salaries.

I'd leave a program to become an instant millionaire and be set and set my family for life. Notre Dame will pay for Charlie Weis's great/great grand kids college education with all the money he got from them for not doing ANYTHING!

Offensive schemes also change a nowadays type players' mind.

Now, why do programs stay at the top? DEFENSE! I mean, philosophies change but the bottom line is traditional powerhouses like TOSU get the fastest, toughest tacklers who will play in the NFL.

And of course, the NCAA has set the same rules for the same teams. and they make sure you abide by them, unless it's USC.

Coaching.

johngrizzly wrote:
Now, why do programs stay at the top? DEFENSE! I mean, philosophies change but the bottom line is traditional powerhouses like TOSU get the fastest, toughest tacklers who will play in the NFL.

What qualifies as 'stay at the top'? During the 80's and 90's, 3 to 4 losses a year were the norm for TOSU with some 5 and 6 loss seasons scattered in there.

1. Coaching
2. Parity
3. More talent as a whole at the HS level

the_system wrote:

johngrizzly wrote:


What qualifies as 'stay at the top'? During the 80's and 90's, 3 to 4 losses a year were the norm for TOSU with some 5 and 6 loss seasons scattered in there.

All the talent then but goes back to coaching. Had those teams been coached by Jim Tressel, they would have accumulated at least 3 more National Titles. Hard to argue that my man.

This thread should be renamed "Why do teams turn into ND and win the Hawaii bowl against a depleted 6-6 WAC team and think they are still relevant?"

Probably a better question

Scholarship limits have a ton to do with this. The powerhouses used to be able to take in freshman classes of over 100 kids every year. They would take kids just so their rivals couldn't take them in. Now the gap in talent between the haves and the have nots is smaller than it has ever been which has placed added importance on the ability of coaches to find and develop talent.

To expand on the parity and unlimited scholarships issues, TV has helped spread the wealth if you will. In the old days, a player would avoid certain schools because they would never be on TV or get noticed by the NFL scouts. With all the games on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. you don't have to go to the power schools anymore. In addition, why sit on the bench at said power school when you can start and get your air time on national TV?

good point,Danny...btw,kick some Gator ass,would ya'??

3reppom wrote: Scholarship limits have a ton to do with this. The powerhouses used to be able to take in freshman classes of over 100 kids every year. They would take kids just so their rivals couldn't take them in. Now the gap in talent between the haves and the have nots is smaller than it has ever been which has placed added importance on the ability of coaches to find and develop talent.

This. In Woody and Bo's tenure, OSU and UM had guys literally on the 5th and 6th string who could've started for other Big Ten teams. The same went for Bear Bryant at Alabama. Players who could have had full rides and possibly professional careers came to play for these coaches instead and never saw the field.

Today, the top 10% of schools still get the top probably 30% of the talent, but with scholarship limits, parity has been created, and with coaching and the use of the redshirt and prep school, many programs are able to compete at least every other year even with mostly inferior talent.

Recruting & thereafe so many games on TV, u can live in Ohio, or wherever & kids get to see Boise State TCU Utah every week & know if they have the talent to get recruited by the traditional powers they could go to a smaller program & play right away & get there name out there becuz of the games being played all over the TV IMO