BCS Hierarchy

[WarEagle]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, and I thought it was an interesting read.  Steward Mandel of Sports Illustrated divided the BCS teams into four tiers based on national prestige level.  This is not a ranking of how good the teams are this year, just how they are percieved nationally.  Here's how he broke down the SEC:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html

Kings:  Bama, Florida, Tenn

Barons:  Auburn, Georgia, LSU

Knights:  Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina

Peasants:  Kentucky, Miss State, Vandy

I thought his rankings were pretty accurate.  He noted that Tenn was close to moving down and that LSU was close to moving up.  I'd say that S. Carolina probably deserves to be in the lowest level, they are historically pretty bad, but other than that I can't really argue.  Thought?  Comments?

[Razorback Jedi]

I'd replace Bama with LSU. Other than that, pretty good.

[Hawgballz]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, and I thought it was an interesting read.  Steward Mandel of Sports Illustrated divided the BCS teams into four tiers based on national prestige level.  This is not a ranking of how good the teams are this year, just how they are percieved nationally.  Here's how he broke down the SEC:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html

Kings:  Bama, Florida, Tenn

Barons:  Auburn, Georgia, LSU

Knights:  Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina

Peasants:  Kentucky, Miss State, Vandy

I thought his rankings were pretty accurate.  He noted that Tenn was close to moving down and that LSU was close to moving up.  I'd say that S. Carolina probably deserves to be in the lowest level, they are historically pretty bad, but other than that I can't really argue.  Thought?  Comments?

I think the Tenn/LSU switch should be made and Alabama is there upon reputation and not recent achievements.  Even with their history, South Carolina is where they should be because of Spurrier.

[NuttinItUp]

About right. Hopefully Arkansas can move up to baron status at some point.

[PolishPigPower]

That looks about right, although I would already slot LSU above Tennessee.  USC-East is where they are because they currently have Spurrier and previously had Holtz.  Holtz taking that job bumped them up, and they stay on the rise due to Tha Ol' Ball Coach's presence.

[arkjay19]

Exactly, you can tell that's how teams are "perceived" because Auburn has beaten Bama 5 straight times now. 

[WarEagle]

The way Mandel described it is if you took 100 average football fans in a random state (like Montana) and asked them about a team, how much they would know about a program.  He figured most of them would know that Tennesee meant Rocky Top, checkered endzones and Peyton Manning.  That's why Bama is still up in the Kings, even though they have not had much on-field success lately (except that 10-2 season a couple of years back). 

[VandyHog]

Looks about right, although LSU had gotten some serious nationwide respect over the last few years.

[Biggus Piggus]

Alabama hasn't been a king for a very, very long time.  How much latitude do they get?  Crap.  We're forgetting the past decade-plus solely because of Saban?  And Tennessee definitely should be demoted.  I'll believe in LSU if they win the SEC this season.  This is Coach Dorkmouth's make-or-break year in my view. 

[darkhogfan]

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.

link:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html

We are one level above a peasant in most of the public's perception.  Syracuse would be moved up before us.  Ouch!

[Hugulus Hog]

He's making a lot of sense, as much as I loathe to admit it.

He's way off on the Syracuse thing though.

[Coondog Hog]

His opinion is what it is.

[ErieHog]

He's making a lot of sense, as much as I loathe to admit it.

He's way off on the Syracuse thing though.

He's right about Syracuse; they've simply fallen off the map since the end of the McNabb era.

[darkhogfan]

His opinion is what it is.

I don't think it's as much his opinion on Arkansas as how he feels others percieve  Arkansas.  We're in there with a group of teams who win 7-8 games on average every year and occasionally suprise some with a 9 or 10 win season.  These are teams that compete for their conference championship every 10 years or so, if at all.  I think he's pretty much nailed it.

[demonHOG1013]

How is Alabama still a king. They havent been great in a long time. Two years ago they made a run that fell short the last few weeks before that, its been a while since they've been dominant. And Tennessee who has an asterisk has won a National Championship more recently than has bama.

Not too mention Arkansas has been better than bama in the last 10 years.

[HOGWILD_F4I]

damn... what about Nebraska?   

They are on the borderline of falling off the map, but they are still rated as a "King".

[ChicoHog]

I would move Washington down to a "knight"  they have not been relevant for  at leaat 5 years and really were their best in the 80's and early 90's but not for aling period of time like some of the other "barons". 

[Oliver]

damn... what about Nebraska?   

They are on the borderline of falling off the map, but they are still rated as a "King".

I think having 5 National Championships kind of grandfather's you in to the "King" category.

[piggingout]

man he's so right on about kansas.

[Rooka]

In my book we are spartans, we just dont have a king leonidas at the helm.

[UAfan]

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.

link:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html

We are one level above a peasant in most of the public's perception.  Syracuse would be moved up before us.  Ouch!

If this guy is basing his opinion on recent success than this is totally off imo, but if its on an overall scale than I agree with him somewhat.

[Stella]

Ole Miss and Okie St. Wow!  Nutt transferred from one Knight to another Knight.  Mitch transferred from a Knight to a King. 

[Boardon Hamsay]

His opinion is what it is.

I don't think it's as much his opinion on Arkansas as how he feels others percieve  Arkansas.  We're in there with a group of teams who win 7-8 games on average every year and occasionally suprise some with a 9 or 10 win season.  These are teams that compete for their conference championship every 10 years or so, if at all.  I think he's pretty much nailed it.

I agree, he nailed it.  Arkansas, over the history of the program, shows occassional moments of moving up to "baron" but needs to win consistently to do so.

[Oliver]

Ole Miss and Okie St. Wow!  Nutt transferred from one Knight to another Knight.  Mitch transferred from a Knight to a King. 

Plus, at the time that Nutt transferred...Arkansas would have probably been considered a Baron.

[demonHOG1013]

Colorado should be dropped down a tier just for the things that have gone on in their program in the last 5-7 years.

[The Marmot]

How is Alabama still a king. They havent been great in a long time. Two years ago they made a run that fell short the last few weeks before that, its been a while since they've been dominant. And Tennessee who has an asterisk has won a National Championship more recently than has bama.

Not too mention Arkansas has been better than bama in the last 10 years.

Go read how he judges the programs. Its based more on recognizablility, overall program performance and tradition, not just recent performance.

[slopinhogs]

once a king is always a king, but once a night is enough. :razorback:

[David Brent]

How is Alabama still a king. They havent been great in a long time. Two years ago they made a run that fell short the last few weeks before that, its been a while since they've been dominant. And Tennessee who has an asterisk has won a National Championship more recently than has bama.

Not too mention Arkansas has been better than bama in the last 10 years.

It has to be a historical thing, I suppose.  I agree though, there's no way they belong on that list based on the past 10-15 years.  Actually since 1990 they are:

138-71 (without NCAA forfeits)
129-80 (after NCAA forfeits)

I dunno if that's good enough or not, but if this thing were based on the past decade only they would be 67 wins-55 losses.  That's definitely not a top tier record.

[Since 1894]

1.  I don't agree with Clemson and Colo being above us.

2.  10 years ago, I am not sure we would have made to a Knight.

IMHO

[WarEagle]

I posted that article yesterday (http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=147597.0) if anyone wants to merge the threads.

On the whole, I thought his division was pretty accurate, except I think that South Carolina should be in the peasants category.  They have just not had much historical success.  I'm kind of rooting for them and hope that the Ole Ball Coach can continue the success he has had there, but IMO, they just are not there yet.

[WarEagle]

1.  I don't agree with Clemson and Colo being above us.

Clemson has thirteen ACC Championships and 15 bowl wins.

[Hogs4Ever]

I'd say overall he's about right.  I agree with the Hog's rating.

[Tammany Tom]

Mandel lost credibility by listing Florida and Florida State in the King Category. Why? If you are going to put Alabama in the King category based solely on their "history" then you can't put Florida and Florida State in the King category because they don't really have much "history".

I can live with Bama being in the King category because they are All-Time one of the Top 5 football programs. But I can't live with Florida and Florida State being there and not LSU since his reasoning in not putting LSU in there is:

*While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings.

LSU is #13 in total victories, # 10 in bowl appearances, and has 2 National Championships (1958,2003); plus several "Alabama" National Championships: 1908,1935,1936,1961.

LSU has 200 more victories than Florida State, more than Miami (I can live with Miami being a King because of their 5  legitimate National Championships), and more than Florida. LSU did more from 1893-1980 than all 3 Florida schools in the same time frame.

LSU has an overall record of 681-376-47 with a 63% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida State's numbers are off a bit since they haven't played football as long, 443-211-17 with a 67% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida is 619-368-40 with a 62% win percentage and 2 national championships. Based on these figures there is no legitmate reason for LSU to be rated behind the Gators and Noles.

LSU has more SEC titles (nine) than Florida (seven). Both programs have two national championships.

Now......tell me why Florida and Florida State are up there and not LSU based on his own reasoning in keeping LSU out?

[WarEagle]

Mandel lost credibility by listing Florida and Florida State in the King Category. Why? If you are going to put Alabama in the King category based solely on their "history" then you can't put Florida and Florida State in the King category because they don't really have much "history".

I can live with Bama being in the King category because they are All-Time one of the Top 5 football programs. But I can't live with Florida and Florida State being there and not LSU since his reasoning in not putting LSU in there is:

*While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings.

LSU is #13 in total victories, # 10 in bowl appearances, and has 2 National Championships (1958,2003); plus several "Alabama" National Championships: 1908,1935,1936,1961.

LSU has 200 more victories than Florida State, more than Miami (I can live with Miami being a King because of their 5  legitimate National Championships), and more than Florida. LSU did more from 1893-1980 than all 3 Florida schools in the same time frame.

LSU has an overall record of 681-376-47 with a 63% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida State's numbers are off a bit since they haven't played football as long, 443-211-17 with a 67% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida is 619-368-40 with a 62% win percentage and 2 national championships. Based on these figures there is no legitmate reason for LSU to be rated behind the Gators and Noles.

LSU has more SEC titles (nine) than Florida (seven). Both programs have two national championships.

Now......tell me why Florida and Florida State are up there and not LSU based on his own reasoning in keeping LSU out?

Nice post.  Very informative use of facts and figures.  You make a good case for LSU.

As for Florida and Florida State, if I had to guess why they may have a little more "reputation" or "cachet" or whatever you want to call it, I'd say it is because each of those programs has a very recongnizable "face."  Ask those 100 average fans in Montana, and I bet almost all of them could tell you something about Steve Spurrier and Bobby Bowden.  I think having an iconic person like that associated w/ the school goes a long way.

[Boardon Hamsay]

1.  I don't agree with Clemson and Colo being above us.

Clemson has thirteen ACC Championships and 15 bowl wins.

and a NC.  Our NC is from one of the 17 polls used in 1964.

[ErieHog]

Mandel lost credibility by listing Florida and Florida State in the King Category. Why? If you are going to put Alabama in the King category based solely on their "history" then you can't put Florida and Florida State in the King category because they don't really have much "history".

I can live with Bama being in the King category because they are All-Time one of the Top 5 football programs. But I can't live with Florida and Florida State being there and not LSU since his reasoning in not putting LSU in there is:

*While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings.

LSU is #13 in total victories, # 10 in bowl appearances, and has 2 National Championships (1958,2003); plus several "Alabama" National Championships: 1908,1935,1936,1961.

LSU has 200 more victories than Florida State, more than Miami (I can live with Miami being a King because of their 5  legitimate National Championships), and more than Florida. LSU did more from 1893-1980 than all 3 Florida schools in the same time frame.

LSU has an overall record of 681-376-47 with a 63% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida State's numbers are off a bit since they haven't played football as long, 443-211-17 with a 67% win percentage and 2 national championships.

Florida is 619-368-40 with a 62% win percentage and 2 national championships. Based on these figures there is no legitmate reason for LSU to be rated behind the Gators and Noles.

LSU has more SEC titles (nine) than Florida (seven). Both programs have two national championships.

Now......tell me why Florida and Florida State are up there and not LSU based on his own reasoning in keeping LSU out?

Have to disagree on Florida State; multiple National Titles, big bowl wins, scads of NFL Alumni, a 13 year stretch with never less than 10 wins. and most importantly, a 10 year stretch where they never finished lower than #5 Nationally.

They're a King program.

[porkurina]

Texas A&M and UCLA barons.  I think not.

[ErieHog]

Texas A&M and UCLA barons.  I think not.

Texas A&M and UCLA barons.  I think not.

He's right.  They're not nationally relevant, don't have much cache in the media, and are second fiddle programs in their own areas, who rarely if ever jump up and bite their primary competition.

[atekido]

BAMA would be the Tzar if its all based on history.  dont they have more champs than anyone else?

[Tammany Tom]

Have to disagree on Florida State; multiple National Titles, big bowl wins, scads of NFL Alumni, a 13 year stretch with never less than 10 wins. and most importantly, a 10 year stretch where they never finished lower than #5 Nationally.

They're a King program.

My point is clearly this: How can anyone exclude LSU as a King while ranking Florida State and Florida a King? Especially if your only reasoning in not including LSU is it's big-picture tradition does not match the 13 Kings.

Read his quote on why he didn't rank LSU as a King again:

* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings.

Please explain to me how LSU's big-picture tradition does not measure up to that of Florida and Florida State?

All-Time wins:
LSU  681
Florida 619
FSU  443

All-Time Winning Percentage:

LSU 63%
Florida 62%
FSU 67%

National Championships:

LSU 2
Florida 2
FSU 2

Conference Championships:

LSU 9 SEC
Florida 7 SEC
FSU 12 ACC

All-Time Bowl Appearances:

LSU 38
Florida 34
FSU 35

All-Time Bowl Wins:

LSU 19
Florida 16
FSU 20

All-Time Final AP Poll Ranking:

LSU 15
Florida 17
FSU 12

[ErieHog]

Have to disagree on Florida State; multiple National Titles, big bowl wins, scads of NFL Alumni, a 13 year stretch with never less than 10 wins. and most importantly, a 10 year stretch where they never finished lower than #5 Nationally.

They're a King program.

My point is clearly this: How can anyone exclude LSU as a King while ranking Florida State and Florida a King? Especially if your only reasoning in not including LSU is it's big-picture tradition does not match the 13 Kings.

Read his quote on why he didn't rank LSU as a King again:

* While LSU is clearly a premier program right now, its big-picture tradition does not match those of the 13 kings.

Please explain to me how LSU's big-picture tradition does not measure up to that of Florida and Florida State?

All-Time wins:
LSU  681
Florida 619
FSU  443

All-Time Winning Percentage:

LSU 63%
Florida 62%
FSU 67%

National Championships:

LSU 2
Florida 2
FSU 2

Conference Championships:

LSU 9 SEC
Florida 7 SEC
FSU 12 ACC

All-Time Bowl Appearances:

LSU 38
Florida 34
FSU 35

All-Time Bowl Wins:

LSU 19
Florida 16
FSU 20

All-Time Final AP Poll Ranking:

LSU 15
Florida 17
FSU 12

I'll rebut point by point:

Years in D1A Football:
LSU:70   (495 wins in Major College Football)
FSU: 52  (399 wins in  Major College Football)
FLA:  70 (467 wins in Major College Football)

Conference Championships:
LSU: 9 SEC in  74 years of conference affiliation (1 every 8 years)
Florida: 7 SEC titles in 74 years of conference affiliation (1 every 10.5 or so years)
FSU: 12 ACC titles in 15 years.    For those of you who can't do math, that means that the years that they've won their conference outnumber the years they've not,  4-1.



So, you're working with a much larger sample set with the LSU squad; this reflects overall in things like conference championships, and wins.   I'll get on to those later, after breaking down the raw numbers

Real Major College D1 Major/D1/D1A Winning Pctg:
LSU: .620 
FLA: .609
FSU: .665 
Ark: .591

What's this show?  LSU has more historical commonality, in terms of year by year performance, with Arkansas, than with FSU.

NCs:
FSU: Both in the lifetime of their fanbases.
Florida: Ibid
LSU:  One in 1958;  one more recently.

Again, FSU and Florida both with a distinct edge.

Bowl Appearances:
LSU: 38 (19-18-1 .500 )
Fla: 34 (16-18-0  .470)
FSU: 35 (20-13-2  .571)

Gee, there's starting to be a trend here...

So,  FSU has not only a better bowl winning percentage, and more bowl wins, but has also done so in about 3/4ths the time? 

Here's some other numbers to chew on:

AP Top 5 Finishes:

LSU: 7 times
FSU: 15-- including a 13 year span where they never finished outside of the Top 4.

That's more than double, for you scoring at home.

Heisman winners:
LSU:  1 in 70 years.
FSU: 2 in 52 years.

So, they've not only achieved more as a team, but as individuals....

LSU is a fine program, and is on the rise, but don't kid yourself.  They're not FSU.    They're on the upper end of Very Good.

[Tammany Tom]

I'll rebut point by point:

You did a nice job with your rebuttal.

I'll counter with this: Mandel's point in excluding LSU was that their "big-picture tradition" didn't measure up with the kings.

OK, you tore into Florida State, pretty well I might add, but couldn't with Florida, because you can't. Now, let's talk "big-picture tradition": This is the reason why he left off LSU and could add Florida State. Florida State's only tradition is with one coach. Their "big-picture tradition" is basically since 1975. There is a thread on here with your fans arguing back and forth with one another comparing your own tradition from 1960-1990 and since you joined the SEC. Your program's best years are a 30 year period, which is considered by several experts as being a top ten program for that period. Arkansas isn't a king, and rightfully so. However, you basically are saying that Florida State should be considered a King over LSU because they have a 30 year period of greatness with nothing prior to that 30 year period of any consequence. Again, this is an All-Time greatness heirarchy not recent history greatness. That is why he included Alabama even though they haven't accomplished anything of consequence in 15 years.

[Turnberry]

What has Va Tech ever won?  A couple of conf championships in crappy conferences and then lost the Sugar Bowl. 

Eight 10 win seasons in the last 12 years.
Five Top 10 finishes since 1995.  We haven't had one since 1982.
Finished in the Top 25 every year this decade except for 2003.

I'd be content with Virginia Tech's football resume the last 12 years. Especially when you compare it to ours.

[ErieHog]

I'll rebut point by point:

You did a nice job with your rebuttal.

I'll counter with this: Mandel's point in excluding LSU was that their "big-picture tradition" didn't measure up with the kings.

OK, you tore into Florida State, pretty well I might add, but couldn't with Florida, because you can't. Now, let's talk "big-picture tradition": This is the reason why he left off LSU and could add Florida State. Florida State's only tradition is with one coach. Their "big-picture tradition" is basically since 1975. There is a thread on here with your fans arguing back and forth with one another comparing your own tradition from 1960-1990 and since you joined the SEC. Your program's best years are a 30 year period, which is considered by several experts as being a top ten program for that period. Arkansas isn't a king, and rightfully so. However, you basically are saying that Florida State should be considered a King over LSU because they have a 30 year period of greatness with nothing prior to that 30 year period of any consequence. Again, this is an All-Time greatness heirarchy not recent history greatness. That is why he included Alabama even though they haven't accomplished anything of consequence in 15 years.

Actually, I didn't look at the Florida numbers as a head to head comparison, because I can see a reasonable argument for putting Florida only *marginally* ahead of LSU.

Some of the programs on his list are on there, not because of their recent on the field performance, but because of their intergenerational linkages, and the attention they garner, deserved or undeserved;  we may all think Alabama is washed up, but whatever happens to their program is always news.

[Hugulus Hog]

Mandel revised his opinion and would rank the Hogs one level higher.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/15/cfb.bag/1.html

Maybe it says something about me as a fan that I'm so eager to believe that we just aren't that good?  It looks like Mandel gives us some national respect and puts us in the same class as teams like Auburn.  I guess the rehabilitation from the Crowe era has been more successful that I give credit for.

[biggiepiggie]

The Kings and Barons have all been to BCS bowl games.  They others
have not and will not move up unless they do.