Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I don't think having the most wins keeps a team on the top tier list.  My guess is that it takes about thirty years of futility and mediocrity to drop from the top tier.  At some point, HS recruits, who have no clue 1920 existed, just stop even thinking about the U. of X. 

I don't know if Minny and Ole Miss were ever "top tier" (probably not), but only devoted fans even know they were at one time competing for NC routinely.

The same is true for Army (and Iowa Preflight, if you get a bit narrow).

When is the last time Army finished in the top ten of the polls?

Once you lost that luster and recruits don't even put you on their initial list of potentials, you are in trouble.  How many 4-5 star HS guys today have Nebraska on their list (other than kids affiliated with the program)?  Penn State may be clawing its way back and Michigan has recruited well after JH.

How is ND recruiting?  I know Kelly made a run, but last year?  Today?  How often is ND in the top of the recruiting ranks?  (Yes, I know recruiting isn't everything, but OSU and Bama stay at the top by recruiting combined with great coaching and depth).

Once the HS athletes don't know you exist, your patina is tarnishing and spiraling down.  Us old guys may have you in Tier One, but even that may not last much longer.

I don't think having the most wins keeps a team on the top tier list.  My guess is that it takes about thirty years of futility and mediocrity to drop from the top tier.  At some point, HS recruits, who have no clue 1920 existed, just stop even thinking about the U. of X. 

I don't know if Minny and Ole Miss were ever "top tier" (probably not), but only devoted fans even know they were at one time competing for NC routinely.

The same is true for Army (and Iowa Preflight, if you get a bit narrow).

When is the last time Army finished in the top ten of the polls?

Once you lost that luster and recruits don't even put you on their initial list of potentials, you are in trouble.  How many 4-5 star HS guys today have Nebraska on their list (other than kids affiliated with the program)?  Penn State may be clawing its way back and Michigan has recruited well after JH.

How is ND recruiting?  I know Kelly made a run, but last year?  Today?  How often is ND in the top of the recruiting ranks?  (Yes, I know recruiting isn't everything, but OSU and Bama stay at the top by recruiting combined with great coaching and depth).

Once the HS athletes don't know you exist, your patina is tarnishing and spiraling down.  Us old guys may have you in Tier One, but even that may not last much longer.

Does helmet matter less to kids?  I think so.  I don't think they particularly care how great Nebraska or Penn State or whoever once was.  But what that status gives them is a massive fan base.  If you didn't go to college, or didn't go to one with a major football program, chances are you root for a helmet school, or at least a program that is close to being one.  Big fan bases equals big ratings equals more coverage and more ticket sales and more merchandise sales and more money.

They can use that clout and that money to upgrade facilities, pay for better coaches.  Coaches who are generally one to two generations older than the players they coach, and do remember how great all of these programs were.

So do recruits care that Penn State is Penn State, or that Michigan is Michigan or that Texas is Texas?  Probably not.  But they do care about the coaches that those schools can attract, the increased attention and coverage those programs demand, and the perks those programs can buy.

Well, that's my point really.  The "storied programs" have fan support outside their alumni only so long as they are "relevant" and winning (with the possible exception of ND).  But, a top tier program can go through 4-5-6 mediocre coaching hires and find that base eroding, rather quickly, and if HS kids forget who they ever were, they become like Minnesota.

The the spiral starts - unable to recruit, unable to attract top tier coaches, unable to sustain fan interest, and attendance, and money, and mediocrity beckons.

If not mediocrity, a label as being a pretty good program that is not top tier, a program that will be 9-3 on year and 7-5 the next.  Three decades is my rough guess of how long it would take.

If Michigan for example in 2047 still had the most wins, but only one or two NY6 bowl game appearances, 5 or more losing seasons, and a lot of 7-5 seasons, they in my opinion would have dropped, and part of that would mean inability to recover because of recruiting.

That's the thing so, they have to totally whiff for a very long time.  The have the resources, both tangible and intangible, to cover up any mistake they make.  Michigan made back to back bad coaching hires, haven't won even a conference title in 14 years (2003 I think?), but they can afford Harbaugh, and that helmet attracts Harbaugh (or something similar if he hadn't been available), and a staff of top paid assistants, and it's like they never skipped a beat.

Flip side, MSU misses on some kids, has one bad year, coming off 3 Big Ten titles, another CCG appearance, a CFP appearance and a pair of BCS/NY6 bowl wins, and it totally undoes those 6 years.  And they can't afford to go flip their whole staff like an OSU can and simply bring in a Wilson/Schiano duo because CFP semifinal losses aren't good enough.

So hypothetically, sure.  But some of these things are so ingrained, that to think UM could miss badly, with the resources they have on like 20 straight years, and that MSU could overcome the odds to be on top for 20 straight years, or whatever, that to me it's like wondering if UM would vote to drop football all together.

Then mix in that because of the ratings they draw, they will get every benefit of the doubt, it's hard for them to really fall.  See Michigan getting an Orange Bowl over MSU in 1999 or a Sugar Bowl over MSU in 2011.  There's just too much momentum in one direction for me to believe at this point that things could reverse for a long enough period of time that these things would ever really change.

I generally agree with your point ELA, but I disagree when you say that you don't think these things could ever really change.  Forever is a REALLY long time. 

In the context of your example, MSU passing Michigan, maybe not.  On the other hand, Oregon or Florida passing Michigan, I think it could happen in ~30 years. 

I think that Nebraska was a helmet but I'm not sure that they are anymore.  They haven't won a NC since 1997 and haven't won a conference title since 1999. 

The thing that makes me hesitate on Nebraska is that they've done this before and recovered.  They were awful for about two decades in the 40's and 50's (no conference titles from 1941 through 1962 and then came roaring back under Devaney and Osborne in the 60's through the 90's.  Can they do that again?  Is there a new Devaney out there somewhere that can bring them back again?

Football doesn't have enough time left for it to change.

Bob Devaney would not have survived the back-to-back 6-4 seasons (67-68) in today's climate.

Hell, many of them already want Riley gone.

Aren't we all cheerful today ....

 

Take a look at this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-nfl-players-brain-disease-cte-20170725-story.html

Response to various Anonymous Coward points:
You know I respect you and I'm happy and debating not mad and hateful, right?

Ok, just checking:

Of course. Even when needling, we're basically family.

As a separate stylistic and continuity issue: in a conversation with this many words and claims, I would prefer you to (whenever possible) individually quote the sections you are responding to, rather than "respond variously" or in general.

Your original statement dealt with "the team that is winning".  I think that present tense "winning" is inappropriate when we are talking about 90+ years.  Thus I think that it is misleading to say that "Michigan is winning the most league titles".  They have won the most, but they are NOT currently winning the most. 

You skipped over my response about how my intention was not for that claim to be read in the present tense. You should respond to that response:   

"You misunderstood. I was expressing that the most meaningful thing going forward (future tense) is to be the team that wins the conference championships the most frequently. (By extension, my point was to discuss it this way...) if we had that conversation in 1896, at the dawn of Big Ten football, we'd learn that by now (until now), that title would be held by Michigan."

Response to various Anonymous Coward points:

I get that anything less than "all-time" is "arbitrary". 

That's correct.

I respect you as a poster enough to not entirely stick my fingers in my ears and say "meh, you're a fan, this feels predictable."  (...) It doesn't mean that all of us or any of us are being intentionally deceitful, it just means that we all tend to settle on positions that are good for our points.

This is no doubt true and does obscure conversations. But as a coincidence which is sometimes convenient for Michigan fans (but in persuading you of my motivations, inconvenient for me), the all-time span which shines the brightest for Michigan is also the least arbitrary.