What defines a true power program?

[Hoover Dawg]

I'd have to say national championships within the past 20 years. Natties buy you staying power, but it doesn't last forever, so that weeds out like Princeton and similar. Using this rationale, these are the power programs at present:

Alabama: 4
USC: 2
Ohio State: 2
Florida: 2
Florida State: 2
LSU: 2
Oklahoma: 1
Tennessee: 1
Miami: 1
Michigan: 1
Texas: 1
Auburn: 1
Clemson: 1

Just missed (within 10 years): Washington, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Colorado, Penn State

The only other program I could maybe say that may belong is Georgia. Obviously there will always be outliers. Next year, Nebraska/Michigan/Tennessee will fall off the top list. I think the biggest thing is, after a natty, you have 20 years of people thinking your are a big boy program before you start to fall into mediocrity again, and it gets tougher to get back on top, hire decent coaches, etc. All the other stuff is fleeting. If you wanted to get more detailed, you might get into national championship/BCS/Big 6 appearances and such, but those don't have near the staying power. Ask Kansas or Wake Forest. Couple others are maybe Oregon and Oklahoma State, recently anyway.

I'm guessing it's probably the same for basketball. Baseball is a little more random IMO.

 

[MarkDallas]

I'd say top 25 ranking x% of weeks for the last ten years. Not sure what the magic number would be. Maybe you could throw in an exemption for national championship winners.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

I think that's a better way to judge them, since I would consider Michigan State and TCU powers. Recruiting powers? No. They do more with less than any other programs and are in contention for a New Years Six Bowl nearly every season. They will have a down year every so often, but everyone does not named Bama.

 

[Hoover Dawg]

A lot of people think this, so yeah that is valid. But to me, you can't be a power program unless you've shown the ability to amass the resources and talent necessary to win it all. Championships have to weigh the most in my mind.

 

[johnson86-1]

A lot of people think this, so yeah that is valid. But to me, you can't be a power program unless you've shown the ability to amass the resources and talent necessary to win it all. Championships have to weigh the most in my mind.

To me, a power program is even more selective than that, and requires that you are a power over different time periods. A school like Clemson has a decent history and obviously is really good right now, but I wouldn't be shocked to see them slide back into solid power 5 program in the next decade. They just don't have any obvious reason to be better than that. Alabama is essentially the same as far as demographics and competing with others, but they have proven over a long period of time that their reputation, combined with fanatical fans, and the resources those fans are willing to put in, that they are going to be good. And I think that's mostly what it requires, is a tradition of winning that is self perpetuating, or alternatively a huge advantage by recuirint base either because of population or lack of competition, or a combination of both.

So basically Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, USCw, Texas (even though they are working on proving me wrong here), Florida, FSU, UGA (another underachiever), LSU, and I'm sure some others I'm not thinking of off hand. Then you have Penn St., which I think still has its power program status, and then Notre Dame which I think has lost it although maybe not, and then schools like UT and Nebraska, which have lost that status if they ever had it.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

Probably need to break down the power label into 3 tiers while we're at it...
View attachment 6616