Facebook App
The football programs at my college alma mater, University of Illinois, and my high school alma mater, Blue Island (now Eisenhower), are very much alike. They produce a great team about once a decade but lack consistent talent to keep pace with the perennial powers.
What makes a perennial power like Michigan and Ohio State and Penn State and Alabama and USC and Texas and Oklahoma?
What makes a consistent winner like Mount Carmel and Maine South and Joliet Catholic and Naperville North and Wheaton Warrenville South and Thornton?
In the last six decades, Illinois has won Big Ten championships in 1951 (Johnny Karras, Chuck Boerio, Al Brosky), 1953 (J.C. Caroline, Mickey Bates), 1963 (Dick Butkus, Jim Grabowski), 1983 (Don Thorp, Tim Brewster, Jack Trudeau, Jim Juriga), 1990 (Howard Griffith) and 2001 (Kurt Kittner, Tony Pashos, Brandon Lloyd).
Blue Island had unbeaten teams in 1951 (Jack Heniff), 1955 (Bill Moore, Bill Seilheimer) and 1971 (Jerome Brown, Jimmy Smith).
Illinois can't beat Michigan or Ohio State. In my time, Blue Island couldn't beat Thornton or Bloom.
Why? What does it take to build a program that produces outstanding players year after year, that wins consistently, that has a lot of ups and few downs? What is the common denominator, the difference-maker?
"There are 16 super schools around the country," recruiting analyst Tom Lemming explained. "They became super powers in the college ranks because of their winning tradition and consistency over a long period of time.
"There isn't one thing that determines a super power. It could be coaching or recruiting or administration. But they are all on the same track. They built up a record of consistency so they can afford to make some mistakes, some pratfalls, like Notre Dame did with Ty Willingham."
The telltale sign of a super power, according to Lemming, that separates it from a Johnny-come-lately and other schools is they keep their coaches for a long period of time. Other programs win for a year or two and lose their coaches to another school.
"It is a sign that you have made it (as a super power) is when the coach decides to stay and he keeps getting great players year after year," Lemming said. "Trace the history of Ohio State and Michigan and Notre Dame and Alabama and Texas and Oklahoma and USC. That's what every program aspires to be."
Cell Phone Alerts
Comments
I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, FIRST THORNTON HAD A
TERRIBLE SEASON, NOT THIS SEASON BUT LAST SEASON!
AS FAR AS ILLINOIS, THAT'S WHY COACH ZOOK STARTED
PLAYING YOUNGER PLAYERS IN THE BACKFIELD, HE LOST A
FIRST ROUND SELECTION FROM THE ROSE BOWL GAME, ALSO
THE YOUNG MAN FROM SIMEON IS JUST NOW STARTING TO PLAY
LIKE HE DID IN HIGH SCHOOL, THE OFFENSE IS JUST NOT
CONSISTENT ENOUGH EVEN WITH A GREAT QUARTERBACK IN
WILLIAMS, TO BE A COMPLETE POWERHOUSE IN THE BIG TEN!
BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE BRIGHT SIDE WE GET TO SEE ILLINOIS FOOTBALL ON TELEVISION ON A MORE CONSISTENT
BASIS, AND COACH ZOOK HAS BROUGHT EXCITEMENT BACK TO
FIGHTING ILLINI FOOTBALL!
THEY WILL MAKE A BOWL THIS SEASON, NOT A BCS BOWL GAME
BUT THEY WILL PLAY JUST LIKE NORTHWESTERN IN SOME BOWL
GAME!
ALSO LOOK FOR SUPPO SANNI OF HF TO CONTINUE TO PLAY
VERY WELL ON SPECIAL TEAMS FOR THE ORANGE AND BLUE!
I HOPE COACH WEBER ASK HIM TO PLAY BASKETBALL WHEN
THE FOOTBALL SEASON ENDS!
THIS YOUNG MAN IS A REAL ATHLETE!
Posted by: PHIL SMITH JR | November 1, 2008 1:09 AM
I tend to disagree with Lemming contention that long-tenured coaches are the key to success. Success begets success. Coaches tend to stick around when they are winning and the school and its fans are happy. They are happy when they win. The successful ones who win and leave (Lou Holtz, Nick Saban, etc.) are almost always looking for a better job, although in Holtz's case at Notre Dame, they had reached an impasse and the administration stood it ground. When a coach at a superpower leaves, there is no shortage of willing successors because of the built-in advantages to make the coach successful. The downside is there is more pressure to be successful, however, that is present at all schools. At least at the superpower, you have the tools to do so.
I think the real reason those schools are successful is the obvious one - they have always won, going back to the days when the game was a game and not the business it has become. Take Michigan and Notre Dame, for example. They won most of their National Championships before 1980 (actually before WWII). Television was non-existent or limited. Southern schools wouldn't allow black players on their teams, but rules were looser with regards to academics, scholarships, off season jobs, etc. Those traditions built on themselves. That led to greater interest, bigger stadiums, higher ticket prices and most of all, better athletes. Then two other fundamental changes happened, Don Canham became Athletic Director at Michigan and brought a marketing/business mindset to the job. Although a former track coach, he had a successful side business and could see things from several angles. He also saw 20,000 empty seats in Michigan Stadium and realized he could increase revenue without raising costs by fielding a better team. To his dying day, he says the smartest thing he ever did was hire Bo Schembechler. When Bo upset Ohio State and went to the Rose Bowl, that sealed the deal, although Michigan did not start regularly selling out until he brought Notre Dame back on the schedule.
The other key development was the end of limited television exposure. With cable TV there was more capacity to televise and Oklahoma and Notre Dame were the first to successfully kill the deal between the NCAA and ABC which limited a school to 3 appearances in 2 years. Notre Dame ended up with their own TV network. So the rich became richer. While the NCAA exploits athletes by not paying them, touting the "student athlete" and graduation rates, look at the academic majors of the revenue sports players. You don't see engineers and pre-med. You see general studies, sports management, parks and recreation, etc. So what attracts those superior athletes to those schools? You visit a school and your host is wearing a fistful of rings signifying conference championships and bowls and you see walnut paneled locker rooms and "player lounges" and "academic centers" to take care of the nasty little business of school. The school - one of Lemming's superpowers - is always on prime time TV - the late afternoon or evening game on the network channel, not the 11 AM game on ESPN - U. Contrast that to the average school which doesn't have the rings, the TV exposure or the mega-sized stadium that produces the revenue for all those player facilities. Case in point: Ohio State's athletic department budget is $200 million. Purdue's is about $55 million. Just a little disparity, don't you think? Some schools have overcome some of that, or are trying to, thanks to munificent alums who give a bazillion dollars. T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma State and Phil Knight and Oregon are two notable examples. I am afraid that the college football landscape is pretty much etched in stone at this point, no matter what the NCAA would have you believe. At least in the NFL you have salary caps, the free agent market and the draft so that good management and coaching can changes things around. Not so in college football. Lemming's point about long-tenured coaches is a case of correlation, but correlation does not prove causation as any college statistics student can tell you.
Posted by: jfv2000 | November 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Dear Taylor,
You might want to check the record book before claiming that Illinois can't beat Ohio St--in the 23 games played since 1983 Ohio St. has won 12 and Illinois 11. Have you forgotten the five consecutive Illinois wins from 1988 to 1992?
Chuck Sampson
Posted by: Chuck Sampson | November 5, 2008 9:41 PM