2024 College Football Power 5 Tier List

Interesting discussion Six Categories

The guy likes Cal in his fourth category.
Bowl Season. Says some nice thing about Wilcox and Mendoza. I think he says Cal could have their best season in awhile.

Gotta take his assessment with a bit of skepticism. He doesn't even know the first name of our QB (called him Francisco Mendoza). And I think he is very generous in his opinion of Wilcox and in placing us in the "Bowl Season" category. "Below Mid Sadly" might be more appropriate.

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Golden One said:

---

Gotta take his assessment with a bit of skepticism. He doesn't even know the first name of our QB (called him Francisco Mendoza). And I think he is very generous in his opinion of Wilcox and in placing us in the "Bowl Season" category. "Below Mid Sadly" might be more appropriate.

---

I think it is to be expected that only one name would likely be used to refer to a player and that name would be their last name.

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

move Syracuse to should win and Miami to toss up.

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

Rushinbear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

move Syracuse to should win and Miami to toss up.

---

Home and away matters too. Auburn and SMU on the road are tougher than Miami at home.

Golden One said:

---

Gotta take his assessment with a bit of skepticism. He doesn't even know the first name of our QB (called him Francisco Mendoza). And I think he is very generous in his opinion of Wilcox and in placing us in the "Bowl Season" category. "Below Mid Sadly" might be more appropriate.

---

I mentioned before, but it didn't go through, that it is more likely that someone would refer to our QB with one work and that would be "Mendoza."

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

It is the opposite, we had the misfortune of having great teams when another team in the conference was the best in the country ('75 USC, '91 UW, '04 and '06 USC). Stanford manages to have their best teams when the conference is down. Instead of taking advantage when the traditional conference powers are weak, Cal hangs onto bad defense minded coaches (Holmoe and Wilcox) using their mediocre or worse record and occasional "upset" in a weakened conference as an excuse to extend them,

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

It is the opposite, we had the misfortune of having great teams when another team in the conference was the best in the country ('75 USC, '91 UW, '04 and '06 USC). Stanford manages to have their best teams when the conference is down. Instead of taking advantage when the traditional conference powers are weak, Cal hangs onto bad defense minded coaches (Holmoe and Wilcox) using their mediocre or worse record and occasional "upset" in a weakened conference as an excuse to extend them,

---

The interesting thing is that the ACC right now is pretty terrible, Florida State will reload but Louisville this past season was a pretender and Clemson is wobbling, so if anything we should win a lot more games just because we are entering a pretty weak league, and Florida State despite ongoing legal silliness does have a legit gripe with how bad the league has fallen off compared to 10-15 years ago, Virginia Tech has not been the same since Beamer left, Pitt and Wake had decent seasons recently but crashed quickly, Miami keeps showing glimpses but has not won a major bowl in two decades, etc.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Bad take. Oregon actually during the bulk of the Tedford era was pretty sucky (corresponded to the fall off of
Mike Bellotti after the Feista Win). Chipster does take them in 2009 and 2010 to great things - coinciding with Tedford's demise.

And yes, USC was great in those years. The hump we could not get over.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

Other than USC it WAS down. What other programs were good? None. And especially the traditionally good schools - like Washington. After the Fiesta win in 2001 Oregon under Belloit was 35 ad 24 in in Pac12

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

It is the opposite, we had the misfortune of having great teams when another team in the conference was the best in the country ('75 USC, '91 UW, '04 and '06 USC). Stanford manages to have their best teams when the conference is down. Instead of taking advantage when the traditional conference powers are weak, Cal hangs onto bad defense minded coaches (Holmoe and Wilcox) using their mediocre or worse record and occasional "upset" in a weakened conference as an excuse to extend them,

---

The interesting thing is that the ACC right now is pretty terrible, Florida State will reload but Louisville this past season was a pretender and Clemson is wobbling, so if anything we should win a lot more games just because we are entering a pretty weak league, and Florida State despite ongoing legal silliness does have a legit gripe with how bad the league has fallen off compared to 10-15 years ago, Virginia Tech has not been the same since Beamer left, Pitt and Wake had decent seasons recently but crashed quickly, Miami keeps showing glimpses but has not won a major bowl in two decades, etc.

---

It is a huge opportunity for Cal. Going off Sagarin for this past season the ACC looks like:

1. FSU #13

2. Louisville #23
3. Duke #25
4. SMU #27
5. Clemson #28

6. UNC #34
7. NC State #40
8. Miami #42
9. Virginia Tech #43
10. Cal #46


11. Syracuse #81
12. Wake #85
13. Virginia #89
14. Pitt #90
15. Boston College #93
16. Stanford #96

For comparison if Florida State had been in the PAC-12:

1. Oregon #1

2. UW #10
3. FSU #13
4. Arizona #14
5. Oregon State #16

6. USC #20
7. UCLA #24
8. Utah #29
9. WSU #33

10. Cal #46

11. Colorado #55

12. ASU #77

13. Stanford #96

A much better opportunity for Cal, with some improvement obviously, to compete and to be in the top half of the ACC, something Wilcox was never able to do in the PAC-12 over 7 seasons.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

Other than USC it WAS down. What other programs were good? None. And especially the traditionally good schools - like Washington. After the Fiesta win in 2001 Oregon under Belloit was 35 ad 24 in in Pac12

---

Oregon had down seasons in 2004 and 2006 around a 10-win campaign in 2005, and then they were good from there on out pretty much. ASU and OSU were better than in recent years. Programs have cycles but the league was about the same.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

Other than USC it WAS down. What other programs were good? None. And especially the traditionally good schools - like Washington. After the Fiesta win in 2001 Oregon under Belloit was 35 ad 24 in in Pac12

---

According to Sagarin:

2004
1. USC #1
2. Cal #2
3. OSU #11
4. ASU #14
5. UCLA #19
6. Stanford #30
7. Oregon #38
8. WSU #52
9. Arizona #67
10. UW #93

5 out of 10 teams in the Top 20 and 7 out of 10 in the Top 40 is STRONG. Not to mention the #1 and #2 teams.

2016
1. USC #1
2. Cal #6
3. OSU #28
4. UCLA #37
5. Oregon #41
6. ASU #45
7. WSU #48
8. UW #53
9. Arizona #56
10. Stanford #122

OK, a much stronger argument the conference was weaker here. Still, even though Cal was #6, USC was the best team in the country according to Sagarin Predictor. And I would argue the conference overall was very good, even if UW and Oregon weren't.

Here is the PAC-12 in 2019, Wilcox's best year:

1. Oregon #8
2. Utah #14
3. UW #15
4. USC #25
5. WSU #31
6. ASU #39
7. Cal #50
8. OSU #60
9. Stanford #61
10. UCLA #68
11. Colorado #72
12. Arizona #78

We were the 7th best team in a weak league, with our California rivals USC, UCLA and Stanford at low points.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

Looks like:

3 teams should lose (based on higher tier): FSU, Miami, NC State
3 teams should win (based on lower tier): WF, Furd, Pitt
4 teams toss up (based on same tier): SMU, Oregon St. Syracuse, Auburn
2 teams have to win: Davis & SDSU

Looks like another 5-7, 6-6, 7-5 season...... on paper

---

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

---

It is very very hard for Cal to get to the next level of 8 or 9 wins. We just are not that kind of program (and the historical period when we were had a number of "odd" things in the Pac12 that helped Tedford (along with building good teams). A once in a generation talent at QB; the low of Huskie football even with all the advantages; a Furd team in the valley of pre-hairball horribleness.

---

Rodgers had one full season at QB. USC and Oregon had National Championship level teams during the Tedford era.

---

Yeah, I have never bought the argument that the conference was significantly easier in Tedford's day than it has been since. Heck, in our one full season with Rodgers we had the misfortune of going up against the absolute best USC squad in decades. Basically the reason we didn't get a Rose Bowl out of it.

---

Other than USC it WAS down. What other programs were good? None. And especially the traditionally good schools - like Washington. After the Fiesta win in 2001 Oregon under Belloit was 35 ad 24 in in Pac12

---

Oregon State and Washington State had consistently good teams, with solid coaching under Riley and Price. Oregon had top 10 finishes both in the early and in the late 2000s.

The Pac was not down in the Tedford era, in addition to USC having had its best run in modern times under Pete Carroll.