The Athletic's ranking of all time underachieving football programs

Love it.

Who else is on the list?

Them having Rice anywhere on that list is ridiculous.

They have less than 5000 total undergraduates after having actual admission standards that they will not reduce for athletes.

Further, they make students take real majors, and don't have "General studies" type degrees.

Vandy and Duke are significantly larger programs and in major conferences for over half a century.

This list is stupid, although A&M at #1 is legit.

Can't read article.

Just how hard is it to name the link or even better, start with that and then do a copy and paste of the article.

For those who don't want to go through the BS of choosing a profile to login.

10. Rice

9. UCLA

8. Wisconsin

7. Virginia
Why they belong: The Cavaliers have a strong recruiting footprint in the DMV and rank in the top 40 in stadium capacity and money. Virginia’s academics and demographics make the school one of the top potential Big Ten/SEC targets in the next round of realignment. That all means the potential is there for the program to aim higher than being near the top of our previous list of the nation’s most mediocre programs.

Yeah, but: Is Virginia that much better situated than some of the other members of the ACC’s middle class? The Cavaliers have produced fewer NFL picks than Washington State, Kentucky and Syracuse, so they’re not exactly wasting talent.

Final thought: Virginia consistently ranks near the top of all-sports rankings, with national titles in six sports (including men’s basketball and baseball) since 2014. If the Cavaliers can win at that level in other sports, they should have more than two conference titles in football over the last century.

6. North Carolina
Why they belong: The Tar Heels have many of the same advantages as Virginia, plus 40 more draft picks (including Pro Football Hall of Famers Lawrence Taylor and Julius Peppers). UNC also boasts three coaches in the College Football Hall of Fame; all of them won national titles after leaving North Carolina. Bill Belichick wouldn’t have taken the UNC job if he didn’t see a lot of unrealized potential in a program that has won only seven conference titles with seven top-10 finishes over the last century.

Yeah, but: The Carolinas have improved as a recruiting territory, but the Tar Heels have a lot of local competition for those players. UNC’s status as a traditional basketball school has probably limited football’s potential historically.


Final thought: Thirty schools have started in the preseason rankings at least 20 times, according to the College Poll Archive. The Tar Heels have the highest bust percentage of them all, going from ranked to unranked 15 times (71 percent).

Mack Brown claps his hands.
UNC has had some notable NFL players and is near a strong recruiting area, but the Tar Heels might be limited by their basketball status.

5. Illinois
Why they belong: Its state ranks among the top six in producing all-time and current NFL players, according to Pro-Football-Reference. The Illini haven’t done enough to capitalize on that local talent or solid positioning in finances, stadium capacity and talent acquisition. Illinois’ back-to-back win total in 2024-25 (19 victories) marks its best two-year run; that says more about how mediocre the Illini have been than about what they’re capable of.

Yeah, but: Depending on who’s keeping track, Illinois won or shared at least three national titles before 1930. Those championships have to count for something, right?

Final thought: With all due respect to Red Grange and the Illini’s triumphs before the age of color television, Illinois has underachieved in the sport’s modern era. The Illini have only seven top-25 finishes in the last 50 years and fewer all-time than Mississippi State, Duke and Navy. Not even all those years of Big Ten West schedules could get them out of our spot as the Big Ten’s biggest underachiever.

4. Florida
Why they belong: Hear me out. The only schools in the top 11 in all of our potential-related categories were Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama and Georgia. The Gators had seven fewer conference titles than the next-lowest (Georgia) and ranked last in finishes while losing 5 percent more of their games. Florida has top-seven potential but has historically produced results outside the top 15.

Yeah, but: The Gators won three national titles from 1996 to 2008 and came close a few other times under Steve Spurrier and Urban Meyer. Can we really call that underachieving?

Final thought: This was the toughest call because Florida’s highs are so high. But the Gators are the flagship university in a top-tier recruiting state, and have Clemson-like results when not led by Spurrier/Meyer. Florida’s spikes have been the exception, not the rule, for a program that has never made the CFP and hasn’t won an SEC title since 2008.


3. Stanford
Why they belong: Stanford ranked in the top 25 in our financial metrics and NFL Draft picks, while also boasting more Hall of Fame coaches (six) than anyone but Ohio State. With that background, you’d expect more than 20 finishes in the top 25 (the last in 2017) and zero national titles in the modern era. Remember, too, that Stanford produced four No. 1 picks at quarterback (Andrew Luck, John Elway, Jim Plunkett and Bobby Garrett) with only one top-five finish to show for it.

Yeah, but: Stanford, like Cal, isn’t close to the state’s recruiting hotbeds, and its lofty academic profile limits the types of players the program can sign.

Final thought: Stanford has long been the gold standard for all-around athletic success while building a pipeline for future Olympians. Football is the outlier. Although Stanford is an ACC oddball now, that wasn’t always the case. The Cardinal shouldn’t have a worse winning percentage (.546) than Boston College, Troy or San Diego State.

2. South Carolina
Why they belong: The Gamecocks have enough money and nearby players (plus an intimidating home atmosphere) to be a strong program or at least occasionally break through. That has rarely happened. Their only three top-10 finishes came under Spurrier. The rest of South Carolina’s history is dotted with trips to the Gator Bowl thanks to a winning percentage (.509) on par with Purdue.

Yeah, but: Conference affiliation matters. Can we really blame the Gamecocks for struggling to gain footing in the SEC while battling programs like Georgia and Tennessee?

Final thought: South Carolina hasn’t claimed a conference title since winning the ACC in 1969. In-state rival Clemson has three national championships since then, showing that a team in the state can win at a high level. South Carolina just hasn’t been the one to do it. Even if the Gamecocks don’t have Florida’s potential, they’re not doing enough with it (aside from beating the Gators last week).

1. Texas A&M
Why they belong: This isn’t recency bias. The Aggies rank no lower than 17th in our potential-related statistics but lack high-end results. Texas A&M has only six ranked finishes this century and last won its conference in 1998. The Aggies squandered one of the best recruiting classes ever under Fisher and, like Stanford, have connections to six Hall of Fame coaches (including Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings, who both won it all at Alabama). The Aggies, however, have only one national title in the modern era (1939).

Yeah, but: Texas A&M’s fertile recruiting footprint is also crowded because the Aggies have had to fight nearby powers like Texas and LSU. Even with its hiccups, Texas A&M is still a top-20 historical program, so the floor has been relatively high.

Final thought: On paper, Texas A&M should be at least the second-best program on our list (alongside Florida). Yet the Aggies have fewer ranked finishes than UCLA, a worse bowl record than Rice and a winning percentage (.605) in the same neighborhood as Arizona State and Utah. Barring a turnaround, A&M will go from preseason top 25 to unranked for the 18th time. But good news, Aggies: You finally made the top of one set of rankings.