Strongest College Football Team

To be honest, sometimes I think that the S&C coach gets too much credit and too much blame when it comes to the strength and performance of the team.

Perennial strength is really a direct reflection of propper recruiting. If you want big and strong OL, you need to recruit that. You can’t expect a S&C coach to make a 325lb lineman with a freshman than weighs 240lb, but you can with a kid that weighs 270-285lb. The same can be said with any attribute with any other position whether it’s speed, agility, intellegence, etc.

Now, with all of this said, I think that a true mark of a good S&C coach is one that has a program focussed on keeping your top 44 on the field week in and week out. You can build a team up strong or whatever attribute that is desired, but if they are spending time in the training room and not on the field, your program is really worthless no matter how many guys squat 500lbs, clean 300lbs, or bench 400lbs.

Very interesting thread for a Non informed English guy.
Just wondering what criteria your using to judge these teams and how ‘strong’ they are?
Draft? alleged gym numbers? heresay?

Reason is, if someone asked me what University had the strongest rugby team in the UK (just using Rugby as an example), i would have no clue, even when i was involved in University rugby.

Im aware that college football is a massive event in its own right.

How big a celebrity figure are some of these guys?

How do these teams compare whith pro outfits? Would a top college team compare with a mediocre pro team for instance?

Interesting…

Mick.

What about air force? Cinsidering that it’s the most competitive of the service academies, and they typically dont have the athletes that the other schools have, I think they have got to be high up there.

Of course considering that we cant even agree on who the strongest man in the world is (mariusz - “no he’s just the fastest strongman”. Zydrunas - “no he’s just pretty good at a wide variety of odd strength lifts, he’s not the absolute top in any one”. Reza Zadeh - “no he’s just explosive”. Garry Frank - “no, he wears cheater gear”…) its pretty hopeless to think that we’ll agree on the strongest football team

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
There it is, FSU has to be up there. Anyone pay attention in last year’s NLF draft?

Or the Buckeyes.[/quote]

Second that. Didn’t they send 9 guys to the NFL last year? That doesn’t happen unless you’ve got the goods.

I dont think that we need to agree with anybody who the strongest College Football team is but I guess there must be a team which when it comes on field looks really big and muscular and also moves fast?? And btw. I am not really that uninformed because I can of course look on the sites of the different teams and try to compare a few no. or look at the players draft no. and things. I also got a few S&c- programs from some College teams and when I look at the strength numbers I gotta say that Iowa or Chris Doyle and his staff are doin a damn good job although I dont have the numbers of the Sooners, Lsu, Usc,Osu and so on, so it is not really comparable!! What do yall think of the Maryland Terps?

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Phoenix1911 wrote:

Not sure if you’ve noticed but both programs produce some rediculously strong players. The programs work for the players.

No, they really don’t. Some players are able to use their genetics and/or outside-the-program lifting to excel IN SPITE of those lifting programs, but not BECAUSE of them.

Anyway, as for the original question, I think Iowa and Nebraska do the best job of transforming lesser recruits into amazingly strong performance athletes.

Overall, however, I would put my money on Texas to have the “strongest” players.

Wake Forest, although relatively unknown, has an awesome lifting program, so I’ll give them an honorable mention.[/quote]

This from a former PSU footballer.

Thanks for the insight.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
JFS wrote:
Although not the rule …typically the schools that send more players to the NFL, have superior strength programs …

“The U”
USC
Penn State
Michigan

all come to mind.

Haha or maybe they just get superior athletes to begin with? Michigan’s injury rates and lack of player development despite their ridiculous recruiting draw is embarrassing.[/quote]

The University of Michigan has the most victories in college football! The current strength coach has been there for almost 30 years and is one of the best football strength coaches at any level. He is also a professor of physiology at the university. Mike Gittleson would be at the top of any field he choose to enter. The guy is a great coach motivator and mentor to thousands of young men that have come through his program.
So lets all post about things that you know, not things you think you know.
Many of the posters fail to remmember that training athletes is different than training powerlifters, or just being a weight lifting enthusiast.

Something to remember is that strength coaches change. The best programs are the ones that get good strength coaches and keep them. My opinion would be NU with Epley and KSU with Cole. Both colleges aren’t ever in the top for recruiting classes, yet they field phenomenal athletes.

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
The current strength coach has been there for almost 30 years and is one of the best football strength coaches at any level.[/quote]

Which is why a lot of the top athletes there tend to seek outside training during the off-season. I don’t need a degree or an appointment from Schembechler (the reason why UM is one of the greatest programs ever!) to tell me that HIT is a terrible system to train by.

Suceeding BECAUSE of the S&C program… or IN SPITE of the program?

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
The current strength coach has been there for almost 30 years and is one of the best football strength coaches at any level.

Which is why a lot of the top athletes there tend to seek outside training during the off-season. I don’t need a degree or an appointment from Schembechler (the reason why UM is one of the greatest programs ever!) to tell me that HIT is a terrible system to train by.

Suceeding BECAUSE of the S&C program… or IN SPITE of the program?

[/quote]

It may be that the differences in strength programs is pretty close to irrelevant? Many division 1 programs have great athletes, not all win consistantly. there are so many variables in creating a winning program.
Strength training is 1 variable. All of the programs that have been mentioned are very good. Some use different protocals. It is a different way of doing the same thing. I have personaly witnessed many college programs and have great respect for all of these programs, every one is different.
Nebraska has a very structured and excellent strength program but have had limited success in recent years. I respect that program as much as I did when they won. Please don’t tell me that Nebraska does not recruit great players.
When a HIT program has trouble winning it’s the strength program? When an olympic lifting program loses it’s because of recruiting?
Ohio State during the Cooper era could not beat Michigan but arguably had better athletes than Michigan?
By the way I am not a HIT guy. I use many different programs.

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
The current strength coach has been there for almost 30 years and is one of the best football strength coaches at any level.

Which is why a lot of the top athletes there tend to seek outside training during the off-season. I don’t need a degree or an appointment from Schembechler (the reason why UM is one of the greatest programs ever!) to tell me that HIT is a terrible system to train by.

Suceeding BECAUSE of the S&C program… or IN SPITE of the program?

It may be that the differences in strength programs is pretty close to irrelevant? Many division 1 programs have great athletes, not all win consistantly. there are so many variables in creating a winning program.
Strength training is 1 variable. All of the programs that have been mentioned are very good. Some use different protocals. It is a different way of doing the same thing. I have personaly witnessed many college programs and have great respect for all of these programs, every one is different.
Nebraska has a very structured and excellent strength program but have had limited success in recent years. I respect that program as much as I did when they won. Please don’t tell me that Nebraska does not recruit great players.
When a HIT program has trouble winning it’s the strength program? When an olympic lifting program loses it’s because of recruiting?
Ohio State during the Cooper era could not beat Michigan but arguably had better athletes than Michigan?
By the way I am not a HIT guy. I use many different programs.

[/quote]

Oh I will certainly agree that the S&C program is not to blame when a program loses and not to credit when they win. It’s certainly not nearly as important as the actually football coaching staff. However, I think a lot of these schools that are running HIT programs are doing themselves a disservice.

I think it’s wrong to say that ALL of the programs are good. Certainly some are better than others. IMO, you look at some of these programs, and you can see as a general trend what they are doing and some are doing a better job than others.

These are the strongest and fastest teams that I have seen play this season or last. I am not sure that it is because of the strength programs.

Strong:

Tennessee
Ohio State
Iowa
Michigan
Texas

Fast:

Tennessee
Ohio State
Florida State (have not seen them yet this year)
Miami (have not seen them yet this year)
USC
Michigan
Texas (might be fast but it was hard to tell, their opponent was awful.)

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:

Nebraska has a very structured and excellent strength program but have had limited success in recent years. I respect that program as much as I did when they won. Please don’t tell me that Nebraska does not recruit great players.
[/quote]

If you’re talking about 20 years ago, Nebraska got all the recruits they wanted, and were mainly competing with Oklahoma.

Since then, no, Nebraska doesn’t recruit “great” players, considering they now contend with several Texas teams, Oklahoma, Colorado (before the past couple years), Iowa, even Mizzou, etc.

As I stated before, I think Nebraska does a better job than any school at taking decent recruits and making them into great players, in large part due to their incredible strength and nutritional programs they have their players on.

On the contrary, I think several schools that get excellent recruiting, PSU, Michigan, MSU, take amazing recruits and either hold them steady at the physical ability they were when they came in, or even let them slide a little bit.

While I agree that it’s the underlying genetic athleticism of an individual player(s) that will make or break a team, don’t underestimate player development.

A hell of a lot can, and should, change between the ages of 18 and 22.

[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:

Nebraska has a very structured and excellent strength program but have had limited success in recent years. I respect that program as much as I did when they won. Please don’t tell me that Nebraska does not recruit great players.

If you’re talking about 20 years ago, Nebraska got all the recruits they wanted, and were mainly competing with Oklahoma.

Since then, no, Nebraska doesn’t recruit “great” players, considering they now contend with several Texas teams, Oklahoma, Colorado (before the past couple years), Iowa, even Mizzou, etc.

As I stated before, I think Nebraska does a better job than any school at taking decent recruits and making them into great players, in large part due to their incredible strength and nutritional programs they have their players on.

On the contrary, I think several schools that get excellent recruiting, PSU, Michigan, MSU, take amazing recruits and either hold them steady at the physical ability they were when they came in, or even let them slide a little bit.

While I agree that it’s the underlying genetic athleticism of an individual player(s) that will make or break a team, don’t underestimate player development.

A hell of a lot can, and should, change between the ages of 18 and 22.

[/quote]

With the exception of 2-3 players in the last 2-5 years Penn State has not had good recruiting classes. Nebreska had the number 5 overal recruiting class in 2005. When we are talking about recruits we are splitting hairs. The top 25 all do a very good job of getting the players they want. In 1997 when Michigan won the national championship they had a walk-on at QB and a blue collar team not a blue chip team.

Some of you guys realy need to step back and read what you are saying. Do you realy think that Nebraska does not do thier best to recruit the best players. Getting the best High school players does not mean they will be good college players and it does not matter who the strength coach is. If all these variables were so predictable 4 years after the top high school recruiting class comes to a school they will at least be in the top 5. Oh, thats only if they have a certain strength coach!

Ok Chris Arp. You are right. Michigan and PSU strength programs are awesome.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Ok Chris Arp. You are right. Michigan and PSU strength programs are awesome.[/quote]

No better or worst than other programs just different. Tell me why a program is good, not about the programs you disagree with. I do not have to blast somebodies program to prove that another program is good.
To justify your opinion of a good program does not mean you have to attack another.

Penn State strength training did not begin and end with the current strength coach. The first strength coach: Dan Riley went on to Washington Redskins won a Superbowl. Chet Furman: went on to coach Pittsburg Steelers won a Superbowl. Both are HIT guys.

Many programs do a great job preparing thier players to play football! Our personal bias has little to do with the effectiveness of a program.

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:
No better or worst than other programs just different.[/quote]

Look… in every competition situation, somebody has to be the best and somebody has to be the worst with most lying somewhere in between.

Penn State and Michigan DON’T have the best S&C programs! Do they have some of the best and most athletic football teams year in and year out? Yes! However, this is much more of a testament to the football staff and the tradition there. The FOOTBALL team wins and loses games, not the S&C program, which can only make a slight, although important, difference.

What are some good programs? How about Arizona State, a team who is certainly not a recruiting powerhouse but who is consistantly developing good athletes nonetheless. Joe Kenn’s tier system has been proven to work exremely well for many and he has mentored a number of coaches who are now spreading to other programs and hopefully injecting some sense. As somebody mentioned, Wake Forest has a good program and also look at some of the stuff Air Force is doing as well.

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Chris Arp wrote:
No better or worst than other programs just different.

Look… in every competition situation, somebody has to be the best and somebody has to be the worst with most lying somewhere in between.

Penn State and Michigan DON’T have the best S&C programs! Do they have some of the best and most athletic football teams year in and year out? Yes! However, this is much more of a testament to the football staff and the tradition there. The FOOTBALL team wins and loses games, not the S&C program, which can only make a slight, although important, difference.

What are some good programs? How about Arizona State, a team who is certainly not a recruiting powerhouse but who is consistantly developing good athletes nonetheless. Joe Kenn’s tier system has been proven to work exremely well for many and he has mentored a number of coaches who are now spreading to other programs and hopefully injecting some sense. As somebody mentioned, Wake Forest has a good program and also look at some of the stuff Air Force is doing as well.[/quote]

I have had the privlege to observe many programs over the years. Ohio State: Steve Bliss, Burt Hill, Dave Kenedy, Al Johnson. Michigan: Mike Gittleson. Penn State: Chet Furman. Notre Dame now at Florida: Mickey Morrotti. Michigan State: Ken Mannie. Cincinati: Tim Swanger. Ohio U. now at Wake Forest: Ethan Reeve. Nebraska: Boyd Eply, Dave Kennedy.

I may not agree with the phylosophies of some of theese coaches or programs they all end up pretty close to same place. All of thier athletes gain muscle and get stronger. Some of the coaches above do a better job than others. Some of you would be very surprised at how some teams realy train. What coaches speak about and write about is not what they are always doing.

And who would you say does the best job of the above mentioned coaches? And btw I did not want to turn this into a Hit or NoHit discussion!

[quote]Chris Arp wrote:

Some of you would be very surprised at how some teams realy train. What coaches speak about and write about is not what they are always doing.

[/quote]

Exactly, which is why I think you need first-hand experience within at least one of these programs to be able to truly speak on it.

Which program did you play for? Because that’s the one you should be correcting people for talking about.

Overall, I think you’re picking the wrong sport to discount the importance of the strength and conditioning program.

Several sports, like baseball or field hockey or perhaps even basketball, could have a somewhat negligible impact on how good their strength and conditioning program is, as long as they have one in place.

Football, however, relies on explosive power, and a combination of strength, size and speed, more-so than any other sport.

This is developed through proper training and nutrition. Some of these programs you’re sticking up for or are pretending like it doesn’t make a difference, are truly doing a poor job of developing their athletes to their full potential.

You can’t turn a hippo into a cheetah, but it’s ridiculous to act like every single S&C program produces the same results regardless of methods.