wSmokin Sebastian
Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
- Messages
- 402
This isn't a knock on anyone or even UM. Just as to the winning arguement I see thrown around and I want to know what people feel.
I'm curious as to what you have to do to be considered "winning" these days. I mean I think consistency has some to do with the overall perception of a winning program. Off the top of my head the only winning programs the last 10 years would have to be clemson, Alabama and maybe Ohio state. Outside of that everyone has to be considered a loser at some point.
Then I see people saying Miami didnt "win" last year. Right, we took home nothing more than a division title but the team finished 13th out of 129 teams. Is it safe the say the standard of "winning" is to be top 5, behind that is not considered a winner or top flight program? I'm curious how people define winning because some say certain teams are and some arent but there isn't anything they quantify other than perception. Or is championships at the conference and overall level that determine a winner?
I'm curious as to what you have to do to be considered "winning" these days. I mean I think consistency has some to do with the overall perception of a winning program. Off the top of my head the only winning programs the last 10 years would have to be clemson, Alabama and maybe Ohio state. Outside of that everyone has to be considered a loser at some point.
Then I see people saying Miami didnt "win" last year. Right, we took home nothing more than a division title but the team finished 13th out of 129 teams. Is it safe the say the standard of "winning" is to be top 5, behind that is not considered a winner or top flight program? I'm curious how people define winning because some say certain teams are and some arent but there isn't anything they quantify other than perception. Or is championships at the conference and overall level that determine a winner?