Not in every case. If a team consistently has a top 3 (usually #1) recruiting class, plays in a conference with vastly inferior teams, and only wins one NC in a decade, I'd call that underachieving.
I dunno, I think I would give them a pass, too. Winning national championships is hard, and even though it happens, winning two or more in a decade is rare.
That's why I voted for USC. Don't they assemble the best recruiting classes year after year? Shouldn't they do more than just onepeat with the best athletes in the country?!
You're right, it is very hard to win a NC, but when the reason for missing out on the NC game is losing to Stanford, you get no pass. I still think Pete has done a good job at USC, but can't help but wonder if they're underachieving when they're losing to teams like OSU and Stanford. They should be in the NC game every year at the very least.
Sorry to do this: Ohio and Sweatervest have a crystal. 2002 season. Also, LSU was the favorite in the BCS game vs. them.
IMO it has to be either FSU or Miami. Based on the amount of talent those programs bring in they've been huge underachievers--often fielding teams that are plain bad. Most of those other teams have come up short in the national title picture but still have had lots of success.
For "this year" it has to be Clemson. They had an all-star backfield returning, super talented defense and HIGH expectations. They have recruited well (well for the ACC anyway) and started the year ranked in the top 10 but they have flopped badly. Bowden just coming off a contract extension looks to be on a major hot seat and almost out the door. No doubt, Clemson is this years biggest underachiever.
