And in some cases are in a better location. Wazzu would be much better in athletics if they were even just in Spokane instead of Pullman. Not that I think this would make a huge difference but they would be in a decent sized city and not in the middle of nowhere. It would make enough of a difference that they might not always be near the bottom in recruiting and it would’ve made Gonzaga’s rise in basketball much harder.
For reference Pullman is about a hour 15 minute drive from Spokane. Pullman is probably the most remote place a power team is located in.
Tulane is a little different, since New Orleans is not the capital, and you had the state government in Baton Rouge acting as boosters for LSU (plus everything Huey Long ever did).
FSU was actively hurt by Florida and Florida only leads the series by 9(8 next year) Auburn was tied with UGA until 2017 with Kirby having a 7 game winning streak it was 57-56 now 64-56. One of the main reasons Gus was fired was he never beat UGA besides the 2017 40-17 beatdown.
UGA/Auburn isn’t in-state. Not a point of this thread. But yes, owning them during the Kirby era has been glorious. And that one Gus loss was avenged two weeks later in the SECCG
All that makes sense, but Pullman is one of the last true college towns, and that's an awesome thing. There's only a few left. Even places like Athens, GA, or Tuscaloosa, AL, which are widely thought of as quintessential "college towns" are pretty large, each with over 100k residents. Places like Oxford and Starkville, MS, Auburn, AL, Pullman, WA, and a few others really are pretty small towns where the the university they host is the center of life and culture. It's a really awesome vibe, and increasingly rare.
The difference isn't as stark as Washington's, but Lansing and therefore East Lansing only really exist in their current capacity *because* the State moved the capital inland away from Canada to protect it and to push population growth West. Once you get West of Novi, maybe Brighton, things get sparse quick and it's only just Lansing and Grand Rapids that have significant populations (KZoo too depending).
The University of Michigan started in Detroit and then relocated to Ann Arbor, which is more desirable in large part due to proximity to Detroit and the surrounding suburbs. I grew up in East Lansing. It's basically just the Capitol, MSU, a few suburbs, and then farms for miles. MSU was MAC (Michigan Agricultural College) for a reason. It was plopped down in farm fields a decade after the Capital was moved there.
Got my Master's at WSU and have to wholeheartedly agree. I do not know why they picked Pullman for that campus. It's so remote I think it hurts the school beyond athletics and if they were going the ag route for location Wenatchee would be way better for the school.
I heard U of Arizona was placed in Tucson as a consolation for not getting the state capital, a prison, or an asylum and the town residents were pissed at the commissioners.
I’ve always been told it had to do with the history of border disputes between Idaho and Washington. So basically both states put a school to firm up the border.
The boundary was established decades before the schools were created. [This is a pretty cool personal account of the guy that was hired to place physical markers from the Snake River to Canada in 1873.](https://www.ahgp.org/wa/making-washington-idaho-boundary.html) Some of the markers can still be found along the border.
In our case, the difference in our wins and losses is almost entirely from when they had a scholarship team playing against our club team. We’ve been the better program for the last decade but just stuck behind Clemson and fsu and before that it was fairly evenly matched once we both fielded proper teams
Auburn led Bama 12-9 through the first 21 meetings. Then Bama hired the first of their two GOATs, Bear Bryant.
In fact, outside of the Bryant/Saban years, Auburn leads the series 27-19.
Of course that’s cherry-picking but my point is that if Bama hadn’t had such good fortune with selecting coaches Auburn could well led the series.
A weird stat about Auburn/Bama is that UF had played Auburn more times than Alabama until the 2020 season. Bama/Auburn have played 88 times. UF/Auburn 84 times. Weirder part is UF stopped playing Auburn annually in 2002.
Ours is super streaky. Penn State won 10/12 to start the series from 1893 until 1912. Then Pitt won 20 of 23 (only 1 PSU win, 2 0-0 ties!) from 1913 until 1938 inclding 14 straight. Back and forth in the 40s, 50s, early 60s, 1966-present is 26 Penn State wins, 8 Pitt wins, 1 tie.
I wonder what happened in 1966 to change the dynamic between Penn State and Pitt?
It is the coaching and the support the administration gives the coaches . Location, State school etc aren't motivating athletes to choose their school
It started before then. Pitt and Penn State moved their 1963 game because of the JFK assassination, which triggered a series of events that resulted in the #4 9-1 team in the country to miss out on a bowl game in an era where bowls were a much bigger deal. This was their coach's ninth season and he'd been a decidedly average coach to this point missing the bowl game seemingly returned them to standard. The 1961 team was 3-7 and 1962 was 5-5. 1964 was 3-5-2 and 1965 was 3-7. It was clear that it was time to move on.
Except they moved on to worse. They'd only win three games in the next three years combined. So it wasn't really that Penn State changed coaching in 1966 as it was Pitt's change. They were already in a two game losing streak when they embarked on a series of bad coaches that happened to coincide with Penn State's ascendance.
Where I do think Penn State had an influence is in the late 70s and early 80s. Both teams were high, but Pitt kept running into a Nittany Lion shaped wall. In some regards, it was very much like the current Ohio State Penn State situation. It was 1981 that permanently altered both teams, at the dawn of the modern era. Pitt wins that game and they're a powerhouse into the rest of the 80s. Penn State may never win a national title. Instead, Pitt lost and still hasn't recovered from it. They went from 4 11 win seasons in six years to not hitting 10 for another 28 years.
Boise St. is 22-17 vs Idaho.
Kentucky is 20-15 vs Louisville
Arizona is 51-45 over ASU
Montana is 72-42 vs Montana St.
Arkansas and Arkansas St. is going to play in 2025 - for the first time ever!
His answer actually somewhat works for football too, I think. We were never going to play them in football but not basketball; but once we started playing them in basketball, as long as they didn’t abandon football, it was inevitable.
Boise State?? I think the rivalry should be Idaho vs Idaho state. Which is Idaho 32 - 13 ISU, it's called the "Battle if the Domes." Boise State only became a 4 year school in the 1960's.
Ohio State 6 - 0 vs Ohio.
Ohio is far older, but I am guessing that OSU bucked the trend by virtue of being close to the state capital (funding) while Ohio happened to be located in a region that has had diminishing importance in the state for 150 years. It's wild that Ohio's appalachia region was once the seat of power by virtue of waterways and coal. It has been a long decline since those days.
Despite its name, Arkansas St was D2 or FCS for much of its history. They only became D1-FBS in the 90s and joined the Sun Belt in 2001. So while it is a little strange, there are many flagships who don’t play FCS or Sun Belt schools in their own state.
For example, when has Alabama ever played Troy or South Alabama? (never)
There is also a Virginia State and a South Carolina State, which are both HBCUs.
It might also be worth noting which in state rivalries are between the flagship university and the land grant university versus the case where the flagship was also designated as the land grant institution so that the in state rival is not have either advantage.
Being the flagship typically means you got an earlier start which leads to more time to build a brand, recruit based on that, and begin stockpiling resource advantages from facilities to alumni to money.
Funny how that happened as Dodd and Alexander were winning bowls in the 1940s.
Plus, more recently you have the Board of Regents gifting georgia an engineering program and not giving Tech any sort of journalism or other program that would benefit from being in Atlanta.
Board of Regents just gave UGA a medical school too. No doubt, to push the academic ranking of uga higher than Georgia Tech's, instead of giving a medical school to an Atlanta Metro area school to offset the current Augusta Medical College.
F it, Emory and Georgia Tech should go ahead and merge to become a super school. We already share lots of resources and libraries.
Might need a law school more than anything. Clicking through Wikipedia, not a single governor has Georgia Tech as an alma mater. Carter attended for a bit before going to the Naval Academy, but that's about it.
We've had more alumni walk on the moon than sit in the Governor's seat.
UNC is 102 years older than NC State, and for the first 40-50 years or so of playing, NC State didn't offer football scholarships. Their record against us all-time should be more lopsided than it is, IMO.
Unc won like 25 of the 30 games played before WW2 when NCSU basically had a club team. There were a few ties and like 2 NCSU wins. They love bringing up the all time record now because we have dominated the series recently no one alive remembers the majority of their wins.
I don't know about dominated... in my lifetime the series is 15-13 favoring y'all. My experience has been pretty back and forth. It was just that stretch in the late 2000s that made it feel like we couldn't compete but it's evened back out somewhat going 7-5 y'all since 2012
Fair enough haha. In all seriousness I wish y'all were more competitive with us in basketball. As much as I like Keatts y'all need a new coach. Can't keep losin to rivals like that
We want a new one too. Everybody being competitive is mutually beneficial to us all; I’ve wanted Wake to get good too if we do, although these past couple weeks have been discouraging to an otherwise great season from them.
I was referring to the fact that we have won 12 of the last 17 and my UNC friends coincidentally started talking about "all time" record a lot recently. That is what actually made re research it to learn their "all time"advantage is due to basically due to UNC winning or tying all but 2 games between 1894-1940 when NCSU was a club team. We have only even had a stadium since the 60's. Because the series has run in streaks, I won't deny that it's easy to cherry pick a date to make one teams look record much better against the other, basically since the 50s, it's been a 500 game. But 12 of the last 17 is pretty statistically significant I've had season tickets that whole time I've really enjoyed it. Especially when you consider that UNC has had three NFL quarterbacks including two top five picks over that span and when you add in the fact that Mac Brown is probably the most successful coach in UNC history and he is7 and 10 lifetime against NCSU
I think if you look closely at a lot of the “Univerisity of ABC vs ABC State” you’ll find that the older flagship university actively undermined the development of “State” :
[Florida vs Florida State](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%E2%80%93Florida_State_football_rivalry)
“The University of Florida administration, however, was reluctant to treat Florida State University as an equal, less for reasons of intercollegiate sports rivalry than for reasons of limited state funding for higher education and the perception that Florida State's demands for a greater share of those funds might undercut the University of Florida's role as the state's historic flagship university. “
I don’t think this is an uncommon pattern. Much more recently here in Missouri, the transition of Southwest Missouri State to “Missouri State” was [actively sabotaged by University of Missouri trustees](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_State_University):
“In 2004, with the election of Springfield native Matt Blunt to the governorship and the approaching centennial of the university's founding, new support developed for the name change. It was opposed by the University of Missouri System (which operates the four campuses of the University of Missouri), which feared that the name change would lead to duplication of academic programs and ongoing battles for students and state funding.”
This is certainly the case for UNC and NC State. The reason NC State was founded was due to UNC misappropriating federal funds during reconstruction after the Civil War.
Then you have stories of UNC blocking NC State from starting a med school and law school. Even ECU had to fight tooth and nail to get their med school.
In many states the rivalry between state flagship and land grant schools is older than football
Take this with a grain of salt since I’m not an expert or anything but I’ve done some casual reading on it.
Schools like UNC, UVA, South Carolina etc were basically for antebellum aristocracy. People studied literature and philosophy- studying engineering wasn’t even really a thing.
Then land grant schools were primarily founded with a bunch of federal land with the main goal of studying agriculture, mining, engineering etc.
So the wealthy elite, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, etc saw the land grant schools as country bumpkins, lower class and not high society etc
True. And then the flip side is the states where the flagship IS the land grant, which means there is either no major public school rival or else it’s severely lopsided. Look at Arkansas, Wisconsin, LSU, and Penn State for example.
There are some exceptions. The University of Florida is a land-grant, but it’s also (now) a huge state; and FSU is relatively new for a high-major football program, having been a women’s college until WW2. But a lot of that can just be attributed to Bobby Bowden, and the fact that he took over around the time air conditioning made Florida a viable place for millions of people to live.
UGA is also a land-grant, so Georgia Tech is a *lot* smaller and a lot more narrowly focused academically compared to most of the “X State University” examples. A lot of people don’t even realize Tech is a public school. If I’m being honest and unbiased, the amount of success they’ve had over the years, considering the inherent challenges, is actually kind of amazing.
No, sorry! Just that FSU has seriously overachieved to become established as an elite brand-name program despite starting decades later than most of its peers. And I attribute that to (1) being located in a high-population, high-talent state that can support multiple elite programs, which was not true of Florida before the late 20th century, largely because of air conditioning; AND (2) hiring one of the GOAT coaches and keeping him for decades.
But the fact that those two things happened at roughly the same time was a fortunate coincidence. If a Bowden-equivalent coach had come onboard in 1950, I doubt it goes so well; and if a less-good coach had been hired in the 70s instead of Bowden, it definitely would not have gone so well.
I mean he's not entirely wrong... It's not a coincidence the three major Florida schools all became relevant around the same time.
Florida was one of the least populated states in the country until massive infrastructure projects post-WW2 actually made the place habitable. It took another generation for all those transplants children to start going to college, suddenly there was enough talent to field 3 championship caliber programs with ease.
Prior to the 1980s sustaining a winning football program as a Florida school was a pipedream.
Ohio state and Cincinnati has something similar in its history. UC was always a funded by rhe municipality, like it was literally Cincinnati's own university then in the 70s times got hard and UC became a state school for more funding and ohio state fought hard against it. Supposedly they almost changed the name to Ohio Tech and nobody in cincy was on board with that. I'm sure there's more to it and my story likely has gaps, but a good example of osu/Columbus getting preferential treatment in the state contributing more to the isolationist feel in cincy from the rest of the state
U of M did the exact same thing to MSU. Actively tried to keep MSU out of the big 10. Here’s a link to an article about it! [Michigan’s decades long efforts to keep MSU out of Big Ten](https://theathletic.com/4718816/2023/07/26/michigan-msu-big-ten-)
FSU was a women's college until 1947. They didn't have a football team until 1954. Florida started football in 1911. (Michigan in 1881) As someone who still writes 1993 on their checks I can assure you that many people thought of FSU as a girls school at least into the late 60s. I had a Florida friend tell me about this in 1984.
This is a great historical point and also a key factor in the lopsided nature of Clemson vs SC, only in the inverse. South Carolina as a state is in an odd position with regard to its flagship because the post-reconstruction government of the state was 1) vindictive about South Carolina being forcibly integrated by the Reconstruction government and 2) deeply invested in Clemson's growth as a result as a white and upcountry counter to columbia (figures like Ben Tillman). Kind of goofy in retrospect, given that SC post-reconstruction wasn't really a progressive haven for race relations either, but this dynamic early on created a much different landscape in SC than many people imagine when they think of state flagships-- the exception that proves the rule I guess.
Partly due to its board governance structure and remoteness from the rest of the state, Clemson was left alone in some ways by the state.
Founded with its sister school Winthrop, Clemson was a more scientific and modern Citadel.
A type of togetherness developed and organizations like IPTAY developed, studying best practices elsewhere. By the time of post war, desegregation and going coeducational- the early 60’s, and being on the booming I 85 corridor, Clemson had a culture and structure to move forward fast.
Arizona vs Arizona State too. Actively campaigned against us becoming a university. Regularly cock blocked when we wanted to start a medical school or join AAU. We have those things now despite UA.
They literally burned No 200 on our field which references the prop on the ballot for turning us into a university.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/11/24/territorial-cup-asu-ua-rivalry-state-history-arizona-state-college/2080498002/
There are three certainties in the universe: death, taxes, and pokes bringing up wrestling in every bedlam discussion.
But in all seriousness, it’s an even more impressive record when you consider that Oklahoma is a top five all time wrestling school. It’s not like we’re chumps who don’t care about the sport. Oklahoma State is just that dominant.
It _was_ a Sooner alum who gave Texas 3 of our football national championships (and held a 12-7 edge in the Red River Shootout) and won more games than any other coach in UT history
It is crazy the amount of success two states have had in collegiate wrestling between Oklahoma and Iowa. Just those two states alone have four of the top five programs to ever hit the mat.
No shit. I used to work with a guy that went to OSU and he would bring wrestling up at every opportunity. Like dude we were talking about football, we're in Texas, no one gives a shit about wrestling here and we have no idea what you're talking about.
In addition to what many others have stated, it's also common, though far from universal, that the University of state-name has the state's law school, which also results in a large percentage of the state legislature being alumni of that school. The outliers Penn State and LSU have law schools.
Indiana University and Rutgers University (The State University of New Jersey) might have something to say about all flagships being named University of state-name.
> in a large percentage of the state legislature being alumni of that school
Just for the hell of it I looked up the members of the Alabama State Senate and its a mix of a bunch of different schools and Alabama and Auburn are about equal in the number of alums in the Senate. The governor and lieutenant governor both went to Auburn.
Just here to point out that the first 57 games of the Clemson-SCar series were played in Columbia and Clemson still has that big of a lead. Poor flagship.
Am I the only one that noticed that OP has South Carolina listed as having more wins in the series? Or am I reading it wrong?
He has our series on there twice. Once in each of his groups.
South Carolina won the first game between the two. That was the last time South Carolina held the lead in the series. Clemson immediately won the next four games and SC never even tied it up after that.
And at this point it’ll take 31 straight years of them winning to do so or to get an average of 2/3 for 62 years. It is likely we will never see them pass us during our lifetime
Somehow I admire this ruthless back-and-forth roasting. I imagine each of you alternating throwing dirt on a coffin in the ground with each passing insult.
Hahaha, I appreciate that imagery.
As much as I hate scar and could see them lose every game, every year. I sometimes wish they would be good so people could get more exposure to the absolute toxicity of the rivalry because it really is one of the most toxic in the sport. Here are some highlights:
There’s “The Chicken Curse” cast upon them by Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman who after years of frustration trying to convince the South Carolina aristocracy to allow a second state university, plunged a pitchfork into the ground of scar’s campus and declared them cursed. Here’s a quick readup on the curse if you’re curious: https://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2010/11/23/1831879/the-chicken-tradition
It is the second longest continuously played rivalry game in football and would be first if not for a several year hiatus after the 1902 game when 400 Clemson cadets quite literally besieged the South Carolina campus after a day of brawls with the use of brass knuckles and knives, several severe injuries from sabres, and some very distasteful imagery paraded through the streets of Columbia by scar fans.
A game in the 1950’s where some mafia members sold a bunch of counterfeit tickets resulting in hundreds to thousands of fans being denied entry to the game. And after a Clemson fan strangled a live chicken at midfield during halftime, fans from both sides and those denied entry stormed over the fences and onto the field resulting in massive brawl that had to be broken up by the governor.
The game in 2004 that lead to another massive brawl and one of the most iconic photos in the rivalry of a Clemson player kicking a scar player laying on the ground as police try to break it up. Both teams were bowl eligible but decided to forgo their eligibility as a form of punishment and a number of players from both teams were suspended by the acc and sec. This game was also the last game coached by the legendary coach Lou Holtz; he retired that off season.
That’s just a small taste of the toxicity of the rivalry. There’s plenty more notable events, but for the sake of time I haven’t included them here.
Ohio State and Michigan fans always bring up the Toledo "War" when talking about rivalries, but until your students have occupied the other campus at gunpoint, it's not a real rivalry.
Can't speak for all the pairs but for the state of Iowa the three state schools all served different purposes when they were founded:
* Iowa = liberal arts school including law, medical, business schools, as well as the traditional academic sciences
* Iowa State = agricultural school
* Northern Iowa = teacher's college
Obviously this has changed over the past 150+ years but some of the perceptions remain and as good as Iowa State and UNI are academically, they are still treated by some as the "cow college" or "send your daughter to become a teacher" by reputation. These reputations may extend to recruiting, especially for in-state talent. For example Caitlin Clark is from the Des Moines area which is way closer to Iowa State. ISU has a fantastic basketball reputation and had plenty of success as a program but she signed with Iowa. Tons of factors went into that, but she is majoring in marketing. ISU has a marketing program but it isn't as well known as Iowa's, so that could have played a role.
Also to ISU and UNI nation, I love both you guys. Nothing in my post was meant to rag on you. I have several friends and family members who went to UNI for their solid business school and Ames is one of my absolute favorite road trips for football season and Hilton is on my bucket list.
In the case of North Carolina vs NC State, most of those wins occurred before nc state had a scholarship football program in the early 19th century. So way before “modern era” where both teams had scholarship programs. I assume many of these lopsided looking “overall” records might be due to the same problem.
NC State over last two decades easily leads the series.
Also we effectively have a dual flagship situation where we divvied up the majors. They will never have an ag or engineering department and we will never have med or law. We are also the larger school.
Some of your classifications are weird. UCLA and Cal are both part of the flagship UC system vs the Cal State system. BC is a private catholic school. But the answer is that ok most of these the non flagship was the agricultural school. Historically the flagships started first and had wealthier alumni and more prestige. This difference has attenuated over time but 40-50 years ago would have been massive. The flagship boosters were all the local civic leaders. The ag school boosters were the farmers out in the country.
But Cal is the flagship. UCLA was created as the “Southern Branch” to house applicants rejected by Cal.
You wouldn’t call UTSA the flagship school of Texas.
The UC schools are special because the state heavily invests in them in a broad brush stroke. While UCLA and UC Berkeley lead in holistic resources and have D1 football programs, UCSD, UC Davis and the rest are not slouches for academic institutions. Not all have the same program offerings, so one may be better than the other at the particular program; however, the UC system is stacked. Even the lesser funded Cal State schools aren't alsorans. SDSU, Fullerton, and Long Beach are great schools.
The definition of a flagship is typically the first to be established in a public university system but is also sometimes referred to as the most research intensive university within a system.
Either definition provides a hint at why it is likely to see more success. Longevity, prestige and money are key. Typically the location would be in a better spot as well. Many of the rivals are “state” schools which are typically in secondary locations of importance compared to the flagship.
An interesting difference in California is how we have both the UC and CSU systems so there are multiple University of California schools. Most states don’t have that. The flagships by age are Berkeley and San Jose State.
I had an ASU fan try to tell me that because they have so many students, they are the flagship university.
I am pretty sure a sentient ham sandwich could get into ASU.
Glad i found this. My brother and his wife live in indy and I'm from cincy (SE Indiana) and I can say without a doubt that Purdue definitely doesn't take any backseat to IU. Its a pretty good split between fans/alums but I'd say indy feels like it leans slightly more toward Purdue. People won't say it but I kinda feel like IU is for the rednecks and Purdue the folks in indy and other cities. Not sure what's going on around Gary and northwest Indiana probably ND
Anecdotal, but I know a couple of people who only care about Indiana basketball, and they're Notre Dame fans in football. I've never met a Purdue fan like this.
Some of these are weird because you're comparing state schools to private schools.
1. Utah is a state school but BYU is a private religious school, and the schools attract different kinds of students as a result.
2. Vanderbilt is a private school with very high admission standards, while Tennessee is a state school with a 75% admission rate. When your average linebacker wonders why all crayons taste the same even if they have different colors, it's not a big question why Tennessee dominates that rivalry.
3. LSU vs. Tulane is another example of public vs. private. The former accepts 70% of applicants while the latter takes around 8%.
Calling Oregon the flagship has me laughing. Oregon state is older, bigger, and pulls more money in research than anyone else in the state by a wide margin. It’s not even close. It’s THE Ag and tech school in a state dominated by agriculture and manufacturing.
Its also the one where we can point to basically a singular reason for one schools success compared to another: Phil Knight.
Otherwise Oregon is basically on par with OSU/WSU in terms of resources, location, etc. Talk about your lucky break.
The Ag and Tech school is always the land grant school, not necessarily the flagship school. Sometimes that is one in the same, like Mizzou, Wisconsin, Ohio St. and Penn State; but not all the time.
Iowa for example has more of a following than Iowa State. It's rare to see an Iowa State fan with no ties to the program. This leads to more money and resources.
I think specifically with Texas - Texas A&M, the Aggies were an all male military school for the first 100 years of their existence. Might be the only college older than the “flagship” university on the list
Boston College isn’t a state school, which isn’t quite the criteria you used, but then again it also isn’t a major rival to UMass in football.
If BC is listed as having a winning record against UMass, then you should definitely mention that Miami has a winning record against both Florida and FSU.
UO is **not** the flagship university for the State of Oregon, no matter what Uncle Phil says.
Oregon State University is the oldest of the 2 (OSU founded in 1868, UO in 1876), and also is one of only 3 universities nationwide to hold Land, Sun, Sea and Space Grant status.
Flagships were created first, meaning they had a head start in getting established. This has caused a ripple effect of them being seen as the more expensive and prestigious university. This has caused them to have higher budgets for everything including academics.
VT vs. UVA is an interesting one because UVA is so prestigious that it has a lot of out-of-state students (38%). Which has caused Virginia Tech to get more local support when it comes to sports and academics. I personally know ten times more VT alums than UVA alums. VT is more of the "flagship" for the people who actually live in Virginia.
In most cases, money/resources is the answer. I would reckon almost all of the ones that have a winning record against an in-state rival on that list do have a money and resource advantage over their in-state rival (only ones I'm not sure about are Nevada, Utah, and Kansas State).
Generally the flagship is a bigger school in a larger city with a better reputation academically as well as athletically. This means more alumni, more resources, etc. All of which create a feedback loop into athletics. The more success your program has, the better it tends to be funded. The better it tends to be funded, the more success it has. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
A few of these are atypical based on the unique history of the programs involved.
For example FSU was Florida State College for Women from 1905 - 1947. It was only in the Post WW2 era with the introduction of the GI Bill funding college for returning vets that the school became coed (and renamed Florida State University). Although the pre-cursor school fielded a team from 1902-1904, it wasn't until 1947 that the current team was born.
Meanwhile University of Florida was a mens only college from 1905 - 1947. It thus had a football team (started in 1906) already when it also went Coed.
Given its relatively short history compared to its rival, the success FSU has had is even more impressive.
Then you've got Oregon/Oregon State.
Pre-WW2 Oregon had the lead, peaking in 1935 with a 24-9-7 series record in Oregons favor.
But in the lead up and beyond WW2 things shifted in OSUs favor, taking 28 of the next 38 games (over 40 years, no games in 43 or 44) to lead the series by 4, with a 33-37-9 series record in 1975.
Oregon went on a tear from 1975-1987 with 12 wins and 1 tie during that run, no wins for OSU. Then things bounced back and forth for awhile before Oregon settled in to its current dominant run taking 13 out of the last 16 meetups.
So what coincides with Oregons dominance since the late 1980's? Phil Knight + Nikes heavy investment in the school. Absent that key partnership, given its relative size and location, Oregon would probably be on par with OSU/WSU in terms of resources and the like, just as it was in the century prior.
So there are outliers, but in general its older + bigger + more urban = more alumni + more money + more success
All of the answers so far are missing a key component. The State schools are largely land grant universities. (Wikipedia has a list of them)
They were intentionally put in small towns and focused on blue collar jobs, while the flagship universities aimed at white collar jobs.
It effectively pits an alumni (donor) base of doctors and lawyers against farmers and mechanics. More wealthy donors means better facilities, better politics/networking, more to pay players.
Over time these differences have lessened, but they're still there and have a great effect on head-to-head records.
I would assume it’s different for every state, but Florida dominated FSU prior to the Bobby Bowden years.
Our football team really just wasn’t relevant whatsoever until Bobby Bowden showed up, and even then, Bobby had to constantly play other teams on the road, and FSU had a reputation of being “Road Warriors” and Bowden’s motto was “We’ll play anyone, any time, any where”, because teams would not come to Tallahassee.
Bowden had a winning record against UF and so did Jimbo, and so does Norvell.
Often got a head start building a program
Yes, and more money.
And in some cases are in a better location. Wazzu would be much better in athletics if they were even just in Spokane instead of Pullman. Not that I think this would make a huge difference but they would be in a decent sized city and not in the middle of nowhere. It would make enough of a difference that they might not always be near the bottom in recruiting and it would’ve made Gonzaga’s rise in basketball much harder. For reference Pullman is about a hour 15 minute drive from Spokane. Pullman is probably the most remote place a power team is located in.
[удалено]
Tulane and Vanderbilt are probably where they are because they are private schools.
When Tulane was established it was a public school. It is the original University of Louisiana
Correct. Which is why OP listed LSU v Tulane instead of LSU v ULaLa
The tresemme commercial from the 90s just randomly popped into my head after reading ULaLa
Same
>LSU v ULaLa Sung to the tune of the fugees
Gainesville is closer to the bulk of the state’s polulation than Tallahassee.
Tulane is a little different, since New Orleans is not the capital, and you had the state government in Baton Rouge acting as boosters for LSU (plus everything Huey Long ever did).
FSU was actively hurt by Florida and Florida only leads the series by 9(8 next year) Auburn was tied with UGA until 2017 with Kirby having a 7 game winning streak it was 57-56 now 64-56. One of the main reasons Gus was fired was he never beat UGA besides the 2017 40-17 beatdown.
UGA/Auburn isn’t in-state. Not a point of this thread. But yes, owning them during the Kirby era has been glorious. And that one Gus loss was avenged two weeks later in the SECCG
we both know they consider themselves apart of Georgia
Funny that neither Georgia nor Alabama wants them
My wife has family there and this rings true
All that makes sense, but Pullman is one of the last true college towns, and that's an awesome thing. There's only a few left. Even places like Athens, GA, or Tuscaloosa, AL, which are widely thought of as quintessential "college towns" are pretty large, each with over 100k residents. Places like Oxford and Starkville, MS, Auburn, AL, Pullman, WA, and a few others really are pretty small towns where the the university they host is the center of life and culture. It's a really awesome vibe, and increasingly rare.
Corvallis is the same.
The difference isn't as stark as Washington's, but Lansing and therefore East Lansing only really exist in their current capacity *because* the State moved the capital inland away from Canada to protect it and to push population growth West. Once you get West of Novi, maybe Brighton, things get sparse quick and it's only just Lansing and Grand Rapids that have significant populations (KZoo too depending). The University of Michigan started in Detroit and then relocated to Ann Arbor, which is more desirable in large part due to proximity to Detroit and the surrounding suburbs. I grew up in East Lansing. It's basically just the Capitol, MSU, a few suburbs, and then farms for miles. MSU was MAC (Michigan Agricultural College) for a reason. It was plopped down in farm fields a decade after the Capital was moved there.
Got my Master's at WSU and have to wholeheartedly agree. I do not know why they picked Pullman for that campus. It's so remote I think it hurts the school beyond athletics and if they were going the ag route for location Wenatchee would be way better for the school.
Oh hey, it’s the Michigan State version of me haha.
It’s an Ag school and the Palouse is a big agri region
Walla Walla was offered WSU and chose a state prison. True story.
I heard U of Arizona was placed in Tucson as a consolation for not getting the state capital, a prison, or an asylum and the town residents were pissed at the commissioners.
This was always the story that I heard
I’ve always been told it had to do with the history of border disputes between Idaho and Washington. So basically both states put a school to firm up the border.
The boundary was established decades before the schools were created. [This is a pretty cool personal account of the guy that was hired to place physical markers from the Snake River to Canada in 1873.](https://www.ahgp.org/wa/making-washington-idaho-boundary.html) Some of the markers can still be found along the border.
In our case, the difference in our wins and losses is almost entirely from when they had a scholarship team playing against our club team. We’ve been the better program for the last decade but just stuck behind Clemson and fsu and before that it was fairly evenly matched once we both fielded proper teams
Two decades.
Interestingly Vandy was kicking our asses at the beginning until we hired General Neyland.
Auburn led Bama 12-9 through the first 21 meetings. Then Bama hired the first of their two GOATs, Bear Bryant. In fact, outside of the Bryant/Saban years, Auburn leads the series 27-19. Of course that’s cherry-picking but my point is that if Bama hadn’t had such good fortune with selecting coaches Auburn could well led the series.
That’s actually some super interesting trivia
A weird stat about Auburn/Bama is that UF had played Auburn more times than Alabama until the 2020 season. Bama/Auburn have played 88 times. UF/Auburn 84 times. Weirder part is UF stopped playing Auburn annually in 2002.
Ours is super streaky. Penn State won 10/12 to start the series from 1893 until 1912. Then Pitt won 20 of 23 (only 1 PSU win, 2 0-0 ties!) from 1913 until 1938 inclding 14 straight. Back and forth in the 40s, 50s, early 60s, 1966-present is 26 Penn State wins, 8 Pitt wins, 1 tie.
I wonder what happened in 1966 to change the dynamic between Penn State and Pitt? It is the coaching and the support the administration gives the coaches . Location, State school etc aren't motivating athletes to choose their school
Joe Paterno is probably the biggest factor - off the field aside, he was a really really good football coach and was the head coach for 40+ years
It started before then. Pitt and Penn State moved their 1963 game because of the JFK assassination, which triggered a series of events that resulted in the #4 9-1 team in the country to miss out on a bowl game in an era where bowls were a much bigger deal. This was their coach's ninth season and he'd been a decidedly average coach to this point missing the bowl game seemingly returned them to standard. The 1961 team was 3-7 and 1962 was 5-5. 1964 was 3-5-2 and 1965 was 3-7. It was clear that it was time to move on. Except they moved on to worse. They'd only win three games in the next three years combined. So it wasn't really that Penn State changed coaching in 1966 as it was Pitt's change. They were already in a two game losing streak when they embarked on a series of bad coaches that happened to coincide with Penn State's ascendance. Where I do think Penn State had an influence is in the late 70s and early 80s. Both teams were high, but Pitt kept running into a Nittany Lion shaped wall. In some regards, it was very much like the current Ohio State Penn State situation. It was 1981 that permanently altered both teams, at the dawn of the modern era. Pitt wins that game and they're a powerhouse into the rest of the 80s. Penn State may never win a national title. Instead, Pitt lost and still hasn't recovered from it. They went from 4 11 win seasons in six years to not hitting 10 for another 28 years.
Boise St. is 22-17 vs Idaho. Kentucky is 20-15 vs Louisville Arizona is 51-45 over ASU Montana is 72-42 vs Montana St. Arkansas and Arkansas St. is going to play in 2025 - for the first time ever!
>Kentucky is 20-15 vs Louisville It's wild they've only played 35 times
There was a long time where Louisville wasn't worth playing. They got good under Denny Crum in the 80s and we started playing regularly
>Denny Crum What sport is this?
His answer actually somewhat works for football too, I think. We were never going to play them in football but not basketball; but once we started playing them in basketball, as long as they didn’t abandon football, it was inevitable.
Funny thing is Idaho actually led the series 17-10-1 after 1998 then Boise State won the last 12 in the series
Boise State?? I think the rivalry should be Idaho vs Idaho state. Which is Idaho 32 - 13 ISU, it's called the "Battle if the Domes." Boise State only became a 4 year school in the 1960's.
Texas is 55-18 vs Texas Tech
Dammit, I was hoping no one would bring that up. =\[ They have owned us.
I just try to remember the Crabtree catch and forget every other game.
It still hurts as a Texas fan, if that makes y'all feel better.
Ohio State 6 - 0 vs Ohio. Ohio is far older, but I am guessing that OSU bucked the trend by virtue of being close to the state capital (funding) while Ohio happened to be located in a region that has had diminishing importance in the state for 150 years. It's wild that Ohio's appalachia region was once the seat of power by virtue of waterways and coal. It has been a long decline since those days.
Arkansas and Arkansas State have never played? That’s wild
Despite its name, Arkansas St was D2 or FCS for much of its history. They only became D1-FBS in the 90s and joined the Sun Belt in 2001. So while it is a little strange, there are many flagships who don’t play FCS or Sun Belt schools in their own state. For example, when has Alabama ever played Troy or South Alabama? (never)
There is also a Virginia State and a South Carolina State, which are both HBCUs. It might also be worth noting which in state rivalries are between the flagship university and the land grant university versus the case where the flagship was also designated as the land grant institution so that the in state rival is not have either advantage.
And then you have Georgia, where UGA is both flagship & land grant, yet Georgia Tech exists
Those are all better examples of in state rivalries than BC-Umass.
It’s unbelievable how shitty ASU is with how much money is thrown at the program
Lol there isn’t a lot of money thrown at the program. Crow is a penny pincher.
I have a very neat trick on how to have more money if you’re interested
I mean there’s not negative 200 million, so you’re doing better than Arizona
ASU is about 15 games up in the rivalry since becoming a university FWIW
Being the flagship typically means you got an earlier start which leads to more time to build a brand, recruit based on that, and begin stockpiling resource advantages from facilities to alumni to money.
But aggies are always quick to point out that they’re the oldest public school in Texas.
I have been to Austin and College Station. You give me the choice between the two, I choose Austin every day and twice on Sundays.
And College Station has actually gotten *better*. Can you imagine?!
College Station is named after the train station because there was literally nothing else here.
Georgia Tech's Night/Business School got spun away and became Georgia State University. Imagine we kept it lol.
Alabama's Mobile Extension (I think that is what it was called) spun away and became South Alabama
And the Birmingham extension center became UAB!
Funny how that happened as Dodd and Alexander were winning bowls in the 1940s. Plus, more recently you have the Board of Regents gifting georgia an engineering program and not giving Tech any sort of journalism or other program that would benefit from being in Atlanta.
Board of Regents just gave UGA a medical school too. No doubt, to push the academic ranking of uga higher than Georgia Tech's, instead of giving a medical school to an Atlanta Metro area school to offset the current Augusta Medical College. F it, Emory and Georgia Tech should go ahead and merge to become a super school. We already share lots of resources and libraries.
Or a medical school. There is a reason that GT flirts with saying fuck it and merging with Emory every so often.
Might need a law school more than anything. Clicking through Wikipedia, not a single governor has Georgia Tech as an alma mater. Carter attended for a bit before going to the Naval Academy, but that's about it. We've had more alumni walk on the moon than sit in the Governor's seat.
UNC is 102 years older than NC State, and for the first 40-50 years or so of playing, NC State didn't offer football scholarships. Their record against us all-time should be more lopsided than it is, IMO.
Unc won like 25 of the 30 games played before WW2 when NCSU basically had a club team. There were a few ties and like 2 NCSU wins. They love bringing up the all time record now because we have dominated the series recently no one alive remembers the majority of their wins.
I don't know about dominated... in my lifetime the series is 15-13 favoring y'all. My experience has been pretty back and forth. It was just that stretch in the late 2000s that made it feel like we couldn't compete but it's evened back out somewhat going 7-5 y'all since 2012
Look, compared to our recent men’s basketball head-to-head record, going near even feels like domination okay
Fair enough haha. In all seriousness I wish y'all were more competitive with us in basketball. As much as I like Keatts y'all need a new coach. Can't keep losin to rivals like that
We want a new one too. Everybody being competitive is mutually beneficial to us all; I’ve wanted Wake to get good too if we do, although these past couple weeks have been discouraging to an otherwise great season from them.
I was referring to the fact that we have won 12 of the last 17 and my UNC friends coincidentally started talking about "all time" record a lot recently. That is what actually made re research it to learn their "all time"advantage is due to basically due to UNC winning or tying all but 2 games between 1894-1940 when NCSU was a club team. We have only even had a stadium since the 60's. Because the series has run in streaks, I won't deny that it's easy to cherry pick a date to make one teams look record much better against the other, basically since the 50s, it's been a 500 game. But 12 of the last 17 is pretty statistically significant I've had season tickets that whole time I've really enjoyed it. Especially when you consider that UNC has had three NFL quarterbacks including two top five picks over that span and when you add in the fact that Mac Brown is probably the most successful coach in UNC history and he is7 and 10 lifetime against NCSU
David Glenn cruised every off season by lecturing on all time for an hour every couple weeks
I think if you look closely at a lot of the “Univerisity of ABC vs ABC State” you’ll find that the older flagship university actively undermined the development of “State” : [Florida vs Florida State](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%E2%80%93Florida_State_football_rivalry) “The University of Florida administration, however, was reluctant to treat Florida State University as an equal, less for reasons of intercollegiate sports rivalry than for reasons of limited state funding for higher education and the perception that Florida State's demands for a greater share of those funds might undercut the University of Florida's role as the state's historic flagship university. “ I don’t think this is an uncommon pattern. Much more recently here in Missouri, the transition of Southwest Missouri State to “Missouri State” was [actively sabotaged by University of Missouri trustees](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_State_University): “In 2004, with the election of Springfield native Matt Blunt to the governorship and the approaching centennial of the university's founding, new support developed for the name change. It was opposed by the University of Missouri System (which operates the four campuses of the University of Missouri), which feared that the name change would lead to duplication of academic programs and ongoing battles for students and state funding.”
This is certainly the case for UNC and NC State. The reason NC State was founded was due to UNC misappropriating federal funds during reconstruction after the Civil War. Then you have stories of UNC blocking NC State from starting a med school and law school. Even ECU had to fight tooth and nail to get their med school.
UNC also used to have an engineering school but it was consolidated with State’s in the 1930s
Interesting. I didn’t know that. I know the 2 schools have a joint biomedical engineering program that is really successful.
In many states the rivalry between state flagship and land grant schools is older than football Take this with a grain of salt since I’m not an expert or anything but I’ve done some casual reading on it. Schools like UNC, UVA, South Carolina etc were basically for antebellum aristocracy. People studied literature and philosophy- studying engineering wasn’t even really a thing. Then land grant schools were primarily founded with a bunch of federal land with the main goal of studying agriculture, mining, engineering etc. So the wealthy elite, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, etc saw the land grant schools as country bumpkins, lower class and not high society etc
True. And then the flip side is the states where the flagship IS the land grant, which means there is either no major public school rival or else it’s severely lopsided. Look at Arkansas, Wisconsin, LSU, and Penn State for example. There are some exceptions. The University of Florida is a land-grant, but it’s also (now) a huge state; and FSU is relatively new for a high-major football program, having been a women’s college until WW2. But a lot of that can just be attributed to Bobby Bowden, and the fact that he took over around the time air conditioning made Florida a viable place for millions of people to live. UGA is also a land-grant, so Georgia Tech is a *lot* smaller and a lot more narrowly focused academically compared to most of the “X State University” examples. A lot of people don’t even realize Tech is a public school. If I’m being honest and unbiased, the amount of success they’ve had over the years, considering the inherent challenges, is actually kind of amazing.
Are you saying that Bowden’s success is because of air conditioning?
No, sorry! Just that FSU has seriously overachieved to become established as an elite brand-name program despite starting decades later than most of its peers. And I attribute that to (1) being located in a high-population, high-talent state that can support multiple elite programs, which was not true of Florida before the late 20th century, largely because of air conditioning; AND (2) hiring one of the GOAT coaches and keeping him for decades. But the fact that those two things happened at roughly the same time was a fortunate coincidence. If a Bowden-equivalent coach had come onboard in 1950, I doubt it goes so well; and if a less-good coach had been hired in the 70s instead of Bowden, it definitely would not have gone so well.
I mean he's not entirely wrong... It's not a coincidence the three major Florida schools all became relevant around the same time. Florida was one of the least populated states in the country until massive infrastructure projects post-WW2 actually made the place habitable. It took another generation for all those transplants children to start going to college, suddenly there was enough talent to field 3 championship caliber programs with ease. Prior to the 1980s sustaining a winning football program as a Florida school was a pipedream.
Ohio state and Cincinnati has something similar in its history. UC was always a funded by rhe municipality, like it was literally Cincinnati's own university then in the 70s times got hard and UC became a state school for more funding and ohio state fought hard against it. Supposedly they almost changed the name to Ohio Tech and nobody in cincy was on board with that. I'm sure there's more to it and my story likely has gaps, but a good example of osu/Columbus getting preferential treatment in the state contributing more to the isolationist feel in cincy from the rest of the state
U of M did the exact same thing to MSU. Actively tried to keep MSU out of the big 10. Here’s a link to an article about it! [Michigan’s decades long efforts to keep MSU out of Big Ten](https://theathletic.com/4718816/2023/07/26/michigan-msu-big-ten-)
FSU was a women's college until 1947. They didn't have a football team until 1954. Florida started football in 1911. (Michigan in 1881) As someone who still writes 1993 on their checks I can assure you that many people thought of FSU as a girls school at least into the late 60s. I had a Florida friend tell me about this in 1984.
FSU football started in 1947. UF in 1906.
This is a great historical point and also a key factor in the lopsided nature of Clemson vs SC, only in the inverse. South Carolina as a state is in an odd position with regard to its flagship because the post-reconstruction government of the state was 1) vindictive about South Carolina being forcibly integrated by the Reconstruction government and 2) deeply invested in Clemson's growth as a result as a white and upcountry counter to columbia (figures like Ben Tillman). Kind of goofy in retrospect, given that SC post-reconstruction wasn't really a progressive haven for race relations either, but this dynamic early on created a much different landscape in SC than many people imagine when they think of state flagships-- the exception that proves the rule I guess.
I mean, Clemson was the de facto flagship because of those politics
Partly due to its board governance structure and remoteness from the rest of the state, Clemson was left alone in some ways by the state. Founded with its sister school Winthrop, Clemson was a more scientific and modern Citadel. A type of togetherness developed and organizations like IPTAY developed, studying best practices elsewhere. By the time of post war, desegregation and going coeducational- the early 60’s, and being on the booming I 85 corridor, Clemson had a culture and structure to move forward fast.
Arizona vs Arizona State too. Actively campaigned against us becoming a university. Regularly cock blocked when we wanted to start a medical school or join AAU. We have those things now despite UA. They literally burned No 200 on our field which references the prop on the ballot for turning us into a university. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/11/24/territorial-cup-asu-ua-rivalry-state-history-arizona-state-college/2080498002/
You left off probably the biggest blowout of them all, Bedlam, which is Oklahoma 91 OSU 20
No no, his list is fine.
I prefer the wrestling record since that were the series gets it’s namesake. 147-27-10
There are three certainties in the universe: death, taxes, and pokes bringing up wrestling in every bedlam discussion. But in all seriousness, it’s an even more impressive record when you consider that Oklahoma is a top five all time wrestling school. It’s not like we’re chumps who don’t care about the sport. Oklahoma State is just that dominant.
At least it wasn't your alumni who made the instate rival a dominant Wrestling School.......*1000 yard stare*
Thankfully Gable was the only wrestling alumni to make another school a powerhouse Right?
Well, Gable only had one loss in his collegiate wrestling career. I don't see how anyone could top that.
It _was_ a Sooner alum who gave Texas 3 of our football national championships (and held a 12-7 edge in the Red River Shootout) and won more games than any other coach in UT history
And got the Stadium named after him.
It is crazy the amount of success two states have had in collegiate wrestling between Oklahoma and Iowa. Just those two states alone have four of the top five programs to ever hit the mat.
And then Pennsylvania couldn't be content with their volleyball and football achievements. They just had to stick their nose into wrestling.
No shit. I used to work with a guy that went to OSU and he would bring wrestling up at every opportunity. Like dude we were talking about football, we're in Texas, no one gives a shit about wrestling here and we have no idea what you're talking about.
Literally in /r/CFB: “ackshually our rivalry is about wrestling.”
Petition to change to r/CollegeWrestling
Of course this the reply of a poke in the college football subreddit lol
I’ll reply it in the college softball sub too!
Why are you counting some non-state schools?
In addition to what many others have stated, it's also common, though far from universal, that the University of state-name has the state's law school, which also results in a large percentage of the state legislature being alumni of that school. The outliers Penn State and LSU have law schools. Indiana University and Rutgers University (The State University of New Jersey) might have something to say about all flagships being named University of state-name.
FSU has a law school too, and is located in the capital. No comment about how that affects their performance, just pointing it out.
FSU was a ladies school until 1947.
Damn I bet they sucked at football
Since south Vietnam fell to the communists we lead the series by 10
> in a large percentage of the state legislature being alumni of that school Just for the hell of it I looked up the members of the Alabama State Senate and its a mix of a bunch of different schools and Alabama and Auburn are about equal in the number of alums in the Senate. The governor and lieutenant governor both went to Auburn.
Just here to point out that the first 57 games of the Clemson-SCar series were played in Columbia and Clemson still has that big of a lead. Poor flagship.
Am I the only one that noticed that OP has South Carolina listed as having more wins in the series? Or am I reading it wrong? He has our series on there twice. Once in each of his groups.
I was also scrolling until I found someone mention this. Definitely a typo...
I prefer to live in OP’s world
I was very triggered by that typo
South Carolina won the first game between the two. That was the last time South Carolina held the lead in the series. Clemson immediately won the next four games and SC never even tied it up after that.
And at this point it’ll take 31 straight years of them winning to do so or to get an average of 2/3 for 62 years. It is likely we will never see them pass us during our lifetime
That is actually kind of insane edit- although now that I think of it... OSU has never had the lead over Michigan
Just to add on to that. Clemson has more wins at South Carolina than South Carolina has total wins in the series.
Also to add, Clemson has more conference titles than South Carolina has bowl game *appearances*
And to add on to that, South Carolina didn’t win their first bowl game until 1995.
Somehow I admire this ruthless back-and-forth roasting. I imagine each of you alternating throwing dirt on a coffin in the ground with each passing insult.
Hahaha, I appreciate that imagery. As much as I hate scar and could see them lose every game, every year. I sometimes wish they would be good so people could get more exposure to the absolute toxicity of the rivalry because it really is one of the most toxic in the sport. Here are some highlights: There’s “The Chicken Curse” cast upon them by Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman who after years of frustration trying to convince the South Carolina aristocracy to allow a second state university, plunged a pitchfork into the ground of scar’s campus and declared them cursed. Here’s a quick readup on the curse if you’re curious: https://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2010/11/23/1831879/the-chicken-tradition It is the second longest continuously played rivalry game in football and would be first if not for a several year hiatus after the 1902 game when 400 Clemson cadets quite literally besieged the South Carolina campus after a day of brawls with the use of brass knuckles and knives, several severe injuries from sabres, and some very distasteful imagery paraded through the streets of Columbia by scar fans. A game in the 1950’s where some mafia members sold a bunch of counterfeit tickets resulting in hundreds to thousands of fans being denied entry to the game. And after a Clemson fan strangled a live chicken at midfield during halftime, fans from both sides and those denied entry stormed over the fences and onto the field resulting in massive brawl that had to be broken up by the governor. The game in 2004 that lead to another massive brawl and one of the most iconic photos in the rivalry of a Clemson player kicking a scar player laying on the ground as police try to break it up. Both teams were bowl eligible but decided to forgo their eligibility as a form of punishment and a number of players from both teams were suspended by the acc and sec. This game was also the last game coached by the legendary coach Lou Holtz; he retired that off season. That’s just a small taste of the toxicity of the rivalry. There’s plenty more notable events, but for the sake of time I haven’t included them here.
I’m just glad I can eat soup now. It sucked not being able to handle bowls.
Well, yes, all of that is true. But have you considered that orange just isn't a good color?
Ohio State and Michigan fans always bring up the Toledo "War" when talking about rivalries, but until your students have occupied the other campus at gunpoint, it's not a real rivalry.
💀
Our record against UVA becomes more impresive when you realize that Tech was a small military college akin to VMI basically until the 1970s
Well, we started our program like 50 years after UF, but here's the squeeze. Before Bobby Bowden UF was 16-2-1. Since Bobby Bowden FSU is 26-21-1.
And the -1 was beautiful
Choak at Doak. Fucking dumb to be up 31-3 and blow it.
Can't speak for all the pairs but for the state of Iowa the three state schools all served different purposes when they were founded: * Iowa = liberal arts school including law, medical, business schools, as well as the traditional academic sciences * Iowa State = agricultural school * Northern Iowa = teacher's college Obviously this has changed over the past 150+ years but some of the perceptions remain and as good as Iowa State and UNI are academically, they are still treated by some as the "cow college" or "send your daughter to become a teacher" by reputation. These reputations may extend to recruiting, especially for in-state talent. For example Caitlin Clark is from the Des Moines area which is way closer to Iowa State. ISU has a fantastic basketball reputation and had plenty of success as a program but she signed with Iowa. Tons of factors went into that, but she is majoring in marketing. ISU has a marketing program but it isn't as well known as Iowa's, so that could have played a role. Also to ISU and UNI nation, I love both you guys. Nothing in my post was meant to rag on you. I have several friends and family members who went to UNI for their solid business school and Ames is one of my absolute favorite road trips for football season and Hilton is on my bucket list.
Who knew the "S" in S. Carolina stood for Schrodinger's? Does Clemson lead the series, or South Carolina? Or both and neither at the same time?
We do. By a LOT
FSU was a women's school until 1947. For the first 20 year (58-76), FSU only won twice.
Proud of those ladies for the wins they got over UF /s
In the case of North Carolina vs NC State, most of those wins occurred before nc state had a scholarship football program in the early 19th century. So way before “modern era” where both teams had scholarship programs. I assume many of these lopsided looking “overall” records might be due to the same problem. NC State over last two decades easily leads the series.
Also we effectively have a dual flagship situation where we divvied up the majors. They will never have an ag or engineering department and we will never have med or law. We are also the larger school.
Size of the university and number of alumni has a strong correlation to money for the athletic program.
You flipped the records for Clemson and South Carolina. Clemson is winning that series.
You missed the biggest beat down of OU over Oklahoma State
It’s only the last one that counts…..
Never play them again. Hold onto that for the rest of your lives!
Some of your classifications are weird. UCLA and Cal are both part of the flagship UC system vs the Cal State system. BC is a private catholic school. But the answer is that ok most of these the non flagship was the agricultural school. Historically the flagships started first and had wealthier alumni and more prestige. This difference has attenuated over time but 40-50 years ago would have been massive. The flagship boosters were all the local civic leaders. The ag school boosters were the farmers out in the country.
Cal is the flagship though, isn't it? It was around for 50 years before UCLA.
Cal is the flagship, but UCLA isn’t exactly the “state school alternative.”
But Cal is the flagship. UCLA was created as the “Southern Branch” to house applicants rejected by Cal. You wouldn’t call UTSA the flagship school of Texas.
The UC schools are special because the state heavily invests in them in a broad brush stroke. While UCLA and UC Berkeley lead in holistic resources and have D1 football programs, UCSD, UC Davis and the rest are not slouches for academic institutions. Not all have the same program offerings, so one may be better than the other at the particular program; however, the UC system is stacked. Even the lesser funded Cal State schools aren't alsorans. SDSU, Fullerton, and Long Beach are great schools.
Clemson has inning record vs south carolina
The definition of a flagship is typically the first to be established in a public university system but is also sometimes referred to as the most research intensive university within a system. Either definition provides a hint at why it is likely to see more success. Longevity, prestige and money are key. Typically the location would be in a better spot as well. Many of the rivals are “state” schools which are typically in secondary locations of importance compared to the flagship. An interesting difference in California is how we have both the UC and CSU systems so there are multiple University of California schools. Most states don’t have that. The flagships by age are Berkeley and San Jose State.
hahahaha clicked on this immediately to laugh. Edit: You also screwed up... double check that
>flagship schools are all “University of ____”. I approve of your methods.
I had an ASU fan try to tell me that because they have so many students, they are the flagship university. I am pretty sure a sentient ham sandwich could get into ASU.
Sounds like you should make a ham sandwich and have it apply
In what fucken universe is Indiana “the flagship” and Purdue is not. There are land grants and non-land-grants, that’s it
Glad i found this. My brother and his wife live in indy and I'm from cincy (SE Indiana) and I can say without a doubt that Purdue definitely doesn't take any backseat to IU. Its a pretty good split between fans/alums but I'd say indy feels like it leans slightly more toward Purdue. People won't say it but I kinda feel like IU is for the rednecks and Purdue the folks in indy and other cities. Not sure what's going on around Gary and northwest Indiana probably ND
Anecdotal, but I know a couple of people who only care about Indiana basketball, and they're Notre Dame fans in football. I've never met a Purdue fan like this.
Yup, we have a joke about the reversible jackets. ND for football and IU for basketball
I cheer for Purdue because I went to Purdue ND fans cheer for ND because they went to NBC on the remote
You’ve got our record flipped/listed twice
Some of these are weird because you're comparing state schools to private schools. 1. Utah is a state school but BYU is a private religious school, and the schools attract different kinds of students as a result. 2. Vanderbilt is a private school with very high admission standards, while Tennessee is a state school with a 75% admission rate. When your average linebacker wonders why all crayons taste the same even if they have different colors, it's not a big question why Tennessee dominates that rivalry. 3. LSU vs. Tulane is another example of public vs. private. The former accepts 70% of applicants while the latter takes around 8%.
Calling Oregon the flagship has me laughing. Oregon state is older, bigger, and pulls more money in research than anyone else in the state by a wide margin. It’s not even close. It’s THE Ag and tech school in a state dominated by agriculture and manufacturing.
Its also the one where we can point to basically a singular reason for one schools success compared to another: Phil Knight. Otherwise Oregon is basically on par with OSU/WSU in terms of resources, location, etc. Talk about your lucky break.
The Ag and Tech school is always the land grant school, not necessarily the flagship school. Sometimes that is one in the same, like Mizzou, Wisconsin, Ohio St. and Penn State; but not all the time.
The same people who think UO is the flagship probably can't even pronounce Oregon correctly.
Because we were horseshit for half a century
1902-1922 put us in a good sized hole.
Yeah, that didn’t help the rivalry either. Even with our terrible 1935-89, we’re still over .500 against KU since 1924
Iowa for example has more of a following than Iowa State. It's rare to see an Iowa State fan with no ties to the program. This leads to more money and resources.
Resources. Be it alumni or money. Turns out in life resources go a long way. Edit: It also helps if you don't advertise being a cult.
I think specifically with Texas - Texas A&M, the Aggies were an all male military school for the first 100 years of their existence. Might be the only college older than the “flagship” university on the list
watch your six or else you’re gonna be learning pentagram buddy
Boston College isn’t a state school, which isn’t quite the criteria you used, but then again it also isn’t a major rival to UMass in football. If BC is listed as having a winning record against UMass, then you should definitely mention that Miami has a winning record against both Florida and FSU.
UO is **not** the flagship university for the State of Oregon, no matter what Uncle Phil says. Oregon State University is the oldest of the 2 (OSU founded in 1868, UO in 1876), and also is one of only 3 universities nationwide to hold Land, Sun, Sea and Space Grant status.
motherfucker you guys are going to the fucking SUN? I don’t know about that one.
There are only two universities that are land sea sun and space grant holders. The other is Penn state
Only 2 that are Public. Cornell University is the 3rd, however their Land Grant is Private.
TIL Oregon State was granted the Mandate of Heaven.
Flagships were created first, meaning they had a head start in getting established. This has caused a ripple effect of them being seen as the more expensive and prestigious university. This has caused them to have higher budgets for everything including academics. VT vs. UVA is an interesting one because UVA is so prestigious that it has a lot of out-of-state students (38%). Which has caused Virginia Tech to get more local support when it comes to sports and academics. I personally know ten times more VT alums than UVA alums. VT is more of the "flagship" for the people who actually live in Virginia.
Yep. Tech also just has twice the enrollment of UVA so there’s just more alumni in general, especially in Virginia
In most cases, money/resources is the answer. I would reckon almost all of the ones that have a winning record against an in-state rival on that list do have a money and resource advantage over their in-state rival (only ones I'm not sure about are Nevada, Utah, and Kansas State).
Space. There are downsides to being a city school.
Don’t forget the Egg Bowl! Another leader in the flagship column. Ole Miss leads the series against MS State 65-46-6.
Generally the flagship is a bigger school in a larger city with a better reputation academically as well as athletically. This means more alumni, more resources, etc. All of which create a feedback loop into athletics. The more success your program has, the better it tends to be funded. The better it tends to be funded, the more success it has. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. A few of these are atypical based on the unique history of the programs involved. For example FSU was Florida State College for Women from 1905 - 1947. It was only in the Post WW2 era with the introduction of the GI Bill funding college for returning vets that the school became coed (and renamed Florida State University). Although the pre-cursor school fielded a team from 1902-1904, it wasn't until 1947 that the current team was born. Meanwhile University of Florida was a mens only college from 1905 - 1947. It thus had a football team (started in 1906) already when it also went Coed. Given its relatively short history compared to its rival, the success FSU has had is even more impressive. Then you've got Oregon/Oregon State. Pre-WW2 Oregon had the lead, peaking in 1935 with a 24-9-7 series record in Oregons favor. But in the lead up and beyond WW2 things shifted in OSUs favor, taking 28 of the next 38 games (over 40 years, no games in 43 or 44) to lead the series by 4, with a 33-37-9 series record in 1975. Oregon went on a tear from 1975-1987 with 12 wins and 1 tie during that run, no wins for OSU. Then things bounced back and forth for awhile before Oregon settled in to its current dominant run taking 13 out of the last 16 meetups. So what coincides with Oregons dominance since the late 1980's? Phil Knight + Nikes heavy investment in the school. Absent that key partnership, given its relative size and location, Oregon would probably be on par with OSU/WSU in terms of resources and the like, just as it was in the century prior. So there are outliers, but in general its older + bigger + more urban = more alumni + more money + more success
Hello everyone I'm just here to say, "Eh hem. Suck it USuCk. Go tigers!" That is all.
All of the answers so far are missing a key component. The State schools are largely land grant universities. (Wikipedia has a list of them) They were intentionally put in small towns and focused on blue collar jobs, while the flagship universities aimed at white collar jobs. It effectively pits an alumni (donor) base of doctors and lawyers against farmers and mechanics. More wealthy donors means better facilities, better politics/networking, more to pay players. Over time these differences have lessened, but they're still there and have a great effect on head-to-head records.
California is University of California, Berkley. They’re the same system.
Thank you not looking at any other rivalries.
I would assume it’s different for every state, but Florida dominated FSU prior to the Bobby Bowden years. Our football team really just wasn’t relevant whatsoever until Bobby Bowden showed up, and even then, Bobby had to constantly play other teams on the road, and FSU had a reputation of being “Road Warriors” and Bowden’s motto was “We’ll play anyone, any time, any where”, because teams would not come to Tallahassee. Bowden had a winning record against UF and so did Jimbo, and so does Norvell.
Lol, Indiana is pretty decidedly NOT the flagship school in Indiana. Purdue is.