Only 2 schools older than 100 can say football has existed for entire history

[Turbine]

Percentage of Schools existence that Football has been a Part of School History

School	Established	First FB team	FB p.o.s.h.
Stanford (CA)	1891	1891	100 %
Louisiana	1901	1901	100 %
Memphis (TN)	1912	1912	100 %
Middle Tennessee St.	1911	1911	100 %
UCLA	1919	1919	100 %
Tulsa (OK)	1894	1895	99 %
Texas-El Paso	1913	1914	99 %
Western Michigan	1903	1905	98 %
Hawaii	1907	1909	98 %
Arkansas St.	1909	1911	98 %
Southern Mississippi	1910	1912	98 %
Texas Tech	1923	1925	98 %
Miami (FL)	1925	1927	98 %
Pittsburgh (PA)	1887	1890	97 %
New Mexico	1889	1892	97 %
Washington St.	1890	1893	97 %
Texas Christian	1893	1896	97 %
Utah St.	1888	1892	97 %
Idaho	1889	1893	97 %
Central Michigan	1892	1896	96 %
Northern Illinois	1895	1899	96 %
Air Force (CO)	1954	1956	96 %
North Carolina St.	1887	1892	96 %
Southern Methodist (TX)	1911	1915	96 %
New Mexico St.	1888	1893	96 %
Oklahoma	1890	1895	96 %
Wyoming	1886	1892	95 %
Georgia Tech	1885	1892	94 %
Clemson (SC)	1889	1896	94 %
Louisiana Tech	1894	1901	94 %
Southern California	1880	1888	94 %
Ball St. (IN)	1918	1924	93 %
Texas	1883	1893	92 %
Temple (PA)	1884	1894	92 %
Bowling Green (OH)	1910	1919	91 %
Oklahoma St.	1890	1901	90 %
Arizona St.	1885	1897	90 %
Kent St. (OH)	1910	1920	89 %
Fresno St. (CA)	1911	1921	89 %
Colorado	1876	1890	89 %
Kentucky	1865	1881	89 %
Arizona	1885	1899	88 %
Connecticut	1881	1896	88 %
California	1868	1885	88 %
Vanderbilt (TN)	1873	1890	87 %
Purdue (IN)	1869	1887	87 %
Mississippi St.	1878	1895	87 %
Oregon	1876	1894	86 %
Texas A&M	1876	1894	86 %
Ohio St.	1870	1889	86 %
Syracuse (NY)	1870	1889	86 %
Virginia Tech	1872	1892	85 %
Nebraska	1869	1890	85 %
Akron (OH)	1870	1891	84 %
Northwestern (IL)	1851	1875	84 %
Colorado St.	1870	1892	84 %
Illinois	1867	1890	83 %
Nevada	1874	1896	83 %
Arkansas	1871	1894	83 %
Kansas	1866	1890	83 %
Penn St.	1855	1881	83 %
West Virginia	1867	1891	83 %
Oregon St.	1868	1893	82 %
Rice (TX)	1891	1912	82 %
Troy St. (AL)	1887	1909	81 %
Washington	1861	1889	81 %
North Texas	1890	1913	80 %
Minnesota	1851	1882	80 %
Boston College (MA)	1863	1893	79 %
Navy (MD)	1845	1879	79 %
San Diego St. (CA)	1897	1921	78 %
Louisiana St.	1860	1893	77 %
Nevada-Las Vegas	1957	1968	77 %
Iowa St.	1858	1892	77 %
Kansas St.	1863	1896	77 %
Auburn (AL)	1856	1891	77 %
Maryland	1856	1892	76 %
San Jose St. (CA)	1857	1893	76 %
Houston (TX)	1927	1946	76 %
East Carolina (NC)	1907	1932	74 %
Wisconsin	1849	1889	74 %
Iowa	1847	1889	73 %
Eastern Michigan	1849	1891	73 %
Louisiana-Monroe	1931	1951	73 %
Utah	1850	1892	73 %
Michigan St.	1855	1896	73 %
Notre Dame (IN)	1842	1887	72 %
Duke (NC)	1838	1888	70 %
Buffalo (NY)	1846	1894	70 %
Mississippi	1844	1893	70 %
Missouri	1839	1890	69 %
Wake Forest (NC)	1834	1888	68 %
Michigan	1817	1878	68 %
Baylor (TX)	1845	1899	66 %
Toledo (OH)	1872	1917	66 %
Tulane (LA)	1834	1893	65 %
Marshall (WV)	1837	1895	65 %
Florida	1853	1906	65 %
Alabama	1831	1892	65 %
Cincinnati (OH)	1819	1885	65 %
Brigham Young (UT)	1875	1922	64 %
Indiana	1820	1887	64 %
Virginia	1819	1888	63 %
Central Florida	1963	1979	62 %
Miami (OH)	1809	1888	60 %
Rutgers (NJ)	1766	1869	57 %
Army (NY)	1802	1890	57 %
South Carolina	1801	1892	55 %
Ohio	1804	1894	55 %
North Carolina	1789	1888	54 %
Tennessee	1794	1891	54 %
Georgia	1785	1891	52 %
Boise St. (ID)	1932	1968	51 %
Louisville (KY)	1798	1912	45 %
Alabama-Birmingham	1969	1991	39 %
Florida St.	1851	1947	38 %
South Florida	1956	1997	16 %

[gorcajun]

Great Work, Turbine, I never knew "we were that old". But then it says tradition.

[geauxboy]

I believe the earliest any school began playing football on your table is 1875; and I won't dispute your research, because it's not that important to me, so any school established before that year is immediately less than 100%, therefore the claim to fame is somewhat flawed. I don't think any of these students who attended these universities felt that their college experience was diminished because they didn't have a football team.

[Turbine]

I don't think any of these students who attended these universities felt that their college experience was diminished because they didn't have a football team.

Every single fall semester student "ever" to attend UL can lay claim to a football team.

It is just a really unique situation and lots of schools younger than UL can't make that claim.

[gorcajun]

It is just becoming so difficult to be PROUD of an accomplishment.

By the way, my grandmother has seen every day since 1904. Anyone find it difficult to argue and take exception with that fact.

[geauxboy]

Sorry, reset. For instance, at U of GA, the school was established 90 years before anyone played football. However, they did their best to make up for it by playing Auburn 108 times since 1891 or 92, interrupted only by World Wars.

[Turbine]

For instance, at U of GA, the school was established 90 years before anyone played football. However, they did their best to make up for it by playing Auburn 108 times since 1891 or 92, interrupted only by World Wars.

You are right you can't miss what you never knew, but that doesn't change the uniqueness of being first wire to wire at something.

I hope you wouldn't claim that a company like CNN would be wrong for touting their being the first 24 hour news channel simply because they came along when cable provided them with the unique position to be able to go 24-7.

Did my dad miss an all sports channel like ESPN as a kid? No, he never knew of it, but if I were to ask if he would have liked it? He would say yes.

Is ESPN proper to brag about being first with 24-7 sports? Absolutely! They came along at the right time to be able to do so.

Should UL keep their wire to wire football history ranking quiet just because it came along at the right time? I don't think so. The ranking is still rare and special and is worth touring.

But no matter how you slice it, wire to wire football for over 100 years is most certainly not irrelevant.

jmo

[geauxboy]

You are right you can't miss what you never knew, but that doesn't change the uniqueness of being first wire to wire at something.

I hope you wouldn’t claim that a company like CNN would be wrong for touting their being the first 24 hour news channel simply because they came along when cable provided them with the unique position to be able to go 24-7.

Did my dad miss an all sports channel like ESPN as a kid? No, he never knew of it, but if I were to ask if he would have liked it? He would say yes.

Is ESPN proper to brag about being first with 24-7 sports? Absolutely! They came along at the right time to be able to do so.

Should UL keep their wire to wire football history ranking quiet just because it came along at the right time? I don't think so. The ranking is still rare and special and is worth touring.

But no matter how you slice it, wire to wire football for over 100 years is most certainly not irrelevant.

jmo

If you say so. Then let's qualify it as being unique. P... on CNN anyway. Have a nice evening.

[Bert]

I have been thinking about this all weekend, and I think this century long consistency is a testament to fans expectations more than any single administration. GEAUX CAJUNS FANS AND COACHES

[ATXCajun]

No UL student in history has been denied the opportunity to witness Football. Only 2 other D1a schools in the country can say that. Neither being over 100 years old.

The fact that UL has been playing football for its entire existence and for over 100 years is noteworthy no matter how you slice it. However, using a percentage of existence to rank schools loses some flavor when you consider that the rules for american football as we know it today were written in 1876. Rutgers was one of the first teams to ever play the game, yet they are way down the list because they existed long before football. Having said all that, I see that you have the years of organized football sheet as well. To me that is a more valid and meaningful statistic. The version of football played by Rutgers, Princeton and a few others between 1869 and 1876 was soccer and then rugby, so maybe we should dock them a few years. :-)

[Turbine]

The fact that UL has been playing football for its entire existence and for over 100 years is noteworthy no matter how you slice it. However, using a percentage of existence to rank schools loses some flavor when you consider that the rules for american football as we know it today were written in 1876. Rutgers was one of the first teams to ever play the game, yet they are way down the list because they existed long before football. Having said all that, I see that you have the years of organized football sheet as well. To me that is a more valid and meaningful statistic.

Good points.


I did not penalize for the dropped years. If I had, UL would rank first.

Stanford was the first D1a school to have a football team ready its first year. So football has been a "part" of Stanfords history for 100% even though they skipped a year.

So unlike at UL, FB wasn't there for the "whole" of Stanfords history.

In the 105 years since, 3 younger schools have accomplished the same.