Man................. Sometimes you can be annoying. You always got to turn anything Mississippi into a don't go there discussion.
But following your logic on SUCKING at football:
If Southern California is a must be destination, why in hell do UCLA suck turtle turds in football.
Why do Notre Dame suck? GOLDEN DOME and all that shat.
Why has Michigan sucked like a $2 prostitute? That same Michigan got steamrolled by 5 TDs by that same Mississippi State team LAST year. Why do Michigan SUCK?
Why do Illinois SUCK worst than lindsey Lohan? Aint CHI-TOWN a PLACE TO BE?
Why do the CAL suck? Fun and sun in Southern California?
Syracuse........... They been sucking since Jim Brown left havn't they......... WHY? It's New York State.
Minnesota sucks worse than a porn star. Getting their ass kicked by FCS schools out of North Dakota.
PURDUE?.................. They ain't been shat since WWII.
Tell me why these schools suck. They ain't in Mississippi so they should not suck in Football. I could keep naming but I think that is enough for you to TAP DANCE around and make excuses for. :lol:
UCLA hasn't been good in football since Cade McNown was QB, I think. Oh, and USC happens to be right down the darn road.
Notre Dame is inconsistent because the school tries try to win while holding on to their overt Catholic standards.
Michigan had three bad years under Rich-Rod before Brady Hoke came in there and won a BCS bowl game this past season. So Michigan don't suck anymore. And they won't suck for a while.
Illinois is not a football school. Never has been -- at least not since Red Grange was there. And Chicago really doesn't produce college football players either.
Cal: From 2003-2009 were a pretty decent program. Not great at all, but decent.
Purdue: Was a decent team for a long time in the Big Ten under Joe Tiller. In fact, the Drew Brees-led squad won the conference title in 2000.
The Orange, like the Illni, is a basketball school.
Minnesota hasn't been good at football since the the late 60s.
Most of this can be explained by the population migrating to the South the last few decades due to the lower cost of living, better living environments and job opportunities in the region. Also, football is not a stalworth sport along the Rust Belt that it was 40 years ago like it is in the South. As a result, the great kids won't be playing football at Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue or Syracuse anytime soon.
But Ole Miss hasn't won the SEC since 1941. Miss. State hasn't won the league since 1963. Additionally, neither school has played in a BCS bowl game since the BCS was created. However, Illinois, Purdue, Notre Dame, Michigan and UCLA have.
How can this be? You mean to tell me that Ole Miss and Miss. State, two schools that are in the SEC (the best conference in the nation), in the cradle of college football manna and are party schools, can't reach a BCS bowl game before run-of-the-mill Big Ten schools?
Some of the schools you mentioned are at recruiting disadvantage due to a number of factors as I've mentioned, but yet have won more often than either of the SEC Mississippi schools who have all the talent in their own backyard. What's the excuse?
There should be no reason for those Mississippi schools to go so long without winning anything of significance more often aside from the Egg Bowl.