Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

luv that list

and a great reason why Nebraska is STILL a helmet

I've pondered before how long a helmet stays a helmet, the answer isn't clear of course.  My true helmet teams are OSU Bama Michigan Nebraska USC Texas OU ND, with some other programs around the edge of that (PSU).  I think of it qualitatively as one's impressions when you learn your team has scheduled someone OOC.  It can range from WOW! with a helmet, to really good, say Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arkansas ...

Clemson has had a very solid run of course but aren't a helmet at this point.  FSU didn't make it after their run in the 90s.  Miami the same, both started getting noticed a lot of course, but helmet status, I think, goes back at least to 1937.  Army isn't one now, they probably were back in the day, with Yale and Harvard.

I think maybe it takes five successive coaching hires that flop in short order, which is around 20 years, maybe, to slide off.  Maybe it's longer.  For OSU, I think they'd be longer, they'd need to average 6 wins a season for 30 years or so I suspect, but it's all opinion.

It is obviously highly subjective but I think there are some factors that generally apply:

One is something @ELA mentioned in these discussions, the ability to recover from a prolonged period of mediocrity.  Alabama is a great example of this.  In between the NC under Stallings in 1992 and Saban's dynasty they generally sucked for more than a decade.  By the time Saban was recruiting the kids who won even his first NC at Bama those kids would have had no recollection whatsoever of the 1992 team.  After the NC in 1992 Bama stayed pretty good for a few years and before the NC in 2009 they were pretty good in 2008 but in the 11 years from 1997-2007 Bama had:

• Two losses once (2005)
• Three losses twice (1999, 2002)
• Four losses (n/a)
• Five losses twice (1998, 2001)
• Six losses twice (2004, 2007)
• Seven or more losses four times (1997, 2000, 2003, 2006)

That isn't just bad by helmet standards, that is just outright bad.  My point isn't to pick on Bama it is to point out that they have that "ability to recover".  They sucked for more than a decade but when they brought in Saban they were back immediately.  

Another factor, I think, is related to that and is the issue of whether or not the program has won NC's or at least achieved at a high level under multiple different coaches and in multiple eras.  This, I think, is where the Florida schools are held back a bit.  All have won NC's under multiple coaches but it is all in the same era.  

IMHO, how long it takes to lose helmet status is proportional to how long you have had helmet status.  Michigan has generally struggled basically since Carr retired but they are still a helmet in large part because they've been a helmet for 100+ years so struggling for a decade or two isn't long compared to that.  It is different for Florida State where they were phenomenal for basically the 90's but they sucked before that.  They've also struggled for most of the same time that Michigan has but they don't have as much long-term success to balance that off.  

It will be really interesting to see what happens with Clemson once Dabo moves on.  He is their second HC to win a NC so they have that going for them but the NC in the 80's seems like a bit of a "flash-in-the-pan" thing not prolonged dominance.  Dabo's teams have been great of course and really the main foil to Saban but can Clemson, as a program, keep that up once he moves on?  

The problem with forecasting is that on one hand, Alabama winning all the time has messed up any trends we could surmise from the playoff era...and on the other hand, the 4-team playoff may not last very long and we'll have a whole different dynamic with a larger playoff.

It's possible Alabama doesn't win 6 NCs in 12 years without any playoff.  The near-misses by potential dynastic programs in the past became opportunities at redemption for the Tide in a playoff.  But look at OSU in the 70s.  Look at OU in the 80s.  These programs were great and their histories are what make them helmets, but with a 4-team playoff back then, would they not have had a shot at a Bama-esque run?  

With a ten or 12-team playoff, what will it mean?  More 'great' teams getting a second chance they wouldn't get now or would have in the past.  But more opportunities for variance as well.

The lack of continuity makes any predictions suspect at best.

Based on probability, an 8 team playoff would often crown a team that wasn't the best team involved.  I think it would hurt the 2-3 truly elite teams each season.

Maybe, but @OrangeAfroMan makes a good point, compared to what?  Pre-playoff and especially pre-BCS there were a TON of truly elite teams that missed out on an NC because they had their bad day at the wrong time.  

Lets look at 1973.  Here is the pre-bowl AP Poll top-8 (just assuming for simplicity that the CFP rankings would be the same):

• 11-0 Bama
• 10-0-1 Oklahoma (tied #7 USC)
• 10-0 Notre Dame
• 9-0-1 Ohio State (tied #5 M)
• 10-0-1 Michigan (tied #4 tOSU)
• 11-0 Penn State
• 9-1-1 USC (lost to #3 ND, tied #2 OU)
• 8-2 Texas (lost to #2 OU  and nr Miami, FL)

Assume for the sake of argument that I am right and that tOSU and Michigan were the best two teams that year.  In the pre-CFP format both were deprived of an NC by their tie but in a four-team CFP, the Buckeyes would get a shot and in an 8-team playoff both would get a shot.  In the actual timeline really only #1 Bama and #3 Notre Dame had a shot.  They played each other in the Sugar Bowl.  #2 Oklahoma didn't play a bowl (probation?).  #4 tOSU played #7 USC (who was MUCH better than their record)* and won big (42-21) but it wasn't enough to pass the winner of the two undefeated teams ahead of them no matter what.  #5 Michigan didn't bowl at all (league Rose Bowl only rule still in effect).  #6 Penn State beat #13 LSU in the Orange Bowl but that only got them past Michigan who didn't play.  #7 USC lost and dropped to #8.  #8 Texas lost to #12 Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl and dropped to #14.  

*USC in 1973:
This schedule is unreal.  They finished 9-2-1.  The three non-wins:

• A nine point loss to final #1 Notre Dame in South Bend
• A 21 point loss to final #2 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl
• A tie with final #3 Oklahoma at home.  

They also beat final #12 UCLA.  9-2-1 really isn't bad when you played the top-3 teams in the final rankings.  My assertion that tOSU was the best team that year is based largely on using USC as a barometer.  Ohio State beat them much more soundly than Notre Dame and did it in SoCal while Notre Dame did it at home.  I do realize, however, that the transitive property is extremely limited wrt CFB so who knows.  

Big Ten Rose Bowl only Rule:
I think the rule was intended to maximize interest in the Rose Bowl but especially when it was combined with the no-repeat rule which was dropped around this time it really deprived some GREAT league teams of any bowl at all.  Then, starting in 1969 with Bo's arrival in Ann Arbor the Buckeyes and Wolverines just flat dominated the league and the loser got no bowl until the rule was dropped for the 1975 season largely due to what had happened in 1973.  Briefly, in 1973 the Buckeyes and Wolverines tied and the league AD's had to vote on who to send.  Ohio State won the vote.  I'd argue it was the right decision because Ohio State was the better team but I know that Bo was still bitter over it to his dying day.  

Starting with Bo's arrival in 1969:

• 1969 tOSU and M tied for the league title, M went based on their H2H win and also the no-repeat rule because tOSU had gone the year before.  Ohio State was 8-1 and #4 and got no bowl.  
• 1970 tOSU won outright and went to the Rose Bowl.  Michigan was 9-1 and #7 and got no bowl.  
• 1971 M won outright and went to the Rose Bowl.  
• 1972 tOSU and M tied for the league title, tOSU went based on their H2H win (and possibly also the no-repeat rule, not sure if it had been deleted yet).  Michigan was 10-1 and #8 and got no bowl.  
• 1973 tOSU and M tied for the league title, tOSU went based on vote of the AD's because there was no H2H winner.  Michigan was 10-0-1 and #5 and got no bowl.  
• 1974 tOSU and M tieid for the league title, tOSU went based on their H2H win (no more no-repeat rule).  Michigan was 10-1 and #4 and got no bowl.  

The Rose Bowl only rule was dropped for the 1975 season so that the Wolverines could lose other bowls as well.  In the 1975 season they lost the Orange Bowl then in the 1976-78 seasons they lost three more Rose Bowls, then in the 1979 season they lost the Gator Bowl.  

Any 8 team playoff is more likely to crown a team that isn't the best team in reality.  It's probability, not really any other way to view it.

And sure, some teams get left out with a shorter playoff in an unusual year.  One could argue in this past season there were only two teams worth being in a playoff.

We'd have a definitive playoff champion, but teams 9 and 10 would whine.

Any given team is more likely to be among the top 8-10 teams than they are the top 4 or 2.  That's what it comes down to.

Cincy's point isn't wrong - while #2 isn't necessarily better than #5 in any given year, it tends to be, more often than not.  But my point is that since the framework keeps changing, we don't have a viable sample size for that to come into play.

As often as a true "best team" Alabama is ranked #1 at the end of the regular season, it's lost once and ends the year ranked 4th or 7th or whatever.  So instead of the actual best team losing out on its shot at a NC like in the past, it now gets a second chance.  And as it's the actual best team, it's more likely to win a playoff than your average 5 seed.

It's easy to forget that until about 2003 or so, WHEN you lost mattered as much or more as WHO you lost to.  Once OU got blown out by KSU in the BXIICG that one year, but still played for the NC, that went out the window. 

It's easy to forget that until about 2003 or so, WHEN you lost mattered as much or more as WHO you lost to.  Once OU got blown out by KSU in the BXIICG that one year, but still played for the NC, that went out the window. 

Good point and this is a big part of what made those season-ending games like tOSU/M, Bama/Auburn, UF/FSU, etc so big.  For a big chunk of CFB history you just couldn't lose your last game and expect to do anything so those games were even bigger.  

Also, of course, prior to 1992 for the SEC and more recently for everyone else there were no CCG's so there were only the bowls after the rivalry games.  Then, to go back a little further, the Big Ten wasn't the only conference to have a no-repeat rule and a one bowl only rule so for a LOT of CFB history these season-ending rivalries were the actual last game of the season for at least one of the two participants more often than not.  Now, in a NC season these rivalry games are followed up by:

• CCG
• CFP Semi-Final
• CFP CG

It just isn't the same thing.