header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Author

Topic: League Titles

 (Read 3387 times)

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10654
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2020, 04:06:25 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 22, 2020, 02:42:34 PM
Bama, Clemson, Ohio State - Similar programs in many ways.  And they all end up at or near the top of the 247 recruiting rankings year in and out.
In my opinion, Clemson is a different situation.  What Saban, Tressel, Meyer, and Day have done at Bama and Ohio State is phenomenal and I don't mean to take credit away from them, but I view Dabo's accomplishment at Clemson as MUCH more impressive because it is unprecedented. 

Saban, Tressel, Meyer, and Day coach(ed) at schools that had GREAT coaches long before they arrived.  If you asked a casual CFB fan to name a famous (pre 2000) coach from Bama, tOSU, and Clemson most of them would say "Bear, Woody, and I don't know." 

Saban has won five AP NC's at Bama.  That is phenomenal but not unprecedented.  They had six before he ever set foot on campus. 

Tressel and Meyer have one AP NC each at tOSU which is great but again, they had three before Tressel got to Columbus and four by the time Meyer arrived. 

Clemson has three AP NC's.  From the first AP poll in 1936 through Dabo's arrival after the 2008 season they had one in 73 years.  In his 11 going-on-twelve years they have two more. 

When you look at the very best CFB programs of all time by whatever metric you choose, Bama and Ohio State are almost always near the top.  Clemson, not so much. 

I'll also add this.  I am a lot more confident that Bama and tOSU will be at least reasonably successful programs 25 years from now than I am that Clemson will be.  Bama and tOSU have LONG histories of being at or near the top of this sport.  They did it before Saban/Tressel and I'm reasonably confident that they'll do it after Saban/Day are gone.  Clemson, IMHO, remains to be seen.  Will the post-Dabo coach be able to keep Dabo's machine humming along or will they fall back to pre-Dabo status? 
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45617
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2020, 04:14:52 PM »
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10654
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2020, 04:25:32 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 22, 2020, 01:54:15 PM
OSU is recruiting at a different level than the rest of the conference.

I hear it's important.
It definitely is, but it also isn't everything.  Both Michigan and Texas have been ranked ahead of Clemson in 247's class rankings three of the past five years and yet . . .  That said, Clemson is the dictionary definition of "doing more with less" and it could be argued that Michigan and Texas are the inverse (the dictionary definition of "doing less with more") so I admit that I AM cherry-picking there.  
Quote from: 847badgerfan on December 22, 2020, 02:48:14 PM
So do Michigan, Texas, USC, etc.
Yes and no, see below:
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 22, 2020, 02:51:15 PM
How often have those programs been in the top three in recruiting of late?
Per 247, last five years class rankings (2016-2020):
  • 4 out of 5, Bama
  • 2 out of 5, Ohio State
  • 2 out of 5, Texas
  • 1 out of 5, Clemson
  • 0 out of 5, Michigan
  • 0 out of 5, USC
Quote from: FearlessF on December 22, 2020, 02:54:11 PM
adding Penn st., Oklahoma, and Georgia
Yes and no, see below:
Here are the class rankings for the last five years (2016-2020) for every school that has been ranked in the top-12 at least once in that span (I started out doing top-10 but that captured the top-12):

Bama is at a whole other level.  Their "worst" class of the last five years was ranked #5 behind UGA, tOSU, TX, and USC.  They were #1 thrice and second to UGA once.  

Texas, Michigan, and to a lesser extent UGA and USC stand out to me as "doing less with more".  

Clemson stands out to me as "doing more with less" because they've been the equal of Bama and ahead of tOSU without having Bama's or even tOSU's lofty recruiting rankings.  Heck, they don't even have Texas or Michigan's lofty recruiting rankings.  Schools like Wisconsin also stand out to me by their absence from the above list because they've been a consistent divisional powerhouse despite not appearing on this list at all.  

Bringing this back to the B1G:
Ohio State HAS been consistently out-recruiting Michigan by not by nearly a large enough gap to explain eight straight wins (and 14 of the last 15 games that counted).  Compare tOSU's and Michigan's class rankings over the last five years:
  • 2016:  tOSU was #4, M was #8
  • 2017:  tOSU was #2, M was #5
  • 2018:  tOSU was #2, M was #22
  • 2019:  tOSU was #14, M was #8
  • 2020:  tOSU was #5, M was #14
Michigan's class was superior in 2019 and the gaps in 2016, 2017, and 2020 were not that large.  Based solely on recruiting the Buckeyes should be winning something like three out of five.  
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14558
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2020, 04:35:32 PM »
Clemson is seen as "doing more with less" IMHO partly because they have an easier road to the promised land. 

Bama gets to the CFP because they're just that freakin' good, despite the fact that the SEC is a damn meat grinder of a conference. 

OSU misses the CFP more readily because while they're pretty freakin' good, they're in a tougher conference than the ACC. 

Clemson has had an easier conference slate to push through, and then once they got to the CFP, well, any given Saturday, right?
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45617
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2020, 04:50:16 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 22, 2020, 04:35:32 PM
Clemson has had an easier conference slate to push through, and then once they got to the CFP, well, any given Saturday, right?
especially with a QB like Trevor
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83025
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2020, 05:09:28 PM »
We all know that recruiting a super elite QB makes a huge difference, while getting a super elite WR or other player doesn't make as much.  And we all know about player development and scheme (Wisconsin).  UGA has yet to catch that "break" you can need to win an NC, getting that super elite QB or break in a game or putting a killer offense and defense together at the same time.  They have the talent, not always in the right spot, or perhaps it is sitting on the bench.

Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10654
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2020, 05:35:36 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on December 22, 2020, 05:09:28 PM
We all know that recruiting a super elite QB makes a huge difference, while getting a super elite WR or other player doesn't make as much.  And we all know about player development and scheme (Wisconsin).  UGA has yet to catch that "break" you can need to win an NC, getting that super elite QB or break in a game or putting a killer offense and defense together at the same time.  They have the talent, not always in the right spot, or perhaps it is sitting on the bench.
There is definitely a certain amount of luck involved.  

One often overlooked part of that is simply timing in terms of years.  For example, last year's tOSU and Clemson squads were all-time great and certainly better than a lot of past NC's but they had the bad luck to exist concurrently with an all-time good peer (each other) and an all-time great superior (LSU) so neither of them won an NC.  Eh, helmet school problems.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10654
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2020, 01:00:01 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 22, 2020, 04:35:32 PM
Clemson is seen as "doing more with less" IMHO partly because they have an easier road to the promised land.

Bama gets to the CFP because they're just that freakin' good, despite the fact that the SEC is a damn meat grinder of a conference.

OSU misses the CFP more readily because while they're pretty freakin' good, they're in a tougher conference than the ACC.

Clemson has had an easier conference slate to push through, and then once they got to the CFP, well, any given Saturday, right?
This is definitely a fair point for Clemson with regard to getting to the playoff but they've been the equal of Bama AFTER getting to the playoff.  It would be different if they were Oklahoma (0-fer in CFP appearances).  They aren't.  In their five CFP appearances prior to this year they are:
  • 4-1 in semi-finals with a loss to Bama and wins over OU, ND, and tOSU2X.  
  • 2-2 in NCG's with two wins over Bama, a loss to Bama, and a loss to LSU.  

Overall in the CFP they are:
  • 0-1 against LSU
  • 2-2 against Bama
  • 2-0 against tOSU
  • 1-0 against OU
  • 1-0 against ND

For comparison Bama is the same 4-1 / 2-2 against these opponents:
  • 0-1 against tOSU
  • 2-2 against Clemson
  • 1-0 against Washington
  • 1-0 against UGA
  • 1-0 against OU
  • 1-0 against MSU


Among the "top-3" Clemson is by far the best:
  • 4-2 Clemson vs Bama and tOSU
  • 2-3 Bama vs Clemson and tOSU
  • 1-2 tOSU vs Clemson and Bama


Notre Dame is about to make their second CFP appearance (they got clobbered by Clemson in their first).  The only other team with multiple CFP appearances is Oklahoma with four:
  • 0-1 vs Clemson 37-17
  • 0-1 vs UGA 54-48
  • 0-1 vs Bama 45-35
  • 0-1 vs LSU 63-28


Note that Oklahoma and Notre Dame (like Bama and tOSU) are long-term historic CFB heavy-weight "helmets" which is what makes Clemson/Dabo's success so impressive to me.  Clemson is doing this without starting with that status.  
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14558
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2020, 01:10:21 PM »
I agree--Clemson to be able to put this together without the history is really impressive. Especially since they weren't "recruiting royalty" when they started the run. They've only gotten into that rarified territory of recruiting in the later years of this run. 

And to be 2-2 vs Bama and 2-0 vs tOSU in the CFP era is likewise pretty amazing. But... That's 6 games and they're 1 game above .500 in that stretch. It's too small of a sample size IMHO. I'm not sure if the Clemson teams that faced those 4 Bama teams met in a 10-game series that Clemson would be expected to even be at .500... So I think there's some "any given Saturday" involved there. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2020, 01:34:47 PM »
There is something to be said about being able to navigate your way through your entire slate, without tripping over any of the road apples. 
Logged

fezzador

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 576
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2020, 02:16:03 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 23, 2020, 01:10:21 PM
I agree--Clemson to be able to put this together without the history is really impressive. Especially since they weren't "recruiting royalty" when they started the run. They've only gotten into that rarified territory of recruiting in the later years of this run.

And to be 2-2 vs Bama and 2-0 vs tOSU in the CFP era is likewise pretty amazing. But... That's 6 games and they're 1 game above .500 in that stretch. It's too small of a sample size IMHO. I'm not sure if the Clemson teams that faced those 4 Bama teams met in a 10-game series that Clemson would be expected to even be at .500... So I think there's some "any given Saturday" involved there.
Clemson's ascension seems to coincide with Florida State's descent.  In other words, I really think that a lot of those recruits at Clemson would otherwise be playing at FSU if the 'Noles were still a strong program.  
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10654
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2020, 03:52:31 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on December 23, 2020, 01:10:21 PM
I agree--Clemson to be able to put this together without the history is really impressive. Especially since they weren't "recruiting royalty" when they started the run. They've only gotten into that rarified territory of recruiting in the later years of this run.

And to be 2-2 vs Bama and 2-0 vs tOSU in the CFP era is likewise pretty amazing. But... That's 6 games and they're 1 game above .500 in that stretch. It's too small of a sample size IMHO. I'm not sure if the Clemson teams that faced those 4 Bama teams met in a 10-game series that Clemson would be expected to even be at .500... So I think there's some "any given Saturday" involved there.
I'll add that I don't think last year's tOSU team would lose five in a 10-game series with last year's Clemson so your point is valid but here are the six CFP games Clemson has played against Bama and tOSU:
  • 2019 29-23 over tOSU:  A great game that could have gone either way and was ultimately decided on the final play.  Clemson was outgained 516-417 and trailed as badly as 16-0.  To their credit, however, in that opening salvo when Ohio State was holding them on defense and marching up and down the field on offense, Dabo's Tigers minimized the damage by keeping tOSU's four scoring drive to three FG's and just one TD.  If it had been three TD's and one FG the Buckeyes would have been up 24-0 instead of 16-0 and the ultimate outcome would likely  have been different.  
  • 2018 44-16 over Bama:  The Tide only kept up for a little more than a quarter.  Their last score and last lead both occurred early in the second quarter and after that it was all Clemson.  Clemson led by at least 15 points the entire second half and acquired their final margin near the end of the third quarter.  
  • 2017 34-6 loss to Bama:  The Tigers got flat out crushed.  They never led and they were not within one score anytime in the fourth or late third quarter.  
  • 2016 35-31 over Bama:  A great game that could have gone either way and was ultimately decided on the final play.  Clemson severely outgained the Tide but they also lost the turnover battle 2-0 and needed a TD with 0:01 on the clock to pull ahead and win.  
  • 2016 31-0 over tOSU:  The Tigers flat out crushed the Buckeyes.  Clemson led the whole way and Ohio State wasn't within two scores anytime after halftime.  The Buckeyes missed a couple of long FG's early that would at least have kept it interesting until halftime but it really didn't matter.  
  • 2015 45-40 loss to Bama:  This was a pretty good game but not as good as the 2016 Bama and 2019 tOSU games.  This game was weird in that the two teams only combined to score 45 points in the first three quarters (24-21 Clemson) but then exploded for 40 points in the final period (24-16 Bama).  Bama scored the first 10 and 17 of the first 20 though so Clemson was fighting from behind for almost the entire fourth quarter and a Clemson TD with just 0:12 on the clock made it look closer than it actually was.  
So I get:
  • Two blowout wins (2016 over tOSU, 2018 over Bama).  
  • Two last-play-of-the-game wins (2016 over Bama, 2019 over tOSU)
  • One very competitive loss (2015 to Bama)
  • One blowout loss (2017 to Bama)

The Tigers are 2-0 over that period in games decided on the final play and 2-1 in competitive games.  In the long run those types of games tend to balance out so yes, they could easily be 3-3 (losing to either Bama in 2016 or tOSU in 2019) or 2-4 (losing both of those) but frankly that would still be extremely good.  

Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83025
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: League Titles
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2020, 06:48:19 PM »
I had once the opinion that Clemson would do poorly in the playoffs because of fattening up on pastries all year.  That opinion is no longer held.  They do have an occasional stumble, or near stumble, but are ready to play at an elite level.  I don't think they ever were blown out.

When they lose the QB, all bets are off, but I imagine they will still be very very good, just perhaps short of elite.

UNC has been playing well, some inconsistency, but pretty good team now.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Custom Medallion

Custom Bronco Badges