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 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down
Author

Topic: Michigan State (1-1) at #13 Michigan (1-1) Post Game

 (Read 5657 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11232
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (1-1) at #13 Michigan (1-1) Post Game
« Reply #98 on: November 11, 2020, 08:09:11 PM »
Quote from: ELA on November 06, 2020, 05:52:13 PM


The point being, if Northwestern had that season now, I'm not even sure we would care A year later, let alone 25 years later. And if Jim Harbaugh had that season now, how much Goodwill would that actually buy him? Obviously it would mean beating Ohio State, which goes a long way, but just being a New York year 6 bowl winner who didn't factor into the national title discussion?

Actually all three of Northwestern's modern Big Ten Titles occured during years that they didn't have to play OSU (but beat Michigan). 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7849
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (1-1) at #13 Michigan (1-1) Post Game
« Reply #99 on: November 11, 2020, 09:02:19 PM »
Quote from: Mdot21 on November 11, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
Michigan was 11-2 and a top 7 team two years before RichRod arrived. Your point is....what?


Mainly that if dumpster fires can get in the top 10 and if wildernesses can last three years and end with talent that ends up national-title quality then the whole term is sort of meaningless. Both are just bombastic ways to say bad right now, or not good enough right now. And since that can change on a dime, it in essence means the act of turning them around isn't really all that impressive. 

If Brady Hoke can get a dumpster fire to 11 wins in Year 1, then of course the best in the sport can get programs really good in Year 2 or 3. It makes the previous situation almost meaningless to talk about. 
Logged

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7849
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (1-1) at #13 Michigan (1-1) Post Game
« Reply #100 on: November 11, 2020, 09:06:52 PM »
Quote from: ELA on November 06, 2020, 05:52:13 PM

The point being, if Northwestern had that season now, I'm not even sure we would care A year later, let alone 25 years later. And if Jim Harbaugh had that season now, how much Goodwill would that actually buy him? Obviously it would mean beating Ohio State, which goes a long way, but just being a New York year 6 bowl winner who didn't factor into the national title discussion?
So BB got me thinking on this. 

The real key is that NW had been SO bad and didn't have any real lead up. It would be like if Baylor a few years back had gone from bad to conference champs. It would be like if Vandy suddenly won the SEC. It would be like if that Wake team that won the ACC was quite good. 

I think we're in a weird spot because we just don't have as many teams that are that bad anymore. 
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20288
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (1-1) at #13 Michigan (1-1) Post Game
« Reply #101 on: November 11, 2020, 11:24:31 PM »
Yeah, and IMO part of the problem is now, they'd have to go play OSU in Indy, and probably lose.

Look, college football has BY FAR the most deserving champ every year.  You take the sport where the better team most frequently wins, and you've added extra layers of protection, but I think it's taken a lot away.  Andy Staples and Nicole Auerbach were discussing this on his podcast this week.  We went from 2 to 4, and we've eliminated a lot of the randomness, while simultaneously made the CFP some sort of easily attainable goal.  Like, most programs didn't judge a coach for not finishing in the top 2, so long as he was still winning conference titles, but we went to 4, and suddenly, that became the metric.

It's two completely different but sort of related critiques of mine, of the CFP/CCG era.  We know who the best teams are.  The flukiness/importance of a singular regular season game has been diminished by the redundancies built into the system now.  While simultaneously diminishing the importance of most of those games.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
FAFO No Trespassing Sign

Hidden Safe