Author
Topic: Rich get richer
(Read 40322 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2023, 03:42:41 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 01:02:50 PM

Exactly. 2022 was an outlier in that Purdue won a terrible B1G West and then got skewered when playing in the CCG, as expected. So basically Purdue is already eliminated from winning the conference because they're going to face a juggernaut in the CCG. The chances that the best team out of UM/OSU/PSU is bad enough to be vulnerable to Purdue are minimal.

2000 was a generational talent and likely the best QB in school history for a school like Purdue, and an innovative coach who was ahead of the curve for Big Ten style of play. And even then it took winning a 3-way tiebreaker with two conference losses to get to Pasadena.

Before that it was 1966. And at the time you could argue he was another generational talent for a school like Purdue at QB.

But in the 18-team league, the CCG world, the NIL world, the transfer portal world? I don't believe Purdue can, much less will, ever have a chance at winning the conference again.

The only way it could happen is if the idea @Mdot21 mentioned in another thread--embrace NIL in a 24+24 team (48 total) superconference that breaks away from the NCAA. THEN, reduce roster limits and enforce a salary cap so that there is actually enforced parity across the system. But I don't believe that will ever happen, because the helmets aren't going to want parity, even if it is good for the health of the sport.

Which is one of the reasons I'm out. The other, of course, is a history of heartbreaking Purdue underperformance on banana peels in March.

I know this is picking nits but Purdue's last title prior to 2000 was 1967 not 1966.

It always took a certain amount of luck for the Boilermakers, their titles:

2000: A three-way tie with Michigan and Northwestern. It helped that tOSU was having a slump, Cooper's last year.
1967: A three-way tie with Minnesota and Indiana. Hey it could be worse, that split title in 1967 is STILL the most recent for both the Gophers and the Hoosiers. That was aided by Michigan and Ohio State both being a bit off that year. Ohio State had a slew of great freshman who couldn't play at that time and Michigan was in the death throes of the Bump Elliot era (Elliot finished sub .500 in the league after coaching the Wolverines from 1959-1968).
1952: A two-way tie with Wisconsin. Michigan sucked for most of the 50's and 60's (excluding 1950 and 1969) and this was only Woody's second year so Ohio State wasn't quite geared up to peak Woody yet.
1943: A two-way tie with Michigan. Ohio State was phenomenal in 1942 (their first NC) and 1944 but absolutely sucked in 1943 due to wartime restrictions.
1932: A two-way tie with Michigan. Ohio State wasn't consistently good until later in the 1930's.
1931: A two-way tie with Michigan. see above.
1929: Purdue's only outright title!
1918: A three-way tie with Illinois and Michigan.

So they needed a lot of luck and a favorable situation but it could and sometimes actually did happen.

Even beyond the conference, prior to NIL, the portal, the CFP, and the BCS I would argue that there was even a sliver of a chance for a Purdue to win the NC. Sure, it wasn't likely but sometimes the Pac rep to the RoseBowl wasn't all that good. Maybe Purdue would have a lucky season where they had a good/great team and they missed one of tOSU/M and either upset the other one or maybe the other one was in a slump and if they went undefeated to the Rose Bowl, they were one game away, it *COULD* happen. Now, not a prayer. Even if they missed one of tOSU/M knocked off the other one, the CG awaits, good luck with that. Even if they somehow managed to upset their CG opponent that only gets them into a semi-final (soon to be more likely a quarter-final). Even if they somehow managed to knock off their semi-final opponent, ask TCU how the CG worked out for them.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2023, 03:44:21 PM »

Here is one example, which isn't meant to generalize:

Nebraska TE Arik Gilbert arrested for felony burglary after allegedly robbing liquor and vape store (yahoo.com)

Started at LSU, moved to UGA, then Nebraska. He flashed some talent in the UGA spring game and then barely played. Granted he was behind a couple dudes, but he would have known that ahead of time. A ton of talent, we're told, that wasn't the problem.

Then we have a couple high profile QBs who transferred and could well have great years at ND and UF. I can see it for QBs more easily than other positions.

Why did Bear Alexander transfer to USC? Dunno.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2023, 04:14:13 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on August 30, 2023, 03:42:41 PM

Even beyond the conference, prior to NIL, the portal, the CFP, and the BCS I would argue that there was even a sliver of a chance for a Purdue to win the NC.

Correct on 1967 being the tied conference title. I forgot that Purdue went to the 1966 Rose Bowl after finishing second due to the "no repeat rule" so MSU couldn't go.

BTW I always considered the NC above Purdue's ceiling. Just finding some way to backdoor a conference championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl, maybe even a win(!) there, is about all that any Purdue fan thought would/could happen.

Realistically Purdue, to get enough votes in the old system, would have to go undefeated.

Counting the bowl game, Purdue hasn't had a season with 3 or fewer losses since they went 9-3 (with a bowl win) in 1997. Most recent 2-loss season (with a bowl win) was 1979. Most recent 2-loss regular season was 1969. Most recent one-loss season was 1958, but that season also had two ties to finish 6-1-2. Prior to that they had no more one-loss [or better] seasons until 1943, which incidentally is also their most recent undefeated season. But, ya know, there might be a little asterisk what with a World War on and all...

So at best would be an appearance in the Rose Bowl. Which Purdue is likely to never again do in my lifetime, other than playing a conference away game at UCLA, of course.

ELA · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2023, 04:48:24 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 04:14:13 PM

Correct on 1967 being the tied conference title. I forgot that Purdue went to the 1966 Rose Bowl after finishing second due to the "no repeat rule" so MSU couldn't go.

BTW I always considered the NC above Purdue's ceiling. Just finding some way to backdoor a conference championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl, maybe even a win(!) there, is about all that any Purdue fan thought would/could happen.

Realistically Purdue, to get enough votes in the old system, would have to go undefeated.

Counting the bowl game, Purdue hasn't had a season with 3 or fewer losses since they went 9-3 (with a bowl win) in 1997. Most recent 2-loss season (with a bowl win) was 1979. Most recent 2-loss regular season was 1969. Most recent one-loss season was 1958, but that season also had two ties to finish 6-1-2. Prior to that they had no more one-loss [or better] seasons until 1943, which incidentally is also their most recent undefeated season. But, ya know, there might be a little asterisk what with a World War on and all...

So at best would be an appearance in the Rose Bowl. Which Purdue is likely to never again do in my lifetime, other than playing a conference away game at UCLA, of course.

But the fun thing is that used to matter. I went nuts when MSU came back to beat PSU in 2006 to get their first bowl bid 3 years. Playing Georgia in a January 1 Citrus Bowl, even in a loss, against Stafford and Moreno, I thought might be peak. Then to actually win a Big Ten title, and a couple years later go to the Rose Bowl. Holy shit.

It was hard for MSU to get there, but not impossible. And each of those things seemed important. Hell, MSU won the conference, made the playoff, got blasted, and people make fun of them for it. Literally 7 years after I was on cloud nine for losing to Georgia in a January 1 bowl.

College football has always been heavily weighted towards the better teams. But previously. You lost at Missouri or Purdue or South Carolina, on a random October afternoon, no title for you. Now there are so many chances. You lose a regular season game, you still might get to the CCG, or backdoor into the CFP. You give the best teams enough chances, they'll win. And when you make the "consolation prizes" so insignificant that it doesn't matter, that's how you lose interest. MSU's two best seasons since the CFP, they went 10-2. One year they played Washington State in the Holiday Bowl because they had been to Florida too many times recently, and all the non-CFP bowls are equally meh. And the other time they played Pitt on December 30 in the Peach Bowl, where the best player from both teams sat out.

We know who the best teams are. We always have. But we've eliminated the randomness where Northwestern can go to a Rose Bowl because Michigan upsets Ohio State, and Northwestern doesn't have to play them. And we've eliminated caring about even going to a January 1 bowl, or the Rose Bowl.

I love fall. I love fall cooking. I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers. I associate those things with college football, and thus it's all still somewhat intertwined. But I certainly no longer love college football. I'm not even sure I like it. It has fallen behind the NFL and the MLB playoffs in my watching hierarchy

Cincydawg · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2023, 05:07:00 PM »

Fall is great. I used to temper that with the knowledge that winter would follow, but here winter is not bad anyway, usually. We still go outside nearly daily. Fall also has baseball of course, which I enjoy more and more. Fall colors, crisp fall mornings, quick trip to the mountains perhaps, blue skies oh my, grits and eggs, the smell of a fire, and college football.

I was musing earlier about football in say 1920. Did students just show up to try out? Were there scholarships? Did coaches walk around campus looking for big dudes, maybe somebody who weight 190 pounds to play center? UGA had a long period of ireleevance preDooley, then they showed some life in the 60s, some NYD bowl games, a strange 16-2 loss to Arkansas in 1968 I think with an 8-0-2 team. Folks said they'd been on Bourbon Street the night before.

Then they hit 1980-1983 and did well of course, I thought at the time they'd continue to do that well, but they didn't. Winning the Gator Bowl was a fine thing. I've mentioned before that maybe it would be better to be a "K State" fan and just enjoy the environment and the occasional win. Ole Miss fans seems to think that way.

But life to an extent is what you decide to make of it. There is no logical reason for much of what we do.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2023, 05:17:23 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 01:02:50 PM

But in the 18-team league, the CCG world, the NIL world, the transfer portal world? I don't believe Purdue can, much less will, ever have a chance at winning the conference again.

Which is one of the reasons I'm out.

It may not seem like it because I'm obviously a fan/alum of a helmet but I do understand and sympathies with this position. My analogy is my relationship with the MLB.

Most Cleveland sports have sucked for most of my lifetime. There have only been a few exceptions. The Browns were really good in the late 1980's and only BARELY missed the SuperBowl a few times. The Cavaliers were really good when they had LeBron, and the Indians have been periodically good.

Browns:
It IS possible for a small-market team to excel in the NFL and we in Cleveland need only to look to the SE to see it. Our hated rivals from Pittsburgh are from a smaller metro than ours and yet they've been one of the best NFL franchises for decades. The Browns' problem isn't structural, it is just that they've been abysmal at management for basically ever.

Cavaliers:
The Cavs ONLY won a title because LeBron decided he wanted to win one for the home team. Full stop. In the case of the NBA this isn't really the league's fault and I don't know that they even could fix it. High-end BB players get most of their money from endorsement deals and those are naturally more lucrative if you:

Play in a large media market, and
Play on a winning team.

Thus, the great players tend to congregate on good teams in large media markets. They are literally better off playing for half the money on a great team in LA than playing for twice the salary on a crappy team in Cleveland so it is structurally impossible for the Cavaliers to compete unless they get some weird advantage like having the greatest player in a generation happen to be born nearby and want to play at home.

Indians/Guardians:
MLB has deliberately chosen NOT to have an effective salary cap. Consequently there are basically two tiers:

Tier 1, major media market teams:
These big-money teams can buy the players they need to attempt to compete EVERY year.

Tier 2, small market teams:
These teams have to build a team the hard way and there is a roughly 10-12 year cycle. They can only be competitive for roughly 3-4 years of each 10-12 year cycle and if everything breaks just right and their prospects all pan out and none of the big-money teams are having a particularly great year, the *MIGHT* be able to win a title in one of those 3-4 years.

The Indians (not Guardians) were actually REALLY well managed for most of the last 20-30 years and they've been oh-so-close a couple times when they were in their competitive years but come up just short.

Years ago I realized this and concluded that if the MLB wasn't going to give my team a fair chance for 8-9 out of 12 years then I wasn't going to spend any time or money on them except in the 3-4 years when they actually have a prayer.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2023, 05:48:36 PM »

Quote from: ELA on August 30, 2023, 04:48:24 PM

I like Oktoberfest and pumpkin (sorry) beers.

Damn. If you were local, I've got a bunch of pumpkin beers in my fridge from a mixed 24-pack that I'd give you lol...

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on August 30, 2023, 05:17:23 PM

It may not seem like it because I'm obviously a fan/alum of a helmet but I do understand and sympathies with this position. My analogy is my relationship with the MLB.

Most Cleveland sports have sucked for most of my lifetime. There have only been a few exceptions. The Browns were really good in the late 1980's and only BARELY missed the SuperBowl a few times. The Cavaliers were really good when they had LeBron, and the Indians have been periodically good.

NFL has a draft, a hard salary cap, and being a complete "team" game doesn't allow for one or two star players making a bad team into a contender. So there's parity. And yeah, your Browns suck because of decades of bad management.

NBA has the draft and salary cap, but the salary cap isn't as restrictive. And because basically two or three star players can completely change the complexion of the team, players engage in "recruitment" of their peers to try to win titles. Cleveland got lucky in that the top player in the league was from Ohio and decided to recruit a team to do it. There's an attempt at parity, but it doesn't work.

MLB allows a rich franchise to basically buy a team. There's basically a handwaving about parity with the luxury tax, but it is ineffective. So Cleveland is screwed as you point out by being a small-market team.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2023, 05:56:42 PM »

Seems like the transfer portal also makes it tougher to fill out depth for the helmet teams. Having three rows of studs doesn't make a ton of sense for them if they can leave as soon as they know they aren't starting.

ELA · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2023, 06:01:59 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on August 30, 2023, 05:17:23 PM

Cavaliers:
The Cavs ONLY won a title because LeBron decided he wanted to win one for the home team. Full stop. In the case of the NBA this isn't really the league's fault and I don't know that they even could fix it. High-end BB players get most of their money from endorsement deals and those are naturally more lucrative if you:
Play in a large media market, and
Play on a winning team.
Thus, the great players tend to congregate on good teams in large media markets. They are literally better off playing for half the money on a great team in LA than playing for twice the salary on a crappy team in Cleveland so it is structurally impossible for the Cavaliers to compete unless they get some weird advantage like having the greatest player in a generation happen to be born nearby and want to play at home.

Sure they could. They could eliminate the max and supermax contracts. The NBA not only has a team cap, but a player cap. Imagine if Mahomes was capped on top of the salary cap. The Chiefs would be unstoppable. Brady voluntarily took less than he could to win titles, but if there were contract limits like the NBA, all top QBs would be in that boat

ELA · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2023, 06:07:10 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 30, 2023, 05:07:00 PM

Fall is great. I used to temper that with the knowledge that winter would follow, but here winter is not bad anyway, usually. We still go outside nearly daily. Fall also has baseball of course, which I enjoy more and more. Fall colors, crisp fall mornings, quick trip to the mountains perhaps, blue skies oh my, grits and eggs, the smell of a fire, and college football.

Winter in the hybrid work environment is a whole different animal. Under 40 = work from home

And it's the 3 months I'm not coaching travel baseball

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2023, 06:08:21 PM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on August 30, 2023, 05:56:42 PM

Seems like the transfer portal also makes it tougher to fill out depth for the helmet teams. Having three rows of studs doesn't make a ton of sense for them if they can leave as soon as they know they aren't starting.

You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.

Especially if you're a position with a short NFL shelf life like running back. The fewer years of abuse you can take in college where you're barely getting paid, the more years of abuse you can take in the NFL where you're setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement.

ELA · « **Reply #25 on:** August 30, 2023, 06:10:53 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 06:08:21 PM

You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.

Especially if you're a position with a short NFL shelf life like running back. The fewer years of abuse you can take in college where you're barely getting paid, the more years of abuse you can take in the NFL where you're setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement.

Yeah, I almost think that also hurts the next level more. If Ohio State wanted you, and you sat for 3 years and showed out, the NFL is drooling. you are still an elite talent, but with less wear and tear. If it takes you 3 years to get on the field at MSU or Purdue, you are garbage. Those kids would rather show out than being a depth kid at a mid level P5 team. Being a backup at OSU just means you are an elite talent farther away from the CTE kicking in

MaximumSam · « **Reply #26 on:** August 30, 2023, 06:48:14 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 06:08:21 PM

You'd think, but football is a violent game. For some 5* and 4* players, sitting your freshman and sophomore year behind upperclassmen, balling out for 1 year and only getting beaten to a pulp for one year, and then getting drafted, makes a lot of sense.

Especially if you're a position with a short NFL shelf life like running back. The fewer years of abuse you can take in college where you're barely getting paid, the more years of abuse you can take in the NFL where you're setting yourself up for a comfortable retirement.

If that were so, you'd think transfers would be a lot more willing to sit out a year before suiting up.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #27 on:** August 30, 2023, 07:21:43 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on August 30, 2023, 05:48:36 PM

MLB allows a rich franchise to basically buy a team. There's basically a handwaving about parity with the luxury tax, but it is ineffective. So Cleveland is screwed as you point out by being a small-market team.

MLB has a built-in effective "fairness" aspect: the short postseason series.
You can't buy a championship, just a playoff spot (unless you're the BIGGEST DIPSHIT LOSER BUST OF A TEAM EVER - METS). Once you're in the postseason, each series is basically a coin flip.

That's why MLB has like 15 different World Series winner franchises the last 25 years. It's probably technically the most parity.

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.

Topic: Rich get richer

medinabuckeye1

Re: Rich get richer

Cincydawg

Re: Rich get richer

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Rich get richer

ELA

Re: Rich get richer

Cincydawg

Re: Rich get richer

medinabuckeye1

Re: Rich get richer

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Rich get richer

MaximumSam

Re: Rich get richer

ELA

Re: Rich get richer

ELA

Re: Rich get richer

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Rich get richer

ELA

Re: Rich get richer

MaximumSam

Re: Rich get richer

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Rich get richer