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

This is the simple truth.

The NC will be won 9 out of 10 years by an SEC team. In the years that it is not won by an SEC team, there are only a handful of teams that can win. FSU, Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio St, or Michigan.

The only SEC teams that can win are Bama, UGA, Florida, LSU, or Auburn, and now OU and Texas.

12 teams will win 96% of all future CFB national championships.

Auburn isn't winning sh*t imo. Auburn got lucccccky as hell Cam Newton liked stealing laptops and his dad needed $250,000. It was a one-off fluke that just isn't going to happen again anytime soon. That team was so mid and Cam Newton was so awesome he literally carried it on his back all by himself to a title.

OU's day might've come and gone, they are going to get run through in the SEC. Won't be able to keep up with the Jonses imo. Bama was in the doldrums for 25+ years until they landed the GOAT. It's not a given they'll win forever without him. It's a small state with a small population that doesn't produce enough talent to sustain two major in-state SEC programs- Bama and Auburn.

UGA, Florida, Texas, and LSU will always have insane in-state recruiting advantages. Doesn't mean they'll always win- but whenever they have the right coach in place they're pretty much guarantee to be in it.

the Trojans?

They are gonna come into the Big Ten and run roughshod over the conference.

And Nebraska.


USC should buy Jim Leonhard. Not a great recruiter, but USC has plenty of those (and $$$).

My knee jerk reaction when I read this was to dismiss it in part because, in your post, it was lumped in with a bunch of unrealistic stuff. I also agree with @betarhoalphadelta 's post that you'd probably need roster rather than scholarship limits because scholarships are more-or-less irrelevant in the NIL era.

That said, @OrangeAfroMan 's recent post comparing the present to the 70's made me think back to this.

I think you two might be onto something. In the 70's the Buckeyes and Wolverines flat dominated the Big Ten. This was the "Big Two, Little Eight" era:

• From 1968 through 1980 (seasons) the Big Ten rep to the RoseBowl was either Ohio State or Michigan EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
• From 1970-1979 Michigan lost more league games to Ohio State (5) than they did to the other eight teams in the league combined (4, 2 to PU and 1 each to MN and MSU).
• Similarly over the same decade the Buckeyes lost only one less league game to Michigan (4) than they did to the other eight teams in the league combined (5, 3 to MSU, 1 each to PU and NU).

Most people here probably already knew the above but what you may not have known is something that @OrangeAfroMan 's comment refers to. Roughly the same thing happened across the sport, it wasn't limited to the Midwest. In the 1970's the helmets dominated. Scholarship limits curtailed that so maybe we can use scholarship/roster limits to curtail that level of dominance again.

No, not really. This isn't an exact parallel with being the best due to tiebreakers, the no-repeat rule, and the longest loser tiebreaker but the Big Ten/Pac Ten Rose Bowl agreement started just after WWII for the 1946 season. In the 22 seasons from 1946-1967 here we're the Big Ten's Rose Bowl representatives (going by game year)

• 3 Illinois, 3-0, 47, 52, 64
• 3 Michigan, 3-0, 48, 51, 65
• 3 Ohio State, 3-0, 50, 55, 58
• 3 Michigan State, 2-1, 54, 56, 66
• 3 Wisconsin, 0-3, 53, 60, 63
• 2 Iowa, 2-0, 57, 59
• 2 Minnesota, 1-1, 60, 61
• 1 Northwestern, 1-0, 49
• 1 Purdue, 1-0, 67
• 1 Indiana, 0-1, 68

So in 22 years all 10 teams went with eight (all but UW and IU) winning at least once. Ohio State and Michigan had three appearances each which was tied for the lead but it wasn't a dominating lead as IL, MSU, and UW also had three appearances each.


The "Big Two / Little Eight" thing basically started with 1968.