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

I don't mind the idea of a 15-school super-league, as long as my school is in it, lol.
14 games
everyone plays everyone else
Top 2 play a championship game, as long as they're only separated by 1 game (or tie-breaker).  So a 12-2 team would just be the champ if the next-best team was 10-4, but they'd play a championship game if they were 12-2 and 11-3.

They sure as hell would earn it, no matter their record.


*If there's a tie at the top at 11-3 and then a 10-4 team, tough shit for the 10-4 team.
*If there's a 3-way tie at the top, we have a coin flip at a BBQ joint. The location of the BBQ joint will rotate between each region of the country.
*If there's a 4-way tie, we have a CFP.

Obviously Bama was an oversight.
.
I don't think anyone suggested rankings be based solely on NCs, lol.  
But a team with 700 wins and 1 NC vs a team with 680 wins and 5 NCs.....there's some configurin' to do, no?

first, i'm guessing you accidentally left out bama in the all time listing. homer in me had to call it out.


second, imo the blue bloods are in both lists. so that's bama, osu, ou, nd, usc, texas, and mich, probably in that order. so that's 7 right off the bat.

for all time, i'd just add the next few closest, with a slight lean to those more recently successful. miami, fsu, florida, uga, psu, neb, lsu and clemson. just missing cut were tenn, au, aTm, mich st, washington, wisconsin, pitt, army, navy and maybe oregon.

for current, i'd add to the blue bloods, with heavy weight to recent success (last 10-20 years): clemson, psu, au, oregon, florida, uga, wisconsin, lsu. just missing cut, aTm, fsu, tcu, boise, ucf, stanford, ok st, and va tech.

final caveat, for some of them that were really close, i leaned toward balancing regions.for example, if tenn and neb in the all time list were really similar and could pick either, i went with neb because the se region was already really heavily represented.

That can't be! 

it was also completely coincidental and a totally unintended positive outcome that i got to leave out both rivals.

Schools on three of four:

• TX, not on NC's list.
• LSU, not on NC's list.
• PSU, not on NC's list.
• UGA, not on NC's list.

The eight schools on all four lists would be included but four of them (ND, UNL, M, TN) are on notice that they aren't keeping up and will eventually drop out if they don't keep up with the pace.

I would also include the four schools that are on the top three lists but missed the NC's list. That is 12. For the last three I'd probably go with the three Florida helmets.

why I don't hold number of NC's as valuable.

The 4 on notice are spending enough money to try to keep up.

4 Michigan
5 Notre Dame
10 Tennessee
15 Nebraska

I don't think anyone suggested rankings be based solely on NCs, lol.

I get that, I was just pointing out that I take those "claimed NC's" lists with a very large grain of salt.

I'd be strict on that NCs list, lol.  5 NCs for Florida is silly.
AP
UPI/Coaches
BCS
Playoff

only
1936 - now

If this is the basis, then I'd take it a lot more seriously. Still, I'd balance it because from the perspective of measuring the strength of a given program, I think that 10 AP top-5 finishes with no NC's is stronger that 1 NC and no other top-5 finishes.

But a team with 700 wins and 1 NC vs a team with 680 wins and 5 NCs.....there's some configurin' to do, no?

Agreed, but I honestly don't know exactly how I'd weight things. Your and my examples are extremes:

• 1 NC and zero other top-5 finishes < 10 top-5 finishes IMHO.
• 700 wins and 1NC < 680 wins and 5 NC's, IMHO.

Somewhere in the middle there are distinctions that are harder to make.

Yeah, this wasn't about the most successful clubs, it was about the biggest spending clubs being mad they weren't getting the success they used to have, so they decided to buy their way in.

Notre Dame, Michigan, Tennessee and Nebraska would be the exact type of schools who would be all over this.

Gross.