No doubt. And with all of the factors contributing to more parity in the sport, winning is only getting harder. Except for Alabama I guess. They're just so consistently flipping good. It's truly remarkable.
One thing I'll say about Texas' "4 losses" is that it's really a result of the stupid B12 CCG. Texas already played all 9 conference opponents in a full roundrobin, so the additional loss from the CCG is sort of double-counting. Without that stupid and unnecessary CCG, Texas is 9-3 and headed to the Sugar Bowl. Still perhaps not a "worthy" loss total for a major bowl game, but not completely un-respectable. Just my opinion of course.
we keep saying that there's more parity, but we're not seeing it in reality. there's been a lot of things implemented to increase parity, like scholly limits, but after going back and looking at some data, those look like they might have actually increased the separation.
i don't have the stats in front of me, but i posted some on the old cfn board, using the bobs website, that showed over the last 4-5 decades, the win % of the have vs have not is actually increasing, not decreasing. contra to what most believe to be the case.
also did a quick study on the last time we had a first time national champ (ap/coaches polls) - 1996 uf. and looked at when we had first time champs throughout history. i thought there'd be a bunch early on, early 30's-40's. but what i found was they came in groups of 10+/- every other decade or so. we'd go a decade with a new winner every year or so, then a decade of no new ones, then a decade of new ones, etc. until the scholly limits hit in 70s and then again in early 90's. maybe it's coincidence, but there were abrupt stops to new winners after they reduced scholarships each time. part of that is because the field of potential new winners grows smaller with each new winner, and thus less likely.
i'm hopeful the bobs gets his data set up again so i can run some numbers again, but i found that interesting.
