CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on July 23, 2018, 01:55:04 AM
-
Winning 80% of your games is sort of a magical number. Not for one season, of course, but for a decade. It's hard to do. Since WWII:
1950s - Oklahoma
1960s - Alabama, Texas
1970s - Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn St, Ohio St, ND, USC
1980s - Nebraska, Miami
1990s - FSU, Nebraska, Florida, Tennessee
2000s - Boise St, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St
2010s - Alabama, Ohio St, Boise St, Oklahoma, Clemson
Why did the 70s have so many elite programs over a 10-year period? What changed in the 80s?
-
And since a by-decade cutoff is arbitrary, here's a different 10-year cutoff list (from ___5 of one decade to ___4 of the next - ie 2005-2014):
1955-64...Bowling Green, Ole Miss, Arizona St
1965-1974...ND, San Diego St, Penn St, Nebraska, Alabama
1975-1984...Nebraska, BYU
1985-1994...Miami, FSU, Nebraska
1995-2004...FSU, Tennessee
2005-2014...Boise St, Ohio St, Oregon
Cool, got some different programs here....
-
And to search for other programs......
1953-62...Ole Miss, Oklahoma
1963-72...Nebraska, Texas, Dartmouth
1973-82...Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn St, USC, Ohio St, Michigan
1983-92...Miami, Nebraska
1993-02...Nebraska, FSU, Marshall, Florida
2003-12...Boise St, LSU
and another slice:
1958-67...Alabama, Bowling Green
1968-77...Penn St, Michigan, Ohio St, San Diego St, Oklahoma, ND, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama
1978-87...Nebraska, Oklahoma, BYU
1988-97...FSU, Nebraska, Miami
1998-07...Boise St, Texas
2008-17...Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
-
And to search for other programs......
1953-62...Ole Miss, Oklahoma
1963-72...Nebraska, Texas, Dartmouth
1973-82...Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn St, USC, Ohio St, Michigan
1983-92...Miami, Nebraska
1993-02...Nebraska, FSU, Marshall, Florida
2003-12...Boise St, LSU
and another slice:
1958-67...Alabama, Bowling Green
1968-77...Penn St, Michigan, Ohio St, San Diego St, Oklahoma, ND, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama
1978-87...Nebraska, Oklahoma, BYU
1988-97...FSU, Nebraska, Miami
1998-07...Boise St, Texas
2008-17...Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
Nebraska on the list from ‘68-‘97. Yeesh. Impressive.
-
The best 10 year stretch in WVU history was 2002-2011 when they went 95-33 (.742). It goes to show how hard it is to win at an 80% clip over a 10 year period. The fact that Nebraska did it over 30 years is nuts.
-
Why did the 70s have so many elite programs over a 10-year period? What changed in the 80s?
It was after the implementation of the two-platoon system, but before the scholarship limitations.
Non-Helmets didn't stand a chance.
-
The best 10 year stretch in WVU history was 2002-2011 when they went 95-33 (.742). It goes to show how hard it is to win at an 80% clip over a 10 year period. The fact that Nebraska did it over 30 years is nuts.
Good call, best 10 year stretch for your program.
From 1904-1913, MSU (MSC) went 67-11-5 (.859). But let's discount that one for a minute, it being 1904 and all.
Using 1936 as an arbitrary start date, being the first year of the AP Poll, from 1948-57, MSU was 74-17-2 (.813). There is a random 3-6 year in the middle there messing the whole thing up too.
MSU went 9-0 in both 1951 and 1952, winning a national championship one year, and finishing #2 the other. They then went 9-1, finished #3 in the nation in 1953, winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl in their first year in the conference. They fell off to 3-6 in Duffy's first year in 1954, before bouncing right back to 9-1 in 1955, going to their second Rose Bowl in 3 years, and finishing #2 in the polls.
So there was precedent for what happened in 2016, except even more drastic, as from 1950-1957 MSU was possibly the best program in the nation, with a random 8th place Big Ten finish in one year in there.
The current run of 93-39 over the past 10 years (.705) might be the best since then, and really not even close to .800
-
Using 1936 as an arbitrary start year would be unfair to the Wolverines. It wipes out most of their good decades.
-
Nebraska on the list from ‘68-‘97. Yeesh. Impressive.
And from '70-'99...so assuming they were over .800 for probably three consecutive 30-year stretches at least. THAT's even more astonishing.
-
Nebraska on the list from ‘68-‘97. Yeesh. Impressive.
stretch goes to 2001.... =)
-
for those of us growing up in the 80's and 90's in Nebraska... it was a given. UNL would win. I don't think people really appreciated (even locally) how good TO was as an offensive coordinator and CEO of a program. There was really zero reason why UNL's history should not have been KSU, Iowa or ISU. I know fans would say that discounts what the bobfather did/created... but TO was his OC. He played a large role in the recovery of UNL's program (UNL was good prior to WWII)
-
Damn you, 2008 and 2012, for keeping UW out of the current club!!
-
I really like this club
hope to get back there
hopefully, Frost is an outstanding O-coordinator and head coach and coaches until he's 80
-
Yeah, I'd love to see Texas rejoin that club sometime in my remaining lifetime, too.
-
The 10-year, 80% club's last 5 versions:
2004-2013: Boise St
2005-2014: Boise St, Ohio St, Oregon
2006-2015: Boise St, Ohio St, Alabama
2007-2016: Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
2008-2017: Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
Goes to show that with Clemson's graduation to elite levels isn't enough - they'd need probably 2-3 more years of one or two-loss seasons to get in the club. Ten years really is a long time. Hell, Alabama's dynasty doesn't even make it across the 80% threshold until 2015!!
**LSU barely misses '04-'13, but is in the club '03-'12.
-
Boise St.?
-
I'd limit it to P5 schools, but that might hurt someone's feelings.
-
I'd limit it to P5 schools, but that might hurt someone's feelings.
Please do so, moving forward.
-
stretch goes to 2001.... =)
...and then in 2002, Fearless' famous "Don't blame me!" tagline, beneath the Frank Solich avatar, kicked in.
-
What’s it hurt to recognize Boise St’s accomplishments? Isn’t it all relative anyway? Yeah, they don’t play the schedule P5 teams do but they also don’t have the recruiting or monetary advantages either.
They dominate the space that they occupy. Nothing wrong with that.
-
agree. If it was that easy, you'd see more BSU's...
-
There is a random 3-6 year in the middle there messing the whole thing up too.
I think this illustrates what makes getting into the .800 club so difficult. In the '48-'57 stretch that you cited the Spartans played 93 games so just over nine per year. To hit .800 in a 93 game decade you need to go (excluding ties because they complicate the math) at least 75-18:
- 75-18 = .807
- 74-19 = .796
- MSU's 74-17-2 = .801 by my math. ELA cited it as .813 which excludes the ties (74/91=.813).
My point is that MSU's bad 3-6 year represented 1/3 of the total number of losses they could absorb and still make .800 for the decade. In the remaining nine years and 84 games they had to go 72-12 or an average of 8-1.3 per year. One bad year or a couple of mediocre ones pretty much knocks you out of the running. MSU only managed to make it with that 3-6 year because they had a couple undefeated years and a 9-1 year to balance it off. It is a REALLY steep mountain to climb.
-
Replying to @Kris61 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1432) and Entropy:
I agree that Boise dominates the space that they are in, but that doesn't make it the same thing as doing it against P5 competition. For that matter, if all we are talking about is dominating the space you are in then a Pee Wee team that goes undefeated should be discussed alongside Bama.
-
Boise's all-time strength of schedule, by year, since joining FBS:
106
107
106
102
113
96
113
112
72
103
86
105
95
97
71
74
114
76
67
105
70
69
The worst SOS you'll find in a top-5 type P5 school is in the 40s. They're often in the top 10, averaging no worse than in the high teens. It is apples and oranges.
-
The 10-year, 80% club's last 5 versions:
2004-2013: Boise St
2005-2014: Boise St, Ohio St, Oregon
2006-2015: Boise St, Ohio St, Alabama
2007-2016: Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
2008-2017: Alabama, Boise St, Ohio St
Goes to show that with Clemson's graduation to elite levels isn't enough - they'd need probably 2-3 more years of one or two-loss seasons to get in the club. Ten years really is a long time. Hell, Alabama's dynasty doesn't even make it across the 80% threshold until 2015!!
**LSU barely misses '04-'13, but is in the club '03-'12.
that's because, going on official records, from '00-06 bama is closer to the 20% than 80%. using actual results we're basically splitting the difference, slit lean to 80%. early 00's were bad times.
-
That's what makes it so badass to be anywhere on these lists! It's so hard.
I'd love to do a year-by-year rolling list. Note any program that makes it on there even once - those are your programs in the discussion as "helmet" teams. Then rank them by number of times they're on those rolling lists, and you have your program hierarchy that we played around with some last off-season.
-
i'm assuming it's the usuals that will fills these lists. but on one of the lists above, i was surprised to see nd only listed once (unless i overlooked them). thought then, mich and ou would be tops.
-
That's what makes it so badass to be anywhere on these lists! It's so hard.
I'd love to do a year-by-year rolling list. Note any program that makes it on there even once - those are your programs in the discussion as "helmet" teams. Then rank them by number of times they're on those rolling lists, and you have your program hierarchy that we played around with some last off-season.
we did a rolling list of top 10 in win% (not just 80%) for a decade (by year, 00-09, 01-10, etc) but i think we might have done it on old board. anyone remember?
mich and nd dominated early, aTm and ole miss was surprisingly strong for awhile as well, neb ran roughshod from 70's on, and osu was the steady eddie, rarely the top dog, but almost always in top 5, and only once outside top 10 i think. bama, ou, etc all had periods of dominance as well.
-
Where are you compiling these numbers?
-
Where are you compiling these numbers?
In his head. Big giant brain.
-
Replying to @Kris61 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1432) and Entropy:
I agree that Boise dominates the space that they are in, but that doesn't make it the same thing as doing it against P5 competition. For that matter, if all we are talking about is dominating the space you are in then a Pee Wee team that goes undefeated should be discussed alongside Bama.
Dominating Div III isn't the same as Div I... we get it. But I don't see the harm. We all discount it to an extent. Still, nobody else is doing it. So that is an accomplishment in itself.
-
If I were to list Boise State's best 10 wins in their ~20 years or so of FBS play, the first 5 would probably be impressive for anyone, and then I'm afraid they'd fall off a cliff.
2001 - beat #8 Fresno St
2003 - beat #19 TCU
2006 - beat #7 Oklahoma
2008 - beat #17 Oregon
2009 - beat #16 Oregon, beat #3 TCU
2010 - beat #13 Va Tech, beat #20 Utah
2011 - beat #19 Georgia
2014 - beat #12 Arizona
2017 - beat #19 San Diego St
Okay, so 5 of the 11 wins over ranked teams are non-P5 programs. Those would be sort of ho-hum wins for an Alabama or Ohio State, right (except maybe TCU at #3). Anyways, look at what's missing. In the seasons skipped over, Boise either lost to any ranked teams they played, or more often, did not play even one ranked team.
Now let's look at 2016 Alabama, who lost to Clemson in the national championship game.
beat #20 USC
beat #19 Ole Miss
beat #16 Arkansas
beat #9 Tennessee
beat #6 Texas A&M
beat #15 LSU
beat #16 Auburn
beat #15 Florida
beat #4 Washington
The Tide had nearly as many wins over ranked teams in one season as Boise has had....ever. No, this Alabama season isn't the norm. No, Boise hasn't had as many opportunities, etc. That's all true. But fair or not, Boise hasn't amassed it's impressive winning percentage against anything resembling even an average schedule. Credit to them for their record, credit to them for moving up in conference quality through the years, but they're still not on even ground with the P5 programs.
-
Where are you compiling these numbers?
From a website that you can specify the seasons you want to look at.
-
Boise's all-time strength of schedule, by year, since joining FBS:
106
107
106
102
113
looks like the Huskers and Sooners in the old Big 8
-
http://football.stassen.com/ (http://football.stassen.com/)
-
In his head. Big giant brain.
You're too kind.
-
From a website that you can specify the seasons you want to look at.
http://football.stassen.com/records/ (http://football.stassen.com/records/)
-
I mentioned earlier that TO was the power behind UNL's run. He joined the Husker staff in 1964 and retired in 1997. During his time with UNL, they won 83.211% of their games.
-
and if you take the years to was the OC...... then from 1969 to 1997 TO won 84.366% of his games. (TO was the HC and OC for UNL from 1973 to 1997)
-
Wow. Purdue's best 10-year [post-war] stretch was 1960-1969, at 0.693 winning percentage. So they don't have a decade above 70%.
Even Tiller's best stretch, his first 10 years, 1997-2006, was just BARELY over 60%, at 0.605. Even going one year farther to his years 2-11 dropped back below 60%.
-
Paul Chryst is clipping along at 83 percent for UW. Only 7 years to go.
-
does anyone have a 90% decade?
next season (if i did my math correct) IF bama has either 13+ wins or only 1 loss (even at 11-1) they will top 90%.
my math:
as it is now, last decade (08-17) 125-14-0 (.89928)
take away 12-2 season (08) and replace with any of the following gets above 90%: 11-1 (.90511), 12-1 (.90580), 13-2 (.90000), 13-1 (.90648), 14-1 (.90714), 15-0 (.91427).
-
Paul Chryst is clipping along at 83 percent for UW. Only 7 years to go.
good luck
-
just checked the ou 47 game streak period, they did +90 for 3 consecutive 10 year periods, each 10-year-period beginning in 47, 48 and 49.
-
does anyone have a 90% decade?
UConn women's basketball, maybe?
-
just checked the ou 47 game streak period, they did +90 for 3 consecutive 10 year periods, each 10-year-period beginning in 47, 48 and 49.
derned cheatin land thieves
-
The Chicago maroons didn't lose a single game from 1940-68.
-
does anyone have a 90% decade?
next season (if i did my math correct) IF bama has either 13+ wins or only 1 loss (even at 11-1) they will top 90%.
my math:
as it is now, last decade (08-17) 125-14-0 (.89928)
take away 12-2 season (08) and replace with any of the following gets above 90%: 11-1 (.90511), 12-1 (.90580), 13-2 (.90000), 13-1 (.90648), 14-1 (.90714), 15-0 (.91427).
Some mathematical notes/questions:
- You have 11-1 listed as a possibility. I do not think this would be possible. Bama has 12 scheduled games. If they go 11-1 they will obviously get a bowl game. Then they would either win the bowl and finish 12-1 and above 90% for the decade or lose the bowl and finish 11-2 and below 90% for the decade.
Number of games Bama could play this season:
- 12: But any scenario in which they play only 12 games would have them well below 90% for the decade because it would involve missing a bowl by finishing 5-7 or worse.
- 13: The scheduled games and one bowl or CFP semi-final (that Bama would, by definition, lose).
- 14: The scheduled games and either two CFP games or the SECCG and either one bowl or a CFP semi-final loss.
- 15: The scheduled games, the SECCG, a CFP semi-final, and a CFP Championship.
FWIW: 13-0 is also not a real possibility because if BAMA started 12-0 that would obviously get them to the SECCG and a win there would get them to the CFP. Similarly, 14-0 is not a real possibility because that would get them an SECCG win and a CFP semi-final win and they would play a 15th game to finish either 15-0 or 14-1.
Possibilities, as I see it, for Bama to finish over 90% for the decade:
- 15-0: Win all games this year, go 15-0 for the year, 128-12 for the decade, .9143.
- 14-1: Either lose a random regular season game that does not knock them out of the SECCG or start 14-0 then lose the CFP Championship, go 14-1 for the year, 127-13 for the decade, .9071.
- 13-1: Either lose one regular season SEC game to an SEC-W competitor that also finishes at least 7-1, miss the SECCG, get to the CFP anyway and win the Championship or go undefeated until the SECCG, lose the SECCG, miss the CFP, and win the subsequent bowl go 13-1 for the year, 126-13 for the decade, .9065.
- 13-2: Either lose two regular season games that do not knock them out of the SECCG or lose one that does not knock them out of the SECCG then (depending on which) go either 2-0 or 1-1 in the CFP, 13-2 for the year, 126-14 for the decade, .900.
-
yeah, i was just running the numbers, not most likely scenarios. just went from best possible on down, stopping at reg season games only.
but those look correct as realistic scenarios.
-
From '96-'05 and '97-'06, no program is at 80%. Hmmph.
-
Duke has a stretch where they're #1. So does Ole Miss. Hardin Simmons!
-
The Chicago maroons didn't lose a single game from 1940-68.
Can lose if you don't play.
That's my theory with Lottery too.
-
badge, you're not poor enough to buy lottery tickets...
-
does anyone have a 90% decade?
next season (if i did my math correct) IF bama has either 13+ wins or only 1 loss (even at 11-1) they will top 90%.
my math:
as it is now, last decade (08-17) 125-14-0 (.89928)
take away 12-2 season (08) and replace with any of the following gets above 90%: 11-1 (.90511), 12-1 (.90580), 13-2 (.90000), 13-1 (.90648), 14-1 (.90714), 15-0 (.91427).
From '71-'80, Oklahoma went .898 (105-11-2) and Bama went .892 (107-13).
-
If I were to list Boise State's best 10 wins in their ~20 years or so of FBS play, the first 5 would probably be impressive for anyone, and then I'm afraid they'd fall off a cliff.
2001 - beat #8 Fresno St
2003 - beat #19 TCU
2006 - beat #7 Oklahoma
2008 - beat #17 Oregon
2009 - beat #16 Oregon, beat #3 TCU
2010 - beat #13 Va Tech, beat #20 Utah
2011 - beat #19 Georgia
2014 - beat #12 Arizona
2017 - beat #19 San Diego St
Okay, so 5 of the 11 wins over ranked teams are non-P5 programs. Those would be sort of ho-hum wins for an Alabama or Ohio State, right (except maybe TCU at #3). Anyways, look at what's missing. In the seasons skipped over, Boise either lost to any ranked teams they played, or more often, did not play even one ranked team.
Now let's look at 2016 Alabama, who lost to Clemson in the national championship game.
beat #20 USC
beat #19 Ole Miss
beat #16 Arkansas
beat #9 Tennessee
beat #6 Texas A&M
beat #15 LSU
beat #16 Auburn
beat #15 Florida
beat #4 Washington
The Tide had nearly as many wins over ranked teams in one season as Boise has had....ever. No, this Alabama season isn't the norm. No, Boise hasn't had as many opportunities, etc. That's all true. But fair or not, Boise hasn't amassed it's impressive winning percentage against anything resembling even an average schedule. Credit to them for their record, credit to them for moving up in conference quality through the years, but they're still not on even ground with the P5 programs.
Yeah, I think everyone gets that. No one is saying Boise is as good as Bama or Ohio St but the 80% accomplishment for Boise doesn’t need or deserve an asterisk.
I know the default argument is “Boise couldn’t win 80% of its games with a P5 schedule.” I mean, yeah, no shit. Given all the disadvantages they already have against P5 schools having to play them regularly would kill them.
But go back to 08 when Saban came to Bama. If he were given Boise’s budget to work with in regards to salaries, facilities, and recruiting does anyone think he’d have had the same decade there? I don’t.
That’s why I said it’s all relative.
-
But the other side of that, acknowledging all that you've said, is that there is a definitive line between P5 and G5 programs, just as there is between G5 and FCS. It's just not specifically drawn.
We could throw all of this out the door and worship at the feet of Mt. Union's HC, but we're smarter than that. He gets his credit, in a context. Boise State gets its credit, in a context - because that context is so different from USC or Texas or Alabama.
-
None of them have anything on Mt Union.
-
None of them have anything on Mt Union.
Except size, speed and scholarships
-
Not win % per decade, NCs per decade or Conference Titles per decade.
-
What's the line on Mt. Union vs Alabama @ a neutral field? -50? -70?
-
From '71-'80, Oklahoma went .898 (105-11-2) and Bama went .892 (107-13).
thank God for Husker wins vs the Sooners in 1971 and 1978
and for Husker wins vs Bama in 1972 and 77
-
What's the line on Mt. Union vs Alabama @ a neutral field? -50? -70?
C'mon, now.
Bama isn't going to get beat that badly.
-
What's the line on Mt. Union vs Alabama @ a neutral field? -50? -70?
So, are we talking which team is better is or which team’s accomplishments are better? If you want to limit this discussion to just P5 teams then that is fine. My original point was there was no need to dump on or qualify Boise’s 80% decades. All of us on here know what Boise is and Alabama is. We all know what advantages and disadvantages each have.
You were listing FCS college football teams with an 80% winning percentage for a decade. Boise hit the mark. There doesn’t need to be any additional discussion beyond that to me.
-
I agree. Pete Rose may have the most hits, but it took him 3000 more ABs to eclipse Cobb. Everybody can tell the difference between inner circle dominance and something else. We need not qualify matters, we're not awarding any prizes here.
-
My original point was there was no need to dump on or qualify Boise’s 80% decades. All of us on here know what Boise is and Alabama is. We all know what advantages and disadvantages each have.
You were listing FCS college football teams with an 80% winning percentage for a decade. Boise hit the mark. There doesn’t need to be any additional discussion beyond that to me.
some folks feel the need to remind others of the advantages and disadvantages
doesn't make them bad people
-
Recognizing context > ignoring context
-
LOL. Who is ignoring context on here? It’s like you’re scared to death that someone might think Boise St is as good as Alabama or Florida St or whoever.
We all know that. We don’t need qualifiers. Besides, context is a two way street. Context tells me Mt. Union has been a more dominant team than Alabama even if they aren’t head to head as good as Alabama.
That’s why boxing uses the phrase “pound for pound” when judging the best fighters in the world. It adds context. Manny Pacquiao has won more world titles than any boxer in history. I don’t need to be reminded that heavyweights would kick his ass. I just sorta know it.
-
It's kind of interesting that boxing is the one place in sports where we are interested in the pound for pound best. Who is the most dominant against the competition they are on the same level as. Every other place in sports we either ignore it, or actively remove the accomplishments. Didn't college basketball used to present an award for the best player under 6 feet or something? But we certainly never try to argue Russell Westbrook is the best player in the NBA, because pound for pound...
-
Elephants are in a different weight class than Purple Raiders. Oh wait, we already knew that.
-
Bama is a singular Elephant, so a plurality of Purple Raiders would easily outweigh it.
-
I wonder what Mt Union's best decade win % is?
They play about 16 games per year. Half the time they run the table, and half the time their only loss is in the NC game.
Once in a blue moon there might be a two loss season. Like in 2016, when John Carrol ended their Conference Title streak that dated back to 1992, and then they were eliminated in the Final Four, marking the only time this millennium that they didn't get to play in the NC game (and only the second time since 1992).
-
I wonder what Mt Union's best decade win % is?
They play about 16 games per year. Half the time they run the table, and half the time their only loss is in the NC game.
Once in a blue moon there might be a two loss season. Like in 2016, when John Carrol ended their Conference Title streak that dated back to 1992, and then they were eliminated in the Final Four, marking the only time this millennium that they didn't get to play in the NC game (and only the second time since 1992).
You know they couldn’t beat Alabama, right?
-
You know they couldn’t beat Alabama, right?
And Alabama couldn't beat the Dallas Cowboys, so what?
-
And Alabama couldn't beat the Dallas Cowboys, so what?
Of course they wouldn't.
That's why we don't ever see Bama and Dallas on the same list.
Just as we shouldn't ever see Bama and Boise on the same list.
Never try to pass an apple for an orange. Ever.
-
You know they couldn’t beat Alabama, right?
Psht. We're tawkin' Football here. Not gymnastics.
They'd run circles around those two-legged pachyderms.
-
Of course they wouldn't.
That's why we don't ever see Bama and Dallas on the same list.
Just as we shouldn't ever see Bama and Boise on the same list.
Never try to pass an apple for an orange. Ever.
No one is trying to pass an apple for an orange. Boise St met the criteria for what this thread was originally about. No one on here is going to be tricked into thinking Boise St is the best team in the nation by being on that list. However, when taking into consideration the advantages AND disadvantages Boise has compared to the P5 teams the accomplishment is just as notable. All of the G5 teams play weaker schedules. Only one is on that list this century. Boise.
-
badge, you're not poor enough to buy lottery tickets...
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
-
What's the line on Mt. Union vs Alabama @ a neutral field? -50? -70?
It doesn't have to be Bama. The worst P5 team would easily take down Mt. Union. I know there are some REALLY bad P5 teams but you have to understand that Mt. Union probably only has maybe a half dozen guys who would even be able to walk-on at a low end P5 program.
I love watching them play. They are REALLY good, in their space, but they couldn't even come close to matching the size and speed of a Rutgers let alone a high end P5.
-
yeah, i was just running the numbers, not most likely scenarios. just went from best possible on down, stopping at reg season games only.
but those look correct as realistic scenarios.
This was my list of scenarios that could happen:
| 18-W | 18-L | 18-Games | 18-% | 09-17-W | 09-17-L | 09-17-Gm | 09-17-% |
| 15 | 0 | 15 | 1 | 128 | 12 | 140 | 0.9143 |
| 14 | 1 | 15 | 0.933333 | 127 | 13 | 140 | 0.9071 |
| 13 | 2 | 15 | 0.866667 | 126 | 14 | 140 | 0.9000 |
| 12 | 3 | 15 | 0.8 | 125 | 15 | 140 | 0.8929 |
| 13 | 1 | 14 | 0.928571 | 126 | 13 | 139 | 0.9065 |
| 12 | 2 | 14 | 0.857143 | 125 | 14 | 139 | 0.8993 |
| 11 | 3 | 14 | 0.785714 | 124 | 15 | 139 | 0.8921 |
| 10 | 4 | 14 | 0.714286 | 123 | 16 | 139 | 0.8849 |
| 9 | 5 | 14 | 0.642857 | 122 | 17 | 139 | 0.8777 |
| 12 | 1 | 13 | 0.923077 | 125 | 13 | 138 | 0.9058 |
| 11 | 2 | 13 | 0.846154 | 124 | 14 | 138 | 0.8986 |
| 10 | 3 | 13 | 0.769231 | 123 | 15 | 138 | 0.8913 |
| 9 | 4 | 13 | 0.692308 | 122 | 16 | 138 | 0.8841 |
| 8 | 5 | 13 | 0.615385 | 121 | 17 | 138 | 0.8768 |
| 7 | 6 | 13 | 0.538462 | 120 | 18 | 138 | 0.8696 |
| 6 | 7 | 13 | 0.461538 | 119 | 19 | 138 | 0.8623 |
| 5 | 7 | 12 | 0.416667 | 118 | 19 | 137 | 0.8613 |
| 4 | 8 | 12 | 0.333333 | 117 | 20 | 137 | 0.8540 |
| 3 | 9 | 12 | 0.25 | 116 | 21 | 137 | 0.8467 |
| 2 | 10 | 12 | 0.166667 | 115 | 22 | 137 | 0.8394 |
| 1 | 11 | 12 | 0.083333 | 114 | 23 | 137 | 0.8321 |
| 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 113 | 24 | 137 | 0.8248 |
I left out:
- 11-4 or worse on 15 games: My theory here is that in order to play 15 games Bama would have to play in the SECCG, get to the CFP, and win the CFP semi-final. Even assuming that they lost the CFP Championship that would require at least three losses prior to the CFP and I just can't see a scenario in which a three-loss team gets into the CFP.
- 8-6 or worse on 14 games: My theory here is that in order to play 14 games Bama would have to either play in the SECCG or win a CFP semi-final. Neither of those things seem plausible for a team with at least four losses.
- 5-7 or worse on 13 games: If Bama was worse than 6-6 on their first 12 then they wouldn't get a 13th.
-
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
I'm a simple dirt farmer - math is optional
-
Bama is a singular Elephant, so a plurality of Purple Raiders would easily outweigh it.
not necessarily. an elephant weighs about 13000 lbs, so would take 52 raiders averaging 250 lbs (which is generous, imo) to match the elephant.
second, who said bama is a single elephant? just because they have a single elephant mascot? mt union mascot is a single macaw anyway, not raiders.
and like mt union aren't the macaws, bama isn't the elephant(s), we're the tide. i'm fairly sure that'll outweigh any amount of raiders, macaws and/or elephants. or any other mascots that i can think of for that matter.
-
What NDSU is doing in Fargo has been very impressive as well.... And no, they couldn't beat bama... but for their division, what they've done over 2 different coaches has been impressive.
-
No one is trying to pass an apple for an orange. Boise St met the criteria for what this thread was originally about. No one on here is going to be tricked into thinking Boise St is the best team in the nation by being on that list. However, when taking into consideration the advantages AND disadvantages Boise has compared to the P5 teams the accomplishment is just as notable. All of the G5 teams play weaker schedules. Only one is on that list this century. Boise.
since we have a P5 class and a G5 class, some folks were simply pointing out the difference in classes
you are obviously smart enough to know the difference, but some folks just wanted to point out the obvious
-
What NDSU is doing in Fargo has been very impressive as well.... And no, they couldn't beat bama... but for their division, what they've done over 2 different coaches has been impressive.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they "couldn't" beat Bama.
They have vistories over some decent P5 teams - no team in the top 10 or top 5, but on any given Saturday in September.........
-
This was my list of scenarios that could happen:
| 18-W | 18-L | 18-Games | 18-% | 09-17-W | 09-17-L | 09-17-Gm | 09-17-% |
| 15 | 0 | 15 | 1 | 128 | 12 | 140 | 0.9143 |
| 14 | 1 | 15 | 0.933333 | 127 | 13 | 140 | 0.9071 |
| 13 | 2 | 15 | 0.866667 | 126 | 14 | 140 | 0.9000 |
| 12 | 3 | 15 | 0.8 | 125 | 15 | 140 | 0.8929 |
| 13 | 1 | 14 | 0.928571 | 126 | 13 | 139 | 0.9065 |
| 12 | 2 | 14 | 0.857143 | 125 | 14 | 139 | 0.8993 |
| 11 | 3 | 14 | 0.785714 | 124 | 15 | 139 | 0.8921 |
| 10 | 4 | 14 | 0.714286 | 123 | 16 | 139 | 0.8849 |
| 9 | 5 | 14 | 0.642857 | 122 | 17 | 139 | 0.8777 |
| 12 | 1 | 13 | 0.923077 | 125 | 13 | 138 | 0.9058 |
| 11 | 2 | 13 | 0.846154 | 124 | 14 | 138 | 0.8986 |
| 10 | 3 | 13 | 0.769231 | 123 | 15 | 138 | 0.8913 |
| 9 | 4 | 13 | 0.692308 | 122 | 16 | 138 | 0.8841 |
| 8 | 5 | 13 | 0.615385 | 121 | 17 | 138 | 0.8768 |
| 7 | 6 | 13 | 0.538462 | 120 | 18 | 138 | 0.8696 |
| 6 | 7 | 13 | 0.461538 | 119 | 19 | 138 | 0.8623 |
| 5 | 7 | 12 | 0.416667 | 118 | 19 | 137 | 0.8613 |
| 4 | 8 | 12 | 0.333333 | 117 | 20 | 137 | 0.8540 |
| 3 | 9 | 12 | 0.25 | 116 | 21 | 137 | 0.8467 |
| 2 | 10 | 12 | 0.166667 | 115 | 22 | 137 | 0.8394 |
| 1 | 11 | 12 | 0.083333 | 114 | 23 | 137 | 0.8321 |
| 0 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 113 | 24 | 137 | 0.8248 |
I left out:
- 11-4 or worse on 15 games: My theory here is that in order to play 15 games Bama would have to play in the SECCG, get to the CFP, and win the CFP semi-final. Even assuming that they lost the CFP Championship that would require at least three losses prior to the CFP and I just can't see a scenario in which a three-loss team gets into the CFP.
- 8-6 or worse on 14 games: My theory here is that in order to play 14 games Bama would have to either play in the SECCG or win a CFP semi-final. Neither of those things seem plausible for a team with at least four losses.
- 5-7 or worse on 13 games: If Bama was worse than 6-6 on their first 12 then they wouldn't get a 13th.
looks ok, i'd only maybe argue the 5-7 notes. several 5-7 teams have gone bowling (a disgrace, imo) and with bama being o the right side of apr and the amount of fan travel, i'd bet bama gets a bowl. and i'd hope we wouldn't.
-
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
Yeah but, all the profits will go to fund schools!!!
LMAO
-
I wouldn't go so far as to say they "couldn't" beat Bama.
They have vistories over some decent P5 teams - no team in the top 10 or top 5, but on any given Saturday in September.........
Only way NDSU would win vs bama would be for bama to give the game away, NDSU wouldn't beat them... NDSU can beat P5 teams, but not bama
-
I hope this pastes right:
| Years | tOSU rank | tOSU% | #1 | #1% | #2 | #2% | #3 | #3% | #4 | #4% | #5 | #5% | #6 | #6% | #7 | #7% | #8 | #8% |
| 1946-1955 | 19 | 0.66848 | OU | 0.88208 | ND | 0.85567 | Miami-O | 0.82447 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1947-1956 | 18 | 0.67935 | OU | 0.90952 | Miami-O | 0.83871 | GaTech | 0.80631 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1948-1957 | 7 | 0.74194 | OU | 0.92453 | Miami-O | 0.80978 | MSU | 0.80645 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1949-1958 | 6 | 0.75269 | OU | 0.92453 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1950-1959 | 12 | 0.71196 | OU | 0.89524 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1951-1960 | 10 | 0.72283 | OU | 0.84135 | Ole Miss | 0.82243 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1952-1961 | 4 | 0.76087 | Ole Miss | 0.83796 | OU | 0.8125 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1953-1962 | 4 | 0.76087 | Ole Miss | 0.85514 | OU | 0.8 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1954-1963 | 6 | 0.75543 | Ole Miss | 0.85981 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1955-1964 | 7 | 0.73077 | BGSU | 0.85484 | Ole Miss | 0.8271 | ASU | 0.81188 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1956-1965 | 7 | 0.73077 | BGSU | 0.84946 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1957-1966 | 12 | 0.70879 | BGSU | 0.82258 | Ole Miss | 0.80093 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1958-1967 | 17 | 0.68333 | Bama | 0.83945 | BGSU | 0.80319 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1959-1968 | 15 | 0.70879 | Bama | 0.85455 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1960-1969 | 5 | 0.75824 | Bama | 0.83636 | Texas | 0.81019 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1961-1970 | 5 | 0.77174 | Texas | 0.83333 | Bama | 0.80631 | Dartmouth | 0.8 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1962-1971 | 10 | 0.73656 | UNL | 0.83333 | Dartmouth | 0.82222 | Texas | 0.81481 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1963-1972 | 10 | 0.75263 | UNL | 0.83036 | Texas | 0.81944 | Dartmouth | 0.80556 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1964-1973 | 8 | 0.78866 | ND | 0.83654 | UNL | 0.81858 | ASU | 0.80374 | Bama | 0.80263 | | | | | | | | |
| 1965-1974 | 6 | 0.795 | ND | 0.83019 | PSU | 0.81532 | UNL | 0.8114 | Bama | 0.80435 | | | | | | | | |
| 1966-1975 | 5 | 0.81068 | PSU | 0.83628 | ND | 0.8271 | ASU | 0.81982 | OU | 0.8125 | tOSU | 0.81068 | Bama | 0.81034 | UNL | 0.80435 | | |
| 1967-1976 | 1 | 0.83962 | tOSU | 0.83962 | PSU | 0.83913 | OU | 0.82895 | USC | 0.81739 | Mich | 0.81364 | ND | 0.80734 | ASU | 0.80357 | | |
| 1968-1977 | 3 | 0.84404 | PSU | 0.85345 | Mich | 0.85268 | tOSU | 0.84404 | OU | 0.82174 | ND | 0.81982 | UNL | 0.80672 | Texas | 0.80531 | Bama | 0.80085 |
| 1969-1978 | 7 | 0.80631 | Mich | 0.85526 | OU | 0.84914 | PSU | 0.84615 | Bama | 0.81933 | ND | 0.81858 | UNL | 0.81818 | tOSU | 0.80631 | USC | 0.80085 |
| 1970-1979 | 6 | 0.8114 | OU | 0.87712 | Bama | 0.8625 | Mich | 0.84783 | UNL | 0.81967 | PSU | 0.81356 | tOSU | 0.8114 | ND | 0.80531 | USC | 0.80252 |
| 1971-1980 | 7 | 0.79741 | OU | 0.89831 | Bama | 0.89167 | Mich | 0.84188 | PSU | 0.825 | USC | 0.81933 | UNL | 0.80738 | | | | |
| 1972-1981 | 6 | 0.80932 | Bama | 0.87917 | OU | 0.86864 | USC | 0.83333 | Mich | 0.82479 | PSU | 0.81667 | tOSU | 0.80932 | Yale | 0.80435 | | |
| 1973-1982 | 5 | 0.80252 | Bama | 0.8625 | OU | 0.84322 | PSU | 0.825 | USC | 0.80672 | tOSU | 0.80252 | Mich | 0.80085 | | | | |
| 1974-1983 | 6 | 0.78333 | Bama | 0.8375 | OU | 0.81513 | UNL | 0.80894 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1975-1984 | 5 | 0.775 | UNL | 0.81707 | BYU | 0.81141 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1976-1985 | 7 | 0.75833 | BYU | 0.832 | UNL | 0.80894 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1977-1986 | 7 | 0.7562 | PSU | 0.82083 | UNL | 0.81967 | BYU | 0.81746 | OU | 0.80833 | | | | | | | | |
| 1978-1987 | 9 | 0.74167 | UNL | 0.82787 | OU | 0.81667 | BYU | 0.80469 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1979-1988 | 13 | 0.72269 | UNL | 0.8374 | BYU | 0.80469 | OU | 0.8 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1980-1989 | 16 | 0.69748 | UNL | 0.8374 | Miami-F | 0.83193 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1981-1990 | 17 | 0.68478 | Maimi-F | 0.84034 | UNL | 0.82927 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1982-1991 | 20 | 0.67647 | Miami-F | 0.85833 | UNL | 0.83333 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1983-1992 | 20 | 0.67227 | Miami-F | 0.8843 | UNL | 0.81557 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1984-1993 | 17 | 0.68478 | Miami-F | 0.86777 | FSU | 0.82377 | UNL | 0.81405 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1985-1994 | 19 | 0.67917 | Miami-F | 0.89167 | FSU | 0.84426 | UNL | 0.83197 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1986-1995 | 17 | 0.69008 | Miami-F | 0.88235 | UNL | 0.85656 | FSU | 0.85246 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1987-1996 | 17 | 0.70417 | FSU | 0.88115 | Miami-F | 0.86555 | UNL | 0.85772 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1988-1997 | 12 | 0.72131 | FSU | 0.88115 | UNL | 0.875 | Miami-F | 0.81356 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1989-1998 | 9 | 0.76829 | FSU | 0.87398 | UNL | 0.85887 | TN | 0.82927 | UF | 0.81048 | | | | | | | | |
| 1990-1999 | 9 | 0.75203 | FSU | 0.89024 | UNL | 0.868 | UF | 0.82 | TN | 0.81301 | | | | | | | | |
| 1991-2000 | 8 | 0.7561 | FSU | 0.89117 | UNL | 0.876 | UF | 0.81496 | TN | 0.80328 | | | | | | | | |
| 1992-2001 | 8 | 0.74797 | UNL | 0.88095 | FSU | 0.87398 | UF | 0.81496 | TN | 0.81301 | | | | | | | | |
| 1993-2002 | 7 | 0.78 | UNL | 0.85156 | FSU | 0.844 | UF | 0.80709 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1994-2003 | 7 | 0.77778 | UNL | 0.83721 | FSU | 0.828 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1995-2004 | 5 | 0.776 | FSU | 0.816 | TN | 0.80159 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1996-2005 | 3 | 0.77419 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1997-2006 | 1 | 0.776 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1998-2007 | 4 | 0.784 | Boise | 0.80952 | Texas | 0.80469 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1999-2008 | 4 | 0.76984 | Boise | 0.84375 | Texas | 0.82171 | OU | 0.81955 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2000-2009 | 4 | 0.80315 | Boise | 0.86822 | Texas | 0.85271 | OU | 0.8209 | tOSU | 0.80315 | | | | | | | | |
| 2001-2010 | 3 | 0.81034 | Boise | 0.87692 | Texas | 0.82171 | tOSU | 0.81034 | OU | 0.80741 | | | | | | | | |
| 2002-2011 | 7 | 0.79487 | Boise | 0.90076 | USC | 0.82609 | TCU | 0.81746 | OU | 0.8 | | | | | | | | |
| 2003-2012 | 3 | 0.7913 | Boise | 0.89313 | LSU | 0.81061 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2004-2013 | 3 | 0.7931 | Boise | 0.86154 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2005-2014 | 2 | 0.82353 | Boise | 0.85606 | tOSU | 0.82353 | Oregon | 0.80303 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2006-2015 | 2 | 0.8333 | Boise | 0.85606 | tOSU | 0.8333 | Bama | 0.8 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2007-2016 | 3 | 0.825 | Bama | 0.85714 | Boise | 0.83333 | tOSU | 0.825 | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2008-2017 | 3 | 0.82645 | Bama | 0.89928 | Boise | 0.83459 | tOSU | 0.82645 | | | | | | | | | | |
If that formats right and you can make sense of it, it is all the post-war 10 year .800 club members. I also included Ohio State for each cycle just for my own curiosity.
Upthread I think it was @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) who pointed out that approximately the 70's was the time after the two-platoon system but before scholarship limits when the helmets just plain dominated. Thus you had the Big2/Little8 in the BigTen with tOSU and Michigan completely dominating. It was similar in other conferences as evidenced by the fact that the most .800 club members in a 10-year period which happened in the three consecutive cycles of 1968-1977, 1969-1978, and 1970-1979. In those three cycles Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Alabama were all over .800. Additionally, Texas was in for the first of the three while USC was in for the last two.
Current .800 club membership streaks are:
- 11 cycles: Boise
- 4 cycles: tOSU
- 2 cycles: Bama
Teams most likely to stay in or get in to the .800 club for 2009-2018 (% is for 2009-2017 the first nine years of the next cycle):
- .90400 Bama: They will remain in the .800 club even if they go 0-12. (As noted above they have a decent chance to hit .900 for 2009-2018. That hasn't been done since Boise did it from 2002-2011 and it hasn't been done by a major program since Oklahoma from 1949-1958. FWIW, the closest any major program has come since 49-58 was when Oklahoma went .89831 from 71-80.)
- .8333 Ohio State: They will remain in the .800 club if they go 7-6 or better.
- .82500 Boise: They will remain in the .800 club if they go 8-5 or better.
- .78226 Clemson: They would join the .800 club if they went 15-0.
- .78151 Oklahoma: They would join the .800 club if they went 15-0.
No other teams have a mathematical chance to get into the .800 club for 2009-2018. Thus, for 2009-2018 the .800 club will have between one and four members.
-
Hey now, if UW (lol) goes 15-0 this year they'd be at 0.795620438.
Close enough in hand grenades. :86:
-
not necessarily. an elephant weighs about 13000 lbs, so would take 52 raiders averaging 250 lbs (which is generous, imo) to match the elephant.
second, who said bama is a single elephant? just because they have a single elephant mascot? mt union mascot is a single macaw anyway, not raiders.
and like mt union aren't the macaws, bama isn't the elephant(s), we're the tide. i'm fairly sure that'll outweigh any amount of raiders, macaws and/or elephants. or any other mascots that i can think of for that matter.
Well yeah, but it's all water weight.
-
Hey now, if UW (lol) goes 15-0 this year they'd be at 0.795620438.
Close enough in hand grenades. :86:
LoL, Wisconsin is the next one out and even a 15-0 season in 2018 wouldn't quite get them to .800 for 2009-2018. I think that Wisconsin doesn't have a serious chance until that 8-6 from 2012 falls off for 2013-2022. Since then they have gone:
- 2013: 9-4: .692308
- 2014: 11-3: .785714
- 2015: 10-3: .769231
- 2016: 11-3: .785714
- 2017: 13-1: .928571
- 2013-2017: 54-14: .79412
-
Only way NDSU would win vs bama would be for bama to give the game away, NDSU wouldn't beat them... NDSU can beat P5 teams, but not bama
Only way [Appalachian State] would win vs [M*ch*g*n] would be for [M*ch*g*n] to give the game away, [Appalachian State] wouldn't beat them... [Appalachian State] can beat P5 teams, but not [M*ch*g*n].
It's a fair point.
-
since we have a P5 class and a G5 class, some folks were simply pointing out the difference in classes
you are obviously smart enough to know the difference, but some folks just wanted to point out the obvious
I’ve found that in dealing with the public, there is no such thing as obvious.
-
Only way [Appalachian State] would win vs [M*ch*g*n] would be for [M*ch*g*n] to give the game away, [Appalachian State] wouldn't beat them... [Appalachian State] can beat P5 teams, but not [M*ch*g*n].
It's a fair point.
-
LoL, Wisconsin is the next one out and even a 15-0 season in 2018 wouldn't quite get them to .800 for 2009-2018. I think that Wisconsin doesn't have a serious chance until that 8-6 from 2012 falls off for 2013-2022. Since then they have gone:
- 2013: 9-4: .692308
- 2014: 11-3: .785714
- 2015: 10-3: .769231
- 2016: 11-3: .785714
- 2017: 13-1: .928571
- 2013-2017: 54-14: .79412
Not a bad run for Big Red. Need a win in Indy to make things mo betta.
-
since we have a P5 class and a G5 class, some folks were simply pointing out the difference in classes
you are obviously smart enough to know the difference, but some folks just wanted to point out the obvious
I’d argue they weren’t so much as pointing out the obvious as they were shielding their eyes and screaming, “Get them out of my sight!”
-
I'm sure you'd argue
and you might just be right
-
I'd have to agree with Kris61...
Now, if you don't mind... I need to go take a shower after admitting that..
-
we don't mind
-
I'd have to agree with Kris61...
Now, if you don't mind... I need to go take a shower after admitting that..
LOL.
-
I was not happy at all when UW got stuck with 13-0 Western Michigan in the Cotton Bowl a couple of years ago. It felt like a penalty, and a lose-lose.
However, UW is the only P5 school to not lose to a G5 in a NYD6 bowl game. So, there's that.
I guess they "showed up", unlike the others... heh.
-
I understand that a program has the right to turn down a bowl invitation
-
I understand that a program has the right to turn down a bowl invitation
Of course, and forfeit their share of the revenue. So yeah.
-
and forfeit the conference's share of the revenue. So yeah, Big Jim might make a phone call
-
I was not happy at all when UW got stuck with 13-0 Western Michigan in the Cotton Bowl a couple of years ago. It felt like a penalty, and a lose-lose.
However, UW is the only P5 school to not lose to a G5 in a NYD6 bowl game. So, there's that.
I guess they "showed up", unlike the others... heh.
Wasn't TCU in the Mountain West at that time? I believe they were. Just sayin'
-
Wasn't TCU in the Mountain West at that time? I believe they were. Just sayin'
NYD6 bowl games started in 2014.
That f'ing Rose Bowl was a BCS game at the time.
-
Yeah, I'd be pretty surprised if it actually happened, that a school in any major conference would turn down a bowl bid. The conference revenue payout structures just don't really allow for it.
-
- 2013: 9-4: .692308
- 2014: 11-3: .785714
- 2015: 10-3: .769231
- 2016: 11-3: .785714
- 2017: 13-1: .928571
- 2013-2017: 54-14: .79412
I think this post really illustrates just how difficult getting into the .800 club is. Wisconsin's five year run from 2013-2017 is REALLY good by any school's standards and yet even that falls just short and it is only five years. To give this some context:
Playing 13 games a year (12 scheduled and a bowl) you need to win an average of 10.4 games per year. In five years that works out to, for example, three 10-3 seasons and two 11-2 seasons, 52-11.
Playing 14 games a year (12 scheduled and either a CG and a bowl or a CFP semi-final win) you need to win an average of 11.2 games per year. In five years that works out to, for example, four 11-3 seasons and one 12-2 season, 56-14.
Playing 15 games a year (12 scheduled, a CG, and a CFP semi-final win) you need to win an average of 12 games per year.
-
didn't Notre Dame turn down a bowl a few seasons ago?
I understand they are not in a conference, but I think that would be more incentive to grab the cash, since they don't share
-
didn't Notre Dame turn down a bowl a few seasons ago?
I understand they are not in a conference, but I think that would be more incentive to grab the cash, since they don't share
They turned down the Copper Bowl like 20 years ago. Not sure if they did it more recently than that.
-
times flies when you're having fun. That could have been it, or possibly they bluffed about it and then took the game and the money
-
Google told me they also preemptively said they wouldn't accept a bowl bid the year they fired Weis. So they were never offered a bid to technically refuse.
But it was 1996 when they turned down the Copper Bowl bid at 8-3
-
They should've rejected the Fiesta Bowl bid that year Oregon State curb-stombed them. They didn't deserve to be anywhere near that game.
-
They turned down the Copper Bowl like 20 years ago. Not sure if they did it more recently than that.
That ND turned it down enabled UW to accept it. And I went because I was in PHX visiting family.
Dayne went nuts in that game, against the Utes.
-
That was a preseason top 5 Michigan team, if you remember. So the voters were to blame.
It's still the preseason... so ... this ... makes ... this ... a ... preseason Alabama team?
-
didn't Notre Dame turn down a bowl a few seasons ago?
I understand they are not in a conference, but I think that would be more incentive to grab the cash, since they don't share
They've got plenty of money.
It's the "not being in a conference" that's key. They're not obligated to anyone for a structured payout of revenue. They keep their own books.
-
hah, the Horns have plenty of money as well, but they keep grabbing more.
Hand over fist
-
Well, the fact that ND has refused bowl bids in the "modern era" pretty much makes my point for me. They're not beholden to a conference with a multi-party post-season contract, so they don't have to accept a bowl bid if they don't want to. And they obviously have enough money they feel like they can afford to miss a bowl, because they DID make that choice to miss a bowl. Proof's in the pudding, as they say.
Teams in major conferences don't have that kind of freedom. The structure of the conference revenue payouts just won't allow it. They really can't turn down a bowl bid even if they're technically "allowed" to do so. Additionally, the vast majority of head coaches are unlikely to turn down the extra practice time.
-
Google told me they also preemptively said they wouldn't accept a bowl bid the year they fired Weis. So they were never offered a bid to technically refuse.
But it was 1996 when they turned down the Copper Bowl bid at 8-3
They turned down the Hawaii bowl when they fired Weis and hired Kelly.
But it might have technically gone down as a "we aren't going, so don't even invite us" sorta thing.
-
Well, the fact that ND has refused bowl bids in the "modern era" pretty much makes my point for me.
well, making points for yourself is easy
I'd guess if Texas with it's wad of cash, wanted to turn down a bowl, could easily throw a few million to the Big 12 to make up for the loss of bowl revenue. And the head coach would be part of the group that made the decision to turn down the bowl, if not he would be over ruled.
I agree this scenario would NEVER happen, but it's possible
-
Well, the fact that ND has refused bowl bids in the "modern era" pretty much makes my point for me. They're not beholden to a conference with a multi-party post-season contract, so they don't have to accept a bowl bid if they don't want to. And they obviously have enough money they feel like they can afford to miss a bowl, because they DID make that choice to miss a bowl. Proof's in the pudding, as they say.
Teams in major conferences don't have that kind of freedom. The structure of the conference revenue payouts just won't allow it. They really can't turn down a bowl bid even if they're technically "allowed" to do so. Additionally, the vast majority of head coaches are unlikely to turn down the extra practice time.
I believe that this is no longer possible without breaking a contract. IIRC, ND is now tied into the ACC bowl contracts so declining a bowl would violate a contract.
-
well, making points for yourself is easy
I'd guess if Texas with it's wad of cash, wanted to turn down a bowl, could easily throw a few million to the Big 12 to make up for the loss of bowl revenue. And the head coach would be part of the group that made the decision to turn down the bowl, if not he would be over ruled.
I agree this scenario would NEVER happen, but it's possible
I think the difference, and it relates to my point in my last post, is that Texas is contractually obligated to the B12's Bowl Partners. If they had a crappy season, went 6-6, and turned down the B12's fifth or sixth bowl that would violate the B12's contract with said fifth or sixth bowl. The bowl could then sue Texas and the B12 and they would probably win. Also note that the suit wouldn't just be for the payout, instead it would be for the bowl's lost revenue from getting a team with a smaller following. The Bowl would claim that the loss was many millions. They wouldn't get everything they asked for, but the breach of contract case would be a slam-dunk. The only question would be how much Texas had to pay in damages.
If a team declines a bowl that they aren't obligated to go to then all they lose is the bowl payout but if they decline a bowl that they ARE contractually obligated to go to they give up the payout and an indeterminate amount of damages.
-
Well, the fact that ND has refused bowl bids in the "modern era" pretty much makes my point for me. They're not beholden to a conference with a multi-party post-season contract, so they don't have to accept a bowl bid if they don't want to. And they obviously have enough money they feel like they can afford to miss a bowl, because they DID make that choice to miss a bowl. Proof's in the pudding, as they say.
Teams in major conferences don't have that kind of freedom. The structure of the conference revenue payouts just won't allow it. They really can't turn down a bowl bid even if they're technically "allowed" to do so. Additionally, the vast majority of head coaches are unlikely to turn down the extra practice time.
Per the bolded statement, my understanding was that bowls--particularly the low-tier bowls--were often money losers for the school. They are required to buy a lot of tickets, and have to eat the cost of any tickets they can't sell. They need to pay airfare for their team, the band, all the associated support staff, etc. They can outlay millions of dollars to go to a bowl, and the amount they actually receive ends up being much less. Particularly if it's a team like ND that nobody is excited about a 6-6 season and probably aren't going to buy a plane ticket to Hawaii to attend a meaningless game after a coach has been fired.
Now, I agree with you that conferences can't really have that. If Purdue had decided to skip the Foster Farms bowl, what would the conference do? "Oh, you want to skip it? Well then you can forfeit your share of all the rest of the conference bowl revenue." So I see that when you have a pooled resource like bowl revenue, which all schools (even those which don't go to bowls) benefit from, they're definitely not going to let you opt out of bowls. The B1G has equal revenue sharing of the BTN money, and they're not going to let you get equal revenue but pick and choose which things you'll contribute to.
-
Per the bolded statement, my understanding was that bowls--particularly the low-tier bowls--were often money losers for the school. They are required to buy a lot of tickets, and have to eat the cost of any tickets they can't sell. They need to pay airfare for their team, the band, all the associated support staff, etc. They can outlay millions of dollars to go to a bowl, and the amount they actually receive ends up being much less.
it's been accused in the past that some programs take the band and as many folks along to the bowl as possible to make sure there's no money left over to share with the have nots that do not go bowling from the conference
-
I believe that this is no longer possible without breaking a contract. IIRC, ND is now tied into the ACC bowl contracts so declining a bowl would violate a contract.
Good point, now that they're tied into the ACC's bowl contracts, they likely forfeited that freedom. I won't claim to know anything about how those contracts are written between them and the ACC. But it would make sense that they're not allowed to turn down an invitation.
-
I think the difference, and it relates to my point in my last post, is that Texas is contractually obligated to the B12's Bowl Partners. If they had a crappy season, went 6-6, and turned down the B12's fifth or sixth bowl that would violate the B12's contract with said fifth or sixth bowl. The bowl could then sue Texas and the B12 and they would probably win. Also note that the suit wouldn't just be for the payout, instead it would be for the bowl's lost revenue from getting a team with a smaller following. The Bowl would claim that the loss was many millions. They wouldn't get everything they asked for, but the breach of contract case would be a slam-dunk. The only question would be how much Texas had to pay in damages.
If a team declines a bowl that they aren't obligated to go to then all they lose is the bowl payout but if they decline a bowl that they ARE contractually obligated to go to they give up the payout and an indeterminate amount of damages.
What if the Big XII still had enough bowl eligible teams to fulfill all of their tie-ins?
That seems pretty unlikely, as most conferences are seemingly tie into more than they can fulfill, simply because those bowls would rather have first crack at the Big Ten #10 (or whatever) if by chance they are sitting there, than CUSA #3. They can go grab a random CUSA team if needed, and from their perspective there's no difference between being guaranteed the #3 team over having to settle for the #6 team once the Big Ten fails to fill all of their slots.
-
What if the Big XII still had enough bowl eligible teams to fulfill all of their tie-ins?
That seems pretty unlikely, as most conferences are seemingly tie into more than they can fulfill, simply because those bowls would rather have first crack at the Big Ten #10 (or whatever) if by chance they are sitting there, than CUSA #3. They can go grab a random CUSA team if needed, and from their perspective there's no difference between being guaranteed the #3 team over having to settle for the #6 team once the Big Ten fails to fill all of their slots.
I still think medina's point about the bowl having a case at missing out on, for example, Texas or Oklahoma specifically, is a valid one. The truth is that Baylor and ISU aren't going to draw as many eyeballs as Texas, so the bowl (or rather, the bowl's media/marketing/advertising partners) would have at least some claim to damages based on lost revenue.
The real point is, this is so convoluted and tangled, that a conference-affiliated university with those complex media contracts, isn't going to attempt it. We're discussing a hypothetical that's never going to happen.
-
It's still the preseason... so ... this ... makes ... this ... a ... preseason Alabama team?
if you listen to the radio down here you'd think we were in mid-season form, sans the qb situation. which everyone knows what will happen except the coaches apparently.
-
if you listen to the radio down here you'd think we were in mid-season form, sans the qb situation. which everyone knows what will happen except the coaches apparently.
Y'all are gonna roll on to another NC. Doesn't matter who you have at QB. Pretty boring for the rest of us, but if it were my team I'd be thrilled with each and every crystal football (or whatever it is these days, I wouldn't know).
-
I still think medina's point about the bowl having a case at missing out on, for example, Texas or Oklahoma specifically, is a valid one. The truth is that Baylor and ISU aren't going to draw as many eyeballs as Texas, so the bowl (or rather, the bowl's media/marketing/advertising partners) would have at least some claim to damages based on lost revenue.
The real point is, this is so convoluted and tangled, that a conference-affiliated university with those complex media contracts, isn't going to attempt it. We're discussing a hypothetical that's never going to happen.
This is almost exactly the answer I was going to give when I saw that question. The damages that the bowl could sue for would be lost revenue from having a school with less fans in their bowl.
-
Good point, now that they're tied into the ACC's bowl contracts, they likely forfeited that freedom. I won't claim to know anything about how those contracts are written between them and the ACC. But it would make sense that they're not allowed to turn down an invitation.
They had a Big East tie in before that.
-
Y'all are gonna roll on to another NC. Doesn't matter who you have at QB. Pretty boring for the rest of us, but if it were my team I'd be thrilled with each and every crystal football (or whatever it is these days, I wouldn't know).
The Crystal FB is no longer the primary trophy that is presented at game's end, nonetheless it is still awarded to the NC via the Coaches Poll.
-
This is almost exactly the answer I was going to give when I saw that question. The damages that the bowl could sue for would be lost revenue from having a school with less fans in their bowl.
Well now we are talking about a claim by the bowl vs. a claim by the conference.
-
Over the 1970s, only two programs finished with more than 100 victories, and both of them -- Oklahoma and Alabama -- ran the Wishbone for virtually the entire decade.
Leach, whose offense just led the nation in passing attempts for the sixth straight year, isn't so sure, either -- that still, 50 years later, Bellard's brainchild, in its original form, couldn't flourish.
"Nobody has ever truly stopped the Wishbone," he said. "There's a point to where people have lost interest in the Wishbone. But nobody ever really successfully stopped it."
-
Y'all are gonna roll on to another NC. Doesn't matter who you have at QB. Pretty boring for the rest of us, but if it were my team I'd be thrilled with each and every crystal football (or whatever it is these days, I wouldn't know).
our secondary worries me more than qb. the qb gets headlines, but we have one that's gotten us to the cfp title games twice and was 1 second away from winning one. if the other one beats him out, i feel good about his game.
but we lost our entire secondary. both corners, star, nickle, and both safeties, 6 players all gone.
only thing that comforts me some is:
1 - our dline should be able to get a ton of pressure on qb and shorten time the db's have to hold down the fort.
2 - our schedule is weak, especially on heavy passing teams. aTm, the most pass happy threat in west, is going to more pro style with jimbo, leaving only louisville as only real threat that are also air-borne attacks. au, msu and lsu are all based on ground game primarily.
-
Over the 1970s, only two programs finished with more than 100 victories, and both of them -- Oklahoma and Alabama -- ran the Wishbone for virtually the entire decade.
Leach, whose offense just led the nation in passing attempts for the sixth straight year, isn't so sure, either -- that still, 50 years later, Bellard's brainchild, in its original form, couldn't flourish.
"Nobody has ever truly stopped the Wishbone," he said. "There's a point to where people have lost interest in the Wishbone. But nobody ever really successfully stopped it."
i'd love to see the pirate break out the wishbone. he's crazy enough to try it too.
-
did ya read the wishbone story on ESPN.com?
linked on the offseason thread
-
did ya read the wishbone story on ESPN.com?
linked on the offseason thread
partially, will catch rest later. why
-
reference to the Bear waiting for the Texas coaches to get to work to open the office
-
our secondary worries me more than qb. the qb gets headlines, but we have one that's gotten us to the cfp title games twice and was 1 second away from winning one. if the other one beats him out, i feel good about his game.
but we lost our entire secondary. both corners, star, nickle, and both safeties, 6 players all gone.
only thing that comforts me some is:
1 - our dline should be able to get a ton of pressure on qb and shorten time the db's have to hold down the fort.
2 - our schedule is weak, especially on heavy passing teams. aTm, the most pass happy threat in west, is going to more pro style with jimbo, leaving only louisville as only real threat that are also air-borne attacks. au, msu and lsu are all based on ground game primarily.
Also comforting is that Alabama is once again the most talented team in the country, by far. That can't get old.
-
"Nobody has ever truly stopped the Wishbone," he said. "There's a point to where people have lost interest in the Wishbone. But nobody ever really successfully stopped it."
I think Miami beating OU three straight years probably put a dent in the wishbone. Then that very next year, OU lost 4 games, scoring single digits in 3 of the losses. They were all top teams, so with the right talent, I think defending the wishbone became a known thing.
But that's just guesswork supported by weak evidence.
-
Triple option or option offenses are always held to a higher standard, MNC, or it doesn't work . Losing to those Miami teams, twice on the road is hardly an indictment. Yes, they didn't win 34 in a row from 85-87 but they were much more successful than umpteen pro style offenses .
Nobody suggests anybody scrap the spread or pro style after being humbled .
-
Go listen to Bill Walsh doing color of a 92 OB, Miami manhandling an outmatched Nebraska team, he's declaring option football dead, beyond repair. I know it wasn't a wishbone offense, but good thing T.O. didn't listen to the Genius . And I love Bill Walsh.
-
Shutting out Nebraska back then was a big deal. And I differentiate between wishbone and option. The option out of the 'I' is a whole different animal than 3 backs and 1 WR.
On the one hand, pro-style offenses gained popularity because of the logical conclusion that being able to run and pass was better than only running. However, and this is true to this day - if outmatched teams use the option to gain an advantage, and the option allows them to stay close and/or win games they shouldn't, then shouldn't a very talented team do well using it?
Sure, it's great if the other team doesn't know what kind of play you're going to run, but isn't it better if they do know and can't stop it?
-
I agree wtih OAM, the wishbone had run its course and, given equal or better talent, it was getting stopped. No shame in that, it was fantastic while it thrived. Defenses evolve to stop-- or at least hinder-- new offensive schemes. Aside from rules that have been put in place to produce more offense, this is a normal balance that is known and understood.
-
only thing that comforts me some is:
That Alabama has a second string that's better than the first string of 95% of CFB programs?
-
That Alabama has a second string that's better than the first string of 95% of CFB programs?
I'd certainly find that comforting, were I an Alabama fan.
-
alabama's roster is loaded, no denying that, and very likely the best top to bottom.
but i don't buy that it's worlds better than several other schools.
at best (from bama's perspective) it's still within a marginal % for the next 10-20 teams such that they could have a better than 50% chance to win based on other factors (location, injuries, prior opp, etc.).
i'm not in denial that bama is in a major position of power. nor am i delusional to think this will last indefinitely. i just want it to last as long as it can.
this year could be that 'oh no, we suck again' 10-2 ( :93:) type season, though, and if it turns out to be, my guess is because of the secondary, not qb.
-
this year could be that 'oh no, we suck again' 10-2 ( :93:) type season, though, and if it turns out to be, my guess is because of the secondary, not qb.
Cool, hopefully you guys figure it out late in the year again and demolish us in the Citrus Bowl
-
Cool, hopefully you guys figure it out late in the year again and demolish us in the Citrus Bowl
it's a good consolation prize to be sure.
-
F'ing Saban.
-
I thought you can't spell Citrus without "UT" right?
-
Shutting out Nebraska back then was a big deal. And I differentiate between wishbone and option. The option out of the 'I' is a whole different animal than 3 backs and 1 WR.
sure it was a big deal
the wishbone and the option out of the I are different, but not wholly different
the 3rd back is called the "wing" check Johnny Rogers winning the Hypesman
-
I think Miami beating OU three straight years probably put a dent in the wishbone. Then that very next year, OU lost 4 games, scoring single digits in 3 of the losses. They were all top teams, so with the right talent, I think defending the wishbone became a known thing.
But that's just guesswork supported by weak evidence.
Miami's defense at home beat many offenses, not just the wishbone or the I as Marq pointed out.
I'll defer to the Pirate's opinion on offenses over guesswork supported by weak evidence.
-
I thought you can't spell Citrus without "UT" right?
Love this, especially when Tennessee would give it's left leg to make the Citrus Bowl....
-
alabama's roster is loaded, no denying that, and very likely the best top to bottom.
but i don't buy that it's worlds better than several other schools.
at best (from bama's perspective) it's still within a marginal % for the next 10-20 teams such that they could have a better than 50% chance to win based on other factors (location, injuries, prior opp, etc.).
This would be correct, based on 1-2 years of superior recruiting. But we're going on 6-7 years of #1ish recruiting classes, stacked on top of each other. Alabama's rosters for the last 3-4 years have been THE most talented since scholarship limits began. Not arguably, not kinda/sort, but definitively. Other elite programs get top-5 recruiting classes sometimes - maybe 2 in 3 years or 3 in 5.
No one else has 6-7 straight 1st or 2nd-ranked classes. So yes, Bama's roster is so talented that they should never lose. Their playoff games vs Washington and Michigan State the last few years are closer to their actual talent level than their losses to Auburn or Clemson.
If Alabama were to go 10-2 this year or next year, there's a good case to say Saban has mailed it in and isn't coaching very well. They're that good.
-
No one else has 6-7 straight 1st or 2nd-ranked classes. So yes, Bama's roster is so talented that they should never lose. Their playoff games vs Washington and Michigan State the last few years are closer to their actual talent level than their losses to Auburn or Clemson.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
The other way is if you have a team that is consistently top 10 in recruiting and just happens to have a VERY senior-laden team, or is particularly strong in the passing game exactly where Alabama's defense is inexperienced, then experience can trump talent.
But I do agree. Bama is stacked top to bottom. Even if they have a few questions at DB, they undoubtedly have fewer questions than basically any other program because they're so stacked with talent everywhere.
So yeah, I don't think there's a game this year they won't be favored in.
-
I believe Bama's been favored in every game the past 4-5 years except for one. I want to say 3 years ago, UGA was a slight favorite at home. It sort of made sense with the idea you noted - experience and such. But Bama blew them out like 38-10 or something like that.
Bama's recruiting SHOULD make them letdown-proof, lack of experience-proof, and whatever other issues the rest of the top programs deal with in their rare losses. Alabama should never lose. They've reached that level - higher than mid-late 90s UNL (system, great coaching/development), late 80s Miami, or mid-70s OU.
-
that kind of thinking, oam, is rat poison. :)
bama's #1 class run being easily the best roster is only true if you put at or near 100% certainty in recruiting rankings. and we all know they are flawed. in any given year, the top 5-10 are interchangeable.
since 14 recruiting class, since those are all that's on these rosters, lsu, fsu, au, osu, uga and usc have all had striaght top 10 classes. osu, fsu and lsu have had almost all top 2-3, with only 1 being outside top 5, just like bama.
i think it's highly likely that at any given year, one (or more) of those classes were better than bamas '#1' class. i find it extremely unlikely that bama's marginally higher ranking is proof that bama should never lose. at best, you could say bama is slightly better on paper, but other factors will determine likelihood of outcome.
as for favored, bama has been going since 09 sec title game i think. the opening line streak ended at 72 in 2015 @ uga, but by game time the line had shifted to bama being slight favorites on most books, with a few holding as a pickem. 112 games and counting if my math is right. but this doesn't really mean anything other than most people think bama will win, not on who should actually win.
-
Love this, especially when Tennessee would give it's left leg to make the Citrus Bowl....
Spurrier was not only a great ball coach, but a ton of fun and great for the sport. I definitely miss him.
About the only coach I can think of right now who is similarly fun, is Mike Leach, but he clearly hasn't had as much success as Spurrier did, and he doesn't get as much airtime.
-
Miami's defense at home beat many offenses, not just the wishbone or the I as Marq pointed out.
I'll defer to the Pirate's opinion on offenses over guesswork supported by weak evidence.
I think this is an important point. Not being able to beat those Miami defenses doesn't prove anything except that those Miami defenses were really, Really, REALLY good.
I do think that defenses, in general, are more suited to defending that type of offense though. Defenses are a lot faster today. I don't mean that the DB's are faster, they are but that isn't the point. The LBers and DL's are faster. That makes it a lot harder to beat them to the corner.
-
This would be correct, based on 1-2 years of superior recruiting. But we're going on 6-7 years of #1ish recruiting classes, stacked on top of each other. Alabama's rosters for the last 3-4 years have been THE most talented since scholarship limits began. Not arguably, not kinda/sort, but definitively. Other elite programs get top-5 recruiting classes sometimes - maybe 2 in 3 years or 3 in 5.
No one else has 6-7 straight 1st or 2nd-ranked classes. So yes, Bama's roster is so talented that they should never lose. Their playoff games vs Washington and Michigan State the last few years are closer to their actual talent level than their losses to Auburn or Clemson.
If Alabama were to go 10-2 this year or next year, there's a good case to say Saban has mailed it in and isn't coaching very well. They're that good.
At the end of the day you are still talking about a bunch of 18-22 year old kids. They are human and we humans don't always play up to our potential. Even if we take it as a given that Bama's talent level is superior to all potential opponents you still have human factors.
-
At the end of the day you are still talking about a bunch of 18-22 year old kids. They are human and we humans don't always play up to our potential. Even if we take it as a given that Bama's talent level is superior to all potential opponents you still have human factors.
We can all hope, anyway.
One thing's for sure, their coach is NOT human. But I'll go along with the assumption that at least some of the players are... ;)
-
Spurrier was not only a great ball coach, but a ton of fun and great for the sport. I definitely miss him.
About the only coach I can think of right now who is similarly fun, is Mike Leach, but he clearly hasn't had as much success as Spurrier did, and he doesn't get as much airtime.
I like the Pirate much more than old Shiny pants
-
I think this is an important point. Not being able to beat those Miami defenses doesn't prove anything except that those Miami defenses were really, Really, REALLY good.
I do think that defenses, in general, are more suited to defending that type of offense though. Defenses are a lot faster today. I don't mean that the DB's are faster, they are but that isn't the point. The LBers and DL's are faster. That makes it a lot harder to beat them to the corner.
very true,. but as rolltidefan pointed out in the other thread:
2011 had 1 score more than 2 tds, ga southern (21) using wishbone. but they also didn't face any offenses as good as aTm and uga were the following year.
Even a very fast well coached defense has trouble stopping the wishbone
-
very true,. but as rolltidefan pointed out in the other thread:
2011 had 1 score more than 2 tds, ga southern (21) using wishbone. but they also didn't face any offenses as good as aTm and uga were the following year.
Even a very fast well coached defense has trouble stopping the wishbone
on a one off, single game event, that we might have spent half the week preparing for.
if multiple opponents were running wishbone to the point where it became a focus to learn how to stop it, i think bama and a myriad of other teams could stop them on a regular basis.
-
We can all hope, anyway.
One thing's for sure, their coach is NOT human. But I'll go along with the assumption that at least some of the players are... ;)
the players are, we've just suped them up with deer antler pray.
-
Is that what y'all are calling it these days?
-
Spurrier was not only a great ball coach, but a ton of fun and great for the sport. I definitely miss him.
Yup Steve Superior and good Ole Boy Bowden was must see TV for a decade
-
Spurrier was not only a great ball coach, but a ton of fun and great for the sport. I definitely miss him.
About the only coach I can think of right now who is similarly fun, is Mike Leach, but he clearly hasn't had as much success as Spurrier did, and he doesn't get as much airtime.
No question
-
GA Southern was in a double wing, triple option offense vs Bama, not the wishbone. Yes, these are in the same family of offenses, but it's important to make the distinction when there is one.
-
very important, maybe not important a tall
-
This would be correct, based on 1-2 years of superior recruiting. But we're going on 6-7 years of #1ish recruiting classes, stacked on top of each other. Alabama's rosters for the last 3-4 years have been THE most talented since scholarship limits began. Not arguably, not kinda/sort, but definitively. Other elite programs get top-5 recruiting classes sometimes - maybe 2 in 3 years or 3 in 5.
No one else has 6-7 straight 1st or 2nd-ranked classes. So yes, Bama's roster is so talented that they should never lose. Their playoff games vs Washington and Michigan State the last few years are closer to their actual talent level than their losses to Auburn or Clemson.
If Alabama were to go 10-2 this year or next year, there's a good case to say Saban has mailed it in and isn't coaching very well. They're that good.
agree.. bama should not lose football games.
I believe Bama's been favored in every game the past 4-5 years except for one. I want to say 3 years ago, UGA was a slight favorite at home. It sort of made sense with the idea you noted - experience and such. But Bama blew them out like 38-10 or something like that.
Bama's recruiting SHOULD make them letdown-proof, lack of experience-proof, and whatever other issues the rest of the top programs deal with in their rare losses. Alabama should never lose. They've reached that level - higher than mid-late 90s UNL (system, great coaching/development), late 80s Miami, or mid-70s OU.
I agree... Bama is on a new level. They shouldn't lose or have let downs because their 2nd team is probably the 2nd best team in CF.
Nobody has recruited that high of a level that long.. A few teams have done it for bursts illegally, but nobody that long
-
However, there's a problem with the "shouldn't lose" theory, as explained by pretty much every engineer who ever lived...
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is.
Yes, Alabama should be favored in basically every game they play. That doesn't mean they're not going to get upset.
-
also, take into account that when the high school kid is offered it jumps and then again when he verbals to Bama, his star power increases.
-
However, there's a problem with the "shouldn't lose" theory, as explained by pretty much every engineer who ever lived...
Yes, Alabama should be favored in basically every game they play. That doesn't mean they're not going to get upset.
"Shouldn't" is the precise, correct language. I didn't say "won't", because yes, upsets do happen. However, with that in mind, Alabama's talent level is more than just one order of magnitude over everyone else. They should be upset less often than the norm, within the 1-3 teams they play each season who are top-10 or so.
-
"Shouldn't" is the precise, correct language. I didn't say "won't", because yes, upsets do happen. However, with that in mind, Alabama's talent level is more than just one order of magnitude over everyone else. They should be upset less often than the norm, within the 1-3 teams they play each season who are top-10 or so.
I generally agree with your statement but I think this sells modern schedules in general and Bama's specifically quite a bit short. In a Championship season Bama would most likely play at least three top-10 teams:
- SECCG
- CFP semi-final
- CFP Championship
Additionally, three of Bama's 2018 opponents finished 2017 ranked:
- #10 Auburn
- #18 LSU
- #19 MissSt
The CG and two CFP games make a huge difference and this example really illustrates that point. In a Championship season in the old days Bama would have had no CG and a bowl against whoever the SEC's Champion was slated to play. That is only one game instead of three and the one game could wind up being against a relatively weak team if the SugarBowl's other participant wasn't top-tier. Most Championship seasons now will end with three consecutive games against high-end opponents.
-
I was talking about regular season.
With Auburn, the SECCG, then the playoff, those are the only types of teams that could possibly beat Alabama...and to play perhaps 4 of those in a row does diminish the odds of an undefeated season (for anyone).
So no one is "likely" to win the NC, but while all of the other helmets are hovering around 5-6% chance, Alabama is at 20%. Yes, those are taken right out of my ass, but you get the point. Alabama isn't >50% chance to win it all each year, but they're well ahead of anyone else who has a chance.