As it stands now, I'd say that Clemson and Bama are clearly the best teams of this era.For CFP era so far I would say:
Then you can argue between Oklahoma and Ohio State. I think they are pretty close, as Ohio State does have a title and better record, but Oklahoma has more playoff appearances. Although Oklahoma has lost all of their games, they were competitive and really let that game against Georgia slip away.
Then like you mentioned teams that have at least won a game, though only appeared once each I believe, you have Oregon and Georgia.
Yeah, even as dominant as USC was in the Carroll years in the early 2000s, they probably would've missed the playoffs if they existed in '02, '06, '07 and definitely in '09. So that legendary dynasty would've only made the playoffs in about half of those years. Meanwhile Bama and Clemson have made it 5 of 6 years. It is pretty crazy.Ehh, legendary dynasty? You mean the dynasty that could/should have been, but wasn't?
This thread made me think that hey, you could plop a 4-team playoff in any 5-year stretch and there would have been a dominant program or two dominating at the time. Early 90s? Miami/Washington/Alabama would be dominating the playoff.The CFP has definitely helped on the mulligan front. Mid-90's Nebraska is a great example of this. They won titles in 1994, 1995, and 1997. In 1996 they wouldn't have made a CFP, but they definitely would have been close. Maybe with a potential NC to play for they wouldn't have lost to Texas in the B12CG?
Late 70s? Alabama/USC/Oklahoma would be taking turns hoisting the trophy.
.
But then I remember that we haven't had any #1 seeds win the CFP. That's the most interesting part to me. The top two programs of these last 5 years have dominated the playoff WHILE no 1 seed has won it all. BUT also, three times, it's been Clemson/Alabama winning it all at the other's expense.
.
I guess the better you are, the most likely it is you take advantage of your mulligan!
I view the top teams as almost interchangeable. If the "real" #1 played #4 every time, they would probably win 65% of them (give or take).Well, they have won three out of five so far and that is 60% so not far off from your 65% estimate.
So, even if the teams were slotted exactly correctly every year, the #1 seed would likely win less than half the time.Agreed, they wouldn't win half the time. Lets use your 65% estimate for games against #4. They should then win more than 50% against the 2/3 winner. Even if we only give them 50% there, that still adds up to winning the Championship roughly 1/3 of the time (.65*.5=.325).
Osborne pointed this out many times, especially after winning a couple
It makes you reconsider those mythical national champions from the past - they weren't some special great teams...they were beneficiaries of good timing and luck of the draw. A loss in September instead of October. An upset in a totally different conference benefiting your team or 4 top 10 teams happening to lose the same week you beat a ranked team, etc. We don't want to hear it, but it's all VERY random.
And sometimes a huge blowout.I mean, it’s sports. You take the good teams and hope. And sometimes there’s just a big ole gap.
31-0
59-20
38-0
24-7
24-6
30-3
44-16
Well, they have won three out of five so far and that is 60% so not far off from your 65% estimate. Agreed, they wouldn't win half the time. Lets use your 65% estimate for games against #4. They should then win more than 50% against the 2/3 winner. Even if we only give them 50% there, that still adds up to winning the Championship roughly 1/3 of the time (.65*.5=.325).So looking back on the numbers you had, to correct the 1s, you’d basically need to flip a bunch of the Clemson/Bama ones.
In six years (after this one is done) the #1 seed should be:Instead they are 3-5 and can do no better than 5-5 with one championship.
- 4-2 in semi-finals against #4 (67%)
- 2-2 in CG's against the 2/3 winner (50%)
- 6-4 overall with two championships.
I am not saying, and I do not think anyone is saying that we expect #1 to just dominate the thing. That said, they are well below what we should reasonably expect statistically.
OAM had a premise last season that teams disappointed in their bowl game play poorly (which I think we all agree with to some degree or another). Who is disappointed this season? UGA comes to mind, I lean to thinking Baylor beats them in an ugly game like 23-17. Penn State is probably not disappointed except in their opponent, which is another story, and Florida might be overlooking UVA plausibly, but that too is different.I strongly agree with OAM's premise about teams that are disappointed in their bowl tend to under-perform. This year there seems to be less of that than normal because LSU, tOSU, and Clemson have been basically assumed to the CFP for months so there really isn't a team that spent all of October and November thinking CFP then suddenly fell out.
UGA was disappointed last year as well after losing to Bama late in the game (again).
If Georgia's gonna keep on being so disappointed and then losing the Sugar Bowl, it's long past time to reset expectations.I don't mean it as any "excuse", in some ways I view it as worse than showing up and getting beat. My point is they likely are disappointed in their season and that may have some impact on how they play. Losing 3/5ths of their OL is probably more of a factor. Baylor is probably better than any team they beat this year, at least as good as.
But it's such a convenient excuse for the SEC, every time they lose to an "undeserving" B12 team. Bowl record for B12 vs. SEC was 3-1 last year. I'm sure all of those SEC teams were just terribly disappointed and "didn't want to be there." Same shit we hear every year. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And sometimes a huge blowout.Just because the result of the game was a huge blowout doesn't necessarily mean that the teams were all that unevenly matched. We all know that sometimes a superior team loses to an inferior team. It happens. Illinois wasn't better than Wisconsin this year but when they played, Illinois won. It happens because sometimes teams have a great game and sometimes teams have a terrible game.
31-0
59-20
38-0
24-7
24-6
30-3
44-16
I think one has to spell out what you want in a playoff before thinking about how it should be designed. Do you want to identify the "best team" consistently?That's impossible which is why people should stop attempting to do so.
Good luck with that.
they've been attempting to do it since the 1800's, it's not going to stopBut have they really? I think there's a difference between a news wire service poll attempting to rank the "best" teams at the end of the season, versus an Alliance/BCS/playoff attempting to matchup the "best" teams and have them play and produce a "champion."
The question is whether this is just a sample size issue, or indicative of a wider problem in the polls/committee?I think it is mostly just sample size. In the mathematical model that you built here the #1 seeds should be about 4-2 in six semi-finals. They are 3-2 so far in five. That is only a one game difference. Then they should be a little better than 50/50 in CG's or roughly 1.5 out of the three so far. That is only a game and a half difference.
To be honest, with proper seeding, a 1 seed should win the whole thing more than 25% of the time, but less than 100%. The question is how close to those two extremes is "correct", and that question boils down to just how much difference there is between the strength of #1 vs #2, #3, and #4. Still, a #1 seed in my opinion should be expected to win the whole thing maybe 30% of the time at minimum, or 40% of the time at maximum.
This year, for example, Vegas has LSU as a 14 point favorite over OU, and ESPN's FPI has LSU's win probability at 67.5%. If we make the assumption that LSU, as the higher seeded [and therefore supposedly stronger] team than OSU/Clemson would have a >50% win probability in that game, it would still require a 60% win probability in the final (over a team perceived significantly stronger than OU this year) to reach 40% win probability for the #1 seed.
So we've had 5 instances of the CFP, and the expected number of times for a #1 seed to win is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 times. That it's been 0 in only 5 instances might be simple due to small sample size.
Or it might not... You all know my thoughts on how to crown a champion in college football. Some might argue that if a committee made up of CFB experts, whose sole solitary job is to find the best four teams in the land (and seed them according to strength), and they can't pick the #1 team, how could pollsters be any better? Even worse, if the #4 team has a winning record and has won 2 out of 5 so far, might it be that they're actively seeding BADLY such that the consensus weakest team of the 4 is the second best performing seed, it suggests that maybe the "experts" don't know as much as we thought.I have long assumed that we are heading for an eight-team playoff with:
It's for that reason that I eschew the idea that only the "best teams" deserve to be in the BCS or CFP. Because we're notoriously bad at determining who the "best teams" are. So I fall back on the hybrid system of "most deserving" teams plus a few "at large" teams that are deemed worthy but didn't meet the objective criteria.
Go to an eight-team playoff. Either the 5 power conference champs plus 3 at-large, or the 5 power conference champs plus 1 highest ranked G5 conference champ, plus 2 at-large.
Because if even the committee can't get seeding right, how do we even know they're getting the best 4 teams right? ESPN FPI has five teams higher than OU's FPI this year. Are we really sure they're the fourth best team in the land?
the #1-#4 seeding for the playoff is not based on who the committee thinks will win the playoffWell, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
it's political and contrived for matchups
...
the committee, supposedly is to choose the best 4 teams for the playoff. I'm not certain they are doing that.
They certainly are not seeding the 4 teams as best to least
All of that to say, this insistence on finding and determining the SOLE national champion is a very new thing in the history of D1-A college football. It wasn't that way for the first 130 years or so...this is true
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."Yup, exactly where I've arrived as well.
If we're going to agree that this is purely for show, and not even intended to be the four "best" teams, then it only strengthens my case that there should be objective criteria for inclusion (conference championships). Let them play politics with the at-large selections.
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."I love this quote because I think it is true so often!
this is trueMan, that is one year where I REALLY would have loved a plus-one. Would have been so much fun to see those two teams face off.
and I'm not a fan
under the old system we could easily have had Clemson/Ohio St. and LSU/OU in bowls
or LSU vs OSU
the plus 1 game will be fun to watch as a fan, but I don't see it as any more of a big thing than a MNC from the 80's or 90's - including a split in 97 for Nebraska and Michigan
That would have been a fun game to watch as a fan
Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."agreed
If we're going to agree that this is purely for show, and not even intended to be the four "best" teams, then it only strengthens my case that there should be objective criteria for inclusion (conference championships). Let them play politics with the at-large selections.
this is trueOU/LSU, maybe, but I doubt the Fiesta would pass on OU for the sake of helping the Sugar Bowl. And I am 100 sure that the Rose would have taken OSU over UW if given a choice.
and I'm not a fan
under the old system we could easily have had Clemson/Ohio St. and LSU/OU in bowls
or LSU vs OSU
the plus 1 game will be fun to watch as a fan, but I don't see it as any more of a big thing than a MNC from the 80's or 90's - including a split in 97 for Nebraska and Michigan
That would have been a fun game to watch as a fan
Well, I've long argued that the problem is that some people want the "best" teams in the playoff, and others want the "most deserving" in the playoffs. The charter of the CFP committee is the four best teams in the land. Not the 4 most deserving. And if that's their charter, they should be seeding based on the best team instead.Bama in 2017 was "better" than #4 but they didn't "deserve" a better seed because they didn't win their conference. I think if the committee had simply seeded based on how good they thought the teams were rather than on what they deserved, Bama would have been higher and possibly #1.
Given "we" cannot devise a system that determines the "best team" with any credibility, maybe we should quit trying?Agreed. I see two options.
you mean, you THINK ESPN has influence and is against itWell, ESPN spends hours every week talking about who will get selected for the CFP, which will diminish if 5 of 8 spots are auto-bids (and even moreso if one of the remaining is an auto-bid for the top G5 team that won't generate ratings/clicks to argue which one it is).
Maybe, but I thought ESPN had the lesser bowls for the most part. I don't think ESPN has particular influence beyond its checkbook. If the 8 teamer generates more revenue for CFB, ESPN wouldn't be a factor, in my view.I think most of us assume that it wouldn't simply be the top-8. I for one think that it would be the P5 Champs, the highest ranked G5 Champion, and two at-large. I also have advocated for the top four Champs hosting the first round. In THAT set-up the games this year would be:
I think most folks want an 8 team playoff but we'd still have arguments about who should be #7 and #8 in most years.
This year, if we went by the CFP rankings, we'd have:
LSU - Wisconsin
OSU - Baylor
Clemson - Oregon
Oklahoma - somebody else
Nice games, I'd watch, I'd expect an upset in there somewhere.
Given that an 8 team playoff would generate more money, I'm still surprised it hasn't happened. I THINK the bowls have influence over what happens and are against it.An 8-team playoff would definitely generate more money than the 4-team playoff but I do think there is a strong possibility that the overall amount of money generated by the sport as a whole might decrease because all of those OOC games would become exhibitions and nothing more. As it stands now, Ohio State's game against Cincinnati was hugely important because a loss there *COULD* have kept Ohio State out of the CFP. As it turned out this year it wouldn't have, but it *COULD* have. Thus, the tOSU/Cincy game was hugely important to tOSU fans. If the B1G Champion got an auto-bid then an early season game between tOSU and Bama wouldn't really matter much other than for seeding so who cares?
An 8-team playoff would definitely generate more money than the 4-team playoff but I do think there is a strong possibility that the overall amount of money generated by the sport as a whole might decrease because all of those OOC games would become exhibitions and nothing more. As it stands now, Ohio State's game against Cincinnati was hugely important because a loss there *COULD* have kept Ohio State out of the CFP. As it turned out this year it wouldn't have, but it *COULD* have. Thus, the tOSU/Cincy game was hugely important to tOSU fans. If the B1G Champion got an auto-bid then an early season game between tOSU and Bama wouldn't really matter much other than for seeding so who cares?
Yeah, I think the university presidents and conference commissioners are starting to line up behind the P5 champs auto-bid, and 3 at-large or 2+1 depending on how they want to approach the G5.no way you have 8 teams w/o at least two of them being from the SEC
I'll also be shocked if they don't insert a "no single conference gets more than 2 teams in" clause.
An 8-team playoff would definitely generate more money than the 4-team playoff but I do think there is a strong possibility that the overall amount of money generated by the sport as a whole might decrease because all of those OOC games would become exhibitions and nothing more. As it stands now, Ohio State's game against Cincinnati was hugely important because a loss there *COULD* have kept Ohio State out of the CFP. As it turned out this year it wouldn't have, but it *COULD* have. Thus, the tOSU/Cincy game was hugely important to tOSU fans. If the B1G Champion got an auto-bid then an early season game between tOSU and Bama wouldn't really matter much other than for seeding so who cares?But there's a flip side.
"This year, Clemson's only decent OOC wins were a terrible Georgia Tech team and a mediocre Texas A&M team. Their conference was terrible. If they'd lost a conference game and missed their CCG, I'm not sure those OOC wins would have been enough to secure an at-large slot. "Ahh, you're right. I saw that GT was the first game of the season and forgot they were in the same conference. I clicked through to see that GT was 3-9 on the season.
I think you mean South Carolina, not Georgia Tech, same difference.
Imagine a top ten team schedules one year 4 P5 teams OOC and 8 conference games (or 3 and 9). Is that a disadvantage in an 8 team scenario? They COULD go 8-4 and win their conference (9-4) after losing all OOC games. This sort of thing does happen every so often, a conference champion is 9-4, or even 10-3. And they deserve to be in the playoff? In theory, they could lose 4 OOC and 2 in conference and finish only 7-6 as an extreme, that might happen once in 50 years.2018 Northwestern went to the CCG with an 8-4 (8-1, 0-3) record, including bad losses to Duke and Akron. Had they somehow beaten OSU in the CCG, they would have been crowned B1G champ with a 9-4 record. That's a team that didn't even schedule tough OOC.
I think Wake Forest won the ACC a few years back with a 9-4 kind of record.
It would never be cool to have mediocre participants in an event ostensibly organized to identify the college football national champion.But you are ok w/ the way the NCAA Basketball tournament is run?
But you are ok w/ the way the NCAA Basketball tournament is run?No. Your talking to the wrong guy. NCAA hoops is God awful because it's all about the tournament. As a cliffsnotes fan, I don't have any reason to care.
It would never be cool to have mediocre participants in an event ostensibly organized to identify the college football national champion.2014, Florida State was mediocre but at 13-0 couldn't be excluded due to resume. They had squeaked through wins all season, and could as easily have been 9-4 as 13-0.
2014, Florida State was mediocre but at 13-0 couldn't be excluded due to resume. They had squeaked through wins all season, and could as easily have been 9-4 as 13-0.See my above note. Why do we need playoffs or 8 teams?
2015, Michigan State had nowhere near the overall talent level of the other CFP participants. They managed to also squeak through the conference season with only one loss, beating OSU/M/Iowa by a combined 10 points, and with one-score games against Purdue and Rutgers, who were terrible.
Now that's not exactly the same as a 9-4 Northwestern, but it's not like they haven't put in teams that they "had to" because of resume that really had zero chance of winning it all.
Yeah, I don't see the CCG upsets as a deterrent at all. It's kind of like NCAAB where a team goes on a run and then makes the tourney. It would be cool to see Northwestern, Wake Forest or whoever in the playoff if they have a magical run. They're not likely to win again, but maybe 1 in 5 times they actually win the first round.Wisconsin instead of Ohio St, Baylor instead of Oklahoma, Virginia instead of Clemson, Georgia instead of LSU
No. Your talking to the wrong guy. NCAA hoops is God awful because it's all about the tournament. As a cliffsnotes fan, I don't have any reason to care.Well, the problem you run into with nearly any sport other than football is schedule.
See my above note. Why do we need playoffs or 8 teams?As I said a few pages ago...
I see two options.
- Go back to the old way, in which there is no clear champion, and it's all a beauty pageant.
- Go forward to establish clear objective criteria for a playoff (P5 conference champs), such that we don't have to make it a beauty pageant for anything more than 2-3 at-large bids. At that point the teams that are excluded from at-large berths have little to complain about, because they didn't even manage to win their own conference.
I'd be fine with #1, honestly. I don't think we can put that genie back in the bottle, though, so I continue to argue for #2.
no way you have 8 teams w/o at least two of them being from the SEC
Well first-off, I think college football players want to beat the other team no matter what. And the bigger and badder the opponent, the more they want to win. So I don't think there's much risk of those becoming exhibition games.On the first paragraph I meant from the perspective of the fans, not the players. As a fan, I see tOSU football games as basically "can't miss" events. I'm not that way with BB at all until the NCAA tournament. Everything prior to that is "just a game" and doesn't really alter the course of the season. Ie, Ohio State got upset in BB not long ago by Minnesota but it just doesn't matter because there are 31 games plus a league tournament then the NCAA so one loss doesn't change things much. However, when tOSU got upset by Purdue in football last year it was a REALLY big deal and completely altered the course of the season because that loss, alone, kept tOSU out of the CFP.
And second, I think the seeding will matter a GREAT deal because I think the first round is going to end up being played on the home team's campus. So seeding will be based on W/L as well as SOS, which will also encourage teams to schedule TOUGH OOC matchups rather than layups.
But you are ok w/ the way the NCAA Basketball tournament is run?It is just different in CBB. The regular season games don't matter in part because there are about 2.5x more of them. Everybody loves the tournament so we just focus on that. I want my team to win an NC. I want them to get a high seed for two reasons:
On the first paragraph I meant from the perspective of the fans, not the players. As a fan, I see tOSU football games as basically "can't miss" events. I'm not that way with BB at all until the NCAA tournament. Everything prior to that is "just a game" and doesn't really alter the course of the season. Ie, Ohio State got upset in BB not long ago by Minnesota but it just doesn't matter because there are 31 games plus a league tournament then the NCAA so one loss doesn't change things much. However, when tOSU got upset by Purdue in football last year it was a REALLY big deal and completely altered the course of the season because that loss, alone, kept tOSU out of the CFP.Agree 100% with everything you said on seeding.
I
Imagine a year where five teams went 12-1 and won their P5 conference. That fifth team goes on to demolish some highly regarded SEC team (Alabama) who was 11-1 and ranked 6th. Team 4 manages to slide by Team 1 in an ugly game and then beats the winner of 3-4 in a game marred with turnovers etc.Possible, but unlikely.
There is no final CFP committee poll, so we COULD in crazy years still have a split.
Agree 100% with everything you said on seeding.My hope is that giving the top-4 HFA combined with the seeding issues described above would maintain the importance of individual regular season games as much as possible.
But on your statement here, I mean, I get it, I certainly care less about regular season college basketball games than I do the postseason. But I also care less basketball in general,than I do football. And it seems like you do, too?
You state that tOSU football games are "can't miss" events for you, and although I didn't attend the 2005 UT-tOSU game in Columbus, from what my friends who did tell me, it's an enormous gameday even for folks that don't have a prayer of getting into the stadium. Do you really think that would change all that much simply knowing that a loss doesn't kill your season? I mean, to be honest, it's ALREADY that way for tOSU and Alabama and Oklahoma. All three of those teams have been admitted to the CFP having already lost a regular season game. And that's WITHOUT an auto-bid for P5 champs. I don't think it would change the scenario much at all, to be honest.
Contrast that with my perspective, where Texas has not once-- EVER-- been allowed to play for the national championship without having a perfect undefeated season. I sure would have loved to receive a tOSU/OU/Alabama -style mulligan in that 2008 season when I think Texas was the best team in the country but got caught out by the B12 tiebreaker rules.
And also, as you point out a couple posts later, there are just SO MANY MORE basketball games, that comparing the relative meaning of one game in a season isn't really appropriate. I just don't think it'll EVER feel like basketball and I don't think the "safety net" of an auto-bid is enough to make ANY fanbase feel relaxed about losing a regular season game.
Imagine a year where five teams went 12-1 and won their P5 conference. That fifth team goes on to demolish some highly regarded SEC team (Alabama) who was 11-1 and ranked 6th. Team 4 manages to slide by Team 1 in an ugly game and then beats the winner of 3-4 in a game marred with turnovers etc.
There is no final CFP committee poll, so we COULD in crazy years still have a split.
As far as I know the AP poll is still free to vote for whomever they like as the #1 team. And I don't consider it any more or less valid than it ever was, nor do I consider the CFP's trophy any more valid than the AP's trophy,I think it is REALLY unlikely mostly for this reason:
So yeah, we could still get a split. It'd be fun to see it happen.
Possible, but unlikely.The CFP winner, by definition will have just picked up two HUMONGOUS wins. Even if they were both close, they are still HUMONGOUS wins and there are two of them. The absolute best #5 could hope for is one pretty big win and that just isn't going to overcome what the CFP winner is guaranteed to have.
If nothing else, team 4 just got two marquee wins, even if they barely slid by, while team 5 got one semi-marquee win, even if they won in a landslide.
The voter would use hindsight and suddenly team 6 wasn't all that good to begin with, or perhaps team 6 was just "disinterested" because they didn't make the playoff, or whatever other narrative that they'd have to employ to justify voting for team 4.
I could see team 5 getting some first place votes, but I think groupthink would prevail to where they didn't get enough to finish in the top spot.
I hear ya medina.I really think that is just dumb luck. Remember that for most of that ~80 years we had a bowl system where Texas just played whoever ended up on the other side of the field in the Cotton Bowl. It wasn't very likely to be #1 or #2 because most years those teams were going to be locked into the Orange, Sugar, or Rose Bowls.
But like I said, not once in the 80 years or so of wire service poll rankings, has Texas ever-- EVER-- been afforded the opportunity to play for the MNC or NC, without a perfect season. Not once. Ever.
So although Texas is a blueblood, my persective is still quite different than yours.
I really think that is just dumb luck. Remember that for most of that ~80 years we had a bowl system where Texas just played whoever ended up on the other side of the field in the Cotton Bowl. It wasn't very likely to be #1 or #2 because most years those teams were going to be locked into the Orange, Sugar, or Rose Bowls.another reason the Big 12 was formed
I still also think we argue some of these things based on our own biases.We do. I try to take that into account because I know I'm looking at it through the lens of a fan/alum of a school that is one of the biggest helmets there is.
Purdue will NEVER make the current CFP without a 13-0 season, and it's a pipe dream to think that we'll ever have the talent to notch a 13-0 season. As a 12-1 conference champ, we'll be considered behind every other 12-1 conference champ and probably behind a few 11-1 teams that didn't make their CCG. Even that is a bit of a pipe dream, as Purdue hasn't ever had a 10-win season in our history, even counting a bowl game. So the idea we even get to 11-1 and make the conference championship is fantasy. We're the low man on the totem pole, and I accept that.I fundamentally disagree with the statement that Purdue (or any other non-helmet) "will NEVER make the current CFP without a 13-0 season." In the old days Purdue's big problem was that they were usually going to start out ranked behind the helmets of the world. That didn't matter much with regard to Ohio State and Michigan because Purdue will get a shot at them but it was a major problem with regard to Bama and Texas because Purdue wasn't going to get a shot at them and in the old days almost nobody dropped unless they lost. Thus, Purdue needed all of the teams that started ahead of them to lose. In the BCS era PU only needed all but one of the teams that started ahead of them to lose. Now Purdue just needs to end up in the top-4. Even if nobody above them dropped without losing, that is a LOT more likely. In the CFP era there haven't been that many 12-1 P5 Champions left out.
We've only had a BCS/CFP for 22 years now (1998-2019). In that time Texas has played for the NC twice as an undefeated team (2005, 2009). Once every 11 years is something that @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) could only dream of so it isn't that bad. The other 20 seasons, at the end of the regular season Texas was:LOL...
I really think that is just dumb luck. Remember that for most of that ~80 years we had a bowl system where Texas just played whoever ended up on the other side of the field in the Cotton Bowl. It wasn't very likely to be #1 or #2 because most years those teams were going to be locked into the Orange, Sugar, or Rose Bowls.
We've only had a BCS/CFP for 22 years now (1998-2019). In that time Texas has played for the NC twice as an undefeated team (2005, 2009). Once every 11 years is something that @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) could only dream of so it isn't that bad. The other 20 seasons, at the end of the regular season Texas was:I think it is fair to throw out all the seasons in which Texas had two or more losses because in the 22 years of the BCS and CFP only LSU in 2007 has managed to get in with two losses and no team with more than that. That leaves us with:
- 7-5 in 2019
- 9-4 in 2018
- 6-6 in 2017
- 5-7 in 2016
- 5-7 in 2015
- 6-6 in 2014
- 8-4 in 2013
- 8-4 in 2012
- 7-5 in 2011
- 5-7 in 2010
- 11-1 in 2008
- 9-3 in 2007
- 9-3 in 2006
- 10-1 in 2004
- 10-2 in 2003
- 10-2 in 2002
- 10-2 in 2001
- 9-2 in 2000
- 9-4 in 1999
- 8-3 in 1998
- 11-1 in 2008: I definitely think, as I said above, that this was just dumb luck. Most years in that era of the B12 11-1 with a win over OU and a loss to any other team that would have EASILY been enough for a B12CG appearance. It was just bad luck that it happened in a year when TTech was good enough for that to be an issue.
- 10-1 in 2004: The problem here is that the ONE team that Texas lost to finished 12-0 which makes it REALLY hard to argue that Texas should have been in ahead of them.
I fundamentally disagree with the statement that Purdue (or any other non-helmet) "will NEVER make the current CFP without a 13-0 season." In the old days Purdue's big problem was that they were usually going to start out ranked behind the helmets of the world. That didn't matter much with regard to Ohio State and Michigan because Purdue will get a shot at them but it was a major problem with regard to Bama and Texas because Purdue wasn't going to get a shot at them and in the old days almost nobody dropped unless they lost. Thus, Purdue needed all of the teams that started ahead of them to lose. In the BCS era PU only needed all but one of the teams that started ahead of them to lose. Now Purdue just needs to end up in the top-4. Even if nobody above them dropped without losing, that is a LOT more likely. In the CFP era there haven't been that many 12-1 P5 Champions left out.If the committee is trying to find the four best teams, I think 11-2 Georgia and 11-2 Oregon would be selected over 12-1 Purdue. We didn't play a ranked team OOC, our crossovers were PSU, Maryland, and Indiana, and some of the teams we would have beaten such as Minnesota might not have been ranked with an additional loss to Purdue. And then you have to look at our loss. If it's PSU or Wisconsin, there's a knock that we can't beat the top teams. If it's anyone else, there's the knock that it's a bad loss.
Look at this year. If Purdue had finished 12-1 with a B1G Championship they would have been in no questions asked. Granted, they probably would have been #4, but they would have been in along with LSU, Clemson, and OU.
Now the issue of whether PU CAN go 12-1 is a whole other question and not really the CFP's issue.
So, twice in 20 years a worthy Texas team-- certainly at least as worthy as several of the 1-loss tOSU and Alabama teams that have gotten to play for and actually WIN the NC in the past decade-- has been "just bad lucked" out of that chance.Disagree. The 2008 season, Texas didn't get the opportunity to represent their division in the CCG due to tiebreakers defined by your own conference. Are you saying Texas at 11-1 should have been selected over 12-1 Oklahoma, that despite losing H2H to Texas won the conference? Maybe you can argue that your division tiebreakers were bad, and that Texas should have had the opportunity to play in the CCG, but it was dumb luck that they didn't. And I don't think you can easily argue that 11-1 Texas that didn't win their conference should have been selected over 12-1 Florida who won the SEC, right?
You seem to believe you're refuting my point, but you've actually made my point for me. Thanks!
Also, I'm not willing to throw out the previous 7 decades of college football, because that's still plenty of "just bad luck" that happened to Texas. The Cotton Bowl only had one tie-in, unlike the Rose that was forced to take the reps from both B1G and PAC and there were plenty of times that game didn't involve MNC aspirations, especially because of the B1G's challenging tie-break rules for many of those decades.
So, anyway, thanks for proving my point. Deserving Texas teams were left out twice in just the past 20 years, while Alabama has received the benefit of a multltude of mulligans in order to secure their current unprecedented trend.
If Ohio State had lost to IU (an oddly close one-score win that year) instead of MSU, the Buckeyes would have gone to the B1GCG and likely the CFP.No. Losing to IU should disqualify anyone from the CFP.
2008 wasn't bad luck for TexasBy their own conference's tiebreakers, as I remember it. Wasn't the final tiebreaker BCS standings, and Texas was behind Oklahoma?
Texas got screwed
2008 wasn't bad luck for TexasWe got screwed by our own conference's stupid tie-breaker rules. So that's bad luck.
Texas got screwed
Disagree. The 2008 season, Texas didn't get the opportunity to represent their division in the CCG due to tiebreakers defined by your own conference. Are you saying Texas at 11-1 should have been selected over 12-1 Oklahoma, that despite losing H2H to Texas won the conference? Maybe you can argue that your division tiebreakers were bad, and that Texas should have had the opportunity to play in the CCG, but it was dumb luck that they didn't. And I don't think you can easily argue that 11-1 Texas that didn't win their conference should have been selected over 12-1 Florida who won the SEC, right?Well, yes. I'm comparing Texas teams that were left out by their current system at the time, to tOSU and Alabama teams that get mulligans based on more recent systems. It's not going to be apples/apples.
Then in 2004, again your own conference mate was 12-0 and beat you. USC was 12-0. It wasn't a matter of a mulligan. It was a matter of there being two undefeated teams ahead of you.
In my 8-team system, it's likely that both of those Texas teams would get an opportunity as at-large. But in neither of those seasons did Texas have a very strong argument for inclusion despite that they'd potentially be deserving with that resume in other seasons.
The worst part is the dumbasses that said, "well, you should have just won all your games." Well, Oklahoma didn't win all of its games. Florida didn't win all of its games. So that's just a completely stupid thing to say, stated by very stupid people.Exactly. In 2004, that might be a valid complaint. In 2004, Oklahoma won all their games, as did USC, and those two played for the national championship.
Well, yes. I'm comparing Texas teams that were left out by their current system at the time, to tOSU and Alabama teams that get mulligans based on more recent systems. It's not going to be apples/apples.Fair 'nuff. If you want to make the rules by which you'll argue to maximize the butthurt, I'm not getting in your way... :57:
So no, I disagree with you, and I'll keep to my lane. Feel free to swim in yours. :)
By their own conference's tiebreakers, as I remember it. Wasn't the final tiebreaker BCS standings, and Texas was behind Oklahoma?Just because it's a conference rule doesn't mean it's not a bad luck, especially if it's stupid and completely correctable rule.
Fair 'nuff. If you want to make the rules by which you'll argue to maximize the butthurt, I'm not getting in your way... :57:Eh, you're the one adhering to medina's "past twenty years" construct. I don't agree, and I won't abide. :)
BTW I'll be swimming in your lane (Austin) next month. Who knows? Maybe I'll move there.
That was a deserving Texas team that got bad-lucked out of a shot, which was my point, and in light of the half-dozen mulligans Alabama has gotten in the past decade, I'm gonna go ahead and continue thinking it's a hard luck deal.But the point is that Texas' problem was due to your own conference. The BCS didn't demand how each individual conference determined its CCG participants. The B12 decided that. They just decided it badly.
But the point is that Texas' problem was due to your own conference. The BCS didn't demand how each individual conference determined its CCG participants. The B12 decided that. They just decided it badly.I'm not talking about the BCS--specifically-- at all. I'm talking about circumstances.
So your ire isn't based on your team having a mulligan or not. It's not based on the BCS system at all. It's based on your own conference's tiebreaker rules.
Maybe those rules were good, maybe they were bad. But they weren't BCS rules.
I'm not talking about the BCS--specifically-- at all. I'm talking about circumstances.Well... It could be worse...
You're not following me, that's fine. Doesn't change what happened or my feelings about it.
Feel free to continue kicking the shit out of this horse carcass though! :)
Well... It could be worse...It could certainly be worse! :)
You could be consigned to the 7th circle of hell... I.e. being a Purdue fan.
It's funny, and it makes me laugh. Not in a cynical way, but in a truly mirthful fashion.You just described our political situation perfectly, without trying to. And no, I'm not dumping on Trump - everyone running for president every election cycle is rich as hell. You have to be, because that's how things are set up.
Because even as a fan of a blueblood, I can't come anywhere close to viewing things the way a current tOSU or Alabama fan can.
And they just have NO idea what it looks like for the rest of the college football world. I mean, not in touch with the reality for the other 128 teams, at all. It must be nice. And I mean that, sincerely.
For sure, but that's why the other 4 power5 conferences would implement the "no 3rd team rule." Because otherwise, we all know that Disney's selection committee simply couldn't help themselves and this year we'd be seeing LSU, Georgia, and Alabama, all in the 8-team CFP.You can't just do that.
You can't just do that.Except you actually can. You absolutely can. And you should.
You could IF the conferences were smaller. You could IF everyone played everyone else within a conference. But I can have 11-1 Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Florida in a given season, only 2 of which are going to the SECCG and all of which may be an (obvious) top 8 team.
.
You can't just draw a line to draw a line when the overall design is so scrambled.
Here, maybe just try to refute what I said.
Making up a rule like a 2-team limit in an 8-team playoff penalizes a conference for possessing depth. That is a logical statement. It's not the opinion of an arrogant person.
The rule you propose is conjured from nothing. It's random. Arbitrary. My comment about it was me hoping you'd defend it. But you didn't. Will you now? Please?
.
And try to avoid the argumentum ad populem, if you would.
.
So the arbitrary rule that no conference can have 3+ teams in the playoff would have hurt the Big Ten twice and the SEC once (in the playoff era). So instead of that 3rd (or 4th) team that earned their spot on the field, a lesser team from further down the rankings should get in. Right?!?
A three team rule seems directly targeted at the SEC, but might not work that way in reality, if it happened. I lean to thinking it wouldn't happen. My GUESS is they'd include the best G5 team in the playoff as a semi-pastry for the one seed. That would leave only two slots for at larges, and it would be very rare indeed that both would be from the same conference, rare enough not to worry about it.This is a reasonable counter, good point. If the 8-team playoff is constructed to automatically include a G5 team, then I could see the architects not instituting the 2-teams-only rule. But if it's an open 3 at-large, then I think the rule is still instituted.
Would that have occurred any time in the past 20 years, possibly? When UGA and Bama both made the top four, Auburn might have slid in to 8. Maybe. They had three losses, probably not. I think you'd need two 12-0 teams in the CG and one very good looking 11-1 team AL when nobody else was that good.
Every step closer to the entertainment end and away from the competition end of the sport is a step closer towards irrelevance. Ask college basketball.CBB has a 64 team tournament that seems fairly relevant
There are some really good bowl matchups this year, and all the talking heads can mention is the 4 teams in the playoff.The playoff ties up all the loose strings - there are no more 'maybes' in 2019.
I absolutely HATE this.
The playoff ties up all the loose strings - there are no more 'maybes' in 2019.How can you state this? I hope you had your fingers crossed behind your back, because a playoff solves nothing as to which team is best.
the better team doesn't always winBut then all of those people worshipping H2H wins have no alter to kneel at....
How can you state this? I hope you had your fingers crossed behind your back, because a playoff solves nothing as to which team is best.Uhh, I was agreeing with you that the non-playoff bowls have become chopped liver.
If OU wins it all, you could make the argument that Baylor should have been in too.
If Clemson wins it all, you could make the argument that they only had to get up for two big games all season. Hell, did their starters even play in the 2nd half, sans UNC??
Uhh, I was agreeing with you that the non-playoff bowls have become chopped liver.You need to turn on your sarcasm beam. Or, my meter is on the fritz.
Back in the day, the national champ could emerge from any of 3 different bowls - it was exciting - all the maybes.
The playoff takes that away. We know the winner of the game in New Orleans will be the champ. Ho-hum.
There are some really good bowl matchups this year, and all the talking heads can mention is the 4 teams in the playoff.The secret, don’t care what the talking heads say.
I absolutely HATE this.
An 8-team playoff would definitely generate more money than the 4-team playoff but I do think there is a strong possibility that the overall amount of money generated by the sport as a whole might decrease because all of those OOC games would become exhibitions and nothing more. As it stands now, Ohio State's game against Cincinnati was hugely important because a loss there *COULD* have kept Ohio State out of the CFP. As it turned out this year it wouldn't have, but it *COULD* have. Thus, the tOSU/Cincy game was hugely important to tOSU fans. If the B1G Champion got an auto-bid then an early season game between tOSU and Bama wouldn't really matter much other than for seeding so who cares?Thank you for the voice of sanity, Medina.
Well first-off, I think college football players want to beat the other team no matter what. And the bigger and badder the opponent, the more they want to win. So I don't think there's much risk of those becoming exhibition games.Are you not the same utee94 who has posted comments for over a decade and a half saying that most bowl games are just meaningless exhibitions? ~???
And second, I think the seeding will matter a GREAT deal because I think the first round is going to end up being played on the home team's campus. So seeding will be based on W/L as well as SOS, which will also encourage teams to schedule TOUGH OOC matchups rather than layups.
. . . NCAA hoops is God awful because it's all about the tournament. As a cliffsnotes fan, I don't have any reason to care.Preach it, brother!
Separately I'd rather see no divisions and the AL and NL winner in WS in baseball wo postseason series. I'd only allow 2 teams per conference in nfl playoffs. I hate playoffs. I'd rather go to old polls. All sports run too long and have too many series. Why are we playing all these games in a regular season?
Just because it's a conference rule doesn't mean it's not a bad luck, especially if it's stupid and completely correctable rule.It was an arbitrary rule that happened to work against Texas. It could have worked against another team, but there was no repeat of that situation. The also-arbitrary rule that the Big 12 adopted the next year could have just as easily worked against Texas at some future point.
The absolute tiebreaker was BCS ranking, yes. But at the time, the SEC and ACC both used a rule where BCS ranking was used to eliminate the bottom team of a 3-way tie, and after that it reverted to head-to-head.
The weird thing was, Texas was the only team of the three tied teams, that hadn't played either opponent as a home game. Texas beat OU by 2 scores on a neutral field and lost an away game to Tech by one score, and OU lost to Texas on the neutral site by 2 scores but blew out Tech at home, and Tech of course beat Texas at home by one score but lost by numerous scores to OU in Norman. So Texas had no home games, and both Tech and OU had one home game.
The voters and BCS ranking had Tech well below Texas and OU, so if you eliminated them, and reverted to head-to-head, then Texas' 2-score win over OU would have carried the day. Alas, the B12 had stupid rules.
That was a deserving Texas team that got bad-lucked out of a shot, which was my point, and in light of the half-dozen mulligans Alabama has gotten in the past decade, I'm gonna go ahead and continue thinking it's a hard luck deal.
I guess ND's bowl placement is result of their relationship with the ACC? Sure seems like they could have found a better matchup though.Heh! As we've debated before, Texas could have been the better matchup.
SEC: Alabama: 5, Georgia: 1, LSU: 1, Total: 7
ACC: Clemson: 5, Florida State: 1, Total: 6
Big Ten: Ohio State: 3, Michigan State: 1, Total: 4
Big XII: Oklahoma: 4, Total: 4
Pac 12: Oregon: 1, Washington: 1, Total: 2
Independent: Notre Dame: 1, Total: 1
Who might be the next team most likely to make an appearance?Honestly probably Texas.
Auburn, nobody, Michigan?, Texas?, USC? by conference. The Pac has been left out 4 of 6 times, is that a trend that will continue? Penn State has a shot, they get OSU at home next year. I cannot see another ACC team making it in the next 5 years.
Heh! As we've debated before, Texas could have been the better matchup.7-5 Texas a better matchup than 7-5 Iowa State?
Yes, I know the point that Texas fans would rather travel to San Antonio to see UT play UU than travel to Orlando (or wherever) and see UT play ND.
Still would have been a better matchup.
I don't even mind Eastern Michigan these days. Got over that a long time ago.What's with EM?
I get carded here in stores, I know to get out my license now and show it every time. I really do not look younger than 21 at all.think it's protocol,about once a month same-same,and I look like Al Bundy does now
I'm currently watching a couple Western directional programsI know W.Kentucky beat W.Mich. 23-20
Which is the most disliked program today among fans? A quick answer would be Michigan, because Ohio State has so many alumni.
But, discounting rivals, would it still be Miami? ND? Eastern Michigan?
USC and Texas are both "interesting", Blue Bloods going through a down phase. Obviously, a great coach can fix that in 3-4 years. Recruiting might be the factor that indicates who might get back first. That would favor Texas. They were #3 in 2019, USC was #20, but the year before the teams were #3 and #4, so USC has some players.I think USC is most likely simply because they have the easiest path. Any SEC team has to get past Bama. Any ACC team has to get past Clemson. Any B1G team has to get past tOSU. Any B12 team has to get past OU. USC has to get past . . .
Texas is WAY ahead thus far in 2020. The Big Ten might have the highest chance of someone else getting in. I agree that "the field" is most likely, Utah could have made it this year somewhat out of the blue.
Oregon? Notre Dame?Are you submitting Oregon and ND for most hated? They've already made the playoff.
Really no excuse for USC to not win the PAC South every year. Even as down as they are, they can still "out athlete" the Hell out of Utah and the the other MTZ teams. UCLA should be the lone obstacle between them and their CCG.
Honestly probably Texas.I think "not Texas." For one thing, Texas would have to get past OU (as Medina pointed out upthread). And whatever anyone thinks about the strength of the Big 12 and about OU's 0-4 record in the CFP, OU has owned the Big 12 since 2000. During that period, OU has won 12 Big 12 championships and Texas has won 2. The two Texas teams that won the Big 12 during that period were great ones. The 2005 team went 13-0 and won the NC. The 2009 team went 13-1, losing only to Bama in the NCG after Chase McCoy was knocked out of the game.
That’s based on the fact OSU and Clemson’s grips on their league’s are pretty tight. Maybe Auburn breaks through, but getting past Bama and LSU remains mighty tough. USC is, I think, still more wobbly than Texas despite the 7-5 record.
i think some new team will be ahead of Texas in making it, but that’s more about taking the field than anything else.
Are you submitting Oregon and ND for most hated? They've already made the playoff.
USC should. But it hasn't. Well, it won one.
I think USC is most likely simply because they have the easiest path. Any SEC team has to get past Bama. Any ACC team has to get past Clemson. Any B1G team has to get past tOSU. Any B12 team has to get past OU. USC has to get past . . .
I think "not Texas." For one thing, Texas would have to get past OU (as Medina pointed out upthread). And whatever anyone thinks about the strength of the Big 12 and about OU's 0-4 record in the CFP, OU has owned the Big 12 since 2000. During that period, OU has won 12 Big 12 championships and Texas has won 2. The two Texas teams that won the Big 12 during that period were great ones. The 2005 team went 13-0 and won the NC. The 2009 team went 13-1, losing only to Bama in the NCG after Chase McCoy was knocked out of the game.So we're mostly in agreement. If it's Texas vs. the field, we take Texas.
But since then, Texas has been downright mediocre for a blueblood. 5-7, 8-5, 9-4, 8-5, 6-7, 5-7, 5-7, 7-6, 10-4 ("We're BACK!"), 8-5. That's a decade of football with one good season in there.
Texas' most obvious problem (IMO, anyway) has been the lack of elite QB play. They have whiffed on Texas HS QBs who have gone and excelled at other schools both in-state and out. Sam Ehlinger is one tough football player who seems to the heart and soul of the Texas offense, but he is a limited QB (as is OU's Jalen Hurts, which is why I was surprised to see all the thoughts that OU could maybe stay with LSU in a shootout expressed here).
Until Texas recruits/develops a QB who can play at an elite level, which hasn't happened since Chase McCoy left the 40 Acres, they will not come out of the Big 12 season with one loss or undefeated, and thus will not make it to the CFP.
I also agree with Medina that the breakthrough team will probably come out of the Pac-12.
So we're mostly in agreement. If it's Texas vs. the field, we take Texas.No, we're mostly not in agreement. ;)
But if held to the fire and asked to name a single team with a better chance, it likely comes down to USC or them. USC's coaching situation makes me doubtful, though when they can Helton after next year, they might still have the talent for a Year 2 run with the new guy.
No, we're mostly not in agreement. ;)Dang it. Yes. Field over Texas.
First, if it's Texas vs. the field, we take the field. Did you mean to say that, instead of vice-versa? If so, we are in agreement there.
Second, if it's Texas vs. "a team from the Pac-12," we take the unknown team from the Pac-12. There's no dominant program in the Pac-12 right now, so one of several teams could rise up and have an undefeated or one-loss championship season.
Third, if it's Texas vs. "a team from the Big 12 not named Oklahoma," I might take the unknown team from the Big 12, and I might give it a name, like Baylor. But that would depend on whether Matt Rhule leaves for the NFL or not and whether Tom Herman's coaching changes are successful or not.
Fourth, if it's Texas vs. USC, that's a tough one for me to figure. USC appears to be just better than dumpster-fire status. If they can get it together, they can be THAT team. Texas, OTOH, has had a disappointing season that culminated in a sacking of some assistants followed by an impressive bowl win. Sacking assistants could be a case of making necessary changes, or it could be a case of the HFC buying himself one more year before he's following them out the door. I think it's probably the former, but what do I know? I thought that Charlie Strong would do great things in Austin.
There's another factor that may be just too mysterious for us simple Okies to understand, and that is that despite Texas being the huge flagship university in what is on its way to becoming the most populous state, despite having a wealth of resources from vast amounts of public and private money to a gigantic state chock-full of talented football players who mostly grew up dreaming of wearing a cow-pattie orange and white uniform with a cowhead logo on the helmet, there seem to be some hidden factors at work that make it hard to achieve sustained success in Austin.
In the past 60 years, Texas has had two great coaches, Darrell Royal (an Okie and a Sooner) and Mack Brown, both future CFB HoF members. Between those two, they have accounted for all four of Texas' national championships. And both of those men left under less-than-happy clouds. Fred Akers succeeded Royal and left under a hail of criticism to take the Purdue job, despite notching a .731 win percentage. David McWilliams threw up a .544 win percentage and resigned under fire. John Mackovic followed with a .592 win percentage that included the infamous "Rout 66" to UCLA in Austin. He was fired. Then came Mack Brown, who won at a .769 clip, but didn't beat Oklahoma often enough, so he was effectively forced out. Then came Charlie Strong, who had a losing (.433) record over 3 years, and he was fired.
What these factors are, I don't know. I've seen "Austin Malaise" blamed, and I've seen overly energetic attempts on the part of boosters blamed. I'm sure there are other explanations as well.
Barry Switzer has long said that Texas is the best coaching job in America. But I don't believe him, and I don't think he believes that himself. If it were true, Texas would be Bama and Clemson all rolled up in one mighty Death Star. But it's not. So, IMO, he says that either to explain his difficulties in the Red River Shootout (he went 9-5-2 against the Horns but took criticism for every loss) or just to needle whoever is the current Texas coach.
I was thinking to Wisconsin in the CCG.I don't think Wisconsin is ever going to get over the hump. It's Wisconsin. No payroll, no influence with the NCAA, no helmet, and very tough admissions.
I don't think Wisconsin is ever going to get over the hump. It's Wisconsin. No payroll, no influence with the NCAA, no helmet, and very tough admissions.Kinda why I fell like Wisconsin is the best 'Baron' level team in America. But can't get over that hump.
Not happening.
Kinda why I fell like Wisconsin is the best 'Baron' level team in America. But can't get over that hump.I think it’s like this: UW can’t be like OSU, perpetually with teams in the mix. UW can have one team every so often that gets right there with the right breaks, but it also needs OSU to dip a bit.
Lulz the Sooner says "Not Texas." Shocking. Film at 11.I'm always open to the prospect of being proven wrong by new evidence. ;)
I'm always open to the prospect of being proven wrong by new evidence. ;)For sure, stuck in the past is where you are at your best!
We tend to look to the Blue Bloods who haven't been as next likely candidate for obvious reasons. If/when Clemson declines, someone in the ACC might take up enough slack to get in the playoff. I have no clue who, Louisville? Good coach I think.Virginia or FSU. Look where the talent lies.
That's why it's them - all they need is a good coach. The inherent talent that would just happen would be enough.Can most of the kids from that area qualify academically at UVA? I've never been under the impression that the public schools there were any good.
.
The Norfolk/Newport News/VA Beach area is uber talent-rich. If Virginia could ever just break through, they'd peak for a good while similarly.
Virginia or FSU. Look where the talent lies.I think the original question was what teams that have not been to the CFP are most likely to get there. FSU went in 2014 so they don't qualify.
To review, the question is which team is most like to make the CFP (not win it) who has not been in it before (FSU is out).Personally, I think Utah is just part of the field because they or basically any other PAC team could randomly ruse up and have a great year and there isn't an obvious obstacle (like tOSU/Clemson/Bama/OU in the B1G/ACC/SEC/B12).
The contenders thus far are:
Field (not Justin, and a favorite thus far)
Texas
USC
Penn State
Florida
Eastern Michigan (well no)
Michigan has not been mentioned I think, we've talked about Wisconsin separately, so they should be somewhere on the list. Texas A&M? Auburn? They almost made it.
Utah should be somewhere I think.
I think Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa could "break through" at some point (Columbus hit by meteor etc.).How in H-E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS, can Iowa break through at any point? Not in 2020.
Michigan State already did of course, so the field is open. Penn State gets OSU at home next year.
at any point??You think Kirk is holding Iowa back?
certainly when/if Kirk retires
Yeah, I was thinking about Florida as a good candidate. They are connected to LSU every year which doesn't help.We don't have to play them, they have to play us! :96:
We don't have to play them, they have to play us! :96:Yup, it's not really fair that LSU has to play Florida, whilst Alabama skates by with Tennessee.
Kirk was a goal line stand away from the final four just a few years ago.Probably the best atmosphere for any of the BiG CCGs thus far. Intense game.
as far as breaking through to the top 4 or top 2, yesI don’t think you would find a lot of people who think Iowa is just a coaching change away from making the playoffs.
Kirk is best at what he does, consistently winning 8-10 games per year
I don't think Kirk is chasing the recruiting star rankings that it takes to compete in the top 4
He's also not bringing fresh offensive and defensive coaches and overhauling the schemes to try to get to that level
plenty of Great hall of fame coaches don't win a national title - Kirk is a great hall of fame coach, but he doesn't think he can be Ohio St. in Iowa City.
It would be interesting to see what Kirk could do in Columbus, or Tuscaloosa, or Baton Rouge, or Austin, or Norman
This is weird to say, but one could easily argue the two best QBs at their best Urbs ever had combined to throw 51 passes for his teams in four seasons.Not sure I follow.
The best he ever had who started would be ... (In order)
Tebow
Haskins
Alex Smith
Barrett or Miller
Leak
Josh Harris
Probably the best atmosphere for any of the BiG CCGs thus far. Intense game.I find that a lot of games with Iowa are intense. Those boys come to play and they like to hit. Hard.
Joe Burrow and Cam Newton were backups for Urban teams earlier in their careers.Ok. I gotcha now.
Yup, it's not really fair that LSU has to play Florida, whilst Alabama skates by with Tennessee.16-7
I understand the historical reasons for this particular setup of the annual x-div rivalries, and I support it because longstanding rivalries in college football are very important in my opinion. If Tennessee were worth a darn, it would all come out in the wash.
But right now, I'm sure you'll agree, that Tennessee is not anywhere near Florida in terms of competitiveness. ;)
I don’t think you would find a lot of people who think Iowa is just a coaching change away from making the playoffs.I'm simply saying that Kirk is a longshot to get it done. It will tke the right coach after Kirk.
I'm simply saying that Kirk is a longshot to get it done. It will tke the right coach after Kirk.Ehhh, Clemson had certain pieces and geography that made its rise considerably more likely. I don't think Iowa will spend off book as much as they do.
I'm not saying it will be easy to find that guy
Clemson was a heckuva longshot until Dabo showed up
as far as breaking through to the top 4 or top 2, yesIf OU hadn't hired Bob Stoops, we would have gotten to see how he could have done in Norman.
Kirk is best at what he does, consistently winning 8-10 games per year
I don't think Kirk is chasing the recruiting star rankings that it takes to compete in the top 4
He's also not bringing fresh offensive and defensive coaches and overhauling the schemes to try to get to that level
plenty of Great hall of fame coaches don't win a national title - Kirk is a great hall of fame coach, but he doesn't think he can be Ohio St. in Iowa City.
It would be interesting to see what Kirk could do in Columbus, or Tuscaloosa, or Baton Rouge, or Austin, or Norman
Ehhh, Clemson had certain pieces and geography that made its rise considerably more likely. I don't think Iowa will spend off book as much as they do.I don't think people realize what a role geography plays. Many know, but want to ignore it. There's a reason 6 of the top 13 teams the past 40 years are in the same swath of land roughly the size of Missouri. If you draw a triangle from Clemson to Tuscaloosa to Gainesville and back up to Clemson, you've got Clemson, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, and Florida. Aside from the urban areas of SoCal and Miami-Dade/Broward County, it's THE talent pool.
Michigan is no longer a threat. Wisconsin is the better program right now, and has been for some time.I disagree that Michigan is no longer a threat. They have enough talent to be a threat, but unfortunately they have a big buzzsaw in late November that's hard to get around.
Can Michigan beat Wisconsin? Of course, but not in Madison. OSU and PSU can, and have. In the 9 games since UM last won a conference title, they are 4-5 against UW - 4-1 in Ann Arbor (mostly close games) and 0-4 in Madison (mostly blowouts).
Wisconsin has won 3 conference titles since Michigan last has, and has played for 4 more in Indy. Michigan has never been to Indy - even when they were in an opposite division from OSU.
This is why USC should be in the CFP every year. Their state is "only" #2, but they do not have anywhere near the competition for local recruits that the Florida schools do. Look at the top states:(https://i.insider.com/57ed4a31b0ef97b3088b8f69?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Miami, Texas, and Cali are outside the triangle?Do you need a map?
Interesting that you categorized A&M as an “ almost helmet”. For sure we haven’t been in the top 10 much in the last 20 years but have probably been in the top 25 mostly. What is the cutoff point for being considered a helmet? Revenue? Stadium size? Fan base? Geography? Wins? Heisman? MNC?I'm late responding to this, but OAM and CWS pretty much covered what I want to say in response.
By your criteria was Clemson a helmet ~10 years ago?
The intersection of teams in the top 10 in all-time wins, and in the top 10 in all time win%, are what I consider the helmets.It is the same ten teams either way:
It is the same ten teams either way:
(https://i.imgur.com/zoiOXnP.png)
That adds Nebraska and Tennessee to the eight that I listed to get ten helmets. Here are the other 20 teams that are in the top-25 in either wins or winning percentage or both:
(https://i.imgur.com/KVzv4cv.png)
These are the helmets most likely to repeat what happened to Minnesota back from the 60s. The Gophers were a 2-loss NC in '60, good in'61 and '62, then dropped off. They replaced that NC coach with someone else, and never mattered again (until this year, actually).I used to think that Minnesota's drop-off started either after their last NC in 1960 or their last conference title in 1967 but it didn't. It started long before that. The 1960 season was basically a fluke. They won the NC only because the vote was pre-bowl. Beyond that, they had some help to win the B1G. Minnesota went 6-1 while Iowa went 5-1 in conference, here are the teams that each of them missed, Iowa:
Nebraska - 2 coaches won big there, none since Osborne. Last top 5 finish: 1999This is a big deal to me and it is one of the things that makes me hesitate to even think about including Clemson among the helmets. When you look at the true "helmet" programs they all have a number of coaches that have achieved a high degree of success. These two and Clemson have basically two each. Can they succeed without those guys? It is an open question.
Tennessee - 2 coaches won big there, none since Fulmer. Last top 5 finish: 2001
Neither has mattered since. Neither can fall back on in-state recruiting. That's a big problem.I also think that this matters a LOT. When you look at the "helmet" programs and compare to the list posted earlier of states with the most players on NFL rosters, nearly all of them are located in or near one of the top states:
This is a big deal to me and it is one of the things that makes me hesitate to even think about including Clemson among the helmets. When you look at the true "helmet" programs they all have a number of coaches that have achieved a high degree of success. These two and Clemson have basically two each. Can they succeed without those guys? It is an open question. I also think that this matters a LOT. When you look at the "helmet" programs and compare to the list posted earlier of states with the most players on NFL rosters, nearly all of them are located in or near one of the top states:
- Bama: Alabama is 7th.
- Florida: Florida is 1st.
- Florida State: Florida is 1st.
- Miami: Florida is 1st.
- Michigan: Michigan is 12th.
- Notre Dame: Notre Dame is an unusual case but they are near Ohio (5th), Michigan (12th), and Illinois (14th)
- Ohio State: Ohio is 5th.
- Oklahoma: Texas is next door and 3rd.
- Penn State: Pennsylvania is 6th.
- Texas: Texas is 3rd.
- USC: California is 2nd.
- LSU: Louisiana is 8th.
- Clemson: South Carolina is 10th.
- Nebraska: ? ? ?
- Tennessee: ? ? ?
For most of these schools, if they have a series of coaching hire failures and fall on hard times they know that they WILL eventually get their coaching hire right and when they do, that next great coach will inherit a recruiting machine. That just isn't true at Tennessee and Nebraska. That makes me less confident in their ability to get back to the top.
it's also much tougher to attract the next great coach, becuase ALL coaches know their success will be based on the talent they will be able to recruit.This is why I thought it was a massive mistake for Nebraska to ditch the option (ie hire a non-option HC after Solich). At that moment, their national identity was gone, and without the built-in backup schools in talent-rich areas have.
Great discussion. Interesting that you would put Clemson and Nebraska in the same boat since they’ve only won with two coaches. Didn’t Texas essentially do the same thing with Darryl Royal and Mack Brown? I mean sure Texas has won a lot of games with other coaches but only Royal and Brown have won national titles. Texas has 4 in ~60 years, Clemson has 3 in 40 years. One of those titles is dubious too like MN because it was awarded before the bowl game. Not much difference if you ask me in results between the helmet school and Baron.Well Texas may have the same limit on NC coaches as Clemson but I disagree with your assertion that there is not much difference between a helmet and those below them. On an average per season basis the difference is not large but over decades and decades it is substantial.
ND is a helmet as long as they have their NBC deal. It's dumb. I hate it. They stink, even when they're undefeated, lol. But it's still true. EXPOSURE. HISTORY. They're #1 in certain metrics like that.I mean, Notre Dame is also the kind of place where you can win 71.3 percent of your games, deliver two undefeated regular seasons and everyone wants to fit you with a dunce cap. That seams helmet-y (shoot, this might make UGA a helmet)
Georgia needs to win a NC because everyone around them has won it. Since UGA's last NC (1980):GT has half of one
Clemson has 2
Florida has 3
FSU has 3
Auburn has 1
Alabama has 27
Tennessee has 1
.
They're literally surrounded by champions. Hell, if GT or USCe somehow wins one before UGA, Dawgs fans' heads would explode, literally.
.
.
.
Literally.
As long as any program has the resources and the ability to recruit there is not much difference between a true helmet school and the so called Barons.I want to explain what I meant by this:
I disagree with your assertion that there is not much difference between a helmet and those below them. On an average per season basis the difference is not large but over decades and decades it is substantial.Clemson is a good example. They are number 14 in all-time wins with 758. The last two top-10 "helmets" by @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's definition are Tennessee with 846 and USC with 847 so Clemson is down by about 90 wins. We have been playing this game for a lot more than 90 years so the difference, per year, is REALLY small. It is less than one game per year. However, when you look at it the other way the difference is quite large. Clemson did very well this year, finishing 14-1. Tennessee and USC did much worse, both finishing 8-5. Thus, Clemson gained on them by six in total wins. Even if Clemson can maintain that margin indefinitely it would take them 15 years just to catch the bottom of the "helmet" top-10. For the rest of the top-10:
This is why I thought it was a massive mistake for Nebraska to ditch the option (ie hire a non-option HC after Solich). At that moment, their national identity was gone, and without the built-in backup schools in talent-rich areas have.
.
Back before that, a kid in SoCal or a kid in FL could imagine himself running the option with a red N on his helmet...but after, why in the hell would they go to Lincoln (no offense)? There was no longer something to dream on.
GT has half of oneOf course, how could I forget!?!
there are more than a few states that would like to have 1 1/2 since 1980There are to be sure, but I think @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's point was that those other states do not have the HS football talent that Georgia has.
I agree with his point.
Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina aren't in horrible areas like Oklahoma and Nebraska
colorado, of course, shares the 1/2 with Georgia Tech
Hell, the state of Texas has only one, since 1970
I'd not feel too awful sorry for the state of Georgia
Actually, it is probably even tougher than that though. In the quoted post I just looked at one year, 2019. Clemson did VERY well that year, 14-1. Nobody averages that over a timeframe of more than a few years. If you go back 15 years, the top-10 all-time have the following records from 2005-2019:
Putting that into order, at the rate that they gained in 2019 it would take Clemson:
- 15 years to catch Tennessee
- 15 years to catch USC
- 16 years to catch Nebraska
- 26 years to catch Texas
- 40 years to catch Michigan
- 50 years to catch Penn State
- 50 years to catch Notre Dame
- 53 years to catch Bama
- 75 years to catch Oklahoma
- 166 years to catch Ohio State
Tennessee sucks
- Ohio State is 159-42, .85027
- Oklahoma is 159-42, .79104
- Alabama is 152-32, .82609
- Penn State is 138-55, 71503
- USC is 129-55, .70109
- Texas is 129-65, .66495
- Michigan is 120-71, .62827
- Nebraska is 116-78, .59794
- Notre Dame is 106-64, .62353
- Tennessee is 99-89, .52660
Is this some Buckeye math?
- Ohio State is 159-42, .85027
- Oklahoma is 159-42, .79104
There are to be sure, but I think @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's point was that those other states do not have the HS football talent that Georgia has.This was my point, but also, on Texas: the Horns are a helmet and UGA is one of the edge/cusp/verge programs. So while UTA fans will be absurd/arrogant/frustrated no matter what, UGA fans are absurd/arrogant/frustrated while not being among those top 8 programs.
Is this some Buckeye math?No, just a typo. I copied OU's losses into tOSU's line. I fixed it.