CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on January 23, 2020, 06:00:03 PM
-
There hasn't been a first-time AP National Champion since 1996. Here are all the first time AP National Champions:
- 1936 Minnesota, also in 40, 41, and 60.
- 1937 Pittsburgh, also in 76.
- 1938 TCU
- 1939 aTm
- 1942 Ohio state, also in 54, 68, 02, and 14.
- 1943 Notre Dame, also in 46, 47, 49, 66, 73, 77, and 88.
- 1944 Army, also in 45.
- 1948 Michigan, also in 97.
- 1950 Oklahoma, also in 55, 56, 74, 75, 85, and 00.
- 1951 Tennessee, also in 98.
- 1952 Michigan State
- 1953 Maryland
- 1957 Auburn, also in 10.
- 1958 Louisiana State, also in 07 and 19.
- 1959 Syracuse
- 1961 Alabama, also in 64, 65, 78, 79, 92, 09, 11, 12, 15, and 17
- 1962 USC, also in 67, 72, 03, and 04.
- 1963 Texas, also in 69 and 05.
- 1970 Nebraska, also in 71, 94, and 95.
- 1980 Georgia
- 1981 Clemson, also in 16 and 18.
- 1982 Penn State, also in 86.
- 1983 Miami, FL, also in 87, 89, 91, and 01.
- 1984 BYU
- 1990 Colorado
- 1993 Florida State, also in 99 and 13.
- 1996 Florida, also in 06 and 08.
There was a five year run of new Champions from 1980-1984 then three new Champions in 1990, 1993, and 1996 and we haven't had a new Champion in the 23 seasons since.
Since then there have been some that had big gaps since their most recent but no new AP Champions:
- 1997 was Michigan's second with a gap of 49 years.
- 1998 was Tennessee's second with a gap of 47 years.
- 1999 was Florida State's second with a gap of 6 years.
- 2000 was Oklahoma's seventh with a gap of 15 years.
- 2001 was Miami's fifth with a gap of 10 years.
- 2002 was Ohio State's fourth with a gap of 34 years.
- 2003 was USC's fourth with a gap of 31 years.
- 2004 was USC's fifth with no gap.
- 2005 was Texas' third with a gap of 36 years.
- 2006 was Florida's second with a gap of 10 years.
- 2007 was LSU's second with a gap of 49 years.
- 2008 was Florida's third with a gap of 1 year.
- 2009 was Alabama's seventh with a gap of 17 years.
- 2010 was Auburn's second with a gap of 53 years.
- 2011 was Alabama's eighth with a gap of 1 year.
- 2012 was Alabama's ninth with no gap.
- 2013 was Florida State's third with a gap of 14 years.
- 2014 was Ohio State's fifth with a gap of 12 years.
- 2015 was Alabama's tenth with a gap of three years.
- 2016 was Clemson's second with a gap of 35 years.
- 2017 was Alabama's eleventh with a gap of one year.
- 2018 was Clemson's third with a gap of one year.
- 2019 was LSU's third with a gap of 12 years.
-
Please post/discuss your votes.
I voted UCLA. My thoughts on the nominees:
- Baylor: There is a LOT of talent in Texas but I just don't think Baylor will ever be able to get enough of it to win a title. They were great this year except when they played an actual top-10 team, then what happened?
- Oregon/Washington: Oregon has Phil Knight's money and Washington has better overall history but I just don't think there is enough talent in the Pacific Northwest for either of them to actually win a title.
- Iowa: I think their ceiling is about what we saw a few years ago when they sailed into the B1GCG undefeated then lost to MSU. They might win a B1GCG in the right situation but I can't see them winning back-to-back games against top-4 opponents.
- Wisconsin: Same as Iowa. The Badgers play a tough brand of football and that is great but it seems to me that there is not likely to be a year in which somebody else with more talent does the same thing.
- Ole Miss: I just can't see them stealing enough talent from under the noses of Bama/Auburn/LSU/UGA to get there.
- VaTech: Maybe but I doubt it.
- WVU: I just can't see them accumulating enough talent to win back-to-back games against top-4 opponents.
- UCLA: There is a LOT of talent in California and not much competition for it relative to other talent-rich areas. I could see the Bruins getting it done.
-
Probably Ole Miss.
They are able to acquire a lot of NFL talent, and they are willing to skirt the rules.
-
I've got to go with the field. Some nondescript program hangs on to a great HC one year longer than normal and breaks through. Someone like Missouri or NC State or one of the AZ teams. Too many 'maybes' possible to pick just one of the options.
-
I have a tough time picturing it being anyone outside of the SE.
I get the argument for Cali, but things are trending in the opposite direction on the Left coast. Youth participation is way down because of concussions, the lifestyle is so healthy that there really aren't a whole lot of 6-4, 355 lb dudes walking around to load up the trenches with. Masculinity in general is frowned upon due to their political leanings, and they tend to instead have a laid back, chill demeanor. I know that a lot of Pac 12 schools load up the trenches with Samoan players, but there are only so many of them to go around.
In the North (midwest/NE) they don't have the same "win at all costs" mentality that you find in the SE. The closest is probably Ohio State, and even they have already released two legendary coaches this Millennium for reasons that no one in the SE would even pretend to give a crap about (unless of course it was happening to their rival instead of their team). Now I could maybe see an outside chance of ND, PSU or the Wolverines pulling it off, but they are obviously ineligible for this particular exercise. I just don't see it from Iowa, Wisconsin, etc, but you never know. I've been wrong before, and will be again.
-
I'm going with Wisconsin. Because, well, they deserve it!
-
I went with Baylor. They want to be good, and have had really good teams lately. They need a coach who will stay and doesn't ignore rape.
-
I took the field.
- Baylor: There is a lot of talent in Texas, most of it not headed to Waco. The Bears can catch lightning in a bottle once in a while, but they won't run the table and they won't get the benefit of the doubt when compared to other teams with a loss.
- Oregon: I think that if the Ducks were going to win it all, they already would have won it. They came close in 2011, losing to Auburn in the BCS NCG. But the trend has been generally downward since then. And Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, et. al., have gotten better at the same time. I second Brutus' point about west coast football. It's in decline for a number of factors--socially, demographically, etc. Fewer great athletes on the west coast want to play football.
- Washington: Same problem that Oregon faces with a talent pool that is shrinking, certainly in relative terms and maybe in absolute terms. Also, I doubt that Washington--which does not have a billionaire donor like Oregon does--is willing to spend the megadollars necessary to compete in the facilities arms race.
- Iowa: The Hawks might have a great run some year, running through the regular season unbeaten and catching an East Division champ having a down year in the CCG. But it's hard to see them doing all that and then winning two more games against top-4 opponents.
- Wisconsin: Wisconsin is a stronger program than Iowa these days, but the same limiting factors apply.
- Ole Miss: No way. They'll get caught cheating before they can ever get good enough to break through.
- VaTech: The Hokies' day has come and gone under Frank Beamer. No evidence that they'll ever be as good as he got them, and he didn't get them good enough.
- WVU: No. Certainly not as long as they are the odd school out in the Big 12. The 'Eers need to be in a conference with their neighbors and traditional rivals.
- UCLA: Again, the west coast talent shrinkage will keep L.A.'s #2 program from making it to the top. And UCLA is #2 for a reason. Even with USC in near-total disarray, UCLA hasn't been able to make up any ground on the Trojans.
-
I went with Oregon.
-
Oregon
they were close a few seasons ago, they have money, no big conference hurdles, should be enough talent in the PAC footprint
Washington as a close 2nd, same situation
Wisconsin a close 3rd.
a little luck in the Conference champ game and they have the game to punch with heavy weights - running game and defense - similar to the Huskers back in the day, just gotta get lucky with a QB and a couple skill players in recruiting and they can do it.
-
Not Wisconsin. The recruiting footprint is decent, but they can't get top-tier talent at WR and DB, sans a few outliers here and there. This, and there is no huge booster money. Everyone* in the B1G gets good coin from TV and such, so no advantage there either.
* Let's see what happens when the newbies start getting full share. Is UNL getting full share yet?
-
yes sir,
from a May 18, 2019 article
The Big Ten is rich. Really rich.
According to a recent report from USA Today, the league had nearly $759 million in revenue for the 2018 fiscal year. That’s the first year of the Big Ten’s new TV deal kicking in, and that figure dwarfs the Big Ten’s revenue from fiscal year 2017, which was $512.9 million.
No conference, according to the report, has ever made more.
Not the SEC, which made $660 million in revenue for fiscal year 2018. Not the Big 12, which made $374 million for its 10-team league. (Texas has its own sweet side deals that helped break up the league, as you may recall.)
Nebraska, along with 11 other Big Ten schools with a full share, got north of $50 million in its Big Ten payout.
-
Not Wisconsin. The recruiting footprint is decent, but they can't get top-tier talent at WR and DB, sans a few outliers here and there.
gotta have some luck like the Huskers found in the 90s
a few skill position recruits turned golden and they turned the corner
-
If you could somehow combine Wisconsin's lines with Oregon's skill players...
-
I voted Oregon narrowly over the Field. They have total committment from school, donors and have developed a pretty good track record of recruiting outside PNW. Someone has to be the big fish in this consensus of a shrinking 'west coast'. I think if you accept the possibility that they could finish undefeated for the season, something they have proven they can do, why cant they win two games in the present day format?
-
I voted Washington narrowly over Oregon because my impression is they have a longer association with winning football, and it is a very attractive growing area.
But, my thoughts are it is a crap shoot. There is no reason Wisconsin, South Carolina, North Carolina or even Iowa
couldn't win it all.
In 1985, Iowa had a team that could have won the national championship. All Iowa needs today is a top QB, an offensive coordinator, and a better interior offensive line. Everything else is in place. If Nate Stanley's successor is surprisingly good, and the O-Line learned how to run block Iowa would be right in the mix.
Great QB recruits are not itching to come to Iowa because Hayden Fry and Bill Snyder are long gone, so Iowa fans will have to wait.
Wisconsin has more things in place than Iowa. They have the O-Line and running game. They need a QB and receivers.
-
I really thought Brutus would have more to say on this subject
-
I chose Oregon because they have come the closest of the bunch, but playing in a relatively weak conference plus limited local recruiting (IMHO, there really isn't all that much talent west of the Rockies - CA talent is overrated) hampers their potential a bit. They appear primed to knock at the door again.
One team to watch out for is UCF. If the ACC ever extends an invitation, they may well challenge Clemson for conference supremacy.
-
If you could somehow combine Wisconsin's lines with Oregon's skill players...
… you'd have Ohio State.
-
Can we write in Akron or Kent?
-
no, but you can choose "field"
derned rebel w/o a cause
-
… you'd have Ohio State.
Or Clemson.
-
As a general issue, I think it is a LOT less likely for any team to win their first AP Title now that we have a playoff. I'll explain with two examples:
First, consider Iowa in 2015:
The Hawkeyes had a favorable cross-over schedule in which they played:
- 1-7 Maryland and
- 2-6 Indiana
While they missed:
- 7-1 Michigan State,
- 7-1 Ohio State,
- 6-2 Michigan,
- 4-4 Penn State, and
- 1-7 Rutgers
They had a manageable but not awful OOC in which they played two P5 teams (ISU which finished 3-9 and Pitt which finished 8-5) along with a horrible FBS team (N. Texas) and an FCS team (IllSt). They got to the B1GCG at 8-0/12-0 and ranked #4 in the AP Poll behind 12-0 Clemson, 11-1 Bama, and 11-1 Oklahoma.
In the old, pre-playoff days they probably would have been #2 behind only Clemson.
1997 and prior: In the pre-BCS days they would not have had to play a CG and would have headed to Pasadena to play a relatively weak Pac Champion. Then, all they would have needed to win an NC would have been to beat Stanford and hope Clemson got upset in their bowl.
1998-2010: In the BCS but pre-B1GCG days they would likely have been #2 and played Clemson in the BCSNCG. Then it is just a one-game shot. All they would have needed is one upset.
2010-2013: In the BCS/B1GCG days they would have needed just two upsets, a minor upset in the B1GCG (they almost got) and an upset of Clemson in the BCSNCG.
In the modern era they were nowhere close to a NC. They got to 8-0/12-0 but to win an NC they would have needed:
- A minor upset of MSU in the B1GCG (even here, they were VERY lucky that it was MSU and not tOSU).
- A HUMONGOUS upset of Alabama in the CFP semi-final. To illustrate just how far this was from reality, the MSU team that beat Iowa in the B1GCG got smoked 38-0 by Bama in the CFP semi-final.
- Another HUMONGOUS upset of Clemson in the CFPCG.
Several people have mentioned Oregon and the fact that they were "close" in 2010. Well, they were but the same issue applies for the Ducks. In 2010 the Ducks got to 12-0 and #2 in the AP Poll. That got them into the BCSNCG where all they needed was a win over Auburn. Again, look at eras:
1997 and prior: The Ducks would have headed to the Rose Bowl at 12-0 needing only a win and an upset of Auburn to win an NC.
1998-2010: The Ducks would get into the BCSNCG and need just a single upset win to get an NC.
2010-2013: The Ducks would have had to play a P12CG, then the BCSNCG.
2014-present: From the point that they got to 12-0, the Ducks would need the following to win an NC:
- A P12CG win,
- A HUMONGOUS upset over a CFP team in the semi-final, and
- A HUMONGOUS upset over a CFP semi-final winner in the CFPCG.
Oregon was close in 2010 but that same scenario today wouldn't really be very close.
-
As a general issue, I think it is a LOT less likely for any team to win their first AP Title now that we have a playoff. I'll explain with two examples:
all true, but it's also less likely for any helmet team to win a title as well
takes a great team and a little luck
LSU obviously had a great team, LSU was also a bit lucky they didn't have to play tOSU in the final
If Iowa or Oregon fields a great team next season AND they have a bit of luck, it could happen.
-
all true, but it's also less likely for any helmet team to win a title as well
For any individual helmet team, yes. However, for the helmets as a group it is MORE likely.
takes a great team and a little luck
You may remember, in another thread a while back I was having a discussion with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) in which I stated that it took some luck. Some of that luck is simply having a great team in the right year. I think that 2019-tOSU was a great team. Frankly, I think that team would win the NC most years but this year there was an equal* (or near-equal) in Clemson and a superior team in LSU. Most years you wouldn't see that. At most there would be one near-equal and you wouldn't get them until the CG and only if they made it.
LSU obviously had a great team, LSU was also a bit lucky they didn't have to play tOSU in the final
This is what I was referring to when I called Clemson a "near equal" of Ohio State. Looking at that game, I think Ohio State was a better team that happened to lose but Clemson was clearly at least close to the Buckeyes or else it wouldn't have been so close that one or two plays could flip the game. All-in-all, I agree that LSU was somewhat lucky to face Clemson rather than tOSU but I think that was a relatively slight difference.
-
I agree with all of that
-
I think it's Oregon, and it isn't close. Nike has spent them into a powerhouse in other sports. Plus, when the tourney inevitably goes to 8, they won't have to worry about a non conference loss to Auburn. If it doesn't go to 8, they should start scheduling like Washington
-
I just don't see how Oregon can overcome the size differential in the trenches. We've seen time and again what happens when they go up against actual National Title contenders, yet we continue to fawn over their flashy offense when they spank a bunch of teams out west. That will get you a lot of Pac 12 Titles, but it isn't going to win you back to back games against top 4 opponents. I think Wisconsin is a lot closer as they have the lines shored up consistently. They just need to sprinkle in a couple skill players and find a Russel Wilson type to get them the ball.
-
Ranking college football's 15 most valuable programs
https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/Alabama-Crimson-Tide-Texas-Longhorns-Ohio-State-Buckeyes-Michigan-college-football-most-valuable-programs-2019-134159991/#134159991_1 (https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/Alabama-Crimson-Tide-Texas-Longhorns-Ohio-State-Buckeyes-Michigan-college-football-most-valuable-programs-2019-134159991/#134159991_1)
-
I just don't see how Oregon can overcome the size differential in the trenches. We've seen time and again what happens when they go up against actual National Title contenders, yet we continue to fawn over their flashy offense when they spank a bunch of teams out west. That will get you a lot of Pac 12 Titles, but it isn't going to win you back to back games against top 4 opponents. I think Wisconsin is a lot closer as they have the lines shored up consistently. They just need to sprinkle in a couple skill players and find a Russel Wilson type to get them the ball.
They have an excellent OL right now.
As for UW, they should have won more with Russel. The defense was not good that year, but they would have been a ton better had JJ Watt come back for his final year. I don't think they'd have lost to MSU and OSU on late Hail Mary plays had JJ been pass rushing.
-
Yay. We're #1.
All that money, so little to show for it. Sucking sucks.
-
Yay. We're #1.
All that money, so little to show for it. Sucking sucks.
#1 here too:
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Big-12
-
I think it's Oregon, and it isn't close. Nike has spent them into a powerhouse in other sports. Plus, when the tourney inevitably goes to 8, they won't have to worry about a non conference loss to Auburn. If it doesn't go to 8, they should start scheduling like Washington
When the tournament inevitably (I agree BTW) goes to eight that will make it worse not better for Oregon IMHO. Sure, it will be easier to get into the tournament (they'll likely get an auto-bid with a P12 Championship) but they'll need to win three-straight games against top-tier opposition instead of two (as now) or just one (BCS). I think that @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) has a point here:
I just don't see how Oregon can overcome the size differential in the trenches. We've seen time and again what happens when they go up against actual National Title contenders, yet we continue to fawn over their flashy offense when they spank a bunch of teams out west. That will get you a lot of Pac 12 Titles, but it isn't going to win you back to back games against top 4 opponents. I think Wisconsin is a lot closer as they have the lines shored up consistently. They just need to sprinkle in a couple skill players and find a Russel Wilson type to get them the ball.
I just don't think they have the depth to go toe-to-toe with the elite teams. They might be able to do it once (upsets happen) but I can't see it in three straight games.
-
I'll also provide some quick thoughts regarding the rest of the schools on the list:
Baylor - To me this school epitomizes the Big 12 - flashy offense, garbage defense. It's never going to win anything meaningful (outside of a B12 championship) until it learns to play some D.
Washington - A lot of folks like to compare it to Oregon, but I think a better comparison is Colorado. Their glory days are well behind them, but they are also capable of coming up and putting together a strong season every now and then. Like Colorado, they claim a piece of a natty from the early 90s. Also, like Colorado they are heavily dependent on out-of-state talent and their facilities aren't quite as good as Oregon's. Coach Pete showed that it's possible to win in Seattle again, but I think just reaching the playoffs is their ceiling (which is nothing to sneer at). They simply aren't going to have the depth to beat 2 elite teams back-to-back. Even Oregon has yet to prove that.
Iowa - They came excruciatingly close to making the playoff in 2015, but even if they had held on against Sparty, they almost certainly would have fared just as poorly in the semifinals. They play tough, physical defense and are as disciplined as they come, but usually fall far short as far as offensive playmakers go and are simply not equipped to come back from big holes. Depth will always be an issue and they will need to have just the right schedule to make another serious run.
Wisconsin - Much like Iowa, but the Badgers just do it a little bit better. Not much separates these two programs, except that Bucky likes to pull the football away just as Herky is about to kick it. The main difference seems to be the running game - Iowa is merely OK at it, but Wisconsin seemingly comes up with superstars that everyone else tends to pass on. The offensive line is annually among the finest in CFB. Their biggest flaw, much like Iowa, is depth, and a modest passing game. Wisconsin QBs are traditionally efficient and rarely make mistakes, and they also (rather quietly) produce quality TEs. If they can get a vertical passing game going, and maybe have a QB that can get things done with his feet, watch out.
Ole Miss - Probably the school on this list with the best access to regional talent. It has a tough time competing against schools like LSU and Auburn so it has traditionally had to cheat (and cheat bigly) to nab elite classes, and of course they get busted each time for it. Maybe they'll have an easier time getting big-time recruits now that players can receive compensation for their likenesses. And if nothing else, having Kiffykins on the sidelines should provide high entertainment value.
Virginia Tech - The original Little Engine That Could. Michael Vick forever shaped the dynamics of college football with his twinkling feet, and virtually single-handedly orchestrated their run to the NC game in the 99-00 season. Ever since then they've been a very good program, but never quite replicating the success of that one magical season. Much of their success is attributed to excellent defense and special teams (Bud Foster was one of the finest DCs in CFB for sure) and Justin Fuente has kept the program afloat (but has not yet taken it to the next level). There is some decent talent in the DelMarVa area, plus they're not far from Jersey or the Carolinas, but the biggest problem going for VT is that a lot of those recruits aren't all that interested in playing football in the ACC (unless it's for Clemson) and would rather play for a B1G or SEC program.
UCLA - A lot of folks believe UCLA is a sleeping giant (and it may be), but it also has a lot of strikes against it. First and foremost, it's the clear #2 behind USC in a city that isn't exactly known for being sports-crazy (except for maybe soccer). Also, it has dated facilities, a dearth of talent (sorry, but West Coast isn't exactly lush with talent - not nearly to the same extent as in TX, GA, and FL, and the gap continues to widen), and honestly there appears to be a genuine lack of interest of building and maintaining a winner. They were able to lure Chip Kelly to Westwood, but it hasn't panned out yet. I don't think Kelly has forgotten how to coach, it's just that there is a clear cultural difference between Eugene and Los Angeles, and was in a considerably better position to win at Oregon (mainly due to Uncle Phil) and now he's tasked with replicating that success at UCLA. That's not going to happen unless they find an administration that cares and is willing to make the necessary changes to put together a winner. That may happen one day, but it probably won't be under Kelly's watch.
West Virginia - I'm not even sure why the Mountaineers even agreed to join the Big 12. Style wise I suppose it's a fit (high-flying offense, lackadaisical defense) but as Oklahoma just proved, their best teams are simply not up to snuff on the biggest of stages. They're probably a better fit for the ACC (which is a similarly weak conference) but no matter where they play, I think there's going to be a hard ceiling and playing for the conference title game appears to be it.
Field: Not sure who would be a realistic candidate. Oklahoma State (which is Oregon-lite), UCF (needs a P5 invite first), NC State (has some built-in advantages, they need to capitalize) may be considered. College football is a sport that has always been ruled by kings and barons and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. There isn't a lot of parity - in fact, the rich only get richer. Alabama and Clemson won't be this good forever, but it'll be a Florida or a Texas waiting in the wings.
-
"I just don't think they have the depth to go toe-to-toe with the elite teams. They might be able to do it once (upsets happen) but I can't see it in three straight games."
Not too many teams have what it takes against the elite. Otherwise, they too would be elite. There are only 3-4 of these elites right now.
-
They have an excellent OL right now.
As for UW, they should have won more with Russel. The defense was not good that year, but they would have been a ton better had JJ Watt come back for his final year. I don't think they'd have lost to MSU and OSU on late Hail Mary plays had JJ been pass rushing.
Yeah, this Oregon is not Chip Kelly's Oregon.
-
Different in that they can no longer make it through the regular season without tripping over any of the road apples.
-
Yeah, this Oregon is not Chip Kelly's Oregon.
I think that's Oregon's problem right now.
Oregon, for a span of near a decade, was "sexy". They were pioneering things offensively nobody else was doing. They had Nike money. They had horrific garish uniforms that all the kids loved for some reason. They were going toe-to-toe every year with really good USC and Stanford teams. At the time they were routinely in the top-10 in recruiting.
I think now, they've become "just another good football team", and the shine is gone. I think they need some level of "splash" to have a chance at getting back to a potential CFP entrant, much less NCG winner, and I don't see where that splash is going to come from.
For as good as they were in 2019, and for as good as Justin Herbert was, he wasn't a national name outside of CFB die-hards like us. Using my wife as an example, if I say "Trevor Lawrence", she flips her hair derisively. If I say Tua or Joe Burrow, she at least knows who they are. If I said the name Justin Herbert, she'd have no clue, and we live in the heart of PAC-12 country.
They're in a position right now where winning the PAC-12 is almost meaningless because the conference sucks, and when the conference rebounds I'm not sure Oregon is going to rebound entirely with it, at least not without some "splash".
-
I picked Washington.
They have a history of winning. They're the clear #1 in the second-most-populous state in PAC-12 territory, and happen to be located in their state's most populous major city. The state itself is growing quickly in population. Vs Oregon, it's almost twice the population, and Eugene is not anywhere near Portland.
Obviously the biggest question mark is coaching. Petersen came in and got them to the CFP, but didn't get them over the hump.
To be honest, I'm not sure any of the schools on the list are all that likely. But I think structurally Washington has the most advantages of the group.
-
I think that's Oregon's problem right now.
Oregon, for a span of near a decade, was "sexy". They were pioneering things offensively nobody else was doing. They had Nike money. They had horrific garish uniforms that all the kids loved for some reason. They were going toe-to-toe every year with really good USC and Stanford teams. At the time they were routinely in the top-10 in recruiting.
I think now, they've become "just another good football team", and the shine is gone. I think they need some level of "splash" to have a chance at getting back to a potential CFP entrant, much less NCG winner, and I don't see where that splash is going to come from.
For as good as they were in 2019, and for as good as Justin Herbert was, he wasn't a national name outside of CFB die-hards like us. Using my wife as an example, if I say "Trevor Lawrence", she flips her hair derisively. If I say Tua or Joe Burrow, she at least knows who they are. If I said the name Justin Herbert, she'd have no clue, and we live in the heart of PAC-12 country.
They're in a position right now where winning the PAC-12 is almost meaningless because the conference sucks, and when the conference rebounds I'm not sure Oregon is going to rebound entirely with it, at least not without some "splash".
Were they ever sexy to anyone but college football fans? My wife could name the same people you could, and no, she couldn't name Justin Herbert./ But she couldn't name Marcus Mariota or Darren Thomas or Nate Costa either. Shed probably get Dennis Dixon as a former Steelers backup. I just think Oregon has the biggest structural advantages of any of those schools, and the next closest (Washington) has all of the same Pac 12 hurdles.
I'd also say none, but if you had done this in 2011, subbing in Clemson for Oregon, I wouldn't have said Clemson either.
-
It will be interesting to see what happens to Clemson if Dabo goes to coach his Alma Mater, after Saban retires.
-
Were they ever sexy to anyone but college football fans? My wife could name the same people you could, and no, she couldn't name Justin Herbert./ But she couldn't name Marcus Mariota or Darren Thomas or Nate Costa either. Shed probably get Dennis Dixon as a former Steelers backup. I just think Oregon has the biggest structural advantages of any of those schools, and the next closest (Washington) has all of the same Pac 12 hurdles.
I'd also say none, but if you had done this in 2011, subbing in Clemson for Oregon, I wouldn't have said Clemson either.
Mariota was pretty well known IMHO. The others not as much. But Oregon as a team was sexy... At least here in PAC-12 land.
People knew who Chip Kelly was. People knew about Oregon's crazy uniforms. People knew that they had the psychotic offensive pace that nobody could keep up with and were dropping huge point totals on anyone they faced. In that sense, I think the school itself had more fans than the individual stars.
When we've looked at that map of college football fandom by zip code, it only listed the top three schools per zip code. But SoCal was almost universally USC/UCLA/Oregon. I.e. Oregon was "sexier" in SoCal, almost 1000 miles away, than Stanford, Cal, Washington, the AZ schools, etc.
They were a bigger thing than you might think, especially if your primary experience was Midwestern. Yet I feel like that's gone away now. Oregon now is just another football team. Not sexy at all.
-
When we've looked at that map of college football fandom by zip code, it only listed the top three schools per zip code. But SoCal was almost universally USC/UCLA/Oregon. I.e. Oregon was "sexier" in SoCal, almost 1000 miles away, than Stanford, Cal, Washington, the AZ schools, etc. .
I would bet it's still above all of those in that metric. And it still has the biggest midwest recognition. If I just asked my wife who the best team in the Pac 12 was, I guarantee shed say Oregon.
-
I would bet it's still above all of those in that metric. And it still has the biggest midwest recognition. If I just asked my wife who the best team in the Pac 12 was, I guarantee shed say Oregon.
That's fair. And to be honest, I narrowly picked Washington.
There's just a part of me that feels like Oregon tried to catch lightning in a bottle, missed, and is on the downswing. That doesn't mean they can't recover, but every year they fade even slightly it gets harder and harder to regain what they lost. The Willie Taggart experience was a major misstep. It's unknown whether Cristobal will improve things, especially now that Herbert is gone. I think after they burst onto the scene and now appear to have faded somewhat, their few good years look to be scheme and "smoke and mirrors" more than anything else, and that perception will hurt.
And I just don't think they have the history that I can say they're just "one coach away" from being back, like you can say about true helmet teams.
They still have good recruits. They are still in a weak enough PAC-12 that going 12-1 with a CCG win may be a better than even shot at a 4-team CFP bid, and 13-0 against their schedule, even if it's perceived weak, will get them in. After that, anything can happen.
But my prediction is that they're on the downslope, not holding steady or at the bottom of a trough and a return to upslope.
-
Oregon, Washington, Stanford and ASU are lapping the field in PAC recruiting.
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=Pac-12
Look at the player rating numbers.
-
It will be interesting to see what happens to Clemson if Dabo goes to coach his Alma Mater, after Saban retires.
This is an interesting question.
Bobby Bowden was born in Birmingham and played at Bama his freshman year before transferring to Howard. He was an up-and-coming HC at WVU from 1970-1975 and HC at FSU from 1976-2009. During that time, here are the openings that Bama had:
- 1982: Bear retired. Bowden had been at FSU for just seven years. Did they consider him?
- 1986: Ray Perkins left (under pressure) for the NFL. Bowden had been at FSU for 11 years. Did they consider him?
- 1989: Bill Curry left for Kentucky (a contract dispute). Bowden had been at FSU for 14 years. Did they consider him?
- 1996: Gene Stallings retired. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 21 years and had a NC, he was also almost 70 years old. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2000: Mike DuBose was fired. By this time Bowden had two NC's and had been at FSU for 25 years and was over 70. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2002: Dennis Franchione left for aTm. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 27 years. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2003: Mike Price was fired before starting. See above.
- 2006: Mike Shula was fired. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 31 years and was nearly 80. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
Dabo Swinney, like Bowden, was born in Birmingham. He played at Bama in the early 1990's and was an assistant at Bama from 1993-2000 under Curry and Stallings. He has been the permanent HC at Clemson since 2009 (11 years). He is now 50 years old. Wow, it would be crazy if he went to his Alma Mater once the 68 year old Nick Saban retires. On the other hand, if Saban stays another decade, would Bama want to bring in a 60 year old coach?
-
Dabo has it made in the ACC. Easy path to the CFP
He's recruiting at nearly the same level as Bama today - that's the biggest reason for a coach to move, better recruits
the only other reason is $$$
I assume Dabo is making decent bank at Clemson and I also assume Clemson would pay him much more if he threatened to go to Bama
perhaps Bama would be willing to pay him a few million more than Clemson, but I doubt they would double his salary
-
Sometimes mama calls though. Roy Williams' going from Kansas to UNC would probably be the best parallel.
-
sometimes
seems to be less and less these days
-
This is an interesting question.
Bobby Bowden was born in Birmingham and played at Bama his freshman year before transferring to Howard. He was an up-and-coming HC at WVU from 1970-1975 and HC at FSU from 1976-2009. During that time, here are the openings that Bama had:
- 1982: Bear retired. Bowden had been at FSU for just seven years. Did they consider him?
- 1986: Ray Perkins left (under pressure) for the NFL. Bowden had been at FSU for 11 years. Did they consider him?
- 1989: Bill Curry left for Kentucky (a contract dispute). Bowden had been at FSU for 14 years. Did they consider him?
- 1996: Gene Stallings retired. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 21 years and had a NC, he was also almost 70 years old. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2000: Mike DuBose was fired. By this time Bowden had two NC's and had been at FSU for 25 years and was over 70. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2002: Dennis Franchione left for aTm. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 27 years. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
- 2003: Mike Price was fired before starting. See above.
- 2006: Mike Shula was fired. By this time Bowden had been at FSU for 31 years and was nearly 80. I imagine that they didn't consider him.
Dabo Swinney, like Bowden, was born in Birmingham. He played at Bama in the early 1990's and was an assistant at Bama from 1993-2000 under Curry and Stallings. He has been the permanent HC at Clemson since 2009 (11 years). He is now 50 years old. Wow, it would be crazy if he went to his Alma Mater once the 68 year old Nick Saban retires. On the other hand, if Saban stays another decade, would Bama want to bring in a 60 year old coach?
I think Saban was 57 when Bama got him.
-
I really love this question.
-
I really love this question.
Because you are enjoying being a fan/alum of the most recent school to win their first?
-
I chose Oregon for the most of the same reasons already mentioned on here. Facilities, Nike money, and a brand. Kids today probably view them as the premier program on the West Coast.
I love Wisconsin and how they play and the sustained success they’ve had for nearly 30 years how. But I think they are probably at their ceiling. Wisconsin overachieves as it is. I think their chances of taking a step back are better than taking the next step forward.
-
I chose Oregon for the most of the same reasons already mentioned on here. Facilities, Nike money, and a brand. Kids today probably view them as the premier program on the West Coast.
I love Wisconsin and how they play and the sustained success they’ve had for nearly 30 years how. But I think they are probably at their ceiling. Wisconsin overachieves as it is. I think their chances of taking a step back are better than taking the next step forward.
Yeah, I think all non helmet Midwest schools have, because there are simply too many, given the high school talent in the region. Oregon just has USC. Flipping spots with one school isn't that crazy. Even if Michigan or Penn State or Notre Dame or Ohio State has a Minnesota, or even Nebraska or Tennessee fall from helmet status, the other three remain. Even as good as MSU and Iowa and Wisconsin have been at times, the gap between their best and being NC good is so wide.
-
But my prediction is that they're on the downslope, not holding steady or at the bottom of a trough and a return to upslope.
I wish this was true, I'd absolutely love for it to be true. Sadly though, I really doubt it is. Cristobal may not be an elite Xs and Os game day coach but he has assembled a fantastic staff of recruiters and they are absolutely pulling them in up there. I hate it, I'd love to see them fall to middling or worse but as long as they keep pulling in the talent they'll have teams you or I could coach to a 13-1 record, and possibly an NC.
-
Because you are enjoying being a fan/alum of the most recent school to win their first?
Uh, no...because it's a great question/poll.
-
Uh, no...because it's a great question/poll.
Well thank you. I was just curious.
-
A second vote for Wisconsin. I think they are the most complete/consistent team on this list and are just one or 2 studs away from being able to not just hang with the big boys but beat them.
-
Give Wisconsin a generational QB ...
-
They crop up every year or so ...
-
they will need another stud RB to crop up next season to maintain the status quo
-
A great QB can show up, and make a really good team great.
-
I'm guessin' the Ducks but Mario Cristobal needs to git while the gittin's good.Never know when The Trojan War Machine or cross town U.C.L.A. could rise from the ashes
-
I'm guessin' the Ducks but Mario Cristobal needs to git while the gittin's good.Never know when The Trojan War Machine or cross town U.C.L.A. could rise from the ashes
-
If USC gets Urban, it'll be Game Over.
I have no faith in UCLA ever being a consistent football power. Heck, they're not even a basketball power anymore.
-
Not sure USC is going to be willing to hire Urban given some of his baggage. Rumors that at least some of the big donors and administrators don't want to sign up for that. Of course, the promise of winning big and soon could always offset their... distaste.
-
They can have PJ Fleck
-
Well Troy was a coastal city, so I guess they might have some need to row a boat?
-
perhaps they could paddle a surf board?
-
Paddle the board doesn't seem to have the same ring to it as row the boat though, does it?
Or, maybe it does...
-
USC needs a good coach and there is no way the alumni are going to put up with Barnum.
UCLA is a tire fire. That program is toast.
-
The LA twins will be fine due to the fact that the rest of the division is the four p5 teams that are located in the Mountain TZ, none of which stack up very well against them even when they ar down quite a bit.
-
Another way to look at this:
Here is ESPN's preseason S&P top-25 with previous AP Championships:
- Bama: 11 AP titles in 61, 64, 65, 78, 79, 92, 09, 11, 12, 15, and 17
- tOSU: 5 AP titles in 42, 54, 68, 02, and 14
- Clemson: 3 AP titles in 81, 16, and 18
- Georgia: 1 AP title in 80
- PSU: 2 AP titles in 82 and 86
- LSU: 3 AP titles in 58, 07, and 19
- Florida: 3 AP titles in 96, 06, and 08
- Oklahoma: 7 AP titles in 50, 55, 56, 74, 75, 85, and 00
- Wisconsin: NO AP TITLES
- aTm: 1 AP title in 39
- Auburn: 2 AP titles in 57 and 10
- Notre Dame: 8 AP titles in 43, 46, 47, 49, 66, 73, 77, and 88
- Oregon: NO AP TITLES
- Texas: 3 AP titles in 63, 69, and 05
- USC: 5 AP titles in 62, 67, 72, 03, and 04
- Michigan: 2 AP titles in 48 and 97
- UNC: NO AP TITLES
- UCF: NO AP TITLES
- Tennessee: 2 AP titles in 51 and 98
- Minnesota: 4 AP titles in 36, 40, 41, and 60
- OkSU: NO AP TITLES
- Memphis: NO AP TITLES
- Miami: 5 AP titles in 83, 87, 89, 91, and 01
- Washington: NO AP TITLES
- Nebraska: 4 AP titles in 70, 71, 94, and 95
-
ya see why I voted Oregon???
-
ya see why I voted Oregon???
I sure do. Oregon's got a much easier path to the CFP than Wisconsin does.