CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on April 07, 2020, 12:58:51 PM
-
I started with 1927 so the first 10-year winning percentage is 1927-1936 and the most recent is 2010-2019.
First, here are their best 10-year winning percentages:
(https://i.imgur.com/dZFMUpL.png)
Note that each school only gets one entry. Ie, Oklahoma's 0.9245 is for both 1948-1957 and 1949-1958 (the Sooners went 10-1 in both 1948 and 1958 so when you eliminate 1948 and add 1958 nothing changes). The next best 10-year winning percentage is Oklahoma's from 1947-1956 (0.9095). Alabama's 0.9071 (2009-2018) is fourth. Those are the only 10-year winning percentages over 0.900 (three for OU, one for Bama).
Here they are sorted by their worst 10-year winning percentage:
(https://i.imgur.com/rnGWKAv.png)
We have talked before about Ohio State being the "Steady Eddie" as one of the Bama fans called them. They sure are, Ohio State is pretty mediocre in the "best" category but they are WAY ahead in the "worst" category. The Buckeye's worst 10-year winning percentage (0.6319 for 1943-1952) is farther ahead of USC than USC is ahead of seventh place Michigan.
Here I have ranked them by the difference between their best 10-years and their worst 10-years:
(https://i.imgur.com/FJ0KwR4.png)
-
Here it is as a chart.
The way this works:
The first dots at the left are for 1936 which is the 10 years from 1927-1936. The best for that period was Tennessee at 0.8316 with Alabama just behind at 0.8105.
The next dots to the right of those are for the next 10-year period, 1928-1937 (ie, 1927 is removed and 1937 is added). In the second group Alabama passes Tennessee. For 1928-1937 Alabama is at 0.8474 while Tennessee is behind them at 0.8030.
Note that nearly all of the "Helmets" are near or above .800 from about 1967-1976 to about 1974-1983. The exceptions are:
- Tennessee: The Volunteers were in that range not long before but then just collapsed as the 1970's wore on.
- LSU: A questionable "helmet".
- Clemson: A questionable "helmet".
- The three Florida Schools: Obviously not helmets yet at least at that time.
It is pretty hard to follow this with so many on the chart so I'll break it into three charts of five teams for easier visibility.
(https://i.imgur.com/jatKgzw.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/0ghSV4e.jpg)
These are the five schools that haven't had a 10-year period below .500.
Ohio State:
As we have discussed previously, the steadiest of the group. They are rarely the best, only barely getting above 0.8500 in the most recent 10-years (2010-2019) but they are also never really bad either. Their best is the current 10-year period, 0.8537 from 2010-2019 while their worst was 0.6319 from 1943-1952.
USC:
USC's peaks are actually lower than even Ohio State's. That is partially due to vacated wins from the PC era. Nonetheless, their best 10-year period was 0.8333 from 1972-1981 while their worst was 0.5542 from 1991-2000.
Oklahoma:
As I noted in the OP, the Sooners have three of the four 10-year periods over .900. They managed that for 1947-1956 (0.9095), and 1948-1957 and 1949-1958 (both 0.9245). They were also extremely close for 1950-1959 (0.8952) and 1971-1980 (0.8983). They do, however, have lower lows than the Buckeyes or Trojans. They were barely over .500 for the first few cycles (their worst was 0.51112 for 1927-1936), then they sank to barely over 0.600 for the 1960's and to below 0.550 for the 1990's.
Texas:
The Longhorns have three distinct peaks: 48-53, 66-79, and 2009 (meaning the 10-year cycles then ended). Aside from those, there is a surprising amount of mediocrity in Texas' history and their current trend is troubling to say the least. Their best 10-year cycle was 2000-2009 (0.8527) while their worst was 1931-1940 (0.5103).
Notre Dame:
If you ever wonder why some people question Notre Dame's Helmet status today, look at this chart. They were great in the 1970's when nearly all the helmets were but since then it has been rough going. They had a brief peak (0.7934 from 1887-1996) and two prolonged valleys bottoming out at 0.600 from 1978-1987 and barely over .500 for 2007-2016. Their best 10-year cycle was 0.8763 in the 1940's while their worst was the aforementioned 0.5094 from 2007-2016.
-
Good stuff, Medina. Very interesting way of showing something very different from individual season highs and lows.
-
Some of the stuff on this site is far beyond ANYTHING you can see on ESPiN.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/fZTjEyh.jpg)
These five schools have each had a 10-year cycle below .500 but only barely and, in Michigan's case, only one.
Tennessee:
The best 10 years for the Volunteers was 0.8548 from 1937-1946 while their worst were 0.496 for 2008-2017 and 2009-2018. Their helmet status gets questioned because there is an awful lot of mediocrity in their history.
Michigan:
The first thing that I want to point out here is that I think Bo Schembechler's achievements in Ann Arbor are often under-appreciated even by a lot of Michigan fans. IMHO, when Bo took over in 1969 Michigan was well on their way to becoming another Minnesota. From 1958-1967 the Wolverines were below .500 overall (0.4947, their worst cycle) and they hadn't been elite over a 10-year period in decades. Schembechler came in, took over, and took them to heights that few programs have ever seen (0.8553 in his first ten years from 1969-1978). Even Bo himself couldn't quite maintain THAT, but the program stayed close to or above 0.7500 all the way up until the RRod debacle.
LSU:
As I said above, I just don't think LSU is a helmet. In entering their records I noticed that their NC seasons just seem like complete out-of-the-wilderness flukes. They won the NC in 1958 but for the 10-years immediately prior to that (1948-1957) they were sub .500. That was their worst 10-year cycle (0.4762) but they were also below .500 the year prior to that and again in the 1990's. Their best ever was 0.8106 from 2003-2012. I don't think this adds up to the Tigers as a helmet. I think they are a generally pretty solid team that periodically jumps up and is phenomenal (1958, 2003, 2019) or phenomenally lucky (2007).
Alabama:
I was surprised in compiling this that for all of their soaring accomplishments at the high end, the Tide have had two significant valleys. They touched 0.500 in the 1950's (0.500 from 1949-1958) and fell below it not long ago (0.4811 from 1997-2006 and 0.4757 from 1998-2007). On the opposite side of things, their best (0.9071 from 2009-2018) is one of the four best 10-year cycles ever and they were also had peaks of 0.85+ in the 30's, 60's, and 70's.
Florida State:
This is the only school on the whole list that started playing football after 1927. Thus, the question for the Seminoles is how to evaluate their lack of history. For roughly the last four decades the Seminoles have clearly performed at a "helmet" level but prior to that their history is weak or nonexistent. Their best 10-year cycle was 0.8911 from 1991-2000 while their worst was 0.4660 from 1952-1961.
-
Michigan:
The first thing that I want to point out here is that I think Bo Schembechler's achievements in Ann Arbor are often under-appreciated even by a lot of Michigan fans. IMHO, when Bo took over in 1969 Michigan was well on their way to becoming another Minnesota. From 1958-1967 the Wolverines were below .500 overall (0.4947, their worst cycle) and they hadn't been elite over a 10-year period in decades. Schembechler came in, took over, and took them to heights that few programs have ever seen (0.8553 in his first ten years from 1969-1978). Even Bo himself couldn't quite maintain THAT, but the program stayed close to or above 0.7500 all the way up until the RRod debacle.
And Harbaugh has them on the way up.
So the question is, do they revert to their form of the previous decade, on a path to becoming another (pre-"row the boat") Minnesota or continue to improve and sustain that level of improvement?
-
Some of the stuff on this site is far beyond ANYTHING you can see on ESPiN.
Didn't know we were doing the Hotties thread anymore
-
(https://i.imgur.com/FOnpPFG.jpg)
These five programs have each had at least one 10-year cycle not just below .500 but below 0.4500. They have had BAD times. They have also had good times or we wouldn't be talking about them in this thread, of course.
Penn State:
The Nittany Lions' worst 10-year cycle was early, 0.4458 from 1928-1937 while their best was 0.8534 from 1968-1977. To me, they are a helmet with an occasional downturn.
Clemson:
As I stated previously, I just don't think of Clemson as a Helmet. They have clearly been Helmet-like of late, but their overall history is just nowhere near the blue-bloods. Their best 10-year cycle is the current one, 0.8357 from 2010-2019 and poised to get MUCH better when 2020 replaces 2010's pedestrian 6-7. Their worst was 0.4159 from 1967-1976.
Florida:
Since Steve Spurrier came back to campus as HC after previously winning the Heisman Trophy as a QB there, the Gators have been unquestionably performing at a Helmet level. The reason that some people question their helmet status is that outside of those three decades they clearly were NOT a helmet. Their best 10-year cycle was 0.82 in Spurrier's first 10 years from 1990-1999 and their worst was 0.3876 from 1937-1946.
Miami, FL:
Much like the other two Florida Schools, the Hurricanes have performed at a "helmet-like" level for for many years (about 40) but prior to that they clearly were NOT a helmet. Their best 10-year cycle was 0.8917 from 1985-1994 while their worst was 0.3738 from 1968-1977.
Nebraska:
The Cornhuskers are one of the most interesting teams of the whole group. In Devaney's first ten years they hit 0.8333 (1962-1971) then held at about that level all they way into the early 2000's. That run is arguably the best ever. The reason that their helmet status gets questioned is that basically everything else on this chart is mediocre. Their best 10-year cycle was 0.8810 from 1992-2001, one of the best ever. Their worst was an abysmal 0.3370 from 1942-1951, that is the worst 10-year cycle on this entire chart.
-
Yeah, looking at these, I immediately thought "HC hires." This would be useful for an AD with a long-term eye. Say you're UM's AD and the masses are dumping on your HC. Look at this chart. Do you get rid of him? Hell no!
Sure, he's OSU's bitch, but he's got you on an up-tick. You ride it.
-
How would it look if we were to eliminate asterisks (include all vacated wins)?
-
Interesting data. Pretty sure I was the steady eddy commenter from when we did a similar chart but using rankings. Osu was always among the best but rarely THE best (is that where The osu comes from?:)) while virtually everyone else had dips. Not surprised to see similar results here.
As for bama, ears witworth and the mikes in early 00s really are the terrible periods. Maybe coincidentally they both immediately preceded arguably the 2 best coaches ever taking the bama job.
-
Clemson will be interesting after Dabo departs (which could be a while). Do they migrate back to mediocrity or maintain a lofty standing? Obviously it depends.
They don't have the inherent recruiting power of some programs. It depends pretty much on their track record. (They are not the major program in a state rich with talent like OSU and UGA.) Like Auburn, the are proximate to such a state.
-
judging by virtually every other schools history after losing a good/great coach, they'll drop back to the pack at least for a while.
i could maybe see them being like lsu post saban. had some really high peaks, but also some low lows. but i think lsu did better than most do after losing a coach of that caliber. but that's probably the ceiling for clemson post dabo. and not just because it's clemson, i think that's likely the ceiling for bama post saban as well. bama might luck up and get dabo and continue the run, but in my estimation it's unlikely and not a guarantee even if they get him.
-
How many more ACC titles will Clemson win before they lose one (or don't make the CG)?
It could easily be ten MORE. I wonder what the longest dominance in any conference has been, even allowing for splits back in the day.
-
How many more ACC titles will Clemson win before they lose one (or don't make the CG)?
It could easily be ten MORE. I wonder what the longest dominance in any conference has been, even allowing for splits back in the day.
Florida State won nine straight (1992-2000, their first nine years in the ACC), 11 of 12 (all but 2001 from 1992-2003), and 12 of 14 (all but 2001 and 2004 from 1992-2005). Additionally, the two years that they didn't win it they finished second at 6-2 so it wasn't like they were completely out of the running.
Swinney won his first in his fourth year (2011) but that was his only in his first seven years (2008-2014). He also won a Division Championship in 2009 but lost the ACCCG (to GaTech) and tied for the division championship in 2012 but lost the tiebreaker to FSU.
Swinney's Clemson Tigers have now won five straight ACC Championships (2015-2019) and they have only lost two ACC games in those five years (Pitt by a point at home in 2016, Cuse by a FG on the road in 2017).
-
Do you know the longest streak in any conference since say 1930?
-
How would it look if we were to eliminate asterisks (include all vacated wins)?
There is just no way I'm doing this. I think it would help USC the most since a ton of PC's wins are eliminated. It would help tOSU somewhat and Bama somewhat as well.
-
Do you know the longest streak in any conference since say 1930?
Sorry, no.
-
Do you know the longest streak in any conference since say 1930?
I don't know if this is the longest, but Oklahoma finished 1st or tied for 1st in the Big 7/Big 8 from 1946 through 1959. 14 straight years. If you want undisputed conference championships, cut off 1946-47 and it's 12 straight.
-
40s and 50s, bad for Huskers, good for Sooners
-
There is just no way I'm doing this. I think it would help USC the most since a ton of PC's wins are eliminated. It would help tOSU somewhat and Bama somewhat as well.
Oh okay, thanks.
-
40s and 50s, bad for Huskers, good for Sooners
Yep.
You can sure flip that for the '90s.
-
Do you know the longest streak in any conference since say 1930?
SEC: 5 straight, Alabama (71-75)
PAC: 4 straight, USC (66-69)...also USC had 5 straight, but 2 shared and maybe one vacated under Carroll, but that's messy
B10: 3 staight, Ohio St's current 3-year stretch is best, for outright conference titles. They had 5 in a row, but 3 shared. OSU and UM shared it so many times, it screws up anyone having a long streak, outright.
SWC: 5 straight, Texas (69-73)
ACC: 5 straight, Clemson (current) - during FSU's dominant start to ACC play, they never had more than 3 straight outright titles.
Big East: 3 straight, Miami (00-02)
Big 8: 12 straight, Oklahoma (48-59), otherwise 4 straight, and OU/Nebraska are like OSU/UM - 2 programs just duking it out at the top, for decades
Big XII: 5 straight, Oklahoma (current) - OU has the longest streak in 2 conferences!
-
OSU won at least a share of the Big Ten Title from 2005-2010. Six straight.
-
Thanks.
-
The 50 greatest decades by these teams (includes all decades FOR THESE TEAMS with a winning percentage over .850):
1) .9245 Oklahoma, 1948-1957 (Oklahoma's first appearance on this list)
1 (tie) .9245 Oklahoma 1949-1958
3) .9095 Oklahoma, 1947-1956
4) .9071 Bama, 2009-2018 (Alabama's first appearance on this list)
5) .8993 Bama, 2008-2017
6) .8983 Oklahoma, 1971-1980
7) .8952 Oklahoma, 1950-1959
8) .8921 Bama, 2010-2019
9) .8917 Miami, FL 1985-1994 (Miami's first appearance on this list)
9(tie) .8917 Bama, 1971-1980
11) .8911 FSU, 1991-2000 (Florida State's first appearance on this list)
12) .8902 FSU, 1990-1999
13) .8843 Miami, FL 1983-1992
14) .8824 Miami, 1986-1995
15) .8821 Oklahoma, 1946-1955
16) .8811 Florida State, 1987-1996
16 (tie) .8811 Florida State, 1988-1997
17) .8810 Nebraska, 1992-2001 (Nebraska's first appearance on this list)
18) .8792 Bama, 1972-1981
19) .8771 Oklahoma, 1970-1979
20) .8763 Notre Dame, 1940-1949 (Notre Dame's first appearance on this list)
21) .8760 Nebraska, 1991-2000
22) .8750 Nebraska 1988-1997
23) .8740 FSU, 1989-1998
23(tie) .8740 FSU, 1992-2001
25) .8686 Oklahoma, 1972-1981
26) .8680 Nebraska, 1990-1999
27) .8678 Miami, FL, 1984-1993
28) .8655 Miami, FL, 1987-1996
29) .8632 Bama, 1929-1938
30) .8625 Bama, 1970-1979
30(tie) .8625 Bama, 1973-1982
32) .8589 Nebraska, 1989-1988
33) .8583 Miami, FL, 1982-1991
34) .8579 Bama, 1930-1939
35) .8577 Nebraska, 1987-1996
36) .8571 Bama, 2007-2016
37) .8566 Nebraska, 1986-1995
38) .8557 Notre Dame, 1946-1955
39) .8553 Michigan, 1969-1978 (Michigan's first appearance on this list)
40) .8548 Tennessee, 1937-1946 (Tennessee's first appearance on this list)
41) .8545 Bama, 1959-1968
42) .8542 Notre Dame, 1939-1948
43) .8537 Ohio State, 2010-2019 (Ohio State's first appearance on this list)
44) .8534 Penn state, 1968-1977 (Penn State's first appearance on this list)
45) .8527 Texas, 2000-2009 (Texas' first appearance on this list)
46) .8527 (rounds the same, but not actually tied) Michigan, 1968-1977
47) .8525 FSU, 1986-1995
48) .8516 Nebraska, 1993-2002
49) .8505 Notre Dame, 1941-1950
49(tie) .8505 Notre Dame, 1945-1954
-
number of best decades on the list
Bama 11
Huskers 8
Sooners 8
Noles 7
Canes 6
Irish 5
-
Same list, by eras:
1. 50s/Wilkinson OU
2. Recent/Saban Alabama
3. 70s/Switzer OU
4. 80s/90s Miami
tie 70s Bear Bryant Alabama
6. 90s/Bowden Florida St.
7. 90s Nebraska Osborne+
8. 40s Leahy WWII Notre Dame
9. 30s Frank Thomas Alabama (birth of SEC)
10. 70s Michigan Bo
11. 30s/WWII General Neyland+
12. 60s Bama Bryant, Mama Called
13. Recent/Meyer+ Ohio St.
14. 70s JoePa begins Penn St.
15. 00s Mack Brown Texas
-
number of best decades on the list
Bama 11
Huskers 8
Sooners 8
Noles 7
Canes 6
Irish 5
Your Huskers are a case of feast-or-famine.
When you look at the best lists, they are:
- Tied for second in decades over .850 (your list)
- Tied for second in decades of .800 (see below)
- Fourth in decades over .750 (see below)
However, when you look at worst lists (from among this group) they are:
- They have the worst decade of any of the teams on this list
- They are tied for the most decades under .500 (FSU shows up as more but that includes decades when they didn't play)
- They have nearly the most decades under .600 (Only Clemson, LSU, and the three Florida schools have more).
(https://i.imgur.com/HLTIpDp.png)
-
yup, gotta have the right coach
but, I'd rather have feast or famine than the results of Michigan, Texas, or Tennessee
-
Same list, by eras:
1. 50s/Wilkinson OU
2. Recent/Saban Alabama
3. 70s/Switzer OU
4. 80s/90s Miami
tie 70s Bear Bryant Alabama
6. 90s/Bowden Florida St.
7. 90s Nebraska Osborne+
8. 40s Leahy WWII Notre Dame
9. 30s Frank Thomas Alabama (birth of SEC)
10. 70s Michigan Bo
11. 30s/WWII General Neyland+
12. 60s Bama Bryant, Mama Called
13. Recent/Meyer+ Ohio St.
14. 70s JoePa begins Penn St.
15. 00s Mack Brown Texas
This is what I was thinking about when I decided to compile this. Basically, "When was the best era ever to be a fan and of what team?" Sorting your list by recency:
- Bama's current era is the 2nd best in the history of CFB
- tOSU's current era is the 13th best in the history of CFB
- Texas in the 00's was the 15th best era in the history of CFB
- FSU in the 90's was the 6th best era in the history of CFB
- UNL in the 90's was the 7th best era in the history of CFB
- Miami in the 80's/90's was the 4th/5th best era in the history of CFB
- Oklahoma in the 70's was the 3rd best era in the history of CFB
- Bama in the 70's was the 4th/5th best era in the history of CFB
- Michigan in the 70's was the 10th best era in the history of CFB
- PSU in the 70's was the 14th best era in the history of CFB
- Bama in the 60's was the 12th best era in the history of CFB
- Oklahoma in the 50's was the best era in the history of CFB
- Notre Dame in the 40's was the 8th best era in the history of CFB
- Tennessee in the 30's/40's was the 11th best era in the history of CFB
- Bama in the 30's was the 9th best era in the history of CFB
I sorted it this way to put it in perspective. I remember the top-6 (back to Miami 80s/90s). I was alive for part of the 7th-10th (OU, Bama, M, and PSU in the 70s) but I have no recollection of it. 11-15 are basically ancient history to me.
-
This might be a better organized view:
(https://i.imgur.com/xPJekSF.png)
-
What is Wisconsin's best decade? The current one, or very recent?
-
What is Wisconsin's best decade? The current one, or very recent?
I didn't include Wisconsin in the data I keyed in so I can't just grab that. I was thinking about doing the whole thing for all current B1G teams but that is a lot of data to enter.
-
I'm just curious. If you find the time, great. If not, no biggie.
I think right now is probably "the good old days" for Big Red.
-
I'm a bit curious about Ohio State's worst ten year period, since say 1937. It's probably better than a lot of programs' best.
-
osu's best isn't "the best", but their worst is by far the best. or, another way, their ceiling isn't the tallest (it's certainly up there though), but their floor is by far the highest. they're never bad. and almost always good. sometimes even great, but not quite greatest. or rather, not the greatest as often as others have been, but they've been there. makes for a fairly convincing argument for top program all time, imo.
-
This is what I was thinking about when I decided to compile this. Basically, "When was the best era ever to be a fan and of what team?"
- UNL in the 90's was the 7th best era in the history of CFB
I'm truly blessed. After becoming a Husker fan in 1981 as a freshman, living through all the disappointing close calls for the big one(1983), but rooting for a great team for more than 10 seasons, then the 90's happen.
Helluva run from 1981-2003
-
I'm a bit curious about Ohio State's worst ten year period, since say 1937. It's probably better than a lot of programs' best.
Ohio State's worst decade from 1928-1937 to the present was that they went .6319 from 1943-1952. That was 54-30-7 made up of:
- 3-6 in 1943 (funny because tOSU won an NC at 9-1 in 1942 but then everybody left for WWII)
- 9-0 in 1944
- 7-2 in 1945
- 4-3-2 in 1946
- 2-6-1 in 1947
- 6-3 in 1948
- 7-1-2 in 1949
- 6-3 in 1950
- 4-3-2 in 1951 (Woody's first year)
- 6-3 in 1952
It is an extremely good "worst" especially when you consider that they won the NC a year prior (9-1 in 1942) and also two years later (10-0 in 1954).
Ohio State's only other decade under .650 was that they went .6494 from 1938-1947. That was 54-28-5 made up of:
- 4-3-1 in 1938
- 6-2 in 1939
- 4-4 in 1940
- 6-1-1 in 1941 (Paul Brown's first year)
- 9-1 in 1942 (NC)
- 3-6 in 1943 (Paul Brown's last year)
- 9-0 in 1944
- 7-2 in 1945
- 4-3-2 in 1946
- 2-6-1 in 1947
-
I'm truly blessed. After becoming a Husker fan in 1981 as a freshman, living through all the disappointing close calls for the big one(1983), but rooting for a great team for more than 10 seasons, then the 90's happen.
Helluva run from 1981-2003
same here, sort of.
first time i really remember following bama was in early 90's, so got to see/experience the 92 season, which was awesome.
went to school during the shula era. grad in 07, saban's first year and only one that hasn't been amazing.
but being a local alum, it's been a great decade+ watching one of the best dynasties in sports.
-
UGA arguably just had it's best decade 2010-2019, with some mediocre years thrown in.
2010 a disappointing 6-7
2011 10-4
2012 12-2 getting somewhere maybe
2013 8-5 meh
2014 - 10-3 meh
2015 10-3 meh, last year for Mark Richt
2016 8-5 first year for Kirby
2017 13-2, another "almost" year
2018 11-3 disappointing losses again
2019 12-2 weird loss to USCe
2020 15-0 finally win another NC
-
What is coming up for these teams:
(https://i.imgur.com/DW54bNh.png)
Best is 15-0 in 2020, worst is 0-12 in 2020. It is flat out amazing that Bama could go winless in 2020 and they would still be over .820 for the decade.
(https://i.imgur.com/Go7qnqo.png)
Best is 30-0 and back-to-back NC's in 2020 and 2021. Worst is 0-24 in 2020 and 2021.
Ohio State and Clemson have big upside potential because the two years about to be replaced were not great for them:
- 2010: Ohio State was 0-1 (vacated all wins), Clemson was 6-7 (Dabo's third year and the most recent without double-digit wins)
- 2011: Ohio State was 6-7 (the year between Tressel and Meyer), Clemson was 10-4
By way of comparison, Bama can't improve as much from their current % because they were already cooking by 2010. Their two years about to be replaced are:
There isn't much room for Bama to improve.
-
osu's best isn't "the best", but their worst is by far the best. or, another way, their ceiling isn't the tallest (it's certainly up there though), but their floor is by far the highest. they're never bad. and almost always good. sometimes even great, but not quite greatest. or rather, not the greatest as often as others have been, but they've been there. makes for a fairly convincing argument for top program all time, imo.
It all depends on how you view the importance of having "great" times as compared to the importance of avoiding bad times. If you rank these teams based on their ability to avoid bad times over the past eight or so decades, Ohio State is #1 and it isn't close. If you rank them based on having great times, the Buckeyes are in the pack but clearly behind Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.
I think that is an apples and oranges comparison.
-
The best worst decade obviously is remarkable give how much different it is from anyone else. The best decades of teams are much closer.
-
It all depends on how you view the importance of having "great" times as compared to the importance of avoiding bad times. If you rank these teams based on their ability to avoid bad times over the past eight or so decades, Ohio State is #1 and it isn't close. If you rank them based on having great times, the Buckeyes are in the pack but clearly behind Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.
I think that is an apples and oranges comparison.
very true. example, after Devaney's back to back, the Huskers from 72 to 93 were always very good, but not great times with regard to the MNC.
now, if they could have sprinkled in a few MNCs, say in 78 when they finally beat the Sooners, or 1983 with the 2-point conversion, or 89. Then you don't need the fantastic run in the 90's.
-
I was musing about the most famous thing about each Blue Blood, off the top of my head:
USC - the song girls
ND - Rudy? Not really. TD Jesus? The Cathedral that burned? Knute? Is that a common name?
Texas - Bevo? Darryl?
Oklahoma - 47 in a row
Alabama - 947 national championships claimed, and a quite a few real.
Ohio State - consistency
Nebraska - great fans, 1995
.
.
.
.
Penn State - Joe Pa
Tennessee - Neyland
Florida - SOS
UGA - UGA
LSU - Death Valley
Auburn - War Damn Eagle
Clemson - Death Valley
Eastern Michigan - no idea
-
It all depends on how you view the importance of having "great" times as compared to the importance of avoiding bad times. If you rank these teams based on their ability to avoid bad times over the past eight or so decades, Ohio State is #1 and it isn't close. If you rank them based on having great times, the Buckeyes are in the pack but clearly behind Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.
I think that is an apples and oranges comparison.
that's a great way to put it and agreed.
-
Note that we have never seen two teams over .900 at the same time but we are REALLY close to three of them now and, at least theoretically, two or even all three could get there in the next two years:
- .9083, Ohio State is 99-10 over the eight years from 2012-2019
- .9027, Bama is 102-11 over the eight years from 2012-2019
- .8938, Clemson is 101-12 over the eight years from 2012-2019
What each would need to do over the next two years to hit at least .900 for 2012-2021:
Ohio State:
The Buckeyes will make it if they lose three or less games over the next two years. 27-4 over the next two years would get the Buckeyes to exactly .900 at 126-14 but that would take 31 games which isn't possible on the existing schedule. At this point the max per year is 15 (12 scheduled, CCG, CFP semi-final, CFP Championship). Assuming a maximum of 30 games, the Buckeyes would have to lose three or less games over the next two years. The number of wins, as a practical matter, does not matter. If the Buckeyes went 27-3 in 30 games (2 B1GCG appearances, 2 CFPCG appearances) they would be 126-13 or .9065. If they managed to miss the B1GCG and the CFPCG both years and only played 26 games with three losses that would get them to 122-13 or .9037.
Bama:
The Tide will make it if they lose three or less games over the next two years provided that they make at least one SECCG or CFPCG appearance*. 24-3 over the next two years would get the Tide to exactly .900 at 126-14 in 27 games which works mathematically (24 scheduled plus at least two CFP/bowl games plus one either SECCG or CFPCG). 27-3 (two SECCG's, two CFPCG's) would get them to 129-14 or .9021. If they somehow managed to miss the SECCG and CFPCG both years and only played 26 games with three losses that would be just short.
Clemson:
The Tigers will make if if they lose two or less games over the next two years provided that they make at least one ACCCG or CFPCG appearance*. 28-2 (two ACCCG's, two CFPCG's) would get them to 129-14 or .9021 while 25-2 (only one combined ACCCG or CFPCG appearance) would get them to 126-14 or .9000.
*This is because 23-3 for Bama or 24-2 for Clemson would get them to 125-14 or .8993, just short. Thus, if Bama lost only three games the next two years but missed both SECCG's and both CFPCG's or if Clemson lost only two games the next two years but missed both ACCCG's and both CFPCG's they would come up just short. As a practical matter it would be nearly impossible for Bama to somehow go 23-3 over the next two years but miss the SECCG and CFPCG both years and it would be even less likely for Clemson to go 24-2 but miss the ACCCG and CFPCG both years.
It is mathematically possible for all three to make it to .900 for 2012-2021 which would be astounding because we've never even had two at the same time let alone three.
-
Looking at Bama's, Clemson's, and tOSU's performance over the last two years, it is not altogether unlikely that they'll each make .900 for 2012-2021. If they each replicate what they did over the last two years over the next two years then for the 10-year period of 2012-2021 they'll get to:
- .9124 Ohio State, 125-12
- .9091 Clemson, 130-13
- .9007 Alabama, 127-14
Just FYI, losses in 10-years and the # of wins necessary to make .900:
- 15: 135-15 would make it but that would require both 10 consecutive CCG appearances and 10 consecutive CFPG appearances. Ie, 15 losses would basically never make it.
- 14: 126-14 or better would make it. Bama and Clemson are both on track to potentially make that for '12-21. 14 losses is on the edge but would probably make it most decades. 126-14 is 140 games which is the 120 scheduled plus at least 10 combined CCG's and CFPCG's. Generally a team winning 12-13 games per year is going to make a pretty good number of CCG's and CFPCG's but this could be close.
- 13: 117-13 or better would make it. As a practical matter, any record with 13 or fewer losses makes it because 117-13 is exactly 130 games or only 13 per year which means zero CCG's and zero CFPCG's.
-
Keep in mind, this is only possible because these elite teams are playing AT LEAST 13 games.
-
I'm truly blessed. After becoming a Husker fan in 1981 as a freshman, living through all the disappointing close calls for the big one(1983), but rooting for a great team for more than 10 seasons, then the 90's happen.
Helluva run from 1981-2003
Same here. These running decades show how Florida isn't among the bluebloods of the sport, but since I was 10, Florida is 3rd in the country. So yeah, we're the mighty Gators in my mind.
-
Keep in mind, this is only possible because these elite teams are playing AT LEAST 13 games.
Good point. Back in the 60's a "normal" season for Ohio State was nine games and a Bowl season was 10. Back then BigTen teams could only go to the RoseBowl and they couldn't repeat so for the decade (1960-1969) Ohio State only played 91 games. To make .900 on that schedule they would have had to win 82. Even with the maximum number of games (RB every other year) it would only have been 95 and going .900 would have required at least 85-9-1.
By comparison Clemson has played 100 games in the last seven years (2013-2019):
- 84 regular season scheduled games (12*7)
- 7 Bowls/CFP Semi-Finals
- 5 ACCCG's
- 4 CFPCG's
-
Keep in mind, this is only possible because these elite teams are playing AT LEAST 13 games.
Yes, last year's FBS winning percentage was the highest since 1949. 2010-2019 is the highest winning percentage since 1947-1956. The number of FCS opponents is high and the differences between the top and bottom teams grow.
-
THE BOBS IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Keep in mind, this is only possible because these elite teams are playing AT LEAST 13 games.
Yes, last year's FBS winning percentage was the highest since 1949. 2010-2019 is the highest winning percentage since 1947-1956. The number of FCS opponents is high and the differences between the top and bottom teams grow.
On the other hand, a lot of the additional games for the elite teams (those anywhere close to .900 for a decade) are decidedly NOT easy games.
If your team plays 15 games it is likely because they made their CCG and the CFPCG. Those are REALLY tough games an nobody is going .900 in CCG's and CFPCG's.
For the three teams that *COULD* make .900 over 2012-2021 their record in CCG's and CFPCG's so far (2012-2019) is:
Ohio State:
- 4-1 in B1GCG's (L, MSU 2013; W, UW 2014; W, UW 2017; W, NU 2018; W, UW 2019)
- 1-0 in CFPCG's (W, Ore 2014)
- 5-1 or .8333 overall
Alabama:
- 5-0 in SECCG's (W, UGA 2012; W, Mizzou 2014; W, UF 2015; W, UF 2016; W, UGA 2018)
- 2-2 in CFPCG's (W, Clem 2015; L, Clem 2016; W, UGA 2017; L, Clem 2018)
- 7-2 or .7778 overall
Clemson:
- 5-0 in ACCCG's (W, UNC 2015; W, VaTech 2016; W, Miami 2017; W, Pitt 2018; W, UVA 2019)
- 2-2 in CFPCG's (L, Bama 2015; W, Bama 2016; W, Bama 2018; L, LSU 2019)
- 7-2 or .7778 overall
Even though these three teams have dominated their CCG's over the past 8+ years with a combined record of 14-1 or .9333 they obviously can't collectively dominate CFPCG's if for no other reason than they run into each other. Combined they are barely over .500 in CFCG's at 5-4 with two wins (tOSU over Ore and Bama over UGA) and one loss (Clem to LSU) coming against other teams while the other three wins/losses were splits by Clemson/Bama in the CFPCG. Ie, they can't both win.
-
one thing that should be noted about Nebraska... TO was the OC for Bob Devaney. You could make the argument UNL is a program that should be Minn but instead, they had TO who put them in helmet status. Perhaps despite all his praise, TO's actually under appreciated.
-
it's unfortunate that Doc Tom didn't stay on as AD to help Solich as Devaney did for Tom.
-
Devaney and Osbourne were just a shadow govt for Fearless Frankie, who was the man behind the curtain running the show the whole time.
-
It's interesting how rare winning 90+% of your games is. That would be 9-1 "back in the day" obviously, a very very good year. Given a very very good team probably only plays 2-3 teams that realistically could beat them, it's more like being 2-1.
-
That's a great argument against these players (going back decades) being able to get "up" for each game, no matter how few there are.
It's not easy getting a team to play its best when they're facing a non-threat.
-
It's interesting how rare winning 90+% of your games is. That would be 9-1 "back in the day" obviously, a very very good year. Given a very very good team probably only plays 2-3 teams that realistically could beat them, it's more like being 2-1.
It isn't that it is tough to go 2-1 in your "losable" games, it is that it is REALLY tough to do that every single year for a decade. Schools usually have a bad year somewhere in there. Ohio State is a great example. Over the last eight years (2012-2019) the Buckeyes are a spectacular 99-10 or .9083. The problem is that the Buckeyes were a pedestrian 6-7 in 2011 (year between Tressel and Meyer) and they are credited with just 0-1 in 2010 (wins vacated).
I'm only using my team as the example because it is current and I know them the best. I'm sure you could find LOTS of examples of 10-year periods when these schools would have been .900 "but for" one or two off years that just sunk them. Also note that it doesn't take much of a bad year to prevent you from getting to .900 for a decade. Even with today's expanded schedules you can only take about 13-14 losses in ten years. If you average one loss per year over eight great years that is eight and leaves you with five or six losses that you can afford in your off years so those off years can't be all that bad. You can still only lose 2-3 games per year in the bad years.
Bama's current decade is a great example. They are just under .900 at .8921. That decade for them consists of:
- 10-3 in 2010
- 12-1 in 2011
- 13-1 in 2012
- 11-2 in 2013
- 12-2 in 2014
- 14-1 in 2015
- 14-1 in 2016
- 13-1 in 2017
- 14-1 in 2018
- 11-2 in 2019
Their worst year was 10-3 and they STILL didn't make it to .900. For the decade (2010-2019) they are 124-15. To get to .900 with 15 losses you need 135 wins which would have required 11 more games.
-
one thing that should be noted about Nebraska... TO was the OC for Bob Devaney. You could make the argument UNL is a program that should be Minn but instead, they had TO who put them in helmet status. Perhaps despite all his praise, TO's actually under appreciated.
I honestly think Devaney/Osborne are under-appreciated. When Devaney arrived in Lincoln he was the AD's fourth choice for the job and even Devaney initially turned it down because he was at Wyoming and at the time it wasn't obvious that Nebraska was anything more than a lateral move from Wyoming. Think about that for a minute . . .
Nebraska was flat awful for roughly two decades prior to Devaney's arrival. Note that they were below .500 for 18 consecutive 10-year periods from 1937-1946 through 1954-1963. When Devaney arrived in 1962 only old men had even a vague recollection of Nebraska football as anything but a doormat.
To get a sense of just how bad things were in Lincoln in the 40's and 50's consider that the current decade (2010-2019) is Nebraska's first under .600 since 1957-1966. Then remember that they had 18 in a row under .500. The current situation in Lincoln obviously has the natives restless and it is better than anything the program experienced between 1935-1944 and the mid 60's.
(https://i.imgur.com/HPTqCKg.png)
-
Yup, for a decade, it's impressive, amazing really, for reasons noted.
-
Another under-appreciated coach, I think, is Bo Shembechler at Michigan.
What I think people often fail to realize is that Michigan was really nothing special for about 20 years before his arrival in Ann Arbor in 1969. I think that when people think of Michigan they think of Bo's rivalry with Woody and how good those Michigan teams of the 70's were and just assume that the Wolverines were basically always good.
Michigan was REALLY good around the beginning of the 20th century under Fielding Yost. He retired after the 1926 season and they kept things rolling for a few years with undefeated seasons and NC's up into the early 1930's but then they hit a wall and collapsed.
I don't know the details of why, but Michigan went a combined 31-1-3 from 1930-1933 then somehow went 1-7 in 1933 and that continued with three more years of .500 or below records and they didn't get really good again until 1943 and beyond. Then they were fantastic coming out of WWII peaking at almost .830 for 1939-1948 and 1940-1949 but after that they collapsed. The low point was a sub-.500 decade from 1958-1967.
Now suppose you had been born in Michigan in 1927. You'd have had no personal recollection of the great Michigan teams of the early 1930's and prior so the only good times you would have seen would have been roughly 1943-1950 or so. By 1969 you'd have been 42 years old and Michigan would only have had one brief period of sustained success in your entire lifetime.
Then Bo showed up and under Bo Schembechler and his handpicked successors Gary Moeller and Lloyd Carr the program was above or only slightly below .750 for almost 40 years. By the time that hypothetical person born in Michigan in 1927 turned 80 in 2007 the Michigan program had been elite for most of their lifetime.
(https://i.imgur.com/HAL7CYn.png)
-
Medina:
Born in 1954 and not seeing college football even on TV until New Year's Day of 1963, and not being aware of the national picture until about the 1967 season, I have always considered Michigan an elite program. An elite program that has had some bad luck over the past 15 years or so.
But your analysis makes me wonder.
If Michigan football had begun in 1927 rather than 1881, would Michigan be a helmet program? Or would it be a good program that had had two periods of greatness under Fritz Crisler and Bo Schembechler?
I agree with your point that Bo gets underrated.
-
I don't disagree with all of that, but at the same time, to a person who grew up post-Bo in the southern US, Schembechler seems revered like a multi-NC-winning HC. When I got old enough to look him up, his records were always great, but he was sort of a loser, in terms of winning the big one.
If his career was recent, he'd be another John Cooper or whoever.
-
On the other hand, a lot of the additional games for the elite teams (those anywhere close to .900 for a decade) are decidedly NOT easy games.
If your team plays 15 games it is likely because they made their CCG and the CFPCG. Those are REALLY tough games an nobody is going .900 in CCG's and CFPCG's.
For the three teams that *COULD* make .900 over 2012-2021 their record in CCG's and CFPCG's so far (2012-2019) is:
Ohio State:
- 4-1 in B1GCG's (L, MSU 2013; W, UW 2014; W, UW 2017; W, NU 2018; W, UW 2019)
- 1-0 in CFPCG's (W, Ore 2014)
- 5-1 or .8333 overall
Alabama:
- 5-0 in SECCG's (W, UGA 2012; W, Mizzou 2014; W, UF 2015; W, UF 2016; W, UGA 2018)
- 2-2 in CFPCG's (W, Clem 2015; L, Clem 2016; W, UGA 2017; L, Clem 2018)
- 7-2 or .7778 overall
Clemson:
- 5-0 in ACCCG's (W, UNC 2015; W, VaTech 2016; W, Miami 2017; W, Pitt 2018; W, UVA 2019)
- 2-2 in CFPCG's (L, Bama 2015; W, Bama 2016; W, Bama 2018; L, LSU 2019)
- 7-2 or .7778 overall
Even though these three teams have dominated their CCG's over the past 8+ years with a combined record of 14-1 or .9333 they obviously can't collectively dominate CFPCG's if for no other reason than they run into each other. Combined they are barely over .500 in CFCG's at 5-4 with two wins (tOSU over Ore and Bama over UGA) and one loss (Clem to LSU) coming against other teams while the other three wins/losses were splits by Clemson/Bama in the CFPCG. Ie, they can't both win.
While true, if they lose any one of those, they generally aren't going to play any more, so it's just one more loss.
-
Clemson is an interesting potential "Blue Blood" program. I'd argue they are not today because of history, but when might they become one? They clearly are a dominating program now. If they become a fixture in the playoffs over the next decade and win say 3 NCs, do they start to edge into the discussion, or does being a BB inherently require a long history of success?
-
Medina:
Born in 1954 and not seeing college football even on TV until New Year's Day of 1963, and not being aware of the national picture until about the 1967 season, I have always considered Michigan an elite program. An elite program that has had some bad luck over the past 15 years or so.
But your analysis makes me wonder.
If Michigan football had begun in 1927 rather than 1881, would Michigan be a helmet program? Or would it be a good program that had had two periods of greatness under Fritz Crisler and Bo Schembechler?
I agree with your point that Bo gets underrated.
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams.
It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966: Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965: Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964: Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961: Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll. They finished 6-3
1960: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958: Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1
So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once. If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970. Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years.
It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year). In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23. Still, they finished 8-2 and #12.
In 1969 the Wolverines were:
- Unranked preseason*
- got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
- fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
- got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
- fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
- got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
- jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
- lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9
Then Michigan became almost super-elite. From 1970-2007 they were:
- #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611).
- #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611).
- #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611).
So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls.
Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
- #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
- #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
- #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)
Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were.
*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season. I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time. They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12. Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked. Michigan didn't because they weren't.
-
It would be kinda neat to have a Helmet Grading scale that calculates how many places higher a team gets in the preseason poll just because.
-
I don't disagree with all of that, but at the same time, to a person who grew up post-Bo in the southern US, Schembechler seems revered like a multi-NC-winning HC. When I got old enough to look him up, his records were always great, but he was sort of a loser, in terms of winning the big one.
If his career was recent, he'd be another John Cooper or whoever.
Yes and no.
@ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) once said that Bo and Gene Keady were both guys that would be on a hypothetical "Mount Rushmore" of Big Ten coaches due to their phenomenal in-conference and regular season success but whose national perception is substantially dimmer because of their postseason struggles. I think that sums it up pretty well.
Schembechler went 143-24-3 (.8500) in Big Ten games and 194-48-5 (.7955) overall. That is actually slightly better than Woody who went 152-37-7 (.7934) in league games and 205-61-10 (.7609) overall.
Where Hayes crushes Schembechler is in bowls, particularly the Rose Bowl and consequently NC's. Woody was 4-4 in Rosebowls and 5-6 in Bowls overall while Bo was 2-8 and 5-12 in Rosebowls and bowls overall respectively. Woody's numbers are about what you would expect (close to .500) while Bo's are just dreadful. However, to Bo's credit three of Woody's wins came before Bo got to Ann Arbor. After Bo's arrival, Woody was just 1-4 in Rosebowls and 2-6 in bowls overall.
Personally, I think a big part of both of their post-1968 bowl struggles had to do with the intensity of their rivalry with each other. THE GAME became SO BIG that everything after it felt anti-climactic and unimportant by comparison.
-
the same could be said for Osborne and Switzer
but, most agree that meeting a PAC team in the Rose Bowl or meeting a Florida team in the Orange Bowl is a tough game for a midwestern team
most bowl records are around 50% to begin with - can't help to play on the opponent's home turf
-
Clemson is an interesting potential "Blue Blood" program. I'd argue they are not today because of history, but when might they become one? They clearly are a dominating program now. If they become a fixture in the playoffs over the next decade and win say 3 NCs, do they start to edge into the discussion, or does being a BB inherently require a long history of success?
Here are decades over .750 for all of these teams:
- 46 OU
- 43 tOSU
- 39 Bama
- 38 UNL
- 34 TX
- 34 M
- 32 ND
- 31 TN
- 26 PSU
- 23 Miami
- 22 USC
- 19 FSU
- 12 LSU
- 11 UF
- 10 Clemson
Clemson's 10 decades over .750 were:
- 78-87
- 80-89
- 81-90
- 82-91
- 83-92
- 84-93
- 86-95
- 08-17
- 09-18
- 10-19
I think .750 for a decade is "elite". Clemson has two such peaks, the late-70's to early 90's and the current period. All of the "true" helmets have at least twice as many .750+ decades as the Tigers and most of them have three or four times as many. Clemson isn't a "helmet" to me because they don't have enough history of success to warrant that status. They have been phenomenal of late but that isn't the same thing as being a long-term blue-blood. If Dabo stays another decade or 15 years and keeps them at a high level they'll be up around FSU/USC/Miami/PSU's level in this category and that is more like it.
-
I remember, as a kid, that Clemson was the bully of the ACC. They were like Auburn in the 80s, always pretty good, with a stupid-good defense.
Clemson was the biggest victim of FSU joining the ACC. If that had never happened, it's possible/probable the Tigers become elite years earlier.
-
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams.
It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966: Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965: Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964: Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961: Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll. They finished 6-3
1960: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958: Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1
So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once. If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970. Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years.
It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year). In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23. Still, they finished 8-2 and #12.
In 1969 the Wolverines were:
- Unranked preseason*
- got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
- fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
- got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
- fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
- got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
- jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
- lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9
Then Michigan became almost super-elite. From 1970-2007 they were:
- #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611).
- #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611).
- #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611).
So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls.
Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
- #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
- #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
- #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)
Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were.
*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season. I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time. They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12. Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked. Michigan didn't because they weren't.
It's not the case that I considered Michigan elite in 1967, but that by the time "Michigan" impinged on my consciousness, they were at least climbing toward that status.
The first time I really looked at the polls was at the end of the '67 season, in which #3 OU beat #2 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl. The polls that year were all pre-bowl, so I was wondering how OU would have been ranked had their been polling after the bowl games. It did not make any impact on me that Michigan was not only not among the 10 ranked teams, but had finished 4-6.
But the next year Michigan was good, and starting in '71 Michigan and Ohio State played in a string of games in which it seemed like the first team to score 13 points was going to win. Then OU played Michigan (who had lost to Ohio State 21-14) in the Orange Bowl after the '75 season. (I was disappointed that Michigan wore white pants in that game.) Without going back and examining the history, and even while I was aware that Michigan State had played Notre Dame to a 10-10 tie in 1966's GOTC, it just seemed like it was the norm that Michigan and Ohio State always played in the last game of the season for the Big Ten championship, and that the score in that game was likely to be something like 13-10.
Maybe the fact that my fraternity got a visit from our national director, a Michigan Man who taught us "I Want to Go Back to Michigan," and that the Pride of Oklahoma played "Let's Go Blue" (renamed "Go Big Red") the next season after that Orange Bowl matchup, made me think that Michigan was a perennial top-10 program.
Those decades of Michigan futility since Fritz Crisler were before I started paying attention.
If Michigan was not a helmet team in 1969, have the Wolverines done enough since then to earn helmet status? Was Bo's run great enough, even without an MNC? Does the one split national championship in the 1990s do it?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/P0khZ0j.png)
Curious what you other history buffs think of these four.
I've long thought that their recent declines all starting at about the same time is not coincidental. The four are similar (and different from pretty much all the other helmets) in that they simply do not have enough local talent to be consistently elite. My hypothesis, based on that, is that the growth of TV has hurt them because it has made it harder to attract non-local talent. Also note that none of the four are located in places that 17/18 year olds are terribly eager to go. They aren't Hollywood like USC or the beach like the Florida schools, etc.
My TV hypothesis obviously does not explain why all four sucked in the 50's/60's:
- .3370 Nebraska bottomed out for 42-51 and didn't get back over .500 for a decade until after Devaney arrived.
- .5882 Tennessee bottomed out for 54-63
- .5101 Notre Dame bottomed out for 56-65
- .4947 Michigan bottomed out for 58-67
Why?
As recently as 89-98 all four were .750+ but the last time any of them were over .750 for a decade was that Michigan was .7742 for 1997-2006. For the current decade (2010-2019) they are:
- .6589 Michigan - and trending up
- .6574 Notre Dame - and trending up
- .5814 Nebraska - trending down
- .5040 Tennessee - slight uptick
None of them are close to elite over the past 10 years. Michigan and Notre Dame are trending the right direction but they still have a long ways to go. Since 2006 Michigan's only season with less than three losses was an 11-2 record in 2011. Notre Dame went 12-1 in both 2012 and 2018 but both of those were 12-0 regular seasons followed by the Irish getting absolutely drilled once they got matched with NC contenders in the BCSNCG and CFP Semi-Final. They lost those two games by a combined 72-17 so it just feels like the 12-0 was a product of schedule not greatness. Other than those two and last year's 11-2 the Irish haven't finished with less than three losses since 1993.
-
Their cycles somewhat correlate, a bit. The Vols may be an 8-4 kind of program going forward, in most years. They should be 10-2 on occasion and 6-6 on occasion. The are locked with Alabama, and of course UGA/UF, and they have struggled with UK of late, not to mention an OOC game of possible note.
-
If Michigan was not a helmet team in 1969, have the Wolverines done enough since then to earn helmet status? Was Bo's run great enough, even without an MNC? Does the one split national championship in the 1990s do it?
Michigan's dearth of recent NC's creates an interesting argument. However, I think that ranking teams by NC's doesn't give enough of a picture. Being a Helmet isn't just about winning NC's. Obviously that is the goal for all of our teams, every year, but to rank teams solely by NC's creates a false dichotomy in which every season has only two possible end results:
I get the argument that "second is the first loser" and all that but the reality is that there is a HUMONGOUS difference between losing the CFPCG and going 0-12. Looking at last year:
- LSU was the best and a little better than
- Clemson was 2nd best and a little better than
- Ohio State was next and better than
- Oklahoma
- etc
- etc
Michigan is clearly a helmet in spite of their only having one split NC in the last 70 years because Bo and his handpicked successors had them at a consistently elite level for ~40 years and when you add that to their "pre-historic" success in the early 1930's and before, they are a blueblood . . . at least for now.
On the subject of winning NC's as it relates to "helmet status", I think it is a lot more important for schools trying to obtain helmet status than it is for schools trying to maintain helmet status. My view is that maintaining helmet status requires being "relevant". That doesn't mean that you have to win NC's, it just means that you have to be in the conversation. Obtaining helmet status requires hardware. So, for example, if Clemson and Michigan played in next year's CFPCG the actual result of the game would matter to Clemson's helmet status but it wouldn't matter to Michigan's. Clemson would need the win because they aren't a helmet yet and they need more hardware to get there. Michigan wouldn't need the win because they already are a helmet so all they need to maintain that is to be "relevant" and playing in the NCG is obvious evidence of relevance.
-
It seems like Tennessee "should" be at least as good as Auburn is. Auburn, Alabama, has less cachet than Knoxville, Tennessee, does.
I don't think there's any "natural" reason for Oklahoma to be as good as it is. Norman is not an 18-year-old's idea of Fun City, and Oklahoma is not a large population state. Texas is next door, but Texas contains 5 P5 programs plus a gazillion smaller colleges plus other P5 and G5 neighbors (more of the former since A&M bolted to the SEC) fishing those same waters.
-
kinda interesting that mich, tenn and neb all had their most recent peak in the late 90's early 00s. meanwhile, their main rivals, osu, bama, and ok, respectively were all... not so peakish. wonder if that coincidence. i guess you could say the same for nd and usc too.
i don't think there's much more to it than getting the right coach. there are some built in advantages, but those can be overcome.
-
Michigan's dearth of recent NC's creates an interesting argument. However, I think that ranking teams by NC's doesn't give enough of a picture. Being a Helmet isn't just about winning NC's. Obviously that is the goal for all of our teams, every year, but to rank teams solely by NC's creates a false dichotomy in which every season has only two possible end results:
I get the argument that "second is the first loser" and all that but the reality is that there is a HUMONGOUS difference between losing the CFPCG and going 0-12. Looking at last year:
- LSU was the best and a little better than
- Clemson was 2nd best and a little better than
- Ohio State was next and better than
- Oklahoma
- etc
- etc
Michigan is clearly a helmet in spite of their only having one split NC in the last 70 years because Bo and his handpicked successors had them at a consistently elite level for ~40 years and when you add that to their "pre-historic" success in the early 1930's and before, they are a blueblood . . . at least for now.
On the subject of winning NC's as it relates to "helmet status", I think it is a lot more important for schools trying to obtain helmet status than it is for schools trying to maintain helmet status. My view is that maintaining helmet status requires being "relevant". That doesn't mean that you have to win NC's, it just means that you have to be in the conversation. Obtaining helmet status requires hardware. So, for example, if Clemson and Michigan played in next year's CFPCG the actual result of the game would matter to Clemson's helmet status but it wouldn't matter to Michigan's. Clemson would need the win because they aren't a helmet yet and they need more hardware to get there. Michigan wouldn't need the win because they already are a helmet so all they need to maintain that is to be "relevant" and playing in the NCG is obvious evidence of relevance.
I don't disagree with that. I just tossed out the "Is Michigan still a helmet?" question to see your thoughts on it.
Are some of the programs that Stewart Mandel has as "Kings" not yet helmets? And are some of those he has dropped to "Barons" still helmets?
Clemson and Nebraska would be two programs as examples.
-
Michigan's dearth of recent NC's creates an interesting argument. However, I think that ranking teams by NC's doesn't give enough of a picture. Being a Helmet isn't just about winning NC's. Obviously that is the goal for all of our teams, every year, but to rank teams solely by NC's creates a false dichotomy in which every season has only two possible end results:
(https://media.tenor.com/images/53b0b25cde7de98158198a46430d4fa8/tenor.gif)
-
It does seem as if winning the NC is "it" now for major programs. I think "it" is winning your conference and hopefully a major bowl game.
-
The alternatives of "first place" and "loser" are childish.
Of course, we are a pretty childish bunch of people these days. We want everything and we want it now. And we want it free. Let somebody else pay for it.
-
It does seem as if winning the NC is "it" now for major programs. I think "it" is winning your conference and hopefully a major bowl game.
#helmetproblems
I'll settle for bowl eligibility right now...
-
for Husker fans, since Devaney went back to back in 70 & 71, it's been MNC or nothing.
yes, back in the 70's and 80's beating the Sooners and winning the Big 8 was a good season, but there was always that issue if the coach couldn't win the big bowl and take home the national trophy.
I'm certain it's the same with the Sooners.
tough as hell on coaching staffs, but that expectation stuck
-
there is a HUMONGOUS difference between losing the CFPCG and going 0-12.
Whew, thanks for clearing that up.
-
Whew, thanks for clearing that up.
You act like it is obvious and I think it is too, but there are people here who argue (usually in jest, I think) that:
(https://media.tenor.com/images/53b0b25cde7de98158198a46430d4fa8/tenor.gif)
-
It is a gut punch to get to the NC and lose on a long pass blown coverage to a replacement QB though, even after winning the conference and the Rose Bowl.
But, is it better than 8-5? Of course.
-
I don't think there's any "natural" reason for Oklahoma to be as good as it is. Norman is not an 18-year-old's idea of Fun City, and Oklahoma is not a large population state. Texas is next door, but Texas contains 5 P5 programs plus a gazillion smaller colleges plus other P5 and G5 neighbors (more of the former since A&M bolted to the SEC) fishing those same waters.
I trust that you know Oklahoma a lot better than I do but my thinking on this was that a substantial portion of Northern Texas is basically "local" to Oklahoma. Ie, if you are a hot-shot HS football star in a North Dallas suburb I think the "helmet" geographically closest to you is in Norman.
-
kinda interesting that mich, tenn and neb all had their most recent peak in the late 90's early 00s. meanwhile, their main rivals, osu, bama, and ok, respectively were all... not so peakish. wonder if that coincidence. i guess you could say the same for nd and usc too.
i don't think there's much more to it than getting the right coach. there are some built in advantages, but those can be overcome.
I do think that a big part of Tennessee's problem is that there just isn't enough talent to go around. Back at their last peak in the late 90's (including first BCSNC in 98) the recruiting competition from Bama, USCe, Clemson, etc wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.
-
The Vols historically have poached players from Georgia obviously, as well. That has become tougher to do now. If you are a Blue Chipper in HS, you are thinking 3 years to the League and Alabama, Clemson, Auburn, UGA, Florida ... sound more appealing.
If you are a 3.5 star, you might prefer UK and get to play earlier, perhaps. UK is an interesting story.
-
I think the point is that the CFP devalues winning the B1G and going and winning against the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl if you're a team with legitimate CFP aspirations.
I.e. if you're Ohio State, and you go 12-1 to win the B1G but you are excluded from the CFP was a woodshedding loss to lowly PURDUE of all teams, and then you go win the Rose Bowl against PAC-champion Washington... It somehow feels like a letdown.
For us lowly mortal programs that will probably never even sniff the CFP, 8-5 with a bowl win is a nice season. For someone like Ohio State, 13-1 but missing the CFP is a letdown.
-
I don't disagree with that. I just tossed out the "Is Michigan still a helmet?" question to see your thoughts on it.
Are some of the programs that Stewart Mandel has as "Kings" not yet helmets? And are some of those he has dropped to "Barons" still helmets?
Clemson and Nebraska would be two programs as examples.
My thoughts:
Michigan:
I obviously have no love for the Wolverines and unlike a lot of tOSU fans who want them to be good because that makes tOSU look better when the Buckeyes beat them I'd be perfectly happy if Michigan never won another CFB game.
Total aside:
My theory on this is that there is a short term, an intermediate term, and a longterm view:
Short term (right now): It is always fun to watch your rival lose. In the moment I loved watching ApSt take them down.
Intermediate term (this season): It is better for tOSU if Michigan is good because it props up tOSU's SoS and makes the Buckeyes look better.
Long term (more than one year): Ohio State recruits head-to-head against Michigan more than any other school and consequently anything bad that happens to Michigan is necessarily good for Ohio State. The worse they are, the better the argument to play at Ohio State is.
Back to Michigan:
I believe that they are still a "helmet" or "king" because they still get press coverage like one. When Harbaugh got hired it was BIG news because it was Michigan. When that stops, they aren't a helmet or king anymore. Several Michigan fans on here make the argument that "helmet status" became permanent in the 1970's and can never be lost. I think that is probably a comforting thought if you are a fan of Michigan or Nebraska or Tennessee but I also think it is nuts. Very little in life is permanent and if Michigan (or any other current helmet) sucks long enough, they'll lose it and become another Minnesota (school with lots of ancient hardware but nobody cares today).
Nebraska:
I think that Nebraska either has already lost helmet status or they are a lot closer to it than Michigan. There are a couple reasons. First, Michigan had LOTS more success pre-Schembechler than Nebraska did pre-Devaney. Nebraska is basically Devaney/Osborne/Solich and not much else. Second, Nebraska hasn't managed to get into the national conversation as much lately. Even though Michigan ultimately lost their last two games in 2006 they did get to 11-0 and #2 and into a HUMONGOUS #1 v #2 game. Then just a couple years ago they got to 10-1 and looking like a CFP team before losing their last two. Nebraska hasn't been in any late season BCSBCG/CFP discussions in a LONG time. IMHO, the next few years under Scott Frost are critical for the Cornhuskers. If they don't get back to being in the conversation soon, they are no longer a helmet/king.
Clemson:
Mandel promoted them to King and I think he was premature on that. Some Clemson fan will probably show up now and post pictures of the four tOSU/Clemson final scoreboards:
- 29-23 Clemson in the 2019 CFP Semi-Final
- 31-0 Clemson in the 2016 CFP Semi-Final
- 40-35 Clemson in the 2014 Orange Bowl (2013 season)
- 17-15 Clemson in the 1979 (1978 season) Gator Bowl (game that got Woody fired)
Yeah, I know. Clemson has been phenomenal lately and they are 4-0 all-time against Ohio State. That is great but they don't have anything close to the long-term sustained success that Ohio State and the other helmets have. They have Dabo, a great run from the mid-70's to the early-90's and nothing else. Note also that all four games against Ohio State came during Clemson's two great runs. They didn't play teams like Ohio State the rest of the time because Ohio State was in big-boy bowls and Clemson wasn't.
-
I think the point is that the CFP devalues winning the B1G and going and winning against the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl if you're a team with legitimate CFP aspirations.
I.e. if you're Ohio State, and you go 12-1 to win the B1G but you are excluded from the CFP was a woodshedding loss to lowly PURDUE of all teams, and then you go win the Rose Bowl against PAC-champion Washington... It somehow feels like a letdown.
For us lowly mortal programs that will probably never even sniff the CFP, 8-5 with a bowl win is a nice season. For someone like Ohio State, 13-1 but missing the CFP is a letdown.
I know it is #helmetschoolproblems, but you are spot on with this.
15-20 years ago a season like 2018 with a single "WTF" loss, an outright conference title, and a RoseBowl win would have felt awesome. Now, meh. It was a good season to be sure but the RoseBowl has lost it's cachet because it isn't where the "best" go anymore. The best go to the CFP. The also-rans go to the RoseBowl.
-
I trust that you know Oklahoma a lot better than I do but my thinking on this was that a substantial portion of Northern Texas is basically "local" to Oklahoma. Ie, if you are a hot-shot HS football star in a North Dallas suburb I think the "helmet" geographically closest to you is in Norman.
Yes, that's largely true. Dallas is almost exactly midway between Norman and Austin.
But I don't think that most kids in northern Texas grow up thinking that they live in Baja Oklahoma. They're still Texans, and the flagship university in Texas is still Texas. Recruiting them requires overcoming that.
I'm not saying that OU doesn't get a lot of Texas kids. We do. But we get fewer of them than we used to get, partly due to the decline in P5-level defensive players coming out of Texas high schools, I think.
And we lose Oklahoma kids too.
-
so the Sooners recruit nationally
-
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams.
It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966: Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965: Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964: Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961: Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll. They finished 6-3
1960: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958: Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1
So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once. If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970. Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years.
It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year). In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23. Still, they finished 8-2 and #12.
In 1969 the Wolverines were:
- Unranked preseason*
- got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
- fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
- got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
- fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
- got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
- jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
- lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9
Then Michigan became almost super-elite. From 1970-2007 they were:
- #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611).
- #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611).
- #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611).
So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls.
Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
- #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
- #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
- #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)
Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were.
*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season. I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time. They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12. Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked. Michigan didn't because they weren't.
Michigan was getting votes in the preseason poll in 1969, they could have been just unranked.
-
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams.
It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966: Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965: Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964: Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961: Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll. They finished 6-3
1960: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959: Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958: Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1
So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once. If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970. Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years.
It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year). In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23. Still, they finished 8-2 and #12.
In 1969 the Wolverines were:
- Unranked preseason*
- got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
- fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
- got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
- fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
- got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
- jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
- lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9
Then Michigan became almost super-elite. From 1970-2007 they were:
- #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611).
- #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611).
- #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611).
So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls.
Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
- #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
- #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
- #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)
Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were.
*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season. I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time. They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12. Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked. Michigan didn't because they weren't.
reminds me of many debates with Michigan fans back during the 97 season and the post season regarding perception vs Nebraska using AP poll stats
those were the good ol daze
-
so the Sooners recruit nationally
Yep.
As do the Huskers.
-
I think the point is that the CFP devalues winning the B1G and going and winning against the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl if you're a team with legitimate CFP aspirations.
I.e. if you're Ohio State, and you go 12-1 to win the B1G but you are excluded from the CFP was a woodshedding loss to lowly PURDUE of all teams, and then you go win the Rose Bowl against PAC-champion Washington... It somehow feels like a letdown.
For us lowly mortal programs that will probably never even sniff the CFP, 8-5 with a bowl win is a nice season. For someone like Ohio State, 13-1 but missing the CFP is a letdown.
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.
-
yup, population of 4 million in Oklahoma
we know Dalls/FW has a great amount of high school talent, but not just Texas, A&M, TCU, and Baylor are looking there.
Ohio St., Clemson, Bama, LSU, and Notre Dame are lurking there for 4 & 5 star kids
-
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.
but, you're old
-
What's that? I didn't have my hearing aid turned on.
-
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.
Agree with you here. It's a case of be careful what you ask for. College football has lost a lot of it's tradition and uniqueness in it's quest for a "one true title".
-
I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the "playoff"
I was right
-
I think it would please the most people if we went back pre-bowl coalition and had an optional +1 game if there were 2 remaining undefeated, P5 teams.
I don't know why the "if necessary" idea never gained any traction. In '02, you don't need it, in '03, you do. How hard is that?
And I think the sport benefited from having 6-8 strong independent teams.
-
I think it would please the most people if we went back pre-bowl coalition and had an optional +1 game if there were 2 remaining undefeated, P5 teams.
I don't know why the "if necessary" idea never gained any traction. In '02, you don't need it, in '03, you do. How hard is that?
And I think the sport benefited from having 6-8 strong independent teams.
You can't sell TV revenue to an optional game. We all know that there's too much money to be lost for something so sensible.is me
I miss the old affiliations and the independents. Blame the CFA for that.
-
For a helmet, what is better?
Making the CFP but losing there, or missing the CFP but winning a NY6 bowl?
-
Ask OU.
-
I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the "playoff"
I was right
I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh). I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.
-
I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh). I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.
Going to 8 teams will just make it twice as bad.
-
I have issues with 8, I could possibly be "OK" with 6. We'll always have "issues" of one sort or another, as when some pro team finishes well back and then wins the playoff.
Usually, the 8th best team is a really good team capable of beating anyone, just not as often as not.
I really don't want to see the 7th or 8th "top ranked team" win a CFP.
-
Just a reminder: college basketball has the most meaningless regular season in all of sport.
Maybe we shouldn't mimic that model.
-
Just a reminder: college basketball has the most meaningless regular season in all of sport.
Maybe we shouldn't mimic that model.
I disagree. It's only 31 games. Every game matters. Teams on the bubble are sweating every outcome as the season winds down. Teams firmly in the field know that any "bad loss" they take could bump them down a seed line or two, and that chances for tourney success depend heavily on not only their seeding but their regional draw--so they're doing everything they can to win every game and improve their seed. Getting a 1 seed over a 2 improves your route to the Final Four. Getting a 3 seed over a 4 reduces the chances that you'll have to face the 1 seed in your bracket another round. Getting a 4 over a 5 ensures you have a geographic advantage in the first two rounds by being placed close to your campus. Nothing like losing out on a 4 seed and getting a 5, and then realizing you have to fly from West Lafayette to Spokane for the first round and you're in the "night" game out West when your team would normally be sleeping.
Contrast that to NBA basketball where over half the teams make the playoffs, and teams get in with losing records. Where it's an 81 game season and teams quite literally "rest" star players, giving up games, because they don't care. Contrast that to MLB, where it's a 162 game season, and the fans who show up to games are basically there to while away an afternoon or evening and drink beer. Sure, they root for their team to win, but nobody goes home dejected from a loss. They just hope the weather is nice.
I recognize that college basketball regular seasons are hard to follow, but that's more due to the structure of the sport. They can't play all their games on weekends like NCAAFB or the NFL. NBA/MLB/NHL have the same problem. Weekday games make it hard to follow your team.
But I emphatically disagree that NCAA Basketball has a less meaningful regular season than either the NBA, MLB, or NHL.
-
I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh). I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.
I would have liked the current system in 1984
but only following that season
-
No system will ever be "perfect". I am not sure what perfect even means in this context. The core concept is of course money (eyeballs).
The reveal show gets a lot of attention now, as does the weekly reveal of the CFP poll ( which is somewhat irrelevant).
I don't think a 10-3 or even 11-2 team that just lost it's CG should be included (unless there is no clear alternative).
-
No system will ever be "perfect". I am not sure what perfect even means in this context. The core concept is of course money (eyeballs).
The reveal show gets a lot of attention now, as does the weekly reveal of the CFP poll ( which is somewhat irrelevant).
I don't think a 10-3 or even 11-2 team that just lost it's CG should be included (unless there is no clear alternative).
Somebody pretty smart said, "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."
We weren't satisfied with "the good"--the bowls-and-polls method of selecting the Div I-A college football national champion. So we went after the perfect. And what we got, IMO, is something less good than what we ditched.
Many of the things that were unique to big-time college football--compared specifically to the NFL--are gone. The Rose Bowl as the annual meeting between the champions of the Big Teneleven and Pac-8/10/12 is an example. The endless arguments over which of the two major polls was "better" or "more accurate." The goal each year being to win your conference. The joy of winning said conference, regardless of whether or not doing so set you up for a bowl game with national championship implications. The "big game" being the one with your hated rival.
Now we've got an NFL-Lite playoff system and, while something has been gained, much has been lost.
-
I've noted before how humans like "lists" and rankings, and "certainty" of uncertain things.
-
Now we've got an NFL-Lite playoff system and, while something has been gained, much has been lost.
tradition tossed aside
-
But I emphatically disagree that NCAA Basketball has a less meaningful regular season than either the NBA, MLB, or NHL.
Bubble teams suck. They're sub-.500 in their conference, all competing to get curb-stomped in the first round of the tournament. And it's after-the-fact.
Name 3 big regular-season college basketball games from the past decade. I'll wait.
The NBA and NHL are such absurd outliers, they are their own group of crazy. Allowing 50% or more of your teams into the postseason destroys the competition vs entertainment sliding scale to pieces. It's solely entertainment.
MLB had it right, but then has slid further to the entertainment end with the wild-card junk. Obviously, I'm pro-competition vs entertainment, but whatever. That's not important.
College football had a system that was poor at identifying the one, best team (best meaning best resume...meaning best record, because it was a simpler time). The playoff has been installed to better help find that best team. It allows for matchups to happen that couldn't have in the past, and that's a good thing, IF you're interested in identifying the one, best team.
For those of us pining for the good ole days, then entertainment might be a little more important than competition.
My proposal, to go back to how it used to be AND having an AS-NEEDED +1 championship game tries to value entertainment and competition equally.
-
I too find regular-season college hoops un-compelling.
-
I admit I am an old fart, I like the old bowl system, where winning the Big Ten and getting the Rose Bowl mattered. Then lets argue who is the best team in the country.
However, we are never going back to that, so if we are going to have a playoff go to 6 teams (5 power conference winners and 1 additional team) and no more.
And yes the regular College basketball season does not matter. I have lost my fandom for the most part. During the first weekend of March Madness, I am watching the NCAA wrestling tournament rather than the basketball games.
-
Bubble teams suck. They're sub-.500 in their conference, all competing to get curb-stomped in the first round of the tournament. And it's after-the-fact.
Name 3 big regular-season college basketball games from the past decade. I'll wait.
The NBA and NHL are such absurd outliers, they are their own group of crazy. Allowing 50% or more of your teams into the postseason destroys the competition vs entertainment sliding scale to pieces. It's solely entertainment.
MLB had it right, but then has slid further to the entertainment end with the wild-card junk. Obviously, I'm pro-competition vs entertainment, but whatever. That's not important.
College football had a system that was poor at identifying the one, best team (best meaning best resume...meaning best record, because it was a simpler time). The playoff has been installed to better help find that best team. It allows for matchups to happen that couldn't have in the past, and that's a good thing, IF you're interested in identifying the one, best team.
For those of us pining for the good ole days, then entertainment might be a little more important than competition.
My proposal, to go back to how it used to be AND having an AS-NEEDED +1 championship game tries to value entertainment and competition equally.
I am with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) on this. When Ohio State is a Bubble Team in CBB I want them to get in but I know that it will be a short tournament even if they do. I think OAM overstated that a LITTLE bit because bubble teams typically end up somewhere around 8-12 so the first game is definitely a "winnable" game and getting to the second weekend isn't impossible. It ends there though. If my Buckeyes are on the bubble and they get in they might have a nice run or a lot of luck the first weekend but once they get to the S16 and beyond they are almost guaranteed to play a vastly superior team every time out. They might win one or two of those games against vastly superior teams but they aren't going to win all four.
In CFB it is completely different. I have LOTS of experience with this because in the six years of the CFP, Ohio State has been a "bubble team" five times. I felt that those five CFB "bubble teams" were each capable of winning a NC.
-
Michigan was getting votes in the preseason poll in 1969, they could have been just unranked.
I see that they had votes in the 1969 preseason poll, but I don't think that changes my argument. When is the last time a "helmet" got as high as #4, finished #12, and started the next season as an "ORV"? It doesn't happen. Helmet teams that finish #12 start right around #12. In between the final 1968 poll and the first 1969 poll Michigan got jumped by:
- Houston (moved from #18 to #7)
- Mississippi (moved from nr to #9)
- Bama (moved from #17 to #13)
- Indiana (moved from nr to #14)
- Tennessee (moved from #13 to #15)
- Stanford (moved from nr to #16)
- UCLA (moved from nr to #17)
- Purdue (moved from #10 to #18)
- Minnesota (moved from nr to #19)
- Auburn (moved from #16 to #20)
A helmet might get jumped by another helmet or by a team with a tremendous amount of returning talent but not 10 teams including some obviously NOT helmets.
-
However, we are never going back to that, so if we are going to have a playoff go to 6 teams (5 power conference winners and 1 additional team) and no more.
Many myself included like that model since the beginning.Win your conference or tough.The majority of theses kids are still students and not NFL bound.So stretching the season doesn't benefit them.Also more NFL bound kids will just sit it out as more games equal a higher chance of injury.With marquee palyers will just opt out so there will be a bif fat * next to every other champion moving forward.
-
I admit I am an old fart, I like the old bowl system, where winning the Big Ten and getting the Rose Bowl mattered. Then lets argue who is the best team in the country.
However, we are never going back to that, so if we are going to have a playoff go to 6 teams (5 power conference winners and 1 additional team) and no more. . . .
Oh, you mean 5 power-conference winners plus a second SEC team. ;)
-
Maybe he means the top four SEC teams and a couple from some other conference just for show.
-
Don't forget Clemson.
-
Rose: B10 vs PAC
Fiesta: Big12 vs SEC
Sugar: SEC vs SEC
Orange: ACC vs SEC
-
Or if you're old school:
Rose: B10 vs PAC
Fiesta: Independent vs SEC
Cotton: SWC vs SEC
Orange: Big 8 vs SEC
Sugar: SEC vs Sacrificial Lamb
-
Many myself included like that model since the beginning.Win your conference or tough.
I liked the old model. Go undefeated and do it impressively enough that you are one of the two top ranked teams
or tough
-
The way I look at it, there are really only two options:
- The old system where we all agreed that the national championship was based on human subjectivity.
- A system where it gets settled "on the field" and there's one, true, undisputed champion.
I'm fine with #1.
But neither the BCS nor the CFP are a good example of #2.
-
The masses will wait for 5 undefeateds from P5 conferences, then cry outrage!
It's only a matter of time, especially how things are now. Clemson, Ohio St, and OU basically own their conferences. All you need is for Alabama to go undefeated and someone to take charge in the Pac-12, and you have it.
And when it does, I'll bet you a dollar the odd man out will be west of the Mississip.
-
The way I look at it, there are really only two options:
- The old system where we all agreed that the national championship was based on human subjectivity.
- A system where it gets settled "on the field" and there's one, true, undisputed champion.
I'm fine with #1.
But neither the BCS nor the CFP are a good example of #2.
I don’t get why the BCS or CFP isn’t a good example of settling it on the field. It is settled on the field. You might not agree with the process of how the teams get there but it is settled on the field.
-
agreed
respect is earned
-
I don’t get why the BCS or CFP isn’t a good example of settling it on the field. It is settled on the field. You might not agree with the process of how the teams get there but it is settled on the field.
Because it's only "settled on the field" in the final game or three.
The major talking point leading up to the adoption of the playoff was "settle it on the field."
Repeated over and over again as if it were a magical incantation.
As if nothing had ever been settled on the field until the BCS NCG or CFP.
But--back to the case we were discussing--who was better between LSU and Bama in 2011 had presumably already been settled on the field. Where is the "settling it on the field" when LSU would have had to beat Bama twice to be national champs, but Bama only had to beat LSU once?
-
Rematches like that have happened throughout history. Hell, most of you all clamored for one in 2006.
-
Any time you feature two top teams on a neutral field, you usually are down to who gets a few breaks in the game. It doesn't really settle which team is genuinely better.
-
Because it's only "settled on the field" in the final game or three.
The major talking point leading up to the adoption of the playoff was "settle it on the field."
Repeated over and over again as if it were a magical incantation.
As if nothing had ever been settled on the field until the BCS NCG or CFP.
But--back to the case we were discussing--who was better between LSU and Bama in 2011 had presumably already been settled on the field. Where is the "settling it on the field" when LSU would have had to beat Bama twice to be national champs, but Bama only had to beat LSU once?
Because the system in place at the time matched them up again in the championship game and they settled it on the field. Everybody seems to want college football to have a postseason that resembles that of other sports, but then balks at something like championship rematches because we aren’t used to seeing it in CFB.
Rematches happen all the time in the postseasons of other sports.
-
I don’t get why the BCS or CFP isn’t a good example of settling it on the field. It is settled on the field. You might not agree with the process of how the teams get there but it is settled on the field.
Because I also said that this was the goal of "settling it on the field":
A system where it gets settled "on the field" and there's one, true, undisputed champion.
If we have this much disagreement over the process of how the teams get there, then it's hard to justify it being one, true, undisputed champion.
Clearly the BCS was flawed because it could leave out a potential "best team" when you have 130 FBS teams and only two slots. In 2004 Auburn was undefeated but as there were two other undefeated teams deemed "better", they didn't get a shot. In 2009 you had five undefeated teams (2 G5, one Cincinnati who IIRC was P6 at that time) and only two slots. Sure, I don't think Boise State or TCU would have gotten by Alabama, but Boise State did beat 'Bama in a Suger Bowl a few years prior so it's not out of the realm of possibility.
In the CFP, we're supposed to expand the field to make sure worthy teams are included. Yet the #1 team has only won the entire thing 1 try out of 6. The #4 team has won it 33% of the time. And in both cases, that #4 team had reasons for potential exclusion (2014 OSU because there were two other 1-loss P5 co-champs that they leapfrogged, and 2018 Alabama because they weren't their own conference champion, although less so because there wasn't another 1-loss P5 conference champion available). If the team we all let skate in at the #4 slot wins the whole thing, it kinda makes our ability to determine which are the most "worthy" teams moot. If the #4 team can win it, are we really sure that the #5-6 teams aren't good enough?
You want to settle it on the field? Every P5 conference now has a very clear methodology to determine its own champion. Win your conference, you're in the field. Fill it out with 3 other teams (I favor either formally splitting P5/G5 and going 3 at large, or if you refuse to formally break the G5 away then you give the top-ranked G5 champion 1 berth with 2 at-large selections). So, eight teams.
Yes, sometimes it might mean that the "best team" is beaten by a lesser team. But that already happens with the CFP. If we're right and the #4 team going into the CFP is actually the #4 team in the country, than the best team didn't win. If we're not sure in our ability to rank the top 4 teams in the country going into the CFP, then it blows the whole system out of the water.
Settle it on the field. Win your conference and you have a shot. Everyone else who gets an at large as a beauty pageant should consider themselves lucky, not entitled to be there.
Or go back to a mythical champion decided by polls. That's fine with me, but apparently not most football fans. If you want a playoff and to "settle it on the field", do it right.
-
Because the system in place at the time matched them up again in the championship game and they settled it on the field. Everybody seems to want college football to have a postseason that resembles that of other sports, but then balks at something like championship rematches because we aren’t used to seeing it in CFB.
Rematches happen all the time in the postseasons of other sports.
The flaw in the BCS is that it assumes our eye test of who the "two best" teams in the land is unimpeachable, while the entire reason for it hinged on us being unable to agree [across multiple polls/etc] who the #1 team in the land was.
If you can't be sure that your eye test picks #1 accurately, how are you going to be sure it knows that #2 is really a better team than #3?
-
There are flaws in every system but we readily accept them. Take the NFL for instance. Division champions get guaranteed spots in the playoffs, right? Yet it is possible to go undefeated within your own division and still not win the division. Some would say that is a flaw. It is also possible for a team to go 8-8, win its division, and make the playoffs while another team may go 11-5 and miss the playoffs, or have to go on the road to play the 8-8 team. That could be considered a flaw. All those flaws exist in the MLB format as well.
In the NBA it could be considered a flaw that a 37 win team in the East makes the playoffs while a 44 win team in the West doesn’t.
It could be considered a flaw that tournament champions get auto bids to the NCAA tournament instead of regular season champions. There is also subjectivity in selecting participants but I never hear clamoring for a conference champions only model.
There is no perfect system that exists out there. CFB has a playoff system and the championship is being decided on the field. The difference is there is a belief that worthy title contenders may not be making CFB’s playoff and we assume everyone with a reasonable shot is making the postseason in the other sports. I’m actually ok with that but I know I’m in the minority.
-
Every one of those other systems that you point out are objective and known prior to the season starting.
The BCS and the CFP are subjective and the criteria by which the teams are selected are only known by the committee and don't appear to follow consistent guidelines from year to year.
Maybe it's not fair that you have to run a much tougher gauntlet to be SEC champion than PAC-12 champion, and that a team who doesn't win the SEC has to pray for at-large selection when an inferior PAC-12 conference champ gets an auto-bid. Tough. Win your conference.
-
Which programs would you include today as a "near helmet"?
My own definition of helmetosity is a program that gets uprated in the preseason AP poll simply because of its name. This doesn't work if a team is really good and ranked 1,2,3 though. Is Tennessee a near helmet" Miami? FSU? Oregon? Iowa?
-
Every one of those other systems that you point out are objective and known prior to the season starting.
The BCS and the CFP are subjective and the criteria by which the teams are selected are only known by the committee and don't appear to follow consistent guidelines from year to year.
Maybe it's not fair that you have to run a much tougher gauntlet to be SEC champion than PAC-12 champion, and that a team who doesn't win the SEC has to pray for at-large selection when an inferior PAC-12 conference champ gets an auto-bid. Tough. Win your conference.
I gotcha. You just want something objective and set in stone, even if it is imperfect. That’s reasonable.
I still like the subjectivity and controversy of it. I wouldn’t mind a system with some objective measures but with a caveat. Conference champs get an auto bid provided they finish in the top 10 or something like that.
-
Because I also said that this was the goal of "settling it on the field":
If we have this much disagreement over the process of how the teams get there, then it's hard to justify it being one, true, undisputed champion.
Clearly the BCS was flawed because it could leave out a potential "best team" when you have 130 FBS teams and only two slots. In 2004 Auburn was undefeated but as there were two other undefeated teams deemed "better", they didn't get a shot. In 2009 you had five undefeated teams (2 G5, one Cincinnati who IIRC was P6 at that time) and only two slots. Sure, I don't think Boise State or TCU would have gotten by Alabama, but Boise State did beat 'Bama in a Suger Bowl a few years prior so it's not out of the realm of possibility.
In the CFP, we're supposed to expand the field to make sure worthy teams are included. Yet the #1 team has only won the entire thing 1 try out of 6. The #4 team has won it 33% of the time. And in both cases, that #4 team had reasons for potential exclusion (2014 OSU because there were two other 1-loss P5 co-champs that they leapfrogged, and 2018 Alabama because they weren't their own conference champion, although less so because there wasn't another 1-loss P5 conference champion available). If the team we all let skate in at the #4 slot wins the whole thing, it kinda makes our ability to determine which are the most "worthy" teams moot. If the #4 team can win it, are we really sure that the #5-6 teams aren't good enough?
You want to settle it on the field? Every P5 conference now has a very clear methodology to determine its own champion. Win your conference, you're in the field. Fill it out with 3 other teams (I favor either formally splitting P5/G5 and going 3 at large, or if you refuse to formally break the G5 away then you give the top-ranked G5 champion 1 berth with 2 at-large selections). So, eight teams.
Yes, sometimes it might mean that the "best team" is beaten by a lesser team. But that already happens with the CFP. If we're right and the #4 team going into the CFP is actually the #4 team in the country, than the best team didn't win. If we're not sure in our ability to rank the top 4 teams in the country going into the CFP, then it blows the whole system out of the water.
Settle it on the field. Win your conference and you have a shot. Everyone else who gets an at large as a beauty pageant should consider themselves lucky, not entitled to be there.
Or go back to a mythical champion decided by polls. That's fine with me, but apparently not most football fans. If you want a playoff and to "settle it on the field", do it right.
So, a coupe thoughts on this:
First, as an Ohio State fan there are a few years when it would have been REALLY nice to have two or four more teams in the CFP because the Buckeyes have been right on the bubble a LOT:
- 2014, Ohio State got in at #4 and that was hotly disputed by Baylor and TCU fans.
- 2015, Ohio State was left out at #7 despite dominating most opposition and a single loss to a pretty good opponent.
- 2016, Ohio State got in at #3 despite missing their CCG altogether. This was hotly disputed by PSU fans.
- 2017, Ohio State was left out at #5 despite having a Conference Title while #4 Bama missed their CCG altogether but finished with only one loss.
- 2018, Ohio State was left out at #6 despite being a 1-loss Conference Champion.
A six or eight team playoff would have gotten the Buckeyes in at least two more times (17 and 18 when they were conference champs).
Here is the thing: From my perspective I like that teams that might be good enough to win the whole thing sometimes don't get invited. That keeps the regular season meaningful. Looking at the three years that Ohio State was left out:
- 2015: The Buckeyes lost a single game to a team that was good but not THAT good. In retrospect the Buckeyes shouldn't have lost to the Spartans and that single loss clearly cost Ohio State a CFP berth.
- 2017: Ohio State had two losses (at home to OU early and at Iowa mid-season). They clearly would have made the playoff if they had won either of those games. A win over Oklahoma would have knocked the Sooners (final #2) out while a win over Iowa would have left the Buckeyes 12-1 and conference Champions with a better loss than non-Champion Bama so it would have knocked the Tide out.
- 2018: Ohio state's only loss was at Purdue in a game that it just inexplicable. It happens. Obviously if the Buckeyes had won that and finished 13-0 with a Conference Title that would have cost Oklahoma their #4 spot and the field would have been three undefeated P5 Champions and undefeated Notre Dame.
In a way it sucks, but I like that the regular season games still matter. Ohio State's 2015, 2017, and 2018 teams were all good enough to potentially win the whole thing.
As far as the performance of the seeds:
- #1 seeds are 5-5; 4-2 in semis; 1-3 in CG.
- #2 seeds are 8-3; 5-1 in semis; 3-2 in CG.
- #3 seeds are 1-6; 1-5 in semis; 0-1 in CG.
- #4 seeds are 4-4; 2-4 in semis; 2-0 in CG.
Yes, the #4's have won it all twice but the other four years they got bounced early and most of those were not close:
- #4 OU lost by 20 in 2015.
- #4 Washington lost by 17 in 2016.
- #4 OU lost by 11 in 2018.
- #4 OU lost by 35 in 2019.
It is a bit odd that the #1's have been so bad in CG's but the win was a blowout and two of the three losses were w/in a TD.
Playoff match-ups:
- 4 Clemson vs Bama, 2-2
- 2 Clemson vs tOSU, 2-0 Clemson
- 1 Oregon vs FSU, 1-0 Oregon
- 1 tOSU vs Bama, 1-0 tOSU
- 1 tOSU vs Oregon, 1-0 tOSU
- 1 Clemson vs OU, 1-0 Clemson
- 1 Bama vs MSU, 1-0 Bama
- 1 Bama vs Washington, 1-0 Bama
- 1 UGA vs OU, 1-0 UGA
- 1 UGA vs Bama, 1-0 Bama
- 1 Bama vs OU, 1-0 Bama
- 1 Clemson vs ND, 1-0 Clemson
- 1 LSU vs OU, 1-0 LSU
- 1 LSU vs Clemson, 1-0 LSU
-
Here is the thing: From my perspective I like that teams that might be good enough to win the whole thing sometimes don't get invited. That keeps the regular season meaningful.
This is the thing.
This is an instance where we want it to be exclusive and not inclusive.
Thought experiment:
If you took one universe and had a 2-team playoff, another with a 4-team playoff, and a third with an 8-team playoff and played 1000 seasons in each, the universe with the 2-team playoff will have "better" average national champions than the other two.
The 4-team playoff universe will produce "better" average champions than the 8-team universe would, on the average, over 1000 trials.
Sure, sometimes that 5th-ranked team is truly the best. It really sometimes is. But it's far more often not, and if you let that 5th team in every year, it's sometimes going to win it all, even during some of the times it isn't the best.
I believe we all want the best team to win the national championship as often as possible. No, we can't truly know which is the best team, but don't we need to set up a system that will produce the best average national champion over time?
-
This made me think about 1984, and then 1983.
What happened in 1984 forced a group of 38 people (out of the 60 voters) to knowingly lie. Everyone knew BYU wasn't the best team in the country, but it won the NC. A 2-team or 4-team playoff would have fixed this. Either BYU would have earned their #1 ranking or they would have been exposed.
In 1983, Miami wouldn't have even been in a 4-team playoff. And while we all would probably agree that Nebraska was better than Miami, Miami won and earned the NC. Unless you're an Auburn fan - 1 and 2 lost, #3 Auburn won their bowl, and didn't win the NC.
Auburn would have been able to earn the NC in a 4-team playoff, but would have been excluded by the BCS. I think the BCS exclusion is less important, as either 1 or 2 would have necessarily won.
Many would argue Auburn did earn the NC by finishing their season with wins over 5,7,4,19, and 8. Yes, consecutively.
You could just take my last 2 posts and take it as an opportunity to shit on the voters. And I would join you.
-
The 8th ranked team is usually a very good team, and it can beat the 1st ranked team probably 20% of the time even if the rankings are spot on.
A 5th ranked team would beat the 4th ranked team probably 45% of the time IF the rankings are spot on.
You can't determine this with any decent accuracy except statistically over time. And, I think the 4 team playoff gets it "right" more often than an 8 or a 2 would do it.
Folks basically want to decide something on the field that can't be decided on the field without playing 10 or more contests between the two teams.
-
My point: the entire process is predicated by this desire to see the "best team" win the championship, and we define "best team" based on a bunch of subjective eye tests, polls, popular opinion, etc.
If that's what we want, ditch it all and give the championship based on the beauty pageant. And maybe that'll mean we won't have one unified champion. Maybe the AP and the coaches will vote different from each other. Maybe we'll have two champions, who never stepped foot on the field against each other. So what? I see no issue there.
BUT, if you want an objective champion, you have to give up the "best team" nonsense. Because the best team doesn't always win. The BCS didn't ensure that the best team was the champion. The CFP doesn't ensure the best team is the champion.
ALL that the BCS or CFP are designed to do is legitimize the winner as the "true" champion. NOT the best team in the league. Just the one who gets the honor of calling themselves champion, at the exclusion of all others.
What I'm saying is that a system designed to legitimize the champion above all scrutiny but which has a capricious and arbitrary selection process to even gain a seat at the table cuts their legitimacy claim off at the knees.
-
My point: the entire process is predicated by this desire to see the "best team" win the championship, and we define "best team" based on a bunch of subjective eye tests, polls, popular opinion, etc.
If that's what we want, ditch it all and give the championship based on the beauty pageant. And maybe that'll mean we won't have one unified champion. Maybe the AP and the coaches will vote different from each other. Maybe we'll have two champions, who never stepped foot on the field against each other. So what? I see no issue there.
BUT, if you want an objective champion, you have to give up the "best team" nonsense. Because the best team doesn't always win. The BCS didn't ensure that the best team was the champion. The CFP doesn't ensure the best team is the champion.
ALL that the BCS or CFP are designed to do is legitimize the winner as the "true" champion. NOT the best team in the league. Just the one who gets the honor of calling themselves champion, at the exclusion of all others.
What I'm saying is that a system designed to legitimize the champion above all scrutiny but which has a capricious and arbitrary selection process to even gain a seat at the table cuts their legitimacy claim off at the knees.
I think you summed it up pretty good there. :iagree:
-
But even that "objective" assigning of a champion isn't possible today in college football. The inequities among conferences and schedules are too vast.
You'd need the P5 to split off from the rest.
You'd need the P5 to become the P4 (basically an ACC/Big12 merger)
You'd need the remaining 4 conferences to have the same number of teams and scheduling guidelines (yes/no vs FCS, if so how many, yes/no vs G5, if so how many, etc).
Even then, you SHOULD go a step further and include:
every team has 6 home/6 away games
every team plays every other team in its conference/if not that, then division/if not that, then pod
and then you'd still have co-champions, which would be determined by h2h, but statistically that's erroneous...
So in lieu of all that happening, I don't see the point of pretending it exists or will exist.
-
But even that "objective" assigning of a champion isn't possible today in college football. The inequities among conferences and schedules are too vast.
You'd need the P5 to split off from the rest.
You'd need the P5 to become the P4 (basically an ACC/Big12 merger)
You'd need the remaining 4 conferences to have the same number of teams and scheduling guidelines (yes/no vs FCS, if so how many, yes/no vs G5, if so how many, etc).
Even then, you SHOULD go a step further and include:
every team has 6 home/6 away games
every team plays every other team in its conference/if not that, then division/if not that, then pod
and then you'd still have co-champions, which would be determined by h2h, but statistically that's erroneous...
So in lieu of all that happening, I don't see the point of pretending it exists or will exist.
You need [almost] none of that if you just admit each P5 champion to the playoff.
I'll admit, the existence of G5 causes a major problem. You simply can't take "all conference champions" like you do in the basketball tournament because that gets you to a 10+ team playoff (12 if you give 4 byes, 16 if you don't, so you get 2 or 6 at-large teams). So you make a deal with the G5 that unless they want the P5 plus a handful of independents to formally break off, that they live with their top team being included.
But the key about including conference champions is that it puts ALL of that extra minutiae off the table. It's incumbent on each individual conference to determine their champion. I don't care if their tiebreaker is the coaches of any tied teams play tiddlywinks. I don't care if the SEC plays 8 conference games with a November FCS tune-up while the B1G plays 9 conference games. I don't care if the ACC and PAC are weaker, top-to-bottom, than the other P5 leagues so their champions have lesser SOS. Win your conference, AS YOUR CONFERENCE decides it, and that's your representative in the playoff.
All of the concern about the rest of it (scheduling parity, # of conference games, OOC scheduling guidelines) only comes into play for the at-large slots.
-
This made me think about 1984, and then 1983.
What happened in 1984 forced a group of 38 people (out of the 60 voters) to knowingly lie. Everyone knew BYU wasn't the best team in the country, but it won the NC. A 2-team or 4-team playoff would have fixed this. Either BYU would have earned their #1 ranking or they would have been exposed.
In 1983, Miami wouldn't have even been in a 4-team playoff. And while we all would probably agree that Nebraska was better than Miami, Miami won and earned the NC. Unless you're an Auburn fan - 1 and 2 lost, #3 Auburn won their bowl, and didn't win the NC.
Auburn would have been able to earn the NC in a 4-team playoff, but would have been excluded by the BCS. I think the BCS exclusion is less important, as either 1 or 2 would have necessarily won.
Many would argue Auburn did earn the NC by finishing their season with wins over 5,7,4,19, and 8. Yes, consecutively.
You could just take my last 2 posts and take it as an opportunity to shit on the voters. And I would join you.
I completely agree that BYU's 1984 championship was a complete fraud. They just got REALLY, REALLY lucky. It started in week #1:
- On September 1, 1984 BYU played preseason #3 Pitt at Pitt and won 20-14. That win catapulted BYU all the way from unranked to #13 but in retrospect, it shouldn't have. In their next game Pitt (now down to #17) lost 42-10 to Oklahoma in Norman. Pitt's preseason ranking turned out to be ridiculous. They went 3-7-1 for the year and the wins came by a TD over an ECU team that finished 2-9, by 11 over Tulane (3-8), and by 20 over PSU (6-5).
- On September 8 they beat Baylor 47-13. That shot them up into the top-10 at #8 and I just don't get why. Baylor wasn't ranked and finished 5-6 so this shouldn't have been seen as impressive for a top-15 team which BYU was by then.
Based on final rankings, BYU's performance against teams that were ranked or receiving votes was:
- Won 30-25 at Air Force. Air Force didn't finish ranked but they were 4th among ORV (only 20 ranked then)
That is it.
Their Holiday Bowl win over Michigan was only by a TD against the worst Michigan team of the entire Schembechler/Moeller/Carr era. That same Michigan team lost:
- by 2 at Purdue (finished 7-5 and ORV)
- by 9 at home to Washington (finished 11-1 and #2)
- by 12 at home to MSU (finished 6-6 and nr)
- by 15 at Ohio State (finished 9-3 and #13
- by 26 at Iowa (finished 8-4-1 and #16
That BYU team was no better than high-teens. They just got really lucky because everybody else lost. BYU would have lost as well if they had played an opponent with a pulse but they didn't.
-
I think the voters would have put OU #1 if they had won their bowl. And Florida possibly, but they were on probation.
-
You need [almost] none of that if you just admit each P5 champion to the playoff.
I'll admit, the existence of G5 causes a major problem. You simply can't take "all conference champions" like you do in the basketball tournament because that gets you to a 10+ team playoff (12 if you give 4 byes, 16 if you don't, so you get 2 or 6 at-large teams). So you make a deal with the G5 that unless they want the P5 plus a handful of independents to formally break off, that they live with their top team being included.
But the key about including conference champions is that it puts ALL of that extra minutiae off the table. It's incumbent on each individual conference to determine their champion. I don't care if their tiebreaker is the coaches of any tied teams play tiddlywinks. I don't care if the SEC plays 8 conference games with a November FCS tune-up while the B1G plays 9 conference games. I don't care if the ACC and PAC are weaker, top-to-bottom, than the other P5 leagues so their champions have lesser SOS. Win your conference, AS YOUR CONFERENCE decides it, and that's your representative in the playoff.
All of the concern about the rest of it (scheduling parity, # of conference games, OOC scheduling guidelines) only comes into play for the at-large slots.
Yeah, screw this - it penalizes the strong conferences. Be like Clemson/FSU. Punch your ticket every year you're not down.
If you want objectivity, then you need to have equity.
-
Yeah, screw this - it penalizes the strong conferences. Be like Clemson/FSU. Punch your ticket every year you're not down.
If you want objectivity, then you need to have equity.
Eh. Not really. In every sport there are tough divisions and easy divisions.
If the criteria for acceptance is 100% a "committee" decision, then yes it penalizes strong conferences because it's harder to get out of a strong conference running the table or with only 1 loss. That's why a strong conference like the SEC only plays 8 conference games and has a November FCS patsy weekend--because they don't want the chance of picking up another loss.
Heck, Ohio State in 2017 had Iowa as a cross-division game, so it was just chance they played Iowa. In 2018, they had Purdue as a cross-division game, so it was just chance they played Purdue. If the B1G had an 8-game conference season, there's a 1 in 3 chance each year that they might have replaced that cross-division loss with a win over a MAC or FCS team and in both cases they'd likely have been CFP-bound. 2018 is a certainty, because they'd be undefeated at 13-0. 2017, as a 1-loss team with their only loss being to Oklahoma, they'd get in as a 1-loss conference champ over 11-1 non-champ Alabama.
But alas, in 2017 Ohio State was losing to cross-division Iowa in Iowa City in mid-November when they could have been playing at home vs Youngstown State, much like Alabama was playing at home vs Mercer in mid-November. Things might have been different if they were playing in Gainesville or Athens on that mid-November Saturday.
But if the criteria for inclusion is "win your conference", then you just need to win your conference. A strong conference will not be penalized, because their champ is auto-bid. If the criteria for at-large selection includes strength of schedule, then tough conferences will have a better chance of getting their worthy non-champs selected than weak conferences.
-
The SEC late patsy is usually before a rivalry game, and is slated for that reason.
Not every team does it of course, and if you have one, it means fewer "tune ups" in September.
I'd like to see a max of two patsies a year.
-
I'd like to see a max of two patsies a year.
In theory this would be great. In practice I think it would be VERY difficult to come up with a rule that worked.
Who is the patsy, P5 Rutgers or G5 Memphis or UCF?
-
If you want objectivity, then you need to have equity.
I agree. It’s why all pro sports leagues have objective measures and all college sports (at least that I know of) have some degree of subjectivity. In the NFL this season teams in the same division will play 14 of their 16 games against common opponents or each other.
Now take Nebraska and Michigan. Only 6 of their 12 games are against common opponents and they don’t play each other, and these are teams in the same conference.
-
I agree. It’s why all pro sports leagues have objective measures and all college sports (at least that I know of) have some degree of subjectivity. In the NFL this season teams in the same division will play 14 of their 16 games against common opponents or each other.
Now take Nebraska and Michigan. Only 6 of their 12 games are against common opponents and they don’t play each other, and these are teams in the same conference.
Fundamentally, this was why I was so strongly opposed to the two-SEC BCSNCG back in 2011.
We all know that Bama won the rematch with LSU and did it in fairly convincing fashion but in the regular season LSU was clearly a LOT more deserving. Not only did LSU win the H2H with Bama but, in addition to that:
- The H2H was AT Bama so it isn't like LSU skated by on HFA, and
- LSU played a MUCH tougher OOC with Oregon (finished 12-2 winning the PAC and the RoseBowl); @WVU (finished 10-3 winning the Orange Bowl) and two scrubs. Meanwhile Bama played a mediocre PSU (finished 9-4, 6-2 in the B1G) and three scrubs, and
- LSU played in the SECCG while Bama relaxed at home. In that game LSU absolutely throttled a pretty solid UGA team that finished 10-4
In the final pre-bowl poll LSU was a unanimous #1 at 13-0 including wins over:
- #2 Bama on the road
- #6 Oregon, neutral site
- #18 UGA, neutral site
- #23 WVU, on the road
After LSU it was messy. There were five one-loss teams:
- #2 Bama lost at home to LSU by a FG, best win was #24 PSU
- #3 OkSU lost by 6 at ISU, best win was #19 OU
- #4 Stanford lost badly at home to Oregon and were NOT PAC Champs because of that tiebreaker, best win was #5 USC
- #8 Boise lost at home by a point to TCU, best win was #18 UGA
- #20 Houston lost CUSCCG to USM.
Stanford was out because they didn't win the PAC. It was silly that they ended up ranked ahead of Oregon but whatever. Boise and Houston were out because they didn't have P5 SoS.
I think that most of us agree that Bama was probably better than OkSU but none of us KNOW that Bama was better than OkSU because the competition was too divergent. Bama and OkSU played a grand total of zero common opponents.
-
In theory this would be great. In practice I think it would be VERY difficult to come up with a rule that worked.
Who is the patsy, P5 Rutgers or G5 Memphis or UCF?
I would term any conference opponent as not being a patsy by definition, even if they are. It would mean playing 10 P5 level teams a year, and yes, some G5 teams are better than Rutgers.
-
I would term any conference opponent as not being a patsy by definition, even if they are. It would mean playing 10 P5 level teams a year, and yes, some G5 teams are better than Rutgers.
I just don't see that accomplishing much. Suppose the two teams competing for the fifth spot are two P5 Champions who went 11-2. We'll call one of them Ohio State and say that they played a nine game conference schedule and two P5 teams OOC while we'll call the other Bama and say that they played an eight game conference schedule and four non-P5 teams OOC.
Just from that, it sounds like Ohio State played, or at least tried to play a much tougher schedule. Fine, but what if Ohio State's two P5 OOC opponents were NCST who went 1-7 in the ACC and 4-8 overall and Kansas who went 1-8 in the B12 and 3-9 overall and that Ohio State's three B1G-W cross-overs were Northwestern (1-8/3-9), UNL (3-6/5-7), and Purdue (3-6/4-8) while Bama's four non-P5 OOC were Cincy, UCF, ApSt, and Memphis and their two SEC-E cross-overs were UGA (7-1/12-2) and Florida (6-2/11-2)?
By your definition Ohio State played a tougher schedule because they played 11 P5 opponents while Bama "only" played seven but Ohio State's 11 P5 opponents included these nine teams that finished sub .500 in their league and were probably all worse than any of Bama's hypothetical G5 OOC opponents:
- 0-9/2-10 Rutgers
- 1-8/3-9 Maryland
- 1-8/3-9 Kansas
- 1-8/3-9 Northwestern
- 1-7/4-8 NCST
- 3-6/4-8 Purdue
- 3-6/5-7 UNL
- 4-5/7-6 MSU
I think a rule that required teams to play nine or 10 or whatever P5 opponents would be great for Rutgers, Kansas, and a few other perennial P5 doormats because everybody would be knocking on their door.
-
I'd rather a team play 10 P5 level opponents each year than 9, with the 3 being typical pastries, UL-Monroe or whatever.
Schedules are made years in advance and you don't know how good a Rutgers might be in 10 years, but you can be fairly sure East Savannah State will be crap.
It would up the scheduling of a fair number of SEC and ACC programs perforce.
-
So, right now, today, who are the Helmet teams, by which I mean a team that gets attention because of its name. I suppose this is a bit like the dooks and barons and kings etc.
I think some are clearly on the list due to a combination of tradition and current performance:
Alabama
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Then some historic helmet teams who may be slipping a bit, but their tradition aspect keeps them there:
Texas
USC
Michigan
The come a rash of near helmets like Penn State that are holding, perhaps you include Auburn/LSU/UGA, with Tennessee/FSU/Miami slipping, and Clemson who has been climbing steadily but from a lower position. Anyone else? Wisconsin? Washington? Oregon? Texas A&M?
I also think of the list as being programs you'd be excited to see scheduled in the future. If your team schedules say Kansas, you probably think "Well, meh, at least they are P5.".
-
All of this messy stuff can be bypassed with an equitable framework. Uniformity in conference size, structure, and scheduling.
THEN you could have objectivity.
The closest we could get without resorting back to smaller conferences is actually 16-team conferences with 4 pods in each. You'd play every other team in your conference every 2 years. So while single-season equity is impossible, it would exist each pair of years.
Yes, the 24 ACC/Big12 teams would have to pare down to 16.
Notre Dame has to join a conference.
The PAC adds 4, the B10 and SEC add 2 apiece.
If you do the above math, 8 teams will be left out of the ACC/Big12 conglomerate and 8 teams need to be added elsewhere. While they're certainly not going to be the same 8, it all works out, except ND is bumping someone out. Plus some of the 'homeless 8' may be replaced by the BYUs and Cincinnatis of the world.
But yes, a 64-team, 4-conference group of schools would separate from the rest, become its own entity, and produce the most objective national champion possible.
-
If they were smart, they'd pay into a new, improved, active replacement home-body for the NCAA. And if they were really smart, they'd acknowledge being a minor league for the NFL and get money from that golden goose.
-
I wouldn’t mind a system with some objective measures but with a caveat. Conference champs get an auto bid provided they finish in the top 10 or something like that.
-
Weirdness happens if you wait long enough. In 1978, UGA almost won the SEC and a Sugar Bowl bid with FOUR OOC losses.
We could have a year with 2 or 3 conference champs with 3 losses and some nonconference champs with one and clearly better.
And Notre Dame fits in somewhere.
-
we've killed most great traditions anyway
why not force ND to join a conference ?
ya know, for uniformity's sake
-
My point: the entire process is predicated by this desire to see the "best team" win the championship, and we define "best team" based on a bunch of subjective eye tests, polls, popular opinion, etc.
If that's what we want, ditch it all and give the championship based on the beauty pageant. And maybe that'll mean we won't have one unified champion. Maybe the AP and the coaches will vote different from each other. Maybe we'll have two champions, who never stepped foot on the field against each other. So what? I see no issue there.
BUT, if you want an objective champion, you have to give up the "best team" nonsense. Because the best team doesn't always win. The BCS didn't ensure that the best team was the champion. The CFP doesn't ensure the best team is the champion.
ALL that the BCS or CFP are designed to do is legitimize the winner as the "true" champion. NOT the best team in the league. Just the one who gets the honor of calling themselves champion, at the exclusion of all others.
What I'm saying is that a system designed to legitimize the champion above all scrutiny but which has a capricious and arbitrary selection process to even gain a seat at the table cuts their legitimacy claim off at the knees.
The CFP's objective it to pick "the 4 best teams". The' CFP's history at deciding who the "best teams" are is sketchy at best, so the idea the CFP can tell us who the "best teams" are is nonsense. Team's that fail to win their conference should never be selected.
-
I believe the phrase is "four best teams for the playoff", which I think is different from "four best teams, period".
-
Because the system in place at the time matched them up again in the championship game and they settled it on the field. Everybody seems to want college football to have a postseason that resembles that of other sports, but then balks at something like championship rematches because we aren’t used to seeing it in CFB.
Rematches happen all the time in the postseasons of other sports.
That's why I don't want college football to have a post-season that resembles that of other sports.
-
we've killed most great traditions anyway
why not force ND to join a conference ?
ya know, for uniformity's sake
I don't want to force them to join a conference.
I want them to remain "independent" as the rest of the CFB world passes them by, relegated to a life as irrelevant as football in the Ivies.
POTFI!
-
I believe the phrase is "four best teams for the playoff", which I think is different from "four best teams, period".
"Best" will always be subjective.
-
The CFP's objective it to pick "the 4 best teams". The' CFP's history at deciding who the "best teams" are is sketchy at best, so the idea the CFP can tell us who the "best teams" are is nonsense. Team's that fail to win their conference should never be selected.
Why not?
The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did.
Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference.
-
Why not?
The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did.
Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference.
I'm saying that a team that didn't win it's conference doesn't deserve a SECOND chance for a bid. They already had a chance and blew it and the only way you can claim they deserve a second chance is through subjective measures that many deprive a deserving team of a chance. The CFP has proven they can't tell us who the "best" teams are, why should they determine who gets a second chance while depriving another team of a first chance?
-
Why not?
The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did.
Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference.
To be clear, I was agree with you. The CFP states that they want the "4 best teams", but that is nonsense because nobody can tell you who the four best teams are. The "4 best teams" is propoganda typical of the BCS/CFP.
-
Name a "best" team that was left out of the CFP.
-
To be clear, I was agree with you. The CFP states that they want the "4 best teams", but that is nonsense because nobody can tell you who the four best teams are. The "4 best teams" is propoganda typical of the BCS/CFP.
Yeesh, we're throwing propaganda around? Mkay.
The term "4 best teams" that everyone seems to have a hissy fit about simply means the top 4 teams of the consensus of the body of stakeholders tasked to do so.
Instead of the old days of strong regional bias (like you still see with the Heisman voting) by media members, they've done a great job of creating a mix of people for the committee. They meet face-to-face and have to support their opinions - they have to be persuasive instead of cowardly mailing in their anonymous list.
It's far superior to anything before it and has nothing to do with propaganda. Now, here's the thing: they absolutely may be incorrect in determining the best 4 teams. BUT - since there is no actual way to do that, getting a consensus of a mix of stakeholders is honestly the very best next thing.
-
Name a "best" team that was left out of the CFP.
No way to tell because "best" is subjective.
-
Then what are you complaining about!?!?!
The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff. Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee? That's a genuine question.
-
Yeesh, we're throwing propaganda around? Mkay.
The term "4 best teams" that everyone seems to have a hissy fit about simply means the top 4 teams of the consensus of the body of stakeholders tasked to do so.
Instead of the old days of strong regional bias (like you still see with the Heisman voting) by media members, they've done a great job of creating a mix of people for the committee. They meet face-to-face and have to support their opinions - they have to be persuasive instead of cowardly mailing in their anonymous list.
It's far superior to anything before it and has nothing to do with propaganda. Now, here's the thing: they absolutely may be incorrect in determining the best 4 teams. BUT - since there is no actual way to do that, getting a consensus of a mix of stakeholders is honestly the very best next thing.
I'm not criticizing the committee for how they do it, I'm pointing out because of their shoddy history of determining the "best" team, they should limit the subjectivity as much as possible. Winning the conference is an objective measure. Limit the subjectivity by dropping teams who can't do that. Claiming that you can determine "the four best teams", is nothing but propaganda.
-
Then what are you complaining about!?!?!
The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff. Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee? That's a genuine question.
I'm saying that teams that don't win their conference should not be included. I may not be the best communicator, but I'm pretty sure I stated that.
-
"Best" will always be subjective.
It's of course not 100% subjective. I think everyone would agree on say ten teams that are plausible candidates, and the top three are generally pretty clear. That fourth spot gets subjective when comparing 4 and 5 and perhaps 6, but 7 and down aren't really subjective assessments.
I would not tie their hands to only accepting conference champs because some year somewhere there will be a situation with three three loss conference champs and two obviously very good one loss teams. I think emphasis should on winning your conference, and I think they do that adequately. It's worth about half a win.
-
Name a "best" team that was left out of the CFP.
- I'd say Baylor/TCU could make an argument in 2014. Nobody believed FSU was all that good that year, but there was no way the committee would exclude a 13-0 team, so they came in and got curb-stomped by Oregon.
- 2015 I'm not sure which one was excluded, but Michigan State certainly wasn't one of the best 4.
- 2018 Ohio State could make an argument. After all, Notre Dame is perennially overrated and there's no way that the committee wouldn't select them at 12-0, and then they were exposed (as always happens with ND) badly. They had one bad upset, but I don't think that reflects on the quality of that team.
Now, I'm not saying that any of those teams would have won it all, but I'm sure there are a few that should have been in the conversation.
-
Yeah, they won't ever leave out a 13-0 P5 team even if they won a lousy P5 conference and beat some bad P5 team OOC.
-
Then what are you complaining about!?!?!
The committee is tasked to identify the best team within the 4 in the playoff. Do you believe, in any year from 2014-2019, that the best team (gasp - subjective term) was ranked 5th or worst by the committee? That's a genuine question.
They're tasked with identifying the best of the 4, and that team gets the 1 seed.
You'd think that if they're seeding properly, there should be a somewhat steep dropoff between 1 and 4. Yet the 4 has won 33% of those 1 vs 4 matchups, and in both cases went on to win it all.
If there's not a steep enough dropoff between 1 and 4, how can you claim that the dropoff between 4 and 5 is steep enough to justify exclusion?
-
The drop between 4 and 5 will be slight, generally, same as with 5 and 6, and 6 and 7, and so on.
If we had an 8 team playoff ....
-
But even that "objective" assigning of a champion isn't possible today in college football. The inequities among conferences and schedules are too vast.
You'd need the P5 to split off from the rest.
You'd need the P5 to become the P4 (basically an ACC/Big12 merger)
You'd need the remaining 4 conferences to have the same number of teams and scheduling guidelines (yes/no vs FCS, if so how many, yes/no vs G5, if so how many, etc).
Even then, you SHOULD go a step further and include:
every team has 6 home/6 away games
every team plays every other team in its conference/if not that, then division/if not that, then pod
and then you'd still have co-champions, which would be determined by h2h, but statistically that's erroneous...
So in lieu of all that happening, I don't see the point of pretending it exists or will exist.
It is objective.
It might not be fair or accurate, but it is objective. You win your conference, by rules in place before the season starts, and you are in the playoff.
As I've said, I'd vote for going back to bowls and polls.
In the absence of that, I'd like to see winning your conference either be a pre-requisite (for a 2- or 4-team playoff) or an automatic entry (for a 6-team playoff).
I don't like mandated uniformity in conference size and scheduling philosophy. The NFL provides that for people who like such things.
-
I think the voters would have put OU #1 if they had won their bowl. And Florida possibly, but they were on probation.
I think you are right.
NBC, televising the Orange Bowl, was definitely promoting that angle.
-
I agree. It’s why all pro sports leagues have objective measures and all college sports (at least that I know of) have some degree of subjectivity. In the NFL this season teams in the same division will play 14 of their 16 games against common opponents or each other.
Now take Nebraska and Michigan. Only 6 of their 12 games are against common opponents and they don’t play each other, and these are teams in the same conference.
I don't want CFB to be like the NFL.
I don't care about the NFL (other than wanting former Sooners to do well). I care about college football, and it moving closer to the NFL model makes me care about it less (if anything) rather than more.
The NFL is there for fans who want an expanded, extended playoff. Why can't big-time college football be a different animal?
-
Yeah, they won't ever leave out a 13-0 P5 team even if they won a lousy P5 conference and beat some bad P5 team OOC.
so, there is some propaganda to this process?
-
I don't think it's propaganda, it is more what we always notice, the rankings start with fewest losses for P5 teams and then make some minor adjustments down the line. A 13-0 P5 team will be in the polls at 1 or 2 if there are no others no matter how bad their wins look in comparison. A 12-1 team MIGHT get ranked over them, maybe, at times. Of course, with polls, any loss by an undefeated team is going to drop the in the top ten rankings, and you won't be able to recover to pass an undefeated team in most cases.
An exception would have to be remarkable, say UGA beats Texas, Clemson, and Georgia Tech in one season OOC but drops a conference game to USCe and then finished 12-1, presuming those three OOC opponents are 12-1, 11-2, and 9-3.
-
yup, the 4 best teams are ALWAYS the 4 teams with the fewest losses
the committee usually just has to select the 4th team from a list of teams with the same amount of losses
2019 only 4 teams with one loss or less - EASY
2018 Sooners or Buckeyes
2017 was tough - Georgai, Bama, Ohio St, Wisconsin,
2016 - only 4 teams with one loss or less - EASY
2015 - Michigan St, Iowa, or Ohio St
2014 - Ohio St. Baylor, or TCU
-
I know Auburn was about to be selected with two losses one year, so that can happen. I think it will be rare, as will be a 12-1 P5 champ being left out.
I have not had any outrage over the selections personally. I heard last year they have UGA serious consideration, which I think would have been atrocious really, they had two bad losses and had their shot. I think had UGA slipped by USCe, they would have been included last year, which also would have been a mistake I think.
-
I've not had a problem with their selections either
it's not rocket science - you and I could pick the top 4 on a webX in 15 minutes
-
I've not had a problem with their selections either
it's not rocket science - you and I could pick the top 4 on a webX in 15 minutes
Sure, it's easy when you care a lot less about the "best teams" and just limit yourselves to the simple rules:
- Undefeated? You're in.
- 1-loss? We'll try to figure out who has either the strongest schedule or the least "bad" loss.
- 2-losses? Better hope the world's on fire if you want a shot.
I mean, in 2018 Georgia couldn't have been one of the best 4 teams in the land, because they had two losses.
Sure, after losing their bowl game they were STILL second only to Alabama in S/P+, and the only games they lost prior to their bowl were losses to the teams that finished #1 and #5 in S/P+.
I don't know what Notre Dame's S/P+ was prior to losing the CFP Semifinal, but they finished at 13th. But they were undefeated so they were definitely one of the best 4 teams in the country. A century of being perennially overrated notwithstanding.
-
I didn't think the Dawgs should have been in even given their close loss to Bama in the CG. That was their shot, they lost. Win, and you're in.
Maybe if they had no other losses, maybe, depending.
Their bowl opponent was some G5 team and they just didn't care as I dimly recall.
-
I didn't think the Dawgs should have been in even given their close loss to Bama in the CG. That was their shot, they lost. Win, and you're in.
Maybe if they had no other losses, maybe, depending.
Their bowl opponent was some G5 team and they just didn't care as I dimly recall.
But I thought you wanted the 4 best teams in the land?
At least by S/P+, considering after losing in their bowl to Texas Georgia was *still* #2 in S/P+, it seems like they were pretty damn good.
Better than Notre Dame, anyway.
-
No, I never said I wanted the four best teams. I noted the guidelines say "four best teams for the playoff", which to me is different.
I'm fine with how the committee has chosen.
-
That's why I don't want college football to have a post-season that resembles that of other sports.
Me either
-
- I'd say Baylor/TCU could make an argument in 2014. Nobody believed FSU was all that good that year, but there was no way the committee would exclude a 13-0 team, so they came in and got curb-stomped by Oregon.
- 2015 I'm not sure which one was excluded, but Michigan State certainly wasn't one of the best 4.
- 2018 Ohio State could make an argument. After all, Notre Dame is perennially overrated and there's no way that the committee wouldn't select them at 12-0, and then they were exposed (as always happens with ND) badly. They had one bad upset, but I don't think that reflects on the quality of that team.
Now, I'm not saying that any of those teams would have won it all, but I'm sure there are a few that should have been in the conversation.
Yeah, I worded my post to specifically avoid what you did here. You're debating bubble teams.
-
It is objective.
It might not be fair or accurate, but it is objective. You win your conference, by rules in place before the season starts, and you are in the playoff.
As I've said, I'd vote for going back to bowls and polls.
In the absence of that, I'd like to see winning your conference either be a pre-requisite (for a 2- or 4-team playoff) or an automatic entry (for a 6-team playoff).
I don't like mandated uniformity in conference size and scheduling philosophy. The NFL provides that for people who like such things.
The NFL also lets you in its playoffs with a 7-9 record. In college football, that would not happen.
Can we please stop with the equitable, uniform college football framework fast-forwarding to the NFL model? They're nowhere near the same.
-
For me, I don't think a goal of the 4 best teams is important.
Within a group of 4 top teams, as long as the committee has included the best team, they've done their job. No, the best team won't always win it all, and statisically speaking, it won't always be the 1 seed. But as long as they don't flub it up so badly that the actual (and unknowable) best team is one of the four, they did their job.
-
I think they have always gotten 3 of 4 right, the fourth one will be controversial often as not. I can live with that.
-
No, I never said I wanted the four best teams. I noted the guidelines say "four best teams for the playoff", which to me is different.
I'm fine with how the committee has chosen.
so we have the same old beauty pagent with the polls, but with a 4 team playoff at the end
hey, it's not fair, but it makes money
-
Life is not fair. I stopped expecting fairness decades ago.
-
so we have the same old beauty pagent with the polls, but with a 4 team playoff at the end
hey, it's not fair, but it makes money
Like I mentioned earlier, an 8-8 team making the playoffs and an 11-5 team staying home probably isn’t fair either.
All college sports playoff selections have degree of subjectivity to them and it is because of the vastly different schedules college teams play. Not only around the country but within conferences.
The biggest bone of contention with football is that it is all subjective, there is no objective criteria. I’m actually ok with that but I get the other side with people who aren’t.
-
There are objective criteria obviously. It's the fourth spot that uses rather more subjective criteria, or better stated, criteria we don't fully understand because we're not in the room.
They have a list of objective criteria that can be applied subjectively at times, using judgment. It's not as if they are making truly ridiculous selections based on uniform colors.
I don't know how to remove all aspects of subjectivity or make it "fair". Even if you have a 5 team playoff with only conference champions, you still have Notre Dame, unless you just rule them out entirely. That would be entirely objective, and could result at times in some "unusual" situations that would not be "fair".
-
Like I mentioned earlier, an 8-8 team making the playoffs and an 11-5 team staying home probably isn’t fair either.
All college sports playoff selections have degree of subjectivity to them and it is because of the vastly different schedules college teams play. Not only around the country but within conferences.
The biggest bone of contention with football is that it is all subjective, there is no objective criteria. I’m actually ok with that but I get the other side with people who aren’t.
You have to have some measure of subjectivity. You can't "rank" teams that not only don't play each other, but rarely play common opponents without some subjectivity. However, some subjectivity can be removed with the wave of a wand. If you don't win your conference, your out is one. You had your chance, why should a subjective measure deny another possibly deserving team the chance?
-
That's always been my stance. I had no problem with the "old" method, but I think 2 or 8 > 4. At least 2 never even could pretend to be any more than an MNC. 8 allows an objective criteria, mixed with a subjective criteria, while still allowing all conference races to matter into early December.
Is it the best way to determine a national champion? Of course not. But neither is any single elimination method. So why not make the most fun possible regular season? 2 or 8 allows that over 4.
-
There are objective criteria obviously. It's the fourth spot that uses rather more subjective criteria, or better stated, criteria we don't fully understand because we're not in the room.
They have a list of objective criteria that can be applied subjectively at times, using judgment. It's not as if they are making truly ridiculous selections based on uniform colors.
I don't know how to remove all aspects of subjectivity or make it "fair". Even if you have a 5 team playoff with only conference champions, you still have Notre Dame, unless you just rule them out entirely. That would be entirely objective, and could result at times in some "unusual" situations that would not be "fair".
"Fairness" is subjective. What you think is fair, maybe OAM won't.
We could go back to those BCS computer rankings and use them as a composite. And that composite ranking would be it. That at least would be a combination of objectively created rankings.
But the first time a loud enough minority disagreed with the rankings, we'd tell the computer guys to do something stupid, like not let the computers know the scores of the games.
And the next time, we'd just throw them out completely.
-
The only "objective" way would be to use a computer algorithm, which we know generates "unusual" results at times, even end of season.
I think we need human "intervention" when that happens. Take three decent computer polls and average them to get the top 4, or whatever, might work most of the time. By "work", I mean generate a reasonable output, but then, the committee does that anyway in my view.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough ...
-
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
-
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
That is a good suggestion.
-
The only "objective" way would be to use a computer algorithm, which we know generates "unusual" results at times, even end of season.
I think we need human "intervention" when that happens. Take three decent computer polls and average them to get the top 4, or whatever, might work most of the time. By "work", I mean generate a reasonable output, but then, the committee does that anyway in my view.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough ...
No, we don't need intervention, we need to better understand why the computers ranked the teams the way they did.
We almost had it - using the objective computers, but then we bastardized them and their formulas, then tweaked them every year, then threw them out.
We were soooo close........
-
You have to have some measure of subjectivity. You can't "rank" teams that not only don't play each other, but rarely play common opponents without some subjectivity. However, some subjectivity can be removed with the wave of a wand. If you don't win your conference, your out is one. You had your chance, why should a subjective measure deny another possibly deserving team the chance?
To me, the answer is the wacky way these supersized conferences decide championships. You mentioned teams that don’t play each other or common opponents. Hell, that happens within conferences. Ohio St had an undefeated record and had already beaten a 2 loss Wisconsin team when they had to play them again in the Big Ten CCG. A couple years ago Oklahoma went undefeated in a round robin schedule but still had to play TCU again in the CCG to be declared the champion. I don’t want teams like Ohio St and Oklahoma waved off with a magic wand because they play in conferences with stupid rules for determining a champion.
It’s entirely possible for a team to go undefeated within its division but still not win the division to qualify for the CCG. I’d be more inclined to agree with your proposal if we had conference sizes that allowed round robin scheduling without the split divisions and CCG format.
-
I also suggest that ANY change be examined retroactively back through 20 seasons to see how often it spits out a weird result.
A "weird result" to whom?
We have to change our attitude about this - a weird result isn't something to fix, it's something to understand.
-
An only-conference-champs-get-in model rewards weak conferences. It does. It rewards being lucky to miss certain teams from the other division.
-
A "weird result" to whom?
We have to change our attitude about this - a weird result isn't something to fix, it's something to understand.
I would consider a 10-3 team getting in over an 11-1 team that beat said 10-3 team decisively a weird result.
-
Weirdness happens if you wait long enough. In 1978, UGA almost won the SEC and a Sugar Bowl bid with FOUR OOC losses.
You must have misspoken here. I was curious so I looked it up. In 1978 UGA finished 9-2-1. The two losses were OOC (USCe) and Bowl (Stanford). The tie was with Auburn but the Tigers only went 6-4-1. The Dawgs finished the regular season 9-1-1/5-0-1 but missed the Sugar Bowl because the Tide (UGA and Bama did not play that year) finished their regular season 10-1/6-0 with an OOC loss to USC.
I think you meant 1979. In 1979 the Dawgs finished the regular season 5-5/5-1 with a conference loss to Auburn and FOUR OOC losses to:
- Wake Forest at home by a point
- Clemson on the road by five
- USCe at home by a TD
- UVA at home by 31-0
They missed the SEC Championship and Sugar Bowl because the Tide went 11-0/6-0.
I agree weirdness happens. If the four-team CFP lasts long enough eventually there will be a debate between a 3-loss Champion and a two-loss non-champion for the fourth spot.
-
Yeah, sorry, 1979, I was at the UGA-Auburn game and it was close at the half. Had UGA won, they would go to the Sugar Bowl ahead of Alabama because of last team to go if tied rules.
If we go back over 20 years and examine what some new format would have likely generated, we could probably test whether it appeared to work reasonably well or not, and fix any outliers if they occurred.
-
Yeah, sorry, 1979, I was at the UGA-Auburn game and it was close at the half. Had UGA won, they would go to the Sugar Bowl ahead of Alabama because of last team to go if tied rules.
If we go back over 20 years and examine what some new format would have likely generated, we could probably test whether it appeared to work reasonably well or not, and fix any outliers if they occurred.
I wonder how that would have impacted the NC race. Where would Bama have ended up if no the Sugar Bowl?
As it happened, Bama was #2 heading into the Bowls and plalyed #6 Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl. Alabama's 25-18 win over Auburn apparently wasn't considered very impresssive because after that they got jumped in the polls by Ohio State (idle that week).
Final pre-bowl top-10 in 1979:
- 11-0 Ohio State (only ranked opponent was an 18-15 win in Ann Arbor over #14 Michigan)
- 11-0 Bama (only ranked opponent was a 25-18 win over #17 Auburn in Birmingham)
- 10-0-1 USC (the tie was at unranked Stanford, only ranked opponent was a 24-17 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
- 11-0 Florida State (only ranked opponent was a 27-7 home win over #16 USCe)
- 10-1 Oklahoma (the loss was to #11 Texas 16-7 in Dallas, only other ranked opponent was a 17-14 home win over #7 Nebraska)
- 10-1 Arkansas (the loss was 13-10 at home to #8 Houston, only other ranked opponent was a 29-20 home win over #19 Baylor)
- 10-1 Nebraska (the loss was 17-14 in Norman to #5 Oklahoma, no other ranked opponents)
- 10-1 Houston (the loss was 21-13 at home to #11 Texas, only other ranked opponent was a 13-10 win in Fayetteville over #6 Arkansas)
- 11-0 BYU (no ranked opponents)
- 10-1 Pitt (the loss was 17-7 at unranked UNC, only other ranked opponent was a 26-14 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
In the Bowls:
- Ohio State lost 17-16 to #3 USC in the Rose
- Bama won 24-9 over #6 Arkansas in the Sugar
- USC won 17-16 over #1 tOSU in the Rose
- FSU 24-7 to #5 OU in the Orange
- OU won 24-7 over #4 FSU in the Orange
- Arkansas lost 24-9 to #2 Bama in the Sugar
- Nebraska lost 17-14 to #8 Houston in the Cotton
- Houston won 17-14 over #7 UNL in the Cotton
- BYU lost 38-37 to unranked IU in the Holiday
- Pitt won 16-10 over unranked Zona in the Fiesta
The Final poll was:
- 12-0 Bama
- 11-0-1 USC
- 11-1 OU
- 11-1 tOSU
- 11-1 Houston
- 11-1 FSU
- 11-1 Pitt
- 10-2 Arkansas
- 10-2 UNL
- 10-2 Purdue (had been #12, beat unranked Tennessee in the Bluebonnet)
Where would Bama have ended up if UGA had secured the Sugar Bowl bid with a win over Auburn? Would the Tide's opponent have been weak enough that USC could have gotten an NC based on their win over #1 Ohio State?
-
gee, back in 79 I thought the helmets played tougher schedules
huskers with only 1 ranked team, the Sooners???
well, Penn St was ranked #18 when they played in Sept
-
I would consider a 10-3 team getting in over an 11-1 team that beat said 10-3 team decisively a weird result.
Do you think there'd be any risk of that happening? Perhaps between a low-level G5 team and a helmet program? I can't fathom the last part happening - if a UTEP-type team decisively beat an LSU-type team and had 2 fewer losses.....eh, I don't even think we'd have to worry because I don't think that's ever happened.
Maybe that year VT lost to Old Dominion? I don't know their records that year, though. Most major upsets are close games, by far.
-
gee, back in 79 I thought the helmets played tougher schedules
huskers with only 1 ranked team, the Sooners???
well, Penn St was ranked #18 when they played in Sept
It was really up-and-down. Some years ranked teams are scarce on many schedules and other years, it's a bloodbath.
-
Whatever system you contrive, just go back twenty years and test it. Maybe it would look fine. If there were years with a very undesirable outcome perhaps the system could be modified accordingly.
In 2006, Wake Forest won the ACC at 10-2. They lost to 8-5 Clemson and 10-3 VaTech, who beat them that year regular season.
Wake lost to Louisville in the Orange Bowl and ended ranked 18th. They had been 15th before that game and were not expected to win.
-
Wake lost to Louisville in the Orange Bowl and ended ranked 18th. They had been 15th before that game and were not expected to win.
What's this have to do with your point?
-
I think it obvious, not every conference champion appears TO ME to be worthy of being in any playoff.
-
the great thing about 2006 - Wake wasn't involved
-
Imagine any of the expanded playoff scenarios were extant in 2006. Would Wake have been included? Would that have made any sense?
-
the committee would not include Wake if it happened last season
not enough of a "bump" for conference champ to move them up from 12th or whatever to 4th
now if Wake had beaten Clemson and then won an extra CCG vs a highly ranked UNC team, maybe that gets them into the #4 spot with 2 losses.
I doubt it.
How many 2-loss teams have made it?
-
There is discussion here, as often is the case, about an expanded playoff, often one where all conference P5 champions are included. My point relates to that discussion, not to the current format.
-
I was against the 4-team playoff. Too many.
2 teams is plenty
more than 4 would be worse in my opinion - merely because an undeserving team such as Wake with 2 or 3 losses wins the ACC
or an Appalachian State team that's 13-1 gets in because they are the best of the small schools
-
Many of course would like a 6 or 8 team playoff. My thought is simply to test any such scheme over the past 20 or so years to see how often it appears to work sensibly. Using conference champions is "objective" and discrete, not subject to judgment.
-
I think folks like the idea of conf champs because they don't like the idea of 2 teams from one conference getting a shot. the adage that if you couldn't win your conference, you're not worthy. I agree.
I also agree that if Wake wins the ACC with 2 losses, they are probably not worthy as well
-
The two common ideas are:
6 team playoff with 5 conference champs and one AL
8 team playoff with 3 at large bids.
I'm fine with what we have personally.
-
I'll always believe it's simply about adding more quality games, which adds more $$$
-
If were entirely about money, we'd have gone to an 8 team playoff long ago.
-
My best approach is to start with a problem definition. What am I trying to get solved? Is the "problem" that the current system is "unfair"?
Good luck fixing that.
-
I advocate for conference champions because it makes the conference race matter.
I think every team should have, as their first goal, winning their conference. If your second goal is winning the national championship, knowing that winning your conference is automatic entry to the second goal aligns everything.
Right now winning your conference doesn't matter. I mean, it does, because it's REALLY hard to get a CFP invite without winning a conference (although it's happened 3 times), but conversely 10 teams have won their conference and not gotten an invite. You can get into the CFP without it, and you can win it without going to the CFP. So winning your conference is neither necessary nor sufficient for CFP entry.
So for me, I want the conference champion to matter. Even if it means that "unworthy" teams might get into a playoff, it gives you a serious reward for winning your conference.
-
gee, back in 79 I thought the helmets played tougher schedules
huskers with only 1 ranked team, the Sooners???
well, Penn St was ranked #18 when they played in Sept
I was thinking the same thing.
Was '79 an outlier, or was it typical? I wonder.
-
I advocate for conference champions because it makes the conference race matter.
I think every team should have, as their first goal, winning their conference. If your second goal is winning the national championship, knowing that winning your conference is automatic entry to the second goal aligns everything.
I agree with this and like it.
simply take the 4 highest conference champs as ranked by the committee
the 5th conference champ should have played more impressively on the field during the season, perhaps scheduled non-con tougher.
Notre Dame can join a conference or suck it
other teams want a shot? play well enough long enough to get an invite from one of the 5 conferences
I don't think the top 2 teams in the country would be left out in this selection
-
Good luck getting the SEC to accept they can't get two (or hell, four) teams in the playoff.
-
yup, I'm certain the SEC would like to see the playoff expand to 6 or 8 teams
and the SEC seems to have the most influence
-
yup, I'm certain the SEC would like to see the playoff expand to 6 or 8 teams
and the SEC seems to have the most influence
They can't have more influence than the other four P5 conferences combined.
-
they have ESPN on their side ;)
-
To me, the answer is the wacky way these supersized conferences decide championships. You mentioned teams that don’t play each other or common opponents. Hell, that happens within conferences. Ohio St had an undefeated record and had already beaten a 2 loss Wisconsin team when they had to play them again in the Big Ten CCG. A couple years ago Oklahoma went undefeated in a round robin schedule but still had to play TCU again in the CCG to be declared the champion. I don’t want teams like Ohio St and Oklahoma waved off with a magic wand because they play in conferences with stupid rules for determining a champion.
It’s entirely possible for a team to go undefeated within its division but still not win the division to qualify for the CCG. I’d be more inclined to agree with your proposal if we had conference sizes that allowed round robin scheduling without the split divisions and CCG format.
If conference have wacky rules for their championship (and they do), it's on them. I'm not in favor of bringing in a team that had their chance at a conference title and failed, over a team that only through subjective measures can we say they aren't as good as that team. I'm for removing that subjective element when we can.
-
I wonder how that would have impacted the NC race. Where would Bama have ended up if no the Sugar Bowl?
As it happened, Bama was #2 heading into the Bowls and plalyed #6 Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl. Alabama's 25-18 win over Auburn apparently wasn't considered very impresssive because after that they got jumped in the polls by Ohio State (idle that week).
Final pre-bowl top-10 in 1979:
- 11-0 Ohio State (only ranked opponent was an 18-15 win in Ann Arbor over #14 Michigan)
- 11-0 Bama (only ranked opponent was a 25-18 win over #17 Auburn in Birmingham)
- 10-0-1 USC (the tie was at unranked Stanford, only ranked opponent was a 24-17 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
- 11-0 Florida State (only ranked opponent was a 27-7 home win over #16 USCe)
- 10-1 Oklahoma (the loss was to #11 Texas 16-7 in Dallas, only other ranked opponent was a 17-14 home win over #7 Nebraska)
- 10-1 Arkansas (the loss was 13-10 at home to #8 Houston, only other ranked opponent was a 29-20 home win over #19 Baylor)
- 10-1 Nebraska (the loss was 17-14 in Norman to #5 Oklahoma, no other ranked opponents)
- 10-1 Houston (the loss was 21-13 at home to #11 Texas, only other ranked opponent was a 13-10 win in Fayetteville over #6 Arkansas)
- 11-0 BYU (no ranked opponents)
- 10-1 Pitt (the loss was 17-7 at unranked UNC, only other ranked opponent was a 26-14 win in Seattle over #13 Washington)
In the Bowls:
- Ohio State lost 17-16 to #3 USC in the Rose
- Bama won 24-9 over #6 Arkansas in the Sugar
- USC won 17-16 over #1 tOSU in the Rose
- FSU 24-7 to #5 OU in the Orange
- OU won 24-7 over #4 FSU in the Orange
- Arkansas lost 24-9 to #2 Bama in the Sugar
- Nebraska lost 17-14 to #8 Houston in the Cotton
- Houston won 17-14 over #7 UNL in the Cotton
- BYU lost 38-37 to unranked IU in the Holiday
- Pitt won 16-10 over unranked Zona in the Fiesta
The Final poll was:
- 12-0 Bama
- 11-0-1 USC
- 11-1 OU
- 11-1 tOSU
- 11-1 Houston
- 11-1 FSU
- 11-1 Pitt
- 10-2 Arkansas
- 10-2 UNL
- 10-2 Purdue (had been #12, beat unranked Tennessee in the Bluebonnet)
Where would Bama have ended up if UGA had secured the Sugar Bowl bid with a win over Auburn? Would the Tide's opponent have been weak enough that USC could have gotten an NC based on their win over #1 Ohio State?
First place votes in the AP:
Alabama 46
USC 21
First place votes in the UPI:
Alabama 28
USC 9
Oklahoma 1
I don't think opponent makes enough difference to make up for that.
FWIW, Alabama also had a win over ranked Baylor.
-
gee, back in 79 I thought the helmets played tougher schedules
huskers with only 1 ranked team, the Sooners???
well, Penn St was ranked #18 when they played in Sept
Penn State was also ranked by the coaches' poll at that point. Remember, they only ranked 20 teams at that point.
-
#1 vs #2: ugh, 2 SEC teams? Expand!
4-team playoff: ugh, 2 SEC teams? All-SEC NCG? Expand!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
8-team playoff ugh, 3 SEC teams? All-SEC NCG? Expand!
16-team playoff: ugh, 5 SEC teams? All-SEC NCG? Expand!
Be careful what you wish for.
-
Alright, here's a list of the top 10 AP teams (pre-bowl) each year from 1970 to 1985, with the number of opponents that were ranked in the pre-bowl poll in either the AP or UPI polls. The In Poll column counts teams that were in the "others getting votes".
(https://i.imgur.com/n2TuHM6.png)
-
It is good to have The Bobs back.
-
some 4s, 5s, & 6s in there
and dern if Notre Dame didn't have a 7
-
ND went 9-3, and amazingly, one of the losses was to an unranked Mizzou.
And we can all agree the Gators got hosed in 1984.
I doubt our first SEC championship is voted away after the season if we're crowned national champs that year.
-
friggin Mizzou
ruined a few of UNL's seasons
but, not 97! Hah, reveange!
-
friggin Mizzou
ruined a few of UNL's seasons
but, not 97! Hah, reveange!
They beat OU in 2010, the last time the game was in Columbia. Same year as the last OU-Nebraska match-up, as the original Big 12 was about to break up.
-
If conference have wacky rules for their championship (and they do), it's on them. I'm not in favor of bringing in a team that had their chance at a conference title and failed, over a team that only through subjective measures can we say they aren't as good as that team. I'm for removing that subjective element when we can.
I like the fact that the committee has the freedom to recognize these champions are being decided in strange ways and not be handcuffed by “champions only.”
Objective measures are simpler. I’ll give you that. I’m not sure they are necessarily better.
-
They beat OU in 2010, the last time the game was in Columbia. Same year as the last OU-Nebraska match-up, as the original Big 12 was about to break up.
the worst by far was the 1978 upset by the Tiggers
had finally beaten a great Sooner team
Rick Berns churned to a record-breaking 255 yards and two touchdowns on 35 carries to set the Nebraska single-game rushing mark and the career rushing record of 2,605 yards. But Berns' performance wasn't enough to counter a potent Missouri attack, led by the running of James Wilder - with 181 yards and four touchdowns - and the pass receiving of All-Big 8 tight end Kellen Winslow.
— Dashed Nebraska’s plans of taking the outright Big Eight championship up against Penn State for a national championship match in the Orange Bowl.
— Chased the top-ranked Nittany Lions off to the Sugar Bowl in pursuit of a more prestigious challenge.
Penn State lost a very close game to #2 Bama in the Sugar. Penn State was obviously very strong, but Tom Osborne and I think the Huskers would have had a better shot at beating the Lions than those derned Sooners again.
-
That was indeed a crappy ending to the season for a very good Husker team.
Lots of Sooner fans think that that was Switzer's most talented team that lost to the Huskers.
Too many fumbles though, and that was certainly true in Lincoln.
-
I like the fact that the committee has the freedom to recognize these champions are being decided in strange ways and not be handcuffed by “champions only.”
Objective measures are simpler. I’ll give you that. I’m not sure they are necessarily better.
Yeah, I understood where you're coming from from your other posts. Giving a conference a second team when you have only objective measures to not give a champion a chances. Seems like they had their opportunity.
-
To give a different perspective here, here are the top 10 teams by wins with their number of opponents each decade that finished in the top 20 of the AP or Coaches' poll:
(https://i.imgur.com/J94yjFc.png)
-
And because I can't leave well enough alone, I added a couple columns to it:
(https://i.imgur.com/Hyqgy5g.png)
-
I'm always able to enjoy that Tennessee always get's it's last e all alone on the next line.
-
The top 25 decades by percent of games played vs top 20 teams:
(https://i.imgur.com/Jl0I2tX.png)
-
That's interesting. No 2000s at all in there. #26 on the list was the first, which was Michigan at 0.310. Solid indication of the number of fluff games played now.
-
All FBS teams, and percent of games played vs top 20 by decade:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Zkl1aP.png)
Same calculation, only for the current top 25 teams in wins all-time:
(https://i.imgur.com/0XaUdN7.png)
-
Same calculation only for just FBS teams that begin with an A:
(https://i.imgur.com/MlnZ0wZ.png)
-
So basically add addition games from when there were 9-10 to now with 12-15 have strictly been money-grabs.
-
That's interesting. No 2000s at all in there. #26 on the list was the first, which was Michigan at 0.310. Solid indication of the number of fluff games played now.
Yep. Expanding the number of games has worked mostly to expand the number of creampuffs on the schedule.
-
nice work
70's and 80's are strong for the Big 8 and SWC and Notre Dame
the SEC comes on stronger in the 2000s
-
That's interesting. No 2000s at all in there. #26 on the list was the first, which was Michigan at 0.310. Solid indication of the number of fluff games played now.
when did the 12th game become a permanent game? 05-06? and those 12th games almost exclusively got filled by rent-a-win teams. makes sense no 00's are in there.
-
My memory is that teams might played 6 conference games back in the day and 4 others, 2-3 of which might be decent opponents.
Most teams with 12 game slates played 8 conference games and 1 good opponent and 3 pastries. Most still do that.