CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 12, 2021, 11:32:38 AM
-
Heard this on a podcast, pretty good bet.
-
I went with the field but it was a close call.
If you said five years, I'd take Bama/Clemson for sure.
If you said 20 years, I'd take the field for sure.
At ten years, tough call.
-
I went with the field but it was a close call.
If you said five years, I'd take Bama/Clemson for sure.
If you said 20 years, I'd take the field for sure.
At ten years, tough call.
Ed Zachery!
-
I went with the field but it was a close call.
If you said five years, I'd take Bama/Clemson for sure.
If you said 20 years, I'd take the field for sure.
At ten years, tough call.
Exact same. Also said the field.
Dabo is still young, but Miss Terry will probably put ol' Nick out to pasture here at some point. But even then, keeping up this level of sustained success is just NOT easy. Alabama is the top recruiting program, but Clemson is barely top 5... Too many other potential teams in there.
Of course, given that the committee will likely give Alabama and Clemson mulligans until they start losing in the CFP, they do have a built-in advantage that nobody else will get.
-
I figure "the field" realistically is OSU/OU/UGA/LSU plus some others that could make the playoff creditably, ND, Florida, Texas (?), Penn State, USC (???), Wisconsin (?). Then you could add "one year wonder" teams that catch fire, say Miami, Baylor, Washington, Oregon, Auburn ...
Those four in the first part have recruited at or near the top of the heap. LSU and OSU won it, UGA came close. I agree the next five years will see a lot of Clemson/Bama in the playoff but it gets murky (as noted above). If we played this game in 2011, who might we have guessed would win the NCs? That was the year Auburn nipped Oregon, and many figured Oregon was here to stay. 2012 had Bama beating ND after Bama edged UGA. Then FSU won the BCS over Auburn.
So, things change (duh). We could be too influenced by more recent history. My guess, field wins 6 times.
-
I figure "the field" realistically is OSU/OU/UGA/LSU plus some others that could make the playoff creditably, ND, Florida, Texas (?), Penn State, USC (???), Wisconsin (?). Then you could add "one year wonder" teams that catch fire, say Miami, Baylor, Washington, Oregon, Auburn ...
Those four in the first part have recruited at or near the top of the heap. LSU and OSU won it, UGA came close. I agree the next five years will see a lot of Clemson/Bama in the playoff but it gets murky (as noted above). If we played this game in 2011, who might we have guessed would win the NCs? That was the year Auburn nipped Oregon, and many figured Oregon was here to stay. 2012 had Bama beating ND after Bama edged UGA. Then FSU won the BCS over Auburn.
So, things change (duh). We could be too influenced by more recent history. My guess, field wins 6 times.
I was thinking the same thing. If asked this question right after UNL won three in four years from 1994-1997 I'd have been tempted to take Nebraska alone vs the field. If asked this question heading into the 2002 title game a lot of people might have taken Miami alone vs the field. If asked this question at the height of PC's USC run, a lot of people might have taken USC alone vs the field. Note, none of those three programs have won an NC since.
-
Maybe by 2031, we're looking at some other program as the "Clemson du jour", on track to dominate the sport forever.
UCLA, Baylor, North Carolina, Rutg, well probably not ....
-
I'm not looking 10 or 20 years out.
For now, it's tough for me to take the entire field, against those two teams. Which is a pretty sad statement about the current state of D1A college football's competitiveness.
-
What more could be done without singling those 2 out than scholarship reductions across the board?
-
Can we take none of the above? As in we won't see college football in its CFP form in 20 years?
If in 10 year window, I take field.
-
I was thinking the same thing. If asked this question right after UNL won three in four years from 1994-1997 I'd have been tempted to take Nebraska alone vs the field. If asked this question heading into the 2002 title game a lot of people might have taken Miami alone vs the field. If asked this question at the height of PC's USC run, a lot of people might have taken USC alone vs the field. Note, none of those three programs have won an NC since.
You are also describing a pre CFP scenario. In a BCS era format, I'd take the field. I think they would have enough years where they'd be out of the mix, thanks to a fluky loss. I've seen enough OSU and Georgia to know what they are. I'm more concerned about a perfect storm LSU team, and I have a hard time seeing 5 of them in the next ten years
-
Bama & Clempsin have won 7 of the past 10 NCs.
Looking at how close they were to having zero.....
11 - pre-playoff: Bama - no 'other' close wins, but was an ISU upset over OKST away from missing out on a NC (88.5% OKST wins as 17.5 pt fav)
12 - pre-playoff: Bama - two 4-point wins vs LSU and UGA.....UGA was driving and caught a tipped pass and let time run out. Close call.
15 - Bama - two 5-point wins vs Tenn and in the NCG vs Clemson. Tigers decided against covering ALA TE.
16 - Clem - beat Troy by 6 early on....had six other 1-possession wins, including over Bama in NCG. Rub-route with :01 on the clock.
17 - Bama - two 1-possesson wins vs A&M and MSU.....needed Tua magic in NCG vs UGA.
18 - Clem - NO LOSSES, but two and four-point win over 2 unranked teams (A&M and SU), despite blowing out ND and Bama in playoff.
20 - Bama - NO LOSSES, only close call was vs Fla in SECCG (6 pts)...no other close wins.
.
I'd say all of these could have easily gone the other way, except maybe Alabama in 2020.
.
In the years they didn't win it:
13 - pre-playoff: Clem: drubbed by FSU and USCe...not really close to NC shot
Bama: got kick-sixed vs Aub after being #1 all year, lost bowl - about as close to NC near-miss as humanly possible
14 - Clem: lost 3 times, barely ranked at end of season
Bama: ended regular season SEC champs and #1, lost by 7 to tOSU in playoff....close game, but forgot how to defend the run
19 - Clem: preseason #1, one-point win vs UNC and smoked everyone until classic 6-point win vs tOSU in playoff....ran into LSU buzzsaw in NCG.
Bama: ran into LSU buzzsaw earlier, losing by 5.....lost to Aub by 3 to miss out on possible playoff inclusion.
.
Bama was thisclose in 2013 and 2014. Both had every opportunity in 2019, but LSU was on another planet.
-
If asked this question right after UNL won three in four years from 1994-1997
2 & 1/2 ask Mdot or Anonymous Coward - if he ever shows up
-
I'm fine with calling the Skers 97 1/2 if the M Men are fine with calling theirs 1/2
2 & 1/2 to 1/2 is better than 3 to 1
-
Bama & Clempsin have won 7 of the past 10 NCs.
But what about the previous 10, ie if we had considered this question 10 years ago what would we have been looking back at?
- 2010: Auburn
- 2009: Bama
- 2008: Florida
- 2007: LSU
- 2006: Florida
- 2005: Texas
- 2004: USC
- 2003: LSU/USC
- 2002: tOSU
- 2001: Miami
In those 10 years there were 11 Champions due to the LSU/USC split in 2003. They were:
- 2 LSU
- 2 Florida
- 2 USC
- 1 Auburn
- 1 Bama
- 1 Texas
- 1 tOSU
- 1 Miami
LSU, UF, and USC won six of 11 from 2001-2010 but those three schools won only a combined one (LSU's in 19) from 2011-2020.
-
Past performance ....
-
What I see there is that if you have a NC HC, you have to keep him. Plain and simple.
You have to keep the Pete Carrolls, Urban Meyers, Butch Davises, Steve Spurriers, Nick Sabans, etc of the world if you expect to go on winning and winning.
Yes, at the risk of their becoming Les Miles or Mack Brown, etc. And who's to say those who stagnated a bit, but weren't bad - wouldn't have had future peaks?
.
Whether it's due to the NFL, health, or whatever, if you don't hang onto your NC HC, you're not going to continue winning NCs.
-
Going back another 10 years, what if we had considered this in 2001:
- 2000: Oklahoma
- 1999: Florida State
- 1998: Tennessee
- 1997: Nebraska, Michigan
- 1996: Florida
- 1995: Nebraska
- 1994: Nebraska
- 1993: Florida State
- 1992: Bama
- 1991: Washington, Miami
In those 10 years there were 12 Champions:
- 3 Nebraska
- 2 Florida State
- 1 Oklahoma
- 1 Tennessee
- 1 Michigan
- 1 Florida
- 1 Bama
- 1 Washington
- 1 Miami
How about ten more?
- 1990 Colorado, GaTech
- 1989: Miami
- 1988 Notre Dame
- 1987 Miami
- 1986 Penn State
- 1985 Oklahoma
- 1984 BYU
- 1983 Miami
- 1982 Penn State
- 1981 Clemson
11 Champions in 10 years:
- 3 Miami
- 2 Penn State
- 1 Colorado
- 1 GaTech
- 1 Notre Dame
- 1 Oklahoma
- 1 BYU
- 1 Clemson
-
IMHO the CFP helps to enable dynasties. 'Bama will always get a mulligan from the committee due to their history and being in the SEC. But when you only have one poll-determined MNC, a mulligan on a loss doesn't help you jump an undefeated team. In the BCS, a mulligan on a loss doesn't help you jump TWO undefeated teams.
In the CFP, with four in the field, Bama has more cushion for a loss than in other formats, so it's more likely they'll recover from one bad game to still get a seat at the table. Given that their talent level is above everyone else, that means they can be a dynasty by continuing to win NCs in years they wouldn't have gotten an opportunity pre-CFP.
-
I thought it was gross when the voters only grew balls to move undefeated FSU down as defending NC because it was the first year of the playoff and the Noles would still be included, despite the (weak) statement sent by the voters by moving them down to third.
It would have never happened pre-playoff. They only became brave when there was a built-in safety net.
-
Going back another 10 years, what if we had considered this in 2001:
In those 10 years there were 12 Champions:
How about ten more?
11 Champions in 10 years:
obviously, the old system was far superior
-
Yeah, they could honestly just rename the playoff the "Helmet Mulligan Showcase" or something.
Second-Chance Extravaganza (to be re-named 'Third-Chance Extravaganza' once it's expanded).
-
Yeah, they could honestly just rename the playoff the "Helmet Mulligan Showcase" or something.
Second-Chance Extravaganza (to be re-named 'Third-Chance Extravaganza' once it's expanded).
It has definitely changed the dynamic. Pre-BCS you needed everybody ahead of you to lose. In the BCS era you needed all but one to lose. In both cases a loss was likely fatal. Now a single loss can frequently be overcome, it makes things different.
-
It has definitely changed the dynamic. Pre-BCS you needed everybody ahead of you to lose. In the BCS era you needed all but one to lose. In both cases a loss was likely fatal. Now a single loss can frequently be overcome if you're in the SEC, it makes things different.
FTFY...
-
If you don't get blown out....
-
If you don't get blown out....
It is a really odd set of issues that determine the damage that a single loss does. Factors:
- A loss that keeps you from winning your conference is MUCH more costly than a loss that does not. Ie, don't lose your CG or a H2H game in-division to a fellow contender. This means that, for Ohio State, a loss to Rutgers would be less damaging than a loss to PSU (if that kept tOSU out of CG) or a loss to UW in the CG. I find that odd because a loss to Rutgers is "worse" in general terms.
- A loss to a worse team is usually (but not always) worse than a loss to a good team. This makes sense but the exception does not. Consider the years when Ohio State played Oklahoma. Losing to Oklahoma can be extra costly because if they are a contender then Ohio State cannot realistically get in ahead of them. That makes perfect sense but it creates a weird situation because OU/tOSU would be better off to win the H2H and lose to a bottom-feeder than to lose to the quality opponent and beat everyone else.
- A close loss is better than a blowout. This makes perfect sense.
-
That gets to the conundrum of the h2h issue, famously from 2000.
undefeated OU
.
1-loss Miami
1-loss FSU
.
1-loss Warshington
.
.
Miami beat FSU. Warshington beat Miami. Warshington lost to #20 Oregon. So they were never really strongly considered. Remember, this was BCS with computers.
FSU gets in over Miami.
Most everyone ranks Miami and FSU over UW. And thus, FSU's 3-pt loss to Miami was "better" than Miami's 5-pt loss to UW.
.
.
Everyone flips out, insists the h2h winner should get the nod, and the BCS changes.
Despite what you shared in your post. And despite Warshington's situation. The Huskies might as well have no existed.
Among games between Miami, FSU, and UW:
1-0 UW
1-1 Miami
0-1 FSU
Maybe there was no "right" answer in 2000. But tweaking the BCS to side with the h2h winner almost assuredly meant the team with the worse loss would get the nod.
Odd.
-
H2H is important in a single elimination tournament
otherwise, it's one game and therefore one data point
-
H2H is important in a single elimination tournament
otherwise, it's one game and therefore one data point
Blasphemy 20 years ago. Probably blasphemy to most, still.
-
it's both a data point and a trump card. but you have to get close enough to use that card for it to matter. both teams with 1 loss, team a beat team b, doesn't matter if team b is beating others by more than team a does and "looks" better, it was settled on field. might have even been a fluke, but too bad no mulligans. but if team a has 3 losses while team b has only the 1, then it doesn't matter. jmo
also, for original poll i picked field cause what bama has done the last decade is unprecedented and i doubt anyone, including bama, can or will replicate it.
-
Blasphemy 20 years ago. Probably blasphemy to most, still.
as you know, most are wrong
-
as you know, most are wrong
No, no, that can't be it. I merely have an irrational hatred of the masses.
-
most today are wrong and very obviously, those in the past were very wrong!
-
This is why I've always been resistant to using H2H as an end-all, be-all.
In order to not seem like sour grapes, I'll use an example where it benefited my team:
1972:
Ohio State finished the regular season 9-1/7-1 and outscored their 10 opponents 263-129.
Michigan finished the regular season 10-1/7-1 and had outscored their 11 opponents 264-57.
Honestly, Michigan was probably the better team that year. They shutout four of their opponents and held 10 of their 11 opponents to single digits. Unfortunately for them, the one opponent that they didn't hold to single digits was Ohio State. The Buckeyes beat them 14-11 in Columbus. Note that Michigan outgained Ohio State 344-192 but chose to go for a TD and the win rather than a FG and a tie at the goal line late in the game.
Michigan's loss was obviously much better than Ohio State's 19-12 loss to MSU whom Michigan beat 10-0.
Ohio State obviously had the better win and actually had two wins better than any by Michigan that year (Michigan and North Carolina who went undefeated in the ACC and finished the regular season 10-1 before winning their bowl). OTOH, Michigan's loss to Ohio State was a much better loss than Ohio State's loss to MSU.
Using H2H rewards quality wins but it frequently also rewards bad losses. I'm not saying that it is always wrong, just pointing out that it is not always right.
-
Who wins the bet if it is tied 5-5 between bama/clemson and the field?
-
and what's the wager?
-
Who wins the bet if it is tied 5-5 between bama/clemson and the field?
In normal terms that would be a push so nobody wins, nobody loses, right?
and what's the wager?
I think the original point by @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) was simply to ask who you would take. I guess you could refine it to say it this way:
Assume that a casino gives you $1,000 with the caveat that you HAVE TO bet their $1,000 gift on either:
- Bama and Clemson to win >5 NC's in the next 10 years or
- Bama/Clemson to win <5 NC's in the next 10 years.
-
pride in knowing I was lucky enough to pick the correct answer would be plenty of me
but, that's not much cake in the game
-
i thought of it more as a steak bet. you win, i pay. i win, you pay.
-
So 5-5, you are going Dutch?
-
I just meant it as a pick 'em type thing. 5 for either bet is a push.
Which do you deem more likely? AL/CL 6 NCs or the field with 6+ NCs
-
i thought of it more as a steak bet. you win, i pay. i win, you pay.
I'll pay at this place...........
https://www.archieswaeside.com/home
(https://digitalmarketing.blob.core.windows.net/7095/images/items/image535759.png) (https://www.archieswaeside.com/home)
-
(https://datavizblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/72-oz-steak.jpg)
-
Ugh, why would you want to??? That is NOT a pick 'em bet.
.
But I guarantee you my 17 year old self could've eaten that and more.
-
Assume that a casino gives you $1,000 with the caveat that you HAVE TO bet their $1,000 gift on either:
- Bama and Clemson to win >5 NC's in the next 10 years or
- Bama/Clemson to win <5 NC's in the next 10 years.
I'd take 2, barely, it's close.
-
The answer to these questions is always the field.....but it doesn't mean you'll always win.
The one people always went overboard on was Tiger Woods vs the field. No matter how good he was, the right answer was the field, even if he won x-consecutive majors.
-
A thing about the playoff is whoever has to win twice against top flight competition. A very good team might have a 70% chance of winning one game, but times 2, the odds shrink to below 50% (barely).
-
Tom Shatel says a 64-team college football super league has a chance to happen in the next round of realignment.
https://omaha.com/sports/college/shatel-kick-ncaa-out-of-football-super-league-could-work-here-where-european-model-failed/article_a7193242-a31c-11eb-962f-3bfa2bff2b55.amp.html (https://omaha.com/sports/college/shatel-kick-ncaa-out-of-football-super-league-could-work-here-where-european-model-failed/article_a7193242-a31c-11eb-962f-3bfa2bff2b55.amp.html)
-
The ESPN mimicked the soccer thing and made a 15-team super-conference. Old guard kings Nebraska and Tennessee are OUT.
-
as stated in Shatel's article above the 15-team super conference would never happen
Saban wouldn't allow it
-
Saban is temporary.
-
when Saban is gone, the nest coach at Bama won't want a schedule with no gimmees
neither will Ohio St., Clemson, Florida, Oklahomo, Texas, Notre Dame or any of the other top 15 programs
none of them want to go 8-4
-
when Saban is gone, the nest coach at Bama won't want a schedule with no gimmees
neither will Ohio St., Clemson, Florida, Oklahomo, Texas, Notre Dame or any of the other top 15 programs
none of them want to go 8-4
Not just that, but the heart of college football is regionalism. A "super league" would almost entirely eliminate that, and a sport that is already losing fans at an increasing rate, would be completely lost in short order.
College football just doesn't translate to an all-TV league in the same way the NFL can and does.
-
UGA in a few years has three P5 teams slated, Clemson, Ohio state, Texas, etc, and one pastry.
Well, and Tech.
-
When Tech ditched the option, I feel like everyone they play had a sigh of relief.
-
When Tech ditched the option, I feel like everyone they play had a sigh of relief.
I certainly did, obviously mostly because of the cut blocking they did, and also because it was tough to defend with one week of practice.
They can't recruit enough to play straight up football though, they are like the academies. The campus is a LOT nicer than it used to be.
As noted above, we've had periods of dominance by 2-3 teams often, and it never/rarely lasts more than 5-6 seasons (in recent memory). Bama has exceeded that. Teams that fairly recently seemed to be on a dominant run include Nebraska, Miami, Texas, USC ..., all of whom are down now. Will Bama/Clemson hit the skids like that?
Ohio State is the most consistently good program over time out there.