CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 27, 2021, 06:10:27 PM
-
Just for fun. If it's not fun for you, don't participate.
Who would be the current, "as of 2020" League of 15 for college football and separately, who would be the all-time 15?
For now, I'd take into consideration current state of the program, general recruiting ability, ease of improvment, etc.
For all-time, it's honestly win% + NCs as a bonus. Ex: Miami doesn't measure up on all-time win%, but their NCs trump Michigan.
.
Now:
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Oregon, LSU, Auburn, Penn St, Miami, Florida St, USC
No, some of these don't deserve it on results alone, but in lieu of programs taking their places, these programs simply need the right HC to become juggernauts. The rest belong based on results.
Just missed: A&M, Wisconsin, Warshington, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame
.
All-Time:
Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio St, USC, Texas, Penn St, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Georgia,........then it gets interesting....Florida, FSU, Miami? Arkansas? Let's say those 4 and LSU.
-
First off 15 is such an arbitrary number (I know it's how big the Euro super team was when the news broke, but they were trying to get more teams,) and 15 is a poor choice for league size, but if 15 is the limiting factor:
For Current - Here is the top 15 wealthiest programs. Notice no Pac-12 or ACC in the list. I think Clemson definitely belongs, but when making a super league money will be the biggest factor.
1 Texas
2 Ohio State
3 Alabama
4 Michigan
5 Notre Dame
6 Georgia
7 Oklahoma
8 Auburn
9 LSU
10 Tennessee
11 Florida
12 Texas A & M
13 Penn State
14 Wisconsin
15 Nebraska
For All Time - Arkansas seems the weakest of that bunch, and Miami was just one decade. Washington, West Virginia, Va Tech, Clemson, and Auburn I think all would have reasonable cases above those 2.
-
The list of most wins all time is not a terrible ranking of whatever.
-
teams with the most wins have most of the money and vice versa
-
The list of most wins all time is not a terrible ranking of whatever.
So NCs doesn't factor in at all?
That would leave us with Miami behind Ole Miss, whose big decade followed WWII.
-
Miami doesn't belong, neither does Ole Miss so, irrelevant
-
Michigan hasn't won the conference in almost 2 decades.
-
I said it's not a terrible ranking, not that it's a perfect ranking.
I'm sure someone could device an algorithm to weight the various factors, which would be fine with me.
One could weight recent performance more than that from the 1930s.
-
Michigan hasn't won the conference in almost 2 decades.
And they have 1 (0.5?) NC in the past 70 years. Let that sink in.
-
And they have 1 (0.5?) NC in the past 70 years. Let that sink in.
this could be said about many teams on the list, especially if you only go back 40 or 50 seasons
-
And I think that's the reason these "historic" programs continue NOT winning NCs year after year. Recruits don't give a damn about how a school went 9-0 in 1937 when photos were black & white and players were just white.
Sometimes I think if Michigan had a normal-looking helmet, people would treat them like Minnesota or Ole Miss.
Aside from '97, UM's biggest claim to fame the past 70 years is being the Buffalo Bills* of the 1970s, isn't it?
(*90s reference, replace with Minnesota Vikings if you're old as dirt)
-
First off 15 is such an arbitrary number (I know it's how big the Euro super team was when the news broke, but they were trying to get more teams,) and 15 is a poor choice for league size, but if 15 is the limiting factor:
Wasn't it going to be 20, with 15 permanent members, and a competition to decide the other 5?
It was basically Champions League, but guaranteeing that the biggest clubs always got to advance to the end
-
That sounds a lot like the CFP, lol.
-
Wasn't it going to be 20, with 15 permanent members, and a competition to decide the other 5?
It was basically Champions League, but guaranteeing that the biggest clubs always got to advance to the end
There was several releases of what the "goal" was for the super league. I've read the 15+5 model where the big boys always got a seat. What they had was England, Spain and Italy's 12 biggest clubs and was wanting the German and French mega clubs to sign up too (and I would assume they would take any team from the top 20~ish on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League#2019%E2%80%9320 )
Back to CFP, if it was me I would go with 64 (looking like the Power 5~ish) and nerf (slightly) the top 5 or 6. I wouldn't have a 15 team league, not interested in seeing Alabama vs Ohio State every year. I don't see Arkansas or Miami on my top 15 list.
-
I don't mind the idea of a 15-school super-league, as long as my school is in it, lol.
14 games
everyone plays everyone else
Top 2 play a championship game, as long as they're only separated by 1 game (or tie-breaker). So a 12-2 team would just be the champ if the next-best team was 10-4, but they'd play a championship game if they were 12-2 and 11-3.
They sure as hell would earn it, no matter their record.
*If there's a tie at the top at 11-3 and then a 10-4 team, tough shit for the 10-4 team.
*If there's a 3-way tie at the top, we have a coin flip at a BBQ joint. The location of the BBQ joint will rotate between each region of the country.
*If there's a 4-way tie, we have a CFP.
-
All-Time:
Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio St, USC, Texas, Penn St, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Georgia,........then it gets interesting....Florida, FSU, Miami? Arkansas? Let's say those 4 and LSU.
How does Alabama not make your all-time list?
If I were doing it I think I'd look at the top 15 in the following metrics:
- The AP's all time list (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ap-top-100-college-football-programs/).
- All time wins (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Wins).
- All time winning percentage (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct).
- NC's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS).
All schools on all four lists would automatically be included then the rest of the spots would be filled more subjectively based on # of lists that they were on and how close they were to making the top-15 of the list(s) that they missed.
So NCs doesn't factor in at all?
They do to me but in a somewhat modified way. Anything pre national poll has to be viewed with suspicion because there are some pretty ridiculous claims.
Also, ranking solely based on NC's creates a false dichotomy in which every season is either a NC or a failure. I disagree because tOSU in 2020 and Clemson in 2019 were REALLY good teams even though they came up well short in the NC game. Ranking solely based on NC's treats those seasons as equivalent to going 5-7 or 0-12 for that matter.
-
Obviously Bama was an oversight.
.
I don't think anyone suggested rankings be based solely on NCs, lol.
But a team with 700 wins and 1 NC vs a team with 680 wins and 5 NCs.....there's some configurin' to do, no?
-
I'd be strict on that NCs list, lol. 5 NCs for Florida is silly.
AP
UPI/Coaches
BCS
Playoff
only
1936 - now
-
first, i'm guessing you accidentally left out bama in the all time listing. homer in me had to call it out. :)
second, imo the blue bloods are in both lists. so that's bama, osu, ou, nd, usc, texas, and mich, probably in that order. so that's 7 right off the bat.
for all time, i'd just add the next few closest, with a slight lean to those more recently successful. miami, fsu, florida, uga, psu, neb, lsu and clemson. just missing cut were tenn, au, aTm, mich st, washington, wisconsin, pitt, army, navy and maybe oregon.
for current, i'd add to the blue bloods, with heavy weight to recent success (last 10-20 years): clemson, psu, au, oregon, florida, uga, wisconsin, lsu. just missing cut, aTm, fsu, tcu, boise, ucf, stanford, ok st, and va tech.
final caveat, for some of them that were really close, i leaned toward balancing regions.for example, if tenn and neb in the all time list were really similar and could pick either, i went with neb because the se region was already really heavily represented.
-
i went with neb because the se region was already really heavily represented.
That can't be! :57:
-
That can't be! :57:
it was also completely coincidental and a totally unintended positive outcome that i got to leave out both rivals. :67:
-
If I were doing it I think I'd look at the top 15 in the following metrics:
- The AP's all time list (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/ap-top-100-college-football-programs/).
- All time wins (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Wins).
- All time winning percentage (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2020&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct).
- NC's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS).
The top-15 on these lists, AP:
- tOSU
- OU
- ND
- Bama
- USC
- UNL
- M
- TX
- FSU
- UF
- LSU
- PSU
- Miami
- TN
- UGA
Wins:
- M
- tOSU
- Bama
- TX
- ND
- OU
- UNL
- PSU
- USC
- TN
- UGA
- LSU
- Auburn
- Clemson
- WVU
Winning percentage:
- M
- tOSU
- Bana
- TX
- ND
- OU
- UNL
- PSU
- USC
- TN
- UGA
- LSU
- Auburn
- Clemson
- WVU
NC's:
- Princeton
- Yale
- Bama
- M
- ND
- USC
- Pitt
- tOSU
- Harvard
- MN
- OU
- PENN
- MSU
- TN
- CAL, Cornell, IL, IA, Miami, UNL (all tied with five)
Schools on all four lists:
Schools on three of four:
- TX, not on NC's list.
- LSU, not on NC's list.
- PSU, not on NC's list.
- UGA, not on NC's list.
The eight schools on all four lists would be included but four of them (ND, UNL, M, TN) are on notice that they aren't keeping up and will eventually drop out if they don't keep up with the pace.
I would also include the four schools that are on the top three lists but missed the NC's list. That is 12. For the last three I'd probably go with the three Florida helmets.
-
Schools on three of four:
- TX, not on NC's list.
- LSU, not on NC's list.
- PSU, not on NC's list.
- UGA, not on NC's list.
The eight schools on all four lists would be included but four of them (ND, UNL, M, TN) are on notice that they aren't keeping up and will eventually drop out if they don't keep up with the pace.
I would also include the four schools that are on the top three lists but missed the NC's list. That is 12. For the last three I'd probably go with the three Florida helmets.
why I don't hold number of NC's as valuable.
The 4 on notice are spending enough money to try to keep up.
4 Michigan
5 Notre Dame
10 Tennessee
15 Nebraska
-
Yeah, this wasn't about the most successful clubs, it was about the biggest spending clubs being mad they weren't getting the success they used to have, so they decided to buy their way in.
Notre Dame, Michigan, Tennessee and Nebraska would be the exact type of schools who would be all over this.
-
I don't think anyone suggested rankings be based solely on NCs, lol.
I get that, I was just pointing out that I take those "claimed NC's" lists with a very large grain of salt.
I'd be strict on that NCs list, lol. 5 NCs for Florida is silly.
AP
UPI/Coaches
BCS
Playoff
only
1936 - now
If this is the basis, then I'd take it a lot more seriously. Still, I'd balance it because from the perspective of measuring the strength of a given program, I think that 10 AP top-5 finishes with no NC's is stronger that 1 NC and no other top-5 finishes.
But a team with 700 wins and 1 NC vs a team with 680 wins and 5 NCs.....there's some configurin' to do, no?
Agreed, but I honestly don't know exactly how I'd weight things. Your and my examples are extremes:
- 1 NC and zero other top-5 finishes < 10 top-5 finishes IMHO.
- 700 wins and 1NC < 680 wins and 5 NC's, IMHO.
Somewhere in the middle there are distinctions that are harder to make.
-
Just ask the BCS computers, right?
.
If the wins and win% lists are exactly the same, then including both seems sorta redundant, no?
-
Yeah, this wasn't about the most successful clubs, it was about the biggest spending clubs being mad they weren't getting the success they used to have, so they decided to buy their way in.
Notre Dame, Michigan, Tennessee and Nebraska would be the exact type of schools who would be all over this.
Gross.
-
I want a 15-team conference of the 12 heavies and Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. Round-robin. How would those Ivies look by Week 13?
-
If the wins and win% lists are exactly the same, then including both seems sorta redundant, no?
I should double check that, I might have copied the same list twice.
-
I want a 15-team conference of the 12 heavies and Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. Round-robin. How would those Ivies look by Week 13?
Rich
-
When I was at UGA eons ago, the students knew which classes were, um, tailored for athletes. One apparently was Geology 101, which I never took, another was Astronomy 101 which I did take, and could have made an A without studying on Day One.
Geology was termed "Rocks for Jocks", apparently the main professor was a big football fan. I don't think that was the case for the Astronomy professor, he was entertaining though, and I attended his classes. He had five true-false tests, and you got to drop one of them. I made high 90s on the first four tests so I was technically done.
At one point, he complained about a student who earned a 37 and a T-F test. So, I took the last test and intentionally tried to get everything wrong. I never went back to class, I may have made a 3 or a 6.
-
Division 1
- Bama
- Auburn
- LSU
- Georgia
- Tennessee
- Florida
- Florida State
- Miami
.................
Division 2
- Notre Dame
- Penn State
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- Nebraska
- Oklahoma
- Texas
- USC
If it has to be exactly 15, then screw Auburn
-
I like that, combined with the whole relgation soccer thing.
If you finish last in your division for 3 consecutive seasons, you're out.
-
Division 1
- Bama
- Auburn
- LSU
- Georgia
- Tennessee
- Florida
- Florida State
- Miami
.................
Division 2
- Notre Dame
- Penn State
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- Nebraska
- Oklahoma
- Texas
- USC
If it has to be exactly 15, then screw Auburn
I'd screw the Irish or the Trojans
-
I'd screw the Irish or the Trojans
You just want to screw a song girl.
-
The Irish are historically good, and they are also good now. Odd team to omit.
-
ND has really good records sometimes. They haven't been an elite program since the early 90s. They're 0-9 since then in top-tier bowl games.
-
They are certainly in much better shape than Miami, Tennessee, Nebraska, USC and Texas.
-
They are certainly in much better shape than Miami, Tennessee, Nebraska, USC and Texas.
I'd agree that that's true, but I'm not sure it's fair. ND doesn't have the annual schedule of any of them, either.
.
But I may be nitpicking.
-
no one said I had to be fair
just screw someone
-
Folks like me have a "feeling" that ND plays a soft schedule and isn't really that good. That feeling isn't exactly supported by facts.
-
Folks like me have a "feeling" that ND is too good for the rest of college football and too good to join a conference. That feeling isn't exactly supported by facts.
-
Big Red is gonna kick ND's ass this year.
-
They certainly took pretty good UGA teams to the wire twice. I suspect they are a bit short of the elite level teams like Bama and Clemson have had consistently.
A lot of the elite and near elite level teams are replacing good QBs next year, which doesn't mean they will flop of course, but it's a question for them.
-
Yes, elite and bad aren't the only two options. There is a wide spectrum, and ND is a lot closer to elite than bad.
-
Folks like me have a "feeling" that ND plays a soft schedule and isn't really that good. That feeling isn't exactly supported by facts.
ND's scheduling difficulty isn't exactly about who they play, but when. They don't have a conference dictating when they play toughies. The Irish are able to space out who they play and when to their liking. They're never stuck wtih playing Wisconsin then @ OSU the following week.
.
That is a big deal, whether you FEEL it or not.
.
And if you go back and look at the ranked teams they've beaten.....they're nearly 100% PAC and ACC teams. Idk what their record is vs SEC/B1G the last 20 years, but it's not good.
-
so, conferences do have some ways they can protect their pet teams that have the best chance to make a 4-team playoff by dictating schedules?
-
so, conferences do have some ways they can protect their pet teams that have the best chance to make a 4-team playoff by dictating schedules?
Yes, the way the SEC gave 7? consecutive opponents off-weeks prior to their game vs Alabama one year. Sure, why not.
Unless a conference is run by a Banana Republic dictator, the scheduling is all above-board, with who you play, home/road, and time of year all being randomzied/evened out over the 12 or 14 or whatever-year span.
-
Moos traded everything for the one Black Friday game vs the Hawkeyes
good trade IMO, cause he wasn't going to get much anyway
Kirk doesn't seem to like it, but he doesn't get many favors either
-
I'd guess the programs argue for certain schedules and the league office grants parts of some and none of others.
-
It seems this way
-
The Dawgs have been getting a bye week every year before Florida, as does Florida, for a while now. This was a complaint formerly Dawg fans had that Florida had a bye and UGA didn't before the WLOCP.
UGA also schedules an OOC pastry before Tech, usually, as if they need it.
-
Time-waster thought experiment for fun warning:
What if we had a League of the Last 15 NCs? Round robin. fill them in.
20 Bama, 19 LSU, 18 Cemson, 17 Bama, 16 Clemson, 15 Bama, 14 OSU, 13 FSU, 12 Bama, 11 Bama, 10 Auburn, 09 Bama, 08 Florida, 07 LSU, 06 Florida
.
Here's mine, if they actually played...
14-0...'12 Alabama.....no weaknesses
13-1...'19 LSU
12-2...'18 Clemson
11-3...'08 Florida
10-4...'15 Alabama..could just play ball-control against everyone
9-5...'20 Alabama...Saban's worst D...but his best O.
8-6...'09 Alabama
7-7...'14 Ohio State....defense keeps them this low
6-8...'16 Clemson....so many close games
5-9...'11 Alabama.....best pass D maybe ever, but couldn't pass whenever they wanted
4-10...'13 Florida St
3-11...'17 Alabama.....Jake Coker?
2-12...'10 Auburn....1-man team vs 14 national champions? I don't see it.
1-13...'06 Florida
0-14...'07 LSU
.
One could say LSU might bookend this thing, with Burrow & Co. being at the top and their 2-loss NC at the bottom. All I know is that I'd pay an obscene amount of money to see 19 LSU's pass O vs 11 Bama's pass D.
Idk, have fun with it.
-
06 Florida and 07 LSU will be low on my list.....08 Florida middle-high...09 Bama middle-low....while Cam could dominate a game to a NC, vs fellow NCs, I'm not so sure that would work out well, especially with such an ordinary defense (for a NC).....differentiating the Bamas will be difficult. I'll probably have 14 OSU lower than most, because their defense wasn't great.....not sure about Watson vs Lawrence Tigers....that FSU team was great, statistically, but like Cam, idk how they'd measure up vs other NCs.
I know none of these teams is likely to go 14-0 or 0-14 vs the rest, but I put that to force people into ranking them instead of grouping them. I'm grouping them here somewhat, but will rank them in a bit.
12 Bama over 11.....15 over 17......09 reminds me of 15.....idk where 20 Bama fits in there. Must be nice to have that problem, lol.
**I figure the top team of this round-robin would go something like 11-3 or 10-4.
-
I'm pretty sure the league office does what it can to appease the Top teams. I know there were a few schedule changes like playing Auburn on the road twice in a row than rankled Dawg fans, there was some reason for it.
-
Have you ever made a big schedule for something? I've done it for school schedules and it's a pain in the butt. Sometimes, you just have to short someone.
People find motive where none exists sometimes.
-
I'm not looking for any nefarious motive. I know UGA didn't have an off week before the WLOCP and they complained, and eventually viola, there was an off week.
I infer they complained often enough that the SEC folks worked it in. Fine with me.
There was some reason for the double away games with Auburn, I forget what it was, might have been Missouri, whatever.
-
Back in the day, Arkansas used to insist on playing Texas the week after the TX-OU game. They felt it gave them an advantage to play the Horns coming off the emotional rivalry game against the Sooners.
-
Back in the day, Arkansas used to insist on playing Texas the week after the TX-OU game. They felt it gave them an advantage to play the Horns coming off the emotional rivalry game against the Sooners.
I would think it would, which is why teams vie to arrange schedules to their benefit. I'd be shocked if they don't.
Probably if you whine long enough, they try and make accommodation.
-
I would think it would, which is why teams vie to arrange schedules to their benefit. I'd be shocked if they don't.
Probably if you whine long enough, they try and make accommodation.
Right, they're placating a crying baby, not making back-alley chess moves to steal national championships.
-
I don't think anyone has implied these were back alley chess moves.
And teams like Vandy probably don't whine much because it wouldn't matter for them, usually, beyond keeping their rivalry games intact.
I don't pay much attention to conference scheduling years ahead, whatever it is in a given year is of note, to me. We play two teams from the West plus Auburn, usually it's one good team and one mediocre team. The OOC slate is more interesting, I find.
If UGA doesn't beat Florida, it usually means nothing.
-
Better hope the players don't feel the same way, lol.
-
I think my point is pretty clear, no? The "anything" is an SEC Championship, and that makes beating Florida nearly a sine qua non.
That's Latin by the way.
-
The romance languages developing from Latin is a great way to teach evolution, for those who still want to deny it.
-
I'm not sure that is such a great analogy since I don't think we had natural selection operating to evolve languages in an analogous way.
The history of English is really quite fascinating to me. Folks may forget the last time Englaland was conquered, it was by the "French", who weren't exactly French, but "northmen" who settled in France in an area whose name is indicative of that today.
It's an area I enjoy visiting. They have calvados.
-
French Vikings?
-
French Vikings?
If I understand correctly, the term "viking" indicates an action, not a location of a people. They were called "Northmen" and "Danes", for example, back in the day.
These folks went "viking" from time to time to gain wealth and status.
The "norsemen" or northmen under Rollo had settled in western France, de facto, and the King of France granted them lands there in return for fealty and to protect Paris from being raided by "Vikings", sometimes aided by De Bears and De Lions.
-
Using the numbers at sportrac.com, we ranked the 25 college football programs with the highest cumulative career earnings among active NFL players. And while the school at the top of the list is hardly a shocker, there are indeed a few programs out there that might not immediately come to mind, but were once home to an individual who has climbed the ranks to superstardom. In other cases, the sheer amount of former players now in the league from a single school does the trick.
25. Boston College ($311,322,122)
24. UCLA ($332,832,248)
23. Auburn ($$336,042,105)
22. Nebraska ($356,563,319)
21. Michigan State ($414,340,560)
20. USC ($417,670,420)
19. Iowa ($420,969,016)
18. Stanford ($451,252,846)
17. Mississippi State ($452,662,115)
16. Pittsburgh ($462,215,298)
15. Wisconsin ($480,484,711)
14. Oklahoma ($498,172,091)
13. Clemson ($500,902,170)
12. Texas A&M ($505,560,292)
11. Florida ($532,561,836)
10. FLORIDA STATE
9. SOUTH CAROLINA
8. NOTRE DAME
7. MIAMI
6. MICHIGAN
5. GEORGIA
4. OHIO STATE
3. LSU
2. CALIFORNIA
1. ALABAMA
https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/college-football-programs-with-players-who-have-made-most-money-nfl-Alabama-ohio-state-Georgia-lsu-michigan--165116040/#165116040_13 (https://247sports.com/college/nebraska/LongFormArticle/college-football-programs-with-players-who-have-made-most-money-nfl-Alabama-ohio-state-Georgia-lsu-michigan--165116040/#165116040_13)
-
I may have missed it, but has anyone here advocating for a 6+1+1 eight-team playoff included a no-rematch caveat for the 1 at-large team?
Say Wisconsin is in line to be the at-large team, but they’ve already lost to who they’d face in the playoff, so they’d be passed over. Would most of you want that?
Or even extend it to the at-large can’t have a loss to any playoff team?
Thoughts?
-
nope, I still prefer the 2-team playoff
-
I may have missed it, but has anyone here advocating for a 6+1+1 eight-team playoff included a no-rematch caveat for the 1 at-large team?
Say Wisconsin is in line to be the at-large team, but they’ve already lost to who they’d face in the playoff, so they’d be passed over. Would most of you want that?
Or even extend it to the at-large can’t have a loss to any playoff team?
Thoughts?
No. That defeats the purpose of at-large.
Often the at-large team will have one slip-up, and that slip-up might be, for example, a very tight road game against an 11-1 division rival (with a worse loss) who made it to the CCG while they stayed home at 11-1. The conference rival wins the CCG to get to 12-1 and the auto-bid, but the committee thinks that on a neutral field, that 11-1 team that they beat might just be the better team and is certainly worthy of an at-large bid.
Heck, imagine LSU takes an OOC loss against a respectable team, a head-scratching loss to Ole Miss, but they beat Bama by a walkoff FG after a Bama player extends that drive on a 4th down stop by, say, throwing an opponent's shoe. Both teams finish with 7-1 conference records but LSU is 10-2 and Bama is 11-1. LSU goes to the CCG and wins it.
Is the SEC going to be happy having Bama excluded because they might potentially face LSU, a team that almost everyone in the country thinks they're better than?
-
I just thought 2011 was the impetus for all of this.
You're going to tell LSU it has to beat Alabama again? Is that any more fair?
Over the past few years, I've been led to believe here that if a team doesn't win its division, it doesn't deserve jack squat.
-
nope, I still prefer the 2-team playoff
I was asking the 6+1 at-large + 1 G5 champ advocates.
-
Where are you getting the 6?
-
I just thought 2011 was the impetus for all of this.
You're going to tell LSU it has to beat Alabama again? Is that any more fair?
It's one thing when you have 5 power conferences comprising >60 teams, most of whom rarely play each other, and your SINGLE championship game is a rematch between two teams from the same conference. That year, even if Bama was a better team than OkSU, I think the collective opinion of everyone outside SEC territory was that the "fair" option in a 2-team playoff was to let someone else have a crack at LSU.
In an 8-team playoff, I think we understand that rematches might be inevitable. I would suggest that the committee should do what it can with seeding to avoid rematches or even games between two teams from the same conference in the quarterfinals, but that might not even be possible some years (or may screw up the seeding too badly).
So yeah, 2011 was the impetus, but not purely out of an "avoid rematches" mindset--it was "if we can only put two teams in, THEN we should avoid rematches".
-
Where are you getting the 6?
You're right, sorry.....the 6+2 at-large. Sorry, in my mind I put the highest G5 in as a conference champ, so there'd be 6 of those. Just a brain fart on the 6+1+1.
Regardless, if someone wants the 8 team playoff with G5 inclusion and at-large births, do they want the not-if-you-already-had-your-shot anti-rematch caveat.
I assume there'd be something like that irl.
5+2+1 = 6+2 :)
-
It's one thing when you have 5 power conferences comprising >60 teams, most of whom rarely play each other, and your SINGLE championship game is a rematch between two teams from the same conference. That year, even if Bama was a better team than OkSU, I think the collective opinion of everyone outside SEC territory was that the "fair" option in a 2-team playoff was to let someone else have a crack at LSU.
In an 8-team playoff, I think we understand that rematches might be inevitable. I would suggest that the committee should do what it can with seeding to avoid rematches or even games between two teams from the same conference in the quarterfinals, but that might not even be possible some years (or may screw up the seeding too badly).
So yeah, 2011 was the impetus, but not purely out of an "avoid rematches" mindset--it was "if we can only put two teams in, THEN we should avoid rematches".
Hmm.
Do you think there'd be a rule against both at-larges coming from the same conference?
-
Hmm.
Do you think there'd be a rule against both at-larges coming from the same conference?
It's an interesting question... You have 10 conferences, and I'm guessing to move you'd have a couple different groups:
- All of the G5 would likely be in "we're just happy to be included" mode, so they'll back whatever they think is more likely to get a 5+1+2 over the finish line.
- The ACC/B12/PAC will definitely be for a limit on at-large teams, because they know they can't support 3 teams at that level. However, they also may be in "happy to be included" mode because in the current system, 1 conference will be frozen out every year, and often 2. Possibly even 3 if you get 2 SEC + Notre Dame. But I think they'll make a stink over limiting at-large to one team per conference.
- The SEC will be adamant about there being no limit. They'll push the idea that the at-large should be the two best remaining teams, regardless of ANY conference affiliation/etc.
- The B1G could go either way. I think they may have a pipe dream of sending OSU+UM+UW/PSU and filling three teams out of eight. But I'm not sure whether cooler heads who recognize how unlikely that is would prevail.
In the end, my guess is that there will be enough pressure to guarantee conference champs and guarantee a G5 team that the groups wanting to limit at-large to one team per conference will give that up, because they're getting more than they're losing.
-
I love doing scenarios with 2012, because the rankings are SEC-heavy, you have ND at the top, undefeated OSU on probation, and the PAC champ ranked below a team in its division.
2012 8-team playoff (5 conf champs, 2 at-large, 1 G5)
.
SEC Champ - Alabama (2)
ACC Champ - Florida St (13)
B1G Champ - Wisconsin (UR)
XII Champ - Kansas St (7)
PAC Champ - Stanford (8)
Highest G5 - Northern Illinois (16)
-----------------------------------------
So before we add in the 2 at-large teams, in our 8-team playoff, we don't yet have #1, 3, 4, 5, or 6. We have #16. We have an unranked team. Absolutely, this is a unique season, but look at it. We'd have created a system like this, with these results, ON PURPOSE.
Obviously, our first at-large is #1 Notre Dame. Cool.
Now for the other:
3 - n/a Ohio St (probation)
4 - Florida (didn't win its division)
5 - Oregon (didn't win its division)
6 - Georgia (won its division, but dropped from 3 to 6 for losing to Alabama in the SECCG)
Now, the purpose of this isn't to nitpick the 2nd at-large team, but to see where it's at among the other automatic bids.
No matter who is chosen here, they're the 3 seed.
1 seed ND (1) vs 8 seed Wis (UR)
4 seed K-State (7) vs 5 seed Stanford (8)
2 seed Alabama (2) vs 7 seed NIU (16)
3 seed Florida? (4) vs 6 seed FSU (13)
.
The matchups are fine, that's not my focus. We want? a system that excludes what may be the 4th, 5th, and 6th-best teams for ones that may be the 13th, 16th, and 26th+ (the 4-5-6 if you just pretend OSU isn't there).
I'm not okay with that. Maybe if like they did with the BCS, if you had a lower-bound ranking for conference champs, I could get on board, at least for the P5 teams.
Whether it's 12th or 15th or whatever, we need a minimum ranking, don't we?
.
-
So that was a lot of blah-blah on my part to simply ask: do you think there should be a lower-bound minimum ranking for the P5 conference champs (the 5 of the 5+1+2 model)?
I'd insist on it, but no one asks me.
-
You can insist on it, or anything else, if you wish.
It's all theoretical, using the term loosely. Perhaps hypothetical is better.
When discussing such a thing, I personally start with either a problem definition, or a goal, kind of the same thing really.
-
So that was a lot of blah-blah on my part to simply ask: do you think there should be a lower-bound minimum ranking for the P5 conference champs (the 5 of the 5+1+2 model)?
I'd insist on it, but no one asks me.
We've discussed that at length.
Some people in favor of 5+1+2 are in favor of it. Some are not.
I personally am not in favor of a lower bound. I hate the idea that your conference championship matters--right up until you don't pass some arbitrary beauty pageant metric that's completely out of your control.
That said, I understand the argument of those who are in favor. They don't want worthy teams excluded for the inclusion of OBVIOUSLY unworthy teams...
My take is outside of the top G5 team, the "obviously unworthy" category will be pretty small most years. 2012 Wisconsin is a special case because of OSU/PSU being on probation. How often do we really have an unranked P5 champ, ESPECIALLY now in the days of the CCG?
-
. How often do we really have an unranked P5 champ, ESPECIALLY now in the days of the CCG?
This is a good thought, especially that mathematically, the CCG should yield some upsets - certainly more than have actually happened.
I don't think you can avoid the beauty-pageant aspect, though. If a team is ranked 2nd and loses its CCG, it could very well still get in. Another team with the same record could be ranked 6th and a loss in their CCG is damning.
Hell, any conference with the #1 team facing another in the top 10 in their CCG should have the top team forfeit in order to guarantee 2 of theirs gets in the playoff. I know, I know, that's silly, OAM. Would never happen. But it's another case of incentivising something ugly.
-
Ohh, what about P5 conference champs can only be in the playoff if they're ranked ahead of the top G5 champ? I like that.
-
This is a good thought, especially that mathematically, the CCG should yield some upsets - certainly more than have actually happened.
I don't think you can avoid the beauty-pageant aspect, though. If a team is ranked 2nd and loses its CCG, it could very well still get in. Another team with the same record could be ranked 6th and a loss in their CCG is damning.
Hell, any conference with the #1 team facing another in the top 10 in their CCG should have the top team forfeit in order to guarantee 2 of theirs gets in the playoff. I know, I know, that's silly, OAM. Would never happen. But it's another case of incentivising something ugly.
something to do away with the conference influencing the officials to make sure the right team wins in the CCG
-
I don't think you can avoid the beauty-pageant aspect, though. If a team is ranked 2nd and loses its CCG, it could very well still get in. Another team with the same record could be ranked 6th and a loss in their CCG is damning.
I don't mind the beauty pageant for at-large teams.
In fact, it's a feature. A team may schedule stronger OOC in the hopes that if they have a mulligan in division that stops them from getting into their CCG, they have strength of schedule and marquee win(s) OOC that can help boost them in the beauty pageant.
Ohh, what about P5 conference champs can only be in the playoff if they're ranked ahead of the top G5 champ? I like that.
Again, we get to "ranked". A team doesn't actually control its ranking. A team doesn't have a clue where the top G5 is going to finish--in some years the top G5 might be in the top 10. Too much subjectivity for the 5+1 portion. Leave the subjectivity for the +2 at-larges.
-
Possible low rankings in playoff era:
2014
12 lost to 2, 11 lost to 6, 8 lost to 3, and 14 lost to 1. All of those lower seeds would have had a healthy jump if they pulled the upset. Keep that in mind for the rankings going forward.
.
2015
10 lost to 1, 14 tied for the XII champ, 20 lost to 7 and 18 lost to 2. That's pretty scary imo - if #20 or 18 pulled the upset here.
.
2016
19 lost to 3, 11 and 14 tied for the XII champ, 15 lost to 1. If 19 VT upsets 3 Clemson here, Clemson stays in it and bumps out a very good team, right?
.
2017
11 played 14 in the PAC.....none of the others were outside the top 10, which is amazing, actually.
.
2018
25 lost to 2, 21 lost to 6, 17 lost to 10.......these are kinda scary.
.
2019
23 lost to 3, 13 beat 5
.
The point of this is that just because we haven't been destroyed by an asteroid impact doesn't mean one isn't headed right for us! :)
-
I don't mind the beauty pageant for at-large teams.
In fact, it's a feature. A team may schedule stronger OOC in the hopes that if they have a mulligan in division that stops them from getting into their CCG, they have strength of schedule and marquee win(s) OOC that can help boost them in the beauty pageant.
Again, we get to "ranked". A team doesn't actually control its ranking. A team doesn't have a clue where the top G5 is going to finish--in some years the top G5 might be in the top 10. Too much subjectivity for the 5+1 portion. Leave the subjectivity for the +2 at-larges.
I feel like our fears are in different places. You want to avoid an unworthy at-large getting in (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm much more worried about a conference champ being unworthy and getting in. The at-larges will almost always be top-5 teams, I'm not worried about them. But there will occasionally be some screwy, BAD conference champs getting in. That's what bothers me.
-
Possible low rankings in playoff era:
2014
12 lost to 2, 11 lost to 6, 8 lost to 3, and 14 lost to 1. All of those lower seeds would have had a healthy jump if they pulled the upset. Keep that in mind for the rankings going forward.
.
2015
10 lost to 1, 14 tied for the XII champ, 20 lost to 7 and 18 lost to 2. That's pretty scary imo - if #20 or 18 pulled the upset here.
.
2016
19 lost to 3, 11 and 14 tied for the XII champ, 15 lost to 1. If 19 VT upsets 3 Clemson here, Clemson stays in it and bumps out a very good team, right?
.
2017
11 played 14 in the PAC.....none of the others were outside the top 10, which is amazing, actually.
.
2018
25 lost to 2, 21 lost to 6, 17 lost to 10.......these are kinda scary.
.
2019
23 lost to 3, 13 beat 5
.
The point of this is that just because we haven't been destroyed by an asteroid impact doesn't mean one isn't headed right for us! :)
I just thought of something.
In all those "scary" scenarios you're describing, those teams ranked >10 in a CCG really weren't playing for CFP inclusion. Granted they were playing for the conference championship hardware, and playing for their conference's premier bowl, but a win would NOT have elevated them to CFP (top 4) status.
With my scenario, every one of those teams will have even more incentive in their CCG to win. I don't know how that will affect upset likelihood [if at all], but my intuitive gut feeling is that it would increase.
I feel like our fears are in different places. You want to avoid an unworthy at-large getting in (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm much more worried about a conference champ being unworthy and getting in. The at-larges will almost always be top-5 teams, I'm not worried about them. But there will occasionally be some screwy, BAD conference champs getting in. That's what bothers me.
No, for me it's not about an unworthy at-large. Truth is that with an 8-team playoff, you could just pick the top 8 ranked teams and you wouldn't have any unworthy teams. The at-large teams in a scenario where bad conference champs are excluded would still be from that group, so I'm not concerned they'll be unworthy.
What I'm saying is that there WILL be unworthy conference champs getting in from time to time, and IMHO it will be rare enough that it won't bother me. Especially since they'll be HIGHLY unlikely to even make it to the championship game, much less win it all. And if they make it through that gauntlet and win it all? Well, maybe they weren't that unworthy ;-)
Everyone is terrified that the NY Giants will go from the wild card to Super Bowl champs and take out the team of destiny that's "supposed" to win it. I'm willing to accept that happening every once in a while for making conference championships mean something again.
-
That's all agreeable, I think.
With the added incentive to win the CCG by the underdog, is there not a complimentary loss of incentive for a top-3 team to win it? If they're basically already in?
I know none of this is perfect, but I'm just enjoying the discussion.
-
That's all agreeable, I think.
With the added incentive to win the CCG by the underdog, is there not a complimentary loss of incentive for a top-3 team to win it? If they're basically already in?
I know none of this is perfect, but I'm just enjoying the discussion.
Well, we know the psychological nature that has affected both pollsters and quite possibly the committee... It matters when your losses happen.
Maybe an undefeated SEC team up against another undefeated or 1-loss SEC team in the CCG could lose and still be a shoo-in for one of the at-large bids... But there are only 2 at-large bids.
The question is how far you drop from the loss? Let me put it this way...
If I'm Ohio State and I'm 12-0, ranked #1 heading into the CCG, and I look around and I see an 11-1 Notre Dame behind me and an 11-1 Alabama that is not in its CCG, am I going to feel very good about losing to 10-2 Wisconsin from the opposite division in my CCG? Those two other teams can pass me sitting idle if I lose my CCG. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to feel safe if I lose.
-
Is an expansion really in the offing in the next 2-3-4 years? If not, it seems premature, to me anyway.
-
It's all mental masturbation, yes.
-
Another fun idea I had (groan from the crowd) was if we eventually evolve to 16x4 conferences (which are also 8x8), we could try some retro bowl matchups within the playoff format.
One PAC-16 division winner plays in the Rose Bowl, the other in the Fiesta.
The B1G East winner plays in the Rose Bowl, the West winner plays in the Orange (esp if they've added OU w/ NU).
The ACC's division winners play in the Sugar and Orange.
The SEC's division winners playin the Sugar and Fiesta.
.
The higher-ranked division-winners get first choice between their conference's pair of bowls. We could have Nebraska play Miami in the Orange Bowl. Or Oklahoma vs FSU. Michigan vs USC in the Rose would still be possible. And it would be a nice new pairing of SEC vs PAC in the Fiesta.
.
Idk, another little wrinkle....they'd all be playoff games anyway, and dwarfed in the larger picture. Playing conferences instead of seeding the teams.
-
If, say, Nebraska won the B1G and had their choice of Rose or Orange in a playoff setup, would there be that nostalgic feeling to choose the OB over the RB?
-
possibly for some older fans........
for myself and I assume the majority of fans and administration........... rather get another crack at a win in the Rose. 2 appearances, 2 losses. Obviously, UNL has a few OB victories. I also assume the Rose would be the preference because it's more of a Big Ten thing and we'd like to fit in to the tradition better.
-
I like seeing UGA going back to the Rose Bowl, first since 1942. (1943?). Unusual event.
-
Husker's first bowl appearance was the 1940 Rose vs Stanford
Coach Biff Jones’ Cornhuskers led Clark Shaughnessy’s Stanford Indians twice in the first half, but fell victim to the innovative T-formation 21-13. The Huskers took a 7-0 lead just six plays after the kickoff when fullback Vike Francis plunged over from the two. Stanford tied it four plays later when Hugh Gallarneau bolted over from nine yards out.
In the second quarter, the Huskers took the lead again on a 33-yard Herm Rohrig-to-Allen Zikmund pass, but the Indians came back on Frankie Albert’s 40-yard TD pass to Gallarneau for a 14-13 halftime lead. A 39-yard TD punt return by Pete Kmetovic iced the game for the Indians in the third quarter.
-
Yeah, Stanford was the Indians into the 70s.
In trying to make every team era-specific for Whoa Nellie, I use the old logos and some of the Native ones were honestly offensive. Syracuse had one that was decidely impolite, so no, the "Orangemen" weren't an innocent moniker.
.
We could have a whole thread on old mascots/logos. The ND leprechaun seemed to quit smoking in 1984. Good for him. Alabama had a meek elephant logo back in the late 60s. UM just had a bad wolverine in a sailor's cap back then, too. Funny, odd, weird, offensive, harmless, and everything in-between.
-
I like the SWC's traditional tie-in to the Cotton Bowl, but only if the Cotton Bowl were to go back to playing in the Cotton Bowl.
-
Before the Cotton was demoted and had the SEC tie-in, it was the SWC champ vs. anyone, right? An at-large opponent?
-
I like the SWC's traditional tie-in to the Cotton Bowl, but only if the Cotton Bowl were to go back to playing in the Cotton Bowl.
and on the correct date
-
Before the Cotton was demoted and had the SEC tie-in, it was the SWC champ vs. anyone, right? An at-large opponent?
Yes. Just the one tie-in, which is why Notre Dame ended up playing there fairly regularly once they ended their own bowl game self-ban. PSU, as well, as they were independent until the early 90s.
-
and on the correct date
word
-
The major bowls were pretty neat IMHO, you felt your team had a good year to make one of the four, and then if they had a decent year, Gator Bowl was up next if you were 9-2ish. I do like there being some chance now of playing a Pac opponent somewhere. UGA has never played in the Fiesta Bowl which became a "major" bowl at some point. Then the Peach Bowl bought its way in as well, at least it uses fruit. And chicken.
If a bowl is in a "major" city, it can buy its way in more readily it appears.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-0/p526x296/195938437_4130996293604415_8597284380244561346_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=vdplluclNU4AX-CpIY4&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&tp=6&oh=12ee7e700194569a114d656b2584a1df&oe=60DE4545)
-
The major bowls were pretty neat IMHO, you felt your team had a good year to make one of the four, and then if they had a decent year, Gator Bowl was up next if you were 9-2ish. I do like there being some chance now of playing a Pac opponent somewhere. UGA has never played in the Fiesta Bowl which became a "major" bowl at some point. Then the Peach Bowl bought its way in as well, at least it uses fruit. And chicken.
If a bowl is in a "major" city, it can buy its way in more readily it appears.
It was definitely better when you felt like even if you didn't win your conference, a New Year's Day game was a pretty good reward, better than playing on December 28th, which is better than being done before Thanksgiving
-
I always had a feeling it was a good team if they made a major bowl. Winning the NC was not really realistic, so that was a good year, and plausible.
There were the four major bowls and everything else, the Gator for a while was a decent runner up bowl.
-
Fiesta Bowl got big in the mid/late 80s when some upstart independents got good like Miami and FSU, along with longstanding notable independents ND and PSU, and the Fiesta Bowl had no conference tie-ins so could pair up two major independents for MNC type games.
-
That is the only bowl of consequence in which UGA has never played. They probably have missed the Holiday Bowl and the Poulan Weedeater Bowl and the R&L Carriers Bowl.
-
That is the only bowl of consequence in which UGA has never played. They probably have missed the Holiday Bowl and the Poulan Weedeater Bowl and the R&L Carriers Bowl.
Texas has played in-- and won-- all four traditional major bowls, plus the Fiesta.
-
I always had a feeling it was a good team if they made a major bowl. Winning the NC was not really realistic, so that was a good year, and plausible.
There were the four major bowls and everything else, the Gator for a while was a decent runner up bowl.
The Big Ten hierarchy of the late 90s/early 2000s was perfect IMO. You win the conference, you play in the Rose Bowl, unless you are GREAT, then you go play for a national title. 2nd/3rd still got to play on NYD in the Citrus and Outback Bowls. Then you fell to the pre-NYD bowls, 4th/5th/6th to the Alamo/Sun/Music City Bowls. 7th place, you got to play in a postseason game...but it was in Detroit.
Everyone joked that the Motor City Bowl was created just for MSU, and maybe it was. Yet in the entire time they had that tie-in, MSU has still never played in it. They've always been too good, or not eligible for a bowl. In that time (98-09?ish) I want to say the year we played Nebraska in the Alamo Bowl was the only time we finished between good enough to be bowl eligible, but not good enough to play in a NYD bowl.
-
UGA did play in the Weedeater Bowl in 1991 Uga beat Arky in their last Big 12 game. I was there and a drunk Dawg walked into an a industrial bathroom wih like 30 urinals after the game and maybe 29 Arky fans using those 30 urinals and yelled This little piggy went Whee whee whee all the way home and the Arky fans were cool enough not to stick his head in a toilet.
-
Heh, forgot that one, for obvious reasons. Great name for a bowl game though.
-
College Football Playoff expansion: 12-team model leads the way, per report (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/College-Football-Playoff-expansion-12-team-model-leads-way-166281877/?fbclid=IwAR3bxODEwSJxJacgW39OCyU77HiMUWY83z9TnY8OlByknQ3t1tiJASuLBI8)
Huh.
-
crap