CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on March 26, 2022, 02:33:36 PM
-
What say you?
-
68 was a good year
-
Oddly, IMHO all of the best tOSU teams have NOT won the NC while some of the NC's weren't actually all that good.
1968 was a good team, went undefeated and won the NC but the team was mostly sophomores (first year eligible back then). Nearly the entire team returned as juniors for 1969 and again as seniors for 1970. Those two teams were easily better but each one lost their last game.
2014 was great by the end of the year but even at that I'd argue that 2015 was better.
1973 was a great team but I think 1975 was better. The 1975 team lost the Rose Bowl (stadium and game) to a UCLA team that they had slaughtered earlier that season in the Rose Bowl (stadium not game).
1998 and 2019 were probably the two best I've seen.
-
Not sure 1995 is the best, but it's better than some up there. Maybe the defense was a little lacking?
-
Or Cooper.
-
Yes. OSU is a very disappointing team in that many of their best teams blew a singular game that cost them the whole season. 1979 is another. Undefeated, then stopped on the goal line at the end of the Rose Bowl. It takes a lot of luck to win the whole ball of wax. 2002 wasn't all that great of a team, but they were clutch and always found a way to win.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keMV-n8YbBg&t=1s
-
Not sure 1995 is the best, but it's better than some up there. Maybe the defense was a little lacking?
I had to draw the line somewhere. OSU has too many 1-loss seasons that were near-misses for the NC.
-
Another way to view it is "most accomplished team", or most impressive team for the era. I went for 1968, that is a solid list of accomplishments, and undefeated NC.
The best team if they played today would probably be the latest team on the list of course. But that isn't what I was thinking.
-
The best team if they played today would probably be the latest team on the list of course. But that isn't what I was thinking.
Since this is the case, you can't look t it like the modern 320 lb OT is lining up against the 200 lb DE from the past. You have to look at it like all players are rated 0-100 scale based on their play level vs their peers.
So that modern 320 lb OT might be an 88-rated level player and that 200 lb DE from the past might be a 93 rated level player. Relative quality/dominance vs peers is the way to go.
-
their 2015 team that didn't win was the best one I've seen. That team was f***king loaded. Meyer forgot he had Zeke- the best RB in CFB. I want to say Zeke had 2-3 carries for the entire 2nd half of a very close ball game. Wasn't like they were getting blown out and had to abandon the run. Zeke was a workhorse, he was a guy that needed 25-30 carries a game and you can bet your ass one of them he was going to bust loose for a long gain. Didn't feed the workhorse enough.
-
Sat next to an older Buckeye fans last night at the bar
Older than me - around 70
I should have asked him
he had many questions about the Huskers and Scott Frost
-
The 1998 team was one of the most dominant teams I had seen. Outside of the disaster of a game against MSU, they man handled everyone on the schedule. (The MSU game as the only game that season that I didn't get to watch as I was helping a realtive with a big project. I did listen to it on the radio, but I have never seen the entire game. Not sure I want to).
-
Some of the best teams in a lot of programs lost "that one game", which is an indicator of how tough it is to run the table.
Even if you play only 7 games that you could lose and have a 90% chance of winning each, your odds of losing are pretty high.
And that would be a dominant team.
-
yup, the Huskers beat two of the greatest Sooner teams of all-time
Switzer always said his 78 team was his best - 9 fumbles losing 6 doomed them in Lincoln
Obviously, the 71 Sooner team that lost the game of the Century in Norman was possibly Chuck Fairbanks best team
-
1968
-
Some of the best teams in a lot of programs lost "that one game", which is an indicator of how tough it is to run the table.
Even if you play only 7 games that you could lose and have a 90% chance of winning each, your odds of losing are pretty high.
And that would be a dominant team.
Yep, and some of that is just dumb luck. If you have your "off game" against Directional State U, you probably just win less impressively than expected and it is forgotten in a few weeks. If you have you "off game" against a good team you take a loss. Prior to the CFP and especially prior to the BCS one off game at the wrong time doomed a lot of truly great teams to not winning a NC.
-
The 1998 team was one of the most dominant teams I had seen. Outside of the disaster of a game against MSU, they man handled everyone on the schedule. (The MSU game as the only game that season that I didn't get to watch as I was helping a realtive with a big project. I did listen to it on the radio, but I have never seen the entire game. Not sure I want to).
I'm sure I've told this story here before but it still bothers me and every time that game comes up I think about it:
A very inconsiderate family member chose to get married on that particular College Football Saturday so I went to the wedding with my parents and brother. In between the wedding and the reception we watched the first half at a sports bar somewhere in Canton. As halftime ended it was time to head to the reception and the Buckeyes were up 17-9 which was mildly concerning because the Buckeyes had mauled most of their previous opponents and the Spartans were just 4-4 coming in so this was supposed to be a blowout.
On the way to the reception we had the game on the radio and as we were parking the Buckeyes got a pick-6 to make the lead a bit more comfortable at 24-9 with the third quarter winding down. We went into the reception thinking that the game was pretty much in hand . . .
It wasn't. After that I missed the part where the game became Murphy's Law for Ohio State as everything that could go wrong did and MSU won 24-28. The crazy thing is that MSU finished just 6-6 while Ohio State's closest other games were:
- A 10 point win over aTm, the Aggies finished 11-3 and #11. They were #8 at gametime and got as high as #6 that season..
- A 15 point win over Michigan, the Wolverines finished 10-3 and #12. They were #11 at gametime and got as high as #5 that season.
- A 17 point win over WVU on the road, the Mountaineers finished 8-4 and among the ORV. They were #11 at gametime and that was their peak ranking for the season.
- A 21 point win over PSU, the Nittany Lions finished 9-3 and #17. They were #7 at gametime which was their peak ranking for the season.
- A 21 point win over Mizzou, the Tigers finished 8-4 and #21. They were #21 at gametime and got as high as #13 that season.
It is just the crazy randomness of sports that a team could be good enough to beat the above five very good teams by two scores each yet lose at home to a mediocre MSU team that finished 6-6.
-
i'll go 2019. imo, got screwed by refs in fiesta. not sure they could have won vs the buzzsaw that was 19 lsu, but that team was legit.
-
I had thought they were dangerously good this past year, I still don't fully understand what happened at UM beyond the usual. I bet a lot of programs have had 2 loss teams that were among their best overall.
-
I had thought they were dangerously good this past year, I still don't fully understand what happened at UM beyond the usual. I bet a lot of programs have had 2 loss teams that were among their best overall.
one of bama's best teams from a talent standpoint was a 3-loss team, 2010. that team had ingram, julio, trent richardson, marcel dareus, hightower, dre kirkpatrick, upshaw, barron, dj fluker, barret jones, josh chapman, cj mosley, chance warmack, eddie lacy. coaches include 4 cfb head coaches (not counting saban) in mcelwain, smart, pruitt and signetti. that team was supremely talent, but injuries and complacency got the better of them. lot of coulda-woulda-shoulda's with that team.
-
Yeah, I bet we all can point to woulda shoulda teams in our history of that ilk.
It was really before my time, but the 1965 UGA team was very talented, we're told, but injuries decimated their prospects.
-
Still Think the 1975 team was the best I ever saw.
-
The 1998 team was one of the most dominant teams I had seen. Outside of the disaster of a game against MSU, they man handled everyone on the schedule. (The MSU game as the only game that season that I didn't get to watch as I was helping a realtive with a big project. I did listen to it on the radio, but I have never seen the entire game. Not sure I want to).
That 98 team opened the season in Morgantown against a WVU team that had a lot of preseason expectations of their own. They were preseason #11 and a trendy pick to win the BE. Ohio St came in and beat them 34-17. Nehlen has said he regrets scheduling Ohio St to open that season. He said that team had a lot of swagger and never really regained after losing the first game of the year. Went on the have a solid, but unspectacular 8-4 year.
That 98 OSU team was excellent.
-
Still Think the 1975 team was the best I ever saw.
That was before my time (I was born in May of 1975 so I was in diapers when those games were played) but I think I read somewhere that Woody thought that was his best team. Woody's nine-year run from 1968-1975 was phenomenal and the only thing detracting from that is that despite being "NC Caliber" for nine straight years (or at least eight of the nine with 1971 possibly excluded) they somehow only won one NC.
1968:
The 1967 team finished unranked but 1967 was the last year of the 10-team poll era so that is perhaps a bit misleading as they were decent at 6-3. Ohio State started #11, beat #1 Purdue in early October to climb to #2, obliterated #4 Michigan 50-14 to move to #1, then beat defending NC USC in the Rose Bowl. FWIW, USC had a running back named OJ Simpson who won the Heisman that year and found later fame in other pursuits.
1969:
The 1968 team was made up largely of Sophomores (Freshman were not eligible to play at the time) so with nearly the entire team retuning the Buckeyes were preseason #1 and stayed there through eight straight wins to open the season. The closest of those eight wins was a 27 point win on the West Coast over Washington. Then they went to Ann Arbor where they hadn't lost since 1959 to play a team that they had mauled the previous year under a first year coach who had been an assistant under Woody, some guy named Bo:
- 24-12
- 8-1
- No bowl due to league's RB only rule
- No NC
1970:
With virtually the entire team returning yet again they started #1 again. They did drop to #3 then further to #5 after an unimpressive FG win over a sub-.500 Purdue squad. That PU game was the week before Michigan and apparently the Buckeyes were looking ahead because the next week they beat #4 Michigan 20-9. Heading into the bowls and what happened:
- 10-0 Texas, lost to #6 ND in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-0 Ohio State, lost to #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
- 10-0-1 Nebraska, beat #5 LSU in the Orange Bowl
- 10-1 Tennessee, beat #11 Air Force in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-2 LSU, lost to #3 UNL in the Orange Bowl
- 9-1 Notre Dame, beat #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
That was one of those exciting Bowl seasons where the Cotton, Rose, and Orange Bowls were all relevant to the NC. #1 Texas' loss to #6 in the Cotton Bowl opened the door for #2, #3, #4, and #5. #2 Ohio State's loss in the Rose Bowl opened the door for #3, #4, and #5. #3 Nebraska's win in the Orange Bowl eliminated #5 LSU and shut the door on #4 Tennessee. In the final poll it was UNL, ND, TX, TN, tOSU.
1971:
This was by far the worst record of this group. The Buckeyes lost all those Super Sophomores from 1968 and started #11. They annihilated Iowa in their opener and moved up to #5 but that proved to be a bit of a mirage as basically everybody annihilated Iowa that year. The Buckeyes finished 6-4 and unranked but the four losses were:
- By 3 to a Michigan team that finished 11-1 and #6
- By 4 to a Northwestern team that finished 7-4 receiving votes
- By 6 to a Colorado team that finished 10-2 and #3 (Big8 went 1-2-3 with 13-0 UNL #1, 11-1 OU #2)
- By 7 to a Michigan State team that finished 6-5 unranked
That is far from great but all four losses were by one score and two of them were to teams that finished in the top-6.
1972:
After the rebuilding year of 1971 the Buckeyes started 1972 at #3 and bounced around the top-5 until an inexplicable loss at MSU dropped them to #9. They were still #3 heading into The Game where they beat previously undefeated and #3 Michigan. They headed into the Rose Bowl at #3 but lost to undefeated and #1 USC who won the NC.
A win in the Rose Bowl *MIGHT* have won the NC for the Buckeyes. It would have been an interesting vote. Heading into the Bowls and what happened:
- 11-0 USC, beat #3 tOSU in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 OU, beat #5 PSU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 tOSU, lost to #1 USC in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 Bama, lost to #7 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 PSU, lost to #2 OU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 Auburn, beat #13 Colorado in the Gator Bowl
- 9-1 Texas, beat #4 Bama in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
- 8-2-1 Nebraska, beat #12 ND in the Orange Bowl
If Ohio State had defeated USC then the NC would have come down to OU vs tOSU. OU's loss to Colorado was better than tOSU's loss to MSU but tOSU's hypothetical win over USC would have been arguably better than OU's best win (Texas).
1973:
The Buckeyes started #3 and climbed to #1 on October 1. Heading into The Game the undefeated Buckeyes were #1 while the undefeated Wolverines were #4. Anything but a tie would have pushed one of the two to #1 but:
- 10-10
- Alabama moved up to #1
- Notre Dame beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl and won the NC
The 1973 Buckeyes outscored their opponents 38-6. They only allowed 64 points all year and 31 of those came against Michigan and USC.
1974:
The Buckeyes started #2 and held #1 for a big chunk of the year before another inexplicable loss at MSU dropped them to #4. Heading into The Game the Buckeyes were #4 while the undefeated Wolverines were #3. The Buckeyes won but lost the Rose Bowl by a single point to USC.
1975:
The Buckeyes started #4 and a 41-20 beat-down of #13 UCLA in Los Angeles on October 4 catapulted them to #1 in the October 6 poll. They stayed at #1 until the Rose Bowl. On the way there they beat #4 Michigan in Ann Arbor. Then came the Rose Bowl. Remember that #13 UCLA team that Ohio State mauled in October . . .
Over those nine years the Buckeyes:
- Had one undefeated NC (1968).
- Finished 10-0-1 missing the NC by a tie once (1973).
- Lost their last game three times where a win would have given them an NC (1969, 1970, 1975).
- Lost only to MSU and the Rose Bowl twice (1972, 1974).
- Had one 4-loss rebuilding year (1971) but even there all four losses were by one score and two were to teams that finished in the top-6.
-
That was before my time (I was born in May of 1975 so I was in diapers when those games were played) but I think I read somewhere that Woody thought that was his best team. Woody's nine-year run from 1968-1975 was phenomenal and the only thing detracting from that is that despite being "NC Caliber" for nine straight years (or at least eight of the nine with 1971 possibly excluded) they somehow only won one NC.
1968:
The 1967 team finished unranked but 1967 was the last year of the 10-team poll era so that is perhaps a bit misleading as they were decent at 6-3. Ohio State started #11, beat #1 Purdue in early October to climb to #2, obliterated #4 Michigan 50-14 to move to #1, then beat defending NC USC in the Rose Bowl. FWIW, USC had a running back named OJ Simpson who won the Heisman that year and found later fame in other pursuits.
1969:
The 1968 team was made up largely of Sophomores (Freshman were not eligible to play at the time) so with nearly the entire team retuning the Buckeyes were preseason #1 and stayed there through eight straight wins to open the season. The closest of those eight wins was a 27 point win on the West Coast over Washington. Then they went to Ann Arbor where they hadn't lost since 1959 to play a team that they had mauled the previous year under a first year coach who had been an assistant under Woody, some guy named Bo:
- 24-12
- 8-1
- No bowl due to league's RB only rule
- No NC
1970:
With virtually the entire team returning yet again they started #1 again. They did drop to #3 then further to #5 after an unimpressive FG win over a sub-.500 Purdue squad. That PU game was the week before Michigan and apparently the Buckeyes were looking ahead because the next week they beat #4 Michigan 20-9. Heading into the bowls and what happened:
- 10-0 Texas, lost to #6 ND in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-0 Ohio State, lost to #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
- 10-0-1 Nebraska, beat #5 LSU in the Orange Bowl
- 10-1 Tennessee, beat #11 Air Force in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-2 LSU, lost to #3 UNL in the Orange Bowl
- 9-1 Notre Dame, beat #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
That was one of those exciting Bowl seasons where the Cotton, Rose, and Orange Bowls were all relevant to the NC. #1 Texas' loss to #6 in the Cotton Bowl opened the door for #2, #3, #4, and #5. #2 Ohio State's loss in the Rose Bowl opened the door for #3, #4, and #5. #3 Nebraska's win in the Orange Bowl eliminated #5 LSU and shut the door on #4 Tennessee. In the final poll it was UNL, ND, TX, TN, tOSU.
1971:
This was by far the worst record of this group. The Buckeyes lost all those Super Sophomores from 1968 and started #11. They annihilated Iowa in their opener and moved up to #5 but that proved to be a bit of a mirage as basically everybody annihilated Iowa that year. The Buckeyes finished 6-4 and unranked but the four losses were:
- By 3 to a Michigan team that finished 11-1 and #6
- By 4 to a Northwestern team that finished 7-4 receiving votes
- By 6 to a Colorado team that finished 10-2 and #3 (Big8 went 1-2-3 with 13-0 UNL #1, 11-1 OU #2)
- By 7 to a Michigan State team that finished 6-5 unranked
That is far from great but all four losses were by one score and two of them were to teams that finished in the top-6.
1972:
After the rebuilding year of 1971 the Buckeyes started 1972 at #3 and bounced around the top-5 until an inexplicable loss at MSU dropped them to #9. They were still #3 heading into The Game where they beat previously undefeated and #3 Michigan. They headed into the Rose Bowl at #3 but lost to undefeated and #1 USC who won the NC.
A win in the Rose Bowl *MIGHT* have won the NC for the Buckeyes. It would have been an interesting vote. Heading into the Bowls and what happened:
- 11-0 USC, beat #3 tOSU in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 OU, beat #5 PSU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 tOSU, lost to #1 USC in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 Bama, lost to #7 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 PSU, lost to #2 OU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 Auburn, beat #13 Colorado in the Gator Bowl
- 9-1 Texas, beat #4 Bama in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
- 8-2-1 Nebraska, beat #12 ND in the Orange Bowl
If Ohio State had defeated USC then the NC would have come down to OU vs tOSU. OU's loss to Colorado was better than tOSU's loss to MSU but tOSU's hypothetical win over USC would have been arguably better than OU's best win (Texas).
1973:
The Buckeyes started #3 and climbed to #1 on October 1. Heading into The Game the undefeated Buckeyes were #1 while the undefeated Wolverines were #4. Anything but a tie would have pushed one of the two to #1 but:
- 10-10
- Alabama moved up to #1
- Notre Dame beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl and won the NC
The 1973 Buckeyes outscored their opponents 38-6. They only allowed 64 points all year and 31 of those came against Michigan and USC.
1974:
The Buckeyes started #2 and held #1 for a big chunk of the year before another inexplicable loss at MSU dropped them to #4. Heading into The Game the Buckeyes were #4 while the undefeated Wolverines were #3. The Buckeyes won but lost the Rose Bowl by a single point to USC.
1975:
The Buckeyes started #4 and a 41-20 beat-down of #13 UCLA in Los Angeles on October 4 catapulted them to #1 in the October 6 poll. They stayed at #1 until the Rose Bowl. On the way there they beat #4 Michigan in Ann Arbor. Then came the Rose Bowl. Remember that #13 UCLA team that Ohio State mauled in October . . .
Over those nine years the Buckeyes:
- Had one undefeated NC (1968).
- Finished 10-0-1 missing the NC by a tie once (1973).
- Lost their last game three times where a win would have given them an NC (1969, 1970, 1975).
- Lost only to MSU and the Rose Bowl twice (1972, 1974).
- Had one 4-loss rebuilding year (1971) but even there all four losses were by one score and two were to teams that finished in the top-6.
This was the decade of my growing up. First started really following Ohio State and we win the NC. Then spent a decade coming oh so close and finally waiting until middle age to finally see another NC. Now I was too young to remember the 64 Browns and I have been waiting even longer to being an elder statement, just hoping for one before I die.
-
A fan base that see its team win an NC start to expect one routinely in the future, not every year perhaps, but 2-3 per decade. That CAN happen of course, but it's rare. More often a program even as talented and esteemed as Ohio State wins one and then is "merely" top ten for another decade plus.
I think this is due in part to the fact that "the field" is really really good". I highlighted programs below that won at least three NCs in the past 20 years, which means of course that one program and sort of LSU. Ohio State and Florida have two, which really is quite something, one per decade more or less.
| 2021 | Georgia | CFP |
| 2020 | Alabama | CFP |
| 2019 | LSU | CFP |
| 2018 | Clemson | CFP |
| 2017 | Alabama | CFP |
| 2016 | Clemson | CFP |
| 2015 | Alabama | CFP |
| 2014 | Ohio State | CFP |
| 2013 | Florida State | BCS |
| 2012 | Alabama | BCS |
| 2011 | Alabama | BCS |
| 2010 | Auburn | BCS |
| 2009 | Alabama | BCS |
| 2008 | Florida | BCS |
| 2007 | LSU | BCS |
| 2006 | Florida | BCS |
| 2005 | Texas | BCS |
| 2004 | Southern California | BCS |
| 2003 | LSU, Southern California | BCS, AP, FWAA |
| 2002 | Ohio State | BCS |
| 2001 | Miami (Fla.) | BCS |
| 2000 | Oklahoma | BCS |
-
This was the decade of my growing up. First started really following Ohio State and we will the NC. Then spent a decade coming oh so close and finally waiting until middle age to finally see another NC. Now I was too young to remember the 64 Browns and I have been waiting even longer to being an elder statement, just hoping for one before I die.
Same time lines and position and the obsenity that has become Pro Sports makes the Browns winning one almost irrelevent as the keep driving up the "Sin Tax" like funding these Robber Barons and their slippery stooges is even a priority
-
This was the decade of my growing up. First started really following Ohio State and we will the NC. Then spent a decade coming oh so close and finally waiting until middle age to finally see another NC.
As has been discussed at length on this board, Ohio State is remarkably consistent. They are even substantially more consistently good than the other "helmets".
Your comment about seeing a NC growing up then waiting until middle age got me thinking about that. I think that people who don't follow CFB very closely really didn't realize just how long it had been for the Buckeyes before that NC in 2002. I'm a little younger so all I had for NC's in my youth was stories from the older folks about the Super Sophomores of 1968. That was seven years before I was born. Their 25th anniversary commemoration was at halftime of a game during my Freshman year at tOSU in 1993.
The thing is that for people who don't follow the sport closely or aren't tOSU fans, they wouldn't have realized that because Ohio State was nearly always one of the better teams. Here is a list of programs by winning percentage from 1969-2001:
- .841 Nebraska
- .784 Michigan
- .772 Penn State
- .748 Ohio State
- .742 Oklahoma
- .729 Florida State
- .727 Alabama
- .719 Tennessee
- .716 Notre Dame
- .699 Brigham Young
- .692 Texas
- .696 Florida
- .682 Miami, FL
- .680 Southern California
- .676 Georgia
- .674 Auburn
- .666 Washington
- .651 Arizona State
AFAIK Ohio State is the only one in the top-18 not to win a NC somewhere in there.
-
luv that list
and a great reason why Nebraska is STILL a helmet
-
I've pondered before how long a helmet stays a helmet, the answer isn't clear of course. My true helmet teams are OSU Bama Michigan Nebraska USC Texas OU ND, with some other programs around the edge of that (PSU). I think of it qualitatively as one's impressions when you learn your team has scheduled someone OOC. It can range from WOW! with a helmet, to really good, say Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arkansas ...
Clemson has had a very solid run of course but aren't a helmet at this point. FSU didn't make it after their run in the 90s. Miami the same, both started getting noticed a lot of course, but helmet status, I think, goes back at least to 1937. Army isn't one now, they probably were back in the day, with Yale and Harvard.
I think maybe it takes five successive coaching hires that flop in short order, which is around 20 years, maybe, to slide off. Maybe it's longer. For OSU, I think they'd be longer, they'd need to average 6 wins a season for 30 years or so I suspect, but it's all opinion.
-
I've pondered before how long a helmet stays a helmet, the answer isn't clear of course. My true helmet teams are OSU Bama Michigan Nebraska USC Texas OU ND, with some other programs around the edge of that (PSU). I think of it qualitatively as one's impressions when you learn your team has scheduled someone OOC. It can range from WOW! with a helmet, to really good, say Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arkansas ...
Clemson has had a very solid run of course but aren't a helmet at this point. FSU didn't make it after their run in the 90s. Miami the same, both started getting noticed a lot of course, but helmet status, I think, goes back at least to 1937. Army isn't one now, they probably were back in the day, with Yale and Harvard.
I think maybe it takes five successive coaching hires that flop in short order, which is around 20 years, maybe, to slide off. Maybe it's longer. For OSU, I think they'd be longer, they'd need to average 6 wins a season for 30 years or so I suspect, but it's all opinion.
It is obviously highly subjective but I think there are some factors that generally apply:
One is something @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) mentioned in these discussions, the ability to recover from a prolonged period of mediocrity. Alabama is a great example of this. In between the NC under Stallings in 1992 and Saban's dynasty they generally sucked for more than a decade. By the time Saban was recruiting the kids who won even his first NC at Bama those kids would have had no recollection whatsoever of the 1992 team. After the NC in 1992 Bama stayed pretty good for a few years and before the NC in 2009 they were pretty good in 2008 but in the 11 years from 1997-2007 Bama had:
- Two losses once (2005)
- Three losses twice (1999, 2002)
- Four losses (n/a)
- Five losses twice (1998, 2001)
- Six losses twice (2004, 2007)
- Seven or more losses four times (1997, 2000, 2003, 2006)
That isn't just bad by helmet standards, that is just outright bad. My point isn't to pick on Bama it is to point out that they have that "ability to recover". They sucked for more than a decade but when they brought in Saban they were back immediately.
Another factor, I think, is related to that and is the issue of whether or not the program has won NC's or at least achieved at a high level under multiple different coaches and in multiple eras. This, I think, is where the Florida schools are held back a bit. All have won NC's under multiple coaches but it is all in the same era.
IMHO, how long it takes to lose helmet status is proportional to how long you have had helmet status. Michigan has generally struggled basically since Carr retired but they are still a helmet in large part because they've been a helmet for 100+ years so struggling for a decade or two isn't long compared to that. It is different for Florida State where they were phenomenal for basically the 90's but they sucked before that. They've also struggled for most of the same time that Michigan has but they don't have as much long-term success to balance that off.
It will be really interesting to see what happens with Clemson once Dabo moves on. He is their second HC to win a NC so they have that going for them but the NC in the 80's seems like a bit of a "flash-in-the-pan" thing not prolonged dominance. Dabo's teams have been great of course and really the main foil to Saban but can Clemson, as a program, keep that up once he moves on?
-
I think my Helmet list have all been there for a long long time, so they'd all have about the same period of time of suckosity to drop out. Maybe Nebraska is the closest Johnny Come Lately? I think they are skirting losing that status now.
I view Clemson more like FSU and Miami, great teams for a period of time likely followed by mediocrity, and no long term tradition to support that. Now if UGA (make it so) suddenly started being a playoff team say 8 years out of ten and winning 2-3 NCs over that time, they might start to edge in, but that's tough to do. UGA was the best program not to win an NC for four decades. But to join the Helmets, I think they'd have to do the near impossible for two more decades, and even then ...
The Phil Mickelson award ...
-
The problem with forecasting is that on one hand, Alabama winning all the time has messed up any trends we could surmise from the playoff era...and on the other hand, the 4-team playoff may not last very long and we'll have a whole different dynamic with a larger playoff.
It's possible Alabama doesn't win 6 NCs in 12 years without any playoff. The near-misses by potential dynastic programs in the past became opportunities at redemption for the Tide in a playoff. But look at OSU in the 70s. Look at OU in the 80s. These programs were great and their histories are what make them helmets, but with a 4-team playoff back then, would they not have had a shot at a Bama-esque run?
With a ten or 12-team playoff, what will it mean? More 'great' teams getting a second chance they wouldn't get now or would have in the past. But more opportunities for variance as well.
The lack of continuity makes any predictions suspect at best.
-
Based on probability, an 8 team playoff would often crown a team that wasn't the best team involved. I think it would hurt the 2-3 truly elite teams each season.
-
Based on probability, an 8 team playoff would often crown a team that wasn't the best team involved. I think it would hurt the 2-3 truly elite teams each season.
Maybe, but @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) makes a good point, compared to what? Pre-playoff and especially pre-BCS there were a TON of truly elite teams that missed out on an NC because they had their bad day at the wrong time.
Lets look at 1973. Here is the pre-bowl AP Poll top-8 (just assuming for simplicity that the CFP rankings would be the same):
- 11-0 Bama
- 10-0-1 Oklahoma (tied #7 USC)
- 10-0 Notre Dame
- 9-0-1 Ohio State (tied #5 M)
- 10-0-1 Michigan (tied #4 tOSU)
- 11-0 Penn State
- 9-1-1 USC (lost to #3 ND, tied #2 OU)
- 8-2 Texas (lost to #2 OU and nr Miami, FL)
Assume for the sake of argument that I am right and that tOSU and Michigan were the best two teams that year. In the pre-CFP format both were deprived of an NC by their tie but in a four-team CFP, the Buckeyes would get a shot and in an 8-team playoff both would get a shot. In the actual timeline really only #1 Bama and #3 Notre Dame had a shot. They played each other in the Sugar Bowl. #2 Oklahoma didn't play a bowl (probation?). #4 tOSU played #7 USC (who was MUCH better than their record)* and won big (42-21) but it wasn't enough to pass the winner of the two undefeated teams ahead of them no matter what. #5 Michigan didn't bowl at all (league Rose Bowl only rule still in effect). #6 Penn State beat #13 LSU in the Orange Bowl but that only got them past Michigan who didn't play. #7 USC lost and dropped to #8. #8 Texas lost to #12 Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl and dropped to #14.
*USC in 1973:
This schedule is unreal. They finished 9-2-1. The three non-wins:
- A nine point loss to final #1 Notre Dame in South Bend
- A 21 point loss to final #2 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl
- A tie with final #3 Oklahoma at home.
They also beat final #12 UCLA. 9-2-1 really isn't bad when you played the top-3 teams in the final rankings. My assertion that tOSU was the best team that year is based largely on using USC as a barometer. Ohio State beat them much more soundly than Notre Dame and did it in SoCal while Notre Dame did it at home. I do realize, however, that the transitive property is extremely limited wrt CFB so who knows.
Big Ten Rose Bowl only Rule:
I think the rule was intended to maximize interest in the Rose Bowl but especially when it was combined with the no-repeat rule which was dropped around this time it really deprived some GREAT league teams of any bowl at all. Then, starting in 1969 with Bo's arrival in Ann Arbor the Buckeyes and Wolverines just flat dominated the league and the loser got no bowl until the rule was dropped for the 1975 season largely due to what had happened in 1973. Briefly, in 1973 the Buckeyes and Wolverines tied and the league AD's had to vote on who to send. Ohio State won the vote. I'd argue it was the right decision because Ohio State was the better team but I know that Bo was still bitter over it to his dying day.
Starting with Bo's arrival in 1969:
- 1969 tOSU and M tied for the league title, M went based on their H2H win and also the no-repeat rule because tOSU had gone the year before. Ohio State was 8-1 and #4 and got no bowl.
- 1970 tOSU won outright and went to the Rose Bowl. Michigan was 9-1 and #7 and got no bowl.
- 1971 M won outright and went to the Rose Bowl.
- 1972 tOSU and M tied for the league title, tOSU went based on their H2H win (and possibly also the no-repeat rule, not sure if it had been deleted yet). Michigan was 10-1 and #8 and got no bowl.
- 1973 tOSU and M tied for the league title, tOSU went based on vote of the AD's because there was no H2H winner. Michigan was 10-0-1 and #5 and got no bowl.
- 1974 tOSU and M tieid for the league title, tOSU went based on their H2H win (no more no-repeat rule). Michigan was 10-1 and #4 and got no bowl.
The Rose Bowl only rule was dropped for the 1975 season so that the Wolverines could lose other bowls as well. In the 1975 season they lost the Orange Bowl then in the 1976-78 seasons they lost three more Rose Bowls, then in the 1979 season they lost the Gator Bowl.
-
I think my Helmet list have all been there for a long long time, so they'd all have about the same period of time of suckosity to drop out. Maybe Nebraska is the closest Johnny Come Lately? I think they are skirting losing that status now.
Nebraska is a tough call for me. I've been there and seen their fan support and it is phenomenal. They also had a just astounding run from Devaney's hire up through the end of the 1990's or so. But . . .
The attached chart shows the helmets and some near-helmets 10-year rolling winning percentages. Ie:
- The dots at the far left are each team's 10-year winning percentage from 1927-1936 (I started there because that is the start of the AP Poll)
- The next dots are each team's 10-year winning percentage from 1928-1937
- . . .
- The second-to-right dots are each team's 10-year winning percentage from 2011-2020
- The dots are the far right are each team's 10-year winning percentage from 2012-2021
Nebraska was very good early in the Poll era and from what I understand they were similarly good for most of the time prior to that. They also had the aforementioned phenomenal run of about 40 years from roughly the 1960's through the 1990's. Those are the arguments in favor.
The argument against is that when Nebraska wasn't great they weren't just mediocre, they were awful and for a LONG time. They were sub .500 for each 10-year cycle from 1937-1946 through 1954-1963. None of the helmets have a drought that is either that deep or that wide. That is BAD. They've also really struggled for the last 20ish years.
-
Any 8 team playoff is more likely to crown a team that isn't the best team in reality. It's probability, not really any other way to view it.
And sure, some teams get left out with a shorter playoff in an unusual year. One could argue in this past season there were only two teams worth being in a playoff.
We'd have a definitive playoff champion, but teams 9 and 10 would whine.
-
The problem with forecasting is that on one hand, Alabama winning all the time has messed up any trends we could surmise from the playoff era...and on the other hand, the 4-team playoff may not last very long and we'll have a whole different dynamic with a larger playoff.
It's possible Alabama doesn't win 6 NCs in 12 years without any playoff. The near-misses by potential dynastic programs in the past became opportunities at redemption for the Tide in a playoff. But look at OSU in the 70s. Look at OU in the 80s. These programs were great and their histories are what make them helmets, but with a 4-team playoff back then, would they not have had a shot at a Bama-esque run?
With a ten or 12-team playoff, what will it mean? More 'great' teams getting a second chance they wouldn't get now or would have in the past. But more opportunities for variance as well.
The lack of continuity makes any predictions suspect at best.
that's a double edge sword too, though.
2021, 2018, 2016, and 2014 were all years when bama didn't win it due to losing in cfp. but they'd have been in the bcs title game under that system for all those years and a 1 off game is a lot different and could have gone either way. go back further than bcs, and bama has an even better chance to win those 1 offs, cause half or more wouldn't even be vs the #2 team. and even further back when pre-bowl champs were named, bama just outright wins all of them by virtue of being #1 pre-bowls.
-
Any given team is more likely to be among the top 8-10 teams than they are the top 4 or 2. That's what it comes down to.
Cincy's point isn't wrong - while #2 isn't necessarily better than #5 in any given year, it tends to be, more often than not. But my point is that since the framework keeps changing, we don't have a viable sample size for that to come into play.
As often as a true "best team" Alabama is ranked #1 at the end of the regular season, it's lost once and ends the year ranked 4th or 7th or whatever. So instead of the actual best team losing out on its shot at a NC like in the past, it now gets a second chance. And as it's the actual best team, it's more likely to win a playoff than your average 5 seed.
It's easy to forget that until about 2003 or so, WHEN you lost mattered as much or more as WHO you lost to. Once OU got blown out by KSU in the BXIICG that one year, but still played for the NC, that went out the window.
-
I personally prefer the current playoff, though I think six could work about as well. I do not like eight, not that it matters.
-
It's easy to forget that until about 2003 or so, WHEN you lost mattered as much or more as WHO you lost to. Once OU got blown out by KSU in the BXIICG that one year, but still played for the NC, that went out the window.
Good point and this is a big part of what made those season-ending games like tOSU/M, Bama/Auburn, UF/FSU, etc so big. For a big chunk of CFB history you just couldn't lose your last game and expect to do anything so those games were even bigger.
Also, of course, prior to 1992 for the SEC and more recently for everyone else there were no CCG's so there were only the bowls after the rivalry games. Then, to go back a little further, the Big Ten wasn't the only conference to have a no-repeat rule and a one bowl only rule so for a LOT of CFB history these season-ending rivalries were the actual last game of the season for at least one of the two participants more often than not. Now, in a NC season these rivalry games are followed up by:
It just isn't the same thing.
-
Interesting years, both great examples.
1992 - let's say Florida beats the eventual NC Tide. Not so crazy - they had the ball in a tie game before immediately throwing the pick-6 to Langham. Gators drive down and beat the #1 team.
4 team playoff? Maybe Bama is still in the playoff. 6+ team playoff, the Tide have a second chance. Whether you deem that good or not, it's certainly different.
.
1996 - here, we don't have to play the "what if" game at all - #2 Ohio St loses late to UM, falling to #6. Today, like back then, they're out - done. Toast. But in 2026? Maybe the Buckeyes were the best team that year....so facing OSU could be the 3 seed's curse in a 6-team playoff.
Then you have Florida, the eventual NCs....lose to FSU late, needs unranked Texas to beat 2-time defending NC Nebraska, has to beat #11 Alabama themselves, AND benefitted from the PAC-B1G obsession/tie-in to the RB just for another shot. In the modern 4-team playoff? The Gators drop to #4 and their rematch with FSU is simply a semifinal game.
Good job, FSU. You just beat your rival at its highest peak ever and your reward is....an immediate rematch without heaven and earth being moved, it's simply the system we've devised. That's fucked up.
.
In reality, you'll often have the best teams be in the top 2-3 and other times these great teams will simply have lost and getting to play an inferior opponent as the lower seed (in disguise).
I'm not sure who benefits from that.
-
Interesting years, both great examples.
1992 - let's say Florida beats the eventual NC Tide. Not so crazy - they had the ball in a tie game before immediately throwing the pick-6 to Langham. Gators drive down and beat the #1 team.
4 team playoff? Maybe Bama is still in the playoff. 6+ team playoff, the Tide have a second chance. Whether you deem that good or not, it's certainly different.
.
1996 - here, we don't have to play the "what if" game at all - #2 Ohio St loses late to UM, falling to #6. Today, like back then, they're out - done. Toast. But in 2026? Maybe the Buckeyes were the best team that year....so facing OSU could be the 3 seed's curse in a 6-team playoff.
Then you have Florida, the eventual NCs....lose to FSU late, needs unranked Texas to beat 2-time defending NC Nebraska, has to beat #11 Alabama themselves, AND benefitted from the PAC-B1G obsession/tie-in to the RB just for another shot. In the modern 4-team playoff? The Gators drop to #4 and their rematch with FSU is simply a semifinal game.
Good job, FSU. You just beat your rival at its highest peak ever and your reward is....an immediate rematch without heaven and earth being moved, it's simply the system we've devised. That's fucked up.
ask Doc Osborne about the 1978 Sooners - possibly Switzer's best team
upset the #1 ranked Sooners in Lincoln and then get a reamtch in the Orange Bowl
-
1970:
With virtually the entire team returning yet again they started #1 again. They did drop to #3 then further to #5 after an unimpressive FG win over a sub-.500 Purdue squad. That PU game was the week before Michigan and apparently the Buckeyes were looking ahead because the next week they beat #4 Michigan 20-9. Heading into the bowls and what happened:
- 10-0 Texas, lost to #6 ND in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-0 Ohio State, lost to #12 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
- 10-0-1 Nebraska, beat #5 LSU in the Orange Bowl
- 10-1 Tennessee, beat #11 Air Force in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-2 LSU, lost to #3 UNL in the Orange Bowl
- 9-1 Notre Dame, beat #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 9-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
That was one of those exciting Bowl seasons where the Cotton, Rose, and Orange Bowls were all relevant to the NC. #1 Texas' loss to #6 in the Cotton Bowl opened the door for #2, #3, #4, and #5. #2 Ohio State's loss in the Rose Bowl opened the door for #3, #4, and #5. #3 Nebraska's win in the Orange Bowl eliminated #5 LSU and shut the door on #4 Tennessee. In the final poll it was UNL, ND, TX, TN, tOSU.
1972:
After the rebuilding year of 1971 the Buckeyes started 1972 at #3 and bounced around the top-5 until an inexplicable loss at MSU dropped them to #9. They were still #3 heading into The Game where they beat previously undefeated and #3 Michigan. They headed into the Rose Bowl at #3 but lost to undefeated and #1 USC who won the NC.
A win in the Rose Bowl *MIGHT* have won the NC for the Buckeyes. It would have been an interesting vote. Heading into the Bowls and what happened:
- 11-0 USC, beat #3 tOSU in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 OU, beat #5 PSU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 tOSU, lost to #1 USC in the Rose Bowl
- 10-1 Bama, lost to #7 Texas in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 PSU, lost to #2 OU in the Sugar Bowl
- 9-1 Auburn, beat #13 Colorado in the Gator Bowl
- 9-1 Texas, beat #4 Bama in the Cotton Bowl
- 10-1 Michigan, no bowl due to league rule
- 8-2-1 Nebraska, beat #12 ND in the Orange Bowl
If Ohio State had defeated USC then the NC would have come down to OU vs tOSU. OU's loss to Colorado was better than tOSU's loss to MSU but tOSU's hypothetical win over USC would have been arguably better than OU's best win (Texas).
I preferred exciting bowl games.
boring bowls and an exciting playoff limits the excitement to 4 teams
if 4 bowl games were in the mix, 8 teams were excited
-
The rest of the country would have loved a 2006 playoff:
1 OSU
2 Florida
3 Michigan
4 LSU