CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on May 01, 2023, 08:17:02 PM
-
I was jotting down the all-time records of the All-Time teams I offer in Whoa Nellie and I noticed something.
400 all-time losses is a kind of cutoff at this time.
.
Why 400?
Well, several of the "kings" or "helmets" that have been relatively weak in the past 20 years are approaching 400 losses, while the stronger ones are nowhere near it.
Also, the lower kings or next tier down (but still high) may already have 400 losses, but not many more, because they've really slowed their 'L' column lately.
.
***This does not include johnny-come-latelies like FSU, Miami, etc. The cutoff on all-time games for this is around 1150. Below that cutoff, you have programs like UCLA and MSU jumping into groups they have no business being in.
.
So here's the evidence:
Nebraska, Penn St, Texas, and Tennessee have 392, 398, 380, and 392 losses, respectively.
At the same time, Georgia has 405, LSU 418, and Florida 429.
.
But if you look at the elites, you have Bama with only 309, OSU with 264, OU with 318, ND with 320, USC has 322, and UM with 345. These programs will not approach 400 losses for another 25-30 years.
.
Penn State isn't struggling, but Nebraska, Texas, and Tennessee may "fall" behind Georgia in the next decade or so. Like objectively.
.
Just something random and interesting to me. Also, Illinois is .500 all-time. 617-617-49
-
A king is never cutoff
-
Texas and Tennessee should be crossover rivals.
-
A king is never cutoff
Ask Louis XVI how that turned out.
-
But if you look at the elites, you have Bama with only 309, OSU with 264.
The Buckeyes tend to have less games than the other "Kings" in part because for many years they were on Quarters and didn't start football until students were on campus so they ended up with one less game.
Also, the Big Ten until the 1970's had the RoseBowl only, no-repeat, and "longest loser tiebreaker" rules in effect and those combine to severely limit Ohio State's Bowl appearances.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/9UFIbnh.jpg)
-
Texas and Tennessee should be crossover rivals.
I'd love to play UTenn. But I'd rather play OU, Arkansas, and Texas A&M every year.
-
Yes, the division would be on the annual too.
-
(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/344767508_187282694183397_2021710479325578757_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=5eN7UX2rxbcAX-a4AaB&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBUCSQZJ197ze_FKSRnACNfkWMlh9DTO2dbP2hUSnv-WA&oe=64568395)
-
A 9 win season in the SEC is like 13 wins elsewhere ....
Humans have a thing for "round numbers". Instead of 400, why not 391 or 385? The Ohio State history remains impressive, a real outlier.
-
I prefer the odd number 9 to the round number 10
for reasons
-
Yes, the division would be on the annual too.
They mothballed talk of divisions pretty early on, sounds like they're favoring something along the lines of having 3 permanent rivals, and then rotating all of the other schools. In which case I'd prefer our three historical rivals. And if they do 3-6-6 then everyone would play everyone else at least twice every four years, which would be okay I suppose.
In that case we'd get to play the Vols twice every four years. And Georgia, and Alabama, and LSU, and Florida. All of which I'd be excited to see on the schedule so often.
-
Aw, now I am picking up what you are laying down.
-
Cool, 4 team mini conferences
-
It's probably the best scheme I can imagine, IMHO. Saban was complaining about his 3 rivals being upper crust, but that could happen to any team. Not everyone gets a Vandy. UGA will probably get UF, Auburn, and USCe.
-
And if they do 3-6-6 then everyone would play everyone else at least twice every four years, which would be okay I suppose.
Is this official or speculative?
Also, have their been any leaks/rumors as to what the pairings will be?
-
Speculative, and there have been a lot of leaks about it. Saban complained he was being paired with LSU/Auburn/Tennessee, but it's not official. I think he was jawboning the "committee".
Somebody could get Vandy/Mizzou/UK in comparison.
-
Speculative, and there have been a lot of leaks about it. Saban complained he was being paired with LSU/Auburn/Tennessee, but it's not official. I think he was jawboning the "committee".
Somebody could get Vandy/Mizzou/UK in comparison.
One would think that whoever assigned these would be smart enough to realize that Vandy/Mizzou/UK would likely be an EASY schedule and not do that.
I made this as speculation for the B1G:
(https://i.imgur.com/3VwJQ43.png)
When I did Ohio State, I started with Michigan and Penn State then stuck in Rutgers because it seemed like with two HEAVY hitters as #1 and #2, the Buckeyes should get a historical lightweight for #3.
I would *THINK* that a committee doing this for the SEC would do the same thing. What is your speculation?
I came up with this as a start, trying to pick up the most important/relevant/historic rivalries:
(https://i.imgur.com/t3ofw3L.png)
If I were doing this next I'd basically say:
- UGA, UF, and Auburn each have two tough ones, they each need a historical lightweight.
- Mizzou/Ark/LSU might make sense as a sort-of region (I guess Saban would like that, LoL).
Thoughts? Did I miss a MAJOR SEC rivalry? Does USCe have any serious rivalries in the league?
-
Bama-Tennessee is a rivalry, third saturday etc.
Bama supposedly will get Auburn/LSU/Tenn.
UGA would get UF/Auburn/USCe.
-
Is this official or speculative?
Also, have their been any leaks/rumors as to what the pairings will be?
Where things stand with SEC football scheduling format as decision time nears - The Athletic (https://theathletic.com/4481814/2023/05/02/sec-football-scheduling-format/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983)
-
There's about 100 youtube videos speculating and putting the 3 rivals up on a list.
.
Saban is right, no one should be saddled with 3 toughies, there's no reason for it. Once you have 2, you get a Vandy/MSU/Miz/Arky type of team.
.
...but the Bama-Auburn-UGA-Tennessee quartet can suck it if they have an issue. They held the rest of the conference hostage for 30 years with invented rivalries so that they could have theirs.
-
and I'd guess the Bama-Auburn-UGA-Tennessee will hold the rest of the conference hostage for 3the next 30 years
-
I don't have an issue, we're likely to get three of the worst teams in the conference as fixed oppos.
-
I want Minnie, Iowa and USC for UW.
Or UCLA if need be, if it can't be USC.
-
so you can make that west coast recruiting trip once a season?
-
Tons of Wisconsin alumni in Cali.
-
UNL has the same problem
-
Tons of Wisconsin alumni in Cali.
UNL has the same problem
To all of you who talk about how terrible California must be, what does it say about the school if tons of your alumni live here? :57:
-
Not many Dawgs living in Cali, but this guy does ...
Terry Hoage Vineyard - Saxum Vineyards (https://www.saxumvineyards.com/wines/terry-hoage-vineyard)
-
To all of you who talk about how terrible California must be, what does it say about the school if tons of your alumni live here? :57:
UW has a HUGE college of Liberal Arts.
:67:
-
UW has a HUGE college of Liberal Arts.
:67:
Yeah, but I'm guessing it's not them. They can't afford to live here.
Purdue has a big engineering program and not a lot of liberal arts. Indiana has a big liberal arts program and no engineering. Guess which logo I see more often out here?
-
Not many Dawgs living in Cali, but this guy does ...
Terry Hoage Vineyard - Saxum Vineyards (https://www.saxumvineyards.com/wines/terry-hoage-vineyard)
so when are you going to change your name to AtlantaDawg
-
Not many Dawgs living in Cali, but this guy does ...
Terry Hoage Vineyard - Saxum Vineyards (https://www.saxumvineyards.com/wines/terry-hoage-vineyard)
Not helpful when you pass along a winery that's closed to the public lol...
-
Yeah, but I'm guessing it's not them. They can't afford to live here.
Purdue has a big engineering program and not a lot of liberal arts. Indiana has a big liberal arts program and no engineering. Guess which logo I see more often out here?
They live with their parents and color their hair green.
-
They live with their parents and color their hair green.
Their parents? Does UW have a huge contingent of liberal arts students who grew up in California and just decided one day:
"Man, you know what I'd love to have at college? Frigid winters! That'd sure beat all the other liberal arts schools we already have here in CA!"
I've been to Madison several times. I've also been to where my wife went to school--UC Santa Barbara. I can tell you which one would be more likely to attract Californians.
(https://i.imgur.com/c9d2Y7u.png)
Because unless their parents are in CA, they can't live with them. And I'd guess a lot more parents of WI native students are retiring down in your neck of the woods than mine.
-
Man this thread strayed far off topic. What is this, the B12 forum?????
-
Their parents? Does UW have a huge contingent of liberal arts students who grew up in California and just decided one day:
"Man, you know what I'd love to have at college? Frigid winters! That'd sure beat all the other liberal arts schools we already have here in CA!"
Madison is known as Berkely-Midwest.
Lots of "coasties" in Madison. That's what they were called.
Kids from Cali who couldn't get into UCLA or UC. Kids from the NE who couldn't get into the Ivy's. There were so very many.
I understand lots of Cali kids are opting for ASU now. More NE kids are opting for PSU now.
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/345062081_522540286754590_1712066272289471876_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=plW_5mnGpFgAX-VX6WF&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfA4VxOSkhIEyutis790awsSb1Iq6YNxscmGruZtcjzZMA&oe=64594205)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/F42wpyq.png)
-
Florida's got 30 out of 32. Maxed out at 22 straight.
.
Boy, I really was proud when we were the only East team to not have a losing conference record since division play began.
18 straight years, including 7 SEC and 3 nat'l titles.
-
The bowl streak could end with the expanded playoff because I suspect some of the lesser bowls will fold, so teams that are 6-6 or 7-5 could get left out. I'm old enough to recall when making a bowl was a sign of a decent season. The Gator Bowl was a decent bowl game short of a major NYD bowl. If your team was 8-3, you'd get a bowl if your team had a following of note.
That said, 26 in a row is "Ohio State-ish" over a much shorter span. It simply means no awful seasons, and maybe a couple decent ones.
A problem with a cutoff of X number of losses is simply that it prevents teams fromt "moving on up", but it's good for now I suspect. The simple metric of all time wins is pretty good I think, or all time winning percentage, or whatever, I probably prefer a metric based on all time top ten finishes or being ranked or giving points based on the AP final ranking, etc., if one really needs a ranking of this ilk.
-
Making the playoffs would count in the bowl streak.
Maybe it should be called postseason streak.
-
Yup, but a 6-6 team with a streak could well get dropped from any bowl.
-
why would adding 8 teams to the "playoff" kill off other bowl games that feature a couple 6-6 teams?
-
There are only so many 6-6 or better teams to go around. Now 12 make the playoffs, which include some of the major bowl games obviously. But it takes out about 6-8 teams that otherwise would go to the "Cap One" bowl et al. That means lesser teams will go to what were fairly decent bowl games. And fewer teams are available now for the Poulan Weedeater Boise Idaho Potato Bowl, and interest in those really minor bowls will be lessened, a lot I suspect. They will be "NIT'd" into oblivion.
ESPN won't throw money at a December 15 bowl any more I suspect. It'll be either "Playoffs or Bust" for most programs. So, your team went 10-3 with a win in the Cap One Bowl, it will mean less than it does today I think, and a win in the Bluebonnet Bowl won't be worth the money spent to play there.
-
so, all the 6-6 teams still make a bowl
same number of teams, same number of post season games, just some referred to as playoff and not bowl
-
so, all the 6-6 teams still make a bowl
same number of teams, same number of post season games, just some referred to as playoff and not bowl
Same as it ever was
-
I really think those minor bowls will cease and desist fairly soon, and I note that we'd have 6-8 fewer teams available for bowls with the playoffs.
I guess bowls can invite 5-7 teams even now if not enough are around at 6-6.
I really think this alters the bowl landscape a lot.
-
I really think those minor bowls will cease and desist fairly soon, and I note that we'd have 6-8 fewer teams available for bowls with the playoffs.
so 3 or 4 fewer bowls
not dramatic
-
I merely note some teams able to claim they made a bowl game X times in a row might be tougher to maintain going forward.
-
might be, but 6-6 seems to be the bar
-
You take 8 more quality teams out of bowl games for sure.
In years when the NYD 6 are not playoff sites they will get lesser teams.
The Rose could get a 3rd or 4th place B1G team and maybe a 2nd or 3rd place PAC team.
But the Rose will no longer be limited to just B1G and PAC anymore.
In other words, goodbye Rose Bowl.
-
I remain fascinated with why "we" humans are so addicted to rankings and "certainty" about who won some championship. I know I used to be one, I disliked the bowl season because it had ambiguity. Now I like it because it had ambiguity.
Maybe I'm not being clear.
-
maybe
-
I've noted before that this must be the rare interval where Texas/USC/Nebbie have been mediocre to bad for this many years.
-
sucking sucks
-
Explain that to me better ....
(Actually, being on a huge run isn't really all it seems like it could be, personally.)
-
Explain that to me better ....
(Actually, being on a huge run isn't really all it seems like it could be, personally.)
We had a nice run in the late 90s thru 2000s. I liked it. I liked it a LOT more than I've liked the last decade+.
-
We've noted before how a fan base often is disappointed by a very solid season that doesn't include an NC. I think TCU fans for example should take some pride in their team's performance. Michigan fans are perplexed, as am I, about their playoff performances, but they beat OSU twice and won the B1G.
Bama fans are seriously depressed. Fine with me.
-
Husker fans and boosters of substance being seriously depressed in 2003 caused some poor decisions
-
We've noted before how a fan base often is disappointed by a very solid season that doesn't include an NC. I think TCU fans for example should take some pride in their team's performance. Michigan fans are perplexed, as am I, about their playoff performances, but they beat OSU twice and won the B1G.
Bama fans are seriously depressed. Fine with me.
Michigan played a fairly bad game against TCU and lost. Georgia played a fairly bad game against Ohio State and won.
And then TCU played a really bad game and got whipped. Even their best game wouldn't have beaten Georgia, but it would have been a lot closer.
-
I probably prefer a metric based on all time top ten finishes or being ranked or giving points based on the AP final ranking, etc., if one really needs a ranking of this ilk.
I like the top-10 finishes idea in theory and Ohio State does very well there, all-time AP top-10 finishes:
- 47 Bama
- 45 Oklahoma
- 42 Ohio State
- 40 Michigan
- 39 Notre Dame
- 30 Nebraska
- 29 USC
- 28 Penn State
- 27 Georgia
- 27 Texas
- 24 Tennessee
- 23 LSU
- 20 Florida State
- 19 Florida
- 19 Auburn
- 17 Miami, FL
- 17 Michigan State
- 17 UCLA
- 14 Wisconsin
- 14 Arkansas
- 13 Clemson
- 13 Washington
- 13 Iowa
- 13 aTm
- 11 TCU
- 11 GaTech
- 11 Ole Miss
- 10 Pitt
- 10 Minnesota
- 10 Oregon
That is all the teams with double-digit top-10 finishes.
The issue I have with this sort of ranking is that it creates something of a false dichotomy. Three problems:
- There is a big difference between finishing #1 and finishing #10, this treats those as equal,
- There is VERY little difference between finishing #10 and finishing #11, this treats those as VERY different, and
- There is a humongous difference between finishing #11 and going 1-11, this treats those as equal.
It really is hard to devise a ranking methodology that handles all of this well.
-
One can accord a #1 finish with 10 points and a #10 finish with 1 point of course. It won't change that much. WE'll get roughly the same rank order using just about any credible metric.
I'd lean to putting OSU at the top because of their dearth of bad runs.
-
Yup, Ohio State's consistent excellence is truly remarkable.
-
It ranks up there with Bama's Saban success I think, maybe it's higher. Saban is widely considered the GOAT, and I have no particular issue with that though I know some other coaches way back could also be considered. That Heisman guy might be in the running. I'd put OSU and Bama neck and neck at the top for now by weighting more recent results more heavily. I think it drops off then to USC/Texas/Nebraska/Michigan/ND. Then you get a bunch of programs roughly similar.