CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on January 22, 2024, 07:10:24 PM
-
Here is my ranking:
(https://i.imgur.com/rLNOlco.png)
What is listed above is the 75 teams that have been ranked in the final CFP rankings at least once. These range from Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State which have been ranked in every final CFP ranking down to UTSA which was #25 one year.
As per usual, Ohio State gets the consistency award. Not only did the Buckeyes appear in every final ranking of the 4-team CFP era, but the Buckeyes were in the mix for a spot every year with a lowest ranking of #7. Bama is a very close second with a low of #13 followed by Clemson with a low of #22. UGA, LSU, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame were each ranked in eight of the 10 final CFP rankings.
My order (ranking) is:
- Championships
- Semi-Final wins
- Appearances
- Years ranked
- Average ranking
This thing has been REALLY top-heavy. Four teams (Bama, Clemson, UGA, tOSU) have at least two Semi-Final wins. Between them those four teams account for:
- 80% of Championships
- 75% of Semi-Final wins
- More than three-in-five CFP game participants
- More than half of CFP appearances
I would give the "Doing more with less" award to Utah. They have seven final rankings which is tied with Michigan and Oregon. I would give the "Doing less with more" award to USC although Texas has a pretty good case as well as do their rivals, aTm.
-
Bama played in 2x as many CFP games and won 3x as many Natty's as OSU and played in 3.5x as many CFP games and won 3x as many Natty's as Michigan. DAMN.
Even if you combine Michigan (4) and OSU's (7) CFP games (11) and Natty's (2) - they're still short of Bama.
Nick truly was the GOAT.
-
Looking at the 2014-2023 aligmment the count in the top 25 was
SEC-5 - Bama, Ga, LSU, Flor, Ole Miss
Big Ten - 6, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, PSU, Iowa, Wisc
ACC+ND - 4, Clem, ND, FSU, NCSU
BIG 12 - 5, TCU, OK, Tex, OkSt, Bay
PAC - 4, Wash, Ore, Utah, USC
G5 - 1, Cincy
Looking at 2024 alignment
SEC-7
Big Ten - 9
ACC+ND. - 4
Big 12 - 5
Pac - 0
G5 - 0
-
Some surprises
Mich St ahead of PSU, - I guess MSU gets a lot out of its one CFP appearance while PSU never went.
Iowa ahead of Wisc - I guess Wisc's big run came right before the CFP. Still, Wisc dominated the Big Ten West, winning 4 times VS 3 times for Iowa. Iowa and Wisc both should get credit for never having a losing season in the CFP era.
TCU ahead of Oklahoma, it just felt like Oklahoma won the Big 12 every year (and then loss in the CFP).
-
Nick truly was the GOAT.
It is really amazing and by looking only at CFP era we are actually shorting him because he had success pre-CFP as well. That said, just looking at the 10-year CFP era, Bama is #1 in EVERYTHING on my list except that their worst season was marginally worse than tOSU's worst season but even there that has more to do with how other teams finished than it does with how Bama/tOSU finished. Bama's and tOSU's regular seasons of the CFP era 1v1, 2v2 . . . 10v10:
- Bama-20 11-0, #1 (I put this one ahead of the 13-0 seasons because there was no fluff. No FCS games, no mid-majors, 11 SEC Games)
- Bama-16 13-0, #1
- Bama-18 13-0, #1
- Bama-21 13-0, #1
- Bama-14 12-1, #1
- Bama-15 12-1, #2
- Bama-23 12-1, #4
- Bama-17 11-1, #4
- Bama-22 10-2, #5
- Bama-19 10-2, #13
Ohio State:
- tOSU-19 13-0, #2
- tOSU-20 6-0, #3
- tOSU-16 11-1, #3
- tOSU-14 12-1, #4
- tOSU-22 11-1, #4
- tOSU-17 11-2, #5
- tOSU-18 12-1, #6
- tOSU-21 10-2, #6
- tOSU-23 11-1, #7
- tOSU-15 11-1, #7
In the 10 year CFP era Bama and tOSU each had two 2-loss regular seasons. Ohio State was ranked #5 and #6 in theirs, Bama was ranked #5 and #13 in theirs.
Note that Bama entered the CFP as #1 five times. That is half. Everybody else in the nation combined only equaled Bama on this metric. Bama was #1 five times, Clemson twice with UGA, LSU, and M getting one each.
The Gap between Bama and #2 is humongous, same with CFP appearances:
- 8 Bama
- 6 Clemson
- 5 Ohio State
- 4 Oklahoma
- 3 UGA
- 3 tie M
- 2 Washington
- 2 tie Notre Dame
- 1 LSU, TCU, Oregon, Texas, Cincy, MSU, FSU
Same with Semi-Final wins:
- 6 Bama
- 4 Clemson
- 3 Georgia
- 2 Ohio State
- 1 Michigan, LSU, Washington, TCU, Oregon
Same with total CFP Game wins:
- 9 Bama
- 6 Clemson
- 5 Georgia
- 3 Ohio State
- 2 Michigan
- 2 tie LSU
- 1 Washington, TCU, Oregon
Note that on each of the above metrics #2 is as close to #4 as they are to #1. Ie, Bama's lead is BIG. On each metric after Bama the teams are close together but Bama stands out.
-
A truly remarkable run, and one I don't think we'll ever see come anywhere close to being repeated. Just a perfect storm of circumstances meeting the right coach in the right place at the right time.
-
He's come a long way since he was limp wristing challenge flags in the NFL.
-
I think I would have OU and ND above Oregon, TCU, Wash. I feel like being ranked 8 times is more indicative of success than having 1 playoff win.
-
I think I would have OU and ND above Oregon, TCU, Wash. I feel like being ranked 8 times is more indicative of success than having 1 playoff win.
Sometimes it's a perception thing. the perception can be shewed by how well a team actually did in the playoffs and how deserving they are to be in the playoffs in the first place .
TCU is a weird one. The year they made it to the NCG, they did not even win their conference, barely beat Mich in the semis, and got annihilated in the NCG by Georgia. So I look at TCU as a top ten team that year that got a little lucky. Lucky to be in the playoffs in the first place. Lucky to beat Mich. On the other hand in 2014, TCU had a similar resume and missed the playoffs. Sometimes it's about timing. I guess it evens out for TCU.
Medina has brought up several examples of Ohio St having similar resumes and half the time they make the CFP and half the time they don't. It evens out for Ohio St, I guess.
Florida St in 2023 was a little unlucky to go undefeated in a P5 and still not make the playoffs. Although I believe FSU would have lost to anybody in the CFP. But in 2014 an undefeated FSU did make the CFP and also looked unworthy. So it evens out for Florida St, I guess
Mich St in 2015.was extremely lucky to make the CFP. Then got shut out in their only CFP game. And there is no other year where MSU got screwed out of the playoffs to counter balance that. So I would put down Mich St as over-rated.
Wash in 2023 is similar to TCU in 2022. Lucky to get to the NCG, although at least Wash was an undefeated P5 champion. Washington's other good year they got into the CFP with a 50/50 resume. So I would put down Wash as a little over-rated overall.
Oklahoma is interesting because they won the Big 12 a lot and made the playoffs a lot. But never won a CFP game. But there was one year they took Georgia to overtime. So Oklahoma may be a little under-rated.
-
Responding to @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) and @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) :
How about this for a ranking system:
- 3 points for being ranked
- 4 points for making the CFP (7 total because it is cumulative)
- 5 points for winning a semi-final (12)
- 6 points for winning an NC (18).
-
Responding to @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) and @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) :
How about this for a ranking system:
- 3 points for being ranked
- 4 points for making the CFP (7 total because it is cumulative)
- 5 points for winning a semi-final (12)
- 6 points for winning an NC (18).
Not a bad idea. I might break down the rankings even further
Ranked in top 12 - 3 points
Ranked 13 to 20 - 2 points
Ranked 21 to 25 - 1 point
Or something like that.
-
Not a bad idea. I might break down the rankings even further
Ranked in top 12 - 3 points
Ranked 13 to 20 - 2 points
Ranked 21 to 25 - 1 point
Or something like that.
That is a lot more work but I like the idea because I was never altogether comfortable with saying #5 gets the same number of points as #25. Using this model appended to what I had above would result in:
NC, 18 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP
- 5 for winning the semi-final
- 6 for winning the NC Game.
NC appearance, 12 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP
- 5 for winning the semi-final.
CFP appearance, 7 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP.
Final ranking 5-12, 3 points.
Final ranking 13-20, 2 points.
Final ranking 21-25, 1 point.
-
Re-rank using @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) 's suggestions:
(https://i.imgur.com/GON91rf.png)
I think the immediate thing that jumps out is that Ohio State is now ahead of Georgia. As an Ohio State fan, I shouldn't be the one defending that but I'll say this: I can see both sides of the debate here.
I think that the VAST majority of fans would take UGA's last 10 years over tOSU's last 10 years in a heartbeat. They would simply be choosing 2 NC's over 1 NC and that is that.
The other side is that Ohio State had a much more consistently successful decade. Georgia's three best seasons were 2 NC's and an NCG appearance. That easily beats tOSU's best three years which consisted of 1 NC, 1 NCG appearance, and 1 CFP appearance. Where Ohio State looks better is that tOSU's "other" seven years were VASTLY superior to UGA's "other" seven years. The "other" seven years:
- 2 CFP appearances for tOSU, ZERO for UGA
- 5 more seasons (total of 7) in the top-12 for tOSU, 4 for UGA
- 1 13-20 ranking for UGA, ZERO for tOSU
- 2 unranked seasons for UGA, ZERO for tOSU.
Thoughts?
-
Yeah, I see your point. Maybe the points should double for each round you advance.
3 points for being ranked in top 12
An additional 3 points for making CFP (6 points total)
An additional 6 points for making NCG (12 points total)
An additional 12 points for winning the national championship (24 points total)
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
I honestly don't know how much I value being consistently good as opposed to being great as a one off and I think I view it differently for "other" teams than for my own.
Hypothetical example:
- In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
- In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.
Which do you consider the "better" program?
Which would you rather YOUR team do?
Are those the same team?
As for me, I consider #2 to be the better program but I'd probably rather my team be #1.
-
It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.
So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.
-
It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.
So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.
This is so true. Winning one semi-final or even one NC could be largely luck. Maybe you got a ridiculously weak opponent? Maybe you just got REALLY lucky with a specific recruit? That is where I do hold Bama, Clemson, UGA, and tOSU as significantly above the rest. Those four have multiple semi-final wins. Even the other NC winners (M, LSU) don't. Winning one NC (LSU, M) or a single semi-final (Washington, Oregon, TCU) as you said "could be just a fluke" but if you've been there and won at least one game repeatedly that isn't a fluke, you have a very strong program.
I would also draw a distinction between a team that won semi-finals in back-to-back years and a team that won semi-finals further apart. To me the team with back-to-back semi-final wins could still be a "flash-in-the-pan" thing where everything came together for them at one time and they had a really strong team then but will they ever get back there? Conversely a team that won semi-finals separated by more than a few years is a strong program, they are more likely to be back.
-
Hypothetical example:
- In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
- In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.
Which do you consider the "better" program?
Which would you rather YOUR team do?
I'd strongly prefer #2 because it indicates a very good chance of continued winning and a shot at an NC. You gotta make continued runs at "it" to get there, often as not.
-
I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.
But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.
Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
Exactly. It was always why people hated the BCS computer rankings...
...because they didn't agree 100% lock-step with humans, so they must be "wrong".
-
In my view, any "real ranking" means a higher ranked team is more likely to beat a lower ranked team. When comparing #3 and #4, that margin is going to be slim, near 50%, usually.
-
I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.
But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.
Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.
While SOS may certainly be fairly factored in, I don't like the idea of dismissing teams as lucky, or rewarding others as more legit. That gets dicey because then you have to apply the same metrics to every team in every game considered....and that's just weighting with subjectivity what is meant as an attempt to be objective. TCU won the games they won, and lost the games they lost, end of story.
I mean, you could say UGA was lucky in the first round of the 2022 playoffs because Ohio State was missing its best receivers, or some fluky plays, or whatever. Not a good practice, imo. For something like this, it's better to just say UGA won, assign them whatever reward the system includes, and stick with it. It's impossible to peg "luck" with any certainty, so I wouldn't try, for something like this, which I assume is a something like a resume list. If we were talking about a "team quality" list, then it may be more appropriate to include subjective thoughts about luck.
-
People shouldn't look at luck as a reason a '22 TCU beats UM.
In spots, luck is a constant.
In baseball, BABIP seems to be a true element of chance/luck. A pitcher can allow the same HRs, stirke out the same number of batters, and walk the same number of guys, but his BABIP allowed in any given season can swing pretty wildly. One year 37% of batted balls turn out to be hits, the next it's only 28%. There's an average of this stat (~.300), but even the all-time greats see ebbs and flows. Same with batters' BABIP on offense.
In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.
We may not know what all it is, or how to dole it out, but I'm sure it's there.
-
Better to be lucky than good
-
I think you have to be good for luck to start to matter if we're talking playoff performance.
A team that finishes in the top 5 consistently but doesn't win an NC will eventually make it much more often than a team that finishes barely ranked each year.
The difference between a final ranking of 3 or 4 and 1 can include a lot of random chance.
-
In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.
I think it's a lot easier. We have one element that is huge and and clearly revolves around luck, which are turnovers. Lost in all the talk about "forcing turnovers" and the "turnover battle" is that almost nothing is associated with turnovers except luck.
-
I wouldn't say almost nothing
many QBs are living proof
-
TOs in my view are mostly "luck" though it's known some players have a propensity for INTs and FBs.
Thet can end up sitting.
-
It's tricky. If you look closer at turnovers, there's more nuance.
For any volume of passes, you're going to have x% intercepted. But what kind of interceptions?
What do we do where there is a miscommunication and the QB throws it right to the defender, since the WR made a poor read?
What about a pass tipped at the line that wobbles into a defender's hands? We may want to say that's a good defensive play, to get your hands up. But a defensive lineman only does that if his pass-rush was ineffective.
With that one, it makes me think about the idea that there can be no truly great 2nd basemen in baseball, as they're all just failed shortstops.
If your pass-rusher has more batted balls than sacks...he's not doing his job well.
.
Other 'luck' potentials in football are ball-marking by the refs, penalties witnessed and called by refs, injuries (and not just 'injuries,' but who and at what point in the game, etc), quality of teams you play consecutively, weather conditions, and on and on.
I really think a big one that no one mentions is the ref's ball-marking on low-stakes, 2nd down plays in the first half. They're not being shitty with it or unethical, but please don't tell me they're being as careful then as they are on 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter, either.
So maybe teams have to punt 0.3 times more, on average, than they actually should have to. That's not nothing. But the game really is a game of inches and those inches add up here and there.
-
UGA had zero punts returned in 2023.
-
Yeah, kickoff and punt returns are going the way of the dodo. Used to be super exciting if you had a great return man....no longer.
-
I love how hours have been spent to unravel what the CFP was trying to resolve. Who’s 2nd best all the way through #25 or whatever.