The Myth of Ancient Parity: Articles About Competitive Imbalance Coming

[selmaborntidefan]

I've already seen a few, and they're by no means wrong. Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St HAVE, in fact, made post-season college football pretty boring if you're a fan of, say, TCU or Minnesota. And we are now getting columns about how things used to be and how what we have now is bad. Since I'm naturally a skeptic when someone sells me a narrative - and since this narrative is going to get pushed - I want to review (hopefully quickly) exactly how NON-COMPETITIVE the national championships have ALWAYS been with the exception of a brief interregnum in the 1980s that misled a bunch of the late 40s and 50-somethings writing these columns so they can get out to the golf course quickly. I recently exposed the fraud known as "LSU Is, Like, Almost Unbeatable on Saturday Night in Baton Rouge!" as well as several other political and CFB myths through the years. Now let's handle another one

The pundits are floating this idea out there that "more teams used to be able to win the national championship; now, it's the same old teams." This musing has a tiny bit of truth and a WHOLE LOT of error.

Click here to see the list of national champions.

I'm going to use ONLY the list of AP and UPI national champions - to go along with the BCS and CFP champions. In other words, if one of you decides to be a ninny and wants to debate Alabama's 1941 national title, you will be ignored because FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST, it doesn't exist.

AP - began naming champions in 1936
UPI - began naming champions in 1950 as UP, later as UPI, now the coaches poll
BCS - began in 1998
CFP - began in 2014

So is it REALLY true? Did it used to have more balance? In a word....."not really." Okay, that's two words.

How many DIFFERENT TEAMS won the above recognized national championships from 1936-2020 (since there won't be a first-time winner this year, either)?

If you guessed 29, you got it right. 29 teams out of 127 FBS/Division I/Whatever teams have won the "most prestigious" national titles. And then let's remember that those numbers are inflated just a tad when we take everything into account. In fact - and this is likely to shock people - NO TEAM HAS WON THEIR VERY FIRST AP/UPI/ETC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP SINCE FLORIDA IN 1996.

You read that correctly. EVERY SINGLE national champion since 1998 - without exception - was winning at least it's second title.

Then let's remember a few historical facts:

1) Bowl games were once NOT COUNTED in the official tally.
Save for 1965 (more on this in a moment), AP didn't count the bowl games until 1968, UPI until 1974. If we INCLUDED bowl games, Maryland (1953) would reduce this list by one team since they lost the Orange Bowl to Oklahoma.

2) The number is also (potentially) increased by SPLIT NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.
If we had ONE system rather than two (1950-1997), the following teams either WOULD HAVE or MAY HAVE BEEN removed from the list: 1954 UCLA (split with Ohio St), one of the 1990 teams (Ga Tech or Colorado), Washington (1991) and possibly Michigan in 1997. That would remove THREE MORE TEAMS from the potential teams that won the national title and reduce us to only 24 or 25 actual champions. Now - maybe UCLA beats Ohio State in 1954, maybe Washington beats Miami in 1991, or maybe Michigan beats Nebraska in 1997. But it goes down by AT LEAST one since Colorado and Ga Tech would have played one another.

3) The mandatory bowl contracts (potentially) increased the number of teams that won national championships as well.

For so many years, we had to live through a nightmare that would go like this:
Cotton Bowl: unbeaten or 1-lost champ
Rose Bowl: Big 10 vs Pac 10
Sugar Bowl: SEC team vs whoever
Orange Bowl: Big 8 team vs whoever

It was this setup that potentially increased the number of teams that won the title. Without this TV/money grab setup, you potentially remove the following national champions: 1981 Clemson (rematch with UGA), 1984 BYU (1 vs 2 would have been Oklahoma; four-team playoff would have included Washington and Nebraska, and I honestly don't think BYU could have beaten any of those three teams), and the 1990 title would have been taken by one team (a four-team playoff PROBABLY leaves Colorado and Ga Tech both without titles). That (potentially removes ONE MORE team (since Clemson DID win CFP titles), so we're now down to about 23 teams that won straight out legit under modern circumstances titles.

4) Teams were once able to avoid the other powerful team in the conference - a circumstance no longer available with conference championships games.

Georgia has one title, 1980. But Georgia won this title in an era when SEC teams only had SIX conference games in a ten-team conference. Wanna know who Georgia didn't play in 1980? Try #6 Alabama, a 10-2 team that had won the two previous national titles. The Dawgs also managed to avoid the only other ranked SEC team (#19 MSU) the very same year! Yes - two ranked SEC teams - and UGA's schedule allowed them to avoid BOTH of them.

That would never happen in modern football. Either the two teams would play as part of the regular season OR they would meet in the conference championship game. I'm not saying Alabama FOR SURE WOULD HAVE beaten Georgia - because we'll never know the answer to that question.

This one is always tricky, but look at the common opponents:
vs Vols - Georgia came back to win by one, Alabama won by 27
vs Ole Miss - UGA won by 7, Alabama won by 24
vs Vandy - both teams won by 41
vs UK - UGA by 27, Alabama by 45
vs Auburn - UGA by 10, Alabama by 16

So the two teams had FIVE common opponents. Alabama beat the opposition by more points (sometimes MANY more) four times, and the two teams both beat Vandy by 41. Oh, I'm sure the pro-UGA contingent will bring up "but you forgot Notre Dame!" No, I really didn't.

YES - UGA beat the Irish by 7, and Alabama LOST by 7, so that settles it, right? No......because you have to figure whether UGA would have even played N Dame if they'd had to face Alabama or Miss St (or both). If Alabama beats UGA head-to-head, Georgia likely doesn't play Notre Dame OR for the national championship. Furthermore - you can't "really" compare "team UGA had month to get ready to play" with "team Alabama had to play in November right after MSU and LSU." And finally - how many of you have ever WATCHED that game? Notre Dame had seven more first downs, beat them in total yards (328-127), and UGA didn't complete a pass until the final minute of the game. (Keep in mind - Herschel Walker rushed for 150 yards but UGA only had 127 total yards - think about that for just a moment). No, UGA won because the Irish gave them a short field twice for both their TDs. Yes, credit UGA for cashing in, but the Irish were really the only team UGA played worth a damn in 1980, and they had no business winning that one.

My point is not to bash UGA - as fun as that is. My point, however, is that in MODERN FOOTBALL SETUP (which is what is reducing the potential national champions), Georgia probably does not have a national title (spare me "but 1942" if you actually read what I posted earlier).

Make no mistake - Georgia isn't the ONLY team to advance because they avoided the other good teams in conference, they're just the most prominent national champion I can use to make the point. (Remember - I'm the one ranting about how Herschel Walker WAS, in fact, ROBBED of the Heisman that year).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

5) The crowning of multiple first-time and "new" champions in the 1980s was due to circumstances that no longer exist and created an illusion of parity.

"But if Georgia and Clemson and Miami and BYU and Colorado and Georgia Tech can win titles......"

Puh-leeze! We just covered Georgia. But let's go over the other ones:

1981 Clemson - how did they win? Georgia had NINE turnovers in a 13-3 loss on the road. Clemson played a schedule full of cupcakes and THREE decent teams: UGA, N Carolina (who also played nobody and then got blown out by S Carolina), and Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. But.....under the BCS, Clemson has a rematch with UGA at a neutral site (and probably doesn't win with 9 turnovers) or in the CFP era, Clemson plays Nebraska and the winner of the Alabama/UGA SEC title game.

1983 Miami - yes, Miami won a later title, but this was one of the most undeserved flukes in CFB history. Miami only won the title because: a) Nebraska and Texas (the two unbeatens) couldn't play each other; and b) Auburn was locked into the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. Miami pole vaulting those teams due to a lucky one-point win at home is a low point in voting.

1984 BYU - I spoke too soon. But BYU had no business winning it - and those circumstances will never again exist anyway.

I've already touched on 1990 and - in all honesty - either Miami or Notre Dame probably wins that title, too.


6) Some of those teams had lofty reputations in the pre-1960s, but they haven't been worth a damn in forever

Minnesota - a lovely state I love to get away to at least once a year. ONE conference championship (they tied for it) since Tide-HSV was born. ONE!!! And a national title they wouldn't win under modern circumstances.

Pittsburgh - won a title in the pre-bowl era. won another one by beating a massively overrated Notre Dame team early, hanging on against a schedule of nothing - and then drawing an overrated UGA team (aren't they all?) in the Sugar Bowl and carefully avoiding Michigan, USC, or unbeaten Maryland.

TCU - played in a nothing conference (3 games better than the 2nd place team), played no ranked teams, a title due to the era

Texas A/M - I know, I'm laughing, too. The expectations of Ohio State, the trophy case of Mississippi State

Maryland - already covered, wouldn't win one nowadays with a bowl loss

Michigan State - maybe the most difficult to understand team out there. They're one of those teams with a few breaks and the right coach could MAYBE win a title - but then again, Saban left there because he felt he couldn't so.....

SUMMARY

In short, only 29 teams have won "actual" national championships in the most recognized systems. Somewhere between 10 and 13 of those teams would never be able to win national titles today, which reduces the potential champions (in the real world) to about 15-17 teams that can win it all. The percentage SEEMS lower nowadays (more teams, fewer champs) because we've moved from a system where it was regionally biased and a popularity contest (in many instances) to a system where you ACTUALLY HAVE TO WIN THE GAMES ON THE FIELD.

The cold, hard reality is that if we had had this system in the past, teams like BYU, Maryland, TCU, and others would still have zero national titles in football. But now a word of criticism for the people who commit flat out idolatry with their "conference championships should matter" argument: do you not realize that the VERY SYSTEM YOU DEFEND of having teams play all the other teams and especially the good teams in their conference BRINGS ABOUT THE EXACT RESULT ABOUT WHICH YOU ARE COMPLAINING?????

Miami won an undeserved title in 1983. This increased their national profile and made it easier to get players - just like now. Without a title they didn't deserve, maybe - maybe - the Miami dynasty NEVER happens because they don't get those players. Maybe Miami - who did NOT get the benefit of the doubt in 1985 over Oklahoma - doesn't collar a bunch of future NFL stars and go on an incredible run driven largely by not playing in a conference. It's no accident that Miami died when they had to play more than 1-2 good teams per year.

Miami isn't the only one. Maybe if Penn State doesn't finally win one in 1982, they don't have ANY.....and maybe the Sandusky cover-up never happens (along with PSU being little more than "a team that used to be good").

What has happened - for better or worse - is the truth has all come out in the wash. Team wins title, team gets recruits, team contends/wins another title. It has ALWAYS been this way - the writers just never noticed it because the circumstances created the illusion of parity.

 

[uafan4life]

I've been thinking about writing something like this myself.

I guess now I don't have to. :-D

People have short memories. I've heard several talking heads mention that something like only 11 different teams have had a chance to play for the NC on the field in the seven years of the playoff.

My immediate thought was that you'd have a hard time finding many seven year periods under the old bowl system or even the BCS with a larger number than that...

 

[theballguy]

If you think about it, college football is only for a big handful of teams (a few in each of the major conferences) and that's about it. We do allow the Ole Miss's and Miss State's of the world to play our teams in the hope of glory by maybe knocking one of us out of the championship race and that's really about it for them. It is what it is.

It sucks if you're a fan of those teams but besides Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU who really has a chance in the SEC to get in and win it all? There's no kind of tournament, formula or algorithm that will change this anytime soon.

Expand the fields and here are the results using Bama as an example and assuming the following teams have decent seasons:

4 teams: Bama gets in almost every season.

8 teams: Bama gets in every season and maybe with two losses ... no SEC championship needed, Clemson gets in every season and likely does Ohio State.

16 teams: Bama gets in every season without SEC championship and so do Ohio State, Clemson and probably Oklahoma.

There's just too many teams in the field. Football is not conducive to a 68 team tournament.

 

[TexasBama]

I've already seen a few, and they're by no means wrong. Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio St HAVE, in fact, made post-season college football pretty boring if you're a fan of, say, TCU or Minnesota. And we are now getting columns about how things used to be and how what we have now is bad. Since I'm naturally a skeptic when someone sells me a narrative - and since this narrative is going to get pushed - I want to review (hopefully quickly) exactly how NON-COMPETITIVE the national championships have ALWAYS been with the exception of a brief interregnum in the 1980s that misled a bunch of the late 40s and 50-somethings writing these columns so they can get out to the golf course quickly. I recently exposed the fraud known as "LSU Is, Like, Almost Unbeatable on Saturday Night in Baton Rouge!" as well as several other political and CFB myths through the years. Now let's handle another one

The pundits are floating this idea out there that "more teams used to be able to win the national championship; now, it's the same old teams." This musing has a tiny bit of truth and a WHOLE LOT of error.

Click here to see the list of national champions.

I'm going to use ONLY the list of AP and UPI national champions - to go along with the BCS and CFP champions. In other words, if one of you decides to be a ninny and wants to debate Alabama's 1941 national title, you will be ignored because FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST, it doesn't exist.

AP - began naming champions in 1936
UPI - began naming champions in 1950 as UP, later as UPI, now the coaches poll
BCS - began in 1998
CFP - began in 2014

So is it REALLY true? Did it used to have more balance? In a word....."not really." Okay, that's two words.

How many DIFFERENT TEAMS won the above recognized national championships from 1936-2020 (since there won't be a first-time winner this year, either)?

If you guessed 29, you got it right. 29 teams out of 127 FBS/Division I/Whatever teams have won the "most prestigious" national titles. And then let's remember that those numbers are inflated just a tad when we take everything into account. In fact - and this is likely to shock people - NO TEAM HAS WON THEIR VERY FIRST AP/UPI/ETC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP SINCE FLORIDA IN 1996.

You read that correctly. EVERY SINGLE national champion since 1998 - without exception - was winning at least it's second title.

Then let's remember a few historical facts:

1) Bowl games were once NOT COUNTED in the official tally.
Save for 1965 (more on this in a moment), AP didn't count the bowl games until 1968, UPI until 1974. If we INCLUDED bowl games, Maryland (1953) would reduce this list by one team since they lost the Orange Bowl to Oklahoma.

2) The number is also (potentially) increased by SPLIT NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.
If we had ONE system rather than two (1950-1997), the following teams either WOULD HAVE or MAY HAVE BEEN removed from the list: 1954 UCLA (split with Ohio St), one of the 1990 teams (Ga Tech or Colorado), Washington (1991) and possibly Michigan in 1997. That would remove THREE MORE TEAMS from the potential teams that won the national title and reduce us to only 24 or 25 actual champions. Now - maybe UCLA beats Ohio State in 1954, maybe Washington beats Miami in 1991, or maybe Michigan beats Nebraska in 1997. But it goes down by AT LEAST one since Colorado and Ga Tech would have played one another.

3) The mandatory bowl contracts (potentially) increased the number of teams that won national championships as well.

For so many years, we had to live through a nightmare that would go like this:
Cotton Bowl: unbeaten or 1-lost champ
Rose Bowl: Big 10 vs Pac 10
Sugar Bowl: SEC team vs whoever
Orange Bowl: Big 8 team vs whoever

It was this setup that potentially increased the number of teams that won the title. Without this TV/money grab setup, you potentially remove the following national champions: 1981 Clemson (rematch with UGA), 1984 BYU (1 vs 2 would have been Oklahoma; four-team playoff would have included Washington and Nebraska, and I honestly don't think BYU could have beaten any of those three teams), and the 1990 title would have been taken by one team (a four-team playoff PROBABLY leaves Colorado and Ga Tech both without titles). That (potentially removes ONE MORE team (since Clemson DID win CFP titles), so we're now down to about 23 teams that won straight out legit under modern circumstances titles.

4) Teams were once able to avoid the other powerful team in the conference - a circumstance no longer available with conference championships games.

Georgia has one title, 1980. But Georgia won this title in an era when SEC teams only had SIX conference games in a ten-team conference. Wanna know who Georgia didn't play in 1980? Try #6 Alabama, a 10-2 team that had won the two previous national titles. The Dawgs also managed to avoid the only other ranked SEC team (#19 MSU) the very same year! Yes - two ranked SEC teams - and UGA's schedule allowed them to avoid BOTH of them.

That would never happen in modern football. Either the two teams would play as part of the regular season OR they would meet in the conference championship game. I'm not saying Alabama FOR SURE WOULD HAVE beaten Georgia - because we'll never know the answer to that question.

This one is always tricky, but look at the common opponents:
vs Vols - Georgia came back to win by one, Alabama won by 27
vs Ole Miss - UGA won by 7, Alabama won by 24
vs Vandy - both teams won by 41
vs UK - UGA by 27, Alabama by 45
vs Auburn - UGA by 10, Alabama by 16

So the two teams had FIVE common opponents. Alabama beat the opposition by more points (sometimes MANY more) four times, and the two teams both beat Vandy by 41. Oh, I'm sure the pro-UGA contingent will bring up "but you forgot Notre Dame!" No, I really didn't.

YES - UGA beat the Irish by 7, and Alabama LOST by 7, so that settles it, right? No......because you have to figure whether UGA would have even played N Dame if they'd had to face Alabama or Miss St (or both). If Alabama beats UGA head-to-head, Georgia likely doesn't play Notre Dame OR for the national championship. Furthermore - you can't "really" compare "team UGA had month to get ready to play" with "team Alabama had to play in November right after MSU and LSU." And finally - how many of you have ever WATCHED that game? Notre Dame had seven more first downs, beat them in total yards (328-127), and UGA didn't complete a pass until the final minute of the game. (Keep in mind - Herschel Walker rushed for 150 yards but UGA only had 127 total yards - think about that for just a moment). No, UGA won because the Irish gave them a short field twice for both their TDs. Yes, credit UGA for cashing in, but the Irish were really the only team UGA played worth a damn in 1980, and they had no business winning that one.

My point is not to bash UGA - as fun as that is. My point, however, is that in MODERN FOOTBALL SETUP (which is what is reducing the potential national champions), Georgia probably does not have a national title (spare me "but 1942" if you actually read what I posted earlier).

Make no mistake - Georgia isn't the ONLY team to advance because they avoided the other good teams in conference, they're just the most prominent national champion I can use to make the point. (Remember - I'm the one ranting about how Herschel Walker WAS, in fact, ROBBED of the Heisman that year).

In 1978 we needed Georgia to tie or beat Auburn to play in the Sugar Bowl because of the repeat rule they had in place. Georgia was mediocre but had won all their conference games (5). The days of 6 conference games. Of course, our OOC schedule that year is the all-time benchmark. And Herschel never played against Bama.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I've been thinking about writing something like this myself.

I guess now I don't have to. :-D

People have short memories. I've heard several talking heads mention that something like only 11 different teams have had a chance to play for the NC on the field in the seven years of the playoff.

My immediate thought was that you'd have a hard time finding many seven year periods under the old bowl system or even the BCS with a larger number than that...

They got deluded because of things like Miami pole vaulting to #1 in 1983 and then BYU winning it the next year. Even in "the good old days," there was never more than usually 3-4 teams still alive on January 1. What deluded them was because certain games were NOT played, and it permitted more teams to finish undefeated or look good against lesser comptetition.

The playoff ended that.

 

[uafan4life]

How'd you do that???
;-D

 

[selmaborntidefan]

In 1978 we needed Georgia to tie or beat Auburn to play in the Sugar Bowl because of the repeat rule they had in place. Georgia was mediocre but had won all their conference games (5). The days of 6 conference games. Of course, our OOC schedule that year is the all-time benchmark. And Herschel never played against Bama.

Respectfully, you're right but you conflated a couple of things.

In BOTH 1978 AND 1979 - we needed Auburn to beat UGA.

In 1978, UGA was 9-2-1, the tie coming against Auburn. If UGA wins, they go the Sugar Bowl and.....we probably don't even win the national championship because Penn State likely plays Oklahoma for it in the Orange Bowl.

You're thinking of 1979, when UGA went 5-1 in the SEC and 1-4 out of conference. The killer schedule you're talking about was 1978; our 1979 schedule was actually pretty lame.

And you are, of course, correct about Walker never facing us. Would have been interesting for sure.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

How'd you do that???
;-D
View attachment 13730

Do what?

 

[uafan4life]

Do what?

Post in the future. ;-)

 

[TexasBama]

Respectfully, you're right but you conflated a couple of things.

In BOTH 1978 AND 1979 - we needed Auburn to beat UGA.

In 1978, UGA was 9-2-1, the tie coming against Auburn. If UGA wins, they go the Sugar Bowl and.....we probably don't even win the national championship because Penn State likely plays Oklahoma for it in the Orange Bowl.

You're thinking of 1979, when UGA went 5-1 in the SEC and 1-4 out of conference. The killer schedule you're talking about was 1978; our 1979 schedule was actually pretty lame.

And you are, of course, correct about Walker never facing us. Would have been interesting for sure.

Not sure what you think I'm conflating.

In 78 we needed Georgia to tie or beat Auburn. I was at the game, and Georgia was kind enough to tie.
In 78 we played Nebraska USC and USM at home (was at those games too) and Mizzou and UW (Don James) on the road.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Not sure what you think I'm conflating.

In 78 we needed Georgia to tie or beat Auburn. I was at the game, and Georgia was kind enough to tie.
In 78 we played Nebraska USC and USM at home (was at those games too) and Mizzou and UW (Don James) on the road.

Georgia wasn't mediocre in 1978 when they went 9-2-1.
They were in 1979, when a similar situation happened.

It appears I may have conflated it thinking you did - because most of the circumstances you cited (save the tough schedule) were true both years.

My bad.

 

[Special K]

For those of us older than 14, this hand wringing by the media dweebs over the playoff impact is hilarious. It has truly come full circle.

"The bowls and polls system is a popularity contest with too many split champions and ambiguity. We need a better system to determine a champion 'on the field'." (As if the games were all played on paper or something. Anyway, here come the bowl alliance years.)

"The bowl alliance isn't good enough and the bowls still have too much power. We need a better system to truly pair up the 2 best teams for the title." (Hello BCS!)

"Oh my gosh, did you see what Alabama did! They slipped into the BCS and didn't even win the conference! We need a better system. I know - let's have a 4-team playoff, we'll throw the bowls a bone by letting them host, and even better let's get a committee to pick the teams that will make sure nothing like this happens again!" (Oops! 2017 says hello!)

"This playoff thing is OK but some deserving Group of 5 teams aren't getting a fair shot. We have to expand this thing. I mean after all, look at what BYU is doing...Wait, what? They lost to who? Oh, Coastal Carolina, yeah was just about to mention them. Like I said, some deserving teams should get a shot. Look at what Coastal Carolina just pulled off. They could take Notre Dame on a good day, maybe even Alab...What?! Say again? Liberty? You mean as in Jerry Falwell? They won?! Um, well, um....oh yeah, that's right, Cincinnati, that's where I was going with this. As I was saying, Cincinnati is living proof that we need at least an 8-team playoff. Just look at wha....Huh? Say what? How did Kirby Smart win a bowl game?! Geez, never mind."

"The playoff is nice and all, but man this is getting boring watching the best same teams win it all every...freaking...year. I mean the bowls don't even mean anything anymore, non-playoff players are quitting early, there's no drama anymore outside the playoff games. I got it! Let's do a 'March Madness' for football! 8 teams - even better, how about 16? Shoot, every conference champion could get in, maybe have a couple play in games. No? Presidents and ADs not on board? Crap. Well we need something to shake this thing up. Hmmm....Hey, has anyone thought about some regional or conference bowl tie ins, maybe Orange Bowl takes the Big 12 Oklahoma, Sugar takes the SEC Alabama or LSU (if the year ends in 11 or 19), Rose could maybe get the Big 10 Ohio State to play the Pac 12 champ (is Utah really in now?), and then all of us could just vote on the best team when it's all done! Shoot, the coaches could vote too, even pick somebody else if they want! Wouldn't that be a hoot!"

 

[OSUTideFan]

Well, Selma, your thread made a splash on an Ohio State forum. Many of them like the way you write.
Edit: To clarify, I did not make the below posted thread on 11W. I’m not even a member there.
If you feel so inclined, you could respond to some of the replies. I can’t link the thread because profanity is not moderated on that site but here is a screenshot of the original post:

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Always nice to have my posts read elsewhere (too bad there's not a way I can become a gazillionaire blogging since Clay Travis already took that idea).

Anyway, let me see a couple of things here:

Erniefurgler:
And for a comparison, I believe I tallied up 35 different schools for college basketball...so not a significant difference. I think the biggest thing with basketball is that titles are "earned" via the tournament vs. voting on the final four like football. If basketball voted on the final four each year, you'd have about 12 schools with titles.

This is also a good point. That being said...every single year there's an ACC, SEC or Big 10 basketball school that isn't among the final 68 teams chosen, and their fans go bonkers online regardless of the fact some of these are maybe 18-11 records that lost against every single good team they played.

Sunny Buck:
I have been watching college football since the 1960's. The Tide Fans poster is correct in some respects in his analogy of finding a true title winner. But, as long as there is a committee, sportswriters or voters involved in picking a champion, it is often a questionable affair. As mentioned by a previous poster, at least basketball determines it's champions on the court.

This was a legit criticism pre-2014. But the offset is a much more meaningful regular season in football, too. I haven't watched a regular season college b-ball game in about 30 years.

Joebobb:
Interesting article. While I agree with the premise, I think some of his conclusions on various schools, namely Miami are wrong. Miami’s first championship may have been a fluke, but in those days, such Ellen Berger and his crew were finding more hidden gems in the projects of Miami and selling them on staying home close to their friends.

A fair enough point. But IS THERE a Miami dynasty (1980s) without: a) the first title; and b) running a borderline criminal organization that got them hit with the NCAA hammer?

Miami is very difficult to assess in that their title years were USUALLY years they had carefully crafted schedules while some of the years they looked to be the best team, they lost the one game that mattered. But Joe Bobb makes a good point here if we fail to appreciate nuance, and he's correct to point this out.

Joebobb:
what I believe killed Miami was that eventually schools like Florida, Bama, Auburn, and even Ohio State realized they needed to make a bigger push in south Florida for the skilled position talent and starting being more aggressive and winning those battles because of better facilities. Also, if you go back to 2003 when Miami took a nose dive, the big thing from 2002 was that they closed the orange bowl and moved to Hard Roc

What killed Miami was getting into the ACC and no longer being the big fish in the small pond. However, Joe Bobb is also correct here.


KC Alum
The worst system was the system that defacto existed from about the mid '80s until the BCS started. That was the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance era. It was essentially impossible for a Big 10 or a Pac 10 school to win a National Championship unless BOTH the Big 10 and Pac 10 teams went undefeated and were ranked 1-2 or at worst 1-3 when they met in the Rose Bowl. We saw Penn State fall victim to this in 94 when beating a 3 loss Oregon team in the Rose Bowl was "not impressive enough" for perhaps the best team of the 1990's to win a National Championship.

True, KC, but it was the two conferences that were in a love affair with the Rose Bowl - and because of money. I mean, no problem, MONEY supports the school, trophies in a case do not unless they somehow lead to more money. But those conferences chose to be locked into that prison, too. I concur that the 1994 Penn State team was highway robbery, and it was also perceptions. Had Penn State thumped an 8-3 USC team, they probably would have won the national championship or at least split it.


Eph97
That was a good article. He makes a good point that the horrible system we had pre-CFP, if you had 1 loss you were out and it mattered when you lost, allowed teams like 1984 BYU who played a lousy schedule to win a title. If the playoff had existed back then, in that year you'd probably have 1 loss Washington or Florida easily defeat BYU.

Well, I think Florida was probably the best team in the country that year as witness both the NYT and Sporting News selecting them as champions. However, Florida would not have been in a playoff, either, since they'd already opted out knowing an NCAA hammer was coming. Otherwise, though, I agree. It's doubtful that BYU could have beaten several of the other teams around the top.

Son of 47 Alum
I think one possible way to allow at least hope for some others: make it a 6-team tourney consisting of the five Power 5 conference champs and the top-ranked team outside the Power 5.

And then the next argument will be, "But it's not fair that the unbeaten SEC/B1G teams GET THEY BYE EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!! They have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE!!"

Thanks for sending my work out, it flatters me.

 

[colbysullivan]

The current system is always hated. Luckily, they have managed to make it better every time they have changed it, but I feel like expanding the playoffs would just make it worse. The college football regular season needs to mean something.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Nothing will ever be good enough for some people. Go to 6, 7 &8 will get left out and the whining will continue. Go to 8 and suddenly #9 could have totally won it. They keep brining up basketball, so I will add that espn has a 2 hour long show dedicated to the teams that did not make a 68 team tournament (who totally could have won it).

 

[B1GTide]

The truth - most college programs, coaches and media writers understand that an expanded playoff would not result in a changed outcome. They recognize that the teams with the most talent both on the field and on the sidelines/in the press box will win. They understand that coaching and great facilities draw talent. Making it into the playoff will not change that. Winning a game in the playoff will not change that. Winning a title might, but it is much, much harder to win multiple games against very talented teams in a playoff system, making that an almost impossible dream - almost

There is no parity in college sports - any college sport. There never has been and there never will be. There are not enough great players to go around, and there is no way to force the great players to be evenly spread out across the programs. Professional sports create parity by limiting the number of teams and by allowing weaker teams to draft talent ahead of stronger teams every year. Even with all of that, parity is hard to maintain.

So, why expand the playoff if it won't change the final outcome? My response - the "dream" would generate more interest in regular season games than we have today and create even more excitement across the sport. It would be better for the sport, broadly. It would likely allow smaller conferences to generate more revenue, whether it be through media rights or ticket/merchandise sales.

To be clear - it won't change anything for the Alabamas and Ohio States of the college football world. We would be in even more playoffs over time if the field is expanded as we would be considered even in down years. But I love the sport, not just my schools/teams. And if it will help the sport, I am generally in support of it. I am just not sure of the best way to implement it, or of the ideal size of the field.

This year, in a world divided by so many crises, sports drew us together. We need sports more than we think. It is a part of our culture, and it provided some normalcy through some very dark days. Going into 2021, it looks like we still have some dark days ahead of us, and sports will continue to help us persevere. If we can expand the reach of that impact to more Americans, I support it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Naturally, ESPN has a couple of articles up this morning. You have to pay for one of them, and I'm not paying ESPN for Jack Squat beyond whatever they already get from me because they show the games.

But we have Heather Dinich again, who quite frankly reminds us all she doesn't know very much about....in this case math...

Many have grown weary of the same teams and conferences repeatedly being chosen and are convinced Group of 5 teams will never have a chance as long as there are only four semifinalists.

Heather (in my sternest Ron Franklin tone) - that's what a SEMI-final is.....four teams. ANY sport - it's just four teams in the SEMI-finals. That's why it's called the....SEMI-finals, Heather.

Now in the name of fairness......maybe Dinich was victimized by an editor who communicated poorly. OR maybe Heather just didn't get very good communication skills with syntax when she attended Indiana. Whatever the case, it's a real eye roller. But it's the article below it (the free one) that has my dandruff up this morning, er, my dander.

College Football Playoff debate: What would an ideal system look like?

With criticism of the CFP and its committee at a fever pitch among some in the sport, our experts break down the process and propose changes. Plus, the architect of the BCS weighs in.

www.espn.com

The very title itself _ 'what would an ideal system look like" gives away the conclusion before you read the first line. Sure enough, we get the usual complaints and the usual non-solutions. I don't mind non-solutions - but just don't pretend you're giving me SOLUTIONS when you're giving me NON-SOLUTIONS.

It's a giant, contradictory set of qualifications, especially when you factor in the minimal presence of Group of 5 representation on the committee and everyone's personal built-in biases.

Very simple: does SOS matter AT ALL? If it doesn't, then fine. But it's one of the criteria listed. If SOS DOES matter, you can't exactly get mad or even accurately say G5 is "excluded."

I have long been a playoff advocate, because I truly hoped, and somewhat naively believed, that a playoff would open the field up to teams like Boise State, which proved in the BCS era that it absolutely belonged on the biggest stage

I must have missed this. When did Boise State prove this? Anyone????

Playing random games where you have 4 weeks to get ready for the opponent is a crapshoot in the first place. Also - how has Boise State done since they decided to try and competitively schedule? Not very well. And finally, Boise State had chances in both 2010 and 2011 - and choked both times away so you can't really blame anyone but Boise State for that.

It is not only the Group of 5 that has been punished, but the Pac-12, too
Number of Pac 12 teams ever snubbed? Zero.

The greatest thing about the NCAA basketball tournament is the Cinderella story that emerges every year. The playoff, as currently constructed, leaves no room for that

1) Number of REAL Cinderella b-ball national champions in the modern era? Maybe 3 (1983 NC State, 1985 Villanova, and 1988 Kansas - all of which can be seen to be better teams than their ranking).

2) You cannot compare a sport of five players where a team like Butler can have mostly the same guys stay for all four years because they're not NBA prospects with a sport where Iowa State rarely has an NFL prospect out of 22-24 starting players in a game. The fact a "one and done" team can be decimated overnight is what permits this to continue. Football will never have that, so the comparison won't work.

Power 5 conference titles that don't come with a playoff berth aren't viewed the same way as they were before. The once-proud tradition of bowl games has been diminished

What's funny is that when UCLA went 0-3 in OOC games in 1983 and won the Pac 10 and went to the Rose Bowl with a 6-4-1 record, there was a bunch of hand-wringing about the automatic berths to the Rose Bowl. Pretending these things didn't happen doesn't mean they didn't. Illinois was a 4 1/2-point favorite on UCLA's home field. UCLA 45 Illinois 9.

(Iowa State over Coastal Carolina was utterly perplexing this year, for example)
Iowa State beat BOTH Oklahoma AND Texas, barely lost to then #6 Okie State on the road....and all 3 of those teams have an easier time getting players than ISU does. When Oklahoma beat Iowa State, we heard from ESPN that the Sooners "had beaten a top ten team." But if it had been Iowa State, you very same people would have said, "But they lost to Louisiana!' And had it been Ohio State, you would have said, "Yeah, they lost to Louisiana but they overcame it and you can't put too much emphasis on one loss." It's hilarious to listen to the very same pundits who CREATE the system with their hyperbole WHINE about it.

Media, stat gurus, Vegas folks, heck even a smart fan or two might add some new insight to the discussions.
Well, you can reach me at Tidefans.

Beyond the not-so-subtle Group of 5 exclusion, the playoff fields have been dominated by teams from the Southeast and Midwest.
with the exception of USC, you just covered the entire history of college football once there were more than 5 teams.

I know Mark Richt's 32-team explosion is something a lot of coaches would like,
Mark Richt would like it for a rather obvious reason: his UGA teams that never won anything might actually have a chance in a 32-team playoff.

well - to get a win or maybe two and hope someone else eliminated the better teams for them.

(which would actually make college football's national title race inclusive for just about the first time ever)

The question nobody seems to be asking is, "WHY is this inclusion principle so damned important?"

As Bill notes, eight teams solves so many issues
And creates more but sure let's pretend this isn't the eventuality.....

Again, this is more about expanding opportunity than the likelihood of new teams winning championships

What's funny is you're actually saying THIS: "We know full well that if those G5 teams played those P5 teams, they wouldn't win." But when the rest of us say this, you very same people are the ones who cite selective anecdotal evidence about how "Boise beat Oklahoma, Utah beat Alabama, etc." It's always funny to me how Hawaii getting plowed by UGA never gets mentioned in this argument.

Somewhere between two and 130 is a number that both maximizes access to the playoff while minimizing devaluation of the regular season. Where's that number? Truth is, it probably fluctuates from year to year, but the best answer would seem to be eight.

You just made the 2019 Alabama-Auburn game a complete afterthought. And several others in the Big 10, including Minnesota's late season games.

every team will have a chance to earn its way in by what happens on the field of play
Go undefeated in the Power-5 and you're in. The G5, well, who really cares? I mean, you folks just admitted they probably wouldn't win it anyway.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The truth - most college programs, coaches and media writers understand that an expanded playoff would not result in a changed outcome. They recognize that the teams with the most talent both on the field and on the sidelines/in the press box will win. They understand that coaching and great facilities draw talent. Making it into the playoff will not change that. Winning a game in the playoff will not change that. Winning a title might, but it is much, much harder to win multiple games against very talented teams in a playoff system, making that an almost impossible dream - almost

There is no parity in college sports - any college sport. There never has been and there never will be. There are not enough great players to go around, and there is no way to force the great players to be evenly spread out across the programs. Professional sports create parity by limiting the number of teams and by allowing weaker teams to draft talent ahead of stronger teams every year. Even with all of that, parity is hard to maintain.

So, why expand the playoff if it won't change the final outcome? My response - the "dream" would generate more interest in regular season games than we have today and create even more excitement across the sport. It would be better for the sport, broadly. It would likely allow smaller conferences to generate more revenue, whether it be through media rights or ticket/merchandise sales.

To be clear - it won't change anything for the Alabamas and Ohio States of the college football world. We would be in even more playoffs over time if the field is expanded as we would be considered even in down years. But I love the sport, not just my schools/teams. And if it will help the sport, I am generally in support of it. I am just not sure of the best way to implement it, or of the ideal size of the field.

This year, in a world divided by so many crises, sports drew us together. We need sports more than we think. It is a part of our culture, and it provided some normalcy through some very dark days. Going into 2021, it looks like we still have some dark days ahead of us, and sports will continue to help us persevere. If we can expand the reach of that impact to more Americans, I support it.

I'm reluctantly on board (I think) with you on this.

I think a 16-team playoff that INCLUDES the bowl games is a fast approaching inevitability. Everyone needs to remember that without teams to play, there's no Alabama or Ohio State, either.