The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-19-2020 08:23 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 08:31 PM)kyucat Wrote:  Let’s be clear. There are only about 10 to 15 schools who have a shot at a national championship. The rest of the schools in the so called P 5 have little or no shot. Here is my list see if you agree or add a team.
Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, FSU, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas.

I like your list but I think you have it confused with those that can simply make the CFP.

The list that can actually win it consists of Alabama, Clemson, O$U and an SEC wildcard (Auburn, Georgia, LSU and maybe Florida).

Notre Dame simply has the possibility of getting embarrassed every few years in the CFP.

I had a similar take. The question of who has a "shot" to win vs. who actually can/does makes a big difference. Go back the past 15 years for the natty champs...

2019 LSU
2018 Clemson
2017 Alabama
2016 Clemson
2015 Alabama
2014 Ohio St
2013 Florida St
2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida
2005 Texas

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

[10] SEC
[3] ACC
[1] B1G
[1] B12

So, 8 teams have won the past 15 from 4 conferences - dominated by the SEC.

There's definitely a difference between who can make the playoff and who can win it all. The MSUs, NDs, Washingtons that manage to make the playoffs show they don't belong on the same field with the NFL farm teams. Bama, Clemson, OSU, OU, etc.

To win a national title you have to be able to match those teams talent level. For instance LSU wasn't in that group prior to this year but had access to the talent level you need to compete with that group when you finally start running well. For that reason top half SEC teams like FL, GA, Auburn could all win when the get the right coaching. Texas could as well but there's so much interference from boosters there that it's tough to see it happening. I still thing there's enough west coast talent that if USC got it together they could.

I don't think there's enough midwest talent for a second B10 program to be a national title contender. To consider Michigan or PSU I'd need to see a drop in OSU first.

(05-20-2020 06:15 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  There's definitely a difference between who can make the playoff and who can win it all. The MSUs, NDs, Washingtons that manage to make the playoffs show they don't belong on the same field with the NFL farm teams. Bama, Clemson, OSU, OU, etc.

To win a national title you have to be able to match those teams talent level. For instance LSU wasn't in that group prior to this year but had access to the talent level you need to compete with that group when you finally start running well. For that reason top half SEC teams like FL, GA, Auburn could all win when the get the right coaching. Texas could as well but there's so much interference from boosters there that it's tough to see it happening. I still thing there's enough west coast talent that if USC got it together they could.

I don't think there's enough midwest talent for a second B10 program to be a national title contender. To consider Michigan or PSU I'd need to see a drop in OSU first.

I don't think regional talent matters anymore for a truly elite program. It helps, but it's not the foundation. National recruiting is. Ohio is the best in the region, but it's nowhere near as nationally dominant as it was a generation ago, yet OSU is on a historical run. That's because they've transitioned into a national brand pulling players from the Mid-Atlantic, South, Texas and California. Clemson and Alabama are recruiting California heavily. A Michigan or PSU could be a serious national title contender if they could recruit on a national basis like OSU (not just pulling players from across the country but pulling elite 5* players from across the country), and they don't necessarily need OSU to drop off for that to happen.

Conversely, the schools in talent rich areas that have failed to recognize that and thought they could thrive primarily on home grown talent are the blue bloods that have fallen on hard times: Texas, USC, Miami/FSU/Florida.

(05-20-2020 07:34 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:15 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  There's definitely a difference between who can make the playoff and who can win it all. The MSUs, NDs, Washingtons that manage to make the playoffs show they don't belong on the same field with the NFL farm teams. Bama, Clemson, OSU, OU, etc.

To win a national title you have to be able to match those teams talent level. For instance LSU wasn't in that group prior to this year but had access to the talent level you need to compete with that group when you finally start running well. For that reason top half SEC teams like FL, GA, Auburn could all win when the get the right coaching. Texas could as well but there's so much interference from boosters there that it's tough to see it happening. I still thing there's enough west coast talent that if USC got it together they could.

I don't think there's enough midwest talent for a second B10 program to be a national title contender. To consider Michigan or PSU I'd need to see a drop in OSU first.

I don't think regional talent matters anymore for a truly elite program. It helps, but it's not the foundation. National recruiting is. Ohio is the best in the region, but it's nowhere near as nationally dominant as it was a generation ago, yet OSU is on a historical run. That's because they've transitioned into a national brand pulling players from the Mid-Atlantic, South, Texas and California. Clemson and Alabama are recruiting California heavily. A Michigan or PSU could be a serious national title contender if they could recruit on a national basis like OSU (not just pulling players from across the country but pulling elite 5* players from across the country), and they don't necessarily need OSU to drop off for that to happen.

Conversely, the schools in talent rich areas that have failed to recognize that and thought they could thrive primarily on home grown talent are the blue bloods that have fallen on hard times: Texas, USC, Miami/FSU/Florida.

You're right. The reason OSU has excelled during the Meyer era has been their expanded recruiting footprint. However to draw nationally you need to be attract those players. OSU could do it because of Meyer's rep and because they've been winning at such a high level has been able to continue under Day.

It's why I think half the schools that could win national titles are SEC schools. They can recruit regionally and supplement with national recruits. Getting southern kids to come north is much harder than the opposite.

(05-20-2020 07:53 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:34 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 06:15 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  There's definitely a difference between who can make the playoff and who can win it all. The MSUs, NDs, Washingtons that manage to make the playoffs show they don't belong on the same field with the NFL farm teams. Bama, Clemson, OSU, OU, etc.

To win a national title you have to be able to match those teams talent level. For instance LSU wasn't in that group prior to this year but had access to the talent level you need to compete with that group when you finally start running well. For that reason top half SEC teams like FL, GA, Auburn could all win when the get the right coaching. Texas could as well but there's so much interference from boosters there that it's tough to see it happening. I still thing there's enough west coast talent that if USC got it together they could.

I don't think there's enough midwest talent for a second B10 program to be a national title contender. To consider Michigan or PSU I'd need to see a drop in OSU first.

I don't think regional talent matters anymore for a truly elite program. It helps, but it's not the foundation. National recruiting is. Ohio is the best in the region, but it's nowhere near as nationally dominant as it was a generation ago, yet OSU is on a historical run. That's because they've transitioned into a national brand pulling players from the Mid-Atlantic, South, Texas and California. Clemson and Alabama are recruiting California heavily. A Michigan or PSU could be a serious national title contender if they could recruit on a national basis like OSU (not just pulling players from across the country but pulling elite 5* players from across the country), and they don't necessarily need OSU to drop off for that to happen.

Conversely, the schools in talent rich areas that have failed to recognize that and thought they could thrive primarily on home grown talent are the blue bloods that have fallen on hard times: Texas, USC, Miami/FSU/Florida.

You're right. The reason OSU has excelled during the Meyer era has been their expanded recruiting footprint. However to draw nationally you need to be attract those players. OSU could do it because of Meyer's rep and because they've been winning at such a high level has been able to continue under Day.

It's why I think half the schools that could win national titles are SEC schools. They can recruit regionally and supplement with national recruits. Getting southern kids to come north is much harder than the opposite.

Great discussion thread here with some real insightful comments on which schools can realistically compete for a national championship.

Taking the big payday from a Purdue, Illinois or Kansas can build generational family wealth and feed the ego of a coach wooed by such schools. Clearly, Fickell can and will leave someday, but I admire his loyalty when considering such payday alternatives where winning national championships is a pipe dream.

So arguably there are a dozen destinations with a realistic chance to win a title. Maybe Luke and his family have decided Cincinnati is a great place to live and coach; staying "home" (OH) for $2 million + per year and a quality of life and cost of living unmatched by most other major league cities or university towns.

Regarding southern recruiting, bolded, a UC assistant affirmed this several years ago. Kids from the deep south can't distinguish between Cincinnati (15 inches of annual snowfall) and Cleveland (54 inches). They simply see Ohio in the Great Lakes region and assume winters are as brutal as Buffalo. He said it was the single biggest obstacle for Midwest schools in recruiting from the deep south. OSU did break through under Urban. Other B10 schools grab a prize player or two from Florida.

But most southern high school stars (rightly) believe the SEC rules in college football and have abundant choices to live and play in the climate that is continually attracting hundreds of thousands of people to migrate south from the Great Lakes and northeastern states every year.

(05-19-2020 10:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 08:23 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 08:31 PM)kyucat Wrote:  Let’s be clear. There are only about 10 to 15 schools who have a shot at a national championship. The rest of the schools in the so called P 5 have little or no shot. Here is my list see if you agree or add a team.
Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, FSU, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas.

I like your list but I think you have it confused with those that can simply make the CFP.

The list that can actually win it consists of Alabama, Clemson, O$U and an SEC wildcard (Auburn, Georgia, LSU and maybe Florida).

Notre Dame simply has the possibility of getting embarrassed every few years in the CFP.

I had a similar take. The question of who has a "shot" to win vs. who actually can/does makes a big difference. Go back the past 15 years for the natty champs...

2019 LSU
2018 Clemson
2017 Alabama
2016 Clemson
2015 Alabama
2014 Ohio St
2013 Florida St
2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida
2005 Texas

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

[10] SEC
[3] ACC
[1] B1G
[1] B12

So, 8 teams have won the past 15 from 4 conferences - dominated by the SEC.

It's a bit semantic I guess, but I disagree with a few posters claiming there's a big difference between who "can win" and "who has a shot to win". In some instances, it's probably true (e.g. MSU a few years ago), but in others, anything (e.g. injuries, fluke turnovers, inconsistent officiating) can happen. Any playoff/tournament isn't about who has had the best team for the overall season, it's more about who is playing the best right now with a big dash of luck thrown in. For a large part if you are a good enough team to make the playoffs, you are a good enough team to win even if means a flaky win or even 2 flaky wins.

(05-20-2020 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 10:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 08:23 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 08:31 PM)kyucat Wrote:  Let’s be clear. There are only about 10 to 15 schools who have a shot at a national championship. The rest of the schools in the so called P 5 have little or no shot. Here is my list see if you agree or add a team.
Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, FSU, Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas.

I like your list but I think you have it confused with those that can simply make the CFP.

The list that can actually win it consists of Alabama, Clemson, O$U and an SEC wildcard (Auburn, Georgia, LSU and maybe Florida).

Notre Dame simply has the possibility of getting embarrassed every few years in the CFP.

I had a similar take. The question of who has a "shot" to win vs. who actually can/does makes a big difference. Go back the past 15 years for the natty champs...

2019 LSU
2018 Clemson
2017 Alabama
2016 Clemson
2015 Alabama
2014 Ohio St
2013 Florida St
2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida
2005 Texas

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

[10] SEC
[3] ACC
[1] B1G
[1] B12

So, 8 teams have won the past 15 from 4 conferences - dominated by the SEC.

It's a bit semantic I guess, but I disagree with a few posters claiming there's a big difference between who "can win" and "who has a shot to win". In some instances, it's probably true (e.g. MSU a few years ago), but in others, anything (e.g. injuries, fluke turnovers, inconsistent officiating) can happen. Any playoff/tournament isn't about who has had the best team for the overall season, it's more about who is playing the best right now with a big dash of luck thrown in. For a large part if you are a good enough team to make the playoffs, you are a good enough team to win even if means a flaky win or even 2 flaky wins.

I do tend to agree that once you get there anything can happen, but the odds are still significantly stacked against teams like MSU or Washington, in any given year, compared to teams like Clemson, Alabama, OSU, etc...

(05-21-2020 10:06 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 10:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  So, 8 teams have won the past 15 from 4 conferences - dominated by the SEC.

It's a bit semantic I guess, but I disagree with a few posters claiming there's a big difference between who "can win" and "who has a shot to win". In some instances, it's probably true (e.g. MSU a few years ago), but in others, anything (e.g. injuries, fluke turnovers, inconsistent officiating) can happen. Any playoff/tournament isn't about who has had the best team for the overall season, it's more about who is playing the best right now with a big dash of luck thrown in. For a large part if you are a good enough team to make the playoffs, you are a good enough team to win even if means a flaky win or even 2 flaky wins.

I do tend to agree that once you get there anything can happen, but the odds are still significantly stacked against teams like MSU or Washington, in any given year, compared to teams like Clemson, Alabama, OSU, etc...

I don't think it's semantics at all and that's why I posted the numbers to back it up. You have a wider group of teams every season that in "theory" can win a natty but the actual results bear out a very narrow field of teams. I don't see anything flaky or luck or injuries to have played out on who won the natty in recent years. It's teams with loads of talent and great coaching that tip the scales IMO. It's why the Notre Dames', Texas', Wisky's, Penn St.s, USC's, Michigan's, Nebraskas', Miami U's, et al. haven't sniffed a natty in a long time.

(05-21-2020 11:03 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:06 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 10:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  So, 8 teams have won the past 15 from 4 conferences - dominated by the SEC.

It's a bit semantic I guess, but I disagree with a few posters claiming there's a big difference between who "can win" and "who has a shot to win". In some instances, it's probably true (e.g. MSU a few years ago), but in others, anything (e.g. injuries, fluke turnovers, inconsistent officiating) can happen. Any playoff/tournament isn't about who has had the best team for the overall season, it's more about who is playing the best right now with a big dash of luck thrown in. For a large part if you are a good enough team to make the playoffs, you are a good enough team to win even if means a flaky win or even 2 flaky wins.

I do tend to agree that once you get there anything can happen, but the odds are still significantly stacked against teams like MSU or Washington, in any given year, compared to teams like Clemson, Alabama, OSU, etc...

I don't think it's semantics at all and that's why I posted the numbers to back it up. You have a wider group of teams every season that in "theory" can win a natty but the actual results bear out a very narrow field of teams. I don't see anything flaky or luck or injuries to have played out on who won the natty in recent years. It's teams with loads of talent and great coaching that tip the scales IMO. It's why the Notre Dames', Texas', Wisky's, Penn St.s, USC's, Michigan's, Nebraskas', Miami U's, et al. haven't sniffed a natty in a long time.

Or it's because that one team didn't have the coaching and players to be superior in that given year and it just so happened that that year wasn't one where the underdog with maybe a 30% chance of winning actually won. But coaches and players don't stay where they are in college forever. What would your list have looked like a decade ago? Was USC on that "very narrow" list? Florida? Miami? Conversely how about Clemson?

Plus you are still looking at a fairly small sample and I'm genuinely not sure exactly what it is that you think you have proven with that data. Perhaps you could clarify or restate it more clearly? (And please include definitions for "very narrow" and "recent years" preferably in a manner that they aren't cherry-picked).

We see wild cards and lower seeds go to and win championships in pro football, mlb and college basketball fairly regularly and those sports have both a longer regular season resume (i.e. more data points to separate superiority) and more participants and games in their playoffs/tournament (i.e. not just four teams) to often sort out flukes. Stands to reason it can and will happen more in college football over time. Let's check back in another decade.

(05-21-2020 11:38 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Or it's because that one team didn't have the coaching and players to be superior in that given year and it just so happened that that year wasn't one where the underdog with maybe a 30% chance of winning actually won. But coaches and players don't stay where they are in college forever. What would your list have looked like a decade ago? Was USC on that "very narrow" list? Florida? Miami? Conversely how about Clemson?

Plus you are still looking at a fairly small sample and I'm genuinely not sure exactly what it is that you think you have proven with that data. Perhaps you could clarify or restate it more clearly? (And please include definitions for "very narrow" and "recent years" preferably in a manner that they aren't cherry-picked).

We see wild cards and lower seeds go to and win championships in pro football, mlb and college basketball fairly regularly and those sports have both a longer regular season resume (i.e. more data points to separate superiority) and more participants and games in their playoffs/tournament (i.e. not just four teams) to often sort out flukes. Stands to reason it can and will happen more in college football over time. Let's check back in another decade.

So the teams that make up the elite can be fluid. Florida State under Bowden finished in the top 4 for like 20 straight years. Miami was a dominant program.

But to be in that top tier that currently includes Bama, Clemson, OSU, UGA, LSU, and OU you need to have access to the resources and talent to compete. Bama might not be there in a decade if Saban retires or has a late career dip like Bowden and Paterno. Clemson won't be there if Dabo goes home to Bama. Will OSU continue to draw nationally like the have under Meyer? Current results indicate they will but will it last?

But in any given year is someone that isn't one of those types of programs going to beat them? Not a chance. Maybe pre playoff you could get lucky once but now you've got to do it twice. If you give a Sparty or Washington a 1/10 chance of beating those teams the odds of doing it twice in a row is 1/100.

The system has set up to separate the uber-elite from the 10-50 group and the gap is widening. We don't know who will be in that group in the next 5-10 years but my guess is for each one that leaves that group the next emerging program is likely to be southern like Florida or Texas. USC could rejoing the elite.

I firmly believe there's only enough resources/talent for one midwestern title contender. ND, Michigan, or PSU aren't joining that group without OSU falling off.

I'm simply saying that you can debate all day long about who has a "shot" to win the national chip. The reality is, very few teams can and do win it and I posted those teams going back 15 years. I thought that was a good recent trend to look at and you can't debate who actually won the title. Can those team shift in the future? Sure. You're still talking about a select group regardless. The most recent trend shows that group is primarily from the SEC. Of the teams that have won natty's that I listed, four have won it more than once and three are from the SEC.
[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU

(05-21-2020 02:49 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I'm simply saying that you can debate all day long about who has a "shot" to win the national chip. The reality is, very few teams can and do win it and I posted those teams going back 15 years. I thought that was a good recent trend to look at and you can't debate who actually won the title. Can those team shift in the future? Sure. You're still talking about a select group regardless. The most recent trend shows that group is primarily from the SEC. Of the teams that have won natty's that I listed, four have won it more than once and three are from the SEC.
[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU

Still trying to figure out what your theory is exactly and specifically (how does this new SEC sidebar tie in?). I thought it originally had something to do with the idea that just because a team can realistically make the 4 team playoffs that doesn't mean it could actually win the 4 team playoffs.

Now it seems to me the theory you are pushing is that there are only 6 or maybe 8 or maybe some other number of teams that realistically have a shot at winning the NC. It sounds like you think the actual number fluctuates and teams can be added or removed from the list year to year. I guess I can buy that, but that sounds to me like an argument that winning a NC is a fairly open opportunity rather than an argument that just because a team can make the 4 team playoffs doesn't mean they can really win the championship.

By your own data if you throw out the one anomaly, 7 teams have won titles in the other 10 years. I mean by definition that number could only be 10 at the very most, right? That sounds pretty wide open to me. Then there's your discussion that those teams are likely to change (both coming and going) at a moment's notice (e.g. HC change) and not very predictable into the future. Add it all up and winning a NC seems to be a relatively wide-open affair with the exception of the one anomaly (and maybe Clemson at this point in time which I infer would NOT have made this list if it were done much more than a handful of years ago which goes to the unpredictability of the process.)

(05-21-2020 05:44 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 02:49 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I'm simply saying that you can debate all day long about who has a "shot" to win the national chip. The reality is, very few teams can and do win it and I posted those teams going back 15 years. I thought that was a good recent trend to look at and you can't debate who actually won the title. Can those team shift in the future? Sure. You're still talking about a select group regardless. The most recent trend shows that group is primarily from the SEC. Of the teams that have won natty's that I listed, four have won it more than once and three are from the SEC.
[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU

Still trying to figure out what your theory is exactly and specifically (how does this new SEC sidebar tie in?). I thought it originally had something to do with the idea that just because a team can realistically make the 4 team playoffs that doesn't mean it could actually win the 4 team playoffs.

Now it seems to me the theory you are pushing is that there are only 6 or maybe 8 or maybe some other number of teams that realistically have a shot at winning the NC. It sounds like you think the actual number fluctuates and teams can be added or removed from the list year to year. I guess I can buy that, but that sounds to me like an argument that winning a NC is a fairly open opportunity rather than an argument that just because a team can make the 4 team playoffs doesn't mean they can really win the championship.

By your own data if you throw out the one anomaly, 7 teams have won titles in the other 10 years. I mean by definition that number could only be 10 at the very most, right? That sounds pretty wide open to me. Then there's your discussion that those teams are likely to change (both coming and going) at a moment's notice (e.g. HC change) and not very predictable into the future. Add it all up and winning a NC seems to be a relatively wide-open affair with the exception of the one anomaly (and maybe Clemson at this point in time which I infer would NOT have made this list if it were done much more than a handful of years ago which goes to the unpredictability of the process.)

Wide open? Washington, Oregon, Michigan State , and Notre Dame, all made the playoff and we're subsequently routed. They had no chance, no momentum, crazy bounces, or anything could have helped them. They were over matched.

Ok, here's another angle with facts...

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

I posted this upstream - the 8 teams that have won the natty chip over the past 15 seasons. If the chip was a "wide open" affair ripe with outliers and chance/luck should there not be closer to 15 different champions representing more than 4 conferences in FBS? Should there not be a "cinderella" team that won? The current trend is my "theory." Nothing more, nothing less.

It’s definitely not a wide open race on a yearly basis. But there are teams that could crack the list as other teams rise and fall over the years.

Fick ranked #1, Cbs Sports:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...20-season/

(05-21-2020 06:12 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 05:44 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 02:49 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I'm simply saying that you can debate all day long about who has a "shot" to win the national chip. The reality is, very few teams can and do win it and I posted those teams going back 15 years. I thought that was a good recent trend to look at and you can't debate who actually won the title. Can those team shift in the future? Sure. You're still talking about a select group regardless. The most recent trend shows that group is primarily from the SEC. Of the teams that have won natty's that I listed, four have won it more than once and three are from the SEC.
[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU

Still trying to figure out what your theory is exactly and specifically (how does this new SEC sidebar tie in?). I thought it originally had something to do with the idea that just because a team can realistically make the 4 team playoffs that doesn't mean it could actually win the 4 team playoffs.

Now it seems to me the theory you are pushing is that there are only 6 or maybe 8 or maybe some other number of teams that realistically have a shot at winning the NC. It sounds like you think the actual number fluctuates and teams can be added or removed from the list year to year. I guess I can buy that, but that sounds to me like an argument that winning a NC is a fairly open opportunity rather than an argument that just because a team can make the 4 team playoffs doesn't mean they can really win the championship.

By your own data if you throw out the one anomaly, 7 teams have won titles in the other 10 years. I mean by definition that number could only be 10 at the very most, right? That sounds pretty wide open to me. Then there's your discussion that those teams are likely to change (both coming and going) at a moment's notice (e.g. HC change) and not very predictable into the future. Add it all up and winning a NC seems to be a relatively wide-open affair with the exception of the one anomaly (and maybe Clemson at this point in time which I infer would NOT have made this list if it were done much more than a handful of years ago which goes to the unpredictability of the process.)

Wide open? Washington, Oregon, Michigan State , and Notre Dame, all made the playoff and we're subsequently routed. They had no chance, no momentum, crazy bounces, or anything could have helped them. They were over matched.

Like Alabama was overmatched in the NC game last year proved they had no chance at a NC? Anything can happen in small samples - that's the point and that's why they play the games.

There's only 60 P5 teams, nobody is arguing that they all have a great shot at the playoffs or winning the NC. All I've been saying is that if a team is actually good enough to make the 4 team playoffs it's silly in most cases to say they have no chance of winning 2 games to be NC. Please pay attention.

(05-21-2020 06:46 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Ok, here's another angle with facts...

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

I posted this upstream - the 8 teams that have won the natty chip over the past 15 seasons. If the chip was a "wide open" affair ripe with outliers and chance/luck should there not be closer to 15 different champions representing more than 4 conferences in FBS? Should there not be a "cinderella" team that won? The current trend is my "theory." Nothing more, nothing less.

OK, I'm still wondering what that has to do with my skepticism at the claim that most teams that are good enough to make the playoffs do not have a shot at actually winning. That's why I've been trying to understand exactly what point you are trying to make. I'm still not sure exactly what your thesis is, but it now seems clear we are talking about 2 different issues.

(05-22-2020 11:36 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:46 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Ok, here's another angle with facts...

[5] Alabama
[2] Clemson
[2] Florida
[2] LSU
[1] Auburn
[1] Florida St
[1] Ohio St
[1] Texas

I posted this upstream - the 8 teams that have won the natty chip over the past 15 seasons. If the chip was a "wide open" affair ripe with outliers and chance/luck should there not be closer to 15 different champions representing more than 4 conferences in FBS? Should there not be a "cinderella" team that won? The current trend is my "theory." Nothing more, nothing less.

OK, I'm still wondering what that has to do with my skepticism at the claim that most teams that are good enough to make the playoffs do not have a shot at actually winning. That's why I've been trying to understand exactly what point you are trying to make. I'm still not sure exactly what your thesis is, but it now seems clear we are talking about 2 different issues.

Thesis and two different issues? Brother, I've made enough posts now with facts to show what my point is. If you can't grab it or fail to understand it then I'm sorry I can't be more clear. There is no thesis or theory. Yes, it's my opinion but I believe I've shown enough data and logic in my argument. I'm not going to continue down this rabbit hole.

(05-22-2020 11:06 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:12 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  Wide open? Washington, Oregon, Michigan State , and Notre Dame, all made the playoff and we're subsequently routed. They had no chance, no momentum, crazy bounces, or anything could have helped them. They were over matched.

Like Alabama was overmatched in the NC game last year proved they had no chance at a NC? Anything can happen in small samples - that's the point and that's why they play the games.

There's only 60 P5 teams, nobody is arguing that they all have a great shot at the playoffs or winning the NC. All I've been saying is that if a team is actually good enough to make the 4 team playoffs it's silly in most cases to say they have no chance of winning 2 games to be NC. Please pay attention.

I'm with RTaylor. We've got a whole bunch of data of when these teams that aren't the elite mega programs make the playoffs they get destroyed. Best I can remember none of them has played a reasonably competitive game vs. the Bama, Clemson, OSU types. If the odds of them beating one of those schools in a semifinal game is 1/10 (I actually think it's lower based on results) the odds of them doing it twice is less than 1/100. I don't consider 1% a reasonable chance.