Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
Author Message
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 11,374
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 539
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #21
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(01-01-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-01-2019 08:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think the obvious lack of parity (even limited parity) in the game is terrible. I'm amazed that the game is as popular as it is given the fact that year over year success at the top levels is more or less limited to the top 25 - 30 revenue generating schools in all FBS.

This is the attitude that fans of striver-G5 programs have that IMO reflects a lack of understanding of mainstream college football culture. Fans of schools like Memphis, Houston, Boise, USF, etc. that are trying to 'break in to the club' think its awful that the powers that be haven't created a diamond-lined red carpet for their schools to stroll in to the club, but it's really not that hard to understand: I've been following major college football for 50 years, and it has always been the way you describe it as 'awful', namely dominance by a few programs. In the 1970s, you could set your watch by Notre Dame and USC and Alabama being powerful, Oklahoma and Nebraska vying for the Big 8 title, Texas in the SWC, and Bo vs Woody battling for the Big 10. With independents Pitt and Penn State in the east fighting their way into the mix (they were the *original* independent outsider to crash the club).

The history of college football, kind of like of MLB, is a history of dominant programs and dynasties. And, the great bulk of football fans like it that way. That's why the sport became a major sport and has a 130 year legacy.

And it is a pattern not uncommon in other sports. E.g., college hoops and the NBA both became truly major in the 1960s, a time when the Celtics and UCLA were winning almost every year. People like dymasties and dominant historic programs.

The model that G5 fans prefer, a model that results in a "levelling" of sorts where schools like Memphis and ECU and San Diego State eventually rise up while schools like Michigan and USC and Alabama lose *relative* power is undesired by everyone but fans of those striver schools. I think it would result in the decline of college football as a whole.

I don't believe you can directly compare the 70s and 80s to today's game due to a number of factors - with the NCAA being booted from negotiating TV revenue contracts for the sport when Oklahoma won their lawsuit in the mid 80s. Couple that with the creation of the BCS that morphed into our current model and it's pretty clear that access is more limited. The barriers of entry to maintain a top flight FB program is much higher in today's world simply based on cost alone.

Ultimately, it comes to personal preference. I don't care for the MLB revenue model - which is what you get with FBS level college football - because there is a competition problem within the sport. Most years the big market teams dominate the sport and tend to win the World Series. This is what college football is like - only worse from a competition standpoint. Big market teams will always dominate, and barring the occasional year when a smaller revenue college finds "lightning in a bottle", nothing will ever change.

Saban is an OK coach. As pointed out already, his biggest skill is building and managing a system to keep the talent flowing. Take Saban out of Alabama and place him at ECU or Memphis and see if he can duplicate the success he sees today. It would be impossible for him to do so.

ETA: Excuse the grammar. I'm too lazy to fix it all.
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2019 09:55 AM by miko33.)
01-01-2019 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,791
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 988
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #22
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(01-01-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-01-2019 08:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think the obvious lack of parity (even limited parity) in the game is terrible. I'm amazed that the game is as popular as it is given the fact that year over year success at the top levels is more or less limited to the top 25 - 30 revenue generating schools in all FBS.

This is the attitude that fans of striver-G5 programs have that IMO reflects a lack of understanding of mainstream college football culture. Fans of schools like Memphis, Houston, Boise, USF, etc. that are trying to 'break in to the club' think its awful that the powers that be haven't created a diamond-lined red carpet for their schools to stroll in to the club, but it's really not that hard to understand: I've been following major college football for 50 years, and it has always been the way you describe it as 'awful', namely dominance by a few programs. In the 1970s, you could set your watch by Notre Dame and USC and Alabama being powerful, Oklahoma and Nebraska vying for the Big 8 title, Texas in the SWC, and Bo vs Woody battling for the Big 10. With independents Pitt and Penn State in the east fighting their way into the mix (they were the *original* independent outsider to crash the club).

The history of college football, kind of like of MLB, is a history of dominant programs and dynasties. And, the great bulk of football fans like it that way. That's why the sport became a major sport and has a 130 year legacy.

And it is a pattern not uncommon in other sports. E.g., college hoops and the NBA both became truly major in the 1960s, a time when the Celtics and UCLA were winning almost every year. People like dymasties and dominant historic programs.

The model that G5 fans prefer, a model that results in a "levelling" of sorts where schools like Memphis and ECU and San Diego State eventually rise up while schools like Michigan and USC and Alabama lose *relative* power is undesired by everyone but fans of those striver schools. I think it would result in the decline of college football as a whole.

And it’s probably more balanced than in the 70s or 80s. Were northwestern or Kansas st or wake forest winning conference titles then?
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2019 11:37 AM by bullet.)
01-01-2019 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,334
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 588
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #23
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(01-01-2019 01:08 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(12-31-2018 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-31-2018 10:39 PM)Retroview1955 Wrote:  Alabama players are clearly on PEDs and Clemson is the best overall football program?

Let's me honest here. Alabama destroys everybody. There is something clearly not legit with that.

Attack me as you wish, I don't care, because I'll bet you don't know what's really going on inside the Tide's football program either!

They had to pee in the cup the same as Clemson and came up clean.

I don't see any particular reason to believe that Bama or Clemson are cheating any more than anybody else at a high level program ...

... but that said, Lance Armstrong peed in a lot of cups on the way to a lot of drug-assisted Yellow Jerseys at the Tour de France.

He did. And so did all of the other Tour de France contenders at the time. If we're using the cycling analogy, it's a scenario in which almost everyone cheats and very few ever test positive.
01-01-2019 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 21,045
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1764
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
I don't buy Stugray's explanation in total. I agree Saban didn't perform well in the NFL. But a large part of that was because he didn't have the control he did in college. In the NFL he has players earning more than he does and discipline can be scoffed at quite easily. It doesn't fit his anal temperament.

But there really isn't anything but sour grapes concerning his accomplishments in college. He did win a natty at L.S.U. as well. His record speaks for itself.

Personally I think Alston might well level things out in some regards. The biggest impediment to programs winning is the expense. Alston may result in Leagues being formed and salary caps being established. If so the field will become more competitive and the upside is that the players won't be black market commodities any longer and will be able to begin their taxpaying years a bit earlier. In the long run I think that cleans the game up a bit and intentionally makes it more competitive.

We'll see, but that's what I'm hoping for.
01-01-2019 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,498
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 175
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #25
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
JRsec,

I don't have any sour grapes about Saban. Everything he has won is because he has useed every rule to his advantage, the schedule to his advantage, the recruiting to his advantage, his staffing the team to his advantage. He is thorough and methodical, an organizational genius and it allows him to dominate.

He has made the most of it. I see him as far superior to the sometimes chaotic Urban Meyer with similar talent on his teams. The closest comparison is Bill Belichik, but without the innovation. College is about the Jimmies and Joes more than the Xs and Os. The NFL it's more the other way around, excepting a super player here and there. There is nothing outside of organization that people copy from Saban. He is an executive coach more than a game day coach. He wins games Sunday to Friday, and Saturday is just the confirmation.

In the NFL you do not get organizational control until you dominate with the same talent as everyone else. The power of Bill Belichik in 2018 is far more in control than the 2005 Bill Belichik. Saban had his chance, didn't get it done. But college is full of really good coaches who did not get it done or could not get it done in the NFL. Chip Kelly comes to mind, and in the past guys like Lou Hotlz, Steve Spurrier among others. It's rare to have a Bill Walsh or even a Jim Harbaugh translate college success to the pros.(Not dissimilar to the NBA.) Seattle's Pete Carroll may be the only exception, and it's more because he is an expert talent evaluator and delegates everything in the NFL just as he did in college (The Dallas Cowboys have operated that way with a "figure head" coach since Switzer.)

Is that a knock on Saban? Not in the least. College is another beast, closer to the top leagues in European Soccer where there is no salary cap. It's a recruiting game, a scheduling game. Saban does that better than anyone. Hall of fame level. If my saying he is hall of fame college coach, executive innovator that changed the way football teams are organized behind the scenes, then I don't think there is any envy there. You are reading in something not there.

I do think many schools will catch up. And Alabama will suffer the usual problem of "more" in future years, especially when Saban retires (I think 3 years or so in the future, he turn 68 and I think he'll go to 70 -- keeping control will become increasingly difficult, as we saw with Bowden and Paterno as they aged). But for now he'll continue to kick butt.

BTW, I think he has a legit NFL QB in Tua Tagovailoa. He has the "it" factor, the arm and the athleticism.
01-01-2019 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sultan of Euphonistan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,918
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Baritones
Location: The Euphonistan Tree
Post: #26
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
One thing to note is that while he was not there long as I recall Saban did well at Toledo. I think saying that he is only ok and that he is just good at organization is underestimating him.

Remember too that being a great college coach and a great NFL coach are not the same thing as you can find many examples where a coach good at one is bad at the other.
01-02-2019 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
kevinwmsn Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 492
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 15
I Root For: South Alabama
Location:
Post: #27
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
Nick Sabon's lack of success at Miami was the medical advice on getting Daunte Culpepper instead of Drew Brees. The NFL is a quarterback league. If you don't have a good one, then you are not likely to have success.
01-02-2019 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,019
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 125
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #28
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
My totally biased take on Clemson:

Dabo is a good administrator, great with the fans, great at evaluating assistant coaches. He's also surrounded himself with a ton of Clemson grads which means no one ever leaves unless it's for an obvious promotion, which has created a tons of stability.

He's also been quite lucky the last 5-6 years because of the collapse of schools around him.

SC stops taking recruiting seriously circa 2011 so Clemson basically locks down the state.
UT and the NC schools have been a perpetual dumpster fires, so he's cleaned up there.
UF and FSU take turns being mediocre and have coaching changes allowing him to steal talent from FL
GT runs the triple option and UGA even has a downturn at the end of the Richt Era

FSU and SC, their two toughest annual opponents, become terrible on the field allowing an easy path to 11 regular season wins and an ACC title (and thus the playoffs), which compounds the recruiting successes.

He's in a really good spot, but it will be interesting to see how things shake out in the next few years now that he no longer has free reign instate and little competition in neighboring states.
01-02-2019 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 31,023
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 765
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #29
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(01-01-2019 05:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

I don't have any sour grapes about Saban. Everything he has won is because he has useed every rule to his advantage, the schedule to his advantage, the recruiting to his advantage, his staffing the team to his advantage. He is thorough and methodical, an organizational genius and it allows him to dominate.

He has made the most of it. I see him as far superior to the sometimes chaotic Urban Meyer with similar talent on his teams. The closest comparison is Bill Belichik, but without the innovation.

Saban is way better than Belichik. What did BB ever innovate?

Remember what a critic once said about George Martin - "Martin was a great record producer as long as he was the Beatles record producer". What did BB ever win without Tom Brady?

Saban is arguably the GOAT college coach. He is just really good. As for schedules, Alabama has won 3 national titles under Saban playing top 10 schedules.
01-02-2019 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,393
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1027
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #30
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
Interesting data Wedge.
01-02-2019 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,393
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1027
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #31
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
The guy who compiled that failed to to mentioned Ohio State is about 17-4 vs. those elite resource programs.
01-04-2019 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jugnaut Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,929
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: UCF
Location: Florida
Post: #32
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
Seems like performance enchancing drugs may be why, at least for Clemson.

Link to news article

At least 15 percent of Clemson's team that has been tested were using performance enhancing drugs.
01-28-2019 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 136
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 13
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
I think Alabama's dynasty under Saban is pretty easy to understand. A blue-blood...with a great coach with NFL experience...unlimited financial resources (legal and illegal)...

But Clemson's growing dynasty is a bit different. While I have the utmost respect for Swinney as a person and CEO, I have less respect for him as a coach than Saban and others. Why?

He has capitalized on a down ACC. FSU--the one other ACC power--has gone into the tank concurrently with Clemson's rise. It'd be one thing if FSU was 12-1 in 2015 and 2016...with that one loss coming to Clemson...but this was not the FSU of 2012-2014 with Jameis. I'm not trying to paint the ACC as a G5 type conference...but you can't compare the teams in that conference--top to bottom--with the SEC or Big Ten. So, you have a legitimate power in Clemson, who simply doesn't have other top tier programs to beat out? FSU and Miami, their only comparably talented programs, have been up and down as Swinney built his dynasty up. Even VaTech hasn't been rubbish since 2012.
CONCLUSION--Growing beastly in a conference of dwarfs is very do-able...and once you become a legitimate BEAST, you stand out even more and can continue to capitalize on that PROGRAM GAP.
SPECULATION--Put Clemson in a DIVISION with some other super-powers (i.e. Florida, Georgia, Tennessee OR Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan OR Alabama, LSU, TAMU) and you won't see them dominate so much. Without that dominance, their "dynasty" doesn't grow to the proportions it has.
02-02-2019 07:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 136
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 13
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #34
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(12-31-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Top 25...breakdown (% OF TEAMS IN TOP 25)
SEC--9 (5 W, 4 E) 64%
Big Ten--5 (1 W, 4 E) 36%
Big 12--2 (no divisions) 20%
Pac-12--5 (2 S, 3 N) 42%
ACC--3 (2 Atlantic, 1 coastal) 21%
Ind--1

Analysis--building a superpower is easiest in the Big 12 and the ACC. You simply don't have as many elite programs to edge out. And once you can establish yourself as the king (like OU over Texas recently, and Clemson over FSU/Miami), it APPEARS as if you are the king over a whole conference; when in reality, you are the king of a bunch of dwarves.
02-02-2019 07:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,791
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 988
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #35
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(02-02-2019 07:49 AM)micahandme Wrote:  
(12-31-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Top 25...breakdown (% OF TEAMS IN TOP 25)
SEC--9 (5 W, 4 E) 64%
Big Ten--5 (1 W, 4 E) 36%
Big 12--2 (no divisions) 20%
Pac-12--5 (2 S, 3 N) 42%
ACC--3 (2 Atlantic, 1 coastal) 21%
Ind--1

Analysis--building a superpower is easiest in the Big 12 and the ACC. You simply don't have as many elite programs to edge out. And once you can establish yourself as the king (like OU over Texas recently, and Clemson over FSU/Miami), it APPEARS as if you are the king over a whole conference; when in reality, you are the king of a bunch of dwarves.

The Big 10 has had only 4 different champions in the last 14 years. Its a conference with a LOT of dwarves. The Big 12 has had 6 and the ACC 5. Pac 12 has had 6. (Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 all have 9 going back to the beginning of the BCS era, ACC 7).

Big 12 has had 8 of its 10 current members finish in the final top 10 since the start of the BCS era (7 since 2007). All but ISU and Texas Tech. ACC has had 7 of 14 (FSU, Miami, Clemson, VT, Louisville, BC and Georgia Tech). Big 10 has also had 7 of 14 (OSU, WI, MI, PSU, MSU, IA and UNL).

Even this year, the Massey composite had the Big 10 3rd, behind the SEC and Big 12. Realistically, all but the SEC were close (Big 12 44.83, Big 10 48.91, ACC 52.21, Pac 12 55.24).

So your basic assumption is flawed.
02-02-2019 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,791
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 988
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #36
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
And the most obvious flaw in your thinking is the most dominant program in college football, Alabama, playing in unquestionably the strongest conference and in a conference where 4 other conference members have national titles since 1998 and another has appeared in the title game.
02-02-2019 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 639
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #37
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(02-02-2019 07:49 AM)micahandme Wrote:  
(12-31-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Top 25...breakdown (% OF TEAMS IN TOP 25)
SEC--9 (5 W, 4 E) 64%
Big Ten--5 (1 W, 4 E) 36%
Big 12--2 (no divisions) 20%
Pac-12--5 (2 S, 3 N) 42%
ACC--3 (2 Atlantic, 1 coastal) 21%
Ind--1

Analysis--building a superpower is easiest in the Big 12 and the ACC. You simply don't have as many elite programs to edge out. And once you can establish yourself as the king (like OU over Texas recently, and Clemson over FSU/Miami), it APPEARS as if you are the king over a whole conference; when in reality, you are the king of a bunch of dwarves.

Just looking at the polls can be VERY misleading. For example, this year the SEC had by far the most ranked teams going into bowl season. Here are the results:

Baylor 45, Vandy 38
Auburn 63, Purdue 14
#1 Alabama 45, #4 Oklahoma 34
#10 Florida 41, #7 Michigan 15
Virginia 29, S Carolina 0
#19 Texas AM 52, NC State 13
Oklahoma St 38, #23 Missouri 33
#15 Texas 28, #5 Georgia 21
#11 LSU 40, #8 UCF 32
#14 Kentucky 27, #12 Penn St 24
Iowa 27, #18 Miss. St 22
#2 Clemson 44, #1 Alabama 16

(I'm not picking on the SEC, just using them as an example - this applies to all conferences, but the SEC had the most ranked teams).

In 9 bowls involving ranked SEC teams, those teams went 5-4. In games where the SEC team was ranked but the opponent was not, the SEC was 1-2. POLLS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
02-03-2019 10:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 22,899
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2206
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #38
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(02-02-2019 07:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  I think Alabama's dynasty under Saban is pretty easy to understand. A blue-blood...with a great coach with NFL experience...unlimited financial resources (legal and illegal)...

But Clemson's growing dynasty is a bit different. While I have the utmost respect for Swinney as a person and CEO, I have less respect for him as a coach than Saban and others. Why?

He has capitalized on a down ACC. FSU--the one other ACC power--has gone into the tank concurrently with Clemson's rise. It'd be one thing if FSU was 12-1 in 2015 and 2016...with that one loss coming to Clemson...but this was not the FSU of 2012-2014 with Jameis. I'm not trying to paint the ACC as a G5 type conference...but you can't compare the teams in that conference--top to bottom--with the SEC or Big Ten. So, you have a legitimate power in Clemson, who simply doesn't have other top tier programs to beat out? FSU and Miami, their only comparably talented programs, have been up and down as Swinney built his dynasty up. Even VaTech hasn't been rubbish since 2012.
CONCLUSION--Growing beastly in a conference of dwarfs is very do-able...and once you become a legitimate BEAST, you stand out even more and can continue to capitalize on that PROGRAM GAP.
SPECULATION--Put Clemson in a DIVISION with some other super-powers (i.e. Florida, Georgia, Tennessee OR Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan OR Alabama, LSU, TAMU) and you won't see them dominate so much. Without that dominance, their "dynasty" doesn't grow to the proportions it has.

LOL

If this BS were true then it would have showed itself in both OOC matchups and bowls. Vs the P5 OOC and Bowls since 2011 Clemson is 13-6 vs the SEC, 2-1 vs the Big 12, and 2-0 vs both the Big Slow and Notre Dame for a 37-7 record.

And one thing for sure, we'd run through the Big Slow East like **** through a goose. Ask O31-0 State.
02-03-2019 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,514
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 297
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #39
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(02-03-2019 10:49 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(02-02-2019 07:49 AM)micahandme Wrote:  
(12-31-2018 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Top 25...breakdown (% OF TEAMS IN TOP 25)
SEC--9 (5 W, 4 E) 64%
Big Ten--5 (1 W, 4 E) 36%
Big 12--2 (no divisions) 20%
Pac-12--5 (2 S, 3 N) 42%
ACC--3 (2 Atlantic, 1 coastal) 21%
Ind--1

Analysis--building a superpower is easiest in the Big 12 and the ACC. You simply don't have as many elite programs to edge out. And once you can establish yourself as the king (like OU over Texas recently, and Clemson over FSU/Miami), it APPEARS as if you are the king over a whole conference; when in reality, you are the king of a bunch of dwarves.

Just looking at the polls can be VERY misleading. For example, this year the SEC had by far the most ranked teams going into bowl season. Here are the results:

Baylor 45, Vandy 38
Auburn 63, Purdue 14
#1 Alabama 45, #4 Oklahoma 34
#10 Florida 41, #7 Michigan 15
Virginia 29, S Carolina 0
#19 Texas AM 52, NC State 13
Oklahoma St 38, #23 Missouri 33
#15 Texas 28, #5 Georgia 21
#11 LSU 40, #8 UCF 32
#14 Kentucky 27, #12 Penn St 24
Iowa 27, #18 Miss. St 22
#2 Clemson 44, #1 Alabama 16

(I'm not picking on the SEC, just using them as an example - this applies to all conferences, but the SEC had the most ranked teams).

In 9 bowls involving ranked SEC teams, those teams went 5-4. In games where the SEC team was ranked but the opponent was not, the SEC was 1-2. POLLS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

This is even truer when you consider that about half of the SEC's bowl games end up being "neutral site" in name only. They're effectively home games for the SEC.
02-04-2019 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,334
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 588
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #40
RE: This is why we are getting Clemson-Bama for the 4th year in a row
(02-02-2019 11:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the most obvious flaw in your thinking is the most dominant program in college football, Alabama, playing in unquestionably the strongest conference and in a conference where 4 other conference members have national titles since 1998 and another has appeared in the title game.

That could just mean that Alabama's run in the SEC under Saban is even more impressive, because they have been consistent winners in a conference with many heavy hitters and have been the second or third best team every time another team won the conference. They're consistently winning with a higher degree of in-conference difficulty than teams who are consistently at the top of other conferences.
02-04-2019 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.