re: Can Georgia becomes the Alabama of the east?

KInda my point in regards to "parity"

Nebraska is the main big time program that didn't make
the cut.

Only if they pull all of their teeth, don’t finish high school, marry their 400 pound cousins, and start shitting out a bunch of inbred retards for actual taxpayers to have to foot the bill to feed. Oh and they’ll probably have to up the domestic violence a bit

quote:

---

Let’s see what you got.

---

So just to make it clear, for some who may not be keeping-up, we're talking about parity on a "potential national championship level" in college football ... and whether or not that parity is growing.

I centend that it is for a number of reasons all stated in an earlier post.

Here's my argument for parity growing.

There will always be unexpected contenders for slots in the playoffs ... every single year. That's something that is relatively new to college football. We can even go back and prove an uptrend in parity by looking-back at the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and especially the BCS systems.

UCF made their case last year. As previously stated, IMHO they didn't deserve a shot, but their win over Auburn only bolstered their argument. There is no denying that in the eyes of a lot of college football fans. And UCF was not loaded with 5* talent.

quote:

---

The first year of the BCS ended in controversy when one-loss Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings, but were passed over for participation in BCS games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and two-loss Florida (8th).

---

quote:

---

In the second year of the BCS, Kansas State finished 6th in the BCS standings, but once again received no invitation, instead being passed over in favor of Michigan (ranked 8th). 

---

quote:

---

Florida State (11–1, ACC Champions) was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma (12–0, Big 12 champions) in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their one loss coming to another one-loss team, the Miami Hurricanes (10–1, Big Eastchampions), who were ranked No. 2 in both human polls. Adding to the controversy, Miami's one loss came to yet another one loss team, the Pac-10champion Washington Huskies, leaving three teams with a legitimate claim to play Oklahoma in the National Championship game.

---

So ... so far we've made a case for two none traditional power programs that should have, vould have, would have made the playoffs and this dates back to the '90s when the parity and scholarship limits began to show. Because of the snubs ... each and every season the system had to be tweeked and each and every season more and more the human bias factors have been removed from the system to account for the growing parity.

quote:

---

In another controversial season, Nebraska was chosen as a national title game participant despite being ranked No. 4 in both human polls and not winning their conference. The Huskers went into their final regular season game at Colorado undefeated, but left Boulder with a 62–36 loss, and Colorado went on to win the Big 12 championship.

---

Miami ended-up winning the championship, but guess who the other two participants would have been in today's system. Colorado and Oregon.

2002-2003 it would have been OSU, Miami, SoCal and Iowa.

Note, Miami would not even have qualified given their Big East schedule today ala UCF ... and Iowa is by no means a traditional national powerhouse program.

2003-2004

Who can forget that one. Split National Champion with all.of us agreeing that LSU was the best team in the country and SoCal would have barely made today's playoffs with their horrible SOS.

Plaoffs? It would have been Oklahoma, LSU, SoCal and wait for it ... Utah.

This could go on and on and on. Matter of fact, in the past twenty years that have been no less than 27 different non-traditional-power college football programs that would have made the college football playoff, or had an undeniable argument to do-so, under today's playoff system.

If that's not proof of parity trending upwards then Chuck Norris has no hair on his arse.

It's undeniable. Things have changed in the game on so many levels compared to the old days when blue chip talent was limited and only the old traditional powerhouse programs signed them all because they had 200-150-100 scholarships to give. Hell, I remember when Notre Dame would sign 50 kids a year every year when I was a kid. I remember SoCal signing 61 in one class in 1964.

Those days are long gone and the game is better for it. And now, every year, there is at least one, usually more, non-traditional-power programs that make a play for a title-shot consideration.

That's growing parity and it's only going to get better and better as time goes on.

quote:

---

Second, you need to stop grouping USCe with the better programs. The numbers you talk about in regards to revenue have you closer to Kentucky and Arkansas than you are to the big 6 + A&M.

---

To a degree I can be on board with your reasoning....but South Carolina, in their heyday with Steve Spurrier, proved they could hang with the big boys. They went through a3-5 year peiod of time in which they were as good as, better than, or at least close to Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn and LSU.
They couldn't sustain it, but they proved to me, that they are capable of becoming a major player over a short term with the right coach.

True, they stumbled and fell short in some of those years, but that is a part of learning how to win consistently. Shoot, lots of teams stumble occasionally. LSU/Troy. Auburn/UCF, etc...Georgia has stumbled and so has everybody else. But South Carolina had some excellent teams for a period of time. If they can find the right coach, learn more consistency....lookout.

quote:

---

DawgsLife

---

Upvoted ... wish I could give you more for always being a reasonable Dawg.

quote:

---

I think his point was that, all things considered, the team with the most talent wins. And, more often they do. True a lesser talented team with excellent coaching can win, too. But talent will win more often than not. Alabama is a good example of that...although they have good coaching, too.

---

And I'm not debating that fact ... matter of fact I agreed with it multiple times.

What I am debating is whether or not we are seeing more and more parity in college football with the talent gaps shrinking, or not.

And I stated my case as to why and then went back and proved the trend over the past 25 years or so.

But, I totally agree. Great players win Championships provided they are developed and added to make good chemistry ... which is part of "all things considered."

What some are trying to do in this debate is to take parity and scholarship limits and growing talent bases throughout the South out of the "all things considered" part of the debate.

quote:

---

Upvoted ... wish I could give you more for always being a reasonable Dawg.

---

Thank you. I try to be reasonable and unbiased, but in the end I am a Georgia fan, so there will always be some bias to my thinking.

quote:

---

While true, you should also recognize that things have changed at Georgia. Surely you noticed that, right? I mean we certainly "took advantage" of it last year, and also beat an excellent Oklahoma team, to beat, so....

---

There has been change, but it also has been overstated by the weakness in the East and UGAs schedule last year. OU was a team that could score points, but couldn't stop a pee wee team if it had to.

quote:

---

We're all only human. The first step is admitting that we all have biases. I know I do.

---

Facts are facts. We all have them and as a whole, we all embrace them.

quote:

---

Would OU have beaten UCF?

---

Ouch! Very good question! I'm just not as quick on the draw as I once was!



I always read your posts with interest, as I am an older poster, too. We tend to see things with an eye of experience unlike many on this board.