Only a 2-team race for the Natty

You forgot Auburn.

quote:

---

Will expanding the playoff create parity?

---

Nope as all it will do is give the few elite programs a definite mulligan maybe 2 if it ends up 12 or 16 teams.

If UGA would have won the SECCG I believe Alabama would have stayed home. In any expansion including 8 UA would have went.

These soon to be super conferences will make it even harder where the elite will remain at the top.

quote:

---

Will expanding the playoff create parity? How does college football get back to the 2000-2010 where you had 8 different winners with only LSU and Florida repeating?

---

No, the best recruiters, coaches and programs will continue to be just that. Its always been that way in college football. The time frame you mention above, honestly there were some powers that were down during this time frame. USC was the only constant 11-12 win team and that was only for about 5 years. Everybody else, including Florida was 12-1 then 9-5, then back to 12-1 then back to 8 wins.

With Uiagalelei?

Naw

quote:

---

Will expanding the playoff create parity?

---

In the short term, no. But I would argue in the long term the answer is yes.

quote:

---

Only a 2-team race for the Natty

---

by the mid-way point of the season, how many teams truly have a shot to win the natty in any given random year? It's cerrtainly less than 5. And this is going back decades.

The reason people keep putting out these articles is simply because alabama is the one constant and that's boring as hell for everyone besides bama fans. In the 90s you could throw a dart at a calendar and in that year drawn at random you could probably rely on UF/FSU/Nebraska/Miami being a titel favorite by the halfway point. Those teams won 7 national titles that decade but no one ever mentions lack of parity then.

Look at the next decade 2000-2009. UF won 2 titles. LSu won 2 titles. USC and OU were in the top 4 or 5 seemingly every year. OSU won a title and played in 2 more. NObody coplaind about lack of parity.


The main issue now is that unlike the above when you had the same 4-5 teams over a decade that all had a shot with MAYBE a random outsider (like colorado/washington/penn state/michigan/tennessee in the 90s for instance) getting hot briefly, nowadasy you pretty much have one single team that is going to more oftne than not play for the title eveyr year, with another (osu) right there a step behind them. I don't think people's main issue is "lack of parity", I think it's the lack of parity within that lack of parity if that makes sense ha. It's fine if you only have a small handful of teams with a legit title shot, but at least switch out who those teams are every once in a while. Seeing bama in the playoffs eveyr year is just a bore.

quote:

---

With Uiagalelei?

---

They managed to win 10 with him last year. I don’t see anyone in that conference with the talent to stand up to an experienced Clemson team.

quote:

---

Unsure what they said, but a bit silly to dismiss the defending national champions.

---

If you click on the link it’ll take you right there. Yea Internet.