Started By
Message
re: Saw an interesting post on Reddit that shows lack of parity in today’s CFB is overblown
Posted on 2/7/21 at 2:50 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 2/7/21 at 2:50 pm to SummerOfGeorge
The capitalist in me doesn't really care if it's lopsided. Other teams needs to invest the resources it takes to compete. Alabama pays Nick Saban like nine million dollars a year for the results he provides. Say what you want, they're committed to winning and they prove it every chance they get. Another part of me knows that all of these teams are in fertile recruiting grounds, and to make up for that would require cheating at a level that would get lesser teams immediately flagged by the NCAA, so it's not necessarily so feasible.
It's mostly just concerning because people will lose interest if there's no a change at the top.
It's mostly just concerning because people will lose interest if there's no a change at the top.
1
Posted on 2/7/21 at 2:53 pm to VagueMessage
The thing is, as noted, the SEC challenges Alabama. The only new blood in the playoffs basically comes from the SEC.
The problem is the P12 and the other teams in the ACC/B1G/B12. Texas, USC, Oregon, Michigan, Penn State, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, etc........somebody has to step up and start showing that every few years they can beat Clemson or Ohio State and win those leagues with 0 or 1 losses. The SEC has that. Those leagues do not.
The problem is the P12 and the other teams in the ACC/B1G/B12. Texas, USC, Oregon, Michigan, Penn State, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, etc........somebody has to step up and start showing that every few years they can beat Clemson or Ohio State and win those leagues with 0 or 1 losses. The SEC has that. Those leagues do not.
This post was edited on 2/7/21 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 2/7/21 at 3:08 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:
No harm in that but I’m not trying to argue that Georgia definitely is not a top 5 program just that by some metrics you could argue they’re not quite there.
Most definitely. A couple different teams could make that claim with some good arguments.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 3:08 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
- The P12 is basically nonexistent on the national stage
- The B1G is dominated by Ohio State (4 straight B1G titles)
- The ACC is dominated by Clemson (6 straight ACC titles)
- The B12 is dominated by Oklahoma (5 straight BXII titles, 8 of the last 9)
This is really the crux of it. Everyone points to Alabama as if they’re the problem but the SEC has actually be highly competitive over the Saban Alabama era.
In the Big-12, it would be quicker to list the years that Oklahoma didn’t win the conference in the 21st century.
In the Pac-12, essentially nobody has been able to stake a claim to the national stage since SoCal got knocked down a peg by the NCAA.
In the ACC, Clemson has been practically uncontested for half a decade since Florida State imploded.
In the Big Ten, Ohio State has won half the conference titles in the 21st century.
None of this is Nick Saban or Alabama’s fault.
Posted on 2/7/21 at 4:40 pm to AUCE05
quote:
We are moving towards a reducing in scholarships and conference championship requirements for playoff entry.
Weird how Auburn fans want less kids to get educations.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 2:12 pm to Bench McElroy
I saw this post over the weekend and didn't have time to respond, so here it is.
This is an absolutely ridiculous way to try to measure "parity". Parity is not measured by how many times an random team makes the Top 4... its measured by how often the same teams ALWAYS make the Top 4.
I'm going to take their analysis a step further and go back to the Pre-BCS Era (1980-1997) which I believe was the true Greatest Era of Parity in the history of the sport..... I am using the Final AP Poll of the Regular Season to produce the Top 4 teams during that era.
Number of Teams to Finish in the Top 4 More than 50% of the Time:
Pre-BCS Era (1980-1997): Zero
BCS Era (1998-2013): Zero
Playoff Era (2014-2020): 4 Teams
Alabama (85.7%), Clemson (85.7%), Ohio State (57.1%), and Oklahoma (57.1%) have all been a part of the playoff in more than half of all the available years.
Alabama and Clemson have been to the Playoff in 6 out of a total of 7 seasons.
Only one team finished in the Top 4 of the BCS six times and that was spread out over a total of 16 years. Now two teams have done it in just 7 years.
That's a lack of parity problem. N other way to explain it.
This is an absolutely ridiculous way to try to measure "parity". Parity is not measured by how many times an random team makes the Top 4... its measured by how often the same teams ALWAYS make the Top 4.
I'm going to take their analysis a step further and go back to the Pre-BCS Era (1980-1997) which I believe was the true Greatest Era of Parity in the history of the sport..... I am using the Final AP Poll of the Regular Season to produce the Top 4 teams during that era.
Number of Teams to Finish in the Top 4 More than 50% of the Time:
Pre-BCS Era (1980-1997): Zero
BCS Era (1998-2013): Zero
Playoff Era (2014-2020): 4 Teams
Alabama (85.7%), Clemson (85.7%), Ohio State (57.1%), and Oklahoma (57.1%) have all been a part of the playoff in more than half of all the available years.
Alabama and Clemson have been to the Playoff in 6 out of a total of 7 seasons.
Only one team finished in the Top 4 of the BCS six times and that was spread out over a total of 16 years. Now two teams have done it in just 7 years.
That's a lack of parity problem. N other way to explain it.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 2:26 pm to 5Wide
quote:
This would probably provide a huge opening for Georgia to be the conference's new power, given how great their recruiting is."
I would love for Georgia to become the dominate team in the SEC most years, but I would rather do it while Saban is there. I hate the attitude of "Let's get rid of the great coach so we can be good!" line of thinking. Beat the best. True, we might not do it and lose some outstanding years and maybe even a shot at a National Championship (2012 and 2017, for example) but it is always better if you can say you beat the best.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 2:28 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Alabama (85.7%), Clemson (85.7%), Ohio State (57.1%), and Oklahoma (57.1%) have all been a part of the playoff in more than half of all the available years.
I get what you are saying, but would it be possible to say that some of that is media driven to get the "right" teams into the playoffs. The "right" teams meaning the ones that would generate more viewership. I don't know if this is what is happening, but just a thought.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:12 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
This is an absolutely ridiculous way to try to measure "parity". Parity is not measured by how many times an random team makes the Top 4... its measured by how often the same teams ALWAYS make the Top 4.
I agree with this. The calculation in the OP is also a biased statistic towards the younger system.
For example if you had 99 teams finish top 4 over 50 years and 4 teams finish top 4 over 2 years, the OP would say the 2 year system had more parity even though it had the exact same playoff both years (4/2 > 99/50)
Every year after the first season the playoff has had Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Oklahoma fill 3 of the 4 spots. That’s pretty bad.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:15 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
since 2005 there are only four teams that have had more than 3 appearances in the top 4:
Alabama (11 times)
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:29 pm to AUCE05
quote:Not in the current BLM climate "We" aren't. Cutting scholly's and leaving hundred's of underprivileged, poverty level kids that would never darken the door of college if it weren't for their athleticism won't happen.
We are moving towards a reducing in scholarships and conference championship requirements for playoff entry. Can't wait for the Gump melt.
Why try to lower the standards off the elite programs and force them down to a mediocre level? Why punish programs that pour money and resources into recruiting and building top level facilities?
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:49 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I get what you are saying, but would it be possible to say that some of that is media driven to get the "right" teams into the playoffs. The "right" teams meaning the ones that would generate more viewership
If that's what they are doing, they are idiots.... because every year Bama plays in it against another team that has recently played in the Title Game, the viewership continues to slip further into the gutter.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:52 pm to Bench McElroy
I see
Alabama 12
Ohio State 9
Oklahoma 9
Clemson 6 in a row
LSU 5
FSU 4
Oregon 4
Your fancy charts and graphs just show the same teams dominating the rankings with a few here and there sprinkled in. Over those 23 seasons the teams listed above have 49 of the 92 slots with the top three getting 30 of the 92 slots or just under a third.
Alabama 12
Ohio State 9
Oklahoma 9
Clemson 6 in a row
LSU 5
FSU 4
Oregon 4
Your fancy charts and graphs just show the same teams dominating the rankings with a few here and there sprinkled in. Over those 23 seasons the teams listed above have 49 of the 92 slots with the top three getting 30 of the 92 slots or just under a third.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:57 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
Your fancy charts and graphs just show the same teams dominating the rankings with a few here and there sprinkled in. Over those 23 seasons the teams listed above have 49 of the 92 slots with the top three getting 30 of the 92 slots or just under a third.
Exactly. The only way to fix the problem is either 1) reduce scholarships from 85 down to 80 or so and 2) reduce the number of teams in Division 1 down from 130 to a more respectable number.... don't know whether that's 65 or 65 + the American or what
Posted on 2/10/21 at 3:57 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
BamaGradinTn
Come up north and play hockey with the big boys.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:02 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
If that's what they are doing, they are idiots.
Absolutely no doubt that the media are idiots.
Like I said, it was more a thought than a fully formed opinion. but it does seem that some of the teams (Clemson and Ohio State and Notre dame for three) are getting into the playoffs when they are clearly inferior. Okay.....Ohio State might belong in there, but my point with them is the Big 10 changing their rules to get them in and then teams that played several more games being passed over so they can get into the playoffs. No doubt, they deserved to be in there more so than ND or Clemson, but there you have it. Three teams that did not deserve to make the playoffs making the playoffs. Two because of weak schedules and bad losses, and one because rules had to be manipulated to get them in there.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:03 pm to BHMKyle
On epoint that has not been discussed in this thread is social media and the camps that are now prevalent. These kids get to know each other. They communicate. They decide before college who they want as teammates and they actively recruit them on social media with no restrictions. They're choosing each other in addition to the school now.
Way back when recruiting was not national except for very few programs like Notre Dame who had a huge national following. You recruited your state and adjacent states with a few programs having the luster to recruit some outside of their region. Look at Alabama and Ohio State's roster now. They're littered with kids from all over the country. In Ohio you'd better be a top 10 kid in the state to get that Ohio State offer because they are most certainly after someone more highly rated in another state if you aren't.
Way back when recruiting was not national except for very few programs like Notre Dame who had a huge national following. You recruited your state and adjacent states with a few programs having the luster to recruit some outside of their region. Look at Alabama and Ohio State's roster now. They're littered with kids from all over the country. In Ohio you'd better be a top 10 kid in the state to get that Ohio State offer because they are most certainly after someone more highly rated in another state if you aren't.
This post was edited on 2/10/21 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:10 pm to TomRollTideRitter
quote:
Every year after the first season the playoff has had Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and Oklahoma fill 3 of the 4 spots. That’s pretty bad.
An argumetn can be had to make a case of who should have made the playoffs and who should not by the success and failure rate of the teams when they made it.
I mean, if you go to the playoffs and get trounced year after year, it is obvious you are over rated and probably should be held out until they join a conference and play a conference championship game and a dedicated conference schedule. (Notre Dame)
It would be hard to argue against Ohio State, Clemson or Alabama, because they have shown the ability to play for and win the games.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:17 pm to ThereGoesHerschel
quote:
The main issue nowadays, to me anyway, is that the top 1 or 2 teams are SO above the rest that a team ranked even like 8th or 9th has zero chance at winning which hasn't always been the case. Even in the 90s with a florida, tennessee, fsu, etc they might slip up to an inferior team now and then. Compare that to present day alabama. You think there's any chance in absolute frick that a cincinnati or a wisconsin is gonna stay within 30?
Sorry, but that's just not true at all.
Let's look at the playoff teams' regular season losses since the playoffs started.
2014 Alabama - regular season loss to #11 Ole Miss
2014 Oregon - lost to unranked Arizona
2014 tOSU - lost to unranked Virginia Tech
2015 Alabama - lost to #15 Ole Miss
2015 Michigan State - lost to unranked Nebraska
2015 Oklahoma - lost to unranked Texas
2016 Clemson - lost to unranked Pitt
2016 Washington - lost to #20 USC
2016 tOSU - lost to unranked Penn State
2017 Clemson - lost to unranked Syracuse
2017 Oklahoma - lost to unranked Iowa State
2017 Alabama - lost to #6 Auburn
2017 Georgia - lost to #10 Auburn
2018 Oklahoma - lost to #19 Texas
2019 Oklahoma - lost to unranked Kansas
2020 was the first year since the playoffs started that at least one of the participants didn't have a regular season loss to a team ranked outside the top 5 at the time the game was played. Going further, throughout the history of the playoffs 15 of the 24 participants - 62.5% - had a regular season loss to a team outside the top 5. Nine of the (37.5%) had a regular season loss to an unranked team.
Posted on 2/10/21 at 4:18 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
BamaGradinTn
Come up north and play hockey with the big boys.
Sounds good to me! I would absolutely love it if we added NCAA hockey.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News