Civil War: CFB Title Landscape

[BIG ERN]

Yea and maybe that still holds true but I think you see a lot more upsets and the championship becomes much more unpredictable than it is now.  Maybe Bama doesn't make it this year with an 8-team playoff.  Not that anyone would have likely beat Clemson but maybe a more northern team gets in.  I think with an 8-team playoff the likelihood of a northern team making it to the championship increases, which obviously would create much more opportunity for one to win it.

I agree it helps more teams, just not sure that means it is the best way...Ohio St, UCF, and GA deserved to be able to play this year IMO. Don't think much would have changed though 

 

[Huskers93-97]

Two guys who coached in a national championship game, one who coached in a Super Bowl... and Mike Riley.

1 guy coached in a super bowl then got fired- not proven at the college level. Another guy was an assistant on a national championship team- thats a far cry from being the head coach. The other guy inherited talent off arguable the greatest 5 year run in college football history. Made it to a national title out of default of a hugely flawed system- lost his last game by like 30+ and lucked into the title game then got destroyed there. Plus Mike Riley explains himself. 

So I dont think anyone thought we had a National Championship caliber coach until now.

 

[Waldo]

An 8-team playoff would go a long way to putting an end to that

Hate this argument. No matter how many teams are in the playoff, people will complain about the one that got left out, similar to college basketball. I think the top 4 teams this year were fair and the right choices. LSU got stomped by Bama at LSU. Bama would more than likely beat Ohio Sate or UCF 9 out of 10 times. 

 

[RedSavage]

I agree it helps more teams, just not sure that means it is the best way...Ohio St, UCF, and GA deserved to be able to play this year IMO. Don't think much would have changed though 

You have 8 teams and you are pretty much assured to have a b1g team in the CFP, unlike this year.  I’d argue that most years the b1g and $EC are the strongest 2 conferences top to bottom.  You get a b1g school in every year and the odds of northern based team being in the championship go up a fair amount.  Same with other conferences.   Is it the best way?  Probably not but I don’t see many other ways of increasing the chances of it happening.  

Hate this argument. No matter how many teams are in the playoff, people will complain about the one that got left out, similar to college basketball. I think the top 4 teams this year were fair and the right choices. LSU got stomped by Bama at LSU. Bama would more than likely beat Ohio Sate or UCF 9 out of 10 times. 

I agree that the top 4 teams were in this year but I disagree with the rest.  After seeing what Clemson did to Bama, even being down this year, I think Ohio state woulda had a shot at beating them.  Heck, maybe a UCF beats Bama and then plays Ohio state who then wins that one.  The potential outcomes and upsets of the CFP go up dramatically with 8 teams.  The horse has been beat ad naseum but I’ve seen plenty of suggestions/possibilities that almost entirely eliminate a deserving team being “left out”.

 

[brophog]

Over the last 25 years we keep changing who decides or how many we choose, but we never address the data that drives decisions. College football generates bad data, and expansion has only made that problem worse. The only reason we can even sort of pretend any of these solutions have worked is because most years see one or maybe two teams so stacked that virtually any method would have generated a plausible result.

If someone really wanted to address this, then address the data. That means shrinking the set of all teams down to a manageable number such that you create a web of comparison across all teams. 130 is way, way too many. Half of that may work if they only played each other. Conferences need to shrink by about half so everyone can play a true round robin with balanced scheduling. Major powers from conference A need to schedule major powers from conferences B,C,etc.

This isn’t radical thinking, it’s more or less how basketball works (and most American sports for that matter). Most of the conferences play double round robins, and major powers frequently play each other either by home and home or through early season tournaments. They still suffer from all of the short comings of a single elimination tournament, the worst possible tournament structure, but they generate much better data to input into that structure. Because of that their arguments are more about fairness of selection rather than eliminating teams in the process whom had a decent chance of actually winning those 6 games in a row.

 

[Toe]

1 guy coached in a super bowl then got fired- not proven at the college level. Another guy was an assistant on a national championship team- thats a far cry from being the head coach. The other guy inherited talent off arguable the greatest 5 year run in college football history. Made it to a national title out of default of a hugely flawed system- lost his last game by like 30+ and lucked into the title game then got destroyed there.

You might as well just say that in your view no coach is a 'National Championship-caliber coach' until they've actually won one as HC, then. Did you think Dabo Swinney was a 'National Championship-caliber coach' when Bo beat him?

 

[Born N Bled Red]

I guarantee this streak changes when the 8 team CFP allows the higher rated teams host the first round. First time northern teams sweep the highest seeds, the south gets completely shut out. They are scared to play in the cold.

 

[Huskers93-97]

I guarantee this streak changes when the 8 team CFP allows the higher rated teams host the first round. First time northern teams sweep the highest seeds, the south gets completely shut out. They are scared to play in the cold.

That is a good point. I could see that swinging some talent- because those kids will want to know how to play in the cold. 

Avoiding the cold makes no sense in my mind- they all want to play in the league at some point. Like half the teams are cold.

 

[Huskers93-97]

You might as well just say that in your view no coach is a 'National Championship-caliber coach' until they've actually won one as HC, then. Did you think Dabo Swinney was a 'National Championship-caliber coach' when Bo beat him?

Not at all. I think some coaches show an ability or potential to be great. I dont think I need to explain that further unless you need me to. How many local or national people said Wow- Nebraska landed Bill Callahan- watch out for the huskers in future. The only one people really were excited about and had their eye on was Pelini because he had Potential. But that his ceiling ended up being lower than we thought or hoped. 

You can look at Scott Frost and see he could win a national championship someday. He is aggressive, he is a visionary, he connects with the kids so should be a good recruiter etc. When Texas hired Tom Herman you could say Herman has potential to be a big up and comer. 

When Pelini beat Dabo he was an inexperienced coach so I dont think anyone was judging him off that. I thought someone on here said when he got the head coaching job he just a position coach before that and never even a coordinator? So he was raw potential when hired- but unproven. That potential they saw obviously had a very high ceiling.- Unlike Pelini. 

Of all 3 hires before Frost. Did anyone say- Nebraska is making a hire to contend? I dont think so. 

 

[Redux]

In Big Ern's defense, when did they start recognizing the champion as the champion of the year the game was played instead of the season they had just finished?  There is a window where it shifts, Clemson just won the 2019 CFP.  Was it during the BCS era?

 

[Mavric]

In Big Ern's defense, when did they start recognizing the champion as the champion of the year the game was played instead of the season they had just finished?  There is a window where it shifts, Clemson just won the 2019 CFP.  Was it during the BCS era?

They have never done this.   They've always listed the National Champion as the year the regular season was played.

They say the team played/won the bowl game/playoff in the year those games were held but not the National Champion.

 

[Hilltop]

I would argue that Pelini was a National Championship caliber coach who couldn't recruit.  Take that second off the clock against Texas and I give him a decent shot to win that game behind a huge effort by Suh.  Pelini had a plethora of issues but he was great at the X's  and O's when he had dominant talent.  

 

[Redux]

They have never done this.   They've always listed the National Champion as the year the regular season was played.

They say the team played/won the bowl game/playoff in the year those games were held but not the National 

I feel like I've seen it both ways though.  The season played is the correct way obviously, but I remember seeing it the other way as well.  I can't be alone.

 

[Mavric]

I would argue that Pelini was a National Championship caliber coach who couldn't recruit.  Take that second off the clock against Texas and I give him a decent shot to win that game behind a huge effort by Suh.  Pelini had a plethora of issues but he was great at the X's  and O's when he had dominant talent.  

I wonder how many people argue that Pelini (and other coaches) are only good when they have great talent (trying to talk down the coach's success) and then turn around and argue that we'll never complete with the Ohio States and Michigans - let alone on the national stage - until we get better talent.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think where the confusion is, is when they list the bowl game that was won, to win the championship.  Honestly, I always get confused with it to when thinking back.

OK....to win the 94 championship, we won the 95 Orangebowl.  To win the 95 championship, we won the 96 Fiesta Bowl...etc.