Cdog923

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Captain America: Winter Solder and Black Panther disagree with you. Hell, 3/4 of the MCU disagrees with you.

If that's the case, just go back to the bowl coalition.

If anything, it undervalues his worth and ability as a recruiter.

You haven't read the playoff expansion thread, have you?

The rankings came out the exact same way that they do nowadays; after kids sign, before they play a game. That happens in every class, and is counterbalanced by the high ranked recruits. Tommie Frazier was, by all accounts, a 5 star player. Ahman Green was one of the top 3 RBs in the country, as was DeAngelo Evans. There's a Google spreadsheet floating around with Lemming's old ratings: You can see that, in 1992, Nebraska had 16 of his high rated players: the #1 option QB, # 16 RB, #14 & #16 WB, #19 OT, #10 DT, #6 NG, and #10 OLB. In '93, we had a top 10 RB, top 10 OT, top 10 CB and top 10 S. In '94, we had a top 10 TE and top 2 DE. In '95 alone, we had 15 players, including the #3 RB, #2 OG, #3 OLB and the #10 and #11 DT QBs. Hell, in '97, we got 2 of the top 4 DT QBs.

Like crabcakes?

Or, more logically, Maryland.

One of Jim Delaney's biggest regrets will be not getting Notre Dame to join the Big Ten.

That's where I pulled my earlier post from.

Which is exactly why I facetiously tried to diffuse the conversation last night . At least I got to scratch that math itch this morning though.

Max Emfinger and Tom Lemming were the two main recruiting gurus back in the 90s. Their rankings can be difficult to find, but here's the provided info I could find about how they ranked the recruiting classes that Coach Osborne had during his most successful years. 1992: E - 5th, L - 10th 1993: No records 1994: E - 6th 1995: E - 3rd, L - 5th 1996: E - 9th, L - 10th So, Hedley's hypothesis about needing to recruit in the top 10 holds water; 3 of those classes set up National Titles.

Of course a Big Ten, 0 or 1 loss Nebraska makes the playoff. However, Nebraska has had 25 seasons with 0 or 1 losses, with 14 of them coming before 1962 (including the 1890 Nebraska Old Gold Knights, who went 2-0 under legendary coach Langdon Frothingham). That's 127 seasons, or roughly a 20% probability of Nebraska having 0 or 1 loss, if you want to weigh every season the same. Now, they'll be 130 FBS teams by next year, with 4 making the playoff, which gives us a 3% probability of inclusion, but a 25% probability of winning. Now, if somebody who is smarter in math than I am would check this, I would appreciate it (my brain doesn't start working again until next week), but I think that give a probability of both events occurring somewhere in the vicinity of 0.6%. Now, let's expand the playoff to 8 teams. This gives us roughly a 6.2% probability of making the playoff, but a 12.5% probability of winning. The overall probability of both that and Nebraska losing only 0-1 games is roughly 1.2%, or about double what it would be under the current format. Again, if someone wants to check my maths, I would appreciate it. The point of all of this is that, yes, it would be more difficult for Nebraska to win a National Championship under an 8 team format. However, the probability of Nebraska having a 0 or 1 loss team is not that high (the probability is certainly lower due to the difficultly level of today's college football compared to the past, but there's no way in hell I'm working with weighted averages right now), which means it's a far better proposition to minimize your margin of error and maximize your chances of getting into the playoff. That's the point that a majority of posters in this thread that are in favor of an expanded playoff have been making: not only is it more fair, and more college football, it gives Nebraska many more opportunities to be able to win a National Title.

And the one sort-of outlier had a transcendental QB to push those two classes in the 20s over the hump.

A vast majority of the posters in the thread? I can get you an itemized listing if you'd like.

That's the point that was being debated, though....

I think you might have missed me being a bit facetious with that last post. However, you cannot win the title without getting into the playoff, and an 8 team playoff is almost twice as easy to get into as a 4 team playoff (if my math is correct).

Yea, but it's still the offseason, so we have to fill the board quota for disagreements. "I disagree with your opinion that you want to move to 8 teams".

We beat them in the bowl game the year before.

The point is, UCLA went 4-8 in 2016, but had the 27th ranked SOS. Nebraska went 9-4, but had the 47th ranked SOS. Knowing that, who is the better team? The one who played a harder schedule and lost, or the one who played an easier schedule but won?

Without looking, in 2016, who was the better team: Nebraska or UCLA?

I was stating my agreement

By going to the 5 + 3 method, you actually make it less subjective than the current format.