Jump to content
BIG ERN

Civil War: CFB Title Landscape

Recommended Posts

There has only been 1 team in the last 20 years from the North to win a National Title - Ohio State (twice). Before them you have to go to 1997 and Nebraska/Michigan. The title numbers from the North have slowly been diminishing since the modern era of college football (1970). If you cut the USA map in half you will quickly find out how much powers are in the South. To be fair there are more higher populations, but simply better high school football is being played. Will the old North powers be able to make a return in the coming years? It seems like getting over the hump has become increasingly difficult. It has never helped that NYC and Chicago have always been basketball cities in regards to high school kids. That leaves very few major cities that can contribute. Michigan and Notre Dame have proven they can get to that top 10 level as of late, but seem to lay an egg when getting to the big post season games. I truly feel Frost in time will get us to this point as well, but who will be the next North team to win a Natty? 

 

Most recent National Titles: 

Ohio State - 2014

Nebraska, Michigan - 1997* (tie)

Washington - 1991 (tie)

Colorado - 1990 (tie)

Notre Dame - 1988

Penn State - 1986

BYU - 1984

Pittsburgh - 1976

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

 I truly feel Frost in time will get us to this point as well...

 

Right after the Iowa game I wasn't feeling this sentiment, admittedly. But after seeing this recruiting class filling some of the holes we have, I see Frost as a visionary and a guy that really can eventually recruit Top 15 talent. I agree that betting on him to get to this level does feel like more of "when" than "if," but the recruiting has to keep trending up (which it is).

 

15 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

...but who will be the next North team to win a Natty? 

 

If Urban Meyer was still at the helm my answer would definitely be Ohio State. But I don't see them doing it with Ryan Day.

I predict Harbaugh will be like the Andy Reid of the college game - constantly falling short. I still do think Brian Kelly has a shot. But I don't think it's insane to bet on Frost being the next one to break the trend...it could just take a lot longer than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Nebraska's most recent National Championship was 1997.

Image result for it's been too long gif

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a couple of reasons the South is dominating.  One would be the coaching.  Take Bob Stoops for example.  He left Kansas State in a lateral move as defensive coordinator to become Florida's defensive coordinator.  Why?  He said the daily schedule was much shorter at Florida than at K State.  Typically, coaches in the South don't have to work as hard or as many hours as they do in the North because they are surrounded by excellent recruits.  Therefore, it's more likely to find the best coaches in the South rather than the North.  Why are the best recruits in the South?  It's the exact same reason that the best hockey recruits are typically found in the North instead of the South.  It's the weather.  More specifically, it's the amount of time as in months young athletes play football in the South when compared to the North.  When one considers the amount of club football played nearly year round in the South, it's of little wonder why those athletes are better prepared for the sport of football because they've simply spent many more hours honing their skills.  Has anyone ever wondered why most of the Bowl games are played in the South?  It's because of the weather and being a more enjoyable experience for the fans.  Well, it's also a more enjoyable experience for most of the players as well.  I know I'd much rather go play catch with my son when it's nice and sunny rather than cold and miserable. 

 

For a North team to become the next NC winner, I think it will take a couple of things.  First, it will take an experienced staff who has worked together for quite some time.  Second, it will take a staff that is geared to player development.  I don't necessarily think the best athletes are all found in the South.  I just think that they're ahead of most players in the North because of the amount more football they've played prior to college.  Helping the cold weather recruits catch up with the warm weather recruits will be key to leveling the playing field.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Nebraska's most recent National Championship was 1997.

 

1997 season, but the game was played on Jan 2 1998 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

 

1997 season, but the game was played on Jan 2 1998 

 

It was the Championship for the 1997 season, same as Michigan's*.

 

Nebraska played on 1/2/1998, Michigan played on 1/1/1998. 

 

Tennessee was the 1998 Champion.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I always root for the northern team in the playoffs.  OSU, PSU, ND, MI, MSU, Wis...etc. have the fan bases and athletic department budgets and facilities.  We need coaches and players.  We finally have a playoff system where we have a better chance of playing ourselves into a chance at an NC without the media always believing the SEC is so great they should just be given the NC.

 

 

We need to just make it happen.....somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Nebraska's most recent National Championship was 1997.

Starting in 1998-2017. Did anyone believe we had a coach leading the program who was a National Championship caliber head coach? 

Frank Solich, Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini, Mike Riley? Hell No

 

Do we have a guy who many people- even nationally will be a national championship caliber coach? Yes we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

It was the Championship for the 1997 season, same as Michigan's*.

 

Nebraska played on 1/2/1998, Michigan played on 1/1/1998. 

 

Tennessee was the 1998 Champion.


I see it that way as well, but many online archives show as 1998 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:


I see it that way as well, but many online archives show as 1998 

 

Whatever site you're seeing that in is wrong.

 

The rings say 1997.

 

dSocrxA.jpg

 

The Trophy says 1997.

 

2POOkeT.jpg

 

Nebraska's publications say it was 1997.

 

Nebraska's website says it was 1997.

 

We celebrated the 20th anniversary of the 1997 National Championship in 2017.

 

I'm super curious to see what source says Nebraska won the 1998 National Championship.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Starting in 1998-2017. Did anyone believe we had a coach leading the program who was a National Championship caliber head coach? 

Frank Solich, Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini, Mike Riley? Hell No

 

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

 

2 hours ago, Ulty said:

Image result for it's been too long gif

 

tumblr_nrv920XMTU1sx2peuo1_r1_250.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

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


I assume it will go to this, but I don't know if that is the best formula. Notre Dame got blown out and Bama - Oklahoma was over at halftime. Do we need to see teams 5-8 get stamped as well? 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:


I assume it will go to this, but I don't know if that is the best formula. Notre Dame got blown out and Bama - Oklahoma was over at halftime. Do we need to see teams 5-8 get stamped as well? 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toe said:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedSavage said:

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. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIG ERN said:

 

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.  

 

23 minutes ago, Waldo said:

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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

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?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Toe said:

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Redux said:

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.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hilltop said:

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.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Redux said:

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.

 

Pretty sure you don't.  Would love to see some examples if this supposedly happens so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

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.

 

Yeah it's why I wish we could play the title game on like last Saturday of December.  It would make things much simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Waldo said:

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. 

This has been brought up alot on Twitter and it's annoying. It doesn't matter what happens 9 out of 10 times, all that matters is what would happen in that one time.

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

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.  

My opinion differs. To be a national championship caliber coach you have to be great at X's and O'x AND recruiting. Thats why few coaches reach that level. Because you have to be excellent at all aspects of your job as a coach. Many can coach but lack recruiting, many can recruit but lack coaching and both scenarios can lead to alot of wins but not the BIG games. 

 

For someone to be a great coach in my mind does both. Good coaches do 1 or the other.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hskrfan4life said:

This has been brought up alot on Twitter and it's annoying. It doesn't matter what happens 9 out of 10 times, all that matters is what would happen in that one time.

Yea ok. Then let’s have a 120 team playoff 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BIG ERN said:

If you cut the USA map in half you will quickly find out how much powers are in the South.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Yea ok. Then let’s have a 120 team playoff 

 

And, that's where the argument usually goes.  Over exaggerate the other direction to a point that's nonsensical.  

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waldo said:

Yea ok. Then let’s have a 120 team playoff 

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said... I simply said They aren't playing 10 times, they are playing once.  It doesn't matter AT ALL if Alabama would win 9 or 8 out of 10 times. All that matters is the ONE time they are playing. Don't know why you felt the need to bring up a 120 team playoff. That's the beauty of College Football, anything can happen in that ONE game.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hskrfan4life said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said... I simply said They aren't playing 10 times, they are playing once.  It doesn't matter AT ALL if Alabama would win 9 or 8 out of 10 times. All that matters is the ONE time they are playing. Don't know why you felt the need to bring up a 120 team playoff. That's the beauty of College Football, anything can happen in that ONE game.

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as north vs south goes I think it’s a talent issue . I don’t have stats to back it up but I’d bet the south produces more 5 star talent than the north and proximity to home weighs on those players college choice . 

As far as a playoff I think this year proved the system works as is . The 2 teams in the championship game were the 2 best teams all year and proved it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

And, that's where the argument usually goes.  Over exaggerate the other direction to a point that's nonsensical.  

Because using hypotheticals to argue anything can happen in a game is just as valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Because using hypotheticals to argue anything can happen in a game is just as valid. 

 

Well...with your reasoning, we wouldn’t even play the regular season because everyone knows Alabama and Clemson should beat everyone at least 90% of the time. 

 

Now, don’t you think reasonable discussion is somewhere in between?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well...with your reasoning, we wouldn’t even play the regular season because everyone knows Alabama and Clemson should beat everyone at least 90% of the time. 

 

Now, don’t you think reasonable discussion is somewhere in between?

Considering they were preseason 1 and 2, one could argue that the regular season was in fact pointless (not that I believe this).

I just think this season, more than ever, has shown disparity between the top 2 or 3 teams, and everyone else. If they move to an 8 team playoff, people will argue the 9th rated team should be in. 

I also attribute this to a losers mentality. If we were all Bama, Clemson, or OSU fans, I don’t think as many people would be advocating for change.  Teams have to bring it every week in college football and that’s what makes it different from other sports and leagues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

As far as north vs south goes I think it’s a talent issue . I don’t have stats to back it up but I’d bet the south produces more 5 star talent than the north and proximity to home weighs on those players college choice . 

As far as a playoff I think this year proved the system works as is . The 2 teams in the championship game were the 2 best teams all year and proved it. 

Using 247’s ratings over the past 3 years (2017-2019), 5 star talent isn’t evenly distributed.

I basically used the 37th parallel, plus all of California to separate north vs south. This would make NC, TN, AR, OK, NM, and AZ be the northern borders. 

The southern states had 77 five star players to the north’s 19. I added Tua (HI) to the south. This will be slightly skewed, as I didn’t look into  hometowns for those that play at prep schools. That is over 80 percent of the 5 star talent in just 47 percent of the US population. The talent seems to stay in the south, as 21 of the 96 players went to Northern colleges. 

I am too lazy to go further, as it would be even better to look at more players (maybe the top 100) each year, to get a more accurate talent distribution. But it’s crazy how much more talented southern schools are. 

To further show this, in the past 3 years, Georgia has recruited 15 five stars on 247, to our 18 four stars. 5 Nebraska recruits have either left town or never made it: Blades, Gebbia, Johnson, Lindsey, and Roberts. I don’t know Georgia’s situation, but that just isn’t fair lol. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

As far as north vs south goes I think it’s a talent issue . I don’t have stats to back it up but I’d bet the south produces more 5 star talent than the north and proximity to home weighs on those players college choice . 

As far as a playoff I think this year proved the system works as is . The 2 teams in the championship game were the 2 best teams all year and proved it. 

You can’t use 1 year as a sample and say it proves the current system works. How would you explain the year Ohio state was the 4 seed and won the national championship. I don’t think Ohio state was even a gimme to get the 4 seed. So they could have almost been left out of the playoff as the 5th rated team but they turned out to be the best. 

 

This year was a rare year where you had 2 super teams. The last time that happened was 05 Texas and usc. Before that 95 huskers and Florida. 

 

So I would not be surprised if you had an 8 seed or 6 seed win the thing one day. There will be a year in the future there will not be a juggernaut team and numerous teams will have a fair shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

How would you explain the year Ohio state was the 4 seed and won the national championship. I don’t think Ohio state was even a gimme to get the 4 seed.

 

They weren't. There was a lot of debate that year on whether they should be the 4th team, and a lot of whining after they got in. It's kinda funny how bad people's memories are. Last year the 3rd and 4th seeds played in the finals. 40% of the time, the finals hasn't been the #1 and #2 seeds, so who's to say the #5 team could never have gotten there? And the argument that there will be arguments about the #8 team is kind of silly. Ya, there will be, but it's not nearly as big of a deal to get the #8 team wrong as it is to get the #4 team wrong, and 8 teams gets rid of the problem of not having a representative from every P5 conference.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want the national champions to prove they are the best all year long, to win their conference championship game, and to win a head to head match up with number 2. Bringing in the 8th best team and giving them another chance to compete for a championship in a postseason tournament, when they didn't do any of those things,  cheapens the regular season, and cheapens the accomplishments of those who did. Can number 7 get hot in the tournament and beat number 1? Yes. Does that really prove they were the best team in football that given year? Not to me. Tournament Champs maybe, but not a true National Champ.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Big Red 40 That's why I'm OK with keeping it at 4 teams. The question shouldn't be 'are they in the top four teams', it should be 'are they maybe the #1 best team in the country this year'. Alabama, Clemson, and Notre Dame were all undefeated and could make a reasonable case that they should be considered #1. That's three teams, and I don't think we've had a year where there's been more than four teams that could claim with a straight face to be the #1 team in the country heading into bowl season.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I still want the national champions to prove they are the best all year long, to win their conference championship game, and to win a head to head match up with number 2. Bringing in the 8th best team and giving them another chance to compete for a championship in a postseason tournament, when they didn't do any of those things,  cheapens the regular season, and cheapens the accomplishments of those who did. Can number 7 get hot in the tournament and beat number 1? Yes. Does that really prove they were the best team in football that given year? Not to me. Tournament Champs maybe, but not a true National Champ.

College football is the only thing that does it this way. That should tell you something. I dont care who is the best team in september or october. The point of the season is to progress and get better all year so you peak at the right time. The best team is the team that hits their peak come early december and carries through early january. The regular season doesnt lose its meaning. If a team performs well all year they get the number #1 seed and get the easiest game to start with the #8 seed. But ya know what maybe the #8 team is actually better. Maybe #8 lost 2 games because they played 2 great teams or had an injury early in the season so they were not at full strength. Then the #1 team destroys every team on their schedule because they play in a weak pac12 or something, or clemson this year in a weak ACC. The regular season is to develop and get better as a team all year and put yourself in position to compete for a championship. 

 

You seem too hung up on the regular season being the determining factor of who the best team is. Just to put it in perspective. 2007 NFL. The patriots went undefeated in the regular season. Should they have just cancelled the playoffs because the patriots earned a championship because they won the regular season? How many super bowls have been won by a team that is not the 1 or 2 seed. If you perform well in the regular season as you state above get advantages by being a higher seed or perhaps a home field advantage in the first round or something. So every game would still matter as much to me because if you get a top 4 seed the first round of the playoff could be at home. I would love to see Florida have to go to Michigan in mid december. It would take away some advantage the south has right now. Especially if a 2nd SEC team gets in as a at large bid. So they get a 6, 7, or 8 seed and maybe have to come to Nebraska or Ohio State or something like that. Plus imagine the benefits the top 4 seeds get in $$$. They get an extra home game with a premier opponent.

 

Whats the fear of a 7 seed beating a 2 seed. Or an 8 seed beating a 1 seed? If they really are deserving of the 1 seed and are the best team deserving of being crowned national champion they shouldnt lose.
Do you dislike march madness when a lower seed beats a higher seed? 

In 2007 were the Giants not the "true" super bowl champion? A division winner maybe but not the actual super bowl champ? 

Did Clemson prove they were the best all year? No. I think they almost lost to syracuse and 1 other game so i dont think they proved they were the best. Alabama won the regular season.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×