Best roster of coaches in the B1G?

[Across The Field]

My bad...but by West Texas standards 2.5 hours is "next to" something.

And define nationally competitive please. Only one of those six you listed has made the CFP and that is Sparty. And, them winning the conference that year could possibly say more about the quality of the B1G that year than it did about the quality of Sparty..considering the results in the CFP semifinal. 38-0 I believe. And before you go off on me, Sparty and Iowa are my favorites in the B1G.

I agree that Tech, WVU and Iowa State could be better. But, so could a bunch of P5s...again...considering their resources. Some G5s are just as good with a hell of a lot less resources.

In the last 3 years, 6 different B1G teams have finished ranked in the final AP top 10. In the last 3 years, 2 different Big 12 teams have finished ranked in the final AP top 10. That's what I mean.

 

[Across The Field]

Browning and Dobbins really hurt. Okudah never even really considered us.

Yeah I was surprised by that. Seemed like the only contender we dealt with was Oklahoma.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

We don't have to hypothetically argue how good Wisconsin would be based on recruiting rankings. We saw them play this year. You know, when the Badgers went 13-1 with our only loss coming to a top five team by six points. Without the injuries to Cephus or Dixon, that team whose recruiting classes are 1, 1, 1, and 1 probably doesn't make the playoffs at all. We do.

You are trying to use trends and correlations to say that Wisconsin can't compete with the best teams in America, instead of looking on the football field and seeing that they pretty obviously can.

And, of course, the irony of your little trends is that the very same trends and metrics will show that Wisconsin has outperformed the recruiting rankings yearly for 20 years and produced top ten NFL talent in that time.

I'm sure you think that Michigan has a better chance to win a title than Wisconsin in the next decade. I'm also sure that a decade ago you would have said Michigan would have more wins than Wisconsin in the next decade. Yet here we stand, a decade later, and you not only had fewer wins. You didn't even have one season with more wins than us.

It isn’t hypothetical. It is fact. I will wait for you to show me the last national champion who had a recruiting cycle of classes in the 30’s. Take your time.

 

[Across The Field]

We went to 10 in 2011 when Nebraska and Colorado left.

Oh that's right, WVU hadn't joined yet. My bad.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Yeah I was surprised by that. Seemed like the only contender we dealt with was Oklahoma.

Meh, some kids just want to go out of state. It is what it is. If we were actually winning he might have felt differently. Everybody isn't going to buy into the whole "things are changing" recruiting pitch.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Oh that's right, WVU hadn't joined yet. My bad.

It's kind of hard to believe it's already been that long isn't it? Nebraska has played 6 seasons of Big 10 football. For all intents and purposes they are you guys. Not a single player on their roster has played a down of Big 12 football. Seems like yesterday we were talking shit to each other about who's fault it was they were leaving.

 

[Across The Field]

It's kind of hard to believe it's already been that long isn't it? Nebraska has played 6 seasons of Big 10 football. For all intents and purposes they are you guys. Not a single player on their roster has played a down of Big 12 football. Seems like yesterday we were talking shit to each other about who's fault it was they were leaving.

It's hard to believe they've been in the conference that long but then I also think of that 2011 game that we gave away to them in Lincoln and that seems like decades ago.

 

[7Samurai13]

Can I cherry pick too? In your last 23 games — MSU is 11-12.

Go right ahead of it’s the truth.

 

[Wamu]

Can I cherry pick too? In your last 23 games — MSU is 11-12.

So Sparty had a down year last year. They turned things around quickly & had a better season than meeeechegan. Also Michigan State fans aren't insane like some of you wolvereeeen fans. How many different programs & HC's have you tried to go after in a lame attempt to make meeeechegan seem better than they really are? And how long will it take you to figure out Jimmy Jam isn't a miracle worker? It'll be interesting to see what bullshit excuses you have for next season though.

 

[kburjr]

So Sparty had a down year last year. They turned things around quickly & had a better season than meeeechegan. Also Michigan State fans aren't insane like some of you wolvereeeen fans. How many different programs & HC's have you tried to go after in a lame attempt to make meeeechegan seem better than they really are? And how long will it take you to figure out Jimmy Jam isn't a miracle worker? It'll be interesting to see what bullshit excuses you have for next season though.

Rains every Saturday?

 

[Deep Creek]

In the last 3 years, 6 different B1G teams have finished ranked in the final AP top 10. In the last 3 years, 2 different Big 12 teams have finished ranked in the final AP top 10. That's what I mean.

Okay. Thanks. I think a lot of people would have a very similar definition.

If I understand correctly, "nationally competitive" as you define it means "ranked in the final AP top 10". If you aren't in that group, you are/were not considered "nationally competitive". If you are in that group, you are/were considered "nationally competitive".

If so, that is a pretty interesting group. I had no idea it would look like this when I started breaking it down. I really thought there would be more than 2 teams in the "all three year" group. Going by your definition, the order for the most "nationally competitive" conference is:
Percentage basis
1. B1G (43%)
2. Pac 12 (42%)
3. Big 12 (30%)
T-4 ACC and SEC (21%)

Raw # basis
1. B1G (6)
2. Pac 12 (4)
T-3. ACC (3), Big 12 (3), SEC (3)

There are 21 teams that are nationally competitive going by one year final top 10 AP, 7 teams that are nationally competitive going by two of last three years final top 10 AP and 2 teams nationally copetitive going by being ranked in the final top 10 in all past three years.

And, you would be correct in your B1G assessment in going by your definition.
B1G - 6 of 14 or 43% are"nationally competitive"
Pac 12 - 5 of 12 or 42% are "nationally competitive"
Big 12 - 3 of 10 or 30% are "nationally competitive"
Big 12 - 3 of 10 or 30% are "nationally competitive"
SEC - 3 of 14 or 21% are "nationally competitive"

These two teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll the past three years
Alabama (2nd, 1st, 4th)
Ohio State (6th, 4th, 1st)

These five teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll two of the past three years.
Clemson - '16, '15 (1st2nd)
Oklahoma - '16, '15 (5th, 5th)
Florida State - '16, '14 (8th, T-5th)
Michigan State '15, '14 (6th, T-5th)
TCU '15, '14 (7th, 3th)

These fourteen teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll one of the past three years.
USC - '16 (3rd)
Washington '16 (4th)
Penn State '16 (7th)
Wisconsin '16 (9th)
Michigan '16 (10th)
Stanford '15 (3rd)
Houston '15 (8th)
Iowa '15 (9th)
Mississippi '15 (10th)
Oregon '14 (2nd)
Baylor '14 (7th)
Georgia Tech '14 (8th)
Georgia '14 (9th)
UCLA '14 (10th)

Breakdown by conference
AAC - 1 (Houston -1)
ACC - 3 (Clemson - 2, Forida State - 2, Georgia Tech -1)
Big 12 - 3 (Oklahoma -2, TCU - 2, Baylor -1)
B1G - 6 (Ohio State - 3, Michigan State 2, Penn State -1, Wisconsin - 1, Michigan -1, Iowa -1)
Pac 12 - 5 (USC -1, Washington -1, Stanford -1, Oregon -1, UCLA -1)
SEC - 3 (Alabama -3, Mississippi -1, Georgia -1)

These are the final top 10 the past three years per this link: Final AP Polls

2016
1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. USC
4. Washington
5. Oklahoma
6. Ohio State
7. Penn State
8. Florida State
9. Wisconsin
10. Michigan

2015
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Stanford
4. Ohio State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan State
7. TCU
8. Houston
9. Iowa
10. Mississippi

2014
1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Alabama
T-5. Florida State
T-5. Michigan State
7. Baylor
8. Georgia Tech
9. Georgia
10. UCLA

 

[Across The Field]

Okay. Thanks. I think a lot of people would have a very similar definition.

If I understand correctly, "nationally competitive" as you define it means "ranked in the final AP top 10". If you aren't in that group, you are/were not considered "nationally competitive". If you are in that group, you are/were considered "nationally competitive".

If so, that is a pretty interesting group. I had no idea it would look like this when I started breaking it down. I really thought there would be more than 2 teams in the "all three year" group. Going by your definition, the order for the most "nationally competitive" conference is:
Percentage basis
1. B1G (43%)
2. Pac 12 (42%)
3. Big 12 (30%)
T-4 ACC and SEC (21%)

Raw # basis
1. B1G (6)
2. Pac 12 (4)
T-3. ACC (3), Big 12 (3), SEC (3)

There are 21 teams that are nationally competitive going by one year final top 10 AP, 7 teams that are nationally competitive going by two of last three years final top 10 AP and 2 teams nationally copetitive going by being ranked in the final top 10 in all past three years.

And, you would be correct in your B1G assessment in going by your definition.
B1G - 6 of 14 or 43% are"nationally competitive"
Pac 12 - 5 of 12 or 42% are "nationally competitive"
Big 12 - 3 of 10 or 30% are "nationally competitive"
Big 12 - 3 of 10 or 30% are "nationally competitive"
SEC - 3 of 14 or 21% are "nationally competitive"

These two teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll the past three years
Alabama (2nd, 1st, 4th)
Ohio State (6th, 4th, 1st)

These five teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll two of the past three years.
Clemson - '16, '15 (1st2nd)
Oklahoma - '16, '15 (5th, 5th)
Florida State - '16, '14 (8th, T-5th)
Michigan State '15, '14 (6th, T-5th)
TCU '15, '14 (7th, 3th)

These fourteen teams finished top 10 in the final AP Poll one of the past three years.
USC - '16 (3rd)
Washington '16 (4th)
Penn State '16 (7th)
Wisconsin '16 (9th)
Michigan '16 (10th)
Stanford '15 (3rd)
Houston '15 (8th)
Iowa '15 (9th)
Mississippi '15 (10th)
Oregon '14 (2nd)
Baylor '14 (7th)
Georgia Tech '14 (8th)
Georgia '14 (9th)
UCLA '14 (10th)

Breakdown by conference
AAC - 1 (Houston -1)
ACC - 3 (Clemson - 2, Forida State - 2, Georgia Tech -1)
Big 12 - 3 (Oklahoma -2, TCU - 2, Baylor -1)
B1G - 6 (Ohio State - 3, Michigan State 2, Penn State -1, Wisconsin - 1, Michigan -1, Iowa -1)
Pac 12 - 5 (USC -1, Washington -1, Stanford -1, Oregon -1, UCLA -1)
SEC - 3 (Alabama -3, Mississippi -1, Georgia -1)

These are the final top 10 the past three years per this link: Final AP Polls

2016
1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. USC
4. Washington
5. Oklahoma
6. Ohio State
7. Penn State
8. Florida State
9. Wisconsin
10. Michigan

2015
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Stanford
4. Ohio State
5. Oklahoma
6. Michigan State
7. TCU
8. Houston
9. Iowa
10. Mississippi

2014
1. Ohio State
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Alabama
T-5. Florida State
T-5. Michigan State
7. Baylor
8. Georgia Tech
9. Georgia
10. UCLA

2014 isn't part of the last 3 years. 2015/2016/2017 is what I meant.

 

[Deep Creek]

2014 isn't part of the last 3 years. 2015/2016/2017 is what I meant.

Do we have a final AP poll for 2017 yet?

 

[Across The Field]

Do we have a final AP poll for 2017 yet?

I can tell you Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State are going to finish top 10 from the B1G. Oklahoma will also, and that's gonna be it for the Big 12.

 

[Moab]

Did I actually read that somebody on here stated the B12 has less of a regional talent pool to pull from than the B1G?

 

[Across The Field]

Did I actually read that somebody on here stated the B12 has less of a regional talent pool to pull from than the B1G?

Yes, you did. Evidently because Texas Tech is in West Texas, it means the entire conference is hindered when it comes to recruiting.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

This year’s matchup is:

Alabama — recruiting class ranking last 4 years 1,1,1,1
Georgia — recruiting class rankings last 4 years 3,6,6,8

Go down the board and tell me when you find on who averages recruiting classes in the 30’s like Wisconsin

I think Oregon when we played them? I don't feel like looking at the rankings back then but I don't think Chip was ever pulling in top 10 classes in Eugene.

I wonder what #'s gene chizik was pulling at Auburn

although both of those teams had stud QB's, which Wisconsin has never been able to pull.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

So Sparty had a down year last year. They turned things around quickly & had a better season than meeeechegan. Also Michigan State fans aren't insane like some of you wolvereeeen fans. How many different programs & HC's have you tried to go after in a lame attempt to make meeeechegan seem better than they really are? And how long will it take you to figure out Jimmy Jam isn't a miracle worker? It'll be interesting to see what bullshit excuses you have for next season though.

Just like 99 percent of coaches, Harbaugh ain't shit without a QB. If he gets one, I think he will have Michigan competing on the national level, if he doesn't, he will probably get run out of town eventually.

 

[Wamu]

Just like 99 percent of coaches, Harbaugh ain't shit without a QB. If he gets one, I think he will have Michigan competing on the national level, if he doesn't, he will probably get run out of town eventually.

I agree w/ that. And while I talk alotta shit about Jimmy Jam I have always said he's a damn good CFB coach. I just can't call him 1 of the best when he hasn't won anything. Losing record against his rivals, no division titles, no conference crown, doesn't have multiple big time bowl wins & no Natty. But if you listen to a few special meeeechegan fans he's the best HC in CFB because he had success in the NFL.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

It isn’t someone — it is the amount of teams who bring in the recruits necessary to win a championship.

If you don’t agree — tell me the last team to win a national title and didn’t have any top 10-15 recruiting classes in the past 4 year cycle.

I don't really care about the recruiting rankings due to transfers, grade/morale risks that never make it to the team, injuries, etc.

I started using 247's total team talent to get a feel for the talent actually on the roster. Not what they signed. Some schools recruit the shit off of grade risks to make their rankings look better for recruiting momentum. Knowing damn good and well they will never step foot on campus.

2017

Bama #1
Georgia #4
Clemson #9
Oklahoma #16

2016

Bama #1
Ohio St #5
Clemson #9
Washington #24

2015

Alabama #1
Clemson #13
Oklahoma #16
Michigan St #23

That's as far back as it goes. I think your point probably stands overall, but it isn't impossible to get a playoff shot without top 10 talent. Almost half the teams that have gotten a shot so far haven't been in the top 10 most talented teams in college football according to recruiting rankings.