College football talent gap keep increasing, that's a problem

[michaeljordan_fan]

Every P5 team if they go undefeated, will be in the CFP.

 

[CJH9972]

Or it might not. No reason to change the current system.

Not arguing for changing it except for dumping the committee for actual rules but that is another thread.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Not arguing for changing it except for dumping the committee for actual rules but that is another thread.

The committee's criteria has been clearly posted on its website for quite some time.

 

[Deep Creek]

Every P5 team if they go undefeated, will be in the CFP.

Yeah, that's a real likely possibility given a talent gap that is wider than the Pacific Ocean. You know how wide the Pacific Ocean is don't ya?

 

[fordman84]

Transfer portal has joined the chat.

The ability for more players to transfer and immediately start will be the great equalizer. I've never understood the 5 star kid who signs with a school that has 2 or 3 five-star signees at their same position already on the roster. And it's all cyclical. For all the "Bama is gonna win it all forever" there are many ND and Michigan fans that remember when they thought they were going to win it all forever as well.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Yeah, that's a real likely possibility given a talent gap that is wider than the Pacific Ocean. You know how wide the Pacific Ocean is don't ya?

Baylor was 1 win away, despite vastly inferior talent. You can make excuses, or you can go out and perform.

 

[CJH9972]

The committee's criteria has been clearly posted on its website for quite some time.

And no one knows what combination of that criteria beats any other beyond obvious examples. Of course, the committee is rather predictable since P5 teams are ranked by the records nearly 100% of the time.

 

[Deep Creek]

Baylor was 1 win away, despite vastly inferior talent. You can make excuses, or you can go out and perform.

So, thetalent gap the OP started this thread with isn't increasing and is just an excuse that isn't real, huh?

 

[Across The Field]

CFB in the P5 is still cyclical, even if you don't think so.

1970-1979: We saw teams like michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Arizona State in the top 10 nationally in wins
1980-1989: Miami burst onto the scene, along with Clemson, Georgia, and UCLA in the top 10
1990-1999: Florida, Tennesse, and Texas A&M were all top 10 in wins out of nowhere
2000-2009: USC re-appeared, LSU arrived, and so did Virginia Tech, all top 10
2010-2019: This decade, Stanford, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Clemson all burst onto the scene and are top 10 in wins

There are teams like OSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma that are consistently at or near the top, but the rest have changed regularly from decade to decade. No dynasty is impervious to tumbling, either. I once thought USC and Texas were basically incapable of not being dominant, and that no recruit in their areas would think to go elsewhere. Now look. Whether it's sanctions, coaching turnover, or just down years, things can change and new teams can rise.

 

[Deep Creek]

And no one knows what combination of that criteria beats any other beyond obvious examples. Of course, the committee is rather predictable since P5 teams are ranked by the records nearly 100% of the time.

That is intentional. Equivalent to this.

Skinner's Constant (Flannegan's Finagling Factor) That quantity which, when multiplied by, divided by, added to, or subtracted from the answer you get, gives you the answer you should have gotten.

 

[FSU rules]

Only very few programs have even the potential to change that consistently.

SEC: UF
ACC: FSU
Pac12: USC
Big 12: Texas

That's about it. Just like how UGA rose these programs will rise sooner or later to the absolute elite again (in UF's case they are already good again) and replace 1 or 2 teams of the mentioned above.

But overall you will always talk about the same 8-10 programs in the playoff discussion with a couple programs going up and a couple down depending on coach and circumstances.

CFB has always been really predictable and will always be that way. Location of the program and conference plays simply a way too significant role for it not to be.

 

[Deep Creek]

CFB in the P5 is still cyclical, even if you don't think so.

1970-1979: We saw teams like michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Arizona State in the top 10 nationally in wins
1980-1989: Miami burst onto the scene, along with Clemson, Georgia, and UCLA in the top 10
1990-1999: Florida, Tennesse, and Texas A&M were all top 10 in wins out of nowhere
2000-2009: USC re-appeared, LSU arrived, and so did Virginia Tech, all top 10
2010-2019: This decade, Stanford, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Clemson all burst onto the scene and are top 10 in wins

There are teams like OSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma that are consistently at or near the top, but the rest have changed regularly from decade to decade. No dynasty is impervious to tumbling, either. I once thought USC and Texas were basically incapable of not being dominant, and that no recruit in their areas would think to go elsewhere. Now look. Whether it's sanctions, coaching turnover, or just down years, things can change and new teams can rise.

Neither of those has played in the CFP.

 

[FSU rules]

The moon and the stars will have to align just right for that to happen IMHO.

Even for that you need a Heisman caliber QB and top 15-20 classes. Even such team would not come out of nowhere.

 

[Deep Creek]

Even for that you need a Heisman caliber QB and top 15-20 classes. Even such team would not come out of nowhere.

Yep. I'd say the Vegas odds for teams like that to make it would be set very high.

 

[PIBuckeye]

The gap is actually wider than you think. All you have to do is look at the top 10 recruiting rankings and it's pretty much the same teams year in and year out. The ACC is currently a one team league and that isn't going to change for a while due to recruiting.

The enigma in the Big 12 is Texas who can't figure out what to do with it's talent and OU keeps running away with the offensive talent but they can't put together an entire team with depth.

No one in the PAC has even the slightest shot at winning a national championship right now against the top teams in other P5 conferences.

The top of the SEC and B1G are really where all the talent is right now (one exception being Clemson) and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Before the season starts you can look at the last 4 years of recruiting rankings and there are only about 10 teams that even have a shot to win it all. A team might come out of the blue eventually but I don't see it happening soon.

Yea. agree with all that.

What year was it that the NCAA equalized a little more with the number of scholarship players or something? can't remember the details. early to mid 80s?

About the ACC, that conference is a total joke.

I'm trying to imagine the B1G with this change. Take out PSU, Wisconsin, MSU, iowa, and michigan. replace those teams with 5 teams on the level of indiana, rutgers, & Illinois...........

Must. Be. Nice................

Cakewalk to the B1G champ game and the CFB playoffs.........

IMHO, they need to give strength of schedule a stronger factor in the calculations to figuring out who's in and out........

 

[FSU rules]

Yep. I'd say the Vegas odds for teams like that to make it would be set very high.

That setup gives you a chance.

Sure, there will always be some teams like Utah, Baylor, Michigan State etc. sneak into the playoffs once every 5,6 years or so but with you having to win 2 straight games against elite teams they will always fail with their inferior talent.

Playoff format makes it impossible for them to steal a natty.

 

[Deep Creek]

That setup gives you a chance.

Sure, there will always be some teams like Utah, Baylor, Michigan State etc. sneak into the playoffs once every 5,6 years or so but with you having to win 2 straight games against elite teams they will always fail with their inferior talent.

Playoff format makes it impossible for them to steal a natty.

Teams like those have to hope the eltie teams in their conferences are crapping the bed at the time. Baylor's a good example. OU and Texas didn't want Brewer (even with the history of his family at UT) so they basically get what those two don't want for the most part. So far we've had 24 spots available in the CFP. If my West Texas arithmetic is correct I'd say 3 of those have been occupied by what would be considered non "elite" teams for lack of a better term. Oregon, Michigan State and Washington. So, 12.5%.

 

[cwalke3408]

Yea. agree with all that.

What year was it that the NCAA equalized a little more with the number of scholarship players or something? can't remember the details. early to mid 80s?

About the ACC, that conference is a total joke.

I'm trying to imagine the B1G with this change. Take out PSU, Wisconsin, MSU, iowa, and michigan. replace those teams with 5 teams on the level of indiana, rutgers, & Illinois...........

Must. Be. Nice................

Cakewalk to the B1G champ game and the CFB playoffs.........

IMHO, they need to give strength of schedule a stronger factor in the calculations to figuring out who's in and out........

What a shame OSU can't get pass Iowa, Purdue and MSU. Cry me a river

 

[Across The Field]

Neither of those has played in the CFP.

Stanford probably would have if Harbaugh had stayed, and Wisconsin has gotten very close, being top 10 for 3 of the last 4 years.

 

[Across The Field]

Only very few programs have even the potential to change that consistently.

SEC: UF
ACC: FSU
Pac12: USC
Big 12: Texas

Oregon will get there before USC