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

[7Samurai13]

Acutally, Oklahoma has only made it 3 years in a row, and 4 times out of six years. And this is the 5th straight year for Clemson.

Dropping the G-5 teams won't increase participation, unless the G-5 gets its own playoffs. With their own playoffs, then they would probably lose their guaranteed access to the New Years Six bowl games & the money that goes along with it. And it also doesn't mean the other P-5 teams will suddenly get better a be able to challenge the current front-runners on a regular basis.

Stop trying to distract us with facts.

 

[rmilia1]

But those same 9 or 10 win the tournament just about every year, don't they? Since 1985 No. 1 seeds have won 14 championships, No. 2 seeds have won four, No. 3 seeds have won three, and No. 4 seeds have won one. That accounts for 22 of the 24 national championships since the field was expanded to 64 teams. (NCAA Tournament Seed Trends and Overall Records)

We love to say how amazing the NCAA tournament is for basketball, but the bottom line is that the top seeds win 92% of the time...especially if you are a #1, #2, or #3 seed.

Absolutely but its not about winning it all. Its about historic upsets, memorable runs etc. Those things make recruiting easier too. The top teams will still usually win but the top teams will have more variance in winning and the teams just below top tier will get better players too

 

[rmilia1]

Yeah but basketball is on a whole different level, easier to make a playoff with higher amount of teams bc of the game of basketball, also easier for an upset. More difficult to do a big playoff for football, also going to be harder for a team to upset. That's why I don't like comparing the two, same goes for baseball like basketball.

Eh we see huge upsets in cfb all the time. We just dont value them as mich because a lot of those same teams still get to compete for titles

 

[Goldbug]

I have suspected for a long time that the "pay for play" crowd is mostly made up of the fans whose schools are NOT the top programs in the country. Think about it. If they can ever get things loosened up enough, they might not be able to recruit or afford as many top athletes as the elite schools but they could certainly budget money for picking off a few players they really need with some long dollars making the difference for those kids who think they're a mini-Lebron anyway. Crap State University needs that really good 4/5 star QB or other player to kick it up a notch and compete for a conference championship? Then CSU digs deep and "buys" the kid hoping for the best......and then they can gloat that he decided not to attend Stud University after all.

 

[belcherboy]

Absolutely but its not about winning it all. Its about historic upsets, memorable runs etc. Those things make recruiting easier too. The top teams will still usually win but the top teams will have more variance in winning and the teams just below top tier will get better players too

So a tournament is not about winning it all?

Isn’t that the whole purpose of doing a tournament?

 

[WizardHawk]

Breaking away from G5s won't change it in any way. You can't change the balance of power when the top kids are always going to get to choose their school. It's about getting seen and getting the best coaching with the best chance of making the league.

Realign all you want, but it won't change where those 5s and high 4s are going.

 

[rmilia1]

So a tournament is not about winning it all?

Isn’t that the whole purpose of doing a tournament?

Not if youre using it to discuss recruiting lol.

 

[belcherboy]

Not if youre using it to discuss recruiting lol.

So recruits are drawn as much or more by making the playoffs compared to winning the playoffs?

The bottom line from my perspective is that unless the lower tier teams are winning the tournament, the upper level teams, who are winning the tournament will always have the advantage. Adding tournament teams doesn’t erase that advantage until the top tier teams start losing championships.

It seems in men’s and women’s basketball, if you aren’t a top 3 seed, you are VERY unlikely to win it. It gets to be like winning the lottery once you are out of top 4 seeds.

 

[rmilia1]

So recruits are drawn as much or more by making the playoffs compared to winning the playoffs?

The bottom line from my perspective is that unless the lower tier teams are winning the tournament, the upper level teams, who are winning the tournament will always have the advantage. Adding tournament teams doesn’t erase that advantage until the top tier teams start losing championships.

It seems in men’s and women’s basketball, if you aren’t a top 3 seed, you are VERY unlikely to win it. It gets to be like winning the lottery once you are out of top 4 seeds.

Of course recruits are more drawn to teams who have a practical chance to win a title. First step to that is making the playoff. Otherwise what differentiates Michigan or Michigan St bssketball from Northwestern basketball? ( for example ). None of those 3 have won a title in the current recruits lifetimes.

 

[belcherboy]

Of course recruits are more drawn to teams who have a practical chance to win a title. First step to that is making the playoff. Otherwise what differentiates Michigan or Michigan St bssketball from Northwestern basketball? ( for example ). None of those 3 have won a title in the current recruits lifetimes.

So then making the tournament doesn’t really help balance things? It seems that the same teams still win the most championships. Are teams actually getting better recruits by making the tournament, or are they just not developing them like the traditional power house teams?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

They're insane for keeping helton

 

[AlaskaGuy]

They're insane for keeping helton

Helton has a fat ass buyout which drops significantly after next season.

 

[rmilia1]

So then making the tournament doesn’t really help balance things? It seems that the same teams still win the most championships. Are teams actually getting better recruits by making the tournament, or are they just not developing them like the traditional power house teams?

Thats not true. Weve had far more balance in cbb than cfb. Part of that is scholarship limitations which wont change but theres simply more balance because more teams are seen as having a chance to win.

 

[belcherboy]

Thats not true. Weve had far more balance in cbb than cfb. Part of that is scholarship limitations which wont change but theres simply more balance because more teams are seen as having a chance to win.

Why do you say that? There have been more different teams winning national titles in college football than in college basketball since 2000.

The perception doesn’t make it a reality. If more teams could win the championship, why isn’t it happening? (At least since 2000)

 

[BamaDude]

Eh we see huge upsets in cfb all the time. We just dont value them as mich because a lot of those same teams still get to compete for titles

Your new avatar is great. Huge, even!

 

[belcherboy]

By the way @rmilia1, I’m enjoying the conversation here. I’m sorry if I’m coming off snarky. My buddies and I have these same arguments from time to time, and I often change my view because of them. So thanks for taking the time to argue with me.

 

[rmilia1]

By the way @rmilia1, I’m enjoying the conversation here. I’m sorry if I’m coming off snarky.

Its good man. Not snarky. People hate change especially when it involves stuff they love ( like CFB) and it really is a thin line between opening the playoffs ( thus recruiting ) to more teams and at the same time making sure you dont dilute the regular season. My only point here is that a 4 team playoff is only going to widen the recruiting gap and in a sport like CFB where guys HAVE to stay 3 years recruiting gaps just perpetuate disparity

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Your new avatar is great. Huge, even!

It's fabulous.

 

[gotigersgo]

Why do you say that? There have been more different teams winning national titles in college football than in college basketball since 2000.

The perception doesn’t make it a reality. If more teams could win the championship, why isn’t it happening? (At least since 2000)

Love it. Not true. There have been more different teams win in CBB than CFB since 2000 (11-10). Also, Memphis and Butler came within a shot of winning. How many different teams in the Final Four vs. the top four in football, btw? You made a completely meaningless point.

 

[gotigersgo]

Why do you say that? There have been more different teams winning national titles in college football than in college basketball since 2000.

The perception doesn’t make it a reality. If more teams could win the championship, why isn’t it happening? (At least since 2000)

Again, not true.