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

[rmilia1]

Once again my initial point wasnt that more teams in CBB win titles thsn they do in CFB. It was that more teams are seen as having a realistic chance to win a title. That chance equates to the ability to get better recruits. EVERY college sport has dominating teams. CFB is just the only one who limits their playoff to those teams.

 

[belcherboy]

I would say the goal is give more teams a chance. Zero chance if you don't get in. I do agree, there have probably only been a few teams who did not get into the CFP with a decent chance to win, but crazier things have happened in sports.

I understand what you are saying, but 21 years is a really good track record that it doesn’t make any difference in terms of parity of national title winners. Why change the system if it literally would have made no difference since 1998?

 

[belcherboy]

The goal is opportunity

I always thought the goal of a tournament was to determine who the national champion would be for each season.

If opportunity is the goal, than why not invite every team to the end of the season tournament? That would fulfill that goal for every team.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I always thought the goal of a tournament was to determine who the national champion would be for each season.

If opportunity is the goal, than why not invite every team to the end of the season tournament? That would fulfill that goal for every team.

Look man I don't give a shit ultimately. My team is one of the few that has done well under this system. I do think they will eventually go to 8 and that will be it.

Just don't expect people to sit back and not call out the obvious difference in the two sports.

 

[dtgold88]

I understand what you are saying, but 21 years is a really good track record that it doesn’t make any difference in terms of parity of national title winners. Why change the system if it literally would have made no difference since 1998?

we don't know it wouldn't have made a difference.

And to be fair, I was once adamant they needed to go to 8 teams. Once I saw the first CFP I could not imagine my team having to win still another game to be the champs. Still my preference is 8, but if they leave it as is so be it.

 

[belcherboy]

we don't know it wouldn't have made a difference.

And to be fair, I was once adamant they needed to go to 8 teams. Once I saw the first CFP I could not imagine my team having to win still another game to be the champs. Still my preference is 8, but if they leave it as is so be it.

We do know it didn’t make a difference as both had the same amount of different champions. A tournament didn’t help diversify the champion in basketball any more than college football that didn’t even have a tournament till five years ago.

Money always talks, so it will go 8 teams. My whole argument is that things are likely to be no different. The same 10-12 teams will likely dominate those 8 spots. Either way, I’m still watching. Plus, Michigan is very likely to make the playoffs now! (Although they really have never deserved a shot at the playoffs since they started IMO)

 

[BigKen]

Maybe the NCAA should make new rules where the top 200 high school senior must sign with the bottom 100 Div. I teams every year. In ten years all of the top teams would suck and shitty teams would still suck because their coaches suck. Or have a draft like the NFL and teams get to pick the top 1000 HS players in reverse order of the schools' placement at the end of the season ratings.

My guess is that having a draft would really cause some headaches.

The big problem for most schools is that they rely on MaxPreps for high school ratings and for HUDL to make sure that every kid has film placed every week. Certain areas can't even get state schools to look at their kids' films. The whole system is f*cked up.

 

[Bedlam131]

I think to OP is correct for the most part. One really only look at the talent gap between tOSU and Michigan to see the difference. There are anomalies like with Oklahoma and Texas. Texas recruits better when it comes to classes but, Oklahoma seems to recruit smarter by filling slots that are really necessary like the O line (gonna leave defensive recruiting alone, hopefully that will change for Oklahoma in the near future). Oklahoma also seems to have a knack for finding and developing very talented JUCO players.

I really think that the transfer portal will disperse at least some of the talent. That said, being paid for one's likeness may very well negate that dispersion (depending on how it all works out).

One thing I have not seen mentioned here though is legacies in recruiting. So and so's dad played for X school and that is where the son wants to play (No Nix for example). This plays a decent part in recruiting still.

People talk about recruiting class and all but, I feel the need to bring up something I alluded to above. Recruiting smart. Fill the unsung slots you need to win like O line and D line and build depth there. Good in the trenches makes good players look great. Also, find those diamonds in the rough. As I mentioned above Oklahoma has a knack for finding talented JUCO players that fit their scheme.

Which brings me too my last point. Coaching does matter, use your talent properly. Malzahn wasted Jarrett Stidham by not using him properly.

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

Once again my initial point wasnt that more teams in CBB win titles thsn they do in CFB. It was that more teams are seen as having a realistic chance to win a title. That chance equates to the ability to get better recruits. EVERY college sport has dominating teams. CFB is just the only one who limits their playoff to those teams.

This is true, but I’m not sure the CBB model is intrinsically better except for entertainment value.

Basketball is a sport more prone to upsets than football. One unusually good shooting night can be the end of the best team. That makes March Madness greatly entertaining, especially if you love the underdog.

That said, it can suck to have been the best team all season and be undone by an anomaly. Both scenarios have their pluses and minuses.

 

[Across The Field]

This is true, but I’m not sure the CBB model is intrinsically better except for entertainment value.

Basketball is a sport more prone to upsets than football. One unusually good shooting night can be the end of the best team. That makes March Madness greatly entertaining, especially if you love the underdog.

That said, it can suck to have been the best team all season and be undone by an anomaly. Both scenarios have their pluses and minuses.

We saw a nobody team that barely made the Big Dance not only take down the #1 team in the nation a couple years ago, but absolutely destroy them. This would be like if Miami(OH) beat Ohio State earlier this year by 3 TDs. It will never, ever happen.

 

[rmilia1]

This is true, but I’m not sure the CBB model is intrinsically better except for entertainment value.

Basketball is a sport more prone to upsets than football. One unusually good shooting night can be the end of the best team. That makes March Madness greatly entertaining, especially if you love the underdog.

That said, it can suck to have been the best team all season and be undone by an anomaly. Both scenarios have their pluses and minuses.

For sure but there needs to be balance . CFB already basically gives one "free pass" to their blue bloods. In a 12 or 13 game season when a team gets the best recruits every year and, ostensibly, 1 free loss every year its going to be almost impossible for other teams to get in the playoff thus perpetuating the rectuiting imbalance

 

[Across The Field]

For sure but there needs to be balance . CFB already basically gives one "free pass" to their blue bloods. In a 12 or 13 game season when a team gets the best recruits every year and, ostensibly, 1 free loss every year its going to be almost impossible for other teams to get in the playoff thus perpetuating the rectuiting imbalance

When has this ever actually happened?

 

[rmilia1]

When has this ever actually happened?

Other than every year of the playoff? Lol. Theres never been 4 unbeatens in the playoff. That means you very often get a "free loss" as long as you still win your league (and even sometines when you dont ). In a season with SO few games ( and even fewer you can expect to be actually competitive ) its almost a given teams with huge recruiting advantages will be able to avoid multiple losses.

Basically , for those type teams, CFB is really a 4-6 game season where they can lose once and still get in most years

 

[Across The Field]

Other than every year of the playoff? Lol. Theres never been 4 unbeatens in the playoff. That means you very often get a "free loss" as long as you still win your league (and even sometines when you dont ). In a season with SO few games ( and even fewer you can expect to be actually competitive ) its almost a given teams with huge recruiting advantages will be able to avoid multiple losses.

Basically , for those type teams, CFB is really a 4-6 game season where they can lose once and still get in most years

It's only a "free loss" if there are other teams that have only one loss, an equal/better resume, and they don't get in. There hasn't been a time where a 1-loss playoff team got in over another 1-loss team that was more deserving.

 

[rmilia1]

It's only a "free loss" if there are other teams that have only one loss, an equal/better resume, and they don't get in. There hasn't been a time where a 1-loss playoff team got in over another 1-loss team that was more deserving.

Sure but thats more rare thsn a 1 loss team getting in although we are eventually going to get to the point, if we stay at 4 teams, where most years will see 3 or 4 unbeatens ( as the recruiting gap widens )

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

9 pages of beating this dead horse. Sheesh. If you want in the playoff, if you want the opportunity, WIN YOUR FUCKING GAMES. Pretty simple. Win and you’re in.

And The recruiting argument is garbage. Clemson is not a blue blood. We were a perennial 8 to 9 win team in a “weak” football conference. We weren’t bringing in top 10 classes or competing with Bama, OSU, FSU, Ok, or any of the big dogs in recruiting. Sure, we would manage top 25 recruiting classes but nothing like we’re doing now. We hired the right guy and in return he hired the right people around him. They instilled the culture that has led to winning on and off the field.

Put the right people in place, do the right things, and most importantly win your fucking games and you’re in the playoffs and your recruiting will pick up. Fuck participation trophies.

oh yeah, in case some of y’all are new to college football ....
It is cyclical. No one stays at the top forever.

 

[Across The Field]

Sure but thats more rare thsn a 1 loss team getting in although we are eventually going to get to the point, if we stay at 4 teams, where most years will see 3 or 4 unbeatens ( as the recruiting gap widens )

...what?

 

[Across The Field]

9 pages of beating this dead horse. Sheesh. If you want in the playoff, if you want the opportunity, WIN YOUR FUCKING GAMES. Pretty simple. Win and you’re in.

And The recruiting argument is garbage. Clemson is not a blue blood. We were a perennial 8 to 9 win team in a “weak” football conference. We weren’t bringing in top 10 classes or competing with Bama, OSU, FSU, Ok, or any of the big dogs in recruiting. Sure, we would manage top 25 recruiting classes but nothing like we’re doing now. We hired the right guy and in return he hired the right people around him. They instilled the culture that has led to winning on and off the field.

Put the right people in place, do the right things, and most importantly win your fucking games and you’re in the playoffs and your recruiting will pick up. Fuck participation trophies.

oh yeah, in case some of y’all are new to college football ....
It is cyclical. No one stays at the top forever.

Basically what I said clear back on the first page. I am sure the 2020's will usher in a couple of new top-tier teams and others will drop off.

 

[rmilia1]

...what?

1 loss blue bloods make the playoff FAR more often than they miss it. Actually there have been just as many 1 loss non conference winning blue bloods make the playoff as there has been 1 loss conference winning blue bloods miss it .

So, yes, traditional powers are basically afforded a free loss most years

 

[Across The Field]

1 loss blue bloods make the playoff FAR more often than they miss it. Actually there have been just as many 1 loss non conference winning blue bloods make the playoff as there has been 1 loss conference winning blue bloods miss it .

So, yes, traditional powers are basically afforded a free loss most years

Or - is it that there haven't been other teams to only lose 1 game? If Baylor didn't blow it the second time against Oklahoma, there's a good chance they're in. If Wisconsin doesn't shit the bed against Illinois and keeps playing well in the B1G CCG, they're in. If Oregon hadn't shit the bed against ASU, they'd be in, as would Utah if they could've beaten Oregon. These aren't bluebloods but their paths to the playoff were clear, especially in the case of the Pac12.