College Football 2021

[oldschoolvikings]

50 minutes ago, Alex Houston said:

Someone more well versed in the details can explain this to me. Why does the SEC seem to have the most robust pipeline for recruits compared to well established schools across the rest of the country? I can see how big state schools have boosters and enough money flowing in to recruit top talent, but since 2006, five non-SEC schools have won and three of them were SEC adjacent. Compare the modern area with the run of titles from 1994-2005 and you see winning schools from all regions of the country. All regions had at least one appearance during that time. So I wonder what rules are being bent that are allowing one specific conference to maintain a Patriots like strangle hold on the DI championship.

 

 

Short answer;

 

Long answer;

 

It's the current playoff system.  Now, there only four post season spots that matter. The rest of the bowls were mostly afterthoughts even before the current system, but now there barely even qualify as that. If you aren't in the playoff, NO ONE cares. So, if you are a 5 star recruit with your pick of destinations,  and you want the exposure to get the attention of the NFL, you want to go to one of the schools that has a decent shot at the playoffs. Right now, that's about 6 to 8 teams (I'm being generous) and half of them are in the SEC.  And that just feeds on itself... those teams get the best players, they make the playoffs, so the next round of top recruits go there too. I probably shouldn't complain because I graduated from one of those schools and we're currently benefiting from that recruiting goldmine, but that could change.  

 

One thing that could help (I doubt it would solve it, but help) is to expand the playoffs... more teams means more options for top recruits who put "chance at the playoffs" at the top of their wish list.

 

But on top of that, the SEC has different admission standards, and other factors that probably someone else could explain better than me. 

 

Oh, and also...

 

[infrared41]

8 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

the SEC has different admission standards,

 

Calling "are you good at football and do you have a pulse" an admission standard is a bit of a stretch, but your point remains.

[DEAD!]

18 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

 

I take it this stock photo guy is so rich, he did not need to make an effort to grab any of the bills. 

[oldschoolvikings]

Hey, let’s talk about this some more…

 

About 20 years ago, one of my best friends was a rep for Adidas, and took me with him on a visit to Notre Dame when he was dropping off some new shoe prototypes for the assistant AD to look at. They walked us thru the locker rooms under the stadium (my buddy told me not to mention I was just some dopey fine art grad student who had no business being there) which were currently set up to receive incoming possible recruit visits.

So, they’re all set up to try the best they can to impress a bunch of high school kids and sell them on why they should come to ND. What do you think they’d see?  Championship banners? Nope. Photos of Knute Rockne? Nope. Museum memorabilia? Again, nope. The very first thing those recruits were going to see was a wall of jerseys… the NFL jerseys of all the current ND graduates who were playing the NFL. Because they knew that THAT was the number one thing those kids wanted… a ticket to the NFL.  So if you are a school that doesn’t really have an impressive roster of NFL grads, you're going to have issues competing with that.   

The current top five college programs with the most active players in the NFL?  In order;

1.      Alabama

2.      Ohio State

3.      LSU

4.      Georgia

5.      Notre Dame

Hmm… why do the teams on that list seem so familiar? 

 

Unlike the NFL, where if you suck enough you get a shot at better players, in college if you’re great you attract great.  

What’s the NCAA supposed to do… tell kids they aren’t allowed to attend the college of their choice because it’s bad TV?

[BBTV]

Wasn't there some controversy about Notre Dame having to lower their admission standards in order to recruit the same dummies that the SEC schools get to grab?  Not sure if that actually happened or not, but I vaguely recall some talk about schools that maintained the same (or at least not drastically different) standards for athletes as they do for legitimate students wouldn't be able to compete.

 

I watched some of the Cincinnati vs Alabama game, and I'm not sure how anyone can make the case that being 13-0 should automatically qualify you for this flawed playoff system.  That team didn't even look competitive, and probably did a disservice to all the other non-power conferences.  Major-college sports are a complete farce to begin with, but they either need to dramatically expand the playoff so that schools like Cincinnati can get in without taking a spot away from a more competitive team, or just separate the big 5 conferences from all the others and just say that the title is for them.

[infrared41]

31 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Wasn't there some controversy about Notre Dame having to lower their admission standards in order to recruit the same dummies that the SEC schools get to grab? 

 

Paul Hornung made some waves a while back saying something to the effect that Notre Dame wouldn't be competitive until it lowered admission standards.  I don't remember exactly what he said, but I do remember it causing a bit of a stir.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

I watched some of the Cincinnati vs Alabama game, and I'm not sure how anyone can make the case that being 13-0 should automatically qualify you for this flawed playoff system.  That team didn't even look competitive, and probably did a disservice to all the other non-power conferences.  Major-college sports are a complete farce to begin with, but they either need to dramatically expand the playoff so that schools like Cincinnati can get in without taking a spot away from a more competitive team, or just separate the big 5 conferences from all the others and just say that the title is for them.

 

Cincy looked better than Michigan, or at least their defense looked competent for most of the game, until they were worn out from being on the field too much. Michigan was outplayed from the start. And Cincy didn't do any worse than Florida State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Michigan State, or Washington have done in previous years. If you think G5 schools should be excluded because of Cincy's performance, then we may as well exclude every team except Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia, Oregon, and LSU.

 

[Red Wolf]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

I watched some of the Cincinnati vs Alabama game, and I'm not sure how anyone can make the case that being 13-0 should automatically qualify you for this flawed playoff system.  That team didn't even look competitive, and probably did a disservice to all the other non-power conferences.  Major-college sports are a complete farce to begin with, but they either need to dramatically expand the playoff so that schools like Cincinnati can get in without taking a spot away from a more competitive team, or just separate the big 5 conferences from all the others and just say that the title is for them.

 

I know you don't care about college football despite your loud opinions about it, but who would be the better option from this season? Looking at the CFP rankings, the #5 team was Notre Dame. Cincinnati beat them. Probably not #6 Ohio State who lost to Michigan, the other victim of an ass kicking last night. #7 Big XII Champion Baylor had two losses, one of which was to TCU the week after they fired their coach and who finished with a losing record. If we're determined to only have major conference champions, the other options are Pitt who lost to Western Michigan and a mediocre Miami team. Utah lost to San Diego State, BYU, and a mediocre Oregon State. If there's a more deserving school that would have been competitive I can't find them.

[floydnimrod]

Even Ohio State got waxed by Clemson 31-0 one year in the playoff.

 

Preface to my thoughts below: I'm a Cincinnati fan. I've lived here my whole life. I try not to be biased about sports in the annoying way most people are. I don't yell at the TV like a damn maniac. I don't say things like "we need to make adjustments at halftime" to essentially nobody out loud to prove that I know know football things.  When the game is over I stop thinking about it. Sports is a bonus. They're fun when teams I like win. And when they lose I really don't give a :censored:. It really is just a game. 

 

Based on the metrics that the NCAA puts forth Cincinnati deserved to be there. Were they one of the four best teams in the country? Not at all. I watched all thirteen games. Maybe top 8. Ohio State would beat Cincinnati this season by at least what Alabama did. The game was closer than what I was expecting. Everyone knows this and has the entire season. We could have just skipped the season and had Clemson, Ohio State, Alabama & Georgia play at the beginning of the year and wrapped this whole thing up in September.

 

Ohio State put together they're OOC schedule themselves, albeit years ago. And they lost one of those games. That's the risk when you play good teams. Cincinnati played a weaker conference schedule than all other teams in playoff consideration. The players have no say in that. They played 13 times, they won 13 times. That's all you can ask of them. And they barely got in.

 

I'm really not sure what other teams should have been in over them. And what different result would have played out against Alabama.

 

They mentioned before the game that the average margin of victory in the semifinal round of the college football playoff is 21 points. This data exists. Why we continue to think a playoff expansion would be good football or more exciting is beyond me.

[DEAD!]

31 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

 

I know you don't care about college football despite your loud opinions about it, but who would be the better option from this season? Looking at the CFP rankings, the #5 team was Notre Dame. Cincinnati beat them. Probably not #6 Ohio State who lost to Michigan, the other victim of an ass kicking last night. #7 Big XII Champion Baylor had two losses, one of which was to TCU the week after they fired their coach and who finished with a losing record. If we're determined to only have major conference champions, the other options are Pitt who lost to Western Michigan and a mediocre Miami team. Utah lost to San Diego State, BYU, and a mediocre Oregon State. If there's a more deserving school that would have been competitive I can't find them.

At least that's a debate worth having.  Better yet, get rid of the in-season rankings.  Just have the voters decide amongst conference champions. The playoffs don't need expanding.  Just make the conference title games mean more. 

[BBTV]

42 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

 

I know you don't care about college football despite your loud opinions about it, but who would be the better option from this season? Looking at the CFP rankings, the #5 team was Notre Dame. Cincinnati beat them. Probably not #6 Ohio State who lost to Michigan, the other victim of an ass kicking last night. #7 Big XII Champion Baylor had two losses, one of which was to TCU the week after they fired their coach and who finished with a losing record. If we're determined to only have major conference champions, the other options are Pitt who lost to Western Michigan and a mediocre Miami team. Utah lost to San Diego State, BYU, and a mediocre Oregon State. If there's a more deserving school that would have been competitive I can't find them.

 

So it would seem that this year, there are two teams that are just head and shoulders ahead of everyone else.  I don't know CFP history so is this common or an anomaly?   If it's common, then my "better option" would be a bigger playoff - one that keeps teams from having a month or more off, and let's the borderline teams eliminate each other before bothering the obviously-better teams.  It's either that or just go with the top two teams like before this CFP thing.

 

One thing I've never "gotten" about college football is how teams can wrap up their season before December (or early December now that there's conference championship games) and then have their next game a full month away.  I know that's how it's always been, but it seems pretty silly to just dust off these teams after a month and have them go play their best game. 

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, floydnimrod said:

They mentioned before the game that the average margin of victory in the semifinal round of the college football playoff is 21 points. This data exists. Why we continue to think a playoff expansion would be good football or more exciting is beyond me.

 

An expanded playoff would be better in theory; giving more teams an opportunity, and shortening the amount of time that teams sit idle between regular season and postseason. Unfortunately, with the current state of college football, the end results would not change. The same teams will still win because they've stacked the deck. Unless the NCAA actually enforces universal minimum academic standards, and requires every school to actually honor scholarships, the schools in power will remain in power regardless of postseason format. But we all know the NCAA won't do sh!t to change anything.

 

[infrared41]

38 minutes ago, BBTV said:

One thing I've never "gotten" about college football is how teams can wrap up their season before December (or early December now that there's conference championship games) and then have their next game a full month away. 

 

It probably goes back to when college football players were true student athletes, schools were closed for the holidays and...who am I kidding, there was never a time when college football players were true student athletes. I have no idea why they do that . Probably to buy time for the fans to travel.

[infrared41]

Remember back when the BCS was awful and everyone believed the only solution was a College Football Playoff?

[See Red]

6 hours ago, Alex Houston said:

Someone more well versed in the details can explain this to me. Why does the SEC seem to have the most robust pipeline for recruits compared to well established schools across the rest of the country? I can see how big state schools have boosters and enough money flowing in to recruit top talent, but since 2006, five non-SEC schools have won and three of them were SEC adjacent. Compare the modern area with the run of titles from 1994-2005 and you see winning schools from all regions of the country. All regions had at least one appearance during that time. So I wonder what rules are being bent that are allowing one specific conference to maintain a Patriots like strangle hold on the DI championship.

 

 

This is a few years old, but:

 

 

Ultimately some combination of the south producing most of the blue chip talent in the country and SEC programs investing more into football/recruiting than programs in other conferences.   It's been exacerbated by the success of the conference, the increased exposure its teams/players get, and the rate at which the conference puts kids in the NFL, all of which make the conference more attractive to recruits.

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I also wonder about children moving away from football. I would imagine that would take longest to take hold in the southeast.

[aawagner011]

While there’s some truth to some SEC schools not having the greatest admission requirements, a blanket statement like that isn’t fair. Georgia’s 2021 incoming freshman class had an average 4.1 GPA. Florida’s incoming middle 50% student profile (that’s what they sampled on their university site) had a 4.4 - 4.6 GPA. This is not meant to be a humble brag, but I had a 3.9 high school GPA with multiple advanced placement classes and got rejected from Georgia over a decade ago. I had to go elsewhere my freshman year, make the grades, and transfer in. I think Texas and Oklahoma will also add to the overall academic pedigree even though I wasn’t thrilled at them joining football-wise. Of course, there’s Vandy, too.

 

These schools definitely have a good support system for the student athletes but they have to. The top programs are often from the SEC because it’s such a massive talent pool and they can recruit their own back yards, they invest in their facilities (constantly), invest in their staff (including support staffs), and regularly put players in the league (number one reason). With TV revenues and staff salaries the way they are, if your athletic department isn’t investing in its program, it will be left behind. In a way, college football is most similar to big European soccer with the top teams usually staying at the top. There’s no salary cap to “make it fair for everyone.”

[RyanMcD29]

1 hour ago, burgundy said:

 

An expanded playoff would be better in theory; giving more teams an opportunity, and shortening the amount of time that teams sit idle between regular season and postseason. Unfortunately, with the current state of college football, the end results would not change. The same teams will still win because they've stacked the deck. Unless the NCAA actually enforces universal minimum academic standards, and requires every school to actually honor scholarships, the schools in power will remain in power regardless of postseason format. But we all know the NCAA won't do sh!t to change anything.

 

Just to add on to it, a lot of what I've seen is "look at FCS football, they can pull off a 24 team playoff no problem!"

 

Only issue with that is.. well, you have NDSU a week away from winning their 9th national title in the past 11 seasons. And D-2 and D-3 haven't exactly had a lot of parity either. It would liven up the preliminary rounds a bit and get more teams to the table, but if you're looking for expansion to help out with parity it ain't coming.

[crashcarson15]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

Wasn't there some controversy about Notre Dame having to lower their admission standards in order to recruit the same dummies that the SEC schools get to grab?  Not sure if that actually happened or not, but I vaguely recall some talk about schools that maintained the same (or at least not drastically different) standards for athletes as they do for legitimate students wouldn't be able to compete.

Notre Dame's admission standards for football players (and other athletes) sit somewhere between "treat them the general population" and "let dummies in". The kids you're talking about still can't get into ND and never will.

 

I think an easy way to think about it is that a school like Notre Dame admits something like 4,000 kids each year from an applicant pool of like, 20,000 objectively qualified kids. 100% of the athletes who have a good enough GPA and SAT/ACT are getting in, versus maybe like, 10% of qualified non-legacy applicants — they don't have to find the magic line in their admissions essay or hope a teacher writes the perfect letter of recommendation to get in like most applicants do. There may be a few kids who get in every year on the athletics side that wouldn't stand a chance in the "normal" applicant pool, but they're far from being dummies.

[crashcarson15]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

It probably goes back to when college football players were true student athletes, schools were closed for the holidays and...who am I kidding, there was never a time when college football players were true student athletes. I have no idea why they do that . Probably to buy time for the fans to travel.

I mean, I think the original origin is probably the Tournament of Roses Parade pre-dating the Rose Bowl Game itself — that set January 1 as the date, and all of the legacy bowls followed when they were founded. It becomes a tradition thing at that point, and in the days before commercial air travel, it probably didn't hurt that it gave fans time to travel.