It’s difficult. I’m the same way about the college basketball championship anymore. Same goes for professional championships outside of the superbowl. I guess if I’m not interested in the teams playing, I can’t get interested.
Almost forgot - - UGA-TCU is tonight
- Thread starter NCanton Panther
- Start date
It’s difficult. I’m the same way about the college basketball championship anymore. Same goes for professional championships outside of the superbowl. I guess if I’m not interested in the teams playing, I can’t get interested.
I think its official that Georgia has supplanted Alabama as top dog. As Saban eventually retires it will be interesting to see how long their run will go.
Partly it is the placement of games, going significantly past the New Year and when football fans ( mostly) shift into NFL playoff mode.
But a big part of it is resignation that there are only truly the same 3 or 4 teams likely to win the thing every season. Every…single…season. Seeing a rare outlier get in the game, to suspect (quite correctly) that it will be slaughtered, and to then to see that assumption redeemed when the game is over by early 2nd quarter … just cements the futility of all it. Really it is amazing the sport is still as popular as it is. Forget Pitt winning, it is seemingly almost as impossible for giants like Nebraska, Penn State, Oklahoma, Florida to realistically hope to do it.
Recruiting talent matters.
But, speaking of recruiting class rankings that matter, how well did TCU recruit compared to Michigan over the past 3-4 years? How about Oklahoma or Texas?
How come in the NFL, the 5*'s can run against other 5*'s even when they're under center?
"sufficient" "necessary"
C'mon.. So recruiting rankings only matter if you want to "WIN" a national championship but they don't really matter for all other games including playoff games?
I don’t think this is true.
For Penn State and Nebraska it is.
But some teams are just down. The cycle will change and they will be up again at some point.
I think they matter for almost all games. The statistics show that. The 5* classes have a higher winning % against all other classes. The 4* classes have a higher winning % against all classes below them. Etc.
The playoffs consisted of, according to 247, the number 2, 3, 13, and 33 ranked recruiting rosters.
The 33 ranked team proved to everybody that if you go against a team that crowds the box and wastes a bunch of plays running the football, and if you get some once every 5-ish years turnover luck, and a horrible TD overturn, you can upset a team that recruits outside of the Top 10 in the playoffs.
You think it was Michigan's offense that was the problem? C'mon..
Michigan put up 530 yards against TCU's defense, the same as they did vs the 5 star littered OSU team.
Michigan pounded OSU which took Georgia to the wire.
Yes, I think Michigan going 3 for 13 on third down hurt them.
And I think one reason why they were 3 for 13 is because they ran the ball 40 teams for 180 yards. They constantly put themselves behind the sticks bunching the box and forcing the run.
They did the same thing against Ohio State. Their offense was actually incredibly inefficient. A few broken plays early in the passing game kept them in it. And the defense did the rest. At the end of the game the Ohio State defense gave in.
This all seems besides the point anyway. Recruiting class rankings matter. They matter more than anything. They are the necessary requirement.
Every playoff has proved that to be true. Including this year’s.
Last edited:
TCU proved what?
TCU proved you can take a team that doesn't recruit in the top 25, yet they can beat a bunch of teams that do and find a way to play for a national championship.. And, it's not like Sonny Dykes is the next coming of Belichick when it comes to coaching.
Congrats to them.
They beat two teams that went 14-10 in the regular season, and where the only thing close to recruiting powers on their schedule.
And then upset a team that recruits outside of the Top 10 thanks to two pick 6s and a horrible overturn TD call.
And then got beat by a recruiting power in the most lopsided NC game maybe of all time.
I’m not sure why, from that, you’re disagreeing with my argument that recruiting class rankings determine the NC worthy teams?
Why did those 2 blue bloods go 14-10 during the regular season? Were the recruiting rankings wrong? Was the coaching that bad?
According to this site
Michigan
2022 - #9
2021 #10
2020 #11
2019 - #10
I guess turnovers aren't part of the equation anymore when it goes against the system.
Recruiting absolutely still matters but it’s been flipped 180 for the Have Nots like ourselves. Alabama, Georgia, OSU will continue getting 5 and high 4* out of high schools. But now able to also poach the top underclassmen who emerge like Addison from Have Nots like us. So it’s a double whammy to the likes of us (and yeah I realize we’re doing it to the likes of MAC schools too).
The flip side is that we can fight over the guys who fall through the cracks at LSU, Florida etc who enter the portal, and indeed I see these types increasingly become more of our core, than merely gap fillers … that’s really the 180 to me.
That’s great if they work out but by definition it’s already been established they aren’t as good as their former peers at the big programs, PLUS they are already at least a year removed as far being accessible to us…and then they could still enter the portal yet again and move back up if they emerge!
Hey, everyone knows this and accepts it, much like accept the same crap in MLB. It just is whack, IMO.
The flip side is that we can fight over the guys who fall through the cracks at LSU, Florida etc who enter the portal, and indeed I see these types increasingly become more of our core, than merely gap fillers … that’s really the 180 to me.
That’s great if they work out but by definition it’s already been established they aren’t as good as their former peers at the big programs, PLUS they are already at least a year removed as far being accessible to us…and then they could still enter the portal yet again and move back up if they emerge!
Hey, everyone knows this and accepts it, much like accept the same crap in MLB. It just is whack, IMO.
You need good talent and coaching to make the playoffs. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this point. But if star rankings were to determine playoff worthy teams then TCU would never come close to making the playoff, and Texas and Texas A&M would be in the Top 10 every year.
This is my point.
It's also my point that scheme has very little to do with the overall picture as to why one team is good/great/bad etc. All of the major offensive schemes have proven over years that they're flexible. You can win a variety of ways with the same formations/motions/personnel/etc. It reminds me when fans would criticize Tom Moore when he as the OC with the Lions, saying his offense couldn't win the big one. When 10 years later, everyone was trying to run his offense.
This is simple, and I’m not sure why people are overly complicating it. Maybe it’s because it hurts people that a bunch of recruiting nerds can predict things so well.
You have to have elite recruiting recruiting class rankings to win a national title. Every year proves this. That is a necessary condition to being elite.
Elite recruiting class rankings is not a sufficient condition. It does not guarantee that you will win a national title. Or even have a winning record.
Nothing about TCU disproves any of that. TCU is actually more evidence of it.
I don’t really care. You’re arguing a point I’m not making, and find to be boring.
This was the original point you made in reference to the outcome of GA/TCU
My point was why didn't they matter in the outcome of TCU/UM/UT/OK etc???
What was your point in regards to "Cinderella?"
Because UT and OU didn’t live up to their recruiting class rankings.
My point is that recruiting class rankings matter. They determine who can win the national title. Unfortunately for Cinderalla, that was proved last night. As it is every year.
Your signature says:
"Wisconsin does not outperform their recruiting rankings. They just play a bunch of teams with similar or worse recruiting rankings."
So did TCU not outperform their recruiting ranking -or- did the "just" play a bunch of teams with similar or worse recruiting rankings?"
Do you see the hypocrisy?
They found a great QB and WR, probably the 2 most positions in college football. That's enough to win you a lot of games.
I do not. I honestly don’t understand the point you’re making?
I think TCU played a schedule that was mostly teams that recruited in their tier or below.
OU and UT were the two exceptions. And TCU didn’t have to play above their recruiting class ranking to beat those teams this year.
I think TCU is an 8-4, 7-5 type team in the SEC, where they would have to punch above their recruiting weight class on a weekly basis, against teams that aren’t in a downward spiral.
Last edited:
The position that separates the elite from the non elite, where it's very hard to scheme around is DL.
If you can recruit 4 DL that can live in the backfield - you change the numbers for the offense. The modern game is all built around option football or shall I say numbers count.
If you see (box #)
7 man - throw the ball or run some type of option run or RPO
6 man - Option run or RPO or drop back
5 man - run the ball
Those option runs look great because the offense has balanced the #'s. However, as soon as you add 1 war daddy to the mix, those #'s begin to favor the defense. Add 2/3/4 guys like GA/Bama/Clemson does, you consistently are in the mix for a NC.
With all that being said, the QB is the most position but the most important position group is the DL.
This kind of plays out at PITT. We've had very good DL's and minus one year of Pickett greatness we've been 8-9 win type team. We get better QB play, Duzz is going to be a consistent 10-11 game winner.
Dude--2 really bad pick 6s and a first down fumble on the TCU goal line. 21 points given away by the offense. All by the same player for that matter.
Not sure they would have gone 7-5 in the SEC. Of course, they arent 65-7 bad but they're really more like that 5-7/6-6 SEC team that plays in the Birmingham Bowl. The difference is the Big 12 was very down this year and they won a lot of games decided by one or 2 plays. They did beat Michigan but that's a good matchup for them as they were able to sling it around and score a bunch. Michigan did nearly lose to Illinois and I'd say this TCU team is probably somewhat equal to Illinois.
I kinda felt bad for them as they clearly were outclassed. Its why I said they shouldn't make it after losing to 3 loss K St. But at 12-1, you can make the case, they deserved it and they did beat Michigan. But I saw something on social media that said something like "this is what you get when you with deserved instead of best." They beat a bunch of bad teams and Michigan by a point so their reward was getting blown out worse than any team in the history of bowl games, any bowl game.
Right--there's what should happen, and what actually happens, which is what makes the sport great. If Michigan played TCU 10 times, Mich would win 8 of them. If Pitt played Clemson 10 times in 2016, Clemson would win 9 of those games, and probably most of them by a lot. If Tennessee played Alabama 10 times this year, Alabama would win 8-9 of those games. Same with LSU vs. bama. Or Pitt v. GT. Or Pitt v. WMU last year. Or Michigan vs. OSU, although that might be more like OSU wins 7 of 10. Even UGA needed a late TD to beat Mizzou by 4.
Any team can lose a game they have no business losing, for a variety of reasons.
And that’s fine.
But that’s also not evidence against the point I’m making in this thread, that has people disagreeing with it for reasons I still cannot understand.
Similar threads
