Conference Realignment

[slugboy]

The Citadel says hi as well, that wasn't the point. No team has ever won a national title below the blue chip ratio. A few have been close, including this year's Michigan team. But it's never happened.

Alright, the season is over. Let’s look back.

Michigan was above the ratio, but they “only” had two 5* players, and their classes were outside the top 10.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title

The list for this year was

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida, Miami, Penn State, Michigan, USC and Auburn.

FSU wasn’t on the list. Their fans are sure they could have won, if they’d just gotten the chance. It would have been a chance to break that rule.

Washington also wasn’t on the list, and they beat Texas to go to the championship game.

Florida had a losing season. Auburn barely went bowling and lost big. Miami—well, you know. Texas A&M went 7-6.

Of this year’s season ending AP top 12 (a proxy for who will play next year) 5 of the top 12 don’t satisfy the blue chip ratio.

Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Alright, the season is over. Let’s look back.

Michigan was above the ratio, but they “only” had two 5* players, and their classes were outside the top 10.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title

The list for this year was

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida, Miami, Penn State, Michigan, USC and Auburn.

FSU wasn’t on the list. Their fans are sure they could have won, if they’d just gotten the chance. It would have been a chance to break that rule.

Washington also wasn’t on the list, and they beat Texas to go to the championship game.

Florida had a losing season. Auburn barely went bowling and lost big. Miami—well, you know. Texas A&M went 7-6.

Of this year’s season ending AP top 12 (a proxy for who will play next year) 5 of the top 12 don’t satisfy the blue chip ratio.

Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

Don’t you get tired of being the smartest person in the room?

 

[Root4GT]

Alright, the season is over. Let’s look back.

Michigan was above the ratio, but they “only” had two 5* players, and their classes were outside the top 10.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title

The list for this year was

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida, Miami, Penn State, Michigan, USC and Auburn.

FSU wasn’t on the list. Their fans are sure they could have won, if they’d just gotten the chance. It would have been a chance to break that rule.

Washington also wasn’t on the list, and they beat Texas to go to the championship game.

Florida had a losing season. Auburn barely went bowling and lost big. Miami—well, you know. Texas A&M went 7-6.

Of this year’s season ending AP top 12 (a proxy for who will play next year) 5 of the top 12 don’t satisfy the blue chip ratio.

Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

This metric is likely less meaningful now due to the Portal and transfers not having to sit out. Transfers are not counted in their methodology.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

No , however football is very different than basketball or baseball. G5 teams regularly win basketball and football against mid level P5/4 teams. They even occasionally beat the top 8 P5 teams in baseball or basketball. That really does not happen in football. Football needs too many really good players. One or two in BB and one pitcher in baseball is all that is needed.

What is your proposal for the CFP? I may have missed it in this thread and am curious.

I never proposed one.

Also, I think it has been clearly shown that upsets happen in football too.

 

[cpf2001]

Why does the first round of P5 champs/at large against G5 champs have to be as compelling, or draw as many viewers, as rounds of 8/4/2 would at the end?

These games wouldn’t replace today’s semifinals, they’d replace crappy low-audience bowls between 6-6 teams and such.

 

[stinger78]

Are the CWS regionals and the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament a waste of everyone's time?

No, but that’s all different, you know. Not as much money that needs to be made. And we all know it’s all about the benjies, not the actual competition.

If competitive early games are the issue, they could start in two pools for the first two rounds.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

No, but that’s all different, you know. Not as much money that needs to be made. And we all know it’s all about the benjies, not the actual competition.

If competitive early games are the issue, they could start in two pools for the first two rounds.

I am not sure a first round matchup between two SEC teams facing each other for a second time will generate much more revenue than a game between a top 4 SEC team and an undefeated G5 champ.

 

[stinger78]

I am not sure a first round matchup between two SEC teams facing each other for a second time will generate much more revenue than a game between a top 4 SEC team and an undefeated G5 champ.

May not.

 

[Richard7125]

I am not sure a first round matchup between two SEC teams facing each other for a second time will generate much more revenue than a game between a top 4 SEC team and an undefeated G5 champ.

It may or may not, but I think the probability is much higher that a replay of SEC v SEC would generate higher ratings. Obviously, people on this board who hate everything SEC would boycott the rematch, but the rest of the nation would be interested. 1) Chances are SEC fans are the only ones that watched the first game between the two teams. In a national playoff, you expand viewership nationally. 2) The vast majority of SEC fans will prefer the rematch. 3) People in Big10 country would prefer a #10 SEC team knock off a #1 UGA or #2 Bama so they don’t have to face them in the semi’s of finals. 4) If UGA or Bama is playing a G5 champ, the rest of the nation (except the G5 fanbase) knows how that will end and will probably get updates to the game while they're on the golf course.

 

[MWBATL]

It may or may not, but I think the probability is much higher that a replay of SEC v SEC would generate higher ratings. Obviously, people on this board who hate everything SEC would boycott the rematch, but the rest of the nation would be interested. 1) Chances are SEC fans are the only ones that watched the first game between the two teams. In a national playoff, you expand viewership nationally. 2) The vast majority of SEC fans will prefer the rematch. 3) People in Big10 country would prefer a #10 SEC team knock off a #1 UGA or #2 Bama so they don’t have to face them in the semi’s of finals. 4) If UGA or Bama is playing a G5 champ, the rest of the nation (except the G5 fanbase) knows how that will end and will probably get updates to the game while they're on the golf course.

iirc, the rematch of Bama vs LSU a few years back had one of the lowest CFP Championship ratings......am I wrong?

 

[MWBATL]

No , however football is very different than basketball or baseball. G5 teams regularly win basketball and football against mid level P5/4 teams. They even occasionally beat the top 8 P5 teams in baseball or basketball. That really does not happen in football. Football needs too many really good players. One or two in BB and one pitcher in baseball is all that is needed.

What is your proposal for the CFP? I may have missed it in this thread and am curious.

btw, are you aware that throughout Europe, they have a tournmant which allows EVERY SINGLE TEAM to participate in at all levels of professional soccer. They are the national cup trophy tournaments and are considered one of the big trophies to win each year. Normally, the big boys carry the day, but every once in while, a David knocks off a Goliath and all of the country gets behind the underdog. As in NCAA basketball, the underdog never actually wins the whole thing, but the excitement they bring to the tournament is deemed a worthy trade-off for everyone involved.
To be fair, the lower division teams go through some knock out games first, but they don't knock it down to one team only getting in.

Here's a quote form a London paper about their version, the FA Cup...
The FA Cup third round is back this weekend as clubs up and down the country battle it out in the world’s oldest cup competition:
In many fans’ eyes, the third round is the best weekend of the footballing calendar, when sides from the lower reaches of the pyramid get their chance to face more established opposition.

Upsets thrill the very heart and soul..even as rare as they are. That's what you eliminate...

FA Cup's 10 greatest giant killings as 'one in 16 million upset' takes top spot

The FA Cup third round will take centre stage this weekend, with 44 sides in action, but which club can lay claim to causing the biggest upset in the competition's history?

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Northeast Stinger]

iirc, the rematch of Bama vs LSU a few years back had one of the lowest CFP Championship ratings......am I wrong?

Not the lowest. 2 or 3 otters were lower with the all time lowest being uga vs TCU.
All time highest in BCS era were Texas vs USC and Ohio State vs Oregon.

Two “grandaddy of them all” for rankings would be 1973 Notre Dame vs Alabama and 1969 Texas vs Arkansas, which I mentioned in my thread about “games of the century.”

 

[Root4GT]

I never proposed one.

Also, I think it has been clearly shown that upsets happen in football too.

Do you have a proposal or are you simply going critique other proposals? Useful info to know.

 

[GTsapper]

Alright, the season is over. Let’s look back.

Michigan was above the ratio, but they “only” had two 5* players, and their classes were outside the top 10.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title

The list for this year was

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida, Miami, Penn State, Michigan, USC and Auburn.

FSU wasn’t on the list. Their fans are sure they could have won, if they’d just gotten the chance. It would have been a chance to break that rule.

Washington also wasn’t on the list, and they beat Texas to go to the championship game.

Florida had a losing season. Auburn barely went bowling and lost big. Miami—well, you know. Texas A&M went 7-6.

Of this year’s season ending AP top 12 (a proxy for who will play next year) 5 of the top 12 don’t satisfy the blue chip ratio.

Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

And who won?

 

[roadkill]

Alright, the season is over. Let’s look back.

Michigan was above the ratio, but they “only” had two 5* players, and their classes were outside the top 10.

Blue-Chip Ratio 2023: The 16 teams who can actually win a national title

The list for this year was

Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas A&M, Clemson, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, Florida, Miami, Penn State, Michigan, USC and Auburn.

FSU wasn’t on the list. Their fans are sure they could have won, if they’d just gotten the chance. It would have been a chance to break that rule.

Washington also wasn’t on the list, and they beat Texas to go to the championship game.

Florida had a losing season. Auburn barely went bowling and lost big. Miami—well, you know. Texas A&M went 7-6.

Of this year’s season ending AP top 12 (a proxy for who will play next year) 5 of the top 12 don’t satisfy the blue chip ratio.

Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

Thanks for the link. Seems like the rule for winning it all still holds - you need to be above 50%. UM is at 54%. UW is well below that.

Although the 50% rule is a bit arbitrary and isn't supported by any rigorous bottoms-up analysis, it's interesting that it has held for 12 years running.

It definitely doesn't apply to teams just making the playoffs. There are a much larger number of teams with the talent to get there. But I guess that, throughout a season, having over 50% blue chips allows a team to better absorb critical injuries, as well as frequently substitute players within a game without much dropoff.

Also, Miami's underperformance is approaching legendary.

 

[slugboy]

Thanks for the link. Seems like the rule for winning it all still holds - you need to be above 50%. UM is at 54%. UW is well below that.

Although the 50% rule is a bit arbitrary and isn't supported by any rigorous bottoms-up analysis, it's interesting that it has held for 12 years running.

It definitely doesn't apply to teams just making the playoffs. There are a much larger number of teams with the talent to get there. But I guess that, throughout a season, having over 50% blue chips allows a team to better absorb critical injuries, as well as frequently substitute players within a game without much dropoff.

Also, Miami's underperformance is approaching legendary.

It’s not dumb luck, but with the correlation between factories “belonging” in the CFP, there might be some selection bias too.

How many teams could have won it all, but didn’t get the chance?

 

[CEB]

It’s not dumb luck, but with the correlation between factories “belonging” in the CFP, there might be some selection bias too.

How many teams could have won it all, but didn’t get the chance?

 

[Techster]

Interesting...obviously there's a real world explanation. Imagine the % increase if we would have won the Natty instead of the Gasparilla...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Interesting...obviously there's a real world explanation. Imagine the % increase if we would have won the Natty instead of the Gasparilla...

Wonder which year showed the biggest jump for Tech? Amazing that Tech leads the ACC but, like you, not sure I understand why.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Wonder which year showed the biggest jump for Tech? Amazing that Tech leads the ACC but, like you, not sure I understand why.

We moved to standard application and doubled our enrollment by adding online programs.