College football playoff subdivision?

This is a tale as old as Rivals.com.

There's always a dramatic difference when classes are re-ranked 4 years later. Dropouts, transfers, coaching quality, coaches leaving, and the hyperpredictive nature of star rankings all contribute.
 
"That’s five schools getting two-thirds of the very best recruits in America. And if those schools sound familiar, well, that’s because three of them (Clemson, LSU and Ohio State) are in this year’s playoff (along with Oklahoma) and Georgia and Alabama are regulars. "
Does a single playoff appearance make you a regular?
 
gtg970g said:
"That’s five schools getting two-thirds of the very best recruits in America. And if those schools sound familiar, well, that’s because three of them (Clemson, LSU and Ohio State) are in this year’s playoff (along with Oklahoma) and Georgia and Alabama are regulars. "
Does a single playoff appearance make you a regular?
Click to expand...

If you produce a lot of steady TV revenue, it makes you a regular.
 
18in32 said:
Remember when Miami was good?
Nebraska?
USC?

Notre Dame?
Army?
Minnesota?

there have always been dominant teams for years at a time
Click to expand...
This is not a story about dominant teams, of which yes there is always a period of dominance from various teams. This is a story of how the elite talent in football is now concentrated to just a handful of teams instead of more evenly distributing itself to a larger pool of teams.
 
TampaBayJacket said:
This is not a story about dominant teams, of which yes there is always a period of dominance from various teams. This is a story of how the elite talent in football is now concentrated to just a handful of teams instead of more evenly distributing itself to a larger pool of teams.
Click to expand...
The idea that "just a half-dozen teams win everything all the time" is refuted in just the past 5-10 years. Where did Texas go? Where did Florida go? Where did USC go? Why would you think this era will be different from any other? There are many more forces at work to promote a level playing field, not fewer, than there ever have been before. The reasons for this are legion – from scholarship restrictions, to the increased scrutiny of a social media world, to the larger and richer conferences all pooling revenue, to the use of championship games and the playoff.

But probably the greatest reason for that is because the pressure is so intense, and the paydays so high, it is really hard to keep a great coach for long enough to build consistent domination. The days of Bear Bryant and Bobby Bowden sticking around for decades is over. What really matters now is whether a school can keep a great coach, and keep him motivated, and supported, and out of trouble, for more than a few years at a time. Saban is the singular exception to this in our era.

I mean, nobody's ever fired Urban Meyer for not winning, but he's left two apparent behemoths during their dominance. And look at what happened to Florida after he left. We'll see if Ryan Day is able to sustain it at Ohio St once he's really coaching his own players.
 
Regardless of how you spin it, the top 20, top 10, top 5 stays pretty much the same. They lose a few and gain a few but it doesn’t effect much. Next years top five will probably be Clemson, Bama, OhSt, OU, and LSU. With the SEC having 8 in the top 25. I hope we are one of the few that can break that cycle
 
Olgoldandwhie said:
Regardless of how you spin it, the top 20, top 10, top 5 stays pretty much the same. They lose a few and gain a few but it doesn’t effect much. Next years top five will probably be Clemson, Bama, OhSt, OU, and LSU. With the SEC having 8 in the top 25. I hope we are one of the few that can break that cycle
Click to expand...
Depends on the QB for LSU
 
TampaBayJacket said:
This is not a story about dominant teams, of which yes there is always a period of dominance from various teams. This is a story of how the elite talent in football is now concentrated to just a handful of teams instead of more evenly distributing itself to a larger pool of teams.
Click to expand...
Give every P5 conference an on field route to the playoffs and this will fix itself
 
Hell i say give all conference champs a ticket in. Then have 12 or 16. High seed hosts first round. Consolation bowls for losers of round 1. No at larges ahead of P5 conference champs.
 
I made the post below back in January, have a look at where Clemson is in the list of average recruiting class ranking over a period of 4-5 years. Also have a look at where USC and FSU are in the list.

An excellent point was made in response that the overall average isn't as important as where your key skill position players rank, such as QB. And of course coaching and scheme are also important.

Bottom line, recruiting rankings don't mean all that much, and as we know are a self-fulfilling prophesy. Recruits that sign with the top schools get their ratings increased because they signed with top schools. Vicious cycle.


coit said:
I've thrown together some quick numbers based on the 247 recruiting rankings from 2015-2018. Here's the top 15 or so teams based on the average rankings of the 4 years.

Alabama
Ohio State
Georgia
USC
Florida State
LSU
Auburn
Clemson
Texas
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Penn State
Tennessee
Florida
Texas A&M

What's notable here to me is that USC, FSU, LSU, Auburn and Tennessee are significantly underperforming their recruiting rankings. Even more impressive is that Clemson and Oklahoma are significantly overperforming their recruiting rankings.

Using the CFP final rankings as a measure, other teams that have overperformed (by virtue of not being in the Top 15 recruiting list above) are:

Michigan
UCF
Washington
Washington State
Kentucky

I think the worth of the rankings of recruiting classes is a mixed bag. Clearly, Bama has the best classes up to the past year, and their results on the field match. Clemson has had class rankings of 9, 11, 16 and 7, but they've contended in the past 3-4 years. And what about UCF, who has done amazing things the past 2 years with recruiting classes that don't even hit the radar.

It seems that having a Top 10 class every year is important. But not as important as having the right coaching staff.
Click to expand...
 
I believe the OP is correct. Combine this with the new pay for players laws bubbling through and its done. There is no incremental change to fix this, it has to be revolutionary.
 
18in32 said:
Remember when Miami was good?
Nebraska?
USC?

Notre Dame?
Army?
Minnesota?

there have always been dominant teams for years at a time
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. Great examples. I would add FSU and Michigan too.

College football and recruitment of talent are cyclical. Always has been, always will be.

Some "places of higher education" are "FOOTBALL FIRST, EVERYTHING ELSE SECOND". There is one in Athens, GA. There are others in Opelika and Tuscaloosa Alabama, Pickens County SC. Those "colleges" will always tend to get recycled to the top of the talent pool. And they will always do a little bit better than everyone else.

But they will never own CFB the way The New York Yankees have dominated MLB for over a century.

Historically it has been almost impossible to dominate the CFB landscape for more than a decade. People are not permanent. We all grow old, move on and die.

I'm in my late 50's. I'm confident I will see a time when UGA, Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and LSU are all struggling to win games as badly as Tennessee, Florida State and Miami.
 
Last edited:
coit said:
I made the post below back in January, have a look at where Clemson is in the list of average recruiting class ranking over a period of 4-5 years. Also have a look at where USC and FSU are in the list.

An excellent point was made in response that the overall average isn't as important as where your key skill position players rank, such as QB. And of course coaching and scheme are also important.

Bottom line, recruiting rankings don't mean all that much, and as we know are a self-fulfilling prophesy. Recruits that sign with the top schools get their ratings increased because they signed with top schools. Vicious cycle.
Click to expand...
Recruiting rankings do matter. It was no coincidence that we won our ACC Championship and beat UGA in Athens with Gailey's famous class of 2007.

But recruiting rankings are not perfect. They are skewed by the top 20 colleges whose kids have offered. The rankings assume that if a kid has offers from UGA, Bama and Clemson, they are a 5-star.

I doubt anyone that publishes Rivals ever played professionally or is as qualified as a P-5 assistant coach to evaluate talent.

And very important as you pointed out, rankings don't account for player development and team cohesiveness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top