CFB is too top heavy. CFB has always been too top heavy.

[18in32]

A lot of folks complain that these days it seems like Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State and a handful of other teams get all the good players and win all the important games. These folks wish CFB could get back to the era when there was more parity and 'little guy' programs (like ours, supposedly) stood a chance.

But, as this 18-month-old article points out, there have always been dominant dynasties in CFB. Notre Dame and Alabama, to their credit, have been dominant dynasties across many decades of CFB history. But otherwise, numerous other programs have been among the 'heavyweights' who win all the games and dominate all the championships. These programs rise and fall... sometimes it's USC, sometimes it's FSU, sometimes it's Notre Dame, sometimes it's Michigan.

Moreover, we are actually in a period now when a greater variety of programs are pushing into the rankings. It's not the same 30 teams moving in and moving out week-to-week. There's more diversity of ranked teams than there's been in a long time, perhaps ever. See the Tweet below...

Fun fact: the author of this article doesn't think UGA has ever been an era-defining heavyweight; whereas, GT has been several times. Anyhow it's a fun read if you like CFB history...

2 teams dominating CFB for years at a time is not new

The only thing that’s new: we now have a setup that ensures they meet.

www.bannersociety.com

 

[RussianOffense]

I've always liked that college football has a heterogeneous mix of teams with high, medium, low resources. It makes upsets more meaningful, it gives programs more distinct characters. The strategies of underresourced teams are different from the factories.

The high level of parity in the NFL actually makes it a bit boring to me. Every team feels sort of the same and soulless. Parity is overrated.

 

[johncu]

A lot of folks complain that these days it seems like Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State and a handful of other teams get all the good players and win all the important games. These folks wish CFB could get back to the era when there was more parity and 'little guy' programs (like ours, supposedly) stood a chance.

But, as this 18-month-old article points out, there have always been dominant dynasties in CFB. Notre Dame and Alabama, to their credit, have been dominant dynasties across many decades of CFB history. But otherwise, numerous other programs have been among the 'heavyweights' who win all the games and dominate all the championships. These programs rise and fall... sometimes it's USC, sometimes it's FSU, sometimes it's Notre Dame, sometimes it's Michigan.

Moreover, we are actually in a period now when a greater variety of programs are pushing into the rankings. It's not the same 30 teams moving in and moving out week-to-week. There's more diversity of ranked teams than there's been in a long time, perhaps ever. See the Tweet below...

Fun fact: the author of this article doesn't think UGA has ever been an era-defining heavyweight; whereas, GT has been several times. Anyhow it's a fun read if you like CFB history...

2 teams dominating CFB for years at a time is not new

The only thing that’s new: we now have a setup that ensures they meet.

www.bannersociety.com

Great point. I don’t think consistently dominant teams are a new phenomenon. I do wonder, though... Have the top teams always been THIS dominant? Clemson and Alabama generally only have one or maaaaybe two remotely close games in the entire season. I don’t have the time to research it right now, but I don’t remember late 90s and early to mid 2000s teams being that dominant.

 

[LegendaryGT]

I think it's better this way. I just wish we were on top.

 

[MeatWrench]

I recall a comparison a few years back showing the number of active head coaches with a Natty as a HC. In the not too distant past it was numbers like 15. At the time that comparison was made I think it was something like 5. IIRC this was right after Jimbo won his. Add Dabo and Coach O, subtract Meyer and maybe Stoops. Guess it’s still around 5?

I don’t know whether to attribute this to changes in longevity or parity or what but I can see an argument that always having dominant programs does not necessarily always equate to dominant programs always winning it all.

 

[JJacket]

Me likey top heavy.

 

[WracerX]

I recall a comparison a few years back showing the number of active head coaches with a Natty as a HC. In the not too distant past it was numbers like 15. At the time that comparison was made I think it was something like 5. IIRC this was right after Jimbo won his. Add Dabo and Coach O, subtract Meyer and maybe Stoops. Guess it’s still around 5?

I don’t know whether to attribute this to changes in longevity or parity or what but I can see an argument that always having dominant programs does not necessarily always equate to dominant programs always winning it all.

No google.

Saban, Sweeney, Fisher, O, Brown

Les Miles I think is in the Big12. Butch Davis at one of the Florida commuter schools.

(Frost at NE, but only if you are asking ucf)

I guess chizik is a DC and Tressell is down a division. Pete Carroll moved up to the big show.

 

[smokey_wasp]

No google.

Saban, Sweeney, Fisher, O, Brown

Les Miles I think is in the Big12. Butch Davis at one of the Florida commuter schools.

(Frost at NE, but only if you are asking ucf)

I guess chizik is a DC and Tressell is down a division. Pete Carroll moved up to the big show.

Butch didn't quite get one for da U. Coker did. He isn't active though. I cant think of anyone else.

 

[WracerX]

Butch didn't quite get one for da U. Coker did. He isn't active though. I cant think of anyone else.

That’s right.

So 3 in the SEC, 2 in the ACC, and 1 in the Big12.

Funny, that ratio works out if you go by which conference the currently coach in or which one they were in when the won.

And also half of those active coaches won a championship at LSU.

 

[OptionsJacket]

No google.

Saban, Sweeney, Fisher, O, Brown

Les Miles I think is in the Big12. Butch Davis at one of the Florida commuter schools.

(Frost at NE, but only if you are asking ucf)

I guess chizik is a DC and Tressell is down a division. Pete Carroll moved up to the big show.

Tressel is President of Youngstown St.

 

[wesleyd21]

There’s been more Alabama-Clemson matchups than Jaws movies.

Fun article, but it doesn’t even touch on the money aspect of the top tier programs these days. The divide has never been greater.

 

[1982Jacket]

I came up in the decade from 1979 to 1988 on that list. EIGHT different colleges won National Chanpionships in that span, with only two repeats (Miami and PSU). Only five different colleges from 2009 to 2018, and Alabama got half of those championships. Seems more top heavy to me!

It is more top heavy now because of the CFP system. In the past, if things worked out in the bowl games, a total darkhorse Georgia Tech team (1990), BYU team (1984) or Miami team (1983) could win a championship. Now, there are really only five or six programs that matter AT ALL: Clemson, Bama, LSU, UGAG, OSU and Oklahoma. That is it. Year after year, that is it. For the foreseeable future . . . that is it. And you could probably scratch Oklahoma and UGAG from that list. Even LSU. It is Bama, Clemson and OSU. Pac 12 is totally irrelevent - they should be booted from the P5 down to the G5 (or G6).

There have been a total of 18 CFP games . . . 12 have been won by Clemson or Bama, and four of their combined losses were agaist each other.

Top heavy like never before in my lifetime.

 

[1982Jacket]

A lot of folks complain that these days it seems like Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State and a handful of other teams get all the good players and win all the important games. These folks wish CFB could get back to the era when there was more parity and 'little guy' programs (like ours, supposedly) stood a chance.

But, as this 18-month-old article points out, there have always been dominant dynasties in CFB. Notre Dame and Alabama, to their credit, have been dominant dynasties across many decades of CFB history. But otherwise, numerous other programs have been among the 'heavyweights' who win all the games and dominate all the championships. These programs rise and fall... sometimes it's USC, sometimes it's FSU, sometimes it's Notre Dame, sometimes it's Michigan.

Moreover, we are actually in a period now when a greater variety of programs are pushing into the rankings. It's not the same 30 teams moving in and moving out week-to-week. There's more diversity of ranked teams than there's been in a long time, perhaps ever. See the Tweet below...

Fun fact: the author of this article doesn't think UGA has ever been an era-defining heavyweight; whereas, GT has been several times. Anyhow it's a fun read if you like CFB history...

2 teams dominating CFB for years at a time is not new

The only thing that’s new: we now have a setup that ensures they meet.

www.bannersociety.com

ND hasn't won a national championship in 22 years. Comparing them to Bama, which has SIX in that span . . . LOL.

You ARE a Fighting Irish fan - I just wish you would admit it.

 

[vapspwi]

ND hasn't won a national championship in 22 years. Comparing them to Bama, which has SIX in that span . . . LOL.

Might want to check that math on ND’s last championship.

JRjr

 

[1982Jacket]

Might want to check that math on ND’s last championship.

JRjr

Typo. Thanks. Meant to write "32". But still, Bama has six between then and now.

 

[donsue]

I came up in the decade from 1979 to 1988 on that list. EIGHT different colleges won National Chanpionships in that span, with only two repeats (Miami and PSU). Only five different colleges from 2009 to 2018, and Alabama got half of those championships. Seems more top heavy to me!

It is more top heavy now because of the CFP system. In the past, if things worked out in the bowl games, a total darkhorse Georgia Tech team (1990), BYU team (1984) or Miami team (1983) could win a championship. Now, there are really only five or six programs that matter AT ALL: Clemson, Bama, LSU, UGAG, OSU and Oklahoma. That is it. Year after year, that is it. For the foreseeable future . . . that is it. And you could probably scratch Oklahoma and UGAG from that list. Even LSU. It is Bama, Clemson and OSU. Pac 12 is totally irrelevent - they should be booted from the P5 down to the G5 (or G6).

There have been a total of 18 CFP games . . . 12 have been won by Clemson or Bama, and four of their combined losses were agaist each other.

Top heavy like never before in my lifetime.

We are in a time where money means so much more than it did 20 years ago. The SEC programs have such a major advantage with the TV revenue. With that being said there isn’t a single program (including Alabama) that hasn’t hit rough patches. And Clemson won’t always own the ACC. Frankly, I laugh because Georgia has done less with more than most anyone

 

[BigDanT]

We are in a time where money means so much more than it did 20 years ago. The SEC programs have such a major advantage with the TV revenue. With that being said there isn’t a single program (including Alabama) that hasn’t hit rough patches. And Clemson won’t always own the ACC. Frankly, I laugh because Georgia has done less with more than most anyone

Georgia hasn’t hit a rough patch yet. I want a Michigan or Texas level mediocrity.

 

[cyclejacket]

Georgia hasn’t hit a rough patch yet. I want a Kansas level mediocrity.

FTFY