College football playoff subdivision?

Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
Click to expand...
I haven't looked up the data but have television ratings really gone down?
Or are they comparing bowl game ratings to prior bowl game ratings? Because that would indeed be likely to drop. Those playing in bowls with no real significance, and with more & more players sitting out bowl games if they're not in the playoffs, that's probably inevitable to see a ratings drop.

But I would think the 3 playoff games have higher tv ratings than ever before. Is that not the case?
 
daBuzz said:
I haven't looked up the data but have television ratings really gone down?
Or are they comparing bowl game ratings to prior bowl game ratings? Because that would indeed be likely to drop. Those playing in bowls with no real significance, and with more & more players sitting out bowl games if they're not in the playoffs, that's probably inevitable to see a ratings drop.

But I would think the 3 playoff games have higher tv ratings than ever before. Is that not the case?
Click to expand...

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs/

They’ve steadily gone down over the last 20 years.
 
daBuzz said:
Yeah but look at it. They're doing exactly what I suspected. They're comparing all the 'major bowls', not just the playoff games.
It means less people are worried about watching the Rose Bowl when it isn't part the play off...or the Cotton Bowl, etc.
That's comparing apples and refrigerators.
Click to expand...
Highest rated championship game was Texas/USC.

Having the southern teams raid west coast talent has cut off big numbers from playoff viewership.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
Click to expand...
Which teams do you think are the same old teams?
Georgia? Seriously? They've had some recent success under Smart. But I wouldn't hold my breath for them to keep it up after Fromm leaves. And before Smart took over no one would confuse them for a CFB playoff team.

Bama? Only since Saban has been there. They stunk it up a bunch of years in the early 2000's.

Clemson? Only since Dabo was there. Once Dabo leaves they won't be so scary.

LSU? Let's see how good they are next season after their Heisman QB leaves.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
Click to expand...
Colin Cowherd took the opposite view, saying the public hates parity, and that sports needs dynasties like the Patriots, golf needs Tiger Woods, NBA needs the Warriors, etc. I tend to agree with you, though, when it comes to college football
 
Tampa Jacket said:
Which teams do you think are the same old teams?
Georgia? Seriously? They've had some recent success under Smart. But I wouldn't hold my breath for them to keep it up after Fromm leaves. And before Smart took over no one would confuse them for a CFB playoff team.

Bama? Only since Saban has been there. They stunk it up a bunch of years in the early 2000's.

Clemson? Only since Dabo was there. Once Dabo leaves they won't be so scary.

LSU? Let's see how good they are next season after their Heisman QB leaves.
Click to expand...

Georgia has been top 10 in talent under Richt and Smart. Don’t see that changing.

Bama is in dynasty mode.

Clemson. Dabo will leave at some point. Doesn’t matter. Clemson finally put big $$$$ into the program/assistants, etc.

LSU. Had crappy coaching but always talented. Don’t believe Les Miles is some kinda great coach but even he won it all with their talent.

The entire point of the article was top tier talent only going to a handful of schools. There is less parity today from a talent standpoint than there was 20+ years ago. What the author didn’t offer up was a solution or even a reasoning for the recent gap between the haves and the have-nots. I say it’s money, pure and simple.
 
It's bad for the sport. March madness would't be a thing if the Final Four every year was Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
oldgold68 said:
I can't believe only 22 players were rated 5 stars.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's how it has always been. A first team on offense and defense are 5 stars and everyone else is 4 star or lower.
FWIW, pay more attention to the decimal number than the star value. That's how they rank the players and determine who makes what cut-off line.
 
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...
Collins and company at Georgia Tech might provide the blueprint on how to break the stranglehold of the current dominant teams. Not all alone, but if a dozen more programs started recruiting more of the top 100 players it might dilute the elite talent a bit.
 
Yukonwreck said:
Colin Cowherd took the opposite view, saying the public hates parity, and that sports needs dynasties like the Patriots, golf needs Tiger Woods, NBA needs the Warriors, etc. I tend to agree with you, though, when it comes to college football
Click to expand...
You're really just talking about 2 schools, BAMA and Clemson. That cycle is likely to be broken this year, with either OSU or probably LSU winning the NC. BAMA didn't even make the playoffs this year.
I would argue that in both cases a large part of their success (Clemson especially) had to do with the relative weakness of other teams in the SEC and ACC compared to the 10-year cycle.
Clemson and BAMA's success was also the result of a group of special coaches. Both programs were very pedestrian before Saban and Dabo. I refuse to believe they will continue to dominate CFB the way they have after those coaching staffs move on.
In neither case do Clemson or Bama spend any more money than other big P5 schools--- Texas, Oklahoma, ND, Michigan, OSU, etc.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
You're really just talking about 2 schools, BAMA and Clemson. That cycle is likely to be broken this year, with either OSU or probably LSU winning the NC. BAMA didn't even make the playoffs this year.
I would argue that in both cases a large part of their success (Clemson especially) had to do with the relative weakness of other teams in the SEC and ACC compared to the 10-year cycle.
Clemson and BAMA's success was also the result of a group of special coaches. Both programs were very pedestrian before Saban and Dabo. I refuse to believe they will continue to dominate CFB the way they have after those coaching staffs move on.
In neither case do Clemson or Bama spend any more money than other big P5 schools--- Texas, Oklahoma, ND, Michigan, OSU, etc.
Click to expand...
Jeff Scott has been hired by USF and I think one or two more will leave Clempsen after the playoffs.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
Which teams do you think are the same old teams?
Georgia? Seriously? They've had some recent success under Smart. But I wouldn't hold my breath for them to keep it up after Fromm leaves. And before Smart took over no one would confuse them for a CFB playoff team.

Bama? Only since Saban has been there. They stunk it up a bunch of years in the early 2000's.

Clemson? Only since Dabo was there. Once Dabo leaves they won't be so scary.

LSU? Let's see how good they are next season after their Heisman QB leaves.
Click to expand...
Why do you mention Georgia? They have been to the playoff once.

In the 6 years of the CFP, Alabama (5), Clemson (5), Oklahoma (4), and Ohio State (3) have claimed 17 of 24 spots. Those are the “same old teams”. 7 other teams, including the dwags, have been once each.
 
Yukonwreck said:
Colin Cowherd took the opposite view, saying the public hates parity, and that sports needs dynasties like the Patriots, golf needs Tiger Woods, NBA needs the Warriors, etc. I tend to agree with you, though, when it comes to college football
Click to expand...

I would argue that it is the talking heads (like Colin Cowherd) who love dynasties and not the fans (except for the fans of the specific dynasty teams).

It allows the talking heads to be lazy. They walk into the studio ready to talk about a half dozen teams per sport and the rest of the time they can get drunk, watch Netflix, and generally goof off. Shoot, some of them only talk about a half dozen teams across ALL sports, whether they win or not.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Some posters are suggesting these top classes are cyclical amongst the major programs. I’d argue that it is certainly no longer cyclical.

Just go back and look at the last 40 years of who has won it all. There used to be an awesome mix of teams. Now It’s been the same handful of teams the past decade and it has never been like that historically. This is bad for the game. That’s why tv ratings have gone down.
Click to expand...

I recall reading something a few years ago about the reduction in the number of active coaches who had a natty that exemplifies your point. It was right around when Stoops retired at OU. Seems to me that the social media age as intensified the funneling of elite talent to a handful of schools. No one is out of reach and very few kids stay off the radar.
 
As much as I like CFB, no one wants to see the same teams play each other every year. Especially if all the teams are from the South. If I’m from the NE or Left coast, I wouldn’t give a darn about the playoffs. And if it gets down to two SEC teams playing each other every year, I’m out. As much as I can’t stand ND, USC, Michigan, Oregon, and the like, it would be better for FB if they played in the Championship game.
 
ClubSeats said:
Why do you mention Georgia? They have been to the playoff once.

In the 6 years of the CFP, Alabama (5), Clemson (5), Oklahoma (4), and Ohio State (3) have claimed 17 of 24 spots. Those are the “same old teams”. 7 other teams, including the dwags, have been once each.
Click to expand...

6 years is a blip. All this hand-wringing is about nothing.

Ebb and flow. As it always has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top