Your post was more informative than the OP. Why do people make such bare-bones OPs these days? Zero effort.
Now get off my lawn. Except for you, NeverPunt.
I'm in full agreement about the bare-bones OPs.
At this point, Moleskyn (and I'm thinking out loud as I type this) I wish there was a policy in place to dock points for OPs that don't meet certain minimum standards.
No commentary or summary? -100 points.
No link? -100 points
Link provided but not clickable? -50
No commentary AND no link? -250
I glanced also at the "Luke McCaffrey to Rice" OP and downvoted it before coming back here to post my rant. (edit @ 1:20 pm: same with the "Tigers, Tork and Dingler..." post. No link or anything other than the title. Three lazy OPs out of seven threads on the first page. UGH!)
C'mon folks---let's put a little effort into it when you post an OP!
I just got a new best friend this morning but maybe I’m getting two!
Not if we score a touchdown to tie the game with no time on the clock.
2 things i take from that list.
1) Alabama is fucking ridiculous. Actually, the top 3 are ridiculous.
2) What is Oregon doing on this list? I guess i have not noticed how well they have recruited.
Looking at the list, what team is the biggest underachiever? USC? Michigan? Miami?
Texas.
For being #2 on that list, Georgia hasn’t really done shit
Yeah, three division titles, a conference title, a Rose Bowl victory, and a trip the NC means nothing, not to even mention they are in the same conference as Alabama.
I would pick Georgia also. They may have the most fertile recruiting territory in the country, because they don't really have to fight anyone for prospects in the state. Are division titles really that impressive? Granted they haven't beaten Bama, but to win it all every team is gonna have to do that. 2017 they lost to Auburn and Bama, 2018, they lost toLSU, Bama, and Texas, and 2019 they lost to So Car, and LSU, so it's not really Bama holding them back.
Alabama's not holding them back like OSU is UM, but they have prevented them from both conference championships and a national championship, so yeah, they are still in the way.
They are a better version on Wisconsin. Dominating a shitty division, then not winning anything of value because an actual powerhouse is in your conference
Edit: a better comparison-Georgia is what Michigan would be if we switched places with Wisconsin. And Georgia recruits a lot better, which is the point
Looking at the list, what team is the biggest underachiever? USC? Michigan? Miami?
I know that Oklahoma has reached playoff games and championship games multiple times in the past two decades so it may seem ridiculous to call them an underachiever, but you'd think with their consistently high recruiting they'd have broken through at least once.
I'd also nominate Georgia for a spot in the underachievers category in relation to their consistently excellent recruiting.
I was going to say Georgia with you, but then I looked and they were in the SEC championship game 3 out of the last 4 years and lost to either 'Bama or LSU, so no shame there.
For the last four years, I'd probably say Texas or USC. Texas only made the B12 champ game 1 out of 4 (and remember, the BIg 12 doesn't have divisions, they take the top 2 teams in the conference). USC made 2 out of last 4 and won once, but they're not the annual national contenders their recruiting profile suggests.
Here are the average win percentages for these teams over the past 5 years. I'd say Texas is definitely one of the biggest underachievers. Among the top-5, Georgia and LSU definitely seem to underperform.
It's also interesting to compare the first two columns: 4 years including the Covid year (2017-20) and 4 years excluding the Covid year (2016-2019). You can see that last year was really an outlier for Michigan (≈ .11 difference), but, say, LSUs poor Covid season at 5-5 was much less of an outlier (≈ .04 difference).
Agreed that Alabama is ridiculous and this chart doesn’t include the over-signing and player processing that happens in the SEC. I don’t know if they are still allowed to do it, but over the last four years, Alabama has signed 10 more players than Michigan has. With their blue chip percentage, that’s an additional eight 4-5 Star athletes on their roster. How are we expected to compete with those odds against us? It’s amazing that Clemson was able to win a couple of titles.
Wow great point. That is almost an entire starting line up of blue chips on your defense. To put it another way give the Lions an extra 1st and 2nd round pick for four years. Even the lions couldnt muck that up. Never mind bad example.
You may have pointed out the number one factor why you wont beat Bama. Clemson, being the only exception,has the best assistants in the game and they recruit at the OSU level as well. Im actually glad we arent Auburn. They are doomed as long as Saban is there. We could compete with OSU with the right coaching.
Yeah, Oregon has no chance without Shough
As Red said in Shawshank Redemption: Hope is a dangerous thing.
So is a blue chip considered 4 star and above? I looked through the article briefly and did not find that, apologies if I simply missed it.
Put simply, to win the national championship, college football teams need to sign more four- and five-star recruits (AKA “Blue Chips”) than two- and three-star players over the previous four recruiting classes.
If you look at that list and who has an actual chance to win the championship every year, I think the old ratio is no longer relevant. That line used to be 50/50, but now it is clearly 66%, meaning 2 out of every 3 recruits need to be a 4 or a 5 star.
"college football teams need to sign more four- and five-star recruits (AKA “Blue Chips”) than two- and three-star players over the previous four recruiting classes."
We say you need to sign more ' blue chips' to win the national championship ,but I don't see msu on that list and here harbaugh is 3-3 against them! Ugh .I think coaching factors in there somewhere also?!
Now do the same thing with top 100 or 150 recruits and we’ll see who REALLY can win it all.
So this article basically says its better to sign higher rated recruits . Thanks for that news flash ...
How many blue chip coaches does it take to put you in contention?
And every team on this list has won a title in the last 40 years except for Texas A&M, Oregon, and Georgia.
Seems arbitrary for the author to cut things off at 40 years when Georgia won the championship in 1980 (41 years ago.). He could have just as easily written "Every team has won a title since 1980 except..."
Oregon has never won a national championship, and Texas A&M hasn't won since 1939. To lump these three teams together seems like a bit of an agenda from the author. (A rival SEC fan perhaps? Checks author's bio...Alabama (and FSU) graduate.)
It's a pipe dream. Doesn't pan out that way. For example, GA is always on the outside looking in. There's the Top 3 and then the rest of field, which includes Clemson.
Georgia's W-L records in '17, '18, and '19 were 13-2, 11-3, and 12-2, respectively. I'd gladly sign up for that. The last time Michigan played 14 or more games in a season was never.
The last time they beat Alabama, Lloyd Carr was still the coach here. Georgia has the same problem Michigan has, they just aren’t in the same division as AL. They are a better version of Wisconsin.
The disparity is even greater if you just look at five stars. Five Star Commits over the last five years:
Georgia = 23
Alabama = 21
Ohio State = 19
Clemson = 15
LSU = 10
And Michigan = 5
The top five programs landed 56% of the five-star players over the last five years. Over the last two years they have landed 62%. For reference if all things were even among power five schools we would expect any random five teams to get 7.5% of the five star players. Not that it will ever be even but the difference between 7.5% and 62% shows how out of balance things have become.
The ability to get five-star players to the NFL is helping these schools build on their advantage. Since 2010 Alabama has had 83 players drafted including 28 in the first round. Note this data was before they added 6 more first round draft picks this year. Ohio State over the last decade has 62 picks with 15 first round. Michigan is not in the top ten for NFL picks over the last decade. We have had 47 players drafted with 7 first rounders over the last decade. Note we have done a little better over the last few years in terms of NFL picks. Here are the Michigan players drafted by year for the last decade starting with 2010: 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 11, 2, 5, 10, 8.
Wow!
OSU has had 19 (!!!) 5 stars in the last 5 years?! That's crazy! There's only 22 possible (non special teams) positions available.
I knew they had quite the talent advantage, but dang! I didn't know it was like that.
Need to really compare number of McDonald's Happy Meals distributed by school.
Can't wait for this year's playoff featuring the exciting match up of Alabama, Clemson, OSU, and OU / 2nd SEC team.
Man, college football sucks. Unless of course, you're a fan of one of like six schools that have a chance to make the playoff.
Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's Michigan was one of those schools for which college football didn't suck. It would be nice to get back to that.
We have a tendency to turn blue chippers into red chippers- red being the now-bad color.
wonder if this accounts for transfer portal players
You could have just ranked the average class ranks over the past 4 years you probably come out to the exact same thing.
Georgia should've been in the playoffs. They have been in the weaker east division but always fail in the big games. Now they have Florida to compete with in the east. Things will not get easier for GA.
Even though PSU and Michigan recruit about the same, PSU has been more successful with developing QBs and having an offense that can score points, compared to Michigan.
There are basically three tiers:
- 79%+: Alabama, Georgia, OSU
- 66%+: Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida
- Below 61%: Michigan with a handful of others
If Michigan could move up one tier they would have a legit shot at the playoffs every year.
Florida, LSU & Georgia have an Alabama problem much like Michigan has an OSU problem.
Clemson has absolutely no ACC problems.
Texas just has problems.
Correct, Michigan needs to recruit at 67% blue chip. Up from ~57%, so improve 10% of 25/year. 2.5 more blue chips per year.
Not a massive, massive jump but hardly trivial.
Bud Elliott writes basically the same article every year and it almost always looks like this one - teams with lots of good players have the best chance to win a national title. Truly amazing work.
Caveat...the difference between #3 and everyone else is probably insurmountable without a Heisman candidate QB.
Michigan can win it all.
Michigan.
Can.
Win.
It.
All.
Are you a killer really?