Roll Damn Tide

Submitted by BernardC on January 12th, 2021 at 7:15 AM

If you’re out there or long lost compadre ~ Roll Tide. 

azee2890

January 12th, 2021 at 7:26 AM ^

I will say. Cheering for Alabama last night was actually pretty fun. Now I know what it's like to be a fan of a dominant college football team. 

crg

January 12th, 2021 at 8:42 AM ^

I say it because it is true over the long run.  It is easy to find decades where certain programs dominate and then were quiet for the next decade (or more).  It happens.  If anyone wants to claim that "this time is different" they can try, but that is rather myopic.

Does this mean Michigan will be dominant again in the 2020s?  Probably not (but maybe... hopefully).  It does mean that someone else is likely to rise up and displace one (or more) of the current "power" teams (or, more aptly, one of those teams will fall back to Earth).

CLord

January 12th, 2021 at 10:26 AM ^

I love the "these things come in cycles" nonsense.  Lions fans have been waiting for their cycle to start for 60 years now.  We're at 25 years.  Ryan Day is a baby and will likely be at OSU for 30 years.  Can't wait for Michigan's cycle to kick in 30 years from now when I'm likely dead.  Cool.

crg

January 12th, 2021 at 11:17 AM ^

Nonsense?  It applies to NFL as well - just ask a Browns fan now... or any New England fan... or any Dallas or Miami fan.  There are naturally cycles.  Detroit has been in cycles also, but mismanaged it - there were points to where one could see a real pathway to being consistently "good" if not better.

As for Michigan - were you not around in the 80s, 90s or early 2000s?  Did you not see how close we actually came even just a few years ago?  We aren't "back" by any means, but this isn't exactly a lost cause either.  Get some perspective.. or maybe find a different sport if you can't handle some turbulence in this one.

(Speaking of cycles in college sports - look at our basketball program over the past 30 years.   A single team, with relative continuity in staff and AD personnel, can have short term cycles.  A school/program can experience much longer term cycles that last several coaching changes.  It happens to other schools beyond our own.)

gruden

January 12th, 2021 at 11:15 AM ^

Look at OSU over the last 50+ years, they've fielded top teams each and every decade.  There were a handful of individual years where they didn't do as well, but they are never 'quiet' for a decade. 

The cycles concept may apply to many teams, but not to OSU. 

GRBluefan

January 12th, 2021 at 10:03 AM ^

Wasn't that picture after they lost in the National Championship game in 2007 (14 years ago). So yeah, they were beating us back then and competing for National Championships, and they are beating us now and competing for National Championships, with zero indication that a change is on the horizon.  15 years, and counting, is a pretty long cycle.   

BeatOSU52

January 12th, 2021 at 9:09 AM ^

Can we stop with the "this comes in cycles" thing? I've heard our fans say this since I joined back in 2009. Nearly 20 years of being dominated by OSU is not a "cycle". Either you fix it or you don't, it doesn't just happen automatically. 

 

This got downvoted quite a bit see, but I guess I'm in the minority and agree with you .  I've heard that phrase way too much on here as well over the years.  People are still stuck talking about the 1997 Charles Woodson punt return against Ohio St (which was awesome but it was 24 fucking years ago).  

 

evenyoubrutus

January 12th, 2021 at 9:16 AM ^

I think this phrase is way overused, but that is such a strawman statement. Nobody is saying they're still living off the excitement of Charles Woodson and the national championship from 24 years ago. But it's a statement of fact that things are cyclical. Every program has its downs. Michigan went 40 years without a losing season (and only 1 year with <8 wins, when it was common to play only 10 or 11 games in a season).

If you really think that "this is just the way things will always be" then, honestly, why do you even bother watching or following the team or caring at all? That's not a rhetorical question. What is the point of watching?

jmblue

January 12th, 2021 at 9:18 AM ^

The goal isn't to find the best team, it's to crown a champion - and generate lots of fan interest.  College football's method may not be so great for the latter.

Have a real tournament that gives more teams an incentive at the end of the season, and you will unquestionably boost fan interest.  Do the #16 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament lament their fate?  No, they're just thrilled to be there.

Beyond that, if more teams start regularly making the playoffs, that will reduce one of the big selling points of the Bama/Clemson/OSU triad.  

ldevon1

January 12th, 2021 at 10:05 AM ^

The goal isn't to find the best team, it's to crown a champion:

So the champion isn't considered the best team? I think you have this confused with the basketball tournament, where sometimes the hottest team wins. Football crowns the best team, and adding mediocre teams to that mix isn't going to change it. Explain to me which teams being added this year, or last year, or the year before that would have changed anything. 

 

RandallFlagg

January 12th, 2021 at 10:17 AM ^

I get it the better teams usually come out on top but if the playoffs get expanded then there’s a chance for an earlier upset.  Yes, OSU beat Clemson but OSU caught Clemson on the perfect night with two of Clemson’s best defenders out and their OC out.  Other than Clemson, OSU played a pathetic schedule.  Maybe get a few more teams in the playoff and a hot team can advance.   It works in basketball. 

matt1114

January 12th, 2021 at 9:12 AM ^

I agree and disagree. There'd be more games played, and more chances for teams to slip. Every year there seems to be a clear cut 1 and/or 2 and the last 2 seem to come from a group of 4 or 5 teams that equally deserve to be in. 

 

I know this isn't the best comparison, but what the NCAA does for basketball is a great counter-argument. From a quick search, it has only been the top 4 number 1 seeds in the final four once, and rarely are the final four all ranked 1/2/3. There's usually a 5+ seed that makes it in, and a lot of times those teams were never ranked in the top 25 all year. Our playoff doesn't allow the "cinderella story" to happen. Could Cincinnati have done better than Notre Dame? Coastal Carolina and Liberty looked good(yes I know they'd get destroyed by Alabama). Ucf from a few years ago. 

Personally, I want it expanded to 16, and not be the top 16 teams necessarily. If you go undefeated, you deserve a spot. Regardless of the competition, that is rarely done. 

Cope

January 12th, 2021 at 9:15 AM ^

I don’t know that the four teams are at their own level or that the best teams were clearly determined. Is getting blown out by 28 “at” Alabama’s level? And it wasn’t particularly predicted OSU would handle Clemson. So what are the levels of the three exactly?

To make it more complex, Florida played a heck of a game against Alabama and could’ve won by a shoestring (or hurdle). The Gators are the only team that seemed like an equal competitor to Alabama this year. Certainly not OSU. 

Also, a playoff containing the same four teams is self-fulfilling. Who can say it was a confirmation of the best despite its flaws? Alabama was special, but none of the other three looked it for each of the games they lost in January.

This is why playoffs happen and why they should include more teams.