How many different champions by league since 2005?

[18IsTheMan]

CFP expansion is a purely emotional argument. And the numbers prove it.

NFL: 13
NBA: 13
MLB: 15
NCAAB: 12
FCS football; 9
FBS football: 13

Disclaimer: I may have miscounted a bit, but the numbers are not far off.

This blasts a gigantic hole in the "handful of teams dominating" falsehood that gets thrown around. FBS football is exactly on par with every other major sports league in terms of parity.

The comical one is the FCS, as the FCS playoff is most often pathetically cited by people who don't know anything about college football as the reason FBS needs an expanded playoff. App State won 3 titles in a row. ND State won 10 total in that time frame. LOL FBS fans would be rioting in the streets if a single team had won 10 titles since 2005. But that model is the one most often cited as the reason we need playoff expansion. It has done NOTHING for parity for FCS. Sure, I guess you "give more teams a shot" but the same old teams always win.

The other most often cited is the NCAAT. If we have 60+ teams in the NCAAT, why is it bad to have 24 for the CFP? Well, college football has produced more different champions over the same time period, even though the NCAAT has a MUCH larger playoff field, which means college football has actually outperformed the NCAAT by a long shot in this respect.

People just say these things...a handful of teams dominate, we need to give more teams a shot, etc....when, all along, college football has been right where every other major sports league is in terms of parity.

It's a figment of anyone's imagination that a handful of teams dominate. Just because Alabama and Clemson had their runs around the same time, this lives in everyone's mind as though it's been the narrative of college football forever.

 

[Swifty]

The professional references are apples to oranges. 1/2 of the MLB and just over 1/3 of the NFL/NBA teams won a title in that span compared to 1/10 of FBS teams. That's as close to parity as we are likely to ever see.


As for FBS, I think the NIL/portal era (along with Saban's retirement) will obviously increase those numbers over the next two decades. Indiana most certainly wouldn't have won last year without NIL/portal. This year looks to be the most wide open I've seen in my 50 years. Sure, it will probably boil down to UGA, tOSU, Miami as they seem to be the most consistent teams, but it could very well be BYU or Texas Tech or Ole Miss. Who knows?

 

[18IsTheMan]

The professional references are apples to oranges. 1/2 of the MLB and just over 1/3 of the NFL/NBA teams won a title in that span compared to 1/10 of FBS teams. That's as close to parity as we are likely to ever see.


As for FBS, I think the NIL/portal era (along with Saban's retirement) will obviously increase those numbers over the next two decades. Indiana most certainly wouldn't have won last year without NIL/portal. This year looks to be the most wide open I've seen in my 50 years. Sure, it will probably boil down to UGA, tOSU, Miami as they seem to be the most consistent teams, but it could very well be BYU or Texas Tech or Ole Miss. Who knows?

Maybe apples to oranges, but folks consistently cite the % of teams from pro leagues that make the playoffs relative to college football, so it's necessary to look at the numbers.

The numbers simply don't support the arguments made. They prove the arguments wrong.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There may be other reasons to argue for CFP expansion but there's no example from the world of sports that supports "giving more teams a shot" makes any difference.

 

[Uscg1984]

As a pure college football fan, meaning I am/have been a fan of college football first and everything else is a distant second, my argument was that college football should be cautious about making itself resemble those inferior products.

Of course, there are fans of the NFL, NBA, etc. who may consider college football to be an inferior product, but there's a real danger in trying to change your product to appeal to those fans.

The changes we've seen in college football of late have been anything but cautious.

 

[kidrobinski]

There may be other reasons to argue for CFP expansion but there's no example from the world of sports that supports "giving more teams a shot" makes any difference.

Then you should be good to go.

 

[adcoop]

CFP expansion is a purely emotional argument. And the numbers prove it.

NFL: 13
NBA: 13
MLB: 15
NCAAB: 12
FCS football; 9
FBS football: 13

Disclaimer: I may have miscounted a bit, but the numbers are not far off.

This blasts a gigantic hole in the "handful of teams dominating" falsehood that gets thrown around. FBS football is exactly on par with every other major sports league in terms of parity.

The comical one is the FCS, as the FCS playoff is most often pathetically cited by people who don't know anything about college football as the reason FBS needs an expanded playoff. App State won 3 titles in a row. ND State won 10 total in that time frame. LOL FBS fans would be rioting in the streets if a single team had won 10 titles since 2005. But that model is the one most often cited as the reason we need playoff expansion. It has done NOTHING for parity for FCS. Sure, I guess you "give more teams a shot" but the same old teams always win.

The other most often cited is the NCAAT. If we have 60+ teams in the NCAAT, why is it bad to have 24 for the CFP? Well, college football has produced more different champions over the same time period, even though the NCAAT has a MUCH larger playoff field, which means college football has actually outperformed the NCAAT by a long shot in this respect.

People just say these things...a handful of teams dominate, we need to give more teams a shot, etc....when, all along, college football has been right where every other major sports league is in terms of parity.

It's a figment of anyone's imagination that a handful of teams dominate. Just because Alabama and Clemson had their runs around the same time, this lives in everyone's mind as though it's been the narrative of college football forever.

....and your point? The 24 Team Playoff looks like it is happening whether you like it or not. As a wise person once told me, "Put the Fries in the Bag and Move on".

 

[kidrobinski]

....and your point? The 24 Team Playoff looks like it is happening whether you like it or not. As a wise person once told me, "Put the Fries in the Bag and Move on".

The point must be belabored, ad nauseum. Then we can get back to firing coaches discussion.

 

[Swifty]

Maybe apples to oranges, but folks consistently cite the % of teams from pro leagues that make the playoffs relative to college football, so it's necessary to look at the numbers.

The numbers simply don't support the arguments made. They prove the arguments wrong.

There is no doubt, though, that an expanded field coupled with a landscape somewhat evened out by NIL/portal that we will revisit this in 10-20 years and see that the number of programs that win a title will increase and the number of teams with playoff appearances will not merely double, but probably triple or more.
This isn't an argument for or against the expansion. Personally, I think 24 is too many. I'm more of a "Make football even more of its own thing, setup 64 teams into 8-8 team or divisions where they all play each other and rate regionally through members of the other divisions and then have an 8-team playoff of the division winners. OR 4 'conferences' with 2 8-team divisions and those division winners play for a spot in the 4-team playoff" kinda guy. Something along those lines. Then let the rest of current FBS have their own similar setup. I also don't mind the idea of relegation. The bottom team of a Tier 1 division is relegated to Tier 2 and the top teams from each Tier 2 division are promoted to Tier 1. I reckon that would make recruiting sticky but look at the mess we currently have.

 

[Piscis]

There is no doubt, though, that an expanded field coupled with a landscape somewhat evened out by NIL/portal that we will revisit this in 10-20 years and see that the number of programs that win a title will increase and the number of teams with playoff appearances will not merely double, but probably triple or more.
This isn't an argument for or against the expansion. Personally, I think 24 is too many. I'm more of a "Make football even more of its own thing, setup 64 teams into 8-8 team or divisions where they all play each other and rate regionally through members of the other divisions and then have an 8-team playoff of the division winners. OR 4 'conferences' with 2 8-team divisions and those division winners play for a spot in the 4-team playoff" kinda guy. Something along those lines. Then let the rest of current FBS have their own similar setup. I also don't mind the idea of relegation. The bottom team of a Tier 1 division is relegated to Tier 2 and the top teams from each Tier 2 division are promoted to Tier 1. I reckon that would make recruiting sticky but look at the mess we currently have.

I've been an advocate of 8 10 team conferences for a long time. Have 12 game seasons where each team plays every other team in their conference and 3 teams from one of the other conferences. No playing down to FCS level or G6 level opponents allowed. Each conference could decide how it selects its champion, championship game, ranking, head to head, however they want. Let the 8 champions play each other in a 3 round playoff, no byes, no seeding. Matchups selected by blind drawing with all games at neutral sites.

This is really the only way to have a true champion of the top level of college football.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Several HCs have come out and acknowledged the obvious: expansion is only about money. It CAN'T be about giving more teams a shot b/c the data clearly show that college football is right on par with every other relevant sports league in that respect. And well ahead of the idolized FCS playoffs.

It's not even about entertainment. We all saw what happened in the first round games last year. They were ridiculous, boring laughers.