What year should Wisconsin have played for a national title that they didn’t?
I am with you other than I wouldn’t use “rigged”. It is certainly configured/biased to work in that manner. Is “rigged” a fair word to use? Probably. But in this case, I’d err with Mr Chimp and steer clear of that description.
We were close to actually cracking into the system in 2011 but three things happened:
- Saban got 8 hours of time to politic for Bama in the BCS title game
- Wes Lunt shows flashes of brilliance but turns out to be fragile in 2012
- SI allows a UO homer to libel us to great effect in 2013
If even 2 of those 3 things don’t occur, we would be in a very different position today.
4 Likes
- Missed the field goal.
1 Like
I prefer the word “arranged”… if a “Traditionally powerful team that we in no way want to imply has an unfair advantage” falls off they are allowed to. It might take an act of God for it to occur but it can (even Bama can miss the playoffs despite it causing some media personalities to stroke out) and when it does they take their business class seats on commercial while the others fly charter.
1 Like
They haven’t had a great team since 2001. At what point do we stop labeling them as great every year when they’ve proven repeatedly over 20 years that they are not?
Also… 2012 Sugar Bowl is another perfect example. That game should have been Kansas State between Kansas State and Boise State. Instead, they picked Va Tech and Michigan. Why? Brands.
1 Like
FIFY 
very interesting.
The only time in the history of college football that a loss has mattered more than the wins was in 2011.
Two years later the term “quality loss” came into the lexicon to justify getting Auburn (brand name SEC) into the title game over Michigan State.
That year they got blown out by Ohio State in the Big 10 title game… There’s no way they didn’t show up for that game like that without some conspiracy involved.
IMHO, even if we had made it to the championship and won it in 2011, we still wouldn’t have “cracked into the system”. Takes longer. Sure would have helped. But we wouldn’t have had enough alumni across the country (Michigan, Texas, etc.) or brand cache (OU, Miami, etc.) to get the pre-season rankings, the recruit ranking boosts, the bowl selection tradeoffs (like Texas/Notre Dame in the CWB this year). It takes time, and we’re on the path better than anyone in our circumstance (historical P5 conference team with direct rivalry against a historic elite).
4 Likes
They have an enrollment of 44,000. They have Alums everywhere in the country. It’s a huge ‘Market.’
So the answer to your question is unfortunately never. They will never stop being labeled as a great program because it’s a simple matter of media economics.
1 Like
What I don’t understand is the fake outrage of star adjustment. If a program that puts kids in the NFL every year offers a recruit why wouldn’t that have a positive effect from recruiting analysts. When oSu offers a recruit I am sure other programs re-evaluate that prospect to see if oSu found something they missed. That is not to deny there is a logical business model of fleecing t-shirt fans out of money by promoting certain recruits in their publications.
EXACTLY MY POINT.
The brand means more than the results on the field. Period. Always has, always will.
Michigan has been consistently good under Harbaugh if a bit of an offensive outlier. Putting him on the hot seat is Ohio State Derangement Syndrome.
Yup. They are intertwined though. It just does take time. If a school wins enough to get in the CFP, year, after year, after year, after year, then their brand will grow. Which will in turn help the on field results and feed on each other.
Take for instance Clemson (great case study in so many ways). Their enrollment is close to ours. They have 24K. They haven’t been a ‘blue blood’ (sorry @TheHeadChimp). But if this CFP run keeps up for a decade, then they will have a windfall of cash that just continuously has been pumped into the system. That means more facilities, more growth, more advertising; that enrollment number will jump.
But 1, 2, 3 year spikes in winning on the field won’t affect ‘brand’ much.
2 Likes
Right. If a guy is rated as the 1300th best player in a class, and #125 at his position or whatever, and then Bama and LSU offer him, it’s pretty clear he’s much better than what his ranking suggests, so moving him up isn’t catering to LSU and Bama fans, it’s attempting to more accurately rank him
1 Like
Yes Clemson is very clearly the case study for a program like OSU… the issue is that they are in an extremely talent rich area (I know some people hate this argument) and they had won a national title in modern college football in the 80s, which allows you to keep the “no new team has won a national title since Florida.”
Yea I just meant Clemson was such an interesting case study in general. Not just specifically to OSU (regardless of my take on that)…because I know that’s a pretty hot topic people might find as a dead horse.
1 Like
Harbaugh was hired with expectations that exceeded just beating Ohio State once in a while. He was and is paid well and provided a budget to win national championships. He has been given ample time to find a QB and get his players into his system. The product on the field has not lived up to expectations. None of that makes him a bad coach. What I do think it shows is there are more ways to win since JH last coached college ball.
It should however make his seat warm as Ohio State or BIG teams (0-3 with 2 years no CFP teams) haven’t performed well in the CFP since JH took over for the 2015 season. FYI Ohio State won the CFP in 2015 after the 2014 season and probably why Michigan backed up the truck for JH.
CFP History
2015 2-0 Ohio State CFP champs (season before Harbaugh took over)
2016 0-1 (Michigan State)
2017 0-1 (Ohio State)
2018 No BIG teams
2019 No BIG teams
2020 0-1 (Ohio State)