Why a Wisconsin National Championship vs. Georgia would be appropriate for 2017 – tech2.org

Why a Wisconsin National Championship vs. Georgia would be appropriate for 2017



[ad_1]

For much of this week, the question in college football (aside from "Did Tennessee take stability lessons from the Italian government?") Has been "what if the state of Ohio wins Wisconsin?"

Assuming that Oklahoma beats TCU (and Sooners are favorites of 7.5 points, although S & P + projects a more closed game), an Ohio State victory would mean a debate between Alabama and Ohio State for the last place in the Playoffs of University Football. Two of the three dominant programs of the Playoffs youth era, led by the two best college football coaches, would be fighting for the fourth and final offer. A team would have a better record and less baggage in the loss column; the other would have a conference title and better victories.

If Alabama or Ohio State reaches the postseason, that team could become the favorite. They are the teams n. ° 1 and n. ° 2 in the country according to S & P +. They are No. 1 and No. 3 according to Predictor Sagarin, with No. 2 Penn State out of the race. This is not a college basketball, where the last weekend before the tournament is debated about what team of 18-12 should do Big Dance to become cannon fodder. The argument of the State of Alabama-Ohio would be important, since any of the teams would have a great chance of winning the title.

As Bill Connelly has repeatedly pointed out (including the previous link), this has been a year without a dominant team, especially compared to 2016:

At this time of the 2016 season, six teams had an S & S rating P + of plus-22.3 or higher (which means that they were measured as 22.3 points or better than the average FBS team), including the four eventual participants of college football games. Louisville was No. 7 in plus-21.4.

His current No. 1 team for 2017, Ohio State, would have qualified in eighth place with a plus-21.3. Wisconsin is almost literally the same team this year (more -18.6) than last year (more-19.2), only the Badgers were tenth in 2016. This time they are third.

In this sense, 2017 is like 2007, 1990 and 1984, the three craziest seasons in the history of college football. Those seasons also lacked a dominant team:

  • 1984 came when Miami, Penn State and Oklahoma dominated, but thanks to some timely setbacks and a favorable schedule, BYU came out with the crown. For SRS, the Cougars were the weakest national champion since 1980 by a healthy margin.
  • The year 1990 came when Miami, Florida State and Notre Dame were the best teams in college football. The three suffered shocking losses in 1990, opening the door for Georgia Tech to win their first national title since 1952 and Colorado to share the title, their only title in the history of the school.
  • 2007 was crazy in every way, ending with the first national champion of two defeats in the modern era, an LSU that managed to lose to Kentucky and Arkansas. USC, Florida and Texas were the best programs at that time, but none of them was around when the dust settled.

BYU, Colorado, Georgia Tech, and a team trained by Les Miles: those are the types of teams that chaos seasons should win. Or, as Commodus put it in Gladiator "Amazing story … Now, people want to know how the story ends … Only a famous death will do."

Thematically speaking, Gladiator no he could finish with Commodus beating Maximus, and a wild 2017 can not end with Nick Saban or Urban Meyer winning the national title.

Between 2009 and 2016, Alabama teams published S & P ratings in a range between 22.2 (2013) and 34 (2016). The Tide 2017 is at 20.2, which means it could be two points lower than the Tide that was badped at the Sugar Bowl by Oklahoma and a non-favorite 11.8 for the 2016 Bama team with the epic defensive front.

State of Ohio the period of domination is shorter, but the point remains the same. The 2014 team posted a remarkable score of 30.2 S & P +. The Buckeyes continued with a rating of 24.0 in 2015 and a rating of 24.6 last year. This year's team registers at 21.3, which means that the 2017 Buckeyes would be a field goal inferior to the last two Ohio State teams and a 9-point loser for the 2014 national champions.

Alabama and Ohio State should win championships when they put great teams on the field. We do not want to look back in 2017 and say, "Yes, that version of the Tide / Bucks was markedly weaker than previous versions, but they won a title anyway." Meyer and Saban should not add to their nine combined national titles with B teams (in relation to their high standards).

This line of reasoning also applies to other contenders, all of whom already have titles in the 2000s:

  • Oklahoma is at 16.3. Baker Mayfield is fun, but that miserable defender is ranked number 100 in the S & P + defense. This Oklahoma team would probably have lost to many Sooners teams since 2005, an unusually flawed team that managed to produce a game in which Adrian Peterson ran for -4 yards against Kansas.
  • Auburn's 16.9 rating is a field goal worse than the 2013 team and a touchdown worse than 2010 and 2014. Auburn is a hot team at the moment, but over the course of a full season, Gus Malzahn has produced better editions. (Still, a two-game loss of the SEC West Tigers that won 10 years after 2007 would be poetic.)
  • Clemson's 15.5 rating is significantly worse than the 26.9 of 2016 or 2015 of 26.8. It is almost the same as that of the 2014 team, which started the season with Cole Stoudt as a quarterback and lost on his two trips to Georgia for a combined total of 46 points.
  • Probably out of USC, but this is obviously far from being the most worthy trojan team of this millennium anyway.

Wisconsin is the first candidate. The Badgers have an S & P + rating of 18.6. If they finish the season there, t their would be Wisconsin's best rating since 1912 better than any of the Barry Alvarez or Bret. Bielema Rose Bowl equipment. That team of 1912, led by itinerant William Juneau, won the Western Conference and allowed no more than 12 points in a game. This year's team has allowed only one opponent to win more than 17 when using their traditional walk-ons formula in the state and the continuity of the program with great success. Wisconsin has never claimed a national title, so for this season to end like 1984 or 1990, the Badgers would be the ideal champion.

Georgia is another team to consider. The Dawgs have an S & P + rating of 18.0, which puts them in the range of their best recent teams. For SRS, this is the best team in Georgia since 1981, and is one of the best in Uga since being the best since 1971. A Georgia national title would fit the theme of chaos seasons producing unlikely champions (the Dawgs have not won a national title in 37 years), and would represent the stroke of luck that eluded Mark Richt when he produced better teams.

If the favorites prevail, neither will have a chance in the national championship, and we get a champion who is one step below some of his recent predecessors. In a season without dominant teams, it would only be appropriate for the Dawgs and Badgers to make a couple of surprises and then meet in Atlanta.

Miami is a strange case. On the one hand, the 12.4 S & P + rating of the Canes is almost 4 points worse than the 2016 team that was 9-4. On the other hand, SRS likes this team of Canes more since 2004. In a strange season, why not anoint the team that almost lost to North Carolina and lost to Pitt, but also defeated Virginia Tech and Notre Dame? And given that Miami took 13 years to make a game for the ACC title, in 2017 there could be something new in the Miami national title. Your mileage may vary.

TCU is probably out of the race, but has one of its four best teams since the 1950s and the second best of its brief Power 5 era. The Horned Frogs have not been able to claim a national title since 1938, so that TCU breaking into the field would be a fun and appropriate revenge for the 2009 and 2010 teams that do not have an opportunity for the recklessness of playing in Mountain West. 19659031] [ad_2]
Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.