Explaining Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State program dominance. Biggest factors?
Colleagues at work were arguing about how college football is now way less interesting week-to-week than the NFL because of the rise of juggernaut programs that suck all of the life out of the game. There are no more meaningful upsets or surprises. Same teams at the top year on year.
I disagreed, mainly because I hate NFL football. But then this question was asked for which I could formulate no coherent answer.
Was hoping someone could help me explain the reasons "why" and "how".
Is it superior coaching? The recruiting tactics and efficacy? Different admissions standards? Under-the-table benefits? Combination of all of the above?
Thanks.
https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs
November 7th, 2019 at 12:56 PM ^
It rhymes with Mag Ben
November 7th, 2019 at 1:10 PM ^
Crag Hen? Quit drinking and go to bed.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:18 PM ^
You realize it's Thursday afternoon, right?
November 7th, 2019 at 1:23 PM ^
Go clutch your pearls somewhere else! We've got drinking to do.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:41 PM ^
Sorry, but that doesn't explain it all, otherwise Ole Miss would win every year.
Those three programs also have had exceptional coaching and enough sustained success that recruiting becomes almost easy.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:49 PM ^
How are we blaming bagmen again?
2016:
November 7th, 2019 at 3:29 PM ^
I know it doesn’t apply to today, but 2014 and 2015 were abysmal. It has a taken awhile to recover from those years. 2016 wasn’t that great, Gary was our best recruit and, well, you decide. Even with him, our Avg put us at 12th nationally. Overall we were ranked 8th due to a large number of recruits which falsely inflated our ranking.
2017: great class, no doubt. Maybe too many great receivers in that class. Still lost a few very solid players from that class though.
I think our OL recruiting has been ok. We only have 9 OL guys that were 4 stars or above total from 16-19. OSU has had 12. We ironically seem to grab a lot of 5* at skill positions, QB, RB, WR, but without a good OL, none of it matters. We all know it starts up front and all of the top teams recruit the OL and DL so well. Still I think we have seen a significantly positive trend in recruiting and hopefully Harbaugh can keep it up.
November 7th, 2019 at 6:06 PM ^
Penn State makes it work without an Oline. Harbaugh's offense at Michigan has been a shit show and can't make any 5* shine without all 11 pieces functioning at A+ capacity. That doesn't happen in college.
November 7th, 2019 at 4:17 PM ^
Because we as Michigan fans have to believe these other teams pay everyone to come to their school. That way we don't have to look in the mirror.
November 7th, 2019 at 5:34 PM ^
Hmm, Michigan level recruiting in the ACC? Can't possibly imagine how that would help. Nope, no clue.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:50 PM ^
2017:
November 7th, 2019 at 1:58 PM ^
Clemson also has the easiest schedule of anyone. It’s not hard getting up for 1 big game a year.
November 7th, 2019 at 2:00 PM ^
Wait, they have a big game this year?
November 7th, 2019 at 2:02 PM ^
Knock it off. Syracuse and Pitt always play them tough...
November 7th, 2019 at 10:31 PM ^
Don't forget the Charlotte 49ers!
November 7th, 2019 at 2:08 PM ^
Their 2016 team won at Auburn, at #12 Florida State (which we lost to), and beat the living shit out of OSU 31-0 (which we lost to). Find another excuse.
November 7th, 2019 at 4:25 PM ^
I would have loved to have bet on this being the first answer on this board. It would have been a no brainer. Of course this being mgoblog the odds would have been something like -42000.
I guarantee it happens but y'all are all in delusions if you think the only reason you can't compete is due to bag men.
November 7th, 2019 at 12:59 PM ^
I wish I had co-workers who would discuss such topics as this.
My cubicle is sandwiched in between 3 women 1 old guy who doesn’t like sports.
I had to listen to a conversation about fake eyebrows/eyelashes and another one about how this lady says she begs her bf to ask her to marry her on a daily basis.
Its rough.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:08 PM ^
Ask for a seating change...
November 7th, 2019 at 1:28 PM ^
on the plus side you now know the main revelations of "Real Housewives of Boise" without having to spend a minute watching....
November 7th, 2019 at 11:00 PM ^
I would take a job for less pay if all my coworkers just discussed college football all day year round.
November 7th, 2019 at 12:59 PM ^
Easy.
They've got more heart, more passion, more of a drive to win.
EDIT: didn't think it was needed, but this is sarcasm "/s"
November 7th, 2019 at 12:59 PM ^
Recruiting. With social media and recruiting rankings being highly publicized there are now juggernauts built with high school players wanting to play for that program or commit to places with other top recruits. Not saying it wasn’t like this 20 years ago, but it is much more publicized and communicated.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:11 PM ^
also the kids camp together and are in contact a lot more. Now instead of going to a school with your high school friend, you go to a school with your fellow 5 star friend you met at the Nike camp.
It really drives these kids together too, the elite ones. Dashawn Hand had a cousin who was barely a 3 star kid who was resentful of his success in that he felt like he should be getting more looks and more offers outside of "if he comes, you can come too" Shawn was able to connect with other highly recruited players who were dealing with the same choices and issues that he was and those connections turn into friendships, coordinated visits, group chats etc.
I think another thing I would guess without knowing for sure, but more freshman are ready to play from Day 1, so the path to the field isn't as hard at Bama and Clemson because the coach will get a lot more players on the field than perhaps 20 or 30 years ago.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:00 PM ^
inequality in college football with social media and connectivity. These recruits can meet at camps and all get together and plan to go to the same school.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:09 PM ^
I can buy some combination of this and superior coaching. "Bag men" doesn't really hold water, as there are plenty of other programs that have bag men but haven't had nearly as much success.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:16 PM ^
Superior coaching goes a long ways. Not just in the x's and o's, but also in motivation. It's especially clear in high school sports in which students chose sports based on whether their friends are playing or if the coach makes the sport fun.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:01 PM ^
1. Cheating
end of list.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:07 PM ^
recruiting, recruiting and recruiting. bag men may be a part of recruiting success, but their on the field success is all about recruiting.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:41 PM ^
Well that and performance enhancing drugs.
November 7th, 2019 at 2:01 PM ^
The combo for the win.
I won a euchre tournament with one of my friends. After the last game the losing team said "I guess your signs beat our setting the deck". I responded, "No, our signs and setting the deck beat your setting the deck."
There is enough circumstantial evidence to believe Clemson & Alabama (and others) are willing to pay for recruits as well as utilize steroids once they get on campus. Other schools may do one or the other (MSU = steroids but no bag men) but very few are willing to do both.
Now throw on the other factors people have mentioned: winning teams sign better recruits, good coaching beats bad coaching, some teams work scheduling advantages better than others and you can understand why Clemson & Alabama have had sustained success.
November 7th, 2019 at 2:35 PM ^
Roids, I was gonna say roids.
November 7th, 2019 at 2:58 PM ^
This may be obvious, but Roids work.
I've known a few people who were on roids. My one buddy went from a 370 pound bench to a 550 pound bench in 3 months. He was ~50% stronger than the version of himself that wasn't doing roids. He also had a shit ton of roid rage. That hyped up aggression when under some control is great for playing football.
I don't know, but it seems like there are less roids now than in the 80s. For awhile everyone looked like freaking Arnold. Maybe they're just using a different kind now.
November 7th, 2019 at 4:09 PM ^
It's got to be more than that or Sparty would be the number one team in the country
November 7th, 2019 at 1:08 PM ^
I heard the other day that Alabama's roster has 69 players who were either 4 or 5 star recruits, Ohio State has 60.
It doesn't mean that everyone of those kids will be a star. What it means if they can afford to have recruiting misses, to have attrition, to have injuries, and not miss a beat. Combine that with good coaching, and lesser academic restrictions, you have your answer.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:30 PM ^
Will be interesting to see how the increasing level of transfers impacts things. On one hand the better teams will have less depth as the back-up 4/5 star who is not seeing the field early transfers away. On the other hand, this allows these teams to bring in more freshman every year so that have greater number of players to choose from (ie, replace a 4 star junior who hasn't developed with a 4 star freshman who might). Plus they can bring in high quality transfers to fill known holes (a la OSU and Fields).
My guess is that, on average this will make these teams even stronger, but the occasional year when the injury bug hits will be worse. In short, they'll have more variability.
November 7th, 2019 at 3:07 PM ^
"Combine that with good coaching, and lesser academic restrictions, you have your answer."
Add sex, drugs, and bagmen. . . now you are getting pretty close.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:10 PM ^
No surprising upsets? Like when a pretty shit Illinois beat a Wisconsin that curb stomped Michigan?
ok
November 7th, 2019 at 2:03 PM ^
Or a crap South Carolina team beating UGA...or UNC nearly taking down Clemson
November 7th, 2019 at 1:10 PM ^
I think it's all of the above. Alabama, OSU, and Clemson have excellent coaching staffs. And they're great recruiters. We're fooling ourselves if we deny that.
I also have to believe those programs are not holding themselves to Michigan's standards when it comes to rule following and admitting guys who are academic risks. My hunch is that Clemson is the worst offender, but I certainly don't know that.
November 7th, 2019 at 4:02 PM ^
I think this comment is 100% wishful thinking. Show me a kid Ohio State offered that Michigan didn’t offer because of an academic risk. Michigan and OSU offer all the same kids. Go look at OSU’s commit lists for the past however far 24/7 goes back, and they all have Michigan offers. Michigan offers all the same top 100 kids as everyone else.
I’m sure there are plenty of kids Michigan doesn’t go after due to academics or personality flaws, but OSU doesn’t go after those kids either. I can name several recent examples, chief among them, Lynn Bowden.
November 7th, 2019 at 5:04 PM ^
Fair enough, I'm happy to retract my lumping in of OSU with the others on that front. I'll even add that my semi-educated belief is that OSU is much cleaner with regard to bag men than Clemson is.
November 7th, 2019 at 5:23 PM ^
But that's the thing, maybe we are, and maybe we aren't. If you told me OSU has a bunch of boosters that pay players, I would 100% believe you. But I'd believe that also happens anywhere else that's a major P5 school. What I think is nonsensical are the arguments where fans lie to themselves about "well, we're dirty, but not like them." Because, what does that mean? We pay our players less money? We pay our players the same money, but we pay less players? If you start with the baseline that every major P5 school is looking the other way while its major athletes are profiting off the underbelly of the sport, it's easy to see why the same schools are at the top of the pile every year: Development, Coaching, Talent, Scheme.
Tough to swallow pill, but Michigan hasn't developed players well since the days of Lloyd Carr. How many major recruits have under-performed their star ranking at Michigan recently. A lot. How many Michigan players are dominating the NFL right now. Tom Brady and ... ? Coaching is self explanatory, Michigan was in the coaching wilderness from 2008 - 2014, and quite frankly, Harbaugh is closer to a Brady Hoke than he is to an Urban Meyer. Talent? Well, see the issues with development. Scheme? Michigan is on its third offensive scheme in Harbaugh's 5 years. That's insane. You got college kids, who--if everything goes according to plan--will leave in 3 years, and they're all learning three different offenses in that time frame? Not ideal!
Michigan has held itself back. On its own.
November 7th, 2019 at 5:38 PM ^
Just my sense of things: Clemson doesn't try terribly hard to chase away boosters, and Clemson boosters pay more than most schools' backers do. Someone apparently offered Rashan Gary a couple of hundred thousand ($300k?) to go to Clemson. He was the No. 1 recruit in his class, of course, but it seems likely to me that there are guys who pick the Tigers who receive $10k+. My guess is that you're more likely to see a $100 handshake in AA or Columbus than a $10k payment. And my guess is that you see more $100 handshakes in Columbus because it's a bigger city and harder to police in an NCAA rules sense than is AA. So everyone is cheating to some extent, I assume, but there are differences in degree.
As for the difference between Michigan and OSU on the field, I think it's at least 95% rooted in coaching, recruiting ability, and the gap between Ohio and Michigan when it comes to producing talent. OSU has mostly just been kicking Michigan's butt. I think a lot of us are somewhere between numb and resigned to that.
November 7th, 2019 at 5:53 PM ^
I think your first part is fair, but that really just means that Michigan (and OSU) cheat less than the south due to blind circumstance. Not because of any inherit virtue or nobility.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:11 PM ^
Let's not dismiss some of this is luck. The right coaches at the right time at the right place. I mean even with how it all worked with Meyer going to osu. What if he wasn't available and they had a "so so " hire. Easily could have seen them winning 9-10 games a year instead of the routine 11+.
The work happens, of course, but a lot of it has to do with programs not paying large transition costs a la UM going Carr to RR to Hoke, etc. Even better look at Texas who is now rebounding or on the other end the Volunteers.
One of the things that seems a common thread is right coach at the right time for the right program. Every other team that fell off a cliff had to pay a major cost with rocky transitions that sets them behind.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:14 PM ^
true, before Saban, Bama was having rough years. It's just worse now because of social media, and so much media. Plus a lot of us are at different places in our lives and we pay more attention now. I think it plays into why every fan base hates every other fan base. I used to "dislike" OSU growing up, but I never hated anyone...or even cared about other fan bases. But now, because of twitter (mostly) and message boards, blogs, ie fan interaction I fucking hate OSU...MSU...PSU...everyone in the SEC etc.
November 7th, 2019 at 8:26 PM ^
I actually went the opposite way. Sports hated UM until maybe 35 and now just see it as a game I fuss over one day a year.
It may be because I'm not on social media and it's no longer the Cooper years...but it's still how it is.
I work with several UM guys. They are really good guys. We don't usually talk football. But one came to me after Wisconsin and said it looks like an OSU year again. I said...well...we haven't played you yet.
TLDR: get off Twitter.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:11 PM ^
Well, it's ultimately a combo of (1) structural advantages vs. (2) executional advantages.
Alabama and Ohio State - I'd argue among all 121 FBS schools, they have THE 2 BIGGEST structural advantages in the sport. Huge fan support, historical blue-blood, big national program, TV loves to show them and they get exposure from that, tons of $, in rich recruiting areas, et cetera.
As long as both programs execute at even average levels, their floor will always be "very good."
USC, Florida, Michigan, Texas and others have structural advantages too - but not to the level of Alabama & OSU.
Clemson's structural advantages are even less than those schools above. Which makes execution even more important. But they have executed very well in the 2010s. Dabo deserves credit for that.
November 7th, 2019 at 1:18 PM ^
I'd argue that USC and Texas are the best positioned for success. Texas is THE school in the state with the most talent. They also make more $$ than anyone else but $20M a year i think. USC is the THE school in another top 3 talent state, and to be honest it's the only Blue blood football program west of Texas. They should have their pick of Cali kids.
Clemson has continuity (they never lose assistants) and kids love Dabo...he's the anti-Saban but still wins. He was given a decade though to get where he wanted to be.