Final Fours: Football vs. Basketball

[Scooch]

Not that we needed much evidence to confirm that the college football final four is an oligarchy, while the college basketball final four is a democracy, but here it is...

COLLEGE FOOTBALL FINAL FOUR

- 7 years (2015-2021) X 4 participants per year = 28 possible participants
- 11 colleges have appeared in 7 years
- 4 colleges have 20 appearances (Bama 6, Clemson 6, Ohio State 4, Oklahoma 4); the remaining 7 schools = 8 appearances
- 5 conferences represented
- each of the past 6 years have featured 3 of the 4 highest-appearing teams
- 3 repeat title matchups in 6 years

COLLEGE BASKETBALL FINAL FOUR

- past 7 years (2013-2019) X 4 participants per year = 28 possible participants
- 21 colleges have appeared in 7 years
- 7 colleges with multiple appearances, but none with more than 2 (Kentucky, Mich, Mich St, UNC, Cuse, Nova, Wiscy)
- 9 conferences represented
- 1 final four in past 7 has had more than 1 team make consecutive appearances (Kent 2014-15, Wiscy 2014-15)
- 0 repeat title matchups in 7 years


I love college football, I really do. But, man oh man, the CBB championship process is so much more fun and interesting.

 

[Eric15]

I love college football, I really do. But, man oh man, the CBB championship process is so much more fun and interesting.

In the past quarter century we have only had a repeat champion in college football one time (Bama in 2011/2012). And in both seasons they lost a game -- they weren't invincible.

Bama and Clemson won't be on top forever. We have seen teams like Florida, FSU, USC, Miami, etc. go from seemingly invincible to struggling very quickly. There is an ebb and flow to everything.

I love March Madness and think it's exciting when Cinderella teams win in the early rounds, but when low-seeded teams make the Final Four I honestly think to myself "this is just stupid and undermines the regular season."

 

[Libero2]

In the past quarter century we have only had a repeat champion in college football one time (Bama in 2011/2012). And in both seasons they lost a game -- they weren't invincible.

Bama and Clemson won't be on top forever. We have seen teams like Florida, FSU, USC, Miami, etc. go from seemingly invincible to struggling very quickly. There is an ebb and flow to everything.

I love March Madness and think it's exciting when Cinderella teams win in the early rounds, but when low-seeded teams make the Final Four I honestly think to myself "this is just stupid and undermines the regular season."

I believe it’s been said best as “the first weekend is for the underdog, after that I want those top teams competing for the title” and thats more or less my mentality. Let all the pretenders lose to underdogs early and then let everyone who is actually good enough to win a title make it to the elite 8 and beyond

 

[All4SU]

This was touched on in another thread, but I think the 4team format has contributed to that problem. With two teams, the other bowl games still appear to have major significance and schools can still sell a post season success story. If with four teams, all of the emphasis is on the playoff and everyone else is outside looking in. Those teams will get stronger and stronger.

if we don’t go back to two teams - which we won’t - I think we have to go to 8 just to try to inject more opportunity for more teams. More opportunity means more teams can sell it to their recruits. More kids have a chance. Talent should spread out a LITTLE bit more at least.

 

[djcon57]

But what if they players get paid off their likeness...then things won’t be fair...or something

 

[OttoinGrotto]

In the past quarter century we have only had a repeat champion in college football one time (Bama in 2011/2012). And in both seasons they lost a game -- they weren't invincible.

Bama and Clemson won't be on top forever. We have seen teams like Florida, FSU, USC, Miami, etc. go from seemingly invincible to struggling very quickly. There is an ebb and flow to everything.

So I live close to BYU and know a lot of BYU fans, and they knew that even though they went undefeated for almost the entire year this season it wouldn't matter.

That's not good.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Football really needs to find ways to increase parity in the sport. It's so crazy that a program like Notre Dame is a 17 point underdog to a team like Alabama.

Hoops still struggles with catering to the P5 with tourney bids and bad officiating, but at least there's a chance for every program to make a run to the Final Four.

 

[Alsacs]

CFB playoff is like UEFA champions league.
The same big dogs are going to win and compete in it. The problem is there is no group stage for teams to aspire to compete in as the playoff is only 4 teams.

If College football wanted a real playoff they would need to reduce the regular season.

The conference seasons is where you make your mark as a program as unless you are an elite team you aren’t getting a chance in the CFB.

 

[Scooch]

In the past quarter century we have only had a repeat champion in college football one time (Bama in 2011/2012). And in both seasons they lost a game -- they weren't invincible.

Bama and Clemson won't be on top forever. We have seen teams like Florida, FSU, USC, Miami, etc. go from seemingly invincible to struggling very quickly. There is an ebb and flow to everything.

I love March Madness and think it's exciting when Cinderella teams win in the early rounds, but when low-seeded teams make the Final Four I honestly think to myself "this is just stupid and undermines the regular season."

I'm just finding this final 4, which looks like almost every other final 4 of the past 7 years, to be repetitive and boring. I don't care at all who wins, because no matter who it is, its just another title for the same small set of bluebloods that always win.

Understood that the "same small set of bluebloods" does change over time, but this does feel like one of the more prolonged periods of it being static. And to be honest, I found some of those other teams you mentioned to be more interesting from a personality standpoint. Miami, USC, and Florida State were a lot more colorful than the current elites, in my humble opinion.

I like the college hoops tourney because it strikes me as the best of all worlds -- (a) non-factories can legitimately compete for a title (see Villanova, Gonzaga), (b) true Cinderellas can make a run (see Loyola, VCU), (c) ultimately, a top team wins it all ("top" = top 1-12 team in the country, almost always).

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I'm just finding this final 4, which looks like almost every other final 4 of the past 7 years, to be repetitive and boring. I don't care at all who wins, because no matter who it is, its just another title for the same small set of bluebloods that always win.

Understood that the "same small set of bluebloods" does change over time, but this does feel like one of the more prolonged periods of it being static. And to be honest, I found some of those other teams you mentioned to be a more interesting from a personality standpoint. Miami, USC, and Florida State were a lot more colorful than the current elites, in my humble opinion.

I like the college hoops tourney because it strikes me as the best of all worlds -- (a) non-factories can legitimately compete for a title (see Villanova, Gonzaga), (b) true Cinderellas can make a run (see Loyola, VCU), (c) ultimately, a top team wins it all ("top" = top 1-12 team in the country, almost always).

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

The advent of the CCG created this more than anything. Look at the CFB landscape in 1991. Much harder to consolidate the four best teams when the major programs are spread out amongst 7 conferences plus Independents.

 

[sufandu]

The best thing for college football would be to reduce conference size to 8 teams and have an expanded playoff. Everyone could play a full round robin while leaving room for OOC games. Everyone could schdule an exciting challenging OOC game while leaving room for a tomato can or two. There would be more variety from year to year and no rematches in conference championship games like we sometimes see now. And a great byproduct would be the return of double round robin schedules for basketball.

 

[cuseincincy]

CBB championship is won/earned on the court.

CFB is based primarily on:
1- Prior seasons success
2- Opinion.

 

[cuseincincy]

In the past quarter century we have only had a repeat champion in college football one time (Bama in 2011/2012). And in both seasons they lost a game -- they weren't invincible.

Bama and Clemson won't be on top forever. We have seen teams like Florida, FSU, USC, Miami, etc. go from seemingly invincible to struggling very quickly. There is an ebb and flow to everything.

I love March Madness and think it's exciting when Cinderella teams win in the early rounds, but when low-seeded teams make the Final Four I honestly think to myself "this is just stupid and undermines the regular season."

Well this would be a good way to make sure Gonzaga never makes the tournament.

 

[SWC75]

I think the FB playoff has too few teams and the basketball playoff too many. But basketball is by it's nature more democratic. You need only 5 starters and about 8 reliable players, to be recruited over 4 years, (if they stay). Football has 22 starts plus kicking specialists. Dino was complaining about having less than 60 scholarship players.

8 football teams and 32 basketball teams would be good, IMHO.

 

[SWC75]

The best thing for college football would be to reduce conference size to 8 teams and have an expanded playoff. Everyone could play a full round robin while leaving room for OOC games. Everyone could schdule an exciting challenging OOC game while leaving room for a tomato can or two. There would be more variety from year to year and no rematches in conference championship games like we sometimes see now. And a great byproduct would be the return of double round robin schedules for basketball.

9 teams is better. Eight game schedules, 4 at home and 4 on the road. Take the top 72 teams and organize them into 9 team conferences and have the conference championship play in an 8 team playoff. Send everybody else back to FCS to give North Dakota State some competition. Easier said than done, though.

 

[SWC75]

Football really needs to find ways to increase parity in the sport. It's so crazy that a program like Notre Dame is a 17 point underdog to a team like Alabama.

Hoops still struggles with catering to the P5 with tourney bids and bad officiating, but at least there's a chance for every program to make a run to the Final Four.

In the 22 years since the BCS started there have bene 2 northern national champions - both Ohio State teams. In the previous 22 years there were a dozen- Pittsburgh, Notre Dame twice, Penn State twice, Brigham Young, Colorado, Washington, Nebraska three times and Michigan.

Why has the south dominated? I offer three reasons - longer high school seasons, allowing southern players to develop faster is one. Segregation no longer holds them back, (pulling out of it in a big way was a long process). They used to say recruit size and strength in the north because athletes were inside 6 months a year lifting weights whereas you recruits speed and agility in the south because they spent 12 months a year running around outside. The popularity of weight rooms as a recruiting tool meant everybody had one and the size and strength deficit was eliminated. The speed and agility deficit remains.

Can anybody add a thought on why the south is dominant?

 

[sufandu]

In the 22 years since the BCS started there have bene 2 northern national champions - both Ohio State teams. In the previous 22 years there were a dozen- Pittsburgh, Notre Dame twice, Penn State twice, Brigham Young, Colorado, Washington, Nebraska three times and Michigan.

Why has the south dominated? I offer three reasons - longer high school seasons, allowing southern players to develop faster is one. Segregation no longer holds them back, (pulling out of it in a big way was a long process). They used to say recruit size and strength in the north because athletes were inside 6 months a year lifting weights whereas you recruits speed and agility in the south because they spent 12 months a year running around outside. The popularity of weight rooms as a recruiting tool meant everybody had one and the size and strength deficit was eliminated. The speed and agility deficit remains.

Can anybody add a thought on why the south is dominant?

1) Population shift to the south. 2) Greater interest in (worship of) the game leads to more participation from an early age.

 

[Hoo's That]

I agree with the idea that it's "easier" to have a lot of different teams make the b-ball Final Four because the smaller roster size allows having two or so players come in and really transform a team.

1) Population shift to the south. 2) Greater interest in (worship of) the game leads to more participation from an early age.

These are very important points. In many places, the HS football game (usually on Friday night) is the social event place to be. At my son's HS in a very affluent area, basically no one was at the game unless they had a tie-in to someone participating as a player, band member, cheerleader, etc. We only went because my son's club was running the refreshment stand that night. There also will soon be a huge divide involving affluence/non-affluence as affluent parents remove their sons from playing football and having them play something else because of the health issues. While other sports have their own health issues probably including CTE, they haven't been as dramatically shown in this country as much as CTE and football have.

 

[sufandu]

I agree with the idea that it's "easier" to have a lot of different teams make the b-ball Final Four because the smaller roster size allows having two or so players come in and really transform a team.


These are very important points. In many places, the HS football game (usually on Friday night) is the social event place to be. At my son's HS in a very affluent area, basically no one was at the game unless they had a tie-in to someone participating as a player, band member, cheerleader, etc. We only went because my son's club was running the refreshment stand that night. There also will soon be a huge divide involving affluence/non-affluence as affluent parents remove their sons from playing football and having them play something else because of the health issues. While other sports have their own health issues probably including CTE, they haven't been as dramatically shown in this country as much as CTE and football have.

The factor of affluence probably varies from one area to another. In the more affluent areas where I live, high school football is similarly popular to the less affluent. In fact boosters likely help certain families move to the area so that the wealthier schools can continue winning. The idea of fewer affluent kids playing seems to makes sense though.