So from '07 - '13 under CNS we win 3 out of the 7 NCs with a pro-style, balanced run/pass approach with the run setting the stage for the passing game. If you take '07 out of the consideration (which I'd write off as a house cleaning/philosophy changing year) it's 3 out of 6 and without a Tim Tebow throwing darts that only his guys could catch in the SECCG in '08 it's likely 4 out of 6. With CNS's system fully installed we batted .500 in the NC picture (not counting '07).
Most recently, from '14-'16 with a noticeable shift to more spread and hurry up philosophies, we win 1 out of 3 NCs or .333, which ain't bad. Some might argue we were good enough to win it all three years (could say the same about '08, '10, and '13 seasons too). Some might argue we were lucky to win the one we did.
So with a seeming reversal to closer to our previous philosophy, but with college football having adjusted and changed offensively and defensively in the last few years, where do you think that leaves us?
More to the genre of what we do here, which is primarily to speculate, what kind of batting percentage are we looking at over the next 3 years (assuming we stay the apparent new/return to old course during this time)?
What is realistic?
Would you be happy with 1 NC during that time, .333?
I think we have a 'rough' year by our standards this year. PROBABLY. I hope not, but I suspect we're in a rebuilding year and we start with FSU. I'd rate us the favorite (right now) for 2018. To be fair, I THINK we'll be the favorite in 2017 because we're used to it. It's us and Ohio State. USC MAY bob back to the surface. Washington is a good team, but that's just the catch - getting there is one thing and staying there is another animal entirely.
I think one of the most underrated and under-appreciated aspects of the Dynasty is just how hard it really is to do what we've done. Four championships in seven years and playing for another one - that's never been done in the real football era (let's not go back over the time when bowl games didn't count and the vote was mostly a popularity contest about which team the East Coast media thought was best).
We have an entire team of players who have literally NEVER played a college game where there wasn't a national championship potentially on the line. They NEVER have had the opportunity to pause for a breather. (For those who want to say UTC or CSU, every single one of us holds our breath on injuries - including the guys). We have played ONE game since January 1, 2011 where there wasn't a national title potentially at stake - the 2014 Sugar Bowl vs OU. That is pressure that none of us can even begin to imagine.
My suspicion is we have a game next year where the defense gets torched (growing pains) and possibly lose a close one. ONE loss will still put us in the mix most likely.
I think we'd all be over the moon with 2 and a .667%?
What if we win one or two SECCGs and get to the playoff a time or two but bat .000 in NCs?
The board will be in meltdown and some of our more spoiled fans will put up posts saying "Fire (Name Coach)" and get suspended from TF.
It's an off season topic for sure, but what do yall think???
I think with the expanded playoff that what you're talking about is impossible. Every player will tell you that you can only focus for so long.
The longest NFL winning streak in history is the 2003-04 New England Patriots that won two Super Bowls. They won 21 games in a row. I recall reading an article that quoted Bill Romanowski in 1998 when the Broncos were tearing through opponents en route to a second title. He had played for the 49ers team in 1988-90 that won 18 games and his Broncos wound up winning 18 games. Romo basically said that the pressure was so enormous and the focus so intense that inevitably you could play up to the best of your ability on that day and lose. He basically said that concentrating at that level for that long was impossible.
Do you remember how many games the Patriots won in 2007 before losing? It was 18, and that very stat is why deep down I wondered if the Pats would lose. (And if you saw them in their two playoff games that year, the Patriots looked incredibly vulnerable. In the final regular season game, the Giants led, 28-16, in the third quarter; with four minutes left in the third quarter of the divisional playoff, they led the Jags by a close 21-17; and they beat the Chargers by nine in a game where they had more turnovers and penalties and the yardage was close to the same).
In college, you can win more than 18 games in a row if you're a great team because parity is not like the NFL - so if around the time of that 18th game you draw a couple of easy ones, your players can take it easy (by comparison). However.....
Do you remember what our 18th game was in the recent streak? Arkansas.
Do you remember HOW BAD we looked? Yes, we won, but the team was disappointed. We turned the ball over in their red zone and Austin Allen blew our pass coverage to bits. (This is why I thought we would lose one of those three back-to-back games of Arky/Vols/ATM before the season began).
And we have a coach who - wisely - isn't going to accept that excuse, but even he himself has said that you cannot play at that level every single game. The expanded playoff hurts repeat opportunities.
Ohio State (2014-15) had a 23-game winning streak. Do you recall their 18th game? A mediocre Indiana team. A team that barely scraped by 3-8 also-ran Southern Illinois. With 10 1/2 minutes left, IU was only down by seven - and Zeke Elliott bailed them out. They won by seven.
And once they got into a game with a team that could rival them in talent with all that pressure? They lost.
I'd rather lose to someone that kinda ticks us off but win the last game for a title than to have another year like last year - where we have it all and lose it in one second.
