Link: It's hard to argue that the CFP has been better than the BCS

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,709
13,112
187
South Alabama
I get all that, all I really do.

Let's be honest: in 2019, Oklahoma was about as mulligan as you can get. Looking at the final rankings where they finished fourth, the following teams in my view would undoubtedly have beaten Oklahoma had they met:

Georgia
Florida
Penn St
Auburn
Alabama

And I think Notre Dame as well as Oregon would have beaten the Sooners, too.

That being said, you can't "really" pick a TWO-loss team that didn't win the division over a conference champion with one-loss even though we all looked at that and said, "uh right." OU in 2019 wasn't the same team that scored those eye-popping numbers even though they were the best team in the B12.

That's where it's blah; everyone knows the probable outcome. But we let the games count, too.
I think 2018 is probably the more egregious case in my argument.

#1 Bama
#2 Clemson
#3 ND
#4 OU
#5 OSU
#6 Georgia

Everyone and their mother knew ND was the worst team in the top 6, and if they had played anyone in the top 6 they would be boatraced. Granted that probably means we are having a rematch vs Georgia and Clemson gets Ohio St, but it prevents a glorified extra bye week for Clemson while Alabama has to slave through a tough opener.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonBloodn62

BamaPacacola

All-SEC
Oct 2, 2020
1,870
1,517
177
41
Pace, FL (from Andalusia)
What’s funny is they think the same thing that happens in basketball will happen in football. They couldn’t be more wrong. The two sports could not be any different.

One reason is because of recruiting. There will NEVER be any Gonzaga’s of football.

Another reason is that basketball has an equalizer, and that is the three point shot. Football doesn’t have and will never have anything like that.

What needs to happen is the Power Five needs to break away and have at it.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
49,724
19,084
362
crimsonaudio.net
There's an easy fix as far as determining a champion IF that's the goal, but it conflicts with money.

1) Reduce FBS to 64 teams with four 16-team conferences
2) No divisions, rotating schedule
3) the top two teams in those conferences meet in the conference title game
4) the conference winners play the four-team playoff
The problem with that is that unless you destroy the existing conferences, you're often leaving out what could very well be the second or third best team in the country (often from the SEC) simply because they didn't win their conference.

It's why I'll never be for AQ teams in the playoff - there has to be a way to 'weigh' the teams based on schedule and such.
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
14,991
3,381
182
Plano, TX
I liked the BCS; I like the CFP.

But I like Bama football best so anything that is good for us is acceptable to me.

So far, both systems have rewarded us nicely and consistently.

If for some reason it expands and leads to another game or two, I'll like that I get to see Bama football more. JMO.

Don't ask me "how." That's not my job. My job is to enjoy Bama football! :)
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
What’s funny is they think the same thing that happens in basketball will happen in football. They couldn’t be more wrong. The two sports could not be any different.

One reason is because of recruiting. There will NEVER be any Gonzaga’s of football.

Another reason is that basketball has an equalizer, and that is the three point shot. Football doesn’t have and will never have anything like that.

What needs to happen is the Power Five needs to break away and have at it.
I did a study awhile back, and concluded two things:

1) the idea there was college football parity EVER is largely a myth (1984 BYU, for example, won due to circumstances, not because they were excellent)

2) even the so-called Cinderellas in college b-ball.......83 NC State, 85 Villlanova, and 88 Kansas......played their regular seasons in conferences that were FAR AND AWAY the best conferences in the country that year. That explains why they had a ton of losses compared with other teams - FIVE of Villanova's losses came to the two teams generally considered the best in the nation, Georgetown and St John's.

Everyone cites those Cinderellas as proof it can happen in CFB. Well, except:

a) it hasn't happened in b-ball in 33 years (lower seeds have made the final four but never won)
b) the lowest seed to ever win the title was a #8 seed playing in the toughest conference in the country the very FIRST year of the 64-team tournament. (Is it not reasonable to conclude they hadn't yet refined their seeding for 64 teams since it never happened again?)
c) as noted, even the Cinderella stories weren't "really" as big upsets as they were portrayed as.

Villanova had played Georgetown twice and lost by two at home and 7 on the road. Oh and the road game they lost by 7? It was played two days after they'd narrowly lost by 2 at home to the other power, St. John's.

Then Nova won the title by 2 over the Hoyas.

It wasn't nearly as big an upset as everyone wanted to say and still does.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
The problem with that is that unless you destroy the existing conferences, you're often leaving out what could very well be the second or third best team in the country (often from the SEC) simply because they didn't win their conference.

It's why I'll never be for AQ teams in the playoff - there has to be a way to 'weigh' the teams based on schedule and such.
All I said was this was a way you could do it without human involvement and as objectively as possible. In fact, it's no different than when Dallas or San Fran used to have to play somebody not as good in the Super Bowl.

You're objection is correct, and I agree with it. But my only point was how you can come up with a champion without voting and as objectively as possible. I would agree with you regarding imploding the conferences, but that's not very realistic cost-wise with the games then, either.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
The perfect system for me would be a 6 team system with the teams decided using the BCS format.
I think that comes about as close to the right combination of subjective/objective as can possibly exist.

Fans whine about subjectivity, but if we dropped polls guess what?
They'd scream about how we don't know who is ranked where right now and games lose their significance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

BamaPacacola

All-SEC
Oct 2, 2020
1,870
1,517
177
41
Pace, FL (from Andalusia)
I did a study awhile back, and concluded two things:

1) the idea there was college football parity EVER is largely a myth (1984 BYU, for example, won due to circumstances, not because they were excellent)

2) even the so-called Cinderellas in college b-ball.......83 NC State, 85 Villlanova, and 88 Kansas......played their regular seasons in conferences that were FAR AND AWAY the best conferences in the country that year. That explains why they had a ton of losses compared with other teams - FIVE of Villanova's losses came to the two teams generally considered the best in the nation, Georgetown and St John's.

Everyone cites those Cinderellas as proof it can happen in CFB. Well, except:

a) it hasn't happened in b-ball in 33 years (lower seeds have made the final four but never won)
b) the lowest seed to ever win the title was a #8 seed playing in the toughest conference in the country the very FIRST year of the 64-team tournament. (Is it not reasonable to conclude they hadn't yet refined their seeding for 64 teams since it never happened again?)
c) as noted, even the Cinderella stories weren't "really" as big upsets as they were portrayed as.

Villanova had played Georgetown twice and lost by two at home and 7 on the road. Oh and the road game they lost by 7? It was played two days after they'd narrowly lost by 2 at home to the other power, St. John's.

Then Nova won the title by 2 over the Hoyas.

It wasn't nearly as big an upset as everyone wanted to say and still does.
I alway count on two things from you, history and perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

BamaPacacola

All-SEC
Oct 2, 2020
1,870
1,517
177
41
Pace, FL (from Andalusia)
I liked the BCS; I like the CFP.

But I like Bama football best so anything that is good for us is acceptable to me.

So far, both systems have rewarded us nicely and consistently.

If for some reason it expands and leads to another game or two, I'll like that I get to see Bama football more. JMO.

Don't ask me "how." That's not my job. My job is to enjoy Bama football! :)
BAMA would be the 8 seed to win it all.
 

STONECOLDSABAN

All-SEC
Sep 21, 2007
1,621
417
102
Mobile, AL
1) the idea there was college football parity EVER is largely a myth
Thank you!! Everyone talks about the “good ole days” but there was 3 repeat champions in the decade of 1970’s
71-72 Nebraska
74-75 Oklahoma
78-79 Alabama
Notre dame split in 1973 and won in 77
So 4 teams won 80 percent of the national titles in the decade of the 70’s. The only Cinderella was Pitt in 1976
Oh the other champion in 1970 was Ohio state
9 out of 10 years a traditional power won the national title.

If there would have been a playoff from 1983-1992. With the exception of 1984 and MAYBE 1990. People would be complaining about Miami getting a shot all the time.

IF there would have been a playoff from 1988-2000 people would be talking about how sick they were of Florida state because they finished top 5 every year.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I alway count on two things from you, history and perspective.
well thank you.

My entire view of CFB has been reworking my views to fall in line with the facts. I've been wrong about way too many things, but it has equipped me to discuss them, too. And to point out WHY it's incorrect.

The cross-sport comparison won't work with b-ball because:
a) football doesn't have a plethora of one and done
b) football doesn't have a bunch of guys who jump from high school to the pros
c) games between teams who lost their superstars against teams who have played four years together and have great chemistry
d) the gap between CFB and the NFL is FAR greater than the one between college and the NBA.

The idea floated is that CFB can be like March Madness. It can't for the reasons above and probably many others as well. In football if you lose a superstar player, you've lost 9% of the team, in basketball you've lost MORE than 20% of the team. Football is such you can replace a superstar with 2-3 lesser stars who can give you something close to the same performance; that's not possible in basketball, the clock simply doesn't stop enough to allow that level of substitution.

The fantasy among the Tim Brandos of this world will remain a fantasy long after the knowledgeable people have accepted it. UCF or Boise State is simply NOT going to win a 4-team, 6-team, 8-team, 16-team playoff, and only someone truly delusional even says they believe that. What's funny is football works IN REVERSE of what basketball does here. Boise State was MORE LIKELY to win a national title when all they had to do was beat ONE TEAM with one month to prepare if they could just make the game. But the more games you add to their slate with good teams, the less likely the Cinderella scenario is. This whole nonsense - UCF was the most recent phantom - of "they deserve a chance" is a tacit admission, "Yeah, I know they can't win it," which is the same as saying they have no business there but you want them there because you want to feel good that you said you were for "the little guy."

Let me reiterate: the last CFB team to win their FIRST national title was Florida in 1996. Every single champion since then is winning at least it's second title. Only 29 teams have ever won a national championship ever in football, and that number isn't going higher any time soon. And some of those were out and out flukes that only happened because of the bowl game agreements. Without the bowl game mandatory champion participation, 1984 BYU and 1990 Colorado and 1996 Florida don't win those national titles (the 1 vs 2 game in 1996 would have matched FSU and Arizona State).


Research Post:

 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Let me point out something that's going on here that troubles me a bit.

We seem to have a number of folks who think that because the RESULT validates what they thought, it somehow validates the PROCESS. This is a logical fallacy and should be treated as such.

My problem with the BCS PROCESS was pretty much what the complaint is now about the CFP - other than "win all your games," there's literally no forumula anyone can know at all. Now as I look back over the BCS champions, I honestly cannot say looking at any of them that there was ever a time the "wrong" team won the championship. There were TWO wrong games - Miami should have played Oregon in 2001 and LSU should have played USC in 2003 - but I can't think of a single time we got the "wrong champion." But I can spot the BCS the 2001 problem because it would never have happened save for the 9/11 attacks. It's hard - if we're fair - to come down on a process that couldn't anticipate something like that. In 2003, it was a unique situation where everyone else down the pike had more than one loss so OU was never going to fall anyway.

But if your ratings system keeps a team ranked #1 after a 28-point loss, your ratings system is a farce that deserves to be ridiculed, too. And that is exactly what happened.

But the only real flaw in the BCS process was the fact it relied heavily on pre-season votes (2/3 of the formula) so that if a team began in the top 2 in the human polls, they weren't going anywhere. So when you had a situation like 2003 or 2004 or even 2006, it all got political. The ONE FLAW in the BCS that needed to be fixed was to find some way to accomodate the three-way championship claim. This was an easy fix - keep the BCS and simply have a four-team playoff. But after the ludicrous ranking that put teams up near the top like Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise in 2009 (three unbeaten non-majors should have been a warning writ large that their schedules were too easy, not that you suddenly had a bunch of top-ranked teams) and Boise damn near sneaking into the title in 2010, they had to make sure that kind of nonsense didn't occur.

The BCS had only one ACTUAL flaw, it was not horrid like folks tried to pretend it was.

But one can argue the CFP has MORE flaws but a better final result...which is the very fallacy I mentioned above.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
17,537
3,199
187
Greenbow, Alabama
No data mining in this response. I still believe there are only a certain numbers of teams that can actually win the NC whether it is 2-4 or 6 teams. Out of the 128-130 FBS teams I would contend that there are only 20-25 teams in any given year who could actually win the NC. That number is speculative, and quite frankly may be too many. Over time this may change but right now the SEC has Alabama, Auburn, LSU, TAMU, UGA, and UF who could win. I dare say, with the possible exception of the B1G, no other conference would have more than 2 teams who could win the NC. My ideal scenario would be to have 4 teams, but selected without the CFP committee's inclusion. Tweak the old BCS formula but make it for the 4 best teams.
 

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
2,945
537
137
Lancaster, PA
I liked the BCS and a group that still compute BCS rankings show the committee is usually in agreement with those BCS rankings when selecting playoff teams. Only 2 times in the 7 playoff years has the #4 team won it all. It helped Bama one time being #4 but hurt us one time when #4 Ohio State beat us. Still, based on recent history a case could be made for only having a 3 team playoff with the #1 seed automatically in the NCG while #2 vs.#3 play to determine opponent. No reason to think a #6 or possibly #8 team would have any relevance when #4 rarely does.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Elefantman

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
26,211
9,082
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Thank you!! Everyone talks about the “good ole days” but there was 3 repeat champions in the decade of 1970’s
71-72 Nebraska
74-75 Oklahoma
78-79 Alabama
Notre dame split in 1973 and won in 77
So 4 teams won 80 percent of the national titles in the decade of the 70’s. The only Cinderella was Pitt in 1976
Oh the other champion in 1970 was Ohio state
9 out of 10 years a traditional power won the national title.

If there would have been a playoff from 1983-1992. With the exception of 1984 and MAYBE 1990. People would be complaining about Miami getting a shot all the time.

IF there would have been a playoff from 1988-2000 people would be talking about how sick they were of Florida state because they finished top 5 every year.

It gets worse than that.

CHAMPIONS FROM 1961-1979 (38 possible with splits)
Alabama 6 (3 straight, 3 splits)
USC 5 (3 straight, 2 splits)
Texas 3 (2 straight, 1 split)
Notre Dame 3 (2 straight, 1 split)
Nebraska 2 (1 straight, 1 split)
Oklahoma 2 (1 straight, 1 split)

Total - 33 of 38 possible national championships in 19 years won by six teams.

The other "five" champions?

Michigan State 1965 split
Ohio State 1968 straight
Pitt 1976 straight

(Note - straight means they won BOTH the AP and UPI national titles, split means they didn't A straight counts as TWO in the sum total of 38 titles).


Pitt's was an out and out fluke. The other two teams - Sparty and Ohio State - won OTHER "less prestigious" national titles with good teams during the time frame.

In other words, as we entered the TV age, the national champions were six Blue Blood programs, Nebraska (temporarily in that neighborhood), Ohio State (also a blue blood), Sparty and Pitt.

Now look at the NEXT 21-year span with 40 possible champions (because of the BCS)

CHAMPIONS FROM 1980-2001
Miami (3 straight, 1 split, 1 BCS)
Penn State (2 straight)
Florida State (2 straight)
Nebraska (2 straight, 1 split)
Oklahoma (1 straight, 1 BCS)

25 of the 40 possible national championships were won by ONLY FIVE TEAMS. Okay, so that's not as many as before, but what makes this era different? Well, the bowl contractual obligations weren't locked in in the previous era nor in the later one.

But they WERE locked in solidly prior to 1991...and the locks were sealed in 1976.......

Orange Bowl tie-in with Big 8 - started in 1976
Sugar Bowl tie-in with SEC - started in 1976
Cotton Bowl tie-in with SWC - started in 1941
Citrus Bowl tie-in with ACC - started in 1987
The Big Ten did not permit teams to play in games other than the Rose Bowl until 1975.
Notre Dame avoided bowl games (save one) until 1970.

It was the locking in of contracts and - to a lesser extent - the participation of the Big 10 in OTHER bowls that caused the ILLUSION that any team can win the title. Just go look at what would have happened if the old years were played by the current rules:

1980 - Georgia had to play the Sugar Bowl - and beating Notre Dame in 1980 was as good as gold.
1981 - #2 Georgia is obligated to the Sugar Bowl; Clemson is a free agent that takes Nebraska; bear in mind that this game was set before Pitt imploded against Penn St and lifted the Tigers to number one.

(If UGA plays Clemson, the Bulldogs probably win back-to-back national titles).

1982 - Georgia did play Penn State but there was a controversy when unbeaten SMU (obligated to the Cotton Bowl) was excluded.

1983 - Nebraska (Orange) could not play Texas (Cotton), so #5 pole vaulted and won the title.

1984 - BYU (Holiday) could not play #2 Oklahoma (Orange), #3 Florida (taking bowl ban), and #4 Washington didn't win the Pac 10 is the only reason they played Oklahoma. Who was fifth? Nebraska.

1985 - Penn St (free agent) takes the bigger money and name, Oklahoma (Orange), even though they're #3 and Miami is #2. If only someone had maybe thought, "We could match up 1 and 2 in the Fiesta Bowl since they're both Independents.."

1986 - it's probably no accident the two teams accounting for the most titles in this time frame were undefeated and played each other when (wait for it) someone decided, "We could match up 1 and 2 in the Fiesta Bowl since they're both independents..."

1987 - #1 Oklahoma was obligated to the Orange; the next 3 teams were all Independents. Without that circumstance, there's no national title game.

1988 - The top 4 teams are indepdendents with no conference affiliation. (Are you starting to see what a difference that makes? One-loss #5 USC was obligated to the Rose Bowl. If they had beaten Notre Dame, they would have been #1 and forced into a game with 8-2-1 Michigan.

1989 - #1 Colorado is obligated to the Orange Bowl while #2 Miami only moved up after the games were announced and #3 Michigan is obligated to the Rose Bowl. Colorado faces the highest-ranked team at the time of game selections with no affiliation, Notre Dame.

1990 - #1 Colorado (Orange), #2 Georgia Tech (Citrus), #3 Texas (Cotton) are all bowl obligated. The top team without a bowl was the second to choose because at the time they were ranked lower, which is why Miami played (and blew out) Texas; Notre Dame went for a rematch in the Orange

1991 - #2 Washington is obligated to the Rose, freeing up #1 Miami to go wherever they wanted, which was to stay home. Nowadays, the two teams would play and ONE team would be the champion.

Bowl Coalition Begins
1992 - #1 Miami is obligated to face #2 in a bowl game IF that bowl has an opening. If Alabama had lost to Florida, Miami would have faced FSU in a rematch in the Fiesta Bowl while Florida would have played in the Sugar Bowl and Alabama probably would have faced Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.

1993 - #1 Florida State is obligated to play the highest ranked team with a bowl opening which is #2 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. This arrangement freezes out #4 Notre Dame...who beat the Noles.

1994 - #1 Nebraska is obligated to play the highest ranked team with a bowl opening. But #2 Penn State is obligated to go to the Rose Bowl, so the Huskers get an undeserved #3 Miami contest and win.

Bowl Alliance Begins
1995 - it worked out and 1 played 2.

1996 - #1 Florida St is obligated to face the highest ranked team in a bowl but #2 Arizona St is obligated to go to the Rose Bowl, which is how #3 Florida winds up winning the title.

1997 - #1 Michigan is obligated to the Rose Bowl, blocking out any chance at a game with Nebraska.

CHAMPIONS 2002-2020 (20 possible champions*)

Alabama 6
LSU 3
Ohio State 2
USC 2
Florida 2
Clemson 2

17 of 20 possible champions were one of six teams; the other champions were high profile programs Texas, FSU, and Auburn.

SUMMARY
1961-1979 - six teams won 86.8% of the championships
1980-2001 - five teams won 62.5% of the championships
2002-2020 - six teams have won 85% of the championships

Now.....don't the TWO eras WITHOUT bowl contacts show.....
a) the same number of teams
b) virtually the same number of championshps

All that changed was the names. Some of them.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
75,275
19,641
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Let me point out something that's going on here that troubles me a bit.

We seem to have a number of folks who think that because the RESULT validates what they thought, it somehow validates the PROCESS. This is a logical fallacy and should be treated as such.

My problem with the BCS PROCESS was pretty much what the complaint is now about the CFP - other than "win all your games," there's literally no forumula anyone can know at all. Now as I look back over the BCS champions, I honestly cannot say looking at any of them that there was ever a time the "wrong" team won the championship. There were TWO wrong games - Miami should have played Oregon in 2001 and LSU should have played USC in 2003 - but I can't think of a single time we got the "wrong champion." But I can spot the BCS the 2001 problem because it would never have happened save for the 9/11 attacks. It's hard - if we're fair - to come down on a process that couldn't anticipate something like that. In 2003, it was a unique situation where everyone else down the pike had more than one loss so OU was never going to fall anyway.

But if your ratings system keeps a team ranked #1 after a 28-point loss, your ratings system is a farce that deserves to be ridiculed, too. And that is exactly what happened.

But the only real flaw in the BCS process was the fact it relied heavily on pre-season votes (2/3 of the formula) so that if a team began in the top 2 in the human polls, they weren't going anywhere. So when you had a situation like 2003 or 2004 or even 2006, it all got political. The ONE FLAW in the BCS that needed to be fixed was to find some way to accomodate the three-way championship claim. This was an easy fix - keep the BCS and simply have a four-team playoff. But after the ludicrous ranking that put teams up near the top like Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise in 2009 (three unbeaten non-majors should have been a warning writ large that their schedules were too easy, not that you suddenly had a bunch of top-ranked teams) and Boise damn near sneaking into the title in 2010, they had to make sure that kind of nonsense didn't occur.

The BCS had only one ACTUAL flaw, it was not horrid like folks tried to pretend it was.

But one can argue the CFP has MORE flaws but a better final result...which is the very fallacy I mentioned above.
I tend to agree, but it's not one you mentioned. One third of the total standings ranking was provided by computers. It was denigrated and excoriated from day one and thus got a lot more weight and attention than its actual influence deserved. Here is an interesting SI article on the era:


SI
 

RammerJammer15

All-American
Sep 9, 2012
2,680
669
137
I just find it funny how Alabama winning a title in 2011 caused the CFP to be created soon after and Alabama winning the title in 2020 seems to be speeding up the process on Playoff expansion. What's gonna happen when Alabama wins the title under an 8 team playoff?
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
22,709
13,112
187
South Alabama
I just find it funny how Alabama winning a title in 2011 caused the CFP to be created soon after and Alabama winning the title in 2020 seems to be speeding up the process on Playoff expansion. What's gonna happen when Alabama wins the title under an 8 team playoff?
2011 really didn’t create the playoffs. It was more 2009 and 2010. TCU being 1 second away and an Auburn miracle in Tuscaloosa away from being in the national championship in back to back national championships is what really started the need. Like every thing else college football is all about money, and having non P5 teams winning the national championships and getting squashed in national championships loses money. 2011 more made the argument louder but it didn’t decide the fate of college football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,789
24,454
187
I liked the BCS and a group that still compute BCS rankings show the committee is usually in agreement with those BCS rankings when selecting playoff teams. Only 2 times in the 7 playoff years has the #4 team won it all. It helped Bama one time being #4 but hurt us one time when #4 Ohio State beat us. Still, based on recent history a case could be made for only having a 3 team playoff with the #1 seed automatically in the NCG while #2 vs.#3 play to determine opponent. No reason to think a #6 or possibly #8 team would have any relevance when #4 rarely does.
2 times out of 7 is not rare - that is actually just as frequent as the #1 team winning it - 2 times out of 7.