Reaction: Discussing Some of the Tier Debate

So, Tuesday I got to post the Tier Rankings for college football as it stands today and it was generally quite well received. Thanks to folks who dropped a little linkage. Going through the day twitter got hot and heated as we discussed why teams fell into certain categories. Basically there ended up being four issues with the teams in their tiers and one overwhelming point that folks couldn't get past.

Probably because I'm as mediocre as they come at writing the issue of the "criteria" confused people, so we'll address this issue and use the USC, Arkansas, Sakerlina and Oklahoma problems to explain.

The "concrete" numbers given in reference to the tiers:

Tier 1: Legitmately contend for conference title every 2-4 years and BCS title every 3-5 years.
Tier 2: Legitimately contend for conference title every 3-5 years and BCS title every 4-6 years.
Tier 3: Legitimately contend for conference title every 5-7 years.
Tier 4: Have a conference title shot once a decade or so.

I wasn't quite clear about what those numbers meant. They were not "if you do these numbers that is how you get into a given tier" rather they were "what teams in that tier should expect as a rule of thumb in a given number of years."

So what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

Well for starters always keep the conference landscape in mind as I mentioned because some Tier 2 schools like Virginia Tech or USC don't have one, let alone multiple, Tier 1 teams to contend with on a yeary basis. That means they're more likely to exceed that number when compared to teams in Tier 2 from the SEC.

Secondly, there's a tremendous difference between having a team that "should legitimately contend" and a team that "actually contends" for a conference title. Sakerlina and Clemson are the biggest culprits and go to examples here as this "criteria" has not truly come to fruition in a lot of people's eyes. Here is where what actually happens, conference bias and my bad writing comes into play.

Sakerlina in 2007 had a team that was ranked #6 in the nation, they were tracking for an SEC championship appearance as the highest ranked SEC East team. Then the bottom fell out with losses to Vandy, Tenn, Arkansas, Florida and Clemson. To me, for my purposes, that is a team that "should have legitimately contended" for a conference title.

And we can't forget the 2006 Clemson football teams that just decided they'd shut it down and lose to the likes of unranked Maryland and Virginia Tech after getting to #10 in the country and sitting in the ACC driver's seat. Or the 2008 team that opened up at #9, wet their pants against Alabama and too their ball and went home, firing Tommy Bowden along the way.

All were legitimate teams that should have been in, at least conference title contention. All teams that floundered due to poor coaching, which as we view it, is a product of a bad administration and poor hiring practices.

Keep in mind looking at these SEC teams is tough because in any given year they're facing minimum 20%, generally 40% and some times 60% of the Tier 1 programs during the regular season, not to mention the plethora of 2's still present in the league.

On the flip side a two like Virginia Tech, who of all the 2's on the list was, in my opinion, the team that was the most unlike the others, has feasted with FSU and Clemson making bad administration decisions, Miami money issues and lack of a legitimate Tier 1 program. Sure SEC fans look at Arkansas and Sakerlina and think "they're mediocre in our league" but they fail to look at where those programs stand nationally in terms of finances and ability to recruit.

Now for Southern Cal and OU, I'll admit these two were the toughest to place. My hang ups with each of them were quite similar but also very different.

For the Trojans you have a private school out west that, besides from fledgling Oregon, has no legitimately committed public school to contend with. They get their pick of recruits from everywhere West of Texas. I have a tough time deciding if they're benefiting because they're program has similar intrinsic advantages that the other Tier 1 programs have OR if they're reaping the rewards of the "ok with mediocrity" approach of the rest of the schools out west.

Where Oklahoma is concerned, they are the anti-Sakerlina. The Virginia Tech that has money and gets into BCS Championship games. As I told our buddy Blatant Homerism, I'd call them more of an overachiever in the current landscape, due largely in part to Bob Stoops brilliant coaching, than a true Tier 1. Sure the numbers are there as far as win totals, conference championships and BCS appearances to award them a top tier spot.

However, the recruiting base is not. Like Arkansas, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oregon and others in the Tier 2 category the Sooners have to go elsewhere to get kids. That isn't to say the Bama and LSU don't poach from adjacent states, but rather pointing to the fact that the those previously mentioned schools have to live and die with kids from another state or states. That bumped them down to me. I put more stock in Bob Stoops' coaching and recruiting ability than in any coach in the nation outside of Nick Saban.

So with that said he's outperforming his tier but that's not a knock on OU as a program, rather it is a bump to the administration and staff for taking advantage of their situation.

In Oklahoma you've got a school maxing their ability in every way, in Clemson and Sakerlina you've got schools that are grossly underperforming even though the resources are at their fingertips. Tigers making bad hire and bad hire while Sakerlina can't get past the mental block that is getting to the SEC championship game (until this past season).

Hope this clears things up, as always we'll be discussing it on twitter I'm sure.