Hah Hah @ Alabama

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, this is not the first time a program was able to develop a system that puts it at the top of NCAA football in spite of not being near the very top in NFL talent production. Nebraska did that under Osborne. Nebraska was never near the very top in terms of NFL player production but had maybe the most dominant run of my football watching lifetime in I-A. I'm talking about the 1993 - 1995 teams. They missed a national championship by a hair when their kicker missed a field goal at the end of their bowl against Florida State after the 1993/1994 season then went undefeated during the 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 seasons including that total beatdown of Florida in the 1996 de facto championship game. That missed field goal was their only loss in three years. The 1995/1996 team beat FOUR teams that finished in the top 10 and the closest game among the four was a 23 point Nebraska win. Nobody could even stay on the field with them. But their NFL talent production would've been in the middle of the pack in the SEC.

Like for instance if you go back and look at the next two drafts after Nebraska beat Florida up like that Florida had 12 players drafted while Nebraska had 8. Miami didn't sniff the national title that year and it had 14 players taken over the next two years including four first rounders. Tennessee had 11 players taken in the next two drafts.

[kalm]

BTW, this is not the first time a program was able to develop a system that puts it at the top of NCAA football in spite of not being near the top in NFL talent production. Nebraska did that under Osborne. Nebraska was never near the top in terms of NFL player production but had maybe the most dominant run of my football watching lifetime in I-A. I'm talking about the 1993 - 1995 teams. They missed a national championship by a hair when their kicker missed a field goal at the end of their bowl against Florida State after the 1993/1994 season then went undefeated during the 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 seasons including that total beatdown of Florida in the 1996 de facto championship game. But their NFL talent production would've been in the middle of the pack in the SEC.

Like for instance if you go back and look at the next two drafts after Nebraska beat Florida up like that Florida had 12 players drafted while Nebraska had 8. And Florida was somewhat of a "system" team at the time too. Miami didn't sniff the national title that year and it had 14 players taken over the next two years including four first rounders.

So Oregon has placed all those players in the NFL and they're now a system success? What or who are you arguing about?

[JohnStOnge]

So Oregon has placed all those players in the NFL and they're now a system success? What or who are you arguing about?

Their position relative to the top of college football is higher than their position relative to their NFL talent production. There are, for example, five teams from the SEC that have more players in the NFL than Oregon does right now (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee). They have a much better than average talent level. They have a high talent level. But their success level is, I think, very related to their system. If you were looking at programs in terms of NFL talent level you would rank them maybe 15th as far as I can tell. Somewhere in that area. If their success was in line with where they are in terms of the NFL talent level production pile they wouldn't be in the national championship conversation. That's what I'm saying.

Without looking at every single college team this is where it looks to me like they are in terms of players on NFL rosters right now:

Miami 43
Alabama 42
LSU 42
USC 39
Florida State 38
Georgia 38
Florida 36
Notre Dame 35
Texas 34
Cal 33
Wisconsin 33
Ohio State 32
Oklahoma 32
Tennessee 31
Oregon 30

They'd be middle of the pack in the SEC and third in the PAC 12 if how good each team is were perfectly correlated with current players in NFL by school. They wouldn't be #1 in ANY of the Big 5 conferences. And I really don't see any reason to believe that they have more NFL talent on their roster now than they had in recent previous years. Not overall. They've got the best quarterback they've had. But I don't see any obvious indication that they have more NFL type talent on their roster than they did when Auburn beat them in the BCS championship game or when LSU beat them in the 2011 regular season opener.

And with respect to the subject at hand: When you see Ohio State at 32 in the list above ranked down at 12th that's unusual. Historically, they've been up there with the Miamis, USCs and Alabamas. It's associated with them having program problems. There is every reason to believe that's an aberration. Meanwhile, Oregon is probably at its zenith being 15th on that list.

It's just very unlikely that Oregon as a program is going to maintain a talent level in terms of NFL type players as high as Ohio State can maintain. They're not contending for number 1 because they're near number 1 in NFL talent level type players. They're just not.

[BDKJMU]

Go to McDonalds and get me the 20-piece crow McNuggets now...nice job by Ohio State.

Defense wins championships is such an outdated aphorism. Didn't help Alabama or Ole Miss.

No it's not.
-2011 Bama maybe the best de in history of college football, won 2nd NC in a row.
-2012 slipped to 19 Total de, won another NC.
-2012 32nd,
-this yr 20th, dominant against lesser teams, but if you watched the Iron Bowl and last night not nearly as as good as their NC defenses.

Biggest difference with OSU last year to this. Last year 84th total defense. This year 29th total defense.

Oregon defense-102nd total but 29th in scoring defense, which does seem odd to see such a large variance. Split the difference and that would be 65/66, smack dab in the middle of 128 teams. Sounds pretty mediocre to me. They definitely don't fit into the suck category.

NDSU has had the top or one of the top defenses in I-AA the last 4 seasons. This season they are #3 in Total and #2 in Scoring. ILSU is #28 and #19.

After all, if having a great offense and shitty defense got you to an NC games, then EWU would be playing next Sat...

[Grizalltheway]

Balance is key. Ole Piss had the #1 defense in FBS, how'd that work out for them?

[JohnStOnge]

A couple of more notes on Ohio State, Oregon, and talent levels in terms of numbers of NFL prospects.

It's easy to look up Scout.com recruiting rankings for past years so I did. As expected, you can see that Ohio State has consistently been rated notably higher than Oregon has in recruiting rankings. I wrote down the past four years because that should relate to what each school now has on its roster. Here's how it went:

2014 Ohio State 5th, Oregon 22nd
2013 Ohio State 1st, Oregon 17th
2012 Ohio State 3rd, Oregon 15th
2011 Ohio State 6th, Oregon 13th

And that's with Ohio State having gone through sanctions including scholarship reductions. We all know that recruiting is an inexact science. Like, for instance, Scout.com had Marcus Mariotta as a 3-star in a 5-star system. He turned out to be considered the best college football player in the country. But it still tells you something about the relative positions two schools are in with respect to acquiring talent when one of them is consistently rated in or near the top five range when the other is consistently rated near the 15 through 20 range.

And remember that, with respect to both something like recruiting ratings and something like NFL player production, 15th sounds really good but you have to remember where that falls in the population you're looking at. Here, I think that if we are looking at the peer group we're looking at Big 5 conference schools plus Notre Dame. That's a total of 65 schools. So being 15th from the top puts you at 77th percentile. That's clearly better than average but it's not elite. Not by any reasonable standard. You don't say a high school student who scores at the 77th percentile on the SAT is highly coveted by colleges as a result. They're going to have to get into the 90s percentile wise to do that. That sort of thing.

It's the system Oregon has that makes them an elite team. It's not that they're among the elite in terms of talent level. And any reasonable person who really thinks about it will think that they will be facing a team with a somewhat higher overall talent level than they have when they play Ohio State. But they just played a team that had a way higher overall talent level than them and beat them by 39 points. The margin was significantly inflated by the trouble Florida State had with turnovers. But you'd have to say it looked like Oregon still would've won without that happening. But they didn't beat Florida State because they've got more or even as much NFL-type talent as Florida State had.

Think about if they played LSU this year. They'd be a huge favorite and they should be. But would you even CONSIDER saying with a straight face that they've got as much NFL type talent as LSU has? I certainly hope not. Everybody knows there's no way and it's not a tough call. Fortunately for Oregon they do have a pretty decent talent level and a team is more than the sum of its parts.

[SDHornet]

I'm not sure which one of these games makes me happier. Alabama losing or the total beat down that Florida State received.

It's all good!

[Pwns]

The difference maker in this game IMO was the offensive schemes.

Alabama is stuck running a more NFL-like offense while many college teams have moved away from that. Nick Saban is going to have to make some fundamental changes on offense or Gus Malzahn and Will Muschamp are going to absolutely run the SEC going forward.

BTW, I do think both Baylor and TCU would scorch Alabama's defense.

[JohnStOnge]

The difference maker in this game IMO was the offensive schemes.

Alabama is stuck running a more NFL-like offense while many college teams have moved away from that. Nick Saban is going to have to make some fundamental changes on offense or Gus Malzahn and Will Muschamp are going to absolutely run the SEC going forward.

BTW, I do think both Baylor and TCU would scorch Alabama's defense.

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Bottom line is that before last week they would've been favored over anybody else in college football this year. I heard some stuff about that before the game. It was said that Alabama would've been at least a 4 point favorite over anybody else. So on and so forth.

They've got a LOT of NFL level talent. Like if you compare them to Oregon. If you were to go through the thing people do sometimes where you compare unit by unit I honestly think this is what most "experts" would get:

Quarterback: Oregon

Running Backs: Alabama

Receivers: Alabama

Offensive Line: Alabama

Defensive Line: Alabama

Linebackers: Alabama

Secondary: Alabama

Punter: Alabama

Placekicker: Don't know

Return Specialist: Alabama

And you'd probably get a similar thing if you compared Alabama to any other college football team except maybe LSU where you might see LSU with the edge in offensive line and defensive line.

One thing I can say for Ohio State is that they probably would get the nod in the defensive line area over Alabama. But that's about it.

[kalm]

The difference maker in this game IMO was the offensive schemes.

Alabama is stuck running a more NFL-like offense while many college teams have moved away from that. Nick Saban is going to have to make some fundamental changes on offense or Gus Malzahn and Will Muschamp are going to absolutely run the SEC going forward.

BTW, I do think both Baylor and TCU would scorch Alabama's defense.

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Bottom line is that before last week they would've been favored over anybody else in college football this year. I heard some stuff about that before the game. It was said that Alabama would've been at least a 4 point favorite over anybody else. So on and so forth.

They've got a LOT of NFL level talent. Like if you compare them to Oregon. If you were to go through the thing people do sometimes where you compare unit by unit I honestly think this is what most "experts" would get:

Quarterback: Oregon

Running Backs: Alabama

Receivers: Alabama

Offensive Line: Alabama

Defensive Line: Alabama

Linebackers: Alabama

Secondary: Alabama

Punter: Alabama

Placekicker: Don't know

Return Specialist: Alabama

And you'd probably get a similar thing if you compared Alabama to any other college football team except maybe LSU where you might see LSU with the edge in offensive line and defensive line.

One thing I can say for Ohio State is that they probably would get the nod in the defensive line area over Alabama. But that's about it.

So what you're saying is...Alabama should have played FSU for the Chipper?

[BDKJMU]

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Bottom line is that before last week they would've been favored over anybody else in college football this year. I heard some stuff about that before the game. It was said that Alabama would've been at least a 4 point favorite over anybody else. So on and so forth.

They've got a LOT of NFL level talent. Like if you compare them to Oregon. If you were to go through the thing people do sometimes where you compare unit by unit I honestly think this is what most "experts" would get:

Quarterback: Oregon

Running Backs: Alabama

Receivers: Alabama

Offensive Line: Alabama

Defensive Line: Alabama

Linebackers: Alabama

Secondary: Alabama

Punter: Alabama

Placekicker: Don't know

Return Specialist: Alabama

And you'd probably get a similar thing if you compared Alabama to any other college football team except maybe LSU where you might see LSU with the edge in offensive line and defensive line.

One thing I can say for Ohio State is that they probably would get the nod in the defensive line area over Alabama. But that's about it.

So what you're saying is...Alabama should have played FSU for the Chipper?

FSU was the #3 seed. If there had been no playoffs would have been #1 seed Bama vs #2 seed Oregon.

[BDKJMU]

The difference maker in this game IMO was the offensive schemes.

Alabama is stuck running a more NFL-like offense while many college teams have moved away from that. Nick Saban is going to have to make some fundamental changes on offense or Gus Malzahn and Will Muschamp are going to absolutely run the SEC going forward.

BTW, I do think both Baylor and TCU would scorch Alabama's defense.

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Exactly. The notion that in the future you can't win the SEC or compete for an NC running a pro style offense is downright silly.

[kalm]

So what you're saying is...Alabama should have played FSU for the Chipper?

FSU was the #3 seed. If there had been no playoffs would have been #1 seed Bama vs #2 seed Oregon.

Yeah but Oregon didn't have as much NFL talent.

[clenz]

FSU was the #3 seed. If there had been no playoffs would have been #1 seed Bama vs #2 seed Oregon.

Yeah but Oregon didn't have as much NFL talent.

That and the BCS would have had Bama/FSU.

[Pwns]

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Bottom line is that before last week they would've been favored over anybody else in college football this year. I heard some stuff about that before the game. It was said that Alabama would've been at least a 4 point favorite over anybody else. So on and so forth.

They've got a LOT of NFL level talent. Like if you compare them to Oregon. If you were to go through the thing people do sometimes where you compare unit by unit I honestly think this is what most "experts" would get:

Quarterback: Oregon

Running Backs: Alabama

Receivers: Alabama

Offensive Line: Alabama

Defensive Line: Alabama

Linebackers: Alabama

Secondary: Alabama

Punter: Alabama

Placekicker: Don't know

Return Specialist: Alabama

And you'd probably get a similar thing if you compared Alabama to any other college football team except maybe LSU where you might see LSU with the edge in offensive line and defensive line.

One thing I can say for Ohio State is that they probably would get the nod in the defensive line area over Alabama. But that's about it.

You basically proved my point. Alabama has a top coach, a top DC, and top talent. If we agree that Ohio State didn't out-coach or out-athlete Alabama, then how did Ohio State beat them? Luck?

Consider the teams Alabama beat for the national championship with Saban…

1. A Texas team that would've beaten them if Colt McCoy didn't get injured.
2. An LSU team with a similar offensive mindset as Alabama's.
3. A Notre Dame team that definitely wasn't a match for Alabama talent-wise and arguably shouldn't have been in the championship game that made their money off of one win against Stanford.

To date, they haven't faced an overly good "college offense" in a big game, and on top of that they don't have to deal with many of those good offenses in the SEC for the most part. Miss State just doesn't have the same level of talent as the rest of the SEC and Texas A&M hasn't been in the SEC for very long but the years they had Johnny Manziel they were definitely a problem for Alabama's defense.

Of course you can win a championship with a pro-style offense, but you still voluntarily put yourself at a disadvantage. There's a reason the service academies run the triple option and the reason most G5 FBS teams run spread offenses.

[Chizzang]

Yeah but Oregon didn't have as much NFL talent.

That and the BCS would have had Bama/FSU.

This ^ a thousand time this...
If there were no playoff system to fall back on this season the BCS would have absolutely had BAMA/FSU in the championship game for all the marbles...

But now because of the playoff system we get to see the REAL two best teams
Instead of the HYPED teams

[89Hen]

the BCS would have absolutely had BAMA/FSU in the championship game for all the marbles...

That's actually fact Cleets.

http://collegespun.com/big-ten/ohio-sta ... ooked-like

In the simulated standings below, provided by BCSKnowHow.com, Alabama and Florida State, at least in years prior, would have been playing for the national title.

[BDKJMU]

Alabama was more of an offensive team this year and not QUITE so dominant on defense as it's been in the recent past. They just won the SEC championship, for Pete's sake. Gus Malzahn's offense couldnt score in the red zone against them. Had to keep kicking field goals. And they scored over 50 points on Auburn. How does that translate into them not having the offense to compete?

Bottom line is that before last week they would've been favored over anybody else in college football this year. I heard some stuff about that before the game. It was said that Alabama would've been at least a 4 point favorite over anybody else. So on and so forth.

They've got a LOT of NFL level talent. Like if you compare them to Oregon. If you were to go through the thing people do sometimes where you compare unit by unit I honestly think this is what most "experts" would get:

Quarterback: Oregon

Running Backs: Alabama

Receivers: Alabama

Offensive Line: Alabama

Defensive Line: Alabama

Linebackers: Alabama

Secondary: Alabama

Punter: Alabama

Placekicker: Don't know

Return Specialist: Alabama

And you'd probably get a similar thing if you compared Alabama to any other college football team except maybe LSU where you might see LSU with the edge in offensive line and defensive line.

One thing I can say for Ohio State is that they probably would get the nod in the defensive line area over Alabama. But that's about it.

You basically proved my point. Alabama has a top coach, a top DC, and top talent. If we agree that Ohio State didn't out-coach or out-athlete Alabama, then how did Ohio State beat them? Luck?

Consider the teams Alabama beat for the national championship with Saban…

1. A Texas team that would've beaten them if Colt McCoy didn't get injured.
2. An LSU team with a similar offensive mindset as Alabama's.
3. A Notre Dame team that definitely wasn't a match for Alabama talent-wise and arguably shouldn't have been in the championship game that made their money off of one win against Stanford.

To date, they haven't faced an overly good "college offense" in a big game, and on top of that they don't have to deal with many of those good offenses in the SEC for the most part. Miss State just doesn't have the same level of talent as the rest of the SEC and Texas A&M hasn't been in the SEC for very long but the years they had Johnny Manziel they were definitely a problem for Alabama's defense.

Of course you can win a championship with a pro-style offense, but you still voluntarily put yourself at a disadvantage. There's a reason the service academies run the triple option and the reason most G5 FBS teams run spread offenses.

Bama has had plenty of big games that they've won against very good offenses in the SEC over the years. And you don't put yourself at a disadvantage running the same offense as most NFL teams do. There's a reason only 1 NFL team runs similar to Oregon's offense. Most NC games have been won by teams running a pro style offense, or at least closer to pro style than to what Oregon runs. As a matter of fact, if Oregon beats OSU they will be the 1st team to win a Div I NC running an almost exclusively no huddle shotgun hurry up spread.

Look at NDSU. Going for their 4th NC running an even more smash mouth offense than Bama.

[JohnStOnge]

FSU was the #3 seed. If there had been no playoffs would have been #1 seed Bama vs #2 seed Oregon.

I think that if the old BCS championship system were still in place it would've been Alabama vs. Florida State. I think that Alabama would've been in for two reasons. One is that they probably would've been #1 in the power ratings and two is that the pollsters would've given the benefit of the doubt to a 1 loss SEC team.

I think Florida State would've been in because the pollsters would've thought there's no way you can leave the undefeated defending BCS champ out. Remember, this time the seeding was done by a committee and they could put FSU at #3 without leaving them out. Different situation.

[JohnStOnge]

So what you're saying is...Alabama should have played FSU for the Chipper?

No, I'm just saying that Alabama had the most NFL caliber talent among the four teams involved. You can kind of get an idea with respect to that, I think, by going to http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/pl ... &order=ASC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I have followed that site for years and in my opinion they come out pretty close in terms of how many players will be drafted from each college team. If I copied the link right you will go to the Alabama report.

Scroll all the way down past the individual players to the section "Draft Scout Team View, All Alabama Players." The far left column is the site ranking for each player at their position relative to the rest of their class. Look at all the #1s for Alabama. Look to the left while scrolling back up and look for the "Players by School" query or you can do the same thing by scrolling farther up and looking for the "select team" query. You can look at Ohio State, Florida State, and Oregon by doing that.

I think that if you do that and scroll down to the "Draft Scout Team View, All (insert school name) players" you will conclude that, at least according to that site, Oregon was the LEAST talented team in terms of potential NFL talent and numbers of players ranked relative to their position and class (999 means unranked) of the final four. Also, ironically, you will conclude that the two MOST talented teams in that respect lost.

I think if you rank the teams by potential NFL talent and where players in all classes rank on their rosters from 1 through 4 by using that site it's 1 Alabama, 2 Florida State, 3 Ohio State, and 4 Oregon.'

And it's close between Florida State and Ohio State. I'd give Florida State the edge because it's got more #1 ranked players (5 to 3). But Ohio State has more total ranked players (49 to 44 by my quick count).

Oregon "only" has 40 ranked players on its roster and only two #1 ranked players. HOWEVER, Oregon does have a strong "draft eligible" class for the next draft. If you scroll up and count players with a projected draft round listed Oregon's got 10 potential 2014 draft picks and if they get close to that they should exceed their historical high for players drafted in a given year (6 in 2002 then again in 2009 if I read the NFL.com site right). Also, that's comparable to what the site has projected for Alabama (11) and Florida State (13) as potentially drafted in 2014 and a lot higher than what it's got for Ohio State (5). So they do have a very strong contingent among the draft eligible (i.e., "older") players. Ohio State's got more of a strong "underclass" of players that aren't eligible for the 2014 draft. That's consistent with the idea that Meyer is building.

I just did quick counts so there could be some error but I think if you look at the information yourself you'll see the basic picture I described is accurate. Alabama was LOADED when you look at the entire roster and where they're ranked for their class. The number of #1 at their position in their class players they had is ridiculous (8).

[JohnStOnge]

You basically proved my point. Alabama has a top coach, a top DC, and top talent. If we agree that Ohio State didn't out-coach or out-athlete Alabama, then how did Ohio State beat them? Luck?

Consider the teams Alabama beat for the national championship with Saban…

1. A Texas team that would've beaten them if Colt McCoy didn't get injured.
2. An LSU team with a similar offensive mindset as Alabama's.
3. A Notre Dame team that definitely wasn't a match for Alabama talent-wise and arguably shouldn't have been in the championship game that made their money off of one win against Stanford.

To date, they haven't faced an overly good "college offense" in a big game, and on top of that they don't have to deal with many of those good offenses in the SEC for the most part. Miss State just doesn't have the same level of talent as the rest of the SEC and Texas A&M hasn't been in the SEC for very long but the years they had Johnny Manziel they were definitely a problem for Alabama's defense.

Of course you can win a championship with a pro-style offense, but you still voluntarily put yourself at a disadvantage. There's a reason the service academies run the triple option and the reason most G5 FBS teams run spread offenses.

I think there's something to your argument. But a program like Alabama or LSU develops the talent it does by telling players they're going to develop them for the NFL. LSU's like a friggin' college basketball power. It gets potential NFL caliber players then they declare for the draft as underclassmen. Happens over and over again.

It's an interesting balance. Like I used to call radio talk shows and talk to people about Nebraska when the Cornhuskers were dominant running option football. I wondered why people would say option football wouldn't work when Nebraska was kicking ass doing it. I also wondered why SEC people would say running the option wouldn't work in the SEC because SEC defenses were too fast when every time Nebraska would play an SEC team in big bowl game the Cornhuskers would crush the SEC team while running up mind boggling rushing numbers.

The answer I often got was that you can't do what Nebraska does because you put yourself at a disadvantage in trying to recruit players who realistically may play in the NFL. It doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

And my thought always was that if you did what Nebraska did you didn't NEED players that fit the NFL. You needed players that fit what Nebraska did. Like Tommy Frazier. That kind of thing.

But the "attract NFL players" approach has obviously worked for Alabama and LSU. It also worked for Miami during the Hurricane Heyday. They ran NFL style systems with a bunch of future NFL players and kicked tail doing it.

Don't know why it hasn't worked for Georgia. Sometimes I feel very sorry for Bulldog fans because THAT is a program always LOADED with a bunch of NFL caliber talent than can just NEVER seem to get over the hump. At least not since Herschel Walker was a freshman. If you want to talk about a program that has underachieved given its talent level that is the poster child.

[Pwns]

You basically proved my point. Alabama has a top coach, a top DC, and top talent. If we agree that Ohio State didn't out-coach or out-athlete Alabama, then how did Ohio State beat them? Luck?

Consider the teams Alabama beat for the national championship with Saban…

1. A Texas team that would've beaten them if Colt McCoy didn't get injured.
2. An LSU team with a similar offensive mindset as Alabama's.
3. A Notre Dame team that definitely wasn't a match for Alabama talent-wise and arguably shouldn't have been in the championship game that made their money off of one win against Stanford.

To date, they haven't faced an overly good "college offense" in a big game, and on top of that they don't have to deal with many of those good offenses in the SEC for the most part. Miss State just doesn't have the same level of talent as the rest of the SEC and Texas A&M hasn't been in the SEC for very long but the years they had Johnny Manziel they were definitely a problem for Alabama's defense.

Of course you can win a championship with a pro-style offense, but you still voluntarily put yourself at a disadvantage. There's a reason the service academies run the triple option and the reason most G5 FBS teams run spread offenses.

I think there's something to your argument. But a program like Alabama or LSU develops the talent it does by telling players they're going to develop them for the NFL. LSU's like a friggin' college basketball power. It gets potential NFL caliber players then they declare for the draft as underclassmen. Happens over and over again.

It's a tradeoff all right, but I'm not even sure it's worth making even if you have a recruiting advantage over the rest of your level of competition. They got outclassed by an Ohio State team not as talented as Florida's 2006 team and not nearly as talented as Florida's 2008 team.

If you don't generally have a recruiting advantage over your competition it's definitely not a good trade-off. Virginia would be a poster child for this principle. They stick with pro-style offenses and and have maybe twice as many guys on NFL rosters as Georgia Tech, but Tech wins more games.

[BDKJMU]

Well Oregon's hurry up spread offense results in 2 more plays per game than Bama's pro style.

Plays per game
Baylor 87.5 (1138 in 13 games)
Oregon 74.8 (1047 in 14 games)
Bama 72.7 (1018 in 14 games)
OSU 72.5 (1015 in 14 games)
FSU 69 (967 in 14 games)

[JohnStOnge]

They got outclassed by an Ohio State team not as talented as Florida's 2006 team and not nearly as talented as Florida's 2008 team.

I dunno. If you go to the NFL.com draft history you may be surprised.

For instance: Obviously Florida clubbed Ohio State at the end of the 2006/2007 season. But check this out.

Florida had 11 players drafted over the next two drafts and 23 players drafted over the next four drafts. Ohio State had 11 players drafted over the next two drafts and 22 players drafted over the next four drafts. Florida did not have a big edge in NFL draft pick type players.

The 2008 Florida team did have 12 players drafted over the following two years and 18 players drafted over the next four years. Pretty similar to the 2006 team.

The current Ohio State team is "back loaded." It's got a lot of players who are highly rated recruits obtained by Meyer who are not yet eligible for the draft. They will not have a whole bunch of players drafted in 2015. Maybe five or so. But after that they may have a serious uptick. We'll have to wait and see. When you look at how many players on the current team are drafted over the next TWO and FOUR years I would not be surprised to see it exceed the numbers produced by the 2006 and 2008 Florida teams.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another angle on Ohio State talent and the idea of being "back loaded." The current Ohio State roster has 2 Meyer recruiting classes on it, 2013 and 2014. By Scout.com Ohio State was rated as having the #1 recruiting class in 2013 and the #5 class in 2014. By Rivals.com it was #2 in 2013 and #3 in 2014.

Just for fun let's contrast that with their upcoming opponent, Oregon. By Scout.com Oregon was #17 in 2013 and #22 in 2014. By Rivals.com it was #22 in 2013 and #26 in 2014.

That back that got the 85 yard TD run in the fourth quarter against Alabama is a sophomore. The third string quarterback that was running over Alabama defenders and being pretty darned physically dominant with that and the rifle arm is also a sophomore. And the quarterback that was starting and got hurt so that that impressive sophomore got to play is a freshman. That dominant defensive end, Joey Bosa? That's also a sophomore.

You get the picture. It's a team with a LOT of young talent by virtue of Meyer's first two recruiting classes.

If Oregon wants to beat them I think they better do it this year because I think Ohio State is on the cusp of becoming a really dominant football program with Meyer there to exploit the recruiting advantages Ohio State has then optimize it by virtue of him being a really good football coach.