Even in sports that play a 5 or best of 7 series, teams with the best talent have lost more than they've won. You're really clueless when it comes to this stuff. Computers and formulas only go so far. There are many other factors outside of talent that impact games and their results. until you understand that, you'll continue to be clueless.
You aren't understanding some of the points im making but trying to counter the points anyway and its not working.
I'll just say this: when i refer to "skill" im referring to the opposite of luck im not referring to recruiting rankings specifically.
"skill" is what a team can effect/impact
"luck" is external events (events out of a team's control) that impact/effect the outcome of the game
"skill" is an all encompassing term in this case used to describe a programs production and talent.
The more quarters two teams play against each other, the larger the sample size grows and better the opportunity gets for the more skilled of the two teams (the more talented and more productive of the two teams) to rise to the top of the scoreboard and win.
In many college football games 4 quarters is enough to get *some idea* of who the better team is, but if you turned a football game into a best of 7 series (where potentially 28 quarters were involved instead of just 4 quarters), we'd DEFINITELY know by the end of the series who was the better of the two teams (and luck would play way less of a factor in determining the winner)
TLDR: In college football, because the sample size is so small (just 4 quarters), even teams in the FCS or G5 FBS can sometimes steal wins over much more skilled P4 teams by mere luck (the NIU vs ND game being a perfect example)
