1
Started By
Message
re: All-time records vs ranked opponents
Posted on 8/12/26 at 7:18 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 8/12/26 at 7:18 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
It's hard to say how much it would have changed things...maybe not much? Who knows?
Not much really. It was the same for everyone so it's still an indication of stronger teams played.
The years with only 10 for example, it's an even stronger indication rather than weaker.
Posted on 8/12/26 at 8:54 pm to AUTiger789
You should do it based on points. For example, beating a top that finishes #1 gets 25 points, #2 24 points, etc.
1. Bama 2349
2. ND 2116
3. OU 2051
4. Ohio St 2030
5. Texas 1877
6. USC 1866
7. Michigan 1783
8. UF 1646
9. UGA 1518
10. Tennessee 1514
11. LSU 1484
12. Auburn 1396
13. Miami 1341
14. Nebraska 1235
15. Penn St 1231
16. FSU 1209
17. UCLA 1119
18. Michigan St 1114
19. Washington 1050
20. GT 971
21. Ole Miss 867
21. Stanford 867
23. Iowa 865
24. Arkansas 863
25. Oregon 816
1. Bama 2349
2. ND 2116
3. OU 2051
4. Ohio St 2030
5. Texas 1877
6. USC 1866
7. Michigan 1783
8. UF 1646
9. UGA 1518
10. Tennessee 1514
11. LSU 1484
12. Auburn 1396
13. Miami 1341
14. Nebraska 1235
15. Penn St 1231
16. FSU 1209
17. UCLA 1119
18. Michigan St 1114
19. Washington 1050
20. GT 971
21. Ole Miss 867
21. Stanford 867
23. Iowa 865
24. Arkansas 863
25. Oregon 816
Posted on 8/12/26 at 11:51 pm to UFFan
quote:
But in some ways I think that judging it by your record against teams who are ranked at the time of the game might be a better measure.
We seem to have this argument (better measure: ranking at the time of the game vs. ranking at the end of the season) once a week on here. Both methods are flawed for obvious reasons. Anyone who confidently argues that either is the clearly superior method across the board while the other has no value is an idiot, as this OP demonstrates.
In this instance, it’s pretty simple. This particular OP has a strong tendency to focus on whatever obscure or misleading statistic makes Auburn look slightly better and then backfill an argument accordingly. Given that established tendency, one can only assume Auburn is a couple of notches lower when using the ranking at the time of the game. That observation aside, it would actually be super interesting to see both methods side by side to assess how different the results would be.
Posted on 8/13/26 at 9:28 am to Boom33
quote:
Not much really. It was the same for everyone so it's still an indication of stronger teams played.
The years with only 10 for example, it's an even stronger indication rather than weaker.
It is entirely possible that you are correct and it would not affect it much at all. However, the question for me would be for teams that beat teams from 1961-1968 that were ranked 11-25 (or should have been ranked there) They would not get credit for those victories. Then you could add the years in which they only ranked the top 20 teams. So some of the teams would lose credit. How much or how many? I don't know. Probably not enough to vault somebody like Ole Miss at #23 over Texas at #8, but possibly could vault #11Tennessee over #10Georgia, or somebody like that. There are several that are close, like LSU and Florida, UCLA and Clemson etc in which 2 or three wins could push them over the other team. When you consider it was 52 years that they only ranked 20 teams and another 7 years they only ranked 10 teams I have a have a feeling it would affect at least a few of the teams.
Just a thought. But, it is definitely an interesting topic the OP brought up.
This post was edited on 8/13/26 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 8/13/26 at 9:34 am to AUTiger789
Without reordering them here's how it looks just counting the number of times a school played a ranked opponent.
1. Alabama (163-158-12)- 333
2. Ohio State (134-143-12)- 289
3. Oklahoma (134-158-6)- 298
4. Notre Dame (142-179-9)- 330
5. USC (126-171-10)- 307
6. Florida State (92-133-3)- 228
7. Michigan (121-179-8)- 308
8. Texas (118-185-5)- 308
9. Penn State (101-165-5)- 271
10. Georgia (107-184-9)- 300
11. Tennessee (100-191-15)- 306
12. Miami (91-169-2)- 262
13. Florida (109-214-6)- 329
14. LSU (104-207-9)- 320
15. Auburn (96-209-8)- 313
16. Nebraska (83-188-4)- 275
17. Clemson (65-162-2)- 229
18. UCLA (75-196-14)- 285
19. Georgia Tech (74-202-6)- 282
20. Oregon (63-177-3)- 243
21. Washington (69-198-6)- 273
22. Michigan State (71-211-3)- 285
23. Ole Miss (63-189-4)- 256
24. TCU (50-186-7)- 243
25. Texas A&M (64-231-3)- 298
26. Arkansas (61-224-5)- 290
Data like this begs for multiple ways to sort it. There is the 100-win club, the played-300-games club then there is bama which is the only one with a winning record vs. ranked opponents :(.
Posted on 8/13/26 at 10:07 am to New Money
I hear you. Remember when Alabama beat FSU and USC in the season openers and both FSU and USC were very highly ranked and turned out to be garbage?
Polls shouldn't come out till November but you know that toothpaste is never going back into the tube. Someone, somewhere would put out a poll ranking.
Generates clicks and interest.
Polls shouldn't come out till November but you know that toothpaste is never going back into the tube. Someone, somewhere would put out a poll ranking.
Generates clicks and interest.
Posted on 8/13/26 at 10:13 am to AUTiger789
Thank you for posting that AU.
Posted on 8/13/26 at 10:46 am to AUTiger789
Yet another stat showing how even UF and LSU are..it is amazing at this point.
Posted on 8/13/26 at 12:59 pm to saturdaysarebetter
quote:
Remember when Alabama beat FSU and USC in the season openers and both FSU and USC were very highly ranked and turned out to be garbage?
USC finished in the top 5 that year (went 10-3, had wins over #5 Penn State and #4 Washington). We just wrecked their shite; they were still pretty good.
Posted on 8/16/26 at 8:39 pm to skrayper
I didn't realize that. The Tide made them look so bad too. Thank you for the info.
Posted on 8/16/26 at 10:47 pm to AUTiger789
None of these percentages match to the records shown. Why?
Posted on 8/16/26 at 11:40 pm to lazlodawg
quote:
Let me clarify: How applicable is this time period represented by the giant fricking picture below to programs today?
fricking hell man. Context.
You sound as if you are angry because the topic of the thread isn't what you wanted it to be.
Why don't you start a topic about How Past Time Periods in College Football relate to Modern Time Periods in College Football?
You know, a completely different fricking topic than what you are currently reading about.
Posted on 8/16/26 at 11:57 pm to lazlodawg
quote:
Interesting, but how applicable is this to programs today?
Typical Georgia fan.
Someone starts a thread about all-time records vs. ranked opponents and typical Georgia fan starts convulsing and demanding that only the years 1980, 2021, and 2022 be considered.
Posted on 8/17/26 at 12:02 am to thatthang
quote:
This particular OP has a strong tendency to focus on whatever obscure or misleading statistic makes Auburn look slightly better and then backfill an argument accordingly.
You are completely AUbsessed. Literally nothing in this post singles out Auburn and yet you have to pretend it does.
Posted on 8/17/26 at 12:04 am to DawgsLife
quote:
However, the question for me would be for teams that beat teams from 1961-1968 that were ranked 11-25 (or should have been ranked there) They would not get credit for those victories.
In a perfect world, the AP would have consistently rated 25teams every year and not waited until 1965 to produce a poll after the bowl games... but we can't change history.
We work with what we've got.
This post was edited on 8/17/26 at 12:06 am
Posted on 8/17/26 at 5:14 am to GoGators1995
quote:
You should do it based on points. For example, beating a top that finishes #1 gets 25 points, #2 24 points, etc.
1. Bama 2349
2. ND 2116
3. OU 2051
4. Ohio St 2030
5. Texas 1877
6. USC 1866
7. Michigan 1783
Nebraska is an outlier, but it’s not surprising that 7 out of the 8 historic “Blue Bloods” also top this list.
Posted on 8/17/26 at 5:36 am to koreandawg
quote:
AP didn't even do a top 25 for more than half of its existence. Quite a few with only a top 10.
Does it really matter? Whatever data was ued was used equally for a top 10 or later a top 20, and even the top 25 as we know today from AP. I don't know, but I'd assume the OP data would apply AP ranking against teams using whatever information AP delivered for the time. I doubt OP filled in the blanks for 11-25 or 21-25. Long story short, this is an apples to apples comparison.
As for why All-Time records are relevant to todays game......The teams were all playing during their era, all using the same rules, all relative to each other at the time. This will still be relevant 50 or 100 years from now. Again, another apples to apples comparison.
Fans that come off wanting to disparage or poo-poo all time records IMO are just ignorant buffoons, history matters.
Posted on 8/17/26 at 7:02 am to AUTiger789
quote:
I feel like this is a pretty good indicator of how strong programs have been historically.
Yeah list is solid and hard to argue with. Bowden did work in Tallahassee is what stands out to me
Posted on 8/17/26 at 8:01 am to JacieNY
Re-listing these in order of number of top 25 teams played.
1. Alabama - 333
2. Notre Dame - 330
3. Florida - 329
4. LSU - 320
5. Auburn - 313
6. Michigan - 308
6. Texas - 308
8. USC - 307
9. Tennessee - 306
10. Georgia - 300
11. Ohio State - 289
12. Oklahoma - 298
12. Texas A&M - 298
13. Arkansas - 290
14. UCLA - 285
14. Michigan State - 285
16. Georgia Tech - 282
17. Nebraska - 275
18. Washington - 273
19. Penn State - 271
20. Miami - 262
21. Ole Miss - 256
22. Oregon - 243
23. TCU - 243
24. Clemson - 229
25. Florida State - 228
1. Alabama - 333
2. Notre Dame - 330
3. Florida - 329
4. LSU - 320
5. Auburn - 313
6. Michigan - 308
6. Texas - 308
8. USC - 307
9. Tennessee - 306
10. Georgia - 300
11. Ohio State - 289
12. Oklahoma - 298
12. Texas A&M - 298
13. Arkansas - 290
14. UCLA - 285
14. Michigan State - 285
16. Georgia Tech - 282
17. Nebraska - 275
18. Washington - 273
19. Penn State - 271
20. Miami - 262
21. Ole Miss - 256
22. Oregon - 243
23. TCU - 243
24. Clemson - 229
25. Florida State - 228
Posted on 8/17/26 at 8:20 am to JacieNY
We hear the argument that Alabama has benefitted from easy schedules fairly regularly here. The fact Alabama has played more ranked teams than anyone else on that list should at least bury that idea. It won’t. But it should.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News