re: CFB Program Rankings

Typically these lists are hot garbage but this actually looks pretty spot on.

Then you shouldn't have agreed to those systems.

This is literally the only thing Alabama can puff their chest out about. They suck in every other sport. Most bama fans have never even been to Tuscaloosa much less the campus. 3 months out of the year they get to hang those dumb flags outside their trailer with pride. Congrats

quote:

---

I thought we started football in 2000?

---

For LSU to be ranked so high, they obviously had to have some pre-2000 accomplishments on their resume. With that said, if you look at the numbers of the Top 17 teams on the list, here they are ranked in order by percentage of total points accumulated since 2000:

Percentage of Total Points Accumulated Since 2000:

55.9%- LSU
49.8%- Clemson
48.2%- Florida
43.6$- Ohio State
42.9%- Alabama
41.5%- Georgia
41.1%- Auburn
40.3%- USC
37.1%- Texas
36.3%- Florida State
35.1%- Oklahoma
33.5%- AVERAGE OF ALL TOP 17 TEAMS
30.0%- Miami
19.2%- Penn State
19.0%- Michigan
12.8%- Tennessee
12.4%- Notre Dame
8.7%- Nebraska

So while yes it is true that LSU had pre-2000 accomplishments, the critics are also right: LSU's program status has benefited more since 2000 than any other program in college football.

Pre 2000 LSU was not even close to blue blood status.... it was probably not even "elite."

If you were to use this same ranking at the end of the 1999 season, this is how the rankings would have looked:

1. Nebraska- 745
2. Alabama- 707
3. Oklahoma- 573
4. Michigan- 563
5. Penn State- 511
6. Miami- 509
7. USC- 504
8. Notre Dame- 479
9. Florida St.- 468
10. Tennessee- 414
11. Texas- 390
12. Florida- 331
13. Auburn- 303
14. UCLA- 300
15. Georgia- 284
16. Washington- 253
17. Texas A&M- 239
17. Arkansas- 239
19. LSU- 237
20. Clemson- 213

Remember, this is coming off the disastrous 1990s for LSU football, so LSU would have had almost zero points for the most recent 10 years.... which are weighted the highest.

So there is some truth to the "didn't play football before 2000" arguments.

quote:

---

I liked your ranking until I saw your pree 1999 rankings

I have a hard time finding any legit publication or ranking that would have had a&m,arky, washington, and auburn over lsu pre 1999

---

I don't know why it would be so hard to beleive... especially considering accomplishments happening closer to 1999 would be rewarded at the highest levels.

If you look at straight AP Poll Points accumulated between 1936 and 1999, here is how those teams looked:

11. UCLA- 467
12. Auburn- 417
13. LSU- 402
14. Arkansas- 393
15. Florida St- 387
16. Miami- 386
17. Georgia- 376
18. Michigan St.- 352
19. Texas A&M- 329
20. Florida- 328
21. Washington- 300

Even with no weighting, Auburn's program was ranked above LSU's in 1999 in terms of AP Poll Points. Arkansas' was just narrowly behind. But remember, Auburn had had far more success in the 1980s and 1990s compared to LSU... and the golden age of Arkansas football occurred from about 1959-1989.... so they weren't far removed from that. Which is why they would have scored so high at the end of the '90s.

Washington was coming off a National Championship within the past 10 years, so they would have scored a lot of points for that.

And Texas A&M... not too far behind LSU in straight up AP Points at the time... was coming off their Golden Age of football in the 1980s and 1990s. They would be receiving a ton of points for their more recent success.

The reason you don't like this system in 1999 is precisely the reason you DO like it in 2018.... it gives an extra reward to programs who've accomplished big things in recent years. The very same reason LSU looked bad in 1999 is the same exact reason they look so strong in the wake of the Saban/Miles era.

quote:

---

If you were to use this same ranking at the end of the 1999 season, this is how the rankings would have looked:

1. Nebraska- 745
2. Alabama- 707
3. Oklahoma- 573
4. Michigan- 563
5. Penn State- 511
6. Miami- 509
7. USC- 504
8. Notre Dame- 479
9. Florida St.- 468
10. Tennessee- 414
11. Texas- 390
12. Florida- 331
13. Auburn- 303
14. UCLA- 300
15. Georgia- 284
16. Washington- 253
17. Texas A&M- 239
17. Arkansas- 239
19. LSU- 237
20. Clemson- 213

---

You omitted Ohio State on this list. I'm sure they would have still been in the top 10 and probably top 5.

quote:

---

The reason you don't like this system in 1999 is precisely the reason you DO like it in 2018.... it gives an extra reward to programs who've accomplished big things in recent years. The very same reason LSU looked bad in 1999 is the same exact reason they look so strong in the wake of the Saban/Miles era.

---

Big things like win pct, conference titles, national titles, and bowl wins?

Because lsu had the edge in all those things


I think the recency factor you added is fine. But I think it distorts things a little more when you go back in time

The weighting from a statistical analysis standpoint should be weighted differently when you set the ranking point 20 years in the past

Maybe LSU should have been better pre 1999 to appease you.

As long as “recent history” is defined as since 1980.

The 2004 AU team was harmed, IMO, by having gone 0-2 against USC in 2002 and 2003 and neither game was particularly close. I think voters looked at that and thought to themselves that they knew who the better team was (not saying they are right, b/c teams improve from year to year and AU may have been able to beat USC, but i do think that recent history factored in with some voters)