Started By
Message
Elite vs. Elite All-Time Meetings
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:40 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:40 am
IMO there are 17 programs that are head and shoulders above the rest. They rank #1 through #17 in terms of most finishes in the Final AP Poll:
60- Michigan
58- Oklahoma
58- Ohio St.
56- Alabama
54- Notre Dame
49- USC
48- Nebraska
47- Texas
44- Tennessee
42- Penn St.
41- LSU
39- Auburn
37- Georgia
33- Florida St.
32- Miami
32- Florida
32- Clemson
------------- CUT OFF
31- UCLA
28- Arkansas
27- Michigan St.
27- Texas A&M
26- Washington
25- Ole Miss
25- Wisconsin
I draw the line after Clemson because of this... those last 4 to make the cut have won multiple National Titles..... Florida State, Florida, and Clemson all have 3 National Titles. Miami has 5.
Below the cut-off, UCLA has 1 (way back in 1954)... Arkansas has zero (Yes, I do not count 1964)... Michigan State does have 2, but they were way back in 1952 and 1965... Texas A&M has one (1939). Washington, Ole Miss, and Wisconsin have zero National Titles.
To me, its easy to draw the cut after Clemson since if anything the gap seems to be widening between the Top 17 and those others.
If you take those Top 17 and calculate all-time meetings against the others in the Group of 17, it produces some form of an all-time SOS ranking. Here are the programs ranked by number of all-time meetings against those 17:
500- Auburn
486- Florida
474- Alabama
471- Georgia
334- Tennessee
332- LSU
267- Notre Dame
262- Oklahoma
255- Miami
238- Florida St.
221- Michigan
227- Clemson
216- Ohio St.
203- Texas
200- Nebraska
182- USC
154- Penn State
That is an unbelievably wide discrepancy between the top and the bottom. The northern schools will complain that the sample contains too many SEC teams, but the resumes of all 6 SEC programs included are indisputably strong. Yes, if you include Michigan State, it significantly increases Michigan's (93 meetings), Notre Dame's (65), Ohio State's (46), and Penn State's (32) totals, but they still fall way short of those SEC schools at the top..... and if you include Michigan State, why not Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Texas A&M?
Either way, the SEC has historically played by far the toughest schedules in all of CFB.
60- Michigan
58- Oklahoma
58- Ohio St.
56- Alabama
54- Notre Dame
49- USC
48- Nebraska
47- Texas
44- Tennessee
42- Penn St.
41- LSU
39- Auburn
37- Georgia
33- Florida St.
32- Miami
32- Florida
32- Clemson
------------- CUT OFF
31- UCLA
28- Arkansas
27- Michigan St.
27- Texas A&M
26- Washington
25- Ole Miss
25- Wisconsin
I draw the line after Clemson because of this... those last 4 to make the cut have won multiple National Titles..... Florida State, Florida, and Clemson all have 3 National Titles. Miami has 5.
Below the cut-off, UCLA has 1 (way back in 1954)... Arkansas has zero (Yes, I do not count 1964)... Michigan State does have 2, but they were way back in 1952 and 1965... Texas A&M has one (1939). Washington, Ole Miss, and Wisconsin have zero National Titles.
To me, its easy to draw the cut after Clemson since if anything the gap seems to be widening between the Top 17 and those others.
If you take those Top 17 and calculate all-time meetings against the others in the Group of 17, it produces some form of an all-time SOS ranking. Here are the programs ranked by number of all-time meetings against those 17:
500- Auburn
486- Florida
474- Alabama
471- Georgia
334- Tennessee
332- LSU
267- Notre Dame
262- Oklahoma
255- Miami
238- Florida St.
221- Michigan
227- Clemson
216- Ohio St.
203- Texas
200- Nebraska
182- USC
154- Penn State
That is an unbelievably wide discrepancy between the top and the bottom. The northern schools will complain that the sample contains too many SEC teams, but the resumes of all 6 SEC programs included are indisputably strong. Yes, if you include Michigan State, it significantly increases Michigan's (93 meetings), Notre Dame's (65), Ohio State's (46), and Penn State's (32) totals, but they still fall way short of those SEC schools at the top..... and if you include Michigan State, why not Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Texas A&M?
Either way, the SEC has historically played by far the toughest schedules in all of CFB.
19
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:42 am to BHMKyle
quote:
IMO
And who are you and should we be impressed?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:45 am to agswin
quote:
And who are you and should we be impressed?
That's up to you. I can tell you what is unimpressive and that's A&M's abysmal resume.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:49 am to agswin
quote:
And who are you and should we be impressed?
he's one of the like 4 people on the board that actually post meaningful and thoughtful football stuff instead of inane trolling drivel 24/7 like most everyone else.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:51 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Arkansas has zero (Yes, I do not count 1964)
There are not enough words in the English language to fully do justice to how little we care about whether or not you count our National title in football.
Also... 1-17? Usually its top 10 or top 20.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:52 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Elite
quote:
most finishes in the Final AP Poll:
Not sure I'd use this as a parameter. Let's hypothetically say a fictional program went 8-4 every single year for 50 years and finished 25th nationally every single year. Yes, this is so improbable it borders on impossible but bare with me. In this instance the program would be 6th on your elite rating, above USC/Nebraska/Texas/etc. All that is without a division title, without a single conference title, and not even sniffing a natty.
Granted, I don't know what a better measure would be, I just don't think "elite" and "finishing ranked" necessarily should go hand in hand.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:53 am to BHMKyle
quote:
500- Auburn
486- Florida
474- Alabama
471- Georgia
334- Tennessee
332- LSU
So you're saying there's a Big 6 for a reason...
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:53 am to BHMKyle
Here's one more take from this...
Forget the bottom 11 and just look at the SEC. Why have Tennessee and LSU played so few games against the nation's better programs? I mean that gap is pretty gigantic.
I know if you include Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Ole Miss, then LSU's numbers would increase significantly.... but you have to think the others in the SEC would see an increase as well.
quote:
500- Auburn
486- Florida
474- Alabama
471- Georgia
334- Tennessee
332- LSU
Forget the bottom 11 and just look at the SEC. Why have Tennessee and LSU played so few games against the nation's better programs? I mean that gap is pretty gigantic.
I know if you include Texas A&M, Arkansas, and Ole Miss, then LSU's numbers would increase significantly.... but you have to think the others in the SEC would see an increase as well.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:56 am to BHMKyle
I like it
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:56 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Washington, Ole Miss, and Wisconsin have zero National Titles.
*kisses fingers like Italian chef*
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:57 am to Arksulli
quote:
There are not enough words in the English language to fully do justice to how little we care about whether or not you count our National title in football.
Well how much you care is still infinitely more than the number of trophies you have in your case from the AP/UPI... which is zero.
quote:
Also... 1-17? Usually its top 10 or top 20.
Draw the line where the line needs to be drawn. Seeing that the bottom four that made the cut all have 3 national titles or more, and the ones just below the cut line all have zero national titles in the last half century, I think its a fairly obvious place to draw a line.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:58 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Why have Tennessee and LSU played so few games against the nation's better programs?
Regional historical matchups
Same reason Auburn has so many. UF, UA, UGA, and UT were played a lot by AU
Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:59 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Granted, I don't know what a better measure would be, I just don't think "elite" and "finishing ranked" necessarily should go hand in hand.
Should be weighted (e.g., 25 for 1st place finish, 1 for 25th place finish). Not sure how much that would change the Top 17, maybe a couple teams at most, but the order within the Top 17 would probably shift around a bit.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 10:01 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:00 am to BHMKyle
Your opinion carries no weight if you don't honor the true 1964 National Champion Arkansas Razorbacks. The only undefeated contestant at the end of 1964.
Hogs beat the 1963 National Champion Nebraska in their bowl game while Bama was beaten by Texas, who was beaten by Arkansas. Hogs defense had 6 shutouts that year. That Hog team went undefeated thru 1964 and well into 1965, winning 22 games in a row.
Because of the screwup, the final polls started waiting until after the bowls to come out. Hogs have the Grantland Rice Trophy and was awarded the championship by at least 3 services.
If Bama claim of 16 is considered valid, Hogs claim on 1964 is more valid because Bama lost their last game of 1964
Hogs beat the 1963 National Champion Nebraska in their bowl game while Bama was beaten by Texas, who was beaten by Arkansas. Hogs defense had 6 shutouts that year. That Hog team went undefeated thru 1964 and well into 1965, winning 22 games in a row.
Because of the screwup, the final polls started waiting until after the bowls to come out. Hogs have the Grantland Rice Trophy and was awarded the championship by at least 3 services.
If Bama claim of 16 is considered valid, Hogs claim on 1964 is more valid because Bama lost their last game of 1964
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:06 am to BHMKyle
quote:
I can tell you what is unimpressive and that's A&M's abysmal resume.
He fell into that one...
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:15 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Why have Tennessee and LSU played so few games against the nation's better programs? I mean that gap is pretty gigantic.
We can't play ourselves. I think this says more about the other teams on the list than it does about us.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:15 am to elposter
quote:
Should be weighted (e.g., 25 for 1st place finish, 1 for 25th place finish). Not sure how much that would change the Top 17, maybe a couple teams at most, but the order within the Top 17 would probably shift around a bit.
This isn't what I was talking about exactly but the AP actually put out a ranking based on the following criteria:
1 point for each poll appearance
2 points for each number 1 appearance
10 points for each final number 1 appearance (i.e., AP championship)
After the 2017 the top 25 looked like this (I can't find a 2018 update):
1. Ohio State
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma
4. Notre Dame
5. USC
6. Michigan
7. Nebraska
8. Texas
9. FSU
10. Florida
11. LSU
12. Penn State
13. Miami
14. Tennessee
15. Auburn
16. Georgia
17. UCLA
18. Washington
19. Clemson
20. Texas A&M
21. Michigan State
22. Arkansas
23. Wisconsin
24. Pitt
25. Iowa
So the Top 17 AP teams under a slightly different formula results in only one change (Clemson is out (now at 19) and UCLA is in (now at 17) - actually a quick look after 2018 shows that Clemson would jump Washington and would be 18 now). Not sure I prefer this one over the OPs. I do like that it gives extra weight to being ranked number 1 and gives even more extra weight to being ranked #1 in the final poll. But I prefer the OPs method of looking at rankings in the final poll only as this alternative ranking counts all polls which rewards teams that were overrated in the beginning of seasons.
I think the best weighted ranking would be this using final rankings only:
1 point for 25th, 2 points for 24th, etc. all the way to 24 points for 2nd. For 1st (i.e., championships) you'd get a premium of 5 extra points - so 30 points instead of 25. This recognizes that the biggest difference is between finishing #1 and #2 - championships matter.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:18 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Let's hypothetically say a fictional program went 8-4 every single year for 50 years and finished 25th nationally every single year.
Yeah I see. There's never a perfect definition. You could look at AP Poll Points (25 pts for a #1 finish, 24 pts for a #2 finish, etc.). Only issue is it doesn't really reward National Championships. Essentially the National Champ is only receiving 1 extra point over #2, which is the same gap between #2 and #3, etc. So let's also give a 25 point bonus for a Polling Era National Title. It results in this:
1,362- Alabama
1,256- Oklahoma
1,202- Ohio State
1,174- Notre Dame
1,035- Michigan
1,007- USC
908- Nebraska
889- Texas
736- Tennessee
735- Penn State
728- LSU
665- Miami
637- Florida State
622- Auburn
616- Georgia
593- Florida
518- UCLA
506- Michigan State
500- Clemson
439- Arkansas
401- Washington
400- Texas A&M
363- Wisconsin
355- Georgia Tech
347- Ole Miss
So in this analysis, UCLA and Michigan State do still finish ahead of Clemson.... however, if Clemson can finish in the Top 7 next year (completely plausible), then they'll finally jump those two.
The controversy is Clemson, obviously. The gap between #16 Florida and #17 UCLA is significant.... in fact from #9 Tennessee and all the way down below that (#10, #11, #12, etc.) its the largest gap on the board. It could definitely make sense to draw the line behind Florida.
However, Clemson has won 3 National Titles since 1981 and played and lost a second one. It seems a bit wrong to not include them with the others. And regardless, based on the talent they have down there, they'll be in the group without and doubt within 5 seasons.
UCLA is going in the wrong direction. They've only had three Top 25 finishes in the past 20 seasons.... only one of those was in the Top 15.
Michigan State actually has the next best resume, IMO. They have 2 National Titles and have done far more recently than UCLA. However, they are somewhat inconsistent. They finished unranked in 2016, #15 in 2017, and unranked again in 2018. Not sure there's much steam left in Dantonio.
Arkansas is way too far back. They would have to finish #10 essentially ten times to get close to where Florida sits now.... for a program that's winning 4 or so games a year right now, that seems unlikely.
And once you go below that... to Washington, A&M, etc.... its not even worth running the unlikely hypotheticals.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:27 am to PorkerDaddy
quote:
If Bama claim of 16 is considered valid, Hogs claim on 1964 is more valid because Bama lost their last game of 1964
Major poll titles are the standard, unless that works against you right? I don’t think any Alabama fan has issue splitting 1964 with Arkansas. The issue is that some people think the FWAA should trump the AP and UPI/Coaches (Alabama had both in ‘64) for that season because Arkansas was undefeated.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:34 am to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
We can't play ourselves. I think this says more about the other teams on the list than it does about us.
Not really. Auburn has been ranked in the ap 2 times less than LSU, but has played those top 17 teams 168 more times than LSU has. None of the top 17 can play themselves. It only gauges the times they've played the others in the top 17. LSU hasn't scheduled a ton of them. Part of that has been how the SEC was structured as well as historical rivalries. That isn't a dog on LSU, just kind of how things worked out.
As far as SEC is concerned, it has more to do with regional matchups, as NYCAuburn said. Up until recently, Auburn played Bama, UGA, Tenn, & florida almost every year. We also have for some reason played Clemson a ton.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News