Started By
Message
re: Historical Elite Program Rankings
Posted on 1/15/20 at 11:50 am to BHMKyle
Posted on 1/15/20 at 11:50 am to BHMKyle
By trends, by point changes ...
1. Alabama- 1,260 (+327)
2. LSU- 662 (+151)
5. Auburn- 492 (+91)
6. Georgia- 489 (+63)
11. S. Carolina- 102 (+55)
10. Missouri- 165 (+31)
12. Mississippi St.- 86 (+28)
7. Texas A&M- 284 (+19)
3. Florida- 575 (+16)
9. Ole Miss- 207 (+15)
13. Kentucky- 66 (+10)
14. Vanderbilt- 12 (+5)
8. Arkansas- 269 (+3)
4. Tennessee- 504 (-45)
1. Alabama- 1,260 (+327)
2. LSU- 662 (+151)
5. Auburn- 492 (+91)
6. Georgia- 489 (+63)
11. S. Carolina- 102 (+55)
10. Missouri- 165 (+31)
12. Mississippi St.- 86 (+28)
7. Texas A&M- 284 (+19)
3. Florida- 575 (+16)
9. Ole Miss- 207 (+15)
13. Kentucky- 66 (+10)
14. Vanderbilt- 12 (+5)
8. Arkansas- 269 (+3)
4. Tennessee- 504 (-45)
1
Posted on 1/15/20 at 11:52 am to BHMKyle
quote:
BHMKyle
I can appreciate your hard work
Nice to see all the data that backs up your reasoning behind it all.
This post was edited on 1/15/20 at 11:53 am
Posted on 1/15/20 at 11:56 am to Tigerbait357
After this decade Arkansas doesn't deserve to be mentioned. Certainly pre-2000 the program was top 15 or top 20 by any measure.
We'll be back...and we're bringing hell with us.
We'll be back...and we're bringing hell with us.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 11:58 am to WG_Dawg
UGA fans looking at reality versus what they feel in their hearts
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:06 pm to TheJones
quote:
UGA fans looking at reality versus what they feel in their hearts
Nah. We're one season away from jumping both Auburn and Tennessee. All we'd need is a Top 15 finish or so and also finish ahead of Auburn by about 5 spots.
Nebraska and Miami are both trending down... there's a legit chance UGA could jump both by the end of the next decade. And I wouldn't be surprised to see FSU struggle in the coming years, so passing them is not all that far-fetched.
Even if Georgia just does what we've been doing the past 2-3 seasons for a few more years, its not at all inconceivable that we could jump from #16 up to around #10 or #11 by the end of the decade..... all those teams are just so closely packed in together.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:10 pm to Rzrbackguy
quote:
After this decade Arkansas doesn't deserve to be mentioned. Certainly pre-2000 the program was top 15 or top 20 by any measure.
Yeah. I don't think most people realize how formidable Arkansas was during the 1960s, '70s, and '80s.
Here is Arkansas' change in points each decade:
1960s: +137
1970s: +82
1980s: +38
1990s: -19
2000s: -31
2010s: +3
The bleeding was actually stopped this decade thanks to the 2011 season... but this downward trend has been a half century in the making. That's not easy to turn around.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:38 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
Why? We’ve sucked for a while now, and VOLS fans accept and admit it.
BUT.
It’s going to be the decade of the VOLS ‘cause we’re back baby! Tax Slayer Champs -> 2020 15-0 Champs.
BUT.
It’s going to be the decade of the VOLS ‘cause we’re back baby! Tax Slayer Champs -> 2020 15-0 Champs.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:41 pm to BHMKyle
Oklahoma played in one of the weakest conferences for years, not including Nebraska.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:42 pm to BHMKyle
I always enjoy your stat-nerd threads.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:42 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
-44 Texas
Honestly surprised it wasn't worse. Still, frick the previous decade.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:43 pm to scrooster
quote:
4. Tennessee- 504 (-45)
Dooley and Jones...the gifts that keep on giving.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 12:53 pm to BHMKyle
Thanks, great ranking system
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:05 pm to VolsDeep
quote:
Why? We’ve sucked for a while now, and VOLS fans accept and admit it.
Not all of them do.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:07 pm to BHMKyle
Yep...Arkansas' decline (and to some extent, Nebraska's) are a result of the changes in society and recruiting rules over time.
The looming change allowing student athletes to directly benefit financially from advertising featuring their likeness is going to further impact many schools from small population markets who don't have a national following. If you're a 5 star recruit who can legally gain from advertising you'd be a fool not to be asking about size of the market an potential payout. Said payout will be much larger in a market like LA or Chicago (USC, Notre Dame) than a market like Fayetteville, Starkville, Gainsville, Knoxville, etc.
Personally, I also think it is unfair by position as I don't see a lot of O-Line jerseys in the stands in relation to how many RB and QB jerseys I see.
I hope sanity prevails and the NCAA pools the money from such advertising to distribute by some more fair formula to ALL NCAA student athletes. Once an individual turns pro, then more power to them for earning all they can.
It'll ruin college football if this goes unchecked.
The looming change allowing student athletes to directly benefit financially from advertising featuring their likeness is going to further impact many schools from small population markets who don't have a national following. If you're a 5 star recruit who can legally gain from advertising you'd be a fool not to be asking about size of the market an potential payout. Said payout will be much larger in a market like LA or Chicago (USC, Notre Dame) than a market like Fayetteville, Starkville, Gainsville, Knoxville, etc.
Personally, I also think it is unfair by position as I don't see a lot of O-Line jerseys in the stands in relation to how many RB and QB jerseys I see.
I hope sanity prevails and the NCAA pools the money from such advertising to distribute by some more fair formula to ALL NCAA student athletes. Once an individual turns pro, then more power to them for earning all they can.
It'll ruin college football if this goes unchecked.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:08 pm to BHMKyle
Lol @ tennessee. F*** that lardo in their AD. They deserved their fall.
Now a part of me I hate wants them to get better. In fact, I think they will drastically improve this decade and possibly return to their old glory.
But then I look at that cancerous orange and say, "F*** em, they deserve to suck."
Nah, for real, I do hope they get better. I actually do.**
** ditch the orange, it burns holes in my eyes
Now a part of me I hate wants them to get better. In fact, I think they will drastically improve this decade and possibly return to their old glory.
But then I look at that cancerous orange and say, "F*** em, they deserve to suck."
Nah, for real, I do hope they get better. I actually do.**
** ditch the orange, it burns holes in my eyes
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:09 pm to XWing atAliciousness
ha, both UT's collapsed in the '10s.... orange and white is a curse!
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:12 pm to BHMKyle
UGA SHOULD be ranked Top 5 all time. There's no reason not to be. Huge population to recruit from, also bordering other fertile recruiting states. And their biggest competition in state is worthless Tech.
Look what especially UA and to a lesser degree AU has accomplished sharing a state with less than half of the population. UGA- classic underachievers.
Look what especially UA and to a lesser degree AU has accomplished sharing a state with less than half of the population. UGA- classic underachievers.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 1:14 pm to BHMKyle
Too lazy to read but is this just Football?
Should do this with the 3 major men’s sports. Football, basketball and baseball.
Should do this with the 3 major men’s sports. Football, basketball and baseball.
This post was edited on 1/15/20 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 1/15/20 at 2:30 pm to Cadello
quote:
Too lazy to read but is this just Football?
Yes.
quote:
Should do this with the 3 major men’s sports. Football, basketball and baseball.
I've experimented a bit for basketball, but its much more difficult. For Basketball, all points must be generated by NCAA Tournament performance... that's really all that matters in that sport. Conference Titles are not equal. It's all about the Tournament.
One issue I have though is some mid-majors actually have it easy. Like Belmont. Win your league, and they are in the NCAA Tournamant every year as a 12-seed or 13-seed. But a team like an Alabama, who is perpetually on the bubble, might have had a better team but they get left out because they are in a league that sends 4-5 teams per year. I've tossed around the idea of counting NCAA Tournament WINS only. Therefore the programs that made the Dance every year as a 14-seed, but lose every year don't get so many points.
Just rambling thoughts...
Posted on 1/15/20 at 2:40 pm to BHMKyle
BHMKyle
Your formula is fault in many ways and is not a good indication of the top programs all time basing in a fault eye candy poll.
Ap poll vote is not a poll that kept voting on the same number of teams yearly it changed on the number of teams voted for in a given year many times.
The Ap poll is not a be all end all poll, it is a newspaper poll and was based on to make people talk and make news by being the news.
Ap voters until the 1950's could only see about 10 games a year and never saw many teams they voted on in person or tv.
Even in the 60's your looking at only about 20 max a season, and that is watching tv. Remember the poll is before the bowl games, so those are not counted in the poll era at that time.
In the 70s we finally get to see more games on tv but not many unlike today.
And remember those early games on tv are very fuzzy in 50's and 60's, this is not crystal clear tv of today.
Your formula is fault in many ways and is not a good indication of the top programs all time basing in a fault eye candy poll.
Ap poll vote is not a poll that kept voting on the same number of teams yearly it changed on the number of teams voted for in a given year many times.
The Ap poll is not a be all end all poll, it is a newspaper poll and was based on to make people talk and make news by being the news.
Ap voters until the 1950's could only see about 10 games a year and never saw many teams they voted on in person or tv.
Even in the 60's your looking at only about 20 max a season, and that is watching tv. Remember the poll is before the bowl games, so those are not counted in the poll era at that time.
In the 70s we finally get to see more games on tv but not many unlike today.
And remember those early games on tv are very fuzzy in 50's and 60's, this is not crystal clear tv of today.
This post was edited on 1/15/20 at 3:01 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News