Started By
Message
re: Historical Elite Program Rankings
Posted on 1/15/20 at 3:22 pm to tigger1
Posted on 1/15/20 at 3:22 pm to tigger1
So then tell us what is a better method?
AP Poll is the best method of determining a programs year-to-year success we have.... by a long shot. Nothing comes close.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. I wish they had conducted a final poll AFTER the bowl games much earlier than 1965.... that error cost Arkansas a National Title in '64.
I wish they had consistently included 25 teams. It was just 20 teams up through 1960... then only 10 teams from 1961-1967.... then back to 20 teams until it finally expanded to 25 teams in 1989.
But for all of its historical issues, its the best method we have for measuring consistent performance of programs back to the 1930s.
Before you criticize, perhaps come up with an alternative.
AP Poll is the best method of determining a programs year-to-year success we have.... by a long shot. Nothing comes close.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. I wish they had conducted a final poll AFTER the bowl games much earlier than 1965.... that error cost Arkansas a National Title in '64.
I wish they had consistently included 25 teams. It was just 20 teams up through 1960... then only 10 teams from 1961-1967.... then back to 20 teams until it finally expanded to 25 teams in 1989.
But for all of its historical issues, its the best method we have for measuring consistent performance of programs back to the 1930s.
Before you criticize, perhaps come up with an alternative.
1
Posted on 1/15/20 at 3:34 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
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.
It would take some adjusting but using some combination of tournament appearances (would have to be scaled back), tournament wins and win % in the tournament. You could also have the qualifier of only at large bids count or teams that would have been awarded one but got an auto bid anyway. That would solve some of the issues in the one bid leagues but gets more messy and time consuming.
This post was edited on 1/15/20 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 1/15/20 at 3:35 pm to BHMKyle
No it is not Kyle, that is why many do lots of hard research on football and look at rosters down to the last man, compare the schedules, scoring, look at the records of team, what little we can dig up on formations, stats, which players made all conference, all American, who were the coaches (this really matters) down to the assistant coaches. What was their recruiting like (harder to come by pass 1950, will tell you the first national known recruit was Young Bussy in the middle 30's). Look at the over all teams depth and see what the players did.
Once you go back to Iron man football it gets easier to tell the best teams.
Ranking teams all time is not an easy matter it takes lots of time and lots of research 1000s of hours.
Not grab a poll do some quick math system and say x is correct.
The more work put into a matter of this type the better the result will be in the long run.
Once you go back to Iron man football it gets easier to tell the best teams.
Ranking teams all time is not an easy matter it takes lots of time and lots of research 1000s of hours.
Not grab a poll do some quick math system and say x is correct.
The more work put into a matter of this type the better the result will be in the long run.
This post was edited on 1/15/20 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:24 pm to rockiee
quote:
You could also have the qualifier of only at large bids count
Bingo. Yes, this is what I've been thinking.... or at least at-large bids count double the points compared to automatic qualifiers from one-bid mid-majors.
The problem: Who has time to go back through 70 years + of Tournament brackets to figure out who made it and whether they were an at-large, etc.? It would be a very time consuming project.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:25 pm to tigger1
quote:
Ranking teams all time is not an easy matter it takes lots of time and lots of research 1000s of hours.
Let us know how it turns out.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:32 pm to BHMKyle
Kyle you to can join the few of us they do the research, there are many sites of the college football historical groups have out there.
And the reason you can look up even the ap polls is due to members building sites and recording this things long ago.
Those polls did not magically appear on the net, it was college football historians doing the ground work long, long ago, even down to recording the weekly polls.
And you need to go read about what the person said was the driving force of coming up with the ap poll.
And the reason you can look up even the ap polls is due to members building sites and recording this things long ago.
Those polls did not magically appear on the net, it was college football historians doing the ground work long, long ago, even down to recording the weekly polls.
And you need to go read about what the person said was the driving force of coming up with the ap poll.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:33 pm to Rzrbackguy
That depends on much they take themselves seriously this time .Unlike the last 30 years which has proved to be the opposite. Too many blown opportunities have been wasted.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:38 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Who has time to go back through 70 years + of Tournament brackets to figure out who made it and whether they were an at-large, etc.?
Yeah, I mean that is the biggest issue and people will argue about that as well. Either way, Tournament wins should be the biggest factor. Scaling each win depending on where it takes place (ex. S16, E8 or F4) would be important as well. Good luck getting everyone to agree on the scaling though.
Posted on 1/15/20 at 4:40 pm to BHMKyle
Well done 
Posted on 1/16/20 at 1:29 pm to BHMKyle
I like the method you used to rank these programs.
Posted on 1/16/20 at 2:23 pm to BHMKyle
Might I suggest that anything earlier than 50 years ago is too old to use and that ONLY the last 50 years is what should be used to rank these teams. You address this somewhat by assigning a lower value. I'd prefer seeing the rankings reflecting a 50 time span so that it better described current status as a program.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News