Started By
Message
2
Posted on 8/2/16 at 4:09 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
I'm not melting over not being #1, I'm melting over the methodology. Consistency is important, but more weight for weeks as #1 than finishing #1?
And in my opinion, the last 30 or 40 years should count more than the previous 60. There is way more parity now, it is much harder to win, plus this is post integration.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 5:01 pm to JCdawg
Because why not waste time in excel:
Top 5 teams against the rest of the list: (wins-losses-ties)
Top 25's
ND 295-168-16 0.616 (479 games)
Alabama 294-184-20 0.590 (498 games)
OSUn 253-165-19 0.579 (437 games)
USC 211-148-20 0.557 (379 games)
OU 163-146-12 0.508 (321 games)
Top 15's
Alabama 207-133-19 0.577 (359 games)
ND 134-110-9 0.530 (253 games)
USC 84-75-9 0.500 (168 games)
OU 113-124-10 0.457 (247 games)
OSUn 86-103-8 0.437 (197 games)
Top 10's
ND 98-84-7 0.519 (189 games)
Alabama 43-37-3 0.518 (83 games)
USC 70-70-9 0.470 (149 games)
OU 104-118-10 0.448 (232 games)
OSUn 66-85-7 0.418 (158 games)
Against Each Other
ND 62-44-5 0.559 (111 games)
Alabama 11-11-1 0.478 (23 games)
USCw 56-62-7 0.448 (125 games)
OSUn 15-19-1 0.428 (35 games)
OU 8-17-2 0.296 (27 games)
Top 5 teams against the rest of the list: (wins-losses-ties)
Top 25's
ND 295-168-16 0.616 (479 games)
Alabama 294-184-20 0.590 (498 games)
OSUn 253-165-19 0.579 (437 games)
USC 211-148-20 0.557 (379 games)
OU 163-146-12 0.508 (321 games)
Top 15's
Alabama 207-133-19 0.577 (359 games)
ND 134-110-9 0.530 (253 games)
USC 84-75-9 0.500 (168 games)
OU 113-124-10 0.457 (247 games)
OSUn 86-103-8 0.437 (197 games)
Top 10's
ND 98-84-7 0.519 (189 games)
Alabama 43-37-3 0.518 (83 games)
USC 70-70-9 0.470 (149 games)
OU 104-118-10 0.448 (232 games)
OSUn 66-85-7 0.418 (158 games)
Against Each Other
ND 62-44-5 0.559 (111 games)
Alabama 11-11-1 0.478 (23 games)
USCw 56-62-7 0.448 (125 games)
OSUn 15-19-1 0.428 (35 games)
OU 8-17-2 0.296 (27 games)
Posted on 8/2/16 at 5:13 pm to Sgt Deds
You have issues there.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 5:30 pm to AshLSU
Meh. Still unoriginal.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 5:31 pm to nc14
Their methodology is mostly ok, however it does seem to overrate simply being ranked somewhat.
Winning a championship is worth far more than just being vanilla ranked 10 weeks and in their system they are equivalent.
Likewise, being ranked #1 in the regular season (especially early in the season) isn't necessarily worth that much.
I agree with their basic premise but would tweak the values somewhat.
They went for simple and easy to understand, but I think you could get a better system if you were willing to interject a little more complexity.
Winning a championship is worth far more than just being vanilla ranked 10 weeks and in their system they are equivalent.
Likewise, being ranked #1 in the regular season (especially early in the season) isn't necessarily worth that much.
I agree with their basic premise but would tweak the values somewhat.
They went for simple and easy to understand, but I think you could get a better system if you were willing to interject a little more complexity.
This post was edited on 8/2/16 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 8/2/16 at 5:58 pm to GeorgeReymond
Florida and fsu..IIIIIII don't know bout that.
That formula is sincerely skewed. That may be the worst methodology I've ever seen.
That formula is sincerely skewed. That may be the worst methodology I've ever seen.
This post was edited on 8/2/16 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:00 pm to GeorgeReymond
Oregon @2?
:confused: :confused:
:confused: :confused:Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:00 pm to GeorgeReymond
Oregon @2?
:confused: :confused:
:confused: :confused:Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:10 pm to Bielema Dat
Since 2010? Of course.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:12 pm to GeorgeReymond
Wow what a bullshite list
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:30 pm to GeorgeReymond
frick yeah top 20 bitches.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:32 pm to GeorgeReymond
So I guess sabans title at LSU isnt counted.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:34 pm to dgnx6
Nope. AP statistics only.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:35 pm to CapstoneGrad06
Crazy that Les and Dietzal are the only coaches at LSU to finish AP #1.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:38 pm to dgnx6
I am interested in a coaches poll version now.
Posted on 8/2/16 at 6:40 pm to texag7
we lead the A&M series 41-28
list was done by crackhead
list was done by crackhead
Posted on 8/2/16 at 8:57 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
All that matters is AP poll ranking
This post was edited on 8/2/16 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 8/2/16 at 9:09 pm to Old Money
It shouldn't be a surprise that an AP list is based on AP rankings. It is an accurate list of teams with the most success/consistency at BEING RANKED.
I would rather my team be the national champions from 1992 (10 points) than be ranked #1 for 9 weekly polls and then get their arse kicked and finish third (18 points).
I would rather my team be the national champions from 1992 (10 points) than be ranked #1 for 9 weekly polls and then get their arse kicked and finish third (18 points).
Posted on 8/3/16 at 5:01 am to Crimson Legend
The list confirms is that out of the 7 or 8 blue bloods who are the top all time 5. Any metric picks the same 5 teams. The order is wrong. Alabama is clearly 1 which is quite an achievement as passing Notre Dame is the equivalent of passing Babe Ruth. The next four are in a battle for second and a good or bad 3-4 year run scrambles that order. Bama stay on top for the foreseeable future. Truth
quote:
It shouldn't be a surprise that an AP list is based on AP rankings. It is an accurate list of teams with the most success/consistency at BEING RANKED.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News