Started By
Message
re: Who are the SEC blue bloods?
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:05 pm to WaterLink
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:05 pm to WaterLink
So the AP website has historical data about finishes, so I dumped it into excel and made a simple plot. Sorry it's not as visually appealing with team logos and stuff like the one in OP, but here it is. I'll also include the original chart so we can compare it easily
Nebraska took a big hit. Nebraska has spent more time in the top 5 than Florida St but Florida St has FINISHED in the top 5 more than Nebraska, and even more than Michigan while we're at it.
Nebraska took a big hit. Nebraska has spent more time in the top 5 than Florida St but Florida St has FINISHED in the top 5 more than Nebraska, and even more than Michigan while we're at it.
3
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:12 pm to WaterLink
I don't think anyone could argue Nebraska has struggled since Osborne left.
But their elite play goes all the way back to when they started playing football in Lincoln.
1900 through 1906 - 46-8-1
1911 through 1915 - 35-2-3
1929 through 1936 - 50-15-7
1962 through 1997 - 356-69-5 (83% winning percentage)
But their elite play goes all the way back to when they started playing football in Lincoln.
1900 through 1906 - 46-8-1
1911 through 1915 - 35-2-3
1929 through 1936 - 50-15-7
1962 through 1997 - 356-69-5 (83% winning percentage)
This post was edited on 10/14/22 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:13 pm to WaterLink
Very interesting analysis. Comes out to a similar spot with..
The Bluest
OU
AL
OSU
ND
Then
USC
TX
Mich
Everyone else... and yep Nebraska looks like it took quite a hit.
The Bluest
OU
AL
OSU
ND
Then
USC
TX
Mich
Everyone else... and yep Nebraska looks like it took quite a hit.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:14 pm to ALhunter
Those charts are flawed because they only take into account AP poll rankings. There is so much more to college football than that.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:18 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
Those charts are flawed because they only take into account AP poll rankings. There is so much more to college football than that.
Share whatever statistical approach you put together. Great seeing these analyses.
This post was edited on 10/14/22 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:24 pm to ALhunter
I haven't attempted to do something like that in a long time. However, I believe additional factors should be considered, such as conference championships, bowl games and wins, Heisman trophy and other major award winners, all-Americans, etc.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 2:43 pm to WaterLink
The AP poll didn't have 25 teams ranked until the 1989 season. It only ranked 20 teams before that (except for 1961-1967 when it only ranked 10).
It also was a pre-bowl ranking until 1968 (with a few odd years they decided to wait until after bowls sprinkled in before that).
People try to treat it as a historically consistent measure, but it really hasn't been prior to 1989.
It also was a pre-bowl ranking until 1968 (with a few odd years they decided to wait until after bowls sprinkled in before that).
People try to treat it as a historically consistent measure, but it really hasn't been prior to 1989.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:01 pm to DawginSC
The more you know.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:08 pm to Caraway Rye
quote:
Only a Michigan fan would hold on to this And only a Michigan fan would think they are legitimately a better program Michigan would trade places. Ohio State wouldnt. Enough said.
I don’t care who’d trade places with who. Objectively, Michigan has a better all time resume than Ohio State by most every measure.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:12 pm to Cheese Grits
Michigan claims more National Championships than OSU
Michigan claims more Big 10 Championships than OSU
Michigan has more wins than OSU
Michigan owns the series lead vs OSU
Michigan claims more Big 10 Championships than OSU
Michigan has more wins than OSU
Michigan owns the series lead vs OSU
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:12 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
I haven't attempted to do something like that in a long time. However, I believe additional factors should be considered, such as conference championships, bowl games and wins, Heisman trophy and other major award winners, all-Americans, etc.
Yea I'd agree that adding some other factors in would make sense - haven't seen someone do an analysis but would encourage you to take a crack at it. One tricky thing there is normalizing for how teams claim championships etc. to standardize the data.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:12 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
quote:
I don’t care who’d trade places with who. Objectively, Michigan has a better all time resume than Ohio State by most every measure.
They have 1 NC in the last 75 or so years.
OSU has 7 in that time.
If having great teams back in the early 20th century is your measure, it’s Michigan. If you are looking at anything remotely modern it’s OSU. Michigans glory days are long gone.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:34 pm to Dawgfanman
1954, 1968, 2002, and 2014 are legit. 42, 57, 69, 70 are not. 2 of OSU’s NC are in the last 40 years. 3 in the last 58.
In a 100+ year rivalry, nothing is more relevant than head to head.
In a 100+ year rivalry, nothing is more relevant than head to head.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:49 pm to JayAg
quote:
You can find people in Latin America, Europe, Middle East, Asia in like Notre Dame gear. tu hats. USCe gear. Kentucky/Duke gear.
I have traveled 50 states, all over Europe, Central and South America, as well as to Egypt and Morocco (Africa) and Israel and Turkey in the Middle East.
I have rarely traveled for longer than a few days and not seen someone in Bama gear. I have noticed TX and ND some, but not the others mentioned and none to the extent of Bama
Posted on 10/14/22 at 3:58 pm to DaWGfan01
quote:To me, there's a difference between a "Blue Blood" and a good, great or elite program.
Imo there are probably 10 schools that could be considered "blue bloods",
No order, but Bammer is pretty much #1...
Alabama (SEC)
Notre Dame
USC
Oklahoma
Texas
Michigan
UGA (SEC)
Ohio State
Tennessee (SEC)
LSU (SEC)
There might be a couple more like maybe Nebraska, Penn State and Clemson (rapidly getting to blue bloods status)
Blue bloods are like European royalty, they are Lords and Barons, because of ... bloodline. Not because they are currently wealthy. Jeff Bezos is not a blue blood, because he isn't, and won't be, no matter how rich he is. Same for Elon Musk, etc. Prince Harry is one, and it doesn't matter about his money.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 5:18 pm to ALhunter
quote:
Share whatever statistical approach you put together.
Years ago a friend who was a stats professor and I discussed a weighted method he was not getting paid and it would have taken some real time to do it.
One method I suggested to him was weight by era
20% 1800's to 1913 (pre WWI
40% 1914 to 1946 (World Wars and Great Depression covered)
60% 1947 to 1977 (rise of the state schools)
80% 1978 to BCS (pre Supreme Court, ESPN, and free agency)
100% BCS to today
I do find it interesting some the most powerful CFB schools elected to drop out and focus on academics instead. interesting the 2 original SEC schools (Tulane and Georgia Tech) have been moving to where the Ivy's did roughly a century ago.
Posted on 10/14/22 at 6:22 pm to Bama54
quote:
I have traveled 50 states, all over Europe, Central and South America, as well as to Egypt and Morocco (Africa) and Israel and Turkey in the Middle East.
I have rarely traveled for longer than a few days and not seen someone in Bama gear. I have noticed TX and ND some, but not the others mentioned and none to the extent of Bama
Hahaha stop it... do you think that may be because you're a bama fan? I've traveled extensively as well and don't see a lot of CFB fans in foreign countries other than expats.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News