Famous NCAA Dynasties

[ktffan]

CFL, cool site. Always nice to find a new stat. site.

Warning. The information there is not complete.

[colorado_loves_football]

Warning. The information there is not complete

The way I understand it he's still compiling data from another source, that ranks teams according to their relative strength, but unless I'm mistaken, from 1960 to the present it's a complete record.
Something else I noticed, games played against I-AA teams don't 'count' toward a team's W/L record. The reason is it likely doesn't give a 'fair' comparison within I-A. That's why TT was listed at 7-3 rather than 9-3.
There is also a component which awards a team an "L" if they play poor football, but win against an inferior opponent. Pittsburgh, 2004, was 8-3 but are listed at 7-4 for that reason.
Generally wins aren't subtracted, but there are obviously exceptions.

One thing I noticed, was that TCU was ranked behind Oklahoma, in the final rankings. This interested me for several reasons. First of all everyone was arguing how 'bad' Oklahoma was, and this would suggest they were a lot better than they were given credit for. And, putting Oklahoma ahead of Oregon in the final rankings makes 'sense', logistically. I might have preferred TCU be 'ranked' ahead of them, but it's likely due to the SOS component, that favors Oklahoma.
Another interesting component, is how TCU is ranked #11 overall.
That it a 'fair' ranking. I have seen other rankings that gave TCU a much higher position, but #11 'jives' with the CNN USA Today ranking.

So, I would be inclined to say it's likely a 'better' ranking than say if they were ranked #15 (where you all seem to feel they belong).
That's just one team, obviously, but given the circumstances, I think it's a generally 'reliable' way to gauge a teams' overall level of ability.
Until someone shows me how it's a 'flawed' ranking, I'm going to apply it.

[ktffan]

According to 'his' formula, they were #32. That would imply that they maybe weren't as competitive as I am giving them credit for, so I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.

It could also imply that his formula is garbage, for which there is some evidence to indicate.

[ktffan]

Warning. The information there is not complete

Ktffan, I'm not sure if you are correct about that, unless you mean that it doesn't go 'beyond' 1960. I think the information is as complete as it can be.

The information there doesn't include whole team histories.

[colorado_loves_football]

Warning. The information there is not complete

Ktffan, I'm not sure if you are correct about that, unless you mean that it doesn't go 'beyond' 1960. I think the information is as complete as it can be.

The information there doesn't include whole team histories.

My interpretation is that it assigns a 'score' to each game, based upon each team's relative strength. That way a team isn't awarded disproportionately, when they play an inferior opponent.

Texas Tech scheduled two I-AA opponents, and wasn't 'rewarded' for it, neither were they penalized, that's fair, because we aren't ranking I-AA teams. It neither hurt, nor helped them.

I found a few interesting rankings of teams.
For example, 2003, the year LSU and USC 'tied' for the national championship, Miami (OH) is ranked #3 overall.
Boise St, is ranked #7 and that would appear to 'validate' my argument they were both deserving of an 'at large' invitation to the BCS.

1999 is another example of where an 'at large' likely should have been given to Marshall, since they were ranked #3, behind Florida St, and Nebraska. Their likely opponent would appear to be Kansas St. in the Fiesta Bowl.
Toledo, 1995,is ranked #4 behind Nebraska, Florida, and Tennessee. A pairing of them against Kansas, in say the Holiday Bowl would have made for an interesting 'non-BCS' pairing of teams.
1998, incidentally has Tulane at #6. A pairing of them against say, Arizona in the Holiday Bowl would have made for an intersting game.
Finally, 2004, if anything would appear to give 'fair' argument for the BCS pairing Utah against Pittsburgh, except for one thing, Pittsburgh is ranked #35 overall!
So, in fairness that was likely a mis-match. Nevertheless, I credit the BCS for getting it 'mostly' right, that year. They had to select a representative from the Big East, and Pittsburgh fit the bill.

[ktffan]

What it does, I believe is assign a relative 'score' to each win.

Computer rankings are a dime a dozen. How much you give to a "relative" score differs from person to person.

Another thing it does is 'discard' games against I-AA competition.
Again, that's fair, because as in the case of Texas Tech, that shouldn't work in their favor.

As a lot of I-AA teams are better than 30-40% of the mid-majors out there, it makes little sense to discard I-AA opponents, but not the opponents that were worse than them.

[Spence]

There are no perfect places to find stats. Every stat cite will have errors, but if does give you points of reference to check one against another.

My favorite site for stats is college football warehouse, but they have some errors there also.

[colorado_loves_football]

Computer rankings are a dime a dozen. How much you give to a "relative" score differs from person to person.

Another thing it does is 'discard' games against I-AA competition.
Again, that's fair, because as in the case of Texas Tech, that shouldn't work in their favor.

As a lot of I-AA teams are better than 30-40% of the mid-majors out there, it makes little sense to discard I-AA opponents, but not the opponents that were worse than them.

I believe it's a 'power' ranking of teams, arranged, so that the 'best' teams are represented at the top.
I have a few problems, however with it, assuming it were to be applied to the BCS. For example, Virginia Tech is represented, but they were beaten, convincingly, in the ACC Championship game. I wouldn't give them a '3rd' opportunity, in the BCS. Similarly, although reasonably 'qualified', I likely wouldn't issue an invitation to any SEC team outside of Georgia. That's because both Alabama, and LSU had a legitimate opportunity for the BCS, and lost. Even Auburn, a team many considered to be the 'best' team not selected for a BCS game was likely over-rated.
I believe the BCS at least in part, is doing what they should, as far as the selection process goes. A 'fifth' BCS bowl, likely would have paired Oregon and TCU together. Both teams 'qualified' under the provisions in place. I don't agree with everything the BCS does, obvioiusly, but I believe, they have done a 'fair' job in terms of asking the right teams.
Pittsburgh, 2004 can maybe be viewed as an 'exception', but upon further review, no team really stands out. Iowa was a competitive football team, but struggled to a 'W' over LSU. Boise St, and Louisville already were paired in the Liberty Bowl.
I think the BCS got it right, personally. Pittsburgh was the most deserving representative from the Big East. They played competitive football, but Utah was the better team. 2005 W. Virginia and Georgia looked like a mis-match, but the Mountaineers came to play. The Liberty Bowl, Tulsa and Fresno St, also looked to be a mis-match but Tulsa was improved, and Fresno St likely was worse than the beginning.
Those things matter. Who you play matters, but how you play matters more. I think the BCS would be wise to implement some kind of 'representative' BCS where a team qualifies through a competitive arrangement. I've stated this proposal before but it addresses the problems so well, it's worth repeating.

[billybud]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

[ktffan]

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

You mean 12 games.

I suspect we will see many instances of teams winning two national championships in all of our lifetimes.

[colorado_loves_football]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

Would be interested in knowing who you are referring to.
Never say never. Brigham Young University throughout much of the '80s was very competitive, earing a national championship, and nearly qualifying for one the year before.
I think too much is made of the 'success' of the major conference representatives. For one thing they are given 'priority' in the BCS (it's a fact). For another, it's been shown that they tend to schedule teams that make their chances 'better' at 'earning' a BCS bid than the 'non-BCS' teams.
I would like to see how a competitive BCS would play itself out. For one thing there have been several teams (nearly one every year) traditionally 'non-BCS' team competitve enough to win the BCS outright.
I've provided examples of that, but suffice to say that without a competitive arrangement, it's impossible to know for sure which team was #1.
Tulane 1998 was undefeated. Marshall, 1999 was also undefeated, the first two years of the BCS there were two 'non-BCS' teams with legitimate claim on a national title. And rather than end, it's only continued.
TCU 2000 was competitive, but likely not 'championship' material, but nevertheless was likely good enough for a BCS invitation.
2001, Brigham Young University was undefeated going into their last game, but was told they wouldn't be invited to the BCS. They lost, to Hawaii, then again to Louisville, in the Liberty Bowl. But given the circumstances they likely figured their season was over, competitively, and it was to some degree.
2002 I believe, TCU was again a very competitive team, but they were never given an opportunity to show how good. They beat a very good CSU team in the Liberty Bowl, their only appearance in that bowl, to date.
2003, Boise St & Miami (OH) were both likely competiitve enough for a BCS invitation. Neither got so much as a Liberty Bowl invitation, but both showed they were outstanding by beating C-USA 'winners' TCU & Louisville. 2004, obviously 3 teams were competitive enough to be in the BCS. 2005, TCU was.
That means that there really isn't a year when a 'non-BCS' team wasn't competiive enough to be represented in some fashion. That doesn't bode well for how the BCS selects teams, especially when the only time they do invite one (out of necessity) they beat the Big East Co-Champion 35-7, and do it mostly in the 1st half. Louisville was likely a better team, than Pittsburgh, but Louisville struggled to beat Boise St. 44-40, winning only because Boise St elected for a 2-pt conversion, rather than playing it 'safe'. A tie was assured, they wanted to win.
Louisville lost one game, to Miami, FL in Miami. They lead that game by as many as 17 points, lost by 3. Miami, was ACC runner-up, to Virginia Tech, losing to them, in their final game.
Now, I'm not one to make excuses, but this is fairly solid evidence that suports a 'non-BCS' team being competitive enough for the BCS.
Louisville is now a Big East team, they lost to W. Virginia in 3OT otherwise they win the Big East in their inaugural season.
This isn't just about a strong BCS, it's about being fair, and the BCS is anything but fair. When in 8 years one team qualifies, that's sufficient evidence for a conspiracy. I suspect that will change, eventually, but there are competitive football teams, not being represented, that's wrong.

[ktffan]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

Would be interested in knowing who you are referring to.

Oi.

[Spence]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

I'll give Florida State credit for having some very good teams that last 20 years. Some really great teams, but a lot of the things you are refering to has to do with Florida St playing in a weak ACC. If you are the only elite team in a conference you can build some pretty good stats. Lets see how the 'Noles do in the next 20 with some big time competition.

[colorado_loves_football]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

Would be interested in knowing who you are referring to.

Oi.

I dont' follow the ACC that closely, I knew they had won 12 ACC championships. Impressive numbers, to be sure!
(I actually thought you were a Nebraska fan!). They were in something like 29 consecutive bowls.

[Derek]

Some streaks I'll never see again in my lifetime...


Fourteen straight years end ranked Top 5

Fourteen straight bowl games without a loss

Fourteen straight ten win seasons (when you only had 11 games)

Two National Championships

Nineteen straight years in a January Bowl

Would be interested in knowing who you are referring to.

Oi.

I dont' follow the ACC that closely, I knew they had won 12 ACC championships. Impressive numbers, to be sure!
(I actually thought you were a Nebraska fan!). They were in something like 29 consecutive bowls.

Yes, that is a admirable achievement. But I agree with Spence, the ACC was weak for many years, and Florida State was never given much of a challenge in the ACC conference games for a long time.

I will also say that I thought once Miami, VT, and BC got to the ACC, that FSU would not see a BCS game for a while. But they made it this year, by beating Miami early on. But inexcusably losing some other games.