Famous NCAA Dynasties

[colorado_loves_football]

I wonder if any other team has played the National Champ twice in a season?)

It has happened 17 times (for wire service champions). The last time was Colorado last year. The only other team to split the games was UCLA in 1965.

That's a misleading number. Texas wasn't the national champ when Colorado played them. The national champion isn't decided until the following year.

[ktffan]

Again, you are putting your own 'spin' on the figures. Who said they were screwball?

When it spits out screwball results, it's screwball.

Sure, it's still a work in progress,

Work in progress? The site is about 8 years old. When do we start getting meaningful information?

[billybud]

We all can arrange stats to bolster our arguments....that's the nature of statistics....here is one site that ranks conferences 2000-2004 on their set of stats....

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2004 ... arison.htm

[ktffan]

We all can arrange stats to bolster our arguments....that's the nature of statistics....here is one site that ranks conferences 2000-2004 on their set of stats....

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2004 ... arison.htm

Why don't you use actual facts that might support your argument then? Maybe even challenge why the overwhelming evidence of stats I gave, which were complete and not selective as yours were, would not support my argument?

I take nothing from CFN seriously. Not only are they factually challenged, but all of their formulas are weakly thought out and not meant to be taken seriously, not to mention then inherent flaws in using stats from teams not in a conference. Using their criteria, I would strongly object to them not saying the ACC was the best conference easily from 2001-2003.

[mountainman]

Hey, ktffan. I can understand what you mean when you say "factually challenged", but can you explain what you mean by, "all their formulas are weakly thought out and not meant to be taken seriously" ?

Just curious.

[billybud]

Folks use stats in discussions with you...I've noticed a pattern...if they do not support your argument...you label them as spurious...and weakly thought out...I'll take CFN seriously before I take your self reported stats using the methodology that best supports your hypothesis...Like, dropping 1990 (of course the ACC was scored high that year and the Big Ten low...see Massey link.. http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf&yr=1990

I am not saying that the Big Ten isn't a premier conference...I am noting that in five of the years in the ten year period from 1990-2000, the ACC was ranked higher than the Big Ten by Massey (a BCS contributor). We all pick and choose our stats...LOL, I know...Massey is an idiot, etc.

Note...Massey has The Big Ten ranked below the ACC in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, and 1997 ....so, for the decade of 1990-2000 the ACC was ranked higher than the Big Ten by Massey in five of the years...not too shabby for such a weak conference.

I like my stat...that from 1990 to 2000...FSU and the 8 ACC teams went 13-13 with the Big Ten, even with seven of those games represented by Duke, the undisputed bottom dwellar of the ACC.

[ktffan]

Hey, ktffan. I can understand what you mean when you say "factually challenged", but can you explain what you mean by, "all their formulas are weakly thought out and not meant to be taken seriously" ?

Just curious. :?

First of all, their three year analysis was not designed to measure conferences, it was designed to measure teams. The conference info was just the bright idea of one of the, "Hey, if we combine these scores, we'll have conference ratings." Which, not only means that the ins and outs of conference play are not taken into consideration, but also, when you take teams that were not in those conference that play, it skews the results. For instance, Miami and VT were taken out of the Big East and their records of play in the Big East were totalled into the ACC even though they played a Big East schedule, but that is secondary.

First of all, they measure "attendance" into their rankings. While having great attendance doesn't translate to having a great team, they don't even measure attendance, they measure percent of capacity. Meaning a team with a 1,000 seat stadium could score 20 attendance points if they understate capacity and sell 2,000 tickets, while a 90,000 seat stadium could sell out and onloy get 10 attandance points. Who's got better fan support, the team that sells 90,000 or the team that sells 2,000? According to CFN, it's the latter and easily.

While I like that they measure both graduation and attendance into program strength (for the fun of it), I don't take either seriously when measuring how good a team was. The same is the case for the number of players drafted. We've had a couple Heisman winners recently who never played a down in the NFL. That doesn't mean they weren't great players, or didn't play on great teams, but they good college players and not good pro players.

As for measuring wins, it's a decent measure for team strength, but when you combine it for conferences, you should only count non-conference games, which they don't. Teams with 12 members, automatically start with 48 points for conference games, because one team in the conference HAS to win a game. Now, take a conference with 8 teams and that conference only gets 28 free points. That's quite a difference and again shows why this is not a serious conference measure. While the advantages for "quality" or "elite" are not as set in stone, every conference is going to have more than one team with winning records and when they play, somebody is going to have to win and therefore they get automatic points in conference games.

As to "quality" and "elite" wins, their sole criteria is based on number of wins. No measure on comparing teams that had, say 6 easy wins, against a team that really had to earn their way into those categories. Last year for instance, beating Central Michigan, earned you extra points because they managed 6 wins, but beating Indiana didn't, though Indiana could have picked up 6 wins had they played Central's schedule.

In the end, if you take the parameters that they laid out, how the teams that would be in each conference in 2004 from 2001 to 2003, there is absolutely no question that the combined ACC teams were better than the combined SEC teams, even by their actual game criteria. However, stats such as attendance and drafted players pushed the SEC above the ACC.

[Eric]

Who's we? I don't think you've ever stated your team on this site.

[billybud]

I take all rankings with a grain of salt, actually....I looked up this power ranking guide and their game predictions for last year...if you had bet on their predicted outcomes...you would have lost 10 bets and won five...oops.

http://www.solecismic.com/cfa/

[ktffan]

Folks use stats in discussions with you...I've noticed a pattern...if they do not support your argument...you label them as spurious...and weakly thought out...

Certainly. If they are weakly thought out, I will call them that. Some people will take anything they find on the internet seriously, like mindless dweebs, I'm not one of htem.

I'll take CFN seriously before I take your self reported stats using the methodology that best supports your hypothesis...Like, dropping 1990 (of course the ACC was scored high that year and the Big Ten low...see Massey link.. http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf&yr=1990

I explained why I gave the info I did, I even pointed out that those were two great years for the ACC, but they were irrelevant to the conversation at hand. If you want to have a who was the better conference, that's another matter, but the facts remain that from 1990-2000, the Big Ten has won a higher percentage of their non-conference games playing a tougher schedule, won a greater percentage of their games against "major" teams, won a greater percentage of their games against teams that went to bowl, won a greater percentage of their bowl games, won more games "head-to-head" against the ACC, and had way more teams ranked. I'd like to know what mystery stats these sites are getting that counters any of that.

I like my stat...that from 1990 to 2000...FSU and the 8 ACC teams went 13-13 with the Big Ten, even with seven of those games represented by Duke, the undisputed bottom dwellar of the ACC.

But, if you are counting Florida State when they weren't in the ACC, why aren't you counting Penn State? Any factual way you measure the Big Ten vs. the ACC, the Big Ten gets the edge head-to-head from those years. Even when you pick and choose, like you did, it's even.

[ktffan]

I take all rankings with a grain of salt, actually....

Good for you. Ratings are just opinion in a mathematical form. Why I should expect any well thought out opinion to be worse than a "computer ranking", just because they put their opinion on a computer, I'm not sure.

[ktffan]

And quit making stupid comments. Where have I made any statements about the years 2001-2003? This "rating" did not counter my opinion on anything.

[Spence]

First of all, their three year analysis was not designed to measure conferences, it was designed to measure teams. The conference info was just the bright idea of one of the, "Hey, if we combine these scores, we'll have conference ratings." Which, not only means that the ins and outs of conference play are not taken into consideration, but also, when you take teams that were not in those conference that play, it skews the results. For instance, Miami and VT were taken out of the Big East and their records of play in the Big East were totalled into the ACC even though they played a Big East schedule, but that is secondary.

If Miami and Va. Tech were included to the ACC in the 90's they would probably rate out the best cconference period. I agree that you can't put Miami and Va. Tech's stats into the ACC in the 90's, either team played a game in the ACC conference. That is clearly flawed.

[ktffan]

First of all, their three year analysis was not designed to measure conferences, it was designed to measure teams. The conference info was just the bright idea of one of the, "Hey, if we combine these scores, we'll have conference ratings." Which, not only means that the ins and outs of conference play are not taken into consideration, but also, when you take teams that were not in those conference that play, it skews the results. For instance, Miami and VT were taken out of the Big East and their records of play in the Big East were totalled into the ACC even though they played a Big East schedule, but that is secondary.

If Miami and Va. Tech were included to the ACC in the 90's they would probably rate out the best cconference period. I agree that you can't put Miami and Va. Tech's stats into the ACC in the 90's, either team played a game in the ACC conference. That is clearly flawed.

No kidding. If find it funny he thought this was relevant to the discussion we were having.

[Spence]

I think if at the end of this decade someone included Miami and Va. tech into the ACC for the purposes of an "all time" discussion, then it could be done with some validity(although not completely accurate), but to included them in a discussion about a decade in which those teams never played doesn't make much sense to me.