[OC] - Which College Football Programs have been the Most Successful?Submitted by jonesjeffum t3_11etuam in dataisbeautiful
DowntownScore2773 t1_jagtxlb wrote
Sorry, this chart is graphically cool but it really bugs me. Success in football is measured easily by wins and championships. This chart should factor in total wins, win percentage, and/or conference championships. The AP poll is an opinion ranking that contains biases that have frustrated people for decades. Weighting the playoffs more will result in recency bias. That’s reflected in the Michigan position on the chart, when they have the most historical wins. It ignores the whole BCS era where undefeated teams like TCU, Utah and Boise State where punished in the polls for not playing in the auto-bid BCS conferences. It ignores schools that won multiple championships in the FCS before jumping up divisions like App State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, JMU. UCF’s undefeated 13-0 season resulted in 2 pts in this chart. That’s kind of bs. Unlike what the title of the chart says, it doesn’t show the success of the teams and rank them accordingly.
TargetMost8136 t1_jagx2c6 wrote
Definitely disagree with you on that one. People care a lot more about a 10-2 power 5 team than an 11-1 group of 5 team. There’s definitely bias in the AP25 rankings but it’s a decent measurement imo, definitely compared to wins or conference championships. The latter would show the most dominant team per conference, not necessarily the best college football programs of all time
DowntownScore2773 t1_jagzpjy wrote
I didn’t say they cared about the schools. The good thing about numbers that are quantifiable is that they don’t care about opinions. The title of the chart is Which College Football Programs have been the most successful? Most successful at what? Winning? That’s not reflected in the chart. That chart shows what programs have been ranked the highest in the AP poll and it weights the playoff selection over the AP poll where there are conflicts. The AP is associated with the mythical National Championship and there is a reason the BCS relied on other polls as well to select the teams that played in the “championship game.” That was so controversial that it resulted in us finally getting a 4 team playoff which was controversial so we got a larger, fairer playoff. So, either the title of the chart needs to change or the data inputs and weighting needs to change.
CDay007 t1_jahgq1o wrote
Everyone knows it’s impossible to do two things well
DowntownScore2773 t1_jahmq95 wrote
Sorry, what two things are you referencing?
CDay007 t1_jahszll wrote
Damn I replied to the wrong comment sorry 😂 I meant to reply to someone who said all the schools are failures because college should be about education and not sports
DowntownScore2773 t1_jahv94n wrote
Hahaha. No problem at all. I couldn’t tell if you were agreeing or arguing. It all makes sense now.
Ayzmo t1_jaja4gm wrote
Agreed. Undefeated seasons should impact more. FSU's complete dominance through the 1990s isn't even an impact
Flioxan t1_jazdt28 wrote
The issue with rewarding conference championships is non of the conferences are equal. Winning the SEC is not the same as winning the Sunbelt or the Pac12. USC dominating the Pac12 for years on end would get more rewarded when OSU was just as good but split the B1G with UM more.
DowntownScore2773 t1_jb03zw7 wrote
That’s true but the title of the chart is most successful programs. Success is measured easily each game regardless of who the team plays. You either win, lose or tie. The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful. The NCAA does sponsor a national championship award for football. Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles. The AP is just one of many polls and is not official. That’s why there are multiple national championship claims for the same year. Not every team is given the opportunity to play in the best conferences and some were independent for years. I think conference title should be excluded now. The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time. It removes the recency bias of the chart, prevents the same with win totals, and shows who has had the most success historically on the field regardless of conference.
Flioxan t1_jb1f87m wrote
If you have a team who went 14-1 and lost in the championship and a team who ended 13-2 and beat them to win the championship and you try telling either team the 14-1 team was more successful you would get laughed out of the building.
Idk what sport/competition you play that total # of wins trumps winning it all but thats not how it works in CFB or any level of football
DowntownScore2773 t1_jb1k19p wrote
I didn’t write total wins trumps championships. I played D1 lacrosse in college. We have a championship unlike football. The NCAA doesn’t sponsor a championship in FBS football. Only recently with the BCS and playoffs is championship awarded via an agreed upon menthol by the schools. Prior there were survey polls like AP, USA Today, UPI, Coaches Poll, etc. that did it for fun and readership. The AP is not a true national championship. With lacrosse everyone knew the rankings were an opinion poll and winning mattered most. You had your ranking in conference and then the championship tournament. Your comment references a one game scenario. A win percentage is a better measurement of success than an opinion poll especially overtime because it irons good and bad years and shows consistency.
Flioxan t1_jb1ljp1 wrote
>The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful.
>I didn’t write total wins trumps championships
Pick one.
>The NCAA does[nt]?? sponsor a national championship award for football.
The NCAA does infact sponser multiple national championships for football.
>Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles.
Not by the NCAA, which seems to be your criteria
>The AP is just one of many polls and is not official.
Its reconized by the NCAA though. Again pick one.
>The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time.
Not all competition is equal. There are highschools with better win% than the best college programs.
>It removes the recency bias of the chart,
What recency bias? Its not like UGA or FSU or Clemson are at the top of the list. Hell two of the top programs (UM and ND) havent been at the top in a while. Its honestly the opposite or recency bias from what i can tell
>We have a championship unlike football.
CFB has 2 championships ran by the NCAA and another one reconized by them.
>A win percentage is a better measurement of success than an opinion poll especially overtime because it irons good and bad years and shows consistency.
Only if the SoS were equal and the wins and losses came against relatively equal teams. If 2 teams go .750 over a bunch of years but one of them regularly beat top 10 teams and the other only plays a top 10ish team infrequently and losses every time then win% doesnt do a good job telling the whole story.
DowntownScore2773 t1_jb1ntl5 wrote
Are you 12 years old? The only thing l’ll respond to is that the NCAA has never sanction a BCS national championship. That’s a fact. The other comments are already answered in the thread for comprehension by anyone with a high school reading level and a basic grasp of mathematics.
Flioxan t1_jb1ovre wrote
>The only thing l’ll respond to is that the NCAA has never sanction a BCS national championship.
I know..? Thats not what you said though.
>Are you 12 years old?
Lol
>The other comments are already answered in the thread for comprehension by anyone with a high school reading level and a basic grasp of mathematics.
Insulting other peoples math skills when you cant move past only using win% is a bold move
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments