Ranking College Football Programs since 2000

[Scratchtown]

Did you read the title? It's this millennium.

BCS started in 98

 

[Glendower]

The millennium started in 2001.

 

[Omaha-Husker]

The millennium started in 2001.

 

[Blackshirt96]

You said 7-6.

Meaning a 6-6 team would have to get in. Also. It would never happen without another team in the same division getting sanctions. Ohio state and penn state

How about Georgia Tech 2012 6-6 went to the ACC CCG. They did not win the ACC that year, but did play in the CCG at 6-6. It seems you know very little about the data you present. Analysts call this "Mathematical Masterbation" Its where you play with numbers until you get the outcome you want.

 

[Scratchtown]

They didn't win. I was aware.

Your just being an idiot cuz you hate Nebraska's complete irrelevance in football

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I think questioning coach's motives is unnecessary. What agenda could he have? It's not like one of those stats that implicates one former coach against another. He's not submitting this for publication. Sheesh.

With that having been said, it is pretty easy to manipulate weighted scores. I doubt that there is an agenda, though. Just curiosity.

 

[Scratchtown]

I picked the numbers I picked because I don't think a win over mcneese state is equal to a CCG win and so forth.

I though they were good values. I didn't do anything that I thought would really skew what I was trying to get across. I thought it was a fun thing to do.

Guess I won't even do it next time

 

[Blackshirt96]

They didn't win. I was aware.

Your just being an idiot cuz you hate Nebraska's complete irrelevance in football

I would also question the point values, as this data can be manipulated to show a different outcome with the addition or subtraction of point values. A team could go 11-1 with a CCG loss and end up with less points then a 7-6 team that won a conference title & got a auto BCS bowl bid.

Ya except thats never happened so it doesn't matter.

If you look back over what I have said. You will see that I have provided the exact senario you said never happens. Your words. You can call me an idiot, but anyone who understands statistics or anaylsis will tell you that this ranking has very little meaning.

 

[Scratchtown]

They didn't win. I was aware.

Your just being an idiot cuz you hate Nebraska's complete irrelevance in football

I would also question the point values, as this data can be manipulated to show a different outcome with the addition or subtraction of point values. A team could go 11-1 with a CCG loss and end up with less points then a 7-6 team that won a conference title & got a auto BCS bowl bid.

Ya except thats never happened so it doesn't matter.

If you look back over what I have said. You will see that I have provided the exact senario you said never happens. Your words. You can call me an idiot, but anyone who understands statistics or anaylsis will tell you that this ranking has very little meaning.

What I said wasn't wrong. What you said WAS wrong.

Just because GaTech played for a title but lost doesn't justify your idiotic response. Yes it can happen. Has it? No.

Just stop. You're doing yourself disservice.

 

[Scratchtown]

I think this ranking actually proves more than any fan's opinion. This is all objective history on what football fans think is important.

Conference Titles, National Titles and Appearances, BCS Bowl Appearances, Playoff appearances. and regular season wins.

How does this not have any meaning? It's ACTUALLY the only thing you can do to legitimately place teams in an appropriate spot rather than just saying Team A has 5 championships even though those were 10000000000 years ago.

 

[bale]

I picked the numbers I picked because I don't think a win over mcneese state is equal to a CCG win and so forth.

I though they were good values. I didn't do anything that I thought would really skew what I was trying to get across. I thought it was a fun thing to do.

Guess I won't even do it next time

... Are you 5? This is a great thread and I really enjoyed the orignal post, but your response to criticism is laughably immature.

I think this ranking actually proves more than any fan's opinion. This is all objective history on what football fans think is important.

Conference Titles, National Titles and Appearances, BCS Bowl Appearances, Playoff appearances. and regular season wins.

How does this not have any meaning? It's ACTUALLY the only thing you can do to legitimately place teams in an appropriate spot rather than just saying Team A has 5 championships even though those were 10000000000 years ago.

Your point values are most certainly not objective.

 

[Scratchtown]

I didn't say the point values were.

Good god, you people are ridiculous and can't read apparently

 

[MichiganDad3]

I picked the numbers I picked because I don't think a win over mcneese state is equal to a CCG win and so forth.

I though they were good values. I didn't do anything that I thought would really skew what I was trying to get across. I thought it was a fun thing to do.

Guess I won't even do it next time

Please ignore the complainers. The data is interesting, and we need Husker related facts and opinions to keep us occupied this offseason.

 

[Blackshirt96]

You really have missed the whole point, so I will try to explain slowly.Your values have no basis.

We have agreed that a 7-5 team has won a conference title giving them 10 points for a conference championship, 7 points for a BCS appearance & 7 points for their wins. Thats a total of 24 points in one season.

Now look at 2014 MSU. They finished 11-2, but did not make the CCG. They also did not make a BCS bowl game. So their point total is 11.

Here is another example.

2008 3-way tie of Texas, Oklahoma & Texas Tech. All three shared a CC. So here are there point totals for the season.

Texas - 12-1 - 12 points wins, 7 points BCS, Total 18 points

Texas Tech - 11-2 - 11 points wins Total 11 points

Oklahoma - 12-2 - 12 Points wins, 10 points CC, 15 points BCS Title App. Total 37 points.

Just an FYI Texas beat Oklahoma, but Oklahoma won the threeway tie breaker by being ranked hire. All three would have been large favorates over Missouri who made it from the North. Look at Texas the are down 19 points to Oklahoma & it could be argued that the tie breaker gave them an additional 19 points more then doubling what they got for a 12-1 season.

I've pulled 2 pretty good examples from memory, I'm sure I could find 100's more if I wanted to go thru the data.

 

[Scratchtown]

You really have missed the whole point, so I will try to explain slowly.Your values have no basis.

We have agreed that a 7-5 team has won a conference title giving them 10 points for a conference championship, 7 points for a BCS appearance & 7 points for their wins. Thats a total of 24 points in one season.

Now look at 2014 MSU. They finished 11-2, but did not make the CCG. They also did not make a BCS bowl game. So their point total is 11.

Here is another example.

2008 3-way tie of Texas, Oklahoma & Texas Tech. All three shared a CC. So here are there point totals for the season.

Texas - 12-1 - 12 points wins, 7 points BCS, Total 18 points

Texas Tech - 11-2 - 11 points wins Total 11 points

Oklahoma - 12-2 - 12 Points wins, 10 points CC, 15 points BCS Title App. Total 37 points.

Just an FYI Texas beat Oklahoma, but Oklahoma won the threeway tie breaker by being ranked hire. All three would have been large favorates over Missouri who made it from the North. Look at Texas the are down 19 points to Oklahoma & it could be argued that the tie breaker gave them an additional 19 points more then doubling what they got for a 12-1 season.

I've pulled 2 pretty good examples from memory, I'm sure I could find 100's more if I wanted to go thru the data.

You are really arse injured about the whole thing aren't you?