FootballOutsiders Top 100 Teams of Last 100 Years

B

BeltwayHusker

Walk-on
The excellent site FootballOutsiders.com is running a list of the top 100 college football teams of all time, based on a statistical analysis of offensive and defensive efficiency. For the stats nerds out there, the methodology of their measures (S&P+ & FEI) are also well worth reading.

So far, they've only posted teams 100-81, and 1972 Nebraska checks in, somewhat surprisingly, at #90:

Despite the fact that this team failed to win a national title after back-to-back championships and actually lost two games, this team makes the list because almost no team has had a more dominant stretch of games than the Huskers did for two months from mid-September to mid-November. The Huskers were upset by quarterback Mark Harmon (yes, the same guy who now stars in NCIS) and UCLA's new wishbone attack in the first week of the season, which dropped the two-time defending national champions to 10th in the polls. They then outscored their next seven opponents, 348-24. That's an average score of 50-3.
These opponents weren't chumps either. Army, a 77-7 victim, went 6-4. Mizzou, massacred by a 62-0 margin, would upset Notre Dame the very next week on the way to a Fiesta Bowl bid. Gator Bowl participants Colorado went down via a comparatively competitive 33-10 margin in Boulder. Unfortunately for the Huskers, they ran out of gas late in the regular season. They were shockingly tied by Liberty Bowl-bound Iowa State, and they lost at home to soon-to-be national runner-up Oklahoma, 17-14, in the season finale. Though they could not wrap up their third national title, they took out their frustrations in style, destroying Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl by a 40-6 margin.
Click to expand...
The whole list is worth checking out.

Link: http://footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2010/vn-greatest-teams-last-100-years-no-100-81

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This paragraph tells me that 1995 Nebraska is their #1 - or at least that they should be.

The statistics used for Est. S&P+ don't care how good a team looked on television. They just care that the teams scored a lot more points and allowed far fewer points than would have been expected given their schedule, and that they played a lot of tough teams. If one unit was only good and not great, or if the team's strength of schedule just wasn't on par with other top teams, it will hurt their ratings no matter what our eyeballs tell us about those teams.
Click to expand...
We had one heck of a SOS in 1995, and aside from a "close" game against Washington St., we trounced everyone. Brutally.

 
knapplc said:
This paragraph tells me that 1995 Nebraska is their #1 - or at least that they should be.

The statistics used for Est. S&P+ don't care how good a team looked on television. They just care that the teams scored a lot more points and allowed far fewer points than would have been expected given their schedule, and that they played a lot of tough teams. If one unit was only good and not great, or if the team's strength of schedule just wasn't on par with other top teams, it will hurt their ratings no matter what our eyeballs tell us about those teams.
Click to expand...
We had one heck of a SOS in 1995, and aside from a "close" game against Washington St., we trounced everyone. Brutally.
Click to expand...
I notice you have "close" in quotes, and rightfully so. That game looks closer on paper from the 35-21 score than it actually was. Wazoo scored two late TDs against our reserves.

 
Part III (60-41) is out.... and guess which Nebraska team is listed at #47? (Hint: If this list were on ESPN, everyone here would go ballistic.)

http://footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2010/top-100-college-football-teams-last-100-years-part-iii

Keep in mind that this is a purely formula-based, mathematical calculation. Nobody on FootballOutsiders.com did this because they hate Nebraska. In fact, there's no subjective assessment on the back end at all. They just created a formula that they argue is fairly good at evaluating teams, and then this list is what the formula spat out. I also encourage you to read their explanation before totally dismissing - they acknowledge that if they had access to all the play-by-play data, they would be able to discount yardage gained against our scrubs in garbage time, and they said that "may well shoot this team to the top of the list."

Beyond that, this is still a very interesting list, and a fun read.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeltwayHusker said:
Part III (60-41) is out.... and guess which Nebraska team is listed at #47? (Hint: If this list were on ESPN, everyone here would go ballistic.)

http://footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2010/top-100-college-football-teams-last-100-years-part-iii

Keep in mind that this is a purely formula-based, mathematical calculation. Nobody on FootballOutsiders.com did this because they hate Nebraska. I also encourage you to read their explanation before totally dismissing - they acknowledge that if they had access to all the play-by-play data, they would be able to discount yardage gained against our scrubs in garbage time, and they said that "may well shoot this team to the top of the list."

Beyond that, this is still a very interesting list, and a fun read.
Click to expand...
Wow, I wonder what the number 1 team will be? I'm not sure if there's even a debate if theres 5 teams better than the 95 Huskers, let alone 46...

 
Behind a 2 loss Ole Miss team? Epic fail. You have to wonder about your formula if you start getting results that make no sense.

 
Any formula that has the 1995 Huskers outside the top three teams all-time is flawed, plain and simple. Their explanation is ridiculous:

What this list is suggesting is that what constituted near-perfection in the 1990s would have just been really good in other decades. You are a product of your era, and while the 1995 Huskers did all they could to dominate the schedule they faced, the numbers as presented say that a number of teams from different eras would have done as well or better against Nebraska's schedule. You can choose to believe this analysis or not, but it's been interesting to watch the list unfold. The numbers suggest that it was much harder to stand out in the 1930s and 1980s than it was in the 1990s, and it was damn near impossible to stand out in the 1910s and 1920s.
Click to expand...
The question becomes, what are you gauging with this formula? Because it certainly isn't a "Top 100 College Football Teams" based on a truly meaningful criteria. I can come up with a formula that quantifies teams based on any number of stats or criteria, but not all of those stats are meaningful in this conversation, nor are every criteria equally valuable.

Bottom line, their methodology is not just flawed but ridiculously flawed when they have a team that most knowledgeable fans will put in the top three, and instead they have this team in the mid-40s.

 
and whatever method they use that is statistical should bring about the fact that we beat the nations top teams by large numbers...and other teams on the list freaking lose many games

 
On second thought, they're probably right. 1953 Maryland that went 10-1 was definitely a better team :facepalm:

 
The question, then, is how in the hell isn't this team higher on the list? The main reason: using points allowed as the measure, their defense was only good, not outstanding. If you perused the box scores from 1995, you would probably see quite a few times where the Nebraska scrubs allowed late touchdowns, and if play-by-play data existed for 1995, then our S&P+ and F/+ measures might bump them right to the top of this list. But without that data, we use points scored and allowed, and garbage-time points factor into the equation. Also, though four Big 8 teams won 10 games that year, their schedule strength was hurt by the fact that they played five teams that lost eight games or more. This is what happens when you use math to determine such things. If you want to continue considering this team one of the five or ten best ever, nobody here will stop you.
Click to expand...
Basically, they admit that the Huskers dominated so much that the backups were in a lot, and gave up points. Something smells rotten.

loltartar.gif


 
Some quick numbers on 1995 Nebraska, in case anyone has forgotten the specifics:

Record: 12-0

Average Margin of Victory: 39 pts

Ranked Opponents faced: 4

Average Margin of Victory vs. Ranked Opponents: 31 pts

Closest Margin of Victory: 14 pts (Washington St)

Greatest Margin of Victory: 59 pts (Iowa St)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top