re: LSU is the best program in the last 10 years

Dude.....you must be bored!

quote:

---

Considering that the rules for getting to the national championship game are completely arbitrary I would say that to some extent I have to disagree.

However, wins against ranked teams is completely subjecting as it depends on how good other teams are in your conference are that year.

So therefore that is why you need multiple variables.

Now, you might argue that this ranking system shows that LSU has been the most consistent team in college football over that span, but it is hard to say it was the best.

---

The whole concept can't be taken too seriously because it's an impossible outcome because it's subjective. I don't have a sophisticated algorithm software, nor am I that bright. I'd like to expand beyond just the ranked/unranked with multiple variables but resources are an issue, and how is that quantified? Through another subjective model?

I figure ranked teams are as good as any because its how the sport quantifies it's own. Playing in the SEC inherently rewards or punishes teams and rewards tough scheduling and actual accomplishments. Boise has won the most, but no one is going to say they are the "best." But they should get credit for winning 90% of the games they play.

It's pretty amazing when you look at the Oklahomas or Texas' and USC and see they beat 1 or 2 ranked teams all year. I think that should be considered.

quote:

---

Playing in the SEC inherently rewards or punishes teams and rewards tough scheduling and actual accomplishments.

---

Ask LSU how that worked out for them in 2011...

quote:

---

Ask LSU how that worked out for them in 2011...

---

I'll ask you how it worked out in 2007?

That's just the parity if the game.

Like I said, I think your metric shows that LSU has been the most consistent team over that stretch.

quote:

---

Like I said, I think your metric shows that LSU has been the most consistent team over that stretch.

---

I agree. Best doesn't mean anything. Championship teams are not always the best. It's a crappy title though. I'm not writing all that out and getting 2 posts.

In all seriousness, if you look at other programs over a sustained period of time, LSU and really OU are the only ones who have really not bottomed out. 08 for LSU and 09 for OU were the big exceptions. Every other team has had a ridiculous loss, or a real down season at some point. If the 08 loss to Arkansas was the low point of a decade, you're in pretty damn good shape.

quote:

---

I'll ask you how it worked out in 2007?

---

I'll reiterate that the rules for getting to the the title game are completely arbitrary. And this is why the BCS system failed.

In 2003, USC was left out of the title game, and many argue how OU got there to begin with. So SC didn't have the opportunity to play for the championship. In 2004, Aubbie was the odd man man out with 3 undefeateds. They also don't get an opportunity to play for the game. There are even more debates on which teams should have been in which games.

So I'd argue that while championships are a good indicator of long term success, it is hard to say that they should be the only thing that really matters.

quote:

---

So I'd argue that while championships are a good indicator of long term success, it is hard to say that they should be the only thing that really matters.

---

I agree. I'm not saying this is the best way to go about it, but it's an interesting exercise when you look at what actually happened, instead of accepting the outcome that 02-05 USC is unbeatable, like the current Bama run. Were they successful, of course. But less impressive when you examine how they got there compared to the hype.

I don't see the Blackbears anywhere on those lists.

They've gotta mean Alabama 2012