- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best programs of the past 5 years
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:43 am to C
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:43 am to C
quote:
LSU/OU vs USC/Mich - LSU had a much better year than USC if you compare the quality wins they had. OU and LSU would have had equal succes against Mich. LSU/OU?USC were on par, Mich was a few rungs lower.
I agree that LSU accomplished a little bit more, but that is absolutely irrelevant as to who is better. Michigan was just as good as those other teams as well.
quote:
USC/Penn vs UF/OU - Penn was probably the worst Big ten champ in years. Played nobody. beat nobody. Down year for the Big ten. And thats saying something. Agian USC was probably on par with UF and OU but their competition was not.
In my aboslutely honest opinion Penn St was right there with Oklahoma and UF. I put all 3 just under USC. It is hard to argue that Florida was just as good as USC last season in terms of overall talent and how they would have matched up against each other. Penn St was a damn good football team last season.
quote:Ohio St lost in the last seconds so they were at least on par with Texas who was on par with Oklahoma.
tOSU/TX vs UF/OU - tOSU was not as good as UF. Not even close. OU = TX.
Really my whole point is that mnc's in CFB are just too subjecitve to count for much. Too many factors involved that change nearly every season. IF today's rules were in place then LSU does not even get an opportunity in 2003. That certainly would not mean that LSU was any different of a team, but perceptions would be different.
The average person's perceptions are too easily influenced.
5
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:44 am to Walt OReilly
quote:
How is UGA ahead of LSU
I did not do the rankings. They are based on the criteria used. If the criteria were different then so woudl be the outcomes.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:46 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
did not do the rankings.
I know you didnt
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:49 am to Walt OReilly
It kinda surprises me a bit to be honest...CFN normally gives LSU more respect as well as the entire SEC
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:55 am to MJRuffalo
Excellent point on the ease with which the average persons perception is influenced. I find this prevalent among NBA fans as well, a contingent of the ignorant calling Dirk a choker, a perception whose root is one whistle. The worst call in Finals history made by Bennett Salvatore. Amazing how one bad call can make a man a choker rather than a champion.
2006 fricking champs.
2006 fricking champs.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 3:56 am to Walt OReilly
Looks like the difference is 5 more quality wins for Georgia and 1 more elite win. Also have a higher APR.
Here is the scoring system
Here is the scoring system
quote:
The Scoring System
- Attendance. How much fan support is there? Obviously some stadiums are far bigger than others so this might not seem fair, but it's a good indication of interest in the program counting the average attendance for home dates from 2004 to 2008 and divided by 10,000 to get the score. For example, Georgia averaged 92,731 fans per game over the last three seasons, so the program gets a score of 9.27.
Why this is important: Some stadiums are bigger than others and some teams get more support, but that's the point. It's a big deal to the bottom line of an athletic department, and the relevance of the football program to recruits and the national media, to get 100,000+ butts in the seats at places like Ohio State, Tennessee and Penn State. How can Eastern Michigan and its average of 11,000 fans per game compete when compared to Michigan and its average of 112,000 fans? Exactly.
- APR. From the most recent batch of Academic Performance Rates available from the NCAA, if a program finished in the top 10%, it got a score of 10. If a program finished in the 40%-49% range, it got a score of 5. For example, Boise State's most recently released APR for football players was 70-80%, so it gets a score of 8.
Why this is important: After all, these are supposed to be student-athletes out there playing. This is a good indicator for how much emphasis a program places on academics rather than simply using the football players for their on-the-field talents.
- FBS wins over the last five years. The number of wins over FBS teams a program has from 2004-2008 (wins over D-IAA/FCS teams aren't counted.)
Why this is important: At the end of the day, this is all that really matters to college football fans. Winning games makes everything else forgivable.
- Quality wins over the last five years. How many wins from 2004 to 2008 does a program have over FBS teams that finished with a winning record or in a bowl game against a team that finished .500?
Why this is important: This goes to show the consistency of programs when compared to the above-average. Programs that consistently win these games are always in the hunt for conference titles and big bowl games.
- Players drafted over the last five years. The number of players selected in the NFL Draft from 2005 to 2009 divided by two for the score.
Why this is important: This is a bigger deal than you might think. If a blue-chip recruit is trying to decide between two schools, he'll most likely go to the one with the better track record of sending its players to the next level. If a big-time program has a low score, that might mean less emphasis is put on player development and readiness for the NFL.
- Conference winning percentage over the last five years. From 2004 to 2008, this is what percentage of conference games has a team won. Conference championship games don't count in the conference winning percentages (those count in the total wins and, more often than not, in the Quality Win component.) Keep in mind that some programs switched leagues; that's taken into account. For the teams without a conference affiliation for a given year, their overall winning percentages were used.
Why this is important: All teams shoot for conference titles first and foremost. BCS bowl games and national titles are great, but those require a certain amount of good fortune. Take care of conference play and everything else will fall into place.
- Elite Wins. This is how many wins a program has from 2004 to 2008 over teams that finished a season with two losses or fewer, or wins on the road or in a bowl or conference championship game over teams that finished with three losses or fewer. An extra 0.5 is added for an Elite Win on the road. If a team beats a team that finished with three losses twice, it gets credit for two Elite Wins.
- Why this is important: These are, more often than not, the types of wins that make good programs great, and are the wins the fans remember.
- Bad Losses. These are the number of losses a program has from 2004 to 2008 against teams that finished a season with three wins or fewer or to FCS teams. This number is subtracted from the overall score. An extra 0.5 is taken off a bad loss at home.
Why this is important: Lose to a bad team and the win the week before gets quickly forgotten about. These are the losses that suck the life out of a team and a season.
- Elite Losses. This is how many losses a program has from 2004 to 2008 over teams that finished a season with two losses or fewer. The score is 25% of the actual number. Ohio State has eight Elite Losses and gets 2 points added to the score.
Why this is important: It's not always a team's fault when it gets nailed with a loss to an elite team. It shows that some losses are different than others.
- Bad Wins. This is how many wins a program has from 2004 to 2008 over teams that finished a season with three losses or fewer or to FCS teams. The score is 25% of the actual number. Georgia has 12 bad Wins and gets 3 points taken off its score.
Why this is important: There's no reason to reward a win over a bad team. This acknowledges that some wins are lesser than others.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:11 am to Ghazi
Can't help you with the NBA stuff, my expertise is CFB. Though I am a big Lakers fan, and the Lakers were the team I followed most up until after High school, when I focused a little more on USC. Growing up though I was absolutely a die hard lakers fan. Hard not to be when you grow up in the Showtime era.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:16 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
Michigan was just as good as those other teams as well
Michigan was just as good as LSU/OU/USC??? Umm, no.
quote:
In my aboslutely honest opinion Penn St was right there with Oklahoma and UF. I put all 3 just under USC
Ok, I see EXACTLY what is going on here.
quote:
It is hard to argue that Florida was just as good as USC last season in terms of overall talent
Hard for you, a USC fan to argue that. But as far as the rest of the country, MOST knew that Florida was better.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:17 am to Ghazi
quote:
I find this prevalent among NBA fans as well,
Kinda like you being influenced by your love of the Mavs to pick them to finish MUCH higher than they actually do EVERY year?
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:20 am to shel311
You are wrong again. Most fans don't know shite period, so engaging the masses means very little to me. Ask the Vegas experts who would have been favored in a USC Florida matchup after the bowls and it was USC. Those peoples opinions are what matter in who is best. Not Joe blow who really does not know shite.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:22 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
absolutely irrelevant as to who is better.
Well other than biased homerism, there is really no other way to judge who is the better team.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:28 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
You are wrong again. Most fans don't know shite period
So most people are wrong and you are right?
And the NCAA makes up new rules to ensure that USC will be negatively affected.
It ALL makes perfect sense to me now.
You are obviously not one of those Joe Blows who doesn't know shite.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:28 am to C
quote:
Well other than biased homerism
MJRuffalo has been doing LOTS of that lately.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 4:40 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
Ask the Vegas
So is this the new standard of who is best in football for you? I know this hasn't alwasy been the case.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 5:59 am to C
From the USC article:
When you lose to a 40-point underdog with a backup quarterback at home, and they don't count that as a "bad loss........"
Or you're one game away from a national championship, and you can't beat a below .500 UCLA team....................
That's not USC obsession and hate. The fact that those games aren't considered "bad losses" invalidates a portion of the results.
quote:
Bad loss score: 0
When you lose to a 40-point underdog with a backup quarterback at home, and they don't count that as a "bad loss........"
Or you're one game away from a national championship, and you can't beat a below .500 UCLA team....................
That's not USC obsession and hate. The fact that those games aren't considered "bad losses" invalidates a portion of the results.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 9:53 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
You are wrong again. Most fans don't know shite period, so engaging the masses means very little to me. Ask the Vegas experts who would have been favored in a USC Florida matchup after the bowls and it was USC. Those peoples opinions are what matter in who is best. Not Joe blow who really does not know shite.
Speaking of not knowing shite:
Look at how they ended up last year...that little numeral 1 next to UF and numeral 2 next to USC is a hint
This post was edited on 8/28/09 at 9:56 am
Posted on 8/28/09 at 9:54 am to LfcSU3520
quote:
However, having Georgia ahead of LSU in any list, is indefensible. Just on the grounds of the NC, LSU should be ahead.
I see how they broke it down but still. It won't be popular, but SEC teams have to play SEC teams all year...and that's your reason for why they're low.
I :kige : this.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 10:03 am to Keys Open Doors
quote:
However, any school with an NC in the past 5 years should be ranked ahead of UGA.
UGA was more consistent.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 10:06 am to lsutigers1992
quote:
From the USC article:
quote:
Bad loss score: 0
When you lose to a 40-point underdog with a backup quarterback at home, and they don't count that as a "bad loss........"
Or you're one game away from a national championship, and you can't beat a below .500 UCLA team....................
That's not USC obsession and hate. The fact that those games aren't considered "bad losses" invalidates a portion of the results.
If you read their criteria, "bad losses" are losses to teams with 3 or fewer wins vs. FBS opponents. Neither the Stanford loss (by 1 point, I must add) nor the UCLA loss (by 4 points) meet that requirement.
Posted on 8/28/09 at 10:09 am to MJRuffalo
quote:
Michigan was just as good as those other teams as well.
yea..no
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News