The TidesofWar Top 25 College Football Programs (1 Viewer)

[gump]

Scout Team Recruiting Rankings (2008):9. USC10. UCLA32. Cal43. StanfordScout Team Recruiting Rankings (2009):5. UCLA (including SC de-commits Randall Carroll and Morrell Presley, and SC targets Xavier Su'a-Filo, Stan Hasiak, Keenan Graham)9. USC15. Stanford34. CalNeuheisel and Co. have been great in recruiting. It's the on-the-field results that need to come around.

I'll add the Rivals ranking for you:2009:4. USC14. UCLA20. Stanford42. Cal2008:8. USC13. UCLA34. Cal50. Stanford

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. It's probably getting labor intensive now...but, since your formula is out there for us to critique...I'd probably weight the top 25 ending rankings somehow...so a team gets more weight for a top 10 than a top 20-25.

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

 

[gump]

Interesting. It's probably getting labor intensive now...but, since your formula is out there for us to critique...I'd probably weight the top 25 ending rankings somehow...so a team gets more weight for a top 10 than a top 20-25.

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

To reward a team for finishing top 10 more than finished 24th. Obviously rankings are flawed also, but generally speaking a team had a better year if they finish 15 spots higher.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. It's probably getting labor intensive now...but, since your formula is out there for us to critique...I'd probably weight the top 25 ending rankings somehow...so a team gets more weight for a top 10 than a top 20-25.

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

To reward a team for finishing top 10 more than finished 24th. Obviously rankings are flawed also, but generally speaking a team had a better year if they finish 15 spots higher.

The devil's in the details, I suppose. That word "better" there is a slippery slope. If they'd wait until about half way through the year to do rankings, I could get behind it a little easier, but I can't the way it is right now.

 

[gump]

Interesting. It's probably getting labor intensive now...but, since your formula is out there for us to critique...I'd probably weight the top 25 ending rankings somehow...so a team gets more weight for a top 10 than a top 20-25.

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

To reward a team for finishing top 10 more than finished 24th. Obviously rankings are flawed also, but generally speaking a team had a better year if they finish 15 spots higher.

The devil's in the details, I suppose. That word "better" there is a slippery slope. If they'd wait until about half way through the year to do rankings, I could get behind it a little easier, but I can't the way it is right now.

But don't teams finishing ranked 20-25 generally have 3-4 losses, while teams in the top 10 have 1-2?I would figure a way to give more weight to a team with 25 top 5 and 25 top 10 finishes than a team who's finished 24th 50 times. Unless there is another way...such as given credit for 10-win seasons.

 

[sho nuff]

B) Woodson deserved the Heisman. You Southern boys need to get over that.

This could be a whole other thread, but no one will ever convince me of that. Here's why:1) Wuerffel won the year prior by a landslide. Manning had better numbers across the board, other than rating I believe.

2) Champ Bailey had as good or better offensive and defensive numbers than Woodson, and didn't even sniff it.

3) Woodson had the big TD vs OSU, but also was burned for a 50+ yard TD right? There have been quite a few great college corners who where never burned deep...let alone in the the big game vs the arch rival.

I hated Manning...but haven't given any credence to the Heisman since then. IMO 'they' decided it was time to vote a defensive player in and had had enough of the Mannings.

Eh, I don't want to derail a great thread. But it's not a career award, or shouldn't be. I agree he deserved it more than Wuerffel. I don't remember Baily making as many game changing plays as Woodson did that year. And finally, yes he did get burned. But it wasn't just the OSU game. That was just the cherry on top. He made great plays all season and really led the team to victories from a position (or positions) that you don't really see that. I'm sure that some voters saw a chance to give it to a defensive player, but the overriding fact is that Manning just did NOT have that great of a year. And it's not like UT went undefeated or something. He lost to his biggest rival for the 4th straight year while Woodson helped beat his biggest rival. Anyway, thanks for your opinion.

It was when Ron Dayne beat out Joe Hamilton his senior year

\Yes...because those 1834 yards and 19 TDs his senior year were bad. (added another 200 and a TD in the Rose Bowl too).

 

[sho nuff]

Though...that year for Wisconsin is still painful.

The only chance I think they ever really had for a title and they blew it against Cincinnati.

Losing Evans early in the year hurt too.

But with Dayne, Evans, and Chambers....that offense could score.

Whipped up on OSU that year.

 

[The Commish]

Interesting. It's probably getting labor intensive now...but, since your formula is out there for us to critique...I'd probably weight the top 25 ending rankings somehow...so a team gets more weight for a top 10 than a top 20-25.

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

To reward a team for finishing top 10 more than finished 24th. Obviously rankings are flawed also, but generally speaking a team had a better year if they finish 15 spots higher.

The devil's in the details, I suppose. That word "better" there is a slippery slope. If they'd wait until about half way through the year to do rankings, I could get behind it a little easier, but I can't the way it is right now.

But don't teams finishing ranked 20-25 generally have 3-4 losses, while teams in the top 10 have 1-2?I would figure a way to give more weight to a team with 25 top 5 and 25 top 10 finishes than a team who's finished 24th 50 times. Unless there is another way...such as given credit for 10-win seasons.

If the polls were based soley on w/l you'd have a point here, and I'd agree. If one wants to weight seasons based on how many games w/l, that's cool. Don't need a poll for that though. Just look at the w/l UM is a great example of why the polls are screwed up. Year after year, they are ranked in the top 10-12 preseason, why? Because of the name on the jersey. There was no reason to have them at #5 preseson, two years ago, other than that. They had a pretty good QB, a good WR and a RB with a ton of heart (no pun intended). A loss to ASU and injuries to the QB/RB early on marked the end of the year for them. The rankings are based purely on what is written on a piece of paper at that time. The year before that, they got all the way to #2 in the BCS poll before their last game of the year against OSU. They weren't the second best team in the country. Had this been Utah or Boise State, they wouldn't have been in that position. I guess my point is, you can take the raw stats and weight the ones you feel are important to come up with a list. You think SOS is important? Include it. Record? Include it. All those things are quantitative in nature. Using someone else's opinion isn't...at least in my opinion That's all these polls are....another group's opinion. What's worse is they are based on zero data for the existing year initially. I have no idea what they use to determine that UF is #1, preseason. The only raw data they can use is from years passed and tradition. What does that have to do with THIS year?I am a prove it on the field guy. That's what I want to see.

 

[GDogg]

Curious as to why...I could probably get behind this idea if they delayed rankings until week 5-6 of the season.

To reward a team for finishing top 10 more than finished 24th. Obviously rankings are flawed also, but generally speaking a team had a better year if they finish 15 spots higher.

The devil's in the details, I suppose. That word "better" there is a slippery slope. If they'd wait until about half way through the year to do rankings, I could get behind it a little easier, but I can't the way it is right now.

But don't teams finishing ranked 20-25 generally have 3-4 losses, while teams in the top 10 have 1-2?I would figure a way to give more weight to a team with 25 top 5 and 25 top 10 finishes than a team who's finished 24th 50 times. Unless there is another way...such as given credit for 10-win seasons.

If the polls were based soley on w/l you'd have a point here, and I'd agree. If one wants to weight seasons based on how many games w/l, that's cool. Don't need a poll for that though. Just look at the w/l UM is a great example of why the polls are screwed up. Year after year, they are ranked in the top 10-12 preseason, why? Because of the name on the jersey. There was no reason to have them at #5 preseson, two years ago, other than that. They had a pretty good QB, a good WR and a RB with a ton of heart (no pun intended). A loss to ASU and injuries to the QB/RB early on marked the end of the year for them. The rankings are based purely on what is written on a piece of paper at that time. The year before that, they got all the way to #2 in the BCS poll before their last game of the year against OSU. They weren't the second best team in the country. Had this been Utah or Boise State, they wouldn't have been in that position. I guess my point is, you can take the raw stats and weight the ones you feel are important to come up with a list. You think SOS is important? Include it. Record? Include it. All those things are quantitative in nature. Using someone else's opinion isn't...at least in my opinion That's all these polls are....another group's opinion. What's worse is they are based on zero data for the existing year initially. I have no idea what they use to determine that UF is #1, preseason. The only raw data they can use is from years passed and tradition. What does that have to do with THIS year?I am a prove it on the field guy. That's what I want to see.

While I agree with you for the most part, I do think the preseason polls try to take into account returning talent, which often times is based more on reputation (recruiting rankings) than actual on the field production. So, it's not just what the team did the year before and tradition, it's also the pollsters perceptions of the talent levels of the teams they are ranking.

 

[The Commish]

While I agree with you for the most part, I do think the preseason polls try to take into account returning talent, which often times is based more on reputation (recruiting rankings) than actual on the field production. So, it's not just what the team did the year before and tradition, it's also the pollsters perceptions of the talent levels of the teams they are ranking.

And I understand why these guys do these polls. It generates discussion and excitment for the upcoming season. I get that. I just don't think those first few weeks should have the validity they do in the system we have. It's been proven time and time again that just because one has the talent it doesn't mean they will be successful. So until that talent is proven on the field, it's an unknown. I think the polls should reflect that. There is a unique exception to this general rule though. That is the defense at UF this year. They have all 11 starters AND all 11 backups back this year. Unless the system's been changed on them, I think prognostication of their success based on what we saw last year is justified

 

[TidesofWar]

Think it is time to crown a new Number #1..........................................

After 2009, it is time for The UNiversity of Alabama to pass NOtre Dame, and ascend to our rightful place as THE TOP COLLEGE FOOTBALL PROGRAM IN NCAA HISTORY!!!!!

So let it be written - so let it be done..........



ROLL DAMN TIDE!!!!!

 

[TidesofWar]

Might be time to revisit this and do a little shuffling

 

[The Commish]

Might be time to revisit this and do a little shuffling

I think before you go down this path again, you might want to level set all the schools in the country and give them the "championships" they deserve based on the SEC criteria laid out in recent years by the likes of Auburn and Alabama. You know...to level the playing field and all

 

[GDogg]

Why would programs get credit for Heismans and All-Americans, yet get nothing for Head Coaches who also win awards?

Examples?

I think you can see where I'm going. Miami gets 'individual' credit for Gino Toretta, but Alabama gets none for Bear Bryant.

This is an outstanding argument.In College Football and Basketball, successful Coaches, much moreso than Heisman winners or any player (except Tebow) become the face of the Program over time.

And that will change quickly after he leaves and Florida keeps winning.Carroll is USC

Stoops is OU

Paterno is PSU

Bowden is FSU

Tressel is OSU

Brown is UT

Saban is Bama

And Meyer will be UF quickly.

The hallmark of a powerful program is a HC with a strong personality.

The questions are will Rodriguez be Michigan? Will Weis be ND? Will Davis be NC? And my favorite question, will Neuheisel be UCLA? I've always liked him. And USC needs someone to step up in the PAC 10.

This was a very good post.

Your last point on questions as to who will be each of the listed schools was a resounding NO across the board (aside from Southern Cal having a couple schools step up).