Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jonesjeffum OP t1_jag201f wrote

full ranking of all college football programs and a decade by decade breakdown is located at this link
Table of Data

Source: Sports-reference.com

Tools used: adobe illustrator, excel

35

Godloseslaw t1_jag40ls wrote

But Notre Dame hasn't actually won a national championship in over 30 years. They are the most overrated team in all of sports.

43

primera89 t1_jag6vcc wrote

I know FSU dominated in the 90s but Bama in the 10s just owned everyone. Crazy

20

SnortingCoffee t1_jag6wyr wrote

Replying to Godloseslaw (#2,136,893)

They're still the third most successful college football program of all time, as shown in this graph.

"Why does everyone say Muhammad Ali is the greatest boxer of all time wtf the guy hasn't won a fight since like 1978"

25

RockiG t1_jagb2tn wrote

Notre Dame- the most overrated team of the 21st century

−5

Droidatopia t1_jagb2wk wrote

The University of Georgia would prefer you to use a moving average.

110

WorkingOcelot t1_jagb9ug wrote

I'm guessing the lines that completely flateaud below Michigan since 2010 are Texas and Miami?

Edit: just saw OP's source data. It is

51

PopeBasilisk t1_jagcnii wrote

Theyre all failures because college is supposed to be for education, not sports

−21

hiricinee t1_jagcuso wrote

Replying to Godloseslaw (#2,136,931)

Its giving them credit for placing high rather than just winning championships. A team that gets 4th 30 times in a row is likely better than one that gets 1st once and then never hits the top 12 again.

30

Bugsarecool2 t1_jagp9c5 wrote

You mean god is with the Catholics, not the Mormons?!

13

bookweiser t1_jagqq7t wrote

As a non-American who went to some Michigan games ten years ago, thanks for confirming that they were as bad as my memory made them out to be.

Tailgating in Ann Arbor however was awesome.

1

SomethingMoreToSay t1_jagrhke wrote

I love the fact that the source of the data is a site called Objective Lists, but the data here are derived using a totally arbitrary points scheme.

10

ThePr3acher t1_jagstlz wrote

Ofcourse Alabama.

You are always rooting for family

/s ;)

−1

LordSone t1_jagtoyo wrote

Why did Alabama been so successful since 2008?

11

DowntownScore2773 t1_jagtxlb wrote

Sorry, this chart is graphically cool but it really bugs me. Success in football is measured easily by wins and championships. This chart should factor in total wins, win percentage, and/or conference championships. The AP poll is an opinion ranking that contains biases that have frustrated people for decades. Weighting the playoffs more will result in recency bias. That’s reflected in the Michigan position on the chart, when they have the most historical wins. It ignores the whole BCS era where undefeated teams like TCU, Utah and Boise State where punished in the polls for not playing in the auto-bid BCS conferences. It ignores schools that won multiple championships in the FCS before jumping up divisions like App State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, JMU. UCF’s undefeated 13-0 season resulted in 2 pts in this chart. That’s kind of bs. Unlike what the title of the chart says, it doesn’t show the success of the teams and rank them accordingly.

4

pipboyover9000 t1_jagucqb wrote

There’s so much goddamn pain in this picture

Edit Forgot what sub I was in, I’m a huskers fan

68

TargetMost8136 t1_jagx2c6 wrote

Replying to DowntownScore2773 (#2,137,167)

Definitely disagree with you on that one. People care a lot more about a 10-2 power 5 team than an 11-1 group of 5 team. There’s definitely bias in the AP25 rankings but it’s a decent measurement imo, definitely compared to wins or conference championships. The latter would show the most dominant team per conference, not necessarily the best college football programs of all time

6

Positive_Benefit8856 t1_jagzbj1 wrote

Replying to jonesjeffum (#2,136,818)

The flaw in this data is only using the AP poll. This leaves split national title years, 1990, 1991, and 1997 for example awarding 1 team 8 pts, and the other 4, when all of CFB agrees there were 2 rightful claims. Additionally the AP did not include bowl games in their final poll until 1968, this is why so many seasons before then have multiple claims on those championships.

13

DowntownScore2773 t1_jagzpjy wrote

Replying to TargetMost8136 (#2,137,209)

I didn’t say they cared about the schools. The good thing about numbers that are quantifiable is that they don’t care about opinions. The title of the chart is Which College Football Programs have been the most successful? Most successful at what? Winning? That’s not reflected in the chart. That chart shows what programs have been ranked the highest in the AP poll and it weights the playoff selection over the AP poll where there are conflicts. The AP is associated with the mythical National Championship and there is a reason the BCS relied on other polls as well to select the teams that played in the “championship game.” That was so controversial that it resulted in us finally getting a 4 team playoff which was controversial so we got a larger, fairer playoff. So, either the title of the chart needs to change or the data inputs and weighting needs to change.

1

RandoCalrissian11 t1_jah0nz8 wrote

The data is pretty flawed since it uses an arbitrary point system. It also doesn’t take into consideration that the rankings are horribly flawed. Ohio State has such an easy path to victory plus they are always over ranked that it skews the data.

7

PredadorDePerereca_ t1_jah3670 wrote

Who the fuck plays football in college? I played it in the streets since I was a kid

−12

underwear11 t1_jah6g0r wrote

The chart is cool but the coloring makes it tough to follow, at least for me on mobile. I found myself following Nebraska's rise in ~1994 to Ohio State's rise in 2001 to Alabama's rise in 2008 and wondering what the hell Alabama did in 1994 to have such a tremendous increase.

6

rubixor t1_jah6slz wrote

Replying to Godloseslaw (#2,136,851)

I dont see how this data shows they are overrated... The line representing their success has been pretty flat for the past 30 years compared to other more recently dominant teams... This data presents Norte Dame as a team that demonstrated unprecedented dominance until the early 90's and has had a little bit of success ever since.

14

Flintoid t1_jah852f wrote

Wherein we apply a national lens to a regional game.

1

Frankishism t1_jahhelt wrote

Main geographical gaps are the East Coast and Northwest. Depending how small you define regions obviously but interesting. Nice chart OP!

1

Snowmakesmehappy t1_jahk2qp wrote

Misleading title, there are some division II colleges that belong on this list.

0

sjb-2812 t1_jahotzb wrote

Where's Loughborough in all this?

1

Bullmoose39 t1_jahtrrt wrote

Well then, objectively, we could still say Michigan sucks. Objectively, with empirical data sets used here.

1

JLMZJ204 t1_jahueku wrote

Silly me, I thought I was going to see GPA stats.

1

SilverBuff_ t1_jahutx1 wrote

What happened to Nebraska in 2001 causing the line flatter than their state?

0

FightOnForUsc t1_jahw3zy wrote

Who started near 0 around 2010 and has skyrocketed to have about 100 points? Georgia?

2

Khyron_2500 t1_jaiax5b wrote

Replying to Positive_Benefit8856 (#2,137,234)

I also find the point values and ranges semi-subjective. Why is the champion 16 points, specifically? Why is 9 through 16 a category?

I get they’re exponential ranges based on doubling, 1/2/4/8/16, but is there any way to say this is a qualified way to look at the data?

I would rather see reverse rating of the top 25 or something.

3

whatsa_matta_u t1_jaifccs wrote

How many of the players graduate? I'd like to see that by program.

2

TommyBaseball t1_jaiptw7 wrote

OP: Data analysis is done, and this plot looks good. Just need to add color to some teams to separate them from the grey lines. Let's see, Notre Dame, you can be green.

Notre Dame: My colors are Blue and Gold.

OP: I know, but there are other blue schools and you can't really see gold lines. There aren't going to be any green teams. They all suck. Plus you guys wear green all the time.

Notre Dame: Yeah, but still our official colors are Blue and Gold.

OP: Well, either you take green or I'm giving you orange. The orange teams suck too. Not only is Texas not back, they never were. I have the data to prove it.

Notre Dame: Fine, we'll be green.

OP: Good. Whew, who knew this would be so hard. OK, next up Oklahoma. You guys get Crimson.

Oklahoma: Yes!!

OP: Alright, that was easy. Next up, Alabama. Shit.

Alabama: We want Crimson.

OP: I know, but I just gave that to Oklahoma.

Alabama: We are literally the Crimson Tide.

Oklahoma: We got here first!

OP: Bama don't you have some alternate color?

Alabama: We'll take Houndstooth.

OP: What the fuck is Houndstooth?

Alabama: It's a Black and White checker pattern. It looks sweet on hats and blazers.

OP: Yeah, but this is a line. I can't do a pattern on a 1-D line, that will just make it dashed.

Georgia Tech: While mathematically lines are one-dimensional, when you represent a line, it is necessarily two-dimensional so you could make it patterned.

OP: Shut up Georgia Tech. If I cared what you thought I wouldn't have ignored the first 67 college football history. Bama, you are going to be a black line. That will just have to do. Ok, let's hope for more variety going forward. Next up Nebraska?

Nebraska: Go Big Red!

OP: Damnit. Well, Red and Crimson should be different enough. I'll make it work. How many red teams are there? Let's see who's next. Ohio State.

Ohio State: We want Scarlet.

OP: What the hell is Scarlet?

Ohio State: It's half way between Red and Crimson.

OP: No, not happening. What else?

Ohio State: Our other color is Grey.

OP: You can’t be Grey. The whole point of adding colors is to separate your line from the crappy programs. I’m just going to make you Magenta. It’s red adjacent. No more red teams!! Who’s next? Southern Cal? Aaaarrgh. No, no Red or Crimson or Scarlet or whatever the hell you call your unique shade of red that is really just red. You are getting yellow, and I don’t care if no one can see it.

Southern Cal: We’re called Southern California.

OP: What?

Southern Cal: We prefer to be called Southern California.

OP: That’s too long, what’s wrong with Southern Cal?

Southern Cal: It is not our name. Our name is Southern California.

OP: Fine, I’ll mess with the kerning to get it to fit, but you are OK with a yellow line?

Southern Cal: Whatever.

Ohio State: Hey, if we are talking about official names . . .

OP: NO! Stop right there. That’s it. I’m done. You six teams, congrats on being the six most successful and insufferable college football programs of all time.

Notre Dame: Hey, you never ended up needing Blue. Can I have that?

OP: No. I’m finding a Blue team just to spite you. What crappy team is up next on this list? Perfect, Blue and insufferable. Join the club Michigan.

Michigan: We would rather be Maize.

OP: What the hell is Maize?

Ohio State: It’s Yellow, like piss.

Michigan: It is the color of corn.

Nebraska: Did someone say corn?

OP: No, go back to sleep Nebraska. Michigan, you are Blue. That’s it. We’re done.

9

Ayzmo t1_jaj9glu wrote

Ok, but why the top 7? That seems like a weird number.

1

xacto_ t1_jakfblb wrote

Curious how this would look if you backed out vacated wins

1

Ad8858 t1_jalbfte wrote

I’m scratching my head at Michigan, the winningest team in college football, being the lowest ranked team on this infographic

1

Flioxan t1_jazdt28 wrote

Replying to DowntownScore2773 (#2,137,167)

The issue with rewarding conference championships is non of the conferences are equal. Winning the SEC is not the same as winning the Sunbelt or the Pac12. USC dominating the Pac12 for years on end would get more rewarded when OSU was just as good but split the B1G with UM more.

1

DowntownScore2773 t1_jb03zw7 wrote

Replying to Flioxan (#2,163,854)

That’s true but the title of the chart is most successful programs. Success is measured easily each game regardless of who the team plays. You either win, lose or tie. The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful. The NCAA does sponsor a national championship award for football. Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles. The AP is just one of many polls and is not official. That’s why there are multiple national championship claims for the same year. Not every team is given the opportunity to play in the best conferences and some were independent for years. I think conference title should be excluded now. The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time. It removes the recency bias of the chart, prevents the same with win totals, and shows who has had the most success historically on the field regardless of conference.

0

Flioxan t1_jb1f87m wrote

Replying to DowntownScore2773 (#2,164,615)

If you have a team who went 14-1 and lost in the championship and a team who ended 13-2 and beat them to win the championship and you try telling either team the 14-1 team was more successful you would get laughed out of the building.

Idk what sport/competition you play that total # of wins trumps winning it all but thats not how it works in CFB or any level of football

1

DowntownScore2773 t1_jb1k19p wrote

Replying to Flioxan (#2,166,581)

I didn’t write total wins trumps championships. I played D1 lacrosse in college. We have a championship unlike football. The NCAA doesn’t sponsor a championship in FBS football. Only recently with the BCS and playoffs is championship awarded via an agreed upon menthol by the schools. Prior there were survey polls like AP, USA Today, UPI, Coaches Poll, etc. that did it for fun and readership. The AP is not a true national championship. With lacrosse everyone knew the rankings were an opinion poll and winning mattered most. You had your ranking in conference and then the championship tournament. Your comment references a one game scenario. A win percentage is a better measurement of success than an opinion poll especially overtime because it irons good and bad years and shows consistency.

0

Flioxan t1_jb1ljp1 wrote

Replying to DowntownScore2773 (#2,166,759)

>The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful.

>I didn’t write total wins trumps championships

Pick one.

>The NCAA does[nt]?? sponsor a national championship award for football.

The NCAA does infact sponser multiple national championships for football.

>Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles.

Not by the NCAA, which seems to be your criteria

>The AP is just one of many polls and is not official.

Its reconized by the NCAA though. Again pick one.

>The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time.

Not all competition is equal. There are highschools with better win% than the best college programs.

>It removes the recency bias of the chart,

What recency bias? Its not like UGA or FSU or Clemson are at the top of the list. Hell two of the top programs (UM and ND) havent been at the top in a while. Its honestly the opposite or recency bias from what i can tell

>We have a championship unlike football.

CFB has 2 championships ran by the NCAA and another one reconized by them.

>A win percentage is a better measurement of success than an opinion poll especially overtime because it irons good and bad years and shows consistency.

Only if the SoS were equal and the wins and losses came against relatively equal teams. If 2 teams go .750 over a bunch of years but one of them regularly beat top 10 teams and the other only plays a top 10ish team infrequently and losses every time then win% doesnt do a good job telling the whole story.

1

DowntownScore2773 t1_jb1ntl5 wrote

Replying to Flioxan (#2,166,818)

Are you 12 years old? The only thing l’ll respond to is that the NCAA has never sanction a BCS national championship. That’s a fact. The other comments are already answered in the thread for comprehension by anyone with a high school reading level and a basic grasp of mathematics.

0

Flioxan t1_jb1ovre wrote

Replying to DowntownScore2773 (#2,166,922)

>The only thing l’ll respond to is that the NCAA has never sanction a BCS national championship.

I know..? Thats not what you said though.

>Are you 12 years old?

Lol

>The other comments are already answered in the thread for comprehension by anyone with a high school reading level and a basic grasp of mathematics.

Insulting other peoples math skills when you cant move past only using win% is a bold move

1