Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Droidatopia t1_jagb2wk wrote

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

110

[deleted] t1_jaggc0n wrote

[deleted]

22

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

GrandPriapus t1_jaiqvs3 wrote

My grandpa never got over the dissolution of the Big Eight Conference.

4

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

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

SnortingCoffee t1_jag613g wrote

What part of this data are you disagreeing with?

35

Godloseslaw t1_jag6ldy wrote

Use of "successful", I suppose.

Notre Dame is 7-15 in their last 22 bowl games.

−21

frog_football t1_jag6wi0 wrote

You can clearly see ND plateau on the graph don’t get mad at OP for the data

32

Godloseslaw t1_jag9x2s wrote

Not arguing with the data, but the qualification of the data.

−17

hiricinee t1_jagcuso wrote

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

SnortingCoffee t1_jag6wyr wrote

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

suddenly_seymour t1_jagni4i wrote

Ali has been retired for ages. He's not out there getting his ass kicked year in year out like Notre Dame is. Totally irrelevant comparison.

−8

liveyourdreamsmax t1_jah73sd wrote

Nobody is saying notre dame is the most successful program of the past 30 years.

6

Stoneador t1_jagkgww wrote

I too define success by record in last 22 bowl games

21

rubixor t1_jah6slz wrote

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

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

Positive_Benefit8856 t1_jagzbj1 wrote

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

Khyron_2500 t1_jaiax5b wrote

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

FriendlyDisorder t1_jai59sy wrote

Error: UT Austin not found.

​

...

​

Wait... reclassified as "Working As Designed".

4

rdrckcrous t1_jaihr5u wrote

What's that school that's above Michigan 2002-2020?

1

KnownRate3096 t1_jali8gb wrote

Damn it feels good (for South Carolina) to be one point ahead of notorious blue blood Iowa Pre-Flight. But it's hilarious that several other SEC teams can't say that.

1

primera89 t1_jag6vcc wrote

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

20

Bugsarecool2 t1_jagp9c5 wrote

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

13

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

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

Charmy123 t1_jakwqgg wrote

I hated the tediousness at first but found myself enjoying the read more and more as it went. Well done!

3

jonesjeffum OP t1_jaiti51 wrote

Lol pretty much, the colors were very difficult on this one a lot of overlap

2

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

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

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

TargetMost8136 t1_jagx2c6 wrote

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

DowntownScore2773 t1_jagzpjy wrote

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

CDay007 t1_jahgq1o wrote

Everyone knows it’s impossible to do two things well

1

DowntownScore2773 t1_jahmq95 wrote

Sorry, what two things are you referencing?

1

CDay007 t1_jahszll wrote

Damn I replied to the wrong comment sorry 😂 I meant to reply to someone who said all the schools are failures because college should be about education and not sports

2

DowntownScore2773 t1_jahv94n wrote

Hahaha. No problem at all. I couldn’t tell if you were agreeing or arguing. It all makes sense now.

1

Ayzmo t1_jaja4gm wrote

Agreed. Undefeated seasons should impact more. FSU's complete dominance through the 1990s isn't even an impact

3

Flioxan t1_jazdt28 wrote

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

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

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

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

>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

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

>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

FightOnForUsc t1_jahw3zy wrote

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

2

[deleted] t1_jaincll wrote

Maybe TCU?

1

FightOnForUsc t1_jaiqcw6 wrote

They haven’t been all that high, that’s averaging about 10 points a year which means top 2. Maybe Clemson?

3

whatsa_matta_u t1_jaifccs wrote

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

2

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

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

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

LIslander t1_jai0bk8 wrote

ND seems to be ranked way too high

1

TheDiano t1_jai4uw2 wrote

That Nebraska flatline, lmao

1

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_jazdy5j wrote

Winning alot of games isnt the same as winning the games that matter. They only have half a championship since WW2. Everyone else on here has multiple

1

Snowmakesmehappy t1_jahk2qp wrote

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

0

SilverBuff_ t1_jahutx1 wrote

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

0

ThePr3acher t1_jagstlz wrote

Ofcourse Alabama.

You are always rooting for family

/s ;)

−1

RockiG t1_jagb2tn wrote

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

−5

PredadorDePerereca_ t1_jah3670 wrote

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

−12

excitato t1_jah7mv5 wrote

This is American football, and the college level of the sport is the second most popular “league” in America of any sport behind the NFL

4

PredadorDePerereca_ t1_jah7pk2 wrote

Ah ok, I thought it was real football. They should put the right name

−5

CDay007 t1_jahgs6c wrote

They did, it doesn’t say soccer anywhere on the graph

5

PopeBasilisk t1_jagcnii wrote

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

−21

ar243 t1_jagzjmf wrote

This is why people make fun of redditors

12

PopeBasilisk t1_jai2js5 wrote

Exactly, because instead of learning anything valuable they spend all their time on ball games

−3