header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages

 (Read 811 times)

ftbobs

  • Walk On
  • *
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #98 on: May 22, 2020, 07:36:58 PM »
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams. 

It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966:  Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965:  Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964:  Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961:  Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll.  They finished 6-3
1960:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958:  Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1

So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once.  If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970.  Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years. 

It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year).  In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23.  Still, they finished 8-2 and #12. 

In 1969 the Wolverines were:
  • Unranked preseason*
  • got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
  • fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
  • got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
  • fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
  • got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
  • jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
  • lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9


Then Michigan became almost super-elite.  From 1970-2007 they were:
  • #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611). 
  • #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611). 
  • #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611). 

So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls. 

Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
  • #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
  • #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
  • #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)

Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were. 

*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season.  I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time.  They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12.  Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked.  Michigan didn't because they weren't. 



Michigan was getting votes in the preseason poll in 1969, they could have been just unranked.  

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11617
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #99 on: May 22, 2020, 07:44:17 PM »
First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams. 

It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966:  Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965:  Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964:  Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961:  Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll.  They finished 6-3
1960:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958:  Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1

So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once.  If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970.  Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years. 

It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year).  In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23.  Still, they finished 8-2 and #12. 

In 1969 the Wolverines were:
  • Unranked preseason*
  • got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
  • fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
  • got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
  • fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
  • got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
  • jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
  • lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9


Then Michigan became almost super-elite.  From 1970-2007 they were:
  • #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611). 
  • #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611). 
  • #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611). 

So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls. 

Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:
  • #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
  • #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
  • #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)

Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were. 

*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season.  I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time.  They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12.  Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked.  Michigan didn't because they weren't. 


reminds me of many debates with Michigan fans back during the 97 season and the post season regarding perception vs Nebraska using AP poll stats
those were the good ol daze
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2901
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #100 on: May 22, 2020, 08:48:34 PM »
so the Sooners recruit nationally
Yep.
As do the Huskers.
Play Like a Champion Today

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2901
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #101 on: May 22, 2020, 08:54:03 PM »
I think the point is that the CFP devalues winning the B1G and going and winning against the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl if you're a team with legitimate CFP aspirations.

I.e. if you're Ohio State, and you go 12-1 to win the B1G but you are excluded from the CFP was a woodshedding loss to lowly PURDUE of all teams, and then you go win the Rose Bowl against PAC-champion Washington... It somehow feels like a letdown.

For us lowly mortal programs that will probably never even sniff the CFP, 8-5 with a bowl win is a nice season. For someone like Ohio State, 13-1 but missing the CFP is a letdown.
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.
Play Like a Champion Today

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11617
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #102 on: May 22, 2020, 08:56:09 PM »
yup, population of 4 million in Oklahoma

we know Dalls/FW has a great amount of high school talent, but not just Texas, A&M, TCU, and Baylor are looking there.  

Ohio St., Clemson, Bama, LSU, and Notre Dame are lurking there for 4 & 5 star kids
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11617
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #103 on: May 22, 2020, 08:56:57 PM »
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.
but, you're old
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2901
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #104 on: May 22, 2020, 08:58:37 PM »
What's that?  I didn't have my hearing aid turned on.
Play Like a Champion Today

ftbobs

  • Walk On
  • *
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #105 on: May 22, 2020, 09:59:20 PM »
This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.

Agree with you here.  It's a case of be careful what you ask for.  College football has lost a lot of it's tradition and uniqueness in it's quest for a "one true title".

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11617
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #106 on: May 22, 2020, 10:17:32 PM »
I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the "playoff"

I was right
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6862
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #107 on: May 22, 2020, 10:45:14 PM »
I think it would please the most people if we went back pre-bowl coalition and had an optional +1 game if there were 2 remaining undefeated, P5 teams.

I don't know why the "if necessary" idea never gained any traction.  In '02, you don't need it, in '03, you do.  How hard is that?

And I think the sport benefited from having 6-8 strong independent teams.  
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

ftbobs

  • Walk On
  • *
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #108 on: May 22, 2020, 10:49:01 PM »
I think it would please the most people if we went back pre-bowl coalition and had an optional +1 game if there were 2 remaining undefeated, P5 teams.

I don't know why the "if necessary" idea never gained any traction.  In '02, you don't need it, in '03, you do.  How hard is that?

And I think the sport benefited from having 6-8 strong independent teams. 

You can't sell TV revenue to an optional game.  We all know that there's too much money to be lost for something so sensible.is me

I miss the old affiliations and the independents.  Blame the CFA for that.

bwarbiany

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4024
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #109 on: May 23, 2020, 12:36:48 AM »
For a helmet, what is better? 

Making the CFP but losing there, or missing the CFP but winning a NY6 bowl? 

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6862
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #110 on: May 23, 2020, 01:03:29 AM »
Ask OU.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 22726
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #111 on: May 23, 2020, 07:46:24 AM »
I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the "playoff"

I was right
I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh).  I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.

 

Associate Links/Search