Helmet Team Ranking Exercise

[utee94]

Maybe it's the just the circle I run in. No one talks about ND 'cept for the one guy whose parents are Catholic. 

I see other helmets getting more hype than the Doomers. I think playing other Helmets as more prestigious.

This season, would you rather beat:  Ohio State, Alabama, or Notre Dame?

Horns currently have scoreboard on both Notre Dame and Ohio State, so I'll go with Alabama.  Definitely owe them for that 2009 MNC title game, and also they're the consistent top dog in college football right now.

Overall though, like Cincy I think ND is pretty much the definition of the college football helmet team, because they can be down for decades, and still garner a ton of attention.  Even though both Texas and ND turned out to be awful last year, beating them at home in the season opener was a highlight of the past decade for me.

[Entropy]

ND hasn't won a Jan bowl game since 1994...

[medinabuckeye1]

I can happily defend that:

First, you changed the topic -- twice. You switched to NCs and you left the Big Ten.

Second, if you insist on talking about all conferences and NCs**, there are a bunch of ways to reconcile it feeling "weird" that Princeton and Yale are on top. For that, feel free to scoot to the final paragraph. But my preferred method would begin here by ranking the NC getters by their rate of NC-acquisition (total NCs [FBS or Div.I] divided by years spent in FBS orDiv.I).

Adding context to those lists does not require a treatment with specially chosen years. Princeton and Yale left Div.I a looooong time ago. That makes their concentration of titles even more impressive than the raw numbers you reference. They were more dominant in their era than any team in any era. So if we rank all teams across all-time by their rate of NCs, of course they deserve to be ranked at the top.

Now, if you ask me to propose how to change that list (without changing its years) to make it perfectly relevant to today, I'd merely ask you to exclude all teams who are not currently in the FBS. Excluding Princeton and Yale in this way is quite natural. In many senses, they've already excluded themselves.



**(which I'm cool with, and it's certainly true I find the "all-time CFB" span the least arbitrary for those topics, too)

Yes I changed topic, but I didn't change concept.  Your argument is that Michigan has the most league titles and therefore Michigan is #1 in the league.  Ok, using that exact logic Princeton and Yale have the most national titles and are #1 and #2 nationally. 

I would submit that excluding teams no longer competing is arbitrary too.  They are part of the history so excluding them from their own history is arbitrary.  Similarly, Georgia leads Florida in their all-time series by eight games, 50-42-2.  Basically nobody believes that Georgia is a better program.  Georgia leads the all-time series because they dominated up through and a little after WWII.  Through 1951 the Dawgs led the Gators 24-5-1.  Since then the Gators lead 37-26-1. 

The same thing obviously applies to Ohio State and Michigan or to B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles.  Michigan leads the M/tOSU series and has the most league titles for the same reason that Georgia leads the UGA/UF series, because they were better a really long time ago. 

Over any current time-frame of more than 10 and less than 90 years Ohio State is #1 in B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles. 

I do not believe that Michigan's pre-1926 titles are completely irrelevant but I strongly believe that they are VASTLY less relevant than PSU's, MSU's, tOSU's, and UW's titles in the last five years. 

You started out by saying that "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close."  Then you stated that that was Michigan. 

I disagree because "winning" is a term in present tense.  At the present time Michigan is far from "*the* team winning the most championships", they aren't even close.  In the last 12 seasons that would be:
6 Ohio State
3 each:  Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State
There are 15 in 12 years because Ohio State and Penn State were co-champions in 2005 and 2008 while Michigan State and Wisconsin were co-champions in 2010.  As you go back further Michigan catches the second place teams and moves into second place but they don't move into first place until you go back 91 years. 

Using past tense, Michigan is the team that has won the most league titles but using present tense, for the past 90 years Ohio State has been the team winning the most league titles.

[OrangeAfroMan]

...and a 29-year NC drought.  That wouldn't be as damning if they were able to win a number of conference titles, but without that, there's no bump-ups in their measure of win%.

[medinabuckeye1]

...and a 29-year NC drought.  That wouldn't be as damning if they were able to win a number of conference titles, but without that, there's no bump-ups in their measure of win%.

It is 19 not 29, 1997 wasn't that long ago.  On the other hand that 1997 split title is Michigan's only NC in nearly 70 years. 

[Entropy]

It is 19 not 29, 1997 wasn't that long ago.  On the other hand that 1997 split title is Michigan's only NC in nearly 70 years.

and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?

Leaves quickly..

[medinabuckeye1]

and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?

Leaves quickly..

Washington State wasn't THAT bad and they were a major conference champion.  It isn't fair to compare them to BYU because when BYU barely beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the 1984 Holiday Bowl that was literally the best team BYU played all year. 

[utee94]

Yeah, that BYU MNC is probably the most dubious one of my lifetime.  I'd have to think hard to come up with another.

[medinabuckeye1]

Yeah, that BYU MNC is probably the most dubious one of my lifetime.  I'd have to think hard to come up with another.

It is EASILY the most ridiculous one since the advent of the Polls.  That BYU team shouldn't have been in the top-10 let alone declared NC. 

[Anonymous Coward]

and outside of BYU, has anyone had an easier NC opponent that Michigan in 1997?

Leaves quickly..

First, WSU was #7/#8. So the 1984 BYU thing (versus an unranked team) is off by magnitudes. Second, 1997 was one year before the standardization of NC opponents. So there was no such thing as an NC game.

Michigan's title was, sure, impossible if they hadn't been undefeated, but with another undefeated team, going undefeated was probably always going to be insufficient. The rest of the context included the intense strength of schedule. I haven't gone back to view the final rankings but as of game time, 1997 Michigan took down four Top 10 teams and three more in the Top 25.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over any current time-frame of more than 10 and less than 90 years Ohio State is #1 in B1G/Big11Ten/Big10/Western titles. 

I never denied that. I just acknowledged that those time frames are arbitrarily constructed.

You started out by saying that "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close."  Then you stated that that was Michigan. 

You misunderstood. I was expressing that  the most meaningful thing going forward (future tense) is to be the team that wins the conference championships the most frequently. And if we had that conversation in 1896, at the dawn of Big Ten football, we'd learn that by now (until now), that title would be held by Michigan.

Using past tense, Michigan is the team that has won the most league titles but using present tense, for the past 90 years Ohio State has been the team winning the most league titles.

Also true. But still arbitrarily bounded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as a distraction but as a second conversation, I expected you to be more interested in the championship rates compilation. Our conversation doesn't hinge on it. But it's interesting on its own. MSU looks shockingly great. Chicago way less impressive than expected. The future rate contributions of UNL and PSU should be fascinating, too.

[medinabuckeye1]

You can call it arbitrary all you want but the fact is that you want to say "rah rah, my school is #1" and the ONLY way you can do that is by going back into the mists of ancient history. 

If you asked any even remotely neutral fan "which is the best program in the B1G right now?" they would say Ohio State without hesitation. 

I'll put it another way.  Penn State has only ever won four league titles (1994, 2005, 2008, 2016).  No imagine for a minute that Penn State took over starting with 2016 and dominated the way their fans told us they would back in 1993 when they joined.  Imagine further that Ohio State and Michigan both sunk into mediocre to bottom-feeder status and that over the next 50 years those three schools won:

• 0 league titles for Michigan
• 7 league titles for Ohio State
• 36 league titles for Penn State

After those 50 years the B1G title leader board would look as follows:

• 42 Ohio State
• (tie) 42 Michigan
• 40 Penn State

Nobody would say "Ohio State and Michigan are winning the most B1G titles".  It would be correct to say "Ohio State and Michigan have won the most B1G titles" but it would also be irrelevant.  Penn State would clearly be THE team in the B1G.  That is why I referred back to your original statement: "(T)he most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close."  That team, as you described, is NOT the team that has the most all-time, it is the team that is currently winning the most. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Not as a distraction but as a second conversation, I expected you to be more interested in the championship rates compilation. Our conversation doesn't hinge on it. But it's interesting on its own. MSU looks shockingly great. Chicago way less impressive than expected. The future rate contributions of UNL and PSU should be fascinating, too.

I did find it interesting but, since I'm not a Michigan fan, I really don't care much for the "all-time" rate.  Years ago I did a similar compilation but I used a rolling rate.  Championships per 10-25 years would be a lot more interesting to me.  Ie:
From 2007-2016 the rates are:

• 4 per 10 years, Ohio State
• 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin and Michigan State
• 2 per 10 years, Penn State
• 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team

It adds up to 12 in 10 years because the 2010 title was shared by UW and MSU while the 2008 title was shared by tOSU and PSU. 
Then the next 10 year period to look at would be 2006-2015 where the rates are:

• 5 per 10 years, Ohio State
• 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin and Michigan State
• 1 per 10 years, Penn State
• 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team

Then 2005-2014:

• 6 per 10 years, Ohio State
• 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin
• 2 per 10 years, Penn State and Michigan State
• 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team

Then 2004-2013:

• 5 per 10 years, Ohio State
• 3 per 10 years, Wisconsin
• 2 per 10 years, Penn State and Michigan State
• 1 per 10 years, Iowa and Michigan
• 0 per 10 years, every other B1G team