CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on July 19, 2021, 06:43:32 PM

Title: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 19, 2021, 06:43:32 PM
This is the Platinum standard of excellence.  A few years ago I compiled rolling 10-year records for the consensus helmets and a few near-helmets.  I went back far enough that the first 10-year record ended with the advent of the AP Poll (1927-1936) and I've kept it up to date since. 

The schools I included (in order of their BEST 10-year record) were:



So I now have this data for 1,275 10-year periods (85 for each school X 15 schools).  In the dataset there are only five 10-year periods in which a school had a record of .900 or better, they are:


That is it, just one per 255 chances and note that there have NEVER been two at the same time. 

Interestingly, three schools could actually achieve this distinction in the decade that will be concluded with the 2021 season:


Alabama:
The Tide went .9120 (114-11) from 2012-2020 so when 2021 is added to that they have a chance to add a third .900 decade.  For the Tide:



Ohio State:
The Buckeyes went .9060 (106-11) from 2012-2020 so when 2021 is added to that they have a chance to at a school-first .900 decade.  For the Buckeyes:




Clemson:
The Tigers went .8880 (111-14) from 2012-2020 so when 2021 is added to that they have a chance to get to exactly .900.  They would need to go 15-0 to do it. 


Theoretically all three could make it (Clemson goes 15-0, Bama and tOSU both finish with two or less losses). 
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 19, 2021, 06:49:58 PM
Interesting indeed.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: FearlessF on July 19, 2021, 07:01:44 PM
the 4-team playoff could be a factor in this?
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 19, 2021, 10:15:39 PM
Quote from: FearlessF on July 19, 2021, 07:01:44 PM
the 4-team playoff could be a factor in this?
It is in a several different ways.  

For one thing it means that only one team can go undefeated.  Back in the 1980's it would have been at least theoretically possible for Clemson to go undefeated, win the ACC, and win the Orange Bowl while Bama went undefeated, won the SEC, and won the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State went undefeated, won the BigTen, and won the Rose Bowl.  Now, of course, they'll run into each other.  

A second way that the modern landscape has made it more difficult is that good teams have tougher schedules because they have extra games (CCG's, CFP semifinals, CFP CG) against TOUGH opponents.  Back in the 1980's there were no CCG's and even if you went undefeated your bowl opponent might not be all that good.  Once in a while the Pac10 Champion could be a 4-loss team.  Now if you go 12-0 that gets you into a CCG against a strong conference opponent and if you also win that you get a CFP semifinal against a strong opponent and if you win that you get a CFPCG against a strong opponent.  

OTOH, this provides more opportunities.  Back in the 1980's you were playing 11 games a year and 12 IF you got a bowl.  Now you have 12 and if you go 12-0 you will play at least 14 (CCG+CFP) and if you go 14-0 you will play a 15th game.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 11:25:56 AM
Great stuff. I wonder what Wisconsin's best decade is. Probably the one we're in.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 20, 2021, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 11:25:56 AM
Great stuff. I wonder what Wisconsin's best decade is. Probably the one we're in.
Probably.  It takes a LOT of data entry to set this up but once it is set up it is pretty easy to maintain.  If I ever get slow at work again I'll get B1G teams entered.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 20, 2021, 01:57:18 PM
What was Wisconsin's worst decade? The 1980s, thereabouts? 
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 20, 2021, 02:03:51 PM
I wondered about UGA and checked 2011-2020 and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7QRajuD.png)
Not bad of course, but not "elite".  The first five were under Richt and you can see he was doing fairly well, Smart had three good years.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 02:04:09 PM
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 20, 2021, 01:57:18 PM
What was Wisconsin's worst decade? The 1980s, thereabouts?
It was going decent until Dave McClain died. I'm guessing a stretch from the mid 60's to the mid 70's was the worst. There are rough spots throughout.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2021, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 20, 2021, 02:03:51 PM
I wondered about UGA and checked 2011-2020 and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7QRajuD.png)
Not bad of course, but not "elite".  The first five were under Richt and you can see he was doing fairly well, Smart had three good years.

8 win seasons aren't enuff
ask Bo Pelini
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 20, 2021, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 20, 2021, 02:03:51 PM
I wondered about UGA and checked 2011-2020 and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7QRajuD.png)
Not bad of course, but not "elite".  The first five were under Richt and you can see he was doing fairly well, Smart had three good years.
Comparison to the 15 teams that I have rolling 10-year records for:
2011-2020:


So Georgia would be 5th on this list and should possibly be included as a "Helmet".  Their current .77 is elite or at least darn close to it.  As you can see, there are a lot of REALLY big name schools that wish they had won 77% of their games over the last decade.  

Ohio State has the potential to move up a LOT when we move to 2012-2021 because on the current list, 2011 is by far the Buckeyes' worst (6-7) and that is the year about to be replaced.  Conversely LSU and Alabama went 13-1 and 12-1 respectively in 2011 so even if either were to go 15-0 in 2021 they wouldn't improve that much because they'd only be subtracting one loss and adding two or three wins.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 05:09:03 PM
2011-2020 UW is .740. Not too shabby. Many of those losses are to Ohio State too... blerp...
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 20, 2021, 05:16:37 PM
Quote from: FearlessF on July 20, 2021, 03:14:49 PM
8 win seasons aren't enuff
ask Bo Pelini
Richt was fired after successive ten win seasons.  The metric for the elite teams is however NCs, anything less is less.  I remember when making a major bowl game was a great season.  What will be the top non-playoff bowl game now?  The Tangerine or whatever it will be called?

Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 20, 2021, 05:17:40 PM
Many of those Wisconsin  wins are against the Wolverines, so it all evens out.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 20, 2021, 05:17:40 PM
Many of those Wisconsin  wins are against the Wolverines, so it all evens out.
Wisconsin has displaced Michigan in the conference's pecking order, but both are still really great at losing to fOSU.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: FearlessF on July 20, 2021, 05:56:50 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 05:09:03 PM
2011-2020 UW is .740. Not too shabby. Many of those losses are to Ohio State too... blerp...
not shabby a tall
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 20, 2021, 05:26:19 PM
Wisconsin has displaced Michigan in the conference's pecking order . . .
I wish this were true for two reasons:

That said, I'm not sure that this actually IS true.  

On the basis of current/recent wins, league titles and so-forth, this clearly is true but the rather vague concept of "Helmetosity" is harder to nail down.  
Winning percentage since:
Note that for the last 10 years (2011-2020) Wisconsin is 10th nationally behind mostly the usual suspects (Bama, Clemson, tOSU, Oklahoma, BoiseSt, ApSt, UGA, LSU, and Oregon).  
Note that for the last 15 years (2006-2020) Wisconsin is 8th nationally behind mostly the usual suspects (tOSU, Bama, BoiseSt, Oklahoma, Clemson, ApSt, and LSU).  
Note that for the last 20 years (2001-2020) Wisconsin is 12th nationally behind mostly the usual suspects (tOSU, BoiseSt, Oklahoma, ApSt, Bama, LSU, UGA, Clemson, USC, Oregon, and TCU).  
Note that for the last 25 years (1996-2020) Wisconsin is 9th nationally behind mostly the usual suspects (tOSU, BoiseSt, Oklahoma, UGA, Bama, LSU, Florida, and Oregon)
Note that for the last 30 years (1991-2020) Wisconsin is 8th nationally behind tOSU, BoiseSt, Florida, Oklahoma, Bama, FSU, and UGA.  

The bottom line is that you have to look back all the way to the late 1980's in order to find Michigan consistently ahead of Wisconsin in winning percentage.  

League titles since:

The bottom line is that you have to look back all the way to the early 1990's to find more league titles for Michigan than for Wisconsin.  

Looking at those figures it is pretty clear that overall since about 1993 Wisconsin has been the league's second best team.  1993, of course, was Alvarez' breakout season.  The Badgers went 10-1-1, tied tOSU, won the league, and won the Rose Bowl.  Prior to that they hadn't finished above .500 since 1984 and hadn't played in the Rose Bowl since JFK was in the White House (1/1/1963).  

Curiously, however, if you look at poll appearances since 1993 the Wolverines have a SIGNIFICANT lead over the Badgers (351 or 75.3% to 288 or 61.8%).  Why?  Helmetosity.  The Wolverines get (or at least got) the benefit of the doubt and the Badgers don't (or at least didn't).  

Wisconsin is much closer in top-10 appearances since 1993 (109 or 23.4% for UW, 139 or 29.8% for M).  

Wisconsin has been the better team for about 30 years but unfortunately I still think that Michigan has the bigger "helmet".  


What would it take for Wisconsin to surpass Michigan in "helmet"?  IMHO the answer is NC's.  Even within the last 30 years Michigan DOES have an NC.  They split it with Nebraska in 1997.  Wisconsin . . .  

For casual and non-local fans the NC is really the only thing that moves the needle significantly.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Do casual fans confer helmetosity?  I could argue they do.  And media types, who are casual fans.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 10:59:20 AM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Do casual fans confer helmetosity?  I could argue they do.  And media types, who are casual fans.
We have had a lot of discussions about it here and a couple touchstones that we have come up with to "measure" helmetosity are these:


Wisconsin:
Ability to recover from a lengthy down period:
I have to give this an "unknown".  Since Alvarez' breakout league and Rose Bowl winning season in 1993 the Badgers have had a few down years (sub .500 in 95 and 01, near .500 in 02, 03, 08, and 12) but all teams have those.  They haven't had a long string of mediocre or worse seasons.  Could they recover from a sub .500 decade like the Tide had from 1998-2007?  I don't know.  My guess is probably not, or at least not to the extent that Bama recovered but we haven't seen such a decade from the Badgers since before 1993 so we really can't know.  

NAME:
Does Wisconsin get talked about when they suck?  My view is not really.  If Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, or Notre Dame ends up 5-7 this year, they'll still be in the news heading into 2022.  Would Wisconsin?  My guess is no or at least not to the extent that Bama/tOSU/M/ND would be.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 11:11:13 AM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 10:44:29 AM
Do casual fans confer helmetosity?  I could argue they do.  And media types, who are casual fans.
Interestingly, way back in 2007 when Stewart Mandel did his first Kings, Barons, Knights, and Peasants column (https://www.si.com/college/2007/08/08/program-pecking-order-bcs-teams-hierarchy) your school was the one that had kicked off the whole discussion.  A PSU fan asked Mandel to expound on the "national prestige" of PSU vs UGA and Mandel responded that even though UGA had been MUCH better than PSU over the years leading up to that time, he still thought of PSU as a "national power" and did NOT think of UGA in the same category.  

IMHO, UGA still isn't quite there but they are getting awfully close and it is probably close to inevitable that they will eventually get there.  In the last decade Georgia has passed Michigan to become the 8th most populous state.  30 years ago (1990) they were 11th.  50 years ago (1970) they were 15th.  At current growth levels they will almost catch Ohio for 7th before the 2030 census then pass both Ohio and Illinois in the 2040 census.  

The Dawgs are almost there already but they simply lack the hardware.  If they maintain their consistently good records and pick up a few NC's in the next decade or so then I think they'll be an obvious helmet.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 21, 2021, 11:13:43 AM
The other metric is recruiting. 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-recruiting-rankings-schools-with-the-best-classes-on-average-over-the-past-five-years/

Last year Michigan's 5-year recruiting ranking was 8th in the nation with an average class ranking of 10.6. 

Wisconsin didn't make the top 25. 

Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 11:15:57 AM
I never said Wisconsin is a helmet school. All I meant was that UW is a better program than Michigan.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 11:15:57 AM
I never said Wisconsin is a helmet school. All I meant was that UW is a better program than Michigan.
I didn't mean to be argumentative, it is a hazy concept.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 21, 2021, 12:11:25 PM

I had just assumed that Penn St was the second best Big Ten team over that time period. It is sort of surprising that they are not even in the discussion, but not as surprising as Michigan being part of that discussion. 
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 12:26:22 PM
Does the "Club of Helmets" have a fixed number as a limit?
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: FearlessF on July 21, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
don't think so
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 12:45:45 PM
Pretty hard to get kicked out of that club.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 12:58:25 PM
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 21, 2021, 12:11:25 PM
I had just assumed that Penn St was the second best Big Ten team over that time period. It is sort of surprising that they are not even in the discussion, but not as surprising as Michigan being part of that discussion.
Since PSU joined in 1993 (28 seasons from 1993-2020):
Overall winning percentage of league teams:
That is the top half, Northwestern is 8th (56th nationally at barely over .500).  

League titles:
That works out to 39 titles in 28 seasons because prior to the B1GCG co-titles were frequent:


AP Appearances:
That is the top half, Northwestern is 8th with <20%.  

AP top-10:
That is the top half, Northwestern is 8th with ~2%.  


My crack at ranking our league since 1993 (it is a little goofy wrt Nebraska):

I ended up ranking eight rather than seven (half) simply because Northwestern was obviously next.  That also indicates that the drop-off after Northwestern is severe.  


I see Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, and Penn State as a nearly equal "second tier" over these 28 years.  They are all reasonably close in each of these metrics.  After that i see MSU, IA, and NU as the "third tier".  The other six (RU, UMD, IU, PU, IL, MN) are each capable of an occasional good season but are generally just not good.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 01:08:15 PM
This is some ftbobs level analysis.

AP top-10:

So, in 28 years, OSU has been in the top ten for over 2/3rds the times rankings came out.  Whoever is second nationally is probably in the 40s????




Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 01:09:51 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 12:26:22 PM
Does the "Club of Helmets" have a fixed number as a limit?
I agree with @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) :
Quote from: FearlessF on July 21, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
don't think so
I also agree with @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) :
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 12:45:45 PM
Pretty hard to get kicked out of that club.
Some of the Michigan fans have argued that the "Helmets" were permanently set as of the 1970's and can never change.  I strongly disagree with this.  Minnesota was a "helmet" in the early days of CFB up until WWII and they clearly are NOT now.  I think that the same thing can and will happen to teams that we think of as helmets today.  

That said, Badge has a good point.  Once you ARE a helmet, you don't fall out of that club for having a bad year or two or even necessarily for having a bad decade or two.  However, if you fail to "look like" a helmet for long enough, eventually you will no longer be a helmet.  Exactly how bad you have to be and for how long for this to happen are not explicitly stated but I strongly believe that the possibility exists.  

Another way to put it is that maintaining helmet status is considerably less demanding than attaining helmet status.  Consider, for example, if Wisconsin and Michigan met in this year's CFP Championship game: 

IMHO, the outcome of the game would be irrelevant to Michigan's "helmet status".  They already are a helmet and advancing to the CG is sufficient to remind everyone that they ARE a helmet.  Losing that game wouldn't hurt them at all and winning wouldn't really help because simply getting there would already have done more than enough to maintain Michigan's "helmet status".  

Conversely, the outcome of the game would be HIGHLY relevant to Wisconsin's "helmet status".  They aren't a helmet and winning NC's is a REALLY good way to become a helmet.  Getting to the CG is great but plenty of non-helmets have been to CG's.  Oregon made it in 2014.  Clemson wasn't a helmet yet when they first got there.  Auburn and VaTech both got to the BCSCG.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 01:16:31 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 01:08:15 PM
This is some ftbobs level analysis.

AP top-10:
  • 322 (69.1%) Ohio State, first nationally
  • 171 (36.7%) Nebraska, eighth nationally
  • 139 (29.8%) Penn State, tied for 14th/15th nationally
  • 139 (29.8%) Michigan, tied for 14th/15th nationally
  • 109 (23.4%) Wisconsin, 19th nationally

So, in 28 years, OSU has been in the top ten for over 2/3rds the times rankings came out.  Whoever is second nationally is probably in the 40s????
This is a great site (http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/index.cfm#.YPhU_WhKi71) for anything you want to look up involving AP Polls.  Not only can you look at EVERY single individual AP Poll ever released (all 1,185 from the first one released October 19, 1936 [MN was #1] to the 2020 final poll) but you can also look at things by year or group of years or look at team histories.  

To answer your question, no #2 isn't in the 40's.  Actually, #5 Oklahoma is in the 40's (47.9%) while UF, Bama, and FSU are all over 50%.  Your own school is #6, joined by LSU and Nebraska by being ranked in more than one-third of the AP top-10's while Texas and Notre Dame round out the top-10 at just under one-third.  
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 12:58:25 PM
Since PSU joined in 1993 (28 seasons from 1993-2020):

AP Appearances:
  • 428 (91.8%) Ohio State, first nationally
  • 351 (75.3%) Michigan, fourth nationally
  • 288 (61.8%) Wisconsin, 12th nationally
  • 282 (60.5%) Nebraska, 14th nationally
  • 268 (57.5%) Penn State, 18th nationally
  • 166 (35.6%) Michigan State, 27th nationally
  • 153 (32.8%) Iowa, tied for 29th/30th nationally
It's tough to put a lot of stock in this, because some teams are overrated consistently, to start the season. Looking at #2 here.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 21, 2021, 01:35:01 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 11:15:57 AM
I never said Wisconsin is a helmet school. All I meant was that UW is a better program than Michigan.
And I think that's true. Since Alvarez started coaching and then since he took over the AD position, Wisconsin IMHO has been better-managed as a program than Michigan. They formulated an identity that allowed them somewhat of a zig while others zagged, and they've managed to maintain and execute to that identity ever since. Michigan went spread-to-run, then whatever Hoke did, and then got a micromanager at the helm who can't get out of his own way. 

But that's the point of a helmet. Two bad coaches in a row and Wisconsin will be "just Wisconsin" again, as they were pre-Barry. One good coach for Michigan and they're "back". 
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 01:35:45 PM
That could be an influence for teams that consistently end up ranked lower at the end of the year than they started.

Which College Football Teams Are Always Overrated in August? | FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-are-always-overrated-in-august/)

reseason darlings that fail to live up to hype
Teams that received votes* in either the preseason or final AP Top 25 Poll in at least 16 seasons, 1997-2016
[th][/th]
[th]FINAL VS. PRESEASON RANK[/th]
[th]TEAM▲▼[/th]
[th]AVG. PRESEASON RANK▲▼[/th]
[th]SAME▲▼[/th]
[th]BETTER▲▼[/th]
[th]WORSE▲▼[/th]
Notre Dame25.110%20%70%
Texas13.4102070
Florida State9.4102070
Penn State25.252570
Florida12.003070
Ohio State8.053065
Nebraska19.103565
LSU12.203565
Miami (Fla.)17.7152560
Tennessee15.9152560
Oklahoma6.6152560
Michigan15.0103060
Southern California13.2103060
Virginia Tech17.653560
West Virginia25.9103555
Texas A&M25.2103555
Alabama15.154055
BYU33.0153550
Georgia Tech27.3104050
Georgia13.854550
South Carolina26.9203545
Oklahoma State26.3203545
Michigan State22.7203545
Arkansas31.1104545
Auburn20.655045
Wisconsin19.105545
Mississippi29.2204040
TCU22.2204040
Utah30.555540
Oregon18.906040
Boise State25.3155035
Clemson21.1155035


Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 21, 2021, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on July 21, 2021, 01:35:01 PM
One good coach for Michigan and they're "back".
Back to what?

Win 9, lose 2, lose Rose Bowl?
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 21, 2021, 02:51:18 PM
It is nice of Tennessee and Nebraska to provide us with a case study for exactly how long it will take for a 70s "Helmet" to lose their lofty status. 

They aren't there yet, as both could theoretically be "back" with the right hire. (As opposed to "wow, someone is actually winning at Minnesota? That's unheard of!")
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 21, 2021, 03:17:13 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 20, 2021, 02:03:51 PM
I wondered about UGA and checked 2011-2020 and got this:

(https://i.imgur.com/7QRajuD.png)
Not bad of course, but not "elite".  The first five were under Richt and you can see he was doing fairly well, Smart had three good years.

I saw a thing that showed Smart's record thus far is 1 game different than Richt's was in the same timeframe in his start at UGA.
Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 21, 2021, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 01:35:45 PM
That could be an influence for teams that consistently end up ranked lower at the end of the year than they started.
Which College Football Teams Are Always Overrated in August? | FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-are-always-overrated-in-august/)
reseason darlings that fail to live up to hype
Teams that received votes* in either the preseason or final AP Top 25 Poll in at least 16 seasons, 1997-2016
I generally love 538's stuff but I'm REALLY not a fan of the way they did this comparison.  I think the more important question than how often a team under or over achieved relative to preseason ranking is "by how much"? 

My point is that tOSU's average preseason ranking for 1997-2016 was #8.  Their preseason and final ranking matched 5% of the time (once), did better 30% of the time (six times) and did worse 65% of the time (13 times).  That sounds bad but if they finished one place lower than they started 13 times and a whole bunch of places higher six times I'd argue that they were actually underrated on average.  It is a question of mean vs median. 

Looking at those years for Ohio State:
(https://i.imgur.com/UIFIkdm.png)
Then they improved and regressed by double-digits twice each:

It is harder to figure out what to do with years when a team either starts or finishes unranked.  In the case of the Buckeyes it has been a while since they started unranked but they did finish unranked four times between 1997 and 2016:

Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: Cincydawg on July 21, 2021, 04:45:02 PM
Yeah, he mentions that as a weakness in the overall crude measurement.

Title: Re: .900 decades
Post by: FearlessF on July 22, 2021, 09:12:48 AM
crude or otherwise, I like it that ND and UT are #1 & 2