NCAA Football '11-'12

[OttoVonBismarck]

1 Nebraska 78.180% 313 87 1 401
2 Boise State 77.889% 155 44  199
3 Miami-Florida 76.486% 296 91  387
4 Florida State 75.260% 287 93 4 384
5 Ohio State 74.409% 281 95 5 381
6 Florida 74.242% 292 100 4 396
7 Oklahoma 72.577% 282 105 5 392
8 Michigan 72.251% 280 106 5 391
9 Penn State 71.979% 279 108 2 389
10 Georgia 71.080% 274 110 5 389

Still wrong on Michigan's W-L % though, it's 72.251 (72.3 at best), not 72.4. Either way no point in quibbling about 10ths of a percent, the point remains Michigan is not a top 5 team and in answer to the original question about how the teams I mentioned in my top 5 have done w-l % since 1980 is "all of them have done better than Michigan except LSU."

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

[Valmy]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

You do realize that is since 1980 and not 2005 right?

[PDH]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

You do realize that is since 1980 and not 2005 right?

To realize one must be thinking.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

You do realize that is since 1980 and not 2005 right?

Understandable mistake as Boise somehow made it to #2. Don't think I'd even heard of them 10 years ago.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Boise has only been IA/FBS since 1996, and Stassen only tracks their IA record, not their historical. They are sort of an anomaly in that dataset for that reason.

They came up in '96, had a bad first season in IA (which most teams do because they get like 30 more scholarships when they move up, so they are at a big competitive disadvantage vs other FBS teams), had a bad second season, and then have mostly had solid seasons since then, with mostly 10+ win season.

[Berkut]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

Good one.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

Good one.

I thought you said you gave up arguing the SEC was anything other than the NFL light.

[Berkut]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

Good one.

I thought you said you gave up arguing the SEC was anything other than the NFL light.

I did - that doesn't mean the idea that their W-L record is poor because they beat up on each other isn't laughable.

The SEC is well known as the major conference that specializes in patsy scheduling OOC to pad their win-loss records.

I used to try to argue that meant they really weren't as good as their record indicated, but over the last few years their dominance of the major teams that are NOT patsies makes it pretty clear that is not true.

That doesn't mean that they don't pad their schedules with cupcakes.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised there aren't more SEC teams on that list. I guess they beat each other up too much for that. 

Good one.

I thought you said you gave up arguing the SEC was anything other than the NFL light.

I did - that doesn't mean the idea that their W-L record is poor because they beat up on each other isn't laughable.

The SEC is well known as the major conference that specializes in patsy scheduling OOC to pad their win-loss records.

I used to try to argue that meant they really weren't as good as their record indicated, but over the last few years their dominance of the major teams that are NOT patsies makes it pretty clear that is not true.

That doesn't mean that they don't pad their schedules with cupcakes.

Well if they schedule cupcakes and are dominant over major teams from other conferences than how else can you explain that their win percentages aren't the highest.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Well if they schedule cupcakes and are dominant over major teams from other conferences than how else can you explain that their win percentages aren't the highest.

Because, as was pointed out, this is since 1980, not 2005.  The top teams also "rotate."  The top of the SEC is different from what it was..I don't know, say three-four years ago.  See: Florida.

E: Oh and Alabama might be on there, but they also vacated like 20 wins because of that textbook thing, IIRC.  Then again, I think those games are just...gone...like they never happened, so w/e.  Couple of 6 loss seasons in there anyway. E2:  My bad...2005: 10-2 (became 0-2), 2006: 6-7 (became 0-7), 2007: 7-6 (became 2-6), so 21 wins, but they were also removed from the total games.  They've lost 21 games from 2005-2011 so far it looks like.

[dps]

Well if they schedule cupcakes and are dominant over major teams from other conferences than how else can you explain that their win percentages aren't the highest.

Because, as was pointed out, this is since 1980, not 2005.  The top teams also "rotate."  The top of the SEC is different from what it was..I don't know, say three-four years ago.  See: Florida.

10 years ago, I would have argued that when it came to the 6 BCS AQ conferences there really wasn't much to justify ranking any of them as stronger than any other, but clearly the SEC has become #1 since then. 

As for Rich Rod, I don't particularly care to defend him, I'll say that while I don't agree with the details of OvB's analysis of what happened during his run at Michigan, I do agree with what I see as the spirit of his point number 1--RR was hired to change the culture at Michigan, and was then fired as much for trying to change that culture as for his W-L record.   Granted, had his record been better, he would have had more leeway, but objective observers knew when he was hired that what he was trying to do wasn't going to happen overnight, and Michigan's administration would have to have a good bit of patience before he got real results.  Ultimately, the administration didn't have enough patience, IMO partly because many in the fan base and some in the administration itself didn't want the culture changed.

[MadBurgerMaker]

10 years ago, I would have argued that when it came to the 6 BCS AQ conferences there really wasn't much to justify ranking any of them as stronger than any other, but clearly the SEC has become #1 since then.

The problem with the SEC is that the bottom half or so of the conference is crap.  The top teams are great, especially those three in the West.  The rest?  Not really so much.  Vandy, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Miss State aren't even bowl eligible yet and it's 24 November.  Florida (6-5) and Auburn (7-4) aren't exactly superteams either.   I also remember Georgia getting skullfucked by Boise (a very good team) at home, where that shouldn't happen to the leader of an AQ conference division.  Lose?  Sure, shit happens.  Boise, who can't even win the MWC anymore I don't think, slapped them all over their own field though.

Edit: And they're about to add two more very mediocre teams.

[Eddie Teach]

  I also remember Georgia getting skullfucked by Boise

You remember incorrectly. They lost by two touchdowns.

[MadBurgerMaker]

You remember incorrectly. They lost by two touchdowns.

  Only two huh?  Yeah.  Kudos to Georgia for managing to trade TDs with them at the end of the 3rd and in the 4th.  Too bad they were down 28-7 when they finally started doing that. 

Edit:  Fuckin Georgia letting everyone down like that.  Good thing TCU took care of business.

Uh oh.  Tuskegee has cut it to a two point lead after being down 23-7 at the half.  Entertaining game.  The bands just play constantly.