Historically...Michigan is overrated honestly

[ericd7633]

No doubt, ND would be almost even with Michigan in total wins if the two played an equal number of games. I just did the math and based on ND's win percentage, they'd be almost even. I'm not sure that disproves the fact that Michigan is one of the elite teams still -- with or without the 1800's.

ND has a better win % than Michigan, how would they not have more wins if they played an equal number of games?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

ND has a better win % than Michigan, how would they not have more wins if they played an equal number of games?

Hmm, you're right. That doesn't make sense. Maybe my math is wrong or the way I did it doesn't work...

What I did is -- Michigan has played 1279 games and ND has played 1234 games -- that's 45 games difference.

All I did was apply Notre Dame's win percentage of .732 to those 45 games and added it to their current total. .732 of 45 is 32.94. ND currently has 882 wins and I added 32.94 wins to those. 33 hypothetical wins to your current 882 brings the total to 915 wins -- which is what Michigan is at exactly.

But now I'm confused as to how they come up with these percentages:
List of NCAA football teams by wins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because if you apply ND's winning percentage of .732 to their 1234 games played, that should be 903 wins but they only list 882. If you take 882/1234 that's .714 not .732.

So maybe these wikipedia numbers are off or maybe they calculate winning percentage differently with ties? My guess is that it has to do with ties which ND has 42 of.

 

[outofyourmind]

Hmm, you're right. That doesn't make sense. Maybe my math is wrong or the way I did it doesn't work...

What I did is -- Michigan has played 1279 games and ND has played 1234 games -- that's 45 games difference.

All I did was apply Notre Dame's win percentage of .732 to those 45 games and added it to their current total. .732 of 45 is 32.94. ND currently has 882 wins and I added 32.94 wins to those. 33 hypothetical wins to your current 882 brings the total to 915 wins -- which is what Michigan is at exactly.

But now I'm confused as to how they come up with these percentages:
List of NCAA football teams by wins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because if you apply ND's winning percentage of .732 to their 1234 games played, that should be 903 wins but they only list 882. If you take 882/1234 that's .714 not .732.

So maybe these wikipedia numbers are off or maybe they calculate winning percentage differently with ties? My guess is that it has to do with ties which ND has 42 of.

This seems to be the most reliable site for W/L.
Division I-A All-Time Wins

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

This seems to be the most reliable site for W/L.
Division I-A All-Time Wins

The numbers still don't add up.

If ND has won 882 of their 1234.... 882/1234 = .714

 

[outofyourmind]

The numbers still don't add up.

If ND has won 882 of their 1234.... 882/1234 = .714

It's the ties

 

[Across The Field]

You are right about the majority of Michigan's titles, but if you say "historically," you have to include all of history--you can't leave out half of to suit yourself. Well, you can, but that wouldn't be "historical." Michigan does deserve to be in the discussion of historically great programs.

They deserve to be in the discussion of best early-period college football teams. However, in the current era of college football, they've been wildly overrated. They have .5 national titles since the 40s. That is pathetic for supposedly being one of the best teams of all-time.

 

[Red_Alert]

The decade head start wasn't so much of a factor as far as games played before ND started, the difference was directly after that. Michigan started playing double figure games in the 1890's while ND was still playing 5-6 games a year. That's why Michigan has played many more games, and subsequently have more wins. They basically had a 70 or more game head start on most other power programs prior to 1900.

Which of course equates to "greatness". amirite?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

It's the ties

So how do ties count towards winning percentage?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Which of course equates to "greatness". amirite?

Read the rest of the thread. Despite having more games in the 1800's, Michigan still has the 5th best winning percentage since 1906 -- yes, better than Nebraska.

 

[nddulac]

It's not like we created the game. We were also new in the 1800's, along with the new teams we were beating. And some were around just as long at the time. Michigan only played 18 games before Notre Dame started football. That's barely 1 single season in today's game.

Good grief. The only teams that were not "new" in the 1800s were the ones that did not exist until the 1900s. It isn't like college football was being played in the 1700s.

Incidentally, the University of Michigan was also "new" in the 1800s.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Good grief. The only teams that were not "new" in the 1800s were the ones that did not exist until the 1900s. It isn't like college football was being played in the 1700s.

Incidentally, the University of Michigan was also "new" in the 1800s.

Yes, that's my point. So when people say we beat a bunch of scrub teams that just started football -- that was what everyone was back then. So it's a terrible argument.

 

[Red_Alert]

Yes, that's my point. So when people say we beat a bunch of scrub teams that just started football -- that was what everyone was back then. So it's a terrible argument.

Our point is that Michigan wasn't even the greatest team back then.

1869 - 1900

1. Yale - (236- 13- 11) .928
2. Princeton - (216-21-11) .893
3. Harvard - (201-35-9) .838
4. Washington & Jefferson - (69-15-5) .803
5. Villanova - (166-43-12) .778
6. Michigan - (98-31-4) .751

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

They deserve to be in the discussion of best early-period college football teams. However, in the current era of college football, they've been wildly overrated. They have .5 national titles since the 40s. That is pathetic for supposedly being one of the best teams of all-time.

Why do people always say the 97 title was "half?" Yeah, I get it was split, but until the BCS split titles were actually not all that uncommon. What was Michigan suppose to do? They won all their games, including some pretty big ones. And they couldn't play Nebraska do the bowl structure at the time. Which everyone knows the only reason that title was split was because the coaches wanted to give Osborne a retirement gift.

And that points out the whole "well you only got X titles in Y period" when talking pre-BCS. The way national titles were decided was really wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. That's why few coaches, including Schembechler, really cared about it. The goal was to win your conference (i.e. the Big Ten) and go to one of what was at the time a handful of bowls (i.e. the Rose). Winning said bowl would only be considered icing on the cake.

 

[Across The Field]

Why do people always say the 97 title was "half?" Yeah, I get it was split, but until the BCS split titles were actually not all that uncommon. What was Michigan suppose to do? They won all their games, including some pretty big ones. And they couldn't play Nebraska do the bowl structure at the time. Which everyone knows the only reason that title was split was because the coaches wanted to give Osborne a retirement gift.

And that points out the whole "well you only got X titles in Y period" when talking pre-BCS. The way national titles were decided was really wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. That's why few coaches, including Schembechler, really cared about it. The goal was to win your conference (i.e. the Big Ten) and go to one of what was at the time a handful of bowls (i.e. the Rose). Winning said bowl would only be considered icing on the cake.

And yet, in all that time, michigan still couldn't win a national title, while other schools were winning multiple titles.

 

[nddulac]

Our point is that Michigan wasn't even the greatest team back then.

Indeed - Michigan got great in 1901, when they stole Fielding Yost from San Jose State and he built the "Point-a-minute" teams of the 1900s. Yost showed his true chicken-shit colors though when he canceled the game against Notre Dame (when Notre Dame was already on the train to Ann Arbor) in 1910. In fairness, that was Notre Dame's fault for having the audacity to beat Michigan 11-3 in 1909.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

Yes, that's my point. So when people say we beat a bunch of scrub teams that just started football -- that was what everyone was back then. So it's a terrible argument.

Which, if you look at strength of schedule for the time, Michigan has had one of the strongest SoS in football, if not the strongest.
Team Quarter Century Rankings

People just look at the schedule and see a team like Chicago, and think all Michigan did was beat on a bunch of nobodies, ignoring the fact that back in the day, Chicago was a real powerhouse.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

And yet, in all that time, michigan still couldn't win a national title, while other schools were winning multiple titles.

Name recognition and strength of schedule.

Not saying it isn't a "blemish" but...........there was no doubt Michigan was one of the two strongest teams in what was the strongest conference. There is little Michigan needs to be ashamed about.

Which, you know what Ohio State's national championship in 2003 and Michigan's in 1901 have in common? They are both in the past. Outside of titles in maybe the last 10 years, each one carries the same weight.

 

[Red_Alert]

Name recognition and strength of schedule.

Not saying it isn't a "blemish" but...........there was no doubt Michigan was one of the two strongest teams in what was the strongest conference. There is little Michigan needs to be ashamed about.

Which, you know what Ohio State's national championship in 2003 and Michigan's in 1901 have in common? They are both in the past. Outside of titles in maybe the last 10 years, each one carries the same weight.

What time frame are we talking here?

Convince me

 

[Across The Field]

Name recognition and strength of schedule.

Not saying it isn't a "blemish" but...........there was no doubt Michigan was one of the two strongest teams in what was the strongest conference. There is little Michigan needs to be ashamed about.

Which, you know what Ohio State's national championship in 2003 and Michigan's in 1901 have in common? They are both in the past. Outside of titles in maybe the last 10 years, each one carries the same weight.

Seriously dude?? If michigan didn't have name recognition, nobody did. That's a horrible excuse.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

Seriously dude?? If michigan didn't have name recognition, nobody did. That's a horrible excuse.

So did all those other teams in question, which combined with the fact they had an easier schedule they could go undefeated easier than Michigan. Which was more or less a requirement to win a title in those days.