USC top Program of All time

[Mistaken4193]

Found this interesting site:

Winsipedia - College football UNWEIGHTED AVERAGE RANKING rankings

Notre Dame ranks #1 in Winning Percentage, Consensus All Americans, and Heisman Winners.

Alabama ranks #1 in National Championships, Bowl Appearances, and Bowl Victories

USC ranks #1 in NFL Draft Picks an 1st Round NFL draft picks

Nebraska ranks #1 in Confernce Championships

Michigan ranks #1 in All time Wins

Oklahoma ranks #1 in Weeks as AP #1

tOSU ranks #1 in total weeks in AP Poll.

Marshall ranks #1 in Bowl Winning Percentage

Overall USC had the highest Composite Program Ranking.

The Top 5 overall are:

1. USC
2. Oklahoma
3. Notre Dame
4. Alabama
5. Ohio State

 

[pennstatenut]

Surely you're mistaken.

 

[pennstatenut]

Well 1 quick glance and I see they have our bowl record wrong so Lord knows what else is wrong.

 

[Across The Field]

They should do a tournament of champions in college football; a rotating OOC schedule that, over several years, would routinely see the top teams historically face off.

I know we already have some (USC/ND, OSU/mich, OU/Tex, for example), but it would be great to see like a 10 year schedule where we see matchups like Oklahoma-Alabama, USC-michigan, Ohio State-ND, etc.

Luckily we will have some of these matchups in years to come, but it's not organized in the same way.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Well 1 quick glance and I see they have our bowl record wrong so Lord knows what else is wrong.

It takes into account Forfeits and Vacated Victories. So all of Penn States Victories between 1998-2011 are not included.

Just like Alabamas 1993 and 2005-2007 wins aren't counted.

 

[Mistaken4193]

It takes into account Forfeits and Vacated Victories. So all of Penn States Victories between 1998-2011 are not included.

Just like Alabamas 1993 and 2005-2007 wins aren't counted.

wait a second I was wrong they are still there.

 

[iruletheskool]

How many Oregon Ducks fans voted in this thing?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I'm not sure I agree with the methodology here. I'm not sure why anything NFL draft pick wise is included in this as that really has no impact on a college team's on field performance. And that is literally the only thing USC ranks #1 in. In fact, USC doesn't rank in the top 3 of any stat that measures the team's on field performance. They have a lot of good individual players that make them rank high in Heisman winners, All-Americans and draft picks....but I'm not sure why that should trump, say, Notre Dame which ranks #1 or #2 in Winning Percentage, National Champs, total wins, All Americans, Heisman winners, draft picks and weeks at #1. I just don't understand how they could put USC higher.

 

[Across The Field]

I'm not sure I agree with the methodology here. I'm not sure why anything NFL draft pick wise is included in this as that really has no impact on a college team's on field performance. And that is literally the only thing USC ranks #1 in. In fact, USC doesn't rank in the top 3 of any stat that measures the team's on field performance. They have a lot of good individual players that make them rank high in Heisman winners, All-Americans and draft picks....but I'm not sure why that should trump, say, Notre Dame which ranks #1 or #2 in Winning Percentage, National Champs, total wins, All Americans, Heisman winners, draft picks and weeks at #1. I just don't understand how they could put USC higher.

One sign of a successful program is how many picks you put into the draft. There's a reason you don't see schools like San Diego State or Louisiana Lafayette leading in those metrics.

One overrated aspect is definitely total wins. Wins from back in the early 1900s are BS. There were hardly any programs then so it's not really apples-to-apples.

 

[socaljim242]

I'm not sure I agree with the methodology here. I'm not sure why anything NFL draft pick wise is included in this as that really has no impact on a college team's on field performance. And that is literally the only thing USC ranks #1 in. In fact, USC doesn't rank in the top 3 of any stat that measures the team's on field performance. They have a lot of good individual players that make them rank high in Heisman winners, All-Americans and draft picks....but I'm not sure why that should trump, say, Notre Dame which ranks #1 or #2 in Winning Percentage, National Champs, total wins, All Americans, Heisman winners, draft picks and weeks at #1. I just don't understand how they could put USC higher.

Not defending the list but if they take conf championships into account which ND doesnt have any. No one is forcing them to be independent. They also had a bunch of years they didnt play bowl games ( i forget the reason) and since like the 90s theys have sucked in bowl games ( I think they had a very long bowl losing streak not too long ago).
Personally I think Notre Dame , Michigan, Bama , USC , Ohio State , Texas, and Nebraska are the the elite and you really cant separate them because of a NC back in 1912.

 

[outofyourmind]

I clicked on the link and immediately saw Pitt ranked 5th in National Championships.
So I went to their rankings since 1936. They have 2 AP titles
Went to CFB Data Warehouse to see what the "total" NC's were and they list 16.
Then looked up "recognized" NC's and they show 9, with 1910, '15, '16, '18, '29, '31 as being "recognized before 1936. But there wasn't any real common denominator they used in pulling those years out of their ass, as different "selectors" were used seemingly without reason.

Anybody figure that out??? Seems like a stretch.

Also, ND doesn't get scored for "Conference Championships" of course, but did they just get fucked in this category? It's too early to figure it out. Anybody take a closer look??

 

[Mistaken4193]

I clicked on the link and immediately saw Pitt ranked 5th in National Championships.
So I went to their rankings since 1936. They have 2 AP titles
Went to CFB Data Warehouse to see what the "total" NC's were and they list 16.
Then looked up "recognized" NC's and they show 9, with 1910, '15, '16, '18, '29, '31 as being "recognized before 1936. But there wasn't any real common denominator they used in pulling those years out of their ass, as different "selectors" were used seemingly without reason.

Anybody figure that out??? Seems like a stretch.

Also, ND doesn't get scored for "Conference Championships" of course, but did they just get fucked in this category? It's too early to figure it out. Anybody take a closer look??

They were omitted from that statistic so it didn't effect their average.

 

[Tin Man]

Let us pause to reflect upon what we know. The inescapable conclusion is that USC sucks.
Faculty and student body are a bunch of self-absorbed navel gazers.
Traveler is a gelding.
The rider is a phegg who likes to play dress up.
Will Ferrell is a flabby one-schtick shouldn't-have-been who hasn't been funny since halfway through his first season on SNL.
Matt Leinart.

Face it. USC exists to provide context for the Song Girls. All else is illusory. To speak of their football program as if it deserves mention in the same breath as Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Tennessee, or even Georgia Tech is ethereal folly.



Paid message by UCLA Bruins Boosters and donors to the UCLA Athletic Fund.

 

[outofyourmind]

They were omitted from that statistic so it didn't effect their average.

Ok, that sounds fair.
Any take on the Pitt thing.

 

[outofyourmind]

I actually think players that go to the NFL actually make your team better because, well, they are better players.
If coaching is equal, then having more "better" players is more desirable than less "better" players.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Not defending the list but if they take conf championships into account which ND doesnt have any. No one is forcing them to be independent. They also had a bunch of years they didnt play bowl games ( i forget the reason) and since like the 90s theys have sucked in bowl games ( I think they had a very long bowl losing streak not too long ago).
Personally I think Notre Dame , Michigan, Bama , USC , Ohio State , Texas, and Nebraska are the the elite and you really cant separate them because of a NC back in 1912.

I guess, but this is all time. Meaning, the teams back in the 1900's should weigh into the formula just as much as modern teams. I'm not sure I'd knock ND down just because they didn't have a conference championship awarded to them. I mean, it's not like USC was winning championship games; they were just awarded based on record.

I don't have an issue with someone ranking USC ahead of ND, I have an issue with the metrics in which they used to do so.

 

[Codaxx]

I always put Notre Dame at the top. There just is not a bigger name in College sports, than ND football. Got their own TV contract with NBC. Multiple movies about the program. It is annoying, but they are the face of college football. Other programs have won more bowls, games, or NC, but nobody has a bigger presence. It may fade over time, but I do not think that time as come yet.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

One sign of a successful program is how many picks you put into the draft. There's a reason you don't see schools like San Diego State or Louisiana Lafayette leading in those metrics.

One overrated aspect is definitely total wins. Wins from back in the early 1900s are BS. There were hardly any programs then so it's not really apples-to-apples.

most major programs existed way back then. There were actually quite a few programs back then, a lot just don't exist any longer; or do in some small capacity. NFL draft picks really have no bearing on your actual team though. You could have a few really good individual players and still have a bad football team. Similarly, you could have a really good football team, with really good college players and few individual NFL talents on it.

 

[Across The Field]

most major programs existed way back then. There were actually quite a few programs back then, a lot just don't exist any longer; or do in some small capacity. NFL draft picks really have no bearing on your actual team though. You could have a few really good individual players and still have a bad football team. Similarly, you could have a really good football team, with really good college players and few individual NFL talents on it.

Sure, I definitely see what you're saying. The highlighted part, though, was why I referenced the smaller programs. They aren't successful and they don't put much in the pros, so there's an obvious correlation. Since the NFL has been around for far less time than college football, it's a relevant measure because it's taking into account modern football.

However, when you reference all-time wins, you see teams like Harvard, Penn and Princeton near the top, when obviously that means nothing in terms of their program since they haven't been nationally relevant in many, many years. I know it seems like I'm taking a direct dig at michigan, which I'm not, but it's a good illustration of my point - 153 of their wins came before the forward pass was even legal.

 

[trojanfan12]

They should do a tournament of champions in college football; a rotating OOC schedule that, over several years, would routinely see the top teams historically face off.

I know we already have some (USC/ND, OSU/mich, OU/Tex, for example), but it would be great to see like a 10 year schedule where we see matchups like Oklahoma-Alabama, USC-michigan, Ohio State-ND, etc.

Luckily we will have some of these matchups in years to come, but it's not organized in the same way.

Love this idea. I'm also very excited that we get USC/Alabama in 2016.