Blue bloods of CFB that have

[Texas Jefe]

My favorite stat in college football: Tulane has more SEC football titles than South Carolina and Mississippi State combined.

that is mind-bottling :rollseyes:

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Based on data from the 2012 season, I would say that 12-1 was in no way anomalous. In fact, it reflects the final scores of the 13 games the Irish played. (Of course, all of that could change pending the current academics investigation.)

Now - you might ask if the Irish overachieved in 2012. And the answer is yes. But the accomplishments by an overachiever are generally considered to be .. well .. achievements.

Basically, an argument that says, "If you discount the times a team has been successful, they haven't been successful" is kind of ridiculous.

WOW?!?! Notre Dame homer much? But you did massage the data perfectly. You will also make TCU, Southern Miss, and West Virginia fans very happy with your methods.

I will agree with you. To define if a team has been any good in the last 20 years, pick the the BEST year, ignoring the other 95% of the data. Or in your case, pick the last two years, ignoring the most recent year.

You will make a great political campaign manager for someone.

 

[nddulac]

WOW?!?! Notre Dame homer much? But you did massage the data perfectly. You will also make TCU, Southern Miss, and West Virginia fans very happy with your methods.

I will agree with you. To define if a team has been any good in the last 20 years, pick the the BEST year, ignoring the other 95% of the data. Or in your case, pick the last two years, ignoring the most recent year.

You will make a great political campaign manager for someone.

Well - you sure nailed me. the fact that my logic could be applied to a large number of schools certainly outs me as a homer.

But before we get our panties in a wad over who misinterpreted what, let's consider the exclusion of outlying points in a data set. If you are going to toss out the Irish' 12-1 season, you'd better also toss out 3-9. Why? because 3-9 deviates from the mean to a larger extent than 12-1. You didn't consider that, so accusing me of selectively massaging the data by not excluding 12-1 from the record seems a little spurious.

Okay - so if we exclude the two outlying seasons as "anomalous" (which I would again argue that they are not since they are perfect representations of both seasons which they represent) you end up with an average record for the Irish of 0.615. That's approximately 8-5.

So what does that mean? No informed football fan would confuse a team that averages 8-5 for 20 years as being "elite" over that span. In fact, such a fan might even say that a team that is averaging 8-5 over a twenty year span is "overachieving" when they go 12-1.

But I guess that noting such things clearly exposes me as a "homer."

Regardless of of blatant homerism, I will restate my initial (and only) point in my previous post. If your argument is based on the selective and arbitrary exclusion of data, your conclusion is not to be trusted.

 

[nddulac]

If you want to go really old school, Harvard and Yale. They split most the early national titles.

Chicago as well, the Big Ten's championship trophy is named the Stagg Trophy, after Amos Alonzo Stagg, the head coach at the University of Chicago from 1892-1932.

Good call with Harvard and Yale. Princeton belongs on that list as well. And maybe Dartmouth and Penn. Basically, the Ivy League owned college football before 1910.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

NDDULAC, I want to best understand how to rustle your jimmies on this forum.

This thread is titled BLUE BLOODS THAT HAVE... fallen on hard times.

I showed why I think Notre Dame is a blue blood that has fallen on hard times after some posters disagreed with my conclusion.

Just exactly what did you dislike about my conclusion? My dropping the one spectacular season or my conclusion that Notre Dame is a blue blood that has fallen on hard times?

Your job is to show why you disagree with what I said or disprove my conclusion.

So far, all you have shown is that your jimmies are going to be rustled if people say Notre Dame's 12-1 season is an anomaly. BTW, the other nineteen seasons in the last 20 years Notre Dame has lost three or more games each season and Notre Dame's bowl record is 3-11, with the three wins in minor bowls against beating unranked Hawaii, unranked Rutgers, and possible blue blood, unranked Miami. Notre Dame has not beaten one ranked team in a bowl game the last 20 years.

If you had Ebola and someone told you that you have a 95% chance of success of living through it would you be elated or upset?

If you played the lottery and someone told you that you have a 95% chance of winning money would you think those are great odds or bad odds? I am pretty sure you would buy 10,000 lottery tickets.

If you went to Las Vegas and played a game where 95% of the time the house was going to take your money would you play it, or look for another game to play? I reckon you are going to play that game because 5% of the time it is going to be spectacular.