- Thread starter
- #161
When talking about 10 year spans, 5 years is pretty important don't you think?
But you can't average the rankings of the two decades without averaging the rankings of every other team on the list dipshit. You have to average all win percentages of everyone and re-rank everyone within that 15 years. Go for it. But we're talking a 65 year span of consistency, for which I've proven Michigan to be a top 10 team.Yeah and when 15 years of a 25 year stretch are in the books and Michigan isn't even considered a top 30 program for 15 of those years, how the hell am I supposed to consider them a top 10 program when the two 25 year periods that have come and gone have them on average at 10? Honestly, if you include their numbers from 1941-1950(#2 program) and that last 15 years, they aren't a top 10 program in the last 75 years, according to your website.
Just for comparison's sake I'll use Ohio State:
2010-Present - 4th in win %
2000-2009 - 4th in win %
1990-1999 - 10th in win %
1980-1989 - 16th in win %
1970-1979 - 6th in win %
1960-1969 - 5th in win %
1950-1959 - 12th in win %
1940-1949 - 25th in win %
1930-1939 - 12th in win %
1920-1929 - 75th in win %
Ohio State has been far more consistent IMO.
Well there's actual definitive proof that the OSU-Miami game should've never even gone to OT, meaning OSU would've won in regulation. Do you have definitive proof that michigan was better than Nebraska that year and deserves to be acknowledged as the full, undisputed champ that year?No more than someone suggesting .5 of a national title exists.
But you can't average the rankings of the two decades without averaging the rankings of every other team on the list dipshit. You have to average all win percentages of everyone and re-rank everyone within that 15 years. Go for it. But we're talking a 65 year span of consistency, for which I've proven Michigan to be a top 10 team.
That's what makes FSU, and Miami for that matter nouveau riche. Blue bloods are exactly what Michigan is, trading on their lineage.Florida St for example gets page 2, and it's because they didn't start playing football until the 80's and they only have recent history. They have 3 titles, while also maintaining a top team for a ridiculous amount of years. In this day and age, they are way more blue blood like than Michigan is.
I don't really consider Michigan to be honest. They haven't really accomplished anything special over the past 100 years.
I understand why they get listed, but in terms of performance - meh.
Texas is close to the same boat. I understand, but when it comes to performance, I don't see anything really special.
Five Winningest Programs in College Football History (through week 11 of 2015, so can add a few):
1. Michigan 923
2. Notre Dame 891
3. Texas 885
4. Nebraska 879
5. OSU 873
The more interesting question: The top 8 programs since 2000.
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. LSU
4. OU
5. Florida
6. USC
7. Texas
8. Oregon
And yet your win % is lower than Alabama's.
Alledged blueblood all-time vs the other alledged bluebloods:
1. Texas 84-63-6(.549) 61-44-5 vs OU
2. ND.....95-78-7(.527) 46-36-5 vs USC
3. Mich...92-79-8(.512) 58-48-6 vs OSU
4. USC...70-67-3(.500) 13-9-1 vs OSU
5. OU....98-116-9(.439) 45-38-3 vs Neb.
6. OSU...67-80-7(.435)
7. Bama..17-22-2(.415)
8. Neb.....56-75-4(.412)
spin it how you want. Alabama has been on a run or all runs, after having other great runs in it's past. Everyone knows Bama is the top dog now.
You dont have to spit on anyone else who might have some good numbers over the years.
here ya go 4down20, from one of yourn to boot.
You are on top now, no need to shit on everybody else
Alabama does.spin it how you want. Alabama has been on a run or all runs, after having other great runs in it's past. Everyone knows Bama is the top dog now.
You dont have to spit on anyone else who might have some good numbers over the years.
Saban is a god amongst men. It is known.
New bloods:
BAMA
Noles
Oregon
LSU
Ohio st
New blood mixed with some of the same old blood