Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
Author Message
vick mike Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,779
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Temple U
Location:
Post: #41
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
Temple Owls! Hello, Green Wave!
T97 Temple 1.08
T97 Tulane 1.08
T97 Kent State 1.08
T97 Utah State 1.08
T97 Arkansas State 1.08

Didn't Tulane have an undefeated season? Should be higher.

At least we are not:
T101 UConn 1

Seriously, Rutgers invented college football, they should be #1.
08-26-2016 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MoodyBlueRaider Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 246
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 26
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location:
Post: #42
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-26-2016 12:13 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  
(08-25-2016 07:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(08-25-2016 06:48 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  So Army is more important than Navy01-wingedeagle

Rice is more important than UCF 01-wingedeagle

Pitt at 26?

Whatever. ..

That's because the list considers football from the beginning. For a long time before most of us were born, Army was at or near the top of CFB.
Agree, although before our time, I think that Blanchard and Davis are worth several ranking spots on their own.



Amen, OldTiger! Amen!
08-26-2016 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SublimeKnight Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,711
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 328
I Root For: UCF
Location: ATL
Post: #43
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
I don't know how all these programs are ahead of UCF. A lot of their fired coaches don't even have statues.
08-26-2016 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rosewater Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,666
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: cincy
Location:
Post: #44
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-25-2016 09:13 PM)panama Wrote:  
(08-25-2016 07:09 PM)rosewater Wrote:  Miami of Florida stood out to me. For a team with attendance issues, I would not rank so high.
5 national titles in 20 years and I think still top selling apparel brand in the nation.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I did not realize the apparel part, but I certainly would not have them in front of Tenn, Auburn or Clemson. We visited Tenn in a down year and they have 106000 in the stands. We visited Miami two years ago and there was only 15000. Not what I would consider a blue blood program.
08-26-2016 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rtaylor Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,137
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 222
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #45
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-26-2016 03:23 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  I don't know how all these programs are ahead of UCF. A lot of their fired coaches don't even have statues.

03-lmfao
08-26-2016 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigHouston Offline
STRONG
*

Posts: 12,203
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 362
I Root For: HOUSTON, USC Trojans
Location: Houston Tx
Post: #46
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
As long as the AAC continue get nice espn tv exposure I'm cool with whatever crap nonsense their wannabe sports writers write.
08-26-2016 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kandy Atz Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Mustangs
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #47
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
For grins, I compared Army versus SMU, because I thought SMU was a wee bit low considering its history, and I knew Army was also quite strong in the past.

T-35 - Army Black Knights
Record: 122 Years, 649-501-51, .562 W-L% (Major School)

Conferences: CUSA and Ind
Bowls: 5 Bowls, 3-2, .600 W-L% (Major Bowls)
National Championships Claimed: 3

College Football HOF: 24
Heisman winners: 3
Pro Football HOF: 0
NFL Players: 32

Ranked in AP Poll: 6 Times (Preseason), 14 Times (Final), 140 Weeks (Total)
28 Consensus All Americans

Undefeated Years - 9
1 Loss Years - 15
2 Loss Years - 23
(Ties not counted)


66 - Southern Methodist Mustangs
Record*: 98 Years, 474-522-54, .477 W-L% (Major School)
*W-L-T adjusted to 470-516-54 by NCAA.

Conferences: American, CUSA, WAC, SWC and Ind
Conference Champion: 10 Times
Bowls: 15 Bowls, 7-7-1, .500 W-L% (Major Bowls)
National Championships Claimed: 3

College Football HOF: 8
Heisman winners: 1
Pro Football HOF: 5
NFL Players: 150

Ranked in AP Poll: 8 Times (Preseason), 11 Times (Final), 161 Weeks (Total)
14 Consensus All Americans

Undefeated Years - 5
1 Loss Years - 6
2 Loss Years - 7
(Ties not counted)

The difference in ranking seems justified based on at least these two teams.

Unless otherwise linked, data collected from: sports reference site
08-26-2016 05:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
invisiblehand Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,120
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #48
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
Q: Legitimate claims to national championships for SMU?
A: Zero.
08-26-2016 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kandy Atz Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Mustangs
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #49
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-26-2016 05:26 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Q: Legitimate claims to national championships for SMU?
A: Zero.

Just as legitimate as any other claims under this ridiculous bowl system that has sportswriters and coaches decide who is the best. Heck, TCU claims a National Championship in 1935 and they lost to SMU.

1935 Matty Bell - Berryman, Dickinson, Houlgate, and Sagarin Ratings - 12–1

1981 Ron Meyer - National Championship Foundation 10–1

1982 Bobby Collins - Helms Athletic Foundation - 11–0–1

Total National Championships: 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_fo...sion_I_FBS
08-26-2016 06:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Puckhead48E Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 683
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 29
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #50
ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
That '82 team was legit...just lost points because PSU out east ran such a clean program. Ha... East coast bias strikes again.
But, you must know, records don't count before there were more than 3 schools in Florida that actually played football. You didn't get that memo?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-26-2016 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
invisiblehand Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,120
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 174
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #51
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-26-2016 06:01 PM)Kandy Atz Wrote:  
(08-26-2016 05:26 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Q: Legitimate claims to national championships for SMU?
A: Zero.

Just as legitimate as any other claims under this ridiculous bowl system that has sportswriters and coaches decide who is the best. Heck, TCU claims a National Championship in 1935 and they lost to SMU.

1935 Matty Bell - Berryman, Dickinson, Houlgate, and Sagarin Ratings - 12–1

1981 Ron Meyer - National Championship Foundation 10–1

1982 Bobby Collins - Helms Athletic Foundation - 11–0–1

Total National Championships: 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_fo...sion_I_FBS
I'm well aware of the fact that teams claim national championships that don't logically belong to them. SMU was beaten in their bowl game in 1935. And the 80's were the pony excess years so I'll negate those as well. Especially since the polls SMOO is citing aren't either of the major ones that existed at the time.
08-27-2016 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 60,813
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 7567
I Root For: Tulane
Location: Teh transfer portal
Post: #52
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-26-2016 06:38 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think it's chicken crap they have six ties for #1


that their way of not having the nads to actually break it down so somebody is #1 and somebody is #6....


they do this because the fan bases of those six schools are huge and ESPN didn't want to hurt the feel goods of some of them

gutless

If you are going to force rank, then force rank. Somebody is going to be #1 somebody is going to be #2, somebody is going to be #3 and so on

Then they weren't consistent...for example there weren't six ties for #50 for example

this list is a puff piece to make the P5 fans feel good
Did you look at who compiled the list. We could make a better list during break time the dairy whip
08-27-2016 04:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kandy Atz Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Mustangs
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #53
RE: ESPN rates teams' importance to college football.
(08-27-2016 01:19 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  
(08-26-2016 06:01 PM)Kandy Atz Wrote:  
(08-26-2016 05:26 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Q: Legitimate claims to national championships for SMU?
A: Zero.

Just as legitimate as any other claims under this ridiculous bowl system that has sportswriters and coaches decide who is the best. Heck, TCU claims a National Championship in 1935 and they lost to SMU.

1935 Matty Bell - Berryman, Dickinson, Houlgate, and Sagarin Ratings - 12–1

1981 Ron Meyer - National Championship Foundation 10–1

1982 Bobby Collins - Helms Athletic Foundation - 11–0–1

Total National Championships: 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_fo...sion_I_FBS
I'm well aware of the fact that teams claim national championships that don't logically belong to them. SMU was beaten in their bowl game in 1935. And the 80's were the pony excess years so I'll negate those as well. Especially since the polls SMOO is citing aren't either of the major ones that existed at the time.

Be sure and negate a majority of national championships from at least the 70s forward, as recruiting and extra benefit violations have been rampant at many schools for decades. Or is it just SMU that gets singled out? Joe Pa was protecting a child molester, does his championship in 82 count?

What about the following:
Miami (NCAA violations between 1985 - 1994); NC claimed: 86, 87, 88, 89 , 90, 91

OU (violations between 1953, 72, 1983 - 1986, 2005 - 2006); NC claimed: 53, 85, 86

Clemson (Violations between 1977 - 1982); NC claimed: 81

Nebraska (Violations between 1983, 1986, 2007 - 2010); NC claimed: 82, 83, 84

Southern California (Violations between 1952 - 1956, 1957 - 1958, 1971 - 1979, 1983 - 1985, 1996 - 1998, 2004 - 2005) NC claimed: 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 02, 03, 04,


That is just a handful from the list. It seems strange that people are willing to place an asterisk next to SMUs years, or "negate" them as you said, but it never is the case for anyone else.
08-27-2016 12:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.