All rankings are among current FBS programs. No agenda -- just some stats I compiled out of my own curiosity, shared with you because why not?

PAST 5 YEARS (minimum 50 games, 122 qualifying programs)

17. UCF - .71212 / 47-19-0
28. Cincinnati - .65625 / 42-22-0
37-T. Houston - .60938 / 39-25-0
37-T. Navy - .60938 / 39-25-0
48. East Carolina - .57812 / 37-27-0
61. Tulsa - .53125 / 34-30-0
74. Temple - .48333 / 29-31-0
84. SMU - .43750 / 28-36-0
94. Connecticut - .37705 / 23-38-0
101. USF - .36066 / 22-39-0
106. Memphis - .32787 / 20-41-0
113. Tulane - .29032 / 18-44-0

PAST 10 YEARS (minimum 100 games, 119 qualifying programs)

19. Cincinnati - .67969 / 87-41-0
29. Navy - .63566 / 82-47-0
31-T. Houston - .62308 / 81-49-0
31-T. UCF - .62308 / 81-49-0
37. Tulsa - .59231 / 77-53-0
41. East Carolina - .58140 / 75-54-0
70. USF - .49600 / 62-63-0
79. Connecticut - .46341 / 57-66-0
95. Temple - .40000 / 48-72-0
96. SMU - .39516 / 49-75-0
102. Memphis - .35772 / 44-79-0
115. Tulane - .27273 / 33-88-0

PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

ALL-TIME (minimum 500 games, 108 qualifying programs)

47. Tulsa - .55901 / 588-461-27
50. Navy - .55339 / 681-544-58
58. Houston - .53442 / 404-351-15
63. East Carolina - .52381 / 423-384-12
71. Cincinnati - .50835 / 584-564-50
90. SMU - .47992 / 475-517-54
92. Memphis - .47454 / 450-500-32
95. Tulane - .44953 / 502-619-38
99. Temple - .43970 / 437-564-52

Not included: Connecticut, UCF, USF

Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/comp...quest.html

For more fun...

AVERAGE (ROUNDED) WIN-LOSS RECORD PAST 10 YEARS

Cincinnati: 9-4
Navy: 8-5
Houston: 8-5
UCF: 8-5
Tulsa: 8-5
East Carolina: 8-5
USF: 6-6
Connecticut: 6-6
Temple: 5-7
SMU: 5-7
Memphis: 4-8
Tulane 3-9

2014 WIN-LOSS RECORDS

Memphis: 10-3
Cincinnati: 9-4
UCF: 9-4
East Carolina: 8-5
Houston: 8-5
Navy: 8-5
Temple: 6-6
USF: 4-8
Tulane: 3-9
Tulsa: 2-10
Connecticut: 2-10
SMU: 1-11

To me, the numbers say that 2014 was a down year for our league. The top half of the conference was up to par, but the bottom half was not. Pretty much the same situation in basketball as well. Our best years as a league are definitely ahead of us.

For Tulane, of course, the last 10 years is precisely the time-frame affected by Katrina.

Average rounded win/loss record for last year:

Memphis 10-3

10 win seasons are nice, I guess.

(04-06-2015 07:54 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  10 win seasons are nice, I guess.

Are 0-11 seasons fun? We wouldn't know...

now compare those numbers with a few teams outside the AAC to see how they stack up, say... BYU and Boise.

(04-06-2015 09:43 AM)dantes17 Wrote:  now compare those numbers with a few teams outside the AAC to see how they stack up, say... BYU and Boise.

Why?

(04-06-2015 09:43 AM)dantes17 Wrote:  now compare those numbers with a few teams outside the AAC to see how they stack up, say... BYU and Boise.

why? no one cares...

(04-06-2015 09:43 AM)dantes17 Wrote:  now compare those numbers with a few teams outside the AAC to see how they stack up, say... BYU and Boise.

Well ---- if it's OOC, we really only talk about Marshall on this board.

(04-06-2015 10:03 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:43 AM)dantes17 Wrote:  now compare those numbers with a few teams outside the AAC to see how they stack up, say... BYU and Boise.

Well ---- if it's OOC, we really only talk about Marshall on this board.

(04-06-2015 04:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  For Tulane, of course, the last 10 years is precisely the time-frame affected by Katrina.

We are at or near the bottom no matter what time frame you use. I am just waiting for the similar stats for basketball.

It's totally unacceptable, IMO. We shouldn't rationalize or provide excuses. Fans, alums and locals deserve better, the admin has failed us for too long.

Good thread b/c it adds a little bit of short term and long term perspective of how league members have been performing.

For USF fans this data is particularly distressing b/c it clearly shows how bad USF has been since we fired Jim Leavitt and hired Skip Holtz.

If you take away the last five years USF is looking at 40-24 record for a sparkling winning percentage of 0.625. That would put is near the top of the current group of teams. While playing an underappreciated Big East schedule that included programs that were regularly ranked like UL, WVU, RU, UCONN, PITT and UC.

Conversely, if you take away the last 5 years for UCF their record would be 34-30 which is a respectable 0.530 winning percentage while playing an “easier” C-USA schedule. Not as terrible as USF has been the last 5-years but certainly not the world beaters they have been the recently.

#1 Takeaway: things go in cycle.
#2 Takeaway: Firing Leavitt and/or hiring Skip Holtz was a bad decision.

(04-06-2015 02:56 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/comp...quest.html

USF's record the last 20 years (actually 18, since this will be the 19th year of USF football) is actually 117-96, for a .549 winning percentage. This figure includes a couple 1AA seasons and that may be why your figure is off.

(04-06-2015 12:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:56 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  PAST 20 YEARS (minimum 150 games, 117 qualifying programs)

34. Cincinnati - .58943 / 145-101-0
46. UCF - .54978 / 127-104-0
49. East Carolina - .54286 / 133-112-0
50. Navy - .54098 / 132-112-0
52. USF - .53254 / 90-79-0
66. Houston - .49590 / 121-123-0
76. Connecticut - .46961 / 85-96-0
81. Tulsa - .45714 / 112-133-0
97. Memphis - .38397 / 91-146-0
102. Tulane - .36441 / 86-150-0
106. SMU - .35021 / 83-154-0
110. Temple - .31034 / 72-160-0

Source: http://football.stassen.com/records/comp...quest.html

USF's record the last 20 years (actually 18, since this will be the 19th year of USF football) is actually 117-96, for a .549 winning percentage. This figure includes a couple 1AA seasons and that may be why your figure is off.

I should have mentioned, these records do not include time spent in lower divisions. It is strictly 1A/FBS records. Apples to apples is better anyway.

(04-06-2015 12:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Good thread b/c it adds a little bit of short term and long term perspective of how league members have been performing.

For USF fans this data is particularly distressing b/c it clearly shows how bad USF has been since we fired Jim Leavitt and hired Skip Holtz.

If you take away the last five years USF is looking at 40-24 record for a sparkling winning percentage of 0.625. That would put is near the top of the current group of teams. While playing an underappreciated Big East schedule that included programs that were regularly ranked like UL, WVU, RU, UCONN, PITT and UC.

Conversely, if you take away the last 5 years for UCF their record would be 34-30 which is a respectable 0.530 winning percentage while playing an “easier” C-USA schedule. Not as terrible as USF has been the last 5-years but certainly not the world beaters they have been the recently.

#1 Takeaway: things go in cycle.
#2 Takeaway: Firing Leavitt and/or hiring Skip Holtz was a bad decision.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at regarding UCF. We are ahead of usf in every category (the past 5, 10 and 20 years). It makes absolutely no sense to even hypothetically remove the last 5 years which are probably the most important to use as an indicator of the current state of your program.

all schools this century
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/reco...by=Win+Pct

(04-06-2015 01:40 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Good thread b/c it adds a little bit of short term and long term perspective of how league members have been performing.

For USF fans this data is particularly distressing b/c it clearly shows how bad USF has been since we fired Jim Leavitt and hired Skip Holtz.

If you take away the last five years USF is looking at 40-24 record for a sparkling winning percentage of 0.625. That would put is near the top of the current group of teams. While playing an underappreciated Big East schedule that included programs that were regularly ranked like UL, WVU, RU, UCONN, PITT and UC.

Conversely, if you take away the last 5 years for UCF their record would be 34-30 which is a respectable 0.530 winning percentage while playing an “easier” C-USA schedule. Not as terrible as USF has been the last 5-years but certainly not the world beaters they have been the recently.

#1 Takeaway: things go in cycle.
#2 Takeaway: Firing Leavitt and/or hiring Skip Holtz was a bad decision.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at regarding UCF. We are ahead of usf in every category (the past 5, 10 and 20 years). It makes absolutely no sense to even hypothetically remove the last 5 years which are probably the most important to use as an indicator of the current state of your program.

The past 20 (actually 18 for USF) years USF and UCF have identical .549 winning percentages. Look it up. Up until 3 years ago, USF's winning percentage was significantly better. I think that's what he was getting at. Things go in cycles. Now USF's is going down and UCF's is going up. UCF has been much better recently. No one would argue that. But, up until a couple years ago, USF's overall percentage was well over .600. Couple bad years will significantly drop your percentage.