CSNbbs
FBS 40-40-50 divisions - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+----- Forum: P5 Discussion (/forum-997.html)
+----- Thread: FBS 40-40-50 divisions (/thread-875469.html)

Pages: 1 2


FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 04-30-2019 11:46 AM

Elsewhere, JRSec suggested that the FBS would do well to further subdivide into three groups of about 40 schools each. Rather than try to relegate 10 schools from the bottom third of the FBS, I just tried to organize the top two groups into 40 team megaconferences for football only.

Granted, there is no mechanism whereby this could actually happen. Existing entanglements are too strong to ever allow it. Since this is the offseason for much of college athletics, it was an interesting exercise nonetheless. For the top division, I tried to create 8 divisions of five teams each that included schools from every region of the country, and which as much as possible put teams together that seem to want to play each other.

I used a radical scheduling concept for this megaconference. Each of the 8 divisions plays a double round robin, playing every team once at home and once away to determine its champion. At the end of the regular season, the eight division champions play a conference championship tournament, with Round 1 the first week in December. The semifinals would be played much as the current CFP is today. There would be no at large teams in the tournament.

The 40 team conference would negotiate media contracts for the 160 regular season conference games plus the 7 playoff games in which team would share equally. Each of the 40 teams would retain the rights to all of its OOC games, to sell as they see fit. These can be any FBS school, regardless of conference or division.

These were the 8 divisions I came up with (teams are listed in order of their 10 year average Sagarin rating):

Stanford, Oregon, Southern Cal, Washington and Utah

Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech

LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Texas and Arkansas

Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota

Alabama, Florida State, Auburn, Ole Miss and Tennessee

Clemson, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia Tech

Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, West Virginia and Pitt

Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami and NC State


So tell me what's wrong with these groups. You know you want to.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 04-30-2019 11:48 AM

For the second of the two 40 team megaconferences, I divided them into four divisions of 10 teams each, which could be further subdivided into pods of five teams each if they would prefer to play an 8 game league schedule (skipping one team from the other pod every fifth year) instead of a full round robin.

These divisions look like this:

Arizona State, UCLA, Arizona, California and Colorado
Boise State, Washington State, San Diego State, Oregon State and Colorado State

BYU, Utah State, Air Force, Fresno State, and Nevada
Baylor, Houston, Kansas, Memphis, and SMU

Northwestern, Iowa State, Indiana, Purdue and Illinois
Cincinnati, Boston College, Syracuse, Maryland and Rutgers

North Carolina, Navy, Duke, Wake Forest, and Virginia
Louisville, Central Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and South Florida

The four division champions would play a semifinal game the first week in December, with the Conference Championship on New Year’s Day.

Combined, these two megaconferences include every current P5 team plus 15 G5 teams. This conference has a ten year average Sagarin rating of 70, compared with a rating of 82 for the top tier conference and 58 for the third tier.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - JRsec - 04-30-2019 10:11 PM

(04-30-2019 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Elsewhere, JRSec suggested that the FBS would do well to further subdivide into three groups of about 40 schools each. Rather than try to relegate 10 schools from the bottom third of the FBS, I just tried to organize the top two groups into 40 team megaconferences for football only.

Granted, there is no mechanism whereby this could actually happen. Existing entanglements are too strong to ever allow it. Since this is the offseason for much of college athletics, it was an interesting exercise nonetheless. For the top division, I tried to create 8 divisions of five teams each that included schools from every region of the country, and which as much as possible put teams together that seem to want to play each other.

I used a radical scheduling concept for this megaconference. Each of the 8 divisions plays a double round robin, playing every team once at home and once away to determine its champion. At the end of the regular season, the eight division champions play a conference championship tournament, with Round 1 the first week in December. The semifinals would be played much as the current CFP is today. There would be no at large teams in the tournament.

The 40 team conference would negotiate media contracts for the 160 regular season conference games plus the 7 playoff games in which team would share equally. Each of the 40 teams would retain the rights to all of its OOC games, to sell as they see fit. These can be any FBS school, regardless of conference or division.

These were the 8 divisions I came up with (teams are listed in order of their 10 year average Sagarin rating):

Stanford, Oregon, Southern Cal, Washington and Utah

Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech

LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Texas and Arkansas

Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota

Alabama, Florida State, Auburn, Ole Miss and Tennessee

Clemson, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia Tech

Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, West Virginia and Pitt

Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami and NC State


So tell me what's wrong with these groups. You know you want to.

There's nothing wrong with the groups. I think you could rotate them, or if you wanted to drop the double round robin (which culturally probably wouldn't fly in college football due to fan rejection) you could could just put two of those divisions together (for all 8 groups of 5) if you still wanted a round robin division champ. Then you have 4 divisional champs playing it off.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - goofus - 04-30-2019 11:05 PM

I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - JRsec - 04-30-2019 11:35 PM

(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Sports is a money making business. I agree on a couple of your suggested schools but for the most part Ken D got it right. I can see the value of UCLA, UNC, and Kentucky, however Kansas doesn't average 24,000 for home football, Arizona in my lifetime wasn't even the equivalent of a P5 and outside of Lute hasn't done much, Illinois absolutely wreaks in most sports metrics, and Virginia isn't well rounded at all.

Academics have nothing to do with any of it. Virginia Tech doesn't need to be demoted. They are above most averages in metrics that count. Colorado is on the Mendoza line for me. I could go either way with them.

Demographics, attendance, donations, gross revenue, and general competitiveness matter. And like it or not football still accounts for 80% of the total revenue for a school's athletics. Looking for schools that pay their way is, and will remain, a key to any change.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - CardinalJim - 05-01-2019 04:24 AM

Promotion and relegation in college football would certainly make each season more interesting.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-01-2019 07:22 AM

(04-30-2019 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Sports is a money making business. I agree on a couple of your suggested schools but for the most part Ken D got it right. I can see the value of UCLA, UNC, and Kentucky, however Kansas doesn't average 24,000 for home football, Arizona in my lifetime wasn't even the equivalent of a P5 and outside of Lute hasn't done much, Illinois absolutely wreaks in most sports metrics, and Virginia isn't well rounded at all.

Academics have nothing to do with any of it. Virginia Tech doesn't need to be demoted. They are above most averages in metrics that count. Colorado is on the Mendoza line for me. I could go either way with them.

Demographics, attendance, donations, gross revenue, and general competitiveness matter. And like it or not football still accounts for 80% of the total revenue for a school's athletics. Looking for schools that pay their way is, and will remain, a key to any change.

When you start with the premise that there will be exactly 40 schools invited to this party, inevitably there will be some schools left out that appear as deserving as some who make the cut. There was nothing easy about this exercise.

Keep in mind that a major part of the original premise is that these divisions/conferences are for football only. Hoops prowess was not a consideration, either for or against including any particular school. In my mind, this could never work if FBS football is affiliated with the NCAA at all.

I have a question for all of you. If these 40 schools were invited to be a part of the top tier, which of them might turn down the invitation and opt to play in the second tier instead?


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - CliftonAve - 05-01-2019 08:38 AM

(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

This here is why it would never work. The Kansas and North Carolina's of the worlds would not go down a division without a fight. I've long said that everyone has an inflated sense of self-worth, while at the same time think everyone else is worse than they actually are.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - BadgerMJ - 05-01-2019 10:51 AM

(04-30-2019 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  Elsewhere, JRSec suggested that the FBS would do well to further subdivide into three groups of about 40 schools each. Rather than try to relegate 10 schools from the bottom third of the FBS, I just tried to organize the top two groups into 40 team megaconferences for football only.

Granted, there is no mechanism whereby this could actually happen. Existing entanglements are too strong to ever allow it. Since this is the offseason for much of college athletics, it was an interesting exercise nonetheless. For the top division, I tried to create 8 divisions of five teams each that included schools from every region of the country, and which as much as possible put teams together that seem to want to play each other.

I used a radical scheduling concept for this megaconference. Each of the 8 divisions plays a double round robin, playing every team once at home and once away to determine its champion. At the end of the regular season, the eight division champions play a conference championship tournament, with Round 1 the first week in December. The semifinals would be played much as the current CFP is today. There would be no at large teams in the tournament.

The 40 team conference would negotiate media contracts for the 160 regular season conference games plus the 7 playoff games in which team would share equally. Each of the 40 teams would retain the rights to all of its OOC games, to sell as they see fit. These can be any FBS school, regardless of conference or division.

These were the 8 divisions I came up with (teams are listed in order of their 10 year average Sagarin rating):

Stanford, Oregon, Southern Cal, Washington and Utah

Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech

LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi State, Texas and Arkansas

Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota

Alabama, Florida State, Auburn, Ole Miss and Tennessee

Clemson, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia Tech

Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, West Virginia and Pitt

Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Miami and NC State


So tell me what's wrong with these groups. You know you want to.

There's nothing wrong with the groups. I think you could rotate them, or if you wanted to drop the double round robin (which culturally probably wouldn't fly in college football due to fan rejection) you could could just put two of those divisions together (for all 8 groups of 5) if you still wanted a round robin division champ. Then you have 4 divisional champs playing it off.

Agreed. Those groups seem fair and do a decent job of respecting rivalries while maintaining geography. I like the idea of rotating divisions similar to how the NFL does it. You'd play your own division then play a 2&3 or a 3&2 against another which would rotate every year. That would leave 3 games to play against whomever.

The fan rejection might play a small factor with some of the schools but I don't think it would be as big a problem as one might think. Sure, I don't think the Georgia fans would be "pumped" to see Utah come to town, but I'd be the Florida folks wouldn't mind the number of fans that a Wisconsin would bring with them.

The only flack I could see is with the "traditionalists". They turn into howler monkeys at the mention of "realignment" or "expansion", can you IMAGINE the reaction to something like this? ESPECIALLY from the schools who would be on the outside looking in.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - JRsec - 05-01-2019 11:44 AM

(05-01-2019 07:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Sports is a money making business. I agree on a couple of your suggested schools but for the most part Ken D got it right. I can see the value of UCLA, UNC, and Kentucky, however Kansas doesn't average 24,000 for home football, Arizona in my lifetime wasn't even the equivalent of a P5 and outside of Lute hasn't done much, Illinois absolutely wreaks in most sports metrics, and Virginia isn't well rounded at all.

Academics have nothing to do with any of it. Virginia Tech doesn't need to be demoted. They are above most averages in metrics that count. Colorado is on the Mendoza line for me. I could go either way with them.

Demographics, attendance, donations, gross revenue, and general competitiveness matter. And like it or not football still accounts for 80% of the total revenue for a school's athletics. Looking for schools that pay their way is, and will remain, a key to any change.

When you start with the premise that there will be exactly 40 schools invited to this party, inevitably there will be some schools left out that appear as deserving as some who make the cut. There was nothing easy about this exercise.

Keep in mind that a major part of the original premise is that these divisions/conferences are for football only. Hoops prowess was not a consideration, either for or against including any particular school. In my mind, this could never work if FBS football is affiliated with the NCAA at all.

I have a question for all of you. If these 40 schools were invited to be a part of the top tier, which of them might turn down the invitation and opt to play in the second tier instead?

I sort of suspected that you took that into account when you made the list, and 40 was a round number but looking at total revenue and attendance one that with blurred lines for maybe half a dozen schools seemed to be a reasonable break to make.

When you look at gross total revenue some hoops schools approach justification for inclusion. That said North Carolina might be one of those schools to choose to not to compete at that top level for football. Virginia would be another. I have to wonder about Kansas there as well. If they could get out from under football expense would they at some point step it down as long as hoops could play at the highest level? I think maybe so.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-01-2019 03:15 PM

I'm not a fan of rotating divisions. I'm sure in the back of my mind one reason for 8 divisions of five schools instead of 4 divisions of 10 was that there was no way to find 10 deserving schools in the far west without sacrificing better programs in the midwest. I could live with pairing the Wisconsin division with the Stanford division. That would put the Oklahoma/LSU divisions together as well as Alabama/Clemson and Ohio State/Notre Dame.

I would still want to stay at an 8 game schedule within the divisions, and have an eight team playoff including all the "pod" winners (or whatever you call the groups of five). Each of the 8 groups should produce a worthy representative each year, while engaging fans from coast to coast.

While three of the four divisions would have a geographically logical makeup, travel really isn't an issue here. Every school is going to charter flights to away games, and the time it takes to fly from Washington to Southern California by charter can't be much different than flying to Wisconsin. Especially when there would only be two such trips a year.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-01-2019 03:19 PM

This is a partial list of basketball schools that wouldn't have a football team in the top tier:

Arizona
UCLA
Indiana
Purdue
Cincinnati
Syracuse
Maryland
UNC
Duke
Kentucky
Louisville
Virginia
Kansas
Gonzaga
Villanova

You could make a pretty good D-I basketball tournament with those schools.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - bullet - 05-02-2019 11:22 AM

(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Colorado and UCLA unquestionably belong in the top group when you look beyond 10 years. Kentucky doesn't for football strength even though they do for fan support. TCU does belong. The rest I could argue either way.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-02-2019 12:05 PM

(05-02-2019 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Colorado and UCLA unquestionably belong in the top group when you look beyond 10 years. Kentucky doesn't for football strength even though they do for fan support. TCU does belong. The rest I could argue either way.

I've been following college football for a long time. In my recollection, I don't see how going further back helps the case for either of those two teams. Which of the five teams in the Stanford division would you replace with one of these two?

It's not so much a matter of whether they "belong" as it is whether there is a logical spot for them that's stronger than the logic for excluding them. That's also true for some borderline ACC schools, like UNC and Louisville. The challenge of this exercise is to make those difficult choices on the margins.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - bullet - 05-03-2019 02:27 PM

(05-02-2019 12:05 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-02-2019 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-30-2019 11:05 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know you tried to emphasize recent football success but I think you got to look at complete package of school history, academics and yes, even some elite basketball schools with P5 football schools. With that said, the Top 40 should include

Promote Kansas, Col, Ariz, UCLA, UNC, ILL, Virginia, Kentucky

Demote Miss St, Ok St, TCU, TT, Kan St, NCSU, VT

Colorado and UCLA unquestionably belong in the top group when you look beyond 10 years. Kentucky doesn't for football strength even though they do for fan support. TCU does belong. The rest I could argue either way.

I've been following college football for a long time. In my recollection, I don't see how going further back helps the case for either of those two teams. Which of the five teams in the Stanford division would you replace with one of these two?

It's not so much a matter of whether they "belong" as it is whether there is a logical spot for them that's stronger than the logic for excluding them. That's also true for some borderline ACC schools, like UNC and Louisville. The challenge of this exercise is to make those difficult choices on the margins.

Colorado won a national title in 1990(?). They were one of the top programs in the country in that 1990-2005 era. With 4, they are one of 20 schools with more than 2 top 5 finishes since 1985. Only 8 have more than 5. That same group of 20 + TCU are the only schools with more than 1 top 3 finish in that era. Only 6 other schools have a single top 3 finish.

UCLA was one of the top 20 programs in virtually every decade until the last 15 years or so when they have been in an extended slump.

Both UCLA and Colorado belong in the top 25 or so programs in the country, let alone top 40.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - bullet - 05-03-2019 02:32 PM

Stanford and Utah both rank below UCLA and Colorado if you go beyond the last 10 years or so. And, of course, a bunch of others on the list rank well below Stanford and Utah-NCSU, USCeast, Minnesota, Missouri, just to name a few.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-03-2019 03:17 PM

Over the past 40 years, Colorado has lost more games than it won. They had one good stretch under McCartney. Take that ten year period out of the last 40 and Colorado only won 40% of its games. That's not just not Top 25, that's not even close to Top 50.

UCLA has done better than Colorado. But they, too, had one good run of ten years, starting 40 years ago. Since then, they've averaged 6.5 wins a season (54%). The best word to describe UCLA's football performance over a long period is underachieving. They have actually been better recently, hovering right around the cut line of Top 40. They could just as easily been included as not. But they're by no means a slam dunk.

I thought there were better reasons for including the five PAC teams I picked than the ones I left out. I put one LA team and one Bay area team in each of the two top divisions. To me, it made sense for the top tier to have the two private schools that are more known for their football than their basketball.


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-04-2019 10:38 AM

A common refrain from fans of G5 schools is that some G5's are as good as some P5's. This 40-40-50 FBS split largely acknowledges that to be a fair assessment. It also asserts that only rarely, if ever, are any of them going to be legitimate contenders for a national championship, mythical or otherwise.

Then there are the 50.

The differences between this group and the top group are stark and overwhelming. Like the FCS, most of these schools should only be playing above their class as body bag games - revenue generators. To a slightly lesser extent, the same can be said for most games between the 50 and the second tier of 40 schools.

These are the aggregate numbers for each group showing 10 year average power rating, 3 year average attendance and 2018 average revenue.

..........Power......Att ......Rev
.....................(000's)...($Mil)

Div A......82.......72.......130

Div AA....70.......38.........79

Div AAA..58.......19.........36


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - bullet - 05-04-2019 08:28 PM

(05-03-2019 03:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Over the past 40 years, Colorado has lost more games than it won. They had one good stretch under McCartney. Take that ten year period out of the last 40 and Colorado only won 40% of its games. That's not just not Top 25, that's not even close to Top 50.

UCLA has done better than Colorado. But they, too, had one good run of ten years, starting 40 years ago. Since then, they've averaged 6.5 wins a season (54%). The best word to describe UCLA's football performance over a long period is underachieving. They have actually been better recently, hovering right around the cut line of Top 40. They could just as easily been included as not. But they're by no means a slam dunk.

I thought there were better reasons for including the five PAC teams I picked than the ones I left out. I put one LA team and one Bay area team in each of the two top divisions. To me, it made sense for the top tier to have the two private schools that are more known for their football than their basketball.

https://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100

"The Associated Press has been ranking the best teams in college football since 1936. Over 82 years and 1,135 polls, a total of 166 schools have been ranked and 44 of them have been ranked No. 1 (Minnesota was the first).

To determine the all-time Top 25, the AP formula counted poll appearances (one point) to mark consistency, No. 1 rankings (two points) to acknowledge elite programs and gave a bonus for AP championships (10 points)...."

UCLA is #17. Colorado #26.
Now you can argue with their methodology, but its clear UCLA and CU are in the top 3rd.

Don't think anyone in the top 16 would surprise anyone. After that it was (there's a long narrative for each of the top 25 so I won't copy: 17. UCLA, 18. UW, 19. Clemson, 20. Texas A&M, 21. Michigan St.; 22. Arkansas, 23. Pitt, 24. Wisconsin, 25. Iowa
and the rest of the top 60 (list goes on to 100).

26 Colorado -- -- -- -- 325
27 Georgia Tech -- -- -- -- 320
28 Mississippi -- -- -- -- 299
28 Virginia Tech -- -- -- -- 299
30 Oregon -- -- -- -- 297
31 Stanford -- -- -- -- 293
32 West Virginia -- -- -- -- 289
33 Arizona State -- -- -- -- 284
34 BYU -- -- -- -- 258
35 Missouri -- -- -- -- 256
36 TCU -- -- -- -- 252
37 Purdue -- -- -- -- 246
37 North Carolina -- -- -- -- 246
39 Minnesota -- -- -- -- 241
40 Syracuse -- -- -- -- 232
41 Maryland -- -- -- -- 230
42 Oklahoma State (Oklahoma A&M) -- -- -- -- 222
43 Army -- -- -- -- 214
44 Kansas State -- -- -- -- 210
45 California -- -- -- -- 205
46 Mississippi State -- -- -- -- 204
47 Baylor -- -- -- -- 198
48 Houston -- -- -- -- 193
49 South Carolina -- -- -- -- 191
50 Northwestern -- -- -- -- 187
51 Illinois -- -- -- -- 181
52 Virginia -- -- -- -- 174
53 Duke -- -- -- -- 172
54 Arizona -- -- -- -- 169
55 SMU -- -- -- -- 165
56 N.C. State -- -- -- -- 156
57 Washington State -- -- -- -- 148
58 Boston College -- -- -- -- 141
58 Louisville -- -- -- -- 141
60 Texas Tech -- -- -- -- 140


RE: FBS 40-40-50 divisions - ken d - 05-05-2019 06:38 AM

(05-04-2019 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-03-2019 03:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Over the past 40 years, Colorado has lost more games than it won. They had one good stretch under McCartney. Take that ten year period out of the last 40 and Colorado only won 40% of its games. That's not just not Top 25, that's not even close to Top 50.

UCLA has done better than Colorado. But they, too, had one good run of ten years, starting 40 years ago. Since then, they've averaged 6.5 wins a season (54%). The best word to describe UCLA's football performance over a long period is underachieving. They have actually been better recently, hovering right around the cut line of Top 40. They could just as easily been included as not. But they're by no means a slam dunk.

I thought there were better reasons for including the five PAC teams I picked than the ones I left out. I put one LA team and one Bay area team in each of the two top divisions. To me, it made sense for the top tier to have the two private schools that are more known for their football than their basketball.

https://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100

"The Associated Press has been ranking the best teams in college football since 1936. Over 82 years and 1,135 polls, a total of 166 schools have been ranked and 44 of them have been ranked No. 1 (Minnesota was the first).

To determine the all-time Top 25, the AP formula counted poll appearances (one point) to mark consistency, No. 1 rankings (two points) to acknowledge elite programs and gave a bonus for AP championships (10 points)...."

UCLA is #17. Colorado #26.
Now you can argue with their methodology, but its clear UCLA and CU are in the top 3rd.

Don't think anyone in the top 16 would surprise anyone. After that it was (there's a long narrative for each of the top 25 so I won't copy: 17. UCLA, 18. UW, 19. Clemson, 20. Texas A&M, 21. Michigan St.; 22. Arkansas, 23. Pitt, 24. Wisconsin, 25. Iowa
and the rest of the top 60 (list goes on to 100).

26 Colorado -- -- -- -- 325
27 Georgia Tech -- -- -- -- 320
28 Mississippi -- -- -- -- 299
28 Virginia Tech -- -- -- -- 299
30 Oregon -- -- -- -- 297
31 Stanford -- -- -- -- 293
32 West Virginia -- -- -- -- 289
33 Arizona State -- -- -- -- 284
34 BYU -- -- -- -- 258
35 Missouri -- -- -- -- 256
36 TCU -- -- -- -- 252
37 Purdue -- -- -- -- 246
37 North Carolina -- -- -- -- 246
39 Minnesota -- -- -- -- 241
40 Syracuse -- -- -- -- 232
41 Maryland -- -- -- -- 230
42 Oklahoma State (Oklahoma A&M) -- -- -- -- 222
43 Army -- -- -- -- 214
44 Kansas State -- -- -- -- 210
45 California -- -- -- -- 205
46 Mississippi State -- -- -- -- 204
47 Baylor -- -- -- -- 198
48 Houston -- -- -- -- 193
49 South Carolina -- -- -- -- 191
50 Northwestern -- -- -- -- 187
51 Illinois -- -- -- -- 181
52 Virginia -- -- -- -- 174
53 Duke -- -- -- -- 172
54 Arizona -- -- -- -- 169
55 SMU -- -- -- -- 165
56 N.C. State -- -- -- -- 156
57 Washington State -- -- -- -- 148
58 Boston College -- -- -- -- 141
58 Louisville -- -- -- -- 141
60 Texas Tech -- -- -- -- 140

I don't see why how a school performed in 1936 should have much influence over how they should be selected in 2020. Or why AP rankings should be the only factor in the decision. But you are certainly free to come up with your own conferences and divisions. It's not like either of us has an actual vote.