What does last 50 years have to do with past 5 years? Do teams get to carry over +/- points from all previous games? How many players from before 2016 recruiting year will play in this years games?
Historically, rank your conference teams
- Thread starter HuskerGuy33
- Start date
I devised my own scoring system for ranking the all-time programs (1939 to present). The most difficult aspect of this algorithm is the conference championships, because not all conferences are equal. It's highly subjective. Still, I feel that it's important to include. Here are teams 26-50 in my rankings.
The reason why Texas is ahead of Virginia and Maryland is because of those conference titles (5 points per conference title in a power conference). Texas has 19 conference championships, while UVA and Maryland have 10 and 6, respectively. Most people are quick to recognize that UVA and UMD might be undervalued, and they probably are. When you face off against Duke and Carolina and the rest of the ACC for all of those years, conference ships are hard to come by. Inevitably, that hurts their final ranking.
I'm considering adjusting the scoring for conference titles a little bit. I have thought of additional ways to improve it, but it's going to take a lot of hours because it's not a simple 5 points for conference title; it's way more convoluted. My ranking system isn't perfect, but I believe it's better than anything else you'll find on the web. Matt Norlander ranked the 68 greatest programs of all-time, but not a huge fan of it because NBA draft picks are included in his formula. I feel like that will unnecessarily inflate some scores, as having a talented roster doesn't automatically mean that you're even having a great season.
I would consider only counting conference titles AFTER the NCAAt expanded to include more than one team from each conference. Because if you count the conference title and the NCAAt bid in 1974, it’s basically double dipping. No other team in the conference could get the bid.
Maybe make top 10 or top 25 finishes worth a little more? Might compensate for teams that 1) play in a conference with other all time behemoths; 2) couldn’t make the NCAAt back before expansion due to the one per league rule.
That's an interesting thought. Although I'm only counting regular season championships. The ACC rep was always the conference tournament champion. Not sure if other conferences had similar formats? There were lots of conference champions that didn't earn a spot in the tournament. 1939 to 1950 only had 8 teams, so naturally there wasn't even enough room for all of the conference champs, especially when you factor in the independents. And lots of teams tied for the conference title, too. It is something worth considering, though.
It's kind of an impossible task because the seasons, as well as the conferences, really aren't comparable. I'd feel a little hesitant about taking away conference titles pre-1975, as that would give more weight to the latter seasons. As it is, national champions from the early years that only won 3-4 games can't win as many tournament games, thus they earn less points. Certainly we could justify more points in the modern era because it is inherently more challenging to win six games. Would just like the points between years to be as even as possible. But, it definitely merits consideration.
All very valid points. Like you said, the landscape has changed so much over the years it’s just impossible to have it all work out evenly.
On this board you can't make a good post without some horrible nicpicking. If you don't believe me just ask Dukedevilz. He does wonderful work and the nicpic they shit out of him.
Your post was excellent.
Im sure this is the only anonymous message board out there like that 😂
