interesting how teams with a loss are ranked so high
http://collegefootballnews.com/2005/...ulaAllTime.htm
interesting how teams with a loss are ranked so high
http://collegefootballnews.com/2005/...ulaAllTime.htm
"We're playing football, YIPPEE!!!" - Keith Jackson 1/4/06
This is NOT a ranking of which teams are the best or most talented. That's for historians and opinion. This is a formula to find out which teams had the best seasons based on who they played, who they beat, and who they lost to.
Misleading thread title???
I'm glad I took the time to click on that. I would have never guessed who was number one based on the thread poster...
The 2004 usc team being ranked # 19 is enough for me to say this formula is not very accurate.
edit - whoops - didn't know I was an anal wart in my previous life - guess y'all don't want to know about that.
Fixed.
Aside from OU....the best team they played got beat by TechOriginally Posted by TXBOOMER
Surprising the Bama is only on that list once. With 27 national championships, you would think that at least 2 of them made the list.
"You get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."---Penn Jillette
"It's what I do, I drink and I know things."---Tyrion Lannister
Stupid. Each win equals one point? Well, hello...back in the day, the NCAA had rules limiting the number of games you could play. That's why the top of this list is packed with team from the past decade. A very ESPN-ish list.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987
Correction, 28. They beat Texas Tech this year.
Am I right that the most anybody has is 5 entries on that list? Seems to be owned by Michigan, Notre Dame, USC and Nebraska with OU at 4. I really do know better than to mention the POS team that is tied with Miami and Ohio St. at 2.
Especially when you consider that the 2004 team was better top to bottom than the 05 team. I don't have a problem with someone being a homer. Fine, be a homer. But don't spew out a bunch of subjective horse s*it in an attempt to sell other people on your homerism.
The 2000 OU squad had more than 3 points in elite wins and the Nebraska 1995 team didn't have 5 points in elite wins.
Just further evidence that most sportswriters are dumbasses.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
As I mentioned in another thread...when you get the same amount of points for beating 2004 A&M as you do for beating 2000 A&M, the method is definitely flawed.
We played four games against three teams.
Yes, but we played KSU on the road the first game which is an extra 0.5 points. And if you don't count the 2nd game(CCG) when you win then it shouldn't count when you lose. I can guarantee you they counted it against UT when they lost to CU in 2001 in the CCG.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
71 Oklahoma should be on there. They were only four points worse than the 71 Nebraska team.
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8
Posting Permissions
