Stanford has the most dominant athletic department with 30 different sports playing in at least 1 NCAA tournament over the last 20 years. Only Ohio State had more total sports in a tournament with 32. Here is the breakdown for the top 4 scoring athletic department

1,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Ten, 1972(1)
2,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. SW, 1951(2)
3,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. SW, 1934(3)
4,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Gym, 1930(4)
5,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. CC, 1903(2)
6,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. CC, 1897(1)
7,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. VB, 1891(3)
8,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Fencing, 1854(8)
9,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. BB, 1844(3)
10,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Gym, 1820(10)
11,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. SOC, 1800(7)
12,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. T&F, 1790(2)
13,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. WP, 1784(1)
14,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Golf, 1754(6)
15,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Ten, 1694(11)
16,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. In. T&F, 1657(5)
17,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. T&F, 1636(8)
18,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. In. T&F, 1573(6)
19,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Golf, 1501(11)
20,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Baseball, 1346(12)
21,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. WR, 1294(28)
22,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Softball, 1249(21)
23,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Row, 1234(11)
24,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. SOC, 1044(17)
25,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. WP, 990(3)
26,Stanford ,Pac 12 , FBS FB, 939(30)
27,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. FH, 916(13)
28,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. BB, 836(34)
29,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Lax, 712(18)
30,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. VB, 199(11)
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Bowl, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Beach VB, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , FCS FB, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Skiing, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Rifle, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. IHoc, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Lax, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. IHoc, 0



North Carolina
1,North Carolina ,ACC , W. SOC, 1922(1)
2,North Carolina ,ACC , W. FH, 1836(2)
3,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Ten, 1813(7)
4,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Lax, 1746(3)
5,North Carolina ,ACC , M. SOC, 1655(5)
6,North Carolina ,ACC , Fencing, 1618(13)
7,North Carolina ,ACC , M. BB, 1547(6)
8,North Carolina ,ACC , M. Ten, 1531(15)
9,North Carolina ,ACC , W. SW, 1527(17)
10,North Carolina ,ACC , Baseball, 1482(9)
11,North Carolina ,ACC , M. SW, 1394(20)
12,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Golf, 1393(23)
13,North Carolina ,ACC , W. BB, 1332(13)
14,North Carolina ,ACC , W. In. T&F, 1282(17)
15,North Carolina ,ACC , M. WR, 1156(33)
15,North Carolina ,ACC , W. VB, 1156(24)
17,North Carolina ,ACC , W. CC, 1152(16)
18,North Carolina ,ACC , M. Lax, 1136(7)
19,North Carolina ,ACC , M. Golf, 1117(30)
20,North Carolina ,ACC , M. T&F, 1042(30)
21,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Gym, 1019(34)
22,North Carolina ,ACC , Softball, 1008(30)
23,North Carolina ,ACC , W. T&F, 929(31)
24,North Carolina ,ACC , M. In. T&F, 798(42)
25,North Carolina ,ACC , FBS FB, 509(70)
26,North Carolina ,ACC , M. CC, 173(74)
27,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Bowl, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , Beach VB, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , FCS FB, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , Skiing, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , W. Row, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , M. VB, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , W. WP, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , Rifle, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , W. IHoc, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , M. IHoc, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , M. WP, 0
27,North Carolina ,ACC , M. Gym, 0



Michigan
1,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. Gym, 1936(2)
2,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. SW, 1865(7)
3,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Gym, 1855(9)
4,Michigan ,Big Ten , Softball, 1807(6)
5,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. WR, 1775(8)
6,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. CC, 1700(3)
7,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. SW, 1665(14)
8,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Row, 1599(7)
9,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. IHoc, 1533(2)
10,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Ten, 1456(22)
11,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. FH, 1339(9)
12,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. VB, 1322(17)
13,Michigan ,Big Ten , FBS FB, 1297(11)
14,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. CC, 1278(14)
15,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. In. T&F, 1262(18)
16,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. Ten, 1248(28)
17,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. T&F, 1100(25)
18,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. SOC, 984(24)
19,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. T&F, 908(37)
20,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. In. T&F, 894(38)
21,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. WP, 767(5)
22,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. BB, 690(43)
23,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Golf, 596(52)
24,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. Golf, 547(66)
25,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. SOC, 538(45)
26,Michigan ,Big Ten , Baseball, 516(62)
27,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. BB, 388(85)
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Bowl, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , Beach VB, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , FCS FB, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , Skiing, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. VB, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , Rifle, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , Fencing, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. IHoc, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. Lax, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , W. Lax, 0
28,Michigan ,Big Ten , M. WP, 0



Ohio State
1,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Fencing, 1937(4)
2,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. Gym, 1923(6)
3,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Row, 1813(6)
4,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. Ten, 1764(10)
5,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. WR, 1735(10)
6,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Golf, 1613(9)
7,Ohio State ,Big Ten , FBS FB, 1489(6)
8,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. SW, 1404(18)
9,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Gym, 1374(22)
10,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. VB, 1344(15)
11,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. BB, 1236(15)
12,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. SW, 1203(27)
13,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. BB, 1199(14)
14,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Ten, 1058(33)
15,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. VB, 987(2)
16,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. SOC, 954(26)
17,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. T&F, 923(36)
18,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. In. T&F, 849(39)
19,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. SOC, 847(31)
20,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. T&F, 815(44)
21,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. In. T&F, 798(41)
22,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. Golf, 708(57)
23,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Softball, 692(44)
24,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Baseball, 660(49)
25,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. CC, 652(32)
26,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. IHoc, 650(16)
27,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. Lax, 571(15)
28,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. FH, 562(20)
29,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Lax, 356(28)
30,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Rifle, 282(14)
31,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. CC, 147(80)
32,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. IHoc, 98(17)
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. Bowl, 0
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Beach VB, 0
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , FCS FB, 0
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , Skiing, 0
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , W. WP, 0
33,Ohio State ,Big Ten , M. WP, 0

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era. Texas hasn't done anything since 2009, but was 1st or 2nd (either them or Ohio St.) in the first half of his time frame. That's why they are #7 in his ranking. Starting with 98:

98 7-5
99 10-3
00 3-8
01 705
02 10-3
03 4-9
04 6-6
05 0-2 (forfeited 10 wins)
06 0-7 (forfeited 6 wins)
07 2-6 (forfeited 5 wins) Saban's first year
Since then their worst season had 3 losses.

jhasting - are you using the win totals above for Alabama? I ask because the vacated wins in this case stems from the Alabama textbook policy for obtaining textbooks and how it was abused. Athletes would get free books/supplies and give them away to other students. Only 5 of the 201 athletes who abused the policy were football players, but the NCAA was making a point when they vacated football wins. If you are using the 0-2, 0-7, and 2-6 win totals, can you tell me what difference that would mean if you used the 10-2, 6-7, and 7-6 records? I'm just curious how much this would change Alabama's rank.

(10-26-2018 01:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era. Texas hasn't done anything since 2009, but was 1st or 2nd (either them or Ohio St.) in the first half of his time frame. That's why they are #7 in his ranking. Starting with 98:

98 7-5
99 10-3
00 3-8
01 705
02 10-3
03 4-9
04 6-6
05 0-2 (forfeited 10 wins)
06 0-7 (forfeited 6 wins)
07 2-6 (forfeited 5 wins) Saban's first year
Since then their worst season had 3 losses.

jhasting - are you using the win totals above for Alabama? I ask because the vacated wins in this case stems from the Alabama textbook policy for obtaining textbooks and how it was abused. Athletes would get free books/supplies and give them away to other students. Only 5 of the 201 athletes who abused the policy were football players, but the NCAA was making a point when they vacated football wins. If you are using the 0-2, 0-7, and 2-6 win totals, can you tell me what difference that would mean if you used the 10-2, 6-7, and 7-6 records? I'm just curious how much this would change Alabama's rank.

Not using W/L record for scoring, using the final BCS ranking for college football (playoff result for every other sport), so vacated wins are not applicable in this experiment.

(10-26-2018 01:27 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Stanford has the most dominant athletic department with 30 different sports playing in at least 1 NCAA tournament over the last 20 years. Only Ohio State had more total sports in a tournament with 32. Here is the breakdown for the top 4 scoring athletic department

I'm a little surprised that UCLA and USC didn't make the top 4. After all, they are 2 of the only 3 schools to win at least 100 all-time NCAA team titles. Heck, they are 2 of 3 to win more than 52.

But then I remembered that the LA schools have relatively small athletics departments, only sponsoring 22 varsity squads each, giving them fewer opportunities to score points in this kind of formula. It's amazing that they've each won so many championships.

(10-26-2018 02:13 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 01:27 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Stanford has the most dominant athletic department with 30 different sports playing in at least 1 NCAA tournament over the last 20 years. Only Ohio State had more total sports in a tournament with 32. Here is the breakdown for the top 4 scoring athletic department

I'm a little surprised that UCLA and USC didn't make the top 4. After all, they are 2 of the only 3 schools to win at least 100 all-time NCAA team titles. Heck, they are 2 of 3 to win more than 52.

But then I remembered that the LA schools have relatively small athletics departments, only sponsoring 22 varsity squads each, giving them fewer opportunities to score points in this kind of formula. It's amazing that they've each won so many championships.

you are correct, less sports in their athletic departments, but they are examples of quality over quantity where their teams win a lot in NCAA playoffs.


UCLA
1,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Gym, 1939(2)
1,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. Ten, 1939(1)
3,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Ten, 1888(4)
4,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Softball, 1843(4)
5,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Golf, 1828(3)
6,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. SOC, 1810(5)
7,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. VB, 1750(7)
8,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. SOC, 1722(4)
9,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. WP, 1682(2)
10,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. SW, 1621(15)
11,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. Golf, 1576(9)
12,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. T&F, 1482(10)
13,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. In. T&F, 1370(11)
14,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. T&F, 1290(18)
15,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. BB, 1255(12)
16,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. WP, 1193(2)
17,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Baseball, 1087(26)
18,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. In. T&F, 999(33)
19,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. BB, 848(31)
20,UCLA ,Pac 12 , FBS FB, 765(39)
21,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. CC, 615(38)
22,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. VB, 595(4)
23,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. CC, 577(36)
24,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Row, 363(23)
25,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Beach VB, 294(3)
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Bowl, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , FCS FB, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. WR, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. FH, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Skiing, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Rifle, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , Fencing, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. IHoc, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. Lax, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. SW, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. IHoc, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , W. Lax, 0
26,UCLA ,Pac 12 , M. Gym, 0



USC
1,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Golf, 1928(1)
2,USC ,Pac 12 , W. SW, 1864(5)
3,USC ,Pac 12 , W. VB, 1842(5)
4,USC ,Pac 12 , M. SW, 1838(8)
5,USC ,Pac 12 , M. T&F, 1799(3)
6,USC ,Pac 12 , M. Ten, 1798(6)
7,USC ,Pac 12 , W. T&F, 1763(4)
8,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Ten, 1730(11)
9,USC ,Pac 12 , M. Golf, 1597(7)
10,USC ,Pac 12 , M. WP, 1592(1)
11,USC ,Pac 12 , W. WP, 1483(3)
12,USC ,Pac 12 , W. SOC, 1328(16)
13,USC ,Pac 12 , FBS FB, 1227(16)
14,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Row, 1010(14)
15,USC ,Pac 12 , M. In. T&F, 934(36)
16,USC ,Pac 12 , W. In. T&F, 755(45)
17,USC ,Pac 12 , M. BB, 596(54)
18,USC ,Pac 12 , Baseball, 552(59)
19,USC ,Pac 12 , Beach VB, 298(1)
20,USC ,Pac 12 , M. VB, 296(9)
21,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Lax, 284(31)
22,USC ,Pac 12 , W. BB, 236(115)
23,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Bowl, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , FCS FB, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. WR, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , W. FH, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , Skiing, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , Rifle, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , Fencing, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. CC, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , W. IHoc, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. Lax, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , Softball, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , W. Gym, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , W. CC, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. IHoc, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. SOC, 0
23,USC ,Pac 12 , M. Gym, 0

I found another redundancy. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo is listed twice. Once under "California Poly San Louis Obis" and once under "Cal Poly." Their combined score would move them up two spots in the CA pecking order, overtaking Santa Clara and UC Irvine.

(10-26-2018 01:27 PM)jhasting Wrote:  Stanford has the most dominant athletic department with 30 different sports playing in at least 1 NCAA tournament over the last 20 years. Only Ohio State had more total sports in a tournament with 32. Here is the breakdown for the top 4 scoring athletic department

1,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Ten, 1972(1)
2,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. SW, 1951(2)
3,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. SW, 1934(3)
4,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Gym, 1930(4)
5,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. CC, 1903(2)
6,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. CC, 1897(1)
7,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. VB, 1891(3)
8,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Fencing, 1854(8)
9,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. BB, 1844(3)
10,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Gym, 1820(10)
11,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. SOC, 1800(7)
12,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. T&F, 1790(2)
13,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. WP, 1784(1)
14,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Golf, 1754(6)
15,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Ten, 1694(11)
16,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. In. T&F, 1657(5)
17,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. T&F, 1636(8)
18,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. In. T&F, 1573(6)
19,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Golf, 1501(11)
20,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Baseball, 1346(12)
21,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. WR, 1294(28)
22,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Softball, 1249(21)
23,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Row, 1234(11)
24,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. SOC, 1044(17)
25,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. WP, 990(3)
26,Stanford ,Pac 12 , FBS FB, 939(30)
27,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. FH, 916(13)
28,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. BB, 836(34)
29,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Lax, 712(18)
30,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. VB, 199(11)
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. Bowl, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Beach VB, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , FCS FB, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Skiing, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , Rifle, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , W. IHoc, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. Lax, 0
31,Stanford ,Pac 12 , M. IHoc, 0

So if Stanford ever wants to add more NCAA sports, it will have to look to bowling, skiing, rifle, men's lacrosse, or ice hockey. It already sponsors beach volleyball, but I guess hasn't made the tournament yet. It's not going to be easy to ski on the nearby foothills.

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

(10-26-2018 08:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:06 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  This is great stuff. Can you share your list of all the athletics departments in California?

Also, would it be too much trouble to show all the departments in states west of the central timezone? That'd be CA+AZ+WA+OR+UT+CO+ID+NV+NM+HI+AK+MT+WY.

This link ranks all 382 schools that have participated in at least 1 NCAA playoff over the last 20 seasons sorted by state

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

This has been a fun spreadsheet to play with. Here's what I pulled out about the Pac-12:

Rank School Score

1 Stanford 44944
5 UCLA 32331
10 Cal 27143
12 USC 26750
18 ASU 25030
20 Washington 23542
22 Arizona 23189
34 Oregon 18766
49 Colorado 14364
68 Utah 10101
74 OSU 9030
86 Wazzu 7096

That's not too bad for the Pac-12, I think.

Top Rank 1
Median Rank 21
Bottom Rank 86
7 schools in the Top 25

The bottom two schools would ideally be a bit better, but all in all not too bad.

Given the historical membership of Idaho and Montana, and the attempted expansion to the Pac-16, I'm going to consider the conference's sphere of influence to be everything west of the central time zone plus TX, OK, and KS. As such, here are where all the schools that rank at least as highly as Wazzu, and that are in that expanded footprint, would fit in with the current members of the Pac-12:

Rank School Score

1 Stanford 44944
5 UCLA 32331
7 Texas 30093
10 Cal 27143
12 USC 26750
16 Texas A&M 25471
18 ASU 25030
20 Washington 23542
22 Arizona 23189
25 Oklahoma 22297
28 BYU 20867
34 Oregon 18766
36 Oklahoma St 17899
37 Baylor 17539
49 Colorado 14364
52 TCU 12784
54 Texas Tech 12028
58 New Mexico 11638
61 SMU 11291
64 Denver 10639
65 Kansas 10608
68 Utah 10101
69 Kansas St 9863
71 Pepperdine 9676
73 Boise State 9176
74 Oregon St 9030
75 Tulsa 8708
79 SDSU 8343
80 Air Force 8145
86 Wazzu 7096

Only Texas and Texas A&M would be above the current median school in the conference.

(10-26-2018 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

And you made nothing for nearly a third of those 20 years. Alabama isn't anywhere close to Ohio St. when you look at the whole 20. Yes, if you look at the last 10, Alabama is the clear #1, but Ohio St. has done pretty well too.

(10-26-2018 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

And you made nothing for nearly a third of those 20 years. Alabama isn't anywhere close to Ohio St. when you look at the whole 20. Yes, if you look at the last 10, Alabama is the clear #1, but Ohio St. has done pretty well too.

If team X scores 0 points in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters but 30 in the 4th, while team Z scores 7 points in each quarter, who wins the game?

X, because it scored more points over the "whole game", even though all its points came in just one quarter. Like Alabama's achievements over the past 20 years compared to anyone else's. Alabama has achieved more than anyone else over the past 20 years, even though 99% of those achievements came during the last 10 years not the first 10. It's like a team that wins a game 50 - 10 despite being behind 10-3 at the half but erupts for 47 during the second half.

It's not complicated.

(10-26-2018 08:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:06 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  This is great stuff. Can you share your list of all the athletics departments in California?

Also, would it be too much trouble to show all the departments in states west of the central timezone? That'd be CA+AZ+WA+OR+UT+CO+ID+NV+NM+HI+AK+MT+WY.

This link ranks all 382 schools that have participated in at least 1 NCAA playoff over the last 20 seasons sorted by state

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

I found some mistakes on that list. They listed schools like Johns Hopkins as D2 not D3. Robert Morris Illinois is not even a NCAA member. They are a NAIA program. They listed Missouri State and Southwest Missouri State. We all knowit is the same schools like Pan American is now UTRGV. They messed up on Cal. Poly. The D2 school is Pomona not SLO. They left off the D2 Michigan schools that play D1 Hockey And left Dallas Baptist off the list who went to the D2 baseball World Series earlier this year. That list is not accurate.

(10-27-2018 07:04 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:06 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  This is great stuff. Can you share your list of all the athletics departments in California?

Also, would it be too much trouble to show all the departments in states west of the central timezone? That'd be CA+AZ+WA+OR+UT+CO+ID+NV+NM+HI+AK+MT+WY.

This link ranks all 382 schools that have participated in at least 1 NCAA playoff over the last 20 seasons sorted by state

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

I found some mistakes on that list. They listed schools like Johns Hopkins as D2 not D3. Robert Morris Illinois is not even a NCAA member. They are a NAIA program. They listed Missouri State and Southwest Missouri State. We all knowit is the same schools like Pan American is now UTRGV. They messed up on Cal. Poly. The D2 school is Pomona not SLO. They left off the D2 Michigan schools that play D1 Hockey And left Dallas Baptist off the list who went to the D2 baseball World Series earlier this year. That list is not accurate.

The list has any school that played in a division 1 ncaa playoff in the last 20 years.. Any school not in a playoff should not be expected to be listed. I listed any school not in divison 1 as divison 2, it was difficult to link as the source used many names for the same school, I am incorporating the feedback to correct the data and will update the link.

(10-27-2018 03:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

And you made nothing for nearly a third of those 20 years. Alabama isn't anywhere close to Ohio St. when you look at the whole 20. Yes, if you look at the last 10, Alabama is the clear #1, but Ohio St. has done pretty well too.

If team X scores 0 points in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters but 30 in the 4th, while team Z scores 7 points in each quarter, who wins the game?

X, because it scored more points over the "whole game", even though all its points came in just one quarter. Like Alabama's achievements over the past 20 years compared to anyone else's. Alabama has achieved more than anyone else over the past 20 years, even though 99% of those achievements came during the last 10 years not the first 10. It's like a team that wins a game 50 - 10 despite being behind 10-3 at the half but erupts for 47 during the second half.

It's not complicated.

Yes, but Ohio St. has scored 27 every quarter. Alabama had 0 in the entire first half.
So its 108-60.

Ohio St. has been in the running nearly every single year. Oklahoma has been pretty close. Getting in the title game in this system requires luck. Alabama has two titles when they didn't even win their conference. Auburn had a title when an Alabama player running a TO back for a TD got sloppy with the ball, otherwise Oregon or TCU would have been champs. LSU has a title where 3 other teams lost the last weekend and they got in with two losses because they were rated high early in the season and lost earlier. You value that one or two extra steps as if it is a monumental difference. Ohio St. has been in 4 title games. So has OU. They haven't won 5 like Alabama, but they got to that point.

I understand your point. I just don't think its a reasonable way to look at it. If Saban had been coach at the start of that 20 year period and did what Alabama did in the first part-he would have been fired. Several times! He wouldn't have had the chance to make the million.

Would I want an employee who is consistently outstanding? Or one who sometimes shows up, sometimes cheats and is sometimes really outstanding?

(10-27-2018 09:29 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 07:04 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:06 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  This is great stuff. Can you share your list of all the athletics departments in California?

Also, would it be too much trouble to show all the departments in states west of the central timezone? That'd be CA+AZ+WA+OR+UT+CO+ID+NV+NM+HI+AK+MT+WY.

This link ranks all 382 schools that have participated in at least 1 NCAA playoff over the last 20 seasons sorted by state

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

I found some mistakes on that list. They listed schools like Johns Hopkins as D2 not D3. Robert Morris Illinois is not even a NCAA member. They are a NAIA program. They listed Missouri State and Southwest Missouri State. We all knowit is the same schools like Pan American is now UTRGV. They messed up on Cal. Poly. The D2 school is Pomona not SLO. They left off the D2 Michigan schools that play D1 Hockey And left Dallas Baptist off the list who went to the D2 baseball World Series earlier this year. That list is not accurate.

The list has any school that played in a division 1 ncaa playoff in the last 20 years.. Any school not in a playoff should not be expected to be listed. I listed any school not in divison 1 as divison 2, it was difficult to link as the source used many names for the same school, I am incorporating the feedback to correct the data and will update the link.

Ferris State went to the 2012 D1 men's hockey championship.


2018 men's hockey playoff:
Michigan Tech
St. Cloud State
Mankato State

2016:
RIT
Ferris State

I think you meant Union, New York, not Tennessee and Robert Morris PA instead of Illinois.

2011:
Merrimack
Omaha
Colorado College

2010:
UAH
Northern Michigan

2005:
Mercyhurst

2003:
Wayne State, Michigan

Those are the schools that made the NCAA D1 men's hockey playoffs.

(10-27-2018 03:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IMO this shows a big flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

And you made nothing for nearly a third of those 20 years. Alabama isn't anywhere close to Ohio St. when you look at the whole 20. Yes, if you look at the last 10, Alabama is the clear #1, but Ohio St. has done pretty well too.

If team X scores 0 points in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters but 30 in the 4th, while team Z scores 7 points in each quarter, who wins the game?

X, because it scored more points over the "whole game", even though all its points came in just one quarter. Like Alabama's achievements over the past 20 years compared to anyone else's. Alabama has achieved more than anyone else over the past 20 years, even though 99% of those achievements came during the last 10 years not the first 10. It's like a team that wins a game 50 - 10 despite being behind 10-3 at the half but erupts for 47 during the second half.

It's not complicated.

And you can manipulate the outcome as much as you like by creating an arbitrary time limit. As you said, it's not complicated.

Why 10? Why 20? Why 30? Why 40?

(10-26-2018 06:16 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 03:06 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  This is great stuff. Can you share your list of all the athletics departments in California?

Also, would it be too much trouble to show all the departments in states west of the central timezone? That'd be CA+AZ+WA+OR+UT+CO+ID+NV+NM+HI+AK+MT+WY.

This link ranks all 382 schools that have participated in at least 1 NCAA playoff over the last 20 seasons sorted by state

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

This has been a fun spreadsheet to play with. Here's what I pulled out about the Pac-12:

Rank School Score

1 Stanford 44944
5 UCLA 32331
10 Cal 27143
12 USC 26750
18 ASU 25030
20 Washington 23542
22 Arizona 23189
34 Oregon 18766
49 Colorado 14364
68 Utah 10101
74 OSU 9030
86 Wazzu 7096

That's not too bad for the Pac-12, I think.

Top Rank 1
Median Rank 21
Bottom Rank 86
7 schools in the Top 25

The bottom two schools would ideally be a bit better, but all in all not too bad.

Given the historical membership of Idaho and Montana, and the attempted expansion to the Pac-16, I'm going to consider the conference's sphere of influence to be everything west of the central time zone plus TX, OK, and KS. As such, here are where all the schools that rank at least as highly as Wazzu, and that are in that expanded footprint, would fit in with the current members of the Pac-12:

Rank School Score

1 Stanford 44944
5 UCLA 32331
7 Texas 30093
10 Cal 27143
12 USC 26750
16 Texas A&M 25471
18 ASU 25030
20 Washington 23542
22 Arizona 23189
25 Oklahoma 22297
28 BYU 20867
34 Oregon 18766
36 Oklahoma St 17899
37 Baylor 17539
49 Colorado 14364
52 TCU 12784
54 Texas Tech 12028
58 New Mexico 11638
61 SMU 11291
64 Denver 10639
65 Kansas 10608
68 Utah 10101
69 Kansas St 9863
71 Pepperdine 9676
73 Boise State 9176
74 Oregon St 9030
75 Tulsa 8708
79 SDSU 8343
80 Air Force 8145
86 Wazzu 7096

Only Texas and Texas A&M would be above the current median school in the conference.

And here is the same list, but limited to schools that are also categorized as Carnegie R1, as are all current members of the Pac-12.

Rank School Score

1 Stanford 44944
5 UCLA 32331
7 Texas 30093
10 Cal 27143
12 USC 26750
16 Texas A&M 25471
18 ASU 25030
20 Washington 23542
22 Arizona 23189
25 Oklahoma 22297
34 Oregon 18766
49 Colorado 14364
54 Texas Tech 12028
58 New Mexico 11638
65 Kansas 10608
68 Utah 10101
69 Kansas St 9863
74 Oregon St 9030
86 Wazzu 7096

So this ends up being a list of all the schools that are in the same athletics range, and in the same academic research range, as the Pac-12. I think this paints a pretty clear picture of why the Pac attempted to form the Pac-16. Only Oklahoma State is missing, out of the schools that were included in the attempted raid on the Big XII. If A&M didn't have eyes for the SEC, the Pac-16 might have ended up with 10 Top25 athletics departments.

It should be noted that Colorado State and Rice are marginally worse than Wazzu athletically and are both R1, so they'd be next if my list went beyond Wazzu.

(10-27-2018 09:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 03:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 02:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  Alabama was lousy in the decade prior to Saban. It looks at 20 years, not just the Saban era.

What makes you think I don't understand that? My problem is for how it accounts for those 20 years. E.g., imagine you and i both graduated from high school in 1998, and as you and I were friendly rivals and our 20th anniversary is approaching, I decided to "rank" us based on who was the better money earner over those 20 years, who has the bragging rights on that.

For me, let's say I got a nice job immediately out of high school, and made $70k a year from 1999 - 2005, $90k a year from 2006 - 2012, and from 2013 - 2018 I made $100k a year.

Now, let's say you spent 1999 - 2010 working on a crazy invention in your basement. As a result during those years your income ranged between $20k and $30k a year, you scraped by. But, in 2011, you licensed your invention to Apple for $3 million a year, so from 2012 - 2018, you have made $3 million each year.

Now, by anyone's standards, over the entirety of the 20 years, you have been a FAR better earner than me. I made a total of $1.2 million over that time, while you have made about $18.5 million over that time.

But, what if my system just gives one point to each of us based on whether you or I made more money in a given year? In 2000 i beat you so 1 point for me, in 2012 you beat me so 1 point for you. On that basis, I would be ranked ahead of you, because I made more money in more years than you, 12 to 8. I declare victory !!!

And if you naturally objected, while waving your platinum Rolex under my nose, what if i said "hey, I'm ranking the whole 20 years not just the last 7!".

Wouldn't that be unrealistic? Yes. But that's basically what this guy's system does. It totally ignores the magnitude of achievements.

And you made nothing for nearly a third of those 20 years. Alabama isn't anywhere close to Ohio St. when you look at the whole 20. Yes, if you look at the last 10, Alabama is the clear #1, but Ohio St. has done pretty well too.

If team X scores 0 points in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters but 30 in the 4th, while team Z scores 7 points in each quarter, who wins the game?

X, because it scored more points over the "whole game", even though all its points came in just one quarter. Like Alabama's achievements over the past 20 years compared to anyone else's. Alabama has achieved more than anyone else over the past 20 years, even though 99% of those achievements came during the last 10 years not the first 10. It's like a team that wins a game 50 - 10 despite being behind 10-3 at the half but erupts for 47 during the second half.

It's not complicated.

Yes, but Ohio St. has scored 27 every quarter. Alabama had 0 in the entire first half.
So its 108-60.

That would only make sense if we, collectively, would rather have Ohio State's results over the last 20 years over Alabama's results over the last 20 years.

But none of us would. All of us would rather have Alabama's 5 national titles compared to Ohio State's 2, so obviously, Alabama has scored more points than Ohio State.

So if Ohio State has scored 27 every quarter, then Alabama scored 130 in the second half. Or whatever would put them ahead of Ohio State.

(10-26-2018 09:30 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:54 AM)jhasting Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 07:00 AM)jhasting Wrote:  Updated program to ONLY score FBS FB. This data was collected from final BCS or college football playoff rankings. The highest scoring school is FSU with 2 national championships and ranked in every poll/ Georgia is the only other school in every poll.

1,Florida State ,FL,#NC=2 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1708 ,ACC
2,Georgia ,GA,#NC=0 ,#RANK=20 ,SCORE=1682 ,SEC

Well, IMO this shows an enormous flaw in the rating system. Alabama has to be #1 over the past 20 years, so this system severely under-rates national titles and/or severely over-rates merely finishing in a poll in a given year.

The scoring is simple: 100pts for #1, 99pts for #2 and so on. This is a fair system that is not customized to fit preconceived notions. If the data set is limited to the last 4 seasons or the last 10 seasons then Alabama FB easily outscores all other teams. Please review the results from 1998-2007 to see a surprisingly inconsistent and mostly average Alabama team (Dubose,Franchione, Shula) until Saban is hired. The first 10 years of the 20 season window is negatively impacting Alabama FB total score.

First, your system does fit a "preconceived notion", namely your personal definition of what a "fair" system would look like. There's nothing natural or inevitable about your scoring system, it reflects what you believe is the correct way to rank programs.

Second, I'm well aware that Alabama achieved very little between 1998 and the arrival of Nick Saban. My comment in the last post fully reflected that understanding so no need for me to review it. My point is, your system values consistency of performance over titles, and that simply does not comport to what I think is any reasonable understanding of who the best performing programs are.

For example, much better to have these results:

#1 ... #30 ... #1 .... #30 ... #1 over a five year period than:

#11 ... #11 ... #11 .... #12 ... #12.

Everyone in the world would rather have their team be the first team than the second, but I think your system would have the second team ranked higher. Just doesn't comport with reality, in my view.

I would modify the system to give a big bonus, maybe 100 extra points, for each national title won, and then reduce the points given for finishes outside the top 10.

Thanks. I did try several non-linear scoring systems, scaling the score based on the number of teams in each tournament, or providing bonuses similar to your suggestion . The end result usually favored more inconsistent teams. Using a simple linear scoring seemed to produce results that were fair to both consistent and high performing teams. I will take your feedback and continue to tweak to try to find the optimal scoring.

IMO, the reason to provide bonuses of the kind I suggest is that they comport with the reality of how we value achievements, namely, at some "break" points we value them non-linearly, kind of like in punctuated equilibrium theory in biology.

I mean, in football, it is IMO wrong to make the difference between finishing #25 and #26 the same points as between #27 and #28, because there is a qualitative break between 26 and 25 - if you are #25, you finish as a "ranked" team that year, something that is regarded as noteworthy.

Likewise, if you finish at #10, that's qualitatively different than finishing #11, because it's regarded as a noteworthy achievement to finish in the "top 10".

Of course the main qualitative break is between #2 and #1. Finish #2 and you get basically nothing but memories of "we were Oh So Close!". Finish #1 and you get hats and t-shirts and confetti dropping on you and a crystal football trophy and that CFP trophy and you get to call yourselves National Champions forever. To me it is obvious that the gap between #1 and #2 should be WAY bigger than between #3 and #4.

So the main reason to have some non-linearity in a rank system is because there are in fact qualitative breaks, non-linear breaks, in athletic achievements.

quo vadis, an easy comparison of what you are talking about is the NFL "cheat sheet" for draft pick value. I love what jhasting is working toward, and maybe something like negative exponential growth line is more appropriate than straight line. Below is the start of the NFL's "cheat sheet" for an idea. Notice how the value goes down in increments based upon perception of that pick's value, but it means a much wider gap between values:

Round 1
Pick 1 - 3,000
Pick 2 - 2,600
Pick 3 - 2,200
Pick 4 - 1,800
Pick 5 - 1,700
Pick 6 - 1,600
Pick 7 - 1,500
Pick 8 - 1,400
Pick 9 - 1,350

Then it starts increments of 25 at pick 19 and so on.