Top Winning %s NCAA Football Last 30, 20, 10 Years
There were some interesting comments in the "best coaching jobs" thread - specially for how Oklahoma is not an elite job - that had me scratching my head. Considering the Switzer to Stoops era was conceptually one of the best off the top of my head I could think of (i.e. top 5) for 40ish year I am not sure where this viewpoint was coming from. At first I thought maybe younger guys dont remember how dominant Oklahoma used to be, but considering Stoops has the same winning % as Bo did ....in an era with scholarship reductions and far more parity, that didn't make sense. Maybe an 80% win % is just not that impressive to some. Switzer was even more dominant (albeit with some wink wink stuff going on). Anyhow I digress a bit but how someone doesn't think OK is one of the top 7-8 jobs in the country is beyond me. It's not an academic ranking - its damn football, and Oklahoma is and has been a bad ass program for decades.
Anyhow that thread led me to take a look back at the top program winning %s by in 3 time frames. While the headline says 30, 20 and 10 years it's technically 31, 21, and 11 years (1984, 1994 and 2004 to 2014). I tried to focus on P5 conferences but did add in TCU and Utah which spent most of this time outside the P5 - I also included Louisville which was in various conferences. Former Big East conference members were difficult to figure out since things changed so often there but this should cover the major players. So you have your Louisvilles, West VAs, VA Techs etc. I did include BYU over 30 years but excluded them in the 10 and 20 due to error.
This data also doesnt penalize for sanctions.
Some interesting data:
1984-2014 (31 years)
| Team | % | |
| 1 | FSU | 77.95% |
| 2 | Nebraska | 76.21% |
| 3 | OSU | 75.93% |
| 4 | Miami | 74.21% |
| 5 | UF | 73.51% |
| 6 | OK | 73.06% |
| 7 | UM | 70.10% |
| 8 | Auburn | 69.16% |
| 9 | PSU | 69.10% |
| 10 | GA | 68.75% |
| 11 | TN | 68.23% |
| 12 | BYU | 67.93% |
| 13 | Bama | 67.80% |
| 14 | USC | 67.61% |
| 15 | TX | 67.41% |
| 16 | LSU | 67.11% |
| 17 | Va Tech | 66.97% |
| 18 | Oregon | 66.76% |
| 19 | A&M | 65.97% |
| 20 | ND | 65.70% |
| 21 | Clemson | 65.40% |
| 22 | WVA | 62.40% |
| 23 | Utah | 61.34% |
| 24 | TCU | 60.08% |
| 25 | UCLA | 59.97% |
| 26 | Wiscy | 59.92% |
| 27 | Iowa | 59.74% |
| 28 | GA Tech | 58.05% |
| 29 | WA | 58.00% |
| 30 | Ark | 57.85% |
1994-2014 (21 years)
| Team | % | |
| 1 | OSU | 79.38% |
| 2 | FSU | 75.87% |
| 3 | UF | 74.54% |
| 4 | Neb | 73.90% |
| 5 | Oregon | 73.59% |
| 6 | VA Tech | 73.33% |
| 7 | Texas | 72.58% |
| 8 | Oklahoma | 71.12% |
| 9 | LSU | 71.11% |
| 10 | GA | 70.87% |
| 11 | USC | 70.12% |
| 12 | Wiscy | 69.07% |
| 13 | Miami | 68.34% |
| 14 | TCU | 68.09% |
| 15 | Bama | 67.89% |
| 16 | KSU | 67.30% |
| 17 | UM | 67.18% |
| 18 | Auburn | 67.11% |
| 19 | PSU | 67.05% |
| 20 | Utah | 66.93% |
| 21 | TN | 65.78% |
| 22 | Louisville | 63.04% |
| 23 | WVA | 62.31% |
| 24 | Clemson | 62.21% |
| 25 | ND | 61.58% |
| 26 | A&M | 61.49% |
| 27 | Texas Tech | 60.92% |
| 28 | GA Tech | 59.25% |
| 29 | Iowa | 57.17% |
| 30 | MSU | 57.12% |
2004-2014 (11 years)
| Team | % | |
| 1 | OSU | 80.92% |
| 2 | LSU | 77.78% |
| 3 | Oregon | 77.62% |
| 4 | Oklahoma | 77.40% |
| 5 | USC | 75.97% |
| 6 | TCU | 75.54% |
| 7 | Bama | 74.19% |
| 8 | Texas | 73.94% |
| 9 | Wiscy | 73.79% |
| 10 | GA | 72.22% |
| 11 | VA Tech | 72.11% |
| 12 | UF | 71.13% |
| 13 | Auburn | 70.42% |
| 14 | FSU | 69.40% |
| 15 | Utah | 69.07% |
| 16 | WVA | 68.57% |
| 17 | Louisville | 67.39% |
| 18 | Missouri | 67.13% |
| 19 | PSU | 66.91% |
| 20 | Clemson | 66.90% |
| 21 | Nebraska | 65.04% |
| 22 | OK State | 65.00% |
| 23 | South Car | 64.29% |
| 24 | MSU | 63.12% |
| 25 | Texas Tech | 62.59% |
| 26 | ND | 61.87% |
| 27 | GA Tech | 61.38% |
| 28 | Rutgers | 60.00% |
| 29 | Iowa | 59.71% |
| 30 | Michigan | 59.42% |
Some takeaways:
- Over a 30ish year time frame 6 teams clearly stand out at 73%+ - FSU, Neb, OSU, Miami FL, Florida, Oklahoma. From there we have a significant 3% drop to the cabal of UM, Auburn, PSU, GA.
- While lacking the # of NCs of Bama, no way to say it other than OSU has been the the best program in terms of consistency for 20 years. And aside from FSU is essentially tied for 2nd over 30 years. A hell of a multi decade run.
- Despite some fall off post Bowden, FSU has had an amazing 30 year run.
- I doubt most would guess LSU was #2 over the past 11 years. I wouldn't.
- Nebraska had such a good mid 80s to early 2000s it has offset the relative mediocrity of late.
- Oregon has been better for longer than I assumed.
- While UM has been wholly mediocre relative to perceived status for 10 and 20 years, ND has been mediocre for all 3 time frames which is suprising considering Holtz era.
- For all the TX angst they have had a nice run the past 20 years.
- Despite not even being found in the top 30 the past 11 years, Miami is still #4 overall over 30.
- Wisconsin is impressive - Alvarez did a hell of a job not only building a program but despite the coaching changes leaving a legacy. Let's hope Dantonio does not do the same.
- Rutgers was not such a bad addition to the Big 10 ;)
- As suspected UCLA is a chronic underachiever considering all the assets at their disposal.
February 26th, 2015 at 3:21 AM ^
The OP's starting period may be arbitrary (and all starting points that aren't "the beginning" are arbitrary) but that doesn't change the conclusion OSU has been better over the last 30 years.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 7:16 AM ^
That's not even the point of his "analysis". His point was to see who have been the most consistent programs over the past 11, 21, and 31 seasons. Unfortunately, by aggregating the data instead of reporting it in 10 year chunks, recent success skews his desired outcome. Without adjust for sanctions, OSU is 118-25 since 2004 (82.5%), 98-28 from 1994-2003 (77.8%) and 80-35-5 from 1984-1993 (66.7%). Their recent success makes his chart look like they've been a consistent 9-3 or better team since 1984, but that isn't true. They've been a lot better recently than they were at the start of his analysis.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:37 AM ^
1. ignoring SOS. During the Meyer era, for example, a recent mgoblog diary showed that UM had the toughest schedule. OSU was virtually tied with PSU for the worst SOS in the B1G--in fact, by far the worst.
2. truncating the data at 31 years so that all but a few of Bo's years were excluded (overal win pct 78%)
3. making it appear that these flawed win pct data accurately describe the most recent state of the program--which hardly could be more inaccurate. UM now has a coach with one of the top 5 win percentages all time at the highest level of competition: the NFL.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:35 AM ^
I saw them with my own eyes beat us 37-7 in 2010. It might be vacated but it still happened. That was one of the probably top three worst games I've ever watched.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:11 AM ^
(pre-Tressel)
OSU went 2-10-1 vs UM.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 12:53 AM ^
The OP did 11, 21, and 31 it to blow your mind..... and make you wonder what hidden agendas he truly had. Because the data would be so different than 10, 20 and 30 years.
My first period was 2004 to 2014 which on first glance I thought "10 years". Then after I did the work I realized it was technically 11 years.
And so on and so forth.
Also your defense mechanisms are amusing. If I did a 100 year countdown the most recent 10 years and most recent 20 year advantage for OSU would still be "double counted". That's how any trailing period works - the most recent 10 years will count, always and forever... in EVERY trailing period. The only to make that go away is to go back into time and write the blog post in 2004.
It's just raw data. Not something to get defensive about. And what it was driven by was noted in the first paragraph - it was really a defense of Oklahoma. So as I researched that specific line item, I decided to look at a lot more things. If you want a 10 year time frame that Michigan dominated go pull something from the 1970s - it still doesnt fix the mediocrity that has been here the past 15 years.
By the way - UM trails OSU 76.5% to 72.0% over 41 years. And 76.9% to 72.6% over 51 years. But there I go double counting the recent past again. Perhaps if I go to 1911 I can find data to offset the most recent 20 years and push UM ahead...
February 26th, 2015 at 1:07 AM ^
That would more accurately present a picture of each time period.
I never said that you intended to distort anything. That said, I do still think the analysis does distort the program's performance by not excluding vacated wins by OSU, by repeating some of the worst win pct years in UM program history, and by ignoring the high SOS of UM and the extremely low SOS of OSU in recent years.
I recall once computing an SOS-weighted win percentage for UM all time, and UM had by far the highest score--way above ND---and OSU barely made the top ten.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:29 AM ^
I just showed you OSU ahead of UM over 51 years. That included some down years for OSU no?
I just looked back 61 years for shits and giggles - OSU was #1 in the country at 76.5%. UM #7 at 70.3%. That's the problem going back over 51 years - you start losing Bo and gaining Bump. But I guess I should skip Bump to make the data more convenient.
Look until we go back 80 years or so I guess I cannot "find" the data to push UM ahead of OSU. You are trying very hard to explain away reality. The SOS argument is hilarious when UM was playing some local teams, at home every year in the 1910s or 1920s (ask WD) which is the time frame we have to go back to see UM ahead of OSU.
By the way, Oklahoma was #2 in the country over 61 years at 75.1% to prove my original intent of the post anyhow. PSU, Bama, and Texas were also ahead of us over 61 years. All have had rough years in the past 10-15 years - but no one is saying we should exclude their rough years to make things equalize. Every program has down years - to say 5 rough years in the past 7 is creating the issue over 40, 50, 60 years is silly. Even at Carr's height he was often going 8-4 and OSU 10-2. Extrapolate that over 10 years and it adds up. ...even in the context of 6 decades.
(Just looked over 71 years and OSU is #2 at 75.5% and UM is #6 at 70.6% - is this where I blame Rich Rod?)
February 26th, 2015 at 1:42 AM ^
It's not a defense mechanism to point out that the way you presented the data makes this post next to worthless. The 20 and 30-year trailing period doesn't tell us anything meaningful. The conclusions are obvious from the start because of the dramatic disparity in the last decade.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:59 AM ^
This sounds a little too similar to Buckeye fans who discount the early 1900s when talking about Michigan's record.
This can be done without very in depth statistics... just look at B1G and national titles with head to head record.
00s OSU
90s UM
80s UM
70s OSU
60s OSU
50s OSU
40s and beyond UM
Like I said down below, since Woody was hired OSU has been better.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:16 AM ^
From the time Woody was hired to 2004, Michigan had one more conference title and was even in head to head wins. In the last decade, OSU has dominated the rivalry, which we all already know. So no, OSU hasn't been better since Woody. They've been better for the last decade.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:34 AM ^
Michigan has 1 more conference title. OSU has 6 national titles to UM's 1 from when Woody was hired to 2004.
National titles are bigger than conference titles thus giving OSU the edge.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:45 AM ^
Yes, there's no doubt that OSU finished ranked #1 in the country more times than UM over that period. I would point that one of those national titles came after a bowl loss, another came after neither the coaches nor AP poll voted them #1, and two others were split, but the point stands. On the flip side, Michigan also had a significantly higher average final ranking and more top ten finishes over that span.
From 1951-2004, MSU had four national titles. Would you consider them one of the premier programs in college football over that time period?
February 26th, 2015 at 3:06 AM ^
No I wouldn't b/c MSU wouldn't even be in this conversation anyway since they've always been 2nd fiddle as a program except during a run in the early 50s and mid 60s. Their win percentage is sitting at .600 vs UM's .729 and OSU's .720. That is a way larger gap.
OSU's success isn't a flash in the pan. It is sustained just like UM's and over that period of time (1954, 1957, 1961, 1968, 1970, 2002) vs. (1948 to 1997). That's the deal breaker. Look at UM's drought compared to OSU's.
When you factor in their recent success, adding 2014 to that list is gravy. I count all of their titles as legit b/c if I factored out all other polls except for AP and Coach's, then UM would only have 2 titles vs OSU's 6. (Instead of 11 vs their 8)
If you want to say since hiring Bo to 2004, UM has been better, then I would be more inclined to agree but even then OSU would have 2 chips to UM's 1 vs UM's 20 B1G titles to OSU's 16. This is a lot more equatable.
Even if you don't factor in recent success, OSU has had an edge since Woody's hiring in part b/c Hayes was a great coach over the span of 3 decades. Bruce and Cooper maintained it somewhat and Tressel put them back over the top by getting over the Maize n Blue hump.
February 26th, 2015 at 3:16 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 9:39 AM ^
This also sound a little too similar to my data-cherry-picking boss. I visit mgoblog during work hours for a break from that sort of crap.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
I'm sorry you can't handle OSU being better than us 4 out of the past 6 decades starting from 1950?
What did I cherrypick?
February 26th, 2015 at 1:24 PM ^
My response was to Pinky's objections. The data strongly favors OSU's program - unless we start discounting data points or pick more flattering relevant ranges.
[edit: which is what my empty suit boss does to protect his bonus]
February 26th, 2015 at 5:09 AM ^
Michigan winning percentage is .77612
ohio state .76609
That covers 38 years
And to whoever listed ohio state having the advantage in the 70's
Michigan .84783
ohio state .81140
Michigan had the better record in the 70's, 80's, and 90's
February 26th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^
I gave OSU the nod in the 70s b/c they had the same amount of B1G championships but also a national title.
Obviously one would say that title doesn't count but I counted it b/c if you discount their 1970 title then you have to discount 9 of UM's 11 titles.
February 26th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
Before 1936 (when the AP poll came into existence) there was no consensus way of determining a national champion, so all claims from that period are debatable. But from 1936 onward a claim needs the validation of the polls.
1970 OSU was not voted #1 in either poil. Even OSU fans often don't acknowledge it as a national title.
February 26th, 2015 at 6:39 AM ^
years is that 3 of the top 5 winningest programs (USC, Oregon, and Ohio State) had major violations that resulted in probation.
There is clear incentive to cheat. If you get caught, well you can escape to the NFL for more money. Or become president of a University.
the fan base doesnt' seem to care because if they pout long enough (Penn State) they can get their probation lifted and records restored.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:22 AM ^
If you check the last 100 yrs, Ohio State has the highest winning percentage too.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:41 AM ^
Anybody can distort the data by selectively reporting only particular periods.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:08 AM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 1:28 AM ^
They have done better. But how about the prior decade? And the decade before that? And the one before that, etc?. Those are the questions that need to be answered. Cumulative data do merely repeat the most recent periods.
Also, to say a team has done better than others requires considering strength of schedule. The OP suggests that in the past 10 and the past 20 years, OSU was #1 in the nation. But to say that their win pct shows they were better than everyone is patently absurd. Their schedule was nowhere near as tough as was the case for recent SEC teams.
February 26th, 2015 at 1:45 AM ^
Do we really need in depth statistics for that?
Just go by national titles and B1G titles or in close decades rivalry head to head record.
00s OSU
90s UM
80s UM
70s OSU
60s OSU
50s OSU
40s and beyond UM
OSU has been better since Woody was hired.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:10 AM ^
Except that they really haven't, unless of course you're using the last ten years to skew the entire data set.
February 26th, 2015 at 3:08 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
There's really no point in wasting more time on people who can't understand the basic statistical error at work here.
February 26th, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^
You're trying to find statistical error in reality.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:47 AM ^
I went back 81 years last night and OSU still had the advantage.
I am not sure what time frame you guys want to show UM is "better". It would probably have to be 100 years.
At this point OSU is 3rd all time in winning % at 72.0%
ND is 73.1% and UM is 72.9%
So we'd have to go back to the late 1800s when OSU had a coach who launched their program and they got off to a rough start at .500% winning % while UM was rolling.
Again over 81 years (we're talking WWI era) OSU is ahead of UM. I can look 91 years as well but I bet OSU is still ahead because the gulf between OSU and UM over 81 years was still multiple percentage points.
OSU has had a dominant last 20 years in winning % - 3% variance between program #1 and program #2 is vast.
And the SOS thing kills me - FSU had just as easy of a conference for 20 years. USC as well - the Pac 12 for decades o end was basically USC, UCLA, and Washington (60s thru early 00s). That's not much different than OSU, UM and throw in Iowa or whatever one year wonder (MSU) showed up in the Big 10 in that same era.
February 26th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
I just looked over 91 years
- OSU 74.1%
- Bama 73.1%
- Oklahoma 72.5%
- ND 71.2%
- UM 70.7%
- TN 70.2%
- USC 70.1%
101 years
- OSU 74.1%
- Bama 72.9%
- ND 72.6%
- Oklahoma 72.3%
- UM 71.1%
- TX 70.5%
111 years
- OSU 73.6%
- ND 73.3%
- Bama 72.6%
- Oklahoma 72.1%
- UM 71.9%
- TX 70.7
Is this where we blame SOS ... or Rich Rod? Or me because I picked "arbitrary data points that made OSU look better than UM". Arbitrary as in over a century....
February 26th, 2015 at 6:29 AM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 8:30 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 12:43 AM ^
If we're going back 100 might as well go back to 1869.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 7:13 AM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 7:31 AM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 8:47 AM ^
Presumably the OP used Stassen.com to collect the data. Stassen does NOT include Ohio State's vacated wins. The data presented counts Ohio State's 2010 season as 0-1.
Ohio State has the #1 winning percentage since 1900 and as far back as 1898. If you go back to 1897, ND passes OSU. If you go back to 1896, Michigan passes OSU for #2. You have to go back to 1895 for Michigan to claim #1. So, the last seven seasons have been so bad for Michigan that you have to back to 1896 to find period to present where they top OSU in overall winning percentage.
Each team has massive advantages over the other in certain time frames. For example, from 1896-1905, Michigan was 95-7 and Ohio Stae was 59-33. Michigan was 12-0-1 in the first 13 games of the series. Michigan throttled Ohio State in games when OSU was not in the Western Conference.
Conversely, from 2005-14, Ohio State is 98-21 (notice, 110-21 in games actually played) and Michigan is 73-53. Not quite the whupping Yost put on OSU, but comparable.
Excluding both periods of dominance, the comparison is very close:
1908-2007 (100 years): OSU, 73.13 and M, 72.98 with M holding a 49-41-5 advantage in the series. I didn't look at Big Ten titles or National titles in that period.
February 26th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 26th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
Actually the fact that we had the 7th-best winning percentage in the country from 1984-2014 - despite all the crappiness over the past seven years - tells me that we were pretty damn good up through 2007.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:12 PM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
I'm surprised we're actually 30th for the past decade.
February 26th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
He was good at Howard and West Virginia programs too.
He only had 1 unsuccessful season (his first at FSU, 5-6 in 1976).
I still think the best thing he did was bring in the spear helmet design and tomahawk helmet awards that made FSU football truly distinctive.
Between 1987 and 2000 there were like 14 straight seasons of 10 wins or more. I mean, by any standard that's fucking ridiculous.
Yet, he had only one undefeated season 1999 when the won the national title and Sugar Bowl.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:13 PM ^
For the past 10, past 20, past 30 and past 40 years years, let's say that team A beats team B in win pct 100 to 0, 65-30, 53-40 and 48-45.
We can conclude that Team A consistently dominates team B over the past 40 years, right?
Wrong.
The actual records used to generate these “cumulative’ results derive from the following results for each decade:
Years 1-10 A > B 100-0 %
Years 11-20 B >A 60-30%
Years 21-30 B >A 60- 30%
Years 31-40 B >A 60-30%
Thus Team B doubled the win pct over team A for 30 of the 40 years. Team B was the best except for one decade which clearly was an outlier.
Yet because that difference was large. occurred first, and was the only decade that was repeatedly counted in ALL of the OPs cumululative 10, 20 30 and 40 year periods, it appeared that team A dominated team B for all 40 years.
Clearly, that was wrong.
A similar but less extreme distortion occurs when the OP repeatedly includes Michigan's (team B's) worst ten years and Ohio's(Team A's) best, both of which came in years 1-10. I am not saying that MIchigan dominated Ohio in all the other decades, as did team B over A nor that the percentages were equally extreme. But a similar, less extreme distortion is likely to have occurred when the OP reported cumulative statistics repeatedly for a series of decades.
February 26th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^
February 26th, 2015 at 2:22 PM ^
We need to make things as simple as possible but no simpler than that.
The OP is far too simplistic and is misleading.
The reasons why are clearly stated in my post