All Time Win % up for grabs Saturday
I have not seen this posted or discussed yet. Last year my Notre Dame friend(s) made it a point to continually rub it in that Notre Dame passed Michigan for all time win %, after the bowl games. It's time to reaquire the "Highest All Time Win Percentage" back.
Current Stats
| Rank | Team | Win% | W | L | T | GP |
| 1 | Notre Dame | 0.73322422 | 875 | 305 | 42 | 1222 |
| 2 | Michigan | 0.73264984 | 911 | 321 | 36 | 1268 |
With a Michigan Win
| Rank | Team | Win % | W | L | T | GP |
| 1 | Michigan | 0.73286052 | 912 | 321 | 36 | 1269 |
| 2 | Notre Dame | 0.73262469 | 875 | 306 | 42 | 1223 |
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^
This is important.
Michigan needs to continue to be the #1 program in the history of college football. Having the highest win % is a requirement to boast this title.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^
today regarding the outcome of the investigation?
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
Sorry, its not going to happen.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^
They will just have to do it the old fashion way then . . . by losing games.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:43 PM ^
Then why did your school even MENTION the idea of vacating games if there's supposedly no chance of it?
I know you probably want to plug your ears and go LALALALALALA, but it's not like this is the first time you have players cheating academically.
September 4th, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^
Because ND is not North Carolina or other school where its been proven rampant and the NCAA doesn't do shit about. ND got ahead of the story and is maintaining institutional control.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^
Define rampant. Five instances in two years seems excessive, if not rampant.
September 4th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
And has anything happened at UNC? Golson was kicked out for a year, Daniels lost half a year and currently have 5 players suspended.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
Troll phork is troll
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
I've always thought this was a weird statistic in that ties are counted as a half of a win. That's kind of bizarre. A tie is not a win. It's not 0.5 wins. It's a game you did not win.
If you're looking at what precentage of games a team "wins" (wins/total games), Michigan is at .718 and ND at .716. There's like three different ways this statistic could be compiled honestly (subtract ties from total games played as a "non-win/loss" result).
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
Hmmm...let's do some math here:
Winning percentage. Well, that's gonna be a fraction times 100%. Ok, well what's the fraction?
(Total Wins) / (Total Games)
Wait, you're telling me it's
(Total Wins + 0.5 * Total Ties) / (Total Games)
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
it's that way b/c if you think about team A that went 1-2, team B that went 2-1, team C that went 0-0-3, and team D went 0-3-0 ... how do you rank them via win %? IOW, you have to get credit for a tie b/c it's better than a loss (but worse than a win).
And it's not really "nothing" either. A game was played, it should be reflected in your win %age- it literally counts as equal parts win and loss.
September 3rd, 2014 at 9:39 PM ^
But it shouldn't count as half of a win. It should be a 1/3 of a win.
September 3rd, 2014 at 10:03 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:45 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
Maybe that's why ND cancelled the series. If their last six Michigan games were wiped off the books, they would have a bigger margin.
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
Eh, I'll take more wins than win percentage.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
Why not take both?
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
if we competed for the Commander and Chief's trophy every year.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^
Boise State is #3 in win percentage? That shouldn't even count. And realistically, win percentage should start from 1936 (start of the AP). Does anyone actually care about beating high school teams in 1905? I know I don't...Yeah, it's "history" I guess, but anything that happened over 100 years ago is irrevelant in sports. Kind of like the Cleveland Browns claiming "championships".
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:45 PM ^
You can either go with some arbitrary standard, in which case you need to add qualifiers, or you can just go with the raw numbers without qualification. I'd say that which method you prefer would depend on which served your own preconceived notions. I like the raw numbers because they don't need qualifiers, but I am more qualifier-averse than some.
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:21 PM ^
Yeah, but if we're honest with ourselves, those first years weren't even really football. More like rugby. Played against random collections of dudes hanging around. Some would argue that deserves qualifications and I'd be hard pressed to argue against them.
Let's just keep winning so that we have the best winning percentage no matter what era you discuss.
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^
In 77 the nfl changed the rules regarding how the press defense worked in the nfl. (my dates are off, sec). 78 was the offensive line change.
Those two rules changed the entire landscape of football.
In fact, those rule changes gave birth to the most well known and celebrated nfl QB of all time (also, to hell with Notre Dame), up until manning and Brady.
I doubt, however, that you would discount everything before 1977 stat wise for the nfl.
(I know what you're thinking. No seriously, those are massive massive rule changes).
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^
Why is 1936 any more significant that 1935, just because the AP started taking notes? Why is one decade more significant than another?
The game is always changing, and will continue to do so. Do we really know that Appalachian State in 2014 is a relatively stronger opponent that Oberlin in 1905?
That is what Buckeys do. They pick a time period that looks good for them, then proclaim that they were the dominant team of that era. They just ignore time periods that are inconvenient to their argument, like the Cooper years.
They all count.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^
1936 isn't just picking some year out of thin air. That's regarded by most people as the start of the "modern era" in college football. Pretty much all of the current major programs had established football teams by then.
September 3rd, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
#1 Boise 0.771 #2 Okla. 0.7516 #3 Ohio St. 0.7439 #4 Bama 0.7149 #5 Michigan 0.7086 #6 ND 0.7036 ......#28 MSU 0.5894
Winning 70.86% of your games in a single season + a Bowl Game translates to a 9.5-3.5 W-L record.Amazing that Michigan has maintained that level of win % over a 135 year period.
BO- 79.5% #1 among all teams during that period... Moeller-78.1% #8.... Carr-74.7 % #7.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^
Unless I missed something, that doesn't compute for Winning Percentage for either team nor Non-Loss Percentage. Those stand as:
Win Percentage:
1. Michigan: 0.718454259
2. ND: 0.71603928
Non-Loss Percentage:
1. ND: 0.750409165
2. Michigan: 0.746845426
Winning saturday would only bump up our Non-Loss % to 0.747634069 and would drop theirs to 0.749795585
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:51 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
last few years' wins vacated--derp--we will finally place a distance between us that shall never again be closed.
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:04 PM ^
would that mean MSU was undefeated last year?
*shudders*
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^
What about teams like Old Dominion and GVSU? Technically they have higher winning percentages.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^
they don't play in the same league.
Then again, I don't keep up with either Old Dominion or GVSU so I might be wrong.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
Old Dominion is FBS now. They had a squad back in the 30s but never came back after WWII until 2009ish. Why wouldn't they count maybe not enough games played or a minimum number of wins met to qualify?
As for GVSU they play "college football" just the NCAA DII brand. Also Yale qualifies for the all time total wins since we passed them back in the late 90s I believe.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^
I was tempted to just post "you know why, and I know you know why based on the fact that you brought those two schools up."
But yes, a school that played from the 30s to 40s (I believe), and then was resurrected in 2009 shouldn't be in the overall win percentage discussion.
Yes, you have to play a certain length of time before you can be recognized. I have no idea what that length of time is. But it's more than sixteen years.
As for GVSU, they play in Div 2. It's a disqualifier in my book. (edit: and isn't old dominion just now joining C-USA, which, again, would disqualify them).
As for Yale, there's really no reason to go into it. Yale played in the div I equivalent (and left eventually, I'm not going to look up the dates) and has been playing since football has been played.
If Yale still had more wins than Michigan that wouldn't be touted. It would be ignored based on the current college landscape.
Just like Cornell kicking our ass is ignored.
But I get the point, why is Yale's win total counted despite them changing divisions? The answer is because 1) it's really not and 2) it's yale.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:17 AM ^
Take a look at pages 68 and 69 of the 2014 NCAA FBS Record Book. To qualify for the all-time won-loss record by percentage listing, a school needs 25 years in Div. I (p. 68). Old Dominion is credited with just 5 years (p. 69), so they're 20 years away from qualifying. (Their earlier incarnation isn't considered D-I.)
Regarding GVSU and Yale, it all depends on how you want to slice things up. Yale isn't in that record book because they're FCS. They are #1 in both winning percentage (.700) and wins in the FCS record book.
I get your point about GVSU. They do have the top winning percentage across all NCAA divisions. But in the end it doesn't really make sense to compare their record to that of FBS schools, because they're competing in a different universe.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:58 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
compute each team's winning %, one thing stands out---and matters most--- Michigan holds a decided advantage in head-to-head competition between the two teams.
ADVANTAGE : MICHIGAN!
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:41 PM ^
Indeed. I'd even say a decided schematic advantage.
September 3rd, 2014 at 6:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 3rd, 2014 at 8:24 PM ^
to hell with notre dame
September 3rd, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
Shame on you.