Michigan is #1 in All-Time Scoring Differential
This guy made a really cool public Tableau project that shows the all time scoring differential for college football programs and Michigan came out #1.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:10 AM ^
Northwestern has come a long way in recent decades
August 6th, 2019 at 12:58 PM ^
They have, back to what could be considered their historic normal. There 22-24 year stretch starting around 1970 looks like it could be the worst two decade stretch put together by anyone. In 1971 there all time total was +50 in 94 it was down to - 4599. An average yearly drop of over 200 pts!
They actually had half-way decent teams in 1970 (6-4) and 1971 (7-4 with a win over an admittedly down Ohio State). They would have likely been marginal bowl teams in the current era, especially with 1-2 games added to the schedule to bring it up to 12 games (depending on the opponent).
They were bad for the next several years, but in 1976 the bottom fell out at 1-10. They won no more than one game a season until 1982--including their record 34-game losing streak between 1979 and 1982.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
Oh dear. I see MSU is over 11,000 points behind here! I'll have to post this sometime to make their pathologically partisan heads explode.
Particularly poor performance given their football program only started in 2010.
It's the lime green pants...
August 6th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
to quote Chris Matthews, that stat "sent a thrill up my leg!"
August 6th, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
I did some research nearly 15 years ago to debate a friend who was is a Florida fan about which school had a better program. His argument was that what Michigan did 100 years ago didn't matter. At that time, I was able to look up historical statistics for college football. What I found was Michigan, at that time, had the most wins and highest winning percentage with the largest point differential against the highest schedule strength ALL TIME. I have since tried to search that information up, but to no avail; however, I am sure some of you (WD) can access that information and let us know where we stand today.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:22 AM ^
You can do most of that damage with Stassen, next time you go to internet war.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:03 PM ^
Of course those wins mattered. There aren't many "helmet schools" -- schools with winning traditions and resources so well stocked that they are insulated from any program downturn lasting forever. They have gravity that puts their long term equilibrium point in the Top 10. Michigan is one of these. Texas, Bama, ND, OSU, USC, and others share the distinction. It is perhaps impossible for their program to fall over the edge as Minnesota (and Chicago, Army/Navy, and Harvard/Yale, albeit some of those were for disparate reasons) once did.
And membership to this elite club was built in the early days of the sport. It defined fan base size, caliber of coaching searches, stadium size, recruiting appeal, palatial facilities before TV contracts made them commonplace, eyeballs, surplus dollars, and so on. Since ~1970 not a single member has fallen out of this club. Nor has any upstart like LSU, Miami or FSU durably entered. It's as if, to use an astronomy analogy, in the early era of solar system building, resources are relatively thinly distributed. But as a function of gravity and orbital frequencies, some heavenly bodies accrue mass rapidly and selfishly. That some of these cannot last, as they may fall out of orbit into the sun or find themselves altogether flung from the solar system. Such was the fate of Minnesota - one of the original CFB superpowers.
But now the solar system is stable. Michigan is one of the select fixtures. And it can thank its successes between 1870 and 1970 for its wealth, this popularity and - in particular - that permanence.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
Dammit, accidentally upvoted, so now I downvoted.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:41 PM ^
That writing deserved a pat in the back. I am jealous. I can't write like that.
Good post. Can't wait to butcher this when I try to regurgitate it to my buddies.
"Ya know, Michigan's like a planet, with like, gravity from the 1800s? State sux!"
I think I felt this gravity the most at the Oregon game after the "Horror". I distinctly remember feeling the thing you just described. Not specifically the solar system analogy, but in today's words, that Michigan was too big to fail. The Appy State game happened and the next week, everyone still showed up. All of the familiar faces were in our section. The band still took the field. The players still touched the banner. And I remember thinking, everything was going to be okay.
August 6th, 2019 at 10:05 PM ^
CFB Data Warehouse used to keep track of all-time strength of schedule. Michigan has the toughest strength of schedule through 2015.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
Curious how much of this is due to Michigan having a head start on so many programs because they started playing football earlier than most everyone else.
Would be interested to see how this graph looks when you compare it over the last 20 years vs. in the entirety of football history.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
A herd of OSU fans are logging on to upvote you. The old “history began on this chosen date” routine is their favorite.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:30 AM ^
Probably a lot. Michigan is 19th in the country in win percentage and 18th in wins over the last 20 years.
We're 2nd/1st all-time.
That stat, coupled with this ridiculous margin of victory data crunch, are stupid. Yep, I said it.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:46 AM ^
But why 20? That’s one hell of an arbitrary time. Modern Football, as most of us would describe it and recognize it, is at least 60 years back, and probably close to 100 now. Sure it’s changed from run heavy to pass heavy to whatever, and the defensive schemes have changed, but the game really isn’t any different than it was in the 50s, and probably before that. So, frankly, I don’t give a shit about just the last 20 years. Give me at least 50.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
OSU fans select about a 20-year time frame because it fits their narrative. You're doing the same thing by selecting 50. Let's be honest...almost no one gives a shit about games 50+ years ago. The last 20 years for Michigan have been mostly disappointing. That is just a fact.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:55 PM ^
I think a whole lot of people in both Michigan and Ohio give a shit about a game that happened in Ann Arbor precisely 50 years ago this November.
FauxAustralia must be an awful place.
History matters. The United States fought and won its independence over 200 years ago. Should we disregard that and bow to the British monarch?
Wow. Way to make a realistic comparison. <eye roll>
Ok, so history does not matter in your opinion? It either happened or it didn't happen.
If you don't agree, why even record wins and losses in any season?
Put me in the 'almost no one' group that cares. As a grad student at UM, I enjoyed watching Bob Timberlake and the 64-65 team have a great year, beat both MSU and OSU away, and destroy Oregon State in the Rose Bowl.
I would grumble about recency bias, but I think I did so in an earlier post. Perspectives shift.
Incidentally, 64-65 was a breakout year for the football team after disappointing years.
We're due again. Go Blue!
August 6th, 2019 at 12:13 PM ^
I like the idea of World War II being the cutoff, or alternately, the point at which college football became integrated at a meaningful degree (mid-1950s-mid-1960s). Those seem to be two of the more commonly accepted points to delineate "modern" college football.
I also think it's logical to pick the point of scholarship limits which helped level the playing field. Originally limited to 105 in 1972. Reduced to 95 in 1978 and eventually 85 in 1992. I don't know which is more important, but dates like those have actual impact on competitive balance.
WWII as the cutoff is still too old. Army, by way of comparison, was winning national championships and Heismans back then.
The game has changed a ton since even just WWII.
20 years, maybe even 30, feels like a more accurate representation of modern football. Maybe the rules and style of play haven't changed much (I'd argue they have, but that's another conversation for another time), but these days, football is all about "what have you done for me lately"? And lately, Michigan hasn't done much. Not relative to expectations, anyway.
No one outside of Michigan fandom cares about Fielding Yost or the Point-A-Minute teams. No one cares to know because its not relevant anymore. Very few outside of Michigan fandom really even care anymore about what Bo's teams did because its ancient history as far as college football is concerned, and not relevant to the program's level of success in the here and now. Just ask Clemson. They're pretty far down this list compared to other bluebloods, but it doesn't matter because of who they are right now, and who they've been in recent history
Don't get me wrong: data is data, points are points and wins are wins. But when I look at this graph, in just my humble opinion, I start thinking "Here we go again. Michigan looking to the past (a very distant past) to try and prop up its place in today's era of college football."
If I could up vote you exactly 12,457 times, I would. Well done. You said exactly what I was thinking. I just could not put it into words as well as you did.
The median age in the US is just under 37. So you are saying that saying that the football that occurred in at least half the population's childhood is irrelevant?
And the youngest boomers are in their mid 50s. So the football that occurred while they were in college is irrelevant?
Agreed.
The university and football team have plenty to be proud of over the last 20 years, but in general, the program has largely underachieved and continues to do so, considering the resources it has to work with. That doesn't mean I'm not proud of the university. I'm immensely proud.
But in general, I personally don't care what Bo did (or his predecessors) because A). that was so long ago and largely irrelevant and B). when I look at those years, I also see underachievement.
What I do think is interesting about our particular line on the graph is that the slope is very steep pre-WWII (totally expected), but it's also nearly as steep in more recent times as well, indicating that all of our success didn't come from a completely forgotten era of the game.
In a Freep spat yesterday I picked 50 years for my record search...and made the pathetic Spartan pathologicals cry inconsolably. How about this: In the past 50 years MSU has finished ahead of Michigan SEVEN times in the Big 10 standings-that's FIFTY YEARS-SEVEN TIMES!!!...and Michigan has won almost 1/3 of the conference championships during that time frame. So, when all the haters are jumping up and down-screaming and yelling, criticizing Michigan and otherwise making fools of themselves-these are the facts...this is the reality. I think we are entering another one of those "good stretches"...certainly much better than the last decade+.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^
I was wondering the same thing, except I was thinking more along the lines of ranking by average instead of total. I mean, in 1901, Michigan outscored its opponents by a total of 550-0. If any sort of "modern era" criteria were applied to this statistic, that alone would probably drop us to at least 3rd. We were also seemed to have started 10-15 years ahead of some of the other top programs, so an average might not drop us out of the top 5, but we probably would no longer be #1.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
That’s a cool random fact. Thanks for sharing!
Bama is closing in fast! If last years regular season point differentials hold again this year, they’ll pass us by the end of this season. They’re only back 189, they had +413, we were +205 per last season standings.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:24 AM ^
winning 128-0, 119-0 and so on, in the early 1900's is pretty cool for stats but I don't know that we want to make it a point of emphasis today.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:28 AM ^
Does this prove anything really? The variables which this could be the result of can be a good or very bad thing. This could be interpreted as saying that Michigan plays far weaker competition than say an SEC team. It could also indicate the strength of the rest of the B1G compared to Michigan. It doesn't exclusively eliminate the possibility that Michigan is far superior than it's competition, but the data doesn't really definitively answer any question other than which team can get in the end zone the most.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:30 AM ^
*waves tiny flag*
August 6th, 2019 at 12:12 PM ^
This was pretty much my thought when seeing this thread. Yippee.
I care more about finally winning a game against OSU.
August 6th, 2019 at 11:56 AM ^
This is the kind of stat that nobody cares about unless they #1 or dead last.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:06 PM ^
Couple Big Ten schools on the wrong end of that chart.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^
What happens when you take out the fact that Michigan was outscoring teams by a hundred in an era without any kind of competitive parity, playing a game that basically didn't resemble football as we know it?
August 6th, 2019 at 12:14 PM ^
Probably skews the data. I have an idea. Do the math and report your findings in this thread.
It doesn't matter. They called the games 'football games'. Michigan won those games. In 20 years when they've done away with tackling and replaced it with flags, will we disregard the win and loss records prior to that?
Did you even look? Michigan still does pretty well, almost 50% of the differential is accounted for post WWII
August 6th, 2019 at 12:24 PM ^
This is the kind of stat that will get you nothing but eye rolls. This is pure meaningless ego-stroking.
August 6th, 2019 at 12:30 PM ^
Stats I don't care about regarding Michigan for 400.