WINNINGEST Team in Football

Submitted by markp on October 13th, 2023 at 2:24 PM

Michigan marches closer to history. Here are the all-time records as of today:

  • MICH: 995-353-36 (73.20%)
  • OSU: 953-331-53 (73.26%)
  • BAMA: 953-335-43 (73.22%)

Michigan is 5 wins away from an unprecedented 1,000 wins. (math is easy!)

Michigan can also take the lead in total win percentage if they accrue fewer losses than both OSU and BAMA the rest of the year. The percentages are close enough now that any loss moves the leader behind the other two. (math is less easy!)

#FunFact: With 1,384 total games played, Michigan could conceivably overtake Rutgers (1,395) for most games played (among current FBS teams) by playing more postseason games than them over the next 5-10 years.

Sources: List of NCCA football teams by wins, Winning Percentage Calculator (advanced)

PopeLando

October 13th, 2023 at 3:00 PM ^

Depressingly amazing that RichRod and Hoke racked up 42 losses between them. 

Also, the three LOSINGEST football teams ever are Indiana (704), Northwestern (697), and Rutgers (689).

Indiana is also the worst P5 team in Win % at 42%

Jesus

PopeLando

October 13th, 2023 at 9:42 PM ^

Do you mean losing record for his entire tenure? I’m having trouble parsing your statement: according to SportsReference, Michigan has had plenty of losing seasons since 1891.

Also, I’d like to make a feelingsball disagreement: RichRod had the worst Year 1 team you could imagine, and won more games every season he was here. He was responsible for 22 losses.

Hoke inherited a great offense, and lost more games every season he was here. The fact that he recruited well just underscored how poor he was as a coach. He was responsible for 20 losses.

Those two eras were horrific in different ways, but they were both terrible to live through.

restive neb

October 13th, 2023 at 3:08 PM ^

I object to the way the NCAA calculates winning percentage (ties count as half of a win).  If you only count wins in winning percentage (wins divided by total games), Michigan is already significantly ahead of OSU and Alabama because of significantly fewer ties.

J. Redux

October 13th, 2023 at 3:28 PM ^

Wins / total games is an abjectly unfair calculation.  Clearly a tie is better than a loss.

Having ties as half a win / half a loss helps Michigan compared to ignoring them entirely, which is the only other fair approach.  That's because the half-losses are more damaging to a team above .500 than the half-wins are helpful.

Hensons Mobile…

October 13th, 2023 at 3:09 PM ^

I remember when our games with Notre Dame used to determine who had the all-time winning percentage.

Rutgers made the list of the Top 100 teams in total wins. But they come at the bottom of those 100 in win %. Still, golf clap for that. Not every Big Ten school is even on the list.

jmblue

October 13th, 2023 at 3:10 PM ^

That stupid Covid season really hurts.  In 2020, while we went 2-4, Bama went 13-0 (!) and OSU 7-1.  

Toss out that season and you get:

Michigan - 993-349-36 (.7336)

OSU - 946-330-53 (.7318)

Bama - 940-335-43 (.7295)

SysMark

October 13th, 2023 at 3:48 PM ^

Could be wrong on this but I thought ND was much closer to us a few decades ago.  Same with Nebraska.  Nebraska I can understand falling, ND more of a surprise

Harball sized HAIL

October 13th, 2023 at 4:51 PM ^

Thanks for not narrowing it to CFB.  It is ALL of football.  At least in this part of the world.

Michigan has about a 200 game win cushion on the GB Packers.

Yeah we probably had about a 40 year head start, but they've actually played around 50 more games than Michigan.