2 National Titles Says ESPN
So ESPN's prestige rankings came out and Michigan barely cracks the top 10. They use a bunch of different numbers and criteria. To determine prestige, a seemingly intangible concept, on hard numbers seems unreliable to begin with BUT any method which reduces Michigan's national title count from 11 to 2(?!) seems flawed.
This question was addressed in a chat wrap with one of the researchers:
Bill (Detroit, Mi): Ummmm you say U of M has 2 national championships. Can you count to 11??? 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1918, 1923, 1932, 1933, 1947, 1948, 1997
SportsNation Harold Shelton : You are a funny guy Bill. We can play this game too. Can you read where the study says "SINCE 1936?" Or how about the fact that we only used the AP or the UPI/Coaches/BCS Poll. Michigan didn't win a title under those polls in 1947.
I'm not sure if their national title counting system hurt any other program as much as it did Michigan but it would seem that any system which reduces your titles from 11 to 2 is a flawed system. Of course this assumes the other nine titles weren't based on votes by The National Association of Waffle Makers or Bob's Pelt and Hide, but I assume Michigan claims 11 National Titles b/c they all were given by some nationally recognizable organizations.
Your thoughts?
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^
That doesn't seem arbitrary at all, nope.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
There's already a thread about this. 1936 is when the AP starting awarding National Championships. It was not some arbitrary date that they used.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
I had no idea they only started counting AP NCs in 1936. I agree that our pre-1936 NCs don't really mean much.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
Yeah, four consecutive undefeated 10+ game seasons, one season outscoring opponents 550-0, inventing the linebacker position, inventing and winning the first bowl game, none of that means anything...
As if the AP Nat Champs mean more than other sources, also. Of course the press is self-important, but their method lacks credibility... particularly for assessing "prestige"! Prestige is all about history... the Ivy League schools are extremely prestigious, despite a lack of recent dominance.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
I guess we'll have to take away our '97 national championship, then. Afterall, it was only the AP awarded national championship...
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^
I don't think anyone is dying to play football at Dartmouth.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 PM ^
because everyone hates us and...blah blah blah, who cares.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
this makes no sense. It is a slap in the face to programs with a rich tradition.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
Earlier in the chat he commented that he was an MSU fan
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
When you consider the high profile that UM has, and all the wonderful tradition we love to crow about, not to mention the variety of great players we've had, I think it's remarkable we've only got one national championship since 1950, or two since '36. Hell, Sparty has two in that time as well. And it's not like we've been to 6 national championship games and lost all but 2; since 1950, only the '71 and '97 teams had even a chance at a national title, and the former's chance was pretty slim to begin with, even if they'd not choked against Stanford. This is the reason lots of people from outside Ann Arbor think of UM as a chronically underperforming program, unfairly or not.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 PM ^
about their Prestige rankings was the fact that in Oklahoma's positives they tell us OK had 39 conference titles, 7 more than any other team in the country!!!
WOW!!! Except for, you know, the fact that its completely inaccurate.
Hello, I'd like you to meet Michigan. 42 Big Ten titles.
Do some research, you flippin' hacks.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
what part of post 1936 do you idiots not understand?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
NOBODY IN THE WORLD CARES ABOUT HOW MANY GAMES WE WON BEFORE WORLD WAR I. Sorry, guys. Miami has won like 3 times as many national championships as we have in that span. MIAMI WASN'T EVEN FOUNDED WHEN YOST WAS COACHING MICHIGAN. LET GO, BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD CARES ABOUT OUR FAKE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS OR OUR WINS IN AN ERA WHERE CORNELL WAS A POWERHOUSE.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
Cosign.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
EXACTLY!!!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
was an all girls school until the '50s. And they have as many titles as we do in that span.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
Whether nobody cares about how many games we won before WWI isn't the point. I'd venture to say that most people couldn't care less how many we won before Bo took over. That isn't the point either. Prestige is based in part upon the rich history and traditions of a program as well as its overall success. Taking your logic to the extreme, I guess it doesn't matter that we have the greatest number of wins or the highest (or close to it) winning percentage in college football history. The point of the original post is that we shouldn't be penalized because the official AP national championship wasn't begun until the 1930s. History and tradition are part of prestige, as well as the mystique of the great college football programs. I dare say that Miami has little prestige in the eyes of many, given their outlaw image and lack of sportsmanship, whether or not they won 3 NCs.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
Take away that era of time, and football wouldn't exist. So I reckon it is important
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 PM ^
Random trivia: Of teams we've played more than once, Cornell is the team Michigan has the worst all-time record against: 6-12.
Granted, we haven't played them since 1952 (when we waxed them 49-7). Still, 6-12 is 6-12. I say, next time we're looking for a stupid cupcake game to fill out our schedule, we call up Andy Noel (Cornell's AD) and ask them if they're interested. I mean, think of it! 6-12! This cannot be allowed to stand!
/mock outrage
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
So in 100 years when the way a National championship is won is different (a playoff) people are going to say that none of the NC's won in the 90's and 2000's count because it was so long ago and it was the BCS system that decided who played in the NC game?
so let just wipe away all the wins we had before 1936 off our record books if the AP is the only thing that matters..
January 24th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
Do you realize how long of time 100 years is? In 100 years people won't give a shit about what is happening in sports right now. Does anyone here honestly care about what happened 100 years ago in college football?
Granted, all of these things ESPN does are idiotic, from "Who's Now in Sports?!" to the latest "Mt. Rushmore of Sports!", they are just pointless analysis meant only to generate hits from the standard internet crowd of the "BOOMER SOONER NUMBER 1 SUCK IT TROJANS" and "OHMIGOD MICHIGAN GOT SCROOOD, ITZ A SMARTR SKOOL AND NUMBAH 1 FOR WINNIN' PERCENTS!"
January 24th, 2009 at 10:37 AM ^
Just your mere presence here on this thread contradicts your statement. Half the people on this thread are saying that it does matter. By your logic, hall of fames are irrelevant because people don't care about the players who played in yester years. But everyone here knows the name of Babe Ruth. Do you think that his name will still bear relevance twenty years from now? What about Tom Harmon? Red Grainger? These are names that bear no significance to my generation. But they bear semblance to me because I love the game of football. If you care about a sport then the history of that sport does matter. If it didn't then why keep stats and have historians of said sport.
January 24th, 2009 at 11:51 AM ^
There used to be a player for Illinois named Red Grange who ran for 402 yards, passed for 78, and scored 5 TD's against Michigan in 1924. Yost got the better of him the next year in Ann Arbor, with Grange gaining only 65 yards on 25 carries.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Nothing. What does Michigan get for being in the top ten overall? Nothing.
I'm sure Buckeye fans will rub it in our faces that they are ranked ahead of us. But what is their record in our rivalry? 42-57-6, 15 GAMES UNDER .500.
I just don't want people to lose their minds over this. If some one wants to feel good about their team who is ranked high in the ESPN prestige rankings, then just ignore them, and smile as RichRod wins us several national championships.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
Boo hoo, we're number 8 out of 120. THAT MEANS THAT ONLY 112 SCHOOLS ARE WORSE THAN MICHIGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE WE'RE THE LEADERS AND BEST THE SONG SAYS SO SEE????
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
But but but, we're #1........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMIPahuaFxs
January 24th, 2009 at 1:06 AM ^
College Football existed before 1936. So to negate it's history because a certain establishment didn't choose it's King at the time does not negate its history nor M's accomplishments.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
But are we "Now"? That's what I'm really concerned about.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^
We just missed out on being now, maybe we'll be "Next". It really helped out Vince Young's career.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
So, geniuses where would you rank M??
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 PM ^
Is there any reason why we should care what some random guy at ESPN thinks about "program prestige"?
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^
Nope, no reason at all. Some guys are taking this a little too seriously.
FYI, my taint hurts
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 PM ^
Aim better next time.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
Lame ass poll, and some equally lame ass "Michigan fans".
Like we should just forget about anything that happened before the AP poll. Puh-lease. How. Fucking. Stupid.
We don't need to apologize that some pussy-ass girls school hadn't come up with a team yet. And we don't need to apologize that a team like Cornell couldn't keep up with the big dogs.
This is the equivalent of ESPN releasing a NHL prestige poll, and putting a team like Pittsburgh ahead of the Maple Leafs. But wait! Toronto hasn't won a Stanley Cup since the 67 expansion and Pittsburgh has! Waaa!
Idiots.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
This is dumb.
"Prestige" is just a word, and everyone's definition is different.
We all know the great things about Michigan football. That's all that really matters.
Saying pre-1936 championships are irrelevant is just as ridiculous as saying pre-1936 world history is irrelevant. Michigan's success pre-1936 undoubtedly affected its success after 1936.
At the same time, we still get elite recruiting classes and we still win lots of games and the reason losing the Appalachian State game last year was such a big deal is because Michigan has an excellent football program.
I don't give a damn what ESPN says. It's well documented how often they're wrong. What makes you think their opinions are right?
Ignore.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:27 AM ^
Part of the value of the 1936 date is that before this date, several teams claimed national championships. You may have 8-10 teams all claiming the same year. The AP at least offered one definite source of the title, however jaded it may be.
I still claim that none of this makes any difference.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
So, why didn't ESPN crunch the numbers for all of college football history in addition to the 1936 forward?
The selected time span includes the 2 worst decades for M and excludes the best 3 decades for M.
Finally, the methodology is kinda arbitrary. Points are given for: MNC (25 points), Major Bowl Appearance (10), Major Bowl Win (10), Final Poll Ranking (from 10 to 4 based on ranking), Bowl Appearance, Bowl win, 10 win season, First Round NFL draft picks, etc. etc.
It is obviously possible to crunch the numbers since the start of college football. I am not inclined to spend that much time but I would guess the results would be significantly better for M.
I may have to start believing in the ESPN conspiracy theory.