ESPN Prestige Rankings
ESPN is doing their whole "nothing going on let's do a ranking thing" comparing schools as a program...they cut out our pre WW1 dominance so I think we'll finish around 7 or so in the rankings. My best guess
1. USC
2. Alabama
3. Ohio St
4. Notre Dame
5. Nebraska
6. Oklahoma
7. Michigan
8. Miami
9. Florida St
10. Texas
Their methodology seems pretty fair just browsing quickly thru...maybe a little too much placed on NC conidering the whole no playoff thing
January 21st, 2009 at 7:34 PM ^
Since the 2002 meteoric rise of USC football under Pete Carroll (OK they went 6-6 in 2001) it's difficult to protest their top prestige in college football.
I do think that Florida State and Miami are two programs clasping at the edge.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^
dfgdg
January 21st, 2009 at 8:17 PM ^
I think you're close, except for Nebraska??
What's up with your thinking there?
IMO, any high ranking by them would have to coincide with Miami and Florida St being higher.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
It takes into account form 1937-2008 Nebraska was probably the top program from 1971-2000... I may be wrong I looked at the 11-20 list anbd then spent 10 minutes coming up with the 10 teams I thought were missing
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
I'm a nerd and do this kind of doodling when I should be paying attention in class, so my predictions follow thusly.
1. Notre Dame
2. Oklahoma
3. Michigan
4. Texas
5. Ohio State
6. Southern California
7. Alabama
8. Miami
9. Nebraska
10. Florida State
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 AM ^
i studied the depth chart on brian's "useful things" section well enough to write the whole fucking thing down in one of my notebooks when i got bored one day. and that's down to position and class
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Spot on. I might change 4-8 a little bit, Texas is not #4 and Miami should be a little higher. All depends on the criteria though, if the present time is weighted more heavily, than OSU should be ahead of us but in all-time terms we blow them out of the water.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
1937-2008
Every accomplishment is assigned a point value
National Championships are huge-Mich Down
Conference Titles-Mich Up
AP Top 5-Mich Neutral
AP Top 6-20-Mich Up
Heisman Trophy Winners-Mich Up
Probation Negative Points-Mich Up
Nebraska, ND, OSU, USC and Alabama kick our ass in NC which our huge points so I think they will nudge our our consistency.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^
I think the list is pretty fair.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
I'm a little irked that OSU will be ranked higher than us (we are 8 and they are presumably in the top 5). I might quibble a bit with their heavy weighting of MNC's, but there's nothing I can do about it really.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
# 8? That's ridiculous, especially since all of those heavy-weighted NC's before 1998 were mythical farces, UM gets no credit for 9 of its 11 titles, but I'll bet USC gets that fake title in '03 counted (I never understood that, they didn't win the BCS, they were NOT the damn champions). ESPN just looking for another way to promote the all-mighty USC. Give me a break.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
You do realize that in the time frame ESPN listed we have exactly two National titles - both of the mythical farce variety - and that #8 of 120 isn't exactly bad?
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
Not to mention the fact that USC's supposedly "fake" NC in '03 was the AP National Championionship , which just happened to be THE EXACT SAME NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WE WON IN '97! I suppose Exmtroj didn't realize that.
OSU is a top 5 program over the last 50 years or so. Nebraska is, as well. Had we won a couple more Rose Bowls and a MNC during BO's tenure, we would be top 5. We didn't, so, we aren't.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
To be fair, the AP in 1997 was probably THE most reputable poll (the polls that voted Nebraska, to me, were of lower "credibility", but that's a whole other story). In 2003, the BCS trumps the AP, which now is usually an afterthought. But yes, I generally agree with Dex and your sentiments.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
Back when we won the '97 title, the AP poll was basically the national title "system", in '03 it was not/is not anymore, that's why we have the BCS. And the prestige rankings were determined for performance since 1936? Who the hell came up with that arbitrary date? If this measures the best program of ALL TIME then those years should be included. Also, I seem to remember some specially-published magazine, maybe a SI or Street and Smith's special, that had UM at # 2 behind ND? Anyone remember that? I think that one took into account all-time performance. And just because the forward pass hadn't been invented yet doesn't mean it wasn't still college football, and should still be counted. I guess the Civil War wasn't a real war because machine guns and airplanes hadn't been invented yet and therefore deserves no discussion as an American war, right? These rankings are crap.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 PM ^
I have a feeling that you wouldn't agree with any list that didn't have Michigan listed as the #1 program of all time. One national title since 1950 is the reason why programs such as OSU, USC, Alabama, Nebraska, Notre Dame & Oklahoma are considered by many to be more successful football programs than Michigan. The number of Rose Bowl losses, particularly during the Bo era, certainly doesn't help our case, either. It's kind of hard to argue that, don't you think? I'm perfectly fine with our ranking on this list.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 PM ^
I didn't say we have to be # 1 in every ranking, but only counting success from 1950 on isn't fair, and ranking the program with the best all-time winning percentage and all-time wins as #8 ALL-TIME doesn't seem right either. UM also has more undefeated seasons than any other team, and the most winning seasons. Also, shouldn't a prestige (it's not called the "Most NC's Ranking List.") ranking take into account the revolutionary effect Michigan stadium and its fan base has had/now has on the game? And if we're going off of recent success, which seems so common in these polls, why does Oklahoma's now legendary streak of choking in BCS bowls earn them more respect than Bo's teams that couldn't seem to win the big one? I think Oklahoma should plummet in the polls for the way Big Game Bob has them playing in the post-season lately.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 PM ^
No truly prestigious team would lose to a D-1AA school, then go 3-9 the next year. If we're going to chose arbitrarily stupid recent events to plummet schools for, I think choking in BCS games is better than choking to D-1AA schools and TOLEDO.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 PM ^
That actually proves my point, App. St. wouldn't have been such a monumental upset if it wasn't a win over Michigan, one of the most prestigious programs in history. No one would care if App. St. knocked off Army or Stanford. Don't forget Oklahoma's horrid start in the 90's then either, weren't they 4-8 or 3-9 at some point, in like '94 or '95.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
So Oklaholma should plummet because they lost in BCS games, but Michigan shouldn't for losing to Toledo and App State because they wouldn't have been upsets if we weren't a prestigious school?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
A one-time loss is different than a continued failure to meet a standard. And Toledo isn't that shocking of an upset, did you watch any UM football last year? I was pissed, but I can't say I was shocked at the end of that one.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 PM ^
when you're considering that the prestige they're talking about is measured in many many decades. Did Jay take over your posting ability or something?
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
Many, many decades, except a large number of decades that were conveniently lopped off to boost more currently trendy programs such as USC and OSU. If this poll was done in the mid-90's, you can bet they'd slant it to put FSU and Miami in the top 5. You also have to remember that the network doing this poll is the one that has enough arrogance to re-award the "Titletown USA" moniker to Valdosta, Ga., so no big surprise they screw this up, too.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
My whole point is that it's dumb. I was responding to exmoj's comment of "I think Oklahoma should plummet in the polls for the way Big Game Bob has them playing in the post-season lately."
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 PM ^
Ok, forget the Oklahoma thing, I started that out of momentary anger, my real point overall is that this ranking system sucks because you chop off a huge chunk of time in which college football was played, and played very well.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 PM ^
THIS IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR HOW CAN YOU NOT COUNT OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE FORWARD PASS?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
Am I mistaken or wasn't it Yost who was the first to use the forward pass as something other than a desperation attempt?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^
just type in the years you want and check this out:
http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^
Boise State wins, as expected.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 PM ^
Wow, that site is pretty awesome.
Fun fact for those of us that were not alive to witness the 1970s:
From 1970-79, of teams that played at least 100 games, #10-12 based on winning percentage are:
10) San Diego State
11) Miami-OH
12) Central Michigan
Michigan is #3...interesting
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
If they would go back to like 1908 we would be way higher on the list. plus for the bowl games, the Big Ten could only go to the Rose Bowl until like the 1970's.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^
Big Ten teams played in the Rose Bowl before the 1970s. I have no idea how or why you arrrived at the conclusion that they didn't.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 PM ^
before the 70's, Big Ten teams could only play in the Rose Bowl. Not to mention, they couldn't do it two years in a row. Thus, Michigan and Ohio State have played in less bowl games than a lot of other major programs.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 PM ^
I misread what CPT20 had written. I thought he was saying that Big Ten teams didn't play in the Rose Bowl until the 1970s. That's why I was so confused as to what his point was. My bad.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^
They chose 1937 because that was the beginning of the AP poll. End of Mich conspiracy.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
So, this isn't a prestige ranking then, it's an "AP titles" ranking? Just because NC's were determined differently back in the day doesn't mean they don't count. I guess the landings on the moon don't count because we didn't use a modern space shuttle to get there.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
Wow, well on that Oklahoma topic I was talking about last night...they got #1. Now you can officially call this poll ridiculous. They didn't even mention OU's BCS bust streak. ESPN can add another epic fail to their list that includes the "Real Titletown USA," and the whole "I refuse to admit that Green Bay made the right choice in sticking with Aaron Rodgers," thing. I am surprised to see that they didn't find a way to put USC at #1, though.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
A "prestige" poll is one of these completely asinine things that ESPN does when they're bored, like "What's titletown USA?" or "Who's now?". It's meaningless, and trying to ascribe any sort of clinical rigorous thinking to how it's determined missed the point that the people who came up with probably named the first 10 schools that occurred to them.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
Totes Magoats
October 11th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
Are you just going back to old posts for no real reason? I'm trying to figure out the pattern in posts you are picking.