Quailman

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:12 PM ^

The top 100 programs since 1936 is exactly what this is. The AP poll started in 1936. 

No one is drinking OSU's kool-aid. They are using data from 80 years worth of polls. 

LKLIII

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^

Yeah, that would be interesting.  Doesn't the AP show how the points were compiled?  It'd be interesting to see how we'd stack up if the 2008-2014 era was whatever the statistical average was for Michigan in all of the other years.  

Amend the 2008-2014 numbers to be "generic Michigan years" and I wondering how our point tally would change.

HipsterCat

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:15 PM ^

Only get points for appearances in the pools, #1 rankings, and championships. Would be intersting to see it weighted by position somehow (#1, 25 pts  #2 24pts) not sure how that math would need to scale out. I'm sure somebody probably already figured out something like that.

Dilla Dude

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:17 PM ^

At least they gave us a point-system to work with that makes sense. I prefer this to list articles that read "I believe school x is No. 1 because reasons."

It looks like Michigan is the highest-ranked team with two national titles.

Gucci Mane

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^

This is since 36 not all time. I am proud michigan doesn't cheat (I personally know a couple players on the current team who will be in the NFL soon and they tell me they don't get anything special.) I also know a couple players on other big ten teams that do give their players a little something (won't name teams since the players for whatever reason like to keep it DL).

HAIL-YEA

August 2nd, 2016 at 10:15 PM ^

You are implying that Michigan's athletic department is or was issuing kids credit cards as a way to pay them? Honestly, you must think the entire AD is full of complete simpletons to do something like that.  I'm not saying nothing shady has ever happened here, but I would bet everything I have that we wouldn't use credit cards to do it.

ak47

August 3rd, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^

It wasn't the AD giving them the cards.  I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand, a few top players had credit cards with very high spending limits and bought lots of things they never paid for, including a dress for a friend of mine one of the players was trying to sleep with.  Its not a huge deal, but it happened.

Tshimanga Cowabunga

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:20 PM ^

http://collegefootball.ap.org/top-100

 

Some interesting data here:

Michigan was the first team to be ranked in every poll in a decade (1970's).

FSU and Nebraska were ranked in every poll in the 90's.

OSU has been ranked in at least 50% of the polls in every decade since 1936 (talk about sustained success).

There appear to be 8 true Blue Blood programs (which I know has been debated on this board a few times before): Ohio State, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, Nebraska, Michigan and Texas with more of a drop off and recency bias starting with Florida State and Florida.

Hab

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:21 PM ^

I actually like this, though really only for an internal measuring stick.  I know this has been discussed in greater detail, but the idea that starting the preseason outside of the top ten generally feels low while starting the season in the top three is too high.  I think it would be appropriate to say, internally, that if we finish higher than 7 in the country, the season has generally been a success, while less than a disappointment.

LKLIII

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:30 PM ^

And notice that they only gave us credit for 2 of the national titles since they are only counting since the AP poll came out in 1936.  Major handicap for us.

ak47

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:36 PM ^

I get its a handicap but a) this was done by the AP so doing it since the start of the AP makes sense and b) the game has changed so dramatically comparing titles won in 1908 to titles won in 1960 doesn't make any sense.  

Michigan is clearly a blue blood program, being at the top of winning percentage as well as wins overall shows that.  But nobody can argue that Michigan has struggled since football became a national sport in winning titles relative to other elite programs.  That is the one black mark on Bo's legacy, he couldn't win a national title, meanwhile Oklahoma has won 7 in that timeframe. National title matter, and Woody Hayes won 3 real championships at the same time dealing with any of the same struggles of traveling to the rose bowl.    

UM2BO

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:26 PM ^

I think this pole is a great indication of where everything stands. For years the AP poll deteremined the National Champion and now we get to have a breakdown of the greatest of all time. (Well, since 1936) Yes, you can argue that if it ran before 1936 that Michigan would be the #1 team but the poles werent taken then. OSU better watch out because 10 years ago, Alabama wouldnt have been close. They are closing fast. I think that OU is the only school right now that you can argue being higher than OSU. They have a ton of National Championsips.

BLHoke

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:27 PM ^

I'd rank them based on a collection of different categories.... NCs, Conference Championships, wins, win pct., Heisman Trophy winners, All-Americans, other major award winners, record in bowl games, record vs rivals, record out of conference, academics, uniforms, fight song, stadium, NFL draftees/success, etc... I'm not saying that makes UofM #1, but they've got to be at least top 3-5.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

UMHockeyFan

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:56 PM ^

In athletics and academics, UM is rarely #1, but almost always in the top 25.  We are consistently really, really good at almost everything.  We look great in agregate but sometimes are not at the top of the list in individual rankings, where other institutions put all their eggs in one basket, we are leaders in all.

LKLIII

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:30 PM ^

And I know some of these all-time lists are cool for the fans, but I'm of two minds on this.  

 

On one hand, if you're going to do an "all time" list, it should include the beginnings of college football, not just the AP poll.  If that's the case then Michigan I would think would climb at least one or two spots for being so dominant in the early 20th Century.  This AP metric totally ignores our first several championsihps because they happened prior to 1936.

 

On the other hand, for the purpose of recruiting, recency bias would have a much bigger impact I would think.  Your average 15-18 year old kid probably has only been aware of competitve college football since they were maybe 6 or 7 years old--so really in their view, the past 8-10 years would have a massively disproportionate impact on their perception of a program status.  If that's the case, then Michigan's status would be lower since we've had a pretty rough run since 2008.

UM2BO

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:30 PM ^

Record of bowl games is very subjective... Maybe if some had more weight than others! Uniforms? Fight song? Fight Song?  What does that have to do with anything? I agree with some of the others like Heisman and All-Americans but the others are ridiculous.

Perkis-Size Me

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^

I hate admitting it, but that's fair. OSU hasn't won as many titles as Alabama, might not have as many Heisman winners as ND or USC. But I'd say along with Oklahoma, they've unquestionably been the most consistent program in the country for the last 30-40 years. 

Alabama, USC, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, have all experienced down years or stretches of near irrelevance. OSU has had some mediocre years here and there, but usually by the following year, they're back to being contenders. 

I will now proceed to go and throw up. 

A Fan In Fargo

August 3rd, 2016 at 2:52 AM ^

A lot of these titles and heisman winners had a ton to do with politics and bullshit. Don't forget to see that. That was more than apparent when Michigan won it's first title in how long in 97. The powers that be did everything they could to make Nebraska the Champs. Pretty obvious to me I guess. 

MichiganExile

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:38 PM ^

I don't have a problem with this at all. The methodology seems sound. On a feelingsball note I like that Michigan's #1 rival is consistently good, iron sharpens iron and all that. 

UM2BO

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^

What is their deserved spot? Whats our deserved spot? We have to be careful here because the AP deteremined National Championships we claimed. Do we dispute a poll like this but argue for those?

drzoidburg

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^

Any compilation that includes preseason polls, or anything other than end of season, i could not give a shit less. Saying a X program is better than Y because X was ranked 5th preseason and ended up 2-10, while Y took a while to get there before ending 10-2 is exactly why the polls are so useless to begin with and why we call the period before the playoff era 'MNC'

ak47

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

A team that was ranked preasosn and finished 2-10 would do worse in this poll than one that started unrakned and finished 10-2.

Not to mention Michigan benefits under this situation as we are often over ranked to start a season or ranked too quickly due to name recognition (same is true as ND).  But a 4-0 michigan will always be ranked while a 4-0 byu for example may not be.   So the thing you complain about actually helps Mcihigan in this.

If this poll was nothing but where we placed at the end of the pools at every year we would probably be ranked lower on this list, not higher.

UM2BO

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^

I agree. Preseason is garbage. Im just saying that we won the NC in 97 and 48 in which the AP determined that. Those are the only 2 we have since this poll has existed. If we argue this, are we not arguing that we were in fact champions then? That is BULLSh.. if preseason is including in factoring this list.

UMHockeyFan

August 2nd, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^

You have to respect FSU.  They make the Top 10 in a quantitative ranking that starts in 1936 despite the fact they didn't even have a program until 1947 and didn't make a single poll in the 1950s.