Season proficiency ratings title contenders

C

CollegeFBFan2021

King of Stats and Relative Proficiency
Messages
623
1869-70: Princeton/Rutgers: 73.4.
1872-74: (Yale/Princeton: 106.4).
1875: Princeton/Harvard: 88.1, Columbia: 60.14.
1876: Yale/Rutgers: 92.6, Harvard: 58.6.
1877-78: Yale/Princeton: 92.3
1879-81: (Yale/Princeton: 103.0).
1882/83: (Yale: 109.8).
1884: (Yale/Princeton): 114.2, Pennsylvania: 65.9.
1885: (Princeton: 100.5), Yale: 87.3.
1886: (Yale/Princeton): 118.9
1887: (Yale: 106.5), Harvard: 91.1, Princeton: 79.1,
1888: (Yale: 101.1), Princeton: 90.7, Harvard: 88.1,
1889: (Princeton: 102.4), Yale: 94.1, Dartmouth: ?75.3.
1890: (Harvard: 104.8), Yale: 93.9, Princeton: 82.0.
1891: (Yale; 106.9), Harvard: 93.8, Princeton: 90.7, Pennsylvania: 75.5
1892: (Yale: 100.9), Purdue: 97.3, Harvard: 89.7, Carlisle Indian School: 86.3, Minnesota: 84.6, Pennsylvania: 83.3,
1893: 1. Princeton: 97.0, Minnesota: 93.9, Harvard: 91.8, Yale: 91.4, Harvard: 83.8,
1894: (Yale: 101.0), Pennsylvania: 94.9, Harvard: 82.5, Minnesota: 72.1.
1895: 1. Pennsylvania: 95.5, Yale: 86.0, Michigan: 84.2, Princeton: 76.9, Harvard: 73.0
1896: 1. Princeton: 94.5, Pennsylvania: 91.8, Lafayette: 87.8, Yale: 82.7, Michigan: 80.6, Wisconsin: 74.0, Chicago: 70.6.
1897: (Pennsylvania: 100.4), Princeton: 90.8, Harvard: 85.0, Chicago: 79.7, Army: 77.5.
1898: (Harvard: 101.7).
1899: 1. Harvard, 95.3.
1900: (Yale: 106.5).
1901 T-3. (Michigan: 101.6, Harvard: 101.4, Wisconsin: 100.4).
1902: (Michigan: 101.9), Yale: 99.4, Pennsylvania: 96.5, , Princeton: 85.6, Harvard: 85.4, Minnesota: 76.4, Illinois: 76.3, Army: 75.9.
1903: (Michigan/Minnesota: 110.9), (Princeton, 104.6), Nebraska: 95.8, Yale: 94.0, Dartmouth: 90.5, Carlisle Indian School: 76.6.
1904: (Pennsylvania: 105.6, Michigan: 104.5, Minnesota: 102.7, Vanderbilt: 102.3), Auburn: 98.3, Yale: 92.8, Chicago: 91.0, Illinois: 77.5.
1905: (Yale, 108.6, Chicago: 106.8), Michigan: 81.4, Minnesota: 91.4, Vanderbilt: 87.5, Swarthmore: 87.0, Navy: 82.4, Georgia Tech: 82.2. Kansas: 79.8.
1906: (Princeton/Yale: 110.0). Vanderbilt: 91.9.

1907: 1. Yale: 91.6, Pennsylvania: 89.4
1908: 1. Louisiana St.: 97.1, Chicago: 91.3, Pennsylvania: 87.0, Virginia: 81.6, Harvard: 81.0.
1909: 1. Yale:, 96.7, Arkansas: 92.8, Texas A&M: 88.5, Lafayette: 86.2, Penn State: 80.7, Colorado: 60.8.
1910: Pittsburgh, 94.8, Vanderbilt: 92.5, Harvard: 89.4, Arkansas: 89.0, Illinois: 85.3, Auburn: 85.1, Minnesota: 83.2, Colorado: 86.0, Bayloru:: 89.4, Navy: 81.2, Texas A&M: 80.3, Mississippi: 79.4, Pennsylvania: 79.4, Tulsa: : 75.3, Nebraska: 74.9.
1911: Minnesota, 91.0, Vanderbilt: 85.6, Carlisle 85.0, Penn St.:83.6, Texas A&M: 83.4, Colorado: 82.7, Princeton; 78.8, Chicago: 78.4, Georgia: 78.0, Wisconsin: 75.0, Florida: 70.6.
1912: (Michigan: 105.2). Penn St : 97.5, Harvard: 94.5,
1913: (Auburn, 108.0, Chicago, 101.8). Notre Dame: 91.9, Washington & Jefferson: 90.7, Nebraska: 89.6.
1914: (Illinois, 105.4). Texas: :99.0, Auburn: 91.1
1915; 1. Nebraska, 98.8, Georgia Tech:95.6,
1916: Georgia Tech: 95.0, Pittsburgh: 95.0. Yale: 88.7, Oregon: 87.0, Tennessee: 85.2, Washington: 84.2,
1917: (Georgia Tech: 110.5, Pittsburgh, 100.4).
1918: (Michigan: 102.7).
1919: 1. Centre, 94.9.
1920: 1. Virginia Military Institute: 97.2.
1921-22: Nebraska: 105.3.
1921: 1. Cornell, 96.5.
1922: 1. Cornell, 98.8.
1923: (Yale, 103.6).
1924: (Notre Dame, 104.5)
1925: 1. Dartmouth, 99.5.
1926: 1. Alabama: 95.3, Michigan: 90.5, Notre Dame: 89.0, Navy: 88.7, S. Methodist: 88.5, Stanford: 88.3, Northwestern: 86.8, Brown: 85.0, Utah: 84.9.
1927: 1. Georgia. 90.9, Texas A&M: 90.1, Illinois: 89.3, Yale: 87.4, Notre Dame: 83.3, Pittsburgh: 70.3
1928: (Georgia Tech, 100.3).
1929: (Notre Dame, 100.3).
1930: (Notre Dame, 111.2, Alabama, 107.3), Utah: 94.5, Northwestern: 92.2, Colgate: 87.4, Tennessee: 87.3, MIchigan: 85.4, Army: 84.5, Tulane: 84.3, Washington St.: 84.1, Texas: 80.0, Fordham 75.9.
1931: 1. S. California, 99.0.
1932: (S California: 108.0, Michigan: 104.1) Purdue: 97.4, Colgate: 96.1, Tennessee: 90.6, Texas Christian: 89.8, Auburn: 85.8.
1933: 1. Michigan, 99.0.
1934: (Minnesota, 106.7, Alabama, 104.4).
1935: (Minnesota, 101.6).
1936: 1. Minnesota 92.1.
1937: 1. Pittsburgh, 95.6.
1938: (Texas Christian, 101.4, Tennessee, 100.9).
1939: (Cornell, 104.3, Texas A&M, 101.8).
1940: (Minnesota: 109.5, Stanford, 100.8).
1941: (Minnesota,107.2).
1942: 1. Ohio St. 91.7, Georgia: 91.6,.
1943: (Purdue; 107.1, Notre Dame: 103.4), Michigan: 96.2, Iowa Pre-Flight: 95.3.
1944: (Army: 114.2, Ohio St 111.8), Iowa Pre-Flight: 90.4, Randolph Field: 95.5.
1945: (Army: 115.3, Alabama: 104.9), Oklahoma St; 98.9.
Oa Navy: 90.6, Indiana: 96.8,
1946: (Notre Dame; 107.7, Georgia: 106.7, Army: 106.2).
1947: (Michigan: 112.4, Notre Dame: 110.2).
1948: (Michigan: 110.4).
1949: (Notre Dame: 114.4, Oklahoma: 107.3, Army: 101.5).
1950: 1. Princeton: 94.8.
1951: (Michigan St.: 104.3, Illinois: 100.0).
1952: (Michigan St.: 107.3, Georgia Tech: 104.6).
1953: (Notre Dame: 100.3).
1954: (Ohio St.: 108.9, U.C.L.A.: 100.5, Oklahoma: 100.1).
1955: (Oklahoma: 102.6)
1956: (Oklahoma: 101.9).
1957: Auburn: 97.5.
1958: (Louisiana St.: 102.5).
1959: (Syracuse: 104.5).
1960: Mississippi: 98.1.
1961: (Alabama: 105.5).
1962: (S. California: 104.6).
1963: (Texas: 104.6).
1964: (Arkansas: 100.7).
1965: 1. Michigan St.: 97.9.
1966: (Alabama: 105.1).
1967: 1. S. California: 91.7.
1968: (Ohio St.: 102.9, Penn St.: 100.8).
1969: (Texas: 104.6, Penn St.: 102.7).
1970: (Nebraska: 104.5).
1971: (Nebraska: 113.5, Oklahoma: 101.0).
1972: (S. California: 112.3).
1973: (Oklahoma: 114.9, Notre Dame: 107.3, Ohio St.: 106.0, Michigan:104.5).
1974: (Oklahoma: 109.7).
1975: Oklahoma: 96.3.
1976: (Pittsburgh: 104.3), S. California: 93.2, Maryland: 90.9, Michigan 87.5, Ohio St.: 80.0, Oklahoma: 78.9
1977: 1. Notre Dame: 98.2, Alabama: 96.7, Texas: 95.5, Arkansas: 94.7, Penn State: 94.3, Kentucky: 91.2.
1978: 1. S. California: 98.4, Alabama: 98.1, Oklahoma: 97.0, Penn State: 94.1. Clemson: 89.7.
1979: (Alabama: 103.9, S. California: 100.8) Oklahoma: 94.8, Ohio St : 93.9, Houston: 91.3, Pittsburgh: 90.3, Brigham Young: 90.1, Florida St.: 87.8.
1980: 1. Georgia: 99.9, Pittsburgh: 96.6, N. Carolina: 90.8.
1981: (Clemson: 102.3), Pittsburgh: 94.24, S. Methodist: 90.8, Texas: 85.4.
1982: 1. Penn State: 95.3, Nebraska: 94.8, U.C.L.A.: 89.5, S. Methodist: 87.9.
1983: (Auburn, Miami, FL, Texas, Georgia:101.3).
1983: 1. Auburn: 95.6, Nebraska; 95.5, Miami FL: 92.4, Brigham Young: 87.0, Texas: 85.3.
1983-84: (Brigham Young/Nebraska: 99.5).
1984-85: (Washington/Florida/Air Force/Michigan): 99.6.
1984: 1 Brigham Young: 90.0, Washington: 87.6, Florida: 86.5, Nebraska: 81.6, Boston College: 78.7, Oklahoma St.: 77.9, Oklahoma: 74.0, Cal St Fullerton: 67.8.
1985: 1. Oklahoma: 93 2, Michigan: 91.4, Air Force: 88.7, Alabama: 77.0, Fresno St.: 75.3, Bowling Green: 63.5.
1985-86: (Michigan, Air Force, Oklahoma, Miami, FL: 105.25).
1986: (Penn State: 103.3).
1987: (Miami, FL: 103.9).
1988: (Notre Dame: 105.8).
1989: 1. Notre Dame: 94.2.
1990: 1. Georgia Tech: 95.5.
1991: (Washington: 107.9, Miami, FL: 105.1).
1992: 1. Alabama: 99.3, Florida St. 93.2, Notre Dame: 88.2, Miami, FL: 87.6. Texas A&M: 83.8.
1993: 1. Florida St : 97.6 Notre Dame: 93.45, Nebraska: 92.5, Auburn: 91.2, Wisconsin: 84.7, Ohio St.: 84.3.
1994: (Nebraska: 101.4, Penn State: 107.7). Colorado: 90.4, Texas A&M: 89.7, Florida St.: 88.9, Auburn: 82.5
1995: (Nebraska: 108.6). Florida: 95.5, Tennessee: 90.5, Toledo: 74.8.
1996: 1. Florida: 96.5, Ohio St.: 94.7, Florida St.: 93.8, Arizona St.: 92.1, Brigham Young: 86.2.
1997: (Nebraska: 103.4, Michigan: 100.8) Florida St: 95.6, N. Carolina: 88.3, Kansas St.: 87.0.
1998; (Tennessee: 109.5).
Ohio State: 95.24, Tulane: 88.4, Wisconsin: 88.24, Arizona: 86.7, Air Force: 84.0,
1999: (Florida St.: 104.9). Nebraska: 94.0, Virginia Tech: 90.7, Kansas St.: 86.7, Marshall: 85.4.
2000: (Oklahoma: 102.5). Miami, FL: 95.4, Virginia Tech: 91.6, Oregon St.: 89.25, Washington: 88.8., Toledo: 77.2.
2001: (Miami, FL: 107.9). Oregon: 88.8, Florida: 86.5, Tennessee: 84.3, Nebraska: 87.8, Nebraska: 81.8,Louisville: 72.8, Brigham Young: 72.8.
2002: Ohio St.: 98.2, Miami, FL: 93.2, California: 88.5, Oklahoma: 85.2, Boise St.: 83.5, Texas: 82.6, Kansas St : 81.8, Iowa: 81.3.
2003: S. California: 96.1,
Louisiana St.: 94.3, Miami, OH: 86.6.
2004: (S. California: 107.8, Utah: 102.8, Auburn: 100.4), Texas: 91.4, Louisville: 89.1, Boise St.: 85.3
2005: Texas: 106.6, S. California: 97.5, Penn State: 92.6.
2006
2011: Louisiana St.: 97.8, Alabama: 97.3, Oklahoma St.: 97.0, Boise St.: 89.2, Oregon: 85.0, Houston: 83.5, Stanford: 83.0, MIchigan: 81.6, Arkansas: 79.2, USC: 78.4, Wisconsin: 75.8, MIchigan St..: 70.5,
2012: Alabama: 98.0, Ohio St .: 92.0, Notre Dame: 89.5.
(2013 & 2017: C. Florida: 100.4),
2020: (Alabama: 112.2).
Consensus Uncontested National Titles.

Ten:
Michigan: 1901, 1902, 1904, 1912, 1918, 1932, 1947, 1948, 1973, 1997.

Notre Dame: 1924, 1929, 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1953, 1973, 1988.

Eight:
Oklahoma: 1949, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1971, 1973, 1974, 2000.

Yale: 1887, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1900, 1905, 1923.

Six:
Alabama: 1930, 1934, 1945, 1961, 1966, 1979.

Five:
Minnesota: 1934, 1935, 1940, 1941, 1951.

Nebraska: 1970, 1971, 1994, 1995, 1997.

Four:
Army: 1944, 1945, 1946, 1949.

Ohio State: 1944, 1954,1968, 1973.

Pennsylvania St.: 1968, 1969, 1986, 1994.

S. California: 1932, 1962, 1972, 1979.

Three:
Harvard: 1890, 1898, 1901.

Georgia Tech: 1917, 1928, 1952.

Miami, FL: 1987, 1991, 2001.

Princeton: 1885, 1889, 1903.

Two:
Chicago: 1905, 1913.

Illinois: 1914, 1951.

Michigan St. 1951, 1952.

Pennsylvania: 1897, 1904.

Pittsburgh: 1917, 1976.

Tennessee: 1938, 1998.

Texas: 1963, 1969.

One:
Arkansas: 1964.

Auburn: 1913.

Clemson: 1981.

Cornell: 1939.

Florida St.: 1999.

Georgia: 1946.

Louisiana St. 1958.

Purdue: 1943.

Stanford: 1940.

Syracuse: 1959.

Texas A&M: 1939.

Texas Christian: 1938.

U.C.L.A.: 1954.

Vanderbilt: 1904.

Washington: 1991.

Wisconsin: 1901.

Shared:
1906: Princeton/Yale
113 cumulat
 
Last edited:
OldDevilDawg said:
Georgia Tech sucks. Fuck a Nerd.
Click to expand...
I'll try not to take that personally. This is meant to address the relative position of teams in the hierarchy of college football. Assuming I know what I'm doing we should see evidence throughout of passing the torch. I don't have a dog in the hunt. I will admit I'm partial to colleges west of Mississippi but that isn't a part of my mechanism. The ratings are public. I know people frequently criticize me. I take the ratings directly from Sports Reference. For reasons I still can't fathom, someone has gone to a lot of work to post incomplete rankings. I call it relative proficiency. A simpler explanation is I adjust SRS team ratings to fit my method. No cheating or fudging numbers. People can check my work if they want to. It isn't a difficult mathematical adjustment. Anyone care to try?
 
Last edited:
OldDevilDawg said:
BTW, Yale was pretty good back then. Then they decided to play UGA in a home and home in '29 and '30. Neither game ended well for them and they never recovered.
Click to expand...
Like I said assuming I know what I'm doing that should be evident in the ratings. It should give a birdseye view. I hope it helps. I'm a human being. I'm prone to err. Sadly. But I'm slow and methodical. I try my best.
 
Last edited:
TechRaiderRider said:
hold on -
i thot the scale went to 100 ?
Click to expand...
Yeah it's scaled from zero to a hundred. I thought I outlined that in another thread. That means any team ranked above a hundred has exceeded my standard for excellence. It's incredibly hard to do. It probably shouldn't happen very often. It says something about the integrity of the sport. Any time ANY team meets that standard (or exceeds it) that should give said team a claim to a championship. Obviously there are multiple teams who have excelled beyond it. It's one reason why I oppose a playoff. I would prefer multiple teams receive special recognition. I might stand alone but assuming you were a member of a team that net that standard, it would be hard to look away. I'm simply promoting a methodology. It should become evident how difficult that standard actually is. I'm doing my best.
 
Last edited:
TechRaiderRider said:
well, you have 100+ scores 30 times
just thru 1942,
so apparently not -
Click to expand...
It's going to take a little getting used to. I'm not saying it's an exact science. It probably isn't. But the way I would assess it nevertheless is ANY time ANY team ANY season tops 100 that's an incredible event. You are free to make your own assessment. I think I warned you guys this might raise a few hairs on people's backside. But the important thing to remember is this is only one way to do it. I personally think the opposite. That those teams deserve special recognition. F.W.I.W.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
well, you have 100+ scores 30 times
just thru 1942,
so apparently not -
Click to expand...
It's like bowling 300. It's incredibly hard to do! You are going to have to take my word. Because it happens frequently doesn't mean jack squat. How often do bowlers bowl 300? Drew Brees nearly played a perfect game. Pitchers throw no hitters. You are thinking about it like it's impossible.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
yet you cant bowl a 301
or 302.3 or 305.6 -
Click to expand...
Look. If you really want to make this into a debate about what's fair, I'm interested. I'm not trying to put added emphasis on anything. It might be the values I use are inflated. I tend to believe they aren't. But IF they are they are inflated equally across the board. Those inflated values (I'm taking your side for once) only allow Brigham Young 90% comparability. Honestly I think that proves the opposite. That they aren't inflated. I think I asked people to refrain until AFTER I got all the seasons in but I don't mind your interest. If you think it's impossible to go beyond 100% I guess that's simply your POV. I think I also said everything is subject yo review. But I'm especially proud of this method I've helped initiate. Yes I do believe people can exceed the 100% barrier. It's rare but it happens. If you think it's impossible. You're simply wrong. I think you will learn why. o.k? O.k.
 
23b2c1f5aa4308ecbfdc6a479dea486c.gif
 
TechRaiderRider said:
yet you cant bowl a 301
or 302.3 or 305.6 -
Click to expand...
I count 47 perfect scores in sixty two seasons. That's only about 3/4. Hardly like bowling a 300 every year. Furthermore I want it to be achievable. I didn't want it to be mathematically impossible. It will be interesting to see whether it will hold up. 3/4
 
Big 8 Rules said:
I did. I bowled a 300 and won. 😜
Click to expand...
My metric treats all 300's the same. I'm not saying 301. I'm saying 300. Every team that bowls a perfect game is given the same consideration. Yes, it's possible to bowl 300. We shouldn't even be having thus conversation. I'm betting people grade perfect games. So what I'm doing is fair.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
well, you have 100+ scores 30 times
just thru 1942,
so apparently not -
Click to expand...
74 is what I have through 1960. By the way, the method I'm supporting assuming you're interested is 100% relative proficiency. To select a national champion. So I actually need to make up ground. I want the championship to select itself. Meaning the teams I've surrounded by parentheses are the teams I want as a NC. You will clearly nite occasionally there are multiple teams a season. But that's unusual. But for my method to work correctly we need a one to one correspondence. Meaning I need to make up ground. You will also note it took several years before ANYONE met that requirement. It shows how difficult it was.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
hold on -
i thot the scale went to 100 ?
Click to expand...
100 is the top, and zero is the bottom. There are such things as outliers. I'm sorry I didn't do a very good job explaining it. I'll take responsibility for that. It isn't your fault. I might add I was given some recognition in college for my meticulousness. The outliers aren't terribly unusual from a statistical standpoint. In baseball a perfect batting average is 1.000. Probably for a reason. Consider every season with a team at, above, or even NEAR (something I neglected to do) a perfect season. Review the data set. You should find ample evidence of teams closing in on 100%. One I'm aware of is Alabama in 1992. But failed to reach 100% nevertheless would likely be among those with a perfect resume. This is a new concept. Actually, ordinarily, there probably ought to be a team in striking distance to the 100. Think of a bell curve. It has the majority in the middle and relative few at each end. This ought to follow a similar paradigm. It's really quite interesting. I discovered in 1915 Colorado St nearly won a national championship.
 
Big 8 Rules said:
I did. I bowled a 300 and won. 😜
Click to expand...
That is like pitching a no hitter. That's what I'm doing here. That's why a playoff is unnecessary. Teams don't rise and fall on one game. Come on, people! You want to push over a hundred-and-fifty years of tradition aside for what, exactly? Look at the data I've posted so far. Use it however you choose. Was there controversy surrounding the national championship? Yeah. So? What difference does it make? I guess we could argue in 1915 it would have been better to simply pair Nebraska against Colorado St. I'm not sure that was an option back then. I'm not against competition deciding the national championship. I just want it to be sensible. Again look at the data set. Relatively few require a playoff of any kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top