AP Rankings for 5, 10, & 25 Years

[Juniper_Run]

I find it interesting to look at 5, 10, & 25 year snapshots of how teams are doing according to final AP Polls. These rankings are based on a cumulative points system where a team receives 25 points for a first place finish and one point for a 25th place finish.

5 yr

1. Clemson (120)
2. Alabama (116)
3. Ohio St. (109)
4. Oklahoma (106)
5. LSU (76)
6. Georgia (65)
6. Notre Dame (65)
8. Penn State (63)
9. Wisconsin (56)
10. Florida (52)
11. Michigan (50)
12. Washington (45)
13. Stanford (43)
14. USC (40)
15. UCF (37)
16. TCU (36)
17. Oklahoma St. (33)
18. Michigan St. (31)
19. Auburn (30)
19. Florida St. (30)
21. Iowa (28)
21. Oregon (28)
23. Baylor (26)
24. Miami (19)
25. Houston (18)
25. Texas (18)


10 yr

1. Alabama (223)
2. Ohio St. (192)
3. Clemson (168)
4. Oklahoma (167)
5. LSU (142)
6. Oregon (138)
7. Stanford (118)
8. Georgia (110)
9. Wisconsin (108)
10. Florida St. (104)
11. Michigan St. (101)
12. TCU (95)
13. Notre Dame (92)
14. Auburn (83)
15. Oklahoma St. (78)
16. USC (73)
17. Baylor (71)
18. Florida (69)
19. Michigan (64)
20. Penn State (63)
21. S. Carolina (62)
22. Boise St. (61)
23. UCF (58)
24. Washington (46)
25. Texas A&M (45)


25 yr

1. Ohio St. (432)
2. Alabama (339)
3. Oklahoma (337)
4. Florida (316)
5. LSU (303)
6. Florida St. (291)
7. Georgia (275)
8. USC (255)
9. Texas (246)
10. Oregon (244)
11. Michigan (237)
12. Virginia Tech (206)
13. Wisconsin (204)
14. Penn State (199)
15. Clemson (194)
16. Auburn (188)
17. Miami (179)
18. Tennessee (170)
19. Nebraska (165)
20. Kansas State (163)
21. TCU (162)
22. Notre Dame (161)
23. Boise State (156)
24. Stanford (128)
25. Michigan State (122)

 

[BGI User 1596]

You need to compare to their F+ over the same periods!

 

[Golson5]

I find it interesting to look at 5, 10, & 25 year snapshots of how teams are doing according to final AP Polls. These rankings are based on a cumulative points system where a team receives 25 points for a first place finish and one point for a 25th place finish.

5 yr

1. Clemson (120)
2. Alabama (116)
3. Ohio St. (109)
4. Oklahoma (106)
5. LSU (76)
6. Georgia (65)
6. Notre Dame (65)
8. Penn State (63)
9. Wisconsin (56)
10. Florida (52)
11. Michigan (50)
12. Washington (45)
13. Stanford (43)
14. USC (40)
15. UCF (37)
16. TCU (36)
17. Oklahoma St. (33)
18. Michigan St. (31)
19. Auburn (30)
19. Florida St. (30)
21. Iowa (28)
21. Oregon (28)
23. Baylor (26)
24. Miami (19)
25. Houston (18)
25. Texas (18)


10 yr

1. Alabama (223)
2. Ohio St. (192)
3. Clemson (168)
4. Oklahoma (167)
5. LSU (142)
6. Oregon (138)
7. Stanford (118)
8. Georgia (110)
9. Wisconsin (108)
10. Florida St. (104)
11. Michigan St. (101)
12. TCU (95)
13. Notre Dame (92)
14. Auburn (83)
15. Oklahoma St. (78)
16. USC (73)
17. Baylor (71)
18. Florida (69)
19. Michigan (64)
20. Penn State (63)
21. S. Carolina (62)
22. Boise St. (61)
23. UCF (58)
24. Washington (46)
25. Texas A&M (45)


25 yr

1. Ohio St. (432)
2. Alabama (339)
3. Oklahoma (337)
4. Florida (316)
5. LSU (303)
6. Florida St. (291)
7. Georgia (275)
8. USC (255)
9. Texas (246)
10. Oregon (244)
11. Michigan (237)
12. Virginia Tech (206)
13. Wisconsin (204)
14. Penn State (199)
15. Clemson (194)
16. Auburn (188)
17. Miami (179)
18. Tennessee (170)
19. Nebraska (165)
20. Kansas State (163)
21. TCU (162)
22. Notre Dame (161)
23. Boise State (156)
24. Stanford (128)
25. Michigan State (122)

Kelly and Jack pushing us forward.

 

[Juniper_Run]

I think these AP numbers can affirm both narratives common on board. They show just how far we've come since the Davie/Willingham/Weis years. They also show just how far below those top 4 teams we are. It's absolutely true that we've been the 7th best program in the country these past few years. The concern that we've hit our ceiling is legit, though. I hope we haven't.

Some of the other teams on these rankings are fascinating. Texas is the 9th best program of the past 25 years, but they aren't even among the top 25 for the past 10 years. LSU has been one of the more volatile teams year to year, yet they are #5 on all three lists.

 

[chaseball]

You need to compare to their F+ over the same periods!

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

I would put way more weight on a teams F/+ ranking over this same time periods. Unfortunately the system only goes back to 2008 I think.

 

[nemeth#5]

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

I would put way more weight on a teams F/+ ranking over this same time periods. Unfortunately the system only goes back to 2008 I think.

A man once admitted to me on this board that W/L are in fact all that matters... his name was Chase!

This is a great post and shows that BK have us heading in the right direction... anyone who finds negative in this has a serious agenda and a negative outlook.

 

[NDSMC78]

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

I would put way more weight on a teams F/+ ranking over this same time periods. Unfortunately the system only goes back to 2008 I think.

What is an adjusted W/L record? Is is something akin to alternative facts?

 

[d1042]

You need to compare to their F+ over the same periods!

how does this correlate to team lunch expenditures?

 

[chaseball]

What is an adjusted W/L record? Is is something akin to alternative facts?

For example, F/+ adjusts for schedule and for luck. When you make those adjustments, there's no difference between ND in the last 5 years and last 10 years. ND had a way more difficult schedule during the first half of BKs tenure thus the record was worse but the performance was still very similar.

Moreover, NDs best stretch under Kelly is still 2010-2012 (aggregate ranking of 10th those years) but 2017-2019 (aggregate ranking of 11th) comes in a close 2nd.

 

[Juniper_Run]

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

IMO, your criticism of the AP Polls is behind the times. They have done a fairly nice job of looking carefully at strength of schedule in recent years. A great example is our #12 ranking as an 11-2 team this year versus our #11 ranking as a 10-3 team in 2017.

Your analytical systems might do a better job at predicting future results, but the purpose of the AP Poll is to rank what teams have actually accomplished during the season - to rank adjusted win/loss records. I think these lists are quite accurate to accomplishments, even if they fall short on being predictive.

 

[tbonesays]

IMO, your criticism of the AP Polls is behind the times. They have done a fairly nice job of looking carefully at strength of schedule in recent years. A great example is our #12 ranking as an 11-2 team this year versus our #11 ranking as a 10-3 team in 2017.

Your analytical systems might do a better job at predicting future results, but the purpose of the AP Poll is to rank what teams have actually accomplished during the season - to rank adjusted win/loss records. I think these lists are quite accurate to accomplishments, even if they fall short on being predictive.

Efficiency is a very results oriented metric so I guess it is somewhat like the Polls.

 

[Golson5]

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

I would put way more weight on a teams F/+ ranking over this same time periods. Unfortunately the system only goes back to 2008 I think.

F/+ matters even less

 

[DublinND]

A man once admitted to me on this board that W/L are in fact all that matters... his name was Chase!

This is a great post and shows that BK have us heading in the right direction... anyone who finds negative in this has a serious agenda and a negative outlook.

And is Fake News

 

[NDinNJ]

I find it interesting to look at 5, 10, & 25 year snapshots of how teams are doing according to final AP Polls. These rankings are based on a cumulative points system where a team receives 25 points for a first place finish and one point for a 25th place finish.

5 yr

1. Clemson (120)
2. Alabama (116)
3. Ohio St. (109)
4. Oklahoma (106)
5. LSU (76)
6. Georgia (65)
6. Notre Dame (65)
8. Penn State (63)
9. Wisconsin (56)
10. Florida (52)
11. Michigan (50)
12. Washington (45)
13. Stanford (43)
14. USC (40)
15. UCF (37)
16. TCU (36)
17. Oklahoma St. (33)
18. Michigan St. (31)
19. Auburn (30)
19. Florida St. (30)
21. Iowa (28)
21. Oregon (28)
23. Baylor (26)
24. Miami (19)
25. Houston (18)
25. Texas (18)


10 yr

1. Alabama (223)
2. Ohio St. (192)
3. Clemson (168)
4. Oklahoma (167)
5. LSU (142)
6. Oregon (138)
7. Stanford (118)
8. Georgia (110)
9. Wisconsin (108)
10. Florida St. (104)
11. Michigan St. (101)
12. TCU (95)
13. Notre Dame (92)
14. Auburn (83)
15. Oklahoma St. (78)
16. USC (73)
17. Baylor (71)
18. Florida (69)
19. Michigan (64)
20. Penn State (63)
21. S. Carolina (62)
22. Boise St. (61)
23. UCF (58)
24. Washington (46)
25. Texas A&M (45)


25 yr

1. Ohio St. (432)
2. Alabama (339)
3. Oklahoma (337)
4. Florida (316)
5. LSU (303)
6. Florida St. (291)
7. Georgia (275)
8. USC (255)
9. Texas (246)
10. Oregon (244)
11. Michigan (237)
12. Virginia Tech (206)
13. Wisconsin (204)
14. Penn State (199)
15. Clemson (194)
16. Auburn (188)
17. Miami (179)
18. Tennessee (170)
19. Nebraska (165)
20. Kansas State (163)
21. TCU (162)
22. Notre Dame (161)
23. Boise State (156)
24. Stanford (128)
25. Michigan State (122)

Not sure what your point system is, but it clearly didn’t take into consideration not finishing ranked. A much easier and accurate way to figure this out would be to take the last 5 years, throw out the high and low, and get your average final AP ranking

Over the last 5 years Notre Dame finished 12, 5, 11, 91, and 11. Throw out the 5 and the 91, and you get 11.33, rounded down and you get 11 not 6

Go 10 years out and ND finished
12, 5, 11, 91, 11, 37, 20, 4, 35, 35. Again throw the 4 and 91 out you get an average of 21.75, round this up to an average ranking of 22 over 10 years.
Again your numbers are way off.

Your numbers are way off.

 

[NDinNJ]

Kelly and Jack pushing us forward.

The numbers based on this fictitious point system are severely skewed. Believe what you want but the numbers are way off.

 

[Juniper_Run]

You’re describing a method for finding a team’s average ranking. That’s not what I’m doing here. I’m listing the most successful programs in each time period. It’s not surprising that the 6th most successful program over the past 5 years would have an average ranking near 11.

To take a more obvious example, Clemson’s average ranking in the past 5 years is less than 1. They’re still clearly the #1 program of that time frame.

 

[NDinNJ]

You’re describing a method for finding a team’s average ranking. That’s not what I’m doing here. I’m listing the most successful programs in each time period. It’s not surprising that the 6th most successful program over the past 5 years would have an average ranking near 11.

To take a more obvious example, Clemson’s average ranking in the past 5 years is less than 1. They’re still clearly the #1 program of that time frame.

Clemson’s average ranking the past 5 years is not less than 1. Don’t know what kind of fuzzy math you’re using, but their avg ranking is 1. No one could argue they’ve been the most successful program the past 5 years.

If you compare Holtz last 10 years, his average ranking was 6.87. We can honestly say ND was a consistent top 6-7 team during that 10 year span.

Where your numbers are flawed is you give no penalty for finishing outside the Top 25, your system simply ignores average to poor seasons.

 

[twalsh]

You are being sarcastic but it's the truth. AP Polls are massively flawed and rely way too much on unadjusted W/L record.

I can't help but chuckle every time you say that.

 

[Juniper_Run]

Clemson’s average ranking the past 5 years is not less than 1. Don’t know what kind of fuzzy math you’re using, but their avg ranking is 1.

Clemson's final AP rank for the past 5 years has been 2, 1, 4, 1, 2. That means that their average ranking for that span is exactly 2.

Just as Clemson can have an average rank of 2 and be the #1 team in a given time span, Notre Dame can have an average rank of 11 and be the #7 team in a given time span.

 

[Juniper_Run]

Where your numbers are flawed is you give no penalty for finishing outside the Top 25, your system simply ignores average to poor seasons.

That's a fair criticism. These numbers are not meant to account for every possible flaw, however. I have a notebook where I write down teams' final AP ranking at the end of each year. I put it into a simple points system by giving the #1 team 25 points, the #2 team 24 points, and on down the line to the #25 team with 1 point. I decided to list that information here. While you seem convinced that I have an agenda in doing so, my actual reason is exactly what I stated at the beginning: I find it interesting.

 

[NDinNJ]

That's a fair criticism. These numbers are not meant to account for every possible flaw, however. I have a notebook where I write down teams' final AP ranking at the end of each year. I put it into a simple points system by giving the #1 team 25 points, the #2 team 24 points, and on down the line to the #25 team with 1 point. I decided to list that information here. While you seem convinced that I have an agenda in doing so, my actual reason is exactly what I stated at the beginning: I find it interesting.

Well on this board the BK apologists will eat this up, and won’t see just how skewed this is. LOL.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time to list ND as a top 6 team over the past 5 years is skewed. They are just outside the top 10. If you wanted to give a range I would say 9-11, but 6 is too high.
Here is another site that kind of backs my argument. This doesn’t include this years (2019) season, but should be out within the next month.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...rankings-last-five-years-florida-state-pac-12