What Are the Top 5 College Football Programs of All Time?

[Steve19]

After the season is over, I'll update a post that rates teams based on their poll rankings in every year since 1936. At that point, I think you'll see evidence that Oklahoma can make an argument for being #1.

They are the only team that has a better winning percentage than Ohio State, in games played since 1950.

 

[OregonBuckeye]

After the season is over, I'll update a post that rates teams based on their poll rankings in every year since 1936. At that point, I think you'll see evidence that Oklahoma can make an argument for being #1.

But isn't this an all-time discussion? I believe since 1926 we have the highest win pctg. of any team but I'm including all-time.

Oh, and reps for when you put that together. I remember seeing something like that before this season and we were 2nd, behind scUM, for # of weeks ranked and 4th in weeks ranked #1(which has surely gone up after this year).

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

But isn't this an all-time discussion? ...quote]

Yes. But IMHO it is completely valid to consider the early-early days a totally different game. TD was not only something other than 6 points, there were seasons where the TD had a different value from one game to another according to some historians.

1869 football had a hell of a lot more in common with rugby than with modern college football.

Going a step farther, I think it is completely acceptable to weigh recent success more heavily than long past success. And it is completely acceptable if you don't want to. This is yet another argument where the answer depends on your standard of value.

If someone can make an argument for there being an objective standard of value when determining the relative merit of different eras of college football, have at it. To be honest though, if you make an attempt, I will start with the assumption that you don't know what the term "objective standard of value" really means.

 

[Buckeye86]

I put Texas in my top five when I first voted in this, but now that we're done playing them, I'd replace them with USC in my top five if I could.

Notre Dame
Michigan
Ohio State
Oklahoma
USC

in no particular order.

 

[BB73]

But isn't this an all-time discussion? I believe since 1926 we have the highest win pctg. of any team but I'm including all-time.

The polls started in 1936, so that's as far back as I can go using reliable data.

You're correct about tOSU having the #1 winning % from 1926. That's true for any year from 1923-1933. After this year's records are included, it'll also include at least 1934.

 

[OregonBuckeye]

Yes. But IMHO it is completely valid to consider the early-early days a totally different game. TD was not only something other than 6 points, there were seasons where the TD had a different value from one game to another according to some historians.

1869 football had a hell of a lot more in common with rugby than with modern college football.

But it was still football. When I think of debating teams all-time I include everything and do not put emphasis on any time period.

 

[BayBuck]

But it was still football. When I think of debating teams all-time I include everything and do not put emphasis on any time period.

But no, it really wasn't football. We're talking about the period of transition from rugby, which started with 25-man teams and a round ball and didn't even have downs until 1882, with 4th-downs and 6-point TDs not arriving until 1912. Sports and games are defined by the rules which govern them, and according to the rules we've used for nearly a century those early years were still closer to rugby than football.

 

[OregonBuckeye]

But no, it really wasn't football. We're talking about the period of transition from rugby, which started with 25-man teams and a round ball and didn't even have downs until 1882, with 4th-downs and 6-point TDs not arriving until 1912. Sports and games are defined by the rules which govern them, and according to the rules we've used for nearly a century those early years were still closer to rugby than football.

Well, we changed some rules this year. Does that mean last year wasn't football? Of course things were extremely different pre-19th century but it was still classified as football. The game has evolved.

 

[BayBuck]

Of course things were extremely different pre-19th century but it was still classified as football.

Yeah, so is soccer.

I'm not talking about clock changes here -- those early developments were fundamental to the nature of the game: ball, field, downs, scoring. Those things really haven't changed much since 1912 (when OSU joined the Western Conference).

PS -- I'm not suggesting you can't consider 1869-1912 in your personal opinion of the top all-time programs, since of course this is a subjective question. But while those years are considered part of the history of American football, the game has changed enough that it's just silly to give them equal weight as, say, 1965-present.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Yeah, so is soccer.

I'm not talking about clock changes here -- those early developments were fundamental to the nature of the game: ball, field, downs, scoring. Those things really haven't changed much since 1912 (when OSU joined the Western Conference).

PS -- I'm not suggesting you can't consider 1869-1912 in your personal opinion of the top all-time programs, since of course this is a subjective question. But while those years are considered part of the history of American football, the game has changed enough that it's just silly to give them equal weight as, say, 1965-present.

I can't agree here. You'd have a hard time comparing stats and players across eras because of the rules changes. You'd be silly to compare, say, 1990's Michigan to 1890's Oklahoma and use that as an argument one way or another.

But all-time, when you consider the full body of work, everyone played by the same rules each year, so I think comparisons such as 1890's Oklahoma vs. 1890's Michigan would be perfectly legit. In fact, I'd say it takes some real adaptability to be a successful program under all different eras. Look at some of the teams that were powerhouses in the pre-forward pass era, like University of Chicago, that have nothing today.

 

[BayBuck]

I can't agree here. You'd have a hard time comparing stats and players across eras because of the rules changes. You'd be silly to compare, say, 1990's Michigan to 1890's Oklahoma and use that as an argument one way or another.

But all-time, when you consider the full body of work, everyone played by the same rules each year, so I think comparisons such as 1890's Oklahoma vs. 1890's Michigan would be perfectly legit. In fact, I'd say it takes some real adaptability to be a successful program under all different eras. Look at some of the teams that were powerhouses in the pre-forward pass era, like University of Chicago, that have nothing today.

Somehow I'm not surprised to see you make this argument. :tongue2:

Sure, everyone played by the same rules of the era, but not everyone played that whole time, so I have trouble giving UM extra credit for beating up the Sisters of the Poor for 40 years before 6-point TDs.

 

[Dryden]

I think the problem most people have with validating Michigan's 19th century record is that Michigan was the school that took the game to other schools and taught how the game was played. At the time, a majority of schools were fielding "clubs" while Michigan already had what would today be considered a semi-pro organized team.

That's about as fair as me compiling a 150-0 record at Connect Four or Monopoly while teaching it to five year olds.

The predecessor of the NCAA, the IAAUS, was not even founded until 1906. I think that date is as equitable as any in weighing the significance of wins and losses, as at least the IAAUS made a crude, yet sincere attempt, at creating something which we now call ... uh ... "rules."

In response to HailToMichigan's point, I think this is the primary bone of contention that you'll encounter with anyone who cheers for any team not wearing the maize and blue (or an Ivy League school). 1890's Michigan is not comparable to 1890's Oklahoma. Heck, Michigan was playing 10-plus game seasons (and going 9-1-1 in 1894) while Oklahoma hadn't even yet taken up the sport. You don't see a similarity in length of schedules around the nation until about 1902, and the competition wasn't truly organized until the NCAA appeared in 1910.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Well, I can't deny a bias, since part of Michigan's lore is the Point-A-Minute team that Fielding Yost oversaw back in the earliest part of the 20th century. But my gut reaction to the idea that Michigan literally taught football to a whole bunch of schools (Notre Dame, most notably) is that that kind of boosts any argument in favor of Michigan....the whole master-pupil relationship I mean, Notre Dame is one of the top five, and just look at how much of their tradition they owe to Michigan and Navy. I don't mind hanging that over a Domer's head in the slightest

I pretty much just picked Michigan and Oklahoma, and the 1890's, almost at random though, just for the sake of making the point that every team had to play the same game at the times.

But here's another way to look at it: If we were discussing the greatest single-season teams of all time, the Army squad of the mid-40's would have to be in the discussion. (Navy, too.) I don't think we'd disqualify Army from consideration just because there happened to be a war on and every other team besides the service academies lost half their team to the draft. We still speak in reverent tones of Blanchard and Davis, Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, even though they played against competition that was nothing like how it would have been minus the draft.

 

[OSUBuckeye4Life]

Didn't really know where to put this. This is an "interesting" ranking of all the collegiate football programs...

Still No. 1 | TideSports.com

 

[BB73]

Didn't really know where to put this. This is an "interesting" ranking of all the collegiate football programs...

Still No. 1 | TideSports.com

That's an interesting link, but I think it's pointless to use recruiting rankings to measure the success of football programs.

I also don't like the use of home attendance - that doesn't hurt tOSU's rating, but it does help TSUN, PSU, and Tennessee.

There is also too much variation in those rankings over the course of 1 year.