Is Auburn-Alabama The Best Tandem In College Football?
Today you are in for a good read. One of our loyal readers and frequent contributors, War Eagle Atlanta looks at the best tandems in college football. Is it Auburn/Alabama? Read on, the results are interesting...
WHICH STATES ARE HOME TO THE HISTORICALLY BEST FOOTBALL TANDEM IN THE NATION?
By War Eagle Atlanta
Yes, exactly which state has the best one-two punch of all in the college football world out there? Could it be the larger states, or maybe the states with the old guard of teams, or possibly a combination of the two?
This is the question that many have pondered, including myself, as I have asked the question in a post or two on many a blog. It sounds like a question that just reeks of opinion and no fact, but it's not.
It's entirely based on fact, and little did we know that the data needed was right under our fingertips the whole time.
Unfortunately, for states large and small, only the best two teams from a state are given consideration. The two school standard is the most common among state universities in the country. That obviously hurts large states like Florida, who could easily be represented by FSU, Miami, or Florida, or California, who could have USC, UCLA, and Cal.
Also not represented well are one-horse states, those that primarily have only one dominant program, states like Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, and Louisiana. I guess that’s the price for cornering the market on football glory in your backyard, wouldn’t you say?
Furthermore, only Bowl Subdivision teams (Division I-A for my fellow Neolithic fans out there) are considered. Although we owe the Ivies a debt for bringing us into this pigskin world, they are no longer relevant in the modern world for major college football, so we’ve eliminated them from our calculations. (Yes, you CAN argue that they play ‘real’ football, and I’d probably agree with you, but we’ll have to take that up in another thread)
SO WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE DATA THAT BACKS UP YOUR STATEMENTS?
Take your pick. College football fans, upon discovering the blanket coverage of their beloved sport on the internet,easily find a rich abundance of stats and information available to them in a variety of formats.
Perhaps the most concise and easy-to-follow site is cfbdatawarehouse.com. Many of us like to quote from the site, many more use it just for learning more about their favorite team or conference.
Glancing over the site, they tell you that the most popular stat accessed from their data, behind all-time coaching records, is something they call their "Rankings Index".
It is a comprehensive analysis of all teams in college football history, and ranks them from top to bottom either ‘all-time’, last ‘quarter century’, or by the ‘decade’. There it is, for all to see—their rankings of the teams, compiled from data from four separate categories.
These categories are: Winning percentage, Strength of Schedule percentage, National Championship points, and Big Four Bowl points (having played in the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls) Points are tallied from all four categories and the rankings are derived from the totals.
Does CFBDWH own the patent on winning college football indexing? No, they don’t, but I really like their format. You could take data from a hundred different categories, but still not have the jest of it as they do in their four-item format.
Yes, you could probably convince Jeff Sagarin to do one of his own (he may have, I dunno. I didn’t really bother to check...) but for the sake of my argument, these are the stats that we’re using.
And yes, I admit, I don’t know all the inner workings of the formula that CFBDWH uses. Three of the four are simple enough: All-Time Winning percentage, expressed as the percentage times 1000 for the point total, National championship points, expressed as a total of 50 points per NC, and Big Four bowl points, expressed as 15 or 20 points per bowl game. The only mystery is the Strength of Schedule points.
I’ve sent them emails asking how they determine it, but I guess they don’t want to give it up. These things tend to be proprietary in nature. They probably don’t want any competition from anyone else—guys like me, perhaps.
Or maybe they’re just lazy in answering emails. Maybe I should have told them I was from Track ‘Em Tigers. Hmmm... Anyway, guess we’ll just have to accept their value for SOS as being legitimate.
Okay, so it’s simple enough, right? Just get the totals for all the teams, combine them by states and you have your answers, right? Uh...well, uh... No. Not quite.
Do you remember what they used to tell you when you were young, "Never question authority?" Well, I didn’t listen. I did question it, and I still do. I’ve got a problem with how they award their national championships on CFBDWH and I can’t use their data. Yeah, yeah. Anyone who knows me knows how Mythical National Championships are the burr under my saddle, and I just can’t leave well enough alone, especially when I have a point to make.
And I’ve made that point on Track'em Tigers before. Read the last comment on this thread. That is where I analyzed who was really embellishing all those lofty MNC claims and who was on the money. If you don’t want to read that thread, the Cliff’s Notes version of the NC claims that I respect is this:
- Only current Division 1-A teams.
- Only AP championships (1934, 1936-present) UP championships 1935, 1950-1957) UPI championships (1958-1995) USA Today/ESPN championships (1997-present) and BCS championships (1998-present) are counted. However, prior to 1950, when the AP and UP polls ran concurrently, I will accept a preponderance of the other selectors.
- No back-dated championships (anything before 1934)
Suffice it to say that my standard of MNC is much stricter than CFBDWH’s. They tend to accept what a lot of teams, especially the big ones, claim on their resume—which is totally bogus for a lot of them. Nevertheless, as much as I love to dwell on this subject, we simply must move on. Now on with the countdown!
What CFBDWH submits to you as the top 25 all-time Div 1-A football programs is this, with points rounded to the nearest whole number and site accepted MNCs.
Team Total Points MNCs
- Notre Dame 2332 12
- Alabama 2314 11
- So. Cal 2242 10
- Michigan 2157 7
- Oklahoma 2046 7
- Texas 1956 4
- Ohio State 1950 5
- Nebraska 1935 5
- Tennessee 1813 4
- LSU 1810 3
- Georgia 1726 2
- Georgia Tech 1712 4
- Miami 1661 5
- Penn St. 1659 2
- Minnesota 1619 6
- Pittsburgh 1602 6
- Florida 1565 2
- Auburn 1529 1
- Illinois 1529 4
- Texas A+M 1521 2
- Washington 1491 1
- Florida St. 1466 2
- Arkansas 1458 1
- Michigan St. 1435 3
- UCLA 1433 1
Then here’s my revised list, showing actual number of MNCs, and the point revision after the deduction. Remember, every MNC is worth 50 points.
Team MNCs Real MNCs Revised points New Rank
- ND 12 8 2132 1
- Alabama 11 7 2064 3
- USC 10 7 2092 2
- Michigan 7 3 1957 5
- Oklahoma 7 7 2046 4
- Texas 4 4 1956 6
- OSU 5 5 1950 7
- Nebraska 5 5 1935 8
- Tennessee 4 2 1713 11
- LSU 3 3 1810 9
- Georgia 2 2 1726 10
- GA Tech 4 1 1562 16
- Miami 5 5 1661 12
- Penn St. 2 2 1659 13
- Minnesota 6 6 1619 14
- Pittsburgh 6 2 1402 23
- Florida 2 2 1565 15
- Auburn 1 1 1529 17
- Illinois 4 0 1329 32
- Texas A+M 2 1 1471 19
- Washington 1 1 1491 18
- FSU 2 2 1466 20
- Arkansas 1 0 1408 22
- Mich St. 3 2 1385 24
- UCLA 1 1 1433 21
So there they are, with their revised rankings and point total. So all we do now is add up two teams from assorted states and we should have the winners. Keep in mind that one of the teams from certain states might not have been reflected in the original top 25 list, but I got them off the CFBDWH list. Those teams are reflected with an asterisk. Here are the top 10:
State Teams Points Comments
- AL Auburn, Alabama 3593 Small state gets it done!
- CA USC, UCLA 3525 Big state, no surprise
- TX UT, ATM 3427 No surprise here, either
- IN ND, Purdue* 3411 One hit wonder w/ ND
- MI UM, MSU 3342 Fine FB tradition
- GA UGA, GaTech 3288 Only two 1A schools there
- FL Miami, Florida 3226 Will only get better
- OK OU, OSU* 3105 Not bad considering the size
- PA PSU, Pitt 3061 Solid rust-belt tradition
- TN UT, Vandy* 2921 Oh, you forgot Vandy, huh?
So there it is: The top states in the union for all-time college football glory, in this man’s opinion. I’ve done my best to lay out the data and explain how I’ve interpreted it. Now it’s time to lay it on me.
0 recs |
9
comments
Read Related
Comments
Short of seeding the atmosphere with hate-meters,
.....That's about as scientific as you can get! And very interesting on who ended up on the top ten list, too! Vandy. They were a powerhouse, back in the day.
.....A similar study on national rivalries might be interesting, too. How to quantify "rivalry," vs. "we play 'em every year," would be problematic. I think the Iron Bowl would do well in this, too. Some others that should be good are USC/Notre Dame, Ohio State/Michigan, Texas/Oklahoma, and Oklahoma/Nebraska. As to the mythical "Hate-meter," I think the Buckeye/Wolverine tilt is probably nastier than the others mentioned. The Iron Bowl's tops, in my opinion.
by Acid Reign on Mar 3, 2008 12:48 PM CST 0 recs
Age old arguments..
You could apply similar analysis to rivalries, but it would be a bit tougher. Like you mentioned, not all rivalries are renewed every year. Then you have to decide to look at interstate or intrastate, then finally, are we looking at it for bitterness, or simply who the best teams are.
If your looking for the annual clash of the best two historic teams, then it has to be Notre Dame-USC, numbers one and two, respectively. Michigan-Ohio State comes in second. Nebraska and Oklahoma don't play annually anymore, so you have to figure how to weight that scenario. Regardless, there's no qualitative way to rank the 'bitterness' factor, the same one that everyone loves to mention, other than to say that it usually is found in greater quanity in intrastate rivalries, like Auburn-Alabama.
Auburn and Alabama fans love to define ourselves by the bitterness of our rivalry, but that's not all we are. Like it or not, Alabama is one of the top 3 historic programs ever, but according to the data, Auburn doesn't play a half-bad second fiddle--at least in this 50-state band...
BTW: Yea, the tendency is to think of Tennessee as a one-horse state, but Vandy still has enough historic horsepower to put them in 10th place. However, they're still long removed from the early 20th century when John Heisman called on them to graduate from the SIAA and only play the Ivies, so much better were they than their sister schools.
Vandy used to beat Auburn so often that it's taken us the last 52 years to finally pull ahead in the all-time series. Yes, that Vandy!
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Mar 3, 2008 3:59 PM CST
up
0 recs
OU rivilries aren't in the same league ...
I attended OU (as well as Auburn) and have to say the rivalries with Texas and Nebraska aren't close to Auburn-Alabama. The week preceding the game (especially with Texas) yes ... but on a day in and day out basis, AU-uat is an order of magnitude more intense.
While I was at OU, they went undefeated and were AP national champs ... ohhh ... and on ... uhhh probation. :) The Nebraska game was in Lincoln. There was a good bit of excitement as Nebraska had a good team and the conference title was riding on the game. After the OU loss, Nebraska went on to represent the then Big 8 beating UF in the Sugar Bowl.
About the most exciting thing about the OU-UT rivalry is the Monday after each win is an official OU school holiday ... priceless. UT also had a solid team that year. They went on to lose to Auburn in the Gator Bowl.
The bottom line ... the individual games were big, but the rivalries weren't the kind of thing where newcomers to the area were forced to choose a side and then live with the consequences for 364 days. To me, it's a big rivalry when THAT game defines the season and the coach's ability to coach. Otherwise, it's just a "Big Game."
by Tigerz on
Mar 3, 2008 8:46 PM CST
up
0 recs
Tigerz....
you bring up a sore point that has pissed me off for years (since '93). The AP had no problem voting OU #1 in '85 or '86 rather for the '85 season (while on probation) and yet a mere 8 years later they found it against their principles to vote the only undefeated team in the nation #1 (yes our Tigers). That is a perfect example of why most AU fans and the SEC in general feel the Press is biased.
Excellent and thorough post WDE I would have a hard time putting together an argument regardless of who your top in state tandem ended up being. And as far as the top rivalry? Well, of course, I am biased there but we are arguably the best and most bitter (365 days a year).
by Todd92 on
Mar 4, 2008 8:41 AM CST
up
0 recs
You're right ...
When I was at OU, the UPI didn't recognize OU as the national champion. The AP did however. Although OU was a clear #1 in one of the major polls, there were still a number of upset folks regarding the UPI snub. Of course, not being recognized by the UPI was
And yes, I agree with you RE our own snub ... twice. It just doesn't make sense that a team can go undefeated in one of the toughest conferences in the country and not have the opportunity to either be (in the case of being the only undefeated team as OU was) or play for the national championship.
Frankly, they either need to fix their rules (as the old UPI did in stating they would not vote for teams on probation) or have the playoff system the fans have wanted for years.
by Tigerz on
Mar 6, 2008 10:41 AM CST
up
0 recs
Rivalry
The point of the article was to take some time off from the whole 'rivalry' thing and examine what Alabama and Auburn have done as a team--elevate the state of Alabama, pound for pound (person for person)to the best state for college football out there.
Alabama may always think that we'll be in their shadow, but we're certainly no slouch. We're a top 17 historic team who could easily creep towards top 12 with a few MNCs added to the resume. Legitimate MNCs...
Todd: I think the reason no poll gave us a serious look in 1993 is because the dynamic had changed with the advent of the conference title game. No one seemed willing to want to reward us for failing to play in the SEC title game, and I can't say that I blame them. However, had 1993 been a season like this past one, where everybody lost early and often, we may well have had a chance to get voted #1. No sense worrying about it now, though.
Ironically, of the more than 30 different NC selectors out there, more chose to vote us NC in 1993 (5) than did in 2004 (2). Of course, these are all minor selectors and no one counts their results as legitimate. No one except Alabama, that is...
Tigerz: Coming from Big 12 country, you probably have more insight into the Texas-Texas A+M rivalry than most. I swear, those Aggies are nothing short of obsessed with the Horns. They call them out constantly in their fight song (War Hymn--excuse, me) and virtually all their traditions are geared towards Texas (t.u.) Stalkers don't exhibit the fixation that the average Aggie has for Texas.
If Auburn was like that with Alabama, I don't know if I could stand it. Of course, we're only 5 games back in the series with Bama, ATM is 37 games back of Texas. Hmmm...
by War Eagle Atlanta on Mar 4, 2008 10:42 AM CST 0 recs
RE UT and A&M
You are so right War Eagle Atlanta ... UT is an obsession with A&M! Our oldest son went to A&M and I had the opportunity to attend a number of their games. They have incredible tradition and probably the only school I've ever witnessed that was in the same league with Auburn ... if not ahead of us! There's something to be said for the large turnouts they have for their midnight pep rallies and standing up for the entire game. The traditions of the A&M Corps itself are awe inspiring ... I don't care who you are. Having said that, the only thing different they did for UT was the bonfire (if my memory is correct anyway). I'll confirm with my son next time we talk. You've got me curious now and would be interested in his impressions.
Nonetheless, I didn't sense the same "rivalry" 365 days a year. R C Slocum, the A&M coach back then, was also largely successful without consistently beating UT. His problem came when they started playing .500 ball.
by Tigerz on
Mar 6, 2008 10:56 AM CST
up
0 recs
I have to admit...
..that their bonfire was pretty cool. I say 'was' because it's no longer an officially sanctioned event from the university, since all those kids were killed in 1999. They say that they cut down a few thousand trees for that bonfire. That's just insane!
by War Eagle Atlanta on
Mar 6, 2008 11:14 AM CST
up
0 recs
I would agree with the assumption....
if I had not witnessed the reasoning by AP voters. All that I heard said that they could not vote for a team on probation. This was also pre-BCS and less importance was placed nationally on Conference Championship Games as only a couple existed in '93 (the Big 12 didnt even exist until '95). In '93 we were still in the same old last man standing system of determining #1.
by Todd92 on Mar 4, 2008 12:27 PM CST 0 recs





