We are talking about programs and expectations of winning

Posted on: October 23, 2020 at 16:07:14 CT

I rate programs based on how likely they are to succeed on a year-by-year basis, aka how likely they are to win games versus other teams. I don't think results from 50 years ago or 150 years ago factor into that.

Yale is a much worse program today than it used to be. It is not a top football program. I'm sure you can agree with that. Why can't you say the same about Nebraska? Because Nebraska was good 30 years ago and Yale was good 150 years ago? What's the difference in terms of today?

Here's a ranking w/ a bias towards recent history (past 10 years) which I think is a lot more relevant when talking about who we should expect to beat, which is what started this entire thread.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/list/ranking-top-25-college-football-programs-2020/10fxo966wm2uq12926io6e4m37/9

I'll leave it with this.

Wilt Chamberlain was one of the greatest basketball players. He's in all the top 10 all-time player lists. But today, he is not a good player. He is dead and therefore sucks at basketball. If I was to wake up tomorrow and have a basketball game scheduled vs Wilt Chamberlain, then I'd expect to win.

Today, I am superior to Wilt Chamberlain as a basketball player. Today, Kentucky is superior to MU as a football program. Today, Wisconsin is superior to Nebraska as a football program.

Edited by zoomer at 16:27:04 on 10/23/20