Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Question re Historical Criteria for Wins

CsquaredCC

Well-Known Member
Serious question....as some of the references to historical wins got me thinking about the what criteria is utilized in the calculation. Has anyone ever done a true analysis of the all-time wins in college football? For example, I often hear CU fans point to the statistic that its program is Top 25 in wins all-time. However, if you review old records for example, between 1894-1910, CU has 29 wins against local high schools. Adjusting CU's actual win total would put it somewhere around Top 30. Nebraska, for example, records wins against Lincoln HS that are counting towards itswin total even though NU has classified it as an "exhibition game." (Here is the website I am pulling this info from: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php)

Was it common practice back in the days to schedule high school level competition? Meaning were Ohio State, Michigan, etc. all doing this and if so has anyone ever gone through and done a more complete evaluation as to all programs with more objective criteria?
 
We played another high school named CSU, I guess those victories don't count either.

You ram fans are hilarious, one thing is for sure, you'll never be in the top 50 let alone top 30.

Some dolt posted this at ramnation and you come here with this lame crap? Wait, you're the dolt!
 
Teams not on the east coast and in lower population density areas (like west of the Mississippi) played a lot of games against high schools, small colleges, air bases, military teams etc. there just weren't any *other* teams to play. truth is: football was not that popular a sport until after WW II....and even then professional football didn't really emerge until the early 60's and TV. CU playing high schools should not be discounted since it was common practice. Yes, Michigan, Oklahoma, were all doing it.

there are as many arbitrary starting points for evaluation as lists. of the more convincing IMO pertain to the "modern era" also defined variably since WWII, since the facemask era, or posted here at AB IIRC....since the integration of the black athlete.

but, i suspect there's some agenda to the question....why not just out it...?
 
Mick Ronson said:
Teams not on the east coast and in lower population density areas (like west of the Mississippi) played a lot of games against high schools, small colleges, air bases, military teams etc. there just weren't any *other* teams to play. truth is: football was not that popular a sport until after WW II....and even then professional football didn't really emerge until the early 60's and TV. CU playing high schools should not be discounted since it was common practice. Yes, Michigan, Oklahoma, were all doing it.

there are as many arbitrary starting points for evaluation as lists. of the more convincing IMO pertain to the "modern era" also defined variably since WWII, since the facemask era, or posted here at AB IIRC....since the integration of the black athlete.

but, i suspect there's some agenda to the question....why not just out it...?
Click to expand...

Sorry Mick, but college football was huge before WWII. Just ask DBT (...I jest, I jest).

Still, your point about not having sufficient opponents is on the money. I wish I could remember the reference, or where I read it, but I seem to recall that college teams would schedule HS teams, local club teams, etc., just to fill the schedule (way back when). Prolly why Alibamy claims to have like a gazillion national titles.
 
CsquaredCC said:
Serious question....as some of the references to historical wins got me thinking about the what criteria is utilized in the calculation. Has anyone ever done a true analysis of the all-time wins in college football? For example, I often hear CU fans point to the statistic that its program is Top 25 in wins all-time. However, if you review old records for example, between 1894-1910, CU has 29 wins against local high schools. Adjusting CU's actual win total would put it somewhere around Top 30. Nebraska, for example, records wins against Lincoln HS that are counting towards itswin total even though NU has classified it as an "exhibition game." (Here is the website I am pulling this info from: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php)

Was it common practice back in the days to schedule high school level competition? Meaning were Ohio State, Michigan, etc. all doing this and if so has anyone ever gone through and done a more complete evaluation as to all programs with more objective criteria?
Click to expand...

You normally come over here with pretty good insight/questions, but this is clearly parochially-driven crap.

Some wins are more quality than others, there's no doubt about it. Look at nebraska's OOC schedule from year-to-year. They still get credit for those wins (we all do, except for those of us that play Montana State--that still counts as a loss). Look at CSU's conference schedule. Overall, it is less robust than CU's (yes, I know there are some good teams in the mountain west and some bad teams in the Big XII, but overall...). Should we take away some of CSU's lamer conference wins?

You must simply use the standard that was relavent in the day to count the wins. To take a revisionist approach and start determining which wins were quality and which were not is a slippery, slippery slope, and in my opinion is dispresectful to the history of the sport.
 
Any way you slice it, total wins is a misleading stat. Even moreso in college basketball. While it looks like the Top 10-15 are legit powers, there are teams near the Top 30 that didn't really start playing "big boy" football until well after the rest (Boston College, Virginia Tech), which means their wins came against lesser competition. And there are others for whom their wins are STILL coming against inferior opponents (Miami-OH, Navy, Army).

Seriously, Troy is about ten spots ahead of Florida State. So this list needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
The Walrus said:
You normally come over here with pretty good insight/questions, but this is clearly parochially-driven crap.

Some wins are more quality than others, there's no doubt about it. Look at nebraska's OOC schedule from year-to-year. They still get credit for those wins (we all do, except for those of us that play Montana State--that still counts as a loss). Look at CSU's conference schedule. Overall, it is less robust than CU's (yes, I know there are some good teams in the mountain west and some bad teams in the Big XII, but overall...). Should we take away some of CSU's lamer conference wins?

You must simply use the standard that was relavent in the day to count the wins. To take a revisionist approach and start determining which wins were quality and which were not is a slippery, slippery slope, and in my opinion is dispresectful to the history of the sport.
Click to expand...

Sorry Walrus...I am really not trying to stir the pot and it really was intended to be a serious question not a slight at CU. I assume all universities were scheduling in this manner at the time, and that would include many of the Top 25 programs. I am just wondering if someone has actually done this type of analysis as to all programs and if their is a site or something out there. Nebraska is a good example. If you look at some of their prior wins back in the day, they classify some of their wins as exhibition games, yet they are still getting credit? That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think anyone would argue that an "exhibition win" should count towards your win total.
 
UrbanaBuff said:
Any way you slice it, total wins is a misleading stat. Even moreso in college basketball. While it looks like the Top 10-15 are legit powers, there are teams near the Top 30 that didn't really start playing "big boy" football until well after the rest (Boston College, Virginia Tech), which means their wins came against lesser competition. And there are others for whom their wins are STILL coming against inferior opponents (Miami-OH, Navy, Army).

Seriously, Troy is about ten spots ahead of Florida State. So this list needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Troy is a fantastic example...check out their games in the 1920's era. They played high school teams almost exclusively.
 
FSU is a bit of an exceptional case....it was a women's college after 1906 until 1947....so, didn't play any football games for nearly half a century. and they weren't any good until the early 80's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top