College Teams Ranked by Attendance, Winning and Expenditures - Reddit

Caw Caw · September 26, 2014

http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2hdchd/oc_fbs_teams_ranked_by_winning_attendance_and/

I thought you guys would really like this information. It's a pretty interesting look our how UNT stacks up.

Pro Tip: CTRL + F, Type North Texas

mdmeangreen · September 26, 2014

Wow, right BELOW Buffalo Bulls, huh?

Mean Green 93-98 · September 26, 2014

I know sometimes our fanbase gets a little touchy about using dated logos, names, etc. . . . But wow.

GrayEagle · September 26, 2014

I'd like it if it were factual but they miss the mark by a long way.

The attendance figures do seem legitimate. The power ratings are a joke. Just take us and SMU for example. We get 0 power rating which "automatically" ties us for 96th. What the hell is that? Ohio State cannot be the #1 team in the land. SMU is way ahead of us and a lot of others also. At the least, some of the expenditures are wrong. Could even be most. They did get Ohio State right but they understated ours by $4 million. If no one told them they gave them the same ranking as their attendance. I'm sure that's accurate (sarcasm).

The fairest way to do this would be to match the attendance with the expenses and the the power ranking for the previous year. Otherwise you're talking about apples and oranges. If I find the time I may go back and see what it was for last year by using the average ranking for all FBS teams (Massey Comparitive Ranking), the average attendance (NCAA or CFB Stats), and Total Football Expenses (Gender Equity Report to DOE). The first two are complete and the third does not have Navy and Air Force. I would assign the same expenses reported by Army which I know isn't correct but is the closest estimate that I can come up with. The report would be far more accurate than Reddit.

Caw Caw · September 26, 2014

I'd like it if it were factual but they miss the mark by a long way.

The attendance figures do seem legitimate. The power ratings are a joke. Just take us and SMU for example. We get 0 power rating which "automatically" ties us for 96th. What the hell is that? Ohio State cannot be the #1 team in the land. SMU is way ahead of us and a lot of others also. At the least, some of the expenditures are wrong. Could even be most. They did get Ohio State right but they understated ours by $4 million. If no one told them they gave them the same ranking as their attendance. I'm sure that's accurate (sarcasm).

The fairest way to do this would be to match the attendance with the expenses and the the power ranking for the previous year. Otherwise you're talking about apples and oranges. If I find the time I may go back and see what it was for last year by using the average ranking for all FBS teams (Massey Comparitive Ranking), the average attendance (NCAA or CFB Stats), and Total Football Expenses (Gender Equity Report to DOE). The first two are complete and the third does not have Navy and Air Force. I would assign the same expenses reported by Army which I know isn't correct but is the closest estimate that I can come up with. The report would be far more accurate than Reddit.

I'm sure, being that this is independently done it has plenty of room to be improved on accuracy. But it is a pretty decent snapshot. I don't think it's anything to get all bent out of shape about if you don't think these are done to rigid specification you'd like them done to. You take the time to compile and organize this kind of information if it bothers you so much. I'll be happy to share your report with the world.

EDIT: Here is how power was concluded: "Listed in the table below is every final AP poll that I have fixed, along with how far each team has risen or dropped from their ranking in the original poll ("IN" means that a previously unranked team has now been ranked).

You can click the year above any top 25 in the table to open a full explanation for every decision made in repairing that final AP poll. So for example, if you are perusing the fixed top 25s below, and notice that 10-1-1 Iowa dropped 10 1/2 places in the fixed 1991 poll, and you want to know why, you can just click "1991" at the top of that top 25, opening the 1991 article, and scroll down to the "Iowa" subheading.

It must be noted that the repairs I have made to AP polls do not reflect my personal preferences, but are merely the minimum changes required by cold, hard logic. My own top 25s would often look very different from these.

Furthermore, in addition to fixing all of the illogical choices made in all of the final AP polls, I have made the AP poll consistent from beginning (1936) to end (the present). For example, before 1989 the AP poll only ranked 20 teams, and from 1962 to 1967 they only ranked 10 teams, but I have expanded all of those polls to 25, so as to be consistent with the 1989-present polls.

In addition, the AP poll did not take bowl games into account 1936-1964 and 1966-1967, but I have fixed those polls with bowl results in mind, so as to be consistent with the polls in 1965 and 1968-present.

If you are interested in an annual top 25 for seasons before the AP poll debuted, I am also working on fixing hypothetical AP polls for each season 1901-1935."

And here's a link to those polls: http://tiptop25.com/fixedpolls.html

Edited September 26, 2014 by Caw Caw