re: College Football Historical Relevancy Rankings

quote:

---

LSU fans typically favor the latter argument.

---

News to me...

quote:

---

Yes, pretty sure that was clear from his original post.

---

His OP is contradictory.

He says this is a

quote:

---

College Football Historical Relevancy Rankings

---

And

quote:

---

This is not a ranking of the “Best” or “Most Accomplished” programs. This is a ranking of how common it is for a program to be relevant at any given point since the inception of the AP Poll (1936).

A team is considered relevant for each season if they finished ranked in the last AP Poll.

---

So he defines relevancy equals # of seasons ending ranked in AP poll.

But then says relevancy in his model is not that. It is actually

quote:

---

The below methodology is based on the standard deviation of season streaks of finishing outside the Final Poll.

---

So he is not using his original definition.

The definition of relevancy to him is streaks of being ranked, not how many times you've ranked or how many weeks youv'e been ranked or the timespan of ranked seasons.

The other major issue is that relevancy should have several other factors. There are weights to relevancy e.g. how highly you're ranked, hardware, notable talent, etc.

I don't give a shite if someone did an analysis and LSU is outside the top 50 if I agreed with the methodology and the result passed even an initial smell test. Who cares.