An OP Original A data-based analysis of "Bluebloods" and Oklahoma State's changing place in that story

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Nov 27, 2007
2,872
1,356
1,743
36
Tulsa
#22
Alum in AZ
This is a very non-biased analytical approach to looking at this and it is very interesting and lines up with a lot of conventional thinking.

I am not even sure how you would quantify this, but most blue bloods have an era of dominance. When looking at it from a macro across eras, I feel that era can be made to look less significant that what it should be in the grand scheme of things. A key example of this is KSU. They were complete garbage before Bill Snyder came, and in his 17-20 years they were a power football program. A few of those years, they had some of the best teams in the country. Not only were they a dominate force, but this in the height of the Big 12 dominance.

This comes into context when you see a team like Boise State ranked above them. Boise State, I assume, is boosted above them largely by total wins over the eras when KSU was garbage. BSU had the luxury of playing a pretty much mid-major teams over those years and was not going up against the Nebraska's, OU's, later Texas' every year. BSU had a few nice years but nothing compared to what KSU was able to accomplish.

So I just think when you are dominate for an era it should hold more weight, than looking only at it as part of a collective. I don't know if that makes since or how you would quantify that, but its just how I see it.
 
Nov 8, 2013
572
352
613
#23
Hi folks, 2020 was obviously a hyper strange year for college football. I went ahead and updated my "blue bloods analysis" spreadsheet based on the season results, even though the number of games played varied by conference, many bowl games were cancelled, etc. I only updated the totals and ranking for the original 60 teams and did not re-analyze the different team groupings (Shooting Stars, Falling Rocks, etc.).

There is really nothing new here as the changes in ranking vs. 2019 only happened when teams were already clustered closely together. It is nice to see that Miami dropped a spot. Getting the extra points for a Bowl Win would have helped them. Unfortunately, we didn't move up at all. But we're within 3 points of the next 3 teams ahead of us.

I have added spacers to the list below reflecting groupings of "50 points". It just goes to show how far ahead the top of this list is from the rest of the schools.

School / Total Points / Change vs. 2019
Alabama / 418.99 / 0
- - - - - - - -
Oklahoma / 350.05 / 0
- - - - - - - -
Ohio State / 340.18 / 0
USC / 304.13 / 0
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Florida State / 247.54 / 0
Nebraska / 242.65 / 0
Clemson / 237.2 / 0
Texas / 226.84 / 2
LSU / 224.99 / -1
Michigan / 224.57 / -1
Florida / 204.65 / 0
- - - - - - - -
Georgia / 196.65 / 1
Miami / 196.5 / -1
Auburn / 188.69 / 0
Notre Dame / 186.51 / 0
Tennessee / 177.12 / 0
BYU / 170.27 / 0
Penn State / 163.25 / 0
- - - - - - - -
Texas A&M / 149.71 / 1
Oregon / 147.76 / 1
Washington / 146.63 / -2
Michigan State / 139.65 / 0
Wisconsin / 137.65 / 1
Georgia Tech / 135.37 / -1
UCLA / 131.26 / 0
TCU / 130.54 / 0
West Virginia / 127.57 / 0
Iowa / 124.35 / 0
Ole Miss / 121.43 / 3
Arizona State / 120.7 / -1
Utah / 119.99 / -1
Virginia Tech / 118.99 / -1
Colorado / 116.54 / 1
Pittsburgh / 116.46 / -1
Arkansas / 116.25 / 0
Oklahoma State / 113.84 / 0
Boise State / 108.96 / 0
Stanford / 106.48 / 0
Syracuse / 104.64 / 0
Minnesota / 102.13 / 0
NC State / 102.02 / 1
Louisville / 101.68 / -1
- - - - - - - -
Texas Tech / 98.58 / 0
North Carolina / 97.12 / 0
Baylor / 95.44 / 0
Boston College / 94.15 / 0
Missouri / 90.64 / 0
Cal / 88.46 / 0
Navy / 88.05 / 0
Illinois / 87.06 / 0
South Carolina / 81.91 / 0
Mississippi State / 76.52 / 2
Kansas State / 76.34 / -1
Purdue / 75.22 / -1
Virginia / 72.45 / 0
Arizona / 71.29 / 0
Oregon State / 67.45 / 0
Army / 66.28 / 0
Northwestern / 64.73 / 1
Washington State / 61.59 / -1
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2013
572
352
613
#24
Alum in AZ
This is a very non-biased analytical approach to looking at this and it is very interesting and lines up with a lot of conventional thinking.

I am not even sure how you would quantify this, but most blue bloods have an era of dominance. When looking at it from a macro across eras, I feel that era can be made to look less significant that what it should be in the grand scheme of things. A key example of this is KSU. They were complete garbage before Bill Snyder came, and in his 17-20 years they were a power football program. A few of those years, they had some of the best teams in the country. Not only were they a dominate force, but this in the height of the Big 12 dominance.

This comes into context when you see a team like Boise State ranked above them. Boise State, I assume, is boosted above them largely by total wins over the eras when KSU was garbage. BSU had the luxury of playing a pretty much mid-major teams over those years and was not going up against the Nebraska's, OU's, later Texas' every year. BSU had a few nice years but nothing compared to what KSU was able to accomplish.

So I just think when you are dominate for an era it should hold more weight, than looking only at it as part of a collective. I don't know if that makes since or how you would quantify that, but its just how I see it.
KSU is definitely an interesting situation. They sure were garbage for a long time - that's how I remember them in the 80's when I was at OSU. They certainly did rise for a while - some would even say it was "miraculous". :) But they didn't win enough bowl games or make enough noise at the national level to really jump up. And even if they did win a national championship or two, have a Heisman winner, etc... their prior history would still weigh against them in my total model. I agree with you that teams like Boise State get unfair beneficial treatment in my model. I don't complicate the model with strength of schedule factors as I think it would have been impossible to get for the older eras.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,836
18,048
1,743
#25
Blue Blood: membership in a noble or socially prominent family (or in this case group)

Can you buy or win your way into that group?

Do you have to be a "winner" to be a member of that group?

Or maybe what it really means in regards to football is what teams given everything else is equal gets the nob to advance. For example in 2011 Alabama got the nod over OSU (who on paper actually had a slight advantage).

Perhaps what should be considered is based on TV viewership. Here are the top teams from the 2021 season based on the number of TV viewers (not including bowl games). Of course it helps in any given season if you are winning that season and what conference you may belong to. But, it does I think give a good idea at to who the "blue bloods" are. Especially if these numbers were accumulated over a number of years.

Rank Team TV Viewers (2020)

1​
NOTRE DAME
51,627,000​
2​
ALABAMA
50,616,000​
3​
CLEMSON
41,070,000​
4​
FLORIDA
38,560,000​
5​
OHIO STATE
31,753,000​
6​
GEORGIA
25,940,000​
7​
OKLAHOMA
24,951,000​
8​
AUBURN
23,870,000​
9​
LSU
23,310,000​
10​
OKLAHOMA STATE
20,747,000​
11​
TEXAS
20,470,000​
12​
IOWA STATE
20,420,000​
13​
MICHIGAN
19,870,000​
14​
TEXAS A&M
19,776,000​
15​
PENN STATE
18,283,000​
16​
MICHIGAN STATE
17,538,000​
17​
TENNESSEE
17,260,000​
18​
NORTH CAROLINA
16,640,000​
19​
KANSAS STATE
14,189,000​
20​
INDIANA
14,078,000​
21​
NEBRASKA
13,857,000​
22​
USC
13,365,000​
23​
OREGON
13,130,000​
24​
WEST VA
11,802,000​
25​
TCU
10,867,000​
26​
TEXAS TECH
10,726,000​
27​
LOUISVILLE
10,701,000​
28​
ARKANSAS
10,471,000​
29​
IOWA
9,706,000​
30​
UCF
8,798,000​
31​
BAYLOR
8,020,000​
32​
BYU
7,927,000​
33​
CIN
7,814,000​
34​
UCLA
7,280,000​
35​
TULSA
6,176,000​
36​
ARIZONA
6,124,000​
37​
KANSAS
4,475,000​
38​
MEMPHIS
 
Nov 8, 2013
572
352
613
#26
Blue Blood: membership in a noble or socially prominent family (or in this case group)

Can you buy or win your way into that group?

Do you have to be a "winner" to be a member of that group?

Or maybe what it really means in regards to football is what teams given everything else is equal gets the nob to advance. For example in 2011 Alabama got the nod over OSU (who on paper actually had a slight advantage).

Perhaps what should be considered is based on TV viewership. Here are the top teams from the 2021 season based on the number of TV viewers (not including bowl games). Of course it helps in any given season if you are winning that season and what conference you may belong to. But, it does I think give a good idea at to who the "blue bloods" are. Especially if these numbers were accumulated over a number of years.

Rank Team TV Viewers (2020)

1​
NOTRE DAME
51,627,000​
2​
ALABAMA
50,616,000​
3​
CLEMSON
41,070,000​
4​
FLORIDA
38,560,000​
5​
OHIO STATE
31,753,000​
6​
GEORGIA
25,940,000​
7​
OKLAHOMA
24,951,000​
8​
AUBURN
23,870,000​
9​
LSU
23,310,000​
10​
OKLAHOMA STATE
20,747,000​
11​
TEXAS
20,470,000​
12​
IOWA STATE
20,420,000​
13​
MICHIGAN
19,870,000​
14​
TEXAS A&M
19,776,000​
15​
PENN STATE
18,283,000​
16​
MICHIGAN STATE
17,538,000​
17​
TENNESSEE
17,260,000​
18​
NORTH CAROLINA
16,640,000​
19​
KANSAS STATE
14,189,000​
20​
INDIANA
14,078,000​
21​
NEBRASKA
13,857,000​
22​
USC
13,365,000​
23​
OREGON
13,130,000​
24​
WEST VA
11,802,000​
25​
TCU
10,867,000​
26​
TEXAS TECH
10,726,000​
27​
LOUISVILLE
10,701,000​
28​
ARKANSAS
10,471,000​
29​
IOWA
9,706,000​
30​
UCF
8,798,000​
31​
BAYLOR
8,020,000​
32​
BYU
7,927,000​
33​
CIN
7,814,000​
34​
UCLA
7,280,000​
35​
TULSA
6,176,000​
36​
ARIZONA
6,124,000​
37​
KANSAS
4,475,000​
38​
MEMPHIS
2020 isn't a fair year to judge TV viewership ratings, especially for Pac 12 and Big 10.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,836
18,048
1,743
#27
2020 isn't a fair year to judge TV viewership ratings, especially for Pac 12 and Big 10.
Basing it on one year wasn't the point (I didn't take the time to review multiple years). The point is the "blue bloods" are based on viewership over a period of extended time.

Regardless, do you think if we did this over a 10-20 year period this list would change much if any?
Notre Dame
Alabama
Clemson
Florida
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma

At one time in the past Texas, Nebraska, Penn State and a few others would have been on this list.
 
Nov 8, 2013
572
352
613
#28
Basing it on one year wasn't the point (I didn't take the time to review multiple years). The point is the "blue bloods" are based on viewership over a period of extended time.

Regardless, do you think if we did this over a 10-20 year period this list would change much if any?
Notre Dame
Alabama
Clemson
Florida
Ohio State
Georgia
Oklahoma

At one time in the past Texas, Nebraska, Penn State and a few others would have been on this list.
I bet Clemson has skyrocketed compared to where they were 20 years ago. But that is so rare.
 

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,485
1,631
1,743
41
Sand Springs, OK
#29
Well this potentially just took a big hit today. What we may have been witnessing over the last decade plus was the zenith of oSu's athletic history. I hope I'm wrong but it may be resignation to mediocrity or worse going forward. It sucks because we (as an athletic program) don't deserve this.