Syracuse 20-year historical ranking - 1993-2012 - one source

[Louie and Bouie]

Bye week thinking got me to checking out where we are this year and the overall trajectory of the program moving forward. Doing this type of thinking while surfing the net got me to a ranking of the top 125 football programs from 1993 - 2012 through a computer ranking system I found on the net. The site is collegefootballpoll.com and it uses the Congrove Computer Rankings. As well as current rankings, they have 20-year analysis based upon final season ranking for each season commencing in 1993 and ending in 2012. This encompasses the whole lifespan of our current recruits and incoming players. The results are very interesting to me and provoked much thought in my own mind. I thought I would share this find with my fellow SU fans.

In no way do i endorse the ranking system used or how it ranks the teams as i do not know the formula. Having said that, the historical rankings do seem to fit into our program history from 93 forward. It puts into perspective what this program is and what it was in certain snapshots in time. It also allows us to see that the "corner" has probably yet to be turned if we are to get to where we all want to be, which for me is that perennial top 40 team who has a legitimate chance to win on any given week with our conference foes. I long for those days and am hopeful we can get there although i understand it is a difficult uphill climb.

The result of our overall average ranking for the 20-year time period is 57.45 (average ranking in this poll) which puts us as the 57th best FCS team on the list. The highest ranking in the poll was in 2001 at 13 and the lowest ranking was at 111 in 2007 (the crash was steep and quick as far as results are concerned and 2005 - 2009 are especially hard to look at).

Anyway, here are the year to year results from that poll for Syracuse in numerical order starting in 1993 and ending in 2012:

1993 - 31 - Pasqualoni
1994 - 32
1995 - 17
1996 - 16
1997 - 19
1998 - 26
1999 - 38
2000 - 48
2001 - 13
2002 - 79
2003 - 59
2004 - 62
2005 - 113 - Robinson
2006 - 92
2007 - 111
2008 - 108
2009 - 97 - Marrone
2010 - 46
2011 - 83
2012 - 47

2013 - 72 (as of 10/28/13) - Shafer

Thus, our team ranking during this period is 57th overall with an average poll ranking of 56.85 during this time period.

In 2013, we are currently ranked the 72nd best team (seems about right at this point) with alot to be determined on the field in the upcoming weeks.

For reference, I have also included a table for our ACC conference foes and their overall team ranking for the last 2o years along with their 20-year average poll ranking:

Virginia Tech - 3 (overall team ranking) - 16.90 (average year end poll ranking) -
FSU - 4 - 17.20
Miami - 16 - 28.20
Clemson - 28 - 39.65
Georgia Tech - 30 - 44.10
Boston College- 31 - 44.75
Louisville - 32 - 45.60
Virginia - 38 - 48.45
UNC - 46 - 53.20
NC State - 49 - 53.95
Syracuse - 57 - 56.85
Pitt - 58 - 57.45
Maryland - 65 - 62.25
Wake Forest - 87 - 73.35
Duke - 119 - 96.15

Here are the top 25 programs from 1993 - 2012 using the same data:
(Boise State which was ranked 12 on the list has been removed as they didn't participate as an FCS program for the full 20 years)

1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Virginia Tech
4. Florida State
5. Texas
6. Nebraska
7. Georgia
8. USC
9. Oklahoma
10. Oregon
11. Michigan
12. LSU
13. Wisconsin
14. Penn State
15. Miami
16. Tennessee
17. Alabama
18. Kansas State
19. Auburn
20. West Virginia
21. Utah
22. Texas Tech
23. BYU
24. Texas A&M
25. TCU

Lastly, here are our 20-year historical "peers" (based upon team ranking) during this time period as well as some Northeastern teams of note and some current recruiting rivals for the 2014 class:

50. Colorado
51. Washington
52. Purdue
53. California
54. Stanford
55. Marshall (not an FCS school for the 20-year period)
56. Arizona
57. Syracuse
58. Pittsburgh
59. Mississippi


Rutgers - 81 (overall team ranking) - 68.40 (average final poll ranking)
UConn - 66 - 62.92 (not an FCS school for the 20-year period)
Illinois - 84 - 71.50
Iowa State - 95 - 78.45

I have my own analysis of what all this means but am more curious to see what others think about the numbers as we attempt to bring this program back to where it once was and where it should be in my humble opinion.

 

[nocoffee]

Who was #2? I see Fla St. twice. Was it Florida?

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Who was #2? I see Fla St. twice. Was it Florida?

yes, edited the post. mite be some other typo errors too. didn't fully proof it after typing.

 

[OrangeAggieArmy]

Amazing we didn't achieve more during the McNabb years

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I think the take away is that we think the program isvfar better than it has been historically in the last 20 years (even 50 years, I would guess.)

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chip]

Funny (and seems completely wrong) to see 1998's ranking so close to that of 1994 and 1993.

1993 was probably the worst rush defense I've ever seen on an SU team. Lost Dan Conley early with injury and apparently had only one other middle linebacker on the team (our starting Nose Tackle Kevin Mitchell).
1994 was probably the most disappointing offensive finish I've seen on an SU team. Shutout in the 2nd half in each of the last 4 games. Shutout altogether in 2 of the 4. No TDs in 3 of the 4.

Both teams would have made a bowl game in today's rules, but did not back then.

1998 was such a better team, much more than 5 or 6 slots overall. Played in the Orange Bowl.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Amazing we didn't achieve more during the McNabb years

Defense never found its groove.

we had to score a ton, and boy did we do that often, but sometimes it wasnt enough.

 

[Chip]

Defense never found its groove.

we had to score a ton, and boy did we do that often, but sometimes it wasnt enough.

Defense started finding a better groove 1999 to 2001. Timing never worked out for a run.

Same issue with 1996. If hand shooter had one more year with McNabb... especially after that Gator Bowl. Instead we opened 96 with WRs learning on the fly, and UNC pushed them all over the field.

Harrison for first 2 years of McNabb, Freeney for last 2 years with McNabb. Vick following McNabb. Life on top.

Instead the parents couldn't coordinate their babymaking, and Vick's HS coach put him up for sale to Blacksburg.

And we ended up with GRob.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Defense started finding a better groove 1999 to 2001. Timing never worked out for a run.

Same issue with 1996. If hand shooter had one more year with McNabb... especially after that Gator Bowl. Instead we opened 96 with WRs learning on the fly, and UNC pushed them all over the field.

Harrison for first 2 years of McNabb, Freeney for last 2 years with McNabb. Vick following McNabb. Life on top.

Instead the parents couldn't coordinate their babymaking, and Vick's HS coach put him up for sale to Blacksburg.

And we ended up with GRob.

thats it in a nutshell.

the game of football off the field is the same as the game on it. 1 or 2 plays can make you a winner or a loser.

we shouldve sent marvin to newport news in the summer or fall of 97.

we wasted his other talent by not using it...

 

[omniorange]

I think the take away is that we think the program isvfar better than it has been historically in the last 20 years (even 50 years, I would guess.)

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure I agree with this. If one looks at the 12 Coach P years, that average is 36.67 which would probably place us top 30 in that 12-year era.

Had we made it in the ACC for 2004, Coach P probably isn't fired after his first year, we keep Ray Rice and the nosedive probably isn't as bad.

But that's probably me viewing things through orange colored glasses.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[MadNY3]

Great work compiling this...though I will say the Pollsters were flat-out off if Syracuse was only put at #47 last year.

 

[anomander]

We severely underachieved with some really good teams. My analysis is has been a tough quarter century being a Syracuse football fan. We have had far too many really good teams where we really never won much. We should have had at least 5 top 10 teams with those squads listed above, but the early bad loss always seemed to get us. Surprisingly 2001 was our best finished, and you can argue it wasn't even one of our best 8 teams in that time frame

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not sure I agree with this. If one looks at the 12 Coach P years, that average is 36.67 which would probably place us top 30 in that 12-year era.

Had we made it in the ACC for 2004, Coach P probably isn't fired after his first year, we keep Ray Rice and the nosedive probably isn't as bad.

But that's probably me viewing things through orange colored glasses.

Cheers,
Neil

Unsure how 36th puts in the top 30. That just proves my point, as many think we belong in the top 15 anually

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Great work compiling this...though I will say the Pollsters were flat-out off if Syracuse was only put at #47 last year.

I certainly agree that we were better than the 47th team in the nation at the end of last year. One of the problems with computer rankings is they don't include a subjective analysis of how much a team has progressed throughout the season.
And as alot of us tend to forget, we only ended up 8-5 including the bowl win and started out 2-4 with losses to Rutgers and Minnesota and close wins against Pitt and StonyBrook. Couple the start with the later loss to Cincy and a bunch of close wins (scoring margin matters in most computer polls) and that's where you get the final ranking (not perfect but a methodology which gives us some comparison to other teams and seasons).
Although we looked like world beaters in the PinStripe the computers look at each game individually most times.

I do think the overall arc of the program is consistent with the numbers though and that's what i found most interesting. Does our recent past help us to know where Syracuse University is as a program today and what can we reasonbly expect the program to achieve in the future. Reasonableness being the key.

 

[Orangello]

50. Colorado
51. Washington
52. Purdue
53. California
54. Stanford
55. Marshall (not an FCS school for the 20-year period)
56. Arizona
57. Syracuse
58. Pittsburgh
59. Mississippi
I for one am really not troubled by this peer group. It sounds about right to me. Historically relevant programs that make occasional runs in the top 25. Stanford has the hot hand the last few years. In terms of current views, I would say Colorado is the one that seems to have fallen the farthest over the last tem years (but in fairness, they could say the same thing about us).

 

[omniorange]

Unsure how 36th puts in the top 30. That just proves my point, as many think we belong in the top 15 anually

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

It's an average score. So Clemson, who was ranked 28th for the 20 year period (if I'm reading it correctly) had an average ranking of 39.65.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[KaiserUEO]

throwing out the grobbycakes era, the ranking is 38.5.

this would put us 4th in the ACC, ahead of clemson.

give a little a drop off and i still say we finish better than virginia and the carolinas and puts around the gatech/bc level.

 

[SWC75]

I did something similar last August, based on James Howell's ratings:

The average ranking, (by Howell):

Florida State 14.03 range: 1-44 top 10s: 16 conference “titles”: 9 SU was better: 1 time
Miami 19.67 range: 1-73 top 10s: 16 conference “titles”: 10 SU was better: 5 times
Virginia Tech 26.33 range: 3-78 top 10s: 6 conference “titles”: 1 SU was better: 10 times
Clemson 29.09 range: 1-81 top 10s: 3 conference “titles”: 1 SU was better: 10 times
Boston College 44.55 range: 6-108 top 10s: 1 conference “titles”: 1 SU was better: 15 times
Georgia Tech 47.33 range: 1-118 top 10s: 1 conference “titles”: 1 SU was better: 17 times
North Carolina 47.79 range: 5-99 top 10s: 4 conference “titles”: 0 SU was better: 18 times
Pittsburgh 48.33 range: 1-99 top 10: 3 conference “titles”: 2 SU was better: 16 times
Syracuse 48.48 range: 4-109 top 10s: 2 conference “titles”: 0
Virginia 50.21 range: 13-120 top 10s: 0 conference “titles”: 0 SU was better: 18 times
North Carolina State 50.76 range: 12-90 top 10s: 0 conference “titles”: 0 SU was better: 18 times
Louisville 57.88 range: 21-105 top 10s: 2 conference “titles”: 2 SU was better: 18 times
Wake Forest 69.61 range: 21-108 top 10s: 0 conference “titles”: 0 SU was better: 22 times
Duke 81.21 range: 27-116 top 10s: 0 conference “titles”: 0 SU was better: 25 times
(a conference "title" means that Howell rated a schools's team higher than any of the other 13 teams that now comproise the ACC in a particular year)

I see four strata here:

Florida State and Miami are the true powerhouses, capable of being regular contenders for the national championship when not held back by probation. Miami is down now but we’ve seen several examples of dormant powerhouses rising again in recent history: Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, even Miami itself after their troubles in the late 90’s. Florida State has slowly been building back up and the Noles are perhaps just a notch below what they once were. South Florida will get knocked down a peg being in the sinking ship that is the Big East football conference. That will help both these schools. When they are on their game, they will be the class of the conference.

Virginia Tech and Clemson are on the next level. The Hokies have been better at their best but the Tigers have been consistently good the entire 30 years. Louisville is currently in the next group but I think that is deceiving. They are a powerhouse athletic department, making tons of money right now. The school is in SEC country but also close to prime recruiting areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I don’t see them rising to the Florida State/Miami level for the next 33 years but I think they will be on a par with Virginia Tech and Clemson.

Then comes what I will call the “elevator bank” teams. They represent the middle of the conference and will be up and down. In good years they might be on the second tier. In a dream year they might be on the first tier. But they will be up and down. Their games against each other should be very competitive and they will occasionally pull off an upset over a higher tiered school. Some years it won’t be an upset. But they are not going to be dominant programs or regular contenders. They are Boston College, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia and North Carolina State. (Maybe we can finally beat the Wolfpack: we are 0-6 against them all time.)

The bottom feeders will be Wake Forest and Duke. The Deacons have had their moments in recent years and Grobe is a good coach but I don’t think they can sustain it.

Can we compete in the ACC? I think so. That doesn’t tell me how much we will win there or how often we will compete for a title. It may help that the conference is split into divisions. We could have a year when we are strong but the division is weak. If we can get to the conference title game, that’s one game and if we got there, we are good enough to win it. I think it’s a conference that will be very tough on struggling teams, much like the basketball Big East, (or the basketball ACC), where even a pretty good team could get pounded down playing someone each week who can beat them, even if they play poorly. It will be quite a challenge but we need to keep the legs pumping to keep our heads above water.

 

[SU2NASA]

Amazing we didn't achieve more during the McNabb years

Too many What losses.