Quote Originally Posted by FUBeAR View Post
OK...Using your proposed single measure of relative conference strength...first, I think it would be necessary to define 'cumulative.' Over how many years? What if conferences changed teams in any way during the time period you propose? What if the conference rules have changed over the selected time period to allow greater numbers of scholarships over that time? How do you account for those things? As to 'sample size,' using your proposed single measure, the longer you 'reach back,' the larger the sample size would be, BUT also the chances of the issues I raised above coming into the sample size, thereby, possibly, skewing the results, also increase. Also, the further back you 'reach,' the more the analysis becomes a lagging metric - more an indicator of past performance than current strength.

Relying on a single metric or too heavily on historical data will, IMHO, yield rankings which are determined too narrowly and/or too 'dated' to be completely valid. If the CFB Playoff Committee took this approach, we might have Michigan, Notre Dame, Yale, and Texas in this year's playoff... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._teams_by_wins - GO ELI's!!!
You can only go with a single season. By cumulative OOC results I am talking all OOC games played during a season rather then the small sample size of the playoffs.