This compilation is the only college football rating system to rank teams by combining the Doppler effect with the Wilmot Proviso, thus achieving proportionate reciprocal capability. The Doppler effect is a law in physics discovered by Christian Doppler, who lived from 1803 to 1853. The Wilmot Proviso was proposed by David Wilmot, who lived from 1814 to 1868. Their meeting in 1851 was the foundation of this system. Used within the context of this rating system, the term national champion of college football in any given season signifies the school with the greatest analytic ratio of logarithmic differential superiority.
In order to rank the teams, first subjectively arrange the teams any way you want, but to get more attention be nonconformist, especially with the teams at the top. To assign numbers to each team, start with a number such as 110 or 85 or 37 to the left of the decimal point, then use the last two digits from a column of random numbers to produce the numbers to the right of the decimal. Move the number to the left of the decimal down appropriately to produce ever-descending numbers. Then every January after the last bowl game you can produce your math formula rating system and no one will know the difference.
Remember, if you throw enough technical jargon and numbers at people, their eyes will glaze over and they will think you know what you are talking about.
And how do you really know if any rating system you see isn't already one of these as described above?
Just something to think about.
The above observation brought to mind math formula rating systems used to rank college football teams. It seems as if their inventors want us to think of ourselves as being in the category of those who reach our understanding of math (our maximum capacity) at a limit or level below the inventor of the rating system. The theory seems to be that if they throw enough numbers at us, our eyes will glaze over and we will think they know what they are talking about, even if it is little more than a technical jargon snow job. But anyone can put college football teams in order and stick a random number after each one. How do we know if any math formula rating system is real and/or objective, or if it is phony and/or subjective? If I produce a top twenty list after any given season and add a number after each team, does this give my rankings more respect since people will now believe (and be fooled into thinking) that my ratings are objective rather than subjective? If you only trust or believe that a math formula rating system is legitimate, then you are theorizing and speculating, which means you really can't prove it is legitimate, which in turn means you really don't know if it is on the level (or objective) or not.
(Next season, after you rank your top 20 following the bowl games, put a number after each team to make it more legitimate!)
1920 VMI, 9-0-0 1960 New Mexico State, 11-0-0 1921 Lafayette, 9-0-0 1961 Rutgers, 9-0-0 1922 Iowa, 7-0-0 1962 Dartmouth, 9-0-0 1923 Illinois, 8-0-0 1963 Northern Illinois, 10-0-0 1924 Notre Dame, 10-0-0 1964 Los Angeles State, 9-0-0 1925 Michigan, 7-1-0 1965 Dartmouth, 9-0-0 1926 Haskell, 12-0-1 1966 San Diego State, 11-0-0 1927 Centenary, 10-0-0 1967 0klahoma, 10-1-0 1928 Detroit, 9-0-0 1968 Texas, 9-1-1 1929 Western Maryland, 11-0-0 1969 Penn State, 11-0-0 1930 Alabama, 10-0-0 1970 Arizona State, 11-0-0 1931 Pittsburgh, 8-1-0 1971 Nebraska, 13-0-0 1932 TCU, 10-0-1 1972 USC, 12-0-0 1933 Pittsburgh, 8-1-0 1973 Oklahoma, 10-0-1 1934 Alabama, 10-0-0 1974 Oklahoma, 11-0-0 1935 Princeton, 9-0-0 1975 Arizona State, 12-0-0 1936 Pittsburgh, 8-1-1 1976 Texas A&M, 10-2-0 1937 Santa Clara, 9-0-0 1977 Alabama, 11-1-0 1938 TCU, 11-0-0 1978 Oklahoma, 11-1-0 1939 San Jose State, 13-0-0 1979 Alabama, 12-0-0 1940 Michigan, 7-1-0 1980 Michigan, 10-2-0 1941 Duquesne, 8-0-0 1981 Clemson, 12-0-0 1942 Second Air Force, 11-0-1 1982 Penn State, 11-1-0 1943 Bainbridge Navy, 7-0-0 1983 Clemson, 9-1-1 1944 Randolph Field, 12-0-0 1984 Florida, 9-1-1 1945 Army, 9-0-0 1985 Michigan, 10-1-1 1946 Georgia, 11-0-0 1986 Oklahoma, 11-1-0 1947 Texas, 10-1-0 1987 Miami FL, 12-0-0 1948 Quantico, 13-0-0 1988 Notre Dame, 12-0-0 1949 Pacific, 11-0-0 1989 Miami FL, 11-1-0 1950 Kentucky, 11-1-0 1990 Colorado, 11-1-1 1951 USF, 9-0-0 1991 Washington, 12-0-0 1952 Georgia Tech, 12-0-0 1992 Alabama, 13-0-0 1953 Cal Poly SLO, 9-0-0 1993 Florida State, 12-1-0 1954 UCLA, 9-0-0 1994 Penn State, 12-0-0 1955 Michigan State, 9-1-0 1995 Nebraska, 12-0-0 1930 Iowa, 9-1-0 1996 Florida, 12-1-0 1957 Michigan State, 8-1-0 1997 Mount Union Ohio, 14-0-0 1958 Iowa, 8-1-1 1998 Tulane, 12-0-0 1959 Quantico, 11-0-0 1999 Marshall, 13-0-0
The following is stolen from the internet, and worth stealing!
["Do-It-Yourself Theological Construct," which used to be at http://www.tit.fi/~mark/Christian/LighterSide/impressive.theology.html.]
|Column A||Column B||Column C||Column D|
|1) A quantitative analysis will quickly show that||1) the individual terminology used||1) is further compounded by considering||1) the relevant data that can be included.|
|2) From a historical point of view||2) the regressive consideration||2) imposes overwhelming constraints upon||2) the ramifications of the final results.|
|3) Although Descartes did not state it in so many words, the implication is clear that||3) the introduction of a power structure||3) necessitates that consideration be made of||3) traditional perspectives and excessive use of previously established frameworks.|
|4) There can be no doubt that||4) the underlying question||4) provokes an examination of||4) an objective point of view.|
|5) Most rating system inventors seem to have forgotten that||5) a thorough dynamic analysis||5) orients the serious researcher toward||5) the criticism of originality and the bias against unique individuality.|
|6) One might say||6) the regional bias tendency||6) must give way to||6) responsive organizational concepts.|
|7) From a strictly mathematical point of view||7) anything less than an objective perspective||7) drives us to consider||7) undue reliance on derivative materials.|
|8) Based on structural considerations||8) an intransigent stance||8) calls into question||8) systematized reciprocal capability.|
|9) Under the guise of internal consistency||9) a need to master the problem||9) tends toward||9) an emphasis on previously establish dogmatics.|
|10) In the last analysis||10) the unavoidable internal subjectivity||10) adds the urgency to||10) an attempt to introduce functional policy flexibility.|
Instructions: Simply think of any four digit number (say, 6518) and read off the similarly numbered phrases from columns A, B, C, and D using choice 10 for zeros. (For example, 6518 is "One might say a thorough dynamic analysis is further compounded by considering systematized reciprocal capability.") Never mind what it means; just use it and watch the way you bring conversation to a halt. You can compose profound reports by using varied number combinations. As you become more proficient in its use, you may wish to experiment with varying the column sequence (B,A,C,D) but this is not recommended for beginners.
See also Historical Reality National College Football Champions.
Bob Kirlin / firstname.lastname@example.org