Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

ESPN strikes again!  Odd title, isn't it?  They should have called it "We don't know where to rank Jim Brown."
.
So we all know ESPN is silly and dumb, but I just wanted to share this - their #1 college RB of all-time and their #20 choice.
Which is which?
RB A:  4,900 yds, 7.8 ypc, 49 TDs
RB B:  3.500 yds, 6.8 ypc, 49 TDs
Both had a 2500+ yd season.
.
Then consider their #11 RB:
RB C:  6,100 yds, 6.7 ypc, 55 TDs
.
They rank RBs by career, but have a one-season wonder a the top of their list.  If you create a list based on who was "best" or whatever, great, do that.  But then don't have Cedric Benson 15 spots ahead of Adrian Peterson, lol.  I know it's not a surprise, but a shitty ranking by some guy at ESPN.  Fun stuff.

cause, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics

Do you know who said this?  Trick question.

As for list, my oh my.  Some folks will really get into an argument over opinions like this.  Obviously a list of top yardage gained is quantitative, and while true is also misleading.  My own list is which player would I like to have in my backfield for an NC game against an elite defense, and my choice would be Barry.

But career?  Not Barry.

Not Mark Twain?

sorry, can't simply rank players by the numbers

cause, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics

I'm not advocating that.
I just advocate for consistency.  But it is what it is, lol.

I do agree that looking at some ESPN ranking can be "interesting" and even perhaps thought provoking.  I think posters here view it for what it's worth, which often is obviously pretty silly.  I didn't click on the link, the overall import of another Internet ranking of "Best College Towns" or "Best BBQ" doesn't help me any.

I glanced over some "Best Places to Retire" lists way back when, maybe a few stuck in memory to check out, mostly the criteria they used were not relevant to me.

I don't think much of Consumer Reports either.

Yeah, the more I learn through researching for Whoa Nellie, the more I see so many articles/click bait as just lazy.

You can create a great "best of" list for RBs in 3 very easy, distinct ways:
1 - go by the stats, do the work - a kind of informative list, of careers
2 - go by the stats, do the work - a list of peaks (single season)
3 - go by ability level - obviously very subjective, but fun to argue about and no real 'right' answers
.
Everyone seems to want to smash all 3 of these together, and I don't know why.  Each idea is tricky enough in itself.....a sliding scale of volume vs per-carry.....even considering awards, offense styles, etc.  
People trying to combine 1 and 2 above bother me just as much as combining 1 and 2 with 3.  Obviously, I don't give a shit about running style or NFL productivity, but both seem to strongly influence these lists and many people's opinions.  I just find them utterly irrelevant.  
.
None of it matters.

ESPN strikes again!  Odd title, isn't it?  They should have called it "We don't know where to rank Jim Brown."
.
So we all know ESPN is silly and dumb, but I just wanted to share this - their #1 college RB of all-time and their #20 choice.
Which is which?
RB A:  4,900 yds, 7.8 ypc, 49 TDs
RB B:  3.500 yds, 6.8 ypc, 49 TDs
Both had a 2500+ yd season.
.
Then consider their #11 RB:
RB C:  6,100 yds, 6.7 ypc, 55 TDs
.
They rank RBs by career, but have a one-season wonder a the top of their list.  If you create a list based on who was "best" or whatever, great, do that.  But then don't have Cedric Benson 15 spots ahead of Adrian Peterson, lol.  I know it's not a surprise, but a shitty ranking by some guy at ESPN.  Fun stuff.

Both A and B were 1-year starters, fun fact.

It’s funny, because this article is giving you exactly what you want. You want very much to be annoyed by ESPN and annoyed by rankings. And this content essentially provides it.

It was written by one of ESPN’s most thoughtful college football guys. He freely admits it was a frivolity. But serious people have this deep thirst to treat this like it MATTERS, and in that sense, his diversion is serving you, the reader.