Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:23:01 -0800 (PST) From: Berryman Clyde Subject: QPRS 2003 College Football Rankings Dear College Football Fan, Contrary to what appears to be a widely-held opinion, the 2003 NCAA college football season is living proof that a playoff-system would not determine the best college football team of the year. Let's be clear about one thing: a playoff is a contest and nothing more. Judged as a contest, it is great fun. But just as the Super Bowl does not always go to the best NFL pro-team of the year (a 15-1 team can conceivably be beaten by a 9-7 regular season "wild card" playoff team), a college playoff would not necessarily be won by the best season-long team. What the public confuses is its desire to have a season-ending contest with the idea that this would necessarily be won by the best team. The regular season - be it NCAA or NFL - is a 12-16 game contest in itself with a far greater number of performances by which to judge a team than the 3-4 round playoff which would cap such a season. This is where mathematical or "computer" rankings will always remain more objective than human polls or a playoff system if the public is truly interested in knowing which was the season-long best team....as opposed to who was the playoff contest winner that year. A 9-7 wild-card team which goes on to win the Super Bowl could have a final record of say 12-7 but would that make it better than the 15-1 regular season team which fell to 15-3 after losing its Conference championship playoff? Think about it. The 2003 NCAA season is an interesting case in point. Even without a full-fledged playoff system, in my humble opinion, the BCS actually did succeed in bringing together the number one (Oklahoma) and number two (LSU) ranked teams in the land at the end of the regular season. However, popular short-term memory of Oklahoma's upset loss to Kansas State in the Big-12 Championship game had the "human" poll watchers shift their attention to the outcome of the Rose Bowl, convinced that Southern Cal was their National Champion if it was able to dispatch Michigan. In their minds, no need for the Sugar Bowl between Oklahoma and LSU to even take place if Southern Cal won. But the fact is that Oklahoma had built up a huge ratings lead with its seeming invincibility during the regular season before that fateful match-up against Kansas State. This is why in my QPRS rating system, Oklahoma still occupied the number one position with a comfortable cushion after the loss to Kansas State - it simply could afford to lose such a game and still remain well in the lead. Here is what the top five teams looked like at the end of the regular season (including any conference championship games) and on the eve of the bowl games: Rank College Record Schedule Offense Defense Overall Strength Rating Rating Rating 1. Oklahoma 12-1 51.43 253.01 182.26 435.27 2. Louisiana State 12-1 45.72 216.36 167.71 384.07 3. Southern Cal 11-1 46.11 226.89 149.02 375.91 4. Florida State 10-2 52.78 219.31 146.60 365.91 5. Michigan 10-2 51.82 213.31 147.15 360.46 Now, compare the above figures with the final post-bowl statistical ratings (attached) in each category for these teams to see how their bowl performances affected them. By losing to Louisiana State by only a touchdown, Oklahoma's lead was such that it was still able to narrowly hang on to the number one spot. What you have in Oklahoma is a team which played a tougher schedule than its two nearest rivals but still scored more points against its opponents than did either of its rivals. Oklahoma played six opponents who won nine or more of their games, Louisiana State played five of these (not counting Div 1AA Western Ill.) and Southern Cal played three nine-plus game winners. Oklahoma admittedly lost two games - both to top-ten teams: ninth-ranked Kansas State and second-ranked Louisiana State. Southern Cal lost once to thirty-second ranked California while Louisiana State lost once to twenty-fourth ranked Florida. Let's face it, this Oklahoma team was cruising toward a possible all-time top twenty greatness ranking until it met Kansas State and then lost its bowl game. While still the best season-long team for 2003, I'll let the reader decide whether a bowl game loser can still morally be declared a national champion or....if only a play-off system can settle the matter! One nice part about being back in the U.S. for me after so many years overseas was the ability to finally watch some NCAA college football live. In this regard, re-entry to the U.S. would certainly have been less painful if my alma mater, Alabama, had lost fewer games in 2003 than it did under Coach Bear Bryant during the entire time I was a student at that fine school: the record book for those early-mid 1970 years was something in the magnitude of 44 wins and 5 losses! The 2003 bowl game team which impressed me most were the Iowa Hawkeyes. Their systematic dismemberment and domination of an uncharacteristically lackluster Florida Gator team showed bowl game preparation which every coach could stand to emulate (Ex-Gator coach Steve Spurrier's resignation from the Washington Redskins job a day earlier coud not have come at a worse moment for Ron Zook!) Louisiana State's defense was a class act - by far the best defense of any team. Georgia played Purdue for a quarter and then sat back to relax which reminds one of all kinds of maxims. Florida aside, Tennessee was the most disappointing bowl game team - clumsy, a bit unlucky, and simply never able to get started (after a brief flash of life in the second quarter) against a wily and spirited Clemson. When I watch Tommy Bowden, I'm convinced that coaching ability must at least be partially transfered through the genes! And although plucky Navy lost its bowl game, what an amazing year for the Midshipmen - hard to believe a small, academically-oriented service academy can even compete at that level in today's Div 1A football!. What seems to have changed in college football during the years I've been abroad? Well, there seem to be twice as many penalties (personal fouls especially) than in the past and the games have gotten to be two-three times as long to watch due to commercial advertising and other forms of delay. Maybe a uniform limit on advertising minutes (hours?) needs to be imposed soon... Wishing you all a very happy New Year and looking forward to kickoff time this Fall. Roll Tide! Clyde 2003 AMERICAN COLLEGE FOOTBALL RANKINGS Rank College Record Schedule Offense Defense Overall Strength Rating Rating Rating 1. Oklahoma 12-2 52.56 243.05 173.77 416.82 2. Louisiana State 13-1 48.99 231.91 180.10 412.01 3. Southern Cal 12-1 49.25 242.08 160.51 402.59 4. Florida State 10-3 56.05 214.33 142.17 356.50 5. Miami 11-2 51.66 211.09 141.86 352.95 6. Ohio State 11-2 54.92 219.61 131.79 351.40 7. Michigan 10-3 53.51 204.90 137.82 342.72 8. Georgia 11-3 54.10 199.70 135.66 335.36 9. Kansas State 11-4 54.33 190.89 136.48 327.37 10. Miami, OH 13-1 39.90 197.80 127.91 325.71 11. Texas 10-3 50.77 197.54 122.10 319.64 12. Iowa 10-3 50.46 192.11 126.25 318.36 13. Maryland 10-3 49.69 185.61 124.43 310.04 14. Tennessee 10-3 48.66 190.40 116.36 306.76 15. Washington State 10-3 48.65 190.11 115.92 306.03 16. Nebraska 10-3 47.49 179.75 120.03 299.78 17. Mississippi 10-3 46.96 187.92 111.02 298.94 18. Minnesota 10-3 42.25 178.19 107.25 285.44 19. Purdue 9-4 48.46 173.77 109.52 283.29 20. Boise State 13-1 33.71 172.92 109.11 282.03 21. Arkansas 9-4 51.92 177.38 100.52 277.90 22. Clemson 9-4 51.46 166.00 99.53 265.53 23. Utah 10-2 40.62 162.41 98.80 261.21 24. Florida 8-5 59.06 163.12 95.74 258.86 25. Auburn 8-5 53.75 148.81 96.84 245.65 26. North Carolina State 8-5 54.08 163.28 81.78 245.06 27. Bowling Green 11-3 45.29 154.15 90.81 244.96 28. Oklahoma State 9-4 47.56 153.89 88.46 242.35 29. Virginia 8-5 50.96 152.42 89.34 241.76 30. Texas Christian 11-2 34.24 152.71 88.31 241.02 31. Texas Tech 8-5 49.75 161.96 75.88 237.84 32. California 8-6 51.04 152.22 82.78 235.00 33. Oregon 8-5 51.05 156.98 77.94 234.92 34. Michigan State 8-5 48.85 150.62 82.59 233.21 35. Virginia Tech 8-5 47.90 143.68 82.53 226.21 36. West Virginia 8-5 48.22 145.36 80.41 225.77 37. Pittsburgh 8-5 46.84 143.60 78.27 221.87 38. Oregon State 8-5 48.72 140.75 79.23 219.98 39. Boston College 8-5 46.37 141.20 72.76 213.96 40. Wisconsin 7-6 51.92 138.65 74.41 213.06 (c) by Clyde P. Berryman, Jan 6, 2004 E-Mail: f1ratings@yahoo.com