Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:47:47 -0800 (PST) From: Berryman Clyde Subject: QPRS - 2004 American College Football Rankings Dear College Football Fans, As Virginia Tech was not able to upset Auburn, the Orange Bowl became a test of the BCS system yet again with the old question of what do we do if there are two unbeaten major Div 1A teams left at the end? Southern Cal's humbling of Oklahoma by such a lopsided score was helpful in putting that question to rest...at least until next year. As is now the custom, the bowl period is accompanied by the usual arguments calling for a NCAA college football playoff. I personally have no dog in this fight. If a playoff must eventually take place, it would seem the NCAA basketball "March madness" format is probably still the best system to emulate. It will provide a nice and tidy contest for fans who like nice and tidy solutions but it will only produce a playoff contest winner - not determine who was the best team that year. I repeat my comments on this from last year as my thinking on the subject remains unchanged: "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" Now perhaps the most humorous moment of the year came when the Associated Press nastily demanded that its football poll no longer be taken into consideration in the BCS rankings computation on the grounds that the poll's reputation/integrity had allegedly even "suffered" as a consequence. What a hoot! I wonder if they would survive a legal challenge that they cannot tell the world what they can or cannot do with their poll if they choose to publish it! The BCS was not distorting or misrepresenting the AP poll, just respectfully including it as one of its measurement yardsticks. The AP should actually have been flattered that its annual compilation of all the regional biases, prejudices and the personal subjectivity of the sports hacks' collective was worthy of consideration in the BC Scomputations! I had initially hoped that the BCS was going to be a move away from the popular polls to the more scientific approach of the computer/ mathematical rating systems - at least they feed the same numbers in for every team regardless of home town, coach, past history, personal likes or dislikes, etc (even if a "perfect" method for computing schedule strength still seems more elusive to some systems than others). Toughest schedules of the major Div1A teams this year: Texas A&M takes the prize - fully ten out of twelve of its opponents were winning teams. North Carolina, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Arizona State, and Iowa were not far behind - that's why the latter two with their strong winning performances also fared well in the QPRS 2004 rankings. Utah may well have been better than the 8th place ranking I gave it but you can only reward a team against the schedule it played - not what it might have done against stronger opponents. It seems the top teams of the WAC, Mountain West, MAC, and Conf USA to a lesser extent were always "aerial offense" dynamos that racked up over 400PF's against their opponents (and sometimes absorbed almost as many) but Defense is beginning to tighten up and play a more important role in these conferences - Utah being the best example. It is hard to imagine the PF's/PA's of any of these teams would look the same if they wereplaying in the Big-10, Pac-10 , Big-12, or the SEC! Instant Replay - I'm all in favor of its use in NCAA college football. Give each coach the right to three or four Instant Replay reviews per game so they only ask for it in critical game-changing situations if the fear is that overuse will slow the game inordinately. It seem to be working well in the Big 10 and this should be applauded. The game loses credibility if there are too many instances of outcomes decided by missed calls. Last and certainly least - football is seemingly locked in a dead heat with NASCAR in a competition to find the pop singer who can do the most damage to the opening rendition of the National Anthem. Then there's the Orange Bowl's half-time "entertainment" - screaming off-key teenage idols with no voices or redeeming talent of any kind. Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" may have been silly or in poor taste for the occasion but what is being passed off as musical entertainment now is certainly bordering on insulting. I know, I'm old, but a real voice that reminds one of Mahalia Jackson for the anthem and the traditional school marching bands at half time might not be so bad after all... Happy New Year to all! QPRS 2004 AMERICAN COLLEGE FOOTBALL RANKINGS Rank College Record Schedule Offense Defense Overall Strength Rating Rating Rating 1. Southern Cal 13-0 50.66 259.47 193.74 453.21 2. Auburn 13-0 50.13 244.84 186.07 430.91 3. Oklahoma 12-1 54.29 245.85 163.63 409.48 4. Texas 11-1 52.64 233.03 151.71 384.74 5. Iowa 10-2 56.44 212.21 127.77 339.98 6. California 10-2 47.97 200.19 138.21 338.40 7. Georgia 10-2 54.78 204.98 132.65 337.63 8. Utah 12-0 36.25 202.83 131.60 334.43 9. Virginia Tech 10-3 52.46 190.69 139.92 330.61 10. Miami 9-3 54.43 190.53 124.71 315.24 11. Arizona State 9-3 57.60 202.53 109.01 311.54 12. Florida State 9-3 51.13 184.93 125.24 310.17 13. Louisville 11-1 36.98 186.21 120.09 306.30 14. Louisiana State 9-3 52.13 185.43 119.50 304.93 15. Tennessee 10-3 52.25 196.08 108.81 304.89 16. Michigan 9-3 52.33 187.99 104.83 292.82 17. Boise State 11-1 38.45 185.82 106.41 292.23 18. Virginia 8-4 51.79 168.83 107.67 276.50 19. Ohio State 8-4 53.13 165.43 98.62 264.05 20. Texas Tech 8-4 52.06 170.29 91.61 261.90 21. Texas A&M 7-5 62.55 171.02 90.87 261.89 22. Wisconsin 9-3 45.39 161.53 99.96 261.49 23. Purdue 7-5 52.34 151.43 99.13 250.56 24. Boston College 9-3 42.16 148.99 92.87 241.86 25. Oregon State 7-5 55.59 155.35 80.17 235.52 26. Oklahoma State 7-5 54.89 152.03 81.03 233.06 27. Florida 7-5 50.28 142.39 83.69 226.08 28. Fresno State 9-3 36.34 140.34 85.21 225.55 29. Colorado 8-5 53.26 149.90 72.47 222.37 30. Georgia Tech 7-5 54.21 140.42 80.73 221.15 31. West Virginia 8-4 46.23 137.54 80.81 218.35 32. Pittsburgh 8-4 47.03 136.14 71.58 207.72 33. Notre Dame 6-6 57.87 137.32 69.58 206.90 34. Bowling Green 9-3 34.99 131.81 74.09 205.90 35. Minnesota 7-5 46.98 126.54 70.51 197.05 36. Connecticut 8-4 40.83 124.41 71.04 195.45 37. North Carolina 6-6 59.97 136.52 58.93 195.45 38. Clemson 6-5 50.15 126.75 68.58 195.33 39. Arkansas 5-6 57.92 125.66 66.71 192.37 40. Iowa State 7-5 49.46 124.42 64.85 189.27 (c) Jan 2005 by Clyde P. Berryman QPRS (Quality Point Rating System) - QPRS is a mathematical formula rating system for evaluating the performance of American football teams which takes into account a team's Schedule Strength, Won-Loss Record, and its Points Fielded/Points Allowed.