The Guys Who Follow College Football’s Coaching Legends

We’ve all heard it a million times: “You don’t want to be the guy who follows a legend; you want to be the guy who follows the guy who follows the legend.”

It makes intuitive sense, and it certainly would seem true. Urban Meyer is the guy who followed the guy who followed the legend at Florida, and things have worked out quite well for him so far. Then again, Bill Callahan was the same at Nebraska, and the fans were ready to run him out of town two years before he finally got the axe.

To see how true this adage is, I’ve looked at some coaching legends and the guys who followed them. They are as follows, in chronological order from when the legend was hired:

OKLAHOMA

Legend: Bud Wilkinson, 1947-63, 145-29-4 (.826); 3 national and 14 conference titles

Follower: Gomer Jones, 1964-65, 9-11-1 (.452); 0 national or conference titles

Next: Jim Mackenzie, 1966, 6-4 (.600); 0 national or conference titles

This is somewhat of a bad example to start off with, since Mackenzie sadly passed away due to a heart attack after his first season.

Jones definitely had a difficult time following Wilkinson though, having not been able to break even in his two years. Wilkinson is the coach who led Oklahoma to its famed 47-game winning streak, and he failed to win the Big 8 title in only three of his 17 years.

AUBURN

Legend: Shug Jordan, 1951-75, 175-83-7 (.674), 1 national and 1 conference title

Follower: Doug Barfield, 1976-80, 29-25-1 (.536), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Pat Dye, 1981-92, 99-39-4 (.711), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Jordan held the job for 25 years and the stadium is named after him, but his .674 winning percentage is lower than any of the other legends on this list. Barfield followed him up with 5 forgettable seasons, with 8-3 being the best record he posted.

Dye had the most success in his tenure of the three, though he was forced out of his coaching and AD position when it was revealed that assistant coaches and boosters had paid a player. He still is fondly remembered, though, as the field at Jordan-Hare stadium was named after him in 2005.

OHIO STATE

Legend: Woody Hayes, 1951-78, 205-61-10 (.761), 5 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Earle Bruce, 1979-87, 81-26-1 (.755), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Next: John Cooper, 1988-2000, 111-43-4 (.715), 0 national and 4 conference titles

Earle Bruce did an admirable job in following Woody Hayes after Hayes’ unexpected meltdown and firing. He did not see the same success however, though he nearly won the national title in his first year.

John Cooper is a goat in OSU annals, having posted a 2-10-1 record against Michigan and having presided over numerous academic and discipline problems.

TEXAS

Legend: Darrell Royal, 1957-76, 167-47-5 (.774), 3 national and 11 conference titles

Follower: Fred Akers, 1977-86, 86-31-2 (.731), 0 national and 2 conference titles

Next: David McWilliams, 1987-91, 31-26 (.544), 0 national and 1 conference title

Akers did a much better job than McWilliams did. Akers caught flak though for losing bowl games and in his final few years having bad records against Oklahoma and Texas A&M.

McWilliams’s 1990 SWC championship year looks like a fluke in light of the rest of his seasons, with the 7-5 record in his first year being the second-best record he had.

ALABAMA

Legend: Paul Bryant, 1958-82, 232-46-9 (.824), 6 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Ray Perkins, 1983-86, 32-15-1 (.677), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Bill Curry, 1987-89, 26-10 (.722), 0 national and 1 conference title

Perkins left the New York Giants to coach at his alma mater, and he left four years later to take a rich contract with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. An incident where a former player that he had recruited claimed he was paid led to the school being placed on probation in 1995.

Curry was doing well in his three years, though he was 0-3 against Auburn. He didn’t like the contract offered to him in 1990, so he left to coach Kentucky.

GEORGIA

Legend: Vince Dooley, 1964-88, 201-77-10 (.715), 1 national and 6 conference titles

Follower: Ray Goff, 1989-95, 46-34-1 (.574), 0 national or conference titles

Next: Jim Donnan, 1996-2000, 40-19 (.678), 0 national or conference titles

Neither Goff nor Donnan panned out for the Bulldogs. They both failed to win even an SEC East title, and both were used as Florida’s whipping boy. Goff is perhaps most famous for being called “Ray Goof” by Steve Spurrier.

MICHIGAN

Legend: Bo Schembechler, 1969-89, 194-48-5 (.796), 0 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Gary Moeller, 1990-94, 44-13-3 (.758), 0 national and 3 conference titles

Next: Lloyd Carr, 1995-07, 122-40 (.753), 1 national and 5 conference titles

Moeller is a controversial figure for Wolverines due to his messy departure following a drunken altercation at a restaurant. Some argue his best years were already behind him; some argue that he was trying to modernize the program and that Carr won his national title with Moeller’s players.

Carr is one of the few followed-the-guy-who-followed-the-legend guys who actually won a national title. His legacy will remain mixed due to his futility against Jim Tressel and the loss to Appalachian State.

BYU

Legend: LaVell Edwards, 1972-2000, 257-101-3 (.716), 1 national and 19 conference titles

Follower: Gary Crowton, 2001-04, 26-23 (.531), 0 national and 1 conference title

Next: Bronco Mendenhall, 2005-present, 28-10 (.737), 0 national and 2 conference titles

Crowton won the MWC his first year with Edwards’ players, but failed to reach .500 in his remaining three years. Mendenhall has put together consecutive 11-win seasons, winning the MWC title each year. His 2008 team is expected to contend for a BCS bowl.

NEBRASKA

Legend: Tom Osborne, 1973-97, 255-49-3 (.836), 3 national and 13 conference titles

Follower: Frank Solich, 1998-03, 58-19 (.753), 0 national and 1 conference title

Next: Bill Callahan, 2004-07, 27-22 (.551), 0 national or conference titles

Solich is probably the source of the modern “You don’t want to be the guy who follows a legend” movement, having been fired after a 9-win season. Callahan ended up being a disaster, and will probably be despised by Husker fans forever.

FLORIDA

Legend: Steve Spurrier, 1990-2001, 122-27-1 (.817), 1 national and 6 conference titles

Follower: Ron Zook, 2002-04, 23-14 (.622), 0 national and conference titles

Next: Urban Meyer, 2005-present, 31-8 (.795), 1 national and 1 conference title

Zook was doomed from the beginning, having been a fallback choice for the coaching position and having never been a head coach before. He won games he shouldn’t have, but lost games he shouldn’t have too. He also presided over an explosion of off-field issues, including Zook himself being involved in a fight at a frat house. Some Florida fans still defend him, but the overall sentiment is that his hiring was a mistake.

After doubts about his offense abounded in his first year, Meyer solidified his position in his second by winning a national title. Some fans are uncomfortable with his highly aggressive recruiting tactics, which have drawn scrutiny from other coaches and the NCAA, but otherwise Gators are more than happy with his job so far.

*   *   *

Following a legend, regardless of place in line, is not easy. Only Pat Dye clearly surpassed his legendary predecessor’s accomplishments, but his departure was not the stuff of legends.

None of the followers distinguished himself after leaving, though Earle Bruce had a nice run with Iowa State before coaching the Buckeyes. Ron Zook still has time to carve out his legacy at Illinois.

The book is still open for Mendenhall and Meyer, but both appear to be in good shape. Despite their records, most of the coaches in that coveted “guy who followed the guy who followed the legend” role didn’t fare much better than the guy who did follow the legend.

There is some truth to the adage, but in the end good coaches will succeed in good situations regardless of who came before.

Did the BCS Get it Right? Part II

Yesterday, I examined whether in hindsight the BCS got the national championship game participants right. As I have pointed out in the past though, that’s only half of the BCS’s mission:

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.

So, did it get the second half correct?

The Sugar Bowl

Participants: 10-2 Georgia vs. 12-0 Hawaii

Result: Georgia 41 - Hawaii 10

This game sure set the tone for the 2008 rendition of the BCS. It was unwatchable unless you are a Dawg or you just liked seeing Hawaii get its comeuppance for actually thinking it belonged in the BCS and then daring to be sanctimonious about it. I feared for Colt Brennan’s life at times, and this game spooked June Jones so much that he actually willingly took the job at SMU.

The Rose Bowl

Participants: 9-3 Illinois vs. 10-2 USC

Result: USC 49 - Illinois 17

This game had the largest margin, and honestly USC could have made it even bigger if it wanted to. Illinois was overmatched from the start, and the Trojans just kept pouring it on as the Illini kept giving the ball away. From everything I’ve read, the nation wanted to see Georgia in this game, but that was kept from happening by two main things: 1) the BCS rules made it so the Sugar would’ve had to give permission to the Rose to take UGA, which it did not, and 2) the Rose Bowl officials think it’s 1960 and believe that there’s nothing better than a Big Ten/Pac 10 matchup.

Illinois had to be in a game somewhere since it finished in the top 14 and was the only eligible team left after you accounted for Hawaii’s auto bid and Georgia and Kansas’ selections. However, it should have been in a game versus someone around its talent level such as Hawaii, Kansas, or Virginia Tech. Note: it’s pretty sad if definite tiers can be seen within the BCS, but that’s the way it goes with the BCS.

The Fiesta Bowl

Participants: 10-2 West Virginia vs. 10-2 Oklahoma

Result: West Virginia 48 - Oklahoma 28

This game was probably not as close as the score indicates, though not nearly to the same degree as the Rose Bowl. The conventional wisdom said that OU had the better talent and was on a roll, as opposed to the poor old Mountaineers who had inexplicably lost to Pitt, keeping them out of the title game, and had lost head coach Rich Rodriguez. Instead, WVU rolled to a comfortable victory, and Bob Stoops’ bowl record now suddenly looks a lot like Larry Coker’s does.

The Orange Bowl

Participants: 10-2 Virginia Tech vs. 11-1 Kansas

Result: Kansas 24 - Virginia Tech 21

This one was the only actual close game, but it was the bad kind of close. Poor offensive execution by both sides hamstrung progress for these two defensive-minded teams, and yet each scored multiple touchdowns. This game proved that Kansas was good but not overwhelmingly so, and that VT (and by proxy, the ACC) probably just was not that good this year. That is all I have to say about the Orange Bowl.

The BCS National Championship Game

Participants: 11-2 LSU vs. 11-1 Ohio State

Result: LSU 38 - Ohio State 24

Ohio State got a garbage time TD late against an LSU prevent defense to keep within three scores, though the game really wasn’t that close after the first quarter. Again the SEC champion embarrassed Big Ten champ OSU in the biggest game of the year, turning the BCS’s experiment of having a special 5th game for the championship into a blowout-fest.

This game technically doesn’t fall under the second part of the BCS mandate, but the fact that it ended up a one-sided blowout reinforces the fact that the first part was botched.

Conclusion

So did the BCS fulfill its mission of creating exciting and competitive matches in the non-championship games? Absolutely not. Only one game (Orange Bowl) was competitive, and none were terribly exciting. As a showcase for the sport, the BCS gets a rating of “EPIC FAIL” for the 2008 bowl season.

Did the BCS Get it Right?

Now that LSU has defeated Ohio State for the BCS title, did the system set up the right championship game? I’ll do a quick rundown of the 1-loss and major conference 2-loss teams then make my case. After all, everything’s clearer with 20-20 hindsight. Teams are listed in alphabetical order, and the “Best Wins” category lists wins over .500 or better teams from major conferences (and Hawaii, if applicable, since the Warriors made a BCS game and had only one loss).

1 Loss Teams

Hawaii Warriors

Best Wins: Boise State, Fresno State

Loss: Georgia, 41-10

No wins over a major conference foe besides the Pac 10’s doormat, Washington. I feared for Colt Brennan’s life in the Sugar Bowl. No way, no how. I’m calling this one right now.

Kansas Jayhawks

Best Wins: Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech

Loss: Missouri, 36-28

While losing only once (and only by 8 points) is impressive. However, beating a perpetually suspect Virginia Tech team and a 7-6 Oklahoma State team is not, so Kansas is not helping itself much with the schedule.

2 Loss Teams

Georgia Bulldogs

Best Wins: Auburn, Florida, Georgia Tech, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oklahoma State

Losses: South Carolina, 16-12; Tennessee 35-14

The team was lost a listless until injuries forced Mark Richt to play Knowshown Moreno as a feature back. Uninspired play also forced Richt to pick a new motivational gimmick each week starting with the Florida game, all of which worked. This team was playing some of the best football in the country at the end of the year, but you must consider the season as a whole.

LSU Tigers

Best Wins: Auburn, Florida, Mississippi State, Ohio State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Losses: Kentucky, 43-37 (3OT); Arkansas, 50-48 (3OT)

It’s hard to accept a national champion who had two losses and gave up 50 points in a game during the season. Still, no one had a better array of wins, and as LSU fans will be quick to point out, the Tigers were undefeated in regulation and won the system everyone agreed upon.

Missouri Tigers

Best Wins: Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Losses: Oklahoma, 41-31; Oklahoma, 38-17

Missouri only lost to one team all year, except that it did so on two separate occasions. The Tigers did have wins over BCS participant Illinois and Arkansas, a team that beat LSU.

Ohio State Buckeyes

Best Wins: Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin

Losses: Illinois, 28-21; LSU, 38-24

Ohio State had the #1 rated defense in the regular season and was one of the most consistent teams all year. It did however play in the Big Ten, which dropped a stink bomb in bowl season and looks awful now. Plus, Illinois was thrashed by USC and the final score of the LSU game was closer than it should have been.

USC Trojans

Best Wins: Arizona State, Illinois, Oregon State

Losses: Stanford, 24-23; Oregon, 24-17

The Arizona State and Illinois wins were certainly impressive. However, it took until November 3 for the Trojans to beat a team that would finish above .500 for the year. The Stanford loss was unimaginably bad, and though USC had it’s backup QB playing the game, so did the Cardinal. Oregon with a healthy Dennis Dixon was probably the best team all year, and USC lost by just a touchdown.

West Virginia

Best Wins: Cincinnati, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Rutgers, UConn

Losses: USF, 21-13; Pittsburgh, 13-9

The Fiesta Bowl win was a huge statement, the Miss State win was nearly as big as LSU’s, and the UConn win was overwhelming. Unfortunately for the Mountaineers, the Pitt loss was nearly as bad as USC’s loss to Stanford, and the team couldn’t get anything going against USF. In its defense, WVU lost Pat White for large stretched during the two losses.

As a side note, Pitt’s 13-9 win over WVU that sent LSU to the championship game was the same score as the UCLA win over USC last year that sent Florida to the championship game.

Conclusion

Who are the top two teams?

Hawaii is eliminated, period.

Kansas had just two wins over teams that finished above .500 for the year. You’re a nice story, Jayhawks, but you’re also eliminated.

USC, you only had 3 wins over above-.500 teams, and you still lost to Stanford. Total body of work counts, so you’re eliminated.

Ohio State had only 5 wins over winning teams, but it also played a pillow-soft non conference schedule and the Big Ten was deplorable this year.

West Virginia had also 5 wins over winning teams, but it was the weakest set of wins out of the teams with 5. WVU, you’re eliminated.

We’re now down to Georgia, LSU, and Missouri. LSU does belong in the top two because it had seven wins over .500 or above opponents and wins over two other BCS conference champions (ACC, Big Ten). Between Missouri and Georgia, the Bulldogs had more wins over teams .500 or better and beat a team (UK) that beat LSU. But, Missouri’s losses were better and the Tigers played just as well as UGA did in each’s bowl game.

For the moment, I have to pick the team with more quality wins, so I go with Georgia. That leaves an LSU/Georgia game. It might make people from the Midwest or West unhappy, but honestly those two deserved it more.

So no, the BCS didn’t get it right.

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Colt

Last night’s Sugar Bowl was immensely satisfying. I have been sick and tired of the Colt Brennan hype machine since, oh, about last year’s bowl season. It got even worse when Hawaii plundered the bakery that is the WAC and somehow played an even worse non-conference schedule to finish the season undefeated. I didn’t want to see him get injured (although Georgia’s defense appeared to be trying to accomplish just that with as many fearsome hits as it delivered), but to see him humbled on the national stage was great, and possibly even good for him as he heads into draft workouts.

I found an article at Foxsports.com with some quotes of his, and I’d like to share them with you now:

• “When you play against a team like this, you can’t miss a beat. We didn’t do that.”

No joke, Colt. When your whole team has 4 guys who might in a dream scenario play in the NFL, you have to absolutely perfect because every mistake becomes a sack, turnover, or touchdown for the other team.

• “We knew coming in this was probably the best defense we’d ever faced. We really wanted to do something special here tonight, but we just couldn’t get any momentum going. We have a lot of drives that didn’t go anywhere. It wasn’t so much a question of X’s and O’s. They just won the battles all night.”

Perhaps, but your X’s and O’s guru on the sidelines also had a hard time not calling slow-developing pass plays despite the fact you became intimately familiar with the inner workings of the “Sportexe Momentum 41” playing surface of the Superdome.

• “Everybody knows the SEC is the fastest league in the country. We just couldn’t simulate that in practice with our scout team.”

Self-explanatory. It’s similar to Billy Donovan’s comments about Marresse Speights and Alex Tyus - they’re suffering in practice because there’s no one else on the team like them to hone their skills against. Okay, back to football.

• “We had never played in this type of element before. We tried as hard as we could to keep everything the same as we have all season long, but it just seemed like we weren’t used to the venue as big the Super Dome. Georgia plays in this kind of environment in the SEC every week all season.”

If anyone has questioned whether playing on big stages every week helps teams of the major conferences, here’s your proof that it does make a difference. Hawaii started 1st and 20 on its opening drive due to penalties, and it was all downhill from there. Before you bring up Boise State last year, remember that the Broncos had a similar harrowing experience at the hands of Georgia in Sanford Stadium in 2006, and BSU regularly plays at Pac 10 venues.

• “We have done a good job most of the year protecting Colt,” [Head Coach June] Jones said. “But they had eight sacks and a couple of times we didn’t touch anybody. They just blew in and whacked him.”

Well said, June. That about sums up the 2008 Sugar Bowl.

If last year’s Fiesta Bowl set up this season’s craziness from week to week, this year’s Sugar Bowl most likely sets up next year as a season of juggernauts. Florida, Georgia, and maybe LSU in the SEC, Ohio State in the Big Ten, Oklahoma, Missouri, and maybe Texas in the Big 12, and USC in the Pac 10 all appear set to dominate next season.

West Virginia in the Big East would have counted if Rich Rodriguez had stayed, and then Pat White and Steve Slaton would have stayed as well. If WVU hires former Rodriguez assistant and spread option fan Butch Jones away from Central Michigan, and Jones can convince White and Slaton to stay, they might yet have a chance. After all, Jones molded Dan LeFevour into only the second guy to throw for 3,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards in a season, Vince Young being the first.

Virginia Tech will likely be the titan of the ACC, but the rest of that conference save Boston College is so bad, it’d be difficult to tell if the Hokies are really that good. BC won’t qualify as a juggernaut because it wasn’t one this year and is losing its senior starting QB Matt Ryan. No one else in the conference will clock in as better than “surprisingly good.”

A Brief History of the Post-Season in America

I am going to be doing a haphazardly-published series on playoffs and college football. I would prefer to see a playoff decide a champion rather than polls,  for the record. This is the first in the series.

The longest-running post-season event in major American professional sports is baseball’s World Series. The first one was in 1903, when the National League and American League, then two completely separate entities, organized under the mantle of Major League Baseball. Each league’s champion played a best-of-9 series to determine the overall champion. The necessity for this playoff was the fact that AL and NL teams didn’t play each other during the regular season. After a dispute canceled the series in 1904, it returned in 1905 and would be played every year since except the strike-shortened 1994 season.

The next-oldest professional post-season event is the NHL Playoffs, as the league has had some sort of playoff determining a champion every year since its inception in 1917. The lone except is 1920, when the Ottawa Senators won both halves of the regular season and the league decided a playoff would be unnecessary. The league’s regular season system was strange up until that point; read the Wikipedia page linked to above for details.

After that, you have the NFL playoffs. The NFL was founded in 1920, but from its founding until 1932, no playoffs were held. From 1920 to 1923, the champion was selected by the owners voting at the annual owners meeting. From 1924 to 1932, the team with the highest winning percentage won the championship as the teams all played different numbers of games. In 1932, the Chicago Bears and Portsmouth Spartans tied for the lead in winning percentage, so a one game playoff was thrown together hastily to determine a champion.

Responding to fan interest in the game, the NFL split itself into two divisions (East and West) in 1933. From then on, playoff games were held if necessary as tiebreakers and then the east and west division winners played in a championship game. A consistent tournament to determine who got to play in the NFL title game was not held until 1967 when the league expanded to 16 teams. The first Super Bowl was played in 1967 as a championship game between the NFL and AFL winners, and it became the NFL championship game after the AFL/NFL merger in 1970.

The NBA playoffs have occurred every year since the precursor BAA league was founded in 1947. The league had east and west divisions from the start, and at least the top three teams from each division have appeared in the playoffs every year. Perhaps the relatively late founding of the NBA allowed it to observe the other leagues and set up a proper playoff tournament from the start.

The NCAA

The precursor to what we know as the NCAA was the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS). It was founded by Teddy Roosevelt after his son broke his collarbone playing football at Harvard while running the offense known as the flying wedge. The idea was to have a governing body setting rules for collegiate sports to cut back on the injuries and yes, deaths, being experienced by college athletes. The organization took the name NCAA in 1910.

The NCAA at first was a a discussion group and rule-setting club until 1921, when the first NCAA championship was officially recognized: the National Collegiate Track and Field Championships won by Illinios. In the years since, it has come to sponsor 44 women’s, 41 men’s, and 3 coed championships.

The only sanctioned sport without a recognized champion is Division I-A football, a.k.a. the Football Bowl Subdivision. Only in the sport of football is a relevant distinction made between multiple parts of Division I.

Bowl Games

As we all know, I-A football uses a system of bowl games as its post-season fare. They were originally a method of attracting tourists for the areas in which they were played, and they were scheduled around the new year to give fans time to plan trips and travel to the site.

The first bowl game was the “Rose Bowl” of 1902. I put it in quotes because while it was put on by the  Tournament of Roses, it was called the “Tournament East-West Football Game.” It featured a dominant Michigan team versus a decent Stanford team, and it ended in the third quarter when Stanford quit while trailing 49-0. The Tournament of Roses was so scarred by the blowout, it wouldn’t sponsor a football game again until 1916. The game wouldn’t take on the name “Rose Bowl” until 1923 when the stadium known as the Rose Bowl was completed and hosted the game. Fun fact: it wasn’t actually a bowl stadium at the time, but a horseshoe stadium.

The Rose Bowl pitted a team from the Pacific Coast Conference (the predecessor to the Pac 10) and an eastern US team up until 1947, when the champions of what are now the Pac 10 and Big Ten became the annual contestants. It was the only major bowl until 1930, and the oldest surviving bowl games besides the Rose are the Sugar, Orange, and Sun Bowls, all founded in 1935. Besides those, the Cotton (1937), Gator (1946), and Florida Citrus (1947) are the only bowls that have been held consistently for more than 50 years. The first major bowl with a title sponsor was the (in)famous Poulan Weed-Eater Independence Bowl, operating under that name from 1990-1996.

Football Playoffs

Up until 1973, the NCAA had two divisions - the University Division, roughly football’s Division I, and the College Division, roughly football’s Divisions II and III. In 1973, the I-II-III system was set up, and Divisions II and III immediately began holding playoff tournaments for football. Division I did not, however, set up a playoff tournament thanks to the tradition of the bowls and polls.

In 1978, the NCAA partitioned Division I into three divisions: I-A for the principal football schools, I-AA for the lesser football schools, and I-AAA for the Division I schools that did not play football. Division I-AA from its inception has had some sort of playoff tournament, probably because none of its participating schools would be bowl material. This fact confirms that the real reason I-A has no playoffs is due to the bowls; every other excuse given (demands on players, the sanctity of the regular season, etc.) is secondary to the bowl games. The NCAA must have realized in the late ’70s that teams with no hope of making a bowl were playing meaningless seasons, so a separate division with playoffs included was created. No other reason for the existence of Division I subdivisions makes sense.

The Polls

The absence of an officially recognized champion of major college football naturally created a power vacuum of sorts that many organizations have been eager to fill in. The NCAA on its website keeps a record of every major poll service’s pick for national champion dating back to 1869. No polls existed at that time, but poll services such as Richard Billingsley, the National Championship Foundation, and Parke Davis have gone back and somehow come up with champs for all those years.

The two oldest surviving polls are the AP poll and the Coaches’ Poll, the latter initially being published by UPI before being taken over by the USA Today in 1991. The AP poll began in 1936, but it didn’t release a post-bowl season poll until 1965, and it wouldn’t do so on a consistent basis until 1968. The Coaches’ poll, for its part, began in 1950 and didn’t release post-bowl season polls until 1974.

Over time, mathematicians began taking cracks at making polls since human-based opinion polls can be influenced by bias, ignorance, and misinformation. The BCS has used a variety of them over its decade of existence, but the ones used today are Jeff Sagarin’s ELO-CHESS, Richard Billingsley, Anderson and Hester, Kenneth Massey, Peter Wolfe, and the Wes Colley Matrix. This group was chosen because they all do not rely on margin of victory.

One final human poll has come to prominence, the Harris Interactive Poll, after the AP pulled out of the BCS formula in 2005. The poll is made of former players, coaches, administrators, and current and former media members selected at random from a pool of candidates. Harris Interactive is a market research firm that specializes in opinion polls.

A National Title Game

For the most part, national champions for Division I/I-A football since 1950 are recognized to be the final #1 in the AP and Coaches’ Polls. That’s fine when they agree with each other, but what if they disagreed? You’d get two teams with equally legitimate claims at a title. How could one convince both
to vote for the same #1? Why, by having a national title game, of course.

The first attempt at creating a national title game was the formation of the Bowl Coalition. It consisted of the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, and Big East partnering with the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton Bowls. The idea was that the site of the national title game would rotate among the four bowls, and it’d take the #1 and #2-ranked teams from the AP and play them against each other. This setup might require the breaking of tie-ins of conference champions to their traditional bowls, but the Coalition agreement made that possible. It lasted from 1992-94.

You may notice the absence of the Pac 10, Big Ten, and Rose Bowl. They did not participate in the Coalition, and they kept their traditional arrangements with each other. This resulted in 1994 of  #1 Nebraska playing #3 Miami in the “national title game” while #2 Penn State played in the Rose Bowl.

Following the formation of the Big 12, the Bowl Coalition was replaced by the Bowl Alliance. It consisted of the SEC, Big 12, ACC, and Big East along with the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls. The purpose and goal was the same as the Coalition’s, but the absence of the Pac 10, Big Ten, and Rose Bowl created the same problem. Twice a #1 vs. #3 game was forced to occur in the so-called national title game. It lasted from 1995-97.

In 1998, the three stubborn laggards finally came aboard to form the Bowl Championship Series. The goal was the same - have #1 and #2 play each other - only this time it would use the AP poll, Coaches’ Poll, and an index of computer polls to determine #1 and #2. Initially, strength of schedule and losses were their own categories, and in 2002 a quality win category was included as well.

By 2002, the BCS purged all computer models that included margin of victory to discourage teams from running up the score. However, it’s impossible to keep the human element from considering it, and margin of victory definitely plays a part in the human-generated polls. In 2004, it was streamlined to include just the human and computer polls with no other categories. In 2005, the Harris Poll replaced the AP poll. In 2006, the system was tweaked to deemphasize the computers, and the result has been that the human polls control the BCS formula almost completely. Only a huge anomaly in the computer element could override a unanimous human selection. That situation creates a Catch-22, since such an anomaly would likely cause an outrage, probably leading to further deemphasizing of the computers.

A Brief Timeline of the Post-Season in America

1902: The Tournament East-West Football Game

1903: The first World Series

1916: First annual Rose Bowl game

1917: NHL formed; first NHL playoffs

1921: First officially recognized NCAA championship

1932: First NFL Championship Game

1935: First annual Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Sun Bowl

1936: First AP Football Poll

1937: First annual Cotton Bowl

1939: First NCAA men’s basketball tournament, consisted of 8 teams

1946: First annual Gator Bowl

1947: First annual Florida Citrus Bowl

1947: Advent of NBA precursor; first annual NBA basketball playoffs

1950: First Football Coaches’ Poll

1965: First post-bowl season AP poll

1967: First Super Bowl

1968: First annual post-bowl season AP poll

1971: First annual Fiesta Bowl

1973: NCAA creates Divisions I, II, III; first annual D-II and D-III football playoffs

1974: First annual post-bowl season Coaches’ Poll

1978: NCAA creates Div. I-AA; first annual I-AA football playoffs

1984: NBA playoffs expands to current 16-team format

1985: NCAA men’s basketball tournament expands to 64 teams

1990: NFL playoffs expands to current amount of 12 teams

1992: Bowl Coalition formed

1992: SEC expands to 12 teams, plays first ever football conference championship game

1993: NHL playoffs expand to current format

1994: MLB institutes the wild card; World Series canceled due to strike

1995: Bowl Alliance formed

1996: Big 12 formed; first Big 12 Championship Game

1998: BCS formed

2001: NCAA men’s basketball tournament adds 65th team, play-in game

2002: NFL reorganizes to 8 divisions, drops one wild card per conference to keep playoffs at 12

2003: Split national title between LSU and USC; BCS formula completely rewritten

2004: NASCAR implements its “Chase for the Cup” quasi-playoff system

2005: ACC expands to 12 teams; first ACC Championship Game

2005: AP Poll drops out of BCS formula, Harris Poll is formed to replace it

SSOS Awards

Statistical Strength of Schedule (SSOS) has become a weekly feature of mine, and you can read the rationale and about how it’s calculated here.

I’ve got the final SSOS calculated, but I’m not done with the writeup and charts and all. In the meantime, enjoy these awards I just made up last night on an airplane. They’re based on the final numbers, which should be up sometime before Ragnarok.

The SSOS Champion: Best overall SSOS

WINNERS: Nebraska (team): 48.52 SSOS score; SEC (conference): 29.75 average rank

Huskers, even though you got torched constantly on defense, had a wildly inconsistent offense, and got your coach fired, at least you did it all against the nation’s toughest schedule.

The SEC showed just how tough it is by overcoming 10 games against I-AA opposition to win the conference battle comfortably over the Pac 10. No more whining about the SEC having weak out of conference opponents – the teams still graded out as having played the strongest schedules among the BCS conferences.

The SSOS Goat: Worst overall SSOS

WINNERS: Hawaii (team): 81.44 SSOS score; ACC (conference): 59.33 average rank

Hawaii, you’re a nice story and all with your BCS bid, but I hope you know it’s fraudulent with as easy of a schedule as you played. I know Michigan State pulled out of its game with you, but playing two teams below I-A will get you this award nearly every time. At least you play Florida next year.

ACC, by now you know that no one cares about your conference when FSU and Miami are having bad years. The attendance in Jacksonville a week ago proved that. However, your attempt to look better by playing the weakest overall schedule by far didn’t work because your teams really are that bad and that boring. Please try to play a real slate in the future, which means finding strength in your non-conference games because you sure won’t find it inside your conference.

Mr. Bland Award: For scheduling mediocrity

WINNERS: Wisconsin (team): ranked 60^th; Big Ten (conference)

Wisconsin, you finished exactly in the middle. There were 59 teams ahead of you, and 59 teams behind you. That is the perfect embodiment of middle-of-the-road. It makes sense considering your conference.

Big Ten, you finished with all of your teams in the second and third quintiles. No one particularly exerted itself, but no one took it easy either. It’s an interesting strategy, albeit one that gets you ranked second-to-last among the BCS conferences. Ohio State dropping Youngstown State picking up USC certainly helps, but don’t let the Buckeyes’ ambition steer you away from your dream of blandness. It suits you well.

Go Getter Award: Largest gap between the conference’s first and second place

WINNER: Syracuse

Syracuse, you win this one for having the toughest schedule in your conference and for finishing with the biggest gap between you and the second place team (Pitt) at 16 spots. Way to put the rest of your conference to shame. Perhaps this is why Greg Robinson still has a job.

Deadweight Award: Worst schedules in each conference

WINNERS: Georgia Tech, Kansas, UConn, Northwestern, USC, Arkansas

If not for you all, your conference’s scheduling marks would look a lot better. I hope you’re happy. Readers, please note that there are two teams here that made BCS bowls. I’m just saying.

Anchor Award: Worst schedule for a team in a BCS conference

WINNER: Kansas (112 rank, 74.92 score)

Kansas, you’re the only team in the country that played in a BCS conference and still managed to have a schedule in the bottom 20%. That’s not easy to do. Sure, it just so happened you missed Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech in your conference rotation, but few teams went to the bakery for bigger cupcakes than you did non-conference. Put it this way: throw out your numbers and the Big 12 has the toughest overall schedule for a conference; with them, it drops to third. Of course, that schedule is probably the main reason Kansas is in a BCS bowl, so the Jayhawks will probably make this a habit.

Deposed Nigerian Prince with an Email Account Award: Most fraudulent records

WINNERS: Boise State, Boston College, BYU, Hawaii, Kansas, UCF 

These are the teams who won at least 10 games with a schedule in the bottom two quintiles. Try to play some more notable teams in the future, will ya? Readers, please note that there are two teams here that made BCS bowls. I’m just saying.

BCS Projections

Before everyone gets their picks out, here’s my projections for the BCS:

BCS National Title Game: Ohio State and LSU

Rose Bowl: USC (auto) and Illinois

Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia and Oklahoma(auto)

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech (auto) and Missouri/Kansas

Sugar Bowl: Georgia and Hawaii

The designation (auto) indicates a conference champion tie-in that will happen by contract.

I project LSU to pass up Virginia Tech since the Tigers beat the Hokies 48-7 earlier this year. I project LSU to pass Georgia because they have identical records, but LSU won the conference while UGA didn’t even win the SEC East. USC won’t pass LSU because USC lost to Stanford. End of that discussion.

The Rose Bowl will take Illinois because it is desperate to set up a Pac 10/Big Ten game every year, and no one else will want the Illini.

The Sugar Bowl will take Georgia because it prefers to have an SEC team. Hawaii has no fans on the mainland, so it too will go to the Sugar Bowl (who has the last pick this year). The Fiesta will have to take Big East champ West Virginia since it won’t want an inter-Big 12 game.

Kansas has a better record than Missouri, but Mizzou won the division and its two losses were to conference champ Oklahoma. My guess is Missouri will get the bid since it is now more well-known than Kansas, but the Jayhawks’ 11-1 record could prove too compelling to pass up.

The only way this could be wrong is if the Fiesta somehow grabs Georgia ahead of the Sugar, sending West Virginia to the Orange and Missouri/Kansas to the Sugar.

As for the Gators, it’s 99% certain we’re in the Citrus Bowl versus Michigan.

Updated 8:25 am to reflect result of Washington - Hawaii game.

EDIT: I should mention that this would make for a terrible year for the BCS. West Virginia/Oklahoma would be the only game guaranteed to be any good, and that’s assuming Pat White will be healthy.

The OSU/LSU title game would obviously be the most hyped, for the teams as well as what’s at stake, but we will be seeing Ohio State up against a barrage of speedy skill players and a hellacious defensive line. Sound familiar? (Honk if you sacked Todd Boeckman!)

USC would thoroughly beat down Illinois. Georgia would thrash Hawaii. Remember that the Warriors play worse the farther east they go, and the last time they played in Louisiana, they eked out a 1 point win over La. Tech. Ouch. Virginia Tech and Missouri/Kansas might be a good game, a classic defense (VT) versus offense (M/K) game, but VT games somehow always end up boring. Unless you’re a Hokie (and maybe especially if you’re a Hokie) they just suck the life out of you as you watch. Plus, the Orange Bowl would have an extremely hard time selling out the stadium. So, if somehow the Orange gets to pick ahead of the Sugar, I wouldn’t be surprised at all for it to take Georgia for ticket selling purposes.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Running

I sent my piece, “Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing” to the Orlando Sentinel’s and SunSports’ Mike Bianchi, and I got a reply back (thanks for the input, Mike!). Along the same lines of thinking as in the passing piece, he asked: is Tebow really a better runner, or just a guy who runs more?

Well, this is a tricky question, but I decided to tackle it. A lot depends on your definition of “runner” - are you talking speed and elusiveness, or are you talking effectiveness as someone attempting to gain yards on the football field to a specific end? Noel Devine and Jovorskie Lane are both running backs, but they have wildly different styles and are used for entirely different purposes. Devine can have highlight reel long runs, but he can’t pick up tough ground on short yardage situations like Lane can. Can you really say one is better than the other when they do completely different things?

I cover the discrepancy between Tebow’s style (sometimes as a battering ram) and Daniel’s (as an open field scrambler) below while still finding enough common ground between the two to come out with a conclusion, even if it is more tenuous than the conclusion about them as passers. It’s just the nature of the question. I’d say the fact that Tebow was even used as a running back while Daniel was not should be enough for anyone, but if that’s not enough for you, I give you my response to Mike Bianchi:

———————–

For all of these stats, I subtracted sacks out of the carry totals and added the lost yards on sacks back to the net yardage total because sacks don’t have much to do with how a guy does at running.

1. Is the guy a running QB, or just a mobile QB?

I’d define a running quarterback as a guy whose coaches plan on having him do designed runs or option reads, while a mobile quarterback is someone who can move around but seldom does designed runs or option reads. I’ve watched every Florida game start to finish, and I can tell you that Tim Tebow is a running QB. I haven’t seen as much of Mizzou as I’d liked to, but they’ve been on Gainesville TV a couple times and from what I’ve seen, Chase Daniel is a mobile QB.

2. The Offenses

Florida runs the ball 58% of the time to Missouri’s 47%, but the rush/pass mix is determined by a lot of things, mostly the head coach’s personal preference for either. Those figures don’t tell you much, but the percentage of the time that the QB rushes out of total rushes does tell you something. Tim Tebow’s rushes have accounted for 40% of his team’s carries; Chase Daniel’s rushes account for 17% of his team’s carries. Neither team has a dominant tailback, and both teams have at least 7 players (in Missouri’s case, 8 ) with at least 10 carries. With Tebow’s rushing stats ( 5.29 yards/carry, 22 TDs) being better than Missouri’s top rusher Tony Temple’s stats (4.9 yards/carry, 8 TDs), it would appear that Tebow is the best rusher on either team which by definition, makes him a better rusher than Daniel. Other players have better yards/carry numbers (for instance, Percy Harvin for Florida and Jeremy Maclin for Missouri), but they lack Tebow’s durability as a rusher, as evidenced by their having fewer carries.

3. The Numbers

These are actually somewhat inconclusive. Their yards per carry are similar (T: 5.29, D: 5.23), but there’s the issue of them being completely different runners - Tebow is used frequently in short yardage situations, whereas Daniel has picked up some longer runs off of busted pass plays since no one puts a spy on him. Tebow wins the carries per TD battle ( 8.27 versus 25.67) and the carries per first down battle (3.57 versus 4.81), but Tebow is often used for short yardage situations that naturally lead to first downs, as opposed to Daniel’s less planned, more opportunistic rushing style. After all, a greater percentage of Tebow’s first downs have come on rushes of 3 yards or less than have Daniel’s (18% versus 12.5%).

4. The Schedule

I have to put the sacks back in this time, because the NCAA doesn’t provide rush defense stats that don’t include sacks.

Tebow rushed for 4.63 yards per attempt, 13% higher than the 4.09 his opposition gave up on average. Tebow rushed for 1.83 TDs per game, 31% higher than the 1.4 his opposition gave up on average. In other words, Tebow was more effective both at picking up yards and scoring on the ground than anyone, running backs included, would have been expected to be given the same exact schedule. Think about that for a second.

Daniel was not used as his team’s primary running option, and he lost a lot more yards on sacks (9.06 per sack, versus Tebow’s 5.33), so his numbers in this regard don’t match up well. Daniel rushed for 2.77 yards per attempt, 29% lower than the 3.93 his opposition gave up on average. Daniel rushed for 0.25 TDs per game, 86% lower than the 1.52 his opposition gave up on average.

Again, due to the different running styles, these numbers don’t do much for comparing the two, other than signaling that Tebow was used like a running back whereas Daniel was not. However, Tebow still wins points here because he was a better than average rusher given his schedule. The fact that Tebow even could be used as a running back signals that he’s most likely a better rusher than Daniel is.

5. Conclusion

Because of how different the player’s styles are, it’s difficult to compare them as rushers. After all, when 3 yards out of the endzone, Tebow rushes up the middle thanks to his bruising style, whereas Daniel is more likely to throw a screen to the tight end thanks to him not having a smash mouth running style. Plus, defenses key on Tebow running even in passing formations, so he doesn’t have as many opportunities to run free on broken pass plays as Daniel does.

If there’s one thing that sets them apart it’s this - Tim Tebow can do an effective one-man play action pass. Other’s have tried it periodically (Ryan Perrilloux at LSU, for one) and as easy as it would be for any quarterback to implement (just take a step and lean forward before dropping back to throw in the shotgun), no one else can do it as well as Tebow can. That high amount of respect given to him by defenses run by very good defensive coordinators (Chavis, Pelini, Andrews, et. al.) signals that he is a serious running threat. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest the same about Daniel, so that’s why I’d say in the end that Tebow is a better runner than Daniel is.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing

This is a comparison of the passing performances of the two leading Heisman candidates: Tim Tebow and Chase Daniel. When talking about schedules, the ranks and stats of only I-A opponents are factored in, while the stats the QBs accumulated in games against I-AA teams are not removed from their overall stats. Tebow gets a freebie for Western Kentucky; Daniel gets a freebie for Illinois State.

Also, the term “BCS team” refers to any team that plays in one of the 6 BCS conferences, plus Notre Dame. Also, all stats are pulled from the NCAA website.

It’s crunch time for the Heisman race. The major statistics for Tebow and Daniel line up as follows:

First, let’s just look at raw numbers. It should be evident that Daniel’s higher yardage is due to more attempts. Daniel is slightly more accurate, so to compare the two, I’ll go by yards per attempt. Tebow has thrown for 9.89 yards/attempt, and Daniel has thrown for 7.98 yards/attempt. Given those rates, if Tebow had 495 attempts, he’d throw for 4,895 yards - 944 more than Daniel did; if Daniel had 317 attempts, he’d throw for 2,530 yards - 605 fewer than Tebow.

As for TDs and INTs, the picture changes as well when you adjust those for attempts as has been done with yards. Tebow has thrown a TD every 10.93 attempts and an INT every 52.83 attempts. Daniel has thrown a TD every 15 attempts and an INT every 55 attempts. Keeping those rates in mind, given Daniel’s attempts Tebow would throw for 45 TD and 9 INTs; given Tebow’s attempts Daniel would throw 21 TDs and 5 INTs.

In chart form:

Tim Tebow’s and Chase Daniel’s expected stats given the same success rates with the amount of attempts reversed.

However, this all ignores a confounding factor - opposing defenses.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing, when Defense is Accounted for

The average pass defense rank among BCS teams 56.68, and I use BCS teams as a baseline to eliminate the truly horrible defenses of a lot of the bottom feeders like most of the WAC and Sun Belt. The average rank of the pass defenses that Florida has faced is 33.36, which is 41.46% above the average pass defense. The average rank of the pass defenses that Missouri has faced this year is 72.27, which is 27.51% below the average pass defense.

While pass defense rankings have merit, it could be that the Tigers’ opponents’ average pass defense is so much worse because they are ordered on passing yards allowed per game and the Big 12 runs a higher percentage of passing plays than the SEC does. It could be attempts muddying the waters again.

So, let’s again look at yards per attempt. The average yards per attempt given up by the defenses of Florida’s opponents is 6.24. Tebow threw for 9.88 yards per attempt, or 58.43% above what you’d expect given the schedule. The average yards per attempt given up by the defenses of Missouri’s opponents is 6.87. Daniel threw for 7.98 yards per attempt, or 16.11% above what you’d expect given the schedule. So while both did better than you’d expect a QB facing their schedules, Tebow did 58% better than expected given his opponents while Daniel did only 16% better than expected given his opponents.

Well, what about yards per completion? Some of those incompletions could have been throwaways, drops, or passes batted down at the line and not bad throws by the quarterback. The average yards per completion given up by the defenses of Florida’s opponents is 10.91. Tebow threw for 14.43 yards per attempt, or 32.26% above what you’d expect given the schedule. The average yards per attempt given up by the defenses of Missouri’s opponents is 11.58. Daniel threw for 11.32 yards per attempt, or 2.28% above what you’d expect given the schedule. So while both did better than you’d expect a QB facing their schedules, Tebow did 32% better than expected given his opponents while Daniel did only 2% better than expected given his opponents.

Finally, pass efficiency. The average passing efficiency allowed by the defenses of Florida’s opponents is 116.28. Tebow has a passing efficiency of 177.9, or 52.99% above what you’d expect given the schedule. The average passing efficiency by the defenses of Missouri’s opponents is 127.16. Daniel has a passing efficiency of 155.9, or 22.60% above what you’d expect given the schedule. So while both did better than you’d expect a QB facing their schedules, Tebow did 53% better than expected given his opponents the mean while Daniel did only 23% better than expected given his opponents.

Once you account for the schedules they played, Tim Tebow has performed better as a passer than Chase Daniel has in every way this year.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing, Relative to Each’s Conference

Now, let’s look at how Tebow and Daniel stack up within their conferences.

In terms of yards per attempt, the average in the SEC is 6.25 yards per attempt. Tebow’s again was 9.88, or 57.98% above the average for the conference. The average in the Big 12 was 7.06 yards per attempt. Daniel’s again was 7.98, or only 13.11% above average for the conference. Tebow has vastly outperformed his peers, while Daniel has bested his peers by a much smaller margin.

In terms of yards per completion, the average in the SEC is 11.28 yards per completion. Tebow’s again was 14.43, or 27.96% above the average for the conference. The average in the Big 12 was 11.52 yards per attempt. Daniel’s again was 11.32, or 1.74% below average for the conference. Tebow has clearly outperformed his peers, while Daniel has actually underperformed slightly versus his peers.

In terms of passing efficiency, the average for SEC quarterbacks is 115. Tebow’s again was 177.9, or 54.70% above the average for the conference. The average for Big 12 quarterbacks was 130.43. Daniel’s again was 155.9, or only 19.52% above average for the conference. Tebow has vastly outperformed his peers, while Daniel has bested his peers by a much smaller margin.

Tebow vs. Daniel: Passing Efficiency if Schedules Switched

Finally and just to drive home the point, let’s look at passing efficiency if Tim Tebow and Chase Daniel switched schedules somehow.

Tebow outperformed his expected passing efficiency by 52.99%; Daniel outperformed his expected passing efficiency by 22.60%. The expected passing efficiency for Tebow’s schedule is 116.28; the expected passing efficiency for Daniel’s schedule is 127.16. Taking all those numbers into account, Daniel would be expected to have a passing efficiency of 142.57 (below his actual number against his schedule) while Tebow would be expected to have a passing efficiency of 194.54, 14 points higher than Sam Bradford, the current leader (Tebow is #2).

Conclusion

No matter how you slice it or how you compare, Tim Tebow has been a better passing quarterback than Chase Daniel this year. Keep in mind that this study doesn’t even account rushing, a category where Tebow is in a completely different universe than Daniel. It doesn’t tell you that Tebow has accumulated 51 touchdowns to Daniel’s 36.

The Heisman Trophy is supposed to go to the most outstanding player in college football. Since Tim Tebow has outperformed Chase Daniel in every way, you cannot possibly vote Chase Daniel #1 on your ballot because we know of at least one quarterback who has been more outstanding than he has been, never mind players of other positions. Tim Tebow has been more outstanding, and must be voted above Chase Daniel on any Heisman ballot.

Digg this article.

SSOS: Penultimate Week Edition

Statistical Strength of Schedule (SSOS) has become a weekly feature of mine, and you can read the rationale and about how it’s calculated here.

We’ve got two weeks left in the regular season, but if you think that means there’s not much movement left to do in the SSOS listings, you’re wrong. Wrong like watching all of the puntfests on TV today known as NFL games. Since I’m doing all of the family stuff tomorrow (it just worked out that way this year), I give you a Thanksgiving feast of stats. For the first time since I started these listings, someone other than Notre Dame is on top. Playing service academies will do that to you. The top 25:

1. Nebraska (+1)
2. Notre Dame (-1)
3. Washington (NC)
4. Syracuse (+3)
5. Colorado (-1)
6. Ole Miss (+13)
7. Iowa State (+
8. Stanford (+3)
9. Baylor (+4)
10. Tennessee (+1)
11. FIU (-6)
12. Maryland (+2)
13. Duke (-7)
14. Utah State (-5)
15. Mississippi State (+15)
16. Auburn (+1)
17. California (-7)
18. UNLV (+
19. Wyoming (+19)
20. South Carolina (NC)
21. Oregon (-3)
22. Texas A&M (-1)
23. Oklahoma State (-15)
24. Louisville (+15)
25. Kentucky (-3)

Full list: 11-17-07.pdf

SSOS by Losses

Note: Minnesota is the only team with 11 losses. The 11 loss category has been omitted for that reason. Once other teams join the Gophers there after this weekend, I will add in that too.

No shockers here, though the W shape in the middle is interesting. It also shows that the undefeated teams are the outliers, as well as the teams with 9 or more losses. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle, roughly near the average SSOS score for everyone.

This seems to confirm what I put forth last week, that overall schedule strength does not predict success unless you have an extraordinarily weak or difficult schedule. Is that true? Well, let’s look at another chart.

Average SSOS Rank by Losses

Well, we’ve got a much more pronounced W shape. It seems to suggest that of the teams that don’t reside on the extremes, there are more bad teams congregated in the 4 loss and 7-8 loss groupings than in others, because those teams together managed to lose more games than the overall trend would suggest they should.

Unsurprisingly, a quick scan of the 4 loss teams with easy-ish schedules reveals some of this year’s biggest disappointments - Arkansas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Rutgers. Their schedules say they should be better, but those teams have some kind of flaw holding them back. For Arkansas, it’s the defense. For GT, it’s Chan Gainley’s soporific schemes.

The 7 and 8 loss realms are where you find some of the dregs of college football who are failing to win more games despite having relatively easy schedule - Temple, Tulane, Kent State, UL-Lafayette, Rice, and others. These are the teams that simply don’t have I-A talent, and they mess with the numbers. At least Notre Dame has gone 2-9 against the second most difficult schedule in the country; Northern Illinois has no excuse for compiling the same record against the 114th most difficult schedule.

Biggest Movers

This week’s top gainers:

1. Idaho (+27) played Boise State last week
2. Boston College (+26) Clemson
3. Cincinnati (+19) West Virginia
4. Kansas State (+19) Missouri
5. Texas Tech (+19) Oklahoma
6. Clemson (+17) Boston College
7. Army (+15) Tulsa
8. Louisville (+15) USF
9. Mississippi State (+15) Arkansas
10. Pitt (+15) Rutgers
11. SMU (+15) UCF
12. West Virginia (+15) Cincinnati

We’ve got a logjam at the bottom. As the sample size of games for each team grows with every passing week, the ability to move dramatically decreases. That is, of course, unless you’re in the WAC, ACC, and Big East apparently. Idaho made the week’s biggest leap after playing Boise State, and the BC-Clemson game and WVU-Cincinnati games both made each participant gain ground.

The week’s biggest fallers:

1. Colorado State (-31) Georgia Southern (I-AA)
2. UConn (-26) Syracuse
3. Wisconsin (-22) Minnesota
4. Central Michigan (-21) Eastern Michigan
5. UL-Lafayette (-20) FIU
6. Wake Forest (-19) NC State
7. New Mexico State (-1 Utah State
8. Iowa (-17) Western Michigan
9. Tulsa (-15) Army
10. Oklahoma State (-15) Baylor

Playing those conference bottom feeders can really mess a team up. Nothing you can do about it though. Serial offenders FIU and Utah State make appearances, along with a I-AA team.

SSOS by Conference

Total Average SSOS for all 119 Teams: 63.55

Best Schedule: Ole Miss, 6th overall, score of 50.34

Worst Schedule: Arkansas, 96th, 70.61

Average SOS Rank: 31.92

Average SOS Score: 57.92

Best Schedule: Washington, 3rd overall, score of 49.25

Worst Schedule: Arizona State, 89th, 68.83

Average SOS Rank: 34.70

Average SOS Score: 58.20

Best Schedule: Syracuse, 4th overall, score of 49.59

Worst Schedule: UConn, 86th, 67.93

Average SOS Rank: 41.63

Average SOS Score: 59.51

Best Schedule: Nebraska, 1st overall, score of 45.73

Worst Schedule: Kansas, 115th, 78.45

Average SOS Rank: 41.75

Average SOS Score: 59.44

Best Schedule: Michigan, 30th overall, score of 58.82

Worst Schedule: Northwestern, 68th, 64.67

Average SOS Rank: 50.73

Average SOS Score: 61.67

Best Schedule: Maryland, 12th overall, score of 54.09

Worst Schedule: Georgia Tech, 95th, 70.43

Average SOS Rank: 58.58

Average SOS Score: 63.13

The Big East continues its meteoric rise, from last a few weeks ago now up to third. That’s as high as its getting though, since the Pac 10 and SEC have such a big lead. The SEC, meanwhile has opened up a larger lead on the Pac 10, and with the SEC’s dead weight Arkansas playing LSU this weekend, it’s likely to get a better score on the whole.

The ACC, meanwhile, is falling behind. Not only is it a wholly uninspiring conference style-wise, but it is just playing bad football all around. That’s one drawback of living on the east coast - you get ACC teams on TV a lot.

One more interim week before the final standings.