College Football

Week 9 BCS Analysis: The Undefeated Zombies Survive

The undefeated teams just won't die. Now all seven crowd the top of the latest BCS rankings following USC's loss to Oregon.

The big change isn't Texas moving to #2, as that's unimportant really. But Cincinnati jumping to #5—on the strength of beating Syracuse? Very noteworthy. The Bearcats and Broncos were neck and neck last week and Cincinnati made only slightly better gains in the human polls, while TCU gained more than both of those teams combined, pointwise. But the computers pushed Cincinnati ahead: on three computers they gained 8 spots, for a net gain of 7 positions, while Boise State gained only 1 and TCU lost 4 net. Now it's Cincinnati and TCU who are neck and neck. I hadn't expected Cincy to pass anyone on the week that they played Syracuse; it just goes to show how volatile some of the computer polls are.

Let's take a look at why it might have happened, using the Success power rating as a guide. The Success ratings are a BCS-style ranking that doesn't use score margin.

  #  Team                   rec    Rating[LW]  Change   BCS Computers
  1. Iowa                   9-0    15.13 [ 1]   -0.41     2
  2. Florida                8-0    13.40 [ 3]   +2.05     1
  3. Boise St               8-0    12.42 [ 4]   +2.71     8
  4. Alabama                8-0    11.66 [ 2]   -1.48     3
  5. Texas                  8-0    10.56 [ 6]   +2.55     3
  6. Cincinnati             8-0     9.76 [ 7]   +2.37     5
  7. TCU                    8-0     9.46 [ 5]   +1.35     6

Iowa lost points, not because of a close game, and not because Indiana is a weak opponent, but because four of their seven previous FBS opponents lost. In particular, Michigan lost to lowly Illinois, dropping their stock as a victory. The same problem hurt Alabama but even worse: their best wins over Virginia Tech, Mississippi, and South Carolina were all diminished, and they didn't add any points since they were idle.

One of the big gainers was Texas, of course, as they beat ranked Oklahoma State. But Boise State gained even more, and not from beating San Jose State; almost all of their gain came secondhand, from Oregon's win over USC. Florida gained by beating Georgia but also by Tennessee beating Mississippi. In all, five of their six previous I-A foes won, and two of them played each other so they were essentially perfect. That, in addition to Iowa's foes stumbling, is why Florida passed Iowa in almost all the computer rankings.

Cincinnati's rise, like most of the others, came not from beating lowly Syracuse but from how their previous foes re-evaluated. All of their previous I-A foes—even Louisville and previously winless Miami of Ohio—won last weekend, with South Florida beating West Virginia. This is what gave the Bearcats their push to move up. And TCU, though they gained points in the Success rankings due to winning and their opponents going 3-2, didn't gain enough to stay ahead of Texas and Cincinnati. As the Success rankings show, TCU was ahead of both those teams last week and fell behind them this week, just like in the BCS computer composite.

The undead undefeated refuse to die on Halloween

Let's look again at each team's remaining schedule and project each game, giving it a percentage-to-win value. Then we'll compute the team's overall % chance to finish the season undefeated. We'll do this by using the X-conference 726-team power rating to give every game a team has played a rating; we then cross-compare all of these ratings with the game ratings of their opponent and see how many of the cross-comparisons are victories. Basically it's a way to look at all the aspects a team has shown so far in the season, from their worst to the best performances, since on a given day any version of a team could "show up." The method is explained in more depth here.

For each team a record is projected: First, simply by counting wins and losses based on whether a team is favored in that game, and second, by adding the percentages to obtain a cumulative projection, or rather the record a team is most likely to finish at. Odds of going undefeated are computed by multiplying the odds of winning each game.

Florida remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Vanderbilt	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*South Carolina	95.8%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Florida International	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Florida State	90.6%	W
12/5	Sat	N	Alabama?	53.1%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going 12-0: 86.8%, 13-0: 46.1% (up 10.4%)

Florida Gators (8-0; BCS rank: #1)

Florida's solid play in beating Georgia helped their odds beyond the relief of getting another game out of the way.

The Gators' odds of beating South Carolina and Florida State increased slightly, and they broke out of the 50/50 tie they were locked in with Alabama, making them the official favorite to play for the national title.

Their odds of going 12-0 took a major leap, from 71.5% last week to 86.8% this week, and their chance to go 13-0 jumped from 35.7% to 46.1%.

Texas remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	Central Florida	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Baylor	99.9%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Kansas	95.3%	W
11/26	Thu	@	*Texas A&M	79.7%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	Nebraska?	81.3%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 13-0
Odds of going 12-0: 76.0%: 13-0: 61.8%  up 16.4%

Texas Longhorns (8-0; BCS rank: #2)

Texas made an impressive leap forward in dispatching Oklahoma State, one that put them on top of the power ratings and made them a likely national champion.

The rest of their opponents had mixed results: Texas A&M became a more difficult foe, while Nebraska remained the projected Big 12 Championship foe but lost strength in terms of upset likelihood.

With just two "live" foes left in the way of going 12-0, the Longhorns are 76% likely to achieve that, up from 65.7% before the Oklahoma State game. More significantly, their odds of going 13-0 are back above 50% at 61.8%.

Alabama remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Louisiana State	89.0%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Mississippi State	84.7%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Tennessee-Chattanooga	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	@	*Auburn	79.2%	W
12/5	Sat	N	Florida?	46.9%	L
Favored: 12-1   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going 12-0: 59.7%, 13-0 28.0% down 6.0%

Alabama Crimson Tide (8-0; BCS rank: #3)

Not only did Alabama lose ground in the BCS last week, their odds of being national champs took a hit even though they were idle.

The Tide's odds of being LSU and Auburn remained basically static, but Mississippi State's chances to pull and upset jumped quite a bit after their win over Kentucky. With a tougher remaining schedule than Florida, they have a greater chance of losing before the SEC title game, and are a slight underdog in that game to the Gators.

The chance that they'll go 12-0 dropped from 68.1% to 59.7%, and their odds of going undefeated at 13-0 slumped from 34% to 28%.

Iowa remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Northwestern	96.3%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Ohio State	40.7%	L
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Minnesota	79.0%	W
Favored: 11-1   Projected: 11-1
Odds of going undefeated: 31.0%  down 2.6%

Iowa Hawkeyes (9-0; BCS rank: #4)

Iowa was a trainwreck against Indiana until the fourth quarter, then all was well and they emerged as the only 9-0 team in the nation.

Beating the Hoosiers didn't alleviate the concern about going into Ohio State, though, and even Minnesota gained some hope. But basically the scenario remains the same: Iowa loses to Ohio State but still goes to the Rose Bowl after Penn State beats the Buckeyes this weekend.

The Hawks' odds of going 12-0 fell slightly, from 33.6% to 31%. But with none of the other teams losing, Texas looking likely to win out, and falling to #2 in the computer polls, the Hawkeyes' chances of being the BCS title game at 12-0 took a bigger hit.

Cincinnati remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Connecticut	98.4%	W
11/13	Fri	vs.	*West Virginia	98.4%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Illinois	93.8%	W
12/5	Sat	@	*Pittsburgh	65.6%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 59.6% down 2.1%

Cincinnati Bearcats (8-0; BCS rank: #5)

Knocking off Syracuse didn't relieve any uncertainty about Cincinnati's quest to go 12-0, and Illinois' win over Michigan showed they're still a threat.

The home contest against the Illini looked like a sure thing a week ago: Illinois hadn't played a game as good as the Bearcats' worst game of the season. But by beating Michigan 38-13, Illinois showed they can beat a decent team, and if Cincinnati has an off day they're vulnerable even at home.

The odds of Illinois winning still aren't that great—just 6.2% of the game-comparisons fall their way—but it's enough to actually reduce Cincinnati's odds of going 12-0 from 61.7% last week to 59.6%. On the bright side, the Bearcats' jump to #5 in the BCS keeps their slim national title game hopes alive, when last week it was looking like they might only pass TCU on the final week at the earliest, if at all.

TCU remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	@	*San Diego State	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Utah	96.9%	W
11/21	Sat	@	*Wyoming	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico	99.9%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 96.9% up 8.9%

TCU Horned Frogs (8-0; BCS rank: #6)

It's nearly a foregone conclusion: TCU will be undefeated this season at 12-0.

The game against San Diego State now scores as a lock, along with the road game at Wyoming and home game against New Mexico.

The only stumbling block left is Utah, and that game is at home and the Horned Frogs will be heavy favorites, more than would be suggested in a game between ranked foes.

So barring an embarrassing stumble, TCU will be 12-0. But what will it mean? Last week we showed how USC had little chance of avoiding a loss the rest of the way, and with a potential loss by Texas on the books, TCU had a real shot at being in the national title game.

But just one week later those dreams look shot. Oregon's dominance of USC gave the Ducks new credibility in the human polls, Cincinnati jumped TCU in the computer rankings, and Texas appears much more likely to avoid a stumble. So now TCU must hope to stay ahead of Boise State to get a guaranteed BCS bowl game invite. Depending on how much credit Boise State gets for beating Oregon, that's not guaranteed, either.

It doesn't help either that TCU's remaining schedule is so easy. For computers that average a team's strength of schedule in a formula, it's bad news. And for formulas that add points for victories, the Horned Frogs won't gain much. Pretty much their best hope is to keep blowing out opponents—Utah especially—and impress the humans who make up 2/3 of the BCS formula.

Boise State remaining schedule & forecast
11/6	Fri	@	*Louisiana Tech	90.6%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Idaho	97.2%	W
11/20	Fri	@	*Utah State	87.5%	W
11/27	Fri	vs.	*Nevada	89.1%	W
12/05	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico State	99.9%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 13-0
Odds of going undefeated: 68.9%  down 5.7%

Boise State Broncos (8-0; BCS rank: #7)

Boise State knocked off a foe they were a lock to defeated, basically, while the odds of their future foes rised slightly.

Across the board these results reduce Boise's odds of going 13-0 from nearly 3/4 last week to just over 2/3 this week.

With TCU almost certain to go undefeated, Boise State needs to hope for losses from other teams that might push them out of BCS bowl contention. An Ohio State win over Penn State, followed by an Iowa win over the Buckeyes, would keep the Big Ten a 1-BCS-team conference. A Texas loss in the Big 12 championship game would be a disaster, so Boise fans should root for Texas to go 13-0. And Notre Dame has to lose another game somewhere; Stanford and Pitt are good possibilities. Another USC loss helps a lot, too. If enough of these things happen, Boise State will join TCU as a second non-BCS conference representative.

There is the chance that voters will prop up Boise State, given their win over Oregon, and put them above the Horned Frogs; and as TCU's strength of schedule slides, the Broncos might be first in line. But Boise State's schedule strength doesn't do anything but slide, too. If TCU has a few scare games, or just barely gets past Utah, maybe the Broncos would pass an undefeated TCU team.

How Many Teams Will Go Undefeated?

It's looking like we'll have four undefeated teams out of the current seven. Five teams (including the aggregated Florida/Alabama) have a greater than 50% chance; therefore Iowa and one other team should suffer a loss. The odds of six teams going undefeated took a jump, from 4.3% to 5.6%, and the odds of all seven teams suffering a loss fell from 0.13% to 0.03%.

Who will the undefeated teams be?

1. TCU: 96.9%
2. Florida/Alabama: 74.1%
3. Boise State 68.9%
4. Texas: 61.8%
5. Cincinnati: 59.6%
6. Iowa: 31.0%

Most likely, we'll see TCU, Boise State, Florida *or* Alabama, and Texas unbeaten. Either Texas will lose in the Big Twelve title game, or Cincinnati will lose to Pitt. Iowa is likely to lose at Ohio State.

If this happens, we'll see the Florida/Alabama winner against Texas. If the Longhorns lose, then it gets interesting of course between Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State.

LSU is a potential wild card only if they beat Alabama. Oregon is rising in the BCS and is currently #8, but their loss to Boise State makes them a very unlikely candidate as a 1-loss team even if a number of the undefeated teams lose.

With Florida favored over Alabama and Texas expected to win out, here are this week's four most likely BCS title game matchups:

Texas 51.6% over Florida

Texas 60.9% over Alabama

Florida 67.2% over Cincinnati

Alabama 64.1% over Cincinnati

Texas had been expected to lose last week only by cumulative odds; there was no game in which they weren't the favorite. By beating Oklahoma State and improving their cumulative odds, Texas now looks likely to make the national championship game and is a slight favorite over Florida or Alabama. If Texas loses and Cincinnati slips in, they'll be a fairly heavy underdog to either SEC team.

Big wins by Oregon, Texas demonstrate how USC, Oklahoma State were overrated

Here's the conventional wisdom after Saturday's big games: Texas "proved" themselves by whipping a tough Oklahoma State team 41-14, and Oregon shocked the world by destroying #4 USC 47-20.

Here's my take: Oklahoma State and USC were both exposed by blowout losses. Oklahoma State as a team who'd been having success despite not being of top 25 quality, and USC because they were staggeringly overrated at #4 by whatever measure you use.

USC: The Trojans were overrated

They struggled to beat marginal top 25 teams Ohio State and Notre Dame. Yet they were placed ahead of several undefeated teams.That USC was #4 in the AP poll shows ridiculous favoritism to the Trojans based on what they've done in past years, not for this year's play. They had a loss to Washington, a tough team but one with a losing record, and commentators decried the BCS system that dared to have them lower.

The pro-USC contingent went as far as to prop of Matt Barkley, a decent quarterback but certainly nothing special, for the Heisman Trophy. True, he's doing fantastic for a true freshman, and the Heisman race is wide open. But for commentators after the Oregon State game try to sell him as a true candidate—when he was 15 of 25 for 202 yards, 2 TDs and 2 interceptions—was laughable. Do these guys even look at the stats? He wasn't even in the top 50 in pass efficiency.

This phenomenon happens with USC every year. They win a few big games, are declared the best team in the country (perhaps best college football team of all time), then they lose a game. After a few weeks of "what's wrong with the Trojans?" articles, they blow out a few more opponents and again are called the best team despite having a loss on their record. The BCS system is blamed again for the fact that the Trojans aren't number one on the list.

What's different this year is that USC wasn't close to being the best team, and they ran into a better team on Saturday. By any measure, Oregon should have been ranked ahead of USC going into the game. The Ducks' only loss was to an undefeated team, not 3-5 Washington, whom they destroyed the previous week. They beat Cal just as bad as USC did, and held a win over ranked Utah. So in an AP-style poll, the Ducks deserved to be in front. What about true strength? In a basic score-margin-based power rating, the Ducks were slightly ahead, ranking 8th to USC's 11th. And as the BCS computer rankings demonstrate, Oregon had accomplished more in their season than USC so far, averaging 6th to USC's 9th. It was only the biased human observers who had USC ahead.

The USC mystique is pervasive; I even picked the Trojans to win the game despite it being at Oregon. USC has consistently done well against ranked opponents and I figured they'd win again. But seeing Oregon win didn't shock me, though the 27 -point margin was unexpected.

Oregon: Soon to be overrated themselves at Boise State's expense

Now the commentators are falling over themselves about Oregon. After all, if they beat the great Trojans, they must be incredible! Talking heads are putting the Ducks ahead of Boise State, who beat them fair and square. The excuses for not counting this game include: it was the first game of the season, it was in Boise, that was before Oregon "hit their stride." How about the real excuse: we don't think of Boise State as a real team, but USC is a real team. Tell me, if they'd lost the first game to USC under the same circumstances, who would disregard that game? No one.

One commentator (Craig James?) said he was moving the Ducks ahead of Boise, "not to take anything away from Boise State." Well, you are taking something away from Boise State. It's ridiculous and inexcusable to move a 7-1 team ahead of the 8-0 team that beat them, and it should never be done. Since we don't have a playoff, every game of the season has to be counted. Boise State 19, Oregon 8 was their playoff, and the Ducks lost. I guess losing a 1,000 yard rusher was a boon for the Ducks?

Oklahoma State: Exposed

The Oklahoma State Cowboys should have been a great team this year. And if you just look at wins and losses, they were doing pretty well. Fairly high in the Success rankings (#16) and the BCS computer rankings (average #17), they'd lost only to 7-1 Houston. But dig a little deeper and they weren't doing that well at all, ranking just 40th in Strength. They weren't winning convincingly, and it showed up in power ratings. And with Dez Bryant out for the year, the test they were able to give Texas was minimal, even though this game was supposed to tell us a lot about the Longhorns.

Now, after winning 41-17, instead of questioning whether Oklahoma State is even a top 25 quality team, everyone is talking about how Texas is finally playing good football.

Texas: They were already playing fantastic football

I'm not sure why Texas was getting so little respect all year. Most of it probably had to do with Colt McCoy's occasional interception, and not having as spectacular a year as last season. Some of it had to do with Texas' easy schedule. But the complaints peaked after they beat Oklahoma 16-13.

Think of how ludicrous that is: Texas wasn't a good team because they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points. Of course, the Sooners could easily have come into that game undefeated. While Oklahoma had two losses, they were still one of the best teams in the country, at least the equal of USC. And 16 points was the most they'd allowed except for Miami's 21. The game was played on a neutral field. If anything, Texas was a bit sloppy in that game, and they'd played sloppy football before. But the end result was always impressive.

Texas has consistently been in the top three in the Strength power rating and even before the Oklahoma State game they were #1 in both versions (I-A only, and the 726-team all-division version). It's strange that with Florida and Alabama struggling it was Texas who caught the most flak. The last few weeks (road wins over Missouri and Oklahoma State) should help nudge perception of Texas back into reality: they are—at least—the equal of Florida and Alabama at this point.

Yardage Stats - Yards per game vs. yards per attempt

When comparing offenses and defenses, most yardage stats for a team are given in yards per game. It's assumed that good teams gain a lot of yards per game and yield few. But in some cases, looking at yards per game is misleading, and looking instead at yards per attempt is more instructive.

Take Wake Forest, for example. In a 13-10 loss last Saturday they held Navy to zero passing yards, and accordingly their average passing yards yielded per game went down. However, Navy didn't even attempt a single pass the entire game! Everyone knows Navy doesn't pass much, and they only average 77.25 yards per game. But even when adjusted for opposition, Wake Forest's passing defense stats improve: last week they were #101 in per-game pass defense, and this week they're #68, for "holding" Navy to 0 yards.

That's why yards per attempt statistics are important. By that measure, neither Navy's passing offense nor Wake Forest's passing defense are drastically affected when Navy doesn't attempt a pass.

Lately I've created four new stats pages: for Rushing Offense Per Carry, Rushing Defense Per Carry, Passing Offense Per Attempt, and Pass Defense Per Attempt. All are adjusted, of course, for opposition, and give a more complete view of a team's offense and defense. But they aren't without their own misleading aspects as well. Here's a rundown of each, compared to its per-game equivalent.

Rushing Defense

Here are the top five teams in Per-Game Rushing Defense & their rank in Per-Carry Rushing Defense

Rank Team                         Rec   YPG [rank]  YPC[Rank] 
  1. Alabama                      8-0   48.2[  1]   2.1[  1]
  2. Ohio State                   6-2   65.9[  2]   2.4[  3]
  3. Texas                        7-0   69.1[  3]   2.4[  3]
  4. West Virginia                6-1   69.9[  4]   2.5[  5]
  5. Wisconsin                    5-2   78.8[  5]   2.8[ 15]

For rushing defense, there isn't a lot of difference between per-game and per-carry average. Teams with good defenses will do well on both measures, as there are no odd circumstances that cause a schizm. Since both are corrected for their opponents' rushing ability, the lists are fairly similar.

Rushing Offense

But when we look from the offensive perspective, things are a bit different. Teams like Georgia Tech, Navy, and Air Force—all of whom run the triple option and run the ball 90% of the time—tend to dominate the per-game rushing stats for logical reasons. But are they really the best at running the ball, just because they carry the ball 80 times? 

Rank Team                         Rec    YPG[rank]   YPC[rank]
  1. Nevada                       4-3   329.5[  1]    7.1[  1]
  2. Georgia Tech                 7-1   325.6[  2]    5.6[  7]
  3. Navy                         6-2   286.5[  3]    4.5[ 29]
  4. Florida                      7-0   285.4[  4]    6.1[  3]
  5. Air Force                    4-4   272.0[  5]    4.4[ 37]

While it's no surprise that Florida registers well both in game and per-carry average, Nevada coming out #1 in both measures shows how strong they are on the ground. And Georgia Tech deserves its rep as a great running team. But the service academies fall short; while they run so often their per-game averages are great, per-carry they are only above-average to good. Without seeing the per-game averages you don't get a full picture of the Navy and Air Force offense.

Passing Offense

As in rushing, the teams that pass the most don't necessarily have the best averages:

Rank Team                         Rec    YPG[rank]  YPA[rank]
  1. Texas Tech                   5-3   426.8[  1]  8.0[ 27]
  2. Houston                      6-1   394.5[  2]  7.3[ 48] 
  3. Hawaii                       2-5   354.5[  3]  8.1[ 26]
  4. Bowling Green                3-5   347.5[  4]  7.1[ 59]
  5. Kansas                       5-2   346.2[  5]  7.6[ 38]

A common thread among these teams is some type of spread offense, and an emphasis on quick, short passes. This naturally keeps the average down, and makes comparing teams by average yardage less informative about the team's passing game.

Not only that, but the same teams that cause the rushing figures to be disparate also cause some confusion with the per-attempt passing averages: these teams pass so few times per game, they actually end up with a very high per-attempt score. Here are the top five in Yards Per Attempt:

Rank Team                         Rec    YPA[rank]  YPG[rank]
  1. Georgia Tech                 7-1    12.1[  1]  153.8[111]
  2. Virginia Tech                5-2    10.7[  2]  198.8[ 77]
  3. TCU                          7-0     9.9[  3]  246.2[ 34]
  4. Miami FL                     5-2     9.7[  4]  277.9[ 19]
  5. Navy                         6-2     9.4[  5]   69.1[118]

These results are even more radical! Georgia Tech and Navy, two of the "worst" passing teams in the country, rank as two of the best per-attempt. Maybe if they passed more they could dominate? Clearly, the surprise factor is at work here. Teams key on the run against Navy, Air Force, Georgia Tech, et al, so it's not surprising that the few times they throw, they tend to go for it all. And sometimes succeed. There's little correlation between a team's per-attempt average and the quality of its passing game, so due to this and the other issue above, it's best to reference per-game statistics if you want to see which teams have good passing games.

Passing Defense

But on defense, the per-attempt stats are necessary. This is due to of one of the per-game stats' biggest flaws: teams with poor rushing defense often grade as teams with great passing defense—simply because no team has to bother with putting the ball in the air if they can get yards on the ground.

Rank Team                         Rec    YPG[rank]  YPA[rank]
  1. Florida                      7-0   109.7[  1]   5.0[  5]
  2. Nebraska                     4-3   128.3[  2]   5.4[ 13]
  3. South Carolina               6-2   128.3[  3]   5.6[ 18]
  4. Boise St                     7-0   138.8[  4]   4.9[  4]
  5. Texas                        7-0   149.9[  5]   5.6[ 16]

So far, no problem: the teams that look like the best per-game are solid, and rate well per-attempt, too. But look a little further down the list and you see teams like this:

 13. Bowling Green                3-5   163.6[ 13]   6.8[ 49]
 14. Eastern Michigan             0-7   163.7[ 14]   7.5[ 84]

Unlike the teams above, Bowling Green and Eastern Michigan have terrible rushing defenses, ranking 116th and 120th. Do they really have top 25 passing defenses to go with that? It's possible, but it's also likely that opponents are playing the "why pass when we can run so easily?" game, passing for a small amount during the game, and making the pass defense look good on a per-game basis. And looking at the per-attempt defensive stats, this seems to be true. Bowling Green isn't terrible at #49, but it's a lot less appealing than #13. And Eastern Michigan is pretty bad in reality, ranking #84 instead of #14. Passing defense is one area where per-attempt stats are necessary for confirmation that a team is actually good against the pass.

Conclusions

The most informative per-attempt stats are Pass Defense - Yards Per Attempt, and Rushing Offense - Yards Per Carry. Both give important additional information that the per-game figures don't. The former works to expose teams that have great per-game averages but just aren't being tested. The latter shows which teams really have the best rushing offenses, independent of the fact that some teams run almost exclusively.

Rushing Defense - Yards Per Carry mostly confirms what we know from the per-game stats, but it can be an important second reference.

Finally, Passing Offense - Yards Per Attempt can be a misleading statistic for a couple of reasons. One, teams with spread attacks that pass often and for short yardage end up looking worse, while teams that rarely attempt a pass can have outsized averages simply based on small sample, and on the "surprise factor" that makes their passing game look powerful when in reality they just catch teams off guard.

BCS Analysis, week 8: is TCU headed to the national title game?

Florida or Alabama in the BCS championship game? Predictable. TCU as their opponent? More likely than you think.

Here are the latest BCS rankings. The press has been covering the changes by saying that USC had moved up to #5, while TCU passed Boise State. Basically, all that happened is that Boise State and Cincinnati fell three spots each, from #4 and #5 to #7 and #8. Iowa, USC, and TCU slid up from 6, 7, and 8 to 4, 5, and 6. But in terms of game-play, #3 Texas was the only impressive team in the top 5, beating Missouri on the road 41-7. #1 Florida struggled at Mississippi State, 29-19; #2 Alabama barely beat Tennessee at home, 12-10; #4 Iowa just edged Michigan State 15-13, and #5 USC got into a shootout at home against Oregon State, prevailing 42-36. Yet all four either held their spot or moved up, thanks to the BCS computers which aren't allowed to use margin of victory.

#7 Boise State and #8 Cincinnati both won big—the Broncos 54-9 at Hawaii and the Bearcats 41-10 over Louisville—but the wins over weak teams didn't get them many points in the computer rankings. TCU was the big winner on Saturday, gaining cred with both voters and computers for their 38-7 trashing of BYU.

Now we have to ask whether USC could get into the national championship ahead of an undefeated BCS-conference team. It's assumed that an undefeated Florida/Alabama and Texas have nothing to worry about. But Iowa and Cincinnati could be passed by the Trojans.

Iowa has a lot of upward potential in the Coaches and Harris polls, however, and is #1 in the computer rankings. Even if they keep winning by the skin of their teeth they'll remain ahead with the computers, and a few solid wins will allow them to move up in the polls. It might be close, but Iowa probably edges USC if a spot opens for the national title game.

Cincinnati has problems, however, being three spots behind the Trojans. Worse, they're behind TCU in the computer rankings and roughly tied in the polls. Next week's Syracuse game won't help them much, and having Illinois on their schedule is now a detriment. They should pass Boise State at some time, but a lot of teams might have to lose to help an undefeated Bearcats team make the national championship game.

Let's look again at each team's remaining schedule and project each game, giving it a percentage-to-win value. Then we'll compute the team's overall % chance to finish the season undefeated. We'll do this by using the X-conference 726-team power rating to give every game a team has played a rating; we then cross-compare all of these ratings with the game ratings of their opponent and see how many of the cross-comparisons are victories. Basically it's a way to look at all the aspects a team has shown so far in the season, from their worst to the best performances, since on a given day any version of a team could "show up." The method is explained in more depth here.

For each team a record is projected: First, simply by counting wins and losses based on whether a team is favored in that game, and second, by adding the percentages to obtain a cumulative projection, or rather the record a team is most likely to finish at. Odds of going undefeated are computed by multiplying the odds of winning each game.

Florida remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	N	*Georgia	85.7%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Vanderbilt	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*South Carolina	92.9%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Florida International	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Florida State	89.8%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	Alabama?	50.0%	??
Favored: 12-0-1   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going 12-0: 71.5%, 13-0: 35.7% (up 0.2%)

Florida Gators (7-0; BCS rank: #1)

The Gators' problems with Mississippi State gave the rest of the teams on their slate a bit more hope—but not much. Georgia and South Carolina increased their odds, but Vanderbilt and FIU still have only a snowball's chance.

But Alabama struggled, too, and that tilted the inevitable confrontation from a slight 'Bama win into a dead heat. As a result, while Florida's chances of going 12-0 fell 3 percentage points, their odds of going 13-0 went up by 0.2%.

The projected number of wins declined slightly from 12.198 to 12.184, basically saying that a 12-1 season is the "expected value" outcome. The game-comparison system doesn't pick a favorite in the SEC title game but the power rating it's based on does: Florida is slightly less than a point ahead of Alabama now, and therefore would be considered the favorite. But it's already assumed that one of these two teams would be in national championship game, and I'll compare both to Texas and any other teams that have a good chance of being their opponent.

Alabama remaining schedule & forecast
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Louisiana State	89.3%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Mississippi State	93.8%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Tennessee-Chattanooga	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	@	*Auburn	81.3%	W
12/5	Sat	N	Florida?	50.0%	??
Favored: 12-0-1   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going 12-0: 68.1%, 13-0 34.0% down 1.9%

Alabama Crimson Tide (8-0; BCS rank: #2)

Having Tennessee out of the way really helps Alabama's odds of going 12-0, taking away the uncertainty of what was seen as their toughest test before likely facing Florida. But their poor performance in the game hurt them, increasing the odds that other teams on their slate can beat them.

LSU's odds jumped four percentage points; Mississippi State's by the same; and Auburn's odds by six and a half. Only Chattanooga didn't gain any semblance of hope from the Tide's narrow win.

Overall the Tide slightly regressed, decreasing their odds of going 12-0 from 68.5% to 68.1%. That's pretty remarkable for getting a win that wasn't a foregone conclusion. Normally with each win the odds should take a sizeable jump, but Alabama's performance introduced more uncertainty than the win removed. Their odds of going 13-0 took a hit, too, falling from 35.9% to 34.0%.

Texas remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	@	*Oklahoma State	79.6%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	Central Florida	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Baylor	99.9%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Kansas	95.9%	W
11/26	Thu	@	*Texas A&M	85.7%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	Nebraska?	69.4%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going 12-0: 65.7%: 13-0: 45.4% down 11.6%

Texas Longhorns (7-0; BCS rank: #3)

Texas didn't remove any uncertainty by beating Missouri, whom they were basically given a 100% chance to beat by the game-comparison system. And by winning in such a forceful fashion, they should have further decreased many of their future opponents' meager odds of beating them.

But Oklahoma State's showing against Baylor pushed the Cowboys up in the ratings and created a major re-evaluation of the game-pairs against Texas; now the Cowboys win a few more close contests and from a 5.6% chance last week they are now given a 20.4% chance at home.

UCF and Baylor still have no hope, but Kansas's odds increase slightly, and Texas A&M's take a big leap after their blowout win over Texas Tech. So despite the Longhorns playing perhaps their best game of the year at Missouri, the road to a 12-0 season just got a lot tougher, dropping from 89.2% to 65.4%. In fact, just the game at Oklahoma State is now seen as more dangerous that their entire remaining schedule was just last week. This is likely the result of having more data; last week's odds were inflated, and have corrected more toward reality.

Another huge development for Texas is the uncertainty in the North division. With Nebraska losing it's harder to project an opponent. We could go through a rigorous process of giving a percentage chance for each possible opponent, but that's beyond the scope of these projections (and beyond what I'm willing to calculate). Instead, forecasting game by game, here is the predicted finish in the North:

Team         conf    all
Nebraska     5-3     8-4
Missouri     4-4     8-4
Iowa State   4-4     7-5
Kansas       3-5     7-5
Kansas State 3-5     5-7
Colorado     1-7     2-10

So Texas is still likely to face Nebraska, in Dallas, for the Big Twelve championship. The Cornhuskers' odds of getting an upset have decreased from 36% to less than 31%. Still, Texas' chances of going 13-0 have declined from last week, from 57% down to 45.4%. The system is saying that it's more likely than not that they suffer a loss somewhere along the way.

Iowa remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	vs.	*Indiana	93.8%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Northwestern	95.3%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Ohio State	43.8%	L
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Minnesota	85.9%	W
Favored: 11-1   Projected: 11-1
Odds of going undefeated: 33.6% up 10.2%

Iowa Hawkeyes (8-0; BCS rank: #4)

Iowa got rid of a big chunk of uncertainty by beating Michigan State, last second TD pass or not. But the odds for their remaining games—including a projected loss at Ohio State—remain roughly the same. So while the Hawkeyes odds of going undefeated take a big jump, they don't surpass the critical 50% threshold.

Home games against Indiana and Northwestern are still seen as safe, and the road trip to Ohio State is still a likely loss. Even if they get past that, Minnesota offers somewhat of a challenge. Things are looking better than last week, when Iowa had less that a 1 in 4 chance of going undefeated; now they have about a 1 in 3 chance. Still not great, but better.

Not only that, but as mentioned above their chances for going to the national title game should they go undefeated are looking pretty good.

TCU remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	vs.	*UNLV	99.9%	W
11/7	Sat	@	*San Diego State	95.9%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Utah	91.8%	W
11/21	Sat	@	*Wyoming	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico	99.9%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 88.0% up 32%

TCU Horned Frogs (7-0; BCS rank: #6)

More than any other team, by far, TCU improved both their odds of going undefeated and their chances of going to a BCS bowl game. They even considerably improved their chances of playing for the national championship.

The strong win over BYU bumped them up in the voter polls, improved their power rating, and took away the majority of the uncertainty from the rest of their season. BYU had a 40% chance of upsetting the Horned Frogs, contributing most of TCU's 44% chance to lose a game.

But with more game data becoming available, a few of their opponents' chances increase. San Diego State goes from hopeless to a 4% chance of upset. Utah makes a slight gain, too. But UNLV, Wyoming, and New Mexico are judged foregone conclusions. All told, TCU now has an 88% chance of going undefeated, up from last week's 56%.

But like last week, what that will mean is unknown. Now that we're projecting Texas to lose a game, this creates an opening, one that Iowa can't fill due to their projected loss. TCU is next in line among the undefeated teams, but is behind USC. And while Boise State probably won't catch them, Cincinnati could gain support from voters and even the computers since TCU's remaining schedule is soft overall.

The USC question is relevant: will the Trojans win out? The answer, after looking at just their next game, is no. Probably not.

USC (6-1, BCS#4) odds
@Oregon:      40.8% L
@Arizona St:  83.7% W
Stanford:     73.2% W
UCLA:         83.7% W
Arizona:      71.4% W
Favored: 10-2 Cume: 10-2 (9.53 wins)
Odds of winning out: 14.9%         

Oregon is a 59% favorite by the game-comparison system. And several of their other games could present a challenge, too. Overall USC is expected to barely manage to go 4-1. Beating Oregon would help a lot, but even then they'd be expected to drop one of their last four games. So for the purposes of this projection USC can be discounted for now.

The upshot is that TCU is close to being a favorite for the national title game. It will come down to the particulars of the BCS system, but right now Texas, Iowa, and USC all seem to be facing a loss. Of the three, only the Longhorns' loss is a "cumulative" loss, i.e. there is no specific team that is pegged to beat them. They are favored to win every game. So seeing Texas lose is the most important thing for TCU fans.

Boise State remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	vs.	*San Jose State	99.9%	W
11/6	Fri	@	*Louisiana Tech	93.9%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Idaho	96.4%	W
11/20	Fri	@	*Utah State	93.9%	W
11/27	Fri	vs.	*Nevada	87.8%	W
12/05	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico State	99.9%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 13-0
Odds of going undefeated: 74.6% up 1.1%

Boise State Broncos (7-0; BCS rank: #7)

Boise State shredded Hawaii 54-9 last weekend with a particularly strong defensive performance in a road game. The win itself didn't do much for their odds, as they were a 97.2% favorite, but the winning margin helped their odds in the upcoming games against Louisiana Tech and Idaho. But Nevada, who beat Idaho badly, added a bit to their odds for the upset. San Jose State and New Mexico State remained near-certainties.

When all is said and done, Boise State's odds of going undefeated increase about a bit less than you'd expect after knocking off a foe like Hawaii. From 73.5% last week, the Broncos now have a 74.6% chance of winning all six of their remaining games. With almost a 3 in 4 chance of being 13-0, you'd think they'd be sitting pretty, but a few bad developments hit in the BCS rankings. Mainly, TCU passing them—coupled with the Horned Frogs' now-overwhelming odds of going undefeated—mean that Boise State may be left out of a BCS bowl at 13-0.

Broncos fans could hope for a TCU loss, but this year there's actually a decent chance that two non-BCS teams could be in BCS bowls, especially if TCU makes it to the national title game. So maybe Boise State fans should root for possible BCS bowl teams like Notre Dame to lose, which is more likely.

Cincinnati remaining schedule & forecast
10/31	Sat	@	*Syracuse	99.9%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Connecticut	98.0%	W
11/13	Fri	vs.	*West Virginia	98.0%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Illinois	99.9%	W
12/5	Sat	@	*Pittsburgh	64.3%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 61.7% down 2.2%

Cincinnati Bearcats (7-0; BCS rank: #8)

Cincinnati has four games it should definitely win, and then a tough road game. Even if they win out, they might be left out after dropping to #8 in the BCS, but anything can happen.

The Syracuse and Illinois games are all but certain. The UConn and West Virginia home game odds took a big jump this week and are at near-certain status, too. West Virginia and UConn are both good teams who have played consistently above average football, but neither has had many great games. The upshot is that almost all of their performances rate below the Bearcats' performances, which have been stellar and very consistent, too.

The one game whose odds decline is the all-important showdown with Pitt. The Panthers blasted USF Saturday and the game is looking daunting. With the increased odds for the two other games, Cincy almost holds its percentage even, but it declines slightly from 63.9 to 61.7%. Cincinnati has to keep winning impressively during the next four-game stretch so it can be in position to stake a claim in the title game should lots of other teams fall.

How Many Teams Will Go Undefeated?

Last week the odds said that three (and almost four) teams would be expected to remain undefeated before the bowl games, and tallied individually, five teams had a greater than 50% chance of doing so. Now, even though every team won last week, only four can make that claim. But that matches the new expected number of undefeated teams. The odds of six teams going undefeated took a big jump, from 1.2% to 4.3%, and the odds of all seven teams suffering a loss fell from 0.4% to just 0.13%.

Who will the undefeated teams be?

1. TCU: 88.0%
2. Boise State 74.6%
3. Florida/Alabama: 69.7%
4. Cincinnati: 61.7%
5. Texas: 45.4%
6. Iowa: 33.6%

Most likely, we'll see TCU, Boise State, Florida *or* Alabama, and Cincinnati unbeaten. Texas will lose an unspecified game (probably Nebraska in the Big Twelve title game) and Ohio State is favored to beat Iowa.

If this happens, we'll see the Florida/Alabama winner against TCU or Cincinnati. Both have their drawbacks: TCU is a non-BCS school and Cincinnati's schedule is soft. But there aren't many viable 1-loss teams to replace them.

We've ruled out USC above, and the next four in the current standings are LSU, Oregon, Georgia Tech, and Penn State. LSU is expected to lose to Alabama; Oregon could win out and still be behind Boise State, the team that beat them; likewise a 1-loss Penn State would be logically behind a 1-loss Iowa. Georgia Tech's remaining schedule is kind—perhaps too kind to get them to pass Cincy or TCU, even with an ACC title game win. In short, only USC or LSU seems in position to make a run at the title game, and both have a rough road to get there.

With the Florida/Alabama game a 50/50 proposition (Florida by 1 point by score margin, though) and TCU-Cincinnati an unknown (though we suggest TCU is in better position), we'll look at all four matchups, from most expected to least expected:

Florida 61.2% over TCU

Alabama 62.5% over TCU

Florida 59.2% over Cincinnati

Alabama 62.5% over Cincinnati

So the winner of the SEC title game is expected to win the national title. No big shocker there. Both of them lose to Texas, however, so they better hope that the Longhorns suffer that unspecified upset! If Texas beats Oklahoma State next week, they'll probably again be over 50% and then favored to win it all. Right now only cumulative odds are preventing us from putting Texas in the title game, and cumulative odds become less meaningful the fewer games a team has left.

How does 2009 TCU compare to other years?

After reviewing Iowa's 2009 team and comparing them to teams past, we'll do the same for 7-0 TCU.

First question: better than last season?

Like Iowa, it's a legitimate question whether this year's model is really better than last year's, which went 11-2, losing only to Oklahoma and Utah, and

• 2008: Record: 11-2; AP #7. Power rating: Strength #7, Overall #9

• 2009: Record: 7-0; AP #8. Power rating: Strength #3, Overall #4

Well, they just might be better this year. After clobbering BYU, the Horned Frogs rank #3 in Strength and are #4 overall.

Second question: best TCU team of the decade?

TCU really came on strong in the 2000s. Before that they had a four-decade drought where they didn't finish in the top 20/25. During this stretch, they had some good teams, but also had many mediocre and poor squads. When the Southwestern Conference folded, the Horned Frogs jumped to the WAC for a few years, then were in the C-USA from 2001 to 2004 before ending up in the Mountain West. During this transitionary time they had their best era of the last half century.

• 2000: Record: 10-2; AP#21. Power Rating: Strength: #10; Overall: #12
• 2002: Record: 10-2; AP#23. Power Rating: Strength: #55; Overall: #50
• 2003: Record: 11-2; AP#25. Power Rating: Strength: #57; Overall: #54
• 2005: Record: 11-1; AP#11. Power Rating: Strength: #22; Overall: #20
• 2006: Record: 11-2; AP#22. Power Rating: Strength: #22; Overall: #24
• 2007: Record: 8-5; AP#nr. Power Rating: Strength: #48; Overall: #51

Dennis Franchione coached the 2000 team to the school's best record in 40-some years. They beat a solid Northwestern team but had a very easy schedule—a scheduled game with Nebraska got bumped to next season—and didn't get a lot of respect; pollsters weren't used to seeing their name in the rankings and they were in the weak WAC. At 11-1, they were consigned to a December 20th bowl game and then Franchione moved on to Alabama, leaving Gary Patterson to coach the bowl. They lost, which seemed to prove the nay-sayers right. The AP did rank them fairly for their accomplishments, but they were a much better team than #21.

The naysayers also thought their success was a temporary deal, especially with Franchione gone. 2001 seemed to bear this out. But Patterson started an ongoing campaign that is now approaching a decade of success. In 2002 the Frogs, now in the C-USA, finished 10-2 and won a bowl game, though their abysmal schedule was worth only a token year-end ranking. The next year was more of the same, a 10-0 start against a porous schedule; that year they lost a battle of 1-loss teams to Boise State. A losing record marred 2004.

In 2005 the Horned Frogs moved to the Mountain West and had a legitimate top 25 team. Their first-game upset of Oklahoma is legendary; the rest of the country had already fallen back into thinking "Texas Christian? They're terrible aren't they?" so it was completely unexpected. The letdown loss to SMU that followed made it look like Oklahoma was simply terrible. But the Frogs won the rest of their games and beat Iowa State in the Houston Bowl, 27-24. The next year the league got tougher and TCU didn't, leaving them at 8-5, but setting the stage for the last two years.

Overall this era was very good, but as a whole it can't compare to the last two years, which are unquestionably the best two teams of the Patterson era. Only Franchione's 2000 squad comes close to equalling the 2008 and 2009 teams. Fans complained that the Horned Frogs didn't get their fair shake with the pollsters for their success, but until recently the team played a very easy schedule and didn't win convincingly enough to be taken seriously as a top 10 team.

The 1950s

Texas Christian was a mainstay of the AP top 20 during the 50s, with several strong finishes.

• 1951: Record: 6-5-0; AP#11. Power Rating: Strength: #18; Overall: #19
• 1955: Record: 9-2-0; AP#6. Power Rating: Strength: #3; Overall: #5
• 1956: Record: 8-3-0; AP#14. Power Rating: Strength: #10; Overall: #10
• 1958: Record: 8-2-1; AP#10. Power Rating: Strength: #8; Overall: #11
• 1959: Record: 8-3-0; AP#7. Power Rating: Strength: #7; Overall: #7

In 1951 Texas Christian ranked #11 in the final AP poll, which was taken of course before the bowl games. In TCU's case, that bowl was a 20-7 loss to Kentucky. The 1955 team was a powerhouse, losing only to Texas A&M by a field goal and in the Cotton Bowl to Mississippi by a point; that team's Strength and Success profile's look almost identical to this year's team's. 1956 was another good year, with just three losses.

1958 and 1959 were more of the same, with top-ten level teams finishing with just 2 losses during the regular season each year. Bowl games were a problem again; the January 1, 1959 Cotton Bowl ending in a 0-0 tie with Air Force, and the 1959 Bluebonnet Bowl a 23-7 loss to Clemson.

Objectively this is the best era in TCU's history, with multiple true top ten level teams. But the 2008 squad was the equal of most of these teams (relative to the era), and the 2009 team has the potential to be better than all of them. The 1955 squad is the one to beat.

The Best TCU teams of all time...

From early in the 1900s Texas Christian had some teams with good records but they played schedules that would make even the early-2000's squads weep. But starting in 1929 they had their first decade of great success, and it culminated in their only national championship.

• 1929: Record: 9-0-1; Power Rating: Strength: #2; Overall: #3
• 1930: Record: 9-2-1; Power Rating: Strength: #22; Overall: #24
• 1931: Record: 9-2-1; Power Rating: Strength: #49; Overall: #46
• 1932: Record: 10-0-1; Power Rating: Strength: #3; Overall: #3
• 1933: Record: 9-2-1; Power Rating: Strength: #21; Overall: #22
• 1934: Record: 8-4-0; Power Rating: Strength: #32; Overall: #26
• 1935: Record: 12-1-0; Power Rating: Strength: #7; Overall: #4
• 1936: Record: 9-2-2; AP#16. Power Rating: Strength: #10; Overall: #8
• 1937: Record: 4-4-2; AP#16. Power Rating: Strength: #24; Overall: #25
• 1938: Record: 11-0-0; AP#1. Power Rating: Strength: #4; Overall: #3

Four teams from this era stand out. The 1929 team went undefeated but tied SMU (SMU finished 6-0-4 that year). This is Candidate A for best TCU team of all time. The 1932 squad also was undefeated; their tie came at the hands of LSU early in the season. The 1935 team went 12-1 and declared itself the national champion retroactively based on the Williamson System. As 1936 was the first year for the AP poll, there have been many attempts to objectively determine the national champion before that date. But even before the AP, many others were handing out championships in real-time. None of the contemporary organizations saw TCU as the national champ, probably because they lost to 12-1 SMU that year. And the champion was normally declared before the bowl games, when SMU was 12-0. If the AP had a poll in 1935, there's no way TCU would have been #1.

In 1938, however, they did finish #1 after going 11-0. In my system, 11-0 Tennessee ends up as both the strongest team, and the one deserving to be #1. Regardless, the 1938 team is another candidate for the best TCU team of all time, and is normally considered to be so as they were undefeated.

Conclusion

The last two TCU teams have been among the best Horned Frog teams ever. The 2008 team was probably the best team in a half century, and outranks all but one of the 1950s teams. The 1930s have several teams that were better, relatively, than the 2008 squad.

The 2009 team is living up to the best of the 1930s teams so far. It looks like they are BCS-bowl bound if they win out, regardless of what Boise State does. If this happens and they win their bowl game, they could be the top TCU team of all time without winning a national championship. To have that honor without dispute, however, they'd have to slip into the national title game—unlikely, but not impossible—and win it.

Iowa at 8-0: Best Hawkeyes of All-Time?

Iowa is 8-0 for the first time in the history of the program. Could this be the best Hawkeye team ever?

For Florida, Texas, Alabama, this would be a very tough question, given all the great teams and national champions those programs have had. Even Boise State has routinely gone undefeated this decade. For Cincinnati, it's too easy of a question: the program has only had real success in the past few years. But for Iowa—and for TCU, another team I'll pose the question about—success has been intermittent, prompting fans to pose the question of how this year's team might stack up to the best teams in the program's history.

In terms of success, you can't argue with this year's results. But then again, with four more games and a bowl game to go, a team's success can't fairly be gauged until the season is over. Currently at #7 in the AP poll, Iowa could go much higher or fall much lower. So instead I'll try to look at the team's actual strength as well as their success, and compare it to other years by referring to their power rating performance. The Strength component tells more about how good a team actually is, while the Overall rating incorporates how we'll they've done in wins and losses, too. This gives an objective look at the teams without having to debate quality position by position, etc.

The first question, and it's a fair one, is: Is Iowa better than last year? The 2008 team also featured a tough defense while the offense was much better, with Shonn Greene leading a consistent ground game.

• 2008: Record: 9-4;  AP #20.  Power rating: Strength #16, Overall: #16

• 2009: Record: 8-0; AP  #7.  Power rating: Strength #15, Overall: #6

This year's team is roughly the same in quality as last year's team. But where the Hawks lost four games in 2008 by a total of 12 points, this year's team has won four games by a total of 8 points—there's that little difference between the two squads. But by winning the close games instead of losing them, the 2009 squad is far ahead of the 2008 squad—with 1/3 of the season yet to play.

Going back in time, the next mini-era to compare are the 2002-2004 teams, all three of which finished #8 in the nation.

• 2002: Record: 11-2; AP #8. Power rating: Strength #7, Overall #8
• 2003: Record: 10-3; AP #8. Power rating: Strength #12, Overall #11
• 2004: Record: 11-2; AP #8. Power rating: Strength #22, Overall #17

In 2002 Iowa had Heisman runner-up Brad Banks at quarterback and rose as high as #3 before being clubbed by USC in the Orange Bowl. This is the team that most people compare this year's Hawks to, but the 2002 squad was probably quite a bit better. This year's team would end up better, of course, by winning out, but head-to-head the 2002 squad would be favored, as perhaps would the 2003 squad, which had a less-stellar regular season but beat Florida in a blowout in the Outback Bowl. The 2004 team had no running game whatsoever and beat LSU on a miracle last-second pass play in the Capitol One Bowl, and demonstrated the slow decline that ultimately led to the few disappointing seasons that followed.

• 1995: Record: 8-4; AP #25. Power rating: Strength #13, Overall #14
• 1996: Record: 9-3; AP #18. Power rating: Strength #16, Overall #17

The 1995 was written off after four straight losses, but they came back to score a big upset win over Washington in the Sun Bowl. Next year's team had its ups and downs but scored a shutout over Texas Tech in the Alamo Bowl. Though these team aren't remembered as anything special, they were probably as good as this year's squad except for their ability to win the big games. It begs the question, is this year's team really that great? Are they just getting lucky, or do they really have a special "winning" quality that can't be measured?

• 1990: Record: 8-4; AP #18. Power rating: Strength #16, Overall #17
• 1991: Record: 10-1-1; AP #10. Power rating: Strength #17, Overall #18

Iowa's last Rose Bowl trip was in 1990, a loss to Washington. The next year they had their best record since 1960 with only a loss and a tie to BYU in the Holiday Bowl. Though they finished #10, the 1991 team was overrated due to a very easy schedule; they only beat two teams with winning records. Still, both of these teams are comparable to this year's squad in strength.

• 1981: Record: 8-4; AP #18. Power rating: Strength #29, Overall #24
• 1982: Record: 8-4; AP #nr. Power rating: Strength #36, Overall #36
• 1983: Record: 9-4; AP #14. Power rating: Strength #11, Overall #11
• 1984: Record: 8-4-1; AP #16. Power rating: Strength #13, Overall #16
• 1985: Record: 10-2; AP #10. Power rating: Strength #3, Overall #6
• 1986: Record: 9-3; AP #16. Power rating: Strength #20, Overall #23
• 1987: Record: 10-3; AP #16. Power rating: Strength #22, Overall #21

The early to mid-80s were Iowa's best run under Hayden Fry, with consistent top-20 finishes and a couple of Rose Bowl appearances. They never could quite get over the hump and be among the nation's elite, though they came close in '85.  The 1981 team shocked the world by going to the Rose Bowl as the first non-Michigan/Ohio State representative since the 1967 season. They were badly beaten by Washington, but next year's team was almost as good with new quarterback Chuck Long a freshman. The '83 and '84 teams were even better, and for Long's senior year in 1985 Iowa had a breakout season, climbing to #1 by mid-season.

The 1985 team is Iowa's best team of the last 5 decades, and the team that this year's will be measured by. Though many of the teams above compare to the 2009 squad, none except the 2002 team is unquestionably a better football team, and only the 1985 team matches this year's level of combined quality and success, ranking #6 overall in 1985. This despite a horrendous Rose Bowl debacle where Ronnie Harmon fumbled four time. Imagine Mark Ingram fumbling four times in one game for Alabama, that's how unusual it was. That Harmon later was revealed to have an agent who made "loans" to him during his career raised the "hmmm..." factor a lot. But that's a digression.

The '86 and '87 teams were still good but 1985 is clearly the year that could have been. If this year's squad can maintain its miracle ways they will surpass even Long's senior year in Hawkeye folklore.

The 80's were preceeded by 20 years of losing seasons, making them even more significant by comparison. Just before that, though, the Hawkeyes had an era that surpasses the Fry era, under Forest Evashevski.

• 1953: Record: 5-3-1; AP #9. Power rating: Strength #7, Overall #9
• 1954: Record: 5-4-0; AP nr. Power rating: Strength #11, Overall #14
• 1956: Record: 9-1-0; AP #3. Power rating: Strength #7, Overall #5
• 1957: Record: 7-1-1; AP #6. Power rating: Strength #7, Overall #7
• 1958: Record: 8-1-1; AP #2. Power rating: Strength #2, Overall #2
• 1959: Record: 5-4-0; AP nr. Power rating: Strength #4, Overall #9
• 1960: Record: 8-1-0; AP #3. Power rating: Strength #1, Overall #1

Five top ten finishes in eight years! In 1953 Iowa was tougher than its 5-3 record and proved it by battling #1 Notre Dame to 14-14 tie on the road, jumping them from #20 to #9 in the AP poll. They were nearly as good next year, losing three games by nine points, but lost to the Irish and were unranked. 1955 was an off year (3-5-1) but in 1956 the team finished #3 in the nation and then won the Rose Bowl. The final polls were released before the bowl games before the late 60s, or the Hawks could have finished #2.

1957 was another successful year, and in 1958 Iowa had perhaps its best year ever, finishing #2 in the AP poll and being declared national champions by the Football Writers' Association of America, who gave the honor after the bowl games. The AP #1, LSU, had won only 7-0 over Clemson while Iowa won the Rose Bowl beating Cal 38-12. By my power rating, Iowa finishes #2 and 11-0 LSU #1, in both Strength and Success.

The 1959 team was dominant when they won but lost four games. In 1960 they rebounded for another top five finish and according to my power rating were the best team in the country that year. However the polls, taken before Minnesota lost in the Rose Bowl, crowned the Gophers champions. The Gopher beat the Hawkeyes soundly, 27-10, for Iowa's only loss, so they can't really complain. And 10-0-1 Mississippi would have claimed the crown anyway. But this is the year that Iowa was really the best team, but couldn't close the deal on the field. Sort of the opposite of this season, and somewhat similar to the 1985 squad that ultimately underperformed.

• 1939: Record: 6-1-1; AP #9. Power rating: Strength #30, Overall #28

The "Ironmen" year for Iowa, when Nile Kinnick won the Heisman trophy, was the first modern-era team to be ranked. But the team was probably overrated, beating mostly losing teams and a Notre Dame squad that was overrated too. The farther back we look, the less reliable both the polls and power ratings become, as there was less interplay between teams and even regions of the country. So as we go back to the 1920s and earlier, before the AP poll was started in 1936, the power ratings give only an approximation of a team's talent level.

But Iowa had a few seasons in the 20s that should be addressed: The only years when the Hawkeyes went unblemished, something they're trying to achieve this season.

• 1921: Record: 7-0-0; Power rating: Strength #6, Overall #5
• 1922: Record: 7-0-0; Power rating: Strength #6, Overall #5

The Hawkeyes had two other years, very early in their history, when they were unbeaten. In 1899 they were tied by powerhouse Chicago, and in 1900 by Northwestern

• 1899: Record: 8-0-1; Power rating: Strength #6, Overall #6
• 1900: Record: 7-0-1; Power rating: Strength #6, Overall #5

Conclusion

This year's Hawkeye team is essentially the same as last year's team, trading close losses for narrow wins. The way they play on the edge it seems inevitable that they'll drop a game, but if they don't, and win their bowl game (which could be for a national championship under those circumstances), they should be recognized as the greatest Iowa football team ever. Lose even one game and the benefit of the doubt that perfection affords will be lost, and the team will rank below some of the teams of the 1950s, the 1985 team, and perhaps the 2002 squad.

Over their long history, Iowa has had several teams that are as good as this one, and a handful that have been better (relative to their year of competition, of course). This year's team is simply maximizing its potential in a way that the teams of the past haven't managed to do. It makes one wonder—what would this team be doing if Shonn Greene had returned to the squad?

BCS Analysis, Week 7: Who has the best chance of going undefeated?

Now that the first BCS rankings are out, it's time to gaze into the crystal ball and divine the future. Since seven of the top eight teams are undefeated, the first logical question is, which of these teams have the best odds of finishing the season undefeated? A corollary question is, how many teams overall will finish unbeaten? And what does this mean for the BCS and in particular, the national title game?

First, we can pretty much divide the undefeated teams into three groups. #1 Florida, #2 Alabama, and #3 Texas are teams who are guaranteed to be in the national title game if they go undefeated. Next, #5 Cincinnati and #6 Iowa are teams who are 99.9% certain to be in the title game if they go undefeated and the top three all lose. There is a small chance that a 1-loss team (#7 USC or one of the teams above) could finish ahead, but very little; after all, they are both from BCS conferences and are already very high in the ratings. Finally, #4 Boise State and #8 TCU are two teams who will probably not be in the national title game even if they are undefeated. If both are undefeated, one will likely be left out of a BCS bowl, while the other is guaranteed a berth.

So let's look at each team's remaining schedule and project each game, giving it a percentage-to-win value. Then we'll compute the team's overall % chance to finish the season undefeated. We'll do this by using the X-conference 727-team power rating to give every game a team has played a rating; we then cross-compare all of these ratings with the game ratings of their opponent and see how many of the cross-comparisons are victories. Basically it's a way to look at all the aspects a team has shown so far in the season, from their worst to the best performances, since on a given day any version of a team could "show up." The method is explained in more depth here.

One thing that stands out is how good the odds of going undefeated are for these teams. All but one of them ranks in the top 10 in the Strength power rating, and for the most part they've all conquered the tougher part of their schedule. But on to the prognostication.

For each team a record is projected: First, simply by counting wins and losses based on whether a team is favored in that game, and second, by adding the percentages to obtain a cumulative projection, or rather the record a team is most likely to finish at. Odds of going undefeated are computed by multiplying the odds of winning each game.

Florida remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	@	*Mississippi State	99.9%	W
10/31	Sat	N	*Georgia	88.1%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Vanderbilt	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*South Carolina	95.2%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Florida International	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Florida State	88.9%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	Alabama?	47.6%	L
Favored: 12-1   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going undefeated:12-0: 74.5%, 13-0: 35.5%

Florida Gators (6-0; BCS rank: #1)

The Gators have six games left, seven with the SEC title game. But three of these games are judged foregone conclusions by the method described above. Simply put, neither Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, nor FIU has played a game that rates better than Florida's worst effort, and thus is given only a token chance to pull off the upset.

Surprisingly, Georgia in Jacksonville and FSU at home are judged to be bigger threats to the Gators than South Carolina on the road, even though the latter ranks higher in the power rating. Though the Gamecocks' average game rating is better than the other teams', they haven't had as many outings that approach Florida's quality. 

Florida is the overwhelming favorite in all these, and has nearly a 3 in 4 chance of winning them all. But assuming they meet Alabama in the SEC title game cuts their odds by more than half. Alabama wins the neutral-field matchup slightly more often than not, leaving the Gators with a 35.5% chance of going 13-0. Since they're the underdog in the last game they're favored to finish 12-1, and the cumulative projection also yields a 12-1 record (12.198 total wins).

Basically this means what everyone already knows: Florida's chances come down to the SEC title game. Most people already figured that the SEC title game was about a 50/50 proposition; but even with Florida's dominant odds, there's about a 25% chance that they lose before it.

Alabama remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	vs.	*Tennessee	85.7%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Louisiana State	92.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Mississippi State	98.0%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	Tennessee-Chattanooga	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	@	*Auburn	87.8%	W
12/5	Sat	N	Florida?	52.4%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 12-1
Odds of going undefeated: 12-0: 68.5%, 13-0 35.9%

Alabama Crimson Tide (7-0; BCS rank: #2)

You might think Alabama is better off than Florida; after all, they have seven games out of the way instead of six. But the Tide's five remaining games are tougher than Florida's six, with only one being a "gimme." The home game vs. Tennessee (who ranks high in score-margin power ratings despite a 3-3 record) and the road trip to Auburn are Alabama's most likely stumbling blocks. LSU at home is judged a lesser threat and Mississippi State very small.

All told, those five games reduce Alabama's odds of going undefeated to 68.5%, somewhat lower than Florida's odds. But when the SEC title game—where the Tide are slight favorites—is factored in, their odds of going 13-0 end up just a touch better. With the "W" in the right-hand column, Alabama is favored to be 13-0, while still having a cumulative projection of 12-1 (12.168 wins, slightly lower again than the Gators).

So while Florida has better odds of making it to the SEC title game undefeated, the overall edge goes to Alabama, making them the favorite to advance to the BCS title game. Of course it all comes down to the head-to-head matchup; these two teams will be considered together when we compare all the teams' chances, since they are inextricably linked by the SEC title game showdown.

Texas remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	@	*Missouri	99.9%	W
10/31	Sat	@	*Oklahoma State	94.4%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	Central Florida	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Baylor	99.9%	W
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Kansas	97.2%	W
11/26	Thu	@	*Texas A&M	97.2%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	Nebraska?	63.9%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 13-0
Odds of going undefeated: 12-0: 89.2%: 13-0: 57%

Texas Longhorns (6-0; BCS rank: #3)

Texas has the luxury of being a #3 team that doesn't have to worry about being locked out by #1 and #2. They are not this year's Auburn 2004. Not only that, but for a major conference team facing several ranked opponents, they are forecast to have a very easy time of things, and they play the Big Twelve title game in their own backyard.

Three teams don't even register a real chance to beat the Longhorns. UCF at home is understandable; Baylor on the road seems a little odd, but Missouri in Columbia? The Tigers are good this year, but apparently not a single game they've played ranks with Texas' worst effort. Despite all the complaining about Texas, their end results have been stellar—at least according to the score-margin algorithms.

I, for one, see the Missouri game as a trap coming off the Oklahoma win, but let's move on to game #2: Oklahoma State. 94.4% ? Against the highly-rated Cowboys? Well, the Cowboys aren't so highly-rated when score margins are used. Note the difference in the Success and Strength power ratings: Oklahoma State is 17th in the former but just 60th—and average I-A team—in the latter. The same pattern exists between Sagarin's ELO and Predictor. The BCS computers rank Oklahoma State high precisely because they can't use score margin.

But even Kansas is given a tiny chance of beating the Longhorns. Despite their record, few of their games have been that dominant, though their average isn't bad. They have no more chance on the road than Texas A&M does at home.

Things change, however, when we pair them up with our projected North division winner, Nebraska. The Cornhuskers have had several great performances, enough to put a major dent in Texas' odds even when the game is played in Arlington. So while Texas has an amazing 89.2% chance of winning out and going 12-0, if they play Nebraska in the Big Twelve title game their odds of going 13-0 fall to 57%.

This still means that Texas is favored and projected to go 13-0 (barely on the latter, with 12.53 cumulative wins) and that means an appearance in the BCS national championship game. How do they do? According to the same system, they lose to Alabama 55% of the time...yet they beat Florida 58% of the time! The three teams are barely separated at the top of the ratings, but individual game performance variations yield different results.

Boise State remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	@	*Hawaii	97.2%	W
10/31	Sat	vs.	*San Jose State	99.9%	W
11/6	Fri	@	*Louisiana Tech	91.7%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Idaho	95.2%	W
11/20	Fri	@	*Utah State	94.4%	W
11/27	Fri	vs.	*Nevada	91.7%	W
12/5	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico State	99.9%	W
Favored: 13-0   Projected: 13-0
Odds of going undefeated: 73.5%

Boise State Broncos (6-0; BCS rank: #4)

The Broncos won't have to play a conference championship game, but they do have seven games left on their 13-game slate. Lucky for them that all of these are against fairly soft competition, giving them the best chance of any team to go unbeaten.

Only the trip to Louisiana Tech and the home contest against Nevada—often a close game—yield any real chance of an upset. If they played Idaho on the road there might be trouble, but the Vandals probably won't have a dream season where they beat Boise State on the blue turf. In the end they're favored in every game, of course, and the cumulative projection yields an amazing 12.70 wins, with a nearly 3 in 4 chance of going undefeated. This is roughly equal to Florida's chance of going 12-0. It also implies that Boise State will either go to a BCS bowl game or be left out as an undefeated team, like last year. It's not a done deal that TCU would pass them in the BCS standings, though; a lot depends on how Oregon fares. If the Ducks beat USC and finish 11-1, a 13-0 Boise State would likely stay ahead of an unbeated TCU, and maybe have a shot at the national title game.

To be safe, Bronco fans had better hope for a TCU loss. Otherwise it's a crapshoot which team is selected, though both would be deserving.

Cincinnati remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	vs.	*Louisville	99.9%	W
10/31	Sat	@	*Syracuse	99.9%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Connecticut	91.7%	W
11/13	Fri	vs.	*West Virginia	94.4%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	Illinois	99.9%	W
12/5	Sat	@	*Pittsburgh	73.8%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 63.9%

Cincinnati Bearcats (6-0; BCS rank: #5)

Cincy's next two games are among the friendliest games you could ask for, Louisville at home and Syracuse on the road. The three home games that follow are all very winnable too, with UConn offering the most resistance. Illinois, once thought to be perhaps the toughest game of the year, looks like an absolute gift as the Illini struggle.

But the last game is a real test: on the road at Pitt. The Bearcats are still heavily favored but that one game reduces the overall odds (from the current vantage point) by quite a bit, from 86.6% to 63.9%.

Still, this means that the most likely outcome is an undefeated season. The cumulative projection reflects this, with 11.59 wins the most likely amount. Unlike Boise State, Cincinnati probably would advance to the national title game—if there is an opening. The undefeated teams are really racking up!

Iowa remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	@	*Michigan State	67.3%	W
10/31	Sat	vs.	*Indiana	93.9%	W
11/7	Sat	vs.	*Northwestern	93.9%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Ohio State	44.9%	L
11/21	Sat	vs.	*Minnesota	87.8%	W
Favored: 11-1   Projected: 11-1
Odds of going undefeated: 23.4%

Iowa Hawkeyes (7-0; BCS rank: #6)

Iowa is the only team that is 7-0 and plays a strictly 12-game schedule, no conference title game or 13th game to be seen. Yet in the end they are by far the longshot in the group to go undefeated. They're also the only team to be the underdog in any individual game (not counting the loser of Florida-Alabama).

Just next week the Hawkeyes face a pretty hefty challenge at Michigan State, with a 1 in 3 chance of seeing their undefeated record fall by the wayside. The next two home games are relatively safe, but then they travel to Ohio State. The combination of a strong opponent and the road game makes the Hawkeyes a slight underdog, leading to a 11-1 expected record and a similar cumulative projection. When all is said and done, Iowa has slightly less than a 1 in 4 chance of finishing 12-0.

It's not hard to see why when you look at their individual games. Despite their lofty computer ranking—earned because score margin isn't used, and Iowa has beaten some strong teams—the Hawks have the lowest Strength rating of all the undefeated teams. In the game pair-comparison system, Iowa's 1-point win over Northern Iowa and their 3-point win over Arkansas State hurt them a lot; these low-rating games become losses against most teams. Think of it this way: if the Iowa that beat Arkansas State 24-21 shows up to play, who would you favor? Conversely, they could beat just about anyone if the team that beat Penn State in Happy Valley shows up, but the cumulative odds of losing a game work against the Hawkeyes' chances.

TCU remaining schedule & forecast
10/24	Sat	@	*BYU	59.5%	W
10/31	Sat	vs.	*UNLV	99.9%	W
11/7	Sat	@	*San Diego State	99.9%	W
11/14	Sat	vs.	*Utah	94.4%	W
11/21	Sat	@	*Wyoming	99.9%	W
11/28	Sat	vs.	*New Mexico	99.9%	W
Favored: 12-0   Projected: 12-0
Odds of going undefeated: 56.2%

TCU Horned Frogs (6-0; BCS rank: #8)

The Frogs season hangs on the next game at BYU. No other team—not even Utah—has a very good chance of beating them. Four of their foes should just give up in advance.

But BYU, by virtue of a few strong games—like the win over Oklahoma—could definitely derail TCU's dream season. The Frogs are still about a 60% favorite, but that's not far from 50/50.

The good news is, get past that and they're basically home free. Their overall odds of going 12-0 only fall to 56.2% when the other five games are factored in. Favored in all games, they are likely to go 12-0, and if they beat BYU they will be by far the most likely of any team to go unblemished.

What it will mean for them is unknown. They're already behind a 1-loss team, and far from the top of the list. It's very unlikely they could be in the BCS title game under any circumstances. They might—or might not—pass an undefeated Boise State team to claim a BCS berth. Like Boise, they have to hope their counterpart loses a game.

Overall Thoughts: How Many Teams Will Be Undefeated?

From zero teams in 2003 to five teams in 2004, there's quite a range of possibilities each season. This year seems to have a lot of potential for multiple teams to accomplish the feat, since only two of them play each other.

Factored through, there is about a 1.2% chance that six teams go undefeated. Six! And only a 0.4% of there being no undefeated teams before the bowl season. But the most likely number is three teams, with four also a high probability. Which teams will do it? Here they are, ranked in order (with Florida and Alabama conjoined):

1. Boise State: 73.5%
2. Florida or Alabama: 71.4%
3. Cincinnati: 63.9%
4. Texas: 57.0%
5. TCU: 56.2%
6. Iowa: 23.4%

Although Cincinnati is more likely than Texas to be unbeaten, they would have to be unbeaten while Texas has a loss, so the Longhorns are the probable opponent of the Florida-Alabama winner. But if Boise State, the SEC winner, and Cincinnati are the only three unblemished teams, the Bearcats would get their shot. As stated before Texas wins the hypothetical matchup with Florida but loses to Alabama; the Bearcats lose to both Florida (61% of the time) and the Tide (69%). If Florida and Alabama both slip at some point and Texas faces the Bearcats, Texas wins 2/3 of the time.

The projections make a few general predictions:

• that the SEC winner will be undefeated and face an undefeated Texas (or possibly Cincinnati) in the title game. If neither is undefeated then 1-loss teams become a factor;
• Boise State is very likely to go to another BCS bowl this year, as they are more likely than TCU to finish undefeated and could stay ahead in the polls even if both teams go unbeaten; the odds will change a lot after the TCU-BYU game, however;
• Iowa is very likely to lose a game somewhere along the way and is the only team expected to lose a given game on their schedule;
• the odds are very good for multiple undefeated teams this year, with three total being expected and five teams having a > 50% chance at this point.

College Football Mid-term report cards, part two: Cincinnati an A+, Illinois an F

Here is part two of SportsRatings' mid-term report cards for all 120 FBS teams. See part one here.

Each team's listing includes their current record vs. expected record, and an updated projection of what the future holds.

Grade: A+

• Cincinnati (6-0 vs. 3-3) - Brian Kelly should be coach of the year for 2009, no doubt about it. His Bearcats returned only one starter on defense. For them to be in the national title race at this point is crazy. I expected Cincinnati to be an average team this year; that they've exceeded that so remarkably can only be due Kelly's genius. Future: I had them 4-2 in the 2nd half of the season, with many of those games being close. But the tougher ones are at home, and Illinois doesn't look like a challenge now. I see the Bearcats as an 11-1 team most likely, with a reasonable chance of going undefeated.
• Louisiana-Monroe (4-2 vs. 1-5) - Talk about exceeding expectations. ULM's first two games (vs. Texas, and I-AA cupcake Texas Southern) were foregone conclusions, and they lost to ASU, too. But they've won three straight since then, including beating tough Arkansas State. I expected all three to be close losses, instead they were close wins and the Warhawks are on top of the Sun Belt for now. Future: I doubt they'll beat Kentucky or Troy on the road, but they could win three of their last four. Either way they should reach bowl eligibility.

Grade: A

• Fresno State (3-3 vs. 3-3) - The Bulldogs have matched my win-loss projection so far, but they way they've done it bodes well for the rest of their season. Fresno State ranks 16th in the nation in the Strength power rating. They lost to Wisconsin in double overtime and their other losses are to unbeaten Boise State and Cincinnati. Future: The Bulldogs have a good chance to go 6-0 the rest of the way, and 5-1 should be a breeze.
• Miami (5-1 vs. 3-3) - The Hurricanes emerged from their famous four-game stretch from hell a sparkling 3-1—there was a good chance they would be 0-4 at that point. Two cupcake wins later and they're 5-1 and eyeing the ACC title. Future: After their well-deserved breather the ACC season starts up again, which means a slate of very unpredictable teams come their way. I'll stick with my original 4-2 finish, which would make the 'Canes a solid 9-3 and possibly put them in the ACC title game—which should be a win for the team from the Coastal division.
• Nebraska (4-2 vs. 3-3) - I didn't have high hope for the Cornhuskers and until last Saturday they were blowing them away. Strong wins and a very close loss at Virginia Tech had the 'Huskers riding high in the power ratings and win/loss column. Their collapse in the first half against Texas Tech muted what would have been an A+ grade, but they still have a good shot at the North title. Future: Offensive troubles aside, I think Nebraska will finish 4-2 or 5-1, with the game against Kansas deciding the North division.
• Louisiana-Lafayette (4-2 vs. 3-3) - Beating Kansas State put them ahead of the curve, and they've only lost to Nebraska and LSU. Future: The Cajuns are playing much better than expected and instead of 2-4, a 6-0 finish is possible. I'd guess they'll split the close ones and be 4-2 for a solid winning season.

Grade: A-

• Kentucky (3-3 vs. 2-4) - The Wildcats beat Auburn and can't be blamed for losses to Florida and Alabama. They also very nearly beat South Carolina. Future: Three easy home games are followed by three tough ones. Kentucky should reach bowl eligibilty soon, anything else is icing on the cake.
• Northern Illinois (3-3 vs. 3-3) - The Huskies have the scripted record so far but have outperformed considerably. Future: I'd say 4-2 instead of 2-4 for the last six games.

Grade: B+

• Connecticut (4-2 vs. 3-3) - These Huskies beat Baylor and lost two games by just 5 points. Future: The road ahead is tough, with games at Cincinnati and Notre Dame. They'll probably lose those by narrow margins and go 4-2 or 3-3, but it's back to a bowl game for Edsall and company.

Grade: B

• Tulane (2-4 vs. 1-5) - Pre-season I gave them a 48% chance of beating Army and they pulled off a 1-point win, giving them 2-4 vs. a 1-5 prediction. Future: Not so good from here. I still see an 0-6 finish as likely, since they have five road games and UTEP who beat Houston. Maybe they can surprise someone and end up 3-9.
• Virginia (3-3, 3-3) - After an opening-week loss to William & Mary, the Cavaliers were looking like a F candidate and two more (expected) losses put Al Groh back on his perennial hotseat. But then an upset of North Carolina and two more (expected) wins later and Virginia is the only team undefeated in ACC play! Future: They might only match my original 1-5 projection, but their play lately suggests they'll steal one or two extra and maybe be bowl-eligible. 
• UCLA (3-3 vs. 2-4) - The Bruins? Exceeding expections? Well, if you had them ranked as low as we did pre-season (#63) it makes sense. The win at Tennessee is what puts them ahead of where we thought they'd be; everything else has been according to plan. Future: We still see a 2-4 finish and a 5-7 overall record, but the teams they beat might not be the ones we originally thought.
• Southern Methodist (3-3 vs. 3-3) - The Mustangs are 3-3 like we thought, but how they got their is totally different. Along the way, though, they've dropped two overtime games and could easily be 5-1. Future: Originally projected at 1-5, I'll give them a win over Rice to go 5-7 overall.
• Houston (5-1 vs. 4-2) - After a boom (beating Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) and a bust (losing to UTEP), Houston has settled in as a strong but vulnerable team. According to the Strength power rating they aren't close to being a top 25 team, but their results say otherwise. Future: With four homes games left, the Cougars could easily go 5-1 if the upset bug doesn't strike again.

Grade: B-

• Alabama-Birmingham (2-4 vs. 1-5) -The Blazers are playing about as well as expected. Though they dropped the SMU game they beat Rice and Southern Miss. Future: They'd be fortunate to go 2-4 in the last six games.
• North Texas (1-5 vs. 0-6) - Last year's worst team, the Green scored a shocking early upset of Ball State (who is now 0-6). Future: There are a few winnable games left on the schedule, but not many.
• Arkansas (3-3 vs. 3-3) - It isn't showing up in their record yet, but the Razorbacks' performance against Florida showed they're better than they were supposed to be. Future: I expect they'll continue to follow the script and finish 4-2, with the wins bigger and losses closer than anticipated in the pre-season.
• Louisville (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The Cardinals a B-? We expected them to be 1-5 at this point, so the 2-point win over Southern Miss puts them a game up. Other than that, no surprises. Future: A 2-4 effort is likely for the 2nd half as well.

Grade: C+

• South Florida (5-1 vs. 5-1) - Most people think USF is doing a lot better than forecast, but they are just on target after beating FSU and losing to Cincinnati. What's impressive is that they didn't fall apart after losing Matt Groethe. Future: They might still be able to match our 8-4 guess, but may fall back to 7-5.
• West Virginia (5-1 vs. 5-1) - The Mountaineers are following the script so far, playing a bit better than we thought post-Pat White. Future: We still see them finishing 2-4 for a 7-5 season.
• Boise State (6-0 vs. 6-0) - When you're supposed to go undefeated it's hard to exceed expectations, but the Broncos have played better than just a top 25 team—they're playing like a top ten team. Future: Only two things prevent an undefeated season from being a sure thing: the fact that Boise plays 13 games, and Idaho's unexpected resurgence. Each adds a bit of doubt to what could be a 13-0 season.
• TCU (6-0 vs. 6-0) - Speaking of undefeated seasons, TCU might have one on their hands, though the road ahead is much tougher than for Boise State. Future: BYU and Utah are the stumbling blocks. Though they'll still be the favorite in both if I had to wager I'd guess the Frogs go 11-1.
• Louisiana Tech (3-3 vs. 3-3) - The Bulldogs are just barely outperforming expectations overall. Future: If they stick to the script like they have they'll be 5-7.
• San Diego State (2-4 vs. 3-3) - Although they're a game behind schedule, the loss to Idaho isn't the disaster it would have seemed pre-season, and overall they're playing better football than we forecast. Future: We foresee one or two more wins for the Aztecs.

Grade: C

• Florida (6-0 vs. 6-0) - It would have been almost impossible for Florida to exceed expectations this year, as they've been so high. I wouldn't say they've met them, either, but they're undefeated and rank as the best team or close to it. Future: I still can't imagine any remaining teams beating Florida. They'll go 12-0, it just won't be as easy as it looked in the pre-season.
• Texas (6-0 vs. 6-0) - See Florida above. The Longhorns are in the same boat. Future: If they get past the road challenges (Missouri, Oklahoma State) they should be 12-0 as well. The Missouri game could be a trap after the big Oklahoma win.
• Central Florida (3-3 vs. 3-3) - They're following the script to a 'T' and playing exactly as forecast. Future: We have to assume, then, that they'll match the 3-3 finish projected and go 6-6.
• Western Kentucky (0-6 vs. 0-6) - The Hilltoppers' performance doesn't deserve anything but an F, but grading against expectations we can only give them a C, since they haven't sunk to the absolute bottom of the list of I-A teams. Future: The one win we forecast could be in jeopardy as the North Texas game should be close. But we think they'll find a win somewhere.
• Hawaii (2-4 vs. 3-3) - Like many teams, they've followed their script except for a loss to surprise team Idaho, but they did well to win two tossup games at the beginning of the year: Future: With 5 home games among the 7 remaining, the Warriors might get two more wins.
• Arkansas State (1-4 vs. 2-3) - They haven't reached their midpoint yet but the Red Wolves are doing well despite having just one win. They lost to ULM but played Troy and Iowa to within a field goal. Future: The Wolves have a shot at going 7-0 from here. More likely, they finish 5-2 and bowl eligible.
• Utah (5-1 vs. 5-1) - Utah is on track to be the decent but not great team we forecast. Future: The Utes could end with a great record, but most likely 10-2 or 9-3.
• Middle Tennessee State (3-3 vs. 3-3) - MTSU is not doing anything too surprising; losing to Mississippi State at home and beating Maryland on the road offset each other. Future: After beating Western Kentucky the next five games are a crapshoot. I'll give them a 4-2 finish.
• Arizona State (4-2 vs. 4-2) - No shockers so far. Future: A tougher schedule means a 1-5 or maybe 2-4 run for a 5-7 or 6-6 finish.
• San Jose State (1-5 vs. 1-5) - I figured they'd lose to Cal-Poly and beat Idaho, but they reversed that. Future: 2-4 looks about right from here.

Grade: C-

• Clemson (3-3 vs. 4-2) - But for their inexplicable loss to Maryland the Tigers would be in good shape, especially after dominating Wake Forest. Future: Still looks pretty good; they could be 5-1 and win the Atlantic division.
• Colorado (2-4 vs. 3-3) - After losing to Colorado State and Toledo, their season was potentially salvaged by the Kansas win. Future: I don't think they have many miracles left, so whether a 1-5 or 3-3 finish they'll be short of bowl eligibility.
• Missouri (4-2 vs. 4-2) - The Illinois win turned out to be nothing to brag about, and overall the Tigers have been less than impressive even while winning. Future: The late schedule is friendly, and the Tigers could repeat their 4-2 to go 8-4.
• Tulsa (4-2 vs. 4-2) - The Golden Hurricane have followed the pattern expected, losing to Oklahoma and Boise State. Future: Originally pegged to finish 5-1, I think 4-2 is more realistic.
• Kansas (5-1 vs. 6-0) - If Dezmon Briscoe could have held on KU would be undefeated and high in the BCS rankings. Future: The Jayhawks have a very tough final six games and will be lucky to finish 3-3.
• Texas A&M (3-3 vs. 3-3) - It started so well with three straight wins (all expected) and the three losses weren't suprises. But the 62-14 trouncing by Kansas State showed there isn't much hope for this team. Future: Bleak; maybe one win.

Grade: D+

• Southern Cal (5-1 vs. 6-0) - This was supposed to be the #4 team in the country. Ignore the polls that still have them there—they lost to Washington. And they could be 3-3 at this point. Future: By the end of the year USC is always among the best teams, and they'll probably get there unless Oregon beats them. Between that game and Arizona and Stanford I'm not convinced they'll finish 11-1.
• Nevada (3-3 vs. 4-2) - The Colorado State loss put them down a game. Future: Originally slated to go 5-1, I'm thinking 3-3 is more likely since Fresno State and Idaho are much better than advertised.
• Notre Dame (4-2 vs. 5-1) - The Irish lost to Michigan, and should have lost to Michigan State and Washington, too. That would mean a 2-4 midterm record. But they're playing decent football, as the USC result shows. Future: Most likely the Irish will lose either at Pitt or Stanford and finish 9-3.
• Arizona (4-2 vs. 5-1) - Between being overrated here (#10 pre-season!) and giving away the Washington game, the Wildcats are underperforming. Future: The 'Cats won't reach my original 9-3 high-end projection, but should go 4-2 or at least 3-3.
• Florida Atlantic (1-4 vs. 3-2) - Five games in and it's easy to see, the Owls aren't where I expected they'd be. Future: It doesn't get easier from here; if they keep dropping the tossup games they could finish 2-10.
• Temple (4-2 vs. 5-1) - The loss to I-AA Villanova is what gives them this grade. Future: Still looks good for the Owls, who could finish 5-1. But their overall play suggests that won't happen, so I'll say 4-2.

Grade: D

• Utah State (1-5 vs. 2-2) - The Aggies lost to New Mexico State. Future: A friendly 2nd-half-of-season schedule could have meant bowl eligibility for Utah State, but the New Mexico State loss and the unexpected quality of Idaho puts that out of reach.
• Troy (4-2 vs. 5-1) - The Trojans lost to Bowling Green in the opener, and have been disappointing beyond that, too. Future: They should still be able to finish 5-1, but it's more questionable now.
• California (4-2 vs. 5-1) - A strong start made the Bears look like the pre-season top 10 team, but the HUGE loss to Oregon put that to rest. Future: The Pac-10 is unpredictable so the Bears could still match the pre-season cumulative projection of 8-4.
• Oklahoma (3-3 vs. 5-1) - Sam Bradford's injuries might have been the difference between 3-3 and 6-0. Future: There's no reason—even without Bradford—that the Sooners can't go 6-0 despite the naysayers. But with games at Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma State at home they could be 3-3 again. I'm betting they'll be 5-1, losing only to the Cornhuskers.
• Eastern Michigan (0-6 vs. 2-4) - They couldn't beat Army or Kent State at home. Future: They might not beat anyone on their remaining schedule, though Ball State is their best hope to avoid an 0-12 year.
• Oklahoma State (5-1 vs. 6-0) - The loss to Houston doesn't make them a D grade team, even with the lofty expectations I had for them. But their poor power rating score belies their strong record. Future: 4-2 at best. I see losses to Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe Texas Tech.

Grade: F

• Florida International (1-5 vs. 3-3) - FIU is reverting to their old losing ways instead of improving. Future: They should win two more games, three at most.
• Mississippi (4-2 vs. 6-0) - This was supposed to be the Rebels' year; instead they lost to South Carolina and lost the defining game to Alabama. Future: They could go 6-0—or 3-3. Hard to predict their remaining schedule.
• Akron (1-5 vs. 3-3) - Losing bad games to Indiana and Ohio took the zip out of the Zips. Future: Though many were considered tossups, the Zips were pre-season favorites in all six remaining games. Now I think 2-4 is more likely.
• Baylor (3-3 vs. 5-1) - The Beats started by winning the 50-50 proposition at Wake Forest, but then lost to UConn. Worse, QB Robert Griffin was hurt in their next game, and without him they lost to Iowa State. Future: Not bright without their star. 1-5 is a possibility.
• Rutgers (4-2 vs. 6-0) - Right off the bat the Scarlett Knights lost their chance for an undefeated season greased by an easy schedule, losing big to Cincinnati. They also fell to Pitt, one of the other few tough teams they have to face. Future: Clearly not as good as I thought they'd be, Rutgers could still be 4-2 in the 2nd half as well, meaning they'd match the 8-4 cumulative projection I gave them pre-season.
• Illinois (1-5 vs. 3-3) - By far the most disappointing team of the year (though Ball State gives them a run for the money), the Illini were crushed early by Missouri and lost last week to Indiana. I only expected a 3-3 start with a #33 rank so that's not too bad, but the manner in which they've lost their games is pretty awful, particularly being shut out against Ohio State. Future: Pre-season I wrote: "Illinois is a team to keep an eye on early this season as that's when they'll signal whether they might be able to make another Rose Bowl run." Based on their early play, my eye says: no.

BCS thoughts: Alabama, Texas, Florida...and Iowa

It's officially BCS-hatred season, starting with the first BCS rankings of the season. I'm not a fan of the system, but neither am I a fan of playoffs, so I just deal with the current reality which is, the BCS. Here are some thoughts about the teams currently in contention for the top spot:

• Alabama: The Tide is the hot team to pick as the best team in the country. After Florida and Texas stumbled to narrow wins Alabama will probably garner a lot more first place votes and move at least to #2 in the Coaches and Harris polls. Certainly after their win over South Carolina they should dominate the computer polls too, right? Well, not so fast. In fact, in my Success ratings (a BCS-style computer rating that doesn't use score margin at all), Alabama ranks #2 with a 12.26 rating—the exact same rating they had last week at 6-0. What gives?
  
  Well, take a look at the teams that were giving them the most points. Virginia Tech was 5-1 last week and #4 in the Success ratings, Arkansas 3-2 and #34
  
    4. Virginia Tech                5-1    6.94
   34. Arkansas                     3-2    1.91
   64. Mississippi                  3-2    0.74
   82. Kentucky                     2-3    0.41
  110. North Texas                  1-4    0.09
  113. Florida Int'l                1-4    0.08
  
  This week they added a win over South Carolina...but Virginia Tech lost, and they lost as many points as South Carolina contribute's to the Tide's rating. Kentucky and Mississippi won, but this was offset by Arkansas losing.
  
   10. Virginia Tech                5-2    4.89
   30. South Carolina               5-2    2.00
   45. Arkansas                     3-3    1.17
   46. Kentucky                     3-3    1.16
   55. Mississippi                  4-2    0.95
  111. Florida Int'l                1-5    0.07
  114. North Texas                  1-5    0.06
  
  North Texas and FIU also lost over the weekend, making Alabama's foes 2-4 for the week. When all was said and done after the algorithm had chewed on all of this, Alabama hadn't gained a single point and fell to #2 behind....Iowa?
   
• Iowa: The Hawkeyes are the only other 7-0 team in the country, but try telling that to any national analysts. When "possible contenders for the national championship" come up, the obvious Florida, Texas, and Alabama are mentioned; the fact that Alabama and Florida are on a collision course for a mini-playoff is mentioned; Boise State and TCU are usually dismissed due to their non-Big Six conferences; and occasionally Cincinnati is put in the picture, though normally behind USC or the mythical "1-loss SEC team" that is deemed more deserving.
  
  But Iowa isn't even brought up. After their win over Wisconsin some analysts started talking about their chances for a Big Ten title and a Rose Bowl berth, but nothing about a national title.
  
  Let me tell you: If Iowa goes undefeated, they will be in the national title game. There is no chance that an undefeated Big Ten team will take a back seat to a 1-loss team. Unless it's a year like 2004 with multiple undefeated teams, any major conference undefeated squad will be in the title game. That goes for Cincinnati, too, who has been mentioned ahead of Iowa despite the disdain for the Big East, which sometimes looks like a BCS conference in name only.
  
  The problem for Iowa is this: they aren't being mentioned as a national title contender because no one really thinks they can go undefeated. Their offense is far too hit-and-miss, their wins too close, their luck too good so far. Their quarterback throws too many interceptions returned for touchdowns. It's difficult to see them not messing up somewhere, and at 11-1 they would have no chance of being in the national title hunt. But under normal circumstances an undefeated Iowa team would be in the BCS title game, pure and simple, and not listing them among the possibilities is a slap in the face to the team and the Big Ten.
  
  And listing 1-loss SEC teams among those who "control their own destiny" is a joke. Right now only three teams control their own destiny: Florida, Alabama, and Texas.
   
• Texas: Olin Buchanan thinks that Texas hurt themselves with the Oklahoma win. I agree to some extent that they didn't look like a dominant team, and their offense had a lot of problems. But let's not forget what a huge rivalry this game is, and that Oklahoma isn't your average 3-3 team. The Longhorns were facing what might be the best defense in the country:
  
    #  Team                         rec    Offense       Defense
    1. Oklahoma                     3-3    31.08 [ 35]    5.32 [  1]
    2. Florida                      6-0    35.33 [ 16]    6.11 [  2]
    3. Alabama                      7-0    36.79 [ 11]    7.35 [  3]
    4. Southern Cal                 5-1    32.21 [ 31]    8.29 [  4]
    5. Nebraska                     4-2    33.52 [ 24]    8.79 [  5]
  
  Oklahoma's losses are to BYU, Miami, and Texas; they held BYU to 14 points, Miami to 21, and Texas to 16. The Sooners' problems are on offense, particularly Bradford's injury but also the offensive line. A field goal here and there and we'd be talking about Oklahoma and how lucky they'd been to win the close games. They'd be #1 in most of the BCS computer ratings and possibly #1 in the initial BCS rankings.
  
  And despite Texas' offense problems, based on results so far Texas has the best scoring offense in the nation.
  
    #  Team                         rec    Offense       Defense
    1. Texas                        6-0    44.04 [  1]   14.19 [ 16]
    2. Georgia Tech                 6-1    42.31 [  2]   23.38 [ 57]
    3. Texas Tech                   5-2    40.31 [  3]   17.80 [ 29]
    4. Virginia Tech                5-2    40.09 [  4]   12.89 [ 11]
    5. Cincinnati                   6-0    40.01 [  5]   15.67 [ 22]
  
  In fact, in the Strength ratings (a score-margin-based computer rating) the Longhorns are playing just as well as Florida and Alabama; they rank #1 but the difference between the three is negligible.
  
    #  Team               rec    Overall     Strength     Success
    1. Texas              6-0    37.19 [ 3]  29.84 [ 1]   7.35 [ 6]
    2. Alabama            7-0    41.70 [ 1]  29.43 [ 2]  12.26 [ 2]
    3. Florida            6-0    39.73 [ 2]  29.22 [ 3]  10.51 [ 3]
    4. Virginia Tech      5-2    32.09 [ 5]  27.19 [ 4]   4.89 [10]
    5. Oklahoma           3-3    26.59 [10]  25.76 [ 5]   0.82 [61]
  
  Interestingly the #4 and #5 teams have five losses between them! Virginia Tech lost to Alabama and Georgia Tech in reasonably close games while beating Nebraksa and dominating Miami. Aside from their three close losses, Oklahoma has crushed their other opponents. The Sooners are still capable of beating any team in the country, though with Bradford gone again they might face further losses in close games.
  
  The upshot is that Texas is actually neck and neck with Florida and Alabama quality-wise. And as Mack Brown said, they haven't been playing to their potential. If they do they can beat anyone, including Florida—another team not playing to its potential.
   
• Florida: An announcer during the Florida (or Texas?) game said something to the effect of "a win is a win. It doesn't matter in the end if it was sloppy or close, a win is a win. Florida found that out last year." Which is silly, Florida didn't find that out last year, they found out exactly the opposite: that a loss isn't the end of the world as long as you completely dominate the rest of your schedule. The Gators lost to Mississippi, and after that the bulldozed their schedule in an ungodly manner. That's what put them back on top, not getting close wins.
  
  This year the Gators have been less than dominant. Tim Tebow's injury has had some effect on their offense, of course. They still rank among the top teams in the Strength ratings, and their defense is #2. But they were supposed to be as unstoppable as last season, or even more so. The defense should be #1 by a wide margin after returning every single key player. But that's not happening. The narrow over Arkansas—at home, for goodness' sake—shows how much they've underperformed.
  
  In basketball last year North Carolina was the overwhelming choice for #1 in the pre-season, and at some points in the year they looked less than dominant. They had some injury issues with Tyler Hansbrough—who is sort of the Tim Tebow of college basketball, returning each year that he was expected to go pro—but in the end, when it counted, they lived up to their pre-season expectations. Will the Gators do the same?
  
  Last year it took the loss to Mississippi to light a fire under the team. Will it take a loss this year? It's already looking a bit too late for this team to claim "best college football team of all time" honors. They're playing like they're looking ahead to the SEC title game, which should be a showdown with Alabama. Their remaining schedule doesn't offer up much in the way of powerhouses.
  
  Unlike UNC's basketball team, though, the Gators can't "turn it on" during the playoff season. Stumble once and their chances of repeating take a nosedive. And when they face Alabama after phoning it in all season, will they be able to "turn it on" against the Tide, a clearly hungrier team at this point?

Boise barely escapes Tulsa, 28-21; how does it affect their BCS hopes?

Boise State played at Tulsa, the only game on Wednesday night, and needed a big win to prove they're BCS-worthy. The Broncos had almost no chance of getting to the national championship game entering the evening, and despite winning, that slim hope is gone.

Boise won 28-21, a not-very-dominant performance to say the least. A few weeks ago Oklahoma thrashed the Golden Hurricane 45-0. The Sooners played at home, but a shutout while starting your 2nd string quarterback says a lot.

Boise State didn't show much and their remaining schedule offers few challenges. Pollsters were already wary of moving the Broncos up too far, too fast, and this will reinforce that notion. But what really happened to their BCS bowl chances?

As stated earlier, their national title hopes were slim and now are none. So really nothing much changed in that department. As for their BCS bowl hopes, those didn't change much either. The case remains: if they go undefeated they've got a very strong chance to be in a BCS bowl. TCU's play is more pivotal in that scenario, and Oregon's is critical, too. If TCU loses a game and Oregon is 10-2 or 11-1, the Broncos are pretty much guaranteed a BCS berth.

It hardly matters what the scores are if the Broncos go undefeated. They're playing to get in the top 12 in the BCS system, not to get to the national title. That's the goal for next year, when they return all but four players, with 10 starters back on each side of the ball. In 2010 Boise State has a legitimate shot at making the BCS title game if they go undefeated, so they can't afford any games like this next season.

This season, they just need to win. And have TCU lose a game, of course.

College Football Mid-term report cards, part one: Idaho, Washington get an A+, Ball State an F

It's the middle of the college football season for roughly half of the 120 teams in the FBS (Division I-A). Which teams have done better or worse than expected? Here's a rundown.

So far 62 teams have played six games; the majority of teams in the ACC, Big Ten, Mid-American, and SEC are included. Next week I'll rank the rest.

These teams are rated purely on how they've done against expectations, which is why Alabama, for example, doesn't receive an "A" grade. Unlike today's inflated collegiate grades, a "C" is truly average and means a team has performed as expected, a "B" is a very good grade meaning the team has exceeded expectations, and an "A" really does mean excellent, not just that you did the homework. For the "expectations" part I use my rankings and win-loss projections from before the season began.

Mid-term report card for 62 teams who have played six games as of October 10th, with their current record vs. their expected record at this point, and what the future holds for the rest of the season:

Grade: A+

• Idaho (5-1 vs. 0-6) - After last year's terrible season, I had Idaho pegged as the worst team in I-A, and a candidate to finish 0-12. Two early upsets and three more narrow wins later and the Vandals are an amazing 5-1, losing ironically only to last season's sole 0-12 team, Washington. They're not a top 25 team but if they win a few more I'll rank them. An incredible turnaround story. Future: Idaho's luck might not hold in the 2nd half of the season, but there's no reason they can't finish 3-3. Bowl eligibility is pretty much guaranteed.
  
• Washington (3-3 vs. 1-5) - The Huskies were only supposed to beat Idaho, but they added a huge win over USC and a miracle win over Arizona to go 3-3. That's not all: they also played LSU and Notre Dame close, so it's not just their record that's unexpected—they're actually a good team. Future: the hard part of the season is actually over for the Huskies, who are capable of beating every team left on their slate. But they've yet to win on the road. Washington should finish anywhere from 5-7 to 7-5.
  

Grade: A

• Ohio (4-2 vs. 1-5) - The Bobcats are doing much better than my pre-season ranking and it shows; they've only lost to BCS teams UConn and Tennessee. Future: The rest of their schedule is kinder and Ohio should finish 7-5 at a minimum, meaning a bowl game is in store.
  
• Navy (4-2 vs. 2-4) - Navy played Ohio State close but otherwise was following the plan until they pulled out a win over Air Force, and the 63-14 destruction of Rice showed they haven't missed a beat from last year. Future: There's really only one game left—Notre Dame—that they can't win. I'll give them 4-2 in the 2nd half for an 8-4 record.
  
• Wyoming (4-2 vs. 0-6) - The Cowboys really aren't playing much better, if at all, than I expected pre-season, but they've managed to win four games I didn't think they would. None were huge upsets, and all but one were close games. Still, 4-2 beats 0-6 any day so the Cowboys get a "A" grade so far. Future: Things get a lot tougher from here. Wyoming will likely be barely bowl eligible at 6-6—or fall just short at 5-7.
  

Grade: A-

• Colorado State (3-3 vs. 1-5) - The Rams started 3-0, upsetting Colorado and winning two tossup games I had them narrowly losing pre-season. They lost to BYU and Utah as expected, but their upset at the hands of Idaho give them the A- instead of an A. Future: Hard to predict this team, and there are three more tossup games left on the schedule. Only a loss to TCU is certain; a 3-3 2nd half is likely, making the Rams 6-6 for the year.
  
• Indiana (3-3 vs. 1-5) - A promising 3-0 start became a 3-3 mid-season record, but the Hoosiers are still doing better than I thought they would. They should have won the game at Michigan, too. Future: The Hoosiers could beat Illinois, Northwestern, and Purdue to finish bowl-eligible at 6-6, but 5-7 seems more likely, with two home wins.
  
• Wisconsin (5-1 vs 3-3) - The Badgers have two extra wins, but over fading Michigan State and mediocre Minnesota. Still, they're playing at borderline top 25 level. Future: Key games are Iowa next week, then at Michigan. Wisconsin should finish 9-3, give or take a win.
  

Grade: B+

• Duke (3-3 vs. 2-4) - Last week's win over N.C. State put the Blue Devils up a game. Future: Duke has a chance—albeit slim—of getting the three wins they need for bowl eligibility.
  
• Brigham Young (5-1 vs. 4-2) - The big upset over Oklahoma is the only deviation from expectations so far, but the Cougars are playing better than I thought. Future: Beating Utah definitely looks more likely now, and a 10-2 finish is not out of the question.
  
• Army (3-3 vs. 1-5) - Army is playing about as well as I thought, but they've won two extra games, the latest a big upset over Vanderbilt. They also beat Eastern Michigan and Ball State, while losing the one game I thought they'd win (Tulane). Future: I'll keep the same projection—wins over VMI and North Texas—for the 2nd half of the year, leaving the Black Knights 5-7 for the year.
  
• South Carolina (5-1 vs. 3-3) - But for a narrow loss to Georgia the Gamecocks would be 6-0—and vastly overrated. Three of their wins have been very close, and overall they're about as good as I thought pre-season, which is, pretty average. Future: Two near-certain losses (Florida, Alabama) and four tossup games await South Carolina, who could go 0-6 or 4-2. I'd guess they'll finish 7-5.
  
• Mississippi State (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The record isn't that good, but the Bulldogs haven't fallen as far as I thought. Future: A tough road ahead, but I'd give them 1 or 2 more wins this year.
  
• Michigan (4-2 vs. 3-3) - Beating Notre Dame was the only deviation from expectations, but the Wolverines have shown more improvement than I anticipated. Future: I'll give them the win over Delaware State, sure, and probably two more Big Ten wins for a 7-5 finish.
  

Grade: B

• Tennessee (3-3 vs. 3-3) - The Vols haven't shown it in their record but they're a lot better than last year. They were supposed to beat UCLA but upsetting Georgia in a big way made up for that, and staying close to Florida was impressive. Future: UT isn't guaranteed bowl eligibility at this point; they could go 4-2 or 2-4. I'd guess 6-6 and a bowl game for Kiffin's first season.
  
• Central Michigan (5-1 vs. 4-2) - Beating Michigan State in a miracle finish put the Chippawas up a game. Future: A 5-1 finish with a MAC title isn't out of the question.
  
• Syracuse (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The Orange shown improvement and got an upset over Northwestern. Future: Any more wins—other than Akron—will have to be in upsets, too.
  
• Bowling Green (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The Falcons offset their loss to Ohio with a nail-biter win over Kent State, but it was their opening-game win over Troy that makes their season a winner so far despite a 2-4 start. Future: Almost every game from here on out is a tossup. So likely a 3-3 finish for a 5-7 season.
  
• Washington State (1-5 vs. 0-6) - Any win is a good win for the Cougars, even an overtime home win against SMU. Future: It's doubtful that they get any more.
  
• Oregon (5-1 vs. 4-2) - After a rough start—big loss to Boise State, bigger loss of LaGarrett Blount for the season (or maybe not?)—Oregon righted the ship and even improved on expectations with a 42-3 win over Cal. Future: The Pac-10 is so up in the air that I can't project the individual games; the Ducks could beat USC and lose to Washington. An 8-4 or 9-3 finish seems likely, though the potential for much better exists.
  

Grade: B-

• Alabama (6-0 vs. 5-1) - Alabama, a B-? They're playing the best football in the country! But with expectations of being a top ten team, and starting 5-1, a B- represents a small step above those expectations. Future: I had them 6-0 in the 2nd half of the season, so a 12-0 finish is not a stretch if they stay focused.
  
• Iowa (6-0 vs. 5-1) - The big win at Penn State tilted them to 6-0 from 5-1, but narrow wins over UNI and Arkansas State showed their offensive difficulties. Future: One of these days, the pick-6 is going to lose a game for the Hawkeyes. I see two losses among Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State. All are road games.
  
• Toledo (3-3 vs. 1-5) - Toledo's won two more games than I thought they would at this point, but is actually playing worse football. They beat struggling Ball State and FIU, and lost big to Western Michigan. But the upset of Colorado was a real surprise. Future: Probably still a 3-3 finish, leaving the Rockets 6-6 on the year.
  
• New Mexico State (3-3 vs. 2-4) - The Aggies had two easy wins on their schedule and lost one of them to Idaho, but narrow victories over New Mexico and Utah State were a pleasant surprise. Future: Ohio State and Boise State remain on the schedule, and only two home games. A 1-5 finish would be a success.
  
• Virginia Tech (5-1 vs. 5-1): They won every game they were supposed to and have been more impressive than the #25 ranking I first gave them. The win over Nebraska looks great with the 'Huskers at 5-1, and a 31-7 win over Miami was solid. Future: I first projected the Hokies at 10-2, and I'm sticking with it, though 11-1 isn't out of the question.
  
• Georgia Tech (5-1 vs. 4-2) - They beat FSU—barely—to put them above water for the season. Future: I'll stick with my original 10-2 for the Yellow Jackets, since Virginia Tech is playing so well. Even if they win that one there are many close calls remaining.
  
• LSU (5-1 vs. 4-2) - The Tigers are playing borderline top 25 football, just where I thought they'd be. They pulled out the game at Georgia with the help from a questionable penalty so they rank better than a "C". Future: They should still go 4-2 in the 2nd half, finishing 9-3 on the year.
  

Grade: C+

• Western Michigan (3-3 vs. 3-3) - They lost to Indina, but beat Toledo, and the defense is holding up a lot better than I thought it would after returning just 3 starters. Future: Several too-close-to-call games in their remaining schedule make a 3-3 finish likely, for a 6-6 record.
  
• Auburn (5-1 vs. 5-1) - This year's surprise team? Not so, as I mentioned before. Auburn is playing better than I thought, mainly on offense where they rank in the top ten. Future: The tough part of the season is next, and the Tigers should finish 7-5, 8-4 at best.
  
• Ohio State (5-1 vs. 5-1) - I had the Buckeyes #23 to start the year, and they've played almost at top ten quality (though the AP still overrates them). Future: I see one more loss, probably either Penn State or Iowa, for another 10-2 year.
  
• Air Force (3-3 vs. 4-2) - I thought the Falcons would beat Navy, and they lost 16-13. They played TCU very close, though, losing by 3, and playing better than I forecast so far this year. Future: Losses to BYU and Utah, wins over everyone else, for a 4-2 finish and 7-5 year.
  

Grade: C

• Iowa State (3-3) - Narrow losses to Kansas State and Kansas kept ISU on their expected path. Future: I'll stick with my original 4-8 projection.
  
• Boston College (4-2 vs. 3-3) - They're up one game (the win over FSU) but the offense has struggled in the losses. Future: A favorable schedule means they could finish 8-4 or better.
  
• Buffalo (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The Bulls haven't played well since upsetting UTEP to stay a game ahead of my projection. Future: The second half of the season is much kinder, schedule-wise. I had them going 6-0 in this stretch pre-season, but with their struggles so far and the many close games coming up it looks like 5-1 or 4-2 will be the reality. Still, bowl eligibility from 2-4 will feel good.
  
• Miami Ohio (0-6 vs. 0-6) - Nothing surprising here. Future: The second half is easier than the first, but there still might not be any wins. With luck, a game or two. I'd guess 1-11.
  
• Maryland (2-4 vs. 1-5) - While some are surprised at the Terps 2-4 start, I had them a game worse! And despite the 3-point upset over Clemson they're actually playing worse than even I thought they would. Future: With some unpredictable teams left on the slate, Maryland could win another game or two despite how poor they are.
  
• Memphis (2-4 vs. 1-5) - The Tigers just upset UTEP, but other than that they've been dismal. Future: They might get two more wins this year; 3-9 or 4-8.
  

Grade: C-

• Wake Forest (4-2 vs. 3-3) - They're a game up—thanks to the Stanfor win—but aren't getting it done on offense and the defense has slipped more than expected from last year. Future: Probably 7-5.
  
• Marshall (4-2 vs. 4-2) - The Herd season has played out just as expected. Future: The 2nd half is tougher; expect a 6-6 year, as I originally forecast.
  
• Pittsburgh (5-1 vs. 6-0) - The Panthers couldn't go undefeated with their easy schedule, losing to N.C. State. Future: Pitt still might match my 4-2 prediction for the 2nd half, finishing 9-3, but there are a lot of traps.
  
• Oregon State (4-2 vs. 4-2) - The Beavers aren't quite playing like the potential top 25 team I foresaw despite matching their expected record by beating Stanford after losing to Cincy. Future: They'll probably finish 7-5 as I originally thought.
  

Grade: D+

• Kent State (2-4 vs. 3-3) - The Golden Flashes couldn't even live up to my pre-season #97 ranking, losing to Bowling Green. Future: If they continue to lose the close games it could be bad, since there are many left on the schedule. They might not match my original low-end 4-8 projection.
  
• Minnesota (4-2 vs. 5-1) - The Gophers fell to Wisconsin, which isn't that embarrassing, but their wins haven't been convincing this year. Future: They could win their remaining home games and match my 7-5 projection, or go 6-6.
  
• North Carolina State (3-3 vs. 4-2) - They upset Pitt, but the Wolfpack dropped the opener to South Carolina and much worse, lost big to Duke last week. Future: My original pick of 5-7 might be excessive, as two of their wins are over I-AA foes.
  
• Northwestern (4-2 vs. 4-2) - Their win at Purdue didn't make up for the shocking loss to Syracuse. Future: They may match my original 6-6 forecast, but it's not guaranteed.
  
• Texas Tech (4-2 vs. 5-1) - I had the Raiders overrated at #8 pre-season, but only a last-minute loss at Houston kept them from matching their projection so far. Future: A long road ahead, with Nebraska and Texas A&M much tougher than expected, and no guaranteed wins. But I'm guessing they'll go 3-3 and finish at 7-5 which was the original cumulative projection.
  
• UNLV (2-4 vs. 3-3) - Poor defense has plagued the Rebels. Future: With Utah, TCU, and Air Force still to come, UNLV will be hard-pressed to match my original 5-7 prediction.
  

Grade: D

• Penn State (5-1 vs. 6-0) - It's not just the loss to Iowa—killing their national title hopes—that makes Penn State's season a disappointment so far, but overall the offense has looked very bad against an easy schedule. Future: They could still beat Ohio State at home and finish 11-1, but with their offense, there's bound to be another loss along the way. 10-2 is more likely.
  
• Purdue (1-5 vs. 3-3) - Losses to Northern Illinois and Northwester hurt the Boilermakers, who otherwise aren't playing much worse than expected. Future: I see many more close games, most of them losses, but Purdue should win a few of them.
  
• East Carolina (3-3 vs. 4-2) - Losing to SMU? Really? And while we're at it the Pirates' three wins have been by a total of 14 points. Future: Despite facing Virginia Tech, East Carolina should still be bowl eligible, and probably finish 7-5.
  
• UTEP (2-4 vs. 3-3) - Where did UTEP's offense come from in beating Houston 58-41? And where did it go next week against Memphis? Future: With an easy schedule coming up the Miners could still be bowl eligible despite problems with quality and consistency.
  
• Stanford (4-2 vs. 6-0) - Maybe a top 25 ranking was too high for the Cardinal, but they've played well enough to be there; bad breaks ruined a sure win at Wake Forest and Oregon State was a 50/50 proposition that they fell on the wrong side of. Future: The rest of the year is tougher, with Oregon, USC, and Notre Dame, but I still think they'll go 3-3 in some fashion and finish 7-5, the low end of my pre-season prognostication for the team.
  
• Kansas State (3-3 vs. 4-2) - They're only one game down—the loss at UL-Lafayette—from where they should be, but that includes two I-AA wins, a 1-point win at Iowa State, and a 66-14 beatdown at the hands of Texas Tech. Future: Their very slim chances at bowl eligibility are almost nil at this point as they'd have to go 5-1. 1-5 is more likely than that.
  
• North Carolina (4-2 vs. 5-1) - While the Tar Heels are only one game worse than I though, that one game was a doozy as they lost to Virginia 16-3. Their wins haven't been convincing either. The problem is a terrible offense that ranks in the bottom ten, offsetting a superb top ten defense. Future: The defense is good enough that another 4-2 run is possible, giving the Tar Heels an 8-4 record.
  

Grade: F

• Southern Miss (3-3 vs. 5-1) - It wasn't that I thought the Golden Eagles were that good—I had them #43 in the nation—but with such an easy schedule they should have done better. After three expected wins and a close loss at Kansas, Southern Miss dropped close games at UAB and Louisville, suggesting potential problems with tight games and road contests. Future: I'll give them one close road victory for a 3-3 finish and a 7-5 record, matching the original cumulative projection instead of the kinder 10-2 forecast.
  
• New Mexico (0-6 vs. 2-4) - I don't know which loss was worse: losing at home to rival New Mexico State in a close game, or getting blown out by Wyoming. Either way the Lobos have played some of the worst football of the year with their coach in turmoil. Future: I originally had them the favorite in three close games in the 2nd half of the season, but now a 0-12 year is a possibility.
  
• Michigan State (3-3 vs. 5-1) - The Spartans hit the skids with losses to Central Michigan, Notre Dame, and Wisconsin, but all those teams are 4-1 or 5-1 now. They recovered to beat Michigan and Illinois, but the damage is done. Future: They still have Rose Bowl hopes with only one conference loss and Iowa and Penn State at home, but they aren't playing at top 25 level. A 4-2 finish is likely, giving them a 7-5 record.
  
• Georgia (3-3 vs. 5-2) - This is what high expectations do to a team. And I didn't even have the Bulldogs in my pre-season top 25! (they were #26) After losing to Oklahoma State the Bulldogs had three unconvincing wins before losing a heartbreaker to LSU and a dealbreaker to Tennessee. Future: At best I see Georgia 7-5, and I doubt they'll miss bowl eligibility, but the team seems in disarray now so anything is possible.
  
• Rice (0-6 vs. 2-4) - Everyone knew Rice would be worse this year, but their offense took a bigger-than-expected dive while the defense, which returned 8 starters, might be the worst in the nation, allowing Navy to score 63 points. Future: Rice could still win the four games they were favored in pre-season, but they could lose them all if they don't improve. I'll give them two wins and a 2-10 finish.
  
• Florida State (2-4 vs. 6-0) - Really, there's no reason why the Seminoles shouldn't be 6-0 right now. And they actually came close. A catch vs. Miami, some energy against South Florida, a little luck against Boston College and Georgia Tech and Bobby Bowden would be sitting pretty instead of on the hot seat. Future: Key tight end Caz Piurowski is out for the year, team morale is low, and the tougher part of the season is coming up. FSU has the talent to beat five of the six remaining teams, but winning three is probably the best they'll do, meaning they'll likely finish with their first losing record in 33 years.
  
• Vanderbilt (2-4 vs. 4-2) - Losing at home to Mississippi State was bad enough, but they're an SEC opponent. Losing to Army? That's bad. Future: Vandy might only win one more game this year, and bowl-eligibility would take a miracle.
  
• Ball State (0-6 vs. 4-2) - No team has fallen as far this year as Ball State, from 6-0 to 0-6. Some decline was expected as they adjusted to life without Nate Davis and most of the rest of the offense, but the reality has been harsh. From the first losses to lowly North Texas and I-AA New Hampshire there was clearly a problem, and close losses to Army and Toledo were also disappointing. Future: The Cardinals shouldn't go winless as they have many opportunities remaining in their MAC schedule; they just have to win a close game, something they haven't done in four tries. It looks like a 2-10 year, quite a wrong-direction turnaround from last year.

Next week: The rest of the nation's teams, once they've played six games as well.

Are the "Blackshirts" back? Nebraska is tops on defense thru week 5

Near the middle of the 2007 season the Nebraska Cornhuskers' defensive unit literally took off its Blackshirts, refusing to don the shirts that the first-string defensive unit wears in practice, feeling that they weren't living up to the nickname. About a year later Bo Pelini decided to bring the black shirts back. But the team still gave up 371 points in 2008. Though the black shirts were back, the Blackshirts weren't really back.

Jump ahead to last week. When Iowa beat Arkansas State last week, you wouldn't think it would give Nebraska any boost in a power rating. It meant that Red Wolves fell to 1-3, joining 0-4 FAU and 2-2 ULM on the unimpressive list of Cornhusker victims. As a result, in power ratings based on winning and losing only—margin of victory not used—Nebraska doesn't look so hot, ranking just 41st in SportsRatings' Success power rating.

But if you use margin of victory, Nebraska shines, and Iowa's narrow 24-21 home win helped the Cornhuskers immensely—by re-evaluating the Red Wolves upward considerably and making Nebraska's 38-9 win look like more than just a Big Twelve team beating up on a helpless Sun Belt foe.

Combined with their narrow road loss to highly-rated Virginia Tech and two big blowouts, Nebraska currently ranks second to Florida in the SportsRatings' Strength power rating, and is even #1 in the 727-team cross-division power rating, both of which use margin of victory only (the former includes only games with FBS teams).

While this result—Nebraska as one of the top two teams in the country—is almost certainly premature given that they've only played four games, what's most interesting is where their strength is coming from: defense. It's an area that's been a sore spot for Nebraska for countless seasons. Just last year they finished #70 in scoring defense when adjusted for opposition, and in 2007 Nebraska gave up 455 points, nearly twice the high for any year in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Some time in the middle of this decade, lopsided losses stopped being a shock, with 07's 76-39 loss to Kansas being the low point for the defense.

But now Nebraska's defense is leading the way. The team ranks #1 in adjusted scoring allowed so far this year; the offense is doing well, too, ranking 10th. All of this is based on four games and still early in the season, but the performance is probably real: holding any three teams to single digits and keeping Virginia Tech to 16 at home is indicative of a strong defense.

I haven't run the adjusted numbers this year for rushing and passing yardage yet; in raw figures Nebraska ranks 23rd overall in yardage allowed, with their #10 red zone defense helping to keep the scoring down. When the team starts playing tougher competition regularly, we'll see if their stinginess in allowed scoring continues but based on the evidence so far it's probably not a fluke. They might not be #1, but there's no doubt the unit is far tougher than it's been in the recent past. This of course was one of the reasons Nebraska hired Pelini, a defensive specialist, to head the team.

The 2009 season is 1/3 over for Nebraska, and though most of the schedule has been light, the point count is only at 28. Perhaps the Blackshirts are really back for good?

How good is Auburn's 5-0 start, really?

Yahoo Sports has a Dan Wetzel article about the changing mood at Auburn to Gene Chizik, hired from Iowa State last year after a 5-19 stint.

Saturday night, inside Neyland Stadium, a few thousand Auburn fans were still screaming about Gene Chizik, only not in any way anyone thought possible nine months ago.

Auburn is 5-0 and ranked for the first time this year, but how good are the Tigers? And how good are they compared to where they were forecast to be?

To be sure, the Tigers deserve to be ranked, though their sudden jump into the polls at #17, 19, and 19 (AP/Coaches/Harris) is a bit outlandish for beating a Tennessee team that's now 2-3. Of their victims, only West Virginia has a winning record.

But according to objective power ratings, they're ranked fairly for how they're playing so far. The SportsRatings Strength power rating puts them at #19, and you can't argue with a 5-0 start, even if four of those wins came at home.

However, the team was expected to be 5-0 at this point in the season. And that's from a projection that has them finishing 7-5, meaning they might go 2-5 from this juncture. How will fans react to Chizik if that happens?

Auburn 2009 pre-season forecast
9/5	Sat	vs.	Louisiana Tech	64%	W
9/12	Sat	vs.	*Mississippi State	67%	W
9/19	Sat	vs.	West Virginia	53%	W
9/26	Sat	vs.	Ball State	59%	W
10/3	Sat	@	*Tennessee	51%	W
10/10	Sat	@	*Arkansas	46%	L
10/17	Sat	vs.	*Kentucky	63%	W
10/24	Sat	@	*Louisiana State	39%	L
10/31	Sat	vs.	*Mississippi	35%	L
11/7	Sat	vs.	Furman	77%	W
11/14	Sat	@	*Georgia	40%	L
11/28	Sat	vs.	*Alabama	35%	L
Favored: 7-5   Projected: 6-6

To the left is SportsRatings' pre-season projection for Auburn's 2009 campaign. Note that the first five games are slated as likely wins—though a few were considered near-tossups.

Auburn won those toss-ups and won most of their early games much more easily than expected. They were ranked #41 on our pre-season list, and have performed at top 25 quality.

The competition to this point hasn't been great, with Ball State in particular underperforming at 0-5. Coming up the Tigers face their biggest challenge at Arkansas, then have a very difficult schedule in the last five games of the year. Pre-season, we picked them to lose four of those last five en route to a 7-5 season. So while fans may be cheering Chizik now, we should wait until the end of the season before we declare that the fans have changed their minds about the hire.

As I wrote at the time "The Tigers should win their first four games and could win their first seven, but four of the last five are pretty certain defeats. The tossups are at Tennessee and at Arkansas; they might split those and be 6-1 in mid-October. A 7-5 finish won't feel very good after that." Auburn fans, then, have to realize that the 2nd half of the season isn't going to be so easy.

So what are Auburn's prospects? They've played better than expected, especially on offense. Currently their much-maligned offense is ranked #2 in the nation, surpassing anyone's expectations (probably even offensive coordinator Gus Malzahn's). The team ranks just #69 in scoring defense. After ranking #104 and #13 in offense and defense last year, this is an amazing turnaround. The defense's struggles more than likely are correlated to the offense's success as the former has to spend more time on the field.

The two wins originally projected (Kentucky, Furman) still stand, and the games projected as losses are still daunting. Arkansas is still a toss-up, LSU and Georgia on the road will be tough, and Mississippi and Alabama at home could both be losses.

Any games that have changed in outlook are more due to what the other teams have done, not Auburn. Mississippi hasn't looked like a top ten team, and based on the season so far Auburn might be a slight favorite to win that one at home. Georgia has slipped a little, making that road challenge a possible win. Their chances of beating LSU and Alabama are a bit better than they seemed in August.

If I had to guess I'd say the Tigers will finish 9-3, splitting Arkansas and Mississippi and winning Georgia, but still losing at LSU and against Alabama. 9-3 still means they finish the year 4-3, a good but not great finish that will still leave the fans that have decided to hate Chizik hating him. Only an 11-1 or 12-0 slate would change their minds, and I don't think that's in the works this year. But the possibility remains for them to end up 7-5.

Chizik stepped into a tough situation at Iowa State that was going to take some time to turn around, and right at the peak of the Big Twelve conference, too. He got hired because the people at Auburn knew him. Partly a "good ole boy" hiring, and partly because they'd seen first-hand the work that he could do. So far he's proven himself to be a decent recruiter and at the very least a coach that doesn't lose the games the team is supposed to win. The next few months will demonstrate whether he has his team ready to win some games his team isn't supposed to win. I wish Gene Chizik luck, both with his team and in dealing with his fans' high expectations—expectations he may have heightened by starting out 5-0.

AP Poll not free of inconsistencies, either

Dan Wetzel pointed out some ridiculous rankings courtesy of the USA/Coaches and Harris polls: namely, that 4-0 Iowa (#17, #14) is ranked lower than 3-1 Penn State (#13, #12) after beating them 21-10 in Happy Valley; and that Oregon (#25, #23) remains lower than Cal (#18, #21) despite crushing them 42-3 just days ago.

Those are pretty bad examples of inconsistencies in the polls. Teams with the same record, where team A has beaten Team B, should see Team A ranked higher in almost any conceivable case. If Team A has a better record, it's inexcusable (as in Iowa-Penn State) and if Team A has the same record and obliterated Team B, it's also inexcusable (as in Oregon's case).

These inconsistencies tend to resolve themselves eventually, either by the pollsters gradually correcting them or the teams themselves losing to make the problem moot. But the examples above are particularly egregious, and Wetzel rightly points out that the AP poll—not part of the BCS—does a better job than its BCS counterparts.

Of course, Wetzel is an anti-BCS, pro-playoff cheerleader, so he takes particular joy in pointing out the shortcomings of the system. But is the poll conducted his peers really that much better? Though they got Iowa-Penn State and Oregon-Cal right, here are some of the other problems I see in the most recent AP poll:

• #7 USC (3-1) lost 16-13 at unranked Washington (2-2) - This isn't a classic inconsistency as defined above; Washington has a worse record so they can be ranked lower. The trouble is that this early in the poll, a top ten team has a loss to an unranked foe. There are only two other teams in the poll with a loss to an unranked team. This is a case where voters look ahead and see a better future for the Trojans than they've encountered so far—and also a case where the poll got "trapped" because Ohio State was near the top ten, and they didn't want to move USC lower. Finally, it's a case of inertia and bias. USC has been in the top ten so long it's hard to believe they should ever fall out.
• #8 Oklahoma (2-1) lost 14-13 at home (essentially) to #20 BYU (3-1) - This result *is* a classic inconsistency, and a pretty big one at 12 slots. The reasons for this ranking include bias (Oklahoma is a major BCS program, BYU is in the Mountain West), mitigation of BYU's win (Bradford got hurt), dismissal of the result due to close score, and most of all, counting more recent results (BYU's loss to FSU) as more important. The latter comes from simply moving teams up and down the rungs week to week, as pollsters in all the polls do.
• #21 Mississippi (2-1) lost 16-10 to unranked South Carolina (3-1) - Voters are assuming that the Gamecocks' win is a fluke, and that the teams will re-order themselves soon enough. That must be what they were assuming a few weeks ago when undefeated Houston was behind victim Oklahoma State. Now that Houston beat Texas Tech, they've grudgingly put the Cougars ahead of the Cowboys. But South Carolina doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, despite only losing to #18 Georgia 41-37.
• #20 BYU (3-1) lost to FSU; unranked South Florida (4-0) beat FSU - This is getting into the transitive property, which often fails in predicting future winners but should be looked at in certain cases when ranking teams—the main case being when an undefeated team is involved. If BYU can lose to FSU 52-38 at home, and undefeated USF can beat FSU 17-7 on the road, shouldn't South Florida be ranked ahead of the Cougars? I would think so. They aren't, though, since USF wasn't in the poll last week and pollsters are reluctant to put them in after Matt Grothe was lost for the season, thinking they won't last; BYU's win over Oklahoma keeps them in the poll; and nobody likes the Big East this year.

These kinds of inconsistencies are exactly the type of thing I do my best to avoid when making the Sportsratings subjective Top 25. The order of teams may vary quite a bit from what you see in the other polls (especially early on), but they won't violate the principles I've noted above, unless it's basically unavoidable (Team A beats Team B beats Team C beats Team A, for example).

Ultimately this all doesn't matter too much since the polls tend to reorganize pretty well by the time bowl games are picked, but fans are annoyed when they beat a team only to see that team still ranked ahead of them if the records are comparable. Everyone has biases, and only through the use of some sound principles can we be sure we aren't favoring certain teams for the wrong reason—usually laziness.

Week Three Previews, Odds, and Predictions; the five (or seven) best games

Week three should make up for a week two bereft of strong matchups.

1. Game of the Week: #7 Texas Tech (2-0) at #2 Texas (2-0)
   Vegas line/spread: Texas by 17 1/2
   Analysis: It's probably unfair to judge Texas Tech by this game. The Longhorns will be out for revenge in Austin and the result will likely confirm in most people's minds that the Red Raiders are not a top 25 team. I have them ranked very high and regardless of the outcome they'll stay in the top 25. But Taylor Potts is in his third start to Colt McCoy's 1,000th and Tech's two wins didn't suggest they belong in the top ten while Texas rolled (eventually) in both of their victories. The only thing that might keep this one close is the very fact that nothing is expected of the Raiders; they have the element of surprise, and if ULM can score 20 on the Longhorns then they should put up at least that much, right?
   Prediction: Texas 45, Texas Tech 20
    
2. Below-the-Radar Game of the Week: #8 Arizona (2-0) at #12 Iowa (2-0)
   Vegas line/spread: Iowa by 5
   Analysis: A game that's getting less notice than it should. Arizona's win over Central Michigan looked a lot better once the latter upset Michigan State. And Iowa, the fashionable upset pick last week, instead kicked butt at Iowa State. While I don't expect either of these teams to appear in the AP top 10—Arizona has major quarterback issues while Iowa edged I-AA Northern Iowa by the slimmest of slim margins—the winner really should be in the top 25 at 3-0. Since it's in Iowa City I'm sticking with my pre-season pick for the Hawkeyes; the Wildcats will have to sneak up on someone else.
   Prediction: Iowa 27, Arizona 24
    
3. Most Complicating Game of the Week: #25 Florida State (1-1) at #11 BYU (2-0)
   Vegas line/spread: BYU by 7 1/2
   Analysis: If the Seminoles win this one, it potentially wreaks havoc with my subjective (and supposedly logic-based) Top 25. In that case, FSU will be ahead of BYU, who beat Oklahoma. With a Miami loss to Georgia Tech, the Hurricanes will still be ahead of FSU, meaning they'll have to jump the Sooners despite losing. Though I don't have much confidence in Florida State after seeing them struggle to the very end against Jacksonville State while BYU cruised to a second impressive win, I'm sure the football gods will do what they have to to make things difficult for me.
   Prediction: FSU 31, BYU 28
    
4. Best Thursday Night Georgia Tech Game This Week: #19 Georgia Tech (2-0) at #18 Miami (1-0)
   Vegas line/spread: Miami by 5 1/2
   Analysis: The Yellow Jackets beat Jacksonville State 37-17, while Florida State beat the same team just 19-9 on two very late scores. So if we compare Tech and Miami solely via transitive scores against a division I-AA team it doesn't look good for Miami. Normally I wouldn't do that but as noted above, a Miami loss messes up my top 25's continuity, so it has to happen. For real analysis, we could note that Miami looked much better trained against the option so far. Last year's game was devastating to the Miami D; they should do better this year, but the game is still a tossup.
   Prediction: Georgia Tech 27, Miami 24 (OT)
    
5. Throwing a Bone to the AP Poll: Nebraska (2-0) at Virginia Tech (1-1)
   Vegas line/spread: Virginia Tech by 5
   Analysis: These two teams are in the AP top 25 (at #19 and #13) but Virginia Tech started at #25 in ours and fell out after losing to Alabama, while the Cornhuskers weren't close to the top 25 pre-season. The winner of this game has the inside track to making the SportsRatings rankings, but will in our opinion be necessarily overrated in the AP. If Nebraska wins we won't really know what to think of them unless they stay undefeated through the October 17 Texas Tech game, and even then to really prove themselves they'd have to beat Oklahoma on November 7th. Both of those contests are at home, giving Nebraska a chance to have a really good year—if they're actually a good team, which has yet to be seen. Virginia Tech has Miami next week, and Georgia Tech and North Carolina in October, so if they're the real deal they have no shortage of chances to prove it.
   Prediction: Virginia Tech 33, Nebraska 20
    
6. Honorable Mention Top 5 Game: #1 Florida (2-0) vs. Tennessee (1-1)
   Vegas line/spread: Florida by 29 1/2
   Analysis: Tennessee couldn't even make this one interesting by coming in undefeated. The Gators could have gotten overconfident given the spread and expectations, but they'll want to rip Lane Kiffin a new one for dissing Urban Meyer in the pre-season. I assigned Tennessee a 0% chance of winning this game in the pre-season and nothing's changed to give them hope, except perhaps the 3 field goals that Florida has given up so far mean they might not get shut out. Kiffin's mouth ruined any chance for a trap game set up by the Vols' loss to UCLA. Sometimes it's fun just to watch coaches like him get smacked around a bit.
   Prediction: Florida 59, Tennessee 7
    
7. Consolation Prize Game of the Week: Michigan State (1-1) at Notre Dame (1-1)
   Vegas line/spread: Notre Dame by 10
   Analysis: Both of these teams suffered unfortunate losses, and one of them is going to be stuck at 1-2 to start the year. Both of them could still have great seasons but it will be demoralizing for the loser. One question: why on earth is the line so high? I know it's at Notre Dame but I consider this a neutral-field toss-up. Maybe the Irish are finally ready to break the string of losses to MSU at home? Maybe the Irish will feel they're at a "crossroads" for the season, while the Spartans will be in a funk. Pre-season I picked this as one of Notre Dame's two losses, but I guess mentally the Irish will be served well by a home game while Michigan State's mentality has to be negative. Still I'm taking the Spartans against the spread. When the line seems out of whack, though, that's when games tend to fall on the other side of expectations...Vegas seems to be hinting at an Irish blowout win.
   Prediction: Notre Dame 32, Michigan State 27

FBS vs. FCS: Which I-A schools did the best, worst?

This weekend 38 Division I-A (FBS) teams took on I-AA (FCS) schools. With 12-games schedules this is becoming more common, making it harder for the casual fan to know if their team did well or not. After all, who keeps track of all the Division I-AA teams? Here's a guide to which teams did the best and the worst against their Championship Subdivision foes.

The Winners

These teams exceeded expectations the most:

1. Air Force (beat Nicholls State 72-0). Nicholls State isn't a I-AA power; they finished 3-6 in a hurricane-shortened season last year. But they aren't the worst by a long shot, and Air Force simply ripped them a new one. A four or five touchdown margin wouldn't have been unexpected, but ten? That's what Florida was supposed to do to Charleston Southern! This win bodes well for Air Force's offense and defense. The biggest concern on defense was the rushing defense, and they held the Colonels to 2 yards per carry. Nicholls State runs a similar offense to Air Force, so it's not all that surprising that the Falcon defense shut it down, but the overall performance is encouraging.
2. Fresno State (beat UC Davis 51-0). An impressive shutout by the Bulldogs. Davis was a poor road team last year but offensively they have promise. But Fresno State contained their passing game and stuffed the run while firing on all cylinders offensively. New quarterback Ryan Colburn performed well, too.
3. Boston College (beat Northeastern 54-0). Another shutout, though this one was more expected; Northeastern's offense isn't great and it showed. But B.C.'s pass defense looked good so far, and that's one of their main concerns. Offensively the big question was who could play quarterback for the Eagles, and both candidates did well. Again, Boston College was supposed to win comfortably over the 2-10 Huskies, but a dominant shutout shows that they're taking all games seriously.
4. Houston (beat Northwestern State 55-7). Northwestern State, though 7-5 last year, wasn't much better than Northeastern. But they had nine starters back on defense and should have at least provided some test for Houston. No rust here, though: the Cougars racked up over 400 yards passing and Case Keenum threw for four touchdowns. The defensive performance was even better, suggesting that things might not be as bad as expected (they returned only four starters to a poor 2008 unit). As expected the rushing defense was shaky (allowing four yards per play), but the pass D was pretty good allowing just over 100 yards. 
5. South Florida (beat Wofford 40-7). Wofford, 10th in the pre-season FCS poll, evened the score at 7-7 early and it looked like might give the Bulls even more trouble than expected. But USF got serious and then blew away the Terriers. 
6. UNLV (beat Sacramento State 38-3). The Rebel offense led by Omar Clayton did about exactly as expected against the Hornets, but the questionable defense did a great job in keeping their opponent out of the end zone. 

The Losers

These teams didn't look good, casting doubt on their 2009 campaign:

1. Louisville (beat Indiana State 30-10). The Sycamores were 0-12 last year and already 0-1 this year, having lost to a NAIA team. Louisville should have scored 50 points on this team effortlessly. New QB Justin Burke threw two interceptions.
2. Virginia (lost to William & Mary 26-14). The Cavaliers faced a good I-AA team, no doubt, and I had them pegged 10th in the ACC, so the loss isn't shocking. But Virginia was scoreless in the 2nd half and the game wasn't close at the end. Jameel Sewell threw three interceptions and the new offense didn't work very well after the first series. It makes me question whether the Cavs can get even the two ACC wins I had them apportioned this year.
3. Iowa (beat Northern Iowa 17-16). UNI is one of the best teams in the FCS, and maybe their performance shows that they're ready to win a title. But it also shows some serious shortcomings of the Hawkeyes. The ground game lost Shonn Greene to the NFL and Jewel Hampton to knee injury and couldn't get going. QB Ricky Stanzi was erratic as usual. The Hawks dodged a bullet by blocked two straight field goal attempts. UNI is an in-state rival but never gave them trouble before; what happens when they have to meet actual rival Iowa State in Ames next week?
4. Texas Tech (beat North Dakota 38-13). Everyone knew the offense would come down from its lofty heights minus Harrell and Crabtree, but the Raiders led just 28-13 in the fourth quarter. Taylor Potts threw the ball well except when he was getting intercepted three times.
5. Georgia Tech (beat Jacksonville State 37-17). What is it with the Yellow Jackets and FCS teams? They beat Gardner-Webb last year just 10-7. This one wasn't nearly that bad, but the team had five fumbles and when the starters left the team stalled. Jacksonville State is a good team and the Wreck were up 31-7 at the half, but if they're going to compete for the ACC title the reserves have to be ready too.
6. Oregon State (beat Portland State 34-7). Portland State was 4-7 last year; Oregon State beat USC last year. I would expect the Beavers to beat Washington by this score. 
7. Central Florida (beat Samford 28-24). I'm not high on UCF this year but they should have beaten Samford by more than 4 points, needing a fourth quarter score to go ahead.
8. West Virginia (beat Liberty 33-20). Post-Pat White, things were going to change. Liberty's a good I-AA team, but without kicker Tyler Bitancurt performing so well the Mountaineers would have had a real game on their hands.
9. Florida (beat Charleston Southern 62-3). Yes they won, yes they dominated, no I don't expect them to try to score more than 62 points. But the defense didn't look like the best defense ever, which was what was expected. Charleston Southern actually confused them at times in the first half. The outcome doesn't suggest there's anything wrong with Florida, who can be forgiven for not taking this game seriously. But they didn't beat the spread, be it 73 or 63 points.
10. Kansas State (beat UMass 21-17). The Wildcats build a 21-3 lead and almost let the game get away from them. Not a great start to Snyder Era II.
11. Indiana (beat Eastern Kentucky 19-13). The Hoosiers got the win, and that's what's important, because they might not see much more of that. Especially after doing the bare minimum needed to garner the only easy win on their schedule.
12. Southern Methodist (beat Stephen F. Austin 31-23). The Lumberjacks were 4-8 last year and SMU is supposed to be better in June Jones' second year. Yet the Mustangs needed fourth-quarter scores to overcome a 23-14 deficit. 
13. Temple (lost to Villanova 27-24). Villanova was #5 in the pre-season FCS poll so this game was no gimme and no major upset. But it was a home game for the Owls, and losing this one suggests they won't be a MAC contender and perhaps no better than last year.

Big 12 is the Best Conference in 2008

Despite their lackluster bowl performance, the Big Twelve comes out the best conference from top to bottom in 2008 using a round-robin matchup rating approach.

No one agrees with on a perfect method for deciding which conference is best; some look at the top teams, some for a lack of bad teams; Jeff Sagarin uses "central mean" that overweights teams in the middle of the conference. The basic problems is that conferences have different numbers of teams, making direct comparisons between them difficult. Taking an "average" of the teams, or using the "median" team is unsatisfying.

I use a hypothetical "round-robin" system that pits every team from Conference A against every team from Conference B. The conference that "wins" the most wins that round. Then each conference has a "record" of 10 rounds, and the conferences are ranked by this "record."

This way the top teams in a conference contribute to its success, but no more than they deserve. Having bad teams hurts them, but it doesn't pull them down the way averaging does.

Some points to remember about these conclusions:

1. No actual inter-conference game results are used.

   It's all based on hypothetical outcomes from how the teams rank in my power ratings. All games that were played this year go into the pot for the power rating. The teams are ranked 1 to 120 and that forms the basis for results. There are not enough actual inter-conference results to form good conclusions about the relative strength of conferences; the Mountain West's 6-2 record against the Pac 10 doesn't mean the MWC is better than the PAC 10, it only reflects the performance of the teams involved, and the fact that upsets can occur.

2. The evaluation of the conferences is for the 2008 season only.

   The ACC's historical record against the Big Ten is irrelevant, and the fact that SEC teams have won the championship the last three years is irrelevant, too. So, too, is the number of NFL players from each conference, since no players from this season are in the NFL (yet).

3. All teams in a conference contribute to its results.

   Thus Florida's capturing the national championship this year does not give the SEC any additional advantage, other than having a team that will project to beat anyone else. It doesn't help Mississippi State do any better in their matchups.

Now the conference rankings, with their "record" against the other 10 conferences in parens, with their overall percentage in all comparisons following:

1. Big 12 (10-0) 72.2%
2. Pac 10 (9-1) 62.6%
3. ACC (8-2) 67.9%
4. SEC (7-3) 66.3%
5. Big East (6-4) 57.1%
6. Big Ten (5-5) 63.0%
7. Mtn. West (4-6) 48.2%
8. C-USA (3-7) 33.3%
9. MAC (2-8) 26.5%
10. WAC (1-9) 25.3%
11. Sun Belt (0-10) 18.6%

Before discussing the more suprising results, it should be noted that the conferences with the best record against other conferences are not necessarily the best in overall percentage. The percentages represent all the matchups against all other teams; some conferences beat other conferences very narrowly. The Pac 10 "beat" the SEC by two matchups and the Big Ten by one, despite having a lower overall percentage than both. By pure percentages, the Pac 10 would fall to fifth, the Big Ten would be fourth, and the Big East sixth. But we're comparison conference to conference, winner take all.

RESULTS

The Big 12 ends up #1. Last year's 2nd best conference, many of its teams improved dramatically: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, and Baylor were all much better while Oklahoma made it to the championship this year and Missouri was still a top 25 team. The rest of the conference slipped, but not as much as the top teams gained.

Surprise: The Pac 10 finished second despite having the handicap of Washington and Washington State, who lost in nearly every other comparison they were involved in among the BCS conferences. The league recovered by having USC, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, and Arizona rating decently, while even Stanford was not bad this year. The comparisons worked out well enough for them to just slip past a few other leagues that had better teams on average. Each game only counts for 1 point, so the Washington teams can only hurt them so much.

Another surprise: The ACC is the real league where each team had a challenge every week; there were no breathers in the conference this year. You could argue that the ACC had no top 25 teams, or you could make a case for about eight of its teams. The worst teams in the league were merely average I-A teams. As a result, when cross-comparing with other conferences, the whole league would lose to most conferences' top teams, but all 12 teams would beat the entire bottom half of the other BCS conferences. If you rank conferences by their best teams, the ACC would be sixth or seventh at best; by their worst teams, they'd be #1 for sure.

The SEC only finishes fourth, losing head-to-head against the Big 12, Pac 10, and ACC. From last year's best conference, the SEC has seen several of its teams drop in quality: LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, and Mississippi State are all unarguably inferior to their 2007 teams, and by quite a bit. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi were the only teams than significantly improved.

The Big East edged the Big Ten by one game in the head-to-head results, giving them fifth place.

No surprise that the Mountain West finished seventh. They made a lot of noise early for upsetting a number of Pac 10 teams, and for having Utah, TCU, and BYU among their ranks. But that's pretty much all they have: three good teams and a few other upsets. Beyond the top three and a decent Air Force team, the rest of the league looks like most non-BCS conferences: poor.

But not as poor as the four remaining conferences. The C-USA has some ok teams among its 12 members, the MAC less so among its 13, and the bulk of teams are not very good. The WAC has Boise State, Nevada (being kind) and no one else. The Sun Belt, of course, is still the low watermark for Division I-A conferences, with only Troy being respectable in quality. A few of their teams pulled upsets, too, but it's only an upset because your team wasn't ever expected to win, and most of the time, these teams don't.

Best defense of 2008: Where does USC rank all-time?

The 2008 USC Trojans were dominant on defense: they shut out three of their opponents, held three more to a field goal, two more to a touchdown, and two more to just 10 points. One of those held to a field goal was Ohio State; Oregon, which finished with the #3 scoring offense in 2008, was held to 10 points.

So where does USC rank all-time? Before the Rose Bowl the commentators remarked that USC was, at that point, the all-time best when their average points allowed was subtracted from the average game score for the year. I'll look at that measure, adjusted for competition of course, in a bit.

First, here are the top ten defenses of 2008:

Top defenses, 2008 football season
#   Team                       record   adj. ave      
 1. Southern Cal                12-1     6.71 [  1]
 2. Florida                     13-1     8.33 [  2]
 3. TCU                         11-2     9.87 [  3]
 4. Ohio State                  10-3    11.88 [  4]
 5. Texas                       12-1    11.89 [  5]
 6. Penn State                  11-2    13.29 [  6]
 7. Iowa                         9-4    13.42 [  7]
 8. Alabama                     12-2    14.70 [  8]
 9. Boise St                    12-1    14.80 [  9]
10. Wake Forest                  8-5    16.37 [ 10]

USC allowed just 6.7 points per game, adjusted for their competition. Their raw average was exactly 9 points per game, up from 7.75 before the bowl game. But they played a tougher-than-average schedule, as does almost every BCS conference team, especially one that goes to a BCS bowl game. Their adjusted average stayed almost exactly the same after the Rose Bowl as holding Penn State to 24 isn't bad at all.

Florida's strong showing against top offense Oklahoma boosted them to #2. #3 TCU held Boise State to 16 points and #4 Ohio State held Texas to 24 points, their lowest total of the year.

#5 Texas and #6 Penn State had solid defenses to go with their offenses; the Nittany Lions' performance against USC didn't affect them much as USC has a top ten offense. #7 Iowa and #10 Wake Forest built their winning seasons on defense as they didn't have nearly as much to offer on offense, while Alabama and Boise State had more but were still defense-oriented teams.

In terms of yardage, TCU ranked slightly better than USC, mainly due to their extremely stingy rushing defense.

Rank Team                         Rec   Total[rank] Rush[rank]  Pass[rank]
  1. TCU                         11-2   201.9[  1]   43.6[  1]  158.2[  5]
  2. Southern Cal                12-1   224.9[  2]   85.8[  6]  139.0[  1]
  3. Florida                     13-1   267.1[  3]   99.2[ 15]  167.9[  8]
  4. Alabama                     12-2   270.5[  4]   71.5[  2]  198.9[ 35]
  5. South Carolina               7-6   284.8[  5]  109.9[ 20]  174.8[ 10]
  6. Tennessee                    5-7   285.4[  6]   99.0[ 14]  186.4[ 21]
  7. Connecticut                  8-5   288.3[  7]  112.3[ 23]  176.0[ 12]
  8. Utah                        13-0   288.7[  8]   91.1[ 11]  197.6[ 34]
  9. Texas                       12-1   292.9[  9]   82.9[  5]  210.0[ 51]
 10. Ohio State                  10-3   293.0[ 10]  112.5[ 25]  180.4[ 14]

The Trojans were second and Florida third, with many of the teams from the scoring defense list joined by South Carolina, Tennessee, and Connecticut.

Back to scoring defense, let's look at how USC ranks for the decade:

Top defenses 2000-2008 seasons (uncorrected for year played)
#   Year Team                  record   adj. ave      
 1. 2000 Florida State           11-2    6.54 [  1]
 2. 2008 Southern Cal            12-1    6.71 [  1]
 3. 2005 Ohio State              10-2    7.26 [  1]
 4. 2001 Miami (Florida)         12-0    7.54 [  1]
 5. 2003 Louisiana State         13-1    7.74 [  1]
 6. 2008 Florida                 13-1    8.33 [  2]
 7. 2004 Southern Cal            13-0    8.80 [  1]
 8. 2002 Kansas State            11-2    9.27 [  1]
 9. 2000 Oklahoma                13-0    9.56 [  2]
10. 2002 Ohio State              14-0    9.61 [  2]

USC ranks #2 among teams from this decade, with Florida coming in at #6. Florida State's 2000 team that lost to Oklahoma in the national championship game. Their raw average was just over 10 points, but they held 11 of their 13 opponents to 14 points or fewer, and faced many of the year's best offenses. Note that two of USC's shutouts were Washington and Washington State and that's what probably gives 2000 FSU the edge.

Let's see what happens if we include all the teams from the 80s and 90s as well:

Top defenses 1980-2008 seasons (uncorrected for year played)
#   Year Team                   record   adj. ave     
 1. 1985 Michigan                10-1-1  1.87 [  1]
 2. 1980 Florida State           10-2    3.13 [  1]
 3. 1991 Miami FL                12-0    3.87 [  1]
 4. 1980 Alabama                 10-2    4.16 [  2]
 5. 1980 Nebraska                10-2    4.17 [  3]
 6. 1991 Washington              12-0    4.56 [  2]
 7. 1983 Miami FL                11-1    4.67 [  1]
 8. 1980 Southern California      8-2-1  4.80 [  4]
 9. 1986 Oklahoma                11-1    4.81 [  1]
10. 1988 Miami FL                11-1    4.84 [  1]

...and the 2008 Trojans have disappeared from the list ; as have the Seminoles and everyone else from this decade. The 1980 Trojans are on the list, though; apparently, 1980 was a really good year for defense, with four teams on the list. Or could that be a result of lower scoring in those days? To correct for rule changes and other things that can boost or quell scoring, we subtract the year's average game score from the team's adjusted average defensive score.

Top offenses 1980-2008 seasons (standardized for year played)
#   year Team              rec    adj. ave    year's ave   difference
1.  1985 Michigan          10-1-1  1.87 [  1]   22.26        20.39
2.  2008 Southern Cal      12-1    6.71 [  1]   26.34        19.63
3.  2000 Florida State     11-2    6.54 [  1]   25.74        19.20
4.  1991 Miami FL          12-0    3.87 [  1]   23.04        19.17
5t  2001 Miami FL          12-0    7.54 [  1]   26.56        19.02
5t  2005 Ohio State        10-2    7.26 [  1]   26.28        19.02
7.  1996 Ohio State        11-1    6.60 [  1]   25.46        18.86
8.  1988 Miami FL          11-1    4.84 [  1]   23.66        18.82
9.  2003 Louisiana State   13-1    7.74 [  1]   26.24        18.50
10. 1991 Washington        12-0    4.56 [  2]   23.04        18.48

This gives a much more balanced view of the relative performance across decades. Michigan's 1985 team still has the best season. In a year when the average score was over 22 points, the Wolverines allowed an incredible 1.87 points when adjusted for competition. They allowed 8.2 points per game in raw numbers, but that included playing Nebraska, Ohio State, and the year's number one offense, Iowa, whom they held to 12 points. Beyond that they had three shutouts and seven opponents held to single digits.

This year's USC places second, a bit ahead of 2000 FSU; the average score this year was about 0.6 points higher than in 2000, pushing USC above the Seminoles as the best defense of the decade. Two undefeated Miami teams, from 1991 and 2001, follow at 4th and 5th, with the latter tied with Ohio State's 2005 squad. Another Buckeye team follows, and then a third Hurricane defense at #8. LSU's BCS title team from 2003 and Washington—the second undefeated team from 1991—rounds out the top ten.

So USC can fairly argue they had the best defense in college football this decade, and over the last 20+ years. If you look from the 1940s on, or even more severely, the 1870s on, the defensive numbers almost become meaningless, with negative averages due to the best teams racking up very high score and garnering 10 or more shutouts, so we'll have to stick the the last few decades.

Are the 2008 Florida Gators really one of the best teams in college football history?

Urban Meyer believes—and columnist Tom Dienhart agrees—that the 2008 Florida Gators should go down as one of the best teams in college football history.

Can a team with a loss be considered one of the best teams of all time? Dienhart's article is scant on supportive arguments, the basic idea put forth is that Florida played 11 bowl team this season. And they did beat 10 of them, largely because nearly the entire SEC went to a bowl. Here are their bowl team wins, in order of most to least impressive:

• = #5 Oklahoma (12-2) 24-14
• = #6 Alabama (12-2) 31-20
• = #14 Georgia (10-3) 49-10
  
• @ Florida State (9-4) 45-15
• LSU (8-5) 51-21
• Kentucky (7-6) 63-5
• @ Vanderbilt (7-6) 42-14 
• Miami FL (7-6) 26-3
• South Carolina (7-6) 56-6
• Hawaii (7-7) 56-10

Though Florida's schedule was solid, 68 out of 120 teams going to bowls so it isn't as impressive as it sounds. They only beat three top-notch teams, only two of the ten wins were strictly road games, and five of the ten were 7-6 or worse. Does that offset losing a game at home to 9-4 Mississippi?

In terms of magnitude, a majority of their wins were impressive. They beat eight bowl teams by 23 points or more, four of them by 45 or more. This was part of Meyer's argument: "Look at their scores, look at the offense, look at the balance, look at the defense, and it's all relative. That offense … nine of our opponents finished in the top 25 in defense. A lot of people overlook that. Same thing defensively. Our defense finished in the top five in America playing the schedule we play. … They've got my vote as one of the best teams in history."

It's true, 2008 Florida was a balanced team, finishing #2 in adjusted scoring offense and #2 in adjusted scoring defense. They indeed finish #1 in score-margin based power ratings, but some consideration must be given for winning, as they finish #2 to unbeaten Utah in most power ratings where winning vs. losing is paramount.

We can probably assume that any modern team that wins the national championship is one of the best in history in real terms; with bigger, stronger players, you can argue that a modern champ could beat any team at least through the 60s, and maybe through the 80s or even the 90s. But looked at in relative terms, the argument gets tougher. Setting aside that question, I looked at my power ratings to compare 2008 Florida just to the teams of this decade: how do they rank among teams from 2000-2008?

Here are the top 25 teams from 2000-2008 in my Overall power rating, which combines the Strength rating (score margin-based) and Success rating (win-loss based) to output the teams that have been the most dominant during individual games as well as the entire season. The numbers in brackets are the team's rank within their own year.

rnk   Yr Team                   record    Overall    Strength    Success
  1. '04 Southern California     13-0    68.22 [ 1]  36.02 [ 1]  32.19 [ 1]
  2. '05 Texas                   13-0    68.21 [ 1]  40.99 [ 1]  27.22 [ 1]
  3. '01 Miami FL                12-0    60.63 [ 1]  39.26 [ 1]  21.36 [ 1]
  4. '08 Florida                 13-1    58.46 [ 1]  38.05 [ 1]  20.40 [ 2]
  5. '00 Oklahoma                13-0    57.15 [ 1]  29.91 [ 3]  27.23 [ 1]
  6. '00 Miami FL                11-1    49.55 [ 2]  33.69 [ 2]  15.85 [ 3]
  7. '02 Ohio State              14-0    49.24 [ 1]  19.70 [ 9]  29.54 [ 1]
  8. '04 Auburn                  13-0    48.33 [ 2]  22.94 [ 7]  25.38 [ 2]
  9. '05 Southern California     12-1    48.00 [ 2]  37.31 [ 2]  10.69 [ 3]
 10. '08 Oklahoma                12-2    47.28 [ 2]  36.15 [ 2]  11.13 [ 5]
 11. '01 Florida                 10-2    46.99 [ 2]  35.33 [ 2]  11.65 [ 3]
 12. '06 Florida                 13-1    46.12 [ 1]  22.49 [ 5]  23.62 [ 1]
 13. '08 Southern California     12-1    45.48 [ 3]  33.93 [ 3]  11.54 [ 4]
 14. '03 Louisiana State         13-1    44.87 [ 1]  29.10 [ 2]  15.76 [ 1]
 15. '08 Texas                   12-1    44.86 [ 4]  31.02 [ 4]  13.84 [ 3]
 16. '00 Florida State           11-2    44.23 [ 3]  35.36 [ 1]   8.87 [ 6]
 17. '02 Southern California     11-2    41.70 [ 2]  30.91 [ 2]  10.78 [ 5]
 18. '02 Kansas State            11-2    41.13 [ 3]  33.43 [ 1]   7.70 [ 7]
 19. '04 Oklahoma                12-1    39.93 [ 3]  25.64 [ 5]  14.29 [ 3]
 20. '08 Utah                    13-0    39.93 [ 5]  19.04 [10]  20.89 [ 1]
 21. '02 Oklahoma                12-2    39.79 [ 4]  27.59 [ 3]  12.19 [ 4]
 22. '00 Washington              11-1    39.65 [ 4]  19.41 [ 9]  20.24 [ 2]
 23. '02 Miami FL                12-1    39.20 [ 5]  26.02 [ 4]  13.18 [ 2]
 24. '04 Utah                    12-0    38.89 [ 4]  25.92 [ 4]  12.97 [ 4]
 25. '06 Southern California     11-2    38.74 [ 2]  25.22 [ 2]  13.52 [ 4]

This season's Florida squad really does rate pretty well, finishing fourth among the teams of this decade. If you consider the past nine years to essentially encapsulate the best teams of all time, then Meyer is right. The teams of the 70s, 80s, and 90s would argue that assumption, of course.

The only teams that rank ahead of Florida are USC from 2004, Texas from 2005, and 2001 Miami, all undefeated national champions; the 2008 Gators rank ahead of undefeated champs 2000 Oklahoma (#5) and 2002 Ohio State (#7), and well ahead of LSU's two champs from 2003 (#14) and 2007 (not in the top 25). They also rank ahead of the 2006 Gators that went a similar 13-1 and beat Ohio State in the final two years ago. The 2001 team that went 10-2 is also ranked ahead of the 2006 team, as they rate much better in terms of strength.

USC dominates the chart with five teams listed including the #1 and this season's team at #13. Oklahoma doesn't do bad for itself with four teams including the 2008 squad at #10. Miami has three teams listed, all from 2000 to 2002, a champion and two that finished second in the polls.

2008 was a good year for college football, with five teams making the list. Along with Florida, Oklahoma, and USC, Texas came in at #15 and Utah at #20. Both the Longhorns and the Utes had two teams in the top 25, Texas well below their 2005 team, and Utah just barely above the 2004 team, who ranked much better in Strength but whose schedule in their 12-0 season didn't give them nearly as many points in Success as the 2008 team garnered. No teams from 2007 made the list.

Now let's put aside Florida's loss to Mississippi, in a way. The Strength component of the power rating does not care if a team won or lost a game, it only cares about the score of games. So losing a game per sé does not matter at all, except that you won't have the most dominant score margins if you go around losing games. In any case, here are the best teams of the decade regardless of whether they lost a fluke game here or there:

rnk   Yr Team                   record    Overall    Strength    Success
  1. '05 Texas                   13-0    68.21 [ 1]  40.99 [ 1]  27.22 [ 1]
  2. '01 Miami FL                12-0    60.63 [ 1]  39.26 [ 1]  21.36 [ 1]
  3. '08 Florida                 13-1    58.46 [ 1]  38.05 [ 1]  20.40 [ 2]
  4. '05 Southern California     12-1    48.00 [ 2]  37.31 [ 2]  10.69 [ 3]
  5. '04 Southern California     13-0    68.22 [ 1]  36.02 [ 1]  32.19 [ 1]
  6. '08 Oklahoma                12-2    47.28 [ 2]  36.15 [ 2]  11.13 [ 5]
  7. '00 Florida State           11-2    44.23 [ 3]  35.36 [ 1]   8.87 [ 6]
  8. '01 Florida                 10-2    46.99 [ 2]  35.33 [ 2]  11.65 [ 3]
  9. '08 Southern California     12-1    45.48 [ 3]  33.93 [ 3]  11.54 [ 4]
 10. '00 Miami FL                11-1    49.55 [ 2]  33.69 [ 2]  15.85 [ 3]
 11. '02 Kansas State            11-2    41.13 [ 3]  33.43 [ 1]   7.70 [ 7]
 12. '02 Southern California     11-2    41.70 [ 2]  30.91 [ 2]  10.78 [ 5]
 13. '03 Oklahoma                12-2    38.41 [ 2]  31.59 [ 1]   6.81 [ 7]
 14. '08 Texas                   12-1    44.86 [ 4]  31.02 [ 4]  13.84 [ 3]
 15. '00 Oklahoma                13-0    57.15 [ 1]  29.91 [ 3]  27.23 [ 1]
 16. '00 Nebraska                10-2    35.93 [ 5]  29.81 [ 4]   6.12 [ 8]
 17. '04 California              10-2    34.76 [ 6]  29.62 [ 2]   5.14 [12]
 18. '03 Louisiana State         13-1    44.87 [ 1]  29.10 [ 2]  15.76 [ 1]
 19. '05 Ohio State              10-2    36.16 [ 4]  29.07 [ 3]   7.09 [ 7]
 20. '04 Louisville              11-1    37.15 [ 5]  28.55 [ 3]   8.60 [ 6]
 21. '02 Oklahoma                12-2    39.79 [ 4]  27.59 [ 3]  12.19 [ 4]
 22. '08 Penn State              11-2    33.03 [ 6]  27.49 [ 5]   5.54 [11]
 23. '07 West Virginia           11-2    34.81 [ 2]  26.84 [ 1]   7.97 [ 4]
 24. '07 Oklahoma                11-3    33.88 [ 4]  26.53 [ 2]   7.34 [ 6]
 25. '03 Southern California     12-1    37.28 [ 3]  26.26 [ 3]  11.01 [ 2]

Rid of that pesky loss getting in the way, the Gators rank third, behind only 2005 Texas and 2001 Miami, and just ahead of the Leinart/Bush USC teams. The 2008 Sooners are 6th and the 2008 Trojans 10th, giving 2008 three of the top ten teams, and still five in the top 25, with Penn State replacing Utah.

USC still has five teams in the top 25, with the 2003 squad replacing the '06 team at #25. Five Sooner squads make the list, too, with with 2003 and 2007 teams joining the 2000, 2002, and 2008, and the 2004 team not making it.

Now we get to the area that hurts Florida the most: Success. Though they were 13-1, they lost to a 9-4 team. To claim your team is one of the best ever is one thing, but with so many undefeated teams over the years many would scoff at a team with a loss claiming to have one of the best seasons ever. Best teams, maybe; best seasons? Probably not. But let's see how they rank among the most successful campaigns from 2000-2008

rnk   Yr Team                   record    Overall    Strength    Success
  1. '04 Southern California     13-0    68.22 [ 1]  36.02 [ 1]  32.19 [ 1]
  2. '02 Ohio State              14-0    49.24 [ 1]  19.70 [ 9]  29.54 [ 1]
  3. '00 Oklahoma                13-0    57.15 [ 1]  29.91 [ 3]  27.23 [ 1]
  4. '05 Texas                   13-0    68.21 [ 1]  40.99 [ 1]  27.22 [ 1]
  5. '04 Auburn                  13-0    48.33 [ 2]  22.94 [ 7]  25.38 [ 2]
  6. '06 Florida                 13-1    46.12 [ 1]  22.49 [ 5]  23.62 [ 1]
  7. '01 Miami (Florida)         12-0    60.63 [ 1]  39.26 [ 1]  21.36 [ 1]
  8. '08 Utah                    13-0    39.93 [ 5]  19.04 [10]  20.89 [ 1]
  9. '08 Florida                 13-1    58.46 [ 1]  38.05 [ 1]  20.40 [ 2]
 10. '00 Washington              11-1    39.65 [ 4]  19.41 [ 9]  20.24 [ 2]
 11. '00 Miami (Florida)         11-1    49.55 [ 2]  33.69 [ 2]  15.85 [ 3]
 12. '03 Louisiana State         13-1    44.87 [ 1]  29.10 [ 2]  15.76 [ 1]
 13. '06 Boise State             13-0    32.40 [ 6]  17.40 [12]  15.00 [ 2]
 14. '06 Auburn                  11-2    29.05 [ 7]  14.08 [20]  14.96 [ 3]
 15. '04 Oklahoma                12-1    39.93 [ 3]  25.64 [ 5]  14.29 [ 3]
 16. '08 Texas                   12-1    44.86 [ 4]  31.02 [ 4]  13.84 [ 3]
 17. '01 Tennessee               11-2    35.19 [ 3]  21.36 [ 5]  13.83 [ 2]
 18. '06 Southern California     11-2    38.74 [ 2]  25.22 [ 2]  13.52 [ 4]
 19. '02 Miami (Florida)         12-1    39.20 [ 5]  26.02 [ 4]  13.18 [ 2]
 20. '06 Louisville              12-1    37.05 [ 3]  23.86 [ 4]  13.18 [ 5]
 21. '04 Utah                    12-0    38.89 [ 4]  25.92 [ 4]  12.97 [ 4]
 22. '05 Penn State              11-1    38.28 [ 3]  25.46 [ 4]  12.82 [ 2]
 23. '02 Georgia                 13-1    34.79 [ 6]  22.01 [ 6]  12.78 [ 3]
 24. '00 Oregon State            11-1    35.31 [ 6]  22.92 [ 6]  12.39 [ 4]
 25. '02 Oklahoma                12-2    39.79 [ 4]  27.59 [ 3]  12.19 [ 4]

Now our Gators only rank #9 in the decade. 2004 USC is on top, followed by the 14-0 Buckeyes from 2002. Two more undefeated champs from Oklahoma and Texas follow, and then unbeaten Auburn from 2004. Interestingly, Florida from 2006—also 13-1—is #6, ahead of 2001 Miami. Then Utah from this year is slightly ahead of the 1-loss Gators.

2002 Ohio State, 2004 Auburn, and 2008 Utah are similar teams in a way; all three went undefeated but were clearly not the most dominant teams in that particular year. Ohio State needed last-second heroics or overtime to beat some very mediocre teams; Auburn's margins of victory were slight; and Utah had some very close games, too. But all three finished #1 or #2 in Success. 2008 Utah's Strength is almost exactly equal to 2002 Ohio State's, but the Buckeyes won 14 games, defeating unbeaten Miami, so their Success rating was far higher. As a contrast, Utah in 2004 had a stronger Strength rating, but few points from its light schedule in Success.

How does 2006 Florida rate better than 2008 Florida despite the 10 bowl team wins the latter can claim? Well, one reason is the 2006 team also beat 10 bowl teams! Pretty much any team that wins the SEC is going to face at least six bowl teams, maybe a couple in pre-conference games, one in the SEC championship game, and one in their own bowl. Last year LSU only had eight wins over bowl teams, since they lost two games, and South Carolina didn't go to a bowl at 6-6, otherwise they would have had 10, also.

The 2006 Florida team lost to 11-2 Auburn rather than 9-4 Mississippi, and they beat an undefeated Ohio State team to win the championship rather than a 1-loss Oklahoma team. So with stronger overall wins—when score margin doesn't matter—and a more excuseable loss, one can argue that the 2006 team achieved more than the 2008 squad.

In conclusion: I'd say that, based on how dominant Florida was after their loss, beating good teams by 30-50 points and winning the national championship, that they deserve to be remembered as one of the very best teams of this decade. Beyond that, it depends on how you compare teams from various decades as to where they finish all-time. But in my book, any team that doesn't go undefeated has shown a major imperfection. The best teams are both dominant in winning, and simply don't lose. By this measure, even if 2008 Florida might be one of the best teams of all time, I don't think can claim to have had one of the best seasons of all time.

Who should be #1 after tonight's Florida-Oklahoma game?

Five teams, each with one or fewer losses, have laid claim to the top spot in college football; after tonight, four will still argue that they deserve to be number one. Who should it be?

Florida and Oklahoma play tonight, and the winner will be the BCS champion and take the top spot in the coaches poll. Almost certainly, that team will also be #1 in the AP poll, but three other teams might receive some first-place votes, and depending on the outcome of tonight's game one of them might steal away the top spot.

There are many different ways to rank teams. Here I look at some ranking philosophies and show how I might rank the top five based on certain logical guidelines I consider to try and remove bias. 

Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) have three arguments to the top spot: each believes they are simply the best team; they each won their conference, which they claim is the toughest conference; and they claim the top spot based on the BCS rankings. The winner of the game will still have all three arguments intact.

USC (12-1) claims #1 based on quality. They argue that they are the best team in the country, and that if there were a playoff they would emerge victorious. After the Pac-10 went 5-0 in bowls, they claim their conference is just as good as the others and that as champion they deserved better consideration by the BCS rankings. So essentially their arguments are the same as Florida's and Oklahoma's, but they didn't get a chance to be in the big game.

Texas (12-1) has similar claims, too. They lost one game by a last-second play, and think they should have been considered the conference champ and been in the big game.

Utah (13-0) claims #1 based on their undefeated season. While not in a "BCS conference" they are in a conference that went 6-2 against the Pac-10.

Overall these arguments are not that different: they either won or tied for their conference crown; their conference is superior or at least equal to the others; they beat everyone they faced, or would win if there were a playoff; and they deserve to be in the BCS title game.

Two basic ways to rank a top 25 are to rank by who you think the best teams are, that is, who would win head-to-head in a future matchup; or, to rank by looking back at the season as a whole, looking at what each team accomplished. I favor the latter approach, with head-to-head competition that has already occurred being the biggest factor. Since there is no playoff, the projection of who might win one is speculation. I look at a team's résumé—who they beat, who they lost to—and rank by head-to-head competition when in doubt, with score margin of big games considered only as a final tiebreaker. Most voters use a combination of the two heuristics when deciding their vote.

By the former approach—who is actually the best team—I think that the winner of tonight's game is the clear #1. Florida and Oklahoma are #1 and #2 in my Strength power rating, which uses score margin, the most basic measure of a team's quality. Florida is #1 in Jeff Sagarin's Predictor as well, with Oklahoma #3. USC might finish #1 in Sagarin's Predictor if Oklahoma wins, but if Florida does the Gators will have proven that they are the best, and the Sooners will be #1 in my power rating if they win. Texas is #4 in my power rating and Sagarin's, putting them out of luck, and Utah is farther down in both as well.

Of course any of the five might win a playoff, but for a team to argue it is #1 based on actually being the best team there has to be an objective measurement, and a power rating is the best one. The BCS computers do not rank teams in this fashion, as they can't consider score margin.

Using the 2nd method—looking back on the season instead of forward—the Florida and Oklahoma again will have a solid argument. The winner will almost certainly finish at the top of my Success power rating, which uses only wins and losses on a team's schedule to form the rankings. But as I mentioned before, when I make my own subjective rankings, I consider big games and head-to-head competition predominantly. Here's how I will rank the teams depending on what happens tonight:

• USC has little argument based on résumé. The Trojans' big wins are over Penn State, Ohio State,  Oregon, and Cal, and they lost to Oregon State. This might put them ahead of Florida right now, but not if the Gators beat the Sooners. Oklahoma's résumé is already superior, and if they win it will be that much better. USC can rightly claim they beat Ohio State much more convincingly than Texas, but Texas' last-second loss and their win over Oklahoma trump that. And USC has no case to be ahead of Utah, who has no losses and a win over the team that beat the Trojans. There is no scenario I can imagine where USC deserves the top spot when considering the season as a whole—which is why they argue instead that they would win a hypothetical playoff.
• Florida, like USC, lost to a team with four losses. And when Alabama lost to Utah, their biggest win was somewhat diminished. Other than that, they have a convincing win over Georgia, and that's it for big games. They did beat nine bowl teams this year, the most of any team. Adding Oklahoma to their list of victims puts them essentially on par with USC, and beating Oklahoma and Alabama trumps beating Penn State and Ohio State. But Texas also beat Oklahoma, so I'd have to see Florida beat the Sooners more convincingly than the Longhorns did to rank them in front. And as for Utah? The Utes just beat Alabama as convincingly as the Gators did, so I doubt I'll put Florida ahead of Utah.
• Oklahoma, if they beat the Gators, will have a great résumé consisting of wins over Florida, Texas Tech, TCU, Cincinnati, Oklahoma State, and Missouri. That puts them clearly ahead of USC, and is enough to consider them ahead of Utah as well (especially due to their convincing win over TCU, whom Utah barely beat). But they have a head-to-head loss to Texas, so regardless of their great résumé, I'm keeping the Sooners behind the Longhorns. It's a principle I follow as much as possible. So I'll be putting the Sooners #2 at best.
• Texas didn't beat Ohio State very convincingly. But the bowl games don't have to be considered more important than any other game of the season. Texas has just one last-second loss and a win over Oklahoma; if the Sooners beat the Gators, Texas will be my #1 team. But if Florida wins, I won't hesitate to move Texas down, as their win over Oklahoma loses a bit of luster. As I said above, if Florida wins by 1 point, I see no reason to put them ahead of Texas. If the Gators win by a lot, that and the fact that Mississippi beat Texas Tech would move Florida above Texas. But both teams might be behind Utah in that scenario...
• Utah beat Alabama, TCU, Oregon State, and BYU and lost to no one. The Oregon State win alone puts them ahead of USC. The Alabama win puts them even with Florida, and their undefeated record puts them ahead of the Gators. The narrow win over TCU—and Oklahoma's extensive collection of wins—puts them behind the Sooners, and thereby Texas as well, but if Oklahoma loses a second game, that consideration loses weight. So if Florida wins tonight, I'll have Utah at least #2, and maybe #1.

That's my take on it; everyone else will have something different I'm sure. I've found that most people change their criteria in order to favor their favorite team, but there are legit arguments for almost any ordering of the top five.

The rest of the top ten will be affected by tonight's game, too. For example, TCU and Alabama each have a loss to Utah; TCU has an additional loss to Oklahoma, and Alabama has a loss to Florida. If Oklahoma wins, TCU might even claim my number 5 spot, with Florida 6th and Alabama 7th. If the Gators win, Alabama will be sixth, TCU 7th.

Oklahoma's offense: Is it the best of all time?

The 2008 Oklahoma Sooners offense has piled up points week after week and looks pretty much unstoppable in doing so. With Heisman Trophy winner Sam Bradford and and slew of great backs and receivers following a great offensive line, some have suggested that it is the best college football offense of all time. Is it? How does it rank in objective measures against the great offenses of the past?

While it's impossible to truly cross-compare teams from different eras, we can use game records to implement some systems for doing so. Many would argue that the best teams today are better than the great teams of the past simply due to having bigger, faster players, etc. This is probably true for some measure of time; we can probably assume teams today could probably dominate teams from 100 or 50 years ago, but what about 25? 10?

Instead, we'll make a standard that treats all teams equally as much as possible, so all eras are considered roughly the same. Then if we assume only the last 10 or 30 years is relevant, we can compare just those teams.

The process of comparing teams' offensives is threefold:

1. Offensive output is normally measured by score, or yardage. We'll use score, because that data is far more available for previous decades than game-by-game yardage stats.
2. Instead of just using average points per game, we will use adjusted points per game; that is, a team's average score output corrected for the team's strength of schedule. If the team has faced opposition with weak or strong defenses, their adjusted average score will be higher than their raw average score.
3. When comparing teams from different years, many factors come into play. The most recent big change is overtime, which creates more scoring opportunities. Other rules changes over the decades, as well as offensive and defensive innovations, have changed the average score of a college football game year to year. We'll subtract this average from the team's own adjusted scoring average to use in comparing teams from different seasons.

Ok here we go. First we should ask: Is Oklahoma's offense even the best offense of 2008?

Top offenses, 2008 football season (through Jan. 3, 2009)
#   Team                       record   adj. ave      
1.  Oklahoma                    12-1    56.56 [  1]  
2.  Florida                     12-1    47.60 [  2]  
3.  Oregon                      10-3    44.76 [  3]  
4.  Texas                       11-1    43.35 [  4]  
5.  Texas Tech                  11-2    43.03 [  5]  
6.  Missouri                    10-4    42.84 [  6]  
7.  Tulsa                       10-3    40.92 [  7]  
8.  Penn State                  11-2    40.87 [  8]  
9.  Southern Cal                12-1    40.70 [  9]   
10. Oklahoma St                  9-4    39.52 [ 10]  

From the output of the Strength power rating, the answer is, yes, quite clearly. They rank far ahead of the Florida Gators, their opponent in the upcoming BCS title game, almost 9 points better. Of course, this may change if the Gators, who are ranked quite high on defense, can contain the Sooners. But we're going to look at where they rank right now.

Some people think the Big 12 doesn't play defense, which is silly. As a major conference, the teams in the Big 12 are almost by definition superior to the average I-A school, and will play defense accordingly. Oklahoma averages 54 points a game, but when corrected for their opposition, their average score is about 2.5 points higher. Playing TCU and Cincinnati in the pre-conference season didn't hurt, especially since TCU ranks 2nd in scoring defense. The numbers are corrected for home/road games as well.

So we've established that the Sooners are a clear #1 in 2008, at least so far. How about for the current decade? Most people would allow that a direct comparison of the teams within a ten-year timeframe is legit.

Top offenses 2000-2008 seasons (uncorrect for year played)
#   Year Team                  record   adj. ave      
1.  2008 Oklahoma               12-1    56.56 [1]  
2.  2005 Texas                  13-0    53.70 [1]
3.  2005 Southern California    12-1    52.48 [2]
4.  2001 Florida                10-2    47.91 [1] 
5.  2008 Florida                12-1    47.60 [2] 
6.  2007 Florida                 9-4    47.36 [1] 
7.  2004 Utah                   12-0    46.91 [1] 
8.  2004 Louisville             11-1    46.81 [2] 
9.  2001 Miami (Florida)        12-0    46.80 [2] 
10. 2000 Nebraska               10-2    45.26 [1] 

Oklahoma still comes out on top. The next two teams, not surprisingly, are the 2005 national champs and the runner-up that year: Vince Young's Texas Longhorns and the 2nd Leinart/Bush/White offense at USC (the [2] signifies their rank within the team's year). Then come three Florida teams, including this year's and last year's Tebow squads; two teams from 2004 (Utah and Louisville), the 2001 national champion Miami Hurricanes, and a team from one of Nebraska's last good seasons.

Now let's take a bigger step back and include every team from the '80s and '90s as well.

Top offenses 1980-2008 seasons (uncorrected for year played)
#   Year Team                       record   adj. ave     
1.  2008 Oklahoma                    12-1    56.56 [  1]   
2.  1995 Nebraska                    12-0    54.30 [  1]   
3.  1989 Houston                      9-2    54.28 [  1]   
4.  2005 Texas                       13-0    53.70 [  1]   
5.  2005 Southern California         12-1    52.48 [  2]   
6.  1983 Nebraska                    12-1    51.47 [  1]   
7.  1994 Penn State                  12-0    51.44 [  1]   
8.  1996 Florida                     12-1    50.89 [  1]   
9.  1995 Florida State               10-2    49.48 [  2]   
10. 1998 Kansas State                11-2    48.51 [  1]

...and the Sooners are still number one. A lot of great teams on the list, with Texas and USC making the cut as well in the top five. But about at this point the comparisons might become a bit suspect, as the coming of overtime and spread offenses have steadily increased the average score of a game nearly 7 points from 1980 to 2008. So let's look at the same list, but standardized by simply subtracting the year's average score off the team's adjusted offense. What we get is pretty much the same teams shuffled around a bit:

Top offenses 1980-2008 seasons (standardized for year played)
#   year Team              rec    adj. ave    year's ave     difference
1.  2008 Oklahoma          12-1   56.56 [1]  -  26.35     =    30.21
2.  1989 Houston            9-2   54.28 [1]  -  24.13     =    30.15
3.  1983 Nebraska          12-1   51.47 [1]  -  21.93     =    29.54
4.  1995 Nebraska          12-0   54.30 [1]  -  25.20     =    29.10
5.  2005 Texas             13-0   53.70 [1]  -  26.28     =    27.42
6.  1994 Penn State        12-0   51.44 [1]  -  24.51     =    26.93
7.  2005 USC               12-1   52.48 [2]  -  26.28     =    26.20
8.  1996 Florida           12-1   50.89 [1]  -  25.46     =    25.43
9.  1995 Florida State     10-2   49.48 [2]  -  25.20     =    24.28
10. 1980 Brigham Young     12-1   44.54 [1]  -  20.51     =    24.03

Now three teams from the 80s make it in the top ten and rise a bit. Oklahoma is still #1, though, followed by the Andre Ware run-and-shoot Houston team and the juggernaut Nebraska team that lost in the classic game at Miami. At #4 is the true juggernaut Nebraska team from 1995 that no one could stop, followed by the 2005 teams sandwiching Penn State's 1994 co-national champ squad. Florida's 1996 national title winner makes it, and Florida State's 1995 squad turns out to be its top entrant. BYU from 1980 rounds out the top ten. Just off the bottom of the list at #12 is are the 1988 Oklahoma State Cowboys with Barry Sanders (and current coach Mike Gundy).

We can take this back as far as we want. Sticking with the adjusted-for-year figures, let's look all the way back starting in 1940, around the time when helmets were first required equipment and most of the modern rules were in effect:

Top offenses 1940-2008 seasons (standardized for year played)
#   year Team              rec    adj. ave    year's ave     difference
1.  1945 Army              9-0    59.42 [1]  -  16.35     =    43.07
2.  1944 Army              9-0    59.84 [1]  -  17.08     =    42.76
3.  1945 Alabama          10-0    52.21 [2]  -  16.35     =    35.86
4.  1947 Michigan         10-0    47.35 [1]  -  16.20     =    31.15
5.  1952 Oklahoma          8-1-1  48.59 [1]  -  18.33     =    30.26
6.  2008 Oklahoma         12-1    56.56 [1]  -  26.35     =    30.21
7.  1989 Houston           9-2    54.28 [1]  -  24.13     =    30.15
8.  1983 Nebraska         12-1    51.47 [1]  -  21.93     =    29.54
9.  1971 Oklahoma         11-1    49.79 [1]  -  20.26     =    29.53
10. 1956 Oklahoma         10-0    45.97 [1]  -  16.70     =    29.27

With the addition of 40 more years of football, under different rules and conditions, there is of course a lot of change. But teams from the '40s, '50s, '70s, '80s, and this decade are represented. Only Oklahoma survives from our first list, but the 1989 Houston and 1983 Nebraska teams hang in there, too. The teams of the 40s dominate, as they did in that era. If you look at college football records, you'll note as you go farther back in time there is more dominance. The teams that win, win big. And this means their offenses were much better compared to their cohort than teams today can claim; parity had not yet become a notion in college football in the '40s.

Army's 1945 is a good example. They averaged an adjusted 59.42 points (a raw 45.8, but they played Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn, and Navy) while the average score was just over 16 points a game. They also had the top defense that year, making them one of the most dominant teams ever in college football.

After that we see a lot of Oklahoma teams represented, including the 1956 team that completed the third straight undefeated Sooner season and the 1971 team that lost the "game of the century" to Nebraska.

But if we're looking for the best offenses of all time, let's consider every single year the game's been played, starting with its no-rules-soccer inception, brief rugby-esque days, through the Flying Wedge and forward pass. Most of the game's early years were dominated by the Ivy League, and then the game went through a process whereby the rest of country caught up. This process was complete by the 1940s.

Top offenses 1869-2008 seasons (standardized for year played)
#   year Team              rec    adj. ave    year's ave     difference
1*  1918 Colorado Mines    4-0    61.65 [1]  -   14.03    =    47.62
1.  1886 Yale              9-0-1  68.46 [1]  -   21.06    =    47.40 
2.  1945 Army              9-0    59.42 [1]  -   16.35    =    43.07
3.  1944 Army              9-0    59.84 [1]  -   17.08    =    42.76
4.  1920 California        9-0    56.73 [1]  -   14.44    =    42.29
5.  1884 Yale              8-0-1  61.98 [1]  -   20.39    =    41.59
6.  1890 Harvard          11-0    58.27 [1]  -   17.46    =    40.81
7.  1885 Princeton         9-0    66.80 [1]  -   26.07    =    40.73
8.  1902 Michigan         11-0    52.08 [1]  -   12.00    =    40.08
9.  1883 Yale              9-0    57.48 [1]  -   17.93    =    39.55
10. 1917 Georgia Tech      9-0    54.52 [1]  -   15.14    =    39.38

This is the most difficult comparison, but the results reflect truly the teams that had the most dominant offenses of all time. It doesn't tell us anything about what these teams would compared to teams in the modern era, of course, before integration, big money, and modern training changed the game forever.

Colorado Mines is given an asterisk as they played just four games, not much of an average to go by, in a year that many teams played very few games for obvious reasons.

Unbelievably, the 1886 Yale team was actually shut out once (in a 0-0 tie with Princeton, whose defense ranks among the top 5 all time) but still averaged 68.7 points per game.

The 1883 and 1884 Yale squads (averaging a raw 60 and 55) show up, as do the 1890 Harvard and 1885 Princeton teams. This reflects the Ivy League's early dominance, but also reflects a statisitical phenomenon: the farther you go back, the more dominant the good teams are, but in 1883 the scoring system of the game was overhauled and the average score jumped from around 2 points a game to nearly 20 ppg overnight. So technically this system is very unfair to pre-1883 teams, but then again, for some of those years they were playing madcap Soccer-rugby anyway.

The Army teams still represent at #2 and #3, while the California, Michigan, and Georgia Tech squads listed take advantage of scoring reams of points in years when the average score was low. Back then, schedules weren't national like they are now, so comparisons between teams of different regions is unreliable. But suffice it to say these teams scored more points than any team is likely to score today. The 1917 Georgia Tech squad didn't beat Cumberland 222-0—that was the previous year.

So where does Oklahoma of 2008 rank? I didn't fill out the entire chart, but they're somewhere in the 30s, which is quite remarkable for a modern team. No team since 1952 has ranked as high as they do, so it might be fair to say that—at least by certain measure—they're the best offense in over 60 years, and therefore arguably the best offense in modern college football.

They have to back that up with a good performance against Florida's defense. While one game won't change their ranking that much in any mathematical system, they won't be subjectively judged one of history's greatest if they don't come through in their biggest game.

Next up: same thing, but for defenses. Where does this year's USC squad place?

Conference Bowl performance: Pac 10 is 5-0 - is that such a big deal?

The latest topic of discussing seems to be the Pac 10's 5-0 bowl record, which some say proves the conference was too maligned this year, or that they might actually be the best conference. I say: yes, they were underrated this year, but: you have to put their 5-0 performance in perspective.

After the Pac-10 went 1-6 against Mountain West teams in the regular season this year, many were calling the conference the worst BCS conference, adding to the list of the Big Ten, ACC, and Big East, leagues that were also called the worst BCS conference at times this year. Certainly, the losses didn't look good:

• Utah over Oregon State 31-28
• BYU over Washington 28-27
• BYU over UCLA 59-0
• New Mexico over Arizona 36-28
• UNLV over Arizona State 23-20ot
• TCU over Stanford 31-14

But most of the teams that lost weren't the Pac-10's top teams. Washington had overtaken over Stanford's cellar spot, and Arizona State and UCLA were a bust this year. The Mountain West's best team, Utah, narrowly beat Oregon State, which should be expected. The only real upsets in retrospect were New Mexico defeating Arizona and UNLV beating ASU.

This is, of course, after we had adjusted our thinking about the teams in both conferences, by devaluing the Pac 10 and elevating the Mountain West. Which brings us to the bowl performance. Bowl record is often a very poor indicator of how conference strength because conference strength determines to a large measure the matchups that a conference gets.

Put another way, the Pac 10 might have won its bowl games because their teams were rated lower and got easier matchups. Highly-touted conferences sometimes do poorly after getting tougher teams to play, and vice versa. It's better to compare a conference's bowl record against their projected record, i.e., which games they were favored in. The Pac-10 was supposed to be 4-1, so they exceeded expectation but not by much. Upset winners names are in green:

Bowl        Teams           Favorite   Spread   Winner   Score
Las Vegas   Arizona-BYU     Arizona      3      Arizona  31-21
Emerald     Cal-Miami       Cal          10     Cal      24-17
Holiday     Oregon-OK St.   Oklahoma St  3      Oregon   42-31
Sun Bowl    Oregon St-Pitt  Oregon St    2.5    Oregon St 3-0
Rose        USC-Penn St     USC          9      USC      38-24

Oregon pulled the minor upset in the Holiday Bowl but other than that things went as planned. In all, two Pac-10 teams were roughly 10 point favorites, two were 3 point favorites, and one was a 3 point underdog.

Another way to look at the results is to see how a conference does against the spread, which naturally factors in expectations. On the table above, scores are in green or red depending on whether they beat the spread. By this measure, the Pac-10 is 4-1, or 3-1-1 depending on what line you use for Oregon State's 3-0 win vs. Pitt. A few bowl games had results within the range of the spread's movement.

The other conference people have been talking about in terms of bowl performance is the Big 10, who is 1-6 with Ohio State's loss to Texas. Is their record really that bad? Let's look. Same color scheme.

Bowl        Teams           Favorite   Spread   Winner   Score
Champs      Wisconsin-FSU   FSU        5 1/2    FSU      42-13
Alamo       Nwestern-Mizzou Missouri   12 1/2   Mizzou   30-23ot
Insight     Minnesota-KU    Kansas     9        Kansas   42-21
Outback     Iowa-S.Carolina Iowa       4        Iowa     31-10
Capital One Mich.St-Georgia Georgia    7 1/2    Georgia  24-12
Rose        Penn St-USC     USC        9        USC      38-24
Fiesta      OSU-Texas       Texas      8 1/2    Texas    24-21

It turns out that the Big Ten has done exactly as expected so far when going 1-6. Iowa won, everyone else lost. Iowa also beat the spread, as did Northwestern and Ohio State, but the other teams lost against the spread, especially Wisconsin and Minnesota, making the Big Ten 3-4 in that measure.

How are the other conferences doing?

Conference   Expected    Actual   diff    vs. spread  diff   points
SEC          3-5         6-2      +3          6-2      +4     11
Pac 10       4-1         5-0      +1          3-1-1    +2      8
C-USA        4-2         4-2      even        4-2      +2      4
Mtn. West    1-4         3-2      +2          2-3      -1      2
Big East     5-1         4-2      -1          2-2-2   even     1
Sun Belt     1-1         1-1      even        1-1     even     0
(Ind.)       1-1         1-1      even        1-1     even     0
ACC          5-5         4-6      -1          6-3-1    +3      0
Big 12       5-2         4-3      -1          2-5      -3     -3
WAC          3-2         1-4      -2          2-3      -1     -6
Big Ten      1-6         1-6      even        3-4      -1     -6
MAC          1-4         0-5      -1          0-5      -5     -11

Through the bowl season, only the Pac 10, SEC, and Mountain West exceeded expectations in terms of winning and losing, with the SEC winning three more games than expected.

The Pac 10, ACC, SEC, and C-USA beat the spread, with the SEC beating the spread in four more games than they lost against the spread.

The Pac 10 and SEC are positive in both categories, with the SEC's combined +7 putting it on top in terms of exceeding expectations. The "points" column adds wins, subtracts losses, and adds the differences in expected wins and beating the spread to combine the aspects of winning and exceeding expectations.

Worst performers are the WAC (-2 winning) and the MAC (-5 against the spread).

The Big 12 finished 2-5 against the spread.

Big Twelve Title Game Possibilities: What Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech need to get there

Before tonight's Texas/Texas A&M game, here is the run-down for how the various Big Twelve South teams can get to the conference championship game against North representative Missouri:

Oklahoma

• Beat Oklahoma State,
  AND either
• Texas loses to Texas A&M (Sooners would be automatic pick)
  OR
• Texas Tech beats Baylor (Sooners then need to be highest in BCS)

Texas

• Beat Texas A&M
  AND either
• Texas Tech loses to Baylor
  OR
• Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State (Texas needs to remain highest in BCS)

Texas Tech

• Beat Baylor
  AND
• Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State
  
  OR


• Lose to Baylor
  AND
• Texas loses
  AND
• Oklahoma loses

The last possibility leaves a four-way tie at 6-2 among Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. The first tiebreaker compares their record amongst each other: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are 1-2, Texas and Texas Tech are 2-1. Then Texas Tech wins the head-to-head vs. Texas.

Texas Tech is the only team that still has a chance if they lose their next game, but they need the other two to lose as well.

Texas is eliminated if:

• They lose to Texas A&M
  OR
• Texas Tech beats Baylor

Oklahoma is eliminated if:

• They lose to Oklahoma State

Texas Tech is eliminated if:

• They lose and either Texas or Oklahoma wins
  OR
• Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State

Abilene Christian's offense is the best in Division II, top 25 in Division I-A

Each time I compute the all-division 727-team power rating, I'm confronted by one team whose offensive rank is out of the normal bounds for a non-FBS (I-A) team. Occasionally a I-AA team has an offense that ranks in the top 25; in fact, I-AA James Madison's offense is 24th this week. It's really unusual, though, to see a Division II offense to show up even in the top 50.

But Abilene Christian has been among the top 50 offenses all year, and lands at #19 this week after beating West Texas A&M 93-68 in the 2nd round of the Division II playoffs. That's better than any other Division II team, or I-AA (FCS) team, and roughly on par with #18 Oregon State or #20 Nevada. Remember, this power rating takes opposition into account. The Wildcats average almost 54 points a game, which would put them at #1, ahead of even Oklahoma, by a simple most-points-scored measure.

Abilene Christian's defense, however, is not the equal of its offense. Their defense ranks 146th, which is still quite good for a Division II team, but maybe not enough for them to win the Division II crown from juggernaut Grand Valley State. The latter is a much more balanced team, ranking 117th in offense and 116th in defense, making them about exactly the equal of Syracuse. Which doesn't sound like an endorsement, but then Syracuse is a BCS-conference school that just defeated Notre Dame.

If the two schools meet in the final, which seems likely, it will be up to Grand Valley to match Abilene score for score. Stopping their offense doesn't look like a possibility for any Division II school, but the their defense can be porous enough for a good team to exploit it, as seen in their games with West Texas and NW Missouri St (their next playoff opponent, whom they defeated 44-27 earlier in the year).

Right now the power rating favors Abilene Christian by 11 points, but it's a hard game to predict when a team has such a disparity between offense and defense. What they do have on offense is balance: in yesterdays' game, back Bernard Scott rushed for seven touchdowns while quarterback Billy Malone threw for six. To win a championship a team usually needs to have two of three elements: a rushing attack, a passing attack, and a solid defense. Abilene Christian has both offensive elements, and a defense that, though much weaker than their offense, is still one of the better ones in Division II.

Thoughts: Big Twelve rankings; Utah's BCS bowl Orange; the Oregon State-Penn State rematch

Some thoughts after Saturday's action:

• How the rank the Big Twelve teams
  
  With Oklahoma having beaten Texas Tech, who beat Texas, who beat Oklahoma, there is of course a "round-robin" situation where each team is 10-1 and has beaten and lost to one of the other. Normally this would be a tough situation, where you'd have to ignore one of the losses and place someone on top, but Oklahoma's convincing win made it clear that Texas Tech should not be that top team.
  
  Further, Texas' win on a neutral field, combined with their last-second loss, makes them the most logical top team going by head-to-head competition principles. Voters (remember, the criteria for breaking a three-way tie is whichever team is highest in the BCS rankings) may jump Oklahoma over Texas on the idea that they are playing better "at the moment," but taking the viewpoint that the entire season is what matters—and with no playoff, the idea that the entire season matters is paramount—I would have to rank Texas at the top of the three teams.
  
  The computers will probably agree with that assessment. Since margin of victory is not used, there is no reason they will elevate Oklahoma over Texas at this point. But another win over Oklahoma State might be enough for at least some of the computers, and enough of the pollsters, to put the Sooners ahead of the Longhorns. Currently in my Success power rating—a BCS style computer rating in that it does not consider victory margin—Texas is #2, and Oklahoma #4.
  
  Oklahoma still has to beat Oklahoma State, and if the Sooners are the South rep, Missouri. So they may yet stumble. If they do, it leaves Texas and Texas Tech. Head-to-head, the Red Raiders win that one, though I'd find it far less objectionable if Texas were ranked ahead of them than if Oklahoma is currently ranked ahead of Texas.
  
  Seeing Oklahoma in the Big Twelve title game is not a bad thing, as they have yet to play Missouri, and Texas already has. I don't like rematch games where the first game was a convincing win (see the third item). But ultimately even if Oklahoma wins out I put Texas ahead of them at least until the bowl games are played. Then it's another judgement call depending on who they each play and what happens.


• Where is Utah going to play their BCS game?
  
  I've recently seen articles that say Utah "is going to a BCS bowl, probably the Fiesta" and "probably the Sugar." According to what I can suss out, the Orange bowl has last pick among the bowls that have to fill slots. It seems that Utah will go in the last open slot, meaning they'd play a middling ACC team, much like the middling Big East team they beat in 2004.
  
  If all goes according to "plan," which it never does, Florida beats Alabama and goes to the BCS title game. Oklahoma wins out, wins the Big Twelve, and is also in the title game. The Sugar and Fiesta pick replacements (Alabama and Texas), the Rose is filled by USC/Oregon State vs. Penn State, and the Orange has perhaps Georgia Tech.
  
  So seven slots are filled: Two in the BCS title game, two in the Rose, one each in the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange. Then the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange pick their 2nd team, in order. If USC is available at this time they will be taken first; then Ohio State, Georgia, possibly some Big Twelve teams, all will be likely be taken ahead of Utah, who will end up in the Orange bowl.
  
  Traditionally, the Orange Bowl was the Big Twelve's bowl, but for some reason the ACC was given the bowl as its link (probably due to Miami and Florida State). So while there could be an interesting matchup with Texas and USC in the Fiesta, the Orange is looking like this year's dud.
  
  The only hope is that Utah gets selected in one of the other two bowl games. A Utah-Alabama matchup in the Sugar would be nice, but it requires that USC be in the Rose Bowl (see below).
  
  Update: I realize I hadn't mapped out the possibilities correctly. The Big East rep (probably Cincinnati) is in the mix as well, and Utah probably will be chosen ahead of them. So the Sugar bowl really is the most likely place for the Utes. And the Orange Bowl will be exactly as it should be: a poor, inconsistent ACC rep vs. a poor, inconsistend Big East rep.
  
• Penn State vs. Oregon State: The worst Rose Bowl ever?
  
  It looks like it's going to happen. Oregon State beat Arizona and now just has to get past Oregon at home to make it to the Rose Bowl. Rivalry games are tough and Oregon has a chance, but right now it's looking more and more like the Beavers will be in Pasadena.
  
  Congratulations will be due Oregon State if this happens, of course; they've earned it under the rules, they had to beat USC, and they're playing far better than they did early in the season. But none of that makes up for the fact that this game will stink for two reasons.
  
  One, a USC-Penn State matchup in the Rose Bowl would be a great thing. Two classic teams, both presumably 11-1, vye for a higher position in the rankings and possibly some #1 votes. Joe Paterno vs. Pete Carroll. Enough said.
  
  Two, Penn State already beat Oregon State 45-14 earlier this year. They should not have to "prove it" after that convincing of a win. As bad as rematch games are when the first one was close, they are a joke when the first game was a blowout. From Oregon State's point of view it's a win-win, as they have a shot at avenging the loss. From anyone else's point of view, the first game is sufficient and should stand. The rematch would undoubtedly be closer, as Oregon State has improved and rematches are almost always closer. But that doesn't take away from the fact that very few people would be exited about this game, and the college football world will be rooting for the Ducks next week. Sorry, Beaver faithful, but it's true.
  
  Remember when everyone was afraid that the Rose Bowl would be an Ohio State-USC rematch? I don't know which is worse, that outcome or the present one. An Oregon win next week could avert that possibility, but remember, if USC sneaks into the BCS title game, then Oregon would be going to the Rose Bowl. Which isn't a whole lot better than Oregon State, but at least it averts the blowout-rematch scenario.
  
  I guess I just like the BCS bowls to be filled with teams with 2 losses or fewer. This year, between the Rose Bowl, ACC, and Big East, there could be three BCS bowls with three-loss teams, while several undefeated and 1-loss teams end up in the lesser bowls.

The Big Twelve: Do They Play Defense?

The Big Twelve is causing a stir with their high-powered offenses, but recently the point has been brought up that maybe they just don't play defense in the league like they used to. And no, they're not just pointing at Nebraska.

Instead, they're talking about the current league powers, Missouri, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State; even defense-minded Bob Stoops' Oklahoma and #1 Texas.

While the Tigers, Red Raiders, and Cowboys have rarely been known as defensive stalwarts, The Sporting News reports that the Sooners don't seem to be up to their normal standards on D, and no less a football authority than the Wall Street Journal notes that Texas ranks only 43rd in total defense.

So what is the verdict on the Big Twelve? Is it, like the WSJ asserts, a paper tiger league where offenses are taking advantage of lax-to-non-existent defenses and soft scheduling, ready for a huge wake-up call come bowl season? And what is the proper way to measure whether a team can play defense?

The answer to the last question is certainly not to look at the NCAA's total defense rankings. These rankings are made simply by adding up all yards yielded all season, and dividing by the number of games. This gives you raw totals which say nothing about the teams you've faced. Let's look at Texas, ranked #43 by the NCAA, and quoted by the WSJ as evidence of the conference's lack of quality, and note the rank of their opponents using the comparable NCAA offensive stats:

Texas Longhorns: Defensive rank #43 (source NCAA)
Opponent     Offense rank (NCAA)
Florida Atl.    # 67
UTEP            # 56
Rice            # 16
Arkansas        # 66
Colorado        #101
Oklahoma        #  4
Missouri        #  5
Oklahoma St     #  8

The Longhorns may have played an pretty easy pre-conference schedule, but it was filled with teams that had average offenses for the 120 Division I-A universe, and one, Rice, that has a top 25 level offense (even if their defense is bottom 25 level).

And once in the conference itself? Colorado was by far the worst offense they faced at #101, then they took on, back-to-back-to-back, the #4, #5, and #8 offenses in the country, according to the NCAA stats.

It should come as no surprise that if you correct for the offenses of their opponents, Texas has a defensive ranking much better than 43rd. In fact, they rank #8—top ten in the country—when this correction is applied. Below are the top defenses, based on total yardage yielded (corrected for opposition) as of Sunday:

Rank Team                         Rec   Total [rank] Rush [rank]  Pass [rank]
  1. TCU                          8-1   215.3 [  1]   34.6 [  1]  180.7 [ 20]
  2. Southern Cal                 6-1   218.2 [  2]   83.0 [  6]  135.1 [  2]
  3. South Carolina               5-3   233.1 [  3]   84.6 [  8]  148.4 [  3]
  4. Alabama                      8-0   263.9 [  4]   60.8 [  3]  203.0 [ 50]
  5. Ohio State                   7-2   265.8 [  5]  109.0 [ 22]  156.8 [  6]
  6. Florida                      6-1   273.2 [  6]   99.3 [ 17]  173.9 [ 13]
  7. Utah                         8-0   274.7 [  7]   85.4 [  9]  189.3 [ 33]
  8. Texas                        8-0   277.0 [  8]   60.8 [  2]  216.1 [ 73]
  9. Tennessee                    3-5   286.0 [  9]   98.7 [ 16]  187.3 [ 29]
 10. Auburn                       4-4   297.6 [ 10]  109.8 [ 25]  187.7 [ 30]

This is a much better way to rank defenses that to simply look at how many yards they've yielded per game.

Yardage doesn't tell the whole story, of course; some teams give up a lot of yards but have stingy red-zone defenses, or create a lot of turnovers that end drives. This shows up better in the scoring defense rankings:

  #  Team                         rec    Offense       Defense
  1. Southern Cal                 6-1    41.02 [  9]    4.67 [  1]
  2. Florida                      6-1    43.95 [  5]   10.33 [  2]
  3. Texas                        8-0    45.84 [  4]   10.64 [  3]
  4. TCU                          8-1    29.39 [ 41]   10.69 [  4]
  5. Ohio State                   7-2    29.15 [ 43]   10.74 [  5]
  6. Penn State                   9-0    43.33 [  7]   10.83 [  6]
  7. Iowa                         5-3    27.69 [ 54]   12.92 [  7]
  8. Wake Forest                  4-3    19.67 [ 99]   12.94 [  8]
  9. Boise St                     7-0    28.39 [ 49]   13.53 [  9]
 10. South Carolina               5-3    23.63 [ 70]   14.45 [ 10]

...and here we see that Texas is 3rd in the nation in scoring defense—when corrected for opposition. If uncorrected, Texas ranks only 28th, which is again, very unrepresentative when you consider they just held teams that average 48, 47, and 44 points to 35, 31, and 24.

So how about Oklahoma, and the rest of the league? Here are are the adjusted defensive rankings for each Big 12 team in total yardage and total scoring defense. 

  Big 12 North       rec    yard rnk     score rnk
  Missouri           6-2     # 44          # 21
  Kansas             5-3     # 65          # 66
  Nebraska           5-3     # 54          # 34
  Colorado           4-4     # 26          # 41
  Kansas State       4-4     # 93          # 81
  Iowa State         2-6     # 91          # 96

  Big 12 South       rec    yard rnk     score rnk
  Texas              8-0     #  8          #  3
  Texas Tech         8-0     # 13          # 16
  Oklahoma           7-1     # 64          # 35
  Oklahoma St        7-1     # 42          # 14
  Texas A&M          3-5     #108          # 99
  Baylor             3-5     # 87          # 72

So what should we conclude? First it's clear that Texas is certainly playing great defense and using them as an example of the Big 12's poor defense is flawed reasoning. And even Texas Tech is playing strong defense, both yardage-wise and scoring-wise.

Oklahoma's defense is somewhat suspect, as many have been pointing out. They rank even lower in yardage when adjusted for their schedule (which includes Washington and Baylor in addition to the tough defenses of TCU and Texas). Their problem is mainly against the pass, where they rank an abysmal 95th. But teams have less luck turning this yardage into points, as they are 35th in scoring defense. Likewise Oklahoma State, which ranks 42nd in yardage but a strong #14 in scoring defense. Again, all of these rankings are adjusted for the offensive capabilities of their opponents.

The rest of the league is somewhat soft to downright porous. Missouri isn't bad overall, ranking 21st in scoring defense. Nebraska and Colorado are respectable, too. But Kansas' defense is average at best, while Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas A&M, and Baylor rank quite low on a national scale, let alone against their BCS-conference brethren.

So there's clearly a mixed verdict concerning the Big 12, but the point of its accusers was not that the league was weak at the bottom. Certainly, the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, and especially this season, the Pac Ten, can't boast a strong league top-to-bottom. Even the SEC has several dogs in 2008. The WSJ article was complaining primarily about the conference's top tier:

The Big 12, which boasts four top-10 teams in the new Associated Press poll, cannot account for a single defense among the nation's top 40.

And clearly that statement has been put to shame. By the standards they are quoting—yardage—two of those teams are in the top 20 in real defensive yardage. Using adjusted scoring defense as the metric, all four are in the top 40.

And as Casey Kasem would tell you, having four Top 40 hits is a pretty impressive thing.

Penn State has no cakewalk to an undefeated season

Ok, we get it already—the Big Ten gets no respect. Despite the obvious shortcomings of the Big East, ACC, and this year especially, the Pac 10, it's the Big Ten that is summarily dismissed most often. Now that Penn State is looking to go undefeated, we have some saying an undefeated Penn State isn't worthy, while the rest are saying the Lions' last three games are walkovers.

An example: this column by Mike Huguenin is par for the course, as he writes: the only way Penn State doesn't finish unbeaten in the regular season is if it beats itself.

Admittedly, the Nittany Lions cleared their toughest hurdle by beating Ohio State on the road. Looking at their three remaining foes (Iowa on the road, Indiana and Michigan State at home) doesn't strike fear into hearts the way Texas Tech's remaining schedule might. Penn State will be favored in all three games, and probably should finish 12-0. But the sportswriting nation is selling the Big Ten short.

First of all, Iowa. The Hawkeyes are only 5-3 and have played sloppy football at times. But those losses were to three winning teams: 5-2 Pittsburgh on the road; 7-2 Michigan State, also on the road; and 6-2 Northwestern at home. More importantly, the three losses were by a combined eight points—Iowa could very easily have won each of those games, and if they had they be 8-0, and this game would be seen as a huge hurdle in Penn State's way. Which is how it should be seen. Penn State's rushing defense did a great job against Beanie Wells, but Iowa's Shonn Greene could be an even tougher test. And the Hawks' defense is just as good as Ohio State's, so the game could be very low scoring, making it anybody's ball game. Check out the power ratings if you are skeptical: Iowa is firmly in the top 25 when judged on a pure-points basis such as my Strength ratings, and Sagarin's Predictor has them #10 to Penn State's #3. This is a perfect trap game for Penn State to fall into.

Next, Indiana. This is clearly the least worrisome game remaining, but 3-5 Indiana is coming off a win over Northwestern and has lost only to decent teams: undefeated Ball State, Michigan State, 7-1 Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois. Quarterback Kellen Lewis has been injured but could be back for the Penn State game. Still, as it takes place in College Station, this is the one game that should be a gimme for the Lions, though there's a chance the Hoosiers prove pesky.

Finally, Michigan State. This is another home game for the Lions, and because the Spartans were so thoroughly spanked by Ohio State many are discounting their threat. But at 7-2 they should be treated with a bit more respect, and we've seen many strange things happen to teams on their final week of the season—remember West Virginia vs. Pitt last year? Penn State will have to be focused, especially if either of the teams ahead of them have lost by this time, causing visions of a national championship to dance in front of them mesmerizingly.

That's no cakewalk. As West Virginia-Pitt and USC-Stanford/Oregon State proved, no conference game against a capable foe is a given, not even at home. Penn State won't have to "beat themselves" to lose a game; their opponents will be more than happy to try to do that for them.

Dear Mike Huguenin: BCS Computers can't consider score margin

Same day, another article about the BCS computers and how they can't use score margin. This one comes in response to Mike Huguenin's article about the first BCS rankings this week.

In an overall decent look at how the initial BCS rankings shape up, he writes:

USC is 10th in the computer rankings and has no remaining games against teams currently in the BCS top 25. The Trojans beat Ohio State by 32, yet are ranked five spots behind the Buckeyes in the computers.

That statement is unfair to the poor computers. (Not that their feelings can get hurt). I agree it's worthwhile to point out that Ohio State is ahead of USC by the computers' estimation, since that is unusual and very unintuitive. But to point out that USC beat Ohio State by 32 is not relevant to evaluating the computers' performance, because the computers aren't allowed to "know" the score of that game, only that USC won it.

Put into perspective: what if USC had won by a single point? They subsequently lost to Oregon State, giving them one loss as well. And for all the computers know, that loss was by 50 points. But just assume we know two things: USC beat Ohio State in Pasedena, then later lost to Oregon State.

Is it so ridiculous to put Ohio State ahead of them? Maybe it still is. But some of the computers will evaluate Ohio State and conclude that they've won seven games, and lost one game, on the road, to a very good team. USC, on the other hand, beat five teams, one of them a very good team, but lost to a mediocre team. That's how Ohio State ends up ahead in four of the six computers, and tied in another. Only Richard Billingsly's algorithm has USC ahead, by a single place.

Add in the score margin and almost any computer algorithm will put USC in front. They're #2 in my Strength Power Rating, which uses score margin, while Ohio State is #13. In my Success Power Rating, which like the BCS computers does not use score margin, USC is #6 and Ohio State #8. The Trojans are still ahead, but as you can see, remove score margin from the equation and they are a lot closer.

BCS computers can't use score margin because the BCS committee decided to make it that way. On one hand, it makes the power ratings less accurate, especially at mid-season, and allows examples like this one to make the computers look stupid. On the other hand, it gets rid of incentive for coaches to run up the score. However, coaches have enough incentive to run up the score anyway: to impress the human pollsters, though this can sometimes backfire.

Another statement Huguenin makes is also a bit misleading:

While strength of schedule isn’t a BCS component, all six computers have a strength-of-schedule factor in their rankings.

It's true the BCS used to add in a ridiculous "strength of schedule" component, back when the formula was overcomplex and they tinkered with it every year to try to somehow make it match the AP and Coaches polls' #1 and #2 teams. They got rid of the strength factor, as well as the "quality wins" bonus, leaving it 2/3rd human polls, 1/3 computers.

The computers include a strength-of-schedule factor by their very nature. There is nothing "added in" as far as I know, to any of the formulas; it's just part and parcel of how they work. Imagine a computer ranking system that didn't include strength of schedule in any way. In other words, the computer couldn't know which teams are playing each other.

That's right: by letting the computer know which teams are playing each other, strength of schedule gets factored in no matter what. Without it—and also banning score margin—the computer might as well rank teams by winning percentage and let that be it. Or add in a home/road factor of some sort. There's nothing else to go on. It's the way the computer uses the head-to-head comparisons between teams that makes a power rating. Very few power ratings, if any, do what the BCS used to do, which is figure out a strength-of-schedule score and add it in later, as its own component.

My problem with some computer ratings, as I've mentioned before, is when strength of schedule is average rather than aggregate. When it's averaged, you can have a situation where an 11-0 team would be ranked higher if they didn't play Washington State in their last game. In an aggregate system, they'd play the Cougars, gain few if any points, and have basically the same rating they started with. If their strength of schedule is averaged, they lose points for winning a game.

That's all for now. I'll be back the next time someone writes something erroneous about the BCS computers, even if it's just to take a shortcut because they understandable don't want to have to write ten paragraphs about it. I'll do that part.

BCS Busters update: As expected, BYU falters on the road

The biggest non-surprise of last week was BYU's upset on the road at the hands of TCU. The Horned Frogs rated higher in power ratings than the Cougars, with the Strength algorith picking a 24-17 win for TCU. But more importantly, a look at BYU's home vs. road performance told everything one needed to know.

BYU opened at home and beat tough Division I-AA opponent Northern Iowa 41-17. They followed that with the closest of road wins, the Jake-Locker-ball-toss-penalty game against Washington. They left with a 28-27 victory, and the Huskies haven't come that close to winning since. 

The Cougars' two signature wins, back-to-back shutouts of UCLA and Wyoming by a combined 103-0, were both achieved at home. When they played a much lesser foe, Utah State, on the road, they won 34-14, then beat New Mexico at home 21-3.

So BYU on the road was a disaster waiting to happen, and if TCU hadn't caught them Utah would have (and still probably will). The magnitude of the blowout—32-7—was a bit surprising, but it underscores how poorly BYU plays away from home. In Provo I'd give them a chance against anybody, but away from home any decent team might upset them.

In any case, BYU falls from the ranks of the BCS Busters, which now consists of just four members:

1. Boise State - The Broncos have by far the easiest path from here to a top twelve finish. Already #13 in both polls used for the BCS, Boise's remaining schedule has no remaining pitfalls now that Fresno State has faltered and look toothless. Regardless, that game is a home game for Boise, and their biggest challenge now might be Nevada or San Jose State on the road. It certainly isn't New Mexico State, Utah State, or Idaho. Remaining pitfalls: None.
2. Utah - The Utes are the only BCS buster with an outside chance to make the championship game, though BYU's loss probably hurt them in that respect. At 8-0, they have just four games left, and winning out will guarantee them at least a BCS bowl game. But two of the four games are pitfalls: TCU and BYU. Luckily, both games are at home, and given BYU's road woes, the Horned Frogs are their biggest worry. The road game against New Mexico can't be overlooked either, leaving San Diego State as their only breather other than next week's bye. Remaining pitfalls: TCU, BYU. 
3. Tulsa - It's hard to believe that Arkansas still counts as a potential pitfall for this team, given its offense. But the Razorbacks surprised Auburn and almost beat Kentucky, and a team that struggles on the road against SMU surely has to worry about Arkansas. Another disturbing development is that coach Todd Graham is already complaining that the BCS might overlook an undefeated Tulsa team. Note to coach—that's the sort of chicken-counting that gets a team upset the next week. Tulsa has finally made the USA and Harris top 25 and is looking a lot better in the power ratings these days, so they should be able to pull it off but they have a long way to go, six more games counting the C-USA title game. Remaining pitfalls: @Arkansas, C-USA championship.
4. Ball State - The Cardinals were idle this week and didn't move up much in the polls. Like Tulsa, their chance of making a BCS game depends on other teams losing, as four non-BCS teams aren't going to make it. And 24-7 wins over Western Kentucky won't sway the voters, who must be swayed to make up for the computers which will probably have them outside the top 12 should they go undefeated. And there's that matter too, going undefeated: having won the only game (Indiana) that I expected them to lose to this year, the Cardinals should go 13-0. But their last two games are tough ones at Central Michigan then at home vs. Western Michigan. The East division isn't looking strong enough to challenge them in the MAC title game. Remaining pitfalls: @Central Michigan, Western Michigan.

In terms of reaching national championship game, here's how I see the pecking order:

• Any undefeated team from the Big 12 or SEC (remaining: Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Alabama). Only two possible by end of season.
• Any undefeated team from the other BCS conferences (remaining: Penn State)
• Any 1-loss team conference winner from the Big 12 or SEC (the above plus Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, and LSU)
• Utah, if undefeated
• Any remaining 1-loss team from the BCS conferences (USC highest among those)
• Boise State, if undefeated
• Any 2-loss conference winner from the Big 12 or SEC
• Any 1-loss Mountain West team (TCU first, then Utah or BYU)
• Any remaining 2-loss team from the BCS conferences (Oklahoma priority over TCU though)
• Tulsa or Ball State, if undefeated

So as you can see, unless every BCS team has 3 losses, Tulsa and Ball State don't have the schedule to make it to the big game. Boise State has a very small chance due to their win over Oregon, but it would require another year like last year's, and that's unlikely to happen. Utah has a good case if they go undefeated, but beating an undefeated BYU in the season finále would have given them more hope. As it stands, USC is probably more likely to get into the national championship game than Utah if both win out.

Maryland Terrapins: Schizo Team of the Year

Last year's most schizo team in the college football world was UCLA. Due mostly, but not all, to quarterback issues, the Bruins were great one week and terrible the next. They beat 11-2 BYU, only to lose 44-6 to Utah the following Saturday; scored 40+ twice in a row to win two Pac-10 games, then fell to abysmal Notre Dame while scoring just 6 points; they followed that with an upset of Cal, then lost three straight, after which they shut out Oregon 16-0. The 2007 UCLA Bruins had to be an oddsmakers' worst nightmare.

This year's UCLA team isn't quite like that. Though they upset Tennessee, the Vols don't look very good anymore and neither do the Bruins, who have been consistently poor since. Replacing them as this year's most schizophrenic team is Maryland.

The Terrapins opened with a lackluster 14-7 win over Division I-AA power Delaware. That could be written off as a fluke; indeed, I'd predicted a close game with Fightin' Blue Hens, who lost to Appalachian State in the FCS championship game last season. What I didn't predict is that Maryland would drop their next game 24-14, to the Sun Belt's Middle Tennessee State.

At this point even I—who had Maryland in my pre-season Top 25 at #25—had written off the Terrapins due to their lack of offensive productivity. But they surprisingly got it going against California, pulling off a 35-27 upset. They won their next two games as well, including a 20-17 upset of Clemson, and they looked to be right back on track, with the 4-1 record I'd expected at that juncture.

Maryland's next game was a trip to Virginia. The faltering Cavaliers had lost to USC by 45, to Connecticut by 35, and even to Duke by 28. Their only win was over I-AA Richmond. But the Terrapins were shut out 31-0.

After a week off to digest that humiliation, Maryland regrouped to face nationally ranked Wake Forest, the third team ranked at the time they faced them. Once again, Maryland prevailed, in a shocking 26-0 win, going from being shut out to achieving a shut out. That's something not even UCLA did last year.

It may be no fluke that the Virginia loss was a road game, while the Wake Forest win was at home. But another of Maryland's problem games (Delaware) was at home, and the Clemson win was on the road, so their loopy performance can't be explained away as a home/road phenomenon.

Their remaining schedule includes North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Florida State, Boston College. All but N.C. State are or have been ranked this year, so given their track record I'd expect Maryland to lost to North Carolina State, then sweep the remaining four.

Unless, that is, they're favored in any of those games. Then they're in trouble.

Mid-term Report Cards for all 120 Division I-A (FBS) teams

It's roughly the mid-point of the season. Most teams have played six games out of their twelve-game schedule. How have they fared?

SportsRatings has graded each team and issued a report card for all 120 teams. The two basic factors considered are: How has the team done so far? And, how has the team done, considering who they are? In other words, teams are graded by absolute and relative performance.

For absolute performance, a team's success at winning games and their offensive and defensive production are considered. For relative performance, teams are graded on how they've improved from last year, and how much they've exceeded pre-season expectations.

The following KEY explains the grades in the report card:

PERF grade: Raw performance in wins and losses (25% of Final Grade). Uses the Success Power Rating which rewards good wins and penalizes bad losses.

PERF off/def: Grades offensive and defensive performance (total of 25% of final grade). Offense and defense are graded according to scoring and yardage production, each corrected for opposition. See scoring and yardage statistics in sidebar.

vs. 2007: How much the team has improved (or not) from last season. 25% of Final Grade.

vs. EXP: A measure of how much the team has met, exceeded, or fallen short of pre-season expectations (25% of Final Grade). Calculated by comparisons with SportsRatings' pre-season outlook.

Final Grade: A merging of all four of the above.

Comments: Some additional thoughts about the student's work, a necessary part of any report card.

Class rank	Team	PERF grade	PERF Off / Def		vs. 2007	vs. EXP	Final Grade	Comments
1	Georgia Tech	A	B	A	A	A	A	HAS ADAPTED WELL TO NEW INSTRUCTOR
2	Alabama	A+	B+	A+	A	B+	A	IS SHOWING BETTER ATTITUDE
3	Ball St	A+	A	B	A+	B	A	HAS MET CHALLENGES WITH ENTHUSIASM
4	Oklahoma St	A+	A+	B-	A	B	A	HAS SHOWN GREAT MATURITY
5	Northwestern	B+	B	A-	A	A	A	WORK IS CONSISTENTLY GOOD
6	Texas	A+	A+	A	B+	B-	A-	HAS EXCELLED IN ALL AREAS
7	Vanderbilt	A-	D	A-	A	A	A-	IS MAKING MOST OF ABILITIES
8	Penn State	A+	A	A	A	C	A-	SHOWS GOOD WORK AND GREAT POTENTIAL
9	Minnesota	B+	B-	C	A+	A+	A-	HAS IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY THIS YEAR
10	Boise St	A	C	A	A	B	A-	ALWAYS STRIVES FOR PERFECTION
11	California	A	A	B-	B	B	B+	NEEDS CONSISTENT LEADER TO PROGRESS
12	Utah	A+	B+	B+	A	C	B+	HAS MET ALL CHALLENGES AND EXCELLED
13	TCU	A-	B-	A+	A-	C+	B+	IS MANAGING TIME WELL
14	Michigan St	A	B	B	A	C+	B+	MUST WORK HARD TO FINISH YEAR STRONG
15	North Carolina	A	C	C-	A+	B-	B	HAS DEMONSTRATED IMPROVED SKILLS IN MANY AREAS
16	Tulsa	A	A+	D	A	C+	B	EXCELLENT WORK OVERALL BUT SOME AREAS DEFICIENT
17	Texas Tech	A	A	B	B+	C	B	SOMETIMES SHOWS LUCK OF ENTHUSIASM
18	Notre Dame	B	C	C	A-	A-	B	HAS IMPROVED GREATLY BY MOST MEASURES
19	Navy	B	B+	D	B+	A+	B	HAS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS SO FAR
20	San Jose St	B-	F	A-	A-	A	B	GOOD WORK BUT ONE DEFICIENT SKILL AREA REMAINS
21	Western Mich.	B+	B	D+	A	B+	B	CONTINUES TO WORK TOWARDS GOALS
22	Southern Cal	A	A	A+	C	C	B	HAS EXCELLED EXCEPT FOR ONE VERY POOR DAY!
23	Mississippi	B	A	D+	A	C+	B	WORK IS GOOD BUT LACKS CONSISTENCY
24	Oregon St	B	A	A-	C-	B	B	HAS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS AT TIMES
25	Duke	B	D+	B+	A+	C+	B	QUALITY OF WORK HAS MARKEDLY IMPROVED
26	Oklahoma	A	A+	B+	C	C-	B	HAS NEARLY MET LOFTY EXPECTATIONS
27	Florida	A-	A	A	C-	C-	B	SOME DAYS TIMMY HASN'T SEEMED LIKE HIMSELF
28	Air Force	B-	C-	B+	C	A	B	HAS FARED WELL AMONG DIFFICULT PEER GROUP
29	BYU	A+	B+	B	C	C	B	HAS SOMETIMES BULLIED OTHERS
30	Georgia	A	A	A	D+	C	B	DEMONSTRATES COMMITMENT TOWARD GOALS
31	Florida Int'l	C	F	C	A	A+	B	IS ENJOYING THIS YEAR MUCH MORE
32	Pittsburgh	B+	C+	A	B-	C	B	STARTED YEAR SLOW BUT IS GAINING GROUND
33	Nebraska	B	A-	C	B	C	B	FALLS SHORT WHEN ASSIGNED MORE DIFFICULT TASKS
34	Rice	C	A	F	A-	B	B	EXHIBITS IMPROVEMENTS IN MANY AREAS
35	Iowa	C+	B	A	B-	C+	B-	HAS TROUBLE COMPLETING TASKS SUCCESSFULLY
36	Missouri	A-	A+	A-	D	C-	B-	NEEDS TO STAY MOTIVATED
37	Stanford	B	B	C-	C+	B	B-	MUST WORK ON CONSISTENCY
38	Colorado St	C	D+	C+	A-	B-	B-	HAS COMPLETED EXPECTED TASKS
39	N Mexico St	C	C+	F	A	B+	B-	HAS SHOWN IMPROVED ABILITIES
40	Virginia Tech	A	D	B+	C	C	B-	STARTED POORLY BUT HAS IMPRESSED WITH IMPROVEMENT
41	Wake Forest	A-	F	A+	C+	C	B-	MUST CORRECT DEFICIENT AREAS
42	Florida St	B	A-	C	C	C	C+	HAS DISCOVERED NEW TALENTS
43	N. Illinois	D+	F	B	B+	A	C+	HAS OVERCOME ADVERSITY REMARKABLY WELL
44	LA-Lafayette	D+	A-	F	B	A-	C+	IS EXHIBITING NEW TALENTS
45	Ohio State	A	D+	A	C	D+	C+	WORK HAS OFTEN BEEN DISAPPOINTING
46	South Florida	A-	B	B	C-	D+	C+	SHOWS LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR SOME SUBJECTS
47	Connecticut	A-	C+	C+	C	C-	C+	HAS COMPLETED MOST WORK SATISFACTORILY
48	Bowling Green	B-	B-	D+	B	C	C+	HAS POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL YEAR
49	Arkansas St	C	C	D+	B	B	C+	HAS BEEN PLEASANTLY SURPRISING
50	Akron	D+	C+	D	B	A-	C+	PERFORMANCE UP AND DOWN WEEK TO WEEK
51	Houston	C+	A	D	B-	C	C+	IS DISCOVERING NEW TALENTS
52	Louisville	B-	C	B-	C	C+	C+	WORK QUALITY IS NOT UP TO USUAL LEVEL
53	Miami FL	C-	C-	B	C	B+	C+	HAS SHOWN MUCH POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT
54	Kansas	B+	B+	B	D	C	C+	CONTINUES TO SHOW ENTHUSIASM
55	East Carolina	B	D+	D+	B	C	C+	STARTED YEAR WELL BUT EFFORT LEVEL HAS FALLEN
56	Baylor	D+	B	D	B	B	C+	STRUGGLING WITH ROUGH PEER GROUP
57	Kentucky	B	C-	A	D	C	C	HAS DONE WELL CONSIDERING CHALLENGES
58	LSU	B	A-	C	D	C	C	QUALITY OF WORK HAS SLIPPED SOMEWHAT
59	Kansas St	B-	A-	F	C+	C	C	IS EXPERIENCING SOME TROUBLES BUT PERSEVERING
60	Boston College	B	C	A	D	C-	C	WORKING WELL SO FAR WITH CHANGED FOCUS
61	Central Mich.	C	B	D	B-	C	C	SHOWING SOME PROGRESS IN DEFICIENT AREAS
62	S. Carolina	B	D+	A+	C	D	C	LEVEL OF WORK NOT UP TO ABILITIES
63	Cincinnati	B	C	B-	D+	C-	C	HAS MET CHALLENGES SO FAR
64	Illinois	C	A	B-	D	C	C	CONCERNED ABOUT MORALE IF LETDOWN CONTINUES
65	Virginia	B	D	C	C-	C	C	HAS IMPROVED GREATLY DURING THE YEAR
66	Maryland	B	D+	D	B	D	C	MUST SHOW GREATER CONSISTENCY
67	Colorado	C+	D+	B	C	C-	C	DEMONSTRATES GOOD EFFORT FOR ABILITY LEVEL
68	Arizona	C	B	B	C-	D+	C	VERY FRUSTRATING PERFORMANCE GIVEN POTENTIAL
69	Nevada	C-	A	F	C+	C	C	PROBLEM AREAS HAVE NOT IMPROVED
70	UTEP	D+	B	F	C+