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.
LA Times article ignorant about computer ratings
Here we go again. The annual article showing a complete lack of understanding about computer rating systems. It's not so much the ignorance that bothers me, but that the authors never even attempt to try to gain an understanding. They just push forth a few examples that make computer rankings look stupid or irrational, and then say "wow, can't possibly make heads or tails of that! Why even try?"
The examples in the article make complete sense to me, mostly because my two rating systems mirror the examples almost exactly. The author (Chris Dufresne) exhibits dismay that Jeff Sagarin's two systems can evaluate the same team differently. Here are his examples:
He doesn't even understand how Sagarin combines his ratings. The real numbers he should have cited are:
Using my comparable ratings (Strength is similar to Predictor, and Success mirrors ELO somewhat):
So while the differences in my ratings aren't quite as extreme, they're pretty close on the whole. So why the discrepancies between two methods of rating college football teams? There are many reasons.
One is that it's early in the season. With only four or five games to go by, any one game can have a big effect on a score-based system. Likewise, using winning and losing only, five games is a paltry amount to base a rating on. This is why I (and Mr. Sagarin) combine the two systems. When combined, the deficiencies of the two systems are lessened. USC ends up #3, Florida #8, and Northwestern #27 in my Overall ratings. In Sagarin's method, USC is #1, Florida is #7, and Northwestern #28.
Also, early ratings are sometimes handled differently until there are enough "connections" to make valid comparisons. Jeff Sagarin uses some weighing of last year's results until this year has enough data. At this point, according to his site, Predictor (the score-margin system) still is using some weight from last year, while the ELO portion does not. This is naturally going to lead to greater discrepancy between the two.
For the SportsRatings power rating, there is never any use of last year's data. But early ratings are naturally weighed heavier with the results of Strength rather than Success. The Success ratings build throughout the year as teams win games. It's difficult for a Win-Loss-only system to have good results until teams have played about 10 games; until then, the score-based system carries more weight. My motto is "you can't argue with Success" but only at the end of the season. Until then, some results, like Oregon State's upset of USC, can be at least somewhat written off as a fluke.
Dufresne does point out that USC's huge wins over Ohio State and Oregon count for a lot in a margin-based system. From there it doesn't take a lot for the ratings to make perfect sense; why should a 3-1 team by any higher than #16 anyway?
Florida's case is easier to understand. If you only knew that some "Team X" had defeated four teams that were each 2-3, and Team X had lost to another that was 3-3, wouldn't #46 seem like a possible ranking? But knowing that the score of the four wins were 56-10, 26-3, 30-6, and 38-7, and that the loss was by 1 point, you might think it reasonable that they be in the top ten.
Just a little digging could help people understand the computer rankings, and it's an area that journalists have failed. There is so much coverage of every aspect of college football by the press—offenses, injuries, history, human-interest storylines—but the computer rankings are addresses with either pure ridicule and/or ignorance. There is no attempt to educate the fans on exactly what mechanisms they operate by. Why not? Sure, it may make for a longer, more in-depth article, but it has become a crucial area due to the BCS system. But all we get is "oh my God, look at what those computers did!"
Even for the financial meltdown in the stock market has articles that attempt to explain, step-by-step, just what happened in a technical sense. And that "system" is so complex than no one really understands how it works or where it is going since its scope is so huge. College football has a finite amount of games—it would be possible to show exactly what a computer is "thinking" every step of the way!
Sportswriters do a disservice to fans when they use the computer ratings only to take potshots at the BCS rather than to introduce fans to a very interesting nexus of sports and mathematics. The introduction of computer power ratings has clearly influenced sports and college football in particular. Spreads on games hew close to computer models these days. And pollsters, over the last ten years, have started to refer to power ratings when making their choices. In the early days of Sagarin's ratings being featured in USA Today, the difference between his ratings and the polls was huge. Then many of the teams he ranked high started to "upset" other teams. After years of this happening, you started to see these teams enter the top 25 earlier, and move up faster, than they did in the past.
Now, with spreads and the AP poll mirroring the computer rankings so much, any discrepancy is quickly noted. But does the AP poll make that much sense right now? #24 Pitt beat #19 South Florida who beat #16 Kansas; all teams have 1 loss. Michigan State is at #23 at 5-1, but the 4-1 Cal team that beat them isn't rated. There are justifiable reasons for these discrepancies perhaps. But the polls have another advantage: they are the aggregate of 70 different opinions. Combine 70 computer rankings and you wouldn't be able to pick one or two apart for having widely contrasting results.
The inconsistencies and biases that show up in the human polls are one reason I like computer power ratings. It's also why I base the SportsRatings Top 25—a non-computerized, subjective ranking—on a few basic principles so that teams are ranked in a fair manner. First and foremost, I try to explain why I put teams where I do, so that someone who takes issue with them at least knows where I'm coming from.
It's a lot easier just to mock a rating system than to try and understand it. But I think there is fan interest in knowing how these systems work, and journalists would be doing their job to go a step further in this direction.
October 06, 2008 at 10:39 PM in AP/Coaches/Harris poll, commentary, Power Ratings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us