AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Florida: 13-1 -- W, BCS, 24-14
2. Utah: 13-0 -- W, Sugar, 31-17
3. USC: 12-1 -- W, Rose, 38-24
4. Texas: 12-1 -- W, Fiesta, 24-21
5. Oklahoma: 12-2 -- L, BCS, 14-24
6. Alabama: 12-2 -- L, Sugar, 17-31
7. TCU: 11-2 -- W, Poinsetta, 17-16
8. Penn State: 11-2 -- L, Rose, 24-38
9. Ohio State: 10-3 -- L, Fiesta, 21-24
10. Oregon: 10-3 -- W, Holiday, 42-31
So, this was yet another year of the BCS ridiculousness. After USC's road loss to Oregon State in their third game, the Trojans were summarily dismissed as contenders for the BCS title game. Meanwhile, the same week, Florida lost at home to Mississippi and was NOT summarily dismissed from the title game discussion.
Therein lies the problem. Both Oregon State and Mississippi finished 9-4, so there was no shame in either loss. But the powers-that-be arbitrarily decided that USC's ROAD loss eliminated the Trojans, while the Gators' HOME loss did not eliminate Florida. Go figure.
In the end, there were nine teams with no losses or one loss at the end of the regular season, and why the BCS arbitrarily chose Oklahoma and Florida to play for the "title" was just as contrived as the above "evaluation" of USC and Florida after their early losses.
Even more befuddling was the Big XII South this year, which left us with 11-1 teams Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech in a roundabout tie. Texas beat Oklahoma by ten points on a neutral field, Texas Tech beat Oklahoma by five points at home on a last-second TD, and Oklahoma annihilated Texas Tech by 40+ points at home. The tiebreak? The BCS formula. Voters screwed that one up, too, ignoring the Longhorns' neutral site victory and awarding the Sooners for running up the score at home.
The BCS doesn't use computer formulas that use "margin of victory", though. Uh huh.
In the end, however, we were left with some interesting bowl matchups which would eliminate some of the TUCs for 2008: USC vs. Penn State, Florida vs. Oklahoma, Alabama vs. Utah. That would reduce six TUCs to just three. Other games featuring TUCs were TCU vs. Boise State, Mississippi vs. Texas Tech and Texas vs. Ohio State.
After the bowl games, we were really left with only four legitimate teams as potential McMNCs: 13-0 Utah, 13-1 Florida, 12-1 USC and 12-1 Texas. That takes care of the bowl-game criterion: you must win the bowl game.
Check.
Now, you must also win your conference. That's been a staple here since 1936. But did Texas win their conference? In essence, yes, they did. They finished in a tie that could not be broken, due to the roundabout trio of H2H results noted above. Since the tiebreak that was used had nothing to do with on-the-field results, Oklahoma was chosen as the "Big XII South Champion". The Sooners proceeded to beat Missouri in the Big XII title game. Texas also beat Missouri during the regular season (56-31), so the Longhorns get the nod there, too. And, they beat the Sooners, 45-35, at a neutral site during the regular season. So for all intents and purposes, the Longhorns were virtual Big XII champions.
So, how to split hairs between Utah, Florida, USC and Texas?
First, anyone who tries to claim that one team is definitively better than the others is idiotic. Without H2H results, we know nothing. All we can do is speculate according to our biases. Smarter people try to remove their biases as best possible, but even in the choice of the "objective", we are being subjective. Therefore, all anyone can do is present what they think, support it and leave it to the audience to decide on their own.
The BCS, however, is a joke. This has been clear for three years now, if not longer. But these past three seasons represent a nadir in the BCS's integrity, as we've seen ridiculous lobbying, media interference and corrupt financial influence deciding matters that can only be decided on the field. If anyone really thinks the BCS "works", then they're living in a world no one else inhabits except those at Jonestown.
Let's look at the TUCs, however:
1) Utah -- The only undefeated team in the FBS this year, the Utes played a schedule with a base SOS of 52%. That's on the good side, of course, and well in-line with past schedules of McMNC winners. They 8-5 Air Force on the road by seven points, they beat 9-4 Weber State at home by 16 points, they beat 9-4 Oregon State at home by three points, they beat 7-6 Colorado State by 33 points at home, they beat 11-2 TCU at home by three points, they beat 10-3 BYU at home by 24 points, and they beat 12-2 Alabama on the road in the Sugar Bowl by 14 points.
The Utes can't help the conference they're in -- that cannot be a requisite for winning a title. The OOC slate for Utah included 3-9 Michigan, 3-9 Utah State (a regional "rival"), 9-4 Weber State (another regional "rival"), and 9-4 Oregon State. Utah split its four OOC games between BCS big boys and regional punching bags. No one knew Michigan would be 3-9 when the season began, so that opening win over the Wolverines was huge. And no one knew Michigan would 3-9 when that game was scheduled years ago. Utah did enough to satiate its schedule strength.
Plus, they beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Convincingly. In fact, of the four TUCs, Utah had the second-best bowl win: they beat a 12-1 team in its own backyard handily, jumping out to a 21-point lead in the first quarter, never surrendering the lead and never giving The Tide a chance to even tie the game after midway through the first quarter. They dominated Alabama like no other team had all year, including Florida.
Utah is for real. They went undefeated. They won a road bowl game, basically, and they did it with ease. They beat six bowl teams, and they beat seven teams with winning records. There was nothing "easy" about Utah's schedule.
2) Florida -- The Gators won the SEC, and their SOS was 59%. At first glance, that's certainly not enough to overcome the loss as traditionally measured in these McMNC analyses. Plus, if you remove the conference title game, it falls to 56%. The conference title games, like the schedules, are not within the players' control, and to continue to use them as examples of superiority is pure circular logic. In any case, Florida played ten winnings teams in 2008 (although four of them were merely 7-6, thanks to favorable OOC scheduling). Impressive, to be sure, but not as much as the experts would have you believe.
Florida's bowl win, a 24-14 win over 12-2 Oklahoma, was tied at 14 in the middle of the fourth quarter. That's certainly not a dominating win. A clutch win, but not dominating. Florida's one loss came at home to 9-4 Mississippi in the Gators' fourth game of the season.
The Gators' OOC slate? 7-7 Hawai'i, 7-6 Miami, 4-8 The Citadel, and 9-4 Florida State. Making the Rainbow Warriors travel east isn't impressive; it's easy pickings. Scheduling The Citadel is just inexcusable. Miami-FL and FSU are regional rivals, so like Utah, Florida split its OOC slate with the good and the bad.
3) USC -- The Trojans went 12-1 while winning the Pac-10 for the seventh straight season. This was also USC's seventh-straight season with at least 11 wins. They played in their seventh-straight BCS bowl game. No other program in the country can even come close to matching that current streak of dominance.
But this is about 2008 alone. The Trojans went 12-1 against an SOS of 52%. Soft schedule? I don't think so. Also, if you remove doormats Washington and Washington State, teams USC had to play in their full conference round-robin schedule, that SOS rises to 56%.
USC had the most impressive bowl win of the season, too: a 38-24 thrashing of 11-2 Penn State, where it was 31-7 at halftime. Pete Carroll doesn't run up the score; he put his team on cruise control in the second half. No other TUC had a more impressive 30 minutes of bowl domination than USC, making the other 30 minutes irrelevant.
The Trojans' OOC slate? 5-7 Virginia, 10-3 Ohio State, 7-6 Notre Dame. All FBS teams. Easily, they have the best OOC scheduling -- the part the school DOES control -- of any TUC. In this decade, Virginia has had five winning seasons, by the way. Ohio State and Notre Dame are perennial contenders, if not outright powerhouses. There were no creampuffs on this schedule, and the Trojans can't help it if two league teams had their worst seasons in years this time around.
Even with those duds on the schedule, USC played seven winning teams in 2008.
4) Texas -- The Longhorns were defacto Big XII champs, as noted above. Their SOS rating? 60&, by far the best of the one-loss teams, and without a conference title game to artificially inflate the SOS rating. Their one loss? On the road to 11-2 Texas Tech, by far the best loss of the one-loss bunch. However, Texas also had the weakest bowl win of the bunch, scrapping out a 24-21 win over 10-3 Ohio State.
The OOC slate for Texas? 7-6 Florida Atlantic, 5-7 UTEP (a regional "rival"), 10-3 Rice (another regional "rival"), and 5-7 Arkansas (a third regional "rival"). Interesting mix, as three teams are traditional foes and one was a random. Rice had a good season, and Arkansas is an FBS team -- as is FAU. Not great, but an average OOC slate.
So that's the skinny on the four teams. First task is to identify the best one-loss team of the bunch to face the Utes, because no one has the SOS rating to overcome the Utes' perfect season.
Hence, Florida vs. USC vs. Texas: Texas has the best schedule (60%-59% over Florida). USC has the best bowl win (easily, since the other two had to fight in the fourth quarter to win). USC has the best OOC slate (duh). Texas has the best wins (four wins over 10-win teams). Florida has the worst loss (the only road loss).
Florida is out, simply because they didn't win any categories, and they lost one, to boot.
So we're left with USC and Texas. The Longhorns have the SOS edge, USC has the better bowl win. USC has the better OOC slate, Texas has the best wins. USC has the worst loss.
Which means Texas is really the best of the one-loss teams.
So it comes down to Texas vs. Utah for the 2008 McMNC:
Utah didn't lose; Texas did. The Longhorns' SOS rating is eight points higher than Utah's, but we've seen similar gaps in the past. The Longhorns' edge in SOS can't overcome the one loss: the last-second TD from Graham Harrell to Michael Crabtree truly doomed Texas in 2008.
Not much else to say, but perfect records will almost always defeat blemished records. That's why they play the games, historically and traditionally.
McMNC Revisions
1. Utah
2. Texas
3. USC
4. Florida
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Utah: +2008
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Florida: =1996, -2006, -2008
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Overall McMNC Analysis: Part Three & Conclusion
The BCS Years are a mess, of course.
In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005, I agreed with the BCS determination of the MNC. However, I did so grudgingly in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the BCS screwed up the choice of the #2 team for the "title" game.
Interesting years? In 1998, Sagarin chose Ohio State as his #1 (they were my No. 2). In 2002, Dunkel, Matthews and Sagarin chose USC as their #1 (they were my No. 4).
The years I chose a different champion than the BCS did were 2003, 2006 and 2007. In the first of those years (2003), the AP, Eck, Matthews and the NY Times also picked USC -- so I certainly wasn't alone. But it surprises me so many of the other selectors chose LSU: they had a worse loss, a worse bowl win and lesser results against common opponents. I see this as the distinct beginning of the "SEC bias" mentality that is now dominating the college football scene, for better or for worse.
However, it is also interesting to note that USC was the unanimous champion in 2004 over Auburn, for at least two of the same reasons noted above.
In 2006, I stood alone, of course, in selecting Boise State. The BCS had a clusterfuck to separate for the #2 title slot, and Florida got the opportunity to take down a flawed Ohio State squad when four other teams probably could have done the same. Why choose Florida over those four other teams? Boise State may be my most radical McMNC call of the whole analysis, but oh well. They went undefeated, they beat a BCS big boy in the bowl game, and they deserved it in my mind.
Finally, 2007 was a disgrace to the entire college football scene. In choosing West Virginia over USC and LSU, I am bucking conventional wisdom, for sure. But I really couldn't understand why LSU was chosen as #2 over Kansas, USC and WVU in the first place, although I am sure the preseason expectations had a lot to do with it. LSU shot itself in the foot twice against unranked teams (while KU only lost to #4) but survived simply because people believed the SEC was "so good" -- although a closer look at SEC OOC schedules really shows most SEC teams to be around .500 against quality competition. I know this is a point of contention on RSFC, and it will be for a long time. But potential and expectation didn't sway my viewpoints, as it did so many "voters" in the laughable BCS polls -- which we have seen to be easily manipulated on multiple occasions by coaches' pleas, conference commissioners and bowl representatives.
Either way, I stood alone again in 2007. So I stood alone twice in the ten years of the BCS. Overall, I picked eight champions that no one else did in 73 seasons -- agreeing with "experts" 89% of the time. Most of my McMNCs went to worthy teams in the estimation of others, while 11% of my picks strayed from mainstream thought/analysis.
That's not a high percentage, and it's one I can live with and sleep soundly upon, for we all know RSFCkers are smr4t3r than the mediots, anyway.
One idea that was floated on RSFC was that of "chance" opening the door for both Florida in 2006 and LSU in 2007. Say USC hadn't lost to UCLA at the end of 2006, for example. Do the one-loss Trojans beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl? Probably. Does Florida win their bowl game? Probably. So why would anyone pick USC over Florida for the AP title if Florida was so good? This is the issue with the BCS is most years: it is a flawed system that leaves the selection of the top two teams to chance and the easily-manipulated polls. It's a flawed system, and therefore, no BCS champion can really be considered "real" or "absolute" or "concrete". Likewise, if West Virginia beats Pitt in 2007, LSU can't sniff the BCS title game. But wouldn't they still be considered "better" than either Ohio State or the Mountaineers, if what the mediots and/or RSFCkers would have us believe?
Problems left, problems right. The BCS sucks.
Anyway, that's that. The 2008 season starts tomorrow, and it will bring more controversy and confusion to our fingertips, no doubt. I hope you have enjoyed the experience this off-season, and thanks to interesting information I came across in these studies, I have already decided what to do for Offseason 2009 ...
But you'll have to wait until the second week of January to find out what it is.
In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005, I agreed with the BCS determination of the MNC. However, I did so grudgingly in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the BCS screwed up the choice of the #2 team for the "title" game.
Interesting years? In 1998, Sagarin chose Ohio State as his #1 (they were my No. 2). In 2002, Dunkel, Matthews and Sagarin chose USC as their #1 (they were my No. 4).
The years I chose a different champion than the BCS did were 2003, 2006 and 2007. In the first of those years (2003), the AP, Eck, Matthews and the NY Times also picked USC -- so I certainly wasn't alone. But it surprises me so many of the other selectors chose LSU: they had a worse loss, a worse bowl win and lesser results against common opponents. I see this as the distinct beginning of the "SEC bias" mentality that is now dominating the college football scene, for better or for worse.
However, it is also interesting to note that USC was the unanimous champion in 2004 over Auburn, for at least two of the same reasons noted above.
In 2006, I stood alone, of course, in selecting Boise State. The BCS had a clusterfuck to separate for the #2 title slot, and Florida got the opportunity to take down a flawed Ohio State squad when four other teams probably could have done the same. Why choose Florida over those four other teams? Boise State may be my most radical McMNC call of the whole analysis, but oh well. They went undefeated, they beat a BCS big boy in the bowl game, and they deserved it in my mind.
Finally, 2007 was a disgrace to the entire college football scene. In choosing West Virginia over USC and LSU, I am bucking conventional wisdom, for sure. But I really couldn't understand why LSU was chosen as #2 over Kansas, USC and WVU in the first place, although I am sure the preseason expectations had a lot to do with it. LSU shot itself in the foot twice against unranked teams (while KU only lost to #4) but survived simply because people believed the SEC was "so good" -- although a closer look at SEC OOC schedules really shows most SEC teams to be around .500 against quality competition. I know this is a point of contention on RSFC, and it will be for a long time. But potential and expectation didn't sway my viewpoints, as it did so many "voters" in the laughable BCS polls -- which we have seen to be easily manipulated on multiple occasions by coaches' pleas, conference commissioners and bowl representatives.
Either way, I stood alone again in 2007. So I stood alone twice in the ten years of the BCS. Overall, I picked eight champions that no one else did in 73 seasons -- agreeing with "experts" 89% of the time. Most of my McMNCs went to worthy teams in the estimation of others, while 11% of my picks strayed from mainstream thought/analysis.
That's not a high percentage, and it's one I can live with and sleep soundly upon, for we all know RSFCkers are smr4t3r than the mediots, anyway.
One idea that was floated on RSFC was that of "chance" opening the door for both Florida in 2006 and LSU in 2007. Say USC hadn't lost to UCLA at the end of 2006, for example. Do the one-loss Trojans beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl? Probably. Does Florida win their bowl game? Probably. So why would anyone pick USC over Florida for the AP title if Florida was so good? This is the issue with the BCS is most years: it is a flawed system that leaves the selection of the top two teams to chance and the easily-manipulated polls. It's a flawed system, and therefore, no BCS champion can really be considered "real" or "absolute" or "concrete". Likewise, if West Virginia beats Pitt in 2007, LSU can't sniff the BCS title game. But wouldn't they still be considered "better" than either Ohio State or the Mountaineers, if what the mediots and/or RSFCkers would have us believe?
Problems left, problems right. The BCS sucks.
Anyway, that's that. The 2008 season starts tomorrow, and it will bring more controversy and confusion to our fingertips, no doubt. I hope you have enjoyed the experience this off-season, and thanks to interesting information I came across in these studies, I have already decided what to do for Offseason 2009 ...
But you'll have to wait until the second week of January to find out what it is.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Overall McMNC Analysis: Part Two
How off in left field was I on some of these picks? Well, using this list (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) we can analyze in context, somewhat.
Up to the BCS Years, I stood alone in my picks six times in 62 seasons: 1942, 1943, 1953, 1965, 1969, 1977. Overall, that's not too bad. Agreeing with the "experts" 90% of the time demonstrates I'm not crazy, that's for sure.
See below for a year-by-year account:
1936: I picked Pittsburgh over Minnesota. While Minnesota was a consensus champ, Boand, Football Research, and Houlgate agreed with me. Williamson chose LSU, my No. 6 pick.
1937: I picked California over Pittsburgh. While Pitt was the consensus champ, Dunkel and Helms agreed with me.
1938: I picked Tennessee over TCU. Both schools were named by a lot of selectors, and Billingsley, Boand, Dunkel, Football Research, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, and Sagarin agreed with my pick. Also, Dickinson picked Notre Dame -- which I left out of my Top 5.
1939: I confirmed Texas A&M, the consensus champion. However, Dickinson selected USC (my #2), while Billingsley and Litkenhous chose Cornell (not in my analysis).
1940: I picked Stanford over Minnesota, the consensus champ. Helms and Poling agreed with me, while Dunkel and Williamson went for Tennessee, my No. 6 team.
1941: I confirmed Minnesota, the consensus champion. But Berryman and Williamson went for Texas (unranked by me) and Houlgate chose Alabama (also unranked by me).
1942: This was the first major deviation year, as the majority of selectors picked between Georgia (my #2) and Ohio State (my #4). Helms chose Wisconsin (my #3). By picking Tennessee, I was standing alone here, but I felt Tennessee should have been a co-champion in the SEC due to the uneven scheduling.
1943: I stand alone again in 1943, as every selector chose 9-1 Notre Dame as their national champion despite the fact Purdue was undefeated and had beaten the team that beat the Irish. I don't think this was a reach, although the SOS was certainly in Notre Dame's favor this season. I had them No. 2 in my analysis.
1944: I picked Ohio State over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Ohio State this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.
1945: I picked Alabama over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Alabama this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.
1946: I picked Georgia over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. However, Boand, Football Research, Helms, Houlgate, and Poling all picked Army in one form or another. I do not stand alone, either, as Williamson picked the Bulldogs as well. I placed Notre Dame No. 2, of course.
1947: I confirmed Michigan as the consensus champion this year, although AP, Helms (split selection) and Williamson all selected Notre Dame. I again placed the Irish No. 2 in my final rankings.
1948: I confirmed Michigan as the unanimous champion this year.
1949: I picked Oklahoma over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. I do not stand alone, however, as Football Research also selected the Sooners. Notre Dame won its usual No. 2 spot in my final analysis.
1950: This was another split year, as selectors chose from four schools. I picked Tennessee, along with Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and the National Championship Foundation. AP, Berryman, Helms, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson all chose Oklahoma (my #4). Sagarin selected Kentucky (my #2), while Boand and Poling chose Princeton (not in my rankings).
1951: Five different teams were selected as MNCs in 1951, and by picking Illinois, I joined Boand (split selection) in that camp. Berryman and Boand (split) chose Georgia Tech (my #3). DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, National Championship Foundation and Sagarin chose Maryland (my #2). Billingsley, Helms and Poling selected Michigan State (my #4), and AP, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson picked Tennessee (my #5). Quite a season, for sure.
1952: I picked Georgia Tech over Michigan State, the consensus champion. But Berryman, INS and Poling agreed with my analysis.
1953: I stood alone in picking Michigan State. AP, INS and UPI chose Maryland (my #5), while Billingsley, Boand, DeVold, Dunkel, Helms, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling, Sagarin and Williamson chose Notre Dame (my #2). Berryman and Football Research even picked Oklahoma (my #3). This was a year where the bowl games mattered in my mind, since Maryland lost theirs and Notre Dame didn't play in one.
1954: Two teams were picked by all the selectors, UCLA and Ohio State. I picked the Buckeyes over UCLA, based simply on the bowl game Ohio State played that UCLA did not.
1955: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, although Boand chosen Michigan State (my #2). The Sooners' SOS was very poor, but the Spartans didn't win the Big Ten. Otherwise, they would have been my pick, too.
1956: I chose Iowa over Oklahoma, the consensus champion. But I wasn't alone in ditching the Sooners: Football Research agreed with my Hawkeyes pick, while Berryman chose Georgia Tech (my #4) and Sagarin selected Tennessee (my #3). The Sooners' truly laughable SOS sunk them: one victory over a winning team and no bowl game.
1957: I chose Oklahoma in a year where three teams garnered a lot of support and a fourth team was also selected. Despite being on probation, Auburn was selected by AP, Football Research, Helms, National Championship Foundation, Poling and Williamson. Michigan State (my #4 because they didn't win the Big Ten) won accolades from Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin. Ohio State (my #3) topped the lists of Boand, DeVold, FW, INS, Litkenhous and UPI. Only Berryman chose Oklahoma with me. No selector chose my #2, Mississippi.
1958: I confirmed LSU as the consensus champion, while only FW chose Iowa (my #2).
1959: I confirmed Syracuse as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin selected Mississippi (my #4).
1960: Five teams were selected in 1960 as MNCs, but only one selector (Helms) agreed with my pick of Washington. Berryman, Boand, Litkenhous and Sagarin selected Iowa (my #4), while AP, FB News, NFF and UPI chose Minnesota (my #5). Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation and Williamson all liked Mississippi (my #2), and Poling chose Missouri (my #3). Another crazy year, indeed.
1961: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion, while FW and Poling chose Ohio State (my #3).
1962: I chose Mississippi over consensus champion USC, and Litkenhous agreed with me. Billingsley went for Alabama (my #3), while Berryman gave LSU (my #4) a split with USC.
1963: I confirmed Texas as the unanimous champion.
1964: Three teams won at least four selectors this year, but I chose Arkansas in agreement with Billingsley, Football Research, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation and Poling. My #2 (Michigan) was chosen by Dunkel, while my #3 (Notre Dame) was selected by DeVold, FB News, NFF and Sagarin. Alabama (my #4) was the champion for AP, Berryman, Litkenhous and UPI.
1965: Alabama and Michigan State split all the selectors this year, but I stood alone in gifting the McMNC to UCLA. The Tide was my #2 team, and Michigan State was my #4 team.
1966: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Alabama (my #2) was chosen by Berryman. Michigan State (my #4) also got some MNC love from Football Research, Helms (split with ND), NFF (split) and Poling (split).
1967: I confirmed USC as the consensus champion. By the way, Dunkel picked Notre Dame, (out of my Top 5, since they lost to the Trojans), Poling picked Oklahoma (my #2), and Litkenhous selected Tennessee (my #3).
1968: I confirmed Ohio State as the consensus champion, although Georgia (Litkenhous) and Texas (DeVold, Matthews, Sagarin) also won some MNC love. I didn't rank Georgia, and I had Texas at No. 3 for the year.
1969: I stood alone in picking USC in 1969 over consensus champion Texas. Penn State (my #2) was selected by FACT in a split with Texas, while Matthews chose Ohio State (my #4).
1970: I confirmed Nebraska as the consensus champion, although four other teams also got MNC affection this year. Poling chose Arizona State (my #3), while Berryman, FACT (split), Litkenhous, NFF (split), Sagarin and UPI all chose Texas (my #4). FACT (split) and Matthews chose Notre Dame (my #2), while NFF (split) chose Ohio State (my #5). Another ridiculous year, clearly.
1971: I confirmed Nebraska as the unanimous champion.
1972: I confirmed USC as the unanimous champion.
1973: Five different teams earned MNC selections in this year, but I chose Notre Dame -- along with AP, FB News, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF. Alabama (my #5) was chosen by Berryman and UPI; Michigan (my #4) was selected by National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split); Ohio State (my #3) was chosen by FACT, National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split). Finally, despite being on probation, Oklahoma was selected by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Sagarin. Sadly enough, 12-0 Penn State didn't get a single selector despite finishing #2 in my rankings. Another clusterfuck season, to be sure.
1974: I chose USC over on-probation/consensus champion Oklahoma. Choosing the Trojans with me were FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation, NFF and UPI. Ohio State (not in my Top 5) was chosen by Matthews.
1975: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion. However, three other teams also got attention from selectors. Ohio State (my #4) was chosen by Berryman, FACT (split), Helms (split), Matthews (split) and Poling. Arizona State (my #2) was selected by National Championship Foundation* and The Sporting News. Also, Alabama (my #3) got a split from Matthews to claim a sliver this year.
1976: I confirmed consensus champion Pittsburgh, also USC (my #2) got selected by Berryman, Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Matthews.
1977: I chose Penn State over consensus champion Notre Dame (my #3). Four teams were honored this year, but Penn State was not one of them so I stand alone here. Texas (my #5) was selected by Berryman and FACT (split), while Arkansas (my #4) and Alabama (my #2) each got split titles (FACT and Football Research, respectively).
1978: Three teams split all the selectors this year, and I chose USC -- along with Berryman, FACT (split), FB News, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split), Sporting News and UPI. Oklahoma (my #4) was supported by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT (split), Helms (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin; Alabama (my #2) was the third team, with AP, FACT (split), Football Research, FW, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF titles. Messy season, for sure.
1979: I selected USC over consensus champion Alabama. And I was not alone, as Football Research agreed with me.
1980: Five different teams won MNCs in this year, although Georgia won the most. However, I picked Pittsburgh over Georgia -- and I wasn't alone. DeVold, FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times also picked the Panthers. Interestingly enough, Billingsley, Dunkel and Matthews chose Oklahoma (not in my Top 5). FACT (split) and Sagarin chose Nebraska (not in my Top 5), while FACT (split) also chose Florida State (not in my Top 5).
1981: Six different team were selected in this season, although Clemson was the consensus champion. But they were not mine. I agreed with Dunkel in choosing Penn State. The National Championship Foundation made a mockery of their title by splitting it five ways: Clemson (my #2), Nebraska, Pittsburgh (my #3), Texas (my #4) and SMU all got a slice. Whatever!
1982: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman chose Nebraska (my #3) and Helms chose SMU (my #5).
1983: Along with FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times, I chose Auburn over consensus champion Miami-FL. Also, Berryman, DeVold, FACT (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin selected Nebraska (my #3).
1984: I chose Brigham Young this year, like AP, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, Poling, UPI and USA/CNN. However, three other teams got nods, too, from selectors. Florida (not in my rankings) was pegged by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Matthews, NY Times, Sagarin, and The Sporting News. Litkenhous chose Nebraska (my #4), while Berryman, FB News, and the National Championship Foundation (split) selected Washington (my #2).
1985: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, while Matthews and Sagarin selected Michigan (my #3).
1986: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, NY Times and Sagarin selected Oklahoma (my #3). Miami-FL was chosen by FACT (split).
1987: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman and Sagarin chose Florida State (my #3).
1988: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Berryman selected Miami-FL (my #2).
1989: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Eck, FACT (split) and Sagarin selected Notre Dame (my #3).
1990: I chose Georgia Tech over consensus champion Colorado, along with selectors Dunkel, FACT (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and UPI. But Miami-FL (my #3) was chosen by Billingsley, Eck, FACT (split), NY Times and Sagarin, while FACT (split) also nabbed Washington (my #4).
1991: I chose Washington over Miami-FL in this split consensus season.
1992: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion. Only Sagarin went astray this year, giving Florida State (my #3) the nod.
1993: I chose Notre Dame over Florida State, the consensus champion. Agreeing with me were Matthews and National Championship Foundation (split). Auburn (not in my rankings) and Nebraska (my #3) also got split nods from NCF.
1994: I selected Penn State over Nebraska in a year of split consensus. Agreeing with me were selectors DeVold, Eck, FACT (split), Matthews, National Championship Foundation (split), NY Times and Sagarin. Surprisingly, Dunkel chose Florida State (my #5).
1995: I confirmed the unanimous champion, Nebraska.
1996: I confirmed the consensus champion, Florida. Although Alderson did select Florida State (my #5).
1997: I selected Nebraska over Michigan in a year of splits, as most selectors went with the Cornhuskers, too. Choosing the Wolverines were AP, FB News, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, and The Sporting News.
Up to the BCS Years, I stood alone in my picks six times in 62 seasons: 1942, 1943, 1953, 1965, 1969, 1977. Overall, that's not too bad. Agreeing with the "experts" 90% of the time demonstrates I'm not crazy, that's for sure.
See below for a year-by-year account:
1936: I picked Pittsburgh over Minnesota. While Minnesota was a consensus champ, Boand, Football Research, and Houlgate agreed with me. Williamson chose LSU, my No. 6 pick.
1937: I picked California over Pittsburgh. While Pitt was the consensus champ, Dunkel and Helms agreed with me.
1938: I picked Tennessee over TCU. Both schools were named by a lot of selectors, and Billingsley, Boand, Dunkel, Football Research, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, and Sagarin agreed with my pick. Also, Dickinson picked Notre Dame -- which I left out of my Top 5.
1939: I confirmed Texas A&M, the consensus champion. However, Dickinson selected USC (my #2), while Billingsley and Litkenhous chose Cornell (not in my analysis).
1940: I picked Stanford over Minnesota, the consensus champ. Helms and Poling agreed with me, while Dunkel and Williamson went for Tennessee, my No. 6 team.
1941: I confirmed Minnesota, the consensus champion. But Berryman and Williamson went for Texas (unranked by me) and Houlgate chose Alabama (also unranked by me).
1942: This was the first major deviation year, as the majority of selectors picked between Georgia (my #2) and Ohio State (my #4). Helms chose Wisconsin (my #3). By picking Tennessee, I was standing alone here, but I felt Tennessee should have been a co-champion in the SEC due to the uneven scheduling.
1943: I stand alone again in 1943, as every selector chose 9-1 Notre Dame as their national champion despite the fact Purdue was undefeated and had beaten the team that beat the Irish. I don't think this was a reach, although the SOS was certainly in Notre Dame's favor this season. I had them No. 2 in my analysis.
1944: I picked Ohio State over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Ohio State this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.
1945: I picked Alabama over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Alabama this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.
1946: I picked Georgia over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. However, Boand, Football Research, Helms, Houlgate, and Poling all picked Army in one form or another. I do not stand alone, either, as Williamson picked the Bulldogs as well. I placed Notre Dame No. 2, of course.
1947: I confirmed Michigan as the consensus champion this year, although AP, Helms (split selection) and Williamson all selected Notre Dame. I again placed the Irish No. 2 in my final rankings.
1948: I confirmed Michigan as the unanimous champion this year.
1949: I picked Oklahoma over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. I do not stand alone, however, as Football Research also selected the Sooners. Notre Dame won its usual No. 2 spot in my final analysis.
1950: This was another split year, as selectors chose from four schools. I picked Tennessee, along with Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and the National Championship Foundation. AP, Berryman, Helms, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson all chose Oklahoma (my #4). Sagarin selected Kentucky (my #2), while Boand and Poling chose Princeton (not in my rankings).
1951: Five different teams were selected as MNCs in 1951, and by picking Illinois, I joined Boand (split selection) in that camp. Berryman and Boand (split) chose Georgia Tech (my #3). DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, National Championship Foundation and Sagarin chose Maryland (my #2). Billingsley, Helms and Poling selected Michigan State (my #4), and AP, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson picked Tennessee (my #5). Quite a season, for sure.
1952: I picked Georgia Tech over Michigan State, the consensus champion. But Berryman, INS and Poling agreed with my analysis.
1953: I stood alone in picking Michigan State. AP, INS and UPI chose Maryland (my #5), while Billingsley, Boand, DeVold, Dunkel, Helms, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling, Sagarin and Williamson chose Notre Dame (my #2). Berryman and Football Research even picked Oklahoma (my #3). This was a year where the bowl games mattered in my mind, since Maryland lost theirs and Notre Dame didn't play in one.
1954: Two teams were picked by all the selectors, UCLA and Ohio State. I picked the Buckeyes over UCLA, based simply on the bowl game Ohio State played that UCLA did not.
1955: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, although Boand chosen Michigan State (my #2). The Sooners' SOS was very poor, but the Spartans didn't win the Big Ten. Otherwise, they would have been my pick, too.
1956: I chose Iowa over Oklahoma, the consensus champion. But I wasn't alone in ditching the Sooners: Football Research agreed with my Hawkeyes pick, while Berryman chose Georgia Tech (my #4) and Sagarin selected Tennessee (my #3). The Sooners' truly laughable SOS sunk them: one victory over a winning team and no bowl game.
1957: I chose Oklahoma in a year where three teams garnered a lot of support and a fourth team was also selected. Despite being on probation, Auburn was selected by AP, Football Research, Helms, National Championship Foundation, Poling and Williamson. Michigan State (my #4 because they didn't win the Big Ten) won accolades from Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin. Ohio State (my #3) topped the lists of Boand, DeVold, FW, INS, Litkenhous and UPI. Only Berryman chose Oklahoma with me. No selector chose my #2, Mississippi.
1958: I confirmed LSU as the consensus champion, while only FW chose Iowa (my #2).
1959: I confirmed Syracuse as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin selected Mississippi (my #4).
1960: Five teams were selected in 1960 as MNCs, but only one selector (Helms) agreed with my pick of Washington. Berryman, Boand, Litkenhous and Sagarin selected Iowa (my #4), while AP, FB News, NFF and UPI chose Minnesota (my #5). Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation and Williamson all liked Mississippi (my #2), and Poling chose Missouri (my #3). Another crazy year, indeed.
1961: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion, while FW and Poling chose Ohio State (my #3).
1962: I chose Mississippi over consensus champion USC, and Litkenhous agreed with me. Billingsley went for Alabama (my #3), while Berryman gave LSU (my #4) a split with USC.
1963: I confirmed Texas as the unanimous champion.
1964: Three teams won at least four selectors this year, but I chose Arkansas in agreement with Billingsley, Football Research, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation and Poling. My #2 (Michigan) was chosen by Dunkel, while my #3 (Notre Dame) was selected by DeVold, FB News, NFF and Sagarin. Alabama (my #4) was the champion for AP, Berryman, Litkenhous and UPI.
1965: Alabama and Michigan State split all the selectors this year, but I stood alone in gifting the McMNC to UCLA. The Tide was my #2 team, and Michigan State was my #4 team.
1966: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Alabama (my #2) was chosen by Berryman. Michigan State (my #4) also got some MNC love from Football Research, Helms (split with ND), NFF (split) and Poling (split).
1967: I confirmed USC as the consensus champion. By the way, Dunkel picked Notre Dame, (out of my Top 5, since they lost to the Trojans), Poling picked Oklahoma (my #2), and Litkenhous selected Tennessee (my #3).
1968: I confirmed Ohio State as the consensus champion, although Georgia (Litkenhous) and Texas (DeVold, Matthews, Sagarin) also won some MNC love. I didn't rank Georgia, and I had Texas at No. 3 for the year.
1969: I stood alone in picking USC in 1969 over consensus champion Texas. Penn State (my #2) was selected by FACT in a split with Texas, while Matthews chose Ohio State (my #4).
1970: I confirmed Nebraska as the consensus champion, although four other teams also got MNC affection this year. Poling chose Arizona State (my #3), while Berryman, FACT (split), Litkenhous, NFF (split), Sagarin and UPI all chose Texas (my #4). FACT (split) and Matthews chose Notre Dame (my #2), while NFF (split) chose Ohio State (my #5). Another ridiculous year, clearly.
1971: I confirmed Nebraska as the unanimous champion.
1972: I confirmed USC as the unanimous champion.
1973: Five different teams earned MNC selections in this year, but I chose Notre Dame -- along with AP, FB News, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF. Alabama (my #5) was chosen by Berryman and UPI; Michigan (my #4) was selected by National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split); Ohio State (my #3) was chosen by FACT, National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split). Finally, despite being on probation, Oklahoma was selected by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Sagarin. Sadly enough, 12-0 Penn State didn't get a single selector despite finishing #2 in my rankings. Another clusterfuck season, to be sure.
1974: I chose USC over on-probation/consensus champion Oklahoma. Choosing the Trojans with me were FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation, NFF and UPI. Ohio State (not in my Top 5) was chosen by Matthews.
1975: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion. However, three other teams also got attention from selectors. Ohio State (my #4) was chosen by Berryman, FACT (split), Helms (split), Matthews (split) and Poling. Arizona State (my #2) was selected by National Championship Foundation* and The Sporting News. Also, Alabama (my #3) got a split from Matthews to claim a sliver this year.
1976: I confirmed consensus champion Pittsburgh, also USC (my #2) got selected by Berryman, Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Matthews.
1977: I chose Penn State over consensus champion Notre Dame (my #3). Four teams were honored this year, but Penn State was not one of them so I stand alone here. Texas (my #5) was selected by Berryman and FACT (split), while Arkansas (my #4) and Alabama (my #2) each got split titles (FACT and Football Research, respectively).
1978: Three teams split all the selectors this year, and I chose USC -- along with Berryman, FACT (split), FB News, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split), Sporting News and UPI. Oklahoma (my #4) was supported by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT (split), Helms (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin; Alabama (my #2) was the third team, with AP, FACT (split), Football Research, FW, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF titles. Messy season, for sure.
1979: I selected USC over consensus champion Alabama. And I was not alone, as Football Research agreed with me.
1980: Five different teams won MNCs in this year, although Georgia won the most. However, I picked Pittsburgh over Georgia -- and I wasn't alone. DeVold, FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times also picked the Panthers. Interestingly enough, Billingsley, Dunkel and Matthews chose Oklahoma (not in my Top 5). FACT (split) and Sagarin chose Nebraska (not in my Top 5), while FACT (split) also chose Florida State (not in my Top 5).
1981: Six different team were selected in this season, although Clemson was the consensus champion. But they were not mine. I agreed with Dunkel in choosing Penn State. The National Championship Foundation made a mockery of their title by splitting it five ways: Clemson (my #2), Nebraska, Pittsburgh (my #3), Texas (my #4) and SMU all got a slice. Whatever!
1982: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman chose Nebraska (my #3) and Helms chose SMU (my #5).
1983: Along with FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times, I chose Auburn over consensus champion Miami-FL. Also, Berryman, DeVold, FACT (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin selected Nebraska (my #3).
1984: I chose Brigham Young this year, like AP, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, Poling, UPI and USA/CNN. However, three other teams got nods, too, from selectors. Florida (not in my rankings) was pegged by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Matthews, NY Times, Sagarin, and The Sporting News. Litkenhous chose Nebraska (my #4), while Berryman, FB News, and the National Championship Foundation (split) selected Washington (my #2).
1985: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, while Matthews and Sagarin selected Michigan (my #3).
1986: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, NY Times and Sagarin selected Oklahoma (my #3). Miami-FL was chosen by FACT (split).
1987: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman and Sagarin chose Florida State (my #3).
1988: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Berryman selected Miami-FL (my #2).
1989: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Eck, FACT (split) and Sagarin selected Notre Dame (my #3).
1990: I chose Georgia Tech over consensus champion Colorado, along with selectors Dunkel, FACT (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and UPI. But Miami-FL (my #3) was chosen by Billingsley, Eck, FACT (split), NY Times and Sagarin, while FACT (split) also nabbed Washington (my #4).
1991: I chose Washington over Miami-FL in this split consensus season.
1992: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion. Only Sagarin went astray this year, giving Florida State (my #3) the nod.
1993: I chose Notre Dame over Florida State, the consensus champion. Agreeing with me were Matthews and National Championship Foundation (split). Auburn (not in my rankings) and Nebraska (my #3) also got split nods from NCF.
1994: I selected Penn State over Nebraska in a year of split consensus. Agreeing with me were selectors DeVold, Eck, FACT (split), Matthews, National Championship Foundation (split), NY Times and Sagarin. Surprisingly, Dunkel chose Florida State (my #5).
1995: I confirmed the unanimous champion, Nebraska.
1996: I confirmed the consensus champion, Florida. Although Alderson did select Florida State (my #5).
1997: I selected Nebraska over Michigan in a year of splits, as most selectors went with the Cornhuskers, too. Choosing the Wolverines were AP, FB News, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, and The Sporting News.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Overall McMNC Analysis: Part One
The big winners in my analysis? Penn State, USC, Washington, Georgia Tech and Tennessee. The Nittany Lions netted three MNCs, while the Trojans, the Huskies, the Yellowjackets and the Vols each netted two MNCs.
Ten schools netted one MNC, while ten schools maintained their MNC totals (albeit some losing one while gaining another). Eight schools lost an MNC from their previous total.
The big losers were Notre Dame, Alabama, Minnesota, Miami-FL, LSU and Army. The Irish lost four MNCs overall, while the Tide and the Gophers each lost three MNCs from their tally. The 'Canes, Tigers and the Cadets each lost two MNCs.
Conference-wise, the breakdown was as follows: current Pac-10 members gained seven MNCs, while current Big Ten members gained three MNCs. Current Big XII members lost two MNCs, while current Big East members gained one MNC. Finally, current ACC members lost three MNCs, while current SEC members also lost two MNCs. Non-BCS schools gained an MNC. Of course, I am sure someone will scream, "Pac-10 Bias!", failing to realize the inherent East Coast media bias that already existed in the AP poll since its creation.
Overall, the teams with the most McMNCS, period, were USC (7), Oklahoma (6), Penn State (5), Tennessee (4), Nebraska (4), Ohio State (4), Notre Dame (4), Alabama (3), Pittsburgh (3) and Miami-FL (3). You know, the usual suspects. Other teams with multiple McMNCs (two, in this case) were Washington, Georgia Tech, Michigan, and Texas. Nineteen schools won a single McMNC apiece.
Overall, there wasn't a lot of dramatic shifting of titles here. Notre Dame and Alabama got the worst of it, and I suspect it's probably because a lot of voters merely saw the grandeur in certain years and ignored some straight-forward facts. Of course, I know this is a matter of opinion, but without "markee valyoo", you just have some numbers on a piece of paper -- and the Irish and Tide suffered for that legendary status in my analysis, while another legend (Joe Paterno) demonstrated he's quite underrated in his time.
Schools that were stripped of MNCs they probably never should have won in the first place? TCU, Maryland, Clemson and Colorado. Yes, I'm leaving Army off this "stripped" list, for reasons explained previously: it's not disrespect, but it is more realistic. Did you know, for example, that a keystone of the 1944-46 Army teams -- Doc Blanchard -- was drafted after his first year at North Carolina and sent to West Point to play football? Also, players who had used up their eligibility at other schools could still play for the military academies/bases. That just isn't right or fair when determining an MNC for the war years.
More to come ...
Ten schools netted one MNC, while ten schools maintained their MNC totals (albeit some losing one while gaining another). Eight schools lost an MNC from their previous total.
The big losers were Notre Dame, Alabama, Minnesota, Miami-FL, LSU and Army. The Irish lost four MNCs overall, while the Tide and the Gophers each lost three MNCs from their tally. The 'Canes, Tigers and the Cadets each lost two MNCs.
Conference-wise, the breakdown was as follows: current Pac-10 members gained seven MNCs, while current Big Ten members gained three MNCs. Current Big XII members lost two MNCs, while current Big East members gained one MNC. Finally, current ACC members lost three MNCs, while current SEC members also lost two MNCs. Non-BCS schools gained an MNC. Of course, I am sure someone will scream, "Pac-10 Bias!", failing to realize the inherent East Coast media bias that already existed in the AP poll since its creation.
Overall, the teams with the most McMNCS, period, were USC (7), Oklahoma (6), Penn State (5), Tennessee (4), Nebraska (4), Ohio State (4), Notre Dame (4), Alabama (3), Pittsburgh (3) and Miami-FL (3). You know, the usual suspects. Other teams with multiple McMNCs (two, in this case) were Washington, Georgia Tech, Michigan, and Texas. Nineteen schools won a single McMNC apiece.
Overall, there wasn't a lot of dramatic shifting of titles here. Notre Dame and Alabama got the worst of it, and I suspect it's probably because a lot of voters merely saw the grandeur in certain years and ignored some straight-forward facts. Of course, I know this is a matter of opinion, but without "markee valyoo", you just have some numbers on a piece of paper -- and the Irish and Tide suffered for that legendary status in my analysis, while another legend (Joe Paterno) demonstrated he's quite underrated in his time.
Schools that were stripped of MNCs they probably never should have won in the first place? TCU, Maryland, Clemson and Colorado. Yes, I'm leaving Army off this "stripped" list, for reasons explained previously: it's not disrespect, but it is more realistic. Did you know, for example, that a keystone of the 1944-46 Army teams -- Doc Blanchard -- was drafted after his first year at North Carolina and sent to West Point to play football? Also, players who had used up their eligibility at other schools could still play for the military academies/bases. That just isn't right or fair when determining an MNC for the war years.
More to come ...
Monday, August 25, 2008
2007 McMNC: West Virginia Mountaineers
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. LSU: 12-2 -- W, BCS, 38-24
2. Georgia: 11-2 -- W, Sugar, 41-10
3. USC: 11-2 -- W, Rose, 49-17
4. Missouri: 12-2 -- W, Cotton, 38-7
5. Ohio State: 11-2 -- L, BCS, 24-38
6. West Virginia: 11-2 -- W, Fiesta, 48-28
7. Kansas: 12-1 -- W, Orange, 24-21
8. Oklahoma: 11-3 -- L, Fiesta, 28-48
9. Virginia Tech: 11-3 -- L, Orange, 21-24
10. Texas 10-3 -- W, Holiday, 52-34
There's a part of me that wants to go back and change the rules. I don't see how a BCS team can go 12-1 with its only loss being by single digits to the #4 team in the country and NOT be ranked #1, regardless of SOS issues. Kansas really should have been in the BCS title game instead of LSU, and it mystifies me how the BCS continues to justify its existence by simply pandering itself to certain influential whims (2004 Texas, for example, not to mention 2006 Florida and 2007 LSU).
But it's been my rule all along that no team which doesn't win its conference can be named the McMNC. If this were a tournament selection analysis, then Kansas would be in that tournament, of course -- with a chance to prove it on the field. But it's not. I've tried to isolate one team, each year, with the best credentials regardless of popularity contests and power brokering.
But it is a shame: Kansas was the best team in college football in 2007 by most of my usual standards, but because they lost their last regular season game by eight points to #4 Missouri, they have no chance at the McMNC.
Which really leaves us with just three teams which won their conference, won their bowl game and finished with two or fewer losses: LSU, USC, and West Virginia. Each has serious flaws, and each has serious strengths. Choosing one of them is the proverbial challenge of splitting hairs -- just as "choosing" LSU to face Ohio State in the BCS title game was the same proverbial challenge.
Each team is a two-loss BCS conference champion which won its bowl game. The best bowl win of the bunch? Probably West Virginia's win over Oklahoma, for it was a surprise AND a blowout. Everyone pretty much expected LSU and USC to win their bowl games the way they did, so the Mountaineers get a distinct edge here.
Worst loss? This is tough one. Is it West Virginia's choke job at home against Pitt? Is it USC's home loss to The Fraudulent Farm (stanfordsucks)? Is it LSU's home loss to Arkansas where the Tigers gave up 50 points? All of those are pretty bad losses, in truth. No McMNC should be losing to a poor team at home, and no McMNC should be giving up 50 points in a game, no matter how many OTs occur.
So that's a wash. As noted, each team has serious flaws, and I don't think any of them are forgivable.
So on to the positive column!
LSU beat a lot of good teams: they shutout 8-5 Mississippi State (OOC opponents: UAB, Garder-Webb and Tulane which went a combined 11-24 -- making MSU a .500 team against real competition) on the road by 45 points, they beat ACC champion Virginia Tech by 41 points at home, they beat 9-4 Florida (OOC opponents: Florida Atlantic, Florida State, Western Kentucky, Troy) at home by four points, they beat 9-4 Auburn (OOC opponents: New Mexico State, South Florida, Kansas State and Tennessee Tech) at home by six points, they beat 7-6 Alabama (OOC opponents: Western Carolina, Florida State, Houston, and Louisiana-Monroe which went a combined 22-27 -- making 'Bama a sub-.500 team against real competition) on the road by seven points, they beat 10-4 Tennessee in the SEC title game by seven points, and they beat Big Ten champion Ohio State by 14 points in the BCS title game. It's an interesting season for the Tigers, though: the first two games were probably the best games they played all year, and in truth, both are irrelevant. Why? Because almost 25 minutes into the MSU game, it was only 3-0. And the Hokie game? Basically, you can throw that out due to the immense emotional challenge the Virginia Tech squad faced after the campus massacre in Spring 2007. Sure, LSU squeaked through four tough SEC games by single digits, but they also lost two of them (albeit in OT). Sure, they beat Ohio State, but they didn't beat them like Florida beat them in 2006. Very little about LSU's season was impressive to the point you'd say, "Wow!" Their SOS rating (58%) was very good, but playing Middle Tennessee State, Tulane and Louisiana Tech for OOC opponents is typical SEC junk (see above). When every team in the conference builds its OOC schedule this way, it does make the SOS rating a little hollow -- which surprises me that the mediots haven't figured this out yet as they scramble to anoint a new SEC "power" every season. Finally, LSU didn't even have to play the second-best team in the SEC: Georgia. The Bulldogs finished #2 in the AP poll, but they never faced the Tigers -- who is to say that LSU was *really* the SEC champion? This harkens back to all the unbalanced scheduling the SEC had problems with in years past. No one is going to argue that Tennessee was the second-best SEC team, are they? The Vols lost to 7-6 Cal, lost by 39 at Florida and lost by 24 at Alabama. They may have been the worst 10-win team ever. LSU may have a nice SOS on paper, but in reality, their weak wins over SEC teams who also scheduled OOC pansies is telling. And with two losses over 8-5 SEC also-rans Kentucky (OOC slate including Eastern Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Kent State) and Arkansas (Troy, North Texas, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Florida International), LSU basically lost to two teams that were under at or under .500 against real BCS competition in 2007. So they have their highs and lows -- and a lot of talent, as no one can deny. But that doesn't mean they were the "best" team. Transitive score fun? LSU beat MSU 45-0 on the road; West Virginia beat MSU 38-13 at home.
USC scheduled Nebraska (on the road) and Notre Dame (on the road) as their OOC opponents, although Idaho is also thrown into the fray (which was a favor the Trokans gave to a former assistant, IIRC). That still gives the Trojans a better OOC quality than LSU, however, even though the Huskers and the Irish were a combined 8-16 in 2007 -- at least USC *tried* to schedule good BCS teams. Regardless, the Trojans didn't play as tough as schedule as the Tigers on paper: they beat 9-4 Oregon State (OOC: Utah, Cincinnati, and Idaho State, which went a combined 22-15) at home by 21 points, they beat 7-6 California on the road by seven points, they beat 10-3 Arizona State on the road by 20 points, and they beat 9-4 Illinois in the Rose Bowl by 32 points. Their 47% SOS rating is downright average at best, and USC didn't beat a winning team until November 3. They lost at home to 4-8 Stanford by a point in a game they never should have lost, of course, and they lost to then-#2 9-4 Oregon (with Dennis Dixon) on the road by seven points. Considering Dixon was still healthy and clicking that day, the loss isn't a bad one. But the loss to The Cardinal is pretty bad. Transitive score fun? Illinois beat Ohio State on the road by seven points, and LSU beat Ohio State at home by 14 points. USC beat Illinois at home by 32 points.
West Virginia could have put this all to rest by simply beating Pittsburgh in their last regular season game. But we know they choked. Do they even get a second chance? Of course! This is Division I-A college football, where everyone gets a second (or third?) chance despite the fact the regular season *is* a tournament! The Mountaineers' other loss was on the road to 9-4 South Florida by eight points. Not a great loss, but a respectable one. Just for comparative terms? USF's OOC opponents included Elon, North Carolina, Florida Atlantic and Central Florida. Not exactly stellar, but it still keeps the Bulls above .500 on the year -- which is more than Kentucky and Arkansas can say for their OOC boosts. The Mountaineers (55% SOS rating) did beat 8-5 East Carolina (OOC: Virginia Tech, UNC, West Virginia and N.C. State) by 41 points at home, 8-5 Mississippi State (OOC: see above) by 25 points at home, 8-5 Rutgers (OOC: SUNY-Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State) by 28 points on the road, 10-3 Cincinnati (OOC: Oregon State, Miami-FL and some creampuffs) by five points on the road, 9-4 Connecticut (OOC: Duke, Maine, Temple, Akron) by 45 points at home, and 11-3 Oklahoma (North Texas, Utah State, Miami-FL and Tulsa) by 20 points in the Fiesta Bowl.
West Virginia beat six winning teams on the season, while LSU beat seven winning teams and USC beat four winning teams. The Mountaineers had the best bowl win, while LSU had the best schedule strength (sort of; this OOC issue is just ugly for the SEC). West Virginia had the worst loss, while LSU had big wins over two Top 10 teams (SOS, again, spoken differently).
LSU dodged a bullet with the unbalanced scheduling of the SEC, avoiding its best potential conference foe. USC and West Virginia? Had to play every team in their conferences. All teams lost twice in conference play, but LSU avoided 11-2 Georgia and 5-7 Vanderbilt in the SEC. If USC and West Virginia could avoid similar teams in their conference play, perhaps the Trojans would have skipped games against 9-4 Oregon and 4-8 Stanford -- instead scheduling San Diego State and Pacific as OOC patsies. Perhaps the Mountaineers would have skipped games against 9-4 South Florida and 5-7 Pittsburgh -- instead scheduling OOC patsies Temple and The Citadel. LSU may have won the SEC, but they did so without having to face its next-best team -- and that's a crock of shit. I suspect LSU would have lost to Georgia on the road, considering LSU's unimpressive road performances against mediocre Kentucky, mediocre Alabama and overrated Tennessee in the SEC title game.
SOS: LSU, WVU, USC -- On paper, LSU played the most winning teams with the best overall win percentage, even though SEC scheduling breaks saved them from a potential loss while Pac-10 and Big East scheduling balance probably cost USC and West Virginia potential wins.
Bowl Win: WVU, USC, LSU -- West Virginia pounded a good Oklahoma team when no one expected them to, and LSU actually trailed Ohio State in their bowl game.
Best Losses: USC, WVU, LSU -- The Trojans lost to a highly-ranked team on the road and only lost by a point in their bad loss, while WVU lost to good team on the road and lost by four points at home in their bad loss. And, as noted above, LSU basically lost TWICE to barely (if that) .500 teams who padded their schedules with pancakes. No team that beat them was truly a good team. FWIW, Oregon -- even without Dennis Dixon -- pounded USF in their bowl game by 35 points. All have bad losses, but USC has the "best" losses overall, contextually. And when you're dealing with two-loss teams, this really matters.
Total that up? WVU (1-2-0), USC (1-1-1), LSU (1-0-2). Not very scientific, but it is telling. Who do I think would have won on the field in a round-robin? USC, easily. We all know what it takes to beat USC in a bowl game, and Vince Young wasn't dressed for LSU in 2007.
That gives me my answer: West Virginia wins the McMNC, because in the end, their SOS was almost as good as LSU's SOS, their bowl win was the best of the TUCs, and their losses weren't as bad as LSU's losses.
McMNC Revisions
1. West Virginia
2. Kansas
3. USC
4. LSU
5. Hawai'i
6. Georgia
7. Missouri
8. Ohio State
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Florida: =1996, -2006
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
1. LSU: 12-2 -- W, BCS, 38-24
2. Georgia: 11-2 -- W, Sugar, 41-10
3. USC: 11-2 -- W, Rose, 49-17
4. Missouri: 12-2 -- W, Cotton, 38-7
5. Ohio State: 11-2 -- L, BCS, 24-38
6. West Virginia: 11-2 -- W, Fiesta, 48-28
7. Kansas: 12-1 -- W, Orange, 24-21
8. Oklahoma: 11-3 -- L, Fiesta, 28-48
9. Virginia Tech: 11-3 -- L, Orange, 21-24
10. Texas 10-3 -- W, Holiday, 52-34
There's a part of me that wants to go back and change the rules. I don't see how a BCS team can go 12-1 with its only loss being by single digits to the #4 team in the country and NOT be ranked #1, regardless of SOS issues. Kansas really should have been in the BCS title game instead of LSU, and it mystifies me how the BCS continues to justify its existence by simply pandering itself to certain influential whims (2004 Texas, for example, not to mention 2006 Florida and 2007 LSU).
But it's been my rule all along that no team which doesn't win its conference can be named the McMNC. If this were a tournament selection analysis, then Kansas would be in that tournament, of course -- with a chance to prove it on the field. But it's not. I've tried to isolate one team, each year, with the best credentials regardless of popularity contests and power brokering.
But it is a shame: Kansas was the best team in college football in 2007 by most of my usual standards, but because they lost their last regular season game by eight points to #4 Missouri, they have no chance at the McMNC.
Which really leaves us with just three teams which won their conference, won their bowl game and finished with two or fewer losses: LSU, USC, and West Virginia. Each has serious flaws, and each has serious strengths. Choosing one of them is the proverbial challenge of splitting hairs -- just as "choosing" LSU to face Ohio State in the BCS title game was the same proverbial challenge.
Each team is a two-loss BCS conference champion which won its bowl game. The best bowl win of the bunch? Probably West Virginia's win over Oklahoma, for it was a surprise AND a blowout. Everyone pretty much expected LSU and USC to win their bowl games the way they did, so the Mountaineers get a distinct edge here.
Worst loss? This is tough one. Is it West Virginia's choke job at home against Pitt? Is it USC's home loss to The Fraudulent Farm (stanfordsucks)? Is it LSU's home loss to Arkansas where the Tigers gave up 50 points? All of those are pretty bad losses, in truth. No McMNC should be losing to a poor team at home, and no McMNC should be giving up 50 points in a game, no matter how many OTs occur.
So that's a wash. As noted, each team has serious flaws, and I don't think any of them are forgivable.
So on to the positive column!
LSU beat a lot of good teams: they shutout 8-5 Mississippi State (OOC opponents: UAB, Garder-Webb and Tulane which went a combined 11-24 -- making MSU a .500 team against real competition) on the road by 45 points, they beat ACC champion Virginia Tech by 41 points at home, they beat 9-4 Florida (OOC opponents: Florida Atlantic, Florida State, Western Kentucky, Troy) at home by four points, they beat 9-4 Auburn (OOC opponents: New Mexico State, South Florida, Kansas State and Tennessee Tech) at home by six points, they beat 7-6 Alabama (OOC opponents: Western Carolina, Florida State, Houston, and Louisiana-Monroe which went a combined 22-27 -- making 'Bama a sub-.500 team against real competition) on the road by seven points, they beat 10-4 Tennessee in the SEC title game by seven points, and they beat Big Ten champion Ohio State by 14 points in the BCS title game. It's an interesting season for the Tigers, though: the first two games were probably the best games they played all year, and in truth, both are irrelevant. Why? Because almost 25 minutes into the MSU game, it was only 3-0. And the Hokie game? Basically, you can throw that out due to the immense emotional challenge the Virginia Tech squad faced after the campus massacre in Spring 2007. Sure, LSU squeaked through four tough SEC games by single digits, but they also lost two of them (albeit in OT). Sure, they beat Ohio State, but they didn't beat them like Florida beat them in 2006. Very little about LSU's season was impressive to the point you'd say, "Wow!" Their SOS rating (58%) was very good, but playing Middle Tennessee State, Tulane and Louisiana Tech for OOC opponents is typical SEC junk (see above). When every team in the conference builds its OOC schedule this way, it does make the SOS rating a little hollow -- which surprises me that the mediots haven't figured this out yet as they scramble to anoint a new SEC "power" every season. Finally, LSU didn't even have to play the second-best team in the SEC: Georgia. The Bulldogs finished #2 in the AP poll, but they never faced the Tigers -- who is to say that LSU was *really* the SEC champion? This harkens back to all the unbalanced scheduling the SEC had problems with in years past. No one is going to argue that Tennessee was the second-best SEC team, are they? The Vols lost to 7-6 Cal, lost by 39 at Florida and lost by 24 at Alabama. They may have been the worst 10-win team ever. LSU may have a nice SOS on paper, but in reality, their weak wins over SEC teams who also scheduled OOC pansies is telling. And with two losses over 8-5 SEC also-rans Kentucky (OOC slate including Eastern Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Kent State) and Arkansas (Troy, North Texas, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Florida International), LSU basically lost to two teams that were under at or under .500 against real BCS competition in 2007. So they have their highs and lows -- and a lot of talent, as no one can deny. But that doesn't mean they were the "best" team. Transitive score fun? LSU beat MSU 45-0 on the road; West Virginia beat MSU 38-13 at home.
USC scheduled Nebraska (on the road) and Notre Dame (on the road) as their OOC opponents, although Idaho is also thrown into the fray (which was a favor the Trokans gave to a former assistant, IIRC). That still gives the Trojans a better OOC quality than LSU, however, even though the Huskers and the Irish were a combined 8-16 in 2007 -- at least USC *tried* to schedule good BCS teams. Regardless, the Trojans didn't play as tough as schedule as the Tigers on paper: they beat 9-4 Oregon State (OOC: Utah, Cincinnati, and Idaho State, which went a combined 22-15) at home by 21 points, they beat 7-6 California on the road by seven points, they beat 10-3 Arizona State on the road by 20 points, and they beat 9-4 Illinois in the Rose Bowl by 32 points. Their 47% SOS rating is downright average at best, and USC didn't beat a winning team until November 3. They lost at home to 4-8 Stanford by a point in a game they never should have lost, of course, and they lost to then-#2 9-4 Oregon (with Dennis Dixon) on the road by seven points. Considering Dixon was still healthy and clicking that day, the loss isn't a bad one. But the loss to The Cardinal is pretty bad. Transitive score fun? Illinois beat Ohio State on the road by seven points, and LSU beat Ohio State at home by 14 points. USC beat Illinois at home by 32 points.
West Virginia could have put this all to rest by simply beating Pittsburgh in their last regular season game. But we know they choked. Do they even get a second chance? Of course! This is Division I-A college football, where everyone gets a second (or third?) chance despite the fact the regular season *is* a tournament! The Mountaineers' other loss was on the road to 9-4 South Florida by eight points. Not a great loss, but a respectable one. Just for comparative terms? USF's OOC opponents included Elon, North Carolina, Florida Atlantic and Central Florida. Not exactly stellar, but it still keeps the Bulls above .500 on the year -- which is more than Kentucky and Arkansas can say for their OOC boosts. The Mountaineers (55% SOS rating) did beat 8-5 East Carolina (OOC: Virginia Tech, UNC, West Virginia and N.C. State) by 41 points at home, 8-5 Mississippi State (OOC: see above) by 25 points at home, 8-5 Rutgers (OOC: SUNY-Buffalo, Navy, Norfolk State) by 28 points on the road, 10-3 Cincinnati (OOC: Oregon State, Miami-FL and some creampuffs) by five points on the road, 9-4 Connecticut (OOC: Duke, Maine, Temple, Akron) by 45 points at home, and 11-3 Oklahoma (North Texas, Utah State, Miami-FL and Tulsa) by 20 points in the Fiesta Bowl.
West Virginia beat six winning teams on the season, while LSU beat seven winning teams and USC beat four winning teams. The Mountaineers had the best bowl win, while LSU had the best schedule strength (sort of; this OOC issue is just ugly for the SEC). West Virginia had the worst loss, while LSU had big wins over two Top 10 teams (SOS, again, spoken differently).
LSU dodged a bullet with the unbalanced scheduling of the SEC, avoiding its best potential conference foe. USC and West Virginia? Had to play every team in their conferences. All teams lost twice in conference play, but LSU avoided 11-2 Georgia and 5-7 Vanderbilt in the SEC. If USC and West Virginia could avoid similar teams in their conference play, perhaps the Trojans would have skipped games against 9-4 Oregon and 4-8 Stanford -- instead scheduling San Diego State and Pacific as OOC patsies. Perhaps the Mountaineers would have skipped games against 9-4 South Florida and 5-7 Pittsburgh -- instead scheduling OOC patsies Temple and The Citadel. LSU may have won the SEC, but they did so without having to face its next-best team -- and that's a crock of shit. I suspect LSU would have lost to Georgia on the road, considering LSU's unimpressive road performances against mediocre Kentucky, mediocre Alabama and overrated Tennessee in the SEC title game.
SOS: LSU, WVU, USC -- On paper, LSU played the most winning teams with the best overall win percentage, even though SEC scheduling breaks saved them from a potential loss while Pac-10 and Big East scheduling balance probably cost USC and West Virginia potential wins.
Bowl Win: WVU, USC, LSU -- West Virginia pounded a good Oklahoma team when no one expected them to, and LSU actually trailed Ohio State in their bowl game.
Best Losses: USC, WVU, LSU -- The Trojans lost to a highly-ranked team on the road and only lost by a point in their bad loss, while WVU lost to good team on the road and lost by four points at home in their bad loss. And, as noted above, LSU basically lost TWICE to barely (if that) .500 teams who padded their schedules with pancakes. No team that beat them was truly a good team. FWIW, Oregon -- even without Dennis Dixon -- pounded USF in their bowl game by 35 points. All have bad losses, but USC has the "best" losses overall, contextually. And when you're dealing with two-loss teams, this really matters.
Total that up? WVU (1-2-0), USC (1-1-1), LSU (1-0-2). Not very scientific, but it is telling. Who do I think would have won on the field in a round-robin? USC, easily. We all know what it takes to beat USC in a bowl game, and Vince Young wasn't dressed for LSU in 2007.
That gives me my answer: West Virginia wins the McMNC, because in the end, their SOS was almost as good as LSU's SOS, their bowl win was the best of the TUCs, and their losses weren't as bad as LSU's losses.
McMNC Revisions
1. West Virginia
2. Kansas
3. USC
4. LSU
5. Hawai'i
6. Georgia
7. Missouri
8. Ohio State
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Florida: =1996, -2006
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
Saturday, August 23, 2008
2006 McMNC: Boise State Broncos
AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Florida: 13-1-0 -- W, BCS, 41-14
2. Ohio State: 12-1-0 -- L, BCS, 14-41
3. LSU: 11-2-0 -- W, Sugar, 41-14
4. USC: 11-2-0 -- W, Rose, 32-18
5. Boise State: 13-0-0 -- W, Fiesta, 43-42
6. Louisville: 12-1-0 -- W, Orange, 24-13
7. Wisconsin: 12-1-0 -- W, Capital One, 17-14
8. Michigan: 11-2-0 -- L, Rose, 18-32
9. Auburn: 11-2-0 -- W, Cotton, 17-14
10. West Virginia: 11-2-0 -- W, Gator, 38-35
Side note: six of the Top 10 teams were from the Big Ten and the SEC. Hmmmm. Makes you wonder why the other four conferences don't want a playoff, eh?
What a mess this was for the BCS. Considering the debates that raged on between Michigan and Florida for the #2 slot in the title game -- while neglecting title-worthy Louisville and Boise State -- just created another BCS clusterfuck.
TUCs are Florida, Boise State and Louisville -- as Wisconsin didn't win the Big Ten, and Ohio State lost its bowl game.
Louisville: With a 57% SOS rating, the Cardinals do belong in this discussion. Their one loss was on the road by three points to AP #12 Rutgers (11-2), and Louisville had wins over unranked 8-5 Kentucky by 31 points at home, over unranked 7-6 Miami-FL by 24 points at home, over unranked 7-6 Kansas State by 18 points on the road, over unranked 8-5 Cincinnati at home by six points, over #10 West Virginia by ten points at home, over unranked 9-4 South Florida by 23 points at home, and over AP #18 Wake Forest (11-3) by 11 points in the Orange Bowl. While they only had two wins over ranked teams, their SOS stands up to scrutiny (see below).
Boise State: Their 50% SOS rating is average, of course, but they didn't lose to anyone, either. They beat AP #21 Oregon State (10-4) by 28 points at home, they beat USA #24 Hawaii (11-3) by seven points at home, they beat unranked 8-5 Utah by 33 points on the road, they beat unranked 9-4 San Jose State on the road by three points, they beat unranked 8-5 Nevada on the road by 31 points, and they beat AP #11 Oklahoma (11-3) by a point in the Fiesta Bowl. Beating three ranked teams -- two from power conferences -- solidifies their legitimacy and completes that multi-year journey from small conference also-ran to big-time MNC contender.
Florida: They had an outstanding 61% SOS rating. Their one loss? On the road to #9 Auburn by ten points. They beat unranked 9-5 Southern Mississippi by 27 points, they beat AP #25 Tennessee (9-4) by one point on the road, they beat unranked 8-5 Kentucky at home by 19 points, they beat #3 LSU at home by 13 points, they beat AP #23 Georgia (9-4) by seven points at home, they beat unranked 8-5 South Carolina by one point at home, they beat unranked 7-6 Florida State by seven points on the road, they beat AP #15 Arkansas (10-4) in the SEC title game by ten points, and they beat #2 Ohio State by 27 points in the BCS title game. They beat nine winning teams in 2006, which is pretty amazing.
But Florida did lose a game (by double digits, no less), as did Louisville. Boise State did not.
Now, in the past, a double-digit edge in SOS rating was qualified as enough to overcome a loss in my McMNC analysis if the team with the better W/L record was deemed inferior enough. Without reviewing all my posts, however, I have no idea if an undefeated team with a 50% SOS rating was ever ousted from its McMNC perch by a team with a loss.
First, we have to eliminate one of the one-loss teams. Florida has the SOS edge on Louisville, but the Cardinals have a better loss -- leaving the Gators still slightly ahead. Common opponents? Both teams beat Kentucky: Florida by 19 points at home, Louisville by 31 points at home. Distinct edge, Louisville.
I don't see much difference between Louisville and Florida on paper, in fact. The Gators' OOC slate? Typical SEC modern fare: three directionals (Central Florida and Western Carolina were the other two) and Florida State, for a composite 22-28 record. Louisville's OOC foes? Kentucky, Temple, Miami-FL, Kansas State and Middle Tennessee State (30-34 overall combined). Neither was impressive, but Louisville scheduled more BCS teams on their OOC.
We'll get back to this (if we need to?).
Is Boise State's status as the only unbeaten approachable? One key factor was the Broncos' win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Sooners were 11-2 and the Big XII champions coming into this game. In reality, they should have been 12-1 and in the discussion with Florida for the BCS title game slot. Remember the Oregon game where the officials screwed up so thoroughly and cost the Sooners a win (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IGgd12VzLWA)? The Sooners' only real loss was an 18-point beating by AP #13 Texas (10-3). Basically, Oklahoma was good enough to take Florida's spot in the BCS title game if officials hadn't screwed them up. This is akin to Colorado's Fifth Down nonsense in 1990, basically. The Sooners should have been 12-1 and a BCS title game contender in 2006.
And Boise State beat them.
What this shows is that the Broncos could hang with the best of the BCS teams in 2006. There was little separating Florida, Louisville, Michigan (59% SOS) and Oklahoma (54% SOS) on paper at the end of the regular season. Florida was chosen to face #1 Ohio State mostly because people didn't want a rematch of Michigan-Ohio State and the trendy SEC love affair currently in vogue, but it easily could have been one of the other three teams above (assuming the officials had done their job correctly in Eugene).
And it should have been Boise State, in fact, chosen to face the Buckeyes.
Just because the BCS screwed up does not mean the debate between Florida and Louisville is irrelevant, but Boise State was good enough to claim the McMNC with its undefeated season, its SOS, and most importantly, its win over Big XII champion and BCS title game-worthy Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
McMNC Revisions
1. Boise State
2. Florida
3. Louisville
4. Ohio State
5. Wisconsin
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
LSU: =1958, -2003
Florida: =1996, -2006
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
1. Florida: 13-1-0 -- W, BCS, 41-14
2. Ohio State: 12-1-0 -- L, BCS, 14-41
3. LSU: 11-2-0 -- W, Sugar, 41-14
4. USC: 11-2-0 -- W, Rose, 32-18
5. Boise State: 13-0-0 -- W, Fiesta, 43-42
6. Louisville: 12-1-0 -- W, Orange, 24-13
7. Wisconsin: 12-1-0 -- W, Capital One, 17-14
8. Michigan: 11-2-0 -- L, Rose, 18-32
9. Auburn: 11-2-0 -- W, Cotton, 17-14
10. West Virginia: 11-2-0 -- W, Gator, 38-35
Side note: six of the Top 10 teams were from the Big Ten and the SEC. Hmmmm. Makes you wonder why the other four conferences don't want a playoff, eh?
What a mess this was for the BCS. Considering the debates that raged on between Michigan and Florida for the #2 slot in the title game -- while neglecting title-worthy Louisville and Boise State -- just created another BCS clusterfuck.
TUCs are Florida, Boise State and Louisville -- as Wisconsin didn't win the Big Ten, and Ohio State lost its bowl game.
Louisville: With a 57% SOS rating, the Cardinals do belong in this discussion. Their one loss was on the road by three points to AP #12 Rutgers (11-2), and Louisville had wins over unranked 8-5 Kentucky by 31 points at home, over unranked 7-6 Miami-FL by 24 points at home, over unranked 7-6 Kansas State by 18 points on the road, over unranked 8-5 Cincinnati at home by six points, over #10 West Virginia by ten points at home, over unranked 9-4 South Florida by 23 points at home, and over AP #18 Wake Forest (11-3) by 11 points in the Orange Bowl. While they only had two wins over ranked teams, their SOS stands up to scrutiny (see below).
Boise State: Their 50% SOS rating is average, of course, but they didn't lose to anyone, either. They beat AP #21 Oregon State (10-4) by 28 points at home, they beat USA #24 Hawaii (11-3) by seven points at home, they beat unranked 8-5 Utah by 33 points on the road, they beat unranked 9-4 San Jose State on the road by three points, they beat unranked 8-5 Nevada on the road by 31 points, and they beat AP #11 Oklahoma (11-3) by a point in the Fiesta Bowl. Beating three ranked teams -- two from power conferences -- solidifies their legitimacy and completes that multi-year journey from small conference also-ran to big-time MNC contender.
Florida: They had an outstanding 61% SOS rating. Their one loss? On the road to #9 Auburn by ten points. They beat unranked 9-5 Southern Mississippi by 27 points, they beat AP #25 Tennessee (9-4) by one point on the road, they beat unranked 8-5 Kentucky at home by 19 points, they beat #3 LSU at home by 13 points, they beat AP #23 Georgia (9-4) by seven points at home, they beat unranked 8-5 South Carolina by one point at home, they beat unranked 7-6 Florida State by seven points on the road, they beat AP #15 Arkansas (10-4) in the SEC title game by ten points, and they beat #2 Ohio State by 27 points in the BCS title game. They beat nine winning teams in 2006, which is pretty amazing.
But Florida did lose a game (by double digits, no less), as did Louisville. Boise State did not.
Now, in the past, a double-digit edge in SOS rating was qualified as enough to overcome a loss in my McMNC analysis if the team with the better W/L record was deemed inferior enough. Without reviewing all my posts, however, I have no idea if an undefeated team with a 50% SOS rating was ever ousted from its McMNC perch by a team with a loss.
First, we have to eliminate one of the one-loss teams. Florida has the SOS edge on Louisville, but the Cardinals have a better loss -- leaving the Gators still slightly ahead. Common opponents? Both teams beat Kentucky: Florida by 19 points at home, Louisville by 31 points at home. Distinct edge, Louisville.
I don't see much difference between Louisville and Florida on paper, in fact. The Gators' OOC slate? Typical SEC modern fare: three directionals (Central Florida and Western Carolina were the other two) and Florida State, for a composite 22-28 record. Louisville's OOC foes? Kentucky, Temple, Miami-FL, Kansas State and Middle Tennessee State (30-34 overall combined). Neither was impressive, but Louisville scheduled more BCS teams on their OOC.
We'll get back to this (if we need to?).
Is Boise State's status as the only unbeaten approachable? One key factor was the Broncos' win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Sooners were 11-2 and the Big XII champions coming into this game. In reality, they should have been 12-1 and in the discussion with Florida for the BCS title game slot. Remember the Oregon game where the officials screwed up so thoroughly and cost the Sooners a win (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IGgd12VzLWA)? The Sooners' only real loss was an 18-point beating by AP #13 Texas (10-3). Basically, Oklahoma was good enough to take Florida's spot in the BCS title game if officials hadn't screwed them up. This is akin to Colorado's Fifth Down nonsense in 1990, basically. The Sooners should have been 12-1 and a BCS title game contender in 2006.
And Boise State beat them.
What this shows is that the Broncos could hang with the best of the BCS teams in 2006. There was little separating Florida, Louisville, Michigan (59% SOS) and Oklahoma (54% SOS) on paper at the end of the regular season. Florida was chosen to face #1 Ohio State mostly because people didn't want a rematch of Michigan-Ohio State and the trendy SEC love affair currently in vogue, but it easily could have been one of the other three teams above (assuming the officials had done their job correctly in Eugene).
And it should have been Boise State, in fact, chosen to face the Buckeyes.
Just because the BCS screwed up does not mean the debate between Florida and Louisville is irrelevant, but Boise State was good enough to claim the McMNC with its undefeated season, its SOS, and most importantly, its win over Big XII champion and BCS title game-worthy Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
McMNC Revisions
1. Boise State
2. Florida
3. Louisville
4. Ohio State
5. Wisconsin
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
LSU: =1958, -2003
Florida: =1996, -2006
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
Friday, August 22, 2008
2005 McMNC: Texas Longhorns
AP Top 11: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results
1. Texas: 13-0-0 -- W, Rose, 41-38
2. USC: 12-1-0 -- L, Rose, 38-41
3. Penn State: 11-1-0 -- W, Orange, 24-21
4. Ohio State: 10-2-0 -- W, Fiesta, 34-20
5. West Virginia: 11-1-0 -- W, Sugar, 38-35
6. LSU: 11-2-0 -- W, Peach, 40-3
7. Virginia Tech: 11-2-0 -- W, Gator, 35-24
8. Alabama: 10-2-0 -- W, Cotton, 13-10
9. Notre Dame: 9-3-0 -- L, Fiesta, 20-34
10. Georgia: 10-3-0 -- L, Sugar, 35-38
11. TCU: 11-1-0 -- W, Houston, 27-24
Probably not much to discuss here, as the BCS title game was a fantastic one, of course. TUCs? Texas, Penn State, West Virginia and TCU. Of course, the last three will have to have amazing SOS ratings to overcome the Longhorns.
Penn State: 55% SOS rating, with that loss to unranked 7-5 Michigan's timekeeper on the road by two points. We were THAT close to having three major-conference undefeated teams at the end of the regular season (again).
West Virginia: 53% SOS rating, with a home loss by 17 points to #7 Virginia Tech. Not great.
TCU: 46% SOS rating, with an 11-point road loss to a sub-.500 SMU team. Forget it.
The Longhorns? Their 57% SOS rating puts it all to rest, with wins over #4 Ohio State on the road by three points, AP #22 Oklahoma by 22 points at the neutral site, AP #20 Texas Tech by 35 points at home, and #2 USC by three points in the Rose Bowl. For what it's worth, USC had an SOS rating of 58% in 2005 -- so Texas' title was well-earned.
I don't mean to slight Texas here at all, but there's nothing else to say: they kicked ass, and the fans loved what the BCS gave them: a real champion!
McMNC Revisions
1. Texas
2. USC
3. Penn State
4. West Virginia
5. TCU
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
Florida: =1996
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
LSU: =1958, -2003
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
1. Texas: 13-0-0 -- W, Rose, 41-38
2. USC: 12-1-0 -- L, Rose, 38-41
3. Penn State: 11-1-0 -- W, Orange, 24-21
4. Ohio State: 10-2-0 -- W, Fiesta, 34-20
5. West Virginia: 11-1-0 -- W, Sugar, 38-35
6. LSU: 11-2-0 -- W, Peach, 40-3
7. Virginia Tech: 11-2-0 -- W, Gator, 35-24
8. Alabama: 10-2-0 -- W, Cotton, 13-10
9. Notre Dame: 9-3-0 -- L, Fiesta, 20-34
10. Georgia: 10-3-0 -- L, Sugar, 35-38
11. TCU: 11-1-0 -- W, Houston, 27-24
Probably not much to discuss here, as the BCS title game was a fantastic one, of course. TUCs? Texas, Penn State, West Virginia and TCU. Of course, the last three will have to have amazing SOS ratings to overcome the Longhorns.
Penn State: 55% SOS rating, with that loss to unranked 7-5 Michigan's timekeeper on the road by two points. We were THAT close to having three major-conference undefeated teams at the end of the regular season (again).
West Virginia: 53% SOS rating, with a home loss by 17 points to #7 Virginia Tech. Not great.
TCU: 46% SOS rating, with an 11-point road loss to a sub-.500 SMU team. Forget it.
The Longhorns? Their 57% SOS rating puts it all to rest, with wins over #4 Ohio State on the road by three points, AP #22 Oklahoma by 22 points at the neutral site, AP #20 Texas Tech by 35 points at home, and #2 USC by three points in the Rose Bowl. For what it's worth, USC had an SOS rating of 58% in 2005 -- so Texas' title was well-earned.
I don't mean to slight Texas here at all, but there's nothing else to say: they kicked ass, and the fans loved what the BCS gave them: a real champion!
McMNC Revisions
1. Texas
2. USC
3. Penn State
4. West Virginia
5. TCU
RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
Florida: =1996
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
LSU: =1958, -2003
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)