Friday, October 24, 2008
An Unbiased Look at Top 25 Rankings
We all know the story of the BCS, with its tremendous flaws and clockwork-esque national title problems. It's also an incredibly complicated and intricate system, taking into account many different things that may not even need to be taken into account.
Not that anyone should try unless they are a mathematician, but I've recently attempted to simplify the BCS into one easier to understand rankings system. It's flawed, no doubt, but it definitely provokes some interesting parallels. First, let's take a look at the current BCS top 25:
1. Texas 7-0
2. Alabama 7-0
3. Penn State 8-0
4. Oklahoma 6-1
5. USC 5-1
6. Oklahoma State 7-0
7. Georgia 6-1
8. Texas Tech 7-0
9. Ohio State 7-1
10. Florida 5-1
11. Utah 8-0
12. Boise State 6-0
13. LSU 5-1
14. TCU 7-1
15. Missouri 5-2
16. South Florida 6-1
17. Pitt 5-1
18. Georgia Tech 6-1
19. Tulsa 7-0
20. Ball State 7-0
21. BYU 6-1
22. Northwestern 6-1
23. Kansas 5-2
24. Minnesota 6-1
25. Florida State 5-1
And my rankings, which I'll explain further in a moment:
1. Texas 7-0
2. USC 5-1
3. Oklahoma 6-1
4. Florida 5-1
5. Missouri 5-2
6. Oklahoma State 7-0
7. Oregon State 4-3
8. TCU 7-1
9. Iowa 5-3
10. California 5-2
11. Penn State 8-0
12. Georgia 6-1
13. Alabama 7-0
14. Tulsa 7-0
15. Ball State 7-0
16. Nebraska 4-3
17. Arizona 5-2
18. Georgia Tech 6-1
19. Boise State 6-0
20. Northern Illinois 4-3
21. Minnesota 6-1
22. Kansas 5-2
23. Ohio State 7-1
24. Vanderbilt 5-2
25. Mississippi 3-4
There are a lot of the same teams, just mixed up — but there are also some teams that many people wouldn't even think about including in the top 25. Ole Miss? Northern Illinois? Ohio State at No. 23?
While it would be juvenile to try and pass this off as a legitimate way to rank the teams from the most deserving of a title shot to the least, the things that it takes into account are perhaps the most important (they are also the only things I used to create my rankings):
Strength of schedule — A team's strength of schedule helps put every category of measurement into much better perspective. They may have a 6-2 record, but the toughest schedules in the country, making the two losses appear all the more impressive.
Points scored minus points given up — Perhaps the most important gauge of a team's strength, besides strength of schedule; how much points a team has scored minus how much it has given up is a great indicator of overall team strength. It also factors in points scored off of turnovers and special teams.
Winning percentage — While this statistic alone can be misleading, when you combine in it with the previous two, you get a much better grasp on how impressive it is.
What I think my rankings show, and should cause us all to think about, is that the taboo that is the way we tag a loss is perhaps a bit too harsh. For instance, USC played a bad game against Oregon State in its only loss thus far. But according to many factors, is still a better team than, say, unbeaten Oklahoma State. The most important thing to remember here is that these rankings are done in a way in which to compare two teams should they meet on a neutral playing field. Perhaps we try and bring to many things into the fray when ranking teams? Are we thinking too much?
In conclusion, though, I'm not trying to discredit the BCS — but perhaps when you look at the rankings, remember to pull in a bit more outside factors into account. The intangibles. The things that you cannot put down on paper.
The system sure is going to need them when there's 10 one-loss teams contending for the final national title spot!