mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (01/03/85)
Here we are, the final polls for this year in college football:
Associated Press (Writers) Poll:
(First Place Votes in parentheses)
Record Last time
1. Brigham Young(38) 13-0-0 1
2. Washington(16) 11-1-0 4
3. Florida(6) 9-1-1 3
4. Nebraska 10-2-0 5
5. Boston College 10-2-0 8
6. Oklahoma 9-2-1 2
7. Oklahoma State 10-2-0 9
8. Southern Methodist 10-2-0 10
9. U.C.L.A. 9-3-0 14
10. U.S.C. 9-3-0 18
11. South Carolina 10-2-0 7
12. Maryland 9-3-0 12
13. Ohio State 9-3-0 6
14. Auburn 9-4-0 16
15. L.S.U. 8-3-1 11
16. Iowa 8-4-1 --
17. Florida State 7-3-2 15
18. Miami(Fla.) 8-5-0 13
19. Kentucky 9-3-0 --
20. Virginia 8-2-2 --
Other teams receiving votes: [most points to least]: West Virginia,
Georgia, Army, Air Force, Notre Dame, UNLV, TCU, Arkansas, Rutgers,
Wisconsin, Texas, Purdue, Cal State Fullerton.
The Sooner Schooner did not receive any votes.
United Press International (Coaches) Poll:
Record
1. Brigham Young(28) 13-0-0
2. Washington(11) 11-1-1
3. Nebraska 10-2-0
4. Boston College 10-2-0
5. Oklahoma State 10-2-0
6. Oklahoma 9-2-1
7. Florida(1) 9-1-1
8. S.M.U. 10-2-0
9. U.S.C. 9-3-0
10. U.C.L.A. 9-3-0
11. Maryland 9-3-0
12. Ohio State 9-3-0
13. South Carolina 10-2-0
14. Auburn 9-4-0
15. Iowa 7-4-1 (AP has it 8-4-1, ???)
16. L.S.U. 8-3-1
17. Virginia 8-2-2
18. West Virginia 8-4-0
19. Kentucky 9-3-0
20. Florida State 7-3-2
New York Times (Computer) Poll OPPONENTS
Avg. Margin Relative| Record Avg. Margin
Rank Team Previous of Victory Rating | of Victory
1 Florida 1 15.5 1.000 | 69-46-4 3.4
2 Boston College 2 12.8 .962 | 80-42-2 6.1
3 Nebraska 7 22.7 .934 | 64-55-6 0.4
4 Oklahoma State 5 13.9 .923 | 64-54-6 3.7
5 Washington 8 17.5 .910 | 63-60-1 -0.6
6 S.M.U. 3 11.1 .909 | 65-60-2 0.9
7 Maryland 10 8.6 .868 | 68-53-4 1.9
8 Oklahoma 4 11.6 .841 | 63-56-5 1.2
9 Auburn 14 8.4 .830 | 73-55-9 3.6
10 Brigham Young 20 21.2 .826 | 62-71-3 -0.3
11 Virginia 17 7.9 .823 | 64-58-1 0.9
12 West Virginia -- 7.4 .820 | 73-47-4 3.2
13 South Carolina 6 9.2 .807 | 60-58-6 0.7
14 Rutgers [7-3] 19 5.8 .801 | 59-43-1 1.4
15 Florida State 11 12.7 .800 | 72-53-1 4.0
16 Ohio State 9 15.9 .793 | 60-65-2 -0.6
16 Clemson[7-4] 18 11.9 .793 | 64-46-5 2.7
18 Iowa -- 12.4 .790 | 66-67-3 -0.6
19 U.S.C. -- 3.9 .784 | 72-52-1 3.4
20 Tennessee[7-4-1] 15 4.0 .776 | 77-44-5 6.6
NOTE: Cumulative records and margin of victory of a ranked team's
opponents do not include games against the ranked team.
It is interesting to compare and contrast the more subjective AP and
UPI polls with the more objective New York Times Computer poll. The
computer poll gives more weight to overall performance and doesn't
take into account subjective factors, such as beating "name" teams
even when they really aren't very good that year and dramatic
victories and defeats. The computer also doesn't seem to subscribe
to the idea that your team should be ranked higher than your
opponent just because you beat them (see Ohio State and USC for one
example of this).
To the computer, a win by two points is a
win by two points, whether it's a 2-0 victory or a 47-45 shootout.
The computer isn't completely perfect, tho. Teams like U.S.C. and
Tennessee played tough schedules, but appear to be penalised because
they don't blow teams away; they just win. It seems, then, that
to convince the computer you have to take a page from the
Oklahoma-Nebraska book on pounding weak opponents into the ground
and blow everyone away to the best of your ability. The aforementioned
benefit of just looking at the score alone and not other game
factors is thus double-edged: a 2-0 victory and a 47-45 shootout
would appear to be scored the same, but so are two games ending with
a 30-20 score, where the first had the winning team intercepting a
pass and scoring with it on the last play, and the second where the
loser scored three TDs in the last few minutes, including one on the
last play, mostly against the third team.
Personally, I find I like the computer's ranking of BYU better than
the AP and UPI polls. BYU did not play a difficult schedule at all;
I see no reason why they should be ranked number one just because
they beat every one they played and no one else did. It depends on
who you beat; here's BYU's schedule this past year:
BYU 20 Pitt 14
BYU 47 Baylor 13
BYU 38 Tulsa 15
BYU 18 Hawaii 13
BYU 52 Colorado State 9
BYU 41 Wyoming 38
BYU 30 Air Force 25
BYU 48 New Mexico 0
BYU 42 UTEP 9
BYU 34 San Diego State 3
BYU 24 Utah 14
BYU 38 Utah State 13
BYU 24 Michigan 17
Michigan wasn't really all that great a team this year (they
finished 6-6, I believe). Only four teams on BYU's regular season
schedule finished above .500: Air Force (8-4), Hawaii (7-4), Utah
(6-5-1), and Tulsa (6-5). BYU's WAC opponents were: Air Force,
Utah, San Diego State, UTEP, Colorado State, New Mexico, Wyoming,
and Hawaii, none of which, with the exception of Air Force and
perhaps, in a pinch, Hawaii, constitute real major competition.
BYU's non-conference opponents were: Pitt, Baylor, Utah State, and
Tulsa. This was an off year for Pitt, Baylor and Tulsa weren't all
that great, and Utah State just doesn't cut it. A few years ago,
when this schedule was probably formulated, Pitt was considerably
more formidable, and Baylor was doing well. If both of those teams
had sustained those performance levels this year, the schedule might
have been a valid test. As it turned out, I don't think it was.
My choice for #1? Well, I wouldn't mind seeing 'SC up there, but I
really don't think there was any #1 team this year. If pressed, I
would give Washington the nod, although their schedule wasn't that
tough either. They did tear up the #1 defense against the run
pretty well, tho. If they had played and beaten U.C.L.A. or played
and beaten a tougher non-conference opponent (non-conference
opponents in the regular season were Northwestern, Michigan (they
beat them 20-11), Houston [which lost in the Cotton Bowl to B.C.],
and Miami of Ohio), then I would have no qualms calling them #1.
However, I also like B.C. Washington had trouble on offense; B.C.
really stuck to the idea that the best defense is a good offense. If
you like good solid defensive play against both the pass and the
run, and a team that forces turnovers and capitalises on them, I
suppose you might take Washington. If you like a wide-open
offensive team that basically seems to win by simply outscoring its
opponents, you might like B.C. All this seems to prove is that a
better method for determinging #1 is needed, and that really, the
idea that you're #1 or you're nothing is ridiculous; there were, I
feel, several excellent teams this year; there was no one great
team, though.
Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom