ZN's CFB Top 25 2008 :: Final

Close the book on 2008...

Rank. Team (LW), [Record, LW Result].

1. Florida (3), [13-1, Won vs Oklahoma 24-14]
2. Utah (6), [13-0, Won vs Alabama 31-17]
3. USC (8), [12-1, Won vs Penn State 38-24]
4. Oklahoma (1), [12-2, Lost vs Florida 24-14]
5. Texas (2), [12-1, Won vs Ohio State 24-21]
6. Penn State (5), [11-2, Lost vs USC 38-24]
7. Ohio State (7), [10-3, Lost vs Texas 24-21]
8. Alabama (4), [12-2, Lost vs Utah 31-17]
9. Texas Christian (12), [11-2, Won vs Boise State 17-16]
10. Oregon (13), [10-3, Won vs Oklahoma St 42-31]
11. Boise State (9), [12-1, Lost vs TCU 17-16]
12. Georgia (20), [10-3, Won vs Michigan St 24-12]
13. Iowa (21), [9-4, Won vs South Carolina 31-10]
14. Virginia Tech (22), [10-4, Won vs Cincinnati 20-7]
15. Missouri (24), [10-3, Won vs Northwestern 30-23]
16. Mississippi (NR), [9-4, Won vs Texas Tech 47-34]
17. Texas Tech (10), [11-2, Lost vs Ole Miss 47-34]
18. Cincinnati (14), [11-3, Lost vs Virginia Tech 20-7]
19. Oregon State (25), [9-4, Won vs Pitt 3-0]
20. Michigan State (16), [9-4, Lost vs Georgia 24-12]
21. BYU (17), [10-3, Lost vs Arizona 31-21]
22. Northwestern (19), [9-4, Lost vs Missouri 30-23OT]
23. Georgia Tech (11), [9-4, Lost vs LSU 38-3]
24. Oklahoma State (15), [9-4, Lost vs Oregon 42-31]
25. West Virginia (NR), [9-4, Won vs North Carolina 31-30]

Dropped Out:
Pittsburgh (18), [9-4, Lost vs Oregon St 3-0]
Ball State (23), [12-2, Lost vs Buffalo 42-24]
Boston College (25), [9-5, Lost vs Vanderbilt 16-14]

On the Cusp:
Nebraska (NR), [9-4, Won vs Clemson 26-21]
Florida State (NR), [9-4, Won vs Wisconsin 42-13]
California (NR), [9-4, Won vs Miami 24-17]
Pittsburgh (18), [9-4, Lost vs Oregon St 3-0]
Ball State (23), [12-2, Lost vs Buffalo 42-24]
Boston College (25), [9-5, Lost vs Vanderbilt 16-14]

Notes: I was very tempted to place Utah at the No. 1 slot, but that would have been out of pure bias. I'm not a fan of the SEC, but Florida did stake its legitimate claim as No. 1. I really liked what Utah had done this season. But from top to bottom, the level of competition was a little bit weaker (very little) than Florida's. It was almost too much to get over when the Gators lost to Ole Miss in the Swamp. In the end, though, clamping down on Oklahoma was enough for me. I also wanted to put USC at No. 2, but the loss to Oregon State still sticks out like a sore thumb. I still believe that USC could beat any team in the country, but they didn't. Texas was less than impressive in its win over Ohio State, which seemed too be the first real good defense the Horns faced all year. I won't get into my rah-rah speech about how Penn State played better against USC than most think, but I will say that the Lions are a much better team than the final AP/Coaches Polls show. Alabama, TCU and Oregon (kind of) barely looked like real top-10 teams, especially the Tide and the Frogs, but really, who else is going to go there? The Ducks are probably legit. The rest of the top 25 teams stunk it up this bowl season. The worst game of all being the 3-0 "win" by Oregon State over Pitt. And with that, on to 2009!

More below the fold...

With Utah's upset of Alabama, bias will become even more obvious

You know what "they" will say...

"Utah is undefeated... Alabama played a tough overall schedule... It was really just one quarter that made a difference..."

All excuses, excuses for why it was ok for Alabama to lose the Sugar Bowl to Utah. No, I correct myself... why it was ok for Alabama to get crushed in the Sugar Bowl. This wasn't a case of superior talent or a superior coaching job. Utah jumped on Bama, and blew them away from the start. This wasn't like Penn State hanging tough for the first part of the game, then suffering one bad quarter in the middle, only to come back strong at the end. Alabama didn't even show up for kickoff.

Bowl Stat: First quarter scores - PSU 7, USC 7; Utah 21, Bama 0.

But none of that matters. "They" still believe that it's just fine, even good for college football that Utah beat Bama. You see, that's called a hypocrisy, my friends. And not only does this fully define that word, it proves my point (and a few other somewhat-respected sports writers') that Alabama could have lost to Utah by 30, but it's ok. It's ok that Texas Tech was embarrassed by Ole Miss. But it's definitely not ok that Penn State lost to USC.

Penn State will most likely be dropped from the top 10, when the final polls come out. Alabama will probably stay in the top 10, along with the winner of the Mythical National Championship, regardless of the margin of defeat. That's right, I'll call it right now. If Florida beats Oklahoma by 50, or vice versa, the loser will stay in the top-10, just because of the fact that "perception is reality" this season in college football. Unfortunately, that perception is that Penn State was just another weak Big Ten team trying to "play with the big boys," while the MNC loser merely "lost to the best team in the nation."

Bowl Stat: Total offense - PSU, 410; Bama, 208

And that leads me to my next point, and another hypocrisy. Following the Rose Bowl, we heard hours and hours of analysis, calling USC a team that "should have been in the BCS Championship Game," and "should be in the running for the AP title." If USC is supposed to be the best team in the nation, or at least the No. 1-A with the BCSCG winner, is Penn State truly worthy of the royal media beat down it's receiving?

I won't get into why the Rose Bowl was tougher for USC than the final score appeared (like, say, the "greatest all-time defense" of USC giving up 24 points, and almost blowing it in the fourth quarter), but "they" can't seriously, with a straight face, tell us that Alabama and Texas Tech belong ranked ahead of Penn State, after losing to supposedly "inferior" opponents, Utah and Ole Miss.

Bowl Stat: Offensive points - PSU, 24; Bama, 10

"They" bash the BCS, pretty much on a daily basis, yet don't seem to realize the true problem with college football, the human polls. In a system like we have now, it's not the computers which are at fault for the kooky rankings or the bowl pairings. But we're led to believe that it's the CPU-controlled votes which are the culprit of these faulty championships each season. Who tells us that the computers are wrong? The human pollsters. Yeah, I see a slight conflict of interest, too.

You cannot have a true polling system, yet lock everyone into the winner of one game. If this were the days before the BCS, and even before the old Bowl Alliance, a team like Utah would have a real chance at the national title, even if it is a mythical one. USC would be a serious contender after dismantling Penn State. Texas would get a shot, granted the Longhorns whip the Buckeyes. But because of the BCS, none of that matters.

Bowl Stat: Yards per rush, PSU, 4.7; Bama, 0.9

That's where the Alabama loss comes back in, along with the Penn State loss. If Penn State and Alabama knew their games could have given them part or all of a national title, would the outcomes have been different? Probably not, but because of this system, where these games have no affect on the championship whatsoever, "they" have to attach some sort of meaning or significance to them. You can bet that there were a few more folks watching the Rose Bowl, just to see "if the Big Ten can hack it this year." Note, I didn't say "if Penn State would beat USC." That's because this year's Rose Bowl wasn't Penn State vs. USC. It was The Big Ten vs. USC.

Bowl Stat: Distance traveled - PSU, 2,568 mi.; Bama, 293 mi.

Penn State will fall below Alabama, not because they're a lesser team. But rather because it won't be Penn State at all that's voted lower than the Crimson Tide. The Big Ten Conference will be what's voted below Alabama... and Texas Tech... and the loser of a blowout BCSCG.

Why? I don't think we'll ever really know. But we'll get a whole lot of excuses, and a whole lot of ass-covering from "them," and ranking Alabama ahead of Penn State will be just a part of it.

But what if Ohio State comes close against Texas, finishing above Penn State in the polls? Well... we'll deal with that when the time comes, and I assure you, we will deal with it thoroughly. And what if Penn State does finish (oddly enough) above Alabama?

Then there's some hope, after all.

Final Bowl Stat: Margin of defeat - PSU, 14; Bama, 14.

More below the fold...

ZN's CFB Top 25 2008 :: Pre-Bowls

Who's better: The No. 1 team, or the No. 2 team that beat the No. 1 team? Wow, my head hurts.

Rank. Team (LW), [Record, LW Result].

1. Oklahoma (2), [12-1, Won vs Missouri 62-21]
2. Texas (1), [11-1, DNP]
3. Florida (3), [12-1, Won vs Alabama 31-20]
4. Alabama (4), [12-1, Lost vs Florida 31-20]
5. Penn State (5), [11-1, DNP]
6. Utah (6), [12-0, DNP]
7. Ohio State (7), [10-2, DNP]
8. USC (8), [11-1, Won at UCLA 28-7]
9. Boise State (9), [12-0, DNP]
10. Texas Tech (10), [11-1, DNP]
11. Georgia Tech (11), [9-3, DNP]
12. Texas Christian (12), [10-2, DNP]
13. Oregon (13), [9-3, DNP]
14. Cincinnati (15), [11-2, Won at Hawaii 29-24]
15. Oklahoma State (17), [9-3, DNP]
16. Michigan State (18), [9-3, DNP]
17. BYU (19), [10-2, DNP]
18. Pittsburgh (25), [9-3, Won at UConn 34-10]
19. Northwestern (20), [9-3, DNP]
20. Georgia (21), [9-3, DNP]
21. Iowa (22), [8-4, DNP]
22. Virginia Tech (NR), [9-4, Won vs Boston College 30-12]
23. Ball State (16), [12-1, Lost vs Buffalo 42-24]
24. Missouri (23), [9-3, DNP]
25t. Oregon State (24), [8-4, DNP]
25t. Boston College (14), [9-4, Lost vs Virginia Tech 30-12]

Dropped Out:
(None this week)

On the Cusp:
Mississippi (NR), [8-4, DNP]
West Virginia (NR), [8-4, Won vs South Florida 13-7]
North Carolina (NR), [8-4, DNP]
Nebraska (NR), [8-4, DNP]
Florida State (NR), [8-4, DNP]

More below the fold...

ZN's CFB Top 25 2008 :: Week 13

Not much controversy this week. Well, except for LSU sucking, along with the rest of the SEC.

Rank. Team (LW), [Record, LW Result].

1. Texas Tech (2), [10-0, DNP]
2. Alabama (1), [11-0, Won vs Miss St 32-7]
3. Florida (3), [9-1, Won vs South Carolina 56-6]
4. Texas (4), [10-1, Won at Kansas 35-7]
5. Oklahoma (5), [9-1, DNP]
6. Penn State (6), [10-1, Won vs Indiana 34-7]
7. Utah (7), [11-0, Won at San Diego St 63-14]
8. USC (8), [9-1, Won at Stanford 45-23]
9. Ohio State (10), [9-2, Won at Illinois 30-20]
10. Boise State (9), [10-0, Won at Idaho 45-10]
11. Oklahoma State (11), [9-2, Won at Colorado]
12. BYU (13), [10-1, Won at Air Force 38-24]
13. Texas Christian (12), [9-2, DNP]
14. Missouri (14), [9-2, Won at Iowa St 52-20]
15. Michigan State (17), [9-2, DNP]
16. Georgia (15), [9-2, Won at Auburn 17-13]
17. Oregon State (19), [7-3, Won vs California 34-21]
18. Ball State (16), [10-0, Won at Miami, OH 31-16]
19. Oregon (24), [8-3, Won vs Arizona 55-45]
20. Cincinnati (22), [8-2, Won at Louisville 28-20]
21. Pittsburgh (21), [7-2, DNP]
22. Miami, FL (NR), [7-3, Won vs Virginia Tech 16-14]
23. Northwestern (NR), [8-3, Won at Michigan 21-14]
24. Maryland (NR), [7-3, Won vs North Carolina 17-15]
25. North Carolina (18), [7-3, Lost at Maryland 17-15]

Dropped Out:
Florida State (20), [7-3, Lost vs Boston College 27-17]
LSU (23), [7-3, Won vs Troy 40-31]
Tulsa (25), [8-2, Lost at Houston 70-30]

On the Cusp:
Georgia Tech (NR), [7-3, DNP]
Boston College (NR), [7-3, Won at Florida St 27-17]
Florida State (20), [7-3, Lost vs Boston College 27-17]
LSU (23), [7-3, Won vs Troy 40-31]
Tulsa (25), [8-2, Lost at Houston 70-30]

More below the fold...

ZN's CFB Top 25 2008 :: Week 12

If parity was the goal, then I think college football has achieved it. The bottom half of the top 25 is just a nightmare. Anyway, Rose Bowl here we come. Well, hopefully.

Rank. Team (LW), [Record, LW Result].

1. Alabama (1), [10-0, Won at LSU 27-21 (1OT)]
2. Texas Tech (4), [10-0, Won vs Oklahoma St 56-20]
3. Florida (3), [8-1, Won at Vanderbilt 42-14]
4. Texas (6), [9-1, Won vs Baylor 45-21]
5. Oklahoma (5), [9-1, Won at Texas A&M 66-28]
6. Penn State (2), [9-1, Lost at Iowa 24-23]
7. Utah (8), [10-0, Won vs TCU 13-10]
8. USC (9), [8-1, Won vs California 17-3]
9. Boise State (11), [9-0, Won vs Utah St 49-14]
10. Ohio State 12), [8-2, Won at Northwestern 45-10]
11. Oklahoma State (7), [8-2, Lost at Texas Tech 56-20]
12. Texas Christian (10), [9-2, Lost at Utah 13-10]
13. BYU (13), [9-1, Won vs San Diego St 41-12]
14. Missouri (14), [8-2, Won vs Kansas St 41-24]
15. Georgia (15), [8-2, Won at Kentucky 42-38]
16. Ball State (16), [9-0, Won vs Northern Illinois 45-14]
17. Michigan State (17), [9-2, Won vs Purdue 21-7]
18. North Carolina (18), [7-2, Won vs Georgia Tech 28-7]
19. Oregon State (NR), [6-3, Won at UCLA 34-6]
20. Florida State (25), [7-2, Won vs Clemson 41-27]
21. Pittsburgh (NR), [7-2, Won vs Louisville 41-7]
22. Cincinnati (NR), [7-2, Won at West Virginia 26-23]
23. LSU (19), [6-3, Lost vs Alabama 27-21 (1OT)]
24. Oregon (NR), [7-3, Won vs Stanford 35-28]
25. Tulsa (NR), [8-1, DNP]


Dropped Out:
West Virginia (20), [6-3, Lost vs Cincinnati 26-23]
Georgia Tech (21), [7-3, Lost at North Carolina 28-7]
Northwestern (22), [7-3, Lost vs Ohio St 45-10]
Minnesota (23), [7-3, Lost vs Michigan 29-6]
California (24), [6-3, Lost at USC 17-3]

On the Cusp:
Virginia Tech (NR), [6-3, Won vs Maryland 23-13]
Air Force (NR), [8-2, Won vs Colorado St 38-17]
West Virginia (20), [6-3, Lost vs Cincinnati 26-23]
Georgia Tech (21), [7-3, Lost at North Carolina 28-7]
Northwestern (22), [7-3, Lost vs Ohio St 45-10]
Minnesota (23), [7-3, Lost vs Michigan 29-6]

More below the fold...

Will Michigan do it?

I haven't seen momentum swing like this in a while. But then again, I haven't seen a college football game in a while. Michigan just scored on a short run... 23-25. Two-point conversion pending... FAILED. Now it's up to UM's defense to force the stop. It's pretty much a three-and-out or else. Good game so far. Michigan is really scraping by for the win, and it's very impressive. Honestly, I want them to win, otherwise a PSU win over UM will look bad. Yeah, I'm like that.

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, Part 3 of 4

3/4.

Part 2/4.
Part 1/4.

Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

As promised, here's the top five weakest schedules BCS bowl teams have played from 2003 through 2007. Here’s my criteria for selection:

-I-AA schools! Like in Schedules, Part 2 the addition of I-AA schools has a huge impact on the relative ease of a team’s schedule. Most of the teams on this list have at least one I-AA opponent on there. While some of those I-AAs are very good teams, and others are a close step up from high school ball, they are all a detriment to any pro-strength of schedule argument. Face it, if you want to get respect for your team’s schedule, then play teams in your own classification.

-Opponent records, looking back. Was a team hyped in the beginning of the year, only to fall flat on its face? Sure, beating Michigan State in September looks good, but how good is it when they’re in one of those patented late-season meltdowns. Even in the bowl games, beating a team that was thought to be unstoppable all year, then was blown out in its last regular-season game, seriously diminishes the significance of playing them in the bowl.

-Opponent conference affiliations. Think of this as a two-parter. If a team plays in the MAC or the Sun Belt, do you think its schedule is nearly as difficult as one from the Big Ten or SEC? I don’t care if a team plays five strong OOC games; if it doesn’t play more than half its schedule against strong competition, it’s not a strong schedule.

So here's what I came up with. THIS IS ALL IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!

Just missed the cut. Close, but not easy enough...


Boise State started out 2006 with a real bang, playing a I-AA with a losing record. Oregon State was a nice win, but nothing real special. The Beavers are middle-of-the-pack Pac-10, so any decent team has a shot at beating them. Outside of the Fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma, the only other team with double digit wins was Hawai’i. Also playing seven teams with non-winning records won’t win any points with me.


If it wasn’t for the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma, this schedule would have been a complete joke. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a thousand times better than the Mid-Majors’ schedules, but to only play three ranked teams the entire season isn’t very good. To top that off, only one of them finished with more than nine wins, and Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS national championship game. The second best regular season game was against Texas Tech, which won eight games.


So now that the SEC fans are laughing at the rest of the BCS teams, here it goes. In 2003, LSU won the BCS national championship, but didn’t have to work that hard to get there. It was a down year in the SEC, and LSU jumped at the opportunity. The first three wins were near automatic, and outside of the Georgia game, any good team should beat all of the remaining opponents. I know there are three games against top-10 opponents, but the two wins against Georgia is a glaring smudge on LSU’s credibility. This schedule is much less spectacular than the SEC fans want to think.

Now, for the top five easiest schedules among BCS bowl teams from 2003-2007...


I do love Kansas State. They usually follow right along with the other Big XII folks by telling I-AA “Come on down! We’ll give you lots of money to lose to us!” I know KSU played mostly teams with winning records, but when you have those two glaring I-AAs on there, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. The only reason this isn’t the clear-cut most horrible schedule is due to the two top-ten teams played late in 2003.


It must be a Kansas thing. Right on the heels of its state rival, the Jayhawks could sum up the 2007 schedule as nothing less than The Mediocre Express. I’ve never seen so many teams hovering around .500 in my life. Throw in Florida International—the Panthers won their last game of the year over North Texas to avoid going winless—and this schedule has a hard time using Missouri and Virginia Tech to compensate for the top 11 teams.


If I were to actually rank these schedules, I think this one would go right to the top. When the best team played is only ranked No. 25 at the end of the year, you’re in trouble. Utah’s 2004 schedule featured no teams with 10 wins or more. That’s rough, especially since the Ute’s BCS opponent lost four games. There’s not much more to say about this one. It’s pretty clear cut.


On the flip side, however, look at Pittsburgh’s 2004 schedule. Playing in a Virginia Tech and Miami-less Big East really killed all possible chances for this schedule to be considered tough. But then again, if those two were still in the league, Pitt wouldn’t have won the conference. Boston College was the best team on the schedule until the bowl, and the only other team to win more than nine games was I-AA Furman. The I-AAs strike again!


Hawaii was a good team in 2007, but its schedule cloaked the fact that the Warriors were still a far way off from competing at the BCS level. I’m still not really sure how people (I’ll admit it, I thought they had a change against Georgia) just looked past Hawaii’s schedule. I mean, for God’s sake people, more teams lost 10 games than won ten games. A MAC team could have gone undefeated playing Hawaii’s 2007 schedule.

Check out Schedules, Part 4, which should be out by next week. In that, I’ll go over which premier games I’m looking forward to in the next five seasons. Hope you enjoyed the “bests and worsts” of BCS bowl team schedules. Well, actually I don't really care if you enjoyed it. But thanks for reading anyway.

More below the fold...