When the preseason polls come out in College Football most fans will comb through them in search of teams they think are overrated or underrated.
It seems as if every year you hear the same sentiments like, “Notre Dame is ALWAYS overrated,” and “The Big 10 never gets respect in the polls,” and any other generic complaint.
It never fails either. Every season, a handful of teams will be considered completely over or under rated based on the preseason polls.
It’s understandable that unexpected seasons occur once in a Blue moon (just ask Texas), but I wanted to see which teams were being consistently misrepresented in the polls over the last 10 years.
Believe it or not, 74 different football programs have started or ended the season nationally ranked from 2001-2010. For the sake of consistency in this project, I decided we needed to thin the herd a little.
Here are the guidelines:
1. Teams must have started or ended the season ranked in the polls at least 5 times. (preseason or final)
2. All rankings are based on the AP Poll.
3. Any team beginning or ending the season unranked was given a value of 26.
4. The “+/-“ ranking factor is determined by: (Avg Preseason Ranking) minus (Avg Final Ranking). This shows whether the teams are over or under ranked.
Team | Preseason | Final | +/- | Seasons | |
1. BYU | 22.8 | 15.2 | 7.6 | 5 | |
2. Boise State | 21 | 13.8 | 7.2 | 9 | |
3. Alabama | 17.8 | 10.8 | 7.0 | 6 | |
4. TCU | 21.3 | 15.3 | 6.0 | 8 | |
5. Maryland | 22 | 17.2 | 4.8 | 5 | |
6. Penn State | 19.6 | 16 | 3.6 | 7 | |
7. Iowa | 19.4 | 16.1 | 3.3 | 8 | |
8. Texas Tech | 22.7 | 19.8 | 2.9 | 6 | |
9. Oregon | 18.4 | 15.7 | 2.7 | 4 | |
10. Auburn | 14.9 | 13.4 | 1.5 | 8 | |
11. Wisconsin | 19.9 | 19 | 0.9 | 10 | |
12. Ohio State | 7.5 | 7.7 | -0.2 | 10 | |
13. Louisville | 17.3 | 17.7 | -0.4 | 6 | |
14. Oregon State | 22.6 | 23.2 | -0.6 | 5 | |
15. Georgia | 12.6 | 13.3 | -0.7 | 10 | |
16. USC | 6.4 | 7.3 | -0.9 | 9 | |
17. Arizona State | 22.2 | 23.2 | -1.0 | 6 | |
18. Notre Dame | 19.2 | 20.2 | -1.0 | 6 | |
19. Virginia Tech | 12.8 | 14.5 | -1.7 | 10 | |
20. Pittsburgh | 21.6 | 23.3 | -1.7 | 7 | |
21. West Virginia | 16.1 | 18.3 | -2.2 | 8 | |
22. LSU | 10 | 12.6 | -2.6 | 10 | |
23. Nebraska | 17.3 | 20 | -2.7 | 8 | |
24. Clemson | 20.6 | 24 | -3.4 | 8 | |
25. Texas | 4.8 | 8.9 | -4.1 | 10 | |
26. Miami (FL) | 9 | 13.4 | -4.4 | 8 | |
27. Oklahoma | 4.7 | 10 | -5.3 | 10 | |
28. Michigan | 8.4 | 14 | -5.6 | 7 | |
29. Tennessee | 12.3 | 18.1 | -5.8 | 8 | |
30. Florida | 7.7 | 13.8 | -6.1 | 10 | |
31. California | 13 | 20 | -7.0 | 5 | |
32. Florida State | 13.5 | 21 | -7.5 | 10 |
A lot of the teams near the bottom have been considered power houses this past decade. These scores are the results of high expectations of National Championships, BCS bowl appearances, and conference titles.
With consistent high expectations, it becomes obvious why consistent underachieving has resulted in coaches being shown the door. Here are a few notable results for underachieving coaching tenures:
Coach | Team | Preseason | Final | +/- | Seasons * |
Ron Zook | Florida | 14.3 | 25.3 | -11.0 | 3 |
Bobby Bowden | Florida State | 12.8 | 21.4 | -8.6 | 9 |
Phillip Fulmer | Tennessee | 12.3 | 18.1 | -5.8 | 8 |
Lloyd Carr | Michigan | 8.4 | 14 | -5.6 | 7 |
Bill Stewart | West Virginia | 19.7 | 24.7 | -5.0 | 3 |
Larry Coker | Miami | 5.5 | 10.3 | -4.8 | 7 |
Tommy Bowden | Clemson | 19.9 | 24 | -4.1 | 8 |
Bill Callahan | Nebraska | 22 | 25.3 | -3.3 | 3 |
*Number of ranked seasons coached | |||||
It is understandable why a guy with a such successful track record like Mark Richt is on the hot seat at Georgia ("+/-" the past three seasons is -9.3). Preseason expectations set the bar for your program, regardless of the validity.
Preseason polls will always be hit or miss. A lot of the time they come in top heavy with powerhouses who's rankings are inflated by a schools expectations or traditions. Essentially, if you're a powerhouse you are being graded on whether you exceed, meet, or fail in regards to those expectations.
Other times, the non traditional powerhouses or non AQ schools must consistently prove they can play with "the big boys." Polls will always be a subjective formula where the perception of how high or low a team is ranked could be distorted, based on a program's past or national perception, rather than play on the field.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for preseason polls because they provide hype and interest in games from week one of the season and gives teams a starting off point.
It's very interesting to see, historically, who the human element favors by granting such lofty preseason rankings without seeing a single game played.
No comments:
Post a Comment