How to Read the Unbiased Ranking: Over/Under rated Teams

So my Unbiased Top 35 may have confused quite a few people who thought it was supposed to serve as a substitute for the USA Today or AP Preseason Polls. It isn't. The Unbiased Ranking was just an experiment to point out some of the biases and undue hype that are present in the poll voting system.

In other words, it shows us how the polls would look if a computer put it together with no human intuition or analytical ability. Clearly, this isn't how our polls should work.

But the Unbiased Top 35 does give us some insight into the hype and bias of media and fans.

First, let's look and see which teams appear much higher in the USA Today Coaches' Poll than in the Unbiased Ranking.

1. Florida

- #3 in USA Today, #13 in Unbiased.

Florida is still receiving plenty of credit for a phenomenal last two years (as well as their national championship in 2006). They may deserve a high ranking based on past success, but losing Tim Tebow, their leading receivers, and many stars on defense, it may be a little too early to put them in the top 5. The Unbiased Ranking shows this with a more modest ranking.

Fun stat: Florida loses their Heisman quarterback, 33% of rushing yards, a whopping 73% of receiving yards, and over half (50%) of total defensive production.

2. Oklahoma

- #8 in USA Today, #20 in Unbiased.

An 8-5 team that finished unranked in the final 2009 polls, yet jumps to top 10 the next season? Yes, Oklahoma has been a top program, but they also lose more than you know going into 2010.

Fun Stat: OU loses 45.4% of rushing production, plus about a third of defensive production

3. North Carolina

- #18 in USA Today, Unranked in Unbiased.

First of all, North Carolina should likely appear in anyone's Top 35. The only reason they're absent from the Unbiased Ranking is because UNC didn't receive any votes in the final AP poll from 2009, therefore were ineligible. But this fact itself is telling. How does a team that finished 8-5, losing their last 2 games, and finishing with zero votes for the final polls appear at #18 in the preseason? Not to mention they're ahead of other 8-5 teams with much better resumes. You decide, but part of me wonders if the big opener vs. LSU doesn't factor into the UNC hype a little.

4. Arkansas

- #19 in USA Today, #31 in Unbiased Ranking.

Yes, Arkansas returns an exciting offense and could challenge in the SEC West. But once again, how does a team that finished #39 in the 2009 AP Poll jump to #19 so quickly? That's 20 spots they jumped during one off-season. Sounds to me like the Ryan Mallett hype is carrying Arkansas pretty high.

Now let's take a look at a few teams that appear to be UNDER rated.

1. Cincinnati

-Unranked in USA Today, #12 in Unbiased Ranking.

Yes, #12 does sound like a high ranking for a team that loses half of it's QB production in Tony Pike and got destroyed by the Gators in the Sugar Bowl. But does a team that won the Big East Championship twice in the past 2 years really deserve to go unranked? Other than Pike, their losses aren't too heavy, and Cincy should easily contend to be the best in the Big East again. Also, notice that Cincinnati was unranked in the preseason in 2009 as well, despite being Big East Champs the year before. The Bearcats, and the Big East in general, can't get a break from the media, coaches, or fans.

2. Texas Tech

-Unranked in USA Today, #15 in Unbiased Ranking.

The Red Raiders went a respectable 9-4 in 2009 with wins over Nebraska and Oklahoma. They lose practically nothing on offense, and little on defense. Yet Texas Tech isn't present in the USA Today Coaches' Poll at all? Well, they are, but only receiving 5 votes. That puts them at #44. Where's the respect for Texas Tech?

Hopefully this helps to explain the use of the Unbiased Top 35.

College Football News Ranks UGA at.... #3!?!?!?

Don't believe me? Click HERE.

About 99% of me is expecting this to change soon, and it will be revealed that this was all a mistake. But then again, they do predict a 10-2 record and say UGA is a sleeper for the national championship.

I know most people will laugh at this ranking. An 8-5 team being #3? But wait a second... the USA Today Coaches' Poll already ranked 8-5 Oklahoma at #8... where was the outrage over that? If the Sooners can have high expectations after a down year, why can't Georgia?

The 2010 Unbiased Preseason Top 35

Introduction

It's finally here.

Back during the boredom of the 2009 off-season, I started looking into preseason polls and rankings. Everyone loves to use the terms "overrated" and "underrated" to describe teams each year that are either ranked too high or too low during the preseason. It also seems that every year, a few teams receive undue hype from the media and appear very high in preseason rankings, only to quickly drop once the season (and reality) begins.

It isn't a secret that the biases of the media (and fans) lead to unearned expectations before the college football season begins. So how can we see where teams SHOULD be ranked preseason, based on their results from 2009 and looking objectively toward 2010?

I propose that it can be done, and it might prove to be more accurate to reality than the media/coaches' polls.

The Basics

When evaluating a team from one season to the next, what can you look at? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is how the team performed last season. So you look at the team's final record and, likely, where they finished in the polls. (This immediately injects a bit of media bias into the formula since we're using media polls, but generally, the FINAL polls (being based on RESULTS) are much more accepted than preseason polls.)

The next obvious thing to look at is what is changing on each team from last year to this year. You can look at what each team is gaining, based on obscure (and biased) recruiting rankings, but that would further inject bias into your evaluation. So instead, you choose to focus on LOSSES. You can accurately view and calculate what each team loses from last year's production, based on statistics of player performance. Most easily, you can see the number of starters being lost to the NFL or graduation. More in depth, you can calculate the exact percentage of offensive yards and touchdowns, or defensive tackles, sacks, and interceptions that are lost by each team.

These losses can be used to penalize teams in rankings, and to gain a much more accurate view of how a team might perform in 2010. At the very least, you'll see a much fairer list of how teams should be ranked before the season begins, without the hype and bias of media/fans.

Below is an explanation of the formula I used for creating this unbiased ranking. It's pretty complicated and full of numbers, so if you aren't interested in the stats, skip below to the rankings.

The Formula

The formula for determining the Unbiased Pre-season Top 35 can be described in 6 steps.

1. First, I took the final Associated Press Top 25 poll from 2009 which can be found HERE. I added the teams listed as "Others receiving votes" to the top 25 based on the number of votes received, so Oklahoma at #26, Oregon State at #27, and so on until #40 Villanova.

2. I researched the total number of starters on offense, defense and special teams that were departing from each of those top 40 teams. The total number of starters lost is added to the final AP Poll rank of each team, and then teams are ranked by the lowest number. For example, Ohio State was ranked in the AP Poll at #5, and loses 9 starters. This brings them to a Final Value of 14.

3. Third, I started to get to the real numbers. I designed a quarterback value to determine how important the QB was to each team's success in 2009. Teams that do not lose their starting QB (or the person responsible for all or the vast majority of passing yards/TDs) will not be penalized. For teams that DO lose their quarterbacks, the QB value is determined by: number of years that the QB started, and the QB rating of that player from 2009. The number of years can be any number from 1 to 4, and the QB rating is made into a value based on the chart below.

QB Rating: Rating Value

100-140: 1

140-160: 2

160+: 3

So if a team loses a QB who started for 2 years and had a QB Rating of 130 (1), then 2+1=3. The QB Value is 3.

Just like the number of starters lost, the QB Value is added to the Final Value.

Once again, any team NOT losing their starting QB will have a QB Value of ZERO (0).

4. Fourth, I calculated a value to represent other losses on offense. To calculate a rushing value, I started by looking at every rushing yard and touchdown lost by each team. This includes all rushing yards and touchdowns from 2009 gained by ANY player, whether it's the running back, fullback, receiver, QB or other. I calculated the percentage of rushing yards lost, and the percentage of rushing touchdowns lost. Then, I created a formula to determine a Rushing Value, in which rushing yards are worth 75%, and rushing TDs are worth 25%. I did the same thing with receiving yards and touchdowns. The Rushing Value and Receiving Value are then added to the Final Value.

5. I created a Defense Value, based on three criteria: percentage of defensive tackles lost, percentage of interceptions lost, and percentage of sacks lost. Since tackles are the most important and basic part of defensive stats, they are worth 70% of the Defensive Value, while sacks and interceptions are each 15%. The total Defensive Value is then added to the Final Value.

6. With all values added, you have the Final Value, and teams are ranked by the lowest Final Value. For example:

-Texas finished #(2) in the AP Poll in 2009.

-They lose a total of (10) starters from that 2009 squad on offense, defense and special teams.

-They lose QB Colt McCoy, who started for (3) years with a QB Rating in 2009 of 147.41 (2).

-They lose 16.8% of Rush Yards and 10.7% of Rush TDs for a Rushing Value of (1.53).

-They lose 38.7% of Receiving Yards and 44.8% of Receiving TDs for a Receiving Value of (4.02). -They lose 36.7% of tackles, 33.3% of sacks, and 32% of interceptions, for a Defensive Value of (3.548).

-To get to the Final Value, add the (n) values from above. (2)+(10)+(3+2)+(1.53)+(4.02)+(3.548)=26.098

With a Final Value of 26.098, Texas ranks at #7.

The Rankings

1. Boise State

2. TCU

3. Ohio state

4. Iowa

5. Alabama

6. Nebraska

7. Texas

8. Virginia Tech

9. Oregon

10. Wisconsin

11. Georgia Tech

12. Cincinnati

13. Florida

14. Miami

15. Texas Tech

16. Penn State

17. Pittsburgh

18. West Virginia

19. Utah

20. Oklahoma

21. BYU

22. Navy

23. LSU

24. Georgia

25. USC

26. Oregon State

27. Clemson

28. Stanford

29. Rutgers

30. Auburn

31. Arkansas

32. Florida State

33. Mississippi

34. Central Michigan

35. Air Force

(Disclaimer: Before you scoff at some of the rankings, remember that these are based completely on statistics and no personal opinion. For instance, you may find it ridiculous that non-BCS conference teams Boise State and TCU are at the top of the rankings. That's the point of the Unbiased Top 35. Teams are evaluated purely on results from 2009 and statistical losses. This is NOT an attempt to predict the best teams in 2010. It is simply an exercise in viewing where teams should be ranked preseason based on fair analysis rather than hype and opinion.)

Comprehensive List of Georgia in Pre-season Top 25 Rankings

Yes, it's been a long time, but expect some new updates starting right.....about....NOW!

For fun, here's a list of pre-season top 25 polls and where they ranked Georgia.

ESPN's Mark Schlabach: #20

AJC's Tony Barnhart: #21

Athlon Sports: #15

Lindy's Sports: #21

Phil Steele: #19

Sports Illustrated: Unranked

Orlando Sentinel: #64

So there you go. Counting the ridiculous Orlando Sentinel ranking and giving us a generous #26 for the SI poll, Georgia's average pre-season spot so far is around #26, give or take a few. Take out the #64 travesty, and it's closer to #20. Not bad.

Over/Underrated teams of 2009?

See the final AP Top 25 and USA Today Coaches' Poll here.

And see what the preseason polls of 2009 looked like here.

Let's see what the polls got right (and wrong) in 2009.

The first thing to note is that the preseason polls weren't completely bad. 6 of the top 10 teams preseason finished in the top 10. Also of note is that 6 teams finished within 2 spots of their preseason ranking (Florida, Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Utah).

But then there are the bad parts.

Overrated Teams:

Oklahoma: This was by far, the most overrated team of 2009, preseason ranked #3 in both polls, only to finish with 5 losses and unranked. However, you can't really blame the voters for this because no one foresaw Heisman winner Sam Bradford going down in the first game of the season. Would the Sooners have stuck around in the top 5 or 10 if they had Bradford in '09? We'll never know.

USC: They started at #4 in both polls, went on to lose 4 games, and finished #22 in the AP (#20 in Coaches'). This was probably just a bad call by the voters, who were enamored by USC's usual dominance in the Pac-10, and overlooked the huge losses on the Trojans' defense, as well as the starting of a freshman QB.

Ole Miss: The Rebels, a popular preseason pick for "most overrated team" lived up to their billing, although they didn't have a terrible season. They started #8 in the AP, but lost 4 games and finished #20.

Oklahoma State: Ranked #9 in AP preseason, finished unranked with 4 losses (including a shocking loss to Houston early in the season). The Cowboys also lost some valuable players during the year (most importantly star receiver Dez Bryant), but it's likely they were an overrated team regardless.

California: Ranked #12 preseason, finished unranked with 5 losses. They were a trendy pick to surprise in the Pac-10, but they imploded versus Oregon in their 4th game and kept sliding.

Georgia: This one pains me to say, but the Dawgs were technically overrated in 2009, ranked #13 preseason and falling to 5 losses and unranked. I could say we very easily could have beaten LSU and Kentucky, getting us to only 3 losses and a likely 10-15 final ranking, but that would be too biased, wouldn't it?

Florida State, North Carolina, Notre Dame, and Kansas: Started #18, 21, 23, and 25, respectively, and lost 6, 5, 6 and 7 games, respectively. These teams weren't vastly overrated, considering they were thrown in at the bottom of the preseason rankings, but they deserve mention for being poorly ranked at all by the voters. Especially Notre Dame and Kansas.

Underrated Teams:

Cincinnati: Despite their blowout loss to Florida in the Sugar Bowl, it's a little ridiculous that the Bearcats weren't even ranked by either poll in the preseason. They returned a lot of key talent from their Big East Champion 2008 squad, yet they were completely overlooked in 2009. The voters really dropped the ball with this team, which went undefeated in the regular season and finished #8 in the AP.

Boise State/TCU: To be fair to the voters, there are usually 1 or 2 non-BCS conference teams that go undefeated or lose 1 game, ending up with a high ranking despite cries that they never really played any tough teams during the season. Boise was generously ranked #14 in preseason, while TCU came in at #17. Then, they finished the year #4 and #6, respectively. Both actually played at least one tough team during the season, which is improvement, and it seems the media might be considering a much higher preseason ranking, at least for Boise State, in 2010.

Iowa: The Hawkeyes were only ranked #22 in the AP to start the year, but finished strong with 2 losses, a win over Georgia Tech in the Orange Bowl, and a #7 final ranking.

Pittsburgh: Another Big East team that was left out of preseason rankings but ended up with 10 wins and a #15 spot.

Wisconsin, Miami, Texas Tech, Central Michigan, Clemson, West Virginia: All left out of preseason rankings but found their way into the final. Wisconsin notably fought their way to a 10-3 season with a #16 final ranking.

So which conferences, in general, are over/underrated?

This one's pretty easy. The SEC, Pac-10, and Big 12 had the most represented overrated teams in 2009. This was probably to be expected, especially with the SEC and Big 12, which both were riding high after a strong 2008 season. The SEC finished big again with another national champion in Alabama, so don't be surprised to see some more overranked SEC teams in 2010.

Underrated conferences? The Big East was severely underrated, just by the fact that no Big East teams were even ranked preseason. That's a little strange for a big-six conference, isn't it? Then, the Big 10 suffered some underrating and finished strong. And of course the non-BCS conference teams usually find a way to move up in the rankings.

The ACC rankings were remarkably correct for the most part. Virginia Tech went from #7 to #10, and Georgia Tech from #15 to #13. Then, a couple of overrated ACC teams (UNC, FSU) were swapped out for Miami and Clemson.

What does this say for the preseason rankings in 2010?

Expect to see the voters try to rectify their mistakes from 2009 with the next preseason rankings.

-Although the SEC may have been slightly overrated as a conference, the strong finish of Alabama (and a few other SEC teams) should lead to around 5 SEC teams ranked in the preseason again, if not more. Also, the fact that so many SEC teams finished with decent, but not bad records, the voters will likely expect many of those teams to improve in 2010.

-The voters will probably be slightly more cautious with the Big 12 and Pac-10. The obvious teams that will likely retain their high ranking are Texas and Oregon. Nebraska has moved up in favor of the voters and will likely also start high. The rest of each conference is more of a question, so don't expect to see too many highly ranked Big 12 or Pac-10 teams.

-Expect to see more respect for the Big East and the non-BCS conferences. We'll likely see at least one non-BCS conference team in the preseason top 10 (Boise State), and probably 4 or 5 overall in the top 25. The Big East, which had no preseason ranked teams in 2009, can look to having at least 2, if not 3+ ranked teams to start 2010.

-Also expect more respect in the rankings for the Big 10. They'll have very similar rankings to the SEC in the 2010 preseason.

-Finally, it's looking like this could be one of the most difficult preseason rankings to put together in a while. A lot of teams finished with similar records, and it will be hard for voters to determine who should be ranked where. With this in mind, there will very likely be a few questionable teams the find their way into the preseason rankings as voters will have to reach to find teams to fill the list.

A quick look at the rest of the CFB World

While we're all sitting here waiting anxiously to see if Georgia can glue things back together for tomorrow's game at Vanderbilt, I decided to take a quick look at what's going on in the rest of the college football.

First, a mid-season update on the college football rankings and polls.

Back in May, I attempted to make an "unbiased" preseason poll, hoping to show the media's ability to greatly "overrate" or "underrate" a team before (or during) the season.

Later in August, I looked at the actual preseason polls to compare them to a more objective viewpoint to see how different things were.

So far, the "unbiased" polls weren't extremely accurate, but they did pick up on a few (big) things that the media/coaches/voters didn't in the preseason.

Update on "Overrated" Teams

Some teams I found to be "slightly overrated" have in fact lost games and dropped from their original preseason poll positions. These include Ohio State (who has dropped one spot to #7), Oklahoma State (from #9 to #16), California (from #12 to unranked), Georgia Tech (from #15 to #19), and Florida State (from #18 to unranked.) The only team that I deemed "slightly overrated" that has so far overachieved in ranking is Virginia Tech, who has moved from #7 to #4.

My "very overrated" teams have mostly not proven yet to be so overrated, except for North Carolina, who had a #21 ranking in preseason and now is unranked.

Update on "Underrated Teams"

The biggest discrepancies and problems with the actual polls have been "underrating" teams.

My "slightly underrated" category hasn't proven to be too accurate at the moment, and Georgia, unfortunately, is one team that probably won't prove the "unbiased poll" right.

But the "very underrated" teams are interesting. Pittsburgh wasn't ranked in the preseason, but they are 5-1 and could very easily move up into the rankings soon. The biggest "they dropped the ball" ranking error though, has clearly been Cincinnati.

The Cincinnati Problem

In 2008, Cincinnati won 11 games and the Big East conference, losing only to then #4 Oklahoma, then #19 Virginia Tech, and their only really bad loss, at Connecticut. In the 2009 preseason AP poll, not a single Big East team was ranked, and 2 Big East teams got more votes than Cincinnati (Pittsburgh and Rutgers). By the way, Rutgers went 8-5 in 2008 (and also happened to be blown out by Cincinnati in their first game this season).

And now? Cincinnati is undefeated (6-0) and ranked at #8. Although their starting QB Tony Pike was injured in last night's game at South Florida, the rest of the Bearcats' schedule looks pretty easy, especially considering Cincinnati is beating their opponents by an average of 26 points.

So how did the voters mess that one up and leave them out of the preseason rankings?

But it gets worse. I've now heard multiple media sources discussing Cincinnati, and there seems to be a debate about whether they should be allowed to play in the BCS national championship game if they make it through their schedule undefeated. I've heard from some that in order for an undefeated Cincinnati to make the championship game, they have to basically "put on a show" and beat the rest of their opponents convincingly and impressively.

In my opinion, that's not really fair to Cincinnati or to the Big East. I can understand reservations to having a Big East team in the championship game, but is not the Big East one of the 6 BCS conferences that have automatic BCS-bowl tie ins? Sure, an undefeated SEC, Big 12, or ACC champion should have the priority to make it to the national championship game. But usually, undefeated teams from the other BCS conferences are considered as well. So wouldn't you think Cincinnati should be treated similarly to at least the other BCS conferences with no divisional conference championship game (Big 10, Pac-10)?

If any Pac-10 team went undefeated, even with what may be deemed a "weak schedule," they would surely be in the national championship (as long as there weren't two undefeated SEC, Big 12, or ACC teams ahead of them). The same goes for the Big 10, where we almost saw Penn State find their way to the national championship last year (which they likely would have if they had not lost to Iowa in 2008).

Sure, no one necessarily wants to see a lot of "undeserving" teams in the big game, but is it really fair to deny them if they have the credentials?

Georgia's 2009 Offense: #6 in the country?

Well, it is according to Scout.com .

Scout.com (College Football News) released their 2009 unit rankings yesterday, and they're showing a lot of respect for Georgia. In their ranking of the best offenses this season, Georgia appears at #6, despite losing two stars who were taken in the first round of the NFL draft. They rank Oklahoma State as their #1 offense, followed by Oklahoma, USC, Florida, and Texas.

In their list of top defensive units, Georgia is #10. Not a bad ranking either, but Pitt and Iowa find themselves above Georgia on Scout's defensive list.

Other rankings of note:

Quarterbacks: UGA is #48

Running Backs: UGA is #7 (Georgia Tech is #1)

Receivers: UGA is #31

Offensive Line: UGA is #2

Defensive Line: UGA is #26

Linebackers: UGA is #6

Secondaries: UGA is #29

Special Teams: UGA is #25

Go check out CFN's 2009 College Football Preview to see explanations on all of their rankings and other interesting features.