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.

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.)

UGA #21 in first USA Today Coaches' Poll

See the poll HERE.

This, in my opinion, is a good spot for the Dawgs. I expected anything between 20-25, and somehow we landed in the higher end of that. For an 8-5 team with a new QB, it seems like a reasonable ranking.

But some of the other choices are a little... questionable.

-Florida at #3? I understand they have been dominant the past two years, but they lost a TON on both sides of the ball.

-Oklahoma at #8? An 8-5 team at #8? I'm not sure if an 8-5 team has ever appeared in the preseason top 10.

-Arkansas at #19: Could they be very good? Yes. Do they deserve it now? No. Why are they getting it? Because the media loves Ryan Mallett.

Otherwise, not a completely terrible poll. I'm going to try to have the 2010 version of the Unbiased Preseason Poll up Monday to compare.

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.

Percentage Losses: Pre-Spring Award Winners

So I finished compiling my statistics to use for the "2010 New and Vastly Improved Unbiased Preseason Poll" (name is subject to change), and while I may wait until later (post-spring perhaps) to get into the really interesting stuff, I figured I'll go ahead and give out some awards for teams that lose the least (and most) in certain categories. First, I'll start with the awards for teams that lose the least going into 2010.

Biggest Winner Awards

Rushing: This is a tie between Georgia, Nebraska, Air Force, Iowa and Boise State, all of which lose a shocking 0% of their rushing yards and rushing scoring. If returning players are vastly important to future success, these teams should have well-established rushing attacks in 2010.

Honorable Mention: Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, Ohio State and Wisconsin. All lose less than 2% of rushing yards.

Receiving: Boise State -they lose 2% of yards, 5% of scoring.

Honorable Mention: Virginia Tech (4.7% yards)

SEC Winner: Vanderbilt (7.4% yards, 0% scoring)

Defense: Once again ladies and gentlemen, Boise State. The Broncos lose only 4% of tackles, 4% of sacks, and 12% of interceptions. Things are looking good for the smurf-turf horses.

Honorable Mention: Oregon, but the gap is big between them and Boise. Oregon loses 19.7% of tackles, 12.5% sacks and 14.3% interceptions.

Biggest Loser Awards

Passing: This award is given to the team that loses a quarterback who has started for most years, and who had the highest QB rating in 2009. The calculated value comes out to being a tie between Florida (Tim Tebow), Central Michigan (Dan LeFevour) and BYU (Max Hall).

Rushing: Oklahoma State -the Cowboys lose 74.8% of rushing yards and 90.9% of scoring.

SEC Loser: Mississippi State, followed by Tennessee and LSU. The Big Orange loses 68.4% of yards.

Receiving: Florida - the Gators lose 73% of receiving yards and 64% of scoring, largely thanks to the departure of WR Riley Cooper and TE Aaron Hernandez.

Honorable Mention: Clemson (69% yards, 65.2% scoring) and Georgia Tech (65% yards, 72.7% scoring).

Defense: Alabama - the 2009 National Champs lose a whopping 62% tackles, 64% sacks, and 62% interceptions.

Updates on Spring Football, and preseason polls

First, I'm currently working on this year's version of the "unbiased preseason poll" for college football. The formula was simple, but it turned out to be relatively helpful in 2009 for determining which teams where over or under rated. Comparing it to the actual preseason AP and USA Today polls, it accurately predicted that:

-Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, LSU, California, North Carolina, Notre Dame, and Kansas were overrated teams.

-Oregon, TCU, Iowa, Texas Tech, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati were underrated.

This was actually a huge success, because Iowa and TCU, teams that were ranked 17 and 22 in the AP preseason poll, actually ended up in the top 10 (both in BCS games). Texas Tech, Pitt, and Cincinnati were all unranked in the preseason AP and Coaches' polls, but all ended up in the top 25, with Cincinnati finishing as the #8 team. How did the voters miss by so much on these teams? The "unbiased poll" actually recognized them when the voters didn't.

But like I said before, the formula I used was very simple, based only on last season's final rankings and the returning starters for each team. So far with the same formula, this year's unbiased poll places Boise State at #1, Florida still at #3, and Alabama at #6. It isn't looking nearly as credible as last season's, but who knows, we could be surprised and see the BSU Broncos holding a crystal football at the end of next season (I wouldn't count on it). Still, I'm working on revamping the poll formula, adding different weighted values to the importance of players lost from each team, and maybe even finding a way to consider strength of schedule. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. But I do still plan on finishing the poll with last year's formula, no matter how wacky it ends up.

In other news, spring football begins soon, and it clearly can't come soon enough.

Georgia's spring practice is set to begin on March 4, and the G-Day game is scheduled for April 10 (yes, the same weekend as the Masters).

I've seen people questioning whether the game would be on ESPN again this year, and although I doubt it seriously, I'm not sure. It seems possible that with ESPN's deal with the SEC, more and more SEC spring games could be featured on ESPN networks (if not on ESPN or ESPN2, maybe the SEC Network).

It seems that ESPN has already scheduled to televise LSU's spring game, and North Carolina's, but I'm having trouble finding any official sources that can confirm that. But the link above is a very trustworthy (and a must-have) source for any college football fan, especially during the season.

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?

Which Teams are Over/Under Rated?

I don't know. But I can take a guess.

I made a post back in May about how an "unbiased" preseason poll might look for college football. Basically, I took the final AP and Coaches' Poll rankings from last season, then used the number of starters returning for each team to determine where they should be ranked objectively. Obviously, this formula isn't perfect at all, because there's a lot more to football than experienced players returning. Also, I didn't take into account how important the players departing were to their teams, if that's even possible to calculate.

Admittedly, I knew that the non-BCS teams were ranked much higher than they would actually be in the "real" preseason polls. Still, these polls didn't look too bad.

But just for fun, I want to look at how these "unbiased polls" compare to the "real polls" that have been recently released. You can check out the "real polls" here at ESPN.com. I'll start with the teams at the top of both polls. Teams that are ranked the same (or within 1 or 2 spots) in the "unbiased" and "real" polls will be labeled "same." Teams ranked lower (worse) in the "real polls" will be labeled "underrated" while teams ranked higher (better) will be labeled "overrated." The "unbiased" rank will be listed in parentheses.

"Real" AP Poll:

1. Florida: Same (1)

2. Texas: Same (2)

3. Oklahoma: Same (4)

4. USC: Same (5)

5. Alabama: Same (6)

6. Ohio State: Same (7)

7. Virginia Tech: Overrated (12)

8. Mississippi: Same (9)

9. Oklahoma State: Overrated (15)

10. Penn State: Same (10)

11. LSU: Overrated (NR)

12. California: Overrated (24)

13. Georgia: Same (11)

14. Boise State: Same (14)

15. Georgia Tech: Overrated (19)

16. Oregon: Underrated (13)

17. TCU: Underrated (8)

18. Florida State: Same (20)

19. Utah: Underrated (3)

20. Brigham Young: Overrated (NR)

21. North Carolina: Overrated (NR)

22. Iowa: Underrated (18)

23. Notre Dame: Overrated (NR)

24. Nebraska: Overrated (NR)

25. Kansas: Overrated (NR)

"Real" USA Today Coaches' Poll

1. Florida: Same (1)

2. Texas: Same (2)

3. Oklahoma: Same (4)

4. USC: Same (3)

5. Alabama: Same (6)

6. Ohio State: Overrated (10)

7. Virginia Tech: Overrated (11)

8. Penn State: Same (9)

9. LSU: Overrated (NR)

10. Mississippi: Same (12)

11. Oklahoma State: Overrated (16)

12. California: Overrated (25)

13. Georgia: Underrated (8)

14. Oregon: Same (13)

15. Georgia Tech: Overrated (19)

16. Boise State: Same (15)

17. TCU: Underrated (7)

18. Utah: Underrated (5)

19. Florida State: Overrated (23)

20. North Carolina: Overrated (NR)

21. Iowa: Underrated (18)

22. Nebraska: Overrated (NR)

23. Notre Dame: Overrated (NR)

24. Brigham Young: Same (22)

25. Oregon State: Underrated (21)

So to sum it up, looking at this theoretical "unbiased poll" compared to the actual preseason polls, this is what we get:

Slightly overrated: Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, California, Georgia Tech, Florida State.

Very overrated (teams ranked in "real" and not ranked in "unbiased"): LSU, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Kansas (although Kansas is a close one)

Slightly underrated: Oregon, TCU, Utah, Georgia, Iowa

Very underrated (teams that were ranked in "unbiased" but not in "real"): Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Michigan State, Missouri, Pittsburgh.

What surprises me is the amount of teams that were ranked exactly the same between the "real" polls and the "unbiased" polls. But still, there are teams that aren't ranked at all that very easily could be, and others that are ranked high that many could argue shouldn't be ranked at all. So are the voters right, or are they letting their bias get in the way?

Who is the Man of Steele? Is he Irish?

If you haven't been following it yet, Phil Steele's 2009 college football preview PDFs are jam packed with great information. He's been counting down his top 40 teams for 2009 and is currently at number 9 (but if you want a little secret: just change the number and team name and see every PDF, even the rest of the top 10).

Check out his site and top 40 list here at PhilSteele.com.

By the way, I tried to figure out who this "Phil Steele" is by looking him up on Wikipedia, but for some reason it redirects me to this. I hope that's the same guy, I really do.

Oh, and here is his top 40 for 2009:

40- Arizona
39- Tennessee
38- Wisconsin
37- West Virginia
36- Oregon St.
35- Nevada
34- Florida St.
33- Arkansas
32- NC State
31- Troy
30- North Carolina
29- Michigan St.
28- Georgia Tech
27- Southern Miss
26- USF
25- Clemson
24- UCLA
23- Pitt
22- Nebraska
21- Miami
20- Iowa
19- Illinois
18- TCU
17- LSU
16- Rutgers
15- BYU
14- Oklahoma St.
13- Georgia
12- Boise St.
11- Virginia Tech
10- Ohio St
9- Cal
8- Alabama
7- Notre Dame
6- Ole Miss
5- Penn St.
4- Oklahoma
3- USC
2- Texas
1- Florida

I won't say much about this, but a few things stand out to me.

1. I really like the love he gives Georgia (and the fact that we're right above Oklahoma State, and Georgia Tech is way back at #28).

2. Ole Miss at #6? Really?

3. Notre Dame at #7???? Forget about Ole Miss at 6, this is just ridiculous.

4. Where is Utah? They went from being undefeated and ranked #2 to being not even in the top 40?

5. Appears Oregon is completely missing from the top 40 as well. Is it possible that the mysterious Mr. Steele just accidentally forgot about them?

Other than all of that.... not the worst top 40 I've ever seen.

Anyway, check out the PDFs. I'll get your started with Georgia's.
Remember, just change the number and team name.

Are Preseason Rankings Predictive?

The answer is no. Even if voters want to rank teams in the order of how they think they will finish the next season, they usually do a pretty bad job at it. After my little "unbiased" preseason poll experiment, I started to notice just how bad the 2008 preseason polls look in hindsight. In fact, 2008 may have had the worst preseason rankings in a LONG time.

Does this have anything to do with Georgia being the preseason #1? Not really. Yes, UGA had what many call a "disappointing" season, but the #1 pre-ranked team ended up at #13 and #10 in the AP and Coaches' Polls (respectively) with 3 losses and a bowl win. Sure, this was "disappointing" to UGA fans, but many of those who bleed Red and Black won't be satisfied without an SEC or national title.

So if Georgia wasn't that big of a problem with the preseason rankings, who was? Looking at the AP preseason top 25 and final top 25 for 2008:

-----------------------------------------

Preseason #10 Auburn went 5-7 and ended up (of course) unranked.

Preseason #18 Tennessee went 5-7 and also ended unranked.

Preseason #15 Arizona State went 5-7, ended unranked.

Preseason #9 Clemson went 7-5 regular season, lost bowl game, and unranked.

Preseason #7 LSU went 7-5 regular season and ended unranked.

Preseason #6 Missouri did well with a 9-3 regular season, but dropped to #19.

Preseason #14 Kansas went 7-5 and ended unranked.

Preseason #13 Wisconsin went 7-5, lost bowl game, and ended unranked.

Preseason #19 South Florida went 7-5, won bowl game, ended unranked.

Preseason #20 Illinois went 5-7, ended unranked.

Preseason #23 Wake Forest went 7-5, won bowl game, ended unranked.

And finally, Preseason #25 Pittsburgh went 9-3, lost bowl game, and ended unranked.

----------------------------------------------------

By my count, that's 11 teams that started in the preseason top 25 and weren't ranked at all after the bowl games. ELEVEN!

This includes 3 preseason top 10 teams that ended the season unranked (LSU, Auburn, and Clemson). THREE!

Of course this all means that 11 teams that weren't ranked preseason ended up in the final top 25. But guess what? 2 unranked teams in the preseason (Utah and TCU) ended up at #2 and #7. Alabama, ranked #24 by the AP and unranked by the Coaches' Poll in the preseason, of course ended up in the top 10.

So what does this all mean? You can always expect a few teams (especially the lower ranked ones) to end up unranked after starting the season in the top 25. But 11? And also, it has to be unusual for so many highly ranked preseason teams to do so poorly and end unranked. Are the voters just bad at judging who the best teams will be? Or was 2008 just a crazy, unpredictable season for college football?

The Search for an Unbiased Preseason Poll

Warning: This is a long, long, analytic college football (and media) post. Read it if you dare. Or, if you're lazy, skip to my preseason polls and comment on what you think about how they look.

Alright, I spent a little while the other day putting together a very early preseason poll for the 2009 season, because yes, the off-season is that boring.

Now first, check out this link here to see an average of a few respected media preseason polls. I'm assuming that, even though there are only a few sources who've released preseason polls, this average poll at the link is very close to what will be the AP/USA Today preseason ranking released later this year. If you aren't convinced, check out the 2008 preseason polls and average and see how they mostly matched up.

Personally, looking at the average of 2009's preseason polls so far, I think there are few things in there that don't look right. Some teams are ranked VERY high (LSU) based on a lot of hype with not a lot of concrete reasoning. Others may be completely ignored in the preseason hype (Missouri) even following successful seasons, based solely on one or two players they lose. (You'll notice that strangely, Missouri, a team that went 10-4 in 2008, isn't on ANY of those preseason polls, all the way through number 41, which includes Vanderbilt and Tennessee).

So I thought it would be interesting to try to make an objective preseason poll and see how it compares.

In my opinion, the most fair and "unhyped" preseason poll isn't a prediction of how you think teams will finish the next season (even though it's fun to predict). Instead, I think a preseason poll should reflect the success of a team in the previous season, with some consideration to how that team will change (or remain the same) in the next.

Here is what I did:

1. I looked at the AP and USA Today final polls from 2008. Then, I found out how many starting players were leaving from each team.

For instance, Florida, ranked #1 in the final poll, is losing only 3 starters from their 2008 team.

2. Then, I added the amount of starters leaving to the rank of the team. Therefore Florida, ranked #1, with 3 players leaving, 3+1=4. Easy, right? I did this for every team ranked from #1 to about #30 in the final polls (using the others receiving votes for the lowerst ranks).

3. I started to make a preseason ranking by starting with the teams with the lowest number. Florida, with "4" as their number, ended up at #1. Then I continued through the rest of the rankings until I reached #25.

Eventually, I ended up with these polls below.

2009 AP Poll (Unbiased)

1. Florida
2. Texas
3. Utah
4. Oklahoma
5. USC
6. Alabama
7. Ohio State
8. TCU
9. Ole Miss
10. Penn State
11. Georgia
12. Virginia Tech
13. Oregon
14. Boise State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Texas Tech
17. Cincinnati
18. Iowa
19. Georgia Tech
20. Florida State
21. Oregon State
22. Michigan State
23. Missouri
24. California
25. Pittsburgh

2009 USA Today Poll (Unbiased)

1. Florida
2. Texas
3. USC
4. Oklahoma
5. Utah
6. Alabama
7. TCU
8. Georgia
9. Penn State
10. Ohio State
11. Virginia Tech
12. Mississippi
13. Oregon
14. Texas Tech
15. Boise State
16. Oklahoma State
17. Cincinnati
18. Iowa
19. Georgia Tech
20. Missouri
21. Oregon State
22. Brigham Young
23. Florida State
24. Michigan State
25. California

Some things to note:

First, these two polls are very similar to the average preseason polls on the link above, with a few exceptions.

-LSU is basically unranked in both polls. While I don't think they necessarily should be unranked, and I do think they could have a great season next year, I consider a top 10 preseason spot is a little bit undeserved after an 8-5 season.

-Some teams that had a lot of success in 2008 are completely left out of the media preseason polls, but show up in the "unbiased" polls. Cincinnati, 2008's Big East champion, is ranked #35 in the average polls, but shows up #17 in mine. Even more baffling is Missouri, which I mentioned before. Missouri isn't even in the top 41 of the media polls. But they rank #23 and #20 in mine.

-A couple of teams that show up in the media polls aren't found at all in the "unbiased" polls. Most notably is Notre Dame, a team that many fans don't want to see in any poll. In the media polls so far, they are ranked #24 after a 7-6 2008 season (including a loss to Syracuse). Another team, North Carolina, is #21 in their polls and unranked in mine.

I also have a few extra statements:

- Yes, Georgia lands at #11 and then #8 in the "unbiased" polls, and averages #15 in the media polls. I didn't purposefully manipulate these things to put them that high. I had no idea how it would turn out until I finished it.

- I know that a few teams don't look right in the "unbiased" polls. Especially the non-BCS teams, like Utah and TCU. These polls might look a little more credible if I put an automatic lowering of rank on each non-BCS team (for instance, dropping every non-BCS team 5 spots). But generally, the media will ignore non-BCS teams in the preseason, and then find them ranked very high in the final poll. There were no non-BCS teams in the preseason top 15 before 2008, but in the final poll, we had #2 Utah, #7 TCU, and #11 Boise State. Whether you think they belong there or not, they will likely end up there.

- In my opinion, these "unbiased" polls fix some of the hype problems of the media. As previously mentioned, I don't think LSU is worthy of a top 10 ranking. I also thought Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech are ranked a little too high in the preseason polls so far (and I'm trying to be objective here). However, I do think Georgia should be ranked somewhere in the 11-20 range, which one of my polls doesn't do. Yes, #8 for Georgia is too high, and I don't think the media has unfairly ranked Georgia so far. And as I also said, some teams like Missouri or even Cincinnati may be dropped a little too much by the media.

Finally, I acknowledge that this formula isn't perfect. I considered weighing the importance of each starter lost and adding that to the polls (IE: losing a star QB would hurt a team more than losing a nationally unknown safety). But it would be a bit difficult to choose the values of individual players, so I didn't bother with that and decided to keep it (relatively) simple. Also, I know that starters returning on a team (and stats in general) often don't mean much in the crazy world of college football. Many very young teams find plenty of success some seasons. But once again, my polls aren't made to predict how the season will END in 2009, but how it will BEGIN, which is what I think preseason polls should be for.

Let me know what you think of them. Do you think the rankings appear mostly fair? Are some teams way too high, or too low? Should non-BCS teams be dropped in rankings just because they aren't in BCS conferences?