Listed below are the number of seasons each program had from 1978-2009 that would have earned a top two regular season finish and title game berth in at least one of those 32 seasons. The numbers to the right represent the total number of top two worthy seasons under the Power Points System and Associated Press Poll respectively. For purposes here, AP Poll totals are determined by assigning equal value to equal finishes in a given year. For example, the top seven teams in the 2009 Power Points Standings had top two worthy seasons. Therefore, it is assumed that the top seven teams in the 2009 AP Poll did likewise.
Based on these numbers, the top 12 programs account for 126 and 123 of 198 top two worthy seasons under the Power Points System and AP Poll respectively. 48 different programs at had least one top two worthy season under each ranking system. Under the Power Points System, 39 AQ schools account for 181 seasons and nine nonAQ schools account for 17 seasons. Under the AP Poll, 44 AQ schools account for 190 seasons and four nonAQ schools account for 8 seasons. The systems agreed on 156 of 198 top two worthy seasons.
1-Florida State 14 14
2-Miami-Florida 13 11
3-Florida 12 9
4-Oklahoma 11 14
5-Nebraska 11 13
6-Ohio State 11 10
7-Southern California 10 9
8-Michigan 9 9
9-Penn State 9 9
10-Alabama 9 9
11-Notre Dame 9 8
12-Texas 8 8
13-Tennessee 5 6
14-Auburn 5 5
15-Virginia Tech 5 3
16-Brigham Young 5 2
17-Colorado 4 6
18-Louisiana State 4 4
19-Boise State 4 3
20-Georgia 3 5
21-Texas A&M 3 3
22-Washington 3 2
23-Pittsburgh 3 1
24-Oregon 2 3
25-Iowa 2 2
26-Utah 2 2
27-Kansas State 1 4
28-UCLA 1 2
29-West Virginia 1 2
30-Arizona 1 1
31-Arizona State 1 1
32-Arkansas 1 1
33-Clemson 1 1
34-Illinois 1 1
35-Louisville 1 1
36-North Carolina 1 1
37-Northwestern 1 1
38-Syracuse 1 1
39-Texas Tech 1 1
40-Cincinnati 1 1
41-Texas Christian 1 1
42-Colorado State 1 0
43-Marshall 1 0
44-Miami-Ohio 1 0
45-Michigan State 1 0
46-Missouri 1 0
47-Toledo 1 0
48-Wyoming 1 0
49-Wisconsin 0 2
50-Baylor 0 1
51-California 0 1
52-Georgia Tech 0 1
53-Maryland 0 1
54-Oregon State 0 1
55-Washington State 0 1
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Sandbagging Lie
The assertion that a playoff system leads to teams benching starters in the final weeks of the regular season is not new. Nevertheless, the BCS propaganda machine has renewed this charge by pointing to the Indianapolis Colts as a prime example of what we can expect from an expanded college football playoff. These people are liars or idiots or both. A playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging. The decision to rest starters in late season games happens when a team has clinched a playoff berth plus all possible home games and there are no significant competitive advantages to be gained or lost.
Fewer teams plus more games allows for greater separation in the standings which leads to increased opportunities for teams to bench their starters for inconsequential games. If the NFL only had a two-team playoff, the Colts would have still been able to bench its starters, lose its final two games, and suffer no consequences having already clinched a playoff berth even with the limited field. The NFL's 12-team format did not create the situation. Therefore, BCS supporters are either lying when they argue that an expanded playoff system will lead to sandbagging or they are too ignorant to understand these situations are not created by a playoff system.
Of course, the Colts are not the only example of sandbagging in the final weeks of the regular season. The Arizona Cardinals, Cincinnati Bengals, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, and San Diego Chargers could all be accused of this practice in the final weekend. Whether or not these teams are guilty as charged, the fact remains that these teams plus the Colts had little or nothing riding on the outcome of their final game. As a college football playoff supporter, I would hate to see six playoff bound teams taking their final game off because they have nothing to gain or lose. However, as I alluded to above, this happens more often with fewer teams especially when the pool of teams in direct competition with each other is reduced by a conference and/or division format.
What if the NFL did not have its conference/division format and operated as a single 32-team division with the top 12 teams qualifying for the playoffs, the top four teams earning byes, and the top two teams guaranteed homefield advantage throughout the playoffs? What impact would this have on sandbagging? I placed the 32 teams according their final records with best current streak and net points serving as the first and second tiebreakers in order to offer an example of the potential reduction in sandbagging minus the conference/division format. The hypothetical playoff field is listed below. Listed with each team is its final record, current streak, and best and worst possible seeds entering the final weekend.
1-Indianapolis (14-2) (L2) (1-1)
2-San Diego (13-3) (W11) (2-5)
3-New Orleans (13-3) (L3) (1-3)
4-Minnesota (12-4) (W1) (3-10)
5-Dallas (11-5) (W3) (4-10)
6-Green Bay (11-5) (W2) (5-10)
7-Philadelphia((11-5) (L1) (3-9)
8-New England (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
9-Arizona (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
10-Cincinnati (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
11-Houston (9-7) (W4) (11-E)
12-Pittsburgh (9-7) (W3) (11-E)
Under this format compared to the actual format, only one top two seed had been clinched compared to two, only one top four seed had been clinched compared to three, and only three top eight seeds had been clinched compared to seven. As for the six teams charged with sandbagging, only the Colts had nothing to gain or lose on the final weekend under this format versus the current structure. However, the remaining five teams would have had much greater stakes than they did in the real world. San Diego would have been playing to secure a first round bye with the potential for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New Orleans would have been playing to secure homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New England, Arizona, and Cincinnati would have been playing for a first round home game with the potential for a first round bye.
Without the conference/division format, only one team compared to six had nothing to gain or lose in the final weekend. This same format applied to the previous 22 seasons only produced eight more teams like the Colts. That means that 267 of 276 playoff teams over the past 23 seasons under the one 32-team division format had one or more of the following to gain or lose in the final weekend: a playoff berth, a first round bye, and/or one or more home games. In some instances, the stakes for a single team ranged from a top two seed to missing the playoffs altogether. Of course, I would not expect the NFL to drop its conference/division format nor is their choice in the matter relevant. The point is that the NFL's structure, not the size of its playoff, is to blame for the increased opportunties for sandbagging.
What does this mean for college football? Given that college football has 120 teams compared to the NFL's 32 and teams play 12-13 games compared to 16, there is much less potential for teams to separate themselves in the standings. If my proposed playoff format included the top 16 teams, based on the final Power Points Standings, only five out of 512 playoff teams over the past 32 seasons would have had nothing at stake in their final game. Furthermore, all five teams played one more game than most teams. The extra game is a potentially significant advantage under the Power Points System. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that fewer than five teams would have clinched everything if all teams had played equal game regular season schedules. That said, given that all five teams were top two seeds, which guarantees homefield advantage throughout the playoffs under my proposed format, excluding teams that lose their final game from earning a top two seed is a possible remedy to further reduce or even eliminate the potential for sandbagging. If I applied this rule to the past 32 seasons, all 512 teams would have had something to gain or lose based on the outcome of their final game.
Once again, a playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging and the people that continue to assert otherwise are frauds.
Fewer teams plus more games allows for greater separation in the standings which leads to increased opportunities for teams to bench their starters for inconsequential games. If the NFL only had a two-team playoff, the Colts would have still been able to bench its starters, lose its final two games, and suffer no consequences having already clinched a playoff berth even with the limited field. The NFL's 12-team format did not create the situation. Therefore, BCS supporters are either lying when they argue that an expanded playoff system will lead to sandbagging or they are too ignorant to understand these situations are not created by a playoff system.
Of course, the Colts are not the only example of sandbagging in the final weeks of the regular season. The Arizona Cardinals, Cincinnati Bengals, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, and San Diego Chargers could all be accused of this practice in the final weekend. Whether or not these teams are guilty as charged, the fact remains that these teams plus the Colts had little or nothing riding on the outcome of their final game. As a college football playoff supporter, I would hate to see six playoff bound teams taking their final game off because they have nothing to gain or lose. However, as I alluded to above, this happens more often with fewer teams especially when the pool of teams in direct competition with each other is reduced by a conference and/or division format.
What if the NFL did not have its conference/division format and operated as a single 32-team division with the top 12 teams qualifying for the playoffs, the top four teams earning byes, and the top two teams guaranteed homefield advantage throughout the playoffs? What impact would this have on sandbagging? I placed the 32 teams according their final records with best current streak and net points serving as the first and second tiebreakers in order to offer an example of the potential reduction in sandbagging minus the conference/division format. The hypothetical playoff field is listed below. Listed with each team is its final record, current streak, and best and worst possible seeds entering the final weekend.
1-Indianapolis (14-2) (L2) (1-1)
2-San Diego (13-3) (W11) (2-5)
3-New Orleans (13-3) (L3) (1-3)
4-Minnesota (12-4) (W1) (3-10)
5-Dallas (11-5) (W3) (4-10)
6-Green Bay (11-5) (W2) (5-10)
7-Philadelphia((11-5) (L1) (3-9)
8-New England (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
9-Arizona (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
10-Cincinnati (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
11-Houston (9-7) (W4) (11-E)
12-Pittsburgh (9-7) (W3) (11-E)
Under this format compared to the actual format, only one top two seed had been clinched compared to two, only one top four seed had been clinched compared to three, and only three top eight seeds had been clinched compared to seven. As for the six teams charged with sandbagging, only the Colts had nothing to gain or lose on the final weekend under this format versus the current structure. However, the remaining five teams would have had much greater stakes than they did in the real world. San Diego would have been playing to secure a first round bye with the potential for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New Orleans would have been playing to secure homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New England, Arizona, and Cincinnati would have been playing for a first round home game with the potential for a first round bye.
Without the conference/division format, only one team compared to six had nothing to gain or lose in the final weekend. This same format applied to the previous 22 seasons only produced eight more teams like the Colts. That means that 267 of 276 playoff teams over the past 23 seasons under the one 32-team division format had one or more of the following to gain or lose in the final weekend: a playoff berth, a first round bye, and/or one or more home games. In some instances, the stakes for a single team ranged from a top two seed to missing the playoffs altogether. Of course, I would not expect the NFL to drop its conference/division format nor is their choice in the matter relevant. The point is that the NFL's structure, not the size of its playoff, is to blame for the increased opportunties for sandbagging.
What does this mean for college football? Given that college football has 120 teams compared to the NFL's 32 and teams play 12-13 games compared to 16, there is much less potential for teams to separate themselves in the standings. If my proposed playoff format included the top 16 teams, based on the final Power Points Standings, only five out of 512 playoff teams over the past 32 seasons would have had nothing at stake in their final game. Furthermore, all five teams played one more game than most teams. The extra game is a potentially significant advantage under the Power Points System. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that fewer than five teams would have clinched everything if all teams had played equal game regular season schedules. That said, given that all five teams were top two seeds, which guarantees homefield advantage throughout the playoffs under my proposed format, excluding teams that lose their final game from earning a top two seed is a possible remedy to further reduce or even eliminate the potential for sandbagging. If I applied this rule to the past 32 seasons, all 512 teams would have had something to gain or lose based on the outcome of their final game.
Once again, a playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging and the people that continue to assert otherwise are frauds.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
POWER POINTS CHAMPIONS
In a real world setting, the Power Points System would be used to determine playoff qualifiers. That said, listed below are the Power Points System's first place finishers through postseason competition based on FBS games only. Listed in parentheses is each team's best poll finish (AP or Coaches).
1978-Southern California (1)
1979-Southern California (2)
1980-Florida State (5)
1981-Pittsburgh (2)
1982-Penn State (1)
1983-Auburn (3)
1984-Washington (2)
1985-Oklahoma (1)
1986-Penn State (1)
1987-Miami-Florida (1)
1988-Notre Dame (1)
1989-Notre Dame (2)
1990-Colorado (1)
1991-Miami-Florida (1)
1992-Alabama (1)
1993-Florida State (1)
1994-Nebraska (1)
1995-Nebraska (1)
1996-Florida (1)
1997-Nebraska (1)
1998-Tennessee (1)
1999-Florida State (1)
2000-Oklahoma (1)
2001-Miami-Florida (1)
2002-Ohio State (1)
2003-Louisiana State (1)
2004-Southern California (1)
2005-Texas (1)
2006-Florida (1)
2007-Louisiana State (1)
2008-Florida (1)
2009-Alabama (1)
1978-Southern California (1)
1979-Southern California (2)
1980-Florida State (5)
1981-Pittsburgh (2)
1982-Penn State (1)
1983-Auburn (3)
1984-Washington (2)
1985-Oklahoma (1)
1986-Penn State (1)
1987-Miami-Florida (1)
1988-Notre Dame (1)
1989-Notre Dame (2)
1990-Colorado (1)
1991-Miami-Florida (1)
1992-Alabama (1)
1993-Florida State (1)
1994-Nebraska (1)
1995-Nebraska (1)
1996-Florida (1)
1997-Nebraska (1)
1998-Tennessee (1)
1999-Florida State (1)
2000-Oklahoma (1)
2001-Miami-Florida (1)
2002-Ohio State (1)
2003-Louisiana State (1)
2004-Southern California (1)
2005-Texas (1)
2006-Florida (1)
2007-Louisiana State (1)
2008-Florida (1)
2009-Alabama (1)
Power Points, AP Poll, and Coaches Poll
The rankings to the left are where the teams finished in the Power Points Standings based on FBS games only and all games respectively. The rankings to the right are where teams finished in the AP and Coaches polls respectively. Ties in the two polls were awarded to the team(s) with the best finish in the Power Points Standings.
RANKINGS THROUGH 01-08-10
1 1-Alabama 1 1
2 2-Texas 2 2
3 3-Florida 3 3
4 4-Boise State 4 4
5 6-Texas Christian 6 6
6 5-Cincinnati 8 9
7 7-Ohio State 5 5
8 8-Iowa 7 7
9 9-Oregon 11 11
10 10-Virginia Tech 10 10
11 11-Brigham Young 12 12
12 12-Penn State 9 8
13 13-Georgia Tech 13 13
14 15-Central Michigan 23 24
15 14-Pittsburgh 15 15
16 16-Wisconsin 16 16
17 17-Nebraska 14 14
18 18-Louisiana State 17 17
19 19-Utah 18 18
20 20-Miami-Florida 19 19
21 22-Southern California 22 20
22 21-West Virginia 25 22
23 23-Oklahoma State 30 25
24 26-Arkansas 38 36
25 25-Navy 28 26
26 28-Arizona 35 35
27 31-Troy NR NR
28 24-Clemson 24 28
29 27-Oklahoma 26 29
30 30-Texas Tech 21 23
31 32-Mississippi 20 21
32 38-Oregon State 27 27
33 29-Houston NR 33
34 33-Georgia 33 32
35 53-Temple NR NR
36 35-East Carolina NR 42
37 36-Auburn 32 31
38 34-Connecticut 36 37
39 39-North Carolina NR NR
40 40-Middle Tennessee State 37 34
41 44-Stanford 29 30
42 37-Rutgers 31 39
43 41-Missouri NR NR
44 42-Air Force 39 40
45 50-California NR NR
46 49-Tennessee NR NR
47 43-Florida State 34 38
48 45-Boston College NR NR
49 47-Fresno State NR NR
50 51-Central Florida NR NR
51 46-South Florida NR NR
52 52-Nevada NR NR
53 48-South Carolina NR NR
54 54-Ohio NR NR
55 55-Southern Methodist NR 43
56 57-UCLA NR NR
57 56-Idaho NR NR
58 58-Bowling Green NR NR
59 63-Notre Dame NR NR
60 59-Mississippi State NR NR
61 60-Northwestern NR 41
RANKINGS THROUGH 01-08-10
1 1-Alabama 1 1
2 2-Texas 2 2
3 3-Florida 3 3
4 4-Boise State 4 4
5 6-Texas Christian 6 6
6 5-Cincinnati 8 9
7 7-Ohio State 5 5
8 8-Iowa 7 7
9 9-Oregon 11 11
10 10-Virginia Tech 10 10
11 11-Brigham Young 12 12
12 12-Penn State 9 8
13 13-Georgia Tech 13 13
14 15-Central Michigan 23 24
15 14-Pittsburgh 15 15
16 16-Wisconsin 16 16
17 17-Nebraska 14 14
18 18-Louisiana State 17 17
19 19-Utah 18 18
20 20-Miami-Florida 19 19
21 22-Southern California 22 20
22 21-West Virginia 25 22
23 23-Oklahoma State 30 25
24 26-Arkansas 38 36
25 25-Navy 28 26
26 28-Arizona 35 35
27 31-Troy NR NR
28 24-Clemson 24 28
29 27-Oklahoma 26 29
30 30-Texas Tech 21 23
31 32-Mississippi 20 21
32 38-Oregon State 27 27
33 29-Houston NR 33
34 33-Georgia 33 32
35 53-Temple NR NR
36 35-East Carolina NR 42
37 36-Auburn 32 31
38 34-Connecticut 36 37
39 39-North Carolina NR NR
40 40-Middle Tennessee State 37 34
41 44-Stanford 29 30
42 37-Rutgers 31 39
43 41-Missouri NR NR
44 42-Air Force 39 40
45 50-California NR NR
46 49-Tennessee NR NR
47 43-Florida State 34 38
48 45-Boston College NR NR
49 47-Fresno State NR NR
50 51-Central Florida NR NR
51 46-South Florida NR NR
52 52-Nevada NR NR
53 48-South Carolina NR NR
54 54-Ohio NR NR
55 55-Southern Methodist NR 43
56 57-UCLA NR NR
57 56-Idaho NR NR
58 58-Bowling Green NR NR
59 63-Notre Dame NR NR
60 59-Mississippi State NR NR
61 60-Northwestern NR 41
Thursday, January 7, 2010
2009 Power Points Standings (FBS Games Only)
REGULAR SEASON FINALE
1-Alabama 75
2-Texas 74
3-Florida 62
4-Boise State 58
5-Cincinnati 56
6-Texas Christian 56
7-Oregon 54
8-Ohio State 44
9-Iowa 43
10-Georgia Tech 42
11-Virginia Tech 42
12-Penn State 36
13-Brigham Young 35
14-Central Michigan 35
15-Louisiana State 33
16-Miami-Florida 32
17-West Virginia 32
18-Wisconsin 32
19-Oklahoma State 31
20-Pittsburgh 31
21-Arizona 28
22-Nebraska 27
23-Troy 26
24-Temple 24
25-Utah 24
POSTSEASON FINALE
1-Alabama 93
2-Texas 78
3-Florida 76
4-Boise State 70
5-Texas Christian 62
6-Cincinnati 59
7-Ohio State 58
8-Iowa 55
9-Oregon 54
10-Virginia Tech 49
11-Brigham Young 45
12-Penn State 45
13-Georgia Tech 43
14-Central Michigan 42
15-Pittsburgh 39
16-Wisconsin 39
17-Nebraska 34
18-Louisiana State 34
19-Utah 31
20-Miami-Florida 31
21-Southern California 30
22-West Virginia 29
23-Oklahoma State 28
24-Arkansas 26
25-Navy 25
1-Alabama 75
2-Texas 74
3-Florida 62
4-Boise State 58
5-Cincinnati 56
6-Texas Christian 56
7-Oregon 54
8-Ohio State 44
9-Iowa 43
10-Georgia Tech 42
11-Virginia Tech 42
12-Penn State 36
13-Brigham Young 35
14-Central Michigan 35
15-Louisiana State 33
16-Miami-Florida 32
17-West Virginia 32
18-Wisconsin 32
19-Oklahoma State 31
20-Pittsburgh 31
21-Arizona 28
22-Nebraska 27
23-Troy 26
24-Temple 24
25-Utah 24
POSTSEASON FINALE
1-Alabama 93
2-Texas 78
3-Florida 76
4-Boise State 70
5-Texas Christian 62
6-Cincinnati 59
7-Ohio State 58
8-Iowa 55
9-Oregon 54
10-Virginia Tech 49
11-Brigham Young 45
12-Penn State 45
13-Georgia Tech 43
14-Central Michigan 42
15-Pittsburgh 39
16-Wisconsin 39
17-Nebraska 34
18-Louisiana State 34
19-Utah 31
20-Miami-Florida 31
21-Southern California 30
22-West Virginia 29
23-Oklahoma State 28
24-Arkansas 26
25-Navy 25
2009 Power Points Standings thru 01-07 (FBS Only)
Listed below are the Power Points Standings for the FBS based on all games with weighted values assigned to interdivisional competition based on their combined results. For FBS teams, their FCS opponents count as 1-11. The numbers to the right are each team’s power points totals for all games and intradivisional games only respectively.
FBS STANDINGS
1-Alabama 102 93 (BCS Champions)
2-Texas 87 78
3-Florida 85 76
4-Boise State 79 70
5-Cincinnati 72 59
6-Texas Christian 70 62
7-Ohio State 67 58
8-Iowa 66 55
9-Oregon 58 54
10-Virginia Tech 57 49
11-Brigham Young 54 45
12-Penn State 54 45
13-Georgia Tech 53 43
14-Pittsburgh 51 39
15-Central Michigan 49 42
16-Wisconsin 48 39
17-Nebraska 43 34
18-Louisiana State 42 34
19-Utah 40 31
20-Miami-Florida 40 31
21-West Virginia 38 29
22-Southern California 35 30
23-Oklahoma State 34 28
24-Clemson 32 24
25-Navy 31 25
26-Arkansas 31 26
27-Oklahoma 29 22
28-Arizona 29 25
29-Houston 28 19
30-Texas Tech 27 20
31-Troy 27 24
32-Mississippi 26 20
33-Georgia 26 19
34-Connecticut 26 18
35-East Carolina 25 18
36-Auburn 25 18
37-Rutgers 24 15
38-Oregon State 24 20
39-North Carolina 23 17
40-Middle Tennessee State 21 15
41-Missouri 19 13
42-Air Force 19 12
43-Florida State 18 10
44-Stanford 17 15
45-Boston College 17 9
46-South Florida 16 9
47-Fresno State 16 9
48-South Carolina 16 8
49-Tennessee 16 10
50-California 15 10
51-Central Florida 15 9
52-Nevada 15 8
53-Temple 12 18
54-Ohio 11 7
55-Southern Methodist 11 7
56-Idaho 11 4
57-UCLA 9 5
58-Bowling Green 7 4
59-Mississippi State 7 2
60-Northwestern 6 1
61-Wyoming 6 1
62-Kentucky 5 -1
63-Notre Dame 5 3
64-Marshall 4 -1
65-Iowa State 3 -2
66-Minnesota 3 -2
67-Michigan State 1 -4
68-Washington -3 -5
69-Southern Mississippi -5 -11
70-Texas A&M -5 -9
71-Kansas State -7 -11
72-Purdue -9 -12
73-Northern Illinois -10 -13
74-Kansas -10 -14
75-Louisiana-Lafayette -12 -17
76-Hawaii -12 -17
77-UNLV -12 -16
78-Louisiana-Monroe -13 -15
79-Wake Forest -14 -19
80-Syracuse -14 -19
81-Louisville -15 -19
82-Michigan -16 -19
83-UAB -16 -18
84-North Carolina State -17 -22
85-Baylor -17 -21
86-Buffalo -18 -20
87-Florida Atlantic -21 -23
88-Duke -24 -18
89-Tulsa -24 -27
90-Toledo -24 -24
91-Louisiana Tech -24 -28
92-Utah State -24 -27
93-Arizona State -25 -27
94-Indiana -25 -28
95-San Diego State -27 -30
96-Colorado -28 -30
97-Kent State -29 -31
98-Illinois -30 -33
99-UTEP -31 -35
100-Virginia -31 -23
101-Army -32 -32
102-Florida International -32 -33
103-Arkansas State -34 -35
104-Western Michigan -35 -36
105-Colorado State -36 -37
106-Tulane -39 -41
107-Akron -42 -43
108-Vanderbilt -46 -47
109-San Jose State -46 -48
110-Maryland -46 -46
111-Rice -48 -49
112-Memphis -48 -49
113-Miami-Ohio -49 -48
114-New Mexico State -52 -54
115-North Texas -53 -53
116-Washington State -53 -54
117-New Mexico -57 -58
118-Ball State -58 -47
119-Eastern Michigan -76 -74
120-Western Kentucky -79 -68
FBS STANDINGS
1-Alabama 102 93 (BCS Champions)
2-Texas 87 78
3-Florida 85 76
4-Boise State 79 70
5-Cincinnati 72 59
6-Texas Christian 70 62
7-Ohio State 67 58
8-Iowa 66 55
9-Oregon 58 54
10-Virginia Tech 57 49
11-Brigham Young 54 45
12-Penn State 54 45
13-Georgia Tech 53 43
14-Pittsburgh 51 39
15-Central Michigan 49 42
16-Wisconsin 48 39
17-Nebraska 43 34
18-Louisiana State 42 34
19-Utah 40 31
20-Miami-Florida 40 31
21-West Virginia 38 29
22-Southern California 35 30
23-Oklahoma State 34 28
24-Clemson 32 24
25-Navy 31 25
26-Arkansas 31 26
27-Oklahoma 29 22
28-Arizona 29 25
29-Houston 28 19
30-Texas Tech 27 20
31-Troy 27 24
32-Mississippi 26 20
33-Georgia 26 19
34-Connecticut 26 18
35-East Carolina 25 18
36-Auburn 25 18
37-Rutgers 24 15
38-Oregon State 24 20
39-North Carolina 23 17
40-Middle Tennessee State 21 15
41-Missouri 19 13
42-Air Force 19 12
43-Florida State 18 10
44-Stanford 17 15
45-Boston College 17 9
46-South Florida 16 9
47-Fresno State 16 9
48-South Carolina 16 8
49-Tennessee 16 10
50-California 15 10
51-Central Florida 15 9
52-Nevada 15 8
53-Temple 12 18
54-Ohio 11 7
55-Southern Methodist 11 7
56-Idaho 11 4
57-UCLA 9 5
58-Bowling Green 7 4
59-Mississippi State 7 2
60-Northwestern 6 1
61-Wyoming 6 1
62-Kentucky 5 -1
63-Notre Dame 5 3
64-Marshall 4 -1
65-Iowa State 3 -2
66-Minnesota 3 -2
67-Michigan State 1 -4
68-Washington -3 -5
69-Southern Mississippi -5 -11
70-Texas A&M -5 -9
71-Kansas State -7 -11
72-Purdue -9 -12
73-Northern Illinois -10 -13
74-Kansas -10 -14
75-Louisiana-Lafayette -12 -17
76-Hawaii -12 -17
77-UNLV -12 -16
78-Louisiana-Monroe -13 -15
79-Wake Forest -14 -19
80-Syracuse -14 -19
81-Louisville -15 -19
82-Michigan -16 -19
83-UAB -16 -18
84-North Carolina State -17 -22
85-Baylor -17 -21
86-Buffalo -18 -20
87-Florida Atlantic -21 -23
88-Duke -24 -18
89-Tulsa -24 -27
90-Toledo -24 -24
91-Louisiana Tech -24 -28
92-Utah State -24 -27
93-Arizona State -25 -27
94-Indiana -25 -28
95-San Diego State -27 -30
96-Colorado -28 -30
97-Kent State -29 -31
98-Illinois -30 -33
99-UTEP -31 -35
100-Virginia -31 -23
101-Army -32 -32
102-Florida International -32 -33
103-Arkansas State -34 -35
104-Western Michigan -35 -36
105-Colorado State -36 -37
106-Tulane -39 -41
107-Akron -42 -43
108-Vanderbilt -46 -47
109-San Jose State -46 -48
110-Maryland -46 -46
111-Rice -48 -49
112-Memphis -48 -49
113-Miami-Ohio -49 -48
114-New Mexico State -52 -54
115-North Texas -53 -53
116-Washington State -53 -54
117-New Mexico -57 -58
118-Ball State -58 -47
119-Eastern Michigan -76 -74
120-Western Kentucky -79 -68
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)