What is an "Elite" College Football Team?

by MaconDawg on May 9, 2007 7:56 PM EDT in Football

In case you missed it, there's a lively debate going on in the comments section to Kyle's post on Coach Richt getting slighted by Ron Deinhart. Part of the debate is about discipline. I'm not going to touch that one because a) a certain poster hasn't refuted my Charles Grant example and b)apparently thinks Odell Thurman is the only player who's ever gotten in trouble under Mark Richt and that Marvin Lewis must be a man of character (I guess because he's always there to throw someone's bail). But another more intriguing portion deals with whether or not the University of Georgia Bulldogs are an "elite" team. 34Hawk says no, pointing out that:

"They have never contended for a national championship during Richt's tenure. And one third place finish in 6 years, is not enough to qualify any team in any sport as elite in my opinion."

34Hawk's test for elite status is therefore a two step process: a team must have a) played for a National Championship in the past six years and b) finished 3rd or better in the country more than once in the past six years.

I thought I'd put this theory to the test. If my calculations are correct, eight teams have played in the BCS National Championship in the past six years: Florida (2006), LSU (2003), Miami (2001, 2002), Nebraska (2001), Southern Cal (2004, 2005), Oklahoma (2003, 2004), Texas (2005)and Ohio State (2002, 2006).

Of these, Florida also finished in the AP final top 3 twice (2006 and 2001), as did Ohio State (2002, 2006), Miami (2001, 2002) and LSU (2003, 2006). Only USC finished in the top 3 three times (2003, 2004 and 2005).

That means that five teams would qualify as "elite" under the 34Hawk Rule. However, this criteria is incomplete in my opinion. After all, during the 4 years when they weren't in the final top 3, Florida wasn't even in the top 15 once. That's not elite. It's actually quite pathetic given the athletes and resources at their disposal.

Miami hasn't finished in the top 10 since 2003. They didn't even make the top 25 last year and suffered a season of onfield failure and occasional embarrassment. If they're elite, then I'd rather not be.

That leaves three teams: LSU, Ohio State and Southern Cal. I think we can all agree that Southern Cal, easily the most consistent winner among the three over the past six years, is an elite program. Ohio State has played in the national championship game twice, winning once. They also finished 4th in the AP poll twice. LSU has a more spotty record (relatively speaking) finishing 6th, 7th, 16th and out of the top 25 in the four years they missed the top 3. LSU might also argue that they deserve some credit for winning the BCS Championship Game in a year when the AP ignored them in favor of the well-coifed "Cheaty" Petey Carroll (who may ultimately lose two of his three top 3 finishes to forfeits).

In other words, this method is ineffective because it doesn't reward consistency. It ignores it.

I think a better approach is to add the final AP rankings over the past six years (with a generic "30" used for those years where a team is unranked), then assign a bonus factor of, say, -1, for each BCS Championship. This would yield the following scores:

1)USC: 6.0

2)Texas: 6.0

3)Oklahoma: 8.3

4)LSU: 9.7

5)Ohio State: 10.8

6)Miami: 11.0

7)Georgia: 12.0

8)Michigan: 12.2

9)Florida: 15.7

10)Auburn: 16.5

11)Virginia Tech: 17.0

12)Boise State: 18.0

13)Louisville: 18.0

14)Tennessee: 19.5

15)Wisconsin: 21.5

16)TIE:West Virginia: 21.7

Florida State: 21.7

18)Notre Dame: 22.2

While Coach Tuberville may disagree with my method on soceolojical grounds, I intend to pin my ears back and forge ahead. No pun intended, Tommy.

Now, one might argue that some sort of weight should be assigned to recent success as opposed to more distant accomplishments. This would certainly hurt some of these teams and help others. But I think the above numbers are a good starting point. From these, I would argue that the top 10 teams are "elite". This definition would embrace a) every team to win an AP or BCS championship during the period, as well as b) every team that Kyle hates that has finished undefeated and gotten hosed despite it. This would also include two schools are neither of these things: Michigan and Georgia. Statistically, this would be less than 10% of the 117 D-1A teams, which I think is a good percentage so far as subjective cutoffs go.

Anybody got any better ideas?

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting thought process

I think you make some great points in breaking down the numbers.

But...

I take exception with your "Cheaty" Petey Carroll reference.

While others may waste their time by keeping lists of supposed infractions, some that have never been substantiated, proven or let alone ever happened it takes the luster off of an otherwise great post.

I think we would all agree that the Bush Situation is a very big deal and that there could be some pretty tough penalties for Bush himself, though they are fairly meaningless at the end of the day, and possibly some penalties for SC, but that's hardly a Pete Carroll problem if he, the coaching staff or USC as a whole didn't know about it. So I guess I'm not sure how your reference fits the coach.

Otherwise your post is a great read and it makes some sense.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 9, 2007 11:40 PM EDT 0 recs

Re: "cheaty" Petey

Sorry if you were offended Paragon, it was tongue-in-cheek. I actually have a great deal of admiration for Coach Carroll in terms of strategy, talent evaluation, etc.) I would go on gushing, but I've got John Papadakis and Joe McKnight on threeway calling, so I gotta run.

by MaconDawg on May 10, 2007 9:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

Cute...

once again a lot of fat and no meat.

But I like your style. ;-)

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on May 10, 2007 12:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

order of magnitude

but I've got John Papadakis and Joe McKnight on threeway calling, so I gotta run.

Entreaties over spanakopita and a misplaced speaker-phone: trifling non-events. I think your best bet is lack of institutional control: they just can't stop scoring! (ba-dum-dum, try the shrimp, it's on special...)

by DC Trojan on May 10, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Question:

Why does Richt's Christianity get as much play as it does? I see little to indicate why his stature as a Christian should have anything to do with his ability to coach players successfully. I wonder when I read things such as the constant lauding of his Christianity if one would be as constantly referencing it were he a pious Buddhist or Jew.

Truthfully, I only ask because I noticed it in your response to 34hwwk's points, and I've seen it mentioned before a few times on the site. I've never seen the relevance of his religious faith and his football ability. As you obviously noticed, his faith did little to help the Dawgs against Tennessee this season when he prayed on field with the players instead of taking the time to coach them (which, I would not say was the direct cause of our loss, but I wondered at the time what value came from praying instead of coaching). In the same way, people who assume that his Christianity makes him somehow a better coach leave me perplexed. Do you only include Christian coaches in your "elite" coach decision? If so, any particular reason why beyond your own religious persuasion?

Please don't take this as a combative post, by the way. I well know that questions of a religious nature are often loaded, but this is meant truly because I wonder why and how that connection is made, and what justifies that consideration (such as the implication that Donnan or Goff were somehow less polished as coaches because they were not as outstatedly Christian). In other words this is not meant as an attack on your faith personally, but as a serious question as to why Richt's faith somehow qualifies him for his job more than it would, say, a highly moral and upstanding atheist.

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

by blackertai on May 10, 2007 4:45 AM EDT 0 recs

Fair enough

Obviously, it doesn't make him any better at X's and O's. The question I originally was asked was whom I would want coaching my son.

In that respect, someone who shares my religious faith and provides a good role model of how a Christian life should be lived, in addition to being a good football coach, seems ideal as someone to whom I may point when raising my son in the way that I believe he should go.

If Mark Richt were a morally upstanding atheist or Jew, he would, of course, still be a good man and a legitimate role model, but he would not seem to me to be so perfectly tailored as an example, in the same way that Mark Richt would be an equally good coach and person if he were coaching at a rival school, but I would have a hard time pointing at a rival coach as a role model when I am trying to raise my son to share my team loyalty as well as my religious faith.

I appreciate the question and I hope I have answered it adequately. If not, please feel free to ask a clarifying follow-up question, which I will do my best to address.

by T Kyle King on May 10, 2007 7:38 AM EDT 0 recs

That's a plenty good answer

Thanks, that's what I was wondering. :)

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

by blackertai on May 10, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

Public piety

I am always put on edge by a public figure's wearing his religion on his sleeve. It saddens me a bit that said edge is more uncomfortable when that religion is Christianity, a phenomenon entirely due to too many people doing and saying terrible things and labeling them "Christian". Let's just summarize that in two words: Religious Right. As a Christian myself, I'm constantly working on my gut-reaction wince whenever a public figure declares his Christianity, fearing that he'll further a twisted version of a practice that changes my life for the better every day (that'd be every moment if I let it, but that's an ongoing project and another story).

Mindful that I am not to be the judge of anyone's faith, observable data suggest that Richt's Christianity in practice is a simple one (usually the best kind, although often the most difficult). I have no reason to think that he expects God to win football games for him. Does is it make him a better coach? I don't know. I do know that it can make anyone better at anything one does (but we'd have to look at what "better" means). The same is true for Judaism and Buddhism (and probably others).

Again, by my limited observation, there's no reason to think that Richt wields his religion like a sword, cleaving the world into "the saved" over here and "the damned" over there. As far as I can tell, Richt believes that he is to let God guide his thoughts, words, and actions, not expect God to arrange the world around him as a reward or convenience. As long as that's the case, then his calling himself Christian is reassuring, since it summarizes a set of values that I understand and admire.

And, by the way, if Richt were a pious Jew or Buddhist, not only would I be just as reassured, but his religious beliefs would get so much more press than his Christianity does, if only for the novelty.

Hmm... I can see it now: pre-game, just before what I call "The Chill-Bump Show", the crowd grows silent; a solitary chime rings and as it resonates, Richt appears on the giant scoreboard, eyes closed and wearing a look of bliss and serenity; he says calmly, "The jewel is in the lotus;" The crowd responds "Om Mani Padme Hum", gradually fading on the last consonant with the still-resonating chime. Cue the Munson recording and the highlight clips. You know the rest.

by NCT on May 10, 2007 8:53 AM EDT 0 recs

Richt's faith... and others

First, as far as Richt getting a lot of coverage for being a Christian, I think you have to look no farther than one of his opponents this past season- Dan Hawkins. He receives a lot of attention based on his faith and unique style of coaching that relates to those beliefs.

Also, I don't know that being a Christian makes him an "elite" coach in the X & O's or W-L's areas, but I do believe it CAN make him a better person. Of course, as you stated, this is because of my personal persuasion.

by fotodog on May 10, 2007 9:28 AM EDT 0 recs

Dan Hawkins

The proprietor of this site, if memory serves, has poked fun at Dan Hawkins' spirituality on more than one occasion. So while you may respect other faith based coaching approaches, others clearly do not.

by 34hawk on May 10, 2007 10:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

Refreshing the commenter's memory

Between March 14, 2006, and April 28, 2007, Dan Hawkins was mentioned in postings appearing at Dawg Sports 17 times.

On one occasion, I noted the "sly mockery" of Coach Hawkins by another weblogger.

On one occasion, I observed that it would be interesting to see Boise State play Colorado now that Coach Hawkins, who previously coached the former, is the coach of the latter. On another occasion, I mentioned that Coach Hawkins left a successful W.A.C. team to coach a Big 12 team in distress.

On one occasion, I stated that Colorado's non-conference game against Arizona State would be worth watching. On three other occasions, I declared that Colorado-Colorado State was among the national games of interest but that Baylor-Colorado and Colorado-Texas Tech were the national games of disinterest..

On two occasions, I noted Coach Hawkins's penchant for strange quotations. The first odd line concerned whether Thomas Edison would have taken a knee. The second dealt with his willingness to play a two-quarter game. Neither seems directly related to his religious faith.

On one occasion, I referred to Coach Hawkins's lack of offensive success against S.E.C. opponents.

On two occasions, I mentioned Coach Hawkins's current and former teams when explaining my BlogPoll ballot.

On two occasions, I made mention of Coach Hawkins while previewing the Georgia-Colorado game. On another occasion, I made mention of Coach Hawkins while reporting on the outcome of the Georgia-Colorado game. Although I once again cited other sources (including Every Day Should Be Saturday and Pat Forde) regarding Coach Hawkins's use of numerous motivational techniques, I also praised Coach Hawkins's coaching abilities repeatedly. In addition, I cited his coaching ability as an example in another instance and referred to his team's improvement in yet another.

I believe that I might fairly be accused of having "poked fun at Dan Hawkins' spirituality" in a single instance. On that occasion, I wrote:

While we all like to make fun of Dan Hawkins's Eastern mysticism and Jedi mind tricks, he designed a plan of attack that effectively used the Bulldogs' own strengths against them.

In that passage, I linked to the outside sources cited and linked to above, which had more to do with "his grab-bag philosophy" and "Star Wars" references than with the fundamental tenets of Buddhism. The only mention of any religious faith was Orson's reference to "bits of pop Zen."

In that same posting, I also wrote:

The Buffs, and particularly Coach Hawkins, deserve a tip of the cap for giving the 'Dawgs all they could handle between the hedges yesterday. The Colorado coaching staff prepared an excellent game plan and executed it extremely well.

This should have come as no surprise. In preparation for Boise State's season-opening trip to the Classic City, Coach Hawkins spent the entirety of the summer of 2005 reviewing Georgia game film. He probably has a more intimate knowledge of the Bulldogs' tendencies than some S.E.C. coaches have.

Add to that the fact that Coach Hawkins no doubt had redemption on his mind, then throw in the pertinent detail that Colorado has shown steady improvement in each of the Buffaloes' four losses, and it becomes clear, in retrospect, that the Red and Black should have been ready for as good a game as they got.

In response to my praise for Coach Hawkins, 34hawk offered this retort:

Colorado's play was reminiscent of a very SIMPLE high school game plan and not some piece of Jedi genius.

I leave to the reasoned and informed judgment of my readers the determination whether I am among those who "respect other faith based coaching approaches" or whether I am among those "others" who "clearly do not."

by T Kyle King on May 11, 2007 7:19 AM EDT up 0 recs

You've said many nice things

... and many fair things about Dan Hawkins, and you have not poked fun of Dan Hawkins to the extent I recalled.

And yet can you imagine what would happen if someone wrote of Mark Richt: "We like to make fun of his born again Christian piety, but he designed a plan of attack that effectively used the opponents' own strengths against them."

Why would anyone want to make fun of Mark Richt's faith? He is, by all accounts, a good and sincere man, and not the kind of notorious and obvious hypocrite that invites ridicule. By the same token, why would anyone want to make fun of Dan Hawkins beliefs? The courtesy should be a two way street, and unfortunately, it is not.

by 34hawk on May 11, 2007 8:53 AM EDT up 0 recs

Fair enough

While I doubt whether mild mockery of Mark Richt's Christianity would generate much of a backlash and while I tend to agree with Orson Swindle's "grab-bag philosophy" characterization, you make a good point.

I was trying to relate Dan Hawkins's Eastern philosophy to his martial arts-style use of an opponent's strength again him, but you are quite right that I could and should have made this connection without belitting his views, which, however unconventional, are entitled to respect.

Thank you, 34hawk. You have given me food for thought and I will not hereafter demean Coach Hawkins for his faith, no matter how much I may disagree with it.

by T Kyle King on May 11, 2007 3:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

Oops!

That should be "against," not "again."

My bad.

by T Kyle King on May 11, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

Likewise

I always learn something about myself and the world around me from our exchanges. Sometimes I even learn something about football and UGA. Learning takes place at the sticking points. Sparks usually fly too!

As to the "grab-bag philosophy" characterization I agree with it in a literal sense without attaching any pejorative meaning. Most faith traditions, including my own, can be characterized as a "grab-bag" if one examines them closely.

by 34hawk on May 11, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

Always the contarian

Let me take a whack at this whole "elite" thing from another perspective.

In high school, the top 10% were tapped for National Honor Society. In Law School the top 10% made Order of the Coif. (I was tapped for NHS and told them to go to heck and if you mention my name and Order of the Coif in the same breath you will draw loud gaffaws and risk being struck dead on the spot).

So it seems that the top 10% of schools would be "elite". 119 Div I school - 10% is 11.9 schools... lets call it an even dozen.

Being elite is not only a matter of numbers. Left out of the list above is Penn State. Is there anyone who can really argue that Penn State is not perceived as an 'elite program'?

Similiarly for reasons that have been hashed out ad nauseum in these pages, so too is Notre Dame an elite program.

Not to say that numbers have NO role in determination of 'elite programs' - USC has to be on the list, as does Ohio State -- and given more than a decade of top of the heap or nearly so, Florida is a no-brainer.

5 spots filled - 7 to go.

Anyone really arguing with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Michigan? Tradition has to be a part of this. The designation 'elite' should reflect a longer history and a broader perspective than 6 years.

Alabama's search for a coach made front page news (at least front page of sports section) all over the country - so 'Bama has to be on the list.

The first 10 were easy. The remaining two spots is when it gets hairy. FSU and Miami based on 20++ years of excellence both make a good claim - but 3 teams from Florida are too many -- both field teams that have a criminal element. Bobby Bowden has been at FSU forever - so FSU makes the list and Miami is out.

Last one -- Auburn doesn't make the list because most casual football fans probably don't know where Auburn is -- LSU doesn't make the list because Louisiana is known for cajun cooking and brothels, not football. Boise State doesn't make the list because... blue turf says 'gimmick' and not 'elite'. Tennessee is bourbon, Wisconsin is cheese, Louisville is baseball bats and horses. West Virginia - 2 words: Jed Clampett. Va. Tech - nobody knew you played football until 7 years ago.

That leaves one school whose name is instantly recognizable, even by the most casual fan. It is located in a region of the country known for its love of football. It has the best mascot in the country; a slogan known even in college football wastelands; it is an 'elite program' for the same reasons that Penn State and Notre Dame are --- just because it is. Georgia makes the list (but just barely).

To recap (in no particular order):

Penn State
Notre Dame
USC
Ohio State
Florida
Nebraska
Texas
Oklahoma
Michigan
Alabama
FSU
Georgia

by Blogger who came in from the cold on May 10, 2007 12:37 PM EDT 0 recs

Nicely done

And I agree with the labeling the first 10 on your list as elite for exactly the reasons you articulate. Georgia is close but not quite there. UGA's last glory days are 25 years past, and they haven't done enough to make it back.

by 34hawk on May 10, 2007 1:19 PM EDT 0 recs

thanks ... but

My point was that more than won-lost records and championships banked go into making a program an elite one. Georgia is an elite program more because of UGA (I, II, III, IV, V et al.) than because of Mark Richt. Georgia is an elite program because of "How 'bout Them DAWGS!" Georgia is an elite program because it is - more than because of its record over the last 6 years.

by Blogger who came in from the cold on May 10, 2007 2:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

I agree with your sentiments...

... and yet disagree with labeling the Dawgs as an elite team. Without UGA who is one of if not the best mascot in the world, without the Bulldog Nation, the Dawgs certainly would not be an "elite" program. But even with these things, I do not believe they've accomplished enough in the recent past to be considered elite. Winning isn't everything, but it counts for a lot.

by 34hawk on May 10, 2007 2:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

34hawk, I don't follow

If winning counts for more, then we've won damn near enough. You can't have your cake and eat it too, we've come one game from a national title berth (and seriously, the 2002 team could have hung with tOSU no question that year, although my opinion on our defense versus that Miami offense is less confident) and we've had 5 top 10 finishes, two SEC championships (the NFL lite) and played for a third. In our worst year, we've lost 5 games, which is something that can be said for other programs on the list as well, if not more. Realisitically, you can't say that winning a national title is the qualifier, because then last year's Tennessee team would still have qualified at elite because it won in 1998, although it finished at 5-6.

So, you agree we have an elite quality tradition (Uga the mascot, our fans, our slogan being recognized throughout college football), and you agree we've got the wins, but whenever someone brings up just one side of this argument you defer to the other as evidence for our not being elite. Well, here are both sides presented together. We've got the wins (more than Stoops and slightly less than Carrol), we've got the tradition, what more do you want? It took Brown at Texas more than 6 years to win his first championship, but would anyone have denied that Texas was one of the elite prior to winning the title in 2006? I doubt it. They might have laughed at Brown's inability to beat Stoops, but Texas was still a force to be reckoned with (ask Michigan's defense in the Rose Bowl from 2005).

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

by blackertai on May 10, 2007 5:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

Winning it all

... or at least playing for a championship is the missing factor in my mind. Georgia is very close to being elite. Last year was a major setback. And we really need to win, or at least play, for a championship ASAP to be considered elite. I would subtract PSU from the list of elite teams, on reflection, for their lack of recent success.

by 34hawk on May 10, 2007 6:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Again...?

So then Auburn is undeniably not elite? Because even though they went undefeated, they didn't technically play for it all? What about USC in 2003? Were they elite that year, even though they didn't play for a BCS championship? Your rating system is confusing, because it seems to change based on whether we're talking about Georgia or not.

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

by blackertai on May 10, 2007 10:12 PM EDT 0 recs

-1 for a BCS Championship?

I have to say you're SEVERELY underrating national championships in your formula. Winning the national title is equivilant to going from #10 to #9 in poll average in your mind? Really?

by Ahab on May 11, 2007 11:37 AM EDT 0 recs

-1 adjustment

Actually, it's more significant because the final rankings for each year are divided by six. Going from #10 to #9 in any given year would only improve a team's score by 0.167. It's therefore the equivalent of going from #10 to #4, which in any given year is a huge jump (the difference between winning the Outback Bowl and playing in the BCS for SEC teams).

Though I think it's a valid criticism, and one which I'm surprised no one has made earlier. This system is designed to reward consistentcy over 1 stellar performance. That's why Florida is ranked so low. While they deserve a lot of credit for their outstanding season last year, we can't reasonably pretend the Zook years never happened. Only Orson Swindle can plausibly do that.

by MaconDawg on May 14, 2007 9:25 AM EDT up 0 recs