Program of the Decade

Last Tuesday, the venerable College Football News answered a question in their regular “Ask CFN” feature regarding the “Team of the decade.”  CFN’s answer will not surprise you: USC. To their credit, they stated there was no right answer to the question – as there never is to any time traveling, “what would happen if,” hypothetical.

This question struck me as more objective than the usual ultra-subjective, offseason debate, and CFN threw some of those numbers out there – championships, title game appearances, BCS wins, etc. Still, the analysis seemed incomplete – not wrong – just a brief answer commensurate with a passing question. I wanted to take a closer look at the comings and goings of the decade so far.

This breakdown focuses more on losses in an attempt to discover a quality of loss index. Because each of the top 10 teams play in a major conference (with the exception of Boise State), go to major bowl games each season, and have a top 10 winning percentage, we can assume that each team has defeated many quality opponents along the way. I was more interested in whom these teams lost to when they actually lost.

A quick disclaimer: I skewed this analysis a little by only measuring since 2001. (I initially only intended to measure since Tressel’s arrival and I really did not feel like recalculating.) This means a few teams benefited by not having additional losses in the mix (Ohio State, Southern Cal, and Auburn were among the benefactors) while others were negatively impacted. I understand this and it is a valid complaint if you chose to make it. However, only two teams had their winning percentage increase when I included 2000 – Oklahoma and Miami. Finally, I will keep my analysis brief. I will let you look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. I am sure you will come up with many more observations than I could.

This first chart is the Top 10 teams based on pure winning percentage since 2001.

There is a 10% spread - .105 percentage points – from 1 to 10, with each team playing between 87 and 94 games.

A couple of peripheral conclusions jumped out: Boise State was tied for the top spot, the SEC had three teams in the Top 10, and Michigan was nowhere to be found (they were 12th). Otherwise, this chart is straight forward – wins and losses. Nothing more.

What happens when we take a closer look at the losses, though? The second chart is called the Victorious Opponent Win Percentage (VOW). It is a breakdown of the combined record and win percentage of each team’s victorious opponents. I simply added each of the records of victorious opponents for the years in which they defeated one of the top 10 teams. For a visual explanation, follow this link.

Oklahoma and LSU tied, which is unbelievable when you think about it. Far more interesting than the top two spots are the bottom two. I was certain Boise State would have the lowest percentage of the group. They play in the lowest quality conference and their strength of schedule is lower, year in and year out, than any other team on the list. So, how did USC finish last? One reason is that in 2001, USC lost six games. Those six opponents were a combined 41-29. But even if you take 2001 out of the equation, USC’s VOW only increases to .686 (72-33), good for only 8th place. After watching Southern Cal pummel so many quality opponents, it is easy to forget that they lose to some bad teams. In the last two seasons alone, USC VOW is only .577 (30-22).

Other points of interest include the three SEC teams placing 2 through 4 in VOW and the significant gap between Virginia Tech and Miami.

In the final chart, the rankings were calculated by multiplying a team’s winning percentage by 2, and adding the VOW. For example, Ohio State’s winning percentage of .820 was multiplied by 2 for 1.64 with a VOW of .722 added for 2.362. I fully understand that this is a crude way to look at success. I would entertain adding value for national title or other factors. But I created this on short notice and did not have the time.

And, the winner is (drum roll, please):

Texas. Although, as I mentioned before, it is likely that Oklahoma would have claimed the top spot if I had included 2000. Otherwise, the chart would stay the same.

Five teams moved up from the original rankings, three dropped, and two stayed the same. I was surprised to see the Longhorns and Sooners sitting #1 and #2. The Big 12 is not often mentioned in the conversation of best conferences and perhaps, this benefited Texas and Oklahoma. Because they dominate the league, the winner of the Red River Shootout typically wins at least 10 games.

Other interesting tidbits include Ohio State losing to the eventual national champion in three straight seasons (2005-2007), Georgia being defeated by LSU twice in one season, and USC and Miami each losing to four teams with sub-.500 records - the most of any Top 10 team.

I am sure you can poke several holes in my research and analysis, and I am aware of several of its shortcomings. This is not meant to be an exhaustive, statistical analysis, but rather a nice discussion piece for one of the eternal debates in college football.