How do you evaluate a college football team? 

In the NFL, there are 32 teams and during the season, a given team plays 13 of those 32.  At the end of the season, the 12 best teams play a tournament to determine a champion.  It couldn’t be much simpler.  The NBA, NHL, MLS, MLB, NASCAR, and men’s and women’s college basketball all have similar championship tournaments, and all but the college hoops play against a set pool of competition.  But in college football, arguably one of America’s 3 most popular sports along with the NFL and NASCAR, after a century and a half of competition, there is still no accuarte, fair, or objective way to crown a “mythical” national champion.  Hell, even Pro Wrestling has Wrestlemania!!!  In Division I-A college football, there are 119 teams and a given team plays only 11 of those teams and worse, they get to PICK which 11 schools, where, and when. 

So, here we sit on November 3, the day after the biggest game in the short history of the new Big East Conference.  The unbeaten and 5th ranked Louisville Cardinals soundly defeated the unbeaten and 3rd ranked West Virginia Mountaineers.  Nationwide, the radio talk shows are abuzz with BCS controversy.  The frot page of ESPN has a poll.  All the pundits and talking heads have an opinion on conference rankings, strength of schedule, ad infinitem.  If Louisville wins out to go 12-0, should they go to the BCS Championship?  Does a 1-loss Auburn, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Cal, or Notre Dame deserve to jump an undefeated Big East team?  Does strength of schedule count most?  Record?  Conference Strength?  Style Points?  Is there a manual or instruction book somewhere?

The way I see it, there are many different ways to rank college football teams.  If record were the only factor, your top 5 on Monday morning would be 1) OSU, 2) Michigan, 3) Louisville, 4) Rutgers, and 5) Boise State.  Now, nobody is about to rank Rutgers above Florida or Auburn, but this just goes to show that record isn’t everything.  Basing rankings on record alone will dissuade Athletic Directors from scheduling challenging games like Ohio State and Texas have played the last two years.  Say good bye to Michigan-Notre Dame and Notre Dame-USC.  Say hello to Notre Dame-Nevada and USC-Idaho.

Should teams be ranked based on strength of schedule/quality of wins and losses?  If so, your top 5 on Monday would be 1) USC, 2) Cal, 3) Florida, 4) Michigan, and 5) Notre Dame.  While all 5 of these teams are good, does anyone think they should ALL be ranked above Ohio State?  So, schedule strength isn’t everything.  Don’t you have to actually look at the teams and the games and make some kind of subjective analysis?

How about the ultra-subjective “style-points.”  If we ranked teams solely on how they “look” in their biggest games, would the top-5 look like 1) Ohio State, 2) Michigan, 3) Cal, 4) Florida, 5) Louisville.  This may be the best ranking yet, but still no Auburn?  No Notre Dame? And how can 1-loss Cal and Florida be ranked above undefeated Louisville and Rutgers?  Doesn’t a ranking system like this encourage coaches to run up the score and leave starters in the game in the 4th quarter when they are up by 27 points?  That doesn’t sound very collegiate to me.

The answer of course…is that there is no answer.  Voters in the AP, Harris, and Coach’s poll all fall prey to different biases and pressures and they all utilize a different criteria to rank teams.  For example, in the final coach’s poll last year, every PAC-10 coach except Pete Carroll voted Notre Dame 10th or lower in hopes of allowing PAC-10 school Oregon to gain a BCS berth.  It didn’t work, but it could have.  It is unfair, and it is extremely frustrating for fans and players and coaches.

But don’t hold your breath expecting any change in teh post-season or the ranking systems any time soon.  The fact that everyone is talking about college football on a Friday morning in early November is exactly why they won’t change the system anytime soon…