Saturday, August 12, 2006

the 1999 Season

Versions / 1998 / 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / Conclusions

In 1999, Version B came into being, producing the following official results in December:

Version B: 1999
RankTeamAPCoachPoll AvgComp.AvgSoSSoS RankLossTOTAL
1Florida State111160.2402.24
2Virginia Tech2222532.1206.12
3Nebraska3332.86140.5617.42
4Alabama565.54.5710.04212.11
5Tennessee655.55.57160.64213.71
6Kansas State7774.71632.52115.23
7Wisconsin 4447.71753216.71
8Michigan888820.08218.08
9Michigan State9997.71100.4219.11
10Florida1010109.8650.2323.06
11Penn State13171510.4380.32328.75
12Marshall11111116.43933.72031.15
13Minnesota12121216.57512.04333.61
14Texas A&M181315.515.14281.12334.76
15Texas14181614.29130.52434.81

Not too bad - our first instance of the BCS pairing up the two main undefeated teams at the end of the season. So, let's take a look at what would have happened if the BCS committee hadn't changed from Version A to Version B. Version A would've looked like...

Version A: 1999
RankTeamAPCoachPoll AvgA&HJSNYTComp.AvgSoSSoS RankLossTOTAL
1Florida State111111160.2402.24
2Virginia Tech2223222.33532.1206.45
3Nebraska333233.752.92140.5617.48
4Alabama565.545.2534.0810.04211.62
5Tennessee655.57.5555.83160.64213.97
6Kansas State7775465632.52115.52
8Michigan8886977.3320.08217.41
7Wisconsin 44411.25788.75753217.75
9Michigan State99978108.33100.4219.73
10Florida1010109111511.6750.2324.87
12Marshall11111115131113933.72027.72
11Penn State131715111015.7512.2580.32330.57
14Texas A&M181315.514171515.33281.12334.95
13Minnesota121212211521.519.17512.04336.21
15Texas141816131420.2515.75130.52436.27

So as you can see, no real major changes. A few flips after #6 Kansas State, but nothing that would've had any impact on the BCS Bowls. Now for a Projection of Version C, where things start to get dicey...

Version C: 1999
RankTeamPoll AvgLo CompHi CompSoS PtsLossLo-SubHi-SubHi-QWLo-QWLo-TotHi-Tot
1Florida State1110.2402.242.24-0.6-0.61.641.64
2Virginia Tech222.172.1206.126.296.126.29
3Nebraska32.833.170.5617.397.73-1.3-1.36.096.43
4Alabama5.54.334.830.04211.8712.37-0.6-0.611.2711.77
5Tennessee5.55.836.330.64213.9714.47-1.2-1.212.7713.27
6Kansas State74.675.332.52115.1915.85-0.2-0.114.9915.75
7Wisconsin 499.833.0021818.83-1.1-1.016.917.83
8Michigan87.58.330.08217.5818.41-1.4-1.116.1817.31
9Michigan State97.177.670.40218.5719.07-1.4-1.217.1717.87
10Florida109.17100.20322.3723.2-1.1-1.121.2722.1
11Penn State1510.510.670.32328.8228.9928.8228.99
12Marshall1113.6717.673.72028.3932.3928.3932.39
13Minnesota1216.1717.52.04333.2134.54-0.5-0.432.7134.14
14Texas A&M15.515.3316.171.12334.9535.79-0.2-0.134.7535.69
15Texas1614.33150.52434.8535.52-1.3-1.333.5534.22

Looking at Version C, it's mathematically possible that Nebraska would get into the National Championship game instead of Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech went undefeated, sure, but Nebraska had 3 Top-15 victories, giving them a Quality Win score of -1.3, more than negating their loss.

If Virginia Tech finished 1 or 2 in the missing rankings, their total is 6.12. A finish 3 or above gives them a total of 6.29.
If Nebraska finished 1 or 2 in the missing rankings, their total is 6.09. If they finished 3, their total is 6.26. A finish 4 or above gives them a total of 6.43.

That give us a few scenarios, but basically whoever finished at #2 (assuming that Florida State is #1, a safe assumption since all the other computers had them there) is in. Another way for Nebraska to get in is by finishing 3 or better and Virginia Tech slipping to 4 or worse.

But, I'm going to go out on a limb here and call this one for Virginia Tech. During the BCS years, Wolfe's rankings have always placed undefeated BCS-conference teams above 1-loss teams, and I'm assuming 1999 was no different.

But enough speculation. Onto easier projections.

Version D: 1999
RankTeamAPVotesAP%CoachVotesCoach%HiComp%LoComp%Hi-TotLo-Tot
1Florida State117440.9966114720.99801.0001.0000.99820.9982
2Virginia Tech216850.9629214150.95930.9600.9500.96070.9574
3Nebraska316060.9177313300.90170.9300.9100.91650.9098
4Alabama514500.8286611830.80200.8600.8300.83020.8202
7Wisconsin 414120.8069511870.86510.7000.6500.80400.7873
5Tennessee613360.7634711450.80470.8000.7700.80390.7939
6Kansas State714820.8469412760.77630.8700.8300.80320.7899
8Michigan812260.7006810650.72200.7600.7100.72750.7109
9Michigan State911930.681799970.67590.7700.7400.70920.6992
10Florida1010950.6257108980.60880.6500.6200.62820.6182
12Marshall117720.4411175860.55530.5600.3900.57120.5145
11Penn State1310470.5983118190.39730.6200.6100.48610.4828
13Minnesota129350.5343127150.48470.3700.2900.46300.4363
14Texas A&M186320.3611137010.47530.4500.4100.42880.4155
15Texas147460.4263185630.38170.4500.4100.41930.4060

The computer averages have changed slightly, but those won't concern us here. That minor change of looking at Top 10 for Quality Wins instead of Top 15 sank Nebraska in this version. Their -1.3 became a -.5, giving them no chance at #2. Florida State and Virginia Tech.

Version E: 1999
RankTeamAPVotesAP%CoachVotesCoach%HiComp%LoComp%Hi-TotLo-Tot
1Florida State117440.9966114720.99801.0001.0000.99820.9982
2Virginia Tech216850.9629214150.95930.9600.9500.96070.9574
3Nebraska316060.9177313300.90170.9300.9100.91650.9098
4Alabama514500.8286611830.80200.8600.8300.83020.8202
7Wisconsin 414120.8069511870.86510.7000.6500.80400.7873
5Tennessee613360.7634711450.80470.8000.7700.80390.7939
6Kansas State714820.8469412760.77630.8700.8300.80320.7899
8Michigan812260.7006810650.72200.7600.7100.72750.7109
9Michigan State911930.681799970.67590.7700.7400.70920.6992
10Florida1010950.6257108980.60880.6500.6200.62820.6182
12Marshall117720.4411175860.55530.5600.3900.57120.5145
11Penn State1310470.5983118190.39730.6200.6100.48610.4828
13Minnesota129350.5343127150.48470.3700.2900.46300.4363
14Texas A&M186320.3611137010.47530.4500.4100.42880.4155
15Texas147460.4263185630.38170.4500.4100.41930.4060

Again, Virginia Tech is in #2 definitively. So 4 versions have a Florida State vs Virginia Tech matchup, and 1 more probably has it as well. There's been more than a smattering of consensus between the versions thus far. Too bad it won't last...

1998 < Top > 2000

No comments: