the 2004 Season

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

Just when you thought that the BCS couldn't top the four 1-loss team debacle of 2003, it rises to the challenge and blows away all expectations of craziness by providing us with a five-undefeated-team extravaganza! This was the first year of Version E and the biggest overhaul of the system to date. 2003 was the third time that a team ranked in the top 2 of both the AP & Coach's poll was denied a spot in the National Championship game (the first was 2000 with #2 Miami, and the second was 2001 with #2 Oregon). After those other two times, the committee made minor changes by adding or tweaking the Quality Win component. But after 2003, the time for tweaking was over - it was time to break out the sledgehammers.

As we all know, the final rankings looked like this -

Version E: 2004
Rank	Team	AP	Votes	AP%	Coach	Votes	Coach%	Comp%	Total
1	USC	1	1599	0.9840	1	1490.3	0.9772	0.970	0.9771
2	Oklahoma	2	1556	0.9575	2	1459.3	0.9569	0.990	0.9682
3	Auburn	3	1525	0.9385	3	1435.3	0.9412	0.920	0.9332
4	Texas	6	1337	0.8228	5	1281	0.8400	0.880	0.8476
5	California	4	1399	0.8609	4	1286	0.8433	0.800	0.8347
6	Utah	5	1345	0.8277	6	1215	0.7967	0.830	0.8181
7	Georgia	8	1117	0.6874	7	1117	0.7325	0.670	0.6966
8	Virginia Tech	9	1111	0.6837	9	1037	0.6800	0.650	0.6712
9	Boise State	10	960	0.5908	10	943	0.6184	0.760	0.6564
10	Louisville	7	1183	0.7280	8	1066	0.6990	0.520	0.6490
11	LSU	12	929	0.5717	11	932	0.6111	0.650	0.6109
12	Iowa	11	948	0.5834	13	812	0.5325	0.550	0.5553
13	Michigan	13	917	0.5643	12	874	0.5731	0.380	0.5058
14	Miami (FL)	14	776	0.4775	14	738	0.4839	0.450	0.4705
15	Tennessee	15	651	0.4006	17	559	0.3666	0.450	0.4057

Now let's take a quicker than expected look at the other versions.

Version A: 2004
Rank	Team	Poll Avg	LoComp	HiComp	SoS Pts	Loss	Lo-Tot	Hi-Tot
1	USC	1	1.67	2.33	0.80	0	3.47	4.13
2	Oklahoma	2	1	1.17	0.56	0	3.56	3.73
3	Auburn	3	2.33	3.5	0.92	0	6.25	7.42
4	Texas	5.5	3	5.25	0.32	1	9.82	12.07
5	California	4	3.67	6.42	1.28	1	9.95	12.70
6	Utah	5.5	3	5.83	2.84	0	11.34	14.17
7	Georgia	7.5	6.33	11.67	0.48	2	16.31	21.65
9	Boise State	10	5	8.17	2.76	0	17.76	20.93
10	Louisville	7.5	6.33	15.17	3.32	1	18.15	26.99
8	Virginia Tech	9	5.67	12.25	2.04	2	18.71	25.29
12	Iowa	12	5.67	14.58	0.44	2	20.11	29.02
11	LSU	11.5	7	11.67	1.04	2	21.54	26.21
13	Michigan	12.5	8.33	21	1.32	2	24.15	36.82
14	Miami (FL)	14	9.67	16.92	0.28	3	26.95	34.20
15	Tennessee	16	9.67	16.92	0.84	3	29.51	36.76
16	Florida State	16	12.33	22.75	1.00	3	32.33	42.75
19	Arizona State	22.5	7.67	14	0.08	3	33.25	39.58
17	Wisconsin	16	13	24.5	3.08	2	34.08	45.58
18	Virginia	18	12.33	22.17	0.96	3	34.29	44.13
20	Texas A&M	23.5	8.33	16.33	0.04	4	35.87	43.87
22	Texas Tech	22	13	23.92	0.72	4	39.72	50.64
25	Ohio State	23	15.67	30.92	0.76	4	43.43	58.68
23	Florida	19.5	19.67	36.17	1.64	4	44.81	61.31
24	Okla. State	30	11	21.58	0.52	4	45.52	56.10
21	Pittsburgh	19.5	21	39.67	2.92	3	46.42	65.09

Again, Oklahoma & USC. An interesting side note here - California and Texas are neck and neck. Basically, whoever was ranked higher in the NYT would've been #4 and secured an automatic bid, according to Version A.

Version B: 2004
Rank	Team	AP	Coach	Poll Avg	Comp Avg	SoS	SoS Rank	Loss	Total
3	Auburn	3	3	3	2.57	23	0.92	0	6.49
1	USC	1	1	1	4.71	20	0.80	0	6.51
2	Oklahoma	2	2	2	4.00	14	0.56	0	6.56

Yes, I'm aware that Version B is a little...askew. But again, I did that to prove yet another point. Since for this version & year I'm missing 2 sets of rankings (the Dunkel Index and the non-existant NYT), the math becomes a bit mind boggling for a yeoman like me. But I am quite willing and able to make another undeniable prediction: that USC & Oklahoma are #1 & #2. (Perhaps you're noticing the main story for 2004...)

No, USC's Computer Average was not 4.71, and Oklahoma's was not 4.00. But look at the totals again - all three BCS undefeateds' total scores are nearly equal (with Auburn at #1) because I've manipulated the computer averages. Because Version B drops only the single highest computer ranking, try to guess what the second highest ranking for USC and Oklahoma would have to be in order to achieve this result in which Auburn comes out on top. Go ahead, turn away and guess. Ready? Oklahoma would have to be ranked no better than #18 in both the Dunkel AND the NYT rankings, and USC would have to be ranked no better than #24 in both of them in order for the above scenario to occur. That's not happening. Ever. Could it happen to one of them so that Auburn takes the #2 spot? Nope. Not that either. There's no possible way that Auburn is in the top 2 this year in Version B.

Version C: 2004
Rank	Team	Poll Avg	Comp Avg	SoS Pts	Loss	Sub	Q-Win	Total
1	USC	1	1.5	0.80	0	3.3	-1.8	1.5
2	Oklahoma	2	1.5	0.56	0	4.06	-1.2	2.86
3	Auburn	3	3.17	0.92	0	7.09	-1.4	5.69
4	Texas	5.5	4.33	0.32	1	11.15		11.15
5	California	4	5.67	1.28	1	11.95		11.95
6	Utah	5.5	4.67	2.84	0	13.01		13.01
7	Georgia	7.5	9.83	0.48	2	19.81	-0.5	19.31
9	Boise State	10	7	2.76	0	19.76		19.76
8	Virginia Tech	9	9.83	2.04	2	22.87	-0.3	22.57
10	Louisville	7.5	11.67	3.32	1	23.49		23.49
11	LSU	11.5	10.67	1.04	2	25.21		25.21
12	Iowa	12	14.5	0.44	2	28.94		28.94
14	Miami (FL)	14	13.83	0.28	3	31.11	-0.6	30.51
13	Michigan	12.5	18.67	1.32	2	34.49	-0.4	34.09
15	Tennessee	16	15.17	0.84	3	35.01	-0.8	34.21
19	Arizona State	22.5	11.83	0.08	3	37.41	-0.4	37.01
16	Florida State	16	19.67	1.00	3	39.67		39.67
18	Virginia	18	18	0.96	3	39.96		39.96
20	Texas A&M	23.5	14	0.04	4	41.54		41.54
17	Wisconsin	16	22	3.08	2	43.08		43.08
22	Texas Tech	22	20.67	0.72	4	47.39		47.39
23	Florida	19.5	28.17	1.64	4	53.31		53.31
24	Okla. State	30	18.83	0.52	4	53.35		53.35
25	Ohio State	23	27.83	0.76	4	55.59	-0.2	55.39
21	Pittsburgh	19.5	34.33	2.92	3	59.75		59.75

Version D: 2004
Rank	Team	Poll Avg	Lo Comp	Hi Comp	SoS Pts	Loss	Lo-Sub	Hi-Sub	Hi-QW	Lo-QW	Lo-Tot	Hi-Tot
1	USC	1	1.5	1.67	0.80	0	3.3	3.47	-0.8	-0.6	2.50	2.87
2	Oklahoma	2	1.17	1.33	0.56	0	3.73	3.89	-0.7	-0.7	3.03	3.19
3	Auburn	3	2.67	3	0.92	0	6.59	6.92	-0.6	-0.3	5.99	6.62
4	Texas	5.5	3.5	4.17	0.32	1	10.32	10.99			10.32	10.99
5	California	4	5	6.17	1.28	1	11.28	12.45			11.28	12.45
6	Utah	5.5	4.33	5.17	2.84	0	12.67	13.51			12.67	13.51
7	Georgia	7.5	7.5	9.17	0.48	2	17.48	19.15	-0.2	0	17.28	19.15
9	Boise State	10	5.67	6.67	2.76	0	18.43	19.43			18.43	19.43
8	Virginia Tech	9	8	10	2.04	2	21.04	23.04			21.04	23.04
10	Louisville	7.5	10.33	13	3.32	1	22.15	24.82			22.15	24.82
11	LSU	11.5	8.17	9.83	1.04	2	22.71	24.37			22.71	24.37
12	Iowa	12	9.67	12.33	0.44	2	24.11	26.77			24.11	26.77
13	Michigan	12.5	12.83	16.67	1.32	2	28.65	32.49	-0.1	0	28.55	32.49
14	Miami (FL)	14	12.17	14.67	0.28	3	29.45	31.95	-0.2	0	29.25	31.95
15	Tennessee	16	12	14.33	0.84	3	31.84	34.17	-0.4	-0.3	31.44	33.87
19	Arizona State	22.5	9.83	15.33	0.08	3	35.41	40.91	-0.1	0	35.31	40.91
16	Florida State	16	16.83	20.33	1.00	3	36.83	40.33			36.83	40.33
17	Wisconsin	16	16.17	20.17	3.08	2	37.25	41.25			37.25	41.25
18	Virginia	18	15.33	18.5	0.96	3	37.29	40.46			37.29	40.46
20	Texas A&M	23.5	12.17	16.67	0.04	4	39.71	44.21			39.71	44.21

So, looking at 2004 overall, every single version put USC & Oklahoma in the National Championship game, and both always had plenty of room to spare. It's interesting to note just how much clamour there was when Auburn didn't even get a shot at the title, but the versions all say that everything was as it should've been. They're in agreement as much during this year as they are any other year when the BCS has been deemed to have "worked".

Oh, and overhauling the system by replacing Version D with Version E? Well those sledgehammers weren't needed - the only thing about the rankings that would've changed was who was #8 & #9.

2003 < Top > 2005