TSR's

College Football Rankings

2003

LW=Last Week, or last ranking.
R=Current Rank.
ACC BIG 10 BIG 12 BIG EAST CUSA INDEPENDENT MAC MTN WEST PAC 10 SEC SUN BELT WAC

All teams are color-coded by conference affiliation.
LW
R
TEAM
TOTAL
REC
1
1
LSU
190.754
0-0
2
2
USC
181.101
0-0
3
3
OKLAHOMA
162.582
0-0
4
4
MIAMI FLA
151.472
0-0
5
5
OHIO ST
148.174
0-0
6
6
MICHIGAN
144.647
0-0
7
7
GEORGIA
132.660
0-0
8
8
FLORIDA ST
132.488
0-0
9
9
IOWA
130.731
0-0
10
10
KANSAS ST
126.768
0-0
11
11
WASHINGTON ST
121.020
0-0
12
12
TEXAS
117.165
0-0
13
13
MIAMI OH
116.272
0-0
14
14
UTAH
107.375
0-0
15
15
TENNESSEE
105.118
0-0
16
16
MARYLAND
104.014
0-0
17
17
BOISE ST
99.913
0-0
18
18
MISSISSIPPI
99.911
0-0
19
19
FLORIDA
97.119
0-0
20
20
NEBRASKA
90.691
0-0
21
21
CALIFORNIA
89.133
0-0
22
22
PURDUE
88.141
0-0
23
23
CLEMSON
83.660
0-0
24
24
VIRGINIA TECH
76.264
0-0
25
25
MINNESOTA
75.611
0-0
26
26
VIRGINIA
71.714
0-0
27
27
AUBURN
69.661
0-0
28
28
OREGON
68.689
0-0
29
29
OREGON ST
67.499
0-0
30
30
ARKANSAS
66.131
0-0
31
31
WEST VIRGINIA
64.803
0-0
32
32
BOWLING GREEN
62.880
0-0
33
33
OKLAHOMA ST
62.752
0-0
34
34
PITTSBURGH
62.732
0-0
35
35
NC STATE
62.285
0-0
36
36
NEW MEXICO
61.147
0-0
37
37
MICHIGAN ST
59.811
0-0
38
38
COLORADO ST
59.351
0-0
39
39
BOSTON COLLEGE
59.285
0-0
40
40
GEORGIA TECH
58.684
0-0
41
41
WISCONSIN
56.965
0-0
42
42
MISSOURI
56.015
0-0
43
43
SOUTHERN MISS
54.614
0-0
44
44
TCU
53.646
0-0
45
45
WASHINGTON
53.410
0-0
46
46
MEMPHIS
52.703
0-0
47
47
TEXAS TECH
52.565
0-0
48
48
NORTH ILLINOIS
52.535
0-0
49
49
UNLV
49.276
0-0
50
50
TOLEDO
47.478
0-0
51
51
AIR FORCE
45.472
0-0
52
52
WAKE FOREST
44.191
0-0
53
53
MARSHALL
42.562
0-0
54
54
NOTRE DAME
39.602
0-0
55
55
SYRACUSE
39.267
0-0
56
56
UCLA
37.960
0-0
57
57
CONNECTICUT
37.864
0-0
58
58
FRESNO ST
35.123
0-0
59
59
COLORADO
34.443
0-0
60
60
SAN DIEGO ST
31.829
0-0
61
61
NAVY
31.021
0-0
62
62
SOUTH FLORIDA
30.886
0-0
63
63
BYU
29.130
0-0
64
64
NORTH TEXAS
28.481
0-0
65
65
HAWAII
27.633
0-0
61
61
LOUISVILLE
27.516
0-0
67
67
SOUTH CAROLINA
24.649
0-0
68
68
ALABAMA
24.298
0-0
69
69
KANSAS
23.661
0-0
70
70
ARIZONA ST
22.999
0-0
71
71
TULSA
22.979
0-0
72
72
NORTHWESTERN
19.691
0-0
73
73
ALABAMA-BIRM
18.940
0-0
74
74
NEVADA
17.045
0-0
75
75
RUTGERS
15.411
0-0
76
76
WYOMING
15.018
0-0
77
77
CINCINNATI
14.162
0-0
78
78
STANFORD
13.155
0-0
79
79
AKRON
11.884
0-0
80
80
TROY ST
11.269
0-0
81
81
LOUISIANA TECH
10.770
0-0
82
82
PENN ST
10.124
0-0
83
83
TEXAS A&M
9.690
0-0
84
84
HOUSTON
9.082
0-0
85
85
KENTUCKY
8.205
0-0
86
86
DUKE
7.705
0-0
87
87
RICE
7.086
0-0
88
88
WEST MICHIGAN
1.823
0-0
89
89
MIDDLE TENN ST
0.248
0-0
90
90
BALL ST
-0.561
0-0
91
91
UTAH ST
-0.931
0-0
92
92
TULANE
-1.866
0-0
93
93
KENT ST
-3.389
0-0
94
94
IDAHO
-4.239
0-0
95
95
NEW MEXICO ST
-4.535
0-0
96
96
NORTH CAROLINA
-5.298
0-0
97
97
VANDERBILT
-8.398
0-0
98
98
SAN JOSE ST
-9.046
0-0
99
99
OHIO
-11.758
0-0
100
100
ARIZONA
-12.230
0-0
101
101
TEMPLE
-12.787
0-0
102
102
LA-LAFAYETTE
-13.817
0-0
103
103
ARKANSAS ST
-15.219
0-0
104
104
EAST MICHIGAN
-15.455
0-0
105
105
CENT FLORIDA
-15.596
0-0
106
106
ILLINOIS
-17.326
0-0
107
107
MISSISSIPPI ST
-18.389
0-0
108
108
BAYLOR
-19.312
0-0
109
109
CENT MICHIGAN
-19.532
0-0
110
110
INDIANA
-19.814
2-10
111
111
IOWA ST
-21.446
0-0
112
112
EAST CAROLINA
-23.770
0-0
113
113
BUFFALO
-26.744
0-0
114
114
SMU
-27.316
0-0
115
115
LA-MONROE
-27.640
0-0
116
116
UTEP
-33.346
0-0
117
117
ARMY
-36.778
0-0

LSU held on to the top spot to win a surprising national championship in TSR's rankings (See Complete Rankings) after holding off Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl.

Only five teams from the Top Ten held their ground or moved up. Texas and Tennessee were the big losers as they fell out after losing their bowl games.

The Big Ten led the way with three schools in the Top Ten, followed by the SEC and Big Twelve with two.

One difference between the TSR system and the BCS, and others as well, was that LSU shot to No.1 when Oklahoma lost to Kansas State and LSU beat Georgia in their respective conference championship games.

Miami, OH, once the little-team-that-could, turned out to be a juggernaut that got tripped up only by a Hawkeye. If not for that openning 21-3 loss to Iowa, we would have seen the first non-BCS team in a major bowl. TSR dropped the Redhawks one spot to a final No. 13 because of Iowa and Washington State's leapfrogging them.

Also, Utah and Boise St. had awesome years but seemed to be overshadowed as if the press had room for only one non-BCS team.

The Big East fared well for the most part. But it's looking like the days of prominence with Top Ten finishes and national championships may have disappeared when the last stand at Ponte Vedra broke up where the Big East held their meetings in Florida last May. Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and newcomer, Louisville, must pick up the slack or fear blending into non-BCS oblivion.

TCU, another that looked promising but fell late in the season then lost their bowl game, fell to No.44. In a system where teams are based on the strength of their victories, a school like TCU can't afford to lose when flirting with the Top Ten as they were.

The perplexing issue is why some are calling this a split national championship? The AP Writer's Poll ranks USC No.1 while the coaches poll has LSU as their champion. What doesn't make sense is how quickly some fans and pundits have forgotten that the BCS poll, perfect or not, is THE official ranking system and the most comprehensive system out there--except for TSR's system, ob course!

Why do the coaches and writer's polls continually get so much respect when they're based soley on opinion? Furthermore, how many coaches really know about a school that is NOT on their schedule? And many writers do not get to watch the games because of the nature of their jobs.

The fact is, the two opinion polls should be included in any official comprehensive ranking system, but not the sole provider. It would be more impressive if the coaches and writers poll had 117 voters --one writer from each college town and all Division I-A coaches voting.

The BCS was created because of growing criticism for the opinion polls-coaches and writers. Now that some think USC should have played LSU for the national championship, some people are calling for more influence from those same opinion polls.

Along with that irony is the fact that these two opinion polls, for reasons stated above, are the least comprehensive rankings among all the systems out there. The computer polls get bashed for being inhuman when they--accuracy in question--are basically statistics polls and are based on what a team has done on the field--no politics, and much less bias than the opinion polls.

So where do we draw the line and just say these are the two that will play for it all?

For some reason, the pendulum of criticism appears to swing between computer polls and the human polls. The public seems to want to change the system back to the other as soon as controversy pops up. There's little faith in statistics--which is based on what a team does on the field--then new issues pile on, such as, a school must win their conference championship game in order to play for the national championship.

The juicy issue this year was Oklahoma getting beat in the Big 12 championship game and badly, but still holding on to first place in the BCS. Well here's a juicier question to match: What if the Sooners would have lost the game by one point and there was a rule that you had to win your conference championship game in order to play for the national championship? What would people have said then?

Should it be right to ignore a teams entire powerful season because of one game? One more little tidbit for the starving is that Kansas State had TWO losses in the conference coming into the Big 12 game, the Sooners hadn't had any. And after the embarrassing loss, the Sooners still were in front in the loss column.

For the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately crowd, the regular season goes out the window. So the question is: What is the problem with an influence of statistics--especially the correct ones?

For one, the public is so conditioned on the playoff mentality from the professional leagues, they are having a hard time allowing the college system to be itself. Certainly things can be more fair, but after 11 or 12 regular season games, conference championships, then the bowls, a playoff system isn't necessary--if, you have a comprehensive ranking system that is fair. I don't feel a 16th ranked team deserves to play the No.1 team in a playoff system. This isn't NCAA basketball.

A ranking system, such as TSR's, is designed to be more accurate as the season goes along. The more games played, the more points built up and the more accurate the system gets. If a team beats a highly ranked team in the beginning of the season and that opponent tanks the rest of the way then the team that won won't be getting many points off it's beaten opponent.

This is how it's supposed to work. I don't proclaim My System to be the one but I do think it's on the way to being what should be: A comprehensive system with all the right components involved. The solution is that the public needs to accept the results of any official ranking system and be thankful that the system isn't soley based on opinion.

The one champion should result--after the national championship game--from the official poll, in this case, it's the BCS not this split nonsense because two human polls disagreed. Because, sure enough, once you go back to putting the power in the hands of the opinion polls, an issue will surely pop up and that pendulum of criticism will swing back again.

One last note and that is that this year would have been a perfect year to play that national championship game after the major bowls. Lets hope, in the future the NCAA parties agree and never give us another 1994: 13-0 Nebraska and 12-0 Penn State, one of the great college football games we'll never get to see.


Filed by J.D. Long
Home | Top | Complete Rankings | Bowl Proposal | Conference Stats | Team Stats | Contact TSR | Archives