» 2009

Most Accurate Preseason Magazine

Phil Steele — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:52:47 +0000

Today’s Blog is about accuracy. I take great pride in the Accuracy of my predictions in the magazine. I write each of the 120 team previews myself while most of the other magazines have each conference written by a different writer from that conferences area. I put my name on the front of the magazine and my goal each year is to pick every conference perfect. Naturally that is an unreasonable goal but my magazine is the MOST accurate over the past 12 years and it is not really close.

This year, Tim Sullivan who writes for the New York Post was kind enough to write an article on my magazine being the most accurate over the last 12 years. The scores are figured by taking each publication’s forecasting accuracy by comparing the predicted finish with the actual finish of each team in the conference.

In the last 12 years my overall score is 1,683. The closest magazine to me, is Athlon at 1,717. That is a 34 point difference which is almost five touchdowns!!! Keep in mind this chart is similar to Golf scores in that the lower the score the more accurate the magazine.

Recently I have taken home 3 titles in the past six years (2004, 2006, 2008)! In 2004, I had one of my best years and finished with just 125 points which was 8 points better than my closest competitor The Sporting News. In 2006, I again won the title this time by 5 points over Athlon. Two years ago I bagged another title and this time I won by 4 points over Sports Illustrated.

While I consider any year that I do not win the title to be a disappointment, last year I finished 3rd overall which actually increased my 12 year total score lead by 4 points! Will the trend continue in 2010 and see me take home my 4th title in just 7 years?

If you have any questions on the chart or need further explanation please refer to pages 306-307 of this year’s magazine or visit stassen.com

Check back tomorrow to get more information on how to order this year’s magazine and possibly getting your hands on an autographed copy!

ONLY 108 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE FIRST COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME!!!

2010 Opponent’s Win %

Phil Steele — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:20:23 +0000

In Monday’s Blog, I analyzed which method of determining who plays the toughest schedule is more accurate; mine or the NCAA. I compared the preseason predictions of both and concluded that my method is superior because it takes two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team like William & Mary who was 11-3 last year is rated much lower than Oklahoma which was 8-5 in 2009. The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this year some teams will have as many as 8 home games, while others play as many as 8 on the road.

Today’s blog will take a closer look at the toughest schedule debate by looking at this year’s opponents’ win/loss record from the 2009 season.

At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.

The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponents’ records from the previous season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of 2007 I had Illinois rated as one of the top teams in the Big Ten and they went on to knock off #1 Ohio St and play in the ROSE BOWL. My ratings had them as an above avg opponent at the start of the year and they finished the regular season #13 (AP). Using 2006’s record as the criteria for determining the strength of an opps’ schedule, however you would count them as a 2-10 team!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays a FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that would have counted as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings had Bama ranked as a much tougher team than an FCS foe.

Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2009 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that will be printed in this year’s college preview magazine.

2010′s Opponent Winning %

(Based on 2009 Records)

Rank		Foe Wins	Foe Losses	Foe Win %	Tms W/Win Rec
1	LSU	98	56	63.64%	9
2	Minnesota	96	55	63.58%	8
3	Iowa St	97	56	63.40%	9
4	S Carolina	98	58	62.82%	11
5	Miss St	96	57	62.75%	9
6	N Carolina	97	60	61.78%	9
7	Virginia Tech	95	59	61.69%	8
8	Duke	94	60	61.04%	8
9	San Jose St	100	65	60.61%	8
10	Pittsburgh	92	60	60.53%	8
11	Wyoming	91	60	60.26%	6
12	Miami, Fl	92	61	60.13%	9
12	Auburn	92	61	60.13%	9
14	Washington St	91	61	59.87%	10
15	Alabama	84	57	59.57%	8
16	Tennessee	91	62	59.48%	8
17	Texas A&M	91	63	59.09%	8
18	USF	89	62	58.94%	8
19	Illinois	90	63	58.82%	7
19	Oregon St	90	63	58.82%	8
21	NC State	91	64	58.71%	9
22	Syracuse	81	57	58.70%	7
23	Oklahoma	90	64	58.44%	8
23	UCLA	90	64	58.44%	8
25	UNLV	97	69	58.43%	9
26	Penn St	88	63	58.28%	6
27	Michigan	87	63	58.00%	6
28	Georgia Tech	87	64	57.62%	7
29	Vanderbilt	89	66	57.42%	10
30	Washington	88	66	57.14%	9
31	Louisville	86	65	56.95%	8
32	Iowa	86	66	56.58%	7
32	Notre Dame	86	66	56.58%	6
32	Florida St	86	66	56.58%	7
32	New Mexico	86	66	56.58%	7
36	Mississippi	85	66	56.29%	8
37	Temple	87	68	56.13%	7
38	Miami, Oh	86	68	55.84%	7
39	Connecticut	83	66	55.70%	7
40	Arkansas	84	67	55.63%	7
41	Florida	86	69	55.48%	9
42	Baylor	83	67	55.33%	5
42	West Virginia	83	67	55.33%	7
44	Texas Tech	84	70	54.55%	8
45	Rutgers	81	68	54.36%	7
46	Arizona St	81	69	54.00%	8
47	Oklahoma St	82	70	53.95%	5
47	Kansas St	82	70	53.95%	8
47	Virginia	82	70	53.95%	8
50	Louisiana Tech	83	71	53.90%	7
51	Colorado	82	71	53.59%	7
52	Arizona	80	70	53.33%	7
53	Marshall	82	72	53.25%	8
54	Tulane	80	71	52.98%	8
55	Memphis	81	72	52.94%	7
56	Michigan St	78	70	52.70%	4
57	Ohio St	80	72	52.63%	6
58	Toledo	81	73	52.60%	7
59	Maryland	79	72	52.32%	7
60	Texas	80	73	52.29%	7
61	Northwestern	78	72	52.00%	5
62	Nebraska	78	73	51.66%	6
62	Colorado St	78	73	51.66%	7
64	Rice	79	74	51.63%	6
65	California	77	73	51.33%	8
66	Georgia	78	74	51.32%	7
67	Nevada	84	80	51.22%	6
68	Stanford	76	73	51.01%	6
69	Fresno St	77	74	50.99%	5
69	Bowling Green	77	74	50.99%	5
71	Air Force	76	74	50.67%	6
71	Utah	76	74	50.67%	6
73	East Carolina	77	75	50.66%	7
73	Utah St	77	75	50.66%	6
75	TCU	75	74	50.34%	7
76	Kansas	77	76	50.33%	6
76	Wake Forest	77	76	50.33%	7
76	SMU	77	76	50.33%	6
79	San Diego St	75	75	50.00%	6
79	Cincinnati	75	75	50.00%	7
81	Southern Miss	74	75	49.66%	6
82	BYU	74	76	49.33%	6
82	WKU	74	76	49.33%	5
84	Indiana	73	75	49.32%	5
85	Louisiana	74	77	49.01%	6
86	Navy	73	76	48.99%	4
87	USC	80	84	48.78%	6
88	Hawaii	79	83	48.77%	6
89	UAB	73	79	48.03%	7
89	Boise St	73	79	48.03%	6
91	Kentucky	72	78	48.00%	7
91	Florida Atlantic	72	78	48.00%	4
93	Wisconsin	71	77	47.97%	3
94	Idaho	78	85	47.85%	5
95	Clemson	72	79	47.68%	7
96	Tulsa	72	80	47.37%	6
97	Missouri	71	79	47.33%	5
98	ULM	70	78	47.30%	6
99	Ball St	68	78	46.58%	4
100	FIU	69	80	46.31%	4
101	C Michigan	69	81	46.00%	6
102	Boston College	68	80	45.95%	4
103	Kent St	68	81	45.64%	5
104	Oregon	68	82	45.33%	7
104	New Mexico St	68	82	45.33%	4
106	Purdue	67	81	45.27%	3
106	Houston	67	81	45.27%	6
108	Arkansas St	67	82	44.97%	4
109	E Michigan	67	83	44.67%	4
110	UCF	66	82	44.59%	4
111	North Texas	65	83	43.92%	3
112	Army	65	84	43.62%	4
113	Akron	64	84	43.24%	5
113	Troy	64	84	43.24%	4
115	W Michigan	64	85	42.95%	4
116	N Illinois	63	85	42.57%	4
117	Ohio	62	85	42.18%	4
118	UTEP	59	89	39.86%	4
119	Middle Tenn	58	89	39.46%	2
120	Buffalo	59	91	39.33%	6

Using last year’s records for their opponents, LSU plays the toughest schedule this year with their opponents having 63.64 win % last year. Overall LSU faces 9 teams that had a winning record in ’09. The Tigers open up in the Georgia Dome against North Carolina and also play West Virginia in non-conf play. In SEC play they have to travel to Auburn, Florida and Arkansas who all won at least 8 games in ’09.

Minnesota’s 2010 opponents had a combined 63.58% win % in ’09. The Gophers hsave to travel to Middle Tennessee (10-3 in ’09) in the opener and also play USC in non-conferennce action. In conference play Minnesota gets Penn St, Ohio St and Iowa at home with road games at Wisconsin and Michigan St. The Gophers avoid Indiana and Michigan who were a combined 2-14 in conference play last year.

South Carolina plays 11 teams that had a winning record in 2009 while Middle Tennessee only plays two teams. According to their opponents win/loss record Purdue plays the easiest schedule (#106) among BCS schools while San Jose St (#9) plays the toughest schedule among non-BCS schools.

Again these are not my toughest schedule rankings so let’s pick out some teams to show you the flaws of just using last year’s overall opponent records. Based on 2009’s opponent records San Jose St plays the 9th toughest schedule. While they do play at Alabama, Wisconsin and Utah in non-conference, they also play two FCS foes in Southern Utah and UC Davis who were a combined 11-11 last year. The Spartans also play in the WAC conference, which will only have one Top 25 team at the start of the year. Does this sound like the #9 toughest schedule to you? Despite the three tough non-conference road games, I know a few BCS schools that would like to play 10 non-BCS teams this season.

According to their opponents win/loss record from 2009 Temple plays the 37th toughest schedule while Oregon takes on an easy #104 slate. Oregon’s cupcake schedule has them facing all 9 Pac-10 foes including road games at Cal, USC and Oregon St and an early non-conf road game at Tennessee. Meanwhile the Owls in addition to their MAC schedule get Villanova and Connecticut at home in non-conference with road games at Army and Penn St. Do you think Temple’s schedule is 67 spots tougher than Oregon’s?

Here are some other interesting tidbits when looking at who plays the toughest schedule…

Teams that faced the most ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked when played)

6-Alabama, Oklahoma and Oregon

5-Georgia Tech, Miami, Fl, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St, Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, Oregon St, USC, Arkansas, South Carolina, Washington St, Indiana and USF

Teams that faced the fewest ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked when played)

1-Akron, Toledo, North Texas, Hawaii, Eastern Michigan, Temple, Kansas St, Florida Atlantic, ULM, Marshall, Houston, Pittsburgh and Idaho

0-Buffalo, Ohio, Central Michigan, Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, UAB, Army, Ball St, Kent St, Middle Tennessee and WKU

Teams that faced the most ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked at season’s end)

6-Florida St
5-Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia Tech. Michigan St and Mississippi St

Teams that faced the fewest ranked opponents in 2009 (ranked at season’s end)

1-Eastern Michigan, Temple, Florida Atlantic, ULM, Houston, Ohio, Idaho and North Texas

0-UAB, Army, Ball St, Central Michigan, Middle Tennessee, Kent St, Western Michigan, WKU and Southern Miss

There were three teams did not face a ranked opponent either at the time the game was played or at season’s end. (Army, Central Michigan and WKU)

Southern Miss faced two opponents (Kansas #20 and Houston #15) that were ranked when the game was played but none at season’s end.

Florida St played just three opponents that were ranked at the time of the game (BYU #7, Georgia Tech #22 and Florida #1) but ended up playing six teams that finished in the AP Top 25 (Florida #3, BYU #12, Georgia Tech #13, Miami, Fl #19, Clemson #24 and West Virginia #25).

Predicting Who Plays the Toughest Schedule

Phil Steele — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:31:12 +0000

The question arises each year, “Who plays the toughest schedule?” At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.

Let’s first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2008 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that was printed on page 317 in last year’s college preview magazine.

2009′s Opponent Winning % Preseason NCAA Method

(Based on 2008 Records)

rk	name	foe wins	foe loss	foe win %
1	Florida St	101	55	64.70%
2	Oklahoma St	97	55	63.80%
3	Syracuse	98	57	63.20%
4	S Carolina	98	58	62.80%
5	Auburn	96	58	62.30%
6	Baylor	95	58	62.10%
6	Miss St	95	58	62.10%
8	Wyoming	94	59	61.40%
9	Texas Tech	91	59	60.70%
10	Miami, Fl	93	61	60.40%
11	Minnesota	91	61	59.90%
12	Oklahoma	91	62	59.50%
13	Maryland	92	63	59.40%
14	New Mexico	89	63	58.60%
15	Clemson	90	64	58.40%
15	Virginia	90	64	58.40%
17	Louisville	89	65	57.80%
17	NC State	89	65	57.80%
19	Virginia Tech	90	66	57.70%
20	San Jose St	87	64	57.60%
21	UNLV	88	65	57.50%
21	Vanderbilt	88	65	57.50%
23	Arkansas	87	65	57.20%
23	Georgia Tech	87	65	57.20%
23	USF	87	65	57.20%
26	Iowa	87	66	56.90%
27	Indiana	85	65	56.70%
28	Illinois	86	66	56.60%
28	Michigan St	86	66	56.60%
30	Duke	87	67	56.50%
31	Nebraska	85	67	55.90%
31	West Virginia	85	67	55.90%
33	N Carolina	86	68	55.80%
33	Tennessee	86	68	55.80%
35	Oregon	83	68	55.00%
35	Utah St	83	68	55.00%
37	Miami, Oh	84	69	54.90%
37	Wake Forest	84	69	54.90%
39	East Carolina	85	70	54.80%
39	Pittsburgh	85	70	54.80%
41	Kansas	82	68	54.70%
41	Michigan	82	68	54.70%
43	Georgia	83	69	54.60%
44	Florida	82	69	54.30%
44	Kentucky	82	69	54.30%
46	UCF	83	70	54.20%
46	Wisconsin	83	70	54.20%
48	Colorado	81	70	53.60%
48	Colorado St	81	70	53.60%
50	Kansas St	80	70	53.30%
51	LSU	81	71	53.30%
51	Washington	81	71	53.30%
53	Boston College	82	72	53.20%
54	Missouri	79	70	53.00%
55	BYU	80	71	53.00%
55	Tulsa	80	71	53.00%
57	Arizona	79	71	52.70%
57	Texas	79	71	52.70%
59	Stanford	80	72	52.60%
60	Air Force	77	70	52.40%
61	Memphis	79	72	52.30%
62	Tulane	78	72	52.00%
63	Bowling Green	79	73	52.00%
63	Connecticut	79	73	52.00%
63	Purdue	79	73	52.00%
66	C Michigan	80	74	51.90%
67	Rice	79	74	51.60%
68	Texas A&M	76	73	51.00%
69	Cincinnati	77	74	51.00%
69	Houston	77	74	51.00%
71	SMU	78	75	51.00%
72	New Mexico St	82	79	50.90%
73	Rutgers	70	68	50.70%
74	Iowa St	75	73	50.70%
74	San Diego St	75	73	50.70%
76	California	76	74	50.70%
77	Washington St	77	75	50.70%
78	Utah	75	74	50.30%
79	UTEP	77	76	50.30%
80	Fresno St	76	76	50.00%
80	Nevada	76	76	50.00%
80	Ohio St	75	75	50.00%
80	Oregon St	75	75	50.00%
80	Toledo	75	75	50.00%
85	Navy	82	83	49.70%
86	Notre Dame	76	77	49.70%
87	FIU	75	76	49.70%
87	USC	75	76	49.70%
89	North Texas	74	76	49.30%
89	TCU	74	76	49.30%
91	WKU	73	75	49.30%
92	Mississippi	68	70	49.30%
93	Hawaii	80	83	49.10%
94	Arizona St	74	77	49.00%
95	Penn St	73	76	49.00%
96	UAB	74	78	48.70%
97	Temple	73	78	48.30%
98	E Michigan	72	78	48.00%
98	UCLA	72	78	48.00%
100	Louisiana Tech	71	77	48.00%
101	Marshall	72	79	47.70%
102	Ohio	70	79	47.00%
103	Boise St	77	87	47.00%
104	ULM	68	80	45.90%
105	Buffalo	66	80	45.20%
106	Southern Miss	68	83	45.00%
107	Akron	67	82	45.00%
108	Louisiana	66	81	44.90%
109	Idaho	68	84	44.70%
110	Alabama	67	83	44.70%
111	Northwestern	66	83	44.30%
112	N Illinois	65	83	43.90%
113	Arkansas St	64	83	43.50%
113	Troy	64	83	43.50%
115	W Michigan	65	86	43.00%
116	Army	64	85	43.00%
116	Middle Tenn	64	85	43.00%
118	Ball St	63	85	42.60%
119	Kent St	63	86	42.30%
120	Florida Atlantic	61	86	41.50%

Now let’s take a look at my rankings which were included on page 318 in last year’s magazine and are listed below.

These rankings take two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Miami, Fl which was 7-6 in 2008.

The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this year some teams will have as many as 8 home games, while others play as many as 8 on the road.

Phil Steele’s 2009 Toughest Schedules Preseason

Rank	Team	Rk	Team	Rk	Team	Rk	Team
1	S Carolina	31	Missouri	61	Iowa St	91	Southern Miss
2	Florida St	32	Indiana	62	NC State	92	Fresno St
3	Oklahoma	33	Purdue	63	Kansas St	93	Louisiana Tech
4	Mississippi St	34	Florida	64	East Carolina	94	Nevada
5	Minnesota	35	Nebraska	65	San Jose St	95	E Michigan
6	Arkansas	36	Notre Dame	66	USF	96	New Mexico St
7	Georgia	37	Wake Forest	67	UAB	97	C Michigan
8	Virginia Tech	38	UCLA	68	Alabama	98	WKU
9	Tennessee	39	Ohio St	69	Rice	99	Toledo
10	Michigan St	40	Texas	70	Cincinnati	100	Hawaii
11	Oregon	41	Texas A&M	71	BYU	101	Louisiana
12	Miami, Fl	42	Illinois	72	Penn St	102	San Diego St
13	Virginia	43	Connecticut	73	New Mexico	103	ULM
14	Oklahoma St	44	Wyoming	74	UNLV	104	Temple
15	Auburn	45	Clemson	75	FIU	105	North Texas
16	Washington	46	Colorado	76	Tulane	106	Rutgers
17	USC	47	Boston College	77	Mississippi	107	Idaho
18	Baylor	48	Arizona St	78	Colorado St	108	Arkansas St
19	Texas Tech	49	Louisville	79	Houston	109	Troy
20	Washington St	50	N Carolina	80	Utah St	110	Buffalo
21	LSU	51	California	81	Utah	111	Middle Tenn
22	Stanford	52	Kentucky	82	UTEP	112	N Illinois
23	Vanderbilt	53	Wisconsin	83	Bowling Green	113	Akron
24	Arizona	54	Pittsburgh	84	Marshall	114	W Michigan
25	Maryland	55	Oregon St	85	Northwestern	115	Ball St
26	Kansas	56	UCF	86	Miami, Oh	116	Florida Atlantic
27	Georgia Tech	57	Memphis	87	Navy	117	Boise St
28	Iowa	58	Duke	88	TCU	118	Army
29	Michigan	59	West Virginia	89	Air Force	119	Ohio
30	Syracuse	60	Tulsa	90	SMU	120	Kent St

Below is the final Opponent Winning % based on 2009 records. I have taken out the teams record in these rankings. For example, Ohio St’s opponents actual record were 82-70 (53.9%) on the season but when you take out the Buckeyes 11-2 record, the opponent record jumps to 80-59 (57.5%) On the flip side, Western Kentucky opponents finished 75-75 (50%) on the season but when you take out the Hilltoppers 0-12 record it falls to just 63-75 (45.7%). I don not think good teams should be penalized for beating a majority of their opponents while weaker teams get rewarded for not winning a majority of their games.

Final 2009 Opponent Winning % Preseason

(based on 2009 Records)

Rank	Team	Foe Wins	Foe Losses	Foe Win %
1	Miss St	97	47	67.36%
2	Florida St	91	50	64.54%
3	S Carolina	91	51	64.08%
4	Arkansas	89	52	63.12%
5	Minnesota	86	53	61.87%
5	West Virginia	86	53	61.87%
7	IOWA	85	53	61.59%
8	Virginia Tech	88	55	61.54%
9	Miami, Fl	86	54	61.43%
10	Georgia	86	55	60.99%
11	Syracuse	85	55	60.71%
12	Pittsburgh	83	54	60.58%
13	Virginia	87	57	60.42%
14	Oregon	84	56	60.00%
15	Michigan St	82	55	59.85%
16	Arizona	83	56	59.71%
16	Auburn	83	56	59.71%
16	Oklahoma	83	56	59.71%
19	Alabama	81	56	59.12%
20	Illinois	81	58	58.27%
20	LSU	81	58	58.27%
22	Louisville	81	59	57.86%
22	Oklahoma St	81	59	57.86%
24	Miami, OH	82	60	57.75%
25	Clemson	79	58	57.66%
26	Ohio St	80	59	57.55%
27	Connecticut	79	59	57.25%
27	N Carolina	79	59	57.25%
29	Baylor	80	62	56.34%
29	Wake Forest	80	62	56.34%
31	Florida	77	60	56.20%
32	Washington	79	62	56.03%
33	Tennessee	80	63	55.94%
34	Georgia Tech	76	60	55.88%
34	USF	76	60	55.88%
36	Wisconsin	77	61	55.80%
37	Colorado	79	63	55.63%
38	Penn St	76	61	55.47%
38	Texas	76	61	55.47%
38	Wyoming	76	61	55.47%
41	East Carolina	77	62	55.40%
42	Missouri	76	62	55.07%
43	Marshall	77	63	55.00%
44	TCU	75	62	54.74%
45	Texas Tech	76	63	54.68%
45	UNLV	76	63	54.68%
47	Notre Dame	77	64	54.61%
47	Utah St	77	64	54.61%
49	Mississippi	74	62	54.41%
50	Fresno St	75	63	54.35%
51	Kansas	76	64	54.29%
51	Tulane	76	64	54.29%
53	Oregon St	74	63	54.01%
54	Colorado St	75	64	53.96%
54	Maryland	75	64	53.96%
56	Memphis	76	65	53.90%
56	San Jose St	76	65	53.90%
56	Washington St	76	65	53.90%
59	Kansas St	74	64	53.62%
59	Kentucky	74	64	53.62%
59	USC	74	64	53.62%
62	Cincinnati	73	64	53.28%
63	FIU	74	65	53.24%
63	Purdue	74	65	53.24%
65	Vanderbilt	75	66	53.19%
66	Indiana	72	64	52.94%
67	NC ST	73	65	52.90%
68	Bowling Green	74	66	52.86%
69	Louisiana Tech	75	67	52.82%
70	Nebraska	71	64	52.59%
71	Air Force	72	65	52.55%
72	UCLA	72	66	52.17%
73	SMU	73	67	52.14%
74	Duke	71	66	51.82%
75	Buffalo	72	67	51.80%
75	San Diego St	72	67	51.80%
75	UCF	72	67	51.80%
78	Navy	76	71	51.70%
79	Rutgers	69	65	51.49%
80	California	71	67	51.45%
81	New Mexico	72	68	51.43%
82	Michigan	69	66	51.11%
83	Boston College	70	67	51.09%
83	BYU	70	67	51.09%
85	Arizona St	71	68	51.08%
86	Iowa St	69	67	50.74%
87	Texas A&M	70	68	50.72%
88	Rice	72	70	50.70%
89	Akron	70	69	50.36%
90	Utah	68	68	50.00%
91	Stanford	68	69	49.64%
92	Hawaii	75	77	49.34%
93	New Mexico St	73	75	49.32%
94	Ball St	69	72	48.94%
94	UAB	69	72	48.94%
96	Boise St	72	76	48.65%
97	Nevada	66	72	47.83%
98	Troy	65	71	47.79%
99	Temple	66	73	47.48%
100	Tulsa	66	74	47.14%
101	Louisiana	64	72	47.06%
102	ULM	63	73	46.32%
103	Idaho	63	75	45.65%
103	North Texas	63	75	45.65%
103	WKU	63	75	45.65%
106	E Michigan	62	76	44.93%
106	Florida Atlantic	62	76	44.93%
108	Arkansas St	61	75	44.85%
109	Houston	58	76	43.28%
109	Southern Miss	58	76	43.28%
111	C Michigan	57	75	43.18%
112	UTEP	60	79	43.17%
113	Northwestern	58	77	42.96%
114	Toledo	58	80	42.03%
115	Ohio	55	79	41.04%
116	Kent St	56	81	40.88%
117	N Illinois	55	81	40.44%
118	Army	52	85	37.96%
119	Middle Tenn	50	84	37.31%
120	W Michigan	50	85	37.04%

So who is more accurate the NCAA or Phil Steele when it comes to predicting strength of schedule?

Pre-Season Rankings Compared to Final	Phil Steele	NCAA
# of Predicted Rankings Exact	7	2
# of Pred Rank +/- 3	22	17
# of Pred Rank +/- 5	31	26
# of Pred Rank +/- 10	47	44
Overall Phil Steele 64-54-2

As you can see I predicted 7 teams’ schedule strength exactly right (Arkansas St, Army, Florida St, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia and Virginia Tech) compared to just 2 for the NCAA. I also came within 3 final ranking spots of 22 teams compared to just 17 for the NCAA and overall my preseason predictions ended up being more accurate than the NCAA for 64 teams (54%)!

Here are a couple of examples which prove why my rankings are superior. In the preseason the NCAA had New Mexico facing the 14th toughest schedule based on 2008 opponent records. The Lobos faced a grand total of 2 BCS conference teams! There are 65 BCS conference schools and ALL 65 would love to have traded their schedule for New Mexico’s, which my ratings ranked as the 73rd toughest schedule. When the 2009 season concluded New Mexico finished with the 81st toughest schedule based on opponent win % which was 67 spots lower than the NCAA predicted but just 8 spots below where I had them ranked in the preseason!

Also According to the NCAA’s method, NCSt played the 17th toughest schedule and Alabama faced the 110th toughest (11th easiest). Coming into the season Alabama’s opponents 2008 records were 67-83 (44.47%) while NC St opponnents were 89-65 (57.8%) in 2008. The two teams did have 2 mutual opponents in South Carolina and Virginia Tech but Alabama played in a much tougher conference. When the 2009 season concluded my schedule strength was far more accurate than the NCAA. Alabama opponents finished 81-56 (59.1%) while NC St opponents finished 73-65 (52.9%). The Crimson Tide finished with the 19th hardest schedule which was 91 spots higher than what the NCAA predicted! NC St meanwhile finished with 67th hardest schedule just 5 spots lower than what I predicted but 50 spots lower than what the NCAA predicted!

Ohio St opponents were just 75-75 in 2008 and the NCAA ranked the Buckeyes schedule as the 80th hardest in the preseason while I had them facing the 39th toughest schedule. When the season concluded Buckeye opponents went 80-59 (57.6%) and finished with the 26th toughest schedule which was 54 spots higher than the NCAA but just 13 spots higher than my rankings.

This year when you are looking at your favorite teams schedule make sure to check my rankings compared to what the NCAA has and see for yourself who is more accurate. I will be be back on Wednesday to take a look at this year’s toughest schedules.

Most Improved Rush Defense in 2009

Phil Steele — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:04:32 +0000

In my 2009 College Preview Magazine on pgs 324 and 327 I included my computer’s projected stats in 2009 for all 120 FBS teams. There were several different categories including rush offense/defense, pass offense/defense, offensive pts and defensive pts.

On the right hand side of the page I listed the teams that my computer projected to be most improved in ’09 compared to ’08 season in 6 different categories. I had them ranked in order from Most Improved all the way down to the Least Improved and included the top 15 in each category along with the bottom 5.

In today’s blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in rush defense heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.

In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be impressed with the results of the accuracy of my projections.

Most Improved Rush Defense 2009

Preseason Projection

Rank	Team
1	San Diego St
2	Kansas St
3	Washington
4	UNLV
5	Oklahoma
6	Florida
7	ULM
8	Rutgers
9	Marshall
10	Louisiana
11	Oklahoma St
12	BYU
13	North Texas
14	Arkansas
15	Fresno St

116	Louisiana Tech
117	Hawaii
118	Bowling Green
119	Maryland
120	WKU

Final Rankings

Rank	Team	09 Rush Def YPG	08 Rush Def YPG	Diff
5	San Diego St.	165.5	247.5	-82
1	Kansas St.	105.42	217.67	-112.25
3	Washington	148.83	240.58	-91.75
76	UNLV	220.58	213.08	7.5
26	Oklahoma	92.92	116.21	-23.29
54	Florida	99.79	105.43	-5.64
2	ULM	110.08	212.67	-102.59
17	Rutgers	103.23	135.62	-32.39
20	Marshall	134.85	164.42	-29.57
18	Louisiana	181.92	213.25	-31.33
13	Oklahoma St.	95.77	137.85	-42.08
19	BYU	110.15	140.31	-30.16
44	North Texas	195.58	207.08	-11.5
29	Arkansas	152.69	170.75	-18.06
72	Fresno St.	214.08	210	4.08

114	Louisiana Tech	162.83	103.85	58.98
115	Hawaii	201.85	142.07	59.78
94	Bowling Green	194.23	162.58	31.65
73	Maryland	150.83	146.69	4.14
119	Western Ky.	244.83	162.42	82.41

As you can see my projections were pretty close. I nailed 4 of the top 5 most improved teams and 11 of my top 15 teams finished #29 or better! 13 of my 15 teams (86.7%) saw their rush defense ypg decrease and on avg my top 15 improved by 40 ypg in ’09!

My bottom 5 results were just as accurate. All 5 of my projected bottom teams in rush defense saw their ypg increase in ’09 and all 5 of the teams finished 73rd or worse! 3 of my projected preseason teams finished in the bottom 7 and on average the 5 teams had a rush defense increase of 47.4 ypg in ’09!

Going into the season I thought San Diego St would have the most improved rush defense thanks to an amazing hire in Rocky Long as their DC. Long knew the MWC inside and out and produced top notch D’s every year as the Lobos HC. In 2009 under the tutelage of Long, the Aztecs saw their rush defense decrease by 82 ypg which was good enough for #5 in the country.

Kansas St had 8 starters back on defense and welcomed back Bill Snyder who accomplished the greatest rebuilding job in college football history in his 1st stint in Manhattan. I thought the Wildcats would be the 2nd most improved team in rush defense and the Wildcats didn’t disapoint allowing 112.3 ypg less in ’09 which ranked #1.

In 2009 new Washington HC Steve Sarkisian was surprisingly able to hire Nick Holt as the DC. Holt was the HC at Idaho from 2004-’05 and left to return to USC as the DC the last two years. In the magazine I predicted that the Huskies were arguably the Most Improved Team in the country but their tough schedule would probably prevent them from going to a bowl. One of the areas I thought the Huskies would be most improved in was rush defense where I had them ranked #3 and that projection turned out to be dead on as Washington finished #3 with a 91.8 ypg improvement in 09.

Western Kentucky returned only 4 starters on defense and I thought the 2009 season would be a true transition year into the SBC for the Hilltoppers as they finished 0-12. Coming into the season I thought WKU would have the least improved rush defense and unfortunately for them my projection was very close as they finished #119 allowing 82.4 ypg more in ’09.

Overall 18 of the 20 teams (90%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher ypg or lower ypg just as I projected!

Complete List of all 120 Teams

Rank	Team	09 Rush Def YPG	08 Rush Def YPG	Diff
1	Kansas St.	105.42	217.67	-112.25
2	ULM	110.08	212.67	-102.59
3	Washington	148.83	240.58	-91.75
4	Syracuse	101.83	189.42	-87.59
5	San Diego St.	165.5	247.5	-82
6	SMU	166.69	225.58	-58.89
7	Temple	107.62	166.33	-58.71
8	Idaho	155.15	209.58	-54.43
9	Texas A&M	171.62	219.25	-47.63
10	Wisconsin	88.23	133.31	-45.08
11	North Carolina	95.62	139.38	-43.76
12	UCF	82.77	126.08	-43.31
13	Oklahoma St.	95.77	137.85	-42.08
14	Kent St.	137.08	178.67	-41.59
15	Buffalo	131.75	173	-41.25
16	Colorado St.	152.08	190.08	-38
17	Rutgers	103.23	135.62	-32.39
18	Louisiana	181.92	213.25	-31.33
19	BYU	110.15	140.31	-30.16
20	Marshall	134.85	164.42	-29.57
21	Miami, FL	122.31	151.85	-29.54
22	Michigan St.	113.23	142.46	-29.23
23	UCLA	142.77	169.75	-26.98
24	UAB	143.67	167	-23.33
25	Nebraska	93.14	116.46	-23.32
26	Oklahoma	92.92	116.21	-23.29
27	Miami, OH	186.92	208.33	-21.41
28	Ohio St.	90.77	110.23	-19.46
29	Arkansas	152.69	170.75	-18.06
30	Arizona St.	108.58	126.5	-17.92
31	Pittsburgh	106.31	124.15	-17.84
32	Oregon St.	114.38	131.23	-16.85
33	Middle Tenn	136.77	153.5	-16.73
34	East Carolina	120.29	135.79	-15.5
35	Akron	171.92	187.17	-15.25
36	Stanford	137.92	152.92	-15
37	Central Mich.	122.86	136.54	-13.68
38	Texas Tech	126.77	140.38	-13.61
39	Tulane	204.83	218.42	-13.59
40	Navy	122.14	134.85	-12.71
41	Northern Ill.	124.77	137.38	-12.61
42	Indiana	159.08	171.67	-12.59
43	Toledo	166	178.33	-12.33
44	North Texas	195.58	207.08	-11.5
45	Washington St.	236.42	247.62	-11.2
46	Texas	72.36	83.54	-11.18
47	Ball St.	152.33	163	-10.67
48	Arizona	120.46	131.08	-10.62
49	Iowa St.	165.69	176.17	-10.48
50	California	112	122.23	-10.23
51	Southern Miss.	130.85	139.77	-8.92
52	Air Force	134	141.54	-7.54
53	Missouri	118.62	124.86	-6.24
54	Florida	99.79	105.43	-5.64
55	Colorado	161.17	166.25	-5.08
56	West Virginia	126.69	131.62	-4.93
57	Mississippi St.	146	150.92	-4.92
58	Ohio	153.71	157.58	-3.87
59	Penn St.	89.85	93.23	-3.38
60	Arkansas St.	122	125.17	-3.17
61	North Carolina St.	139.08	142.23	-3.15
62	Troy	137.77	139.69	-1.92
63	Purdue	173.42	174.83	-1.41
64	New Mexico St.	220.69	220.17	0.52
65	Duke	152.83	151.5	1.33
66	UTEP	200.83	199.5	1.33
67	Illinois	154.42	152.92	1.5
68	Northwestern	128.62	126.38	2.24
69	Boise St.	120.36	118	2.36
70	Georgia	126.15	122.31	3.84
71	Alabama	78.14	74.14	4
72	Fresno St.	214.08	210	4.08
73	Maryland	150.83	146.69	4.14
74	South Carolina	137.69	132.69	5
75	Army	151.83	145.08	6.75
76	UNLV	220.58	213.08	7.5
77	Rice	190.58	182.77	7.81
78	Minnesota	151.69	143.31	8.38
79	Oregon	128.69	119.38	9.31
80	Boston College	103.15	91.21	11.94
81	Kansas	138.25	123.08	15.17
82	Auburn	156.08	138.92	17.16
83	Tulsa	147	129.5	17.5
84	Memphis	174.08	152.85	21.23
85	Nevada	111.54	88.62	22.92
86	Connecticut	132.85	109.77	23.08
87	LSU	133.38	110.15	23.23
88	Virginia Tech	128.38	104.43	23.95
89	Clemson	151.5	127.38	24.12
90	Virginia	173.83	149.58	24.25
91	Cincinnati	143.77	115	28.77
92	Iowa	123.62	94	29.62
93	Georgia Tech	151.64	120.31	31.33
94	Bowling Green	194.23	162.58	31.65
95	Wyoming	172.54	140.17	32.37
96	TCU	80.23	47.08	33.15
97	Michigan	171.92	136.92	35
98	Louisville	165.08	129.5	35.58
99	Notre Dame	170.25	134.15	36.1
100	Western Mich.	178.33	140.46	37.87
101	Utah	137.85	99.15	38.7
102	Wake Forest	164.33	124.15	40.18
103	South Florida	135.46	95.23	40.23
104	USC	128.15	87.38	40.77
105	Baylor	178.75	137.92	40.83
106	Florida Atlantic	220.58	178.69	41.89
107	New Mexico	165	122.25	42.75
108	Kentucky	182.92	139.23	43.69
109	Utah St.	205.5	161.58	43.92
110	Tennessee	149.54	103.08	46.46
111	Houston	226.57	175.15	51.42
112	Vanderbilt	197.83	144.69	53.14
113	Mississippi	140.31	85.54	54.77
114	Louisiana Tech	162.83	103.85	58.98
115	Hawaii	201.85	142.07	59.78
116	Florida St.	204.62	132.54	72.08
117	FIU	232.83	156.17	76.66
118	Eastern Mich.	276.75	196.33	80.42
119	Western Ky.	244.83	162.42	82.41
120	San Jose St.	259.17	141.42	117.75

Most Improved Pass Offense in 2009

Phil Steele — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:58:09 +0000

In today’s blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in pass offense heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.

In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be happy with the results of the accuracy of my projections.

Most Improved Pass Offense 2009

Preseason Projection

Rank	Team
1	New Mexico
2	Syracuse
3	Notre Dame
4	Auburn
5	UCF
6	Hawaii
7	Wyoming
8	Michigan
9	Pittsburgh
10	California
11	Tennessee
12	Kentucky
13	Air Force
14	Stanford
15	SMU

116	Ball St
117	Kansas St
118	Missouri
119	New Mexico St
120	Rice

Final Rankings

Rank	Team	09 Pass Off	08 Pass Def	Diff
9	New Mexico	215.08	131.33	83.75
10	Syracuse	203.83	121.5	82.33
13	Notre Dame	323.5	245.38	78.12
28	Auburn	219.77	165.42	54.35
3	UCF	210.31	116.25	94.06
7	Hawaii	337	251.29	85.71
24	Wyoming	173.23	117.67	55.56
26	Michigan	198.33	143.17	55.16
59	Pittsburgh	211.31	203.38	7.93
36	California	222.69	189.77	32.92
11	Tennessee	226.31	145.83	80.48
96	Kentucky	140.31	171.85	-31.54
60	Air Force	88.38	82.15	6.23
21	Stanford	209.38	152.17	57.21
58	SMU	282	272.92	9.08

118	Ball St.	134.42	258	-123.58
115	Kansas St.	169.42	269.58	-100.16
104	Missouri	285.46	330.36	-44.9
120	New Mexico St.	87.77	301.33	-213.56
119	Rice	195.33	327.23	-131.9

As you can see my projections were pretty close. I nailed 6 of the top 13 most improved teams and 10 of my top 15 teams finished #28 or better! 14 of my 15 teams (93.3%) saw their pass offense ypg improve and on avg my top 15 improved their pass offense by 50 ypg in 09!

My bottom 5 results were even more accurate. All 5 of my projected bottom teams in pass offense ypg saw their ppg decrease at least 44.9 ypg in 09 and all 5 of the teams finished 104th or worse! 4 of my projected preseason teams finished in the bottom 6 and on average the 5 teams had a pass offense decrease of 122.82 ypg in 09!

Heading into the season I thought New Mexico would have the most improved pass offense as they were switching to a no-huddle, high tempo, wide open spread offense under new HC Locksley. Despite the 1-11 overall record, the Lobos passing game was a bright spot avg 215.1 ypg in 09 a 83.75 ypg increase!

When my magazine was published in May I had Syracuse as the #2 most improved pass offense and that was before they acquired Duke transfer Greg Paulus in the summer. The Orange would go on to avg 203.8 ypg a 83.75 ypg improvement despite losing WR Williams mid year.

In my bottom 5 all of the teams were either losing a veteran QB or going thru a coaching change. Just like I predicted all of the teams saw their pass offense ypg drop in ’09 and with the exception of Missouri who still finished with a 44.9 ypg decrease, my bottom teams all had their pass offense ypg drop at least 100 ypg in 09!

Overall 19 of the 20 teams (95%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher ypg or lower ypg just as I projected!

Complete List of all 120 Teams

Rank	Team	09 Pass Off	08 Pass Off	Diff
1	Duke	305	197.67	107.33
2	Idaho	286.69	187.75	98.94
3	UCF	210.31	116.25	94.06
4	Toledo	278.5	187.83	90.67
5	Bowling Green	316.15	225.75	90.4
6	Troy	336.54	246.62	89.92
7	Hawaii	337	251.29	85.71
8	Wake Forest	271.58	186.92	84.66
9	New Mexico	215.08	131.33	83.75
10	Syracuse	203.83	121.5	82.33
11	Tennessee	226.31	145.83	80.48
12	Florida St.	271.85	192.77	79.08
13	Notre Dame	323.5	245.38	78.12
14	Connecticut	216.54	139.69	76.85
15	Washington	236.5	163.83	72.67
16	Northwestern	286.54	216.69	69.85
17	North Carolina St.	272.92	206	66.92
18	Indiana	247.92	181.25	66.67
19	Miami FL	261.92	196.77	65.15
20	Baylor	242.33	180.67	61.66
21	Stanford	209.38	152.17	57.21
22	Michigan St.	269.38	213.31	56.07
23	Cincinnati	308.77	253	55.77
24	Wyoming	173.23	117.67	55.56
25	Miami OH	273.42	217.92	55.5
26	Michigan	198.33	143.17	55.16
27	Virginia Tech	183.92	129.07	54.85
28	Auburn	219.77	165.42	54.35
29	Utah St.	246.75	196.5	50.25
30	Kent St.	213.08	169.67	43.41
31	West Virginia	191.08	150.46	40.62
32	Iowa	222.08	181.69	40.39
33	Louisiana	224.83	185.5	39.33
34	Arkansas	295.54	259.58	35.96
35	Marshall	206.38	172.67	33.71
36	California	222.69	189.77	32.92
37	Colorado	226.42	194	32.42
38	Houston	433.71	401.62	32.09
39	Louisiana Tech	188.08	156	32.08
40	Washington St.	177.92	146	31.92
41	Texas A&M	281.62	252.42	29.2
42	Georgia Tech	126.71	99.23	27.48
43	Army	71.75	46.25	25.5
44	Wisconsin	213.08	188.08	25
45	Florida Atlantic	279.67	254.77	24.9
46	San Diego St.	263.58	239.25	24.33
47	ULM	208.42	184.58	23.84
48	Vanderbilt	146.33	122.62	23.71
49	Ohio St.	173.62	150.23	23.39
50	UCLA	222.77	200.5	22.27
51	Florida	236.07	213.93	22.14
52	Oregon St.	270.77	249	21.77
53	Alabama	187.93	171.14	16.79
54	TCU	217.15	201.08	16.07
55	Navy	75.57	60.92	14.65
56	San Jose St.	207.33	196.17	11.16
57	Boston College	187	176.5	10.5
58	SMU	282	272.92	9.08
59	Pittsburgh	211.31	203.38	7.93
60	Air Force	88.38	82.15	6.23
61	Western Ky.	147.92	142.17	5.75
62	Purdue	255.25	249.58	5.67
63	Kansas	310.33	305.62	4.71
64	Buffalo	241.92	237.57	4.35
65	Maryland	210.67	206.69	3.98
66	South Carolina	226.15	222.46	3.69
67	East Carolina	217.36	214	3.36
68	UNLV	224.42	223.33	1.09
69	UAB	196	197.25	-1.25
70	FIU	216.67	218.25	-1.58
71	Arkansas St.	193.58	195.5	-1.92
72	Mississippi	218.77	221.15	-2.38
73	Louisville	208.92	212.17	-3.25
74	Fresno St.	201.62	204.92	-3.3
75	Arizona St.	215.17	220.33	-5.16
76	Penn St.	237.15	243.08	-5.93
77	Middle Tenn.	235.69	241.67	-5.98
78	Southern Miss.	235	241.08	-6.08
79	UTEP	277.58	284.17	-6.59
80	Memphis	214.83	222.38	-7.55
81	Minnesota	207	219.08	-12.08
82	North Texas	223.42	235.67	-12.25
83	Northern Ill.	150	163.85	-13.85
84	Tulane	207.17	221.25	-14.08
85	Utah	229.23	244.46	-15.23
86	Arizona	225.15	244	-18.85
87	Western Mich.	275.5	294.69	-19.19
88	LSU	181.77	201.31	-19.54
89	North Carolina	174.92	198.77	-23.85
90	Boise St.	264.14	288.54	-24.4
91	Oregon	180.31	204.77	-24.46
92	Clemson	192	217.85	-25.85
93	Texas Tech	386.77	413.15	-26.38
94	BYU	281.46	310.38	-28.92
95	Mississippi St.	144.33	174.33	-30
96	Kentucky	140.31	171.85	-31.54
97	Virginia	170.5	203.17	-32.67
98	Central Mich.	255.5	289.77	-34.27
99	Texas	273.64	308.31	-34.67
100	Ohio	198.14	232.92	-34.78
101	USC	222.31	259.85	-37.54
102	Colorado St.	206.92	248.23	-41.31
103	Tulsa	259.33	301.86	-42.53
104	Missouri	285.46	330.36	-44.9
105	South Fla.	194.69	239.62	-44.93
106	Akron	182.5	231.5	-49
107	Temple	146.46	202.92	-56.46
108	Oklahoma	289.23	349.36	-60.13
109	Oklahoma St.	179.46	242.23	-62.77
110	Iowa St.	184.69	248.42	-63.73
111	Nevada	160.69	230.77	-70.08
112	Illinois	193.08	269.33	-76.25
113	Georgia	201.15	277.69	-76.54
114	Rutgers	191.92	270.38	-78.46
115	Kansas St.	169.42	269.58	-100.16
116	Nebraska	175.71	281	-105.29
117	Eastern Mich.	152.08	269.33	-117.25
118	Ball St.	134.42	258	-123.58
119	Rice	195.33	327.23	-131.9
120	New Mexico St.	87.77	301.33	-213.56

Most Improved Offensive Rush in 2009

Phil Steele — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:22:33 +0000

In today’s blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in rush offense heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.

In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be happy with the results of the accuracy of my projections.

Most Improved Offensive Rush 2009

Pre-Season Projection

Rank	Team
1	Clemson
2	Middle Tenn
3	Michigan
4	Rutgers
5	Washington
6	Colorado
7	Wake Forest
8	UCLA
9	Minnesota
10	Notre Dame
11	USC
12	San Jose St
13	San Diego St
14	Arkansas
15	Arizona St

116	Louisiana
117	Connecticut
118	Rice
119	Tulsa
120	New Mexico

Final Rankings

Rank	Team	09 Rush YPG	08 Rush YPG	Diff
11	Clemson	170.36	111.54	58.82
5	Middle Tenn	186	106.92	79.08
19	Michigan	186.17	147.58	38.59
54	Rutgers	134.38	128	6.38
18	Washington	139	99.33	39.67
98	Colorado	87.92	124.5	-36.58
50	Wake Forest	131.83	121.38	10.45
24	UCLA	114.62	82.75	31.87
68	Minnesota	99.46	103.85	-4.39
41	Notre Dame	128.25	109.69	18.56
92	USC	166.77	194.85	-28.08
73	San Jose St.	76.67	86.67	-10
58	San Diego St.	78.33	73.17	5.16
42	Arkansas	131.77	113.5	18.27
30	Arizona St.	119.25	89.08	30.17

120	Louisiana	136.92	263.67	-126.75
107	Connecticut	170.69	216.38	-45.69
96	Rice	109.25	143.69	-34.44
119	Tulsa	150.75	268	-117.25
117	New Mexico	100.25	208.25	-108

As you can see my projections were fairly accurate. 11 out of the top 15 (73%) teams I thought would be most improved saw their rush offense ypg increase in ’09. All 5 of my top teams increased their rush offense by an avg of 36.79 ypg and even with counting the 4 teams who did not improve in ’09, my top 15 had an avg improvement of 17.2 ypg!

In ’08 the Clemson rush attack avg just 3.4 ypc, its lowest in 4 years and I thought they would be the most improved rush offense with a more experienced OL. Led by RB CJ Spiller (1212 yds, 5.6 ypc), the Tigers increased their rush offense by nearly 60 ypg in ’09 and finished #11.

Coming into the season Middle Tennessee’s OL had 99 career starts which tied for 11th most in the FBS and I thought the Blue Raider rush offense would go from a weakness to a strength in ’09. Thanks to multi-threat QB Dwight Dasher (1154 rush yds, 5.2 ypc), the Blue Raiders rush offense improved by nearly 80 ypg in ’09 and finished in the top 5 most improved.

My bottom 5 results were even more accurate. All of my 5 projected least improved teams saw their rush offense ypg decrease in ’09 and all 5 of the teams including bowl bound Connecticut finished 96th or worse! Overall my bottom 5 saw their offensive rush ypg drop an avg of 86.43 ypg and 3 of the 5 teams actually finished in the bottom 5 just as I projected!

Coming into the season I thought New Mexico would have the least improved rush offense as they were switching to more of a pass oriented scheme under new HC Locksley. The Lobos would go on to finish #117 as their rush offense ypg dropped from 208.25 in ’08 to just 100.25 in ’09 a 108 ypg decrease. Also in my magazine I predicted Tulsa to have the #119 least improved rush offense and at the end of the season the Golden Hurricane would finish at exactly #119 with a 117.25 ypg decrease.

Overall 16 of the 20 teams (80%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher or lower rush ypg just as I projected!

Here is a complete list of all 120 teams and how they fared from 2008 to 2009. The teams highlighted in bold were the teams I had projected in my top 15 and the teams in italics are those who were in my bottom 5.

Rank	Name	09 Rush Off YPG	08 Rush Off YPG	Diff
1	Mississippi St.	227.58	100.58	127
2	Texas A&M	184.15	88.5	95.65
3	Temple	187	95.17	91.83
4	New Mexico St.	141.54	54.25	87.29
5	Middle Tenn	186	106.92	79.08
6	Auburn	212	137.5	74.5
7	SMU	109.77	41.42	68.35
8	Nevada	344.92	277.77	67.15
9	Kentucky	191.23	127.46	63.77
10	UAB	229.92	168.92	61
11	Clemson	170.36	111.54	58.82
12	North Texas	185.25	127.33	57.92
13	Utah St.	192.58	137.75	54.83
14	Kansas St.	179.92	132.5	47.42
15	Fresno St.	228.92	182.31	46.61
16	Iowa St.	180	138.42	41.58
17	Pittsburgh	180.31	139.08	41.23
18	Washington	139	99.33	39.67
19	Michigan	186.17	147.58	38.59
20	Tennessee	157.15	122.92	34.23
21	Central Mich.	167.64	133.69	33.95
22	Virginia Tech	208.15	174.36	33.79
23	Boise St.	186.07	152.31	33.76
24	UCLA	114.62	82.75	31.87
25	Idaho	164.69	133.17	31.52
26	ULM	183.92	152.67	31.25
27	Illinois	200.42	169.5	30.92
28	Buffalo	163.5	132.71	30.79
29	Alabama	215.07	184.64	30.43
30	Arizona St.	119.25	89.08	30.17
31	Western Ky.	172.83	143.92	28.91
32	UTEP	151.08	122.33	28.75
33	South Carolina	121.23	94.08	27.15
34	Vanderbilt	160	133.62	26.38
35	East Carolina	152.07	126.36	25.71
36	Northern Ill.	195.15	171.23	23.92
37	Georgia Tech	295.43	273.23	22.2
38	Cincinnati	138.69	117.64	21.05
39	TCU	239.54	220.23	19.31
40	Stanford	218.23	199.58	18.65
41	Notre Dame	128.25	109.69	18.56
42	Arkansas	131.77	113.5	18.27
43	UCF	130.54	113.25	17.29
44	Air Force	283.46	266.92	16.54
45	Florida Atlantic	152.42	138.77	13.65
46	Toledo	159.75	146.25	13.5
47	Georgia	161	148.31	12.69
48	BYU	145.69	134.38	11.31
49	Purdue	136.08	124.83	11.25
50	Wake Forest	131.83	121.38	10.45
51	North Carolina	132.85	122.62	10.23
52	Miami, FL	138	129.23	8.77
53	Michigan St.	136.85	130.15	6.7
54	Rutgers	134.38	128	6.38
55	Hawaii	100.46	94.5	5.96
56	FIU	104.25	98.67	5.58
57	South Florida	170.92	165.38	5.54
58	San Diego St.	78.33	73.17	5.16
59	UNLV	126.83	121.67	5.16
60	Utah	160.31	156.46	3.85
61	Ohio St.	195.38	192.46	2.92
62	Virginia	99.08	96.58	2.5
63	Arizona	159.38	158.38	1
64	North Carolina St.	120.92	123.15	-2.23
65	Mississippi	183.62	186.46	-2.84
66	Louisiana Tech	184.17	187.08	-2.91
67	Colorado St.	144.25	147.62	-3.37
68	Minnesota	99.46	103.85	-4.39
69	Western Mich.	112.33	116.85	-4.52
70	Boston College	136.92	142.86	-5.94
71	Wisconsin	203.85	211.15	-7.3
72	Florida	221.79	231.14	-9.35
73	San Jose St.	76.67	86.67	-10
74	Southern Miss.	181.38	192.46	-11.08
75	Navy	280.5	292.38	-11.88
76	Tulane	105.33	118.42	-13.09
77	Kansas	112.08	126.77	-14.69
78	Marshall	142.69	157.75	-15.06
79	Ohio	112	128.5	-16.5
80	California	169.46	186.23	-16.77
81	Oregon St.	139.85	158.08	-18.23
82	Troy	149.15	167.62	-18.47
83	Texas	147.57	167.46	-19.89
84	Eastern Mich.	126.25	148.17	-21.92
85	Syracuse	126.58	148.67	-22.09
86	Nebraska	147.07	169.77	-22.7
87	West Virginia	186.38	209.92	-23.54
88	Northwestern	117.54	141.77	-24.23
89	Washington St.	70.67	95.08	-24.41
90	Ball St.	159.42	184.5	-25.08
91	Missouri	127	153.79	-26.79
92	USC	166.77	194.85	-28.08
93	Florida St.	149.54	179.08	-29.54
94	Houston	129.64	161.15	-31.51
95	Texas Tech	84	117.85	-33.85
96	Rice	109.25	143.69	-34.44
97	Penn St.	169.77	205.85	-36.08
98	Colorado	87.92	124.5	-36.58
99	Memphis	158.25	194.85	-36.6
100	Army	203.58	241.42	-37.84
101	Miami, OH	70.08	108.08	-38
102	Maryland	105.75	144	-38.25
103	Louisville	125.17	164.5	-39.33
104	Wyoming	136.15	178.33	-42.18
105	Duke	63.5	106.17	-42.67
106	LSU	122.77	166.77	-44
107	Connecticut	170.69	216.38	-45.69
108	Akron	118.42	165.17	-46.75
109	Bowling Green	86.54	134	-47.46
110	Oregon	231.69	280.08	-48.39
111	Indiana	117.08	166.92	-49.84
112	Oklahoma St.	187.77	245.46	-57.69
113	Oklahoma	134.62	198.5	-63.88
114	Arkansas St.	135.25	203.33	-68.08
115	Iowa	114.23	188.69	-74.46
116	Baylor	100.58	195.75	-95.17
117	New Mexico	100.25	208.25	-108
118	Kent St.	114.58	230.58	-116
119	Tulsa	150.75	268	-117.25
120	Louisiana	136.92	263.67	-126.75

Most Improved Defensive Points 2009

Phil Steele — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:35:30 +0000

In today’s blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in defensive ppg heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.

In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be happy with the results of the accuracy of my projections.

Preseason Projection

Rank	Team
1	North Texas
2	Washington
3	Kansas St
4	SMU
5	San Diego St
6	Idaho
7	Pittsburgh
8	UCLA
9	Washington St
10	Marshall
11	Nevada
12	Nebraska
13	Toledo
14	UNLV
15	Arkansas

116	Cincinnati
117	New Mexico
118	N Iliinois
119	Bowling Green
120	Wake Forest

Final Rankings

Rank	Team	09 DEF PPG	08 DEF PPG	Diff
4	North Texas	35.58	47.58	-12
5	Washington	26.67	38.58	-11.91
3	Kansas St	23.33	35.83	-12.5
7	SMU	27.62	38.17	-10.55
13	San Diego St	30.5	37.17	-6.67
12	Idaho	36	42.75	-6.75
44	Pittsburgh	19.77	21.46	-1.69
11	UCLA	21.23	29	-7.77
20	Washington St	38.5	43.85	-5.35
31	Marshall	24.31	27.67	-3.36
28	Nevada	28.54	32.31	-3.77
1	Nebraska	10.43	28.54	-18.11
107	Toledo	37.67	31.42	6.25
68	UNLV	32.42	32.58	-0.16
16	Arkansas	25.08	31.17	-6.09

86	Cincinnati	23.08	20.14	2.94
120	New Mexico	35.92	22.75	13.17
90	N Iliinois	21.62	18	3.62
96	Bowling Green	27.46	23.17	4.29
111	Wake Forest	26.25	18.31	7.94

As you can see my projections were pretty close. I nailed 4 of the top 5 most improved teams (80%) and 10 of the top 20! 13 of my projected top 15 (87%) saw a decrease in their ppg in 2009. North Texas who was my #1 Most Improved Team went from allowing 47.58 ppg in ’08 to allowing 35.58 ppg in ’09 a 12 ppg improvement and finished #4! Washington who was my #2 team finished #5 with a 11.91 ppg improvement. In my magazine I called for Kansas St to have the #3 most improved defensive ppg and the Wildcats gave up just 23.33 ppg in ’09 and finished #3 exactly where I had them in the preseason! Finally Nebraska who finished as the #1 most improved team in ’09 was ranked #12 in my preseason projection.

My bottom 5 results were just as accurate. All 5 of my projected bottom teams in defensive ppg saw their ppg increase at least 2.94 ppg in 09 and all 5 of the teams including Sugar Bowl bound Cincinnati finished 86th or worse! Wake Forest who I projected to be the least improved team in defensive ppg went from allowing just 18.31 ppg in ’08 to allowing 26.25 ppg in ’09 and increase of nearly 8 ppg.

Heading into the season I thought New Mexico would struggle on both sides of the ball as they would have to adjust to completely new schemes with new HC Locksley. On defense, the Lobos were really hurt by the loss of HC Rocky Long who specialized on that side of the ball with his 3-3-5 defense. In my preseason magazine I called for the Lobos to have one of the least improved defensive ppg and they went from allowing 22.75 ppg in ’08 to 35.92 ppg in ’09 an increase of 13.17 ppg!

Overall 18 of the 20 teams (90%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher ppg or lower ppg just as I projected!

Here is a complete list of all 120 teams and how they fared from 2008 to 2009.

Most Improved Defensive Points 2009

Rank	Team	09 PPG	08 PPG	Diff
1	Nebraska	10.43	28.54	-18.11
2	Iowa St.	21.85	35.83	-13.98
3	Kansas St.	23.33	35.83	-12.5
4	North Texas	35.58	47.58	-12
5	Washington	26.67	38.58	-11.91
6	Central Mich.	18.93	30.23	-11.3
7	SMU	27.62	38.17	-10.55
8	Oklahoma	14.54	24.5	-9.96
9	Kent St.	22.42	31.67	-9.25
10	LSU	16.23	24.15	-7.92
11	UCLA	21.23	29	-7.77
12	Idaho	36	42.75	-6.75
13	San Diego St.	30.5	37.17	-6.67
14	Air Force	15.69	22.23	-6.54
15	Oklahoma St.	21.69	28.08	-6.39
16	Arkansas	25.08	31.17	-6.09
17	Ohio	21.29	27.25	-5.96
18	Indiana	29.5	35.25	-5.75
19	Texas Tech	22.46	27.85	-5.39
20	Washington St.	38.5	43.85	-5.35
21	Wisconsin	21.77	26.54	-4.77
22	Syracuse	27.92	32.67	-4.75
23	Buffalo	23.75	28.21	-4.46
24	Oregon	23.77	28.23	-4.46
25	North Carolina	17.08	21.15	-4.07
26	Texas A&M	33.54	37.42	-3.88
27	ULM	27.33	31.17	-3.84
28	Nevada	28.54	32.31	-3.77
29	Louisville	26.25	29.83	-3.58
30	UTEP	33.5	37	-3.5
31	Marshall	24.31	27.67	-3.36
32	Louisiana	30.33	33.67	-3.34
33	Fresno St.	28.38	31.08	-2.7
34	Alabama	11.71	14.29	-2.58
35	Navy	19.43	22	-2.57
36	Akron	28.75	31.25	-2.5
37	New Mexico St.	31.62	34.08	-2.46
38	Penn St.	12.23	14.38	-2.15
39	Baylor	27.25	29.33	-2.08
40	Texas	16.71	18.77	-2.06
41	Miami, FL	22.15	24.15	-2
42	Missouri	25.38	27.21	-1.83
43	Army	21.92	23.67	-1.75
44	Pittsburgh	19.77	21.46	-1.69
45	Arizona St.	21.08	22.67	-1.59
46	UCF	22.54	24.08	-1.54
47	Michigan	27.5	28.92	-1.42
48	Ohio St.	12.54	13.92	-1.38
49	Mississippi	17.69	19	-1.31
50	Middle Tenn. St.	23.69	24.92	-1.23
51	Virginia Tech	15.62	16.71	-1.09
52	Minnesota	23.77	24.77	-1
53	Rutgers	17.92	18.85	-0.93
54	Stanford	26.54	27.42	-0.88
55	Houston	30.07	30.92	-0.85
56	Temple	22.31	23.08	-0.77
57	South Carolina	20.38	21.08	-0.7
58	Utah St.	34	34.67	-0.67
59	Tulsa	27.33	27.93	-0.6
60	Arkansas St.	23.25	23.75	-0.5
61	Florida	12.43	12.93	-0.5
62	Wyoming	27.31	27.75	-0.44
63	Kansas	28.42	28.85	-0.43
64	Colorado	28.83	29.25	-0.42
65	Colorado St.	29.83	30.23	-0.4
66	BYU	21.54	21.92	-0.38
67	South Florida	19.77	20	-0.23
68	UNLV	32.42	32.58	-0.16
69	Hawaii	29.46	28.86	0.6
70	East Carolina	21.93	21.07	0.86
71	UAB	32.33	31.25	1.08
72	Kentucky	22.69	21.46	1.23
73	Georgia	25.92	24.54	1.38
74	Boston College	19.77	18.36	1.41
75	TCU	12.77	11.31	1.46
76	Miami, OH	34.17	32.67	1.5
77	Southern Miss.	25.85	24.08	1.77
78	Oregon St.	25	23.08	1.92
79	Louisiana Tech	25.75	23.69	2.06
80	Mississippi St.	26.75	24.67	2.08
81	Tulane	36.67	34.5	2.17
82	Iowa	15.38	13	2.38
83	Western Mich.	27.5	24.92	2.58
84	Arizona	23.92	21.31	2.61
85	Eastern Mich.	38.25	35.58	2.67
86	Cincinnati	23.08	20.14	2.94
87	Utah	20.23	17.23	3
88	Clemson	20.43	17.31	3.12
89	Illinois	30.17	26.58	3.59
90	Northern Ill.	21.62	18	3.62
91	Vanderbilt	23.33	19.62	3.71
92	Notre Dame	25.92	22.15	3.77
93	Connecticut	23.62	19.77	3.85
94	Purdue	29.08	25.08	4
95	Michigan St.	26.31	22.08	4.23
96	Bowling Green	27.46	23.17	4.29
97	Northwestern	24.46	20.15	4.31
98	Georgia Tech	24.79	20.31	4.48
99	Boise St.	17.14	12.62	4.52
100	Virginia	26.33	21.67	4.66
101	West Virginia	21.69	17	4.69
102	North Carolina St.	31.17	26.31	4.86
103	Duke	28.33	23.42	4.91
104	Florida Atlantic	33.75	28.69	5.06
105	Tennessee	22.23	16.75	5.48
106	California	25.46	19.92	5.54
107	Toledo	37.67	31.42	6.25
108	FIU	35.33	28.33	7
109	Ball St.	28.17	20.5	7.67
110	Memphis	34.83	27.15	7.68
111	Wake Forest	26.25	18.31	7.94
112	Troy	29.77	21.31	8.46
113	Maryland	31.25	22.46	8.79
114	Auburn	27.54	18	9.54
115	Rice	43.08	33.31	9.77
116	Florida St.	30	20.15	9.85
117	USC	19.85	9	10.85
118	Western Ky.	39.58	27.17	12.41
119	San Jose St.	34.5	21.58	12.92
120	New Mexico	35.92	22.75	13.17

Most Improved Offensive Points 2009

Phil Steele — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:19:53 +0000

In today’s blog I have included my projections of the teams I thought would be most improved in offensive ppg heading into the 2009 season and how they finished in the final NCAA rankings.

In the coming days I will feature a different category in each blog and I think you will be happy with the results of the accuracy of my projections.

Most Improved Offensive Points 2009

Pre-Season Projection

Rank	Team
1	Michigan
2	UCLA
3	Washington
4	SMU
5	Colorado
6	Notre Dame
7	Illinois
8	Arkansas
9	Hawaii
10	San Diego St
11	Texas A&M
12	Wyoming
13	Auburn
14	Miami, FL
15	Tulane

116	Ball St
117	Texas Tech
118	Oregon
119	Tulsa
120	Rice

Final Rankings

Rank	Team	09 PPG	08 PPG	Diff
1	Auburn	33.31	17.33	15.98
2	Arkansas	36	21.92	14.08
4	Washington	26.08	13.25	12.83
11	Michigan	29.5	20.25	9.25
14	SMU	29.23	21.33	7.9
15	Texas A&M	32.85	25	7.85
22	Wyoming	18.31	12.67	5.64
23	Notre Dame	30.08	24.69	5.39
35	UCLA	22	17.67	4.33
38	San Diego St	23.33	19.25	4.08
42	Miami, FL	30.31	27.08	3.23
50	Colorado	22.25	20.17	2.08
71	Tulane	16.08	16.67	-0.59
76	Hawaii	22.77	24.64	-1.87
91	Illinois	24.17	28.67	-4.5

96	Oregon	36.08	41.92	-5.84
101	Texas Tech	37	43.77	-6.77
117	Ball St.	19.17	34.93	-15.76
118	Tulsa	29.25	47.21	-17.96
120	Rice	18.25	41.31	-23.06

As you can see my projections were pretty close. I nailed 6 of the top 15 most improved teams (40%) and 12 of my projected top 15 improved their ppg in 2009 (80%)! Michigan who was my #1 Most Improved Team went from 20.25 ppg in ’08 to 29.5 ppg in ’09 (9.25)!

Washington who was my #3 team finally had QB Jake Locker healthy for the entire season and finished #4 with a 12.83 ppg improvement. Auburn and Arkansas who finished as the #1 and #2 most improved teams in ’09 both appeared in the top 15 in my preseason projection.

My bottom 5 results were even more accurate. All 5 of my projected bottom teams in offensive ppg saw their ppg drop at least 5.84 ppg in 09! All 5 of the teams including Rose Bowl bound Oregon finished 96th or worse and 3 of the teams in my preseason bottom 5 actually finished in the bottom 5!

Coming into the season despite their 10-3 record in ’08 I thought Rice would struggle and have their 6th losing season in 8 years. I also projected the Owls to be the least improved team in the country in offensive points as they avg 41.31 ppg in ’08. In ’09 they struggled offensively and averaged only 18.25 ppg which was a 23.06 ppg decrease and ranked #120 exactly like I projected!

Overall 17 of the 20 teams (85%) that were featured in my magazine finished with either a higher ppg or lower ppg just as I projected!

Full List of Most Improved Offensive Points 2009

Rank	Team	09 PPG	08PPG	Diff
1	Auburn	33.31	17.33	15.98
2	Arkansas	36	21.92	14.08
3	Idaho	32.69	19.58	13.11
4	Washington	26.08	13.25	12.83
5	Cincinnati	38.62	25.86	12.76
6	Tennessee	29.31	17.33	11.98
7	Mississippi St.	25.58	15.25	10.33
8	Virginia Tech	31.85	22.07	9.78
9	UCF	26.15	16.58	9.57
10	Georgia Tech	33.79	24.38	9.41
11	Michigan	29.5	20.25	9.25
12	Stanford	35.46	26.25	9.21
13	Middle Tenn.	32	22.83	9.17
14	SMU	29.23	21.33	7.9
15	Texas A&M	32.85	25	7.85
16	Toledo	29.67	22.42	7.25
17	North Carolina St.	30.33	23.46	6.87
18	North Texas	26.58	20	6.58
19	Connecticut	31.15	24.92	6.23
20	Temple	29.54	23.42	6.12
21	Clemson	31.14	25.15	5.99
22	Wyoming	18.31	12.67	5.64
23	Notre Dame	30.08	24.69	5.39
24	Wake Forest	26.33	21	5.33
25	Duke	25.17	20.08	5.09
26	Utah St.	29.08	24	5.08
27	Pittsburgh	32.08	27.08	5
28	UAB	27.75	22.75	5
29	TCU	38.31	33.62	4.69
30	Michigan St.	29.69	25.08	4.61
31	Boise St.	42.21	37.62	4.59
32	Louisiana Tech	29.17	24.62	4.55
33	Northern Ill.	28.62	24.15	4.47
34	Central Mich.	33.93	29.54	4.39
35	UCLA	22	17.67	4.33
36	Wisconsin	31.77	27.46	4.31
37	Fresno St.	33.85	29.62	4.23
38	San Diego St.	23.33	19.25	4.08
39	East Carolina	27	23.43	3.57
40	Kentucky	26.08	22.62	3.46
41	Virginia	19.33	16.08	3.25
42	Miami, FL	30.31	27.08	3.23
43	Purdue	27.83	24.67	3.16
44	Syracuse	21.17	18.08	3.09
45	Indiana	23.5	20.5	3
46	Air Force	29.69	26.77	2.92
47	Western Kentucky	20.42	17.67	2.75
48	Florida Atlantic	27.42	25.08	2.34
49	Southern Miss.	32.92	30.62	2.3
50	Colorado	22.25	20.17	2.08
51	Alabama	32.07	30.14	1.93
52	La.-Monroe	25.58	23.67	1.91
53	West Virginia	26.15	24.54	1.61
54	Houston	42.21	40.62	1.59
55	Northwestern	25.92	24.38	1.54
56	Ohio St.	29	27.62	1.38
57	Marshall	21.77	20.5	1.27
58	BYU	35.46	34.23	1.23
59	Oregon St.	31.46	30.54	0.92
60	Troy	33.69	32.77	0.92
61	Navy	28	27.15	0.85
62	Bowling Green	28.46	27.67	0.79
63	Ohio	24.79	24.08	0.71
64	Nevada	38.23	37.62	0.61
65	Army	15.33	14.75	0.58
66	Boston College	24.77	24.71	0.06
67	Rutgers	28.85	29	-0.15
68	South Carolina	20.62	20.77	-0.15
69	Maryland	21.33	21.77	-0.44
70	Arizona St.	22.33	22.83	-0.5
71	Tulane	16.08	16.67	-0.59
72	Washington St.	12	12.69	-0.69
73	UNLV	24.83	25.58	-0.75
74	South Fla.	26.46	27.62	-1.16
75	FIU	22.92	24.67	-1.75
76	Hawaii	22.77	24.64	-1.87
77	Minnesota	20.92	23.23	-2.31
78	Georgia	28.92	31.46	-2.54
79	Mississippi	29.54	32.08	-2.54
80	Vanderbilt	16.33	19.15	-2.82
81	Miami, OH	15.58	18.42	-2.84
82	Texas	39.29	42.38	-3.09
83	UTEP	29.83	32.92	-3.09
84	Florida St.	30.08	33.38	-3.3
85	Colorado St.	21.67	25.15	-3.48
86	California	29.08	32.62	-3.54
87	North Carolina	23.77	27.69	-3.92
88	Western Mich.	24.67	28.62	-3.95
89	Kansas	29.42	33.38	-3.96
90	Arkansas St.	22.67	27	-4.33
91	Illinois	24.17	28.67	-4.5
92	New Mexico	16.33	21.08	-4.75
93	Iowa St.	20.54	25.33	-4.79
94	San Jose St.	13.75	18.67	-4.92
95	Memphis	21.83	27.15	-5.32
96	Oregon	36.08	41.92	-5.84
97	LSU	24.85	30.92	-6.07
98	Buffalo	24.08	30.29	-6.21
99	Kent St.	19.25	25.67	-6.42
100	Louisville	18.08	24.67	-6.59
101	Texas Tech	37	43.77	-6.77
102	Utah	29.85	36.92	-7.07
103	Iowa	23.15	30.31	-7.16
104	Baylor	20.75	28	-7.25
105	Florida	35.86	43.64	-7.78
106	Arizona	27.38	36.62	-9.24
107	Eastern Mich.	16.42	25.75	-9.33
108	Penn St.	28.85	38.92	-10.07
109	Nebraska	25.14	35.38	-10.24
110	New Mexico St.	11.46	22.17	-10.71
111	Akron	19.25	30	-10.75
112	La.-Lafayette	22.17	33.08	-10.91
113	USC	26.46	37.54	-11.08
114	Kansas St.	23	34.92	-11.92
115	Oklahoma St.	28.38	40.77	-12.39
116	Missouri	29	42.21	-13.21
117	Ball St.	19.17	34.93	-15.76
118	Tulsa	29.25	47.21	-17.96
119	Oklahoma	31.08	51.14	-20.06
120	Rice	18.25	41.31	-23.06

2009 Toughest Schedules

Phil Steele — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:05:35 +0000

WHO FACED THE TOUGHEST SCHEDULE IN 2009?

What makes my Toughest Opponents Faced rankings far superior to the NCAA method is that mine takes into account 9 sets of power ratings, combines them and factors in every team’s schedule this year. I did this not only for the bowl teams, but for all the NCAA teams & found out which teams played the toughest schedules this year.

RK	Team	RK	Team	RK	Team
1	Mississippi St	41	Purdue	81	UCF
2	Georgia	42	West Virginia	82	Navy
3	South Carolina	43	Texas	83	New Mexico St
4	Virginia	44	Texas A&M	84	Bowling Green
5	Florida St	45	Connecticut	85	Akron
6	Arkansas	46	Syracuse	86	Tulsa
7	Washington	47	Texas Tech	87	BYU
8	Auburn	48	Kentucky	88	Buffalo
9	Oregon	49	Miami, Oh	89	TCU
10	Washington St	50	Kansas St	90	Utah
11	Minnesota	51	Mississippi	91	East Michigan
12	Virginia Tech	52	Pittsburgh	92	San Diego St
13	Oklahoma	53	Memphis	93	Rutgers
14	Baylor	54	NC State	94	Idaho
15	Miami, Fl	55	North Carolina	95	Nevada
16	Arizona	56	Indiana	96	Houston
17	USC	57	Duke	97	SMU
18	UCLA	58	San Jose St	98	Ball St
19	LSU	59	Cincinnati	99	Hawaii
20	Illinois	60	Wisconsin	100	Northwestern
21	Vanderbilt	61	East Carolina	101	Boise St
22	Alabama	62	Nebraska	102	Troy
23	Georgia Tech	63	Penn St	103	ULM
24	Kansas	64	Ohio St	104	Air Force
25	Wake Forest	65	Boston College	105	Louisiana
26	Oklahoma St	66	Marshall	106	Florida Atlantic
27	Tennessee	67	Rice	107	Toledo
28	Iowa	68	USF	108	UTEP
29	Louisville	69	Wyoming	109	Southern Miss
30	California	70	Colorado St	110	WKU
31	Arizona St	71	Utah St	111	North Texas
32	Florida	72	Fresno St	112	Arkansas St
33	Notre Dame	73	Iowa St	113	Cent Michigan
34	Clemson	74	UNLV	114	Ohio
35	Colorado	75	Louisiana Tech	115	Temple
36	Oregon St	76	New Mexico	116	West Michigan
37	Michigan St	77	Michigan	117	N Illinois
38	Maryland	78	Tulane	118	Middle Tennessee
39	Missouri	79	UAB	119	Kent St
40	Stanford	80	FIU	120	Army

According to my ratings Mississippi St faced the toughest schedule. The Bulldogs played 10 bowl teams and faced 3 bowl teams (Georgia Tech, Houston, Middle Tennessee) in non-conference. The NCAA also had Mississippi St ranked #1 so the #1 ranking is much deserved. Army faced the easiest schedule this year and the NCAA had them ranked #119. However, that is where the similarities between the NCAA and my rankings ended. Washington ranked #26 in the NCAA rankings with an opponent win/loss % of 56.3% playing 8 games vs teams with winning records but played my #7 toughest schedule including games against five Top 25 Teams and USC. Per the NCAA, North Carolina faced the #10 toughest schedule with an opponent win/loss % of 58.4% facing 6 teams with winning records but took on 2 IAA/FCS teams (The Citadel and Georgia Southern) so that dropped the Tar Heels to just #55 in our rankings. One of the main reasons between the differences in rankings is the NCAA bases its rankings on pure overall records meaning a 8-4 IAA/FCS team is counted the same as a 8-4 FBS team.

Of the 68 bowl teams, Georgia faced the toughest schedule, playing 9 bowl teams. The Bulldogs non-conference schedule included two New Years Day bowl teams in Oklahoma St (Cotton Bowl) and Georgia Tech (Orange Bowl). The SEC yet again showed they are the best conference in the nation as four of the top five toughest schedules for bowl teams came from the SEC. Coming in last in the rankings was Middle Tennessee as they played just two bowl teams. Northwestern had the easiest schedule for BCS teams coming in at #100. Despite playing in the Big Ten, the Wildcats faced just five bowl teams and their non-conference schedule consisted of Towson (FBS), Eastern Michigan, Syracuse and Miami Oh.

When looking at the bowl match-ups, one of my considerations in picking who will win the game is taking a look at the schedule strength each opponent has faced and I look for the biggest discrepancies between the two teams.

Here are the Top 10 differences between schedule strength for the 2008 bowl games. (Schedule Strength)

1. St. Petersburg Bowl: USF (58) vs Memphis (117) Schedule Difference: 59 Final: USF 41-14 Win
2. Papajohns.com Bowl: NC St (16) vs Rutgers (66) Schedule Difference: 50 Final: Rutgers 29-28 Loss
3. Insight Bowl: Kansas (18) vs Minnesota (65) Schedule Difference: 47 Final: Kansas 42-21 Win
4. Outback Bowl: South Carolina (10) vs Iowa (51) Schedule Difference: 41 Final: Iowa 31-17 Loss
5. Rose Bowl: USC (24) vs Penn St (64) Schedule Difference: 40 Final: USC 38-24 Win
6. International Bowl: Connecticut (48) vs Buffalo (87) Schedule Difference: 39 Final: UConn 38-20 Win
7. Music City Bowl: Vanderbilt (14) vs Boston College (52) Schedule Difference: 38 Final: Vandy 16-14 Win
7. Alamo Bowl: Missouri (32) vs Northwestern (70) Schedule Difference: 38 Final: Missouri 30-23 OT Win
7. Eagle Bank Bowl: Wake Forest (43) vs Navy (81) Schedule Difference: 38 Final: Wake Forest 29-19 Win
10. Sugar Bowl: Alabama (40) vs Utah (76) Schedule Difference: 36 Final: Utah 31-17 Loss

As expected the team that played the tougher schedule went 7-3. The largest difference was the St. Petersburg Bowl which saw USF dominate Memphis 41-14. NC St who had faced the #16 schedule played well despite the 29-28 loss to Rutgers who had the #66 ranked schedule. Kansas who had a much tougher schedule than Minnesota won convincingly 42-21. The Rose Bowl had USC with the largest difference in schedule strength among BCS matchups crush Penn St 38-24 after racing out to a 31-7 halftime lead. Vanderbilt who played a much tougher schedule than Boston College got the upset. Despite the large difference in schedule strength, Alabama lost to Utah 31-17 as the Tide did not give their best effort after having their national title hopes evaporate in the loss to Florida in the SEC championship games.

Here are the Top 10 differences between schedule strength for the 2009 bowl games. (Schedule Strength)

1. Eagle Bank Bowl: UCLA (17) vs Temple (115) Schedule Difference: 97
2. Outback Bowl: Auburn (8) vs Northwestern (100) Schedule Difference: 92
3. Insight Bowl: Minnesota (11) vs Iowa St (73) Schedule Difference: 62
4. Poinsettia Bowl: California (30) vs Utah (90) Schedule Difference: 60
5. Liberty Bowl: Arkansas (6) vs East Carolina (61) Schedule Difference: 55
5. Rose Bowl: Oregon (9) vs Ohio St (64) Schedule Difference: 55
7. Las Vegas Bowl: Oregon St (36) vs BYU (87) Schedule Difference: 51
8. International Bowl: USF (68) vs N Illinois (117) Schedule Difference: 49
9. Emerald Bowl: USC (17) vs Boston College (65) Schedule Difference: 48
9. Little Ceasar’s Pizza Bowl: Marshall (66) vs Ohio (114) Schedule Difference: 48

This year there many more larger differences than last year with 15 games having a difference of 40+ as last year only had 5 such occurrences. UCLA has the #1 tougher schedule edge over Temple as the Bruins faced a tough PAC-10 schedule and their non-conference schedule included a trip to Tennesssee. While Temple played in the MAC.

Northwestern has one of the weakest schedules in the nation (#100) and face an Auburn team that faced the #8 schedule including a tough SEC slate and West Virginia in non-conference play.

Last year Minnesota was on the opposite end of the schedule strength difference as they lost to Kansas 42-21 in the Insight Bowl. This year playing in the same Insight Bowl the Gophers have played the #11 schedule while their opponent Iowa St played just the #73 schedule.

Of the BCS Bowl games, the Rose Bowl has the largest difference in schedule strength with Oregon facing the #9 schedule while Ohio St played just the #64.

The Little Ceasar’s Pizza Bowl features 2 non-BCS teams in Marshall and Ohio, but the Thundering Herd faced a much tougher schedule with 7 bowl teams including Virginia Tech and West Virginia in non-conference. While the conference schedule hurt the Bobcats who did play Connecticut and Tennessee in non-conference.

This year we will again have a “Bowl Confidence Contest” and I hope there will be even more participants! Like last year I will update two categories after each bowl game. The first category is total points. If you picked a team and they won their bowl you receive the points that you risked. I will also keep track of those that have the best win percentage of their points. The morning after each bowl game I will list the current leaders in two categories on the website. Like last year we will have great prizes with 1st place getting $250!! 2nd place receives $100 and a set of regional magazines and 3rd place $50 and a set of regionals!!

You can enter the contest by simply e-mailing your picks and contact information to Brandon@philsteele.com. To enter just pick who you think will win each of the 34 bowl games. You then award your confidence points to each. The team you think will definitely win the game would get 34 points and the team who you picked at the bottom which was very tough for you to call would get 1. For each team that wins their bowl game that you picked correctly, you get the confidence points you assigned to them. Those with the highest points are the winners.The first bowl game takes place on December 19th at 4:30 EST and Good Luck!!

Also make sure to check PhilSteele.com everyday for complete information and coverage on all the bowl matchups. On the homepage click on the Bowl matchups link, where you will find all 34 bowl games. Click on the bowl logo for each game to get all the information you need to become an expert! Start doing your homework now and get your 34 bowl predictions done and email them in.