:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49098393/GettyImages-2885085.0.jpg)
It's time to play with the estimated S&P+ numbers some more!
Per the sidebar to the right, you can catch up on what I've done to date. The short version: using the same type of opponent adjustments and general "output vs. expected output" approach that I've created to set up the current S&P+ ratings, I used points scored and allowed to estimate S&P+ for years before 2005 (i.e. the years for which I don't have play-by-play data).
This data is pretty fun, though obviously by looking only at points scored and allowed (the only data points available), we lose quite a bit of the context that S&P+ provides -- we can't filter out garbage time data or return scores, we can't look at efficiency and explosiveness and the components that went into a given score line, etc. But we can still produce a reasonably effective, retrodictively predictive (you like that term?) set of numbers.
Last week, I looked at 2004. Let's flip the calendar one wee before that. Below are the estimated S&P+ ratings for 2003. Thoughts after the giant table.
| S&P+ Rk | Team | Record | Est S&P+ | Percentile | Off. S&P+ | Rk | Def. S&P+ | Rk |
| 1 | LSU | 13-1 | 23.4 | 98.33% | 34.2 | 13 | 10.8 | 1 |
| 2 | USC | 12-1 | 22.6 | 97.99% | 41.1 | 2 | 18.5 | 19 |
| 3 | Oklahoma | 12-2 | 21.7 | 97.57% | 40.0 | 3 | 18.3 | 18 |
| 4 | Georgia | 11-3 | 18.9 | 95.73% | 29.9 | 34 | 11.0 | 2 |
| 5 | Florida State | 10-3 | 18.5 | 95.35% | 33.7 | 17 | 15.2 | 8 |
| 6 | Kansas State | 11-4 | 18.4 | 95.25% | 35.3 | 8 | 16.9 | 10 |
| 7 | Michigan | 10-3 | 17.1 | 93.99% | 34.7 | 11 | 17.6 | 14 |
| 8 | Miami-FL | 11-2 | 15.9 | 92.57% | 29.3 | 38 | 13.4 | 3 |
| 9 | Texas | 10-3 | 15.7 | 92.33% | 39.2 | 4 | 23.5 | 43 |
| 10 | Miami-OH | 13-1 | 15.3 | 91.82% | 38.9 | 5 | 23.6 | 44 |
| 11 | Florida | 8-5 | 14.8 | 91.07% | 32.2 | 20 | 17.4 | 13 |
| 12 | Iowa | 10-3 | 14.6 | 90.75% | 29.6 | 36 | 15.0 | 7 |
| 13 | Arkansas | 9-4 | 14.5 | 90.60% | 35.8 | 7 | 21.3 | 28 |
| 14 | Maryland | 10-3 | 14.4 | 90.43% | 30.1 | 31 | 15.7 | 9 |
| 15 | Ohio State | 11-2 | 13.8 | 89.46% | 28.0 | 49 | 14.2 | 4 |
| 16 | Clemson | 9-4 | 12.9 | 87.88% | 30.1 | 29 | 17.3 | 12 |
| 17 | Auburn | 8-5 | 11.7 | 85.60% | 26.7 | 60 | 15.0 | 6 |
| 18 | NC State | 8-5 | 11.2 | 84.62% | 38.8 | 6 | 27.6 | 68 |
| 19 | Washington State | 10-3 | 11.2 | 84.53% | 30.6 | 25 | 19.4 | 22 |
| 20 | California | 8-6 | 10.9 | 83.95% | 34.0 | 15 | 23.1 | 39 |
| 21 | Oregon State | 8-5 | 10.5 | 83.02% | 33.9 | 16 | 23.4 | 42 |
| 22 | Alabama | 4-9 | 10.4 | 82.81% | 30.7 | 24 | 20.3 | 26 |
| 23 | Tennessee | 10-3 | 10.4 | 82.74% | 28.4 | 45 | 18.0 | 17 |
| 24 | Virginia Tech | 8-5 | 10.2 | 82.37% | 35.0 | 9 | 24.8 | 52 |
| 25 | Virginia | 8-5 | 10.1 | 82.07% | 29.2 | 40 | 19.1 | 21 |
| S&P+ Rk | Team | Record | Est S&P+ | Percentile | Off. S&P+ | Rk | Def. S&P+ | Rk |
| 26 | Purdue | 9-4 | 9.6 | 80.82% | 26.8 | 58 | 17.2 | 11 |
| 27 | Nebraska | 10-3 | 9.5 | 80.72% | 24.3 | 74 | 14.7 | 5 |
| 28 | Ole Miss | 10-3 | 9.4 | 80.35% | 32.7 | 18 | 23.3 | 40 |
| 29 | Utah | 10-2 | 8.7 | 78.53% | 28.2 | 47 | 19.5 | 23 |
| 30 | Boise State | 13-1 | 8.1 | 76.80% | 34.0 | 14 | 25.9 | 61 |
| 31 | West Virginia | 8-5 | 8.0 | 76.75% | 29.9 | 32 | 21.9 | 30 |
| 32 | Minnesota | 10-3 | 8.0 | 76.59% | 34.4 | 12 | 26.4 | 62 |
| 33 | Oklahoma State | 9-4 | 7.5 | 75.22% | 35.0 | 10 | 27.5 | 67 |
| 34 | Texas Tech | 8-5 | 7.3 | 74.57% | 42.0 | 1 | 34.8 | 101 |
| 35 | Notre Dame | 5-7 | 7.2 | 74.42% | 26.8 | 57 | 19.6 | 24 |
| 36 | Bowling Green | 11-3 | 6.7 | 72.84% | 29.7 | 35 | 23.0 | 38 |
| 37 | Wisconsin | 7-6 | 6.6 | 72.61% | 28.7 | 42 | 22.1 | 33 |
| 38 | Michigan State | 8-5 | 6.5 | 72.31% | 28.5 | 44 | 22.0 | 31 |
| 39 | Colorado State | 7-6 | 6.4 | 71.95% | 30.8 | 23 | 24.4 | 49 |
| 40 | Pittsburgh | 8-5 | 6.4 | 71.91% | 30.1 | 30 | 23.7 | 46 |
| 41 | Georgia Tech | 7-6 | 5.8 | 70.18% | 23.6 | 77 | 17.8 | 15 |
| 42 | Boston College | 8-5 | 5.8 | 70.13% | 29.9 | 33 | 24.1 | 47 |
| 43 | South Carolina | 5-7 | 5.2 | 68.25% | 26.8 | 56 | 21.6 | 29 |
| 44 | New Mexico | 8-5 | 4.7 | 66.44% | 27.4 | 54 | 22.7 | 37 |
| 45 | Missouri | 8-5 | 4.3 | 65.29% | 29.2 | 39 | 24.9 | 53 |
| 46 | Oregon | 8-5 | 4.2 | 64.83% | 29.2 | 41 | 25.0 | 55 |
| 47 | Southern Miss | 9-4 | 3.9 | 63.91% | 21.8 | 88 | 17.9 | 16 |
| 48 | Wake Forest | 5-7 | 3.7 | 63.03% | 30.3 | 27 | 26.6 | 63 |
| 49 | Syracuse | 6-6 | 3.0 | 60.74% | 27.4 | 52 | 24.4 | 51 |
| 50 | Marshall | 8-4 | 2.3 | 58.41% | 26.7 | 61 | 24.4 | 50 |
| S&P+ Rk | Team | Record | Est S&P+ | Percentile | Off. S&P+ | Rk | Def. S&P+ | Rk |
| 51 | Washington | 6-6 | 0.8 | 52.80% | 26.5 | 62 | 25.8 | 60 |
| 52 | Penn State | 3-9 | 0.6 | 52.30% | 20.6 | 96 | 19.9 | 25 |
| 53 | Northwestern | 6-7 | 0.6 | 52.03% | 22.9 | 81 | 22.3 | 35 |
| 54 | Colorado | 5-7 | 0.5 | 51.85% | 30.2 | 28 | 29.7 | 77 |
| 55 | Air Force | 7-5 | 0.1 | 50.46% | 23.4 | 78 | 23.3 | 41 |
| 56 | TCU | 11-2 | -0.1 | 49.79% | 25.2 | 67 | 25.2 | 56 |
| 57 | BYU | 4-8 | -0.2 | 49.44% | 20.9 | 92 | 21.1 | 27 |
| 58 | UNLV | 6-6 | -0.3 | 48.93% | 21.8 | 89 | 22.1 | 32 |
| 59 | Memphis | 9-4 | -0.5 | 48.28% | 24.4 | 71 | 24.9 | 54 |
| 60 | Louisville | 9-4 | -0.8 | 47.10% | 30.9 | 22 | 31.7 | 86 |
| 61 | Rutgers | 5-7 | -1.1 | 45.99% | 27.9 | 50 | 29.0 | 74 |
| 62 | Arizona State | 5-7 | -1.1 | 45.96% | 25.7 | 65 | 26.8 | 64 |
| 63 | Hawaii | 9-5 | -1.6 | 44.08% | 32.2 | 19 | 33.8 | 99 |
| 64 | Toledo | 8-4 | -1.9 | 43.19% | 27.4 | 53 | 29.2 | 75 |
| 65 | UCLA | 6-7 | -2.1 | 42.50% | 20.2 | 99 | 22.2 | 34 |
| 66 | Connecticut | 9-3 | -2.4 | 41.31% | 28.7 | 43 | 31.1 | 84 |
| 67 | Fresno State | 9-5 | -2.8 | 39.92% | 20.9 | 94 | 23.7 | 45 |
| 68 | San Diego State | 6-6 | -2.9 | 39.76% | 15.9 | 113 | 18.7 | 20 |
| 69 | Northern Illinois | 10-2 | -3.2 | 38.49% | 25.0 | 69 | 28.2 | 70 |
| 70 | Texas A&M | 4-8 | -3.2 | 38.42% | 30.5 | 26 | 33.7 | 98 |
| 71 | Cincinnati | 5-7 | -3.3 | 38.20% | 24.1 | 76 | 27.4 | 66 |
| 72 | Wyoming | 4-8 | -3.6 | 37.11% | 26.2 | 64 | 29.8 | 79 |
| 73 | Navy | 8-5 | -3.8 | 36.55% | 25.1 | 68 | 28.9 | 73 |
| 74 | Duke | 4-8 | -4.0 | 35.97% | 21.7 | 90 | 25.7 | 59 |
| 75 | Kentucky | 4-8 | -4.3 | 34.92% | 25.4 | 66 | 29.7 | 78 |
| S&P+ Rk | Team | Record | Est S&P+ | Percentile | Off. S&P+ | Rk | Def. S&P+ | Rk |
| 76 | Stanford | 4-7 | -4.7 | 33.44% | 20.8 | 95 | 25.5 | 58 |
| 77 | Kansas | 6-7 | -5.0 | 32.41% | 28.1 | 48 | 33.1 | 95 |
| 78 | South Florida | 7-4 | -5.1 | 32.27% | 19.3 | 101 | 24.4 | 48 |
| 79 | Tulsa | 8-5 | -5.1 | 32.03% | 26.9 | 55 | 32.0 | 87 |
| 80 | North Texas | 9-4 | -5.2 | 31.88% | 22.1 | 86 | 27.3 | 65 |
| 81 | Troy | 6-6 | -5.4 | 31.20% | 17.1 | 110 | 22.5 | 36 |
| 82 | Louisiana Tech | 5-7 | -5.8 | 29.99% | 26.5 | 63 | 32.3 | 90 |
| 83 | North Carolina | 2-10 | -5.8 | 29.81% | 29.5 | 37 | 35.3 | 102 |
| 84 | Arizona | 2-10 | -6.2 | 28.75% | 22.3 | 85 | 28.5 | 71 |
| 85 | Temple | 1-11 | -6.4 | 27.95% | 23.4 | 79 | 29.8 | 80 |
| 86 | UAB | 5-7 | -6.7 | 27.20% | 18.8 | 102 | 25.4 | 57 |
| 87 | Houston | 7-6 | -6.8 | 26.92% | 32.0 | 21 | 38.7 | 113 |
| 88 | Vanderbilt | 2-10 | -6.9 | 26.65% | 20.9 | 93 | 27.8 | 69 |
| 89 | Nevada | 6-6 | -7.1 | 25.88% | 22.5 | 84 | 29.6 | 76 |
| 90 | Iowa State | 2-10 | -7.5 | 24.87% | 22.8 | 83 | 30.2 | 81 |
| 91 | Western Michigan | 5-7 | -8.0 | 23.31% | 24.2 | 75 | 32.3 | 91 |
| 92 | Kent | 5-7 | -9.2 | 20.22% | 26.8 | 59 | 35.9 | 106 |
| 93 | Illinois | 1-11 | -9.2 | 20.15% | 19.5 | 100 | 28.7 | 72 |
| 94 | Mississippi State | 2-10 | -9.3 | 19.93% | 24.4 | 72 | 33.7 | 96 |
| 95 | Akron | 7-5 | -9.4 | 19.62% | 28.2 | 46 | 37.7 | 112 |
| 96 | Tulane | 5-7 | -9.6 | 19.17% | 27.6 | 51 | 37.2 | 111 |
| 97 | Ball State | 4-8 | -9.7 | 18.99% | 22.9 | 82 | 32.5 | 93 |
| 98 | Rice | 5-7 | -10.8 | 16.42% | 24.7 | 70 | 35.5 | 104 |
| 99 | Middle Tennessee | 4-8 | -12.1 | 13.58% | 24.4 | 73 | 36.5 | 108 |
| 100 | Baylor | 3-9 | -12.8 | 12.23% | 21.5 | 91 | 34.3 | 100 |
| S&P+ Rk | Team | Record | Est S&P+ | Percentile | Off. S&P+ | Rk | Def. S&P+ | Rk |
| 101 | Utah State | 3-9 | -13.4 | 11.21% | 17.4 | 108 | 30.8 | 83 |
| 102 | Indiana | 2-10 | -13.5 | 11.02% | 17.3 | 109 | 30.8 | 82 |
| 103 | New Mexico State | 3-9 | -14.0 | 10.12% | 18.1 | 106 | 32.1 | 88 |
| 104 | Idaho | 3-9 | -14.8 | 8.91% | 16.6 | 111 | 31.4 | 85 |
| 105 | Ohio | 2-10 | -15.4 | 8.09% | 20.3 | 98 | 35.7 | 105 |
| 106 | Buffalo | 1-11 | -15.7 | 7.73% | 18.0 | 107 | 33.7 | 97 |
| 107 | San Jose State | 3-8 | -15.9 | 7.37% | 22.9 | 80 | 38.8 | 114 |
| 108 | UL-Lafayette | 4-8 | -16.5 | 6.63% | 20.3 | 97 | 36.8 | 109 |
| 109 | Central Florida | 3-9 | -16.8 | 6.39% | 15.9 | 112 | 32.7 | 94 |
| 110 | Eastern Michigan | 3-9 | -16.9 | 6.21% | 15.6 | 114 | 32.5 | 92 |
| 111 | East Carolina | 1-11 | -16.9 | 6.20% | 18.4 | 104 | 35.3 | 103 |
| 112 | Central Michigan | 3-9 | -17.4 | 5.64% | 18.7 | 103 | 36.2 | 107 |
| 113 | UL-Monroe | 1-11 | -20.0 | 3.46% | 22.0 | 87 | 42.0 | 116 |
| 114 | SMU | 0-12 | -21.1 | 2.76% | 11.1 | 117 | 32.1 | 89 |
| 115 | Army | 0-13 | -21.4 | 2.56% | 15.5 | 115 | 37.0 | 110 |
| 116 | UTEP | 2-11 | -23.8 | 1.52% | 18.4 | 105 | 42.2 | 117 |
| 117 | Arkansas State | 5-7 | -24.2 | 1.40% | 15.4 | 116 | 39.6 | 115 |
How'd the BCS do?
Despite the fact that there were no undefeated teams in 2003, the teams at the top were just about as impressive as those in 2004. There was nobody as good as 2004 USC, but each of the top three teams from 2003 could have would have finished No. 2 in 2004.
And once again, the national title race we witnessed on our TVs would have played out just about the same on paper. LSU, USC, and Oklahoma were almost impossible to separate, at least until LSU's win over Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl (i.e. the BCS title game).
If you remove bowls from the equation, though, you get an almost perfect tie between the top teams.
1. Oklahoma (+22.7, 98.0%)
2. LSU (+22.4, 97.9%)
3. Kansas State (+21.1, 97.1%)
4. USC (+20.5, 96.8%)
Jason White's injury potentially swung the balance of the national title game in LSU's favor, and USC's easy Rose Bowl win over Michigan moved the Trojans into the No. 2 slot. But as with 2004, the outrage over OU's selection was rather unfounded. USC lost to California (No. 20 in Est. S&P+), and while the Trojans boasted wins over two AP top-10 teams, neither was actually top-10 caliber -- Auburn ranked 17th here, and Wazzu ranked 19th. Those were certainly good wins, and USC was clearly an awesome team. But heading into the postseason, the Trojans were a step behind the two teams that ended up in New Orleans.
If there were a Playoff...
Of course, USC would have made it easily into a four-team playoff had one existed at the time. But once again the fourth spot would have been interesting. The only other one-loss team heading into the posteason was Miami (Ohio), a legitimately good team (10th in Est. S&P+) but one that wouldn't have gotten a serious sniff. Kansas State was awesome and smoking hot but had suffered three losses. Michigan and Georgia were fourth and fifth in the polls, but Michigan was only eighth in Est. S&P+.
I'm guessing Michigan would have gotten the nod, but in the balance between best and most deserving, I would have maybe gone with Georgia here.
Other thoughts
- The Arkansas Memorial Award for best team with a mediocre record goes to either Florida or ... Arkansas. Fitting. Ron Zook's Gators lost to a bunch of strong teams -- No. 5 FSU, No. 8 Miami, No. 12 Iowa, No. 23 Tennessee, No. 28 Ole Miss -- and basically knocked Georgia out of title contention with a 16-13 win in Jacksonville. The Hogs, meanwhile, boasted a tremendous offense, took down No. 9 Texas, and lost only to No. 1 LSU (on the road), No. 11 Florida, No. 17 Auburn, and No. 28 Ole Miss (on the road).
- Alabama, meanwhile: 4-9 and ... 22nd. NUMBERS HAVE A TIDE BIAS. Mike Shula's squad did lose to NIU and Hawaii, but their other losses were to No. 1 LSU, No. 3 Oklahoma (by 7), and five other top-30 opponents. And their wins were all by easy, large amounts. Still ... that's a little bit of a strange ranking. While the SEC wasn't particularly amazing in 2004-05 (which hurt Auburn's 2004 BCS case, among other things), it was loaded in 2003.
- 5-7 Arkansas State in last place? Directly behind six teams that combined to go 3-47? Yep. Their five wins came against UT-Martin, SE Missouri State, and three FBS teams (No. 103 NMSU, No. 104 Idaho, and No. 113 ULM) by a combined eight points. Meanwhile, their seven losses came by an average score of 43-9. Ouch.
2002 is up next.