IN SEARCH OF A NATIONAL
CHAMPION
Revised July 21, 2002
Several years ago I was
asked by some loyal followers of my rating system to put into words an exact
description of my views regarding the National Championship in College Football.
It was not an easy task, as the process itself is very complex. Yet, I do feel
it is important for followers of any point of view, whether it be religious,
political, or philosophical in relationship with sports, to be well informed of
exactly what it is they are following. As a pollster for over 30 years, I
certainly recognize, that in this new age of "instant information"
the sports public is becoming more and more aware of their options available in
regards to college football polls and rating systems. Thus, I felt it important
for people to understand my views in relationship to this subject. I hope you
find it to be informative, but even more importantly, thought provoking. Happy
reading!
HISTORY OF THE POLLS
The
sophisticated game of college football that we know today scarcely resembles
that first game played in 1869. Although early games were physical, even brutal
by some accounts, they were very simple and one dimensional by today's
standards. In the early years teams just lined up and used brute strength to
move the ball forward. Today we have complex offensive and defensive schemes
that make the mental part of the game just as important as the physical. But,
the simplicity of the game in the early years was not without controversy. Like
determining a National Champion, for instance. In 1869 there were only two
games played.
The popularity of college football
spread widely in the early 1900's. What began in 1869 with two teams grew to
almost 90 major teams by 1920. The NCAA was founded in 1906 to organize and
regulate the sport, and points for scores, size of the field, and penalties
etc., were all standardized by 1912. But, the NCAA failed to address the one
issue that burned in the hearts and minds of players, alumni, and fans of all
ages, the question of "Who is No.1 ?" Perhaps if they had addressed
it 100 years ago we would not have the controversy that we have today!
American's thrive on competition. There is only one Grand Champion bull at the
County Fair, one Best of Show at the AKC Dog Show and one Blue Ribbon Apple
Pie, so there has always been a need for a college football poll. The problem
lies in the fact that there has always been more than one poll and they don't
always agree.
The first widely recognized College
Football Poll did not originate until 1926. It was a mathematical rating system
developed by Frank Dickinson, a professor of economics at the
All of that changed in 1936 when the
Associated Press (AP) began publishing a poll voted on by a national board of
sportswriters and broadcasters, and because of its national distribution, their
word instantly became gospel. The United Press International (UPI) joined the
hoopla in 1950 by soliciting votes from a board of coaches. Their theory, I
suppose, was that coaches knew more about football than writers and
broadcasters.
It was bound to happen sooner or
later, but it wasn't until 1954 that the AP and UPI disagreed on who the No. 1
team in the land should be. The AP chose
Eventually, everyone and his dog got
in on the action: The New York Times, Sporting News, Football News, Sports
Illustrated, Sears, McDonald's. Heck fire, there are more polls than
there are bowls and God knows we've got more than we need of both. Over the
years there have been many fine rating systems developed, and with the advent
of the Internet you may examine all of them by simply clicking a button. Check
out David Wilson's Web Library of College Football Polls at
www.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/rate/index.shtml. Among those listed you will
find Hermann Matthews, who began his poll in 1966 and Jeff Sagarin who began in
1978. Those gentlemen, along with myself and Kenneth Massey, Dr. Peter Wolfe,
and Wes Colley, are the current recognized leaders in the mathematical poll
process. Although
the Dunkel Index is no longer part of the BCS, it continues to be one of the
most respected polls in
TYPES OF POLLS
In 1968
I embarked on the path of experimenting with different mathematical formulas.
Two years passed before I was able to create a blueprint with which I was
comfortable. That wasn't easy. I had a difficult time deciding between what I
considered to be two basic approaches. I like to define them as mathematical
and personal choice.
A pure mathematical poll is
power-based and revolves around a point-spread projection for the upcoming
week's games. This is the kind of system familiar to us through computer
rankings. This type of system does take emotion out of the decision making
process, and at the end of the season their No. 1 team will have a very high
percentage chance of beating any other Division 1-A team. Impressive.
Impressive but not always fair in head to head competition, which is one of my
main concerns with any rating system.
A personal choice poll is just that,
it is based solely on someone's personal opinion. In the 1940's and 50's
individual personal choice polls were somewhat popular. Sports editors of large
newspapers would sometimes announce a Top 10 college football poll at the end
of the regular season.
The AP,
Personal choice polls are fun and
exciting. I can assure you that on more than one occasion, while still in
school, I raced to get a Tuesday paper to read the polls. They can really get
the blood boiling at a rival institution, and remember, everyone is entitled to
an opinion. Yet, personal choice polls, like mathematical polls, are not always
logical. Many times, I have witnessed a team play a great game against a Top
Five opponent, lose by a slim margin, and then drop drastically in the polls.
If #7 Clemson loses to
You can see the dilemma that was
created. I wanted to be fair, but I wanted to be logical as well. What's a guy
to do? I solved it by uniquely combining the two. My system is a mathematically
based power rating that is, I believe, through a series of checks and balances,
as logical and fair as it can be within the boundaries that must be in place to
assure objectivity. The Billingsley Report, where power meets logic!
This system is not designed for
gambling use. If a person tried to gamble with this information without
understanding its functions, they would miserably fail because you cannot look
at these figures and determine a point spread. For instance, a #1 ranked
DYNAMICS
OF THE BILLINGSLEY REPORT
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL FIGURES USED IN THIS EXPLANATION ARE FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF GENERATING EXAMPLES. THE EXACT PERCENTAGES AND CORRECT FIGURES HAVE NOT
BEEN USED!
The first thing I want to say is the
same thing I have always said about my rating system. I'm not here to prove to
anyone than my work is better than anyone else's. I have a very healthy respect
for a lot of rating systems. This formula is just an extension of my point of
view, and they come a dime a dozen. I will say I take my work very seriously. I
have a passion for College Football and I have done a tremendous amount of
research, more than anyone I know. All that hard work, experience, passion, and
dedication has gone into the creation of this formula. I am not a
mathematician; I am not a computer geek. I am a devout College Football Fan,
and have been since I was 7 years old. My formula is 100% computer generated
and it treats all teams equally. I wrote the program myself and its not written
using fancy math equations, just simple addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division. It's the RULES that make the system unique and the rules are MY
RULES, rules that make sense from a fan's perspective, rules that come from 32
years of experience in which I researched the ENTIRE 132 years of College
Football.
I'm a pretty strongly opinionated
guy, and if you ruffle my feathers I can certainly take you toe to toe on any
of these opinions.... but the one thing you will ALWAYS find about me is that
I'm willing to listen, and if I'm proven wrong, I'm always willing to admit it
and change. You may not always agree with where I place your favorite team, but
after looking over your team's history for a decade or two, I hope you can at
least say " this guy knows a thing or two about football."
OK, let’s make this short
and sweet in the beginning for those of you who don't care about details. These
are the main components in the formula, Won-Loss Records, Opponent Strength
(based on the opponent’s record, rating, and rank), with a strong emphasis on
the most recent performance. Very minor consideration is also given to the site
of the game, and defensive scoring performance. Now... for those of you who appreciate details
and like to hear me ramble, read on.
Believe it or not, the system is
designed after our own
The design is one of a series of
checks and balances. Just as our Constitution designates Federal, Legislative,
and Judicial branches that provide the basis for our Democracy, my formula
provides a similar series of checks and balances to ensure accuracy (higher
rated teams winning games against lower rated opponents), without sacrificing
fairness in head to head competition. The checks and balances revolve around
these three basic components, the Strength of the Opponent, the
Won-Lost Record, and Season Progression. After 32 years my formula no longer uses margin
of victory. It only accounted for 5% of the total for several years, and after
careful consideration in the off season of 2001, I decided to remove it
completely. For a detailed explanation please read, "BCS Approves
Billingsley No Margin Formula" from the Home Page.
The SOS will fast become the "hot" topic of
discussion in College Football as this component is now the main ingredient in
the BCS formula, and for that matter all 7 computer polls. Especially now that
margin of victory is no longer part of the equation. Why will it be so hotly
discussed? Because WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT MODES OF CACULATING SOS. To say, "oh, the most important
part of my formula is SOS", means nothing. The important question to ask
should be "How is it calculated" and "is that SOS calculated
fairly?"
For many years I struggled with
whether a team's SOS should be calculated by using a teams rating and rank on
the day the game was played, or use an opponents most recent rating and rank.
There are excellent arguments for both sides. Early on I used ONLY GAME DAY
stats. I felt very strongly that if
Several years ago I made a
compromise that I think has worked exceptionally well. I use a combination of
both, with percentages tilted slightly towards the game day rating and rank.
This way both are taken into account. The current rankings are not totally
discounted but more credit is given to the original "mind set and
intensity" of the game.
A team's Won - Loss Record is pretty self explanatory. Winning
takes care of EVERYTHING as long as it's against quality opposition.
The Season Progression may need a little explanation. They
are really a very simple, yet powerful set of rules. I want my poll to
"look logical". In the first week of the season if
Now, let's go one step further. I
don't want a team jumping 60 places from #70 to #10 in November either. You just
simply can't turn your season around in one game, even if you beat a #1 team. I
want people to be able to look at my poll, look at the previous week's
contests, and say, "oh, I can see how he did that". So there are
specific rules in place that PREVENT those things from occurring. I guess you
could say it "forces a team to progress through the season in a logical
fashion". I don’t believe a team should be #50 in week #8 and #1 in week #9. I wanted to create as much
STABILITY as possible in the poll, especially in the Top 10. If a team moves
up, I want a person to be able to see WHY, through looking AT THE MOST RECENT
PERFORMANCE FIRST, then taking the other factors into account. Additionally, I
feel very strongly that the most recent performance should carry a stronger
weight. A team should be better in November than they are in September.
The "checks and balances"
are played out through a series of four "phases" in the formula. Each
phase has a different purpose and a different mathematical function in the
application of the checks and balances. I will give as many practical examples
as possible as I feel that is the best way for people to understand the point
I'm trying to make. The checks and balances provide what I call "the
fairness factor". Under these guidelines an undefeated team playing a hard
schedule is ALWAYS going to be ranked close to the top. A team with one loss,
but playing a very hard schedule can still be in contention for the National
Championship, as evidenced by
Phase One: Making the transition from one season to another
Where a
team begins the season is also a hotly debated topic, and understandably so. It
is, after all, truly impossible to determine how incoming players, or coaching
changes, will effect the returning nucleus of a team. I think it is important
for teams to earn their position in a poll and not have 15 or 20 positions
handed to them just because of what I personally, or anyone else, personally
thinks. At the same time however, teams who have vastly improved from one
season to the next deserve the opportunity to have those improvements reflected
in their ranking quickly. As I have said many, many, times, I am adamantly
OPPOSED to PRESEASON POLLS. They do an incredible injustice to College
Football. I could state COUNTLESS examples over the last 50 years of such
injustices, but let’s look at the most recent glaring example of
I am convinced that carrying a
team's RANK over
from one season to the next, and then making the rules for the first few weeks
of the season "more relaxed" is the best method to use. To accomplish
this I created a different set of rules for the first 4 weeks of the season.
Normally, as the season progresses, a team’s "earnings" are
drastically reduced as they go thru the various phases in the formula. This
creates a more stable poll week to week, not allowing drastic movements up or
down, and therefore preventing any one team from changing the whole outlook of
their season in one game. However, in the first few weeks, since everyone is
more equal in terms of won- loss records, everyone receives a very high
percentage of their earnings, double what they do during the balance of the
season. This allows a team to be ranked ahead of any team they beat in the
first few weeks of play unless the computer detects that it was a "major
upset". Believe me, those type of upsets do occur, and if allowed to
stand, a "major upset" in the first few weeks can create pure havoc
in the correct balance of a poll, so there had to be some boundary in place,
all be it so lenient .
Granted, it does put a lot of
emphasis on the first few games of the season, but why not? If everyone is
aware of their importance, steps can be taken to prepare accordingly. Under the
rules written into the program a predetermined figure is used to distinguish
between a "minor upset" and a "major upset". The figure
comes from my research, where I have found that 92% of the time teams who won
in games where this predetermined figure was greater than what I am using were
unable to sustain that level of performance. In other words, it was a fluke. I
do not believe the stability of a poll should be compromised for something that
has only happened 8% of the time over the last 132 years. Because of the
flexible rules in the early stages of the season, a team is easily able to
re-position itself in the poll simply by performing well. It's not uncommon for
teams to shift 15 or 20 places in their first game, but it's because they've
earned it, not because it was handed to them.
Another change you will notice from
the previous formula is that a teams RATING IS NOT CARRIED OVER, only the rank. A new rating is
assigned. The new rating was created from the "average rating of the last
50 years at middle ground", ( #58 ), and then one point up for each rank
above and one point down for each rank below. In other words #58 gets 213
points, #57 gets 214, and #59 gets 212. Using this method #1 gets 270 points
and #117 gets 154 points. A projected point spread can still be achieved by
taking the ratings of both teams, subtracting, and dividing by 3, then giving 3
points to the home team. Moving to this method of assigning a rating to begin the
season prevents a team from receiving an undue advantage from having an
excessive rating the previous year. I've toyed with this for years, but just
decided to implement it with the rest of the changes. I feel like that by doing
this I will also be able to get a more accurate read of the strength of teams
from one decade to the next, which will be important to me as I run the new
formula though all 132 years of football. To begin each season a #1 team will
be favored over the #117 team by 38 points. Keep in mind however, this figure
has no bearing on the future ratings at all, this is purely for the fun of it,
for the fans sake I suppose. I think its fun and important to know how much one
team compares to another in strength.
Phase Two : Obtaining the Strength Of The Opponent
The
formula created for the Billingsley Report is a performance based formula, but
one uniquely designed to NOT TAKE THE MARGIN OF VICTORY INTO ACCOUNT. The greatest success in this
formula is achieved by remaining undefeated while playing higher ranked
opponents. While losing a game, or playing a lower ranked opponent will not
prevent a team from becoming the National Champion, it does create a handicap
in the process. Every loss dictates a lesser % of forward progress, and the lower
ranked opponent played, the less chance for upward movement.
The initial "point value"
assigned to an opponent is based according to THEIR RATING AND RANK. An opponent's strength is
determined, not by their won- lost record, which alone reflects only a portion
of their strength, but rather, it is based on their rating and rank, which is
more reflective of a true strength. This is a HUGE bone of contention between
myself and the BCS, one which I have tried to no avail to have addressed over
the last two years. Currently the BCS SOS is determined solely on opponents,
and opponents, opponents won- loss records. In other words, at the end of the
2000 season, a team initially received the same value for playing
Phase Three : Comparing The Won -Lost Records
After
phase two is completed, the remaining figure is then compared to the number of
losses accrued during the course of the season, and also to a team's own
position in the poll. The reason for the additional scrutiny is so a team
cannot unduly move up in the polls based on one game's performance, all be it a
superlative one, in the event a team has not been consistent with their
performance. This is accomplished by giving a team a higher % of their
earnings, or losses, as the case may be, according to the number of losses in
their own record. The less number of losses yields a higher return of their
earnings. For example, an 11-0
Next, a team's position in the poll
is compared to their own record each time a team acquires a loss on the season.
The reason is to prevent teams with multiple losses on the season from
remaining high in the poll unless they are playing far superior opposition. An
additional deduction is attached to the adjusted accrued value each time a team
losses a game. The more losses acquired, the higher the deduction. If a team
loses a game, and it's their first loss, the penalty is one %, if it's their
second loss, the % is greater, and if it's their third, the penalty is even
more severe. This process has proven to filter down the ratings until it is
possible to be ranked in the top 25 with 3 losses, but it can only occur if a
team has played well consistently, and played a difficult schedule.
Phase Four: Final Touches
A few
final minor adjustments, in terms of % of input, but necessary in terms of
comparisons, are taken into account. Those include the site the game was
played, home or on the road, a look at the defensive performance, and a final
comparison of a teams overall record. Two different % are attached to the site
of the game, the greatest reward coming from winning on the road as an
underdog, but there is a small reward for playing on the road, win or lose. A
team's defensive performance is given a special look because in my mind winning
the game it’s self is a reward of offensive performance, but the defense often
gets overlooked. Great teams are built on solid defense and I feel that should
be rewarded, even if it is so very slightly. The reward is based on holding an
opponent to less than a touchdown, on a scale of 0-6 points, a shutout getting
the most benefit. Also, after all is said and done, a final look is made at a
team's overall record, and a very small adjustment is made in that comparison.
If a team has a winning record, even by just one game, say 3-2 on the season,
they get some reward for that. If however, they have slipped on the season to a
losing record, say 2-3, that is taken into account as well. The reason for
these three final comparison's
is this, if, through all previous categories, two teams come out virtually
tied, these three simple characteristics can help determine which team, based
on the current performance, deserves an ever so slight edge, even if it's a
tenth of a point. To be precise, if two teams are tied at 290, then the team
with the better record will be ranked higher. If they are still tied, and one
team played on the road while the other played at home, the road team gets the
advantage. If they are still tied, the team with the best defensive performance
will prevail.
After phase four is completed, the
result is added to a team's previous week's rating. That result becomes a new
rating which is reflective of the team's overall performance to that point in
the season, with a strong emphasis on the most recent performance. This formula
has proven to reward teams who, through consistency, create a solid winning
record against quality opposition.
I hope we all have a very exciting
and rewarding 2002 college football season. I know my participation with the
BCS has certainly compounded my passion for football and I hope in some small
way contributes to the sport overall. The BCS has done a tremendous service for
college football by bringing the poll process to the forefront. Remember, it's
not important that you "believe" one poll is better than another.
Explore the various options, understand their dynamics and follow who you will,
whether it be me or someone else. What's really important is that you trust the
BCS process as a whole and celebrate the fact that for the first time in our
great sport's tradition laden history, (which I believe is the greatest on
earth), we have an opportunity to match the #1 and #2 teams every year. That's
quite a statement in itself!
Richard Billingsley
President,
CFRC