The Verdict on Every CFB Mythical National Championship Since 1998

A Survey of Mythical National Championships in College Football

Following up on our recent article about the University of Central Florida not deserving to claim their mythical national championship, I decided to look at other instances of the mythical national championship and decide who I think deserves to claim one. I am going to look at all the undefeated teams since the start of the BCS through modern day. Most teams that finish the season undefeated also win the national championship in the process. However, when a team comes from a non-power conference or there are many undefeated teams, there is often a discussion of who should get to even play in the national championship. This is the root cause of the mythical national championship.

First, here are our candidates: 2017 Central Florida, 2012 Ohio State, 2010 TCU, 2009 Boise State, 2008 Utah, 2006 Boise State, (many teams in 2004), 1999 Marshall, and 1998 Tulane. Each of these teams finished their season undefeated but was not considered to have won a championship.

Some of these teams will be deemed worthy of claiming the national champion. Some of them, not even close. But in each case I will use the same, unbiased, strength-of-schedule independent method of weighing a team’s resume.

This article is organized as follows. I will begin by discussing at length the difficulties of strength-of-schedule in college football and describing my method to attack this problem. Then, for each team listed above I will give a brief overview of their season and I will tell you what my model says. Then, I will weigh their resume against the top teams in the league in a particular year to determine if they had a shot to win the national championship given the chance.

What Causes Mythical National Championships?

The college football universe is rather large. There are 130 FBS teams that are eligible to win the national championship. From the period of 1998 to 2013, the national champion was extremely ambiguous. There was no tournament. In fact, the selection committee simply picked who they thought were the two best teams to play in a national championship game. Then, whoever wins that game is typically crowned the national champion.

But, many times, there was not a clear-cut ‘top 2’ teams in college football. What if there are three undefeated teams? At least one of them will get the short end of the stick and won’t even get the opportunity to prove themselves and win a championship. Many of the teams above claimed mythical national championships via that route.

Since 2013, the college football championship has been expanded to a small four team playoff. The winner of this small bracket is now crowned the national champion. Because more teams have a shot, it is now less likely for a team to not get the opportunity to win a real national championship and have to resort to a mythical national championship. However, in 2017 Central Florida still claims a mythical national championship by virtue of being left out of the playoff while being undefeated and then subsequently going on to win their bowl game against top-tier opposition.

The Strength of Schedule Problem

There is an additional attribute of college football that makes crowning a unanimous champion so difficult. This is the strength of schedule problem. In College Football, teams play a very limited number of games against a low diversity of opponents.

College football teams play only about 12 regular season games a year. Moreover, most of these games are within one’s conference. Because teams don’t generally cross over and play quality opponents from around the country, it can be really difficult to gauge the relative quality of each conference.

Certainly the American Conference is worse than the Big Ten in college football. But, how big is the difference? Is an 11-2 AAC team equivalent to an 8-5 Big Ten team? Or is the 11-2 AAC team closer to a 10-3 Big Ten team? Obviously these questions are impossible to answer without looking at specifics (which we will do later!) and the answers may not be constant year to year.

Even worse, how can we determine who is better between an undefeated AAC team and an undefeated Big Ten team? This is the problem that shows up in determining a true national championship from a mythical national championship.

Essentially, what the hive mind of the sports world does is try to assess a team’s strength of schedule. A team’s record is entirely meaningless without the context of who they’ve beaten. If I won 12 times against Mercer but you went 12-0 in the Big Ten, you are almost certainly a better team.

However, most of the time judging strength of schedule is extremely imprecise. This is extremely unfortunate because assigning a mythical national championship relies heavily on knowing team quality which, in-turn, requires knowledge of strength-of-schedule.

What Makes Strength of Schedule Difficult to Measure?

The answer is that most attempts to compute a strength of schedule are self-referential. In order to determine strength-of-schedule, we need at a minimum to know how good a team’s opponents are. But, as we discussed above, in order to know how good a team’s opponents are we need to know their strength of schedule!

I am not the first person to realize this or highlight this. In college basketball, RPI is a commonly used tool to rank teams. RPI tries to take into account a team’s strength of schedule by looking at opponents’ records. But it also goes a step further by looking at an opponents’ opponents’ records. This essentially gives ‘two levels’ of strength of schedule and so should be fairly accurate. However, RPI still has many problems.

The problem as we identified it above is that we need to know strength-of-schedule in order to compute strength-of-schedule. However, if we view this in the correct way, we can set up a system of equations that allows us to compute all the strengths of schedules simultaneously. Using mathematical tools we can solve this problem! Let’s see how to do this.

Differential Least Squares for Sports Rankings

This section describes how we attack the strength of schedule problem in order to determine an unbiased, schedule independent system for rating the quality of college football teams. This is the key tool we’ll use to analyze the validity of any mythical national championship claims. We’ll use this idea to estimate the quality of all the teams that claim a mythical national championship and see if they are anywhere near ‘the best team in the country’.

I am going to take some time to explain in depth the method I am using to solve the ratings problem. This technique is very similar to the one I used in my NBA ratings system and that I use to rate fantasy football defenses.

I am solving a least squares optimization problem with the following set up. Each team is assigned a numerical rating that is supposed to represent ‘team quality’. Moreover, the difference between two team’s ratings is a prediction of the margin of victory we would see if the two team’s played.

For example, if USC has a rating of 19 and Alabama has a rating of 35, I would predict Alabama to beat USC by 16 on a neutral field. That could also translate to a 19 point margin of victory for Alabama at home and 13 points on the road.

Now, for the important part: how do we compute these ratings? And why are they independent of schedule? Well, to determine the ratings we use exactly the same idea as before: the difference between the rankings should predict the margin of victory.

If Alabama beats USC by 16 on a neutral field, then that is evidence that Alabama’s rating should be about 16 points better than USC’s. If Alabama wins by 16 at home, then that is evidence that Alabama’s rating should be about 13 points better than USC’s (after accounting for a roughly 3 point home field advantage).

As more and more games are played, we have more and more data points to determine what everyone’s ratings should be. It should be clear where the word differential comes from in the name of this ratings system: we use the difference of the ratings to predict winners.

What about least squares? Well, it is not going to in general be possible to find a rating for each team that perfectly explains the margin of victory over all the games played so far. In fact, there will be some error between the predicted margins of victory for the already-played games and the actual margins of victory for these games. We actually determine the ratings by minimizing the sum of the squares of the prediction error over all the games already played. This is solving a least squares problem.

The above describes how we determine our rankings. Why should this method answer the strength of schedule problem? The answer again comes from the differential nature of our system. Each team gets credit based on the margin of victory and the quality of the opponent. The credit a team gets for a win is determined by margin of victory and quality of opponent. Through the eyes of our model, losing to a team with a rating of 30 by only 5 points (this is evidence your rating is 25) is actually better than beating a rating 5 team by 15 points (because this is evidence your rating is 20).

To put that another way, we value a close loss to a really good team better than a win against a bad team. This is a natural way of adjusting a team’s record based on the quality of the opponents they have played. Teams with weak schedules can still rank highly so long as they beat the bad teams by significant margins.

The Case for Every Mythical National Championship in the BCS Era

Now, I am going to turn my attention to individual cases and analyze every undefeated team since 1998 that has not been crowned ‘National Champion’ in the traditional sense. For each team I will provide the following:

• A layout of their season including narratives, important games, etc.
• A description of how our unbiased ratings system saw the quality of the team.
• A case for awarding the team the mythical national championship
• A case against awarding the team the mythical national championship

Some of these will be closer than others, though we will not discriminate against any team based on some arbitrary perception of quality. The point is to determine who may deserve to crown themselves based on their resume and the quality of their wins.

1998 Tulane Green Wave

The green wave were the first team to go undefeated in the BCS era but not be awarded the national championship. Tulane played in the old conference USA which, even though they have no formal relationship, was largely the same as the modern day American Athletic Conference. This Tulane team won every game including their bowl game against a BYU team that finished second in the WAC. This team was certainly good but did not really have signature wins.

In particular, Tulane played many close games against their C-USA opponents throughout the year. In a few of their games they won by only a few points. They beat an unranked Louisville by only 6 as well as beating Southern Mississippi (you may be thinking, ‘who?’…exactly) by only 14. Not terribly impressive. What about NFL players? They only had one notable player drafted: their quarterback Shaun King. He was taken in the 2^nd by the Buccaneers and bounced around the league without ever playing much.

1998 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

The table below gives our final rankings for the 1998 college football season.

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Kansas State	42.1
2	Ohio State	37.2
3	Florida State	33.8
4	Tennessee	31.3
5	Nebraska	30.8
6	Wisconsin	29.2
7	Florida	28.9
8	Purdue	28
9	Texas A&M	27.5
10	Syracuse	27.1
11	Virginia Tech	26.3
12	Penn State	25.9
13	UCLA	25.7
14	Missouri	25.4
15	Air Force	24.8
16	Texas	24.3
17	Arizona	23.3
18	Oregon	23.3
19	Arkansas	22.8
20	Southern California	22.6
21	Michigan	22.4
22	West Virginia	22.4
23	Georgia Tech	21
24	Virginia	20.6
25	Tulane	20.2
26	Notre Dame	19.4
27	Miami (FL)	18.6
28	Colorado	18.5
29	Michigan State	17.9
30	Southern Mississippi	17.4
31	Louisiana State	16.9
32	Texas Tech	16.1
33	Georgia	16
34	Mississippi State	15.7
35	Kentucky	15.6
36	Oklahoma State	15.1
37	Miami	14.2
38	North Carolina State	13.1
39	Colorado State	12.5
40	Central Florida	12.2
41	Minnesota	11.8
42	Alabama	11.7
43	Washington	11.5
44	Auburn	11.1
45	Oregon State	10.9
46	Arizona State	10.7
47	North Carolina	10.6
48	Texas Christian	9.6
49	Brigham Young	9.5
50	Oklahoma	9.4
51	Wyoming	8.1
52	Louisiana Tech	7.8
53	Utah	7.8
54	Boston College	7.6
55	Indiana	7.6
56	California	7.5
57	Mississippi	7.4
58	Rice	7.1
59	Baylor	6.7
60	Marshall	5.9
61	Fresno State	5.9
62	San Diego State	5.8
63	Iowa State	5.3
64	Louisville	5.1
65	Kansas	5
66	Southern Methodist	4.6
67	Clemson	4.3
68	Stanford	3.9
69	Wofford	3.9
70	Tulsa	3.2
71	Iowa	3.2
72	Wake Forest	2.7
73	Maryland	2.6
74	Houston	2.4
75	Northwestern	1
76	Pittsburgh	0.9
77	Army	0.8
78	Montana State	0.1
79	Toledo	-0.2
80	Bowling Green State	-0.2
81	South Carolina	-0.3
82	Duke	-0.3
83	Nevada	-1
84	Washington State	-1.2
85	Idaho	-1.5
86	East Carolina	-2.1
87	Texas-El Paso	-4.1
88	Memphis	-4.1
89	Illinois	-4.5
90	Ohio	-4.6
91	San Jose State	-5.4
92	Western Michigan	-5.8
93	Villanova	-6.1
94	Navy	-6.2
95	Rutgers	-6.4
96	Temple	-6.5
97	Richmond	-7.4
98	North Texas	-7.6
99	Vanderbilt	-8.8
100	New Mexico State	-9.1
101	Akron	-9.2
102	Utah State	-9.5
103	Boise State	-9.7
104	Alabama-Birmingham	-10.5
105	Nevada-Las Vegas	-11.3
106	Central Michigan	-11.5
107	Cincinnati	-11.9
108	Louisiana-Monroe	-12.2
109	New Mexico	-12.5
110	Colgate	-13.2
111	Eastern Michigan	-15.8
112	Northern Illinois	-16.1
113	Arkansas State	-19.4
114	Ball State	-19.5
115	Hawaii	-19.5
116	Weber State	-20.7
117	Louisiana	-21.6
118	Stephen F. Austin	-23.2
119	Troy	-24.1
120	Murray State	-24.5
121	Middle Tennessee State	-26
122	Missouri State	-27.6
123	Portland State	-28
124	Western Kentucky	-29.8
125	Kent State	-30
126	Western Illinois	-32.5
127	Chattanooga	-33.1
128	Illinois State	-37
129	Sam Houston State	-39.5
130	Tennessee-Martin	-41.5
131	Tennessee Tech	-42.5
132	Cal Poly	-64

How accurate are these rankings? If we predict every game in the 1998 college football season by picking the higher ranked team according to the above table (and giving home teams 3 points), we would correctly predict 83% of the games. As discussed in my article about UCF’S mythical national championship, this prediction rate is fantastically accurate and is actually more accurate than using polls (AP, Coaches, etc.) to pick winners. So, these ratings are quite accurate in describing the actual quality of teams. Note I am not saying that these rankings would predict 83% of future games correctly, just that we describe 83% of the past games by using these rankings.

Tulane was not really close to the best team in the country. Interestingly enough, neither was Tennessee, though they did eventually win the national championship game. In fact, there was a bit of controversy towards the end of the season because Kansas State thought they should have been selected to the national championship game. And, indeed, our rankings agree. Kansas State was the best team in 1998.

The Case For and Against 1998 Tulane’s Mythical National Championship.

I don’t have a case for them. This Tulane team was certainly good, maybe a top 25 team even, but they simply did not have it. They played an extremely easy schedule but did not blow everyone out like we would expect from the best team in the land. If you are going to claim to be the best, you need to prove it by beating low quality teams by sizable margins.

My final ruling: No, the Tulane Green Wave are not awarded the mythical national championship in 1998.

The 1999 Marshall Thundering Herd

In the last year of the old millennium, the Thundering Herd had a fantastic season. Again, Marshall went undefeated in a small conference. The difference between Marshall and Tulane from the previous year is that Marshall played in the Mid-American Conference – even smaller and less powerful traditionally than conference USA. However, Marshall countered this point by dominating their schedule in a much more convincing way.

The only real chances to prove themselves outside of their own conference came in the season opener at Clemson and their bowl game against BYU. However, Clemson wasn’t Clemson yet – my method has them as the 67^th best team. Brigham Young also wasn’t the powerhouse we would come to expect from the top teams coming out of the small western conferences. They were only the 49^th best team that year.

Most of the rest of the games that year Marshall really blew out their competition. Only one game was particularly close – the MAC championship against Matt LaFleur’s Western Michigan.

Speaking of NFL talent, this Marshall team had some pretty good players. The Thundering Herd’s quarterback was the infamous Chad Pennington that found some decent success in the NFL. This team had three other players get drafted but none of them found much NFL success.

1999 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

In the 1999 season, my rankings were a bit less accurate than in the 1998 season. In fact, our final rankings would only predict about 81% of the games correctly. Here are the rankings for the 1999 season.

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Florida State	38.4
2	Virginia Tech	36.5
3	Nebraska	35.1
4	Wisconsin	33
5	Tennessee	31.7
6	Penn State	30.7
7	Kansas State	30.4
8	Michigan State	29.5
9	Michigan	28.5
10	Alabama	28
11	Florida	27.1
12	Miami (FL)	25.8
13	Minnesota	24.6
14	Oklahoma	24.2
15	Illinois	24
16	Texas	23.6
17	Purdue	23
18	Clemson	22.6
19	Georgia Tech	22.4
20	Marshall	22.1
21	Arkansas	21.5
22	Mississippi State	20.2
23	Mississippi	20.2
24	Southern Mississippi	20
25	Ohio State	19.7
26	Oregon	19
27	Notre Dame	17.7
28	East Carolina	17.6
29	Texas A&M	17.2
30	Utah	16.6
31	Colorado	16.2
32	Auburn	16.1
33	Georgia	16
34	Louisville	16
35	Wake Forest	15.6
36	Memphis	14.9
37	Southern California	14.8
38	Stanford	14.8
39	Brigham Young	13.9
40	Washington	13.9
41	Virginia	13.2
42	Maryland	12.8
43	Oregon State	12.7
44	Cincinnati	11.9
45	Kentucky	11.9
46	Colorado State	11.8
47	West Virginia	10.8
48	Houston	10.7
49	Miami	10.5
50	Syracuse	10.5
51	Pittsburgh	9.6
52	San Diego State	9.6
53	Texas Christian	9.5
54	Louisiana Tech	9.4
55	Vanderbilt	9.4
56	North Carolina	9.3
57	Louisiana State	9.2
58	Fresno State	8.7
59	North Carolina State	8.4
60	Oklahoma State	8.2
61	Air Force	8.1
62	Boise State	8.1
63	Alabama-Birmingham	7.5
64	Indiana	7.1
65	Arizona State	6.8
66	Iowa State	6.8
67	Boston College	6.8
68	Arizona	6.5
69	Wyoming	6.4
70	Georgia Southern	5.7
71	Navy	4.7
72	California	4.4
73	UCLA	4.4
74	Northwestern	3.2
75	Toledo	3
76	Duke	2.4
77	Iowa	2.3
78	Hawaii	1.8
79	Rice	1.6
80	Texas Tech	1.6
81	Western Michigan	1.6
82	South Carolina	1.4
83	Missouri	0.8
84	Washington State	0.6
85	Ohio	0.5
86	Kansas	0.4
87	Southern Utah	0.1
88	Central Florida	-0.1
89	Army	-1
90	Akron	-2.3
91	Idaho	-3.1
92	Northern Illinois	-3.3
93	New Mexico	-3.7
94	Bowling Green State	-4
95	Tulane	-4
96	Northeastern	-4.2
97	Texas-El Paso	-4.6
98	New Mexico State	-5.2
99	Temple	-5.7
100	Montana	-6.1
101	Utah State	-6.5
102	Eastern Michigan	-6.7
103	Southern Methodist	-7.8
104	Arkansas State	-9.4
105	Nevada	-11.9
106	Chattanooga	-12
107	Kent State	-12.6
108	Central Michigan	-12.7
109	Nevada-Las Vegas	-12.9
110	Rutgers	-13.2
111	Louisiana-Monroe	-15.4
112	San Jose State	-15.5
113	Youngstown State	-16.4
114	Baylor	-16.4
115	Ball State	-17.2
116	Tulsa	-17.6
117	Massachusetts	-18
118	Weber State	-18.6
119	North Texas	-19.1
120	Middle Tennessee State	-19.9
121	William & Mary	-20.6
122	Louisiana	-21.6
123	Wofford	-27.2
124	Western Carolina	-28.2
125	Buffalo	-28.4
126	Tennessee Tech	-29
127	Northwestern State	-30.2
128	Sam Houston State	-31.5
129	Northern Arizona	-34.7
130	East Tennessee State	-36.9
131	Liberty	-37.9
132	Stephen F. Austin	-40.5
133	Citadel	-48.6
134	Saint Mary's	-50.5
135	Cal State Northridge	-53.2
136	Tennessee-Martin	-75.9

Our method correctly identified the two best teams of the season, the candidates in the national championship game: Florida State and Virginia Tech. Even better, we accurately predicted the national champion as the best team in the country. Notably, our model thinks that Penn State got fairly significantly snubbed by not being selected for – at the minimum – a BCS bowl game.

What about our Thundering Herd? Even though Marshall did fairly well with their schedule, they just simply didn’t do enough. Our ratings system has them as the 20^th best team in the country. That is pretty darn good for a team out of the Mid-American Conference. But, it is not quite what you would like to see for a title contender.

The Case for and Against 1999 Marshall’s Mythical National Championship

This section is going to read much like the 1998 Tulane case. This Marshall team just doesn’t pass the test. They don’t quite have the resume that you would like a potential title contender to have. At the minimum, you would like to have your mythical national championship hopeful be at least a top-10 team.

Marshall was certainly a quality team that year and probably would have beaten more teams than you would guess. However, they are not championship material.

My final ruling: No, the 1999 Marshall Thundering Herd are not awarded a mythical national championship.

The 2004 College Football Season

Oh boy, what a season. This season had tons of controversy. Let me set the stage a little bit. Before the bowl games were announced, there were five undefeated teams in college football. The regular season unbeaten were the USC Trojans, the Auburn Tigers, the Oklahoma Sooners, the Utah Utes and the Boise State Broncos. Already, before any of the Bowl games had been played, there was a recipe for championship claims.

It seems almost immediate that the undefeated Utes and Broncos would be discarded from the committee’s consideration for playing in the National championship game. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the committee, unless you are Notre Dame you really need to be in a power conference to have a shot. This is kind of the whole reason that we have mythical national championships in the first place.

It really is a shame too because these teams were good. Utah seriously dismantled everyone they played that year. This includes Utah’s convincing 35-7 victory over the Pittsburgh Panthers in the Fiesta Bowl. It is also noteworthy that this was the very first time someone from outside the Power 5 conferences has been invited to a BCS bowl game. Utah is a contender for a Mythical National Championship because of their undefeated season.

The Boise State Broncos had a similar resume, though they eventually ended up losing their bowl game to the Conference USA champion Louisville Cardinals in the liberty bowl.

Now, after (perhaps unfairly) discounting the Utes and the Broncos, there are still three teams in contention to be selected for the national championship game: Auburn, Oklahoma, and USC. Each of these teams had a decently strong argument for being one of the two selected for the national championship game.

USC’s resume is strong. They went wire-to-wire as number one in the country. They were voted the best team to start the season and won every game convincingly. USC also had two Heisman candidates on the same team. The other two teams had slightly weaker resumes, though still went undefeated while playing multiple ranked teams each. Eventually, Oklahoma was chosen to play in the national championship game and subsequently got absolutely handled by the Trojans.

At the end of the season, the Utes, the Trojans, and the Auburn Tigers remained undefeated while the actual national championship was awarded to only the Trojans. The Utes and the Tigers have a case for a mythical national championship in 2004. Let’s dig into the rankings now to see how each team looked from a data perspective. This approach is particularly important here because much of the discussion about who should have won the national championship is narrative-driven.

USC has two Heisman candidates and beat the Sooners easily. That seems like reason enough to call them the champions. But a mythical national championship isn’t always about that, it can be much more subtle. Neither the Utes nor the Tigers had a chance to prove themselves against the Trojans, so we can’t know who would have won. Let’s see what the numbers say.

2004 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Southern California	46.2
2	California	38.4
3	Louisville	36.5
4	Oklahoma	35.6
5	Utah	35.1
6	Miami (FL)	33.9
7	Auburn	33.7
8	Texas	32.2
9	Virginia Tech	31.8
10	Boise State	29.2
11	Arizona State	27.8
12	Georgia	27.4
13	Virginia	27.3
14	Purdue	26.9
15	Florida State	26.8
16	Texas Tech	26.4
17	Louisiana State	26.3
18	Fresno State	25.6
19	Oregon State	24.6
20	Florida	23.7
21	Texas A&M	23.6
22	Iowa	22.8
23	UCLA	22.6
24	Tennessee	22.6
25	Michigan	22.2
26	Oklahoma State	22.2
27	Ohio State	20.9
28	Arkansas	20.7
29	Stanford	20.7
30	Georgia Tech	20
31	Notre Dame	19.3
32	North Carolina State	18.3
33	Alabama	17.6
34	Wisconsin	17.5
35	Kansas	16.8
36	Clemson	16.8
37	Minnesota	16.7
38	Oregon	16.6
39	North Carolina	16.6
40	Portland State	15.6
41	Brigham Young	15.3
42	Texas-El Paso	15.1
43	Bowling Green State	14.7
44	South Carolina	14.6
45	New Mexico	14.5
46	West Virginia	14.2
47	Washington State	13.6
48	Kansas State	13.6
49	Colorado	13.3
50	Boston College	13.3
51	Penn State	13.2
52	Maryland	12.8
53	Michigan State	12.5
54	Arizona	11.8
55	Navy	11.6
56	Missouri	11.5
57	Pittsburgh	11
58	Northwestern	10.6
59	Wake Forest	10.1
60	Wyoming	9.4
61	Air Force	9.4
62	Connecticut	9.2
63	Iowa State	9.1
64	Cincinnati	8
65	Furman	8
66	Nebraska	7.9
67	Colorado State	7.6
68	Northeastern	7.6
69	Mississippi	7.4
70	Memphis	6.3
71	Southern Mississippi	6.2
72	San Diego State	6.2
73	Syracuse	6.1
74	Troy	5.6
75	Texas Christian	5.4
76	Alabama-Birmingham	5.3
77	Vanderbilt	5.3
78	Northern Illinois	5
79	Washington	4.5
80	Louisiana Tech	4.4
81	Southern Illinois	4
82	Indiana	4
83	Duke	3.5
84	Mississippi State	3.3
85	Marshall	1.9
86	Miami	1.7
87	Illinois	1.5
88	Hawaii	1.5
89	Rutgers	1
90	Kentucky	1
91	Toledo	0
92	Nevada-Las Vegas	-1.1
93	Houston	-1.7
94	South Florida	-1.7
95	Kent State	-2.2
96	Delaware	-2.4
97	Baylor	-2.5
98	Tulsa	-2.5
99	Tulane	-3.5
100	Rice	-3.7
101	New Mexico State	-4.7
102	Citadel	-5.4
103	Army	-5.5
104	Florida Atlantic	-6.3
105	Eastern Kentucky	-6.7
106	North Texas	-7.4
107	Temple	-7.8
108	Nevada	-8.2
109	Middle Tennessee State	-8.4
110	Massachusetts	-8.7
111	Akron	-9.3
112	Ohio	-9.7
113	Louisiana	-10
114	Southern Methodist	-10.4
115	San Jose State	-10.4
116	East Carolina	-11
117	Texas State	-11.4
118	Louisiana-Monroe	-11.6
119	Eastern Washington	-12.6
120	Utah State	-12.9
121	Arkansas State	-14.9
122	Tennessee Tech	-15.7
123	Illinois State	-16.8
124	Weber State	-16.9
125	Montana State	-17.4
126	Central Michigan	-17.4
127	Central Florida	-17.5
128	Ball State	-17.6
129	Eastern Michigan	-18.4
130	Florida International	-19.3
131	Buffalo	-19.8
132	Idaho	-20.4
133	James Madison	-20.8
134	Northern Colorado	-21.3
135	Western Michigan	-22.7
136	Chattanooga	-24.7
137	Youngstown State	-25.3
138	Stephen F. Austin	-26.3
139	North Carolina A&T	-28.9
140	Southeast Missouri State	-29.4
141	Morgan State	-29.4
142	Liberty	-30.2
143	Florida A&M	-33.8
144	Western Carolina	-34.4
145	Appalachian State	-36.6
146	Tennessee State	-39.8
147	Edward Waters	-40.3
148	Missouri State	-44.5
149	Virginia Union	-58.8
150	Sacramento State	-60.2
151	Savannah State	-69.8

Yeah, this one is not close. The Trojans are a full 7.5 points better than the next best team. An implied 7.5 point spread is equivalent to a 78% chance to win the game. That 7.5 point differential, though, is relative to California (Aaron Rodgers team, actually!), not relative to the other teams we care about giving a mythical national championship to. The other two teams in contention were the Auburn Tigers and the Utah Utes

The Case for and Against 2004 Auburn’s Mythical National Championship

Auburn went undefeated in one of the best conferences in football and won its BCS bowl game at the Sugar Bowl. Auburn had wins against ranked teams from its own conference by beating No. 4 LSU, No. 10 Tennessee, No. 8 Georgia, No. 15 Tennessee, and from outside its conference by beating No. 9 Virginia Tech.

This team had five pro bowl NFL players: OL Marcus McNeil and Ben Grubbs, RB Ronnie Brown, DB Carlos Rodgers, as well as DL Jay Ratliff. The team was undoubtedly extremely talented. But USC is still there.

According to my College Football Rankings, Auburn should have been 12.5 underdogs against the Trojans had they been selected to the National Championship game. To be clear: I don’t think that would have been the final Vegas line because that is a massive line for a championship game and the Auburn side certainly would have been bet down. However, 12.5 point underdogs only win 1.1% of the time.

My verdict: Auburn was great and any other year they may have been awarded the mythical national championship. But, the actual champion was far and away the best team in college football that year. So, no, Auburn is not awarded a mythical national championship in 2004.

The Case for and Against 2004 Utah’s Mythical National Championship

Utah is actually a bit more fun. Again, the Utes went undefeated but didn’t play any ranked opponents until their bowl game. Luckily, the Utes (unlike the Boise State Broncos) got selected for a BCS bowl game. Their opponent was the 19^th ranked Big East champion Pitt Panthers. Utah won this game by 28, seemingly a convincing win. However, Pitt was not nearly as good as their 19^th overall rank in the polls would suggest. Our rankings have Pitt as the 57^th best team. That is a bad team. They should have gotten demolished, and they did.

Utah’s resume when it comes to NFL talent is decently compelling. They had 5 players get selected in the NFL draft. Two of whom were fairly talented players. In the third round, the Jets took DL Sione Pouha who went on to play for the Jets. His career was up and down but PFF selected him to their All-Pro team in 2011. However, the actual best player on this team is the QB Alex Smith who I don’t need to say much about. He is good.

Now, how would Utah fair against the Trojans? My rankings have them as 11 point dogs against USC. This converts to roughly a 7.5% chance to win the national championship. Again, as above, I don’t think the Vegas line would have been 11 points, probably closer to 7 or so, but this is still a fairly substantial margin that I cannot ignore.

My verdict: Utah was a historic team, the first non-power conference team to get selected to a BCS bowl game. They were very talented and proved it. However, again because of the overwhelming superiority of the Trojans relative to the rest of college football that year, I cannot give a mythical national championship to the Utes.

The 2006 Boise State Broncos

The 2006 season was quite interesting because at the end of the season, there was only one undefeated team. Typically, if there were only one undefeated team, that team would be the consensus national champions. However, because of the general weakness of the 2006 Broncos schedule, the 1-loss Florida Gators were selected to play in the national championship game against the undefeated Ohio State Buckeyes.

The Broncos went undefeated in 2006, but let’s take a closer look at their resume. Before their bowl game, the Broncos played a relatively weak schedule. According to our rankings, the best team they played was Hawaii. One thing I will point out is that Boise State won all their games by solid margins, an average of 22 points per game. However, the biggest negative for Boise State was simply that their schedule was so overwhelmingly weak that they needed to win by more. That average margin of victory is comparable to Ohio State’s (21.8 ppg), BYU (22 ppg), and Louisville (21.5 ppg), but the schedule quality is much weaker.

The Broncos bowl game victory was at least averagely convincing. They were the second ever non power conference (I don’t count Notre Dame here) team to play in a BCS bowl being matched up against No. 7 Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The Broncos won 43-42 in a thrilling overtime game, cementing their undefeated season. This might seem like extremely strong evidence for the Broncos championship hopes, but my system seems to think Oklahoma was slightly overrated – only No. 11 good not No. 7 good. That means the Broncos didn’t beat any top 10 teams all year and showed that they are an even match for the No. 11 team in the country, not a good sign.

What about NFL talent? This team had quite a few players go on to play in the NFL. Three were notable: Kyle Wilson, Gerald Alexander, and Ryan Clady. Wilson was a first round corner taken by the Jets thought ultimately did not live up to his hype. Gerald Alexander was a second round pick at Safety, though but was unsuccessful in the NFL and, after his first two seasons, bounced around a few times before dropping out of the league. He is currently a DB coach for the Dolphins. The best player to come from this team was OL Ryan Clady. Clady was an All-American at Boise State, was selected in the first round by the Broncos (Denver this time, not Boise), and made the pro bowl four times.

2006 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Ohio State	35
2	Louisiana State	33.2
3	Southern California	33
4	Louisville	32.3
5	Florida	31.5
6	Michigan	29.1
7	Brigham Young	28.9
8	California	28.5
9	West Virginia	27.2
10	Texas	26.4
11	Oklahoma	25.7
12	Rutgers	25
13	Wisconsin	24.8
14	Hawaii	24.3
15	Boise State	24.1
16	Tennessee	24.1
17	Clemson	23.4
18	Auburn	23.2
19	Virginia Tech	22.9
20	Arkansas	22.9
21	Nebraska	22.2
22	South Carolina	22
23	Texas Christian	21.3
24	Notre Dame	20.4
25	Boston College	20.1
26	Georgia	20
27	Missouri	19.7
28	Penn State	19.7
29	Oregon State	18.6
30	Oregon	18.6
31	Florida State	18.3
32	Oklahoma State	18.1
33	Pittsburgh	17.9
34	UCLA	17.4
35	Wake Forest	17.3
36	Alabama	16.6
37	Minnesota	16.6
38	Texas Tech	16.5
39	Arizona State	15.7
40	Texas A&M	15.7
41	Georgia Tech	15.6
42	Washington State	15.2
43	Cincinnati	15
44	Wofford	15
45	Iowa	14.6
46	Utah	14
47	Arizona	13.8
48	South Florida	13.3
49	Kentucky	13
50	Navy	12.3
51	Houston	12.1
52	Nevada	11.9
53	Washington	11.6
54	Kansas State	11.4
55	Massachusetts	11.3
56	Southern Mississippi	11.2
57	Tulsa	10.2
58	Kansas	10.1
59	Vanderbilt	9.8
60	Maryland	9.2
61	Purdue	9.1
62	Central Michigan	8.8
63	Michigan State	8
64	Syracuse	7.9
65	Air Force	7.6
66	Colorado	7.5
67	Wyoming	6.6
68	East Carolina	6.3
69	Northern Illinois	6.2
70	Virginia	5.8
71	Western Michigan	5.4
72	North Carolina State	5.4
73	Mississippi	5.4
74	Ball State	5.3
75	Mississippi State	4.8
76	Connecticut	4.7
77	San Jose State	4.6
78	Northwestern	4.5
79	Illinois	4.5
80	New Mexico	4.4
81	Indiana	4.3
82	Miami	2.6
83	Ohio	2.3
84	Baylor	2.3
85	Western Illinois	0.8
86	Colorado State	0.7
87	Fresno State	0.6
88	Southern Methodist	0.3
89	Iowa State	0.1
90	Marshall	-0.5
91	North Carolina	-0.7
92	Northern Iowa	-0.9
93	Rice	-1.7
94	Akron	-1.8
95	Maine	-1.9
96	Alabama-Birmingham	-1.9
97	Middle Tennessee State	-2.5
98	Texas-El Paso	-2.5
99	Liberty	-2.7
100	Stanford	-3.4
101	Louisiana-Monroe	-3.4
102	Furman	-3.7
103	Kent State	-3.8
104	Toledo	-4.2
105	New Mexico State	-4.5
106	San Diego State	-4.5
107	Troy	-4.6
108	Memphis	-5.1
109	Nevada-Las Vegas	-5.2
110	Central Florida	-5.2
111	Duke	-6.7
112	Grambling State	-7.9
113	Tulane	-8.3
114	Bowling Green State	-8.8
115	Army	-9.1
116	Louisiana	-9.9
117	Eastern Michigan	-10.7
118	California-Davis	-11.7
119	Arkansas State	-12.3
120	Florida Atlantic	-12.4
121	Buffalo	-12.8
122	Youngstown State	-14.3
123	Northeastern	-15.1
124	Idaho	-15.3
125	Samford	-16.4
126	North Texas	-16.6
127	Florida International	-18.9
128	Tennessee State	-19.2
129	Utah State	-19.5
130	Louisiana Tech	-19.8
131	Texas State	-21
132	Temple	-21.3
133	Citadel	-21.7
134	Hofstra	-23.5
135	Howard	-24
136	Chattanooga	-24.1
137	Jacksonville State	-27.2
138	McNeese State	-28
139	Nicholls State	-28.3
140	Sam Houston State	-28.6
141	Florida A&M	-29.2
142	Western Carolina	-30.5
143	Southeast Missouri State	-33.1
144	Southern Utah	-37.4
145	Texas Southern	-38.5
146	Alabama State	-42.6
147	Tennessee Tech	-46.5
148	North Carolina A&T	-50.9
149	Virginia Military Institute	-64.1

The real killer for the Broncos was that their strength of schedule was just so weak, they didn’t really have the opportunity to make up the ground. The Broncos were unfortunate enough to have to play in the WAC instead of the MWC or the PAC12 and so suffered due to low quality opponents. Our final schedule and margin of victory adjusted rankings have Boise State as the 15^th best team in the country and they would be a full 11 point underdogs against the top team, Ohio State, were they to play.

The Case for and Against 2006 Boise State’s Mythical National Championship

I have not yet awarded any mythical national championship and I don’t think this will change here. The good news is that we are trending in the correct direction. At the beginning of the BCS era, the only undefeated teams we considered were from extremely small conferences that really didn’t stand a chance. Now, the teams we are considering are actually quite good. If you were to argue for the Broncos mythical national championship you would cite three pieces of evidence: 1) their undefeated record, 2) their near league-best average margin of victory, and 3) their victory over a strong power conference opponent in their BCS bowl game.

However, I am going to tend to lean the other direction. While the above points are convincing in a vacuum, we need to compare the Boise State Broncos to other teams in the 2006 season. As I pointed out above, many other teams had comparable margins of victory. Many others teams won a bowl game over a strong power conference opponent. The eventual champion only lost one game but played a significantly harder strength of schedule. And, finally, our unbiased rankings had Boise State as a very good but just barely top 15 team. Those pieces of evidence suggest that Boise State will not go down in my record books as national champions, mythical or otherwise.

My verdict: The 2006 Boise State Broncos are not awarded a mythical national championship.

The 2008 Utah Utes

Here comes Utah again. Most people probably think of Notre Dame, Boise State, and TCU when they think of early 2000s non power conference teams that were very good at college football. However, it seems like the Utah Utes should be the team we all talk about. This 2008 season was probably their best. Just like in 2006, there was only one undefeated team to finish the season. Also just like 2006, this team was not from a power conference and was not allowed to compete in the national championship game.

First, their resume. The Mountain West Conference was actually pretty good in the late 2000s, early 2010s. During the regular season, the Utes beat No. 11 TCU by 3 and No. 16 BYU by 24. Both pretty good wins. Perhaps their most convincing win though was in their bowl game. Utah was selected to play in the 2009 Sugar Bowl against No. 4 Alabama. This Alabama team was very good. They finished their season undefeated but lost to the (also very good!) Florida Gators in the SEC championship game by 11. This Alabama team had Don’t’a Hightower, Mark Ingram, Julio Jones, and Marcell Dareus. The Utes beat them soundly and comfortably by 14 points in the Sugar Bowl.

What about the Utes pro-level talent? It isn’t nearly as impressive as Alabama’s pro-level talent, but they had quite a few players drafted. In 2009, Paul Kruger and Sean Smith were both second rounders. In 2010, Koa Misi and Zane Beadles were second rounders. Other than that, they had quite a few late round picks. Certainly a lot of talent on one team.

2008 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Florida	46.8
2	Oklahoma	45.9
3	Southern California	43.9
4	Texas	41.4
5	Penn State	38
6	Texas Tech	31.4
7	Missouri	30.6
8	Ohio State	30.1
9	Texas Christian	29.9
10	Alabama	28.5
11	Iowa	28.2
12	Oregon	28.2
13	Utah	27.9
14	Mississippi	27.4
15	Oklahoma State	27.2
16	Boise State	26.7
17	California	25.3
18	Arizona	25.2
19	Oregon State	24
20	Georgia	22.8
21	Florida State	22.4
22	Nebraska	21.2
23	Kansas	20.3
24	North Carolina	19.2
25	Pittsburgh	19.2
26	Tulsa	19.1
27	Clemson	18.6
28	Brigham Young	18.2
29	Rutgers	17.8
30	Michigan State	17.8
31	Louisiana State	17.4
32	Wake Forest	16.8
33	Boston College	16.6
34	West Virginia	16.3
35	Virginia Tech	16.2
36	Ball State	16
37	South Carolina	15.8
38	Georgia Tech	15.6
39	Vanderbilt	15.3
40	Northwestern	15.2
41	Illinois	15.2
42	Connecticut	14.6
43	Cincinnati	14.5
44	South Florida	14.2
45	Stanford	14
46	Notre Dame	13.9
47	Baylor	13.9
48	Wisconsin	13.7
49	Arizona State	13.5
50	Navy	13.4
51	Purdue	13.4
52	Tennessee	12.9
53	Gardner-Webb	12.6
54	Rice	12.3
55	Houston	11.5
56	Maryland	11.2
57	Air Force	10.8
58	North Carolina State	10.5
59	Kentucky	10.3
60	Buffalo	10.2
61	Auburn	10.1
62	Southern Mississippi	9.9
63	Bowling Green State	9.7
64	Troy	9.4
65	Colorado	8.8
66	Arkansas	8.5
67	Virginia	8.5
68	Kansas State	8.2
69	Duke	8.1
70	Nevada	8.1
71	Minnesota	8.1
72	East Carolina	8.1
73	Michigan	7.5
74	New Mexico	7.4
75	Temple	7.3
76	Northern Illinois	7.2
77	Western Michigan	5.9
78	Wofford	5.8
79	Eastern Washington	4.1
80	Miami	3.9
81	UCLA	3.8
82	Akron	3.5
83	Samford	3.4
84	Central Michigan	3.4
85	Colorado State	3.3
86	Texas A&M	2.9
87	Ohio	2.1
88	Texas-El Paso	2
89	Memphis	1.3
90	Louisiana Tech	1.2
91	Louisville	1.2
92	Nevada-Las Vegas	1.2
93	Hawaii	1.1
94	Fresno State	1
95	Mississippi State	1
96	Iowa State	0.7
97	William & Mary	0.5
98	Sacramento State	0.3
99	Furman	-0.8
100	Louisiana	-0.8
101	San Jose State	-1.3
102	Kent State	-1.5
103	Marshall	-1.5
104	Syracuse	-1.7
105	Arkansas State	-2.4
106	Florida Atlantic	-2.4
107	Miami (FL)	-2.4
108	Army	-2.6
109	Florida International	-2.6
110	Toledo	-2.9
111	Weber State	-3
112	Sam Houston State	-3.7
113	Middle Tennessee State	-3.9
114	Utah State	-4.2
115	California-Davis	-4.3
116	Central Florida	-5.1
117	Washington	-5.6
118	Indiana	-6
119	Wyoming	-6.5
120	Citadel	-6.8
121	Alabama-Birmingham	-7.2
122	Eastern Michigan	-7.5
123	Richmond	-7.5
124	Central Arkansas	-8.9
125	Southern Methodist	-9
126	North Dakota State	-9.5
127	Louisiana-Monroe	-9.6
128	Massachusetts	-10.6
129	Villanova	-10.7
130	Southern Illinois	-10.8
131	San Diego State	-10.9
132	Tulane	-11.9
133	New Mexico State	-12.8
134	Western Kentucky	-12.8
135	Virginia Military Institute	-17.9
136	Coastal Carolina	-18
137	Southeastern Louisiana	-18.4
138	Southeast Missouri State	-18.4
139	Northern Colorado	-18.6
140	Washington State	-19.1
141	Nicholls State	-19.7
142	Texas State	-20
143	Morgan State	-20.2
144	Tennessee-Martin	-20.8
145	Idaho	-22
146	Delaware State	-22.5
147	Norfolk State	-24.7
148	North Texas	-24.9
149	Rhode Island	-25.4
150	Montana State	-27.3
151	Stephen F. Austin	-30.1
152	Northwestern State	-31.1
153	Alabama A&M	-31.6
154	Tennessee Tech	-33.9
155	Alabama State	-42.2
156	Western Carolina	-46.6
157	Murray State	-50.9
158	Alcorn State	-51.7
159	Portland State	-58.1
160	Texas Southern	-75.4

This is going to be a bit of a slog and a bit technical but I want to explain why I came to the conclusions I did. My usual calculations reward margin of victory and have the benefit that the difference between two team’s ratings predicts margin of victory. Considering margin of victory is very important when we need to be able to rate teams with wildly different strengths of schedule. However, this Utah team played many quality opponents.

If we don’t reward margins of victory, we are essentially looking at schedule-adjusted interpretations of a team’s record. In 2008, Utah played a very good strength of schedule for a non-power conference team. If we look at my rankings that don’t reward margins of victory, this Utah Utes team was the fifth best in the country (behind Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and USC in that order).

Here is some mild justification for using the non-margin-adjusted rankings. If we use the final rankings above, the team with the better ranking won 80.5% of all matchups in the 2008 college football season. If we use the version of these rankings that do not use the margin, the higher ranked team won 83% of all matchups during the season. That is, not including margin of victory means we explain what happened during the 2008 season better.

The Case for and Against 2008 Utah’s Mythical National Championship

Utah has a very strong case for their national championship. First and foremost, Utah went undefeated against a reasonably difficult schedule. Perhaps even more convincing was their solid victory over an Alabama team that was 11 points away from being in the National championship game instead of Florida. Finally, Utah passes the ‘numbers test’ by being a top 5 team in our computer rankings.

There are two cases against Utah’s championship. The first is that they didn’t necessarily blow out the teams they should. This manifests itself in Utah having a much lower ranking (all the way down to number 14!) in our margin adjusted rankings. The other argument is that the Florida team is really good. That Tim Tebow led team practically blew out every team they played (except, strangely, Ole Miss). It would be hard to award a championship to anyone other than the 2008 Florida Gators.

However, what is the point of awarding Mythical National Championships? The point is not necessarily for me to crown the best team in college football in a given year. The point is to determine which teams have a reasonable claim to being national champions. The requirements are a) going undefeated and b) the resume reasonably indicating that they could have won the national championship had they been matched up in the real national championship game. To me, Utah fits those qualifications.

My verdict: Yes! The 2008 Utah Utes are mythical national champions.

The 2009 Boise State Broncos

I grew up a University of Cincinnati fan so I remember this season vividly. This season was an absolute mess. Before the bowl games were played, there were FIVE undefeated teams: University of Cincinnati, Boise State, TCU, Texas, and Alabama. Unfortunately for the three mid-major teams – UC, Boise State, and TCU – this fact almost immediately precluded any of them from being invited to play in the national championship game. At the end of the season, only two teams remained undefeated. Texas lost to Alabama in the BCS national championship game. Cincinnati lost to Tim Tebow and the Florida Gators in New Orleans. TCU lost to Boise State. Alabama was awarded the national championship, but does Boise State have a claim? To their resume!

Boise State was undefeated in 2009. Before their bowl game, they had only played one ranked team. Again, the weakness of the mountain west conference will have a large effect on Boise State’s resume. Luckily the Broncos were able to schedule a quality out of conference opponent by beginning the season against the No. 16 Oregon Ducks and won by 11.

The best thing the Broncos did for themselves was beating TCU in their bowl game. However, this win comes with an asterisk. We don’t actually know how good TCU was to begin with because, much like Boise State, they were from a non-power conference as well. The BCS committee did everyone a great disservice by forcing the Horned Frogs and the Broncos to play each other. Because of this matchup, neither TCU nor Boise was able to prove themselves against any of the other teams playing in a BCS bowl. Yes, Boise beat TCU, but this doesn’t yield as much evidence for team quality as if they had beat a Florida-type team.

As always, let’s take a quick look at NFL talent. Kyle Wilson was still on this team, as we discussed in the 2006 Boise State section. In the 2011 NFL draft, receivers Titus Young and Austin Pettis were taken in the second and third rounds but never really had great careers. Perhaps the most impressive players on this team went in the 2012 draft. Anyone who has played fantasy football or who was a Buccaneers fan remembers Doug Martin – one of the most interesting players to come out of Boise. In the first round of the draft, the decently-successful Shea McLellin was drafted by the Bears. Finally, the longtime Bengal George Iloka was a fifth round pick from this Boise team. There was certainly a lot of talent here.

2009 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Alabama	43.1
2	Florida	41
3	Texas	39.8
4	Virginia Tech	36.3
5	Texas Christian	35
6	Oklahoma	33.8
7	Ohio State	32.2
8	Nebraska	30.8
9	Arkansas	30.5
10	Texas Tech	30.3
11	Oregon	30
12	Georgia Tech	29.2
13	Boise State	28.3
14	Penn State	28.1
15	Louisiana State	27.9
16	Mississippi	27.9
17	Clemson	27.8
18	Miami (FL)	27.8
19	Tennessee	26.8
20	Pittsburgh	25.9
21	Cincinnati	25.5
22	Iowa	25.3
23	Stanford	25.1
24	Auburn	24.9
25	Brigham Young	23.8
26	Southern California	23.5
27	Georgia	23.1
28	Wisconsin	22.5
29	Kentucky	22.4
30	North Carolina	22.3
31	Oklahoma State	21.6
32	South Carolina	21.3
33	Notre Dame	21.3
34	Oregon State	21.1
35	Mississippi State	21.1
36	Connecticut	20.7
37	Arizona	20.6
38	Air Force	19.4
39	West Virginia	19.2
40	Utah	18
41	Florida State	17.5
42	Boston College	17.4
43	Washington	17.2
44	Missouri	17.2
45	Navy	17
46	UCLA	16.7
47	Michigan State	16.4
48	Texas A&M	15.9
49	Wake Forest	15.8
50	Rutgers	15.7
51	Houston	15.7
52	Kansas	15.6
53	California	15.6
54	East Carolina	15.4
55	South Florida	15
56	Virginia	14.5
57	Central Michigan	14.3
58	Minnesota	14.1
59	Arizona State	14
60	Nevada	13.8
61	Purdue	13.6
62	Kansas State	12.9
63	Michigan	11.5
64	Central Florida	11.2
65	Iowa State	10.7
66	Northwestern	10.3
67	Duke	10.3
68	North Carolina State	10.1
69	Middle Tennessee State	9.9
70	Baylor	9.4
71	Southern Mississippi	9.2
72	Fresno State	9
73	Colorado	8.4
74	Temple	8.3
75	Vanderbilt	8.1
76	South Dakota State	8.1
77	Syracuse	7.4
78	Illinois	7.4
79	Troy	7.2
80	Louisiana Tech	6.7
81	Maryland	6.5
82	Indiana	6.3
83	Southern Methodist	6.2
84	Northern Illinois	5.6
85	Louisville	4.9
86	Ohio	4.8
87	Marshall	3.9
88	Bowling Green State	3.5
89	Liberty	3.2
90	Tulsa	2.5
91	North Dakota	2.3
92	Wyoming	1.4
93	Idaho	1.2
94	Buffalo	1
95	Northern Arizona	0.7
96	Alabama-Birmingham	0.7
97	Colorado State	0.5
98	James Madison	0.5
99	Nevada-Las Vegas	-0.2
100	Utah State	-0.3
101	Texas-El Paso	-1.1
102	San Diego State	-1.5
103	Louisiana-Monroe	-2.2
104	Hawaii	-2.3
105	Texas State	-3
106	Delaware	-3
107	Kent State	-4
108	Arkansas State	-4
109	Western Michigan	-4.3
110	Army	-4.4
111	Florida Atlantic	-4.6
112	Chattanooga	-4.9
113	Toledo	-5.6
114	South Carolina State	-5.7
115	Memphis	-5.8
116	Weber State	-6
117	Louisiana	-7
118	Florida International	-7.1
119	Florida A&M	-7.2
120	Ball State	-7.6
121	North Texas	-8
122	New Mexico	-8.9
123	Washington State	-9.1
124	Akron	-9.2
125	Miami	-9.8
126	Georgia Southern	-10.7
127	Virginia Military Institute	-12.4
128	Maine	-12.6
129	San Jose State	-13.7
130	Elon	-15.2
131	Rice	-15.6
132	Western Kentucky	-15.9
133	Tulane	-16.4
134	New Mexico State	-17.3
135	Furman	-18
136	Eastern Michigan	-18.5
137	Southeastern Louisiana	-21.1
138	Hofstra	-21.3
139	Southern Utah	-21.4
140	Cal Poly	-21.5
141	Prairie View A&M	-23.3
142	Eastern Illinois	-23.9
143	Rhode Island	-24.3
144	Tennessee Tech	-25
145	Howard	-25.3
146	North Carolina Central	-27.7
147	McNeese State	-29.4
148	Grambling State	-31.4
149	Western Illinois	-31.4
150	Gardner-Webb	-31.5
151	Tennessee-Martin	-35.8
152	Eastern Washington	-39.4
153	Western Carolina	-39.9
154	Southeast Missouri State	-44.5
155	Texas Southern	-46.2
156	Delaware State	-48.5
157	Murray State	-50.9
158	Morgan State	-53.2
159	Sam Houston State	-53.5

The final rankings had Boise State at number 13 in the country. Not all that great. Even worse, our rankings would predict that Boise State should be about 15 point underdogs against Alabama had they played each other. Had the committee been more generous and matched Boise up with, say, Ohio State, the Broncos still would have been 4 point dogs. There is a good chance we wouldn’t be talking about this Boise team in that scenario.

Even if I look at the margin-less rankings, Boise State’s resume doesn’t improve much. In the version of our rankings which completely ignores margin of victory, the Boise State Broncos are only the 13^th best team in the country.

The Case for and Against 2009 Boise State’s Mythical National Championship

The biggest thing against our Broncos here is that their schedule is still just too weak to matter. It says quite a bit that even though the Broncos beat TCU in their bowl game, TCU is still ranked above the Broncos in our computer rankings. The biggest difference between the 2009 Broncos and the 2008 Utes is that Utah was able to prove themselves against Alabama in a bowl game. Had Boise State beaten an Ohio State level team in their bowl game, my verdict might have been different. We’ll never know.

My verdict: No, the 2009 Boise State Broncos are not awarded a mythical national championship.

The 2010 TCU Horned Frogs

Another season, another mountain west team going undefeated and causing anxiety for the BCS selection committee. This year, it is the Horned Frogs of TCU who completed an undefeated season. This was the second last season that TCU would be a non-power conference team because they would soon move to the Big 12 as part of the early 2010s realignment. This realignment is one of the reasons that (as you’ll see soon) mythical national champion candidates appear significantly less often after 2010.

This TCU team was really good. They started the season beating the No. 24 Oregon State Beavers for a great start to the season. Before their bowl game, TCU proceeded to absolutely handle every team they played. TCU beat Tennessee Tech 62-7. They beat Colorado State and Wyoming in back to back weeks by a combined score of 72-0. Perhaps the crowning jewel of TCU’s regular season schedule was beating No. 6 Utah 47-7 (then, bizarrely, beating unranked San Diego State the following week by only 5). TCU’s average margin of victory this season was over 30 points. That is an extremely rare thing. Top ranked Oregon only beat teams by an average of 28 that year.

Now, their bowl game. Because both Auburn and Oregon were undefeated this year, those two teams played in the national championship while TCU was relegated to the Rose Bowl against No. 5 Wisconsin. On New Year’s Day, the Horned Frogs prevailed over the Badgers, locking in TCU’s impressive undefeated season.

This team had two quite notable NFL players. Marcus Cannon is perhaps most famous for discovering that he had Lymphoma during the 2011 draft combine. His draft stock fell as he underwent treatment. However, in one of the great success stories, he ended up winning multiple super bowls and being selected second team all pro for the New England Patriots. The second NFL player on this team is still playing in the NFL today: Andy Dalton.

2010 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Oregon	45.9
2	Stanford	44.5
3	Boise State	41.7
4	Auburn	41.2
5	Alabama	39.9
6	Texas Christian	37.7
7	Ohio State	35.9
8	Oklahoma	33.7
9	Oklahoma State	32.8
10	Louisiana State	31.7
11	Arkansas	31.6
12	Virginia Tech	31.1
13	Wisconsin	30.1
14	Missouri	29.7
15	Nebraska	28.8
16	Florida State	28
17	Arizona State	27.6
18	South Carolina	27.2
19	Texas A&M	26.9
20	Florida	26.7
21	Arizona	26.7
22	Mississippi State	26.3
23	Nevada	26.3
24	Southern California	26.2
25	Oregon State	25.3
26	Iowa	25.2
27	California	25.1
28	North Carolina State	23.5
29	Utah	23.1
30	Georgia	23
31	Miami (FL)	22.1
32	Notre Dame	21.8
33	West Virginia	21.5
34	Illinois	20.4
35	Hawaii	20.2
36	Pittsburgh	19.6
37	Central Florida	18.6
38	Clemson	18.6
39	Michigan State	17.9
40	North Carolina	17.8
41	Washington	17.7
42	Maryland	17.5
43	Kansas State	17.1
44	San Diego State	17
45	Louisville	16.8
46	Air Force	16.8
47	Tennessee	16.4
48	Northern Illinois	15.5
49	Texas	15
50	Kentucky	14.7
51	Texas Tech	14.6
52	Brigham Young	14.6
53	Penn State	14.4
54	Tulsa	14.2
55	Navy	14.1
56	UCLA	13.9
57	Baylor	13
58	Michigan	12.8
59	Mississippi	12.7
60	South Dakota State	11.8
61	Boston College	11.2
62	Colorado	11.2
63	William & Mary	10.8
64	South Florida	10.6
65	Cincinnati	10.4
66	Southern Mississippi	10.3
67	Connecticut	9.4
68	Iowa State	9.2
69	Houston	8.7
70	Georgia Tech	8.6
71	Washington State	8.5
72	Fresno State	8.2
73	Syracuse	8.2
74	Southern Methodist	7
75	Sacramento State	6.5
76	Louisiana Tech	6.2
77	Minnesota	5.5
78	Virginia	5.3
79	Furman	5.2
80	Georgia Southern	5.1
81	Montana State	4.5
82	Western Michigan	4.2
83	Northwestern	4.1
84	Temple	3.9
85	Idaho	3.9
86	Army	3.6
87	Northern Arizona	3.6
88	Troy	2.6
89	Miami	2.4
90	East Carolina	2.3
91	Florida International	2.1
92	Duke	1.8
93	Purdue	1.8
94	Rutgers	1.5
95	Toledo	1.5
96	Wake Forest	0.9
97	Vanderbilt	0.9
98	Arkansas State	0.2
99	Chattanooga	0.2
100	Indiana	-0.4
101	Wyoming	-1.1
102	Utah State	-1.6
103	Alabama-Birmingham	-1.7
104	Eastern Washington	-1.7
105	Ohio	-2.7
106	Kansas	-2.8
107	Central Michigan	-3.1
108	Texas-El Paso	-3.1
109	Marshall	-3.7
110	Rice	-4
111	McNeese State	-5.3
112	New Hampshire	-5.4
113	Kent State	-5.6
114	Villanova	-6.1
115	North Texas	-6.7
116	San Jose State	-7.3
117	Nevada-Las Vegas	-7.4
118	Tulane	-7.5
119	Eastern Illinois	-7.8
120	Middle Tennessee State	-8.3
121	Louisiana-Monroe	-8.3
122	Colorado State	-8.4
123	Alcorn State	-9.7
124	Missouri State	-9.9
125	Western Kentucky	-10
126	Grambling State	-10.8
127	Western Illinois	-11.2
128	Bowling Green State	-12.2
129	Florida Atlantic	-12.2
130	Coastal Carolina	-12.5
131	Louisiana	-13.1
132	Southern Utah	-13.7
133	Appalachian State	-14.3
134	Ball State	-14.3
135	Southeastern Louisiana	-14.4
136	Southern Illinois	-14.6
137	Elon	-15.2
138	Cal Poly	-15.8
139	Central Arkansas	-15.8
140	New Mexico State	-16.2
141	Tennessee Tech	-16.3
142	Stephen F. Austin	-17.1
143	Memphis	-17.3
144	New Mexico	-17.4
145	Youngstown State	-18.6
146	Richmond	-18.7
147	North Dakota	-18.8
148	Maine	-18.8
149	Buffalo	-18.9
150	Georgia State	-19.1
151	Prairie View A&M	-19.7
152	Western Carolina	-20.5
153	Weber State	-20.6
154	Northern Iowa	-20.8
155	Akron	-20.8
156	Sam Houston State	-21
157	Citadel	-22.3
158	Eastern Michigan	-22.9
159	Northern Colorado	-23.1
160	Portland State	-23.2
161	South Carolina State	-25.4
162	Indiana State	-25.6
163	Florida A&M	-25.9
164	Idaho State	-26.8
165	Arkansas-Pine Bluff	-27.1
166	Samford	-28
167	Wofford	-28.7
168	Charleston Southern	-29
169	Colgate	-29.8
170	Virginia Military Institute	-30
171	Northwestern State	-30.2
172	Presbyterian	-31.8
173	Norfolk State	-32.5
174	Illinois State	-32.9
175	Nicholls State	-33.4
176	Texas State	-34.3
177	Southeast Missouri State	-34.3
178	Tennessee-Martin	-36.6
179	Austin Peay	-37.1
180	Towson	-37.4
181	Stony Brook	-37.4
182	Hampton	-39.1
183	Murray State	-39.6
184	Morgan State	-44.5
185	Texas Southern	-52.6
186	Rhode Island	-52.9

If my memory serves, this TCU team is the highest rated team that we have considered so far in my computer rankings. That is already a good sign. They were the number six teams in these rankings and are an implied 8 point underdogs against Oregon and only 3.5 point underdogs against Auburn, the eventual champions. TCU even moves up to number 5 in our non-margin adjusted rankings.

An interesting note before I deliberate on TCU’s credentials. Boise State is actually ranked above TCU here. If you look at 2010 Boise State, they might actually be better than their 2009 team we discussed above. They routinely embarrassed their opponents with an average margin of victory of 32 points. However, Boise State lost to Nevada, precluding them from a BCS bowl game and ending their candidacy for a mythical national championship in 2010.

The Case for and Against 2010 TCU’s Mythical National Championship

This TCU team pretty much did it all. They beat everyone they were supposed to including a very strong opponent in their bowl game. They had NFL talent on their roster. They beat the bad teams by enough for the wins to be convincing. They were competitive enough so that they would have a reasonable shot had they been selected to play in the national championship game.

My verdict: Yes, in 2010 TCU can claim their mythical national championship.

The 2012 Ohio State Buckeyes

This one is quite a bit unlike the others. Traditionally, a mythical national championship is a highly ranked undefeated team from a non-power conference that wins their BCS bowl game. How did 2012 Ohio State make this list then?

In any other season, the 12-0 Big Ten champion Ohio State Buckeyes would have been selected to play in the BCS national championship game. It is possible that Ohio State would have faced Alabama, but likely we would have had a Notre Dame-Ohio State championship. What happened? Two seasons prior, multiple Ohio State players were caught selling memorabilia resulting in the resignation of Jim Tressel and a general overhaul of the team. Urban Meyer was brought in and Ohio State was banned from postseason play in 2012.

In the 2012 season Ohio State went undefeated through an (admittedly weaker than normal) Big 10 slate. They played three games against ranked teams but none were in the top 20. They beat Michigan State by 1, Nebraska by 25, and Michigan by 5 in the season finale. Interestingly, Ohio State played a very weak out of conference schedule that may actually hurt their resume. In particular, they beat Cal by only 7 and UAB by only 14. These are games that, if you want to claim a title, you should be winning by much larger margins.

As for professional talent, this team was as good as you would expect a Big 10 champion to be. Just to name a few of the notable talents. On offense, the Buckeyes had QBs Braxton Miller and Cardale Jones, running back Carlos Hyde, and future star receiver Michael Thomas was a freshman. On the defensive end, the Buckeyes had Ryan Shazier, Bradley Roby, Noah Spence, and Jonathan Hankins.

2012 Final College Football Rankings with Differential Least Squares

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Alabama	48.6
2	Oregon	46.4
3	Texas A&M	43.2
4	Georgia	37.9
5	Kansas State	37.7
6	Oklahoma State	36.4
7	Oklahoma	35.1
8	South Carolina	33.8
9	Florida	33.6
10	Louisiana State	33.2
11	Notre Dame	33
12	Oregon State	31.6
13	Stanford	31.5
14	Baylor	31.1
15	Florida State	29.8
16	Ohio State	29.6
17	Clemson	29.3
18	Texas	29.3
19	Wisconsin	28.6
20	Arizona State	28
21	Michigan	27.2
22	Southern California	26.6
23	Mississippi	26.2
24	UCLA	25.4
25	Texas Christian	24.8
26	Nebraska	24.3
27	Texas Tech	24.2
28	Brigham Young	24.2
29	Utah State	24
30	Northwestern	23.8
31	Vanderbilt	23.7
32	Penn State	23.1
33	Cincinnati	23.1
34	Iowa State	22.7
35	Michigan State	22.4
36	Arizona	22.4
37	West Virginia	22.4
38	Mississippi State	21.5
39	Northern Illinois	21.2
40	Boise State	21
41	Fresno State	20.7
42	Syracuse	20.7
43	Central Florida	20.3
44	Missouri	20.2
45	Tulsa	19.2
46	Tennessee	18.8
47	San Jose State	18.6
48	Louisville	17.6
49	Louisiana Tech	17.2
50	Pittsburgh	17.2
51	Washington	17
52	Georgia Tech	16.9
53	San Diego State	16.3
54	Utah	16.3
55	Arkansas	16.1
56	North Carolina	16.1
57	Arkansas State	15.6
58	Southern Methodist	15.4
59	Rutgers	15.2
60	Wofford	13.8
61	Iowa	13.8
62	Virginia Tech	12.9
63	Sam Houston State	12.1
64	Kent State	11.8
65	California	11.7
66	Louisiana	10.9
67	Purdue	10.5
68	Auburn	10.5
69	Northern Iowa	10.2
70	Louisiana-Monroe	10.1
71	Minnesota	9.7
72	North Carolina State	9.3
73	Toledo	9.2
74	Nevada	8.7
75	Ball State	8.5
76	Indiana	7.1
77	Western Kentucky	6.9
78	Rice	6.8
79	Bowling Green State	5.8
80	Duke	5.6
81	Troy	5.5
82	Kansas	5.5
83	North Dakota	5.3
84	Connecticut	5.3
85	Ohio	5.3
86	Kentucky	5.2
87	Navy	4.8
88	Washington State	4.5
89	Maryland	4.1
90	South Florida	4.1
91	Delaware State	4.1
92	Georgia Southern	3.9
93	Houston	3.8
94	East Carolina	3.4
95	Virginia	3.4
96	Middle Tennessee State	3
97	Marshall	2.9
98	Miami	2.7
99	Temple	2.5
100	Texas-El Paso	1.8
101	Boston College	0.5
102	Central Michigan	0.1
103	Air Force	-0.2
104	Florida International	-0.3
105	North Texas	-0.3
106	Wyoming	-0.3
107	Western Michigan	-0.6
108	Wake Forest	-0.8
109	Florida Atlantic	-1.7
110	Colorado State	-1.9
111	Illinois	-2
112	Memphis	-2.1
113	Texas State	-2.1
114	Buffalo	-3.5
115	New Mexico	-3.6
116	Army	-3.8
117	Coastal Carolina	-3.8
118	Alabama-Birmingham	-4.8
119	Texas-San Antonio	-5
120	Nevada-Las Vegas	-5.3
121	Tennessee Tech	-5.6
122	Liberty	-6.8
123	Akron	-7.5
124	Furman	-7.7
125	Tulane	-8.2
126	Eastern Michigan	-8.2
127	Southern Mississippi	-8.7
128	South Alabama	-9.3
129	South Dakota	-10.2
130	Hawaii	-10.5
131	James Madison	-10.6
132	Northwestern State	-11
133	Colorado	-11
134	Fordham	-11.9
135	Howard	-13.8
136	Western Illinois	-14.3
137	Western Carolina	-15.8
138	Southern Illinois	-16.3
139	California-Davis	-16.4
140	New Mexico State	-17.3
141	Idaho	-17.8
142	Texas A&M-Commerce	-19
143	Chattanooga	-19.9
144	Massachusetts	-20.8
145	Florida A&M	-23.9
146	Georgia State	-24.1
147	Stephen F. Austin	-24.4
148	Portland State	-25
149	South Carolina State	-26.2
150	Bethune-Cookman	-28.3
151	Samford	-28.8
152	New Hampshire	-30.3
153	Texas Southern	-30.3
154	Gardner-Webb	-30.8
155	Norfolk State	-31.7
156	Citadel	-31.7
157	Nicholls State	-32.5
158	Maine	-33.5
159	Grambling State	-34.2
160	North Carolina Central	-34.4
161	Eastern Kentucky	-34.5
162	Eastern Illinois	-34.6
163	Virginia Military Institute	-36.2
164	Alabama A&M	-36.5
165	Rhode Island	-37.2
166	Savannah State	-39.4
167	Presbyterian	-39.7
168	Alcorn State	-43.4
169	Elon	-48.9
170	Charleston Southern	-49
171	Morgan State	-49.5
172	Southern	-51.6
173	Northwestern Oklahoma State	-61

You’ll notice these computerized rankings are actually quite low on this Ohio State team. In fact, as I discussed above, this Ohio State team might be one of the least impressive undefeated teams to come out of a power conference. They didn’t really blow teams out and they didn’t tend to win by the margins you would expect. In fact, Ohio State is ranked as the 16^th best team in the country and is an implied 19 point underdog against top ranked Alabama.

Interestingly, my rankings suggest that it was a massive mistake to select Notre Dame for the national championship game. Sure there are exterior factors for Notre Dame’s selection, but they may have been one of the least qualified teams to be selected for a national championship game in the BCS era. Personally I believe Kansas State should have been selected for the chance to win over Notre Dame.

The Case for and Against 2012 Ohio State’s Mythical National Championship

2012 marked a true turning point for Ohio State. They would eventually win the 2014 national championship and more Big 10 championships than any other team since then. You could mark the beginning of this modern era for Ohio State in 2012 and identify this new found success with the tenure of Urban Meyer.

However, in 2012 I don’t quite think Ohio State fits the bill. They simply didn’t win by enough nor did they play enough high quality opponents to achieve the level of success needed to claim a national championship. In part, this is all due to an overall down year for the Big 10. There is also something to be said for not being able to claim even a mythical national championship when your team is serving a punishment. Sure, the players on the 2012 team did not commit the infractions leading to the punishment. However, the status of claiming a mythical national championship should be reserved for teams that could have won the national championship if not for the pickiness of the selection committee.

My verdict: No, in 2012 Ohio State may not claim a mythical national championship.

The 2017 Central Florida Knights

I have already written at length about this 2017 Central Florida Knights team in my original post about mythical national championships. I am not going to repeat that whole article here. The long story short was that no, 2017 Central Florida does not get to claim a mythical national championship. They just didn’t quite make the bill by beating enough teams by enough over the course of the season. I included below my end-of-season 2017 rankings so that we can see how Central Florida compared to the rest of the league. They came in at number 11.

Rank	Team	Rating
1	Alabama	47.4
2	Penn State	44.9
3	Ohio State	44.6
4	Georgia	44.1
5	Clemson	42.3
6	Wisconsin	39.8
7	Oklahoma	39.3
8	Auburn	38.8
9	Notre Dame	36.9
10	Washington	34.3
11	Central Florida	33.9
12	Oklahoma State	33.9
13	Iowa	32.6
14	Texas Christian	32.1
15	Virginia Tech	30.9
16	Miami (FL)	30
17	Mississippi State	29.8
18	Northwestern	28.6
19	Iowa State	28.1
20	Stanford	28
21	North Carolina State	28
22	Louisville	27.9
23	Wake Forest	27.8
24	Michigan	27.7
25	Michigan State	27.4
26	Southern California	26.8
27	Louisiana State	26.6
28	Texas	26.5
29	Memphis	26.3
30	Boston College	25.4
31	Florida State	25.4
32	Purdue	25.3
33	Georgia Tech	23.8
34	South Carolina	23.3
35	Duke	23
36	Kansas State	22.4
37	Utah	21.2
38	Texas A&M	20.9
39	South Florida	20.7
40	Missouri	20.6
41	Florida Atlantic	20.4
42	Washington State	20.1
43	Oregon	19.8
44	Texas Tech	19.8
45	Indiana	19.6
46	Boise State	19.3
47	West Virginia	19.3
48	Navy	18.5
49	Pittsburgh	18.2
50	Minnesota	17
51	Arizona	17
52	Arizona State	16.7
53	San Diego State	15.2
54	California	15.1
55	Houston	14.8
56	UCLA	14.7
57	Syracuse	14.5
58	Florida	14.3
59	Fresno State	14
60	Kentucky	13.8
61	Mississippi	13.6
62	Samford	13.1
63	Army	13
64	Nebraska	12.9
65	Virginia	12.7
66	Ohio	12.5
67	Appalachian State	12.2
68	Toledo	11.8
69	Troy	11.7
70	North Carolina	11.4
71	Arkansas	10.5
72	Southern Illinois	10.3
73	Colorado	10.2
74	Maryland	10.1
75	Temple	9.9
76	Northern Illinois	9.9
77	Southern Methodist	9.7
78	Wyoming	9.1
79	Baylor	8.9
80	Youngstown State	8.2
81	Colorado State	7.9
82	Nicholls State	7.9
83	Tulane	7.7
84	Tennessee	7.7
85	Marshall	7.6
86	Vanderbilt	7
87	Utah State	6.9
88	Rutgers	6.2
89	Louisiana Tech	6
90	Western Michigan	5.7
91	Arkansas State	5.7
92	Mercer	5.1
93	Eastern Michigan	4.8
94	Buffalo	4.6
95	Central Michigan	3.9
96	Villanova	3.9
97	Stony Brook	3.7
98	Air Force	3.1
99	Tulsa	2.9
100	Illinois	2.6
101	Middle Tennessee State	1.5
102	North Texas	1
103	Delaware	0.9
104	Southern Mississippi	0.9
105	Miami	0.8
106	Massachusetts	0.3
107	Brigham Young	0.3
108	Nevada	0.1
109	Nevada-Las Vegas	-0.6
110	Weber State	-0.9
111	Texas-San Antonio	-1
112	Florida International	-1.1
113	Cincinnati	-1.5
114	New Mexico State	-1.8
115	Akron	-2.1
116	Connecticut	-2.4
117	Louisiana-Monroe	-3.3
118	Georgia State	-4.8
119	Western Kentucky	-5.1
120	East Carolina	-5.3
121	New Mexico	-5.4
122	Alabama-Birmingham	-5.5
123	Oregon State	-5.8
124	Jacksonville State	-6.2
125	Bowling Green State	-6.2
126	Kansas	-6.3
127	Idaho	-6.5
128	Georgia Southern	-7.5
129	South Alabama	-7.5
130	Furman	-8
131	Coastal Carolina	-8.1
132	William & Mary	-8.3
133	California-Davis	-8.8
134	Old Dominion	-10.5
135	Hawaii	-10.7
136	Alcorn State	-11.1
137	Eastern Kentucky	-11.1
138	Chattanooga	-11.4
139	Tennessee-Martin	-11.4
140	Northern Colorado	-12.8
141	Louisiana	-13
142	Montana State	-13.9
143	Kent State	-15
144	Maine	-15.7
145	Rice	-16.5
146	Texas State	-17.4
147	Charlotte	-17.4
148	Alabama State	-18.3
149	Citadel	-18.7
150	Murray State	-20.1
151	Gardner-Webb	-20.9
152	San Jose State	-21.1
153	Eastern Illinois	-21.1
154	Colgate	-21.4
155	Texas-El Paso	-21.4
156	Ball State	-23.6
157	Grambling State	-24.3
158	Montana	-24.7
159	Albany	-27.5
160	Eastern Washington	-29.2
161	Houston Baptist	-29.4
162	Indiana State	-30.3
163	Jackson State	-33.9
164	Stephen F. Austin	-37.3
165	Delaware State	-37.7
166	Towson	-38.9
167	Southern Utah	-39.2
168	Tennessee Tech	-41.6
169	Southern	-42.5
170	Cal Poly	-45.1
171	Arkansas-Pine Bluff	-48.2
172	Morgan State	-61.8

Commentary

You might think I am stingy, you might think I was unfair to some of these teams, you might think that I trust too much in the power of computerized ratings. While each of these things may be true, the result remains the same. I have only awarded two mythical national championships: one to the 2008 Utah Utes and one to the 2010 TCU Horned Frogs. These teams were well deserving, the others were not. Because of the updated playoff format, it is less likely that we will have more mythical national champions in the future. So, for now and for the foreseeable future, the only fan bases I want to see claiming a mythical national championship in any corner of the internet are the Utes and the Horned Frog faithful.