Computer Rankings And National Titles
by Mike Mitchell
Updated 1/9/07 3:00 am est

Here is a year-by-year look at how the computer has fared with its' preseason national title picks beginning with 1993, the first year of the Congrove Computer Rankings.

Before the 2003 season began, I took a look back at previous Congrove Computer Rankings to see how they have performed in predetermining championship game opponents over the years. Now, it has become an annual ritual to keep that research updated.

Including the 2007 season, the computer has correctly picked both of the national championship game participants three times (1993, 1998, 2005). It has picked at least one correct team 11 times in its 15-year history (1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007).

The team it picked to win the title did so three times (1993, 1998, 1999), and lost in the title game four times (2000, 2003, 2004, 2005).


1993 (1st year of rankings)
National Champion Prediction: Florida State
Predicted Participants (Orange): Florida State (12-0) vs. Nebraska (11-0)
Actual Participants (Orange): Florida State (11-1) vs. Nebraska (11-0)
Computer line: Florida State by 16
Final: Florida State 18, Nebraska 16
National Champ:  Florida State
Comment: Not a bad start for the rankings. In fact, Congrove's poll that season correctly determined the exact match for 7-of-19 bowls, and put 27 of 38 teams in the correct bowls before a single snap of the season was taken.
It then went 14-5 in picking bowl winners and 11-8 against the spread.
See: 1993 Final Computer Rankings


1994
National Champion Prediction: Penn State
Predicted Participants (Rose): Arizona (11-0) vs. Penn State (11-0)
Actual Participants (Orange): Nebraska (12-0) vs. Miami, Fla. (10-1)
Computer Line: Miami by 4
Final: Nebraska 24, Miami 17
National Champ: Nebraska (AP, Coaches Poll)
Penn State (Congrove Computer Rankings)
Comment: Penn State was crowned the champs by the Congrove Computer Rankings, mere percentage points ahead of Nebraska. The Nittany Lions finished the season at 12-0 after whipping Oregon 38-20 in the Rose Bowl.

Arizona slipped to 8-4, losing to Utah in the Freedom Bowl, 16-13.
See: 1994 Final Computer Rankings


1995
National Champion Prediction: Florida State
Predicted Participants (Fiesta): Florida State (11-0) vs. Nebraska (11-0)
Actual Participants (Fiesta): Florida (12-0) vs. Nebraska (10-1)
Computer Line: Florida by 9
Final: Nebraska 62, Florida 24
National Champ: Nebraska
Comment: The first year of the Alliance (predecessor to the BCS) produced a true title match-up between the top-ranked teams in the nation. Danny Wuerffel and the Gators, however, were gunned down 62-24 by Tommy Frazier and the Cornhuskers.

Florida State was beaten by the Gators at the end of the regular season, 35-24. It was the second loss of the season for the Seminoles who fell to Virginia 33-28 earlier in the year. They downed Notre Dame 31-26 in the Orange Bowl.
See: 1995 Final Computer Rankings


1996
National Champion Prediction: Nebraska
Predicted Participants (Sugar): Nebraska (11-0) vs. Florida (12-0)
Actual Participants (Sugar): Florida (11-1) vs. Florida State (11-0)
Computer Line: Florida by 2
Final: Florida 52, Florida State 20
National Champ: Florida
Comment: Florida State and Arizona State were the only unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season. But not even the Alliance could set up a true national title game between the 'Noles and Sun Devils. As PAC-10 champs, ASU was committed to the Rose Bowl where it played Ohio State.

This quirk in the Alliance actually helped create one of the most exciting bowl seasons in recent history.

On the evening of New Year's Day, #4 Ohio State did the Alliance a favor by scoring with 19 seconds left for a 20-17 win to knock #2 Arizona State out of the title picture. That meant that #1 Florida State could finish as the only unbeaten team and lay claim to an undisputed title if it beat #3 Florida the next night. It didn't happen.

When the Gators won, everyone anxiously awaited the results of the AP Sportswriters Poll and USA Today/CNN Coaches Poll to see who would be number one. Would it be Florida or Ohio State? Many expected a split decision. After all, both had only one loss during the year, and each beat an undefeated team in a major bowl.

Florida, however, was voted the consensus number one and justified it by pointing out how convincingly they had downed FSU. To this day, Ohio State fans still feel gypped. And Gator fans are extremely grateful that they had the opportunity for a rematch with the Seminoles, who beat them at the end of the regular season. At the time, it was thought that Florida had been knocked out of the title chase altogether.

Nebraska, by the way, finished the year 11-2 after beating Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl 41-21.

The Congrove rankings were the only major preseason poll to pick Arizona State to win the PAC. Everyone else banked on USC that year. Over-all, the computer correctly tabbed 9 out of 14 conference or division winners. ESPN and Athlon each picked 5, while Sports Illlustrated selected 4. Even better, the computer came within just one win or loss of correctly forecasting the exact record of 64 teams.
See: 1996 Final Computer Rankings


1997
National Champion Prediction: Florida
Predicted Participants (Orange): Florida (11-0) vs. Colorado (10-1)
Actual Participants (Orange): Nebraska (12-0) vs. Tennessee (11-1)
Computer Line: Nebraska by 5
Final: Nebraska 42, Tennessee 17
National Champ: Nebraska (Coaches Poll, Congrove Computer Rankings),
Michigan (AP Sportswriters)
Comment: Nebraska and Michigan were both unbeaten, but again the Rose Bowl stood in the way of a true national championship with the Big 10's obligation to the Pasadena game. Both won their bowl games. Brian Griese and Michigan edged Ryan Leaf's Washington State Cougars on New Year's Day, 21-16. The next night, Scott Frost quarterbacked Nebraska past Peyton Manning and the Volunteers. The polls split their decision and the Alliance was done.

The computer had Nebraska number one in the final rankings.

Over-all, this was a great year for preseason predictions by the computer. It predicted the exact record of 30 teams, and came within one victory or loss of 85 teams. However, It didn't do so well on its prediction of Colorado making it to the national title game. The Buffaloes ended a dreadful 5-6. Florida finished the year with a 10-2 mark and ranked 4th by the computer after beating Penn State in the Citrus Bowl.
See: 1997 Final Computer Rankings


1998
National Champion Prediction: Tennessee
Predicted Participants (Fiesta): Tennessee (11-0) vs. Florida State (10-1)
Actual Participants (Fiesta): Tennessee (11-0) vs. Florida State (10-1)
Computer Line: Florida State by 3
Final: Tennessee 23, Florida State 16
National Champ: Tennessee
Comment: It was the first year of the BCS and, lucky for it, Tennessee won. Otherwise, Rose Bowl champ Wisconsin could have laid claim to a piece of the crown.

Tulane, coached by Tommy Bowden, was the only other undefeated team in the nation that year. But schedule strength kept them from being ranked high enough to get a BCS bid.
See: 1998 Final Computer Rankings


1999
National Champion Prediction: Florida State
Predicted Participants (Sugar): Florida State (11-0) vs. Tennessee (11-0)
Actual Participants (Sugar): Florida State (11-0) vs. Virginia Tech (11-0)
Computer Line: Florida State by 6
Final: Florida State 46, Virginia Tech 29
National Champ: Florida State
Comment: The College Football Poll.com website was launched, and the second year of the BCS produced an undisputed champion. Still, Nebraska fans complained loudly that they were more deserving than Virginia Tech as the Hokies barely eked past the Cornhuskers in the final BCS Standings system.

The game, however, was a thriller. After Florida State staked out a 28-7 lead, Michael Vick rallied his troops for a 29-28 advantage after three quarters. But the Seminoles pulled away in the fourth quarter.

Tennessee did not get to defend its title after finishing behind Florida in the SEC East. The Vols ended the year at 9-3, including a 31-21 loss to Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl.
See: 1999 Final Computer Rankings


2000
National Champion Prediction: Florida State
Predicted Participants (Orange): Florida State (11-0) vs. Wisconsin (12-0)
Actual Participants (Orange): Florida State (11-1) vs. Oklahoma (12-0)
Computer Line: Florida State by 12
Final: Oklahoma 13, Florida State 2
National Champ: Oklahoma
Comment: The Sooners came out of nowhere to claim the title in Bobby Stoops second season as head coach. The former defensive coordinator from Florida shut down FSU's high-powered offense.

There was controversy before, and after, this game that Miami (which beat FSU in the regular season) deserved the bid more than the Seminoles. The controversy resulted in the BCS amending their rankings formula for the 2001 season.

Wisconsin finished the season 8-4 after beating UCLA 21-20 in the Sun Bowl.
See: 2000 Final Computer Rankings


2001
National Champion Prediction: Oklahoma
Predicted Participants (Rose): Florida (12-0) vs. Oklahoma (13-0)
Actual Participants (Rose): Miami, Fla. (11-0) vs. Nebraska (11-1)
Computer Line: Miami by 11
Final: Miami 37, Nebraska 14
National Champ: Miami, Fla.
Comment: Under first-year head coach Larry Coker, Miami won its 5th national title. Controversy reigned supreme as Nebraska gained a spot in the national championship game without even playing for its own conference championship. But the Cornhuskers "backed in" as the other teams ranked in front of them fell out of contention with losses.

After Nebraska lost to Colorado in its final regular season game, Oklahoma was shocked by Oklahoma State, and Florida lost to Tennessee. Then, in their conference title games, Texas fell to Colorado, and Tennessee lost to LSU.

Voila! The other contenders had fallen behind Nebraska again.

PAC-10 champs Oregon complained loudly that they weren't in the title game. With a 10-1 record, they proceeded to the Fiesta Bowl where they ripped Big 12 champ Colorado 38-16. The Ducks had finished the regular season ranked No. 2 in the Coaches and AP Polls, but were fourth in the BCS. Colorado, with a 10-2 record, was third in the BCS.

The computer's preseason picks of Florida and Oklahoma were both in the hunt until the very end. The Gators finished the year at 10-2 after demolishing Maryland 56-23 in the Orange Bowl. The Sooners completed an 11-2 campaign with a 10-3 win over Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl.

It was only the third time in the nine-year history of the Congrove Computer Rankings that they didn't predict at least one of the two finalists.
See: 2001 Final Computer Rankings


2002
National Champion Prediction: Oklahoma
Predicted Participants (Fiesta): Miami, Fla. (12-0) vs. Oklahoma (13-0)
Actual Participants (Fiesta): Miami, Fla. (12-0) vs. Ohio State (13-0)
Computer Line: Miami, Fla. by 11
Final: Ohio State 31, Miami, Fla. 24 (2 OT)
National Champ: Ohio State
Comment: Ohio State shocked the nation with a double-overtime 31-24 victory in what many quickly termed one of the greatest college football games ever. It ended with some controversy, however.

After falling behind 17-7, Miami rallied to tie the game at 17 on a 40-yard field goal as time expired. The Hurricanes then seemingly won 24-17 in the first overtime after successfully defending a 4th-down pass attempt by Ohio State. But a referee hesitated, then threw a penalty flag a few seconds later. His interference call gave the Buckeyes one more shot which they obviously took advantage of, and under second-year head coach Jim Tressel, Ohio State claimed their first national title since 1968.

The computer's predicted national champ, Oklahoma, finished the season at 12-2 with a 34-14 romp over Washington State in the Rose Bowl and was 3rd in the final computer rankings. But Miami lived up to the computer's expectations by taking a 34-game winning streak into the Fiesta Bowl.

For the seventh time in ten seasons the Congrove Computer Rankings predicted at least one of the two finalists.
See: 2002 Final Computer Rankings


2003
National Champion Prediction: Oklahoma
Predicted Participants (Sugar): Oklahoma (13-0) vs. Ohio State (12-0)
Actual Participants (Sugar): Oklahoma (12-1) vs. LSU (12-1)
Computer Line: Oklahoma by 12
Final: LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
National Champ: LSU (Coaches Poll)
USC (AP Poll, Congrove Computer Rankings)
Comment: For the eighth time in eleven seasons the Congrove Computer Rankings projected at least one of the two finalists before a single snap was taken.

Oklahoma lost its conference title game to Kansas State but maintained its number one ranking in the BCS thanks to strong numbers by the participating computer rankers. The AP and Coaches Polls dropped the Sooners to 3rd after their loss to the Wildcats despite the fact that there were no undefeated teams and the other top teams with one loss - LSU and USC - played inarguably weaker schedules.

The division between the human voters and the computers set up the first split national championship of the BCS era. The coaches were obligated by agreement to vote the winner of the BCS title game (LSU) as the number one team in the country, but the AP was free to do what it wanted.

When USC romped over Michigan 28-14 in the Rose Bowl, many AP voters let it be known that they would vote for USC regardless of who wins the Sugar Bowl.

It is the first time the title was split since 1997 when Nebraska was crowned the kings of college football by the coaches and Michigan took home the AP honors. The BCS began the following season.

Ohio State began the year 5-0 but saw its 19-game winning streak come to an end on October 11 when the Buckeyes fell to Wisconsin. Michigan handed Ohio State its second loss when the two teams met in the final game of the season with the Big 10 conference title on the line. The Buckeyes advanced to the BCS' Fiesta Bowl as an at-large selection where they upended Kansas State 35-28.
See: 2003 Final Computer Rankings


2004
National Champion Prediction: Oklahoma
Predicted Participants (Orange): Oklahoma (12-0) vs. Michigan (11-0)
Actual Participants (Orange): Oklahoma (12-0) vs. USC (12-0)
Computer Line: Oklahoma by 5
Final: USC 55, Oklahoma 19
National Champ: USC
Comment: For the ninth time in twelve seasons the Congrove Computer Rankings projected at least one of the two finalists before a single snap was taken.

Undefeated USC left little doubt with everyone but Auburn fans that the Trojans were number one in the land after a 55-19 dismantling of Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, the BCS national title game. It was the Sooners only loss of the season.

USC ended the year at 13-0 after the most-lopsided game in the history of BCS title matches by pouring on 38 points in the last 20 minutes of the first half. The run was kick-started by a fumbled punt return by the Sooners and an interception minutes later.

Auburn also finished unbeaten at 13-0 after a 16-13 win over ACC champion Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. And Utah went 12-0 with a 35-7 thumping of Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl, the first time that a team from a non-BCS conference was invited to a BCS postseason game.

The computer's preseason projection had Oklahoma beating Michigan for the championship, but Michigan slipped to 9-2 in the regular season and then lost to Texas 38-37 in the Rose Bowl.

A fifth team that went unbeaten in the regular season, Boise State, lost 44-40 to Louisville (11-1) in a shootout at the Liberty Bowl.
See: 2004 Final Computer Rankings


2005
National Champion Prediction: USC
Predicted Participants (Rose): USC (12-0) vs. Texas (12-0)
Actual Participants (Rose): USC (12-0) vs. Texas (12-0)
Computer Line: Texas by 5
Final: Texas 41, USC 38
National Champ: Texas
Comment: For the tenth time in thirteen seasons the Congrove Computer Rankings projected at least one of the two finalists before a single snap was taken.

Texas and USC staged a classic battle that went down to the wire. Quarterback Vince Young's 8-yard touchdown run on 4th-and-5 with 19 seconds remaining in the Rose Bowl lifted the Longhorns to their first national championship since 1970.

Texas snapped USC's 34-game winning streak while stretching their own string of victories to 20.

There was no dispute that these were the top two teams at the end of the season and they were ranked that way from wire-to-wire in every major reputable poll and ranking service.

The computer's preseason projection had USC beating Texas by 1 in the title game. But the computer's pick had swung over to Texas by 5 at the end of the regular season.
See: 2005 Final Computer Rankings


2006
National Champion Prediction: Texas
Predicted Participants (BCS Championship): Texas (13-0) vs. USC (12-0)
Actual Participants (BCS Championship): Ohio St. (12-0) vs. Florida (12-1)
Computer Line: Ohio State by 10.01
Final: Florida 41, Ohio State 14
National Champ: Florida
Comment: For the first time ever, the BCS Championship was separate from any of the pre-existing bowls. It essentially created a fifth BCS bowl game in addition to the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls.

Both of the Congrove Computer Rankings' projected national championship participants played their way out of the title game for the first time since 2001.

Texas lost early to Ohio State, climbed back up to number 5 in the BCS Standings, but fell to Kansas State and Texas A&M in their final two regular season games. The Longhorns finished 10-3 with a 26-24 win over Iowa in the Alamo Bowl.

USC was poised to play for the title before falling to arch-rival UCLA on the final week of the regular season, 13-9. They blew past Michigan 32-18 in the Rose Bowl to finish 11-2.

A one-loss Florida team jumped over a one-loss Michigan team in the voter polls after the final week of the season. The Wolverines had suffered a heartbreaking 42-39 loss to Ohio State in both teams' regular season finale, and the prevailing sentiment of pollsters was that they didn't want a rematch. Michigan's poor showing against USC seemingly proved the voters made the right choice..

Before the bowls began, few cared that Boise State was ranked 8th in the BCS, even though they joined Ohio State as the only other team left unbeaten at the end of the regular season. Few gave them much of a chance at defeating Oklahoma. But their complete dismissal became an issue when the Broncos beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl 43-42 in overtime in one of the most memorable games in college football history.

In the end, Florida's 41-14 romp over Ohio State earned the Gators a title that still went largely undisputed. But Boise State's Fiesta Bowl performance gave playoff proponents more ammunition and left others wondering "what if?".
See: 2006 Final Computer Rankings


2007
National Champion Prediction: USC
Predicted Participants (BCS Championship): USC (12-0) vs. LSU (13-0)
Actual Participants (BCS Championship): Ohio St. (11-1) vs. LSU (11-2)
Computer Line: LSU by 2.42
Final: LSU 38, Ohio State 24
National Champ: LSU
Comment: The craziest, and most exciting college football season in memory, ended with a 2-loss LSU battling a 1-loss Ohio State for the national championship and, for the second straight year, the Buckeyes came up empty against an SEC team.

The Congrove Computer Rankings' projection of a USC-LSU matchup almost materialized, but so did a handful of other possibilities as only one team went undefeated (Hawaii), two teams lost just one game (Ohio State and Kansas), and ten teams had lost two games after the completion of the regular season and conference championships.

Hawaii, the only undefeated team, was routed 41-10 by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Virginia Tech, which was ranked No. 1 by the BCS computer components heading into the bowl games, was edged 24-21 by Kansas in the Orange Bowl.

USC, the computer's pick to meet and defeat LSU in the title game, beat Illinois 49-17 in the Rose Bowl to finish 2nd in the Coaches Poll and 3rd in the AP Poll.

The season may best be remembered as the one that opened with Appalachian State pulling off a shocking win at Michigan. It set the scene for a year of upsets and a constant reshuffling of the rankings.
See: 2007 Final Computer Rankings