I thought it would be an interesting study to go back the last three years and take a look at which teams have been the most successful. Why three years? Coming up this fall the kids that were recruited and signed in February before the 2009 season will now be seniors (if they haven’t gone pro) so essentially we are looking at the most successful senior classes coming into 2012 (without taking into account red-shirts).
If we simply pull the final AP polls from 2009-2011 we learn that 47 teams have been ranked over this three year period. Here is the full list:
| Rank | School |
| 1 | Alabama |
| 2 | Oregon |
| 3 | Boise State |
| 4 | TCU |
| 5 | LSU |
| 6 | Wisconsin |
| 7 | Ohio State |
| 8 | Stanford |
| 9 | Oklahoma State |
| 10 | Arkansas |
| 11 | Virginia Tech |
| 12 | Oklahoma |
| 13 | Michigan State |
| 14 | Auburn |
| 15 | USC |
| 15 | Texas |
| 17 | Florida |
| 18 | South Carolina |
| 19 | Nebraska |
| 20 | Cincinnati |
| 20 | Iowa |
| 22 | Penn State |
| 23 | Nevada |
| 24 | Michigan |
| 24 | BYU |
| 26 | Baylor |
| 26 | Georgia Tech |
| 28 | FSU |
| 29 | Kansas State |
| 29 | Miss State |
| 29 | Pittsburgh |
| 32 | West Virginia |
| 33 | Houston |
| 33 | Missouri |
| 33 | Utah |
| 36 | Georgia |
| 36 | Texas A&M |
| 36 | Miami (FL) |
| 39 | Southern Miss |
| 39 | Clemson |
| 39 | Mississippi |
| 42 | UCF |
| 42 | Texas Tech |
| 44 | Maryland |
| 44 | Central Michigan |
| 46 | Tulsa |
| 47 | NC State |
Pretty interesting list. I’m sure you can pick out a school or two missing from the list that probably surprises you a bit. Chances are they’ve had a coaching change over the last three years.
One of the things that you also have to factor in is “strength of schedule”. Just for fun we used the GBE Strength of Schedule rankings for the last three years and factored them into the equation. Out of those 47 teams that have been ranked, here is the ranking from above but with the “Strength of Schedule” 3-year trend ranking showing to the right (remember their are only 120 teams ranked in the FBS so the closer to 120 the SOS is, the weaker the schedule is).
| Rank | School | SOS |
| 1 | Alabama | 10.00 |
| 2 | Oregon | 39.67 |
| 3 | Boise State | 75.67 |
| 4 | TCU | 75.67 |
| 5 | LSU | 4.67 |
| 6 | Wisconsin | 56.67 |
| 7 | Ohio State | 36.00 |
| 8 | Stanford | 58.67 |
| 9 | Oklahoma State | 28.00 |
| 10 | Arkansas | 15.33 |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | 33.00 |
| 12 | Oklahoma | 6.33 |
| 13 | Michigan State | 50.67 |
| 14 | Auburn | 14.67 |
| 15 | Texas | 17.33 |
| 15 | USC | 42.67 |
| 17 | Florida | 20.00 |
| 18 | South Carolina | 14.67 |
| 19 | Nebraska | 35.00 |
| 20 | Cincinnati | 54.67 |
| 20 | Iowa | 38.67 |
| 22 | Penn State | 39.67 |
| 23 | Nevada | 94.67 |
| 24 | BYU | 76.33 |
| 24 | Michigan | 38.00 |
| 26 | Baylor | 23.00 |
| 26 | Georgia Tech | 71.67 |
| 28 | FSU | 35.33 |
| 29 | Kansas State | 54.33 |
| 29 | Miss State | 20.67 |
| 29 | Pittsburgh | 46.33 |
| 32 | West Virginia | 44.33 |
| 33 | Houston | 92.33 |
| 33 | Missouri | 32.67 |
| 33 | Utah | 80.33 |
| 36 | Georgia | 27.33 |
| 36 | Miami (FL) | 38.33 |
| 36 | Texas A&M | 18.33 |
| 39 | Clemson | 30.67 |
| 39 | Mississippi | 37.33 |
| 39 | Southern Miss | 103.67 |
| 42 | Texas Tech | 47.67 |
| 42 | UCF | 92.33 |
| 44 | Central Michigan | 82.67 |
| 44 | Maryland | 52.00 |
| 46 | Tulsa | 72.33 |
| 47 | NC State | 73.33 |
Teams that finished above their “SOS”:
1. Boise State- there is a 72 spot difference between their SOS 3-year trend and their AP 3-year ranking trend.
2 (tie). TCU & Nevada- there is a 71 spot difference
3. Southern Miss- 64 spots
4. Houston- 59 spots
5. BYU- 52 spots
6 (tie). Wisconsin & Stanford- 50.6 spots
7. UCF- 50.3 spots
8. Utah- 47 spots
9. Georgia Tech- 45 spots
10. Central Michigan- 38 spots
Teams that finished below by their “SOS”:
1. Texas A&M- there is a 17 spot difference between their SOS 3-year trend (18) and their AP 3-year ranking trend (36)
2. Georgia- there is an 8.6 spot difference
3 (tie). Clemson & Miss State- 8.3 spots
4. Oklahoma- 5.6 spots
5. South Carolina- 3.3 spots
6. Baylor- 3 spots
7. Ole Miss- 1.6 spots
8 (tie). Missouri & LSU- 0.3 spots
By looking at these numbers I’m not looking to come to a grand conclusion (although you the reader are more than welcome to do so) but it’s just to put the numbers in perspective. One thing that jumps off the page at me is that the benefits for the teams with the lowest strength of schedule is huge as they have very large discrepancies between their SOS and their final rankings. To me, it proves that playing an easier schedule does pay off. It might not get you in the National Championship Game but it will get you in the Top 10 or if you are a non-BCS team that has a great year (see: Central Michigan, Nevada, Southern Miss) your record will move you up the charts no matter who is on your schedule.
It’s also interesting to see teams that finished below their SOS ranking. Did these teams fall victim to their tough schedules or did they simply not play up to their competition. It’s not easy to paint a broad picture but I think you can probably assume a little of both in that case. Playing a tougher schedule no doubt means that you are more likely to lose but it also means that you have to step up to your competition.
It also shows that elite teams can overcome tough schedules. Alabama is the overall #1 in the AP 3-year trend but they also posted an overall SOS average of 10th. Playing in NCGs and SECCGs will no doubt help but they have found success despite playing one of the very toughest schedules in the Nation year in and year out. LSU is another example as they have the 5th overall AP ranking and an average of 5th in SOS as well.
One thing is for certain, the teams at the top of the AP 3-year trend will have a senior class that knows how to win football games and has experience winning big games. There are a couple of exceptions (TCU and probably Ohio State because of their down year last year) but if you trotted out that list as your pre-season Top 10 you probably wouldn’t get that many funny looks.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
