We are less than two month away from the start of March Madness, so it’s time to see which Cinderella stories could emerge.  The mid-major conference tournaments are the source much of the early holiday season drama, as only the tourney champion will be able to put on their dancing shoes.  While almost all mid-major NCAA teams have the chance to play Cinderella come Christmas Day (aka the first round of the NCAA tourney), it is particularly special when these teams have an inspiring sentimental storyline.  Often times this involves a squad making its first trip to the Big Dance (see Northern Colorado last year).  Other times there is a likable coach who warms the hearts of the nation (see Pete Carril in 1994).  Inevitably, when the second week of March comes around, these stories will come to fruition.  In the meantime, it’s worth looking at the standings and checking out which mid-major conference leaders/contenders could inspire us during ESPN’s annual championship week.  These are listed in alphabetical order by conference.

Stony Brook (America East)- In past seasons, Maine has been the early season Cinderella tease from the America East, but now that title belongs to Stony Brook.  The Seawolves have never danced before but they currently find themselves alone atop the conference standings.

UMass (Atlantic 10)- It’s hard to believe that this once prominent program hasn’t danced in 14 years.  This could be the season the Minutemen finally breakthrough, as they are currently tied atop the A-10 standings and also have an outside shot of securing an at-large bid.

LaSalle (Atlantic 10)- Speaking of Atlantic 10 Cinderella stories, It’s been even longer since the Explorers (great nickname!) of La Salle have gone to the Big Dance.  They haven’t made the tourney since 1992, but just like UMass, the Explorers are tied atop the A-10 standings.

Mercer (Atlantic Sun)- Everybody thought Belmont would run away with the Atlantic Sun again this season, but the Bears of Mercer, who haven’t danced since the year I was born, are currently tied for first.  Mercer lost a close road game to Belmont way back in early December, but they get a revenge game at home in the season finale.

Drexel (Colonial)- The Dragons haven’t danced since 1996 but find themselves right in the thick of a muddled race for the Colonial regular season crown.

Central Florida (Conference USA)- I have always wanted one of Michael Jordan’s sons to break out of MJ’s shadow and make his own significant contribution to the game of basketball.  Well, Marcus would certainly do that if he could lead the Golden Knights to the big dance.  Unlike last year’s UCF squad, this group has used its promising early season start to win some key conference games.  And even though Knights are currently on the outside looking-in, they still have legitimate shot at earning either an at-large bid or the C-USA auto bid in March.

Harvard (Ivy League)- You may be wondering why the mighty Crimson are on this list, but keep in mind they still haven’t danced since 1946.  It would be shocking if Harvard didn’t finally break their long NCAA tourney drought this season, but the Crimson did choke away the Ivy League title just last year.

Loyola-MD (MAAC)- I must first confess that always get this squad confused with Loyola-IL from the Horizon League.  There’s a major difference between the two this season though, as Loyola-IL is 0-11 in conference play and the Greyhounds of Loyola-MD are 9-2.  This program earned its one and only dance ticket way back in 1994.

Norfolk State (MEAC)- Like Stony Brook, the Spartans have never danced before but are the heavy favorite to win their league title this March.  This Norfolk State squad is a scary good 16 seed right now in my bracketology, as they lose by a mere two points to Marquette earlier this season.

The teams below are displayed below on an S-curve, so they are ranked from left to right within each seeding line.  The italicized teams are ones predicted to win their conference tourney and gain an automatic bid to the dance.  For the conferences who currently have NCAA tourney teams, it is assumed that one of those teams will win their conference tourney.  If not, then a stolen bid would result, and the number of at-large bids would drop.

Also, just to clarify, my bracket projection is intended to project the NCAA Tournament field if it was chosen today.  Unlike some bracketologists, I am not trying to predict how each team will finish the season and then seed the teams based on that.  There is one slight exception to this rule, however, and that is that I have always chosen to award the projected automatic bid for each conference to my projected best team in that conference, and not the team who is currently leading the conference standings.   Given how unbalanced conference schedules are, it just seems like common sense to project that the best team in a conference will win the league championship, not the squad currently in first place.

Brad-ketology columns will be published at least twice a week (typically on Mondays and Fridays) and more often than that when it gets closer to tourney time.  This bracket projection has been updated through all games played on Friday January 27th.

NCAA Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Kentucky, Syracuse, Ohio State, North Carolina

2-seeds: Kansas, Baylor, Missouri, Duke

3-seeds:  Georgetown, Michigan State, UNLV, Marquette

4-seeds: Creighton, Florida, UConn, Indiana

5-seeds: Kansas State, Michigan, San Diego State, Wisconsin

6-seeds: Gonzaga, Illinois, Virginia, Seton Hall

7-seeds: Vanderbilt, Saint Mary’s, Murray State, Mississippi State

8-seeds: Louisville, West Virginia, Wichita State, Florida State

9-seeds: Temple, Harvard, Alabama, California

10-seeds: Purdue, Dayton, Memphis, Southern Miss

11-seeds: Cincinnati, Xavier, New Mexico, Minnesota

12-seeds: Brigham Young, Saint Louis, NC State, Arkansas, Stanford, Northwestern

13-seeds: Middle Tennessee, Oral Roberts, Long Beach State, Davidson

14-seeds: Iona, Nevada, Akron, Cleveland State

15-seeds: VCU, Belmont, Weber State, Bucknell

16-seeds: Norfolk State, UNC-Asheville, LIU-Brooklyn, UT-Arlington, Stony Brook, Mississippi Valley State

 

NIT Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Notre Dame, Iowa State, Texas, Oregon

2-seeds: Arizona, Oklahoma, Central Florida, Colorado State

3-seeds: Colorado, Marshall, UMass, Ohio

4-seeds: Ole Miss, Washington, La Salle, New Mexico State

5-seeds: St. Joe’s, Miami-FL, Northern Iowa, Denver

6-seeds: Virginia Tech, LSU, South Florida, Missouri State

7-seeds: Wyoming, Maryland, Loyola-MD, Iowa

8-seeds: Pittsburgh, Drexel, Nebraska, George Mason

Ranking of Other Postseason Contenders: St. Bonaventure, South Dakota State, Duquesne, Wagner, Richmond, Valpo, UW-Milwaukee

These bracket projections are now included in the prestigious bracket project poll that can be found at: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm.  The teams below are displayed below on an S-curve, so they are ranked from left to right within each seeding line.  The italicized teams are ones predicted to win their conference tourney and gain an automatic bid to the dance.  For the conferences who currently have NCAA tourney teams, it is assumed that one of those teams will win their conference tourney.  If not, then a stolen bid would result, and the number of at-large bids would drop.

Also, just to clarify, my bracket projection is intended to project the NCAA Tournament field if it was chosen today.  Unlike some bracketologists, I am not trying to predict how each team will finish the season and then seed the teams based on that.  There is one slight exception to this rule, however, and that is that I have always chosen to award the projected automatic bid for each conference to my projected best team in that conference, and not the team who is currently leading the conference standings.   Given how unbalanced conference schedules are, it just seems like common sense to project that the best team in a conference will win the league championship, not the squad currently in first place.

Brad-ketology columns will be published at least twice a week (typically on Mondays and Fridays) and more often than that when it gets closer to tourney time.  Please feel free to comment or debate.

NCAA Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Kentucky, Syracuse, Missouri, Ohio State

2-seeds: North Carolina, Kansas, Baylor, Duke

3-seeds:  Georgetown, Michigan State, UNLV, Indiana

4-seeds: Marquette, Creighton, Seton Hall, Florida

5-seeds: UConn, Virginia, Gonzaga, Kansas State

6-seeds: Illinois, San Diego State, Michigan, Vanderbilt

7-seeds: Wisconsin, Saint Mary’s, West Virginia, Murray State

8-seeds: Mississippi State, Louisville, Wichita State, Florida State

9-seeds: Temple, Harvard, Purdue, Alabama

10-seeds: Dayton, Memphis, Minnesota, California

11-seeds: Xavier, New Mexico, Southern Miss, Cincinnati

12-seeds: Iowa State, NC State, Arkansas, Saint Louis, Stanford, Northwestern

13-seeds: Oral Roberts, Long Beach State, Davidson, Iona

14-seeds: Middle Tennessee, Cleveland State, Nevada, VCU

15-seeds: Belmont, Weber State, Akron, Bucknell

16-seeds: Norfolk State, UNC-Asheville, LIU-Brooklyn, UT-Arlington, Stony Brook, Mississippi Valley State

 

NIT Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Texas, Central Florida

2-seeds: Oregon, Colorado State, Marshall, Oklahoma

3-seeds: Northern Iowa, La Salle,Ole Miss, Arizona

4-seeds: Virginia Tech, LSU, Colorado, New Mexico State

5-seeds: UMass, Ohio, St. Joe’s, South Florida

6-seeds: Miami-FL, Wyoming, Washington, Denver

7-seeds: Missouri State, Maryland, Rutgers, South Dakota State

8-seeds: Loyola-MD, Iowa, Pittsburgh, Valparaiso

First 4 out of NIT: Wagner, Charleston, St. Bonaventure, Drake

With college football season over and NFL playoffs winding down, it’s time to start dreaming about March.  Which means it’s also time for me to publish my first edition of Brad-ketology for the 2012 season (my personal NCAA/NIT bracket projections).  Brad-ketology is a little different than other NCAA tourney predictors in that it is much more expansive, as it also includes the NIT field and bubble.  It is also one of the columns used in the nationally-recognized bracket project  which seeds NCAA teams by taking an average of the most prominent bracket projections in the country.  Last season, my final bracket ranked as the  10th most accurate in entire country out of 89 recognized bracketologists.  Compare that to the well-known Joe Lunardi from ESPN whose final projection ended up ranking 52nd in the same poll.

The teams below are displayed below on an S-curve, so they are ranked from left to right within each seeding line.  The italicized teams are ones predicted to win their conference tourney and gain an automatic bid to the dance.  For the conferences who currently have NCAA tourney teams, it is assumed that one of those teams will win their conference tourney.  If not, then a stolen bid would result, and the number of at-large bids would drop.

Also, just to clarify, my bracket projection is intended to project the NCAA Tournament field if it was chosen today.  Unlike some bracketologists, I am not trying to predict how each team will finish the season and then seed the teams based on that.  There is one slight exception to this rule, however, and that is that I have always chosen to award the projected automatic bid for each conference to my projected best team in that conference, and not the team who is currently leading the conference standings.  For example, many bracket projections currently have Marshall in the NCAA Tournament with an automatic bid because they are currently leading Conference USA.  However, Memphis is currently my highest seeded team from C-USA so I am awarding the auto bid to them instead.  Given how unbalanced conference schedules are, it just seems like common sense to project that the best team in a conference will win the league championship, not the squad currently in first place.

Brad-ketology columns will be published at least twice a week (typically on Mondays and Fridays) and more often than that when it gets closer to tourney time.  Please feel free to comment or debate.

NCAA Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Syracuse, Kentucky, Baylor, Duke

2-seeds: Ohio State, Missouri, North Carolina, Kansas

3-seeds: Michigan State, Georgetown, UNLV, Illinois

4-seeds: UConn, Indiana, Marquette, Michigan

5-seeds: Virginia, Vanderbilt, Creighton, Seton Hall

6-seeds: Florida, Gonzaga, Kansas State, San Diego State

7-seeds: Saint Mary’s, Alabama, West Virginia, Murray State

8-seeds: Wisconsin, Louisville, Purdue, Mississippi State

9-seeds: Wichita State, Temple, California, Harvard

10-seeds: Stanford, Cincinnati, Florida State, Xavier

11-seeds: Memphis, Northwestern, Dayton, Minnesota

12-seeds: New Mexico, Brigham Young, Southern Miss, Iowa State, NC State, Saint Louis

13-seeds: Oral Roberts, Long Beach State, Davidson, Iona

14-seeds: Middle Tennessee, Cleveland State, Nevada, Belmont

15-seeds: VCU, Weber State, Akron, Bucknell

16-seeds: Norfolk State, Wagner, UNC-Asheville, UT-Arlington, Mississippi Valley State, Stony Brook

• Note: The top three 16 seeds projected above would be the most talented 16 seeds ever.  Norfolk and Wagner both possess top 80 RPIS (typically unheard of for any seed lower than a 14), and all three have had solid results this season against good NCAA tourney teams.  This really could be the year a 16 beats a 1!
  

 

NIT Tourney Field:

1-seeds: Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado State, Marshall

• Note: Right now, the Big 12 looks to be this year’s bubble conference.

2-seeds: Central Florida, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Oregon

3-seeds: Arizona, Northern Iowa, Virginia Tech, St. Joe’s

4-seeds: LSU, La Salle, Ole Miss, Missouri State

5-seeds: Denver, New Mexico State, Miami-FL, UMass

6-seeds: Ohio, South Florida, Colorado, Maryland

7-seeds: Washington, College of Charleston, Rutgers, Wyoming

8-seeds: Pittsburgh, South Dakota State, UCLA, Loyola-MD

Ranking of Other Postseason Contenders: Drake, Iowa, Nebraska, Richmond, Kent State, Georgia, Charlotte, Providence

Thanks everyone for reading my season-in-review analysis and also following my college football entries throughout the season.  I hope I was able to bring you some insightful and entertaining analysis/commentary.  This will likely be my last college football entry for a while, as it is now time to turn to college bball season.  I will be debuting my Brad-ketology column later this week.  I will resume my college football analysis next summer with the release of my 2012 college football preview guide.  Be on the look out for that sometime in July or August.  As a parting shot, here is my final ranking of all 120 teams in Division 1-A football.

1.  Oklahoma State (12-1)

2.  LSU (13-1)

3.  Alabama (12-1)

4.  Boise State (12-1)

5.  Houston (13-1)

6.  Oregon (12-2)

7.  Arkansas (11-2)

8.  Stanford (11-2)

9.  South Carolina (11-2)

10.  Southern California (10-2)

11.  TCU (11-2)

12.  Michigan (11-2)

13.  Southern Miss (12-2)

14.  Wisconsin (11-3)

15.  Michigan State (11-3)

16.  Baylor (10-3)

17.  Oklahoma (10-3)

18.  Kansas State (10-3)

19.  West Virginia (10-3)

20.  Northern Illinois (11-3)

21.  Cincinnati (10-3)

22.  Virginia Tech (11-3)

23.  Brigham Young (10-3)

24.  Georgia (10-4)

25.  Rutgers (9-4)

26.  Penn State (9-4)

27.  Nebraska (9-4)

28.  Florida State (9-4)

29.  Clemson (10-4)

30.  Arkansas State (10-3)

31.  Auburn (8-5)

32.  Notre Dame (8-5)

33.  Utah (8-5)

34.  NC State (8-5)

35.  Missouri (8-5)

36.  Georgia Tech (8-5)

37.  Texas (8-5)

38.  Virginia (8-5)

39.  Ohio (10-4)

40.  Toledo (9-4)

41.  Temple (9-4)

42.  Louisiana Tech (8-5)

43.  UL-Lafayette (9-4)

44.  Tulsa (8-5)

45.  Florida (7-6)

46.  Texas A & M (7-6)

47.  Mississippi State (7-6)

48.  SMU (8-5)

49.  Washington (7-6)

50.  Iowa (7-6)

51.  California (7-6)

52.  North Carolina (7-6)

53.  Louisville (7-6)

54.  Miami-FL (6-6)

55.  Purdue (7-6)

56.  Illinois (7-6)

57.  FIU (8-5)

58.  Wyoming (8-5)

59.  San Diego State (8-5)

60.  Wake Forest (6-7)

61.  Ohio State (6-7)

62.  Vanderbilt (6-7)

63.  Iowa State (6-7)

64.  Northwestern (6-7)

65.  UCLA (6-8)

66.  Western Kentucky (7-5)

67.  Pittsburgh (6-7)

68.  Arizona State (6-7)

69.  Air Force (7-6)

70.  Marshall (7-6)

71.  Western Michigan (7-6)

72.  Utah State (7-6)

73.  Nevada (7-6)

74.  Kentucky (5-7)

75.  Ball State (6-6)

76.  Tennessee (5-7)

77.  Eastern Michigan (6-6)

78.  Texas Tech (5-7)

79.  UConn (5-7)

80.  Navy (5-7)

81.  South Florida (5-7)

82.  Central Florida (5-7)

83.  Syracuse (5-7)

84.  East Carolina (5-7)

85.  Boston College (4-8)

86.  Hawaii (6-7)

87.  Arizona (4-8)

88.  San Jose State (5-7)

89.  Washington State (4-8)

90.  Kent State (5-7)

91.  Oregon State (3-9)

92.  Bowling Green (5-7)

93.  Duke (3-9)

94.  UTEP (5-7)

95.  Minnesota (3-9)

96.  North Texas (5-7)

97.  Colorado (3-10)

98.  Rice (4-8)

99.  Ole Miss (2-10)

100.  Miami-OH (4-8)

101.  Maryland (2-10)

102.  Fresno State (4-9)

103.  Kansas (2-10)

104.  UL-Monroe (4-8)

105.  Indiana (1-11)

106.  New Mexico State (4-9)

107.  UAB (3-9)

108.  Army (3-9)

109.  Colorado State (3-9)

110.  Central Michigan (3-9)

111.  Troy (3-9)

112.  Buffalo (3-9)

113.  UNLV (2-10)

114.  Idaho (2-10)

115.  Middle Tennessee (2-10)

116.  Memphis (2-10)

117.  Tulane (2-11)

118.  New Mexico (1-11)

119.  Florida Atlantic (1-11)

120.  Akron (1-11)

 

 

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

In the preseason, I ranked all teams 1-120 and also took an average of the full 1-120 preseason rankings from several different preseason publications.  Last week, I compared our preseason rankings with each team’s final ranking to figure out if I was more accurate with my preseason picks than the average expert.  Here are the results: the experts’ average picks more accurately predicted the final postseason outcome of 62 teams.  I was more accurate in my analysis of 54 teams and there were four ties between us.  Even though the experts edged me in that competition, we actually tied in total ranking variations for each team.  If you add up the disparity between my preseason rankings and the final rankings below, as well as those from the experts, you will find that we both scored exactly 2,484 points.  It’s unbelievable that such a complex calculation could produce a tied result.  We also tied in the number of teams we predicted exactly right.  The experts correctly picked Purdue to finish 85th in the country, and I correctly pegged New Mexico to finish at # 119.  (Note: I used Pre Snap Read’s Final Top 120 as the final poll used to compare my preseason and postseason predictions).

In this entry, I will display the following results in table format so you can see how each of us did in our evaluations of every single team in the country.  By the way, the so-called experts’ national ranking consists of preseason polls created by cfnscout.com, Lindy’s, the Sporting News, Athlon, Phil Steele, Rivals as well as both the official preseason AP and and Coaches Polls.  The first column on the table is my preseason ranking for each team.  The column entitled “PS” is each team’s postseason final ranking.

	Team	Experts	P.S.	Brad diff.	Expert diff.	Winner
1	Oregon	3	6	-5	-3	Experts
2	Oklahoma	1	18	-16	-17	Brad
3	Boise State	6	4	-1	2	Brad
4	Alabama	2	1	3	1	Experts
5	Stanford	7	8	-3	-1	Experts
6	LSU	4	2	4	2	Experts
7	Nebraska	11	25	-18	-14	Experts
8	Georgia	18	20	-12	-2	Experts
9	Wisconsin	13	11	-2	2	Tie
10	Florida State	5	23	-13	-18	Brad
11	Texas A & M	8	43	-32	-35	Brad
12	Virginia Tech	10	22	-10	-12	Brad
13	Oklahoma State	9	3	10	6	Experts
14	Arkansas	11	7	7	4	Experts
15	Southern Cal	20	5	10	15	Brad
16	South Carolina	14	9	7	5	Experts
17	Mississippi State	27	50	-33	-23	Experts
18	Michigan State	19	10	8	9	Brad
19	Florida	21	42	-23	-21	Experts
20	Illinois	50	70	-50	-20	Experts
21	Missouri	22	27	-6	-5	Experts
22	Notre Dame	15	33	-11	-18	Brad
23	Air Force	38	55	-32	-17	Experts
24	Penn State	29	28	-4	1	Experts
25	TCU	16	12	13	4	Experts
26	Utah	30	37	-11	-7	Experts
27	Iowa	34	47	-20	-13	Experts
28	Tulsa	59	41	-13	18	Brad
29	NC State	50	40	-11	10	Experts
30	Rutgers	75	35	-5	40	Brad
31	Ohio State	17	54	-23	-37	Brad
32	Southern Miss	48	19	13	29	Brad
33	Pittsburgh	37	71	-38	-34	Experts
34	Toledo	74	32	2	42	Brad
35	Tennessee	40	81	-46	-41	Experts
36	USF	35	86	-50	-51	Brad
37	Ohio	78	44	-7	34	Brad
38	Houston	45	16	22	29	Brad
39	Brigham Young	31	29	10	2	Experts
40	Arizona State	23	72	-32	-49	Brad
41	UCF	46	80	-39	-34	Experts
42	Miami-FL	25	53	-11	-28	Brad
43	Texas	25	31	12	-6	Experts
44	Northwestern	41	62	-18	-21	Experts
45	SMU	56	48	-3	8	Brad
46	Clemson	35	21	25	14	Experts
47	Navy	67	73	-26	-6	Experts
48	Nevada	68	69	-21	-1	Experts
49	Auburn	28	30	19	-2	Experts
50	Oregon State	53	93	-43	-40	Experts
51	San Diego State	50	57	-6	-7	Brad
52	Maryland	39	104	-52	-65	Experts
53	Baylor	49	15	38	34	Experts
54	UConn	63	79	-25	-16	Experts
55	Temple	83	45	10	38	Brad
56	Washington	47	46	10	1	Experts
57	West Virginia	24	17	40	7	Experts
58	FIU	89	66	-8	23	Brad
59	Georgia Tech	54	39	20	15	Experts
60	Troy	79	105	-45	-26	Experts
61	Kentucky	58	76	-15	-18	Brad
62	Hawaii	65	91	-29	-26	Experts
63	Ole Miss	62	109	-46	-47	Brad
64	Michigan	33	13	51	20	Experts
65	Texas Tech	43	78	-13	-35	Brad
66	North Carolina	32	63	3	-31	Brad
67	California	55	52	15	3	Experts
68	Kansas State	70	14	54	56	Brad
69	Cincinnati	57	26	43	31	Experts
70	Boston College	42	90	-20	-48	Brad
71	Syracuse	60	89	-18	-29	Brad
72	Miami-OH	80	94	-22	-14	Experts
73	Fresno State	72	101	-28	-29	Brad
74	Virginia	71	38	36	33	Experts
75	UAB	94	100	-25	-6	Experts
76	Arizona	44	85	-9	-41	Brad
77	Western Michigan	88	64	13	24	Brad
78	Louisville	66	49	29	17	Experts
79	Colorado State	93	106	-27	-13	Experts
80	Northern Illinois	64	24	56	40	Experts
81	Iowa State	76	68	13	8	Experts
82	Idaho	105	107	-25	-2	Experts
83	UCLA	69	74	9	-5	Experts
84	Colorado	73	97	-13	-24	Brad
85	Purdue	61	61	24	0	Experts
86	Kent State	104	92	-6	12	Brad
87	Louisiana Tech	91	34	53	57	Brad
88	Vanderbilt	85	56	32	29	Experts
89	UL-Monroe	98	103	-14	-5	Experts
90	Duke	77	100	-10	-23	Brad
91	Utah State	102	67	24	35	Brad
92	Kansas	87	112	-20	-25	Brad
93	East Carolina	86	82	11	4	Experts
94	Washington State	92	87	7	5	Experts
95	Indiana	84	113	-18	-29	Brad
96	Army	90	102	-6	-12	Brad
97	Minnesota	81	98	-1	-17	Brad
98	Wake Forest	82	58	40	24	Experts
99	Wyoming	96	60	39	36	Experts
100	Rice	100	96	4	4	Tie
101	Tulane	99	115	-14	-16	Brad
102	Central Michigan	97	111	-9	-14	Brad
103	Arkansas State	101	36	67	65	Experts
104	MTSU	103	117	-13	-14	Brad
105	Marshall	95	59	46	36	Experts
106	Bowling Green	109	84	22	25	Brad
107	UL-Lafayette	118	51	56	67	Brad
108	UTEP	108	95	13	13	Tie
109	UNLV	107	114	-5	-7	Brad
110	Western Kentucky	113	65	45	48	Brad
111	Ball State	112	75	36	37	Brad
112	Eastern Michigan	117	77	35	40	Brad
113	Florida Atlantic	110	118	-5	-8	Brad
114	North Texas	106	88	26	18	Experts
115	San Jose State	115	83	32	32	Tie
116	Buffalo	114	108	8	6	Experts
117	New Mexico State	120	99	18	21	Brad
118	Akron	116	120	-2	-4	Brad
119	New Mexico	111	119	0	-8	Brad
120	Memphis	119	116	4	3	Experts

 

Final Outcome:

Teams: Experts win 62-54 (4 ties)

Total Score: Tie: 2,484-2,484

Exactly Right: Tie 1-1

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

In this entry we will look at what teams surprised/disappointed the preseason experts the most, which is a nice way of saying, “wow, no one saw this coming.”  The final national rankings used for this entry are from the Pre Snap Read’s Final Top 120 poll.

Teams that surprised the nation the most:

1.  UL-Lafayette- finished 67 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 6 spots higher in conference play

2.  Arkansas State- finished 65 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play (note: you can see based on surprise teams # 1 and 2 that the Sun Belt was obviously the craziest conference in the country this season.)

3.  Kansas State- finished 56 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 4 spots higher in conference play

4.  Louisiana Tech- finished 57 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 1 spot higher in conference play

5.  Western Kentucky- finished 48 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 6 spots higher in conference play

6.  Northern Illinois- finished 40 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots higher in conference play (note: this is the second straight season where NIU has been on the list of the country’s top postseason surprise teams.)

7.  Rutgers- finished 40 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots higher in conference play

8.  Utah State- finished 35 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 5 spots higher in conference play

9.  Baylor- finished 34 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 5 spots higher in conference play

10.  Wyoming- finished 36 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

11.  Marshall- finished 36 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

12.  Virginia- finished 33 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

13.  Ball State- finished 37 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 1 spot higher in conference play

14.  Wake Forest- finished 24 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

15.  Michigan- finished 20 spots higher nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots higher in conference play

 

Teams that disappointed the nation the most:

1.  Maryland- finished 65 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 1 spot lower in conference play (Talk about a topsy-turvy team: The Terps were # 3 on last year’s postseason list of nation’s top surprise teams.)

2.  South Florida- finished 51 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 5 spots lower in conference play

3.  Tennessee- finished 41 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

4.  Arizona State- finished 40 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

5.  Oregon State- finished 40 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play (It’s unbelievable that preseason prognosticators don’t learn their lesson from year to year.  You would think after the Beavers finished # 7 on last year’s list of most disappointing teams that experts wouldn’t make the same mistake this season.  Nevertheless, here Oregon State is on the list of the most overrated teams in the country all over again.)

6.  Boston College- finished 48 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 1 spot lower in conference play

7.  Texas A & M- finished 35 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 5 spots lower in conference play

8.  Pittsburgh- finished 34 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 4 spots lower in conference play

9.  Ohio State- finished 37 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play

10.  Texas Tech- finished 35 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play

11.  Central Florida- finished 34 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

12.  North Carolina- finished 31 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

13.  Troy- finished 26 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 6 spots lower in conference play

14.  Fresno State- finished 29 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 4 spots lower in conference play

15.  Hawaii- finished 26 spots lower nationally than the experts predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

These are the teams that surprised me/disappointed the most, which is a nice way of saying, “wow, I really messed up my forecasting of these teams”.

Teams that surprised me the most:

1.  Arkansas State- finished 67 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

2.  Kansas State- finished 54 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 6 spots higher in conference play

3.  Louisiana Tech- finished 53 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 4 spots higher in conference play

4.  UL- Lafayette- finished 56 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

5.  Michigan- finished 51 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play (The Wolverines are the second BCS bowl team, West Virginia is the other, that I incorrectly predicted to disappoint in 2011.)

6.  Northern Illinois- finished 56 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 2 spots higher in conference play

7.  Western Kentucky- finished 45 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 5 spots higher in conference play

8.  Cincinnati- finished 43 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 4 spots higher in conference play

9.  West Virginia- finished 40 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 4 spots higher in conference play (As you saw in the last entry, I had the Mountaineers on my disappointment team list for 2011.  What a terrible pick!)

10.  Marshall- finished 46 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

11.  Wake Forest- finished 40 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play (What a pleasant surprise this was!)

12.  Utah State- finished 35 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 4 spots higher in conference play

13.  Wyoming- finished 39 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

14.  Baylor- finished 38 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

15.  Virginia- finished 36 spots higher nationally than I predicted and 3 spots higher in conference play

 

Teams that disappointed me the most:

1.  South Florida- finished 50 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 4 spots lower in conference play

2.  Illinois- finished 50 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play (It seems like I get burned by the Illini every year.  For the entire five-year existence of my preseason predictions, I have vastly overrated or underrate Illinois almost every season.)

3.  Maryland- finished 52 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play (The Maryland-Miami and season opener was the ultimate example of how the presentation of a game makes two teams seem so much better than they are.  The two squads met on a Monday night ESPN primetime broadcast that Maryland ended up squeaking out in the final minutes.  The next day, the country was talking about how these could be two of the top teams in the entire ACC.  Later, of course, we found out that the Canes and Terps were two of the worst teams in the conference.  If you wonder why there is a perception that teams in the SEC are so much better than everybody else, especially mid-majors, please consider the significant role that production value plays in altering your perception.  I guarantee you that if NBC owned rights to the Mountain West and dressed up Boise and TCU’s games into primetime HD telecasts, you would think both teams are better than you currently do.)

4.  Troy- finished 45 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 5 spots lower in conference play (What happened to these guys this year?  They just stopped playing football after week 2 or 3.)

5.  Tennessee- finished 46 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

6.  Oregon State- finished 43 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

7.  Texas A & M- finished 32 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 5 spots lower in conference play

8.  Pittsburgh- finished 38 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play

9.  Air Force- finished 32 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play

10.  UCF- finished 39 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

11.  Idaho- finished 25 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 4 spots lower in conference play

12.  Fresno State- finished 28 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 3 spots lower in conference play

13.  UConn- finished 25 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

14.  UAB- finished 25 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

15.  Miami-OH- finished 22 spots lower nationally than I predicted and 2 spots lower in conference play

 

Here are my preseason disappointment teams in order of the relative disparity between my picks and the experts’ average while also taking into account the relevance of the pick.  The numbers in parentheses in the “My predictions” column represent the numerical difference between my pick and that of the experts, both nationally and within each team’s conference.  The team’s actual postseason finish is posted in the column to the right of that.

Bold teams are squads that ended up disappointing the nation (or at lease part of it) just as I predicted.  Italicized teams are ones that ended up falling short of my lofty expectations and finishing closer to where most experts predicted them to be.  Normal font represents teams that didn’t quite meet my lofty expectations for them, but also performed better than most of the experts believed they would.

When determining my final results, I conduct two separate analyses.  First, I simply count how many I picked correctly, how many incorrectly, and how many “pushes”/ties that I had.  The second form of analysis I use is an adjusted score, where I get/lose more points for my top surprise teams than I do for lesser surprise picks.  For example, I earn 10 points for a correct first pick, 9 point for a correct second pick, etc.  Likewise, I lose 10 points for an incorrect first pick, I get -9 points for an incorrect second pick, etc.

	Disappointment teams	My Predictions	Actual Result
1	West Virginia	57th in nation (-33); 5th in Big East (-2)	17th in nation; 1st in Big East
2	Ohio State	31st in nation (-14); 4th in Big 10 Leaders (-3)	54th in nation; 4th in Big 10 Leaders
3	North Carolina	66th in nation (-34); 4th in ACC Coastal (-2)	63rd in nation; 4th in ACC Coastal
4	Michigan	64th in nation (-31); 5th in Big 10 Legends (-1)	13th in nation; 2nd in Big 10 Legends
5	Texas Tech	65th in nation (-22); 7th in Big 12 (-1)	78th in nation; 9th in Big 12
6	Boston College	70th in nation (-28); 5th in ACC Atlantic (-1)	90th in nation; 5th in ACC Atlantic
7	Texas	43rd in nation (-18); 5th in Big 12 (-2)	31st in nation; 6th in Big 12
8	East Carolina	93rd in nation (-7); 4th in C-USA East (-1)	82nd in nation; 3rd in C-USA East
9	Northern Illinois	80th in nation (-16); 3rd in MAC West	24th in nation; 1st in MAC West
10	North Texas	114th in nation (-8); 9th in Sun Belt (-3)	88th in nation; 5th in Sun Belt

 

Disappointment Pick Results: 5 correct, 4 wrong (personal best: 6 correct, 4 wrong in 2009)

Adjusted Score: 9 (best ever was 22 in 2007)

Here are my preseason surprise teams in order of the relative disparity between my picks and the experts’ average while also taking into account the relevance of the pick.  The numbers in parentheses in the “My predictions” column represent the numerical difference between my pick and that of the experts, both nationally and within each team’s conference.  The team’s actual postseason finish is posted in the column to the right of that.

Bold teams are squads that ended up surprising the nation (or at lease part of it) just as I predicted.  Italicized teams are ones that ended up falling short of my lofty expectations and finishing closer to where most experts predicted them to be.  Normal font represents teams that didn’t quite meet my lofty expectations for them, but also performed better than most of the experts believed they would.

When determining my final results, I conduct two separate analyses.  First, I simply count how many I picked correctly, how many incorrectly, and how many “pushes”/ties that I had.  The second form of analysis I use is an adjusted score, where I get/lose more points for my top surprise teams than I do for lesser surprise picks.  For example, I earn 10 points for a correct first pick, 9 point for a correct second pick, etc.  Likewise, I lose 10 points for an incorrect first pick, I get -9 points for an incorrect second pick, etc.

	Surprise Teams	My Predictions:	Actual Result
1	Rutgers	30th in nation (+45); 1st in Big East (+5)	35th in nation; 4th in Big East
2	Georgia	8th in nation (+10); 1st in SEC East	20th in nation; 1st in SEC East
3	Tulsa	28th in nation (+31); 1st in C-USA West (+1)	41st in nation; 2nd in C-USA West
4	Illinois	20th in nation (+30); 2nd in Big 10 Leaders (+2)	70th in nation; 5th in Big 10 Leaders
5	Utah	26th in nation (+4); 2nd in Pac-12 South (+1)	37th in nation; 3rd in Pac-12 South
6	NC State	29th in nation (+21); 2nd in ACC Atlantic (+1)	40th in nation; 4th in ACC Atlantic
7	Air Force	23rd in nation (+15); 2nd in MWC (+1)	55th in nation; 5th in MWC
8	FIU	58th in nation (+31); 1st in Sun Belt (+1)	66th in nation; 4th in Sun Belt
9	UAB	75th in nation (+19); 3rd in C-USA East (+1)	100th in nation; 5th in C-USA East
10	Idaho	82nd in nation (+23); 4th in WAC (+1)	107th in nation; 8th in WAC

 

Surprise Team Results: 2 correct, 6 wrong (personal best: 9 correct, 3 wrong in 2007)

Adjusted Score: -6 (best ever was 64 in 2007)

 

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

Here are my preseason bowl predictions.  My correct picks are marked in bold, and an analysis of my success is featured at the bottom of this entry.

Date	Bowl	Teams
Dec. 17	New Mexico	Colorado State	Idaho
Dec. 17	Humanitarian	Temple	Fresno State
Dec. 17	New Orleans	SMU	FIU
Dec. 20	Beef O’Brady’s	West Virginia	UCF
Dec. 21	Poinsettia	Nevada	TCU
Dec. 22	Las Vegas	Air Force	Washington
Dec. 24	Hawaii	UAB	Hawaii
Dec. 26	Independence	North Carolina	San Diego State
Dec. 27	Little Caesars	UL-Monroe	Toledo
Dec. 27	Belk	Miami-FL	Pittsburgh
Dec. 28	Military	Georgia Tech	Navy
Dec. 28	Holiday	Arizona State	Texas
Dec. 29	Champs Sports	NC State	Notre Dame
Dec. 29	Alamo	Texas A & M	Utah
Dec. 30	Armed Forces	Brigham Young	Houston
Dec. 30	Pinstripe	UConn	Texas Tech
Dec. 30	Music City	Maryland	Tennessee
Dec. 30	Insight	Missouri	Ohio State
Dec. 31	Meineke Car Care of TX	Baylor	Iowa
Dec. 31	Sun	Oregon State	Clemson
Dec. 31	Liberty	Tulsa	Kentucky
Dec. 31	Kraft Fight Hunger	Cincinnati	Kent State
Dec. 31	Chick-fil-a	Virginia Tech	Florida
Jan. 2	Ticketcity	Northwestern	Southern Miss
Jan. 2	Outback	Michigan State	South Carolina
Jan. 2	Capital One	Illinois	Georgia
Jan. 2	Gator	Mississippi State	Penn State
Jan. 2	Rose	Nebraska	Stanford
Jan. 3	Sugar	Alabama	Boise State
Jan. 4	Orange	Florida State	Rutgers
Jan. 5	Fiesta	LSU	Wisconsin
Jan. 6	Cotton	Oklahoma State	Arkansas
Jan. 7	BBVA Compass	South Florida	Miami-OH
Jan. 8	Godaddy.com	Ohio	Troy
Jan. 9	National Title Game	Oklahoma	Oregon

 

Comparison with Phil Steele: Phil ended up being more accurate than me in picking both bowl slots and complete bowls.  I correctly predicted 7 bowl slots and 0 total bowls, while Phil got 9 bowl slots and 1 full bowl.

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

In the chart below, the column entitled “Phil Steele” is his preseason prediction for each team.  The column entitled “my ranking” is my preseason prediction for each team.  The “actual ranking” column is where each team ended up in their final conference standings.  The column entitled “winner” indicates who more accurately predicted the outcome of that team’s season.  Finally, the “Stassen” column displays the numerical difference in our predictions according to the Stassen survey (read more about that here).  Under the chart, I have also displayed my most accurate and least accurate picks for this conference along with the corresponding commentary featured in my preseason college football guide back in August.

Sun Belt	Phil Steele	My ranking	Actual	Winner	vs. Phil
Troy	1	2	7	Brad	Brad (+1)
FIU	2	1	4	Phil	Phil (+1)
ULM	3	3	5	Tie	x
MTSU	4	5	8	Brad	Brad (+1)
Arkansas State	4	4	1	Tie	x
North Texas	6	9	5	Phil	Phil (+3)
FAU	7	8	9	Brad	Brad (+1)
Western Kentucky	8	7	2	Brad	Brad (+1)
UL-Lafayette	9	6	3	Brad	Brad (+3)

 

My most accurate pick/preseason analysis: UL-Lafayette- “The Sun Belt appears to be divided into third this year with the top two a step above teams 3-5 and then 6-9 a clear step behind those.  With that being said, these bottom four teams aren’t nearly as horrendous as the Sun Belt doormats of years past.  The Ragin’ Cajuns are my predicted sixth place team, which is a lot higher than most experts have them.  This team was a game away from their first-ever bowl berth in both 2008 and 2009 only to fall just short.  Last year, they were a major disappointment, but I don’t think this squad is as far down on the totem pole as people say they are.  They got a great young coach, Mark Hudspeth, who I think will have an immediate impact on the program.  They are also experienced with over half of the starters coming back on both sides of the ball.  Believe it or not, UL-Lafayette has won at least three Sun Belt games each of the last six seasons, and I don’t have any reason to believe they won’t pull out at least three this year.” (postseason note: The Sun Belt was without a doubt the most topsy-turvy league of college football this season, as the two teams everyone expected to battle it out for the conference crown (Troy and FIU) ended up finishing in the middle of the league or worse, and the two teams most people had finishing in the basement (Western Kentucky and UL-Lafayette) ended up challenging for the conference title.  Like everyone else, I also underrated the Ragin’ Cajuns this season, but I am calling them my most accurate Sun Belt pick for 2011 because I didn’t predict them to finish nearly as low as everyone else did.)

My least accurate pick/preseason analysis: North Texas- “I’ll believe it when I see it.  That has been my motto for North Texas in my last two college football preview guides and now I’m applying it one more time.  Each of the past two seasons, multiple experts have predicted that the Mean Green football program to make major strides forward, and both years they faltered just the same.  In fact, Phil Steele inexplicably picked them to finish third in the Sun Belt last year!  Believe it or not, North Texas has finished either last or second-to-last in the Sun Belt every year since their 2004 Sun Belt title, yet many experts are once again picking them to finish in the top 2/3 of the conference!  Realistically, there is no reason to believe the Mean Green will improve this season, as they have to adjust to a new coach with vastly different schemes and replace over half of their offensive starters including QB Riley Dodge.  I think Coach Dan McCarney is the guy who can eventually get this program turned around but it’s certainly not going to be done overnight.” (postseason note: The Mean Green did, in fact, end up making significant strides in 2011, finishing with a 4-4 conference mark and 5-7 overall record.)

 

 

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

In the chart below, the column entitled “Phil Steele” is his preseason prediction for each team.  The column entitled “my ranking” is my preseason prediction for each team.  The “actual ranking” column is where each team ended up in their final conference standings.  The column entitled “winner” indicates who more accurately predicted the outcome of that team’s season.  Finally, the “Stassen” column displays the numerical difference in our predictions according to the Stassen survey (read more about that here).  Under the chart, I have also displayed my most accurate and least accurate picks for this conference along with the corresponding commentary featured in my preseason college football guide back in August.

Mid-American	Phil Steele	My ranking	Actual	Winner	vs. Phil
East Divison
Ohio	1	1	1	Tie	x
Temple	2	2	2	Tie	x
Miami-OH	3	3	5	Tie	x
Kent State	3	4	3	Phil	Phil (+1)
Buffalo	5	6	6	Brad	Brad (+1)
Bowling Green	6	5	4	Brad	Brad (+1)
Akron	7	7	7	Tie	x
West Division
Toledo	1	1	1	Tie	x
Western Michigan	1	2	3	Brad	Brad (+1)
NIU	3	3	1	Tie	x
Central Michigan	4	4	6	Tie	x
Ball State	5	5	4	Tie	x
Eastern Michigan	5	6	5	Phil	Phil (+1)

 

I win 3-2 in the head-to-head team comparison.

I win by 1 point using the Stassen Survey.

My most accurate pick/preseason analysis: Ohio- “Despite all of his success at Ohio, Frank Solich has still never won the MAC Championship.  Well, I’m picking them to win the MAC East this year but to once again fall short in the title game, as they have done in two of the past five seasons.  There are definitely some questions marks for this squad, as they have to replace eight starters on defense and break-in a new quarterback.  Solich also announced after last year’s New Orleans Bowl loss that he will be installing a new up-tempo, no huddle attack, which may cause some confusion early in the season.  I am thus somewhat apprehensive about picking them to win the East but I am doing so based largely on their schedule.  The MAC East is a three-team race between Ohio, Temple, and Miami, and the Bobcats get to host both of the Owls and the Redhawks this seasons.  Believe it or not, Ohio actually beat both of those teams on the road in 2010, so I believe they will take care of their business at home and win the MAC East.” (postseason note: My second sentence in this prognostication says it all.)

My least accurate pick/preseason analysis: Northern Illinois- “Both of the MAC conference title participants from 2010 (Miami-OH and NIU) are bound to have a slight drop off after losing their head coaches and leading rushers.  The Huskies, however, also have to replace nine defensive starters, which is why they definitely won’t contend for the conference championship again.  Nevertheless, a favorable schedule should allow NIU to get at least 7 wins and another bowl berth..” (postseason note: There ended up being no drop off for the Huskies in 2011, as QB Chandler Harnish led this squad to a surprise conference championship.)

Well, the college football season has come to a close, and it’s time to look back to see how accurate my preseason predictions were compared to the experts.  Overall, this is the fifth season I’ve conducted this full, in-depth analysis of my preseason picks and have had mixed results in doing so.  I ended up being more accurate than the experts in both 2007 and 2009, less accurate in 2008, and about the same in 2010 (see full history here).  This year I had some highlights and lowlights, but overall my predictions were slightly worse than Phil Steele and most other preseason prognosticators.  With that being said, I still had some ingenious predictions which deserve some recognition.

In the chart below, the column entitled “Phil Steele” is his preseason prediction for each team.  The column entitled “my ranking” is my preseason prediction for each team.  The “actual ranking” column is where each team ended up in their final conference standings.  The column entitled “winner” indicates who more accurately predicted the outcome of that team’s season.  Finally, the “Stassen” column displays the numerical difference in our predictions according to the Stassen survey (read more about that here).  Under the chart, I have also displayed my most accurate and least accurate picks for this conference along with the corresponding commentary featured in my preseason college football guide back in August.

WAC	Phil Steele	My ranking	Actual	Winner	vs. Phil
Nevada	1	1	3	Tie	x
Fresno State	2	3	6	Brad	Brad (+1)
Hawaii	2	2	4	Tie	x
LA Tech	2	5	1	Phil	Phil (+3)
Idaho	5	4	8	Phil	Phil (+1)
San Jose St.	6	7	4	Phil	Phil (+1)
Utah State	7	6	2	Brad	Brad (+1)
New Mexico St.	8	8	7	Tie	x

 

 

Phil wins 3-2 in the head-to-head team comparison.

Phil wins by 3 points using the Stassen Survey.

My most accurate pick/preseason analysis: Conference Overview- “In all of my past college football preview guides I have ranked the Sun Belt and MAC as the two worst Division 1-A football conference.  However, the WAC has now fallen below the MAC in my opinion thanks to the departure of Boise.” (postseason note: I know this isn’t a traditional preseason pick, but I believe the most significant prognostication I made for this conference was just predicting how bad it was going to be.)

My least accurate pick/preseason analysis: Louisiana Tech- “I predicted the Bulldogs to finish with a mediocre 5^th place finish last season and that’s exactly where they ended up.  This season I think they’ll find themselves in the exact same position.  Sonny Dykes seems to be a solid hire, but this squad must break-in a new starting QB and face a brutal schedule both in and out of conference play.  Getting to a bowl this year would  be quite the achievement.” (postseason note: The Bulldogs ended up being one of the surprise teams of the year in college football and actually won the WAC.)