Nothing in American sports is as confusing to the average fan as the Bowl Championship Series rankings.

Tuesday, the first BCS rankings of the 2003 season were released to the public, allowing fans to find out where their favorite team stands in the formula that determines who plays for the national championship.

The rankings also determine which schools qualify for the Sugar, Fiesta, Rose and Orange bowls each season, making the ranking the deciding factor for which schools receive the $10 million payouts compared to an average of $1 million for non-BCS affiliated bowl games.

Though the ranking system has become fundamentally important to college football since its inception in 1998, few understand the complex formula used to determine the standings.

Here is a guide to better understanding the BCS rankings:

What factors determine the rankings?

The BCS rankings are made by simply adding five numbers together. The numbers are the average of the two major polls – the Associated Press and ESPN/USA Today Coaches – an average of seven computer rankings, strength of schedule, losses and quality wins.

As in golf, the lower number a school receives means a higher BCS ranking.

For example, Oklahoma, this week’s BCS No. 1, totaled 2.77 while No. 2 Miami’s total was 4.10.

How is strength of schedule determined?

This component is determined by ranking each Division I school’s strength of schedule (1-117) and dividing by 25 to make the number fit in the formula. The lower the number, the stronger schedule a school has.

The strength of schedule ranking is made using a formula that factors in both a school’s opponent’s records and those teams’ opponent’s records, too.

This component forces coaches to schedule tough opponents if they want to have a chance at a national championship and a BCS-bowl payday.

Where do the computer rankings come from?

The seven computer-based rankings that make up one-fifth of the BCS formula come from a wide range of sources nationwide.

Six of the rankings are averaged to create a total score for this section, while the lowest ranking from the seven for each school is thrown out.

Each computer-based ranking has a unique mathematical formula to base the rankings on, but each use some variation of record, strength of schedule, margin of victory, conference strength and home-field advantage to determine its rankings.

The New York Times and Jeff Sagarin’s USA Today rankings are based on mathematical formulas that rank only the Division I schools and are sponsored by major newspapers.

The Massey Rankings are published by Virginia Tech graduate student and Hollins College math professor Kenneth Massey.

His rankings not only take into account Division I schools, but also NCAA Divisions I-AA, II and III, as well as NAIA schools.

From Oklahoma to Trinity Bible College, Massey ranks 699 college football teams nationwide.

Other components of the rankings are published by UCLA mathematics professor Peter Wolfe, Virginia astronomy professor Wes Colley and Richard Billingsley, the founder and president of the College Football Research Center.

Is there any simple component of the BCS rankings?

Yes, each loss adds one point to a schools final total.

What is the most complicated part of the rankings?

The quality-wins component. In last Tuesday’s rankings, only two schools had earned points from this category. In essence, it’s the BCS’s version of extra credit.

To earn this credit – which actually subtracts fractions of points from a school’s total number – a school must defeat a team ranked in the top 10 of the final BCS rankings. If a school beats the No. 2 in the BCS rankings, it receives a .9-point deduction from its total. If the school beat the No. 7 team, its score would only be lowered by .3.

Oklahoma leads the initial rankings and controls its own destiny to play for the national championship. Coach Bob Stoops said the No. 1 ranking is a good sign, but with all the factors involved – and so few of them being based on simply winning a football game – OU still has a long way to go.

‘We’ve earned that position and have played well through this part of the season,’ Stoops said. ‘Now, it’s our job to continue it, finish it and keep it.’

What’s in a name?

Three of the top receivers in college football all share the same last name – Williams.

Though not related, Reggie, from Washington; Roy, from Texas; and Mike, from USC, all share the combination of size and speed that make them stars in college and candidates as first-round draft picks in the NFL.

Of the three, Reggie has the most catches this season with 49. Mike has the most touchdowns with eight. Roy has the highest average per catch at 15.6.

This week, Reggie and Mike face each other, possibly determining who is the best Williams in the Pacific 10 Conference.

‘Reggie is a lot like USC’s Mike Williams,’ Washington coach Keith Gilbertson said. ‘He is big and competitive, very fast, and an athletic guy that likes to compete.’

Though Roy, the only senior of the three, won’t get a chance to face the others in the regular season, he has them both beat in one category – completion percentage. Last week he went 1 for 1, completing a pass to B.J. Johnson in the Longhorns’ 40-19 win over Iowa State.

Teams to Watch

Utah – Now the only ranked team in the Mountain West Conference, the Utes have surpassed traditional conference powers BYU, Colorado State and Air Force to reach the top of the MWC.

Led by running back Brandon Warfield and a defense that has yet to allow 30 points in a game, the Utes are on a five-game winning streak and are on track to win their first MWC championship

Auburn – After being picked as the No. 1 team and featured on the covers of The Sporting News and ESPN The Magazine’s football-preview issues, the Tigers promptly lost to USC and Georgia Tech, spiraling them out of the rankings.

Since Sept. 13, though, Auburn has dominated opponents and climbed to No. 17 in the polls.

Behind the running of Carnell ‘Cadillac’ Williams, the Tigers are a legitimate contender for the SEC title and a BCS-bowl berth.

Big Numbers

100

Points scored in a non-overtime game during Oklahoma State’s 51-49 victory over Texas Tech. The game looked like a blowout early, but the Red Raiders’ 28 fourth-quarter points made it close and allowed the score to reach the century mark.

49

Rushing yards for Steven Jackson of Oregon State in a 38-17 loss to Washington.

Jackson’s modest total was the highest of any running back in a game dominated by quarterbacks Cody Pickett and Derek Anderson.

The low total is also notable because Jackson led the nation in rushing yards prior to the loss.

The ‘We don’t need no stinking Heisman’ rankings

1. Jason White, QB, Oklahoma

Until the Sooners lose a game, the Bronze Man striking the pose is his to lose.

2. Carnell ‘Cadillac’ Williams, RB, Auburn

He has been the driving force behind Auburn’s explosive offense in its last five games. A strong performance against LSU next week could excite some voters.

3. B.J. Symons, QB, Texas Tech

OK, enough already. He threw for 552 yards and five touchdowns last Saturday. If voters were forced to choose on statistics alone, Symons would win by the largest margin in history.

Say what?

Two reactions on the same play, a pass thrown by Texas wide receiver Roy Williams and caught by wideout B.J. Johnson.

Williams: ‘After watching the film, I threw it to a great spot to keep him inbounds. I think other quarterbacks would have thrown it so he can run out of bounds, but I gave him a chance to get some yards after the catch.’

Johnson: ‘It was under-thrown. We worked on overthrowing me so I could run under it, but he didn’t do that. That’s why the guy made the tackle. I didn’t get caught; I just couldn’t get out of it fast enough because he had a head start.’

Published on October 22, 2003 at 12:00 pm