.Tip Top 25 in helmets, smaller

Fixing the Final 1983 AP College Football Poll

1) Miami-Florida 11-1
2) Nebraska 12-1
3) Auburn 11-1
4) Georgia 10-1-1
5) Texas 11-1
6) Florida 9-2-1
7) Brigham Young 11-1
8) Michigan 9-3
9) Ohio State 9-3
10) Illinois 10-2
11) Clemson 9-1-1
12) Southern Methodist 10-2
13) Air Force 10-2
14) Iowa 9-3
15) Alabama 8-4
16) West Virginia 9-3
17) UCLA 7-4-1
18) Pittsburgh 8-3-1
19) Boston College 9-3
20) East Carolina 8-3
To the left is the final 1983 AP college football top 20. The fixed final AP poll, expanded to 25 teams, follows the article below. 

This poll was extremely difficult to fix, largely because of bitter, never-ending imaginary arguments between myself and AP voters. The most difficult issue was 7-4-1 UCLA, who beat 10-2 Illinois 45-9 in the Rose Bowl. There's no doubt in my mind that UCLA should be rated ahead of Illinois, and that Illinois should be rated ahead of 9-3 Michigan. Illinois won every Big 10 game and beat Michigan 16-6.

But on both those issues, the AP poll had just enough of a case to keep me going back and forth on the matter for a couple of weeks now. Some potential corrections sit right in the middle of a very gray area between necessary and not, and putting UCLA up ahead of Illinois is one of those.

But the most interesting controversy of 1983 is #1, where 11-1 Miami-Florida landed after a monumental upset of Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, jumping over 11-1 Auburn, who played a schedule that was far tougher. In fact, it was the toughest schedule in college football that year. In further fact, it was and still is one of the toughest schedules ever played in college football history (4th toughest ever by the NCAA's measurement of strength of schedule).
1984 Orange Bowl, Miami vs. Nebraska

Miami has been involved in some of the biggest upsets in bowl history, usually on the wrong end, but their glory years began with a huge 31-30 upset of #1 Nebraska in the 1984 Orange Bowl, giving them their first national championship.

Miami vs. Auburn

So Auburn went 11-1 against the toughest schedule in the country, and in fact the 4th toughest ever faced, and no one else went unbeaten. Yet they are ranked #3. How is this possible?

Miami jumped past Auburn in the final poll because they beat #1 Nebraska, a team that a lot of people had been saying was the greatest in college football history. Miami's argument for #1, then, rests on the assumption that their victory over Nebraska was such an incredible achievement that it overrode Auburn's huge strength of schedule advantage. This argument has potential merit, if Miami's Orange Bowl win really was such an incredible achievement.

Miami's Incredible Achievement

Nebraska was so highly esteemed because of an offense that featured 3 Heisman candidates: QB Turner Gill, WR Irving Fryar, and RB Mike Rozier (who won the Heisman). They worked behind a line that featured Dean Steinkuhler, who won the Outland and Lombardi awards. Nebraska ended up averaging 52 points per game, the most since Army's 1944 team averaged 56. They destroyed Penn State 44-6, Minnesota 84-13, UCLA 42-10, Syracuse 63-7, Colorado 69-19, Iowa State 72-29, and Kansas 67-13.

However, according to the AP's own poll, Nebraska only played 1 rated opponent before the Orange Bowl, and not a highly rated one-- #17 UCLA. And they did not stomp all of their opponents. They only beat 8-4 Oklahoma State 14-10 mid-season, then needed a 2 touchdown rally and a late pass break-up in the end zone to hold off 8-4 Oklahoma 28-21 in their finale, and neither of those opponents finished rated (nor will they in the fixed top 25). So what we have here is a team that ran up impressive scores against a very weak schedule, but still showed itself vulnerable against 2 unrated opponents (Miami and Auburn each had just one close win over an unrated opponent, both against 7-5 Florida State).

Furthermore, Miami played Nebraska on their home field. And the green-painted sand of the Orange Bowl was no ordinary home field advantage. Miami would go on to break the NCAA record for consecutive home victories. Since 1983, Miami is 7-1 in bowl games played on their home field, but only 7-10 in the rest. And the site was not Miami's only good fortune.

Miami beat Nebraska 31-30 because Nebraska went for 2 at the end. If Nebraska had simply kicked the extra point, we would not even be discussing Miami's argument for #1.

Given all that-- Nebraska's very weak schedule, their struggles against unrated teams, Miami's home field advantage, winning because Nebraska would not settle for a tie-- was this one win really better than Auburn beating #4 Georgia AND #6 Florida (who beat Miami 28-3) AND #8 Michigan? Nebraska is the only top ten team Miami defeated.

The Case for Auburn

Miami beat the #2, #16, and #20 teams. Auburn beat the #4, #6, #8, and #15 teams. That may not look like much of a difference, but Auburn also beat 9-3 Tennessee, who should have been rated ahead of 8-4 Alabama (#15), whom Tennessee defeated. Auburn also beat 8-4 Maryland, who lost only to rated teams and to Tennessee, and who defeated #18 Boston College. That's 6 teams Auburn beat that should have been rated in the top 20, and it leaves Miami with only 2, because #20 East Carolina (8-3) did not belong in the top 20 in the first place (they lost to an unranked opponent, and their best win came over 7-5 Missouri). And East Carolina brings up another issue, because Miami only beat them 12-7, late in the season and at home. Auburn beat Tennessee 37-14 and Maryland 35-23.

10 of Auburn's 12 opponents had winning records. They beat 3 top 10 teams to Miami's 1, and they beat twice as many teams who finished 8-4 or better.

Other than Nebraska, the best team Miami beat was #16 West Virginia. And it is highly unlikely that they would have beaten Nebraska had that game been played in any other bowl, or if Nebraska had kicked the tying extra point. I think Auburn's defeat of 3 top 10 teams is more impressive, especially since those 3 games came in a season-ending streak of 5 consecutive tough games that also included 8-4 Maryland and #15 Alabama. That 5-game gauntlet alone is more impressive than the best opponents of Miami's entire season.

Therefore, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Auburn should have been #1. But that's just my mind. Let's look closer and see if there is a case for what was in the majority of sportswriters' minds at the time.

The Case for Miami

First of all, one team is not automatically better than another just because they played a tougher schedule. Auburn's case would be more compelling if they had outperformed Miami, but they didn't. Both teams needed a dramatic late drive to beat 7-5 Florida State, Miami winning 17-16 at FSU, Auburn 24-21 at home. Auburn struggled to beat #15 Alabama 23-20, and Miami struggled to beat #20 East Carolina 12-7. The only other close wins either team posted were over top 10 teams. Miami lost their opener 28-3 at #6 Florida, and Auburn lost their second game 20-7 to #5 Texas at home. Performance-wise, these two teams were twins.

Auburn's 3 big wins over top 10 teams came by 6, 7, and 2 points, so they were not as impressive as they could be. And the last of those, won 9-7 on a last minute field goal in the Sugar Bowl, came over a 9-3 Michigan team that is lucky to be ranked in the top 10 at all. The toughest team Michigan faced other than Auburn was #10 Illinois, and they lost that game 16-6. If Auburn had crushed Michigan like a #1 team should have, maybe they wouldn't have been passed up by Miami in the first place.

Another look at Nebraska's opponents helps Miami's case too. 7-4-1 UCLA was ranked #17, but they beat #10 Illinois 45-9 in the Rose Bowl, and could be ranked as high as #9. #4 Georgia beat them by 9, and #7 Brigham Young beat them by 2, but Nebraska destroyed them 42-10. 8-4-1 Penn State is unranked, but they beat #15 Alabama (8-4), and will move into the fixed poll at #16. Nebraska whipped them 44-6, and no one else beat them by more than 11 points. That gives Nebraska 2 ranked opponents rather than one, and they beat both very impressively.

Then there's 6-5 Syracuse, who beat #16 West Virginia 27-16 and #19 Boston College 21-10, and will finish just outside the fixed and expanded AP top 25. Syracuse also lost to Penn State by 11 and to #18 Pitt by just 3. But Nebraska beat them 63-7. So at this point, Miami's win over Nebraska does look like a remarkable achievement, wherever or however that win occurred.

As I said, I would rank Auburn #1. 11-1 against the 4th toughest schedule ever? That's a no-brainer for me. But Miami is a logically viable choice too, so the AP poll can keep them #1. And once that choice is made, Nebraska is fine at #2, since their only loss came at #1 Miami, and by a single point, whereas Auburn took their loss to #5 Texas, at home, by 2 touchdowns.

Regardless of which team you choose to rank #1, however, in my opinion Miami and Auburn are co-national champions for 1983. On that there can surely be no reasonable debate.


9-1-1 Clemson (#11) has a better straight record than the next 3 teams ranked ahead of them, and significantly better than 2 of them. Perhaps writers were punishing them for the NCAA rules violations that led to their bowl and television ban this season. Or perhaps Clemson was simply forgotten as a result of not being in a bowl or on television. Whatever the case, they are underrated.

Clemson took one upset loss, and they tied #4 Georgia. #10 Illinois (10-2) and #8 Michigan (9-3) each took 2 upset losses. As for #9 Ohio State (9-3), they'll be dropping anyway (as discussed next)

11-1 Brigham Young (#7) has a better straight record than Clemson, but they do not have a better relevant record. Like Clemson, BYU has an upset loss, except that theirs came to an unranked opponent (7-4-1 Baylor), whereas Clemson's came to #19 Boston College (9-3). Clemson's tie with #4 Georgia, who is rated higher than BYU, puts Clemson an effective half game ahead of BYU. It is more impressive than BYU's 37-35 win at #17 UCLA. BYU also won 46-28 at #13 Air Force, but Air Force will end up #22 in the fixed poll, behind 8-4 Maryland, whom Clemson beat 52-27.

Let's move Clemson up ahead of Brigham Young, to #7, dropping BYU, Michigan, Ohio State, and Illinois one spot each. When a team is on probation for NCAA rules violations, you should either exclude them from the rankings entirely (as the coaches' poll does), or rank them correctly.

Iowa and Ohio State

For the 4th fixed AP poll in a row (the others being 1984-1986), Ohio State is overrated. Furthermore, I've just taken a peek at Ohio State's 1980-1982 seasons, and I suspect that streak will grow to 7 in a row, so the Buckeyes look certain to be the most overrated team of this decade. For me, it brings to mind the outrage expressed by football writers across the nation when Ohio State finally fired head coach Earle Bruce. I hadn't understood then why they were so outraged. But now I understand-- they thought his Ohio State teams were better than they actually were. Silly writers.

In 1983, 9-3 Ohio State was ranked ahead of 2 teams that beat them, 10-2 Illinois and 9-3 Iowa. Illinois was the Big 10 champion and went 9-0 in the league. Iowa defeated Ohio State 20-14, the Hawkeyes finishing 7-2 in Big 10 play to Ohio State's 6-3, and there isn't much more to say than that. In the last regular season poll, Iowa was #10, Ohio State #14. Then Iowa lost 14-6 to #6 Florida, Ohio State beat #18 Pittsburgh 28-23, and somehow that dropped Iowa 5 places behind OSU in the final poll. That's a highly illogical reaction to those results. Silly writers.

#12 Southern Methodist and #13 Air Force will be dropping anyway (as covered in the next 2 sections), so let's put Iowa and Ohio State behind Illinois, who beat them both. That moves Illinois to #10,
Iowa to #11, Ohio State to #12, SMU to #13, and Air Force to #14.

Southern Methodist and Alabama

Here's a candidate for most overrated team of 1983. #12 SMU was routed 28-7 by #15 Alabama in the Sun Bowl, but ended up ranked higher because they were 10-2 and Alabama 8-4. But SMU played a schedule so weak it would raise even Bill Snyder's eyebrow (Louisville, Grambling, and Texas-Arlington were their nonconference opponents), and not only did they not beat a ranked opponent, they only beat one opponent who would make a top 50 (7-4-1 Baylor). They also performed poorly, barely getting by Grambling, 1-8-2 TCU, and 5-5-1 Texas A&M. Why should we think the Sun Bowl was an upset? There is no reason why we should, so let's drop SMU behind Alabama.

Problem is, Alabama lost to 3 opponents ranked behind them, and the only rated team they beat was overrated SMU, so the Tide is overrated too
. Alabama's 3 "upset" losses came to #19 Boston College (9-3), unrated Tennessee (9-3), and unrated Penn State (8-4-1). Tennessee and Penn State happen to be #21 and #22 in the "Others receiving votes" section of the AP poll. Let's compare Alabama to Penn State.

Penn State took an upset loss to Cincinnati, while all of Alabama's losses were to teams ranked higher than PSU. However, PSU beat Alabama 34-28, bringing them even, albeit with PSU owning the head-to-head edge. Penn State also has an upset win over #16 West Virginia. That moves them effectively one game ahead of Alabama. And PSU also tied #18 Pittsburgh, stretching that lead to a game and a half. Alabama didn't accomplish anything but beating SMU in the Sun Bowl (and SMU accomplished nothing but beating a 7-4-1 Baylor team that might merit a #40 ranking at best). This isn't close.

Penn State's 34-28 win over Alabama did come thanks to a horrible call that stole a touchdown catch away from Alabama near the end of the game, but hey, that's football. If Alabama didn't want to get homered by Penn State's hand-picked refs, they shouldn't have let PSU take a 34-7 lead in the first place. And they still had a chance to score from the 2 yard line on the next play, but failed. Bad calls are like bad weather, key injuries, and unlucky bounces. You overcome them and win, or you don't and lose. Alabama lost.

We'll move Tennessee and Penn State up to just behind Boston College, ahead of #20 East Carolina, and we'll drop Alabama and Southern Methodist behind Penn State. That results in the following: Air Force #13 (they'll be dropping next), West Virginia #14, UCLA #15, Pittsburgh #16, Boston College #17, Tennessee #18, Penn State #19, Alabama #20, SMU #21, and East Carolina #22.

Air Force

Your typical overrated Little Big team, Air Force was 10-2 with a loss to an unranked opponent (7-5 Wyoming) and no win over a rated team. Their highlights were a 23-22 win at 7-5 Notre Dame and a 9-3 bowl win over 6-6 Mississippi. So where should we put them? Well, I wouldn't rank them at all myself, but I suppose they could stay in front of 8-3 East Carolina, who also lost to an unrated opponent and beat no one. That would drop Air Force right behind Southern Methodist, and the AP poll originally had SMU rated just ahead of Air Force anyway, so this seems a perfect fit.

Air Force drops to #21, and SMU and all the teams that had been ranked between SMU and Air Force all go up one slot.

UCLA, Illinois, and Michigan

10-2 Illinois won the Big 10 outright, going 9-0 in league play and beating 9-3 Michigan 16-6, yet they were dropped behind Michigan in the final AP poll. This happened because of a huge bowl "upset."

7-4-1 UCLA beat 10-2 Illinois 45-9 in the Rose Bowl, and when you look at their straight records, you might assume that to be a fluke, if a very dominating fluke. But UCLA lost early nonconference games to #2 Nebraska, #4 Georgia, and now-#8 Brigham Young, all of whom are rated higher than Illinois (or any Big 10 team). Those losses are therefore irrelevant when comparing UCLA to Illinois. UCLA also took an upset loss to unrated 7-3-1 Arizona and a tie to 6-4-1 Arizona State, but Illinois was upset at unrated 7-5 Missouri, so only UCLA's upset tie hurts them in comparison. And that upset tie is outweighed by UCLA's Rose Bowl win over Illinois, leaving UCLA effectively a half game better than Illinois for 1983.

This is a good example of the illusion that straight records can be. If UCLA had played 3 patsies in nonconference play instead of 3 top 8 opponents, they would have gone 10-1-1 and been ranked in the top 5. Yet they would be exactly the same team they are now at 7-4-1.

I would definitely rank UCLA higher than Illinois.
We're talking about a head-to-head result that happened in a bowl game, and by a score of 45-9. I don't see how anyone who watched that game could think it was an accident. And I would also rank Big 10 champion Illinois ahead of Michigan. On the other hand...

The Case Against UCLA

Illinois is the only rated opponent UCLA defeated, lending some credence to the possibility that the Rose Bowl was a fluke. Illinois defeated 3 rated teams (9-3 Michigan, 9-3 Iowa, and 9-3 Ohio State).

And the Big 10 was much stronger than the PAC 10 this season. In fact, the PAC 10 was awful, going 16-19-1 against nonconference opponents. The Big 10 was 13-11, but the difference is much greater than those records show, because the Big 10 played far tougher nonconference teams.

23 of the Big 10's 24 nonconference games were against major conference teams or major independents. And the one exception was 10-2 Northern Illinois, who was the MAC champion. The PAC 10, on the other hand, played 15 of their 36 nonconference games against minor conference teams, minor independents, or lower-division teams: Montana State, San Diego State, Pacific, Utah State, Wichita State, Utah, Fullerton State, Colorado State, Portland State, UNLV (2 games), and San Jose State (4 games). And the only 1A teams from that list that had a winning record were 7-4 UNLV and 7-5 Fullerton State.

Given the PAC 10's large number of weak opponents, going 16-19-1 is rather inexcusable, and can only lead to the conclusion that the PAC 10 was itself rather weak. Yet UCLA took an upset loss and tie in conference play, and even in their conference wins, their average scoring margin was just 9.3 points per game. And none of those opponents were rated. Illinois, on the other hand, won their conference games by an average scoring margin of 18.9 points per game, and 3 of those opponents were rated.

So the AP poll has a case for rating Illinois higher than UCLA. And once that choice is made, they also have a case for rating Michigan higher than Illinois, since Illinois' upset loss to UCLA happened in a bowl and thus carries extra weight. It's unfortunate, because rating the teams my way (which would be something like UCLA #9, Illinois #10, Michigan #11) would strengthen Miami's relatively weak case for #1 over Auburn. Miami's big win was over Nebraska, and Nebraska beat UCLA 42-10. And Auburn's 9-7 Sugar Bowl win over Michigan looks even worse if Michigan is rated even further back.

I've spent a lot of time looking at this UCLA-Illinois case, and I've also spent a lot of time looking at UCLA vs. West Virginia, who currently sits right in front of UCLA in the fixed poll. But in the end, UCLA can stay where they are.

Penn State

8-4-1 Penn State, now ranked #18 in the fixed poll, has a better relevant record than the team ranked ahead of them, 9-3 Tennessee. But let's cut to the chase and compare them to 9-3 Boston College, currently #16.

Boston College had a better straight record and beat Penn State 27-17, but if that seems like the end of the story, well, it's not. Boston College took their 3 losses 27-17 to West Virginia, 21-0 to Syracuse, and 19-18 to Notre Dame in their bowl game. Penn State defeated all 3: West Virginia 41-23, Syracuse 17-6, and Notre Dame 34-30. Those 3 games plus BC's head-to-head win leave Penn State with a 2-game lead. But PSU also lost to 4-6-1 Cincinnati, and Boston College defeated now-#7 Clemson, making them effectively even. The last straw is Penn State's tie with now-#16 Pittsburgh, and since Pitt is rated just ahead of BC, that gives Penn State an effective half game lead on BC. Furthermore, BC's upset loss to unrated 7-5 Notre Dame happened in a bowl game, giving it greater weight.

If BC were rated higher than Pitt, then they could also be logically rated higher than PSU. But in that case, PSU would have a better relevant record than Pitt, and Pitt would have to drop behind the Nittany Lions as well. So BC > PSU > Pitt is a viable option, but I am going with Pitt > PSU > BC because it is slightly closer to the AP poll's original ranking of these teams. Also, BC took an upset bowl loss, which should lose them any tiebreakers.

Let's bump Penn State up to #16, dropping Boston College to #17 and Tennessee to #18


All 4 of 8-4 Maryland's losses came to teams that are now ranked: #3 Auburn, #7 Clemson, #13 West Virginia, and #18 Tennessee in their bowl game. Current #20 Southern Methodist (10-2), #21 Air Force (10-2), and #22 East Carolina (8-3), on the other hand, all lost to an unrated opponent. So Maryland is a game better in that department. Maryland also defeated a rated opponent, now-#15 Pittsburgh, while none of the aforementioned #20-22 teams accomplished the same. So Maryland is another game better in that department.

Let's move Maryland ahead of all 3. Maryland also has a better relevant record than #19 Alabama, and could be ranked higher than the Tide, but the AP poll can keep Alabama ranked higher because they performed vastly better than did Maryland (Maryland 3 close wins over unranked opponents, Alabama 1, and Maryland 3 losses by more than a touchdown, Alabama 0).

We'll move Maryland in at #20, dropping SMU to #21, Air Force to #22, and East Carolina to #23.

Florida State and East Carolina

Unrated 7-5 Florida State defeated now-#23 East Carolina (8-3) 47-46. That's a razor-close home win, but there's not enough in these two teams' schedules to dismiss it. Florida State was upset by unrated Tulane, while EC's other 2 losses came to top 10 opponents (Miami and Florida), but FSU's win over EC leaves them effectively even, with the Seminoles owning the head-to-head tiebreaker. FSU was blown out once, while all of EC's losses were close, but FSU had 2 close wins over unrated opponents, EC 4. Both teams beat 3 winning opponents, but FSU's went an aggregate 22-11-1, East Carolina's 20-14. The teams are close, but FSU edges EC out head-to-head, in strength of schedule, and in performance.

We'll move Florida State in at #23, dropping East Carolina to #24.


We've got one more slot to fill to get us to 25 teams, and there are 3 viable candidates: 7-4 Wisconsin, 7-5 Notre Dame, and 6-5 Syracuse.

Wisconsin took all 4 of their losses to rated teams, and defeated no rated teams. They are a candidate because they beat 7-5 Missouri, who beat
8-4 Oklahoma, who beat 8-4 Oklahoma State. OSU would be the AP team of choice to fill the last slot, and the Cowboys made the coaches' top 20, but they went 3-4 in the Big 8, losing to both Oklahoma and Missouri, and cannot logically be ranked higher than either team. Oklahoma and Missouri tied for 2nd in the Big 8 at 5-2, but Missouri beat Oklahoma 10-0, so Missouri should be rated ahead of Oklahoma. That brings us back to Wisconsin, who beat Missouri 21-20.

Notre Dame took a 28-23 upset loss to 4-6-1 Michigan State, but they balanced that out with a 19-18 Liberty Bowl win over now-#17 Boston College. That leaves them with the same balanced relevant record that Wisconsin has, but if you give more weight to bowl results, Notre Dame has the edge.

Syracuse took a 17-6 upset loss at 4-7 Temple, but they notched two upset wins over rated opponents: 21-10 over now-#17 Boston College and 27-16 over now-#13 West Virginia. That gives Syracuse a better relevant record than Notre Dame and Wisconsin.

My choice would be Syracuse, because their upset loss came in their opener, and their two upset wins, both by more than a touchdown, came in their last 2 games. And getting wins over the #13 and #17 teams is quite excellent for a #25 team. But if you had asked AP voters in 1983 to choose which of these 3 candidates should be #25, I believe they would have chosen Notre Dame, because Syracuse and Wisconsin did not play in a bowl game, and Notre Dame did, and they beat a top 20 team in it too.

And Notre Dame looks like a pretty good pick. Their upset loss came early (2nd game), and they were strong down the stretch even while losing. In their last 3 regular season games, they lost to #15 Pittsburgh by 5, at #16 Penn State by 4, and to #22 Air Force by 1 point. Then they won their bowl game over #17 Boston College, and that was their only close win-- they routed their opponents in their other 6 wins. That gives them a far better overall performance than Syracuse, who lost by 11 to a bad Temple team, by 56 to Nebraska, and by 20 to now-#20 Maryland, along with close wins over 3-8 Rutgers and 3-8 Navy. Wisconsin also did not perform as well as Notre Dame, as they had a close win over an unrated opponent, and did not come close in any of their 4 games against rated teams. Also, Wisconsin's only 2 wins of note came in their first 2 games, and their close win over an unrated opponent came in their 10th game.

So Notre Dame it is. Put 'em at #25.

Fixed AP Top 25

Well, that was a long, difficult one, and I'm glad to be done with it. No team falls out of this fixed and expanded AP top 25. The 5 new teams had a total of 4 losses to unrated opponents (discounting games against each other), and they collected 6 wins and a tie against teams the AP poll had rated. Pretty good group of teams there.

1) Miami-Florida 11-1--
2) Nebraska 12-1--
3) Auburn 11-1--
4) Georgia 10-1-1--
5) Texas 11-1--
6) Florida 9-2-1--
7) Clemson 9-1-1+4
8) Brigham Young 11-1-1
9) Michigan 9-3-1
10) Illinois 10-2--
11) Iowa 9-3+3
12) Ohio State 9-3-3
13) West Virginia 9-3+3
14) UCLA 7-4-1+3
15) Pittsburgh 8-3-1+3
16) Penn State 8-4-1IN
17) Boston College 9-3+2
18) Tennessee 9-3IN
19) Alabama 8-4-4
20) Maryland 8-4IN
21) Southern Methodist 10-2-9
22) Air Force 10-2-9
23) Florida State 7-5IN
24) East Carolina 8-3-4
25) Notre Dame 7-5IN