Tip Top 25 in helmets, smaller
                                                    Home

Fixing the Final 1984 AP College Football Poll

1) Brigham Young 13-0
2) Washington 11-1
3) Florida 9-1-1
4) Nebraska 10-2
5) Boston College 10-2
6) Oklahoma 9-2-1
7) Oklahoma State 10-2
8) Southern Methodist 10-2
9) UCLA 9-3
10) Southern Cal 9-3
11) South Carolina 10-2
12) Maryland 9-3
13) Ohio State 9-3
14) Auburn 9-4
15) Louisiana State 8-3-1
16) Iowa 8-4-1
17) Florida State 7-3-2
18) Miami-Florida 8-5
19) Kentucky 9-3
20) Virginia 8-2-2
To the left is the final 1984 AP college football top 20. You can access all of these teams' full schedules here: College Football Data Warehouse (amongst a number of other places). The fixed final AP poll, expanded to 25 teams, follows the article below. 

Over the last 10 years, people have been talking about parity in college football as though it's a new thing. But parity arrived when the 1980s did. 1984 saw the 5th straight first-time "national champion": Georgia in '80, Clemson in '81, Penn State in '82, Miami-Florida in '83, and now Brigham Young in '84, the only "Little Big Team" to ever finish #1 in the AP poll.

But parity wasn't just a phenomenon at the top of the poll. It was happening top-to-bottom, and that made the 1980s a difficult decade in which to rate teams. 1984 was particularly difficult, as "upsets" were the norm every week. Anarchy reigned.

It was a lot like 2007, the "Year of the Upset," except that in 2007 unbeaten Hawaii didn't sneak off with the "national championship" without playing a ranked opponent. Say what you want about the BCS, but poor as it is, at least it protects us from that kind of crap.

The 1984 AP poll's top 20 took a huge 33.5 losses (a tie being half a loss) to lower-ranked teams, while the top 20 of the 2007 AP poll took 34 such losses. Pretty darn similar, eh? Of course, those numbers are lowered by fixing the polls, but they remain similar: 1984's fixed top 20 took 29 losses to lower-ranked teams, while 2007's fixed top 20 took 28. Looks like football writers haven't gotten any smarter over the last 30 years. On the other hand, they were smart enough to not rank Hawaii number one going into the bowls in 2007.
1984 Holiday Bowl, Brigham Young and Michigan

In the lamest and least-watched "national championship" bowl game of all time, 13-0 Brigham Young rallied to beat 6-6 Michigan 24-17. Gotta love the "pageantry" of college football's bowl system.

Brigham Young

Texas Christian, Boise State, and Utah have been tearing it up over the last decade, but in 1984 Brigham Young did something none of those other "Little Big" teams have even gotten a legitimate shot at: they finished #1. Unfortunately, BYU '84 differs from those other teams in another way too: they did not play a single ranked opponent. The only so-called "national champion" that didn't (though Oklahoma came very close in 1956).

BYU's 1984 opponents went 61-85-3, placing their schedule 96th amongst 98 division 1A schools. And yet their performance was as weak as their schedule. They won five games by a touchdown or less, from a 20-14 win at 3-7-1 Pitt in their opener to a 24-17 win against 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl-- by far the worst bowl opponent ever faced by a so-called "national champion." How bad was Michigan? They finished 6th in the Big Ten, and the Big Ten was a horrid 12-15 against nonconference opponents and 1-5 in bowl games. The only conference in the country that was as bad as the Big 10 was the WAC itself.

So how did BYU end up #1? Well, for one thing, BYU was greatly aided by the weekly upset chaos of 1984. Look at the teams in the top 20 and you see only one team with just 1 loss, and one other with a loss and tie. Everyone else had at least 2 losses. The 1-loss team, Washington, lost the Rose Bowl bid because Southern Cal beat them, so they were not viewed as a conference champion (though they were, sharing the title with USC). And the 9-1-1 team, Florida, was hit with probation in September for massive cheating, and no one wanted to reward a "cheater." So the timing was right.

Of course, in 2007 a 2-loss LSU team was rated higher than an unbeaten Hawaii team that looked a lot like BYU '84, so in the end, what put BYU over the top in 1984 was a zeitgeist thing. Or maybe a mass psychosis thing. In any case, it had never happened before, and it has not happened since, even though there have been quite a few better "Little Big Teams" than BYU '84 before and since. Let's compare BYU '84 to some of them, shall we?

BYU '84 vs. Other Little Big Teams

I am sure that many people view BYU '84 as the greatest Little Big Team of all time, since they are the only one to "win" a "national championship." But let's look at what they really accomplished. I mentioned that Hawaii in 2007 looked a lot like BYU '84-- they too played no ranked teams in the regular season, and they too had 5 close wins. The only difference is that Hawaii got run over 41-10 by #2 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. But since BYU played no such opponent in 1984, who's to say that the same thing wouldn't have happened to them had they played 9-1-1 Florida in a bowl game? My prediction: it would have.

Brigham Young '84 is not even one of the best 10 Little Big Teams since 1970, and I doubt they'd even make my top 20. Take Boise State 2010. Sure, they took a loss, but that came at #11 Nevada (13-1), and BYU '84 did not play an opponent nearly that good. Let's compare what's comparable. Boise State 2010 actually beat a ranked opponent (#16 Virginia Tech), and that was their only close win. They stomped the rest. BYU '84 did not come close to that performance.

Arizona State, like BYU '84, was a WAC team in 1975, and went 12-0 while beating 2 ranked opponents (one of which was 10-2 Nebraska, a top ten team), and they only had 2 close wins over unrated opponents. But 11-1 Oklahoma was voted #1 despite a 23-3 loss to 7-5 Kansas. ASU also went 11-0 in 1970 with a better performance than BYU '84, and that just got them a 6th place finish in the final AP poll.

Utah beat every opponent by more than a touchdown in 2004, including a 35-7 Fiesta Bowl win over #25 Pittsburgh. Then Utah 2008 beat four ranked opponents, 2 of them in the top 10 (one was 12-2 Alabama, whom they beat 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl). Also beating rated opponents and performing far better than BYU '84 were Texas Christian 2010 and Boise State 2006 & 2009.

Closer to BYU '84's power range are teams like Toledo 1970, Tulane 1998, and Marshall 1999, who played weak schedules themselves, but performed much better against them.

Where Should BYU '84 Be Ranked?

Needless to say, Brigham Young '84 does not belong at #1. I would rank them about #10 myself, but where I would rank them is not the issue when fixing these polls. Since the AP poll has them #1, the real question is, what is the highest possible ranking for BYU '84 that would be logically viable?

Let's start by comparing them to #2 Washington (11-1). Washington took a 16-7 upset loss at #10 Southern Cal (9-3), but since BYU did not play a team ranked so highly (or ranked at all), we can't fairly compare that result to any of BYU's. Washington's schedule was weak, and the only rated team they defeated was #6 Oklahoma (9-2-1) 28-17 in the Orange Bowl. Still, that is of course far more than BYU accomplished. And Washington's performance was very strong too. All but one of their 11 wins was by more than a touchdown (the only close game was 17-10 over 6-5 Oregon). That's 4 fewer close wins than BYU. This comparison is a blowout for Washington, and should not even be a debate at all. Washington even dominated BYU's bowl opponent, Michigan, in Ann Arbor. The final score was 20-11, but Michigan scored a touchdown and a 2-pointer in the closing seconds to make it look closer than it was. BYU, on the other hand, had to rally for 2 4th quarter touchdowns to beat Michigan on a neutral field, scoring the winner with under 2 minutes left.

Moving on, we have #3 Florida, who was upset twice: a 32-20 loss to #18 Miami-Florida (8-5) in their opener and a 21-21 tie with #15 LSU (8-3-1) a week later. But again, BYU did not even play a ranked opponent. Florida also defeated #14 Auburn (9-4) 24-3, #17 Florida State (7-3-2) 27-17, and #19 Kentucky (9-3) 25-17. On top of that they beat 7-4-1 Tennessee 43-30 and 7-4-1 Georgia 27-0, and both will make the fixed and expanded top 25. So Florida was 3-1-1 against the AP top 20, and 5-1-1 against the fixed top 25, as compared to BYU's 0-0. Florida routed the rest of their opponents by an average of 26 points, and none of those games were close, whereas BYU, again, had 5 close games with unrated opponents. In fact, despite playing one of the toughest schedules in the country, only 1 of Florida's 9 wins was close, the 8-point win at 9-3 Kentucky.

Moving on, we have #4 Nebraska. However, Nebraska lost 17-7 to #6 Oklahoma, and should be rated behind the Sooners (more on that later), so moving on, we actually have soon-to-be-#4 Oklahoma (9-2-1). Oklahoma lost to Washington in the Orange Bowl, but more importantly for BYU, they lost 28-11 at 5-6 Kansas and they tied unrated 7-4-1 Texas 15-15. Now BYU did play plenty of teams of that caliber, and never took an upset loss, so we can validly rank them ahead of Oklahoma.

Given that I would drop 'em much more than that, not too shabby. BYU drops to #3, Washington moves up to #1, Florida to #2.

Washington vs. Florida

Major college football national championships are all in the eye of the beholder, and this beholder will never acknowledge Brigham Young '84 as a "national champion." So who is champ? For me, it's a split title between Washington and Florida. Washington had the best record and the best win (28-17 over #6 Oklahoma), but Florida played a much tougher schedule. Look at it this way-- Florida was 3-1-1 against the AP top 20, and 5-1-1 against the fixed top 25, while Washington was 1-1 against both. And Washington had 1 close win over an unrated opponent, Florida none. So for my money, Florida should definitely be #1.

On the other hand, none of those rated teams Florida defeated were top 10, while Washington did beat a top 10 opponent. Florida's results, however impressive in sum, are lacking a win with "oomph" factor like Washington got in the Orange Bowl. In other words, none of Florida's wins makes you say, "Wow, now there's a national champion," whereas Washington's Orange Bowl win does.
And Washington's upset loss came to the #10 team-- higher ranked than anyone Florida beat, and higher ranked than the team Florida lost to.

So while the difference in schedule here is immense, the case for Washington has just enough merit, I think, to allow for a compromise. Move Florida up into a tie with Washington. They're both #1.

Oklahoma and Nebraska

#6 Oklahoma (9-2-1) won 17-7 at 10-2 Nebraska (10-2). Both lost to an unrated opponent (OU at 5-6 Kansas and Nebraska at 6-5 Syracuse), and Oklahoma was tied by unrated 7-4-1 Texas, but that still leaves Oklahoma effectively a half game better than Nebraska. Oklahoma was rated ahead of Nebraska at the end of the regular season, and should not have dropped behind the Huskers for losing to now-#1 Washington in the Orange Bowl.

Move Oklahoma to #4, dropping Nebraska and Boston College one spot each.

Louisiana State, Southern Cal, and UCLA

9-3 UCLA is as sickly a #9 team as you'll ever see. They lost to 5-6 Stanford and 6-5 Oregon, and struggled repeatedly to beat other unrated opponents: 18-15 over 4-7-1 San Diego State, 23-17 over 4-7 Long Beach State, 27-24 over 6-5 Washington State, 17-14 over 2-9 California, and 21-13 over 5-6 Arizona State. And they were beaten by now-#5 Nebraska 42-3 at home. But they did have a good finish, beating #10 Southern Cal (9-3) 29-10 and #18 Miami (8-5) 39-37 in the Fiesta Bowl.

Let's compare them to #15 Louisiana State (8-3-1). LSU also lost to 2 unrated opponents (7-5 Notre Dame and 4-7 Mississippi State), so they're even there. LSU also beat Southern Cal (23-3 on the road), so they're even there. LSU also beat a second rated opponent, winning 36-10 at #19 Kentucky (9-3), which does not look even with UCLA's win over Miami, but let's call it even. LSU also lost to Nebraska, but their 28-10 Sugar Bowl loss, sad as it is, looks a whole lot better than the 42-3 whipping UCLA took from Nebraska at home. Still, let's call it even. LSU tied now-#1 Florida 21-21 on the road. Definitely not even. LSU had 4 close wins over unrated opponents, which is not good, but better than UCLA's 5. But the big difference here is LSU's tie with Florida, putting them a half game better than UCLA (their slightly better performance is just icing on that cake).

Moving on, 9-3 UCLA being rated right in front of 9-3 Southern Cal may look right, given that UCLA beat Southern Cal 29-10. However, UCLA took 2 conference losses, while USC took 1, which is why USC won the PAC 10 and UCLA did not. Southern Cal took an upset loss to unranked Notre Dame in nonconference play, but they balanced that out with an upset win over now-#1 Washington,
a team UCLA did not even play this year. Southern Cal also lost to LSU, but as I just demonstrated, LSU had a better season than UCLA and should be rated ahead of them anyway. Therefore, the loss should not hurt USC in comparison to UCLA. In the end, the difference between UCLA and USC is their record in conference play, putting USC one game ahead.

And Southern Cal outperformed UCLA too, with 3 close wins over unrated opponents to UCLA's 5. They also outscored 5 common opponents by a total of 48 points, UCLA by 10, so even if you throw in UCLA's 19 point win over USC, the Trojans come out ahead there. Finally, USC also beat 7-4 Arizona, another team UCLA did not even play (they drew 2-9 Oregon State instead).

So LSU > USC > UCLA. Where to put them? #11 South Carolina (10-2), with just one upset loss (to Navy), has a better relevant record than LSU, and they also defeated 4 teams that will finish ranked in the fixed top 25. They have a better straight record than all three teams as well. #12 Maryland (9-3), on the other hand, has 3 losses to unranked opponents. So we'll put LSU, USC, and UCLA between those two teams.

That moves South Carolina up to #9, LSU to #10, Southern Cal to #11, and UCLA drops to #12. Maryland, Ohio State, and Auburn all drop a spot as LSU passes them up (LSU had a better straight record than Auburn, and won the SEC's Sugar Bowl bid over them, so they shouldn't have been ranked behind them in the first place). This fix works well in a couple of ways. First of all, the SEC was, as usual, the top conference at 38-15-3, so LSU being ranked #15 was rather dubious. Secondly, UCLA, with their 2 ugly upset losses and constant poor performances, looks a bit more legit at #12 now, with a win over a higher-ranked team (Southern Cal).

Southern Methodist

Weak as UCLA looked at #9, at least they beat a couple of ranked opponents, much unlike #8 Southern Methodist (10-2). And like UCLA, SMU lost to 2 unranked opponents and struggled often to beat others. Luckily for SMU, Notre Dame, whom they beat 27-20 in the Aloha Bowl, will make the fixed top 25, or else the Mustangs would have nothing to say for themselves at all.

But that's still not as good as UCLA's wins over now-#11 Southern Cal and # 18 Miami,
so let's drop SMU behind UCLA. South Carolina moves up to #8, LSU to #9, Southern Cal to #10, UCLA to #11, and SMU drops to #12. SMU has a worse relevant record than every team passing them here, but a better one than Maryland, who now sits right behind them.

Miami-Florida

#18 Miami (8-5) was fortunate, because it was rare to see a 5-loss team make the AP top 20, especially when that team lost their last 3 games. But those losses came 42-40 to now-#13 Maryland, 47-45 to now-#6 Boston College (on Doug Flutie's famous Hail Mary pass on the last play), and 39-37 to now-#11 UCLA in the Fiesta Bowl. Obviously, those are the results of a team that is #14 power-wise, right behind Maryland (the lowest-ranked of those 3 opponents). However, Miami was quite erratic, and is thus difficult to rate. In their other games, they lost 38-3 to #17 Florida State (7-3-2) and 22-14 to unranked Michigan, but also defeated now-#1 Florida 32-20 and now-#15 Auburn 20-18 in the Kickoff Classic to start the season.

Their 38-3 loss to Florida State, who sits right in front of them, makes their rating look good, but actually they have a better relevant record than FSU even with that loss, and they beat Auburn, who beat FSU and sits a couple spots higher. So let's start with that initial idea of putting Miami right behind Maryland. 9-3 Ohio State sits there now-- let's compare Miami to the Buckeyes.

If ranked there, Miami has 2 upset losses (Florida State and Michigan) and one upset win (#1 Florida). Ohio State also has 2 upset losses (7-5 Purdue and 7-4-1 Wisconsin), but no upset wins. In fact, Ohio State only has one win over a rated opponent (#16 Iowa), and that opponent will not be ranked in the fixed top 25. Ohio State did beat Michigan, who upset Miami, but Miami defeated Purdue, who upset OSU. Miami performed better than OSU too-- they had no close wins over unrated opponents, so their one poor outing was that 38-3 demolishing at the hands of Florida State. OSU had 3 close wins over unrated opponents.

Miami has a better relevant record than Maryland (who has 3 losses to unranked opponents), but Maryland's losses came early, and they beat a large number of teams who will finish ranked in the fixed top 25 (Miami being one, the others 7-4 Clemson, 8-2-2 Virginia, and 7-4-1 Tennessee), as well as another team who will be very close (8-4 West Virginia), so Maryland remaining ahead of Miami is a valid option.

Let's move Miami up to #14, dropping Ohio State, Auburn, Iowa, and Florida State one spot each.

Ohio State

9-3 Ohio State and 9-4 Auburn (who sits right behind them) are very similar. Both now have 2 upset losses, one win over a rated opponent, and pretty much the same performance. It's the fixed top 25 where they diverge, and sharply, because Ohio State opponent Iowa will not be ranked in the fixed poll (discussed next), whereas Auburn will have beaten four ranked opponents in the fixed top 25 (7-4-1 Tennessee, 7-3-2 Florida State, 6-4-1 Georgia Tech, and 7-4-1 Georgia). And did I mention that the SEC was the best conference of 1984, the Big Ten the worst (excepting the WAC)? Yeah, I did.

Ohio State's relevant record is weaker than now-#18 Florida State's, but the Seminoles took an upset tie to unranked Georgia in their bowl game, and while OSU did not defeat any ranked teams, they did beat 5 bowl qualifiers, while FSU's big win over Miami is their only win over a decent opponent. So the Buckeyes are fine to remain in front of Florida State.

A simple switch here, Auburn to #15 and Ohio State to #16
.

Iowa

For 8-4-1 Iowa, Lastgamitis was a good thing. They destroyed unrated 7-4-1 Texas in the Freedom Bowl 55-17, Chuck Long tossing for 461 yards and 6 touchdowns, and writers could no longer remember much else about the Hawkeyes, shooting them into the final top 20 at #16. But Iowa lost to 6-5 Penn State, 6-6 Michigan State, and 4-7 Minnesota, and they were tied by 7-4-1 Wisconsin-- all unrated teams. And they did not beat any rated teams. Nice bowl win, but I'm thinking that this is the worst final-rated team I've looked at in the 27 polls I've fixed thus far. Three losses and a tie to unrated teams, no wins over rated ones, and they were rated #16?

And as previously mentioned, the Big 10 was the worst major conference in college football this season, 12-15 against nonconference opponents, 1-5 in bowls (Iowa, of course, with the only win). I'm going to have to give Iowa the heave-ho. We can definitely find better teams with which to populate a top 25. The teams behind Iowa all move up a spot, and now we only have 19 teams left-- so let's bring it to 20 again...

Georgia and Kentucky

Georgia, 7-4-1 and unrated, beat 9-3 Kentucky (now #18) 37-7. They did take an upset loss (to Georgia Tech), while Kentucky took none, but the head-to-head tiebreaker goes to Georgia, and by rather a resounding score. On top of that, Georgia tied Florida State in their bowl game, and FSU sits right in front of Kentucky. So this is a no-brainer-- Georgia belongs between Florida State and Kentucky.

Move Georgia in at #18, dropping Kentucky and Virginia one spot each. Just like that, we're back to 20 teams.

Clemson and Virginia

This one's similar to Georgia-Kentucky. Clemson, 7-4 and unrated, beat 8-2-2 Virginia (#20) 55-0. Like Georgia, Clemson took an upset loss to Georgia Tech, but then Virginia took upset ties to North Carolina and Georgia Tech (think GT will finish ranked?). So not only did Clemson beat Virginia 55-0, they also finished a game better in ACC play. These two are woefully misranked. And this merits a third mention: 55-0.

Move Clemson in at #20, dropping Virginia to #21.

Notre Dame

The AP poll's high esteem for Iowa pointed me to Notre Dame, because ND beat 6-5 Penn State 44-7, and PSU won at Iowa 20-17. Notre Dame was 7-5, taking a 23-21 loss to unrated 7-5 Purdue in their opener and a 21-7 loss to unrated 8-4 Air Force in mid-season. That's no good, but on the other hand they also won 30-22 at now-#9 LSU and 19-7 at now-#10 Southern Cal down the stretch. Even their last 2 losses were strong performances--they lost by only 7 to now-#12 SMU in the Aloha Bowl, and by only 4 to now-#8 South Carolina just before the LSU win. So they definitely appear to be a top 25 team. But where?

A slot between Miami and Auburn looks like a good fit. Miami beat Notre Dame 31-13, and while ND and Auburn both took 2 upset losses, ND made up for theirs with the 2 wins over top 10 opponents.

So that's where we'll put them. Move Notre Dame in at #15, dropping Auburn and all the teams behind them one spot each. Virginia is now #22. This fixed rating for Notre Dame redeems now-#12 Southern Methodist, who otherwise had no wins over rated opponents and thus no reason to be ranked so highly. Notre Dame had been ranked #17 in the last regular season AP poll, and should not have been knocked out for losing a close bowl game to the AP's #10 team in the first place.

Tennessee

All of 7-4-1 Tennessee's losses came to ranked opponents, so their only upset was an early tie with unrated Army. That gives them a better relevant record than both Clemson (upset loss) and Virginia (2 upset ties). The key here is that Tennessee won 24-21 at 6-4-1 Georgia Tech, who beat Clemson and tied Virginia. And in their bowl game, Tennessee lost to now-#13 Maryland by just 1 point, whereas Maryland beat both Clemson and Virginia by more than a touchdown.

So let's move Tennessee in between Clemson and Kentucky (who beat Tennessee 17-12). That puts Tennessee at #21, dropping Clemson to #22 and Virginia to #23.

Georgia Tech

6-4-1 Georgia Tech beat now-#19 Georgia and #22 Clemson, and they tied #23 Virginia, but they were hella erratic, taking losses to 3-8 North Carolina State and 5-5-1 North Carolina. Clemson thus has a better relevant record than Georgia Tech, but Virginia does not. Virginia took 3 losses in ACC play (each tie being half a loss), whereas Georgia Tech took 2.5, finishing a half game ahead of Virginia. On top of that, GT has the upset nonconference win over Georgia. I would therefore rate GT ahead of UVA myself.

On the other hand, GT only finished with a better ACC record because they did not play ACC champion Maryland, while Virginia did. And GT's win over Georgia is answered by Virginia's trio of wins over near-rated nonconference opponents: 8-4 Virginia Tech, 8-4 West Virginia, and 7-5 Purdue. So maybe the AP voters were right to rate Virginia higher.

We'll move Georgia Tech in at #24, right behind Virginia.

Rutgers

7-3 Rutgers fills the final slot because of 8-4 West Virginia. West Virginia finished #21 in the AP poll's "Others receiving votes" section, and they made the final coaches' top 20, but they lost to Rutgers 23-19, and WV scored a late touchdown to make it look closer than it was. So Rutgers it is. Interestingly, when I looked at Rutgers, I noticed that they were coached by Dick Anderson, who's been coaching the Penn State offensive line for the last couple of decades. Well, it was interesting to me anyway...

Put Rutgers at #25, and West Virginia at #26 (also known as oblivion).

Fixed AP Top 25

So 8-4-1 Iowa, originally ranked #16, falls out. Instead of comparing them to the teams that come in to the fixed and expanded top 25, however, let's compare them to 8-4 West Virginia, who fell just short of making the top 25. Iowa had 3 losses and a tie to unranked opponents, while West Virginia had 2 such losses (and only 1 in the fixed poll, since Rutgers comes in at #25). Iowa beat no ranked teams, while West Virginia defeated 10-2 Boston College (now #6). West Virginia also beat 6-5 Penn State, who beat Iowa. Oh, and WV had a better straight record too. Iowa was far from being a viable top 25 team.

The 6 teams that come in had a total of 5 losses and a tie to unrated opponents (discounting games against each other), just less than 1 loss per team. They defeated 4 teams the AP poll had rated, and tied 2 others, almost 1 win per team.

This was an incredibly difficult AP poll to untangle, not because the voters did a poorer job than usual, but because it was a difficult season, with chaos the order of the day every week. On the other hand, the voters did do a poorer job than usual at #1, and certainly the worst job at that spot of any poll I've fixed thus far. The AP also got #1 wrong in 1991, 1997, and 2003, but those were all pretty close calls, whereas this one is simply not.

1) Washington 11-1
     Florida 9-1-1
+0.5
+1.5
3) Brigham Young 13-0-2
4) Oklahoma 9-2-1+2
5) Nebraska 10-2-1
6) Boston College 10-2-1
7) Oklahoma State 10-2--
8) South Carolina 10-2+3
9) Louisiana State 8-3-1+6
10) Southern Cal 9-3--
11) UCLA 9-3-2
12) Southern Methodist 10-2-4
13) Maryland 9-3-1
14) Miami-Florida 8-5+4
15) Notre Dame 7-5IN
16) Auburn 9-4-2
17) Ohio State 9-3-4
18) Florida State 7-3-2-1
19) Georgia 7-4-1IN
20) Kentucky 9-3-1
21) Tennessee 7-4-1IN
22) Clemson 7-4IN
23) Virginia 8-2-2-3
24) Georgia Tech 6-4-1IN
25) Rutgers 7-3IN

OUT: #16 Iowa 8-4-1

Home