AFCA Blue Ribbon Commission Champion 1923

Teams named national champions by NCAA-designated selectors
(Underline: Claimed title for the season; +: co-champion selection)

Other Possible Contenders

	California	Colorado	Cornell	Illinois	Michigan	SMU	Texas	Yale
Overall Record	9-0-1	9-0	8-0	8-0	8-0	9-0	8-0-1	8-0
Opponent Win %	0.589 ^	0.454	0.621	0.600	0.515	0.525	0.572	0.613
+.500 Opponents	4	4	5	5	4	4	6	6
Average PF-PA	18.2-0.7	31.1-3.0	40.0-4.1	17.0-2.5	18.8-1.5	23.0-1.0	26.8-2.3	28.8-4.8
FBS Record	5-0	7-0	4-0	7-0	5-0	5-0	5-0-1	7-0
FBS Opponent Win %	0.660	0.482	0.667	0.571	0.605	0.533	0.578	0.629
Average FBS PF-PA	13.2-1.4	24.1-3.9	28.8-5.3	16.4-2.9	10.2-1.2	17.6-1.2	19.2-3.5	28.7-3.4
Conference Record	5-0	7-0	Ind	5-0	4-0	5-0	2-0-1	Ind
Non-Home games	2	4	3	4	2	1	3 #	2
SOS (S-R/BR)	85/72	62/33	84/88	12/1	34/8	100/81	69/59	16/2

California is the first team that is eliminated from serious consideration. The 1923 schedule was roughly the same quality as it was for 1922 (facing only 4 teams with winning records, half-full of non-FBS teams). While the 1922 Golden Bears were legitimate contenders because of dominating their schedule, the 1923 team was not – at least on the offensive side of the ball anyway. They did have wins over 1 Top 25-caliber team (Washington) and 2 that probably would’ve been pushing consideration (Stanford, USC). However, they also suffered a damning scoreless tie to a non-FBS Nevada team with a losing record. With so many other contenders without that type of blemish, Cal’s out. Colorado is another team that’s behind the 8-ball despite a perfect record with dominating performances. The Buffaloes’ opponents had a collective record below .500 and played no games out of the Rocky Mountain region, which was the least-regarded region in the sport at the time. Colorado didn’t average out as a Top 25-caliber team. The reason I left them in for examination was due to the BRC’s use of Richard Billingsley’s Encyclopedia of College Football for research in their work for determining retroactive champions. Billingsley is also a NCAA-designated selector, and his system was more favorable of the Buffaloes’ SOS than other folks. The Buffaloes’ rating and SOS in Billingsley’s system was on par with the 1945 Oklahoma State team that received a retroactive Coaches Trophy; however, it’s a loaded field that Colorado is contending with.

Conference mates SMU and Texas are next in my analysis. Both teams had scoring numbers very comparable to most of the other contenders (except Colorado and Cornell). SMU had a perfect record and went 3-0 against common opponents compared to 2-0-1 for Texas. The Mustangs also played one of the worst schedules of the contenders: 4 games against non-FBS teams, 5 of 9 opponents at or below .500, and only 1 game away from their home field. Baylor was the only team SMU played that was close to being a Top 25-caliber team. The Longhorns played a Top 25-caliber opponent (Vanderbilt) and 6-win Tulane team along with a match-up against Baylor: all three of those games were played away from their home field (albeit still within the state of Texas). While SMU did edge Texas on the scoreboard against common opponents Baylor and Texas A&M, the Longhorns thumped the non-FBS Austin team that SMU barely beat. Ultimately, Texas had a tougher schedule and had better scoring numbers than SMU despite suffering a tie: I think the Longhorns would be above the Mustangs in the pecking order.

Next up, another set of conference mates that both claim a national title for this season, Big Ten co-champs Illinois and Michigan. The Illini played a tougher schedule, facing only 1 non-FBS team, 5 teams above .500, and a contender-best 4 games away from home. Illinois played 4 games against Top 25-caliber teams (Chicago, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin). The Wolverines, meanwhile, played 3 non-FBS opponents, 4 teams above 0.500, and only 2 games away from home. Michigan got help by playing 4 Top 25-caliber opponents of their own (Iowa, Minnesota, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin). Michigan does have an edge in opponent win percentage when looking at only FBS-level competition, but Illinois performed better on the scoreboard against FBS-level teams. While non-FBS teams Butler (Illinois) and Quantico Marines (Michigan) are probably equal strength opponents, the rest of Illinois’ slate was much better than Michigan’s games against non-FBS Case and Michigan State. Michigan had an edge in comparative results against common opponents, but 2 of those wins (Iowa and Wisconsin) were decided on plays that, at best, were flukes; at worst, they were downright controversial. Without those plays, its fairly possible that Michigan would have 2 blemishes on their record. Add in that Illinois’ win over Chicago was considered better than Michigan’s win over Minnesota (the 2 teams in the Big 10 standings behind the co-champs), the edge most likely goes to the Illini.

Finally, my contenders from the East: Cornell (who claims a title for this season) and Yale (who does not). The Bulldogs are considered to have a tougher SOS, as they only faced 1 non-FBS team compared to the Big Red facing 4. They also had 6 opponents with a winning record compared to Cornell’s 5 and had a slight edge in average scoring margin against FBS-level competition. Yale also had the most home-heavy schedule of the year besides SMU, as they played only 1 of their 8 games on the road. They also played only one opponent that’s generally considered Top 25-caliber in 1923 (Army) and 1 just outside of Top 25 consideration (Maryland). Cornell managed to have better opponent win percentages and played 3 of their 4 FBS opponents on the road. In addition, the Big Red played 2 Top 25-caliber opponents (Colgate, Dartmouth) and 1 that probably would’ve been just outside Top 25 consideration (Penn). Cornell’s wins over non-FBS Johns Hopkins (6-2-1) and Williams (7-1) were much better than Yale’s non-FBS foe Bucknell, and could be argued as closer in competition to a couple of Yale’s FBS opponents for this year. The Big Red’s wins were more impressive in games against comparative competition, and they were never in serious danger in their games. Yale, meanwhile, was seriously threatened at home by Maryland, who was tied by non-FBS Johns Hopkins. Cornell had crushed Johns Hopkins, giving a transitive advantage over Yale based on the Bulldog/Maryland contest. This one is very close, and I could see the BRC favoring Yale due to their SOS. However, Cornell has very strong arguments due to playing more Top 25-caliber competition, their consistent dominance over the season, and the underlying Johns Hopkins/Maryland thread to create a transitive argument. I give the edge to the Big Red here.

I think for the Blue Ribbon Commission, the best cases come down to Cornell and Illinois. Do they favor the Big Red’s dominant performances throughout the year, or the Illini’s unbeaten run through a tougher slate? Both had some comparative competition despite the aforementioned disparity in number of FBS and non-FBS games between the 2 teams. Cornell was never in any danger against any of their foes this season, especially the Top-25 caliber teams listed above. Illinois, however, were played to a couple close margins. You could also argue that Cornell’s best opponents, as well as non-FBS Johns Hopkins and Williams, lined up pretty well with a good portion of Illinois’ schedule, and they definitely had a tougher road slate. The Illini did have a tougher slate from top to bottom, although an argument against can be made since most of their toughest games were at home. Illinois is a favorite of the NCAA selectors (all of whom were retroactive choices this season, with Boand and Davis being the closest thing to a contemporary selection), which may very well put them over with the Blue Ribbon Commission if I’m honest. If we look at comparative results and consistent performance during the season along the fact that most of their toughest games were on the road, I think Cornell did just enough to be Tier 1 and have the best case for a retroactive Coaches Trophy. However, Illinois and Yale are solid Tier 2 teams due to their relative SOS compared to Cornell’s overall. that could snatch up the trophy should Cornell not choose to submit a claim to AFCA. I also believe that there could be a possibility that the BRC could crown co-champions among at least 2 of these 3 teams. If I were a decision-maker for any of the 3 schools, I would be trying to beat the others to the punch. All 3 schools appear only once more in the BRC window, and they have some stiff competition to try and receive favor in those subsequent seasons. Michigan is Tier 1/2 material based on ratings, but with the 2 iffy wins, I think they fall to Tier 3 behind these other teams, with Texas falling on that line with them.

Tier 1 (Best case to be awarded AFCA Trophy): Cornell
Tier 2 (Legitimate case for champion/co-champion): Illinois, Yale
Tier 3 (Minor Contender, could make a case): Michigan, Texas
Tier 4 (Not Serious Contenders): California, Colorado, SMU