Well, it has the benefit of being different.
After 12 weeks, I had become acutely aware that the Achievement Index was doing some things well and some things … less well. So adjustments have once again been made, and the results are kind of weird.
(This is not all that bad since the original results were kind of weird as well.)
The biggest change has been in the weighting of losses, which have decreased quite a bit in overall importance. The net effect of this has increased the importance of overall strength of schedule in relation to wins and losses. I’m not 100 percent happy about the balance between winning games and playing tough teams, but for now, it’s closer to where it probably should be (somewhere in the middle).
The other thing I did was add a bonus for winning a conference; this is something I’d considered for much of the season, but looking at the overall rankings now, it seem fairly critical (especially in light of the way the committee places importance on it). Even more importantly (for me at least), I personally value conference titles a great deal. A system that measures achievement should take into account conference crowns.
(More than likely I will weigh this bonus based on overall strength of a league, but I don’t see much reason to build more than two tiers — power 5 vs. group of 5– and even that is something I’ll experiment with before settling on a methodology.)
This week, my system spit out a Playoff 4 that looks like this: Alabama (1) vs. Clemson (4) and Oklahoma (2) vs. Ohio State (3).
Naturally, only one of those teams has won a conference title at this point (and only two of the other three even have an opportunity to do so), so this is going to get jumbled a week from now. The Buckeyes are done and will get leapfrogged by conference winners. Oklahoma is also done and could end up moving down as well.
Iowa, Michigan State, Florida and Stanford all have a realistic opportunity to join my Top 4. North Carolina will be unable to overcome its terrible schedule.
Also, it would appear Bowling Green is massively underrated in general, given its schedule.
Before we get to this week’s complete rankings, here once again is the rundown of my methodology:
- Each team is ascribed a score derived from the combined efficiency rankings produced by the fine folks at Football Outsiders (specifically, Bill Connelley and Brian Fremeau), termed the “F/+” rankings. The basic gist of each set of rankings that goes into this merged list — individually the “FEI” and the “S&P+ Ratings” — is to evaluate a team based on its efficiency on individual plays. If you want a general sense of how “good” a team is, with only a few exceptions, you’re going to get an accurate reading from these.
- The scores pulled from the F/+ do not factor into an individual team’s ranking, however. Rather, they provide the basis for evaluating who said team has played. So for example, Wisconsin didn’t get any credit in regards to its own ranking for being the No. 35 team in the F/+, but it did get credit for facing Alabama, which ranks at No. 1. In reverse, Alabama didn’t get credit for being No. 1, but did get credit for beating No. 35. This is all about accomplishments. And for simplicity’s sake, all teams from below the FBS level got ascribed the same value: 129, which is one slot lower than the lowest FBS team (128).
- Basic weighting is applied such that, in general, road wins>neutral wins>home wins>bye weeks>road losses>neutral losses>home losses. There are discrepancies such that a particularly egregious home loss can hurt a team more than two road losses, or a loss to No. 1 can actually help a team more than being off that week. The actual weighting involved is the wild card here, as I have already tweaked it and may continue to do so. Lots of philosophical debates are involved in this process (For example: Is a road win worth more than two home wins? And is a neutral site loss to No. 1 worse or better than a road loss to No. 8?). These questions can go on for days, honestly, and much of it is dependent on an individual’s point of view. I tried to go with the above approach as much as possible and applied a fair, consistent system across the board, so we’ll see where the chips fall.
So here we go (asterisks denote conference champions):
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 1 | Ala | (11-1) | 1 | 165 |
| 2 | OU* | (11-1) | 3 | 166.3076923 |
| 3 | OSU | (11-1) | 4 | 178.7272727 |
| 4 | Clem | (12-0) | 2 | 183.6666667 |
| 5 | ND | (10-2) | 5 | 184.4 |
| 6 | Mich St | (11-1) | 8 | 186.7272727 |
| 7 | Fla | (10-2) | 18 | 201.4 |
| 8 | Iowa | (12-0) | 24 | 201.4166667 |
| 9 | Stan | (10-2) | 10 | 203.6 |
| 10 | OkSt | (10-2) | 28 | 212.2 |
| 11 | NW | (10-2) | 44 | 215.9 |
| 12 | TCU | (10-2) | 13 | 223.2 |
| 13 | Temple | (10-2) | 33 | 227 |
| 14 | Mich | (9-3) | 11 | 230.3333333 |
| 15 | BG | (9-3) | 23 | 234.8888889 |
| 16 | FSU | (10-2) | 9 | 244.9 |
| 17 | USC | (8-4) | 16 | 246.375 |
| 18 | Hou | (11-1) | 32 | 251.2727273 |
| 19 | Ole Miss | (9-3) | 6 | 251.4444444 |
| 20 | WKU | (10-2) | 17 | 253.4 |
| 21 | LSU | (8-3) | 14 | 255.125 |
| 22 | Miss St | (8-4) | 25 | 256 |
| 23 | Memph | (9-3) | 27 | 261 |
| 24 | Bay | (9-2) | 7 | 262.5555556 |
| 25 | Utah | (9-3) | 31 | 266.8888889 |
There’s not a lot of justification for the playoff committee having Ole Miss as high as it does. other than, “Let’s prop up this SEC team as a major bowl participant since Florida isn’t attractive to people.” It’s fair to call this SEC season a complete dud at this point. (On the opposite end of the spectrum, SOS really, really likes USC. Like, really. And this is entirely fair.)
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 26 | Ore | (9-3) | 29 | 268.4444444 |
| 27 | Uga | (9-3) | 34 | 272 |
| 28 | UNC | (11-1) | 19 | 273.7272727 |
| 29 | Tenn | (8-4) | 20 | 275.375 |
| 30 | Mia | (8-4) | 63 | 275.5 |
| 31 | Pitt | (8-4) | 41 | 280.125 |
| 32 | Wis | (9-3) | 35 | 297.5555556 |
| 33 | UCLA | (8-4) | 30 | 300.375 |
| 34 | BYU | (9-3) | 36 | 302.6666667 |
| 35 | Navy | (9-2) | 12 | 302.7777778 |
| 36 | aTm | (8-4) | 38 | 307.625 |
| 37 | USF | (8-4) | 37 | 323.5 |
| 38 | Toledo | (9-2) | 22 | 324.8888889 |
| 39 | TT | (7-5) | 52 | 329.7142857 |
| 40 | Cal | (7-5) | 45 | 331.8571429 |
| 41 | PSU | (7-5) | 47 | 350.2857143 |
| 42 | NCSt | (7-5) | 42 | 354.7142857 |
| 43 | App St | (9-2) | 39 | 356.1111111 |
| 44 | Lville | (7-5) | 43 | 357.8571429 |
| 45 | Ark | (7-5) | 15 | 358.7142857 |
| 46 | SouthMiss | (9-3) | 50 | 363.1111111 |
| 47 | W. Mich | (7-5) | 48 | 368.5714286 |
| 48 | Aub | (6-6) | 56 | 369.5 |
| 49 | WVU | (7-4) | 26 | 370.5714286 |
| 50 | Marsh | (9-3) | 54 | 379.7777778 |
I would feel a whole lot worse for UNC if their schedule wasn’t hot garbage. As it is, the Tarheels will surge a ton if they upset Clemson, and I don’t think they’ll cry too hard about 12 wins and an ACC championship.
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 51 | WSU | (8-4) | 55 | 385.75 |
| 52 | SDSt | (9-3) | 51 | 391.3333333 |
| 53 | Ga South | (8-3) | 46 | 392.75 |
| 54 | Ark St | (8-3) | 71 | 400.375 |
| 55 | LaTech | (8-4) | 62 | 416.5 |
| 56 | C. Mich | (7-5) | 66 | 417.7142857 |
| 57 | N. Illinois | (8-4) | 53 | 418.375 |
| 58 | Cinci | (7-5) | 65 | 420.1428571 |
| 59 | Ohio | (8-4) | 73 | 422.125 |
| 60 | AF | (8-4) | 61 | 426.75 |
| 61 | Boise | (8-4) | 49 | 438.375 |
| 62 | Duke | (7-5) | 72 | 443.2857143 |
| 63 | Ind | (6-6) | 64 | 445.8333333 |
| 64 | Akron | (7-5) | 80 | 457.1428571 |
| 65 | Wash | (6-6) | 21 | 470.3333333 |
| 66 | VaTech | (6-6) | 58 | 471.3333333 |
| 67 | Minn | (5-7) | 60 | 472.6 |
| 68 | Ariz | (6-6) | 86 | 473.3333333 |
| 69 | ASU | (6-6) | 57 | 483.1666667 |
| 70 | Tulsa | (6-6) | 95 | 487.3333333 |
| 71 | M Tenn | (7-5) | 77 | 506.5714286 |
| 72 | Uconn | (6-6) | 78 | 509.5 |
| 73 | CSU | (7-5) | 83 | 524.2857143 |
| 74 | K-State | (5-6) | 79 | 555.8 |
| 75 | Illinois | (5-7) | 67 | 575.2 |
There has been much consternation over 5-7 teams making bowl games, and how that should be handled (the powers-that-be eventually settled on APR ranking). For what it’s worth, the Achievement Index likes Minnesota, K-State and Illinois, in that order (should K-State lose this weekend).
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 76 | UtSt | (6-6) | 59 | 581.8333333 |
| 77 | Mizz | (5-7) | 75 | 592.2 |
| 78 | Neb | (5-7) | 40 | 623.4 |
| 79 | ECU | (5-7) | 70 | 626.6 |
| 80 | UNM | (7-5) | 98 | 643.8571429 |
| 81 | Ken | (5-7) | 88 | 657.6 |
| 82 | Vand | (4-8) | 84 | 695.25 |
| 83 | Syr | (4-8) | 85 | 727 |
| 84 | Nev | (6-6) | 99 | 760.3333333 |
| 85 | Rut | (4-8) | 102 | 787 |
| 86 | UVA | (4-8) | 81 | 804 |
| 87 | Texas | (4-7) | 82 | 808.75 |
| 88 | ODU | (5-7) | 116 | 833.2 |
| 89 | Buff | (5-7) | 91 | 840 |
| 90 | SJ St | (5-7) | 92 | 842.6 |
| 91 | Rice | (5-7) | 123 | 843.4 |
| 92 | SouthAla | (5-6) | 106 | 845.6 |
| 93 | Maryland | (3-9) | 76 | 853.3333333 |
| 94 | Colo | (4-9) | 93 | 857.25 |
| 95 | FIU | (5-7) | 110 | 874.8 |
| 96 | UTEP | (5-7) | 125 | 914 |
| 97 | IowaSt | (3-9) | 74 | 933.6666667 |
| 98 | Ga St | (5-6) | 97 | 994.8 |
| 99 | WF | (3-9) | 89 | 1041.333333 |
| 100 | GT | (3-9) | 68 | 1113.333333 |
Nebraska this season has been historically unlucky (I enjoy this).
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 101 | Idaho | (4-8) | 115 | 1126.25 |
| 102 | SoCar | (3-9) | 87 | 1209.333333 |
| 103 | BC | (3-9) | 69 | 1249.666667 |
| 104 | ULL | (4-7) | 101 | 1292.25 |
| 105 | Ball St | (3-9) | 108 | 1311.333333 |
| 106 | Fresno | (3-9) | 105 | 1447.333333 |
| 107 | KentSt | (3-9) | 109 | 1452.666667 |
| 108 | Tulane | (3-9) | 119 | 1477.666667 |
| 109 | Umass | (3-9) | 100 | 1520.666667 |
| 110 | UNLV | (3-9) | 103 | 1548.666667 |
| 111 | Miami Oh | (3-9) | 111 | 1557.666667 |
| 112 | Troy | (3-8) | 96 | 1567.666667 |
| 113 | NM St | (3-8) | 117 | 1633.666667 |
| 114 | FAU | (3-9) | 94 | 1697 |
| 115 | OregSt | (2-10) | 114 | 1708 |
| 116 | Hawaii | (3-10) | 122 | 1709.666667 |
| 117 | Tx St | (3-8) | 112 | 1736 |
| 118 | UTSA | (3-9) | 107 | 1794 |
| 119 | Pur | (2-10) | 90 | 1813 |
| 120 | SMU | (2-10) | 104 | 2035.5 |
| 121 | Wyo | (2-10) | 118 | 2791.5 |
| 122 | Char | (2-10) | 124 | 2905 |
| 123 | Army | (2-9) | 113 | 3205 |
| 124 | KU | (0-12) | 126 | 4146 |
| 125 | La-Mon | (1-11) | 120 | 5249 |
| 126 | UNT | (1-11) | 127 | 5424 |
| 127 | UCF | (0-12) | 128 | 5627 |
| 128 | E. Mich | (1-11) | 121 | 5793 |
That’s a hell of a bottom five. Take a bow, gentlemen.
Week 12 rankings
Week 11 rankings
Week 10 rankings
Week 9 rankings
Week 8 rankings
Week 7 rankings
Week 6 rankings
Week 5 rankings
Week 4 rankings
Week 3 rankings
Week 2 rankings
As always, let me know your thoughts and feel free to share with friends, family, and special persons of import. See any errors in record/placement? Probably a typo since I did most of this by hand, but I’d appreciate hearing about it anyway … I might have goofed up something in the rankings themselves.