I’ve run the numbers, and they tell me the playoff committee is batting .250, at least in terms of rewarding the teams that are currently the most deserving.
That’s an important distinction, as some look at this system as trying to pick the best teams, which just COMPLETELY misses the point and COMPLETELY devalues the regular season. Why play the games if you aren’t going to use them in evaluating teams?
When the committee put Alabama into its initial set of rankings, it created a firestorm of controversy, due primarily to the fact that Alabama had a loss and plenty of other teams didn’t. The Tide was getting a pass.
Well, yes and no. It’s true the Tide is getting a pass right now, and it’s indeed okay to call the committee out for this, but it’s not just about the record … it’s about who the Tide has beaten and lost to.
Notre Dame slid into my Top 4 this week. The Irish have a better collection of wins on the whole than Alabama, but they also have a “better” loss, to the No. 1 efficiency team in the country Clemson, on the road. Alabama’s loss came at home to No. 15.
Put in that context, I appreciate my ranking better than the committee’s. And the rest of the Achievement Index makes sense too, especially for the teams that missed the Top 4.
LSU has played fewer games than everyone else.
Baylor’s schedule strength is bad.
Florida’s only loss is better than anyone else not named Notre Dame.
Contrast that with the committee, who ignored LSU’s lighter slate (if you don’t suit up, you can’t lose … this is worth a ding, whether anyone else wants to acknowledge it or not), refused to give Florida the Alabama treatment (despite the Gators having a much better case for it), and … well, I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish with their Baylor ranking.
Like I said, I like my system better.
Before we get to this week’s 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. 23 team in the F/+, but it did get credit for facing Alabama, which ranks at No. 2. In reverse, Alabama didn’t get credit for being No. 2, but did get credit for beating No. 23. 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 expect I may tweak it some as we go along. 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.
And one final note … this is through games completed as of Oct. 25 (no last-minute Mac-tion additions; those will be added in due course at the conclusion of next week). So with all that said, here we go:
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 1 | Mich St | (8-0) | 14 | 190.5 |
| 2 | Notre Dame | (7-1) | 5 | 193 |
| 3 | Memphis | (8-0) | 21 | 203.625 |
| 4 | Clemson | (8-0) | 1 | 207.75 |
| 5 | Florida | (7-1) | 11 | 210.5714286 |
| 6 | TCU | (8-0) | 10 | 210.625 |
| 7 | Ohio St | (8-0) | 6 | 212.375 |
| 8 | Iowa | (8-0) | 13 | 235.125 |
| 9 | Okla St | (8-0) | 22 | 239.75 |
| 10 | Houston | (8-0) | 25 | 251 |
| 11 | Utah | (7-1) | 18 | 251.8571429 |
| 12 | LSU | (7-0) | 3 | 257.5714286 |
| 13 | Temple | (7-1) | 35 | 274.5714286 |
| 14 | App St | (7-1) | 36 | 283.7142857 |
| 15 | Toledo | (7-0) | 29 | 308.8571429 |
| 16 | Baylor | (7-0) | 7 | 310.5714286 |
| 17 | Alabama | (7-1) | 2 | 338.8571429 |
| 18 | Wisconsin | (7-2) | 23 | 383.7142857 |
| 19 | Texas A&M | (6-2) | 26 | 397.6666667 |
| 20 | Navy | (6-1) | 24 | 410.3333333 |
| 21 | Nwestern | (6-2) | 43 | 416.3333333 |
| 22 | Ole Miss | (7-2) | 15 | 441 |
| 23 | Stanford | (7-1) | 12 | 498.5714286 |
| 24 | Penn St | (7-2) | 40 | 510.8571429 |
| 25 | Miss St | (6-2) | 16 | 515.3333333 |
If there’s one piece of the puzzle that will make people question the whole thing, it’s the elevation of teams like Toledo and Appalachian State. And I get it. But I think by the end of the year it will self-correct, and even if it doesn’t, you’re still talking accomplishments, not who would win on a neutral field. I’m okay with their placement for now.
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 26 | BYU | (6-2) | 37 | 516 |
| 27 | Michigan | (6-2) | 4 | 546 |
| 28 | Bowl Green | (6-2) | 33 | 604.1666667 |
| 29 | Florida St | (7-1) | 20 | 635 |
| 30 | W Kentucky | (7-2) | 30 | 642.4285714 |
| 31 | Georgia | (5-3) | 45 | 663.8 |
| 32 | USC | (5-3) | 9 | 711.8 |
| 33 | Marshall | (8-1) | 50 | 712.375 |
| 34 | Pittsburgh | (6-2) | 44 | 721.5 |
| 35 | Boise St | (7-2) | 38 | 802 |
| 36 | Cal | (5-3) | 31 | 819.8 |
| 37 | Tx Tech | (5-4) | 54 | 843 |
| 38 | Oklahoma | (7-1) | 8 | 864.7142857 |
| 39 | Ga South | (6-2) | 59 | 883.8333333 |
| 40 | Miami | (5-3) | 51 | 971.4 |
| 41 | N Carolina | (7-1) | 34 | 1023.285714 |
| 42 | UCLA | (6-2) | 27 | 1030.166667 |
| 43 | W. Mich | (5-3) | 64 | 1145.6 |
| 44 | Utah St | (5-3) | 47 | 1242.2 |
| 45 | LaTech | (6-3) | 39 | 1256.333333 |
| 46 | S Miss | (6-3) | 67 | 1295.666667 |
| 47 | Tennessee | (4-4) | 17 | 1304.25 |
| 48 | Duke | (6-2) | 28 | 1328.333333 |
| 49 | Cincinnati | (5-3) | 52 | 1402.6 |
| 50 | NC St | (5-3) | 41 | 1415.4 |
USC would probably be in the Top 4 right now if the Trojans were undefeated. But they’re not, so hello No. 32.
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 51 | Auburn | (4-4) | 69 | 1421.75 |
| 52 | W Virginia | (3-4) | 32 | 1461 |
| 53 | Oregon | (5-3) | 53 | 1486.8 |
| 54 | N. Illinois | (5-3) | 62 | 1568 |
| 55 | Air Force | (5-3) | 70 | 1583.4 |
| 56 | Arizona | (5-4) | 87 | 1771.2 |
| 57 | Ark St | (5-3) | 85 | 1788.8 |
| 58 | Louisville | (4-4) | 46 | 1824 |
| 59 | Illinois | (4-4) | 68 | 1872.5 |
| 60 | Minnesota | (4-4) | 65 | 1917.5 |
| 61 | Arizona St | (4-4) | 61 | 2054.75 |
| 62 | SD St | (6-3) | 55 | 2061.666667 |
| 63 | C. Mich | (5-4) | 56 | 2064.4 |
| 64 | Tulsa | (4-4) | 81 | 2097 |
| 65 | Kentucky | (4-4) | 89 | 2208.25 |
| 66 | Arkansas | (4-4) | 42 | 2213.75 |
| 67 | USF | (4-4) | 66 | 2304.75 |
| 68 | Wash | (4-4) | 19 | 2392 |
| 69 | Wash St | (5-3) | 60 | 2545 |
| 70 | Kansas St | (3-4) | 75 | 2550 |
| 71 | Rice | (4-4) | 119 | 2597.5 |
| 72 | E Carolina | (4-5) | 71 | 2719.5 |
| 73 | Ohio | (5-3) | 76 | 2744.8 |
| 74 | Indiana | (4-4) | 63 | 2843.75 |
| 75 | Texas | (3-5) | 78 | 3016 |
West Virginia is the highest ranked team with a losing record, which when you look at the team’s losses, makes a great deal of sense.
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 76 | Va Tech | (4-5) | 48 | 3052 |
| 77 | Missouri | (4-4) | 74 | 3119.25 |
| 78 | Virginia | (3-5) | 84 | 3146.333333 |
| 79 | Rutgers | (3-5) | 100 | 3476 |
| 80 | Iowa St | (3-5) | 72 | 3749.5 |
| 81 | Buffalo | (4-4) | 90 | 3779.25 |
| 82 | UConn | (4-5) | 79 | 3872.5 |
| 83 | Ga Tech | (3-6) | 57 | 4050.666667 |
| 84 | Vandy | (3-5) | 73 | 4213.666667 |
| 85 | Syracuse | (3-5) | 77 | 4339 |
| 86 | SJ St | (4-4) | 103 | 4430.5 |
| 87 | Maryland | (2-6) | 83 | 4457.5 |
| 88 | M Tenn | (3-5) | 92 | 4500 |
| 89 | Troy | (3-5) | 95 | 4815.666667 |
| 90 | S Carolina | (3-5) | 86 | 4894 |
| 91 | Kent St | (3-5) | 110 | 5048.666667 |
| 92 | FIU | (4-5) | 98 | 5078 |
| 93 | N Mexico | (4-4) | 112 | 5084.5 |
| 94 | Akron | (3-5) | 88 | 5121 |
| 95 | Colorado | (4-5) | 93 | 5249 |
| 96 | Boston Coll | (3-6) | 58 | 5350 |
| 97 | ODU | (3-5) | 122 | 5383.333333 |
| 98 | UTEP | (4-4) | 128 | 5411 |
| 99 | Nevada | (4-4) | 97 | 5443.5 |
| 100 | Tulane | (2-6) | 115 | 5856 |
A lot of Tulane observers are down on their team, and understandably, but the Green Wave has faced a brutally tough schedule. If the team isn’t beaten down at this point, there are wins to be had over the final month.
| Rank | Team | Record | F/+ | AI |
| 101 | Nebraska | (3-6) | 49 | 5917.666667 |
| 102 | Wake Forest | (3-6) | 94 | 6000 |
| 103 | S Alabama | (3-4) | 109 | 6045.666667 |
| 104 | UL-Laf | (3-4) | 102 | 6216.333333 |
| 105 | Colorado St | (3-5) | 82 | 6694.333333 |
| 106 | Ball St | (3-6) | 101 | 6949.666667 |
| 107 | Purdue | (2-6) | 80 | 7747 |
| 108 | Texas St | (2-5) | 111 | 8242 |
| 109 | Oreg St | (2-6) | 107 | 8443 |
| 110 | Fresno | (2-6) | 120 | 8887 |
| 111 | UNLV | (2-6) | 99 | 10967 |
| 112 | Hawaii | (2-7) | 117 | 11608 |
| 113 | Ga St | (2-5) | 108 | 14032.5 |
| 114 | Idaho | (2-6) | 116 | 14058 |
| 115 | Charlotte | (2-6) | 123 | 14297.5 |
| 116 | Army | (2-6) | 105 | 15180.5 |
| 117 | FAU | (2-6) | 91 | 16478.5 |
| 118 | UMass | (1-7) | 96 | 24464 |
| 119 | La-Monroe | (1-7) | 113 | 24727 |
| 120 | KU | (0-8) | 126 | 25420 |
| 121 | SMU | (1-7) | 104 | 25981 |
| 122 | UTSA | (1-7) | 106 | 29388 |
| 123 | Miami Oh | (1-8) | 121 | 29817 |
| 124 | N Texas | (1-7) | 127 | 31868 |
| 125 | NM St | (1-7) | 124 | 33758 |
| 126 | Wyoming | (1-8) | 118 | 37691 |
| 127 | UCF | (0-9) | 125 | 38170 |
| 128 | E. Mich | (1-8) | 114 | 38418 |
Kansas is the bottom power 5 team in the rankings (and has been for some time), but the runner-up for that “honor” is Oregon State. It’s been a tough transition in Corvalis (thanks to a mostly empty cupboard).
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.