RNK --- OLD ---- OPPA++ --- SAGARIN ---- TEAM

1 ------ 1 ------ 1.406 -------   5 ------- Mississippi State (8-0)
2 ------ 3 ------ 1.331 -------   1 ------- Auburn (7-1)
3 ------ 4 ------ 1.259 -------   3 ------- Mississippi (7-2)
4 ------ 8 ------ 1.247 -------   2 ------- Alabama (7-1)
5 ------ 2 ------ 1.209 -------   13 ------- Florida State (8-0)
6 ------ 18 ------ 1.166 -------   16 ------- Notre Dame (7-1)
7 ------ 14 ------ 1.131 -------   4 ------- Oklahoma (6-2)
8 ------ 13 ------ 1.063 -------   10 ------- Kansas State (7-1)
9 ------ 5 ------ 1.021 -------   7 ------- Oregon (8-1)
10 ------ 7 ------ 0.969 -------   31 ------- Boise State (6-2)
11 ------ 11 ------ 0.963 -------   15 ------- Ohio State (7-1)
12 ------ 10 ------ 0.961 -------   24 ------- UCLA (7-2)
13 ------ 17 ------ 0.956 -------   20 ------- Clemson (6-2)
14 ------ 12 ------ 0.945 -------   6 ------- Louisiana State (7-2)
15 ------ 6 ------ 0.909 -------   8 ------- Texas Christian (7-1)
16 ------ 9 ------ 0.900 -------   21 ------- Arizona State (7-1)
17 ------ 23 ------ 0.872 -------   36 ------- Marshall (8-0)
18 ------ 19 ------ 0.869 -------   25 ------- Utah (6-2)
19 ------ 31 ------ 0.852 -------   17 ------- Nebraska (8-1)
20 ------ 20 ------ 0.844 -------   12 ------- Georgia (6-2)
21 ------ 15 ------ 0.825 -------   29 ------- Missouri (7-2)
22 ------ 16 ------ 0.794 -------   32 ------- Arizona (6-2)
23 ------ 21 ------ 0.788 -------   46 ------- Colorado State (8-1)
24 ------ 30 ------ 0.778 -------   39 ------- Georgia Tech (7-2)
25 ------ 24 ------ 0.769 -------   22 ------- Southern California (6-3)
26 ------ 43 ------ 0.750 -------   11 ------- Michigan State (7-1)
27 ------ 25 ------ 0.721 -------   27 ------- Miami (FL) (6-3)
28 ------ 28 ------ 0.705 -------   23 ------- West Virginia (6-3)
29 ------ 26 ------ 0.700 -------   14 ------- Wisconsin (6-2)
30 ------ 33 ------ 0.691 -------   9 ------- Baylor (7-1)
31 ------ 45 ------ 0.656 -------   35 ------- Duke (7-1)
32 ------ 27 ------ 0.653 -------   47 ------- Penn State (4-4)
33 ------ 34 ------ 0.641 -------   57 ------- Nevada (6-3)
34 ------ 22 ------ 0.625 -------   52 ------- Central Florida (5-3)
35 ------ 36 ------ 0.616 -------   56 ------- Louisiana Tech (6-3)
36 ------ 71 ------ 0.609 -------   37 ------- Iowa (6-2)
37 ------ 59 ------ 0.606 -------   49 ------- Minnesota (6-2)
38 ------ 41 ------ 0.603 -------   42 ------- Brigham Young (5-4)
39 ------ 47 ------ 0.588 -------  111 ------- Air Force (6-2)
40 ------ 32 ------ 0.582 -------   33 ------- Louisville (6-3)
41 ------ 55 ------ 0.566 -------   38 ------- South Carolina (4-5)
42 ------ 37 ------ 0.560 -------   48 ------- Boston College (6-3)
43 ------ 57 ------ 0.558 -------   34 ------- Arkansas (4-5)
44 ------ 40 ------ 0.549 -------   30 ------- Tennessee (4-5)
45 ------ 56 ------ 0.538 -------   19 ------- Texas A&M (6-3)
46 ------ 35 ------ 0.538 -------   18 ------- Florida (4-4)
47 ------ 49 ------ 0.535 -------   40 ------- Maryland (6-3)
48 ------ 39 ------ 0.513 -------   65 ------- Toledo (5-3)
49 ------ 51 ------ 0.505 -------   60 ------- North Carolina (4-5)
50 ------ 88 ------ 0.499 -------   43 ------- Texas (4-5)
51 ------ 38 ------ 0.497 -------   53 ------- Houston (5-3)
52 ------ 50 ------ 0.495 -------   26 ------- Stanford (5-4)
53 ------ 29 ------ 0.494 -------   76 ------- Louisiana-Lafayette (5-3)
54 ------ 77 ------ 0.491 -------   59 ------- East Carolina (6-2)
55 ------ 42 ------ 0.488 -------   45 ------- Memphis (5-3)
56 ------ 79 ------ 0.478 -------   51 ------- Oklahoma State (5-4)
57 ------ 44 ------ 0.466 -------   50 ------- Virginia Tech (4-5)
58 ------ 48 ------ 0.460 -------   55 ------- Utah State (6-3)
59 ------ 72 ------ 0.426 -------   58 ------- California (5-4)
60 ------ 52 ------ 0.425 -------   61 ------- Iowa State (2-6)
61 ------ 62 ------ 0.420 -------   67 ------- North Carolina State (5-4)
62 ------ 60 ------ 0.410 -------   69 ------- Pittsburgh (4-5)
63 ------ 94 ------ 0.409 -------  104 ------- Texas-El Paso (5-3)
64 ------ 70 ------ 0.408 -------   68 ------- Virginia (4-5)
65 ------ 65 ------ 0.403 -------  117 ------- Western Kentucky (3-5)
66 ------ 75 ------ 0.402 -------   91 ------- Western Michigan (6-3)
67 ------ 95 ------ 0.398 -------   44 ------- Kentucky (5-4)
67 ------ 72 ------ 0.398 -------  112 ------- Middle Tennessee State (5-4)
69 ------ 84 ------ 0.393 -------  107 ------- Central Michigan (6-4)
70 ------ 54 ------ 0.385 -------   92 ------- Illinois (4-5)
71 ------ 97 ------ 0.384 -------  102 ------- Bowling Green State (5-3)
72 ------ 92 ------ 0.378 -------   84 ------- Rutgers (5-4)
73 ------ 63 ------ 0.378 -------   54 ------- Cincinnati (5-3)
74 ------ 46 ------ 0.372 -------   71 ------- Northwestern (3-5)
75 ------ 68 ------ 0.369 -------   41 ------- Washington (6-3)
76 ------ 57 ------ 0.363 -------   83 ------- Navy (4-5)
77 ------ 61 ------ 0.363 -------   64 ------- Arkansas State (5-3)
78 ------ 97 ------ 0.353 -------   79 ------- Rice (5-3)
78 ------ 69 ------ 0.353 -------   75 ------- Temple (5-3)
80 ------ 53 ------ 0.322 -------  103 ------- Ball State (3-5)
81 ------ 74 ------ 0.298 -------   81 ------- Purdue (3-6)
82 ------ 80 ------ 0.294 -------  116 ------- Wyoming (4-5)
83 ------ 64 ------ 0.294 -------   80 ------- Indiana (3-5)
84 ------ 67 ------ 0.294 -------  124 ------- Texas-San Antonio (2-6)
85 ------ 96 ------ 0.291 -------   99 ------- Northern Illinois (6-2)
86 ------ 83 ------ 0.277 -------   78 ------- Washington State (2-7)
87 ------ 80 ------ 0.266 -------   70 ------- Michigan (4-5)
88 ------ 76 ------ 0.253 -------   72 ------- Georgia Southern (7-2)
89 ------ 100 ------ 0.251 -------  119 ------- Alabama-Birmingham (5-4)
90 ------ 78 ------ 0.250 -------   63 ------- Oregon State (4-4)
91 ------ 102 ------ 0.234 -------  126 ------- Texas State (5-3)
92 ------ 66 ------ 0.231 -------  133 ------- Connecticut (2-6)
93 ------ 99 ------ 0.228 -------  114 ------- Akron (4-4)
94 ------ 89 ------ 0.218 -------  109 ------- Fresno State (3-6)
95 ------ 109 ------ 0.213 -------  170 ------- Army (2-6)
96 ------ 85 ------ 0.212 -------   74 ------- Syracuse (3-6)
96 ------ 85 ------ 0.212 -------   86 ------- Texas Tech (3-6)
98 ------ 101 ------ 0.206 -------  132 ------- Florida Atlantic (3-6)
99 ------ 89 ------ 0.204 -------  147 ------- Florida International (3-6)
100 ------ 106 ------ 0.203 -------   90 ------- San Diego State (4-4)
101 ------ 87 ------ 0.202 -------  142 ------- Ohio (4-5)
102 ------ 104 ------ 0.197 -------   93 ------- San Jose State (3-5)
103 ------ 82 ------ 0.181 -------  123 ------- Kansas (2-6)
103 ------ 104 ------ 0.181 -------  139 ------- New Mexico (3-5)
105 ------ 89 ------ 0.176 -------  150 ------- Old Dominion (3-6)
106 ------ 93 ------ 0.164 -------  164 ------- Idaho (2-7)
106 ------ 117 ------ 0.164 -------   95 ------- Colorado (2-7)
108 ------ 107 ------ 0.143 -------  105 ------- Vanderbilt (3-6)
109 ------ 111 ------ 0.130 -------  129 ------- Hawaii (2-7)
110 ------ 112 ------ 0.125 -------  134 ------- Louisiana-Monroe (3-5)
110 ------ 102 ------ 0.125 -------  118 ------- South Alabama (5-3)
112 ------ 107 ------ 0.115 -------  128 ------- South Florida (3-6)
113 ------ 109 ------ 0.103 -------  130 ------- Tulane (2-6)
114 ------ 117 ------ 0.094 -------  208 ------- Eastern Michigan (2-7)
115 ------ 117 ------ 0.080 -------  167 ------- Nevada-Las Vegas (2-7)
116 ------ 114 ------ 0.079 -------  136 ------- Southern Mississippi (3-6)
117 ------ 115 ------ 0.078 -------  140 ------- Wake Forest (2-6)
118 ------ 117 ------ 0.066 -------  155 ------- Massachusetts (2-7)
119 ------ 112 ------ 0.063 -------  149 ------- Buffalo (3-5)
119 ------ 123 ------ 0.063 -------  180 ------- Kent State (1-7)
119 ------ 123 ------ 0.063 -------  153 ------- Tulsa (1-7)
122 ------ 122 ------ 0.058 -------  172 ------- Miami (OH) (2-8)
123 ------ 125 ------ 0.040 -------  183 ------- Troy (1-8)
124 ------ 115 ------ 0.031 -------  151 ------- North Texas (2-6)
125 ------ 117 ------ 0.025 -------  181 ------- New Mexico State (2-7)
126 ------ 125 ------ 0.012 -------  200 ------- Georgia State (1-8)
127 ------ 127 ------ 0.000 -------  188 ------- Southern Methodist (0-7)

__________

UPDATE:

I made some modifications to my ranking system based on discussion in this week's thread.

Notably I expanded the award criteria to include fractional point awards for victories against teams under 0.500. Previously only 1 Pt was awarded for each win against teams with 0.500 or better records (there was also an incremental fraction bonus for indirect victories and a loss bonus). Now beating a team with a below 0.500 record can earn 0.0 to 0.85 Pts per win. Beating a team with the lowest win percentage will earn 0 Pts. Beating a team 1 game under 0.500 will earn 0.33 to 0.85 pts as the season progresses. This Pt award is relative therefore the value of beating a team 1 game under 0.500 will increase as the season progresses because fewer and fewer teams will be 1 game under 0.500 (always measured from last game played, not time when the two teams played). Currently beating a team 1 game under 0.500 is worth 0.75 pts. Teams with the most 1 game under victories were Notre Dame and Georgia Tech. A large number of other schools had a pair.

There were a number of big risers such as BGSU, CMU, Kentucky, and Iowa. Michigan State, WMU, Nebraska, Texas, and other saw modest jumps. There were big drops as well from teams including Ball State, Arkansas, UConn. Most teams stayed in the neighborhood of where they were originally. OHIO dropped to #100.

Overall I see this modification as an appreciable improvement. Applying this modification to week 10 increased the correct number of picks by 2, raising the correct pick percentage to 74% for that week.

UPDATE II:

The previous update still had teams like Arkansas, and South Carolina among a few others in a weak spot. These are teams that lost multiple Top 16 games by one possession and got no credit for it. So I added a bonus for Top 4, Top 8, and Top 16 losses by a single possession. This loss bonus is equivalent to half of what the win would be worth (ie losing to a Top 4 team by one possession is equal to 1 pt, half of the would be 2 pts for a victory, and equivalent to beating a 0.500 team with no wins against teams with a winning record). There were 29 total occurrences of these bonuses.

Ultimately update II will only serve as a temporary patch. This is a quick fix until I have some more time to develop a method to eliminate all of the loss bonuses and incorporate points for all losses by a single possession from top to bottom on the rankings (likely by halving the value of the would-be win (ranging from 0-2 pts).

Applying this modification to week 10 increased the correct number of picks by another to 2 games over Update I, raising the correct pick percentage to 77% for that week. Now hopefully you guys see my point about how Jerry Rig Jeff can jerry-rig his rankings in secret to make his model appear more complete. In practice this is very much a grey area of objectivism. While Update II sorts the top a little better, the bottom doesn't receive the same level of diligence, which I will argue is critical at all times (Do as I say not as I do.. at least until I have some more time to rip off the duct tape).

"I disagree with a single point, so your entire system is invalid."

+1 Great quote from a great man.

Please take a look at Baylor's results. If they 'haven't done anything' then what have we done?

Situation, very interesting! I'd say that from 1-50 you and Sagrin are actually pretty close. After #50 or so, however, there are a lot of big discrepancies. Seriously, does anyone on here think that to this point OHIO should be a higher ranked team than Kentucky or BG. This is where the eye test and many objective rankings get confusing. We play those teams 10 teams and I believe we lose 6 or more times. Just not sure how your ranking gets us higher than them.

38 against Kentucky, Ohio scored 3. 35 at Auburn, 38 against Georgia. I guess those teams are MAC level right, end of discussion. Averaging 36 per game against the big boys would easily equate to 50 on MAC teams. Oh and they beat East Carolina badly, didn't Ohio play East Carolina recently in a bowl. Like I said, easily 50+. Not having scored 50 is because they don't play MAC teams or Idaho or Eastern I'llinois. Playing second and third string against Furman is meaningless. Sagarin is right at 38, top 10 offense and actually the highest scoring offense in Gamecocks history. Defense sucks but my point remains absolutely right, they could put up 50 on any MAC team. Do some research before making dumb comments about not agreeing with any points. The best conference in college football so maybe your watching too much MAC or little 12 conference to know what real football looks like.

Spot on. Texas is another team that takes a big hit in the rankings for this reason.

Do I personally want Kentucky and Texas higher? Yes. But I don't see a way to make that happen without compromising the integrity of the methodology.

And OHIO held Kentucky to 20. But South Carolina allowed UK to put up 38.

Again, they only scored 41 at home against the (2-7) Furman Paladins (FCS). Technically there isn't a single data point that has this current South Carolina team scoring 50 points on anyone. For all we know the Gamecocks hit their glass ceiling when they scored 48 points on Vanderbilt (The same mighty Commodores who beat UMass by 3 at home).

Your "equation" has more emotion than the magazine rack at the grocery store.

Again, South Carolina beat ECU by 10, at home. That is no butt whoopin'.

Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky all allowed South Carolina to score more points than ECU.

Your presuming for some reason then, Steve Spurrier would inexplicably keep his 1st string in against OHIO just to reach 50 points.


Unfortunately for you argument, I saw South Carolina win at Clemson and Tennessee lose at Georgia, both in person in 2012. And I saw Oregon beat Oregon State in person in 2013. I know what a big time college football matchup plays like. I've seen them first hand.

A part of my motivation for making these rankings is because I've seen these teams play and the gap in competition is no where near what a cretin such as yourself would suggest.

I said South Carolina's defense was terrible, maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said we would score 50 plus on all the MAC. I said South Carolina sucks this year, but they would score 50 plus per game against MAC teams. 7 SEC games South Carolina has averaged almost 36 pts per game.
Auburn 35
KY 38
Georgia 38
Tenn 42
Vandy 45
Texas AM 28
Missouri 20
So almost 36 in the SEC and the MAC would hold them to what? The bottom 3rd of the SEC would wipe their asses with the top 3rd of the MAC and I played football for Ohio. Get a reality check and the idiot said they barely beat Furman? Since when is 41-10 close? The MAC is what something like the No. 12 league in power. Get your green glasses off and come back to reality that the MAC sucks this year. Just because they can send 6-8 teams to bowls doesn't mean they should or that anyone will watch or care. I wouldn't watch the Gamecocks if they make a bowl this year. I didn't go to South Carolina so I have no skin in the game but I know football. I watch SEC games every week and there is a reason 1-2 weeks ago that the SEC had 4 of the top 5 teams in college football.

Definitely a person who allows for other points of view.

Unless they are "invalid."

To clarify, I don't hand pick these rankings. Just the criteria. Everything else is automatic. And teams end up where they end up.

I'm sure there are a number of people that identify with PhiTau's sentiment. Teams certainly slip through the cracks in my system. Personally I'd like Michigan State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, et al to be ranked more favorably. But they're not. And I don't see a way to help them specifically in the rankings without compromising the integrity of the process. (The integrity referring to the application of the same method with the same level of diligence to every FBS team)

Casper71, I think the give and take and discussion with TS has been very interesting. This kind of numerical analysis of sports teams is not my thing, but I did find it interesting to read about. In general, I think TS's system is better than having some committee of folks using "eye factors" to rate teams.

Your examples of our ranking relative to BG and UK I disagree with; I guess it's the optimist's eye versus that of the pessimist's. I was at UK, and the thing that stuck out to me was that after the first five minutes we essentially played them even. The defense, after that initial crappiness, had several very impressive stands, including one where as I recall UK had a first and goal inside the 10 and couldn't score. I believe they went for it on fourth and short and couldn't punch it in. I came away with the idea that with a little more experience and the same talent level that we could have won that game. You saw the exact opposite, a team that was lucky not to have been blown out by 50 points.

In the BG game, I saw a young but improving offense put up 513 yards to the BG's 355. I saw a team that had 29 first downs to the opponent's 19. I saw a team that had more passing yards and more yards on the ground than the other team. I saw the best offensive performance in several years. The only problem was that these yards were between the 30s for the most part, and not into the end zone. I believe the 513 total yards was the most in OHIO history in a losing effort. In essence what I saw was great progress. Now, I'll admit that BG does not have a very stout defense, but it seems to me that this game showed great potential and the potential of OHIO moving forward.

Now, we did not play well at WMU, but young teams often struggle more on the road than at home. I fully expect much better games against UB and NIU at home. Go OHIO!

+1

Casper my disagreement on your post is related to uncashed potential.

Kentucky may very well have a better record than OHIO if given the same opportunity against common opponents. However, the day when we get to find out will never come. So when it comes time to rank a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, I rank the bird in the hand more favorably than two in the bush.