Conference Play is not going to be kind to Marshall. They went from #4 to #8 this week despite a win, because their opponent was now-#100 Florida Atlantic. Their 4 remaining opponents are ranked #80-#97, and the current likely conference championship opponent is ranked #49. Those games aren't going to get them a lot of credibility, but it'd be an interesting decision the committee would have to make to start the College Football Playoff Era.
Missouri's win over Vanderbilt only bumped them up one spot to #19. It's going to take some wins and some help for me to consider them a playoff contender.
At the bottom, SMU lost again and maintains a hold on #127.
1 | Mississippi State | 7-0 |
2 | Ole Miss | 7-1 |
3 | Florida State | 7-0 |
4 | Alabama | 7-1 |
5 | Oregon | 7-1 |
6 | LSU | 7-2 |
7 | Nebraska | 7-1 |
8 | Marshall | 8-0 |
9 | Michigan State | 7-1 |
10 | Auburn | 6-1 |
11 | Clemson | 6-2 |
12 | Colorado State | 7-1 |
13 | Notre Dame | 6-1 |
14 | Georgia Tech | 6-2 |
15 | Kansas State | 6-1 |
16 | TCU | 6-1 |
17 | West Virginia | 6-2 |
18 | UCLA | 6-2 |
19 | Missouri | 6-2 |
20 | Utah | 6-1 |
21 | Boise State | 6-2 |
22 | Georgia | 6-1 |
23 | Ohio State | 6-1 |
24 | Arizona | 6-1 |
25 | Arizona State | 6-1 |
26 | Minnesota | 6-2 |
27 | Louisville | 6-2 |
28 | Baylor | 6-1 |
29 | Duke | 6-1 |
30 | East Carolina | 6-1 |
31 | Miami (FL) | 5-3 |
32 | Maryland | 5-3 |
33 | Oklahoma | 5-2 |
34 | USC | 5-3 |
35 | Wisconsin | 5-2 |
36 | Texas A&M | 5-3 |
37 | Northern Illinois | 6-2 |
38 | UCF | 5-2 |
39 | Washington | 5-3 |
40 | Oklahoma State | 5-3 |
41 | Kentucky | 5-3 |
42 | Iowa | 5-2 |
43 | Boston College | 5-3 |
44 | Georgia Southern | 6-2 |
45 | Stanford | 5-3 |
46 | Toledo | 5-3 |
47 | Utah State | 5-3 |
48 | Nevada | 5-3 |
49 | Louisiana Tech | 5-3 |
50 | Virginia Tech | 4-4 |
51 | North Carolina | 4-4 |
52 | Middle Tennessee | 5-3 |
53 | Rutgers | 5-3 |
54 | Western Michigan | 5-3 |
55 | Air Force | 5-2 |
56 | Central Michigan | 5-4 |
57 | North Carolina State | 4-4 |
58 | South Carolina | 4-4 |
59 | Illinois | 4-4 |
60 | Bowling Green | 5-3 |
61 | Virginia | 4-4 |
62 | Louisiana-Lafayette | 4-3 |
63 | Arkansas | 4-4 |
64 | Pittsburgh | 4-4 |
65 | South Alabama | 5-2 |
66 | California | 4-4 |
67 | Arkansas State | 4-3 |
68 | Penn State | 4-3 |
69 | BYU | 4-4 |
70 | Memphis | 4-3 |
71 | Oregon State | 4-3 |
72 | Houston | 4-3 |
73 | Cincinnati | 4-3 |
74 | Syracuse | 3-5 |
75 | Florida | 3-3 |
76 | Purdue | 3-5 |
77 | Tennessee | 3-5 |
78 | Navy | 4-4 |
79 | UTEP | 4-3 |
80 | Rice | 4-3 |
81 | San Diego State | 4-3 |
82 | Northwestern | 3-4 |
83 | Indiana | 3-4 |
84 | Ohio | 4-5 |
85 | UAB | 4-4 |
86 | Texas Tech | 3-5 |
87 | Texas State | 4-3 |
88 | Temple | 4-3 |
89 | Akron | 4-4 |
90 | Michigan | 3-5 |
91 | Wyoming | 3-5 |
92 | Southern Miss | 3-5 |
93 | San Jose State | 3-4 |
94 | Texas | 3-5 |
95 | Florida International | 3-5 |
96 | Ball State | 3-5 |
97 | Western Kentucky | 3-4 |
98 | Fresno State | 3-5 |
99 | South Florida | 3-5 |
100 | Florida Atlantic | 3-5 |
101 | Iowa State | 2-5 |
102 | Louisiana-Monroe | 3-4 |
103 | Washington State | 2-6 |
104 | Buffalo | 3-5 |
105 | Kansas | 2-5 |
106 | Vanderbilt | 2-6 |
107 | Tulane | 2-5 |
108 | Colorado | 2-6 |
109 | Wake Forest | 2-6 |
110 | UNLV | 2-6 |
111 | UTSA | 2-6 |
112 | Hawaii | 2-6 |
113 | New Mexico | 2-5 |
114 | Appalachian State | 2-5 |
115 | Eastern Michigan | 2-6 |
116 | Army | 2-5 |
117 | Miami (OH) | 2-7 |
118 | New Mexico State | 2-6 |
119 | North Texas | 2-6 |
120 | Connecticut | 1-6 |
121 | Tulsa | 1-6 |
122 | Massachusetts | 2-7 |
123 | Georgia State | 1-7 |
124 | Idaho | 1-6 |
125 | Troy | 1-7 |
126 | Kent State | 1-7 |
127 | SMU | 0-7 |
2014 History and #1s
Week 1 Everybody who was 1-0
Not to throw too many darts, but any rankings that put a 6-2 team ahead of a 6-1 team which beat that 6-2 team 34-0 has a somewhat questionable methodology.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to throw darts, there's definitely flaws in this system, and probably any system. I agree sometimes it comes out looking odd. One reason is that the scores aren't taken into account, per the old BCS rules for computers. Of course, we all LOVED the results of the BCS, right? I've thought about putting scoring into it, because that rule was supposedly because the BCS didn't want the coaches trying to play to the computers by running up the score on weak teams to counteract close calls against good teams. I don't think my dinky little blog with rankings will concern any coaches, so there's no danger in me causing a problem by counting an 82 point game as a bigger win than a 10-7.
DeleteIt also doesn't exactly matter who you beat, which again, has its ups and downs. Basically a team is being ranked on their opponents and record. It's somewhat similar to an Elo rating in that regard. If Missouri had defeated Georgia, but lost to someone else, and Georgia beat South Carolina to still be 6-1 (and then a whole bunch of other stuff happened to even everything back out), their rankings would be the same. If a team played Florida State and SMU, and went 1-1, that's all we'd need to know to rank them. It wouldn't make a difference if they beat the good team and lost to the bad team, or beat the bad team and lost to the good team. What matters (in this system) is how tough your schedule was overall, and how you handled it, not the individual games.
If Missouri and Georgia have the same results this Saturday, and Missouri remains more highly ranked, I'll try to flesh out how I got to that more fully in next week's post.
I understand where you are coming from on how the systems don't take scores into account. The odd thing I see, though, is that the BCS computer systems that are still being run -- Sagarin, for example -- absolutely loves Georgia this year. That's why I posed my lack of understanding on how your system is working, since it is an outlier as far as the computer rankings are concerned.
Delete