Week 1 Rankings
Alrighty, here we go with the first week's rankings.
Uh, Arkansas State at #3? Tulsa? Troy? Temple at #12 for God's sake? What the hell is wrong with me? I said it last year, I'll say it again - this is why computer rankings don't come out until October.
My rankings measure achievement, not power, potential, preparedness, or petunias. And so far, these teams at the very top have achieved the most - they all went on the road and beat someone by a significant margin of victory. The teams at the very bottom lost at home by a lot. Simple, right? The computer doesn't care that Georgia could maul all but a handful of the teams out there - it only sees that they mauled Georgia Southern, a I-AA team, at home.
And just a heads up - next week, USC is going to drop down from #2, probably out of the Top 20. Why? Because they're not playing. If you don't play, you're not achieving anything - the only way to earn (meager) points if you don't play that weekend is if the teams you've already played win, boosting the points you earn from beating them or reducing the points you lose from losing to them. Though this makes for jumps and drop offs, it works itself out at the end of the season when all the teams have played the same amount of games.
As usual, the columns are sortable, which means that we don't need an extra table for Strength of Schedule - just click on the "oPts" (opponent's points) header to see how good each team's competition this season has been.
| Week 1 Rankings | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Conf | Team | Pts | W | L | W% | oPts | oW | oL | oW% | rank∆ |
| 1 | ACC | Wake Forest | 34.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 68.58 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 2 | Pac10 | USC | 33.61 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 70.49 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 3 | SunBelt | Arkansas State | 33.44 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -170.12 | 3 | 8 | 27.3% | - |
| 4 | SEC | Vanderbilt | 33.38 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 167.45 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 5 | WAC | Fresno State | 33.35 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 42.21 | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | - |
| 5 | MtnWest | TCU | 33.35 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 35.06 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 5 | CUSA | Tulsa | 33.35 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -52.41 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | - |
| 8 | SEC | Kentucky | 33.24 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -11.80 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 9 | SunBelt | Troy | 33.07 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -113.64 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | - |
| 10 | MtnWest | Utah | 33.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -74.59 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 11 | MAC | Bowling Green | 32.94 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -42.00 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 12 | MAC | Temple | 32.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -20.46 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | - |
| 13 | Big12 | Oklahoma State | 27.49 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 89.77 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 14 | SEC | Alabama | 27.29 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 89.98 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 14 | SEC | South Carolina | 27.29 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 51.87 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 16 | WAC | Louisiana Tech | 27.21 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -36.16 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | - |
| 17 | Big12 | Colorado | 27.21 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 94.26 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 18 | SEC | Mississippi | 27.17 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 115.15 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 19 | SEC | Florida | 27.17 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 136.90 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 20 | Pac10 | Arizona | 27.16 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 24.78 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 21 | MAC | Buffalo | 27.15 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -115.92 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | - |
| 22 | Big12 | Missouri | 27.11 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 148.21 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 23 | Big12 | Nebraska | 27.04 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 121.90 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 24 | Big10 | Wisconsin | 27.04 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 75.42 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 25 | ACC | Boston College | 27.03 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -3.67 | 5 | 4 | 55.6% | - |
| 26 | Pac10 | Oregon | 27.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 83.47 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 26 | CUSA | Rice | 27.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 29.58 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 28 | Big10 | Northwestern | 26.90 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -41.90 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | - |
| 29 | MtnWest | UNLV | 26.87 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 97.29 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 30 | Pac10 | California | 26.82 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 57.81 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 31 | SEC | Auburn | 26.80 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 76.73 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 32 | Big12 | Kansas | 26.79 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 204.04 | 10 | 1 | 90.9% | - |
| 32 | Big12 | Texas | 26.79 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 90.76 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 32 | Big12 | Kansas State | 26.79 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 32.17 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 35 | CUSA | Southern Miss | 26.78 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 47.76 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 36 | CUSA | East Carolina | 26.71 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -46.07 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 37 | Big10 | Minnesota | 26.47 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 19.87 | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | - |
| 38 | Pac10 | Stanford | 26.46 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 144.05 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 39 | MtnWest | Wyoming | 26.33 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -1.66 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 40 | Pac10 | UCLA | 26.18 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 118.14 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 41 | Big10 | Indiana | 25.96 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 69.72 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | - |
| 42 | SEC | Arkansas | 25.04 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 143.88 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 43 | Indy | Navy | 25.03 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -70.37 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 44 | WAC | San Jose State | 25.03 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -7.42 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 45 | ACC | North Carolina | 25.03 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -25.22 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 45 | ACC | Maryland | 25.03 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -65.46 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 47 | SEC | Georgia | 25.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 190.90 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | - |
| 47 | SEC | LSU | 25.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 107.85 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 49 | Big12 | Oklahoma | 25.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 66.59 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 49 | Big12 | Iowa State | 25.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 62.88 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 49 | Big12 | Texas Tech | 25.02 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 1.56 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 52 | Pac10 | Arizona State | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 80.58 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 53 | Big10 | Ohio State | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 2.69 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 53 | Big10 | Iowa | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -14.01 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 53 | Big10 | Penn State | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -61.51 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 56 | ACC | Duke | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 23.52 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 56 | ACC | Miami (FL) | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -16.29 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 56 | ACC | Georgia Tech | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -75.41 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | - |
| 59 | MtnWest | Air Force | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 8.54 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 59 | MtnWest | Brigham Young | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -35.58 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | - |
| 61 | CUSA | Marshall | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 122.24 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 61 | CUSA | Central Florida | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 15.92 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 61 | CUSA | Houston | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -8.47 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 64 | WAC | Boise State | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 58.82 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 64 | WAC | Nevada | 25.01 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 51.08 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 66 | MAC | Central Michigan | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 22.44 | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | - |
| 66 | MAC | Eastern Michigan | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -57.93 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 66 | MAC | Ball State | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -123.81 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | - |
| 69 | BigEast | West Virginia | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -4.54 | 7 | 5 | 58.3% | - |
| 69 | BigEast | South Florida | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -111.35 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | - |
| 69 | BigEast | Connecticut | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -119.52 | 5 | 7 | 41.7% | - |
| 69 | BigEast | Cincinnati | 25.00 | 1 | 0 | 100% | -146.19 | 5 | 8 | 38.5% | - |
| 73 | Big10 | Purdue | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 116.16 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 73 | ACC | Florida State | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 21.39 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 73 | MAC | Toledo | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | -2.73 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | - |
| 73 | WAC | New Mexico State | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | -9.45 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 73 | CUSA | Tulane | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | -9.74 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | - |
| 73 | Indy | Notre Dame | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | -42.32 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 79 | Big10 | Michigan State | -26.04 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 147.77 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 80 | MAC | Northern Illinois | -26.15 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -11.76 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 81 | Big10 | Illinois | -26.16 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 63.61 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 82 | MAC | Ohio | -26.17 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 50.70 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 83 | SEC | Tennessee | -26.18 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 166.68 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 84 | SEC | Mississippi State | -26.36 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 159.11 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 85 | ACC | Virginia Tech | -26.37 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 114.30 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 86 | ACC | NC State | -26.39 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 182.03 | 9 | 1 | 90.0% | - |
| 86 | ACC | Clemson | -26.39 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 40.78 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | - |
| 88 | CUSA | Memphis | -26.40 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 66.03 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | - |
| 89 | WAC | Hawaii | -26.40 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 49.74 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 90 | SunBelt | LA-Monroe | -26.41 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -25.87 | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | - |
| 91 | Pac10 | Washington State | -26.48 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 74.78 | 8 | 4 | 66.7% | - |
| 92 | MtnWest | Colorado State | -26.49 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 149.61 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 93 | MAC | Western Michigan | -26.49 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 24.34 | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | - |
| 94 | SunBelt | North Texas | -26.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 12.28 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | - |
| 94 | SunBelt | FL International | -26.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -23.11 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 94 | SunBelt | Florida Atlantic | -26.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -106.19 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | - |
| 97 | Pac10 | Oregon State | -26.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 170.27 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 98 | WAC | Utah State | -26.65 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 194.42 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 99 | WAC | Idaho | -26.70 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -9.35 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 100 | MAC | Akron | -26.80 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 80.72 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 101 | BigEast | Syracuse | -26.80 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -33.21 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 102 | Indy | Western Kentucky | -26.82 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -85.18 | 5 | 6 | 45.5% | - |
| 103 | MAC | Kent State | -26.90 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -1.45 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 104 | SunBelt | LA-Lafayette | -27.03 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -99.19 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | - |
| 105 | CUSA | UTEP | -27.14 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 163.63 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 106 | Pac10 | Washington | -27.15 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 189.32 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 106 | CUSA | SMU | -27.15 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 135.32 | 8 | 2 | 80.0% | - |
| 108 | Big10 | Michigan | -32.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 78.49 | 6 | 3 | 66.7% | - |
| 109 | MAC | Miami (OH) | -32.75 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 5.10 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 110 | BigEast | Louisville | -32.76 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -24.71 | 6 | 5 | 54.5% | - |
| 111 | ACC | Virginia | -33.05 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 159.96 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 112 | Big12 | Texas A&M | -33.07 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 141.52 | 9 | 3 | 75.0% | - |
| 113 | SunBelt | Middle TN State | -33.17 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | -94.08 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | - |
| 114 | BigEast | Pittsburgh | -33.18 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 117.06 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 115 | Big12 | Baylor | -33.24 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 151.27 | 9 | 2 | 81.8% | - |
| 116 | MtnWest | New Mexico | -33.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 136.71 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
| 116 | CUSA | UAB | -33.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 78.38 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | - |
| 116 | BigEast | Rutgers | -33.50 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 25.43 | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | - |
| 119 | Indy | Army | -33.54 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 63.36 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | - |
| 120 | MtnWest | San Diego State | -33.81 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | 109.00 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | - |
As for the conference race, the SEC is on top to start - no surprise there. But the Big 12 is right behind them, also going 10-2 in non-conf games this weekend. But a lot of those games were against I-AA or non-BCS teams, so the points they earned from them will drop as the weeks go by. The Pac 10 is #3, notching some solid wins against BCS schools. Bringing up the rear are the Big East and Sun Belt, in the red.
| Week 1 Conference Rankings | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Avg Points | Conference | non-conf W | non-conf L | non-conf W% | non-conf oPts | non-conf oW | non-conf oL | non-conf oW% |
| 1 | 18.74 | SEC | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | -317.87 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% |
| 2 | 16.50 | Big12 | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | -292.33 | 2 | 10 | 16.7% |
| 3 | 11.21 | Pac10 | 5 | 1 | 83.3% | -142.92 | 1 | 5 | 16.7% |
| 4 | 8.79 | Big10 | 7 | 3 | 70.0% | -195.24 | 3 | 7 | 30.0% |
| 5 | 8.42 | MtnWest | 5 | 2 | 71.4% | -174.46 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% |
| 6 | 6.22 | CUSA | 5 | 2 | 71.4% | -175.38 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% |
| 7 | 6.21 | WAC | 5 | 3 | 62.5% | -154.14 | 3 | 5 | 37.5% |
| 8 | 6.16 | ACC | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | -237.14 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% |
| 9 | 0.14 | MAC | 6 | 6 | 50.0% | -103.23 | 6 | 6 | 50.0% |
| 10 | -3.28 | BigEast | 4 | 4 | 50.0% | -109.65 | 4 | 4 | 50.0% |
| 11 | -12.45 | SunBelt | 1 | 5 | 16.7% | 100.88 | 5 | 1 | 83.3% |
2 comments:
You said: "next week, USC is going to drop down from #2, probably out of the Top 20. Why? Because they're not playing. If you don't play, you're not achieving anything - the only way to earn (meager) points if you don't play that weekend is if the teams you've already played win, boosting the points you earn from beating them or reducing the points you lose from losing to them. Though this makes for jumps and drop offs, it works itself out at the end of the season when all the teams have played the same amount of games."
One way to reduce/remove/improve this problem would be to use the average of each teams scores per game, e.g. divide their total score by the number of games, because of course not all teams play the same number of games - if you go to a conference championship game and bowl game, you can play 2 more games than some teams, so your cumulative total will be greater than teams who don't go. You could take last years total scores, divide by the number of games, and see if the same teams finish 1st, 2nd, etc. What averaging would do is reduce the swings in rankings each week during the season when teams have a bye week.
Steve
Yeah, I've thought about that, Steve. It really would be easy to just divide the points by number of games played. There's three reasons why I decided against it though.
First, it's a visual thing. If you divide by the number of games, every team is going to be between -100 and 100 every single week. I don't think you'd really see the ups and downs of when teams have a big win or loss because it all gets averaged out.
Second, I don't really mind the swings in rankings, if only because it emphasizes my goal of measuring achievement. As you noted (that I note), when you don't play, you don't achieve anything. That's readily apparent by looking at the rankings now. What is USC going to achieve this weekend? Nothing. So why should they stay at the top with the teams that win their second game?
Lastly, the point that teams in fact don't play the same number of games is a good one. But the thing is, the extra games you mention (conf. championships and bowl games) are rewards for a job well done. The teams who make it to those games have achieved something, and those games act like a bonus round, if you will. If they made it to the game, why shouldn't it count as all their other games do? As far as conferences that do or don't have championship games, that's their decision. It really is a double-edged sword though - if you lose one of those bonus games, your point total is gonna drop.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment