Tuesday, September 2, 2008

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:

Anonymous said...

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

Ed Gunther said...

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.