Football Study Hall projects 2014 football season rankings
Football study hall has run a projection of the 2014 season based on three factors:
(a) Ca. 60%: A five-year weighted S&P+ average, with 2013 getting 5x the weight, 2012 4x, ..., and 2009 1x
(b) Ca. 30%: The 2013 S&P+ ratings, adjusted for the number of returning starters.
(c) Ca. 10%: the past two years of recruiting
The top 25 are as follows:
Rk | Team | (a) | Rk | (b) | Rk | (c) | Rk | 2014 Projected S&P+ |
1 | Alabama | 295.5 | 1 | 275.3 | 5 | 290.3 | 1 | 288.9 |
2 | Florida State | 268.7 | 2 | 298.1 | 1 | 282.2 | 5 | 279.0 |
3 | Oregon | 257.4 | 3 | 281.1 | 2 | 257.4 | 20 | 264.6 |
4 | South Carolina | 242.3 | 13 | 266.8 | 6 | 268.4 | 16 | 252.3 |
5 | LSU | 250.2 | 5 | 244.7 | 18 | 285.9 | 3 | 251.9 |
6 | Stanford | 249.3 | 6 | 261.4 | 8 | 237.0 | 39 | 251.8 |
7 | Texas A&M | 245.4 | 9 | 255.7 | 13 | 280.0 | 7 | 251.8 |
8 | Georgia | 243.2 | 11 | 258.0 | 10 | 277.9 | 9 | 251.0 |
9 | Oklahoma | 245.0 | 10 | 256.3 | 12 | 269.8 | 15 | 250.8 |
10 | Ohio State | 242.6 | 12 | 251.4 | 14 | 288.1 | 2 | 249.6 |
11 | USC | 234.4 | 17 | 265.2 | 7 | 274.9 | 10 | 247.7 |
12 | Auburn | 222.9 | 30 | 277.7 | 3 | 279.3 | 8 | 245.0 |
13 | Michigan State | 241.9 | 14 | 246.6 | 15 | 248.7 | 26 | 244.0 |
14 | Clemson | 235.4 | 16 | 245.1 | 16 | 272.0 | 13 | 241.8 |
15 | UCLA | 215.9 | 43 | 276.0 | 4 | 270.6 | 14 | 239.4 |
16 | Oklahoma State | 246.7 | 7 | 222.4 | 37 | 247.2 | 28 | 239.4 |
17 | Notre Dame | 238.7 | 15 | 219.4 | 41 | 281.5 | 6 | 236.9 |
18 | Boise State | 251.2 | 4 | 219.9 | 39 | 198.4 | 65 | 236.7 |
19 | Wisconsin | 246.6 | 8 | 216.0 | 45 | 226.8 | 47 | 235.4 |
20 | Louisville | 224.6 | 27 | 257.6 | 11 | 216.6 | 51 | 233.9 |
21 | Florida | 233.0 | 18 | 218.1 | 42 | 283.0 | 4 | 233.2 |
22 | Virginia Tech | 231.7 | 21 | 226.7 | 29 | 257.4 | 20 | 232.6 |
23 | Michigan | 227.2 | 25 | 232.3 | 22 | 265.5 | 17 | 232.4 |
24 | Central Florida | 223.3 | 29 | 261.2 | 9 | 185.2 | 73 | 231.2 |
25 | Baylor | 232.9 | 19 | 223.1 | 34 | 246.5 | 29 | 231.2 |
That seems generally about right to me, although not all of the rankings seem right: Boise State's ranking is inflated, for instance.
February 7th, 2014 at 11:17 PM ^
February 8th, 2014 at 12:59 AM ^
February 8th, 2014 at 9:37 AM ^
...
...
(wait for it)
...
PEPPERS!
February 7th, 2014 at 11:18 PM ^
February 7th, 2014 at 11:22 PM ^
What was UGA's Will Carr vs Purdue 1996 moment?
February 7th, 2014 at 11:30 PM ^
February 7th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
February 8th, 2014 at 1:21 AM ^
You can only improve!
February 8th, 2014 at 1:26 AM ^
February 8th, 2014 at 1:20 AM ^
Possible if we win on the road against ND, we could be undefeated when we play sparty. It will be interesting if Ness can get more development out of our young OL. I see the D improving, so the OL is the question mark.
February 8th, 2014 at 2:18 AM ^
February 8th, 2014 at 7:46 AM ^
I would agree with the OP - in a mjaority of cases, teams seem to be in approximately the right position. Indeed, the top ten here seems to read like the top ten of both the Coaches' and AP polls in various weeks throughout the past several years, so particularly in that portion of this projection, there seems to be some consistency. As for Michigan, I think that's probably right based on the data mentioned, and I could see us being somewhere around there in at least one of the preseason polls.
February 8th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
we could have cancelled the season and still be ranked. A couple of seasons like the last two should kill the brand.
February 8th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
General Motor's brands in the '80s and '90s were so strong that the corporation continued to sell the most vehicles of anyone right up until bankrupcy despite putting out product with poor quality the whole time.
As consumers of this 'Brand', we should care more about quality than we do about recognition.
The football program has not lived up to expectations since 2003.