Semi-Objective CFP Rankings System: 2016 Week 13 Results
This is the week 13 update of college football team rankings produced by a semi-objective model as described previously here. The model was inspired by Seth's post that proposed a point system to determine bowl eligibility. These rankings aim to be a relatively objective starting point from which to apply considerations such as the eye test, margin of victory, and head-to-head results.
The Rules
- +3 points for a conference championship.
- +4 points for a win over a top 10 team.
- +3 points for a win over a top 25 team (not in top 10).
- +2 points for a win over a winning P5 team (not in the top 25).
- +1 point for a win over a winning G5 or a losing P5 team.
- +0 points for a win over a losing G5 or any FCS team.
- -1 point for a loss to a top 10 team.
- -2 points for a loss to a top 25 team (not in top 10).
- -3 points for a loss to a winning P5 team (not in ttop 25).
- -4 points for a loss to a losing P5 or any G5/FCS team.
Week 13 Results
| Rank | Team | Points |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 'Ohio State' | 23 |
| 2 | 'Clemson' | 20 |
| 3 | 'Alabama' | 19 |
| 4 | 'Michigan' | 17 |
| 5 | 'Penn State' | 15 |
| 6 | 'Wisconsin' | 15 |
| 7 | 'Washington' | 12 |
| 8 | 'Colorado' | 10 |
| 9 | 'Florida State' | 9 |
| 10 | 'Nebraska' | 9 |
| 11 | 'USC' | 8 |
| 12 | 'Oklahoma' | 7 |
| 13 | 'Iowa' | 7 |
| 14 | 'Oklahoma State' | 6 |
| 15 | 'Western Michigan' | 6 |
| 16 | 'West Virginia' | 6 |
| 17 | 'Stanford' | 6 |
| 18 | 'Virginia Tech' | 5 |
| 19 | 'Louisville' | 5 |
| 20 | 'Florida' | 5 |
| 21 | 'Pittsburgh' | 5 |
| 22 | 'Minnesota' | 4 |
| 23 | 'Tennessee' | 3 |
| 24 | 'Georgia Tech' | 3 |
| 25 | 'North Carolina' | 2 |
| 26 | 'Miami (FL)' | 2 |
| 27 | 'Auburn' | 1 |
| 28 | 'LSU' | 1 |
| 29 | 'Boise State' | 0 |
| 30 | 'Washington State' | 0 |
| 31 | 'South Florida' | -1 |
| 32 | 'Texas A&M' | -1 |
| 33 | 'Utah' | -1 |
| 34 | 'Troy' | -2 |
| 35 | 'Northwestern' | -2 |
| 36 | 'Georgia' | -3 |
| 37 | 'Navy' | -3 |
| 38 | 'Kansas State' | -3 |
| 39 | 'Kentucky' | -3 |
| 40 | 'Houston' | -4 |
| 41 | 'Indiana' | -5 |
| 42 | 'Western Kentucky' | -5 |
| 43 | 'Maryland' | -5 |
| 44 | 'Toledo' | -6 |
| 45 | 'Arkansas' | -6 |
| 46 | 'NC State' | -6 |
| 47 | 'Tulsa' | -7 |
| 48 | 'Appalachian State' | -7 |
| 49 | 'Temple' | -7 |
| 50 | 'Wyoming' | -8 |
| 51 | 'Air Force' | -8 |
| 52 | 'TCU' | -8 |
| 53 | 'Boston College' | -8 |
| 54 | 'Old Dominion' | -9 |
| 55 | 'BYU' | -9 |
| 56 | 'Vanderbilt' | -9 |
| 57 | 'Wake Forest' | -9 |
| 58 | 'South Carolina' | -10 |
| 59 | 'Colorado State' | -11 |
| 60 | 'San Diego State' | -11 |
| 61 | 'Ohio' | -11 |
| 62 | 'Baylor' | -11 |
| 63 | 'Idaho' | -12 |
| 64 | 'Middle Tennessee' | -13 |
| 65 | 'Memphis' | -13 |
| 66 | 'New Mexico' | -13 |
| 67 | 'Lousiana Tech' | -13 |
| 68 | 'Ole Miss' | -13 |
| 69 | 'Oregon' | -14 |
| 70 | 'Arizona State' | -15 |
| 71 | 'Eastern Michigan' | -15 |
| 72 | 'Mississippi State' | -15 |
| 73 | 'California' | -15 |
| 74 | 'Texas Tech' | -15 |
| 75 | 'Syracuse' | -15 |
| 76 | 'Duke' | -16 |
| 77 | 'Army' | -16 |
| 78 | 'Texas' | -16 |
| 79 | 'Illinois' | -16 |
| 80 | 'Missouri' | -17 |
| 81 | 'Oregon State' | -17 |
| 82 | 'Arkansas State' | -18 |
| 83 | 'Central Michigan' | -18 |
| 84 | 'UCLA' | -18 |
| 85 | 'Michigan State' | -18 |
| 86 | 'Purdue' | -19 |
| 87 | 'UCF' | -20 |
| 88 | 'Southern Miss' | -20 |
| 89 | 'Miami (OH)' | -20 |
| 90 | 'UTSA' | -21 |
| 91 | 'Notre Dame' | -21 |
| 92 | 'Rutgers' | -21 |
| 93 | 'Louisiana-Lafayette' | -22 |
| 94 | 'South Alabama' | -22 |
| 95 | 'Akron' | -22 |
| 96 | 'Arizona' | -22 |
| 97 | 'Hawaii' | -23 |
| 98 | 'North Texas' | -24 |
| 99 | 'Georgia Southern' | -24 |
| 100 | 'Iowa State' | -24 |
| 101 | 'SMU' | -25 |
| 102 | 'Northern Illinois' | -25 |
| 103 | 'Louisiana-Monroe' | -25 |
| 104 | 'Virginia' | -26 |
| 105 | 'Kent State' | -27 |
| 106 | 'Nevada' | -28 |
| 107 | 'Georgia State' | -28 |
| 108 | 'Cincinnati' | -29 |
| 109 | 'Bowling Green' | -29 |
| 110 | 'Charlotte' | -29 |
| 111 | 'Ball State' | -29 |
| 112 | 'New Mexico State' | -29 |
| 113 | 'San Jose State' | -30 |
| 114 | 'FIU' | -30 |
| 115 | 'Kansas' | -30 |
| 116 | 'Tulane' | -31 |
| 117 | 'UNLV' | -31 |
| 117 | 'Utah State' | -31 |
| 118 | 'East Carolina' | -31 |
| 119 | 'Marshall' | -31 |
| 120 | 'UTEP' | -31 |
| 122 | 'Rice' | -33 |
| 123 | 'Connecticut' | -34 |
| 124 | 'Texas State' | -34 |
| 125 | 'Florida Atlantic' | -34 |
| 126 | 'Massachusetts' | -35 |
| 127 | 'Buffalo' | -36 |
| 128 | 'Fresno State' | -40 |
This model loves the Big 10 and hates the SEC outside of Bama. Michigan hangs on to the fourth spot here because of the three top 10 wins and losses coming only to a top 10 team and a top 25 team. The winner of Wisconson vs. Penn State will jump them, however.
November 28th, 2016 at 2:12 PM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^
I count 6-6 as winning. Any win percentage 50% or higher is winning here.
November 28th, 2016 at 4:37 PM ^
Thanks!
Michigan kind of gets screwed that Hawaii lost their extra game to finish 6-7.
November 28th, 2016 at 3:14 PM ^
Time to make it less objective, I think. Michigan can't finish in the top 4 of this ranking. ;)
November 28th, 2016 at 3:33 PM ^
Don't worry, they won't be there next week.
November 28th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
What the Hell happened to Virginia this year? Ouch!
November 28th, 2016 at 11:04 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 5:09 PM ^
Bronco Mendenhall
November 28th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^
How do you count "Top 10" or "Top 25", at the time of playing? Then Colorado simply vanishes in thin air. Or does that component vary every week, based on the current ranking of the opponent?
November 28th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 6:30 PM ^
(and perhaps the spreadsheet)
that way, people can play around with different weights.
for example, some people might give more weighting to winning the conference.
November 29th, 2016 at 1:00 AM ^
I'm not sure what you mean by columns. There is no spreadsheet to share, it's just a script I wrote in MATLAB.
December 1st, 2016 at 3:38 PM ^
then?
November 28th, 2016 at 6:53 PM ^
I think the 4th spot is going to come down to the Pac 12 champ vs. the B1G champ and your model confirms this. A look at the resumes of the primary contenders (rankings per the AP):
11-2 Penn State -
Key Wins: vs. #2 Ohio State, #6 Wisconsin (neutral), vs. #22 Iowa, vs. #32 Temple
Losses: at #5 Michigan, at #24 Pittsburgh
*Temple could end up in the top 25 if it beats #20 Navy
11-2 Wisconsin -
Key Wins: #8 Penn State (neutral), #21 LSU (neutral), at #22 Iowa, vs. #23 Nebraska
Losses: vs. #2 Ohio State, at #5 Michigan
12-1 Washington -
Key Wins: #9 Colorado (neutral), vs. #17 Stanford, vs. #28 Utah, at #29 Washington State
Loss: vs. #10 USC
People seem to think that a 12-1 Washington is automatic, but the resumes of all three would be very similar. Ultimately, I think PSU's win at OSU will propel them into the 4th spot if they beat Wisconsin.
November 29th, 2016 at 2:40 AM ^
Lets remember that this is purely a made up exercise and does not confirm anything about how the committee is likely to decide one way or the other.
This is an interesting, but ultimately arbitrary model that assigns arbitrary weights to an arbitrary list of outcomes. Why is winning a conference championship worth +3 rather than +2 or +5? How come there are no points for winning a divisional championship? Shouldn't that also be worth at least a point or two?
The big thing that this fails to take into account, which the committee will absolutely consider, is quality/margin of victory/loss. As tempting as it is to say "a win is a win" there's absolutely no way that the committee or anybody else with a pulse could really argue that Michigan losing to Ohio in 2 OT with the aid of a controversial call from the officials (or two or twelve) ought to be treated exactly the same as PSU losing to Michigan by almost six touchdowns.
However, this model scores both of these events exactly the same (-1) even though nobody in real life would ever think that.
I think the overwhelming consensus is that Ohio State and Michigan are the two best teams in the B1G, and PSU is a long shot even with a win over Wisky unless they pull off a statement win that makes the case that they are really one of the 4 best teams in the country.
The committee is going to have to look at the PSU resume and ask themselves whether a team that loses by 40 points could ever really be considered one of the top 4 teams in country.
November 28th, 2016 at 8:40 PM ^
I'm in the camp that OSU is as in as 'Bama at this point. Let's also say that Clemson wins and gets a seat at the table. But let's let Colorado beat Washington. At this point, the committee has to realistically pick between three teams: Colorado, winner of Wisco/PSU, and Michigan. The issue, of course, if you're in the "conference championships above all" camp, is how to choose between two 11-2 major conference champs with exceedingly similar resumes [a top ten win*, a smattering of top 25 wins, a loss to Michigan]?
One of the conferences is bound to rage justifiably about the irreconcilable decision that valued one champion over the another. It would be an unavoidable contradiction in and of itself. And yet, as we all know, there is a convenient solution to the problem: select the Michigan team that beat both conference champions and was denied a seat at the table by the slimmest of margins**.
And that's what lets me sleep at night.
*PSU would have two, but that is, at least, partially cancelled out by a loss to Pitt
**Approximately 8 inches
November 29th, 2016 at 1:01 AM ^
Interesting perspective. I would not be sad if your theory holds.
November 28th, 2016 at 10:55 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 1:02 AM ^
If that opponent remains in the top 10 after the loss, yes.
November 28th, 2016 at 11:01 PM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 1:04 AM ^
I believe it's more bleak than that. If Florida beats top 10 Alabama and claims the SEC championship, they'll likely be a top 10 team and so Alabama would only lose 1 point for losing to them. They'd still beat us by a point.
November 29th, 2016 at 11:22 AM ^
November 29th, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^
No it shouldn't, it will already be captured as a top 10 win. The point here is that either of PSU or Wisconsin will have as good a resume as Michigan and then it just becomes which the comitte values more, a head to head win 7 weeks ago or a conference champioship the day before, I don't think we are going to like the answer.
November 29th, 2016 at 8:01 PM ^
a Top 10 win, that is why I was suggesting a "bonus" weighting based on the fact that a given win is over a P5 conference champion.
Agree on your point about the committee...it will be interesting to watch it play out tonight and Sunday.
November 29th, 2016 at 3:21 PM ^
This point system fails to produce a ranking that accurately reflects the relative quality of teams. Among other inaccuracies, there is nothing that suggests OSU and Clemson are better than Alabama, or that Michigan is only marginally better than Penn State.
That said, if the purpose of the point system isn't to identfy the relative quality of the teams but is instead designed merely as an assessment of pastperformance during the season, then it makes more sense.
November 29th, 2016 at 3:52 PM ^
What might help is to do what the CFP committee has refused to do - consider the margin of victory and overall playing performance within the game. For the life of me I don't understand how margin of victory isn't relevant in an assessment of how good a team is.
November 29th, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^
double post - derp
Comments