This is is the week 11 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 goal is to rank the quality of the resumes of teams from an accomplishment standpoint.
- +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 top 25).
- -4 points for a loss to a losing P5 or any G5/FCS team.
Top 10 and top 25 status are determined by this ranking system and the model is solved iteratively until it converges. In scenarios where oscillatory states lead to a failure in convergence, the average points for oscillatory states are used. No voter polls are used in any capacity. Ties are broken by head-to-head results when applicable and RPI otherwise.
This week there were two oscillatory states, hence the 0.5 point increments.
I expect a notably different order from the playoff committee tonight, particularly Alabama being on top and Michigan staying ahead of Georgia. Also I expect LSU to fall a little farther, below Oklahoma and likely West Virginia.
Last week, this model was a remarkably accurate predictor of the committee's selections, getting 100% of the top 4, 90% of the top 10, and 92% of the top 25 correct with the largest discrepancy being only 6 positions off. A comparison to the committee rankings gave a mean squared error of only 7.6 (AP poll was 22.0, FPI was 97.2, S&P+ was 157.8). Shout out to mgoblog user EastCoast_Wolverine2016 for these analyses. I wouldn't imagine this model's accuracy would continue at such a ridiculous level, but it is interesting that this very simplistic approach mirrored the committee so well in the first week.