How I Would Rank College Football Teams

[green]

This is long, but here are my rules. I may modify the at will, but I've had these thoughts over the last couple of weeks.

Rule #1 - You have to play at least four BCS teams to qualify. This means no rankings until at least the fourth week of the season. This means that non-BCS have to play four BCS teams in non-conference. This eliminates the Hawaii's and Houston's from taking a bowl game they don't deserve.


Rule #2 - After week 4, rankings begin. Every team that has played four BCS teams qualifies. This means that if no SEC team has played four BCS teams, then no SEC team is ranked. You take all teams that qualify, and put them in order by record. Then, you take each team with each record (4-0, 3-1, 2-2, 1-3 and 0-3) and rank them by how difficult their opponent was. So, yes, you may have an 0-4 team ranked week 4.


Rule #3 - Every week, when a team becomes "eligible", they enter the rankings where their record would put them. This means that when Alabama plays four BCS teams, they are eligible to be ranked. If they are 5-0, they are put at the bottom of the list of all the undefeated teams.


Rule #4 - If you lose, you drop down to the next lowest group.


This is where it gets tricky. Where does the formerly unbeaten belong?


Rule #5 - They will placed in the group with one loss at the bottom of the group. This rewards teams for winning streaks. That means if you are a team like Oregon St, slip up the first week against a bad team, then win 12 straight, you get more credit than a team that loses the last week of the year. The College Basketball rule. Hot teams get more credit. I think it is harder to keep up winning streaks.

#6 - When a team enters the top 25, they enter into their group of losses, but at the bottom.

#7 - If two teams enter a loss group at the same time, the team with more wins is ranked higher.

#8 - If two teams have the same record in a loss group, the one with more ranked losses is ranked higher.


At the end of the year, #'s 1-4 are put in the playoff. The rest of the teams go according to traditional bowl rules.


These rules do two things:


1 - they encourage teams to play early BCS games and force non-BCS teams to play tough OOC. This is huge, because you want to play 4 BCS teams the first 4 weeks of the season to be ranked. If Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Baylor and Oregon are 5-0, but Alabama has only played 3 BCS teams, then Baylor, Texas, Ohio State and Oregon are ranked 1-4. If all 5 teams win out Alabama is left out.


Also, you might think that all the SEC will do is play all their BCS games early and then play their cream puffs late in the year...Not so fast. TV contracts won't allow them to do so. Maybe a game or two here or there, but TV wants conference games in October and November. This will force BCS teams to play other BCS teams in their non-conference so they will be eligible to be ranked first.


What if Alabama is the best team out there, but they don't play enough BCS teams until later, and are left out? Too bad. This is where the week in, week out comes into play. It isn't fair if Oregon or Ohio State plays 11 BCS teams and Alabama only plays 8. They had to deal with bigger, faster teams all year and came out on top. They risked injury where Alabama didn't. Those three extra games are huge. Look at Utah this year. Wilson was a beast when healthy. Utah could play with ANYONE with a healthy Wilson. Wilson gets hurt and Utah sucks.

OK. I'm going to go do a crazy, stupid, time wasting amount of research to see how it all pans out.

 

[green]

OK, after week 5, here is how teams would be ranked:
Rank - Team - Record (BCS record) - losses

#1 - Notre Dame - 3-2 (2-2) - Michigan, Oklahoma

That's it. Only ND is eligible to be ranked at this point.

 

[green]

After week 6, here is how teams would be ranked:
Rank - Team - Record (BCS record) - losses

#1 - Oregon - 5-0 (4-0)
#1 - Clemson - 5-0 (4-0)
#3 - Georgia - 4-1 (3-1) - Clemson
#4 - LSU - 5-1 (3-1) - Georgia
#5 - Auburn - 4-1 (3-1) - LSU
#6 - Florida - 4-1 (3-1) - Miami
#7 - South Carolina - 4-1 (3-1) - Georgia
#8 - Notre Dame - 4-2 (3-2) - Michigan, Oklahoma
#9 - Ole Miss - 3-2 (2-2) - Alabama, Auburn
#10 - ASU - 3-2 (2-2) - Stanford, ND
#11 - GT - 3-2 (2-2) - VT, Miami

 

[green]

After week 7, here is how teams would be ranked:
Rank - Team - Record (BCS record) - losses

#1 - Oregon - 6-0 (5-0)
#1 - Clemson - 6-0 (5-0)
#3 - Alabama - 6-0 (4-0)
#4 - VT - 6-1 (3-1) - Alabama
#5 - LSU - 6-1 (4-1) - Georgia
#6 - Auburn - 5-1 (4-1) - LSU
#7 - Stanford - 5-1 (3-1) - Utah
#8 - Georgia - 4-2 (3-2) - Clemson, Missouri
#9 - Florida - 4-2 (3-2) - Miami, LSU
#10 - South Carolina - 5-1 (4-1) - Georgia
#11 - ASU - 4-2 (3-2) - Stanford, ND
#12 - Notre Dame - 4-2 (3-2) - Michigan, Oklahoma
#13 - Washington - 4-2 (2-2) - Stanford, Oregon
#14 - USC - 4-2 (2-2) - WSU, ASU
#14 - Wisconsin - 4-2 (2-2) - ASU, Ohio St
#16 - Pitt - 3-2 (2-2) - FSU, VT
#17 - BYU - 3-2 (2-2) - Virginia, Utah
#18 - Ole Miss - 3-3 (2-3) - Alabama, Auburn, A&M
#19 - Boston College - 2-3 (1-3) - USC, FSU, Clemson
#20 - GT - 3-3 (2-2) - VT, Miami, BYU

 

[green]

What is interesting is how many "great" teams haven't played anybody of note so far. At this point, there are only 20 teams worthy of being ranked...and 12 have more than 2 losses.

This is starting to show how you can easily schedule yourself into the top 25.

How many teams from each conference:

PAC-12 - 5 teams
ACC - 5 teams, but no FSU
SEC - 7 teams. I guess their schedules aren't as cream puff as we may think. I am definitely guilty of this.
Independent - 2 teams
Big 10 - 1 team. Wowza. That is pathetic
Big 12 - ZERO teams. Take every single Big 12 team with a grain of salt at this point. They haven't played ANYONE. They are the true SEC. I thought that the SEC would be down here. Shocked at how pathetic their schedules are this year.

Props to the SEC for playing each other early. They also are playing other BCS teams. Also, props to PAC-12, ACC and BYU and ND.

Big 10 and Big 12 should be embarrassed. Pathetic OOC scheduling.

"Ranked" teams left out so far:

Ohio St
Missouri
FSU
Miami
Michigan St
Baylor
Texas Tech
UCLA
Oregon St
Nebraska
Michigan
Oklahoma St
Texas A&M

There are a lot of heavy hitters listed there that have played a weak *** schedule 7 weeks in. This is what I would hope would go away from this formula. I might be crazy here, but wouldn't it be more fun if those teams above dropped some FCS teams and played each other instead?

I'll continue this later.

 

[bigb]

You do realize your beloved Utes of 2004 and 2008 wouldn't have made their BCS bowls? 2004 only played 3 BCS schools and 2008 only played 2. It would be a pity because I honestly think that 2004 team could have won it all if a playoff were in place.

 

[fishonjazz]

@green.... interesting idea and good job with all the effort.

I'm not in love with your system but I don't have a better way of doing things

 

[green]

You do realize your beloved Utes of 2004 and 2008 wouldn't have made their BCS bowls? 2004 only played 3 BCS schools and 2008 only played 2. It would be a pity because I honestly think that 2004 team could have won it all if a playoff were in place.

Not necessarily true. They might have been disqualified from the title game, but they would probably still be eligible for a BCS game. After I get caught up on this year, I do want to look at 1984, 2004, and 2008.

 

[green]

@green.... interesting idea and good job with all the effort.

I'm not in love with your system but I don't have a better way of doing things

Yeah. I was bored. I think it needs to be cleaned up a bit. I was curious and this basically does two things (I think). Forces teams to play BCS games early and I want it to reward long winning streaks. I'll see where it goes and how it all ends up before I completely call it a waste.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah. I was bored. I think it needs to be cleaned up a bit. I was curious and this basically does two things (I think). Forces teams to play BCS games early and I want it to reward long winning streaks. I'll see where it goes and how it all ends up before I completely call it a waste.

Main issue I have is if you are a team like utah state and you already have a hard time scheduling bcs teams, now it would be way harder because the bcs schools would all be trying to schedule other bcs schools and would never want to schedule a team like usu.

So the have nots (already at a disadvantage) would be screwed even more and college football would become even more elitist than it already is.

I like waiting for a few weeks before doing any rankings thougb for sure and I don't understand why it has not already happened

Preseason rankings are BS.

 

[bordelais7]

Why would the SEC getting props for playing each other early, and why is that something that needs to be encouraged? It's beneficial to rankings (at least historically) to lose earlier rather than later.

 

[green]

Main issue I have is if you are a team like utah state and you already have a hard time scheduling bcs teams, now it would be way harder because the bcs schools would all be trying to schedule other bcs schools and would never want to schedule a team like usu.

So the have nots (already at a disadvantage) would be screwed even more and college football would become even more elitist than it already is.

I like waiting for a few weeks before doing any rankings thougb for sure and I don't understand why it has not already happened

Preseason rankings are BS.

My view on this has COMPLETELY changed since Utah joined the PAC-12. The week in week out grind is real, and I'm ok with it penalizing Utah State. Their schedule just isn't tough enough. For example, Utah beat Stanford with healthy Wilson. Once Wilson got hurt, Utah has been garbage.

Let's pretend that Utah was Utah State, and played their schedule, but instead of playing USC, Utah played and beat Stanford.

Utah is probably 9-0 right now, with a win over a top 5 program. Would it be fair that Oregon or Alabama, who has played a much tougher schedule to be left out when Utah isn't deep enough to stay healthy and win games?

One problem I see with my rankings so far is it unfairly helps out non-BCS teams that CAN schedule BCS games early, because if BYU only has 6 BCS games, compared to Oregon who has 10+, BYU can win early then cruise at the end of the year and end up ranked higher than they might deserve.

I definitely need to tinker with this, and clean the first post up a little bit.

 

[green]

Why would the SEC getting props for playing each other early, and why is that something that needs to be encouraged? It's beneficial to rankings (at least historically) to lose earlier rather than later.

Yeah, there would have to be some sort of deduction for playing a non-BCS team. This would take care of the early games and unfairly allowing a team with a weaker schedule to win early then cruise home. Also, another issue is a team like Baylor and Ohio St. I can't bang on Utah State for playing a weak schedule then toss Ohio State and Baylor into the top 10 as soon as they play enough weak teams to qualify.

 

[green]

Main issue I have is if you are a team like utah state and you already have a hard time scheduling bcs teams, now it would be way harder because the bcs schools would all be trying to schedule other bcs schools and would never want to schedule a team like usu.

So the have nots (already at a disadvantage) would be screwed even more and college football would become even more elitist than it already is.

I like waiting for a few weeks before doing any rankings thougb for sure and I don't understand why it has not already happened

Preseason rankings are BS.

Also, I am in favor of the Big 5 breaking off and forming another division.

 

[UGLI baby]

**** anyone not in the BCS.

 

[bordelais7]

**** anyone not in the BCS.

Solid summary

 

[bigb]

Not necessarily true. They might have been disqualified from the title game, but they would probably still be eligible for a BCS game. After I get caught up on this year, I do want to look at 1984, 2004, and 2008.

They didn't play the requisite four BCS teams to even be ranked. How would they qualify for a BUS game? Those at large bids are based on ranking.

 

[green]

They didn't play the requisite four BCS teams to even be ranked. How would they qualify for a BUS game? Those at large bids are based on ranking.

Because, this rankings is for the playoffs. After the 4 teams are chosen, traditional bowl selections happen. They may or may not have been selected. Like I said, after being in the PAC-12, I don't think non-BCS teams deserve to be in BCS bowls. Especially not the playoffs. No matter how good their ones are, they aren't deep enough to go undefeated. There is too much talent at a Cal/Tenn/TCU, let alone the big dogs.

I posted in another thread, but if you switch Utah and BYU schedule this year, I'd put Utah at 8-0 or 7-1 and BYU at 3-5. Playing ranked teams week in, week out is so different than playing solid teams every 2-3 weeks. Especially when one of your solid teams is Houston...

 

[8]

**** anyone not in the BCS.

or the big east

 

[bigb]

Because, this rankings is for the playoffs. After the 4 teams are chosen, traditional bowl selections happen. They may or may not have been selected. Like I said, after being in the PAC-12, I don't think non-BCS teams deserve to be in BCS bowls. Especially not the playoffs. No matter how good their ones are, they aren't deep enough to go undefeated. There is too much talent at a Cal/Tenn/TCU, let alone the big dogs.

I posted in another thread, but if you switch Utah and BYU schedule this year, I'd put Utah at 8-0 or 7-1 and BYU at 3-5. Playing ranked teams week in, week out is so different than playing solid teams every 2-3 weeks. Especially when one of your solid teams is Houston...

ok