Power Rankings - Week 3
Jack DiTrapani
September 19, 2017
Welcome
Over the past few years I have created a straightforward way to rank college football teams. Basically, I wanted a way to combine subjective views towards teams with an objective component. I have tinkered with my formula over the seasons and have what I think is a pretty decent way to compare resumes of different teams. This is NOT a sophisticated algorithm, and should not be treated the same way as Sagarin, KenPom, or other computer rankings found in places like the Massey Ranking Composite. The rankings should also not be used to predict future games; my rankings should be considered a snapshot of how a team’s body of work has been up to this point. Even though it is not the most complicated ranking system ever created, I think its simplicity can be a positive thing.
Basic Idea
I will not go into detail here about how these rankings are calculated, but I will describe the basic concept. Like I mentioned above, these rankings combine subjective and objective features. The subjective component drives the whole process. Every team is placed by me into a bin. There are seven general bins, ranging from -3 to 3. A basic idea of what each bin represents is:
- Bin 3: Elite teams, the cream of the crop. Typically the top 6-8 teams in the country. (e.g. Alabama, Oklahoma)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Louisville, Miami, TCU)
- Bin 1: Teams that are “borderline ranked.” You certainly can make a case they are a top 25 team, but certainly can make the case they are not. (e.g. Utah, Oregon, Vanderbilt)
- Bin 0: Teams that are “solidly unranked.” Decent teams that have a pulse, but are not considered close to being top 25. (e.g. Minnesota, Arkansas, NC State)
- Bin -1: Starting to get a little worse here. Slightly above-average non-Power 5 teams and below average Power-5 teams are often found here. (e.g. Arkansas State, Virginia, SMU)
- Bin -2: Bad/average non-Power 5 teams, and REALLY bad Power 5 teams. (e.g. Florida Atlantic, Ball State, Kansas)
- Bin -3: Really really bad. There are typically about 10 of these. (e.g. Georgia State, UMass)
If a team seems to be somewhere in between two of these categories, they can be binned as a “0.5”, “1.5”, etc. For example, Washington I would argue is not quite elite yet, but seems to be close enough where a 2.5 bin is warranted.
This is the subjective part of the process. I make the final call which bin a team falls into, but I try to inform myself as much as possible of the consensus of a given team. For example, for a team to be “borderline ranked” (bin 1), they need to at least appear in the “Other Receiving Votes” area of the AP and Coaches polls. I try to make the bins representative of the nationwide media consensus of a given team. Still, there is definitely subjectivity involved.
The objective element of the rankings gives and takes away points from a team depending on the bins of that team’s opponents. For example, beating a team from bin 0 at home by a “non-blowout score” (less than 22 points) rewards that team 0.5 points, and so on. This is the part of the process that I have tinkered with over the years. A team of course loses points for losing a game, depending on the opponent, where the game was played, and whether it was a blowout or not.
So the basic idea of the system is that we have an idea as fans which “bin” a team falls into. Once we determine that, we can get an obective idea of how a team’s resume is depending on the bins of that team’s wins and losses. The final “Score” of the ranking is simply a sum of the bin you are in and the amount of points you have gained/lost from wins and losses. For example, Oklahoma is 2nd in my rankings with 5 points. They are in bin 3, and received 2 points for beating Ohio State on the road by a non-blowout score (OSU is currently in bin 2). Therefore, Oklahoma’s score is 3 + 2 = 5.
Week 3: How is My Method Doing?
Now that we have three weeks worth of games, I figured it would be a good idea to zoom out a bit and evaluate how my rankings method is doing as a whole. I must confess that although I am devoting an entire weekly page to this system, I by no means am claiming this is the no-exceptions best approach to ranking teams. I do think it’s a sensible approach and I’m curious to see how it unfurls as we dive into the conference season. So with that humility in mind, I thought I would dedicate a lot of this week’s post discussing where my rankings diverge from national consensus, and investigating if this makes my rankings bad or insightful.
First things first, I want to reiterate what my rankings are intended to convey. I’ve said this before, but it’s important: my rankings are NOT a measure of who the best teams are. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that’s not the point of these rankings. If team A is ranked higher than team B here, that does not mean I am predicting that team A would win against team B; predictions are not the objective here. The goal of this exercise to get a ranking of bodies of work, taking into account the quality of a team’s wins and losses. This is why Clemson is number 1 this week ahead of Alabama and Oklahoma. Yes, Alabama and Oklahoma have one great win each, but Clemson has gone out and beaten two ranked teams, one in a road blowout. Therefore, they are rewarded twice, putting them in first place (by a pretty healthy margin). That is the logic that I’m going for: results matter.
This will result in some head-scratching cases, but I think they fit into the general logic of what I am trying to accomplish. In general, I would say “strange” results are derived from one of two things:
- 1. Decent teams that lose lots of games against solid but unspectacular teams will be punished, while bad teams that get destroyed by elite teams are let off the hook. My approach gives and takes points depending on the quality of your opponents. So if you’re a team losing close games to average opposition, you’re going to lose a decent amount of points, even if you didn’t look terrible in the process. However, if you play awesome teams and get your socks blown off, you don’t lose as many points, even if you look terrible in the process. Therefore, you may see some decent teams ranked behind some awful ones, especially early in the season. A prototypical example of this phenomenon would be North Carolina and Fresno State. If the Tar Heels and Bulldogs faced off tomorrow, UNC would be a huge favorite and would probably roll. However, you’ll find UNC 87th in my rankings, and Fresno State 86th. Why is Fresno State higher? The Bulldogs are 1-2, but their two losses are beatdowns against Alabama and Washington. UNC is 1-2, but one of their losses is an iffy home loss to Cal (and at home to Louisville). North Carolina is probably a better team, but their resume thus far is simply worse than Fresno State’s. Would Fresno State lose at home to Cal like UNC did? Probably, but we don’t know for sure, and that’s the key point. We know UNC lost to Cal, because it actually happened. This should work its way out as the season goes on and Fresno State starts losing to Mountain West teams, but for now the uneven schedules can yield wonky results. Still, I would argue this fits into the general “results-driven” philosophy I am looking for.
- 2. Changes in “bins” can lead to large week-to-week changes that can be a little puzzling at first glance. The bins (as described above) generate the whole rankings, so changing them (which happens all the time) can shift all sorts of things. For a detailed example, take a look at Mississippi State and LSU. Coming into the weekend, LSU was in bin 2 and was ranked tied for 8th, while MSU was in bin 0.5 and was ranked 34th. Sounds about right. Note that LSU was ranked quite high because it was still bringing in solid points from its 27-0 clobbering over BYU, who was in bin 0 entering into last week. Well, things didn’t go well for LSU this past Saturday, and they have plummeted all the way down to 41st in this week’s rankings. 41st seems pretty extreme, doesn’t it? After all, they’re still 25th in the AP poll this week and still seem to be somewhat dangerous. Bin changes played a huge role in the fall. LSU went from bin 2 to 1, meaning they not only lost points for the 37-7 loss to MSU, but they also essentially lost a point for being downgraded a bin. On top of that, their quality win, BYU, got smashed 40-6 by Wisconsin for their 3rd straight loss. The Cougars have looked toothless this season, so their bin moved from 0 to -1, erasing the positive points LSU had received from their victory. All in all, changes in bins (as well as the actual result on the field) resulted in a huge drop for LSU. Bin changes can accelerate drops (or rises) in the rankings.
So with that in mind, here are the Week 3 rankings. In the conference descriptions below, I discuss some of the “odd” results from the rankings thus far. Also, if you’re actually reading this and enjoying it, feel free to like it or share it or whatever. It’s a lot more motivating to do these if I know people are reading them!
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank | Rem Sched Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 6.75 | 3-0 | (1-0) | T2 | 64 |
| 2 | Oklahoma | 5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | 51 |
| 3 | Alabama | 4.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T2 | 51 |
| 4 | USC | 4.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | T2 | 56 |
| 5 | OK State | 4 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 11 | 51 |
| 6 | Georgia | 3.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 18 |
| 7 | Penn State | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 7 | 39 |
| 8 | Michigan | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | 11 |
| T9 | Virginia Tech | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T8 | 58 |
| T9 | TCU | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 14 | 39 |
| 11 | Ohio State | 3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 10 | 58 |
| 12 | Mississippi St | 3 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 34 | 39 |
| 13 | Washington | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 12 | 37 |
| T14 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T15 | 56 |
| T14 | Washington St | 2.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 21 | 18 |
| 16 | San Diego St | 2.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T35 | 102 |
| 17 | Miami | 2 | 1-0 | (0-0) | T15 | 48 |
| T18 | Auburn | 2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T18 | 31 |
| T18 | Florida State | 2 | 0-1 | (0-0) | T18 | 31 |
| 20 | Louisville | 2 | 2-1 | (1-1) | 13 | 68 |
| 21 | Maryland | 2 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T22 | 6 |
| 22 | Vanderbilt | 1.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T35 | 31 |
| 23 | S Florida | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 25 | 79 |
| 24 | Florida | 1.5 | 1-1 | (1-0) | 31 | 48 |
| 25 | Memphis | 1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T44 | 95 |
| T26 | Duke | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 30 | 48 |
| T26 | Kentucky | 1.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | T39 | 31 |
| 28 | Oregon | 1.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T26 | 39 |
| T29 | Utah | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T22 | 1 |
| T29 | Colorado | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 29 | 18 |
| 31 | California | 0.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T35 | 3 |
| 32 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 33 | 31 |
| T33 | Wake Forest | 0.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 32 | 11 |
| T33 | Iowa | 0.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T35 | 18 |
| T35 | Texas Tech | 0.25 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T47 | 23 |
| T35 | Toledo | 0.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T39 | 83 |
| 37 | Notre Dame | 0 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T51 | 39 |
| T38 | Michigan State | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T44 | 6 |
| T38 | Minnesota | 0 | 3-0 | (0-0) | T39 | 37 |
| T38 | Houston | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T44 | 65 |
| 41 | LSU | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | T8 | 26 |
| T42 | Purdue | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 64 | 58 |
| T42 | Tennessee | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | T26 | 51 |
| 44 | Kansas State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T15 | 26 |
| 45 | Stanford | -0.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | T18 | 23 |
| T46 | UCLA | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T26 | 3 |
| T46 | Boise State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 50 | 80 |
| T48 | UCF | -0.5 | 1-0 | (0-0) | T47 | 76 |
| T48 | Navy | -0.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T47 | 68 |
| T50 | Indiana | -1 | 1-1 | (0-1) | T51 | 39 |
| T50 | Arkansas | -1 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 62 | 58 |
| 52 | App State | -1 | 2-1 | (1-0) | T57 | 128 |
| 53 | Pittsburgh | -1 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 43 | 63 |
| 54 | South Carolina | -1.25 | 2-1 | (1-1) | T22 | 39 |
| T55 | NC State | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T51 | 26 |
| T55 | Texas AM | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T51 | 11 |
| T55 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | T51 | 3 |
| 58 | Texas | -1.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 63 | 23 |
| T59 | SMU | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T59 | 71 |
| T59 | Air Force | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | T59 | 83 |
| T61 | E Michigan | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T65 | 88 |
| T61 | UTSA | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | T65 | 129 |
| 63 | Northwestern | -1.75 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 70 | 26 |
| 64 | Ole Miss | -2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T39 | 6 |
| 65 | Tulsa | -2 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T57 | 68 |
| 66 | Colorado St | -2 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 72 | 86 |
| 67 | Illinois | -2.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T59 | 51 |
| 68 | Iowa State | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T77 | 18 |
| 69 | Troy | -2.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | T79 | 113 |
| 70 | W Michigan | -2.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 81 | 113 |
| T71 | Cincinnati | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 73 | 76 |
| T71 | Army | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T65 | 88 |
| 73 | Arkansas St | -2.75 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 82 | 124 |
| T74 | Virginia | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T85 | 31 |
| T74 | Arizona | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T85 | 17 |
| T76 | Marshall | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T88 | 110 |
| T76 | Louisiana Tech | -3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | T101 | 119 |
| 78 | Syracuse | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T83 | 2 |
| T79 | Temple | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T96 | 74 |
| T79 | Southern Miss | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T96 | 124 |
| 81 | Tulane | -3.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 94 | 72 |
| 82 | Arizona St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T77 | 11 |
| T83 | Hawaii | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T88 | 94 |
| T83 | Ohio | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T109 | 119 |
| T83 | N Illinois | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 106 | 88 |
| 86 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 91 | 80 |
| 87 | North Carolina | -3.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 95 | 62 |
| 88 | Ball State | -4 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 104 | 88 |
| 89 | Nebraska | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T51 | 26 |
| 90 | Old Dominion | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T65 | 98 |
| 91 | C Michigan | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | T65 | 88 |
| 92 | S Alabama | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 107 | 113 |
| 93 | Rutgers | -4.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 108 | 11 |
| 94 | Uconn | -4.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 74 | 75 |
| 95 | Akron | -4.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 75 | 98 |
| 96 | FIU | -4.75 | 0-1 | (0-0) | 113 | 110 |
| 97 | BYU | -5 | 1-3 | (0-0) | 76 | 95 |
| T98 | Wyoming | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T79 | 98 |
| T98 | Mid Tennessee | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T85 | 130 |
| 100 | Utah State | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 90 | 83 |
| 101 | FAU | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T115 | 113 |
| 102 | Kent State | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 92 | 86 |
| 103 | Missouri | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 71 | 39 |
| 104 | UNLV | -5.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | T117 | 80 |
| 105 | UAB | -5.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 120 | 102 |
| 106 | Boston College | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | T83 | 39 |
| T107 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 123 | 113 |
| T107 | UL Monroe | -5.75 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 99 | 95 |
| 109 | N Texas | -6 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T109 | 124 |
| 110 | Co Carolina | -6 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 93 | 119 |
| 111 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | T96 | 107 |
| 112 | N Mexico St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 103 | 105 |
| T113 | Rice | -6.25 | 1-2 | (1-0) | 100 | 105 |
| T113 | Texas St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 111 | 113 |
| 115 | Miami OH | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T101 | 107 |
| 116 | New Mexico | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 114 | 76 |
| 117 | Georgia St | -6.5 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 125 | 119 |
| 118 | UL Lafayette | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 112 | 102 |
| 119 | San Jose St | -6.75 | 1-3 | (0-0) | T115 | 88 |
| 120 | Oregon State | -7 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 122 | 11 |
| 121 | GA Southern | -7 | 0-2 | (0-0) | T126 | 119 |
| 122 | Kansas | -7.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 105 | 6 |
| 123 | Idaho | -7.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T117 | 110 |
| 124 | E Carolina | -8 | 0-3 | (0-0) | T126 | 66 |
| 125 | UTEP | -9.25 | 0-3 | (0-1) | 121 | 107 |
| 126 | Baylor | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 129 | 6 |
| 127 | Nevada | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 119 | 72 |
| 128 | Bowling Green | -10 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 128 | 98 |
| 129 | Charlotte | -10.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 124 | 124 |
| 130 | Umass | -13.75 | 0-4 | (0-0) | 130 | 66 |
ACC Coastal Plot
Here is the Week 3 Coastal Division plot. These things are starting to look cool and in some cases quite busy. Notice the steady rise of Duke, who I mentioned as a sleeper last weekend.
I wanted to showcase another plot before getting into the conference reviews. As mentioned above, Mississipi State and LSU essentially flipped positions in this week’s rankings, as you can see in this plot. I also threw in Ole Miss, who lost to Cal this weekend for their first loss of the season. Just two weeks ago, Ole Miss and MSU were tied in the rankings. So much for that. I have now included each division’s plot (for Power 5 conferences and the American) in the division sections later on.
Conference Ranks: Not Much Separation at the Top
The SEC maintains the top conference this week, while the Big 10 is the new second place conference. However, the top 4 conferences are all quite close, especially conferences 2-4 behind the SEC. I’m of the opinion this season that there are no dominant conferences. Every conference has scored some nice nonconference wins and has suffered some embarassing losses. Even though the Big 12 is pretty clearly 5th in these rankings, a lot of that can be attributed to Baylor and Kansas, who are 126th and 122nd respectively. Ouch. Despite those anchors to the conference, Oklahoma, OSU, and maybe TCU/WVU/KSU are all very good.
We have a new worst conference. The Sun Belt passed Conference USA this week to no longer hold the title of Worst Conference. Between the two conferences, the Sun Belt probably has the best team of the bunch in Appalachian State. Western Kentucky, the recent “powerhouse” of CUSA, lost at home this past weekend to LA Tech, so the now-worst conference is struggling at the top.
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | SEC | 0.4286 |
| 2 | Big 10 | 0.0357 |
| 3 | Pac 12 | -0.1042 |
| 4 | ACC | -0.1429 |
| 5 | Big 12 | -0.85 |
| 6 | Amer | -1.9167 |
| 7 | MW | -3.9167 |
| 8 | MAC | -4.2708 |
| 9 | S Belt | -5.2083 |
| 10 | CUSA | -5.2679 |
| 11 | Ind | -5.3125 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC: Virginia Tech Second?
Like I discussed, I will be investigating some “questionable” aspects of this week’s rankings and reflecting on whether these results are flaws to the method or whether they are benefits. In the ACC, Virginia Tech has been ranked high in my rankings ever since they beat West Virginia in week 1. They debuted at 8th, and now find themselves tied for 9th (whch isn’t too much different than their AP ranking of 13th). The method likes VT thus far because of that win against WVU. Lots of teams around VT in the rankings - Wisconsin, Washington, Miami, Florida State to name a few - don’t have a quality win, and therefore aren’t loved by the rankings. Although several of these teams have a higher “bin” than VT, the Hokies’ quality win gets them the benefit of the doubt. Looking at bodies of work, I think it’s fair to say VT has the second best ACC resume at this moment in time.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 6.75 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 13 | 1 |
| 2 | Virginia Tech | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 10 | T9 |
| 3 | Miami | 2 | 1-0 | (0-0) | 8 | 17 |
| 4 | Florida State | 2 | 0-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T18 |
| 5 | Louisville | 2 | 2-1 | (1-1) | 14 | 20 |
| 6 | Duke | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 8 | T26 |
| 7 | Wake Forest | 0.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 3 | T33 |
| 8 | Pittsburgh | -1 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 12 | 53 |
| T9 | NC State | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T55 |
| T9 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T55 |
| 11 | Virginia | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T74 |
| 12 | Syracuse | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 78 |
| 13 | North Carolina | -3.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 11 | 87 |
| 14 | Boston College | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 7 | 106 |
Big 10: Purdue Much Better than Nebraska?
Purdue has jumped all the way up to T42nd in the nation this week (9th in the Big 10). 1st-year coach Jeff Brohm has been doing a marvelous job wih the Boilermakers, as they smashed Missouri on the road this past week, giving them their first two-game winning streak in five years (woohoo!). Recall they looked impressive in their only loss this season as well, a 35-28 setback against Louisville. All in all, I would say their resume deserves their spot. However, if you had told me a month ago that 3 weeks in, Purdue would be one spot behind LSU, I would have walked away from the conversation.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have Nebraska… the Cornhuskers lost at home to Northen Illinois this past weekend, dropping them all the way down to 89th in the country and 13th in the Big 10. They have struggled on both sides of the ball, giving up 36 points in their win against Arkansas State and scoring only 17 against Northern Illinois. Tulane transfer QB Tanner Lee leads the country with 7 INTs, including two pick-sixes this past weekend. Put me down as someone who thinks Nebraka can make a modest turnaround, but I think 13th in the Big 10 is appropriate right now. This sums up things in Lincoln at the moment:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 9 | 7 |
| 2 | Michigan | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 3 | 8 |
| 3 | Ohio State | 3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 13 | 11 |
| 4 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 12 | T14 |
| 5 | Maryland | 2 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | 21 |
| 6 | Iowa | 0.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | T33 |
| T7 | Minnesota | 0 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 8 | T38 |
| T7 | Michigan State | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T38 |
| 9 | Purdue | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 13 | T42 |
| 10 | Indiana | -1 | 1-1 | (0-1) | 9 | T50 |
| 11 | Northwestern | -1.75 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | 63 |
| 12 | Illinois | -2.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 11 | 67 |
| 13 | Nebraska | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 6 | 89 |
| 14 | Rutgers | -4.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 93 |
SEC: Welcome Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky
What a wild weekend in the SEC. On Saturday night, an SEC team picked up a big win at home against a ranked opponent by holding the opponent to 7 points. And no, I’m not talking about Mississippi St. Kudos to Vanderbilt, who beat Kansas St 14-7 to set up a big game next weekend against Alabama. How cool would it be if Vandy takes down Bama? Another underrated result was Kentucky’s road win at South Carolina, who has had a decent start to the season so far. The Wildcats now are quietly 3-0, and sit at a respectable T26th in my rankings. The five remaining undefeated SEC teams are Alabama, Georgia,….. Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky. Also, yes I totally jinxed LSU last week, thanks for bringing it up.
I haven’t even mentioned the wildest ending of the weekend, Florida’s last-second win over Tennessee. Here was all of our reactions seeing the ending in real time:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ4Z3OdVAAAxsSL.jpg
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 4.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 12 | 3 |
| 2 | Georgia | 3.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 3 | 6 |
| 3 | Mississippi St | 3 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 8 | 12 |
| 4 | Auburn | 2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T18 |
| 5 | Vanderbilt | 1.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | 22 |
| 6 | Florida | 1.5 | 1-1 | (1-0) | 11 | 24 |
| 7 | Kentucky | 1.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 5 | T26 |
| 8 | LSU | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | 4 | 41 |
| 9 | Tennessee | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | 12 | T42 |
| 10 | Arkansas | -1 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 14 | T50 |
| 11 | South Carolina | -1.25 | 2-1 | (1-1) | 8 | 54 |
| 12 | Texas AM | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T55 |
| 13 | Ole Miss | -2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 64 |
| 14 | Missouri | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 8 | 103 |
Big 12: TCU 9th??
Probably the most surprising addition in the top 10 is TCU, a team ranked 16th in the AP Poll. Their situation is pretty much identical to the team that’s tied with TCU for 9th, Virginia Tech. Like VT, TCU has a rock solid win: at Arkansas 28-7 in week 2. Getting a road win like that is looked upon favorably by my system, so I don’t have too much of an issue saying their body of work is better than teams like Washington or Miami. We’ll see what they’re made of this weekend though when they go up against Oklahoma State on the road. Win that game, and the Horned Frogs could be in the top 5.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 9 | 2 |
| 2 | OK State | 4 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 9 | 5 |
| 3 | TCU | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 8 | T9 |
| 4 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 7 | 32 |
| 5 | Texas Tech | 0.25 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 4 | T35 |
| 6 | Kansas State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | 44 |
| 7 | Texas | -1.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 58 |
| 8 | Iowa State | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 68 |
| 9 | Kansas | -7.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 1 | 122 |
| 10 | Baylor | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 1 | 126 |
Pac 12: Late Games are Fun
Those who stay up late for the Pac-12 games know that #Pac12AfterDark is always great fun. Week 2 gave us Boise St-Wash St’s 3OT thriller, and this last weekend gave us the 2OT ending of USC and Texas. Not to be outdone was the latest game, Stanford vs. San Diego State. That game literally lived up to the #Pac12AfterDark namesake: with about 4 minutes left in a close game, the San Diego stadium fell into darkness as the lights went out for about 20 minutes. Around the same time, Cal was beating Ole Miss by holding them scoreless for the whole second half. This is Cal we’re talking about; last season, the Golden Bears gave up less than 30 points in a game just twice. After midnight, anything can happen.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 4.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 12 | 4 |
| 2 | Washington | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 10 | 13 |
| 3 | Washington St | 2.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 7 | T14 |
| 4 | Oregon | 1.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 11 | 28 |
| T5 | Utah | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T29 |
| T5 | Colorado | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 7 | T29 |
| 7 | California | 0.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 2 | 31 |
| 8 | Stanford | -0.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 9 | 45 |
| 9 | UCLA | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T46 |
| 10 | Arizona | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | T74 |
| 11 | Arizona St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 82 |
| 12 | Oregon State | -7 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 4 | 120 |
American: Roller Coaster Saturday
At various points throughout the day in the AAC, SMU led TCU 19-7, ECU led VT 17-7, Tulsa led Toledo 28-3, Miami (OH) led Cincinnati 17-6, and even Tulane led 14-7 over Oklahoma. At the end of the day, all of those leads disapperared and the “losing” team won. The AAC is going to need to do more if it wants to be thought of as a Power 6 conference. And no, this P6 logo doesn’t get the job done:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/7/19/15994696/american-athletic-conference-aac-football-power-6
The brightest spot for the AAC was of course Memphis’s win over ranked UCLA. The Tigers jump to 25th in my rankings, the 3rd highest non-P5 team (behind SD State and South Florida).
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S Florida | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 11 | 23 |
| 2 | Memphis | 1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 12 | 25 |
| 3 | Houston | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T38 |
| T4 | Navy | -0.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 3 | T48 |
| T4 | UCF | -0.5 | 1-0 | (0-0) | 9 | T48 |
| 6 | SMU | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T59 |
| 7 | Tulsa | -2 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 65 |
| 8 | Cincinnati | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 9 | T71 |
| 9 | Temple | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 7 | T79 |
| 10 | Tulane | -3.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 6 | 81 |
| 11 | Uconn | -4.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 8 | 94 |
| 12 | E Carolina | -8 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 2 | 124 |
Mountain West: Aztecs Making Me Look Smart
A lot of my thoughts last week look quite dumb now. Among several things, I called LSU the biggest threat to Alabama and called USC “scary” good before they almost blew it against Texas. But one thing I can hang my hat on was featuring how “underappreciated” the San Diego State Aztecs are, and saying they would at least keep things close against Stanford (I was too wimpy to pick the upset outright). Rashaad Penny and the Aztecs came through, beating Stanford 20-17 and rising to 16th in my rankings. San Diego State is now 2-0 against Pac 12 teams this season.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 2.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 12 | 16 |
| 2 | Boise State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 3 | T46 |
| 3 | Air Force | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 6 | T59 |
| 4 | Colorado St | -2 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 66 |
| 5 | Hawaii | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 10 | T83 |
| 6 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 86 |
| 7 | Wyoming | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 11 | T98 |
| 8 | Utah State | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 6 | 100 |
| 9 | UNLV | -5.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 104 |
| 10 | New Mexico | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 2 | 116 |
| 11 | San Jose St | -6.75 | 1-3 | (0-0) | 9 | 119 |
| 12 | Nevada | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 1 | 127 |
MAC: Toledo and Northern Illinois Come Through
I already mentioned Northern Illinois’s big win over Nebraska. Later in the day, MAC preseason favorites - and a team featured here last week - Toledo won a wild shootout over a solid Tulsa team, 54-51. Logan Woodside and the Rockets have now creeped up to T35th in my rankings. If they really want to make a splash, they have an opportunity to take down rusty Miami this week, who has only played once this season with hurricane issues. Keep an eye on that one.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | 0.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T35 |
| 2 | E Michigan | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 3 | T61 |
| 3 | W Michigan | -2.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 10 | 70 |
| T4 | Ohio | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 12 | T83 |
| T4 | N Illinois | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T83 |
| 6 | Ball State | -4 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 88 |
| 7 | C Michigan | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 91 |
| 8 | Akron | -4.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 7 | 95 |
| 9 | Kent State | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 102 |
| 10 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 10 | T107 |
| 11 | Miami OH | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 9 | 115 |
| 12 | Bowling Green | -10 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 7 | 128 |
Conference USA: 3rd and 93
If you’re still reading, I appreciate it. However, I don’t have much to say about Conference USA! So… I’ll just leave this here another week:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UTSA | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 13 | T61 |
| T2 | Marshall | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | T76 |
| T2 | Louisiana Tech | -3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 9 | T76 |
| 4 | Southern Miss | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 10 | T79 |
| 5 | Old Dominion | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 90 |
| 6 | FIU | -4.75 | 0-1 | (0-0) | 6 | 96 |
| 7 | Mid Tennessee | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 14 | T98 |
| 8 | FAU | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 101 |
| 9 | UAB | -5.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 105 |
| 10 | N Texas | -6 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 10 | 109 |
| 11 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 111 |
| 12 | Rice | -6.25 | 1-2 | (1-0) | 3 | T113 |
| 13 | UTEP | -9.25 | 0-3 | (0-1) | 4 | 125 |
| 14 | Charlotte | -10.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 10 | 129 |
Sun Belt
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | App State | -1 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 12 | 52 |
| 2 | Troy | -2.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 5 | 69 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -2.75 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 11 | 73 |
| 4 | S Alabama | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 92 |
| 5 | UL Monroe | -5.75 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 1 | T107 |
| 6 | Co Carolina | -6 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 8 | 110 |
| 7 | N Mexico St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 3 | 112 |
| 8 | Texas St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 5 | T113 |
| 9 | Georgia St | -6.5 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 117 |
| 10 | UL Lafayette | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 118 |
| 11 | GA Southern | -7 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 121 |
| 12 | Idaho | -7.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 123 |
Independents
BYU has been horrible offensively this season, having scored only 39 points in 4 games this year. As a comparison, Virginia Tech scored 35 points in the third quarter against hapless East Carolina this past week. Here is a nice summary of the Cougars so far this year:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZHTI2vgTmG/
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 0 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 37 |
| 2 | Army | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T71 |
| 3 | BYU | -5 | 1-3 | (0-0) | 4 | 97 |
| 4 | Umass | -13.75 | 0-4 | (0-0) | 2 | 130 |
Bonus Video of the Week
Thanks for reading this far! Here’s a bonus video from this past Saturday. I am not sure if it should have been, but yes, it counted!
Division Ranks
For those who are even more curious, here are the same analyses but by division instead of conference. I know the plot is a little busy, but it gives a decent idea of how the divisions fall.
| Rank | Div | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big 10 E | 0.8571 |
| 2 | SEC W | 0.6786 |
| 3 | SEC E | 0.1786 |
| 4 | ACC Atl | 0.1071 |
| 5 | Pac 12 N | -0.0833 |
| 6 | Pac 12 S | -0.125 |
| 7 | ACC Coast | -0.3929 |
| 8 | Big 10 W | -0.7857 |
| 9 | Big 12 | -0.85 |
| 10 | Amer W | -0.9583 |
| 11 | MAC W | -2.5833 |
| 12 | Amer E | -2.875 |
| 13 | MW Moun | -3.4167 |
| 14 | MW West | -4.4167 |
| 15 | CUSA W | -4.9643 |
| 16 | S Belt | -5.2083 |
| 17 | Ind | -5.3125 |
| 18 | CUSA E | -5.5714 |
| 19 | MAC E | -5.9583 |
Next are the rankings within every division, as well as each team’s national ranking (now with plots!):
ACC Coastal
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia Tech | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | T9 |
| 2 | Miami | 2 | 1-0 | (0-0) | 3 | 17 |
| 3 | Duke | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 3 | T26 |
| 4 | Pittsburgh | -1 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 7 | 53 |
| 5 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 1 | T55 |
| 6 | Virginia | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T74 |
| 7 | North Carolina | -3.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 6 | 87 |
ACC Atlantic
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 6.75 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 1 |
| 2 | Florida State | 2 | 0-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T18 |
| 3 | Louisville | 2 | 2-1 | (1-1) | 7 | 20 |
| 4 | Wake Forest | 0.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 2 | T33 |
| 5 | NC State | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T55 |
| 6 | Syracuse | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 78 |
| 7 | Boston College | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 5 | 106 |
SEC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 3.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | 6 |
| 2 | Vanderbilt | 1.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 2 | 22 |
| 3 | Florida | 1.5 | 1-1 | (1-0) | 6 | 24 |
| 4 | Kentucky | 1.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 2 | T26 |
| 5 | Tennessee | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | 7 | T42 |
| 6 | South Carolina | -1.25 | 2-1 | (1-1) | 4 | 54 |
| 7 | Missouri | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 103 |
SEC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 4.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 3 |
| 2 | Mississippi St | 3 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 5 | 12 |
| 3 | Auburn | 2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T18 |
| 4 | LSU | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-1) | 3 | 41 |
| 5 | Arkansas | -1 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 7 | T50 |
| 6 | Texas AM | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T55 |
| 7 | Ole Miss | -2 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 64 |
Big 10 East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | 7 |
| 2 | Michigan | 3.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 3 | 8 |
| 3 | Ohio State | 3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 7 | 11 |
| 4 | Maryland | 2 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | 21 |
| 5 | Michigan State | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T38 |
| 6 | Indiana | -1 | 1-1 | (0-1) | 5 | T50 |
| 7 | Rutgers | -4.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 93 |
Big 10 West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | T14 |
| 2 | Iowa | 0.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T33 |
| 3 | Minnesota | 0 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 4 | T38 |
| 4 | Purdue | -0.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 7 | T42 |
| 5 | Northwestern | -1.75 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 63 |
| 6 | Illinois | -2.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | 67 |
| 7 | Nebraska | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 89 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 9 | 2 |
| 2 | OK State | 4 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 9 | 5 |
| 3 | TCU | 3 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 8 | T9 |
| 4 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 7 | 32 |
| 5 | Texas Tech | 0.25 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 4 | T35 |
| 6 | Kansas State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | 44 |
| 7 | Texas | -1.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 58 |
| 8 | Iowa State | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 68 |
| 9 | Kansas | -7.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 1 | 122 |
| 10 | Baylor | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 1 | 126 |
Pac 12 North
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington | 2.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | 13 |
| 2 | Washington St | 2.5 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 3 | T14 |
| 3 | Oregon | 1.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 28 |
| 4 | California | 0.75 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | 31 |
| 5 | Stanford | -0.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 45 |
| 6 | Oregon State | -7 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 120 |
Pac 12 South
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 4.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 4 |
| T2 | Utah | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T29 |
| T2 | Colorado | 1 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 5 | T29 |
| 4 | UCLA | -0.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T46 |
| 5 | Arizona | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T74 |
| 6 | Arizona St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 82 |
American East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | S Florida | 1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 23 |
| 2 | UCF | -0.5 | 1-0 | (0-0) | 4 | T48 |
| 3 | Cincinnati | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T71 |
| 4 | Temple | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T79 |
| 5 | Uconn | -4.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 94 |
| 6 | E Carolina | -8 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 1 | 124 |
American West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Memphis | 1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 25 |
| 2 | Houston | 0 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T38 |
| 3 | Navy | -0.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 2 | T48 |
| 4 | SMU | -1.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 4 | T59 |
| 5 | Tulsa | -2 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 65 |
| 6 | Tulane | -3.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 81 |
MW Mountain
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boise State | -0.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 2 | T46 |
| 2 | Air Force | -1.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T59 |
| 3 | Colorado St | -2 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 66 |
| 4 | Wyoming | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 6 | T98 |
| 5 | Utah State | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 100 |
| 6 | New Mexico | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 1 | 116 |
MW West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 2.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 6 | 16 |
| 2 | Hawaii | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T83 |
| 3 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 86 |
| 4 | UNLV | -5.5 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 104 |
| 5 | San Jose St | -6.75 | 1-3 | (0-0) | 4 | 119 |
| 6 | Nevada | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 1 | 127 |
MAC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 6 | T83 |
| 2 | Akron | -4.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 95 |
| 3 | Kent State | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 1 | 102 |
| 4 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | T107 |
| 5 | Miami OH | -6.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 115 |
| 6 | Bowling Green | -10 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 2 | 128 |
MAC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | 0.25 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 1 | T35 |
| 2 | E Michigan | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 2 | T61 |
| 3 | W Michigan | -2.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 6 | 70 |
| 4 | N Illinois | -3.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | T83 |
| 5 | Ball State | -4 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 88 |
| 6 | C Michigan | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 91 |
C-USA East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marshall | -3 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T76 |
| 2 | Old Dominion | -4.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 90 |
| 3 | FIU | -4.75 | 0-1 | (0-0) | 3 | 96 |
| 4 | Mid Tennessee | -5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 7 | T98 |
| 5 | FAU | -5.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 101 |
| 6 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 2 | 111 |
| 7 | Charlotte | -10.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 6 | 129 |
C-USA West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UTSA | -1.5 | 2-0 | (0-0) | 7 | T61 |
| 2 | Louisiana Tech | -3 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 4 | T76 |
| 3 | Southern Miss | -3.25 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 5 | T79 |
| 4 | UAB | -5.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 105 |
| 5 | N Texas | -6 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 109 |
| 6 | Rice | -6.25 | 1-2 | (1-0) | 2 | T113 |
| 7 | UTEP | -9.25 | 0-3 | (0-1) | 3 | 125 |
Sun Belt
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | App State | -1 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 12 | 52 |
| 2 | Troy | -2.5 | 2-1 | (1-0) | 5 | 69 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -2.75 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 11 | 73 |
| 4 | S Alabama | -4.25 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 92 |
| 5 | UL Monroe | -5.75 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 1 | T107 |
| 6 | Co Carolina | -6 | 1-1 | (0-0) | 8 | 110 |
| 7 | N Mexico St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 3 | 112 |
| 8 | Texas St | -6.25 | 1-2 | (0-1) | 5 | T113 |
| 9 | Georgia St | -6.5 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 117 |
| 10 | UL Lafayette | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 2 | 118 |
| 11 | GA Southern | -7 | 0-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 121 |
| 12 | Idaho | -7.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 4 | 123 |
Independents
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 0 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 37 |
| 2 | Army | -2.5 | 2-1 | (0-0) | 3 | T71 |
| 3 | BYU | -5 | 1-3 | (0-0) | 4 | 97 |
| 4 | Umass | -13.75 | 0-4 | (0-0) | 2 | 130 |