Power Rankings - Week 5
Jack DiTrapani
October 3, 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, Auburn)
- 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. West Virginia, Notre Dame, NC State)
- 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, Wake Forest)
- 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. Western Michigan, Illinois, 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 tied for 5th 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). None of their other wins were good enough to warrant any points. Therefore, Oklahoma’s score is 3 + 2 = 5.
Week 5: Clesmon and Alabama on Collision Course
One of the best things about college football is the vast amount of teams at the FBS level. Every season, 130 different teams come in with high aspirations, many with national title hopes. The sheer volume of different contenders is appealing. However, the recent dominance of two programs, Alabama and Clemson, is starting to chip away at the “anyone can win it” spirit. The two teams have of course met in the past two national title games, and everything is pointing towards a third clash between the teams. When did college football become the Warriors vs. Cavs in the NBA??
Alabama is not new to the “dynasty” scene. However, what Clemson has done to join the Tide at the top is remarkable. The Tigers are 36-2 over the past 38 games and have beaten three top-15 teams already this season, the first team to ever do that in September. Their three great wins (two of which came on the road) put them way in first place in this week’s rankings, and they clearly have the best body of work. Kelly Bryant’s seemingly effortless takeover of Deshaun Watson’s role has complemented the most dominant defense in the country (or at least top 2 in the country, Bama is up there too).
Speaking of Alabama, they actually come in at 3rd in this week’s rankings, behind red-hot Georgia. The formula that creates my rankings does not heavily use margin of victory, therefore the total dismemberment of Vanderbilt (59-0) and Ole Miss (66-3) at the hands of Alabama is not reflected in my rankings. Sure, Alabama gets some credit for those wins (especially the Vandy win which was on the road), but they don’t get the “style points” that come with the beatdowns they’ve been having. The collection of teams Bama has beaten this season really isn’t that impressive, especially since FSU has struggled. Hence the slightly low 3rd-place ranking. Still, something tells me we’ll be seeing the Crimson Tide continue to dominate and rise up the rankings.
The scariest part about these two teams is that their remaining schedules are not very daunting. Clemson only has one more game against an AP top 25 team (NC State), but still plays FSU, GT, and the potential ACC Championship game. Not too difficult, especially considering they’ve already beaten three ranked teams. With the inconsistencies in the SEC, Alabama also only has one ranked team left on their schedule (Auburn) plus potentially Georgia or Florida in the SEC Championship. In fact, Alabama has not played a ranked team yet this season, meaning Auburn is the only top 25 team on the entire ledger this year. Pretty amazing for an SEC West team that played the preseason 3rd ranked team to start the year.
Given the reputations of these programs, either would probably get in the playoff in they win their respective conferences, even if they lose a game somewhere down the line. It seems the only realistic way one of these teams does not make the playoff is if one of them loses a game to a team that steals the division spot and prevents Alabama or Clemson to play for a conference championship. For example, if Auburn enters the Iron Bowl with one or zero SEC losses, that game against Alabama would decide the winner of the SEC West. So a Bama slip there may cost the team the conference chamiponship, and potentially a playoff spot as well. That being said, Ohio State reached the playoffs last year without winning their division, so anything can happen.
Here are the Week 5 rankings:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank | Rem Sched Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 9 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 1 | 60 |
| 2 | Georgia | 6 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 2 | 40 |
| 3 | Alabama | 5.25 | 5-0 | (2-0) | T5 | 60 |
| 4 | TCU | 5.25 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 3 | 51 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | T5 | 23 |
| 6 | Penn State | 4.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 8 | 40 |
| 7 | Michigan | 4.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 7 | 17 |
| 8 | Washington St | 3.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | T18 | 23 |
| 9 | OK State | 3.75 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 16 | 52 |
| 10 | Washington | 3.5 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 9 | 18 |
| 11 | USC | 3.5 | 4-1 | (2-1) | 4 | 55 |
| 12 | Miami | 3.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | T18 | 33 |
| 13 | San Diego St | 3 | 5-0 | (1-0) | 10 | 110 |
| 14 | Florida | 3 | 3-1 | (3-0) | 13 | 60 |
| T15 | Virginia Tech | 2.75 | 4-1 | (0-1) | 11 | 52 |
| T15 | Ohio State | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 12 | 18 |
| T15 | Auburn | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 22 | 33 |
| 18 | UCF | 2.75 | 3-0 | (1-0) | T28 | 73 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 15 | 48 |
| 20 | Louisville | 2.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 14 | 52 |
| 21 | S Florida | 2 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 21 | 70 |
| 22 | Notre Dame | 2 | 4-1 | (0-0) | 20 | 14 |
| 23 | Utah | 1.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 24 | 2 |
| 24 | NC State | 1.25 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 27 | 23 |
| 25 | Texas Tech | 0.75 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 26 | 33 |
| 26 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 32 | 6 |
| 27 | Navy | 0.5 | 4-0 | (2-0) | T35 | 68 |
| 28 | Stanford | 0.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 30 | 10 |
| 29 | Florida State | 0.25 | 1-2 | (1-1) | 41 | 23 |
| 30 | Duke | 0.25 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 17 | 48 |
| 31 | Oregon | 0 | 4-1 | (1-1) | T47 | 23 |
| 32 | Georgia Tech | -0.5 | 3-1 | (2-0) | T47 | 1 |
| T33 | Wake Forest | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | T28 | 4 |
| T33 | Kentucky | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | T39 | 40 |
| T33 | Texas AM | -0.5 | 4-1 | (2-0) | T45 | 18 |
| T33 | Maryland | -0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | T50 | 2 |
| T37 | Vanderbilt | -0.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 34 | 60 |
| T37 | Indiana | -0.5 | 2-2 | (0-2) | 37 | 48 |
| T39 | Tennessee | -0.75 | 3-2 | (0-2) | T39 | 55 |
| T39 | Mississippi St | -0.75 | 3-2 | (1-2) | 23 | 65 |
| T39 | Purdue | -0.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 43 | 60 |
| 42 | Kansas State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 44 | 6 |
| T43 | Troy | -1 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 69 | 128 |
| T43 | Michigan State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | T50 | 14 |
| T43 | Memphis | -1 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 25 | 78 |
| T46 | Iowa | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 33 | 33 |
| T46 | California | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 31 | 40 |
| 48 | SMU | -1.25 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 49 | 66 |
| 49 | Virginia | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | T50 | 18 |
| 50 | Toledo | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 54 | 110 |
| 51 | UTSA | -1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 55 | 128 |
| 52 | Arkansas | -1.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 56 | 55 |
| 53 | Minnesota | -2 | 3-1 | (0-1) | T35 | 30 |
| 54 | Texas | -2 | 2-2 | (1-0) | T57 | 10 |
| T55 | UCLA | -2.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 61 | 14 |
| T55 | Colorado | -2.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 42 | 33 |
| 57 | Houston | -2.25 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 62 | 67 |
| 58 | Ole Miss | -2.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 59 | 55 |
| T59 | South Carolina | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-2) | T45 | 23 |
| T59 | Northwestern | -2.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | T50 | 45 |
| 61 | Boise State | -2.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 70 | 91 |
| 62 | Colorado St | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | T64 | 95 |
| 63 | Marshall | -2.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 67 | 121 |
| 64 | App State | -2.75 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 68 | 130 |
| 65 | Pittsburgh | -2.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 71 | 23 |
| 66 | Arizona St | -3 | 2-3 | (1-1) | T57 | 30 |
| 67 | W Michigan | -3 | 3-2 | (1-0) | T64 | 95 |
| 68 | Tulane | -3 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 72 | 73 |
| 69 | Nebraska | -3.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 83 | 4 |
| 70 | Ohio | -3.5 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 73 | 110 |
| 71 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 77 | 84 |
| 72 | LSU | -3.75 | 3-2 | (0-1) | 38 | 10 |
| 73 | N Illinois | -4 | 2-2 | (0-0) | T75 | 116 |
| 74 | FIU | -4 | 2-1 | (2-0) | 82 | 88 |
| 75 | Iowa State | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 63 | 10 |
| T76 | Illinois | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 60 | 45 |
| T76 | Arizona | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 80 | 33 |
| 78 | Army | -4.75 | 3-2 | (0-0) | 85 | 78 |
| 79 | Utah State | -5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 88 | 83 |
| 80 | Wyoming | -5.25 | 3-2 | (1-0) | T90 | 88 |
| 81 | Air Force | -5.25 | 1-3 | (0-2) | T64 | 86 |
| T82 | Louisiana Tech | -5.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 87 | 119 |
| T82 | N Texas | -5.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | T97 | 110 |
| T82 | Arkansas St | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | T92 | 125 |
| 85 | Syracuse | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 78 | 6 |
| 86 | Boston College | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 89 | 33 |
| T87 | E Michigan | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 79 | 102 |
| T87 | Southern Miss | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | T75 | 123 |
| T89 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 3-2 | (1-0) | T94 | 95 |
| T89 | Old Dominion | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-0) | T94 | 123 |
| 91 | Cincinnati | -6 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 74 | 71 |
| T92 | New Mexico | -6.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 107 | 75 |
| T92 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 99 | 121 |
| 94 | UL Monroe | -6.25 | 2-2 | (2-0) | T94 | 82 |
| 95 | UNLV | -6.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 104 | 102 |
| 96 | Akron | -6.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 108 | 91 |
| 97 | Temple | -6.75 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 81 | 75 |
| 98 | Georgia St | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 105 | 119 |
| 99 | North Carolina | -7 | 1-4 | (0-3) | 86 | 40 |
| 100 | Missouri | -7 | 1-3 | (0-2) | T109 | 59 |
| 101 | N Mexico St | -7 | 2-3 | (0-1) | T97 | 106 |
| 102 | FAU | -7.25 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 113 | 106 |
| 103 | Idaho | -7.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 112 | 110 |
| 104 | Rutgers | -7.5 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 100 | 18 |
| 105 | Oregon State | -7.75 | 1-4 | (0-2) | T109 | 45 |
| 106 | UAB | -7.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 117 | 102 |
| 107 | Mid Tennessee | -8 | 2-3 | (0-1) | T90 | 125 |
| 108 | Tulsa | -8.25 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 106 | 69 |
| 109 | Miami OH | -8.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 103 | 116 |
| 110 | Ball State | -8.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 101 | 88 |
| 111 | E Carolina | -9 | 1-4 | (1-1) | 116 | 81 |
| T112 | Hawaii | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-2) | T92 | 95 |
| T112 | C Michigan | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 111 | 86 |
| T112 | Kansas | -9.25 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 119 | 6 |
| 115 | BYU | -9.25 | 1-4 | (0-0) | 84 | 116 |
| 116 | Kent State | -9.5 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 102 | 95 |
| 117 | GA Southern | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 120 | 125 |
| 118 | Uconn | -9.75 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 115 | 78 |
| 119 | UL Lafayette | -10 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 122 | 110 |
| 120 | S Alabama | -10 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 114 | 106 |
| 121 | Baylor | -10.75 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 118 | 30 |
| 122 | Rice | -12 | 1-4 | (1-1) | 121 | 95 |
| 123 | Co Carolina | -12.5 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 124 | 95 |
| 124 | Texas St | -12.75 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 123 | 106 |
| 125 | San Jose St | -13 | 1-5 | (0-2) | 125 | 84 |
| 126 | Nevada | -14 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 126 | 77 |
| 127 | UTEP | -14.75 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 128 | 91 |
| 128 | Bowling Green | -15.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 127 | 91 |
| 129 | Charlotte | -17.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 129 | 102 |
| 130 | Umass | -18.25 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 130 | 71 |
Interesting Plot of the Week
LSU should not lose to Troy. It just shouldn’t happen. That being said, Troy is actually not a horrible team. The Trojans went 10-3 last year, and lost to the National Champion Clemson Tigers just 30-24 early in the year. Their only loss so far this year was a 24-13 setback at Boise State early in the year, so they actually end up in the top 50 of my rankings this week. LSU, on the other hand, falls way down into the 70’s. They have no quality win (sorry, BYU definitely does not count) and their blowout loss to Mississippi State looks worse and worse by the week. They are probably better than a lot of teams ahead of them in my rankings (including in-state opponent Tulane!), but their resume screams “70’s” right now.
I am also including Central Florida in this plot, since they have shot up the rankings with two big wins the past two weeks.
Conference Ranks: Despite Struggles, SEC Still First
The SEC is taking a lot of heat right now. The struggles at LSU, Tennessee, Arkansas, and others is fun to watch, but the conference is still among the top in the country. My rankings has it #1, even though its lead isn’t as big as it’s been. The conference, despite the drama, had a solid nonconference performance (except for LSU vs. Troy of course!). Don’t forget that Alabama beat FSU, Vanderbilt beat Kansas St, South Carolina beat NC State, Tennessee beat Georgia Tech, and Georgia beat Notre Dame. The conference is not as dominant as it once was, but it is still arguably as good as any other conference. I can’t believe I’m defending the SEC…
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | SEC | -0.2321 |
| 2 | ACC | -0.3214 |
| 3 | Big 10 | -0.6786 |
| 4 | Pac 12 | -0.6875 |
| 5 | Big 12 | -1.225 |
| 6 | Amer | -3.5 |
| 7 | MW | -5.8333 |
| 8 | MAC | -6.7708 |
| 9 | CUSA | -7.4107 |
| 10 | Ind | -7.5625 |
| 11 | S Belt | -7.625 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC: Miami Ready to Shine
Last week I highighted that both Duke and Wake were undefeated and looking pretty good. Well, they promptly both lost this week, preserving some balance in the universe. Duke got beat up at home by Miami, who we haven’t seen much of this season but has really shined so far. The U features a new starting QB in Malik Rosier who has looked good so far, and a scary, talented defense that held Duke to 6 points. They have kind of slipped under the radar due to a soft opening scedule and Hurricane Irma, but they were favored to win the Costal division for a reason, and have done nothing but impress so far. We’ll learn more about the Canes this weekend when they play at FSU. Is the U finally “back?”
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 9 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 14 | 1 |
| 2 | Miami | 3.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 8 | 12 |
| 3 | Virginia Tech | 2.75 | 4-1 | (0-1) | 12 | T15 |
| 4 | Louisville | 2.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 12 | 20 |
| 5 | NC State | 1.25 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 5 | 24 |
| 6 | Florida State | 0.25 | 1-2 | (1-1) | 5 | 29 |
| 7 | Duke | 0.25 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 11 | 30 |
| 8 | Georgia Tech | -0.5 | 3-1 | (2-0) | 1 | 32 |
| 9 | Wake Forest | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 2 | T33 |
| 10 | Virginia | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 4 | 49 |
| 11 | Pittsburgh | -2.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 5 | 65 |
| 12 | Syracuse | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 3 | 85 |
| 13 | Boston College | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 8 | 86 |
| 14 | North Carolina | -7 | 1-4 | (0-3) | 10 | 99 |
Big 10: Maryland Roller Coaster
I talked last week about how the Big 10 had four great teams and a bunch of confusion after that. Could Maryland be the conference’s 5th best team? My rankings say that they have currently have the cobference’s 5th best body of work. The Terps have two nice road wins - at Texas and at Minnesota this past week. I ruled them dead after Week 4, when they got smoked by UCF at home and lost their second string QB for the season. In response, they went out and beat a previously-unbeaten Minnesota team to get to 3-1 on the year. They’ll probably get toasted by Ohio State this Saturday, but they have some impressive road wins this season.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 4.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 9 | 6 |
| 2 | Michigan | 4.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 4 | 7 |
| 3 | Ohio State | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 5 | T15 |
| 4 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 12 | 19 |
| 5 | Maryland | -0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | T33 |
| 6 | Indiana | -0.5 | 2-2 | (0-2) | 12 | T37 |
| 7 | Purdue | -0.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 14 | T39 |
| 8 | Michigan State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 3 | T43 |
| 9 | Iowa | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 8 | T46 |
| 10 | Minnesota | -2 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 7 | 53 |
| 11 | Northwestern | -2.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 10 | T59 |
| 12 | Nebraska | -3.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 2 | 69 |
| 13 | Illinois | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 10 | T76 |
| 14 | Rutgers | -7.5 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 5 | 104 |
SEC: Florida has an Impressive Resume
The SEC has some struggling teams right now. Tennessee and LSU are at the top of that list, but many pundits are including Florida in the group of disappointments. However, the Gators have a sneaky-good resume thus far, resulting in them being ranked much higher in my rankings relative to human polls. UF is sort of like a reverse Alabama: Bama has destroyed mediocre teams in dominating fashion, while UF has beaten some pretty good teams in very lackluster ways. Since my method ignores the style points (or lack thereof) and focuses on actual wins/losses, the Gators have been rewarded well in my system. Their wins include Tennessee, at Kentucky, and Vanderbilt. Those three teams are not worldbeaters, but having three solid wins like that at this point of the season is not horrible. Remember, Tennessee did beat GT, Vandy beat KSU, and Kentucky won at a South Carolina team that took down NC State.
Do I think Florida is an amazing team? Not really, but they have three quality wins and a forgivable loss (to Michigan). Can Wisconsin, Louisville, or Ohio State (teams currently behind UF in my rankings but ahead of them in the AP poll) say the same thing?
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 6 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 5 | 2 |
| 2 | Alabama | 5.25 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 11 | 3 |
| 3 | Florida | 3 | 3-1 | (3-0) | 11 | 14 |
| 4 | Auburn | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 4 | T15 |
| T5 | Kentucky | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 5 | T33 |
| T5 | Texas AM | -0.5 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 2 | T33 |
| 7 | Vanderbilt | -0.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 11 | T37 |
| T8 | Tennessee | -0.75 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 7 | T39 |
| T8 | Mississippi St | -0.75 | 3-2 | (1-2) | 14 | T39 |
| 10 | Arkansas | -1.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 7 | 52 |
| 11 | Ole Miss | -2.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 7 | 58 |
| 12 | South Carolina | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-2) | 3 | T59 |
| 13 | LSU | -3.75 | 3-2 | (0-1) | 1 | 72 |
| 14 | Missouri | -7 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 10 | 100 |
Big 12: West Virginia Test Coming
After losing to Virginia Tech in Week 1, West Virginia has disappeared into a soft schedule that included East Carolina, Delaware State, and Kansas. The Mounatineers have actually looked really good destroying these cupcakes, but my system hasn’t bought in (WV is stuck at 26th in this week’s rankings). This week West Virginia goes at TCU, so we will see how Will Grier and company really are. I think their offense is going to be very impressive, but how will their defense hold up against a red-hot Kenny Hill and Darius Anderson?
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TCU | 5.25 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 9 | 4 |
| 2 | Oklahoma | 5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 5 |
| 3 | OK State | 3.75 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 10 | 9 |
| 4 | Texas Tech | 0.75 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 8 | 25 |
| 5 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | 26 |
| 6 | Kansas State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | 42 |
| 7 | Texas | -2 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 4 | 54 |
| 8 | Iowa State | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 75 |
| 9 | Kansas | -9.25 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 1 | T112 |
| 10 | Baylor | -10.75 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 7 | 121 |
Pac 12: Gotta Love Love
If you haven’t noticed, Stanford running back Bryce Love has been putting up ridiculous numbers out west. In just 5 games, Christian McCaffrey’s replacement already has over 1,000 rushing yards after gouging Arizona State for 301 yards this past Saturday. Love, who is averaging 11.1 (!) yards per carry so far, already has more 20+ yard rushes than McCaffrey did ALL of last year. He is putting up Heisman-level numbers for the Cardinal, who is the the highest ranked two-loss team in this week’s rankings.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington St | 3.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 5 | 8 |
| 2 | Washington | 3.5 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 4 | 10 |
| 3 | USC | 3.5 | 4-1 | (2-1) | 12 | 11 |
| 4 | Utah | 1.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 1 | 23 |
| 5 | Stanford | 0.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 28 |
| 6 | Oregon | 0 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 5 | 31 |
| 7 | California | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 10 | T46 |
| T8 | UCLA | -2.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 3 | T55 |
| T8 | Colorado | -2.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 8 | T55 |
| 10 | Arizona St | -3 | 2-3 | (1-1) | 7 | 66 |
| 11 | Arizona | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 8 | T76 |
| 12 | Oregon State | -7.75 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 11 | 105 |
Mountain West: Fresno State’s Rankings
The one team that I have been the most frustrated with the way my rankings have treated it so far is Fresno State. The Bulldogs were not supposed to be very good this year, but are curretly 71st in this week’s rankings, which, coincindentally, is one spot above LSU! However, their resume is a perfect example of how my system should not be used for predictive purposes. Fresno State is currently 2-2, with their two losses being beatdowns at Alabama and Washington. Their two wins are… Incarnate Word and Nevada. The logic that my system uses is that we really haven’t learned anything about Fresno State this season; they’ve won against teams they were supposed to beat, and have gotten creamed by their tough opponents. Since none of their games have been particularly informative, my system has kind of kept them around the middle of pack, at least until they start playing some more intriguing games. Still, I’m not really pleased how they get spit out in my rankings. Florida International is another team with a similar situation.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 3 | 5-0 | (1-0) | 12 | 13 |
| 2 | Boise State | -2.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 8 | 61 |
| 3 | Colorado St | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 9 | 62 |
| 4 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 4 | 71 |
| 5 | Utah State | -5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 3 | 79 |
| 6 | Wyoming | -5.25 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 7 | 80 |
| 7 | Air Force | -5.25 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 6 | 81 |
| 8 | New Mexico | -6.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 1 | T92 |
| 9 | UNLV | -6.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 11 | 95 |
| 10 | Hawaii | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 9 | T112 |
| 11 | San Jose St | -13 | 1-5 | (0-2) | 4 | 125 |
| 12 | Nevada | -14 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 2 | 126 |
MAC: Some Impressive Losses
The most noteworthy encouraging results from the MAC this weekend came from two losses. Northern Illinois, already with a win at Nebraska, nearly upset San Diego State on the road, and Eastern Michigan lost a close 24-20 game at Kentucky. Some teams in the MAC - namely Toledo, W Michigan, E Michigan, N Illinois, and Ohio - have a pulse this year. Everyone else, meh… Also, for those who care, there is a HUGE difference between divisions, where the West division is far superior to the East.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 9 | 50 |
| 2 | W Michigan | -3 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 5 | 67 |
| 3 | Ohio | -3.5 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 9 | 70 |
| 4 | N Illinois | -4 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 11 | 73 |
| 5 | E Michigan | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 8 | T87 |
| 6 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 5 | T89 |
| 7 | Akron | -6.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 3 | 96 |
| 8 | Miami OH | -8.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 11 | 109 |
| 9 | Ball State | -8.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 110 |
| 10 | C Michigan | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 1 | T112 |
| 11 | Kent State | -9.5 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 5 | 116 |
| 12 | Bowling Green | -15.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 3 | 128 |
CUSA: UTSA Undefeated
Let’s give some props to the UTSA Roadrunners, who have the last remaining undefeated record in the CUSA. UTSA was able to win at Baylor earlier this year, so they were at least able to snag one win over Power 5 opposition. They come in at 51st in my rankings this week, making them (by a pretty large margin) the lowest-ranked undefeated team in the country.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UTSA | -1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 14 | 51 |
| 2 | Marshall | -2.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 9 | 63 |
| 3 | FIU | -4 | 2-1 | (2-0) | 1 | 74 |
| T4 | Louisiana Tech | -5.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 8 | T82 |
| T4 | N Texas | -5.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 7 | T82 |
| 6 | Southern Miss | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 11 | T87 |
| 7 | Old Dominion | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 11 | T89 |
| 8 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 9 | T92 |
| 9 | FAU | -7.25 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 6 | 102 |
| 10 | UAB | -7.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 106 |
| 11 | Mid Tennessee | -8 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 13 | 107 |
| 12 | Rice | -12 | 1-4 | (1-1) | 3 | 122 |
| 13 | UTEP | -14.75 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 2 | 127 |
| 14 | Charlotte | -17.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 4 | 129 |
Sun Belt: TROY!!
Here’s Troy University’s awesome tweet following their win at LSU:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Troy | -1 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 11 | T43 |
| 2 | App State | -2.75 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 12 | 64 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 9 | T82 |
| 4 | UL Monroe | -6.25 | 2-2 | (2-0) | 1 | 94 |
| 5 | Georgia St | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 98 |
| 6 | N Mexico St | -7 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 3 | 101 |
| 7 | Idaho | -7.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 6 | 103 |
| 8 | GA Southern | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 9 | 117 |
| 9 | UL Lafayette | -10 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 6 | 119 |
| 10 | S Alabama | -10 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 3 | 120 |
| 11 | Co Carolina | -12.5 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 123 |
| 12 | Texas St | -12.75 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 3 | 124 |
Independents
Notre Dame still looks pretty strong, while the wheels have completely fallen off of BYU’s season. They lost 40-16 against Utah State this weekend, ouch…
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 2 | 4-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 22 |
| 2 | Army | -4.75 | 3-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 78 |
| 3 | BYU | -9.25 | 1-4 | (0-0) | 4 | 115 |
| 4 | Umass | -18.25 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 2 | 130 |
Bonus Video of the Week
Thanks for reading this far! Here’s a bonus video for the week. Let’s all be like Jim Harbaugh and dive into Week 6…
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 | 0.3571 |
| 2 | ACC Atl | 0.1429 |
| 3 | SEC W | -0.1429 |
| 4 | Pac 12 N | -0.2083 |
| 5 | SEC E | -0.3214 |
| 6 | ACC Coast | -0.7857 |
| 7 | Pac 12 S | -1.1667 |
| 8 | Big 12 | -1.225 |
| 9 | Big 10 W | -1.7143 |
| 10 | Amer W | -2.5417 |
| 11.5 | Amer E | -4.4583 |
| 11.5 | MW Moun | -4.4583 |
| 13 | MAC W | -5.375 |
| 14 | MW West | -7.2083 |
| 15 | CUSA E | -7.2857 |
| 16 | CUSA W | -7.5357 |
| 17 | Ind | -7.5625 |
| 18 | S Belt | -7.625 |
| 19 | MAC E | -8.1667 |
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 | Miami | 3.25 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 4 | 12 |
| 2 | Virginia Tech | 2.75 | 4-1 | (0-1) | 7 | T15 |
| 3 | Duke | 0.25 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 6 | 30 |
| 4 | Georgia Tech | -0.5 | 3-1 | (2-0) | 1 | 32 |
| 5 | Virginia | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 2 | 49 |
| 6 | Pittsburgh | -2.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 3 | 65 |
| 7 | North Carolina | -7 | 1-4 | (0-3) | 5 | 99 |
ACC Atlantic
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 9 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 7 | 1 |
| 2 | Louisville | 2.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 6 | 20 |
| 3 | NC State | 1.25 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 3 | 24 |
| 4 | Florida State | 0.25 | 1-2 | (1-1) | 3 | 29 |
| 5 | Wake Forest | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 1 | T33 |
| 6 | Syracuse | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 85 |
| 7 | Boston College | -5.75 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 5 | 86 |
SEC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 6 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | Florida | 3 | 3-1 | (3-0) | 6 | 14 |
| 3 | Kentucky | -0.5 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 2 | T33 |
| 4 | Vanderbilt | -0.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 6 | T37 |
| 5 | Tennessee | -0.75 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 4 | T39 |
| 6 | South Carolina | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-2) | 1 | T59 |
| 7 | Missouri | -7 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 5 | 100 |
SEC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 5.25 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 6 | 3 |
| 2 | Auburn | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 3 | T15 |
| 3 | Texas AM | -0.5 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 2 | T33 |
| 4 | Mississippi St | -0.75 | 3-2 | (1-2) | 7 | T39 |
| 5 | Arkansas | -1.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 52 |
| 6 | Ole Miss | -2.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 58 |
| 7 | LSU | -3.75 | 3-2 | (0-1) | 1 | 72 |
Big 10 East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 4.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 6 | 6 |
| 2 | Michigan | 4.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 3 | 7 |
| 3 | Ohio State | 2.75 | 4-1 | (2-0) | 4 | T15 |
| 4 | Maryland | -0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | T33 |
| 5 | Indiana | -0.5 | 2-2 | (0-2) | 7 | T37 |
| 6 | Michigan State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 2 | T43 |
| 7 | Rutgers | -7.5 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 4 | 104 |
Big 10 West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wisconsin | 2.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 19 |
| 2 | Purdue | -0.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 7 | T39 |
| 3 | Iowa | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 3 | T46 |
| 4 | Minnesota | -2 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 2 | 53 |
| 5 | Northwestern | -2.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | T59 |
| 6 | Nebraska | -3.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 1 | 69 |
| 7 | Illinois | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | T76 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TCU | 5.25 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 9 | 4 |
| 2 | Oklahoma | 5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 5 |
| 3 | OK State | 3.75 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 10 | 9 |
| 4 | Texas Tech | 0.75 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 8 | 25 |
| 5 | West Virginia | 0.5 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | 26 |
| 6 | Kansas State | -1 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 1 | 42 |
| 7 | Texas | -2 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 4 | 54 |
| 8 | Iowa State | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | 75 |
| 9 | Kansas | -9.25 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 1 | T112 |
| 10 | Baylor | -10.75 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 7 | 121 |
Pac 12 North
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington St | 3.75 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 3 | 8 |
| 2 | Washington | 3.5 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 2 | 10 |
| 3 | Stanford | 0.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 1 | 28 |
| 4 | Oregon | 0 | 4-1 | (1-1) | 3 | 31 |
| 5 | California | -1.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 5 | T46 |
| 6 | Oregon State | -7.75 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 6 | 105 |
Pac 12 South
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 3.5 | 4-1 | (2-1) | 6 | 11 |
| 2 | Utah | 1.5 | 4-0 | (1-0) | 1 | 23 |
| T3 | UCLA | -2.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 2 | T55 |
| T3 | Colorado | -2.25 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 4 | T55 |
| 5 | Arizona St | -3 | 2-3 | (1-1) | 3 | 66 |
| 6 | Arizona | -4.5 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | T76 |
American East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UCF | 2.75 | 3-0 | (1-0) | 3 | 18 |
| 2 | S Florida | 2 | 5-0 | (2-0) | 1 | 21 |
| 3 | Cincinnati | -6 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 91 |
| 4 | Temple | -6.75 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 4 | 97 |
| 5 | E Carolina | -9 | 1-4 | (1-1) | 6 | 111 |
| 6 | Uconn | -9.75 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 5 | 118 |
American West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Navy | 0.5 | 4-0 | (2-0) | 3 | 27 |
| 2 | Memphis | -1 | 3-1 | (0-1) | 6 | T43 |
| 3 | SMU | -1.25 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 1 | 48 |
| 4 | Houston | -2.25 | 3-1 | (1-0) | 2 | 57 |
| 5 | Tulane | -3 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 5 | 68 |
| 6 | Tulsa | -8.25 | 1-4 | (0-2) | 4 | 108 |
MW Mountain
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boise State | -2.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 5 | 61 |
| 2 | Colorado St | -2.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 6 | 62 |
| 3 | Utah State | -5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 2 | 79 |
| 4 | Wyoming | -5.25 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 4 | 80 |
| 5 | Air Force | -5.25 | 1-3 | (0-2) | 3 | 81 |
| 6 | New Mexico | -6.25 | 3-2 | (1-1) | 1 | T92 |
MW West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 3 | 5-0 | (1-0) | 6 | 13 |
| 2 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 2 | 71 |
| 3 | UNLV | -6.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 5 | 95 |
| 4 | Hawaii | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-2) | 4 | T112 |
| 5 | San Jose St | -13 | 1-5 | (0-2) | 2 | 125 |
| 6 | Nevada | -14 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 1 | 126 |
MAC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio | -3.5 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 5 | 70 |
| 2 | Buffalo | -5.75 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 3 | T89 |
| 3 | Akron | -6.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 1 | 96 |
| 4 | Miami OH | -8.5 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 6 | 109 |
| 5 | Kent State | -9.5 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 3 | 116 |
| 6 | Bowling Green | -15.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 1 | 128 |
MAC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | -1.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 5 | 50 |
| 2 | W Michigan | -3 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 3 | 67 |
| 3 | N Illinois | -4 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 6 | 73 |
| 4 | E Michigan | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | T87 |
| 5 | Ball State | -8.75 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 110 |
| 6 | C Michigan | -9.25 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 1 | T112 |
C-USA East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marshall | -2.5 | 3-1 | (0-0) | 4 | 63 |
| 2 | FIU | -4 | 2-1 | (2-0) | 1 | 74 |
| 3 | Old Dominion | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-0) | 6 | T89 |
| 4 | W Kentucky | -6.25 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 4 | T92 |
| 5 | FAU | -7.25 | 2-3 | (1-0) | 3 | 102 |
| 6 | Mid Tennessee | -8 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 7 | 107 |
| 7 | Charlotte | -17.25 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 2 | 129 |
C-USA West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UTSA | -1.5 | 3-0 | (0-0) | 7 | 51 |
| T2 | Louisiana Tech | -5.5 | 3-2 | (1-0) | 5 | T82 |
| T2 | N Texas | -5.5 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 4 | T82 |
| 4 | Southern Miss | -5.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 6 | T87 |
| 5 | UAB | -7.75 | 2-2 | (0-1) | 3 | 106 |
| 6 | Rice | -12 | 1-4 | (1-1) | 2 | 122 |
| 7 | UTEP | -14.75 | 0-5 | (0-1) | 1 | 127 |
Sun Belt
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Troy | -1 | 4-1 | (1-0) | 11 | T43 |
| 2 | App State | -2.75 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 12 | 64 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -5.5 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 9 | T82 |
| 4 | UL Monroe | -6.25 | 2-2 | (2-0) | 1 | 94 |
| 5 | Georgia St | -6.75 | 1-2 | (0-0) | 8 | 98 |
| 6 | N Mexico St | -7 | 2-3 | (0-1) | 3 | 101 |
| 7 | Idaho | -7.5 | 2-2 | (1-0) | 6 | 103 |
| 8 | GA Southern | -9.5 | 0-3 | (0-0) | 9 | 117 |
| 9 | UL Lafayette | -10 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 6 | 119 |
| 10 | S Alabama | -10 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 3 | 120 |
| 11 | Co Carolina | -12.5 | 1-3 | (0-1) | 2 | 123 |
| 12 | Texas St | -12.75 | 1-4 | (0-1) | 3 | 124 |
Independents
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 2 | 4-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 22 |
| 2 | Army | -4.75 | 3-2 | (0-0) | 3 | 78 |
| 3 | BYU | -9.25 | 1-4 | (0-0) | 4 | 115 |
| 4 | Umass | -18.25 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 2 | 130 |
