Power Rankings - Week 7
Jack DiTrapani
October 17, 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, Penn State)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Virginia Tech, Oklahoma St, Notre Dame)
- 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, Memphis, Texas AM)
- Bin 0: Teams that are “solidly unranked.” Decent teams that have a pulse, but are not considered close to being top 25. (e.g. Kansas State, Oregon, 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. Arkansas, Colorado State, SMU)
- Bin -2: Bad/average non-Power 5 teams, and REALLY bad Power 5 teams. (e.g. Utah State, UL Lafayette, Kansas)
- Bin -3: Really really bad. There are typically about 10 of these. (e.g. Charlotte, Texas State)
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, Clemson should not be considered in bin 3 after their loss this week, but they seem 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.
Week 7: Clemson Still 3rd?
Of all the crazy upsets this weekend, the most surprising had to be Clemson’s loss at Syracuse. The Tigers, who were by far the number 1 team in these rankings over the past few weeks, looked pretty much invincible up until Friday night’s shocking result. Despite losing to a mediocre team, Clemson still comes out as the #3 team in this week’s rankings, still above undefeated teams Alabama, Penn State, Miami, and Wisconsin. I’m not too happy about this result, but it is a testament to how strong Clemson’s collection of wins have been this season. Sure, the wins against Louisville and Auburn have lost some shine this week, but Clemson’s wins at VT, at Louisville (by a large margin), versus Auburn, at Wake Forest, and versus BC are considered by my system to be the best collection of wins by any team in the country. I’m a little annoyed how much my system is downplaying Alabama, but Clemson being ranked really high, even with a loss, is not particularly surprising given how much my model has loved the Tigers this season. Consider Clemson the “darling” of this system.
My Rankings Versus ESPN
As I have discussed before, my “objective” rankings are a little different from most computer rankings you may see online. My rankings are intended to rank the bodies of work of what teams have accomplished, while most other ranking systems are only created to predict how teams will perform moving forward. For example, ESPN uses their complex Football Power Index, or FPI, to rank teams. These computer rankings have been shown to be predictive of future games, but they yield some strange results, like OSU being ranked 2nd and Florida State ranked 14th. You should think of the FPI as a decent indicator as to how good a team is, while a ranking like mine ranks accomplishments of teams. This is an important distinction.
Up until this week, I haven’t stumbled upon any established “resume” rankings like mine. However, I saw this weekend that ESPN applies their FPI formula to see what teams have performed the best thus far, essentially trying to rank bodies of work like my rankings do. This system is a little more complex than mine, and is called “FPI Strength of Record (SOR).” I haven’t been able to find the actual page for these rankings, but I was able to find the top 25 on Reddit of all places, so I am linking the top 25 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/76qz6b/2017_week_7_fpi_strength_of_record_1_uga_2_tcu_3/
It is very interesting comparing my rankings, which are simple and accessible to anyone who is interested, with ESPN’s more complex algorithm. At least for the top 25, which is all I have been able to find from ESPN, the rankings are quite similar. The idea that Georgia is #1 right now and TCU is #2 seems a little farfetched, but both me and the experts at ESPN have this result. Another somewhat puzzling result from my rankings is that Michigan State falls at a very high #10. In ESPN’s rankings? Number 10 as well! Some other similar results are Washington being low (#21 in both), Ohio State being relatively low (#11 in mine, #13 in ESPN), and San Diego State being high (#23 in mine, #17 in ESPN, and totally unranked in human polls). I would say these two rankings are very similar, which sort of validates my unsophisticated (at least relative to ESPN) approach.
There are of course some discrepencies between the two methods. The largest is probably Oklahoma, which is 7th in ESPN’s resume rankings but down at tied for 14th in mine. To understand where ESPN is different from me, we have to understand what ESPN’s SOR is doing. It heavily utilizes their predictive computer rankings - the FPI - to determine the quality of a team’s wins/losses (where I use those “bins” based off of national consensus). This means that differences will arise when ESPN’s FPI rankings are a little different from the national consensus. For example, the FPI has Ohio State at #2 and Texas at #20. Those are higher than the national consensus of these two teams, right? Well, who are Oklahoma’s two best wins? Ohio State and Texas of course… so ESPN rewards Oklahoma handsomely for those two wins, while my system does not view them quite as favorably, leading to OU’s body of work being ranked a little lower in my rankings.
Most main discrepencies can be attriubuted to these FPI oddities. For example, the resumes of Alabama (T4th in mine, 3rd in ESPN), Miami (6th in mine, 4th in ESPN), and especially NC State (T17th in mine, 11th in ESPN) are all rated higher by ESPN than by me. What do all of these teams have in common? They all have beaten 2-3 Florida State, which my system treats as an average, solid unranked team. However, the Seminoles are ranked 14th in the FPI, meaning these three teams are given a lot of credit for beating the Seminoles in ESPN’s rankings, which probably plays a large role in the dicrepencies with mine. In other words, ESPN’s SOR is not its predictive model and ranks bodies of work like my system, but the FPI still plays a large role in these rankings.
Here are the Week 7 rankings!
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank | Rem Sched Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 7.25 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 2 | 36 |
| 2 | TCU | 6.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 3 | 57 |
| 3 | Clemson | 6 | 6-1 | (4-1) | 1 | 57 |
| T4 | Penn State | 5.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 4 | 19 |
| T4 | Alabama | 5.75 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 5 | 53 |
| 6 | Miami | 5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 7 | 25 |
| 7 | Wisconsin | 4.5 | 6-0 | (3-0) | T12 | 57 |
| 8 | USC | 4.5 | 6-1 | (4-1) | T10 | 40 |
| 9 | Notre Dame | 4.25 | 5-1 | (0-0) | T10 | 1 |
| 10 | Michigan State | 3.75 | 5-1 | (3-0) | 17 | 19 |
| 11 | Ohio State | 3.5 | 6-1 | (4-0) | T15 | 8 |
| 12 | UCF | 3.5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 14 | 69 |
| 13 | Virginia Tech | 3.25 | 5-1 | (1-1) | 19 | 40 |
| T14 | Washington St | 3 | 6-1 | (3-1) | 6 | 25 |
| T14 | Oklahoma | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 21 | 12 |
| T14 | OK State | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 8 | 40 |
| T17 | NC State | 2.75 | 6-1 | (4-0) | 22 | 25 |
| T17 | Michigan | 2.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 23 | 4 |
| 19 | Stanford | 2.75 | 5-2 | (4-1) | 18 | 8 |
| 20 | S Florida | 2 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 20 | 71 |
| 21 | Washington | 1.75 | 6-1 | (3-1) | T12 | 19 |
| 22 | Auburn | 1.25 | 5-2 | (3-1) | T15 | 12 |
| 23 | San Diego St | 1 | 6-1 | (2-1) | 9 | 116 |
| 24 | West Virginia | 1 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 28 | 25 |
| 25 | Memphis | 0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | T33 | 80 |
| 26 | Texas AM | 0.5 | 5-2 | (3-1) | T37 | 49 |
| 27 | Florida State | 0.5 | 2-3 | (2-2) | 45 | 57 |
| 28 | Iowa | 0.25 | 4-2 | (1-2) | T30 | 8 |
| 29 | Mississippi St | 0 | 4-2 | (1-2) | T30 | 46 |
| 30 | Virginia | -0.25 | 5-1 | (2-0) | T35 | 19 |
| 31 | South Carolina | -0.5 | 5-2 | (3-2) | T49 | 36 |
| 32 | Indiana | -0.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | T30 | 46 |
| 33 | Kentucky | -0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 41 | 36 |
| T34 | Texas Tech | -0.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 24 | 12 |
| T34 | Boise State | -0.75 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 53 | 104 |
| 36 | LSU | -1 | 5-2 | (2-1) | T61 | 30 |
| 37 | Navy | -1 | 5-1 | (3-1) | 25 | 62 |
| 38 | Utah | -1 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 26 | 19 |
| 39 | California | -1 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 63 | 53 |
| 40 | Toledo | -1 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 46 | 114 |
| 41 | Iowa State | -1.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | T49 | 8 |
| 42 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 29 | 1 |
| T43 | Florida | -1.5 | 3-3 | (3-2) | T37 | 53 |
| T43 | Texas | -1.5 | 3-3 | (2-1) | T42 | 30 |
| 45 | Marshall | -1.5 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 54 | 100 |
| 46 | Wake Forest | -1.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | T42 | 12 |
| 47 | Arizona St | -1.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 52 | 49 |
| T48 | Northwestern | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 59 | 62 |
| T48 | Purdue | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | T42 | 71 |
| T50 | Syracuse | -2.5 | 4-3 | (2-1) | 76 | 36 |
| T50 | UCLA | -2.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 51 | 12 |
| T52 | Colorado St | -2.75 | 5-2 | (3-0) | 60 | 85 |
| T52 | SMU | -2.75 | 4-2 | (1-1) | T57 | 64 |
| T54 | Louisville | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 27 | 44 |
| T54 | Oregon | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | T47 | 46 |
| 56 | App State | -3 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 55 | 128 |
| 57 | Arizona | -3.25 | 4-2 | (2-1) | T61 | 30 |
| 58 | Duke | -3.25 | 4-3 | (1-3) | T47 | 49 |
| T59 | Maryland | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | T37 | 1 |
| T59 | Ole Miss | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 67 | 53 |
| T61 | Tennessee | -3.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | T37 | 44 |
| T61 | Kansas State | -3.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 65 | 19 |
| 63 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 64 | 80 |
| 64 | Troy | -4 | 4-2 | (1-1) | T35 | 128 |
| T65 | Army | -4.25 | 5-2 | (0-0) | 74 | 74 |
| T65 | N Illinois | -4.25 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 69 | 107 |
| 67 | Houston | -4.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | T33 | 57 |
| 68 | Boston College | -4.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 77 | 49 |
| 69 | Arkansas | -4.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 70 | 64 |
| 70 | Vanderbilt | -4.75 | 3-4 | (0-4) | 56 | 64 |
| 71 | Colorado | -5 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 73 | 12 |
| 72 | Pittsburgh | -5.25 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 71 | 12 |
| 73 | Minnesota | -5.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 66 | 30 |
| T74 | Wyoming | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-0) | T78 | 94 |
| T74 | Southern Miss | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | T81 | 107 |
| T74 | N Texas | -5.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | T78 | 126 |
| 77 | Nebraska | -5.75 | 3-4 | (2-2) | 75 | 30 |
| 78 | Arkansas St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | T81 | 116 |
| 79 | W Michigan | -5.75 | 4-3 | (2-1) | T57 | 88 |
| T80 | FIU | -5.75 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 84 | 85 |
| T80 | Georgia St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 89 | 116 |
| T82 | Ohio | -6.5 | 5-2 | (2-1) | 90 | 94 |
| T82 | UTSA | -6.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 72 | 123 |
| T84 | Tulane | -6.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 68 | 68 |
| T84 | FAU | -6.5 | 3-3 | (2-0) | 86 | 107 |
| 86 | Akron | -6.5 | 4-3 | (3-0) | 88 | 91 |
| 87 | W Kentucky | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 91 | 94 |
| 88 | UAB | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 94 | 116 |
| 89 | Air Force | -7.5 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 83 | 88 |
| 90 | Rutgers | -7.75 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 98 | 4 |
| 91 | Louisiana Tech | -8.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 103 | 116 |
| 92 | UL Monroe | -8.75 | 3-3 | (3-1) | 87 | 74 |
| 93 | Missouri | -9 | 1-5 | (0-4) | 102 | 77 |
| 94 | New Mexico | -9.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 85 | 73 |
| T95 | Temple | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 80 | 69 |
| T95 | Utah State | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 92 | 85 |
| 97 | Cincinnati | -9.5 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 97 | 83 |
| 98 | UL Lafayette | -9.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 108 | 100 |
| T99 | N Mexico St | -10 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 104 | 104 |
| T99 | E Michigan | -10 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 95 | 121 |
| T101 | UNLV | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 96 | 123 |
| T101 | S Alabama | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-1) | 109 | 121 |
| 103 | Illinois | -10.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 93 | 7 |
| 104 | Mid Tennessee | -11 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 99 | 107 |
| 105 | C Michigan | -11.25 | 3-4 | (1-2) | T106 | 100 |
| 106 | Oregon State | -11.5 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 100 | 40 |
| 107 | Buffalo | -11.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 101 | 107 |
| 108 | Uconn | -11.5 | 2-4 | (1-3) | 121 | 79 |
| 109 | North Carolina | -11.75 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 105 | 25 |
| 110 | Tulsa | -11.75 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 111 | 64 |
| 111 | Old Dominion | -12.25 | 2-4 | (0-2) | T106 | 123 |
| 112 | Kent State | -12.25 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 117 | 94 |
| 113 | Baylor | -12.5 | 0-6 | (0-3) | 113 | 30 |
| 114 | Hawaii | -12.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 120 | 80 |
| 115 | BYU | -13 | 1-6 | (0-0) | 115 | 128 |
| 116 | Ball State | -13 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 116 | 104 |
| 117 | Idaho | -13.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 110 | 114 |
| 118 | Kansas | -13.5 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 114 | 6 |
| 119 | E Carolina | -13.75 | 1-6 | (1-3) | 119 | 83 |
| 120 | Miami OH | -14.5 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 112 | 100 |
| 121 | Rice | -15 | 1-5 | (1-1) | 124 | 107 |
| 122 | Nevada | -15.25 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 122 | 76 |
| 123 | GA Southern | -15.5 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 118 | 126 |
| 124 | Bowling Green | -17.5 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 123 | 88 |
| 125 | Co Carolina | -17.75 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 125 | 107 |
| 126 | Umass | -18.75 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 129 | 91 |
| 127 | Texas St | -19.75 | 1-6 | (0-3) | 127 | 94 |
| 128 | San Jose St | -20 | 1-7 | (0-4) | 126 | 77 |
| 129 | UTEP | -20.75 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 128 | 91 |
| 130 | Charlotte | -22.25 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 130 | 94 |
Interesting Plot of the Week
LSU, NC State, Virginia, and Michigan State have all been high risers over the past few weeks, as this plot shows. Virginia has come out of nowhere to crack the top 40 with a 5-1 start, while LSU has overcome an embarassing loss by beating Florida and Auburn back-to-back to claw their way back to relevance. MSU and NC State started the year with decent expectations, but have seen those hopes rise into the top 20 with great one-loss starts.
Conference Ranks: Still Close, but Pac 12 Takes Hit
Like last week, the “battle” for best conference is very close at the top, with the SEC a scrape ahead of the ACC and Big 10. Last week’s 1st-place conference, the Pac 12, has slipped down to 4th. It was a rough week out west, as undefeateds Washington and Washington St both lost in embarassing fashion. With those two losses, the Pac 12 is now the only Power 5 conference wth no undefeated teams remaining. USC is now the highest ranked team in the conference at #8 nationally. Another result that indirectly hurt the conference was San Diego State’s home loss to Boise State. The Aztecs are actually 2-0 against Pac 12 teams this season, beating both Arizona St (who beat Washington Saturday).
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | SEC | -1 |
| 2 | ACC | -1.1607 |
| 3 | Big 10 | -1.1964 |
| 4 | Pac 12 | -1.4167 |
| 5 | Big 12 | -1.95 |
| 6 | Amer | -5.375 |
| 7 | Ind | -7.9375 |
| 8 | MW | -8 |
| 9 | MAC | -9.5 |
| 10 | CUSA | -9.6429 |
| 11 | S Belt | -10.2917 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC: Florida State Revisited
Florida State has been the butt of a lot of jokes this season, as the preseason top-3 Seminoles started 1-3 and freefalled out of the top 25. However, after taking a deep breath, a sober look at their resume is actually quite interesting. FSU has had zero easy games, with at Duke or at Wake being the closest they’ve had to a “gimme” win. Their three losses are to Alabama, NC State, and at Miami, all in somewhat close fashion. Those three teams are all top-20 and have one combined loss. Yes, FSU has been a big disappointment relative to their preseason expectations, but their resume actually is not horrible due to their ridiculously difficult schedule.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 6 | 6-1 | (4-1) | 13 | 3 |
| 2 | Miami | 5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 5 | 6 |
| 3 | Virginia Tech | 3.25 | 5-1 | (1-1) | 9 | 13 |
| 4 | NC State | 2.75 | 6-1 | (4-0) | 5 | T17 |
| 5 | Florida State | 0.5 | 2-3 | (2-2) | 13 | 27 |
| 6 | Virginia | -0.25 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 4 | 30 |
| 7 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 1 | 42 |
| 8 | Wake Forest | -1.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 2 | 46 |
| 9 | Syracuse | -2.5 | 4-3 | (2-1) | 8 | T50 |
| 10 | Louisville | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 10 | T54 |
| 11 | Duke | -3.25 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 11 | 58 |
| 12 | Boston College | -4.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 11 | 68 |
| 13 | Pittsburgh | -5.25 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 2 | 72 |
| 14 | North Carolina | -11.75 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 5 | 109 |
Big 10: Ohio State Destroying Inferior Teams
Since the Buckeyes’ loss to Oklahoma, they have obliterated everything placed in front of them, including Nebraska on Saturday. These impressive destructions have pleased AP voters, as OSU now finds themselves 6th in the national polls, the top 1-loss team in the nation. Despite passing the eye test over the past few weeks, their resume is still largely empty, with winning at Indiana being their best win. The Buckeyes should be right in the middle of the national title conversation and will have their opportunity to prove themselves against the big boys of the conference, but right now their body of work is not quite top-6 material.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 5.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 7 | T4 |
| 2 | Wisconsin | 4.5 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 12 | 7 |
| 3 | Michigan State | 3.75 | 5-1 | (3-0) | 7 | 10 |
| 4 | Ohio State | 3.5 | 6-1 | (4-0) | 5 | 11 |
| 5 | Michigan | 2.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 2 | T17 |
| 6 | Iowa | 0.25 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 5 | 28 |
| 7 | Indiana | -0.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 11 | 32 |
| T8 | Northwestern | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 13 | T48 |
| T8 | Purdue | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 14 | T48 |
| 10 | Maryland | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 1 | T59 |
| 11 | Minnesota | -5.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 9 | 73 |
| 12 | Nebraska | -5.75 | 3-4 | (2-2) | 9 | 77 |
| 13 | Rutgers | -7.75 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 2 | 90 |
| 14 | Illinois | -10.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 4 | 103 |
SEC: South Carolina Sneaky Good
Throughout the deep mediocrity of the the majority of the SEC, the South Carolina Gamecocks have been a pleasant surprise. The 5-2 squad has lost at home to Kentucky and at Texas AM following star Deebo Samuel’s injury, but has rebounded nicely with wins versus Arkansas and at Tennessee. They aren’t a national title contender or anything like that, but a nice 8-win season is a reasonable goal. And don’t forget their big nonconference win against NC State to start the season.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 7.25 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | Alabama | 5.75 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 9 | T4 |
| 3 | Auburn | 1.25 | 5-2 | (3-1) | 1 | 22 |
| 4 | Texas AM | 0.5 | 5-2 | (3-1) | 8 | 26 |
| 5 | Mississippi St | 0 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 7 | 29 |
| 6 | South Carolina | -0.5 | 5-2 | (3-2) | 3 | 31 |
| 7 | Kentucky | -0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 3 | 33 |
| 8 | LSU | -1 | 5-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 36 |
| 9 | Florida | -1.5 | 3-3 | (3-2) | 9 | T43 |
| 10 | Ole Miss | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 9 | T59 |
| 11 | Tennessee | -3.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 6 | T61 |
| 12 | Arkansas | -4.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 12 | 69 |
| 13 | Vanderbilt | -4.75 | 3-4 | (0-4) | 12 | 70 |
| 14 | Missouri | -9 | 1-5 | (0-4) | 14 | 93 |
Big 12: Cowboys Under the Radar
At the beginning of the season, Oklahoma State was the talk of the town. Their explosive offense was getting a lot of hype up until their home loss against TCU. Since then, no one has been talking about them, and they are one of the sneakier one-loss teams right now. They haven’t picked up a marquee win yet though, with their win at Texas Tech probably being their best so far this year.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TCU | 6.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 10 | 2 |
| T2 | Oklahoma | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 3 | T14 |
| T2 | OK State | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 9 | T14 |
| 4 | West Virginia | 1 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 6 | 24 |
| 5 | Texas Tech | -0.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 3 | T34 |
| 6 | Iowa State | -1.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 41 |
| 7 | Texas | -1.5 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 7 | T43 |
| 8 | Kansas State | -3.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 5 | T61 |
| 9 | Baylor | -12.5 | 0-6 | (0-3) | 7 | 113 |
| 10 | Kansas | -13.5 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 1 | 118 |
Pac 12: Arizona Emerging
Coming into the season, Arizona was supposed to struggle and Rich Rodriguez was supposed to be on the hottest of hot seats. They did go 3-9 last year, after all. Despite some early losses to Houston and Utah, the Wildcats now find themselves at 4-2 with a win over UCLA this past weekend. Leading their charge is new starting QB Khalil Tate, who has combined for 557 rushing yards on just 29 carries over the past two games. As Pat White and Denard Robinson would tell you, Rich Rodriguez can be dangerous with an athletic quarterback.
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 4.5 | 6-1 | (4-1) | 8 | 8 |
| 2 | Washington St | 3 | 6-1 | (3-1) | 6 | T14 |
| 3 | Stanford | 2.75 | 5-2 | (4-1) | 1 | 19 |
| 4 | Washington | 1.75 | 6-1 | (3-1) | 4 | 21 |
| 5 | Utah | -1 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 4 | 38 |
| 6 | California | -1 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 12 | 39 |
| 7 | Arizona St | -1.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 11 | 47 |
| 8 | UCLA | -2.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 2 | T50 |
| 9 | Oregon | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 10 | T54 |
| 10 | Arizona | -3.25 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 7 | 57 |
| 11 | Colorado | -5 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 2 | 71 |
| 12 | Oregon State | -11.5 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 8 | 106 |
American
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UCF | 3.5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 6 | 12 |
| 2 | S Florida | 2 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 8 | 20 |
| 3 | Memphis | 0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 10 | 25 |
| 4 | Navy | -1 | 5-1 | (3-1) | 2 | 37 |
| 5 | SMU | -2.75 | 4-2 | (1-1) | 3 | T52 |
| 6 | Houston | -4.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 1 | 67 |
| 7 | Tulane | -6.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 5 | T84 |
| 8 | Temple | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 6 | T95 |
| 9 | Cincinnati | -9.5 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 11 | 97 |
| 10 | Uconn | -11.5 | 2-4 | (1-3) | 9 | 108 |
| 11 | Tulsa | -11.75 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 3 | 110 |
| 12 | E Carolina | -13.75 | 1-6 | (1-3) | 11 | 119 |
Mountain West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 1 | 6-1 | (2-1) | 11 | 23 |
| 2 | Boise State | -0.75 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 10 | T34 |
| 3 | Colorado St | -2.75 | 5-2 | (3-0) | 6 | T52 |
| 4 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 4 | 63 |
| 5 | Wyoming | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 9 | T74 |
| 6 | Air Force | -7.5 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 8 | 89 |
| 7 | New Mexico | -9.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 1 | 94 |
| 8 | Utah State | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 6 | T95 |
| 9 | UNLV | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 12 | T101 |
| 10 | Hawaii | -12.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 4 | 114 |
| 11 | Nevada | -15.25 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 2 | 122 |
| 12 | San Jose St | -20 | 1-7 | (0-4) | 3 | 128 |
MAC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | -1 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 11 | 40 |
| 2 | N Illinois | -4.25 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 9 | T65 |
| 3 | W Michigan | -5.75 | 4-3 | (2-1) | 1 | 79 |
| 4 | Ohio | -6.5 | 5-2 | (2-1) | 4 | T82 |
| 5 | Akron | -6.5 | 4-3 | (3-0) | 3 | 86 |
| 6 | E Michigan | -10 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 12 | T99 |
| 7 | C Michigan | -11.25 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 6 | 105 |
| 8 | Buffalo | -11.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 9 | 107 |
| 9 | Kent State | -12.25 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 4 | 112 |
| 10 | Ball State | -13 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 8 | 116 |
| 11 | Miami OH | -14.5 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 6 | 120 |
| 12 | Bowling Green | -17.5 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 1 | 124 |
CUSA
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marshall | -1.5 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 5 | 45 |
| T2 | Southern Miss | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 6 | T74 |
| T2 | N Texas | -5.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 14 | T74 |
| 4 | FIU | -5.75 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 1 | T80 |
| 5 | UTSA | -6.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 12 | T82 |
| 6 | FAU | -6.5 | 3-3 | (2-0) | 6 | T84 |
| 7 | W Kentucky | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 3 | 87 |
| 8 | UAB | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 10 | 88 |
| 9 | Louisiana Tech | -8.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 10 | 91 |
| 10 | Mid Tennessee | -11 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 6 | 104 |
| 11 | Old Dominion | -12.25 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 12 | 111 |
| 12 | Rice | -15 | 1-5 | (1-1) | 6 | 121 |
| 13 | UTEP | -20.75 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 2 | 129 |
| 14 | Charlotte | -22.25 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 3 | 130 |
Sun Belt
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | App State | -3 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 11 | 56 |
| 2 | Troy | -4 | 4-2 | (1-1) | 11 | 64 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 7 | 78 |
| 4 | Georgia St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 7 | T80 |
| 5 | UL Monroe | -8.75 | 3-3 | (3-1) | 1 | 92 |
| 6 | UL Lafayette | -9.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 3 | 98 |
| 7 | N Mexico St | -10 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 4 | T99 |
| 8 | S Alabama | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-1) | 9 | T101 |
| 9 | Idaho | -13.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 6 | 117 |
| 10 | GA Southern | -15.5 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 10 | 123 |
| 11 | Co Carolina | -17.75 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 5 | 125 |
| 12 | Texas St | -19.75 | 1-6 | (0-3) | 2 | 127 |
Independents
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 4.25 | 5-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 9 |
| 2 | Army | -4.25 | 5-2 | (0-0) | 2 | T65 |
| 3 | BYU | -13 | 1-6 | (0-0) | 4 | 115 |
| 4 | Umass | -18.75 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 3 | 126 |
Bonus Image of the Week
Thanks for reading this far! Here’s a bonus image for the week. There is nothing funnier than a bulldog getting terrified by Lee Corso with a mascot hat on:
image
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 | 0.6071 |
| 2 | SEC W | -0.1786 |
| 3 | ACC Atl | -0.3571 |
| 4 | Pac 12 N | -1.3333 |
| 5 | Pac 12 S | -1.5 |
| 6 | SEC E | -1.8214 |
| 7 | Big 12 | -1.95 |
| 8 | ACC Coast | -1.9643 |
| 9 | Big 10 W | -3 |
| 10 | Amer W | -4.2917 |
| 11 | MW Moun | -5.9167 |
| 12 | Amer E | -6.4583 |
| 13 | MAC W | -7.5417 |
| 14 | Ind | -7.9375 |
| 15 | CUSA E | -9.4643 |
| 16 | CUSA W | -9.8214 |
| 17 | MW West | -10.0833 |
| 18 | S Belt | -10.2917 |
| 19 | MAC E | -11.4583 |
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 | 5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 4 | 6 |
| 2 | Virginia Tech | 3.25 | 5-1 | (1-1) | 6 | 13 |
| 3 | Virginia | -0.25 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 3 | 30 |
| 4 | Georgia Tech | -1.5 | 3-2 | (2-1) | 1 | 42 |
| 5 | Duke | -3.25 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 7 | 58 |
| 6 | Pittsburgh | -5.25 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 2 | 72 |
| 7 | North Carolina | -11.75 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 4 | 109 |
ACC Atlantic
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clemson | 6 | 6-1 | (4-1) | 6 | 3 |
| 2 | NC State | 2.75 | 6-1 | (4-0) | 2 | T17 |
| 3 | Florida State | 0.5 | 2-3 | (2-2) | 6 | 27 |
| 4 | Wake Forest | -1.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 1 | 46 |
| 5 | Syracuse | -2.5 | 4-3 | (2-1) | 3 | T50 |
| 6 | Louisville | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 4 | T54 |
| 7 | Boston College | -4.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 5 | 68 |
SEC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Georgia | 7.25 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | South Carolina | -0.5 | 5-2 | (3-2) | 1 | 31 |
| 3 | Kentucky | -0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 1 | 33 |
| 4 | Florida | -1.5 | 3-3 | (3-2) | 5 | T43 |
| 5 | Tennessee | -3.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 4 | T61 |
| 6 | Vanderbilt | -4.75 | 3-4 | (0-4) | 6 | 70 |
| 7 | Missouri | -9 | 1-5 | (0-4) | 7 | 93 |
SEC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 5.75 | 7-0 | (4-0) | 5 | T4 |
| 2 | Auburn | 1.25 | 5-2 | (3-1) | 1 | 22 |
| 3 | Texas AM | 0.5 | 5-2 | (3-1) | 4 | 26 |
| 4 | Mississippi St | 0 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 3 | 29 |
| 5 | LSU | -1 | 5-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 36 |
| 6 | Ole Miss | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 5 | T59 |
| 7 | Arkansas | -4.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 7 | 69 |
Big 10 East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Penn State | 5.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 5 | T4 |
| 2 | Michigan State | 3.75 | 5-1 | (3-0) | 5 | 10 |
| 3 | Ohio State | 3.5 | 6-1 | (4-0) | 4 | 11 |
| 4 | Michigan | 2.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 2 | T17 |
| 5 | Indiana | -0.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 7 | 32 |
| 6 | Maryland | -3.25 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 1 | T59 |
| 7 | Rutgers | -7.75 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 2 | 90 |
Big 10 West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wisconsin | 4.5 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 5 | 7 |
| 2 | Iowa | 0.25 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 2 | 28 |
| T3 | Northwestern | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 6 | T48 |
| T3 | Purdue | -2 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 7 | T48 |
| 5 | Minnesota | -5.5 | 3-3 | (0-3) | 3 | 73 |
| 6 | Nebraska | -5.75 | 3-4 | (2-2) | 3 | 77 |
| 7 | Illinois | -10.5 | 2-4 | (0-3) | 1 | 103 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TCU | 6.75 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 10 | 2 |
| T2 | Oklahoma | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 3 | T14 |
| T2 | OK State | 3 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 9 | T14 |
| 4 | West Virginia | 1 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 6 | 24 |
| 5 | Texas Tech | -0.75 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 3 | T34 |
| 6 | Iowa State | -1.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 41 |
| 7 | Texas | -1.5 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 7 | T43 |
| 8 | Kansas State | -3.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 5 | T61 |
| 9 | Baylor | -12.5 | 0-6 | (0-3) | 7 | 113 |
| 10 | Kansas | -13.5 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 1 | 118 |
Pac 12 North
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington St | 3 | 6-1 | (3-1) | 3 | T14 |
| 2 | Stanford | 2.75 | 5-2 | (4-1) | 1 | 19 |
| 3 | Washington | 1.75 | 6-1 | (3-1) | 2 | 21 |
| 4 | California | -1 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 6 | 39 |
| 5 | Oregon | -3 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 5 | T54 |
| 6 | Oregon State | -11.5 | 1-6 | (0-4) | 4 | 106 |
Pac 12 South
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | USC | 4.5 | 6-1 | (4-1) | 5 | 8 |
| 2 | Utah | -1 | 4-2 | (1-2) | 3 | 38 |
| 3 | Arizona St | -1.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 6 | 47 |
| 4 | UCLA | -2.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 1 | T50 |
| 5 | Arizona | -3.25 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 4 | 57 |
| 6 | Colorado | -5 | 4-3 | (1-3) | 1 | 71 |
American East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UCF | 3.5 | 5-0 | (3-0) | 1 | 12 |
| 2 | S Florida | 2 | 6-0 | (3-0) | 3 | 20 |
| 3 | Temple | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 1 | T95 |
| 4 | Cincinnati | -9.5 | 2-5 | (0-3) | 5 | 97 |
| 5 | Uconn | -11.5 | 2-4 | (1-3) | 4 | 108 |
| 6 | E Carolina | -13.75 | 1-6 | (1-3) | 5 | 119 |
American West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Memphis | 0.75 | 5-1 | (2-1) | 6 | 25 |
| 2 | Navy | -1 | 5-1 | (3-1) | 2 | 37 |
| 3 | SMU | -2.75 | 4-2 | (1-1) | 3 | T52 |
| 4 | Houston | -4.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 1 | 67 |
| 5 | Tulane | -6.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 5 | T84 |
| 6 | Tulsa | -11.75 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 3 | 110 |
MW Mountain
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boise State | -0.75 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 6 | T34 |
| 2 | Colorado St | -2.75 | 5-2 | (3-0) | 2 | T52 |
| 3 | Wyoming | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 5 | T74 |
| 4 | Air Force | -7.5 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 4 | 89 |
| 5 | Utah State | -9.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 2 | T95 |
| 6 | New Mexico | -9.5 | 3-3 | (1-2) | 1 | 94 |
MW West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Diego St | 1 | 6-1 | (2-1) | 5 | 23 |
| 2 | Fresno St | -3.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 3 | 63 |
| 3 | UNLV | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 6 | T101 |
| 4 | Hawaii | -12.5 | 3-4 | (1-3) | 3 | 114 |
| 5 | Nevada | -15.25 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 1 | 122 |
| 6 | San Jose St | -20 | 1-7 | (0-4) | 2 | 128 |
MAC East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio | -6.5 | 5-2 | (2-1) | 3 | T82 |
| 2 | Akron | -6.5 | 4-3 | (3-0) | 2 | 86 |
| 3 | Buffalo | -11.5 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 6 | 107 |
| 4 | Kent State | -12.25 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 3 | 112 |
| 5 | Miami OH | -14.5 | 2-5 | (1-2) | 5 | 120 |
| 6 | Bowling Green | -17.5 | 1-6 | (1-2) | 1 | 124 |
MAC West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Toledo | -1 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 5 | 40 |
| 2 | N Illinois | -4.25 | 4-2 | (2-0) | 4 | T65 |
| 3 | W Michigan | -5.75 | 4-3 | (2-1) | 1 | 79 |
| 4 | E Michigan | -10 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 6 | T99 |
| 5 | C Michigan | -11.25 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 2 | 105 |
| 6 | Ball State | -13 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 3 | 116 |
C-USA East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marshall | -1.5 | 5-1 | (2-0) | 4 | 45 |
| 2 | FIU | -5.75 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 1 | T80 |
| 3 | FAU | -6.5 | 3-3 | (2-0) | 5 | T84 |
| 4 | W Kentucky | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 2 | 87 |
| 5 | Mid Tennessee | -11 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 5 | 104 |
| 6 | Old Dominion | -12.25 | 2-4 | (0-2) | 7 | 111 |
| 7 | Charlotte | -22.25 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 2 | 130 |
C-USA West
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Southern Miss | -5.5 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 2 | T74 |
| T1 | N Texas | -5.5 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 7 | T74 |
| 3 | UTSA | -6.5 | 3-2 | (0-2) | 6 | T82 |
| 4 | UAB | -7 | 4-2 | (2-1) | 4 | 88 |
| 5 | Louisiana Tech | -8.5 | 3-3 | (1-1) | 4 | 91 |
| 6 | Rice | -15 | 1-5 | (1-1) | 2 | 121 |
| 7 | UTEP | -20.75 | 0-7 | (0-3) | 1 | 129 |
Sun Belt
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | App State | -3 | 4-2 | (3-0) | 11 | 56 |
| 2 | Troy | -4 | 4-2 | (1-1) | 11 | 64 |
| 3 | Arkansas St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 7 | 78 |
| 4 | Georgia St | -5.75 | 3-2 | (2-0) | 7 | T80 |
| 5 | UL Monroe | -8.75 | 3-3 | (3-1) | 1 | 92 |
| 6 | UL Lafayette | -9.75 | 3-3 | (2-1) | 3 | 98 |
| 7 | N Mexico St | -10 | 3-4 | (1-2) | 4 | T99 |
| 8 | S Alabama | -10.25 | 2-4 | (1-1) | 9 | T101 |
| 9 | Idaho | -13.25 | 2-4 | (1-2) | 6 | 117 |
| 10 | GA Southern | -15.5 | 0-5 | (0-2) | 10 | 123 |
| 11 | Co Carolina | -17.75 | 1-5 | (0-3) | 5 | 125 |
| 12 | Texas St | -19.75 | 1-6 | (0-3) | 2 | 127 |
Independents
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | (Conf) | Rem Sched Rank | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Notre Dame | 4.25 | 5-1 | (0-0) | 1 | 9 |
| 2 | Army | -4.25 | 5-2 | (0-0) | 2 | T65 |
| 3 | BYU | -13 | 1-6 | (0-0) | 4 | 115 |
| 4 | Umass | -18.75 | 0-6 | (0-0) | 3 | 126 |
