Power Rankings - Week 14

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, Clemson)
• Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. West Virginia, Penn State)
• 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. Boise State, Missouri)
• Bin 0: Teams that are “solidly unranked.” Decent teams that have a pulse, but are not considered close to being top 25. (e.g. South Carolina, Oregon)
• 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. Marshall, Illinois)
• Bin -2: Bad/average non-Power 5 teams, and REALLY bad Power 5 teams. (e.g. New Mexico, Southern Miss)
• Bin -3: Really really bad. There are typically about 10 of these. (e.g. UTEP, South Alabama)

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, Ohio State is very close to the “elite” bin 3, so bin 2.5 seems 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 14

As you’ll see, the top 8 of my post-championship-weekend rankings finished identical to the committee’s rankings. This included some interesting decisions, including wedging 2-loss Georgia between 1-loss OU and 1-loss OSU, and keeping 2-loss Michigan ahead of undefeated UCF. But my ranking formula and the committee agree! This provides some evidence to the idea that the committee tries to rank bodies of work more than simply choosing the 4 “best” teams; I think this notion has been supported over the years. The fact that my formula, which is purely a metric of bodies of work and accomplishments, perfectly matches the committee’s decisions continues to corroborate this “body of work” theory.

Here are the Week 14 rankings, released after seeing the Playoff Committee’s final rankings:

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Prev Rank	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Pld	Tuff Games Rem
1	Alabama	13.5	13-0	(9-0)	T1	54	NA	5	0
2	Clemson	12.25	13-0	(9-0)	T1	48	NA	6	0
3	Notre Dame	11.75	12-0	(0-0)	T1	37	NA	5	0
4	Oklahoma	10.75	12-1	(9-1)	5	17	NA	6	0
5	Georgia	10.25	11-2	(7-2)	4	13	NA	6	0
6	Ohio State	8	12-1	(9-1)	7	41	NA	5	0
7	Michigan	7.25	10-2	(8-1)	6	15	NA	5	0
8	UCF	4.75	12-0	(9-0)	8	101	NA	0	0
9	Florida	4.75	9-3	(5-3)	9	39	NA	6	0
T10	Washington	4.5	10-3	(8-2)	T13	34	NA	4	0
T10	Kentucky	4.5	9-3	(5-3)	T10	44	NA	5	0
12	LSU	4.25	9-3	(5-3)	T10	31	NA	6	0
13	West Virginia	3.5	8-3	(6-3)	T13	34	NA	4	0
14	Washington St	3.25	10-2	(7-2)	12	67	NA	2	0
15	Texas	2.25	9-4	(7-3)	15	13	NA	4	0
16	Syracuse	2.25	9-3	(6-2)	17	57	NA	5	0
T17	Missouri	2.25	8-4	(4-4)	20	12	NA	6	0
T17	Texas AM	2.25	8-4	(5-3)	18	9	NA	7	0
19	Penn State	2	9-3	(6-3)	19	44	NA	3	0
20	Utah	1.25	9-4	(6-4)	16	29	NA	5	0
21	Mississippi St	1.25	8-4	(4-4)	21	40	NA	3	0
22	Iowa State	0.5	8-4	(6-3)	22	37	NA	6	0
23	Fresno St	0.25	11-2	(8-1)	T27	89	NA	3	0
24	Army	-0.25	9-2	(0-0)	23	97	NA	2	0
25	Stanford	-0.5	8-4	(6-3)	25	18	NA	7	0
26	South Carolina	-0.75	7-5	(4-4)	26	6	NA	7	0
27	NC State	-1.25	9-3	(5-3)	29	68	NA	2	0
28	Northwestern	-1.5	8-5	(8-2)	24	11	NA	7	0
29	Pittsburgh	-1.5	7-6	(6-3)	T31	1	NA	8	0
30	Utah State	-1.75	10-2	(7-1)	30	126	NA	2	0
31	Auburn	-1.75	7-5	(3-5)	T31	20	NA	6	0
32	App State	-2.25	10-2	(8-1)	34	121	NA	1	0
33	Michigan State	-2.25	7-5	(5-4)	33	23	NA	5	0
34	Cincinnati	-2.5	10-2	(6-2)	36	95	NA	2	0
35	Iowa	-2.5	8-4	(5-4)	35	42	NA	5	0
36	Boise State	-2.75	10-3	(7-2)	T27	78	NA	3	0
37	Oregon	-2.75	8-4	(5-4)	37	62	NA	4	0
T38	Boston College	-3.5	7-5	(4-4)	40	44	NA	6	0
T38	Duke	-3.5	7-5	(3-5)	38	21	NA	6	0
40	TCU	-4.5	6-6	(4-5)	42	8	NA	6	0
41	Georgia Tech	-4.75	7-5	(5-3)	46	54	NA	3	0
T42	Vanderbilt	-4.75	6-6	(3-5)	45	15	NA	5	0
T42	OK State	-4.75	6-6	(3-6)	43	30	NA	7	0
T44	Miami	-5.25	7-5	(4-4)	49	59	NA	4	0
T44	Wisconsin	-5.25	7-5	(5-4)	44	51	NA	5	0
46	GA Southern	-5.5	9-3	(6-2)	48	115	NA	1	0
47	Arizona St	-5.75	7-5	(5-4)	47	54	NA	3	0
48	Wake Forest	-5.75	6-6	(3-5)	50	42	NA	5	0
49	Baylor	-6	6-6	(4-5)	51	31	NA	4	0
50	Troy	-6.25	9-3	(7-1)	53	119	NA	2	0
51	Texas Tech	-6.25	5-7	(3-6)	54	18	NA	7	0
52	Temple	-6.5	8-4	(7-1)	52	79	NA	2	0
53	California	-6.5	7-5	(4-5)	41	58	NA	3	0
54	Buffalo	-6.5	10-3	(7-2)	39	117	NA	2	0
55	Virginia	-6.75	7-5	(4-4)	56	71	NA	4	0
56	Tennessee	-6.75	5-7	(2-6)	57	3	NA	8	0
57	Purdue	-7.25	6-6	(5-4)	58	23	NA	4	0
58	UAB	-7.25	10-3	(8-1)	59	122	NA	1	0
59	Florida State	-7.25	5-7	(3-5)	T62	3	NA	6	0
60	Kansas State	-7.5	5-7	(3-6)	T62	23	NA	7	0
61	Minnesota	-7.75	6-6	(3-6)	60	44	NA	4	0
62	Memphis	-7.75	8-5	(5-4)	61	94	NA	3	0
63	Maryland	-7.75	5-7	(3-6)	T64	9	NA	5	0
64	Houston	-8	8-4	(5-3)	66	107	NA	0	0
65	USC	-8	5-7	(4-6)	T64	5	NA	5	0
66	N Texas	-8.25	9-3	(5-3)	68	130	NA	0	0
67	Ohio	-8.5	8-4	(6-2)	69	109	NA	2	0
68	BYU	-8.75	6-6	(0-0)	70	61	NA	4	0
69	Arkansas St	-8.75	8-4	(5-3)	71	115	NA	1	0
70	Mid Tennessee	-8.75	8-5	(7-2)	55	76	NA	3	0
71	Indiana	-9.5	5-7	(2-7)	72	26	NA	3	0
72	Marshall	-9.5	8-4	(6-2)	67	119	NA	1	0
73	S Florida	-9.5	7-5	(3-5)	73	77	NA	3	0
74	N Illinois	-10	8-5	(7-2)	78	75	NA	2	0
75	San Diego St	-10	7-5	(4-4)	75	79	NA	3	0
76	Virginia Tech	-10.25	6-6	(4-4)	79	60	NA	3	0
77	Ole Miss	-10.25	5-7	(1-7)	77	51	NA	5	0
78	Colorado	-10.5	5-7	(2-7)	74	50	NA	4	0
79	Nebraska	-11	4-8	(3-6)	80	26	NA	5	0
80	E Michigan	-11	7-5	(5-3)	81	103	NA	1	0
81	FIU	-11.25	8-4	(6-2)	82	128	NA	1	0
T82	Hawaii	-11.25	8-5	(5-3)	T83	105	NA	2	0
T82	Nevada	-11.25	7-5	(5-3)	T83	92	NA	3	0
84	Louisiana Tech	-11.5	7-5	(5-3)	86	107	NA	2	0
85	UL Lafayette	-11.5	7-6	(5-4)	76	89	NA	4	0
86	Arizona	-11.75	5-7	(4-5)	85	51	NA	2	0
T87	Tulane	-11.75	6-6	(5-3)	87	72	NA	2	0
T87	Wyoming	-11.75	6-6	(4-4)	88	74	NA	4	0
89	Toledo	-12.5	7-5	(5-3)	89	112	NA	1	0
90	W Michigan	-12.75	7-5	(5-3)	90	98	NA	2	0
91	Southern Miss	-13.25	6-5	(5-3)	93	123	NA	1	0
92	UCLA	-13.5	3-9	(3-6)	91	2	NA	7	0
93	Miami OH	-13.5	6-6	(6-2)	92	81	NA	2	0
94	SMU	-15	5-7	(4-4)	95	70	NA	2	0
95	Illinois	-15.25	4-8	(2-7)	94	64	NA	3	0
96	Liberty	-15.25	6-6	(0-0)	96	118	NA	3	0
97	FAU	-15.5	5-7	(3-5)	97	81	NA	2	0
98	Air Force	-15.75	5-7	(3-5)	98	92	NA	2	0
99	Kansas	-16	3-9	(1-8)	99	34	NA	5	0
100	UL Monroe	-16.75	6-6	(4-4)	101	114	NA	1	0
101	North Carolina	-17.25	2-9	(1-7)	103	49	NA	4	0
102	Louisville	-17.25	2-10	(0-8)	102	6	NA	6	0
103	Charlotte	-17.5	5-7	(4-4)	104	109	NA	0	0
104	Navy	-18.5	3-9	(2-6)	105	63	NA	3	1
105	Akron	-18.75	4-8	(2-6)	100	85	NA	3	0
T106	Arkansas	-19	2-10	(0-8)	108	31	NA	6	0
T106	Oregon State	-19	2-10	(1-8)	106	21	NA	5	0
108	Umass	-19	4-8	(0-0)	107	84	NA	2	0
109	Co Carolina	-20.75	5-7	(2-6)	110	106	NA	1	0
110	Ball State	-21	4-8	(3-5)	112	101	NA	1	0
111	Tulsa	-21.25	3-9	(2-6)	113	81	NA	2	0
112	Rutgers	-21.25	1-11	(0-9)	111	26	NA	6	0
113	E Carolina	-22	3-9	(1-7)	109	73	NA	4	0
114	UNLV	-22.5	4-8	(2-6)	114	109	NA	2	0
115	Colorado St	-23	3-9	(2-6)	115	65	NA	3	0
116	New Mexico	-24.5	3-9	(1-7)	116	87	NA	3	0
117	Old Dominion	-24.75	4-8	(2-6)	117	124	NA	0	0
118	UTSA	-25	3-9	(2-6)	118	98	NA	1	0
119	S Alabama	-25	3-9	(2-6)	119	98	NA	2	0
120	Bowling Green	-26	3-9	(2-6)	120	103	NA	2	0
121	N Mexico St	-26.5	3-9	(0-0)	121	112	NA	3	0
122	W Kentucky	-26.75	3-9	(2-6)	122	124	NA	1	0
123	San Jose St	-27	1-11	(1-7)	123	69	NA	5	0
124	Texas St	-27.25	3-9	(1-7)	124	129	NA	0	0
125	Georgia St	-27.25	2-10	(1-7)	T125	95	NA	2	0
126	Kent State	-27.5	2-10	(1-7)	T125	85	NA	1	0
127	Uconn	-28	1-11	(0-8)	127	65	NA	3	0
T128	Rice	-30	2-11	(1-8)	T128	91	NA	2	0
T128	C Michigan	-30	1-11	(0-8)	T128	87	NA	2	0
130	UTEP	-34.5	1-11	(1-7)	130	127	NA	0	0

Conference Ranks

The SEC continues to dominate:

Rank	Conf	Avg
1	SEC	-0.0179
2	Big 12	-2.8
3	ACC	-4.9821
4	Big 10	-5.2857
5	Pac 12	-5.7708
6	Ind	-9.6667
7	Amer	-12.1667
8	MW	-13.4375
9	S Belt	-15.125
10	MAC	-16.5
11	CUSA	-17.4107

---

Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking (for this week, ignore the SOS remaining column for teams who are not playing):

ACC

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Clemson	12.25	13-0	(9-0)	7	NA	0	2
2	Syracuse	2.25	9-3	(6-2)	10	NA	0	16
3	NC State	-1.25	9-3	(5-3)	13	NA	0	27
4	Pittsburgh	-1.5	7-6	(6-3)	1	NA	0	29
T5	Boston College	-3.5	7-5	(4-4)	6	NA	0	T38
T5	Duke	-3.5	7-5	(3-5)	4	NA	0	T38
7	Georgia Tech	-4.75	7-5	(5-3)	9	NA	0	41
8	Miami	-5.25	7-5	(4-4)	11	NA	0	T44
9	Wake Forest	-5.75	6-6	(3-5)	5	NA	0	48
10	Virginia	-6.75	7-5	(4-4)	14	NA	0	55
11	Florida State	-7.25	5-7	(3-5)	2	NA	0	59
12	Virginia Tech	-10.25	6-6	(4-4)	12	NA	0	76
13	North Carolina	-17.25	2-9	(1-7)	8	NA	0	101
14	Louisville	-17.25	2-10	(0-8)	3	NA	0	102

Big 10

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Ohio State	8	12-1	(9-1)	9	NA	0	6
2	Michigan	7.25	10-2	(8-1)	3	NA	0	7
3	Penn State	2	9-3	(6-3)	11	NA	0	19
4	Northwestern	-1.5	8-5	(8-2)	2	NA	0	28
5	Michigan State	-2.25	7-5	(5-4)	4	NA	0	33
6	Iowa	-2.5	8-4	(5-4)	10	NA	0	35
7	Wisconsin	-5.25	7-5	(5-4)	13	NA	0	T44
8	Purdue	-7.25	6-6	(5-4)	4	NA	0	57
9	Minnesota	-7.75	6-6	(3-6)	11	NA	0	61
10	Maryland	-7.75	5-7	(3-6)	1	NA	0	63
11	Indiana	-9.5	5-7	(2-7)	6	NA	0	71
12	Nebraska	-11	4-8	(3-6)	6	NA	0	79
13	Illinois	-15.25	4-8	(2-7)	14	NA	0	95
14	Rutgers	-21.25	1-11	(0-9)	6	NA	0	112

SEC

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Alabama	13.5	13-0	(9-0)	14	NA	0	1
2	Georgia	10.25	11-2	(7-2)	5	NA	0	5
3	Florida	4.75	9-3	(5-3)	10	NA	0	9
4	Kentucky	4.5	9-3	(5-3)	12	NA	0	T10
5	LSU	4.25	9-3	(5-3)	8	NA	0	12
T6	Missouri	2.25	8-4	(4-4)	4	NA	0	T17
T6	Texas AM	2.25	8-4	(5-3)	3	NA	0	T17
8	Mississippi St	1.25	8-4	(4-4)	11	NA	0	21
9	South Carolina	-0.75	7-5	(4-4)	2	NA	0	26
10	Auburn	-1.75	7-5	(3-5)	7	NA	0	31
11	Vanderbilt	-4.75	6-6	(3-5)	6	NA	0	T42
12	Tennessee	-6.75	5-7	(2-6)	1	NA	0	56
13	Ole Miss	-10.25	5-7	(1-7)	13	NA	0	77
14	Arkansas	-19	2-10	(0-8)	8	NA	0	T106

Big 12

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Oklahoma	10.75	12-1	(9-1)	3	NA	0	4
2	West Virginia	3.5	8-3	(6-3)	8	NA	0	13
3	Texas	2.25	9-4	(7-3)	2	NA	0	15
4	Iowa State	0.5	8-4	(6-3)	10	NA	0	22
5	TCU	-4.5	6-6	(4-5)	1	NA	0	40
6	OK State	-4.75	6-6	(3-6)	6	NA	0	T42
7	Baylor	-6	6-6	(4-5)	7	NA	0	49
8	Texas Tech	-6.25	5-7	(3-6)	4	NA	0	51
9	Kansas State	-7.5	5-7	(3-6)	5	NA	0	60
10	Kansas	-16	3-9	(1-8)	8	NA	0	99

Pac 12

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Washington	4.5	10-3	(8-2)	6	NA	0	T10
2	Washington St	3.25	10-2	(7-2)	12	NA	0	14
3	Utah	1.25	9-4	(6-4)	5	NA	0	20
4	Stanford	-0.5	8-4	(6-3)	3	NA	0	25
5	Oregon	-2.75	8-4	(5-4)	11	NA	0	37
6	Arizona St	-5.75	7-5	(5-4)	9	NA	0	47
7	California	-6.5	7-5	(4-5)	10	NA	0	53
8	USC	-8	5-7	(4-6)	2	NA	0	65
9	Colorado	-10.5	5-7	(2-7)	7	NA	0	78
10	Arizona	-11.75	5-7	(4-5)	8	NA	0	86
11	UCLA	-13.5	3-9	(3-6)	1	NA	0	92
12	Oregon State	-19	2-10	(1-8)	4	NA	0	T106

American

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	UCF	4.75	12-0	(9-0)	11	NA	0	8
2	Cincinnati	-2.5	10-2	(6-2)	10	NA	0	34
3	Temple	-6.5	8-4	(7-1)	7	NA	0	52
4	Memphis	-7.75	8-5	(5-4)	9	NA	0	62
5	Houston	-8	8-4	(5-3)	12	NA	0	64
6	S Florida	-9.5	7-5	(3-5)	6	NA	0	73
7	Tulane	-11.75	6-6	(5-3)	4	NA	0	T87
8	SMU	-15	5-7	(4-4)	3	NA	0	94
9	Navy	-18.5	3-9	(2-6)	1	NA	1	104
10	Tulsa	-21.25	3-9	(2-6)	8	NA	0	111
11	E Carolina	-22	3-9	(1-7)	5	NA	0	113
12	Uconn	-28	1-11	(0-8)	2	NA	0	127

Mountain West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Fresno St	0.25	11-2	(8-1)	7	NA	0	23
2	Utah State	-1.75	10-2	(7-1)	12	NA	0	30
3	Boise State	-2.75	10-3	(7-2)	4	NA	0	36
4	San Diego St	-10	7-5	(4-4)	5	NA	0	75
T5	Nevada	-11.25	7-5	(5-3)	8	NA	0	T82
T5	Hawaii	-11.25	8-5	(5-3)	10	NA	0	T82
7	Wyoming	-11.75	6-6	(4-4)	3	NA	0	T87
8	Air Force	-15.75	5-7	(3-5)	8	NA	0	98
9	UNLV	-22.5	4-8	(2-6)	11	NA	0	114
10	Colorado St	-23	3-9	(2-6)	1	NA	0	115
11	New Mexico	-24.5	3-9	(1-7)	6	NA	0	116
12	San Jose St	-27	1-11	(1-7)	2	NA	0	123

MAC

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Buffalo	-6.5	10-3	(7-2)	12	NA	0	54
2	Ohio	-8.5	8-4	(6-2)	10	NA	0	67
3	N Illinois	-10	8-5	(7-2)	1	NA	0	74
4	E Michigan	-11	7-5	(5-3)	8	NA	0	80
5	Toledo	-12.5	7-5	(5-3)	11	NA	0	89
6	W Michigan	-12.75	7-5	(5-3)	6	NA	0	90
7	Miami OH	-13.5	6-6	(6-2)	2	NA	0	93
8	Akron	-18.75	4-8	(2-6)	3	NA	0	105
9	Ball State	-21	4-8	(3-5)	7	NA	0	110
10	Bowling Green	-26	3-9	(2-6)	8	NA	0	120
11	Kent State	-27.5	2-10	(1-7)	3	NA	0	126
12	C Michigan	-30	1-11	(0-8)	5	NA	0	T128

CUSA

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	UAB	-7.25	10-3	(8-1)	8	NA	0	58
2	N Texas	-8.25	9-3	(5-3)	14	NA	0	66
3	Mid Tennessee	-8.75	8-5	(7-2)	1	NA	0	70
4	Marshall	-9.5	8-4	(6-2)	7	NA	0	72
5	FIU	-11.25	8-4	(6-2)	13	NA	0	81
6	Louisiana Tech	-11.5	7-5	(5-3)	5	NA	0	84
7	Southern Miss	-13.25	6-5	(5-3)	9	NA	0	91
8	FAU	-15.5	5-7	(3-5)	2	NA	0	97
9	Charlotte	-17.5	5-7	(4-4)	6	NA	0	103
10	Old Dominion	-24.75	4-8	(2-6)	10	NA	0	117
11	UTSA	-25	3-9	(2-6)	4	NA	0	118
12	W Kentucky	-26.75	3-9	(2-6)	10	NA	0	122
13	Rice	-30	2-11	(1-8)	3	NA	0	T128
14	UTEP	-34.5	1-11	(1-7)	12	NA	0	130

Sun Belt

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	App State	-2.25	10-2	(8-1)	9	NA	0	32
2	GA Southern	-5.5	9-3	(6-2)	6	NA	0	46
3	Troy	-6.25	9-3	(7-1)	8	NA	0	50
4	Arkansas St	-8.75	8-4	(5-3)	6	NA	0	69
5	UL Lafayette	-11.5	7-6	(5-4)	1	NA	0	85
6	UL Monroe	-16.75	6-6	(4-4)	5	NA	0	100
7	Co Carolina	-20.75	5-7	(2-6)	4	NA	0	109
8	S Alabama	-25	3-9	(2-6)	3	NA	0	119
9	Georgia St	-27.25	2-10	(1-7)	2	NA	0	125
10	Texas St	-27.25	3-9	(1-7)	10	NA	0	124

Independents

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Notre Dame	11.75	12-0	(0-0)	1	NA	0	3
2	Army	-0.25	9-2	(0-0)	4	NA	0	24
3	BYU	-8.75	6-6	(0-0)	2	NA	0	68
4	Liberty	-15.25	6-6	(0-0)	6	NA	0	96
5	Umass	-19	4-8	(0-0)	3	NA	0	108
6	N Mexico St	-26.5	3-9	(0-0)	5	NA	0	121

---

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	SEC E	1.3571
2	SEC W	-1.3929
3	Big 12	-2.8
4	ACC Atl	-2.9286
5	Big 10 E	-3.3571
6	Pac 12 N	-3.5
7	ACC Coast	-7.0357
8	Big 10 W	-7.2143
9	Pac 12 S	-8.0417
10	Ind	-9.6667
11	Amer E	-10.625
12	S Belt E	-12.4
13	MW Moun	-13.25
14	MW West	-13.625
15	Amer W	-13.7083
16	MAC W	-16.2083
17	CUSA E	-16.2857
18	MAC E	-16.7917
19	S Belt W	-17.85
20	CUSA W	-18.5357

---

Next are the rankings within every division, as well as each team’s national ranking, with plots:

ACC Coastal

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Pittsburgh	-1.5	7-6	(6-3)	1	NA	0	29
2	Duke	-3.5	7-5	(3-5)	2	NA	0	T38
3	Georgia Tech	-4.75	7-5	(5-3)	4	NA	0	41
4	Miami	-5.25	7-5	(4-4)	5	NA	0	T44
5	Virginia	-6.75	7-5	(4-4)	7	NA	0	55
6	Virginia Tech	-10.25	6-6	(4-4)	6	NA	0	76
7	North Carolina	-17.25	2-9	(1-7)	3	NA	0	101

ACC Atlantic

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Clemson	12.25	13-0	(9-0)	5	NA	0	2
2	Syracuse	2.25	9-3	(6-2)	6	NA	0	16
3	NC State	-1.25	9-3	(5-3)	7	NA	0	27
4	Boston College	-3.5	7-5	(4-4)	4	NA	0	T38
5	Wake Forest	-5.75	6-6	(3-5)	3	NA	0	48
6	Florida State	-7.25	5-7	(3-5)	1	NA	0	59
7	Louisville	-17.25	2-10	(0-8)	2	NA	0	102

SEC East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Georgia	10.25	11-2	(7-2)	4	NA	0	5
2	Florida	4.75	9-3	(5-3)	6	NA	0	9
3	Kentucky	4.5	9-3	(5-3)	7	NA	0	T10
4	Missouri	2.25	8-4	(4-4)	3	NA	0	T17
5	South Carolina	-0.75	7-5	(4-4)	2	NA	0	26
6	Vanderbilt	-4.75	6-6	(3-5)	5	NA	0	T42
7	Tennessee	-6.75	5-7	(2-6)	1	NA	0	56

SEC West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Alabama	13.5	13-0	(9-0)	7	NA	0	1
2	LSU	4.25	9-3	(5-3)	3	NA	0	12
3	Texas AM	2.25	8-4	(5-3)	1	NA	0	T17
4	Mississippi St	1.25	8-4	(4-4)	5	NA	0	21
5	Auburn	-1.75	7-5	(3-5)	2	NA	0	31
6	Ole Miss	-10.25	5-7	(1-7)	6	NA	0	77
7	Arkansas	-19	2-10	(0-8)	3	NA	0	T106

Big 10 East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Ohio State	8	12-1	(9-1)	6	NA	0	6
2	Michigan	7.25	10-2	(8-1)	2	NA	0	7
3	Penn State	2	9-3	(6-3)	7	NA	0	19
4	Michigan State	-2.25	7-5	(5-4)	3	NA	0	33
5	Maryland	-7.75	5-7	(3-6)	1	NA	0	63
6	Indiana	-9.5	5-7	(2-7)	4	NA	0	71
7	Rutgers	-21.25	1-11	(0-9)	4	NA	0	112

Big 10 West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Northwestern	-1.5	8-5	(8-2)	1	NA	0	28
2	Iowa	-2.5	8-4	(5-4)	4	NA	0	35
3	Wisconsin	-5.25	7-5	(5-4)	6	NA	0	T44
4	Purdue	-7.25	6-6	(5-4)	2	NA	0	57
5	Minnesota	-7.75	6-6	(3-6)	5	NA	0	61
6	Nebraska	-11	4-8	(3-6)	3	NA	0	79
7	Illinois	-15.25	4-8	(2-7)	7	NA	0	95

Big 12

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Oklahoma	10.75	12-1	(9-1)	3	NA	0	4
2	West Virginia	3.5	8-3	(6-3)	8	NA	0	13
3	Texas	2.25	9-4	(7-3)	2	NA	0	15
4	Iowa State	0.5	8-4	(6-3)	10	NA	0	22
5	TCU	-4.5	6-6	(4-5)	1	NA	0	40
6	OK State	-4.75	6-6	(3-6)	6	NA	0	T42
7	Baylor	-6	6-6	(4-5)	7	NA	0	49
8	Texas Tech	-6.25	5-7	(3-6)	4	NA	0	51
9	Kansas State	-7.5	5-7	(3-6)	5	NA	0	60
10	Kansas	-16	3-9	(1-8)	8	NA	0	99

Pac 12 North

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Washington	4.5	10-3	(8-2)	3	NA	0	T10
2	Washington St	3.25	10-2	(7-2)	6	NA	0	14
3	Stanford	-0.5	8-4	(6-3)	1	NA	0	25
4	Oregon	-2.75	8-4	(5-4)	5	NA	0	37
5	California	-6.5	7-5	(4-5)	4	NA	0	53
6	Oregon State	-19	2-10	(1-8)	2	NA	0	T106

Pac 12 South

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Utah	1.25	9-4	(6-4)	3	NA	0	20
2	Arizona St	-5.75	7-5	(5-4)	6	NA	0	47
3	USC	-8	5-7	(4-6)	2	NA	0	65
4	Colorado	-10.5	5-7	(2-7)	4	NA	0	78
5	Arizona	-11.75	5-7	(4-5)	5	NA	0	86
6	UCLA	-13.5	3-9	(3-6)	1	NA	0	92

American East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	UCF	4.75	12-0	(9-0)	6	NA	0	8
2	Cincinnati	-2.5	10-2	(6-2)	5	NA	0	34
3	Temple	-6.5	8-4	(7-1)	4	NA	0	52
4	S Florida	-9.5	7-5	(3-5)	3	NA	0	73
5	E Carolina	-22	3-9	(1-7)	2	NA	0	113
6	Uconn	-28	1-11	(0-8)	1	NA	0	127

American West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Memphis	-7.75	8-5	(5-4)	5	NA	0	62
2	Houston	-8	8-4	(5-3)	6	NA	0	64
3	Tulane	-11.75	6-6	(5-3)	3	NA	0	T87
4	SMU	-15	5-7	(4-4)	2	NA	0	94
5	Navy	-18.5	3-9	(2-6)	1	NA	1	104
6	Tulsa	-21.25	3-9	(2-6)	4	NA	0	111

MW Mountain

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Utah State	-1.75	10-2	(7-1)	6	NA	0	30
2	Boise State	-2.75	10-3	(7-2)	3	NA	0	36
3	Wyoming	-11.75	6-6	(4-4)	2	NA	0	T87
4	Air Force	-15.75	5-7	(3-5)	5	NA	0	98
5	Colorado St	-23	3-9	(2-6)	1	NA	0	115
6	New Mexico	-24.5	3-9	(1-7)	4	NA	0	116

MW West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Fresno St	0.25	11-2	(8-1)	3	NA	0	23
2	San Diego St	-10	7-5	(4-4)	2	NA	0	75
T3	Nevada	-11.25	7-5	(5-3)	4	NA	0	T82
T3	Hawaii	-11.25	8-5	(5-3)	5	NA	0	T82
5	UNLV	-22.5	4-8	(2-6)	6	NA	0	114
6	San Jose St	-27	1-11	(1-7)	1	NA	0	123

MAC East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Buffalo	-6.5	10-3	(7-2)	6	NA	0	54
2	Ohio	-8.5	8-4	(6-2)	5	NA	0	67
3	Miami OH	-13.5	6-6	(6-2)	1	NA	0	93
4	Akron	-18.75	4-8	(2-6)	2	NA	0	105
5	Bowling Green	-26	3-9	(2-6)	4	NA	0	120
6	Kent State	-27.5	2-10	(1-7)	2	NA	0	126

MAC West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	N Illinois	-10	8-5	(7-2)	1	NA	0	74
2	E Michigan	-11	7-5	(5-3)	5	NA	0	80
3	Toledo	-12.5	7-5	(5-3)	6	NA	0	89
4	W Michigan	-12.75	7-5	(5-3)	3	NA	0	90
5	Ball State	-21	4-8	(3-5)	4	NA	0	110
6	C Michigan	-30	1-11	(0-8)	2	NA	0	T128

C-USA East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Mid Tennessee	-8.75	8-5	(7-2)	1	NA	0	70
2	Marshall	-9.5	8-4	(6-2)	4	NA	0	72
3	FIU	-11.25	8-4	(6-2)	7	NA	0	81
4	FAU	-15.5	5-7	(3-5)	2	NA	0	97
5	Charlotte	-17.5	5-7	(4-4)	3	NA	0	103
6	Old Dominion	-24.75	4-8	(2-6)	5	NA	0	117
7	W Kentucky	-26.75	3-9	(2-6)	5	NA	0	122

C-USA West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	UAB	-7.25	10-3	(8-1)	4	NA	0	58
2	N Texas	-8.25	9-3	(5-3)	7	NA	0	66
3	Louisiana Tech	-11.5	7-5	(5-3)	3	NA	0	84
4	Southern Miss	-13.25	6-5	(5-3)	5	NA	0	91
5	UTSA	-25	3-9	(2-6)	2	NA	0	118
6	Rice	-30	2-11	(1-8)	1	NA	0	T128
7	UTEP	-34.5	1-11	(1-7)	6	NA	0	130

Sun Belt East

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	App State	-2.25	10-2	(8-1)	5	NA	0	32
2	GA Southern	-5.5	9-3	(6-2)	3	NA	0	46
3	Troy	-6.25	9-3	(7-1)	4	NA	0	50
4	Co Carolina	-20.75	5-7	(2-6)	2	NA	0	109
5	Georgia St	-27.25	2-10	(1-7)	1	NA	0	125

Sun Belt West

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Arkansas St	-8.75	8-4	(5-3)	4	NA	0	69
2	UL Lafayette	-11.5	7-6	(5-4)	1	NA	0	85
3	UL Monroe	-16.75	6-6	(4-4)	3	NA	0	100
4	S Alabama	-25	3-9	(2-6)	2	NA	0	119
5	Texas St	-27.25	3-9	(1-7)	5	NA	0	124

Independents

Rank	Team	Score	Record	Conf	Played Sch Rank	Rem Sch Rank	Tuff Games Rem	NatlRank
1	Notre Dame	11.75	12-0	(0-0)	1	NA	0	3
2	Army	-0.25	9-2	(0-0)	4	NA	0	24
3	BYU	-8.75	6-6	(0-0)	2	NA	0	68
4	Liberty	-15.25	6-6	(0-0)	6	NA	0	96
5	Umass	-19	4-8	(0-0)	3	NA	0	108
6	N Mexico St	-26.5	3-9	(0-0)	5	NA	0	121