Here is the third CFB SBPI installment of the 2015
season. To read more about how I
calculate my ratings look back at last
week's entry that also has links to other entries surrounding this topic.
Without further ado here are the Top 25 rankings through
action on Saturday October 17. The
columns OFF/DEF/TOTAL represent where each team statistically ranks across 128
teams in the FBS; we also include the AP Poll, USA Today Poll, ESPN’s FPI &
Sagarin’s rankings which can all be used as a solid comparison tool followed by
each team’s SOS adjusted RATING and RANK:
|
UNIT RANKS RAW
|
RANKS
|
SOS ADJ #'s
|
|||||||||
|
Team
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
TOTAL
|
AP
|
USAT
|
FPI
|
SAG
|
RATING
|
RANK
|
||
|
Alabama
|
36
|
4
|
2
|
8
|
8
|
3
|
1
|
281.0
|
1
|
||
|
Iowa
|
18
|
11
|
2
|
12
|
13
|
29
|
15
|
262.1
|
2
|
||
|
Clemson
|
32
|
7
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
6
|
257.2
|
3
|
||
|
Utah
|
22
|
34
|
19
|
3
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
250.7
|
4
|
||
|
Stanford
|
5
|
42
|
17
|
10
|
11
|
10
|
8
|
247.7
|
5
|
||
|
LSU
|
18
|
27
|
15
|
5
|
5
|
7
|
10
|
244.9
|
6
|
||
|
Oklahoma
|
24
|
22
|
15
|
17
|
15
|
4
|
4
|
244.4
|
7
|
||
|
Florida
|
61
|
18
|
22
|
13
|
14
|
12
|
13
|
242.7
|
8
|
||
|
Georgia
|
41
|
13
|
9
|
31
|
25
|
16
|
11
|
240.1
|
9
|
||
|
Notre Dame
|
8
|
49
|
21
|
|
11
|
10
|
8
|
9
|
|
239.8
|
10
|
|
TCU
|
2
|
43
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
238.9
|
11
|
||
|
Boise State
|
56
|
5
|
6
|
34
|
41
|
25
|
25
|
238.6
|
12
|
||
|
California
|
16
|
38
|
19
|
20
|
19
|
24
|
22
|
237.1
|
13
|
||
|
Florida State
|
10
|
29
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
12
|
231.3
|
14
|
||
|
Arkansas
|
16
|
76
|
40
|
27
|
42
|
228.5
|
15
|
||||
|
West Virginia
|
20
|
53
|
34
|
26
|
28
|
226.7
|
16
|
||||
|
Pittsburgh
|
67
|
17
|
25
|
25
|
28
|
45
|
35
|
226.5
|
17
|
||
|
Michigan
|
92
|
1
|
28
|
15
|
17
|
18
|
14
|
226.2
|
18
|
||
|
Ohio State
|
36
|
18
|
13
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
225.8
|
19
|
||
|
USC
|
22
|
59
|
36
|
6
|
16
|
224.6
|
20
|
||||
|
Michigan State
|
28
|
36
|
25
|
7
|
4
|
22
|
20
|
217.5
|
21
|
||
|
Wisconsin
|
65
|
6
|
13
|
34
|
27
|
30
|
21
|
217.3
|
22
|
||
|
Oklahoma State
|
48
|
20
|
22
|
14
|
12
|
20
|
18
|
216.1
|
23
|
||
|
Utah State
|
87
|
8
|
32
|
36
|
35
|
53
|
33
|
214.9
|
24
|
||
|
Tennessee
|
33
|
67
|
46
|
|
|
|
13
|
23
|
|
214.1
|
25
|
Breakdown of Top
25 by conference:
|
AAC
|
0
|
|
ACC
|
3
|
|
B10
|
5
|
|
B12
|
4
|
|
CUSA
|
0
|
|
IND
|
1
|
|
MAC
|
0
|
|
MWC
|
2
|
|
P12
|
4
|
|
SEC
|
6
|
|
SUN
|
0
|
Here are
additional teams of note that did not make the SBPI Top 25 but were ranked
inside the Top 25 of at least one of the other four sources I use for
comparative purposes:
#27 Baylor (#2 AP, #2 USAT, #1 FPI, #2 SAG)
#28 Mississippi State (#21 FPI, #24 SAG)
#32 Houston (#21 AP, #22 USAT)
#33 Ole Miss (#24 AP, #23 USAT, #9 FPI, #19 SAG)
#34 Memphis (#18 AP, #17 USAT)
#36 Texas A&M (#15 AP, #16 USAT, #14 FPI, #17 SAG)
#38 Duke (#23 AP, #21 USAT)
#39 North Carolina (#23 FPI)
#40 UCLA (#19 FPI)
#41 Temple (#22 AP, #24 USAT)
#51 Toledo (#19 AP, #20 USAT)
Let’s take a look
at the relationship between SBPI & record in matrix form (currently there
is a 77% correlation between SBPI ranking & wins, UP from 71% last week):
|
# OF SBPI TEAMS WITH RECORDS
|
||
|
Record
|
Top 25
|
Top 50
|
|
7-0
|
4
|
4
|
|
6-1
|
5
|
9
|
|
6-1
|
3
|
3
|
|
5-1
|
4
|
8
|
|
5-2
|
4
|
8
|
|
4-2
|
1
|
5
|
|
3-3
|
3
|
6
|
|
3-4
|
4
|
|
|
2-4
|
1
|
2
|
|
2-5
|
1
|
|
So of the Top 25 SBPI teams 9 are undefeated, 16 have at
worst one loss & just 1 is under .500 Arkansas, who has played the 2nd
toughest schedule in the country which boosts their rating – if we remove SOS
& simply judge strength on performance Arkansas is 40th (3rd
numerical column in first matrix). Of
the SBPI Top 50 almost half (24) of the group has a one or zero losses. The SBPI, and looking at it in this sort of
breakdown, can add value by seeing which teams have suffered perhaps from “bad
luck” so far [playing better football than their record indicates], or teams
that may have been “lucky” this year [rating lower on the SBPI scale than their
record suggests].
Here are the five
lowest rated SBPI teams that have a winning record:
#105 New Mexico 4-3
#92 Marshall 6-1
#88 Georgia Southern 5-1
#84 Washington State 4-2
#82 Auburn 4-2
Strength of each
conference taking average RATING of ALL TEAMS:
|
SEC
|
81.42
|
|
IND
|
79.52
|
|
ACC
|
79.46
|
|
P12
|
79.02
|
|
B10
|
78.23
|
|
B12
|
76.70
|
|
AAC
|
72.56
|
|
MWC
|
70.97
|
|
MAC
|
70.61
|
|
CUSA
|
67.13
|
|
SUN
|
64.59
|
Next up let’s look
at the Top 10 non-Power 5 conference teams (excluding Notre Dame):
|
UNIT RANKS RAW
|
RANKS
|
SOS ADJ #'s
|
|||||||
|
CONF
|
Team
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
TOTAL
|
SAG
|
RATING
|
RANK
|
||
|
MWC
|
Boise State
|
56
|
5
|
6
|
25
|
238.6
|
12
|
||
|
MWC
|
Utah State
|
87
|
8
|
32
|
33
|
214.9
|
24
|
||
|
AAC
|
Houston
|
3
|
29
|
2
|
41
|
204.3
|
32
|
||
|
AAC
|
Memphis
|
4
|
78
|
30
|
30
|
203.6
|
34
|
||
|
IND
|
BYU
|
80
|
39
|
55
|
36
|
203.0
|
35
|
||
|
AAC
|
Temple
|
69
|
3
|
11
|
50
|
195.6
|
41
|
||
|
SB
|
Appalachian State
|
7
|
8
|
1
|
62
|
195.6
|
42
|
||
|
AAC
|
South Florida
|
46
|
43
|
42
|
80
|
191.1
|
44
|
||
|
MAC
|
Central Michigan
|
48
|
53
|
49
|
81
|
184.7
|
49
|
||
|
MAC
|
Toledo
|
39
|
33
|
27
|
38
|
184.0
|
51
|
||
Here are the
Bottom 10 teams:
|
UNIT RANKS RAW
|
RANKS
|
SOS ADJ #'s
|
|||||||
|
CONF
|
Team
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
TOTAL
|
SAG
|
RATING
|
RANK
|
||
|
SB
|
Georgia State
|
90
|
113
|
108
|
122
|
85.4
|
119
|
||
|
SB
|
Louisiana-Monroe
|
121
|
111
|
122
|
115
|
83.4
|
120
|
||
|
SB
|
Troy
|
126
|
85
|
119
|
116
|
82.6
|
121
|
||
|
MWC
|
Fresno State
|
119
|
117
|
121
|
103
|
82.4
|
122
|
||
|
CUSA
|
Old Dominion
|
119
|
93
|
114
|
120
|
82.2
|
123
|
||
|
SB
|
New Mexico State
|
101
|
126
|
123
|
127
|
74.6
|
124
|
||
|
MAC
|
Miami (Ohio)
|
125
|
113
|
125
|
124
|
67.7
|
125
|
||
|
AAC
|
UCF
|
127
|
98
|
125
|
106
|
66.5
|
126
|
||
|
MWC
|
Hawai'i
|
128
|
101
|
128
|
104
|
64.8
|
127
|
||
|
CUSA
|
North Texas
|
112
|
128
|
127
|
126
|
61.8
|
128
|
||
New analysis per a
request is showing the Bottom 5 Power 5 conference teams:
Thanks again for reading, please feel free to:
Email me directly: boss@thesportsboss.com
Visit my website: www.thesportsboss.com
Follow me on Twitter: @SportsBoss
COPYRIGHT: THE SPORTSBOSS, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment