Here is a revision of the Fair Ranking System standings that I completed before the 2012-13 bowl season. I tweaked it to include the full records of FCS and non-FCS teams in the calculation of the FBS teams' true wins. It was one of the few tweaks that I mentioned as possibly implementing in a previous article on the FRS. I only revised the top 45 teams that were ranked before (not all 124 were recalculated). For the most part, there were no drastic changes in the FRS top 45, but there were some significant shifts. Generally speaking, most FCS opponents have way more losses than the upper echelon of college football so some of the recalculations did not make a huge difference. The only change in the top four was Stanford sliding down to No. 3 with Florida moving up to replace it at No. 2. The Georgia Bulldogs made one of the largest jumps in the upper tier after the revision, from No. 12 to 8. On the flip side, Nebraska dropped from 8 to 12 after the adjustment, but many already felt they were overrated in the rankings anyways. The Cornhuskers were only ranked No. 23 in the AP Poll and No. 16 in the BCS at that time. After the tweak, Alabama held at No. 5 which still would have placed them in a hypothetical four team playoff since Ohio State was under a bowl ban for the 2012-13 season. Alabama played a very weak FCS opponent in West Carolina; the Catamounts only beat one team being Mars Hill, a non-FCS Division II opponent. The Tide might not play such a weak FCS team if the FRS is a factor. One more slightly decent opponent would have easily put them in the top four. While there are some singular differences, overall, the teams in the AP Top 25 and the FRS Top 25 are remarkably close after the revision; 24 out of the top 25 teams are in both rankings. Also, 9 of the top 10 FRS teams placed in the AP top 10 and four of the top five in the FRS also in the AP top five. Remember, the FRS is not designed to be bias against any team or conference. It is meant to be a mathematical standing that encompasses a team's body of work while offering a system of transparency. The revised top 45 is at the end of the article along with tiebreakers. Explanation of the Fair Ranking System The following statistical measures are included in the Fair Ranking System (true wins statistic is used for the rankings):
True wins - total wins minus total losses
Total wins - team's wins, beaten opponents' wins, and beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins.
Total losses - team's losses, lost to opponents' losses, and lost to opponents' of lost to opponents losses.
Other stats referred to in the FRS:
Beaten opponents' wins (BOW)
Lost to opponents' losses (LOL)
*True wins is the best statistic listed to determine what team has earned their rank. Other Computer Rankings If you think the mathematical formula for the FRS is complicated, then you should take a look at some other computer rankings. A major issue with the BCS computer rankings is transparency, but there is a BCS formula that is available to the public, the Colley Matrix Rankings. It is a quasi power ranking that is difficult for a layman to decipher. The significant difference between the FRS and Colley Matrix is that the FRS is a mathematical standing system, but Colley's is a prediction. Otherwise, the FRS is more about having a system that rewards teams for their body of work, not a Nostradamus system of forecasting the best teams.IHSA Football Playoff Qualification System Some of the statistics used in the Fair Ranking System are not totally foreign when determining qualifiers in other football playoffs. For example, the Illinois High School Association uses similar stats to determine qualifiers. Teams' wins and combined wins of defeated opponents are a part of the IHSA qualification system as well as they are used in the FRS. A team's ranking in the Associated Press poll also has no effect on the IHSA playoff seeding.
Here is some abbreviated information from the IHSA website regarding the selection process of the 256 playoff teams:
All conference champions with six or more teams receive a playoff berth. The remaining schools are sorted by three categories:- First, by total wins
- Second, by combined wins of all opponents
- Third, by combined wins of all defeated opponents
(See example to the right) Tiebreakers: - Head-to-head competition (if the teams have met)
- Number of teams played that qualified for the playoffs
- Number of wins by teams played that qualified for the playoffs
- Coin flip
Grouping & Seeding- Total wins
- Combined wins of all opponents
- Combined wins of defeated opponents
Tiebreakers: - Head-to-head record (if exactly two teams are tied)
- Random selection by computer
| | Fair Ranking System Top 45 | 1. Notre Dame 488
2. Florida 468
3. Stanford 445
4. Ohio State 399
5. Alabama 390
6. Kansas State 378
7. Oregon 373
8. Georgia 341
9. LSU 338
10. Oklahoma 336
11. South Carolina 335
12. Nebraska 322
12. Texas A&M 322
14. Florida State 270
15. Clemson 257
16. Northern Illinois 255
17. Oregon State 241
18. San Jose State 227
19. Kent State 213
20. UCLA 206
21. Utah State 201
22. Cincinnati 182
23. Northwestern 178
24. Texas 177
25. Louisville 176
25. Michigan 176
27. Rutgers 165
28. TCU 162
28. Wisconsin 162
30. Arizona 160
30. San Diego State 160
32. Boise State 156
33. Toledo 155
34. Arkansas State 154
34. Ball State 154
36. Washington 150
37. Tulsa 149
38. Mississippi State 148
39. Baylor 147
40. Penn State 143
41. Fresno State 140
42. West Virginia 138
43. Oklahoma State 133
44. Louisiana Tech 123
45. USC 116
*Revised to include FCS teams' records in calculations. Rankings are for the end of the regular season and before the bowl season. | Justin Burnette on ESPN Radio, "You're in a poker game every Saturday night." (about current BCS system) | Tiebreakers Another tweak for the FRS that I wrote about last December is a tiebreaker system for the FRS rankings. Here are factors that I have determined thus far to break a tie in the rankings. - Head to head results
- Head to head competition
- Beaten opponents' wins
- Lost to opponents' losses
- Margin of victory
Other Articles: Follow College Football Universe on Twitter & Like us on Facebook.
 Coaches Trophy awarded to the BCS National Champion. All 124 teams ranked at the end of the article. | Jimbo Fisher is right in that we need to change how we pick teams, but humans may not be the best method. | The upcoming four team playoff will haul in loads of money and additional popularity for college football, but it could easily open the door wide open for further prejudice in the sport. The four teams for the new playoff to begin in 2014 are to be picked by a selection committee. As long as qualifiers for a playoff are determined by pre-made contracts and the "eye" test done by people, it is a system of prejudice to decide playoff and bowl teams. That is not to say that the BCS computers need brought back in 2014. The computers are/were equally corrupt due to the secrecy and over calculation that leads to some very strange rankings. A reasonable person realizes that a transparent mathematical system is the only fair way to rank teams in terms of worthiness for post season play. And that is why I developed the Fair Ranking System. The Fair Ranking System is all based on who beats who and who loses to who. Points of margin are not used as a factor in ranking, but I would consider it for a tiebreaker. Using points of margin, even with diminishing returns, is not the best way to determine the most deserving team. The "experts" that insist on points of margin being included also try to predict the future with their rankings and they create their formulas to make the outcome more like some kind of quasi power ranking. Fans have been bamboozled into believing margin of victory should play a factor when no other major team competitive sport uses it to determine qualifiers for a playoff (other than tiebreakers). The Fair Ranking System is simpler and transparent. Most importantly in my opinion, it is the best known ranking at determining the most deserving team depending on who they beat and lost to. The "eye" test in college football leads to who the voters want to see play rather than who is most deserving. As ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit stated in a ridiculous rant during the BCS selection show, "...Georgia and Florida and Texas A&M and Oklahoma. All of us want to see those teams in games that matter in the BCS Bowl games and you're going to give us NORTHERN ILLINOIS!" Under the Fair Ranking System, Northern Illinois is ranked below the other teams Herbstreit talked about, but that is not the point that I am attempting to make. With either the Fair Ranking System or BCS Standings combined with the upcoming 2014 format, Northern Illinois would have still qualified for a host bowl. Herbstreit also said, "thank goodness we are moving towards a new system in 2014." News flash to Herbie before he gets all riled up when the 2014 bowl selection show rolls around, Northern Illinois would still have been placed in one of the new system's bowls. -Come on do a little research Kirk. You are an ESPN analyst.- During his pre-mentioned rant, Herbstreit never spoke of the inclusion of lower ranked Big Ten and Big East teams in this year's BCS Bowls as well as he never talked about the top ranked team from the "group of five" non-contracted conferences to be included in the system to replace the BCS in 2014 (see details below). Even though everyone was aware of the rules in place for Northern Illinois to bust the BCS (or everyone should have been aware), pundits such as Herbstreit acted like grade schoolers in their criticism of Northern Illinois making a BCS Bowl, because they wanted to "see" other teams play. Rules are put in place for fairness, not top television ratings. The deals in place and the sport itself will bring in enough ratings and money in the long run. Just imagine if the NFL determined its post season teams by who everyone wants to "see" the most. It's crazy talk! Northern Illinois playing Florida State in the Orange Bowl will not ruin college football. Actually, the Seminoles are only ranked two spots above the Huskies in the FRS. The bowl bans and decline of eligible teams in the Big Ten as well as a low ranked Big East champion hurt the BCS Bowls this season more than the rule that allowed the inclusion of NIU. The 2014 system would have still allowed Wisconsin and Northern Illinois into the six bowls under the new format, but not Louisville. Human voters on a committee can easily bring their biases to the table. For example, it appeared in the last USA Today Coaches Poll this season that the Big 12 coaches let their bias interfere with how they ranked teams competing for BCS slots. Also as noted by comments on the recent CFU article, other coaches in past seasons have been accused of manipulating their votes to favor their team or conference. The only awkward looking rating in the Fair Ranking System is Nebraska ranked over Georgia, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and others. When taking a closer look, overall the Cornhuskers actually had a statistically difficult schedule and more quality wins than the Bulldogs or Aggies with victories over seven teams with six or more wins. Georgia and Texas A&M all defeated just four bowl eligible teams each. Oklahoma did defeat seven bowl teams, but their best win was against Texas and when you take a good look at their victories, they are very comparable to Nebraska; both teams are nearly tied in the Fair Ranking System with just one true win separating them. Not to say that I do not think Georgia, Oklahoma, or another team is better than Nebraska, but this type of ranking is not about my perception of the best teams or how much I want to see a team play in a bowl game. Worth mentioning, a couple tweaks that I am considering, listed later in this post, may have slightly changed the rankings. In an amazing comparison, 23 of the 25 teams ranked in the Fair Ranking System were also ranked in the last AP Top 25 Poll. The two AP ranked teams left out of the FRS Top 25, Utah State and Boise State, are tied for 26th in the FRS. The two teams not in the AP Top 25, but in the FRS Top 25, Texas and TCU, did receive votes for the AP Poll. Also, 8 of the top 10 teams in the FRS are also ranked in the AP top 10 and four of the top five FRS teams are in the AP top five. No matter if you agree with the Fair Ranking System or not, just imagine having a system that no one would have to guess about and everyone would know the play in scenarios near the end of the season for the top six bowls and playoff. In 2014, other than the contracted bowls, it will all be guessing until the selection committee decides the teams for the playoff after the end of the season. Before the rankings below, there is additional information on the 2014 post season format and a four team playoff for the 2012 season according to the Fair Ranking System. Whether the FRS should determine all the teams or not in the playoff and bowls, I believe it should be used in some way for the 2014 system. At the very least, it is a good mathematical gauge for ranking teams based on their wins and losses. Some Terms Agreed Upon for Official Four Team College Football Playoff - Lock-in a four team seeded playoff. The teams that will play will be chosen by a selection committee. - Create three "contract bowls" and three "host bowls" as part of the post- season format. The highest-ranked champion from the five conferences that are not in contract bowls will be guaranteed a spot in a host bowl. - Share revenue, for the first time in college football history, based on academic performance as part of the funding formula. - Share revenue with a higher portion of revenues going to the conferences of the four teams that qualify for the playoff and participate in the other games. Distributions will also be made to conferences whose teams don't qualify for either a contract or host bowl. - Begin hiring staff so the new structure can begin operating. Source: Fox NewsOther Information on 2014 Post Season | Contract Bowls
Rose (Pac-12 vs Big Ten)
Sugar (SEC vs Big 12)
Orange (ACC vs Big Ten, SEC, or Notre Dame)
Host Bowls (Not Official)
Fiesta
Chick-fil-A
Cotton
| *Two of the six bowls will be the semi-final games for the National Championship. *Top ranked team from five non-contracted conferences to play in a host bowl also known as the "group of five". Host bowls have not been officially determined. Source: ESPN | Four Team Playoff in 2012 with Fair Ranking System 1. Notre Dame
4. Alabama *Ohio State would not have qualified for post season due to the bowl ban.
| 2. Stanford
3. Florida | Explanation of the Fair Ranking System & Possible Tweaks (Geek Stuff) On an earlier post is the full explanation of the Fair Ranking System. The only differences in this calculation from the previous method is that if an FBS team is winless at the end of the season, then their record will not show one win when calculating a team's true wins and the fair score was not implemented this time. I have basically scrapped the fair score for now since the true wins method of the Fair Ranking System seems to be the most accurate in deeming the most deserving teams of rank. There are a few minor mathematical quirks that still need worked out. Some parts of the calculation that could be tweaked slightly are for FCS teams, winless teams, undefeated teams, number of games per team, and tiebreakers. I thought about giving one win and one loss to winless and undefeated teams respectively when tallying the true wins, but I decided not to apply it this time and am unsure if I want to implement it. FCS teams are also given a generic record, but this could be adjusted more proportionally depending on each FCS school's season performance. Another issue is that some teams play 12 games while others play 13 due to a conference championship or a game at Hawaii so I am considering a tweak for that as well. Finally, here are all 124 FBS teams ranked mathematically according to the Fair Ranking System including teams in transition. Georgia State will be ranked once they schedule more FBS opponents. Bowl games already played were not calculated. I checked over the calculations, but if there are any mathematical errors found, please let me know. Fair Ranking System All 124 FBS Teams Rated *According to true wins. | 1. Notre Dame 488
2. Stanford 445
3. Florida 437
4. Ohio State 399
5. Alabama 380
6. Kansas State 365
7. Oregon 356
8. Nebraska 319
9. Oklahoma 318
10. LSU 300
11. South Carolina 297
12. Georgia 293
13. Texas A&M 286
14. Clemson 250
15. Florida State 244
16. Oregon State 235
17. Northern Illinois 209
18. UCLA 206
19. San Jose State 203
20. Texas 177
21. Michigan 176
22. Kent State 174
23. Northwestern 171
24. Louisville 163
25. TCU 161
26. Boise State 156
26. Utah State 156
28. Ball State 154
28. Cincinnati 154
30. Penn State 143
30. Tulsa 143
32. Arizona 140
32. Wisconsin 140
34. Arkansas State 138
35. Washington 137
36. Rutgers 136
36. San Diego State 136
38. Fresno State 134
39. Oklahoma State 129
40. Toledo 122
41. USC 116
42. Louisiana Tech 114
42. Mississippi State 114
44. Baylor 111
45. West Virginia 109
46. Vanderbilt 107
47. Iowa State 95
48. Michigan State 89
49. Middle Tennessee 81
49. North Carolina 81
51. Navy 78
52. Texas Tech 76
53. Syracuse 69
54. Louisiana-Lafayette 67
55. Miami FL 65
55. UCF 65
57. Louisiana-Monroe 57
58. BYU 51
59. Missouri 48
60. Ohio 45
61. Ole Miss 44
62. Arizona State 33
63. East Carolina 26
64. Virginia Tech 23
65. Duke 19
66. Georgia Tech 18
67. North Carolina State 15
68. Bowling Green 13
69. Tennessee 11
70. Iowa 3
71. Arkansas -4
72. Purdue -7
73. Western Kentucky -8
74. Pittsburgh -16
75. Minnesota -24
76. UTSA -31
77. Wake Forest -47
78. Nevada -53
79. Central Michigan -63
80. Auburn -64
81. SMU -67
81. Utah -67
83. Miami OH -94
84. California -100
85. Air Force -101
86. Troy -104
87. Buffalo -107
87. Indiana -107
89. Kentucky -108
89. Virginia -108
91. Rice -109
92. Marshall -113
93. Connecticut -117
94. Houston -120
95. Colorado State -126
95. North Texas -126
97. Wyoming -130
98. Temple -131
99. Texas State -161
100. Eastern Michigan -162
100. South Florida -162
102. Memphis -163
103. Maryland -173
104. Western Michigan -174
105. Washington State -176
106. Army -183
106. Illinois -183
108. Kansas -188
109. UTEP -204
110. Florida Atlantic -205
111. FIU -217
112. Boston College -219
113. Idaho -226
114. Colorado -228
115. Hawaii -232
116. UAB -244
117. Tulane -272
118. New Mexico -290
119. UNLV -305
120. Akron -312
121. Massachusetts -315
122. South Alabama -325
123. New Mexico State -351
124. Southern Miss -388
| Follow College Football Universe on Twitter & Like us on Facebook. |
Here are all 124 FBS college football teams ranked according to the Fair Ranking System ( full explanation here). The system is not based on which teams are perceived as the best, but on which teams are the most worthy of their ranking. A team is basically ranked according to who they beat and who they had beaten defeated as well as who they lost to and who they lost to were beaten by. The ranking does not include Thursday's games. Through five weeks, the Florida State Seminoles and the Oregon State Beavers are tied for number one according to the Fair Ranking System true wins. It makes sense if you look further into their ranking. The Beavers have defeated two AP Top 25 teams and another solid team in Arizona while the Seminoles beat three solid teams including one top 25 opponent despite beginning the season against a couple cupcakes. The Oklahoma Sooners are the most overrated team in the polls according to the Fair Ranking System. The Sooners are only ranked 60th in true wins, but are 14th in the USA Today Coaches Poll and 17th in the Associated Press. The problem with the AP Top 25 and USA Today Coaches Poll is that they are based on current image and past success with no real guidelines on how to rank teams. The Fair Ranking System is completely transparent and above all, it is actually fair. Point margins are not included and never will be. I have developed this system to be used as an automatic qualifier and it is not standard to use point margins in developing legitimate standings in most sports that I know of. The Fair Rankings may be slightly skewed early in the season due to the significant number of undefeated teams and winless teams, but there will be few left by end of the season. Teams are also penalized more for losing to FCS teams early on since 10 losses are counted towards total losses (FCS teams are given a record of 1-10 in calculation of the Fair Rankings). Last season, I did the fair rankings after week five and after the bowl season under the old method. This year, I plan to do the Fair Rankings after the regular season before the bowls begin. I also plan to tweak the fair score formula to use as a tiebreaker in the system. If any mathematical errors are found, feel free to leave a comment or send an email. Top 124 teams according to true wins under the Fair Ranking System: 1. Florida State 33
1. Oregon State 33
3. Oregon 30
4. Georgia 29
5. Alabama 26
5. South Carolina 26
7. Florida 25
7. Kansas State 25
7. Stanford 25
7. Texas Tech 25
11. Iowa State 24
11. Notre Dame 24
11. Ohio State 24
14. LSU 23
15. Washington 21
15. West Virginia 21
17. Louisville 20
17. Miami FL 20
17. Ohio 20
17. Texas 20
17. UCLA 20
22. Arizona 19
22. Cincinnati 19
22. Louisiana Tech 19
25. Michigan State 18
26. Mississippi State 17
26. Clemson 17
26. Missouri 17
29. TCU 16
30. Arizona State 16
30. Boise State 16
30. Nebraska 16
30. Northwestern 16
34. Rutgers 15
34. UTSA 15
35. Iowa 14
35. Utah State 14
38. Tennessee 13
39. Duke 12
39. Western Kentucky 12
39. Wisconsin 12
42. Toledo 11
42. Minnesota 11
42. San Jose State 11
42. Tulsa 11
46. Baylor 9
46. Central Michigan 9
48. Kent State 8
48. Louisiana Lafayette 8
48. Nevada 8
48. North Carolina State 8
48. Northern Illinois 8
48. Oklahoma State 8
48. Purdue 8
48. Texas A&M 8
48. Wake Forest 8
57. Fresno State 7
58. Troy 6
58. USC 6
60. Ball State 5
60. North Carolina 5
60. Oklahoma 5
60. Ole Miss 5
60. South Florida 5
64. Kentucky 4
64. Michigan 4
64. Penn State 4
68. Utah 3
69. BYU 2
69. Marshall 2
69. Miami OH 2
69. North Texas 2
69. Texas State 2
69. UCF 2
75. Arkansas State 1
75. East Carolina 1
75. Virginia 1
78. Auburn 0
78. New Mexico 0
78. Vanderbilt 0
81. Illinois -1
81. Louisiana Monroe -1
81. Virginia Tech -1
84. Boston College -2
84. Indiana -2
84. SMU -2
87. Maryland -3
88. Houston -4
89. San Diego St -5
99. South Alabama -5
89. Syracuse -5
89. Western Michigan -5
93. Bowling Green -6
93. FIU -6
93. Navy -6
93. Uconn -6
97. Arkansas -8
97. Temple -8
99. Georgia Tech -9
99. UAB -9
101. California -10
102. Hawaii -11
102. Middle Tennessee -11
102. Southern Miss -11
102. UTEP -11
106. Buffalo -12
106. Pittsburgh -12
106. Rice -12
109. Florida Atlantic -14
109. Kansas -14
109. Tulane -14
112. New Mexico State -16
113. Air Force -17
114. Akron -18
115. Massachusetts -21
116. Washington State -22
117. Wyoming -25
118. Eastern Michigan -31
119. Colorado -32
120. Colorado State -33
121. UNLV -34
122. Army -37
123. Memphis -42
124. Idaho -49
| Team, Record, True Wins
LSU 13-1, 585
Oklahoma State 12-1, 570
Alabama 12-1, 461
Oklahoma 10-3, 392
| Team, Fair Score
Oklahoma State .28634
LSU .24491
Alabama .22003
Oklahoma .21125
| | Team, BOW, Total Wins
Oklahoma State 12-1, 92, 607
LSU 13-1, 97, 588
Alabama 12-1, 79, 464
Oklahoma 10-3, 71, 453
| Team, LOL, Total Losses
Oklahoma 11, 61
Oklahoma State 7, 37
LSU 1, 3
Alabama 1, 3
| Above are statistics listed for the fairest ranking system in college football. I have literally been working on this for over a year. I am as close as ever to perfecting it and creating a system of standings in college football that could determine automatic qualifiers. It is all based on who they beat and who they lose to.
The Fair Ranking System has been modified to include losses as part of the newly developed true wins. Listed above are a few of the top teams from the 2011 season calculated according to the new system. The modified version will be used for the 2012 season. Calculations will be done early mid-season and at the end of the season. The following is the explanation of the Fair Ranking System and the new changes to it. Some of this is from a previous article I posted.
The following statistical measures are included in the Fair Ranking System. I listed the beaten opponents' wins (BOW) and total wins for each team. Total wins consist of the team's wins, beaten opponents' wins, and beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins. I also listed the lost to opponents' losses (LOL) and total losses. Total losses consist of team's losses, lost to opponents' losses, and lost to opponents' of lost to opponents losses. Total wins minus total losses equals true wins. True wins is the best statistic listed to determine what team has earned their rank and for automatic qualifiers.
The formula for the Fair Score is as follows:
Team's win percent times beaten opponents' win percent times beaten opponents' of beaten opponents win percent = Fair Score.
Other calculation notes: Games against non-FBS teams were counted and each non-FBS team was designated a record of 1-10 in order to give some value to the game. Also, if an FBS team is winless at the end of the season, then their record will still show one win when calculating a team's fair score in order to give value to all wins. Losses of beaten opponents against the team being calculated were not included in the win-loss percentage of beaten opponents.
Using Oklahoma as an example, here is how the Fair Ranking System is calculated:
Oklahoma Sooners 10-3
| Team wins: 10
Beaten opponents' wins (BOW): 71 (Tulsa 8, Florida State 9, Missouri 8, Ball State 6, Texas 8, Kansas 2, Kansas State 10, Texas A&M 7, Iowa State 6, and Iowa 7.)
Beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins: 372
Tulsa beat Tulane 2, North Texas 5, UAB 3, Rice 4, SMU 8, UCF 5, Marshall 7, and Utep 5.
Florida State beat ULM 4, Charleston Southern 1, Duke 3, Maryland 2, NC State 8, Boston College 4, Miami 6, Florida 7 and Notre Dame 8.
Missouri beat Miami OH 4, Western Illinois 1, Iowa State 6, Texas A&M 7, Texas 8, Texas Tech 5, Kansas 2, and North Carolina 7.
Ball State beat Indiana 1, Buffalo 3, Army 3, Ohio 10, Central Michigan 3, and Eastern Michigan 6.
Texas beat Rice 4, BYU 10, UCLA 6, Iowa State 6, Kansas 2, Texas Tech 5, Texas A&M 7, and California 7.
Kansas beat McNeese St 1, and Northern Illinois 11.
Kansas State beat Eastern Kentucky 1, Kent St 5, Miami 6, Baylor 10, Missouri 8, Texas Tech 5, Kansas 2, Texas A&M 7, Texas 8, and Iowa State 6.
Texas A&M beat SMU 8, Idaho 2, Texas Tech 5, Baylor 10, Iowa St 6, Kansas 2, and Northwestern 6.
Iowa State beat Northern Iowa 1, Iowa 7, Connecticut 5, Texas Tech 5, Kansas 2, and Oklahoma St 12.
Iowa beat Tennessee Tech 1, Pitt 6, ULM 4, Northwestern 6, Indiana 1, Michigan 11, and Purdue 7.
Total Wins: 453
| Team losses: 3
Lost to opponents' losses (LOL): 11 (Lost to Texas Tech 7, Baylor 3, and Oklahoma State 1.)
Lost to opponents' of lost to opponents losses: 47
Texas Tech lost to Texas A&M 6, Kansas State 3, Iowa State 7, Texas 5, Oklahoma State 1, Missouri 5, and Baylor 3.
Baylor lost to Kansas State 3, Texas A&M 6, and Oklahoma State 1.
Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State 7.
Total Losses: 61
True Wins: 392
453 total wins minus 61 total losses equals 392 true wins.
Fair Score: (10/13)(71/117)(372/822)= .21125172
(wins/games)(bow/games)(bow's of bow/games)= fair score
|
Listed are the Team, Record, Beaten Opponent Wins(BOW), Total Wins, and Fair Score:Oklahoma State 12-1, 92, 607, .28634
LSU 13-1, 97, 588, .24491
Alabama 12-1, 79, 464, .22003
Oklahoma 10-3, 71, 453, .21125
Michigan 11-2, 78, 461, .20848
USC 10-2, 63, 406, .19961
South Carolina 11-2, 70, 412, .18950
Wisconsin 11-3, 64, 414, .17761
West Virginia 10-3, 60, 373, .17600
Oregon 12-2, 70, 418, .17549
Michigan State 11-3. 60, 392, .17302
Boise State 12-1, 73, 387, .17287
Virginia Tech 11-2, 65, 371, .17264
Stanford 11-2, 60, 372, .17214
Arkansas 11-2, 61, 358, .16870
Clemson 10-4, 62, 376, .16322
TCU 11-2, 64, 320, .14550
Notre Dame 8-5, 48, 262, .11877
Georgia 10-4, 53, 264, .11099
BYU 10-3, 43, 223, .10046I only listed some of notable teams for the 2011-12 season and did not calculate all 120 teams. If anyone would like to know a team's Fair Ranking stats that are not listed then let me know per the comment box below and I will update it. Here is a recap of how the system works followed by some random notes about the teams ranked: The formula for the Fair Ranking System is as follows: Team's win% X beaten opponents' win % X beaten opponents' of beaten opponents win% = Fair Score. Games against non-FBS teams were counted and each non-FBS team was designated a record of 1-10 in order to give some value to the game. Also, if an FBS team is winless at the end of the season, then their record will still show one win when calculating a team's fair score in order to give value to all wins. Losses of beaten opponents against the team being calculated were not included in the win-loss percentage of beaten opponents. When I added up all the opponents' win-loss records before converting the fractions to percentages, I noticed other statistical measures to include. I listed the beaten opponents' wins (BOW) and total wins for each team. Total wins consist of the team's wins, beaten opponents' wins, and beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins. Alabama is the BCS National Champion for the 2011-12 college football season and are worthy of that, but in terms of overall wins in relation to schedule strength they lagged behind by finishing third in the Fair Rankings. The previous season's BCS champ Auburn unlike Alabama had the highest fair score along with their undefeated record that same year. LSU and Arkansas were the Tide's best wins. Alabama's next best win was against Penn state which finished 9-4. Besides those games Alabama had mostly weak to mediocre opponents, but still managed to tally seven wins against opponents with seven or more wins; Playing lower division opponent like Georgia Southern helped lower their end Fair Ranking stat totals. Oklahoma State had the highest fair score and Total wins, but LSU had the highest BOW as well as finishing with the second highest Fair score posted. The Cowboys simply had a difficult schedule with strong wins against Baylor, Kansas State. Oklahoma, and Stanford. They also tallied nine wins against teams with seven wins or more. LSU had a regular season win against Alabama plus strong wins against Oregon, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Georgia. The Tigers also garnered nine wins against teams with seven or more wins. Oklahoma despite being ranked 15 and 16 in the Coaches Poll and AP Poll respectively had the fourth highest fair score of the teams calculated. Michigan finished well with the fifth best Fair Score on this post. Michigan also had the second best Fair Score and most Total wins posted after week five of the 2011 season. Arkansas finished the season with one more win than their previous season and a Cotton Bowl win for a 11-2 record. However, the Hogs finished statistically similar to the prior season in which all the Fair Ranking stats were slightly better the season before despite having one less win and a Sugar Bowl loss. Here are links to blogs on previous Fair Rankings and the Rankings page: Weeks 1 thru 5 2011 Season2010-11 SeasonRankings Page
The standings posted below are for weeks one thru five of the Fair Ranking System which is one of the Burnette Power Rankings listed on the CFU rankings page. It is a system that I developed in an attempt to have a college football ranking based on fairness not hype.
The formula for the Fair Ranking System is as follows:
Team's win% X beaten opponents' win % X beaten opponents' of beaten opponents win%= Fair Score.
Games against non-FBS teams were counted and each non-FBS team was designated a record of 1-10 in order to give some value to the game (this was applied to the mid-season rankings). Also, if an FBS team is winless at the end of the season, then their record will still show one win when calculating a team's fair score in order to give value to all wins (this was not applied to mid-season rankings). Losses of beaten opponents against the team being calculated were not included in the win-loss percentage of beaten opponents.
When I added up all the opponents' win-loss records before converting the fractions to percentages, I noticed other statistical measures to include. I listed the beaten opponents' wins (BOW) and total wins for each team. Total wins consist of the team's wins, beaten opponents' wins, and beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins.
Here are the Top 25 teams according to total wins. Listed after the team name is their record and total wins:
1. Michigan 5-0, 41
2. Alabama 5-0, 39
3. Clemson 5-0, 36
4. Illinois 5-0, 35
5. LSU 5-0, 33
6. Wisconsin 5-0, 31
7. Nebraska 4-1, 31
8. South Florida 4-1, 30
9. Georgia Tech 5-0, 30
10. Texas 4-0, 28
11. Stanford 4-0, 26
12. Boise State 4-0, 26
13. Oklahoma State 4-0, 26
14. Notre Dame 3-2, 26
15. Washington 4-1, 25
16. South Carolina 4-1, 24
17. Rutgers 3-1, 24
18. North Carolina 4-1, 24
19. West Virginia 4-1, 24
20. Washington State 3-1, 24
21. Auburn 4-1, 23
22. Oklahoma 4-0, 23
23. USC 4-1, 22
24. Arizona State 4-1, 22
25. Kansas State 4-0, 22
With it being this early in the season, the total wins may be the best way to judge who is the most accomplished team this season. The Fair Scores are somewhat skewed early season. Nevada's fair score is overrated, but their total wins are more comparable. Nevada is only 1-3, but has a higher Fair score than a 3-1 Oregon which is a team they lost to. I will evaluate the ranking system at the end of the season, but I am contemplating on ranking them primarily just on their total wins. Also, if anyone finds mathematical errors, please let me know.
Here are the full 120 team Fair Standings ranked by their Fair score. Listed after the team name is their record, Fair score, BOW, and total wins:
1. Texas 4-0 .24725, 9 28
2. Michigan 5-0 .20437, 13 41
3. Alabama 5-0 .19444, 14 39
4. Stanford 4-0 .17949, 8 26
5. Boise State 4-0 .16232, 8 26
6. Auburn 4-1 .15000, 7 23
7. Clemson 5-0 .13765, 13 36
8. Oklahoma 4-0 .13393, 9 23
9, Oklahoma State 4-0 .12581, 9 26
10. Notre Dame 3-2 .12496, 9 26
11. LSU 5-0 .11189, 12 33
12. Wisconsin 5-0 .11317, 9 31
13. South Carolina 4-1 .10879, 9 24
14. South Florida 4-1 .10861, 9 30
15. Illinois 5-0 .10000, 13 35
16. Florida 4-1 .09467, 5 17
17. USC 4-1 .08738, 7 22
18. Nebraska 4-1 .08468, 10 31
19. Marshall 2-3 .08340, 6 17
20. Georgia Tech 5-0 .08219, 10 30
21. Rutgers 3-1 .07895, 8 24
22. Nevada 1-3 .07813, 2 8
23. Arizona State 4-1 .07368, 7 22
24. Texas A&M 2-2 .07353, 5 15
25. North Carolina 4-1 .07033, 8 24
26. West Virginia 4-1 .06982, 8 24
27. Kansas State 4-0 .06667, 7 22
28. Washington 4-1 .06429, 9 25
29. UCLA 2-3 .06250, 2 9
30. Virginia Tech 4-1 .05874, 7 20
31. Duke 3-2 .05833, 6 16
32. Texas Tech 4-0 .05714, 4 14
33. San Diego State 3-1 .05556, 6 17
34. Baylor 3-1 .05376, 5 16
35. Ohio State 3-2 .05333, 4 15
36. FIU 3-2 .05294, 5 14
37. Arkansas 4-1 .05128, 5 16
38. Ohio 4-1 .05076, 6 19
39. Pitt 3-2 .04632, 6 20
40. Washington State 3-1 .04605, 8 24
41. Michigan State 4-1 .04593, 6 18
42. Iowa State 3-1 .04545, 6 17
43. SMU 4-1 .04509, 7 21
44. BYU 3-2 .04390, 5 14
45. Houston 5-0 .04233, 7 20
46. Ball State 3-2 .04138, 4 13
47. Iowa 3-1 .04065, 5 16
48. Syracuse 3-2 .04000, 6 18
49. La-Lafayette 4-1 .03977, 5 16
50. Utah 2-2 .03810, 4 12
51. Penn State 4-1 .03794, 8 21
52. Southern Miss 4-1 .03471, 6 17
53. Tennessee 3-1 .03230, 6 15
54. California 3-1 .03158, 4 13
55. UNLV 1-3 .02961, 3 7
56. Miami-FL 2-2 .02899, 4 11
57. Vanderbilt 3-1 .02888, 5 14
58. San Jose State 2-3 .02885, 5 10
59. Georgia 3-2 .02786, 5 14
60. Rice 1-3 .02381, 2 5
61. Western Michigan 3-2 .02311, 5 14
62. Army 2-3 .02286, 4 9
63. Kentucky 2-3 .02286, 2 7
64. TCU 3-2 .02253, 5 14
65. Northern Illinois 2-3 .02222, 3 10
66. Maryland 2-2 .02060, 3 10
67. Oregon 3-1 .01923, 3 10
68. Temple 3-2 .01852, 4 12
69. Toledo 2-3 .01839, 4 11
70. Hawaii 3-2 .01822, 3 11
71. Troy 2-2 .01786, 1 4
72. Louisville 2-2 .01667, 3 8
73. Colorado 1-4 .01667, 3 6
74. Tulsa 2-3 .01579, 3 7
75. Kansas 2-2 .01538, 3 9
76. Wyoming 3-1 .01442, 5 12
77. Wake Forest 3-1 .01435, 4 11
78. Cincinnati 4-1 .01322, 4 12
79. Central Michigan 2-3 .01231, 3 9
80. Air Force 3-1 .00973, 4 10
81. Purdue 2-2 .00952, 2 6
82. Ole Miss 2-3 .00923, 3 8
83. Mississippi State 2-3 .00909, 2 6
84. Virginia 3-2 .00861, 3 9
85. UTEP 2-3 .00842, 3 7
86. Florida State 2-2 .00649, 2 6
87. Eastern Michigan 3-2 .00629, 3 9
88. Arkansas State 3-2 .00606, 2 7
89. Bowling Green 3-2 .00606, 2 7
90. Colorado State 3-2 .00606, 2 7
91. UCF 2-2 .00606, 2 6
92. Northwestern 2-2 .00606, 2 6
93. Middle Tennessee 1-3 .00568, 1 3
94. Uconn 2-3 .00485, 2 6
95. Fresno State 2-3 .00485, 2 6
96. North Texas 1-4 .00455, 1 3
97. NC State 2-3 .00331, 2 6
98. Missouri 2-2 .00325, 1 4
99. Navy 2-2 .00303, 1 4
100. Tulane 2-3 .00242, 1 4
101. La-Monroe 1-3 .00207, 1 3
102. Utah State 1-3 .00207, 1 3
103. Akron 1-4 .00165, 1 3
104. Arizona 1-4 .00165, 1 3
105. Boston College 1-4 .00165, 1 3
106. Buffalo 1-4 .00165, 1 3
107. Idaho 1-4 .00165, 1 3
108. Indiana 1-4 .00165, 1 3
109. Kent State 1-4 .00165, 1 3
110. Louisiana Tech 1-4 .00165, 1 3
111. Memphis 1-4 .00165, 1 3
112. New Mexico State 2-3, 0, 1 3
113. East Carolina 1-3 0, 0 1
114. Minnesota 1-4 0, - 1
115. UAB 0-4 0
116. Florida Atlantic 0-4 0
117. Miami-Oh 0-4 0
118. Oregon State 0-4 0
119. Western Kentucky 0-4 0
120. New Mexico 0-5 0
Each season I will have formula based computer rankings. For this season, I have two sets of the Burnette Power Rankings called the Fair Ranking System and the Preseason Momentum Rankings. The Fair Standings listed below are the final standings from the 2010-11 season for the Fair Ranking System. I will be posting them during the 2011 season after week five, pre-bowl season, and post bowl season.
The formula for the Fair Ranking System is as follows:
Team's win% X beaten opponents' win % X beaten opponents' of beaten opponents win%= Fair Score.
Games against FCS teams were counted and each FCS team was designated a record of 1-10 in order to give some value to the game. Also, if a FBS team is winless at the end of the season, then their record will still show one win when calculating a team's fair score in order to give value to all wins. Losses of beaten opponents against the team being calculated were not included in the win-loss percentage of beaten opponents.
When I added up all the opponents' win-loss records before converting the fractions to percentages, I noticed other statistical measures to include. I listed the beaten opponents' wins (BOW) and total wins for each team. Total wins consist of the team's wins, beaten opponents' wins, and beaten opponents' of beaten opponents wins.
The full 120 team Fair Standings will be posted on a separate page on College Football Universe. The Preseason Momentum Rankings will be released shortly.
|
RSS Feed
