What’s been presented solely as a football ranking system, the College Football Champion Index has a much deeper purpose. Far from perfect, the CFCI has measured all 120 Division I football teams against characteristics of BCS Champions and mathematically ranked them throughout the 2011 season without any award or demerit made for conference affiliation or strength of schedule. All teams were treated equally with the sole exception of USC which was barred from post-season play and not ranked. However, the CFCI rankings where never the ending goal. The rankings themselves were only tests.
Underneath the rankings, the CFCI searches for what makes one team superior to another. Focusing on traits and combinations of traits of BCS Champions, unlike other evaluations, the College Football Champion Index hopes to find and describe what makes one team better by aggregating what people perceive to be all of the different evaluations and impressions we have whenever we pick the better team. Why such a thing may be possible lies in a hypothesis that people make much more basic estimations which are difficult to describe. As a result, people point to conference affiliations, strength of schedules, and any number of other descriptions to support their evaluations that one club is bigger, stronger, faster, better coached, more productive and more skilled than another.
The final College Football Champion Index of 2011 incorporates 23 of the Associated Press Top 25.* It’s a good first step for the CFCI’s rookie effort because if the teams aren’t included in the first place, there’s little hope at distinguishing one from another. During the season, the CFCI infrequently calculated fewer than 20 of the BCS Top 25 in its rankings. The rankings included Kansas State about two weeks before human polls did. For most of the season, LSU and Alabama were No. 1 and No. 2 (not always in that order) when many of the computer polls ranked Oklahoma State in one of those positions. It’s in the nuances of the evaluation process where the CFCI looks to improve over the off-season.
Over the course of the season, even with its loss in the BCS Championship Game, LSU ranks slightly higher than Alabama, but plainly LSU and Alabama are the top 2 teams. Beyond the top two are gunning teams Boise St. and Houston followed by Oklahoma State, Stanford and Southern Miss. Houston let us know it wasn’t one of the best by losing to Southern Miss in the Conference USA Championship while Oklahoma State turned in a turkey of a performance by losing to an unranked Iowa State while wanting to be part of the National Championship discussion.
The most difficult task will be to let the numbers guide the result despite preconceived ideas about what makes a team one of championship quality. For instance, passing offense was included as a small subset of total offense this season, when by itself, BCS Champions only rank on average in the 40s in passing offense. Does accuracy in ranking improve when passing offense is completely ignored? The idea goes completely against any evaluation that any of us make, including this year’s calculation. Is there some stat or finding which clearly distinguishes teams in the upper echelon of college football from those mid-majors who score BCS Champion-style stats? It’s a problem which plagues many computer polls, including ones with strength of schedule rankings. Is balance so important on offense and/or defense that it must be accounted for? If the right mix exists, we’re looking.
The Arkansas Razorbacks have been a conundrum for the College Football Champion Index this season, which is bad and good. Over the course of the year, the CFCI has consistently ranked the Razorbacks much lower than the polls. It’s never been meant to be any measure of disrespect and has been difficult to do, but at the same time the lower rankings should provide some assurance that the system calculations remained true despite the unpopularity of the ranking when everyone else is ranking the Hogs higher. However, there’s probably no better team to understand than the Razorbacks when grappling with the nuances of college football. Saying that Bobby Petrino’s system is offense-oriented is no different than saying that the sun is bright, but when his competition and purposes are considered, the choice is critical.
Posts which serve as the basis for the College Football Champion Index have shown, not guessed or opined, that the old axiom, “defense wins championships,” isn’t simply a popular thought. History’s 20/20 vision tells us that defense is what BCS Champions consistently use to win. Petrino’s game plan of putting an offensive powerhouse on the field says “our best will play your best. May the best team win.” What could be more American than meeting a challenge head-on? Regardless of gamesmanship, the ideal team will dominate on both sides of the ball, and for that very reason, LSU and Alabama had their detractors despite being clearly the two best teams in 2011, even with also-ran offenses. Arkansas’ moves toward shoring up the defense still leave the Hogs facing a fork in the road.
From 2000 through 2010 BCS Champions averaged: Scoring Defense 13.7 ppg, Total Defense 278 ypg., Pass Efficiency Defense (lower the better) 94.9, Rushing Defense 93 ypg., 60 Passes Defended per season, 20 Interceptions per season, 36 Sacks per season, Pass Defense 182 ypg., and 2.5 Sacks per game. In 2011, the Hogs’ defense allowed: Scoring Defense 22.23 ppg, Total Defense 363 ypg., Pass Efficiency Defense (lower the better) 113.2, Rushing Defense 168 ypg., 36 Passes Defended this season, 12 Interceptions this season, 36 Sacks this season, Pass Defense 195 ypg., and 2.23 Sacks per game. Only in sacks did Arkansas meet the BCS Champion defensive average. In the face of these stats and the College Football Champion Index’s emphasis on them, Arkansas was better team in 2011 than the CFCI’s No. 12 ranking. The solution to what makes a team better, and the CFCI’s efforts to be more precise, may be no further away than our own back yard.
The Hog are in a wonderful place in the college football world, but to take the next step, Bobby Petrino and company must bring the team reasonably close to the defensive numbers above or must change what is close to the BCS Champion paradigm. The path of defensive improvement appears to be the more direct one and the changes are welcomed.
Thank you for following along in 2011!
College Football Champion Index™ 2011 Final
PR Change PI Change Wk. 14 PR Wk. 14 PI PR Performance CFCI Final Elimination ER Wk. 14 EI Wk. 14 ER EI Change ER Change
0 -0.022 1 0.964 1 0.942 LSU 0.628 1 0.964 1 -0.336 0
0 -0.004 2 0.921 2 0.916 Alabama 0.611 2 0.614 2 -0.003 0
1 -0.001 16 0.839 15 0.838 Boise St. 0.559 3 0.559 4 -0.001 1
3 0.003 25 0.817 22 0.820 Houston 0.547 4 0.544 5 0.002 1
-4 -0.015 35 0.797 39 0.782 Oklahoma St. 0.521 5 0.531 6 -0.010 1
1 -0.012 4 0.896 3 0.883 Stanford 0.442 6 0.597 3 -0.155 -3
0 -0.009 5 0.885 5 0.876 Southern Miss. 0.438 7 0.442 8 -0.004 1
0 -0.007 6 0.883 6 0.876 Michigan 0.438 8 0.441 9 -0.003 1
0 0.001 7 0.874 7 0.875 TCU 0.438 9 0.437 10 0.001 1
1 0.006 9 0.863 8 0.869 South Carolina 0.435 10 0.431 11 0.003 1
-1 -0.008 10 0.859 11 0.851 Oregon 0.426 11 0.429 12 -0.004 1
2 0.004 28 0.810 26 0.814 Arkansas 0.407 12 0.405 15 0.002 3
-1 -0.025 3 0.908 4 0.883 Wisconsin 0.353 13 0.454 7 -0.101 -6
-1 -0.005 12 0.846 13 0.841 BYU 0.336 14 0.338 18 -0.002 4
1 -0.002 17 0.835 16 0.832 Virginia Tech 0.333 15 0.417 14 -0.084 -1
4 0.001 22 0.825 18 0.827 Oklahoma 0.331 16 0.330 20 0.001 4
-4 -0.015 19 0.832 23 0.817 Michigan St. 0.327 17 0.333 19 -0.006 2
-10 -0.026 14 0.842 24 0.816 Arkansas St. 0.326 18 0.421 13 -0.095 -5
-3 -0.009 24 0.821 27 0.812 Cincinnati 0.325 19 0.328 21 -0.003 2
5 0.004 36 0.796 31 0.800 Northern Ill. 0.320 20 0.318 23 0.002 3
12 0.019 45 0.777 33 0.796 West Virginia 0.318 21 0.311 27 0.008 6
4 0.001 40 0.789 36 0.790 Baylor 0.316 22 0.316 25 0.001 3
-3 -0.012 38 0.791 41 0.779 Kansas St. 0.312 23 0.395 16 -0.084 -7
2 0.008 11 0.851 9 0.859 Temple 0.286 24 0.284 28 0.003 4
-2 -0.010 8 0.863 10 0.853 Georgia 0.284 25 0.345 17 -0.061 -8
-1 -0.005 13 0.845 14 0.840 Florida St. 0.280 26 0.282 29 -0.002 3
-2 -0.009 15 0.841 17 0.831 Ohio 0.277 27 0.280 30 -0.003 3
-1 -0.006 20 0.827 21 0.821 Toledo 0.274 28 0.276 31 -0.002 3
-1 -0.013 37 0.795 38 0.782 Nebraska 0.261 29 0.318 24 -0.057 -5
-9 -0.022 31 0.803 40 0.781 Penn St. 0.260 30 0.321 22 -0.061 -8
10 0.006 53 0.765 43 0.771 Rutgers 0.257 31 0.255 38 0.002 7
-9 -0.020 41 0.784 50 0.764 Clemson 0.255 32 0.313 26 -0.059 -6
4 0.002 71 0.732 67 0.734 La.-Lafayette 0.245 33 0.244 40 0.001 7
6 0.011 18 0.832 12 0.843 Texas 0.241 34 0.238 41 0.003 7
1 -0.002 26 0.817 25 0.815 Georgia Tech 0.233 35 0.272 32 -0.039 -3
7 0.007 39 0.789 32 0.796 Missouri 0.227 36 0.225 46 0.002 10
-4 -0.013 30 0.809 34 0.795 Louisiana Tech 0.227 37 0.270 33 -0.042 -4
0 -0.007 47 0.775 47 0.768 Notre Dame 0.219 38 0.258 35 -0.039 -3
-5 -0.012 43 0.780 48 0.767 FIU 0.219 39 0.260 34 -0.041 -5
3 0.000 54 0.764 51 0.763 North Carolina St. 0.218 40 0.218 49 0.000 9
-2 -0.010 50 0.772 52 0.762 Virginia 0.218 41 0.257 36 -0.040 -5
-2 -0.009 51 0.766 53 0.757 San Diego St. 0.216 42 0.255 37 -0.039 -5
-6 -0.016 52 0.766 58 0.750 Utah 0.214 43 0.219 48 -0.004 5
-1 -0.006 58 0.756 59 0.750 Tulsa 0.214 44 0.252 39 -0.038 -5
3 -0.001 68 0.736 65 0.735 Western Ky. 0.210 45 0.210 55 0.000 10
10 0.020 84 0.698 74 0.718 SMU 0.205 46 0.200 57 0.006 11
0 -0.006 29 0.809 29 0.803 Utah St. 0.201 47 0.231 42 -0.030 -5
2 0.001 32 0.802 30 0.803 Texas A&M 0.201 48 0.200 56 0.000 8
-2 -0.007 33 0.801 35 0.794 Nevada 0.199 49 0.229 44 -0.030 -5
5 0.013 91 0.682 86 0.695 Auburn 0.198 50 0.195 60 0.004 10
-2 -0.011 88 0.692 90 0.681 Wyoming 0.195 51 0.231 43 -0.036 -8
-8 -0.020 34 0.798 42 0.778 North Carolina 0.195 52 0.228 45 -0.033 -7
4 -0.003 48 0.774 44 0.771 Mississippi St. 0.193 53 0.194 61 -0.001 8
1 -0.004 46 0.775 45 0.771 Louisville 0.193 54 0.221 47 -0.029 -7
6 0.004 55 0.762 49 0.766 Illinois 0.191 55 0.190 62 0.001 7
2 0.000 56 0.757 54 0.757 Miami (FL) 0.189 56 0.189 63 0.000 7
2 0.000 57 0.756 55 0.756 Eastern Mich. 0.189 57 0.189 64 0.000 7
6 -0.002 62 0.753 56 0.751 Air Force 0.188 58 0.215 51 -0.027 -7
6 0.000 63 0.751 57 0.751 Florida 0.188 59 0.188 67 0.000 8
8 0.010 69 0.735 61 0.745 Purdue 0.186 60 0.184 69 0.002 9
-3 -0.016 61 0.753 64 0.737 California 0.184 61 0.215 50 -0.031 -11
2 0.000 21 0.826 19 0.826 South Fla. 0.184 62 0.184 70 0.000 8
-1 -0.011 65 0.744 66 0.734 Western Mich. 0.183 63 0.213 53 -0.029 -10
-1 -0.005 67 0.739 68 0.733 Washington 0.183 64 0.211 54 -0.028 -10
-6 -0.015 64 0.745 70 0.730 Iowa 0.182 65 0.213 52 -0.030 -13
-1 0.000 27 0.812 28 0.812 UCF 0.180 66 0.180 72 0.000 6
5 0.001 42 0.782 37 0.783 Northwestern 0.174 67 0.196 58 -0.022 -9
1 0.003 90 0.685 89 0.688 Marshall 0.172 68 0.171 73 0.001 5
-1 -0.007 59 0.755 60 0.749 Arizona St. 0.166 69 0.189 65 -0.022 -4
-2 -0.012 60 0.755 62 0.743 Vanderbilt 0.165 70 0.189 66 -0.024 -4
-19 -0.037 44 0.780 63 0.743 Ohio St. 0.165 71 0.195 59 -0.030 -12
0 -0.003 103 0.657 103 0.654 Ball St. 0.163 72 0.164 75 -0.001 3
1 -0.002 70 0.733 69 0.731 Wake Forest 0.163 73 0.183 71 -0.021 -2
-5 -0.015 66 0.740 71 0.725 Pittsburgh 0.161 74 0.185 68 -0.024 -6
0 0.003 73 0.721 73 0.724 Navy 0.161 75 0.160 76 0.001 1
3 0.009 78 0.707 75 0.716 Tennessee 0.159 76 0.157 80 0.002 4
-1 -0.001 75 0.715 76 0.714 Hawaii 0.159 77 0.159 78 0.000 1
-3 -0.002 74 0.716 77 0.714 Texas Tech 0.159 78 0.159 77 0.000 -1
-3 -0.002 76 0.714 79 0.712 Syracuse 0.158 79 0.159 79 0.000 0
2 0.002 83 0.699 81 0.701 North Texas 0.156 80 0.155 82 0.000 2
-2 0.000 80 0.701 82 0.701 Connecticut 0.156 81 0.156 81 0.000 0
2 0.002 85 0.698 83 0.700 UTEP 0.156 82 0.155 83 0.000 1
1 0.000 86 0.695 85 0.695 East Carolina 0.154 83 0.154 85 0.000 2
3 -0.003 49 0.773 46 0.769 La.-Monroe 0.154 84 0.155 84 -0.001 0
1 0.000 94 0.678 93 0.678 Bowling Green 0.151 85 0.151 87 0.000 2
4 0.010 99 0.663 95 0.673 San Jose St. 0.150 86 0.147 88 0.002 2
-5 -0.011 93 0.680 98 0.670 Iowa St. 0.149 87 0.170 74 -0.021 -13
-1 0.000 105 0.650 106 0.650 Kent St. 0.144 88 0.144 89 0.000 1
-1 -0.001 77 0.714 78 0.714 Miami (OH) 0.143 89 0.143 91 0.000 2
-2 -0.003 108 0.644 110 0.641 Kentucky 0.143 90 0.143 90 -0.001 0
-1 0.002 79 0.707 80 0.708 Washington St. 0.142 91 0.141 92 0.000 1
-3 0.000 81 0.700 84 0.700 Rice 0.140 92 0.140 93 0.000 1
-5 -0.004 82 0.699 87 0.695 Arizona 0.139 93 0.140 94 -0.001 1
-3 -0.006 89 0.686 92 0.679 UCLA 0.136 94 0.152 86 -0.017 -8
-1 0.000 96 0.670 97 0.670 Boston College 0.134 95 0.134 95 0.000 0
0 -0.002 72 0.726 72 0.724 Fresno St. 0.132 96 0.132 97 0.000 1
-1 0.000 87 0.694 88 0.694 Colorado St. 0.126 97 0.126 98 0.000 1
4 0.003 95 0.677 91 0.680 Buffalo 0.124 98 0.123 100 0.001 2
-2 -0.004 92 0.681 94 0.677 New Mexico St. 0.123 99 0.124 99 -0.001 0
1 0.004 97 0.669 96 0.673 Army 0.122 100 0.134 96 -0.011 -4
-1 0.000 98 0.669 99 0.669 Central Mich. 0.122 101 0.122 101 0.000 0
4 0.009 109 0.642 105 0.651 Minnesota 0.118 102 0.117 104 0.002 2
-3 -0.001 104 0.650 107 0.649 Oregon St. 0.118 103 0.118 102 0.000 -1
-1 0.000 107 0.645 108 0.645 Duke 0.117 104 0.117 103 0.000 -1
0 0.000 112 0.634 112 0.634 Troy 0.115 105 0.115 105 0.000 0
0 0.000 115 0.621 115 0.621 UAB 0.113 106 0.113 106 0.000 0
0 0.000 100 0.662 100 0.662 Middle Tenn. 0.110 107 0.110 107 0.000 0
0 0.000 101 0.659 101 0.659 Maryland 0.110 108 0.110 108 0.000 0
2 0.003 111 0.639 109 0.642 Kansas 0.107 109 0.106 110 0.001 1
-1 0.000 110 0.641 111 0.641 Colorado 0.107 110 0.107 109 0.000 -1
0 0.000 113 0.634 113 0.634 Ole Miss 0.106 111 0.106 111 0.000 0
0 0.000 114 0.622 114 0.622 Idaho 0.104 112 0.104 112 0.000 0
0 -0.005 116 0.617 116 0.612 UNLV 0.102 113 0.103 113 -0.001 0
0 0.001 102 0.658 102 0.659 Indiana 0.101 114 0.101 114 0.000 0
2 0.002 106 0.650 104 0.652 Tulane 0.100 115 0.100 115 0.000 0
0 0.000 117 0.595 117 0.595 Memphis 0.099 116 0.099 116 0.000 0
0 0.004 118 0.575 118 0.579 Akron 0.089 117 0.088 117 0.001 0
0 0.009 119 0.570 119 0.579 Fla. Atlantic 0.089 118 0.088 118 0.001 0
0 0.000 120 0.549 120 0.549 New Mexico 0.084 119 0.084 119 0.000 0
3 0.002 23 0.822 20 0.824 Southern California 0.000 120 0.000 120 0.000 0
Sort as you like.
** University of Southern California is banned from post-season competition and is given an Elimination Rating of 0.000.
* The CFCI has not ranked USC because of its post-season bowl ban while the Associated Press sees things differently. To even the polls, the CFCI takes USC away from the AP Top 25 and includes No. 26 BYU. Even if the CFCI were to permit USC, the result is that the CFCI includes 23 of 25 of the AP Top 25.
College Football Championship Index Prior Weeks
Week 6
Explanation of the College Football Champion Index
