The intent before the season was to rework the CFCI to move ahead of the curve before the start of the 2014 season and focus on getting the Top 4 correct while also trying to rank everyone else. Work over Labor Day and this weekend has resulted in a leaner computation and a couple of observations which are more the story. As teams play, the rankings become less about opinion and more about performance and few losses.
The calculation has been trimmed to only the categories most consistent with BCS Champions’ performances — Recruiting Composite Index, Scoring Defense, Pass Efficiency Defense, Scoring Defense, Total Defense, Rushing Defense, Scoring Offense, Passing Efficiency, Rushing Defense, and Rushing Offense. Yes folks, Total Offense and Passing Offense are jettisoned. Punt return yardage has little importance and teams who don’t do as well, also have good turnover margins. Although each of the categories had an initial weighted importance, after they were adjusted, the calculation became more accurate and inclusive. Applying the scheme to 2012, this is how the system would have ranked college football teams last year as compared to the Associated Press final Top 25 Poll.
College Football Champion Index 2012 Analysis with Four Final BCS Computer Rankings
AP Final Rank TEAM CFCI 2012 Final CFCI Rating A&H RB KM JS
1 Alabama (59) 2 0.7616 1 1 1 1
2 Oregon 4 0.6371 4 2 2 2
3 Ohio State 1 0.8527 2 4 11 8
4 Notre Dame 3 0.691 3 3 5 5
5 Georgia 7 0.5347 8 7 4 3
5 Texas A&M 12 0.4894 9 9 3 6
7 Stanford 8 0.5075 6 5 8 9
8 South Carolina 9 0.5046 7 8 6 4
9 Florida 6 0.5822 5 12 7 7
10 Florida State 5 0.6196 14 15 14 12
11 Clemson 11 0.49 13 13 13 13
12 Kansas State 15 0.4577 10 6 9 11
13 Louisville 16 0.4381 19 11 28 16
14 LSU 14 0.4627 12 14 10 10
15 Oklahoma 18 0.425 11 10 12 14
16 Utah State 10 0.5026 21 17 15 18
17 Northwestern 23 0.3663 18 23 21 17
18 Boise State 13 0.4803 26 19 33 42
19 Texas 24 0.3554 17 20 18 15
20 Oregon State 36 0.3218 20 21 16 20
21 San Jose State 17 0.4367 16 18 23 23
22 Northern Illinois 21 0.373 29 6 44 30
23 Vanderbilt 30 0.3375 22 50 17 22
24 Michigan 32 0.333 23 32 24 19
25 Nebraska 25 0.3529 15 30 19 21
“Playing with the calculation” revealed that pushing the recruiting composite number’s weight levels significantly above the other categories improved the accuracy of the system and helped to distinguish teams with 4 losses versus others. Without moving into integral calculations for the moment, it’s doubtful that the CFCI will ever rank a team with 5 losses in the Top 25 as the AP did with Michigan last season, no matter how strong they appear to be. The CFCI will simply have to disagree with the voters. The other interesting thing is that loosening up on the strict two-loss threshold for BCS Champions (LSU in 2007 was the only 2-loss BCS Champion since 2000 where the data begins) didn’t change the top teams but really impacted the system’s accuracy overall including the order of the top teams.
As promised, nothing in the calculation includes any assessment of strength of schedule.
The CFCI Top 4 were the same as the AP’s Top 4. Clemson (11), LSU (14), and Nebraska (25) ranked exactly in the CFCI as the AP ranked them while the CFCI ranked five other teams within one place of the AP (Alabama, Notre Dame, Stanford, South Carolina, and Northern Illinois). Overall the CFCI included 22 of the 25 AP Top 25.
After a brief conversation with John Haman from Razorgumbo Gameday Grub (Razorgumbo.com), BCS Computer Rankings from Anderson & Hester (A&H), Richard Billingsley (RB), Kenneth Massey (KM), and Jeff Sagarin (JS) rankings are set beside the CFCI for comparison. The full final rankings for Colley Matrix and Peter Wolfe aren’t ignored; they simply couldn’t be located. Each of them included 23, 22, 22, & 23 of the final AP Top 25.
As the season goes on, watch for the movements of teams in the CFCI and for teams who persist to be ranked in the CFCI and not in the polls. Perception will come around. With any luck, these changes will reveal good information over the 2013 season.
College Football Champion Index Week 2
+/- Wk. 1 Rank Wk. 2 Rank Team CFCI Wk. 2 CFCI Wk. 1 +/-
13 14 1 Georgia Tech 0.9931 0.8062 0.1869
8 10 2 Marshall 0.9931 0.8217 0.1714
22 25 3 Wisconsin 0.9931 0.7735 0.2196
-1 3 4 Duke 0.9894 0.8787 0.1107
26 31 5 Ohio St. 0.9691 0.756 0.2131
11 17 6 Maryland 0.9655 0.8029 0.1626
-6 1 7 Tennessee 0.9587 0.8971 0.0616
-1 7 8 Bowling Green 0.9584 0.8284 0.13
-7 2 9 Oregon 0.9517 0.8863 0.0654
-- -- 10 Arizona State 0.9471 -- --
-- -- 11 Stanford 0.947 -- --
-8 4 12 Baylor 0.9353 0.8655 0.0698
-2 11 13 Arizona 0.9327 0.8176 0.1151
53 67 14 UCF 0.9318 0.5269 0.4049
18 33 15 Penn St. 0.9318 0.7462 0.1856
-3 13 16 Arkansas 0.9315 0.8126 0.1189
29 46 17 Washington 0.9231 0.6905 0.2326
41 59 18 Michigan 0.9196 0.5721 0.3475
-- -- 19 Louisville 0.9153 -- --
14 34 20 Houston 0.9115 0.7408 0.1707
-- -- 21 Florida State 0.9102 -- --
16 38 22 Oklahoma 0.91 0.7289 0.1811
55 78 23 Troy 0.9058 0.4347 0.4711
2 26 24 LSU 0.8902 0.7723 0.1179
33 58 25 Missouri 0.8897 0.5808 0.3089
-- -- 26 Kansas 0.8804 -- --
-7 20 27 UCLA 0.876 0.7942 0.0818
-20 8 28 Michigan St. 0.8743 0.8268 0.0475
27 56 29 Utah 0.8741 0.6159 0.2582
34 64 30 North Carolina St. 0.8718 0.554 0.3178
-25 6 31 Boston College 0.8507 0.8348 0.0159
-10 22 32 Miami (FL) 0.8437 0.7831 0.0606
38 71 33 Texas St. 0.8298 0.4853 0.3445
6 40 34 Ole Miss 0.8244 0.7268 0.0976
-7 28 35 Auburn 0.8193 0.7665 0.0528
-20 16 36 Oklahoma St. 0.8185 0.8035 0.015
0 37 37 Clemson 0.7989 0.7318 0.0671
1 39 38 Texas A&M 0.7965 0.7284 0.0681
23 62 39 Nebraska 0.7958 0.5598 0.236
-5 35 40 Minnesota 0.793 0.7383 0.0547
3 44 41 Northwestern 0.7908 0.6978 0.093
6 48 42 Texas Tech 0.7901 0.6851 0.105
8 51 43 Alabama 0.7829 0.6665 0.1164
-- -- 44 Colorado 0.7774 -- --
-- -- 45 Navy 0.7531 -- --
11 57 46 Illinois 0.7287 0.5943 0.1344
-5 42 47 Ball St. 0.72 0.7163 0.0037
-43 5 48 North Texas 0.7188 0.8498 -0.131
-34 15 49 Florida 0.7159 0.8051 -0.0892
-9 41 50 East Carolina 0.7038 0.7245 -0.0207
15 66 51 Mississippi St. 0.6769 0.5413 0.1356
30 82 52 Virginia Tech 0.6668 0.4288 0.238
20 73 53 Rutgers 0.6656 0.4565 0.2091
20 74 54 Kentucky 0.6638 0.451 0.2128
-32 23 55 Arkansas St. 0.6531 0.781 -0.1279
9 65 56 Southern California 0.6452 0.543 0.1022
-2 55 57 Fresno St. 0.6445 0.6423 0.0022
22 80 58 Iowa 0.6391 0.4299 0.2092
26 85 59 Vanderbilt 0.6306 0.4211 0.2095
19 79 60 Utah St. 0.6295 0.4319 0.1976
-43 18 61 Texas 0.6245 0.8012 -0.1767
22 84 62 Wyoming 0.6148 0.4239 0.1909
9 72 63 BYU 0.6131 0.4726 0.1405
46 110 64 La.-Monroe 0.6096 0.3025 0.3071
-41 24 65 Indiana 0.6094 0.7801 -0.1707
-21 45 66 South Ala. 0.6087 0.6905 -0.0818
-55 12 67 Wake Forest 0.6002 0.8132 -0.213
-59 9 68 Cincinnati 0.5887 0.8239 -0.2352
-8 61 69 South Carolina 0.5838 0.5665 0.0173
7 77 70 New Mexico 0.5774 0.4349 0.1425
-19 52 71 Northern Ill. 0.5746 0.656 -0.0814
-22 50 72 West Virginia 0.5744 0.68 -0.1056
18 91 73 Georgia 0.5718 0.3879 0.1839
-44 30 74 Middle Tenn. 0.5699 0.7579 -0.188
26 101 75 Boise St. 0.5669 0.3434 0.2235
-33 43 76 Western Ky. 0.5627 0.7122 -0.1495
-23 54 77 UTSA 0.5588 0.6469 -0.0881
-15 63 78 Nevada 0.5568 0.5586 -0.0018
13 92 79 TCU 0.5566 0.3853 0.1713
-48 32 80 Army 0.5547 0.7466 -0.1919
-60 21 81 Notre Dame 0.5524 0.7851 -0.2327
15 97 82 Louisiana Tech 0.5463 0.3687 0.1776
-30 53 83 Air Force 0.5414 0.6538 -0.1124
9 93 84 Kansas St. 0.5399 0.3843 0.1556
-56 29 85 Tulane 0.5364 0.7622 -0.2258
-26 60 86 Tulsa 0.5352 0.5684 -0.0332
-68 19 87 San Jose St. 0.5275 0.8005 -0.273
-52 36 88 Kent St. 0.5222 0.7333 -0.2111
6 95 89 North Carolina 0.5214 0.3699 0.1515
-4 86 90 Iowa St. 0.5174 0.4192 0.0982
-1 90 91 SMU 0.5062 0.4015 0.1047
-5 87 92 Rice 0.5046 0.4091 0.0955
-4 89 93 Washington St. 0.4976 0.4035 0.0941
-13 81 94 Oregon St. 0.492 0.4293 0.0627
9 104 95 Purdue 0.4688 0.3275 0.1413
0 96 96 California 0.4668 0.369 0.0978
-70 27 97 Eastern Mich. 0.4591 0.7716 -0.3125
-51 47 98 Virginia 0.457 0.6854 -0.2284
-- -- 99 Ohio 0.4556 -- --
2 102 100 Connecticut 0.4551 0.34 0.1151
-7 94 101 Akron 0.4415 0.3745 0.067
1 103 102 Central Mich. 0.4304 0.34 0.0904
-20 83 103 UNLV 0.4242 0.425 -0.0008
-- -- 104 Memphis 0.4152 -- --
-5 100 105 Western Mich. 0.4119 0.3476 0.0643
-- -- 106 Colorado State 0.3802 -- --
-38 69 107 South Fla. 0.3761 0.5252 -0.1491
-- -- 108 Pittsburgh 0.3719 -- --
-33 76 109 UAB 0.3716 0.4404 -0.0688
-4 106 110 Fla. Atlantic 0.3609 0.3252 0.0357
-3 108 111 La.-Lafayette 0.3608 0.305 0.0558
-42 70 112 Toledo 0.3521 0.5066 -0.1545
-64 49 113 Syracuse 0.3452 0.6834 -0.3382
-9 105 114 Idaho 0.3321 0.3275 0.0046
-40 75 115 Southern Miss. 0.3316 0.4428 -0.1112
-17 99 116 Temple 0.3277 0.3537 -0.026
-6 111 117 New Mexico St. 0.3123 0.2904 0.0219
-11 107 118 San Diego St. 0.3088 0.3121 -0.0033
-21 98 119 Hawaii 0.3079 0.3676 -0.0597
-8 112 120 Massachusetts 0.2874 0.2693 0.0181
-33 88 121 Buffalo 0.2841 0.4072 -0.1231
-13 109 122 FIU 0.267 0.3026 -0.0356
-55 68 123 Miami (OH) 0.2633 0.5255 -0.2622
A note or two about the Arkansas Razorbacks… While the Hogs dropped in the rankings, the team’s rating actually went up. This happens when teams put in their first performances of the season after the data is published in Week 1 or that they don’t play until Week 2. The first two weeks have the Hogs statistically on track, but as is acknowledged here repeatedly, it’s early in the season for a system like this. The Razorbacks hold well for the season so far in Total Defense, Rushing Defense, Passing Efficiency, and in Rushing Offense while Scoring Defense is the place where the Hogs take the biggest hit. It’s a new week and hopefully there will be temps cooler than 97 degrees at kickoff.
3 Responses
Comments are closed.