|
|
As week 7 approaches in the college football season, we're transitioning from referring to our Bayesian-modified pre-season rankings to the unbiased Strength power rating. The main difference between the two is that the former uses pre-season rankings as a basis for comparison, while the latter starts with no knowledge of the teams. The former is more useful in the early weeks of course, but the unbiased version starts to become more reliable by mid-season.
Let's take a look at the "final" Bayesian modification, post-week 6, and compare that to how the teams rank in week 6's Strength power rating. There are some cases where teams are ranking quite differently with no bias. Sometimes that's because the ratings haven't quite jelled yet; other times it's because the pre-season rankings for a team's opponents were off. We'll speculate as to which ranking is more accurate for each example.
#1 Baylor is one of the few teams that have the same rank in both ratings, which is ironic since they are probably the most controversial team in the nation in terms of their correct rating. The Bears deserve to be #1 here for what they've done but the question remains whether their game plan on offense can be short-circuited by a strong defense. Their own defense is suspect, too, at #74 in the All-Division power rating.
Week 6 Pre-season Bayesian modified rankings vs. current Strength*
| Week6 Modified |
Team | Record | Unbiased Strength |
Diff |
| 1 | Baylor | 4-0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | Oregon | 5-0 | 3 | -1 |
| 3 | Florida St | 5-0 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | Alabama | 5-0 | 9 | -5 |
| 5 | LSU | 5-1 | 6 | -1 |
| 6 | Ohio State | 6-0 | 13 | -7 |
| 7 | Texas A&M | 4-1 | 18 | -11 |
| 8 | Louisville | 5-0 | 5 | 3 |
| 9 | Stanford | 5-0 | 8 | 1 |
| 10 | Clemson | 5-0 | 7 | 3 |
| 11 | Oklahoma | 5-0 | 24 | -13 |
| 12 | Texas Tech | 5-0 | 16 | -4 |
| 13 | Arizona St | 3-2 | 19 | -6 |
| 14 | Missouri | 5-0 | 11 | 3 |
| 15 | UCLA | 4-0 | 10 | 5 |
| 16 | Georgia | 4-1 | 12 | 4 |
| 17 | Wisconsin | 3-2 | 20 | -3 |
| 18 | Washington | 4-1 | 4 | 14 |
| 19 | Florida | 4-1 | 15 | 4 |
| 20 | Utah St | 3-3 | 28 | -8 |
| 21 | Arizona | 3-1 | 17 | 4 |
| 22 | Miami FL | 5-0 | 14 | 8 |
| 23 | Michigan | 5-0 | 46 | -23 |
| 24 | Utah | 3-2 | 26 | -2 |
| 25 | South Carolina | 4-1 | 32 | -7 |
| 26 | Mississippi | 3-2 | 52 | -26 |
| 27 | BYU | 3-2 | 30 | -3 |
| 28 | Oklahoma St | 4-1 | 21 | 7 |
| 29 | Georgia Tech | 3-2 | 23 | 6 |
| 30 | Virginia Tech | 5-1 | 34 | -4 |
| 31 | Auburn | 4-1 | 27 | 4 |
| 32 | Iowa | 4-2 | 53 | -21 |
| 33 | Michigan St | 4-1 | 57 | -24 |
| 34 | Kansas St | 2-3 | 42 | -8 |
| 35 | Texas | 3-2 | 70 | -35 |
| 36 | Boise St | 3-2 | 33 | 3 |
| 37 | Southern Cal | 3-2 | 36 | 1 |
| 38 | Notre Dame | 4-2 | 60 | -22 |
| 39 | Central Florida | 4-1 | 35 | 4 |
| 40 | Northwestern | 4-1 | 51 | -11 |
| 41 | TCU | 2-3 | 25 | 16 |
| 42 | Indiana | 3-2 | 22 | 20 |
| 43 | Ball St | 5-1 | 50 | -7 |
| 44 | Washington St | 4-2 | 40 | 4 |
| 45 | Nebraska | 4-1 | 31 | 14 |
| 46 | Oregon St | 4-1 | 62 | -16 |
| 47 | East Carolina | 4-1 | 38 | 9 |
| 48 | Tennessee | 3-3 | 39 | 9 |
| 49 | Marshall | 3-2 | 29 | 20 |
| 50 | Penn State | 3-2 | 45 | 5 |
| 51 | Iowa St | 1-3 | 74 | -23 |
| 52 | Maryland | 4-1 | 37 | 15 |
| 53 | Arkansas | 3-3 | 67 | -14 |
| 54 | Illinois | 3-2 | 47 | 7 |
| 55 | Northern Illinois | 5-0 | 54 | 1 |
| 56 | Houston | 4-0 | 44 | 12 |
| 57 | Syracuse | 2-3 | 71 | -14 |
| 58 | Bowling Green | 5-1 | 56 | 2 |
| 59 | Fresno St | 5-0 | 58 | 1 |
| 60 | Toledo | 3-3 | 68 | -8 |
| 61 | Mississippi St | 2-3 | 41 | 20 |
| 62 | Western Kentucky | 4-2 | 73 | -11 |
| 63 | Kentucky | 1-4 | 61 | 2 |
| 64 | Cincinnati | 3-2 | 75 | -11 |
| 65 | North Carolina | 1-4 | 72 | -7 |
| 66 | Boston College | 3-2 | 55 | 11 |
| 67 | Rice | 3-2 | 80 | -13 |
| 68 | Florida Atlantic | 2-4 | 79 | -11 |
| 69 | Navy | 3-1 | 43 | 26 |
| 70 | LA-Lafayette | 3-2 | 66 | 4 |
| 71 | Colorado St | 2-3 | 95 | -24 |
| 72 | Vanderbilt | 3-3 | 69 | 3 |
| 73 | Pittsburgh | 3-1 | 48 | 25 |
| 74 | Minnesota | 4-2 | 87 | -13 |
| 75 | Ohio U. | 4-1 | 49 | 26 |
| 76 | North Carolina St | 3-2 | 81 | -5 |
| 77 | Rutgers | 4-1 | 78 | -1 |
| 78 | Wyoming | 3-2 | 65 | 13 |
| 79 | Colorado | 2-2 | 86 | -7 |
| 80 | North Texas | 2-3 | 64 | 16 |
| 81 | Duke | 3-2 | 63 | 18 |
| 82 | West Virginia | 3-3 | 59 | 23 |
| 83 | Memphis | 1-3 | 76 | 7 |
| 84 | San Jose St | 2-3 | 88 | -4 |
| 85 | Buffalo | 3-2 | 77 | 8 |
| 86 | SMU | 1-4 | 91 | -5 |
| 87 | Tulane | 4-2 | 94 | -7 |
| 88 | California | 1-4 | 92 | -4 |
| 89 | Tulsa | 1-4 | 104 | -15 |
| 90 | Nevada | 3-3 | 90 | 0 |
| 91 | Wake Forest | 3-3 | 96 | -5 |
| 92 | South Alabama | 2-3 | 83 | 9 |
| 93 | Virginia | 2-3 | 82 | 11 |
| 94 | Middle Tennessee St | 3-3 | 89 | 5 |
| 95 | Hawaii | 0-5 | 106 | -11 |
| 96 | Purdue | 1-4 | 114 | -18 |
| 97 | San Diego St | 2-3 | 103 | -6 |
| 98 | Arkansas St | 2-3 | 85 | 13 |
| 99 | Texas-San Antonio | 2-4 | 93 | 6 |
| 100 | Army | 2-4 | 101 | -1 |
| 101 | Connecticut | 0-4 | 97 | 4 |
| 102 | Kansas | 2-2 | 111 | -9 |
| 103 | Texas St. | 3-2 | 84 | 19 |
| 104 | Kent St | 2-4 | 100 | 4 |
| 105 | New Mexico | 2-3 | 109 | -4 |
| 106 | UNLV | 3-2 | 108 | -2 |
| 107 | Troy | 3-3 | 99 | 8 |
| 108 | UAB | 1-4 | 102 | 6 |
| 109 | South Florida | 1-4 | 107 | 2 |
| 110 | Akron | 1-5 | 105 | 5 |
| 111 | Temple | 0-5 | 98 | 13 |
| 112 | UTEP | 1-4 | 116 | -4 |
| 113 | Air Force | 1-5 | 110 | 3 |
| 114 | Louisiana Tech | 2-4 | 115 | -1 |
| 115 | Central Michigan | 2-4 | 117 | -2 |
| 116 | Massachusetts | 0-5 | 113 | 3 |
| 117 | LA-Monroe | 2-4 | 112 | 5 |
| 118 | Western Mich. | 0-6 | 122 | -4 |
| 119 | Southern Miss | 0-5 | 120 | -1 |
| 120 | Georgia State | 0-5 | 119 | 1 |
| 121 | Eastern Michigan | 1-4 | 123 | -2 |
| 122 | Idaho | 1-5 | 118 | 4 |
| 123 | Miami OH | 0-5 | 121 | 2 |
| 124 | New Mexico St | 0-6 | 125 | -1 |
| 125 | Florida Int'l | 1-4 | 124 | 1 |
* uses All-Division Strength with non-FBS teams excluded
Florida State takes the #2 spot instead of Oregon in the unbiased ratings, something that isn't hard to argue after the Maryland game. But both teams look like they should be in the top three either way.
Alabama fell from #1 to #4 in our Bayesian updates, but in the current Strength ratings the Tide are only #9. Their defense is at #4 so it's not a question of misinterpreting the Texas A&M game. Mostly the Tide haven't had to use their full power yet except against the Aggies, but there's a question as to whether their offense will "drop the ball" for them at some point. However, we naturally think that the Bayesian rating is more accurate here and that the Tide will move up in the Strength rating over the next few weeks. SEC-mate LSU looks fairly ranked by either system at #5 or #6.
Ohio State had moved up a spot to #6 in the Bayesian rankings but the Buckeyes are #13 in the unbiased rankings; mainly this is because San Diego State is far worse than their pre-season ranking by which OSU's 42-7 win is judged, and to a lesser extent Northwestern. Ohio State has played 6 games already and the unbiased Strength ratings should be accurate for them by now, so don't be surprised if they fail to play like a top ten team—they might not be one. Same goes for Texas A&M, who is only #18 in Strength currently, with their defense ranking #108.
Louisville, Stanford, and Clemson all rank a bit higher when unbiased; that's probably because we ranked them too low in the pre-season and at 5-0 all of their ratings are still 1/6 pre-season; remove that and there's even less discrepancy. Oklahoma, however, is just #24—13 spots lower—when bias is removed. Their 34-0 win over Louisiana-Monroe looks inconsequential when ULM's true strength is used rather than our much-too-high pre-season ranking. Their Tulsa and Notre Dame wins are less impressive, too.
Much of the rest of the top 25 is similar in both lists. Texas Tech isn't quite as high with all bias removed, but they're still solidly in the top 25. Arizona State is 6 spots lower but at 3-2 still remains in the top 25 as well. Missouri, who just made the AP top 25, looks even better at #11, and UCLA is #10. And in both systems Georgia is outside the top 10, either #16 or #12. And Wisconsin is a lower-top 20 team with either modified bias or no bias.
Washington is an interesting case. With pre-season modification the Huskies dropped from #12 to #17, but with no bias they are #4 in the nation. The reason? It's almost all the Illinois game. The modified ratings gave them credit for beating the #108 team by 10 points; the unbiased system sees that as a win over the #47 team.
Florida and Arizona get a small boost from the removal of bias, but Miami gets a bigger one, up 8 spots to #14. The reason is that FAU has outperformed, and even Savannah State is 10 points better than they were last year. Both Utah and Utah State are in the modified top 25 but not in the unbiased top 25; they each played a team that radically underperformed (Oregon State, San Jose State) our pre-season predictions; the unbiased rankings look fairer for these teams who sit at 3-2 and 3-3.
#25 South Carolina also fails to make the unbiased top 25 by 7 spots, but #23 Michigan is a whole 'nother story. The Wolverines only rank #46 with all bias removed. Opponents Notre Dame and UConn both underperformed, but that's a huge discrepancy; the truth is probably somewhere in-between, meaning Michigan might not be a top 25 team despite their 5-0 start—something not too hard to swallow given their struggles with Akron and UConn.
A few teams make the unbiased top 25 that finished outside the top 25 in our modified rankings. Should they be considered top 25 teams? Oklahoma State is #21 despite their recent weakness, vs. #28 with the pre-season starting point; that one's a good sign for the team's future. Indiana—#42 both pre-season and after modification—is #22 despite two losses; their loss to Navy and #118 ranked defense make us think the pre-season number is closer to the truth. Georgia Tech is #23 (unbiased) vs. #28; they haven't looked like a top 25 team the last few weeks though. And surprisingly, TCU, who seems to be a big disappointment, is #25 when unbiased instead of the #41 they fell to. We pegged them as the #24 team to start with and despite a 2-3 record that's how well they're playing; note that they've lost to three top 25 teams.
Mississippi is in the same boat as Michigan—faring quite poor in the unbiased power rating, 26 spots lower than their #26 modified ranking. Their wins over Vanderbilt and Texas carry very little weight with the unbiased rankings. Speaking of Texas, their struggle this year is no secret. They started at #5 in our rankings (!) and fell all the way to #35 when modified for performance. But according to the unbiased power ratings that wasn't nearly far enough—they rank a dismal #70 there. Another pre-season top ten team, Oregon State, fell to #46 for underperformance but the unbiased ratings say the Beavers should be down at #62.
The Big Ten doesn't fare well in the unbiased ratings. Along with Michigan, Iowa and Michigan State are much lower, 21 and 24 spots lower to be exact. The two teams played each other and Iowa got too much credit for only losing by 12; both teams played huge underperformer Western Michigan. The Spartans also lost to Notre Dame, another team that looks very bad with all bias removed (#60 instead of #38). Northwestern is 11 spots lower, but Nebraska looks better in the unbiased rankings at #31, up 14.
Marshall ranks remarkably high at #29 in Strength. Their two losses are to major outperformers Ohio and Virginia Tech, by close scores. Even Gardner-Webb is surprisingly good this year. Iowa State is either #51 or #74 depending on which ratings you spec; the Cyclones faced slight overperformers Northern Iowa and Iowa but also huge underperformers Tulsa and Texas. They've also had just 4 games, meaning both systems are prone to error.
Mississippi State fell from #39 pre-season to #61 adjusted, but they're #41 when unbiased, meaning our pre-season ranking might be valid; the loss to Auburn shouldn't hit them so hard. Navy also ranks much higher when unbiased, #43 to #69, but that's easy to see: at four games the modified system hasn't fully re-evaluated them upward, and the unbiased system could be slightly overrating them for lack of information; they'll probably end up somewhere between the two. Pitt and Ohio are also both more than 20 spots higher in the unbiased ratings, at #48 and #49. But Colorado State is the opposite; despite nearly holding steady from our pre-season ranking over the last 6 weeks, their unbiased ranking is only #95, down 24 spots, due to facing underperformers Tulsa and Cal Poly.
Louisiana-Monroe, who fell the most during our pre-season re-evaluation phase (from #54 to #117) seems to have been evaluated pretty fairly; they rank #112 in the unbiased Strength rating. And Illinois, who moved up from #108 to #54, ranks #47, so the Illini are probably for real—in terms of being an above-average team.
And at the very bottom of the chart, we can try to answer the question of which team is the worst in the FBS. Florida International ranked #125 in our modified rankings, but they beat Southern Miss. In the unbiased ratings, however, it's New Mexico State that takes the #125 spot, one week after getting blown out 66-17 at New Mexico.
|
|
Comments