Rivalry Week!

I love Rivalry Week. The Golden Egg, Paul Bunyan's Axe, Chancellor's Spurs, the Platypus, the Apple Cup, and who knows what else.

Firstly, I love that the records of the respective teams generally don't matter.

The talent differences, money differences all seem to fade during Rivalry Week. Coaching differences still stand out, but not as much as the "underdog" tends to dig deep into the playbook. Hard to prep for plays you haven't seen in 3 years!

Secondly, I love the hype.

Usually I hate hype, it's so artificial, so contrived. Remember the lame LSU v Bama BCS championship game? Or Bama v Georgia in the CFP? Me neither. Why would I waste my time watching teams I don't care about (that was before I started doing this; I'll watch all the games now and be as objective as I can while talking about them)? Now, I can get up for watching Big12 vs SEC or Pac12 vs ACC, but SEC vs SEC? Yet the hype machine for those types of games goes into Ludicrous Speed ("They've gone to plaid!") to try to get non-conference eyeballs.

I say all of that to come back to loving the hype of Rivalry Week. Literally every outlet for every team is throwing shade, talking trash, pumping up the fanbase. And now is when it is exciting to watch B1G v B1G and SEC v SEC, so the hype is well deserved! And funny. And demoralizing. And all the things trash talking and such is supposed to be.

Thirdly, I love that usually the games matter.

There is almost always something meaningful at stake at the upper echelon of the sport, and so much pride at all levels. It's the part of the season when, even if your team is miserable, you have an opportunity for a lone bright spot. Or maybe you can become bowl eligible. Or maybe you can prevent your hated rival from becoming bowl eligible. Or you can break a streak like Virginia over Va Tech!

And at the top, you get to set bowl placement and CFP seeding. Who get's the Rose Bowl on Jan 1 and who gets the Carquest Autoparts Bowl on Dec 26? Did your team do enough to maintain pace with its closest competitors for the Playoff? You saw what happened to LSU last week. If your rival sucks or even just isn't very good (UGA vs Ga Tech) and the team you're trying to catch has a relatively solid rival (OSU v UM), you run the risk of falling further behind or being overtaken.

So here we are, close to the pointy end. OSU has already beaten down UM...again. I can't imagine LSU will have any trouble. UGA and Clemson won big against inferior opponents. Bama and Auburn are currently trading blows while Wisconsin and Minnesota are fighting for the right to be OSU's next victim. Washington beat WSU for the 7th straight time and probably secured a much nicer bowl than if they'd lost. Indiana over Purdue in 2OT.

Enjoy it while you can.

If Ray Ran the Playoffs

Lawrence Points really got me thinking about a 16 team playoff system.

I've been talking about an 8 team system from day one. My proposed 8 team setup is:

• All 5 P5 conference champs
• Top ranked G5 team
• 2 at-large
• Teams from same conf cannot play each other 1st round
• 1st round home games

Pretty simple, eh? It makes winning your conference matter, and the at large berths make every game still matter. If you don't win your conference, you need to be in same spot Bama currently is with the CFP (but not here, because here who you play matters). Conference champs get seeded higher than at-large, regardless of ranking.

How would the 8 team playoff look? Let's take a look at 2018:

Yes, at the end of the 2018 regular season, RR would have had ND at #1. I know. Let's move on.

Game 1: Clemson v UCF in South Carolina - The Knights were clamoring for a shot. Well, here ya go! I think this game would have been entertaining and informative. Or maybe just a bloodbath (but still informative).

Game 2: Alabama v ND at Bryant-Denny - Considering how both ND and Bama got rolled by Clemson, this had the potential to be a close game. ND travels as well as any team in the country.

Game 3: OU v UM in Norman - OU should be playing UGA, but can't have a OSU v UM rematch in the 1st round, so here we are. I figure OU would have hung at least 62 on UM, but the Wolverines probably would have scored more than 39 against a D that was worse than OSU's.

Game 4: OSU v UGA in The Shoe - in December. I don't mean to laugh, but I'm pretty sure that the Dawgs wouldn't even get off the bus, and would just freeze solid if they did. This right here is why the home games would be so entertaining.

How much fun would that have been? 

But 16 teams? Starts to get a little unwieldy I think, but lets give it a shot. First, a straight 16 teams, no consideration for conference championships. Left side:

And the right side:

Honestly, it's only because we already know how good Clemson was last year that any of these games are questionable. And wouldn't it be fun to see these teams play outside of a one and done bowl game with future pros sitting out for the NFL combine? 

Ok, how about we make the conference championships matter and include the Group of 5 ranker? Yellow is conf champ. Left side:

Right side:

We still get some very interesting games. And still every single game matters. 

1st playoff games would be Dec 14/15 or 15/16, 2nd round Dec 21, semi's on Dec 28, championship Jan 13. Surrounded by the other bowls, this would be much better than what we currently have. 

So we get 16 teams involved, all the conference champs, the top ranked Group of 5 team, we have home games for 1st and 2nd rounds, and even more trash talking. How did this not get done the first time?

Lawrence Points...Made You Look!

Trying to follow a Twitter feed is like drinking from a fire hose for an old guy like me. So many interesting accounts to follow and social media is all about quantity over quality. Which, in a nutshell, is the exact problem: so many people with nothing truly interesting or meaningful to say. I mean, I follow a lot of CFB team feeds (shocker, I know) but they mostly just post cute graphics or rah-rah stuff designed to engage fans. Nothing at all wrong with that, it's a great way to stay immediate in the minds of their followers. It's just that there's no meat in the feed; it's all filler.

I'm still figuring out Twitter. It's very "right now!" and I'm definitely a "how about later" kind of guy. And though I've only been on the platform a very short while, I have discovered that if you sift enough sand you can find a gem or 2. That is how, by pure chance, I found Dyer Lawrence (@Lawrencepoints) and his ranking system called Lawrence Points (www.lawrencepoints.com).

Dyer's system is incredibly simple:

1. Team A beats Team B: Team A gets "Lawrence Points" (LP from here on out) equal to the number of wins Team B has. When LSU beat Arkansas, the Tigers received 2 points.
2. Team A loses to Team B: Team A loses LP equal to the number of losses Team B has. Oregon losing to ASU caused the Ducks to lose 5 LP.

That's it. I find it beautiful in its simplicity. The best part, to me, is how it captures the essence of CFB. When I work my way all the way through it, if find that it accounts very well for good teams losing to bad teams and such. 

• LSU beats Bama and earns 8 LP (now 10) for Bama's wins. Bama loses 0 LP because LSU hasn't lost. In other words, losing to a better team is a minimal penalty
• Minimal here is relative. 2 bad teams playing each other means the winner only gains a few LP while the loser gets creamed by losing a lot of LP.
• South Carolina is sitting around 83rd with a total of -6 LP (-ish, I didn't do all the math to deal with the FCS issue). If they had lost to UGA, they'd be at -16 LP (give back the 10 LP for the win, no lost LP due to UGA then being undefeated) and down around 100. 
• This would also change UGA's ranking, obviously. If the Dawgs are undefeated right now, they get 11 LP back.
• The real problem is if So. Carolina keeps losing, it just sucks more LP from Georgia. The sucking never stops. Moot point, UGA lost the game.

LP is a simple to understand system. Much simpler than mine, yet it still accounts for winning vs better, or losing against inferior competition. On average, my rankings are -3.48 away from Dyer's. That said, there are some pretty huge differences, even near the top. Here's a direct comparison:

Dyer tosses the FCS games completely where I treat them as a loss (actively penalizing schools that schedule them - I think I've mentioned that). Also, LP does not differentiate between Power 5 and Group of 5 schools while I'm still figuring out if the "average" P5 is only twice as good as the "average" G5. 

Having points subtracted for a loss is something I have toyed with a bit. My concern is that I'll have to figure out how to score a "good" loss, which will lead to figuring out a "bad" win. And honestly, once down that rabbit hole the whole idea of "objective" goes out the window. 

This is partly why I feel that LP is appealing. It can be easily implemented and it does account for losses in a more active manner.

What would I change? I think maybe I'd modify the LP in regards to P5 vs G5 schools, both for wins and losses.

Another really cool thing Dyer has is an archive of rankings going way, way back! Like, to 1969. I haven't delved deep enough yet to really explore that, but it should be fun. Also, he maintains a 16-team playoff bracket (an idea I am totally stealing). I bet that thing flips and flops all over the place early in the season!

It has been interesting exploring this new thing, and I just may have to find a way to incorporate some of  the concepts into my system for next season. Thanks for the input, Dyer!

Remove the Homer Glasses

I am not at all convinced that USC is a worse team than Alabama this season. There, I said it.

Every major metric shows Bama well ahead of USC.

Bama is 10-1 to USC 8-4.

Offense?

Team Offense Table

				Passing					Rushing				Total Offense			First Downs				Penalties		Turnovers
Rk	School	G	Pts	Cmp	Att	Pct	Yds	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	Pass	Rush	Pen	Tot	No.	Yds	Fum	Int	Tot
2	Alabama	11	48.5	22.3	31.1	71.6	344.3	3.8	33.2	169.3	5.1	2.2	64.3	513.5	8.0	13.4	9.6	1.6	24.5	7.0	66.7	0.4	0.4	0.7
36	USC	12	33.2	27.6	38.8	71.0	335.9	2.8	30.8	127.5	4.1	1.4	69.7	463.4	6.7	14.1	7.3	2.0	23.4	7.3	73.3	0.8	1.2	1.9

Provided by CFB at Sports Reference: View Original Table
Generated 11/25/2019.

How about defense (keeping in mind Bama was 43rd on Friday before playing that powerhouse Western Carolina)?

Team Defense Table

				Passing					Rushing				Total Offense			First Downs				Penalties		Turnovers
Rk	School	G	Pts	Cmp	Att	Pct	Yds	TD	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Plays	Yds	Avg	Pass	Rush	Pen	Tot	No.	Yds	Fum	Int	TO
10	Alabama	11	16.2	18.0	31.1	57.9	184.4	1.2	35.2	131.3	3.7	0.6	66.3	315.6	4.8	9.2	6.7	2.3	18.3	5.4	46.1	0.9	1.4	2.3
67	USC	12	27.8	21.8	35.9	60.8	248.6	1.8	36.3	166.7	4.6	1.3	72.3	415.3	5.7	10.8	9.7	2.7	23.1	8.2	68.5	0.6	0.8	1.3

Provided by CFB at Sports Reference: View Original Table
Generated 11/25/2019.

There is literally no obvious reason why Ray's Rankings has USC above Bama. But, in a previous post I explained exactly how the opponents' quality and hidden (or at least hard to parse) opponents' opponents quality can make up the differences.

I guess the pic is a little hard to see, sorry about that. For a moment, simply ignore my rankings and focus on RPI and SoS which is based on RPI and is essentially the same SoS the BCS used.

RPI calc: (W%+(OW%x2)+OOW%)

SoS calc: ((OW%x2)+OOW%)/3

The overall RPI is better for Bama. The Tide's massive lead in W% can't be made up. But when you play teams whose winning percentage is south of 50% (0.473), it's easier for your winning percentage to be stellar. It's also much easier to pad your stats.

SoS favors USC. A lot. The Trojans' OW% is pushing 60% (0.565), and it shows in their record.

Now, we all know that RPI is not the best metric, but it is a very good one if all we care about is W/L. Which, of course, we don't. Firstly, RPI would treat a win over Western Carolina the same as a win over Auburn if both teams have the same record. It also treats P5 and G5 schools the same. Yet the probability of an FCS team beating a P5 team is pretty slim, and from what I've seen a G5 school has maybe a 20% chance against a P5 school. Should we treat wins over FCS and G5 schools the same as wins over P5 schools? My answer is "No."

Going back to yesterday's post, my system looks backwards. It does not consider how good a team might be. It measures the body of work up to this point. So far, USC has done more against tougher than Alabama.

I saw that the SEC is going to stop scheduling cupcakes (well, non-conference cupcakes) in November, starting next year. This is a great sign, though they're still stuck on 8 conference games while the B1G, Big 12, and Pac 12 play 9 (can't really take the ACC seriously right now).

And all I can say about Clemson is that their schedule is tougher than I would have ever guessed. Not to say that it's Michigan State (1) or Penn State (3) strong, but it's pretty average.

Anyway, I know that the homer glasses are thick on all of us. I look at the Buckeyes and I see a defense that can slow down Burrow (I doubt he can be stopped) and an offense that can score on UGA. The Penn State game wasn't that close (all their points were scored off of turnovers, PSU only had 99 yards rushing, Dobbins ran for 157 yards against the #4 rushing D). But if the Buckeyes lose on Saturday, they will drop. Probably not far based on the body of work so far, but most likely out of the top 4. And I will not lift a finger to help. The system scores it and I report it.

Perfection is Unattainable...Here's My Week 13 Rankings

My system is "retrodictive" vs "predictive." By that, I mean it measures performance up to this point in time, but is not meant to claim one team will beat or lose to another based on the rankings. There are apparently some hefty mathematical reasons why retrodictive systems are not good at predicting, just as predictive systems are not so good at measuring past performance. I don't know the math, but I've read enough lately to know that smarter people than me have proved it.

So I'm contemplating a large change to my system by adding a predictive component. It will probably be the SRS from here:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

https://www.sports-reference.com/…/years/2019-standings.html

I see no need to reinvent the wheel.

I don't see what I'm doing as trying to predict the future, but I can see that there is a desire for that type of ranking system. The thing is, FBS will never have an objective system until it goes to a college hoops style system with automatic bids and at large berths determined mainly by a computer. There are more than a few statistical and mathematical treatments out there that can handle that side.

I want to see who is truly deserving of that consideration, and that means measuring past performance. Very much "What have you done for me lately?" and less "Who would win between these two teams?" This is in line with the "body of work" argument you hear on the TV shows all the time: Who have you played? Did you beat the teams you were supposed to beat? Are the teams you beat any good? How about the teams they beat? 

Keeping all of that in mind, here is my new top 25 without the predictive component:

25. Kansas State - sorta backing in, carried by 2nd level points

24. Washington - definitely backing on after that disappointing loss to Colorado

23. Va Tech - 8-3 with a win over a 7-4 Pitt

22. Boise St - convincing win, SoS hurts them

21. Miami (FL) - lost to FIU yet still here; I cannot explain that other than SoS

20. Auburn - just got hurt by playing an FCS team. In November. #byeweek

19. Louisville - top 10 Sos

18. Alabama - OW% 0.473, played Western Carolina (-1 1st level pt) #byeweek

17. OK St - 2-2 vs ranked, 4 straight wins

16. Florida - another tough SoS

15. Iowa - beat a very not bad Illinois

14. Minn - bounced back from the Iowa loss

13. USC - 8-4, pretty convincing win over UCLA, better than their record

12. Utah - well, you gotta play good teams to acquire those 1st & 2nd level pts

11. Wisconsin - beat Purdue, yawn

10. UM - resurgent offense? Beat a not awful Indiana

9. Baylor - waiting for their chance at revenge

8. ND - sneaky good, solid SoS

7. Oregon - got completely outplayed, almost zero chance at the playoff

6. OU - got a little help from the refs at the end, allowed TCU to come back

5. PSU - score looked better than they played, turnovers helped

4. LSU - it was a conference game at least

3. Clemson - still amazing to me with their soft SoS

2. UGA - A&M isn't great, but that Dawg D is something special

1. tOSU - win 35 or 42 to 0 without the turnovers

It really makes very little difference if I actively penalize teams for playing FCS schools or just zero them out. I am constantly surprised by some of the results my spreadsheet spits out. 

Here it is with the SRS predictive ratings added. 

-->

1	Ohio State
2	Georgia
3	Clemson
4	LSU
5	Penn State
6	Oklahoma
7	Michigan
8	Utah
9	Notre Dame
10	Wisconsin
11	Oregon
12	Baylor
13	Alabama
14	Iowa
15	USC
16	Florida
17	Minnesota
18	Auburn
19	Oklahoma State
20	Boise State
21	Cincinnati
22	Memphis
23	App State
24	Washington
25	Iowa State

Any modification I make to the entire list does almost nothing for Bama or Auburn. The only way to make the Tide look good is to completely ignore their lack of competent opponents. This is not Bama's fault, as schedules are set years in advance and you can't predict the strength of a program that far out. But it still needs to be acknowledged: Alabama has played far worse teams than any of the top 10 teams. Their lone exception is LSU, who beat them and hung 46 points and 600 yards on them. Keep in mind that Utah is suffering from the same issue (except they lost to USC).

I'm still playing with my system, so there will be changes ongoing.

Bama Boys are Already Hating

So, it was claimed on Twitter (@rankingsray) that I bashed Bama because of SoS but still had Clemson at 3. I pointed out that there were 2 reasons: Clemson's SoR is higher overall than Bama's, and Clemson had played 1 more game. Plus, I didn't bash anything. The system ranks you where the system ranks you. Don't like it? Get on the horn to your AD and have him/her get you a tougher schedule!

As I have said before, on Twitter and FB and even here, playing extra games is rewarded under my system. But the Twitter comments got me to thinking that really, that only matters at the end of the season when Bama isn't playing for a conference championship while UGA/LSU is winning one. I haven't simulated the results yet, but a few quick peaks makes me think there could be some large movements even at the end of the season if I don't control for number of games played. Which strikes me as odd. Really, as we add more data the variances should settle down as we regress to the mean, so to speak.

Now, the system itself accounts for your opponents' number of games played in the 2nd level points tier. I explained how I screwed that up in my last post. And the 1st level points are an average of your points earned/games played (1pt for P5 win, 0.5pt for G5 win, -1pt for FCS school), so 1st level points are normalized for games played. BUT...2nd level points get skewed if you've played more games than others, assuming you win those extra games.

I'm going to use (3) Clemson and (16) Alabama here for my example, because all of the human polls have them very close together while I have them pretty far apart.

• Clemson has 0.7727 1st level and 2.3874 2nd level for a total score of 3.1601 in 11 games
• Alabama has 0.8000 1st level and 1.2500 2nd level for a total score of 2.0500 in 10 games

If I remove Clemson's latest win over Wake, the numbers look like this:

• Clemson has 0.7500 1st level and 1.8750 2nd level for a total score of 2.6250 in 10 games
• Alabama has 0.8000 1st level and 1.2500 2nd level for a total score of 2.0500 in 10 games

That's a 3% reduction in 1st level points, but a whopping 21.5% reduction in 2nd level points and a 17% reduction in total score!

I'm thinking I need to normalize the 2nd level points for games played until the conference championships. I'm not 100% sure, need to think about it.

That said, let's look at USC vs Alabama, since I'm getting the most pushback from Bama fans (totally expected, and it's fine - I expect to get blasted and roasted this first season).

• Alabama has 8.0 1st level points - 7 points for 7 P5 wins, 1 point for 2 G5 wins (0.5pt/win for G5 teams). They've played 10 games, so 8.0/10=0.8000 1st level score.
• USC has 6.5 1st level points - 6 points for 6 P5 wins, 0.5 point for 1 G5 win. They've played 11 games, so 6.5/11=0.5909 1st level score.
• Losses do nothing other than add a zero to average against.
• Play an FCS team, lose 1 1st level point (see: Clemson v Wofford)

The 1st level score difference is 0.2091 in favor of the Tide.

2nd level scores is where the difference is made up, and then some. 2nd level scores are calculated as such:

• The spreadsheet assumes a 12 game schedule, 10 points per game for a divisor of 120.
• The divisor gets modified based on how many games you've played and how many games the opponents you beat have played (if you've played 3 games and your opponents have played 3 games, the divisor stands at 120; if one of those teams has only played 2 games, subtract 1 from the divisor to make it 119)
• For each team you beat, add up their 1st level points and then divide by the divisor. 
• Then multiply by 10 to move the decimal. 

Alabama has beaten Duke, S.Carolina, Ole Miss, A&M, Tenn, Arkansas, and Miss St in the Power 5, and New Mexico State & Southern Miss in the Group of 5:

Team / 1st level points

Duke  / 1.5

NM State / -1

S.Carolina / 2

S. Miss / 2

Miss / 1.5

A&M / 4

Tenn / 2.5

Ark / -0.5

MissSt / 3

For 15 2nd level points. 

Bama's divisor is 120 because the total number of games played by their defeated opponents is not less than 10/team and Bama has played 10.

(15/120)*10=1.2500

USC has beaten Stanford, Utah (key win here), Zona, Colorado, AZ State, and Cal in P5, and Fresno St in G5:

Team / 1st level points

Fresno / 0.5

Stanford / 4

Utah / 6

Zona / 2

Colorado / 3.5

AZ St / 2.5

Cal / 2.5

For 21 2nd level points (already we see  that USC has beaten better teams than Bama has beaten)

USC's divisor is 112 because they've played 11 games and their opponents have played an average of 9.86 games for a 1.14 difference times 7 defeated opponents. 1.14x7 teams is 8, so we subtract 8 from 120 to get to 112.

(21/112)*10=1.875

2nd level score difference is 0.6250 in favor of the Trojans.

Bama has a 0.8000 1st level score and a 1.2500 2nd level score for a total of 2.0500

USC has a 0.5909 1st level score and a 1.8750 2nd level score for a total of 2.4659

End of story. Maybe. I still need to think about normalizing for extra games. I've got a really smart friend who can maybe sort this out for us. I'll ask him.

Bama is about to be hurt for playing Western Carolina. This is my one nod to a bias, but it is not against the SEC. It is against any FBS team playing any FCS school. But the Tide can certainly redeem much of their season with a win in the Iron Bowl. That will probably depend a lot on Mac Jones and Bo Nix (breathtaking insight there, I know).

USC plays UCLA. The Bruins are probably upset about the beat down last Saturday, but beating USC won't make them bowl eligible so maybe they play a bunch of backups? USC is already bowl eligible, and 8-4 looks a lot better than 7-5. Slovis seems to be blossoming.

Anyway, I hope that explains the way my rankings work. There is literally no personal input. The numbers are arbitrary (and I'm open to input - is the average P5 team twice as good as the average G5 team?).

Well, I'm a Dummy. My Apologies.

Full disclosure: I had to fix the second level points. I was digging around my formulas and realized I had the structure wrong. Did I mention it's a work in progress? My apologies.

My rankings were 72.7% predictive this week. Better than I would have thought.

Also, some of the movement is due to me fixing the 2nd level points formula (OU and Wisc). Basically, if the teams you've beaten have played fewer games than you, your 2nd level points divisor gets smaller, which in turn increases your 2nd level points overall. The formula for 2nd level points is this:

1. [# of games you've played] x [# of FBS teams you've beaten]
2. if that number is less than or equal to the total number of games played by the teams you've beaten, then your divisor is 120
3. if that number is greater than the total number of games played by the teams you've beaten, then 120 - ((# of games you've played x # of teams you've beaten) - # of games played by your beaten opponents))

As an example:
Utah currently has 1.6807 2nd level points.
Utah has played 10 games against FBS schools and beaten 8, so their 1st number is 80
The teams Utah has beaten have played a total of 79 games. Since this number is less than 80, we must modify the divisor per #3 above.
So, 120-((10x8)-79) = 120-(80-79) = 120-1 = 119 divisor.
Utah currently has 20 2nd level points from the teams they have beaten:
(20/119)*10 = 1.6807 2nd level points

Clear as mud?

That said, how does Baylor lose that game? I mean, Hurts was good but how do you go that long with that many possessions and come away with zero points?

Some teams are beneficiaries of having played 11 games to their opponents' 10. This is right and proper for my system: you should get an advantage for playing more games. 

Thoughts: 

• Oregon looked very good, totally unstressed. They may be better than we all think.
• OU played a very sloppy 1st half, and then actually played defense in the second half as Jalen Hurts put the team on his back and carried them to a win. Baylor folded like they had seven-deuce off suit.
• Minnesota fell victim to the Iowa curse: the Hawkeyes can't beat the teams they're supposed to, but they'll beat that team trying to make the playoff!
• UM beat up on Little Brother. OK, so has everyone else. Have the Wolverines figured something out? Will it matter on 11/30?

#5: UGA

I can't really call Auburn a "signature" win, but it was certainly a good one. The Tigers were #15 and Georgia simply handled them.

UGA's D is #6 in yds/game, #6 in yds/play, and #2 in pts/game, behind only Ohio State.

With this win, the Bulldogs win the SEC East and get to face probably LSU for an opportunity to play for the CFP championship. Is the Bulldog D good enough to stop Burrow?

#4: Penn State
I know, this one seems odd. But we have to keep in mind the theory behind the rankings: no "eye test" and who you beat and who they beat matters; there is no transitive property in CFB.

PSU has beaten #9 UM, #17 Iowa, #47 Mich St, and #55 Indiana. Those teams have beaten some other pretty good teams. And while the Nittany Lions didn't look especially awesome on Saturday, it's possible that UI is better than they currently rank.

#3: Clemson
The teams Clemson has played are not great. But, they are not as awful as many in the press (and on FB , and on Twitter) have claimed. The Tigers' 2nd level points are among the best, though they are certainly benefitting from having already played 11 games to most others' 10.

As questionable as they looked earlier (we all remember the NC game, right?), it seems that Swinney has them firing on all cylinders now. The Clemson D is #2 in yds/game and #3 in pts/game (behind UGA and OSU), and Lawrence appears to have shaken off his case of sophomore slump.

Clemson looks for real.

#2: Ohio State

Is it possible to have a "bad" win? If so, OSU had one when they phoned it in at Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights are ranked 102, are 2-7, and just do not have any sort of resume that adds to yours if you beat them. And they gave up 21 points? 

Of course, very few OSU starters have played 4 full quarters this year. I did the math, and if JK Dobbins had as many carries as Chuba, he'd have over 1800 yards rushing right now. If Justin Fields had the same number of pass attempts as Burrow, he'd have over 3200 yards passing, not too far behind Joe. And I'm pretty sure I saw a kid with no name on the back of his jersey on D in the 3rd quarter. As I read on Twitter, "Imagine if your film study for beating OSU's D consists of FAU, Maryland, and Rutgers." 

OSU is slowly slipping into Clemson's grasp, but OSU has a game in hand. I expect if the Buckeyes beat Penn State they will jump to the clear #1.

#1: LSU
LSU colors fly from the page for one more week at least as Jeaux Burreaux did his thing again. I didn't tune in until later and I was surprised to see Ole Miss hanging around. Then I saw a true rarity this season: a Burrow pick. Yes, he was hit as he threw, but to be honest he was really trying to thread a needle on that one and I don't think it's a completion regardless. Beyond that?

489 yds passing
5 TD
2 INT (!!!)
203 passer rtg <- ridiculous

So, the question is: how long Joe carry the team? Because their D is 44th pts/game and 51st in yds/game. And we all know that defense wins championships. What happens when LSU runs up against a Clemson or OU? Or the offensive juggernaut that is OSU? 

But the Tigers stay on top for one more week regardless. Geaux Jeaux!

That Escalated Quickly...[Edited]

So, what actually escalated was the number of errors I've made in the past few days. I had completely screwed up 2nd level points twice: first when I initially set up the spreadsheet, and then again yesterday when I thought I'd gotten it tight. Please ignore the rankings below and see the new blog post from 11/18/19

Full disclosure: I had to fix the second level points. I was digging around my formulas and realized I had the structure wrong. 
So, I was not at all expecting this much movement after yesterday. There were a few "upsets," sure, but I badly underestimated the difference a schedule makes. If a team can have a "bad" win, OSU did that. While the Buckeyes phoned it in at Rutgers, teams around them beat better teams (though Ole Miss is actually ranked lower than Rutgers, LSU already had a good lead over everyone).

Also, my rankings were 72.7% predictive this week. Better than I would have thought.

Remember, a lot of this movement is due to me fixing the 2nd level points formula (ND, UM, and Boise). That said, how does Baylor lose that game? I mean, Hurts was good but how do you go that long with that many possessions and come away with zero points?

Florida and USC are beneficiaries of having played 11 games to their opponents' 10. This is right and proper for my system: you should get an advantage for playing more games. That said, USC looked good against 59th ranked Cal.

Oregon looked very good, totally unstressed. They may be better than we all think.

OU played a very sloppy 1st half, and then actually played defense in the second half as Jalen Hurts put the team on his back and carried them to a win. Baylor folded like they had seven-deuce off suit.

Minnesota fell victim to the Iowa curse: the Hawkeyes can't beat the teams they're supposed to, but they'll beat that team trying to make the playoff!

#5: Ohio State
Is it possible to have a "bad" win? If so, OSU had one when they phoned it in at Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights are ranked 105th, are 2-7, and just do not have any sort of resume that adds to yours if you beat them. So yes, OSU won, but the teams around them either beat better teams, or in the case of LSU beat a lower ranked team but had enough of a lead not to be threatened. I expect that will change next week if the Buckeyes beat Penn State.

#4: UGA
I can't really call Auburn a "signature" win, but it was certainly a good one. The Tigers were #15 and Georgia simply handled them.

UGA's D is #6 in yds/game, #6 in yds/play, and #2 in pts/game, behind only Ohio State.

With this win, the Bulldogs win the SEC East and get to face probably LSU for an opportunity to play for the CFP championship.

#3: Penn State

I know, this one seems odd. But we have to keep in mind the theory behind the rankings: no "eye test" and who you beat and who they beat matters; there is no transitive property in CFB.

PSU has beaten #16 Iowa, #12 UM, #49 Mich St, and #55 Indiana. Those teams have beaten some other pretty good teams. And while the Nittany Lions didn't look especially awesome on Saturday, it's possible that UI is better than they currently rank.

#2: Clemson

The teams Clemson has played are not great. But, they are not as awful as many in the press have claimed. The Tigers' 2nd level points are among the best, though they are certainly benefitting from having already played 11 games to most others' 10.

As questionable as they looked earlier, it seems that Swinney has them firing on all cylinders now. The Clemson D is #2 in yds/game and #3 in pts/game (behind UGA and OSU), and Lawrence appears to have shaken off his case of sophomore slump.

Clemson looks for real.

#1: LSU

LSU colors fly from the page for one more week at least as Jeaux Burreaux did his thing one more time. I didn't tune in until later and I was surprised to see Ole Miss hanging around. The I saw a true rarity this season: a Burrow pick. Yes, he was hit as he threw, but to be honest he was really trying to thread a needle on that one and I don't think it's a completion regardless. Beyond that?

489 yds
5 TD
2 INT (!!!)
203 passer rtg <- ridiculous

So, the question is: how long Joe carry the team? Because their D is 44th pts/game and 51st in yds/game. And we all know that defense wins championships.

But the Tigers stay on top for one more week regardless. Geaux Jeaux!