With the non-Big Ten part of the season officially over, this is the recently we have to gaze at a 0-0 group topping the SP+ rankings. Ohio State gets underway in 6 days, and well lastly get to find out if Ryan Days Buckeyes are as excellent as SP+ appears to believe theyll be. Theyll cede control of the rankings to two groups in a hell of a fight at the minute if they arent.
Clemson and Alabama have actually traded off the No. 2 and No. 3 area in the rankings for a couple of weeks now, and after 2 outstanding efficiencies– Alabama retreated from No. 4 Georgia in the second half for an easy headliner win, while Clemson might have scored 100 on bad Georgia Tech if it truly wanted to– they are basically in a tie. Among teams that have actually played so far, Clemson is the just one with a top-5 offense and defense, while, ho hum, Alabama just has an offense that grades out even better than Joe Burrow and LSU last year.
Its early, and things can and will shift, but the Crimson Tide hanging 564 backyards and 41 points on what is still quickly the top defense in the nation pushed them into lofty area. For contrast, they handled 83 more backyards, 4 more points and 0.9 lawns per play more than what Joe Burrow and LSU did to Georgia in 2015. And this Georgia defense is more knowledgeable and, on paper, better.
Alabamas current offending SP+ score of 48.0 adjusted points per video game grades out in the 99.8 percentile. In the last 15 years, just the 2017 and 2018 Oklahoma offenses have actually graded out better.
What is SP+? In a single sentence, its a pace- and opponent-adjusted procedure of college football efficiency. I created the system at Football Outsiders in 2008, and as my experience with both college football and its stats has actually grown, I have actually made several tweaks to the system.
SP+ is meant to be forward-facing and predictive. It is not a résumé ranking that offers credit for big wins or particularly brave scheduling– no great predictive system is. If youre lucky or unimpressive in a win, your rating will most likely fall.
Here are the complete numbers.
Total SP+ Rankings
Team
Ranking
Offense
Defense
Special Teams
1. Ohio St. (0-0).
30.2.
44.2 (2 ).
14.1 (2 ).
N/A.
2. Clemson (5-0).
28.5.
43.6 (3 ).
15.2 (4 ).
0.1 (18 ).
3. Alabama (4-0).
28.5.
48.0 (1 ).
19.6 (21 ).
0.1 (15 ).
4. Georgia (3-1).
22.6.
31.5 (39 ).
9.2 (1 ).
0.3 (4 ).
5. Penn St. (0-0).
22.3.
39.4 (8 ).
17.1 (10 ).
N/A.
6. Wisconsin (0-0).
21.7.
36.0 (19 ).
14.3 (3 ).
N/A.
7. Notre Dame (4-0).
20.6.
37.1 (13 ).
16.6 (8 ).
0.0 (33 ).
8. Florida (2-1).
20.0.
40.8 (6 ).
21.1 (28 ).
0.4 (2 ).
9. Oklahoma (2-2).
18.1.
43.1 (4 ).
25.0 (47 ).
0.0 (44 ).
10. N. Carolina (3-1).
17.2.
41.0 (5 ).
23.6 (37 ).
-0.2 (69 ).
11. Oregon (0-0).
16.3.
32.7 (31 ).
16.3 (7 ).
N/A.
12. USC (0-0).
15.8.
39.5 (7 ).
23.7 (38 ).
N/A.
13. Oklahoma St. (3-0).
15.3.
33.3 (29 ).
18.2 (15 ).
0.2 (12 ).
14. Washington (0-0).
15.3.
32.5 (33 ).
17.2 (12 ).
N/A.
15. BYU (5-0).
15.2.
37.2 (12 ).
22.3 (31 ).
0.3 (7 ).
16. Minnesota (0-0).
14.3.
38.8 (10 ).
24.5 (44 ).
N/A.
17. Michigan (0-0).
14.0.
31.9 (38 ).
17.8 (14 ).
N/A.
18. Texas A&M (3-1).
14.0.
35.1 (23 ).
21.0 (27 ).
-0.1 (58 ).
19. Miami (4-1).
13.9.
32.0 (37 ).
18.6 (16 ).
0.5 (1 ).
20. Cincinnati (3-0).
13.6.
29.4 (55 ).
15.8 (5 ).
0.0 (30 ).
21. Va.
Tech (3-1 ).
13.5. 36.7 (16 ).
23.3 (36).
0.1 (27 ).
22. Texas (2-2 ).
13.4. 39.2 (9).
25.7 (55 ).
0.0 (39 ).
23. Iowa St. (3-1 ).
13.2.
33.4 (28 ).
20.2 (23).
0.0 (34 ).
24. LSU (1-2 ).
12.1.
35.9 (20).
24.1 (41 ).
0.2 (8 ).
25. Utah (0-0).
11.9. 36.1 (18 ).
24.3 (42 ).
N/A.
26. Auburn( 2-2
). 11.5.
31.0 (42 ).
19.6 (22 ).
0.2 (14 ).
27. Iowa (0-0).
11.3. 28.4 (62 ).
17.0 (9 ).
N/A.
28. UCF (2-2).
10.9. 36.5 (17 ).
25.6 (52 ).
0.0 (40 ).
29. Memphis (2-1).
10.0. 37.8 (11 ).
27.8 (65 ).
0.0(
32).
30.
SMU (5-0 ).
10.0. 37.0 (14 ).
27.0
(59).
-0.1
(49 ).
31. Nebraska (0-0 ).
9.9.
35.6 (22).
25.7
(53 ).
N/A.
32. Indiana (0-0 ).
9.9. 32.1 (35 ).
22.2 (30 ).
N/A.
33. App.
St. (2-1 ).
9.3.
34.2 (27 ).
24.6 (45).
-0.3
(74 ).
34. Baylor (1-1 ).
9.0.
31.3 (41).
22.1 (29 ).
-0.1 (60 ).
35.
Boise St. (0-0).
8.5.
31.4 (40 ).
22.9 (33 ).
N/A.
36. Kentucky (2-2).
7.7. 28.3 (63 ).
20.8 (26 ).
0.1 (16 ).
37. Tennessee (2-2).
7.6. 26.5 (82 ).
18.9 (18 ).
-0.1 (56 ).
38. Pittsburgh (3-3).
7.3.
25.9 (90 ).
18.8 (17 ).
0.2 (11 ).
39. Arizona St. (0-0).
7.3.
26.8 (79 ).
19.5 (20 ).
N/A.
40. Marshall (4-0 ).
6.6.
26.9 (76 ).
20.4 (24).
0.1 (19 ).
41. Louisiana
(3-1 ).
6.3.
34.4
(25 ).
28.1 (66 ).
-0.1 (50 ).
42. TCU (1-2).
5.9.
26.3 (86 ).
20.5 (25 ).
0.1 (25).
43.
W. Virginia (3-1 ).
5.4.
28.7 (58).
23.1
(34 ).
-0.3 (70 ).
44.
Army (5-1).
5.0. 28.7 (59 ).
24.0 (40 ).
0.3 (3 ).
45. Louisville (1-4).
4.7.
36.7 (15 ).
31.9 (92 ).
-0.1
(54).
46.
Ole Miss (1-3 ).
4.4.
34.2( 26 ). 29.8 (79).
-0.1
(53 ).
47. Stanford (0-0 ).
4.3.
30.9( 43 ). 26.6 (58).
N/A.
48. Purdue (0-0 ).
4.2.
32.9( 30)
. 28.7 (74).
N/A.
49. Virginia (1-3 ).
4.2.
28.1 (66).
23.9
(39 ).
0.0 (41 ).
50.
UAB (4-1).
4.1.
23.1 (102 ).
19.1
( 19 ). 0.1 (23 ).
51. Michigan St. (0-0 ).
4.0.
21.8 (109 ).
17.8 (13 ).
N/A.
52. Houston (1-1).
3.3. 32.6 (32 ).
29.2 (77 ).
0.0 (45 ).
53. S. Carolina (2-2 ).
3.2.
26.4 (85 ).
23.2 (35).
0.0 (47 ).
54. Northwestern (0-0 ).
3.1.
19.4 (117).
16.3 (6 ).
N/A.
55. Liberty (5-0).
2.4.
30.6 (46 ).
28.1 (67 ).
-0.1 (63 ).
56. California (0-0).
2.4.
30.6 (48 ).
28.2 (68 ).
N/A.
57. Wash.
St. (0-0 ).
2.3.
35.8( 21)
. 33.5 (102).
N/A.
58. Boston Coll.
(3-2 ).
2.2. 30.7 (45 ).
28.5 (72).
0.0 (42 ).
59. Air Force (1-0 ).
1.5. 27.0 (74 ).
25.6 (50).
0.0 (35 ).
60.
Ga.
Tech (2-3).
1.4.
26.9 (77 ).
25.1 (49 ).
-0.3
( 75 ). 61.
NC St.
(4-1 ).
1.2.
28.6 (60 ).
27.5 (64).
0.1 (21 ).
62. Missouri (1-2 ).
1.0.
23.4 (101).
22.7 (32 ).
0.3 (6 ).
63.
Miss. St. (1-3 ).
1.0.
27.4
( 71 ). 26.5 (57 ).
0.1 (26 ).
64.
Florida St. (2-3 ).
0.9. 29.3 (56 ).
28.3 (71 ).
0.0 (43).
65. UCLA (0-0 ).
0.9. 30.8 (44 ).
29.9( 80)
. N/A.
66. Illinois (0-0 ).
0.7. 26.4 (84 ).
25.7 (54 ).
N/A. 67.
Kansas St. (3-1 ).
0.2.
28.5 (61).
28.3 (70 ).
0.1 (29 ).
68.
Troy( 3-1 ). -0.1.
30.2 (52 ).
30.1 (87 ).
-0.2 (67 ).
69. Tulsa (1-1).
-0.3.
27.2 (73 ).
27.4 (60 ).
-0.2 (65 ).
70. Ohio (0-0).
-1.0. 32.1 (34 ).
33.1 (98 ).
N/A.
71. Wake Forest (2-2).
-1.3. 26.2 (87 ).
27.4 (61 ).
0.0(
48).
72.
Coastal Caro.
( 4-0).
N/A.
76. WKU (1-4 ).
-2.6. 22.0 (108 ).
24.7( 46)
-1.8. 32.0 (36).
34.0 (104 ).
0.2 (9 ).
73.
Tulane (2-3).
-1.9. 29.4 (54 ).
31.4 (89 ).
0.1 (20).
74. Oregon St. (0-0 ).
-2.0. 28.0 (67 ).
30.0 (82 ).
. 0.1 (17).
77. Buffalo (0-0 ).
-2.6. 24.9 (94 ).
27.5 (63 ).
N/A.
75. San Diego St. (0-0 ).
-2.3. 14.9 (123 ).
17.2 (11 ).
N/A. 78.
Arkansas (2-2 ).
-2.6. 23.1 (103 ).
25.6 (51).
-0.1 (62 ).
79. Arkansas St. (3-2).
-2.8. 34.8 (24 ).
37.5 (120 ).
-0.2
(68).
80. Temple (1-1 ).
-3.1. 24.4 (95 ).
27.4 (62).
0.0 (46 ).
81. Ga.
Southern (3-1).
-3.5. 26.7 (80 ).
30.1 (85 ).
-0.1 (51 ).
82. FAU (1-0).
-3.9. 25.3 (92 ).
29.2 (78 ).
0.0(
31).
83.
Colorado St. (0-0 ).
-4.1. 25.9 (89 ).
30.1 (86).
N/A.
84. Maryland (0-0 ).
-4.2. 24.0 (98 ).
28.2 (69 ).
N/A. 85.
Ball St. (0-0 ).
-4.3. 27.4 (72 ).
31.6 (90 ).
( 108).
-0.3 (73 ).
87. WMU (0-0 ).
-5.1.
N/A. 86.
Georgia St. (1-2 ).
-4.5. 30.5 (49 ).
34.7
28.0 (68).
33.2 (99 ).
N/A.
88. Duke (1-5).
-5.2. 19.1 (118 ).
24.3 (43 ).
0.0 (36 ).
89. Charlotte (1-2).
-5.3. 30.2 (51 ).
35.5 (111 ).
0.0(
37).
90. Wyoming (0-0 ).
-5.3. 19.7 (116 ).
25.1( 48)
. -5.5.
29.0 (57 ).
34.1 (105 ).
-0.4( 76)
. N/A.
91.
Texas Tech (1-3)
. 92. La.
Tech (3-2 ).
-5.5. 26.9 (78 ).
32.4 (94 ).
0.1 (28).
93. Colorado (0-0 ).
-5.8. 26.9 (75 ).
32.7 (96 ).
. 98.
Hawaii (0-0 ).
-6.8. 30.5 (50 ).
37.3( 118
N/A. 97. USF (1-4).
-6.5. 20.0 (115 ).
26.1 (56 ).
-0.4( 77)
).
N/A. 99.
. Miss (1-3 ).
-6.8.
-0.2 (66).
96. Toledo (0-0 ).
-6.4. 28.1 (64 ).
34.5 (107 ).
N/A. 95.
N. Texas (2-3 ).
-6.1. 29.6 (53 ).
35.5 (110 ).
N/A. 94.
CMU (0-0 ).
-5.8. 24.3 (97 ).
30.1( 84).
26.5 (83).
33.2 (100 ).
-0.1 (55 ).
100.
Navy( 3-2).
-6.9. 26.0 (88 ).
33.1 (97 ).
0.2 (13 ).
101. FIU (0-2).
-7.1. 22.8 (107 ).
30.0 (81 ).
0.0 (38 ).
102. Arizona (0-0).
-7.4. 30.6 (47 ).
38.0 (122 ).
N/A.
103. Fresno St. (0-0).
-8.0. 28.1 (65 ).
36.1 (113 ).
N/A.
104. Utah St. (0-0).
-8.1. 23.9 (99 ).
31.9 (93 ).
N/A.
105. Syracuse( 1-4).
-8.3. 21.7 (110 ).
30.2 (88 ).
0.2 (10 ).
106. San Jose St. (0-0).
-9.1. 27.8 (70 ).
36.9 (116 ).
N/A.
107. Nevada (0-0).
-9.7. 20.3 (113 ).
30.0 (83 ).
N/A.
108. UTSA( 3-3).
-10.2. 25.5 (91 ).
36.0 (112 ).
0.3 (5 ).
109. Rutgers( 0-0).
-10.2. 18.8 (119). 29.0( 75 ). N/A. 110. Texas St.( 1-5 ). -10.8. 23.1( 104). 33.7( 103). -0.1( 64 ). 111. S. Alabama( 2-2). -11.0. 23.5( 100). 34.4( 106 ). -0.1 (59). 112. Miami-OH (0-0). -11.1. 20.8( 112 ). 31.9( 91). N/A. 113. MTSU( 1-5). -11.8. 24.4( 96). 36.2( 114 ). -0.1( 52). 114. ECU( 1-3). -12.0. 25.2( 93). 37.3 (119). 0.1 (22). 115. Kent St.( 0-0). -12.3. 26.6 (81). 38.9( 123). N/A. 116. EMU( 0-0 ). -12.5. 27.8( 69). 40.3( 126). N/A. 117. Rice( 0-0). -14.2. 14.3( 125). 28.5( 73). N/A. 118. NIU( 0-0 ). -14.6. 18.1( 120). 32.7( 95). N/A. 119. Vanderbilt( 0-3). -16.1. 13.2( 126 ). 29.0 (76). -0.3( 72). 120. Kansas( 0-4). -16.1. 20.1( 114). 36.3( 115). 0.1( 24 ). 121. ULM( 0-5). -16.4. 21.2 (111). 37.2 (117 ). -0.3 (71). 122. New Mexico( 0-0). -17.3. 22.9( 106). 40.2 (124). N/A. 123. UNLV (0-0). -17.3. 23.0( 105 ). 40.3( 125). N/A. 124. UTEP( 3-2 ). -19.0. 15.8 (121). 34.7 (109). -0.1( 61 ). 125. Akron( 0-0 ). -21.0. 12.5( 127). 33.5( 101). N/A. 126. BGSU( 0-0). -23.1. 14.5( 124). 37.5( 121). N/A. 127. UMass. (0-1). -32.6. 15.7( 122). 48.2( 127). -0.1( 57). This weeks movers. A fast procedural note: Because of all the quirks of 2020– the diminished offseason practice time, the fact that were whistling together with groups regularly missing out on one-quarter or one-fifth of their scholarship gamers for a
offered game, etc– I created SP +to be a bit more careful out of evictions. I set it up so that preseason projections were phased out more gradually than regular while we found out the predictive results of all these quirks. After some research study and tinkering over the weekend, Im positive in making things a little less conservative in that regard. That phasing-out procedure is now better in line to how Ive done things in previous years, which means that for teams that have played a handful of games now, their rankings are more reflective of how theyve played to date.
That need to have a favorable impact on predictions, however it does bring one curiosity to the table: it means groups moved up or down this week based not on Saturdays outcomes however on previous weeks. If a team made a decent dive throughout an off week (hi, Oklahoma State) or made a motion that wasnt in line with results to date, thats most likely why.
Going up.
5 groups leapt more than 10 areas this week:.
Liberty: up 22 areas from 77th to 55th.
West Virginia: up 18 spots from 61st to 43rd.
Army: up 14 areas from 58th to 44th.
Marshall: up 13 areas from 53rd to 40th.
North Texas: up 11 areas from 106th to 95th.
2 groups have actually separated themselves from the pack in Conference USA: No. 40 Marshall and No. 50 UAB. They beat 2 preseason contenders– Louisiana Tech and WKU, respectively– by a combined 72-31 on Saturday and are the only 2 top-75 teams in the league.
Moving down.
A couple of groups also moved down quite a bit.
Florida State (down 17 spots from 47th to 64th).
Georgia State (down 15 areas from 71st to 86th).
Syracuse (down 14 areas from 91st to 105th).
Duke (down 14 areas from 74th to 88th).
Tennessee (down 13 spots from 24th to 37th).
Georgia Tech (down 12 spots from 48th to 60th).
Auburn (down 12 spots from 14th to 26th).
Middle Tennessee (down 11 spots from 102nd to 113th).
Incredibly unfriendly preseason forecasts. Even with me phasing out projections a little bit faster now, theyre still holding the Hogs in location a bit. Their preseason SP+ rating was minus-3.2 changed points per video game, and 4 games in, thats still more than 50% of their general SP+ rating.Florida has fallen 17 spots, from 3rd to 20th.
Auburn fell quite far this week, making last weeks tossup loss look less outstanding. They get less of a boost for overachieving projections because game.
As excellent as the defense protested an exceptional Ole Miss offense, the offense was similarly bad versus a terrible Ole Miss defense. Their defensive rankings increased today, and their offensive rankings fell.
That damned post-game win span again. It was 46% versus Ole Miss, which indicates they only get so much credit for the performance.
All of these answers are unsatisfying, however statistics are antisocial sometimes. If the Hogs keep overachieving their projections, SP+ will likely capture on at some time.
With the non-Big Ten part of the season officially over, this is the last week we have to stare at a 0-0 group topping the SP+ rankings. Kent St.( 0-0). Rice( 0-0). NIU( 0-0 ). New Mexico( 0-0).
Given that I do not think numerous will be amazed that both Auburn and Tennessee fell rather a bit after Saturdays performances– losses to South Carolina and Kentucky, respectively– lets talk a bit more about Florida State.
The Seminoles had actually gotten definitely smoked by Miami, and from the viewpoint of the predictive stats that go into SP+, they were lucky not to lose to both Notre Dame and Georgia Tech by a lot more than they did. They must have been in the 60s before this week, in other words.
Second, those same predictive statistics saw the Noles big win over North Carolina as more of a tossup. My postgame win expectancy step– which takes the crucial stats from an offered game, tosses them into the air, and states, “With these statistics, you could have expected to win this game X% of the time”– saw a game UNC wins 62% of the time. FSU overachieved forecasts but didnt get a lot of credit for the win.
Why does SP+ hate Arkansas?
The very first thing I did after running the numbers was check and Arkansas and see how much the Razorbacks increased after Saturdays win over Ole Miss. I dove into why Sam Pittmans 2-2 Hogs are still mired in the 70s, just barely ahead of in-state rival Arkansas State.
