Ranking the four unbeaten FBS teams

[BamaDude]

I have two main ways of ranking teams (other than the normal "eye test"). One is a good bit more complicated than the other, so in this instance I will be using the Simple Method, in which a team gets points rated first on their won-loss record (primary winning percentage), then on the wins of the teams they've beaten & the losses of the teams they've lost to (secondary winning percentage; plus schedule performance (1.0 point for each win against an FBS team, -1.0 for a loss to an FBS team, 0.75 for a win vs an FCS team & -1.25 for a loss to an FCS team), and then add opponents schedule opponents in a comparable manner.

Here are the results (unbeaten teams only):

1. Alabama 11-0 100.00 PWP 60-0 100.00 SWP 10.75 SP 59.25 OSP = 270.00
2. Wisconsin 11-0 100.00 PWP 59-0 100.00 SWP 11.00 SP 56.75 OSP = 267.00
3. Miami (FL) 10-0 100.00 PWP 61-0 100.00 SWP 9.75 SP 56.25 OSP = 266.00
4. Central Florida 10-0 100.00 PWP 53-0 100.00 SWP 9.75 SP 59.00 OSP = 259.00

 

[Goldbug]

I'd bet good money that Miami would beat the hell out of Wisconsin.

 

[Great Dayne]

I'd bet good money that Miami would beat the hell out of Wisconsin.

I'll gladly take your money on that bet.

 

[Goldbug]

I'll gladly take your money on that bet.

Get back to me after the Ohio State game and we'll see how good you are. You're good. But how good? Your schedule just hasn't proved anything yet.

 

[The Derski]

I'd bet good money that Miami would beat the hell out of Wisconsin.

Yeah, because Wisconsin has struggled mightily to put away opponents.

 

[Great Dayne]

Get back to me after the Ohio State game and we'll see how good you are. You're good. But how good? Your schedule just hasn't proved anything yet.

Wisconsin:
Better SOS than Bama (sargin and Massey)
Larger margin of victory over their top three opponents than Bama


After we beat OSU it will be you haven't beaten anyone yet. Each week it's the same shit. Iowa curb stomped OSU by 31 points more than your Oklahoma team then we went on to destroy them by 24 points despite our QB throwing TWO PICK 6's and having 4 total turnovers. After we did that then everyone said Iowa is garbage that just got lucky vs OSU and let's see how you do vs a ranked Michigan with a great defense. Curb stomp them as well and both teams drop out of the rankings because we beat them so badly. Meanwhile, Bama barely beats their ranked opponents and they stay ranked or don't even drop after Bama beats them. They're propping up Miss st. and LSU to make it appear as though they actually beaten somebody when clearly they haven't.

Also, the teams Oklahoma beat with TCU and Okie lite haven't beaten a single ranked team either. Michigan was a 2 loss team but they were very down on Michigan because they had no ranked wins well neither does fucking Miami.

As for Miami, they had not 1, not 2, not 3, but four close games within a score one within a point vs average to poor teams. Hell, they were losing by 14 points to Virginia who was destroyed by Indiana a team which Wisconsin destroyed and everyone dismissed as a cupcake. Yet, Miami needs the dumb onside kick and a late game int to beat them and are bumped up in the rankings. The only impressive win for Miami was Notre Dame who was beaten by Georgia who was crushed by Auburn and Notre Dame then went on to win by one score over an average Navy team that runs every single play.

Don't fall for the national narrative drivel

 

[Great Dayne]

Yeah, because Wisconsin has struggled mightily to put away opponents.

Meanwhile Oklahoma makes Texass, Baylor, K st, Iowa state and others look like world beaters. LMAO

 

[4down20]

(primary winning percentage),

It's a dumb method and it sucks.

 

[MarkOU]

Meanwhile Oklahoma makes Texass, Baylor, K st, Iowa state and others look like world beaters. LMAO

That's because OU is a blue blood. Beating them puts you in the map. Coaches give respect if you can beat them. They bring their best every game. The empty their play book every game. You're Wisconsin, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Great Dayne]

That's because OU is a blue blood. Beating them puts you in the map. Coaches give respect if you can beat them. They bring their best every game. The empty their play book every game. You're Wisconsin, you wouldn't understand.

That term is outdated and for people living in the past. New blood's is the term to use now. Please see the thread on blue bloods if as a reference.

In the end that's an excuse, if you're as good as your ranking indicates then you wouldn't need to routinely have narrow victories over bad to borderline awful teams.

 

[MarkOU]

That term is outdated and for people living in the past. New blood's is the term to use now. Please see the thread on blue bloods if as a reference.

In the end that's an excuse, if you're as good as your ranking indicates then you wouldn't need to routinely have narrow victories over bad to borderline awful teams.

Awe come on man, you're in the B1G 10 and Oklahoma's Rose Bowl win is more recent than yours.

 

[4down20]

That term is outdated and for people living in the past. New blood's is the term to use now. Please see the thread on blue bloods if as a reference.

In the end that's an excuse, if you're as good as your ranking indicates then you wouldn't need to routinely have narrow victories over bad to borderline awful teams.

so what's the requirement for "new blood"?

 

[outofyourmind]

You're Wisconsin, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Great Dayne]

so what's the requirement for "new blood"?

1.) 75% or above winning % under your current head coach and or the last 5 years
2.) 1 CFP appearance within 5 years

 

[4down20]

1.) 75% or above winning % under your current head coach and or the last 5 years
2.) 1 CFP appearance within 5 years

Sounds like a participation trophy to me.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't get people's love affair with Miami . It's all really based on one game . The Canes almost lost to UNC, should've lost to GT and have looked like shit for large portions of other games . Wisconsin hasn't been close to losing and their D is by FAR the best group on either team.

I think the OP has it right although UCF is better than most are giving them credit for

 

[Great Dayne]

Sounds like a participation trophy to me.

If it was a participation trophy then 120+ would have been titled a new blood. Instead, only 6 or 7 are able to call themselves a new blood at the moment.

 

[4down20]

If it was a participation trophy then 120+ would have been titled a new blood. Instead, only 6 or 7 are able to call themselves a new blood at the moment.

Because building the sport and revenue so that teams like yours are able to benefit is so over-rated.

 

[Great Dayne]

Because building the sport and revenue so that teams like yours are able to benefit is so over-rated.

It's for all teams and just before you were at the top of the mountain one time doesn't automatically mean you will be there every single year or consistently. No more do we have teams living off the history of what was. It's about the what is and what will be. What a team did 20 years ago is nice but it's overrated in terms of what it means for making the CFP right now.

 

[4down20]

It's for all teams and just before you were at the top of the mountain one time doesn't automatically mean you will be there every single year or consistently. No more do we have teams living off the history of what was. It's about the what is and what will be. What a team did 20 years ago is nice but it's overrated in terms of what it means for making the CFP right now.

None of that shit matters in any way for making the playoffs. By the time the final selection comes, it's obvious who deserves to go and it will be based on this season alone.