Alabama, Florida State and Ohio State maintain the first three places in the CFCI while upsets have caused a shuffle below. Clemson & Taj Boyd move into the fourth position, Auburn takes No. 5 and Michigan State is No. 6. Northern Illinois sneaks up to No.7.
Both Oregon’s and Baylor’s offenses failed to get the job done causing both to tumble. Oregon falls to No. 8 while Louisville keeps the No. 9 spot, and Fresno State rounds out the Top 10.
Both the BCS standings and the CFCI ranks Alabama, Florida State and Ohio State as 1, 2, and 3.
In terms of teams included, the CFCI dips this week as Duke, UCLA, and USC hit the CFCI at 27, 28, & 29 narrowly missing the CFCI Top 25. Colley Matrix gets a bit of redemption. Earlier in the season the press maligned it for its first published poll which included only 16 of the AP Top 25. Now CM has all of the teams and does quite well.
CFCI v. BCS Computers
| CFCI vs. BCS Computers | |
|---|---|
| Colley Matrix | 25 |
| Anderson & Hester | 24 |
| Richard Billingsley | 23 |
| Jeff Sagarin | 23 |
| Peter Wolfe | 23 |
| Ken Massey | 22 |
| CFCI | 21 |
BCS No. 4 & Playoffs
The BCS has Auburn at No. 4 which aligns with the average BCS computer ranking for the week. The individual systems themselves rank Auburn anywhere from 4 up as high as 8. Auburn is listed as 4 by Colley Matrix and Peter Wolfe while Anderson & Hester and Ken Massey rank Auburn 5th. Richard Billingsly has the Tigers at No. 7, and Jeff Sagarin places them at No. 8.
With the College Football Playoffs coming next year, it’s fair to ask the question why Auburn is in the No. 4 spot. In the BCS system, Auburn’s ranking has as much to do with the turbulence and disagreement behind Auburn as it has to do with their level of play. When a team is in the conversation like Auburn is, it has the opportunity for the breaks that come with simply being there.
The CFCI puts Clemson at the No. 4 spot and the Harris Poll and USA Today Coaches Polls would agree, but the BCS computer polls drag Clemson far out of the conversation. Only Richard Billingsley ranks the Clemson Tigers as high as No. 4 while the remainder rank them as high as No. 7 and as low as No. 14 with the average being No. 10.
BCS No. 5 is Missouri which catches a No. 6 ranking from the Harris Poll and the USA Today Polls while the computers combine to agree to a No. 5 ranking.
Clemson is No. 6 in the BCS poll followed by Oklahoma State. However, the BCS computers inject Northern Illinois and Arizona State in at Nos. 6 and 7 leaving chaos to reign in behind Auburn.
It’s long been the contention here that it is rare for more than two teams to be worthy of being the National Champions in any given season and most certainly, there are not eight teams worthy to play for the National Championship. Rarely are there even four. The No. 1 Reason Why BCS Beat Playoffs Plus the Devious Collapsing Bracket
This season is a perfect example of that contention. Only Alabama, Florida State and Ohio State remain undefeated in the BCS Conferences. Beyond that the conversation is a quagmire of beaten teams and disagreements over rankings with only more of a quagmire occurring over the next three weeks at No. 4 and lower if Alabama, FSU and Ohio State take care of business.
The focus is on determining a National Champion after a hard-fought season of College Football. A four-team playoff is tolerable to achieve the objection of finding a National Champion but any more than that simply includes teams who’ve proven already that they’re in the second tier of the National Championship conversation.
The issue for Jeff Long and the Committee will be to sort through those second tier teams because the reality is going to be, now that we’ve moved away from a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup for all the marbles, what one or two teams in the second tier are worthy to be in the National Championship conversation. It will be an unusual season for their choices to be difficult for more than two teams.
As always, it is an honor for the College Football Champion Index to be included in BCS Computer Guru Ken Massey’s College Football Ranking Composite.
College Football Champion Index Week 13
+/- Wk. 12 Rank Wk. 13 Rank Team CFCI Wk. 13 CFCI Wk. 12 +/-
0 1 1 Alabama 0.9906 0.9903 0.0003
0 2 2 Florida St. 0.9837 0.9807 0.003
0 3 3 Ohio St. 0.7948 0.9339 -0.1391
2 6 4 Clemson 0.7728 0.7708 0.002
2 7 5 Auburn 0.7529 0.7529 0
2 8 6 Michigan St. 0.7085 0.7205 -0.012
3 10 7 Northern Ill. 0.6922 0.691 0.0012
-3 5 8 Oregon 0.6913 0.7973 -0.106
0 9 9 Louisville 0.6876 0.7053 -0.0177
1 11 10 Fresno St. 0.6846 0.6751 0.0095
-7 4 11 Baylor 0.6305 0.8349 -0.2044
2 14 12 Missouri 0.6283 0.6376 -0.0093
0 13 13 Oklahoma St. 0.6256 0.6382 -0.0126
3 17 14 UCF 0.5934 0.5919 0.0015
-3 12 15 Texas A&M 0.5884 0.6554 -0.067
0 16 16 Wisconsin 0.5883 0.6033 -0.015
25 42 17 Georgia 0.5705 0.3956 0.1749
1 19 18 Stanford 0.5649 0.5739 -0.009
1 20 19 South Carolina 0.5541 0.559 -0.0049
-2 18 20 Oklahoma 0.5498 0.5742 -0.0244
1 22 21 Cincinnati 0.5163 0.5336 -0.0173
1 23 22 Arizona St. 0.5105 0.5323 -0.0218
-8 15 23 LSU 0.4716 0.6375 -0.1659
3 27 24 La.-Lafayette 0.4628 0.4628 0
-1 24 25 East Carolina 0.4625 0.4844 -0.0219
6 32 26 Texas 0.4525 0.4525 0
2 29 27 Duke 0.4477 0.457 -0.0093
-7 21 28 UCLA 0.4453 0.5482 -0.1029
-1 28 29 Southern California 0.4449 0.4595 -0.0146
4 34 30 Bowling Green 0.4425 0.4438 -0.0013
-1 30 31 Miami (FL) 0.4353 0.4555 -0.0202
-1 31 32 Nebraska 0.4341 0.4552 -0.0211
2 35 33 Notre Dame 0.4277 0.4433 -0.0156
3 37 34 Ball St. 0.4235 0.4235 0
1 36 35 Marshall 0.4193 0.4316 -0.0123
-11 25 36 Minnesota 0.3892 0.4785 -0.0893
8 45 37 Virginia Tech 0.3867 0.3867 0
8 46 38 Buffalo 0.3856 0.3866 -0.001
1 40 39 Washington 0.3834 0.4022 -0.0188
-14 26 40 Michigan 0.38 0.4654 -0.0854
2 43 41 Rice 0.3783 0.3926 -0.0143
6 48 42 Iowa 0.3719 0.3845 -0.0126
-10 33 43 Ole Miss 0.3661 0.4498 -0.0837
7 51 44 Georgia Tech 0.3645 0.3712 -0.0067
5 50 45 Utah St. 0.3643 0.3756 -0.0113
7 53 46 Arizona 0.345 0.3625 -0.0175
-9 38 47 BYU 0.3445 0.4212 -0.0767
8 56 48 Western Ky. 0.3418 0.3437 -0.0019
9 58 49 Texas Tech 0.3354 0.3354 0
-9 41 50 Boise St. 0.3315 0.3978 -0.0663
-12 39 51 North Texas 0.3305 0.407 -0.0765
-8 44 52 Penn St. 0.3269 0.3889 -0.062
12 65 53 North Carolina 0.3218 0.3253 -0.0035
6 60 54 Boston College 0.3185 0.3306 -0.0121
4 59 55 Vanderbilt 0.318 0.3307 -0.0127
6 62 56 Arkansas St. 0.3127 0.3289 -0.0162
13 70 57 Tulane 0.3122 0.3112 0.001
-11 47 58 Houston 0.3118 0.3864 -0.0746
2 61 59 Navy 0.3099 0.3302 -0.0203
-11 49 60 Toledo 0.3084 0.3785 -0.0701
6 67 61 Middle Tenn. 0.304 0.3147 -0.0107
4 66 62 San Diego St. 0.302 0.3156 -0.0136
-11 52 63 Kansas St. 0.2971 0.3638 -0.0667
-10 54 64 Maryland 0.2962 0.3541 -0.0579
4 69 65 Pittsburgh 0.2938 0.3116 -0.0178
-11 55 66 Rutgers 0.2841 0.3457 -0.0616
-10 57 67 Florida 0.2804 0.3376 -0.0572
3 71 68 Mississippi St. 0.2763 0.2907 -0.0144
-5 64 69 Oregon St. 0.2642 0.3254 -0.0612
8 78 70 UNLV 0.2641 0.2689 -0.0048
4 75 71 UTSA 0.2629 0.2746 -0.0117
-9 63 72 Texas St. 0.2625 0.3257 -0.0632
7 80 73 Fla. Atlantic 0.2618 0.2674 -0.0056
5 79 74 SMU 0.2567 0.2683 -0.0116
-7 68 75 Ohio 0.2549 0.3131 -0.0582
7 83 76 South Ala. 0.2495 0.2583 -0.0088
-5 72 77 Syracuse 0.2475 0.2873 -0.0398
-5 73 78 Tennessee 0.2455 0.2868 -0.0413
-5 74 79 Memphis 0.2425 0.2864 -0.0439
8 88 80 Washington St. 0.2326 0.242 -0.0094
-4 77 81 Colorado St. 0.2293 0.271 -0.0417
-6 76 82 Utah 0.2289 0.2727 -0.0438
-2 81 83 San Jose St. 0.2281 0.2656 -0.0375
9 93 84 TCU 0.2281 0.2281 0
2 87 85 Indiana 0.2271 0.242 -0.0149
3 89 86 Wyoming 0.2265 0.2389 -0.0124
9 96 87 Army 0.2203 0.2203 0
9 97 88 Troy 0.2195 0.2195 0
-7 82 89 Northwestern 0.2154 0.2606 -0.0452
9 99 90 Central Mich. 0.2139 0.2165 -0.0026
9 100 91 West Virginia 0.2128 0.2128 0
-8 84 92 La.-Monroe 0.2118 0.2522 -0.0404
2 95 93 Illinois 0.2105 0.2209 -0.0104
-9 85 94 Louisiana Tech 0.2079 0.2432 -0.0353
-9 86 95 Arkansas 0.2072 0.2428 -0.0356
-6 90 96 North Carolina St. 0.2019 0.2375 -0.0356
-6 91 97 Colorado 0.2001 0.2343 -0.0342
6 104 98 Nevada 0.1987 0.1987 0
-7 92 99 Wake Forest 0.1981 0.2333 -0.0352
5 105 100 Akron 0.1951 0.1951 0
-7 94 101 South Fla. 0.1939 0.224 -0.0301
6 108 102 Tulsa 0.1813 0.1886 -0.0073
-5 98 103 New Mexico 0.1807 0.2172 -0.0365
6 110 104 Kent St. 0.1789 0.1813 -0.0024
-2 103 105 Virginia 0.178 0.2033 -0.0253
-5 101 106 Kansas 0.1761 0.2099 -0.0338
-5 102 107 Kentucky 0.17 0.2039 -0.0339
-1 107 108 Air Force 0.1654 0.1919 -0.0265
-3 106 109 UTEP 0.163 0.1943 -0.0313
4 114 110 Iowa St. 0.1608 0.1634 -0.0026
1 112 111 UConn 0.1605 0.1683 -0.0078
-3 109 112 UAB 0.1573 0.1819 -0.0246
9 122 113 Western Mich. 0.1452 0.1452 0
-1 113 114 Temple 0.1444 0.1649 -0.0205
-4 111 115 Eastern Mich. 0.1426 0.1707 -0.0281
-1 115 116 California 0.1399 0.163 -0.0231
0 117 117 Massachusetts 0.1338 0.1554 -0.0216
-2 116 118 New Mexico St. 0.1334 0.1572 -0.0238
-1 118 119 Purdue 0.1314 0.1495 -0.0181
1 121 120 Hawaii 0.1268 0.1459 -0.0191
-1 120 121 FIU 0.1262 0.1479 -0.0217
-3 119 122 Idaho 0.1259 0.1492 -0.0233
0 123 123 Georgia St. 0.1258 0.1396 -0.0138
A brief explanation of the College Football Champion Index
The CFCI is obviously not like other polls or computers. It’s based upon a series of posts which define objective, static, statistical standards of BCS Champions over the course of a season, recruiting strength over four classes, and lastly wins and losses. The College Football Champion Index has as a premise that if a fan looks at a team correctly, that a team is not defined by their opponents or conference. As such, there is no consideration for strength of schedule or conference.
While wins or loses are hugely important (no team has been a BCS Champion with more than 2 losses since 2000), a team’s performance in any given week can cause its score (and ranking) to go down. Unlike most polls, the CFCI is defensive-oriented because those are team stats most consistent with BCS Champions.
2 Responses
Comments are closed.