I have always had two ratings: a power rating and a poll-style rating. I rate all 119 teams for both.
Now you ask what the difference is, and I answer it by telling you that the power ratings is the analysis of the team as a whole with a slight emphasis on winning/losing, while the poll is how I think the team really is.I have been secret about my ratings.
Some people know I have them, others do not.
Though I do not gamble on college sports as it takes away the fun of rooting for the upset, especially when you have the favorite, I do sell my picks on occasion and I use my ratings along with an analysis of the team.
I have always had two ratings: a power rating and a poll-style rating. I rate all 119 teams for both.
Now you ask what the difference is, and I answer it by telling you that the power ratings is the analysis of the team as a whole with a slight emphasis on winning/losing, while the poll is how I think the team really is.
For example, my power ratings for this week had Wisconsin at #7, while my poll had them at #18. No wonder the AP does not give me a vote.
Now they lost to Michigan State who was #43 in my power ratings and #42 in my poll. In the easiest of decisions, I picked Michigan State with 4* (out of 5). Not just did they cover as the dog, they crushed Wisconsin 49-14.
Does my #18 look more realistic now?
Unlike the pollsters who are going to can Wisconsin out of the top 15, I will barely drop them. I knew they were not a top 15 team. In fact, they are not REALLY a top 25 team, but their record merited respect. I most likely will put them at #22.
Their poor ratings have something to do with their weak conference.
However, I do not put full emphasis on the conference like the real power ratings and real polls. A truly top team from the Sun Belt can be ranked as high as their Big XII counterparts if they are truly that good.
But I knew Wisconsin was not. Look at how bad the Big Ten was and how Wisconsin had struggled. Heck, they struggled against Central Florida, the only winless team remaining. Why should they be the #4 team in the country? Why should they be ahead of a team that had actually played some quality opponents and beaten them as Georgia had?
That was how I thought. Score one for me.
Before I continue, let me mention that Boise State had played a tougher schedule than Utah or Wisconsin coming into this week, and yet people thought they should be the lowest? Maybe they should, but they have had to show themselves against some decent foes. I don’t count Illinois, Penn State, or Indiana “decent,” and those teams play competitively with the upper echelon of the Big Ten. Illinois should have beaten conference leader Michigan. Am I wrong?
OK. I have bastardized the Big Ten. Let me move on.
The ACC is 11 average teams. Wake Forest has lost 5 games this year, none by more than 7 points and in all those games they were tied or leading in the fourth quarter including 2 overtimes. They struggled to defeat conference cellar-dweller Duke, who beat Clemson (who beat Wake in OT), who beat Miami, who beat Florida State, who beat Virginia…. You can keep going around. They are eleven equally average teams. No team is great; no team is bad.
So my ratings reflect that. I have Wake Forest, who is 4-5 and 1-5 in the conference in my top 50 for the poll. They will stay in my top 50. Duke is a long ways out, but they’ll close within breathing range. Each team in the ACC could beat 3/5 of the teams in any other league, no questions asked. Oh wait, I think they have.
I stopped picking ACC games ATS four weeks ago when I realized that. There was no point. It was a coin toss unless the spread was outrageous. Then I picked ATS.
However, real polls fail to show such parity. The teams hovering around .500 are never voted on and sites that rank all 119 teams (or 117 depending on whether you count FAU and FIU) rate these teams lowly. These teams are even fairly decently ranked in my power ratings.
However, teams in the Big XII North are all equally terrible. There is no way around that. Yet, cbssportsline.com has Iowa State, the first place team in that division, at #41. Division foes Nebraska and Colorado are the two teams behind them. You know that was set up and not a coincidence.
But now let me tear cbssportsline.com to shreds.
They want to respect those teams. Why? Iowa State has won three in a row to improve to 5-4 and 3-3 in the Small, whoops, Big XII. Their wins were 26-25 over a pitiful Baylor team that put it all together one day for a stunning upset and have lied flat on their face ever since, 13-7 over a meaningless Kansas team that nearly upset Texas, who struggled to beat a woefully young and inexperienced Arkansas team which even lost to Florida and got shut out by a defense that surrendered 35 points to Oklahoma State and bunches to all the other teams they played in Oklahoma, and they also hold off a Nebraska team 34-27 that lost at home to a borderline bowl team in Southern Mississippi. Are they a top 50 team?
In both of my ratings, they are 65th. Nebraska is 54th in my power ratings and 60th in my polls. No other team from that “division” is in the top 70 of either rating.
Meanwhile, Wake Forest is ranked 61st by sportsline, making them the 6th best team in the Big XII north. Bullshit. BYU who has played a brutal schedule and has a better record than half of the Big XII north teams is 63rd. Is this justified? Does being the best team in a horrible division of an average conference make you 22 places better than a team with an equal record who has played 2 unbeaten teams, nearly beaten one of them, and is going to play another? This same team played borderline bowl team Stanford and beat then and currently ranked Notre Dame.
Is BYU great? By no means. But would Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas State, Colorado, or Missouri have a chance in living hell against BYU? Not this year. Those teams have done nothing and proven nothing. Missouri got crushed by Troy State. Do you want me to tell you whom Troy State has lost to, or do you want me to tell you who else they have beaten? Impressive? Ya right.
My power ratings have BYU #52 and my poll has them #58. Not great, but better than the Big XII north bozos. I don’t completely respect the south either, as I had and will have Auburn #2. Oklahoma, as I said before, has proven nothing other than the fact that they are overrated. Wisconsin was the worst 9-0 team from a major conference in the history of college football. At least they lost.
Now, if Oklahoma plays USC for the national title and Auburn is unbeaten, I am never watching college football again. I will turn on the BCS. It is the only way.
Auburn proved to the world that they are at least better than Oklahoma. Hopefully the pollsters get back into the world.
The SEC is the only true top-to-bottom good conference in college football. Yes, Vandy and Kentucky stink like last month’s milk, but you tend to get 2 pathetic teams each year. Every other team can beat any team in college football on any given Saturday or Thursday night. I promise you that. Oklahoma can barely beat an A&M team that lost to lowlife Baylor.
Now I’m going to get flustered with comments when Vanderbilt beats Tennessee in a couple of weeks, but let me explain that now. In the dumbest mistake that a good coach has made this millennium, Fulmer tried to go for a hail (20 yards shy it would have been) mary and he lost his quarterback. They will go down to Vanderbilt now. I am saying it.
But back to my ratings.
Yes, some teams surprise me and of course my ratings can be proven wrong, but my point is that if the pollsters really paid attention they’d you my poll.
I know you never saw that coming, but it is true.
My ratings, but especially the poll, are the real, genuine truth. They are not a fabrication of the truth as to respect teams that have done nothing like Wisconsin. Wisconsin did not deserve the respect.
My first ever polling came in 1997 when I was pissed off that Nebraska remained ahead of better one-loss teams after they won on the horrible call against Missouri. I would not stand for it, especially since Missouri had had similar bad luck happen before in a conference game (see 5-down game). Yes, Missouri did join the rankings (at #25) despite the loss, the last time an unranked lost a game and entered the polls the following week in the same season, but that was not enough. I wanted Nebraska to be penalized more than 2 spots. Thus I made my own poll.
It has grown since then to show my true beliefs of each team. I don’t want a team ranked high because of record and another ranked low for the opposite reason. A team is ranked based on the team itself with little reference to record. I’d rank a team that has lost every game by 1 point against the top 10 teams in the country ahead of a team that has beaten every team by 1 point and those teams are all in the bottom ten in the country. I don’t care. Who would win head to head? I’d bet the first team.
So I’ll never get an AP vote; I know that. And even if I did, I’d lose it once they see my rankings. So I’ll make my own and spill out the truth. I’ll keep my smile when my preseason projections beat all the experts (again) and my two unbeatens from my preseason projections remain that way at the end of the year.
I’ll do all this hard work and get paid nothing and sell a few people my picks for almost nothing. I’ll do my other work and make ends meat. And then the season ends.
I’ll start up again in May and June, making my projections and getting ready. The season’ll start and I’ll make my polls and project the games and hit my customary 60% ATS for the entire season. Oh well. I don’t bet any games.
But remember, my ratings are right. They are the truth. Don’t trust any of that cbssportsline garbage. They are last month’s milk, not me.
Wisconsin 14, Michigan State 49. I bet the pollsters still don’t know their precious #4 team lost.
But I don’t care. They’re #18 to me.
2 replies on “The True College Football Rankings: The way I saw them and now see them”
The Rankings/Polls I tend to agree with you in some areas. Some, however I do not. Auburn playing either Oklahoma or USC interests me more than the Oklahoma/USC matchup. But it is not what I like. Facts are facts. Auburn has played and defeated some really good teams. They also played Louisiana-Monroe and The Citadel. Not the every day great college teams. Oklahoma has no Division I-AA teams on their schedule. The thing about your rankings are a little misconfigured. You said that a team’s rankings should not be based on record. Base the rankings on the team itself. If a team is not winning, then what is it doing? Losing. Teams that have lost by one point should be ranked high? Okay, so a team that loses every game by one point and goes 0-12 for the season should go to a major bowl/national championship. As if the BCS wasn’t bad enough. No matter how much a team wins by, a win is a win. As for the Oklahoma/Baylor/
Texas A&M point. Texas A&M looked past Baylor. Which of those two teams has the better record? The team that can show up week in and week out and win is the better team. Texas A&M wanted revenge against Oklahoma for last year’s beating so they forgot about Baylor. You keep referring to the Wisconsin/Michigan State game. Michigan State almost beat Michigan. So, Wisconsin had it coming. Aside from that fact, Wisconsin still has a better record than Michigan State, so Wisconsin is ranked higher. No points or championship titles are given for “almost” winning. No athletic director or school president is going to tell a coach, “Go and recruit a great team. We don’t care if you lose every game by one point.” I agree that your ratings are right, IF AND ONLY IF YOU COUNT “ALMOST” WINNING. The game of college football is based on a very simple equation. A team that scores more points than their opponent gets a “W” in the win column. The more wins you get, the higher that team’s rankings go. You have a good or great season, then the team goes to a bowl or even the national championship.
let me clear it up I wrote this quickly and I think at times I started to confuse my power ratings and my polls so it probably led to confusion.
I am not counting almost winning as winning. I look at the truth of the team. Wisconsin was #18 at that point BECAUSE they were 9-0. If they were 7-2, they’d be #30 or something. I gave them extra benefits for winning. But they were a horrible team. The Big Ten as a whole, all 11 teams included, are average or terrible. Wisconsin is borderline (i.e. lucky).
If Wake was 8-1 instead of 4-5 at this point, the’d be #10 or something. I do take into effect winning.
But to argue your 0-12 point (which I discussed with someone before you posted this; i missed this comment until now).
If a team is 0-12, losing all games by 1-point to 12 of the best teams in the country, I’d rate them ahead of a 12-0 team that won their 12 games over 1-AA opponents or other lousy teams (i.e. Lousiana-Monroe) by 1 point. The polls, on the other hand, would rate this crappy team in the Top 25 because they are 12-0.
Winning and losing does matter, but it is overrated by the pollsters. If Wisconsin won those final 2 games, I would have had NO choice but to move them up a lot. However, I thought that up to that point, despite being 9-0, they had failed to prove themselves and, in fact, had done more to prove that they were average than to prove that they were good.
Now, 6 years ago we had a similar situation to what is happening this year. #1 was Tennessee (11-0), #2 was Kansas State (11-0), and #3 was UCLA (10-0). However, UCLA lost 49-45 to the resurgent Miami Hurricanes and Kansas State lost in overtime(?) to Texas A&M in the Big XII championship game, while Tennessee managed to win a tough one from upstart Mississippi State in the SEC championship game.
Can we have a repeat?
#1 is USC (11-0), #2 is Oklahoma (11-0), and #3 is Auburn (11-0). USC plays long-time rival UCLA (6-4), Oklahoma plays in the Big XII championship game against lousy Colorado (7-4), and Auburn plays in the SEC title game against lucky Tennessee (9-2). They probably will all win, but hopefully Oklahoma loses so that Auburn gets their deserved spot in the National Title Game. I don’t care that they played less of a nobody schedule than Oklahoma. Oklahoma played in a shitier conference. The SEC is a much better conference than the Big XII. The North Division is horrible, as is Baylor. Texas Tech eeked out a non-defeat against SMU. Texas A&M matured throughout the year, but was a hot and cold team. Oklahoma State fell apart when the meat of their schedule arrived. That leaves 2 arguably good teams. The SEC had Auburn and Georgia who both were proven winners, even though Georgia had two slip-ups. Florida played tough in every game and should have arguably won every game but the Georgia game. Georgia was hands-down better. Florida beat a BCS-possible Florida State team on the road. Georgia beat Georgia Tech. Tennessee is no slouch, but Florida and Georgia were both better. LSU was a quality opponent as well. Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State all sucked. Ole Miss was horrible as well. Arkansas nearly beat Texas, and they were misserable. Texas is unquestionably the second best team in the Big XII. Victory: Auburn. It isn’t even close, on paper or statistically. Oklahoma should be #3.