Ballot Type: Hybrid
Submitted: Oct. 8, 2018, 11 a.m.
Overall Rationale: My hybrid poll utilizes two computer polls. A preseason component that I will phase out as the season goes along and a results-oriented poll. The preseason component is 30% this week and the results-oriented poll is 70%.The Preseason component is made up of Past season's results, Returning production, 2 year recruiting Avg., and Coaching continuity. The results-oriented component is made up of Winning %, Points per Game differential, Yards per Play differential, and Strength of Schedule. Once the overall rankings are developed, I split the teams that are close to each other into tiers and re-rank within the tiers. Things were neat this week as the final tier (Tier K) ended right at the 25th ranked team.
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
1/1 in Tier A |
2 |
![]() |
1/1 in Tier B |
3 |
![]() |
1/1 in Tier C |
4 |
![]() |
1/2 in Tier D: Undefeated |
5 |
![]() |
2/2 in Tier D: One loss to Texas (who are probably back) |
6 |
![]() |
1/3 in Tier E: Undefeated |
7 |
![]() |
2/3 in Tier E: One loss by 1 point to Ohio St. |
8 |
![]() |
3/3 in Tier E: One loss by 7 points to Notre Dame |
9 |
![]() |
1/4 in Tier F: Undefeated |
10 |
![]() |
2/4 in Tier F: Undefeated |
11 |
![]() |
3/4 in Tier F: Close loss to quality Auburn |
12 |
![]() |
4/4 in Tier F: Blowout loss to quality LSU |
13 |
![]() |
1/1 in Tier G |
14 |
![]() |
1/1 in Tier H |
15 |
![]() |
1/2 in Tier I: Not exactly a tough schedule, but they are still 6-0 |
16 |
![]() |
2/2 in Tier I: Despite playing a tougher schedule than Cincinnati, their loss to BYU looks pretty bad. |
17 |
![]() |
1/3 in Tier J: Despite my computer not liking TAMU (Kentucky's only  loss) for having two losses, they are to Bama and Clemson. Losing by only 6 to TAMU is better than LSU losing by 8 to Florida IMO, despite Florida being 13th and TAMU unranked. |
18 |
![]() |
2/3 in Tier J: See above Kentucky explanation |
19 |
![]() |
3/3 in Tier J: Multiple losses against a relatively weak schedule. My computer loves them, so they're ranked though. |
20 |
![]() |
1/6 in Tier K: Despite loss to Maryland, they have multiple wins against teams better than anyone NC St or Colorado has played |
21 |
![]() |
2/6 in Tier K: Have looked slightly better than Colorado against slightly better competition |
22 |
![]() |
3/6 in Tier K: See NC State explanation above. |
23 |
![]() |
4/6 in Tier K: Only loss to Wisconsin slightly better quality than USU's only loss to Michigan State. |
24 |
![]() |
5/6 in Tier K: See above explanation for Iowa. |
25 |
![]() |
6/6 in Tier K: Multiple losses puts them at bottom of the tier. |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.00 |
2 |
![]() |
0.98 |
3 |
![]() |
0.00 |
4 |
![]() |
-0.08 |
5 |
![]() |
1.50 |
6 |
![]() |
-0.27 |
7 |
![]() |
0.00 |
8 |
![]() |
0.44 |
9 |
![]() |
0.00 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
0.00 |
12 |
![]() |
0.53 |
13 |
![]() |
0.00 |
14 |
![]() |
2.62 |
15 |
![]() |
0.84 |
16 |
![]() |
0.00 |
17 |
![]() |
0.00 |
18 |
![]() |
-0.62 |
19 |
![]() |
6.23 |
20 |
![]() |
-1.76 |
21 |
![]() |
0.00 |
22 |
![]() |
-0.06 |
23 |
![]() |
0.00 |
24 |
![]() |
0.98 |
25 |
![]() |
-0.07 |
Omissions:
Team | Unusualness |
---|---|
![]() |
1.08 |
![]() |
0.33 |
![]() |
0.23 |
Total Score: 18.61