Ballot Type: Hybrid
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2022, 7:11 a.m.
Overall Rationale: Week 8 notes: Deservedness keeps teams such as Arkansas, Baylor, BYU, FSU, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M out when I would have them over some of the teams in this poll. The floodgates opened when both Coastal and James Madison lost. General: 1st layer, computer portion: SP+, opponents’ SP+, opponents’ opponents’ SP+, opponents’ win %, opponents’ opponents’ win %. 2nd layer, human portion: home/field/away, key injuries, P5/G5 status, watched game factors (ex: offensive/defensive line domination, rush yards after contact, average point of first contact, defensive penetration on non-inside screens, missed tackles, quarterback throwing release speed, overall turnovers, average starting field position, etc). 3rd layer, human portion: wins/losses vs higher-/lower-/non-ranked teams, recency of those results. 4th layer, computer portion: Deservedness = team cannot be ranked over another team with 2+ fewer losses (ex: 5-2 Texas cannot be ranked over 6-0 Syracuse even if rankings have Texas over Syracuse and/or I think Texas is better than Syracuse).
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
Has done nothing to look bad |
2 |
![]() |
Great win vs Alabama that also had a lot of help being at home, with Alabama penalties, and with a missed field goal |
3 |
![]() |
Second consecutive bounce-back game |
4 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged too much with one loss that was on the road to a highly-ranked opponent and when many mistakes were self-induced, but another one would probably send them down further than this |
5 |
![]() |
Human portion needs to see more big win dominations like the Penn State win |
6 |
![]() |
Had Tennessee not won, Clemson probably would’ve been at 5. Close wins on the road and at home are good, but now domination in conference play is the difference-maker for the human portion |
7 |
![]() |
Good win. Needs to dominate and have other teams lose or not dominate to climb |
8 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged too much with one loss that was on the road to a highly-ranked opponent and when many mistakes were self-induced, but another one would probably send them down further than this. Computers portion doesn’t favor them this high |
9 |
![]() |
Solid wins are the reason they’re here, but they need to start dominating and beating ranked teams |
10 |
![]() |
Super favorable schedule to this point. Now they go to Oregon |
11 |
![]() |
If Ole Miss does have gas, they haven’t turned it on yet. Until they do, if they keep playing and winning like this, it won’t be as impressive as the other undefeateds |
12 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged too much with one loss that was on the road to an opponent only capped by a Deservedness. Computers portion doesn’t favor them this high |
13 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged or raised because of the bye |
14 |
![]() |
Blowout loss would normally drop them lower, but Deservedness capping some teams helps here. Still think they’re very talented |
15 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged or raised because of the bye + Deservedness capping some teams |
16 |
![]() |
Won’t get dinged or raised because of the bye + Deservedness capping some teams |
17 |
![]() |
Illinois defense is good. Human portion went back and forth between them and Cincinnati. Deservedness capping some teams |
18 |
![]() |
Deservedness capping some teams allows them to be ranked |
19 |
![]() |
Deservedness capping some teams allows them to be ranked |
20 |
![]() |
The win at home against a back-up quarterback is not enough to rank them super high. Their next five games will be the best indicator of where they really are |
21 |
![]() |
Deservedness prohibits 2-loss teams being ranked above 0-loss teams |
22 |
![]() |
Deservedness prohibits 2-loss teams being ranked above 0-loss teams |
23 |
![]() |
Deservedness prohibits 2-loss teams being ranked above 0-loss teams |
24 |
![]() |
Deservedness prohibits 2-loss teams being ranked above 0-loss teams |
25 |
![]() |
Deservedness prohibits 2-loss teams being ranked above 0-loss teams |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.08 |
2 |
![]() |
0.00 |
3 |
![]() |
0.00 |
4 |
![]() |
0.81 |
5 |
![]() |
0.00 |
6 |
![]() |
0.00 |
7 |
![]() |
0.00 |
8 |
![]() |
0.78 |
9 |
![]() |
0.24 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
-1.16 |
12 |
![]() |
0.00 |
13 |
![]() |
0.00 |
14 |
![]() |
0.00 |
15 |
![]() |
0.00 |
16 |
![]() |
1.33 |
17 |
![]() |
0.00 |
18 |
![]() |
0.58 |
19 |
![]() |
2.39 |
20 |
![]() |
-1.64 |
21 |
![]() |
0.00 |
22 |
![]() |
-0.86 |
23 |
![]() |
2.03 |
24 |
![]() |
0.00 |
25 |
![]() |
0.00 |
Omissions:
Team | Unusualness |
---|---|
![]() |
0.82 |
![]() |
0.26 |
![]() |
0.16 |
![]() |
0.16 |
Total Score: 13.29