Ballot Type: Hybrid
Submitted: Jan. 10, 2023, 4:29 a.m.
Overall Rationale: Final notes: Deservedness keeps teams such as Texas out when I would have them over some of the teams in this poll. General notes: 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: 10-4 Utah can be ranked over 11-3 USC, but 10-4 Utah cannot be ranked over 12-2 Troy even if Utah beat Troy heads up, rankings have Utah over Troy, and/or I think Utah is better than Troy).
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
Self-explanatory |
2 |
![]() |
I think Michigan would win in a rematch, but heads up has to matter |
3 |
![]() |
I think Michigan has more talent than TCU, but heads up has to matter |
4 |
![]() |
I think Ohio State would have beaten TCU, but due to heads up results Ohio State is #4 |
5 |
![]() |
Only losses were to Michigan (blowout) and Ohio state (close) |
6 |
![]() |
Close-ish loss to Georgia and one loss to South Carolina doesn’t take away from the fact they were really good and have head to head and common opponent over Alabama |
7 |
![]() |
Needs to be penalized for losing heads up to Alabama and LSU |
8 |
![]() |
They were still a good team. People are saying they suck while comparing them to past Clemson teams |
9 |
![]() |
Strong finish and their losses earlier in the season were due to those teams being healthy at those times (and fell off later) |
10 |
![]() |
Have to give them head to head over USC |
11 |
![]() |
Still a very talented team - if they had closed out Tulane or won one of the Utah games, they’d be much higher |
12 |
![]() |
Had a bad loss to Arizona State, but wins over teams like Texas make up for it |
13 |
![]() |
Head to head over Oregon |
14 |
![]() |
Still a solid team |
15 |
![]() |
Deservedness factor is the reason they’re above most of the 4-loss teams |
16 |
![]() |
Would be in the top 10 if not for Deservedness |
17 |
![]() |
Would be ranked above Troy if not for Deservedness |
18 |
![]() |
Would be ranked above Troy if not for Deservedness |
19 |
![]() |
Would be ranked above Troy if not for Deservedness |
20 |
![]() |
Would be ranked above Troy if not for Deservedness |
21 |
![]() |
Difference between Troy is minimal |
22 |
![]() |
Difference between Troy is minimal |
23 |
![]() |
Difference between Troy is minimal |
24 |
![]() |
Troy would still be ranked above UCLA even if no Deservedness was in play |
25 |
![]() |
Next seven: 26 UTSA, 27 Fresno State, 28 South Alabama, 29 Boise State, 30 Air Force, 31 James Madison, 32 Texas. Deservedness keeping James Madison above 5+ loss teams |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.00 |
2 |
![]() |
0.00 |
3 |
![]() |
0.00 |
4 |
![]() |
0.00 |
5 |
![]() |
0.69 |
6 |
![]() |
0.00 |
7 |
![]() |
-0.11 |
8 |
![]() |
1.01 |
9 |
![]() |
0.51 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
0.02 |
12 |
![]() |
-0.38 |
13 |
![]() |
0.19 |
14 |
![]() |
0.00 |
15 |
![]() |
0.26 |
16 |
![]() |
-0.69 |
17 |
![]() |
0.00 |
18 |
![]() |
-0.67 |
19 |
![]() |
0.00 |
20 |
![]() |
0.00 |
21 |
![]() |
3.63 |
22 |
![]() |
0.00 |
23 |
![]() |
1.62 |
24 |
![]() |
-0.04 |
25 |
![]() |
0.15 |
Omissions:
Team | Unusualness |
---|---|
![]() |
0.39 |
![]() |
0.28 |
Total Score: 10.63