Ballot Type: Hybrid
Submitted: Nov. 25, 2024, 1:18 p.m.
Overall Rationale: Week 14 notes: chaos after Indiana, Army, and a bunch of 2-loss teams lose. Deservedness keeping highly-rated 2-loss teams such as Alabama and Ole Miss behind 0-loss Army; 2-loss teams such as Georgia and UNLV can be ranked over Army due to loss allowance. General notes: FIRST layer (computer portion): SP+, opponents’ SP+, opponents’ opponents’ SP+, opponents’ win %, opponents’ opponents’ win %. SECOND 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). THIRD layer (human portion): wins/losses vs higher-/lower-/non-ranked teams, recency of those results. FOURTH layer (computer portion): Deservedness = Team A cannot be ranked over Team B that has 2+ fewer losses (ex: 9-3 LSU can be ranked over 10-2 Missouri, but 9-3 LSU cannot be ranked over 11-1 Tulane even if LSU beat Tulane heads up, rankings have LSU over Tulane, and/or I think LSU is better than Tulane) unless Team B is giving a X loss allowance to Team A due to significantly fewer P4 games played. Loss allowances come into play when: P5 teams play 2 fewer P5 games than another P5 team (ex: 9-3 Arizona plays 10 P5 games, 11-1 Syracuse plays 8 P5 games, 10-8=2, 9-3 Arizona can be ranked over 11-1 Syracuse); P5 teams play 6 fewer P5 games than a G5 team (11-1 Syracuse plays 8 P5 teams, 9-3 Charlotte plays 2 P5 teams, 8-2=6, 9-3 Charlotte can be ranked over 11-1 Syracuse); G5 teams play 10 fewer P5 teams than a P5 team (ex: 9-3 Arizona plays 10 P5 games, 11-1 Liberty plays 0 P5 games, 10-0=0, 9-3 Arizona can be ranked over 11-1 Liberty); or G5 teams play 2 fewer P5 games than another G5 team (ex: 9-3 Charlotte plays 2 P5 games, 11-1 Liberty plays 0 P5 games, 2-0=2, 9-3 Charlotte can be ranked over 11-1 Liberty). If the game differential exceeds more than 2/6/10/2 in those scenarios, add another loss allowance for each additional P5 game played difference in that scenario.
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #1 playoff seed in this scenario, playing the winner of #8 Texas/#9 Notre Dame in the Rose Bowl |
2 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #5 playoff seed in this scenario, hosting #12 Boise State in the first round |
3 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #6 playoff seed in this scenario, hosting #11 Tennessee in the first round |
4 |
![]() |
+1. Would be the #2 playoff seed in this scenario, playing the winner of #7 Indiana/#10 Miami in the Sugar Bowl |
5 |
![]() |
-1. Would be the #7 playoff seed in this scenario, hosting #10 Miami in the first round |
6 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #8 playoff seed in this scenario, hosting #9 Notre Dame in the first round |
7 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #9 playoff seed in this scenario, playing at #8 Texas in the first round |
8 |
![]() |
+1. Would be the #3 playoff seed in this scenario, playing the winner of #6 Penn State/#11 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl |
9 |
![]() |
+1. Would be the #10 playoff seed in this scenario, playing at #7 Indiana in the first round |
10 |
![]() |
+8. Would be the #11 playoff seed in this scenario, playing at #6 Penn State in the first round. Sharp rise due to Army’s loss |
11 |
![]() |
+0 |
12 |
![]() |
+1. Would be the #4 playoff seed in this scenario, playing the winner of #5 Ohio State/#12 Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl |
13 |
![]() |
-5. One of the rare times I will rank Team A behind Team B when Team B beat Team A and Deservedness is not holding Team A behind Team B |
14 |
![]() |
+0 |
15 |
![]() |
+0. Would be the #12 playoff seed in this scenario, playing at #8 Ohio State in the first round. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Boise State such as Alabama from being ranked ahead of Boise State |
16 |
![]() |
+6. Loss allowance over Army. Sharp rise due to Army’s loss |
17 |
![]() |
+7. Loss allowance over Army. Sharp rise due to Army’s loss |
18 |
![]() |
-6. Loss allowance over Army |
19 |
![]() |
-3. Drop due to Army’s loss opening up more loss allowances to other teams. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Boise State such as Alabama from being ranked ahead of Boise State |
20 |
![]() |
NEW. Loss allowance over Army, Tulane, Louisiana, Memphis, and Liberty. Sharp rise due to Army’s loss. By far the craziest ranking of the year and definitely one of my craziest unpredicted jumps in the history of Deservedness - they are my 5th-highest rated 4-loss team, yet are both rated higher than and have a loss allowance over Army |
21 |
![]() |
NEW. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Army such as Alabama from being ranked ahead of Army |
22 |
![]() |
-5. Lowest rated 1-loss team. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Army such as Alabama from being ranked ahead of Army |
23 |
![]() |
-4. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Army such as Alabama from being ranked ahead of Army |
24 |
![]() |
NEW. Loss allowance over Louisiana, Memphis, and Liberty |
25 |
![]() |
-5. Deservedness blocking highly-rated 3+ loss teams with no loss allowances over Army such as Ole Miss from being ranked ahead of Army. Next 5: South Carolina, Louisville, Iowa, Texas A&M, Missouri |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.00 |
2 |
![]() |
0.00 |
3 |
![]() |
0.34 |
4 |
![]() |
0.54 |
5 |
![]() |
0.90 |
6 |
![]() |
-0.74 |
7 |
![]() |
-0.05 |
8 |
![]() |
0.00 |
9 |
![]() |
0.00 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
0.21 |
12 |
![]() |
0.00 |
13 |
![]() |
0.53 |
14 |
![]() |
0.15 |
15 |
![]() |
-0.62 |
16 |
![]() |
2.08 |
17 |
![]() |
1.31 |
18 |
![]() |
1.69 |
19 |
![]() |
0.19 |
20 |
![]() |
5.23 |
21 |
![]() |
-0.04 |
22 |
![]() |
0.00 |
23 |
![]() |
-0.95 |
24 |
![]() |
0.76 |
25 |
![]() |
-1.37 |