The Most Important Blog I've Ever Written

The world of college football changes today. Sadly, I am sure no one but you faithful readers will know about it. If you like what you read here and agree with it SPREAD the WORD! I think I am on to something here. It's logical, it's fair, it's balanced, and I feel (so far) it gives us the best insight to the top teams in the country. I am open to suggestions on how to tweak it and make it better and honestly I won't know if this process I have come with is valid until the season is over. I have ran some projections on a few teams, which I will explain later, and I was pleased with the results. So without further delay I give you what I am calling the Three Point Process.

First here are some ground rules. My process looks at three aspects of every team:

1. Their individual strength of schedule

2. The "eye test" and how a team has performed through-out the year

3. Strength of conference

Basically each of these 3 will look at different angles of what makes up the Strength of Schedule, Strength of Conference or Eye Test. All those angles will be assigned a number grade, then all the angle grades will be added up, which will give us grades for each aspect. Then each aspect grade will be multiplied by an assigned weight and then the 3 aspects will be added together for a total grade. 

For example: Team A has a 5 in Strength of Schedule, 3 in eye test, and 4 in strength of conference.

Then we will multiply 5x1.75, 3x1.25, and 4x1.5 for totals of: 8.75, 3.75, and 6. Add those together and the total is 18.5. Then the teams will be ranked by their grade.

Now let's look at how these three aspects are broken down, graded, and weighed:

1. Strength of Schedule

    - Ranked opponents ALL year on the schedule - This includes any team that was ranked in the Coaches Poll throughout the year, past and present. My thought is, if a team was ranked at the time during the season, there was a reason, regardless of what happened to them later. But any ranked opponent, past or present should not be discounted, and they add weight to a schedule and shows a team's willingness to test themselves.

     - Ranked opponents at the time of play - This will include all the teams that were ranked at the time the team being graded played them. Once again, if a team was good enough to be ranked, it should be counted, regardless of what happened later. If you went up against the Top 5 team in the country at that time, you should get credit for it. This ensures that the team being graded gets credit for playing a ranked opponent and not just for having them on the schedule.

     - Top 10 Teams at the time of play - A team should get extra credit for facing a team in the top 10.

     - Record against ranked teams - This will be based off of TOTAL ranked opponents, not just opponents at the time.

Here is the grading break-down: total ranked, total ranked at the time, and total Top 10 at the time are based off of total number fewest = lowest grade, most = highest grade; and the record is based off of how many losses a team has incurred against ranked opponents:

Strength Schedule Grades
Total Ranked	2=1, 3=1.25, 4=1.5, 5=1.75, 6=2
Ranked @Time	1=.5, 2=.75, 3=1, 4=1.25, 5=1.5
Top 10 @Time	0=.5, 1=1, 2=1.5, 3=2
Ranked Losses	0L=1, 1L=.5, 2L=0

After all the totals are added they will be multiplied by a weight of 1.75 

I have made this the highest weight of the 3 aspects because it will include in and out of conference scheduling.

2. The Eye Test

This is everyone's favorite because it is purely subjective. This is where all the debate occurs. So every team will receive a comment of OK, FAIR, GOOD, VERY GOOD, or GREAT for their performance over the ENTIRE year. Each comment will receive a grade. I have made VERY GOOD = 1 because I feel if you are going to play in a 4 team playoff as one of the best teams in the country, you should have performed above average all year. Included in the eye test is a grade for overall record which is based on the number of losses. This brings up an interesting point, because I am counting the record twice so to speak, BUT if a team lost to a Top 10 team and lost to another unranked, it needs to be accounted for, and if a team only lost to a Top 10 team it should follow them through the entire process because it is a mark of performance, and vice versa if a team is un-defeated they should be rewarded for it. Here is the breakdown:

Eye Test Grades
OK	0.25
FAIR	0.5
GOOD	0.75
VERY GOOD	1
GREAT	1.25
Overall Losses	0L=1, 1L=.5, 2L=0

The eye test grade will receive a weight of 1.25. This is the lowest weight of the 3 because it is...you guessed it....purely subjective.

3. Strength of Conference

I don't think this aspect is brought out enough when talking about teams. But conference strength is a HUGE determining factor of how good a team is. A team out of the SEC compared to a team out of the B10. There are exceptions, which I feel this process will help us locate, but a team that performs in the wringer of a top conference definitely needs to be recognized for that.

This aspect will first look at: Is the team being graded favored for a conference championship? Or if it's the end of the year: Are they a conference champ? I am in favor of conference champions having to be in the 4 team play-off so I felt that this should be recognized, but as we shall see later, a conference champ could still miss out on the play-off

Then this aspect will look at the conference performance as a whole by breaking a conference down 3 different ways:

     - What is the total conference win/loss percentage? Are they a winning conference or a .500 conference?

     - What percentage of the total conference losses occurred IN conference. I feel this is a great barometer of whether a conference is cannibalizing itself like the SEC or are the losing a lot to other conferences? The higher the percentage here, the tougher the conference.

    - What is the conference record against the current Coaches Top 25. It keeps the rankings relevant/current and really shows if the conference can compete in the big game.

Those three added together will give us a Conference Performance Number and then the conferences will be ranked accordingly.

And finally, for the third time, the aspect will look at the team being graded's record, only it will look at the number of conference losses. The number of losses will then be graded by a sliding scale that is determined by how well the conference performed.

Here are the grades, including the sliding scale based on conference performance:

Conf Strength Grades		Conf Rankings Breakdown
Conf Champ	(F)avord=1 (UnF)avored=0	1st=1
		2nd=0.8
		3rd=0.6
		4th=0.4
		5th=0.2

The weight for conference strength will be 1.5 because a team cannot determine what conference they play in or how that conference will perform.

Before we get into a team lets look at the conference performance scores. Suprisingly, or not surprisingly, the Pac12 and SEC have tied as the two toughest conferences this year. I then decided to put the B12 at 3rd place rather than 2nd place because of the large disparity of points and then BOOM the ACC and B10 tied for the weakest. The Pac12 and SEC are eating each other alive but have the best records against the Top 25. Check it out:

Conf Perf
	Record	Rank	L in Conf	Rank	v. Top 25	Rank	Overall	Rank
B10	73-47, 61%	0.8	36, 77%	0.2	1-27, .04%	0.2	1.2	4
B12	58-44, 57%	0.2	36, 82%	0.6	3-18, 14%	0.6	1.4	3
ACC	83-58, 59%	0.4	47, 81%	0.4	3-23, 13%	0.4	1.2	4
Pac12	73-49, 60%	0.6	43, 88%	1	9-30, 23%	1	2.6	1
SEC	88-53, 62%	1	46, 87%	0.8	10-35, 22%	0.8	2.6	1

And here are the sliding scales we will used for conference performance when looking at conference losses. You get better scores if you lose in a tough conference as opposed to losing in a weak conference.

Conference Rank	Number of Losses
1	2L=.75, 1L=1, 0L=1.5
2	2L=.75, 1L=1, 0L=1.5
3	2L=.5, 1L=.75, 0L=1.25
4	2L=.25, 1L=.5, 0L=1
5	2L=.25, 1L=.5, 0L=1

I graded them this way because I felt putting #1 and #2 as the same and #4 and #5 as the same leveled the playing field. I did not want a team to be "doomed" because they came out of a terrible conference and like-wise I did not want to end up with 3 or 4 SEC teams taking up all the top spots.

So lets walk through a team and conference step by step so we can see how all of this comes out before we look at the Top 11 I have picked.

Lets look at Florida State:

	Ranked All Year	Ranked @Time	Top 10 @Time	Ranked Losses	Eye Test	Overall Losses	Conf. Performance	Conf Champ	Conf Losses
Florida State	2	2	2	0	GREAT	0	4th	F	0

 

FSU had 2 teams on their schedule all year that were ranked, they played both of them when they were ranked, and both were in the Top 10. The eye test is amazing, they have no overall losses, the conference performance is ranked 4th out of the power conferences, they are the favored conference champ, and they have no conference losses. Here's what that looks like when we assign the point grades:

	Ranked All Year	Ranked @Time	Top 10 @Time	Ranked Losses	Eye Test	Overall Losses	Conf. Performance	Conf Champ	Conf Losses
Florida State	1	0.75	1.5	1	1.25	1	1.2	1	1

Now comes the math:

1. Strength of schedule adds the first 4 columns (1+.75+1.5+1) for a total of 4.25. Multiply that by the weight of 1.75 for a total of: 7.44

2. The eye tests adds the next 2 columns (1.25+1) for a total of 2.25. Multiply that by the weight of 1.25 for a total of: 2.81

3. The conference strength then adds the last 3 columns (1.2+1+1) for a total of 3.2. Multiply that by the weight of 1.5 for a total of: 4.8.

Add all the of the final totals together for a total grade of: 15.05

Where does that rank? Well now that you can see how the math works, here are the grades for the Top 11 teams in the country:

	Ranked All Year	Ranked @Time	Top 10 @Time	Ranked Losses	Eye Test	Overall Losses	Conf. Performance	Conf Champ	Conf Losses
Florida State	2	2	2	0	GREAT	0	4th	F	0
Missouri	3	3	1	1	GOOD	1	1st	UF	1
South Carolina	4	2	2	1	OK	2	1st	UF	2
Ohio State	2	2	0	0	VERY GOOD	0	4th	F	0
Oklahoma State	3	2	0	0	FAIR	1	3rd	UF	1
Clemson	2	2	2	1	GOOD	1	4th	UF	1
Alabama	4	3	1	0	VERY GOOD	0	1st	F	0
Oregon	3	3	1	1	VERY GOOD	1	1st	F	1
Baylor	2	1	1	0	GREAT	0	3rd	F	0
Stanford	6	4	2	1	OK	2	1st	UF	2
Auburn	4	4	2	1	GOOD	1	1st	UF	1

Here are the point grades of the same:

	Ranked All Year	Ranked @Time	Top 10 @Time	Ranked Losses	Eye Test	Overall Losses	Conf. Performance	Conf Champ	Conf Losses
Florida State	1	0.75	1.5	1	1.25	1	1.2	1	1
Missouri	1.25	1	1	0.5	0.75	0.5	2.6	0	1
South Carolina	1.5	0.75	1.5	0.5	0.25	0	2.6	0	0.75
Ohio State	1	0.75	0.5	1	1	1	1.2	1	1
Oklahoma State	1.25	0.75	0.5	1	0.5	0.5	1.4	0	0.75
Clemson	1	0.75	1.5	0.5	0.75	0.5	1.2	0	0.5
Alabama	1.5	1	1	1	1	1	2.6	1	1.5
Oregon	1.25	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	2.6	1	1
Baylor	1	0.5	1	1	1.25	1	1.4	1	1.25
Stanford	2	1.25	1.5	0.5	0.25	0	2.6	0	0.75
Auburn	1.5	1.25	1.5	0.5	0.75	0.5	2.6	0	1

And now the gripping conclusion....here is how the teams rank!! Remember, the top 4 go to a playoff:

	Top 4
1	Alabama	18.03
2	Oregon	15.34
3	Auburn	15.28
4	FSU	15.05
5	Stanford	14.53
6	Baylor	14.41
7	Missouri	13.53
8	Ohio State	12.99
9	South Carolina	12.78
10	Clemson	10.68
11	Oklahoma St.	10.6

Wow!! How about Auburn?!?! How about Stanford?!?! Does that make sense or what? This was completely not what I was expecting but after looking at it, I can dig it. Stanford has played a hellacious schedule and they have paid the price, but they are still a good team!! Auburn is a 1 loss SEC team and they prove that that is better than most of the country. The SEC and Pac12 teams are helped by tough schedules and tough conferences, but Florida State still makes it into the top 4 with 2 huge wins against Top 10 opponents and outstanding performance all year. Ohio State of course is hurt by their strength of schedule along with a weaker conference. But FSU over-came a weak conference...

Now the question is: What about Baylor? I have to admit I was a little hurt by Baylor sliding so far down because they looked good, so this is where I did some projections.

I chose Baylor and Auburn to project because I wanted to see if an SEC team really does trump a conference champ.

For my projections I assumed Baylor goes un-defeated and Auburn loses to Alabama. Pretty fair I think. And the totals ended up being: Auburn 15.16 and Baylor 17.04. Boom. The B12 champ gets in over a 2 loss SEC team and probably a one loss, if Baylor is un-defeated. But what if Baylor won the conference with 1 loss? Baylor came out with a 15.17 which STILL put them ahead of Auburn. I think that's fair and I think that's right. But what about a 1 loss Alabama team that is not a conference champ: 14.17. Baylor controls their own destiny. And that's justice. And oddly enough, Alabama with 1 loss slips father than Auburn with 2 losses....that strength of schedule gets'em everytime. Auburn would have 3 Top 10 opponents at the time of play (LSU, A&M, Bama) to Bama's 2....hmmmm.....

Of course the projections don't factor in conference performances that may or may not change.

Is this process perfect? Probably not. Is this process accurate? So far, I have to say "yes." But only time will tell. I will keep track of this through-out the last 3 weeks of the season and will give updates weekly. I, for one, am excited about this process and its abilities to give me the best teams in the country. 

I would LOVE to hear what any of you think of this Three Point Process and any ideas you think might make it better, or why it doesn't work at all! This is why we love college football and where the debate takes place!

Follow me

1. Facebook

2. Twitter @simplyNCAA

3. Email at the bottom

4. Google+

5. Email me: collegefootballfanweekly@gmail.com