A fellow Roadrunner came up with this on RowdyTalk.

It's certainly not an end-all-be-all for ranking conferences, as it doesn't take into account the records of teams (since all P5 and all G5 etc aren't created equal), the fact that some FCS are better than FBS, and some G5s are better than P5s and so on. But it's still a worthy share nonetheless.

What he did was assign 3 points for a P5 win, 2 points for a G5 win, and 1 point for an FCS win. Conversely, he also assigned -1 point for a P5 loss, -2 points for a G5 loss, and -3 points for an FCS loss.

Here are the standings after one week...
1) C-USA (2-3 vs. P5, 3-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 10 points
2) MWC (2-0 vs. P5, 0-1 vs. G5, 8-1 vs. FCS) = 9 points
3) AAC (1-2 vs. P5, 1-1 vs. G5, 7-0 vs. FCS) = 8 points
4) MAC (0-5 vs. P5, 2-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 0 points
5) Sun Belt (0-7 vs. P5, 0-2 vs. G5, 2-0 vs. FCS) = -9 points

(09-07-2015 12:21 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  A fellow Roadrunner came up with this on RowdyTalk.

It's certainly not an end-all-be-all for ranking conferences, as it doesn't take into account the records of teams (since all P5 and all G5 etc aren't created equal), the fact that some FCS are better than FBS, and some G5s are better than P5s and so on. But it's still a worthy share nonetheless.

What he did was assign 3 points for a P5 win, 2 points for a G5 win, and 1 point for an FCS win. Conversely, he also assigned -1 point for a P5 loss, -2 points for a G5 loss, and -3 points for an FCS loss.

Here are the standings after one week...
1) C-USA (2-3 vs. P5, 3-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 10 points
2) MWC (2-0 vs. P5, 0-1 vs. G5, 8-1 vs. FCS) = 9 points
3) AAC (1-2 vs. P5, 1-1 vs. G5, 7-0 vs. FCS) = 8 points
4) MAAC (0-5 vs. P5, 2-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 0 points
5) Sun Belt (0-7 vs. P5, 0-2 vs. G5, 2-0 vs. FCS) = -9 points

What jumps out at me is this: CUSA had five wins against FBS competition. The other G5 leagues combined for six wins.

(09-07-2015 07:01 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  What jumps out at me is this: CUSA had five wins against FBS competition.

And four of those five wins were on the road!

The MWC had (9) FCS games week one, the AAC had (7). CUSA only had (3) but is still right with those two in total wins. That was an impressive week one from top to bottom, and the atmosphere at Southern Miss and Marshall was fantastic. Well done all!

It was a good week for C-USA, no doubt. There were a couple of other impressive wins by other G5 teams this week, though. We need to stay sharp.

Temple over Penn State is a huge win for the Owls
Boise State over Washington, while not unexpected by me keeps the Broncos out front
Hawaii over Colorado on a last minute referee assist.
BYU @ Nebraska (if we still count BYU as G5...and I'm not sure what the latest is on this issue.)

Personally I think the system should add a point for road wins, and subtract a point for home wins and vice versa for losses. Therefore beating a FCS school would be worth 0 points and losing to a FCS school would be -4. Just my opinion.

So WKU would get the conference 4 pts for beating Vandy, FIU gets 3 pts, Charlotte earns 3 pts, Marshall would get 2 pts, ODU earns 3 pts. None of the FCS wins get any points. Losing to Arizona and Arkansas doesn't lose points, but losing to Miss St loses 2 pts. While records wouldn't be accounted for at least home and away would be.

(09-07-2015 08:11 AM)MU42 Wrote:  Personally I think the system should add a point for road wins, and subtract a point for home wins and vice versa for losses. Therefore beating a FCS school would be worth 0 points and losing to a FCS school would be -4. Just my opinion.

So WKU would get the conference 4 pts for beating Vandy, FIU gets 3 pts, Charlotte earns 3 pts, Marshall would get 2 pts, ODU earns 3 pts. None of the FCS wins get any points. Losing to Arizona and Arkansas doesn't lose points, but losing to Miss St loses 2 pts. While records wouldn't be accounted for at least home and away would be.

I agree there should be some sort of adjustment for home vs away games.

While interesting, I think a ranking system like this is only applicable near the end of out of conference play. For example the AAC and MWC played a lot of FCS teams week 1, which limits their scoring potential on the proposed metric. Regardless, it's hard to compare teams after one week. I think C-USA had a good showing after the first week and we will know a lot more at the end of out of conference play.

I don't have any issue with the resulting rankings so far, but the method is pretty useless IMO.

For example the system rewards Hawaii for beating Colorado and penalizes SMU for losing to Baylor as if Colorado and Baylor are the same team.

I know you noted this as a problem in your post, but that isn't a small discrepancy. It's basically taking one of the very best FBS teams in the country and one of the very worst FBS teams in the country, and calling them equal.

(09-07-2015 09:51 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  I don't have any issue with the resulting rankings so far, but the method is pretty useless IMO.

For example the system rewards Hawaii for beating Colorado and penalizes SMU for losing to Baylor as if Colorado and Baylor are the same team.

I know you noted this as a problem in your post, but that isn't a small discrepancy. It's basically taking one of the very best FBS teams in the country and one of the very worst FBS teams in the country, and calling them equal.

Over the course of a season wouldn't this tend to average out?

Just for &

1. Marshall +3
WKU +3
3. FIU +2
ODU +2
Charlotte +2
6. MT +1
LaTech +1
Rice +1
9. North Texas E
10. USM -1
UTSA -1
UTEP -1
13. FAU -2

(09-07-2015 12:21 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  Here are the standings after one week...
1) C-USA (2-3 vs. P5, 3-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 10 points
2) MWC (2-0 vs. P5, 0-1 vs. G5, 8-1 vs. FCS) = 9 points
3) AAC (1-2 vs. P5, 1-1 vs. G5, 7-0 vs. FCS) = 8 points
4) MAAC (0-5 vs. P5, 2-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 0 points
5) Sun Belt (0-7 vs. P5, 0-2 vs. G5, 2-0 vs. FCS) = -9 points

(09-07-2015 12:26 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 12:21 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  Here are the standings after one week...
1) C-USA (2-3 vs. P5, 3-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 10 points
2) MWC (2-0 vs. P5, 0-1 vs. G5, 8-1 vs. FCS) = 9 points
3) AAC (1-2 vs. P5, 1-1 vs. G5, 7-0 vs. FCS) = 8 points
4) MAAC (0-5 vs. P5, 2-1 vs. G5, 3-0 vs. FCS) = 0 points
5) Sun Belt (0-7 vs. P5, 0-2 vs. G5, 2-0 vs. FCS) = -9 points

Danke

I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

(09-07-2015 02:50 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

Just to play devil's advocate:

A win for Bournemouth over Watford is worth more than a draw with Man City, but which is a more impressive result?

These things would even out over time.

(09-07-2015 02:50 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

We'll see how you feel if you beat KState at home next week. I'm sure you'll consider it a quality win and KState has sucked about as long as Purdue has. The average college football fan assumed WKU and Marshall would lose because we were facing "the big boys." I don't mind throwing on an extra point for a ranked P5 win, but the goal here is to stick it to the perception that the gap is wide. It is not nearly so wide as the masses want to believe.

(09-07-2015 04:52 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 02:50 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

We'll see how you feel if you beat KState at home next week. I'm sure you'll consider it a quality win and KState has sucked about as long as Purdue has. The average college football fan assumed WKU and Marshall would lose because we were facing "the big boys." I don't mind throwing on an extra point for a ranked P5 win, but the goal here is to stick it to the perception that the gap is wide. It is not nearly so wide as the masses want to believe.

I agree with that, but that's part of the problem with this system. If one team beats Purdue and another beats Marshall, the team that beats Purdue gets more credit, even though we know Marshall is the better opponent.

I agree that if you are limited to making sweeping generalizations, A5 are generally better than G5, which are generally better than FCS. However, there are far to many exceptions for it to be useful as a ranking method.

(09-07-2015 04:52 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 02:50 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

We'll see how you feel if you beat KState at home next week. I'm sure you'll consider it a quality win and KState has sucked about as long as Purdue has. The average college football fan assumed WKU and Marshall would lose because we were facing "the big boys." I don't mind throwing on an extra point for a ranked P5 win, but the goal here is to stick it to the perception that the gap is wide. It is not nearly so wide as the masses want to believe.

? Do you watch college football? Kansas State is very competitive in the big 12 and is consistently ranked almost every year. Purdue hasn't competed for anything in years and is one the worst P5 programs out there. Sorry beating KState would be way more impressive than Purdue and would definitely turn some voter's heads. Someone that actually follows college football knows that the good G5 teams are very capable of beating the bottom rung P5 teams such as Vandy and Purdue

(09-08-2015 12:30 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 04:52 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 02:50 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 01:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I agree with East is Purple solely on the basis he refers to. For instance, UTEP lost to an 18th rank team in Arky. So how can that be the same as winning against a Vandy or a Purdue who aren't even in the same level. I'm not disparaging your teams or its wins but seriously those two teams aren't even in the same league as far as strength to arkansas.

What I'm trying to get at is that there should be a leveling point when a team plays a ranked team, that's all.

They give you credit even for losing against ranked opponents in basketball so why not in football.

I agree also because the same goes for UTSA losing to a #22 Arizona in Tempe, in a game where we essentially outplayed 'em. Congrats to Marshall for example, but Purdue is basically the Vandy of the Big Ten and it was a home game. But I do think it would even out, for the most part, over time. And besides, there's no perfect system anyway. It just struck me as a simple/straight forward way to assess the conferences over the course of a season without requiring too much analysis across the full range of the weekly G5 slate of games, which can get time-consuming.

We'll see how you feel if you beat KState at home next week. I'm sure you'll consider it a quality win and KState has sucked about as long as Purdue has. The average college football fan assumed WKU and Marshall would lose because we were facing "the big boys." I don't mind throwing on an extra point for a ranked P5 win, but the goal here is to stick it to the perception that the gap is wide. It is not nearly so wide as the masses want to believe.

I agree with that, but that's part of the problem with this system. If one team beats Purdue and another beats Marshall, the team that beats Purdue gets more credit, even though we know Marshall is the better opponent.

I agree that if you are limited to making sweeping generalizations, A5 are generally better than G5, which are generally better than FCS. However, there are far to many exceptions for it to be useful as a ranking method.

Kansas State

2011- 10-3 (7-2)
2012- 11-2 (8-1)
2013- 8-5 (5-4)
2014- 9-4 (7-2)

In 2012 they were actually undefeated until they lost @ Baylor the 2nd to last week of the season. They ended up losing to Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl.

If UTSA beats them, that is a hell of a win!