2015 College Football Preseason Projection Highlights

September 4, 2015 - by Seth Trachtman

Here are some interesting highlights based on our college football preseason rankings and projections from September 1, 2015 (before the season started):

If you’d like to read it, though, here is some important contextual information on what these numbers mean exactly.

About Our Preseason Ratings & Projections

These highlights are based on our preseason predictive power ratings for each team. We’re basically doing two things:

Comparing a team’s 2015 preseason rating to its rating at the very end of the 2014 season, to show how our models evaluate data factors that we’ve found to have predictive value (e.g. the performance levels of returning players)
Using each teams 2015 preseason rating, along with its 2015 schedule, to run thousands of computer simulations of the 2015 season and evaluate the results

Note that our predictive ratings are expressed in terms of “points above or below a league average team.” So:

A team’s predictive rating is essentially how many points we expect the team to win or lose by, if they played a perfectly average opponent at a neutral site
Positive ratings values indicate an above-average team, negative values a below-average team, and a value of o.o is a perfectly average team

For more information, you should read our 2015 college football preseason rankings post and our preseason college football projections review. And now that the season has started, we update our projections every single day on our college football projected standings page.

About Our Strength Of Schedule Ratings

Various methods exist for evaluating a team’s schedule strength (SOS). Our primary strength of schedule ratings are designed to answer the following question:

“Let’s say you replaced all of a Team A’s opponents with a single fictional opponent that Team A had to play over and over again, in every game, on a neutral field. What power rating would that opponent need to have, in order for the number of wins we project Team A to have this season to remain exactly the same?”

This approach is different than calculating a team’s SOS as the average of the power ratings of its opponents, which is a common yet more simplistic method. Our approach takes a more sophisticated look at the specific context of each team.

For example, for a very strong team like Alabama, playing an opponent with a predictive rating of -10 (Kansas) or -20 (Idaho) is basically the same; the expected outcome is a near-certain win. So in our system, Alabama’s SOS wouldn’t change much if you switched one for the other.

On the other hand, playing a team rated +10 (Nebraska) or +20 (TCU) is a huge difference — Alabama would still being a pretty solid favorite against Nebraska, but the second game would be a coin flip if it was played at TCU. So for a team like Alabama, the ratings differences of good teams they play make a bigger impact in SOS rating. For a bad team like UNLV, the situation is reversed.

Calculating SOS this way makes it better for comparing the schedules of two teams of similar quality, but more difficult for comparing the schedule strengths of a good team and a bad team. We think that trade off is worth it, since SOS arguments most often come into play when comparing two good teams, and trying to determine whether one of them has a much easier or harder schedule.

Toughest 2015 Strength of Schedule (SOS)

Sense a theme here?

SOS Rank	Team	SOS
1	Alabama	12.3
2	Arkansas	10.6
3	Auburn	10.2
4	LSU	9.5
5	Texas A&M	9.3
6	Mississippi	9.0
7	Miss State	8.9
8	TX Christian	8.9
9	USC	8.9
10	Georgia	8.8

Easiest 2015 Strength Of Schedule (SOS)

SOS Rank	Team	SOS
128	Georgia State	-13.2
127	Army	-13.0
126	Texas State	-12.1
125	Troy	-11.9
124	Idaho	-11.8
123	Old Dominion	-11.7
122	Charlotte	-11.6
121	E Michigan	-11.1
120	N Mex State	-11.1
119	Miami (OH)	-11.1

Conference Strength Ratings

The rankings below come from averaging the preseason predictive rating for every team in a specific conference.

Conf Rank	Conf	Avg Rating
1	SEC	12.5
2	Big 12	9.3
3	Pac-12	8.1
4	ACC	5.8
5	Big Ten	5.2
6	AAC	-5.6
7	MWC	-6.8
8	CUSA	-8.7
9	MAC	-9.7
10	Sun Belt	-12.1

On The Rise: Biggest Ratings Increases Entering 2015

Remember, we’re comparing a team’s preseason 2015 rating with its final, end of season rating for last season.

Above Average Teams In 2014 Getting Better

2015 Rank	2014 Rank	Rank Change	Team	2015 Ranking	2014 Rating	Rating Change
28	50	22	Oklahoma St	11.4	2.5	8.9
37	47	10	Michigan	9.4	2.7	6.7
16	34	18	Notre Dame	14.6	8.2	6.4
30	44	14	VA Tech	11.0	4.8	6.2
35	41	6	Texas	9.6	5.4	4.2
41	48	7	Pittsburgh	6.6	2.6	4.0
42	51	9	Penn State	6.3	2.5	3.8
43	52	9	California	5.6	2.2	3.4
24	33	9	Tennessee	12.1	8.8	3.3
34	38	4	Miami (FL)	9.7	6.9	2.8

Below Average Teams In 2014 Getting Better

2015 Rank	2014 Rank	Rank Change	Team	2015 Rating	2014 Rating	Rating Change
56	95	39	Vanderbilt	1.4	-11.0	12.4
111	125	14	S Methodist	-13.5	-24.6	11.1
123	127	4	Georgia State	-19.0	-28.4	9.4
128	128	0	E Michigan	-22.7	-31.3	8.6
38	66	28	N Carolina	7.6	-1.0	8.6
46	74	28	Texas Tech	5.0	-3.6	8.6
92	115	23	Tulsa	-8.3	-16.0	7.7
105	121	16	S Mississippi	-11.9	-19.3	7.4
63	86	23	Iowa State	-0.8	-8.2	7.4
72	88	16	App State	-2.0	-8.7	6.7

On The Decline: Biggest Ratings Decreases Entering 2015

Remember, we’re comparing a team’s preseason 2015 rating with its final, end of season rating for last season.

Above Average Teams In 2014 Getting Worse

2015 Rank	2014 Rank	Rank Change	Team	2015 Ranking	2014 Rating	Rating Change
5	1	-4	Oregon	17.3	26.8	-9.5
60	37	-23	Memphis	-0.4	7.2	-7.6
87	58	-29	Colorado St	-5.8	0.8	-6.6
47	28	-19	Marshall	4.6	11.1	-6.5
33	14	-19	Kansas St	9.9	16.1	-6.2
6	6	0	Georgia	17.0	22.5	-5.5
51	36	-15	Washington	1.9	7.2	-5.3
23	11	-12	Miss State	12.6	16.9	-4.3
3	2	-1	TX Christian	22.1	26.2	-4.1
19	9	-10	Mississippi	14.3	18.4	-4.1

Below Average Teams In 2014 Getting Worse

2015 Rank	2014 Rank	Rank Change	Team	2015 Rating	2014 Rating	Rating Change
118	98	-20	S Alabama	-17.2	-11.9	-5.3
91	71	-20	Nevada	-7.7	-3.1	-4.6
119	104	-15	TX-San Ant	-17.4	-13.1	-4.3
114	92	-22	Texas State	-13.9	-10.3	-3.6
81	63	-18	Oregon St	-3.2	-0.5	-2.7
83	68	-15	Rutgers	-4.2	-1.5	-2.7
78	65	-13	GA Southern	-2.9	-0.6	-2.3
117	112	-5	Wyoming	-16.6	-14.4	-2.2
74	61	-13	Wash State	-2.3	-0.2	-2.1
108	94	-14	TX El Paso	-12.1	-10.6	-1.5

Most Likely To Go Undefeated

Team	Team Rank	SOS Rank	Proj Record	Undef
Ohio State	1	37	11.1 - 0.9	30.0%
Boise State	29	69	10.4 - 1.6	18.0%
TX Christian	3	8	10.1 - 1.9	15.5%
Marshall	47	108	9.9 - 2.1	14.2%
Alabama	2	1	9.6 - 2.4	10.8%
Baylor	4	14	9.7 - 2.3	9.5%
Wisconsin	18	48	9.9 - 2.1	9.1%
Oregon	5	17	9.3 - 2.7	7.8%
Clemson	17	32	9.0 - 3.0	7.3%
Michigan St	7	30	9.5 - 2.5	6.9%

Best Odds To Win Their Conference

Team	Team Rank	Proj Conf Record	Win Conf%
Boise State	29	7.3 - 0.7	50.6%
Ohio State	1	7.4 - 0.6	43.80
TX Christian	3	7.3 - 1.7	34.8%
Marshall	47	6.8 - 1.2	31.4%
App State	72	6.1 - 1.9	26.6%
LA Tech	55	6.2 - 1.8	24.3%
N Illinois	59	6.1 - 1.9	24.0%
Oregon	5	7.0 - 2.0	23.8%
Alabama	2	5.8 - 2.2	23.7%
GA Southern	78	6.3 - 1.7	23.4%

Highest Projected Number Of Wins

Team	Team Rank	SOS Rank	Proj Wins
Ohio State	1	37	11.1 - 0.9
Boise State	29	69	10.4 - 1.6
TX Christian	3	8	10.1 - 1.9
Wisconsin	18	48	9.9 - 2.1
Marshall	47	108	9.9 - 2.1
Baylor	4	14	9.7 - 2.3
Alabama	2	1	9.6 - 2.4
Michigan St	7	30	9.5 - 2.5
Oregon	5	17	9.3 - 2.7
Clemson	17	32	9.0 - 3.0
Florida St	21	43	9.0 - 3.0

Lowest Projected Number Of Wins

Team	Team Rank	SOS Rank	Proj Wins
UNLV	127	105	1.4 - 10.6
Kansas	100	52	1.6 - 10.4
E Michigan	128	121	2.3 - 9.7
Army	120	127	2.4 - 8.6
Charlotte	125	122	2.5 - 9.5
Connecticut	116	99	2.6 - 9.4
TX-San Ant	119	94	2.6 - 9.4
S Florida	109	80	2.9 - 9.1
Tulane	115	100	2.9 - 9.1
S Alabama	118	116	2.9 - 9.1
N Mex State	126	120	2.9 - 9.1

Bowl Bubble Teams

The teams below have bowl eligibility odds closest to 50%.

Team	Team Rank	SOS Rank	Proj Record	Bowl Eligible	Win Conf	Undef
Akron	95	115	6.0 - 6.0	55.8%	9.5%	0.4%
S Carolina	39	16	5.6 - 6.4	52.3%	2.0%	0.5%
Middle Tenn	90	86	5.5 - 6.5	50.8%	6.2%	0.1%
Nevada	91	101	5.5 - 6.5	49.6%	4.0%	0.2%
Ohio	96	103	5.4 - 6.6	48.9%	6.5%	0.5%
California	43	23	5.4 - 6.6	48.8%	2.2%	0.4%
Indiana	62	62	5.3 - 6.7	48.0%	0.7%	0.2%
Kentucky	49	42	5.2 - 6.8	47.9%	1.2%	0.3%
Texas Tech	46	25	5.2 - 6.8	47.1%	2.1%	0.2%
Florida Intl	97	97	5.0 - 7.0	44.6%	3.4%	0.3%