TeamRankings.com
Get Smart About Sports
August 29, 2012 - by Austin Link
We’re just a day away from the beginnings of another college football season. Thanks to some new data we’ve received on final team rosters, we are now able to publish our official 2012 college football preseason rankings and ratings for all 124 FBS teams.
These ratings are the numbers that go directly in to our 2012 college football preseason projections, another set of numbers that are now official. (These projections will update daily throughout the season, and are posted on our college football projections page.) Our season projections and preseason ratings debuted last year, and overall were successful at identifying value teams.
For now though, let’s dive in to the rankings…
(Quick primer for newbies on the difference between ratings and rankings: We first calculate numerical ratings for every team, which represent, in points, how much better or worse we think a team is than the average team, when playing on a neutral field. If you sort the list of all 124 FBS teams by rating, you now have our team rankings.)
Normally our team power ratings are computed by examining games that have already been played in a season. With no games played yet, however, that method doesn’t really work for evaluating the strength of teams in the preseason.
In its place, we’ve examined past seasons of college football data to determine how a variety of statistical factors have related to a team’s end of season rating. These factors include previous season ratings (e.g., how good a team has been in recent years), returning players (accounting for players lost to the draft, etc.), certain statistics from the prior season, and players lost to the draft. You can get more detail in our preseason ratings methodology post.
It’s important to note that our preseason team ratings are our best guess at a team’s most likely level of performance this year, based on the data we have available to us and comprehensive number crunching. The “official” goal of our preseason ratings is to do a good job predicting our end-of-season ratings — not the final AP Poll, Coaches’ Poll, or anything like that. Some of them will end up being really close, and some will end up way off. That’s the nature of the beast. (We even account for expected error in our preseason projections as we update our team ratings throughout the season.)
Our preseason ratings also provide an interesting alternative perspective on every team’s prospects, once you strip out media hype and bias and all the other agendas individual human pollsters may have. Our methods are far from perfect — there isn’t a huge wealth of amazing data on college football out there, and 18-year old “amateurs” can be a notoriously fickle group to model — but so far they have generally done well at picking out teams to which the public and the pollsters aren’t giving enough credit regarding their prospects this year.
We’ve covered a couple teams in the projections post, so while USC and Ohio State are interesting, here’s a look at a few other squads we haven’t discussed.
Florida. The Gators have something of a perfect storm for improvement this year. They’re only 23rd in the AP Poll, but they have a strong program history, poor 2011 turnover margin (read: bad luck which shouldn’t repeat itself), and loads of returning starters. Those three qualities have historically foreshadowed a team’s improvement, and we think it’ll continue with Florida.
Notre Dame. The Irish have been discounted by many this year, not appearing in the AP’s top 25. We’re more optimistic about their talent, ranking them 13th among FBS teams. A rating that high means a few lucky bounces could put them in a BCS bowl.
More interesting though is their strength of schedule. Being an independent forces Notre Dame to play a wide array of teams, and this year in particular many such as Oklahoma, Stanford, and USC happen to be very good. The Fighting Irish have college football’s toughest schedule, and will have to fight for every win despite being a good team.
The Big 12. Every year it’s assumed that the SEC will be the best conference in the nation, and lately that’s been true. A look at our projected strength of schedule numbers makes a different case however. Seven of the ten hardest schedules belong to Big 12 teams. Why? Because they’re all stuck playing each other.
The Big 12 has our top ranked team (Oklahoma), three more in the top eight (TCU, Texas, Oklahoma State), and two more in the top 25 (Kansas State, West Virginia). That’s 60% of the conference among the top 20% of teams. Heck, three of the four teams that have left are even in our top 20. Despite a tenuous existence the last couple seasons, the Big 12 still has elite skill and depth.
TR Rank AP Coaches Team TR Rating Rating Change Rank Change SOS SOS Rank
1 4 4 Oklahoma 21.5 +0.0 +5 7.0 1
2 2 2 Alabama 20.7 -6.4 0 6.9 2
3 5 5 Oregon 16.4 -8.8 +1 2.2 27
4 1 3 USC 15.6 -0.3 +5 4.3 13
5 3 1 LSU 15.2 -11.9 -4 5.7 6
6 20 17 TCU 14.2 +1.4 +9 6.2 3
7 15 15 Texas 14.1 +3.6 +14 5.8 5
8 19 19 Oklahoma St 13.4 -12.0 -5 5.1 8
9 21 18 Stanford 13.1 -10.7 -4 3.6 19
10 23 23 Florida 13.0 +5.3 +16 5.5 7
11 10 10 Arkansas 11.5 -3.0 0 4.8 11
12 7 7 Florida St 11.5 -1.6 +2 1.0 36
13 24 Notre Dame 10.9 -1.3 +5 5.9 4
14 17 16 Nebraska 10.8 +3.7 +16 2.0 29
15 8 8 Michigan 10.2 -4.1 -3 4.1 15
16 Texas A&M 10.0 -4.1 -3 5.1 9
17 Missouri 9.3 -2.2 +2 5.1 10
18 12 12 Wisconsin 9.1 -11.9 -10 0.1 47
19 6 6 Georgia 9.0 -3.4 -2 2.2 26
20 24 22 Boise St 8.9 -12.5 -13 -3.3 74
21 Utah 7.9 +1.7 +11 0.1 46
22 18 Ohio St 7.7 +2.2 +12 1.2 35
23 22 21 Kansas St 7.6 +1.2 +8 4.7 12
24 11 11 West Virginia 7.4 -1.9 -2 3.9 18
25 9 9 South Carolina 7.2 -5.2 -9 3.9 17
26 16 20 Virginia Tech 7.0 -0.7 +1 1.7 31
27 South Florida 6.9 +3.0 +14 0.8 39
28 Georgia Tech 6.4 +2.8 +15 0.0 48
29 Vanderbilt 6.1 +1.3 +8 1.9 30
30 BYU 5.5 +1.3 +10 -1.3 59
31 Tennessee 5.4 +4.8 +24 2.8 21
32 13 13 Michigan St 5.0 -6.3 -12 2.1 28
33 Tulsa 4.7 -0.7 +2 -3.3 73
34 25 Auburn 4.5 +3.0 +17 3.5 20
35 Houston 4.4 -11.4 -25 -6.0 82
36 14 14 Clemson 4.3 -0.4 +3 -0.2 50
37 Cincinnati 4.3 -3.8 -12 -1.3 57
38 Iowa 4.1 +1.7 +8 -1.6 63
39 Pittsburgh 3.6 +2.1 +13 -0.1 49
40 Baylor 3.5 -4.9 -17 4.0 16
41 North Carolina 3.3 +2.4 +12 -3.1 71
42 California 3.1 -4.3 -14 2.6 22
43 Texas Tech 2.8 +5.7 +30 2.5 24
44 Southern Miss 2.8 -4.5 -15 -3.5 76
45 Rutgers 2.6 -0.6 0 -0.9 54
46 Mississippi St 2.5 -3.5 -13 0.8 38
47 Illinois 2.0 +0.3 +3 -1.3 58
48 Central Florida 1.7 +1.2 +8 -4.0 77
49 Connecticut 1.5 +4.0 +21 -1.4 60
50 Oregon St 1.2 +2.0 +14 1.7 32
51 Boston College 1.1 +5.5 +26 0.6 40
52 Miami (FL) 0.7 -4.4 -16 2.2 25
53 Temple 0.4 -3.4 -11 -1.0 55
54 Washington 0.4 -0.3 0 1.6 34
55 25 Louisville 0.2 +0.7 +6 -0.6 52
56 Penn St 0.1 -4.7 -18 0.5 43
57 UCLA 0.1 +0.3 +1 0.8 37
58 Louisiana Tech 0.0 -2.0 -9 -5.2 79
59 Iowa St -0.2 +2.4 +12 4.2 14
60 Purdue -0.6 +2.5 +14 -0.8 53
61 Mississippi -0.6 +9.0 +32 2.6 23
62 Nevada -0.9 -3.1 -15 -6.6 88
63 North Carolina St -1.2 -0.8 -3 -1.5 62
64 Utah St -1.5 +2.8 +12 -7.0 95
65 Navy -1.8 +0.5 +3 -6.5 87
66 Ohio -1.9 +2.1 +9 -9.1 110
67 Bowling Green -2.0 +8.7 +30 -6.8 93
68 Toledo -2.3 -5.9 -24 -6.7 90
69 Northern Illinois -2.4 -2.5 -12 -7.8 102
70 Arizona St -2.6 -10.8 -46 0.4 44
71 Western Michigan -2.7 -1.4 -5 -6.9 94
72 SMU -2.9 -2.1 -9 -3.0 70
73 Arizona -3.3 -5.4 -25 0.2 45
74 Army -3.3 +5.7 +15 -6.0 83
75 Virginia -3.8 +0.7 +3 -1.7 64
76 Northwestern -4.0 -3.2 -14 -1.0 56
77 Wake Forest -4.3 -1.9 -8 -1.5 61
78 Arkansas St -4.4 -3.3 -13 -7.3 99
79 Syracuse -4.4 +0.4 0 0.5 42
80 Kentucky -4.4 +3.0 +1 0.5 41
81 FL International -4.6 +1.7 -1 -8.2 106
82 Fresno St -4.8 +4.8 +9 -6.5 86
83 Miami (OH) -4.9 +3.2 0 -6.1 84
84 Duke -5.2 +3.7 +3 -2.2 65
85 Kansas -6.2 +8.0 +19 1.6 33
86 Western Kentucky -6.4 +4.6 +12 -7.0 96
87 Air Force -6.5 -6.2 -28 -8.1 104
88 Ball St -6.9 +5.4 +13 -3.1 72
89 UTEP -7.1 +3.6 +7 -2.8 69
90 UL Monroe -7.3 +1.7 -2 -6.7 92
91 Minnesota -7.3 +3.9 +9 -2.7 68
92 East Carolina -7.4 +1.8 -2 -6.6 89
93 Marshall -7.4 +1.5 -7 -5.4 80
94 UL Lafayette -7.5 +0.8 -10 -8.1 105
95 Maryland -7.6 +0.8 -10 -0.6 51
96 Eastern Michigan -7.6 +7.4 +9 -5.1 78
97 Washington St -7.7 -5.0 -25 -2.3 66
98 Troy -7.9 +8.1 +10 -7.9 103
99 San Diego St -8.0 -6.4 -32 -8.4 107
100 Central Michigan -8.1 +7.8 +6 -7.1 97
101 Indiana -8.9 +7.1 +6 -2.6 67
102 North Texas -9.0 +3.4 0 -7.4 100
103 Hawaii -9.4 -1.7 -21 -7.7 101
104 Wyoming -9.6 +0.3 -9 -8.5 108
105 Kent St -10.0 +3.5 -2 -7.1 98
106 Colorado St -11.8 +5.1 +4 -10.8 119
107 Colorado -11.9 -2.4 -15 -3.5 75
108 Rice -12.1 -1.0 -9 -6.7 91
109 Buffalo -13.8 +2.4 0 -6.2 85
110 San Jose St -14.5 -4.7 -16 -10.0 115
111 South Alabama -15.0 -- -- -10.9 120
112 Massachusetts -15.0 -- -- -6.0 81
113 Texas St -15.0 -- -- -10.7 117
114 UT San Antonio -15.0 -- -- -16.7 124
115 Idaho -15.2 +2.3 -4 -9.8 114
116 Middle Tennessee -16.1 +5.6 -2 -10.8 118
117 UAB -16.9 +2.6 -4 -9.2 112
118 UNLV -16.9 +6.6 -3 -10.1 116
119 Florida Atlantic -17.0 +9.2 -2 -9.1 111
120 Tulane -17.6 +6.2 -4 -8.9 109
121 New Mexico St -21.3 -2.6 -9 -12.6 122
122 New Mexico -21.5 +9.2 -2 -11.2 121
123 Akron -22.4 +7.7 -4 -9.4 113
124 Memphis -24.4 +2.5 -6 -12.9 123
Printed from TeamRankings.com - © 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved.