TeamRankings.com
Get Smart About Sports
August 28, 2012 - by David Hess
The 2012 college football season kicks off Thursday with South Carolina at Vanderbilt. Team rosters were finalized and published last week, and we’ve finished crunching the numbers on our final, official 2012 college football season projections.
Last year, our inaugural 2011 college football preseason projections proved overall to be successful, especially if your goal was to unearth some value in Vegas futures odds and win totals. We also made some incremental improvements to the prediction logic in the off-season, so we’re eager see what happens this year.
Skip straight to bottom if you just want to see the predicted standings for your favorite conference. Otherwise, read on for some discussion of the projections.
Before we delve into the numbers, here’s a quick primer on how the sausage gets made. These projections are the result of a two step process. First, we combine team ratings from the past few years with other info like the number of returning starters, players lost to the draft, and how much production a team returns in various stat categories. This gives us our preseason team ratings.
Then, we use those ratings to simulate the season thousands of times, and we report the average results below. So these projections are based on cold, hard facts, not on our subjective opinions. If you’re curious for a few more details, you might want to check out these posts on our preseason ratings methodology and our season simulation process.
Full standings projections for all FBS conferences are listed in the table below, and also on our college football projections page, which is updated daily throughout the season. Here are a few highlights:
Oregon Favored In the Pac-12 Over USC?! — USC is ranked #1 in the AP Poll, so we imagine we’ll get a fair amount of comments asking why they aren’t our favorite in the Pac-12. Make no mistake, they are an elite team; we rank them #4 heading into the season, just a hair behind #3 Oregon. But based on quantifiable relationships, our model places a lot of importance on team ratings from the past couple years, and USC doesn’t really stack up to the other elite teams in that area.
The Trojans ended up ranked 9th in our predictive ratings last year, but there was a huge gap between 1st and 9th. They also lost quite a bit of talent to the draft; in fact, they received the 6th-biggest penalty in the country for lost draft talent. Their main strength is their high number of returning starters (17). The real message here is that we think the Pac-12 will have a classic battle between Oregon and USC for the title this season. We give Oregon a slight edge (30% to 27%), but it’s nearly a toss up.
Oklahoma Is Our #1 Team — The Sooners are only rated #4 in both polls, but looking at the numbers, their profile looks similar to USC’s, only better. Oklahoma has had a higher rating each of the past four years, returns the same number of starters as USC (or slightly more, depending on how you define a starter), and lost less talent to the draft. In fact, they return the most starters of any team in our final 2011 top 25.
And it’s a good thing that OU returns all that talent, as the top of the Big 12 is loaded. The conference sees three other teams crack our top 10 (TCU, Texas, and Oklahoma State), and couple more are on the fringe of the top 25 (West Virginia and Kansas State). Oklahoma is a clear favorite, but there’s still a 60% chance that some other team wins the Big 12 title.
Ohio State Gave Wisconsin A Huge Gift — The top three Big Ten teams (Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin) all rank between #14 and #18 in our preseason ratings. Ohio State is ineligible for the postseason this year, but is primed to play spoiler, sitting at #22 in our rankings. However, because of Ohio State’s ineligibility, Wisconsin has a much easier path to the conference title game than either Nebraska or Michigan. They only need to finish ahead of Illinois, Purdue, and Indiana to be guaranteed a birth in the final. The odds of that are around 50%.
And now, the part you’ve all come here to see…
Final 2012-2013 College Football Preseason Projections
--------------------------------------------------- ACC ATLANTIC ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Florida St 9.5 2.5 6.4 1.6 94% 32% 9%
Clemson 7.6 4.4 4.7 3.3 78% 10% 3%
Boston Col 6.2 5.8 3.8 4.2 60% 5% 1%
NC State 6.1 5.9 3.6 4.4 61% 4% 1%
Wake Forest 5.0 7.0 3.1 4.9 44% 2% 0%
Maryland 3.5 8.5 2.0 6.0 25% 1% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- ACC COASTAL ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
GA Tech 8.3 3.7 5.3 2.7 87% 16% 4%
VA Tech 7.9 4.1 5.0 3.0 80% 18% 4%
N Carolina 8.3 3.7 5.0 3.0 0% 0% 5%
Miami (FL) 5.5 6.5 3.6 4.4 51% 6% 1%
Virginia 5.2 6.8 3.2 4.8 47% 3% 0%
Duke 4.9 7.1 2.3 5.7 41% 2% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- BIG 12 ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Oklahoma 10.4 1.6 7.6 1.4 97% 40% 19%
Texas 8.9 3.1 6.1 2.9 90% 16% 5%
Oklahoma St 8.8 3.2 6.0 3.0 90% 14% 5%
TX Christian 8.8 3.2 6.0 3.0 90% 16% 5%
W Virginia 7.3 4.7 4.4 4.6 77% 5% 1%
Kansas St 7.1 4.9 4.3 4.7 74% 5% 1%
Baylor 5.8 6.2 3.3 5.7 56% 2% 0%
Texas Tech 6.1 5.9 3.3 5.7 63% 2% 0%
Iowa State 4.4 7.6 2.7 6.3 35% 1% 0%
Kansas 3.3 8.7 1.2 7.8 18% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- BIG EAST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
S Florida 8.2 3.8 4.7 2.3 82% 25% 4%
Cincinnati 8.0 4.0 4.1 2.9 82% 19% 4%
Pittsburgh 7.4 4.6 3.8 3.2 78% 14% 2%
Rutgers 7.3 4.7 3.5 3.5 76% 12% 2%
Connecticut 7.1 4.9 3.3 3.7 70% 9% 2%
Temple 5.9 5.1 3.2 3.8 57% 10% 2%
Louisville 6.3 5.7 3.2 3.8 61% 10% 1%
Syracuse 4.2 7.8 2.0 5.0 33% 3% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- BIG TEN LEADERS ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Wisconsin 9.1 2.9 5.6 2.4 90% 25% 7%
Ohio State 8.3 3.7 4.9 3.1 0% 0% 4%
Illinois 7.2 4.8 4.2 3.8 74% 9% 2%
Penn State 5.9 6.1 3.4 4.6 0% 0% 1%
Purdue 6.1 5.9 3.4 4.6 60% 6% 1%
Indiana 3.8 8.2 1.5 6.5 28% 1% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- BIG TEN LEGENDS ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Michigan 8.2 3.8 5.7 2.3 84% 20% 3%
Nebraska 9.0 3.0 5.6 2.4 90% 20% 7%
Iowa 8.0 4.0 4.7 3.3 83% 8% 3%
Michigan St 7.1 4.9 4.5 3.5 70% 9% 2%
Northwestrn 4.9 7.1 2.8 5.2 43% 2% 0%
Minnesota 4.3 7.7 1.7 6.3 34% 1% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCE USA EAST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
S Mississippi 8.2 3.8 6.3 1.7 84% 21% 3%
Central FL 8.0 4.0 5.7 2.3 83% 17% 3%
E Carolina 5.7 6.3 4.1 3.9 55% 4% 0%
Marshall 5.3 6.7 3.5 4.5 47% 3% 0%
UAB 3.3 8.7 2.1 5.9 16% 0% 0%
Memphis 2.3 9.7 1.1 6.9 9% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCE USA WEST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Houston 9.5 2.5 6.4 1.6 92% 23% 10%
Tulsa 8.8 3.2 6.2 1.8 91% 21% 5%
S Methodist 6.0 6.0 4.4 3.6 61% 7% 1%
TX El Paso 4.5 7.5 3.2 4.8 33% 2% 0%
Rice 4.1 7.9 2.8 5.2 31% 1% 0%
Tulane 3.0 9.0 2.3 5.7 19% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- MAC EAST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Ohio 8.5 3.5 5.7 2.3 87% 17% 5%
Bowling Grn 7.7 4.3 5.6 2.4 82% 17% 1%
Miami (OH) 6.4 5.6 5.1 2.9 64% 10% 1%
Kent State 4.9 7.1 3.4 4.6 43% 3% 0%
U Mass 2.9 9.1 2.4 5.6 0% 0% 0%
Buffalo 3.3 8.7 2.2 5.8 22% 1% 0%
Akron 1.9 10.1 1.0 7.0 6% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- MAC WEST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
N Illinois 7.9 4.1 5.5 2.5 82% 14% 3%
W Michigan 7.5 4.5 5.2 2.8 75% 13% 3%
Toledo 7.6 4.4 5.1 2.9 77% 11% 3%
Central Mich 5.6 6.4 3.9 4.1 54% 5% 1%
Ball State 4.6 7.4 3.6 4.4 40% 5% 0%
E Michigan 5.1 6.9 3.3 4.7 46% 5% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- MOUNTAIN WEST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Boise State 9.9 2.1 7.2 0.8 96% 48% 12%
Nevada 8.0 4.0 5.6 2.4 82% 17% 3%
Air Force 6.6 5.4 4.8 3.2 66% 10% 1%
Fresno St 6.6 5.4 4.7 3.3 68% 8% 0%
San Diego St 6.2 5.8 3.8 4.2 61% 4% 1%
Wyoming 5.6 6.4 3.7 4.3 52% 5% 0%
Hawaii 5.4 6.6 3.6 4.4 49% 4% 0%
Colorado St 5.7 6.3 3.4 4.6 53% 2% 0%
UNLV 3.9 9.1 2.2 5.8 18% 1% 0%
New Mexico 2.8 10.2 1.1 6.9 7% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- PAC-12 NORTH ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Oregon 10.4 1.6 7.4 1.6 98% 31% 16%
Stanford 9.2 2.8 6.8 2.2 94% 16% 7%
California 6.2 5.8 4.2 4.8 60% 3% 1%
Oregon St 5.8 6.2 4.2 4.8 56% 2% 1%
Washington 5.6 6.4 3.7 5.3 52% 2% 0%
Wash State 4.1 7.9 2.3 6.7 29% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- PAC-12 SOUTH ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
USC 9.7 2.3 7.0 2.0 95% 27% 10%
Utah 8.7 3.3 6.4 2.6 87% 13% 6%
UCLA 5.7 6.3 4.2 4.8 54% 3% 1%
Arizona St 4.9 7.1 3.3 5.7 42% 1% 0%
Arizona 4.8 7.2 3.0 6.0 39% 1% 0%
Colorado 3.1 8.9 1.5 7.5 17% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- SEC EAST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Florida 8.6 3.4 5.3 2.7 88% 13% 6%
Georgia 8.4 3.6 4.8 3.2 87% 7% 4%
Vanderbilt 7.5 4.5 4.2 3.8 78% 4% 3%
Missouri 7.5 4.5 4.1 3.9 78% 6% 2%
S Carolina 7.2 4.8 3.8 4.2 76% 5% 2%
Tennessee 7.0 5.0 3.4 4.6 73% 3% 1%
Kentucky 4.2 7.8 1.5 6.5 33% 0% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- SEC WEST ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Alabama 10.3 1.7 6.5 1.5 98% 30% 17%
LSU 9.2 2.8 5.3 2.7 94% 14% 7%
Arkansas 8.4 3.6 4.9 3.1 86% 9% 4%
Texas A&M 7.7 4.3 4.2 3.8 80% 5% 2%
Miss State 6.6 5.4 3.0 5.0 69% 2% 1%
Auburn 6.4 5.6 3.0 5.0 65% 2% 1%
Mississippi 4.8 7.2 2.0 6.0 41% 1% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- SUN BELT ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Florida Intl 7.3 4.7 5.2 2.8 74% 18% 2%
Arkansas St 7.1 4.9 5.0 3.0 75% 17% 1%
LA Monroe 5.8 6.2 4.6 3.4 54% 13% 0%
W Kentucky 6.2 5.8 4.6 3.4 61% 13% 0%
Troy 6.0 6.0 4.5 3.5 56% 12% 1%
LA Lafayette 6.2 5.8 4.3 3.7 60% 11% 0%
North Texas 5.4 6.6 4.3 3.7 49% 11% 0%
South Alabama 4.7 8.3 2.8 5.2 0% 3% 0%
Middle Tenn 4.1 7.9 2.5 5.5 30% 2% 0%
Fla Atlantic 3.3 8.7 2.3 5.7 19% 2% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- WAC ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
LA Tech 8.2 3.8 5.0 1.0 85% 46% 3%
Utah State 8.0 4.0 4.7 1.3 86% 31% 2%
Idaho 4.0 8.0 2.5 3.5 26% 4% 0%
Texas-San Antonio 6.8 5.2 2.5 3.5 0% 5% 1%
San Jose St 4.4 7.6 2.5 3.5 34% 8% 0%
Texas State 4.4 7.6 2.4 3.6 0% 6% 0%
N Mex State 3.0 9.0 1.4 4.6 15% 2% 0%
--------------------------------------------------- INDEPENDENTS ---------------------------------------------------
Team W L Conf W Conf L Bowl Eligible Win Conf Undef
Navy 7.7 4.3 -- -- 81% -- 2%
Notre Dame 7.8 4.2 -- -- 79% -- 2%
Army 7.0 5.0 -- -- 69% -- 2%
BYU 8.4 3.6 -- -- 90% -- 3%
Our projections are great for analyzing a “normal” team — a team that loses some players to the draft, gains some new recruits, maybe has a transfer or two. We’ve laid out the reasons we think our projections are better than most humans. But because our projections are entirely data-driven, and are based studying how similar teams have performed in the past, they may have trouble handling very unique situations. We simply don’t have a variable in our model for, say “legendary coach involved in shocking scandal which demoralizes entire school.”
Here a few cases where our margin of error might be bigger than normal:
Penn State – I think we all know how this is a special case, so no need to rehash any details. Some of the repercussions of the scandal are accounted for by our model: the Nittany Lions have the fewest returning starters in the country, and they have very low returning stats. But the loss of an icon like Paterno, and the turmoil surrounding the team … those are nearly impossible to quantify by math. So rather than try to quantify them, we’ll leave our projection unaltered, and just warn you to dock Penn State as you see fit.
Ohio State (and other teams with new coaches) — Our projections were too high on the Buckeyes last year, possibly because they underestimated the drop off in coaching talent from Jim Tressell to Luke Fickell. This year, Urban Meyer takes the reigns. Will he end up causing the reverse effect?
Missouri, Texas A&M, West Virginia, TCU (and other teams that switched conferences) — In theory, our projection for a team shouldn’t be affected by them switching conferences. True team strength shouldn’t change with conference affiliation, and the strength of schedule difference should be accounted for by our simulation. But moving to a new conference carries a hidden SOS penalty: the coaching staff must scout for a whole new conference worth of opponents. All their old notes about traditional opponents are worthless. It’s possible that teams switching conferences could have a bit more trouble than expected.
Which of our predictions do you agree or disagree with? What’s most surprising? Who’s your #1 team and conference? Have any questions? Ask away in the comment section below, and we’ll try to reply to as many people as possible.
Printed from TeamRankings.com - © 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved.