With the recent disgust over BCS system I began thinking of a system that would accurately rank college football teams based solely on statistics (power/potential) and resume (schedule/W-L) without the annoying human polling element. My solution was to assign point values to wins and losses over certain teams based on their F/+ ranking. For example, 3 points awarded for a win against an "elite" team (F/+ over 10%) and 0 points for wins versus garbage teams (F/+ less than -10%). This rewards teams with tougher opponents and does not punish losers of big games.
But why use F/+? If you don't know, F/+ is an amalgamation of FEI and S&P+ metrics that evaluate all 120 teams based on offense, defense, AND special teams, as well as adjusting for opponent and garbage time stats. It is an excellent reference.
After the jump you'll find further detail of the QFR calculation and some analysis of the rankings. Hope you enjoy!First off, the method:
+3 for Quality Wins and -0 for Forgivable Losses (F/+ > 10%); e.g. Oklahoma
+2 for Good Wins and -1 Decent Losses (10% > 0%); e.g. Miami
+1 for Decent Wins and -2 Bad Losses (0% > -10%); e.g. Wake Forest
+0 for Worthless Wins and -3 Unforgivable Losses (< -10%); e.g. Maryland
QFR points are tallied and ties are broken first by total wins, then by F/+ rank.
The results were pretty interesting. My first reaction was this ranking is NOT kind to FSU. But when you really think about it, we had ZERO quality wins (best were Miami and UF) and that Wake Forest loss really hurt us.
Nationally, things shake out about right (still Bama over Okie State). LSU is head and shoulders above the rest, Michigan comes out higher than expected, and it looks like Kansas State (only lost to OU and OKST) really got robbed of a BCS bid by Va Tech. Conference-wise, the SEC really is tops with 5 of the top 15 and 10/12 members (12/14 new members) being in the top 60.
Thoughts? If you had trouble viewing the image, here is the PDF version...