I've done a similar table to this for Basketball in the past, and thought I would try it for football as well. Below is a table which shows the average preseason power rankings of Bill Connelly's S&P+, ESPN's FPI, and Sagarin's Predictor. I'll try to update this table throughout the season.

[FONT=Courier New]TEAM___S&P__FPI___SAG___AVG.
UW______13____7_____8____9.3
USC______7___12____12___10.3
[U]STAN____12___11____14___12.3 [/U]
UO______23___21____35___26.3
UCLA____34___23____34___30.3
[U]WSU_____40___24____27___30.3 [/U]
UTAH____45___57____24___42.0
CU______50___41____47___46.0
ASU_____58___49____52___53.0
OSU_____54___53____55___54.0
CAL_____55___64____66___61.7
UA______68___54____70___64.0 [/FONT]

The league seems to break down into 3 tiers, with UW, USC and Stanfurd in the top tier, UO, UCLA and WSU in the next tier down, and then the rest of the league. Even though the numbers in the bottom half of the league are a little spread out, I feel like there are a lot of unknowns for all six of those teams, and that there could be a lot of movement up and down, particularly in this group. In the second tier, I personally would probably have Oregon at the bottom of that group, not the top. It'll be interesting to see how these rankings change as the season moves on.

In general, though, I don't put a ton of weight on these preseason ratings, or even the early season ratings once games begin. They really start to take on meaning as the season progresses and the schedule becomes "connected".

I'd bet a very large sum of money that CU ends the year higher than UCLA.

LTbear;842863606 said:

---

I'd bet a very large sum of money that CU ends the year higher than UCLA.

---

Why?

I don't know if that is because he feels UCLA will be down and will let him answer for himself. I will just say that I see CU taking a large downward turn defensively after losing their DC Leavitt and 8 of 11 starters (including several drafted in the first 4-5 rounds). If they are going to return to Pac-12 south championship contention, they better hope that offense is lights out.

going4roses;842863621 said:

---

Why?

---

Because UCLA is great at failing to meet expectations. CU returns their entire offense, save the QB, who is getting replaced with an admittedly younger but much more physically talented player who got plenty of experience last year. Every single WR catch returns from last year and will be one of the top WR units in the country. OL is deep and experienced. Lost some great players on defense but return a bunch who played significant snaps last year. Overall, 4th most experienced team in CU history. That usually means good things for a team.

Agreed ... I wondered if schedule played a roll in your thoughts.

Check out the discrepancy in Utah's rankings. I tend to agree more with the Sagarin ranking, not because I crunch a lot of numbers, but because I think Whittingham knows what he's doing.



and Troy Taylor

going4roses;842863628 said:

---

Agreed ... I wondered if schedule played a roll in your thoughts.

---

I thought about it but it's somewhat hard to pick. To CU's benefit, they get USC and UW at home. On the flip side, those are two games they're likely going to lose anyways, which means that two other opponents that would otherwise fill those home dates and perhaps be more likely wins now become road games and potential losses.

UCLA does have to play @ Stanford, @ USC, @ Utah and @ UW, and get the last 3 of those in a 4 week stretch. That's rough. CU has to play @ Utah and @ WSU.

Week 1
TEAM___S&P__FPI___SAG___AVG.____CHG.
STAN____11____5____10____8.7____3.7
USC______7___12____15___11.3___(1.0)
UW______13___11____13___12.3___(3.0)
UO______30___16____21___22.3____4.0
WSU_____31___26____25___27.3____3.0
UCLA____35___20____31___28.7____1.7
CU______46___36____33___38.3____7.7
UTAH____39___62____24___41.7____0.3
UA______62___44____57___54.3____9.7
CAL_____61___58____52___57.0____4.7
ASU_____64___60____66___63.3__(10.3)
OSU_____68___81____90___79.7__(25.7)

The S&P+ rankings updated today, and they look really strange to me, especially compared to the two other power rankings. Oregon and Cal improved in the FPI and Sagarin, but dropped in the S&P+ rankings. WSU and Utah dropped a little in the FPI, but improved in the S&P+ rankings.

Also, some of the overall team movements don't seem in line with the quality of the result this past weekend. Arizona moved up almost 10 spots (in fact, Arizona leap-frogged Cal), and Colorado moved up almost 8 spots, while Cal only moved up about 5 spots, and UCLA barely moved up at all. I also thought Oregon's move up, especially in FPI and Sagarin, was more than I expected. Oregon State's big drop is not surprising.

I think the take-away is that we probably have to wait a few weeks before these become meaningful, but they are interesting to see.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

I took a look at Football Outsiders and it was bewildering. They had Cal down 8 places to 61st after winning but North Carolina only dropped 1 spot to 38th. It appears to be heavily weighted towards last year's data at this point. Cal has the 24th best offense and the 95th best defense. That doesn't reflect what I saw last Saturday.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I took a look at Football Outsiders and it was bewildering. They had Cal down 8 places to 61st after winning but North Carolina only dropped 1 spot to 38th. It appears to be heavily weighted towards last year's data at this point. Cal has the 24th best offense and the 95th best defense. That doesn't reflect what I saw last Saturday.

---

If it's a statistical model, then with only one game's data available for most teams this year, they have to use last year's data as the bulk of the current rating. (Probably adjusted based on returning starters and other experience metrics.) There's no other data to go on.

In other words, it's still 'grain of salt' time for these ratings. For entertainment purposes only.

Week 2
TEAM___S&P__FPI___SAG___AVG.____CHG.
USC______7___12____10____9.7____1.7
UW______13____7____11___10.3____2.0
STAN____11____9____14___11.3___(2.7)
UO______27___18____21___22.0____0.3
UCLA____32___24____29___28.3____0.3
WSU_____31___30____28___29.7___(2.3)
CU______40___37____34___37.0____1.3
UTAH____38___58____24___40.0____1.7
UA______65___50____59___58.0___(3.7)
CAL_____58___63____62___61.0___(4.0)
ASU_____66___68____69___67.7___(4.3)
OSU_____75__100___108___94.3__(14.7)

It's still early, and these are still to be taken with a grain of salt. USC jumped ahead of Stanfurd at the top of the rankings with their win last week. Otherwise, not too much change from the prior week. The Mountain schools put a little more space between themselves and the bottom of the Pac(k), and OSU is now their own tier.

Cal has a big opportunity to move up this weekend with a good performance against Ole Miss.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

Week 3
TEAM__S&P__FPI__SAG___AVG.___CHG.
UW______7____7___10____8.0___2.3
USC____10___12___11___11.0__(1.3)
STAN___14___13___19___15.3__(4.0)
UO_____24___15___16___18.3___3.7
WSU____30___28___24___27.3___2.3
UCLA___34___25___32___30.3__(2.0)
UTAH___37___54___27___39.3___0.7
CU_____41___47___41___43.0__(6.0)
UA_____59___37___48___48.0__10.0
CAL____62___58___60___60.0___1.0
ASU____65___63___67___65.0___2.7
OSU____92__103__110__101.7__(7.3)

UW jumped ahead USC at the top of the power rankings, and with Stanfurd sliding, and Oregon creeping up, Oregon has moved just three spots behind 'Furd, and into the top tier.

Arizona continues to move up significantly, by beating up weaker opponents soundly. This week they beat UTEP (ranked dead last in FPI among FBS teams, and 174th in Sagarin, well behind many FCS programs) 63-16. It'll be interesting to see how they stack up against Pac-12 competition.

It's surprising to me how much space Arizona has put between themselves and Cal in these rankings, given our 3-0 record against much tougher competition. But in another thread, I think droski really hit the nail on the head on a key point, as to why our power rankings have not climbed more.

I think we've all been pretty thrilled with the progress by our defense, and there is no doubt we're significantly better than last year. But here are the rankings of our defense in several key categories:

Points per game, 22.0, 52nd
Turnovers gained, 9, T-3rd
Yards per game, 475.7, 115th
Yards per play, 5.82, 92nd
3rd down conversions, 42%, 88th

Our defense is doing enough to win, but it's been predicated on forcing turnovers, and the computer rankings discount that, as that is not as predictable going forward as other stats.

When I look at those numbers above, I can understand a little better why Cal's power rankings aren't as high. The turnovers have masked our defensive inefficiency to some extent. As long as the defense keeps forcing turnovers, our team will be in great position to compete, but if those bounces don't go our way, we could struggle. Our remaining schedule is still ranked 3rd toughest in the country according to FPI. Hopefully we can continue our opportunistic ways.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

sagarin rartings this week has north carolina at 50 and cal at 51. we beat them at their house are undefeated and ranked below them. go figure !!!