My preseason college football rankings consider recent team performance, turnovers and returning starters.
While simple, the model has predicted the game winner in 70.8% of games the past 3 seasons (1452-598 with no prediction in 235 games). This set of games excludes FCS cupcake games.
Here is my quick reaction to the these rankings:
— Ohio State seems a bit low at #4, although QB J.T. Barrett and the offensive line struggled last season.
— Stanford at #7 seems a too high. The Cardinal return a ton of talent on both sides of the ball but have a big question mark at QB with Keller Chryst.
— Washington, Penn State, USC. These teams had spectacular seasons in 2016. However, my model doesn’t like them since they haven’t been elite over the 4 year window the model considers.
— LSU at #9 seems about right for this program. However, they have a new coach that went 10-25 at his last SEC head coaching job.
— Auburn had a great defense last season, and transfer QB Jarrett Stidham looked like a star in limited time at Baylor. But I was still surprised how high my numbers put Auburn.
— Michigan. Can we talk about them later? Let’s just say their preseason rank seems low, way low. They will require an adjustment before I release their win total.
— Notre Dame had an awful 2016, but the preseason model thinks that might have been an outlier for Brian Kelly’s program.
— Tom Herman takes over at Texas, but the model’s rank of 37th shows just how bad the program got over the past 3 years under Charlie Strong.
— My alma mater Rice can return 16 starters yet still rank 116th in FBS and 5th worst in an awful Conference USA. It’s been a rough two seasons for the Owls.
The following list gives the rank, team and rating, which is an expected margin of victory against an average FBS team, for the 2017 preseason college football rankings.
1. Alabama, 22.67
2. Clemson, 18.43
3. Florida State, 18.21
4. Ohio State, 16.90
5. Oklahoma, 16.12
6. Auburn, 14.32
7. Stanford, 13.57
8. Wisconsin, 13.56
9. LSU, 13.01
10. Washington, 12.39
11. Penn State, 12.02
12. Miami (FL), 11.58
13. Louisville, 11.56
14. Georgia Tech, 9.94
15. USC, 9.70
16. Virginia Tech, 9.67
17. Georgia, 9.67
18. Florida, 9.63
19. Texas A&M, 9.45
20. Tennessee, 9.23
21. Washington State, 9.04
22. TCU, 8.64
23. Notre Dame, 8.60
24. North Carolina State, 8.28
25. North Carolina, 8.26
26. Mississippi, 7.90
27. Houston, 7.50
28. Iowa, 7.22
29. Baylor, 7.17
30. Michigan, 7.06
31. Oklahoma State, 6.96
32. Northwestern, 6.93
33. Kansas State, 6.84
34. Oregon, 6.37
35. Vanderbilt, 6.35
36. Pittsburgh, 6.21
37. Texas, 6.08
38. Mississippi State, 6.02
39. UCLA, 5.52
40. Minnesota, 5.24
41. Arkansas, 5.17
42. Kentucky, 5.04
43. Western Michigan, 4.51
44. Texas Tech, 4.20
45. Duke, 3.89
46. Utah, 3.86
47. South Florida, 3.65
48. Brigham Young, 3.48
49. South Carolina, 3.46
50. Colorado, 3.28
51. Syracuse, 2.60
52. Nebraska, 2.44
53. Indiana, 2.41
54. Toledo, 2.38
55. Troy, 2.24
56. Colorado State, 2.04
57. Memphis, 1.92
58. Missouri, 1.87
59. Wake Forest, 1.73
60. Arizona State, 1.50
61. Western Kentucky, 1.46
62. Navy, 1.44
63. West Virginia, 1.05
64. Temple, 0.88
65. Boston College, 0.42
66. Oregon State, 0.16
67. Appalachian State, 0.07
68. Boise State, -0.12
69. Arizona, -0.27
70. Tulsa, -0.48
71. California, -0.56
72. Michigan State, -0.61
73. San Diego State, -0.67
74. UCF, -1.17
75. Army, -1.23
76. Virginia, -1.56
77. Maryland, -2.01
78. Wyoming, -2.62
79. Ohio, -2.99
80. Iowa State, -3.12
81. Louisiana Tech, -3.73
82. Central Michigan, -4.13
83. SMU, -4.57
84. Northern Illinois, -4.86
85. Coastal Carolina, -5.22
86. Georgia Southern, -5.27
87. UTSA, -5.49
88. Arkansas State, -5.55
89. East Carolina, -6.03
90. Air Force, -6.09
91. Middle Tennessee State, -6.36
92. Georgia State, -6.41
93. Miami (OH), -6.51
94. Southern Miss, -6.67
95. Hawaii, -6.87
96. Akron, -6.95
97. Marshall, -6.99
98. Tulane, -7.00
99. Louisiana Lafayette, -7.11
100. Old Dominion, -7.25
101. Cincinnati, -7.63
102. South Alabama, -7.83
103. Bowling Green, -8.00
104. Purdue, -8.05
105. Rutgers, -8.05
106. San Jose State, -8.17
107. Utah State, -8.33
108. Eastern Michigan, -8.64
109. Louisiana Monroe, -8.70
110. New Mexico, -8.75
111. Florida Atlantic, -9.07
112. Ball State, -9.15
113. Connecticut, -9.19
114. Illinois, -9.27
115. Fresno State, -9.32
116. Rice, -10.65
117. Massachusetts, -10.92
118. Nevada, -11.01
119. Kent State, -11.15
120. Kansas, -11.17
121. Idaho, -12.04
122. UNLV, -12.09
123. Buffalo, -12.77
124. North Texas, -13.00
125. New Mexico State, -14.01
126. Florida International, -15.19
127. Texas State, -15.66
128. UTEP, -17.57
129. Charlotte, -19.20
130. UAB, -19.85
In order to devise an ultimately accurate prediction model, one must input better information than you obviously have.
Hi Ed!
Trying to understand your ranking on why Georgia Tech would be so high. Which components in your equation are making them so high? I understand returning starters (minus QB important in HC Johnson’s O), LY’s results (overachieved) & TO’s (but who can predict for TY). I used Georgia Tech as a sample for explanation to understand your rankings. I’m not criticizing just want to understand.
How much do you take into account of new HC, new OC & DC (new systems)?