2013 NCAA Football CCSLC Rankings

[Gary]

We did this a couple years ago for a couple years, thought I'd bring it back to see where you are ranking teams in the FBS. Figured we start it up again. Your top 25. Not the AP, not the Coaches Poll, your poll.

[DS729]

The only real move I'd make to the current Top 25 is move Miami and Washington ahead of Michigan and Oklahoma, Wash and Miami both have some really good wins, Michigan almost lost to Akron. Oklahome hasn't really played a game to prove their better than either, also bump Baylor up a few spots, they've looked real nice.

[ninersdd]

124. Idaho

[DS729]

126. USC

[tj4eck]

1. BAMA (2-0)

OHST (3-0)

ORE (3-0)

STAN (2-0)

CLEM (2-0)

FSU (2-0)

UGA (1-1)

TAMU (2-1)

VILLE (3-0)

FRES (2-0)

OKST (3-0)

LSU (3-0)

SCAR (2-1)

MICH ST (3-0)

MICH (3-0)

MIA FL (2-0)

UCLA (2-0)

WISCO (2-1)

UF (1-1)

BAY (2-0)

OKLA (3-0)

NW (3-0)

NOTRE (2-1)

WASH (2-0)

OLEMISS (3-0)

[DS729]

1. BAMA (2-0)
2. OHST (3-0)
3. ORE (3-0)
4. STAN (2-0)
5. CLEM (2-0)
6. FSU (2-0)
7. UGA (1-1)
8. TAMU (2-1)
9. VILLE (3-0)
10. FRES (2-0)
11. OKST (3-0)
12. LSU (3-0)
13. SCAR (2-1)
14. MICH ST (3-0)
15. MICH (3-0)
16. MIA FL (2-0)
17. UCLA (2-0)
18. WISCO (2-1)
19. UF (1-1)
20. BAY (2-0)
21. OKLA (3-0)
22. NW (3-0)
23. NOTRE (2-1)
24. WASH (2-0)
25. OLEMISS (3-0)

Am I aloud to critique others Top 25's If so, then Why is Fresno #10? Did you go to college there? Also, why is MSU #14 beating 2 average teams by about 14 points, and beating an FCS school is warrant of #14 in my opinion.

[tj4eck]

No
Because they were ranked pretty good in my pre-season rankings, and haven't done anything to warrant falling down.

No

Because that's where I felt like putting them, based off what I've seen.

Also don't get me started on the whole 'beat an FCS school' thing. The parity in college football is pretty even-keeled.

[DS729]

No

Because they were ranked pretty good in my pre-season rankings, and haven't done anything to warrant falling down.

No

Because that's where I felt like putting them, based off what I've seen.

Also don't get me started on the whole 'beat an FCS school' thing. The parity in college football is pretty even-keeled.

Sorry, tj won't happen again.

[Raysfan12]

My Top 25:

1. Alabama
2. Oregon
3. Ohio State
4. Stanford
5. Clemson
6. Louisville
7. LSU
8. Georgia
9. Florida State
10. Texas A&M
11. Oklahoma State
12. UCLA
13. South Carolina
14. Oklahoma
15. Miami (FL)
16. Washington
17. Michigan
18. Northwestern
19. Baylor
20. Florida
21. Ole Miss
22. Arizona State
23. Notre Dame
24. Wisconsin
25. Texas Tech

Next 5:

1. Fresno State
2. UCF
3. Michigan State
4. Northern Illinois
5. Nebraska

[Russian Penguin]

The Top 25 in college football is extremely meaningful as a judge of ability compared to pro football and high school football...the ratio of about 4.5% of top "graduators" exists from HS to college and college to pros...

Tgere are 16,000 high school teams, 780 college teams, and 32 pro teams...

780/16,000=.049

32/780=.041

A National Top 800 in high school football would be just as indicative of top high school talent. Meaning, colleges only need to scout 4.5% of the country's high schools, the NFL, only 4.5% of colleges.

...assuming player ability can be tied to team performance (ranking) in football. Ice hockey and soccer probably are better sports to see this idea in action (do players on bad teams get drafted?).

I also assume a player's performance in away games in college is much more important to scouts, because if the player is drafted they will play their pro ball elsewhere...just an idea.

Also, 4% of 32 is a roughly 1.23, so the Super Bowl. Therefore, "the FBS Top 25 (unless an FCS team can sneak in, "NCAA/College Football-")" of the NFL is "the Super Bowl" or the top 2 (2 is a stretch, really) teams at any given time during the season.

Therefore, a national high school football championship should be packed with future college players.

So the question is how these rankings can be determined. Let's start with high school football...16,000 teams. MaxPreps has already a method. How?! How.

Also, there are 29 or 30 undefeated FBS teams, half are in the Texas-Alabama-Florida corridor, 1/4 in the West (Pac-12 and Fresno State), and 1/4 in the "North" (a region that holds half of the teams in the FBS). A good bet is that a Southern team will be in the National Championship unless they all play each other (and give each other a loss or two), the North will have a bad undefeated team, and the West is also at risk of giving each other a few losses.

Do we create ranking models based on non-conference games? Conference strength (even when teams play uneven season series against conference opponents who will probably leave the "conference" next year)? Regional strength (South>North>West)?

I like the idea of each college choosing their opponents four years in advance and a bowl committee selecting the best teams at the end of the season. Do away with the computers altogether. Divisions and conferences would be constructed yearly based on the opponents and the opponent's opponents would choose four years earlier. Traditional conferences like the Big Ten could be made up of the same teams, but the conference would have no scheduling oversight. How's that sound? Awesome?

What about "conference champions" playing "bowl champions?" Big XII champion Kansas Jayhawks vs. New Mexico Bowl Champion New Mexico Lobos. Now I'm rambling.