Friday, December 5, 2014

My annual CFB gripe session

Yesterday, there was a great but also terrible article on Grantland. 

Great, because it talked about:
  1. How much better the playoff system is, even though it hasn't happened yet
  2. Most of the fun of CFB is arguing about it
  3. How he was wrong to oppose the playoff format
  4. The pointless "tradition" of bowl games, and how it's really just about money (I have no problem with how it's about money - I just want to see more football in whatever format)
Terrible, because:
  1.  He argued that the playoffs shouldn't ever be expanded to 8 teams, or even 6.  He then proceeded to use the same arguments that he used last year as to why there shouldn't be a playoff system at all!  I should point out that the very first point of his article was admitting he was wrong to oppose the playoff system.  So now he's asking you to use the same logic to oppose a slightly larger playoff system, when he admitted he was wrong about that logic?  It's one of the poorest defenses I've seen in print, possibly, ever.
That's really the only thing I hated about it.  I could argue about his points on whether players should be paid (I'm on the "no" side, but I won't discuss it further), but mainly, it's ridiculous that anyone who is a fan of anything would oppose something that would make that sport more entertaining.  My main argument is always: sports are entertainment.  It's not about the players, the coaches, or anybody else but you and me.  Without us, these tremendous athletes and brilliant coaches would be working on an assembly line, selling cars, or data consulting.  Televised sports exist only because of fans.  Fans exist because it's fun to watch.  So why not make it more fun to watch?  Would an 8-team playoff be more entertaining than a 4-team? 

The arguments against it are such:

A.  It makes the regular season less meaningful. 
  1. The main defense of the anti-playoff people (that, and the "sanctity" of the bowls), which, and this is the entire point of the article, is complete bunk.  If anything, the regular season is more meaningful because there are 2 more spots.  For example, for the last 3-4 weeks of the season, it's been narrowed down to more or less 10 to 15 teams that are in contention for those 4 spots.  This means that only those teams' games are meaningful, and the rest are just for pride.  This is better than last year, where only 5 to 6 teams were in contention in November.  If we increase it to 8 teams, then around 30 teams would have meaningful games in November.  Am I wrong here?  I'm seeing the regular season becoming more meaningful with each postseason spot that opens up.
  2. Some would argue that, fine, 8 is fine, but no more.  16 is just too many!  To them, I argue that you could have a tournament of 128 teams and still not devalue the regular season.  Why?  Because Americans love football.  Which fan would be against having more football?  Now, 128 teams is ridiculous and that would never happen.  But 8?  Sure.  16?  Maybe!  With 16 spots, it would make even the no-name conference games interesting.  And who wouldn't want to see Marshall or Northern Illinois upset a Missouri or Nebraska?  That wouldn't happen, you argue.  It wouldn't?  Nebraska almost lost to McNeese St this season, and Missouri actually did lose to a pretty pathetic Indiana team.  Those 16 spots would also be about tournament seeding and pairing.  Your Alabamas and Florida States might be shoe-ins, but they're still going to play hard every week for that #1 seed and you know that their fans still care about each and every game.
  3. Teams would schedule more interesting non-conference match-ups.  More teams means that losses are less important, which means that more teams would take chances scheduling big names to bulk up their resume, similar to NCAA basketball.  You could argue that my point of losses being less important means the regular season is less meaningful.  I see your point.  Let's go back to the SEC scheduling 20 FCS games a year, instead of Alabama-Oklahoma, Ole Miss-USC, Ohio St-LSU in September.  That does sound more meaningful.
B.  The best team might not win the championship
  1. The article argues that (more or less) the last 15 champions have been the best team.   I'm sorry, but...what?  That's a pretty massive statement to make without any backup whatsoever.  You could go through almost every year and determine a team that could have potentially beaten that champion that wasn't invited to the championship game. 
  2. Also, that's not the point of a playoff.  The point is...everybody say it with me now...ENTERTAINMENT!  When LSU had a rematch of Alabama a few years back for the championship, I could not care less about that game.  We already watched a mind-numbing 6-3 game between the 2 not 3 games before, and now we have to watch it again?  I didn't even bother watching.  By the way, nobody else did either: it was the lowest-watched BCS championship ever.  (2002 and 2005 were lower, but it wasn't the "official BCS championship" at the time.)  We watch March Madness because there are 64ish teams and it's hugely entertaining.  I don't think anybody's ever argued whether the team that wins March Madness is the best team - it doesn't really matter.  Could Duke (out in the first round) could have beaten UConn (champion)?  Possibly.  Probably.  Doesn't matter!  UConn made it through all the rounds and they are the champs!  Are they the best?  Doesn't matter!  Not the point!
If we ended right now (12/5), my rankings would have these matchups:

1. Alabama vs. 8. Georgia Tech
4. Oregon vs. 5. TCU
2. Ohio St vs. 7. Boise St
3. Florida St vs 6. Ole Miss

That's right, Ole Miss, with 3 losses, gets in.  Why?  They beat Boise St, Alabama, and Mississippi St.  Yes, they lost, in a shutout, to Arkansas.  I've tweaked and tweaked my algorithm, but they beat 3 top 10 teams, so for Ole Miss to not make it, I'd have to lower the value of the strength of schedule, and that would put your Boise States and Marshalls in the top 4.  And how about Boise St?  The AP rankings have them at 22.  They lost to Ole Miss (#6) and Air Force (#35) and have blown away most of their other opponents.  You could argue all day about who's better than whom and nobody would be wrong and we wouldn't get anywhere because only 4 teams get in.  And neither Boise St nor Ole Miss are in the top 4, so the argument switches from them to TCU vs Oregon vs Baylor.  No matter how many teams you have, there will be arguments.  That's half the fun.  The difference is that the playoff system seeks to conclude on these arguments, whereas the bowl system rarely did, because Ole Miss wouldn't be playing Boise St or Georgia Tech, they'd play Nebraska (#23) or someone like that.

So I would see Bama beating Ga Tech pretty handily, with a good run-D.  Oregon vs TCU would be a heck of a game, maybe in the 60s!  TCU gets past them.  Boise St upsets a short-handed OSU team, and Ole Miss beats FSU.  TCU upsets Bama in a barn-burner, and Ole Miss beats Boise St again.  TCU then beats Ole Miss for the championship.  All these games sound awesome!  A 4-team playoff is certainly great, but an 8 team would be even better.

We still have 1 more week of regular season football, with Oregon vs Arizona, FSU vs Ga Tech, Ohio St vs Wisconsin, and Bama vs Missouri.  Our top 8, and even top 4, could be shaken up.  Isn't this great!?!

 I want to end by bearing my playoff testimony:  I am thankful for the playoffs, I believe it's the best system, and I hope that it expands to 8, and then to 16 in the next 10 or 20 years.  Until next year!

Friday, September 26, 2014

Kent's Week 5 Rankings

Enough games have been played to give me a decent amount of data to work with, so I'm releasing my rankings here:
The first thing you'll notice is that there are a bunch of unranked (AP poll) teams in there, and that BYU is 7th, and that Arizona is 9th, the highest unranked team.  Now, my algorithm weighs wins heaviest, but there is some strength of schedule involved, as you see that South Carolina is the only team that cracked the top 25 with a loss.  Keep in mind that the SOS is based on games played, not games scheduled.  BYU's SOS is pretty poor, but others' (Duke, Washington, Utah, etc) are even poorer.  Throughout the season, we'll see that BYU's SOS will stay pretty much the same and the aforementioned teams' will improve, meaning BYU will fall in the rankings.

At first glance, it's tempting to try and tweak my algorithm to more closely align with the perception that Duke and/or Utah don't deserve to be in the top 25.  And, perhaps, BYU doesn't deserve to be #1 if that's what happens if they win out and no one else is undefeated.  I don't believe BYU is the best team in the nation, and probably not the 7th best either, although I do believe that going undefeated will demonstrate a top 10 pedigree.   I will revisit that later, if need be.  But last year's results aligned pretty closely to the common perception of who was the best, so I'm sticking with it.  At any rate, it's early, there's still a lot of football to be played, and I don't think BYU's going undefeated.

By conference, much to my chagrin, the SEC has been winning their non-conf games and therefore, is justifiably the best.  I imagine these numbers will stay similar throughout the season, as most non-conference games have been played.










Thursday, January 2, 2014

A letter from the Olson family

I've received a few compliments on my writing recently, enough to stroke my ego and motivate me to write another non-sports, non-weight loss related post, of which I haven't written since November 2012. 

Many of you will remember that I dated a girl in high school for a time, who went by the name of "Hillary", and I believe she still goes by that name.  We dated for 16 months before I left on the mish, spending mucho time together, with lots of smooching, jealousy, flowers, expensive dates/gifts and anything else a teenage relationship with an insecure cheerleader demands.  The way in which I manipulated her into dating me is worth a whole other post.

The plan was dictated to me: I would go on my mission, come back, get married in the temple, and have 3 kids, and live in Orem for the rest of my life.  I had no problem with this plan, and couldn't wait to spend the rest of eternity with her.  She demanded a promise ring before I left, to which I complied, and I believe I spent something like 200 bucks on the durn thing.  We were promised-to-be-engaged, like in Arrested Development with George Michael and Ann (her?).

The nights before my mission were spent sobbing in each others' arms, talking about how much we'd miss each other and how great it would be to come home and get married.  We were quite seriously in love, writing ardent love letters to each other daily when I was in the MTC.   I last saw her at the airport on May 10, 1999, with many more tears and desperate promises. 

The mail service in Poland wasn't quite as reliable as in the MTC, or at least that's what I told myself as the letters from my betrothed became fewer and further between.  This became a great source of depression on my mission, which fell on top of general homesickness, not knowing Polish, and a lazy trainer as a reason to be miserable every hour of every day.  Eventually, in mid-July, I received a letter from Hillary that "I wasn't focused on my mission and we would need to stop writing".  This much may have been true, but hindsight dictates that it wasn't the reason she stopped writing.

My next companion came in August, and he was this piece of work who shared the same last name as me.  He told me of stories that he swore were true, involving a unicorn he saw in the woods, a 2-foot-tall goblin who lived in his closet named "Fletastifus" (spelling?), and others that I have tried to remove from my memory.  He would take baths every morning with his toy Titanic ship (inflatable iceberg included!), and cuddle with his Tigger doll at night.  He liked to jump on me in the middle of the night to "wrestle".  However, he was good at listening to my "girl problems" and that was helpful, at least for a couple of weeks. 

One day, my comp received a call from some friend who inherited a greenie from the London MTC.  This greenie brought word that an "Elder Hansen" had a girlfriend who was engaged to some other dude.  The problem was that there were 5 Elder Hansens in the mission at the time, and 4 of them had girlfriends.  I had a pretty good idea that it was me, because Hillstance had essentially dumped me the month before and I hadn't received anything from her since.

However, I couldn't take the suspense and broke a mission rule: I called her house to see if it was true.  Her mom answered, and I said, "Hi, Susan, this is Kent."  (It's worth noting that Hillary's parents were named Gary and Susan, like mine.  What a coincidence!)  She gasped.  Then I asked, "Is Hillary engaged?"  She replied, "I'm so sorry, yes."  "When are they getting married?"  "December 17."  "Okay, thanks.  Goodbye."  And that was that.

I broke down crying.  My comp, ever the emotional one, gave me a big hug, which I needed and appreciated.  Even though I knew that things weren't looking good for this relationship, there was still hope that things would work out.  Now there was no hope, and that was that.  In Hillary's defense, she sent me an "official" Dear John in September announcing her engagement, to which I wrote a bitter and "I-want-my-stuff-back" letter in return a month later.

I couldn't sleep very well for the next week or so.  My comp and I had an epic argument about something unrelated, which probably deserves its own post.  I got a new comp in September, who was, amazingly, worse than my first 2 companions.  I was his first junior companion.  His Polish was worse than mine, and he was 12 months in the field.  He went to great efforts to move his bed into a different room (against the rules).  We'd come home at 7 pm every night if we didn't have an appointment, instead of finding or visiting members.  He wouldn't contact, hated tracting, then blamed me for not having investigators.  We would ride 2-car trams around the city, and he would wait until I got in one car to intentionally ride in the other.  It was then that I decided to take control of my own happiness and "lose myself in the work".  I did all the contacting, demanded that we go tracting, set up most of the appointments and led all the discussions that I set up on my own.  I also ate nothing but potatoes those months in order to catch up on my MSF, because my first 3 companions had financial help from home and spent quite a lot more than what was allocated.

These were the hardest 2 months of my life, but working this hard helped me learn the language quite well and learn how to be a good missionary. I was made senior companion in January, and by the summer was doing quite well on my mission, finding lots of people to teach and enjoying every companionship immensely since my first 3.  In fact, when people would find out who my first 3 companions were, they were amazed that I turned out so well.

In June, I wanted to send Hillary a letter to make up for my bitter one in October.  I knew she was married - my sister JoEllen had seen them at the courthouse the week they got married (Jo got married on the same day) - so I wasn't holding out any desperate attempt at some reunion.  I wanted to "be friends" or at least let her know that I was doing well and she didn't need to worry about my emotional stability, which she was so concerned about in her Dear John.  I kept it light-hearted and positive - a few dumb jokes, no references to being dumped or whatever, and just let her know that I was doing great and enjoying my mission.  I asked her some questions, like how she was doing and where she was studying and how the married life is, etc. 

In return, I got an envelope with no address, reading "The Olson Family".  This is what the letter said (I typed it exactly as I received it, but bolded parts that were particularly fascinating to me):

07/05/00

Kent,

First of all, I don't appreciate you writing a letter to my wife.  The letter was never opened.  My wife picked it up, noticed it was from you, and threw it away.  I don't know what the letter said, but I'd like to tell you a few things.  (No hard feelings intended)

I don't know what you think you and my wife had, but the ring you gave her before you left on your mission was off her hand by our third date.  Obviously, you envisioned the relationship you had with her as something with more substance than what her perception of your relationship was.  It's too bad that high school flings are just that - flings.

In the real world, real men don't write to, or try to maintain relationships with ex-flings.  When you get sealed to someone for eternity, your love and concern for the temporal well being of your spouse supercedes your curiosity for one of your ex-fling's current situation in life.  (Even if the ex-fling is on a mission)

I've heard that the Warsaw, Poland mission is a tough mission, and I respect you for being willing to serve.  I suggest that you spend free time on p-day studying your language, writing your family, or planning for your investigators.  Entertaining a fetish with an ex-fling is not what I would call effective use of your time.

In layman's terms, my wife isn't really interested in maintaining a friendship with you, and we, as a family, don't really want to hear from you again.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  When you are married, you won't want your wife's old flings writing her letters or calling her house when they are on a mission.  Please respect our family, and do as my wife requested - no more letters or phone calls, focus on your mission, and move on.

Thank you,

The Olson family

When I received this, I was so thrown off that I didn't know if I should be enraged.  Was this a joke?  Obviously, it wasn't, so as I processed it more and more, it just made me angry.  I didn't try and send anything in return, but what I did do was make copies of it and send it to a few friends that were also on missions for their enjoyment.  Unbeknownst to me, these friends made copies of it and sent it to their friends, and when I got home, a few people mentioned it to me, and we had a good laugh.

Before I break this down, I want to say that I've considered his point-of-view.  He's married to a beautiful girl, and some letter shows up from an ex, and he wants to make sure that his marriage stays intact from a threat that is half a world away, on a mission, and hasn't tried to contact her since October.  At the time, I wasn't married, so I figured that's just what you gotta do to protect your marriage.  My view is, if you do feel that someone should stop contacting your wife, there are other ways of doing it, that don't involve insulting the person for 5 paragraphs, then saying, "No offense".  You should probably have the person do it, in this case Hillary, and have her write, "Thanks for the letter, but I'd prefer to not maintain contact with you, for the best interest of my marriage.  Good luck in everything you do."  Is that so hard?

So let's break this down, paragraph by paragraph. 

First of all, I don't appreciate you writing a letter to my wife.  The letter was never opened.  My wife picked it up, noticed it was from you, and threw it away.  I don't know what the letter said, but I'd like to tell you a few things.  (No hard feelings intended)

Didn't even open it!  I mean, if you want to rip someone a new one, wouldn't you want to at least read the letter?  For all they knew, I could've told them about a potential investigator that they could help me with, or that I wanted to give Hillary a bunch of presents that I bought pre-mission that were no good to anybody else.  Or something.  If you really don't care about me, just throw the letter away and don't write me back.

Another question is: did Hillary throw it away, or did the husband?  Did she even know about the letter?  Hillary may have been angry at me for my bitter letter in October, but she doesn't seem like the type of person that would just throw the letter away without opening it.

My favorite part here is the "No hard feelings intended", after which he skewers me for the rest of the entire letter.

I don't know what you think you and my wife had, but the ring you gave her before you left on your mission was off her hand by our third date.  Obviously, you envisioned the relationship you had with her as something with more substance than what her perception of your relationship was.  It's too bad that high school flings are just that - flings.

Congrats to you for getting my ring off her finger by the third date, but what was wrong with your first 2 dates that it took so long?  I love how he implies that I was so obtuse that I didn't realize that it was a fling.  So I guess all those letters and tapes I got in the MTC was part of a fling?  16 months of seeing each other almost daily and so on was a fling?  I get it - I was young, I'm the first to admit it.  Too young to know anything about love. You win, I lose!  I'm such an idiot!  You're the real winner!  All hail Mr. Olson! 

In the real world, real men don't write to, or try to maintain relationships with ex-flings.  When you get sealed to someone for eternity, your love and concern for the temporal well being of your spouse supercedes your curiosity for one of your ex-fling's current situation in life.  (Even if the ex-fling is on a mission)

I love how he brings manliness into the equation.  Why didn't he mention how much he could bench?  "Hey buddy - real men don't write a one-page letter wishing their ex the best.  They coldly ignore the existence of any previous relationships."

I also enjoy his continued use of the word "fling", hammering home the fact that this relationship was completely meaningless.  In general, I believe that is the most hurtful thing one could do after breaking up with someone who you've been seeing for a while, is to disregard the whole thing as meaningless.  It's one thing if the person dumps you, I get it, you didn't want to marry me.  But a whole other if the person tells you that the whole thing meant nothing, that they got nothing out of it.  That's what a fling is, and coming from the ex's husband is a lot more hurtful that coming from her.

I've heard that the Warsaw, Poland mission is a tough mission, and I respect you for being willing to serve.  I suggest that you spend free time on p-day studying your language, writing your family, or planning for your investigators.  Entertaining a fetish with an ex-fling is not what I would call effective use of your time

He at least throws me a bone with the "tough mission" thing.  But then promptly eliminates that with an accusation that challenges how I use my mission time and uses a word like "fetish" which is reserved for pervs and weirdos.  I wouldn't call writing one letter in 8 months as a "fetish" and it took me probably 15 minutes to write the thing, it wasn't very long at all.  In fact, I knew there was a good chance I wouldn't get anything back, so I kept it short on purpose.  Challenging a missionary on their use of time is a highly sensitive area to any missionary, so this struck a nerve.

In layman's terms, my wife isn't really interested in maintaining a friendship with you, and we, as a family, don't really want to hear from you again.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  When you are married, you won't want your wife's old flings writing her letters or calling her house when they are on a mission.  Please respect our family, and do as my wife requested - no more letters or phone calls, focus on your mission, and move on.

Thank you,

The Olson family

"In layman's terms" really brings it home.  "In case you are too stupid to understand what I've been saying."  "In case you don't realize that I've been making fun of you this entire letter."  And then he says, "no hard feelings" again.  I'm not sure that "no hard feelings" erases 4 paragraphs of criticizing me, but I guess you had it in the first paragraph, so there you go.

I also liked how he says, "No more letters or phone calls" implying that there had been a constant stream of them.  I called in August 1999 and talked to her mom for 30 seconds, if that.  I wrote in October 1999 and in June 2000.  "No more letters" would've sufficed.

Now that I'm married, I can finally understand what he's writing about. I'm happily married to Melanie, and if she got some letter from an ex, I wouldn't think twice about it.  If she wanted to correspond with them, then go ahead.  I know Melanie loves me, she tells me every day, and I'm secure enough in that knowledge to allow her to maintain contact with former boyfriends, and anybody else she feels like she wants to maintain contact with.

All in all, Mr. Olson did me a favor by marrying Hillary.  I don't mean that to be insulting to Hillary, but if she would've waited and we got married right after the mission, I believe it would've been a lot harder for me than the way it worked out with Melanie.  I got to travel quite a few places before I got married, and developed a lot more as a person than perhaps I would've if I'd gotten married immediately.  Also, Melanie is the perfect person for me, we're quite happy together in this life we have.  Hopefully, the Olsons are happy, too.  No hard feelings intended. 

Friday, December 13, 2013

Updated Rankings - just in time for the bowl matchups!

While looking at the bowl match-ups, some of them seemed like bad match-ups, and also the SEC seemed to have easy match-ups across the board.  For example, why wasn't Bama playing Baylor?  So I reran my rankings, and generated the bowl match-ups:
 
Team 1 Team 1 Rank
Team 2 Team 2 Rank Predicted Margin
Colorado State 80 /vs./ Washington State 61 Washington State by 6
Fresno State 17 /vs./ Southern California 23 Fresno State by 3
Buffalo 52 /vs./ San Diego State 75 Buffalo by 5
Tulane 67 /vs./ Louisiana-Lafayette 63 Louisiana-Lafayette by 1
East Carolina 35 /vs./ Ohio 74 East Carolina by 10
Boise State 46 /vs./ Oregon State 68 Boise State by 4
Bowling Green State 34 /vs./ Pittsburgh 70 Bowling Green State by 9
Northern Illinois 19 /vs./ Utah State 53 Northern Illinois by 11
Marshall 47 /vs./ Maryland 56 Marshall by 2
Minnesota 36 /vs./ Syracuse 66 Minnesota by 8
Brigham Young 30 /vs./ Washington 26 Washington by 1
Notre Dame 24 /vs./ Rutgers 81 Notre Dame by 15
Cincinnati 49 /vs./ North Carolina 64 Cincinnati by 3
Louisville 18 /vs./ Miami FL 27 Louisville by 4
Kansas State 48 /vs./ Michigan 37 Michigan by 4
Middle Tennessee State 62 /vs./ Navy 51 Navy by 2
Georgia Tech 60 /vs./ Mississippi 40 Mississippi by 5
Oregon 13 /vs./ Texas 28 Oregon by 7
Arizona State 9 /vs./ Texas Tech 54 Arizona State by 15
Arizona 41 /vs./ Boston College 55 Arizona by 4
UCLA 16 /vs./ Virginia Tech 39 UCLA by 8
Mississippi State 50 /vs./ Rice 31 Rice by 6
Duke 29 /vs./ Texas A&M 25 Texas A&M by 1
Georgia 22 /vs./ Nebraska 42 Georgia by 5
North Texas 44 /vs./ Nevada-Las Vegas 73 North Texas by 6
South Carolina 12 /vs./ Wisconsin 21 South Carolina by 4
Iowa 32 /vs./ Louisiana State 20 Louisiana State by 5
Michigan State 7 /vs./ Stanford 4 Stanford by 2
Baylor 3 /vs./ Central Florida 14 Baylor by 7
Alabama 5 /vs./ Oklahoma 11 Alabama by 3
Missouri 8 /vs./ Oklahoma State 10 Missouri by 2
Clemson 15 /vs./ Ohio State 6 Ohio State by 5
Houston 38 /vs./ Vanderbilt 43 Houston by 1
Arkansas State 65 /vs./ Ball State 33 Ball State by 8
Florida State 1 /vs./ Auburn 2 Florida State by 1

















My predicted margin is simply the differences in my ranking factors multiplied by 20, which was an arbitrary number that made the margins seem realistic. You'll see that the SEC is indeed favored in EVERY GAME except Vandy, Miss St, and Auburn.  What that means is that the SEC will go 7-3 or 8-2 in bowl games and everyone will still concede that the SEC is the best conference.  But it will warm my Grinch heart if they go just 5-5.  You'll also notice that Notre Dame is very heavily favored in what I found was a puzzling match-up against the lowest ranking team in a bowl, Rutgers at #81.

Penn St. was the highest ranking team (#45) not going to a bowl (ineligible), followed by Texas-San Antonio, Toledo, and W. Kentucky (#57-59, respectively), who are marching in the streets right now!  The highest ranking 5-win team was Indiana, who had a big win against Penn St, and looked almost decent at times this year.


My overall rankings are below.  I realize that the format is less than desirable, but I don't care enough about this to spend the time to write the HTML or look into it.  So this is what you get.











team teamconf Total SOS Rank
Florida State ACC) 1.290519 85 1
Auburn SEC) 1.235572 13 2
Baylor Big 12) 1.20023 59 3
Stanford Pac 12) 1.147084 17 4
Alabama SEC) 1.105492 65 5
Ohio State Big Ten) 1.096835 64 6
Michigan State Big Ten) 1.030932 76 7
Missouri SEC) 1.030233 21 8
Arizona State Pac 12) 0.973311 4 9
Oklahoma State Big 12) 0.944364 46 10
Oklahoma Big 12) 0.934291 54 11
South Carolina SEC) 0.916229 25 12
Oregon Pac 12) 0.910985 62 13
Central Florida American) 0.870508 113 14
Clemson ACC) 0.833313 38 15
UCLA Pac 12) 0.786823 42 16
Fresno State MWC) 0.776742 117 17
Louisville American) 0.765355 123 18
Northern Illinois MAC) 0.765267 125 19
Louisiana State SEC) 0.726853 43 20
Wisconsin Big Ten) 0.710639 51 21
Georgia SEC) 0.621555 9 22
Southern California Pac 12) 0.621467 41 23
Notre Dame Independent) 0.590699 19 24
Texas A&M SEC) 0.59053 16 25
Washington Pac 12) 0.582241 23 26
Miami FL ACC) 0.565296 68 27
Texas Big 12) 0.53958 48 28
Duke ACC) 0.520572 72 29
Brigham Young Independent) 0.514771 35 30
Rice CUSA) 0.510659 111 31
Iowa Big Ten) 0.498482 30 32
Ball State MAC) 0.483301 116 33
Bowling Green State MAC) 0.479903 102 34
East Carolina CUSA) 0.465065 120 35
Minnesota Big Ten) 0.458071 39 36
Michigan Big Ten) 0.454465 22 37
Houston American) 0.396651 77 38
Virginia Tech ACC) 0.395517 27 39
Mississippi SEC) 0.390989 12 40
Arizona Pac 12) 0.362104 28 41
Nebraska Big Ten) 0.350662 66 42
Vanderbilt SEC) 0.334523 73 43
North Texas CUSA) 0.32124 109 44
Penn State Big Ten) 0.310067 47 45
Boise State MWC) 0.262635 104 46
Marshall CUSA) 0.252551 106 47
Kansas State Big 12) 0.244892 61 48
Cincinnati American) 0.241309 122 49
Mississippi State SEC) 0.234081 5 50
Navy Independent) 0.221621 83 51
Buffalo MAC) 0.210993 92 52
Utah State MWC) 0.205791 88 53
Texas Tech Big 12) 0.205361 55 54
Boston College ACC) 0.180929 58 55
Maryland ACC) 0.159098 96 56
Texas-San Antonio CUSA) 0.157358 84 57
Toledo MAC) 0.155459 67 58
Western Kentucky Sun Belt) 0.154713 115 59
Georgia Tech ACC) 0.14237 29 60
Washington State Pac 12) 0.134075 14 61
Middle Tennessee State CUSA) 0.131596 114 62
Louisiana-Lafayette Sun Belt) 0.121814 119 63
North Carolina ACC) 0.085647 50 64
Arkansas State Sun Belt) 0.06148 89 65
Syracuse ACC) 0.061125 34 66
Tulane CUSA) 0.054913 90 67
Oregon State Pac 12) 0.053885 44 68
Indiana Big Ten) 0.048228 8 69
Pittsburgh ACC) 0.031911 40 70
Tennessee SEC) 0.02913 3 71
Utah Pac 12) 0.026817 2 72
Nevada-Las Vegas MWC) 0.024226 99 73
Ohio MAC) -0.03897 86 74
San Diego State MWC) -0.04081 105 75
San Jose State MWC) -0.04839 63 76
Louisiana-Monroe Sun Belt) -0.11026 71 77
South Alabama Sun Belt) -0.11672 100 78
Northwestern Big Ten) -0.11897 33 79
Colorado State MWC) -0.14847 121 80
Rutgers American) -0.17595 95 81
Troy Sun Belt) -0.18704 98 82
Florida Atlantic CUSA) -0.24505 110 83
Old Dominion Independent) -0.26144 82 84
Akron MAC) -0.27502 37 85
Florida SEC) -0.29913 11 86
Texas Christian Big 12) -0.30015 26 87
Central Michigan MAC) -0.32062 101 88
Texas State Sun Belt) -0.32657 124 89
Illinois Big Ten) -0.35637 18 90
Southern Methodist American) -0.36578 91 91
Nevada MWC) -0.37763 45 92
Wake Forest ACC) -0.4097 36 93
Colorado Pac 12) -0.42484 20 94
West Virginia Big 12) -0.42791 53 95
Arkansas SEC) -0.46152 15 96
Wyoming MWC) -0.47134 108 97
Kent MAC) -0.48539 49 98
Iowa State Big 12) -0.52377 24 99
North Carolina State ACC) -0.53298 32 100
Tulsa CUSA) -0.5747 60 101
Kansas Big 12) -0.60036 31 102
Memphis American) -0.69308 75 103
Kentucky SEC) -0.70542 7 104
Connecticut American) -0.72399 80 105
New Mexico MWC) -0.76112 107 106
Virginia ACC) -0.76881 10 107
Louisiana Tech CUSA) -0.79761 126 108
Purdue Big Ten) -0.82627 1 109
California Pac 12) -0.84678 6 110
Army Independent) -0.8496 118 111
Temple American) -0.88482 87 112
Alabama-Birmingham CUSA) -0.98886 79 113
Hawaii MWC) -1.0042 78 114
Eastern Michigan MAC) -1.01692 74 115
Texas-El Paso CUSA) -1.02847 112 116
South Florida American) -1.03204 52 117
Air Force MWC) -1.03486 93 118
Idaho Independent) -1.04587 56 119
New Mexico State Independent) -1.04624 81 120
Western Michigan MAC) -1.10643 70 121
Massachusetts MAC) -1.17977 57 122
Southern Mississippi CUSA) -1.22802 103 123
Florida International CUSA) -1.29919 94 124
Miami OH MAC) -1.4104 97 125
Georgia State Sun Belt) -1.53502 69 126