As of right now, other than LSU (who will assuredly make the national title game if they run the table, and have a reasonable chance even if they blow a game),
there are a number of teams who have the potential to make the national title game. Throwing out any AQ's with 2+ losses or non-AQ's with 1+ losses, we're left with:
Alabama; Arkansas; Houston; Oklahoma St; Stanford; and Virginia Tech. The Compu-Picks rankings of these six teams (along with Boise; I'll get to why in a minute)
are shown in the below table.
| Rank | BCS Rank | Team | League | Score | Schedule Rank * | Result Rank |
| 2 | 2 | Alabama | SEC | 0.91 | 12 | 1 |
| 3 | 4 | Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 0.79 | 7 | 7 |
| 6 | 7 | Stanford | Pac-12 | 0.71 | 26 | 6 |
| 7 | 6 | Boise State | Mountain West | 0.67 | 34 | 5 |
| 12 | 3 | Arkansas | SEC | 0.46 | 45 | 11 |
| 13 | 8 | Houston | C-USA | 0.45 | 96 | 3 |
| 24 | 5 | Virginia Tech | ACC | 0.33 | 58 | 18 |
Unfortunately, six teams is actually quite a lot of teams to do any in-depth analysis on, so before we get into the full nitty-gritty let's see if we can pare down that list some,
using what I call the "Boise test." Specifically, if anyone clearly has a worse resume than Boise (and doesn't have a legitimate chance to change that), we can throw them out and focus
on the rest. Clearly, Alabama does not have a worse resume than Boise. Just as clearly, Arkansas and Oklahoma St each have a major chance to impress coming up. Even if you thought
that either currently has a worse resume than Boise (and clearly the model does think this about Arkansas, rating them as having a worse schedule and doing worse against it),
there's clearly the potential to change things in the immeditate future. So let's just focus on Houston, Stanford and Virginia Tech. Do any of them fail the
"Boise test"?
As shown in the above link, Houston and Virginia Tech both fail this test. So if we remove them from the "legitimate national contenders" list,
we're now left with four teams: Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma St and Stanford. Let's do this excercise again, this time comparing these four teams' resumes
instead of the earlier "Boise test."
| Rank | Team | Opp Name | Loc | Score |
| 1 | Oklahoma State | Texas Tech | AWAY | 66 - 6 |
| 2 | Oklahoma State | Missouri | AWAY | 45 - 24 |
| 3 | Oklahoma State | Baylor | HOME | 59 - 24 |
| 4 | Alabama | Florida | AWAY | 38 - 10 |
| 5 | Alabama | Arkansas | HOME | 38 - 14 |
| 6 | Alabama | Vanderbilt | HOME | 34 - 0 |
| 7 | Alabama | Tennessee | HOME | 37 - 6 |
| 8 | Stanford | Washington State | AWAY | 44 - 14 |
| 9 | Oklahoma State | Tulsa | AWAY | 59 - 33 |
| 10 | Stanford | Washington | HOME | 65 - 21 |
| 11 | Alabama | Penn State | AWAY | 27 - 11 |
| 12 | Alabama | Mississippi State | AWAY | 24 - 7 |
| 13 | Alabama | Mississippi | AWAY | 52 - 7 |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | Texas | AWAY | 38 - 26 |
| 15 | Stanford | Oregon State | AWAY | 38 - 13 |
| 16 | Arkansas | Tennessee | HOME | 49 - 7 |
| 17 | Stanford | Arizona | AWAY | 37 - 10 |
| 18 | Arkansas | South Carolina | HOME | 44 - 28 |
| 19 | Alabama | Louisiana State | HOME | 6 - 9 (OT) |
| 20 | Stanford | San Jose State | HOME | 57 - 3 |
| 21 | Arkansas | Mississippi State | HOME | 44 - 17 |
| 22 | Stanford | Southern California | AWAY | 56 - 48 (OT) |
| 23 | Oklahoma State | Kansas State | HOME | 52 - 45 |
| 24 | Alabama | North Texas | HOME | 41 - 0 |
| 25 | Stanford | Duke | AWAY | 44 - 14 |
| 26 | Stanford | UCLA | HOME | 45 - 19 |
| 27 | Arkansas | Auburn | HOME | 38 - 14 |
| 28 | Alabama | Kent | HOME | 48 - 7 |
| 29 | Stanford | Colorado | HOME | 48 - 7 |
| 30 | Oklahoma State | Kansas | HOME | 70 - 28 |
| 31 | Oklahoma State | Louisiana-Lafayette | HOME | 61 - 34 |
| 32 | Arkansas | Texas A&M | NEUTRAL | 42 - 38 |
| 33 | Oklahoma State | Texas A&M | AWAY | 30 - 29 |
| 34 | Oklahoma State | Arizona | HOME | 37 - 14 |
| 35 | Arkansas | Vanderbilt | AWAY | 31 - 28 |
| 36 | Stanford | California | HOME | 31 - 28 |
| 37 | Arkansas | Alabama | AWAY | 14 - 38 |
| 38 | Oklahoma State | Iowa State | AWAY | 31 - 37 (OT) |
| 39 | Arkansas | New Mexico | HOME | 52 - 3 |
| 40 | Stanford | Oregon | HOME | 30 - 53 |
| 41 | Arkansas | Mississippi | AWAY | 29 - 24 |
| 42 | Arkansas | Troy State | HOME | 38 - 28 |
Much like the original table, the conclusions here are fairly obvious (though like the first list, you may quibble with some items, such as New Mexico
being so awful that even a massive blowout rates as one of the worst performances on this list, rated below both Bama's and OK St's losses). The top of the list is dominated by Alabama and Oklahoma St,
which rather strongly suggests that these were the two best teams. Even if Arkansas comes up with a huge
win at LSU, the story really isn't going to change. There are simply too many good performances by Bama and OK St for one result, no matter how impressive
(and winning at LSU would be very impressive), to majorly overwrite the story.
Interestingly, the fact that Oklahoma St has shown up quite a bit on the bottom half of the list
while Alabama really hasn't suggests that Alabama is (unsurprisingly) the best of the bunch. So are we done? Is it Bama without question?
Actually, not entirely. Remember, this list isn't just strength of opposition, it also factors in actual scores. When you just look at schedule difficulty,
the story actually changes. Take a look at the following list of Bama and OK St's games, including the upcoming Auburn and Oklahoma contests,
rated from toughest to easiest:
| Rank | Team | Opp Name | Loc | Score |
| 1 | Alabama | Louisiana State | HOME | 6 - 9 (OT) |
| 2 | Oklahoma State | Oklahoma | HOME | - |
| 3 | Oklahoma State | Texas A&M | AWAY | 30 - 29 |
| 4 | Oklahoma State | Missouri | AWAY | 45 - 24 |
| 5 | Oklahoma State | Texas | AWAY | 38 - 26 |
| 6 | Oklahoma State | Kansas State | HOME | 52 - 45 |
| 7 | Alabama | Penn State | AWAY | 27 - 11 |
| 8 | Alabama | Arkansas | HOME | 38 - 14 |
| 9 | Alabama | Auburn | AWAY | - |
| 10 | Oklahoma State | Iowa State | AWAY | 31 - 37 (OT) |
| 11 | Alabama | Mississippi State | AWAY | 24 - 7 |
| 12 | Oklahoma State | Baylor | HOME | 59 - 24 |
| 13 | Oklahoma State | Tulsa | AWAY | 59 - 33 |
| 14 | Alabama | Florida | AWAY | 38 - 10 |
| 15 | Oklahoma State | Texas Tech | AWAY | 66 - 6 |
| 16 | Alabama | Tennessee | HOME | 37 - 6 |
| 17 | Alabama | Vanderbilt | HOME | 34 - 0 |
| 18 | Alabama | Mississippi | AWAY | 52 - 7 |
| 19 | Oklahoma State | Louisiana-Lafayette | HOME | 61 - 34 |
| 20 | Oklahoma State | Arizona | HOME | 37 - 14 |
| 21 | Oklahoma State | Kansas | HOME | 70 - 28 |
| 22 | Alabama | North Texas | HOME | 41 - 0 |
| 23 | Alabama | Kent | HOME | 48 - 7 |
Now this story is quite a bit different. While Bama did have the #1 rated test on this list, Oklahoma St had #'s 2 through 6,
and Bama also had the easiest two games. In other words, if (and it's still a big if) Oklahoma St does manage to win Bedlam, they'll
have a fairly compelling argument that they faced the toughest schedule among the 1-loss contenders and that as a consequence they
are the ones who really deserve the trip to New Orleans. And if the SEC struggles against the ACC (2-2 or worse, which I have to think is on the table),
especially if Vandy and Florida (Bama played them both) do poorly, then that argument gets even stronger. Though conversely, if the SEC,
especially Vandy and Florida, do well, then that could dampen the power of that argument.
Technical notes about the lists and analyses:
1) Games against AA teams are not counted. There are many good arguments both for and against counting such games
(see this link for an interesting analysis of the issue).
I have elected not to count these results in the Compu-Picks model. As is the case almost every year, this means that one or two especially surprising AA upsets
don't make it into the numbers, skewing the results to a fair degree for a couple of teams. I believe that this is a more than acceptable tradeoff given the substantial issues
that counting AA games would create, but you are certainly welcome to disagree with my decision on this matter.
2) As mentioned here, the purpose of this system is to make picks, not to create a list used for rankings.
As such, I evaluate the system solely on the basis of how good a job it does making picks. I do not evaluate the system on the basis of whether or not
it agreed with AP polls, BCS rankings, the BCS computers, or any other such list out there. In fact, the system has a long and established history of
being substantially different than those sources. I am fine with these differences. To be honest, I publish these lists because I find them interesting
and thought-provoking, and because I believe it is a good thing to introduce an approach that doesn't simply regurgitate the same avenues of thinking as you can find
in most places.
There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about this model:
1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of illegal gambling.
Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only.
2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any information provided and/or predictions made.
2011 Compu-Picks Blog
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com
