Apologies for the late posting, this was meant to be up last weekend, but slipped to tonight unfortunately.
As of the end of the regular season, these are the Compu-Picks top 40 and bottom 30 (plus a couple extras). Remember that this is a predictive model, designed to pick games and show how good a team actually is. Its results can be very different from what you'll see elsewhere. The workings of the model are confidential (it is, after all, designed to make winning picks), but I'm happy to answer questions about the models' results.
| Rank | BCS Rank | Team | League | Score | Schedule Rank * | Result Rank * |
| 1 | 4 | Oregon | Pac-12 | 0.93 | 6 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 | Alabama | SEC | 0.93 | 8 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 | Florida | SEC | 0.77 | 3 | 12 |
| 4 | 9 | Texas A&M | SEC | 0.76 | 4 | 9 |
| 5 | 5 | Kansas State | Big 12 | 0.71 | 13 | 5 |
| 6 | 1 | Notre Dame | Indep | 0.70 | 32 | 4 |
| 7 | 7 | Georgia | SEC | 0.64 | 31 | 7 |
| 8 | 6 | Stanford | Pac-12 | 0.62 | 11 | 22 |
| 9 | 10 | South Carolina | SEC | 0.61 | 24 | 15 |
| 10 | 13 | Oregon State | Pac-12 | 0.61 | 1 | 30 |
| 11 | 11 | Oklahoma | Big 12 | 0.61 | 9 | 20 |
| 12 | 8 | Louisiana State | SEC | 0.58 | 16 | 18 |
| 13 | 12 | Florida State | ACC | 0.47 | 48 | 6 |
| 14 | NR | Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 0.47 | 7 | 35 |
| 15 | 14 | Clemson | ACC | 0.46 | 45 | 11 |
| 16 | NR | Southern California | Pac-12 | 0.45 | 25 | 33 |
| 17 | 23 | Texas | Big 12 | 0.44 | 14 | 40 |
| 18 | 3* | Ohio State | Big Ten | 0.39 | 57 | 13 |
| 19 | NR | Arizona State | Pac-12 | 0.37 | 30 | 41 |
| 20 | NR | Fresno State | Mountain West | 0.37 | 61 | 14 |
| 21 | 22 | Utah State | WAC | 0.36 | 74 | 8 |
| 22 | NR | Wisconsin | Big Ten | 0.36 | 42 | 24 |
| 23 | 17 | UCLA | Pac-12 | 0.36 | 35 | 34 |
| 24 | NR | Texas Christian | Big 12 | 0.32 | 17 | 55 |
| 25 | 24 | San Jose State | WAC | 0.32 | 69 | 16 |
| 26 | NR | Brigham Young | Indep | 0.32 | 46 | 25 |
| 27 | NR | Arizona | Pac-12 | 0.30 | 5 | 61 |
| 28 | 18 | Michigan | Big Ten | 0.30 | 40 | 32 |
| 29 | NR | Baylor | Big 12 | 0.30 | 22 | 54 |
| 30 | 19 | Boise State | Mountain West | 0.30 | 83 | 10 |
| 31 | NR | Texas Tech | Big 12 | 0.30 | 18 | 56 |
| 32 | NR | Mississippi | SEC | 0.28 | 21 | 59 |
| 33 | NR | Mississippi State | SEC | 0.28 | 33 | 49 |
| 34 | NR | Vanderbilt | SEC | 0.28 | 38 | 46 |
| 35 | NR | Cincinnati | Big East | 0.26 | 65 | 21 |
| 36 | NR | West Virginia | Big 12 | 0.25 | 26 | 57 |
| 37 | 16 | Nebraska | Big Ten | 0.25 | 39 | 44 |
| 38 | NR | Penn State | Big Ten | 0.25 | 62 | 26 |
| 39 | 20 | Northwestern | Big Ten | 0.24 | 53 | 31 |
| 40 | NR | Iowa State | Big 12 | 0.23 | 10 | 71 |
| 43 | 15 | Northern Illinois | MAC | 0.19 | 121 | 3 |
| 50 | 25 | Kent | MAC | 0.13 | 105 | 19 |
| 53 | 21 | Louisville | Big East | 0.11 | 76 | 38 |
| 95 | . | Temple | Big East | -0.33 | 71 | 98 |
| 96 | . | North Texas | Sun Belt | -0.33 | 67 | 97 |
| 97 | . | Houston | C-USA | -0.34 | 116 | 76 |
| 98 | . | Marshall | C-USA | -0.34 | 111 | 79 |
| 99 | . | Florida Atlantic | Sun Belt | -0.36 | 66 | 105 |
| 100 | . | Colorado State | Mountain West | -0.36 | 84 | 95 |
| 101 | . | Florida International | Sun Belt | -0.38 | 102 | 90 |
| 102 | . | New Mexico | Mountain West | -0.38 | 92 | 93 |
| 103 | . | Boston College | ACC | -0.40 | 51 | 111 |
| 104 | . | Central Michigan | MAC | -0.40 | 120 | 80 |
| 105 | . | Texas State | WAC | -0.42 | 103 | 89 |
| 106 | . | Western Michigan | MAC | -0.44 | 124 | 82 |
| 107 | . | Memphis | C-USA | -0.44 | 118 | 86 |
| 108 | . | Buffalo | MAC | -0.45 | 94 | 99 |
| 109 | . | Texas-El Paso | C-USA | -0.47 | 98 | 102 |
| 110 | . | Nevada-Las Vegas | Mountain West | -0.47 | 87 | 104 |
| 111 | . | Army | Indep | -0.48 | 99 | 101 |
| 112 | . | Colorado | Pac-12 | -0.50 | 36 | 124 |
| 113 | . | Illinois | Big Ten | -0.53 | 54 | 120 |
| 114 | . | Miami (Ohio) | MAC | -0.53 | 104 | 106 |
| 115 | . | Hawaii | Mountain West | -0.58 | 90 | 115 |
| 116 | . | Alabama-Birmingham | C-USA | -0.59 | 108 | 108 |
| 117 | . | Eastern Michigan | MAC | -0.59 | 101 | 112 |
| 118 | . | Tulane | C-USA | -0.65 | 109 | 114 |
| 119 | . | South Alabama | Sun Belt | -0.68 | 106 | 113 |
| 120 | . | Idaho | WAC | -0.68 | 78 | 121 |
| 121 | . | Southern Mississippi | C-USA | -0.71 | 107 | 118 |
| 122 | . | Akron | MAC | -0.72 | 115 | 117 |
| 123 | . | Umass | MAC | -0.76 | 122 | 122 |
| 124 | . | New Mexico State | WAC | -0.90 | 117 | 123 |
| League | Rating | OOC Schedule Rating | Home/Away/Neutral Splits | OOC vs Top 5 | OOC vs 6-15 | OOC vs 16-35 | OOC vs 36-62 | OOC vs 63-89 | OOC vs 90-109 | OOC vs 110-119 | OOC vs Bottom 5 |
| SEC | 0.36 | -0.09 | 28 / 10 / 3 | 0 - 0 | 2 - 1 | 2 - 1 | 8 - 5 | 8 - 1 | 6 - 0 | 3 - 0 | 4 - 0 |
| Big 12 | 0.34 | -0.10 | 13 / 8 / 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 1 | 1 - 1 | 4 - 1 | 5 - 1 | 7 - 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 0 |
| Pac-12 | 0.26 | 0.12 | 15 / 11 / 1 | 0 - 0 | 1 - 3 | 5 - 4 | 5 - 1 | 2 - 1 | 1 - 1 | 3 - 0 | 0 - 0 |
| Indep | 0.10 | -0.05 | 21 / 18 / 0 | 0 - 0 | 2 - 1 | 3 - 3 | 4 - 6 | 6 - 2 | 6 - 2 | 1 - 1 | 2 - 0 |
| Big Ten | 0.07 | -0.13 | 27 / 12 / 1 | 0 - 1 | 0 - 4 | 3 - 2 | 5 - 2 | 3 - 3 | 7 - 2 | 5 - 0 | 3 - 0 |
| Big East | 0.00 | -0.13 | 13 / 17 / 0 | 0 - 0 | 0 - 2 | 0 - 1 | 2 - 5 | 5 - 4 | 4 - 1 | 4 - 0 | 2 - 0 |
| ACC | -0.02 | 0.05 | 19 / 14 / 2 | 0 - 2 | 0 - 6 | 0 - 4 | 1 - 6 | 5 - 2 | 5 - 0 | 2 - 1 | 1 - 0 |
| Sun Belt | -0.11 | 0.02 | 8 / 22 / 0 | 0 - 5 | 0 - 3 | 0 - 3 | 1 - 4 | 2 - 3 | 3 - 1 | 3 - 0 | 2 - 0 |
| WAC | -0.15 | -0.08 | 10 / 16 / 0 | 0 - 1 | 0 - 2 | 1 - 4 | 2 - 1 | 2 - 4 | 4 - 2 | 3 - 0 | 0 - 0 |
| Mountain West | -0.15 | -0.06 | 13 / 19 / 1 | 0 - 1 | 0 - 0 | 1 - 10 | 0 - 5 | 1 - 3 | 2 - 1 | 5 - 1 | 3 - 0 |
| MAC | -0.25 | -0.07 | 12 / 25 / 0 | 0 - 1 | 0 - 2 | 1 - 4 | 2 - 5 | 5 - 6 | 2 - 2 | 4 - 1 | 2 - 0 |
| C-USA | -0.33 | 0.05 | 21 / 21 / 0 | 0 - 1 | 0 - 3 | 1 - 10 | 0 - 12 | 1 - 8 | 3 - 1 | 0 - 0 | 2 - 0 |
|
| League | Rating | Bowl Record | OOC vs AQ's | OOC vs Non-AQ's | OOC vs Big 12 / SEC | OOC vs Pac-12 | OOC vs ACC / Big East / Big Ten | OOC vs Sun Belt / MWC / WAC | OOC vs CUSA / MAC |
| SEC | 0.36 | 0 - 0 | 8 - 6 | 25 - 2 | 0 - 1 | 2 - 0 | 6 - 5 | 13 - 2 | 12 - 0 |
| Big 12 | 0.34 | 0 - 0 | 5 - 2 | 12 - 2 | 1 - 0 | 0 - 1 | 4 - 0 | 7 - 0 | 5 - 2 |
| Pac-12 | 0.26 | 0 - 0 | 6 - 5 | 11 - 5 | 1 - 2 | 0 - 0 | 5 - 1 | 6 - 4 | 3 - 0 |
| Indep | 0.10 | 0 - 0 | 14 - 6 | 10 - 9 | 1 - 0 | 3 - 2 | 10 - 4 | 8 - 5 | 2 - 4 |
| Big Ten | 0.07 | 0 - 0 | 6 - 9 | 20 - 5 | 1 - 2 | 1 - 3 | 4 - 1 | 5 - 1 | 14 - 3 |
| Big East | 0.00 | 0 - 0 | 7 - 9 | 10 - 4 | 3 - 0 | 0 - 1 | 4 - 7 | 2 - 0 | 6 - 4 |
| ACC | -0.02 | 0 - 0 | 6 - 17 | 8 - 4 | 1 - 8 | 0 - 1 | 5 - 5 | 3 - 2 | 4 - 0 |
| Sun Belt | -0.11 | 0 - 0 | 3 - 16 | 8 - 3 | 2 - 12 | 0 - 1 | 1 - 3 | 0 - 0 | 7 - 2 |
| WAC | -0.15 | 0 - 0 | 3 - 6 | 9 - 8 | 0 - 3 | 1 - 1 | 2 - 2 | 5 - 2 | 2 - 3 |
| Mountain West | -0.15 | 0 - 0 | 3 - 11 | 9 - 10 | 0 - 3 | 3 - 4 | 0 - 4 | 5 - 5 | 2 - 2 |
| MAC | -0.25 | 0 - 0 | 8 - 17 | 8 - 4 | 1 - 4 | 0 - 1 | 7 - 12 | 3 - 2 | 1 - 1 |
| C-USA | -0.33 | 0 - 0 | 1 - 23 | 6 - 12 | 1 - 12 | 0 - 2 | 0 - 9 | 5 - 10 | 1 - 1 |
Some thoughts on the list:
1) Please note that AA games are NOT counted for these ratings. This includes the schedule rankings and the results rankings. At some point later this year, I will post an adjusted schedule list that does account for the AA games, but they are not ready at this time. Please keep this in mind when looking at the schedule rankings, since a "true" schedule ranking would note these games.
2) One consistent theme that pops up when I've done these analyses the past few years is that Compu-Picks gives a lot more weight to schedule strength and dominance than does the BCS, and a lot less weight to simple W/L record and head to head. The same thing is true this time around.
3) Again this year I'm tracking the "Compu-Picks Curse" a bit more carefully. Below is the list of the teams that the system thought overrated each week (* means a bye/AA game or a game against someone else the model didn't like). So far teams have been exposed in ten of thirty-three potential games.
After week 7 (0-2): Florida, Notre Dame - no wins, but BYU came close at South Bend
After week 8 (3-2): Notre Dame, USC, Mississippi St, Georgia, and Ohio - Notre Dame had a very impressive win at Norman, Georgia beat a very good Florida team (though that game was UGLY), but USC lost to unranked Arizona, Ohio lost to 3-4 Miami(OH), and Miss St got annihilated at Bama.
After week 9 (0-6): Notre Dame, LSU, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio St, Louisville - Notre Dame came very close to losing to below-average Big East team, but for the purposes of this analysis, a win is a win. LSU lost... but if you think a close loss to the #1 team in the country is "getting exposed"... I'm sorry, but I just can't help you.
After week 10 (3-4): Georgia, Ohio St*, Nebraska, Louisiana Tech, Rutgers, Northwestern, Louisville, Toledo - 3 teams go down to unranked opponents (most notably Louisville getting smacked around by a now 5-5 Syracuse team), and Nebraksa and Louisiana Tech both came close to making it five.
After week 11 (2-3): Kansas St, Georgia*, Ohio St, Nebraska, Rutgers, Louisiana Tech, Louisville* - Louisiana Tech loses to unranked Utah St and Kansas St gets smoked at Baylor. Ohio St also came very close to losing at unranked Wisconsin, though Rutgers had a solid win at Cincy.
After week 12 (1-5): Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio St, Nebraska, Louisville, Kent - Louisville gagged to a sub. 500 UConn team, but that was it for losses (though Nebraska, Notre Dame and Ohio St each got pushed pretty hard by unranked teams).
After week 13 (1-1): Notre Dame*, Georgia, Ohio St*, UCLA*, Nebraska, Northwestern*, Northern Illinois*, Kent*- Nebraska got annihilated by unranked Wisconsin. As with LSU's week 10 loss, Georgia barely losing to Bama doesn't count at as being "exposed."
4) The following teams are ranked materially higher by the model than the BCS: Oregon, Texas A&M, Oregon St, Oklahoma St, USC.
5) The following teams are ranked materially lower by the model than the BCS: Notre Dame, Ohio St (AP #3), Nebraska, Northwestern, Northern Illinois, Kent, Louisville.
Technical notes about the lists:
1) Conference ratings are straight averages of all of the teams in the league. There is no "central averaging" (like Sagarin does), or over-weighting the top teams, or anything like that. Such approaches would yield different numbers, and could potentially change the order of some of the leagues.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) The system is noisy, especially earlier in the year. This is why I start with only the top and bottom few, and slowly expand the list. While I believe that the numbers are reasonable, I certainly accept that they're not perfect. If you believe that a specific team is over- or under-ranked, you may well be right. I bring this up because if you're going to criticize the system for being wrong about a team, I'd appreciate it if you explain why you think the system is substantially wrong, rather than just marginally so (if it's just one or two slots off, especially well before the end of the year, I'd consider that well within a reasonable error range).
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.
2012 Compu-Picks Blog
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com
