2014 Power Points Standings through 10-25

1 -Mississippi State 35
2 -Mississippi 29
3 -Auburn 29
4 -Florida State 26
5 -Alabama 26
6 -Oregon 26
7 -Marshall 24
8 -Louisiana State 24
9 -Nebraska 22
10 -Notre Dame 22
11 -Clemson 21
12 -UCLA 21
13 -Boise State 21
14 -Michigan State 20
15 -Colorado State 19
16 -Arizona 19
17 -Ohio State 19
18 -Georgia 18
19 -Texas Christian 18
20 -West Virginia 18
21 -Arizona State 17
22 -Kansas State 16
23 -Georgia Tech 16
24 -Oklahoma 16
25 -Utah 15
26 -Southern California 15
27 -Missouri 14
28 -Miami-Florida 13
29 -Baylor 12
30 -Duke 12
31 -Minnesota 12
32 -Louisville 11
33 -Wisconsin 11
34 -Texas A&M 10
35 -Central Florida 9
36 -Maryland 9
37 -East Carolina 8
38 -Kentucky 8
39 -Stanford 8
40 -Middle Tennessee State 8
41 -Nevada 7
42 -Arkansas 7
43 -Oklahoma State 6
44 -Rutgers 6
45 -Boston College 6
46 -Washington 6
47 -Penn State 6
48 -North Carolina 6
49 Georgia Southern 5
50 -Air Force 5
51 -Iowa 5
52 -Louisiana Tech 5
53 -Toledo 5
54 -South Carolina 5
55 -Florida 5
56 -Virginia Tech 5
57 -North Carolina State 5
58 -South Alabama 4
59 -Utah State 4
60 -Bowling Green 3
61 -Memphis 3
62 -Louisiana-Lafayette 3
63 -Cincinnati 3
64 -Northern Illinois 2
65 -Illinois 2
66 -Brigham Young 2
67 -Western Michigan 1
68 -Oregon State 1
69 -Navy 1
70 -Tennessee 1
71 -UTEP 0
72 -Rice 0
73 -California 0
74 -Virginia 0
75 -Pittsburgh 0
76 -Northwestern 0
77 -Michigan 0
78 -Indiana -1
79 -Syracuse -1
80 -Purdue -1
81 -Arkansas State -2
82 -Houston -2
83 -Central Michigan -2
84 -Western Kentucky -4
85 -Texas -4
86 -Temple -5
87 -Akron -5
88 -San Jose State -5
89 -Texas Tech -5
90 -Wyoming -5
91 -Texas State -6
92 -San Diego State -6
93 -UAB -6
94 -Florida Atlantic -6
95 -Southern Mississippi -6
96 -Louisiana-Monroe -7
97 -Ohio -7
98 -Fresno State -7
99 -Iowa State -7
100 Old Dominion -8
101 -Washington State -9
102 -New Mexico -10
103 -Colorado -10
104 -South Florida -11
105 -Ball State -11
106 -Kansas -11
107 -Florida International -12
108 -Vanderbilt -12
109 -Tulane -13
110 -UTSA -13
111 -UNLV -13
112 -Wake Forest -15
113 -Buffalo -17
114 -Tulsa -17
115 -Idaho -17
116 -Hawaii -18
117 -Southern Methodist -18
118 -Eastern Michigan -19
119 -Appalachian State -20
120 -Army -20
121 -Connecticut -20
122 -Georgia State -21
123 -Troy -22
124 -Miami-Ohio -23
125 -North Texas -24
126 -New Mexico State -24
127 -Kent State -26
128 -Massachusetts -28

2014 Power Points Standings through 10-18

1 -Mississippi 27
2 -Mississippi State 27
3 -Florida State 25
4 -Alabama 22
5 -Auburn 21
6 -Marshall 20
7 -Oregon 20
8 -Notre Dame 19
9 -UCLA 17
10 -Georgia 16
11 -Minnesota 16
12 -Michigan State 16
13 -Louisiana State 16
14 -Arizona 16
15 -Clemson 16
16 -Nebraska 15
17 -Texas Christian 15
18 -Boise State 15
19 -Ohio State 14
20 -Southern California 14
21 -Oklahoma 14
22 -Colorado State 13
23 -West Virginia 13
24 -Kansas State 12
25 -Baylor 11
26 -Duke 11
27 -Arizona State 11
28 -Louisville 11
29 -Maryland 11
30 -Utah 10
31 -Missouri 10
32 -Georgia Tech 10
33 -Texas A&M 9
34 -Kentucky 8
35 -Oklahoma State 8
36 -Middle Tennessee State 8
37 -Miami-Florida 8
38 -East Carolina 7
39 -Rutgers 7
40 -Penn State 7
41 -Washington 6
42 -Central Florida 6
43 -South Carolina 6
44 -Virginia Tech 6
45 -Iowa 5
46 -Wisconsin 5
47 -Oregon State 5
48 -Nevada 5
49 -Virginia 5
50 -Boston College 5
51 -Stanford 5
52 -Florida 5
53 -Air Force 4
54 -Brigham Young 4
55 -Utah State 4
56 -North Carolina State 4
57 Georgia Southern 3
58 -South Alabama 3
59 -Bowling Green 3
60 -Pittsburgh 3
61 -Memphis 3
62 -California 2
63 -Tennessee 2
64 -Arkansas 2
65 -North Carolina 2
66 -Michigan 2
67 -Arkansas State 1
68 -Akron 1
69 -Syracuse 1
70 -Northwestern 1
71 -Louisiana Tech 0
72 -Toledo 0
73 -San Jose State 0
74 -Northern Illinois -1
75 -Houston -1
76 -Louisiana-Lafayette -1
77 -Rice -1
78 -UTEP -1
79 -Indiana -1
80 -Cincinnati -2
81 -Louisiana-Monroe -2
82 -Texas -2
83 -Wyoming -2
84 -Navy -2
85 -Purdue -2
86 -Temple -3
87 -UAB -3
88 -Western Michigan -3
89 -Ohio -3
90 -Southern Mississippi -3
91 -Texas Tech -4
92 -San Diego State -5
93 -Central Michigan -5
94 Old Dominion -5
95 -Illinois -5
96 -Fresno State -5
97 -Colorado -5
98 -Florida Atlantic -6
99 -Western Kentucky -6
100 -Vanderbilt -6
101 -Iowa State -6
102 -South Florida -7
103 -Washington State -7
104 -UTSA -8
105 -Texas State -9
106 -Kansas -9
107 -UNLV -9
108 -Florida International -10
109 -Wake Forest -10
110 -New Mexico -10
111 -Tulane -12
112 -Hawaii -12
113 -Buffalo -13
114 -Eastern Michigan -14
115 -Tulsa -14
116 -Southern Methodist -14
117 -Idaho -15
118 -Ball State -16
119 -Connecticut -16
120 -Kent State -16
121 -Georgia State -17
122 -North Texas -18
123 -Appalachian State -18
124 -Troy -18
125 -Army -19
126 -Miami-Ohio -21
127 -Massachusetts -22
128 -New Mexico State -23

2014 Power Points Standings through 10-11

1 -Mississippi State 24
2 -Mississippi 21
3 -Notre Dame 17
4 -Florida State 17
5 -Auburn 17
6 -Marshall 15
7 -Alabama 14
8 -Arizona 14
9 -Georgia Tech 14
10 -Oregon 13
11 -Southern California 13
12 -Oklahoma 12
13 -Michigan State 12
14 -Baylor 11
15 -Georgia 11
16 -Minnesota 11
17 -Nebraska 11
18 -Louisiana State 11
19 -UCLA 11
20 -Texas Christian 10
21 -Clemson 10
22 -Kentucky 9
23 -Texas A&M 9
24 -Boise State 9
25 -Oklahoma State 8
26 -Colorado State 8
27 -Rutgers 8
28 -Washington 8
29 -Duke 7
30 -Ohio State 7
31 -Louisville 7
32 -Stanford 7
33 -Virginia Tech 7
34 -Florida 7
35 -Miami-Florida 7
36 -South Carolina 7
37 -Iowa 6
38 -Arizona State 6
39 -Kansas State 6
40 -West Virginia 6
41 -Missouri 6
42 -Penn State 6
43 -Brigham Young 6
44 -North Carolina State 6
45 -East Carolina 5
46 -Utah 5
47 -Oregon State 5
48 -Bowling Green 5
49 -California 5
50 -Utah State 5
51 -Wisconsin 5
52 -Boston College 5
53 -Virginia 4
54 -Maryland 4
55 -Akron 4
56 -Tennessee 4
57 -Air Force 3
58 -Middle Tennessee State 3
59 -Central Florida 3
60 -Northwestern 3
61 -Michigan 3
62 Georgia Southern 2
63 -Arkansas State 2
64 -Arkansas 2
65 -Pittsburgh 2
66 -UAB 1
67 -Memphis 1
68 -Indiana 1
69 -Purdue 1
70 -Iowa State 1
71 -Temple 0
72 -Nevada 0
73 -Rice 0
74 -Wyoming 0
75 -Navy 0
76 -Syracuse 0
77 -Northern Illinois -1
78 -South Alabama -1
79 -Central Michigan -1
80 -Toledo -1
81 -Louisiana Tech -1
82 -UTEP -1
83 -Western Kentucky -1
84 -Texas -1
85 -Louisiana-Monroe -2
86 -Cincinnati -2
87 -North Carolina -2
88 -Colorado -2
89 -Houston -3
90 -San Jose State -3
91 -Illinois -3
92 Old Dominion -4
93 -Louisiana-Lafayette -4
94 -Fresno State -4
95 -Texas Tech -4
96 -Kansas -4
97 -UTSA -4
98 -San Diego State -5
99 -Wake Forest -5
100 -Washington State -5
101 -Vanderbilt -5
102 -Ohio -6
103 -Southern Mississippi -6
104 -Florida Atlantic -6
105 -Hawaii -6
106 -Eastern Michigan -6
107 -Texas State -7
108 -Tulane -7
109 -South Florida -7
110 -New Mexico -7
111 -Tulsa -7
112 -Western Michigan -8
113 -Southern Methodist -8
114 -Florida International -9
115 -Buffalo -9
116 -UNLV -9
117 -Army -11
118 -Troy -11
119 -North Texas -12
120 -Connecticut -13
121 -Georgia State -13
122 -New Mexico State -15
123 -Idaho -16
124 -Ball State -17
125 -Kent State -17
126 -Appalachian State -18
127 -Miami-Ohio -18
128 -Massachusetts -21

2008 season: Power Points System vs Mock Selection Committee

The numbers on the left are each team's finish in the Power Points Standings. The numbers to the right are each team's rank according to the mock selection committee.

1 -Oklahoma 2
2 -Texas 3
3 -Florida 1
4 -Utah 7
5 -Boise State 11
6 -Alabama 6
7 -Southern California 4
8 -Texas Tech 8
9 -Penn State 5
10 -Ohio State 9
11 -Cincinnati 12
12 -Pittsburgh 25
13 -Texas Christian 10
14 -Ball State
15 -Georgia 16
16 -Michigan State 21
17 -Brigham Young
18 -Oklahoma State 14
19 -Oregon 17
20 -Oregon State 18
21 -Missouri 19
22 -Boston College 23
23 -Virginia Tech 13
24 -Georgia Tech 15
25 -Nebraska
26 -Western Michigan
27 -California 20
28 -Rice
29 -East Carolina
30 -Florida State
31 -North Carolina 24
32 -Air Force
33 -Mississippi 22

Since Stewart Mandel Asked Part 2

When I replied to a tweet on Mr. Mandel's Twitter account, I wasn't aiming for nor expecting a response from him but rather just sharing my sarcastic attitude about college football's selection committee with no one in particular. However, Mr. Mandel responded and challenged me to explain how the playoff teams could be determined without using subjectivity. I made a brief case for my own idea for ranking teams without using subjectivity in the post below this one. Mr Mandel followed up on Twitter with a generous compliment for me, shared an example of what he views as benefit of the committee, and asked me a question related to the case I made for my idea. It is the latter two that I wish to address in greater detail in this post.

Mr Mandel tweeted: The benefit of committee is it can account for injuries, head-to-head & other factors that aren't easily quantified by W/Ls.

As I see it, injuries are an unfortunate part of the game that require all teams to simply play the hand they are dealt and should have no bearing on a competition's standings. College football needs a committee to account for an issue that is ignored everywhere else in sports except where other committees are used? I recall the basketball committee dropping Cincinnati from a sure one seed down to a two seed following Kenyon Martin's season-ending injury in the conference tournament several years ago. How does that make any sense? Was their season made less valuable due to the injury? Because they had become an arguably lesser team due to the injury and their attempt to win a national title made more difficult as a result, they should be punished further with a lower seed?

As far as I am concerned, teams should be judged based on the value of their season only regardless of which players are available at any moment throughout the season. I suspect the need to account for injuries is tied to the need to identify and validate an imagined best team rather than simply determine a winner based on which team accomplishes whatever the rules in play would have all teams accomplish if they wish to win the competition. That said, how does one begin to account for injuries? Suppose A ranks above B under my point system. Should a committee determine that B would have placed above A if not for injuries and override the objective result based on a subjective assumption? What if A will not have a key player available for the playoffs due to an injury suffered late in the season? Should the committee deny A a playoff berth despite the better season posted by that team? What if the same injury occurred in a semifinal win? Would it make sense to replace that team in the championship game with another team that has no significant injury issues? Of course not. So why does it make sense to do just that between the end of the regular season and the semifinals?

As for head-to-head results, these are only ever used as a tiebreaker in competitions that place teams best to worst record and the winners are only ever guaranteed a higher finish in two team ties. At one time my point system included a head-to-head tiebreaker after net wins (best record) but it rarely if ever came into play given that the first two factors manage to separate teams better than 99% of the time and it is very unlikely that the remaining one percent would include two teams that played. Eventually, I decided that head-to-head tiebreakers are overrated. It is one game among a dozen or more. Where any number of teams share the same record, my point system always favors stronger schedules and still manages to favor head-to-head winners almost as much as the AP poll. For example, since 1978, there have been 33 pairs of one-loss teams ranked in the final AP poll that met during the regular season. The AP favored the winner 23 times. The point system favored the winner 21 times. Under this point system, a head-to-head winner with a stronger schedule would have to lose twice for the loser to pass the winner in the standings but only once if the loser has the stronger schedule. With a head-to-head tiebreaker, the winner's margin of error is always two games where two team ties are concerned. The difference is minimal and if teams know the point system emphasizes overall scheduling over beating specific teams, they have no one to blame but themselves when the advantage gained from a head-to-head win is erased by one loss.

Mr. Mandel tweeted: Very thorough and thought out. But all I've heard for years is how flawed the AP/BCS were, so why strive to match those?

In my previous post I shared how the results between my point system and the AP/CP/BCS are similar and different. Despite my objections to subjective methods, the problem with such has nothing to do with their results being "wrong" relative to a non-existent standard applied to all ranking systems. Different ranking systems can produce different but equally fair outcomes. One of the most annoying things about the BCS era was the annual "did the BCS get it right?" debate. The answer is no and it has nothing to do with which teams were selected for the title game and everything to do with those teams being determined arbitrarily. Earlier I mentioned that competition should be about determining a winner based on which team accomplishes whatever the rules in play would have teams accomplish. Subjective methods never specify what teams must accomplish in order to place higher. Instead, the winning arguments favoring one or more teams over others changes from one year to the next. Ultimately, I don't understand how college football benefits from a committee being able to consider factors that are not easily quantified by wins and losses if we never know when those factors will win the day.

Since Stewart Mandel Asked

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel 22h22 hours ago
@ChadHansen9972 As I always say, by all means let me know how one whittles five major conferences into 4 spots with no subjectivity involved
9:37 AM - 7 Oct 2014 · Details


Stewart Mandel tweeted about how Condoleezza Rice monitors 40 teams and how Steve Weiberg has watched 92 games as examples of how committee members are prepping for the task of selecting the four playoff teams at the end of the season. I replied to share that I found the whole thing hilariously unnecessary when objective rules could be used. To my surprise, Mr. Mandel offered the response above. Here is my answer.

To start, its best if all FBS teams play equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only. For example, all play 12 games plus a possible conference championship game. If necessary, FCS games can be accommodated with weighted values if these games continue. That said, I would place teams most to least:

1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses)
2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses)
3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points)
4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against)

Once the season ends, the top four teams or, if preferred, the top four conference champions advance to the playoffs. That's it. So simple a caveman could do it. Of course, I'm sure there will be plenty of people to offer their welcomed criticisms of my idea. I'd be surprised if anyone could tell me how a selection committee is better than my idea much less necessary. Here I offer rules that define best/most accomplished season and leave it up to the teams to beat each other based on those rules. With a committee, teams will never know what separates the winners from the losers. Even after the selections are made and the committee explains its reasoning behind its choices, those reasons are not guaranteed to favor teams that own those arguments in subsequent years.

So what kind of results does my point system yield? I have 36 seasons worth of results based on FBS games only. Without the benefit of teams playing equal maximum game schedules or knowingly competing based on its rules, the point system matched the AP poll, Coaches poll, and/or BCS on 108 of 144 top four teams. That is an exact three for four average. So the difference between objective and subjective is one team even without equal maximum game schedules and knowledge of the rules. That said, let's just compare the point system to the AP poll. Since 1978, the two methods have agreed on 103 of 144 top four teams which is slightly below a three for average. More than half of the 41 teams that missed the rival method's top four were that method's number four team. The 41 disputed top four finishes make for 67 disputed pairs. In those pairs, teams favored by the point system own a 34-19-14 advantage in most wins versus AP ranked teams. The advantage is 31-8-14 just among major conference/independent teams. The AP owns an 11-3 advantage when the point system favors a mid-major team. Otherwise, where disputed top four teams are concerned, the point system dominates the AP poll at favoring teams that beat more AP ranked teams.

So far we have a point system that matches the AP on nearly three top four teams, most disputes involve #4, and the teams its favors average more wins versus teams ranked by the AP poll. Again, that is without the benefit of equal maximum game regular season schedules and knowledge of the rules in play. But suppose the goal were to match the AP, Coaches, or BCS on all top four teams. How close is the point system to that "goal"? The answer is 44 games. Over 22,000 FBS games played in 36 seasons and I would only need to change the result of 44 games to match the top four teams in one of the major ranking systems employed by college football. In 25 of 36 seasons, I need one game or less.

Want more? 155 different teams have finished in the AP, CP, or BCS top fours. 143 of those teams controlled their point system top four destiny based on how the season played out. Among the 12 that did not, eight would have needed help in a single game if undefeated and eight played less than a full FBS schedule. Only two of 12 played a full FBS schedule and needed help in two or more games.

Did I mention the point system only needs wins and losses and opponents' wins and losses to separate any pair of teams better than 99% of the time? What does a committee have on this point system?

2014 Power Points Standings through 10-04

1 -Mississippi State 17
2 -Auburn 16
3 -Mississippi 14
4 -Arizona 13
5 -Florida State 13
6 -Notre Dame 12
7 -Georgia Tech 12
8 -UCLA 12
9 -Marshall 10
10 -Nebraska 10
11 -Alabama 10
12 -Oklahoma 9
13 -Oregon 9
14 -Boise State 9
15 -Texas A&M 8
16 -Texas Christian 8
17 -Louisville 8
18 -Michigan State 8
19 -Penn State 8
20 -Minnesota 8
21 -Louisiana State 8
22 -Brigham Young 7
23 -California 7
24 -Missouri 7
25 -North Carolina State 7
26 -Virginia Tech 7
27 -Southern California 7
28 -Baylor 6
29 -Rutgers 6
30 -Ohio State 6
31 -Arizona State 6
32 -Kentucky 6
33 -Florida 6
34 -Virginia 6
35 -South Carolina 6
36 -Utah 5
37 -Kansas State 5
38 -Air Force 5
39 -Memphis 5
40 -Arkansas 5
41 -Clemson 5
42 -Northwestern 5
43 -Miami-Florida 5
44 -Oklahoma State 4
45 -Colorado State 4
46 -Maryland 4
47 -Middle Tennessee State 4
48 Georgia Southern 4
49 -West Virginia 4
50 -Wyoming 4
51 -Stanford 4
52 -Georgia 3
53 -East Carolina 3
54 -Oregon State 3
55 -Iowa 3
56 -Washington 3
57 -Toledo 3
58 -Akron 3
59 -Tennessee 3
60 -Northern Illinois 2
61 -Nevada 2
62 -Wisconsin 2
63 -Indiana 2
64 -Cincinnati 2
65 -Texas 2
66 -Bowling Green 1
67 -Utah State 1
68 -Pittsburgh 1
69 -Purdue 1
70 -Duke 0
71 -Arkansas State 0
72 -Louisiana Tech 0
73 -Fresno State 0
74 -Central Florida 0
75 -Illinois 0
76 -Syracuse 0
77 -Navy 0
78 -South Alabama -1
79 -UAB -1
80 -Boston College -1
81 Old Dominion -1
82 -Rice -1
83 -Western Kentucky -1
84 -Washington State -1
85 -Michigan -1
86 -Temple -2
87 -Louisiana-Monroe -2
88 -Central Michigan -2
89 -San Jose State -2
90 -Texas Tech -2
91 -North Carolina -3
92 -UTEP -3
93 -Kansas -3
94 -Wake Forest -3
95 -Colorado -3
96 -Iowa State -3
97 -Ohio -4
98 -Florida International -4
99 -Buffalo -4
100 -Louisiana-Lafayette -4
101 -New Mexico -4
102 -South Florida -5
103 -Florida Atlantic -5
104 -Southern Mississippi -5
105 -Southern Methodist -5
106 -Texas State -6
107 -Houston -6
108 -San Diego State -6
109 -UTSA -6
110 -Tulane -6
111 -Vanderbilt -6
112 -Western Michigan -7
113 -Army -7
114 -Eastern Michigan -7
115 -Tulsa -7
116 -Connecticut -7
117 -North Texas -8
118 -New Mexico State -9
119 -Hawaii -9
120 -Georgia State -9
121 -Kent State -9
122 -UNLV -10
123 -Ball State -11
124 -Troy -11
125 -Appalachian State -12
126 -Idaho -12
127 -Miami-Ohio -14
128 -Massachusetts -19