VN: The Numbers Are on to You (or Not)
by Bill Connelly
If you look at one of the advanced statistical profiles I've designed at Football Study Hall (We'll use Clemson as an example), you can find both a team's results (complete with something called Win Expectancy) and remaining schedule (with something called Win Probability). My lack of creativity in coming up with names and headlines has caught up to me a bit here, and I've had to explain what I'm describing in those two fields quite a bit.
The latter, Win Probability, is pretty easy to explain. Clemson, the No. 1 team according to both S&P+ and the College Football Playoff committee, is given a 98 percent chance of beating No. 97 Wake Forest and a 92 percent chance of beating No. 82 South Carolina.
The former, however, has required more than a few explanations. The point of Win Expectancy is this: taking the stats from a given game -- efficiency, explosiveness, and all the things that end up going into S&P+ -- and tossing them up in the air, how often could a team have expected to win said game? You can win the statistical battle but, depending on the degree, still lose sometimes given the bounce of the pointy ball. (This is similar to what the "Estimated Wins" stat in each week's DVOA article does for NFL teams, but looking at individual games rather than the entire season.)
Regarding Clemson: the Tigers were so dominant against Wofford, Appalachian State, Georgia Tech, and Miami that no arrangement of each game's stats could have possibly created a loss. They had a 100 percent chance of winning those games, no matter the bounces. They were comprehensive wins for Dabo Swinney's squad.
For other games, however, the result was more in doubt. The Notre Dame result (a 24-22 win decided on a late two-point conversion stop), for instance, produced only a 54 percent win expectancy. That was a tossup game, and Clemson happened to call heads. Meanwhile, the Tigers were the better team against both Florida State (79 percent win expectancy) and Syracuse (76 percent) but left some room for doubt.
Win Expectancy is a backwards look at domination. There are some random, funky results -- because this is designed to look at full-game numbers (and doesn't filter out garbage time like the S&P+ ratings do), you'll occasionally see something like Texas A&M-Ball State, where A&M put the 56-23 game away quickly, but garbage-time issues led to a win expectancy of just 67 percent. (I've tinkered with the thought of using non-garbage stats for this number too, but I can't decide what makes the most sense for this one.)
While Win Expectacncy is indeed backward-facing, it turns out it might be able to see into the future a bit, too.
S&P+ is having a pretty decent season in terms of performance. My newly redesigned win probabilities are performing well, and while the performance against the spread has been pretty mediocre overall, most of that comes from an awkward transition from preseason projections to in-season data. (I've been tinkering with different methods to use for that transition in the future.)
S&P+ vs. the spread
- Weeks 1-4: 54%
- Weeks 5-7: 45%
- Weeks 8-11: 54%
Even if the midseason results were shaky, S&P+ seems to have had a pretty good lay of the land in recent weeks.
But that obviously doesn't mean it's got a read on every team. Some of the current rankings -- North Carolina at No. 30, for instance -- still have me a little bit queasy, and it appears there might be reason for that.
If we compare projected win probabilities to actual results, we can get a decent read for who S&P+ has figured out and who it doesn't. But results limit everything to either 0 percent or 100 percent. Sometimes a metric like S&P+ doesn't really get things wrong when it projects the wrong team to win -- sometimes that team simply got lucky. (SB Nation's Northwestern site wrote a piece about a certain team that might fall into that category.)
By comparing pre-game win probability to in-game win expectancy, though, we can get an interesting picture of who is and isn't doing better than S&P+ thought.
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Pregame Win Probability |
In-Game Win Expectancy |
Difference | Rk |
| Clemson | 1 | 10-0 | 84.6% | 89.8% | 5.3% | 32 |
| Alabama | 2 | 9-1 | 79.3% | 86.3% | 7.0% | 26 |
| Ohio State | 3 | 10-0 | 84.9% | 97.4% | 12.6% | 15 |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 9-1 | 75.6% | 88.2% | 12.6% | 14 |
| Michigan | 5 | 8-2 | 81.2% | 86.1% | 4.9% | 35 |
| Notre Dame | 6 | 9-1 | 66.8% | 85.6% | 18.8% | 4 |
| Baylor | 7 | 8-1 | 82.9% | 91.0% | 8.1% | 23 |
| Florida State | 8 | 8-2 | 75.6% | 85.9% | 10.2% | 21 |
| Ole Miss | 9 | 7-3 | 77.7% | 79.0% | 1.3% | 56 |
| Florida | 10 | 9-1 | 67.9% | 82.8% | 14.9% | 9 |
| USC | 11 | 7-3 | 74.6% | 67.1% | -7.5% | 107 |
| Navy | 12 | 8-1 | 70.3% | 84.7% | 14.4% | 11 |
| LSU | 13 | 7-2 | 69.3% | 73.6% | 4.3% | 38 |
| West Virginia | 14 | 5-4 | 71.2% | 55.1% | -16.1% | 124 |
| Stanford | 15 | 8-2 | 74.1% | 78.3% | 4.2% | 39 |
| Bowling Green | 16 | 8-2 | 54.7% | 79.7% | 25.0% | 2 |
| UCLA | 17 | 7-3 | 76.4% | 75.2% | -1.2% | 75 |
| Wisconsin | 18 | 8-2 | 74.8% | 73.4% | -1.4% | 78 |
| NC State | 19 | 6-4 | 64.2% | 62.8% | -1.3% | 77 |
| Oklahoma State | 20 | 10-0 | 65.0% | 84.6% | 19.6% | 3 |
| Tennessee | 21 | 6-4 | 67.0% | 62.5% | -4.5% | 94 |
| Western Kentucky | 22 | 8-2 | 73.7% | 76.2% | 2.5% | 49 |
| Arkansas | 23 | 6-4 | 57.8% | 62.5% | 4.7% | 36 |
| Mississippi State | 24 | 7-3 | 63.3% | 67.4% | 4.1% | 40 |
| Washington | 25 | 4-6 | 54.6% | 48.0% | -6.5% | 100 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Pregame Win Probability |
In-Game Win Expectancy |
Difference | Rk |
| Toledo | 26 | 8-1 | 69.3% | 77.0% | 7.7% | 24 |
| Michigan State | 27 | 9-1 | 72.4% | 74.3% | 1.8% | 53 |
| Iowa | 28 | 10-0 | 64.2% | 79.1% | 15.0% | 8 |
| TCU | 29 | 9-1 | 75.4% | 82.1% | 6.7% | 27 |
| North Carolina | 30 | 9-1 | 63.0% | 88.9% | 26.0% | 1 |
| Utah | 31 | 8-2 | 61.3% | 65.1% | 3.9% | 41 |
| Penn State | 32 | 7-3 | 71.4% | 67.7% | -3.7% | 91 |
| Louisville | 33 | 6-4 | 61.3% | 61.5% | 0.1% | 66 |
| Memphis | 34 | 8-2 | 65.4% | 66.2% | 0.9% | 59 |
| Louisiana Tech | 35 | 7-3 | 71.6% | 74.8% | 3.2% | 44 |
| Appalachian State | 36 | 8-2 | 72.8% | 76.1% | 3.3% | 43 |
| Houston | 37 | 10-0 | 65.3% | 78.2% | 12.9% | 13 |
| BYU | 38 | 7-3 | 62.9% | 65.3% | 2.4% | 51 |
| Georgia | 39 | 7-3 | 69.0% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 68 |
| Georgia Southern | 40 | 7-2 | 66.2% | 77.7% | 11.4% | 18 |
| Minnesota | 41 | 4-6 | 47.6% | 45.6% | -2.1% | 81 |
| Pittsburgh | 42 | 7-3 | 55.4% | 59.9% | 4.5% | 37 |
| Oregon | 43 | 7-3 | 61.0% | 63.6% | 2.6% | 47 |
| Illinois | 44 | 5-5 | 57.6% | 46.1% | -11.4% | 116 |
| Marshall | 45 | 9-2 | 79.2% | 74.0% | -5.2% | 95 |
| California | 46 | 6-4 | 57.7% | 59.6% | 1.9% | 52 |
| Utah State | 47 | 5-5 | 59.4% | 56.9% | -2.5% | 83 |
| Duke | 48 | 6-4 | 70.9% | 62.0% | -8.9% | 110 |
| San Diego State | 49 | 7-3 | 55.4% | 71.6% | 16.2% | 6 |
| Air Force | 50 | 7-3 | 64.9% | 69.9% | 5.1% | 34 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Pregame Win Probability |
In-Game Win Expectancy |
Difference | Rk |
| Temple | 51 | 8-2 | 69.3% | 72.0% | 2.7% | 46 |
| Texas Tech | 52 | 6-5 | 49.4% | 56.0% | 6.7% | 28 |
| Northern Illinois | 53 | 7-3 | 58.9% | 69.6% | 10.7% | 20 |
| Nebraska | 54 | 5-6 | 58.6% | 54.6% | -4.0% | 92 |
| Virginia Tech | 55 | 5-5 | 54.1% | 53.5% | -0.6% | 71 |
| Boise State | 56 | 7-3 | 79.0% | 70.5% | -8.4% | 109 |
| Western Michigan | 57 | 6-4 | 48.7% | 58.0% | 9.4% | 22 |
| Northwestern | 58 | 8-2 | 53.7% | 54.0% | 0.3% | 64 |
| Cincinnati | 59 | 6-4 | 55.8% | 67.5% | 11.6% | 17 |
| Miami-FL | 60 | 6-4 | 53.0% | 54.5% | 1.5% | 54 |
| Southern Miss | 61 | 7-3 | 53.7% | 70.9% | 17.2% | 5 |
| Texas A&M | 62 | 7-3 | 66.2% | 62.5% | -3.7% | 90 |
| South Florida | 63 | 6-4 | 42.5% | 57.1% | 14.6% | 10 |
| Boston College | 64 | 3-7 | 54.8% | 49.4% | -5.4% | 96 |
| Indiana | 65 | 4-6 | 42.0% | 42.5% | 0.5% | 61 |
| Iowa State | 66 | 3-7 | 39.8% | 41.2% | 1.5% | 55 |
| Central Michigan | 67 | 5-5 | 46.9% | 49.9% | 3.0% | 45 |
| Auburn | 68 | 5-5 | 48.4% | 46.8% | -1.6% | 79 |
| Arizona State | 69 | 5-5 | 55.6% | 49.0% | -6.6% | 101 |
| Georgia Tech | 70 | 3-7 | 59.1% | 31.7% | -27.4% | 128 |
| Washington State | 71 | 7-3 | 46.3% | 62.4% | 16.1% | 7 |
| Colorado State | 72 | 5-5 | 59.1% | 56.3% | -2.8% | 85 |
| Ohio | 73 | 6-4 | 59.2% | 59.5% | 0.3% | 63 |
| Arkansas State | 74 | 7-3 | 54.1% | 67.8% | 13.7% | 12 |
| Maryland | 75 | 2-8 | 34.5% | 31.1% | -3.4% | 88 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Pregame Win Probability |
In-Game Win Expectancy |
Difference | Rk |
| Kansas State | 76 | 3-6 | 58.2% | 33.4% | -24.7% | 127 |
| Middle Tennessee | 77 | 5-5 | 44.4% | 51.4% | 7.0% | 25 |
| East Carolina | 78 | 4-6 | 46.6% | 42.5% | -4.1% | 93 |
| Arizona | 79 | 6-5 | 49.9% | 53.2% | 3.3% | 42 |
| Vanderbilt | 80 | 4-6 | 42.1% | 40.9% | -1.2% | 74 |
| Akron | 81 | 5-5 | 43.1% | 54.0% | 10.9% | 19 |
| South Carolina | 82 | 3-7 | 41.7% | 39.0% | -2.7% | 84 |
| Missouri | 83 | 5-5 | 49.5% | 42.5% | -7.0% | 103 |
| Syracuse | 84 | 3-7 | 41.1% | 39.8% | -1.3% | 76 |
| Buffalo | 85 | 5-5 | 40.5% | 46.9% | 6.4% | 29 |
| Texas | 86 | 4-6 | 42.9% | 42.4% | -0.5% | 69 |
| Virginia | 87 | 3-7 | 34.7% | 27.7% | -7.0% | 104 |
| Purdue | 88 | 2-8 | 32.3% | 33.4% | 1.0% | 57 |
| Tulsa | 89 | 5-5 | 53.4% | 41.8% | -11.6% | 117 |
| Troy | 90 | 3-7 | 40.3% | 42.7% | 2.4% | 50 |
| Florida Atlantic | 91 | 2-8 | 52.8% | 43.8% | -9.0% | 111 |
| Massachusetts | 92 | 2-8 | 42.0% | 32.1% | -9.9% | 113 |
| Connecticut | 93 | 5-5 | 41.5% | 47.3% | 5.9% | 30 |
| San Jose State | 94 | 4-6 | 46.7% | 44.7% | -2.0% | 80 |
| Colorado | 95 | 4-7 | 37.7% | 38.0% | 0.3% | 65 |
| Kentucky | 96 | 4-6 | 38.7% | 39.4% | 0.8% | 60 |
| Wake Forest | 97 | 3-7 | 34.9% | 27.2% | -7.7% | 108 |
| UNLV | 98 | 3-7 | 39.2% | 27.4% | -11.8% | 118 |
| UL-Lafayette | 99 | 4-5 | 53.1% | 41.0% | -12.1% | 119 |
| Georgia State | 100 | 3-6 | 35.0% | 46.6% | 11.6% | 16 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Pregame Win Probability |
In-Game Win Expectancy |
Difference | Rk |
| Nevada | 101 | 6-4 | 53.2% | 49.7% | -3.5% | 89 |
| Florida International | 102 | 5-6 | 46.3% | 43.0% | -3.2% | 87 |
| New Mexico | 103 | 6-4 | 42.0% | 41.5% | -0.5% | 70 |
| Fresno State | 104 | 3-7 | 32.6% | 35.2% | 2.6% | 48 |
| South Alabama | 105 | 5-4 | 36.7% | 41.8% | 5.1% | 33 |
| UTSA | 106 | 2-8 | 41.4% | 35.5% | -5.9% | 97 |
| Rutgers | 107 | 3-7 | 29.0% | 26.9% | -2.1% | 82 |
| Ball State | 108 | 3-7 | 45.6% | 33.0% | -12.5% | 120 |
| SMU | 109 | 1-9 | 26.3% | 16.1% | -10.2% | 115 |
| Idaho | 110 | 3-7 | 35.4% | 29.5% | -5.9% | 98 |
| Oregon State | 111 | 2-8 | 34.5% | 21.6% | -12.9% | 121 |
| Texas State | 112 | 2-7 | 49.5% | 28.0% | -21.4% | 126 |
| Kent State | 113 | 3-7 | 36.3% | 35.6% | -0.7% | 72 |
| Old Dominion | 114 | 5-5 | 47.9% | 34.8% | -13.1% | 122 |
| Tulane | 115 | 3-7 | 30.0% | 30.9% | 0.9% | 58 |
| Hawaii | 117 | 2-9 | 35.0% | 28.2% | -6.8% | 102 |
| Miami-OH | 118 | 2-9 | 24.3% | 24.4% | 0.0% | 67 |
| Wyoming | 119 | 1-10 | 26.5% | 12.6% | -13.9% | 123 |
| Rice | 120 | 4-6 | 32.9% | 38.3% | 5.5% | 31 |
| New Mexico State | 121 | 2-7 | 32.2% | 32.7% | 0.4% | 62 |
| Eastern Michigan | 122 | 1-10 | 29.3% | 19.3% | -9.9% | 114 |
| Army | 123 | 2-8 | 38.8% | 35.7% | -3.2% | 86 |
| UL-Monroe | 124 | 1-9 | 25.7% | 18.4% | -7.3% | 106 |
| Charlotte | 125 | 2-8 | 33.3% | 24.2% | -9.1% | 112 |
| Kansas | 127 | 0-10 | 13.2% | 7.0% | -6.1% | 99 |
| Central Florida | 128 | 0-10 | 30.3% | 11.1% | -19.2% | 125 |
| UTEP | 129 | 4-6 | 26.8% | 25.8% | -1.0% | 73 |
| North Texas | 130 | 1-9 | 14.2% | 7.0% | -7.2% | 105 |
[ad placeholder 3]
This pretty quickly starts to point out some of what the naked eye would have considered odd ratings. USC is lingering near the top 10 despite three losses (two of which were by double digits). North Carolina is barely in the top 30 despite not only going 9-1 but frequently looking dominant. West Virginia has mastered some weird strength-of-schedule trick in lingering in the teens.
Of course, this is comparing full-season probabilities to full-season results, which means differences could have occurred because of faulty preseason projections or that awkward Week 5-to-Week 7 transition where schedule adjustments are iffy. If I'm saying that S&P+ has a pretty good read on the lay of the land today, then let's focus on more recent differences between S&P+ and reality. Here are the teams that have most drastically over- or underachieved their projections over the last four weeks:
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Wk 8-11 Difference |
Rk |
| North Carolina | 30 | 9-1 | 36.3% | 1 |
| San Diego State | 49 | 7-3 | 30.7% | 2 |
| Northern Illinois | 53 | 7-3 | 29.9% | 3 |
| Arkansas State | 74 | 7-3 | 29.8% | 4 |
| Cincinnati | 59 | 6-4 | 29.3% | 5 |
| Minnesota | 41 | 4-6 | 29.0% | 6 |
| New Mexico | 103 | 6-4 | 28.3% | 7 |
| Buffalo | 85 | 5-5 | 28.2% | 8 |
| Oregon | 43 | 7-3 | 27.1% | 9 |
| Bowling Green | 16 | 8-2 | 25.9% | 10 |
| Virginia Tech | 55 | 5-5 | 23.7% | 11 |
| South Florida | 63 | 6-4 | 22.5% | 12 |
| Washington State | 71 | 7-3 | 22.5% | 13 |
| Troy | 90 | 3-7 | 21.9% | 14 |
| Air Force | 50 | 7-3 | 20.8% | 15 |
| Alabama | 2 | 9-1 | 20.3% | 16 |
| Arkansas | 23 | 6-4 | 18.7% | 17 |
| Florida | 10 | 9-1 | 18.2% | 18 |
| Southern Miss | 61 | 7-3 | 17.6% | 19 |
| Middle Tennessee | 77 | 5-5 | 17.4% | 20 |
| Notre Dame | 6 | 9-1 | 16.0% | 21 |
| Purdue | 88 | 2-8 | 15.8% | 22 |
| Georgia State | 100 | 3-6 | 15.4% | 23 |
| Ohio State | 3 | 10-0 | 15.4% | 24 |
| Ole Miss | 9 | 7-3 | 14.3% | 25 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Wk 8-11 Difference |
Rk |
| Louisiana Tech | 35 | 7-3 | 13.7% | 26 |
| Oklahoma State | 20 | 10-0 | 13.6% | 27 |
| Connecticut | 93 | 5-5 | 13.5% | 28 |
| Colorado | 95 | 4-7 | 13.2% | 29 |
| Iowa State | 66 | 3-7 | 13.2% | 30 |
| Navy | 12 | 8-1 | 13.1% | 31 |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 9-1 | 13.1% | 32 |
| Florida State | 8 | 8-2 | 13.0% | 33 |
| Auburn | 68 | 5-5 | 11.1% | 34 |
| Louisville | 33 | 6-4 | 10.8% | 35 |
| Akron | 81 | 5-5 | 9.9% | 36 |
| North Texas | 130 | 1-9 | 9.3% | 37 |
| Maryland | 75 | 2-8 | 8.6% | 38 |
| Penn State | 32 | 7-3 | 8.5% | 39 |
| Western Michigan | 57 | 6-4 | 8.4% | 40 |
| Central Michigan | 67 | 5-5 | 8.2% | 41 |
| Colorado State | 72 | 5-5 | 8.0% | 42 |
| UTEP | 129 | 4-6 | 7.1% | 43 |
| Arizona State | 69 | 5-5 | 6.2% | 44 |
| Arizona | 79 | 6-5 | 6.1% | 45 |
| Virginia | 87 | 3-7 | 6.0% | 46 |
| Texas Tech | 52 | 6-5 | 6.0% | 47 |
| Georgia Southern | 40 | 7-2 | 5.9% | 48 |
| Tennessee | 21 | 6-4 | 5.7% | 49 |
| Texas | 86 | 4-6 | 5.7% | 50 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Wk 8-11 Difference |
Rk |
| NC State | 19 | 6-4 | 5.3% | 51 |
| Northwestern | 58 | 8-2 | 4.1% | 52 |
| Fresno State | 104 | 3-7 | 4.1% | 53 |
| Clemson | 1 | 10-0 | 3.9% | 54 |
| Tulane | 115 | 3-7 | 3.7% | 55 |
| Mississippi State | 24 | 7-3 | 3.1% | 56 |
| Kansas | 127 | 0-10 | 3.0% | 57 |
| Miami-FL | 60 | 6-4 | 3.0% | 58 |
| Idaho | 110 | 3-7 | 1.3% | 59 |
| Miami-OH | 118 | 2-9 | 1.2% | 60 |
| Syracuse | 84 | 3-7 | 1.1% | 61 |
| New Mexico State | 121 | 2-7 | 0.5% | 62 |
| Western Kentucky | 22 | 8-2 | -0.6% | 63 |
| Stanford | 15 | 8-2 | -1.2% | 64 |
| Georgia | 39 | 7-3 | -1.2% | 65 |
| Michigan State | 27 | 9-1 | -1.8% | 66 |
| Marshall | 45 | 9-2 | -2.1% | 67 |
| Indiana | 65 | 4-6 | -2.6% | 68 |
| Nevada | 101 | 6-4 | -2.7% | 69 |
| Baylor | 7 | 8-1 | -3.4% | 70 |
| Wisconsin | 18 | 8-2 | -3.5% | 71 |
| San Jose State | 94 | 4-6 | -3.6% | 72 |
| Toledo | 26 | 8-1 | -3.8% | 73 |
| Rice | 120 | 4-6 | -3.8% | 74 |
| Memphis | 34 | 8-2 | -4.0% | 75 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Wk 8-11 Difference |
Rk |
| UCLA | 17 | 7-3 | -4.6% | 76 |
| Central Florida | 128 | 0-10 | -5.2% | 77 |
| South Carolina | 82 | 3-7 | -5.3% | 78 |
| Vanderbilt | 80 | 4-6 | -5.4% | 79 |
| UNLV | 98 | 3-7 | -5.6% | 80 |
| Utah | 31 | 8-2 | -5.9% | 81 |
| Florida International | 102 | 5-6 | -6.0% | 82 |
| Old Dominion | 114 | 5-5 | -6.1% | 83 |
| Missouri | 83 | 5-5 | -6.3% | 84 |
| Pittsburgh | 42 | 7-3 | -6.6% | 85 |
| Massachusetts | 92 | 2-8 | -6.8% | 86 |
| SMU | 109 | 1-9 | -6.9% | 87 |
| Kentucky | 96 | 4-6 | -8.1% | 88 |
| Wake Forest | 97 | 3-7 | -8.3% | 89 |
| BYU | 38 | 7-3 | -8.5% | 90 |
| USC | 11 | 7-3 | -9.3% | 91 |
| Florida Atlantic | 91 | 2-8 | -9.4% | 92 |
| Ball State | 108 | 3-7 | -10.0% | 93 |
| Houston | 37 | 10-0 | -10.2% | 94 |
| Rutgers | 107 | 3-7 | -10.2% | 95 |
| Oregon State | 111 | 2-8 | -11.0% | 96 |
| UL-Monroe | 124 | 1-9 | -11.5% | 97 |
| South Alabama | 105 | 5-4 | -11.7% | 98 |
| Temple | 51 | 8-2 | -11.9% | 99 |
| Tulsa | 89 | 5-5 | -12.0% | 100 |
| Team | S&P+ Rk | Record | Wk 8-11 Difference |
Rk |
| Charlotte | 125 | 2-8 | -12.2% | 101 |
| Michigan | 5 | 8-2 | -12.2% | 102 |
| Wyoming | 119 | 1-10 | -12.7% | 103 |
| Nebraska | 54 | 5-6 | -12.9% | 104 |
| Iowa | 28 | 10-0 | -13.7% | 105 |
| Illinois | 44 | 5-5 | -14.7% | 106 |
| UL-Lafayette | 99 | 4-5 | -15.0% | 107 |
| TCU | 29 | 9-1 | -15.5% | 108 |
| Army | 123 | 2-8 | -16.9% | 109 |
| Washington | 25 | 4-6 | -16.9% | 110 |
| Appalachian State | 36 | 8-2 | -16.9% | 111 |
| Texas State | 112 | 2-7 | -17.1% | 112 |
| Utah State | 47 | 5-5 | -17.4% | 113 |
| California | 46 | 6-4 | -18.0% | 114 |
| UTSA | 106 | 2-8 | -18.2% | 115 |
| Hawaii | 117 | 2-9 | -19.5% | 116 |
| West Virginia | 14 | 5-4 | -22.2% | 117 |
| Boise State | 56 | 7-3 | -22.6% | 118 |
| Ohio | 73 | 6-4 | -22.6% | 119 |
| Texas A&M | 62 | 7-3 | -24.2% | 120 |
| LSU | 13 | 7-2 | -25.0% | 121 |
| Kent State | 113 | 3-7 | -30.3% | 122 |
| Kansas State | 76 | 3-6 | -31.7% | 123 |
| Georgia Tech | 70 | 3-7 | -32.1% | 124 |
| Duke | 48 | 6-4 | -34.9% | 125 |
| Eastern Michigan | 122 | 1-10 | -36.3% | 126 |
| East Carolina | 78 | 4-6 | -37.5% | 127 |
| Boston College | 64 | 3-7 | -39.3% | 128 |
[ad placeholder 4]
This is a pretty good look at the teams that are either picking up steam or losing oil quickly. North Carolina has looked incredible, particularly in the past two or three games. San Diego State has been strangely fantastic, too, and NIU is performing its normal "Well, I guess it's time to go win the MAC" surge. Minnesota, iffy through most of the first half of the season, has been between competitive and downright good in losses to Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa. And yes, Alabama is looking more and more like the killing machine we've come to expect.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are few surprises. Duke has fallen apart. Boston College's horrific offense has led to its awesome defense taking more chances and springing more leaks. Texas A&M is fading again. LSU has gone from Playoff contender to "Is Les Miles on the hot seat?" in record time.
We never really know until the past tense whether something is a brief blip or a sign of momentum, but this looks like a pretty good way of comparing where a team is to where S&P+ thinks it is.
Comments
There are no comments yet.