So after last night's CFP rankings were released (with us still at 4, and Cincinnati... not) lots of people seem to be clamoring for a widened field. That got me thinking about what the BCS would do this year! Granted, a lot of disparity in games played so a lot of the computer metrics are bonkers, and yet, somehow, the top 10 isn't that bad compared to polls and/or the CFP's opinion. Behold:
| Team | Record | BCS Rank | BCS Average | AP Poll | AP Avg | Coaches | Coaches Avg | Computer | Computer Avg | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 8-0 | 1 | 0.9949 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 0.9981 | 1 | 0.9867 | 1 |
| Notre Dame | 9-0 | 2 | 0.9477 | 2 | 0.9555 | 2 | 0.9542 | 2 | 0.9333 | 2 |
| Ohio St | 4-0 | 3 | 0.9100 | 3 | 0.9052 | 4 | 0.8916 | 2 | 0.9333 | 4 |
| Clemson | 8-1 | 4 | 0.8963 | 4 | 0.8981 | 3 | 0.8974 | 4 | 0.8933 | 3 |
| Florida | 7-1 | 5 | 0.7780 | 6 | 0.7910 | 5 | 0.8097 | 6 | 0.7333 | 6 |
| Cincinnati | 8-0 | 6 | 0.7698 | 7 | 0.7768 | 7 | 0.7594 | 5 | 0.7733 | 7 |
| Texas A&M | 6-1 | 7 | 0.7411 | 5 | 0.8142 | 6 | 0.8090 | 9 | 0.6000 | 5 |
| BYU | 9-0 | 8 | 0.7146 | 8 | 0.7181 | 8 | 0.6923 | 6 | 0.7333 | 13 |
| Miami FL | 7-1 | 9 | 0.6115 | 9 | 0.6394 | 9 | 0.6619 | 11 | 0.5333 | 10 |
| Georgia | 6-2 | 10 | 0.6111 | 11 | 0.5929 | 10 | 0.6271 | 8 | 0.6133 | 8 |
| Indiana | 5-1 | 11 | 0.6036 | 10 | 0.6348 | 11 | 0.6026 | 10 | 0.5733 | 12 |
| Iowa St | 7-2 | 12 | 0.4916 | 12 | 0.5632 | 12 | 0.5516 | 14 | 0.3600 | 9 |
| Oklahoma | 6-2 | 13 | 0.4663 | 13 | 0.5258 | 13 | 0.5265 | 15 | 0.3467 | 11 |
| Marshall | 7-0 | 14 | 0.3902 | 15 | 0.3871 | 15 | 0.3968 | 13 | 0.3867 | 21 |
| Northwestern | 5-1 | 15 | 0.3814 | 16 | 0.3723 | 17 | 0.3452 | 12 | 0.4267 | 14 |
| Coastal Car | 9-0 | 16 | 0.3459 | 14 | 0.4477 | 14 | 0.4032 | 18 | 0.1867 | 18 |
| USC | 3-0 | 17 | 0.3033 | 17 | 0.3484 | 16 | 0.3748 | 18 | 0.1867 | 20 |
| Wisconsin | 2-1 | 18 | 0.3018 | 18 | 0.3426 | 19 | 0.2961 | 16 | 0.2667 | 16 |
| Oklahoma St | 6-2 | 19 | 0.2503 | 19 | 0.2748 | 18 | 0.3026 | 20 | 0.1733 | 15 |
| Oregon | 3-1 | 20 | 0.2283 | 21 | 0.2103 | 20 | 0.2213 | 17 | 0.2533 | 23 |
| Louisiana | 8-1 | 21 | 0.1787 | 20 | 0.2271 | 21 | 0.1890 | 24 | 0.1200 | 25 |
| Tulsa | 5-1 | 22 | 0.1459 | 22 | 0.1574 | 22 | 0.1471 | 23 | 0.1333 | 24 |
| Washington | 3-0 | 23 | 0.1402 | 23 | 0.1406 | 23 | 0.1200 | 21 | 0.1600 | 22 |
| Iowa | 4-2 | 24 | 0.1014 | 24 | 0.0768 | 24 | 0.0806 | 22 | 0.1467 | 19 |
| North Carolina | 6-3 | 25 | 0.0642 | NR | 0.0419 | NR | 0.0439 | NR | 0.1067 | 17 |
You really have to get to #8 to really see a shakeup between polls/computers and the CFP's rankings, and at that point you are well outside the running for a playoff spot anyway. And as is normally the case, you see a very sharp drop between #4 and #5.
One thing to note is that the Wolfe rankings are not available yet this year (he had posted that he'd have them up sometime in November but hasn't posted them), so the computer formula has been adjusted to account for only 3 counting scores with the best and worst still removed. So the maximum points is 75 instead of 100. Alabama has 74 points (3 1st place scores, 2 second place scores) and so their Computer Average is 74/75 or 0.9867.
And sorry, Cincinnati, you still can't go to the playoffs. Sorry about your luck!
