First time I've run this so far this year (been busy work/stress wise so haven't been able to do it). Very interested in what the CFP Committee does with Alabama, Cincinnati and Notre Dame this week. Here are the "fake" BCS rankings!
**Note -- all 6 computers are available this year, so the normal formula to compute the computer rankings where we drop the high and low rankings for each team is in play.**
| Team | Record | BCS Rank | BCS Average | AP Poll | AP Avg | Coaches | Coaches Avg | Computer | Computer Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | 11-0 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 |
| Ohio St | 10-1 | 2 | 0.9122 | 2 | 0.9252 | 3 | 0.9213 | 2 | 0.8900 |
| Alabama | 10-1 | 3 | 0.9045 | 3 | 0.9181 | 2 | 0.9355 | 3 | 0.8600 |
| Cincinnati | 11-0 | 4 | 0.8697 | 4 | 0.9135 | 4 | 0.8955 | 6 | 0.8000 |
| Michigan | 10-1 | 5 | 0.8168 | 6 | 0.8039 | 6 | 0.8065 | 4 | 0.8400 |
| Notre Dame | 10-1 | 6 | 0.8153 | 5 | 0.8142 | 5 | 0.8116 | 5 | 0.8200 |
| Oklahoma St | 10-1 | 7 | 0.7835 | 7 | 0.7800 | 7 | 0.7806 | 7 | 0.7900 |
| Oklahoma | 10-1 | 8 | 0.6825 | 10 | 0.6458 | 9 | 0.6516 | 8 | 0.7500 |
| Mississippi | 9-2 | 9 | 0.6369 | 8 | 0.6839 | 8 | 0.6768 | 11 | 0.5500 |
| Baylor | 9-2 | 10 | 0.6084 | 9 | 0.6748 | 10 | 0.6303 | 12 | 0.5200 |
| Michigan St | 9-2 | 11 | 0.4741 | 12 | 0.5019 | 13 | 0.4503 | 13 | 0.4700 |
| Oregon | 9-2 | 12 | 0.4617 | 11 | 0.5477 | 11 | 0.5574 | 19 | 0.2800 |
| Iowa | 9-2 | 13 | 0.4610 | 17 | 0.3471 | 12 | 0.4658 | 10 | 0.5700 |
| Texas A&M | 8-3 | 14 | 0.4286 | 14 | 0.4052 | 14 | 0.4406 | 14 | 0.4400 |
| Wisconsin | 8-3 | 15 | 0.4088 | 18 | 0.3335 | 18 | 0.3129 | 9 | 0.5800 |
| BYU | 9-2 | 16 | 0.4076 | 13 | 0.4974 | 15 | 0.4355 | 18 | 0.2900 |
| UT San Antonio | 11-0 | 17 | 0.3609 | 15 | 0.3761 | 20 | 0.3065 | 15 | 0.4000 |
| Utah | 8-3 | 18 | 0.3234 | 16 | 0.3619 | 19 | 0.3084 | 17 | 0.3000 |
| Houston | 10-1 | 19 | 0.3173 | 19 | 0.3329 | 16 | 0.3690 | 22 | 0.2500 |
| Pittsburgh | 9-2 | 20 | 0.2647 | 20 | 0.2871 | 17 | 0.3271 | NR | 0.1800 |
| Wake Forest | 9-2 | 21 | 0.2509 | 21 | 0.2219 | 21 | 0.2606 | 21 | 0.2700 |
| Louisiana | 10-1 | 22 | 0.1970 | 23 | 0.1587 | 23 | 0.1523 | 19 | 0.2800 |
| San Diego St | 10-1 | 23 | 0.1940 | 22 | 0.1761 | 22 | 0.1658 | 23 | 0.2400 |
| Penn St | 7-4 | 24 | 0.1170 | NR | 0.0168 | NR | 0.0142 | 16 | 0.3200 |
| Clemson | 8-3 | 25 | 0.1138 | NR | 0.0652 | NR | 0.0361 | 23 | 0.2400 |
My initial thoughts: The top 10 is all pretty much in agreement between the polls and computers, not too much in the way of glaring discrepancies go. I like seeing Cinci in the top 4, even though computers having them at #6 isn't so kind. Michigan over Notre Dame isn't that surprising either.
Wisconsin is all the way up at #9 in the computers which puts that at #15 despite the polls having them farther down at #18. Conversely, the polls (#11 in both) are way overvaluing Oregon relative to the computers (#19). Yes, they beat Ohio State in week 2. No, neither of those teams are anything resembling their week 2 form 10 weeks later. The computers see this, the polls do not. We also see PSU in the rankings with a strong Computer average (#16) despite not being ranked in either poll. And our favorite opponent, Clemson, rounds out the top 25 in a similar situation to PSU.
Another interesting observation is that there's a substantial drop off in BCS average between #8 and #9. Normally the drop off is more between #3 and #4 or somewhere up there. This could be the first year where the top teams are close enough to justify more than the 4 team format.
