It's finally here, the power rankings you've all been waiting for! Yes, after a nine year hiatus, I've finally returned to revive the long lost poll that once held the deepest sentiments of apathy in the hearts of 11W forum members far and wide. Did I only ever do these rankings once? Yes. Was I widely ridiculed for having Mizzou, a team coming off a 5-7 season in 2012, firmly in the number one spot in week five of 2013? Yes. Did Mizzou go on to finish the regular season 11-1 that year, narrowly missing out on playing in the national championship game after losing to Auburn, 59-42, in the SEC title game? F**k yeah they did! So if you're one of those nincompoops that broke my fragile little 18 y/o ego with disparaging comments after grinding out a massive data project with my freshly carpal tunneled hands, ha! Suck it!

Okay, now that that's off my chest, I learned how to use Excel, so let's jump in.

People are biased. We simply can't be objective. Numbers can. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of biased polls that rely on style points, eye tests, and narratives, ultimately giving certain teams the benefit of the doubt over others, leading to a feedback loop of inflated rankings. I decided to run a little rankings experiment that treats every team equally. No more style points. No more eye tests. No more covering the spread. No more giving a shit about Texas A&M's recruiting class or whether you're a defending national champion. The system I created focuses on the one question we seek to answer when putting two teams on a collegiate football field. Did you win the damned game?

Breaking it down:

Win/Loss Value:

The premise is simple. When you play a team, they hold a value. That value is determined by their win/loss record over their last twelve games. If you play a team that's currently 8-4 over their last twelve games, beating that team nets you +8, and losing to that team nets you -4. Beating a good team nets you a larger reward, and losing to a good team nets you a softer punishment. On the flip side, beating a bad team nets you a small reward, and losing to a bad team nets you a larger punishment. If you play an FCS team, win scores are halved or loss scores are doubled. For example, beating a 6-6 FCS team nets you +3, and losing -12. Don't lose to an FCS team.

I call this the raw score. It answers one question. How good was your win at the time you played them. These scores are static. Our week one win against Notre Dame (10-2 over their last twelve) will always be worth a raw score of 10 no matter what happens after the game is played.

Win/Loss Growth/Decay:

Basing your score entirely off of an opponents perceived value, like the raw score does, isn't entirely fair. If Notre Dame continues to flounder, our win over them should lose some of it's luster. The same should hold true if you play an underrated team that goes on to have a great season. To account for this, the raw score gets averaged with the opponents score from the current week. So, for example, in week eight, our week one win over Notre Dame would be an average of their last twelve wins in week one, 10, and their last twelve wins in week eight, 8. Therefore, our adjusted score for beating Notre Dame would currently stand at 9. If they continue to lose, that score will decay, and if they start to win, that score will grow.

Total Score:

Each team's total score is determined by the average of their adjusted scores.

Some Justifications:

Why not only go by a teams current Win/Loss value? Why should Ohio State get more credit for beating Notre Dame in week 1 than Marshall in week 2?

I have two reasons for this, pscyhology and injuries. In week 1, Notre Dame believed they were a top five team with national title hopes. A team that believes in themselves has a focus and an edge. We often see good teams lose their edge after a tough loss derails their focus and their season. The team that bursts their bubble shouldn't be punished 1:1 for what happens after the game is played. It's also unfair to punish a team 1:1 if their opponent has their season derailed due to losing key players to injury after they already played them at full strength.

Teams shouldn't get the same number of points for beating an 8-4 MAC team as they do an 8-4 SEC team!

Here's my argument for that one, yes they should. Power five or not, you're lining up against a team of D-1 athletes with the sole intention of f**king you up. The purpose of this poll is to treat everyone fairly. Theoretically, if group of five conferences aren't as good as power five conferences, their schools shouldn't be able to accumulate as many wins(points) to be distributed in conference play.

So, without further aduei... aduie*... adiue*... ahh f**k it

• Didn't see that one coming? Me either. TCU is bolstered by strong wins against Oklahoma(8),Oklahoma State(10.5), and Kansas State(9). Turns out, they've probably proven more than anyone as far as SoS is concerned
• TCU ascended to #1 for the first time this week. Prior to this week, Ohio State has had a strangle hold on the #1 spot from week 4 through week 7. But they haven't played anybody!
• Wanna talk about not playing anybody? Lmao @TTUN. Outside of Penn State(7), Iowa(7), and Maryland(6.5) TTUN's murderer's row of Colorado(2), Hawai'i(4.5), UConn(2.5), and Indiana(3) has left them destitute for points.
• Just this week, TTUN got jumped by Penn State, a team that they blew out. This is a result of Penn State's solid win Minnesota. This goes to show how bad Michigan's schedule has been to this point. While hilarious, I'd expect this to correct itself as things continue.
• BYU? Sneaky playoff contender? Nope. Thanks to the fact that I haven't regularly watched BYU football this year, I didn't question the fact that they came up at #5 in my initial rankings. Turns out, I accidentally gave them the same w/l record as Liberty when entering my data. Thanks to those of you who pointed out my mistake! 
• You might be wondering how the "change" column is functional if these are my first rankings. I also ran these rankings for prior weeks, and can post previous weeks rankings in the comments if you like. Things get a little silly, though, if you go too far back