College Football

2017’s projected 130-team college football rankings, from Bama through UAB

Also, here are the three pieces used to create these projections, along with some more notes at the bottom.

Feb 3, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

NCAA Football: CFP National Championship-Clemson vs Alabama

Kim Klement-USA TODAY Sports

The preseason S&P+ projections are a pretty simple mix of three factors: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. Over the last few days, I have posted about each.

To come up with preliminary projections, I create projected ratings based on each factor. Here’s how the process currently works:

Recruiting is easy. I simply create a projected rating based on these two-year recruiting rankings. The recruiting-based projection makes up 25 percent of the overall S&P+ projection.
For returning production, I apply projected changes (based on each team’s returning offensive and defensive production, which are on different scales) to last year’s S&P+ averages. The projection based on returning production accounts for 56 percent.
For recent history, I’ve gotten a little weird. I found that the previous year’s S&P+ ratings were carrying a little too much weight in the projections, so what you see below is a projection based solely off of seasons two to five years ago. Recent history now carries less weight in the overall formulas, only 19 percent. It basically acts as a slight supplement to the two factors above.

Enough talk. Here are the preliminary projected S&P+ rankings for 2017.

2017 Projected S&P+

Rk.	Team	Conference	Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
1	Alabama	SEC	1	1	1	34
2	Ohio State	Big Ten	2	3	3	26
3	Florida State	ACC	3	2	7	25.7
4	LSU	SEC	5	8	2	23.3
5	Oklahoma	Big 12	11	6	5	22.8
6	Clemson	ACC	13	5	13	22.3
7	USC	Pac-12	7	10	14	22
8	Penn State	Big Ten	18	4	29	21.4
9	Auburn	SEC	9	12	23	20
10	Michigan	Big Ten	4	13	17	19.8
11	Wisconsin	Big Ten	36	11	15	18.6
12	Stanford	Pac-12	16	14	6	18.6
13	Washington	Pac-12	28	9	39	18.1
14	Louisville	ACC	34	7	36	18
15	Florida	SEC	8	15	18	17.8
16	Texas	Big 12	19	16	34	14.8
17	Notre Dame	Indies	10	29	9	14.7
18	Miami	ACC	17	20	37	13.5
19	Texas A&M	SEC	12	34	11	13.4
20	Georgia	SEC	6	41	8	13.4
21	TCU	Big 12	27	21	25	12.9
22	Oklahoma State	Big 12	40	18	16	12.7
23	Oregon	Pac-12	23	43	4	11.7
24	Tennessee	SEC	14	37	26	11.2
25	Virginia Tech	ACC	37	25	33	11
26	Ole Miss	SEC	20	42	20	10.8
27	NC State	ACC	46	17	63	9.5
28	Baylor	Big 12	24	56	10	9.1
29	Boise State	MWC	64	28	19	8.8
30	Mississippi State	SEC	31	48	24	8.6
31	Georgia Tech	ACC	54	27	38	8.6
32	Arkansas	SEC	26	51	21	8.6
33	Pittsburgh	ACC	33	45	43	7.8
34	UCLA	Pac-12	15	70	22	7.5
35	Kansas State	Big 12	68	26	31	7.5
36	South Carolina	SEC	21	64	28	6.8
37	Northwestern	Big Ten	48	31	61	6.6
38	North Carolina	ACC	29	58	42	6.5
39	Indiana	Big Ten	61	23	75	6.5
40	Washington State	Pac-12	51	30	81	6.2
41	Kentucky	SEC	30	44	86	5.9
42	Nebraska	Big Ten	22	72	32	5.6
43	Colorado State	MWC	69	19	97	5.2
44	Michigan State	Big Ten	25	79	12	5.1
45	Utah	Pac-12	35	61	44	5
46	BYU	Indies	55	52	35	4.8
47	Minnesota	Big Ten	52	47	55	4.4
48	Iowa	Big Ten	41	60	48	4.4
49	Houston	AAC	56	46	50	4.3
50	Colorado	Pac-12	47	35	102	4.2
51	Western Kentucky	CUSA	91	24	64	4.1
52	San Diego State	MWC	74	32	62	4
53	Missouri	SEC	50	62	27	3.9
54	Oregon State	Pac-12	43	59	57	3.6
55	California	Pac-12	53	54	51	3.5
56	South Florida	AAC	70	33	79	3.4
57	Iowa State	Big 12	49	50	71	3.4
58	Arizona State	Pac-12	38	75	30	3.3
59	Toledo	MAC	81	40	40	3.3
60	Syracuse	ACC	62	49	60	3
61	Memphis	AAC	65	36	89	3
62	Appalachian State	Sun Belt	112	22	80	2.7
63	Vanderbilt	SEC	59	53	67	2.4
64	Wake Forest	ACC	66	39	94	2.4
65	Duke	ACC	39	69	66	2.4
66	Texas Tech	Big 12	45	67	52	2.2
67	Temple	AAC	79	38	74	1.7
68	Arizona	Pac-12	42	76	45	1.7
69	West Virginia	Big 12	44	81	47	0.6
70	Virginia	ACC	58	73	69	-0.4
71	Navy	AAC	83	63	54	-1.1
72	Maryland	Big Ten	32	94	77	-1.5
73	Utah State	MWC	109	66	41	-1.7
74	Western Michigan	MAC	73	68	88	-2.1
75	Cincinnati	AAC	67	83	49	-2.3
76	Boston College	ACC	71	78	58	-2.5
77	Tulsa	AAC	87	65	76	-2.5
78	Central Florida	AAC	60	87	70	-2.6
79	Troy	Sun Belt	94	57	104	-3.3
80	Wyoming	MWC	110	55	112	-3.9
81	SMU	AAC	77	80	96	-4.9
82	Louisiana Tech	CUSA	89	90	65	-5.4
83	Arkansas State	Sun Belt	99	82	68	-5.5
84	Southern Miss	CUSA	82	84	92	-5.7
85	Illinois	Big Ten	57	107	73	-6
86	Northern Illinois	MAC	122	88	56	-6.4
87	Purdue	Big Ten	72	96	82	-6.6
88	Miami (OH)	MAC	88	77	116	-6.7
89	Middle Tennessee	CUSA	84	89	101	-6.9
90	Ball State	MAC	96	91	90	-7.1
91	UTSA	CUSA	86	85	110	-7.2
92	Rutgers	Big Ten	63	109	84	-7.3
93	Old Dominion	CUSA	118	74	122	-7.7
94	Tulane	AAC	93	86	119	-8.1
95	Bowling Green	MAC	98	102	59	-8.4
96	Eastern Michigan	MAC	126	71	128	-8.7
97	Central Michigan	MAC	106	93	105	-8.8
98	Georgia Southern	Sun Belt	95	113	46	-9
99	Florida Atlantic	CUSA	80	97	107	-9
100	East Carolina	AAC	76	115	72	-9.3
101	Marshall	CUSA	78	118	53	-9.4
102	Army	Indies	103	92	126	-10
103	Ohio	MAC	121	101	91	-10.4
104	Florida International	CUSA	92	98	117	-10.4
105	San Jose State	MWC	100	110	85	-10.8
106	North Texas	CUSA	114	100	106	-11.1
107	Kansas	Big 12	75	114	109	-11.2
108	South Alabama	Sun Belt	111	104	103	-11.3
109	Hawaii	MWC	120	95	121	-11.4
110	New Mexico	MWC	102	103	123	-11.8
111	Massachusetts	Indies	97	99	127	-11.9
112	UL-Lafayette	Sun Belt	116	111	95	-12
113	Georgia State	Sun Belt	113	105	120	-12.4
114	Coastal Carolina	Sun Belt	130	108	87	-12.5
115	Fresno State	MWC	85	124	78	-12.6
116	Air Force	MWC	115	116	93	-12.7
117	Nevada	MWC	107	121	83	-12.9
118	UNLV	MWC	90	117	114	-13.1
119	Idaho	Sun Belt	125	106	125	-14
120	Rice	CUSA	124	120	100	-14.3
121	UL-Monroe	Sun Belt	108	123	111	-15.3
122	Akron	MAC	129	119	113	-15.6
123	Kent State	MAC	128	122	99	-15.6
124	New Mexico State	Sun Belt	127	112	129	-15.9
125	Connecticut	AAC	104	127	98	-16.5
126	UTEP	CUSA	123	125	118	-16.8
127	Charlotte	CUSA	119	126	130	-20
128	Buffalo	MAC	117	128	108	-20.1
129	Texas State	Sun Belt	101	129	115	-22.3
130	UAB	CUSA	105	130	124	-28.2

Your projected conference leaders

You can sort by each category above, but here are the top four projected teams in each conference:

AAC: No. 49 Houston, No. 56 USF, No. 61 Memphis, No. 67 Temple
ACC: No. 3 FSU, No. 6 Clemson, No. 14 Louisville, No. 18 Miami
Big 12: No. 5 Oklahoma, No. 16 Texas, No. 21 TCU, No. 22 OSU
Big Ten: No. 2 Ohio State, No. 8 Penn State, No. 10 Michigan, No. 11 Wisconsin
Conference USA: No. 51 WKU, No. 82 Louisiana Tech, No. 84 Southern Miss, No. 89 MTSU
MAC: No. 59 Toledo, No. 74 WMU, No. 86 NIU, No. 88 Miami (Ohio)
Mountain West: No. 29 Boise State, No. 43 Colorado State, No. 52 SDSU, No. 73 Utah State
Pac-12: No. 7 USC, No. 12 Stanford, No. 13 Washington, No. 23 Oregon
SEC: No. 1 Alabama, No. 4 LSU, No. 9 Auburn, No. 15 Florida
Sun Belt: No. 62 Appalachian State, No. 79 Troy, No. 83 Arkansas State, No. 98 Georgia Southern

Stats vs. conventional wisdom

NCAA Football: Rose Bowl Game-Penn State vs Southern California

Rose Bowl bump!

Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports

There are no significant surprises here, at least not compared to what emerged as conventional wisdom following the 2016 season. But here are some of the larger differences between S&P+ and human rankings:

LSU (+7): 11th per humans, fourth per S&P+
Auburn (+4): 13th per humans, ninth per S&P+
Stanford (+3): 15th per humans, 12th per S&P+
Penn State (-3): fifth per humans, eighth per S&P+
USC (-4): third per humans, seventh per S&P+
Washington (-5): eighth per humans, 13th per S&P+
Georgia (-6): 14th per humans, 20th per S&P+
Oklahoma State (-12): 10th per humans, 22nd per S&P+
Kansas State (-14): 21st per humans, 35th per S&P+
USF (-37): 19th per humans, 56th per S&P+
West Virginia (-46): 23rd per humans, 69th per S&P+

We can draw some rough conclusions from these differences and the projections overall.

S&P+ still likes the SEC.

Among teams ranked in both human and S&P+ top 25, my computer overestimates the two Tiger squads. This is partially because of the impact of recruiting in the projections, but it’s primarily because S&P+ liked both of these teams last season, too.

LSU went just 1-4 against teams in last year’s S&P+ top 15, but the four losses were by a combined 23 points. Against teams outside of the top 15, the Tigers were 7-0 with an average win of 22 points. They were an excellent, slightly unlucky team, and they project in the top 10 per all three projection factors — recruiting, returning production, and recent history.

Auburn’s case is a bit shakier and powered by recruiting, but Gus Malzahn’s Tigers still went 7-2 against teams outside of the S&P+ top 10 last year. They were close to being excellent but couldn’t maintain their October form. And they return a lot of offensive firepower.

The Big 12 is getting a bowl bump.

The most maligned of the power conferences had a lovely bowl season: Oklahoma took down Auburn in the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma State walloped Colorado, Baylor thumped Boise State, and Kansas State knocked off Texas A&M. And OU and OSU in particular looked excellent down the stretch of the regular season.

While OU is projected in the top five, however, S&P+ only likes OSU — it doesn’t like like the Cowboys — and is significantly lukewarm on KSU.

Meanwhile, WVU must replace more production than any other power conference team in the country; asking the Mountaineers to maintain a top-30 level might be asking too much.

Recent history is dragging USC and Penn State down a bit.

Including recent history in the projections adds a bit of conservatism to the mix. S&P+ doesn’t overreact to one great year — or in the case of these two Rose Bowl combatants, nine (USC) or 10 (PSU) excellent games — and the programs’ relative underachievement in previous seasons drags them down a bit.

But wow, did these two teams look great down the stretch last year. I’ll allow for a Rose Bowl bump. It was an incredible game.

Baylor 28th? OK, sure.

I enjoy the projections process in part because it quantifies every team, including those I have no idea how to judge. Baylor projects 28th, which seems like a decent place to set the bar for a team that has a lot of recent success, but also about as much turnover as you can experience over a calendar year.

Matt Rhule is an excellent head coach and recruited well in the 2017 cycle (all things considered), but it wouldn’t be surprising to see Baylor finishing anywhere between 10th and 50th. So 28th is a decent starting point.

It’s a big year in Westwood.

Based on recruiting and recent history alone, UCLA would project as a top-20 team. But the Bruins were incredibly disappointing last year and rank 99th in returning production. They are starting over in 2017, but they still have an awesome (when healthy) quarterback in Josh Rosen, and ... well ... after last year, maybe starting over isn’t an unattractive thought.

Still, this could go sideways. Jim Mora needs his best coaching performance this fall.

Haves vs. Have-Nots in Rotel Country

The Big Ten has four teams projected 11th or higher and four projected 72nd or lower, a facsimile of what happened this past year. The conference was impossible to judge because of the variance between highs and lows — based on the top four teams, it might have been the best conference in the country, and based on averages, it might have been third or fourth. It won’t be any easier this year.

See More: