College Football

2018’s projected 130-team college football rankings, from Ohio State through UTEP

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

Feb 9, 2018, 1:24 PM UTC

Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

The preseason S&P+ projections are a simple mix of three factors: recent history, returning production, and recruiting. To come up with 130-team projections, I create projected ratings based on each factor. Here’s how the process works:

Recruiting is easy. I create a rating based on these two-year recruiting rankings. The recruiting-based projection makes up about a quarter 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 a little more than 50 percent.
For recent history, I get a little weird. I found last year that the previous year’s S&P+ ratings — which make up the starting point for the returning production figures — were carrying a little too much weight. 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, under 20 percent.

Enough talk. Here are the preliminary projected S&P+ rankings for 2018.

Projected 2018 S&P+ rankings (as of Feb. 9)

Rk	Team	Conf.	Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
1	Ohio State	Big Ten	1	1	2	27.0
2	Alabama	SEC	4	4	1	27.0
3	Clemson	ACC	12	3	3	25.4
4	Washington	Pac-12	17	2	13	23.9
5	Auburn	SEC	11	6	6	22.4
6	Georgia	SEC	2	5	28	22.1
7	Notre Dame	Ind	10	7	16	21.4
8	Penn State	Big Ten	8	10	20	20.2
9	Oklahoma	Big 12	6	13	7	19.5
10	Michigan	Big Ten	15	14	8	18.3
11	Michigan State	Big Ten	33	9	22	18.0
12	Wisconsin	Big Ten	36	11	11	17.8
13	Miami-FL	ACC	9	16	18	17.4
14	Mississippi State	SEC	26	15	21	15.7
15	USC	Pac-12	3	27	9	14.0
16	LSU	SEC	7	28	5	14.0
17	Central Florida	AAC	66	8	85	13.9
18	Florida State	ACC	5	48	4	12.3
19	Oklahoma State	Big 12	35	19	29	11.9
20	Stanford	Pac-12	27	23	10	11.9
21	Virginia Tech	ACC	24	22	27	11.5
22	TCU	Big 12	31	21	24	11.4
23	Oregon	Pac-12	18	29	30	11.3
24	Texas A&M	SEC	14	36	19	11.0
25	Ole Miss	SEC	30	26	14	10.9
26	Boise State	MWC	65	18	26	10.0
27	Texas	Big 12	16	38	43	9.6
28	Utah	Pac-12	32	30	34	9.4
29	Louisville	ACC	28	44	12	9.3
30	Missouri	SEC	44	24	47	8.9
31	Florida Atlantic	C-USA	77	12	107	8.7
32	Florida	SEC	13	62	17	8.2
33	Arizona	Pac-12	45	25	63	7.7
34	Wake Forest	ACC	67	20	83	7.4
35	South Carolina	SEC	20	56	56	7.2
36	Iowa	Big Ten	39	42	38	7.2
37	NC State	ACC	40	39	40	7.2
38	Northwestern	Big Ten	54	31	57	6.5
39	UCLA	Pac-12	19	75	23	6.0
40	Duke	ACC	51	35	62	5.8
41	Washington State	Pac-12	46	49	55	5.4
42	Memphis	AAC	71	32	48	5.1
43	West Virginia	Big 12	42	58	44	5.0
44	Fresno State	MWC	95	17	100	4.9
45	Pittsburgh	ACC	37	64	31	4.7
46	Iowa State	Big 12	49	47	78	4.6
47	Texas Tech	Big 12	59	52	59	4.1
48	Boston College	ACC	68	37	65	4.0
49	Toledo	MAC	73	40	41	4.0
50	Baylor	Big 12	34	78	15	3.9
51	North Carolina	ACC	25	81	33	3.8
52	Arkansas	SEC	41	72	32	3.7
53	Georgia Tech	ACC	48	63	36	3.5
54	Purdue	Big Ten	62	45	89	3.2
55	San Diego State	MWC	75	50	53	2.6
56	South Florida	AAC	69	53	73	2.5
57	Arizona State	Pac-12	38	79	46	2.3
58	Indiana	Big Ten	56	67	50	2.2
59	Houston	AAC	70	60	49	2.1
60	Nebraska	Big Ten	22	91	42	2.0
61	Kansas State	Big 12	64	69	39	1.9
62	Marshall	C-USA	80	46	79	1.9
63	Appalachian State	Sun Belt	109	34	51	1.8
64	Kentucky	SEC	29	80	75	1.8
65	California	Pac-12	57	71	58	1.4
66	Arkansas State	Sun Belt	89	41	81	1.4
67	Minnesota	Big Ten	47	85	45	0.8
68	Ohio	MAC	113	33	91	0.1
69	Northern Illinois	MAC	91	54	77	0.0
70	Louisiana Tech	C-USA	86	61	74	-0.4
71	Syracuse	ACC	58	83	70	-0.6
72	Wyoming	MWC	111	43	96	-0.7
73	Virginia	ACC	61	82	72	-0.8
74	SMU	AAC	84	57	112	-0.9
75	Vanderbilt	SEC	52	87	86	-1.0
76	BYU	Ind	72	88	35	-1.1
77	Utah State	MWC	115	59	54	-1.1
78	Troy	Sun Belt	97	55	93	-1.1
79	Tennessee	SEC	21	115	25	-1.6
80	Maryland	Big Ten	23	102	76	-1.7
81	Temple	AAC	90	74	61	-1.9
82	Miami-OH	MAC	103	51	120	-2.0
83	Middle Tennessee	C-USA	93	70	88	-2.9
84	Rutgers	Big Ten	53	90	106	-3.1
85	Navy	AAC	92	84	52	-3.3
86	North Texas	C-USA	99	65	113	-3.6
87	Western Michigan	MAC	78	89	66	-3.7
88	Cincinnati	AAC	55	100	69	-4.0
89	Colorado	Pac-12	43	112	64	-4.6
90	Western Kentucky	C-USA	85	98	37	-4.6
91	UAB	C-USA	117	76	97	-5.0
92	Army	Ind	110	68	123	-5.3
93	Buffalo	MAC	125	66	119	-5.4
94	Southern Miss	C-USA	74	97	92	-6.0
95	Colorado State	MWC	82	99	60	-6.0
96	Eastern Michigan	MAC	121	73	124	-6.1
97	Bowling Green	MAC	88	96	84	-6.3
98	Tulane	AAC	79	93	108	-6.6
99	Illinois	Big Ten	50	118	82	-7.6
100	New Mexico State	Ind	124	77	129	-7.7
101	Nevada	MWC	98	92	109	-7.7
102	Massachusetts	Ind	116	86	125	-7.7
103	Kansas	Big 12	63	110	115	-8.1
104	UTSA	C-USA	76	106	101	-8.4
105	UNLV	MWC	104	94	114	-8.4
106	Georgia Southern	Sun Belt	106	104	67	-8.5
107	UL-Monroe	Sun Belt	102	95	122	-9.1
108	Tulsa	AAC	87	111	87	-9.2
109	South Alabama	Sun Belt	118	101	90	-9.5
110	Oregon State	Pac-12	60	126	68	-9.7
111	New Mexico	MWC	114	103	102	-10.2
112	Air Force	MWC	129	107	71	-10.2
113	Georgia State	Sun Belt	94	109	121	-11.1
114	Old Dominion	C-USA	122	108	104	-11.5
115	Liberty	Ind	130	105	116	-11.8
116	Central Michigan	MAC	107	116	98	-11.8
117	Ball State	MAC	101	117	94	-11.9
118	Coastal Carolina	Sun Belt	128	113	99	-12.1
119	Akron	MAC	126	114	103	-12.6
120	Florida International	C-USA	83	121	126	-12.8
121	UL-Lafayette	Sun Belt	120	119	95	-13.3
122	Hawaii	MWC	105	123	110	-14.2
123	Texas State	Sun Belt	100	122	128	-14.6
124	Connecticut	AAC	96	125	118	-14.7
125	East Carolina	AAC	81	128	80	-15.1
126	Charlotte	C-USA	112	120	130	-15.2
127	Kent State	MAC	119	124	117	-15.3
128	Rice	C-USA	123	127	111	-16.2
129	San Jose State	MWC	108	130	105	-19.1
130	UTEP	C-USA	127	129	127	-20.3

Your projected conference leaders

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

AAC: No. 17 UCF, No. 42 Memphis, No. 56 USF, No. 59 Houston
ACC: No. 3 Clemson, No. 13 Miami, No. 18 Florida State, No. 21 Virginia Tech
Big 12: No. 9 Oklahoma, No. 19 Oklahoma State, No. 22 TCU, No. 27 Texas
Big Ten: No. 1 Ohio State, No. 8 Penn State, No. 10 Michigan, No. 11 Michigan State
Conference USA: No. 31 FAU, No. 62 Marshall, No. 70 Louisiana Tech, No. 83 MTSU
MAC: No. 49 Toledo, No. 68 Ohio, No. 69 NIU, No. 82 Miami (Ohio)
Mountain West: No. 26 Boise State, No. 44 Fresno State, No. 55 SDSU, No. 72 Wyoming
Pac-12: No. 4 Washington, No. 15 USC, No. 20 Stanford, No. 23 Oregon
SEC: No. 2 Alabama, No. 5 Auburn, No. 6 Georgia, No. 14 Mississippi State
Sun Belt: No. 63 Appalachian State, No. 66 Arkansas State, No. 78 Troy, No. 106 Georgia Southern

Stats vs. conventional wisdom

There are no significant surprises here. In all, 22 of the S&P+ top 25 are also in the early human top 25. But here are some of the prominent teams S&P+ is highest on, compared to the human rankings:

Mississippi State (+10): No. 14 per S&P+, No. 24 per humans
Notre Dame (+9): No. 9 per S&P+, No. 16 per humans
Washington (+7): No. 4 per S&P+, No. 11 per humans
Oklahoma State (+6): No. 19 per S&P+, No. 25 per humans

And the other way around:

West Virginia (-24): No. 19 per humans, No. 43 per S&P+
Wisconsin (-7): No. 5 per humans, No. 12 per S&P+
Texas (-7): No. 20 per humans, No. 27 per S&P+
Stanford (-6): No. 14 per humans, No. 20 per S&P+
Virginia Tech (-6): No. 15 per humans, No. 21 per S&P+

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

My spreadsheets hate John Denver

For the second straight year, one of the biggest differences between conventional wisdom and my S&P+ projections is the team from Morgantown. Last year, dramatic defensive turnover led to a barely-top-70 projection for West Virginia, a team many had in the preseason top 25. Part of the reason for WVU hype was transfer quarterback Will Grier, and since transfers are only marginally a piece of my projections, it made sense that S&P+ was underselling.

In the end, WVU split the difference. The Mountaineers were better than 70th, but they were merely a top-40 team before Grier got hurt, and they were worse after.

Last year’s fade, combined with top-50 recruiting and more attrition, means Dana Holgorsen’s squad is once again projected far lower in S&P+ than via conventional wisdom.

Projected conference averages

SEC (+10.7)
ACC (+7.9)
Big Ten (+7.9)
Pac-12 (+6.6)
Big 12 (+6.4)
AAC (-2.7)
Mountain West (-5.0)
MAC (-5.9)
Conference USA (-6.9)
Sun Belt (-7.6)

Like Alabama, the SEC was far less effective overall in 2017 than in previous years but still ended up on top (Bama won the national title, and the SEC eked out the top average in S&P+).

The combination of recruiting rankings, returning production, and minimal dead weight at the bottom means the SEC is once again projected as the top conference.

Good lord, Big Ten East

The Big Ten’s projected averages are hurt by three teams projected No. 80 or worse, plus the fact that only five conference teams are projected in the top 35.

All five of those teams, however, are projected in the top 12. And four of them are in the Big Ten East. Your projected top team, Ohio State, leads the way, but Trace McSorley and recent recruiting have Penn State predicted to remain at a top-10 level, and Michigan’s 2017 youth movement will be expected to pay off next fall. Oh yeah, and Michigan State returns more of last year’s production than any team in the country.

The East has four of the top 12 teams in the country. Not even the SEC West (four in the top 16) can match that.

Washington and Oklahoma or bust

Among the power conferences, three stand out above the other two. The Pac-12 and Big 12 are each given only one top-10 team here.

Washington is loaded and ready for another run, but if the Huskies slip, there might not be another contender in the bunch. USC has to replace a ton of production, and Oregon isn’t ready yet.

In the Big 12, Oklahoma State and TCU are both replacing key pieces, and barring a second-year leap, Texas probably won’t have all the pieces Tom Herman needs yet despite this awesome recruiting class.

You can make the case that the Big 12 is in good shape long-term (on the field, at least) because of Texas’ potential rise and OSU’s and TCU’s proven staying power. But this could be a transition year, especially considering that even the lone title contender (Oklahoma) has a lot to replace.

See More: