Last week's rankings: Meaningless Fake BCS Rankings - Week 16 2020
So the final CFP rankings have been out for a few days, let's see how they compare to the BCS?
Peter Wolfe still says he might publish rankings by November if there are enough meaningful games. Guess there weren't this year... too bad. So I'm still using the modified formula where only 5 computers are used, with the top and bottom still thrown out. Here we go:
| Team | Record | BCS Rank | BCS Average | AP Poll | AP Avg | Coaches | Coaches Avg | Computer | Computer Avg | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 11-0 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 |
| Clemson | 10-1 | 2 | 0.9436 | 2 | 0.9561 | 2 | 0.9548 | 3 | 0.9200 | 2 |
| Ohio St | 6-0 | 3 | 0.9277 | 3 | 0.9187 | 3 | 0.9043 | 2 | 0.9600 | 3 |
| Notre Dame | 10-1 | 4 | 0.8378 | 4 | 0.8632 | 4 | 0.8636 | 4 | 0.7867 | 4 |
| Texas A&M | 8-1 | 5 | 0.8158 | 5 | 0.8368 | 5 | 0.8505 | 5 | 0.7600 | 5 |
| Cincinnati | 9-0 | 6 | 0.7746 | 6 | 0.8142 | 6 | 0.7895 | 6 | 0.7200 | 8 |
| Oklahoma | 8-2 | 7 | 0.6753 | 8 | 0.7019 | 7 | 0.7239 | 8 | 0.6000 | 6 |
| Indiana | 6-1 | 8 | 0.6723 | 7 | 0.7245 | 8 | 0.6925 | 8 | 0.6000 | 11 |
| Georgia | 7-2 | 9 | 0.6694 | 11 | 0.6187 | 9 | 0.6695 | 6 | 0.7200 | 9 |
| Florida | 8-3 | 10 | 0.6119 | 10 | 0.6458 | 10 | 0.6433 | 10 | 0.5467 | 7 |
| Coastal Car | 11-0 | 11 | 0.5971 | 9 | 0.6606 | 11 | 0.5974 | 11 | 0.5333 | 12 |
| Iowa St | 8-3 | 12 | 0.5249 | 12 | 0.5452 | 12 | 0.5495 | 13 | 0.4800 | 10 |
| BYU | 10-1 | 13 | 0.4800 | 13 | 0.5026 | 15 | 0.4308 | 12 | 0.5067 | 16 |
| North Carolina | 8-3 | 14 | 0.3757 | 14 | 0.4419 | 14 | 0.4584 | 18 | 0.2267 | 13 |
| Louisiana | 9-1 | 15 | 0.3618 | 16 | 0.4142 | 17 | 0.3646 | 14 | 0.3067 | 19 |
| Northwestern | 6-2 | 16 | 0.3593 | 15 | 0.4297 | 13 | 0.4748 | 22 | 0.1733 | 14 |
| Iowa | 6-2 | 17 | 0.3492 | 17 | 0.3587 | 16 | 0.3823 | 14 | 0.3067 | 15 |
| Miami FL | 8-2 | 18 | 0.3073 | 18 | 0.3065 | 18 | 0.3089 | 14 | 0.3067 | 18 |
| USC | 5-1 | 19 | 0.2464 | 21 | 0.1781 | 19 | 0.2544 | 14 | 0.3067 | 17 |
| San Jose St | 7-0 | 20 | 0.2260 | 19 | 0.2419 | 20 | 0.2361 | 21 | 0.2000 | 22 |
| Texas | 6-3 | 21 | 0.1547 | 20 | 0.1877 | 24 | 0.1298 | 23 | 0.1467 | 20 |
| Oregon | 4-2 | 22 | 0.1233 | 25 | 0.0813 | NR | 0.0754 | 20 | 0.2133 | 25 |
| Tulsa | 6-2 | 23 | 0.1227 | 22 | 0.1761 | 25 | 0.1252 | NR | 0.0667 | 24 |
| Oklahoma St | 7-3 | 24 | 0.1062 | NR | 0.0735 | 21 | 0.1384 | 25 | 0.1067 | 21 |
| NC State | 8-3 | 25 | 0.1028 | 24 | 0.1194 | 22 | 0.1357 | NR | 0.0533 | 23 |
So for the 7th year in a row, the Top 4 is a match with the CFP rankings. Surprise surprise! Are we sure they aren't secretly using this formula...? Not that the top 4 aren't obvious to anyone, but it's good to see confirmation here. The disparity between Clemson and Notre Dame in the computer rankings is a bit baffling... were their schedules so different? They split the series... seems like it should be a wash and yet it isn't. The handling in the AP/Coaches is fine, the second game is the CCG and it "just means more", but that shouldn't factor into the computer calculations.
It's also interesting that the members of the top 25 exactly match. That's... kind of amazing. I don't know that this has happened before, because usually once you get into the 20's, the computers vary wildly and you get all sorts of junk. But here we are.
Last observation about the CFP committee... I still don't understand their love for Iowa State... and the loser here is Indiana. Nobody except the committee thinks they aren't a top 10 team, and they are losing out on a NY6 opportunity because of it. They had a fantastic year which was cut short because of Covid, and it seems the committee decided they didn't want to risk a no-show for a NY6 game. That's unfortunate because they deserved it this year.
