Nameless Top 25 (Week 13)

Every year, numerous teams open the season with lofty rankings that evaporate after just a few weeks. Early rankings are bias driven – both by the school and the conference they play in. For example, ESPN’s

FPI started every SEC team in the Top 40 this preseason, which is ludicrous.

In an effort to strip away blue blood bias (which may or may not benefit Miami), we’ve concocted a “Nameless Top 25” that’s only going to consider on the field results. Here’s the criteria:

• Overall Football Bowl Series (FBS) Record – simply put what is a team’s record this year after cutting out any FCS fundraising wins (there have been no upset losses to consider this year).
• Power 4 (P4) Record – regardless what conference the team plays, what is their record against teams from the ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, and SEC members plus independents Notre Dame and UConn as well as Pac 12 castoffs Oregon St. and Washington St.
• Great 5 (G5) Record – what is their record against the rest of the FBS field.
• Good Wins – defined as a blowout win (17pt+) against any FBS team, a win against a currently ranked team, or a win over an unranked P4 team that nevertheless has a winning record.
• Bad Losses – defined as a loss to any G5 team, a loss to a P4 team with a losing record, or a blowout loss (17pt+) to anyone even if they’re ranked.
• Head-to-Head – did you win or lose against other teams on this list.

That’s it. No advanced metrics or stats. Most importantly, no built-in bias of team or conference names. Just on the field results with two weeks remaining in the season. If you played weaker teams from the G5 or P4 teams with losing records, were you winning comfortably by at least three possessions? When you played tougher games, did you win or lose those? Did anyone blow you out (playoff teams shouldn’t be getting blown out to anyone). Finally, all things being equal, you shouldn’t be ranked ahead of a team that beat you.

As a suggestion, readers should first look up and down this Top 25 list with redacted names to see if you generally agree with the rankings and then scroll to the bottom to see the rankings revealed with the team names and their current AP and CFP ranking.

Nameless Top 25

1) Team No. 1 (FBS record, 10-0)

• P4 Record: 8-0; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 9; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 6 (away)

2) Team No. 2 (FBS record, 9-0)

• P4 Record: 8-0; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 9; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 19 (home)

3) Team No. 3 (FBS record, 10-0)

• P4 Record: 8-0; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 7; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 9 (away)

4) Team No. 4 (FBS record, 9-1)

• P4 Record: 8-1; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 9; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Blew out Team No. 12 (home); Beat Team No. 15 (away)

5) Team No. 5 (FBS record, 8-1)

• P4 Record: 7-1; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 5; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 7 (home); Lost to Team No. 11 (home); Blew out Team No. 19 (home)

Top 5 Commentary:

It should be obvious who the Top 3 teams are, it’s just a matter of slight differences. The No. 1 team gets the nod over the No. 2 team for having the better win, while the No. 3 team had a couple tight games that the top two teams didn’t.

The real deliberation begins at No. 4 with the one loss teams. On the one hand, the No. 4 team has the worse loss (to a good, but unranked team) and the No. 5 team has the better win between the two. On the other hand, the No. 5 team has more frequently played with fire with just five good wins compared to the No. 4 team’s nine good wins. Basically, the No. 4 team has been dominating competition with the exception of one off day to a good team. It’s close, but No. 4 gets the nod for best one-loss team.

6) Team No. 6 (FBS record, 8-1)

• P4 Record: 8-1; G5 Record: 0-0
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 1 (home)

7) Team No. 7 (FBS record, 9-1)

• P4 Record: 7-1; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 4; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 5 (away); Beat Team No. 10 (away); Blew Out Team No. 25 (home)

8) Team No. 8 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 5; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 9 (home); Lost to Team No. 20 (away); Lost to Team No. 23 (home)

9) Team No. 9 (FBS record, 8-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 7; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 3 (home); Lost to Team No. 8 (away); beat Team No. 13 (home)

10) Team No. 10 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 5-2; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 6 (home); Beat Team No. 11 (away); Beat Team No. 18 (home); Blown out by Team No. 19 (neutral)

11) Team No. 11 (FBS record, 8-2)

• P4 Record: 7-2; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 5 (away); lost to Team No. 10 (home); beat Team No. 14 (home)

12) Team No. 12 (FBS record, 8-1)

• P4 Record: 7-1; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Blown Out by Team No. 4 (away); beat Team No. 15 (home); Beat No. 21 (away)

Top 6-12 Commentary

Head-to-head results really separates these one and two loss teams from one another. The No. 5 team, with only one loss, beat the No. 7 team, so No. 5 needs to be ahead. The No. 6 team is odd because they have only one Top 25 matchup for comparison, a loss to the No. 1 team, whereas the No. 5 team features two ranked wins. So the No. 5 team gets a slight nod over No. 6.

Then No. 8 beat No. 9, both have the same records, and neither has any bad losses. Sure, No. 8’s losses are worse than No. 9, but ultimately No. 8 should be ahead of No. 9. because of the head-to-head win. That also makes No. 8’s best win better. And both should be behind one loss Nos. 5-7. Also, because neither has a bad loss they both merit being ahead of No. 10 and No. 12.

No. 10 has the same record as No. 8 and 9, but they are the first team on this list with a bad loss – a neutral site blowout loss to No. 19. But, No. 10 should be ranked ahead of No. 11 also with two-losses because of the head-to-head. But-for the head-to-head win, No. 11’s resume would probably put them as high as No. 8. Ultimately, the head-to-head results slot together the 8 through 11 teams.

Finally is No. 12, which is the second highest rated team with a bad loss. Arguments could be made for having No. 12 above No. 11 or No. 10 because of the better overall record, but those teams get the nod because a) No. 11 doesn’t have a bad loss, and b) both No. 10 and No. 11 have secured a more signature win from teams currently ranked.

13) Team No. 13 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 5; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: lost to Team No. 9 (away); Blew out Team No. 18 (home)

14) Team No. 14 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 4-2; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 11 (away); Lost to Team No. 19 (away)

15) Team No. 15 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 7; Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Blown Out by Team No. 4 (home); Lost to Team No. 12 (away)

16) Team No. 16 (FBS record, 8-1)

• P4 Record: 7-1; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 4; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: None

17) Team No. 17 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 5; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 23 (away)

18) Team No. 18 (FBS record, 8-2)

• P4 Record: 6-2; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 4; Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 10 (away); Blown out by Team No. 13 (away)

Top 13-18 Commentary

The No. 13 team is the only team with a signature, ranked win which merits strong separation from the No. 18 team despite the same win-loss record. However, No. 13 team also needs to slot in somewhere behind the No. 9 team due to the head-to-head and same record. Because this team is on the low-side of good wins, it gets put just behind the group ahead of it.

The rest of this group lacks signature, ranked wins. Nos. 14, 15, and 18 each got two cracks at a top 25 team, and each lost those opportunities (and in the case of Nos. 15 and 18, had a blowout loss). No. 14 gets the higher mark of this group because of the high number of good wins and, unlike, No. 15, a lack of bad losses.

No. 16 and 17 are tough to place because both have a lack of good wins and bad losses. Both get placed behind No. 13 (who has a signature, ranked win) as well as No. 14 and 15 who both have significantly more good wins. And No. 16 gets the nod over No. 17 for having the better overall record.

19) Team No. 19 (FBS record, 6-3)

• P4 Record: 4-3; G5 Record: 3-0
• Good Wins: 5; Bad Losses 2
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 2 (away); Blown out by Team No. 5 (away); Blew out Team No. 10 (neutral); Beat Team No. 14 (home)

20) Team No. 20 (FBS record, 6-3)

• P4 Record: 5-3; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 4; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 8 (home)

21) Team No. 21 (FBS record, 6-3)

• P4 Record: 5-3; G5 Record: 1-0
• Good Wins: 4 Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 12 (home)

22) Team No. 22 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 1-1; G5 Record: 5-1
• Good Wins: 6; Bad Losses 2
• Ranked Head-to-Head: None

23) Team No. 23 (FBS record, 6-3)

• P4 Record: 4-3; G5 Record: 2-0
• Good Wins: 3; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Beat Team No. 8 (away); Lost to Team No. 17 (home); beat Team No. 24 (home)

24) Team No. 24 (FBS record, 8-1)

• P4 Record: 0-1; G5 Record: 7-0
• Good Wins: 3; Bad Losses 0
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Lost to Team No. 23 (away)

25) Team No. 25 (FBS record, 7-2)

• P4 Record: 2-1; G5 Record: 5-1
• Good Wins: 3; Bad Losses 1
• Ranked Head-to-Head: Blown Out by Team No. 7 (away)

Remaining Top 25 Commentary

No. 19 is the top three-loss team by virtue of having ranked wins (one of which was a blowout), but it’s two bad losses coupled with overall three losses keeps it behind the other teams.

No. 20, 21, and 23 are also three loss teams. No. 20 has an argument for being ahead of No. 19 because it lacks any bad losses, but ultimately No. 19 should get the nod for its two ranked wins. No. 23 also has two signature ranked wins, but this team has been playing with fire and has only three good wins – tied for lowest amongst ranked teams. No. 21 gets wedged between for having a higher number of good wins and just one bad loss.

Nos. 22, 24, and 25 are obviously G5 teams. Unlike last year (with Boise St.), none of the G5 teams are standing out with a high number of good wins or, frankly, any wins over other ranked teams. The only team to collect a significant number of good wins is No. 22, but they also have 2 bad losses. The strength of their good wins puts them above the other G5 teams (and No. 23 with only three good wins) but no higher. As for the final two teams, No. 24 gets the nod for not having a bad, blowout loss when they faced a ranked team. Also, No. 23 should be ranked ahead No. 24 based on the head-to-head.

Rankings Revealed

1. Indiana (AP No. 2; +1 rank)
2. Ohio State (AP No. 1; -1 rank)
3. Texas A&M (AP No. 3; same rank)
4. Texas Tech (AP No. 6; +2 rank)
5. Georgia (AP No. 4; -1 rank)
6. Oregon (AP No. 6; same rank)
7. Ole Miss (AP No. 5; -2 rank)
8. Miami (AP No. 14; +6 rank)
9. Notre Dame (AP No. 9; same rank)
10. Oklahoma (AP No. 8; -2 rank)
11. Alabama (AP No. 10; -1 rank)
12. BYU (AP No. 11; -1 rank)
13. USC (AP No. 16; +3 rank)
14. Vanderbilt (AP No. 12; -2 rank)
15. Utah (AP No. 13; -2 rank)
16. Georgia Tech (AP No. 15; -1 rank)
17. Virginia (AP No. 19; +2 rank)
18. Michigan (AP No. 18; same rank)
19. Texas (AP No. 17; -2 rank)
20. SMU (AP No. 28; +8 rank)
21. Arizona (AP No. 37; +16 rank)
22. San Diego St. (AP No. 33; +11 rank)
23. Louisville (AP No. 30; +7 rank)
24. James Madison (AP No. 21; -3 rank)
25. Tulane (AP No. 24; -1 rank)

There’s a reason why this analysis is being made on a Miami blog – the Canes are getting absolutely hosed amongst the Top 20 teams, and the main reason is the undervaluing of the middle tier ACC teams particularly Louisville and SMU – two teams who have very comparable resumes to fellow three loss teams like Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois ranked ahead of them. Critically, SMU and Louisville are only losing close games – they’re competitive with everyone they’ve faced, even in losses. Louisville also beat James Madison in a head-to-head which, again, is wild that voters are ignoring this. Unlike several 2 loss teams, they’re not getting blown out by their rivals on home or neutral fields. AP Voters (and the CFP Committee) seem to place minimal emphasis on blowout wins and losses. Highly ranked teams should be competitive against everyone they face. Say what you want about Miami last year, but nobody was going to blow them out Cam Ward (and nobody will blowout Hetherman’s defense this year).

Outside Miami and the ACC, takeaways include:

• Texas Tech is not getting enough praise for running rampant over the Big XII – they should be on pace to get one of the four first-round byes, and the only reason they may not is SEC bias.
• Alabama losing to FSU is not even hurting them that much in this Nameless Top 25 – it was less than 17 points, and FSU has a .500 record, so that didn’t go into the “bad loss” column. Still, you have to slot Bama behind Oklahoma based on the head-to-head. The question then becomes, is Bama/Oklahoma better than Notre Dame/Miami? The answer should be ND/Miami because three-loss Texas blew out Oklahoma on a neutral field (and, yes, Mateer was playing…poorly). As much as the Bama win raises Oklahoma, the Texas loss drags them down. Nobody blew out Notre Dame or Miami. Miami had two comparable losses to (should be ranked) three-loss teams, but in one game they were driving for the win in the last possession while the other was an overtime defeat. Not blowouts.
• USC should be getting more credit for blowing out Michigan. If USC had started higher in the polls, they’d probably be a Top 10 team at the moment. Aside from Miami, USC would have the biggest gripe about being snubbed as a two-loss team.
• San Diego State has demolished the Mountain West with blowout after blowout, but they also have two bad days themselves in blow out losses at Washington St. and at Hawaii. Still, I bet the average AP voter doesn’t know that San Diego St. drubbed a 6-4 Cal team to the tune of 34-0. Again, nobody is putting value on the ACC mid-level teams.
• Tulane’s resume could improve to best in the G5 if they finish strong, and if Duke and Northwestern (both 5-5) also earn bowl eligibility.

As for the others outside looking in, here are the other three loss teams (and one or two loss G5 teams) missing the cut and why:

• SEC: Tennessee (6-3) and Missouri (6-3) – Tennessee and Missouri each have only 3 good wins, which would be tied for lowest in the Top 25 (with No. 23 Louisville and No. 24 James Madison), but each also has a bad, blowout loss that those teams don’t have.
• Big Ten: Washington (6-3), Illinois (6-3), and Nebraska (6-3) – Washington and Illinois each have 3 bad losses, more than anyone else in the Top 25; Nebraska has only 2 good wins, while every other ranked team has at least 3.
• Big XII: Houston (7-2), Arizona State (6-3), and Cincinnati (6-3) – Houston is No. 26 with 5 good wins and 2 bad losses (like No. 19 Texas, and one less good win than No. 22 San Diego St.), including a head-to-head over Arizona, but Texas’ ranked wins elevate them, losing to an awful West Virginia team by 10 deflates them, and a lack of bad losses keep Nos. 23-25 just ahead of them – that said, at just two losses, you could reasonably argue that they should be ranked; Arizona St. has two bad losses with only 4 good wins, less than the ranked teams with two bad losses; and Cincinnati is like Tennessee in that they only have 3 good wins but one bad loss (blowout at Utah)
• ACC: Pittsburgh (6-3) and Wake Forest (6-3) – Like unranked Nebraska, Pitt has only 2 good wins plus 2 bad losses; Wake has a stronger argument than people may think with two ranked wins, but in total they only have 3 good wins plus a blowout (42-7) loss at Florida State, putting them in the same boat as Tennessee, Missouri, and Cincinnati.
• Others: North Texas (8-1), Navy (7-2), and UNLV (7-2) – Navy would be ahead of unranked Tennessee and Cincinnati with 4 good wins and 1 bad loss, but similarly situated Tulane gets a slight bump for scheduling three P4 teams and going 2-1 against them (and Tulane’s two P4 wins are against 5-5 teams that could become ’good wins’ depending on how they finish their seasons); North Texas has only 3 good wins and 1 bad loss, like unranked Tennessee and Cincinnati; UNLV has just 2 good wins plus 1 bad loss