Simulated BCS Rankings Week Three: Georgia up to No. 4, Stanford to No. 5 as USC goes tumbling
A first major upset of the season always seems to re-center the focus of the college football nation. In 2012, that upset came courtesy of a Stanford victory over previously feared USC, and the rankings certainly reflect the impact of such a result.
|Simulated BCS Rankings|
|1||Alabama Crimson Tide|
|Scroll down for more|
Most notably, USC tumbles in our latest simulated BCS rankings, which still have Alabama and LSU well above the rest of the competition. The surprises come almost immediately after that, however, as Georgia springboards past South Carolina into the top-five simulated BCS rankings.
Then at No. 5, Stanford appears on the strength of the nation’s second-best computer aggregate score, trailing only Alabama in that category. Despite not getting the bounce they might have expected after the upset of the No. 2 or No. 3 team in the country — depending who you asked — the Cardinal certainly enjoyed a bounce in the BCS rankings, landing at No. 5.
Finally seeing some support from the computers, Florida State enters the top 10, at No. 8. And Notre Dame, on the strength of their victory over previously loved Michigan State, also enters the top 10 of the simulated BCS rankings for the first time.
West Virginia is still suffering from a lack of support from the computers, sitting at No. 12 in the simulation despite No. 8 and No. 7 votes of confidence from the polls.
These simulated rankings are not necessarily the most accurate in terms of reflecting the actual components of the BCS, but they do give an interesting first look at the BCS picture.
Without the Harris Interactive Poll (1/3 of the formula) and two of the six computers (all six of which account for another third), these rankings are about 56 percent “complete.” What we do have, however, is the USA Today Coaches’ Poll, as well as early looks at Kenneth Massey, Richard Billingsley, Jeff Sagarin and the Colley Matrix, for what we’d call a 56 percent confidence that these rankings are a “good” reflection of the BCS.
Among the four computer rankings we’re using, only Kenneth Massey’s is the non-BCS version, as his non-margin of victory rankings are not well-connected enough yet to signify an accurate ranking. We’ll likely cross that threshold next week.
We took a computer aggregate without eliminating any of the four available to keep extra transparency, but kept the formula for the human elements intact while subbing the AP Poll for the Harris Poll.
The first BCS rankings will be available in October, but for now, this will have to do. Enjoy!
Check out the full simulation worksheet. These simulated ranking reflect the following formula:
BCS Score = (AP Poll Score/1500 + Coaches Poll Score/1475 + Computer Poll Aggregate/100)/3
Here are the simulated rankings after week three:
Simulated BCS Standings — September 16
|1||Alabama Crimson Tide||.9918|
|7||South Carolina Gamecocks||.6889|
|8||Florida State Seminoles||.6202|
|9||Notre Dame Fighting Irish||.6103|
|12||West Virginia Mountaineers||.5520|
|14||Kansas State Wildcats||.5118|
|16||TCU Horned Frogs||.3481|
←Simulated BCS Rankings Week Two: Alabama, LSU continue to lead, while South Carolina springs to No. 5lsu tigersoregon ducks projected BCS push september 16 simulated bcs rankings week three