final rankings

[LA_Mustang]

TCU - #11
And it looks like ol' Coach Bennett had it about right ranking Oregon #15 as they finish #12.

[covok48]

Yes, thankfully losing to a down OU team will stop their incessant whining about not making it into the BCS. This seems to be a patteren for the PAC 10. First USC crying about having to share the national championship, then Cal pouting over its BCS exclusion (while they lost their bowl game to TT by double digits), and now those poor little ducks who didn't break the top ten.

[Charleston Pony]

This poll shows TCU at #9. I will be the 1st to admit I'm envious of their success, but TCU is the most overrated team on this list. At #9, there's NO WAY they even go .500 playing the 16 teams below them on that top 25 list

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... atpoll.htm

[Hoofprint]

Agreed. Admittedly, TCU is fast -- really fast -- and better than I'd like to admit. However, out of the other 24 teams on that list, if they played on a neutral field, I'd bet on the Frogs against:
UCLA, Wisconsin (maybe), Texas Tech (definitely) and Cal. Oklahoma would beat them in a re-match.

[that's great raplh]

and we beat them

[PlanoStang]

Does this mean SMU is credited with knocking off a top 10 team

[smupony94]

Does this mean SMU is credited with knocking off a top 10 team

Wow, 2005 seems even better.

[The PonyGrad]

And the funny thing is that TCU has to live with that loss for two years, if not more...

[PonyFan]

And the funny thing is that TCU has to live with that loss for two years, if not more...

A beautiful thing, isn't it?

[ponygrad90]

CFN 2005 Rankings
FINAL RANKINGSCoaches' Poll | AP Poll | Harris Poll | BCS
CFN Preseason Poll | Week 1 | Week 2 Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6
Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10
Week 11 | Week 12 | Week 13 | Week 14

Here's the CFN belief when it comes to ranking teams: From the preseason until the end of the bowls, you must rank teams based on how good you believe they are at the moment. That's the point when it comes to putting the teams in some order. However, once the year is complete, it's only fair to take the subjectivity out of it and go by what actually happened on the field. To do that, we've created the CFN Formula used to rank every season in order to properly compare and contrast seasons from different eras.

Two things to keep in mind. 1) This takes into account the entire season punishing ugly losses and pumping up good wins. A win at the beginning of the year counts the same as a win at the end, so there might be some head-to-head discrepancies; they're unavoidable in any ranking system. Remember, this is looking at an entire season and not just which team beat another team, but for the most part, this formula has been tweaked so most of the head-to-head problems end up working themselves out.

The Formula's Components:
1. Wins. - If you win, everything else falls into place. Each win counts as 1.
2. Quality Wins - The number of wins over teams that finished with a winning record. Each win counts as 1.
3. Elite Wins - The number of wins over teams that finished with two losses or fewer. Each win counts as 1 with a road win over an Elite team getting an extra 0.5. Also counting as 1 is a road win over a team that finished with three losses or fewer (but the extra 0.5 isn't added). A new wrinkle was added this year. A win over a team that finishes with three losses in a bowl game counts as one.
4. Bad Loss - The number of losses to teams that finished with three wins or fewer or a loss to a DI-AA team. Each loss counts as minus-1. Take away an additional 0.5 for a Bad Loss at home.
5. Bad Win - The number of wins to teams that finished with three wins or fewer, or a win over a D-IAA team. Each win counts as minus 0.25.
6. Elite Loss - The number of losses to teams that finished with two losses or fewer. Each loss counts as 0.25.
7. Point Differential - Points for minus points against divided by 100.
8. Winning Percentage - To take losses into account, winning percentage is in the mix. Total wins is the tie-breaker followed by winning percentage.
Notes of interest: The CFN Final Rankings
By Pete Fiutak
If you think your team is ranked too low, look at your schedule. It's all about who you played and how your entire season went. Here are the most interesting tidbits of note.
1) Virginia Tech at third.
The Hokies had two very high profile gacks, but they played a ton of above-average teams and beat a top West Virginia squad.
2) Tulsa at 18th
Win your conference and your bowl game and good things happen. Few teams got better than the year went on, and the final ranking shows that.
3) Notre Dame at 21st
For those out there who whined that the Irish didn't beat anyone other then Michigan, you're right.
4) Texas A&M at 78th
Talk about beating absolutely no one, the Aggies were 0-6 against "Quality" teams.
5) Florida State at 23rd
Five losses and little offense proved to be the killer. Don't forget about all those losses over the second half of the year. Remember, this takes the entire season into account.
2) This is NOT a ranking of which teams are the best or most talented. This is a formula to find out which teams had the best seasons. Anything else is simply opinion.
- The CFN Final Rankings based on opinion

1. Texas (13-0)
Final Score: 29.54
Quality Wins: 9. UL Lafayette, at Ohio State, at Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas Tech, Kansas, Colorado, USC
Elite Win Score: 2.5. at Ohio State, USC
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 1.Rice
Elite Loss: 0 .... Point Differential Score: 4.29 ... Winning Percentage: 1.00

2. USC (12-1)
Final Score: 25.58
Quality Wins: 6. at Oregon, at Arizona State, at Notre Dame, at California, Fresno State, UCLA
Elite Win Score: 3.5. at Oregon, Notre Dame, UCLA
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 2. Arizona, at Washington ... Elite Loss: 1. Texas
Point Differential Score: 3.41 ... Winning Percentage: 0.92

3. Virginia Tech (11-2)
Final Score: 22.82
Quality Wins: 6. at NC State, Georgia Tech, at West Virginia, Boston College, at Virginia, Louisville
Elite Win Score: 2.5. at West Virginia, Louisville
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 1. at Duke ... Elite Loss: 0.
Point Differential Score: 2.72 ... Winning Percentage: 0.85

4. Penn State (11-1)
Final Score: 20.76
Quality Wins: 6. Central Michigan, at Northwestern, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Florida State
Elite Win Score: 1. Ohio State
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 1. at Illinois ... Elite Loss: 0.
Point Differential Score: 2.09 ... Winning Percentage: 0.92

5. LSU (11-2)
Final Score: 20.33
Quality Wins: 5. Arizona State, Florida, Auburn, at Alabama, Miami
Elite Win Score: 2.5. at Alabama, Miami
Bad Loss Score: 0
Bad Wins: 4. North Texas, at Miss State, Appalachian State, Ole Miss
Elite Loss: 0 ... Point Differential Score: 1.98 ... Winning Percentage: 0.85

6. Ohio State (10-2)
Final Score: 19.17
Quality Wins: 5. Iowa, at Minnesota, Northwestern, at Michigan, Notre Dame
Elite Win Score: 1. Notre Dame
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 1. Illinois ... Elite Loss: 2. Texas, at Penn State
Point Differential Score: 2.09 ... Winning Percentage: 0.83

7. TCU (11-1)
Final Score: 17.42
Quality Wins: 4. at Oklahoma, Utah, New Mexico, Iowa State
Elite Win Score: 0. at West Virginia, Louisville
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 1. UNLV ... Elite Loss: 0.
Point Differential Score: 1.75 ... Winning Percentage: 0.92

8. West Virginia (11-1)
Final Score: 17.38
Quality Wins: 3. at Rutgers, Louisville, Georgia
Elite Win Score: 1. Georgia
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 2. at Syracuse, Wofford ... Elite Loss: 1. Virginia Tech
Point Differential Score: 1.75 ... Winning Percentage: 0.92

9. Georgia (10-3)
Final Score: 17.23
Quality Wins: 4. Boise State, South Carolina, at Georgia Tech, LSU
Elite Win Score: 1. LSU
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 2. at Miss State, Kentucky ... Elite Loss: 1. West Virginia
Point Differential Score: 1.71 ... Winning Percentage: 0.77

10. Alabama (10-2)
Final Score: 16.88
Quality Wins: 4. Southern Miss, at South Carolina, Florida, Texas Tech
Elite Win Score: 1. Texas Tech
Bad Loss Score: 0 ... Bad Wins: 3. at Ole Miss, Utah State, at Miss State
Elite Loss: 1. LSU ... Point Differential Score: 1.35 ... Winning Percentage: 0.83

Team Conf. Wins Losses Quality Elite Bad Loss Bad Win Elite Loss Pnt For Pnt Ag Pnt Diff Win % CFN Score
11 Miami ACC 9 3 4 1.5 0 2 1 325 171 1.54 0.75 16.54
12 Auburn SEC 9 3 3 2 0 3 1 386 186 2 0.75 16.25
13 Wisconsin Big Ten 10 3 3 1 0 1 1 446 309 1.37 0.77 16.14
14 Texas Tech Big 12 9 3 3 0 0 2 2 473 226 2.47 0.75 15.22
15 Boston Coll ACC 9 3 4 0 0 0 1 310 191 1.19 0.75 15.19
16 Florida SEC 9 3 4 0 0 2 2 343 226 1.17 0.75 14.92
17 Oregon Pac 10 10 2 3 0 0 3 1 414 278 1.36 0.83 14.69
18 Tulsa CUSA 9 4 4 0 0 3 0 430 305 1.25 0.69 14.19
19 UCLA Pac 10 10 2 4 0 1 2 1 469 410 0.59 0.83 14.17
20 Oklahoma Big 12 8 4 3 1 0 0 3 323 277 0.46 0.67 13.88
21 Notre Dame Ind 9 3 2 0 0 1 2 440 264 1.76 0.75 13.76
22 Toledo MAC 9 3 3 0 0 3 0 429 261 1.68 0.75 13.68
23 Florida State ACC 8 5 3 1 0 3 2 379 283 0.96 0.62 13.33
24 Clemson ACC 8 4 4 0 0 2 0 316 211 1.05 0.67 13.22
25 Boise State WAC 9 4 3 0 0 5 0 469 317 1.52 0.69 12.96
26 Louisville Big East 9 3 1 0 0 2 1 521 285 2.36 0.75 12.86
27 Michigan Big Ten 7 5 4 1 0 0 1 245 244 0.01 0.58 12.84
28 Georgia Tech ACC 7 5 3 2 0 1 1 222 241 -0.19 0.58 12.39
29 Northern Ill MAC 7 5 4 0 0 2 0 389 274 1.15 0.58 12.23
30 Nebraska Big 12 8 4 3 0 0 1 0 296 252 0.44 0.67 11.86
31 Fresno State WAC 8 5 2 0 0 5 2 491 292 1.99 0.62 11.86
32 Nevada WAC 9 3 3 0 0 5 0 410 383 0.27 0.75 11.77
33 Iowa Big Ten 7 5 2 1 0 2 1 360 240 1.2 0.58 11.53
34 Virginia ACC 7 5 4 0 0 3 1 320 279 0.41 0.58 11.49
35 Kansas Big 12 7 5 4 0 0 2 1 269 264 0.05 0.58 11.38
36 Missouri Big 12 7 5 3 0 0 0 1 369 350 0.19 0.58 11.02
37 NC State ACC 7 5 3 0 0 1 1 249 212 0.37 0.58 10.95
38 Northwestern Big Ten 7 5 3 0 0 1 3 388 407 -0.19 0.58 10.89
39 Iowa State Big 12 7 5 2 0 0 1 1 339 230 1.09 0.58 10.67
40 Arizona State Pac 10 7 5 2 0 0 3 4 442 359 0.83 0.58 10.66
41 Minnesota Big Ten 7 5 2 0 0 1 2 429 348 0.81 0.58 10.64
42 UTEP CUSA 8 4 2 0 0 4 0 382 311 0.71 0.67 10.38
43 UCF CUSA 8 5 2 0 0 2 0 373 373 0 0.62 10.12
44 South Florida Big East 6 6 3 0 0 2 2 276 216 0.6 0.50 10.10
45 Central Mich MAC 6 5 3 0 0 0 1 260 260 0 0.55 9.80
46 Colorado Big 12 7 6 2 0 0 1 2 305 307 -0.02 0.54 9.77
47 South Carolina SEC 7 5 2 0 0 1 1 284 279 0.05 0.58 9.63
48 California Pac 10 8 4 0 0 0 5 3 395 254 1.41 0.67 9.58
49 North Carolina ACC 5 6 5 0 0 1 1 198 288 -0.9 0.45 9.55
50 Memphis CUSA 7 5 3 0 1.5 1 0 326 276 0.5 0.58 9.33
51 Miami Univ. MAC 7 4 1 0 0 3 1 371 258 1.13 0.64 9.27
52 Southern Miss CUSA 7 5 1 0 0 2 1 355 272 0.83 0.58 9.16
53 Colorado State MWC 6 6 3 0 0 1 1 321 369 -0.48 0.50 9.02
54 Western Mich MAC 7 4 2 0 0 3 0 354 342 0.12 0.64 9.01
55 Akron MAC 7 6 2 0 0 2 0 307 318 -0.11 0.54 8.93
56 Utah MWC 7 5 1 0 0 3 1 360 289 0.71 0.58 8.79
57 Tennessee SEC 5 6 2 1.5 0 2 1 205 205 0 0.45 8.70
58 Navy Ind 8 4 0 0 0 5 0 410 313 0.97 0.67 8.39
59 New Mexico MWC 6 5 2 0 0 2 1 326 327 -0.01 0.55 8.29
60 Michigan St Big Ten 5 6 1 1 0 1 2 372 316 0.56 0.45 8.26
61 Houston CUSA 6 6 2 0 0 4 1 337 324 0.13 0.50 7.88
62 La Tech WAC 7 4 1 0 0 5 0 316 281 0.35 0.64 7.74
63 BYU MWC 6 6 1 0 0 2 1 396 351 0.45 0.50 7.70
64 Maryland ACC 5 6 2 0 0 1 2 270 275 -0.05 0.45 7.65
65 Bowling Green MAC 6 5 1 0 0 3 0 371 304 0.67 0.55 7.47
66 Rutgers Big East 7 5 1 0 1 3 1 344 307 0.37 0.58 7.45
67 UAB CUSA 5 6 2 0 0 2 0 307 264 0.43 0.45 7.38
68 Kansas State Big 12 5 6 2 0 0 1 0 289 305 -0.16 0.45 7.04
69 Purdue Big Ten 5 6 1 0 0 1 1 330 309 0.21 0.45 6.66
70 Arkansas St Sun Belt 6 6 1 0 0 3 0 294 303 -0.09 0.50 6.66
71 Washington St Pac 10 4 7 1 1 0 3 3 368 346 0.22 0.36 6.58
72 SMU CUSA 5 6 2 1 1.5 1 0 229 280 -0.51 0.45 6.19
73 Baylor Big 12 5 6 1 0 0 1 1 236 291 -0.55 0.45 5.90
74 San Diego St MWC 5 7 1 0 1 1 3 323 325 -0.02 0.42 5.90
75 Stanford Pac 10 5 6 2 0 1.5 1 3 269 337 -0.68 0.45 5.77
76 Wake Forest ACC 4 7 2 0 0 1 0 269 316 -0.47 0.36 5.64
77 Connecticut Big East 5 6 0 0 0 3 1 272 211 0.61 0.45 5.56
78 Texas A&M Big 12 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 352 343 0.09 0.45 5.54
79 Ball State MAC 4 7 3 0 0 0 0 233 416 -1.83 0.36 5.53
80 Eastern Mich MAC 4 7 2 0 0 2 0 240 295 -0.55 0.36 5.31
81 Oregon State Pac 10 5 6 2 0 1.5 2 2 293 365 -0.72 0.45 5.23
82 Pitt Big East 5 6 0 0 0 3 1 267 243 0.24 0.45 5.19
83 Air Force MWC 4 7 1 0 0 1 1 330 349 -0.19 0.36 5.17
84 East Carolina CUSA 5 6 0 0 0 2 1 267 317 -0.5 0.45 4.70
85 Army Ind 4 7 1 0 0 1 1 220 294 -0.74 0.36 4.62
86 UL Lafayette Sun Belt 6 5 0 0 1.5 2 1 286 304 -0.18 0.55 4.62
87 Arkansas SEC 4 7 0 0 0 3 3 283 271 0.12 0.36 4.48
88 Hawaii WAC 5 7 0 0 0 4 1 368 428 -0.6 0.42 4.07
89 Indiana Big Ten 4 7 1 0 0 2 1 248 361 -1.13 0.36 3.98
90 Arizona Pac 10 3 8 1 1 1.5 1 2 252 290 -0.38 0.27 3.64
91 Oklahoma St Big 12 4 7 1 0 0 2 1 222 344 -1.22 0.36 3.89
92 Vanderbilt SEC 5 6 0 0 1.5 2 1 299 321 -0.22 0.45 3.48
93 Marshall CUSA 4 7 0 0 0 2 1 204 285 -0.81 0.36 3.30
94 MTSU Sun Belt 4 7 0 0 1.5 1 1 210 206 0.04 0.36 2.90
95 Wyoming MWC 4 7 0 0 0 2 1 271 397 -1.26 0.36 2.85
96 Cincinnati Big East 4 7 0 0 0 2 2 192 345 -1.53 0.36 2.83
97 Troy Sun Belt 4 7 0 0 0 3 0 175 255 -0.8 0.36 2.81
98 Ohio MAC 4 7 0 0 0 2 1 192 336 -1.44 0.36 2.67
99 FIU Sun Belt 5 6 0 0 1.5 3 0 257 323 -0.66 0.45 2.54
100 UL Monroe Sun Belt 5 6 0 0 1.5 2 0 239 339 -1 0.45 2.45
101 Ole Miss SEC 3 8 1 0 1 2 2 148 245 -0.97 0.27 2.30
102 Washington Pac 10 2 9 0 0 0 1 3 237 337 -1 0.18 1.68
103 Fla Atlantic Sun Belt 2 9 1 0 0 1 0 148 339 -1.91 0.18 1.02
104 Mississippi St SEC 3 8 0 0 1 3 2 153 259 -1.06 0.27 0.96
105 Illinois Big Ten 2 9 1 0 0 1 2 187 435 -2.48 0.18 0.95
106 North Texas Sun Belt 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 157 346 -1.89 0.18 0.54
107 Kentucky SEC 3 8 0 0 1 2 0 239 375 -1.36 0.27 0.41
108 Utah State WAC 3 8 0 0 1 3 1 208 360 -1.52 0.27 0.25
109 Syracuse Big East 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 152 295 -1.43 0.09 -0.34
110 UNLV MWC 2 9 0 0 1 1 1 207 381 -1.74 0.18 -0.56
111 San Jose St WAC 3 8 0 0 2 3 0 248 357 -1.09 0.27 -0.57
112 Rice CUSA 1 10 0 0 0 1 2 241 447 -2.06 0.09 -0.72
113 Duke ACC 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 177 408 -2.31 0.09 -1.22
114 Tulane CUSA 2 9 0 0 2.5 1 0 234 348 -1.14 0.18 -1.71
115 Kent State MAC 1 10 0 0 1.5 0 0 180 331 -1.51 0.09 -1.92
116 Buffalo MAC 1 10 0 0 1 1 0 110 327 -2.17 0.09 -2.33
117 Idaho WAC 2 9 0 0 3 2 0 243 419 -1.76 0.18 -3.08
118 Temple Ind 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 107 497 -3.9 0.00 -3.90
119 New Mexico S WAC 0 12 0 0 4 0 0 198 465 -2.67

[SMU Football Blog]

SMU is ranked above four of the six teams it lost, too.

[HorsePower]

I didn't read this closely enough to decipher what makes a quality win and what doesn't. But UT gets the top spot, and is said to have nine "quality wins" .... and one of them is Louisiana-Lafayette?

[SMU Football Blog]

I didn't read this closely enough to decipher what makes a quality win and what doesn't. But UT gets the top spot, and is said to have nine "quality wins" .... and one of them is Louisiana-Lafayette?

"quality wins" are over any team with a better than .500 record. U-La-La was 6-5.

[BUTitan]

I really can't see how SMU is ranked over BU. Both of us went 5-6, but SMU is in a much weaker conference and BU beat you at your HOME!!! Man I can't wait to beat TCU next year to boost our ratings.



P.S. Don't get me wrong I think SMU could beat BU if we played today.

[smupony94]

I really can't see how SMU is ranked over BU. Both of us went 5-6, but SMU is in a much weaker conference and BU beat you at your HOME!!! Man I can't wait to beat TCU next year to boost our ratings.



P.S. Don't get me wrong I think SMU could beat BU if we played today.

beating TCU will go a long way to making me a Baylor supporter.