The overall F/+ rankings, along with my S&P+ rankings and line stats, have all been updated for all action through 12 weeks.
|Rk||Team||Record||F/+||Last Wk||Change||Off. F/+||Rk||Def. F/+||Rk||ST F/+||Rk|
I don't include this in the weekly updates, but the most interesting thing about the F/+ reactions to Week 12 comes in the ratings, not the rankings. Some moved up in both -- Georgia improved by 4.5% and went from 13th to 8th, and Wisconsin went up 3.4% and moved from 19th to 13th. But a lot of teams played iffy to poor games, and it caused some interesting movement. Auburn moved down 3.7%, which meant that both Mississippi State (down 2.2%) and TCU (down 1.9%) could regress but rise in the rankings.
Meanwhile, Florida State improved but fell in the rankings because the Seminoles didn't improve as much as Georgia did.
But yeah, when you see TCU move up after barely beating a bad Kansas team, blame Auburn. This gives you a hint as to how complicated the relationship between teams really is.
|Rk||Team||Record||S&P+||Last Wk||Change||Off. S&P+||Rk||Def. S&P+||Rk|
The biggest philosophical difference between my S&P+ ratings and Brian Fremeau's FEI is how we treat games against good and bad teams. I have always been an "It's how you play, not who you play" guy, and I treat every game (in non-garbage time) with equal weight. Brian gives more heft to games against better team. We both like our own approaches, and they produce very similar results when it comes to predictions, correlations to win percentages, etc. And the combined F/+ always ends up even better in that regard.
Our philosophical differences, however, mean our numbers have drastically different takes on Marshall. S&P+ sees a team that has dominated bad teams like a top-5 team would dominate bad teams and rates them accordingly. FEI sees a team that has beaten teams that pretty much anybody in the top 35 would beat convincingly and rates them 33rd. Combined, the Herd comes in at 18th, which certainly feels about right to me.
Auburn has begun to slip a bit, but it's hard to disagree too much with the rest of this. And it's always fun to see how much the drives-related portion of my numbers disagrees with the play-by-play portion. When I redesign S&P+ this offseason, that drive-finishing ability will be more clearly defined and rated. (Can't wait for the redesign, actually. I've got ideas!)
I'm including a portion of the second table on the Def. S&P+ page, which features some raw data and personality stats. I love the differences in Havoc Rates among great defenses. Some are crazy-disruptive (Clemson, Ole Miss, Virginia Tech), and some just let you make your move, then stop you for two-yard gain after two-yard gain (Stanford, LSU, Alabama). Some wreak havoc up front with a passive secondary (Wisconsin), and some swarm the ball while simply holding the fort up front (Ole MIss, Virginia Tech).
Only two lines rank in the top 10 in both Adj. Line Yards (run blocking) and Adj. Sack Rate: Alabama and Oklahoma. The Sooners' line is about the only sure thing for OU at the moment, but at least there's one.
Three defenses rank in the top 10 in both Adj. Line Yards and Adj. Sack Rate: Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Baylor. Baylor's defensive front has been its saving grace as its secondary battles consistency issues and its offense deals with some passing downs issues.