Pre-Season College Football Rankings and Ratings 2010/2011 NCAA FBS (Division I-A) by YPPSYS
Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware). We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind. No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We expressly disclaim any and all liability for any consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis or reasoning - for which we make no warranty of any kind for accuracy or correctness.
Image via Wikipedia
During the season, YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS - NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) are based primarily on net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), strength of schedule, defense and games lost. The yards per play advantage stat, when adjusted for strength of schedule and W-L record gives a superb non-subjective rank of football teams well-matching human judgment.
Our pre-season rankings use the ratings from the previous season as our basis, except where the rating is followed by an exclamation mark (!), meaning that there are factors such as head coaching or other coaching changes, NCAA sanctions, player news of import, or simply our bias -- e.g. our own alma mater schools are Nebraska and Stanford, so we rank them higher than someone else might, it is more fun for us that way.
We honestly think that defense and the kicking game wins football games and the Huskers look like the best defense in the country and they have the nation's best kicker, Alex Henery. If they can get their sputtering offense moving this year, who can beat them?
Virginia Tech this season fields a team superior in defense AND offense, which is bad news for opposing teams.
On offense, Stanford has probably the nation's best quarterback in Andrew Luck, and with numerous top athletes shifting to defense, the Cardinal will be a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully, the offensive line will be strong enough to protect their Luck.
We buck the forecasting trend and thus put these teams more toward the top of our rankings to make it a bit more interesting, whereas records from the past season might favor other teams at these positions, though such odds are merely wise speculations -- no one knows for sure. As the season wears on and when schedule difficulty data are more reliable, we will shift to actual performance in this season, which will shift the rankings as required.
NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule difficulty = Schedule difficulty past season according to Massey Ratings (SchF=Schedule Full)
^ = bonus for defense (+.1 for 5.0 or better)
^^ = bonus for defense (+.2 for 4.5 or better)
^^^ = bonus for defense (+.3 for 4.0 or better)
* = penalty for defense (-.1 for 5.5 or worse)
** = -.2 for 6.0 or worse
*** = -.3 for 6.5 or worse)
(!) = important head coaching change, important player changes, etc.
Yards per play (YPP) Statistics are taken from cfbstats.com
To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted.
(NOTE NEW CALCULATIONS HERE. DEFENSE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES.) A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.5 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 6.5 yards per play. For a defense that allows 5.0 yards per play or less, .1 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.5 yards per play or less, .2 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.0 yards per play or less, .3 is added to the rating. We gave the Nebraska Cornhuskers a +.1 bonus last year for AP Player of the Year, Ndamukong Suh.
In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first, unless one team has beaten the other, in which case the winner is ranked above the other team (or should be in case we missed it).
Tweaks in the rankings -- as opposed to ratings -- were made at the end of the year last year to account for losses incurred in late regular season or bowl games, e.g., Florida had the best rating in our system, but had to be placed after Alabama in the final rankings because the Gators lost to the Crimson Tide.
The final rankings for the past season did not always necessarily correspond to the actual ratings, but our system nevertheless regards a team with the best rating to be the stronger team which in 6 games out of 10 should win. For this season, past season ratings rather than rankings are determinative.
One point of rating difference is equivalent to 6 points on the scoreboard. Based on some detailed tweaks and analysis of data, THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED to 6 points as of this season FROM THE 9 POINTS PREVIOUSLY USED BY YPPSYS, a figure that was estimated when YPPSYS was developed, but which had not been sufficiently scrutinized thereafter.
The average yards per play component in NCAA Division I-A FBS college football has been remarkably constant for the years we have kept track of it - in the past season showing a median (not average, but rather the stat for the 60th viz. 61st team) for 120 teams of 5.6 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses by coaching staffs. This marvelous consistency year-in and year-out makes the yards per play stat of invaluable assistance in judging actual team strength.
In fact, the NAYPPA stat can be used very effectively to judge what impact -- objectively -- a head coaching change has made on a team, which is not always immediately apparent from the won-loss record.
For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.6 yards per play on offense has either subpar offense or subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either subpar defense or subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team. A top defense normally marks the best teams and a lack of defense normally marks weaker teams.
Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware). We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind. No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We expressly disclaim any and all liability for any consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis or reasoning - for which we make no warranty of any kind for accuracy or correctness.
Image via WikipediaDuring the season, YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS - NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) are based primarily on net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), strength of schedule, defense and games lost. The yards per play advantage stat, when adjusted for strength of schedule and W-L record gives a superb non-subjective rank of football teams well-matching human judgment.
Our pre-season rankings use the ratings from the previous season as our basis, except where the rating is followed by an exclamation mark (!), meaning that there are factors such as head coaching or other coaching changes, NCAA sanctions, player news of import, or simply our bias -- e.g. our own alma mater schools are Nebraska and Stanford, so we rank them higher than someone else might, it is more fun for us that way.
We honestly think that defense and the kicking game wins football games and the Huskers look like the best defense in the country and they have the nation's best kicker, Alex Henery. If they can get their sputtering offense moving this year, who can beat them?
Virginia Tech this season fields a team superior in defense AND offense, which is bad news for opposing teams.
On offense, Stanford has probably the nation's best quarterback in Andrew Luck, and with numerous top athletes shifting to defense, the Cardinal will be a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully, the offensive line will be strong enough to protect their Luck.
We buck the forecasting trend and thus put these teams more toward the top of our rankings to make it a bit more interesting, whereas records from the past season might favor other teams at these positions, though such odds are merely wise speculations -- no one knows for sure. As the season wears on and when schedule difficulty data are more reliable, we will shift to actual performance in this season, which will shift the rankings as required.
NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule difficulty = Schedule difficulty past season according to Massey Ratings (SchF=Schedule Full)
^ = bonus for defense (+.1 for 5.0 or better)
^^ = bonus for defense (+.2 for 4.5 or better)
^^^ = bonus for defense (+.3 for 4.0 or better)
* = penalty for defense (-.1 for 5.5 or worse)
** = -.2 for 6.0 or worse
*** = -.3 for 6.5 or worse)
(!) = important head coaching change, important player changes, etc.
Yards per play (YPP) Statistics are taken from cfbstats.com
To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted.
(NOTE NEW CALCULATIONS HERE. DEFENSE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES.) A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.5 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 6.5 yards per play. For a defense that allows 5.0 yards per play or less, .1 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.5 yards per play or less, .2 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.0 yards per play or less, .3 is added to the rating. We gave the Nebraska Cornhuskers a +.1 bonus last year for AP Player of the Year, Ndamukong Suh.
In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first, unless one team has beaten the other, in which case the winner is ranked above the other team (or should be in case we missed it).
Tweaks in the rankings -- as opposed to ratings -- were made at the end of the year last year to account for losses incurred in late regular season or bowl games, e.g., Florida had the best rating in our system, but had to be placed after Alabama in the final rankings because the Gators lost to the Crimson Tide.
The final rankings for the past season did not always necessarily correspond to the actual ratings, but our system nevertheless regards a team with the best rating to be the stronger team which in 6 games out of 10 should win. For this season, past season ratings rather than rankings are determinative.
One point of rating difference is equivalent to 6 points on the scoreboard. Based on some detailed tweaks and analysis of data, THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED to 6 points as of this season FROM THE 9 POINTS PREVIOUSLY USED BY YPPSYS, a figure that was estimated when YPPSYS was developed, but which had not been sufficiently scrutinized thereafter.
The average yards per play component in NCAA Division I-A FBS college football has been remarkably constant for the years we have kept track of it - in the past season showing a median (not average, but rather the stat for the 60th viz. 61st team) for 120 teams of 5.6 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses by coaching staffs. This marvelous consistency year-in and year-out makes the yards per play stat of invaluable assistance in judging actual team strength.
In fact, the NAYPPA stat can be used very effectively to judge what impact -- objectively -- a head coaching change has made on a team, which is not always immediately apparent from the won-loss record.
For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.6 yards per play on offense has either subpar offense or subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either subpar defense or subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team. A top defense normally marks the best teams and a lack of defense normally marks weaker teams.
| YPPSYS Pre- Season Rank | TEAM | NAYPPA (past season) | YPP OFF | YPP DEF | Schedule difficulty (past season) | W-L (past season) | Pre-Season Rating | ||||||
| 1 | Nebraska | 1.2 | 5.2 | 4.0^^^ | 33 | 10-4 | 2.0 (!) | ||||||
| 2 | Virginia Tech | 1.6 | 6.2 | 4.6^ | 5 | 10-3 | 1.9 (!) | ||||||
| 3 | Alabama | 1.9 | 6.0 | 4.1^^ | 1 | 14-0 | 1.8 (!) | ||||||
| 4 | Ohio State | 1.4 | 5.5 | 4.1^^ | 45 | 11-2 | 1.7 (!) | ||||||
| 5 | Texas | 1.8 | 5.6 | 3.8^^^ | 17 | 13-1 | 1.6 (!) | ||||||
| 6 | Florida | 2.8 | 7.0 | 4.2^^ | 4 | 13-1 | 1.5 (!) | ||||||
| 7 | Boise State | 1.7 | 6.5 | 4.8^ | 77 | 14-0 | 1.4 (!) | ||||||
| 8 | Oklahoma | 1.4 | 5.5 | 4.1^^ | 19 | 8-5 | 1.3 (!) | ||||||
| 9 | Stanford | 0.5 | 6.5 | 6.0** | 32 | 8-5 | 1.2 (!) | ||||||
| 10 | Auburn | 0.9 | 6.1 | 5.2 | 12 | 8-5 | 1.1 (!) | ||||||
| 11 | TCU | 2.5 | 6.4 | 3.9^^^ | 46 | 12-1 | 1.0 (!) | ||||||
| 12 | Penn State | 1.7 | 6.1 | 4.4^^ | 61 | 11-2 | 0.9 (!) | ||||||
| 13 | Oregon | 1.5 | 6.1 | 4.6^ | 16 | 10-3 | 0.8 (!) | ||||||
| 14 | Mississippi | 1.3 | 6.0 | 4.7^ | 18 | 9-4 | 0.7 (!) | ||||||
| 15 | USC | 1.4 | 6.2 | 4.8^ | 26 | 9-4 | 0.6 (!) | ||||||
| 16 | Cincinnati | 1.8 | 7.0 | 5.2 | 42 | 12-1 | 0.5 (!) | ||||||
| 17 | Iowa | 0.9 | 5.2 | 4.3^^ | 28 | 10-2 | 0.4 (!) | ||||||
| 18 | BYU | 1.3 | 6.2 | 4.9^ | 60 | 11-2 | 0.3 (!) | ||||||
| 19 | Pittsburgh | 1.2 | 6.2 | 5.0^ | 38 | 10-3 | 0.2 (!) | ||||||
| 20 | Notre Dame | 0.2 | 6.4 | 6.2** | 36 | 6-6 | 0.1 (!) | ||||||
| 21 | Texas Tech | 1.4 | 6.2 | 4.8^ | 51 | 9-4 | 0.0 (!) | ||||||
| 22 | Georgia Tech | 0.1 | 6.2 | 6.1** | 9 | 11-2 | 0.0 (!) | ||||||
| 23 | Clemson | 1.1 | 5.7 | 4.6^ | 16 | 9-5 | 0.0 (!) | ||||||
| 24 | Utah | 1.0 | 5.7 | 4.7^ | 65 | 10-3 | 0.0 (!) | ||||||
| 25 | LSU | 0.4 | 5.1 | 4.7^ | 2 | 9-4 | 0.0 (!) | ||||||
| 26 | Tennessee | 0.8 | 5.7 | 4.9^ | 13 | 7-6 | -0.1 (!) | ||||||
| 27 | Georgia | 0.8 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 10 | 8-5 | -0.2 (!) | ||||||
| 28 | Arkansas | 0.9 | 6.7 | 5.8* | 8 | 8-5 | -0.2 (!) | ||||||
| 29 | Miami (Florida) | 0.7 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 15 | 9-4 | -0.2 (!) | ||||||
| 30 | Oklahoma State | 0.7 | 5.4 | 4.7^ | 44 | 9-4 | -0.3 (!) | ||||||
| 31 | Wisconsin | 0.8 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 58 | 10-3 | -0.4 (!) | ||||||
| 32 | North Carolina | 0.5 | 4.7 | 4.2^^ | 22 | 8-5 | -0.4 (!) | ||||||
| 33 | West Virginia | 0.6 | 5.7 | 5.1 | 31 | 9-4 | -0.5 | ||||||
| 34 | South Florida | 0.9 | 5.9 | 5.0^ | 63 | 8-5 | -0.6 | ||||||
| 35 | South Carolina | 0.5 | 5.2 | 4.7^ | 6 | 7-6 | -0.7 | ||||||
| 36 | Mid. Tennessee | 0.9 | 5.7 | 4.8^ | 107 | 10-3 | -0.7 | ||||||
| 37 | Arizona | 0.4 | 5.5 | 5.1 | 20 | 8-5 | -0.8 | ||||||
| 38 | Missouri | 0.8 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 56 | 8-5 | -0.8 | ||||||
| 39 | Nevada | 1.3 | 7.3 | 6.4** | 90 | 8-5 | -0.9 | ||||||
| 40 | Oregon State | 0.4 | 5.8 | 5.4 | 37 | 8-5 | -1.0 | ||||||
| 41 | Boston College | 0.3 | 5.1 | 4.8^ | 35 | 8-5 | -1.0 | ||||||
| 42 | Michigan State | 0.9 | 6.3 | 5.4 | 48 | 6-7 | -1.0 | ||||||
| 43 | Houston | 0.9 | 6.9 | 6.0** | 88 | 10-4 | -1.0 | ||||||
| 44 | Troy | 0.6 | 6.5 | 5.9* | 94 | 9-4 | -1.0 | ||||||
| 45 | California | 0.4 | 5.9 | 5.5* | 40 | 8-5 | -1.1 | ||||||
| 46 | Rutgers | 0.4 | 5.2 | 4.8^ | 86 | 9-4 | -1.2 | ||||||
| 47 | Air Force | 0.3 | 5.0 | 4.7^ | 69 | 8-5 | -1.3 | ||||||
| 48 | Connecticut | 0.0 | 5.6 | 5.6* | 34 | 8-5 | -1.4 | ||||||
| 49 | Central Michigan | 0.9 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 104 | 12-2 | -1.5 | ||||||
| 50 | SMU | 0.4 | 6.0 | 5.6* | 91 | 8-5 | -1.6 | ||||||
| 51 | Southern Miss | 0.6 | 6.0 | 5.4 | 95 | 7-6 | -1.6 | ||||||
| 52 | Navy | -0.1 | 5.4 | 5.5* | 67 | 9-4 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 53 | Wake Forest | 0.0 | 5.7 | 5.7* | 21 | 5-7 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 54 | UCLA | -0.1 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 41 | 7-6 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 55 | East Carolina | -0.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 62 | 9-5 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 56 | Ohio | 0.2 | 5.1 | 4.9^ | 101 | 9-5 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 57 | Louis.-Monroe | 0.7 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 113 | 6-6 | -1.7 | ||||||
| 58 | Mississippi State | -0.3 | 5.4 | 5.7* | 3 | 5-7 | -1.8 | ||||||
| 59 | Kansas | 0.2 | 5.7 | 5.5* | 49 | 5-7 | -1.8 | ||||||
| 60 | Temple | 0.1 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 105 | 9-4 | -1.8 | ||||||
| 61 | Florida State | -0.3 | 6.4 | 6.7*** | 7 | 7-6 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 62 | Purdue | 0.2 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 55 | 5-7 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 63 | Arizona State | 0.2 | 5.0 | 4.8^ | 59 | 4-8 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 64 | UCF | 0.0 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 85 | 8-5 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 65 | Idaho | 0.4 | 6.9 | 6.5*** | 96 | 8-5 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 66 | Buffalo | 0.6 | 5.8 | 5.2 | 103 | 5-7 | -1.9 | ||||||
| 67 | Texas A&M | -0.1 | 5.8 | 5.9* | 43 | 6-7 | -2.0 | ||||||
| 68 | Baylor | -0.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 30 | 4-8 | -2.0 | ||||||
| 69 | Northwestern | -0.3 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 74 | 8-5 | -2.0 | ||||||
| 70 | UAB | 0.4 | 6.8 | 6.4** | 83 | 5-7 | -2.0 | ||||||
| 71 | Hawai'i | 0.6 | 6.6 | 6.0** | 98 | 6-7 | -2.0 | ||||||
| 72 | Kentucky | -0.6 | 4.9 | 5.5* | 23 | 7-6 | -2.1 | ||||||
| 73 | N.C. State | -0.1 | 5.6 | 5.7* | 52 | 5-7 | -2.1 | ||||||
| 74 | Kansas State | -0.2 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 66 | 6-6 | -2.1 | ||||||
| 75 | Minnesota | -0.4 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 27 | 6-7 | -2.1 | ||||||
| 76 | Duke | -0.2 | 5.3 | 5.5* | 54 | 5-7 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 77 | Michigan | 0.0 | 5.6 | 5.6* | 70 | 5-7 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 78 | Louisiana Tech | 0.2 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 76 | 4-8 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 79 | Fresno State | -0.1 | 6.4 | 6.5*** | 82 | 8-5 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 80 | Toledo | 0.4 | 6.2 | 5.8* | 109 | 5-7 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 81 | Northern Illinois | 0.2 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 118 | 7-6 | -2.2 | ||||||
| 82 | Washington | -0.5 | 5.7 | 6.2** | 24 | 5-7 | -2.3 | ||||||
| 83 | Syracuse | -0.3 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 47 | 4-8 | -2.4 | ||||||
| 84 | Tulsa | 0.1 | 5.7 | 5.6* | 97 | 5-7 | -2.4 | ||||||
| 85 | Iowa State | -0.5 | 5.3 | 5.8* | 72 | 7-6 | -2.5 | ||||||
| 86 | Marshall | -0.5 | 5.2 | 5.7* | 80 | 7-6 | -2.6 | ||||||
| 87 | San Diego State | -0.1 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 87 | 4-8 | -2.6 | ||||||
| 88 | Kent State | 0.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 122 | 5-7 | -2.6 | ||||||
| 89 | Virginia | -0.8 | 4.2 | 5.0 | 11 | 3-9 | -2.7 | ||||||
| 90 | Colorado State | -0.1 | 5.7 | 5.7* | 71 | 3-9 | -2.7 | ||||||
| 91 | UTEP | 0.1 | 6.2 | 6.1** | 102 | 4-8 | -2.7 | ||||||
| 92 | Indiana | -0.4 | 5.4 | 5.8* | 68 | 4-8 | -2.8 | ||||||
| 93 | Illinois | -0.3 | 5.7 | 6.0** | 50 | 3-9 | -2.8 | ||||||
| 94 | Bowling Green | -0.5 | 5.5 | 6.0** | 93 | 7-6 | -2.8 | ||||||
| 95 | Vanderbilt | -0.6 | 4.6 | 5.2 | 29 | 2-10 | -2.9 | ||||||
| 96 | Arkansas State | 0.0 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 125 | 4-8 | -2.9 | ||||||
| 97 | Louisville | -0.7 | 5.1 | 5.8* | 57 | 4-8 | -3.0 | ||||||
| 98 | Utah State | -0.4 | 6.0 | 6.4** | 78 | 4-8 | -3.0 | ||||||
| 99 | Army | -0.6 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 116 | 5-6 | -3.0 | ||||||
| 100 | Wyoming | -1.2 | 4.4 | 5.6* | 64 | 7-6 | -3.1 | ||||||
| 101 | Colorado | -1.0 | 4.4 | 5.4 | 53 | 3-9 | -3.2 | ||||||
| 102 | Akron | -0.4 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 110 | 3-9 | -3.3 | ||||||
| 103 | North Texas | 0.0 | 5.9 | 5.9* | 121 | 2-10 | -3.3 | ||||||
| 104 | Maryland | -1.1 | 4.7 | 5.8* | 25 | 2-10 | -3.4 | ||||||
| 105 | West. Michigan | -0.7 | 5.3 | 6.0** | 119 | 5-7 | -3.5 | ||||||
| 106 | Louis.-Lafayette | -1.0 | 5.0 | 6.0** | 117 | 6-6 | -3.6 | ||||||
| 107 | UNLV | -1.4 | 5.2 | 6.6*** | 73 | 5-7 | -3.7 | ||||||
| 108 | Florida Atlantic | -1.1 | 5.9 | 7.0*** | 106 | 5-7 | -3.8 | ||||||
| 109 | Memphis | -1.1 | 5.3 | 6.4** | 81 | 2-10 | -3.9 | ||||||
| 110 | Ball State | -0.9 | 4.7 | 5.6* | 111 | 2-10 | -4.0 | ||||||
| 111 | Miami (Ohio) | -1.1 | 4.7 | 5.8* | 79 | 1-11 | -4.1 | ||||||
| 112 | New Mexico | -1.2 | 4.6 | 5.8* | 75 | 1-11 | -4.2 | ||||||
| 113 | Tulane | -1.4 | 4.9 | 6.3** | 92 | 3-9 | -4.3 | ||||||
| 114 | Florida Int. FIU | -2.1 | 4.5 | 6.6*** | 99 | 3-9 | -4.4 | ||||||
| 115 | Rice | -2.3 | 4.3 | 6.6*** | 84 | 2-10 | -4.5 | ||||||
| 116 | San Jose State | -2.2 | 4.5 | 6.7*** | 89 | 2-10 | -4.6 | ||||||
| 117 | New Mexico St. | -2.4 | 3.9 | 6.3** | 100 | 3-10 | -4.7 | ||||||
| 118 | West. Kentucky | -1.8 | 5.1 | 6.9*** | 112 | 0-12 | -4.8 | ||||||
| 119 | Washington St. | -3.0 | 4.1 | 7.1*** | 39 | 1-11 | -4.9 | ||||||
| 120 | Eastern Michigan | -2.3 | 4.5 | 6.8*** | 108 | 0-12 | -4.9 |
