| Rank | +/- | Team | WinPct | SoS | Adjusted | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off. | Def. | Pace | |||||||||
| 1 | -- | Alabama | 0.978 | 0.594 | 29 | 39.9 | 1 | 8.7 | 1 | 148.1 | 124 |
| 2 | -- | LSU | 0.901 | 0.645 | 13 | 27.3 | 15 | 11.3 | 2 | 158.6 | 98 |
| 3 | -- | Oklahoma | 0.896 | 0.614 | 20 | 26.9 | 18 | 11.4 | 3 | 173.6 | 18 |
| 4 | +4 | Florida | 0.879 | 0.656 | 12 | 28.1 | 11 | 12.7 | 5 | 157.8 | 103 |
| 5 | +2 | Oregon | 0.867 | 0.539 | 41 | 31.5 | 4 | 14.9 | 12 | 181.3 | 7 |
| 6 | -2 | Notre Dame | 0.866 | 0.629 | 18 | 25.8 | 26 | 12.2 | 4 | 158.1 | 101 |
| 7 | -2 | Florida St. | 0.862 | 0.526 | 47 | 30.0 | 6 | 14.4 | 10 | 157.4 | 105 |
| 8 | +3 | Stanford | 0.840 | 0.591 | 31 | 29.5 | 7 | 15.2 | 16 | 162.4 | 76 |
| 9 | +1 | Boise St. | 0.831 | 0.403 | 92 | 26.9 | 20 | 14.2 | 9 | 158.0 | 102 |
| 10 | +2 | Texas A&M | 0.827 | 0.664 | 10 | 24.2 | 32 | 12.9 | 6 | 188.4 | 1 |
| 11 | -5 | South Carolina | 0.821 | 0.595 | 28 | 28.0 | 12 | 15.2 | 15 | 156.7 | 109 |
| 12 | -3 | Michigan | 0.817 | 0.569 | 35 | 30.1 | 5 | 16.6 | 20 | 153.7 | 119 |
| 13 | +1 | Wisconsin | 0.802 | 0.510 | 51 | 32.3 | 3 | 18.5 | 35 | 153.8 | 118 |
| 14 | +1 | Oklahoma St. | 0.789 | 0.594 | 30 | 27.2 | 17 | 16.1 | 18 | 181.7 | 6 |
| 15 | +3 | Kansas St. | 0.789 | 0.576 | 34 | 33.6 | 2 | 19.8 | 49 | 153.1 | 120 |
| 16 | -- | USC | 0.786 | 0.485 | 65 | 28.5 | 9 | 16.9 | 23 | 160.4 | 90 |
| 17 | -4 | TCU | 0.784 | 0.462 | 76 | 28.0 | 13 | 16.7 | 21 | 160.7 | 87 |
| 18 | -1 | Texas | 0.751 | 0.604 | 23 | 29.0 | 8 | 18.7 | 39 | 163.2 | 70 |
| 19 | -- | Ohio St. | 0.740 | 0.496 | 57 | 28.5 | 10 | 18.7 | 40 | 160.5 | 88 |
| 20 | -- | Michigan St. | 0.736 | 0.587 | 33 | 19.9 | 69 | 13.2 | 7 | 162.5 | 74 |
| 21 | NA | Mississippi St. | 0.722 | 0.462 | 75 | 22.1 | 47 | 15.1 | 14 | 162.0 | 78 |
| 22 | +2 | Texas Tech | 0.716 | 0.598 | 25 | 25.5 | 28 | 17.6 | 28 | 177.4 | 10 |
| 23 | NA | Penn State | 0.714 | 0.506 | 53 | 19.7 | 73 | 13.7 | 8 | 166.3 | 52 |
| 24 | NA | Rutgers | 0.706 | 0.470 | 71 | 22.1 | 46 | 15.6 | 17 | 157.0 | 108 |
| 25 | -4 | Nebraska | 0.702 | 0.603 | 24 | 26.0 | 25 | 18.5 | 36 | 168.3 | 40 |
Rankings through games of 2012-10-21
Another week, another dominating Alabama victory, another Oregon victory where they allow an inferior team to hang a few touchdowns on them, another close Notre Dame victory thanks to defense.
Florida continues to roll, but part of their jump in the rankings is thanks to the illusion of a dominating offensive performance against South Carolina. The Gators got 21 points off 14 yards of offense (drives of 1, 2, and 11 yards) and another 7 points off a 44 yard drive. Turnovers are notoriously unpredictable, and what should have been a close game quickly turned into a blowout. That's not the norm, though, and I suspect another game or two will cause Florida's offensive efficiency ranking to drift back down to the mid-to-lower teens.
TFG also keeps 1-loss LSU and Oklahoma teams ahead of the undefeated trio of Florida, Oregon, and Notre Dame thanks to strong defensive showings by the Tigers and Sooners. Further down the rankings is BCS #4 Kansas State; the Wildcats have climbed up to #2 in the offensive efficiency rankings, so don't doubt that they're for real. The computer isn't quite sold on their defense, though. Yes, holding West Virginia to two touchdowns is an achievement, but TFG was never really sold on the Mountaineers; their offense was a product of fast play and inferior opponents, and their defense was always suspect. There's a reason the Mountaineers were never ranked higher than 20th, and had already dropped to 25th before their first loss. This means the computer will likely remain skeptical about Kansas State's defense until it faces some real offenses (see also: "why isn't Ohio State ranked higher?").
Another week, another lack of big surprises in college football this year. Dammit.
New entries: Mississippi St., Penn State, Rutgers.
Dropped out: Cincinnati, Georgia, Virginia Tech.
Follow us on Twitter at @TFGridiron and @TFGLiveOdds.
