College Football Team Weightings

The relative value of each offer is determined by the recent success of the team extending the offer. A three year weighted average of the “Elo Chess” computer ranking of the team extending the offer is used as the value of an offer. The most recent year counts for half of the weighted average, the previous year counts for one-third, and the year before that counts for one-sixth.  Elo Chess rankings are a component of the BCS formula. A description of Elo Ratings can be found here: . This site uses Elo Chess rankings published by Jeff Sagarin.

ELO Chess Weightings Updated 1/14/2015

RankTeamConference2012 ELO2013 ELO2014 ELOWeighted Average
1Ohio StateBig 1089.0884.29113.2999.59
2Florida StateACC86.01105.4594.7596.86
3OregonPacific 1292.489.13101.9896.10
5Michigan StateBig 1078.2997.9497.0294.21
8BaylorBig 1280.688.0189.0387.29
9UCLAPacific 1277.2189.1289.0387.09
11South CarolinaSEC91.8399.4375.9586.42
12StanfordPacific 1288.6289.6481.9985.65
14Texas A&MSEC90.8485.482.9485.08
15OklahomaBig 1284.9594.678.2984.84
17Louisiana StateSEC88.5986.7482.0884.72
18Texas ChristianBig 1277.0367.4596.7783.71
19WisconsinBig 1078.8879.5987.3683.36
20Notre DameIndependent91.6982.2380.5182.95
22Southern CaliforniaPacific 1275.888484.1382.71
23Mississippi StateSEC76.6779.3686.6182.54
24Kansas StateBig 1287.9379.7582.1582.31
25Arizona StatePacific 1276.5880.7285.1682.25
26Georgia TechACC74.2172.489.2481.12
27ArizonaPacific 1276.6779.2382.9180.64
28NebraskaBig 1081.628278.7780.32
29Oklahoma StateBig 1280.0486.4674.679.46
30Boise StateMountain West76.2570.5285.3678.90
31Central FloridaAmerican Athletic7594.7868.5178.35
33UtahPacific 1269.0869.9285.1577.40
34WashingtonPacific 1275.0582.3772.8176.37
35MarshallConference USA60.5770.8284.5375.97
36TexasBig 1283.4577.0871.9375.57
37Utah StateMountain West81.9272.5674.4375.06
40MinnesotaBig 1069.7971.7977.3874.25
41Northern IllinoisMid-American77.7974.1372.573.93
42Brigham YoungIndependent77.1776.0469.6773.04
43Miami (Florida)ACC76.2476.7869.3372.97
45Penn StateBig 1077.6572.7371.3672.87
46Virginia TechACC74.3477.768.7772.68
47MichiganBig 1081.8472.7769.0672.43
48IowaBig 1068.7474.9670.171.49
49Oregon StatePacific 1281.7875.864.9371.36
51Texas TechBig 1277.1677.664.5871.02
52RutgersBig 1074.1860.4276.7270.86
53Louisiana LafayetteSun Belt71.5174.5267.8170.66
54West VirginiaBig 1276.259.2176.270.54
56NorthwesternBig 1082.4368.2966.9869.99
57North CarolinaACC74.5871.1667.4869.89
58RiceConference USA64.2672.0868.9969.23
59CincinnatiAmerican Athletic77.9966.8567.468.98
60MarylandBig 1063.5864.0473.7168.80
61Colorado StateMountain West57.9264.7775.0768.78
64Boston CollegeACC57.9571.3170.0168.43
65North Carolina StateACC69.1457.77568.26
66East CarolinaAmerican Athletic66.1273.565.0368.04
67Western KentuckyConference USA63.870.3966.9267.56
68Fresno StateMountain West70.5677.4559.6867.42
70Arkansas StateSun Belt77.4973.8158.1966.61
71Louisiana TechConference USA75.8549.1574.0966.07
72MemphisAmerican Athletic59.4453.0476.6465.91
73San Diego StateMountain West69.2770.2661.3265.63
74HoustonAmerican Athletic61.4971.1863.2765.61
75Bowling GreenMid-American68.6372.2659.4565.25
76IndianaBig 1068.3967.662.1565.01
77IllinoisBig 1059.426367.1564.48
78Middle Tennessee StateConference USA68.8566.2961.7564.45
80Washington StatePacific 1263.5265.6562.4363.69
81NevadaMountain West66.4858.8264.4762.92
82Air ForceMountain West57.9249.2573.3762.76
83Ball StateMid-American73.6769.6854.0662.54
85CaliforniaPacific 1266.4351.368.5662.45
86Iowa StateBig 1273.8961.0859.1262.24
87San Jose StateMountain West81.4165.7550.8360.90
88Central MichiganMid-American64.4960.3258.8260.27
89Georgia SouthernSun Belt67.5244.7668.1760.26
90ColoradoPacific 1254.7366.7856.8259.79
91Texas San AntonioConference USA64.0366.8153.5759.73
93KansasBig 1264.0558.8758.4359.51
94Louisiana MonroeSun Belt67.5166.9350.4758.80
95Texas StateSun Belt58.3661.2756.2958.30
96Wake ForestACC65.0261.785357.93
97North TexasConference USA60.6369.4748.8557.69
98South AlabamaSun Belt49.9366.3254.4857.67
99WyomingMountain West59.5556.8757.2457.50
100TempleAmerican Athletic64.3448.3460.8657.27
101Alabama BirminghamConference USA55.0350.8761.156.68
102TulaneAmerican Athletic55.0965.1851.5356.67
103PurdueBig 1069.9646.6558.7756.60
104Old DominionConference USA57.9750.9759.8556.58
106Florida AtlanticConference USA55.9261.9650.1555.05
107Western MichiganMid-American60.6241.2362.2954.99
108Texas El PasoConference USA54.9742.9862.3654.67
109New MexicoMountain West54.1652.0955.1353.96
110TroySun Belt61.6866.9641.5253.36
111TulsaAmerican Athletic75.3755.5243.5652.85
112South FloridaAmerican Athletic65.3248.7651.2852.78
113Kent StateMid-American73.5158.6941.6852.66
115HawaiiMountain West51.6947.9955.3352.28
116Nevada Las VegasMountain West51.7564.1744.4152.22
118Appalachian StateSun Belt61.4937.1756.6550.96
119Southern MethodistAmerican Athletic70.3760.4738.1350.95
120Florida InternationalConference USA57.7939.7852.9749.38
121ConnecticutAmerican Athletic64.9655.1639.9749.20
122Southern MississippiConference USA47.736.4452.8646.53
123Eastern MichiganMid-American58.6748.6641.0246.51
125New Mexico StateSun Belt48.4148.237.9843.13
126Miami (Ohio)Mid-American61.9233.5742.1542.59
127IdahoSun Belt52.1145.8335.0141.47
128CharlotteConference USA45.6737.3840.70
129Georgia StateSun Belt31.4439.5633.7535.30

5 thoughts on “College Football Team Weightings

  1. Steven

    I’m sorry but South Carolina is the most valuable offer? Central Florida is ahead of USC and Texas? Kansas State? When have they ever recruited well? C’mon man this is garbage

    1. Paul Nelson Post author

      The offer values for each school aren’t based upon recruiting success, they’re based upon on field performance. This is calculated using computer Elo ratings, which were part of the BCS calculation.

  2. James

    Your system needs to be tweaked,at the very least, by position. Why should a defensive recruit get a bump in rankings for an offer from a team who’s offense carries it (ie Texas A&M in the Manziel years, or Baylor/TCU this year)? Also, I believe an offer from someone like Sam Pittman at Arkansas for an O-lineman should hold a lot of weight even though the team as a whole is pretty mediocre. An offer to a mobile QB or a RB at Georgia Tech should hold more weight than offer for a WR to the same school. Make sense?

    1. Paul Nelson Post author

      The goal of this rating system is to provide an objective alternative to all the subjective ratings in existence. In order for this rating system to remain objective, there would need to be some quantitative basis for making the kinds of adjustments you mention. Without that, the ratings would begin to reflect the opinions of the people making the adjustments.

      1. James

        There are a number ways you can quantifiably rank an offer by position rather than the broad stroke of ranking based on recent success. The only subjective aspect would be in determining which stats are the best indicator for that determination. I do like your rankings premise/ultimate goal. I just feel it can go a step or two further because, I argue, your system has too many variables that determine recent success. I’d like a ranking system to quantifiably define success differently by position. For instance, an offer to an offensive lineman can be weighted according to some sort of algorithm involving “recent success by the team’s offensive line” quantifiably determined using stats like rushing yards/attempt, hurries/sacks allowed, 3rd and 4th down conversion success, etc.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *