End of Year ACC Rankings

                               

 

Since the college football playoff is ending it's time for out annual end of the year rankings for each conference. The ACC didn't rank as highly as we thought in the early season, but still finished with two teams in the college football playoff. As it turned the data showed that it should actually have been two other ACC teams in. The data also showed that two ACC teams that finished with stellar records were really just middle of the pack and one team that finished meh was actually one of the leagues better teams. The last thing we really noted in the ACC was the precipitous fall of Florida State.

It should be noted that each ranking is based on each teams body of work. Head to heads are not given an extra priority here. This means that even if a team beat another head to head they may still be ranked lower than the team they beat based on body of work. The best example from this year of this is Ohio State. The Buckeyes lost to Oregon earlier in the year, but in our evaluation we continued to believe Ohio State was really the better team. This played out in the playoffs.

Amazon Prime Gaming

Clemson and SMU made the college football playoff, but the data tells us that Miami (FL) and Louisville were actually the better teams. Clemson averaged 11 points more than opponents this season against the 37th hardest schedule. They had two victories against top 25 opponents. SMU averaged 14 points more than opponents albeit against the 57th hardest SOS. They had just one victory against a Top 25 team. 

Conversely Louisville averaged 12 more points per game than opponents so more than Clemson but fewer than SMU. Their SOS was 36th which was better than both of the teams that finished above them. They also had two top 25 wins. Miami beat opponents almost by an average of 19 points, better than other teams in the ACC. Their SOS was not great though at 56. The 'Canes also had two victories over top 25 teams this season.  

c

College Football 25 for Xbox

Neither Miami nor Louisville could have competed for a national title most likely, but the data shows that they were at least slightly better than the two teams who represented the ACC.  

The data also pointed out to us a few teams who's record might not have truly represented their strength. Syracuse and Duke despite finishing 10-3 and 9-4 respectively are only ranked 8th and 9th in the conference in our power ranking whereas Virginia Tech, who finished 6-7, rates 5th.

Ohio State Hoodies

Despite getting to 10 wins Syracuse's point differential was just 4.2 and their overall strength of schedule was just 63rd. That's the third easiest schedule in the ACC. The Orange did have some big wins, four top 25 wins according to the Aggregate's data, but they also seemed to play down to bad competition. Against three teams ranked 75th, 76th and 77th they went 2-1, but with an average point differential of 4 points. All three games were one possession. Often times when we see this type of data the team does not have nearly as good of record the next year, see Washington or Oklahoma State.

The other team that caught our attention this way was the Duke Blue Devils. Duke finished the season 9-4 in Manny Diaz's first year, but the data tells us they weren't quite as good as that record shows. Duke basically won every game it should have and lost every game it shouldn't. The lone exception on Duke's season was their victory over Virginia Tech. A team at that time that the Aggregate had rated as the 21st best team in the country. In Duke's four losses they lost by an average of 16 points to teams on average ranked 13th. In their 9 wins they won by an average of 9 points to teams ranked on average 82nd. So they won the games they should have, but what the data tells us is that if Duke had played a tougher schedule, such as some of their ACC brethren, their record would not have been near as good.

Gaming Chairs on Amazon

Virginia Tech was the opposite of those preceding teams. We know that Hokies fans were not happy with this seasons results, but the data portends that things are going to be better even if Brent Pry hadn't made coaching changes. The Hokies data tells us that they were actually a pretty good team. They finished 26th nationally. Despite finishing 6-7 the Hokies still had a +6 point differential per game. In games they won they averaged winning by almost 20 points. In games they lost they averaged losing by less than 5. They lost twice in overtime. They only lost by two possessions twice and that was to the 11th ranked team and the 26th ranked team at those times.

The biggest disappointment in the ACC and honestly the country was Florida State. The Seminoles started the season ranked 8th in the Aggregate and they clearly had national championship aspirations, but State's season quickly devolved into "quicksand" as Shane Falco would have called it. The 'Noles finished the season 2-10 and dropped 81 spots in the Aggregate rankings. They lost by an average of almost 13 points against the 41st SOS. All of this combined does not bode well for Florida State's next season.   

Notre Dame Beanie's

ACC Rankings
Rank	Team	Record	Conference	Rating	National Rank	Pre Season
1	Miami (FL)	10-3	6-2	43.4	11	13
2	Louisville	9-4	5-3	39.4	12	26
3	Clemson	10-4	7-1	38.1	14	11
4	Southern Methodist	11-3	8-0	37.4	19	14
5	Virginia Tech	6-7	4-4	34.5	26	22
6	Georgia Tech	7-6	5-3	33.3	29	42
7	Boston College	7-6	4-4	30.7	39	45
8	Syracuse	10-3	5-3	27.6	49	24
9	Duke	9-4	5-3	27.4	50	54
10	Pittsburgh	7-6	3-5	27.2	52	67
11	Virginia	5-7	3-5	24.3	60	71
12	North Carolina State	6-7	3-5	22.4	63	32
13	North Carolina	6-7	3-5	21.9	65	39
14	Wake Forest	4-8	2-6	18.0	80	78
15	Stanford	3-9	2-6	17.6	83	91
16	Florida State	2-10	1-7	14.9	89	8

Top 25 Most Underrated FBS Coaches

The top 25 most underrated coaches according to the adjusted win metric. We calculated these by taking a coaches adjusted win rate and subtracting their traditional win rate. When that number is positive than they are underrated. In those circumstances we believe that coach is actually better than their traditional win percentage shows. 

The most underrated FBS coach according to the adjusted win rate metric is Lance Leipold from Kansas. Leipold has an adjusted win rate of 63.2%. That's 13.2% points higher than his traditional win rate of just 50%. Leipold has had success at both Buffalo and Kansas. Both programs were struggling when he got there and his worst years were his first few with both. 

One of the most notable things on the list is that the Big 10 has six of the top 11 coaches. Four of those six are fairly new to the conference. It makes us wonder if the Big 10 is in for a shift at the top.

Kansas and other CFB Shirts on Amazon

The full Top 25 list is below:

Rank	Coach	Team	Adj W Pct	Tra W Pct	Difference	Conference
1	Lance Leipold	KU	63.2%	50.0%	13.2%	B12
2	Matt Rhule	Nebraska	61.7%	51.0%	10.7%	B10
3	Mike Locksley	Maryland	43.6%	34.4%	9.2%	B10
4	Brent Brennan	Arizona	49.6%	41.5%	8.1%	B12
5	Luke Fickell	Wisconsin	77.3%	69.6%	7.7%	B10
6	Jedd Fisch	Washington	50.0%	43.6%	6.4%	B10
7	Tim Albin	Ohio	65.2%	59.0%	6.2%	MAC
8	PJ Fleck	Minnesota	64.9%	58.8%	6.1%	B10
9	Chuck Martin	Miami (OH)	53.5%	47.5%	6.0%	MAC
10	Jamey Chadwell	Liberty	75.0%	69.3%	5.7%	CUSA
11	Jonathan Smith	Michigan State	54.6%	49.3%	5.3%	B10
12	Brent Venables	Oklahoma	66.7%	61.5%	5.2%	SEC
13	Sean Lewis	San Diego State	48.5%	43.6%	4.9%	MW
14	Mike Macintyre	FIU	44.8%	40.0%	4.8%	CUSA
15	Jay Norvell	Colorado State	54.1%	49.4%	4.7%	MW
16	Brent Pry	Va Tech	45.9%	41.7%	4.2%	ACC
17	Chris Creighton	E. Michigan	47.4%	43.3%	4.1%	MAC
18	Billy Napier	Florida	70.3%	66.2%	4.1%	SEC
19	Kevin Wilson	Tulsa	39.3%	35.3%	4.0%	AAC
20	Rhett Lashlee	SMU	70.7%	66.7%	4.0%	ACC
21	Mack Brown	UNC	69.7%	65.7%	4.0%	ACC
22	Jeff Monken	Army	60.0%	56.0%	4.0%	AAC
23	Dave Clawson	Wake Forest	54.3%	50.5%	3.8%	ACC
24	Sonny Dykes	TCU	59.1%	55.3%	3.8%	B12
25	Mark Stoops	Kentucky	56.5%	52.9%	3.6%	SEC

Amazon Prime Free Trial

The Entire list is below:

Rank	Coach	Team	Adj W Pct	Tra W Pct	Difference	Conference
1	Lance Leipold	KU	63.2%	50.0%	13.2%	B12
2	Matt Rhule	Nebraska	61.7%	51.0%	10.7%	B10
3	Mike Locksley	Maryland	43.6%	34.4%	9.2%	B10
4	Brent Brennan	Arizona	49.6%	41.5%	8.1%	B12
5	Luke Fickell	Wisconsin	77.3%	69.6%	7.7%	B10
6	Jedd Fisch	Washington	50.0%	43.6%	6.4%	B10
7	Tim Albin	Ohio	65.2%	59.0%	6.2%	MAC
8	PJ Fleck	Minnesota	64.9%	58.8%	6.1%	B10
9	Chuck Martin	Miami (OH)	53.5%	47.5%	6.0%	MAC
10	Jamey Chadwell	Liberty	75.0%	69.3%	5.7%	CUSA
11	Jonathan Smith	Michigan State	54.6%	49.3%	5.3%	B10
12	Brent Venables	Oklahoma	66.7%	61.5%	5.2%	SEC
13	Sean Lewis	San Diego State	48.5%	43.6%	4.9%	MW
14	Mike Macintyre	FIU	44.8%	40.0%	4.8%	CUSA
15	Jay Norvell	Colorado State	54.1%	49.4%	4.7%	MW
16	Brent Pry	Va Tech	45.9%	41.7%	4.2%	ACC
17	Chris Creighton	E. Michigan	47.4%	43.3%	4.1%	MAC
18	Billy Napier	Florida	70.3%	66.2%	4.1%	SEC
19	Kevin Wilson	Tulsa	39.3%	35.3%	4.0%	AAC
20	Rhett Lashlee	SMU	70.7%	66.7%	4.0%	ACC
21	Mack Brown	UNC	69.7%	65.7%	4.0%	ACC
22	Jeff Monken	Army	60.0%	56.0%	4.0%	AAC
23	Dave Clawson	Wake Forest	54.3%	50.5%	3.8%	ACC
24	Sonny Dykes	TCU	59.1%	55.3%	3.8%	B12
25	Mark Stoops	Kentucky	56.5%	52.9%	3.6%	SEC
26	Manny Diaz	Duke	61.7%	58.3%	3.4%	ACC
27	Rich Rodriguez	Jacksonville St.	62.5%	59.3%	3.2%	CUSA
28	Curt Cignetti	Indiana	85.7%	82.6%	3.1%	B10
29	Marcus Freeman	Notre Dame	73.4%	70.4%	3.0%	Ind
30	Dabo Swinney	Clemson	82.8%	79.8%	3.0%	ACC
31	Mike Neu	Ball State	42.7%	39.8%	2.9%	MAC
32	James Franklin	Penn State	70.3%	67.5%	2.8%	B10
33	Don Brown	UMass	19.4%	16.7%	2.7%	Ind
34	Mario Cristobal	Miami	53.0%	50.3%	2.7%	ACC
35	Kirby Smart	Georgia	88.2%	85.5%	2.7%	SEC
36	Dave Aranda	Baylor	50.6%	47.9%	2.7%	B12
37	Steve Sarkisian	Texas	61.7%	59.2%	2.5%	SEC
38	Timmy Chang	Hawai'i	33.3%	30.8%	2.5%	MW
39	Mike Norvell	Florida State	70.1%	67.6%	2.5%	ACC
40	Mike Bloomgren	Rice	34.9%	32.4%	2.5%	AAC
41	Kirk Ferentz	Iowa	64.5%	62.2%	2.3%	B10
42	Greg Schiano	Rutgers	50.1%	47.8%	2.3%	B10
43	Bronco Mendenhall	New Mexico	64.7%	62.5%	2.2%	MW
44	Lane Kiffin	Ole Miss	68.3%	66.2%	2.1%	SEC
45	Sam Pittman	Arkansas	50.0%	47.9%	2.1%	SEC
46	Major Applewhite	S. Alabama	59.7%	57.7%	2.0%	Sunbelt
47	Will Hall	Southern Miss	37.1%	35.1%	2.0%	Sunbelt
48	Jeff Traylor	UTSA	75.5%	73.6%	1.9%	AAC
49	Brian Kelly	LSU	74.7%	72.9%	1.8%	SEC
50	Barry Odom	UNLV	54.9%	53.1%	1.8%	MW
51	Kalen Deboer	Alabama	82.2%	80.4%	1.8%	SEC
52	Mike Gundy	Ok St	69.5%	67.8%	1.7%	B12
53	Clark Lea	Vanderbilt	26.7%	25.0%	1.7%	SEC
54	Neal Brown	WVU	61.2%	59.5%	1.7%	B12
55	Dan Lanning	Oregon	82.9%	81.5%	1.4%	B10
56	Kalani Sitake	BYU	61.2%	59.8%	1.4%	B12
57	Scot Loeffler	Bowling Green	37.8%	36.4%	1.4%	MAC
58	Tony Sanchez	NMSU	34.5%	33.3%	1.2%	CUSA
59	Hugh Freeze	Auburn	65.1%	64.0%	1.1%	SEC
60	Mike Houston	East Carolina	42.3%	41.4%	0.9%	AAC
61	Butch Jones	Ark St	55.2%	54.3%	0.9%	Sunbelt
62	Matt Campbell	Iowa St	59.1%	58.3%	0.8%	B12
63	Bret Bielema	Illinois	60.6%	59.9%	0.7%	B10
64	Brent Key	GT	52.9%	52.4%	0.5%	ACC
65	Charles Huff	Marshall	56.9%	56.4%	0.5%	Sunbelt
66	Derek Mason	MTSU	33.3%	32.9%	0.4%	CUSA
67	Kyle Whittingham	Utah	67.6%	67.2%	0.4%	B12
68	Scott Satterfield	Cincinnati	60.6%	60.5%	0.1%	B12
69	Thomas Hammock	NIU	42.2%	42.1%	0.1%	MAC
70	Chris Klieman	Kansas State	61.9%	61.9%	0.0%	B12
71	Alex Golesh	USF	53.8%	53.8%	0.0%	AAC
72	Bryant Vincent	ULM	53.8%	53.8%	0.0%	Sunbelt
73	Tim Beck	Coastal Carolina	61.5%	61.5%	0.0%	Sunbelt
74	G.J. Kinne	Texas State	61.5%	61.5%	0.0%	Sunbelt
75	David Braun	Northwestern	61.5%	61.5%	0.0%	B10
76	Kenni Burns	Kent State	8.3%	8.3%	0.0%	MAC
77	Lance Taylor	W. Michigan	33.3%	33.3%	0.0%	MAC
78	Trent Dilfer	UAB	33.3%	33.3%	0.0%	AAC
79	Ryan Walters	Purdue	33.3%	33.3%	0.0%	B10
80	Deion Sanders	Colorado	33.3%	33.3%	0.0%	B12
81	Sherrone Moore	Michigan	100.0%	100.0%	0.0%	B10
82	Spencer Danielson	Boise State	75.0%	75.0%	0.0%	MW
83	K.C. Keeler	Sam Houston	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	CUSA
84	Scotty Walden	Utep	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	CUSA
85	Biff Poggi	Charlotte	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	AAC
86	Stan Drayton	Temple	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	AAC
87	Troy Taylor	Stanford	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	ACC
88	Kenny Dillingham	AZ St	25.0%	25.0%	0.0%	B12
89	Gerad Parker	Troy	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	Sunbelt
90	Eric Morris	UNT	41.7%	41.7%	0.0%	AAC
91	Brian Newberry	Navy	41.7%	41.7%	0.0%	AAC
92	Dave Doeren	NC State	62.6%	62.7%	-0.1%	ACC
93	Jon Sumrall	Tulane	85.0%	85.2%	-0.2%	AAC
94	Shane Beamer	South Carolina	52.4%	52.6%	-0.2%	SEC
95	Justin Wilcox	California	45.3%	45.6%	-0.3%	ACC
96	Pat Narduzzi	Pittsburgh	56.1%	56.5%	-0.4%	ACC
97	Troy Calhoun	Air Force	60.9%	61.3%	-0.4%	MW
98	Tony Elliott	Virginia	26.5%	27.3%	-0.8%	ACC
99	Ken Niumatalolo	San Jose State	56.0%	56.8%	-0.8%	MW
100	Tyson Helton	W. Kentucky	59.7%	60.6%	-0.9%	CUSA
101	Jim McElwain	C. Michigan	55.5%	56.6%	-1.1%	MAC
102	LIncoln Riley	USC	79.3%	80.4%	-1.1%	B10
103	Ryan Silverfield	Memphis	62.1%	63.3%	-1.2%	AAC
104	Michael Desormeaux	Louisiana	46.8%	48.1%	-1.3%	Sunbelt
105	Tom Herman	FAU	64.6%	65.9%	-1.3%	AAC
106	Joey McGuire	Texas Tech	56.4%	57.7%	-1.3%	B12
107	Ryan Day	Ohio State	86.2%	87.5%	-1.3%	B10
108	Bill O'Brien	Boston College	61.1%	62.5%	-1.4%	ACC
109	Ricky Rahne	Old Dominion	38.1%	39.5%	-1.4%	Sunbelt
110	Jeff Brohm	Louisville	59.8%	61.3%	-1.5%	ACC
111	Sonny Cumbie	La Tech	26.0%	27.6%	-1.6%	CUSA
112	Willie Fritz	Houston	55.5%	57.1%	-1.6%	B12
113	Jason Candle	Toledo	63.3%	65.0%	-1.7%	MAC
114	Jeff Tedford	Fresno State	60.0%	61.7%	-1.7%	MW
115	Shawn Clark	App State	64.3%	66.0%	-1.7%	Sunbelt
116	Mike Elko	Texas A&M	62.2%	64.0%	-1.8%	SEC
117	Blake Anderson	Utah State	55.9%	57.8%	-1.9%	MW
118	Eliah Drinkwitz	Mizzou	62.4%	64.5%	-2.1%	SEC
119	Jake Dickert	Washington State	46.3%	48.4%	-2.2%	Pac12
120	Gus Malzahn	UCF	62.9%	65.2%	-2.3%	B12
121	Pete Lembo	Buffalo	49.7%	53.2%	-3.5%	MAC
122	Josh Heupel	Tennessee	69.8%	73.3%	-3.5%	SEC
123	Clay Helton	GSU	55.9%	60.4%	-4.5%	Sunbelt
124	Joe Moorhead	Akron	29.8%	36.0%	-6.2%	MAC
125	Jim Mora	UConn	47.3%	54.5%	-7.2%	Ind