Home

Fixing the Final 2024 AP College Football Poll

1) Ohio State 14-2
2) Notre Dame 14-2
3) Oregon 13-1
4) Texas 13-3
5) Penn State 13-3
6) Georgia 11-3
7) Arizona State 11-3
8) Boise State 12-2
9) Tennessee 10-3
10) Indiana 11-2
11) Mississippi 10-3
12) Southern Methodist 11-3
13) Brigham Young 11-2
14) Clemson 10-4
15) Iowa State 11-3
16) Illinois 10-3
17) Alabama 9-4
18) Miami (Florida) 10-3
19) South Carolina 9-4
20) Syracuse 10-3
21) Army 12-2
22) Missouri 10-3
23) UNLV 11-3
24) Memphis 11-2
25) Colorado 9-4

Here is the final AP poll college football top 25 for the 2024 season. The fixed final AP poll top 25 follows the article below.

But before I get to correcting the AP poll's errors, let me make one thing clear. This is not about what I would personally prefer to see in the rankings. I myself would be inclined to rank 10-3 Mississippi back behind 9-4 Alabama, and I would put 11-3 Arizona State and 11-2 BYU back behind 9-4 South Carolina, just as a couple of examples. But in these cases, the choices the AP poll made are logically viable, if only just barely. This is about fixing only those AP poll choices that are not logically valid or fair.

The new 12 team playoff appears to have had a negative impact on the ability of voters to properly rank teams in the top half of the AP poll. It looks like the runner-up automatically gets ranked #2, the 2 losers of the semifinal games get extra points for making it to the final 4, and even the first round losers look like they're getting a ratings boost just for making the playoffs (Clemson and SMU benefit quite a bit from this, I believe).

This leads to some irrational choices. Let's get to fixing them...

Ohio State quarterback Will Howard on the run in the national championship game for the 2024 season

My ms-painting of Ohio State quarterback Will Howard, who led his team to a 34-23 victory over Notre Dame in the national championship game for the 2024 season. Howard threw for 2 touchdowns, a championship game record 13 straight completions, and perhaps most importantly, he ran for 8 first downs.

Oregon > Notre Dame

Clearly the majority of sportswriters voting in the AP poll believe that the loser of the national championship game should be ranked #2 regardless of anything else that happened during the season. However, this view makes no logical sense, so I simply cannot let it stand. 13-1 Oregon (#3) and 14-2 Notre Dame (#2) both lost to Ohio State in the playoffs. The only difference is that they were arbitrarily seeded in such a way that Oregon met Ohio State in an earlier round of the playoffs than Notre Dame did. It makes no sense whatsoever to rate Notre Dame higher based on this.

It feels like stating the obvious to go over why Oregon should be rated higher than Notre Dame, but just in case there is someone who really doesn't know, here you go...

Oregon and Notre Dame both lost to OSU in the playoffs, but Oregon took no other losses this season, while Notre Dame also lost at home to 8-5 Northern Illinois. So, just like the straight records go to show, 13-1 Oregon finished effectively 1 game better than 14-2 Notre Dame did for the season. Furthermore, Oregon actually defeated #1 Ohio State earlier in the season, and that upset win gives them a relevant record that is effectively 2 games better than that of Notre Dame for the season.

Notre Dame had a great run in the playoffs, but looking at the AP poll's own rankings, Notre Dame ended up beating just 4 ranked teams this season, just like Oregon did. But the teams Notre Dame beat ended up ranked #5, #6, #10, and #21, while the teams Oregon beat ended up ranked #1, #5, #8, and #16. So Oregon's big wins came over higher-ranked opponents in all 4 cases.

I don't know if automatically ranking the national championship game runner-up #2 is going to be a permanent feature in the final AP polls going forward, but I can definitely say that it is a philosophy I absolutely disagree with. To be clear: the loser of the national championship game should not automatically be ranked #2.

Switch 'em. Oregon moves to #2 and Notre Dame drops to #3.

Comments on Ohio State vs Oregon

So if the championship game runner-up should not automatically be ranked #2, what about the championship game winner? Should that team likewise not automatically be ranked #1? I'll get to that question in a bit, but first let's discuss the particular case of Ohio State vs. Oregon for the 2024 season.

Much like Oregon vs. Notre Dame, Oregon had the better record at 13-1 compared to Ohio State's 14-2. One way to look at it is that each team beat the other, but Ohio State's home loss to unrated 8-5 Michigan in their regular season finale leaves them effectively 1 game worse than Oregon for the season. And if someone were to rank Oregon #1 for that reason, I could see their point. It makes logical sense.

However, I do think that the playoffs should get extra emphasis, and a great deal more extra emphasis than any other game. And Ohio State won their playoff game over Oregon 41-21, an extremely decisive outcome. Oregon's win over Ohio State came in mid-October, at home, by a single point. That result carries a lot less weight for all 3 of those reasons (October, home, close). And while Ohio State's loss to Michigan came late in the season, giving it greater emphasis, that is a rivalry game, which we cannot look at in the same way as an ordinary game. I'm not saying that a loss to a rival doesn't count, but I am saying that a loss to a rival should carry less weight when we rate teams than a loss to a non-rival. Combine all that, the tremendous extra weight of the playoff game and 20-point win, the lower-weight of Oregon's early home close win, the lower-weight of Ohio State's other loss coming to their arch-rival, and I think that that is already enough that Ohio State should be ranked higher than Oregon.

But on top of that, and much unlike Notre Dame, Ohio State accomplished vastly more than Oregon did on the season. Ohio State defeated 6 ranked teams (Oregon 4), and all 6 finished ranked in the top 10. Moreover, Ohio State defeated the #2, #3, #4, and #5 ranked teams, which is just remarkable, and it need hardly be said that it has never been done before.

So while it would make some logical sense to rate Oregon #1, I think it would be a very poor choice.

Should the "National Champion" Automatically Be Ranked #1?

I think it's safe to say that the AP poll will always rank the College Football Playoff winner #1. Should they? I would say no. This is a philosophical choice more than a logical one, and it's a question I've wrestled with since the playoff expanded to 4 teams in 2014. But at 4 teams, while it was possible for a playoff winner to emerge who didn't deserve to be ranked #1 for the season, it was very unlikely. Now, at 12 teams, such a scenario is inevitable. Someday a 3-loss team (or more losses) will win a playoff over a major conference team that finishes with 1 loss. Should that champion be #1? Again, this is a matter of your philosophical outlook on what #1 means, but for me, that champion should probably not be #1.

What if Clemson had been the team to get hot, and win the playoff? I have a hard time rating such a 14-3 team ahead of 13-1 Oregon. A 2-game difference is just too much for me, and in such a case Clemson would have needed to play and defeat a lot more rated teams than Oregon did.

What does #1 mean to me? Same as every other ranking spot. It means that the higher-ranked team had the better season overall. As indicated, earlier games get less weight and later games get more weight, but to me, the entire season matters. Giving less or more weight is not the same as completely ignoring everything that happens outside the playoffs (or for lower-ranked teams, the last game played).

In the past, I have said that bowl games should carry a greater emphasis or weight than regular season games, but that they should not count double. I suppose that a playoff game could count double. But I just don't think that it should count for everything. Winning the playoff means winning the "national championship" and the trophy that comes with it. That's fine. But I don't think that the winner of one tournament should automatically be ranked #1 in a ranking of the top 25 teams for the season. Someday a team will win the playoff that I don't think should be rated #1. Will I drop that team when I fix that AP poll? I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Georgia > Texas

Here's what I wrote on this issue in an article I posted a week before the final AP poll was published: "Having beaten 13-3 Texas twice, it need hardly be said that 11-3 Georgia should remain ranked ahead of the Longhorns in the final poll."

Unfortunately, AP poll voters decided to rank Texas #4 and Georgia #6. Given that Georgia beat Texas 30-15 in Austin, then again in the SEC title game in December, this decision is wholly without sense. It looks like Texas and #5 Penn State are getting a ratings boost for making it into the final four of the playoff, and much of the rest of the season is being ignored in favor of this one fact. This I vehemently disagree with.

I could understand this decision if Texas had beaten the team that beat Georgia in the playoff, or if Texas had at least beaten the team that beat the team that beat Georgia. However, Georgia lost to Notre Dame in the playoff, and Notre Dame didn't lose until the championship game against Ohio State. Notre Dame is still ranked higher than Texas. And that being the case, Georgia's loss to Notre Dame should be irrelevant when comparing them to Texas.

According to the AP poll itself, Texas defeated 2 ranked teams, Georgia 4, so it's not as though Texas accomplished more. In the end it really is as simple as this: both of these teams have 3 losses, and Georgia beat Texas head-to-head. Twice. How many times would satisfy sportswriters? 3? 5? Would 12 be enough?

Sadly, I think that the expanded playoff has rendered the top half of the AP poll rather inept, and I have little hope that things will improve in future years.

Obviously Georgia should be ranked ahead of Texas, but with 13-3 Penn State sitting between them, should we place both teams in front of or behind PSU? Well, the average poll points received by Texas (1211) and Georgia (1141) is 1176, and Penn State has 1203 poll points, so these teams should be placed behind Penn State. Frankly, that's where they belong anyway, as I have asserted previously.

Move Penn State up to #4, Georgia to #5, and drop Texas to #6.

Tennessee vs. Indiana

This is another issue I addressed a couple weeks ago. There, I wrote that 11-2 Indiana should be ranked ahead of 10-3 Tennessee because Indiana's losses both came to top-ranked teams (Ohio State and Notre Dame), whereas Tennessee took an upset loss to unranked 7-6 Arkansas. This is also why Indiana has a better straight record than Tennessee. However, after looking at these teams more closely, while I still think that placing Indiana ahead of Tennessee is a much better choice, I think there may be just enough merit to Tennessee's case to let the AP poll have this one.

The issue is that Indiana did not beat a ranked team this season, and they only defeated 3 bowl qualifiers. That is a very, very weak schedule. Tennessee's schedule wasn't tough, but they did beat #17 Alabama, and they beat 5 bowl qualifiers, so their schedule was definitely tougher than Indiana's. Now, it should be noted that Indiana did beat 8-5 Michigan 20-15 at home, and Michigan will be rated in the fixed poll (as covered below), but one close home win over one rated team is still not very impressive, and easily written off as a fluke. And in addition to #17 Alabama, Tennessee defeated 8-5 Florida, and Florida will be ranked in the fixed poll as well (also covered below), so Tennessee will have 2 wins over rated opponents in the fixed AP poll, Indiana 1.

Other than Michigan, Indiana's best wins came at home over 7-6 Nebraska and 6-7 Washington. I consider these wins to have very little value. Washington was 0-7 on the road this year. All of Indiana's wins over bowl qualifiers were at home. Tennessee, on the other hand, faced 4 bowl qualifiers on the road (6-7 North Carolina State, 6-7 Oklahoma, 7-6 Arkansas, and 7-6 Vanderbilt), winning 3 and losing 1.

Indiana and Tennessee each lost 2 games by more than a touchdown to top-ranked teams, they each performed about the same, and Indiana's home win over Michigan is comparable to Tennessee's home win over Alabama (Michigan defeated Alabama 19-13 in their bowl game). So let's focus on what's different. In the end, it all comes down to which of the following groups of outcomes you think is better:

A) Beating 7-6 Nebraska and 6-7 Washington at home, plus 3 wins over losing teams
B) Beating 6-7 NC State, 6-7 Oklahoma, and 7-6 Vanderbilt on the road AND beating #22 8-5 Florida at home, BUT losing to 7-6 Arkansas on the road

If you think A is better, then you think Indiana should be ranked higher. If you think B is better, then you think Tennessee should be ranked higher. I would go with A, and I would rank Indiana higher, because I think that those extra wins over mostly mediocre teams do not make up for Tennessee taking the upset loss to Arkansas, who is not even close to ranked. Especially for a top 10 team. However, there is no doubt that B represents a much tougher slate of opposition, particularly when you see that 4 of those 5 games were on the road. So I think the AP poll has a case here, and I can let them have this one.

12-2 Boise State, who is ranked right in front of Tennessee, played a schedule that was at least as weak as Indiana's overall, so if Tennessee is going to be ranked ahead of Indiana due to a tougher schedule, should they also be ranked ahead of Boise State for the same reason? Well, the crucial point about Indiana is that they really only defeated one strong opponent, Michigan, who will be ranked in the fixed poll. They didn't beat any other team that garnered a single AP poll point. Boise State, on the other hand, collected 2 wins against the top 25, as they beat #23 UNLV (11-3) twice, once on the road. I think that is enough of a difference to treat Boise State differently than Indiana.

No change.

Arizona State, Mississippi, and Brigham Young

Here is another issue I have brought up before, except that this time, 11-3 Arizona State is even more overrated, as they jumped 3 more teams in the final poll up to #7, despite taking a loss in their one playoff game. Arizona State took 2 upset losses to unranked teams (8-5 Texas Tech and 5-7 Cincinnati) this season, they played a weak schedule (3 ranked opponents, 6 bowl qualifiers), and they performed very poorly on the season (4 close wins over losing teams). Their one playoff game was an overtime loss to Texas, which is a terrific result, arguably their best performance of the season (and apparently the only thing AP poll voters can remember about them), but it is still a loss, and grossly outweighed by the many poor performances they posted this season. The three teams ASU passed up in the final poll all performed far stronger than ASU did this season, and those teams suffered 0 upset losses, 1 upset loss, and 0 upset losses, all superior to ASU's 2 upset losses.

Let's compare 11-3 Arizona State to 11-2 Indiana, who sits 3 places behind them at #10. Indiana took their 2 losses to #1 Ohio State and now-#3 Notre Dame, both ranked higher than ASU, while, again, ASU took 2 upset losses to unranked teams, one of them a losing team. Indiana posted just 1 close win (touchdown or less), and that was over 8-5 Michigan, who will be ranked in the fixed poll (as covered below). ASU posted 6 close wins, 5 of those against unranked teams and 4 against losing teams. And while ASU arguably played a tougher schedule, they only played 1 more bowl qualifier than Indiana did, which does not come close to making up for 2 more losses to unranked teams. This is not a real debate. 11-3 Arizona State has no business being ranked higher than 11-2 Indiana (and in the previous AP poll top 25, they were not ranked higher).

Mississippi vs Arizona State

So ASU belongs ranked behind #10 Indiana. Let's compare them to #11 Mississippi. As I wrote on this issue in my previous article, 10-3 Mississippi and 11-3 Arizona State have essentially the same record, but I think that Ole Miss should be ranked higher than ASU in the final poll due to clearly better performance on the season. All 10 of Mississippi's wins came by more than a touchdown, whereas ASU, again, posted 6 close wins (touchdown or less), 5 of them over unranked opponents, 4 over teams with losing records.

However, as I also wrote last week, I do think that it would be viable to rank 11-2 Brigham Young (#13) higher than Ole Miss. That's because BYU took just 1 upset loss. Mississippi took 3 upset losses, and they only balanced out 1 of those with an upset win (over now-#5 Georgia). That leaves Mississippi with a relevant record that is effectively 1 game worse than that of BYU for the season. Now, I find this choice weak, as Ole Miss played a much tougher schedule than BYU did and they clearly performed better too, but I do think that BYU's schedule and performance are close enough to Mississippi's that you can rank them higher than Mississippi due to their better relevant record. And needless to say, if you do rank BYU ahead of Mississippi, then ASU, having beaten BYU, could of course also be ranked higher than Mississippi.

So the question is, which is closer to what the AP poll voters wanted, Ole Miss > ASU > BYU or ASU > BYU > Ole Miss? Well, the AP poll put ASU at #7, Mississippi at #11, and BYU at #13, so the closer choice would be ASU > BYU > Mississippi, and we will therefore rank these teams in that order. Clearly AP poll voters fell in love with ASU, so it's my job to find the highest ranking for ASU that makes any logical sense.

Where to Rank Them

As I've already established, Arizona State has no business being ranked higher than Boise State, Tennessee, or Indiana, so we'll place ASU, BYU, and Mississippi where Ole Miss is ranked now, right after Indiana.

I still think that all 3 of these teams are overrated, and I would rank all of them much lower myself. 10-3 Mississippi has 3 upset losses to unranked teams and 1 upset win over Georgia. Compare them to 9-4 Alabama, who is ranked way back at #17. Alabama, playing a similar SEC schedule, took just 2 upset losses, and they also have 1 upset win over Georgia. I would definitely rank Ole Miss behind Alabama and ahead of 9-4 South Carolina (#19), who Ole Miss defeated 27-3. But Alabama did lose to 8-5 Michigan in their bowl game, who lost to Illinois, and that is the crucial difference that I think enables the AP poll to rate Mississippi ahead of them, as well as Michigan and Illinois. Illinois and Michigan each took just 1 upset loss, so each has a better relevant record than Mississippi does, but Ole Miss performed a lot better than Illinois did, and on that basis, I'm going to let the AP poll have its way here. I think it's a stretch, and that ranking Mississippi behind Alabama is a lot better, but I will hold my nose and allow it. I compare Mississippi and Illinois in more detail later in this article (after I have Illinois situated in their proper place in the top 25).

I would rank ASU and BYU down even further than that. Clemson and SMU are going to be ranked behind Alabama and South Carolina (as covered next), and I would put ASU and BYU behind Clemson (who has just 1 upset loss, compared to ASU's 2 upset losses) and ahead of SMU, whom BYU defeated 18-15 on the road this year. I should note here that the AP poll put 11-3 SMU at #12 and 11-2 BYU at #13 (by a mere 3 poll points), and needless to say, that was a very poor decision that cannot and will not stand. The fix we're about to make addresses this issue as well.

In conclusion, we will let the AP poll overrate ASU, BYU, and Mississippi, as I think there is just enough rationale for it to be logically viable, even if suboptimal. Putting them behind Indiana gives us the following ratings shift: Boise State to #7, Tennessee to #8, Indiana to #9, Arizona State to #10, Brigham Young to #11, Mississippi to #12, and Southern Methodist to #13.

Illinois > Michigan > Alabama > South Carolina > Clemson > Southern Methodist

This is yet another issue I addressed in mid-January. Here we have a long victory chain that is central to this year's final top 25. 10-3 Illinois (#16) won 21-7 over 8-5 Michigan (#29 in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll), who won 19-13 over 9-4 Alabama (#17) in their bowl game, who won 27-25 over 9-4 South Carolina (#19), who won 17-14 at 10-4 Clemson (#14) in their regular season finale, and Clemson won 34-31 over 11-3 Southern Methodist (#12) in the ACC title game. And that is the order in which all of these teams should be ranked. Pretty simple. The confusion, as always, stems primarily from the straight records of the teams involved. AP poll voters are simply incapable of taking strength of schedule into proper account.

Since Illinois is already ranked well higher than Michigan, and since Alabama is already ranked higher than South Carolina, I will just discuss the other parts of the above victory chain.

Michigan > Alabama

Again, Michigan beat Alabama 19-13 in their bowl game, giving the result greater weight. And while Michigan is 8-5 and Alabama 9-4, Michigan actually has a better relevant record than Alabama does. Michigan took just one upset loss (6-7 Washington). Their other 4 losses all came to teams that are ranked higher than Alabama (13-3 Texas, 10-3 Illinois, 11-2 Indiana, and 13-1 Oregon). Alabama, on the other hand, took two upset losses (7-6 Vanderbilt and 6-7 Oklahoma). Due to that and the head-to-head result, Michigan was effectively 2 games better than Alabama for the season. Alabama did notch a great upset win over now-#5 Georgia in game 4, but that is no better than Michigan's big win over #1 Ohio State in their regular season finale. There is simply no logical doubt at all that Michigan should be ranked higher than Alabama.

South Carolina > Clemson > Southern Methodist

I've been writing about this issue since December. These 3 teams were ranked in the opposite order of their victory chain then, and they still are in the final poll. It's too bad, because these head-to-head results were huge games that took place at the end of the season, and therefore shouldn't be difficult to remember and pay attention to.

Putting 10-4 Clemson (#14) so far ahead of 9-4 South Carolina (#19) is especially head-scratching, since both teams had 4 losses. Clemson's win over SMU was terrific, a real season-saver, but they accomplished little else, as they did not defeat any other team that is even close to ranked in the final poll. And SMU wasn't all that impressive themselves, as they did not defeat a ranked team (though 9-4 Louisville should be ranked in the final poll). South Carolina beat 2 ranked teams (Clemson and 10-3 Missouri) and another team that is in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll (8-5 Texas A&M). South Carolina played more bowl qualifiers and more winning teams than Clemson did, and moreover, the SEC was the best major conference (63-17 against nonconference opponents, the best of any conference), while the ACC was the worst (a putrid 2-11 in their bowl games!). There is simply no reason for Clemson to be ranked higher. Throw in the fact that SC's 17-14 win over Clemson came on the road and in the regular season finale, giving it greater weight for both reasons, and there is just no logical argument at all for Clemson.

10-4 Clemson (#14) vs. 11-3 Southern Methodist (#12) may be a bit more confusing due to those straight records, but the difference in their records comes down to the fact that Clemson played and lost to 10-4 South Carolina. However, since SMU did not themselves defeat a team ranked as highly as SC (or any ranked team), it doesn't make sense to punish Clemson for that. These teams have the same relevant record. SMU did beat Louisville, who beat Clemson, but Clemson made up for that by beating SMU head-to-head, and that should be the tie-breaker. Throw in the fact that Clemson's 34-31 win over SMU came in the ACC title game, giving it greater weight, and this should not be a debate.

Where to Rank Them

So 10-3 Illinois (#16) > 8-5 Michigan (#29) > 9-4 Alabama (#17) > 9-4 South Carolina (#19) > 10-4 Clemson (#14) > 11-3 Southern Methodist (#12). Where do we put them? Well, the average rank of these 6 teams is 17.8, which would place them all where Alabama is ranked now.

That gives us the following ratings shift: Iowa State #13, Illinois #14, Michigan #15, Alabama #16, South Carolina #17, Clemson #18, Southern Methodist #19, and Miami (Florida) #20. In addition, former #20 Syracuse and all the teams behind them drop one slot each. That knocks former #25 Colorado (9-4) out of the top 25, and good riddance. I'll address Colorado in more detail later in this article, but for now I'll just say that their inclusion in the top 25 was the worst rating decision of the entire AP poll, and Colorado has been the most overrated team in college football for most of the season.

Iowa State

11-3 Iowa State (now #13) is another team whose overrating I have discussed before. As I wrote there, Iowa State has 2 upset losses to unranked teams (8-5 Texas Tech and 5-7 Kansas), and with no upset wins to balance either of those losses out, Iowa State has a worse relevant record than a bunch of teams that are ranked behind them. Iowa State should be ranked right in front of now-#20 Miami (Florida), whom they defeated 42-41 in their bowl game, and no higher. And a 1-point victory only serves to reinforce the fact that they should be rated barely ahead of Miami.

The teams now ranked right behind ISU, Illinois and Michigan, have each taken just 1 upset loss, so they are each effectively 1 game better than ISU for the season. Michigan may be 8-5 and ISU 11-3, but that is because Michigan played 6 ranked opponents and ISU played just 2! ISU has beaten just 1 ranked opponent, while Michigan has beaten 2, one of whom is #1 Ohio State. ISU's case is not even close to Michigan.

Let's cut to the chase and compare 11-3 Iowa State to now-#19 Southern Methodist (11-3). ISU, again, has taken 2 upset losses to teams that are not only unranked, but not close to ranked. And one of them has a losing record. SMU has taken zero upset losses, so they are effectively 2 games better than ISU for the season. I should also note that the AP poll ranked ISU behind SMU (as well as Clemson, who is currently rated ahead of SMU) in the first place, as they initially put SMU #12, Clemson #14, and ISU #15.

Drop Iowa State back behind Southern Methodist. Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, South Carolina, Clemson, and SMU all move up one slot.

Illinois vs Mississippi

10-3 Illinois now sits at #13, right behind 10-3 Mississippi, in our fixed AP poll top 25. As promised above, here is a more detailed comparison of the 2 teams.

Illinois took 1 upset loss, to unranked 8-5 Minnesota. Mississippi took 3 upset losses to unranked teams, to 4-8 Kentucky, 9-4 LSU, and 8-5 Florida, but they made up for one of those losses with an upset win over now-#5 Georgia (11-3). Also, LSU and Florida are both nearly ranked, at #27 and #33, and both of them will be ranked in the bottom of the top 25 when I finish fixing this AP poll (as covered below). Still, Illinois has a relevant record that is effectively 1 game better than that of Mississippi for the season. The fact that 2 of Mississippi's upset losses came to teams that are at least rated may be a mitigating factor, but if it were up to me, I would rank Illinois higher than Ole Miss due to their better relevant record.

But as I alluded to previously, I think the fact that Mississippi vastly outperformed Illinois on the season gives the AP poll voters a logically viable reason to keep Mississippi rated higher than Illinois. All 10 of Mississippi's wins came by more than a touchdown, including an extremely impressive 28-10 beatdown of #5 Georgia, and all 3 of Mississippi's losses came by a touchdown or less. Illinois, on the other hand, posted 5 close wins, 4 of them over unrated teams and 2 over losing teams. Especially bad was a 1-point overtime win over 1-11 Purdue at home. Illinois also lost 2 games by more than a touchdown, giving them a total of 7 poor performances to none for Ole Miss. For good measure, Mississippi beat South Carolina 27-3 on the road, and Illinois beat SC 21-17 on a neutral field.

So yeah, the AP poll voters can keep Mississippi ranked higher than Illinois, and in fact, as I look at all that, I now think that perhaps they were right and I was wrong on this one. On the other hand, when I compare Mississippi to Alabama, it still looks pretty clear to me that Alabama should be rated higher, so I suppose that that is still where I would put Mississippi myself. But the AP poll can keep them where they are.

Louisville

I've been saying that 9-4 Louisville (#28 in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll) is underrated for a couple of months now. Louisville took an upset loss 38-35 at 3-9 Stanford, but they balanced it out with an upset win 33-21 at 10-4 Clemson (now #17). Because most of the teams in the bottom of the top 25 have taken upset losses that are not balanced out by upset wins, Louisville has a better relevant record than most of the teams in the bottom of the top 25.

Louisville vs. Syracuse

Let's compare Louisville to fellow ACC member Syracuse, who now sits at #21. Now, Louisville is 9-4 and Syracuse 10-3, but that is only because Louisville played 4 ranked teams and Syracuse played ONE. This is just another example of the AP poll punishing a team for playing a tougher schedule, which they do every single year. Syracuse took 3 upset losses to unranked teams, Louisville 1, so Louisville was effectively 2 games better than Syracuse for the season. Syracuse did notch an upset win over Miami (who beat Louisville), but Louisville also earned an upset win (10-4 Clemson), and Louisville beat 2 teams that beat Syracuse (7-6 BC and 7-6 Pitt). Louisville took close losses to Notre Dame and SMU, but Syracuse did not even play a team ranked as highly as either, so those losses should be disregarded when comparing Louisville to Syracuse (if anything they should be seen as positives since they were close games), and when you do that, Louisville has 2 losses and Syracuse 3. This comparison is a slam dunk for Louisville.

Louisville vs. UNLV

11-3 UNLV, now ranked #24, is one team in the bottom of the top 25 that has the same relevant record Louisville has, but I can see no reason for Louisville to be ranked behind UNLV, and as I've just demonstrated, Louisville should very clearly be ranked ahead of Syracuse, who defeated UNLV and is ranked above them (I discuss Syracuse vs. UNLV in more detail later in this article). UNLV and Louisville performed about the same, but Louisville did it against a much tougher schedule. As bad as the ACC was this year, it was still stronger than the Mountain West, and even if we see the conferences as comparable, Louisville defeated 6 bowl qualifying teams this season, UNLV just 3. In fact, UNLV only defeated 1 team that finished with a winning record, 7-6 San Jose State, while Louisville defeated 5 winning teams. So as I said, there is just no good reason to rate UNLV higher than Louisville. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Louisville vs. Miami (Florida)

Louisville did lose to 10-3 Miami-Florida (now ranked #20), so you might think that Louisville should be ranked behind Miami, but this is not the case, because Louisville actually has a better relevant record than Miami as well. Louisville has 1 upset loss, Miami 2 (if ranked ahead of Syracuse, as they are and should be). Miami's head-to-head win would make them even, but Louisville has an upset win over Clemson, who is correctly ranked higher than Miami. That upset win puts Louisville effectively 1 game better than Miami for the season. Another, simpler way to look at the situation, similar to the Syracuse comparison above, is that 9-4 Louisville took 2 close losses to Notre Dame and SMU, and 10-3 Miami, like Syracuse, did not play any team ranked as highly as either. Those losses should therefore be disregarded when comparing Louisville to Miami (if anything they should be seen as positives for Louisville since they were close games), and when you do that, Louisville has 2 losses and Miami 3. Louisville should therefore be ranked higher than Miami.

Furthermore, if we rank Louisville ahead of Miami, as they should be, then Miami would have 1 upset win to balance out 1 of their 2 upset losses, and that makes Miami a much better top 25 inclusion. Putting Louisville into the top 25 here also strengthens now-#18 SMU's rating, as Louisville gives SMU a victory over a rated opponent that they would otherwise lack. So rating Louisville properly improves the integrity of the top 25 in a larger way than just one team's ranking.

Louisville vs. Iowa State

If ranked ahead of Miami, as they should be, then Louisville would have 2 upset losses (3-9 Stanford and 10-3 Miami) and 1 upset win (10-4 Clemson). That gives them a better relevant record than that of 11-3 Iowa State (currently ranked #19, right in front of Miami), who has 2 upset losses (8-5 Texas Tech and 5-7 Kansas) and no upset wins. The Clemson win renders Louisville effectively 1 game better than Iowa State for the season, and as such, Louisville should be ranked higher than Iowa State. ISU also posted twice as many poor performances (wins by a touchdown or less and losses by more than a touchdown) as Louisville. And Louisville played more ranked teams, winning teams, and bowl qualifiers than ISU did. So there's just no good reason for ISU to be ranked higher than Louisville. But we've finally reached the end of the line for Louisville, as Southern Methodist currently sits right in front of Iowa State at #18, and Louisville should be ranked behind Southern Methodist, who beat them 34-27 (and SMU has taken no upset losses).

Miami (Florida) vs. Syracuse

Before moving on, I should discuss 10-3 Miami (Florida) vs. 10-3 Syracuse, since Miami sits just ahead of Syracuse in the rankings despite Syracuse defeating Miami 42-38 in their regular season finale. Is this a fair ranking? Yes it is, because Miami actually has the better relevant record. Syracuse, again, has taken 3 upset losses, while Miami has only taken 1, giving Miami an effective 2-game lead over Syracuse, and the head-to-head win only makes up for 1 of those. And when we move Louisville ahead of Miami, where they belong, Miami has an upset win, and that puts them even further ahead of Syracuse. Miami also performed a lot better than Syracuse did, posting 2 close wins (touchdown or less) over unranked opponents to 6 for Syracuse (and that includes a close win over a 6-6 FCS team). And Syracuse's head-to-head win was a close home win, not at all decisive.

So Miami remains ranked ahead of Syracuse. But we're moving Louisville into the top 25 and all the way up ahead of Iowa State to #19. Iowa State and all the teams behind them drop 1 slot each. That knocks 11-2 Memphis (originally ranked #24) out of the top 25, and like Colorado, this is another good riddance. I'll address Memphis (along with Colorado) in more detail later in this article, but for now I'll just say that the inclusion of Memphis in the top 25 was the second worst rating decision of this AP poll, after Colorado's inclusion of course.

Florida and Louisiana State

Much like Louisville, I've also been complaining that 8-5 Florida (#33 in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll) and 9-4 Louisiana State (#27) are underrated for months. And like Louisville, these teams both have better relevant records than most of the teams ranked behind now-#21 Miami (Florida), who beat Florida 41-17 in their season opener. Florida has 1 upset loss (8-5 Texas A&M), but they balanced it out with an upset win over now-#12 Mississippi (10-3). Similarly, LSU has 2 upset losses (7-6 Southern Cal and 8-5 Texas A&M), but they balanced both out with upset wins over now-#12 Mississippi (10-3) and now-#16 South Carolina (9-4).

But first let's discuss why 8-5 Florida should be ranked ahead of 9-4 LSU, since the AP poll voters put LSU 6 places higher than Florida in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll. This part is simple. Florida, of course, defeated LSU 27-16 in mid-November. The reason Florida has 5 losses and LSU 4 is because Florida played 3 top 10 teams (Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas) and LSU played zero. That is a huge disparity. So Florida has the better relevant record, along with the head-to-head win by more than a touchdown late in the season.

Florida and LSU should be ranked right behind Miami, and ahead of Syracuse, who was effectively 2 games worse than Florida and LSU for the season. Syracuse, remember, took 3 upset losses to unranked teams, and they only made up for 1 of them with an upset win (over Miami). Florida and LSU, again, made up for all of their upset losses with equal upset wins. They also both performed better than Syracuse did, and the SEC was a much tougher conference than the ACC, so Syracuse has no real argument here.

11-3 UNLV, who is ranked behind Syracuse, does have the same relevant record that Florida and LSU have, but as discussed when comparing Louisville to UNLV previously, UNLV just didn't beat anyone of any value at all. They defeated only 3 bowl qualifiers, and just 1 winning team (7-6 San Jose State). And the real point is that UNLV did not themselves defeat any team as strong as the teams that upset Florida and LSU (8-5 Texas A&M and 7-6 Southern Cal), so UNLV just doesn't have a leg to stand on in comparison to Florida and LSU. I'd say that it is even more clear with these 2 teams than it was with Louisville.

I should note that if Louisville were not ranked ahead of Miami (Florida), then Miami would have 2 upset losses and no upset wins, giving Florida a better relevant record than Miami. But Louisville being ranked ahead of Miami gives Miami an upset win to balance out 1 of their upset losses, and their head-to-head win over Florida makes Florida and Miami even, with the head-to-head tiebreaker going to Miami. So this is another way that the top 25 in general is strengthened by moving Louisville ahead of Miami (where they belong anyway).

In any case, we're moving Florida and Louisiana State into the top 25, right behind Miami (Florida). That puts Florida at #22, LSU at #23, Syracuse at #24, and Army at #25. 10-3 Missouri (originally ranked #22) and 11-3 UNLV (originally #23) fall out of the top 25. But not for long...

Syracuse, Army, Missouri, and UNLV

So, 12-2 Army is now #25, and 10-3 Missouri and 11-3 UNLV have fallen out of the rankings at #26 and #27. My last fix to the AP poll is moving UNLV up ahead of Army and Missouri for the last slot in the top 25. The biggest problem for UNLV (originally ranked #23), as I've already established, is that they did not beat a team that was even close to ranked, but neither did 12-2 Army (originally #21) or 10-3 Missouri (originally #22). UNLV's advantage over those 2 teams is that they did not take an upset loss (all 3 of their losses came to rated teams), whereas Army was spanked 31-13 by unranked Navy in their regular season finale and Missouri was blasted 41-10 by unranked Texas A&M. UNLV thus had a relevant record that was effectively a game better than that of Army and Missouri.

UNLV had 3 losses and Army 2 because UNLV played 3 ranked teams and Army only played 1. The real difference between the teams is the upset loss Army took to unrated Navy. Now, perhaps Army's upset loss carries less weight since it is a big rivalry game (like Ohio State vs. Michigan, as previously discussed), but it also came at the end of the season and by 18 points, both factors that give it greater weight, and in any case, even if you only counted it as half a loss, Army's relevant record would then still be half a game worse than that of UNLV. And Army didn't do anything to make up for it. UNLV's schedule was weak, as they only defeated 3 bowl qualifiers, but Army only beat 4 bowl qualifiers themselves. And UNLV defeated 3 major conference teams plus Oregon State, while Army defeated no major conference teams. I just don't see any good reason for Army to be ranked ahead of UNLV.

Army does have a better relevant record than does Syracuse (10-3), who is currently ranked just ahead of them at #24. But the schedule difference between Syracuse and Army is immense. Syracuse defeated an incredible 9 bowl qualifiers, more than twice as many as Army defeated, and all 3 of Syracuse's upset losses came to major conference teams, while Army defeated none themselves. Two of the teams that upset Syracuse, 7-6 Pitt and 7-6 BC, are better than anyone Army was able to defeat. Syracuse also defeated 2 ranked opponents, while Army did not beat a team that was even close to ranked.

So Army's out. Let's talk about Missouri...

Missouri and Texas A&M

10-3 Missouri's problem is a little different from Army's, because I don't think that their loss to Texas A&M was really an upset at all. If their loss to 8-5 Texas A&M (#35 in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll) was just an upset, then it might be viable to rank them higher than UNLV due to a much stronger schedule. While neither Missouri nor UNLV beat a team that was close to ranked, Missouri did beat twice as many bowl qualifiers as UNLV and twice as many major conference teams. But I don't think there's a good reason to regard Missouri's loss to Texas A&M as an "upset," and I think that Missouri should be ranked back behind Texas A&M.

If placed behind Texas A&M, Missouri has no upset losses and no upset wins. Texas A&M has 2 upset losses (5-7 Auburn and 7-6 Southern Cal), but they made up for both with 2 upset wins (now-#22 Florida and now-#23 LSU). Texas A&M's head-to-head win over Missouri puts them effectively 1 game better than Missouri for the season. And that head-to-head win was massive, 41-10. Texas A&M played a far tougher schedule than Missouri did (which is largely why they have 5 losses and Missouri has 3), and they also outperformed Missouri. Missouri posted 6 close wins (touchdown or less), all over teams that are not close to ranked, and they were routed in 2 of their losses, for 8 poor performances. Texas A&M totaled 5 poor performances, but 2 of those were 10-point losses to top 10 teams (Notre Dame and Texas), so really they totaled 3 poor performances. Missouri did not play a top 10 team.

You may be wondering why I consider the losses by both #22 Florida and #23 LSU to Texas A&M to be upsets, but not Missouri's loss to Texas A&M. Well, it's because Florida and LSU both had relevant records that were better than Missouri's, and that is because they both beat higher-ranked teams and Missouri did not. In other words, Missouri did nothing to prove that they were better than Texas A&M, while the other 2 teams did.

And look at Missouri's schedule and results. Game after game, their performance was consistently that of an unranked team. Missouri's best win is their 27-24 bowl win over 8-5 Iowa. If the AP poll ranked enough teams, Iowa might be ranked about #50, so it seems to me that Missouri's best win tells us that they are about #40 at best. Their other best wins, by 6 points over 7-6 BC, by 3 points in overtime over 7-6 Vanderbilt, by 7 over 6-7 Oklahoma, and by 7 over 7-6 Arkansas, all home games, all tell us the same thing, that they are at the power level of a #40 team. And that 41-10 loss to Texas A&M? Much worse than #40.

So Missouri does belong behind Texas A&M, and it's just as well, because they definitely did not perform like a top 25 team anyway.

Texas A&M vs. UNLV

So Texas A&M, again, has 2 upset losses balanced out by 2 upset wins, giving them the same relevant record that UNLV has (UNLV has no upset wins or losses). Should Texas A&M be ranked ahead of UNLV? After all, they did play a much more impressive schedule, starting with the fact that they have a win over 10-3 Missouri, which is far better than any win UNLV has. Well, if the AP poll had rated Texas A&M ahead of UNLV to begin with, I would accept it on the basis of better schedule (primarily beating Missouri), but the AP poll rated UNLV higher, and I do think they have good enough reason to.

The main reason is that one of Texas A&M's upset losses came to unranked 7-6 Southern Cal in their bowl game, giving it greater weight, and so UNLV actually has a better relevant record than A&M does by the margin of that greater weight. You could fairly think of UNLV as being effectively half a game better than Texas A&M on the season. Furthermore, Texas A&M had a terrible finish. All of their best wins, including both upset wins and the win over Missouri, came in the first half of the season, but from November on they went 1-4, including both upset losses.

So yeah, UNLV can remain ranked ahead of Texas A&M.

Syracuse vs. UNLV

So we're putting UNLV at #25, just behind #24 Syracuse, and now the last question is, does Syracuse deserve to remain ranked ahead of UNLV? Syracuse did beat UNLV head-to-head, 44-41 in overtime in Las Vegas. But Syracuse also had 3 upset losses, with only 1 upset win to balance out 1 of those losses. UNLV had no upset wins or losses, so with the head-to-head result, Syracuse had a relevant record that was effectively 1 game worse than UNLV's for the season.

However, Syracuse played a massively tougher schedule than UNLV did. UNLV beat just 3 bowl qualifiers, and they did not beat a team that was even close to ranked. Syracuse, on the other hand, defeated an incredibly impressive 9 bowl qualifiers and 2 ranked teams. Two of the teams that upset Syracuse, 7-6 Pitt and 7-6 BC, were better than any team UNLV beat themselves. And finally, Syracuse finished very strong, including an upset win over now-#21 Miami (Florida) in their regular season finale and a 17 point win over 8-5 Washington State in their bowl game.

You could rank UNLV higher than Syracuse for the better relevant record (and arguably better performance), but the massive schedule difference and the head-to-head win are enough for the AP poll to keep Syracuse ranked higher.
I should note that you could rank Texas A&M and Missouri ahead of both Syracuse and UNLV, and that would be logically viable. With Syracuse's 3 upset losses, Texas A&M and Missouri both have far better relevant records than Syracuse does. But they don't have better relevant records than UNLV, and Syracuse can be rated higher than UNLV. And anyway, Syracuse's 9 wins over bowl qualifiers is incredibly impressive. They only played 2 teams that did not qualify for bowls this season, and that is a remarkable schedule. Their big win at UNLV ends up being what saves them a spot in the top 25, along with Texas A&M's upset bowl loss to Southern Cal.

So our final fix is moving UNLV up to #25 and dropping Army out of the rankings.

A Final Word on Memphis and Colorado

11-2 Memphis (originally rated #24) and 9-4 Colorado (originally #25) are long gone from the top 25 now, but I thought I'd go into a little more detail on these terrible choices made by the AP poll voters. I've been complaining about these teams for months.

I singled Memphis out last week. Here is what I wrote there: "...there is one potential inclusion that definitely has no business being ranked in a final top 25, and needs no closer look, and that is 11-2 Memphis (as covered previously)." Memphis lost to 10-3 Navy (#26 in the Others Receiving Votes section of the AP poll), and needs to be ranked behind them. Memphis' other loss came to unranked 7-6 Texas-San Antonio, and one upset loss isn't bad, but the problem is that they just haven't beaten anyone. Their best win came 34-24 over 9-5 Tulane, a team Florida trounced 33-8 in their bowl game. But of course, as covered above, Florida should be ranked. And Memphis should not be. Memphis' other best win came 42-37 over 6-7 West Virginia in their bowl game, a performance that indicates a power level of maybe #50. Their 12-point loss to Navy is similarly the performance of an unranked team.

Here is what I wrote about 9-4 Colorado in December: "by far the worst rating in this top 25 is 9-3 Colorado at #20." Since then, Colorado has been trounced 36-14 by Brigham Young in their bowl game. That is the only ranked team they have played all season. So Colorado took all three of their other losses to unrated opponents, one of those by 16 points to a losing team, and needless to say, they did not beat a team that is even close to ranked. Colorado has been consistently overrated all season, and just as they were in December, they are still by far the worst rating in the AP poll's top 25. An absolute embarrassment for every writer that mindlessly voted for them.

Fixed AP Poll Top 25

Four teams fall out of this fixed AP poll top 25, the most since 2016. Those teams are 12-2 Army (#21), 10-3 Missouri (#22), 11-2 Memphis (#24), and 9-4 Colorado (#25). They are replaced by 8-5 Michigan (now #14), 9-4 Louisville (#19), 8-5 Florida (#22), and 9-4 Louisiana State (#23). The 4 teams that fall out totaled 7 losses to unranked teams, and they did not defeat any team that the AP poll had rated. Discounting games against each other, the 4 teams that replace them totaled 6 losses to unranked teams, one better, and they collected a far superior 6 wins against AP-rated teams. That's a very dominating win for the replacements, and thus for the fixed AP poll over the original.

And here it is, your fixed final AP poll for the 2024 season, now logically coherent.

1) Ohio State 14-2	--
2) Oregon 13-1	+1
3) Notre Dame 14-2	-1
4) Penn State 13-3	+1
5) Georgia 11-3	+1
6) Texas 13-3	-2
7) Boise State 12-2	+1
8) Tennessee 10-3	+1
9) Indiana 11-2	+1
10) Arizona State 11-3	-3
11) Brigham Young 11-2	+2
12) Mississippi 10-3	-1
13) Illinois 10-3	+3
14) Michigan 8-5	IN
15) Alabama 9-4	+2
16) South Carolina 9-4	+3
17) Clemson 10-4	-3
18) Southern Methodist 11-3	-6
19) Louisville 9-4	IN
20) Iowa State 11-3	-5
21) Miami (Florida) 10-3	-3
22) Florida 8-5	IN
23) Louisiana State 9-4	IN
24) Syracuse 10-3	-4
25) UNLV 11-3	-2

OUT: #21 Army 12-2
#22 Missouri 10-3
#24 Memphis 11-2
#25 Colorado 9-4

Fixed AP Polls
Home