|Team, Conf, Record||MAS||SAG||AP||CFP||S&P||total|
|Clemson ACC 12-1||1||2||1||1||7||3.643|
|Alabama SEC 11-1||6||1||4||4||2||2.167|
|Ohio St B10 11-2||4||4||5||5||1||1.9|
|Georgia SEC 12-1||2||3||3||3||3||1.833|
|Oklahoma B12 12-1||3||5||2||2||8||1.658|
|Wisconsin B10 12-1||5||7||6||6||6||0.843|
|Penn St B10 10-2||7||6||9||9||5||0.732|
|Auburn SEC 10-3||8||8||7||7||10||0.636|
|Washington P12 10-2||18||9||12||11||4||0.591|
|UCF AAC 12-0||10||16||10||12||9||0.457|
I have taken here five different rankings — Massey and Sagarin, which are good, solid computer rankings based on the final score and outcome of games, S&P, which uses play-by-play data and sometimes produces very different results than other systems, and AP and the College Football Playoff committee, which aggregate expert human opinions in very different processes — and I have added the multiplicative inverse of each ordinal ranking. Thus Ohio State, which the S&P really likes, is listed above Georgia, which is broadly regarded as about third, because I'm more interested in getting each system's top team and, to a lesser extent, top two teams near the top than getting anybody's third place team near the top.
It's possible that the S&P, as callers to a radio sports show might assert, is just the crazy ramblings of statheads with no real appreciation of football, but shouldn't that — as those same callers might assert — be settled on the field?