Overachiever or underachiever? Ranking all Power Five teams (Rivals)

quote:

---

College football is run by expectations. Teams are judged against them, coaches are fired because of them and public opinion is shaped around them. It’s why there’s constant talk of teams “doing more with less” or “wasting talent.”

These are not niche conversations. It’s why Rivals.com has created a formula to measure which programs really have accomplished more with less and which schools fail to get the most out of their NFL-level talent over the last decade.

This week, we’ll roll out an analytical, NFL Draft-based series that looks at a decade’s worth of data. This is a measure of overachieving and underachieving based on NFL talent each college team has on its roster against the number of wins, Top 25 finishes and titles produced.

We used the below formula created by Rivals.com's Rob Cassidy and statistician D. Kyle Burkett on every Power Five conference team, and the median score among them was used as the basis to determine just how much each team overachieved or underachieved based on its NFL talent.

The formula is as follows (data was collected starting with the 2008 season and the 2009 NFL Draft):

Talent Efficiency Score = ((Wins/3)+(AP Top 25 Finishes x 3) + (Power Conference Title X 6) + (Group of Five Conference titles x 3) + (National titles x 9)) / TOTAL DRAFT PICKS

NOTE: In the case of a split conference title, the points were divided evenly among the winners. (E.G. two Power Conference winners were granted three points apiece, three winners were given two a piece, etc.).

With all the boring math explained and out of the way, we kick off the weeklong series with a look at the Power Five’s five biggest overachievers and five biggest underachievers as determined by our formula. The following days will include a closer look at each Power Five league and how the teams in each rate on the efficiency scale. A full ranking of Power Five teams and how they stacked up to the average can be found below.

---

quote:

---

POWER 5 LIST

All Power Five teams (excluding Notre Dame) ranked from 1-64, with No. 1 being the biggest overachieving program based on success vs. the NFL talent on its roster and No. 64 being the most underachieving program.

1. Duke (4.312)

2. Oklahoma State (1.751)

3. Iowa State (1.645)

4. Northwestern (1.534)

5. Kansas State (1.384)

6. Oregon (1.187)

7. Michigan State (1.183)

8. TCU (.910)

9. Georgia Tech (.768)

10. Texas Tech (.764)

11. Auburn (.699)

12. Virginia Tech (.645)

13. Stanford (.583)

14. Wisconsin (.582)

15. Alabama (.550)

16. Minnesota (.494)

17. Texas (.452)

18. Oklahoma (.449)

19. Clemson (.408)

20. Vanderbilt (.336)

21. Florida State (.274)

22. Baylor (.264)

23. Ohio State (.224)

24. Washington State (.212)

25. Louisville (.206)

26. Washington (.205)

27. Arizona (.194)

28. West Virginia (.168)

29. Utah (.151)

30. Ole Miss (.045)

31. Missouri (.026)

T32. Arizona State (-.004)

T32. Kentucky (.004)

34. Penn State (–.020)

35. Nebraska (–.053)

36. Mississippi State (–.059)

37. Pittsburgh (–.132)

38. Syracuse (–.142)

39. Texas A&M (–.158)

40. Kansas (–.187)

41. USC (–.205)

42. South Carolina (–.207)

43. Colorado (–.220)

44. Maryland (–.224)

45. Rutgers (–.229)

T46. Virginia (–.270)

T46. Wake Forest (–.270)

48. Michigan (–.275)

49. Purdue (–.277)

50. NC State (–.280)

51. Boston College (–.283)

52. Georgia (–.321)

53. Tennessee (–.328)

54. Indiana (–.330)

55. Florida (–.342)

56. Oregon State (–.367)

57. Iowa (–.372)

58. LSU (–.405)

59. Arkansas (–.495)

60. UCLA (–.557)

61. Miami (–.609)

62. North Carolina (–.644)

63. Illinois (–.716)

64. California (–.751)

---