Alabama, LSU and Clemson lead the way in 1-128 projected 2016 rankings

While my S&P+ college football team ratings include quite a few components, projecting the ratings in the offseason is a simple process. There are three primary ingredients: a team's returning production, its recent history and its two-year recruiting rankings.

This answers three key questions: How well has a team done recently? What talent has it lost from last year? And how good are the players replacing the lost talent?

I've posted each of these factors:

Of course Alabama's No. 1 in 5-year recruiting rankings, but Baylor's the most improved power
A better way to look at college football's returning experience, with LSU No. 1 for 2016
Believe it or not, Alabama has been the best team in college football over the last 5 years

To come up with preliminary projections, I create projected S&P+ ratings based on each factor -- recruiting impact, returning production*, and recent history -- and then blend them together. The projection based on returning production gets the heaviest weight, followed by recruiting, then recent history, which only carries a little bit of weight.

^{* Note: the Returning Production ranking you see below is based on the impact of returning talent on last year's S&P+. So while LSU is No. 1 in the amount of its returning production per the link above, the Tigers rank third below partly because Clemson and Alabama were that much better last year.}

Here are the preliminary projected S&P+ ratings for 2016.

			Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj S&P+
1	Alabama	SEC	1	2	1	26.8
2	LSU	SEC	8	3	2	24.4
3	Clemson	ACC	6	1	13	24.2
4	Oklahoma	Big 12	16	4	5	22
5	Florida State	ACC	3	8	7	19.6
6	Michigan	Big Ten	14	5	17	19.3
7	Ole Miss	SEC	15	7	20	18.9
8	USC	Pac-12	2	14	14	17.3
9	Tennessee	SEC	9	9	26	17
10	Washington	Pac-12	30	6	39	17
11	Notre Dame	Indep.	10	15	9	16.7
12	UCLA	Pac-12	11	12	22	16.5
13	Baylor	Big 12	27	11	10	16.4
14	Ohio State	Big Ten	5	18	3	16.4
15	Georgia	SEC	7	16	8	16.2
16	Stanford	Pac-12	24	17	6	15.3
17	Arkansas	SEC	25	13	21	15.2
18	Oregon	Pac-12	19	23	4	15
19	Florida	SEC	20	19	18	14.5
20	Louisville	ACC	39	10	36	14.4
21	Miss. State	SEC	23	20	24	13.6
22	Michigan State	Big Ten	18	30	12	13.5
23	Okla. State	Big 12	40	21	16	12.6
24	Auburn	SEC	4	33	23	12.5
25	Texas A&M	SEC	13	40	11	12.5
			Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
26	Nebraska	Big Ten	29	28	32	11.6
27	North Carolina	ACC	26	25	42	11.3
28	Penn State	Big Ten	17	39	29	11.3
29	Pittsburgh	ACC	35	29	43	10.3
30	Miami	ACC	21	46	37	10
31	TCU	Big 12	31	49	25	9.7
32	Virginia Tech	ACC	32	44	33	9.3
33	West Virginia	Big 12	42	31	47	9.2
34	Texas	Big 12	12	59	34	9.2
35	BYU	Indep.	66	27	35	8.4
36	Boise State	MWC	65	38	19	8.3
37	Wisconsin	Big Ten	33	60	15	8.3
38	Iowa	Big Ten	49	32	48	8.1
39	Utah	Pac-12	43	43	44	7.8
40	NC State	ACC	45	37	63	7.4
41	South Florida	AAC	54	26	79	7.2
42	Minnesota	Big Ten	53	34	55	7
43	Texas Tech	Big 12	41	50	52	6.5
44	Syracuse	ACC	59	42	60	5.7
45	WKU	C-USA	92	22	64	5.6
46	Northwestern	Big Ten	46	58	61	5.1
47	Missouri	SEC	34	77	27	5.1
48	WSU	Pac-12	56	47	81	5
49	California	Pac-12	38	64	51	4.8
50	Boston College	ACC	64	51	58	4.7
			Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
51	Duke	ACC	37	63	66	4.6
52	GA Southern	SBC	95	36	46	4.5
53	Houston	AAC	61	56	50	4.4
54	Georgia Tech	ACC	48	70	38	4.4
55	SDSU	MWC	79	41	62	4
56	Indiana	Big Ten	55	57	75	3.9
57	Arizona State	Pac-12	22	89	30	3.7
58	Toledo	MAC	87	52	40	3.7
59	App State	SBC	115	24	80	3.7
60	Bowling Green	MAC	103	35	59	3.4
61	Temple	AAC	69	53	74	3.2
62	Maryland	Big Ten	47	65	77	2.9
63	South Carolina	SEC	28	90	28	2.8
64	Arizona	Pac-12	44	80	45	2.6
65	WMU	MAC	78	45	87	2.5
66	Navy	AAC	110	48	54	2.4
67	Kansas State	Big 12	63	79	31	2
68	Virginia	ACC	62	68	69	1.8
69	Vanderbilt	SEC	51	78	67	1.8
70	Cincinnati	AAC	70	73	49	1.4
71	Iowa State	Big 12	68	67	71	1.3
72	Southern Miss	C-USA	88	54	91	0.8
73	Utah State	MWC	104	66	41	0.7
74	Wake Forest	ACC	58	75	93	0.6
75	Marshall	C-USA	75	72	53	0.4
			Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
76	Illinois	Big Ten	67	76	73	0.4
77	Memphis	AAC	74	62	88	0.1
78	East Carolina	AAC	73	71	72	-0.1
79	NIU	MAC	117	61	56	-0.2
80	Air Force	MWC	125	55	92	-0.6
81	Connecticut	AAC	83	74	97	-2.1
82	Colorado	Pac-12	50	87	101	-2.2
83	Kentucky	SEC	36	100	86	-2.4
84	LA Tech	C-USA	84	82	65	-2.5
85	CMU	MAC	91	69	104	-2.7
86	Oregon State	Pac-12	52	102	57	-2.9
87	Rutgers	Big Ten	60	93	84	-3.1
88	Purdue	Big Ten	71	86	82	-3.1
89	Arkansas State	SBC	85	88	68	-3.6
90	MTSU	C-USA	93	81	100	-4.2
91	Nevada	MWC	96	85	83	-4.3
92	San Jose State	MWC	80	92	85	-4.9
93	Tulsa	AAC	89	91	76	-5
94	Fresno State	MWC	72	95	78	-5
95	Ohio	MAC	119	84	90	-5.1
96	Colorado State	MWC	76	97	96	-6.3
97	Akron	MAC	124	83	112	-6.4
98	SMU	AAC	82	98	95	-6.7
99	Central Florida	AAC	57	113	70	-7
100	Florida Atlantic	C-USA	81	103	106	-7.7
			Recruiting impact	Returning production	Weighted 5-year	Proj. S&P+
101	Ball State	MAC	111	104	89	-8.1
102	New Mexico	MWC	106	94	122	-8.3
103	Troy	SBC	107	99	103	-8.5
104	Kent State	MAC	123	101	98	-8.5
105	Georgia State	SBC	121	96	119	-9.2
106	UL-Lafayette	SBC	108	111	94	-10.5
107	Miami (Ohio)	MAC	90	107	115	-10.8
108	Idaho	SBC	128	105	123	-11.2
109	Buffalo	MAC	114	110	107	-11.2
110	Wyoming	MWC	116	109	111	-11.5
111	Old Dominion	C-USA	113	108	121	-11.6
112	Kansas	Big 12	77	122	108	-12.4
113	FIU	C-USA	105	112	116	-12.6
114	UNLV	MWC	86	117	113	-12.6
115	South Alabama	SBC	97	118	102	-12.8
116	UTSA	C-USA	98	119	109	-13.2
117	NMSU	SBC	127	106	127	-13.4
118	Hawaii	MWC	102	116	120	-13.4
119	Rice	C-USA	112	123	99	-13.5
120	Texas State	SBC	109	121	114	-14
121	EMU	MAC	120	114	126	-14.6
122	Tulane	AAC	94	124	118	-14.6
123	Charlotte	C-USA	99	115	128	-14.9
124	Army	Indep.	126	120	124	-15.5
125	UL-Monroe	SBC	118	127	110	-16.4
126	UTEP	C-USA	122	126	117	-16.9
127	UMass	MAC	101	125	125	-17.1
128	North Texas	C-USA	100	128	105	-17.9

Top 2? Maybe top 3.

Alabama and Clemson were easily the two best teams in college football in 2015, and with what each returns -- Bama brings back much of its absurd defense, and Clemson's offensive trio of sophomores (Deshaun Watson, Wayne Gallman, Artavis Scott) is now a trio of juniors -- it's easy to start with these two again in 2016.

I assumed that's who would be projected at the top ... and I was mostly right. LSU butted its way into the party, though.

The Tigers return virtually everybody, recruited well once more, and get an extra boost from the formula's use of five-year history. Granted, that means they're getting a small lift from the 2011 team that has long since departed, but their demise in the years since 2011 has been overstated.

They were an outstanding team for much of last season, barring a three-game funk that knocked them to ninth in S&P+. But they still finished ninth! And they return more than anybody else in the top 10.

Yes, they have questions to answer in the passing game. But here's where I remind you that quarterback Brandon Harris was a true sophomore. Sophomores not named Deshaun Watson tend to play like sophomores.

SB Nation College Football

The ACC's making moves.

The Big Ten finished second behind the SEC in last year's S&P+, but with Ohio State and Michigan State regrouping, the conference is projected to regress. The SEC's offenses, meanwhile, will be far more experienced on average than they were, and of course the SEC gets the requisite recruiting bump. The conference's lead should increase next fall.

But look out for the ACC. Not only did it make a lot of impressive coaching hires, it also returns quite a bit of last year's production.

Projected conference S&P+ averages:

SEC (12.8, up 2.8 from 2015)
ACC (9.2, up 2.5)
Pac-12 (8.3, up 1.4)
Big 12 (7.7, up 2.6)
Big Ten (7.0, down 0.4)
AAC (-1.4, up 0.7)
MWC (-4.5, down 0.3)
MAC (-5.8, down 2.2)
Sun Belt (-8.3, down 0.8)
Conference USA (-8.3, down 0.2)

Clemson and FSU both project as top-five teams, and five teams project between 20th and 32nd. More importantly, only one projects worse than 70th (Wake Forest, a decent 74th!). The ACC's strength has been its depth, and next year it could have especially impressive depth and two national title contenders.

Wait a second ... is that Washington in the top 10?

Yep.

The Huskies won last year's "mediocre record, strangely impressive S&P+ ratings" award*. They finished just 7-6, but they played really well in one particular loss (Oregon), lost two other games (to Boise State and California) by six or fewer points, and played at the 91st percentile or higher in six of seven wins. Very few teams played at an elite level more than that.

UW was also young as hell. That made for an inconsistent product, but it also means the Huskies return almost everything. That's all the numbers need to see.

Too much, too soon? Maybe. But Chris Petersen's rebuilding project appears to be a year ahead of what I anticipated.

Washington's presence in the top 10, by the way, allows me to whistle right on by Tennessee projecting ninth. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

^{* Previous winners were almost guaranteed to see their records improve the next year, often by quite a bit.}

Your 2016 conference races

Here are the top three projected teams in each conference.

SEC: No. 1 Alabama, No. 2 LSU, No. 6 Ole Miss
ACC: No. 3 Clemson, No. 5 FSU, No. 20 Louisville
Pac-12: No. 8 USC, No. 10 Washington, No. 12 UCLA
Big 12: No. 4 Oklahoma, No. 13 Baylor, No. 23 Oklahoma State
Big Ten: No. 6 Michigan, No. 14 Ohio State, No. 22 Michigan State
AAC: No. 41 USF, No. 53 Houston, No. 61 Temple
MWC: No. 36 Boise State, No. 55 San Diego State, No. 73 Utah State
MAC: No. 58 Toledo, No. 60 Bowling Green, No. 65 Western Michigan
Sun Belt: No. 52 Georgia Southern, No. 59 Appalachian State, No. 89 Arkansas State
Conference USA: No. 45 Western Kentucky, No. 72 Southern Miss, No. 75 Marshall

The 2016 Pac-12 race could be fascinating. Five teams project between eighth and 18th, with just 2.3 points separating them -- two in the South (USC, UCLA) and three in the North (Washington, Stanford, Oregon).