College Football Computer Rankings: 2009 Final Rankings

1 ALABAMA 21.400
2 FLORIDA 16.844
3 TEXAS 14.951
4 TCU 13.664
5 VIRGINIA TECH 12.187
6 BOISE ST 12.012
7 OHIO STATE 10.809
8 CINCINNATI 10.619
9 PENN STATE 10.364
10 OREGON 8.918
11 GEORGIA TECH 8.657
12 IOWA 8.266
13 PITTSBURGH 8.002
14 NEBRASKA 7.307
15 LSU 7.163
16 MIAMI FL 7.072
17 OKLAHOMA 7.071
18 ARKANSAS 6.787
19 CLEMSON 6.587
20 TEXAS TECH 6.410
21 BRIGHAM YOUNG 6.309
22 MISSISSIPPI 5.753
23 STANFORD 5.315
24 WISCONSIN 4.938
25 SOUTHERN CAL 4.757
26 UTAH 4.737
27 AUBURN 4.451
28 WEST VIRGINIA 4.240
29 CONNECTICUT 4.134
30 NORTH CAROLINA 3.916
31 TENNESSEE 3.905
32 OKLAHOMA ST 3.839
33 GEORGIA 3.579
34 OREGON ST 3.575
35 RUTGERS 3.366
36 AIR FORCE 3.266
37 ARIZONA 3.030
38 CENTRAL MICHIGAN 2.672
39 NAVY 2.647
40 FLORIDA ST 2.399
41 NOTRE DAME 2.368
42 SOUTH CAROLINA 2.095
43 KENTUCKY 1.940
44 BOSTON COLLEGE 1.868
45 EAST CAROLINA 1.795
46 TROY 1.604
47 MISSISSIPPI ST 1.476
48 SOUTH FLORIDA 1.384
49 HOUSTON 1.311
50 MISSOURI 1.162
51 CALIFORNIA 1.149
52 TEXAS A&M 1.123
53 MICHIGAN ST 0.878
54 WAKE FOREST 0.682
55 UCLA 0.536
56 WASHINGTON 0.467
57 PURDUE 0.369
58 MINNESOTA 0.286
59 NEVADA 0.182
60 MIDDLE TENNESSEE ST 0.139
61 KANSAS -0.403
62 TEMPLE -0.416
63 FRESNO ST -0.502
64 VIRGINIA -0.608
65 CENTRAL FLORIDA -0.713
66 IOWA ST -0.750
67 ARIZONA ST -0.801
68 NORTHWESTERN -0.855
69 OHIO U. -0.955
70 SOUTHERN MISS -0.969
71 BOWLING GREEN -1.157
72 DUKE -1.201
73 SMU -1.329
74 MARSHALL -1.361
75 KANSAS ST -1.401
76 MICHIGAN -1.460
77 NORTHERN ILLINOIS -2.282
78 NORTH CAROLINA ST -2.435
79 IDAHO -2.465
80 LOUISIANA-MONROE -2.705
81 BAYLOR -2.745
82 WYOMING -2.945
83 ALABAMA-BIRMINGHAM -3.298
84 TULSA -3.385
85 INDIANA -3.392
86 SYRACUSE -3.679
87 UNLV -4.119
88 COLORADO -4.120
89 ILLINOIS -4.128
90 BUFFALO -4.437
91 LOUISVILLE -4.517
92 HAWAI`I -4.545
93 UTEP -4.759
94 FLORIDA ATLANTIC -5.128
95 MARYLAND -5.322
96 LOUISIANA-LAFAYETTE -5.484
97 UTAH ST -5.922
98 SAN DIEGO ST -6.168
99 LOUISIANA TECH -6.278
100 VANDERBILT -6.299
101 TOLEDO -6.330
102 WESTERN MICHIGAN -6.331
103 KENT ST -6.485
104 COLORADO ST -6.933
105 ARKANSAS ST -7.294
106 ARMY -8.127
107 FLORIDA INT'L -8.262
108 NORTH TEXAS -10.068
109 BALL ST -11.094
110 MEMPHIS -12.248
111 AKRON -12.467
112 RICE -13.447
113 TULANE -13.468
114 NEW MEXICO -13.518
115 SAN JOSé ST -13.829
116 WASHINGTON ST -14.029
117 MIAMI OH -14.287
118 NEW MEXICO ST -15.119
119 WESTERN KENTUCKY -18.315
120 EASTERN MICHIGAN -20.671

Description of Ratings System

My goal was to devise a system that relied exclusively on simple mathematical calculations without any built-in biases. This ranking system is based solely on the resulting score of the games played to date of the current season and the teams win-loss record. I will briefly cover some of my thoughts and philosophies while developing the system in the following.
After analyzing game statistics I concluded that the final score of a game is an all encompassing summary of the statistics. For example, if a team outgained an opponent by 200 yards of offense but still lost the game, the loss was usually due to turnovers or penalties. I started by developing a system that would record and determine the average margin of victory (AMV) for a team. A system based on this alone has obvious flaws due to teams winning by large margins over lesser opponents. After crunching data with various limitations on margin of victories, I decided to limit the margin of victory to a maximum of 21 points. However, this still allowed teams that play weak opponents to remain high in the rankings. To penalize teams that play weak opponents and give credit to teams that play strong opponents, I then added the team’s opponents’ average margin of victory (OAMV) and their opponent’s opponents’ average margin of victory (OOAMV) to their AMV. This process is carried out 5 times (OOOOOAMV) which mathematically relates every team to each other by the end of the season. This effectively lowered the teams rankings that had a high AMV due to playing weak opponents. However, this allowed teams with high AMVs and multiple losses to be ranked higher than no-loss or one-loss teams at the end of the season. I factored in the win-loss record by lowering the final result of a team with a positive ranking value by the ratio of the team’s losses over the total games played and raising the final result of a team with negative ranking value by the ratio of the team’s wins over the total games played.
To illustrate this more clearly, I will use a couple of examples.
As of week 6 of the 2000 season, TCU had the highest margin of victory of the 115 Division 1-A teams at 26.750. However, their opponents AMV was -12.400 indicating that TCU has played weak teams but have outscored these teams by a larger margin than the other opponents of these teams. Summing the AMV and the OAMV reduces their ranking value to 14.350. Carrying this process out 5 times (OOOOOAMV) results in a ranking value of 21.623. TCU is currently undefeated (4-0) so 21.623 is their final ranking value. This places TCU 4th out of 115 teams.
As of week 6 of the 2000 season, Texas A&M’s AMV is 15.000 and their opponents’ AMV was 0.438. Summing these two numbers increases their ranking value to 15.438. Carrying this process out 5 times (OOOOOAMV) results in a ranking value of 16.284. Texas A&M has played four 1-A opponents and their win-loss record is 3-1. Since Texas A&M has a positive ranking value they are penalized for the game they lost by reducing their result by the total number of games they have lost divided by the games played, or 25%. This result is 12.213 which places them 13th out of 115 teams. If Texas A&M wins their game in week 7 their record will then be 4-1 and their final result will be reduced by only 20%. This will enable them to possibly move up in the rankings by continuing to win games, similar to what would be seen in the AP or Coaches poll.
Additional comments:
The results from previous years have no effect on this years rankings. I feel that the two years are independent from each other. This causes some anomalies early in the season but everything settles out after week 6 or 7. I believe this is also why the BCS does not publish their rankings until late October although some ranking systems carry over from the previous year.
This system only uses the 120 Division 1-A teams. Any team that plays a team from another division receives no credit for the win. There can be a slight penalty for playing a team outside of Division 1-A. For instance, a team that has a victory over a 1-AA opponent does not receive credit for that victory in the win column. If their actual record is 7-2 this would be recorded as 6-2, therefore the penalty for the 2 losses would be 25% instead of 22.2 %. Likewise, losing to a 1-AA opponent would not be recorded in the loss column but this rarely happens.
This system is simple compared to some of the other systems being used but the results similar. I would welcome any comments or questions from anyone. I can be contacted at smaurer@kc.rr.com
Scott

College Football Computer Rankings

Friday, January 8, 2010

2009 Final Rankings

35 comments:

Description of Ratings System

Blog Archive

About Me