rankings thru October 13th

[Boogs]

Bradley-Terry Football Rankings

NCAA Div. I Football Championship Subdivision

Thru 10/13/2007

Rank | Team | Div. I Football Championship Subdivision Record | Overall Record | Round-Robin Winning Percentage | Bradley-Terry Points
1. Wofford, SC (5-0) (6-1) 0.937 100.000
2. Massachusetts (5-0) (5-1) 0.920 75.312
3. James Madison, VA (6-0) (6-1) 0.912 66.152
4. Grambling State, LA (5-0) (5-1) 0.891 49.898
5. Northern Iowa (4-0) (6-0) 0.890 49.061
6. Hofstra, NY (6-0) (6-0) 0.886 47.145
7. Yale, CT (5-0) (5-0) 0.881 44.152
8. Norfolk State, VA (4-0) (5-1) 0.866 37.513
9. North Dakota State (5-0) (6-0) 0.852 32.403
10. Montana (5-0) (6-0) 0.845 30.067
11. Delaware State (5-0) (5-1) 0.839 28.485
12. Eastern Kentucky (5-0) (5-2) 0.832 26.652
13. Appalachian State, NC (3-1) (5-1) 0.819 23.713
14. San Diego, CA (mid-major) (5-0) (6-0) 0.808 21.609
15. Alabama A&M (4-1) (5-1) 0.795 19.341
16. The Citadel, SC (3-1) (4-2) 0.790 18.508
17. Villanova, PA (4-2) (4-3) 0.772 16.125
18. Delaware (5-1) (6-1) 0.770 15.822
19. McNeese State, LA (4-0) (6-0) 0.760 14.680
20. Southern Illinois (4-1) (6-1) 0.755 14.175
21. New Hampshire (3-2) (4-2) 0.734 12.164
22. Richmond, VA (4-1) (4-2) 0.722 11.258
23. Southern, LA (5-2) (5-2) 0.721 11.149
24. Holy Cross, MA (4-2) (4-2) 0.719 11.001
25. Western Illinois (4-1) (5-2) 0.715 10.675
26. Youngstown State, OH (4-1) (5-2) 0.714 10.631
27. South Carolina State (3-1) (3-3) 0.709 10.270
28. Jackson State, MS (4-1) (4-2) 0.706 10.061
29. Nicholls State, LA (2-0) (5-1) 0.699 9.615
30. Elon, NC (3-1) (4-2) 0.698 9.581
31. William & Mary, VA (4-2) (4-3) 0.671 8.030
32. Hampton, VA (4-2) (4-2) 0.658 7.390
33. Drake, IA (mid-major) (3-2) (5-2) 0.652 7.137
34. Towson, MD (3-4) (3-4) 0.647 6.910
35. Dayton, OH (mid-major) (4-1) (6-1) 0.632 6.305
36. Fordham, NY (5-2) (5-2) 0.627 6.128
37. Prairie View A&M, TX (4-2) (4-2) 0.608 5.490
38. Gardner Webb, NC (2-2) (2-4) 0.608 5.467
39. Harvard, MA (3-2) (3-2) 0.605 5.372
40. Iona, NY (mid-major) (3-1) (5-2) 0.602 5.303
41. Missouri State (3-2) (4-3) 0.599 5.202
42. Eastern Washington (3-2) (4-2) 0.598 5.169
43. Jacksonville State, AL (4-2) (4-3) 0.598 5.161
44. Lehigh, PA (3-3) (3-3) 0.595 5.067
45. Albany, NY (mid-major) (3-3) (3-3) 0.588 4.880
46. Furman, SC (2-3) (2-4) 0.588 4.877
47. Cornell, NY (3-2) (3-2) 0.584 4.776
48. Montana State (3-1) (4-2) 0.574 4.500
49. Tennessee State (3-3) (3-3) 0.568 4.335
50. Tennessee-Chattanooga (2-2) (2-4) 0.565 4.279
51. Colgate, NY (3-3) (3-3) 0.561 4.168
52. Georgia Southern (3-2) (4-2) 0.559 4.119
53. Cal Poly, CA (3-1) (4-2) 0.550 3.913
54. Alabama State (4-3) (4-3) 0.541 3.724
55. Wagner, NY (mid-major) (4-1) (5-1) 0.531 3.528
56. Central Connecticut State (mid-major) (2-1) (4-2) 0.507 3.083
57. UC Davis, CA (2-3) (2-5) 0.497 2.912
58. Eastern Illinois (4-2) (4-3) 0.497 2.904
59. Northwestern State, LA (2-2) (3-3) 0.496 2.892
60. Northern Arizona (3-2) (4-3) 0.490 2.801
61. Illinois State (3-3) (3-4) 0.488 2.760
62. Central Arkansas (3-2) (3-3) 0.479 2.634
63. Charleston Southern, SC (1-2) (3-3) 0.475 2.572
64. Portland State, OR (2-3) (2-4) 0.470 2.495
65. Florida A&M (2-4) (2-4) 0.468 2.471
66. Rhode Island (1-4) (1-5) 0.463 2.407
67. Morgan State, MD (4-3) (4-3) 0.456 2.308
68. Stony Brook, NY (3-4) (3-4) 0.438 2.089
69. Valparaiso, IN (mid-major) (1-2) (4-3) 0.437 2.076
70. Morehead State, KY (mid-major) (3-2) (4-2) 0.429 1.979
71. Northeastern, MA (1-4) (1-5) 0.428 1.976
72. South Dakota State (2-4) (2-4) 0.428 1.975
73. Winston-Salem State, NC (3-3) (3-3) 0.426 1.953
74. Brown, RI (2-3) (2-3) 0.425 1.940
75. Austin Peay, TN (3-3) (4-3) 0.418 1.865
76. Samford, AL (2-2) (3-3) 0.416 1.840
77. Mississippi Valley State (1-5) (1-5) 0.413 1.813
78. Weber State, UT (2-3) (2-4) 0.413 1.809
79. Lafayette, PA (4-2) (4-2) 0.413 1.805
80. Coastal Carolina, SC (1-4) (2-4) 0.409 1.768
81. Maine (1-4) (1-5) 0.401 1.687
82. Bethune Cookman, FL (2-4) (2-4) 0.396 1.638
83. Princeton, NJ (2-3) (2-3) 0.390 1.589
84. Southeastern Louisiana (1-1) (2-4) 0.382 1.509
85. Dartmouth, NH (1-4) (1-4) 0.381 1.505
86. Texas State (1-3) (1-5) 0.381 1.499
87. Sacramento State, CA (1-3) (1-5) 0.370 1.408
88. Liberty, VA (1-2) (3-3) 0.367 1.387
89. Western Carolina, NC (1-4) (1-6) 0.365 1.365
90. Davidson, NC (mid-major) (1-2) (3-3) 0.361 1.333
91. Presbyterian, SC (2-3) (4-3) 0.351 1.259
92. Howard, DC (1-3) (2-4) 0.347 1.227
93. Robert Morris, PA (mid-major) (3-4) (3-4) 0.339 1.168
94. Bucknell, PA (2-4) (2-4) 0.324 1.064
95. VMI, VA (1-4) (2-4) 0.323 1.058
96. Tennessee Tech (2-3) (4-3) 0.322 1.049
97. North Carolina Central (1-1) (5-2) 0.308 0.961
98. Arkansas Pine Bluff (1-4) (1-5) 0.308 0.961
99. Pennsylvania (2-3) (2-3) 0.292 0.868
100. Duquesne, PA (mid-major) (3-2) (4-2) 0.291 0.862
101. Jacksonville, FL (mid-major) (1-4) (2-4) 0.288 0.844
102. Idaho State (1-3) (2-4) 0.277 0.782
103. Sam Houston State, TX (0-3) (2-4) 0.272 0.759
104. Southeast Missouri State (1-3) (2-4) 0.264 0.720
105. Southern Utah (0-5) (0-6) 0.259 0.695
106. Tennessee Martin (1-5) (1-6) 0.250 0.648
107. Butler, IN (mid-major) (0-3) (4-3) 0.240 0.604
108. Alcorn State, MS (1-4) (1-5) 0.236 0.587
109. Monmouth, NJ (mid-major) (1-5) (1-5) 0.185 0.391
110. Columbia, NY (1-4) (1-4) 0.174 0.357
111. Stephen F. Austin, TX (0-5) (0-6) 0.167 0.333
112. Savannah State, GA (0-3) (1-5) 0.164 0.325
113. Murray State, KY (0-4) (1-5) 0.143 0.263
114. Texas Southern (0-5) (0-6) 0.133 0.238
115. North Carolina A&T (0-7) (0-7) 0.121 0.208
116. Northern Colorado (0-5) (0-7) 0.120 0.204
117. Sacred Heart, CT (mid-major) (1-5) (2-5) 0.117 0.198
118. Georgetown, DC (0-7) (0-7) 0.112 0.187
119. Indiana State (0-6) (0-7) 0.110 0.182
120. Marist, NY (mid-major) (1-6) (1-6) 0.097 0.154
121. St. Francis, PA (mid-major) (0-5) (0-5) 0.091 0.142
122. La Salle, PA (mid-major) (0-3) (0-6) 0.040 0.054
Fictitious Team 2.959


Iona fell like a rock as the mathematical model was intended to do -- teams you beat appear below you and teams you lose to appear above you.** Iona is no longer undefeated against FCS competition and is now #40.

Questions? xcoffeex


**-Primary exception being a circular conquering path. Example: LSU beats South Carolina, South Carolina beats Kentucky, Kentucky beats LSU.

[Jaxhen]

I don't know what mathematical model is being used, but I suggest altering the weight given to the input parameters. This ranking system just doesn't make sense (Grambling and Norfolk St. at #4 and #8, respectively; App. St. at #13; McNeese, S. Ill, and UNH at #19, #20, and #21; YSU at #26; and too many more to mention).

[appfan2008]

this formula isnt worth talking about when it has soooo many teams in spots they dont deserve

[Boogs]

I don't know what mathematical model is being used, but I suggest altering the weight given to the input parameters. This ranking system just doesn't make sense (Grambling and Norfolk St. at #4 and #8, respectively; App. St. at #13; McNeese, S. Ill, and UNH at #19, #20, and #21; YSU at #26; and too many more to mention).

Are you finding teams that got beat by a particular team ahead of the team they lost to?

I can't find a better system that excludes the final scoring margin. Need feedback because we both have the same goal -- getting the best procedure that excludes a consideration of the final scores' margin of victory.

[FormerPokeCenter]

Grambling hasn't played anybody, hell, nobody in the SWAC has...but you have them 4th.

I didn't need to read any further...You can't take that ranking system seriously.

It's a total waste of bandwidth.

[Maverick]

Maybe making the exclusion of final margin as a factor is causing more problems than solving based on the results you are getting. The mathematical model works but does that make it valid in terms of relative rankings. What does your model tell us about these teams other than they are rated above the teams they beat and below the ones who beat them? What would the selection committee be able to deduce from this?

[CopperCat]

What a joke.

I'd stick to the AGS/Sportsnetwork polls. Consistent and researched.

[proasu89]

xnutsx

[appfan2008]

i believe in ags poll the most...

even more than coaches or media...

[EKU05]

What a joke.

I'd stick to the AGS/Sportsnetwork polls. Consistent and researched.

Not speaking for this formula in particular, computer rankings such as the Sagrin (or any of a number of other ones that you can find on the dolphin site) predict the results of games with accuracy FAR superior to the human polls. They are simply able to make relevant connections between game results that people cannot. The human polls have their place, but there are definitely some very solid computer systems out there.

[appfan2008]

sure... maybe... not this one!

[Pantherpower]

Grambling hasn't played anybody, hell, nobody in the SWAC has...but you have them 4th.

I didn't need to read any further...You can't take that ranking system seriously.

It's a total waste of bandwidth.

Agreed.

[BisonBacker]

I'm putting whoever put that poll together on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATIONxlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Maverick]

What about we all chip in and buy the person who put that system together a clue as it is obvious that they do not have one!xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xrotatehx xrotatehx xrotatehx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

PS: Somebody does need to be keeping a close watch on the person who came up with this if for no other reason than they need to be protected from themself. xeekx xeekx xeekx

[Maverick]

What about we all chip in and buy the person who put that system together a clue as it is obvious that they do not have one!xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xrotatehx xrotatehx xrotatehx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

PS: Somebody does need to be keeping a close watch on the person who came up with this if for no other reason than they need to be protected from themself. xeekx xeekx xeekx

MplsBison is that you behind this system? xsmiley_wix xeyebrowx

[USDFAN_55]

Grambling hasn't played anybody, hell, nobody in the SWAC has...but you have them 4th.

I didn't need to read any further...You can't take that ranking system seriously.

It's a total waste of bandwidth.

Yeah.... San Diego at 14? Ofcourse we all know they are a top 10 teamxsmiley_wix Totally discredits this pollxnodx xsmiley_wix

[UAalum72]

Are you finding teams that got beat by a particular team ahead of the team they lost to?

Fordham at #36, home loser to #45 Albany

[Peems]

First off UAalum already has showed that someone who lost to a particular team is ahead of that team. Secondly how does that help us? When a team beats another team, it usually means they are "better" so just making sure they are ahead of that team in the poll does nothing. Plus shouldn't polls at least try and represent who the best teams are? Doesn't this poll mean that Grambling would effectively be favored in all of their games against the teams below them and that only Wofford and UNI would be favored against them? Just some thoughts

[CopperCat]

Not speaking for this formula in particular, computer rankings such as the Sagrin (or any of a number of other ones that you can find on the dolphin site) predict the results of games with accuracy FAR superior to the human polls. They are simply able to make relevant connections between game results that people cannot. The human polls have their place, but there are definitely some very solid computer systems out there.

Computers take out the human factor entirely. By that I mean a computer cannot explain everything. I am suggesting that polls like AGS, SN, and CSN will come closer to what reality is, mostly because human beings can see past stats when there is a team that is good/not so good that is in/not in the polls.

Just ignore Montana being #1, and it's all good.xlolx