rankings for Nov. 4th

[Boogs]

Grambling is underrated and deserves a shot in the playoffs if the school would allow the team to blow off the Southern/SWAC title games.

Same goes for Yale. They deserve to be in the sweet 16.

Dayton might finish in the top 16 and deserve a shot as well. If Richmond can lose to Towson and be forgiven, so should the Dayton Flyers when they played Morehead State.

It's too bad I'm not exclusively in charge of who goes to the playoffs. xcoffeex

Bradley-Terry Football Rankings

NCAA Div. I Football Championship Subdivision

Thru 11/03/2007

Rank | Team | Div. I Football Championship Subdivision Record | Overall Record | Round-Robin Winning Percentage | Bradley-Terry Points
1. Northern Iowa (7-0) (9-0) 0.953 100.000
2. Grambling State, LA (8-0) (8-1) 0.919 52.810
3. Delaware State (8-0) (8-1) 0.888 34.529
4. North Dakota State (7-0) (9-0) 0.885 33.429
5. Montana (8-0) (9-0) 0.882 32.322
6. Yale, CT (8-0) (8-0) 0.880 31.505
7. Eastern Kentucky (7-0) (7-2) 0.866 27.044
8. Southern Illinois (6-1) (8-1) 0.863 25.991
9. Richmond, VA (7-1) (7-2) 0.845 21.879
10. Massachusetts (7-1) (7-2) 0.836 20.014
11. Delaware (6-1) (8-1) 0.823 17.689
12. McNeese State, LA (7-0) (9-0) 0.816 16.761
13. James Madison, VA (6-2) (6-3) 0.794 13.887
14. Appalachian State, NC (5-2) (7-2) 0.793 13.761
15. Wofford, SC (6-2) (7-3) 0.789 13.388
16. Georgia Southern (6-2) (7-2) 0.785 12.910
17. Hofstra, NY (7-2) (7-2) 0.784 12.853
18. Dayton, OH (mid-major) (7-1) (9-1) 0.780 12.415
19. Elon, NC (5-2) (6-3) 0.771 11.571
20. Alabama A&M (6-2) (7-2) 0.752 10.076
(tie) Jackson State, MS (6-2) (6-3) 0.752 10.076
22. Fordham, NY (8-2) (8-2) 0.748 9.774
23. New Hampshire (5-3) (6-3) 0.748 9.762
24. Villanova, PA (5-3) (5-4) 0.745 9.599
25. Western Illinois (5-3) (6-4) 0.741 9.309
26. Norfolk State, VA (6-1) (7-2) 0.720 8.038
27. San Diego, CA (mid-major) (7-1) (8-1) 0.716 7.823
28. South Carolina State (5-2) (5-4) 0.706 7.297
29. Southern, LA (7-2) (7-2) 0.704 7.240
30. Holy Cross, MA (6-3) (6-3) 0.696 6.851
31. Albany, NY (mid-major) (6-3) (6-3) 0.678 6.079
32. Youngstown State, OH (5-3) (6-4) 0.676 6.022
33. Colgate, NY (6-3) (6-3) 0.669 5.758
34. The Citadel, SC (4-3) (5-4) 0.655 5.252
35. South Dakota State (5-4) (5-4) 0.649 5.066
36. Jacksonville State, AL (6-2) (6-3) 0.641 4.828
37. William & Mary, VA (4-4) (4-5) 0.632 4.555
38. Furman, SC (4-4) (4-5) 0.631 4.536
39. Harvard, MA (6-2) (6-2) 0.631 4.534
40. Gardner Webb, NC (5-2) (5-4) 0.620 4.248
41. Iona, NY (mid-major) (4-1) (7-2) 0.613 4.075
42. Missouri State (4-4) (5-5) 0.597 3.711
43. Eastern Illinois (6-2) (6-3) 0.587 3.491
44. Eastern Washington (5-2) (6-3) 0.586 3.466
45. Morehead State, KY (mid-major) (6-2) (7-2) 0.585 3.442
46. Cal Poly, CA (5-2) (6-3) 0.573 3.212
47. Liberty, VA (4-2) (6-3) 0.573 3.209
48. Rhode Island (2-6) (2-7) 0.561 2.993
49. Northern Arizona (5-3) (6-4) 0.555 2.885
50. Hampton, VA (5-4) (5-4) 0.545 2.736
51. Illinois State (4-5) (4-6) 0.544 2.715
52. Towson, MD (3-6) (3-6) 0.533 2.545
53. Central Arkansas (5-3) (5-4) 0.532 2.534
54. Alabama State (4-5) (4-5) 0.530 2.502
55. Prairie View A&M, TX (5-3) (5-3) 0.530 2.498
56. Lehigh, PA (4-5) (4-5) 0.528 2.481
57. Texas State (4-3) (4-5) 0.527 2.460
58. Stony Brook, NY (4-4) (5-4) 0.525 2.431
59. Tennessee State (4-5) (4-5) 0.516 2.308
60. Tennessee-Chattanooga (2-4) (2-7) 0.514 2.282
61. Winston-Salem State, NC (5-4) (5-4) 0.513 2.269
62. Sam Houston State, TX (3-3) (5-4) 0.506 2.184
63. Maine (3-5) (3-6) 0.504 2.149
64. Davidson, NC (mid-major) (3-3) (5-4) 0.502 2.130
65. Drake, IA (mid-major) (4-4) (6-4) 0.501 2.114
66. UC Davis, CA (4-4) (4-6) 0.486 1.937
67. Dartmouth, NH (3-5) (3-5) 0.473 1.806
68. Cornell, NY (4-4) (4-4) 0.470 1.770
69. Austin Peay, TN (5-3) (6-3) 0.467 1.737
70. Northeastern, MA (2-6) (2-7) 0.460 1.668
71. Morgan State, MD (5-5) (5-5) 0.457 1.639
72. Howard, DC (3-4) (4-5) 0.447 1.552
73. Central Connecticut State (mid-major) (4-2) (6-3) 0.441 1.499
74. Weber State, UT (4-4) (4-5) 0.439 1.476
75. Wagner, NY (mid-major) (5-3) (6-3) 0.430 1.402
76. Brown, RI (3-5) (3-5) 0.429 1.393
77. Montana State (4-3) (5-4) 0.426 1.368
78. Florida A&M (3-6) (3-6) 0.425 1.360
79. Lafayette, PA (5-4) (5-4) 0.408 1.232
80. Arkansas Pine Bluff (2-6) (2-7) 0.399 1.164
81. Nicholls State, LA (2-3) (5-4) 0.385 1.072
82. Coastal Carolina, SC (2-6) (3-6) 0.376 1.011
83. Presbyterian, SC (3-4) (6-4) 0.365 0.949
84. Western Carolina, NC (1-6) (1-8) 0.365 0.947
85. Samford, AL (3-4) (4-5) 0.364 0.940
86. Princeton, NJ (3-5) (3-5) 0.359 0.914
87. Valparaiso, IN (mid-major) (2-4) (5-5) 0.359 0.914
88. Charleston Southern, SC (2-4) (4-5) 0.351 0.868
89. Northwestern State, LA (2-4) (3-6) 0.342 0.818
90. Pennsylvania (3-5) (3-5) 0.335 0.783
91. North Carolina Central (2-1) (6-3) 0.332 0.771
92. Portland State, OR (2-6) (2-7) 0.331 0.764
93. Duquesne, PA (mid-major) (4-3) (5-3) 0.326 0.740
94. Mississippi Valley State (2-7) (2-7) 0.325 0.735
95. Alcorn State, MS (2-5) (2-6) 0.318 0.701
96. Idaho State (2-5) (3-6) 0.314 0.683
97. Monmouth, NJ (mid-major) (3-5) (3-5) 0.312 0.676
98. Bethune Cookman, FL (3-6) (3-6) 0.311 0.669
99. Robert Morris, PA (mid-major) (3-6) (3-6) 0.300 0.624
100. Tennessee Tech (2-5) (4-6) 0.290 0.580
101. Tennessee Martin (2-6) (2-7) 0.267 0.496
102. Sacramento State, CA (1-6) (1-8) 0.256 0.458
103. Northern Colorado (1-7) (1-9) 0.255 0.452
104. Jacksonville, FL (mid-major) (1-7) (2-7) 0.247 0.428
105. Southeastern Louisiana (1-4) (2-7) 0.226 0.363
106. Bucknell, PA (2-7) (2-7) 0.216 0.335
107. VMI, VA (1-7) (2-7) 0.210 0.319
108. Murray State, KY (1-6) (2-7) 0.201 0.295
109. Southern Utah (0-8) (0-9) 0.176 0.236
110. Columbia, NY (1-7) (1-7) 0.167 0.216
111. Butler, IN (mid-major) (0-6) (4-6) 0.151 0.186
112. St. Francis, PA (mid-major) (1-7) (1-7) 0.149 0.181
113. Georgetown, DC (1-9) (1-9) 0.135 0.156
114. Sacred Heart, CT (mid-major) (2-7) (3-7) 0.131 0.150
115. Southeast Missouri State (1-6) (2-7) 0.124 0.138
116. Texas Southern (0-8) (0-9) 0.117 0.127
117. Stephen F. Austin, TX (0-8) (0-9) 0.104 0.108
118. Marist, NY (mid-major) (2-8) (2-8) 0.104 0.108
119. Savannah State, GA (0-5) (1-8) 0.103 0.106
120. North Carolina A&T (0-10) (0-10) 0.084 0.081
121. Indiana State (0-8) (0-10) 0.077 0.071
122. La Salle, PA (mid-major) (0-4) (0-8) 0.043 0.036
Fictitious Team 2.105

[813Jag]

Grambling is underrated and deserves a shot in the playoffs if the school would allow the team to blow off the Southern/SWAC title games.


xnonox That's impossible the Bayou Classic is a conference game. I don't think schools can just blow off conference games in the middle of the season. Every week it's the same thing. xdeadhorsex

[AZGrizFan]

I don't know what you're smokin' but those are the craziest rankings I think I've seen yet...

[JohnStOnge]

Grambling is underrated and deserves a shot in the playoffs if the school would allow the team to blow off the Southern/SWAC title games.

I"m impressed that you're able to do a football model (I couldn't without a lot more education into how to do it) but, I'm telling you, I think there's something seriously wrong with your model.

Having said that, I'd love it if Grambling and Yale were in the playoffs. First, I think those two leagues have the biggest followings and the some of the most recognized names in FCS. But I think you'd be in for a serious reality check with respect to Grambling if the Tigers ran into somebody like, say, Delaware, in the playoffs. I'm saying somebody your model shows as a ways below Grambling but, in reality, would probably completely blow the Tigers out.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know what you're smokin' but those are the craziest rankings I think I've seen yet...

I learned last week that he's using an apparently well known approach to modeling/ranking competetive units based strictly on wins and losses (that's what "Bradley-Terry" is). But something is way out of whack.

[Grizalltheway]

I learned last week that he's using an apparently well known approach to modeling/ranking competetive units based strictly on wins and losses (that's what "Bradley-Terry" is). But something is way out of whack.

In that case shouldn't a 9-0 Montana be ahead of an 8-1 Del State? xconfusedx

[Franks Tanks]

This is my favorite.

#56 is a 4-5 Lehigh team
#79 is a 5-4 Lafayette team

-Both teams have extremely similar schedules, and wins against that schedule. How is a team with a slightly worse record and realtively same SOS ranked 23 spots ahead?

[JohnStOnge]

Actually, chances are pretty good that Delaware State may give us a chance to get an idea of how much sense those rankings make.

[DetroitFlyer]

University of Dayton Flyers for an at large bid, baby!!!!!

GO Dayton Flyers!!!!!

[GreatAppSt]

xrolleyesx xrolleyesx Again with this convoluted tripe? Whatever ya say dude.xeyebrowx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

BTW In 4 1/2 years on here I have never used my ignore feature. but I am now seriously thinking about it. the only saving grace is the comedic factor is getting better with each post.

[appfan2008]

This is my favorite.

#56 is a 4-5 Lehigh team
#79 is a 5-4 Lafayette team

-Both teams have extremely similar schedules, and wins against that schedule. How is a team with a slightly worse record and realtively same SOS ranked 23 spots ahead?

solid proof this ranking system is a joke!

[BlueHen86]

I don't think this system takes into account games against FBS teams.

[FCS Preview]

I don't know what you're smokin' but those are the craziest rankings I think I've seen yet...

Agreed!

Del State over NDSU?

"fill it, light it, shut up and close the door
cuz we gonna lay around the shanty mama and put a good buzz on"

[JohnStOnge]

In that case shouldn't a 9-0 Montana be ahead of an 8-1 Del State? xconfusedx

Well, I think it's wins and losses of opponents too. I haven't tried to sit down and absorb it yet...but here's a discussion of "Fitting a Bradley Terry Model:"

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~luke/xls/glim/glim/node8.html

Only thing I've done is scan through it and it looks like it's based on wins and losses. Also, I interpret the fact that he talks about "categorical" data analysis as meaning some measurement of the degree to which someone beats somebody else (i.e., the margin of victory) isn't considered.

I'm judging it on how for out of line it is with other power rating systems. It'd be interesting to find out how good these rankings are at predicting outcomes or "explaining" past results compared to some other systems but that'd be a huge undertaking.

[GreatAppSt]

solid proof this ranking system is a joke!


or this

48. Rhode Island (2-6) (2-7) 0.561 2.993
49. Northern Arizona (5-3) (6-4) 0.555 2.885
xrolleyesx

[Ud1Hens]

If Del. St. is indeed the #3 team in the nation, why have they needed 4 straight late 4th quarter comebacks over mediocre MEAC teams? That includes the disputed 3 blown calls, and 2 game-winning FGs with under a minute to play.

[DSUHornet]

I don't know what you're smokin' but those are the craziest rankings I think I've seen yet...




i dont know.....i like them!!! xcoolx

[GaSouthern]

Wait this thread is serious? Grambling #2

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

[DSUHornet]

If Del. St. is indeed the #3 team in the nation, why have they needed 4 straight late 4th quarter comebacks over mediocre MEAC teams? That includes the disputed 3 blown calls, and 2 game-winning FGs with under a minute to play.




Hey, Hey, Hey!!!!!

a victory is a victoy my friend. wether your left cleet was on your right foot or not. honestly, we are not playing our best ball as we were in the opening games in an attempt to be full ride in our first post season visit in a while. rest assured that the guns will come out against norfolk st. because this is a must-win for us.

[Boogs]

This is my favorite.

#56 is a 4-5 Lehigh team
#79 is a 5-4 Lafayette team

-Both teams have extremely similar schedules, and wins against that schedule. How is a team with a slightly worse record and realtively same SOS ranked 23 spots ahead?

What formula are you using for SOS?

Lehigh over Lafayette has a heck of a lot shorter conquering path than Lafayette over Lehigh.

[Boogs]

or this

48. Rhode Island (2-6) (2-7) 0.561 2.993
49. Northern Arizona (5-3) (6-4) 0.555 2.885
xrolleyesx

What's your basis for saying Northern Arizona should be ahead of Rhode Island?

[Boogs]

I don't think this system takes into account games against FBS teams.

For those with short attention spans (I explained this last week), non-FCS games are thrown out.

DOH!

[FormerPokeCenter]

I learned last week that he's using an apparently well known approach to modeling/ranking competetive units based strictly on wins and losses (that's what "Bradley-Terry" is). But something is way out of whack.

Well, that's the thing...in a weak conference like the SWAC, the wins come against inferior competition...There's not enough of a commonality to determine where they should legitimately rank.

Somehow, he's weighting the loss to Pitt more heavily than superior performances against better teams coming from other FCS schools.

This ranking system is simply nothing more than mental masturbation with highly selective fantasization....

[siugrad99]

I wouldn't call it short attention spans, I would probably call it nobody thinks you've got a clue so they choose not to listen. Keep dreamin of your fictional playoff 16 buddy. Last year we delt with the San Diego moron, now we have you.... wonderful!

[Boogs]

This ranking system is simply nothing more than mental -edited- with highly selective fantasization....

You could have used different words to explain yourself. There are youngsters that visit ths site too.

Uncouth!

The game against Pittsburgh was thrown out because it wasn't a FCS vs. FCS game.

Grambling's opponents' opponents pushed Grambling up to the number 2 spot. Not sure where this SOS issue comes from. I'd like to hear the specifics on that.

[Boogs]

I wouldn't call it short attention spans, I would probably call it nobody thinks you've got a clue so they choose not to listen. Keep dreamin of your fictional playoff 16 buddy. Last year we delt with the San Diego moron, now we have you.... wonderful!

Go UTEP! I'm a Miners fan too.

[siugrad99]

You can't be too big of a UTEP fan as my avatar is for the Southern Illinois Miners of the Frontier League... Nice try though. Shows me you put as much attention into detail in your bogus rankings as you do into knowing your teams logos.

[RadMann]

The problem with this ranking is that it fails the common sense test. It ignores what anyone who follows FCS football knows about the general strengths of the conferences and programs. Those basic facts should play a role in any ranking system.

[Boogs]

You can't be too big of a UTEP fan as my avatar is for the Southern Illinois Miners of the Frontier League... Nice try though. Shows me you put as much attention into detail in your bogus rankings as you do into knowing your teams logos.

Ouch! Did you run out of Midol?

[Boogs]

The problem with this ranking is that it fails the common sense test. It ignores what anyone who follows FCS football knows about the general strengths of the conferences and programs. Those basic facts should play a role in any ranking system.

Or maybe games outside of FCS should be abolished so we can get fewer undefeated teams this deep into the season?

The goal is to eliminate the subjectivity in selecting teams for a playoff and to ignore prior season performance (as if it were even relevant).

[grizband]

What's your basis for saying Northern Arizona should be ahead of Rhode Island?
What's your basis for saying they shouldn't?

[FargoBison]

For those with short attention spans (I explained this last week), non-FCS games are thrown out.

DOH!

As a result it makes your rankings completely worthless.

[blueballs]

Since no other GSU folks have posted here, I'll add the obligatory question:

How do you justify ranking a 3 loss Wofford team that GSU defeated on Wofford's home turf, and an APP ST team with 2 losses that GSU defeated on APP's home turf, ahead of GSU?

[Boogs]

Since no other GSU folks have posted here, I'll add the obligatory question:

How do you justify ranking a 3 loss Wofford team that GSU defeated on Wofford's home turf, and an APP ST team with 2 losses that GSU defeated on APP's home turf, ahead of GSU?

Use Massey's conquering path tool for each of your scenarios on his website. If Massey's tool doesn't answer your question to your satisfaction, email me at my rankings website. xcoffeex

I feel like a human resource manager that has to explain the company health benefits to employees that didn't read their take-home paperwork. xrulesx

[blueballs]

Use Massey's conquering path tool for each of your scenarios on his website. If Massey's tool doesn't answer your question to your satisfaction, email me at my rankings website. xcoffeex

I feel like a human resource manager that has to explain the company health benefits to employees that didn't read their take-home paperwork. xrulesx


Only one explanation needed: Scoreboard.

[Boogs]

As a result it makes your rankings completely worthless.

Should we count non-league games in your favorite team's league standings?! xconfusedx

[Boogs]

Only one explanation needed: Scoreboard.

Yep. Massey's tool uses scoreboard data.

Next!xnonono2x

[Baldy]

Only one explanation needed: Scoreboard.
...or crystal meth. xrotatehx

[FargoBison]

Should we count non-league games in your favorite team's league standings?! xconfusedx

Every team in my league is going to play each other, that isn't going to happen in the FCS. You can't just leave out 100s of games and think it will not affect your rankings.

[JohnStOnge]

Yep. Massey's tool uses scoreboard data.

Next!xnonono2x

Boogs, have you "validated" your model? Have you, for instance, compared how it does in predicting outcomes and/or explaining past results as compared to well known models such as those developed by Massey and Sagarin?

It's an important question, because Sagarin (for instance) has Grambling rated 21st. Dunkel (Massey's aren't out yet) has them rated at 27th. Massey had Grambling rated at 18th last week. All of those are a lot different than having them rated at #2. Do you have an argument, in terms of actual empirical performance, as to why we should think your set of ratings is closer to the truth?

[FormerPokeCenter]

Ouch! Did you run out of Midol?

So implying that one poster is in the midst of menstruating and is in need of anti-bloating and cramping medication is acceptable, but to describe your whole cloth fabrication of a ranking system as mental masturbation with highly selective fantasization is uncouth???

Holy Double Standard, Batman, I think I see the problem!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rest of the universe doesn't revolve around you nor operate according to your rules...

[JohnStOnge]

The problem with this ranking is that it fails the common sense test. It ignores what anyone who follows FCS football knows about the general strengths of the conferences and programs. Those basic facts should play a role in any ranking system.

I think you nailed it. Boogs is obviously highly intelligent or he wouldn't be doing the modeling to begin with. But you have to have the "common sense" to know when there's an obvious problem with your model.

[GreatAppSt]

What's your basis for saying Northern Arizona should be ahead of Rhode Island?
Without resorting to Copernican mathmatics. I'd say if two teams are in decent conferences and one is 2 wins an 7 lossses IMHO they should be ranked behind a team that has 6 wins and 4 losses. Simple really.;) 7 losses > 4 losses + 2 wins < 6 winsxthumbsupx



I think you nailed it. Boogs is obviously highly intelligent or he wouldn't be doing the modeling to begin with. But you have to have the "common sense" to know when there's an obvious problem with your model.

I looked up Boogs' ip, I think he is from Midvale.

http://www.seattleblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/larson_gifted.jpg

[McTailGator]

Grambling is underrated and deserves a shot in the playoffs if the school would allow the team to blow off the Southern/SWAC title games.

Same goes for Yale. They deserve to be in the sweet 16.

Dayton might finish in the top 16 and deserve a shot as well. If Richmond can lose to Towson and be forgiven, so should the Dayton Flyers when they played Morehead State.

It's too bad I'm not exclusively in charge of who goes to the playoffs. xcoffeex

Bradley-Terry Football Rankings

NCAA Div. I Football Championship Subdivision

Thru 11/03/2007

Rank | Team | Div. I Football Championship Subdivision Record | Overall Record | Round-Robin Winning Percentage | Bradley-Terry Points
1. Northern Iowa (7-0) (9-0) 0.953 100.000
2. Grambling State, LA (8-0) (8-1) 0.919 52.810
3. Delaware State (8-0) (8-1) 0.888 34.529
4. North Dakota State (7-0) (9-0) 0.885 33.429
5. Montana (8-0) (9-0) 0.882 32.322
6. Yale, CT (8-0) (8-0) 0.880 31.505
7. Eastern Kentucky (7-0) (7-2) 0.866 27.044
8. Southern Illinois (6-1) (8-1) 0.863 25.991
9. Richmond, VA (7-1) (7-2) 0.845 21.879
10. Massachusetts (7-1) (7-2) 0.836 20.014
11. Delaware (6-1) (8-1) 0.823 17.689
12. McNeese State, LA (7-0) (9-0) 0.816 16.761
13. James Madison, VA (6-2) (6-3) 0.794 13.887
14. Appalachian State, NC (5-2) (7-2) 0.793 13.761
15. Wofford, SC (6-2) (7-3) 0.789 13.388
16. Georgia Southern (6-2) (7-2) 0.785 12.910
17. Hofstra, NY (7-2) (7-2) 0.784 12.853
18. Dayton, OH (mid-major) (7-1) (9-1) 0.780 12.415
19. Elon, NC (5-2) (6-3) 0.771 11.571
20. Alabama A&M (6-2) (7-2) 0.752 10.076
(tie) Jackson State, MS (6-2) (6-3) 0.752 10.076
22. Fordham, NY (8-2) (8-2) 0.748 9.774
23. New Hampshire (5-3) (6-3) 0.748 9.762
24. Villanova, PA (5-3) (5-4) 0.745 9.599
25. Western Illinois (5-3) (6-4) 0.741 9.309
26. Norfolk State, VA (6-1) (7-2) 0.720 8.038
27. San Diego, CA (mid-major) (7-1) (8-1) 0.716 7.823
28. South Carolina State (5-2) (5-4) 0.706 7.297
29. Southern, LA (7-2) (7-2) 0.704 7.240
30. Holy Cross, MA (6-3) (6-3) 0.696 6.851
31. Albany, NY (mid-major) (6-3) (6-3) 0.678 6.079
32. Youngstown State, OH (5-3) (6-4) 0.676 6.022
33. Colgate, NY (6-3) (6-3) 0.669 5.758
34. The Citadel, SC (4-3) (5-4) 0.655 5.252
35. South Dakota State (5-4) (5-4) 0.649 5.066
36. Jacksonville State, AL (6-2) (6-3) 0.641 4.828
37. William & Mary, VA (4-4) (4-5) 0.632 4.555
38. Furman, SC (4-4) (4-5) 0.631 4.536
39. Harvard, MA (6-2) (6-2) 0.631 4.534
40. Gardner Webb, NC (5-2) (5-4) 0.620 4.248
41. Iona, NY (mid-major) (4-1) (7-2) 0.613 4.075
42. Missouri State (4-4) (5-5) 0.597 3.711
43. Eastern Illinois (6-2) (6-3) 0.587 3.491
44. Eastern Washington (5-2) (6-3) 0.586 3.466
45. Morehead State, KY (mid-major) (6-2) (7-2) 0.585 3.442
46. Cal Poly, CA (5-2) (6-3) 0.573 3.212
47. Liberty, VA (4-2) (6-3) 0.573 3.209
48. Rhode Island (2-6) (2-7) 0.561 2.993
49. Northern Arizona (5-3) (6-4) 0.555 2.885
50. Hampton, VA (5-4) (5-4) 0.545 2.736
51. Illinois State (4-5) (4-6) 0.544 2.715
52. Towson, MD (3-6) (3-6) 0.533 2.545
53. Central Arkansas (5-3) (5-4) 0.532 2.534
54. Alabama State (4-5) (4-5) 0.530 2.502
55. Prairie View A&M, TX (5-3) (5-3) 0.530 2.498
56. Lehigh, PA (4-5) (4-5) 0.528 2.481
57. Texas State (4-3) (4-5) 0.527 2.460
58. Stony Brook, NY (4-4) (5-4) 0.525 2.431
59. Tennessee State (4-5) (4-5) 0.516 2.308
60. Tennessee-Chattanooga (2-4) (2-7) 0.514 2.282
61. Winston-Salem State, NC (5-4) (5-4) 0.513 2.269
62. Sam Houston State, TX (3-3) (5-4) 0.506 2.184
63. Maine (3-5) (3-6) 0.504 2.149
64. Davidson, NC (mid-major) (3-3) (5-4) 0.502 2.130
65. Drake, IA (mid-major) (4-4) (6-4) 0.501 2.114
66. UC Davis, CA (4-4) (4-6) 0.486 1.937
67. Dartmouth, NH (3-5) (3-5) 0.473 1.806
68. Cornell, NY (4-4) (4-4) 0.470 1.770
69. Austin Peay, TN (5-3) (6-3) 0.467 1.737
70. Northeastern, MA (2-6) (2-7) 0.460 1.668
71. Morgan State, MD (5-5) (5-5) 0.457 1.639
72. Howard, DC (3-4) (4-5) 0.447 1.552
73. Central Connecticut State (mid-major) (4-2) (6-3) 0.441 1.499
74. Weber State, UT (4-4) (4-5) 0.439 1.476
75. Wagner, NY (mid-major) (5-3) (6-3) 0.430 1.402
76. Brown, RI (3-5) (3-5) 0.429 1.393
77. Montana State (4-3) (5-4) 0.426 1.368
78. Florida A&M (3-6) (3-6) 0.425 1.360
79. Lafayette, PA (5-4) (5-4) 0.408 1.232
80. Arkansas Pine Bluff (2-6) (2-7) 0.399 1.164
81. Nicholls State, LA (2-3) (5-4) 0.385 1.072
82. Coastal Carolina, SC (2-6) (3-6) 0.376 1.011
83. Presbyterian, SC (3-4) (6-4) 0.365 0.949
84. Western Carolina, NC (1-6) (1-8) 0.365 0.947
85. Samford, AL (3-4) (4-5) 0.364 0.940
86. Princeton, NJ (3-5) (3-5) 0.359 0.914
87. Valparaiso, IN (mid-major) (2-4) (5-5) 0.359 0.914
88. Charleston Southern, SC (2-4) (4-5) 0.351 0.868
89. Northwestern State, LA (2-4) (3-6) 0.342 0.818
90. Pennsylvania (3-5) (3-5) 0.335 0.783
91. North Carolina Central (2-1) (6-3) 0.332 0.771
92. Portland State, OR (2-6) (2-7) 0.331 0.764
93. Duquesne, PA (mid-major) (4-3) (5-3) 0.326 0.740
94. Mississippi Valley State (2-7) (2-7) 0.325 0.735
95. Alcorn State, MS (2-5) (2-6) 0.318 0.701
96. Idaho State (2-5) (3-6) 0.314 0.683
97. Monmouth, NJ (mid-major) (3-5) (3-5) 0.312 0.676
98. Bethune Cookman, FL (3-6) (3-6) 0.311 0.669
99. Robert Morris, PA (mid-major) (3-6) (3-6) 0.300 0.624
100. Tennessee Tech (2-5) (4-6) 0.290 0.580
101. Tennessee Martin (2-6) (2-7) 0.267 0.496
102. Sacramento State, CA (1-6) (1-8) 0.256 0.458
103. Northern Colorado (1-7) (1-9) 0.255 0.452
104. Jacksonville, FL (mid-major) (1-7) (2-7) 0.247 0.428
105. Southeastern Louisiana (1-4) (2-7) 0.226 0.363
106. Bucknell, PA (2-7) (2-7) 0.216 0.335
107. VMI, VA (1-7) (2-7) 0.210 0.319
108. Murray State, KY (1-6) (2-7) 0.201 0.295
109. Southern Utah (0-8) (0-9) 0.176 0.236
110. Columbia, NY (1-7) (1-7) 0.167 0.216
111. Butler, IN (mid-major) (0-6) (4-6) 0.151 0.186
112. St. Francis, PA (mid-major) (1-7) (1-7) 0.149 0.181
113. Georgetown, DC (1-9) (1-9) 0.135 0.156
114. Sacred Heart, CT (mid-major) (2-7) (3-7) 0.131 0.150
115. Southeast Missouri State (1-6) (2-7) 0.124 0.138
116. Texas Southern (0-8) (0-9) 0.117 0.127
117. Stephen F. Austin, TX (0-8) (0-9) 0.104 0.108
118. Marist, NY (mid-major) (2-8) (2-8) 0.104 0.108
119. Savannah State, GA (0-5) (1-8) 0.103 0.106
120. North Carolina A&T (0-10) (0-10) 0.084 0.081
121. Indiana State (0-8) (0-10) 0.077 0.071
122. La Salle, PA (mid-major) (0-4) (0-8) 0.043 0.036
Fictitious Team 2.105



:pumpuke:

[flyenhigh]

I like what you are saying (4 once)!!!!

[No_Skill]

Or maybe games outside of FCS should be abolished so we can get fewer undefeated teams this deep into the season?

The goal is to eliminate the subjectivity in selecting teams for a playoff and to ignore prior season performance (as if it were even relevant).


Yeah NDSU's two wins over FBS opponents should never have been played so we would have a couple losses by now.

[Maroons]

I'm glad Boogs puts his own formula together and posts it here for discussion. It is another perspective and don't think you can have too many of those. I'm also glad that some choose to debate the statistical merits of the formula. I'm enjoying the informed debate.

I'm disappointed that so many are taking childish shots at Boogs himself.

[JTCowboy]

It is obvious that you know little about the SWAC. I think Grambling has a pretty good team but at least 10-12 of the teams you have behind them would beat them on a regular basis. You are welcome to throw the past out if you wish but then that would be foolish. Top notch Grambling and Southern teams ( both considered to be the elite teams in the SWAC) have lost to all levels of SLC teams over the years on a very regular basis.
Many consider the SLC an average FCS conference.

There is nothiing factual to support that this year is any different.

[FCS Preview]

For those with short attention spans (I explained this last week), non-FCS games are thrown out.

DOH!

Well, maybe throw out non Division-I games. Keep all games against D-I schools, so that teams like Appalachian State, Delaware, UNI and NDSU get credit for their wins over FBS schools.

[TheBisonator]

Deleware State above NDSU.

Yup, looks like you got a real winner there...

[Peems]

I'm glad Boogs puts his own formula together and posts it here for discussion. It is another perspective and don't think you can have too many of those. I'm also glad that some choose to debate the statistical merits of the formula. I'm enjoying the informed debate.

I'm disappointed that so many are taking childish shots at Boogs himself.

I don't think it's his formula, he just publishes it and "sponsors" it.

[JALMOND]

Someone tell me again why Yale would be deserving of an at-large, due to their performance with their oh-so-stellar schedule and the results of said schedule.

So many teams out there that actually deserve to get an at-large and Yale is definitely not one of them. Start the year off by beating mighty Georgetown by only a touchdown. How about the 3OT thriller over Penn? Just this past week, a 10 point win at home against Brown?

Yes, Yale is a top 25 team, but #20 at best. Hardly worthy of a FCS at large for the playoffs.

[BlueHen86]

For those with short attention spans (I explained this last week), non-FCS games are thrown out.

DOH!
That's just plain stupid.
This ranking system sucks.

[BlueHen86]

Without resorting to Copernican mathmatics. I'd say if two teams are in decent conferences and one is 2 wins an 7 lossses IMHO they should be ranked behind a team that has 6 wins and 4 losses. Simple really.;) 7 losses > 4 losses + 2 wins < 6 winsxthumbsupx




I looked up Boogs' ip, I think he is from Midvale.
http://www.seattleblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/larson_gifted.jpg
That's great.xlolx

[BlueHen86]

I'm glad Boogs puts his own formula together and posts it here for discussion. It is another perspective and don't think you can have too many of those. I'm also glad that some choose to debate the statistical merits of the formula. I'm enjoying the informed debate.

I'm disappointed that so many are taking childish shots at Boogs himself.
He asks for it. He takes needless shots at others. Read the thread. In post #12 I correctly point out that I don't think his formula takes into account FBS games; in post #22 I'm told that I have a short attention span.
He reaps what he sows.

[CamelCityAppFan]

Well, maybe throw out non Division-I games. Keep all games against D-I schools, so that teams like Appalachian State, Delaware, UNI and NDSU get credit for their wins over FBS schools.

I agree. I don't have a problem with discounting victories against D-II teams, but to throw out a I-AA win against the #5 ranked (at the time) I-A team is absolutely ridiculous. Close losses against teams from a division above should also be considered. Any reasonable ranking system would take this into account.

Perhaps all the math and statistical models are correct-- but it's the premise of the ranking system that is seriously flawed.

[Boogs]

I'm glad Boogs puts his own formula together and posts it here for discussion. It is another perspective and don't think you can have too many of those. I'm also glad that some choose to debate the statistical merits of the formula. I'm enjoying the informed debate.

I'm disappointed that so many are taking childish shots at Boogs himself.

Thanks for the support.

If I get one idea nested in 100 smack posts to improve upon a ranking system that preserves sportmanship (uses only raw wins/losses data) I consider the privilege of posting here a success.

I'm fortunate so far I've found short circular conquering paths each time that can explain away everyone's "why is this team above this team?" complaints.

If the only way to refine/discover new ideas involves lots of additional smack with it, bring it on! xcoffeex

P.S. The Bradley-Terry system is not my invention. I just applied the concept invented by two guys 50 years ago by writing a computer program for football and publishing the results on the web.

[Peems]

Could you explain the conquering paths to me/how they work?

[Boogs]

He asks for it. He takes needless shots at others. Read the thread. In post #12 I correctly point out that I don't think his formula takes into account FBS games; in post #22 I'm told that I have a short attention span.
He reaps what he sows.

For the record I did not take what you said to me personally. xcoffeex

Smacking back at someone is a sign of a good thing:

1) It means you care about the issue.

2) It also means you have a high commitment to excellence and don't want to see some other format (my rankings) being used over the current method (whatever that is) for selecting playoff teams before the new system is working well.

I also feel passionate about the NCAA's second-rate classification system for football. I see Stony Brook/NEC/PFL/MAAC schools taking advantage of loopholes by fielding meatless and/or fat (not muscular) teams on the field of play -- glorified D3 programs in reality.

Kick those programs out and force the remaining FCS schools to play against each other (more connections for pairwise comparisons) plus add the BT system and this could pan-out to be the missing piece that eliminates biased selections into the FCS playoff field.

Oh ohh! I sense Dane96 and UAalum72 being rattled. xcoffeex

[Boogs]

Could you explain the conquering paths to me/how they work?

Yes I can do that.

Can you wait until later this week?

SMU is playing Houston right now.

[BlueHen86]

Yes I can do that.

Can you wait until later this week?

SMU is playing Houston right now.

Huh? According to your ranking system SMU and Houston don't exist.

[Baldy]

Huh? According to your ranking system SMU and Houston don't exist.
xlolx xthumbsupx

[JohnStOnge]

If I get one idea nested in 100 smack posts to improve upon a ranking system that preserves sportmanship (uses only raw wins/losses data) I consider the privilege of posting here a success..

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you ought to consider the possibility that considering only wins/losses without considering margins of victory is not the best way to do it. From what I can tell, that is Sagarin's and Massey's opinion. Certainly Sagarin's...as he say so on his site.

Either way, in my opinion, if you want a credible ranking system, "preserving sportsmanship" should not be a factor. The objective should be to either do the best job of prediction or the best job of retrodiction. My opinion is that the best job of prediction should be the test. I know from corresponding with Massey that he thinks it should be the best job of retrodiction.

But, either way, I think you should have some "bottom line" basis for contending that your rating system is generally correct in indicating that Grambling is near the very top of FCS while models like those used by Sagarin, Massey, and Dunkel are not correct in indicating that Grambling more of a "second tier" team.

[danefan]

Compare the following quotes please:

I see Stony Brook/NEC/PFL/MAAC schools taking advantage of loopholes by fielding meatless and/or fat (not muscular) teams on the field of play -- glorified D3 programs in reality.

Kick those programs out and force the remaining FCS schools to play against each other (more connections for pairwise comparisons) plus add the BT system and this could pan-out to be the missing piece that eliminates biased selections into the FCS playoff field.
xcoffeex

and


Dayton might finish in the top 16 and deserve a shot as well. If Richmond can lose to Towson and be forgiven, so should the Dayton Flyers when they played Morehead State.


Please explain how you can say that a team that is ranked highly in your self-proclaimed end-all be-all system is a glorified DIII team. Doesn't that kind of mean that you are saying your system is BS?xcoffeex

I really just don't understand your reasons for coming on here and talking the $h!t you do. It just doesn't make sense. I try to understand and I try to keep an open mind, but its comments like the above-quoted language that make me shake my head. xnonono2x

And just for sake of addressing your comments, you clearly misunderstand the NCAA rules. There are no loopholes. There are rules. If you are DI in olympic sports, you must play DI football. This is not a loophole. Unless of course you are saying that fielding a team is taking advantage of a loophole. And if that is your position, then you really are just an idiot.

[Dane96]

Please explain how you can say that a team that is ranked highly in your self-proclaimed end-all be-all system is a glorified DIII team. Doesn't that kind of mean that you are saying your system is BS?xcoffeex

Oh, if I had to guess it is because he probably has never played a high-level organized sport in his life.

[FCS Preview]

Thanks for the support.

If I get one idea nested in 100 smack posts to improve upon a ranking system that preserves sportmanship (uses only raw wins/losses data) I consider the privilege of posting here a success.

Well then I'm glad to have given you the idea. ;)
Include ALL GAMES against D-I schools -- FCS and FBS -- while eliminating those against lower division teams.

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showpost.php?p=722463&postcount=49

[GreatAppSt]

I'm glad Boogs puts his own formula together and posts it here for discussion. It is another perspective and don't think you can have too many of those. I'm also glad that some choose to debate the statistical merits of the formula. I'm enjoying the informed debate.

I'm disappointed that so many are taking childish shots at Boogs himself.

It's a tough crowd around here.xthumbsupx

[proasu89]

Bradley-Terry Football Rankings?

I think someone got confused and used the Terry Bradshaw model insteadxnutsx

[FormerPokeCenter]

Bradley-Terry is about as accurate as the Dart-Boardian Method, whereby 117 blindfolded drunks in a sports bar each take a dart with a team's name on it and fling it at a dartboard. Whatever number your school's dart lands on is your ranking in the Dart-Boardian method.

Another, more scientific method, would be to prgram your computer to spit our random number between 1 and 117, and remove the previously selected number from the pool of possible numbers to use. Each random number generated is assigned to corresponding teams in alphabetical order.

After all random numbers are assigned, they're collated and published in a new band-width wasting thread each week.

Of course, I could always go for a slightly LESS scientific method and call it FormerPokeCenter's Wild-Assed Guess Method or the FPCWAGM for short...

I'd be willing to bet that I could come closer to predicting the actual finish than the Bradley-Terry method could...

[McNeese_beat]

So implying that one poster is in the midst of menstruating and is in need of anti-bloating and cramping medication is acceptable, but to describe your whole cloth fabrication of a ranking system as mental masturbation with highly selective fantasization is uncouth???

Holy Double Standard, Batman, I think I see the problem!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rest of the universe doesn't revolve around you nor operate according to your rules...

That's at the top of the list of the many faults of this rating system:

Where most systems try to take into consideration what is valued by those being rated, this one implements a value system on them. For instance, North Dakota State thought it did a good thing by beating the team that's leading the MAC. In other ranking systems, it's being rewarded for it. In human polls, it's climbing to the top.

But on this one ranking system, they are being told the trip to the Metrodome was a waste of time, it doesn't count. It has no value.

The only way for that kind of system to work is to have all participating teams accept those conditions before hand. Which they did not. So it's invalid. Completely.

I would accept it as a hypothetical, as in "this is how teams should be ranked, here's a sample on how the rankings would look like given the current sample and here's why Grambling, who isn't highly ranked by anyone else, would be if my rating system was used."

But that's not how he presents it.

He says, quite clearly, that Grambling IS underrated, that Yale IS underrated and implies that McNeese IS overrated. Never mind that none of these teams set out on their seasons attempting to meet the criteria he set for being highly ranked.

[travelinman67]

Boogs...

Nice work on the model, but JSO's right...needs empirical validation and weighting adjustments. Keep going with this. It's obviously not "perfect", but it's inconceivable that weighting can ever become static, so no system can ever be "perfect".