10/20/08 Gridiron Power Index (GPI), James Madison Stays at No. 1

[CSN-info]

The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection continues with James Madison in the top spot again this week. No other team has been ranked No. 1 this year in the GPI.

The Colonial Athletic Association, the largest league in the FCS has seven teams in the top 25; the Southern Conference has five; the Missouri Valley Football Conference placed four; the Big Sky has three; the Great West Football and the Southland Conferences have two each; and the Ohio Valley Conference plus the Ivy League have one each.

10/20/2008 GPI Top 25
1. James Madison (1.00)
2. Villanova (4.25)
3. Montana (4.75)
4. Appalachian St (5.00)
5. Richmond (5.38)
6. Cal Poly (5.50)
7. Elon (8.13)
8. Wofford (9.13)
9. Weber St (9.38)
10. New Hampshire (10.25)
11. Northern Iowa (11.38)
12. N Arizona (12.50)
13. William & Mary (13.13)
14. Cent Arkansas (13.88)
15. W Illinois (14.00)
16. McNeese St (14.38)
17. Massachusetts (15.63)
18. S Illinois (16.38)
19. Furman (17.38)
20T. Harvard (23.00)
20T. Maine (23.00)
22. UC Davis (24.25)
23. Ga Southern (24.88)
24T. S Dakota St (26.13)
24T. Jacksonville St (26.13)

Full GPI Detail:
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/stats/writer/GPI/20081020gpi.html

Conference Ranking:
Rank, League, Total Average
1. Colonial Athletic Association (23.28)
2. Southern Conference (30.16)
3. Great West Football Conference (30.90)
4. Big Sky Conference (31.13)
5. Southland Conference (33.68)
6. Missouri Valley Football Conference (36.06)
7. Patriot League (49.18)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (49.78)
9. Ivy League (50.25)
10. Big South Conference (50.72)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (60.66)
12. Northeast Conference (65.89)
13. Southwestern Athletic Conference (69.64)
14. Pioneer Football League (74.13)
15. Independents (79.28)

Read More ... http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/index.php?blog=5&title=10-20-08-gridiron-power-index-gpi-james--1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[danefan]

Delaware is killing Albany's GPI right now....falling further and further each week.

I find it curious that Hofstra is now rated ahead of Albany. SOS has to be the reason.

[89Hen]

*singing to myself*...Oh how I love computer polls, oh how I love them....


Self
1. James Madison
2. Villanova
3. Weber State
4. Montana
5. Richmond
6. William and Mary

should I stop now? Computer guys have told me directly that these models do NOT self implode on themsleves.... xlolx xlolx xlolx

Nah, I'll continue

7. Cal Poly
8. App State
9. New Hampshire
10. Northern Arizona

Sorry folks, if you aint in the CAA or Big Sky, chances are you're not a top 10 team (that's 8 of the top 10 in case you weren't counting)...

11. Elon
12. UCA
13. Wofford
14. UMass
15. UNI
16. McNeese
17. WIU
18. Furman
19. SIU
20. Maine

that's more than 1/3 of the top 20 dedicated to the CAA to this point for those keeping track, cripes we may get 6 of the 8 at-larges...

21. UC Davis
22. GSU
23. SDSU
24. Harvard
25. EWU
26. Northeatern

We've now hit our 8th CAA team...

27. Lafayette
28. Sacramento State

And our fifth Big Sky for the first time in conference history

29. SLU
30. SUU
31. UND

to add some directionals...

C'mon folks. How much more proof do you need to see that computer models are crap? Don't give me the "they get more accurate as they go" BS... there will never be enough data in a football season to let them recover from this. If they're crap after 8 weeks, how do they magically transform in four more? xnonono2x

[Eight Legger]

I actually think this is the most accurate representation of the FCS I have seen to date. I don't see any teams on here that are more than 1 or 2 spots from where I think they should be.

[Hoyadestroya85]

Best i've seen yet.. top 2 will be reversed after this weekend :D

[neersnbeers]

I wish there was an icon that looked like dookie. Would be appropriate for these "power rankings" or the "mentos" poll or whatever all these things are.

[Syntax Error]

Delaware is killing Albany's GPI...xnodx
... computer models are crap... xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[89Hen]

xnodx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Ususal response. I SHOW you how they are crap and your reply, as always, is nothing... or are you saying you think the Self rankings are good? xcoffeex

[Syntax Error]

Ususal response. I SHOW you how they are crap and your reply, as always, is nothing... xrolleyesx Whatever. xboringx

Go argue with Jeff Self:
http://members.cox.net/jocknerd/images/jeff1.jpg

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[bluehenbillk]

89, If you think these computer polls are funny, take a look at the 1st BCrapS poll that came out this week, notably the computer love that Ohio St is getting. Someone must've forgot to plug the input in from the USC thrashing, or maybe it weights the amount of online porn Jim Tressel buys?

[kirkblitz]

big south slipped again :(

[DSUrocks07]

*singing to myself*...Oh how I love computer polls, oh how I love them....


Self
1. James Madison
2. Villanova
3. Weber State
4. Montana
5. Richmond
6. William and Mary

should I stop now? Computer guys have told me directly that these models do NOT self implode on themsleves.... xlolx xlolx xlolx

Nah, I'll continue

7. Cal Poly
8. App State
9. New Hampshire
10. Northern Arizona

Sorry folks, if you aint in the CAA or Big Sky, chances are you're not a top 10 team (that's 8 of the top 10 in case you weren't counting)...

11. Elon
12. UCA
13. Wofford
14. UMass
15. UNI
16. McNeese
17. WIU
18. Furman
19. SIU
20. Maine

that's more than 1/3 of the top 20 dedicated to the CAA to this point for those keeping track, cripes we may get 6 of the 8 at-larges...

21. UC Davis
22. GSU
23. SDSU
24. Harvard
25. EWU
26. Northeatern

We've now hit our 8th CAA team...

27. Lafayette
28. Sacramento State

And our fifth Big Sky for the first time in conference history

29. SLU
30. SUU
31. UND

to add some directionals...

C'mon folks. How much more proof do you need to see that computer models are crap? Don't give me the "they get more accurate as they go" BS... there will never be enough data in a football season to let them recover from this. If they're crap after 8 weeks, how do they magically transform in four more? xnonono2x

xoutofrepx

xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[Syntax Error]

...11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (60.66)
72T. Delaware St (54.75) xrulesx xbawlingx

[letsgopards04]

Patriot League jumped quite a bit. Now they are the 7th rated conference.

[OL FU]

I actually think this is the most accurate representation of the FCS I have seen to date. I don't see any teams on here that are more than 1 or 2 spots from where I think they should be.

SoCon people like the polls. CAA (except for 89and billk) like the GPI. I wonder whyxconfusedx :)

[OL FU]

Delaware is killing Albany's GPI right now....falling further and further each week.

I find it curious that Hofstra is now rated ahead of Albany. SOS has to be the reason.

That has always been my biggest problem with the better power polls (The one that 89 mentioned is just awful). You can lose everygame but play a tough schedule and your power rating doesn't seem to fall. I realize that there are other components besides wins and losses but the SOS without wins as a major part of the rating is just xsmhx

[UC Davisite]

Why is it that Harvard is always up there? C'mon... I would love to kick their rear any day but they're too busy beating other lame Ivy schools. Please... And I find it funny how some only want to consider those in the CAA or Big Sky as if no quality teams exist anywhere else in the country. Talk about heads in sand. LOL. Sadly our #22 GPI won't get us anywhere as far as the playoffs are concerned...it's the four losses (even if close - save one) that are going to kill us or already have.

[Rekdiver]

Absolutely meaningless unless we plan to start the FBS in 1-AA.
Even this poll is way out of whack...

[GannonFan]

SoCon people like the polls. CAA (except for 89and billk) like the GPI. I wonder whyxconfusedx :)

Hey, don't leave me out of it, I fully support the notion that the GPI is basically a flawed version of the AGS poll. Only in college football can we pretend that 11 or 12 data points per 100 some teams are sufficient to build a good computer model (or even worse throw up said computer models halfway to even that way too small of a sample size). They shouldn't give spreadsheets to some people.

[wideright82]

Hey, don't leave me out of it, I fully support the notion that the GPI is basically a flawed version of the AGS poll. Only in college football can we pretend that 11 or 12 data points per 100 some teams are sufficient to build a good computer model (or even worse throw up said computer models halfway to even that way too small of a sample size). They shouldn't give spreadsheets to some people.



I personally cant understand how anyone would consider it better. Sure it may end up accurate on some account, but there is not NEARLY enough statistical data to compile a relevent and accurate rating system. Any statistical correlation between the GPI and actual events are a product of the formula being set up to favor teams that are consistently there in the end anyway. It would have be based on years of data, and the data given change yearly so therefore making that impossible to do. Add one more CAA GPI hater to the list. Also i'd prefer we left my opinion as that because i do not feel like nor do i have the time to crunch the statistical formulas to prove it.

[Syntax Error]

... there is not NEARLY enough statistical data to compile a relevent and accurate rating system... because i do not feel like nor do i have the time to crunch the statistical formulas to prove it.Well people with doctorates in statistics and mathematics have proved just the opposite of your opinion. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion. xnodx

[UC Davisite]

do these statisticians and mathematics doctorates watch or know ANYTHING about football?? xlolx xlolx xlolx Data alone is not a good criteria to figure out how good teams are. And it's only as "objective" as the methodology for the criteria and weighting set up. I.e. nothing is objective...


Well people with doctorates in statistics and mathematics have proved just the opposite of your opinion. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion. xnodx

[wideright82]

Well people with doctorates in statistics and mathematics have proved just the opposite of your opinion. Thanks for weighing in with your opinion. xnodx

Ok, syntax, lets make a deal then. You give me a name of those people with doctorates that disagree with what i just said, and in the mean time, ill run the appropriate statistical calculations to make the GPI look like an ass backwards calculation without even proving the underlying ranking systems are ass backwards (because that is really the root of the problem). Oh keep in mind the GPI at first glance of the formula they use would be dismissed as statistically accurate by anyone who has even seen a statistics book, let alone someone with a doctorate. I know that some people have repeatedly tried to do this to you, but i thought i may give it a shot. xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx


Edit: with the market opening the way it has today, i will have to put this on hold, too much other stuff to do at work