Massey Margin of Victory Team and Conference ratings

[JohnStOnge]

If you read Massey's stuff you'll find that he, like Sagarin, thinks that ratings considering margin of victory are more accurate than ratings that do not. In that regard, you can get the FCS teams ranked according to his "Margin of Victory" system by going to http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf , clicking on the "FCS" button, then clicking on "MOV" at the top of that column in the table.

Here are the top 25 teams:

1 Richmond 13 3 CAA
2 James Madison 12 2 CAA
3 Montana 14 2 Big Sky
4 Villanova 10 3 CAA
5 Weber St 10 4 Big Sky
6 New Hampshire 10 3 CAA
7 Northern Iowa 12 3 MVFC
8 Cal Poly SLO 8 3 GWFC
9 Appalachian St 11 3 SC
10 William & Mary 7 4 CAA
11 Wofford 9 3 SC
12 E Washington 6 5 Big Sky
13 Harvard 9 1 Ivy
14 Maine 8 5 CAA
15 S Illinois 9 3 MVFC
16 Massachusetts 7 5 CAA
17 Cent Arkansas 10 2 SLC
18 Montana St 7 5 Big Sky
19 S Dakota St 7 5 MVFC
20 McNeese St 7 4 SLC
21 N Arizona 6 5 Big Sky
22 Elon 8 4 SC
23 Liberty 10 2 BSC
24 Holy Cross 7 4 PL
25 Grambling 11 2 SWAC

Conference rankings (average strength of teams). I think this is based on the ratings that do not consider margin of victory.

Rk Conf Tms W L Rating Parity
1 Colonial 12 34 20 1.098 0.5079
2 Big Sky 9 18 18 0.921 0.5285
3 Southern 9 19 17 0.843 0.5161
4 Southland 8 20 15 0.817 0.7343
5 Great West 5 21 18 0.734 0.7046
6 Missouri Valley 9 15 20 0.631 0.5105
7 Big South 7 21 20 0.535 0.7408
8 Patriot League 7 20 17 0.485 0.5997
9 NCAA 125 98 33 0.479 0.4772
9 Div I 125 88 15 0.479 0.4772
9 FCS 125 90 100 0.479 0.4772
12 Ivy League 8 10 14 0.466 0.5571
13 OH Valley 9 15 19 0.457 0.6625
14 Mid-Eastern AC 10 11 15 0.159 0.5605
15 Northeast 8 14 18 0.073 0.4609
16 Southwestern AC 10 12 22 0.035 0.5536
17 Pioneer 9 17 14 -0.179 0.5434
18 1-AA Independents 5 19 29 -0.188 0.6774

An explanation can be found at http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm .

[UNIFanSince1983]

I get that this might be somewhat accurate, but it proves one thing computers just look at numbers.

I mean UNI behind three teams we got farther than including one we beat seems a little off, but a lot of computer rankings had UNI a little off this season due to their schedule.

[Grizalltheway]

Big Fluffy at # 2. Huh. xcoffeex

[JohnStOnge]

I get that this might be somewhat accurate, but it proves one thing computers just look at numbers.

I mean UNI behind three teams we got farther than including one we beat seems a little off, but a lot of computer rankings had UNI a little off this season due to their schedule.

One thing about power ratings is that they recognize variation in performance as well as the impact of chance. You can see that reflected in the following statement from Massey's explanation:

"The first challenge for any computer rating system is to account for the variability in performance. A team will not always play up to its full potential. Other random factors (officiating, bounce of the ball) may also affect the outcome of a game. The computer must somehow eliminate the "noise" which obscures the true strength of a team. "

[JackTwice]

What I don't get is how the Great West is a top 5 conference with only 1 team in the top 25 and only 1 other team with a decent record in D-I games.

[Go...gate]

Colgate not in at all? xeyebrowx

[paward]

Ok, ok I will say if first. The Big Sky before SoConn. Hmmmm! Chime in SoConn, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

[JohnStOnge]

What I don't get is how the Great West is a top 5 conference with only 1 team in the top 25 and only 1 other team with a decent record in D-I games.

It's an average. If you look at the number to the far right, the "parity," it suggest that there's relativelly little variation in the Great West. The closer the number is to 1, the more "balanced" the league is in terms of tending to be near the same level. Same with the Southland. No really good teams but no really, really bad teams so the average isn't bad.

The Great West has Cal Poly rated pretty high and no team in the league ranks lower than 51 in the MOV ratings or 46 in the other ratings. The Big Sky has teams rated at 70 (76) and 82 (70). The Missouri Valley has teams rated at 64 (69), 73 (66), 77 (79), and 114 (108). That kind of thing. It brings the average down.

Kind of interesting to look at. Here is how the conferences rank in terms of lowest percentages of teams rated in the bottom half of the subdivision MOV ratings (rating of lowest rated team in parenthesis):

Great West 0% or 0 of 5 (51)
Southland 12.5% or 1 of 8 (74)
CAA 17% or 2 of 12 (68)
Big Sky 22% or 2 of 9 (82)
Southern 33% or 3 of 9 (110)
Patriot 43% or 3 of 7 (105)
Missouri Valley 44% or 4 of 9 (114)
Ivy 50% or 4 of 8 (111)
OVC 56% or 5 of 9 (103)
Big South 57% or 4 of 7 (95)
Northeast 75% or 6 of 8 (123)
MEAC 80% or 8 of 10 (117)
SWAC 80% or 8 of 10 (121)
Pioneer 89% or 8 of 9 (125)

So you can get a feel for which conferences get "dragged down" the most in an average ratings sense by weak teams.

[JMU Newbill]

So basically if you want to get to the top of the polls in Massey's or the Sagarin, don't put your back-ups in late in the game to get them some reps.

Interesting numbers though.... I will say that. Most interesting number.... conference records..... CAA was 34 - 20. Sorry, but that's impressive to me.

[Ronbo]

So basically if you want to get to the top of the polls in Massey's or the Sagarin, don't put your back-ups in late in the game to get them some reps.

Interesting numbers though.... I will say that. Most interesting number.... conference records..... CAA was 34 - 20. Sorry, but that's impressive to me.


There are two major reasons Montana never seems to have an off year. Oh, we have an occasional 9-3 or 8-4 but they only happen every 3 years or so. That's a great year for alot of programs.

1. Recruiting
2. The Coaches platoon the two deep heavily. This tends to keep games closer than they would be if we just kept the #1's in for three quarters. But Hauck has the #2's coming in to spell the #1's throughout the game. The two's get 30% or so of the minutes in a game and in the end almost makes them a returning starter the next season with tons of game experience.

I suggest that this is a good system that works and if it hurts our ranking because games end up closer than expected so be it.xrolleyesx

[JohnStOnge]

So basically if you want to get to the top of the polls in Massey's or the Sagarin, don't put your back-ups in late in the game to get them some reps.

Both of their systems account for that. With Massey you see it described as follows:

"The advantage of the Bayesian approach is that it rewards teams that win consistently, no matter how they do it. The more games a team wins, the more confident the computer can be that scores are not so important. Ratings are less likely to be negatively impacted by beating a poor team. Furthermore, games involving well-matched opponents will naturally be given priority in determining the overall ratings. "

I notice that some people tend to think there is a problem with considering margin of victory because of stuff like running up scores on weak teams. But it really doesn't work that way. In fact, you can see it in the Massey rankings; especially if you look at the FBS rankings.

The top five FBS teams using the ratings that do NOT consider Margin of victory are 1) Oklahoma, 2) Texas Tech, 3) Texas, 4) Utah, and 5) Florida. The top five by the ratings that DO consider margin of victory are 1) Oklahoma, 2) Texas, 3) Florida, 4) Texas Tech, 5) USC. Now, which top five looks more reasonable?

Utah, which has gone 12-0 against a relatively weak schedule and outscored its opponents by an average of 37-17 including blowing out weak teams like Utah State (58-10) and San Diego State (63-14), falls all the way from #4 in the rankings that do NOT consider margin of victory to #11 in the rankings that do.

It just doesn't work the way some people appear to think it does. Ratings that do consider generally margin of victory appear to work better both in terms of predicting outcomes of games and generating ratings that appear to make more sense.

[Rekdiver]

Rankings, smankings.....There are only two rankings worth mentioning and UR has the #1 and Montana the runner up at #2. Nothing else matters.

Conference rankings are for the commisioners to justify their jobs.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

Big Fluffy at # 2. Huh. xcoffeex


Oh please thats just ignorant. Just cause you beat JMU doen't mean you should be ranked above them. Is Ole Miss above Florida ? We beat Richmond, and they are above us......

[YoUDeeMan]

Rankings, smankings.....There are only two rankings worth mentioning and UR has the #1 and Montana the runner up at #2. Nothing else matters.



Can't agree with that. I've never subscribed to the theory that the two best teams reach the championship game and would not automatically rank them that way.

UR is #1.

However, there is no guarantee that Montana was #2. Who is to say that Montana would have beaten UNI? Certainly UNI gave Richmond a much better game than Montana...although it was in the Dome.

[Ronbo]

Oh please thats just ignorant. Just cause you beat JMU doen't mean you should be ranked above them. Is Ole Miss above Florida ? We beat Richmond, and they are above us......

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?

[ngineer]

There are two major reasons Montana never seems to have an off year. Oh, we have an occasional 9-3 or 8-4 but they only happen every 3 years or so. That's a great year for alot of programs.

1. Recruiting
2. The Coaches platoon the two deep heavily. This tends to keep games closer than they would be if we just kept the #1's in for three quarters. But Hauck has the #2's coming in to spell the #1's throughout the game. The two's get 30% or so of the minutes in a game and in the end almost makes them a returning starter the next season with tons of game experience.
I suggest that this is a good system that works and if it hurts our ranking because games end up closer than expected so be it.xrolleyesx

I think that is a frequently overlooked fact, especially when we look at the upcoming season and too many people focus on how many 'returning starters' a team has. To me, the has little relevance as opposed to how much qualilty experience a team has returning. Lehigh rotates a lot of players in its defensive front 7 and OL, so although we looked like a 'senior laden' team this year, there will be a lot of guys with significant playing time returning.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?


well i have great respect for Montana and the Big Sky ... so if thats what he meant then i concede, haha.

[YaleFootballFan]

Colgate not in at all? xeyebrowx

No Colgate, but Holy Cross is #24.

Interesting.....

[JohnStOnge]

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?

I wouldn't. In fact, one thing that really frosts me is that Southland teams almost always have to match up with the Big Sky in the first round and I don't think there's any doubt that they've had more sucess in playing against teams from leagues like the A-10/CAA , Southern, and Gateway/MVC. I'm not saying the Big Sky is tougher than those leagues. But it's tough. And Southland teams do not match up well against it.

Beleive me, year in and year out, if McNeese makes the playoffs I'd much rather see them draw a team from ANY league other than the Big Sky. I really would.

[Native]

Ok, ok I will say if first. The Big Sky before SoConn. Hmmmm! Chime in SoConn, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Big Sky ahead of SOCON? Sounds reasonable to me. xsmiley_wix

[Native]

Rankings, smankings.....There are only two rankings worth mentioning and UR has the #1 and Montana the runner up at #2. Nothing else matters.

Conference rankings are for the commisioners to justify their jobs.


xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Rekdiver]

Well Montana played for the championhship and lost. I didnt see anyone else playing for the championship so it was settled on the field. It's easy to say Montana is #2. To say otherwise would be like me saying ASU is better than Montana which arguably I could say BUT WE DIDNT PLAY.

UR 1 and Montana 2...nuff said.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

Random Question:

If Maine had just gotten hot and won the NC, would you think they were the #1 team in the nation ?? I wouldn't.

And no this isn't an analogy towards any team, i'm simply wondering.

[JohnStOnge]

Random Question:

If Maine had just gotten hot and won the NC, would you think they were the #1 team in the nation ?? I wouldn't.

And no this isn't an analogy towards any team, i'm simply wondering.

I've opined for many years on this board as well as on the old AOL I-AA board that the best team does not always win the I-AA/FCS national title. But it doesn't matter. The objective is to be the champion.

So as not to offend anybody I'll just use McNeese's 1997 near miss to give what I think is an example of what can happen. McNeese beat Western Illinois in the quarterfinals even though the Cowboys only got about 150 yards total offense and didn't score an offensive point. I think Western Illinois had a better team than McNeese did. Had McNeese gotten 2 more points in the national title game to win it all, I'd have felt that at least one team that was better than them didn't make it to that point. But I wouldn't have cared because the objective would've been achieved.

Heck, sometimes there might not even be a single "best" team. It just depends on who teams match up with, how well they match up against them, how many mistakes each team makes when they meet, and random chance.

[uofmman1122]

Random Question:

If Maine had just gotten hot and won the NC, would you think they were the #1 team in the nation ?? I wouldn't.

And no this isn't an analogy towards any team, i'm simply wondering.Yes.

Any team that can beat four playoff teams in a row, regardless of their earlier season performance, is the #1 team.

Logic behind it: If Maine were to have won out and won the NC, they would have beaten four teams that were "better" than them. If you're good enough to beat four teams that are "better" than you, then you deserve the #1 ranking.

How in the world could you say a Maine team that beats four amazingly good teams and wins the NC isn't the #1 team? xeyebrowx

[OL FU]

Yes.

Any team that can beat four playoff teams in a row, regardless of their earlier season performance, is the #1 team.

Logic behind it: If Maine were to have won out and won the NC, they would have beaten four teams that were "better" than them. If you're good enough to beat four teams that are "better" than you, then you deserve the #1 ranking.

How in the world could you say a Maine team that beats four amazingly good teams and wins the NC isn't the #1 team? xeyebrowx

xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx I could not agree more.

If winning the playoffs and winning in the playoffs doesn't matter, then why have them. We all talk about how wonderful it is that we settle the issue on the field. So let's not diminish the results on the field because we didn't like the results.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

Yes.

Any team that can beat four playoff teams in a row, regardless of their earlier season performance, is the #1 team.

Logic behind it: If Maine were to have won out and won the NC, they would have beaten four teams that were "better" than them. If you're good enough to beat four teams that are "better" than you, then you deserve the #1 ranking.

How in the world could you say a Maine team that beats four amazingly good teams and wins the NC isn't the #1 team? xeyebrowx

I see your point but I disagree because JMU arguably beat 4 or MORE great teams. Im NOT saying we are #1 but just purely based on your logic of beating 4 great teams ... Appy, Richmond, Villanova, Villanova again, Wofford, etc ....


I think that if Maine had one i would still agree they were NC's BUT not the BEST team.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

I've opined for many years on this board as well as on the old AOL I-AA board that the best team does not always win the I-AA/FCS national title. But it doesn't matter. The objective is to be the champion.

So as not to offend anybody I'll just use McNeese's 1997 near miss to give what I think is an example of what can happen. McNeese beat Western Illinois in the quarterfinals even though the Cowboys only got about 150 yards total offense and didn't score an offensive point. I think Western Illinois had a better team than McNeese did. Had McNeese gotten 2 more points in the national title game to win it all, I'd have felt that at least one team that was better than them didn't make it to that point. But I wouldn't have cared because the objective would've been achieved.

Heck, sometimes there might not even be a single "best" team. It just depends on who teams match up with, how well they match up against them, how many mistakes each team makes when they meet, and random chance.

Best, thought out post. Agree on all points.

[OL FU]

Best, thought out post. Agree on all points.

Don't agree. Best teams are opinions. Winners and losers in the playoffs are not arguable. If you think opinion trumps winning then there is no purpose for the playoffs. xeyebrowx

[uofmman1122]

I see your point but I disagree because JMU arguably beat 4 or MORE great teams. Im NOT saying we are #1 but just purely based on your logic of beating 4 great teams ... Appy, Richmond, Villanova, Villanova again, Wofford, etc ....


I think that if Maine had one i would still agree they were NC's BUT not the BEST team.It doesn't matter that JMU beat more good teams than anyone else.

You didn't win when it mattered, and if you can't win when it matters, then you aren't the best team.

Sure is sour grapes in this thread.

[MacThor]

I see your point but I disagree because JMU arguably beat 4 or MORE great teams. Im NOT saying we are #1 but just purely based on your logic of beating 4 great teams ... Appy, Richmond, Villanova, Villanova again, Wofford, etc ....

And JMU was the #1 team at that point...........then they lost.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

It doesn't matter that JMU beat more good teams than anyone else.

You didn't win when it mattered, and if you can't win when it matters, then you aren't the best team.

Sure is sour grapes in this thread.

typical irrational statement (still all in good fun here) ... i was only using JMU cause i knew the stats easiest. If you have nothing constructive to add then don't bother, this isn't about me saying we are better than Richmond, oy.

Someone just made a point that beating 4 great teams means your NC's. Pick any 1A team if you will. Leave it to montana fans to take ANY example using JMU as a stat and turn it into a "sour grapes" post. I know we lost, I know we arent NC's, Montana beat us , we get it.

Why is AGS just a giant smack thread ? I guess its the result of having so many teams users, oh well.

[uofmman1122]

typical irrational statement (still all in good fun here) ... i was only using JMU cause i knew the stats easiest. If you have nothing constructive to add then don't bother, this isn't about me saying we are better than Richmond, oy.

Someone just made a point that beating 4 great teams means your NC's. Pick any 1A team if you will. Leave it to montana fans to take ANY example using JMU as a stat and turn it into a "sour grapes" post. I know we lost, I know we arent NC's, Montana beat us , we get it.

Why is AGS just a giant smack thread ? I guess its the result of having so many teams users, oh well.The only one being irrational here is you.

Even if Montana (Yes, I'll use my school, since it seems you think this is somehow about JMU and Montana xrolleyesx) had beaten the #1 FBS team on the road, played a team from the FCS top ten every week and went undefeated, and then lost in the Semis to the team that would be the #16 seed, i.e. Colgate, then Colgate is better than Montana in that situation. Say Colgate loses in the NC, then you have 2 teams that are better than undefeated, #1 FBS-beating, top-ten-every-week-beating Montana. Anyone who ranks Montana as the #1 at this point would be completely absurd.

Like OL FU said, we determine the best by how they play against other teams, not by who has the most sparkly and impressive regular season.

In my opinion, when the playoffs start, the regular season is wiped away. Doesn't matter who you beat, when you beat them, what they were ranked, or anything.

And if this isn't sour grapes from you about JMU this season, then I really don't see your point in any of this, even hypothetically. xcoffeex

[Native]

There are two major reasons Montana never seems to have an off year. Oh, we have an occasional 9-3 or 8-4 but they only happen every 3 years or so. That's a great year for alot of programs.

1. Recruiting
2. The Coaches platoon the two deep heavily. This tends to keep games closer than they would be if we just kept the #1's in for three quarters. But Hauck has the #2's coming in to spell the #1's throughout the game. The two's get 30% or so of the minutes in a game and in the end almost makes them a returning starter the next season with tons of game experience.

I suggest that this is a good system that works and if it hurts our ranking because games end up closer than expected so be it.xrolleyesx

Mac platoons at Weber, too. That's why, even though we're losing 8 defensive "starters" next year, we're bringing back half of those with 20 or more tackles for the season, including 4 all-conference selctions (3 1st team). xsmiley_wix