Last week's SRS ratings

Thanks to Peter R. Wolfe, who makes the final score of all college football games publicly available, here are the NCAA SRS ratings through twelve weeks:

And the conference ratings:

• Worst teams in a Big 6 conference? Washington State (26.7 SRS, 1-10), Maryland (35.9, 2-9), Louisville (36.4, 4-7) and Indiana (36.8, 4-8).

• Best teams outside of the Big 6 conferences? TCU (65.6, 11-0), Boise State (60.0, 11-0), BYU (52.1, 9-2), Utah (49.9, 9-2) and Air Force (49.8, 7-5).

• Most dominant win this season? Oklahoma beating Texas A&M 65-10 in Norman (MOV of 38, SOS of 47.7, for an SRS score of 85.7). Runners up: Oregon 42-3 over Cal (30, 54.7, 84.7); Texas Tech over Oklahoma this weekend 41-13 (24.5, 59.9, 84.4) and Stanford over USC 55-21 (30.5, 53.6, 84.1).

• Most embarrassing loss by an FBS team? Toledo losing at home to Western Michigan (SRS of 32.0) 58-26 (MOV of -29.5, SOS of 32.0, SRS score of 2.5).

• Worst loss by a Big 6 conference team? Texas A&M falling 62-14 (and it wasn't even that close) to Kansas State. MOV of -34.5, SOS of just 44.8, for an SRS score of only 10.3.

To the non-college football fans this year, my apologies for making things so college heavy this month. The college game has held more of my interest more lately, for reasons most of you should be able to figure out.

Last Sunday, I posted my weekly NCAA SRS ratings. These simple ratings are designed to measure how good teams actually are, and how likely they are to win in the future. A week ago I posted by Week 10 college football rankings, which was the list I would submit if I was a voter in the AP or any other poll. As I wrote last week, strength of schedule and margin of victory still play a role in these rankings, but for the most part, "a win is a win." If there is one guiding principle behind why each team is slotted where it is, it is this: each team has accomplished slightly more this season than the team behind them, and has accomplished slightly less than the team behind them.

I also value SOS more than MOV now, because we're focused on accomplishments. When doing the SRS, we want to know which teams are the best -- the theory being that (roughly) you can't choose who you play but you can choose how much you beat them by. Great teams blow out inferior opponents, so blowing out teams is a sign that you're a very good team. But for college football rankings, we care more about who you beat than by how much you beat them. Not all wins should be treated equally -- a lucky win is not the same as an impressive win -- but I'm generally dialing down the MOV factor and increasing the weight on the SOS factor in these rankings.

After the list below, I also am listing each team's three best wins and worst losses on the season. The "best" win is the opponent who has the best SRS (after adding/subtracting 3 points to/from the opponent's SRS in road/home games); the "worst" loss is the opponent with the worst SRS (same).
(Continued)

With just one week left in the college football regular season, the college football rankings should be more precise than ever this week. And, as members of the national media are becoming more apt to notice, it appears we've got a Big 4, not a Big 3. With a blowout victory over rival Utah last night, TCU now is within half a point of Florida and Alabama, while the Horned Frogs' in-state rival now have a field-goal lead over all schools.

A quick review of the SRS system. All games are included, even games against FCS opponents. The SRS is simply the sum of a team's margin of victory and its strength of schedule. Strength of schedule is easily calculated; it's the average SRS rating of all of a team's opponents (iterated hundreds of times to ensure that we get "true" strength of schedule ratings). Margin of victory could be easy to calculate, except I've decided to adjust the typical MOV in order to give us more accurate results. In addition to giving each road team three points, there's a cap and a floor for each game. Wins of fewer than 7 points (after including HFA) are counted 7-point wins; wins of greater than 24 points are counted as the average of 24 points and the actual margin of victory (after including HFA). The only exception is FCS games are uncapped.

(Continued)

College football polls don't offer much to see behind the curtain: not only are there no official guidelines for voters to use when submitting their ballots, but there are no explanations given for their ballots, just a list of their rankings. While every week I publish the NCAA SRS ratings, they're clearly designed to be a predictive measure of what will happen in the week(s) to come. In no way could you justify ranking Oklahoma ahead of Iowa in a real poll, even if you (and Vegas) think OU would beat the Hawkeyes if they met head to head.

Now that we're ten full weeks into the season, I'm ready to release my first set of real rankings based on what each team has accomplished. Strength of schedule and margin of victory still play a role in these rankings, but for the most part, "a win is a win." If there is one guiding principle behind why each team is slotted where it is, it is this: each team has accomplished slightly more this season than the team behind them, and has accomplished slightly less than the team behind them.

Generally, my formula was this. Sort the teams by losses, from fewest to most. Within each loss-group, sort the teams by SRS rating, but recognize that that SOS matters more than MOV (so a team with an SRS of 20 points above average based on a +15.0 MOV score and a +5.0 SOS score might be behind a team with the same number of losses and has a +9.0 in both the SOS and MOV categories). This is because beating good teams by a little bit is more of an accomplishment for a team than blowing out a bad team, even if barely beating a good team does not make you a better team than devouring a cupcake. Further, in cases where teams with X number of losses have a tough SOS, move them past a team with X-1 losses if they have an easy SOS. Finally, give a bump to the strong defensive teams, as defensive teams are generally underrated in the SRS because a 30-17 win is treated the same as a 13-0 win.

The Results:

1. Texas - looks to be the most complete team in the nation. Elite on both sides of the ball. Had the least frightening "toughest scare" of the big three (Alabama barely beat Tennessee, Florida barely beat Arkansas, while Texas hasn't trailed in the 4th quarter all year and were never seriously threatened in their toughest game against the Sooners).

2. Alabama - the hardest SOS of the undefeated teams, so you could easily put them at #1. Slightly more impressed with Texas' much better MOV and lack of close games.

3. Florida - top notch D, great special teams, and the offense is rounding into form. If not for the Arkansas game, the biggest blemish on the faces of any of the big three, they'd likely be #1 on my ballot.

4. TCU - what's not to like? Elite D, blowing out the bad teams, and that win @Clemson is looking better and better. Showing that they're not one trick horned frogs, TCU won by 31 in Provo.

5. Cincinnati - great on both sides of the ball. Only behind the front four because of their SOS, but their MOV tells me they're elite. How good is Brian Kelly's defense? After losing 10 starters on defense, the Bearcats sport the #1 scoring defense in the Big East. How good is Brian Kelley's offense? Heisman hopeful Tony Pike ranked in the top 10 in the country with a 155 QB rating before going down with injury; his backup Zach Collaros has posted a 210 QB rating on an even 100 attempts. For those not familiar with the college system, Colt Brennan (Hawaii, 2006) holds the single-season record with a 186.0 rating.

6. Boise State - a very ugly (and getting uglier) SOS, but good enough MOV to make me think they're legit. They're blowing out most of their opponents. Haven't accomplished as much as the big five, but that's not exactly the Broncos fault.

7. Georgia Tech - streaking at the right time, at least before having to go to overtime with Wake Forest. Could make the argument for them over Boise State, in my opinion, if they had just handled their business more convincingly against the weaker opponents. Beat the two best three-loss teams in the country.

8. Oregon - the offense certainly didn't let them down against Stanford, and Chip Kelly's unstoppable attack makes the Ducks an elite team. Oregon has played one of the hardest SOSs in the country, and I doubt many teams would have had only one loss against this schedule. Losing on the smurf turf is not a bad loss, and Oregon is both the best and the most accomplished two-loss team in the nation.

9. LSU - hard to knock a team for losing to Alabama and Florida. They're a rich man's Penn State, with two losses to the only good teams they played and with no signature wins against good competition (best win is against Auburn or Georgia). Still, I tend to give teams a pass when they lose to undefeated teams.

10. Pittsburgh - two Big East teams in the top 10? Pitt hasn't loss a conference game, and 9-1 is 9-1. Beating nobodies, but winning is winning. They've similarly dominated four of their five common opponents with Cincinnati, and both teams struggled with Connecticut. Cincy comes to Heinz Field the last Saturday of the regular season in what should be one of the marquee games of the year; the same does not go for the Steelers matchup against the Raiders the next day.

11. Iowa - no, they're not a top 11 team in the country. Heck, I'm not even sure if they're a top 20 team in the country in terms of ability. And without Ricky Stanzi, they might not be top 40. But they've managed to win nearly every game against a decent enough schedule, and they've accomplished more than nearly every team in the country. As friend of P-F-R Dr. Saturday points out, Iowa is the only team to beat three of the BCS top-25 teams this year. But a loss to Northwestern is going to knock you out of the top ten.

12. USC - Behind Oregon and LSU, they're the next best two-loss team in the country. And frankly, I don't even think they're that good. But because of impressive road wins in Columbus, South Bend and Berkeley, they've got a top-twelve resume.

13. Ohio State - underrated this year; six wins of 17 points or more this year, while both of their losses came down to the final minute. More talented than people give them credit for, and capable of beating anyone (remember they took the Longhorns to the final minute in the Fiesta Bowl last season).

14. Miami - I think they've been a bit overrated this year; that exciting opener against Florida State looks a lot less impressive now, as does the win over Oklahoma. In addition to winning at the very end against FSU, the Hurricanes beat Wake Forest and Oklahoma by one point each and looked horrendous against the Hokies. The win over Georgia Tech looks terrific, though, and that keeps them ahead of the best of the rest.

15. Penn State - the Big 10's version of Nebraska; fantastic defense but little offense. Have overpowered most of their weak schedule and won every game they should, which is more than the teams below them can say. They're ranked third in the nation in scoring defense and have won seven games this year by 18 points or more.

16. Arizona - no shame in a road loss to Iowa or losing to Washington by three. That victory over Stanford is looking good. The Wildcats haven't been tested often-- they've yet to play USC, Oregon or even Cal (now without Jahvid Best). Despite that, I've slotted them ahead of the Cowboys because of their tougher SOS.

17. Oklahoma State - best win is against Georgia, and Georgia isn't very good. That said, OSU fared better against UT than the final score indicated, and the loss to Houston isn't a bad loss. Like Arizona, they've got a backloaded schedule, as they play Texas Tech this week and end with a watered down version of the Bedlam rivalry on November 28th.

18. Houston - yes, behind Oklahoma State. It's hard to argue that you're not a product of a weak schedule when you lose by 17 to UTEP. Houston's an oddity, as they beat the two best opponents -- by far -- on their schedule, but lost to one of the worst. With virtually nothing else of note on their schedule, I can't put them above the Cowboys who at least play a decent B12 schedule. Not convinced? Take a second and think about what Houston's record would be if, like Oklahoma State did, Houston had to play Texas. The Cougars don't have a defense, and Tulsa and Southern Miss lit them up. It's absurd that they're ahead of Iowa in the AP poll.

19. Utah - is there a shred of difference between Houston and Utah? Equally bad schedules, equally solid but not great MOVs, one loss each. A loss to Oregon is hardly embarrassing, but I'll take Houston's two solid wins and one awful loss over Utah's 1 very good loss and uh, wins against Air Force and Louisville?

20. Virginia Tech - losses to Alabama and Georgia Tech would put Virginia Tech in nearly the same category as LSU, if not for the loss to UNC. Still, because of their good wins (Nebraska, Miami, blowout win over BC), I'd consider putting them at #15. The problem? I have trouble throwing them over the 1-loss teams but want to put the PSU-Arizona-OSU triumvirate ahead of those teams.

21. BYU - a poor man's Oklahoma State. Their losses to Florida State and OU were more embarrassing than OSU's losses to UT and Houston, otherwise they'd be ahead of them. Win over OU is big, but the next best team on BYU's schedule is.... San Diego State? Utah State? Colorado State? Wyoming? UNLV? Ugh.

22. Clemson - like Virginia Tech, much better than their ranking, but with three losses you can't put them higher. Four point loss to TCU and a 3-point loss to GT are not knocks; losing to Maryland is. Wins over Miami and BC are nice, but I'm more impressed with them going toe to toe with two top seven teams and nearly winning both games. With their schedule, more than a couple of the teams above them would have three losses.

23. Wisconsin - like Penn State, their only losses are to OSU and Iowa. Ranked this far down because of razor thin margins against Fresno State, Minnesota, Indiana, and 8-point home wins over UM and Northern Illinois don't make me sympathetic to the Badgers.

24. Nebraska - Only the Texas Tech game was a clunker; losses to Iowa State and Virginia Tech could have easily gone the other way. #2 scoring defense in the country and the win over OU still counts for something. Perhaps the only hope left for those rooting for chaos and a non Texas-Floribama BCS championship game.

25. Stanford - win over Oregon shows that this program has arrived. The Wake Forest loss sounds bad, but really all three of the Cardinal's losses were close, road losses against decent teams. They beat up on rest of the schedule, and their game @USC this week will be a chance for Jim Harbaugh to show the world his team belongs.

I'm a big fan of Mike Leach and Texas Tech's offensive scheme, especially the way he's been able to plug in seemingly random guys at QB and consistently produce video-game numbers no matter who's under center. This year, obviously, they've had some trouble settling on a QB to run the Air Raid offense, but if you add up the composite stats for Taylor Potts, Steven Sheffield, and Seth Doege, you get a quarterbacking group on pace for these stats when it's all said and done (bowl game included): 446-for-657, 5206 yds, 41 TD, 16 Int. Compare that to some other numbers in the Leach era:

So this year doesn't really represent as drastic a drop-off as you might think for Leach's passing attack, it's just that he's using 3 QBs instead of having one rack up all the eye-popping numbers. Anyway, all of this is an excuse to direct you towards Chris Brown's terrific archive of Air Raid-related reading material at Smart Football. Kinda makes me want to go out and throw 60 passes right now, you know?

Last week, the SRS (along with just about every human being) was unimpressed with Iowa's resume. After an embarassing loss to Northwestern, the Hawkeyes are now at #29 in the SRS.

Before moving on to the results, a quick thanks to Peter R. Wolfe, who makes the results of every college football game available in an easy to use format. Early in the year, I was hesitant to use the results from the FCS (formerly I-AA) teams, as the small sample size was likely to skew the results. With ten weeks in the books, I am no longer lumping all FCS teams into one big group; now, each FBS team (formerly I-A team) that plays an FCS opponent will be given that specific team's strength of schedule grade, as opposed to the rating of the average FCS team. Along with an interesting week in college football, this tweak means the week 10 rankings look quite a bit different than last week's set.

The ratings are going to be a lot higher for each team as a result of eliminating the "FCS Team" and simply iterating every team in all of college football. But we're only concerned with the differentials between teams, and that hasn't been amplified. A quick reminder: these ratings are meant to be predictive, not a list of how college football teams should be ranked. Teams like Virginia Tech, Clemson and Oklahoma shouldn't be ranked that high in the polls, because they've had a number of losses this year. But based on their large victories, close losses, and/or tough strength of schedule, they're much better teams than their record indicates.

The full list of the 120 FBS teams, after the jump. As you will see, Texas finally broke the tie at #1.

(Continued)

As Chase pointed out earlier "the U"s alumni have an active 113 consecutive week scoring streak in the NFL, which is pretty astounding when you think about it. That is over six and a half seasons without missing a weekend. I had to check and see if this is a record of some sort, so I wrote a little perl script to find the longest streak for every school with a scoring alum.
(Continued)

First, a big thank you to Peter R. Wolfe for making all college game scores available and to Neil for handling these duties for me last weekend. Another week, and another Texas/Florida tie on top. Behind them, Cincinnati is right on Alabama's tails for #3, thanks to the Bearcats' SRS-leading margin of victory score (Texas and Boise State rank ahead of Cincinnati in raw margin of victory, but the Bearcats rank first here thanks to winning all but one game by double digits). Oregon jumps into the top five after dethroning the Trojans; no doubt the list below won't be the only set of rankings that has Oregon ahead of Boise State, despite the Broncos' lopsided victory over the Ducks in the season opener. As for Iowa, the Hawkeyes didn't earn any style points this weekend when they entered the fourth quarter trailing by ten, at home, to Indiana, the worst team in the Big 10. But in the end, they ran their record to a FBS-best 9-0.

Here's a Sporcle quiz for all of the college football fans out there: Can you name the Top 4 finishers in the Heisman Trophy balloting for every season of this decade?

With Chase on vacation, I thought I'd lend a helping hand by calculating this week's college SRS ratings (for a very thorough explanation of the method we're using, go here first). As you can see, we have a new #1 team in the rankings:

(Continued)

Last week, I introduced the first iteration of the 2009 college football simple rating systems. All explanations and limitations of the system are explained in that post and/or the links embedded therein.

After another exciting weekend of college football, the top of the rankings have changed quite a bit:

Gms	MOV	 SOS	RAT	conf	team
6	23.7	 5.4	29.1	SEC	Florida (6-0)
7	20.7	 7.5	28.2	SEC	Alabama (7-0)
6	22.2	 5.8	28.0	B12	Texas (6-0)
6	26.5	 0.1	26.6	BigE	Cincinnati (6-0)
6	17.2	 6.7	23.8	B12	Oklahoma (3-3)
7	10.6	11.5	22.1	ACC	Virginia Tech (5-2)
 (Continued)

At 5-0, the Minnesota Vikings are off to a terrific start. Part of the reason? Minnesota's two big additions in the off-season -- Brett Favre and rookie wide receiver/running back/returner Percy Harvin -- have paid significant dividends already for the Vikings. The New York Times NFL Blog, The Fifth Down, reminded me of something interesting -- Harvin won the national championship last year with the Florida Gators and is on a pretty good team in the pros. If he were to win the Super Bowl this season, he'd join a pretty exclusive club: only three players have won a college championship their last season in college and then were starters on a Super Bowl champion the following year: Randall Gay (LSU, New England 2004), William Floyd (Florida State, San Francisco 1994) and Tony Dorsett (Pittsburgh, Dallas 1976). Percy Harvin actually isn't a starter yet (he's started in 2 of 5 games, but is generally behind Sidney Rice and Bernard Berrian on the depth chart), but his impact on the team may be more significant than that of any other receiver on the Vikes.

Whether Harvin starts or not, he'll still join an exclusive club. There haven't been many players to win a national title and then earn any amount of playing time and a Super Bowl ring the following season. The complete list is presented below, including the approximate value the player contributed to his team in his rookie year:

player   	 rkyr	tm	college	        AV
Eric Alexander	 2004	nwe	lsu	         0
Randall Gay	 2004	nwe	lsu	         5
Marquise Hill	 2004	nwe	lsu	         0
Brian Griese	 1998	den	michigan	 0
Tyrone Williams	 1996	gnb	nebraska	 2
William Floyd	 1994	sfo	floridast	 8
Derrick Lassic	 1993	dal	alabama	         3
Danny Stubbs	 1988	sfo	miami(fl)	 2
Tony Dorsett	 1977	dal	pittsburgh	16

Percy Harvin isn't the only one who can make history, however. Eagles tight end Cornelius Ingram tore his ACL in August 2008, and watched his Florida Gators win the championship while he was on injured reserve. After being drafted by the Eagles in April, Ingram tore the ACL on the same knee in August 2009 and was placed on injured reserve. If the Eagles win the Super Bowl this season, he'll instantly become the luckiest unluckiest football player ever.

(And before anyone points out, I know there was a third player drafted from the Gators this season. Unfortunately, he was drafted into football purgatory.)

PFR has used the Simple Rating System to grade college and NFL teams for years. All ratings or rankings are meaningless without explanation, and the link above explains what the SRS tries to do. The SRS version that I'm implementing below is most useful to predict future results; the SRS is predictive, not retrodictive. That means the SRS will have no trouble at all ranking a team that's undefeated and beat a team with one loss behind the very team it beat. Why? One, because we know that one game is just one game, and never is conclusive proof that one team is better than another; and two, because the SRS weighs each game equally. Of course, sample size issues are always present here; while I've waited for six weeks before presenting the SRS, we really need two or three more weeks in the books before we can have full faith in this system. For now, though, maybe they'll make you rethink your perception of a couple of teams.

So how am I calculating these simple ratings?

1) For each game, 3 points are given to the road team (unless it's a neutral site game). After that adjustment, all wins and losses of between 7 and 24 points are scored as however many points the team won by. So a 24-10 road win goes down as +17 for the road team, -17 for the home team.

2) Wins of 7 or fewer points are scored as 7-point wins and losses of 7 or fewer points are scored as 7 point losses, except that road losses of 3 or fewer and home wins of 3 or fewer are graded as 0 point ties. So a 21-20 home victory goes down as a tie for both teams. This is not as drastic as it sounds, because the SRS ultimately is not concerned with win/loss records. There is no distinction between a win and a loss (you don't need to make such distinctions in predictive systems) except for when the game is close. So three 10-point wins scores +30, just as two 20-point wins and a 10-point loss scores as +30. However, three 3 point wins (+9 before the adjustments, +21 after) is worth more than two 10 point wins and a 1 point home loss (+21 before, +13 after).

3) Wins/Losses of more than 24 points are scored as the average between the actual number and 24. This is to avoid giving undue credit to teams that run up the score. Texas' win over UTEP, 64-7, comes in as +39 for Texas. Why? Texas won by 57, but was at home, so that drops to +54. Averaging 24 and 54 gives you +39. Exception: In games against FCS/I-AA competition, there is no run-up-the-score modifier. Why? Otherwise, the elite teams could beat the FCS cupcakes by 64 points and go down in this system. Additionally, because of sample size reasons, I've combined all FCS teams into one "team" for SRS purposes: FCSTEAM. To the extent that a team plays a weak FCS team, they will therefore be overvalued (because they'll received credit for playing an average FCS team); to the extent that a team plays a top notch FCS team (relative to the average FCS team that plays an FBS team -- only inter-division games are used to calculate the average FCS team), they'll be undervalued.
(Continued)

Sporcle would like to ask: Can you name the Top 15 in the Final BCS Standings for each year since 1998?

In his Varsity Numbers column at Football Outsiders this week, Bill Connelly takes a look at seasonal momentum -- that is, the widely-held belief that, all else being equal, teams who finish strong do better in the following season than teams who finish poorly. Is it true? And if so, to what degree? Bill offers some preliminary results based on 2007-09 data.

You know what I don't get at all. Preseason Awards.

I was reminded of this during the recent "Tim Tebow was left off of somebody's preseason coaches ballot . . . who could it be . . . the world will end . . . " saga that we were forced to witness last week. It was part sad and part comical, and entirely absurd. SEC Coaches were coming out of the woodwork to proclaim their innocence from the horrible slight of Tim Tebow. Newcomer Lane Kiffin, public suspect #1, produced his ballot publicly to dispel any rumors. Coaches like Saban and Petrino were asked if they voted for Tebow, and they said they did. (And here's the thing, Dolphins and Falcons fans, they were actually telling the truth). Turns out, it was Steve Spurrier and the director of football operations who filled out his ballot.

Here's what Spurrier had to say about voting for someone other than Tebow: "We screwed up pretty badly. I'm embarrassed about it. I feel bad about it."

Before we go lamenting the humanity of it all, let's remember that we are talking about a preseason award here. Preseason awards are pointless, insignificant, and worthless. Sounds like I'm being repetitive, recurrent, and verbose--but I'm not.

Preseason awards are pointless. I mean, what is the point of voting on a preseason award when you are basing it on the past. Just re-publish last year's award winners, bump up any second teamers to replace the graduating first teamers, and move on. If someone is not allowed to disagree (even if it is an accident or oversight), then why even vote in the first place. You shouldn't. It's pointless.

Preseason awards are insignificant. Who was the last person to actually cite a preseason award on their resume or career summary? I'm sure there is somebody out there, but that's a whole other rant. The point is, Tebow is not going to be listing his hallowed preseason SEC QB selection among his career accomplishments. Heisman trophy winner--yes. 2009 Preseason selection--no. And if you're never going to use it on a resume, well, it seems like an insignificant award. Awards are made to be cited. Who is going to cite to this one in a few months?

Preseason awards are worthless. The whole term is an oxymoron. There is nothing to award. The 2009 version of Tebow and Snead have the exact same statistics right now. It's a prediction. Some will turn out to be right (in which case, gosh, they might get an actual award), and others will not (and then the preseason award won't be worth the 2 seconds spent considering it).

I know there are a lot of things in sports that make no sense. Preseason awards, though, really, really make no sense. I'm pretty sure my preseason comeback player of the year and 2007 NFL MVP Tom Brady agrees.

Thanks to Dr. Saturday for the pointer to this Slate article, in which Bill James articulates his reasons for not liking the BCS.

I don't have time to comment on all the items in the article that deserve comment, so I'll just say that, like everything Bill James has ever written, it's worth a read. I do have a question, though, for those out there who are a bit more in touch with what James has been doing for the past decade or so:

When did James start to refer to himself as a statistical analyst?

Twice in this article, he makes it clear that he does in fact consider himself to be one. My (possibly erroneous) recollection is that James has always specifically denied that, opting instead for something along the lines of, "I'm not a stat guy. I'm simply a guy who likes to ask questions, and then exhausts all possible avenues (some of which might happen to be statistical) of answering that question." Can any of you serious sabermetricians --- I know you're out there --- shed some light?

Here's a chronological list of every Bowl game. I've also listed each team's Simple Rating System score. The SRS is not a retrodictive system, because it factors in margin of victory and strength of schedule to predict team strength. This particular version of the SRS caps all wins at 40 points and makes all wins of less than seven points equal to seven points. The AvgSRS rating is the average rating of the two teams and the difference column shows the difference in team strength. The favorites, according to the SRS, are in bold:

(Continued)

About two and a half years ago, I wrote this:

As you probably know, the participants in the BCS championship game are determined in part by a collection of computer rankings. Those computer rankings are implementing algorithms that “work” because of various mathematical theorems. At some point, I’m going to use this blog to write down everything I know about the topic (which by the way is a drop in the bucket compared to what many other people know; I am not an expert, just a fan) in language that a sufficiently interested and patient non-mathematician can understand.

Since then, I have only written a handful of posts about the mathematics of ranking systems. Here they are:

Simple Ranking System

Another way to derive the simple ranking system

The Maximum Likelihood Method

Some discussion of the technical difficulties involved with the Maximum Likelihood method

Incorporating home-field and/or margin of victory into the Maximum Likelihood Method

I'm going to add another post to this list today by writing about a method that Jeff Sagarin cryptically calls ELO_CHESS. Sagarin's ELO_CHESS method is one of the six computer ranking systems that figures into the BCS, although as we'll soon see, we don't have quite enough information to reproduce his rankings exactly. That's OK. The point of this post is to understand the theory behind it.

First, a bit of background.

(Continued)

Yesterday I looked at what my algorithm thought were the ten top NCAA programs in terms of producing NFL talent. Today, we'll look at some other teams of interest.

Just missing the top 10 is my alma mater, a school which has had moderate success at various times, but isn't thought of as a football power:

Arizona St.

QB   Jake Plummer          76
RB   John Henry Johnson    57
RB   Gerald Riggs          54
RC   Charley Taylor        82
RC   Jerry Smith           71
RC   John Jefferson        54
RC   Larry Walton          42
T    Marvel Smith          45
T    Levi Jones            34
G    Randall McDaniel     103
G    David Dixon           51
C    Grey Ruegamer         10

DT   Curley Culp           92
DT   Dan Saleaumua         62
DE   Jim Jeffcoat          59
DE   Al Harris             47
ILB  Bob Breunig           65
ILB  Derek Smith           61
OLB  Larry Gordon          51
OLB  Derrick Rodgers       43
CB   Mike Haynes          108
CB   Eric Allen            98
S    Darren Woodson        78
S    David Fulcher         52

Whether you want to call him an end or a linebacker, Terrell Suggs will join the team within a year or two.

This team would likely have a quarterback controversy involving Plummer and Danny White, which is an interesting QB pair. I wasn't quite old enough to understand exactly what public opinion on White was (or maybe I'm too old to remember), but it seems to me like he was something of a Jake Plummer of his day. He had a fair amount of success, but it was always intermixed with disappointing inconsistency and a perceived failure to fulfill his promise.

Moving on...

(Continued)