SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
NCAA: SRS ratings through seven weeks
Regular PFR readers will recall that we published college football SRS ratings every week last season. With seven weeks in the books, and the BCS opening rankings coming out tonight, it made sense to start up the project for 2010. So how do we come up with SRS grades for college football teams?
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 seven weeks before presenting the SRS, we really need to see a couple more weeks of action 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. Oregon bludgeoned New Mexico on opening day, 72-0, but that "only" goes down as a 46.5 point win. Why? Because the game was in Eugene (dropping it to +69) and the average of 24 and 69 is 46.5. However, in FCS/I-AA games, 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. Major thanks to Peter R. Wolfe for providing the game scores.
Doug (and the readers) might argue that I've taken the first "S" out of the SRS, but I think these ratings are still simple. They're merely designed to get an approximate rating on how strong each team really is. By using just points scored and points allowed, we're obviously leaving lots of information behind. That's why I still think these are pretty simple, but a large improvement over looking at just points differential or won/loss records.
After translating the raw scoring differential using the system above to a "SRS" victory margin, I simply add the victory margin for each game to the strength of schedule for the opponent. A 24-point win over an average team is equivalent to a 14-point win over a team that's 10 points better than average. I ran hundreds of iterations to figure out the true strength of schedule for each opponent and the true rating for each team; this involves adjusting the SOS of each team's opponents by the SOS of those opponents, and so on. Don't worry: at the end, the results converge, and we have true and legitimate ratings. My favorite part about the SRS is that everything adds up at the end. So after posting the ratings for each team, you could go through the schedule of any of the 120 FBS teams and understand exactly why their rating was what it was. I'll do that below with the top five teams. First, the results:
| Rank | Team | Gm | MOV | SOS | SRS | Rec | Conf | ConRk | SOS Rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon | 6 | 33.1 | 38.7 | 71.7 | 6-0 | P10 | 1 | 61 |
| 2 | Stanford | 6 | 17.1 | 48.1 | 65.2 | 5-1 | P10 | 2 | 8 |
| 3 | TCU | 7 | 27.6 | 37.5 | 65.1 | 7-0 | MWC | 1 | 69 |
| 4 | Boise St | 6 | 26.9 | 36.9 | 63.9 | 6-0 | WAC | 1 | 73 |
| 5 | Missouri | 6 | 21.3 | 42.0 | 63.2 | 6-0 | B12 | 1 | 34 |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 6 | 14.0 | 46.7 | 60.7 | 6-0 | B12 | 2 | 13 |
| 7 | Alabama | 7 | 16.7 | 42.1 | 58.8 | 6-1 | SEC | 1 | 33 |
| 8 | Nebraska | 6 | 18.5 | 39.9 | 58.4 | 5-1 | B12 | 3 | 48 |
| 9 | Ohio State | 7 | 18.9 | 38.8 | 57.7 | 6-1 | B10 | 1 | 59 |
| 10 | Utah | 6 | 25.9 | 31.7 | 57.6 | 6-0 | MWC | 2 | 105 |
| 11 | Arizona St | 6 | 9.8 | 47.7 | 57.5 | 3-3 | P10 | 3 | 10 |
| 12 | Southern Cal | 7 | 11.6 | 45.7 | 57.2 | 5-2 | P10 | 4 | 19 |
| 13 | Florida St | 7 | 18.4 | 38.7 | 57.1 | 6-1 | ACC | 1 | 60 |
| 14 | Oklahoma St | 6 | 18.3 | 38.3 | 56.7 | 6-0 | B12 | 4 | 63 |
| 15 | Arizona | 6 | 16.0 | 40.4 | 56.4 | 5-1 | P10 | 5 | 43 |
| 16 | California | 6 | 9.7 | 46.6 | 56.3 | 3-3 | P10 | 6 | 14 |
| 17 | Auburn | 7 | 14.0 | 42.2 | 56.2 | 7-0 | SEC | 2 | 30 |
| 18 | Michigan St | 7 | 16.1 | 39.6 | 55.8 | 7-0 | B10 | 2 | 53 |
| 19 | Nevada | 7 | 17.6 | 37.7 | 55.3 | 6-1 | WAC | 2 | 66 |
| 20 | South Carolina | 6 | 8.8 | 46.2 | 55.0 | 4-2 | SEC | 3 | 16 |
| 21 | LSU | 7 | 12.1 | 42.2 | 54.2 | 7-0 | SEC | 4 | 31 |
| 22 | Oregon St | 6 | -0.8 | 54.9 | 54.1 | 3-3 | P10 | 7 | 1 |
| 23 | Wisconsin | 7 | 16.4 | 37.4 | 53.8 | 6-1 | B10 | 3 | 70 |
| 24 | Virginia Tech | 7 | 13.0 | 40.5 | 53.5 | 5-2 | ACC | 2 | 42 |
| 25 | Iowa | 6 | 18.1 | 35.3 | 53.4 | 5-1 | B10 | 4 | 88 |
| 26 | Texas A&M | 6 | 6.8 | 46.3 | 53.1 | 3-3 | B12 | 5 | 15 |
| 27 | Florida | 7 | 6.9 | 45.5 | 52.4 | 4-3 | SEC | 5 | 20 |
| 28 | Georgia | 7 | 9.1 | 43.3 | 52.4 | 3-4 | SEC | 6 | 23 |
| 30 | Arkansas | 6 | 8.8 | 42.6 | 51.4 | 4-2 | SEC | 7 | 27 |
| 29 | Hawai`i | 7 | 11.5 | 39.9 | 51.4 | 5-2 | WAC | 3 | 46 |
| 31 | Miami FL | 6 | 10.5 | 40.7 | 51.2 | 4-2 | ACC | 3 | 41 |
| 32 | Air Force | 7 | 13.4 | 37.6 | 51.1 | 5-2 | MWC | 3 | 67 |
| 33 | North Carolina | 6 | 8.4 | 42.4 | 50.8 | 4-2 | ACC | 4 | 29 |
| 34 | Mississippi St | 7 | 10.9 | 39.9 | 50.8 | 5-2 | SEC | 8 | 50 |
| 35 | North Carolina St | 7 | 11.3 | 39.4 | 50.7 | 5-2 | ACC | 5 | 57 |
| 36 | Illinois | 6 | 3.0 | 47.5 | 50.5 | 3-3 | B10 | 5 | 11 |
| 37 | Texas | 6 | 5.8 | 44.5 | 50.2 | 4-2 | B12 | 6 | 21 |
| 38 | San Diego St | 6 | 15.8 | 34.1 | 49.8 | 4-2 | MWC | 4 | 92 |
| 39 | Cincinnati | 6 | 7.8 | 41.9 | 49.7 | 3-3 | BigE | 1 | 35 |
| 40 | Notre Dame | 7 | 3.6 | 46.1 | 49.6 | 4-3 | INDY | -- | 18 |
| 41 | Pittsburgh | 6 | 6.3 | 42.7 | 49.0 | 3-3 | BigE | 2 | 26 |
| 42 | Kansas St | 6 | 8.4 | 40.4 | 48.8 | 5-1 | B12 | 7 | 44 |
| 43 | Baylor | 7 | 11.6 | 36.8 | 48.3 | 5-2 | B12 | 8 | 78 |
| 44 | Central Florida | 6 | 13.3 | 34.6 | 47.9 | 4-2 | CUSA | 1 | 91 |
| 45 | UCLA | 6 | -2.0 | 48.4 | 46.4 | 3-3 | P10 | 8 | 7 |
| 46 | Michigan | 7 | 5.1 | 41.2 | 46.3 | 5-2 | B10 | 6 | 40 |
| 49 | Colorado | 6 | -4.8 | 50.8 | 46.0 | 3-3 | B12 | 9 | 4 |
| 48 | West Virginia | 6 | 13.3 | 32.7 | 46.0 | 5-1 | BigE | 3 | 97 |
| 47 | Washington | 6 | -4.3 | 50.4 | 46.0 | 3-3 | P10 | 9 | 6 |
| 50 | Clemson | 6 | 9.7 | 35.0 | 44.6 | 3-3 | ACC | 6 | 90 |
| 51 | Idaho | 6 | 9.5 | 35.0 | 44.5 | 3-3 | WAC | 4 | 89 |
| 53 | Connecticut | 6 | 10.8 | 32.4 | 43.3 | 3-3 | BigE | 4 | 99 |
| 52 | Kentucky | 7 | 3.6 | 39.6 | 43.3 | 4-3 | SEC | 9 | 51 |
| 54 | Georgia Tech | 7 | 8.2 | 33.9 | 42.1 | 5-2 | ACC | 7 | 93 |
| 55 | Navy | 6 | 3.3 | 38.4 | 41.7 | 4-2 | INDY | -- | 62 |
| 56 | Texas Tech | 6 | 0.2 | 41.4 | 41.6 | 3-3 | B12 | 10 | 39 |
| 57 | Penn State | 6 | -0.7 | 42.1 | 41.5 | 3-3 | B10 | 7 | 32 |
| 58 | Northern Illinois | 7 | 9.2 | 32.2 | 41.4 | 5-2 | MAC | 1 | 101 |
| 59 | Northwestern | 6 | 10.8 | 30.5 | 41.3 | 5-1 | B10 | 8 | 114 |
| 60 | SMU | 7 | 1.3 | 39.6 | 40.9 | 4-3 | CUSA | 2 | 55 |
| 61 | Tulsa | 7 | 9.1 | 31.7 | 40.8 | 4-3 | CUSA | 3 | 104 |
| 62 | Fresno St | 6 | 5.1 | 35.4 | 40.5 | 4-2 | WAC | 5 | 86 |
| 63 | Louisville | 6 | 5.1 | 35.4 | 40.4 | 3-3 | BigE | 5 | 87 |
| 64 | East Carolina | 6 | -1.3 | 41.8 | 40.4 | 4-2 | CUSA | 4 | 36 |
| 65 | Tennessee | 6 | -4.2 | 44.4 | 40.3 | 2-4 | SEC | 10 | 22 |
| 66 | Iowa St | 7 | -7.6 | 47.3 | 39.7 | 3-4 | B12 | 11 | 12 |
| 67 | Maryland | 6 | 8.2 | 31.1 | 39.3 | 4-2 | ACC | 8 | 107 |
| 68 | Mississippi | 6 | 1.2 | 37.8 | 39.0 | 3-3 | SEC | 11 | 65 |
| 69 | Brigham Young | 7 | -12.2 | 51.0 | 38.8 | 2-5 | MWC | 5 | 3 |
| 70 | Troy | 6 | 7.0 | 31.4 | 38.4 | 4-2 | SunB | 1 | 106 |
| 71 | Purdue | 6 | 1.3 | 36.9 | 38.2 | 4-2 | B10 | 9 | 76 |
| 72 | Toledo | 7 | -3.3 | 41.5 | 38.2 | 4-3 | MAC | 2 | 37 |
| 74 | Southern Miss | 7 | 8.3 | 29.6 | 37.9 | 5-2 | CUSA | 5 | 116 |
| 73 | Temple | 7 | 1.0 | 36.9 | 37.9 | 5-2 | MAC | 3 | 75 |
| 75 | Houston | 6 | 6.4 | 30.5 | 37.0 | 3-3 | CUSA | 6 | 112 |
| 77 | Rutgers | 6 | 4.8 | 32.0 | 36.8 | 4-2 | BigE | 6 | 102 |
| 76 | Ohio U. | 7 | 6.1 | 30.7 | 36.8 | 4-3 | MAC | 4 | 109 |
| 78 | South Florida | 6 | 6.1 | 30.6 | 36.7 | 3-3 | BigE | 7 | 111 |
| 80 | Army | 7 | 6.0 | 30.5 | 36.5 | 4-3 | INDY | -- | 113 |
| 79 | Vanderbilt | 6 | -5.0 | 41.5 | 36.5 | 2-4 | SEC | 12 | 38 |
| 81 | Syracuse | 6 | 6.6 | 29.6 | 36.2 | 4-2 | BigE | 8 | 117 |
| 82 | Virginia | 6 | -1.1 | 37.2 | 36.1 | 2-4 | ACC | 9 | 71 |
| 83 | Louisiana Tech | 7 | -4.1 | 39.9 | 35.8 | 3-4 | WAC | 6 | 47 |
| 84 | Boston College | 6 | -8.2 | 43.3 | 35.2 | 2-4 | ACC | 10 | 24 |
| 85 | Miami OH | 7 | -5.4 | 39.6 | 34.2 | 4-3 | MAC | 5 | 52 |
| 86 | Wyoming | 7 | -16.4 | 50.4 | 34.1 | 2-5 | MWC | 6 | 5 |
| 87 | Indiana | 6 | 4.8 | 29.1 | 33.8 | 4-2 | B10 | 10 | 118 |
| 88 | Florida Int'l | 6 | -2.9 | 36.4 | 33.4 | 2-4 | SunB | 2 | 81 |
| 89 | Colorado St | 7 | -13.0 | 46.1 | 33.1 | 2-5 | MWC | 7 | 17 |
| 90 | Western Michigan | 6 | -3.5 | 36.3 | 32.8 | 2-4 | MAC | 6 | 83 |
| 91 | Washington St | 7 | -18.9 | 51.7 | 32.8 | 1-6 | P10 | 10 | 2 |
| 92 | Utah St | 6 | -6.6 | 38.9 | 32.3 | 2-4 | WAC | 7 | 58 |
| 93 | Wake Forest | 7 | -7.8 | 40.0 | 32.2 | 2-5 | ACC | 11 | 45 |
| 94 | Minnesota | 7 | -7.7 | 39.6 | 31.9 | 1-6 | B10 | 11 | 56 |
| 95 | Central Michigan | 7 | 1.1 | 30.7 | 31.8 | 2-5 | MAC | 7 | 110 |
| 96 | Alabama-Birmingham | 6 | -6.8 | 36.5 | 29.7 | 2-4 | CUSA | 7 | 79 |
| 97 | Arkansas St | 7 | -4.4 | 33.3 | 28.9 | 2-5 | SunB | 3 | 95 |
| 98 | Kent St | 6 | -2.0 | 30.5 | 28.5 | 2-4 | MAC | 8 | 115 |
| 99 | Bowling Green | 7 | -8.2 | 36.4 | 28.2 | 1-6 | MAC | 9 | 80 |
| 100 | Buffalo | 6 | -8.9 | 37.1 | 28.2 | 2-4 | MAC | 10 | 72 |
| 101 | San José St | 7 | -19.8 | 47.8 | 28.0 | 1-6 | WAC | 8 | 9 |
| 102 | Duke | 6 | -12.7 | 39.9 | 27.2 | 1-5 | ACC | 12 | 49 |
| 103 | Marshall | 6 | -15.9 | 42.4 | 26.5 | 1-5 | CUSA | 8 | 28 |
| 105 | UTEP | 7 | 6.4 | 20.1 | 26.5 | 5-2 | CUSA | 9 | 120 |
| 104 | UNLV | 7 | -16.8 | 43.3 | 26.5 | 1-6 | MWC | 8 | 25 |
| 106 | Rice | 7 | -12.0 | 37.6 | 25.6 | 2-5 | CUSA | 10 | 68 |
| 107 | Florida Atlantic | 5 | -7.5 | 32.6 | 25.1 | 1-4 | SunB | 4 | 98 |
| 108 | Kansas | 6 | -11.5 | 36.1 | 24.6 | 2-4 | B12 | 12 | 85 |
| 109 | Ball St | 7 | -7.4 | 31.8 | 24.3 | 2-5 | MAC | 11 | 103 |
| 110 | Louisiana-Lafayette | 6 | -12.8 | 36.2 | 23.4 | 2-4 | SunB | 5 | 84 |
| 111 | Tulane | 6 | -11.4 | 33.6 | 22.2 | 2-4 | CUSA | 11 | 94 |
| 112 | Middle Tennessee St | 6 | -4.4 | 26.1 | 21.7 | 2-4 | SunB | 6 | 119 |
| 113 | Louisiana-Monroe | 6 | -10.7 | 32.4 | 21.7 | 3-3 | SunB | 7 | 100 |
| 114 | Western Kentucky | 6 | -17.0 | 37.9 | 20.9 | 0-6 | SunB | 8 | 64 |
| 115 | North Texas | 7 | -11.9 | 31.1 | 19.2 | 1-6 | SunB | 9 | 108 |
| 116 | Eastern Michigan | 7 | -18.0 | 36.8 | 18.8 | 1-6 | MAC | 12 | 77 |
| 117 | Memphis | 7 | -20.1 | 36.9 | 16.9 | 1-6 | CUSA | 12 | 74 |
| 118 | New Mexico St | 6 | -22.6 | 36.3 | 13.7 | 1-5 | WAC | 9 | 82 |
| 119 | Akron | 7 | -19.4 | 32.9 | 13.6 | 0-7 | MAC | 13 | 96 |
| 120 | New Mexico | 6 | -26.8 | 39.6 | 12.8 | 0-6 | MWC | 9 | 54 |
| Conf | Rating |
|---|---|
| P10 | 54.4 |
| B12 | 49.3 |
| SEC | 49.2 |
| B10 | 45.8 |
| ACC | 43.3 |
| BigE | 42.3 |
| MWC | 41.0 |
| WAC | 40.6 |
| CUSA | 32.7 |
| MAC | 30.4 |
| SunB | 25.8 |
So how do Oregon, Stanford, TCU, Boise State and -- Missouri come out on top?
| Date | Team | PF | Opp | PA | Site? | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18-Sep-10 | Oregon | 69 | Portland St | 0 | Home | 66 | 23.4 | 89.4 |
| 2-Oct-10 | Oregon | 52 | Stanford | 31 | Home | 18 | 65.2 | 83.2 |
| 25-Sep-10 | Oregon | 42 | Arizona St | 31 | Road | 14 | 57.5 | 71.5 |
| 11-Sep-10 | Oregon | 48 | Tennessee | 13 | Road | 31 | 40.3 | 71.3 |
| 4-Sep-10 | Oregon | 72 | New Mexico | 0 | Home | 46.5 | 12.8 | 59.3 |
| 9-Oct-10 | Oregon | 43 | Washington St | 23 | Road | 23 | 32.8 | 55.8 |
Oregon put their foot on the throats of Portland State, New Mexico and Tennessee, and outlasted Stanford and Arizona. Their 20 point win against Washington State (which fell far short of covering the spread) was their worst performance of the season so far.
| Date | Team | PF | Opp | PA | Site? | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-Sep-10 | Stanford | 35 | UCLA | 0 | Road | 31 | 46.4 | 77.4 |
| 25-Sep-10 | Stanford | 37 | Notre Dame | 14 | Road | 25 | 49.6 | 74.6 |
| 18-Sep-10 | Stanford | 68 | Wake Forest | 24 | Home | 32.5 | 32.2 | 64.7 |
| 4-Sep-10 | Stanford | 52 | Sacramento St | 17 | Home | 32 | 31.4 | 63.4 |
| 9-Oct-10 | Stanford | 37 | Southern Cal | 35 | Home | 0 | 57.2 | 57.2 |
| 2-Oct-10 | Stanford | 31 | Oregon | 52 | Road | -18 | 71.7 | 53.7 |
Stanford gets penalized for losing to Oregon, but that was their worst game of the year. Blowout wins over respectable UCLA and Notre Dame teams were impressive, and Stanford has looked good for 5.5 games so far.
| Date | Team | PF | Opp | PA | Site? | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18-Sep-10 | TCU | 45 | Baylor | 10 | Home | 28 | 48.3 | 76.3 |
| 9-Oct-10 | TCU | 45 | Wyoming | 0 | Home | 33 | 34.1 | 67.1 |
| 11-Sep-10 | TCU | 62 | Tennessee Tech | 7 | Home | 52 | 13.1 | 65.1 |
| 16-Oct-10 | TCU | 31 | Brigham Young | 3 | Home | 24.5 | 38.7 | 63.2 |
| 4-Sep-10 | TCU | 30 | Oregon St | 21 | Arlington TX | 9 | 54.1 | 63.1 |
| 24-Sep-10 | TCU | 41 | SMU | 24 | Road | 20 | 40.9 | 60.9 |
| 2-Oct-10 | TCU | 27 | Colorado St | 0 | Road | 27 | 33.1 | 60.1 |
No one has been as consistent as TCU: Their worst game of the year was a 27-0 win in Fort Collins. They beat Oregon State, the best team they faced, and blew out Baylor, the only other legitimate team they've faced so far. But TCU is most impressive for their consistent dominance. They've allowed just three points in three games in October.
| Date | Team | PF | Opp | PA | Site? | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9-Oct-10 | Boise St | 57 | Toledo | 14 | Home | 32 | 38.2 | 70.2 |
| 18-Sep-10 | Boise St | 51 | Wyoming | 6 | Road | 36 | 34.1 | 70.1 |
| 16-Oct-10 | Boise St | 48 | San José St | 0 | Road | 37.5 | 28.0 | 65.5 |
| 25-Sep-10 | Boise St | 37 | Oregon St | 24 | Home | 10 | 54.1 | 64.1 |
| 2-Oct-10 | Boise St | 59 | New Mexico St | 0 | Road | 43 | 13.7 | 56.7 |
| 6-Sep-10 | Boise St | 33 | Virginia Tech | 30 | Landover MD | 3 | 53.5 | 56.5 |
That huge victory over Virginia Tech on opening night? That's the least impressive game for the Broncos this year, according to the SRS. Boise State has won by 40+ in four other games, and handled Oregon State much easier than the 13-point margin would have you think.
| Date | Team | PF | Opp | PA | Site? | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16-Oct-10 | Missouri | 30 | Texas A&M | 9 | Road | 24 | 53.1 | 77.1 |
| 9-Oct-10 | Missouri | 26 | Colorado | 0 | Home | 23 | 46.0 | 69.0 |
| 25-Sep-10 | Missouri | 51 | Miami OH | 13 | Home | 29.5 | 34.2 | 63.7 |
| 4-Sep-10 | Missouri | 23 | Illinois | 13 | St Louis MO | 10 | 50.5 | 60.5 |
| 11-Sep-10 | Missouri | 50 | McNeese St | 6 | Home | 41 | 18.3 | 59.3 |
| 18-Sep-10 | Missouri | 27 | San Diego St | 24 | Home | 0 | 49.8 | 49.8 |
Missouri's two best games came the last two weeks. They've played an easy schedule, but dominated the Aggies in College Station this past Saturday. The win over Illinois looks better now that the Illini won in State College and were competitive against the Buckeyes. Missouri surprisingly comes in fifth in this modified margin of victory category, thanks to ranking second in college football in points allowed. The Tigers haven't had a difficult schedule, but it hasn't been full of cupcakes, either. I wouldn't book my Fiesta Bowl tickets just yet if I was Jason -- squeaking by San Diego State isn't a very good sign but Missouri seems to be underrated so far by the national media. The Sooners come to Columbia this weekend (as does Gameday), so we'll get an answer on how good Missouri is very soon.
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 17th, 2010 at 7:56 pm and is filed under BCS, College. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

As Dr. Saturday pointed out after KSU thrashed them, Kansas looks like the worst team in a BCS conference: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Tale-of-the-Tape-Is-Kansas-the-worst-major-team;_ylt=AlEr_i.4Oso7pqSi_pRtZXrynYl4?urn=ncaaf-277283
The SRS agrees.
Well done, Chase! You addressed my issues with the SRS for the NCAA. Previously, the 21 pt. cap killed Boise, who were capped by their SOS.
I ran an analysis to estimate the "true value" of each point margin for predictive purposes over the last 5 years. I fitted a cubic function to it, and it looks a lot like your curve. See: Chart Comparison .
My top 10 from this (not including my Bayesian prior from previous seasons):
Pts SOS Team
26.6 -3.1 Boise State
25.5 -2.9 Oregon
24.1 -0.7 Texas Christian
22.1 5.1 Stanford
20.8 6.6 Oklahoma
20.6 1.5 Missouri
19.1 4.8 Auburn
18.8 1.9 Alabama
18.0 -8.7 Utah
(Those are points above average, which may be the better way to show it).
Oh--I included the FCS, all as a single team.
If anyone wants to see my SRS sheet to play with the ratings methodology, it's on Google Docs.
So the Pac-10 has:
* The top two teams overall;
* Four of the top 12;
* Six of the top 16;
* And seven of the top 22.
And then poor, poor Washington State at 91. Sucks to be them.
I'm absolutely baffled as to how Memphis isn't the worst. I live an hour away from there and trust me, I don't care if they somehow got a win, they should be 120th. And it shouldn't even be close.
What would happen if we looked more closely at neutral sites? For instance, Boise St. played VaTech at a neutral site, but in reality, that was a home game for VaTech and a road game for Boise State. I realize it is not "officially" that way, but in terms of looking at location's impact on the game, there might be a reason to offer such adjustments where you see fit.
Aren't three 3 point wins worth 0?