Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
   
   
     
  
 
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
|  #1 Posted on 18.1.10 1748.22 | Instant Rating: 4.29 | Just for the sake of completeness, here are the final rankings for the 2009-2010 season
This is the finalCatastrophicAnnihilation.com
top 25 for 2009-2010
Rank Last Team Record Rating
1 1 Alabama 14-0 1903.2203 *Swept the Bowl Championship Series 1-0
2 3 Florida 13-1 1816.8615
3 2 Texas 13-1 1767.4433
4 5 Boise State 14-0 1752.8067
5 4 Cincinnati 12-1 1712.8428
6 6 TCU 12-1 1657.1187
7 9 Ohio State 11-2 1639.1916
8 12 BYU 11-2 1609.3097
9 7 Georgia Tech 11-3 1600.2211
10 10 Iowa 11-2 1599.0188
11 8 Oregon 10-3 1581.7804
12 13 Penn State 11-2 1578.7017
13 14 Virginia Tech 10-3 1559.1274
14 19 Utah 10-3 1513.9785
15 16 Central Michigan 12-2 1507.8445
16 11 LSU 9-4 1502.0820
17 21 Pittsburgh 10-3 1497.9309
18 22 Wisconsin 10-3 1496.7227
19 20 USC 9-4 1477.8751
20 15 Miami (FL) 9-4 1446.7398
21 17 West Virginia 9-4 1436.1949
22 31 Mississippi 9-4 1415.3675
23 18 Oklahoma State 9-4 1405.9108
24 30 MTSU 10-3 1396.1694
25 37 Arkansas 8-5 1392.5672
Click here for the full 120 team rankings.
Click here to see how this system compares to other ones.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend -- | | Promote this thread! |           | Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter
Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis
Since last post: 57 days
Last activity: 46 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #2 Posted on 18.1.10 1837.21 | Instant Rating: 8.00 | In regards to the 9 & 10 spots, did you miss the Orange Bowl?
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock
Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
| #3 Posted on 18.1.10 1841.47 | Instant Rating: 4.29 | Originally posted by Doc_whiskey
In regards to the 9 & 10 spots, did you miss the Orange Bowl?
Originally posted by My website
My computer rankings use only wins (against Bowl Subdivision teams) and ALL losses to calculate how "good" a win is and how "bad" a loss is. Score, location, MoV, and the like are not considered.
This system is NOT trying to find out which team is "better" than the other, just what each team has accomplished to-date.
With this system, every team starts out with a rating of 1200 points and they gain or lose points based on their wins and losses
Underdog wins and favorties losing will change the rating greatly, while beating cupcakes or losing to a heavy favorite will change little if at all.
The only variable used in my formulas are wins and losses. That is it. The score is never taken into account.
I have slightly changed the formula I used last year, again. I no longer use the Elo system, but something I came up with.
GT had a rating of 1628.4017 and Iowa had 1529.0634
Iowa's win and GT's loss changed their ratings of course. Iowa gained 61.7 and change, and GT lost 31.4 and change.
Other things that hand an effect on their ratings:
GT's opponents (5-2, because they played Clemson twice):
Clemson beat Kentucky (and GT played they twice)
FSU beat WVU
VT beat TN
GA beat TAMU
Miami (FL) lost to Wisconsin
NC lost to Pitt
The teams that won have better records so it gives them a slight bump if they beat them, and lessens the bump they took for beating them. Conversly, Miami and NC losing lowers their rating for those games a bit.
Iowa's Opponents (4-4):
PSU beat LSU
Wisconsin beat Miami (FL)
Ohio State beat Oregon
Iowa St beat Minnesota
Minnesota lost to Iowa State
AZ lost to Nebraska
Michigan St lost to TX Tech
Northwestern lost to Auburn
I could break it down further with opponent's opponents but you see where I'm headed. Iowa just came up a bit short with my formula to overtake GT.
(edited by Zeruel on 18.1.10 1956)
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend -- | Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter
Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis
Since last post: 57 days
Last activity: 46 days
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #4 Posted on 18.1.10 2121.24 | Instant Rating: 8.00 | I get that, though I think any rating system is flawed when one team is ranked behind another team even though that team beat the other team on a neutral field (and has a better record). If records are similar no team that loses to another team should be ranked in front of them (please note the first part of this sentence to make sure my words are not misconstrued later).
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock
Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 hours
| #5 Posted on 18.1.10 2218.34 | Instant Rating: 4.29 | Originally posted by Doc_whiskey
I get that, though I think any rating system is flawed when one team is ranked behind another team even though that team beat the other team on a neutral field (and has a better record). If records are similar no team that loses to another team should be ranked in front of them (please note the first part of this sentence to make sure my words are not misconstrued later).
I totally agree with you. It's not what my system is trying to do (who is better than who), but how good/bad wins/losses are and ranking them accordingly.
I once thought of doing a ranking system where winners are automatically ranked above losers but then what would you do if Oklahoma beat Texas, Texas beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Oklahoma.
Neither can be ranked above nor below.
I was REALLY hoping that Iowa would get the few points needed to pass GT as I was filling out the last few bowl games because to people who don't know how my system works nor what it's trying to do, it makes me look like an idiot. But for what I'm trying to, I'm happy with it. Sadly, I am compulsive enough to go back to previous years and rub out some of FSUs wins because of the NCAA hammer coming down
(edited by Zeruel on 18.1.10 2320)
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend -- |
| | | | |
Thread rated: 5.77