One More Arbitrary NCAA Football Ranking Scheme for the BCS – 11/1/2011
Rankings as of 11/1/2011. The previous week’s rankings are here.
I apologize for not getting these rankings out until today (Tuesday), but we’re likely without power until Friday or Saturday. I’m currently in the Western New England College University Law School library, which has power and heat. Anyway……
There are 5 teams in the SITW top 25 that are not in the BCS top 25 (SITW Ranking): Texas A&M (15), Texas Tech (18), USC (19), Baylor (21), Missouri (25).
Likewise, the five teams in the BCS top 25 that are not in the SITW top 25 are: Arizona State (26), Wisconsin (30), Michigan State (31), West Virginia (32), and Southern Miss (39).
Based on the disparity between the SITW rankings and the BCS rankings, the most over-rated top 25 BCS team is Boise State, followed by Michigan State and Southern Miss. The most under-rated team is Texas, followed by Kansas State, Auburn, Oklahoma, and Clemson.
| Team | Rank | Change | Record | BCS Rank |
| Oklahoma State | 1 | 0 | 8-0 | 3 |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 3 | 7-1 | 8 |
| LSU | 3 | 0 | 8-0 | 1 |
| Alabama | 4 | 0 | 8-0 | 2 |
| Kansas State | 5 | -3 | 7-1 | 9 |
| Stanford | 6 | 2 | 8-0 | 5 |
| Clemson | 7 | -1 | 8-1 | 16 |
| South Carolina | 8 | 1 | 7-1 | 6 |
| Arkansas | 9 | 1 | 7-1 | 13 |
| Virginia Tech | 10 | 4 | 8-1 | 10 |
| Texas | 11 | 1 | 5-2 | 20 |
| Oregon | 12 | 1 | 7-1 | 24 |
| Nebraska | 13 | 5 | 7-1 | 7 |
| Penn State | 14 | 3 | 8-1 | 12 |
| Texas A&M | 15 | -8 | 5-3 | NR |
| Michigan | 16 | 4 | 7-1 | NR |
| Auburn | 17 | 2 | 6-3 | 19 |
| Texas Tech | 18 | -7 | 5-3 | 14 |
| USC | 19 | -4 | 6-2 | 23 |
| Georgia Tech | 20 | 2 | 7-2 | 18 |
| Baylor | 21 | -5 | 4-3 | 4 |
| Boise State | 22 | -1 | 7-0 | NR |
| Georgia | 23 | 1 | 6-2 | 15 |
| Houston | 24 | 1 | 8-0 | 22 |
| Missouri | 25 | 5 | 4-4 | 17 |
BCS: My offer still stands…….if you want to contact me you can send me a tweet @StatsInTheWild.
Cheers.
NFL Rankings After Week 7
SITW NFL Rankings after week 7. (Last weeks NFL rankings) (And check out my NCAA Football Rankings)
Well, my survivor season is over thanks to Baltimore’s gutless loss to the Jaguars, and my arch tennis/golf rival was crowned champion.
Anyway, the biggest mover up the rankings this week was Dallas up five spots after its win over winless St. Louis. (How can this happen? Well, my rating are like the BCS, so I don’t have to tell you. If there were transparency, someone might question my method.) The biggest fall this week was Oakland falling 4 spots after losing to Kansas City.
And SITW would like to welcome Arizona to the NFL cellar. Arizona is now 6-16 in the last two seasons. Now 6-16 is not very good, but it is all time bad when you consider they play in the NFC West, which sent a 7-9 team to the playoffs as division champ. This is a team that went to the super bowl in 2009. Things fall apart quickly in the NFL. (See 2011, Colts, Indianapolis)
| Rank – After Week 7 | Change | |
| New England | 1 | 0 |
| Green Bay | 2 | 0 |
| Pittsburgh | 3 | 0 |
| Baltimore | 4 | 0 |
| Atlanta | 5 | 0 |
| NY Jets | 6 | 0 |
| Chicago | 7 | 0 |
| New Orleans | 8 | 1 |
| Tampa Bay | 9 | -1 |
| NY Giants | 10 | 0 |
| Detroit | 11 | 0 |
| Philadelphia | 12 | 0 |
| San Diego | 13 | 0 |
| Buffalo | 14 | 0 |
| Kansas City | 15 | 1 |
| Cincinnati | 16 | 3 |
| Cleveland | 17 | 3 |
| San Francisco | 18 | 0 |
| Oakland | 19 | -4 |
| Miami | 20 | -3 |
| Dallas | 21 | 5 |
| Tennessee | 22 | -1 |
| Indianapolis | 23 | 1 |
| Washington | 24 | -2 |
| Seattle | 25 | -2 |
| Minnesota | 26 | -1 |
| Jacksonville | 27 | 0 |
| Houston | 28 | 0 |
| St. Louis | 29 | 0 |
| Denver | 30 | 1 |
| Carolina | 31 | 1 |
| Arizona | 32 | -2 |
Cheers.
One More Arbitrary NCAA Football Ranking Scheme for the BCS – 10/23/2011
Rankings as of 10/23/2011. Previous weeks rankings here.
There are 3 teams ranked in the BCS top 25 who aren’t in my top 25. They are Michigan State, Arizona State, and West Virginia.
There are three teams in my top 25 who aren’t in the BCS top 25. They are USC, Baylor, and Georgia Tech.
| Team | Rank | Change | Record | BCS Rank |
| Oklahoma State | 1 | 0 | 7-0 | 3 |
| Kansas State | 2 | 1 | 7-0 | 8 |
| LSU | 3 | 1 | 8-0 | 1 |
| Alabama | 4 | 1 | 8-0 | 2 |
| Oklahoma | 5 | -3 | 6-1 | 9 |
| Clemson | 6 | 0 | 8-0 | 5 |
| Texas A&M | 7 | 1 | 5-2 | 16 |
| Stanford | 8 | 2 | 7-0 | 6 |
| South Carolina | 9 | 0 | 6-1 | 13 |
| Arkansas | 10 | 2 | 6-1 | 10 |
| Texas Tech | 11 | 4 | 5-2 | 20 |
| Texas | 12 | -5 | 4-2 | 24 |
| Oregon | 13 | 7 | 6-1 | 7 |
| Virginia Tech | 14 | 2 | 7-1 | 12 |
| USC | 15 | 4 | 6-1 | NR |
| Baylor | 16 | -5 | 4-2 | NR |
| Penn State | 17 | 1 | 7-1 | 19 |
| Nebraska | 18 | 4 | 6-1 | 14 |
| Auburn | 19 | -2 | 5-3 | 23 |
| Michigan | 20 | 1 | 6-1 | 18 |
| Boise State | 21 | 4 | 7-0 | 4 |
| Georgia Tech | 22 | -9 | 6-2 | NR |
| Wisconsin | 23 | -9 | 6-1 | 15 |
| Georgia | 24 | 4 | 5-2 | 22 |
| Houston | 25 | 10 | 7-0 | 17 |
BCS: My offer still stands…….if you want to contact me you can send me a tweet @StatsInTheWild.
Cheers.
2011 NFL Chernoff Faces
At the end of the 2010 NFL football season I did some Chernoff faces for the teams’ final statistics here.
Here are similar Chernoff faces for the 2011 season through week 6. (And here are my rankings through week 6.)
Offensive yardage affects the size and shape of the face and defensive yardage affect the size and shape of the hair. The number of wins a team has affects the size of the mouth and whether or not the mouth is smiling. The eyes represent penalties, the nose is defensive sacks, and the ears are defensive forced turnovers. The ideal face is found in the lower right corner of the graph.
Two quick comments:
-Oakland has a penalty problem.
-Carolina seems out of place on the graph. The Carolina face is very similar to the New Orleans face; the difference appears to be the eyes (penalties) and the nose (sacks).
Cheers.
NFL Playoff Projections After Week 6
Last week’s rankings and playoff projections.
The only change in the AFC is that Jets are projected to be back in and Buffalo is out after one week as the projected 6 seed.
Green Bay is still the projected 1 seed as they have been since after week 1; Detroit has been the projected 5 seed since after week 2. San Francisco moves up to the 2 seed with their win over the Lions and the NFC South teams Tampa Bay and New Orleans swap as projected division winners for the fourth week in a row, with Tampa Bay projected at 3 and New Orleans projected at 6. Washington falls out of the playoffs and the Giants are projected to get in as the 4 seed.
| Seed | AFC | NFC |
| 1 | New England | Green Bay |
| 2 | Baltimore | San Francisco |
| 3 | San Diego | Tampa Bay |
| 4 | Tennessee | NY Giants |
| 5 | Pittsburgh | Detroit |
| 6 | NY Jets | New Orleans |
Cheers.
NFL Rankings After Week 6
SITW NFL Rankings after week 6. (Last weeks NFL rankings) (And check out my NCAA Football Rankings)
| Rank – After Week 5 | Change | |
| New England | 1 | 0 |
| Green Bay | 2 | 0 |
| Pittsburgh | 3 | 0 |
| Baltimore | 4 | 0 |
| Atlanta | 5 | 0 |
| NY Jets | 6 | 0 |
| Chicago | 7 | 0 |
| Tampa Bay | 8 | 1 |
| New Orleans | 9 | -1 |
| NY Giants | 10 | 0 |
| Detroit | 11 | 0 |
| Philadelphia | 12 | 1 |
| San Diego | 13 | -1 |
| Buffalo | 14 | 0 |
| Oakland | 15 | 2 |
| Kansas City | 16 | 0 |
| Miami | 17 | -2 |
| San Francisco | 18 | 5 |
| Cincinnati | 19 | -2 |
| Cleveland | 20 | -1 |
| Tennessee | 21 | -3 |
| Washington | 22 | 3 |
| Seattle | 23 | -3 |
| Indianapolis | 24 | -1 |
| Minnesota | 25 | -1 |
| Dallas | 26 | 0 |
| Jacksonville | 27 | 0 |
| Houston | 28 | 0 |
| St. Louis | 29 | 0 |
| Arizona | 30 | 0 |
| Denver | 31 | 1 |
| Carolina | 32 | -1 |
Cheers.
One More Arbitrary NCAA Football Ranking Scheme for the BCS
Rankings as of 10/16/2011. Previous weeks rankings here.
| Team | Rank | Change |
| Oklahoma State | 1 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 0 |
| Kansas State | 3 | 0 |
| LSU | 4 | 1 |
| Alabama | 5 | -1 |
| Clemson | 6 | 1 |
| Texas | 7 | -1 |
| Texas A&M | 8 | 8 |
| South Carolina | 9 | 4 |
| Stanford | 10 | 4 |
| Baylor | 11 | -3 |
| Arkansas | 12 | 3 |
| Georgia Tech | 13 | -4 |
| Wisconsin | 14 | 6 |
| Texas Tech | 15 | -5 |
| Virginia Tech | 16 | 5 |
| Auburn | 17 | 5 |
| Penn State | 18 | 7 |
| USC | 19 | 5 |
| Oregon | 20 | 6 |
| Michigan | 21 | -9 |
| Nebraska | 22 | 1 |
| Illinois | 23 | -12 |
| Missouri | 24 | 11 |
| Boise State | 25 | 11 |
BCS: If you want to contact me you can send me a tweet @StatsInTheWild.
Cheers.
One More Arbitrary NCAA Football Ranking Scheme for the BCS
I’ve been reading a little bit about the BCS computer rankings lately, and, while I’m a huge fan of ratings systems (I have my own for the NFL), the BCS computer rankings make me cringe. The computer ratings, which account for only one third of the overall rankings, are made up of six seemingly arbitrarily chosen ratings systems that, in most cases, no one knows all of the details of how they work. As one website puts it :
What do you know about the different computer rankings?
Not a whole lot. Most of the formulas are proprietary. Some are more forthcoming about what goes in than others. All of the systems use the same basic set of data (except where noted): Date of game, location of game, who played and who won. What distinguishes them is what they do with the data, how much they weigh certain factors, and what set of teams they rank.
That’s not comforting at all. This means that there are 18-22 year old men out there who have spent their whole lives playing football and preparing to play in college, whose chance to play for a national title, will, in some small way, be affected by 6 almost completely black box computer rankings. And sometimes they even leave data out of their black boxes. (The fact the an FCS game between Appalachian State and Western Illinois can actually affect the ranking of a top ten FBS team is absolute high comedy. It sounds like an Onion article: “Boise States top ten dreams rest in the hands of…… Appalachian State.” Only the clowns that run the BCS could make this a reality.)
But even if the six computer rankings are all done perfectly every week, why these six? I found this to be an interesting explanation from Massey ratings website:
How did you get involved with the BCS?
I started working on college football ratings as an honors project in mathematics while at Bluefield College in 1995. Continuing this interest as a hobby, I developed a web page and helped pioneer the organization of college football rankings via my comparison. The BCS, which started in 1997, realized the need to expand its sample of computer ratings from three to seven. My web site became a central resource point as the BCS officials searched for quality, respected, and well-established computer ratings. I received a phone call from SEC commisioner Roy Kramer in the spring of 1999 to discuss the prospect of adding my ratings to the BCS formula. Mine were chosen because of their demonstrated accuracy and conformance to the consensus, and my personal expertise in the field.
Conformance to the consensus!?! Massey states that a reason his computer model was chosen was because of its conformance to the consensus, which in this case I assume means the two polls which make up the other two thirds of the BCS rankings. This makes it sound like the BCS went out and picked the 6 ranking systems that conformed most closely with the polls. This would essentially render the computer rankings useless, as they would just be an elaborate extension of the polls. (Note: I like the Massey ratings; I just don’t think they or any computer rating system should be used to determine a national champion.)
All of this has led me to produce my own rankings (which do not conform to the consensus). Maybe if I post my rankings long enough, I will get a call from some big time conference commissioner, and they will add my totally black box ranking system to the BCS. So anyway, here are my rankings. (Some details: I’m only using data from 2011, all teams start on a level playing field (no preseason ranking is considered). Strength of schedule plays a heavy role in my rankings (which the BCS should love because I’ll likely never put Boise State in my top ten.) I do not consider the location of the game, and I get my data from goldsheet.com. So rather than using only FCS or FBS data points, I’m using only games that can easily be gambled on (I guess the NCAA BCS won’t be calling; they seem to frown on gambling.))
| Team | Rank |
| Oklahoma State | 1 |
| Oklahoma | 2 |
| Kansas State | 3 |
| Alabama | 4 |
| LSU | 5 |
| Texas | 6 |
| Clemson | 7 |
| Baylor | 8 |
| Georgia Tech | 9 |
| Texas Tech | 10 |
| Illinois | 11 |
| Michigan | 12 |
| South Carolina | 13 |
| Stanford | 14 |
| Arkansas | 15 |
| Texas A&M | 16 |
| North Carolina | 17 |
| Iowa State | 18 |
| Arizona State | 19 |
| Wisconsin | 20 |
| Virginia Tech | 21 |
| Auburn | 22 |
| Nebraska | 23 |
| USC | 24 |
| Penn State | 25 |
BCS: If you want to contact me you can send me a tweet @StatsInTheWild.
Cheers.
NFL Rankings After Week 5
SITW NFL Rankings after week 5. (Last weeks rankings.)
No changes in the top 7 this week. New Orleans and Tampa Bay flip flop at 8 and 9. The biggest movers were Oakland and Indianapolis, in opposite directions of course. Oakland is up 5 spots to number 17 after beating Houston and Indianapolis falls 6 spots to number 21 after losing to lowly Kansas City. Indianapolis is the first team to five losses, but probably only because Miami and St. Louis had bye weeks.
And finally, for the first time all season we have a new team at the bottom. Congratulations Denver Broncos!
| Rank – After Week 5 | Rank – After Week 4 | Change | |
| New England | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Green Bay | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Pittsburgh | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Baltimore | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Atlanta | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| NY Jets | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Chicago | 7 | 7 | 0 |
| New Orleans | 8 | 9 | 1 |
| Tampa Bay | 9 | 8 | -1 |
| NY Giants | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Detroit | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| San Diego | 12 | 13 | 1 |
| Philadelphia | 13 | 12 | -1 |
| Buffalo | 14 | 18 | 4 |
| Miami | 15 | 17 | 2 |
| Kansas City | 16 | 19 | 3 |
| Oakland | 17 | 22 | 5 |
| Cleveland | 18 | 20 | 2 |
| Washington | 19 | 14 | -5 |
| Tennessee | 20 | 16 | -4 |
| Indianapolis | 21 | 15 | -6 |
| Cincinnati | 22 | 26 | 4 |
| San Francisco | 23 | 27 | 4 |
| Minnesota | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| Dallas | 25 | 21 | -4 |
| Seattle | 26 | 28 | 2 |
| Jacksonville | 27 | 23 | -4 |
| Houston | 28 | 25 | -3 |
| St. Louis | 29 | 29 | 0 |
| Arizona | 30 | 30 | 0 |
| Carolina | 31 | 32 | 1 |
| Denver | 32 | 31 | -1 |
Projected playoffs after week 5. Nothing changes in the AFC except for the 6 seed: The Jets are out and Buffalo is in. Unlike the AFC, there are some big moves in the NFC. I now haveNew Orleans as the 2 seed, which drops Tampa Bay to the second wild card slot. San Francisco moves up from the 4 seed to the 3 seed, and, after two weeks out of the projected playoffs, Washington is back in as a 4 seed after the Giants disgraceful loss to the Seahawks.
| Seed | AFC | NFC |
| 1 | New England | Green Bay |
| 2 | Baltimore | New Orleans |
| 3 | San Diego | San Francisco |
| 4 | Tennessee | Washington |
| 5 | Pittsburgh | Detroit |
| 6 | Buffalo | Tampa Bay |
Cheers.
Rick Perry and Google Auto-complete 10-11-2011
Auto-complete for search “Rick Perry ” on Google over the last couple of weeks. The last row is the polling percentage based on Real Clear Politics polls.
| 8-17-2011 | 8-30-2011 | 9-6-2011 | 9-9-2011 | 9-12-2011 |
| for president | for president | for president | for president | gay |
| gay | gay | gay | gay | for president |
| wiki | wiki | wiki | wiki | wiki |
| for president website | 2012 | prayer | prayer | prayer |
| 2012 | for president 2012 | 2012 | galileo | secession |
| 18.4 | 23 | 29 | 29 | 31.8 |
| 9-15-2011 | 9-23-2011 | 9-26-2011 | 10-5-2011 | 10-11-2011 |
| gay | for president | for president | for president | gay |
| for president | gay | gay | gay | for president |
| wiki | wiki | wiki | wiki | wiki |
| prayer | prayer | prayer | hunting lodge | issues |
| secession | ||||
| 30.9 | 28.4 | 28.4 | 18 | 15.3 |
Auto-complete for search “Rick Perry is ” on google over the last couple of weeks. The last row is the polling percentage based on Real Clear Politics polls.
| 8-17-2011 | 8-30-2011 | 9-6-2011 | 9-9-2011 | 9-12-2011 |
| gay | gay | gay | gay | gay |
| an idiot | an idiot | an idiot | an idiot | an idiot |
| a rino | a rino | crazy | crazy | crazy |
| evil | evil | nuts | nuts | scary |
| not a conservative | not a conservative | stupid | stupid | evil |
| 18.4 | 23 | 29 | 29 | 31.8 |
| 9-15-2011 | 9-23-2011 | 9-26-2011 | 10-5-2011 | 10-11-2011 |
| gay | gay | gay | gay | gay |
| an idiot | an idiot | an idiot | an idiot | an idiot |
| crazy | crazy | crazy | crazy | crazy |
| scary | scary | scary | scary | scary |
| evil | ||||
| 30.9 | 28.4 | 28.4 | 18 | 15.3 |
Cheers.