Computer Ranking System

Attached to this post is an adjusted Top 25 ranking set based on a BCS-style evaluation of competitive data as well as human polling.

For reference purposes, I have used the following calculations to arrive at the final average by which the teams are rank-ordered.

Initial Computer Average:
Weights winning percentage based on combined strength and average margin of victory. Adds winning percentage for previous season's national championship tournament to account for some element of past performance.

CPU:
Standardizes Initial Computer Average based on the mean and standard deviation of that data for all teams on which data is available.

POLL:
Standardizes vote totals from both the most recent Power Poll and Prognosticator rankings for each program based on the mean, standard deviation, and given the large amount of zeroes in that data set, skewness for all teams on which data is available. For the purposes of the Prognosticator ranking, the team's ranking in the Fine Fifty is reverse-ordered and translated into a vote (1st place = 50 votes, 2nd place = 49 votes, etc.)

Final Average:
Sum of standardization of CPU and POLL data. Prior to National Championship tournament, this number will be adjusted to compensate for strength of tournaments attended by each team. These calculations have been withheld currently due to the need to adjust numbers based on continuing performance by all participating programs.

All statistical data that underlies these rankings has been compiled based on publicly posted tab summaries (via the AMTA website and Deliberation Room postings) that include all the relevant numbers. As far as I am aware, this requirement has excluded the results of the 1st Annual Norse Invitational as well as, regrettably, the NYU Downtown Invitational. If any individuals have tab summaries for those or other invitationals not available at those locations, please forward them to me so I can update the rankings for comprehensiveness prior to the resumption of the season in January.

Comments and questions regarding rankings and methodologies are welcome, as I hope to improve the accuracy and validity of the rankings as much as possible as the season goes forward, and in particular looking ahead to future seasons.DR_Initial.xlsx DR_Initial.xls

- Kevin Harrison

Tags: polls, rankings

18 Comments

Comment by Alex Bluebond on December 17, 2008 at 5:14am: Kevin, I have three issues.

1. Won't programs with many teams have the performances of their top teams dragged down by their lower teams?

2. It's exam week, so I know you have better things to do than revise and update this thing.

3. Also, don't I at least get a nod for having the idea to use standard deviations?

Comment by Kevin Harrison on December 17, 2008 at 8:45am: Mr. Bluebond:

1. In my view, depth in an integral part of any valid PROGRAM ranking and so the performance of all teams under a program heading is considered for this purpose. It could be argued as well that the detrimental effect of a poor team on a program's ranking is actually harsher on team's with FEWER teams, which have less ballots-in-play across which to diffuse a lower team's lack of success (see Richmond). Also, thanks to the human polling component, which seems skewed toward the evaluation of a program's "top" team, this is often balanced out, particularly with respect to larger programs, and especially ones with larger reputations.

2. You will be encouraged to know that the revision and update of two cells to fix the error in the Vanderbilt ranking did not take so much time as to hinder my studies.

3. You are absolutely right. I have obviously forgotten my manners. Heretofore, I ask that it be recognized that the one and only J. Alexander Bluebond, economics extraordinaire, presented me with the brilliant proposition of standardizing the ranks based on standard deviations (though I reserve full responsibility for my own application of skewness to the polling data).

Comment by Alex Bluebond on December 17, 2008 at 5:20pm: Thank you. All of my concerns are satisfied.

Comment by The Deliberation Room on December 17, 2008 at 6:31pm: The embedded version has been updated to reflect Kevin's revisions.

Comment by Kevin Harrison on February 7, 2009 at 3:52pm: I had hoped to churn this out pre-regionals, but that bear of a Loras tab summary took quite a bit of time to sort through. At any rate, the revised rankings are here reflecting the end of available data for the invitational season.DR_2009_v1.xls

Comment by Alex Bluebond on February 9, 2009 at 4:19am: Once again, thank you Kevin for these rankings. And look at Northwestern. They have had quite a season.

Comment by Larry "The Sledge" Rosen on February 9, 2009 at 4:33pm: Kevin, thank you for the ranking, and i know it would be an absolute bear, but it would be fun to see the individual stats for each program and see how the b-c-d teams affect stacked "a" team performances. just a suggestion, and i applaud you for your work.

Comment by dork on February 9, 2009 at 9:35pm: you gonna update these goin into regionals

Computer Ranking System

You need to be a member of The Deliberation Room to add comments!

Search