NCAA Division 1A Football

Copyright 2004-2008, Paul Kislanko

Analysis
11 July 2008 2008 Schedule Topology
A first glance at inter -regional, -conference, and -division matchup connectivity effects.
15 July 2008 "Intended" Schedule Strength
An editorial and introduction to 2008 SOS based upon 2007 final rankings.
17 July 2008 Updated WRRV
An improvement to the Weighted Retrodictive Ranking Violations report.
24 July 2008 Updated updated WRRV
An even better version incorporating suggestions for improvements to my improvement.
31 July 2008 Scheduling Combinatorics
Scheduling analysis instead of the usual cliches.
Addendum - It's even harder than you think.
20 August 2008 Connectivity 2
A look at the games graph from the perspective of which teams' schedules provide the "glue" that connects the field.
18 September 2008 Parity? Kind of
17 October 2008 Scoring halfway through
A look at the competitiveness landscape through weekend 7's games.
23 October 2008 Resume-based rankings
An algorithm for generating a purely resume-based top 25 ranking.
6 November 2008 A better use of computers?
The BCS would be better served to use more computers and combine them into one ranking a better way.
References
Standings
Conference name in the header links to consolidated schedule for all conference teams. Team names link to the teams' schedules.
Division 1 Schedule
Includes links to team reference pages.
FBS Consolidated Schedule by week
FBS Conference races (head to head and records vs common conf ops)
Inter-divisional results
Teams' Opponents' Results (Resume report)
(By Opponents Composite Computer Ranking)
Alternative index based upon the Resume() meta-ranking.
Pairwise matrix
A D1 Hockey -like pairwise matrix comparing teams with non-losing records.
Interconference Results
I'm not a fan of arguments about which is the "best" conference, but since they're going to happen anyway there may as well be some data to back some of them up.
Of course, there are many ways to examine an interconference "resume" including the same results-vs-opponents' ranks we use for teams.
Normalized Scoring Stats
Points scored and allowed adjusted for opponents' ability to prevent scores and score themselves.

Peter Wolfe's schedule page
Scores page
28 Aug4 Sep11 Sep18 Sep25 Sep 2 Oct 9 Oct 16 Oct 23 Oct 30 Oct
6 Nov 13 Nov 20 Nov 27 Nov 4 Dec 11 Dec 18 Dec 25 Dec 1 Jan
Results in CSV format

College Football Rankings comparison
An invaluable resource compiled by Kenneth Massey.
Ranking analysisPre-season1 Sep7 Sep13 Sep20 Sep27 Sep 4 Oct 11 Oct 18 Oct 25 Oct
1 Nov 8 Nov 15 Nov 22 Nov 29 Nov 6 Dec 8 Jan

Weighted Ranking Violations:Pre-seasonWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4 Week 5
Rankings
Week 6
Rankings
Week 7
Rankings
Week 8
Rankings
Week 9
Rankings
Week 10
Rankings
Week 11
Rankings
Week 12
Rankings
Week 13
Rankings
Week 14
Rankings
Week 15
Rankings
Week 19
Rankings

David Wilson's Ranking List
Categorizes the rankings by type and links to current versions.
cfbstats.com
Splits and situational statistics
NCAA Official Stats
College Football Data Warehouse
Forget which year a game happened? Want all-time records? This is the place.

2008 Bowl Games
Dates, locations, affiliations and payouts
Ratings
Iterative Strength Ratings
Boyd Nation's Iterative Strength Rating
Iterated Strength of Victory
This is the ISR with a Margin Of Victory component.
Win-Path Summaries
These are not "ratings", per se, but measurements of the directed games graph for all D-1 teams.
as a Second Order Winning Percentage
Weighted by strength of path;     by path strength + Opp Composite Rank

Each table links to directed games graph as seen from each node's (team's) perspective. For more details see A Second-Order Winning Percentage.
Rankings Histories:
Associated Press Poll
USA Today Coaches' Poll
Harris Interactive Poll
Fans Collective Survey Poll
Computer Composite Poll

Often people who are not familiar with the nature and limitations of statistical methods tend to expect too much of the rating system. Ratings provide merely a comparison of performances, no more and no less. The measurement of the performance of an individual is always made relative to the performance of his competitors and both the performance of the player and of his opponents are subject to much the same random fluctuations. The measurement of the rating of an individual might well be compared with the measurement of the position of a cork bobbing up and down on the surface of agitated water with a yard stick tied to a rope and which is swaying in the wind.
Arpad Elo in Chess Life, 1962
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is.
Chuck Reid

2007 Home Page
2006 Home Page
2005 Home Page
2004 Home Page