Dr. Massey has begun publishing the College Football Ranking Composite listings for 2017 so I am now updating my Ranking Analysis pages. This is the main purpose of the site, since I began it mainly to study how various rating systems are affected by scheduling and how they correlate.
Dr. Massey's table is ordered vertically by a Consensus Average:
The "average" or "consensus" ranking for each team is determined using a least squares fit based on paired comparisons between teams for each of the listed ranking systems. If a team is ranked by all systems, the consensus is equal to the arithmetic average ranking. When a team is not ranked by a particular system, its consensus will be lowered accordingly.which I report as a meta-ranking but do not use to construct other "consensus" ranks.
I aggregate the computer rankings three ways, based upon three different ranked-ballot voting methods. The details of each are provided on the Ranking Analysis page.
A fourth voting method illustrated is known as approval. It does not count ranked ballots, but just the number of ratings that rank the team in the top four without regard to whether the rank is first, second, third or fourth.
There are also three measures of the consensus rank distribution by conference affiliation. They measure the strength and depth of conference teams. Other than the techniques used to compare conferences of different size their only significance is their role in settling (or starting) barroom arguments.
These are convenient because they are based upon simple counting stats, and the contribution of each team to the difference can be reported. Of more interest than the correlation to Majority Consensus is a pairwise table that shows the "distance" between any two of the computer rankings. The table highlights which other rannkig or meta-ranking each specific rating is most and least like.
© Copyright 2017, Paul Kislanko