I'm working on baseball right now.  I'm starting
off with a model of wins and losses.  I have found
another problem with modeling wins and losses.
Teams that haven't won or lost a game yet are difficult to rate especially
with logistic regression.

Colley's Matrix has a nice little adjustment
courtesy of Laplace that alleviates that problem, but the model itself can't
handle homefield advantage or change over time.

In baseball you get this problem with starting pitchers.  Albie Lopez started
four games for the
Braves and the Braves lost all four games.  I tried merging his games in with
the two games started by AAA callups but they lost their two games also.

In baseball it seems to help if you take the square-root of the runs scored by
each team and then do a regression for runs scored.  It reduces
heteroscedasticity and keeps runaway scores from skewing the estimates.

The thing I like about modeling wins directly is that you get an estimate for
one team beating another.  Modeling margin of victory, you get a winner, but
usually you have to do some simulation to get an estimate of the probability
of winning.

Alan Jordan


On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 04:49:04 -0400 Brad Kiser <rkiser@...> wrote:

> I do use Margin of Victory. I am of the opinion
> that ignoring MOV is ignoring
> a very informative chunk of data, which is a
> statistical no-no. My MOV is
> capped, so SOS is more important to a team's
> rating, but it can make the
> difference between two similar teams.
>
> Who here does/doesn't use MOV?
>
> - Brad
>

I do use Margin of Victory. I am of the opinion that ignoring MOV is ignoring
a very informative chunk of data, which is a statistical no-no. My MOV is
capped, so SOS is more important to a team's rating, but it can make the
difference between two similar teams.

Who here does/doesn't use MOV?

- Brad


>===== Original Message From alandjordan2002 <ajordan@...> =====
>--- In CompRatings@y..., Brad Kiser <rkiser@u...> wrote:
>> I don't rank at all until I have enough data, which is probably
>going to be
>> late September. So my teams are rated strictly on performance this
>season
>> regardless of who they are or what they did last year.
>>
>> -Brad Kiser
>>
>
>
>Do you factor in Margin of Victory in your ratings or do you use
>just wins and losses?
>
>Alan Jordan
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>    CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In CompRatings@y..., Brad Kiser <rkiser@u...> wrote:
> I don't rank at all until I have enough data, which is probably
going to be
> late September. So my teams are rated strictly on performance this
season
> regardless of who they are or what they did last year.
>
> -Brad Kiser
>


Do you factor in Margin of Victory in your ratings or do you use
just wins and losses?

Alan Jordan

Thank you.  That almost makes sense.

Alan Jordan




On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:35:33 -0700 (PDT) "Patrick E. Fleming"
<pfleming@...> wrote:
>
> I can help you on this point.  (microsoft
> products are oh-so-intuitive . .)
>
> To get the inverse of a matrix in excel, first
> enter the matrix in an n by
> n square set of cells.  Next, highlight the n
> by n square set of cells in
> which you want to place the inverse of the
> matrix.  In the upper left hand
> cell, type (but don't hit return yet!):
>
>      =minverse(b3:d5)
>
> (assuming the original matrix is contained in
> the group of cells with
> upper left corner being cell b3 and the lower
> right corner beig cell d5).
> Now, rather than simply hitting return (which
> will give you the upper left
> hand member of the inverse matrix only) you
> mist use cntl-shift-enter.
> (See? I told you it was intuitive!)
>
> You can check your result by multiplying the
> inverted matrix by the
> original.  Highlight an n by n space where the
> product matrix will go, and
> enter in the upper lefthand corner cell (again
> not hitting return yet!):
>
>      =mmult(b3:d5,f3:h5)
>
> assuming the original matrix is in the space
> b3:d5 and the inverse is in
> the space f3:h5 as defined above.  Now hit
> cntl-shift-enter and you should
> get an identity matrix.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>      - Pat
>
>
>
> -- Patrick E. Fleming
> -- Department of Chemistry
> -- San Jose State University
> -- pfleming@...
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
>
>     CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Alan wrote:

> Correction - Excel is supposed to do an inverse of a matrix but I couldn't get
> minverse to work right.  It kept giving me a scalar (single value) instead of
> a matrix.  I ended up having to run the matrix part of the example in SAS.

I can help you on this point.  (microsoft products are oh-so-intuitive . .)

To get the inverse of a matrix in excel, first enter the matrix in an n by
n square set of cells.  Next, highlight the n by n square set of cells in
which you want to place the inverse of the matrix.  In the upper left hand
cell, type (but don't hit return yet!):

      =minverse(b3:d5)

(assuming the original matrix is contained in the group of cells with
upper left corner being cell b3 and the lower right corner beig cell d5).
Now, rather than simply hitting return (which will give you the upper left
hand member of the inverse matrix only) you mist use cntl-shift-enter.
(See? I told you it was intuitive!)

You can check your result by multiplying the inverted matrix by the
original.  Highlight an n by n space where the product matrix will go, and
enter in the upper lefthand corner cell (again not hitting return yet!):

      =mmult(b3:d5,f3:h5)

assuming the original matrix is in the space b3:d5 and the inverse is in
the space f3:h5 as defined above.  Now hit cntl-shift-enter and you should
get an identity matrix.

Hope this helps!

      - Pat



-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

> Can you say a few more words about the Colley
> Matrix?  What is it? What
> does it do?  Are there any references you might
> suggest for further
> information?  Thanks and cheers!
>
>      - Pat
>

The Colley Matrix is one of the components of
the BCS system.  It is designed and run by Wesly N. Colley and is printed in
the Atlanta
Journal and Constitution.

It is from the Just Win Baby (JWB) school of thought and does not factor in
margin of victory
(MOV).  It also does not factor in home field advantage or most recent games.
Everyone starts the year off equal.

What it does do is control for the strength of each individual opponent the
team has played.
The elegant part about it is that once the data are in order it calculates the
rankings without having to iterate the way maximum likelihood or nonlinear
least squares would.  All it requires is inverting a matrix and muliplying it
by a vector.  That's the beauty of it.

The other great thing about this system is that the author tells you exactly
how he does it.  There are no hidden fudge factors.  I hate it when people
refuse to divulge how they do it.



You can find out more about it at his web site including an example.
http://www.colleyrankings.com/




Correction - Excel is supposed to do an inverse of a matrix but I couldn't get
minverse to work right.  It kept giving me a scalar (single value) instead of
a matrix.  I ended up having to run the matrix part of the example in SAS.

Alan

alandjordan2002 wrote:

> I think you should make the out of conference games a little more
> rigorous.  I could show you a way based on the way that the colley
> matrix does it.  It requires some data organization, but once its done
> you can do all the calculations on Excel.

Can you say a few more words about the Colley Matrix?  What is it? What
does it do?  Are there any references you might suggest for further
information?  Thanks and cheers!

      - Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

I think it's rather pointless to do a preseason and early season ranking like
some do. Sure, you can use data from last year, but exactly what purpose does
that serve? Unless your system is predictive, it is useless to do ratings
until you have enough data to run this season's games only.

I don't rank at all until I have enough data, which is probably going to be
late September. So my teams are rated strictly on performance this season
regardless of who they are or what they did last year.

-Brad Kiser







>===== Original Message From "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@...> =====
>Okay, the first preseason poll is out and can be seen (among other places)
>at
>
>     http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/rankings/coachpoll.html
>
>So, the question is, how do people rate teams for computer systems before
>any games are played?  In my system, all teams are rated equally before
>the season begins.  But that is only one way of doing things.  How do the
>rest of you do it?
>
>     - Pat
>
>-- Patrick E. Fleming
>-- Department of Chemistry
>-- San Jose State University
>-- pfleming@...
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>    CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In CompRatings@y..., "pete42869" <pete42869@a...> wrote:
> I would welcome any feedback on this;


I think you should make the out of conference games a little more
rigorous.  I could show you a way based on the way that the colley
matrix does it.  It requires some data organization, but once its done
you can do all the calculations on Excel.

The idea is to collapse the out of conference games as if each
conference was a single team.  Then run them through the Colley
Matrix.  There are other ways that are more advanced, but require
SAS, SPSS or some major programming.

Alan Jordan

Beginning last year, I took the previous season's ratings and used that
as a seed for the few 4-5 games, similar to what Jeff Sagarin does.  The
actual games are weighted much more heavily than the initial rating, so
corrections are made quickly, but it tends to work well.

I'm working on a new method this year which takes into account returning
starters and possibly coaches since that seems to be a relevant
statistic, but I'm not sure how it will pan out.  We'll see.

--Jeff

On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 19:09, Patrick E. Fleming wrote:
>
> Okay, the first preseason poll is out and can be seen (among other places)
> at
>
>      http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/rankings/coachpoll.html
>
> So, the question is, how do people rate teams for computer systems before
> any games are played?  In my system, all teams are rated equally before
> the season begins.  But that is only one way of doing things.  How do the
> rest of you do it?
>
>      - Pat
>
> -- Patrick E. Fleming
> -- Department of Chemistry
> -- San Jose State University
> -- pfleming@...
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>     CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Okay, the first preseason poll is out and can be seen (among other places)
at

      http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/rankings/coachpoll.html

So, the question is, how do people rate teams for computer systems before
any games are played?  In my system, all teams are rated equally before
the season begins.  But that is only one way of doing things.  How do the
rest of you do it?

      - Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

Pat, et al,

I'm glad someone finally put down in words what I've been thinking about
all off-season -- that is if the teams had been normalized based on
their relative rankings instead of their ordinal values, that we may
have had a different contender against Miami in the Rose Bowl last
January.  The BCS officials don't seem to understand this problem, but I
think you're right in that they really don't seem to care.

On my website last year, I wrote a small piece on the use of the BCS in
a college football playoff system and mentioned that the way that the
BCS is setup is not to guarantee that the best two teams will matchup in
the BCS championship, but two highly qualified teams.  In many years,
there are truly only two great teams (1994, 1997), sometimes there's
only one (2001), sometimes there's several (1968, 1984, 1990).  The neat
thing about the old system is that there may have been more than one
ultimate bowl game to watch so it generated more interest.  The bad
thing is sometimes, that didn't solve anything.  The new system takes
that interest out though, without giving the next best teams the chance
to prove themselves.  In addition, pitting what some feel to be an
unworthy opponent in a winner-takes-all game can have huge
repercussion.  Had Nebraska actually beaten Miami last January, the
whole system could have fallen apart.  A playoff system would correct
these problems.

As for this year's changes, I don't see it as being neutral, but instead
it will likely be less consistent due to the fewer amount of computers,
more convoluted to the general public, and favors teams that play weaker
schedules now due to the elimination of MOV.  The BCS is toying with
things that are already accounted for in many computer programs, double
counting others like SoS, and generally making a mockery of the whole
process.  The problem, IMHO, is that either they just don't get it, or
are intentionally trying to cause controversy where none needs to
exist.  I would not be surprised if there were 4-5 teams that "qualify"
for the BCS title game this year.

The bottom line is that I believe that a playoff is necessary, and not
unattainable with the current system.  I urge people to go and read my
little article at http://www.comprank.com/opinions.html#bcs and comment
if you like.  I'm not sure that my idea is a silver bullet solution, but
it has got to be better than what we have now.

In any case, looking forward to 2002 college football!  Only 24 more
days!

Jeff Imes
http://www.comprank.com

I suggested earlier the changes to the BCS as a topic for discussion.  So
here are my two cents.  I think the changes are completely neutral in
terms of what they will fix.  I think that this is true for a couple of
reasons.

First, the question of whether to include a margin of victory or not is
not a simple black and white issue.  I think it is useful to include a
variety of ratings systems that do things in many different ways.  This
is, after all, the whole point behind having more than one person vote in
the polls.  The thing is that defining the "quality" of a football team by
determining a single numerical index is an impossible task.  A football
team is too complex a system.  Some teams are good because of offense,
some because of defense, some because of coaching, etc.  Not all systems
will treat these criteria equally so naturally, some teams will do better
than others in certain rating systems because the teams' particular
strengths are being rewarded disproportionately in a specific system.
For that reason, it only makes sense to have a variety of different
systems included.

That said, I think the BCS is screwing things up unnecessarily because
they don't seem to be able (interested?) to do simple math.  In both the
polls and the computer ratings, there is a measure not only of ranking,
but also of how close one team is to another.  Using only the ordinal
ranking and ignoring the actual average rating (or total points in the
polls) is simply unnecessary and distorts the final results.  For example,
the top team could be three touchdowns a game better than the second place
team, but by using only the ordinal ranking, the top team is exactly one
point better than the second place team.  Likewise, the second place team
could be a thousandth of a point "Better" than the third place team - and
yet the ordinals make #2 exactly one point better than #3.  Why?  This is
college football for crying out loud - surely the BCS can find someone who
understands statistics!  For a better and more in-depth discussion of
these problems, see:

      http://www.angelfire.com/ne2/bcs_exposed/

But finally, I don't think that any changes to the system will prevent
people from complaining.  The third place finisher will always claim they
deserve a spot in the championship game.  But then again, a playoff system
won't help either.  The ninth place finisher will complain in an
eight-team playoff, so what's the difference?  The only objection I have
to the BCS is how teams are chosen for the non-championship bowl games.
For example, if BYU won out last year, they should have gone to a BCS
Bowl. Marshall and Tulane should have had more consideration a couple of
years ago.  Sure - they don't play in the power conferences, but they
still managed to beat everyone who agreed to play them.  What more can you
ask of a team?

      - Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

I would welcome any feedback on this;

I'm a college football fan and follow the various ratings fairly
close, but much more interested in a specific topic every year.

I've always been gripped by the annual debate about which is the
toughest conference, and always get disgusted because I rarely see an
unbiased opinion on this.

Keeping in mind that I am no math mathematician (I'm in the process
of trying to pass prob & stats for the 2nd time), and my relatively
low-budget cheesy formula for determining this is not mathematically
oriented, I would like for some of you (as college football fans more
than anything else) to take a look at my site & give me an honest
opinion.

I also run a NCAA Tournament website at www.tournamentfacts.com, full
of stats & trivia more than anything else.  My college football
conference ratings URL is www.angelfire.com/sports/conferenceratings -
Basically, I am just curious if anyone considers this a good
barometer to use (without the use of mathematical power ratings &
such), or is it just plain cheesy/hokey & a waste of my time.

I am considering purchasing a domain name & moving it from my free
server.  Any comments are appreciated.

It's a very bad idea, IMHO.  Any statistician will tell you that
having more data is preferable to less, and what they've effectively
done is limit the amount of data that they can use.  Most systems,
including mine, put caps on the MOV and that works well to counter
against RUTS'ing.  To ignore it altogether is basically saying that it
really only matters who you play and if you win.  That's far too
little to consider.

For example, if Team A and Team B play the same schedule, but don't
play each other, then if they both beat all the same teams, it
wouldn't matter if Team A won every game by 40 points and Team B won
by one point -- in the eyes of the BCS, they're identical quality
teams.  Asinine.

Their other big decision to tweak the BCS formula by only throwing out
the worst score of the computers is a step in the wrong direction too.
  At least be consistent with statistics and throw out both the best
and the worst, but now they have a system that can be skewed by a
system that ranks teams too high.  Basically, they didn't learn
anything over the past few years -- terribly unfortunate for college
football.

One thing that I really don't appreciate it the strong-arm tactics of
the BCS to make the computers do something the authors never intended
for their systems.  You can't enforce that on the writers and the
coaches, so why make the computers do it?  Here's the bottom line --
if you don't like the way a computer does things, then don't use it,
but don't make us create intentionally imperfect systems just because
you don't like it.  Find some other system to do your bidding -- I'll
keep doing it my way, which I feel is pretty accurate now after years
of work.

[steps off soapbox...]

Later,
Jeff
www.comprank.com


--- In CompRatings@y..., "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@s...> wrote:
>
> As one suggestion for a topic of discussion, what are people's
feelings on
> the BCS descision to drop margin of victory from the computer
ratings
> portion?  Good thing? Bad thing? neutral?

To me it's a terrible thing. If the idea is to get the best estimate for how
strong a team is, how can you just throw out how badly they beat other teams?

I heard a guy call in to a local sports talk show a few weeks ago, discussing
this topic. He said when he devised his system, he simulated with a wide
variety of parameters, and to judge how well it did, looked at how well it
retrodicted the games from that year. According to these tests, the most
accurate way to rank the teams was to have no cap at all.

I personally have a cap on mine, but I use a special formula anyway to
consider other MOV factors.

As a statistician, my opinion is that it is asinine to throw away valuable
information like that. Their reasoning is terrible too, thinking that it will
keep coaches from running up the score. We all know that MOV has a larger
effect on poll voters than it ever does on computers anyway.

-Brad














>===== Original Message From "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@...> =====
>Robert B. Kiser wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>
>   Hi Robert and welcome.  This will be the first full college football
>season for the CompRatings mailing list.  I hope we can have some lively
>and insightful discussion (emphasis on the latter of course.)  I hope
>everyoen will feel encouraged to follow your lead and introduce themselves
>and  maybe share a little bit about their opinions, philosophies,
>mathematics and any other spects of their ratings systems.
>
>As one suggestion for a topic of discussion, what are people's feelings on
>the BCS descision to drop margin of victory from the computer ratings
>portion?  Good thing? Bad thing? neutral?
>
>I hope everyone is having a safe and enjoyable summer.  cheers!
>
>     - Pat
>
>-- Patrick E. Fleming
>-- Department of Chemistry
>-- San Jose State University
>-- pfleming@...
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>    CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Robert B. Kiser wrote:

> Hello all,

    Hi Robert and welcome.  This will be the first full college football
season for the CompRatings mailing list.  I hope we can have some lively
and insightful discussion (emphasis on the latter of course.)  I hope
everyoen will feel encouraged to follow your lead and introduce themselves
and  maybe share a little bit about their opinions, philosophies,
mathematics and any other spects of their ratings systems.

As one suggestion for a topic of discussion, what are people's feelings on
the BCS descision to drop margin of victory from the computer ratings
portion?  Good thing? Bad thing? neutral?

I hope everyone is having a safe and enjoyable summer.  cheers!

      - Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

Hello all,

I've just finished my ranking system and have put up a very crude website with
the results I have so far. You can check out my rankings for the 1996-2001
seasons at

http://web.utk.edu/~rkiser/kiser-gh6/index.html

I look forward to discussing the season and the rankings with you all.

-Brad Kiser

The BCS system itself is to blame for the choice of Nebraska to play Miami
in the Rose Bowl, not the computers.  Before the bowl games were played,
you could make the case that any of Oregon, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee,
Texas, Maryland, LSU, and perhaps even Nebraska, were all on or near the
same level.  To arbitrarily select just one of these teams is asking for
controversy.  A playoff to determine who gets to play in the MNC would have
been the only acceptable method of selecting the two best teams for the
championship game.

A few weeks ago, I published a short essay about this on my website
regarding how the BCS and a playoff can co-exist.  It may not be the
perfect solution, but it's better than what we have now, addresses the
issue of a playoff, and will allow the BCS to continue to play an important
role in determining who qualifies for the BCS games.  You can check it out
at http://www.comprank.com/opinions.html#bcs

Thanks,
Jeff

At 01:10 AM 1/5/02 -0800, you wrote:

>Okay - the 2001 season is over inc ollege football.  Miami managed to
>crush Nebraska in the Rose Bowl.  Given how the other BCS bowl games went
>(namely the number of blowouts) might it have made more sense for Oregon
>to be the Rose Bowl opponent of Miami?
>
>Given that it was the computer polls that managed to give Nebraska the nod
>over Oregon, what does this all mean?  Should there be changes? and if so,
>what?
>
>      - Pat
>
>-- Patrick E. Fleming
>-- Department of Chemistry
>-- San Jose State University
>-- pfleming@...
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>     CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Okay - the 2001 season is over inc ollege football.  Miami managed to
crush Nebraska in the Rose Bowl.  Given how the other BCS bowl games went
(namely the number of blowouts) might it have made more sense for Oregon
to be the Rose Bowl opponent of Miami?

Given that it was the computer polls that managed to give Nebraska the nod
over Oregon, what does this all mean?  Should there be changes? and if so,
what?

      - Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
CompRatings group:

Should BYU be included in the Bowl
Championship Series?

   o yes
   o no


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CompRatings/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

The following CompRatings poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Do the changes to the BCS system improve
the selection of the bowl participants?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- They don't change it to any important degree, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Yes, 0 votes, 0.00%
- No, 0 votes, 0.00%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CompRatings

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/

UCLA drops to #3 as playing Cal has affected their strength of schedule,
even thoughthe bruins beat the bears by a substantial margin.  go
figure.  Here are the numbers . . .flame on!

      - Pat

The Fleming System (TFS 2.0) for Division I-A College football.
(following October 20, 2001)


  Rank School                      Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Nebraska                   ( 8 -  0 -  0)    75.799     52.549
    2) Oklahoma                   ( 7 -  0 -  0)    75.453     53.453
    3) UCLA                       ( 6 -  0 -  0)    75.144     54.311
    4) Michigan                   ( 5 -  1 -  0)    74.264     57.931
    5) Tennessee                  ( 4 -  1 -  0)    73.180     59.080
    6) Virginia Tech              ( 6 -  0 -  0)    71.571     46.738
    7) Stanford                   ( 4 -  1 -  0)    70.658     58.858
    8) Texas                      ( 6 -  1 -  0)    69.742     53.813
    9) Washington State           ( 6 -  0 -  0)    69.013     48.680
   10) Miami (Fl)                 ( 5 -  0 -  0)    68.898     45.098

   11) Illinois                   ( 6 -  1 -  0)    68.223     54.152
   12) Florida                    ( 5 -  1 -  0)    67.107     50.024
   13) Oregon                     ( 6 -  1 -  0)    66.701     52.058
   14) Maryland                   ( 7 -  0 -  0)    65.999     46.856
   15) Washington                 ( 5 -  1 -  0)    65.109     53.775
   16) Georgia                    ( 5 -  1 -  0)    64.661     51.577
   17) Texas A&M                  ( 5 -  1 -  0)    64.327     49.910
   18) South Carolina             ( 6 -  1 -  0)    63.968     50.110
   19) Iowa State                 ( 4 -  1 -  0)    63.670     51.570
   20) North Carolina             ( 5 -  3 -  0)    63.577     59.014

   21) Louisville                 ( 5 -  1 -  0)    63.428     49.511
   22) Georgia Tech               ( 4 -  2 -  0)    63.067     49.734
   23) Auburn                     ( 6 -  1 -  0)    62.853     52.353
   24) Syracuse                   ( 6 -  2 -  0)    62.583     51.771
   25) Colorado                   ( 5 -  2 -  0)    62.248     53.105
   26) Purdue                     ( 4 -  1 -  0)    61.988     54.688
   27) Brigham Young              ( 7 -  0 -  0)    61.748     41.676
   28) Mississippi                ( 4 -  1 -  0)    61.321     49.321
   29) Iowa                       ( 4 -  2 -  0)    58.899     50.066
   30) Utah                       ( 5 -  1 -  0)    58.534     45.534

   31) Fresno State               ( 6 -  1 -  0)    58.431     46.574
   32) Ohio State                 ( 4 -  2 -  0)    58.374     50.457
   33) Louisiana State            ( 4 -  2 -  0)    58.253     50.420
   34) Texas Tech                 ( 3 -  3 -  0)    57.886     55.386
   35) Florida State              ( 4 -  2 -  0)    57.786     49.952
   36) Marshall                   ( 4 -  1 -  0)    57.714     45.914
   37) Toledo                     ( 5 -  1 -  0)    57.632     42.215
   38) Boston College             ( 5 -  2 -  0)    57.049     46.692
   39) Alabama                    ( 3 -  4 -  0)    56.016     55.945
   40) Clemson                    ( 3 -  2 -  0)    54.796     55.096

   41) Miami (Oh)                 ( 5 -  2 -  0)    54.767     47.696
   42) Michigan State             ( 3 -  2 -  0)    54.636     50.036
   43) Bowling Green              ( 5 -  2 -  0)    54.602     44.031
   44) Kansas State               ( 2 -  4 -  0)    54.068     58.735
   45) Northwestern               ( 4 -  2 -  0)    53.918     47.585
   46) Arkansas                   ( 2 -  3 -  0)    53.886     59.886
   47) Wisconsin                  ( 3 -  4 -  0)    53.572     55.857
   48) Notre Dame                 ( 3 -  3 -  0)    53.408     54.408
   49) Arizona State              ( 4 -  2 -  0)    51.739     44.156
   50) Western Michigan           ( 3 -  3 -  0)    51.187     52.104

   51) North Carolina State       ( 3 -  3 -  0)    50.583     51.000
   52) Oregon State               ( 2 -  4 -  0)    50.580     57.413
   53) Southern Mississippi       ( 3 -  2 -  0)    50.472     44.372
   54) Rice                       ( 6 -  1 -  0)    50.411     41.125
   55) Central Florida            ( 3 -  3 -  0)    50.408     49.408
   56) Minnesota                  ( 2 -  4 -  0)    50.233     54.400
   57) Middle Tennessee State     ( 5 -  2 -  0)    50.005     40.362
   58) East Carolina              ( 3 -  3 -  0)    49.907     47.740
   59) Southern California        ( 2 -  5 -  0)    49.788     56.073
   60) Air Force                  ( 3 -  2 -  0)    49.248     47.148

   61) Missouri                   ( 2 -  3 -  0)    49.248     57.648
   62) Baylor                     ( 2 -  4 -  0)    48.992     59.409
   63) Kansas                     ( 1 -  4 -  0)    48.796     63.996
   64) Troy State                 ( 1 -  3 -  0)    48.536     59.536
   65) Texas Christian            ( 4 -  2 -  0)    48.239     40.739
   66) Cincinnati                 ( 4 -  2 -  0)    48.122     41.872
   67) Virginia                   ( 2 -  4 -  0)    47.847     55.013
   68) Louisiana Tech             ( 3 -  3 -  0)    47.772     44.189
   69) Arizona                    ( 3 -  4 -  0)    47.444     50.730
   70) Wake Forest                ( 2 -  3 -  0)    47.425     51.725

   71) Boise State                ( 4 -  3 -  0)    47.384     44.741
   72) California                 ( 0 -  6 -  0)    46.990     67.656
   73) West Virginia              ( 2 -  4 -  0)    46.924     54.008
   74) Penn State                 ( 1 -  4 -  0)    46.310     61.910
   75) Colorado State             ( 3 -  4 -  0)    45.541     47.112
   76) Northern Illinois          ( 2 -  4 -  0)    45.463     52.796
   77) Memphis                    ( 3 -  3 -  0)    45.439     46.856
   78) Oklahoma State             ( 1 -  5 -  0)    45.372     57.538
   79) Indiana                    ( 1 -  5 -  0)    45.114     58.031
   80) Kentucky                   ( 1 -  6 -  0)    44.684     60.326

   81) South Florida              ( 3 -  3 -  0)    44.440     43.523
   82) New Mexico                 ( 2 -  4 -  0)    44.158     47.658
   83) Ball State                 ( 2 -  3 -  0)    43.548     48.948
   84) Mississippi State          ( 1 -  5 -  0)    43.443     57.693
   85) New Mexico State           ( 3 -  4 -  0)    42.709     45.566
   86) Akron                      ( 2 -  5 -  0)    41.920     50.991
   87) Temple                     ( 2 -  4 -  0)    41.890     49.974
   88) Nevada - Las Vegas         ( 2 -  5 -  0)    41.605     47.320
   89) Vanderbilt                 ( 0 -  5 -  0)    40.700     59.500
   90) North Texas                ( 2 -  5 -  0)    39.752     48.895

   91) Ohio                       ( 1 -  5 -  0)    38.439     49.772
   92) Rutgers                    ( 2 -  5 -  0)    37.884     48.670
   93) Alabama - Birmingham       ( 2 -  4 -  0)    37.617     45.701
   94) Kent                       ( 2 -  4 -  0)    37.581     46.081
   95) Utah State                 ( 0 -  5 -  0)    37.421     56.121
   96) Connecticut                ( 2 -  3 -  0)    36.975     41.475
   97) Tulane                     ( 1 -  6 -  0)    36.685     50.613
   98) Nevada                     ( 1 -  5 -  0)    35.626     47.043
   99) Wyoming                    ( 1 -  5 -  0)    35.371     49.871
  100) Hawaii                     ( 3 -  2 -  0)    35.179     32.079

  101) Pittsburgh                 ( 0 -  5 -  0)    34.976     57.276
  102) Duke                       ( 0 -  7 -  0)    34.350     55.207
  103) Central Michigan           ( 1 -  4 -  0)    33.720     47.420
  104) Louisiana - Monroe         ( 1 -  4 -  0)    33.196     49.996
  105) San Diego State            ( 1 -  5 -  0)    33.075     48.992
  106) Arkansas State             ( 1 -  4 -  0)    33.046     48.946
  107) Southern Methodist         ( 1 -  4 -  0)    32.021     42.521
  108) San Jose State             ( 1 -  5 -  0)    30.830     44.497
  109) Army                       ( 1 -  5 -  0)    30.730     45.064
  110) Navy                       ( 0 -  6 -  0)    30.091     49.925

  111) Louisiana - Lafayette      ( 1 -  5 -  0)    30.003     44.086
  112) Houston                    ( 0 -  6 -  0)    29.447     48.781
  113) Idaho                      ( 0 -  7 -  0)    29.024     50.238
  114) Buffalo                    ( 1 -  6 -  0)    28.678     44.749
  115) Eastern Michigan           ( 0 -  4 -  0)    24.802     49.427
  116) Texas - El Paso            ( 1 -  5 -  0)    23.415     38.749
  117) Tulsa                      ( 0 -  5 -  0)    18.924     41.424

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    14 San Diego State             7 Colorado State           . Upset!
.    22 Texas Christian            48 Tulane                   . Upset!
.    20 Toledo                     24 Ball State               . Upset!
.    63 Indiana                    32 Wisconsin                . Upset!
.    37 Buffalo                    20 Connecticut              . Upset!
.     7 South Carolina             10 Arkansas                 . Upset!
.    35 Boise State                30 Fresno State             . Upset!
.    34 Northern Illinois          44 Kent                     . Upset!
.    21 Middle Tennessee State     24 North Texas              . Upset!
.    18 Michigan                   23 Washington               . Upset!


Average Game Outcome Measure = 20.2444
Standard Deviation of fit = 11.9066

These rankings are based on 354 Division I-A College Football games
played.

11.58% of the games are upsets.


-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
CompRatings group:

Do the changes to the BCS system improve
the selection of the bowl participants?

   o Yes
   o No
   o They don't change it to any important degree


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CompRatings/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

--- In CompRatings@y..., "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@s...> wrote:
>
> TFS is available on the World Wide Web at:
>
>      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS - flat) for the National Football League.
(following October 1, 2001)


  Rank Team                        Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) St. Louis                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    69.635     59.635
    2) San Francisco              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    60.503     57.169
    3) Miami                      ( 2 -  1 -  0)    60.134     56.801
    4) Philadelphia               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    58.269     54.936
    5) San Diego                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    57.931     47.931
    6) Cincinnati                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    57.493     54.160
    7) Baltimore                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    57.442     54.108
    8) Oakland                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    56.266     52.933
    9) Green Bay                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    54.436     44.436
   10) Denver                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.161     50.827

   11) Atlanta                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.013     50.680
   12) Seattle                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    51.911     55.245
   13) Cleveland                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    51.199     47.865
   14) NY Giants                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    50.954     47.620
   15) Chicago                    ( 1 -  1 -  0)    50.671     50.671
   16) Jacksonville               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    48.868     45.535
   17) NY Jets                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.860     51.193
   18) Carolina                   ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.450     50.783
   19) New England                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.107     50.441
   20) Kansas City                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.753     50.087

   21) Indianapolis               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    45.969     42.636
   22) Tennessee                  ( 0 -  2 -  0)    44.501     54.501
   23) Arizona                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    44.087     54.087
   24) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    43.900     47.234
   25) Tampa Bay                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    43.580     43.580
   26) Dallas                     ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.260     53.260
   27) Washington                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.040     53.040
   28) Detroit                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    42.817     52.817
   29) New Orleans                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    41.947     41.947
   30) Pittsburgh                 ( 1 -  1 -  0)    40.904     40.904

   31) Buffalo                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    32.940     42.940

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    45 Indianapolis               24 NY Jets                  .Upset!
.    10 Baltimore                  21 Cincinnati               .
.    16 Tampa Bay                  20 Minnesota                .
.    10 Tampa Bay                   6 Dallas                   .
.    14 Cincinnati                 28 San Diego                .
.     9 Seattle                     6 Cleveland                .
.    10 NY Jets                     3 New England              .
.    13 Indianapolis               44 New England              .
.    23 Cleveland                  14 Jacksonville             .
.    20 NY Giants                  31 Denver                   .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 10.0000
Standard Deviation of fit = 5.5873

These rankings are based on 43 National Football League games played.

--- In CompRatings@y..., "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@s...> wrote:
>
> TFS is available on the World Wide Web at:
>
>      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS 1.0) for the National Football League.
(following October 1, 2001)


  Rank Team                        Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) St. Louis                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    72.925     60.592
    2) Philadelphia               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    69.089     54.422
    3) Green Bay                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    66.794     40.461
    4) San Diego                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    65.776     45.943
    5) Cincinnati                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    61.553     59.553
    6) San Francisco              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    59.868     59.868
    7) Baltimore                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    59.355     56.021
    8) Denver                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    58.933     50.433
    9) Atlanta                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    58.823     48.823
   10) Oakland                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    56.931     49.264

   11) NY Giants                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.316     50.316
   12) New England                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    53.527     51.361
   13) Miami                      ( 2 -  1 -  0)    52.819     56.485
   14) Cleveland                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    51.285     44.952
   15) Kansas City                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    49.539     47.539
   16) Carolina                   ( 1 -  2 -  0)    48.973     55.473
   17) Jacksonville               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    48.381     41.715
   18) NY Jets                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.856     52.690
   19) Chicago                    ( 1 -  1 -  0)    47.578     50.078
   20) Seattle                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    45.435     59.102

   21) Dallas                     ( 0 -  3 -  0)    44.906     59.240
   22) Indianapolis               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    44.673     40.673
   23) Tampa Bay                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    42.854     42.854
   24) New Orleans                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    42.476     37.476
   25) Detroit                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    41.040     59.040
   26) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    40.802     46.468
   27) Tennessee                  ( 0 -  2 -  0)    39.600     50.600
   28) Arizona                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    37.628     58.878
   29) Pittsburgh                 ( 1 -  1 -  0)    34.259     34.509
   30) Washington                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    31.370     60.703

   31) Buffalo                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    20.636     40.469

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    45 Indianapolis               24 NY Jets                  .Upset!
.    13 Indianapolis               44 New England              .
.    10 NY Jets                     3 New England              .Upset!
.    14 Cincinnati                 28 San Diego                .
.    10 Baltimore                  21 Cincinnati               .
.     9 Seattle                     6 Cleveland                .Upset!
.    14 Seattle                    38 Oakland                  .
.    13 NY Giants                   3 Kansas City              .
.    15 Oakland                    18 Miami                    .Upset!
.    20 Baltimore                  13 Denver                   .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 15.4070
Standard Deviation of fit = 8.3278

These rankings are based on 43 National Football League games played.

--- In CompRatings@y..., "Patrick E. Fleming" <pfleming@s...> wrote:
>
> TFS is available on the World Wide web at:
>
>      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS - flat) for Division I-A College football.
(following September 29, 2001)


  Rank School                      Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) South Carolina             ( 4 -  0 -  0)    64.996     54.996
    2) UCLA                       ( 4 -  0 -  0)    62.886     52.886
    3) Washington                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    62.847     52.847
    4) Stanford                   ( 3 -  0 -  0)    62.475     52.475
    5) Washington State           ( 4 -  0 -  0)    62.320     52.320
    6) Oklahoma                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    62.118     52.118
    7) Michigan                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    60.213     55.213
    8) Fresno State               ( 5 -  0 -  0)    60.199     50.199
    9) Tennessee                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    59.961     49.961
   10) Florida                    ( 4 -  0 -  0)    59.899     49.899

   11) Oregon                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    59.549     49.549
   12) Texas                      ( 4 -  0 -  0)    59.266     49.266
   13) Toledo                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    59.145     49.145
   14) Illinois                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    58.853     53.853
   15) Maryland                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    58.424     48.424
   16) Purdue                     ( 3 -  0 -  0)    57.672     47.672
   17) Nebraska                   ( 5 -  0 -  0)    57.400     47.400
   18) Texas A&M                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    57.144     47.144
   19) Northwestern               ( 3 -  0 -  0)    56.855     46.855
   20) Kansas State               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    56.800     53.466

   21) Marshall                   ( 1 -  1 -  0)    56.233     56.233
   22) Southern Mississippi       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    56.208     46.208
   23) Iowa State                 ( 2 -  0 -  0)    56.107     46.107
   24) Arizona                    ( 3 -  1 -  0)    55.856     50.856
   25) Georgia                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.721     52.388
   26) Air Force                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    55.295     55.295
   27) Colorado                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    55.165     50.165
   28) Boise State                ( 2 -  2 -  0)    55.095     55.095
   29) Virginia Tech              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    55.025     45.025
   30) Louisville                 ( 3 -  1 -  0)    54.944     49.944

   31) Alabama                    ( 2 -  2 -  0)    54.854     54.854
   32) Arizona State              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.824     51.491
   33) Mississippi State          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    54.312     57.645
   34) Iowa                       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    54.222     44.222
   35) Wisconsin                  ( 2 -  2 -  0)    54.133     54.133
   36) Ohio State                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.071     50.738
   37) North Carolina             ( 2 -  3 -  0)    54.034     56.034
   38) Middle Tennessee State     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    53.998     43.998
   39) Michigan State             ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.706     50.372
   40) Oregon State               ( 1 -  2 -  0)    53.593     56.926

   41) Virginia                   ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.529     50.196
   42) Clemson                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.202     49.868
   43) Brigham Young              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    53.173     43.173
   44) Florida State              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.618     47.618
   45) Bowling Green              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.567     47.567
   46) Texas Tech                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    52.168     48.835
   47) Boston College             ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.014     47.014
   48) Utah                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    51.827     46.827
   49) Georgia Tech               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    51.757     48.424
   50) Syracuse                   ( 3 -  2 -  0)    51.692     49.692

   51) Baylor                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    51.544     48.211
   52) Miami (Fl)                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    51.405     41.405
   53) Northern Illinois          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    50.956     54.289
   54) Southern California        ( 1 -  3 -  0)    50.587     55.587
   55) Texas Christian            ( 3 -  1 -  0)    50.225     45.225
   56) Auburn                     ( 3 -  1 -  0)    50.149     45.149
   57) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    50.082     53.416
   58) Rice                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    50.011     45.011
   59) Western Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    49.780     53.114
   60) Oklahoma State             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    49.780     53.113

   61) Louisiana State            ( 2 -  1 -  0)    49.655     46.322
   62) Miami (Oh)                 ( 2 -  2 -  0)    49.373     49.373
   63) California                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    49.298     59.298
   64) Idaho                      ( 0 -  4 -  0)    49.030     59.030
   65) Kansas                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    49.025     59.025
   66) Arkansas                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    48.535     53.535
   67) San Diego State            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    48.471     53.471
   68) Central Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    48.179     51.513
   69) Akron                      ( 2 -  2 -  0)    48.113     48.113
   70) Memphis                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    48.042     51.375

   71) Colorado State             ( 2 -  2 -  0)    47.910     47.910
   72) West Virginia              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    47.787     47.787
   73) Wake Forest                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.771     51.105
   74) North Carolina State       ( 2 -  1 -  0)    47.745     44.411
   75) New Mexico State           ( 1 -  4 -  0)    47.693     53.693
   76) Mississippi                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    47.668     47.668
   77) Temple                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.363     50.697
   78) Notre Dame                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    46.083     56.083
   79) Louisiana Tech             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    45.988     49.322
   80) Troy State                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    45.699     55.699

   81) Wyoming                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    45.568     48.901
   82) Alabama - Birmingham       ( 1 -  2 -  0)    45.414     48.747
   83) Kentucky                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    45.187     50.187
   84) Missouri                   ( 0 -  2 -  0)    44.984     54.984
   85) New Mexico                 ( 1 -  3 -  0)    44.894     49.894
   86) South Florida              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    44.870     44.870
   87) Cincinnati                 ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.820     48.154
   88) Central Florida            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    44.318     49.318
   89) Eastern Michigan           ( 0 -  2 -  0)    44.102     54.102
   90) Texas - El Paso            ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.035     47.369

   91) Louisiana - Monroe         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.863     53.863
   92) Arkansas State             ( 0 -  2 -  0)    43.633     53.633
   93) Nevada - Las Vegas         ( 0 -  4 -  0)    43.605     53.605
   94) San Jose State             ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.525     53.525
   95) Louisiana - Lafayette      ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.429     53.429
   96) Penn State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.253     53.253
   97) Duke                       ( 0 -  4 -  0)    43.253     53.253
   98) Connecticut                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    43.179     46.512
   99) Houston                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.167     53.167
  100) Vanderbilt                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    43.000     53.000

  101) Rutgers                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    42.824     47.824
  102) Nevada                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    42.435     45.769
  103) North Texas                ( 0 -  4 -  0)    42.345     52.345
  104) East Carolina              ( 1 -  2 -  0)    42.273     45.606
  105) Tulsa                      ( 0 -  2 -  0)    42.117     52.117
  106) Buffalo                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    41.687     46.687
  107) Utah State                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    41.650     51.650
  108) Indiana                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    41.214     51.214
  109) Ohio                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    40.669     50.669
  110) Navy                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    40.378     50.378

  111) Kent                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    40.041     50.041
  112) Ball State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    38.236     48.236
  113) Pittsburgh                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    38.138     48.138
  114) Southern Methodist         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    37.986     47.986
  115) Army                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    37.416     47.416
  116) Tulane                     ( 0 -  4 -  0)    37.355     47.355
  117) Hawaii                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    36.223     46.223

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    37 Buffalo                    20 Connecticut              .
Upset!
.     7 Syracuse                   13 Georgia Tech             .
.    10 North Texas                37 Oklahoma                 .
.    26 Virginia                   24 Clemson                  .
.    20 Connecticut                19 Rutgers                  .
.    14 San Diego State             7 Colorado State           .
.    17 Virginia                   26 Wisconsin                .
.     6 Texas - El Paso            26 New Mexico               .
.    31 Rutgers                    15 Buffalo                  .
.    20 Illinois                   45 Michigan                 .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 10.0000
Standard Deviation of fit = 4.2008

These rankings are based on 198 Division I-A College Football games
played.

>
> TFS is available on the World Wide web at:
>
>      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS 1.0) for Division I-A College football.
(following September 29, 2001)


  Rank School                      Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Florida                    ( 4 -  0 -  0)    79.273     46.586
    2) Stanford                   ( 3 -  0 -  0)    76.707     60.874
    3) Texas                      ( 4 -  0 -  0)    76.658     49.408
    4) Oklahoma                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    76.592     56.592
    5) Kansas State               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    76.194     61.360
    6) Toledo                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    72.270     48.270
    7) Washington State           ( 4 -  0 -  0)    72.188     47.438
    8) Tennessee                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    72.059     55.725
    9) UCLA                       ( 4 -  0 -  0)    70.605     53.730
   10) Miami (Fl)                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    70.352     41.102

   11) Virginia Tech              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    70.137     38.012
   12) Michigan                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    68.894     55.394
   13) Nebraska                   ( 5 -  0 -  0)    68.871     43.121
   14) Washington                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    67.471     50.471
   15) South Carolina             ( 4 -  0 -  0)    66.500     57.125
   16) Maryland                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    65.945     45.882
   17) Colorado                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    65.442     49.817
   18) Oregon                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    65.077     53.202
   19) Illinois                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    64.742     56.742
   20) Fresno State               ( 5 -  0 -  0)    64.640     49.940

   21) Arizona State              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    63.990     51.990
   22) Georgia Tech               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    63.883     48.133
   23) Alabama                    ( 2 -  2 -  0)    63.144     58.769
   24) Southern California        ( 1 -  3 -  0)    63.124     64.374
   25) Iowa                       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    62.429     38.845
   26) Texas A&M                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    62.336     45.170
   27) North Carolina             ( 2 -  3 -  0)    61.372     65.972
   28) Brigham Young              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    61.292     37.729
   29) Florida State              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    60.009     47.259
   30) Syracuse                   ( 3 -  2 -  0)    59.760     55.860

   31) Southern Mississippi       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    59.757     44.590
   32) Louisiana State            ( 2 -  1 -  0)    59.480     47.813
   33) Wisconsin                  ( 2 -  2 -  0)    59.345     57.595
   34) Northwestern               ( 3 -  0 -  0)    59.344     43.844
   35) Marshall                   ( 1 -  1 -  0)    58.374     68.124
   36) Louisville                 ( 3 -  1 -  0)    58.314     48.314
   37) Middle Tennessee State     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    57.971     37.971
   38) Michigan State             ( 2 -  1 -  0)    57.304     49.637
   39) Bowling Green              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    56.974     43.724
   40) Clemson                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    56.182     53.515

   41) Mississippi State          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    55.954     63.454
   42) Iowa State                 ( 2 -  0 -  0)    55.929     35.179
   43) Georgia                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.653     45.320
   44) Ohio State                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.549     47.883
   45) Boston College             ( 3 -  1 -  0)    55.508     44.258
   46) Texas Christian            ( 3 -  1 -  0)    54.534     43.409
   47) Texas Tech                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.923     50.423
   48) Northern Illinois          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    53.836     61.669
   49) Boise State                ( 2 -  2 -  0)    53.751     51.626
   50) Arizona                    ( 3 -  1 -  0)    53.479     48.229

   51) Virginia                   ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.289     48.456
   52) Auburn                     ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.990     46.615
   53) Air Force                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    52.418     58.168
   54) Oklahoma State             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    51.041     57.374
   55) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    50.946     52.113
   56) Purdue                     ( 3 -  0 -  0)    50.845     40.678
   57) North Carolina State       ( 2 -  1 -  0)    50.656     43.156
   58) Vanderbilt                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    50.035     58.035
   59) Louisiana Tech             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    50.029     48.696
   60) Kansas                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    49.524     68.024

   61) Alabama - Birmingham       ( 1 -  2 -  0)    49.505     48.338
   62) Utah                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    49.366     45.491
   63) Mississippi                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    48.776     46.276
   64) Wake Forest                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    48.316     57.649
   65) South Florida              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    47.996     44.246
   66) Arkansas                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    47.936     58.811
   67) Penn State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    47.375     64.042
   68) East Carolina              ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.995     46.162
   69) Oregon State               ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.703     59.870
   70) West Virginia              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    46.617     45.742

   71) Western Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.252     55.418
   72) California                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    45.923     66.423
   73) Colorado State             ( 2 -  2 -  0)    45.587     43.587
   74) Notre Dame                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    45.504     62.837
   75) Memphis                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.588     54.088
   76) Nevada - Las Vegas         ( 0 -  4 -  0)    44.388     55.513
   77) New Mexico State           ( 1 -  4 -  0)    44.364     58.064
   78) Temple                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.234     52.567
   79) Central Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.063     53.063
   80) Central Florida            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    43.372     54.122

   81) Miami (Oh)                 ( 2 -  2 -  0)    43.112     48.737
   82) Missouri                   ( 0 -  2 -  0)    42.672     62.922
   83) Pittsburgh                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    42.174     59.174
   84) Utah State                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    40.972     53.222
   85) San Diego State            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    39.743     53.868
   86) Kentucky                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    39.563     53.563
   87) San Jose State             ( 0 -  3 -  0)    39.519     64.185
   88) Wyoming                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    38.965     49.632
   89) New Mexico                 ( 1 -  3 -  0)    38.225     42.350
   90) Houston                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    37.972     55.972

   91) Indiana                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    37.691     51.857
   92) Rice                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    36.723     40.411
   93) Idaho                      ( 0 -  4 -  0)    36.597     61.722
   94) North Texas                ( 0 -  4 -  0)    36.386     58.261
   95) Troy State                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    36.171     63.421
   96) Cincinnati                 ( 1 -  2 -  0)    35.735     39.735
   97) Ohio                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    35.466     45.966
   98) Akron                      ( 2 -  2 -  0)    35.352     41.977
   99) Baylor                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    34.892     38.559
  100) Rutgers                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    33.756     49.694

  101) Louisiana - Lafayette      ( 0 -  3 -  0)    33.225     56.225
  102) Louisiana - Monroe         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    32.453     60.536
  103) Texas - El Paso            ( 1 -  2 -  0)    31.218     40.052
  104) Tulane                     ( 0 -  4 -  0)    30.410     52.785
  105) Southern Methodist         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    30.406     51.740
  106) Nevada                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    30.196     43.946
  107) Duke                       ( 0 -  4 -  0)    29.841     52.341
  108) Buffalo                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    29.616     40.866
  109) Connecticut                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    28.670     44.503
  110) Navy                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    28.459     54.542

  111) Tulsa                      ( 0 -  2 -  0)    28.179     47.929
  112) Ball State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    27.888     45.222
  113) Eastern Michigan           ( 0 -  2 -  0)    27.223     56.098
  114) Kent                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    26.049     48.133
  115) Army                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    25.249     46.916
  116) Hawaii                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    24.960     33.460
  117) Arkansas State             ( 0 -  2 -  0)    21.523     45.273

Largest deviations:
------------------
.     9 Florida State              41 North Carolina           .
.    20 Illinois                   45 Michigan                 .
.    31 New Mexico State            0 Louisiana - Monroe       .
.    42 Colorado State             14 Wyoming                  .
.    37 Buffalo                    20 Connecticut              .
.    14 San Diego State             7 Colorado State           .
Upset!
.    10 Louisville                 34 Illinois                 .
.    10 Tulsa                      26 Texas - El Paso          .
.    37 Fresno State               18 Tulsa                    .
.    10 North Texas                37 Oklahoma                 .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 18.5947
Standard Deviation of fit = 7.8282

These rankings are based on 198 Division I-A College Football games
played.

TFS is available on the World Wide Web at:

      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS 2.0) for the National Football League.
(following October 1, 2001)


  Rank Team                        Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) St. Louis                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    79.885     65.719
    2) Philadelphia               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    72.140     57.474
    3) San Diego                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    69.014     46.681
    4) Baltimore                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    65.656     58.990
    5) Cincinnati                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    65.392     59.559
    6) Green Bay                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    65.323     39.490
    7) San Francisco              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    63.288     62.454
    8) Atlanta                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    62.622     50.789
    9) Miami                      ( 2 -  1 -  0)    61.728     58.228
   10) Denver                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    61.278     53.778

   11) Oakland                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    59.158     52.158
   12) NY Giants                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.727     46.894
   13) Cleveland                  ( 2 -  1 -  0)    51.759     45.759
   14) Seattle                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    51.686     61.019
   15) Chicago                    ( 1 -  1 -  0)    50.299     52.299
   16) Jacksonville               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    49.051     39.217
   17) Carolina                   ( 1 -  2 -  0)    48.129     55.629
   18) NY Jets                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.856     49.189
   19) New England                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.007     50.174
   20) Kansas City                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    43.062     49.228

   21) Tampa Bay                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    41.895     39.895
   22) Arizona                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    40.950     61.950
   23) Dallas                     ( 0 -  3 -  0)    40.850     61.017
   24) Indianapolis               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    40.273     33.440
   25) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    38.941     46.774
   26) Detroit                    ( 0 -  2 -  0)    36.541     58.541
   27) New Orleans                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    36.341     33.091
   28) Tennessee                  ( 0 -  2 -  0)    35.639     55.389
   29) Washington                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    33.800     59.133
   30) Pittsburgh                 ( 1 -  1 -  0)    30.253     30.253

   31) Buffalo                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    11.456     35.623

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    45 Indianapolis               24 NY Jets                  . Upset!
.    10 NY Jets                     3 New England              .
.    10 Baltimore                  21 Cincinnati               . Upset!
.     9 Seattle                     6 Cleveland                . Upset!
.    16 Tampa Bay                  20 Minnesota                . Upset!
.    10 Tampa Bay                   6 Dallas                   .
.    13 Indianapolis               44 New England              .
.    14 Cincinnati                 28 San Diego                .
.    23 Cleveland                  14 Jacksonville             .
.    20 Baltimore                  13 Denver                   .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 20.1279
Standard Deviation of fit = 11.4606

These rankings are based on 43 National Football League games played.



-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...

TFS is available on the World Wide web at:

      http://clouseau.chemistry.sjsu.edu/tfs/

The Fleming System (TFS 2.0) for Division I-A College football.
(following September 29, 2001)


  Rank School                      Record          Rating     Schedule
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Stanford                   ( 3 -  0 -  0)    77.858     58.358
    2) Oklahoma                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    76.484     55.234
    3) South Carolina             ( 4 -  0 -  0)    76.053     58.553
    4) UCLA                       ( 4 -  0 -  0)    75.772     55.147
    5) Washington State           ( 4 -  0 -  0)    74.637     52.762
    6) Tennessee                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    74.270     52.270
    7) Washington                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    73.954     54.454
    8) Florida                    ( 4 -  0 -  0)    73.512     49.262
    9) Toledo                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    72.724     49.974
   10) Texas                      ( 4 -  0 -  0)    71.810     49.060

   11) Kansas State               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    71.040     59.873
   12) Michigan                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    70.241     58.491
   13) Oregon                     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    69.842     51.217
   14) Nebraska                   ( 5 -  0 -  0)    69.829     45.529
   15) Fresno State               ( 5 -  0 -  0)    69.277     50.077
   16) Illinois                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    68.392     58.267
   17) Maryland                   ( 4 -  0 -  0)    67.871     45.746
   18) Texas A&M                  ( 3 -  0 -  0)    67.571     44.571
   19) Southern Mississippi       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    64.155     42.155
   20) Marshall                   ( 1 -  1 -  0)    63.875     65.875

   21) Virginia Tech              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    63.395     38.395
   22) Northwestern               ( 3 -  0 -  0)    63.365     44.198
   23) Alabama                    ( 2 -  2 -  0)    62.301     59.551
   24) Colorado                   ( 3 -  1 -  0)    62.291     50.666
   25) Georgia Tech               ( 2 -  1 -  0)    62.252     48.419
   26) Arizona State              ( 2 -  1 -  0)    62.110     53.944
   27) Louisville                 ( 3 -  1 -  0)    60.445     49.945
   28) Arizona                    ( 3 -  1 -  0)    60.437     50.437
   29) Middle Tennessee State     ( 4 -  0 -  0)    60.165     39.165
   30) Michigan State             ( 2 -  1 -  0)    59.875     51.208

   31) Wisconsin                  ( 2 -  2 -  0)    59.747     57.997
   32) North Carolina             ( 2 -  3 -  0)    58.910     63.410
   33) Mississippi State          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    58.462     65.128
   34) Bowling Green              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    58.238     45.738
   35) Miami (Fl)                 ( 3 -  0 -  0)    58.136     33.636
   36) Air Force                  ( 1 -  1 -  0)    57.827     60.577
   37) Boise State                ( 2 -  2 -  0)    57.491     57.491
   38) Brigham Young              ( 4 -  0 -  0)    57.483     36.858
   39) Iowa                       ( 3 -  0 -  0)    57.410     35.410
   40) Syracuse                   ( 3 -  2 -  0)    57.396     53.496

   41) Southern California        ( 1 -  3 -  0)    57.011     64.511
   42) Virginia                   ( 2 -  1 -  0)    56.273     49.773
   43) Iowa State                 ( 2 -  0 -  0)    56.228     34.478
   44) Georgia                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.960     48.794
   45) Boston College             ( 3 -  1 -  0)    55.953     44.453
   46) Florida State              ( 3 -  1 -  0)    55.926     45.051
   47) Purdue                     ( 3 -  0 -  0)    55.651     41.984
   48) Ohio State                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.450     48.783
   49) Clemson                    ( 2 -  1 -  0)    55.163     52.830
   50) Texas Tech                 ( 2 -  1 -  0)    54.066     48.566

   51) Oregon State               ( 1 -  2 -  0)    54.058     63.724
   52) Louisiana State            ( 2 -  1 -  0)    53.952     45.952
   53) Northern Illinois          ( 1 -  2 -  0)    53.390     61.057
   54) Minnesota                  ( 1 -  2 -  0)    52.618     54.951
   55) Texas Christian            ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.539     41.289
   56) Auburn                     ( 3 -  1 -  0)    52.283     42.408
   57) Utah                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    51.924     44.674
   58) Oklahoma State             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    49.435     58.602
   59) California                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    48.992     68.617
   60) Kansas                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    48.782     69.032

   61) Central Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    47.502     54.502
   62) Mississippi                ( 1 -  1 -  0)    47.113     45.863
   63) Western Michigan           ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.729     55.395
   64) Rice                       ( 3 -  1 -  0)    46.569     41.069
   65) Temple                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.386     54.553
   66) Wake Forest                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    46.336     54.170
   67) New Mexico State           ( 1 -  4 -  0)    46.124     58.524
   68) Memphis                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    45.820     53.654
   69) Arkansas                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    45.460     57.710
   70) Colorado State             ( 2 -  2 -  0)    45.302     45.302

   71) West Virginia              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    45.187     44.062
   72) North Carolina State       ( 2 -  1 -  0)    44.960     38.627
   73) Miami (Oh)                 ( 2 -  2 -  0)    44.890     46.640
   74) San Diego State            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    44.669     56.419
   75) Idaho                      ( 0 -  4 -  0)    44.130     66.630
   76) Louisiana Tech             ( 1 -  2 -  0)    44.079     47.913
   77) Troy State                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    43.997     64.997
   78) Notre Dame                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    42.758     65.758
   79) South Florida              ( 2 -  2 -  0)    42.054     40.679
   80) Missouri                   ( 0 -  2 -  0)    41.784     64.034

   81) Wyoming                    ( 1 -  2 -  0)    41.519     49.686
   82) Baylor                     ( 2 -  1 -  0)    41.274     40.607
   83) Vanderbilt                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    40.916     58.249
   84) New Mexico                 ( 1 -  3 -  0)    40.727     45.602
   85) Alabama - Birmingham       ( 1 -  2 -  0)    40.550     47.383
   86) Central Florida            ( 1 -  3 -  0)    39.964     50.839
   87) Kentucky                   ( 1 -  3 -  0)    39.444     51.319
   88) San Jose State             ( 0 -  3 -  0)    39.304     60.471
   89) East Carolina              ( 1 -  2 -  0)    38.712     43.712
   90) Akron                      ( 2 -  2 -  0)    38.631     40.881

   91) Nevada - Las Vegas         ( 0 -  4 -  0)    38.311     56.686
   92) Houston                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    37.139     56.972
   93) Penn State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    36.598     58.431
   94) Louisiana - Lafayette      ( 0 -  3 -  0)    36.479     58.979
   95) Utah State                 ( 0 -  4 -  0)    36.184     54.309
   96) Louisiana - Monroe         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    35.267     59.933
   97) Texas - El Paso            ( 1 -  2 -  0)    35.142     42.809
   98) Cincinnati                 ( 1 -  2 -  0)    34.703     40.870
   99) Duke                       ( 0 -  4 -  0)    34.408     55.533
  100) Rutgers                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    33.965     46.340

  101) North Texas                ( 0 -  4 -  0)    33.161     56.286
  102) Connecticut                ( 1 -  2 -  0)    32.922     42.756
  103) Nevada                     ( 1 -  2 -  0)    32.728     41.894
  104) Navy                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    32.697     54.864
  105) Eastern Michigan           ( 0 -  2 -  0)    32.550     57.300
  106) Indiana                    ( 0 -  3 -  0)    31.945     50.778
  107) Buffalo                    ( 1 -  3 -  0)    30.907     43.157
  108) Pittsburgh                 ( 0 -  2 -  0)    30.345     50.095
  109) Tulsa                      ( 0 -  2 -  0)    30.210     52.210
  110) Ohio                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    27.682     46.682

  111) Tulane                     ( 0 -  4 -  0)    27.403     47.528
  112) Southern Methodist         ( 0 -  3 -  0)    25.026     47.193
  113) Arkansas State             ( 0 -  2 -  0)    24.867     48.617
  114) Kent                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    24.743     47.076
  115) Ball State                 ( 0 -  3 -  0)    24.206     45.539
  116) Hawaii                     ( 0 -  2 -  0)    22.898     39.648
  117) Army                       ( 0 -  3 -  0)    22.069     43.735

Largest deviations:
------------------
.    37 Buffalo                    20 Connecticut              . Upset!
.    14 San Diego State             7 Colorado State           . Upset!
.     9 Florida State              41 North Carolina           .
.    10 North Texas                37 Oklahoma                 .
.     6 Texas - El Paso            26 New Mexico               .
.    20 Illinois                   45 Michigan                 .
.    10 Tulsa                      26 Texas - El Paso          .
.    37 Fresno State               18 Tulsa                    .
.    31 Rutgers                    15 Buffalo                  .
.    42 Colorado State             14 Wyoming                  .


Average Game Outcome Measure = 20.7146
Standard Deviation of fit = 8.3967

These rankings are based on 198 Division I-A College Football games
played.

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...