Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.ncaa.com/fcs-selections-101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NCAA Simple Rating System

Beginning with the 2013 football season, the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee will use the NCAA Simple Rating System (NCAA SRS) as a tool for evaluating teams for selection into the 24-team championship.

The NCAA Simple Rating System (NCAA SRS) is a ranking system used to gauge team quality. Within the NCAA SRS, the rating of a team will be calculated largely by two components: a strength-of-schedule measure (SOS) and a win-loss differential (WL).

A team’s SOS measure is simply the average NCAA SRS rating of that team’s opponents for the season.

A team’s WL measure factors whether or not a game was won or lost; the location of the game (home/away/neutral site); and the NCAA (sub)division of the opponent.

The teams’ ratings are independent in that one team’s rating depends on its opponents’ ratings, which depend on their opponents’ ratings, etc., based on the “network” of college football games played each week during the football season.

The final SRS standings will be posted Nov. 24.


Did you know?

Margin of victory is not factored into any team’s NCAA SRS rating.

Games against Division III or non-NCAA opponents are also not factored into any team’s NCAA SRS rating.

The time of the season in which a game is played (early-season versus late-season games) is not factored into a team’s NCAA SRS rating.

Did you know?

Margin of victory is not factored into any team’s NCAA SRS rating.

No I didn't know that and that sucks because systems that consider margin of victory are better than those that don't. But I'm not surprised. I said in a post within the last week that I figured it probably wouldn't be a good power rating system because "powers that be" in situations like this tend to pick bad power rating systems. Like the BCS making Sagarin and others do a rating system that does not consider margin of victory for use in the BCS. The result is a system that puts Northern Illinois at #3 right now while his regular rating system, which does consider margin of victory, puts Northern Illinois at #46 and what he says is his best system at predicting outcomes puts the Huskies at #54.

I like the fact that the NCAA is using a power rating system but for Pete's sake WHY use one that doesn't consider margin of victory when it's well known that systems that consider margin of victory are better?

You know, I looked at some more stuff there and I am even more convinced that I don't believe in having selection committees. Just get a good power rating system and let it make the decisions in terms of who gets at large bids and seeding. But...PLEASE...get a good power rating system

It's not going to happen but it should. There is absolutely no reason to have a selection committee. Just pick a power rating system. Then if you think it didn't work right pick another one for next year. But pick a system that's going to automatically do the at large selections and the seeding before the fact and get rid of the selection committee concept.

JohnStOnge wrote:
for Pete's sake WHY use one that doesn't consider margin of victory when it's well known that systems that consider margin of victory are better?

I think they are afraid of teams running up the score trying to game the rating system.

Not a big fan of 'margin of victory' as a component. See: SFA from several years ago as an example.

You can view the cumulative SoS info at the NCAA stats page. It ain't pretty for some folks (Look out, MSU and SUU ... )

Aho Old Guy wrote:Not a big fan of 'margin of victory' as a component. See: SFA from several years ago as an example.

You can view the cumulative SoS info at the NCAA stats page. It ain't pretty for some folks (Look out, MSU and SUU ... )

Margin of victory can also be misleading for weak conferences with one team that dominates.

JohnStOnge wrote:But...PLEASE...get a good power rating system

In an 11 or 12 game season with teams only having 1-3 games OOC against other I-AA's, you can't. Any computer person that doesn't admit there simply isn't enough data to have a good sample is a damn liar.

89Hen wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:But...PLEASE...get a good power rating system

In an 11 or 12 game season with teams only having 1-3 games OOC against other I-AA's, you can't. Any computer person that doesn't admit there simply isn't enough data to have a good sample is a damn liar.

Yup - the data just isn't there in a big enough sample size to have a legitimately sound power rating system. The mathematics just don't work.

kalm wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote:Not a big fan of 'margin of victory' as a component. See: SFA from several years ago as an example.

You can view the cumulative SoS info at the NCAA stats page. It ain't pretty for some folks (Look out, MSU and SUU ... )

Margin of victory can also be misleading for weak conferences with one team that dominates.

Like Coastal?

kalm wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote:Not a big fan of 'margin of victory' as a component. See: SFA from several years ago as an example.

You can view the cumulative SoS info at the NCAA stats page. It ain't pretty for some folks (Look out, MSU and SUU ... )

Margin of victory can also be misleading for weak conferences with one team that dominates.

Yup. Bethune went 8-0 in the MEAC last year including:
Bethune 48 - Norfolk 3
Bethune 42 - NCCU 17
Bethune 44 - Savannah 7

Then the playoffs come and:

Coastal (7-4) 24 - Bethune 14

The GPI had Bethune at 35 and Coastal at 43.

89Hen wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:But...PLEASE...get a good power rating system

In an 11 or 12 game season with teams only having 1-3 games OOC against other I-AA's, you can't. Any computer person that doesn't admit there simply isn't enough data to have a good sample is a damn liar.

The computer rankings are useful as a guide. Especially if you look at a number of them. They take all of the games into consideration which none of us have the time or inclination to do. Certainly they should not be the only thing used just like the number of wins or losses should not be the only thing used.

Maybe the best way for the committee to choose the teams would be to go to Vegas and talk to the oddsmakers???

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:
Margin of victory can also be misleading for weak conferences with one team that dominates.

Like Coastal?

I wasn't thinking of you guys specifically...more in general...globally.

vutomcat wrote:The computer rankings are useful as a guide. Especially if you look at a number of them.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You don't think the computer rankings are useful at all? What would you have the committee use to gauge SOS? To compare teams that don't play each other?

vutomcat wrote:You don't think the computer rankings are useful at all? What would you have the committee use to gauge SOS? To compare teams that don't play each other?

Same thing voters in the polls use, their brains.

vutomcat wrote:You don't think the computer rankings are useful at all? What would you have the committee use to gauge SOS? To compare teams that don't play each other?

Thought the entire point of their argument was that with so few games between conferences the computer generated SOS was not a true gauge of strength because teams can have inflated or deflated values due the conference they play in.

89Hen wrote:

vutomcat wrote:You don't think the computer rankings are useful at all? What would you have the committee use to gauge SOS? To compare teams that don't play each other?

Same thing voters in the polls use, their brains.

They use their brains now and the computer rankings give them additional information to make more informed decisions. I don't think we will ever agree here. There are a few things the Hen fans are pretty hard headed about and the computer rankings are certainly one of them. To me, it just makes sense to use as much information as possible.

rationalgriz wrote:

vutomcat wrote:You don't think the computer rankings are useful at all? What would you have the committee use to gauge SOS? To compare teams that don't play each other?

Thought the entire point of their argument was that with so few games between conferences the computer generated SOS was not a true gauge of strength because teams can have inflated or deflated values due the conference they play in.

Yeah, I think that's part of their argument and some of it has merit. I also agree that in football the low number of games that are played make the computer rankings less accurate than say in basketball.

However, to ignore the value of the computer rankings is ignorant. Can't think of a nicer term, sorry. They take into consideration ALL of the games that are played. Are they perfect, heck no.

And let's not be naive here. Delaware traditionally plays a weaker out of conference schedule than most of the CAA and that's reflected in the computer rankings. They have a bias here and it shows.

If computer rankings were not useful why would the NCAA tourney use them? Why is the FCS using them?

vutomcat wrote:

89Hen wrote: Same thing voters in the polls use, their brains.

They use their brains now and the computer rankings give them additional information to make more informed decisions. I don't think we will ever agree here. There are a few things the Hen fans are pretty hard headed about and the computer rankings are certainly one of them. To me, it just makes sense to use as much information as possible.

I know the computers are not accurate. Not for ranking and not for predicting the teams the Committee will choose.

vutomcat wrote:Why is the FCS using them?

As an attempt to take politics out of it. Nothing more.

Why does the BCS use them? and on and on and on.... but I guess all of those governing bodies don't know as much as you do? Vegas uses them as well.

You need to move on from this argument. It's not going well for you.

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:
Margin of victory can also be misleading for weak conferences with one team that dominates.

Like Coastal?

Not bad, really. Remember it's a simple accumulation of your opponents won-loss records declared as a winning percentage.

CCU opponents have a winning percentage of 53%, which ranks them 43rd.

NAU and MSU -- 49% (with a rank in the high 90's)

SUU is ranked 114 but should get a little bump this week because they play 8-2 NAU.

The big sky, CAA, mvfc, southland, & socon should get their top 3 in automatically. All other participating conf shd get 1 or 2 that's it problem solved.

vutomcat wrote:Why does the BCS use them? and on and on and on.... but I guess all of those governing bodies don't know as much as you do? Vegas uses them as well.

You need to move on from this argument. It's not going well for you.

I may be wrong but I think the FBS is not using them after this year to determine the semis and finals and is moving to a committee to decide without the BCS rankings.

tribe_pride wrote:

vutomcat wrote:Why does the BCS use them? and on and on and on.... but I guess all of those governing bodies don't know as much as you do? Vegas uses them as well.

You need to move on from this argument. It's not going well for you.

I may be wrong but I think the FBS is not using them after this year to determine the semis and finals and is moving to a committee to decide without the BCS rankings.

You're correct they are using a committee but that committee will be using various computer ranking systems
to assist them. There will not be any master "BCS" computer ranking used anymore.