Sagarin Ratings Released


by -
    |

Sagarin, like the developers of many other sports rating systems, does not divulge the exact methodology behind his system. He offers two rating systems, each of which gives each team a certain number of points. One system, "Elo chess," is presumably based on the Elo rating system used internationally to rank chess players. This system uses only wins and losses with no reference to the victory margin. The other system, "Predictor," takes victory margin into account. For that system the difference in two teams' rating scores is meant to predict the margin of victory for the stronger team at a neutral venue. For both systems teams gain higher ratings within the Sagarin system by winning games against stronger opponents, factoring in such things as home-venue advantage. For the Predictor system, margin of victory (or defeat) factors in also, but a law of diminishing returns is applied. Therefore, a football team that wins a game by a margin of 7-6 is rewarded less than a team that defeats the same opponent under the same circumstances 21-7, but a team that wins a game by a margin of 35-0 receives similar ratings to a team that defeats the same opponent 70-0. This characteristic has the effect of recognizing "comfortable" victories, while limiting the reward for running up the score.

From USA Today:

1 Notre Dame A = 94.87 12 0 74.68( 30) 2 0 | 4 0 | 96.65 1 | 93.09 3
2 Alabama A = 94.62 11 1 72.94( 39) 0 1 | 2 1 | 91.44 7 | 99.13 1
3 Oregon A = 94.18 11 1 74.48( 31) 0 1 | 4 1 | 92.73 3 | 95.49 2
4 Florida A = 93.50 11 1 77.38( 13) 2 1 | 5 1 | 95.74 2 | 91.41 6
5 Kansas State A = 92.34 10 1 75.94( 24) 1 0 | 4 1 | 91.74 6 | 92.61 5
6 Georgia A = 91.20 11 1 71.27( 42) 1 1 | 2 1 | 92.47 4 | 89.75 8
7 Texas A&M A = 90.76 10 2 75.57( 25) 1 1 | 1 2 | 88.64 12 | 93.01 4
8 Stanford A = 90.68 10 2 78.33( 5) 1 1 | 6 1 | 91.91 5 | 89.27 9
9 Oklahoma A = 89.70 9 2 77.79( 11) 0 2 | 4 2 | 88.91 11 | 90.18 7
10 South Carolina A = 89.48 10 2 74.18( 34) 1 1 | 3 2 | 91.41 8 | 87.54 11
11 LSU A = 88.68 10 2 75.23( 27) 2 2 | 2 2 | 90.75 9 | 86.64 14
12 Oregon State A = 87.33 8 3 79.37( 3) 0 2 | 3 2 | 86.85 13 | 87.47 12
13 Oklahoma State A = 85.99 7 4 77.24( 14) 0 2 | 2 4 | 83.72 16 | 88.40 10
14 Ohio State A = 85.62 12 0 70.41( 51) 0 0 | 2 0 | 90.03 10 | 82.16 24
15 Texas A = 84.85 8 3 76.19( 20) 0 1 | 3 2 | 84.45 15 | 84.90 16
16 Southern California A = 84.51 7 5 78.26( 6) 0 3 | 1 5 | 82.86 19 | 86.01 15
17 Nebraska A = 84.25 10 2 73.52( 36) 0 0 | 2 2 | 85.76 14 | 82.58 20
18 Florida State A = 84.12 10 2 66.05( 72) 0 1 | 1 1 | 81.50 22 | 87.02 13
19 UCLA A = 83.26 9 3 74.31( 33) 0 1 | 4 2 | 83.29 17 | 82.87 19
20 Michigan A = 82.97 8 4 74.34( 32) 0 2 | 1 4 | 83.28 18 | 82.31 22
21 Arizona State A = 81.70 7 5 74.08( 35) 0 1 | 1 4 | 78.90 32 | 84.80 17
22 Clemson A = 81.59 10 2 66.97( 66) 0 1 | 0 2 | 80.59 28 | 82.30 23
23 Baylor A = 81.41 6 5 78.23( 7) 1 1 | 2 3 | 79.27 31 | 83.54 18
24 TCU A = 81.11 7 4 76.23( 19) 0 1 | 2 3 | 80.60 27 | 81.28 26
25 Utah State A = 80.81 10 2 64.01( 97) 0 0 | 1 0 | 79.67 29 | 81.67 25

Read the full article here

Send Feedback to TigerNet Staff: Email | Comment
    |
Loading...
Post your comments!

Swinney explains his recruiting philosophy

Matchup Dates for 2017 Big Ten-ACC Challenge

Move-In Day: Final members of 2017 class move in, enroll in classes

Report: Nets to decline option on K.J. McDaniels

Lee looks to rebuild Clemson's pitching staff in the fall

Photo: Vic Beasley's custom Clemson Camaro

Texans' head coach credits Clemson's staff for Watson's development

Vegas loves the Tigers' chances this season, except against Louisville

Freshmen to make an impact as Lee's offensive philosophy shifts
Sign Up for E-Mail News Alerts
Features
Updates
Daily Digest