Saturday, August 28, 2010

YPPSYS Pre-Season College Football Rankings and Ratings 2010/2011 NCAA FBS (Division I-A)

Pre-Season College Football Rankings and Ratings 2010/2011 NCAA FBS (Division I-A) by YPPSYS

Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware). We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind. No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We expressly disclaim any and all liability for any consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis or reasoning - for which we make no warranty of any kind for accuracy or correctness.
 Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska: home of...Image via Wikipedia

During the season, YPPSYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS AND RANKINGS - NCAA DIVISION I-A (FBS) are based primarily on net yards per play advantage (NAYPPA), strength of schedule, defense and games lost. The yards per play advantage stat, when adjusted for strength of schedule and W-L record gives a superb non-subjective rank of football teams well-matching human judgment.

Our pre-season rankings use the ratings from the previous season as our basis, except where the rating is followed by an exclamation mark (!), meaning that there are factors such as head coaching or other coaching changes, NCAA sanctions, player news of import, or simply our bias -- e.g. our own alma mater schools are Nebraska and Stanford, so we rank them higher than someone else might, it is more fun for us that way.

We honestly think that defense and the kicking game wins football games and the Huskers look like the best defense in the country and they have the nation's best kicker, Alex Henery. If they can get their sputtering offense moving this year, who can beat them?

Virginia Tech this season fields a team superior in defense AND offense, which is bad news for opposing teams.

On offense, Stanford has probably the nation's best quarterback in Andrew Luck, and with numerous top athletes shifting to defense, the Cardinal will be a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully, the offensive line will be strong enough to protect their Luck.

We buck the forecasting trend and thus put these teams more toward the top of our rankings to make it a bit more interesting, whereas records from the past season might favor other teams at these positions, though such odds are merely wise speculations -- no one knows for sure. As the season wears on and when schedule difficulty data are more reliable, we will shift to actual performance in this season, which will shift the rankings as required.

NAYPPA = net yards per play advantage
YPP OFF = net yards per play gained on offense
YPP DEF = net yards per play allowed on defense
Schedule difficulty = Schedule difficulty past season according to Massey Ratings (SchF=Schedule Full)
^ = bonus for defense (+.1 for 5.0 or better)
^^ = bonus for defense (+.2 for 4.5 or better)
^^^ = bonus for defense (+.3 for 4.0 or better)
* = penalty for defense (-.1 for 5.5 or worse)
** = -.2 for 6.0 or worse
*** = -.3 for 6.5 or worse)
(!) = important head coaching change, important player changes, etc.
Yards per play (YPP) Statistics are taken from cfbstats.com

To obtain the Rating from which the Rank is calculated, one starts with the YPP OFF, subtracts the YPP DEF, subtracts the difficulty of schedule as a variable calculated as 1/100 of the schedule rating so that for a schedule rating of 18 for example, .18 is subtracted (rounded up or down to the nearest figure, here rounded up to .2), and for each loss .2 is subtracted.

(NOTE NEW CALCULATIONS HERE. DEFENSE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES.) A penalty of .1 is subtracted if the defense allows 5.5 or more yards per play, .2 for more than 6.0 yards per play, and .3 for more than 6.5 yards per play. For a defense that allows 5.0 yards per play or less, .1 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.5 yards per play or less, .2 is added to the rating. For a defense that allows 4.0 yards per play or less, .3 is added to the rating. We gave the Nebraska Cornhuskers a +.1 bonus last year for AP Player of the Year, Ndamukong Suh.

In the case of equal ratings, the team with the toughest schedule is ranked first, unless one team has beaten the other, in which case the winner is ranked above the other team (or should be in case we missed it).

Tweaks in the rankings -- as opposed to ratings -- were made at the end of the year last year to account for losses incurred in late regular season or bowl games, e.g., Florida had the best rating in our system, but had to be placed after Alabama in the final rankings because the Gators lost to the Crimson Tide.

The final rankings for the past season did not always necessarily correspond to the actual ratings, but our system nevertheless regards a team with the best rating to be the stronger team which in 6 games out of 10 should win. For this season, past season ratings rather than rankings are determinative.

One point of rating difference is equivalent to 6 points on the scoreboard. Based on some detailed tweaks and analysis of data, THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED to 6 points as of this season FROM THE 9 POINTS PREVIOUSLY USED BY YPPSYS, a figure that was estimated when YPPSYS was developed, but which had not been sufficiently scrutinized thereafter.

The average yards per play component in NCAA Division I-A FBS college football has been remarkably constant for the years we have kept track of it - in the past season showing a median  (not average, but rather the stat for the 60th viz. 61st team) for 120 teams of 5.6 yards per play gained on offense and 5.4 yards per play permitted on defense. There is at most a 1/10th yard variation (.1) any season. This is in spite of continuous tweaking of offenses and defenses by coaching staffs. This marvelous consistency year-in and year-out makes the yards per play stat of invaluable assistance in judging actual team strength.
 
In fact, the NAYPPA stat can be used very effectively to judge what impact -- objectively -- a head coaching change has made on a team, which is not always immediately apparent from the won-loss record.

For an average schedule: a team averaging less than 5.6 yards per play on offense has either subpar offense or subpar offensive coordination, while a team averaging more than 5.4 yards per play on defense has either subpar defense or subpar defensive coordination. One must of course adjust those stats by the difficulty of schedule for each team. A top defense normally marks the best teams and a lack of defense normally marks weaker teams.

YPPSYS
Pre-
Season  Rank
TEAMNAYPPA
(past
season)

YPP OFF
YPP DEF
Schedule difficulty (past season)
W-L (past season)
Pre-Season
Rating

1 Nebraska 1.2
5.2
4.0^^^
33
10-4
2.0 (!)
2 Virginia Tech 1.6
6.2
4.6^
5
10-3
1.9 (!)
3 Alabama 1.9
6.0
4.1^^
1
14-0
1.8 (!)
4 Ohio State 1.4
5.5
4.1^^
45
11-2
1.7 (!)
5 Texas 1.8
5.6
3.8^^^
17
13-1
1.6 (!)
6Florida2.8
7.0
4.2^^
4
13-1
1.5 (!)
7 Boise State 1.7
6.5
4.8^
77
14-0
1.4 (!)
8 Oklahoma 1.4
5.5
4.1^^
19
8-5
1.3 (!)
9 Stanford 0.5
6.5
6.0**
32
8-5
1.2 (!)
10 Auburn 0.9
6.1
5.2
12
8-5
1.1 (!)
11 TCU 2.5
6.4
3.9^^^
46
12-1
1.0 (!)
12 Penn State 1.7
6.1
4.4^^
61
11-2
0.9 (!)
13 Oregon 1.5
6.1
4.6^
16
10-3
0.8 (!)
14 Mississippi 1.3
6.0
4.7^
18
9-4
0.7 (!)
15 USC 1.4
6.2
4.8^
26
9-4
0.6 (!)
16 Cincinnati 1.8
7.0
5.2
42
12-1
0.5 (!)
17 Iowa 0.9
5.2
4.3^^
28
10-2
0.4 (!)
18 BYU 1.3
6.2
4.9^
60
11-2
0.3 (!)
19 Pittsburgh 1.2
6.2
5.0^
38
10-3
0.2 (!)
20 Notre Dame 0.2
6.4
6.2**
36
6-6
0.1 (!)
21 Texas Tech 1.4
6.2
4.8^
51
9-4
0.0 (!)
22 Georgia Tech 0.1
6.2
6.1**
9
11-2
0.0 (!)
23 Clemson 1.1
5.7
4.6^
16
9-5
0.0 (!)
24 Utah 1.0
5.7
4.7^
65
10-3
0.0 (!)
25 LSU 0.4
5.1
4.7^
2
9-4
0.0 (!)
26 Tennessee 0.8
5.7
4.9^
13
7-6
-0.1 (!)
27 Georgia 0.8
5.9
5.1
10
8-5
-0.2 (!)
28 Arkansas 0.9
6.7
5.8*
8
8-5
-0.2 (!)
29 Miami (Florida) 0.7
5.9
5.2
15
9-4
-0.2 (!)
30 Oklahoma State 0.7
5.4
4.7^
44
9-4
-0.3 (!)
31 Wisconsin 0.8
5.9
5.1
58
10-3
-0.4 (!)
32 North Carolina 0.5
4.7
4.2^^
22
8-5
-0.4 (!)
33 West Virginia 0.6
5.7
5.1
31
9-4
-0.5
34 South Florida 0.9
5.9
5.0^
63
8-5
-0.6
35 South Carolina 0.5
5.2
4.7^
6
7-6
-0.7
36 Mid. Tennessee 0.9
5.7
4.8^
107
10-3
-0.7
37 Arizona 0.4
5.5
5.1
20
8-5
-0.8
38 Missouri 0.8
5.9
5.1
56
8-5
-0.8
39 Nevada 1.3
7.3
6.4**
90
8-5
-0.9
40 Oregon State 0.4
5.8
5.4
37
8-5
-1.0
41 Boston College 0.3
5.1
4.8^
35
8-5
-1.0
42 Michigan State 0.9
6.3
5.4
48
6-7
-1.0
43 Houston 0.9
6.9
6.0**
88
10-4
-1.0
44 Troy 0.6
6.5
5.9*
94
9-4
-1.0
45 California 0.4
5.9
5.5*
40
8-5
-1.1
46 Rutgers 0.4
5.2
4.8^
86
9-4
-1.2
47 Air Force 0.3
5.0
4.7^
69
8-5
-1.3
48 Connecticut 0.0
5.6
5.6*
34
8-5
-1.4
49 Central Michigan 0.9
6.0
5.1
104
12-2
-1.5
50 SMU 0.4
6.0
5.6*
91
8-5
-1.6
51 Southern Miss 0.6
6.0
5.4
95
7-6
-1.6
52 Navy -0.1
5.4
5.5*
67
9-4
-1.7
53 Wake Forest 0.0
5.7
5.7*
21
5-7
-1.7
54 UCLA -0.1
5.1
5.2
41
7-6
-1.7
55 East Carolina -0.1
5.3
5.4
62
9-5
-1.7
56 Ohio 0.2
5.1
4.9^
101
9-5
-1.7
57 Louis.-Monroe 0.7
5.8
5.1
113
6-6
-1.7
58 Mississippi State -0.3
5.4
5.7*
3
5-7
-1.8
59 Kansas 0.2
5.7
5.5*
49
5-7
-1.8
60 Temple 0.1
5.2
5.1
105
9-4
-1.8
61 Florida State -0.3
6.4
6.7***
7
7-6
-1.9
62 Purdue 0.2
5.6
5.4
55
5-7
-1.9
63 Arizona State 0.2
5.0
4.8^
59
4-8
-1.9
64 UCF 0.0
5.2
5.2
85
8-5
-1.9
65 Idaho 0.4
6.9
6.5***
96
8-5
-1.9
66 Buffalo 0.6
5.8
5.2
103
5-7
-1.9
67 Texas A&M -0.1
5.8
5.9*
43
6-7
-2.0
68 Baylor -0.1
5.3
5.4
30
4-8
-2.0
69 Northwestern -0.3
5.1
5.4
74
8-5
-2.0
70 UAB 0.4
6.8
6.4**
83
5-7
-2.0
71 Hawai'i 0.6
6.6
6.0**
98
6-7
-2.0
72 Kentucky -0.6
4.9
5.5*
23
7-6
-2.1
73 N.C. State -0.1
5.6
5.7*
52
5-7
-2.1
74 Kansas State -0.2
5.2
5.4
66
6-6
-2.1
75 Minnesota -0.4
4.9
5.3
27
6-7
-2.1
76 Duke -0.2
5.3
5.5*
54
5-7
-2.2
77 Michigan 0.0
5.6
5.6*
70
5-7
-2.2
78 Louisiana Tech 0.2
5.5
5.3
76
4-8
-2.2
79 Fresno State -0.1
6.4
6.5***
82
8-5
-2.2
80 Toledo 0.4
6.2
5.8*
109
5-7
-2.2
81 Northern Illinois 0.2
5.6
5.4
118
7-6
-2.2
82 Washington -0.5
5.7
6.2**
24
5-7
-2.3
83 Syracuse -0.3
5.1
5.4
47
4-8
-2.4
84 Tulsa 0.1
5.7
5.6*
97
5-7
-2.4
85 Iowa State -0.5
5.3
5.8*
72
7-6
-2.5
86 Marshall -0.5
5.2
5.7*
80
7-6
-2.6
87 San Diego State -0.1
5.3
5.4
87
4-8
-2.6
88 Kent State 0.0
5.0
5.0
122
5-7
-2.6
89 Virginia -0.8
4.2
5.0
11
3-9
-2.7
90 Colorado State -0.1
5.7
5.7*
71
3-9
-2.7
91 UTEP 0.1
6.2
6.1**
102
4-8
-2.7
92 Indiana -0.4
5.4
5.8*
68
4-8
-2.8
93 Illinois -0.3
5.7
6.0**
50
3-9
-2.8
94 Bowling Green -0.5
5.5
6.0**
93
7-6
-2.8
95 Vanderbilt -0.6
4.6
5.2
29
2-10
-2.9
96 Arkansas State 0.0
5.2
5.2
125
4-8
-2.9
97 Louisville -0.7
5.1
5.8*
57
4-8
-3.0
98 Utah State -0.4
6.0
6.4**
78
4-8
-3.0
99 Army -0.6
4.5
5.1
116
5-6
-3.0
100 Wyoming -1.2
4.4
5.6*
64
7-6
-3.1
101 Colorado -1.0
4.4
5.4
53
3-9
-3.2
102 Akron -0.4
4.9
5.3
110
3-9
-3.3
103 North Texas 0.0
5.9
5.9*
121
2-10
-3.3
104 Maryland -1.1
4.7
5.8*
25
2-10
-3.4
105 West. Michigan -0.7
5.3
6.0**
119
5-7
-3.5
106 Louis.-Lafayette -1.0
5.0
6.0**
117
6-6
-3.6
107 UNLV -1.4
5.2
6.6***
73
5-7
-3.7
108 Florida Atlantic -1.1
5.9
7.0***
106
5-7
-3.8
109 Memphis -1.1
5.3
6.4**
81
2-10
-3.9
110 Ball State -0.9
4.7
5.6*
111
2-10
-4.0
111 Miami (Ohio) -1.1
4.7
5.8*
79
1-11
-4.1
112 New Mexico -1.2
4.6
5.8*
75
1-11
-4.2
113 Tulane -1.4
4.9
6.3**
92
3-9
-4.3
114 Florida Int. FIU -2.1
4.5
6.6***
99
3-9
-4.4
115 Rice -2.3
4.3
6.6***
84
2-10
-4.5
116 San Jose State -2.2
4.5
6.7***
89
2-10
-4.6
117 New Mexico St. -2.4
3.9
6.3**
100
3-10
-4.7
118 West. Kentucky -1.8
5.1
6.9***
112
0-12
-4.8
119 Washington St. -3.0
4.1
7.1***
39
1-11
-4.9
120 Eastern Michigan -2.3
4.5
6.8***
108
0-12
-4.9
Enhanced by Zemanta

5 Myths About Philadelphia’s ‘Blogging Tax’ | Epicenter | Wired.com

5 Myths About Philadelphia’s ‘Blogging Tax’ | Epicenter | Wired.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Alexander Hotz with a Graphic by Lisa Waananen at Mashable on 6 Years of Controversy re Facebook Privacy

Alexander Hotz does the commentary and there is a nice timeline graphic for Mashable by Lisa Waananen at Facebook Privacy: 6 Years of Controversy [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Ultimate Patent Troll: George Selden, the Patent Attorney Who Claimed to Have Invented the Automobile

The fix in which modern technology finds itself today as the result of our ill-conceived and smothering patent laws is unfortunately nothing new, but was a battle fought more than a century ago over patent rights to the invention of the automobile.

Thankfully for the future development of the automobile industry, legal common sense only prevailed due to the tenacity of Henry Ford, who prevailed over "virtual" inventor George B. Selden upon appeal, in a story in which the otherwise unknown Selden is the main character.

George Selden was a very smart patent attorney in New York in the days when the automobile was being invented, and he saw where the future was going.

Being a bit of a scientific dabbler himself and thus understanding the vector of technology in his day, he applied for a patent to the USPTO, which unblinkingly granted U.S. Patent No. 549,160 for George B. Selden's "Road-Engine", a "car" which of course was never built and which was a mere patented "idea" and nothing more.

That idea served however under the patent law prevailing then -- and similarly prevailing now --to establish Selden's "patent rights".
 
Selden thereafter attempted to enforce his USPTO-created patent monopoly on automobile manufacturers wherever he could find them. Below is a drawing of his invention. If you can draw, patents are very near.

Selden 1895 Image via Wikipedia
The Selden "Road-Engine"
Selden demanded licensing fees from automobile manufacturers, but some, like Henry Ford, refused to pay, and, after a legal battle lasting 8 years, Ford finally prevailed. The Selden patent had nothing to do with the actual manufacture of cars as they were being built then, or now.

The entire story of the greedy would-be inventor who never actually built one single automobile can be read at the Wikipedia.

George who?
also has a readable account of the Selden story, the man who claimed to have invented the automobile but never built a single car.

Suffice it to say that the entire Selden patent story shows the same sad unresolved weaknesses in patent law interpretation and application that confound industry today and which permit patent trolls who have never manufactured a single product themselves to extort licensing fees from companies who HAVE figured out how to manufacture something and to make a profit doing so, where the alleged "inventor" was unable to do so.

Eolas and NTP could be considered as examples of the many trolling George Seldens dotting the patent landscape today, existing as parasites on the backs of those who actually make the economy run.
Enhanced by Zemanta

LawPundit Post Archive

The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz