To ease everyone's stress over the power ratings, after analyzing the Big-12 and Big-10 conferences, here is what the Cygarin Ratings has come up with.....
5 OHIO STATE
8 OKLAHOMA
13 IOWA STATE
15 TEXAS
16 NORTHWESTERN
17 OKLAHOMA STATE
18 WISCONSIN
25 INDIANA
30 WEST VIRGINIA
31 TCU
43 IOWA
44 KANSAS STATE
48 PURDUE
57 MICHIGAN
58 BAYLOR
62 MINNESOTA
71 MARYLAND
81 NEBRASKA
82 TEXAS TECH
84 MICHIGAN STATE
87 ILLINOIS
88 PENN STATE
98 RUTGERS
119 KANSAS
To help with understanding what is going on with the power rankings, I will use Iowa as an example......
Iowa has yet to beat a top-60 team, or at least a top-60 team based on my analysis. 62nd Minnestoa is the best team Iowa has beaten. Iowa has lost to two top-50 teams, the lowest being 48th Purdue.
However, in their wins, they are beating those sub-60 teams by 20 points more than predicted by their rating. And the power ratings have those team rated to high.
Thus it appears that Iowa is beating average teams (they are not) by large margins.
Resultantly, Iowa is "averaging" playing 11 points better than their win/loss results actually portray.
As a note of record, that has been Iowa's historic signature.......beat a bunch of lower teams by larger than expected margins, thus boosting their power rating up. But failing to be able to beat their peers when they face them on the field....such as Northwestern this year.
Sagarin uses margin of victory, not just win-loss. And Iowa's huge margins of victory over weak sub-60 teams is skewing and overriding the fact that they have yet to beat a top-45 team.... despite bein a top-15 team themselves. Compound that by a lot of teams doing this and you have a ranking system that is utterly FUBAR.
Win-loss systems are no better. In a conference with 14 teams, and some teams like Wisconsin having played only three games, you have almost no ability to get enough linking data to compare teams. Thus, utterly FUBAR there too.
Both will tend to correct themselves some going foward. But the Big-10 with only eight games in a fourteen team conference, is going to be woefully short of data no matter what.
Regarding Iowa....the Cygarin Ratings has them playing only two top-60 teams, Northwestern and Wisconisn, both in the middle teens at this time. Fully expect Iowa to be a top-15 power ranked team at the end of the season....without a single top-60 win.
The Cygarin Ratings went rougue. I started with a composite ranking system (Superlist) then applied the equivalent Sagarin "MOV-based" power ratings to them. Once I had those plugged in to the spreadsheet, I adjusted individual team's "rating" up and down so that they fit the win/loss conference matrix in my spreadsheet. The above rankings were the final product I came up with.
Interestingly, most Big-10 teams (like Iowa or Minnesota) had to move down, because if I moved other teams up to fit.....the Big-10 would have a plethora of teams with a power rating higher than the No. 1 in the country. That alone is evidence that the ranking systems have the larger part of the Big-10 teams rated way too high.
The Big-12 has more games played, and plays a round robbin schedue. Therefore there is more data, and more inter-pla links, for the data to be more accurate.
The above ratings "fit" the Cygarin Ratings model.....take that for whatever that is worth.
(In my opinion.)
5 OHIO STATE
8 OKLAHOMA
13 IOWA STATE
15 TEXAS
16 NORTHWESTERN
17 OKLAHOMA STATE
18 WISCONSIN
25 INDIANA
30 WEST VIRGINIA
31 TCU
43 IOWA
44 KANSAS STATE
48 PURDUE
57 MICHIGAN
58 BAYLOR
62 MINNESOTA
71 MARYLAND
81 NEBRASKA
82 TEXAS TECH
84 MICHIGAN STATE
87 ILLINOIS
88 PENN STATE
98 RUTGERS
119 KANSAS
To help with understanding what is going on with the power rankings, I will use Iowa as an example......
Iowa has yet to beat a top-60 team, or at least a top-60 team based on my analysis. 62nd Minnestoa is the best team Iowa has beaten. Iowa has lost to two top-50 teams, the lowest being 48th Purdue.
However, in their wins, they are beating those sub-60 teams by 20 points more than predicted by their rating. And the power ratings have those team rated to high.
Thus it appears that Iowa is beating average teams (they are not) by large margins.
Resultantly, Iowa is "averaging" playing 11 points better than their win/loss results actually portray.
As a note of record, that has been Iowa's historic signature.......beat a bunch of lower teams by larger than expected margins, thus boosting their power rating up. But failing to be able to beat their peers when they face them on the field....such as Northwestern this year.
Sagarin uses margin of victory, not just win-loss. And Iowa's huge margins of victory over weak sub-60 teams is skewing and overriding the fact that they have yet to beat a top-45 team.... despite bein a top-15 team themselves. Compound that by a lot of teams doing this and you have a ranking system that is utterly FUBAR.
Win-loss systems are no better. In a conference with 14 teams, and some teams like Wisconsin having played only three games, you have almost no ability to get enough linking data to compare teams. Thus, utterly FUBAR there too.
Both will tend to correct themselves some going foward. But the Big-10 with only eight games in a fourteen team conference, is going to be woefully short of data no matter what.
Regarding Iowa....the Cygarin Ratings has them playing only two top-60 teams, Northwestern and Wisconisn, both in the middle teens at this time. Fully expect Iowa to be a top-15 power ranked team at the end of the season....without a single top-60 win.
The Cygarin Ratings went rougue. I started with a composite ranking system (Superlist) then applied the equivalent Sagarin "MOV-based" power ratings to them. Once I had those plugged in to the spreadsheet, I adjusted individual team's "rating" up and down so that they fit the win/loss conference matrix in my spreadsheet. The above rankings were the final product I came up with.
Interestingly, most Big-10 teams (like Iowa or Minnesota) had to move down, because if I moved other teams up to fit.....the Big-10 would have a plethora of teams with a power rating higher than the No. 1 in the country. That alone is evidence that the ranking systems have the larger part of the Big-10 teams rated way too high.
The Big-12 has more games played, and plays a round robbin schedue. Therefore there is more data, and more inter-pla links, for the data to be more accurate.
The above ratings "fit" the Cygarin Ratings model.....take that for whatever that is worth.
(In my opinion.)
Last edited:
