Massey Margin of Victory Team and Conference ratings

[JohnStOnge]

If you read Massey's stuff you'll find that he, like Sagarin, thinks that ratings considering margin of victory are more accurate than ratings that do not. In that regard, you can get the FCS teams ranked according to his "Margin of Victory" system by going to http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf , clicking on the "FCS" button, then clicking on "MOV" at the top of that column in the table.

Here are the top 25 teams:

1 Richmond 13 3 CAA
2 James Madison 12 2 CAA
3 Montana 14 2 Big Sky
4 Villanova 10 3 CAA
5 Weber St 10 4 Big Sky
6 New Hampshire 10 3 CAA
7 Northern Iowa 12 3 MVFC
8 Cal Poly SLO 8 3 GWFC
9 Appalachian St 11 3 SC
10 William & Mary 7 4 CAA
11 Wofford 9 3 SC
12 E Washington 6 5 Big Sky
13 Harvard 9 1 Ivy
14 Maine 8 5 CAA
15 S Illinois 9 3 MVFC
16 Massachusetts 7 5 CAA
17 Cent Arkansas 10 2 SLC
18 Montana St 7 5 Big Sky
19 S Dakota St 7 5 MVFC
20 McNeese St 7 4 SLC
21 N Arizona 6 5 Big Sky
22 Elon 8 4 SC
23 Liberty 10 2 BSC
24 Holy Cross 7 4 PL
25 Grambling 11 2 SWAC

Conference rankings (average strength of teams). I think this is based on the ratings that do not consider margin of victory.

Rk Conf Tms W L Rating Parity
1 Colonial 12 34 20 1.098 0.5079
2 Big Sky 9 18 18 0.921 0.5285
3 Southern 9 19 17 0.843 0.5161
4 Southland 8 20 15 0.817 0.7343
5 Great West 5 21 18 0.734 0.7046
6 Missouri Valley 9 15 20 0.631 0.5105
7 Big South 7 21 20 0.535 0.7408
8 Patriot League 7 20 17 0.485 0.5997
9 NCAA 125 98 33 0.479 0.4772
9 Div I 125 88 15 0.479 0.4772
9 FCS 125 90 100 0.479 0.4772
12 Ivy League 8 10 14 0.466 0.5571
13 OH Valley 9 15 19 0.457 0.6625
14 Mid-Eastern AC 10 11 15 0.159 0.5605
15 Northeast 8 14 18 0.073 0.4609
16 Southwestern AC 10 12 22 0.035 0.5536
17 Pioneer 9 17 14 -0.179 0.5434
18 1-AA Independents 5 19 29 -0.188 0.6774

An explanation can be found at http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey.htm .

[UNIFanSince1983]

I get that this might be somewhat accurate, but it proves one thing computers just look at numbers.

I mean UNI behind three teams we got farther than including one we beat seems a little off, but a lot of computer rankings had UNI a little off this season due to their schedule.

[Grizalltheway]

Big Fluffy at # 2. Huh.

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

Big Fluffy at # 2. Huh.

Oh please thats just ignorant. Just cause you beat JMU doen't mean you should be ranked above them. Is Ole Miss above Florida ? We beat Richmond, and they are above us......

[Ronbo]

Oh please thats just ignorant. Just cause you beat JMU doen't mean you should be ranked above them. Is Ole Miss above Florida ? We beat Richmond, and they are above us......

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?

[JMU DUUUKES LAW]

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?

well i have great respect for Montana and the Big Sky ... so if thats what he meant then i concede, haha.

[JohnStOnge]

I think he was being funny because most on this board would rank the Big Sky much lower than #2. We're just ahead of the SWAC aren't we?

I wouldn't. In fact, one thing that really frosts me is that Southland teams almost always have to match up with the Big Sky in the first round and I don't think there's any doubt that they've had more sucess in playing against teams from leagues like the A-10/CAA , Southern, and Gateway/MVC. I'm not saying the Big Sky is tougher than those leagues. But it's tough. And Southland teams do not match up well against it.

Beleive me, year in and year out, if McNeese makes the playoffs I'd much rather see them draw a team from ANY league other than the Big Sky. I really would.

[JohnStOnge]

I get that this might be somewhat accurate, but it proves one thing computers just look at numbers.

I mean UNI behind three teams we got farther than including one we beat seems a little off, but a lot of computer rankings had UNI a little off this season due to their schedule.

One thing about power ratings is that they recognize variation in performance as well as the impact of chance. You can see that reflected in the following statement from Massey's explanation:

"The first challenge for any computer rating system is to account for the variability in performance. A team will not always play up to its full potential. Other random factors (officiating, bounce of the ball) may also affect the outcome of a game. The computer must somehow eliminate the "noise" which obscures the true strength of a team. "

[JackTwice]

What I don't get is how the Great West is a top 5 conference with only 1 team in the top 25 and only 1 other team with a decent record in D-I games.

[Go...gate]

Colgate not in at all?