Agresti, A. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. A. and M. E. Terry. 1952. “Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons.” Biometrika 39:324–345.Google Scholar
Brin, S. and L. Page. 1998. “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.” Computer Networks ISDN Systems 30:107–117.Google Scholar
Callaghan, T., P. J. Mucha, and M. A. Porter. 2007. “Random Walker Ranking for NCAA Division I-A Football.” American Mathematical Monthly 114:761–777.Google Scholar
Colley, W. 2002. “Colley’s Bias Free College Football Ranking Method: The Colley Matrix Explained.” Retrieved January 10, 2014 from http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf.
Constantine, P. G. and D. F. Gleich. 2010. “Random Alpha PageRank.” Internet Mathematics 6:189–236.Google Scholar
David, H. A. 1963. The Method of Paired Comparisons. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, G. 2008. “Time to Look Back on Some Horrible Predictions.” Retrieved January 10, 2014 from sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/090210.Google Scholar
ESPN 2014. “NFL Power Rankings.” Retrieved January 10, 2014 from http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings.
Gleich, D. F. 2011. “Review of: Numerical algorithms for personalized search in self-organizing information networks by Sep Kamvar, Princeton University Press, 2010.” Linear Algebra and its Applications 435:908–909.Google Scholar
Horn, R. A. and C. R. Johnson. 1990. Matrix Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, D. R. 2004. “MM Algorithms for Generalized Bradley-Terry Models.” The Annals of Statistics 32:384–406.Google Scholar
Langville, A. N. and C. D. Meyer. 2003. “Deeper Inside PageRank.” Internet Mathematics 1:257–380.Google Scholar
Langville, A. N. and C. D. Meyer. 2006. Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Langville, A. N. and C. D. Meyer. 2012. Who’s #1?: The Science of Rating and Ranking. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Massey, K. 1997. “Statistical Models Applied to the Rating of Sports Teams.” Bachelor’s honors thesis, Bluefield College.Google Scholar
Page, L., S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. 1999. “The Pagerank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web.” Technical Report 1999–66, Stanford InfoLab.Google Scholar
Sports Reference, LLC. 2014. “Pro-Football-Reference.” Retrieved January 10, 2014 from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/.
About the article
Published Online: 2014-03-27
Published in Print: 2014-06-01
The method of Massey used for the BCS Rankings in college football is proprietary, and thus not publicly available. The method we discuss is the original idea of Massey (1997), which he developed for an honors thesis as an undergraduate at Bluefield College.
For this data, we compute the rating vector based on the algorithm and Matlab routine given in Hunter (2004).
In Langville and Meyer (2003), it is given that Google originally used α=0.85.
In Callaghan et al. (2007), the authors named their method as Random Walker Ranking. As that description may also fit other Markov methods, we refer to it as Biased Random Walker.
All the variations of PageRank we have tested, always promote T6 to the 2nd highest ranking.
All computations were performed using Matlab R2013a.
One could certainly argue that this addition of the Oracle node opens the possibility for a distortion of the rankings in some way, especially by artificially forcing connectedness early in season. However, the data supports that, at least for standard choices of the statistics—score differential, wins, etc.—incorporated into the up and down vectors, this does not happen.
Teams with identical ranks for all methods other than WH meet, on average, less than once per year in the weeks considered. In the WH method, teams with the same record meet, on average, 24 times per season in the weeks considered.