Try Bloomington’s Own Sagarin Ratings - week 5

[TomEric4756]

Believe it or not, little 8 beatdowns pushed IU slightly up in Sagarin rankings
The math doesn’t make allowances for injuries however.
Sagarin says there are six teams worse than IU in BiG.
Wisconsin is ranked as the toughest schedule in the nation: IU, second.

https://sagarin.usatoday.com/2021-2/college-football-team-ratings-2021/

This Week

Rank	Opponent	Opp. Index	Ind. Index	Margin​
4	@Iowa	89.31 + 2.79	74.25	17.85​
181	Idaho	45.39	74.25 + 2.79	-31.65​
8	Cincinnati	86.09	74.25 + 2.79	9.05​
100	@Western Kentucky	64.89 + 2.79	74.25	-6.57​
7	@Penn State	86.14 + 2.79	74.25	14.68​
31	Michigan State	76.60	74.25 + 2.79	-0.44​
5	Ohio State	85.57	74.25 + 2.79	8.53​
54	@Maryland	74.20 + 2.79	74.25	2.74​
6	@Michigan	87.37 + 2.79	74.25	15.91​
55	Rutgers	73.57	74.25 + 2.79	-3.47​
58	Minnesota	70.21	74.25 + 2.79	-6.83​
64	@Purdue	72.38 + 279	74.25	0.92​
53	Indiana		74.25

Data https://sagarin.usatoday.com/2021-2/college-football-team-ratings-2021/

College Football 2021 through games of October 2 Saturday - Week 5
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.79]

Rank/Rating	W L	SCHEDL(RANK)	VS top 10	VS top 30

4 Iowa…………………………….. 89.31 | 5 0 | 72.48( 18) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
5 Ohio State ……………. A = 87.97 | 4 1 | 68.59( 55) | 0 0 | 0 1 |
6 Michigan ………………. A = 87.60 | 5 0 | 72.26( 21) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
7 Penn State ……………. A = 86.14 | 5 0 | 70.07( 34) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
8 Cincinnati …………….. A = 86.09 | 4 0 | 68.25( 58) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
31 Michigan State ……. A = 77.28 | 5 0 | 66.53( 73) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
36 Wisconsin …………… A = 76.97 | 1 3 | 79.61( 1 ) | 0 2 | 0 3 |
40 Nebraska ……………. A = 76.62 | 3 3 | 68.46( 56) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
53 Indiana ………………… A = 74.25 | 2 3 | 78.12( 2 ) | 0 3 | 0 3 |
54 Maryland …………….. A = 74.20 | 4 1 | 67.78( 62) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
55 Rutgers ………………… A = 73.57 | 3 2 | 70.05( 36) | 0 2 | 0 2 |
58 Minnesota ……………. A = 73.37 | 3 2 | 67.88( 61) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
64 Purdue …………………. A = 72.38 | 3 2 | 68.85( 52) | 0 0 | 0 1 |
92 Illinois …………………… A = 66.11 | 2 4 | 70.52( 32) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
93 Northwestern ……… A = 66.02 | 2 3 | 64.61( 89) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
100 Western Kentucky A = 64.89 | 1 3 | 68.87( 51) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
181 Idaho ………………… AA = 45.39 | 1 3 | 73.83( 8) | 0 0 | 0 0 |

Last Week

Rank	Opponent	Opp. Index	Ind. Index	Margin​
6	@Iowa	86.48 + 2.77	74.27	14.98​
182	Idaho	44.34	74.27 + 2.77	-32.70​
13	Cincinnati	82.92	74.27 + 2.77	5.88​
89	@Western Kentucky	66.40 + 2.77	74.27	-5.10​
12	@Penn State	83.92 + 2.77	74.27	12.45​
37	Michigan State	76.60	74.27 + 2.77	-0.44​
7	Ohio State	85.57	74.27 + 2.77	8.53​
35	@Maryland	76.95 + 2.77	74.27	5.45​
4	@Michigan	87.37 + 2.77	74.27	15.87​
34	Rutgers	77.00	74.27 + 2.77	-0.04​
74	Minnesota	70.21	74.27 + 2.77	-6.83​
43	@Purdue	75.51 + 2.77	74.27	4.01​
55	Indiana		74.27

 

[delarno]

Believe it or not, little 8 beatdowns pushed IU slightly up in Sagarin rankings
The math doesn’t make allowances for injuries however.
Sagarin says there are six teams worse than IU in BiG.
Wisconsin is ranked as the toughest schedule in the nation: IU, second.

https://sagarin.usatoday.com/2021-2/college-football-team-ratings-2021/

This Week

Rank	Opponent	Opp. Index	Ind. Index	Margin​
4	@Iowa	89.31 + 2.79	74.25	17.85​
181	Idaho	45.39	74.25 + 2.79	-31.65​
8	Cincinnati	86.09	74.25 + 2.79	9.05​
100	@Western Kentucky	64.89 + 2.79	74.25	-6.57​
7	@Penn State	86.14 + 2.79	74.25	14.68​
31	Michigan State	76.60	74.25 + 2.79	-0.44​
5	Ohio State	85.57	74.25 + 2.79	8.53​
54	@Maryland	74.20 + 2.79	74.25	2.74​
6	@Michigan	87.37 + 2.79	74.25	15.91​
55	Rutgers	73.57	74.25 + 2.79	-3.47​
58	Minnesota	70.21	74.25 + 2.79	-6.83​
64	@Purdue	72.38 + 279	74.25	0.92​
53	Indiana		74.25

Data https://sagarin.usatoday.com/2021-2/college-football-team-ratings-2021/

College Football 2021 through games of October 2 Saturday - Week 5
RATING | W L | SCHEDL(RANK) VS | top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR |GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.79] [ 2.77] [ 2.81] [ 2.77]

4 Iowa ………….…..……… A = 89.31 | 5 0 | 72.48( 18) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
5 Ohio State ……………. A = 87.97 | 4 1 | 68.59( 55) | 0 0 | 0 1 |
6 Michigan ………………. A = 87.60 | 5 0 | 72.26( 21) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
7 Penn State ……………. A = 86.14 | 5 0 | 70.07( 34) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
8 Cincinnati …………….. A = 86.09 | 4 0 | 68.25( 58) | 0 0 | 1 0 |
31 Michigan State ……. A = 77.28 | 5 0 | 66.53( 73) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
36 Wisconsin …………… A = 76.97 | 1 3 | 79.61( 1) | 0 2 | 0 3 |
40 Nebraska ……………. A = 76.62 | 3 3 | 68.46( 56) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
53 Indiana ………………… A = 74.25 | 2 3 | 78.12( 2) | 0 3 | 0 3 |
54 Maryland …………….. A = 74.20 | 4 1 | 67.78( 62) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
55 Rutgers ………………… A = 73.57 | 3 2 | 70.05( 36) | 0 2 | 0 2 |
58 Minnesota ……………. A = 73.37 | 3 2 | 67.88( 61) | 0 1 | 0 1 |
64 Purdue …………………. A = 72.38 | 3 2 | 68.85( 52) | 0 0 | 0 1 |
92 Illinois …………………… A = 66.11 | 2 4 | 70.52( 32) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
93 Northwestern ……… A = 66.02 | 2 3 | 64.61( 89) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
100 Western Kentucky A = 64.89 | 1 3 | 68.87( 51) | 0 0 | 0 0 |
181 Idaho ………………… AA = 45.39 | 1 3 | 73.83( 8) | 0 0 | 0 0 |

Last Week

Rank	Opponent	Opp. Index	Ind. Index	Margin​
6	@Iowa	86.48 + 2.77	74.27	14.98​
182	Idaho	44.34	74.27 + 2.77	-32.70​
13	Cincinnati	82.92	74.27 + 2.77	5.88​
89	@Western Kentucky	66.40 + 2.77	74.27	-5.10​
12	@Penn State	83.92 + 2.77	74.27	12.45​
37	Michigan State	76.60	74.27 + 2.77	-0.44​
7	Ohio State	85.57	74.27 + 2.77	8.53​
35	@Maryland	76.95 + 2.77	74.27	5.45​
4	@Michigan	87.37 + 2.77	74.27	15.87​
34	Rutgers	77.00	74.27 + 2.77	-0.04​
74	Minnesota	70.21	74.27 + 2.77	-6.83​
43	@Purdue	75.51 + 2.77	74.27	4.01​
55	Indiana		74.27

Sagarin got his BS from MIT. He did move to Bloomington in 1977.

 

[vesuvius13]

Sagarin put football team evaluations into algorithms to try and get a fairer evaluation. His like every other system sees things in a different light depending what their algorithm values.

 

[TomEric4756]

Sagarin put football team evaluations into algorithms to try and get a fairer evaluation. His like every other system sees things in a different light depending what their algorithm values.

Well said.

Given the 80’s, I would expect a some kind of least squares (error) minimization methodology based on scores. Blowouts that would skew rankings are discounted (as I recall reading for the basketball rankings decades ago). Older outcomes get discounted too using a weighting scheme. Deep learning neural technology wasn’t fashionable yet.

This was a curiosity exercise as I hadn’t liked the FPI numbers in the past (either). For me, they were too pessimistic. But a fan’s intuition is most probably biased. The Sagarin numbers provided an alternate construction to compare to FPI.

It’s misguided to assume the algorithms here are biased. (unlike poll voters). Building in bias … builds in error. Some ‘bias‘ can be built in by using historical records. But adding too many seasons would result in less accurate rankings. There is a diminishing rate of return principle in play. FPI implies it uses team efficiency rankings by publishing them too. But it’s quite opaque.