The ARGH pre-season power ratings are computed using the following factors, with the strength of each factor varying each year based on what has happened in the three previous years:
Previous Year's Power Rating. This is the single most powerful predictor of the current year's power rating, both because much of the team responsible for the previous year's results will be back and because the previous year's results are an indication in and of themselves of the talent level of the team. This factor is down for 2000.
Second Previous Year's Power Rating. This is used because much of the team will still be around after two years, and because it helps to create a historical context with which to judge a team. In other words, if a good team has an off year, this factor will tend to predict that team to bounce back. This factor is down slightly for 2000.
Number of returning starters. The number of projected starters is a fairly powerful indicator of whether a team will get better or worse. This factor is down fairly significantly although still quite strong for 2000.
In the past, I've used the number of returning starters from The Sporting News' College Football Yearbook with a few modifications because they had the most complete information. In 1999 TSN decided to reformat their team previews and in the process they decided to stop naming the returning starters, instead going with either two-deep projected starters and the number of starters lost or one-deep projected starters only, depending on whether the team in question was prominent enough for them. As a result, and combined with the fact that I found their choices of who was a returning starter to be unreliable, this year I used a projected starter figure averaged from Athlon, Phil Steele, Jim Feist and Football Action 2000, with research at Stats, Inc. determining whether a team returned a starting quarterback, kicker, or punter.
Returning Coach. A team changing coaches tends to get a little worse during the
year immediately after the change, presumably due to a period of adjustment to the new
coach's system. This factor is gone for 2000, thanks to a particularly strong
performance by new coaches in 1999. I expect it back in 2001 or 2002.
Returning Starting Quarterback. The quarterback is far and away the most important position in terms of experience, and a returning starting quarterback is worth much more than a returning starter at any other position. This factor is virtually unchanged for 2000.
Previous year's strength of schedule. This factor is supposed to work under the theory that teams tend to play up or down to the level of their competition. This factor is back in 2000 after a one year absence, but not terribly strong.
Recruiting. I'm using Athlon's recruiting rankings in 2000, as analysis has consistently shown a small but reasonably significant positive correlation between recruiting and a team's preformance in the next season. Preliminary preseason rankings do not include a recruiting factor; final preseason rankings do.
In actual usage, this factor will probably serve to keep teams and conferences somewhere near the level they've played at in previous years. The model I'm using isn't going to vault a team with a #1 recruiting ranking over a team with a #2 recruiting ranking unless they were very, very close to begin with, but it will usually jump a team ranked in the top 50 recruiting classes over a team that isn't from four or five places down.
Factors that are NOT used to calculate the ratings are:
Previous years' power ratings beyond two years. There's no evidence that these are statistically significant to the current year's power rankings.
Current year's strength of schedule. Almost every year some team is touted for the national championship because their schedule is so weak. Every year that team loses, usually more than one game, and usually early. Having a weak schedule does not make a team strong, and having a tough schedule does not make a team weak. These power ratings are meant to measure how good a team is, not to measure a team's ability to beat patsies.
Individual player talent. I don't pretend to know how to judge anything like this, and even the people who do are usually subject to either their own biases or a lack of context. Talent usually manifests itself in a team's record for the previous year, or possibly in a team's recruiting.
Because I like them. Cal, my alma mater, is ranked ninth among Pac-10 teams in the 2000 preseason rankings.
Because I dislike them. Notre Dame is generally in the top 25 in the final pre-season rankings even after years when they don't finish that high, although they generally do somewhat worse in the preliminary pre-season rankings than in the final ones because of their redshirt policy. Last year these rankings correctly picked Stanford to be a borderline top 25 team.
Because *you* like them. These ratings are strictly mathematical, and an e-mail that says something like
"I'm a 1977 alumni of Wild Card U., and in my unbiased opinion, my Jokers are going to go all the way!! Go Jokers!!!!!!"
--myopicphan@wildcard.edu
won't change the formulas or the ratings.
This page last modified July 24, 2000.
Click here for a description of how the ARGH Power Ratings work.
Click here to return to the ARGH home page