Explanation: Each team is listed with its record, overall score differential, and six ratings. Brief explanations of the ratings follow.
• Schedule The number in this column is the effective opponent strength of a team. In other words, they would be expected to have the same record had they played all games against an opponent of this predictive rating at a neutral site. Because this calculation depends on the strength of the team in question, it is not possible to rank schedules using these values.
• Standard Ranks teams in an order such that a team is "probably better" than all teams ranked lower than it. This calculation uses margin of victory only for computing a team's opponents strengths; the team's rating itself is computed using only wins, losses, and ties relative to its schedule
• Median Likelihood Determines the likely ratings for each team, based on its wins, losses, and ties relative to its schedule. This generally produces the same or similar ratings as the standard ranking.
• Predictive Both schedule strength and rating vs. schedule strength are determined considering both the wins and losses and the score differentials. This rating contains none of the biases in the standard rating, but does weight recent games slightly more than past games since those are a better indication of the team's current strength. This rating is the best of the first three for seeing how good teams are, and thus is the best for predicting future results.
• Improved RPI Rating The improved RPI formula is similar to the standard RPI, except that the schedule strength is carried out to infinite depth instead of ending with opponents' opponents, thus allows for a better comparison of isolated groups of teams than is given by the standard RPI calculation. It is similar to the simple rating, except that all games are given equal weight.
• RPI Rating. Included only because of common real-life usage. The RPI rating has many statistical problems. The football RPI rating is based on the BCS formula, and approximates the schedule, loss, and quality win components.
• Pseudo-Poll. A blended ranking based on win-loss and predictive ratings, calibrated to match real-life polls as closely as possible. This gives a rough but unbiased estimate of how typical voters value record vs. impressive wins.
• Predictive-Scoring. This value indicates how many points a team would be expected to score if it played an identical team.
• Predictive-Offense. This combines the predictive and scoring ratings to measure how many points a team scores. The number is the predictive rating of an opponent against whom the team would be expected to score the league average number of points. This does not necessarily rate a team's offensive abilities, as a fast pace in basketball or big-play defense in football can make a team score more points.
• Predictive-Defense. This combines the predictive and scoring ratings to measure how many points a team allows. The number is the predictive rating of an opponent against whom the team would be expected to allow the league average number of points. The same caveat in the predictive-offense rating applies here.
Because these ratings contain no prejudices regarding team or conference strengths, they tend to be quite inaccurate early in the seasons. College football appears to take at least 5 games per team before even remotely reasonable ratings are produced; acceptable ratings are produced with 8 games per team; excellent ratings unfortunately require 14 games per team.

Rankings by division: Overall I-A I-AA II III NAIA NESCAC

## Full Ranking

``````
Unconnected teams:
STANDARD   MED LIKELY  PREDICTIVE  IMPRVD RPI     RPI         POLL       OFFENSE     DEFENSE
TEAM                     W  L  PF  PA  SCHED  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING
Trinity CT               8  0 276  36  0.391       1.759       1.613       1.624      0.0000      0.0000      13.299       0.806       2.442
Colby                    7  1 206 114 -0.063       0.954       0.936       0.490      0.0000      0.0000      11.864       0.317       0.662
Williams                 6  2 215 153  0.134       0.854       0.813       0.443      0.0000      0.0000      11.600       0.561       0.324
Bowdoin                  6  2 131 124 -0.071       0.838       0.792      -0.089      0.0000      0.0000      11.478      -0.664       0.486
Amherst                  5  3 201  98  0.383       0.514       0.404       0.950      0.0000      0.0000      11.304       0.586       1.313
Middlebury               3  5 153 141  0.150      -0.226      -0.231       0.115      0.0000      0.0000       9.726      -0.226       0.456
Tufts                    2  6 109 153  0.076      -0.612      -0.606      -0.231      0.0000      0.0000       8.809      -0.750       0.287
Bates                    2  6 116 224 -0.360      -0.791      -0.829      -0.822      0.0000      0.0000       8.126      -0.907      -0.736
Hamilton                 1  7  96 295 -0.440      -1.078      -1.175      -1.330      0.0000      0.0000       7.251      -1.343      -1.317
Wesleyan                 0  8  94 259 -0.410      -1.653      -1.734      -1.149      0.0000      0.0000       6.347      -1.352      -0.946

Conference Strengths
CONFERENCE                                               W  L   PCT  RNK RATING
``````

``````Home field advantage amounts to:
0.198 points in main ratings
0.023 points in improved RPI
Average of 6.20 points per score
``````
```Predict score: vs. hosting at Team Strength vs. Time Plot: posted: Mon Dec 23 16:37:35 2019 ```

Back to Dolphin rankings main page.