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 NCAA-I NCAA-II NCAA-III NAIA-I NAIA-II NCCAA-I NCCAA-II USCAA-I USCAA-II CIS CCAA NBCAA Indep

## Full Ranking

``````                                                 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
Apprentice              18 10 2116 2010 -0.681    1 -0.354    1 -0.431    1 -0.538    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1 14.902    2 -0.538    2 -0.539
Rochester MI            20 10 2282 2084 -0.953    2 -0.547    2 -0.644    2 -0.589    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    2 14.146    4 -0.747    1 -0.430
Northwest Christian     15  9 1937 1656 -1.091    3 -0.841    3 -0.922    3 -0.716    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    3 13.092    3 -0.604    3 -0.827
Johnson & Wales FL      10 16 1772 1929 -0.958    4 -1.148    4 -1.207    6 -1.345    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    5 11.369    8 -1.657    5 -1.032
Concordia AL             6 17 1828 2022 -0.549    5 -1.149    5 -1.208    5 -1.260    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    4 11.594    1 -0.315    7 -2.206
Robt Morris-Springfield 15 15 2209 2086 -1.294    6 -1.323    6 -1.402    4 -1.053    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    6 10.785    7 -1.225    4 -0.881
Philander Smith          4 18 1628 2037 -0.978    7 -1.603    7 -1.728    8 -1.896    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    7  9.246    6 -1.111   10 -2.680
Marygrove               14 18 2626 2795 -1.813    8 -1.759    8 -1.822    9 -2.010    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    8  8.978    5 -0.974   11 -3.046
San Jose Christian      12 18 2069 2297 -1.718    9 -1.784    9 -1.849    7 -1.894    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    9  8.832    9 -1.993    6 -1.795
Rhema Bible             15 22 2521 2823 -2.089   10 -2.005   10 -2.116   11 -2.376    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   10  8.104   11 -2.532    8 -2.219
TEAM                     W  L   PF   PA  SCHED  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING
Florida College          2 14 1114 1326 -1.517   11 -2.316   11 -2.436   10 -2.285    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   11  7.421   10 -2.028    9 -2.542

USCAA-I: strength=-1.541 (#1)
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
Apprentice              18 10 2116 2010 -0.681    1 -0.354    1 -0.431    1 -0.538    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1 14.902    2 -0.538    2 -0.539
Dallas                  13 13 1882 1828 -0.551      -0.533      -0.630      -0.442      0.0000      0.0000      14.271      -0.458      -0.427
Rochester MI            20 10 2282 2084 -0.953    2 -0.547    2 -0.644    2 -0.589    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    2 14.146    4 -0.747    1 -0.430
LaGrange                14 13 2323 2382 -0.765      -0.604      -0.682      -0.871      0.0000      0.0000      13.919       0.416      -2.159
Northwest Christian     15  9 1937 1656 -1.091    3 -0.841    3 -0.922    3 -0.716    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    3 13.092    3 -0.604    3 -0.827
Southern Virginia       11 14 1834 1875 -0.888      -0.919      -0.972      -1.034      0.0000      0.0000      12.748      -0.918      -1.151
Presentation            18 11 2213 2151 -1.512      -1.038      -1.086      -1.407      0.0000      0.0000      11.861      -1.053      -1.760
Texas-Tyler              8 17 1911 2083 -0.672      -1.093      -1.143      -1.114      0.0000      0.0000      11.757      -0.551      -1.676
Finlandia                8 16 1673 1824 -0.806      -1.144      -1.203      -1.241      0.0000      0.0000      11.510      -1.064      -1.418
Johnson & Wales FL      10 16 1772 1929 -0.958    4 -1.148    4 -1.207    6 -1.345    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    5 11.369    8 -1.657    5 -1.032
Concordia AL             6 17 1828 2022 -0.549    5 -1.149    5 -1.208    5 -1.260    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    4 11.594    1 -0.315    7 -2.206
Maine-Machias           22 10 2576 2366 -1.981      -1.195      -1.267      -1.577      0.0000      0.0000      11.231      -1.143      -2.011
Robt Morris-Springfield 15 15 2209 2086 -1.294    6 -1.323    6 -1.402    4 -1.053    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    6 10.785    7 -1.225    4 -0.881
Philander Smith          4 18 1628 2037 -0.978    7 -1.603    7 -1.728    8 -1.896    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    7  9.246    6 -1.111   10 -2.680
Columbia Union           1 27 1825 2501 -0.484      -1.617      -1.746      -1.739      0.0000      0.0000       9.503      -1.444      -2.033
Marygrove               14 18 2626 2795 -1.813    8 -1.759    8 -1.822    9 -2.010    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    8  8.978    5 -0.974   11 -3.046
San Jose Christian      12 18 2069 2297 -1.718    9 -1.784    9 -1.849    7 -1.894    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    9  8.832    9 -1.993    6 -1.795
Rhema Bible             15 22 2521 2823 -2.089   10 -2.005   10 -2.116   11 -2.376    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   10  8.104   11 -2.532    8 -2.219
Florida College          2 14 1114 1326 -1.517   11 -2.316   11 -2.436   10 -2.285    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   11  7.421   10 -2.028    9 -2.542
Maine-Fort Kent          7 13 1562 1688 -2.228      -2.335      -2.463      -2.241      0.0000      0.0000       7.434      -1.511      -2.972
Davenport                2 25 1754 2383 -1.293      -2.394      -2.454      -2.517      0.0000      0.0000       7.215      -2.369      -2.665
Principia                3 22 1502 1940 -1.504      -2.402      -2.466      -2.670      0.0000      0.0000       7.194      -3.308      -2.031

Conference Strengths
CONFERENCE                 W   L   PCT  RNK RATING
USCAA-I                  238 348 0.406    1 -1.541
``````

``````Home field advantage amounts to:
0.333 points in main ratings
0.033 points in improved RPI
Average of 2.15 points per score
``````
```Predict score: vs. hosting at Team Strength vs. Time Plot: posted: Mon Dec 23 16:22:29 2019 ```

Back to Dolphin rankings main page.