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
Talladega               18 15 2725 2592 -0.153    1 -0.079    1 -0.184    1  0.047    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1 16.212    1  0.797    3 -0.703
Rochester MI            21  9 2178 1834 -1.009    2 -0.391    2 -0.518    2 -0.605    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    2 14.631    7 -1.303    1  0.092
Apprentice              13 12 1716 1777 -0.605    3 -0.455    3 -0.553    3 -0.756    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    3 14.412    6 -1.009    2 -0.504
Oakwood                 15 10 2073 2003 -1.009    4 -0.683    4 -0.767    4 -0.891    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    4 13.654    2 -0.166    4 -1.615
Hiwassee                 8 15 1883 2276 -0.986    5 -1.142    5 -1.181    6 -1.890    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    5 11.665    3 -0.249   10 -3.531
Concordia AL             3 24 1933 2402 -0.448    6 -1.753    6 -1.766    5 -1.559    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    6  9.674    5 -0.965    7 -2.153
Florida College         10 16 1899 2068 -1.674    7 -1.881    7 -1.922    8 -2.021    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    7  9.063    8 -1.455    8 -2.586
Robt Morris-Springfield  7 13 1450 1587 -1.546    8 -1.946    8 -2.005    7 -1.916    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    8  8.860    9 -1.721    5 -2.112
Southern St OH           6 11 1571 1676 -2.417    9 -2.665    9 -2.734   11 -2.718    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    9  6.499    4 -0.346   12 -5.090
Rhema Bible              5 24 1887 2256 -1.856   10 -2.768   10 -2.836    9 -2.491    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   10  6.352   11 -2.831    6 -2.152
TEAM                     W  L   PF   PA  SCHED  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING
Pitt-Titusville          1  5  351  558 -2.976   11 -2.831   11 -2.842   12 -3.473    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   11  5.752   12 -3.356   11 -3.590
Silver Lake              0 24 1534 2095 -1.163   12 -3.178   12 -3.309   10 -2.648    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   12  5.363   10 -2.415    9 -2.880

USCAA-I: strength=-1.422 (#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
St Catharine            21 13 2423 2198  0.244       0.809       0.530       0.483      0.0000      0.0000      18.874      -0.049       1.014
Southern Virginia       16  9 2040 1807 -0.483      -0.001      -0.125      -0.264      0.0000      0.0000      16.339      -0.070      -0.458
Talladega               18 15 2725 2592 -0.153    1 -0.079    1 -0.184    1  0.047    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1 16.212    1  0.797    3 -0.703
Rochester MI            21  9 2178 1834 -1.009    2 -0.391    2 -0.518    2 -0.605    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    2 14.631    7 -1.303    1  0.092
Apprentice              13 12 1716 1777 -0.605    3 -0.455    3 -0.553    3 -0.756    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    3 14.412    6 -1.009    2 -0.504
Oakwood                 15 10 2073 2003 -1.009    4 -0.683    4 -0.767    4 -0.891    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    4 13.654    2 -0.166    4 -1.615
Washington Adventist     5 18 1654 1947 -0.453      -0.849      -0.940      -1.144      0.0000      0.0000      12.868      -0.546      -1.742
Dallas                  12 14 1629 1694 -1.030      -1.068      -1.103      -1.281      0.0000      0.0000      12.191      -1.886      -0.675
Hiwassee                 8 15 1883 2276 -0.986    5 -1.142    5 -1.181    6 -1.890    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    5 11.665    3 -0.249   10 -3.531
Philander Smith          6 10 1289 1354 -1.033      -1.281      -1.277      -1.227      0.0000      0.0000      11.508      -0.205      -2.249
Walla Walla              9 18 2119 2372 -0.976      -1.299      -1.300      -1.362      0.0000      0.0000      11.233      -0.422      -2.302
Spalding                12 13 1696 1632 -1.361      -1.407      -1.418      -1.263      0.0000      0.0000      10.959      -1.925      -0.600
Northern New Mexico      8 20 1970 2269 -1.023      -1.501      -1.519      -1.549      0.0000      0.0000      10.493      -1.195      -1.903
Marygrove               10 22 2244 2450 -1.057      -1.595      -1.625      -1.413      0.0000      0.0000      10.280      -1.123      -1.703
Concordia AL             3 24 1933 2402 -0.448    6 -1.753    6 -1.766    5 -1.559    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    6  9.674    5 -0.965    7 -2.153
Florida College         10 16 1899 2068 -1.674    7 -1.881    7 -1.922    8 -2.021    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    7  9.063    8 -1.455    8 -2.586
Robt Morris-Springfield  7 13 1450 1587 -1.546    8 -1.946    8 -2.005    7 -1.916    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    8  8.860    9 -1.721    5 -2.112
IU Northwest             5 25 2221 2765 -1.599      -2.237      -2.338      -2.419      0.0000      0.0000       7.774      -1.231      -3.608
Rhema Bible              5 24 1887 2256 -1.856   10 -2.768   10 -2.836    9 -2.491    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   10  6.352   11 -2.831    6 -2.152
Pitt-Titusville          1  5  351  558 -2.976   11 -2.831   11 -2.842   12 -3.473    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   11  5.752   12 -3.356   11 -3.590
Silver Lake              0 24 1534 2095 -1.163   12 -3.178   12 -3.309   10 -2.648    1 0.0000    1 0.0000   12  5.363   10 -2.415    9 -2.880

Conference Strengths
CONFERENCE                  W   L   PCT  RNK RATING
USCAA-I                   205 329 0.384    1 -1.422
``````

``````Home field advantage amounts to:
0.277 points in main ratings
0.031 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 16:25:06 2019 ```

Back to Dolphin rankings main page.