OFFENSIVE LINE
The OLine will be the linchpin in the 2009 Fighting Irish campaign. If the they can get it together the probability of a great season is very high. This position group is comprised of five veteran starters with a ton of experience that are at a “now or never” crossroads in 2009 and if you buy into the Wall St Journal's thesis that "Offensive-Line Experience Can Predict Success" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984090891223207.html and http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-OFFENSIVELINE0905.html) as well as Ivan Maisel (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/notebook?page=iform080827) who said "One of the best hidden statistics I have found for determining the success of a college football team is the number of cumulative starts among its offensive linemen. The magic number for success is somewhere around 75" then ND should be in good shape for next year.
After a quick look, I find ND ahead of not only every regular season opponent, but above every single BCS conference team save Virginia Tech. Here's the the breakdown of ND career OL starts versus the 2009 opponents:
1. Notre Dame - 100
2. Southern Cal - 91
3. Connecticut - 91
4. Washington State - 82
5. Boston College - 80
6. Michigan - 75
7. Washington - 67
8. Nevada - 62
9. Pittsburgh - 62
10. Purdue - 56
11. Stanford - 53
12. Michigan State - 47
13. Navy - 32
By all accounts new OL coach Frank Verducci is doing well with this group with the infamous Sam Young saying that he's teaching them things they never heard of under Latina. In fact, Verducci stated himself how shocked he was that the OLine had such poor technique and such little knowledge. There really are no excuses for the Notre Dame offensive line, and by extension offense, in 2009. In addition to their own experience, there is a lack of veteran laden DL opponents if you consider that ND has more collective starts than half the opponents.
I expect the OLine, especially the 5 starters, to be good not great. The second and third stringers have almost no experience and there are a lot of question marks about how they will fill in. Clausen may still have to run for his life on occasion, but if he has time to throw the ball downfield, and if there is any semblance of a run game to keep defenses honest (see what happened MSU and BC last year when they dared ND to run the ball).
Overall things really are lining up for a return to 2005/2006 type offensive fireworks. Anything less would be a severe disappointment.
The OLine will be the linchpin in the 2009 Fighting Irish campaign. If the they can get it together the probability of a great season is very high. This position group is comprised of five veteran starters with a ton of experience that are at a “now or never” crossroads in 2009 and if you buy into the Wall St Journal's thesis that "Offensive-Line Experience Can Predict Success" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984090891223207.html and http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-OFFENSIVELINE0905.html) as well as Ivan Maisel (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/notebook?page=iform080827) who said "One of the best hidden statistics I have found for determining the success of a college football team is the number of cumulative starts among its offensive linemen. The magic number for success is somewhere around 75" then ND should be in good shape for next year.
After a quick look, I find ND ahead of not only every regular season opponent, but above every single BCS conference team save Virginia Tech. Here's the the breakdown of ND career OL starts versus the 2009 opponents:
1. Notre Dame - 100
2. Southern Cal - 91
3. Connecticut - 91
4. Washington State - 82
5. Boston College - 80
6. Michigan - 75
7. Washington - 67
8. Nevada - 62
9. Pittsburgh - 62
10. Purdue - 56
11. Stanford - 53
12. Michigan State - 47
13. Navy - 32
By all accounts new OL coach Frank Verducci is doing well with this group with the infamous Sam Young saying that he's teaching them things they never heard of under Latina. In fact, Verducci stated himself how shocked he was that the OLine had such poor technique and such little knowledge. There really are no excuses for the Notre Dame offensive line, and by extension offense, in 2009. In addition to their own experience, there is a lack of veteran laden DL opponents if you consider that ND has more collective starts than half the opponents.
I expect the OLine, especially the 5 starters, to be good not great. The second and third stringers have almost no experience and there are a lot of question marks about how they will fill in. Clausen may still have to run for his life on occasion, but if he has time to throw the ball downfield, and if there is any semblance of a run game to keep defenses honest (see what happened MSU and BC last year when they dared ND to run the ball).
Overall things really are lining up for a return to 2005/2006 type offensive fireworks. Anything less would be a severe disappointment.
That is not always true. Michigan still does not have a complete schedule for next year. They did not complete their schedule for this year until the early part of this year. This is because Michigan is afraid to schedule strong BCS Teams what want a home and home series. They have aparently fallen in love with FCS and MAC teams, and Notre Dame. They backed out of home and home games against Georgia, and others.
Notre Dame also intentionally scheduled very weak teams, and admitted to this. Purdue, Washington, Washington State, Navy, and Stanford have been weak for years. Notre Dame is also trying to schedule a long series with the Army. They have a long series inked with Stanford. Notre Dame knew full well that none of thse teams were powerhouses when they made this schedule. To their credit, they did ink OU to a home and home in 2012 and 2013.
Scheduling
Guys, Until the NCAA starts rewarding teams for strength of schedule it is a moot point. When teams like Boise St (who has the 103rd toughest schedule - only 17 easier) AND TCU (who has the 105th toughest schedule) have a serious chance to break the BCS barrier, it is a joke, plain and simple. You should have to have played a certain level of competition to be taken under consideration. Record alone, based on some of these schedules, is meaningless. It breeds sand bagging, almost slow pitch softball mentality, to where you get rewarded for everything that is wrong. The NCAA is all about bowls and money and they are not concerened about anything else. Every other sport in the NCAA at every level goes through some sort of playoff or tournament to decide a champion. They are thumbing their noses at the legitimate teams who play tough schedules and all the fans who know that the system (or lack of one) is just plain wrong.
Guys, Until the NCAA starts rewarding teams for strength of schedule it is a moot point. When teams like Boise St (who has the 103rd toughest schedule - only 17 easier) AND TCU (who has the 105th toughest schedule) have a serious chance to break the BCS barrier, it is a joke, plain and simple. You should have to have played a certain level of competition to be taken under consideration. Record alone, based on some of these schedules, is meaningless. It breeds sand bagging, almost slow pitch softball mentality, to where you get rewarded for everything that is wrong. The NCAA is all about bowls and money and they are not concerened about anything else. Every other sport in the NCAA at every level goes through some sort of playoff or tournament to decide a champion. They are thumbing their noses at the legitimate teams who play tough schedules and all the fans who know that the system (or lack of one) is just plain wrong.
Who knows? I will tell you this, Nevada's home field has an average attendance of 19,043 although I do not know it's capacity. Schools like Nevada probably take home as much off a game like this playing at Notre Dame (Average attendance 80,795) as they do in all their home games combined when you consider they are going to get a piece of the TV money too. Teams like Nevada are probably the agressors in pursuing these matchups because it benefits their programs big time. Ever since TCU popped OU at OU in 2005 I think a lot of AD and HC's have learned that you run that kind of a risk when you schedule an apparent cupcake in advance. A school like Nevada can use that as a recruiting inticement. In 2005 USF knocked off then #9 Louisville in Louisville. Middle Tenn hosted Maryland LY and caught them looking ahead to the Cal game (24-14). But when teams like Florida line up Georgia Southern, Texas lines up ULM and Wyoming, it is all about lightening the schedule.
Stength of schedule is one of the few, if not the only, method of comparing teams in terms of performance that can help come up with rankings. If the NCAA is going to rely on ranking and not do a playoff, it seems like they are trying to leave it flexible enough to insert political and monetary fudge factors to manipulate the final ratings the way they want them. They remain in fact arbitrary and are in no means fair and equal.
Maybe Fox News should pick the two teams for the BCS Championship Game. Bill O'reilly would flip the coin and all those good looking blondes could work the sidelines.
But teams that constantly schedule very weak teams often pay for it in bowl games. The Big 10 is just terrible in bowl games. If you look a t their non-conference schedule, you will see that few Big 10 teams schedule more than 1 decent opponent, and some schedule none. Just look at Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Indiana, and Penn State. Disgraseful non-con schedules. Now how many of those teams won a bowl game last year. None. So while the SOS may not mean much in the BCS, that only affects TWO teams. There are 34 bowl games and every one of them has tie-ins. It does not matter if your team finishes 5th in their conference at 7-5. They are going to the same bowl game they would have gone to no matter who they played. What matters is how much of a chance they have at winning those games.
The whole purpose is to get to a bowl and pick up the paycheck. Of course they want to win but I think too many people put too much emphasis on bowl games. I do not even consider LY's bowl wins or losses in breaking down this seasons teams and matchups. You can always bet against the kind of teams you just mentioned. I really waste very little time or money on the bowls. I try to do my damage during the regular season and the conference championships. I then allow 10% of my bankroll for betting on bowls and concentrate on meaningful NFL games down the strech.
My mystery teams
There are six teams that I have a hard time getting a handle on. They are Georgia, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas Tech, Missouri, and Utah. Anyone who has a handle on these and/or some special insights I would love to hear from you.
Georgia - They have a lot of horses but I am not sure how that converts into actual points scored, at least for a while.
Nebraska - I know their defense will be fine but again I am not sure how their offense will come out of the shoot.
Oregon - Just not sure if they have the horses to reload and their defense was not pretty last year.
Texas Tech - I know they have a history of reloading at QB but what about the rest of the team. They could be a real sleeper.
Missouri - Show me. In a weak Big 12 North they could be a sleeper too.
Utah - Wow, they lost a lot. I know they can beat the patsies but what about Oregon, TCU, and BYU. Even if they lost those they would wind up 9-3 and not be very good in my opinion.
Help!
There are six teams that I have a hard time getting a handle on. They are Georgia, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas Tech, Missouri, and Utah. Anyone who has a handle on these and/or some special insights I would love to hear from you.
Georgia - They have a lot of horses but I am not sure how that converts into actual points scored, at least for a while.
Nebraska - I know their defense will be fine but again I am not sure how their offense will come out of the shoot.
Oregon - Just not sure if they have the horses to reload and their defense was not pretty last year.
Texas Tech - I know they have a history of reloading at QB but what about the rest of the team. They could be a real sleeper.
Missouri - Show me. In a weak Big 12 North they could be a sleeper too.
Utah - Wow, they lost a lot. I know they can beat the patsies but what about Oregon, TCU, and BYU. Even if they lost those they would wind up 9-3 and not be very good in my opinion.
Help!
from philsteele.com
Phil Steele's Daily Blog - Monday July 13th
The last two days I have gone over how all 120 teams have fared at home this decade and how they have fared on the road. Here are the results for all 120 teams combined.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><COLGROUP><COL width=26><COL span=4 width=75><COL width=21><COL width=28><COL width=90><COL span=3 width=75><TBODY><TR height=13><TD width=26 height=13></TD><TD width=87></TD><TD width=75>
Troy St wins 88% of its home games and only 37% of the time on the road. That makes playing in Movie Gallery Stadium a tough test. Of course Troy does play a lot of BCS non conference teams on the road and hosts some FCS or 1AA teams as well as the Sun Belt so that has something to do with the difference. I would expect the majority of the top 25 to be made up of non BCS schools who must take on the big boys away from home in money games. There are some surprising BCS conference schools in the Top 15 and most of those teams are ones that I equate as having solid home field edges and this bears that out. Virginia wins 74% of its games at home but only 35% of the time on the road and tier 39% difference is 4th highest in the NCAA. Kansas wins 63% of their games at home and just 26% on the road and interestingly they have just 3 Big 12 home games this year playing 5 away from home. Penn St and Iowa have two of the tougher home stadiums and both are in the top 10 in terms of disparity between home and away records. Kansas St Nebraska and USF are next on the list. I personally thought Texas Tech would be top 5 as they are 47-10 at home in Lubbock (82.5%) but they are just #14 in terms of disparity as they have won 49% of their road games. Iowa St and Oregon St are not surprises to be at the top as I rate both as having large home edges and being average on the road.
I have to admit before I produced the chart my first question was is there a team or teams in the NCAA that has a higher winning % on the road than they do at home? The answer is yes. Georgia has actually won 84.2% of their true away games while winning just 82.5% Between the Hedges. Teams that perform almost as well on the road as they do at home are Texas, Wash St, Navy, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Arizona, USC and Tennessee. Check the chart above for the exact percentages.
This is a category that I will factor into my home field edges for next season. This also has me thinking of providing a road rating for each team in next years magazine! In an upcoming blurb I will provide the data that went into my home field rankings for this year.
Phil Steele's Daily Blog - Monday July 13th
The last two days I have gone over how all 120 teams have fared at home this decade and how they have fared on the road. Here are the results for all 120 teams combined.
120 FBS Home team records: 4109-2385 (63.3%)
120 FBS Away team records: 2340-3562 (39.6%)
That means that on the average teams in the FBS (1A) have a home winning % that is 23.7% greater than their away winning percentage. Now you guys know me by now. I cant leave things go at just that without having a few more questions answered. I wonder which teams play at a much higher level at home than they do on the road. This would be answered by taking the home winning % and subtracting the road %. Also which teams are true road warriors almost playing as well on the road as they do at home? Here are the results for all 120 teams for their home and away records this decades. I ranked them in order of biggest disparity between home and away % to the lowest.120 FBS Away team records: 2340-3562 (39.6%)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><COLGROUP><COL width=26><COL span=4 width=75><COL width=21><COL width=28><COL width=90><COL span=3 width=75><TBODY><TR height=13><TD width=26 height=13></TD><TD width=87></TD><TD width=75>
Home %
</TD><TD width=75>Away %
</TD><TD width=75>Difference
</TD><TD width=21></TD><TD width=28></TD><TD width=122></TD><TD width=61>Home %
</TD><TD width=75>Away %
</TD><TD width=75>Difference
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>1
</TD><TD>TROY</TD><TD align=right>87.8%
</TD><TD align=right>37.1%
</TD><TD align=right>50.7%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>61
</TD><TD>TEXAS A&M</TD><TD align=right>62.7%
</TD><TD align=right>40.9%
</TD><TD align=right>21.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>2
</TD><TD>ARK ST</TD><TD align=right>62.5%
</TD><TD align=right>17.9%
</TD><TD align=right>44.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>62
</TD><TD>ILLINOIS</TD><TD align=right>51.8%
</TD><TD align=right>30.2%
</TD><TD align=right>21.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>3
</TD><TD>MARSHALL</TD><TD align=right>75.0%
</TD><TD align=right>33.3%
</TD><TD align=right>41.7%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>63
</TD><TD>CENTRAL MICH</TD><TD align=right>55.3%
</TD><TD align=right>33.9%
</TD><TD align=right>21.4%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>4
</TD><TD>VIRGINIA</TD><TD align=right>73.7%
</TD><TD align=right>34.7%
</TD><TD align=right>39.0%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>64
</TD><TD>CLEMSON</TD><TD align=right>73.3%
</TD><TD align=right>52.4%
</TD><TD align=right>21.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>5
</TD><TD>LOUIS TECH</TD><TD align=right>65.9%
</TD><TD align=right>27.4%
</TD><TD align=right>38.5%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>65
</TD><TD>COLORADO</TD><TD align=right>60.4%
</TD><TD align=right>39.5%
</TD><TD align=right>20.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>6
</TD><TD>KANSAS</TD><TD align=right>62.7%
</TD><TD align=right>26.2%
</TD><TD align=right>36.5%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>66
</TD><TD>LOUISIANA</TD><TD align=right>45.8%
</TD><TD align=right>25.0%
</TD><TD align=right>20.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>7
</TD><TD>PENN ST</TD><TD align=right>75.4%
</TD><TD align=right>39.5%
</TD><TD align=right>35.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>67
</TD><TD>MICHIGAN</TD><TD align=right>78.7%
</TD><TD align=right>58.1%
</TD><TD align=right>20.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>8
</TD><TD>IOWA</TD><TD align=right>77.6%
</TD><TD align=right>42.2%
</TD><TD align=right>35.4%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>68
</TD><TD>FIU</TD><TD align=right>39.5%
</TD><TD align=right>19.0%
</TD><TD align=right>20.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>9
</TD><TD>TOLEDO</TD><TD align=right>79.2%
</TD><TD align=right>44.2%
</TD><TD align=right>35.0%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>69
</TD><TD>COLO ST</TD><TD align=right>63.3%
</TD><TD align=right>42.9%
</TD><TD align=right>20.4%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>10
</TD><TD>KANSAS ST</TD><TD align=right>71.4%
</TD><TD align=right>36.6%
</TD><TD align=right>34.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>70
</TD><TD>NORTH TEXAS</TD><TD align=right>48.9%
</TD><TD align=right>28.8%
</TD><TD align=right>20.1%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>11
</TD><TD>NEBRASKA</TD><TD align=right>79.7%
</TD><TD align=right>45.2%
</TD><TD align=right>34.4%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>71
</TD><TD>S CAROLINA</TD><TD align=right>63.9%
</TD><TD align=right>44.2%
</TD><TD align=right>19.7%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>12
</TD><TD>USF</TD><TD align=right>79.6%
</TD><TD align=right>45.8%
</TD><TD align=right>33.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>72
</TD><TD>BOISE ST</TD><TD align=right>96.6%
</TD><TD align=right>76.9%
</TD><TD align=right>19.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>13
</TD><TD>TEXAS TECH</TD><TD align=right>82.5%
</TD><TD align=right>49.0%
</TD><TD align=right>33.5%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>73
</TD><TD>FLORIDA</TD><TD align=right>84.5%
</TD><TD align=right>64.9%
</TD><TD align=right>19.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>14
</TD><TD>IOWA ST</TD><TD align=right>58.6%
</TD><TD align=right>25.5%
</TD><TD align=right>33.1%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>74
</TD><TD>WASHINGTON</TD><TD align=right>50.0%
</TD><TD align=right>30.4%
</TD><TD align=right>19.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>15
</TD><TD>OREGON ST</TD><TD align=right>78.2%
</TD><TD align=right>46.0%
</TD><TD align=right>32.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>75
</TD><TD>LSU</TD><TD align=right>84.4%
</TD><TD align=right>65.0%
</TD><TD align=right>19.4%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>16
</TD><TD>UTAH ST</TD><TD align=right>45.5%
</TD><TD align=right>13.6%
</TD><TD align=right>31.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>76
</TD><TD>WISCONSIN</TD><TD align=right>74.2%
</TD><TD align=right>55.6%
</TD><TD align=right>18.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>17
</TD><TD>MIDDLE TENN</TD><TD align=right>64.4%
</TD><TD align=right>32.8%
</TD><TD align=right>31.7%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>77
</TD><TD>ULM</TD><TD align=right>40.0%
</TD><TD align=right>22.0%
</TD><TD align=right>18.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>18
</TD><TD>CINCINNATI</TD><TD align=right>75.5%
</TD><TD align=right>44.2%
</TD><TD align=right>31.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>78
</TD><TD>LOUISVILLE</TD><TD align=right>80.4%
</TD><TD align=right>62.5%
</TD><TD align=right>17.9%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>19
</TD><TD>SAN JOSE ST</TD><TD align=right>58.7%
</TD><TD align=right>27.9%
</TD><TD align=right>30.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>79
</TD><TD>FLA ATLANTIC</TD><TD align=right>55.3%
</TD><TD align=right>37.5%
</TD><TD align=right>17.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>20
</TD><TD>WYOMING</TD><TD align=right>48.1%
</TD><TD align=right>17.3%
</TD><TD align=right>30.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>80
</TD><TD>OKLAHOMA</TD><TD align=right>96.5%
</TD><TD align=right>78.9%
</TD><TD align=right>17.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>21
</TD><TD>RICE</TD><TD align=right>59.1%
</TD><TD align=right>28.6%
</TD><TD align=right>30.5%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>81
</TD><TD>SAN DIEGO ST</TD><TD align=right>41.2%
</TD><TD align=right>23.6%
</TD><TD align=right>17.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>22
</TD><TD>INDIANA</TD><TD align=right>47.4%
</TD><TD align=right>17.0%
</TD><TD align=right>30.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>82
</TD><TD>NORTH CAROLINA</TD><TD align=right>50.0%
</TD><TD align=right>32.7%
</TD><TD align=right>17.3%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>23
</TD><TD>HAWAII</TD><TD align=right>74.3%
</TD><TD align=right>44.2%
</TD><TD align=right>30.1%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>83
</TD><TD>RUTGERS</TD><TD align=right>51.7%
</TD><TD align=right>34.8%
</TD><TD align=right>16.9%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>24
</TD><TD>MARYLAND</TD><TD align=right>75.4%
</TD><TD align=right>45.7%
</TD><TD align=right>29.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>84
</TD><TD>NC STATE</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>43.2%
</TD><TD align=right>16.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>25
</TD><TD>BAYLOR</TD><TD align=right>42.1%
</TD><TD align=right>12.8%
</TD><TD align=right>29.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>85
</TD><TD>BYU</TD><TD align=right>72.2%
</TD><TD align=right>55.8%
</TD><TD align=right>16.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>26
</TD><TD>MISSOURI</TD><TD align=right>67.3%
</TD><TD align=right>38.1%
</TD><TD align=right>29.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>86
</TD><TD>UNLV</TD><TD align=right>42.3%
</TD><TD align=right>25.9%
</TD><TD align=right>16.4%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>27
</TD><TD>NEVADA</TD><TD align=right>61.5%
</TD><TD align=right>32.7%
</TD><TD align=right>28.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>87
</TD><TD>FLORIDA ST</TD><TD align=right>75.0%
</TD><TD align=right>58.7%
</TD><TD align=right>16.3%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>28
</TD><TD>E MICHIGAN</TD><TD align=right>41.3%
</TD><TD align=right>13.0%
</TD><TD align=right>28.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>88
</TD><TD>MEMPHIS</TD><TD align=right>54.4%
</TD><TD align=right>38.3%
</TD><TD align=right>16.1%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>29
</TD><TD>ARIZONA ST</TD><TD align=right>68.3%
</TD><TD align=right>40.0%
</TD><TD align=right>28.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>89
</TD><TD>PITTSBURGH</TD><TD align=right>66.7%
</TD><TD align=right>51.1%
</TD><TD align=right>15.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>30
</TD><TD>N ILLINOIS</TD><TD align=right>72.5%
</TD><TD align=right>44.2%
</TD><TD align=right>28.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>90
</TD><TD>SOUTHERN MISS</TD><TD align=right>67.3%
</TD><TD align=right>51.8%
</TD><TD align=right>15.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>31
</TD><TD>SYRACUSE</TD><TD align=right>52.7%
</TD><TD align=right>24.5%
</TD><TD align=right>28.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>91
</TD><TD>OREGON</TD><TD align=right>77.2%
</TD><TD align=right>61.7%
</TD><TD align=right>15.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>32
</TD><TD>W MICHIGAN</TD><TD align=right>64.6%
</TD><TD align=right>36.4%
</TD><TD align=right>28.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>92
</TD><TD>BUFFALO</TD><TD align=right>31.3%
</TD><TD align=right>16.1%
</TD><TD align=right>15.2%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>33
</TD><TD>PURDUE</TD><TD align=right>69.5%
</TD><TD align=right>41.3%
</TD><TD align=right>28.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>93
</TD><TD>TEMPLE</TD><TD align=right>32.0%
</TD><TD align=right>17.0%
</TD><TD align=right>15.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>34
</TD><TD>UTEP</TD><TD align=right>55.8%
</TD><TD align=right>27.8%
</TD><TD align=right>28.0%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>94
</TD><TD>UTAH</TD><TD align=right>75.0%
</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>15.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>35
</TD><TD>AKRON</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>32.8%
</TD><TD align=right>27.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>95
</TD><TD>VIRGINIA TECH</TD><TD align=right>85.2%
</TD><TD align=right>70.5%
</TD><TD align=right>14.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>36
</TD><TD>TULANE</TD><TD align=right>50.0%
</TD><TD align=right>23.1%
</TD><TD align=right>26.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>96
</TD><TD>BOWLING GRN</TD><TD align=right>67.4%
</TD><TD align=right>52.6%
</TD><TD align=right>14.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>37
</TD><TD>NEW MEX ST</TD><TD align=right>46.0%
</TD><TD align=right>19.3%
</TD><TD align=right>26.7%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>97
</TD><TD>NEW MEXICO</TD><TD align=right>60.7%
</TD><TD align=right>46.2%
</TD><TD align=right>14.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>38
</TD><TD>OKLA ST</TD><TD align=right>64.9%
</TD><TD align=right>38.3%
</TD><TD align=right>26.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>98
</TD><TD>EAST CAROLINA</TD><TD align=right>53.1%
</TD><TD align=right>38.9%
</TD><TD align=right>14.2%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>39
</TD><TD>SMU</TD><TD align=right>37.7%
</TD><TD align=right>11.5%
</TD><TD align=right>26.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>99
</TD><TD>Air Force</TD><TD align=right>61.8%
</TD><TD align=right>47.9%
</TD><TD align=right>13.9%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>40
</TD><TD>UCLA</TD><TD align=right>67.9%
</TD><TD align=right>41.7%
</TD><TD align=right>26.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>100
</TD><TD>KENT</TD><TD align=right>40.4%
</TD><TD align=right>26.8%
</TD><TD align=right>13.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>41
</TD><TD>WKU</TD><TD align=right>75.9%
</TD><TD align=right>50.0%
</TD><TD align=right>25.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>101
</TD><TD>NORTHWESTERN</TD><TD align=right>56.4%
</TD><TD align=right>42.9%
</TD><TD align=right>13.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>42
</TD><TD>MISSISSIPPI</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>34.1%
</TD><TD align=right>25.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>102
</TD><TD>ARMY</TD><TD align=right>26.5%
</TD><TD align=right>13.0%
</TD><TD align=right>13.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>43
</TD><TD>UAB</TD><TD align=right>56.3%
</TD><TD align=right>30.4%
</TD><TD align=right>25.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>103
</TD><TD>MIAMI FL</TD><TD align=right>80.7%
</TD><TD align=right>68.1%
</TD><TD align=right>12.6%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>44
</TD><TD>ARKANSAS</TD><TD align=right>69.2%
</TD><TD align=right>43.6%
</TD><TD align=right>25.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>104
</TD><TD>WEST VIRGINIA</TD><TD align=right>74.1%
</TD><TD align=right>63.0%
</TD><TD align=right>11.1%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>45
</TD><TD>HOUSTON</TD><TD align=right>59.6%
</TD><TD align=right>34.0%
</TD><TD align=right>25.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>105
</TD><TD>GEORGIA TECH</TD><TD align=right>68.4%
</TD><TD align=right>57.4%
</TD><TD align=right>11.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>46
</TD><TD>MINNESOTA</TD><TD align=right>62.1%
</TD><TD align=right>37.0%
</TD><TD align=right>25.1%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>106
</TD><TD>OHIO STATE</TD><TD align=right>87.1%
</TD><TD align=right>76.2%
</TD><TD align=right>10.9%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>47
</TD><TD>CONNECTICUT</TD><TD align=right>61.8%
</TD><TD align=right>36.7%
</TD><TD align=right>25.1%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>107
</TD><TD>MIAMI OH</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>49.2%
</TD><TD align=right>10.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>48
</TD><TD>FRESNO ST</TD><TD align=right>76.5%
</TD><TD align=right>51.7%
</TD><TD align=right>24.7%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>108
</TD><TD>STANFORD</TD><TD align=right>43.4%
</TD><TD align=right>32.7%
</TD><TD align=right>10.7%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>49
</TD><TD>CALIFORNIA</TD><TD align=right>67.3%
</TD><TD align=right>42.9%
</TD><TD align=right>24.4%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>109
</TD><TD>DUKE</TD><TD align=right>18.5%
</TD><TD align=right>8.0%
</TD><TD align=right>10.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>50
</TD><TD>UCF</TD><TD align=right>58.8%
</TD><TD align=right>34.5%
</TD><TD align=right>24.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>110
</TD><TD>BALL ST</TD><TD align=right>53.2%
</TD><TD align=right>43.1%
</TD><TD align=right>10.1%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>51
</TD><TD>MISS ST</TD><TD align=right>44.6%
</TD><TD align=right>20.8%
</TD><TD align=right>23.8%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>111
</TD><TD>TENNESSEE</TD><TD align=right>73.8%
</TD><TD align=right>64.3%
</TD><TD align=right>9.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>52
</TD><TD>BOSTON COLL</TD><TD align=right>78.9%
</TD><TD align=right>55.3%
</TD><TD align=right>23.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>112
</TD><TD>USC</TD><TD align=right>85.5%
</TD><TD align=right>76.0%
</TD><TD align=right>9.5%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>53
</TD><TD>KENTUCKY</TD><TD align=right>48.3%
</TD><TD align=right>25.0%
</TD><TD align=right>23.3%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>113
</TD><TD>ARIZONA</TD><TD align=right>42.4%
</TD><TD align=right>33.3%
</TD><TD align=right>9.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>54
</TD><TD>TCU</TD><TD align=right>86.5%
</TD><TD align=right>63.5%
</TD><TD align=right>23.1%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>114
</TD><TD>NOTRE DAME</TD><TD align=right>62.5%
</TD><TD align=right>53.5%
</TD><TD align=right>9.0%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>55
</TD><TD>TULSA</TD><TD align=right>61.1%
</TD><TD align=right>38.2%
</TD><TD align=right>22.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>115
</TD><TD>VANDERBILT</TD><TD align=right>34.5%
</TD><TD align=right>26.1%
</TD><TD align=right>8.4%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>56
</TD><TD>OHIO</TD><TD align=right>52.2%
</TD><TD align=right>29.3%
</TD><TD align=right>22.9%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>116
</TD><TD>WAKE FOREST</TD><TD align=right>53.6%
</TD><TD align=right>45.8%
</TD><TD align=right>7.7%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>57
</TD><TD>IDAHO</TD><TD align=right>35.7%
</TD><TD align=right>13.1%
</TD><TD align=right>22.6%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>117
</TD><TD>NAVY</TD><TD align=right>52.1%
</TD><TD align=right>46.2%
</TD><TD align=right>5.9%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>58
</TD><TD>MICHIGAN ST</TD><TD align=right>60.0%
</TD><TD align=right>37.8%
</TD><TD align=right>22.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>118
</TD><TD>WASH ST</TD><TD align=right>53.6%
</TD><TD align=right>47.9%
</TD><TD align=right>5.7%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>59
</TD><TD>AUBURN</TD><TD align=right>79.7%
</TD><TD align=right>57.5%
</TD><TD align=right>22.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>119
</TD><TD>TEXAS</TD><TD align=right>92.6%
</TD><TD align=right>87.8%
</TD><TD align=right>4.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD align=right height=13>60
</TD><TD>ALABAMA</TD><TD align=right>67.2%
</TD><TD align=right>45.0%
</TD><TD align=right>22.2%
</TD><TD></TD><TD align=right>120
</TD><TD>GEORGIA</TD><TD align=right>82.5%
</TD><TD align=right>84.2%
</TD><TD align=right>-1.8%
</TD></TR><TR height=13><TD height=13></TD><TD></TD><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD><TD>
</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD><TD>All 120 Teams</TD><TD align=right>62.6%
</TD><TD align=right>40.5%
</TD><TD align=right>22.1%
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Troy St wins 88% of its home games and only 37% of the time on the road. That makes playing in Movie Gallery Stadium a tough test. Of course Troy does play a lot of BCS non conference teams on the road and hosts some FCS or 1AA teams as well as the Sun Belt so that has something to do with the difference. I would expect the majority of the top 25 to be made up of non BCS schools who must take on the big boys away from home in money games. There are some surprising BCS conference schools in the Top 15 and most of those teams are ones that I equate as having solid home field edges and this bears that out. Virginia wins 74% of its games at home but only 35% of the time on the road and tier 39% difference is 4th highest in the NCAA. Kansas wins 63% of their games at home and just 26% on the road and interestingly they have just 3 Big 12 home games this year playing 5 away from home. Penn St and Iowa have two of the tougher home stadiums and both are in the top 10 in terms of disparity between home and away records. Kansas St Nebraska and USF are next on the list. I personally thought Texas Tech would be top 5 as they are 47-10 at home in Lubbock (82.5%) but they are just #14 in terms of disparity as they have won 49% of their road games. Iowa St and Oregon St are not surprises to be at the top as I rate both as having large home edges and being average on the road.
I have to admit before I produced the chart my first question was is there a team or teams in the NCAA that has a higher winning % on the road than they do at home? The answer is yes. Georgia has actually won 84.2% of their true away games while winning just 82.5% Between the Hedges. Teams that perform almost as well on the road as they do at home are Texas, Wash St, Navy, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Arizona, USC and Tennessee. Check the chart above for the exact percentages.
This is a category that I will factor into my home field edges for next season. This also has me thinking of providing a road rating for each team in next years magazine! In an upcoming blurb I will provide the data that went into my home field rankings for this year.
51 DAYS UNTIL FOOTBALL SEASON!
Arizona Update
Arizona: Quarterback Battle Brewing
RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Update: The big question heading into fall camp in Tucson continues to be who will be at the helm of the “Air Zona” offense at the quarterback position. Both Matt Scott and Nick Foles split time in spring drills and, according to the website AZStarNet.com, have been “about even” in summer 7-on-7 workout drills. But the Wildcats’ third string quarterback, Bryson Beirne, is also getting into the mix, with tailback Nicholas Grigsby commenting, “Bryson knows the whole offense … . I don’t see anybody ahead right now.”
Recommendation: Scott is considered great on his feet and a great improviser, while Foles is a more traditional pocket-passer with solid athleticism. Beirne allegedly has perhaps the strongest grasp of the Arizona offense, so, as of now, it could be a legitimate three-man race heading into the first game of the season against Central Michigan. StarNet.com suggests that Stoops will not name a starter until that game, but wouldn’t be surprised to see all three get playing time before an important showdown against Oregon State on September 26th.
Updated 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
<FORM class=buzz id=buzz-tools action=http://buzz.yahoo.com/vote/ method=post><INPUT type=hidden value=y_sports name=publisherurn> <INPUT type=hidden value=urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=guid> <INPUT type=hidden value=/article/y_sports/urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=.done> <INPUT type=hidden value=article name=assettype> <INPUT type=hidden value=1 name=votetype> <INPUT type=hidden value=orion name=from> <INPUT type=hidden value=b41a6 name=key> <INPUT type=hidden value=bCNit2UQCZM name=.crumb><BUTTON type=submit>Buzz up!</BUTTON> </FORM><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>YAHOO.util.Event.addListener( window, "load", function() { setTimeout(function(){ new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-tools",{"sync":["buzz-toolbar"],"showCount":true,"countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loggedIn":false}); }, 15); });</SCRIPT>digg add to facebook del.icio.us more
Arizona: Quarterback Battle Brewing
RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
- <FORM class=buzz id=buzz-toolbar action=http://buzz.yahoo.com/vote/ method=post><INPUT type=hidden value=y_sports name=publisherurn> <INPUT type=hidden value=urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=guid> <INPUT type=hidden value=/article/y_sports/urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=.done> <INPUT type=hidden value=article name=assettype> <INPUT type=hidden value=1 name=votetype> <INPUT type=hidden value=orion name=from> <INPUT type=hidden value=b41a6 name=key> <INPUT type=hidden value=bCNit2UQCZM name=.crumb><BUTTON type=submit>Buzz up!</BUTTON> </FORM><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>YAHOO.util.Event.addListener( window, "load", function() { setTimeout(function(){ new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-toolbar",{"sync":["buzz-tools"],"showCount":true,"countPosition":"after","fetchCount":false,"loggedIn":false}); }, 15); });</SCRIPT>
Update: The big question heading into fall camp in Tucson continues to be who will be at the helm of the “Air Zona” offense at the quarterback position. Both Matt Scott and Nick Foles split time in spring drills and, according to the website AZStarNet.com, have been “about even” in summer 7-on-7 workout drills. But the Wildcats’ third string quarterback, Bryson Beirne, is also getting into the mix, with tailback Nicholas Grigsby commenting, “Bryson knows the whole offense … . I don’t see anybody ahead right now.”
Recommendation: Scott is considered great on his feet and a great improviser, while Foles is a more traditional pocket-passer with solid athleticism. Beirne allegedly has perhaps the strongest grasp of the Arizona offense, so, as of now, it could be a legitimate three-man race heading into the first game of the season against Central Michigan. StarNet.com suggests that Stoops will not name a starter until that game, but wouldn’t be surprised to see all three get playing time before an important showdown against Oregon State on September 26th.
Updated 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
<FORM class=buzz id=buzz-tools action=http://buzz.yahoo.com/vote/ method=post><INPUT type=hidden value=y_sports name=publisherurn> <INPUT type=hidden value=urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=guid> <INPUT type=hidden value=/article/y_sports/urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,rotowire:20050301:ncaaf,article,rotowire-rizonauarterbackattl:1 name=.done> <INPUT type=hidden value=article name=assettype> <INPUT type=hidden value=1 name=votetype> <INPUT type=hidden value=orion name=from> <INPUT type=hidden value=b41a6 name=key> <INPUT type=hidden value=bCNit2UQCZM name=.crumb><BUTTON type=submit>Buzz up!</BUTTON> </FORM><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>YAHOO.util.Event.addListener( window, "load", function() { setTimeout(function(){ new YAHOO.Media.Buzz("buzz-tools",{"sync":["buzz-toolbar"],"showCount":true,"countPosition":"after","fetchCount":true,"loggedIn":false}); }, 15); });</SCRIPT>digg add to facebook del.icio.us more
Just some random thoughts
As week one gets closer I thought I would just throw out some random thoughts:
Tulsa - I am from Oklahoma and have made some money betting Tulsa at home LY but I have never really tried to break down their team until this year. I think (emphasis on think) that they might be a very big sleeper. If you look at that their schedule they have a loss coming at Oklahoma with their other main competion after that when they play host to Boise St, and East Carolina and make a trip to Southern Mississippi. Keep your eye on these guys they were 11-3 LY and have 8 back on defense. They will reload on offense and it is not totally out of the question to run the table after the loss to OU.
Temple is a another team to keep an eye on. LY they lost 5 games by 6pts or less. I would not be surprised to see them improve although they have only 5 home games this year.
Georgia Tech had a surprising 9-4 season LY. This year they play 11 games back to back with no rest until the week before #12 when they host Georgia. I love Paul Johnson but I don't see them matching LY's record.
Troy - I look for them to improve on their 8-5 record from LY and it will be interesting to see how they hold up against Florida. I would not be surprised to see them have a 10 win season.
Nevada draws Notre Dame in week one and will probably lose with Missouri and Boise St on their schedule and a little luck they could improve from 7-6 to a 9 win season.
Washington has a new HC and Jake Locker. Everyone expects them to improve from their 0-12 record in 2008 but one win will do that. This is one team I will wait and watch on.
Florida State went 9-4 LY and this year they play 11 teams that played in bowls LY. I know a lot of people expect them to do as well or better this year. For some reasons of my own I think they may lose their opener to Miami Fl.
California went 9-4 LY and many people see them as possible heirs to the Pac 10 title this year. 15 returning starters is enough to make you buy in but I think another 9-4 is more likely.
UTEP went 5-7 LY and Mike Price has 15 starters to work with. They have a good chance of beating Buffalo at home on week one, but with Kansas, Texas, and Houston on their schedule 6-6 looks good this year.
My mystery teams are Missouri, Oregon, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Cincinanti. I am having a hard time getting a handle on those teams.
I go back and forth on Notre Dame but if for some reason they were to lose to Nevada in week one it could be pressure city for Weis.
As week one gets closer I thought I would just throw out some random thoughts:
Tulsa - I am from Oklahoma and have made some money betting Tulsa at home LY but I have never really tried to break down their team until this year. I think (emphasis on think) that they might be a very big sleeper. If you look at that their schedule they have a loss coming at Oklahoma with their other main competion after that when they play host to Boise St, and East Carolina and make a trip to Southern Mississippi. Keep your eye on these guys they were 11-3 LY and have 8 back on defense. They will reload on offense and it is not totally out of the question to run the table after the loss to OU.
Temple is a another team to keep an eye on. LY they lost 5 games by 6pts or less. I would not be surprised to see them improve although they have only 5 home games this year.
Georgia Tech had a surprising 9-4 season LY. This year they play 11 games back to back with no rest until the week before #12 when they host Georgia. I love Paul Johnson but I don't see them matching LY's record.
Troy - I look for them to improve on their 8-5 record from LY and it will be interesting to see how they hold up against Florida. I would not be surprised to see them have a 10 win season.
Nevada draws Notre Dame in week one and will probably lose with Missouri and Boise St on their schedule and a little luck they could improve from 7-6 to a 9 win season.
Washington has a new HC and Jake Locker. Everyone expects them to improve from their 0-12 record in 2008 but one win will do that. This is one team I will wait and watch on.
Florida State went 9-4 LY and this year they play 11 teams that played in bowls LY. I know a lot of people expect them to do as well or better this year. For some reasons of my own I think they may lose their opener to Miami Fl.
California went 9-4 LY and many people see them as possible heirs to the Pac 10 title this year. 15 returning starters is enough to make you buy in but I think another 9-4 is more likely.
UTEP went 5-7 LY and Mike Price has 15 starters to work with. They have a good chance of beating Buffalo at home on week one, but with Kansas, Texas, and Houston on their schedule 6-6 looks good this year.
My mystery teams are Missouri, Oregon, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Cincinanti. I am having a hard time getting a handle on those teams.
I go back and forth on Notre Dame but if for some reason they were to lose to Nevada in week one it could be pressure city for Weis.
2008 final Sagarin ratings
In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall RATING is a synthesis of the two diametrical opposites, ELO-CHESS and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR).
<HR>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 1 Florida A = 98.74 13 1 76.87( 4) 2 1 | 5 1 | 95.76 2 | 102.62 1 2 Southern California A = 94.85 12 1 75.23( 16) 1 0 | 5 1 | 90.60 5 | 102.16 2 3 Oklahoma A = 94.15 12 2 76.38( 7) 2 2 | 5 2 | 91.12 4 | 97.91 3 4 Texas A = 93.50 12 1 75.47( 14) 1 1 | 4 1 | 91.62 3 | 95.25 4 5 Utah A = 91.37 13 0 70.85( 56) 2 0 | 3 0 | 96.73 1 | 87.75 10 6 Alabama A = 89.48 12 2 73.83( 28) 1 2 | 4 2 | 89.52 6 | 89.00 6 7 TCU A = 89.09 11 2 69.77( 69) 0 2 | 1 2 | 88.75 7 | 88.98 7 8 Penn State A = 88.26 11 2 71.19( 55) 0 1 | 2 2 | 84.07 13 | 94.30 5 9 Texas Tech A = 86.75 11 2 73.83( 27) 1 2 | 3 2 | 85.93 9 | 87.15 12 10 Mississippi A = 86.28 9 4 74.65( 20) 2 1 | 3 2 | 84.88 10 | 87.34 11FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 11 Oregon A = 85.47 10 3 74.15( 22) 0 1 | 3 3 | 84.72 11 | 85.78 14 12 Boise State A = 85.13 12 1 64.86( 94) 0 1 | 1 1 | 83.76 15 | 86.13 13 13 Oregon State A = 85.11 9 4 76.34( 8) 1 2 | 4 3 | 84.25 12 | 85.54 15 14 Ohio State A = 84.83 10 3 72.24( 46) 0 3 | 0 3 | 82.00 17 | 87.87 9 15 Georgia A = 84.81 10 3 75.98( 11) 0 2 | 1 2 | 85.98 8 | 83.36 21 16 California A = 83.58 9 4 74.07( 24) 0 1 | 1 3 | 81.90 18 | 84.96 16 17 Florida State A = 83.18 9 4 71.96( 48) 0 1 | 2 3 | 82.17 16 | 83.78 19 18 Virginia Tech A = 82.93 10 4 73.89( 26) 0 0 | 3 2 | 84.01 14 | 81.54 23 19 Missouri A = 82.80 10 4 72.33( 45) 0 2 | 1 3 | 80.74 22 | 84.65 17 20 Oklahoma State A = 82.16 9 4 72.65( 43) 0 3 | 1 4 | 80.41 24 | 83.61 20FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 21 LSU A = 81.96 8 5 73.34( 33) 0 3 | 0 4 | 81.15 20 | 82.34 22 22 Iowa A = 81.79 9 4 70.08( 63) 1 0 | 1 1 | 77.10 37 | 88.20 8 23 Nebraska A = 80.70 9 4 72.89( 38) 0 2 | 1 4 | 80.81 21 | 80.16 25 24 Arizona A = 80.50 8 5 70.63( 57) 0 1 | 1 3 | 77.21 35 | 84.11 18 25 Wake Forest A = 79.43 8 5 76.16( 9) 1 0 | 3 1 | 79.56 26 | 78.86 29 26 West Virginia A = 79.27 9 4 72.09( 47) 0 0 | 1 1 | 79.94 25 | 78.21 32 27 Pittsburgh A = 79.03 9 4 74.00( 25) 0 0 | 2 1 | 79.09 27 | 78.53 31 28 Boston College A = 78.94 9 5 73.02( 35) 0 0 | 3 3 | 78.60 28 | 78.82 30 29 North Carolina A = 78.88 8 5 74.32( 21) 0 0 | 1 2 | 78.22 33 | 79.08 27 30 Clemson A = 78.87 7 6 73.83( 29) 0 1 | 1 4 | 76.73 41 | 80.78 24FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 31 Kansas A = 78.80 8 5 72.81( 39) 0 3 | 1 4 | 78.24 32 | 78.91 28 32 BYU A = 78.66 10 3 69.05( 74) 0 2 | 0 3 | 77.55 34 | 79.36 26 33 Michigan State A = 78.17 9 4 72.73( 41) 0 1 | 1 4 | 78.37 31 | 77.54 34 34 Cincinnati A = 77.89 11 3 70.33( 60) 0 1 | 2 2 | 81.32 19 | 74.73 43 35 Miami-Florida A = 77.42 7 6 75.38( 15) 0 1 | 2 4 | 77.21 36 | 77.18 35 36 Georgia Tech A = 77.13 9 4 72.79( 40) 0 0 | 4 3 | 80.49 23 | 74.00 46 37 Rutgers A = 77.11 8 5 69.09( 73) 0 0 | 1 2 | 76.88 38 | 76.89 36 38 South Carolina A = 77.06 7 6 77.13( 3) 1 1 | 1 5 | 76.82 40 | 76.84 37 39 Vanderbilt A = 76.47 7 6 75.70( 13) 1 1 | 2 3 | 78.44 29 | 74.32 45 40 Connecticut A = 76.40 8 5 71.27( 53) 0 0 | 0 3 | 76.34 43 | 76.01 38FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 41 Richmond AA = 76.23 13 3 60.52( 126) 0 0 | 0 0 | 76.06 45 | 75.96 39 42 Tulsa A = 75.98 11 3 63.55( 109) 0 0 | 0 0 | 73.83 52 | 77.88 33 43 South Florida A = 75.67 8 5 69.41( 71) 0 0 | 0 2 | 75.17 47 | 75.70 40 44 Northwestern A = 75.18 9 4 69.50( 70) 0 0 | 1 2 | 74.34 50 | 75.59 41 45 James Madison AA = 74.98 12 2 61.70( 121) 0 0 | 0 0 | 76.57 42 | 73.13 52 46 Maryland A = 74.83 8 5 73.01( 36) 0 0 | 4 3 | 78.44 30 | 71.45 65 47 Virginia A = 74.77 5 7 78.13( 2) 0 1 | 1 4 | 76.09 44 | 73.14 51 48 Rice A = 74.76 10 3 66.05( 88) 0 1 | 0 1 | 76.83 39 | 72.50 57 49 Kentucky A = 74.41 7 6 70.48( 59) 0 2 | 0 3 | 75.81 46 | 72.70 54 50 Stanford A = 74.01 5 7 75.87( 12) 0 2 | 2 4 | 72.45 60 | 75.20 42FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 51 Navy A = 73.87 8 5 68.19( 80) 0 0 | 1 2 | 72.71 57 | 74.61 44 52 Houston A = 73.79 8 5 65.84( 91) 0 0 | 0 1 | 73.26 54 | 73.86 47 53 Notre Dame A = 73.75 7 6 71.61( 50) 0 1 | 0 4 | 73.35 53 | 73.69 48 54 East Carolina A = 73.44 9 5 69.80( 67) 0 0 | 2 0 | 74.86 48 | 71.71 61 55 NC State A = 73.34 6 7 76.05( 10) 0 0 | 2 3 | 74.52 49 | 71.82 60 56 Air Force A = 72.95 8 5 68.95( 75) 0 2 | 0 2 | 72.45 61 | 72.99 53 57 Duke A = 72.35 4 8 76.50( 6) 0 0 | 0 4 | 72.68 59 | 71.59 63 58 Tennessee A = 71.95 5 7 73.40( 31) 0 2 | 0 3 | 70.83 65 | 72.64 56 59 Arizona State A = 71.84 5 7 73.38( 32) 0 1 | 0 6 | 69.84 67 | 73.51 49 60 Auburn A = 71.69 5 7 72.99( 37) 0 2 | 0 5 | 71.83 63 | 71.10 66FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 61 Wisconsin A = 71.53 7 6 71.34( 52) 0 1 | 0 4 | 71.00 64 | 71.60 62 62 Montana AA = 71.52 14 2 55.94( 146) 0 0 | 0 0 | 72.90 56 | 69.80 69 63 Villanova AA = 71.24 10 3 61.20( 122) 0 0 | 0 1 | 72.68 58 | 69.47 71 64 Arkansas A = 71.22 5 7 76.61( 5) 0 4 | 1 4 | 74.31 51 | 68.11 74 65 Ball State A = 71.12 12 2 60.67( 125) 0 0 | 0 0 | 70.27 66 | 71.53 64 66 Baylor A = 71.06 4 8 75.01( 17) 0 3 | 0 7 | 68.52 75 | 73.36 50 67 Southern Miss A = 70.57 7 6 66.62( 85) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.79 72 | 71.98 59 68 Illinois A = 70.07 5 7 70.30( 61) 0 1 | 1 3 | 67.45 82 | 72.46 58 69 Appalachian State AA = 70.00 11 3 57.45( 140) 0 0 | 0 1 | 69.28 70 | 70.26 67 70 Troy A = 69.84 8 5 62.27( 117) 0 0 | 0 3 | 66.84 85 | 72.69 55FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 71 Nevada A = 69.74 7 6 66.60( 86) 0 1 | 0 3 | 69.53 69 | 69.49 70 72 Colorado A = 69.36 5 7 74.83( 19) 0 1 | 1 5 | 72.45 62 | 66.20 81 73 Colorado State A = 68.74 7 6 70.58( 58) 0 2 | 0 3 | 73.19 55 | 64.52 91 74 Kansas State A = 68.69 5 7 70.18( 62) 0 2 | 0 4 | 67.95 81 | 68.99 72 75 Minnesota A = 68.46 7 6 68.68( 79) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.42 76 | 68.05 75 76 Buffalo A = 68.26 8 6 65.66( 92) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.19 78 | 67.88 76 77 Wofford AA = 67.95 9 3 56.57( 142) 0 0 | 0 0 | 67.33 83 | 68.12 73 78 Purdue A = 67.89 4 8 71.73( 49) 0 1 | 0 4 | 65.48 95 | 69.98 68 79 Western Michigan A = 67.49 9 4 62.39( 116) 0 0 | 0 1 | 69.66 68 | 65.04 88 80 UCLA A = 66.91 4 8 74.95( 18) 0 1 | 0 5 | 68.26 77 | 65.18 86FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 81 New Hampshire AA = 66.76 10 3 56.43( 143) 0 0 | 0 0 | 65.98 90 | 67.09 78 82 William & Mary AA = 66.66 7 4 58.00( 137) 0 0 | 0 0 | 66.00 89 | 66.86 79 83 Northern Iowa AA = 66.34 12 3 52.84( 159) 0 0 | 0 0 | 65.86 93 | 66.35 80 84 New Mexico A = 66.29 4 8 71.25( 54) 0 2 | 1 2 | 65.93 91 | 66.19 82 85 Weber State AA = 66.28 10 4 60.25( 127) 0 1 | 0 1 | 67.08 84 | 65.06 87 86 Fresno State A = 65.70 7 6 65.93( 90) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.01 80 | 63.10 94 87 Louisiana Tech A = 65.44 8 5 63.13( 112) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.84 71 | 61.91 100 88 Bowling Green A = 65.29 6 6 63.83( 106) 0 0 | 1 1 | 62.60 102 | 67.66 77 89 Texas A&M A = 65.14 4 8 73.64( 30) 0 3 | 0 4 | 66.03 88 | 63.84 92 90 UTEP A = 65.11 5 7 67.96( 82) 0 1 | 0 1 | 65.22 97 | 64.54 90FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 91 Hawaii A = 65.04 7 7 68.86( 76) 0 1 | 0 3 | 68.19 79 | 61.69 101 92 Louisville A = 64.95 5 7 68.17( 81) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.78 74 | 61.02 105 93 Mississippi State A = 64.91 4 8 72.73( 42) 0 2 | 0 3 | 68.79 73 | 60.95 106 94 UNLV A = 64.84 5 7 69.82( 66) 0 2 | 0 2 | 66.40 86 | 62.91 95 95 Michigan A = 64.28 3 9 72.61( 44) 0 2 | 0 3 | 62.36 105 | 65.79 83 96 Central Michigan A = 64.03 8 5 63.27( 110) 0 0 | 0 1 | 65.35 96 | 62.30 97 97 Cal Poly-SLO AA = 63.82 8 3 52.15( 162) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.88 109 | 65.35 85 98 Temple A = 63.78 5 7 65.26( 93) 0 1 | 0 1 | 61.53 111 | 65.64 84 99 Memphis A = 63.60 6 7 64.79( 97) 0 1 | 0 1 | 64.05 99 | 62.71 96 100 Northern Illinois A = 63.35 6 7 61.03( 123) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.32 113 | 64.96 89FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 101 Marshall A = 62.85 4 8 68.80( 77) 0 0 | 0 1 | 64.85 98 | 60.49 110 102 Florida Atlantic A = 62.82 7 6 64.85( 95) 0 1 | 0 1 | 66.31 87 | 59.09 116 103 Massachusetts AA = 62.72 7 5 59.94( 128) 0 1 | 0 1 | 61.47 112 | 63.52 93 104 Syracuse A = 62.60 3 9 73.15( 34) 0 1 | 0 3 | 65.85 94 | 59.07 117 105 San Jose State A = 62.51 6 6 64.49( 98) 0 0 | 0 2 | 65.90 92 | 58.86 119 106 Louisiana-Lafayette A = 62.26 6 6 63.00( 114) 0 0 | 0 0 | 63.15 101 | 60.94 107 107 Arkansas State A = 62.26 6 6 60.92( 124) 0 1 | 0 1 | 63.17 100 | 60.92 108 108 Akron A = 61.94 5 7 63.97( 103) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.19 114 | 62.24 98 109 Maine AA = 61.45 8 5 57.72( 139) 0 0 | 0 1 | 62.56 103 | 59.92 113 110 Central Florida A = 61.39 4 8 67.66( 84) 0 0 | 0 1 | 62.37 104 | 59.99 112FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 111 Elon AA = 60.92 8 4 55.61( 150) 0 0 | 0 0 | 60.71 116 | 60.67 109 112 Middle Tennessee A = 60.77 5 7 63.00( 113) 0 0 | 0 0 | 62.02 108 | 59.10 115 113 Fla. International A = 60.73 5 7 63.86( 105) 0 0 | 0 1 | 60.89 115 | 60.12 111 114 Iowa State A = 60.47 2 10 71.45( 51) 0 0 | 0 4 | 58.54 121 | 61.96 99 115 Utah State A = 60.40 3 9 69.80( 68) 0 1 | 0 3 | 61.78 110 | 58.59 121 116 UAB A = 60.11 4 8 64.79( 96) 0 0 | 0 0 | 62.07 107 | 57.74 125 117 Harvard AA = 60.05 9 1 48.72( 182) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.31 125 | 61.35 103 118 Southern Illinois AA = 58.78 9 3 50.41( 170) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.23 126 | 58.87 118 119 Samford AA = 58.76 6 5 59.82( 130) 0 1 | 0 1 | 55.91 134 | 61.16 104 120 Ohio University A = 58.74 4 8 63.94( 104) 0 0 | 0 1 | 57.78 130 | 59.26 114FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 121 Eastern Washington AA = 58.46 6 5 59.00( 132) 0 1 | 0 1 | 58.43 123 | 58.04 123 122 Wyoming A = 58.14 4 8 69.31( 72) 0 2 | 0 2 | 62.23 106 | 53.60 146 123 Liberty AA = 58.06 10 2 47.30( 193) 0 0 | 0 0 | 54.06 143 | 61.62 102 124 Furman AA = 58.01 7 5 58.72( 134) 0 0 | 0 1 | 59.01 119 | 56.55 132 125 Indiana A = 57.94 3 9 67.82( 83) 0 1 | 0 2 | 59.15 118 | 56.29 133 126 Georgia Southern AA = 57.38 6 5 56.03( 145) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.20 133 | 58.10 122 127 Central Arkansas AA = 57.24 10 2 48.62( 184) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.50 122 | 55.51 137 128 Army A = 56.81 3 9 66.27( 87) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.60 120 | 54.56 143 129 Washington A = 56.68 0 12 78.21( 1) 0 2 | 0 6 | 55.86 135 | 57.05 129 130 Kent State A = 56.66 4 8 61.95( 119) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.21 132 | 56.66 131FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 131 Albany-NY AA = 55.98 9 3 45.13( 200) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.42 139 | 56.09 134 132 Delaware AA = 55.92 4 8 63.79( 107) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.52 138 | 55.87 135 133 Holy Cross AA = 55.86 7 4 49.73( 173) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.42 149 | 58.79 120 134 Toledo A = 55.65 3 9 64.15( 100) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.24 131 | 54.60 142 135 Louisiana-Monroe A = 55.62 4 8 61.93( 120) 0 1 | 0 1 | 57.85 128 | 52.88 147 136 San Diego State A = 55.43 2 10 69.97( 65) 0 2 | 0 2 | 58.34 124 | 51.98 152 137 South Dakota State AA = 55.41 7 5 50.88( 165) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.61 147 | 57.71 126 138 Washington State A = 54.91 2 11 74.08( 23) 0 1 | 0 6 | 59.43 117 | 49.70 161 139 Brown AA = 54.86 7 3 48.06( 189) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.43 148 | 56.79 130 140 SC State AA = 54.59 10 3 44.34( 203) 0 0 | 0 1 | 53.71 145 | 55.01 138FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 141 McNeese State AA = 54.44 7 4 53.77( 155) 0 0 | 0 1 | 53.79 144 | 54.62 141 142 Lafayette AA = 54.42 7 4 48.07( 188) 0 0 | 0 0 | 50.58 156 | 57.67 127 143 Montana State AA = 54.34 7 5 56.29( 144) 0 0 | 0 0 | 57.82 129 | 50.24 159 144 Colgate AA = 54.24 9 3 50.01( 171) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.79 136 | 52.20 151 145 Northern Arizona AA = 54.14 6 5 55.69( 149) 0 0 | 0 0 | 54.99 141 | 52.82 148 146 New Mexico State A = 54.13 3 9 63.14( 111) 0 0 | 0 2 | 58.02 127 | 49.56 163 147 Eastern Michigan A = 54.06 3 9 62.86( 115) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.21 140 | 52.43 150 148 Tulane A = 53.78 2 10 68.69( 78) 0 1 | 0 2 | 55.55 137 | 51.50 153 149 SMU A = 53.66 1 11 70.05( 64) 0 2 | 0 2 | 52.95 146 | 53.91 145 150 North Dakota State AA = 53.60 6 5 47.78( 190) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.50 163 | 57.96 124FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 151 Pennsylvania AA = 53.36 6 4 49.15( 179) 0 0 | 0 0 | 50.56 157 | 55.63 136 152 Yale AA = 53.20 6 4 46.75( 195) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.15 166 | 57.50 128 153 Western Illinois AA = 52.34 6 5 50.62( 167) 0 0 | 0 0 | 49.13 160 | 54.96 140 154 Texas State AA = 51.96 8 5 48.57( 185) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.97 151 | 51.49 154 155 Hofstra AA = 51.94 4 8 59.90( 129) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.01 150 | 51.41 155 156 Citadel AA = 51.84 4 8 62.07( 118) 0 1 | 0 2 | 48.83 161 | 54.27 144 157 Miami-Ohio A = 51.34 2 10 64.11( 101) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.66 154 | 50.56 158 158 Sacramento State AA = 51.00 6 6 55.87( 147) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.89 153 | 49.61 162 159 Jacksonville State AA = 50.90 8 3 43.14( 206) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.71 162 | 52.57 149 160 Lehigh AA = 50.82 5 6 49.33( 178) 0 0 | 0 0 | 45.75 176 | 54.97 139FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 161 Western Kentucky A = 50.54 2 10 64.08( 102) 0 1 | 0 2 | 49.51 159 | 51.10 157 162 Idaho A = 49.50 2 10 64.32( 99) 0 0 | 0 2 | 54.23 142 | 43.52 196 163 Northwestern State AA = 48.91 7 5 53.09( 157) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.89 152 | 45.13 188 164 Eastern Kentucky AA = 48.78 8 4 47.26( 194) 0 0 | 0 0 | 49.73 158 | 47.33 172 165 Grambling AA = 48.76 11 2 33.62( 239) 0 0 | 0 0 | 45.47 178 | 51.37 156 166 UC Davis AA = 48.62 5 7 50.42( 168) 0 0 | 0 0 | 46.80 174 | 49.92 160 167 Tennessee-Martin AA = 48.52 8 4 48.12( 186) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.61 169 | 48.97 165 168 Northeastern AA = 48.31 2 10 59.76( 131) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.10 173 | 49.04 164 169 Charleston Southern AA = 47.81 7 5 50.78( 166) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.90 167 | 47.27 173 170 Sam Houston State AA = 47.65 4 6 52.68( 160) 0 0 | 0 0 | 46.24 175 | 48.57 167FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 171 North Texas A = 47.61 1 11 65.96( 89) 0 0 | 0 1 | 51.21 155 | 42.98 200</PRE>
In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall RATING is a synthesis of the two diametrical opposites, ELO-CHESS and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR).
<HR>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 1 Florida A = 98.74 13 1 76.87( 4) 2 1 | 5 1 | 95.76 2 | 102.62 1 2 Southern California A = 94.85 12 1 75.23( 16) 1 0 | 5 1 | 90.60 5 | 102.16 2 3 Oklahoma A = 94.15 12 2 76.38( 7) 2 2 | 5 2 | 91.12 4 | 97.91 3 4 Texas A = 93.50 12 1 75.47( 14) 1 1 | 4 1 | 91.62 3 | 95.25 4 5 Utah A = 91.37 13 0 70.85( 56) 2 0 | 3 0 | 96.73 1 | 87.75 10 6 Alabama A = 89.48 12 2 73.83( 28) 1 2 | 4 2 | 89.52 6 | 89.00 6 7 TCU A = 89.09 11 2 69.77( 69) 0 2 | 1 2 | 88.75 7 | 88.98 7 8 Penn State A = 88.26 11 2 71.19( 55) 0 1 | 2 2 | 84.07 13 | 94.30 5 9 Texas Tech A = 86.75 11 2 73.83( 27) 1 2 | 3 2 | 85.93 9 | 87.15 12 10 Mississippi A = 86.28 9 4 74.65( 20) 2 1 | 3 2 | 84.88 10 | 87.34 11FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 11 Oregon A = 85.47 10 3 74.15( 22) 0 1 | 3 3 | 84.72 11 | 85.78 14 12 Boise State A = 85.13 12 1 64.86( 94) 0 1 | 1 1 | 83.76 15 | 86.13 13 13 Oregon State A = 85.11 9 4 76.34( 8) 1 2 | 4 3 | 84.25 12 | 85.54 15 14 Ohio State A = 84.83 10 3 72.24( 46) 0 3 | 0 3 | 82.00 17 | 87.87 9 15 Georgia A = 84.81 10 3 75.98( 11) 0 2 | 1 2 | 85.98 8 | 83.36 21 16 California A = 83.58 9 4 74.07( 24) 0 1 | 1 3 | 81.90 18 | 84.96 16 17 Florida State A = 83.18 9 4 71.96( 48) 0 1 | 2 3 | 82.17 16 | 83.78 19 18 Virginia Tech A = 82.93 10 4 73.89( 26) 0 0 | 3 2 | 84.01 14 | 81.54 23 19 Missouri A = 82.80 10 4 72.33( 45) 0 2 | 1 3 | 80.74 22 | 84.65 17 20 Oklahoma State A = 82.16 9 4 72.65( 43) 0 3 | 1 4 | 80.41 24 | 83.61 20FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 21 LSU A = 81.96 8 5 73.34( 33) 0 3 | 0 4 | 81.15 20 | 82.34 22 22 Iowa A = 81.79 9 4 70.08( 63) 1 0 | 1 1 | 77.10 37 | 88.20 8 23 Nebraska A = 80.70 9 4 72.89( 38) 0 2 | 1 4 | 80.81 21 | 80.16 25 24 Arizona A = 80.50 8 5 70.63( 57) 0 1 | 1 3 | 77.21 35 | 84.11 18 25 Wake Forest A = 79.43 8 5 76.16( 9) 1 0 | 3 1 | 79.56 26 | 78.86 29 26 West Virginia A = 79.27 9 4 72.09( 47) 0 0 | 1 1 | 79.94 25 | 78.21 32 27 Pittsburgh A = 79.03 9 4 74.00( 25) 0 0 | 2 1 | 79.09 27 | 78.53 31 28 Boston College A = 78.94 9 5 73.02( 35) 0 0 | 3 3 | 78.60 28 | 78.82 30 29 North Carolina A = 78.88 8 5 74.32( 21) 0 0 | 1 2 | 78.22 33 | 79.08 27 30 Clemson A = 78.87 7 6 73.83( 29) 0 1 | 1 4 | 76.73 41 | 80.78 24FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 31 Kansas A = 78.80 8 5 72.81( 39) 0 3 | 1 4 | 78.24 32 | 78.91 28 32 BYU A = 78.66 10 3 69.05( 74) 0 2 | 0 3 | 77.55 34 | 79.36 26 33 Michigan State A = 78.17 9 4 72.73( 41) 0 1 | 1 4 | 78.37 31 | 77.54 34 34 Cincinnati A = 77.89 11 3 70.33( 60) 0 1 | 2 2 | 81.32 19 | 74.73 43 35 Miami-Florida A = 77.42 7 6 75.38( 15) 0 1 | 2 4 | 77.21 36 | 77.18 35 36 Georgia Tech A = 77.13 9 4 72.79( 40) 0 0 | 4 3 | 80.49 23 | 74.00 46 37 Rutgers A = 77.11 8 5 69.09( 73) 0 0 | 1 2 | 76.88 38 | 76.89 36 38 South Carolina A = 77.06 7 6 77.13( 3) 1 1 | 1 5 | 76.82 40 | 76.84 37 39 Vanderbilt A = 76.47 7 6 75.70( 13) 1 1 | 2 3 | 78.44 29 | 74.32 45 40 Connecticut A = 76.40 8 5 71.27( 53) 0 0 | 0 3 | 76.34 43 | 76.01 38FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 41 Richmond AA = 76.23 13 3 60.52( 126) 0 0 | 0 0 | 76.06 45 | 75.96 39 42 Tulsa A = 75.98 11 3 63.55( 109) 0 0 | 0 0 | 73.83 52 | 77.88 33 43 South Florida A = 75.67 8 5 69.41( 71) 0 0 | 0 2 | 75.17 47 | 75.70 40 44 Northwestern A = 75.18 9 4 69.50( 70) 0 0 | 1 2 | 74.34 50 | 75.59 41 45 James Madison AA = 74.98 12 2 61.70( 121) 0 0 | 0 0 | 76.57 42 | 73.13 52 46 Maryland A = 74.83 8 5 73.01( 36) 0 0 | 4 3 | 78.44 30 | 71.45 65 47 Virginia A = 74.77 5 7 78.13( 2) 0 1 | 1 4 | 76.09 44 | 73.14 51 48 Rice A = 74.76 10 3 66.05( 88) 0 1 | 0 1 | 76.83 39 | 72.50 57 49 Kentucky A = 74.41 7 6 70.48( 59) 0 2 | 0 3 | 75.81 46 | 72.70 54 50 Stanford A = 74.01 5 7 75.87( 12) 0 2 | 2 4 | 72.45 60 | 75.20 42FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 51 Navy A = 73.87 8 5 68.19( 80) 0 0 | 1 2 | 72.71 57 | 74.61 44 52 Houston A = 73.79 8 5 65.84( 91) 0 0 | 0 1 | 73.26 54 | 73.86 47 53 Notre Dame A = 73.75 7 6 71.61( 50) 0 1 | 0 4 | 73.35 53 | 73.69 48 54 East Carolina A = 73.44 9 5 69.80( 67) 0 0 | 2 0 | 74.86 48 | 71.71 61 55 NC State A = 73.34 6 7 76.05( 10) 0 0 | 2 3 | 74.52 49 | 71.82 60 56 Air Force A = 72.95 8 5 68.95( 75) 0 2 | 0 2 | 72.45 61 | 72.99 53 57 Duke A = 72.35 4 8 76.50( 6) 0 0 | 0 4 | 72.68 59 | 71.59 63 58 Tennessee A = 71.95 5 7 73.40( 31) 0 2 | 0 3 | 70.83 65 | 72.64 56 59 Arizona State A = 71.84 5 7 73.38( 32) 0 1 | 0 6 | 69.84 67 | 73.51 49 60 Auburn A = 71.69 5 7 72.99( 37) 0 2 | 0 5 | 71.83 63 | 71.10 66FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 61 Wisconsin A = 71.53 7 6 71.34( 52) 0 1 | 0 4 | 71.00 64 | 71.60 62 62 Montana AA = 71.52 14 2 55.94( 146) 0 0 | 0 0 | 72.90 56 | 69.80 69 63 Villanova AA = 71.24 10 3 61.20( 122) 0 0 | 0 1 | 72.68 58 | 69.47 71 64 Arkansas A = 71.22 5 7 76.61( 5) 0 4 | 1 4 | 74.31 51 | 68.11 74 65 Ball State A = 71.12 12 2 60.67( 125) 0 0 | 0 0 | 70.27 66 | 71.53 64 66 Baylor A = 71.06 4 8 75.01( 17) 0 3 | 0 7 | 68.52 75 | 73.36 50 67 Southern Miss A = 70.57 7 6 66.62( 85) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.79 72 | 71.98 59 68 Illinois A = 70.07 5 7 70.30( 61) 0 1 | 1 3 | 67.45 82 | 72.46 58 69 Appalachian State AA = 70.00 11 3 57.45( 140) 0 0 | 0 1 | 69.28 70 | 70.26 67 70 Troy A = 69.84 8 5 62.27( 117) 0 0 | 0 3 | 66.84 85 | 72.69 55FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 71 Nevada A = 69.74 7 6 66.60( 86) 0 1 | 0 3 | 69.53 69 | 69.49 70 72 Colorado A = 69.36 5 7 74.83( 19) 0 1 | 1 5 | 72.45 62 | 66.20 81 73 Colorado State A = 68.74 7 6 70.58( 58) 0 2 | 0 3 | 73.19 55 | 64.52 91 74 Kansas State A = 68.69 5 7 70.18( 62) 0 2 | 0 4 | 67.95 81 | 68.99 72 75 Minnesota A = 68.46 7 6 68.68( 79) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.42 76 | 68.05 75 76 Buffalo A = 68.26 8 6 65.66( 92) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.19 78 | 67.88 76 77 Wofford AA = 67.95 9 3 56.57( 142) 0 0 | 0 0 | 67.33 83 | 68.12 73 78 Purdue A = 67.89 4 8 71.73( 49) 0 1 | 0 4 | 65.48 95 | 69.98 68 79 Western Michigan A = 67.49 9 4 62.39( 116) 0 0 | 0 1 | 69.66 68 | 65.04 88 80 UCLA A = 66.91 4 8 74.95( 18) 0 1 | 0 5 | 68.26 77 | 65.18 86FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 81 New Hampshire AA = 66.76 10 3 56.43( 143) 0 0 | 0 0 | 65.98 90 | 67.09 78 82 William & Mary AA = 66.66 7 4 58.00( 137) 0 0 | 0 0 | 66.00 89 | 66.86 79 83 Northern Iowa AA = 66.34 12 3 52.84( 159) 0 0 | 0 0 | 65.86 93 | 66.35 80 84 New Mexico A = 66.29 4 8 71.25( 54) 0 2 | 1 2 | 65.93 91 | 66.19 82 85 Weber State AA = 66.28 10 4 60.25( 127) 0 1 | 0 1 | 67.08 84 | 65.06 87 86 Fresno State A = 65.70 7 6 65.93( 90) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.01 80 | 63.10 94 87 Louisiana Tech A = 65.44 8 5 63.13( 112) 0 0 | 0 1 | 68.84 71 | 61.91 100 88 Bowling Green A = 65.29 6 6 63.83( 106) 0 0 | 1 1 | 62.60 102 | 67.66 77 89 Texas A&M A = 65.14 4 8 73.64( 30) 0 3 | 0 4 | 66.03 88 | 63.84 92 90 UTEP A = 65.11 5 7 67.96( 82) 0 1 | 0 1 | 65.22 97 | 64.54 90FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 91 Hawaii A = 65.04 7 7 68.86( 76) 0 1 | 0 3 | 68.19 79 | 61.69 101 92 Louisville A = 64.95 5 7 68.17( 81) 0 0 | 0 2 | 68.78 74 | 61.02 105 93 Mississippi State A = 64.91 4 8 72.73( 42) 0 2 | 0 3 | 68.79 73 | 60.95 106 94 UNLV A = 64.84 5 7 69.82( 66) 0 2 | 0 2 | 66.40 86 | 62.91 95 95 Michigan A = 64.28 3 9 72.61( 44) 0 2 | 0 3 | 62.36 105 | 65.79 83 96 Central Michigan A = 64.03 8 5 63.27( 110) 0 0 | 0 1 | 65.35 96 | 62.30 97 97 Cal Poly-SLO AA = 63.82 8 3 52.15( 162) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.88 109 | 65.35 85 98 Temple A = 63.78 5 7 65.26( 93) 0 1 | 0 1 | 61.53 111 | 65.64 84 99 Memphis A = 63.60 6 7 64.79( 97) 0 1 | 0 1 | 64.05 99 | 62.71 96 100 Northern Illinois A = 63.35 6 7 61.03( 123) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.32 113 | 64.96 89FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 101 Marshall A = 62.85 4 8 68.80( 77) 0 0 | 0 1 | 64.85 98 | 60.49 110 102 Florida Atlantic A = 62.82 7 6 64.85( 95) 0 1 | 0 1 | 66.31 87 | 59.09 116 103 Massachusetts AA = 62.72 7 5 59.94( 128) 0 1 | 0 1 | 61.47 112 | 63.52 93 104 Syracuse A = 62.60 3 9 73.15( 34) 0 1 | 0 3 | 65.85 94 | 59.07 117 105 San Jose State A = 62.51 6 6 64.49( 98) 0 0 | 0 2 | 65.90 92 | 58.86 119 106 Louisiana-Lafayette A = 62.26 6 6 63.00( 114) 0 0 | 0 0 | 63.15 101 | 60.94 107 107 Arkansas State A = 62.26 6 6 60.92( 124) 0 1 | 0 1 | 63.17 100 | 60.92 108 108 Akron A = 61.94 5 7 63.97( 103) 0 0 | 0 0 | 61.19 114 | 62.24 98 109 Maine AA = 61.45 8 5 57.72( 139) 0 0 | 0 1 | 62.56 103 | 59.92 113 110 Central Florida A = 61.39 4 8 67.66( 84) 0 0 | 0 1 | 62.37 104 | 59.99 112FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 111 Elon AA = 60.92 8 4 55.61( 150) 0 0 | 0 0 | 60.71 116 | 60.67 109 112 Middle Tennessee A = 60.77 5 7 63.00( 113) 0 0 | 0 0 | 62.02 108 | 59.10 115 113 Fla. International A = 60.73 5 7 63.86( 105) 0 0 | 0 1 | 60.89 115 | 60.12 111 114 Iowa State A = 60.47 2 10 71.45( 51) 0 0 | 0 4 | 58.54 121 | 61.96 99 115 Utah State A = 60.40 3 9 69.80( 68) 0 1 | 0 3 | 61.78 110 | 58.59 121 116 UAB A = 60.11 4 8 64.79( 96) 0 0 | 0 0 | 62.07 107 | 57.74 125 117 Harvard AA = 60.05 9 1 48.72( 182) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.31 125 | 61.35 103 118 Southern Illinois AA = 58.78 9 3 50.41( 170) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.23 126 | 58.87 118 119 Samford AA = 58.76 6 5 59.82( 130) 0 1 | 0 1 | 55.91 134 | 61.16 104 120 Ohio University A = 58.74 4 8 63.94( 104) 0 0 | 0 1 | 57.78 130 | 59.26 114FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 121 Eastern Washington AA = 58.46 6 5 59.00( 132) 0 1 | 0 1 | 58.43 123 | 58.04 123 122 Wyoming A = 58.14 4 8 69.31( 72) 0 2 | 0 2 | 62.23 106 | 53.60 146 123 Liberty AA = 58.06 10 2 47.30( 193) 0 0 | 0 0 | 54.06 143 | 61.62 102 124 Furman AA = 58.01 7 5 58.72( 134) 0 0 | 0 1 | 59.01 119 | 56.55 132 125 Indiana A = 57.94 3 9 67.82( 83) 0 1 | 0 2 | 59.15 118 | 56.29 133 126 Georgia Southern AA = 57.38 6 5 56.03( 145) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.20 133 | 58.10 122 127 Central Arkansas AA = 57.24 10 2 48.62( 184) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.50 122 | 55.51 137 128 Army A = 56.81 3 9 66.27( 87) 0 0 | 0 0 | 58.60 120 | 54.56 143 129 Washington A = 56.68 0 12 78.21( 1) 0 2 | 0 6 | 55.86 135 | 57.05 129 130 Kent State A = 56.66 4 8 61.95( 119) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.21 132 | 56.66 131FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 131 Albany-NY AA = 55.98 9 3 45.13( 200) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.42 139 | 56.09 134 132 Delaware AA = 55.92 4 8 63.79( 107) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.52 138 | 55.87 135 133 Holy Cross AA = 55.86 7 4 49.73( 173) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.42 149 | 58.79 120 134 Toledo A = 55.65 3 9 64.15( 100) 0 0 | 0 1 | 56.24 131 | 54.60 142 135 Louisiana-Monroe A = 55.62 4 8 61.93( 120) 0 1 | 0 1 | 57.85 128 | 52.88 147 136 San Diego State A = 55.43 2 10 69.97( 65) 0 2 | 0 2 | 58.34 124 | 51.98 152 137 South Dakota State AA = 55.41 7 5 50.88( 165) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.61 147 | 57.71 126 138 Washington State A = 54.91 2 11 74.08( 23) 0 1 | 0 6 | 59.43 117 | 49.70 161 139 Brown AA = 54.86 7 3 48.06( 189) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.43 148 | 56.79 130 140 SC State AA = 54.59 10 3 44.34( 203) 0 0 | 0 1 | 53.71 145 | 55.01 138FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 141 McNeese State AA = 54.44 7 4 53.77( 155) 0 0 | 0 1 | 53.79 144 | 54.62 141 142 Lafayette AA = 54.42 7 4 48.07( 188) 0 0 | 0 0 | 50.58 156 | 57.67 127 143 Montana State AA = 54.34 7 5 56.29( 144) 0 0 | 0 0 | 57.82 129 | 50.24 159 144 Colgate AA = 54.24 9 3 50.01( 171) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.79 136 | 52.20 151 145 Northern Arizona AA = 54.14 6 5 55.69( 149) 0 0 | 0 0 | 54.99 141 | 52.82 148 146 New Mexico State A = 54.13 3 9 63.14( 111) 0 0 | 0 2 | 58.02 127 | 49.56 163 147 Eastern Michigan A = 54.06 3 9 62.86( 115) 0 0 | 0 0 | 55.21 140 | 52.43 150 148 Tulane A = 53.78 2 10 68.69( 78) 0 1 | 0 2 | 55.55 137 | 51.50 153 149 SMU A = 53.66 1 11 70.05( 64) 0 2 | 0 2 | 52.95 146 | 53.91 145 150 North Dakota State AA = 53.60 6 5 47.78( 190) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.50 163 | 57.96 124FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 151 Pennsylvania AA = 53.36 6 4 49.15( 179) 0 0 | 0 0 | 50.56 157 | 55.63 136 152 Yale AA = 53.20 6 4 46.75( 195) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.15 166 | 57.50 128 153 Western Illinois AA = 52.34 6 5 50.62( 167) 0 0 | 0 0 | 49.13 160 | 54.96 140 154 Texas State AA = 51.96 8 5 48.57( 185) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.97 151 | 51.49 154 155 Hofstra AA = 51.94 4 8 59.90( 129) 0 0 | 0 0 | 52.01 150 | 51.41 155 156 Citadel AA = 51.84 4 8 62.07( 118) 0 1 | 0 2 | 48.83 161 | 54.27 144 157 Miami-Ohio A = 51.34 2 10 64.11( 101) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.66 154 | 50.56 158 158 Sacramento State AA = 51.00 6 6 55.87( 147) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.89 153 | 49.61 162 159 Jacksonville State AA = 50.90 8 3 43.14( 206) 0 0 | 0 0 | 48.71 162 | 52.57 149 160 Lehigh AA = 50.82 5 6 49.33( 178) 0 0 | 0 0 | 45.75 176 | 54.97 139FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 161 Western Kentucky A = 50.54 2 10 64.08( 102) 0 1 | 0 2 | 49.51 159 | 51.10 157 162 Idaho A = 49.50 2 10 64.32( 99) 0 0 | 0 2 | 54.23 142 | 43.52 196 163 Northwestern State AA = 48.91 7 5 53.09( 157) 0 0 | 0 0 | 51.89 152 | 45.13 188 164 Eastern Kentucky AA = 48.78 8 4 47.26( 194) 0 0 | 0 0 | 49.73 158 | 47.33 172 165 Grambling AA = 48.76 11 2 33.62( 239) 0 0 | 0 0 | 45.47 178 | 51.37 156 166 UC Davis AA = 48.62 5 7 50.42( 168) 0 0 | 0 0 | 46.80 174 | 49.92 160 167 Tennessee-Martin AA = 48.52 8 4 48.12( 186) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.61 169 | 48.97 165 168 Northeastern AA = 48.31 2 10 59.76( 131) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.10 173 | 49.04 164 169 Charleston Southern AA = 47.81 7 5 50.78( 166) 0 0 | 0 0 | 47.90 167 | 47.27 173 170 Sam Houston State AA = 47.65 4 6 52.68( 160) 0 0 | 0 0 | 46.24 175 | 48.57 167FINAL College Football 2008 through games of 2009 January 8 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from hereHOME ADVANTAGE= 2.62 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR 171 North Texas A = 47.61 1 11 65.96( 89) 0 0 | 0 1 | 51.21 155 | 42.98 200</PRE>
