2006 BCS Computer Rankings - Colley Matrix

Colley Matrix

Wes Colley has a Ph.D from Princeton University in Astrophysical Sciences. He attended Virginia and is therefore a Virginia fan. His brother, Will Colley played for Georgia. Colley claims 5 advantages using his system:

  • First and foremost, the rankings are based only on results from the field, with absolutely no influence from opinion, past performance, tradition or any other bias factor. This is why there is no pre-season poll here. All teams are assumed equal at the beginning of the year.
  • Second, strength of schedule has a strong influence on the final ranking. Padding the schedule wins you very little. Furthermore, only D-IA opponents count in the ranking, so those wins against James Madison or William & Mary don't mean anything. For instance, Wisconsin with 4 losses finished the 2000 season ahead of well ahead of TCU with only 2 losses. That's because Wisconsin's Big 10 schedule was much, much more difficult that TCU's WAC schedule.
  • Third, as with the NFL, NHL, NBA, and Major League, score margin does not matter at all in determining ranking, so winning big, despite influencing pollsters, does not influence this scheme. The object of football is winning the game, not winning by a large margin.
  • Fourth, there is no ad hoc weighting of opponents' winning percentage and opponents' opponents' winning percentage, etc., ad nauseam (no random choices of 1/3 of this + 2/3 of that, for example). In this method, very simple statistical principals, with absolutely no fine tuning are used to construct a system of 117 equations with 117 variables, representing each team according only to its wins and losses, (see Ranking Method). The computer simply solves those equations to arrive at a rating (and ranking) for each team.
  • Fifth, comparison between this scheme and the final press polls (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002) proves that the scheme produces sensible results.

While all computer systems are not biased towards the "Name recognition" of a school, Colley's system doesn't include any information that doesn't involve the current season. No pre-season poll and no carry-over from the previous season. Colley's focus on strength of schedule without including opponents' strength of schedule is unique.

Week 8
Oct 14
Week 9
Oct 21
Week 10
Oct 28
Week 11
Nov 4
Week 12
Nov 11
Week 13
Nov 18
Week 14
Nov 25
Week 15
Dec 3
1. USC (6-0) Michigan (8-0) Michigan (9-0) Michigan (10-0) Michigan (11-0) Ohio State (12-0) USC (10-1) Florida (11-1) 1.
2. Michigan (7-0) Ohio State (8-0) Ohio State (9-0) Ohio State (10-0) Rutgers (8-0) USC (9-1) Ohio State (12-0) Ohio State (12-0) 2.
3. Ohio State (7-0) USC (6-0) California (6-1) Louisville (8-0) Ohio State (11-0) Michigan (11-1) Florida (10-1) Michigan (11-1) 3.
4. Florida (6-1) California (6-1) Florida (7-1) California (7-1) USC (8-1) Florida (9-1) Michigan (11-1) USC (10-2) 4.
5. Auburn (6-1) Florida (6-1) Notre Dame (7-1) Florida (8-1) Florida (9-1) Louisville (9-1) Louisville (10-1) Louisville (11-1) 5.
6. California (5-1) Rutgers (6-0) USC (6-1) Notre Dame (8-1) Notre Dame (9-1) Notre Dame (10-1) LSU (10-2) Boise State (11-0) 6.
7. Rutgers (5-0) Notre Dame (6-1) Rutgers (7-0) Rutgers (7-0) Louisville (8-1) West Virginia (8-1) Boise State (11-0) LSU (10-2) 7.
8. Notre Dame (5-1) Auburn (7-1) Louisville (7-0) USC (7-1) Wisconsin (9-1) Rutgers (8-1) Rutgers (9-1) Notre Dame (10-2) 8.
9. Louisville (6-0) Louisville (7-0) Auburn (8-1) Auburn (9-1) Boise State (9-0) Wisconsin (10-1) Notre Dame (10-2) Auburn (10-2) 9.
10. Boise State (6-0) Boise State (7-0) Tennessee (7-1) Texas (8-1) California (7-2) Arkansas (9-1) Auburn (10-2) Wisconsin (10-1) 10.
11. Arkansas (4-1) Boston College (5-1) Boise State (7-0) Wisconsin (8-1) Arkansas (8-1) Boise State (10-0) Wisconsin (10-1) West Virginia (9-2) 11.
12. Tennessee (5-1) Tennessee (6-1) West Virginia (6-0) Boise State (8-0) West Virginia (7-1) Auburn (10-2) Arkansas (9-2) California (8-3) 12.
13. Boston College (4-1) West Virginia (6-0) Texas (7-1) West Virginia (6-1) Auburn (9-2) LSU (9-2) California (7-3) Oklahoma (11-2) 13.
14. West Virginia (5-0) Texas (6-1) Wisconsin (7-1) Tennessee (7-2) LSU (8-2) California (7-3) Tennessee (9-3) Rutgers (9-2) 14.
15. Oregon (5-1) Wisconsin (6-1) Boston College (6-1) Arkansas (7-1) Texas (8-2) Boston College (8-2) Virginia Tech (9-2) Tennessee (9-3) 15.
16. Wisconsin (5-1) Arkansas (5-1) Texas A&M (7-1) LSU (7-2) Georgia Tech (7-2) Texas (8-2) Oklahoma (10-2) Arkansas (9-3) 16.
17. Texas (5-1) Missouri (6-1) Arkansas (6-1) Georgia Tech (6-2) Wake Forest (8-1) Virginia Tech (8-2) West Virginia (8-2) Virginia Tech (9-2) 17.
18. Missouri (5-1) Clemson (7-1) Georgia Tech (5-2) Oklahoma (7-2) Oklahoma (8-2) Oklahoma (9-2) Wake Forest (9-2) Wake Forest (10-2) 18.
19. Tulsa (4-1) Texas A&M (6-1) Washington State (6-3) Boston College (6-2) Boston College (7-2) Georgia Tech (8-2) Texas (8-3) Oregon State (8-4) 19.
20. Georgia Tech (4-1) Tulsa (5-1) Tulsa (6-1) Oregon (6-2) Maryland (7-2) Tennessee (8-3) BYU (10-2) Texas (8-3) 20.
21. Nebraska (5-1) Wake Forest (5-1) Missouri (6-2) Wake Forest (7-1) Tennessee (7-3) Wake Forest (8-2) Oregon State (7-4) BYU (10-2) 21.
22. Clemson (6-1) LSU (6-2) Clemson (7-2) Oregon State (5-3) Virginia Tech (7-2) BYU (9-2) Nebraska (8-3) Boston College (8-3) 22.
23. Wake Forest (5-1) Washington State (5-3) Oklahoma (6-2) Maryland (6-2) Oregon (6-3) Clemson (8-3) Boston College (8-3) UCLA (7-5) 23.
24. Texas A&M (5-1) Oregon (5-2) Oregon (5-2) Virginia Tech (6-2) Nebraska (7-3) Nebraska (7-3) Georgia Tech (8-3) Texas A&M (8-3) 24.
25. LSU (5-2) Georgia Tech (4-2) LSU (6-2) Texas A&M (7-2) Clemson (8-3) Maryland Texas A&M (8-3) TCU (9-2) 25.
Week 8
Oct 14
Week 9
Oct 21
Week 10
Oct 28
Week 11
Nov 4
Week 12
Nov 11
Week 13
Nov 18
Week 14
Nov 25
Week 15
Dec 3
Dropped:
Nebraska
Dropped:
Wake Forest
Dropped:
Washington State
Tulsa
Missouri
Clemson
Dropped:
Oregon State
Texas A&M
Dropped:
Oregon
Dropped:
Clemson
Maryland
Dropped:
Nebraska
Georgia Tech

Read more about this topic:  2006 BCS Computer Rankings

Famous quotes containing the word matrix:

    In all cultures, the family imprints its members with selfhood. Human experience of identity has two elements; a sense of belonging and a sense of being separate. The laboratory in which these ingredients are mixed and dispensed is the family, the matrix of identity.
    Salvador Minuchin (20th century)