A rating - a members power rating system for the SEC

[whiteflock]

Definition of a power rating for those that need a definition. power rankings can be derived by sorting each team's ratings and assigning an ordinal rank to each team, so that the highest rated team earns the #1 rank. Rating systems provide an alternative to traditional sports standings which are based on win-loss-tie ratios.

Mine is based on scores, location of game, strength of schedule. Range depends on how good or bad a team does.

1​	Kentucky	102.11​
2​	S Carolina	102.05​
3​	Alabama	101.60​
4​	Florida	101.49​
5​	LSU	101.37​
6​	Miss St.	100.93​
7​	Auburn	100.77​
8​	Mississippi	100.66​
9​	Tennessee	100.56​
10​	Arkansas	99.83​
11​	Texas A&M	98.25​
12​	Missouri	97.66​
13​	Georgia	97.47​
14​	Vanderbilt	95.24​

 

[Toddrn]

Teaser title.

 

[B1GTide]

While every system has flaws, any system that has Alabama ranked 3rd and Auburn 7th right now is rigged.

 

[dayhiker]

We didn't need a definition of power rating. We needed you to just simply tell us that this was yours.

 

[whiteflock]

I was asked what is this was in a previous post. The thread was marked power ratings.So I thought they didnt know what power ratings meant. This is my power rating based on scores, location of game and strength of schedule. It is only based on SEC games and is an accurate prediction of who gets in the NCAA tournament. Anyone over 101 has always gotten in. As with all ratings the more games included the more accurate the system is. I put the numbers in the system and post what comes out. No rigged system.

 

[dayhiker]

I was asked what is this was in a previous post. The thread was marked power ratings.So I thought they didnt know what power ratings meant. This is my power rating based on scores, location of game and strength of schedule. It is only based on SEC games and is an accurate prediction of who gets in the NCAA tournament. Anyone over 101 has always gotten in. As with all ratings the more games included the more accurate the system is. I put the numbers in the system and post what comes out. No rigged system.

You were asked what the heck the system was, as in, where did you pull it from or did you originate it, etc. I've said that in the other thread, by private message, and now here.

 

[whiteflock]

This is my power rating based on scores, location of game and strength of schedule. It is only based on SEC games and is an accurate prediction of who gets in the NCAA tournament. Anyone over 101 has always gotten in. As with all ratings the more games included the more accurate the system is. I put the numbers in the system and post what comes out. No rigged system.

 

[cuda.1973]

Anyone over 101 has always gotten in.

With API below 101, the implication is they are a bubble team.

You might want to work on the algorithm.

 

[cuda.1973]

Or you could just tell us what the algorithm is, and we can fix it for you. But, as you have evaded answering that question.................maybe not.

 

[DogPatch]

Or you could just tell us what the algorithm is, and we can fix it for you. But, as you have evaded answering that question.................maybe not.

Maybe it doesn't need to be fixed. The end of the season will show.

If I remember correctly from last season, it was spot on.

 

[B1GTide]

Maybe it doesn't need to be fixed. The end of the season will show.

If I remember correctly from last season, it was spot on.

No, it wasn't. It was adjusted as the games played out, but at this point last season it showed Alabama as a playoff team, and everyone with eyes knew better.

 

[dayhiker]

No, it wasn't. It was adjusted as the games played out, but at this point last season it showed Alabama as a playoff team, and everyone with eyes knew better.

I don't recall this poster posting their system last year. I couldn't find it in a search either.

 

[B1GTide]

I don't recall this poster posting their system last year. I couldn't find it in a search either.

Sorry, was talking about the model posted last year.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I'm so sick and tired of rating/ranking systems that devalue the on field/court results. Just more of the "every one gets a trophy" mentality that is ruining all age levels of athletics. It's no longer about winning and losing (you know, the whole point of playing the game), it's all about how good or bad you looked while winning or loosing. "Aww, you lost a lot of games. Don't worry about it because you looked great in those losses so here's your trophy."

No ranking should ever have an 11 loss team ranked above a 3 loss team, that's stupid.

 

[AUDub]

I'm so sick and tired of rating/ranking systems that devalue the on field/court results. Just more of the "every one gets a trophy" mentality that is ruining all age levels of athletics. It's no longer about winning and losing (you know, the whole point of playing the game), it's all about how good or bad you looked while winning or loosing. "Aww, you lost a lot of games. Don't worry about it because you looked great in those losses so here's your trophy."

No ranking should ever have an 11 loss team ranked above a 3 loss team, that's stupid.

I'll go to bat for systems like KenPom here.

KenPom doesn't pay attention to actual wins or losses. A 1 point win is not meaningfully different from a 1 point loss.

And there's the crux of it. KenPom is not "results" oriented (by results I mean wins and losses). It's not a poll and shouldn't be treated like one.

Not necessarily good for grading resùmes and the like, but generally very reliable for matchups and team quality in general.

But what this is ranking system we're discussing here is, well, I'm at a loss. Sure, it's ok to have a baseline (101 makes the tourney), but it's very strange to have us below that baseline when we're already a stone cold lock.

 

[AUDub]

I don't recall this poster posting their system last year. I couldn't find it in a search either.

This is @Purplepossum's rating system from last spring.

 

[whiteflock]

You are correct Dogpatch. That is the ranking as of today. Keep watching until end of SEC Tourney.

 

[whiteflock]

Or you could just tell us what the algorithm is, and we can fix it for you. But, as you have evaded answering that question.................maybe not.

No fix needed. It is already accurate

 

[whiteflock]

Once again. scores, location, strength of schedule.

 

[NationalTitles18]

So what do the numbers actually mean? Can you explain that?