|
Welcome to Atomic Football, the best place on the web for college
football rankings and predictions.
Objective Rankings
Atomic Football is home to what may be the only truly objective
college football rankings anywhere. While our claim obviously leaves
some wiggle room, you might still find it somewhat bold. After all, all
computer rankings are objective, right? Not really. Let us explain.
One only needs to wade into the shallows of football rankings before
the problem of "strength of schedule" is encountered. But just how
important is it? Every other football ranking system of which we are
aware and for which sufficient details are available have "solved" this
problem with what we call a "knob." Like the volume knob on a radio, it
must be set to some value. And like the volume of your radio, it is a
matter of personal preference. So what? you might ask. Let's dig a
little deeper.
So you have your ranking algorithm with your strength of schedule
knob, and you've tuned it to produce rankings you feel are
"reasonable." But is it possible that the final setting was influenced
by how well your favorite team faired? Perhaps a weak team in a
relatively strong conference - crank up the "strength of schedule." Or
maybe a strong team in a relatively weak conference - turn down the
"strength of schedule." Your rankings are still only as unbiased as you
are.
Is there another way? What if you could find an algorithm that knows
how to tune itself. Well, after many years, we have finally achieved
this very thing. And, on top of that, we have shown how to validate the
tuning from statistics we can derive independently of the algorithm - a
self-consistency check, if you will. If you're not into the math, then
feel free to go straight to the rankings
page. Otherwise, please check out our paper.
Accurate Predictions
Atomic Football is also home to the most accurate college football
predictions outside of the Las Vegas oddsmakers. Before you go plunk
down a bunch of money betting college football games using our
predictions, be sure you noted that little caveat -- "outside of the
Las Vegas oddsmakers" (see Footnote).
Based upon archived data from Todd Beck's Prediction
Tracker, our accuracy for the period from 2007 Week 5 (when our
current algorithm came into being) through the end of the 2009 season
was bested only by the betting line:
| System | Mean Square Error |
| Line (updated) | 233.54 |
| Line (opening) | 238.61 |
| Atomic Football | 241.00 |
| System Median | 244.52 |
| System Average | 244.83 |
| Stat Fox | 246.24 |
| Pigskin Index | 247.22 |
| Ashby AccuRatings | 250.07 |
| Edward Kambour | 251.05 |
| Moore Power Ratings | 252.67 |
| Dokter Entropy | 252.89 |
| everyone else | >252.99 |
Here are a couple of other stats I've run recently for the same time
period. The first is the percentage of time the respective system
predicts the direction the line will move from the open to the last update.
The second is the percentage of time the respective system correctly
picked the winner of the game. OK, so we have a penchant for coming
in second. Hey, but it's usually behind someone different every time.
| System | Line Movement |
| Keeper | 59.2% |
| Atomic Football | 58.8% |
| Edward Kambour | 57.2% |
| Stephen Kerns | 56.4% |
| Dokter Entropy | 56.3% |
| Sagarin Predictive | 56.0% |
| System Average | 55.8% |
| Dunkel Index | 55.6% |
| System Median | 55.4% |
| Stat Fox | 55.3% |
| Marsee | 55.3% |
| everyone else | <54.8% |
|
| System | Winners |
| System Average | 74.4% |
| Atomic Football | 74.3% |
| Dokter Entropy | 74.2% |
| System Median | 74.1% |
| Pigskin Index | 74.1% |
| Edward Kambour | 74.1% |
| Stat Fox | 74.0% |
| Updated Line | 73.8% |
| Opening Line | 73.6% |
| Lax Index | 73.5% |
| Moore Power Ratings | 73.5% |
| everyone else | <73.2% |
|
Some Other Notes
While we are part of the FCS' new "BCS-like" system for ranking
teams from the division formerly known as I-AA, we have no affiliation
with the BCS. Our win-loss rankings are "BCS compliant" to the extent
that they conform to the best of our knowledge to constraints imposed
by the BCS on the various computer ranking systems that compose it
(e.g., using only wins and losses -- no scores). They do NOT
necessarily represent the BCS computer rankings as they might appear
were they generated for divisions other than the FBS.
Since many of the BCS Computer Ranking formulas are secret (or at
least insufficient details are available to reproduce them precisely),
BCS-equivalent rankings of the divisions beyond the FBS do not exist.
Also, be aware that while the constraints imposed by the BCS on their
component computer rankings work well for the FBS, they are not as
well-suited for some of the other divisions due to their poor
"connectivity" (i.e., more regional play) and will tend to produce less
meaningful results until later in the season.
Jim Ashburn
11 March 2005
Last Updated 10 May 2010
----------------
Footnote: The mathematics behind the gambling establishment are a
bit complicated and, honestly, quite intriguing. Here's a little
sample. It is fascinating how the mathematics have been designed to
ensnare the human psyche. If you think you have an edge, you almost
certainly don't. And if you do, it is so razor thin that you still have
a problem -- if you try to compound your winnings, you're guaranteed
to lose everything in the long run. This is what the math
says, only put into words. If you want to know more, don't hesitate to
email
me.
|