Friday, April 26, 2013

Official/Prorated Power Points Standings Top 4 Teams

Listed below for each season is all the teams that finished the regular season in the top four of the Official and Prorated Power Points Standings. The official standings are the actual results and the prorated standings are the actual results prorated to simulate equal game schedules. The teams are listed with their best regular season finish in the AP, Coaches, or BCS rankings. 118 of the 160 teams listed finished in the top four of at least one major ranking. 140 finished in the top six. Of the 20 teams ranked 7th or worse, ten occurred from 1978-1981.


1978 Penn State 1
1978 Alabama 2
1978 Southern California 3
1978 Notre Dame 9
1978 Tennessee State NR

1979 Ohio State 1
1979 Florida State 4
1979 Arkansas 6
1979 Brigham Young 9
1979 McNeese State NR

1980 Florida State 2
1980 Pittsburgh 3
1980 Notre Dame 7
1980 North Carolina 11
1980 Brigham Young 14
1980 Tennessee State NR

1981 Clemson 1
1981 Penn State 6
1981 Pittsburgh 8
1981 Miami-Florida 9

1982 Georgia 1
1982 Penn State 2
1982 Nebraska 3
1982 UCLA 5

1983 Nebraska 1
1983 Texas 2
1983 Auburn 3
1983 Brigham Young 9

1984 Brigham Young 1
1984 Oklahoma 2
1984 Florida 3
1984 Washington 3
1984 Boston College 8

1985 Penn State 1
1985 Oklahoma 2
1985 Iowa 3
1985 Michigan 5
1985 Florida 6

1986 Miami-Florida 1
1986 Penn State 2
1986 Oklahoma 3
1986 Michigan 4
1986 Louisiana State 5

1987 Oklahoma 1
1987 Miami-Florida 2
1987 Florida State 3
1987 Syracuse 4
1987 Nebraska 5

1988 Notre Dame 1
1988 Miami-Florida 2
1988 Florida State 4
1988 Southern California 5
1988 Nebraska 6

1989 Colorado 1
1989 Michigan 3
1989 Notre Dame 4
1989 Tennessee 8

1990 Colorado 1
1990 Georgia Tech 2
1990 Texas 3
1990 Miami-Florida 4

1991 Miami-Florida 1
1991 Washington 1
1991 Florida 3
1991 Michigan 3

1992 Miami-Florida 1
1992 Alabama 2
1992 Florida State 3
1992 Texas A&M 3

1993 Florida State 1
1993 Nebraska 1
1993 West Virginia 2
1993 Auburn 5
1993 Florida 8

1994 Nebraska 1
1994 Penn State 2
1994 Miami-Florida 3
1994 Florida 4
1994 Alabama 6

1995 Nebraska 1
1995 Florida 2
1995 Northwestern 3
1995 Ohio State 4
1995 Toledo 25

1996 Florida State 1
1996 Arizona State 2
1996 Florida 3
1996 Ohio State 4
1996 Brigham Young 5

1997 Michigan 1
1997 Nebraska 2
1997 Tennessee 3
1997 Florida State 4

1998 Tennessee 1
1998 Florida State 2
1998 UCLA 5
1998 Texas A&M 6

1999 Florida State 1
1999 Virginia Tech 2
1999 Nebraska 3
1999 Alabama 4

2000 Oklahoma 1
2000 Florida State 2
2000 Miami-Florida 2
2000 Washington 4
2000 Florida 7

2001 Miami-Florida 1
2001 Nebraska 2
2001 Colorado 3
2001 Tennessee 6

2002 Miami-Florida 1
2002 Ohio State 2
2002 Georgia 3
2002 Southern California 4

2003 Oklahoma 1
2003 Southern California 1
2003 Louisiana State 2
2003 Ohio State 5

2004 Southern California 1
2004 Oklahoma 2
2004 Auburn 3
2004 Texas 4

2005 Southern California 1
2005 Texas 2
2005 Penn State 3
2005 Ohio State 4

2006 Ohio State 1
2006 Florida 2
2006 Michigan 3
2006 Boise State 8

2007 Ohio State 1
2007 Louisiana State 2
2007 Oklahoma 3
2007 Virginia Tech 3
2007 Missouri 6

2008 Florida 1
2008 Oklahoma 1
2008 Texas 3
2008 Utah 6

2009 Alabama 1
2009 Texas 2
2009 Cincinnati 3
2009 Florida 5
2009 Boise State 6

2010 Auburn 1
2010 Oregon 1
2010 Texas Christian 3
2010 Michigan State 7
2010 Oklahoma 7
2010 Boise State 10

2011 Louisiana State 1
2011 Alabama 2
2011 Oklahoma State 3
2011 Stanford 4
2011 Boise State 6

2012 Notre Dame 1
2012 Florida 3
2012 Ohio State 3
2012 Oregon 3
2012 Stanford 6

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Prorated Power Points Standings vs. AP Poll

Once again, ideal circumstances call for all teams to play an equal number of regular season games (or equal maximum). To simulate an equal number of regular season games, I have prorated the actual results based on FBS games for 11 or 12 games for all teams in a given year depending on which number was the maximum allowed excluding exempted games. To be clear, prorating the results is not a viable way to use the Power Points System if actually used as this will unfairly reward/punish teams for playing fewer/more games respectively. I use it here for demonstrative purposes only to approximate what results we might we get if all FBS teams played equal game schedules versus FBS competition only. That said, after discounting non-bowl teams, I compared the Prorated Standings and the AP Poll to determine their top four matches. Listed below are the 33 AP favored teams that did not finish in PPS top four during the past 35 seasons. These teams are listed with with their AP rank among bowl teams to the left and with lowest rank in Coaches Poll or BCS listed in parentheses. 19 of the 33 teams ranked fourth in AP. 25 of 33 ranked fourth or worse in the AP, CP. or BCS. Since 1982, the Prorated Standings and the AP agreed on 100 of 124 top four teams in 31 seasons with 22 of the 24 AP favored teams ranked fourth or worse by AP, CP, or BCS.

1978 #4 Oklahoma
1979 #1 Ohio State (#3 in CP)
1979 #2 Alabama
1979 #3 Southern Cal
1980 #1 Georgia
1980 #4 Oklahoma
1981 #2 Georgia
1981 #3 Alabama
1981 #4 Nebraska
1982 #4 SMU
1983 #4 Illinois (#5 in CP)
1984 #4 Nebraska
1985 #2 Miami (#4 in CP)
1986 #4 Michigan
1988 #3 West Virginia
1989 #2 Miami
1993 #4 Notre Dame
1994 #4 Colorado (#5 in CP)
1995 #4 Tennessee
1998 #3 Ohio State (#4 in BCS)
1998 #4 Kansas State
1999 #4 Wisconsin (#7 in BCS)
2001 #2 Oregon (#4 in BCS)
2002 #3 Iowa (#5 in BCS)
2003 #4 Michigan
2004 #4 California (#5 in BCS)
2006 #4 LSU
2007 #3 Oklahoma (#4 in BCS)
2007 #4 Georgia (#5 in BCS)
2008 #4 Alabama
2009 #3 TCU (#4 in BCS)
2010 #4 Wisconsin (#5 in BCS)
2011 #4 Stanford

Monday, April 22, 2013

College Football's $500 Million Question: Who's Going To Pick The Teams?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/college_footballs_500_million.html

As mentioned in previous posts, the best possible circumstances for the Power Points System would involve all FBS teams playing equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only while knowingly competing based on the rules in play. That said, comparing the Power Points System in various ways to the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, and BCS Standings has yielded a three for four average on top four matches with most disputed teams on either side being the fourth team and 100% agreement being only one or two changed game outcomes away. And those are the results based on FBS games only but without the benefit of equal maximum game schedules and teams knowingly competing based on the rules in play. Imagine if the best possible circumstances existed and teams know what beats what before competition begins.

Unfortunately, all we can do is imagine because BCS officials are married to the idea that a selection committee is the best way to determine teams for the upcoming four-team playoff. To be clear, the problem with selection committees and polls is not that their outcomes are wrong as there are no right and wrong results contrary to those who ever said the BCS got it right. The problem is that those methods produce arbitrary results based on forever changing reasons why one team is in or out from one year to the next. Teams do not know what beats what even after the selection committee announces its playoff field because there are no guarantees that the popular argument one year will be the same the next. During the BCS era, contradictions occurred in the same year. How many people to this day argue that Miami, not Florida State, should have played Oklahoma for the 2000 title based on head-to-head yet ignore that Washington owned the same argument versus Miami? Subjective methods are the reason why the controversy does not end with an expanded playoff because subjective methods allow everyone to adopt any argument to justify their desired conclusion.

I do not know if BCS officials who insist voting teams in is the only way are that ignorant or because they know voting allows them to manufacture a desired outcome. However, their own words having me leaning towards ignorance. BCS executive director Bill Hancock has said that there are not enough data points to only use math/statistics to determine playoff teams. Really? What is enough data points? The Power Points System only needs a team's wins and losses and its opponents' wins and losses to separate any pair of teams better than 99% of the time. It is that simple. Again, 75% top four agreement, most disputes involve the fourth team, and 100% agreement is 1-2 flipped game results away. How many more data points does the Power Points System need to bridge the gap between those results and the arbitrary results produced by subjective methods? In the article linked above, the same Bill Hancock expects that the committee will consider common sense things like injuries and weather. "Just common-sense things that any sports fan would use." Common sense things? Where else in sports do the rules used to determine the standings place value on such nonsense? Is the committee going to put one team in over another because it won a game in the snow in late November or excuse a loss due to an injury to important player? That is common sense? If so, why don't conferences consider such factors regarding their own standings even if only as a tiebreakers? Obviously, it is because doing lacks common sense. Only in sports that use beauty contest rules to determine winners and losers does anyone come to believe intangible advantages/disadvantages should be considered along with wins and losses. Just recently, Golden State lost a star player for the season in a game one playoff loss to Denver. No one is suggesting the Warriors be credited with a win or be compensated in future games due to their missing player. The injury is unfortunate but no team is immune to such things. That is sports.

Ultimately, the biggest problem I see is that too many people in college football believe competition is about quantifying, identifying, or validating the best team whichever team they imagine that to be. The truth is that competition is about determining a winner. Most competitions use rules that define what is most valuable and leave it up to the teams to beat each other based on those rules. Of course the rules can be designed to challenge teams which favors the best team but being the best team is only a competitive advantage towards winning a competition. If the best team fails to accomplish what is most valuable under the rules in play, it wins nothing for being the best team.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Championship Games

Listed below are the top two bowl teams for the Official and Prorated Power Points Standings, Associated Press and Coaches polls, and the BCS Standings. Listed in parentheses for teams favored by the Official/Prorated Power Points Standings is that team's best regular season finish among bowl teams in the AP, CP, or BCS. Listed in parentheses for the teams favored by the AP, CP, and BCS is that team's best regular season finish among bowl teams in the Official or Prorated Power Points Standings.

1978 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Southern Cal(3) Penn State(1)
PPP Southern Cal(3) Penn State(1)
AP Penn State(2) Alabama(3)
CP Penn State(2) Alabama(3)

1979 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Brigham Young(9) Florida State(4)
PPP Brigham Young(9) McNeese State(NR)
AP Ohio State(4) Alabama(6)
CP Alabama(6) Southern Cal(5)

1980 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida State(2) Pittsburgh(3)
PPP Florida State(2) Pittsburgh(3)
AP Georgia(7) Florida State(1)
CP Georgia(7) Florida State(1)

1981 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Clemson(1) Pittsburgh(8)
PPP Clemson(1) Pittsburgh(8)
AP Clemson(1) Georgia(5)
CP Clemson(1) Georgia(5)

1982 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Georgia(1) Penn State(2)
PPP Georgia(1) Penn State(2)
AP Georgia(1) Penn State(2)
CP Georgia(1) Penn State(2)

1983 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Auburn(3) Nebraska(1)
PPP Auburn(3) Texas(2)
AP Nebraska(2) Texas(2)
CP Nebraska(2) Texas(2)

1984 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Brigham Young(1) Washington(3)
PPP Washington(3) Brigham Young(1)
AP Brigham Young(1) Oklahoma(3)
CP Brigham Young(1) Oklahoma (3)

1985 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Penn State(1) Oklahoma(2)
PPP Oklahoma(2) Penn State(1)
AP Penn State(1) Miami(6)
CP Penn State(1) Oklahoma(1)

1986 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Penn State(2) Michigan(4)
PPP Penn State(2) Miami(1)
AP Miami(2) Penn State(1)
CP Miami(2) Penn State(1)

1987 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Miami(2) Florida State(3)
PPP Miami(2) Florida State(3)
AP Oklahoma(4) Miami(1)
CP Oklahoma(4) Miami(1)

1988 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Notre Dame(1) Southern Cal(5)
PPP Southern Cal(5) Notre Dame(1)
AP Notre Dame(1) Miami(3)
CP Notre Dame(1) Miami(3)

1989 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Notre Dame(4) Colorado(1)
PPP Notre Dame(4) Colorado(1)
AP Colorado(2) Miami(5)
CP Colorado(2) Miami(5)

1990 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Colorado(1) Texas(3)
PPP Texas(3) Colorado(1)
AP Colorado(1) Georgia Tech(3)
CP Colorado(1) Georgia Tech(3)

1991 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Miami(1) Washington(1)
PPP Miami(1) Florida(3)
AP Miami(1) Washington(2)
CP Washington(2) Miami(1)

1992 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Alabama(2) Miami(1)
PPP Alabama(2) Miami(1)
AP Miami(2) Alabama(1)
CP Miami(2) Alabama(1)

1993 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida State(1) Nebraska(1)
PPP Nebraska(1) Florida State(1)
AP Florida State(1) Nebraska(1)
CP Nebraska(1) West Virginia(3)

1994 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Nebraska(1) Penn State(2)
PPP Nebraska(1) Penn State(2)
AP Nebraska(1) Penn State(2)
CP Nebraska(1) Penn State(2)

1995 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida(2) Nebraska(1)
PPP Florida(2) Nebraska(1)
AP Nebraska(2) Florida(1)
CP Nebraska(2) Florida(1)

1996 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida State(1) Arizona State(2)
PPP Florida State(1) Arizona State(2)
AP Florida State(1) Arizona State(2)
CP Florida State(1) Arizona State(2)

1997 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Tennessee(3) Michigan(1)
PPP Michigan(1) Tennessee(3)
AP Michigan(1) Nebraska(3)
CP Michigan(1) Nebraska(3)

1998 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida State(2) Tennessee(1)
PPP Tennessee(1) Florida State(2)
AP Tennessee(1) Florida State(1)
CP Tennessee(1) Florida State(1)
BCS Tennessee(1) Florida State(1)

1999 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida State(1) Alabama(4)
PPP Florida State(1) Virginia Tech(2)
AP Florida State(1) Virginia Tech(2)
CP Florida State(1) Virginia Tech(2)
BCS Florida State(1) Virginia Tech(2)

2000 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Oklahoma(1) Florida State(2)
PPP Oklahoma(1) Florida State(2)
AP Oklahoma(1) Miami(3)
CP Oklahoma(1) Miami(3)
BCS Oklahoma(1) Florida State(2)

2001 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Miami(1) Nebraska(2)
PPP Miami(1) Nebraska(2)
AP Miam(1) Oregon(5)
CP Miami(1) Oregon(5)
BCS Miami(1) Nebraska(2)

2002 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Ohio State(2) Miami(1)
PPP Miami(1) Ohio State(2)
AP Miami(1) Ohio State(1)
CP Miami(1) Ohio State(1)
BCS Miami(1) Ohio State(1)

2003 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Oklahoma(1) LSU(2)
PPP Oklahoma(1) LSU(2)
AP Southern Cal(3) LSU(2)
CP Southern Cal(3) LSU(2)
BCS Oklahoma(1) LSU(2)

2004 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Oklahoma(2) Southern Cal(1)
PPP Auburn(3) Oklahoma(2)
AP Southern Cal(2) Oklahoma(1)
CP Southern Cal(2) Oklahoma(1)
BCS Southern Cal(2) Oklahoma(1)

2005 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Southern Cal(1) Texas(2)
PPP Southern Cal(1) Texas(2)
AP Southern Cal(1) Texas(2)
CP Southern Cal(1) Texas(2)
BCS Southern Cal(1) Texas(2)

2006 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Florida(2) Michigan(3)
PPP Florida(2) Michigan(3)
AP Ohio State(3) Florida(1)
CP Ohio State(3) Florida(1)
BCS Ohio State(3) Florida(1)

2007 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP LSU(2) Virginia Tech(3)
PPP Virginia Tech(3) Ohio State(1)
AP Ohio State(2) LSU(1)
CP Ohio State(2) LSU(1)
BCS Ohio State(2) LSU(1)

2008 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Oklahoma(1) Texas(3)
PPP Oklahoma(1) Florida(1)
AP Florida(2) Oklahoma(1)
CP Oklahoma(1) Florida(2)
BCS Oklahoma(1) Florida(2)

2009 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Alabama(1) Texas(2)
PPP Alabama(1) Texas(2)
AP Alabama(1) Texas(2)
CP Alabama(1) Texas(2)
BCS Alabama(1) Texas(2)

2010 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Auburn(1) Oklahoma(7)
PPP Auburn(1) TCU (3)
AP Auburn(1) Oregon(3)
CP Oregon(3) Auburn(1)
BCS Auburn(1) Oregon(3)

2011 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP LSU(1) Oklahoma State(3)
PPP LSU(1) Oklahoma State(3)
AP LSU(1) Alabama(3)
CP LSU(1) Alabama(3)
BCS LSU(1) Alabama(3)

2012 FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE
OPP Notre Dame(1) Stanford(6)
PPP Notre Dame(1) Florida(3)
AP Notre Dame(1) Alabama(4)
CP Notre Dame(1) Alabama(4)
BCS Notre Dame(1) Alabama(4)

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Top 4 Playoff: Official/Prorated Power Points vs. AP/BCS

Under the best possible circumstances, all FBS teams would play equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only and knowingly compete according to the Power Points System's rules. That said, based on FBS games only, I have compared the official Power Points Standings and those standings prorated for an equal number games for all teams to the final regular season standings for the AP Poll and BCS to determine the closest result. Due to the lack of equal maximum game schedules, the official standings favor teams that play more games and the prorated standings favor teams that play fewer games. The closest result for each season is determined by number of top four matches, fewest game outcomes changed from matching all four teams, and best AP/BCS rank. Disputed teams are listed with their AP/BCS rank depending on which provided the closest result. Teams ineligible for the BCS are discounted when comparing the official/prorated standings to the former. Example: 2012 Ohio State.

1978 3,1 #10 Notre Dame > #4 Oklahoma
1979 2,2 #6 Arkansas, #9 BYU > #2 Alabama, #3 USC
1980 2,4 #7 Notre Dame, #14 BYU > #1 Georgia, #4 Oklahoma
1981 1,4 #7 Penn State, #9 Miami, #10 Pittsburgh > #2 Georgia, #3 Alabama, #4 Nebraska
1982 3,1 #5 UCLA > #4 SMU
1983 3,1 #9 BYU > #4 Illinois
1984 4,0
1985 3,1 #6 Florida > #2 Miami
1986 3,1 #5 LSU > #4 Michigan
1987 4,0
1988 3,4 #5 USC > #3 West Virginia
1989 3,1 #8 Tennessee > #2 Miami
1990 4,0
1991 4,0
1992 4,0
1993 3,2 #5 Auburn > #4 Notre Dame
1994 3,2 #6 Alabama > #4 Colorado
1995 4,0
1996 4,0
1997 4,0
1998 2,2 #5 UCLA, #6 Texas A&M > #3 Kansas State, #4 Ohio State
1999 4,0
2000 4,0
2001 3,1 #6 Tennessee > #4 Oregon
2002 4,0
2003 3,1 #5 Ohio State > #4 Michigan
2004 4,0
2005 4,0
2006 3,1 #8 Boise State > #4 LSU
2007 3,1 #6 Missouri > #1 Ohio State
2008 3,2 #6 Utah > #4 Alabama
2009 3,1 #5 Florida > #4 TCU
2010 3,1 #7 Michigan State > #4 Wisconsin
2011 3,1 #8 Boise State > #4 Stanford
2012 4,0

Notes:
1986-Michigan finished 2nd in Official Power Points Standings.
2007-Ohio State finished 2nd in Prorated Power Points Standings.
2011-Stanford finished 4th in Official Power Points Standings.

Based on the closest results above, the Official/Prorated Power Standings matched the AP/BCS on 114 of 140 top four teams since 1978 (35 seasons) and 106 of 124 top four teams since 1982. 16 of the 26 disputed teams favored by AP/BCS are the #4 team. All six AP/BCS teams ranked 9th or worse and favored by Power Points Standings occurred during first six years (1978-1983). The Official/Prorated Power Points Standings are only 35 changed game outcomes removed from matching the AP/BCS on all 140 top four teams.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Top 4 Playoff: Power Points vs. AP Poll

Listed below is how many teams with each rank made the competing system's top four through regular season competition since 1978 (35 seasons).

#PPSAP
13432
23027
32227
41515
51511
687
776
836
935
1003
1110
1200
1310
1401
1510

Top 4 Playoff: Power Points vs. AP Poll

1-Since 1978 (35 seasons) the Power Points System and AP Poll have agreed on 101 of 140 (72%) top four teams. Since 1982 (31 seasons), the PPS and AP have agreed on 93 of 124 (75%) top four teams.

2-Since 1978, there have been 21,569 regular season games played between FBS opponents. The PPS could match the AP on all top four teams by changing the outcomes of 56 games in 35 seasons.

3-The PPS agreed on all top four teams seven times in 35 seasons and agreed on three teams in 18 other seasons. In 20 seasons, the PPS was no more more than one game outcome reversed from matching the AP's top four teams.

4-Both the PPS and AP had 19 top three teams (combined) and 20 #4 teams miss other system's top four.

5-Based on final Power Points Standings, 128 of 140 AP top four teams controlled their destiny towards making the PPS top four. That means 128 different teams would have made the PPS top four if they won all of their games and all other results remained unchanged. Among the 12 teams that did not control their destiny, eight would would have needed help in one game if they had won all of their games.

6-Among the 140 AP top four teams, 133 finished the regular season 0-1 changed game outcomes removed from a PPS top four finish. Five teams were two games removed, one team was three games removed and one team was four games removed.

7-Between the two systems, 53 different teams were ranked first and 49 made both top fours. 60 different teams were ranked second and 49 made both top fours. 61 different teams were ranked third and 40 made both top fours. 63 different teams were ranked fourth and 23 made both top fours.

8-Among the disputed top four teams, PPS favored teams are 87-42-1 versus AP ranked teams. AP favored teams are 73-26-2 vs AP ranked teams.

9-The 39 disputed top four teams make 63 disputed pairs. Based on most wins versus AP ranked competition, PPS favored teams own a 32-18-13 advantage. Among the 13 tied pairs, PPS favored teams own an 8-1-4 advantage based on average rank of AP ranked opponents defeated. Overall, PPS favored teams own a 40-19-4 advantage when it comes to beating more ranked AP teams or beating an equal amount with a higher average AP rank.

10-Based on most games played versus AP ranked competition, PPS favored teams own a 40-16-7 advantage. Among the seven tied pairs, PPS favored teams own a 5-2 advantage based on average rank of AP ranked opponents played. Overall, PPS favored teams own a 45-18 advantage when it comes to playing more ranked AP teams or playing an equal amount with a higher average AP rank.