2012-10-07

At this early stage in the season, the results are still volatile. A number of teams could not be rated the normal way because very small numbers (produced by poor schedules, for instance) become very large numbers when they are denominators, and in some instances negative numbers are created when they cannot be accommodated by the formula. Even though it's problematic, I substitute numbers in order to create a rating for all teams. The teams with strengths of schedules that had to be adjusted are as follows:

Nevada (Reno)

Ohio

Texas-San Antonio

I ensured that they were still given worse schedule ratings than all other teams. The worst schedule that is rated normally is Kent St.'s at .05. These were given ratings of .01 to make sure they rated worse. These also show up in the list below not because they're bad teams necessarily but because there is very little basis to give these teams credit as opponents. Beating weak teams does not make the winner bad of course.

The following list is a normal function of my formula, but it's still something I consider worth noting. If I don't adjust these ratings, very large negative numbers are produced so that a team can have a number of good wins combined with one bad loss and fall below another team with no good wins and somewhat bad losses. So essentially the following teams are bad losses (with the caveat noted above), but I have capped the negative effect of losing to these teams and in the process, I have added to the ratings of teams who have beaten these. These are all teams that have beaten at least one FBS (I-A) opponent, so I don't think it's unfair to give them this baseline rating. The list should get smaller as the season progresses.

Army

Colorado

Colorado St.

Florida International

Idaho

Kansas

Kent St.

Nevada (Reno)

Ohio

Rice

Texas-San Antonio

UNLV

UTEP