As a guy who loves the Simple Rating System, the start of the college football season can be frustrating. Until we get a few weeks in, we can’t really use the Simple Rating System to analyze results. A similar problem affects all computer rating systems. Jeff Sagarin notes in his rankings that that for the first few weeks of the season — until the teams are “well connected” — he uses a starting weight to help match the results to our expectations. By “well connected” Sagarin simply means we need the teams to play each other more frequently so we can have more confidence in our results.

So while it’s fun to watch the games, part of me is disappointed that I can’t run all the teams through the simple rating system. If only we could double the sample size of the games played — after six weeks, teams are fairly well connected — we’d be in business.

Well, I thought of a cheat to do just that. Each game has a point spread, a quantitative expectation of how each team will perform according to the best minds in the betting community. So when Florida plays Tennessee, there are two games that are happening. One is the result of the actual game, Florida winning by 17. The other is what we expected to happen, which is Tennessee winning by 3.

It might seem odd to use projected results as inputs into the SRS. And maybe it is. But why not? It’s similar in ways to using preseason projections, and I generally have faith in the betting community. Plus, what else I am supposed to do until a few more weeks.

So here’s what I did. I took every game where the point spread was less than 35 points (under the assumption that games with ridiculous betting lines or that don’t even have a line are just tune ups) and counted it twice. Once for the actual results, and once for the point spread.

Washington, for example, has played 3 games this year. They played San Diego State, were favored by 15, and won by 9 points. They played LSU, were 22.5 point underdogs, and lost by 38 points. And they played Portland State, were 32-point favorites, and won by 39 points. As a result, in six “games” this year, Washington won by an average of 5.8 points. Their strength of schedule was pretty tough, too — iterated, of course — so they will fare pretty well. How does the rest of college football look?

Rk	Tm	G	MARG	SOS	SRS	TotRec	ActRec
1	LSU	2	30.3	33.7	63.9	2-0	1-0
2	Cincinnati	2	14.3	47.2	61.4	2-0	1-0
3	Florida St	2	40	7.7	47.7	2-0	1-0
4	Pittsburgh	6	-2.7	49.9	47.2	2-4	1-2
5	Oregon	2	25	21.1	46.1	2-0	1-0
6	Youngs St	2	-2.3	47.2	44.9	1-1	1-0
7	VA Tech	4	0.6	42.6	43.2	3-1	1-1
8	W Virginia	2	30.8	8.9	39.6	2-0	1-0
9	GA Tech	4	8.9	29.1	37.9	2-2	1-1
10	Texas	4	24.3	12.9	37.1	4-0	2-0
11	Georgia	2	11	25.1	36.1	2-0	1-0
12	Alabama	4	27.8	7.1	34.9	4-0	2-0
13	Washington	6	5.8	27.9	33.7	4-2	2-1
14	Kansas St	6	27.3	5	32.3	6-0	3-0
15	Oklahoma	2	23.3	2.7	25.9	2-0	1-0
16	Missouri	4	-3.6	28.7	25.1	2-2	1-1
17	USC	4	9.5	15.5	25	3-1	1-1
18	Texas Tech	6	31.3	-6.7	24.6	6-0	3-0
19	Stanford	6	13.6	9	22.6	5-1	3-0
20	San Diego St	4	4.1	17.6	21.7	2-2	1-1
21	Arizona	4	7	14.6	21.6	3-1	2-0
22	Arizona St	6	18.4	2.9	21.3	4-2	2-1
23	Fresno St	6	11.3	9.8	21.1	4-2	2-1
24	Oklahoma St	4	13.1	6.3	19.4	3-1	1-1
25	Louisville	4	10.1	7.6	17.7	4-0	2-0
26	Notre Dame	6	13.9	3.1	17	5-1	3-0
27	Wisconsin	6	9.5	7	16.5	5-1	2-1
28	UCLA	6	14.3	2.1	16.3	5-1	3-0
29	Florida	6	9.5	6.6	16.1	4-2	3-0
30	S Carolina	6	24.3	-8.3	16.1	6-0	3-0
31	Ohio State	6	21	-5.1	15.9	6-0	3-0
32	Texas A&M	4	13.3	1.9	15.1	3-1	1-1
33	Nebraska	6	16.7	-1.6	15.1	5-1	2-1
34	Oregon St	2	-1.5	16.5	15	1-1	1-0
35	Mississippi	6	3.8	11.2	15	4-2	2-1
36	Virginia	6	2.2	12.8	14.9	4-2	2-1
37	Michigan	4	-3.1	18	14.9	2-2	1-1
38	TX Christian	2	16.3	-2.7	13.6	2-0	1-0
39	Ohio	6	10.2	3	13.1	5-1	3-0
40	N Carolina	6	15.8	-3.6	12.2	3-3	1-2
41	North Texas	4	4.4	7.2	11.5	2-2	1-1
42	BYU	4	9.3	2.2	11.5	3-1	1-1
43	Michigan St	6	8.8	2.2	10.9	5-1	2-1
44	Iowa State	4	3.1	7.8	10.9	2-2	2-0
45	Wyoming	4	-12.8	23.5	10.7	1-3	0-2
46	Northwestrn	6	3.2	6.9	10	4-2	3-0
47	Utah	4	0.1	9.8	9.9	2-2	1-1
48	Toledo	6	-0.3	10.1	9.8	3-3	2-1
49	Penn State	6	3	6.4	9.4	3-3	1-2
50	Iowa	6	5.3	4.1	9.4	5-1	2-1
51	Miami (FL)	6	4.5	4.5	9	4-2	2-1
52	Wake Forest	6	-10.1	19	8.9	3-3	2-1
53	Marshall	6	-2	10.9	8.9	2-4	1-2
54	Vanderbilt	4	-4.4	13.1	8.7	1-3	0-2
55	Baylor	2	21	-12.4	8.6	2-0	1-0
56	Syracuse	6	-0.5	8.9	8.4	3-3	1-2
57	Utah State	6	5.8	2.3	8.1	3-3	2-1
58	LA Tech	4	12.5	-4.4	8.1	4-0	2-0
59	Purdue	6	17.8	-10.6	7.2	4-2	2-1
60	Tennessee	4	0.8	5.9	6.7	3-1	1-1
61	Tulsa	4	10.9	-4.6	6.2	3-1	1-1
62	San Jose St	6	9.1	-3.1	6	4-2	2-1
63	Boise State	4	9	-4.4	4.6	2-2	1-1
64	California	6	5.4	-1.4	4	3-3	1-2
65	Boston Col	6	5.6	-2	3.5	2-4	1-2
66	N Illinois	6	7.8	-4.3	3.4	4-2	2-1
67	Illinois	4	-2.4	5.1	2.7	2-2	1-1
68	Clemson	4	15.3	-12.6	2.7	4-0	2-0
69	TX El Paso	6	-7.8	10.5	2.7	2-4	1-2
70	Army	4	-11.1	12.6	1.4	0-4	0-2
71	Air Force	4	8.1	-7	1.1	2-2	1-1
72	Miss State	4	10.4	-9.3	1.1	4-0	2-0
73	Central FL	6	10.5	-10.1	0.4	4-2	2-1
74	Kentucky	6	2.1	-1.6	0.4	3-3	1-2
75	Nevada	4	-1.4	0.8	-0.5	2-2	1-1
76	Arkansas	4	-11	10.4	-0.6	1-3	0-2
77	Houston	6	-5.7	5	-0.7	1-5	0-3
78	W Kentucky	4	16	-17.1	-1.1	3-1	2-0
79	NW State	2	-26	24.6	-1.4	0-2	0-1
80	Portland St	2	-35.5	33.7	-1.8	0-2	0-1
81	Bowling Grn	6	-5.2	3.2	-1.9	2-4	1-2
82	N Iowa	4	-15	13	-2	0-4	0-2
83	S Florida	6	8.1	-10.4	-2.3	4-2	2-1
84	Kansas	6	2.3	-5	-2.7	3-3	1-2
85	Rutgers	4	8.4	-11.3	-2.9	3-1	2-0
86	Weber State	2	-24	21.1	-2.9	0-2	0-1
87	Duke	4	-7.6	3.7	-3.9	2-2	1-1
88	NC State	6	7.3	-11.5	-4.3	4-2	2-1
89	N Dakota St	2	7.5	-11.8	-4.3	1.5-0.5	1-0
90	Wash State	6	-0.8	-4.7	-5.5	4-2	2-1
91	Auburn	6	-2.2	-3.4	-5.6	2-4	1-2
92	Missouri St	2	-38	32.3	-5.7	0-2	0-1
93	Central Ark	2	-21.3	15	-6.2	0-2	0-1
94	Liberty	2	-14.3	7.7	-6.6	0-2	0-1
95	Minnesota	6	11.6	-19	-7.4	6-0	3-0
96	Rice	6	-15.4	7.2	-8.2	1-5	1-2
97	Stony Brook	2	-16.8	8.4	-8.3	0-2	0-1
98	Navy	4	-22	13.2	-8.8	0-4	0-2
99	LA Lafayette	4	-12.3	3.2	-9	2-2	1-1
100	Richmond	2	-24	14.9	-9.1	0-2	0-1
101	New Mexico	2	-33.8	24.6	-9.2	0-2	0-1
102	N Mex State	6	-6.2	-3.2	-9.4	2-4	1-2
103	Texas State	4	-21.4	11.9	-9.4	1-3	1-1
104	Arkansas St	4	-6	-3.5	-9.5	2-2	1-1
105	Connecticut	6	9.5	-19.2	-9.7	4-2	2-1
106	W Michigan	6	3.1	-14.2	-11.1	2-4	1-2
107	Middle Tenn	6	7.3	-18.5	-11.1	5-1	2-1
108	S Mississippi	4	-13.3	1.6	-11.6	1-3	0-2
109	McNeese St	2	-0.5	-11.1	-11.6	1-1	1-0
110	E Carolina	6	-3.3	-8.5	-11.8	3-3	2-1
111	Colorado St	6	-7.8	-4	-11.8	1.5-4.5	1-2
112	E Washingtn	4	-1.1	-10.9	-12	1-3	1-1
113	S Methodist	6	-4.7	-7.7	-12.4	2-4	1-2
114	Maryland	6	1.9	-14.4	-12.4	3-3	2-1
115	Temple	4	12.1	-25.1	-12.9	3-1	1-1
116	Troy	6	-3.1	-9.9	-13	2-4	1-2
117	UNLV	6	-2.8	-10.7	-13.5	1-5	0-3
118	Colorado	6	-8.3	-5.4	-13.7	2-4	0-3
119	LA Monroe	4	-11	-3.1	-14.1	1-3	1-1
120	Central Mich	4	-3.5	-11.6	-15.1	1-3	1-1
121	Florida Intl	6	-3.8	-11.4	-15.2	2-4	1-2
122	Idaho	4	-9.3	-7	-16.2	1-3	0-2
123	Indiana	6	12.4	-29.2	-16.8	5-1	2-1
124	Kent State	4	-3	-14.8	-17.8	2-2	1-1
125	Illinois State	2	7.3	-25.2	-17.9	1-1	1-0
126	Texas Southern	2	-29.5	11.5	-18	0-2	0-1
127	N Arizona	4	-23	3.9	-19.1	1-3	1-1
128	Ball State	6	-6.4	-13.1	-19.5	3-3	2-1
129	S Utah	4	-25.6	6.1	-19.5	0-4	0-2
130	Miami (OH)	6	-14.3	-5.5	-19.7	2-4	1-2
131	UC Davis	2	-26	6	-20	0-2	0-1
132	W Carolina	2	-29	8.9	-20.1	0-2	0-1
133	Tulane	4	-21.9	1.7	-20.2	0-4	0-2
134	S Dakota St	2	-17.8	-2.7	-20.4	0-2	0-1
135	Wm & Mary	2	-8	-12.4	-20.4	0-2	0-1
136	Fla Atlantic	4	0.1	-21.7	-21.6	2-2	1-1
137	UAB	4	-23.3	1.6	-21.7	0-4	0-2
138	Memphis	6	-7.3	-14.8	-22.1	1-5	0-3
139	Beth-Cook	2	-31.3	9	-22.2	0-2	0-1
140	TN Martin	4	-14.4	-9.3	-23.7	1-3	1-1
141	E Kentucky	2	-31	7.2	-23.8	0-2	0-1
142	E Michigan	6	-15.1	-10.1	-25.2	2-4	0-3
143	Maine	2	-28.8	3.5	-25.2	0-2	0-1
144	Sacramento State	4	-14	-11.6	-25.6	1-3	1-1
145	Indiana St	2	-10.5	-16.8	-27.3	0-2	0-1
146	Chattanooga	2	-25.5	-2.3	-27.8	0-2	0-1
147	Idaho State	2	-30	1.1	-28.9	0-2	0-1
148	App State	2	-18.3	-11.8	-30	0-2	0-1
149	Akron	6	-4.3	-26.6	-30.9	2-4	1-2
150	South Alabama	6	-5.4	-26.1	-31.5	3-3	1-2
151	Wagner	2	-10.8	-21.6	-32.4	0-2	0-1
152	N Hampshire	2	-25	-7.4	-32.4	0-2	0-1
153	Towson	2	-13.5	-19.1	-32.6	0-2	0-1
154	Texas-San Antonio	2	-1.3	-31.5	-32.8	1-1	1-0
155	Elon	2	-47.3	13.4	-33.8	0-2	0-1
156	SE Missouri	2	-19	-15.1	-34.1	1-1	0-1
157	S Illinois	2	-17.3	-19.7	-37	0-2	0-1
158	Austin Peay	2	-34.8	-2.3	-37.1	0-2	0-1
159	Villanova	2	-24.8	-12.9	-37.7	0-2	0-1
160	E Illinois	2	-26.8	-11.1	-37.8	0-2	0-1
161	Buffalo	2	27	-65.1	-38.1	2-0	1-0
162	U Mass	4	-27.6	-13.3	-40.9	0-4	0-2
163	Nicholls St	2	-9.8	-31.5	-41.3	0-2	0-1
164	Ste F Austin	2	-34.5	-12.4	-46.9	0-2	0-1
165	Morgan St	4	-30.6	-34.5	-65.1	0-4	0-2

Well, maybe it doesn’t work so well. I thought including the spread data would help smooth things out, but apparently not. Pittsburgh probably stood out to you, as they are after all 1-2. Well they lost to Cincinnati, who is #2 in this system. And they blew out Virginia Tech, who is also pretty good.

But the problem is they lost to Youngstown State. So we know Pittsburgh isn’t that good. But the problem is, the computers don’t know that. Youngstown State played only three games this year — against Pittsburgh, Valparaiso, and Albany. But the games against the latter two schools were omitted, because they are games against Valparaiso and Albany.

But this leaves us with just one game for Youngstown State. So essentially the loss by Pittsburgh to Youngstown State doesn’t hurt the Panthers that much, because all we know about YSU is they beat Pitt. I thought that including point spread data would be the solution: in this case, YSU is 1-1, because they beat Pittsburgh by 14 points but they “lost” to Pittsburgh by 18.5 points. But after giving this some more thought, that is the same thing as saying Pittsburgh beat YSU by 2.25 points, which again means nothing if YSU hasn’t played anyone else.

And since Pittsburgh was rated so highly, Cincinnati looks even better. So the short version is, this thing isn’t really going to work. But we can investigate some things.

Alabama’s score surprised me. Or perhaps better stated, a computer might be surprised to see why we like Alabama. In the preseason polls, Alabama was ranked #2 and Michigan and Arkansas were top-ten teams. What if I told you that Boston College started the season 3-0, with beatdowns over Western Kentucky, Navy and Louisiana Monroe? You probably wouldn’t think that would make BC a national championship contender, but that’s exactly what the SRS sees here. Consider that Alabama has beaten three teams — Michigan, Arkansas and Western Kentucky. The WKU game is thrown out because the point spread was too high, so we only have two games for the Crimson Tide. Well their two opponents have only played two games against FBS schools this year. ^[1]Technically, Michigan also played Masschussets, an FBS member this year. But that makes my point less exciting! Michigan beat Navy by 6 and Arkansas lost to Louisiana Monroe. According to the SRS, a brand like Alabama beating Michigan and Arkansas is really no different at this point in the year than BC beating Navy and Louisiana Monroe. The size of the blowouts help Alabama, but the computers just see blowouts over the 35th and 79th best teams.

There are other issues. San Diego State blew out Army, lost to Washington, and beat North Dakota (thrown out because there was no point spread). So for SDSU, they look like a really good team for beating Army and then they lost to Washington… so the SRS makes Washington looks really good for beating SDSU…. and then LSU looks really, really good for beating Washington. That’s pretty much how the SRS works.

Again, the key is to get more connectivity between the teams. I tried. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to wait a few more weekss