IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5239.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Consistent Weighted Ranking Scheme with an Application to NCAA College Football Rankings

Author

Listed:
  • Fershtman, Chaim
  • Gandal, Neil
  • Fainmesser, Itay

Abstract

The NCAA college football ratings, in which the "so-called" national champion is determined, has been plagued by controversies the last few years. The difficulty arises because there is a need to make a complete ranking of teams even though each team has a different schedule of games with a different set of opponents. A similar problem arises whenever one wants to establish a ranking of patents or academic journals, etc. in which the raw data are (incomplete) bilateral citations or interactions among objects. This paper develops and estimates a simple consistent weighted ranking (CWR) scheme which, in the sports world, depends on four parameters (winning vs. losing and the relative importance of home vs. away games). In most ranking problems, there are not explicit criteria to evaluate the success of proposed rankings. NCAA college football has a special structure that enables the evaluation of each ranking scheme. Each season is essentially divided into two parts: the regular season and the post season bowl games. If a ranking scheme is accurate it should correctly predict a relatively large number of the bowl game outcomes. We use this structure to estimate the four parameters of our ranking function using "historical" data from the 1999-2003 seasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Fershtman, Chaim & Gandal, Neil & Fainmesser, Itay, 2005. "A Consistent Weighted Ranking Scheme with an Application to NCAA College Football Rankings," CEPR Discussion Papers 5239, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP5239
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coralio Ballester & Antoni Calvó-Armengol & Yves Zenou, 2006. "Who's Who in Networks. Wanted: The Key Player," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1403-1417, September.
    2. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    3. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Jaffee, Adam & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 2000. "Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1rh8k6z2, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2006. "Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, January.
    5. Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
    6. Ray C. Fair & John F. Oster, 2002. "Comparing the Predictive Information Content of College Football Rankings," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm310, Yale School of Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jason A. Winfree, 2021. "If You Don'T Like The Outcome, Change The Contest," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 329-343, January.
    2. Liam J. A. Lenten, 2008. "Unbalanced Schedules And The Estimation Of Competitive Balance In The Scottish Premier League," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 55(4), pages 488-508, September.
    3. Jason A. Winfree, 2020. "Rivalries, Bowl Eligibility, and Scheduling Effects in College Football," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(5), pages 477-492, June.
    4. West Brady T & Lamsal Madhur, 2008. "A New Application of Linear Modeling in the Prediction of College Football Bowl Outcomes and the Development of Team Ratings," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Delen, Dursun & Cogdell, Douglas & Kasap, Nihat, 2012. "A comparative analysis of data mining methods in predicting NCAA bowl outcomes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 543-552.
    6. B. Jay Coleman, 2014. "Minimum violations and predictive meta‐rankings for college football," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 17-33, February.
    7. Liam J. A. Lenten, 2015. "Measurement of Competitive Balance in Conference and Divisional Tournament Design," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 16(1), pages 3-25, January.
    8. E. Woodrow Eckard, 2013. "Is the Bowl Championship Series a Cartel? Some Evidence," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    9. Wigness Maggie B & Williams Chadd C & Rowell Michael J, 2010. "A New Iterative Method for Ranking College Football Teams," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gabrielle Demange, 2012. "On the influence of a ranking system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 431-455, July.
    2. Demange, Gabrielle, 2017. "Mutual rankings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 35-42.
    3. Gamal Atallah & Gabriel Rodríguez, 2006. "Indirect patent citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 437-465, June.
    4. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. & Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Lohmann, E.R.M.A., 2011. "Paired Comparisons Analysis : An Axiomatic Approach to Rankings in Tournaments," Discussion Paper 2011-116, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Chih-Sheng Hsieh & Michael D. Konig & Xiaodong Liu, 2022. "A Structural Model for the Coevolution of Networks and Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 355-367, May.
    6. Gabrielle Demange, 2011. "On the influence of rankings," PSE Working Papers halshs-00589657, HAL.
    7. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    8. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2021. "Group decisions from individual rankings: The Borda–Condorcet rule," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 757-765.
    9. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. & Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Lohmann, E.R.M.A., 2011. "Paired Comparisons Analysis : An Axiomatic Approach to Rankings in Tournaments," Other publications TiSEM 2dbfd64d-2a1b-445c-86c6-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Lirios Alos-Simo & Antonio J. Verdu-Jover & Jose M. Gomez-Gras, 2020. "Knowledge Transfer in Sustainable Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of Periods of Financial Recession and Expansion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, June.
    11. Florent Silve & Alexander Plekhanov, 2018. "Institutions, innovation and growth : Evidence from industry data," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 26(3), pages 335-362, July.
    12. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "An updated ranking of academic journals in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1525-1538, November.
    13. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    14. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    15. Villalonga, Belen, 2004. "Intangible resources, Tobin's q, and sustainability of performance differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 205-230, June.
    16. Per Botolf Maurseth, 2005. "Lovely but dangerous: The impact of patent citations on patent renewal," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 351-374.
    17. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2009. "Diversity of science linkages and innovation performance: some empirical evidence from Flemish firms," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-30, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2022. "Sports competitions and the Break-Even rule," Working Papers 22.13, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    20. Ganco, Martin, 2017. "NK model as a representation of innovative search," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1783-1800.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ranking; Sport tournament; Ncaa football;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:5239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.