Shoulder Flexibility in Golf and Driving the Ball 300 Yards When You are Over 60

See this
Video at sevenload to check out your shoulder flexibility in golf....

and then see the Sport Pundit, Andis Kaulins, still the longest hitter at his golf club at age 61, hit a 300-yard drive at at sevenload.

San Diego Chargers or New England Patriots : Who Will Win the Super Bowl? The Volek Story?

Take a look at the Volek Story.

We predicted in August 2007 at the beginning of this football season that the San Diego Chargers would be the Super Bowl Champions in 2008.

The Patriots are favored to win the game by 14 and this is surely understandable for a team that went undefeated in the regular season, but one can not forget that San Diego is working on an 8-game winning streak of its own.

One has to look at the stats now - what is happening currently - that's what makes horse races. During the regular season New England averaged 6.47 yards per play total offense and has increased that to 7.14 thus far in the playoffs.

San Diego averaged 5.45 yards per play total offense during the regular season, but has increased that to 6.70 thus far in the playoffs.

When things get that close between teams in terms of offense, especially between two teams that have virtually equal defenses, anything can happen. Regular San Diego quarterback Philip Rivers has a knee injury (sprained medial collateral ligaments in both knees) and is questionable for the game, so that the Volek Story could continue.

Patriot quarterback Tom Brady is probable to play, but has an injured right shoulder nevertheless.

What are the omens telling us? Last year the Pats won by only 24-21. Look out. This could be a great game. We are certainly expecting it.

Final 2007/2008 College Football Ratings and Rankings - Top 250 by the SPRS System Using NAYPPA - net average yards per play advantage

UPDATE NOTICE: SPRS (Sport Pundit Rating System) Name Change to YPPSYS (tm) viz. YPP-SYS (tm)

We have discovered that confusion might be remotely possible between our SPRS college football prediction system and something called Thompson SPRS which we noted for the first time today (October 12, 2008) at The Prediction Tracker summaries but which we have been unable to find online. When we first named our SPRS system, there was no Google conflict, otherwise we would have chosen a different name.

In order to identify our system as a separate system, and since we have no reason to be bound to our original name if confusion of any kind is possible, we are changing the SPRS name today from SPRS System to YPPSYS (or YPP-SYS ), which means "Yards Per Play System", a change which we will implement as an update paragraph on the relevant older pages explaining our original SPRS. There is no online conflict for this name and we hereby trademark the names YPPSYS viz. YPP-SYS as acronyms used by us for our college football prediction system, a rating, ranking and prediction system which was previously called SPRS by us, based on net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA).

We do this particularly since our system this year is beating nearly all the systems listed at The Prediction Tracker and we want no confusion.

Final College Football Rankings 2007/2008 by the SPRS System - Top 250 Teams
(all hand calculations - please let us know if you find an error)

1. Please see this SPRS link for an explanation of the new and unique SPRS System, which is based on the analysis of football teams' yards per play on offense and defense, schedule strength, and win/loss record - margin of victory is excluded - and yet this statistical system for ranking/rating football teams provides extremely useful results which compare to those of Massey Ratings (MRk) and Sagarin Ratings (SRk) - indeed, we use the strength of schedule ranking from Massey Ratings, but evaluate that rank differently, giving what we think are more accurate ranking results using our NAYPPA method)

2. LSU may have beaten Ohio State in the BCS Championship game on the scoreboard, but any view of the comparative bowl stats (see here) will indicate that LSU was lucky to win on turnovers, being dominated by the Buckeyes for a net advantage of 2 yards per play - the worst showing of any bowl game winner in 32 bowl games. It was hardly a dominant performance by a controversial BCS champion, whose path into that game is highly disputed. Hence, in spite of scoreboard results, Ohio State is still ranked minimally higher in our rankings as being the statistically better team. The Buckeyes lost 2 games this year to the teams ranked 4th and 23rd in our final rankings. The Tigers also lost 2 games this year, but to teams ranked 30th and 36th in our rankings.

West Virginia, our national champion, had the most dominant team in terms of statistics, and also lost only 2 games, to teams ranked 19th and 45th in our final rankings.

In terms of the stats, Ohio State should be the national champs and West Virginia a close second, but because of their loss to LSU, West Virginia moves to the top of the list due to their convincing win over Oklahoma.

3. Please note: for predicting point spreads for the coming 2008 college football season, 1 point of ranking difference equals about 9 points on the scoreboard. Here are examples of division cross-over games that show that this system works.

• Carroll (Montana), who we rank 123rd, won the NAIA football championship. To see how good this team is, note that it beat Montana Western 42-0, who lost 52-13 to Eastern Washington, who we rank 96th, a team that then lost only 38-35 in the FCA (Division I-AA) playoffs to eventual repeat champion Appalachian State, who we rank 54th.
  

• Carson-Newman (Division II) against Tennessee-Chattanooga (Division I-AA, FCS). Our system has Carson-Newman rated 1.4 points higher, a spread of 12.6 points (1.4 x 9, and Carson-Newman won 29-17 this season, an "upset" result which our rankings would have predicted. Using our SPRS System, Northern Colorado (FCS) would have a rating of -7.1. It played Chadron State (Division II) this year, rated at -4.4 by our system and lost 31-0. The ranking difference of 2.7 points would have predicted a Chadron win by about 25 points (2.7 x 9). Those game results support our Division II team rankings, even though they will seem high to those who do not follow Division II football.
  
  
• The same reasoning applies to some of the high placements of Division III or NAIA teams. Wisconsin Eau Claire, which lost 27-0 to eventual Division III champion UW Whitewater, beat NAIA Black Hills State 14-3, a team which was ranked 20th in the NAIA final poll.

Key to Table Headings for Final SPRS Ranking:
Rank = Our Final Rank, MRk = Massey Rank, SRk = Sagarin Rank
Div= Division Team = College Football Team
OFF = Average Yards Per Play Offense DEF = Average Yards Per Play Defense
NET = OFF minus DEF = NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage)
SCH = Schedule Rank by Massey Ratings
corr. = our correction of NAYPPA for schedule difficulty
W/L Win/Loss Record 2007/2008
FIN = Final SPRS System Rating corrected for Win/Loss Record (& weak defense)

Rank	MRk	SRk	Div	Team	OFF	DEF	NET	SCH	corr.	W/L	FIN
1	7	3	FBS	West Virginia	6.6	4.5	+2.1	42	+1.6	11-2	+1.2
2	3	11	FBS	Ohio State	5.8	3.6	+2.2	52	+1.4	11-2	+1.2
3	5	4	FBS	USC	5.8	4.1	+1.7	34	+1.3	11-2	+0.9
4	1	1	FBS	LSU	5.8	4.4	+1.4	5	+1.3	12-2	+0.9
5	3	2	FBS	Kansas	6.4	4.5	+1.9	59	+1.0	12-1	+0.8
6	10	5	FBS	Oklahoma	6.5	4.7	+1.8	38	+1.4	11-3	+0.8
7	11	10	FBS	Florida	7.0	5.2	+1.8	1	+1.7	9-4	+0.8
8	4	6	FBS	Missouri	6.3	5.1	+1.2	25	+0.9	12-2	+0.4
9	2	7	FBS	Georgia	5.6	4.8	+0.8	9	+0.7	11-2	+0.3
10	31	24	FBS	Texas Tech	6.8	4.8	+2.0	66	+1.0	9-4	+0.2
11	24	25	FBS	Arkansas	6.2	4.8	+1.4	28	+1.1	8-5	+0.1
12	14	23	FBS	Boston College	5.5	4.6	+0.9	39	+0.5	11-3	-0.1
13	18	35	FBS	Hawaii	7.1	4.7	+2.4	112	+0.1	12-1	-0.1
14	19	12	FBS	Texas	6.2	5.1	+1.1	49	+0.6	10-3	-0.1
15	17	17	FBS	BYU	5.8	4.6	+1.2	65	+0.2	11-2	-0.2
16	16	8	FBS	Oregon	5.9	5.1	+0.8	8	+0.7	9-4	-0.2
17	22	22	FBS	Clemson	5.4	4.5	+0.9	37	+0.5	9-4	-0.3
18	6	9	FBS	Virginia Tech	4.9	4.3	+0.6	21	+0.3	11-3	-0.3
19	23	20	FBS	South Florida	5.4	4.7	+0.7	30	+0.4	9-4	-0.4
20	43	38	FBS	Rutgers	6.4	4.9	+1.5	60	+0.6	8-5	-0.4
21	37	29	FBS	California	6.0	5.0	+1.0	14	+0.8	7-6	-0.5
22	13	14	FBS	Arizona State	5.3	5.0	+0.3	18	+0.1	10-3	-0.6
23	25	30	FBS	Illinois	6.0	5.2	+0.8	41	+0.3	9-4	-0.6
24	30	26	FBS	Penn State	5.5	4.5	+1.0	56	+0.1	9-4	-0.7
25	15	16	FBS	Oregon State	4.9	4.5	+0.4	22	+0.1	9-4	-0.7
26	12	13	FBS	Auburn	4.8	4.5	+0.3	17	+0.1	9-4	-0.7
27	27	19	FBS	Cincinnati	6.0	5.0	+1.0	67	-0.1	10-3	-0.8
28	9	15	FBS	Tennessee	5.7	5.4	+0.3	6	+0.2	10-4	-0.8
29	21	21	FBS	Michigan	5.2	4.9	+0.3	33	-0.1	9-4	-0.9
30	20	18	FBS	Kentucky	5.7	5.3	+0.4	7	+0.3	8-5	-0.9
31	38	27	FBS	Oklahoma St.	6.5	5.9	+0.6	19	+0.4	7-6	-0.9
32	63	--	II	NW Missouri St.	6.5	4.2	+2.3	141	-0.6	12-2	-1.0
33	65	--	II	Grand Valley St.	7.1	4.7	+2.4	158	-0.8	12-1	-1.0
34	48	43	FBS	Arizona	5.4	4.9	+0.5	13	+0.3	5-7	-1.1
35	28	28	FBS	Wake Forest	4.7	4.6	+0.1	45	-0.4	9-4	-1.2
36	33	32	FBS	South Carolina	5.4	5.2	+0.2	4	+0.1	6-6	-1.2
37	32	41	FBS	Virginia	4.7	4.7	+0.0	48	-0.5	9-4	-1.3
38	36	40	FBS	Florida State	5.3	5.1	+0.2	20	+0.0	7-6	-1.3
39	41	33	FBS	UCLA	4.7	4.6	+0.1	2	+0.0	6-7	-1.4
40	40	34	FBS	Utah	5.1	4.7	+0.4	63	-0.6	9-4	-1.4
41	46	49	FBS	Air Force	5.8	5.1	+0.7	75	-0.5	9-4	-1.4
42	49	47	FBS	Michigan State	5.6	5.2	+0.4	46	-0.1	7-6	-1.4
43	85	71	FCS	North Dakota St.	7.1	4.9	+2.2	168	-1.2	10-1	-1.4
44	113	--	II	Delta State	6.1	3.2	+2.9	194	-1.0	10-2	-1.4
45	69	66	FBS	Pittsburgh	4.8	4.4	+0.4	50	-0.1	5-7	-1.5
46	44	46	FBS	UCF	5.7	5.0	+0.7	81	-0.6	10-4	-1.5
47	35	31	FBS	Alabama	5.1	5.0	+0.1	16	-0.2	7-6	-1.5
48	59	63	FBS	Washington St.	5.8	5.5	+0.3	29	+0.0	5-7	-1.5
49	66	65	FBS	Tulsa	6.8	5.9	+0.9	96	-0.6	10-4	-1.5
50	56	61	FBS	Nebraska	6.3	6.1	+0.2	10	+0.1	5-7	-1.5
51	92	77	FCS	UMass	6.0	4.2	+1.8	134	-0.9	10-3	-1.5
52	64	58	FBS	New Mexico	5.1	4.6	+0.5	86	-0.8	9-4	-1.6
53	29	36	FBS	Wisconsin	5.7	5.5	+0.2	54	-0.7	9-4	-1.6
54	45	44	FCS	Appalachian St.	6.7	5.2	+1.5	126	-1.1	13-2	-1.6
55	61	50	FBS	TCU	4.9	4.5	+0.4	73	-0.7	8-5	-1.7
56	60	48	FBS	Boise State	6.2	5.0	+1.2	107	-1.0	10-3	-1.7
57	51	59	FBS	Georgia Tech	5.5	5.0	+0.5	55	-0.4	7-6	-1.7
58	58	57	FBS	Purdue	5.6	5.1	+0.5	68	-0.6	8-5	-1.7
59	73	52	FBS	Kansas State	5.8	5.5	+0.3	44	-0.2	5-7	-1.7
60	42	--	II	Nebraska-Omaha	6.3	5.0	+1.3	133	-1.4	10-1	-1.7
61	50	53	FBS	Troy	5.6	5.3	+0.3	74	-0.9	8-4	-1.8
62	79	--	II	North Dakota	6.7	5.0	+1.7	148	-1.3	10-2	-1.8
63	26	37	FBS	Mississippi State	4.4	4.9	-0.5	32	-0.9	8-5	-1.9
64	34	39	FBS	Connecticut	5.0	5.1	-0.1	58	-1.0	9-4	-1.9
65	57	60	FBS	Fresno State	6.0	5.6	+0.4	88	-1.0	9-4	-1.9
66	54	45	FBS	Louisville	6.4	6.1	+0.3	53	-0.5	6-6	-1.9
67	55	62	FCS	Northern Iowa	6.3	5.0	+1.3	145	-1.6	12-1	-1.9
68	82	69	FBS	North Carolina	5.1	5.0	+0.1	40	-0.3	4-8	-2.0
69	53	54	FBS	Vanderbilt	4.7	5.0	-0.3	11	-0.5	5-7	-2.0
70	39	42	FBS	Texas A&M	5.4	5.8	-0.4	24	-0.7	7-6	-2.0
71	75	72	FBS	Indiana	5.6	5.2	+0.4	76	-0.8	7-6	-2.1
72	47	51	FBS	Maryland	5.0	5.3	-0.3	27	-0.6	6-7	-2.1
73	76	75	FBS	Miami of Florida	4.9	5.1	+0.2	47	-0.7	5-7	-2.2
74	68	78	FBS	Florida Atlantic	5.6	5.5	+0.1	80	-1.1	8-5	-2.2
75	100	81	FCS	James Madison	6.1	4.8	+1.3	132	-1.4	8-4	-2.2
76	88	80	FBS	Mississippi	5.4	5.6	-0.2	12	-0.4	3-9	-2.3
77	52	56	FBS	Colorado	5.1	5.6	-0.5	23	-0.8	6-7	-2.3
78	72	64	FBS	East Carolina	5.7	5.7	+0.0	78	-1.2	8-5	-2.3
79	71	--	II	Valdosta State	5.8	4.5	+1.3	169	-2.1	13-1	-2.3
80	81	79	FBS	Iowa	4.7	4.8	-0.1	72	-1.2	6-6	-2.4
81	62	68	FBS	North Carolina St.	4.7	5.2	-0.5	31	-0.9	5-7	-2.4
82	84	76	FCS	Southern Illinois	6.3	5.0	+1.3	162	-2.0	12-2	-2.5
83	80	73	FCS	Delaware	6.1	5.2	+0.9	122	-1.6	11-4	-2.5
84	77	67	FCS	Richmond	6.0	5.2	+0.8	127	-1.8	11-3	-2.5
85	127	--	II	South Dakota	6.9	5.7	+1.2	129	-1.4	6-5	-2.5
86	83	86	FBS	Northwestern	5.5	5.8	-0.3	71	-1.4	6-6	-2.6
86	67	55	FBS	Washington	5.6	6.1	-0.5	3	-0.6	4-9	-2.6
87	91	85	FBS	Wyoming	4.4	4.6	-0.2	69	-1.3	5-7	-2.7
88	95	84	FBS	Houston	6.3	5.5	+0.8	118	-1.6	8-5	-2.7
89	98	100	FCS	McNeese State	6.4	5.2	+1.2	180	-2.4	11-1	-2.7
90	96	--	II	W. Texas A&M	6.7	4.8	+1.9	217	-2.5	12-1	-2.7
91	87	82	FBS	Central Michigan	5.8	5.9	-0.1	89	-1.5	8-6	-2.8
92	141	--	II	Saginaw Valley	5.7	4.4	+1.3	173	-2.2	7-3	-2.8
93	131	--	II	Ashland	7.0	5.6	+1.4	183	-2.3	8-2	-2.8
94	154	--	NAIA	Sioux Falls	6.4	3.1	+3.3	291	-2.6	13-1	-2.8
95	74	74	FBS	Navy	6.1	6.1	+0.0	83	-1.7	8-5	-2.9
96	112	102	FBS	Nevada	6.4	5.8	+0.6	105	-1.5	6-7	-3.0
97	130	110	FCS	East. Washington	6.2	5.1	+1.1	156	-2.1	9-4	-3.0
98	101	--	II	North Alabama	5.8	4.8	+1.0	178	-2.6	10-2	-3.0
99	107	116	FBS	Miami of Ohio	5.1	5.2	-0.1	95	-1.6	6-7	-3.1
100	89	83	FBS	Ball State	5.9	6.2	-0.3	90	-1.7	7-6	-3.1
101	132	108	FCS	Hofstra	5.5	4.8	+0.7	147	-2.3	7-4	-3.1
102	97	87	FCS	Wofford	5.8	5.2	+0.6	138	-2.2	9-4	-3.1
103	114	97	FCS	Georgia Southern	6.2	5.6	+0.6	140	-2.2	7-4	-3.1
104	78	--	II	Cent. Washington	5.4	5.1	+0.3	135	-2.4	10-3	-3.1
105	93	95	FBS	Louisiana-Monroe	5.2	5.8	-0.6	85	-1.9	6-6	-3.2
106	179	151	FCS	South Carolina St.	5.8	4.2	+1.6	196	-2.4	7-4	-3.2
107	173	--	II	Abilene Christian	8.0	5.7	+2.3	238	-2.5	10-3	-3.2
108	144	118	FBS	West. Kentucky	5.8	4.9	+0.9	159	-2.3	7-5	-3.3
109	90	99	FBS	Bowling Green	5.7	5.7	+0.0	108	-2.2	8-5	-3.3
110	70	70	FBS	Stanford	4.4	5.8	-1.4	15	-1.6	4-8	-3.3
111	139	122	FCS	Western Illinois	5.5	4.8	+0.7	150	-2.3	6-5	-3.3
112	128	98	FCS	South Dakota St.	5.8	5.1	+0.7	152	-2.4	7-4	-3.3
113	158	--	II	Mankato MN	5.8	4.9	+0.9	146	-2.1	5-6	-3.3
114	203	--	III	Mount Union	7.5	2.8	+4.7	390	-3.1	14-1	-3.3
115	86	90	FBS	Notre Dame	3.5	4.8	-1.3	26	-1.6	3-9	-3.4
116	105	88	FBS	Southern Miss	5.5	5.3	+0.2	111	-2.1	7-6	-3.4
117	108	101	FBS	Middle Tennessee	5.1	5.7	-0.6	84	-1.9	5-7	-3.4
118	143	137	FBS	Louis. Lafayette	5.7	5.9	-0.2	82	-1.5	3-9	-3.4
119	109	91	FBS	Colorado State	5.4	5.9	-0.5	62	-1.5	3-9	-3.4
120	117	103	FCS	Citadel	5.9	5.3	+0.6	151	-2.5	7-4	-3.4
121	159	--	II	Carson-Newman	7.4	4.5	+2.9	304	-3.2	10-1	-3.4
122	147	--	II	Missouri Western	6.0	4.9	+1.1	191	-2.8	9-3	-3.4
123	145	--	II	Washburn	6.0	5.0	+1.0	172	-2.5	8-4	-3.4
124	102	--	NAIA	Carroll (Montana)	5.0	3.4	+1.6	248	-3.4	15-0	-3.4
125	125	119	FBS	Arkansas State	5.4	5.3	+0.1	99	-1.9	5-7	-3.5
126	116	112	FBS	San Jose State	5.0	5.6	-0.6	93	-2.0	5-7	-3.5
127	135	125	FBS	Marshall	5.9	6.2	-0.3	79	-1.5	3-9	-3.5
128	171	129	FCS	Liberty	6.8	4.9	+1.9	236	-2.9	8-3	-3.5
129	120	96	FCS	New Hampshire	6.1	5.7	+0.4	136	-2.4	7-5	-3.5
130	99	89	FBS	San Diego State	5.5	6.3	-0.8	61	-1.8	4-8	-3.6
131	129	105	FCS	Youngstown St.	5.4	5.0	+0.4	155	-2.7	7-4	-3.6
132	106	94	FCS	Elon	5.5	5.4	+0.1	137	-2.7	7-4	-3.6
133	226	--	II	Midwestern St.	7.5	4.8	+2.7	281	-3.0	8-3	-3.6
134	137	120	FBS	UNLV	5.0	5.6	-0.6	64	-1.6	2-10	-3.7
135	94	92	FBS	Iowa State	4.4	5.8	-1.4	36	-1.8	3-9	-3.7
136	104	104	FCS	Montana	5.6	4.9	+0.7	208	-3.5	11-1	-3.7
137	187	138	FCS	Cal Poly	6.9	5.6	+1.3	202	-2.8	7-4	-3.7
138	151	--	II	Pittsburg State	6.3	5.2	+1.1	201	-3.0	8-3	-3.7
139	124	114	FBS	Ohio	5.3	5.4	-0.1	116	-2.5	6-6	-3.8
140	126	107	FCS	Furman	5.6	5.8	-0.2	130	-2.8	6-5	-3.9
141	164	--	II	Central Missouri	5.3	4.7	+0.6	185	-3.1	7-4	-3-9
142	152	--	II	Tuskegee	7.5	4.0	+3.5	369	-3.9	12-0	-3.9
143	134	127	FBS	Akron	4.6	5.5	-0.9	92	-2.3	4-8	-4.0
144	155	140	FCS	William & Mary	5.6	5.6	+0.0	123	-2.5	4-7	-4.0
145	121	106	FBS	Western Michigan	5.2	5.6	-0.4	101	-2.5	5-7	-4.0
146	123	115	FBS	Buffalo	5.2	5.6	-0.4	102	-2.5	5-7	-4.0
147	110	117	FBS	Baylor	4.9	6.0	-1.1	57	-2.0	3-9	-4.0
148	122	126	FBS	Toledo	5.9	6.3	-0.4	98	-2.4	5-7	-4.0
149	161	132	FCS	Harvard	5.2	4.1	+1.1	235	-3.6	8-2	-4.0
150	115	111	FBS	Louisiana Tech	4.6	5.8	-1.2	91	-2.6	5-7	-4.1
151	185	133	FCS	Holy Cross	6.2	5.4	+0.8	199	-3.2	7-4	-4.1
152	166	--	II	Catawba	6.7	4.5	+2.2	292	-3.7	11-2	-4.1
153	153	144	FCS	Sam Houston St.	6.0	5.7	+0.3	176	-3.3	7-4	-4.2
154	133	109	FBS	Duke	4.3	5.8	-1.5	35	-1.9	1-11	-4.2
155	156	139	FBS	Kent State	5.1	5.5	-0.4	100	-2.4	3-9	-4.3
156	119	124	FBS	Memphis	5.7	6.1	-0.4	121	-2.9	7-6	-4.3
157	111	113	FBS	Syracuse	4.6	6.2	-1.6	43	-2.1	2-10	-4.3
158	196	--	II	Ferris State	5.9	5.2	+0.7	193	-3.2	6-5	-4.3
159	162	--	II	Hillsdale	6.2	5.6	+0.6	210	-3.6	8-3	-4.3
160	213	--	II	North. Michigan	5.7	6.3	+0.6	171	-2.9	4-6	-4.3
161	225	184	FCS	Weber State	5.7	5.0	+0.7	190	-3.1	5-6	-4.4
162	177	134	FCS	Dayton	5.9	4.1	+1.8	300	-4.2	11-1	-4.4
163	148	121	FCS	Yale	5.2	4.2	+1.0	258	-4.2	9-1	-4.4
164	197	165	FCS	Jackson State	5.4	4.3	+1.1	232	-3.6	8-4	-4.4
165	237	188	FCS	Gardner-Webb	5.3	4.6	+0.7	192	-3.2	5-6	-4.4
166	160	--	II	California (Pa.)	5.6	3.3	+2.3	324	-4.2	13-1	-4.4
167	118	--	II	Chadron State	6.1	4.7	+1.4	278	-4.2	12-1	-4.4
168	172	--	II	Duluth MN	4.9	5.1	-0.2	144	-3.1	4-6	-4.4
169	189	--	II	Michigan Tech	5.8	5.4	+0.4	181	-3.3	6-5	-4.4
170	157	141	FBS	Tulane	5.6	6.0	-0.4	115	-2.7	4-8	-4.5
171	150	130	FBS	UTEP	5.9	6.2	-0.3	119	-2.7	4-8	-4.5
172	146	123	FBS	Minnesota	5.5	6.8	-1.3	51	-2.1	1-11	-4.5
173	224	164	FCS	San Diego	7.5	5.4	+2.1	303	-4.0	9-2	-4.5
174	149	136	FCS	East. Kentucky	5.6	5.4	+0.2	197	-3.8	9-3	-4.5
175	186	--	II	Tarleton State	6.8	5.3	+1.5	273	-4.0	9-2	-4.5
176	142	135	FBS	Temple	4.6	5.3	-0.7	106	-2.9	4-8	-4.6
177	138	131	FBS	Army	4.2	5.7	-1.5	77	-2.7	3-9	-4.6
178	212	177	FCS	Montana State	5.1	4.9	+0.2	189	-3.6	6-5	-4.6
179	180	158	FCS	Northern Arizona	5.5	5.5	+0.0	175	-3.5	6-5	-4.6
180	198	--	II	Western Oregon	5.4	3.9	+1.6	289	-4.2	9-2	-4.6
181	211	--	II	Henderson State	5.4	3.9	+1.5	275	-4.0	7-3	-4.6
182	219	--	II	UIndy	5.8	5.0	+0.8	211	-3.5	6-5	-4.6
183	191	--	II	Northwood MI	6.2	6.1	+0.1	174	-3.4	5-5	-4.6
184	182	154	FCS	Grambling State	5.0	4.7	+0.3	206	-3.9	8-4	-4.7
185	178	162	FCS	Central Arkansas	6.0	6.1	-0.1	177	-3.5	6-5	-4.7
186	215	176	FCS	Alabama A&M	5.9	4.6	+1.3	274	-4.2	8-3	-4.8
187	208	159	FCS	Chattanooga	4.9	5.3	-0.4	124	-2.9	2-9	-4.8
188	192	146	FCS	UC Davis	5.7	5.9	-0.2	165	-3.5	5-6	-4.8
189	184	161	FCS	Maine	4.7	5.2	-0.5	143	-3.4	4-7	-4.9
190	174	145	FCS	Northeastern	4.9	5.6	-0.7	125	-3.2	3-8	-4.9
191	232	--	NAIA	Morningside IA	5.5	3.8	+1.7	297	-4.3	9-3	-4.9
192	194	155	FCS	Colgate	5.4	5.1	+0.3	216	-4.1	7-4	-5.0
193	220	--	II	Newberry	6.1	4.3	+1.8	320	-4.6	9-2	-5.0
194	205	--	II	Missouri Southern	5.1	4.8	+0.3	215	-4.0	6-5	-5.0
195	188	150	FBS	Northern Illinois	5.0	5.8	-0.8	110	-3.0	2-10	-5.1
196	136	128	FBS	Eastern Michigan	4.9	6.1	-1.2	103	-3.3	4-8	-5.1
197	168	153	FBS	New Mexico St.	5.5	6.2	-0.7	117	-3.1	4-9	-5.1
198	169	142	FBS	Utah State	4.5	6.2	-1.5	87	-2.9	2-10	-5.1
199	230	167	FCS	Lafayette	5.1	4.0	+1.1	268	-4.3	7-4	-5.1
200	206	166	FCS	Stony Brook	5.2	5.2	+0.0	198	-4.0	6-5	-5.1
201	201	147	FCS	Illinois State	5.6	6.1	-0.5	149	-3.5	4-7	-5.1
202	170	--	III	UW-Whitewater	5.4	4.1	+1.3	310	-4.9	14-1	-5.1
203	245	--	NAIA	Montana Western	5.4	5.1	+0.3	203	-3.8	5-6	-5.1
204	227	169	FBS	SMU	5.6	6.2	-0.6	109	-2.8	1-11	-5.2
205	210	178	FCS	Southern Univ.	5.3	4.5	+0.8	269	-4.6	8-3	-5.2
206	200	163	FCS	Towson	4.5	5.1	-0.6	142	-3.5	3-8	-5.2
207	193	173	FCS	Eastern Illinois	5.5	5.2	+0.3	228	-4.3	8-4	-5.2
208	249	192	FCS	Portland State	5.6	5.8	-0.2	166	-3.5	3-8	-5.2
209	140	143	FCS	Delaware State	4.5	4.9	-0.4	221	-4.9	10-2	-5.3
210	209	--	NAIA	Montana Tech	4.2	4.1	+0.1	229	-4.5	7-4	-5.3
211	231	175	FBS	Idaho	4.8	5.8	-1.0	104	-3.1	1-11	-5.4
212	176	157	FBS	UAB	4.8	6.5	-1.7	94	-3.2	2-10	-5.4
213	248	191	FCS	Cal St Sacramento	4.9	5.3	-0.4	161	-3.7	3-8	-5.4
214	241	--	NAIA	MSU Northern	4.7	4.2	+0.5	241	-4.4	6-5	-5.4
215	217	--	NAIA	Saint Francis IN	6.2	4.3	+1.9	345	-5.0	11-2	-5.4
216	183	170	FBS	Florida Internat.	4.2	6.2	-2.0	70	-3.1	1-11	-5.5
217	167	152	FBS	Rice	5.3	6.5	-1.2	113	-3.5	3-9	-5.5
218	202	156	FCS	Albany NY	5.1	4.8	+0.3	246	-4.7	8-4	-5.5
219	229	--	II	Augustana SD	4.3	5.0	-0.7	164	-4.0	4-7	-5.5
220	222	182	FCS	Prairie View A&M	5.3	4.7	+0.6	276	-5.0	7-3	-5.6
221	268	191	FCS	Princeton	5.2	4.9	+0.3	233	-4.4	4-6	-5.6
222	246	--	II	Tusculum	5.4	4.7	+0.7	264	-4.6	6-5	-5.6
223	207	--	II	St. Cloud State	4.1	5.1	-1.0	153	-4.1	4-7	-5.6
224	163	--	II	Winona State	6.1	5.7	+0.4	272	-5.1	10-2	-5.6
225	295	197	FCS	Tennessee-Martin	6.1	5.4	+0.7	243	-4.2	4-7	-5.7
226	175	168	FBS	North Texas	5.2	6.7	-1.5	97	-3.5	2-10	-5.7
227	240	171	FCS	Lehigh	5.0	5.1	-0.1	213	-4.8	5-6	-5.7
228	294	198	FCS	Southern Utah	4.8	5.8	-1.0	120	-3.4	0-11	-5.7
229	257	--	III	M. Hardin-Baylor	7.0	3.9	+3.1	418	-5.3	12-2	-5.7
230	216	--	III	Bethel MN	5.1	4.2	+0.9	319	-5.3	12-2	-5.7
231	282	205	FCS	Morgan State	5.0	4.2	+0.8	270	-4.6	5-6	-5.8
232	263	190	FCS	Cornell	5.2	4.7	+0.5	261	-4.8	5-5	-5.8
233	190	174	FCS	Norfolk State	4.6	4.7	-0.1	252	-5.2	8-3	-5.8
234	195	148	FCS	Fordham	5.4	5.7	-0.3	227	-4.9	8-4	-5.8
235	265	196	FCS	SE Louisiana	5.3	5.7	-0.4	182	-4.1	3-8	-5.8
236	254	186	FCS	Western Carolina	5.1	6.4	-1.3	114	-3.6	1-10	-5.8
237	242	--	NAIA	Northwestern IA	5.4	4.2	+1.2	327	-5.4	8-2	-5.8
238	274	185	FCS	Penn	4.5	4.5	+0.0	231	-4.7	4-6	-5.9
239	271	201	FCS	Tennessee State	5.9	5.3	+0.6	255	-4.6	5-6	-5.9
240	181	160	FCS	Rhode Island	4.6	6.0	-1.4	131	-4.1	3-8	-5.9
241	235	179	FCS	Hampton	4.9	5.2	-0.3	230	-4.9	6-5	-6.0
242	251	180	FCS	Brown	5.6	5.7	-0.1	237	-4.9	5-5	-6.0
243	221	194	FCS	Northwestern LA	5.1	6.3	-1.2	160	-4.4	4-7	-6.0
244	299	206	FCS	Presbyterian	6.7	5.6	+1.1	302	-5.0	6-5	-6.1
245	223	181	FCS	Texas State	5.6	6.7	-1.1	167	-4.5	4-7	-6.1
246	233	--	II	Arkansas Tech	4.8	5.3	-0.5	222	-5.0	5-5	-6.1
247	244	--	III	Saint John's MN	5.5	4.2	+1.3	349	-5.7	10-2	-6.1
248	243	--	NAIA	Missouri Valley	5.1	4.4	+0.7	312	-5.6	10-3	-6.2
249	267	208	FCS	Idaho State	5.4	6.4	-1.0	179	-4.6	3-8	-6.4
250	199	--	III	Central College IA	5.3	4.7	+0.6	336	-6.2	12-1	-6.4

Crossposted to LawPundit.

The 2007/2008 College Football Season Bowl Games - An Assessment of Team Performance

College Football Bowl Game Wins 2007/2008 Analyzed
by the SportPundit Football Ranking System (SPRS System")

As a general rule, if we compare two teams in terms of their total net yards average per play, a 1-point net advantage (NAYPPA) by one team is equal to about 9 points on the scoreboard. In the 2007/2008 football bowl games, when the total net yards per play advantage dropped to below 1, then no bowl team, except in the game between Georgia and Hawaii, won by more than 7 points. That's for a total of 14 games of 32 played.

If the net difference in average yards per play was no greater than 1/2 point (0.5) on either side of 0, the average difference on the scoreboard was 4.6 points, so that we can conclude that 1 point difference in average yards per play is about 9 points.

If the difference in average yards per play was between 1/2 points and 1 1/2 points on either side of 0, the average difference on the scoreboard was 11 points, a bit more than the expected 9 points.

If the difference in average yards per play was between 1 1/2 points and 2 1/2 points on either side of 0, the average difference on the scoreboard was 18.4 points, so that we can conclude that 2 points difference in average yards per play is about 18 points.

If the NAYPPA was over 2 1/2 points, the average difference on the scoreboard was 27 points.

So as a rule of thumb in assessing the difference in average yards per play between two teams:

1 point of net difference in average yards per play = 9 points on the scoreboard
2 points of net difference in average yards per play = 18 points on the scoreboard
3 points of net difference in average yards per play = 27 points on the scoreboard

These stats indicate clearly that the SportPundit Football Ranking System (SPRS System) is useful. It is a tool whereby the dominance of teams - independent of the vagaries which come into play in final football scoreboard scores (turnovers, etc.) - can be assessed. This permits a ranking of the 2007/2008 bowl games in terms of dominance.

The following ranking in no way supports a subsequent elevation of LSU as the top team in the country or Georgia as number 2.

The LSU win over Ohio State was the least dominant of any of the 32 bowl games. In fact, Ohio State averaged 2-yards more per play than LSU - a substantial difference in team dominance, so that LSU won its game on the turnovers and breaks going its way - against the more dominant team. The Georgia win over Hawaii was only the 17th most dominant game, buoyed by Rainbow turnovers. Disregarding the superlative New Mexico win over Nevada, in which the Lobos played like one of the best teams in the country, the stupendous win of West Virginia over Oklahoma, in which the Mountaineers averaged 9.1 yards per offensive play, clearly should have propelled West Virginia into position number one in the national rankings.

The Georgia win over Hawaii ranked only 17th of 32 in terms of our NAYPPA analysis. Here are the Bowl Game results in terms of net difference in yards per play, which shows that the most impressive game among ranked team was in fact played by West Virginia.

1. New Mexico 23 Nevada 0
Total Net Yards average per Play - Advantage 7.1 to 3.4 for New Mexico = +3.7

2. West Virginia 48 Oklahoma 28
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 9.1 to 5.5 for West Virginia = +3.6

3. Oregon 56 South Florida (USF) 21
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 7.3 to 4.0 for Oregon = +3.3

4. California 42 Air Force 36
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 8.3 to 5.2 for California = +3.1

5. Rutgers 52 Ball State 30
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 8.9 to 5.8 for Rutgers= +3.1

6. Tulsa 63 Bowling Green 7
Total Net Yards average per Play - Advantage 6.5 to 3.8 for Tulsa = +2.7

7. Fresno State 40 Georgia Tech 28
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 7.8 to 5.3 for Fresno State = +2.5

8. Missouri 38 Arkansas 7
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 6.4 to 4.3 for Missouri = +2.1

9. Wake Forest 24 Connecticut 10
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.6 to 3.6 for Wake Forest = +2.0

10. Florida Atlantic 44 Memphis 27
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 7.0 to 5.1 for Florida Atlantic= +1.9

11. USC 49 Illinois 17
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 7.8 to 6.1 for USC = +1.7

12. Purdue 51 Central Michigan 48
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 7.2 to 5.5 for Purdue = +1.7

13. Texas 52 Arizona State 34
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.5 to 4.2 for Texas = +1.3

14. East Carolina 41 Boise State 38
Total Net Yards average per Play - Advantage 6.6 to 5.4 for East Carolina = +1.2

15. Oklahoma State 49 Indiana 33
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 6.2 to 5.2 for Oklahoma State = +1.0

16. Cincinnati 31 Southern Miss 21
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.2 to 4.2 for Cincinnati = +1.0

17. Georgia 41 Hawaii 10
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.0 to 4.1 for Georgia = +0.9

18. Oregon State 21 Maryland 14
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.0 to 4.1 for Oregon State= +0.9

19. Penn State 24 Texas A&M 17
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.7 to 4.8 for Penn State = +0.9

20. Tennessee 21 Wisconsin 17
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 6.0 to 5.3 for Tennessee = +0.7

21. Auburn 23 Clemson 20 (in overtime - 1OT)
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 4.7 to 4.0 for Auburn = +0.7

22. Kansas 24 Virginia Tech 21
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 4.6 to 4.2 for Kansas = +0.4

23. Texas Tech 31 Virginia 28
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.0 to 4.6 for Texas Tech = +0.4

24. Mississippi State 10 UCF 3
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 3.3 to 3.1 for Mississippi State = +0.2

25. Utah 35 Navy 32
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 6.3 to 6.1 for Utah = +0.2

26. Michigan 41 Florida 35
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 6.1 to 6.0 for Michigan = +0.1

27. BYU 17 UCLA 16
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Even 4.2 to 4.2 = +0.0

28. Kentucky 35 Florida State 28
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Even 5.8 to 5.8 = +0.0

29. TCU 20 Houston 13
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.3 to 5.4 for Houston = -0.1

30. Alabama 30 Colorado 24
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 5.6 to 5.8 for Colorado= -0.2

31. Boston College 24 Michigan State 21
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 3.6 to 4.0 for Michigan State = -0.4

32. LSU 38 Ohio State 24
Total Net Yards Average per Play - Advantage 4.3 to 6.3 for Ohio State (!) = -2.0

The SportPundit Football Rating/Ranking System (SPRS System)

UPDATE NOTICE: SPRS (Sport Pundit Rating System) Name Change to YPPSYS (tm) viz. YPP-SYS (tm)

We have discovered that confusion might be remotely possible between our SPRS college football prediction system and something called Thompson SPRS which we noted for the first time today (October 12, 2008) at The Prediction Tracker summaries but which we have been unable to find online. When we first named our SPRS system, there was no Google conflict, otherwise we would have chosen a different name.

In order to identify our system as a separate system, and since we have no reason to be bound to our original name if confusion of any kind is possible, we are changing the SPRS name today from SPRS System to YPPSYS (or YPP-SYS ), which means "Yards Per Play System", a change which we will implement as an update paragraph on the relevant older pages explaining our original SPRS. There is no online conflict for this name and we hereby trademark the names YPPSYS viz. YPP-SYS as acronyms used by us for our college football prediction system, a rating, ranking and prediction system which was previously called SPRS by us, based on net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA).

We do this particularly since our system this year is beating nearly all the systems listed at The Prediction Tracker and we want no confusion.

INTRODUCING
the SportPundit Football Ranking System (SPRS System) - see our final college football ratings for the 2007/2008 season

The SportPundit Football Ranking System (SPRS System) is based on a power value calculated to rate the relative DOMINANCE of a team as determined primarily by
the net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA) of offense over defense.

The SPRS System dominance rating of a team is calculated using 4 parameters:

1. The net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA) of a team's total offense vs. that same team's own total defense:
E.g. West Virginia averaged 6.5 yards per play on total offense and 4.4 yards per play total defense in the 2007/2008 college football season, giving the Mountaineers a +2.1 net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA). We obtain the total offense and total defense figures from the individual team websites, from the conference websites, from the NCAA and NAIA websites and from cfbstats.com.

2. A prorated (proportional) adjustment for schedule difficulty
Schedule difficulty affects total offense and total defense stats (we use the schedule rank from the Massey Ratings rather than from Sagarin as our independent source of schedule difficulty since Massey includes all college football divisions whereas Sagarin includes only FBS and FCS teams, which skews his ratings from reality.

But Massey's ratings are also not optimal.

Schedule difficulty is not linear. The adjustment for schedule difficulty made by our SPRS System is one-tenth of one point (.1) for each 10 places of schedule rank by Massey up to 50 - always rounded upwards - as follows:

For a schedule difficulty rank from 1 to 10, a value of .1 is deducted from the NAYPPA.
For a schedule difficulty rank from 11 to 20, a value of .2 is deducted from the NAYPPA.
For a schedule difficulty rank from 21 to 30, a value of .3 is deducted from the NAYPPA.
For a schedule difficulty rank from 31 to 40, a value of .4 is deducted from the NAYPPA.
For a schedule difficulty rank from 41 to 50, a value of .5 is deducted from the NAYPPA.

For example, West Virginia's schedule difficulty is ranked by Massey at 42, which is 5 x 10 places of schedule rank (4 x 10 +2 rounded upward, i.e. 5 x 10) so that .5 points are deducted from the NAYPPA in the case of West Virginia (+2.1 minus 0.5 = +1.6).

For a schedule difficulty rank from 51 to 96, the multiple is increased from 1 to 1.5. Again, this is because schedule rank is not constantly linear.

For example, Massey gives Kansas a schedule rating of 59, which in our system would ordinarily mean a deduction of .6 from the NAYPPA. Here, however, 59 is multiplied by 1.5 giving a result of 88.5 which is rounded up to 90.0 and then divided by 100, so that the deduction is .9 rather than .6. This is simply our algorithmic calibration for the non-linearity of the data.

We make another adjustment when we hit the 97th schedule rank, where we increase the multiple to 2. We could have done this at the 100th position, but 97 seems to be the right cut.

For example, for a schedule rank of 140 , 140 is multiplied by 2 = 280 and then divided by 100, which gives a deduction of 2.8 points from the NAYPPA.

Again, all we are saying here is that as schedule difficulty decreases, it is easier for teams to put up more yards per play on offense and to reduce yards per play on defense, so that an adjustment has to be made for this. However, after the 97th-ranked schedule, no additional adjustment seems to be necessary, except that the ranking of Division II and Division III schedules might be improved.

3. An adjustment for won/loss records

.2 is deducted from the NAYPPA for each game lost by a team.

This third parameter recognizes that there are other team variables that are not accounted for simply by looking at the per play total offense and total defense stats or by adjusting for schedule difficulty. These are elements such as takeaways (turnovers), penalties, special teams, kicking game, coaching in general (a quite large variable), fan support and other factors, which are difficult to integrate as variables in ranking. Wins and losses are a strong reflection of these important non-quantifiable variables.

We have found that there is very good correlation between the results of our SPRS system utilizing NAYPPA and the general ranking of teams by other rating systems. Indeed, we think that this system provides a new improvement for football rating systems used elsewhere. It is a virtually objective tool for team rating that seems to work extremely well as a predictor and as an analytic tool to explain game results.

One great advantage to this system is that anyone can easily use it to rate a football team, either in a ranking system, or in head-to-head competiton.

These are all hand calculations - please report errors if you find them. In the case of ties, the team from a higher NCAA Division is ranked above one from a lower division and the NAIA is placed at the end. We had to have some kind of a rule there, but it may not be right in all instances, especially for the top teams of the NAIA, which are very highly ranked. In the case of ties between teams from the same NCAA Division, the team with the better total defense in yards per play is ranked higher than the other team(s) because defense is more important than offense for winning football.

4. An adjustment for weakness of the defense

As any cursory examination of the total offense and total defense statistics of NCAA teams reveals, total defense is a much stronger indicator of the strength of a team than is total offense, all other things equal. Hence, we make the following adjustment:

.1 is deducted from the NAYPPA of any team whose total defense averages 5.0 yards per play or worse and .2 is deducted from the NAYPPA of any team whose total defense averages 6.0 yards per play or worse .

SAMPLE RATING CALCULATION Nr. 1

Number 1. West Virginia 4.4 6.5 +2.1 42 +1.6 +1.2

West Virginia averaged 6.5 yards per play on offense and 4.4 yards per play on defense, giving the Mountaineers a per play advantage of +2.1 yards per play. The Mountaineers had a schedule ranked 42nd in the country by Massey (40th by Sagarin) so that .5 (the .42 is rounded up to .50) is deducted from the 2.1 yards per play average to compensate for the strength of schedule, leaving +1.6. West Virginia lost 2 games for each of which .2 is further deducted, leaving a final value of +1.2, and that rating result turns out to be the top ranking in the country.

SAMPLE RATING CALCULATION Nr. 2

Number 43. FCS North Dakota State 4.9 7.1 +2.2 160** -1.0 -1.2

FCS North Dakota State averaged 7.1 yards per play on offense and 4.9 yards per play on defense, giving it a per play advantage of +2.2 yards per play. The Bison had a schedule ranked 168th in the country by Massey (160th by Sagarin), so that 3.2 (2 x 1.6) is deducted from the 2.2 yards per play average to compensate for the strength of schedule, leaving -1.0. North Dakota State lost 1 game for which .2 is further deducted, leaving -1.2, and that result turns out to be the 43rd top ranking in the country for all teams and all divisions. Since the Bison are an FCS team, how does this match up with performance? In fact, the Bison beat two Division I-A (FBS) teams this year, one of them the bowl team and Mid-American conference champion Central Michigan 44-14 (rated 82nd in the SPRS System rankings) and Big 10 Minnesota 27-21 (rated 129th in the SPRS System rankings).

On average, 1 point of ranking difference equals about 9 points on the scoreboard, but of course this is difficult to apply to any one game, where chance and circumstance prevail and where things such as home field advantage, etc. must be taken into account in predicting games.