Wednesday, January 30, 2008

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.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

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)



RankMRkSRkDivTeamOFFDEFNETSCHcorr.W/LFIN
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
35
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
+1.838
+1.411-3+0.8
7
11
10
FBS
Florida
7.05.2+1.81+1.79-4+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
Arkansas6.24.8+1.428+1.18-5+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
1517
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.

Most Popular Posts of All Time

Blog Archive

The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz