Sunday, January 29, 2012

Super Bowl Winner a "Can't Call" for President Obama at Ann Arbor, University of Michigan College Affordability Speech


GO BLUEprint!





President Obama in a speech largely on college affordability at the University of Michigan diverged to say that he can't call the winner of Super Bowl XLVI 2012 between the Patriots and the Giants because "it would get him into trouble" politically. Wise move.

The most important thing of course is that he emphasized that Americans want a future in America where "everybody" is positively involved in American life and can get AND afford an optimal education.

He emphasized that student loan money owed now tops credit-card money owed, a situation that Obama said was intolerable.

Obama especially concentrated on his Blueprint for America for a "Go Blue" audience in Ann Arbor.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Dr. Saturday Matt Hinton Reports on New SEC ‘Oversigning’ Rules in the case of an Alabama Crimson Tide Recruit

On of the more negative things about college football consists of the maze of regulations on recruiting. See Dr. Saturday Matt Hinton at Yahoo! Sports in New ‘oversigning’ rules force Nick Saban to tip his hand (Updated).

Just imagine if, say, law firm or business recruitment were subject to a similar plethora of virtually useless over-regulation.

The lesson here is that if you give people power, they will use it, and, as is often the case, misuse it.

How much better it would be to treat college football as the business it is and apply the normal laws accordingly.

NCAA Prez Says Yes to Playoff

NCAA Prez Says Yes to Playoff: - Sent using Google Toolbar

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Can Jim Harbaugh Coach? Yes, he can, as 49ers beat Saints in one of Best NFL Playoff Games Ever


See the brilliantly written article by Bill Reiter at Jim Harbaugh's improbable rookie season continues as he outsmarts the New Orleans Saints in a stunning win

Broadway Joe Namath Has a Nice Site at Broadway Joe TV


Broadway Joe Namath was already famous as the quarterback of the Alabama Crimson Tide under Bear Bryant (national champions in 1964) and continued in that role for the AFL New York Jets, beating the NFL Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III (1969). Namath was the first professional football quarterback to pass for more than 4000 yards (1967).

He now has a nice site online at
Welcome to BroadwayJoe.tv!

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The Fly is the Hottest New Play in College Football


See the story of "the Fly" and football "engineering" at CBS Sports
in
The man behind the hottest play in football,

a report on a play used by Dana Holgorsen,
football head coach at West Virginia,
in blitzing Clemson 70-33 in the Orange Bowl,

Holgorsen learned the play from Bob Stitt, head coach of the Colorado School of Mines.

FINAL College Football Rankings and Ratings 2011-2012 FBS After Bowl Games -- by SportPundit

 
FINAL College Football Rankings and Ratings 2011 FBS After Bowl Games -- by SportPundit 



-- by YPPSYS (yards per play system) and NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage)
-- modified by schedule difficulty and losses

Our rankings and ratings at the end of this college football season permit the teams to be divided into the following GROUP RANKS:

1st Level Teams - Positions 1 through 15 - except for the top 3, covering ca. 1.0 rating point difference
2nd Level Teams - Positions 16-32 - covering ca. the next 1.0 of rating point difference
3rd Level Teams- Positions 33-62 - covering ca. the next 1.0 of rating point difference
4th Level Teams - Positions 63-97 -  covering ca. the next 1.0 of  rating point difference
5th Level Teams - Positions 98-110 - covering ca. the next 1.0 of rating point difference, and
6th Level Teams - Positions 111-120 covering ca. the next 1.0 of rating point difference or more.

Since 1 point of rating difference in our YPPSYS system = 7 scoreboard points, if we remove the extremes at each end of the rating scale then ca. 3 touchdowns separate the top teams from the average teams in FBS and another ca. 3 touchdowns separate the average teams from the lower teams in FBS. Between 2nd-ranked LSU and 117th and 118th-ranked New Mexico and UNLV there are 6.4 rating points difference, or ca. 45 scoreboard points.


 
General observations on our system as based on net average yards per play advantage (NAYPPA) minus schedule difficulty and losses:

Year in and year out, yards per play per team for a season is a very constant statistic in FBS football (our discovery some years ago), with a mean for 120 FBS teams (i.e. at ca. position 60 or 61 of those 120 teams for each parameter) of about 5.3 to 5.5 yards on offense and defense (the stat is out of whack at the beginning of the year because of easy schedules but evens out for all 120 teams in the course of a normal season). The steadiness of this stat is really quite remarkable in view of ever-changing offenses and defenses, strategies, and tactics. See YPP (yards per play) applied at: The Best College Football Teams of All Time Can Be Narrowed Down Using NAYPPA - Net Average Yards Per Play Advantage, where the greatest teams approach a NAYPPA stat of near to 3.0 Net Average Yards Per Play Advantage (yards per play offense vs. yards per play defense), but not more, even though Boise State last year set the modern FBS record with 3.5, but lost a game to a much weaker team and hence can not be counted to the greatest teams. Hence, if teams now have stats above a NAYPPA of 3, those drop in the course of a season.

The YPPSYS rating system of two primary parameters -- NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage) and schedule difficulty -- (plus we add a 0.2 penalty for each loss) gets more accurate in judging a team's strength as the season wears on, rivalling pure points, i.e. margin of victory, as a good predictor of game outcomes (see the somewhat adjusted final 2010 YPPSYS ratings and rankings). YPPSYS stats can of course be supplemented by margin of victory, won-loss record, turnover ratio, big gainers, total yardage stats, quality of the head coach and coaching staff, conference affiliation, home field advantage, player injuries, etc., but for that we would have to computerize the whole thing, whereas we do it here by hand just for fun, and also apply subjective judgment where we want. Please do not rely on our stats or analysis for any football wagering or betting. See the next paragraph.

Caveat emptor. Buyer beware! We make no guarantees or warranties of accuracy and disclaim any and all liability for anyone using our stats, rankings and ratings for any purpose!

We have simplified YPPSYS (yards per play system) in 2011 so that team ratings for 2011 are NOT fully comparable with team ratings for 2010, even if the ratings LOOK similar.

Yards per play stats (ypp) are taken as available, primarily from cfbstats.com, but also as the case may be from Yahoo Sports Rivals.com, ESPN College Football, and/or individual team stat pages, so that the links that you find for any team in the rankings may not always point to the most current stat source.

To determine schedule difficulty at this early stage of the season, in the 1st week we took the average of schedule difficulty given at Massey Ratings plus Sagarin USA Today. We took their sum, then multiplied that by 2, divided by 100 to get a decimal fraction and took that amount off the NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage).

From Week 2 to Week 5, we used Sagarin alone, unless there is a specific link to Massey Ratings, AND in the second week we use schedule difficulty without doubling, but do divide the schedule difficulty by 100 to give a decimal fraction that is subtracted from the NAYPPA. Yards per play on offense and defense are very much a function of the strength of the opponent played, so that this schedule difficulty adjustment is essential.

For Week 6, since Massey Ratings had their ratings up before Sagarin -- that was a new development -- we used the Massey Ratings schedule difficulty (SchP = schedule thus far played).

For Week 7
,
we used the schedule difficulty ranking at Sagarin USA Today. 

For Week 8, we used our own schedule difficulty calculation based on opponent rankings at Massey Ratings, with the change that we rated no opponent worse than 120th. 

For Ratings at the end of Week 9, we used the Sagarin schedule difficulty ratings. In addition, we calculated the best win rank and the worst loss rank based on the Sagarin predictor, add those two together and subtracted 1/100th of that sum from the rating since the best win and worst loss help to place a team in a certain level of performance. This still ded not give perfect results, but was thought to be an improvement over what we have been using -- which turned out not to be so.

We did no ratings at the end of Week 10 because of time constraints caused by other matters.



Starting Week 11 etc., we have gone back to our basic system, which seems to work best as the season progresses. Schedule difficulty is calcualted using the Sagarin Ratings.

As of the 2nd week, .2 is also subtracted from NAYPPA for every game lost, since losses reflect weaknesses which may not surface in yards per play stats -- e.g. turnovers.

This system, as all ranking and ratings systems, is imperfect, but the YPPSYS yards per play approach can provide a general objective idea as to how college football teams actually are performing, rather than concentrating on team ratings based in good part on the subjective judgments of various polls, although the rankings generally are very similar as the season progresses, whether one uses subjective or objective criteria, or a combination of the two.

The red figures in parentheses next to the current ranking in black are last year's final post-bowl rankings on YPPSYS. Although there are always exceptions to the rule, as a general rule, not that much changes from one year to the next, so these are a good check on whether current rankings or ratings are sensible, regardless of stats.


Final College Football Rankings and Ratings 2011 FBS
-- by YPPSYS and NAYPPA

Final
YPPSYS
2011

Team
Rankings
after

Bowl
Game
Play
(2010 rank in red)
The
Football
TEAM
that was
ranked &
rated
NAYPPA
2010
2011
(net
average
yards
per play
advant-
age)

YPP OFF
2010
2011
yards per play offense

YPP DEF
2010
2011
yards
per
play defense 


Schedule difficulty 
2010
2011

W-L
record

2010
2011

YPPSYS
Team
Rating yards
per play
advantage

minus
schedule
difficulty
(x .01)
2010

2011
minus .2 for

each loss


1 (4)
Alabama
2.4
3.2 !

7.0
6.5

4.6
3.3


14
15

10-3
12-1

1.5
2.9

2 (12) LSU 0.4
1.6

5.3
5.7

4.9
4.1


15
7

11-2
13-1

0.0
1.5

3 (9) Oklahoma State 1.9
1.7

6.9
7.2

5.0
5.5


34
3

11-2
12-1

0.8
1.5

4 (2) Oregon 2.0
2.1

6.7
7.2

4.7
5.1


7
35

12-1
12-2

1.6
1.3

5 (74) Houston 0.6
2.5

6.4
7.6

5.8
5.1


89
97

5-7
13-1

-3.3
1.3

6 (10) Wisconsin
1.4
1.8

6.7
7.0

5.3
5.2


38
44

11-2
11-3

0.1
0.8

7 (21) South Carolina
0.6
1.4

6.0
5.6

5.4
4.2


11
32

9-5
11-2

-0.5
0.7

8 (8) Arkansas 1.9
1.3

7.1
6.5

5.2
5.2


12
20

10-3
11-2

1.2
0.7

9 (3)Stanford 1.6
1.4

6.7
6.8

5.1
5.4


2
36

12-1
11-2

1.5
0.6

10 (42)
Baylor
0.8
1.2

6.6
7.6

5.8
6.4


52
10

7-6
10-3

-1.3
0.5

11 (17) Michigan State 0.9
1.5

6.2
5.8

5.3
4.3


43
38

11-2
11-3

-0.4
0.5

12 (29) USC 0.1
1.1

6.0
6.5

5.9
5.4


5
20

8-5
10-2

-0.9
0.5

13 (15) Oklahoma0.5
1.1

5.6
6.3

5.1
5.2


20

12-2
10-3

-0.4
0.4

14 (7) Boise State 3.5! 1.3

7.5
6.5

4.0
5.2


46
75

12-1
12-1

1.3
0.3

15 (33) West Virginia 1.1
1.5

5.3
6.4

4.2
4.9


58
57

9-4
10-3

-1.0
0.3

16 (27) Georgia 0.9
1.2

6.1
5.6

5.2
4.4


26
23

6-7
10-4

-0.8
0.2

17 (40) Michigan 0.7
1.0

6.8
6.2

6.1
5.2


33
40

7-6
11-2

-1.2
0.2

18 (16) Florida State 1.1
1.7

6.0
5.9

4.9
4.2


16
68

10-4
9-4

-0.4
0.2

19 (73)
Southern Miss 0.2
1.6

5.7
6.2

5.5
4.6


90
94

8-5
12-2

-3.3
0.2

20 (6) TCU 2.5
1.3

6.7
6.5

4.2
5.2


56
86

13-0
11-2

1.3
0.0

21 (64)
Kansas State -0.6
-0.8

5.8
4.9

6.4
5.7


57
8

7-6
10-3

-2.8
-1.5*
0.0*
 *adjusted 
for wins

22 (24) Missouri 0.7
1.1

5.7
6.3

5.0
5.2


30
13

10-3
8-5

-0.6
0.0

23 (22) Texas A&M 0.8
1.3

5.6
6.1

4.8
4.8


22
4

9-4
7-6

-0.6
0.0

24 (48) Texas 0.6
0.8

5.2
5.4

4.6
4.6


50
5

5-7
8-5

-1.7
-0.3

25 (49) Clemson 0.2
0.3

5.1
5.9

4.9
5.6


25
43

6-7
10-4

-1.7
-0.9
-0.3*
 *adjusted 
for wins

26 (14) Virginia Tech 0.5
0.9

6.2
5.8

5.7
4.9


19
59

11-3
11-3

-0.3
-0.3

27 (28) Notre Dame 0.3
0.9

5.5
5.9

5.2
5.0


17
25

8-5
8-5

-0.9
-0.4

28 (60) Georgia Tech   0.0
1.2

5.7
6.7

5.7
5.5


60
76

6-7
8-5

-2.5
-0.4

29 (61) SMU 1.3
1.2

6.3
6.1

5.0
4.9


80
70

7-7
8-5

-2.5
-0.5

30 (55) Northern Illinois 1.7
1.1

6.9
6.6

5.2
5.5


104
103

11-3
11-3

-1.9
-0.5

31 (25)Florida0.5
0.8

5.2
5.4

4.7
4.6


18
22

8-5
7-6

-0.7
-0.6

32 (30) North Carolina 0.8
1.1

5.9
6.3

5.1
5.2


24
51

8-5
7-6

-0.9
-0.6

33 (58) Cincinnati 0.7
0.7

6.0
5.6

5.3
4.9


51
73

4-8
10-3

-2.0
-0.6

34 (51) Tulsa 0.3
0.8

6.5
6.1

6.2
5.3


86
45

10-3
8-5

-1.8
-0.7

35 (102) Utah State
-1.2
1.5

4.9
6.5

6.1
5.0


82
100

4-8
7-6

-4.9
-0.7

36 (11) Nebraska 1.5
0.3

6.1
5.5

4.6
5.2


28
26

10-4
9-4

0.0
-0.8

37 (52) Penn State 0.1
0.3

5.5
5.0

5.4
4.7


48
31

7-6
9-4

-1.9
-0.8

38 (20) Mississippi State
0.5
0.7

5.8
5.4

5.3
4.7


23
28

9-4
7-6

-0.5
-0.8

39 (104)
Arkansas State
-0.2
1.0

5.7
5.7

5.9
4.7


105
124

4-8
10-3

-5.2
-0.8

40 (65) BYU -0.1
0.6

5.0
5.5

5.1
4.9


61
90

7-6
10-3

-2.8
-0.9

41 (66) Temple 0.8
1.1

5.5
6.0

4.7
4.9


102
119

8-4
9-4

-2.8
-0.9

42 (47) Illinois 0.3
0.7

5.7
5.1

5.4
4.4


49
53

7-6
7-6

-1.7
-1.0

43 (35) California 0.5
0.5

5.3
5.7

4.8
5.2


10
29

5-7
7-6

-1.0
-1.0

44 (82) Toledo 0.2
0.6

5.5
6.4

5.3
5.8


91
81

8-5
9-4

-3.8
-1.0

45 (23) Iowa
1.3
0.5

6.2
5.6

4.9
5.1


42
39

8-5
7-6

-0.6
-1.1

46 (31) Miami (Florida) 1.1 
0.7

5.9
6.2

4.8
5.5


21
61

7-6
6-6

-0.9
-1.1

47 (53) South Florida 0.3
0.9

5.0
5.7

4.7
4.8


67
62

8-5
5-7

-1.9
-1.1
48 (32) Nevada 1.4
0.9

7.0
6.4

5.6
5.5


68
88

13-1
7-6

-1.0
-1.2

49 (88) Ohio
0.2
0.8

5.5
6.1

5.3
5.3


114
118

8-5
10-4

-4.1
-1.2

50 (78) Vanderbilt -1.2
0.4

4.6
5.2

5.8
4.8


47
27

2-10
6-7

-3.7
-1.3

51 (26) UCF 1.0
1.0

5.8
6.0

4.8
5.0


95
102

11-3
5-7

-0.7
-1.4

52 (1) Auburn 2.0
-0.4

7.4
5.3

5.4
5.7


4
14

14-0
8-5

1.7
-1.5

53 (75) Virginia -0.5
0.2

5.6
5.5

6.1
5.3


65
71

4-8
8-5

-3.4
-1.5

54 (41) Air Force 0.8
0.7

6.0
6.4

5.2
5.7


64
104

9-4
7-6

-1.3
-1.5

55 (36) Utah 0.8
0.0

6.1
5.0

5.3
5.0


40
49

10-3
8-5

-1.1
-1.5

56 (89) Louisiana Tech -0.7
0.3

5.3
5.2

6.0
4.9


78
74

5-7
8-5

-4.1
-1.5

57 (18) San Diego State 2.0
0.2

6.9
5.9

4.9
5.7


79
95

9-4
8-5

-0.5
-1.7 

58 (19) Arizona State
0.8
0.0

5.8
6.1

5.0
6.1


7
34

6-6
6-7

-0.5
-1.7

59 (39) Washington -0.1
-0.2

5.5
6.2

5.6
6.4


3
24

7-6
7-6

-1.2
-1.7

60 (5) Ohio State 2.2
0.0

6.5
5.1

4.3
5.1


27
30

12-1
6-7

1.4
-1.7

61 (54) Louisville 0.7
0.1

5.7
5.1

5.0
5.0


71
60

7-6
7-6

-1.9
-1.7

62 (91)
Rutgers -1.2
-0.2

4.6
4.7

5.8
4.9


84
69

4-8
9-4

-4.2
-1.7

63 (113)
Louis.-Lafayette
-0.9
0.3

5.0
5.7

5.9
5.4


109
122

3-9
9-4

-6.1
-1.7

64 (68)
UCLA -1.4
0.0

4.7
5.9

6.1
5.9


8
16

4-8
6-8

-3.0
-1.8

65 (94) Florida Int'l FIU 
0.1
0.5

5.7
5.4

5.6
4.9


103
127

7-6
8-5

-4.3
-1.8

66 (43) Tennessee 0.3
-0.4

5.7
5.0

5.4
5.4


32
12

6-7
5-7

-1.4
-1.9

67 (97) 
Western Michigan
0.0
0.2

5.7
6.3

5.7
6.1


107
99

6-6
7-6

-4.4
-2.0

68 (34) Pittsburgh 1.0
-0.2

5.7
4.8

4.7
5.0


41
48

8-5
6-7

-1.0
-2.1

69 (72) Purdue -0.5
-0.2

4.7
5.3

5.2
5.5


62
65

4-8
7-6

-3.2
-2.1

70 (70)
Iowa State -0.9
-0.8

4.6
4.9

5.5
5.7


35
2

5-7
6-7

-3.1
-2.2

71 (46) N.C. State -0.1
-0.4

5.2
4.9

5.3
5.3


29
83

9-4
8-5

-1.7
-2.2

72 (56) Texas Tech -0.1
-0.8

5.7
5.7

5.8
6.5


53
11

8-5
5-7

-2.0
-2.3

73 (81) Wake Forest -1.0
-0.4

4.8
5.2

5.8
5.6


39
54

3-9
6-7

-3.8
-2.3

74 (13) Arizona 1.1
-0.5

6.0
6.1

4.9
6.6


13
18

7-6
4-8

-0.2
-2.3

75 (63) Syracuse 0.6
-0.3

5.2
5.1

4.6
5.4


74
55

8-5
5-7

-2.7
-2.3

76 (37)
Hawaii 2.4
0.2

7.6
5.8

5.2
5.6


81
114

10-4
6-7

-1.1
-2.3

77 (67) Northwestern -0.5
-0.5

5.4
5.6

5.9
6.1


76
46

7-6
6-7

-2.9
-2.4

78 (44) Navy 0.5
-0.3

6.2
5.8

5.7
6.1


69
67

9-4
5-7

-1.5
-2.4

79 (45) Oregon State -0.5
-0.4

5.2
5.5

5.7
5.9


1
19

5-7
3-9

-1.7
-2.4

80 (95) Marshall 
-0.3
-0.6

4.9
5.1

5.2
5.7


93
56

5-7
7-6

-4.3
-2.4

81 (118)  Bowling Green -1.8
-0.1

4.3
5.6

6.1
5.7


100
93

2-10
5-7

-6.9
-2.4

82 (87) Miami (Ohio) -0.2
0.1

5.2
5.4

5.4
5.3


108
85

10-4
4-8

-4.1
-2.4

83 (92) Wyoming 
-0.8
-0.6

5.0
5.5

5.8
6.1


70
92

3-9
8-5

-4.2
-2.5

84 (98) East Carolina 
-0.8
-0.4

5.7
5.2

6.5
5.6


66
72

6-7
5-7

-4.5
-2.5

85 (119)
Eastern Michigan 
-2.3
-0.1

5.0
5.3

7.3
5.4


99
117

2-10
6-6

-7.4
-2.5
86 (80) Washington St. -1.8
-0.5

4.9
5.8

6.7
6.3


9
47

2-10
4-8

-3.8
-2.6

87 (107) Louis.-Monroe 
-0.9
0.1

4.8
5.0

5.7
4.9


110
113

5-7
4-8

-5.7
-2.6
88 (103) 
Central Michigan 
-0.1
0.0

5.4
5.9

5.5
5.9


101
91

3-9
3-9

-5.0
-2.7

89 (59) Connecticut -0.3
-0.8

4.9
4.6

5.2
5.4


75
64

8-5
5-7

-2.4
-2.8

90 (79)  Army -0.9
-0.2

4.9
5.7

5.8
5.9


98
79

7-6
3-9

-3.7
-2.8

91 (106) San Jose State
-1.2
-0.7

5.2
5.4

6.4
6.1


73
80

1-12
5-7

-5.6
-2.9

92 (38) Maryland 0.9 
-0.5

5.6
5.3

4.7
5.8


54
42

9-4 
2-10

-1.1
-2.9

93 (71) Fresno State -0.2
-0.4

5.6
6.0

5.8
6.4


77
77

8-5
4-9

-3.2
-3.0

94 (83) Minnesota -1.3
-1.0

5.3
5.0

6.6
6.0


45
17

3-9
3-9

-3.9
-3.0

95 (50) Boston College 0.4
-0.9

4.8
4.7

4.4
5.6


31
52

7-6
4-8

-1.8
-3.0

96 (93) UTEP 
-0.1
-0.7

5.6
5.6

5.7
6.3


117
87

6-7
5-7

-4.2
-3.0

97 (116) New Mexico St. -2.5
-0.4

4.3
5.8

6.8
6.2


92
89

2-10
4-9

-6.6
-3.1

98 (115) West. Kentucky
-1.2
-0.9

4.8
5.0

6.0
5.9


112
120

2-10
7-5

-6.6
-3.1

99 (57)  Kentucky 0.5
-1.4

6.1

5.6
5.5


59
41

6-7
5-7

-2.0
-3.2

100 (77) Kent State 0.5
-0.9

4.9
3.9

4.4
4.8


106
96

5-7
5-7

-3.5
-3.3

101 (112) 
Buffalo -0.7
-0.5

4.2
5.1

4.9
5.6


118
98

2-10
3-9

-6.0
-3.3

102 (69) Colorado -0.8
-1.3

5.1
5.3

5.9
6.6


36
21

5-7
3-10

-3.1
-3.5

103 (111) Ball State 
-1.0
-1.5

4.9
5.3

5.9
6.8


122
78

4-8
6-6

-6.0
-3.5

104 (108)
North Texas
-0.3
-1.1

5.6
5.0

5.9
6.1


116
105

3-9
5-7

-5.7
-3.6

105 (90) Troy 0.1
-0.7

5.9
5.3

5.8
6.0


111
109

8-5
3-9

-4.1
-3.6

106 (105) Rice -1.2
-1.6

5.2
4.9

6.4
6.5


94
37

4-8
4-8

-5.3
-3.6

107 (100) Colorado State 
-1.4
-0.9

5.1
5.3

6.5
6.2


72
106

3-9
3-9

-4.8
-3.8

108 (84)  Duke -1.2
-1.4

5.2
5.1

6.4
6.5


37
63

3-9
3-9

-3.9
-3.8

109 (101) Mid. Tennessee 0.2
-0.7

5.3
5.1

5.1
5.8


132
116

6-7
2-10

-4.8
-3.9

110 (62)  Mississippi -0.5
-1.9

5.8
4.3

6.3
6.2


44
9

4-8
2-10

-2.7
-4.0

111 (76) UAB
0.0
-1.5

5.8
5.2

5.8
6.7


96
84

4-8
3-9

-3.4
-4.1

112 (86) Indiana -1.2
-1.5

5.4
5.0

6.6
6.5


87
50

5-7
1-11

-4.0
-4.2

113 (85) Idaho -0.4
-1.4

5.5
4.5

5.9
5.9


88
82

6-7
2-10

-4.0
-4.2

114 (96) Tulane
-1.0
-1.0

5.0
5.0

6.0
6.0


97
110

4-8
2-11

-4.3
-4.3

115 (99) 
Kansas 
-1.9
-2.5

4.3
4.7

6.2
7.2


63
1

3-9
2-10

-4.7
-4.5

116 (109) 
Florida Atlantic 
-0.7
-1.3

4.9
4.0

5.6
5.3


113
101

4-8
1-11

-5.9
-4.5

117 (117)
New Mexico -2.4
-2.0

4.0
4.7

6.4
6.7


83
58

1-11
1-11

-6.6
-4.8
118 (110)
UNLV
-2.3
-2.2

4.4
4.3

6.7
6.5


55
66

2-11
2-10

-6.0
-4.9

119 (120) Akron 
-2.0
-1.9

4.3
4.2

6.3
6.1


120
107

1-11
1-11

-7.5
-5.2
120 (114)
Memphis
-1.8
-2.4

4.8
4.2

6.6
6.6


85
112

1-11
2-10

-6.5
-5.5

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