S Christopher writes:
>
> One comment, on a part I was sure I could understand:  the re-rating
> of a team's opponents after each of THEIR games and the subsequent
> re-rating of the team in question is an interesting approach.  It
> could be argued that your rating, relative to someone you've already
> played, should not be changed by the LATER performance of that
> someone (opponent).  On the other hand, maybe you should do this
> Anyone have comments on this, out there?
>
 
I can see both sides of the argument here.  On the one hand, if subsequent
performance didn't count, a team could pad their early schedules
with easier teams and probably manage to get a decent ranking out of it.  On
the other hand, a team may play a number of tough opponents who later in the
the season, fall apart a bit (maybe injuries or internal conflicts etc..)
Diminishing a teams score on the ranking scale for this seems unfair since it
does not reflect how good the team in question is, rather, it reflects that the
teams they played disintegrated later in the year (they may have been quite
good at the time the two teams played each other).
 
I still favor using subsequent performance for two reasons.
1.  As I stated, without it, a team could pad its ranking with easy teams early
in the year and then schedule enough harder teams later not to get killed on
schedule strength, but not so many tough teams as to hurt their inflated
ranking.
2.  If I understand it correctly, subsequent performance is used to correct
your schedule stength over time.  If you play a team that is 4-0 at the time
of the meeting and then they go 4-25, your schedule stength should reflect at
the end of the year that you played a 4-25 team instead of an undefeated one.
I don't believe that enough teams on one school's schedule could disintegrate
(for reasons other than team talent) enough for it to significantly affect
their ranking in the poll.
 
Dave Smith
Let's Go Red!