The AMSTS Computer Ranking System is an improved iterative linear classifier, which weights points and wins based on the performance of each team. This metric ranks teams by their final score in a competition, rather than the final score of every game they have played. The most recent results are immediately shown on the results page. Results change frequently and can be viewed real-time from your browser or through the dashboard. The AMSTS Computer Ranking System is an improved iterative linear classifier, which weights points and wins based on the performance of each team. This metric ranks teams by their final score in a competition, rather than the final score of every game they have played. The most recent results are immediately shown on the results page. Results change frequently and can be viewed real-time from your browser or through the dashboard.
If you want to see your team's progress in comparison with the rest of the field, the Computer Ranking makes it easy. The AMSTS Computer Ranking provides the quickest data available for analysis. Unlike other methods such as the "heading-to-head" concept, the outcome of each game is not considered in the computing of teams' scores. The goal is to assign the same value to each team, regardless of how the final result of each game was decided.
Using the Computer Ranking to measure performance during the regular season and playoffs is easy. Simply choose teams that are within one to three points in the national rankings. Click on the link for the Computer Ranking table to return to the main index. The AMSTS also provides data on the number of games won, margin, ties, and ties. You can learn how your team compare to the expectations of your fellow competitors, and you can see which teams are favored in high school football games.
Unlike the AMSTS, the Computer Ranking takes into consideration the quality of each team, not the overall performance of each team. The Pollsters view regular season and playoff result as part of the college football season. They are not concerned with which team won the most games in either the regular season or the playoffs. These polls are based only on the quality of each team, not the consistency of each team. Therefore, the Computer Ranking is different from the AMSTS.
The Computer Ranking is important in determining the rankings for the Power Rankings. The Pollsters look at the computer rankings to determine which teams are in form. The Computer Ranking uses a special mathematical formula to rank teams; this formula relies on the strength of the individual teams, their average point total per game, and their margin of victory. The strength of each team is determined by how well it has performed against its opponents, and the margin of victory is determined by the points it edges out of the other teams in its region or conference.
A new England tour guide may use the Computer Ranking to rank teams. A New England tour guide would use the computer rankings to rank the teams based on its past performances, and it would give a particular team a certain mark if it came in fourth or better in its conference. It could also do the same for the non-conference schedules. In this way, the computer rankings would be helpful to the New England tour guides in choosing teams to play in a particular season.
The Computer Ranking has many other uses, besides deciding which teams go into a tournament and which teams don't. Different seasons and different teams would have different rankings at different points in a season. So one season's rankings would not tell you which team should win the championship, but it can help you in making the best decisions for your team.
The Computer Ranking is very different from the margins, however. margins to take into account the margin of victory, not just winning and losing, but counting the points that separate the winner from the loser. These margins are based on the actual margin of victory, and they take into consideration the quality of the competition as well. The Computer Ranking doesn't do this. It only measures the performance of the teams, and not the quality of the competition.
