Quality Win-Loss Matrix

The Quality Win-Loss Matrix ranks teams solely on three factors: (1) Who did you play? (2) Where did you play them? and (3) Did you win or lose?

Year: 2009 | 2008 |

Week: Pre-season | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |

Quality Win-Loss Matrix- Week 0 Biggest wins this season
#	Team	Rating	Win Points	Loss Points
1	Air Force (0-0)	0	0	0
2	Minnesota (0-0)	0	0	0
3	New Mexico (0-0)	0	0	0
4	San Diego St. (0-0)	0	0	0
5	Navy (0-0)	0	0	0
6	TCU (0-0)	0	0	0
7	Wyoming (0-0)	0	0	0
8	Utah (0-0)	0	0	0
9	Colorado St. (0-0)	0	0	0
10	Army (0-0)	0	0	0
11	UNLV (0-0)	0	0	0
12	BYU (0-0)	0	0	0
13	East Carolina (0-0)	0	0	0
14	Tulsa (0-0)	0	0	0
15	Ball St. (0-0)	0	0	0
16	Colorado (0-0)	0	0	0
17	Toledo (0-0)	0	0	0
18	West Virginia (0-0)	0	0	0
19	Texas (0-0)	0	0	0
20	Kansas (0-0)	0	0	0
21	Kansas St. (0-0)	0	0	0
22	Missouri (0-0)	0	0	0
23	Texas A&M (0-0)	0	0	0
24	Iowa St. (0-0)	0	0	0
25	Oklahoma St. (0-0)	0	0	0
26	Nebraska (0-0)	0	0	0
27	Nevada (0-0)	0	0	0
28	Idaho (0-0)	0	0	0
29	Mississippi (0-0)	0	0	0
30	Memphis (0-0)	0	0	0
31	Middle Tenn. St. (0-0)	0	0	0
32	Marshall (0-0)	0	0	0
33	UCF (0-0)	0	0	0
34	UTEP (0-0)	0	0	0
35	Southern Miss. (0-0)	0	0	0
36	Tennessee (0-0)	0	0	0
37	UAB (0-0)	0	0	0
38	Houston (0-0)	0	0	0
39	South Carolina (0-0)	0	0	0
40	Vanderbilt (0-0)	0	0	0
41	Alabama (0-0)	0	0	0
42	Arkansas (0-0)	0	0	0
43	Auburn (0-0)	0	0	0
44	LSU (0-0)	0	0	0
45	Mississippi St (0-0)	0	0	0
46	North Carolina (0-0)	0	0	0
47	SMU (0-0)	0	0	0
48	Rice (0-0)	0	0	0
49	Virginia Tech (0-0)	0	0	0
50	Bowling Green (0-0)	0	0	0
51	Tulane (0-0)	0	0	0
52	Florida (0-0)	0	0	0
53	Troy (0-0)	0	0	0
54	Kentucky (0-0)	0	0	0
55	Georgia (0-0)	0	0	0
56	Florida Intl (0-0)	0	0	0
57	Florida St. (0-0)	0	0	0
58	W. Ky (0-0)	0	0	0
59	South Florida (0-0)	0	0	0
60	La.-Lafayette (0-0)	0	0	0
61	North Texas (0-0)	0	0	0
62	La.-Monroe (0-0)	0	0	0
63	Fla. Atlantic (0-0)	0	0	0
64	Arkansas St. (0-0)	0	0	0
65	UCLA (0-0)	0	0	0
66	Ohio (0-0)	0	0	0
67	Pittsburgh (0-0)	0	0	0
68	Buffalo (0-0)	0	0	0
69	N.C. State (0-0)	0	0	0
70	Louisville (0-0)	0	0	0
71	Connecticut (0-0)	0	0	0
72	Rutgers (0-0)	0	0	0
73	Syracuse (0-0)	0	0	0
74	Notre Dame (0-0)	0	0	0
75	Cincinnati (0-0)	0	0	0
76	Georgia Tech (0-0)	0	0	0
77	Miami (0-0)	0	0	0
78	Louisiana Tech (0-0)	0	0	0
79	Hawaii (0-0)	0	0	0
80	New Mexico St. (0-0)	0	0	0
81	Utah St. (0-0)	0	0	0
82	Boise St. (0-0)	0	0	0
83	Fresno St. (0-0)	0	0	0
84	San Jose St. (0-0)	0	0	0
85	Arizona St. (0-0)	0	0	0
86	Texas Tech (0-0)	0	0	0
87	Oklahoma (0-0)	0	0	0
88	Baylor (0-0)	0	0	0
89	Stanford (0-0)	0	0	0
90	Oregon (0-0)	0	0	0
91	California (0-0)	0	0	0
92	Arizona (0-0)	0	0	0
93	Oregon St. (0-0)	0	0	0
94	Washington (0-0)	0	0	0
95	Washington St. (0-0)	0	0	0
96	Southern Cal (0-0)	0	0	0
97	Virginia (0-0)	0	0	0
98	Duke (0-0)	0	0	0
99	Boston College (0-0)	0	0	0
100	Maryland (0-0)	0	0	0
101	Wake Forest (0-0)	0	0	0
102	E. Michigan (0-0)	0	0	0
103	Temple (0-0)	0	0	0
104	Clemson (0-0)	0	0	0
105	Northwestern (0-0)	0	0	0
106	Purdue (0-0)	0	0	0
107	Miami (Ohio) (0-0)	0	0	0
108	Michigan St. (0-0)	0	0	0
109	Indiana (0-0)	0	0	0
110	Penn St. (0-0)	0	0	0
111	Iowa (0-0)	0	0	0
112	Illinois (0-0)	0	0	0
113	Wisconsin (0-0)	0	0	0
114	Cent. Michigan (0-0)	0	0	0
115	Michigan (0-0)	0	0	0
116	W. Michigan (0-0)	0	0	0
117	Ohio St. (0-0)	0	0	0
118	Akron (0-0)	0	0	0
119	Kent St. (0-0)	0	0	0
120	N. Illinois (0-0)	0	0	0

Computing the Quality Win-Loss Matrix

The Quality Win-Loss Matrix assigns win points and loss points to every game of the season based on the strength of the opponent’s VSI and where the game was played.

Defeat a team with a VSI of 8 and receive ~8 win points. Defeat a team with a VSI of 21 and receive ~21 win points.

If you defeat a below average team, one with a negative VSI, you do not receive any win points - after all what have you really accomplished by beating a below average team?

Loss points are calculated in reverse. The lower the VSI of your opponent, the higher the loss points a team accumulates so teams are penalized more for losing to bad teams.

Win points and loss points are combined to create a single ranking for apples-to-apples comparisons across teams playing widely different strengths of schedule.