• Rewards good on-court performance
• Punishes bad home play
• Uses possession-based statistics
• Degrades older results
• Is updated every hour during the season

Using the statistics from the 2006-07 season, this ratings model had three of last year's Final Four teams in the top four (with Georgetown at No. 8). Click here to see the ratings.

Here's a quick rundown on how the ratings will be calculated during the 2007-08 season.

Phase 1. Standard Ratings

The Ratings Percentage Index gets a bad rap from diehard fans, but it isn't useless, not at all. A lot of NCAA scientists worked long and hard to put that formula together. We use it, along with the Strength of Schedule rating, as the basis for the first phase of TSoCBB.

((((RPI * 60) + (SOS * 40) * 100) * .01 + 50) * .5) * .01

This somewhat arbitrary math gives us a number that gives a mean value around 100, while maintaining an apples-to-apples context. Wake Forest, a 15-16 team in the tough ACC, ended 2006-07 with a 100.5518. UCLA led the way with 115.3503; a 4-14 SWAC team, Alabama A&M, was dead-last at 31.5760.

Phase 2. Location-Based Performance (LBP)

In college basketball, wins and losses are important but where they happen is much more so. Our ratings make use of a catch-basket of stats, with an emphasis on possession-based measurements. Each team is graded on a per-game basis in the following categories.

• Points
• Rebounds
• Turnover Rate
• Floor Percentage
• Free Throw Percentage
• Effective Field Goal %
• Free Throw Production

Click here for more information on non-standard statistics.

For every game, the team's output in each category is divided by the opponent's, with total points included three times for emphasis. Then the nine numbers are averaged and then adjusted for the opponent's strength, resulting in a figure that is either above 100 (good performance) or below 100 (bad performance). The adjustment is such: the number is multiplied by the opponent's standard-rating value from Phase 1, so good performances against good teams aren't confused with those against clearly overmatched opponents, and elite teams are summarily punished for scheduling below their station. Likewise, games between two teams of lower stature result in both squads receiving appropriately low marks. The games in which one or both teams scored above 125 tended to be the "good games."

Finally, this figure is multiplied by the number of miles away from their home gym the game was played (Miles * .000015). This rewards schools for a.) playing on the road or at neutral sites and b.) playing well away from home. Wins are give a .2 point bonus.

Here are some random per-game ratings from this year (click for boxscores). They really are random, and they'll be different if you reload the page.

Mar 02, 2008 Albany vs. Boston University - 109.33053965626
Mar 08, 2008 Baylor vs. Texas Tech - 131.29185030912
Dec 01, 2007 California-Davis vs. Brown - 81.01433845108
Nov 14, 2007 Southern Utah vs. Sacramento State - 47.306868867067
Dec 21, 2007 Saint Joseph`s vs. Fairfield - 65.40202652319

You can view the past day's ratings, the best of the past week, and the 25 top team performances of the season on the Real Meat Report page.

Phase 3. Efficiency

Each team's performance in each game is also graded on the two most important possession-based categories of all: points per possession, and points allowed per defensive possession. These figures are normalized to result in numbers similar to those in Phase 2.

(O-PPP * 100) - ((D-PPP * 100) - 1)

The number is then multiplied by the opponent's standard-rating value from Phase 1.

It should be noted that for Phases 2 and 3, the game scores are fixed for the remainder of the season. Teams are graded on their performance against an opponent on that particular day, and it does not change no matter what the opponent does for the remainder of the season.

Here are some random per-game efficiency scores from the 2007-08 season.

Jan 09, 2008 Memphis vs. East Carolina - 52.047660015822
Dec 18, 2007 South Dakota State vs. Denver - 48.259582146906
Dec 30, 2007 Liberty vs. George Mason - 79.020121546765
Jan 01, 2008 Cincinnati vs. Louisville - 98.169110057307
Dec 08, 2007 Long Island vs. Fairleigh Dickinson - 88.723641962447

You can view the past day's ratings, the best of the past week, and the 25 top team performances of the season on the Real Meat Report page.

Calculations and Degradation

To create the final Phase 2 and 3 numbers, the numbers are averaged... but not before a degradation process on old games is applied. The most recent game is not adjusted, but the second-oldest game score in each column is multiplied by .96, the third-oldest by .92, and so on. This ensures that the freshest results mean the most, so early-season wins won't mean as much when March rolls around.

UCLA finished first in Phase 2 (119.8052) for 2006-07, but were edged out in Phase 3 by North Carolina (112.0820). There were 45 teams over 100 in Phase 2 (No. 45 was Washington, 100.0973), and 44 over 100 in Phase 3 (Washington again at No. 44, 100.0824). The lowest teams finished with numbers in the mid-40's.

Bonus/Penalty

After the raw ratings are calculated, the final number is adjusted to reward road and conference wins, and punish league losses and unsuccessful defenses of the home court.

• Road Wins: .5 point bonus
• Conference Wins: .2 point bonus
• Home Losses: 1.5 points penalty
• Conference Losses: .2 point penalty

Of the top-level teams last season, none were as affected by this phase than Arizona. Seven conference losses and five home drops resulted in a -6.3 penalty. Duke was also hit hard, with a -6. Both teams went out quietly in the NCAA Tournament's first round, to lower seeds.

After the bonuses and penalties are added and deducted, there's one final adjustment: the number of losses is multiplied by 1 and deducted from the overall number (because losing is bad). Then each team has a final rating. Once again, you can view the results of the 2006-07 retroactive simulation here.

So there you have it. We hope you enjoy following along this season as we update The State of College Basketball on a regular basis. The ratings will be refreshed every hour, so keep checking back to see if your team is on the move!