Properties of sports ranking methods

References

• Ali, I., Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1986). On the minimum violations ranking of a tournament. Management Science, 32(6), 660–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R. D., & McHale, I. G. (2014). A dynamic paired comparisons model: Who is the greatest tennis player? European Journal of Operational Research, 236(2), 677–684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrow, D., Drayer, I., Elliott, P., Gaut, G., & Osting, B. (2013). Ranking rankings: an empirical comparison of the predictive power of sports ranking methods. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 9(2), 187–202.
   Google Scholar
• Burer, S. (2012). Robust rankings for college football. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 8(2), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Callaghan, T., Mucha, P. J., & Porter, M. A. (2007). Random walker ranking for NCAA division IA football. American Mathematical Monthly, 114(9), 761–777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charon, I., & Hudry, O. (2007). A survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments. 4OR, 5(1), 5–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charon, I., & Hudry, O. (2010). An updated survey on the linear ordering problem for weighted or unweighted tournaments. Annals of Operations Research, 175(1), 107–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chartier, T., Langville, A., & Simov, P. (2010). March madness to movies. Math Horizons, 17(4), 16–19.
   Google Scholar
• Chartier, T. P., Kreutzer, E., Langville, A. N., & Pedings, K. E. (2011). Sensitivity and stability of ranking vectors. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33(3), 1077–1102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chebotarev, P. Y., & Shamis, E (2007). Constructing an objective function for aggregating incomplete preferences. In Constructing Scalar-Valued Objective Functions (pp. 100–124). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chebotarev, P. Y., & Shamis, E. (1998). Characterizations of scoring methods for preference aggregation. Annals of Operations Research, 80, 299–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colley, W. N. (2002). Colley’s bias free college football ranking method: The colley matrix explained. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Csató, L. (2013). Ranking by pairwise comparisons for Swiss-system tournaments. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 21(4), 783–803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csató, L. (2016). An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00186.
   Google Scholar
• David, H. (1971). Ranking the players in a round robin tournament. Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique, 39(2), 137–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present. New York, NY: Arco Publ.
   Google Scholar
• González-Díaz, J., Hendrickx, R., & Lohmann, E. (2014). Paired comparisons analysis: An axiomatic approach to ranking methods. Social Choice and Welfare, 42(1), 139–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govan, A. Y. (2008). Ranking theory with application to popular sports. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
   Google Scholar
• Govan, A. Y., Langville, A. N., & Meyer, C. D. (2009). Offense-defense approach to ranking team sports. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 5(1), 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Keener, J. P. (1993). The Perron-Frobenius theorem and the ranking of football teams. SIAM review, 35(1), 80–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1–2), 81–93.
   Google Scholar
• Kitti, M. (2016). Axioms for centrality scoring with principal eigenvectors. Social Choice and Welfare, 46(3), 639–653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, J. M. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 46(5), 604–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koren, Y., Bell, R., & Volinsky, C. (2009). Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer, 42(8), 30–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvam, P., & Sokol, J. S. (2006). A logistic regression/Markov chain model for NCAA basketball. Naval Research Logistics (NrL), 53(8), 788–803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langville, A. N., & Meyer, C. D. (2011). Google’s pagerank and beyond: The science of search engine rankings. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langville, A. N., & Meyer, C. D. (2012). Who’s # 1?: The science of rating and ranking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, K. (1997). Statistical models applied to the rating of sports teams. Bluefield College: Bluefield.
   Google Scholar
• Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The Pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford: Stanford InfoLab.
   Google Scholar
• Park, J., & Newman, M. E. (2005). A network-based ranking system for us college football. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2005(10), P10014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redmond, C. (2003). A natural generalization of the win-loss rating system. Mathematics magazine, 76(2), 119–126.
   Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, A. (1980). Ranking the participants in a tournament. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 38(1), 108–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarf, P., Yusof, M. M., & Bilbao, M. (2009). A numerical study of designs for sporting contests. European Journal of Operational Research, 198(1), 190–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver, N. (2014). Introducing NFL Elo Ratings | FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/introducing-nfl-elo-ratings/
   Google Scholar
• Slutzki, G., & Volij, O. (2005). Ranking participants in generalized tournaments. International Journal of Game Theory, 33(2), 255–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaziri, B., Yih, Y., & Morin T. L. (2015). A proposed voting scheme to reduce the sensitivity of the Markov method. International Journal of Operational Research (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Winston, W. L. (2012). Mathletics: How gamblers, managers, and sports enthusiasts use mathematics in baseball, basketball, and football. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar