For years, various algorithms (derisively called “the computers” by sports commentators) have been used to rank college football teams. The source of derision is usually quite simple to explain: most of these algorithms are too hard to explain in layman’s terms, and therefore they are mocked.

For both its simplicity and its ability to provide reasonable rankings, my favorite algorithm is “Random Walker Rankings,” published at http://rwrankings.blogspot.com. Here is a concise description of this ranking system (quoted from http://rwrankings.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_archive.html):

We’ve all experienced befuddlement upon perusing the NCAA Division I-A college football

Bowl Championship Series (BCS) standings, because of the seemingly divine inspiration that must have been incorporated into their determination. The relatively small numbers of games between a large number of teams makes any ranking immediately suspect because of the dearth of head-to-head information. Perhaps you’ve even wondered if a bunch of monkeys could have ranked the football teams as well as the expert coaches and sportswriters polls and the complicated statistical ranking algorithms.We had these thoughts, so we set out to test this hypothesis, although with simulated monkeys (random walkers) rather than real ones.

Each of our simulated “monkeys” gets a single vote to cast for the “best” team in the nation, making their decisions based on only one simple guideline: They periodically look up the win-loss outcome of a single game played by their favorite team, and flip a weighted coin to determine whether to change their allegiance to the other team. In order to make this process even modestly reasonable, this random decision is made so that there is higher probability that the monkey’s allegiance and vote will go with the team that won the head-to-head contest. For instance, the weighting of the coin might be chosen so that 75% (say) of the time the monkey changes his vote to go with the winner of the game, meaning only a 25% chance of voting for the loser.

The monkey starts by voting for a randomly chosen team. Each monkey then meanders around a network which describes the collection of teams, randomly changing allegiance from one team to another along connections representing games played between the two teams that year. This network is graphically depicted in the figure here, with the monkeys—okay, technically one is a gorilla—not so happily lent to us by Ben Mucha (inset). It’s a simple process: if the outcome of the weighted coin flip indicates that he should be casting his vote for the opposing team, the monkey stops cheerleading for the old team and moves to the site in the network representing his new favorite team. While we let the monkeys change their minds over and over again—indeed, a single monkey voter will forever be changing his vote in this scheme—the percentage of votes cast for each football team quickly stabilizes. We thereby obtain rankings each week of the season and at the end of the season, based on the games played to that point of the season, by looking at the fraction of monkeys that vote for each team…

The virtue of this ranking system lies in its relative ease of explanation. Its performance is arguably on par with the expert polls and (typically more complicated) computer algorithms employed by the BCS. Can a bunch of monkeys rank football teams as well as the systems in use now? Perhaps they can.

Using this algorithm, here’s the current ranking of college football teams as of today. (With great pride, I note that Stanford is ranked #4.) These rankings certainly don’t exactly match the latest AP poll or BCS rankings, but they’re also still reasonable and defensible.