Litkenhous Ratings "Out of business for the forseeable future"

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

Here are a few Courier Journal articles from back when they were introducing their new "Dr. E.E. Litkenhous Difference By Score Ratings" back in September 1936. I know they're primarily talking about college football in the articles, but it's interesting to hear about the approach they took. Plus there are some cool vintage ads and pictures, haha.

 

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

[tcjkbt]

I hate to see Dr. Lit go. He was one of the first to rank teams by mathematical formula.

[Roundsteak]

That Stetson Ellington would cost around $136.00 today.

[The Scribe]

I think we are giving newspapers too much credit here. With all of their ownership changes and technology changes, I'm sure Nick Burns the company's new computer guy came in and cleaned house from the server and didn't realize that by pressing F10, he was deleting the files associated with Lit and the formulas.

[theguru]

I think we are giving newspapers too much credit here. With all of their ownership changes and technology changes, I'm sure Nick Burns the company's new computer guy came in and cleaned house from the server and didn't realize that by pressing F10, he was deleting the files associated with Lit and the formulas.

 

I don't understand what you mean by giving newspapers too much credit here?

[Ram]

I thought the Lit ratings were fairly accurate by the end of the regular season.

This is what everyone always said about the Lit Ratings. By the end of the season, we all know how good a team is. Do we really need a computer program to tell us who is good after all the games are played?

[Hatz]

This is what everyone always said about the Lit Ratings. By the end of the season, we all know how good a team is. Do we really need a computer program to tell us who is good after all the games are played?

 

I had a lot of issues sometimes with Lit, even at the end of seasons. I recall in 1979 Boyle was listed behind four teams we had actually defeated.

[JDEaston]

This is what everyone always said about the Lit Ratings. By the end of the season, we all know how good a team is. Do we really need a computer program to tell us who is good after all the games are played?

 

The computer rankings in general aren't as accurate as BGP rankings or other rankings based on human judgment and teams passing the eye test. But to be fair they are pretty accurate the last third of a season.

 

That said, it would be nice to see BGP rankings published in some of the statewide newspapers, though I doubt most newspapers would go for it.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

This is definitely the time of year I'm going to miss seeing the LIT ratings the most. Here's hoping they can revive them someday.

[sweet16]

The computer rankings in general aren't as accurate as BGP rankings or other rankings based on human judgment and teams passing the eye test. But to be fair they are pretty accurate the last third of a season.

 

That said, it would be nice to see BGP rankings published in some of the statewide newspapers, though I doubt most newspapers would go for it.

 

It’s usually better than the AP rankings.

[JDEaston]

It’s usually better than the AP rankings.

 

For sure hah. My 8 year old could likely compile a comparable list as them and she would likely just put her favorite mascots in order for her list.

[Tigerpride94]

My ratings are similar to Litkenhous ratings. I discovered in HS study hall that if you take the ratings of teams played and average it then add avg margin victory that it was same number in Litkenhous published ratings. The mystery is what was used as starting rating. 

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

The CJ published an article this morning that explained what happened to the Litkenhous ratings.

Remember those dang Litkenhous Ratings? Here's what happened to them.

Long story short...the paper had at the ratings formula computerized in 2004. Then in 2016 the code needed to be re-written because of computer advances. There were some bugs in the system recognized sometime after the 2016 code translation, and it wasn't clear if the bugs were present in the original 2004 code or if they were part of the 2016 update, or both. The CJ threw money at trying to do some basic bug patching on the Litratings code, but it was only basically enough to stick their finger in the dam a handful of times over.

Sounds like all of the code needs to be revamped and rewritten from scratch but the CJ doesn't have the means to fix that.