The page that lists the final rankings/ratings when the Overtake and Feedback algorithm (OAF) is applied to previous college football season's can be found here. This specifics of this algorithm are spelled out in the 2004 February issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. (A quick summary of the mechanics of this can be found here.) How well OAF has performed, in comparison to the seven computer rating systems (that were part of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) in 2003) when predicting bowl games, can be found below. (Here are the most recent Ratings using OAF.)

This algorithm was "created" in July and August of 2002, and seems to capture a team's level of success during the year more than measuring its relative strength against the competition, which is probably why it correlates fairly well with the AP and coaches' year end polls. It was designed with that effect in mind in an attempt to quantitatively evaluate who had the best season versus attempting to determine which team is the best. An undefeated team that only defeats weaker competition will not be ranked too highly at the end of the season, e.g. Tulane was 12-0 in 1998, but only finished ranked #25 by the OAF algorithm. In some respect, strength of schedule factors in naturally during the application of the OAF algorithm, even though there is no value directly computed and used in the algorithm that measures how tough a team's opponents were that year...

OAF - Overtake and Feedback                WC - Wes Colley                JS - Jeff Sagarin

A&H - Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester    KM - Kenneth Massey        PW - Peter Wolfe

RB - Richard Billingsley                         LV - Las Vegas Line

* Ranks and Picks for the rating system published in the NY Times are included in 2002-2003, since that system was part of the BCS formula through 2004, and it also appeared in Kenneth Massey's Comparison page (where more systems can be found), and the final, pre-bowl top 25 from that paper provided the partial selections in 2004. (It is no longer included in those two sets of pages.) I have also compiled an analysis of all such systems posted on Massey's page, with regards to the bowl games played after the 2002 season to the present.  Those results can be found here. A small summary from those results is posted below. (More about each system might be found at the web page linked to each system's full name that appears near the top of Kenneth's page.) The system developed by Kambour has a 6 game lead over the PerformanZ system. (As seen above, the Las Vegas line also selected 176 winners.)

(In 2003, I incorrectly copied several ratings from Massey's comparison page, affecting one prediction for each of three systems, so I have placed those corrections on a separate error page to not disturb the time stamp on the "All Ranks" pages above, for validation purposes. The "All Picks" pages have the corrected selections.)