Advertisement

Operational Research

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 279–295 | Cite as

Crowd-Ranking: a Markov-based method for ranking alternatives

  • Baback VaziriEmail author
  • Shaunak Dabadghao
  • Yuehwern Yih
  • Thomas L. Morin
  • Mark Lehto
Original Paper
  • 263 Downloads

Abstract

Many ranking algorithms rank a set of alternatives based on their performance in a set of pairwise comparisons. In this study, a special scenario is observed in which the objective is to rate and rank a set of groups in a traditional recruiting situation, in which the groups extend offers to the set of individuals, and the individuals will select one of their available offers. The new ranking method, Crowd-Ranking, uses collective wisdom and decision-making in conjunction with Markov chains to create competitive matches between alternatives and ultimately provide a ranking of the alternatives. First, the method is evaluated by its performance in a perfect season scenario. Next, it is applied to the case of NCAA football recruiting in the power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12 and SEC) in the Football Bowl Subdivision. For the Big Ten conference, the method performs significantly better than popular existing services at predicting future team performance based on past recruiting rankings. For a comprehensive national ranking of the power conferences, there is no statistically significant difference between Crowd-Ranking and the other methods.

Keywords

Decision making Markov chains Ranking Crowds 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Thomas Hagebols for his contribution in gathering the data for the national ranking. The authors would also like to thank anonymous referees for helping to improve the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Balinski M, Laraki R (2014) Judge: don’t Vote! Oper Res 62(3):483–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Netw ISDN Syst 33:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callaghan T, Mucha PJ, Porter MA (2007) Random walker ranking for NCAA division I-A football. Am Math Mon 114(9):761–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chartier TP, Kreutzer E, Langville AN, Pedings KE (2011) Sensitivity and stability of ranking vectors. SIAM J Sci Comput 33(3):1077–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colley WN (2002) Colley’s bias free college football ranking method: the Colley matrix explained. www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf
  6. David HA (1971) Ranking the players in a round robin tournament. Rev Int Stat Inst 39(2):137–147. doi: 10.2307/1402170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elo AE (1961) The new U.S.C.F rating system. Chess Life 16:160–161Google Scholar
  8. Govan AY (2008) Ranking theory with application to popular sports. Dissertation, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Herm S, Callsen-Bracker H, Kreis H (2014) When the crowd evaluates soccer players’ market values: accuracy and evaluation attributes of an online community. Sports Manag Rev 17(4):484–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keener JP (1993) The Perron–Frobenius theorem and the ranking of football teams. SIAM Rev 35(1):80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendall MG, Smith BB (1940) On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 31:324–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kvam P, Sokol JS (2006) A logistic regression/Markov chain model for NCAA basketball. Nav Res Logist 53:788–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langville AN, Meyer CD (2006) Google’s PageRank and beyond: the science of search engine rankings. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Langville AN, Meyer CD (2012) Who’s#1? The science of rating and ranking. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Massey K (1997) Statistical models applied to the rating of sports teams. Bachelor’s Thesis, Bluefield CollegeGoogle Scholar
  16. Rivals. Retrieved Jan 2017, http://www.rivals.com
  17. Scout. Retrieved Jan 2017, http://www.scout.com
  18. Sports. Retrieved Jan 2017, http://www.247sports.com
  19. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. INFORMS 32(7):841–855Google Scholar
  21. Saaty TL (1987) Rank according to Perron: a new insight. Math Mag 60(4):211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baback Vaziri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shaunak Dabadghao
    • 2
  • Yuehwern Yih
    • 3
  • Thomas L. Morin
    • 3
  • Mark Lehto
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Information Systems and Business Analytics, College of BusinessJames Madison UniversityHarrisonburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.School of Industrial EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations