This year, the magazines are rated in several separate categories (for example: past prediction accuracy, quality of information, quantity of information). The categories are assigned various weights, and the weighted ratings are combined into a total score. The total score is turned into an overall rating. The overall ratings are computed partially "on a curve." (For that reason, the overall score of a magazine depends on the distribution of weighted totals of all magazines. Thus, there is not a simple mathematical formula to derive the overall score from the individual scores of a single magazine.)

Note: I grade the magazines on the features which are important to me. This does not mean that the same features will be important to you. Hopefully the reviews (especially the detailed information on each magazine) supply enough information that you can pick out the magazines that you will like best -- even if your priorities do not match mine.

In the first table (ratings) the magazines are rated in several categories. Each category is scored zero to four stars.

• Pred Acc - The accuracy of predictions in previous years, scored relative to other magazines' predictions. My "accuracy" assessments of conference predictions are the source of this rating. Accuracy over a period of several years is used in preference to just the previous year's data, if the given magazine has been around for that long. [Weighting: High]
• Info Qual. - The quality of per-team information presented. In order to earn a top rating, the magazine's information must be:
  • DETAILED: The best magazines pack a large quantity of useful and relevant information into each paragraph. The worst magazines consist mostly of generic "fluff" -- lots of words but little real content.
  • CORRECT: The best magazines contain no (or at least very few) false statements. The worst magazines may have a very large number of minor errors (e.g., getting players' names wrong) or even several major errors (e.g., omitting one or more teams from a conference).
  • CURRENT: The best magazines account for the results of spring football. The worst magazines contain text that could have been written in February.
  • CONSISTENT: The best magazines are internally consistent. The worst magazines make self-contradictory predictions for players (e.g., a first-team all-America player who is not all-Conference) or teams (e.g., a team picked #1 in the national top 25 but not picked to win their own conference).

  Note that it is possible for a total failure in any of these four sub-categories to result in a zero-star rating for the Information Quality category. If there is no information content, it does not really matter whether the authors attended spring practice. If the text is riddled with major errors, it does not really matter whether detail is presented because it cannot be trusted. [Weighting: High]

• Info Qty. - The quantity of information per team. The best magazines devote a full page per team; the worst devote a couple of paragraphs to the majority of I-A teams. The judgement is made on the basis of the average space devoted to each I-A team. For example, if there is abundant coverage of the top 25 teams, but greatly reduced coverage of all other I-A teams, then deductions will be made. [Weighting: Medium]
• I-A Cover - The completeness of I-A coverage, in terms of teams covered. Deductions are made for failure to cover the MAC, Big West, C-USA, or minor I-A independents. [Weighting: Medium]
• Recap Info - Quantity and quality of previous year's information: overall records, conference order of finish, individual game scores, etc. [Weighting: Low]
• Price - The cost of the magazine compared to all others surveyed. Lower prices get higher ratings. [Weighting: Low]
• When Found - The date when I was able to track down the magazine. May not match the official release date or the date when the magazine showed up in most places. When the data is in BLUE, it is the date that the magazine arrived via mail-order.

Note: Since some of these ratings are scored relative to all magazines, they can change as data for more magazines are entered. (For example: the at the end of June, the most expensive magazine that I found that month would rate zero stars for price. But if many of the magazines found in July and August turned out to be even more expensive than that, its price rating would have to be adjusted upwards.)

In the second table, an overview of the magazines' features is given. The meaning of values in the fields vary, and are discussed below.

• Coverage : pgs. per team - The total space given to the discussion of each team, in pages. If the per-team coverage varies, the space given to the majority of teams is listed.
• Coverage : Reduced Coverage - Lists the I-A teams or conferences which get noticeably reduced coverage (i.e., less than the number of pages in the previous column). MAC and BW are used as abbreviations for the Mid-American and Big West conferences, respectively.
• Coverage : No Coverage - Lists the I-A teams or conferences that are not covered in the magazine at all.
• Word Count : Major Team - A rough count of the words of description devoted to a team near the top of a major conference. The count is made for one sample team (in 2001 the "major" team was Tennessee), estimated by counting a few hundred words and then computing total column space, and rounded off... but it should give an idea of the amount of textual discussion that the various magazines have.
• Word Count : Minor Team - A rough count of the words of description devoted to a team near the bottom of a minor conference. The count is made for one sample team (in 2001 the "minor" team was Ball State), estimated by counting a few hundred words and then computing total column space, and rounded off... but it should give an idea of the amount of textual discussion that the various magazines have.
• Lists : Proj. Roster - Indicates whether or not the magazine projects the starting roster of each covered team. Values in this field include "1" (starters only), "2" (two-deep), "L" (lists of key players but no projected lineup), or "M" (mentions projected starters for every position in the text, but does not have a projected lineup table).
• Lists : Nat'l Rank - The number of teams ranked in the national ranking. Most magazines rank at least 25 I-A teams; some rank all teams.
• Lists : All USA / All Conf. - The depth of the all-conference/all-America teams. For example, if a magazine presents a three-deep all-America team (three players at each position) then there will be "3" in its column. Some magazines give long lists of the best players at each position, but do not list the same number of players for every position. These are indicated by a range (e.g., "10-25"). The mark "H" is given to those magazines which (in addition to the number specified) have an un-sorted "honorable mention" category per position.
• Lists : Units - The number of national "best units" (e.g., top offensive lines). The mark "C" is given to those magazines which (in addition to national unit rankings) rank teams' units within each conference.
• Recap : Final Polls - Indicates which (if any) of the previous year's final media or coaches polls are printed in the magazine.
• Recap : Conf. Finish - Indicates whether or not final I-A conference finishes from the previous year are given.
• Recap : Game Scores - Indicates roughly what portion of the previous year's game scores are given.
• Other : Recr. Pgs. - The number of pages of recruiting information. The mark "+" is given to those magazines which have additional recruiting information that is spread out throughout the magazine (e.g., in each team's section) not included in the page count.
• Other : I-AA Pgs. - The number of pages devoted to I-AA coverage (if blank there is no I-AA coverage except maybe for schedules). The special mark "S" is used to indicate that only Some I-AA teams are covered.