Litkenhous Ratings
mathematical system for ranking sports teams
The Litkenhous Difference by Score Ratings system was a mathematical system used to rank football and basketball teams. The Litrating system was developed by Vanderbilt University professor Edward Earl ("E.E.") Litkenhous Jr. (1907 – December 22, 1984) and his brother, Francis H. Litkenhous (December 9, 1912 – June 22, 1996).
Edward Litkenhous (1907-1984) received an undergraduate degree from the University of Louisville and a doctorate from the University of Minnesota. He began his career as a professor of chemical engineering at the Speed Scientific School of the University of Louisville. He later became a professor at Vanderbilt University and served as head of that school's engineering department. He died in 1984.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football records book includes the Litkenhous Ratings as a "major selector" of college football national championships for the seasons 1934 through 1984.
College football national champions
Teams in the following table were ranked No. 1 by the Litkenhous Difference by Score Ratings system.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Litkenhous Ratings” as mathematical system for ranking sports teams. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as mathematical system for ranking sports teams. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 10, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q116449474. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1907, 1984, 1912 and 1996.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Litkenhous Ratings”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Litkenhous Ratings primary sources, Litkenhous Ratings archive and Litkenhous research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Litkenhous Ratings”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Litkenhous Ratings” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.