Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  My Mid-Season College Football Rankings (UPDATED RE-RANK)

Topic:  My Mid-Season College Football Rankings (UPDATED RE-RANK)
Author
Message
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  My Mid-Season College Football Rankings (UPDATED RE-RANK)
   Posted: 10/21/2014 9:09:33 PM 
(UPDATE: Re-rank based on new, additional, criteria)

So last week I chopped up historical college football win-loss data back to the start of Solich's OHIO career.

This week I decided to work with the data a little more and develop an objective ranking system of FBS teams.

Award Criteria:

- Fraction of 1 Point (Pt) Equivalent to Team Win Percentage (less than or equal to 1 Pt total)

- 1 Pt awarded for each win vs a team with 0.500 Record

- 1 Pt awarded for each win vs a team with a winning record + Incremental Point Fraction Bonus (IPFB)

-IPFB can add up to 1 pt per win over winning record teams with win(s) over other winning teams. This is a relative point fraction bonus distributed over the complete range of wins vs winning teams. For example, a number of teams such as USC, Boston College, and Arizona have wins against a team that has three (3) unique wins against other winning teams. USC, BC, Arizona, et al, lead the FBS with this achievement and currently receive a full 1 Pt Incremental Point Fraction Bonus. Florida has only 1 win over a team who also beat 1 team with a winning record. Florida currently receives 0.33 IPFB for that win. This is a variable incremental bonus that will remain a function of results as the season progresses.

(UPDATE: Additional Criteria)

-"Strong Loss Bonus": 1 Pt awarded total to teams with zero losses. 1 Pt awarded for teams that only have losses to Top 16 teams by one possession. 1/2 Pt awarded for teams that only have losses to Top 32 teams by one possession. Only one SLB can be recieved. Therefore teams either have 1 Pt, 1/2 Pt, or 0 SLB. (SLBs are based on rankings before SLBs are awarded. Teams are then re-ranked)

-Scores are now ranked "per attempt" (or per game played)

-Scores are referred to as Objective Points Per Attempt++ (OPPA++). The two pluses represent the IPFB and SLB bonuses

I would be happy to discuss my methodology further with anyone who expresses interest. I'm certainly open to criticism. I really just did this for fun, no ulterior motive here. I personally think Jeff Sagarin produces rankings with logically indefensible biases in favor traditional power conferences. Similar biases exist in the other computer ranking systems I'm familiar with so I decided to make my own.

In only the most limited sense do I expect these rankings to serve as a predictor of future games. I don't believe predicting outcomes is a fruitful task (kind of like working on a time machine). There's quite a lot of football left to play.

I expect some will look at these mid-season ranking and raise an eyebrow at Colorado State at #11 or Alabama at #17. I believe this order is defensible by the criteria defined above. Every team is evaluated by the same blind standard.

(Take at notice how Saragin and the other computer rankings go out of their way to weigh down non-power conference teams and prop up power conference teams).

RNK --- OPPA++ --- SAGARIN ---- TEAM

1 ------ 1.500 ------- 4 ------- Mississippi State (6-0)
2 ------ 1.333 ------- 1 ------- Mississippi (7-0)
3 ------ 1.083 ------- 28 ------- Arizona (5-1)
4 ------ 1.069 ------- 3 ------- Auburn (5-1)
5 ------ 1.027 ------- 9 ------- Oregon (6-1)
6 ------ 1.000 ------- 10 ------- Florida State (7-0)
7 ------ 0.900 ------- 20 ------- UCLA (5-2)
8 ------ 0.888 ------- 19 ------- Southern California (5-2)
9 ------ 0.861 ------- 14 ------- Kansas State (5-1)
10 ------ 0.861 ------- 5 ------- Georgia (6-1)
11 ------ 0.857 ------- 31 ------- Marshall (7-0)
12 ------ 0.816 ------- 26 ------- Missouri (5-2)
13 ------ 0.806 ------- 7 ------- TCU (5-1)
13 ------ 0.806 ------- 22 ------- Utah (5-1)
15 ------ 0.789 ------- 2 ------- Alabama (6-1)
15 ------ 0.789 ------- 15 ------- Notre Dame (6-1)
17 ------ 0.778 ------- 48 ------- Penn State (4-2)
18 ------ 0.777 ------- 56 ------- Colorado State (6-1)
19 ------ 0.771 ------- 13 ------- Ohio State (5-1)
20 ------ 0.769 ------- 43 ------- Boise State (5-2)
21 ------ 0.739 ------- 17 ------- Clemson (5-2)
22 ------ 0.736 ------- 23 ------- Arizona State (5-1)
23 ------ 0.682 ------- 45 ------- Minnesota (6-1)
24 ------ 0.653 ------- 38 ------- Miami (FL) (4-3)
24 ------ 0.653 ------- 59 ------- Nevada (4-3)
26 ------ 0.653 ------- 50 ------- UCF (4-2)
27 ------ 0.650 ------- 6 ------- Oklahoma (5-2)
28 ------ 0.626 ------- 51 ------- Kentucky (5-2)
29 ------ 0.625 ------- 12 ------- LSU (6-2)
30 ------ 0.616 ------- 36 ------- Duke (6-1)
31 ------ 0.605 ------- 35 ------- Virginia Tech (4-3)
32 ------ 0.582 ------- 54 ------- Virginia (4-3)
33 ------ 0.578 ------- 52 ------- Georgia Tech (5-2)
34 ------ 0.558 ------- 53 ------- Pittsburgh (4-3)
35 ------ 0.556 ------- 57 ------- Arkansas State (4-2)
36 ------ 0.549 ------- 39 ------- East Carolina (5-1)
37 ------ 0.537 ------- 61 ------- Northwestern (3-4)
38 ------ 0.531 ------- 29 ------- Louisville (6-2)
39 ------ 0.528 ------- 55 ------- Boston College (4-3)
40 ------ 0.510 ------- 44 ------- BYU (4-3)
40 ------ 0.510 ------- 33 ------- South Carolina (4-3)
40 ------ 0.510 ------- 60 ------- Utah State (4-3)
43 ------ 0.503 ------- 8 ------- Baylor (6-1)
43 ------ 0.503 ------- 18 ------- Nebraska (6-1)
45 ------ 0.491 ------- 11 ------- Michigan State (6-1)
46 ------ 0.490 ------- 30 ------- Tennessee (3-4)
47 ------ 0.483 ------- 24 ------- West Virginia (5-2)
48 ------ 0.472 ------- 49 ------- Memphis (3-3)
49 ------ 0.469 ------- 16 ------- Texas A&M (5-3)
50 ------ 0.442 ------- 58 ------- North Carolina (3-4)
51 ------ 0.435 ------- 42 ------- Iowa (5-2)
52 ------ 0.422 ------- 66 ------- Iowa State (2-5)
53 ------ 0.415 ------- 68 ------- Toledo (4-3)
53 ------ 0.415 ------- 69 ------- Louisiana Tech (4-3)
55 ------ 0.388 ------- 113 ------- Air Force (5-2)
56 ------ 0.367 ------- 67 ------- Houston (4-3)
57 ------ 0.361 ------- 25 ------- Wisconsin (4-2)
58 ------ 0.354 ------- 112 ------- Central Michigan (4-4)
59 ------ 0.347 ------- 80 ------- Indiana (3-4)
59 ------ 0.347 ------- 70 ------- Michigan (3-4)
59 ------ 0.347 ------- 93 ------- Navy (3-4)
59 ------ 0.347 ------- 27 ------- Florida (3-4)
63 ------ 0.340 ------- 40 ------- Maryland (5-2)
64 ------ 0.320 ------- 97 ------- Akron (4-3)
64 ------ 0.320 ------- 21 ------- Stanford (4-3)
66 ------ 0.319 ------- 46 ------- Oregon State (4-2)
67 ------ 0.306 ------- 64 ------- Cincinnati (3-3)
68 ------ 0.281 ------- 34 ------- Oklahoma State (5-2)
69 ------ 0.281 ------- 81 ------- Rutgers (5-2)
70 ------ 0.279 ------- 71 ------- Washington State (2-5)
70 ------ 0.279 ------- 108 ------- Texas-San Antonio (2-5)
72 ------ 0.278 ------- 96 ------- Western Kentucky (2-4)
73 ------ 0.252 ------- 121 ------- Wyoming (3-4)
73 ------ 0.252 ------- 101 ------- Illinois (3-4)
75 ------ 0.250 ------- 102 ------- Louisiana-Lafayette (3-3)
76 ------ 0.245 ------- 41 ------- Washington (5-2)
77 ------ 0.245 ------- 114 ------- Bowling Green (5-3)
77 ------ 0.245 ------- 95 ------- Middle Tennessee (5-3)
79 ------ 0.229 ------- 139 ------- OHIO (4-4)
80 ------ 0.224 ------- 99 ------- Western Michigan (4-3)
80 ------ 0.224 ------- 63 ------- California (4-3)
82 ------ 0.214 ------- 85 ------- Purdue (3-5)
83 ------ 0.204 ------- 32 ------- Arkansas (3-4)
83 ------ 0.204 ------- 65 ------- Syracuse (3-4)
83 ------ 0.204 ------- 73 ------- Texas Tech (3-4)
86 ------ 0.197 ------- 92 ------- Northern Illinois (5-2)
87 ------ 0.184 ------- 115 ------- Ball State (2-5)
87 ------ 0.184 ------- 123 ------- Kansas (2-5)
89 ------ 0.172 ------- 130 ------- FIU (3-5)
89 ------ 0.172 ------- 90 ------- Fresno State (3-5)
91 ------ 0.156 ------- 47 ------- Texas (3-4)
92 ------ 0.156 ------- 125 ------- Florida Atlantic (3-4)
93 ------ 0.139 ------- 86 ------- San Jose State (3-3)
94 ------ 0.132 ------- 107 ------- South Alabama (4-2)
95 ------ 0.129 ------- 106 ------- UAB (4-3)
96 ------ 0.111 ------- 79 ------- Temple (4-2)
97 ------ 0.104 ------- 136 ------- Louisiana-Monroe (3-3)
98 ------ 0.088 ------- 118 ------- Hawai'i (2-5)
98 ------ 0.088 ------- 163 ------- UNLV (2-5)
98 ------ 0.088 ------- 143 ------- New Mexico (2-5)
101 ------ 0.083 ------- 83 ------- Rice (3-3)
101 ------ 0.083 ------- 145 ------- Texas State (3-3)
101 ------ 0.083 ------- 126 ------- UTEP (3-3)
104 ------ 0.082 ------- 82 ------- San Diego State (4-3)
105 ------ 0.073 ------- 176 ------- Idaho (2-6)
106 ------ 0.063 ------- 75 ------- NC State (4-4)
107 ------ 0.061 ------- 142 ------- Buffalo (3-4)
107 ------ 0.061 ------- 116 ------- South Florida (3-4)
107 ------ 0.061 ------- 134 ------- Southern Miss (3-4)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 161 ------- Army (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 91 ------- Colorado (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 210 ------- Eastern Michigan (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 146 ------- North Texas (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 135 ------- Tulane (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 119 ------- Vanderbilt (2-5)
110 ------ 0.041 ------- 144 ------- Wake Forest (2-5)
117 ------ 0.031 ------- 160 ------- Massachusetts (2-6)
117 ------ 0.031 ------- 195 ------- New Mexico State (2-6)
119 ------ 0.028 ------- 156 ------- Connecticut (1-5)
120 ------ 0.020 ------- 191 ------- Georgia State (1-6)
120 ------ 0.020 ------- 173 ------- Kent State (1-6)
120 ------ 0.020 ------- 189 ------- Troy (1-6)
120 ------ 0.020 ------- 165 ------- Tulsa (1-6)
124 ------ 0.016 ------- 164 ------- Miami (OH) (1-7)
125 ------ 0.000 ------- 181 ------- SMU (0-6)

Last Edited: 10/25/2014 10:32:16 AM by The Situation

Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/21/2014 9:15:43 PM 
END OF YEAR 2013-2014 RANKINGS (MY RANKINGS FIRST COLUMN)

RNK --- OPPA++ --- SAGARIN --- TEAM


1 ------ 1.031 ------- 1 ------- Florida State (14-0)
2 ------ 0.990 ------- 3 ------- Stanford (11-3)
3 ------ 0.939 ------- 2 ------- Auburn (12-2)
4 ------ 0.922 ------- 6 ------- South Carolina (11-2)
5 ------ 0.816 ------- 7 ------- Missouri (12-2)
6 ------ 0.811 ------- 4 ------- Michigan State (13-1)
7 ------ 0.757 ------- 15 ------- Clemson (11-2)
7 ------ 0.757 ------- 9 ------- Oklahoma (11-2)
9 ------ 0.740 ------- 32 ------- Virginia Tech (8-5)
10 ------ 0.724 ------- 14 ------- Arizona State (10-4)
11 ------ 0.724 ------- 25 ------- Notre Dame (9-4)
12 ------ 0.708 ------- 11 ------- Oklahoma State (10-3)
13 ------ 0.704 ------- 29 ------- Southern California (10-4)
14 ------ 0.697 ------- 16 ------- UCLA (10-3)
15 ------ 0.691 ------- 5 ------- Alabama (11-2)
16 ------ 0.674 ------- 31 ------- Brigham Young (8-5)
17 ------ 0.669 ------- 8 ------- Baylor (11-2)
18 ------ 0.633 ------- 10 ------- Ohio State (12-2)
19 ------ 0.614 ------- 20 ------- Texas A&M (9-4)
20 ------ 0.609 ------- 12 ------- UCF (12-1)
21 ------ 0.575 ------- 26 ------- Ole Miss (8-5)
22 ------ 0.565 ------- 17 ------- LSU (10-3)
23 ------ 0.564 ------- 21 ------- Georgia (8-5)
24 ------ 0.561 ------- 22 ------- Duke (10-4)
25 ------ 0.527 ------- 13 ------- Oregon (11-2)
26 ------ 0.525 ------- 48 ------- Georgia Tech (7-6)
26 ------ 0.525 ------- 55 ------- Pittsburgh (7-6)
28 ------ 0.515 ------- 28 ------- Washington (9-4)
29 ------ 0.505 ------- 23 ------- Louisville (12-1)
30 ------ 0.493 ------- 62 ------- La.-Lafayette (9-4)
30 ------ 0.493 ------- 33 ------- Miami (Fla.) (9-4)
32 ------ 0.475 ------- 60 ------- Utah (5-7)
33 ------ 0.459 ------- 35 ------- Mississippi State (7-6)
34 ------ 0.458 ------- 81 ------- South Alabama (6-6)
35 ------ 0.454 ------- 41 ------- Arizona (8-5)
36 ------ 0.453 ------- 45 ------- Toledo (7-5)
37 ------ 0.444 ------- 52 ------- East Carolina (10-3)
38 ------ 0.443 ------- 73 ------- Arkansas State (8-5)
39 ------ 0.437 ------- 64 ------- Syracuse (7-6)
40 ------ 0.437 ------- 57 ------- North Carolina (7-6)
41 ------ 0.432 ------- 38 ------- Minnesota (8-5)
42 ------ 0.429 ------- 24 ------- Fresno State (12-2)
43 ------ 0.427 ------- 58 ------- North Texas (9-4)
44 ------ 0.425 ------- 69 ------- Western Kentucky (8-4)
45 ------ 0.418 ------- 18 ------- Northern Illinois (12-2)
46 ------ 0.416 ------- 49 ------- Navy (9-4)
46 ------ 0.416 ------- 19 ------- Wisconsin (9-4)
48 ------ 0.408 ------- 44 ------- Rice (10-4)
49 ------ 0.406 ------- 53 ------- Penn State (7-5)
50 ------ 0.398 ------- 59 ------- Marshall (10-4)
51 ------ 0.392 ------- 65 ------- Tennessee (5-7)
52 ------ 0.383 ------- 37 ------- Nebraska (9-4)
53 ------ 0.377 ------- 36 ------- Texas (8-5)
54 ------ 0.366 ------- 30 ------- Iowa (8-5)
55 ------ 0.360 ------- 40 ------- Michigan (7-6)
56 ------ 0.349 ------- 72 ------- Tulane (7-6)
57 ------ 0.344 ------- 43 ------- Kansas State (8-5)
58 ------ 0.327 ------- 78 ------- Louisiana-Monroe (6-6)
59 ------ 0.327 ------- 27 ------- Bowling Green (10-4)
60 ------ 0.315 ------- 79 ------- Troy (6-6)
61 ------ 0.311 ------- 68 ------- San Diego State (8-5)
62 ------ 0.301 ------- 67 ------- Utah State (9-5)
63 ------ 0.299 ------- 39 ------- Washington State (6-7)
64 ------ 0.287 ------- 73 ------- Texas-San Antonio (7-5)
65 ------ 0.273 ------- 34 ------- Vanderbilt (9-4)
66 ------ 0.273 ------- 66 ------- Indiana (5-7)
67 ------ 0.272 ------- 51 ------- Boston College (7-6)
67 ------ 0.272 ------- 71 ------- Ohio (7-6)
69 ------ 0.268 ------- 83 ------- San Jose State (6-6)
70 ------ 0.267 ------- 56 ------- Texas Tech (8-5)
71 ------ 0.256 ------- 46 ------- Houston (8-5)
72 ------ 0.246 ------- 42 ------- Ball State (10-3)
73 ------ 0.239 ------- 47 ------- Oregon State (7-6)
74 ------ 0.234 ------- 70 ------- Middle Tennessee (8-5)
75 ------ 0.217 ------- 76 ------- UNLV (7-6)
76 ------ 0.184 ------- 75 ------- Maryland (7-6)
77 ------ 0.183 ------- 95 ------- West Virginia (4-8)
78 ------ 0.169 ------- 103 ------- Virginia (2-10)
79 ------ 0.166 ------- 63 ------- Northwestern (5-7)
80 ------ 0.157 ------- 50 ------- Boise State (8-5)
81 ------ 0.154 ------- 85 ------- Akron (5-7)
82 ------ 0.152 ------- 53 ------- Cincinnati (9-4)
83 ------ 0.149 ------- 84 ------- Central Michigan (6-6)
83 ------ 0.149 ------- 87 ------- Florida Atlantic (6-6)
85 ------ 0.147 ------- 61 ------- Florida (4-8)
86 ------ 0.146 ------- 54 ------- Buffalo (8-5)
87 ------ 0.140 ------- 82 ------- Arkansas (3-9)
88 ------ 0.135 ------- 89 ------- Kent State (4-8)
89 ------ 0.125 ------- 93 ------- Texas State (6-6)
90 ------ 0.123 ------- 80 ------- Illinois (4-8)
90 ------ 0.123 ------- 88 ------- Wake Forest (4-8)
92 ------ 0.116 ------- 100 ------- Memphis (3-9)
93 ------ 0.111 ------- 94 ------- Nevada (4-8)
94 ------ 0.109 ------- 110 ------- South Florida (2-10)
95 ------ 0.104 ------- 96 ------- North Carolina State (3-9)
96 ------ 0.041 ------- 92 ------- Colorado State (8-6)
97 ------ 0.036 ------- 86 ------- Rutgers (6-7)
98 ------ 0.035 ------- 90 ------- Southern Methodist (5-7)
98 ------ 0.035 ------- 102 ------- Wyoming (5-7)
100 ------ 0.028 ------- 109 ------- Louisiana Tech (4-8)
100 ------ 0.028 ------- 74 ------- TCU (4-8)
102 ------ 0.024 ------- 77 ------- Colorado (4-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 108 ------- Army (3-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 98 ------- Connecticut (3-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 91 ------- Iowa State (3-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 97 ------- Kansas (3-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 105 ------- New Mexico (3-9)
103 ------ 0.021 ------- 99 ------- Tulsa (3-9)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 112 ------- Air Force (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 106 ------- UAB (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 107 ------- Eastern Michigan (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 101 ------- Kentucky (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 113 ------- New Mexico State (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 111 ------- Temple (2-10)
109 ------ 0.014 ------- 117 ------- Texas-El Paso (2-10)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 104 ------- California (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 119 ------- Florida International (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 115 ------- Hawaii (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 116 ------- Idaho (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 120 ------- Massachusetts (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 114 ------- Purdue (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 121 ------- Southern Mississippi (1-11)
116 ------ 0.007 ------- 118 ------- Western Michigan (1-11)
124 ------ 0.000 ------- 122 ------- Georgia State (0-12)
124 ------ 0.000 ------- 122 ------- Miami (Ohio) (0-12)

Last Edited: 10/22/2014 6:18:53 PM by The Situation

Back to Top
  
MonroeClassmate
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 1,994

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/21/2014 9:59:43 PM 
Don't know what type of modification could be used to remove the clear errors. No way after the Badgers destroyed the Falcons can BGSU be ranked that much higher than the Badgers. So too OHIO; seems that OHIO gets a BIG boost by losing to KY and Marshall while only having one "quality win" cough--over the Zips. Kent and Idaho are bottom feeders.

Nice to see O$U which lost at HOME to a 4-3 team and because of schedule has not beat anyone that the top tier MAC teams could not have also beat, is ranked out of the top 25.

Can UoMichigan turn their program around in the next five years or have the last few years put them in the permanent pretender class?
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/21/2014 10:12:21 PM 
Losing has no affect on teams in my ranking system (like getting the wrong answer on the ACT).

I know where you're coming from MC; take the Notre Dame team for example.

I watched the game Saturday; Notre Dame is clearly a top 5 team both now and likely end of year. But Notre Dame's placement at #37 in my ranking system is no error. That's the result of consistently applying a rule.

So when you see BG ahead of Wisconsin, is that fair? I say yes.

Is it fair that none of OSU 66 points against Kent State helped them against Va Tech? I would argue yes. (and admittedly I take delight in seeing them ranked so low without any foul play)

Again, this isn't a predictor. And the season isn't finished. I think most of us would embrace an accurate crystal ball with open arms, but I just don't think that's possible.

It is possible however to create a transparent ranking system where people can debate the application of criteria, and analyze how specific teams are affected accordingly.

Last Edited: 10/21/2014 10:20:11 PM by The Situation

Back to Top
  
Ubish
General User

Member Since: 10/22/2014
Post Count: 3

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/22/2014 6:56:40 PM 
The Situation wrote:
Losing has no affect on teams in my ranking system (like getting the wrong answer on the ACT).

I know where you're coming from MC; take the Notre Dame team for example.

I watched the game Saturday; Notre Dame is clearly a top 5 team both now and likely end of year. But Notre Dame's placement at #37 in my ranking system is no error. That's the result of consistently applying a rule.

So when you see BG ahead of Wisconsin, is that fair? I say yes.

Is it fair that none of OSU 66 points against Kent State helped them against Va Tech? I would argue yes. (and admittedly I take delight in seeing them ranked so low without any foul play)

Again, this isn't a predictor. And the season isn't finished. I think most of us would embrace an accurate crystal ball with open arms, but I just don't think that's possible.

It is possible however to create a transparent ranking system where people can debate the application of criteria, and analyze how specific teams are affected accordingly.


This is a similar idea to the pairwise system in College Hockey. The formulas are available and transparent and every team knows what they need to do at the end of the year to get into the tournament. It's really a great system and I wish college football had something similar

Last Edited: 10/22/2014 6:57:05 PM by Ubish

Back to Top
  
Ozcat
General User



Member Since: 1/4/2005
Location: Gahanna, OH
Post Count: 818

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/22/2014 9:39:52 PM 
Thankfully I don't have to worry about this being adopted by any entity that actually matters.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 1:11:20 AM 
Ozcat wrote:
Thankfully I don't have to worry about this being adopted by any entity that actually matters.


"actually matters"

(Reads the words "actually matters"; laughs out loud)

Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 1:18:20 AM 
P.S.

One of my favorite Bobcat Attack memories came from the guy who (IIRC) said something like, "hey Ozcat I'd love to come to your tailgate and stick my #!&[ in the mashed potatoes."

Last Edited: 10/23/2014 8:40:42 AM by The Situation

Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 7:38:01 AM 
Can you further clarify or expand on the fact that losing doesn't matter in your ranking system? At some point if losses pile up, the ranking has to go down doesn't it?
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 8:39:26 AM 
GoCats105 wrote:
Can you further clarify or expand on the fact that losing doesn't matter in your ranking system? At some point if losses pile up, the ranking has to go down doesn't it?


My intent was to develop a simple ranking system. Quite literally what I have stated as criteria drive the rankings. There's no hidden "jerry rigging" to prop up specific teams.

Ranking teams by their defined accomplishments, wins vs winning teams and teams with 0.500 records, keeps the system simple. I measure teams by this standard because the process is clear and consistent. All of the measurements, and the purpose of the measurements, can be readily understood by most of the intended audience. Delving into the world of what teams almost accomplished or might have accomplished requires quite complicated methodology, and too many assumptions every be readily understood in large (and despite what Jeff Sagarin, et al, might try and lead Ozcat to believe, I would argue their methodology, though complex, fails to measure every team with the same stick).

The assumptions these "statisticians" make to account for strength of schedule, conference affiliation, or points scored are required to play the game that is "what might have happened".. This makes their ranking system very difficult to for anyone else to understand. Clarity is critical because judgement is important (after all isn't the point of rankings to agree or disagree with the product, not accept the rankings as "truth"). To allow someone to judge your work you must give them the opportunity to specifically state where a disagreement lies.

I don't think judgement of a ranking system that accounts of "what might of happened" is possible without someone expending a tremendous amount of energy.

I included beating teams with a 0.500 record as an accomplishment because had the single matchup not been played, the opponent would have a winning record.

I think most people feel there's something to be said for close losses to very strong teams. So I give teams the opportunity to earn a one time bonus for one possession losses to top 16 and/or top 32 teams (top 32 teams losses get a half bonus). Teams can keep the bonus all season if they don't lose to anyone outside the top 32 and if the lose those top 32 games by one possession (striking distance of a victory).

I chose top 16 because its the FCS playoff pool. 32 is simply double that, no real justification other than that. But the group of 32 in intended to represent the teams that would compete for a playoff spot. If you don't lose at all, you get the full strong loss bonus. I think that's fair and it gives undefeated teams like Marshall a slight boost in season.

I wrote "losing has no affect on teams" before I added the strong loss bonus to the system. Only 10 teams currently claim the full strong loss bonus. 6 currently claim half the strong loss bonus. There's not a big shakeup of the rankings. What the strong loss bonus does is move a team like Notre Dame from the low 40s to the top 25 and move a team like Arizona from the 11 to number 4. Alabama from 25 to 17. Also three loss Nevada is in the top 25 because of the strong loss bonus. All three losses have been to top 16 teams by one possession.

The reality is, Alabama and Notre Dame just haven't accomplished much besides looking good on TV so far. I can help them out a little it with the strong loss bonus, but I think I've made a clear case for other teams in the top 10.

Back to Top
  
Andrew Ruck
General User



Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,671

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 8:40:18 AM 
I like that Miami is dead last both years.

I hate rankings and everything about them in the same way I hate the "judging" sports like Gymnastics & Figure Skating. I've said for years there should just be a tournament of conference champions and we burn every rating system to the ground (even though in reality we would still need to seed them, unfortunately).


Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 8:57:34 AM 
Situation,

It's a great statistical analysis that you've done and reasonably fair. Personally I think some rankings are a joke, especially those done simply by voting a team in a certain spot.

The only things I question are the ideas of common sense and the eyeball test. I think we can both admit to each other that Alabama is not the #17 team in the country right now. I understand this is only a midseason ranking and has nothing to do with what will happen, but common sense and actually watching how a team plays and looks goes above and beyond statistics, to a certain degree.

That being said, there should be some middle ground between statistical analysis and common sense when it comes to ranking college football teams. It not always as cut and dry as it seems on paper, but the teams who pass the eyeball test still have to perform on the field regardless of opponent. No ranking system is perfect, that's for sure.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 9:35:00 AM 
GoCats105 wrote:
Situation,

The only things I question are the ideas of common sense and the eyeball test. I think we can both admit to each other that Alabama is not the #17 team in the country right now. I understand this is only a midseason ranking and has nothing to do with what will happen, but common sense and actually watching how a team plays and looks goes above and beyond statistics, to a certain degree.

That being said, there should be some middle ground between statistical analysis and common sense when it comes to ranking college football teams. It not always as cut and dry as it seems on paper, but the teams who pass the eyeball test still have to perform on the field regardless of opponent. No ranking system is perfect, that's for sure.


Thank you for the compliment.

However, I argue there should be no middle ground when ranking college football teams. That's where mistakes get made, and justifiable talent gets lost in the haze.

Common sense and the eyeball test is why I stated Sagarin and his ilk do not measure teams by the same stick.

It's one thing to look at Alabama and say, "wow that teams out of place at #17." (I have little doubt Alabama will finish higher than that. And big picture in my dream world of a 16 team playoff, I have little doubt Alabama gets into the playoff pool.)

It's another thing to give Alabama these tests and not give these tests to every single team with the same level of diligence.

What is a greater mis-alignment?

- Ranking Alabama at #17 instead of Sagarin's #2
OR
- Ranking Nevada at Sagarin's #59 instead of #24

Nevada has lost to 3 of my top 16 teams by one possession. Yet Sagarin values them as a middle of the road college football team. Preposterous. Whatever jerry rigging Jeff Sagarin is doing for Alabama he is not doing for Nevada. That's the injustice.

And that injustice is always present when we operate under the false pretense of middle ground ranking systems (a combination of data and sporadic subjective interference).

Last Edited: 10/23/2014 9:36:00 AM by The Situation

Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 9:44:57 AM 
Also shout out to Marshall at #7, instead of Jerry Rig Jeff's #31.
Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,318

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 9:46:42 AM 
Question: When referring to Sagarin's ratings, do you mean the ELO, the Predictor, or the average of the two?


"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 9:51:13 AM 
The Situation wrote:
GoCats105 wrote:
Situation,

The only things I question are the ideas of common sense and the eyeball test. I think we can both admit to each other that Alabama is not the #17 team in the country right now. I understand this is only a midseason ranking and has nothing to do with what will happen, but common sense and actually watching how a team plays and looks goes above and beyond statistics, to a certain degree.

That being said, there should be some middle ground between statistical analysis and common sense when it comes to ranking college football teams. It not always as cut and dry as it seems on paper, but the teams who pass the eyeball test still have to perform on the field regardless of opponent. No ranking system is perfect, that's for sure.


Thank you for the compliment.

However, I argue there should be no middle ground when ranking college football teams. That's where mistakes get made, and justifiable talent gets lost in the haze.

Common sense and the eyeball test is why I stated Sagarin and his ilk do not measure teams by the same stick.

It's one thing to look at Alabama and say, "wow that teams out of place at #17." (I have little doubt Alabama will finish higher than that. And big picture in my dream world of a 16 team playoff, I have little doubt Alabama gets into the playoff pool.)

It's another thing to give Alabama these tests and not give these tests to every single team with the same level of diligence.

What is a greater mis-alignment?

- Ranking Alabama at #17 instead of Sagarin's #2
OR
- Ranking Nevada at Sagarin's #59 instead of #24

Nevada has lost to 3 of my top 16 teams by one possession. Yet Sagarin values them as a middle of the road college football team. Preposterous. Whatever jerry rigging Jeff Sagarin is doing for Alabama he is not doing for Nevada. That's the injustice.

And that injustice is always present when we operate under the false pretense of middle ground ranking systems (a combination of data and sporadic subjective interference).


That's all well and good, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. The one I will agree with you on is that one man's viewpoint of a certain team's ranking isn't really fair. But then again, if you add more people's opinions into the mix, you get more biased opinions and agendas.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 9:55:32 AM 
JSF wrote:
Question: When referring to Sagarin's ratings, do you mean the ELO, the Predictor, or the average of the two?


I'm referring to his "rating" which as defined on the USA Today pulication:

"The overall RATING is a synthesis of the three different methods, with more total weight to the two completely SCORE-BASED methods and thus should be a good predictor in its own right."

I'm assuming the three methods referenced are the Predictor, ELO, and Golden Mean.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 10:01:04 AM 
GoCats105 wrote:


That's all well and good, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. The one I will agree with you on is that one man's viewpoint of a certain team's ranking isn't really fair. But then again, if you add more people's opinions into the mix, you get more biased opinions and agendas.


Would you agree that if any conclusions about a college football team are to be derived from "common sense" or "the eyeball test" that these tests should be performed with the same level of diligence on every single FBS team?

Do you feel that every team is currently tested by these standards with the same diligence anywhere? (Is every team even tested by these standards at all?)

Where is our disagreement?

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 10:26:32 AM 
Andrew Ruck wrote:
I like that Miami is dead last both years.

I hate rankings and everything about them in the same way I hate the "judging" sports like Gymnastics & Figure Skating. I've said for years there should just be a tournament of conference champions and we burn every rating system to the ground (even though in reality we would still need to seed them, unfortunately).


Agree on both scores:

1. Tournament with every FBS conference champion and six at-large, makes a total of 16. This takes four extra games, which could be incorporated into the current bowl system fairly easily.

2. "Judging sports" -- I just can't stand them. Every time there is an Olympic figure skating competition on the tube my wife and I get into an argument over this. She loves it, and I hate it. I can appreciate the beauty of the skating in its own right, but not what seems to me capricious scoring by the judges and what I call the "professional dilettante" (I know it's an oxymoron, but that's the point) attitude of the announcers.


The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
UpSan Bobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,788

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 10:32:14 AM 
JSF wrote:
Question: When referring to Sagarin's ratings, do you mean the ELO, the Predictor, or the average of the two?


Sagarin used to include a rating system that did not take into account the score - only whether a team won or lost. He did this because the NCAA refused to include the margin of victory of a game as a factor when picking teams for the BCS. However, Sagarin always clarified that by using scores, ratings are made more accurate as predictors of future outcomes (which ultimately is what a ranking is). For example, if two teams have played the same exact opponents and have gone 4-0, but one team has an average margin of victory of 5 points and one team has an average margin of victory of 25 points, generally speaking, it's pretty clear that the team with the larger margin of victory is better.

When he's been interviewed before, one of the common comments he makes is that of course he doesn't agree with the rankings his formula produces in all cases. If he were to make a top 25 based on his opinion, it would not be straight from his formula because there is no perfect formula. Every formula is biased as to what the creator thinks is important and unimportant and how it is weighted. In this case, Situation's formula is somewhat RPI-like. It takes into account winning percentage and adds points for being teams with winning records (and then a few more for wins by those teams against teams with winning records).
Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 10:56:51 AM 
The Situation wrote:
GoCats105 wrote:


That's all well and good, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. The one I will agree with you on is that one man's viewpoint of a certain team's ranking isn't really fair. But then again, if you add more people's opinions into the mix, you get more biased opinions and agendas.


Would you agree that if any conclusions about a college football team are to be derived from "common sense" or "the eyeball test" that these tests should be performed with the same level of diligence on every single FBS team?

Do you feel that every team is currently tested by these standards with the same diligence anywhere? (Is every team even tested by these standards at all?)

Where is our disagreement?



1. Yes, I do believe these tests should be performed on every team.

2. To a degree, I believe most teams are ranked by the same standards. However, there are predetermined (intentionally or not) factors that give a certain perception to certain teams. Conference affiliation, returning starters, coaching, schedule, etc. But some of those factors are pretty important when ranking teams.

For example, let's say Auburn goes 11-1, but doesn't make it to the SEC Championship because their only loss is to 12-0 Mississippi State. That means Auburn would end up beating anywhere between 5-7 ranked teams, depending on which teams finishes where (currently South Carolina and Texas A&M are unranked). Four of those games they will have won were on the road.

Then let's say there is an 11-1 Big 12 Champion, 12-1 Big Ten Champion, 12-1 PAC 12 Champion, all of whom have less impressive resumes than Auburn. Statistically, you may not take Auburn or because they didn't win their conference. But look at who they beat, where they beat them and how they finished the season. How could you keep them out of a 4-team playoff? Of course you wouldn't keep them out of a 16-team playoff, but that's not what is in place right now.

I only bring this up because some people (not you) feel like the SEC gets a leg up on other conferences simply based on reputation and notoriety. Well, there's a reason for that reputation: it's because the SEC is the best conference in college football, and it's really not that close. Florida State won a national championship because they are modeled to be an SEC team, they just happen to play in the ACC.

3. I think my disagreement simply lies that you can't just rank a team strictly based on statistical analysis. You think there shouldn't be a middle ground between stats and visual, I think there can be.

Last Edited: 10/23/2014 10:59:00 AM by GoCats105

Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 11:04:37 AM 
UpSan Bobcat wrote:

However, Sagarin always clarified that by using scores, ratings are made more accurate as predictors of future outcomes (which ultimately is what a ranking is). For example, if two teams have played the same exact opponents and have gone 4-0, but one team has an average margin of victory of 5 points and one team has an average margin of victory of 25 points, generally speaking, it's pretty clear that the team with the larger margin of victory is better.


I will argue that real-world results do no lend themselves to such a convenient analysis.

In theory what you've mentioned sounds great. In practice these a more realistic depiction of outcomes against common opponents:

Scenario 1

- Team 1: Avg Point Margin 5, Record 4-0
- Team 2: Avg Point Margin 25, Record 3-1

or

Scenario 2

- Team 1: Margin of Victory 34.5, Record 2-0
- Team 2: Margin of Victory 4, Record 1-1


Scenario 2 actually happened. Team 1 is 2013 Marshall and Team 2 is 2013 OHIO. As we know, OHIO beat Marshall. (Common opponents Miami and ECU).

I contend that you'll find a whole lot of Scenario 2s in the data set and next to none of the scenarios as you stated in your original post.

The entire point margin theory is based on a false premise. The false premise being cookie cutter common opponent stats that lend themselves to easy conclusions.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 11:29:04 AM 
GoCats105 wrote:


1. Yes, I do believe these tests should be performed on every team.



With the same diligence is the operative word. Its an important distinction and you left that out.

Let's say someone watched Alabama 3 times on national TV and they want to make a conclusion on Alabama from that experience. I don't necessarily have a problem with that approach so long as the same person who is deriving conclusions watches 3 Nevada games, and 3 games of everyone else. It would take one person most of the work week to watch every FBS game (at an accelerated pace). The "eye test" is an invalid approach because teams will be left out of the eye test analysis. And when they are, the data forever skews results of the teams that were given the eye test away from teams that weren't given the eye test.

GoCats105 wrote:


2. To a degree, I believe most teams are ranked by the same standards. However, there are predetermined (intentionally or not) factors that give a certain perception to certain teams. Conference affiliation, returning starters, coaching, schedule, etc. But some of those factors are pretty important when ranking teams.

...

Statistically, you may not take Auburn or because they didn't win their conference. But look at who they beat, where they beat them and how they finished the season. How could you keep them out of a 4-team playoff? Of course you wouldn't keep them out of a 16-team playoff, but that's not what is in place right now.

....



Statistically I'm arguing that the conference championships are irrelevant. I also don't care if a games on the road, in Atlanta, or in 2 feet of snow.

I am looking at who Auburn beat. And I'm also looking at who every one else beat by the same standard. If Auburn secures enough of those WVWTs, they'll be there, don't worry.

As I mentioned in the thread about WVWTs. My hindsight evaluation revealed that the team in college football with the most end of year WVWTs played in the National Championship game every year of the data I reviewed back to 2005 (played in but not necessarily won). Every MAC team that had the most WVWTs relative to the MAC played in the MACC every year back to 2005 (played in but not necessarily won).

Also I agree the SEC is the strongest conference. But I don't think the strength is coming from all the teams and all the reasons a common opinion may have. I look to the teams in that conference that get WVWTs. They produce results.

GoCats105 wrote:


3. I think my disagreement simply lies that you can't just rank a team strictly based on statistical analysis. You think there shouldn't be a middle ground between stats and visual, I think there can be.


For the reasons stated above. Visual analysis cannot assess every team with the same diligence. We both believe it is fair to judge every team by the same standard. If you believe applying the same diligence to whatever method you'd like to every FBS team is important then I recommend you abandon your position on middle ground rankings. Otherwise we can agree that I will disagree.
Back to Top
  
UpSan Bobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,788

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 11:54:16 AM 
The Situation wrote:
UpSan Bobcat wrote:

However, Sagarin always clarified that by using scores, ratings are made more accurate as predictors of future outcomes (which ultimately is what a ranking is). For example, if two teams have played the same exact opponents and have gone 4-0, but one team has an average margin of victory of 5 points and one team has an average margin of victory of 25 points, generally speaking, it's pretty clear that the team with the larger margin of victory is better.


I will argue that real-world results do no lend themselves to such a convenient analysis.

In theory what you've mentioned sounds great. In practice these a more realistic depiction of outcomes against common opponents:

Scenario 1

- Team 1: Avg Point Margin 5, Record 4-0
- Team 2: Avg Point Margin 25, Record 3-1

or

Scenario 2

- Team 1: Margin of Victory 34.5, Record 2-0
- Team 2: Margin of Victory 4, Record 1-1


Scenario 2 actually happened. Team 1 is 2013 Marshall and Team 2 is 2013 OHIO. As we know, OHIO beat Marshall. (Common opponents Miami and ECU).

I contend that you'll find a whole lot of Scenario 2s in the data set and next to none of the scenarios as you stated in your original post.

The entire point margin theory is based on a false premise. The false premise being cookie cutter common opponent stats that lend themselves to easy conclusions.


You're right that the example I used is not a common occurrence, and that if it were, it would make all of this so much easier to figure out. However, I was just using that example to show why Saragin and many others suggest margin of victory is a good tool to use (if applied appropriately) for ranking teams and determining which team is going to win a game against each other. Of course, like any other statistic, it can be misleading when used inappropriately.
Back to Top
  
The Situation
General User



Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: My Mid-Season College Football Rankings
   Posted: 10/23/2014 2:44:41 PM 
From the win-loss data I've reviewed since 2005 I don't see any evidence that suggests margin of victory is a useful indicator of outcomes.

Sagarin has hardly created a crystal ball.

My theory is that Jerry Rig Jeff uses margin of victory as duct tape in his algorithms. I don't doubt that his model works better with margin of victory. I'm just not impressed with his model all together. And I take exception to some of the unpalatable rankings he puts on the market (such as Jeff ranking 20+ FCS teams ahead of a 4-4 OHIO team (Sagarin 139 LOL). Give me a break Jeff. Are you going to tell me Alabama would beat the Browns too?)

But I'll go further to say his model doesn't produce more useful results than mine (and to clarify, mine isn't going to win you any money either).

I ran through last week's prediction by Jeff (Oct 11 rankings vs week of OCT 18 results).

Jeff predicted 33 out of 49 FBS match-ups (67%).

I ran my week 7 rankings as well. And again, my rankings aren't intended to predict the future; simply rank teams by an objective measure. My week 7 rankings predicted 28 out of 48 FBS match-ups (58%) (SMU and UNT were tied in my rankings and played).

For the most part we both predicted the same outcomes for each match-up.

We flip flopped on a number of games. He had FSU over Notre Dame. I had Arizona State over Stanford. He thought Florida was going to win. I "knew" (just kidding) Missouri was going to win. Jeff picked UMass correctly over EMU. I did not. The flip flops were all over the map (top 10 to bottom 10).

Yeah Jeff predicted the outcome of 5 additional games that my rankings didn't. When I was right and he was wrong the margin of victory was 14.4. When he was right and I was wrong, the margin of victory was 9. He missed 21 pt and 29 pt blowouts that I got right. Meanwhile I missed five one possession games that he got right. What does this tell you? I don't know.

Is a 9% difference significant? I say no because the difference is not actually 9%. You cannot apply that statistical advantage to any game you choose. We have independent variables at play. You pull a random game out of a hat you have to calculate the probability that we don't match predictions and the probability that he is right. Since there's only a 30% chance we don't match, the advantage the Sagarin ratings would give you over my rankings is week 7 is only ~2.5%.

Long story short, Sagarin can't predict the future (with or without margin of victory data). But you already knew that.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 25  of 58 Posts
Jump to Page:  1 | 2 | 3    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             







Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties