Make me Laugh. Try to explain SOS - Strength of Schedule

[UCFhonors]

I have amazing hubris? I'm sorry, I thought I was the person who has done ranking systems in the past as well as also being the person who spends a large part of their days working on machine learning and AI. But hey, maybe you're the guy who has an extra computer that runs 24 hours a day doing nothing but training computers to learn instead of me.

If you could make an AI that even came close to being able to account for the things humans do, you could make billions. Google and many companies are already spending millions of dollars every year trying to develop what is called "artificial general intelligence". All you are doing here is showing me you don't understand the differences between human intelligence and computer intelligence.

That doesn't mean computers are useless. They are a great tool for humans to use. Because they can take the stats from every single game and apply the math to all teams without bias. It's extremely valuable and is something a human is incapable of. However in the end a human is needed to interpret the results and account for all the things a computer is unable to account for. Weather, injuries, data bubbles, getting better as the year goes on, etc.

But FYI, the computers are generally more harsh against teams with lower SoS's, not nicer. So I'm not sure why someone such as yourself would be big on computers, other than the formulas vary enough that maybe some crappy one out of the 100+ will pick your team as the champion because it doesn't put enough weight into SoS. Which is basically like looking around town for the dumbest person to crown you champion.

I actually completely agree with you assessment on AI and computers as tools for human use. But with SOS, as the ole saying goes, shit in gets bullshit out.

I clearly stated that I don’t want computers or people determining who gets in a playoff. I want on the UCField results to determine that, just like its done in all other American sports.

#UCFacts

 

[CJH9972]

Things like weather and injuries have tons of value when you are comparing what happened in games. If you don't understand the large affect these things can have on the game, then what the fuck are you even in this discussion for?

And then you go further and talk about you don't know what SoS the committee uses. It sounds to me like you don't know much about the topic you keep speaking on at all. But once again, it's based on win%.

Not sure why we need to consider more stats? Because you think more data is bad, or because you are just incapable of understand things beyond that and must then automatically assume it's bad? Because I mean, understanding how good a rush defense is and if a team that has been putting up big numbers against easier teams and then doesn't much against that good defense - well that's just useless information right? More likely, you don't understand how to come to that conclusion mathematically and that's why you're "not sure why we need to consider" stuff that matters.

"Anything I don't understand is invalid".

Or are you going to tell me beating Clemson and UTEP are equal wins. If they aren't equal wins, then obviously you need to find out why and the math needs to support it.

I didn't say that weather and injuries do not have an effect on games. My position is that that they should be ignored with respect to the value of wins and losses much as they are nearly everywhere in sports. That also goes for yardage statistics. Yardage doesn't have a point value in the game of football. Yet, the competition's standings should value yardage statistics? And it has nothing to do with a lack of understanding about such things. I simply I don't think they are factors that should be used to determine the standings.

And Clemson and UTEP are not equal wins under the rules I favor.

 

[LawDawg]

I actually completely agree with you assessment on AI and computers as tools for human use. But with SOS, as the ole saying goes, shit in gets bullshit out.

I clearly stated that I don’t want computers or people determining who gets in a playoff. I want on the UCField results to determine that, just like its done in all other American sports.

#UCFacts

What you want is impossible with 130 teams. The NFL, MLB, etc. can do it, but with 130 teams, you can't. That should be obvious.

 

[CJH9972]

Your biases, which I stated I am not using as a pejorative, result in an outcome that represents your bias. For example, your math doesn't include an SOS calculation, which is also math, or "facts" as you like to put it. That your "math" is different than others' math makes my point ... you each have biases as to what math you think is best. Let's say other people's math includes weather, geographic location, conference strength mathematically determined, or other inputs. We might agree that some of those are dumb ... but they are facts, just ones we might disagree with.

You seem like a smart guy, certainly you understand this. Again, I am not saying it is good or bad, just that the math you choose represents your bias as to the outcome that the math arrives at.

All rules are the product of someone's personal preferences (biases?) with respect to what should have value and how much. If that is your point, that is not new news to me and I don't understand what difference that makes. If you are saying the outcome is the result my bias towards what I want to value, I suppose that is true. But if teams play by my rules, I have control no over the outcome. Ultimately, I simply favor rules whether they are mine or not to voting on where teams place.

 

[CJH9972]

What you want is impossible with 130 teams. The NFL, MLB, etc. can do it, but with 130 teams, you can't. That should be obvious.

It is impossible to apply a standard set of rules to determine which of two teams playing 12 games gets more value for their season because there are 128 other teams?

 

[4down20]

I didn't say that weather and injuries do not have an effect on games. My position is that that they should be ignored with respect to the value of wins and losses much as they are nearly everywhere in sports. That also goes for yardage statistics. Yardage doesn't have a point value in the game of football. Yet, the competition's standings should value yardage statistics? And it has nothing to do with a lack of understanding about such things. I simply I don't think they are factors that should be used to determine the standings.

And Clemson and UTEP are not equal wins under the rules I favor.

You're fucking retarded.

Let's see your rules so we can show you just have much.

 

[LawDawg]

It is impossible to apply a standard set of rules to determine which of two teams playing 12 games gets more value for their season because there are 128 other teams?

I thought we were trying to determine which teams should be in the playoffs. If that is not the case, why are we even having this discussion?

 

[LawDawg]

All rules are the product of someone's personal preferences (biases?) with respect to what should have value and how much. If that is your point, that is not new news to me and I don't understand what difference that makes. If you are saying the outcome is the result my bias towards what I want to value, I suppose that is true. But if teams play by my rules, I have control no over the outcome. Ultimately, I simply favor rules whether they are mine or not to voting on where teams place.

The difference that it makes in this discussion is that you've been trying to say that your way is math, and facts, and that it isn't subjective. I finally got you to admit that this isn't the case ... the bias will be in the algorithm used. Many people can use "math" to get results. The CFP has rules, some objective, some not. All the teams were in the discussion as to whether to play by those rules or not. We have rules, you don't like them, you want other rules, which is fine by me. But, I don't mind the ones we have, even if I may be disadvantaged by them.

 

[UCFhonors]

What you want is impossible with 130 teams. The NFL, MLB, etc. can do it, but with 130 teams, you can't. That should be obvious.

We already went over this. It IS possible.

The World Cup has a legit playoff with no controversy with 211 teams.

FCS and DIII has a legit playoff with as many teams.

All HS does it with more teams. M

Learn your UCFacts so you don’t sound UCFoolish.

#UCFacts

 

[UCFhonors]

You're fucking retarded.

Let's see your rules so we can show you just have much.

Ad hominems are just admission that you lack the intellectual capabilities to refute a point. Or in this case, you can’t handle the logic. Clearly a superior intellect is bursting your bubble, little snow flake.

Don’t talk to my UCFriend that way.

#UCFacts

 

[LawDawg]

We already went over this. It IS possible.

The World Cup has a legit playoff with no controversy with 211 teams.

FCS and DIII has a legit playoff with as many teams.

All HS does it with more teams. M

Learn your UCFacts so you don’t sound UCFoolish.

#UCFacts

You are comparing apples and oranges with World Cup that spans over a year or more. All the others rely on rankings for determining who gets in the playoffs. In NC where I live, they finally threw up their hands and said they would use the MaxPrep rankings. So much for an objective ranking. So, no, there is no way to do what you want in a purely objective fashion.

I've grown weary of your UCFoolishness. Seriously, are you in third grade? I'll save my valuable time for others who want to have serious conversations.

 

[4down20]

Ad hominems are just admission that you lack the intellectual capabilities to refute a point. Or in this case, you can’t handle the logic. Clearly a superior intellect is bursting your bubble, little snow flake.

Don’t talk to my UCFriend that way.

#UCFacts

There is no point in talking to someone who thinks you can accurately describe teams with only the scores of football game. It is 100% a sign of ignorance to think such a thing is possible and I refuse to make excuses for it.

And then he takes his ignorance on the topic and pretends to speak as if he has actually knows something about it. Talking of some magic rule set which he apparently can't even remotely start to give specifics on, much less actually understand what he is claiming.

Just "magical math with my ruleset" is fucking retarded.

So cry more.

 

[CJH9972]

There is no point in talking to someone who thinks you can accurately describe teams with only the scores of football game. It is 100% a sign of ignorance to think such a thing is possible and I refuse to make excuses for it.

And then he takes his ignorance on the topic and pretends to speak as if he has actually knows something about it. Talking of some magic rule set which he apparently can't even remotely start to give specifics on, much less actually understand what he is claiming.

Just "magical math with my ruleset" is fucking retarded.

So cry more.

I'm not attempting to accurately describe teams. I don't even know what you mean by that. And I haven't described my rules as magical. They are just rules that determine the value of each team's season according to my preferences for what I want to matter and how much.

 

[LawDawg]

I'm not attempting to accurately describe teams. I don't even know what you mean by that. And I haven't described my rules as magical. They are just rules that determine the value of each team's season according to my preferences for what I want to matter and how much.

It took a really long time for us to get here ... I've responded to your posts a half dozen times saying that.

 

[4down20]

I'm not attempting to accurately describe teams. I don't even know what you mean by that. And I haven't described my rules as magical. They are just rules that determine the value of each team's season according to my preferences for what I want to matter and how much.

Then name the rules.

 

[CJH9972]

It took a really long time for us to get here ... I've responded to your posts a half dozen times saying that.

I never denied that my idea is the product of my personal preferences. I was initially confused by your use of bias but beyond that, I don't understand your purpose for pointing it out to me. Again, all rules are the product of someone's personal preferences. This has no bearing on my objections with using a committee and based on your claim that it is impossible to use an idea like mine for college football, you understand the difference between the methods. So, what am I missing?

 

[CJH9972]

Then name the rules.

Ideally, all FBS teams play equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only.

Teams place most to least:

1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses)
2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses)
3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points)
4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against)

Have at it.

 

[4down20]

Ideally, all FBS teams play equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only.

Teams place most to least:

1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses)
2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses)
3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points)
4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against)

Have at it.

So this is what you think is the best way to decide the playoffs?

 

[CJH9972]

So this is what you think is the best way to decide the playoffs?

Yes. Especially compared to voting.

 

[LawDawg]

Ideally, all FBS teams play equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only.

Teams place most to least:

1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses)
2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses)
3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points)
4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against)

Have at it.

I would start by pointing out that your initial assumption is not possible ... hence the subjective committee to balance that out.

Do you have your system applied to, say, last year? Who would have been your 4 teams in the CFP?