Good..but not Great

[Slaton10]

http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

The dude is a PhD. I ain't gonna try to look at his statistics for determining SOS, but he says it eliminates bias toward conference, history or tradition. I figure his argument is gold, because I've never heard or read anyone calling him out on it.

Most formulas for computers are basically the same. He describes his deal. Essentially... you only enter FBS wins and losses as input. Margin of victory does not matter in his formula, but it is included in others. He does not account for where the game was played, but this is considered by others.

I think anyone claiming computers being subjective when they've been proven to be opposite... is arguing something with little evidence to support.

What you posted is a great read!..thanks for taking time to do the bubble it up!..

But just take in the third bullet page one.. it says it takes minimal assumptions...again goes to my message that a human component takes hold somewhere in the process...honestly to no fault of the algorithm, there is no other way...but it clearly opens the door to corrupt the goal..

I go back to the conspiracy theory..watching the NFL take games across the pond...flex games out 48 hours prior ... how much money poured into contracts with conferences... its America...ESPN and whoever aren't invested in helping to police a process to get a true national champion...they want their return on a significant investment...no matter who gets screwed in the process.....Western Michigan was never going to make them money.....

 

[Slaton10]

If you wanna go deep...

https://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/oth_sites/rate/papers/matrix-based-methods-for.pdf

Really good article. Bottom line, look at the two tables which compare the Human Polls to Colley's Matrix and a statistical formula called Analytical Heirarchy Process.

The results are all fairly similar. The computers hurt the little guy when its SOS was poor. The SOS was determined by opponents played... their records against who they played.

Conspiracy theories are neat to think about. As we know, the White House knew the Germans were gonna bomb Pearl Harbor...

it mentions the same fatal flaw.......

Clearly, one cannot compare the obtained results with a “true” ranking, because the exact comparison measure between every pair of teams cannot be determined due to obvious reasons. However, as we have seen in this chapter, both methods produce reasonable results and exhibit a high level of agreement with respect to each other, as well as major press polls, which is the best measure of consistency of the rankings. Moreover, both methods are easy to understand and implement, which makes them attractive for practical use.

 

[bbwvfan]

What you posted is a great read!..thanks for taking time to do the bubble it up!..

But just take in the third bullet page one.. it says it takes minimal assumptions...again goes to my message that a human component takes hold somewhere in the process...honestly to no fault of the algorithm, there is no other way...but it clearly opens the door to corrupt the goal..

I go back to the conspiracy theory..watching the NFL take games across the pond...flex games out 48 hours prior ... how much money poured into contracts with conferences... its America...ESPN and whoever aren't invested in helping to police a process to get a true national champion...they want their return on a significant investment...no matter who gets screwed in the process.....Western Michigan was never going to make them money.....

College Football Ranking Composite

Go to this site.

It lists nearly 125 different computer ratings to develop the composite ranking. You can go through the whole damn thing.

There is no way the AP Poll... the Coaches Poll... and all of these damn computer polls could be in cahoots with ESPN in order to protect their bottom line. Not all of them.

It is really easy. You go into each season with a clean slate. The CFP waits until week 10 to post its first rankings. By this time, you get to see who's beat who. Who those teams that were beat or won played and beat. Who those teams played and beat.

It is a simple system that does not take into account conference ties... geographical bias. It is a really simple system.

WMU didn't play anybody all year. They didn't deserve a NY6 Bowl.

The B1G and ACC had the most impressive OOC results this year. The B1G had a tough bowl schedule, and its record was not strong. The Big 12 had a similar record in OOC and bowl season recently.

 

[bbwvfan]

Does ESPN control Vegas? I'm pretty sure those Vegas guys are more interested in making money for themselves than protecting the interests of ESPN.

You want to see the Vegas top 10?

OK...

Here you go...

Vegas Rankings
(Top 10 CFB teams according to Vegas)

1) Alabama
2) Ohio St
t3) LSU
t3) USC
t3) Clemson
t3) Washington
7) Oklahoma
t8) Florida St
t8) Michigan
10) Penn State

 

[bbwvfan]

Here is what I think... the blue bloods... the teams with well known jerseys... they're better than most. They win more games against teams that win more games.

The little guys... they win games against teams that don't win a lot of games against teams that win a lot of games.

Oklahoma... they're better than WVU. tOSU... they're better than WVU.

USC lost 3 games early in the season, and I bet only Bama would be favored against them today.

Bama... they're better than anyone not named Clemson. If not for a successful onside kick last year, Clemson is going for back to back NC's Monday night.

 

[Slaton10]

College Football Ranking Composite

Go to this site.

It lists nearly 125 different computer ratings to develop the composite ranking. You can go through the whole damn thing.

There is no way the AP Poll... the Coaches Poll... and all of these damn computer polls could be in cahoots with ESPN in order to protect their bottom line. Not all of them.

It is really easy. You go into each season with a clean slate. The CFP waits until week 10 to post its first rankings. By this time, you get to see who's beat who. Who those teams that were beat or won played and beat. Who those teams played and beat.

It is a simple system that does not take into account conference ties... geographical bias. It is a really simple system.

WMU didn't play anybody all year. They didn't deserve a NY6 Bowl.

The B1G and ACC had the most impressive OOC results this year. The B1G had a tough bowl schedule, and its record was not strong. The Big 12 had a similar record in OOC and bowl season recently.

You're right...WMU on paper didn't play anyone...but how do you measure if that team ...those kids...couldn't compete with anyone in the country..just on their talent?...that as we saw no matter what they did during the year...which was in fact they went undefeated...will never get a shot...goes to DAD's point in a convoluted way..

Ill make the point again...its what makes the NCAA Basketball Tourney legit.... The Butler's, Witchita State, George Mason , Penn ,Gonzaga and the VCU's of the world have a shot!...even.....Stephen F Austin...

A 4 team playoff...IMHO leads to a corruption of how the top 4 are driven..go to 8 or 10...and you can get a lot closer to a legitimate champion that everyone can agree to..

 

[Slaton10]

Here is what I think... the blue bloods... the teams with well known jerseys... they're better than most. They win more games against teams that win more games.

The little guys... they win games against teams that don't win a lot of games against teams that win a lot of games.

Oklahoma... they're better than WVU. tOSU... they're better than WVU.

USC lost 3 games early in the season, and I bet only Bama would be favored against them today.

Bama... they're better than anyone not named Clemson. If not for a successful onside kick last year, Clemson is going for back to back NC's Monday night.

I watched USC give up 49 ugly points..we will differ on that one... But the others you referenced...maybe they beat Wv 9 times out of 10...but its that one time...and if data weighted on historical metrics...what good is that?

 

[bbwvfan]

You're right...WMU on paper didn't play anyone...but how do you measure if that team ...those kids...couldn't compete with anyone in the country..just on their talent?...that as we saw no matter what they did during the year...which was in fact they went undefeated...will never get a shot...goes to DAD's point in a convoluted way..

Ill make the point again...its what makes the NCAA Basketball Tourney legit.... The Butler's, Witchita State, George Mason , Penn ,Gonzaga and the VCU's of the world have a shot!...even.....Stephen F Austin...

A 4 team playoff...IMHO leads to a corruption of how the top 4 are driven..go to 8 or 10...and you can get a lot closer to a legitimate champion that everyone can agree to..

Well... here is the difference between the NCAA basketball tournament and the CFP, by inclusion of 68 or 69 teams... I can't remember the number anymore... we often see an upset stir the brackets. A team can get hot, and win it all. It makes for an exciting tournament, but it devalues the regular season.

Recently, UConn won the 2014 NC coming into the tournament as a 7 seed. They got hot at the right time and beat some impressive teams along the way! As always, they provided a ton of excitement and enjoyment for basketball fans.

But, were they really deserving of being considered a NC? Were they really the best team in America that year?

IMO, that is the difference between what college football and college basketball have as goals. College football wants to preserve the integrity of the regular season, and wants to identify the best team at the end of it.

Through the first 3 years of the CFP, I say they've accomplished that task quite well.

 

[bbwvfan]

I watched USC give up 49 ugly points..we will differ on that one... But the others you referenced...maybe they beat Wv 9 times out of 10...but its that one time...and if data weighted on historical metrics...what good is that?

When does the data weigh historical metrics? You're referring to the results of the season as historical?

USC gave up 49 points to a team that was averaging 45 points in their last 6 games. Very few would argue the fact that both PSU and USC were among the hottest teams in America heading down the stretch.

You know... just more of that blue blood thing happening...

 

[bbwvfan]

Since there is a conspiracy going on in college football, which teams are being shut out?

Provide a list....

WMU was taken out of the ranks of the undefeated by a Wisky team that loss to tOSU... UofM and PSU during the regular season.

If I am to follow your logic, the B1G was overrated, so WMU was beaten by a much weaker Wisky team than their record or national ranking indicated. So, that was not a very good loss for an undefeated team...

 

[Slaton10]

When does the data weigh historical metrics? You're referring to the results of the season as historical?

USC gave up 49 points to a team that was averaging 45 points in their last 6 games. Very few would argue the fact that both PSU and USC were among the hottest teams in America heading down the stretch.

You know... just more of that blue blood thing happening...

Historical data...teams long term success of cumulative years

 

[Slaton10]

Since there is a conspiracy going on in college football, which teams are being shut out?

Provide a list....

WMU was taken out of the ranks of the undefeated by a Wisky team that loss to tOSU... UofM and PSU during the regular season.

If I am to follow your logic, the B1G was overrated, so WMU was beaten by a much weaker Wisky team than their record or national ranking indicated. So, that was not a very good loss for an undefeated team...

I am not sure I am providing any logic!! LOL!...just more trying to think out loud... But your math about being overrated some would point to their unsuccessful bowl season...for me what was alarming wasn't the overall wins and losses...it was the Ohio State loss specifically...didn't win their league..and was humiliated in its playoff game.... that one game alone put some tarnish on the Big10 conferences season...but!!..if you just take a look at all the playoff games the last 3 years all semi final games they were all blow outs...except for one..which was a shoot out.....

So did the best teams get in?...its a great debate no matter how the math equations come into play..

 

[bbwvfan]

I am not sure I am providing any logic!! LOL!...just more trying to think out loud... But your math about being overrated some would point to their unsuccessful bowl season...for me what was alarming wasn't the overall wins and losses...it was the Ohio State loss specifically...didn't win their league..and was humiliated in its playoff game.... that one game alone put some tarnish on the Big10 conferences season...but!!..if you just take a look at all the playoff games the last 3 years all semi final games they were all blow outs...except for one..which was a shoot out.....

So did the best teams get in?...its a great debate no matter how the math equations come into play..

Bowls are exhibition games. Rich had some fairly successful seasons only to get blown out by MD or UofV in the bowl game.

Look at the record for OOC. The B1G and ACC had the best OOC records and did the best against P5 OOC opponents.

Once again, I ask... who do you believe to be treated unfairly? Who deserved more recognition... a higher ranking.... a spot in the playoff... that you feel ESPN held back?

 

[bbwvfan]

The OSU getting blown out in the bowl doesn't indicate the committee erred in their selection. The committee can't control the outcome of playoff games. They place who they feel are the four best teams.

I don't always agree they got it right either. But, I understand the process...

 

[Slaton10]

Bowls are exhibition games. Rich had some fairly successful seasons only to get blown out by MD or UofV in the bowl game.

Look at the record for OOC. The B1G and ACC had the best OOC records and did the best against P5 OOC opponents.

Once again, I ask... who do you believe to be treated unfairly? Who deserved more recognition... a higher ranking.... a spot in the playoff... that you feel ESPN held back?

Well..the difference is a second teir bowl game is a reward for a successful season..the outcome for the most part meaningless....but the playoff games ....matter.

Great question about who was treated unfairly...maybe PSU..maybe OU?...I tried to watch teams this year in the Pac12 like Colorado....should they have been rated higher based on conference position?..OSU got that benefit...

Who was playing the best ball down the stretch?..does that come into play??...it just gets convoluted when you hear the committee talk about teams...especially this year...

 

[bbwvfan]

Well..the difference is a second teir bowl game is a reward for a successful season..the outcome for the most part meaningless....but the playoff games ....matter.

Great question about who was treated unfairly...maybe PSU..maybe OU?...I tried to watch teams this year in the Pac12 like Colorado....should they have been rated higher based on conference position?..OSU got that benefit...

Who was playing the best ball down the stretch?..does that come into play??...it just gets convoluted when you hear the committee talk about teams...especially this year...

I agree with you regarding the playoffs. IMO, there are only 3 games that matter today. In the past when we had the BCS, there was but one.

But, college football is a flawed system. One of the reasons we're having a conversation like this. There is no perfect answer... no solution... on how to select 4 teams from 5 power conferences.

I guess we've seen there have been but two worthy schools the past two years. No one can argue with who they've voted #1 and #2.

PSU and OU...

So... you are critical of USC getting favored with those 3 losses, but you feel either PSU or OU are more deserving as 2 loss teams over teams with 1 loss.

And, that is simply looking at losses. Neither PSU or OU had as many good wins... nor as many top 25 wins... than any of the teams ranked ahead of them.

You are basing this unfair treatment of OU or PSU on what metric?

 

[Slaton10]

I agree with you regarding the playoffs. IMO, there are only 3 games that matter today. In the past when we had the BCS, there was but one.

But, college football is a flawed system. One of the reasons we're having a conversation like this. There is no perfect answer... no solution... on how to select 4 teams from 5 power conferences.

I guess we've seen there have been but two worthy schools the past two years. No one can argue with who they've voted #1 and #2.

PSU and OU...

So... you are critical of USC getting favored with those 3 losses, but you feel either PSU or OU are more deserving as 2 loss teams over teams with 1 loss.

And, that is simply looking at losses. Neither PSU or OU had as many good wins... nor as many top 25 wins... than any of the teams ranked ahead of them.

You are basing this unfair treatment of OU or PSU on what metric?

I agree that in this particular window of time...Alabama and only Alabama was a clear and worthy playoff participant. From there I just don't know. The ACC to me is still a mediocre conference...AT BEST! Pitt.Syracuse, BC, Duke, UNC , NCSTATE, WAKE..all horrible, ..and DAD really thinks the BIG12 is worst top to bottom?...so Clemson's W/L record if go back and exam it , isn't the best..beat Auburn OOC and on the road at FSU by a field goal...

But Alabama's reign of terror just like we saw with Pete Carroll's USC teams it will run out of gas sooner or later...so as it goes forward unless Harbaugh gets Michigan there..which appears is possible...the choices for a clear #1 and #2 will start to shrink...

I guess I don't have a metric ....its more of a smell test...... .maybe I was just listening to the talking heads too much and especially some bizarre comments by those on the selection committee justifying USC's move to the top..I don't care when or who beat USC..they lost 3 games..no 3 loss team should have been inside the top 10 with the possibility albeit slim to make the playoff..

 

[bbwvfan]

I agree that in this particular window of time...Alabama and only Alabama was a clear and worthy playoff participant. From there I just don't know. The ACC to me is still a mediocre conference...AT BEST! Pitt.Syracuse, BC, Duke, UNC , NCSTATE, WAKE..all horrible, ..and DAD really thinks the BIG12 is worst top to bottom?...so Clemson's W/L record if go back and exam it , isn't the best..beat Auburn OOC and on the road at FSU by a field goal...

But Alabama's reign of terror just like we saw with Pete Carroll's USC teams it will run out of gas sooner or later...so as it goes forward unless Harbaugh gets Michigan there..which appears is possible...the choices for a clear #1 and #2 will start to shrink...

I guess I don't have a metric ....its more of a smell test...... .maybe I was just listening to the talking heads too much and especially some bizarre comments by those on the selection committee justifying USC's move to the top..I don't care when or who beat USC..they lost 3 games..no 3 loss team should have been inside the top 10 with the possibility albeit slim to make the playoff..

If the ACC was mediocre this year, which conference stood out for you?

OOC, the ACC had wins over Ole Miss when your boy Kelly was healthy, Pitt beat PSU who you feel was elite. Miami dominated WVU, FSU beat a very good Michigan team. And, Clemson destroyed tOSU.

The OOC for the ACC was very impressive this year.

 

[bbwvfan]

And... who gives a fuck what DAD posts? He's a fucking troll...

 

[mad2mc]

I think that you hit the nail on the head, Slaton. Each conference goes through a cycle. It always seems that there are 2 teams that rise to the top in each conference. What I think Poppy is saying is that the Big 12 was traditionally lead by OU, TX, and back in the day, Nebraska. Nebraska is gone, and a shell of what they used to be. Texas is going through the cycle and OU has emerged out of the pack this year, but an early lost to tOSU has come back to hurt them. The PAC12 was USC, UCLA, and for a time, a Chip Kelly Oregon Ducks. UCLA faded away but has always been an household name. The Big 10 always seemed to be tOSU and Michigan. The ACC was FSU who handed it off to Clemson. FSU appears to be on the rise again.The SEC has been the dominate league for what, a decade or so. Florida and LSU turned into Alabama, Florida, and LSU with a hint of Auburn. Today, it is Alabama. There is no doubt in a program and a league being so dominate in college football. Another item is how the conference is promoted. The SEC does an excellent job of getting their name brand out there and the SEC fans are fanatics, whether your team is Alabama or Vanderbilt.

BB has provided excellent information on how the polls almost mirror each other. The committee has not helped itself. While in it's infancy, they seem to always tweak something that makes it appear that a big time/historic program gets into the fray. One year they state that a conference champ would weigh into the equation. It appeared to matter with BU/TCU, albeit 1 variable of many, but it didn't seem to matter that PSU won the conference championship and also beat tOSU. The committee went off of the fact that tOSU had a better record and PSU lose to Pitt. Winning the conference championship game didn't matter this year as it did when BU/TCU were named co-conference champs. This season seemed to support the Big 12's assertion that having a championship game does not matter.