Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Ok, so I've been thinking really hard about all the I'm great, you suck comments that college football generates. Most, if not all of that is based on those fraked up things that are the polls. Let's face it, with at least 35 college games each week, there isn't a chance that the voters watched more than a couple of the games. The polls are worthless popularity contests that are grounded in the flawed and biased perceptions of the voters. So I took a page out of college basketball and put together a kind of RPI like grading of all the teams. Here's my reasoning, feel free to bash it as you see fit. I'm just trying to get what I perceive as an unbiased ranking of the teams based on objective criteria. Most importantly, every team starts at ground zero. That means until the first game is played, all teams are regarded as equal. Beating a team ranked #3 doesn't count any more than beating a team ranked at #103. The most important criteria is a teams record. Wins and losses count for the most. So a team gets points awarded to it for a win and gets points taken away for a loss. This means that there are no good losses or bad wins, all are counted equally. I feel that the other criteria account for some of that subjective feel that you get with those terms. However, included in this is a bonus for a win on the road. After looking at the records of all the teams, I found that road wins are just plain hard to come by in college football. Therefore, there needs to be something that takes this into account. The next criteria is your opponents record. Let's face it, a win over a 6-2 team is better than a win over a 2-6 team. That's gotta count for something. Then comes scoring. This is a margin of victory thing. However, much like the wins and losses, points are given for points scored by a team and points are taken away for points scored against a team. In this way, a 20-6 win counts for the same as a 50-36 win. Finally comes yardage, both gained and given up. This is a minor factor but it will help to separate otherwise really close measurements. A team that is great between the 20 yard lines but can't score has to be graded higher than a team that goes 3 and out every time. Same goes for the defenses. A bend but don't break defense gets a lower score than one that just shuts everything down. Now I know that there's still some subjectivity in this because not every team has played the same amount of games. Oh yeah, I didn't count games against 1AA or FCS teams because short of Michigan's debacle last year, those games are stat padders and money makers. I'm also sure that the computer rankings included in the BCS are far more thorough than this. I feel that some of them are unecessarily complicated. I'm pretty sure that this is something that everyone can understand. So here they are, read 'em and weep. These rankings were my first cut. I've left them here for historical purposes but they are not accurate, nor are they current. Please see the latest rankings in a post later in this thread. Name Nickname Record ScoreTexas Longhorns 8-1 12.629Penn State Nittany Lions 8-0 11.845Texas Tech Red Raiders 7-0 11.228Alabama Crimson Tide 9-0 11.158Texas Christian Horned Frogs 8-1 10.97Oklahoma Oklahoma Sooners 7-1 10.867Southern California Trojans 7-1 10.738Utah Utes 8-0 10.602Florida Gators 7-1 10.583Boise State Broncos 7-0 10.254Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-2 8.361Missouri Tigers 6-2 7.954Tulsa Golden Hurricane 7-1 7.75Ball State Cardinals 7-0 7.609Michigan State Spartans 8-2 7.24Brigham Young Cougars 7-1 7.203Ohio State Buckeyes 6-2 7.191Georgia Bulldogs 5-2 6.61California Golden Bears 6-2 6.496Oregon State Beavers 5-2 5.494Minnesota Gophers 6-2 5.479Pittsburgh Panthers 6-2 5.476Air Force Falcons 6-2 5.393North Carolina Tar Heels 5-2 4.987Oregon Ducks 6-3 4.788Northwestern Wildcats 6-2 4.788Louisiana State Tigers 5-2 4.702Cincinnati Bearcats 5-2 4.681Western Michigan Broncos 6-2 4.562South Carolina Gamecocks 5-2 4.548Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 5-2 4.527South Florida Bulls 5-3 4.35Florida State Seminoles 4-2 4.192Miami (FL) Hurricanes 5-3 4.177Kansas Jayhawks 5-3 4.018West Virginia Mountaineers 5-2 3.885Nebraska Cornhuskers 5-4 3.829Connecticut Huskies 5-3 3.775Arizona Wildcats 5-3 3.75Central Michigan Chippewas 6-2 3.654Rice Owls 6-3 3.636Wake Forest Demon Deacons 5-3 3.337Kentucky Wildcats 5-3 3.221Navy Midshipmen 5-3 3.167Illinois Fighting Illini 4-4 3.007Mississippi Rebels 4-3 2.939Maryland Terrapins 5-2 2.818Iowa Hawkeyes 4-4 2.798Notre Dame Fighting Irish 5-3 2.777Vanderbilt Commodores 5-3 2.61Virginia Tech Hokies 4-3 2.606Troy Trojans 4-3 2.402San Jose State Spartans 5-3 2.169Northern Illinois Huskies 4-3 2.028East Carolina Pirates 5-3 2.02Wisconsin Badgers 4-5 1.967Stanford Cardinal 5-4 1.906Virginia Cavaliers 4-4 1.869Louisiana Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns 5-3 1.806Boston College Eagles 4-3 1.429Louisville Cardinals 4-3 1.393Fresno State Bulldogs 5-3 1.158Duke Blue Devils 3-4 0.984Buffalo Bulls 4-4 0.925Houston Cougars 3-4 0.874New Mexico Lobos 4-6 0.779Arkansas Razorbacks 3-5 0.276Nevada Wolf Pack 3-4 0.100Bowling Green Falcons 4-5 -0.524Arkansas State Red Wolves 3-4 -5.99Clemson Tigers 2-4 -6.20Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2-5 -0.621Auburn Tigers 4-5 -0.675Kansas State Wildcats 3-5 -0.768Akron Zips 4-4 -8.10Hawaii Warriors 3-5 -0.935Colorado Buffaloes 3-5 -0.951Colorado State Rams 3-5 -1.022Memphis Tigers 3-5 -1.091Louisiana Tech Bulldogs 3-4 -1.14Tennessee Volunteers 3-6 -1.388Texas A&M Aggies 4-5 -1.444Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles 3-6 -1.506Purdue Boilermakers 2-6 -1.644Tulane Green Wave 3-5 -1.662California Los Angeles Bruins 3-5 -1.764Temple Owls 3-6 -1.764Florida Atlantic Owls 3-5 -1.929Marshall Thundering Herd 3-4 -2.017Army Black Knights 3-5 -2.479Indiana Hoosiers 2-6 -2.787Florida International Golden Panthers 3-5 -2.819Nevada Las Vegas Rebels 3-6 -2.835Baylor Bears 2-6 -3.286Mississippi State Bulldogs 2-7 -3.49Arizona State Sun Devils 1-6 -3.537New Mexico State Aggies 2-5 -3.643Toledo Rockets 2-6 -3.984Mid Tennessee State Blue Raiders 2-6 -3.994Texas El Paso Miners 2-6 -3.995Syracuse Orange 1-6 -4.289Wyoming Cowboys 2-6 -4.389Ohio Bobcats 1-7 -4.591Michigan Wolverines 2-7 -5.05North Carolina State Wolfpack 1-6 -5.079Utah State Aggies 2-7 -5.54Louisiana Monroe Warhawks 2-6 -5.686Central Florida Knights 1-6 -5.729Eastern Michigan Eagles 1-8 -5.879Miami (OH) Redhawks 1-6 -6.132Kent State Golden Flashes 1-7 -6.303Western Kentucky Hilltoppers 0-7 -7.33Iowa State Cyclones 1-7 -7.585Alabama Birmingham Blazers 1-7 -7.668San Diego State Aztecs 1-7 -7.879Southern Methodist Mustangs 0-8 -8.062Washington Huskies 0-8 -8.171North Texas Mean Green 1-8 -9.282Idaho Vandals 1-8 -10.09Washington State Cougars 0-8 -10.982 Edited November 5, 2008 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Wow! Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit, pretty impressive. edit to add: further proving that if you had a ranking system of humans like the NCAA does with the Tournament Selection committee, that would be a far better way of ranking teams than biased journalists who totally regionalize there votes in the AP poll, or coaches who have no business voting at all. It needs to be an independent panel of folks just like you that come up with there own way of rationalizing and I guarantee watch more college football than any newspaper writer or coach (besides film on the next team his team is playing of course). Edited November 4, 2008 by GWPFFL BrianW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 There is only one solution, and Obama nailed it. An eight team playoff is desperately needed. I'd rather the #9 ranked team griping than a possible scenario of three undefeated teams, and one being told they aren't as good as the other two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 There is only one solution, and Obama nailed it. An eight team playoff is desperately needed. I'd rather the #9 ranked team griping than a possible scenario of three undefeated teams, and one being told they aren't as good as the other two. At least he didn't call for a crackdown on steroids..... The season still has a month to go. Texas Tech still has to play @ Oklahoma, Alabama is @ LSU this weekend, and they'll have to beat Florida. Your Nittany Lions will be there as long as they don't poo the panty this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Nice work Kid. I disagree on TCU being above OU and Texas above Tech but it looks pretty solid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Wow, the Northwest is certainly not in the house. Nice work Kid. I'm curious (though I'm not saying you should go through the effort to do this), doesn't the RPI take SOS to the next level by checking out the SOS of the teams a team plays? To me that is a very, very important step and one that needs to be done if you're going down this road. If you're going to make beating a 6-2 team more important than beating a 2-6 team, then it's important to determine how that 6-2 got that way compared to how the 2-6 team did. I suppose you could continue to make that argument to any number of levels but I would also guess that it becomes increasingly less important the more levels it is taken to. Not at all trying to bash your work because it's a nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 Wow! Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit, pretty impressive. edit to add: further proving that if you had a ranking system of humans like the NCAA does with the Tournament Selection committee, that would be a far better way of ranking teams than biased journalists who totally regionalize there votes in the AP poll, or coaches who have no business voting at all. It needs to be an independent panel of folks just like you that come up with there own way of rationalizing and I guarantee watch more college football than any newspaper writer or coach (besides film on the next team his team is playing of course). I agree with your edit to a point. No computer based system is perfect. There are things in my model that I want to tweak such as using an average of yards per offensive play or defensive play instead of total yards as a way to smooth out discrepancies such as the different number of games having been played by different teams. Also, no matter how you do this, some pundit will always say that computers can't make value judgements about teams. For instance, I knew Penn State was going to be a VERY good team this year because they returned all but two players from last year's 9-4 team, The QB and Mike LB. In the off season, one junior declared early (a CB) and our new Mike LB tore his ACL. Still this is a senior laden team and those always perform well due to composure and leadership. It also helped that there is a lot of talent as well. If I was ranking teams, I would have ranked them higher than the initial 21st that they were in the polls. My model has ALL teams ranked as equal from the beginning so there is no way to factor in thoes type of subjective judgements. As a side note: This also goes to show that the pollsters only saw the loss of the QB and Mike LB as detrimental, they did not see the senior leadership present to just allow the new players to play instead of shouldering the entire burden. The pollsters don't research the teams more than superficially in the offseason and even less during the season. It would have to be a full time job to do this, one that I'm applying for. Please send resume requests to kidcid@corrundum.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Wow, the Northwest is certainly not in the house. Nice work Kid. I'm curious (though I'm not saying you should go through the effort to do this), doesn't the RPI take SOS to the next level by checking out the SOS of the teams a team plays? To me that is a very, very important step and one that needs to be done if you're going down this road. If you're going to make beating a 6-2 team more important than beating a 2-6 team, then it's important to determine how that 6-2 got that way compared to how the 2-6 team did. I suppose you could continue to make that argument to any number of levels but I would also guess that it becomes increasingly less important the more levels it is taken to. Not at all trying to bash your work because it's a nice. Yes, that is true as the college basketball RPI is the following formula: 1/4*(Winning Percentage) + 1/2*(Opponents' Average Winning Percentage) + 1/4*(Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage). This was a first cut at the model so I was certain that it would need some tweaking. Your reasoning and the one obviously supporting the RPI is solid and something that I will try to incorporate into my model. Going 6-2 against cupcakes is very different that going 6-2 against the big boys and something that should be accounted for. One of the things that the RPI does is weight the SOS very heavily. My model won't have that heavy an emphasis on SOS. Combined (Opponent SOS and opponent's opponent SOS) SOS will account for about 30% of a teams overall score. If you were to break out the criteria of my model, it would currently look something like this: win/loss - 30% SOS - 30% points - 30% yards - 10% That's not quite right in my mind. I would like to de-emphasize the points and yards while adding extra emphasis to the SOS and win/loss portions. Adding in the opponent's opponent's SOS will help with the overall SOS but I'll still need to tweak the other portions to bring it in line with what I would like to see. More along the lines of: win/loss - 40% SOS - 40% points - 15% yards - 5% Edited November 4, 2008 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 very nice work Kid right now i have jumped on the Texas Tech band wagon with both feet ...man they are funto watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Yes, that is true as the college basketball RPI is the following formula: 1/4*(Winning Percentage) + 1/2*(Opponents' Average Winning Percentage) + 1/4*(Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage). This was a first cut at the model so I was certain that it would need some tweaking. Your reasoning and the one obviously supporting the RPI is solid and something that I will try to incorporate into my model. Going 6-2 against cupcakes is very different that going 6-2 against the big boys and something that should be accounted for. One of the things that the RPI does is weight the SOS very heavily. My model won't have that heavy an emphasis on SOS. Combined (Opponent SOS and opponent's opponent SOS) SOS will account for about 30% of a teams overall score. If you were to break out the criteria of my model, it would currently look something like this: win/loss - 30% SOS - 30% points - 30% yards - 10% That's not quite right in my mind. I would like to de-emphasize the points and yards while adding extra emphasis to the SOS and win/loss portions. Adding in the opponent's opponent's SOS will help with the overall SOS but I'll still need to tweak the other portions to bring it in line with what I would like to see. More along the lines of: win/loss - 40% SOS - 40% points - 15% yards - 5% I'm assuming that you are using Excel for this and have actually been trying to figure out how that second level of SOS could be added in without creating a mountain of work. Because, if you think about it, that could get pretty ugly pretty quickly. And if you're not careful, you could create a cyclical equation. My guess is that the first thing you do is create a factor for each team that is a ratio of wins and losses for teams they play. Then you factor their own w-l into that equation (heavily I would think). Then you use that number for each team when determining their effect on the SOS of the teams that play them. So, team x has played teams with an average record of 5-3 and has a 8-0 record. So maybe their SOS factor is (.625 x 2x (1.000))/3 That weighs their own w/l heavier in the equation. That gives them a SOS factor of .775. So when you're factoring them into someone's SOS, they're added in as .775 rather than 1.000. You could basically repeat the same equation, taking the average of all the SOS factors of all the teams you've played and put that into an equation along with you're own w/l. I don't want to co-opt your very cool toy here, just throwing out ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 I'm assuming that you are using Excel for this and have actually been trying to figure out how that second level of SOS could be added in without creating a mountain of work. Because, if you think about it, that could get pretty ugly pretty quickly. And if you're not careful, you could create a cyclical equation. My guess is that the first thing you do is create a factor for each team that is a ratio of wins and losses for teams they play. Then you factor their own w-l into that equation (heavily I would think). Then you use that number for each team when determining their effect on the SOS of the teams that play them. So, team x has played teams with an average record of 5-3 and has a 8-0 record. So maybe their SOS factor is (.625 x 2x (1.000))/3 That weighs their own w/l heavier in the equation. That gives them a SOS factor of .775. So when you're factoring them into someone's SOS, they're added in as .775 rather than 1.000. You could basically repeat the same equation, taking the average of all the SOS factors of all the teams you've played and put that into an equation along with you're own w/l. I don't want to co-opt your very cool toy here, just throwing out ideas. No, this gets way too complex for Excel very quickly. This is all done with a database and code. Every team is done on the fly as the data is read from the database. Also, I wrote a parser that just goes to a web page and chunks up the data I need and writes it into the database. This way I don't have hand enter all the data every time a change is made. I did this all yeasterday. I told you I was a nerd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 I've implemented the changes that are discussed above namely, adding in a component for the opponent's strength of schedule and changing to a yards per game calculation to better compare apples to apples or Gators to Sooners as the case may be. It does changes things a bit. It takes me a while to format the results for these pages so it'll be a little bit before I can show them to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Here they are. One thing this all does tell me is that the current systems don't take the non-BCS teams seriously enough. Oh yeah and that Penn State is probably better than most of you think. Name Record ScorePenn State Nittany Lions 8-0 15.0139Alabama Crimson Tide 9-0 14.0256Southern California Trojans 7-1 13.31Utah Utes 8-0 12.8411Texas Longhorns 8-1 12.8161Texas Christian Horned Frogs 8-1 12.67Texas Tech Red Raiders 7-0 12.6627Florida Gators 7-1 12.4663Oklahoma Sooners 7-1 12.2772Tulsa Golden Hurricane 7-1 10.8044Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-1 10.3206Brigham Young Cougars 7-1 10.2305Boise State Broncos 7-0 9.9275Ball State Cardinals 7-0 9.6563Missouri Tigers 6-2 8.8028Michigan State Spartans 8-2 8.64Oregon Ducks 6-3 7.6527Northwestern Wildcats 6-2 7.2233California Golden Bears 6-2 7.05Ohio State Buckeyes 6-2 6.6172Minnesota Gophers 6-2 6.4016Pittsburgh Panthers 6-2 6.3425Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 5-2 6.1183Air Force Falcons 6-2 6.0195Georgia Bulldogs 5-2 5.7312Central Michigan Chippewas 6-2 5.7011Oregon State Beavers 5-3 5.685Western Michigan Broncos 6-2 5.5745North Carolina Tar Heels 5-2 5.4663Louisiana State Tigers 5-2 5.4375South Carolina Gamecocks 5-2 5.4277South Florida Bulls 5-3 5.3106Florida State Seminoles 4-2 5.26Arizona Wildcats 5-3 5.2525Miami (FL) Hurricanes 5-3 5.1372West Virginia Mountaineers 5-2 5.0763Connecticut Huskies 5-3 4.9389Maryland Terrapins 5-2 4.795Notre Dame Fighting Irish 5-3 4.6038Cincinnati Bearcats 5-2 4.4837Wake Forest Demon Deacons 5-3 4.1762Rice Owls 6-3 4.0495Kansas Jayhawks 5-3 3.9823Fresno State Bulldogs 5-3 3.7125Navy Midshipmen 5-3 3.6689Kentucky Wildcats 5-3 3.5061San Jose State Spartans 5-3 3.0812Iowa Hawkeyes 4-4 3.0505East Carolina Pirates 5-3 3.0321Illinois Fighting Illini 4-4 2.9805Vanderbilt Commodores 5-3 2.9475Nebraska Cornhuskers 5-4 2.9217Mississippi Rebels 4-3 2.8905Louisiana Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns 5-3 2.75Boston College Eagles 4-3 2.6738Troy Trojans 4-3 2.64Northern Illinois Huskies 4-3 2.525Stanford Cardinal 5-4 2.4834Louisville Cardinals 4-3 2.3113Virginia Tech Hokies 4-3 2.2325Nevada Wolf Pack 3-4 1.3113Houston Cougars 3-4 1.3075Wisconsin Badgers 4-5 0.6277Duke Blue Devils 3-4 0.57Virginia Cavaliers 4-4 0.5617Akron Zips 4-4 0.5138Auburn Tigers 4-5 0.3222Buffalo Bulls 4-4 0.2237Colorado Buffaloes 3-5 -0.6839Bowling Green Falcons 4-5 -0.9262Texas A&M Aggies 4-5 -0.9589Arkansas State Red Wolves 3-4 -1.385Clemson Tigers 2-4 -1.3975Louisiana Tech Bulldogs 3-4 -1.505Kansas State Wildcats 3-5 -1.5195Memphis Tigers 3-5 -1.7472Arkansas Razorbacks 3-5 -2.0072Tennessee Volunteers 3-6 -2.0173Marshall Thundering Herd 3-4 -2.0362Army Black Knights 3-5 -2.0812Florida Atlantic Owls 3-5 -2.1437Rutgers Scarlet Knights 2-5 -2.305New Mexico Lobos 4-6 -2.446Colorado State Rams 3-5 -2.5794Tulane Green Wave 3-5 -2.5875Baylor Bears 2-6 -2.8012Hawaii Warriors 3-5 -2.8356Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles 3-6 -2.8839New Mexico State Aggies 2-5 -3.4663Temple Owls 3-6 -3.6022Florida International Golden Panthers 3-5 -3.6288California Los Angeles Bruins 3-5 -3.685Purdue Boilermakers 2-6 -3.8045Nevada Las Vegas Rebels 3-6 -3.9905Mid Tennessee Blue Raiders 2-6 -4.695Indiana Hoosiers 2-6 -4.7411Mississippi State Bulldogs 2-7 -4.815Arizona State Sun Devils 1-6 -4.8587Texas El Paso Miners 2-6 -5.1413Ohio Bobcats 1-7 -5.1484Michigan Wolverines 2-7 -5.7056Louisiana Monroe Warhawks 2-6 -5.7661Wyoming Cowboys 2-6 -5.8866Miami (OH) Redhawks 1-6 -5.98Toledo Rockets 2-6 -6.0025North Carolina State Wolfpack 1-6 -6.6962Central Florida Knights 1-6 -6.9672Iowa State Cyclones 1-7 -7.0595Syracuse Orange 1-6 -7.1187Utah State Aggies 2-7 -8.1717Kent State Golden Flashes 1-7 -8.1828San Diego State Aztecs 1-7 -8.2283Western Kentucky Hilltoppers 0-7 -8.2434Alabama Birmingham Blazers 1-7 -8.9005Eastern Michigan Eagles 1-8 -9.029Southern Methodist Mustangs 0-8 -10.5484North Texas Mean Green 1-8 -11.5172Idaho Vandals 1-8 -11.74Washington Huskies 0-8 -11.7512Washington State Cougars 0-8 -12.74 Edited November 4, 2008 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KICK A$$ BLASTER Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Oregon State has three losses, not two... The Beavs lost to Stanford, Penn State and Utah.... Just trying to help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Oregon State has three losses, not two...The Beavs lost to Stanford, Penn State and Utah.... Just trying to help... Thanks. I'll try and find that glitch. Found it, bad data. I had incorrectly attributed that game to Oklahoma State. I'll update the data and rerun the model. Edited November 4, 2008 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I look at computers as valuable tools used to make my own personal decision. One of many tools. On a selection committee, each member is gonna have his own way of evaluating teams. Some might put more emphasis on computers than others. Combine that way of thinking with the idea that these folks have one job and one job only and that is to watch games, I would say that is a much better way of ranking teams than it is to rely on sportswriters that couldn't tell the difference between anything much less football teams, or coaches that have no time at all for this kind of stuff. They get paid millions of dollars to win football games, not rank teams at the end of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 I look at computers as valuable tools used to make my own personal decision. One of many tools. On a selection committee, each member is gonna have his own way of evaluating teams. Some might put more emphasis on computers than others. Combine that way of thinking with the idea that these folks have one job and one job only and that is to watch games, I would say that is a much better way of ranking teams than it is to rely on sportswriters that couldn't tell the difference between anything much less football teams, or coaches that have no time at all for this kind of stuff. They get paid millions of dollars to win football games, not rank teams at the end of the week. If there were a selection committee for football then yes I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Name Record ScoreWashington Huskies 0-8 -11.7512Washington State Cougars 0-8 -12.74 That Apple Cup is going to be scintillating. Edited November 4, 2008 by godtomsatan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 No offense, but you have a glitch in your program. Not only does the Big 10 have the #1 team, but they also have 4 teams in the top 25 while the SEC only has 3 teams ranked in that same top 25 including Georgia at #25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-2 8.361 Not sure if it reflects in the rankings but Oklahoma State is 8 - 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 No offense, but you have a glitch in your program. Not only does the Big 10 have the #1 team, but they also have 4 teams in the top 25 while the SEC only has 3 teams ranked in that same top 25 including Georgia at #25. I'm guessing that is because all teams start with a level playing field. I'm thinking that without the preconceived notion of one conference being better than another the numbers would most definitely come up with something different that the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 (edited) Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-2 8.361 Not sure if it reflects in the rankings but Oklahoma State is 8 - 1. Gracias. I'll look into it. Ok, there was a data error earlier involving Oklahoma State, but it has since been corrected. If you look at the second ranking I posted OK State is: Oklahoma State Cowboys 7-1 10.3206 The reason they aren't 8-1 is that one of their early games was against Missouri State. They are a FBS or IAA team and that game isn't counted for the purpose of this ranking. Edited November 5, 2008 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.