Sagaring Conference Rankings

[wildcat2334]

big day of college football - personally looking forward to 3 games - Iron Bowl, UA/Oregon and Boise/Nevada

 

Sagarin's UNBIASED conference quality wins below. Just one piece of information but I think it shows the strength of the SEC and Pac 10 is clearly above the other BCS conferences. Top 10 WIns & Top 30 Wins

 

ACC.........0...............5

B10..........1...............8

B12..........2...............10

P10..........1................22

SEC.........5................17

 

Sagarin's top 10 (ELo Chess)

 

Aub

Oregon

LSU

Stan

TCU

Ark

Boise

Bama

WIsky

Okie St.

 

enjoy the day fellas!!

[detlef]

big day of college football - personally looking forward to 3 games - Iron Bowl, UA/Oregon and Boise/Nevada

 

Sagarin's UNBIASED conference quality wins below. Just one piece of information but I think it shows the strength of the SEC and Pac 10 is clearly above the other BCS conferences. Top 10 WIns & Top 30 Wins

 

ACC.........0...............5

B10..........1...............8

B12..........2...............10

P10..........1................22

SEC.........5................17

 

Sagarin's top 10 (ELo Chess)

 

Aub

Oregon

LSU

Stan

TCU

Ark

Boise

Bama

WIsky

Okie St.

 

enjoy the day fellas!!

Some quick math brings up a question. There are only 8 losses among the top 10 teams and yet there are 9 wins against top 10 teams in the conference breakdown. Where, for instance, is the Big 12's second top 10 win? Okie St losing in conference is one of them. What is the other?

 

The others make sense. Wisc losing to MSU is the Big 10's, Stanford losing to OU is there's, Bama and ARK losing twice and LSU losing once in-conference account for their 5...

[detlef]

So, I went and found the actual rankings themselves. Curious stuff really. For starters, I'm curious why the BCS chooses to peel off the ELO Chess numbers rather than his actual rankings. It sounds like, at least to him, that is just part of the equation. One that only concerns itself with wins and losses and completely disregards margin of victory. Is the rationale that margin of victory is unavoidably a part of the polls, so they want to take it out of the computers?

 

Also, I'm curious about the SOS. I mean it's the Pac 10 and then everyone else. I mean, literally. They have spots 1-8. Despite having 4 in the top 10 rankings and 2 more ranked above 30, the SEC is way behind. Something that seems difficult to believe even if they don't schedule anyone OOC (which is only partially true). I mean, having all those highly ranked teams insures that their conference schedule alone is going to buoy them at least somewhat.

 

I think one of the biggest flaws of SOS (at least here) is bothering to differentiate between the truly bad teams when determining how easy someone's schedule is. Especially if this is a part of a computer ranking that doesn't include margin of victory.

 

Say you're comparing two elite teams. One team plays a team that he considers to be #125 and beats them by 3 TDs. Meanwhile, another team plays a team he has ranked #200 (his rankings go all the way to 245 and include 1-AA) but beats them by 40. A logical conclusion is that those wins should be a wash. Each played a team they should undoubtedly be better than, each team took care of business, and the team who played the really, really bad team won by a margin that is twice as much as the other. Neither should be applauded or penalized for these results, at least with respect to one another. However, it seems that's not the case. Each gets whatever you get for a victory, but one team certainly takes a hit in SOS.

 

It just seems like there should be a cut-off. Sometimes these things come down to 100th of a percentage point. So, when all is said and done, should it matter that one team's worst opponent was #146 Eastern Kentucky and another team's worst opponent was #208 Sacred Heart?

 

The Rankings

Edited November 26, 2010 by detlef

[wildcat2334]

So, I went and found the actual rankings themselves. Curious stuff really. For starters, I'm curious why the BCS chooses to peel off the ELO Chess numbers rather than his actual rankings. It sounds like, at least to him, that is just part of the equation. One that only concerns itself with wins and losses and completely disregards margin of victory. Is the rationale that margin of victory is unavoidably a part of the polls, so they want to take it out of the computers?

 

Also, I'm curious about the SOS. I mean it's the Pac 10 and then everyone else. I mean, literally. They have spots 1-8. Despite having 4 in the top 10 rankings and 2 more ranked above 30, the SEC is way behind. Something that seems difficult to believe even if they don't schedule anyone OOC (which is only partially true). I mean, having all those highly ranked teams insures that their conference schedule alone is going to buoy them at least somewhat.

 

I think one of the biggest flaws of SOS (at least here) is bothering to differentiate between the truly bad teams when determining how easy someone's schedule is. Especially if this is a part of a computer ranking that doesn't include margin of victory.

 

Say you're comparing two elite teams. One team plays a team that he considers to be #125 and beats them by 3 TDs. Meanwhile, another team plays a team he has ranked #200 (his rankings go all the way to 245 and include 1-AA) but beats them by 40. A logical conclusion is that those wins should be a wash. Each played a team they should undoubtedly be better than, each team took care of business, and the team who played the really, really bad team won by a margin that is twice as much as the other. Neither should be applauded or penalized for these results, at least with respect to one another. However, it seems that's not the case. Each gets whatever you get for a victory, but one team certainly takes a hit in SOS.

 

It just seems like there should be a cut-off. Sometimes these things come down to 100th of a percentage point. So, when all is said and done, should it matter that one team's worst opponent was #146 Eastern Kentucky and another team's worst opponent was #208 Sacred Heart?

 

The Rankings

 

I think the main reason why Sagarin and other rankings have the Pac 10 so high in SOS comes down to the fact that they pretty much by default play 9 more conference games and 9+ less FCS opponents than the other conferences. That alone would woould tilt the SOS towards the Pac 10 I would think......

 

not sure why the BCS uses Elo Chess vs Predictor with Sagarin, I think the only difference is margin of victory........

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I think the main reason why Sagarin and other rankings have the Pac 10 so high in SOS comes down to the fact that they pretty much by default play 9 more conference games and 9+ less FCS opponents than the other conferences. That alone would woould tilt the SOS towards the Pac 10 I would think......

 

not sure why the BCS uses Elo Chess vs Predictor with Sagarin, I think the only difference is margin of victory........

 

that's probably exactly it, as MOV is no longer a component of the BCS.

[detlef]

I think the main reason why Sagarin and other rankings have the Pac 10 so high in SOS comes down to the fact that they pretty much by default play 9 more conference games and 9+ less FCS opponents than the other conferences. That alone would woould tilt the SOS towards the Pac 10 I would think......

I guess that makes sense. I read another SOS rankings where they simply treat every FCS school as 1-10 since that is the overall winning percentage, top to bottom of FCS schools vs FBS schools.

 

Regardless, I do think it is sort of pointless to reward a team for having it's worst game against the 80th best team over another whose worst game is vs the 100th best team, provided their schedules are otherwise basically equal.

[Akfatha]

sagarin, as many have said before and i continue to state time and time again, has very questionable formulas and a lot of times very questionable rankings.

[detlef]

that's probably exactly it, as MOV is no longer a component of the BCS.

I think that's a bad idea, at least if these computers are going to evaluate the caliber of the competition.

 

For starters, SOS should be based on more than w-l or even w-l plus w-l of your opponents opponents. Even that doesn't tell the whole story, because as Brian is quick to point out, a 7-5 MAC team is not the same as a 7-5 BCS level team. And that MAC team is playing easier games but that might not be reflected in the w-l of their opponents opponents because they could also be playing easier games. There has got to be some way, but one would seem that it wouldn't be possible without some human evaluation.

 

None the less, provided one could actually put together a valid SOS (and perhaps someone has), you simply can't use that as a factor in rankings if you ignore the margin of victory. Again, what is the "worse" win. Assuming both are elite-level teams. Team A beats the 50th best team in the country by 1 pt. Team B beats the 80th best team in the country by 40. Throwing out margin but not SOS, team A gets the nod over team B, whether or not they really should. Neither team played anyone you'd consider good, but the team that barely escaped gets more credit.

 

As messed up as I often think the polls are, in light of things like this, I think I have to give them more credence.

[wildcat2334]

sagarin, as many have said before and i continue to state time and time again, has very questionable formulas and a lot of times very questionable rankings.

 

 

says who?? he places a lot of emphasis on WHO YOU play and MOV - certainly differences among the computers, here is his current top 20.

 

1 Oregon A = 96.23 11 0 74.57( 19) 1 0 | 4 0 | 94.85 2 | 97.39 2

2 Stanford A = 94.48 11 1 76.70( 8) 0 1 | 5 1 | 91.90 4 | 97.95 1

3 Auburn A = 91.84 12 0 74.00( 24) 2 0 | 5 0 | 99.74 1 | 86.87 11

4 TCU A = 91.66 12 0 67.39( 76) 0 0 | 2 0 | 90.70 6 | 92.15 4

5 Alabama A = 90.21 9 3 74.90( 15) 1 1 | 3 3 | 88.61 9 | 91.61 5

6 Oklahoma A = 89.62 10 2 76.44( 12) 0 1 | 2 2 | 89.73 7 | 88.83 7

7 Arkansas A = 89.54 10 2 74.72( 17) 0 2 | 4 2 | 93.26 3 | 86.05 13

8 Boise State A = 88.91 10 1 69.15( 62) 0 0 | 2 1 | 85.17 16 | 95.00 3

9 Ohio State A = 88.63 11 1 68.96( 64) 0 0 | 1 1 | 86.66 15 | 90.61 6

10 Missouri A = 88.51 10 2 74.13( 23) 1 0 | 2 1 | 88.81 8 | 87.53 8

11 LSU A = 87.69 10 2 73.95( 26) 1 2 | 4 2 | 90.88 5 | 84.48 18

12 Nebraska A = 87.33 10 2 72.26( 44) 1 0 | 2 1 | 88.31 10 | 85.72 14

13 Texas A&M A = 86.74 9 3 76.56( 9) 1 2 | 2 3 | 88.21 12 | 84.71 17

14 Oklahoma State A = 86.60 10 2 73.16( 35) 0 1 | 1 2 | 87.63 13 | 84.94 16

15 Wisconsin A = 86.49 11 1 68.54( 71) 1 0 | 3 1 | 88.23 11 | 84.25 19

16 South Carolina A = 85.84 9 3 73.98( 25) 1 2 | 2 2 | 84.40 17 | 86.94 10

17 Virginia Tech A = 83.65 10 2 69.01( 63) 0 1 | 0 1 | 80.88 22 | 86.82 12

18 Nevada A = 83.59 11 1 66.44( 86) 1 0 | 1 0 | 84.18 18 | 82.33 24

19 Florida State A = 83.44 9 3 72.74( 40) 0 1 | 1 1 | 80.33 23 | 87.25 9

20 Arizona

 

where do you have an issue here? WIsky is too low IMO -and he doesn't love Auburn but prrety much in line with other rankings

Edited November 30, 2010 by wildcat2334

[Akfatha]

says who?? he places a lot of emphasis on WHO YOU play and MOV - certainly differences among the computers, here is his current top 20.

 

1 Oregon A = 96.23 11 0 74.57( 19) 1 0 | 4 0 | 94.85 2 | 97.39 2

2 Stanford A = 94.48 11 1 76.70( 8) 0 1 | 5 1 | 91.90 4 | 97.95 1

3 Auburn A = 91.84 12 0 74.00( 24) 2 0 | 5 0 | 99.74 1 | 86.87 11

4 TCU A = 91.66 12 0 67.39( 76) 0 0 | 2 0 | 90.70 6 | 92.15 4

5 Alabama A = 90.21 9 3 74.90( 15) 1 1 | 3 3 | 88.61 9 | 91.61 5

6 Oklahoma A = 89.62 10 2 76.44( 12) 0 1 | 2 2 | 89.73 7 | 88.83 7

7 Arkansas A = 89.54 10 2 74.72( 17) 0 2 | 4 2 | 93.26 3 | 86.05 13

8 Boise State A = 88.91 10 1 69.15( 62) 0 0 | 2 1 | 85.17 16 | 95.00 3

9 Ohio State A = 88.63 11 1 68.96( 64) 0 0 | 1 1 | 86.66 15 | 90.61 6

10 Missouri A = 88.51 10 2 74.13( 23) 1 0 | 2 1 | 88.81 8 | 87.53 8

11 LSU A = 87.69 10 2 73.95( 26) 1 2 | 4 2 | 90.88 5 | 84.48 18

12 Nebraska A = 87.33 10 2 72.26( 44) 1 0 | 2 1 | 88.31 10 | 85.72 14

13 Texas A&M A = 86.74 9 3 76.56( 9) 1 2 | 2 3 | 88.21 12 | 84.71 17

14 Oklahoma State A = 86.60 10 2 73.16( 35) 0 1 | 1 2 | 87.63 13 | 84.94 16

15 Wisconsin A = 86.49 11 1 68.54( 71) 1 0 | 3 1 | 88.23 11 | 84.25 19

16 South Carolina A = 85.84 9 3 73.98( 25) 1 2 | 2 2 | 84.40 17 | 86.94 10

17 Virginia Tech A = 83.65 10 2 69.01( 63) 0 1 | 0 1 | 80.88 22 | 86.82 12

18 Nevada A = 83.59 11 1 66.44( 86) 1 0 | 1 0 | 84.18 18 | 82.33 24

19 Florida State A = 83.44 9 3 72.74( 40) 0 1 | 1 1 | 80.33 23 | 87.25 9

20 Arizona

 

where do you have an issue here? WIsky is too low IMO -and he doesn't love Auburn but prrety much in line with other rankings

 

 

quick glance says bama too high, wisky too low. missouri #10? earlier this year when va tech looked like crap he had them at #15. history has shown his rankings are sometimes PRETTY WEIRD. ive said it several times over the forum, i even cited it when va tech was like 2-2 at #15 above undefeateds

 

edit: michigan state missing? theres 4 right there without even trying.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Akfatha

[wildcat2334]

quick glance says bama too high, wisky too low. missouri #10? earlier this year when va tech looked like crap he had them at #15. history has shown his rankings are sometimes PRETTY WEIRD. ive said it several times over the forum, i even cited it when va tech was like 2-2 at #15 above undefeateds

 

edit: michigan state missing? theres 4 right there without even trying.

 

evidetnly you haven't looked at ANY of the computer rankings then bc there are differences in them all

 

and MIch St at #21 is about right IMO

[detlef]

evidetnly you haven't looked at ANY of the computer rankings then bc there are differences in them all

 

and MIch St at #21 is about right IMO

I have to agree with Akfatha here. Bama has 3 losses and is ranked 5th. Behind all but one of the teams it beat. Auburn has a wins over a teams he has #5, 7, and 11. Yet that and the fact that they're undefeated is not good enough to be any better than 3rd, a spot behind a 1 loss team with a 20 pt loss and no victories over a ranked team.

 

I could go on.

 

I understand that the Pac 10 plays a tougher schedule overall but, again, I think dude makes a bigger deal about who the weakest team on your schedule is. So Auburn played 3 pathetically bad teams this year and Stanford replaced one of those games with another conference game and, perhaps another with someone respectable. They're still all games they should win. Well, assuming the extra conference game wasn't OU. It's why the Pac 10 has the 8 toughest schedules in his book and I think it's a very legit argument, to an extent. But the fact that he ranks each and every D-1A and D-1AA team and thus penalizes someone for scheduling the 200th best team more than someone that schedules the 125th best team where the whole thing goes haywire.

 

It's the same argument I have with Brian when he discounts BSU because they play in a conference that includes New Mexico and SJ St. Would trading those two games for two games against Minnesota and Indiana make that much difference? Sure, they may only beat them by 20 instead of 40, but so what? Shouldn't any team considered elite have no trouble at all with any of those four?

[wildcat2334]

I have to agree with Akfatha here. Bama has 3 losses and is ranked 5th. Behind all but one of the teams it beat. Auburn has a wins over a teams he has #5, 7, and 11. Yet that and the fact that they're undefeated is not good enough to be any better than 3rd, a spot behind a 1 loss team with a 20 pt loss and no victories over a ranked team.

 

I could go on.

 

I understand that the Pac 10 plays a tougher schedule overall but, again, I think dude makes a bigger deal about who the weakest team on your schedule is. So Auburn played 3 pathetically bad teams this year and Stanford replaced one of those games with another conference game and, perhaps another with someone respectable. They're still all games they should win. Well, assuming the extra conference game wasn't OU. It's why the Pac 10 has the 8 toughest schedules in his book and I think it's a very legit argument, to an extent. But the fact that he ranks each and every D-1A and D-1AA team and thus penalizes someone for scheduling the 200th best team more than someone that schedules the 125th best team where the whole thing goes haywire.

 

It's the same argument I have with Brian when he discounts BSU because they play in a conference that includes New Mexico and SJ St. Would trading those two games for two games against Minnesota and Indiana make that much difference? Sure, they may only beat them by 20 instead of 40, but so what? Shouldn't any team considered elite have no trouble at all with any of those four?

 

let me preface- A) I am not a sagarin defender and I posted the AVG - not the ranking used in the BCS ( my mistake)

 

my point is - there are pretty big discrpeancies in all the computer polls used by the BCS - case in point

 

Wisc - ranges from 4 all the way 12

OSU - from 5 to 15

Mich St 5 to 15

Ark 3 to 9

OKl 4-12

Boise 5 to 16

 

and on and on

[Akfatha]

let me preface- A) I am not a sagarin defender and I posted the AVG - not the ranking used in the BCS ( my mistake)

 

my point is - there are pretty big discrpeancies in all the computer polls used by the BCS - case in point

 

Wisc - ranges from 4 all the way 12

OSU - from 5 to 15

Mich St 5 to 15

Ark 3 to 9

OKl 4-12

Boise 5 to 16

 

and on and on

 

you arent a sagarin defender? do you want me to go through the forum and list how many times you bring up 'sagarin has pac-10 ranked this' or 'here are the new sagarin rankings! look at all these pac10 teams!'.

 

and for the record, no, not all those polls have the teams ranked way different. infact, only sagarin has alabama even close to the top 5. the next closest is the massey which has bama #8 and mich state #20. all the other computer polls have mich state 11th or better. massey and sagarin appear to have the most similarities: problem is i think a lot of it is retarded. mich state went -2 spots for going 11-1 from being 10-1 last week. nebraska went -1 from going 9-2 to pounding CU and going 10-2.

 

detlef said enough about sagarins ranking of auburn at #3: wins over those top teams and undefeated yet penalized THAT harshly under the formula? please. sagarin and massey are similar and both seem pretty questionable to logic.

[wildcat2334]

you arent a sagarin defender? do you want me to go through the forum and list how many times you bring up 'sagarin has pac-10 ranked this' or 'here are the new sagarin rankings! look at all these pac10 teams!'.

 

and for the record, no, not all those polls have the teams ranked way different. infact, only sagarin has alabama even close to the top 5. the next closest is the massey which has bama #8 and mich state #20. all the other computer polls have mich state 11th or better. massey and sagarin appear to have the most similarities: problem is i think a lot of it is retarded. mich state went -2 spots for going 11-1 from being 10-1 last week. nebraska went -1 from going 9-2 to pounding CU and going 10-2.

 

detlef said enough about sagarins ranking of auburn at #3: wins over those top teams and undefeated yet penalized THAT harshly under the formula? please. sagarin and massey are similar and both seem pretty questionable to logic.

 

close to 5? I said I posted the wrong rankings- for BCS elo chess JS has Bama at #9, and AUb at #1, so please re-read my post.

 

I don't think Sagarin is perfect - I just at least give em respect for taking SOS and MOV into the euqation and showing that pure wins and losses isn't the whole picture. Does he have some sort of Pac 10 bias?? lol of course not.

 

anyhoo- Mich St. is a whole nother subject, that team had the stars aligned and I think anyone who thinks #8 is too low is outta their freaking minds.

[detlef]

close to 5? I said I posted the wrong rankings- for BCS elo chess JS has Bama at #9, and AUb at #1, so please re-read my post.

 

I don't think Sagarin is perfect - I just at least give em respect for taking SOS and MOV into the euqation and showing that pure wins and losses isn't the whole picture. Does he have some sort of Pac 10 bias?? lol of course not.

 

anyhoo- Mich St. is a whole nother subject, that team had the stars aligned and I think anyone who thinks #8 is too low is outta their freaking minds.

Well, for what it's worth, the rankings you posted are the Sagarin rankings, it's just the BCS mines out the ELO Chess portion of his rankings. I believe he feels the one you posted is the finished product.

[wildcat2334]

Well, for what it's worth, the rankings you posted are the Sagarin rankings, it's just the BCS mines out the ELO Chess portion of his rankings. I believe he feels the one you posted is the finished product.

 

all good- the initial rankings are an avg of his elo chess and predictor....anyway some discrepancies in the computer rankings, no quetion.

 

funny question in Pat Forde's chat ( who is a Mizzou grad with no Pac 10 ties whatsever)

 

Can you explain to me how a conference with only 3 bowl eligible teams (other second tier conferences WAC-4, CUSA-5, MW-5) somehow has 9 of the top 11 SOS according to the Sagarin rankings? or is Jeff Sagarin just full of $% with his biased PAC-10 rankings?

Pat Forde (2:52 PM)

 

Mitch: His computer is not biased, no. Here's the deal: The Pac-10 plays nine conference games, more than anyone else. And the Pac-10 generally is much more willing to schedule meaningful non-conference games. They even play some of them on the road! Other leagues should try it sometime.

[Akfatha]

all good- the initial rankings are an avg of his elo chess and predictor....anyway some discrepancies in the computer rankings, no quetion.

 

funny question in Pat Forde's chat ( who is a Mizzou grad with no Pac 10 ties whatsever)

 

Can you explain to me how a conference with only 3 bowl eligible teams (other second tier conferences WAC-4, CUSA-5, MW-5) somehow has 9 of the top 11 SOS according to the Sagarin rankings? or is Jeff Sagarin just full of $% with his biased PAC-10 rankings?

Pat Forde (2:52 PM)

 

Mitch: His computer is not biased, no. Here's the deal: The Pac-10 plays nine conference games, more than anyone else. And the Pac-10 generally is much more willing to schedule meaningful non-conference games. They even play some of them on the road! Other leagues should try it sometime.

 

so washington getting crushed by nebraska actually favors them? since they even played us they get good cred for that, even though they got stomped?

[detlef]

so washington getting crushed by nebraska actually favors them? since they even played us they get good cred for that, even though they got stomped?

If reflects well on their SOS, which is what that exchange was about. I would hope that getting your ass kicked by a good team is not ultimately a good thing on your overall resume. But there's certainly no reason why it shouldn't reflect well on your SOS.

[Square]

Sounds like some of this will get fixed next year. Nebraska goes to the Big 10 which will have 12 teams and they'll play a 9 game conference schedule + championship along with the current Big 12 will switch to a 9 game conference schedule without a conf championship. So the Pac 10 and Big 10 will both be rocking 9 conference games + championship.

[muck]

I think that someone should use some of the formulas I'm using to rank the NFL teams from week to week...

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Sounds like some of this will get fixed next year. Nebraska goes to the Big 10 which will have 12 teams and they'll play a 9 game conference schedule + championship along with the current Big 12 will switch to a 9 game conference schedule without a conf championship. So the Pac 10 and Big 10 will both be rocking 9 conference games + championship.

 

Eventually the Big Ten will probably go to 9 games. For the next 2 years though, it'll be a standard 8 games. Looking forward to the annual Iowa-Nebraska game on Thanksgiving week !!!!!

[Square]

Eventually the Big Ten will probably go to 9 games. For the next 2 years though, it'll be a standard 8 games. Looking forward to the annual Iowa-Nebraska game on Thanksgiving week !!!!!

Ah, there was so much talk about it, I thought they were moving forward with it. Guess not quite yet, but sounded like the conference thought it was best for the B10. Yea, the NU vs Iowa rivalry is going to get ugly quick. I live in Omaha so there are plenty of transplants that are already hyping the border war. Should be good though.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Ah, there was so much talk about it, I thought they were moving forward with it. Guess not quite yet, but sounded like the conference thought it was best for the B10. Yea, the NU vs Iowa rivalry is going to get ugly quick. I live in Omaha so there are plenty of transplants that are already hyping the border war. Should be good though.

 

Oh yeah, I used to have family down in Council Bluffs. Pure hatred for the Huskers and that was long after it was a yearly rivalry. My bet is they will move forwards with the 9 game schedule, but I think because of previous contracts they weren't able to for the next 2 years at least. At least that would be my guess.