Discussion in 'UConn Football' started by fortebleedsblue, May 16, 2012.
Thank you. I don't know what I'd do without your guidance.
I believe only one of the six computer systems in use publishes actually how the rankings are calculated. Those six people/organizations have made a TON of money on the college football post season.
It's those six people/ organizations that stand to take the biggest hit in all of this, because you can't have multiple computer systems anymore, you need one system, that everyone has input into, as to how it's going to work, and everyone can see it in action, such that a graduate assistant in Wisconsin can plug the same information into the system as a head coach in florida, or a news reporter in New York....and all get the same results.
It can be done, but they will fight.
I think you picked the one thing he'd fight for, food.
You are completely wrong! Marinatto would eat his own lunch, Slive's lunch, and most likely any other lunch that was unguarded...but anything related to the betterment of their respective conferneces, Slive would get while Mike was busy chowing down...
This^^^. I've been to the Rose Bowl and it is indeed one of the cooler events I've ever attended, and I didn't like L.A. all that much.
It's like the Masters of college football. You'd have to experience it to understand.
I will learn the names of people I already know. Thank God you were here to identify them.
If computers pick the teams all you have is the same thing you have now. The formula changing every year based on what happened the year before which allowed a team the masses didn't want in the playoff.
That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to Carl; the fact that the computers are a circular argument by design! Let's say that I start off saying that Team A is good (you need to start somewhere, so that you can evaluate strength of schedule). Therefore, Team B must be good because they beat Team A. Team C had a victory over Team D, but I didn't say that Team D was good, only Team A, so therefore Team C is not as good as Team A.
Now fill in the following names as real examples and maybe Carl will see what I'm saying, with record and Sagarin rating next to it (Baylor = Team A, 10-3, 13th / Texas A&M = Team B, 7-6, 14th / Team C = Houston, 13-1, 15th / Team D = Penn State, 9-4, 28th). So now you see how a team with FIVE MORE LOSSES can still be ahead of a team with 1 loss, and more importantly, considered a top 14 team (if the playoffs included 16 teams like 1-AA, the computers would have A&M in with 6 losses). This is the ridiculous nature of the computer system; they are only as good as the inputs....
And Marinatto would come out w/ Slive's DNA somewhere on his bod (sorry, did I cross a line there? Too much?).
Leave the Gun... Take the Cannoli.
It will not work unless everything is "zeroed-out" every year. Schedule and conference strength should be fluid variables, starting at zero, and recalculated every week. If factors like "SOS" become "fixed," based on pre-season notions or perceptions, instead of fluid "variables," the whole exercise will be a waste, little different from what we have now.
The problem truly is that there aren't enough games to perform a good computational model. In the example of Sagarin, he uses an Elo-Chess calculation (from Professor Arpad Elo, a formula used to figure out chess ratings). In the Elo calculations, you assume that victories over lower ranked opponents lead to lower increases in your tally and victories over higher ranked opponents lead to higher increases. There is an arbitrary assignment of rankings, and through large multiples of games, you can standardize rankings across a country...or a planet!
But in college football, you get 12 chances to do so (13 with a conference championship). So your arbitrary initial assignment becomes overwhelming to the data analysis! If the teams played 100 games, it might come out in the wash (especially with enough "crossover games" to calibrate assumptions), but clearly that isn't practical for any sport, much less football.
No, I'm afraid computer modeling will NEVER do a better job at removing prejudice from the system than humans, because the inputs are too heavily weighted. Make conferences, and have every conference champion meet in a 16 team playoff with the highest qualified "at-large" teams, and play it out like the FCS does!
I am not competent to to engage in any discussion related to statistically significant sample sizes. But:
. The only "input" is provided by a digital feed w/schools, scores, home or away. Every thing else is"internal" to the system.
. Not "modeling." Calculating an actual rank based on who beats who, victory margin, who "who" beats/margins in a string of "who's" equaling 144 (I think) games and results per team.
. Those much smarter than I can decide if the universe (not a "sample") size ='s irrelevance. But, one result of the argument should be a method the zero's out individual or group perceptions related to schedule/conference strength, history and tradition .
The problem is this; how does a computer (or a person, for that matter) parse through 10 teams that are all 11-1? If it is just based on "who beat who", you will end up without enough cross-conference information to make the determination. If you also include margin of victory, you are more likely to end up with the 11-1 team that happens to have the WORST schedule strength and not the BEST. All of these factors need to be "played out."
In the world of chess, a player will play hundreds if not thousands of games to see what their ranked score is. What I am proposing is to do away with the computers altogether, and let winning a conference send you into the playoffs. This way, you have played it out on the field. Let's say there are 9 conferences, leading to 9 conference winners. Invite another 7 "at-large" schools based on the rankings for a 16 team playoff. Seed them, so that 1 plays 16 and so on. At the end of the season, the champion is crowned, plain and simple. Nobody can argue that they didn't get a fair shake, because everybody has a chance to win their conference...
Dan. I'm in 100% accord w/ you. The thing is, there' only four teams to be considered right now. You have to take a step back and reaize that fact. For 130 years, the college football post season has been a popularity contest that revolves around making lots and lots of money.
The only people that can possibly ever make that change, just did, a few weeks ago.
I have no doubt, that a true playoff will sooner than later be in place, most likely very similar to what you describe, the biggest and most unbelievable hurdle has been cleared, the dust has to settle a bit for a while.
I'm quite confident that the new leadership of the largest BCS AQ conference in the United States, is going to serve our interests well.
Dan, From your mouth to God's ears. Unfortunately, God ain't listening, so we are forced to talk about a chosen "4." Humans have foibles and biases and fears. Brainwashed humans think in terms of what they've been told should be. Computers don't think. They deal with what is.
Perfect? No, but it's better than having a cabal of beat writers and talking heads voting teams from the SEC one thru four.
I agree. I'm no computer guy, and I understand completely, that computers only do what programmers tell them to do, so that's why it's so important that what the computers are told to do, is discussed openly and makes sense to everybody, and is reproducible by anyone, anywhere, entering data.
RIght now, rankings don't start in the computers until I think week 6 regular season. WTF? Run the rankings starting in week 1,and run them weekly till the end of the season.
A team that wins a conference championship game, clearly, should have significant weight in the final rankings.
Every season, everybody starts from scratch in week 1.
The human polls can continue to do their job of selling papers, but they can't be involved in this, until a system that includes conference champions either only (if less than 11 teams involved), or a system of all 11 conference champs - is put in place.
Computers don't think. True.
Computers deal with "what is." False. For all the reasons I've already discussed, plus more, I'm sure. Computers deal with what they are told to deal with by the brainwashed humans, which have their foibles and biases and fears.
I should add that I am completely aware of the fact that we are not going to have a 16 team playoff anytime soon (or maybe at all), as well as the fact that the selection of the 4 team playoff will be just as biased as it has always been. I am just stating what would be the most fair and just system.
Those people (above) would not be allowed any where near the process. I would hire six, non-football fan, software engineers, impose "confidentiality," explain the issues and goals, define the input and output (essentially both "User" and "Engineering" specs) and send them off to develop the processing and return with a "ranking" from provided test data.. They would be told to deal with the raw data, only, and to not discuss the project with anyone. Finally, they would be told to develop documentation that explained the "logic" (all encompassing, including formulas/algorithms) that could be put in an understandable presentation.
The powers that be could then chose any, all or just one solution. See, once coded and accepted (the hard part), there would be no human intervention.
If you ran computers week one you'd have 100 teams tied for number 1 as there would be no evidence past they are all 1-0.
Separate names with a comma.