"...(but) 3 and 4 get complicated"

[whaler11]

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.

Until that formula put teams in the playoff that people don't think are in the top four. Then you start over.

 

[CTMike]

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.

I was thinking about that... and you know, I'd personally be okay with it. Yep, you'd have a lot of ties week one... but the rankings really only matter at the end. So what's lost if you have a bunch of 1-0 teams ranked week 1?

 

[whaler11]

I was thinking about that... and you know, I'd personally be okay with it. Yep, you'd have a lot of ties week one... but the rankings really only matter at the end. So what's lost if you have a bunch of 1-0 teams ranked week 1?

Nothing it's just a bit pointless.

 

[Dann]

just don't release the comps until week 4 or w/e. have a coaches poll for talking/media/fans bc but just dont let it count for jackpoop

 

[CTMike]

Nothing it's just a bit pointless.

Yeah, it is... I just don't think it's any less pointless than it is now!

 

[UConnDan97]

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.

Thank you! This conversation was getting tough. What people have to understand is that you can program to correct out biases, but you need large sample sizes. That's not computers, people; that's statistics! Computers are simply glorified calculators. The ONLY way to remove biases completely is a head-to-head match. In order to insure that everyone has a fair shake, we need to get to a point in time where every conference champion is invited to the tourney. Outside of that, there will always be a bias. And yes, yes, again I am aware of the fact that we aren't there yet. 4 team playoff will likely contain biases. I'm just saying that for those of you who think a computer is a "magic bullet", it isn't. Period.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

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.

Not exactly. But, the ranking would not be relevant until week 9 or 10.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

The reality is that there really is not enough "connectivity" (using the common term among the computer rankings) in college football to ever run a model that will not have a heavy bias influencing the results throughout the entire season. There really is not enough said connectivity in college basketball (where non-conference games normally nearly equal conference games) to remove all bias. In a sport where conference games outnumber non-conference games by either 2-1 or 3-1, it is a joke believing that it would be possible to ever reach any point of true connectivity among all participants.

The fact is that it would be an impossible undertaking to formulate a model that can run with no opening values for the participating teams. One true test of these models would be to run three parallel models, one with the initial stated pre-game one values, one with these values reversed across the board and one with purely randomly generated values. In a model that does reach the connectivity that is claimed (Jeff Sagarin claims that by week six in football full connectivity is achieved and all predetermined values are dropped), the final results will be identical (as it would only utilize actual results in its computations). Unfortunately, nobody who publishes any computer rankings (whether used by the BCs or not) has every claimed to have run parallel models to determine the accuracy of their results.

Whether it is by human vote or computer model those outside of the power conferences will always be disadvantaged as the teams within these conferences will (due to conference scheduling) always have more games played against better teams (per human perception and/or computer models, whether this is or is not reality), giving them higher overall rankings.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Without going through the whole thread, this isn't complicated.

The reason why the system is good at figuring out 1 & 2 and not as good as figuring out 3&4 is because the system was supposed to identify 1&2.

The "correct" solution was an answer of #1 and #2 and everyone else is the remainder of the solution. The BCS system wasn't designed to differentiate #3 from #9.

If a ranking system is needed to identify #1-#4, it can be done. There's plenty of historical data to make the system work for those that is supposed to work.

 

[pj]

They should design the algorithm to find the teams with the 4 best chances of winning the national championship, rather than the 4 best teams. A team might be very good, but proven inferior to another team; while another team may be undefeated but unproven. The latter team may well be worse than the first, but they have a better chance of being the best.

 

[Palatine]

You don't think the Rose Bowl has any relevance or special meaning in the world of college football today? Wow.

Explain it to me.

Since the BCS, all the top bowls pay exactly the same to each team. Why is the Rose Bowl special? And why does the B10 so desperately want to hang onto it? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

[Palatine]

Without going through the whole thread, this isn't complicated.

The reason why the system is good at figuring out 1 & 2 and not as good as figuring out 3&4 is because the system was supposed to identify 1&2.

The "correct" solution was an answer of #1 and #2 and everyone else is the remainder of the solution. The BCS system wasn't designed to differentiate #3 from #9.

If a ranking system is needed to identify #1-#4, it can be done. There's plenty of historical data to make the system work for those that is supposed to work.

Then get the first two. Eliminate them, and do it a second time to get the next top two. Easy.

 

[Marty Jackson]

They should design the algorithm to find the teams with the 4 best chances of winning the national championship, rather than the 4 best teams. A team might be very good, but proven inferior to another team; while another team may be undefeated but unproven. The latter team may well be worse than the first, but they have a better chance of being the best.

Here's an idea... have teams play in order to decide who's better.
as long as there is some method used to determine who si the best team, there will be bias, prejudice, and unethical behavior.
The reason conferences are against the 'conference champion' rule is because they know it will level the playing field a bit. They'll say every game should matter, and we need to protect the season.
Well, what better way to make every game count than to only take the conference champion.

 

[UConnDan97]

Without going through the whole thread, this isn't complicated.

The reason why the system is good at figuring out 1 & 2 and not as good as figuring out 3&4 is because the system was supposed to identify 1&2.

The "correct" solution was an answer of #1 and #2 and everyone else is the remainder of the solution. The BCS system wasn't designed to differentiate #3 from #9.

If a ranking system is needed to identify #1-#4, it can be done. There's plenty of historical data to make the system work for those that is supposed to work.

Actually, that's not a true statement. For more on that, look at FfldCntyFan's comprehensive post on this page. I could argue (and I am sure that many in Stillwater and the Bay area did too) that Stanford and Oklahoma State had EVERY RIGHT to be considered #2 last year! And the fact that Alabama won the game does not mean that it deserved to be #2. There have been multiple battles for who #3 is over recent years. The reason Alabama was #2 was due to percentage points generated from either biased computer systems or biased voters. Did they pass the "eyeball test"? Sure. They are one heck of a team. But they are 1-1 against LSU. Unfortunately, LSU being 1-1 against Alabama doesn't make them champions. What would the game have been like if Okla St played? Who knows, but to say that the 1vs2 game is without controversy due to good computational design is not a true statement.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Actually, that's not a true statement. For more on that, look at FfldCntyFan's comprehensive post on this page. I could argue (and I am sure that many in Stillwater and the Bay area did too) that Stanford and Oklahoma State had EVERY RIGHT to be considered #2 last year! And the fact that Alabama won the game does not mean that it deserved to be #2. There have been multiple battles for who #3 is over recent years. The reason Alabama was #2 was due to percentage points generated from either biased computer systems or biased voters. Did they pass the "eyeball test"? Sure. They are one heck of a team. But they are 1-1 against LSU. Unfortunately, LSU being 1-1 against Alabama doesn't make them champions. What would the game have been like if Okla St played? Who knows, but to say that the 1vs2 game is without controversy due to good computational design is not a true statement.

Agree completely. The current system is excellent at picking the two most popular programs from among the top 5-6 teams.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/51014/b1g-open-to-compromise-favors-committee

The Big 10 seems open to a 3+1 model, which is fair. I prefer a Top 6 format personally. The Big 10 wants a Selection Committee. Inexplicably, the Big East does not. That position is idiotic, since any system based on polls is going to favor the major conferences. And unless the BCS computers are adjusted to accurately reflect home field advantage (which I believe only 1 incorporates home/away at all right now), the Big East will be further disadvantaged.

 

[businesslawyer]

Dan - they're going to try to do that, but they won't be able to. The wheels are in motion, they won't be able to stop it. The invitation bowl system, most certainly ahs a ton of value. THe way to make Delaney shut up is to propose that the Rose Bowl be designated as the annual site of the national championship game for the duration of whatever playoff system contract for broadcasting is designed.

THe key - is those six names I put up before. A ranking system needs to be set up, using the power of computers, such that the top 4 teams are the top 4 teams, and everybody knows how it was determined, and agrees that the way it was determined is valid.

Any human interaction in this ranking system is a big problem. I'm not sure it will be able to be kept out, as the human polls sell tons of papers and magazines, but the accuracy and precision of those rankings, is essential.

I"m willing to bet that the majority of voters in the room come summertime when ti comes to these discussions, are going to agree with that.

It's not that simple. If you turn it over entirely to computers, conferences will lobby for inclusion or exclusion of certain formulae by how it effects them. For example, if you're the SEC you want to (i) devalue extra emphasis on road wins, since your teams rarely play OOC road games, and (ii) emphasizes strength of schedule, where SEC teams have an advantage because of the strength of its conference, as opposed to winning percentage (too easy for an ACC team or Big East team to go undefeated). We are well beyond the point where Slive or Delaney is just going to accept what computers say without knowing how they get to that point and whether the formulae benefit them or not.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's not that simple. If you turn it over entirely to computers, conferences will lobby for inclusion or exclusion of certain formulae by how it effects them. For example, if you're the SEC you want to (i) devalue extra emphasis on road wins, since your teams rarely play OOC road games, and (ii) emphasizes strength of schedule, where SEC teams have an advantage because of the strength of its conference, as opposed to winning percentage (too easy for an ACC team or Big East team to go undefeated). We are well beyond the point where Slive or Delaney is just going to accept what computers say without knowing how they get to that point and whether the formulae benefit them or not.

That's exactly right. I'm not computer guy, but somebody around here had a great idea. You find a group of computer programmers, like jury selection I suppose, that have absolutely no attachment to anything related to college football - lay out the problem - and then have them go into their computer labs and come out with an algorithm/program for data entry that ranks all 121 programs from 1-121, starting in week 1.

I don't know if there is a way to overcome the sample size problem. But I do know that by week 13 of the regular season, there are only a couple of undefeated teams left, if any - out of all 121, so by then, the sample size should be pretty clear.

 

[husky10]

Yep BL no chance they leave it up to the computers entirely they tried it with the BCS and they didnt like it. I really hope they leave the coaches poll out of the equation when they create the playoff. Coaches only really watch the games of their opponents because their job takes up their entire life during football season. The media on the other hands job is to watch every team play. I dont like the media bais but that is something we have to live with. Coaches ranking Oklahoma St. #25 to get Alabama into the title game is not.

 

[freescooter]

Without going through the whole thread, this isn't complicated.

The reason why the system is good at figuring out 1 & 2 and not as good as figuring out 3&4 is because the system was supposed to identify 1&2.

The "correct" solution was an answer of #1 and #2 and everyone else is the remainder of the solution. The BCS system wasn't designed to differentiate #3 from #9.

If a ranking system is needed to identify #1-#4, it can be done. There's plenty of historical data to make the system work for those that is supposed to work.

The system isn't really all that good at figuring ourt #1 and #2. It is incredibly biases already. I mean we had coaches voting their own conference members higher than even they knew those teams deserved and other ocnferences lower simply to insure that SEC teams were ranked #2 or whatever. Hell, one of the conference commissioners even said it, and Urban Meyer publicly complained about someone NOT voting for the SEC teams one season. Adn there isn't universal agreement on who should be #2 or even #1. Oklahoma, USC and LSU have both been included when people disagreed (USC was awarded the AP national Championship in 2003 despite not playing in the game).