At least according to the methodology used here.
I went through and looked how the contenders compared to
what one would expect from the #2 team in the country.
The results were Ohio State and, by a very slim margin, LSU.
It appears as though the extra SEC title game vaults LSU to
the top.
+/- compared to a #2
Ohio State +0.212W 0.899p
LSU -0.259W 0.866p
USC -0.263W 0.855p
Georgia -0.288W 0.857p
V Tech -0.577W 0.891p
Oklahoma -0.628W 0.895p
Ohio State did have the weakest schedule as shown by 0.899
expected win percentage. However, the differences based on
percentage points are small and Ohio State did only lose once
compared to the other contenders.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Digging Through the One Loss Teams
Right now, there are a mess of contenders
with one loss. I decided to apply the OTFRR
methodology to see how the teams measure
up. Let's see how everyone has done in W/L
compared to what we'd expect a #5 team to
do verse their respective schedules.
OTFRR#5 (Methodology)
Ohio State + 1.065 Expected 8.935 W 0.893 Winp
Kansas + 0.797 Expected 8.203 W 0.911 Winp
LSU + 0.662 Expected 7.338 W 0.815 Winp
Oregon + 0.469 Expected 7.531 W 0.837 Winp
Mizzou + 0.404 Expected 7.596 W 0.844 Winp
Arizona State + 0.318 Expected 7.682 W 0.854 Winp
West Virginia + 0.036 Expected 7.964 W 0.885 Winp
Oklahoma -0.013 Expected 8.013 W 0.890 Winp
Boston College -0.146 Expected 8.146 W 0.905 Winp
Digging through, the schedule strength from
easiest to hardest goes as follows:
Kansas
Boston College
Ohio State
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Arizona State
Mizzou
Oregon
LSU
As most college football experts hypothesize,
LSU and Oregon are the class of one-loss
teams. However, Mizzou is going under the
radar and should be getting some more
pub. They've looked impressive in a points
evaluations as well, which isn't considered
here. With Kansas and a potential BigXII
title game, Mizzou can make a major jump
in reality as well as in this evaluation tool.
I don't think Oregon can pass LSU if they
both run out the season due to LSU's lead
right now and the additional SEC title
game. But, alot can change. The SEC has
many intersectional games left that can
cause a change in how the LSU opponents
look at season's end.
Sorry UConn fans that I didn't consider you.
If your team wins next week, I'll have to add
in an evaluation.
with one loss. I decided to apply the OTFRR
methodology to see how the teams measure
up. Let's see how everyone has done in W/L
compared to what we'd expect a #5 team to
do verse their respective schedules.
OTFRR#5 (Methodology)
Ohio State + 1.065 Expected 8.935 W 0.893 Winp
Kansas + 0.797 Expected 8.203 W 0.911 Winp
LSU + 0.662 Expected 7.338 W 0.815 Winp
Oregon + 0.469 Expected 7.531 W 0.837 Winp
Mizzou + 0.404 Expected 7.596 W 0.844 Winp
Arizona State + 0.318 Expected 7.682 W 0.854 Winp
West Virginia + 0.036 Expected 7.964 W 0.885 Winp
Oklahoma -0.013 Expected 8.013 W 0.890 Winp
Boston College -0.146 Expected 8.146 W 0.905 Winp
Digging through, the schedule strength from
easiest to hardest goes as follows:
Kansas
Boston College
Ohio State
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Arizona State
Mizzou
Oregon
LSU
As most college football experts hypothesize,
LSU and Oregon are the class of one-loss
teams. However, Mizzou is going under the
radar and should be getting some more
pub. They've looked impressive in a points
evaluations as well, which isn't considered
here. With Kansas and a potential BigXII
title game, Mizzou can make a major jump
in reality as well as in this evaluation tool.
I don't think Oregon can pass LSU if they
both run out the season due to LSU's lead
right now and the additional SEC title
game. But, alot can change. The SEC has
many intersectional games left that can
cause a change in how the LSU opponents
look at season's end.
Sorry UConn fans that I didn't consider you.
If your team wins next week, I'll have to add
in an evaluation.
Ohio State Jumps to #1! (Post Week 10 Results)
Sorry to my faithful readers, I've been
busy making money at actual work. As
a result, I've neglected the blogging
here. It's left me sad as I truly enjoy
doing this. Plus, I feel like I was
talking out of my ass somewhat this
week when I didn't have the numbers
behind me.
Anyway, after week 10 (through this
past Tuesday's results), Ohio State
has jumped to the top spot. Clearly,
the Boston College and Arizona State
defeats helped those two teams fall
from the spotlight. However, the
Jayhawks suprisingly fell in this
ranking system despite a 76-39 win
where they scored a TD on 10
consecutive drives. How did they
fall? Well, the Kansas strength of
schedule took a rather big tumble
this past week. The Jayhawks
resume had been built upon three
decent road wins against K St, Texas
A&M, and Colorado. All 3 looked
dreadful this past weekend and no
longer look as good as they did a
week previously. The most shocking
was K St who lost to Iowa State!
Colorado got pummeled by Mizzou.
The Sooners whupped up on A&M.
All 3 of the Jayhawks 'resume'
opponents were outright awful and
needed a re-evaluation.
On the other hand, we have tOSU's
resume games. Penn St won at home
by a score verse Purdue, so both teams
remain close to unchanged. Washington
moved up a tiny bit by having a
convincing win.
OTFRR#5 (methodology)
Ohio State +1.065W expected 8.935W 1.065L 0.893winp
Kansas +0.797W expected 8.203W 0.797L 0.911winp
Kansas' ranking actually dropped from
week 9 to week 10 despite winning
another ball game as K ST went from
a near 50/50 toss up to a game that
the #5 team should win 63% of the time.
Here are the estimates for the top two:
Ohio State if #5
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 78.80%
N'Western 99.00%
Minnesota 93.46%
Purdue 73.43%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 90.44%
Penn St 71.95%
Wisconsin 89.39%
Kansas if #5
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 100.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 100.00%
K St 62.87%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 81.75%
Texas A&M 82.83%
Nebraska 95.87%
The race for the best of the one-loss
teams is pretty exciting. I should've
posted before the WVU-L'ville game.
Oh well
busy making money at actual work. As
a result, I've neglected the blogging
here. It's left me sad as I truly enjoy
doing this. Plus, I feel like I was
talking out of my ass somewhat this
week when I didn't have the numbers
behind me.
Anyway, after week 10 (through this
past Tuesday's results), Ohio State
has jumped to the top spot. Clearly,
the Boston College and Arizona State
defeats helped those two teams fall
from the spotlight. However, the
Jayhawks suprisingly fell in this
ranking system despite a 76-39 win
where they scored a TD on 10
consecutive drives. How did they
fall? Well, the Kansas strength of
schedule took a rather big tumble
this past week. The Jayhawks
resume had been built upon three
decent road wins against K St, Texas
A&M, and Colorado. All 3 looked
dreadful this past weekend and no
longer look as good as they did a
week previously. The most shocking
was K St who lost to Iowa State!
Colorado got pummeled by Mizzou.
The Sooners whupped up on A&M.
All 3 of the Jayhawks 'resume'
opponents were outright awful and
needed a re-evaluation.
On the other hand, we have tOSU's
resume games. Penn St won at home
by a score verse Purdue, so both teams
remain close to unchanged. Washington
moved up a tiny bit by having a
convincing win.
OTFRR#5 (methodology)
Ohio State +1.065W expected 8.935W 1.065L 0.893winp
Kansas +0.797W expected 8.203W 0.797L 0.911winp
Kansas' ranking actually dropped from
week 9 to week 10 despite winning
another ball game as K ST went from
a near 50/50 toss up to a game that
the #5 team should win 63% of the time.
Here are the estimates for the top two:
Ohio State if #5
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 78.80%
N'Western 99.00%
Minnesota 93.46%
Purdue 73.43%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 90.44%
Penn St 71.95%
Wisconsin 89.39%
Kansas if #5
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 100.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 100.00%
K St 62.87%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 81.75%
Texas A&M 82.83%
Nebraska 95.87%
The race for the best of the one-loss
teams is pretty exciting. I should've
posted before the WVU-L'ville game.
Oh well
Monday, October 29, 2007
How the Other Rating Systems Screw Up Strength of Schedule
Well, austigers on twoplustwo forums asked
why the strength of schedules I give differ
from sagarin and other methods when I use
sagarin heavily for inputs....
My response must've been good, because
NebraskaSucks from phog.net hunted it down
on a poker forum to post it to the phog.net.
Hence, I'll repost it here
----------------------------------------------------
Sagarin and most other rating systems screw
up strentgh of schedule
they'll often just do an arithmetic or
geometric mean of the rankings of all
opponents played
that doesn't work when trying to evaluate
how tough it is to win a game
for instance, a home favortie of 21.5 has
won 94.7% of their games from 1993 to
2006 while a home favorite of 27.5 has
won 97.5%. That isn't much difference
for 6 points. However, a home favorite of
3 has won 54.5% of their games while a
home favorite of 9 has won 74.1% of the
time. That difference is huge. Here,
almost all rating systems just look at the
opponent being 6 points different. A
team that played the 21.5 and 9 point
favorite would be getting just as much
credit as the team playing as a 27.5 and 3
point favorite. However, it was much,
much, much more difficult for the latter
team to win both games.
In summary, all the strength of schedules
I've seen publicized fail because they do
not account for the non-linearity of win/
loss pcts in relation to the ranking of the
opponent.
I use the same inputs as sagarin, but feel
it's a much better methodology for getting
the output.
The other methods fail Kansas due to
Kansas playing some really bad squads...
so bad that I gave Kansas an outright 100%
chance to win some games instead of
capping at 99%. However, there shouldn't
be a huge difference due to Kansas playing
a 100% gimme like SE Louisiana and
Arizona St playing SDST at home (a game
they over 97% of the time). Yet, ASU is
getting credit for playing the #100 overall
(#73 predictor) team while Kansas gets
credit for #203 overall (#186 predictor).
When the schedules are weighted, that will
plummet Kansas even though the onfield
win/loss difference is minimal.
Kansas has had the toughest schedule of
the undefeated so far because they have
played @ K St, @ Colorado, and @ Texas
A&M...all of which are very losable games
even for a #5 team.
This idea had buzzed around my head for
a long time, but I finally broke through
conceptualizing it when I read the
coltonindex criticism of the rpi in college
basketball. The rpi is a sham that has teams
gaming the system to secure automatic
wins from teams rated 130 instead of 270.
The same phenomena is showing up in
college football only the football teams
haven't really thought of 'gaming' the
system yet.
why the strength of schedules I give differ
from sagarin and other methods when I use
sagarin heavily for inputs....
My response must've been good, because
NebraskaSucks from phog.net hunted it down
on a poker forum to post it to the phog.net.
Hence, I'll repost it here
----------------------------------------------------
Sagarin and most other rating systems screw
up strentgh of schedule
they'll often just do an arithmetic or
geometric mean of the rankings of all
opponents played
that doesn't work when trying to evaluate
how tough it is to win a game
for instance, a home favortie of 21.5 has
won 94.7% of their games from 1993 to
2006 while a home favorite of 27.5 has
won 97.5%. That isn't much difference
for 6 points. However, a home favorite of
3 has won 54.5% of their games while a
home favorite of 9 has won 74.1% of the
time. That difference is huge. Here,
almost all rating systems just look at the
opponent being 6 points different. A
team that played the 21.5 and 9 point
favorite would be getting just as much
credit as the team playing as a 27.5 and 3
point favorite. However, it was much,
much, much more difficult for the latter
team to win both games.
In summary, all the strength of schedules
I've seen publicized fail because they do
not account for the non-linearity of win/
loss pcts in relation to the ranking of the
opponent.
I use the same inputs as sagarin, but feel
it's a much better methodology for getting
the output.
The other methods fail Kansas due to
Kansas playing some really bad squads...
so bad that I gave Kansas an outright 100%
chance to win some games instead of
capping at 99%. However, there shouldn't
be a huge difference due to Kansas playing
a 100% gimme like SE Louisiana and
Arizona St playing SDST at home (a game
they over 97% of the time). Yet, ASU is
getting credit for playing the #100 overall
(#73 predictor) team while Kansas gets
credit for #203 overall (#186 predictor).
When the schedules are weighted, that will
plummet Kansas even though the onfield
win/loss difference is minimal.
Kansas has had the toughest schedule of
the undefeated so far because they have
played @ K St, @ Colorado, and @ Texas
A&M...all of which are very losable games
even for a #5 team.
This idea had buzzed around my head for
a long time, but I finally broke through
conceptualizing it when I read the
coltonindex criticism of the rpi in college
basketball. The rpi is a sham that has teams
gaming the system to secure automatic
wins from teams rated 130 instead of 270.
The same phenomena is showing up in
college football only the football teams
haven't really thought of 'gaming' the
system yet.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Methodology
Why?
and
How?
That's the two main questions that are
brought up over and over as I discuss my
new rating system and its results. Why do
we need another ranking system? How
does the ranking system really work?
First, the why.
The problem with college football is that
there are only a limited number of games
and teams vary greatly in strength of the
competition they play. You'll see many
try to get around this by opining on what
teams they think are the 'best,' pointing
out records v top25/top30/top10 or some
other level according to some poll, looking
at conference and/or road records, or
quoting some esoteric strength of schedule
that is often just a linear weighting of
opponents' computer ranking or based on
opponents' win percentage. This always
struck me as a very poor way of doing
things. I came across the colton index for
NCAA bball and its objections to the rpi's
use for that game. Many things in that
complaint struck a chord in me. What really
matters is how tough it is to win or lose
given a schedule. A linear rating is very poor
for that. For instance, a home favorite of 21.5
wins about 94.7% of the time while a home
favorite of 27.5 wins 97.5% of the time. That
isn't much of a difference for playing a team
that is 6 points better than another. Compare
that instead to a home favorite of 3 points
winning 54.5% of the time verse a 9 point
home favorite winning 74%. The same 6 point
difference is HUGE as far as the difference
between winning and losing. The system
advocated in this blog tries to play upon that
difference to point out whom are the best
teams in wins and losses. While arguing who
is/are the 'best' teams is a fun topic and leads
to interesting debate, the champion in nearly
every sport is given to the team with the best
win/loss records. Champion trophies are not
given to the team that 'experts' think is the
'best.' This rating system tries to reward the
teams that earn it on the field!
Now, for the how:
1) (edited in italics 10/20/08) Each team
is ordinally ranked 1 to 120 following the
massey combined rankings. Massey
combined is a system that uses weighting
of every available poll to create a consensus
poll. For every ranking, I gather that ranking's
sagarin overall score. Sagarin overall is the best
known computer evaluation system and the
most reliable from everything I've seen and used.
2) I then pull out the rating for the a base
level team according to sagarin predictor.
When trying to pick out the top teams, I've
compared to a #5 team. If I was looking
at the differences between teams about
number 20, I'd use the #20 team's score
as a baseline.
3) (edited in italics 10/20/08)
Next, I construct a ex post facto 'spread'
for each game by taking the difference
between the baseline ranking and each
opponent's sagarin predictor and add or
subtract a xxblanket 3xx point home-field
advantage. Beginning 2008, the home-field
advantage is no longer a blanket 3 points.
Instead, the HFA listed by Phil Steele for
each individual team will be used. These
are available in Phil Steele's yearly guides.
Phil Steele is a well known and respected
college football guru.
4) From there, I convert the 'spread' into
a win pct by comparing the 'spread' to a
database that has the actual win pcts for
each game played at that spread in college
football from 1993 to 2006 (ty to goldsheet
for that info).
5) After obtaining win pcts for a baseline
team against each team on the schedule, I
just use simple math to project the average
amount of wins the baseline team should
have against that schedule.
6) I then subtract the projected baseline
team's win total from the actual win total for
the specific team under consideration to
obtain a result for how many wins a team
has outperformed a generic baseline team.
7) For giggles, I go further and work through
every possible combination to see what would
a baseline teams' win total look like against
that schedule for all possible outcomes.
It's time for a ranking tool that isn't clouded
by 'brand name' schools or preseason polls.
I'm not arguing this ranking identifies the
'best' teams. I am arguing that this ranking
does a great job and should be a tool in
identifying the teams that have proven it on-
the-field with win/loss results.
and
How?
That's the two main questions that are
brought up over and over as I discuss my
new rating system and its results. Why do
we need another ranking system? How
does the ranking system really work?
First, the why.
The problem with college football is that
there are only a limited number of games
and teams vary greatly in strength of the
competition they play. You'll see many
try to get around this by opining on what
teams they think are the 'best,' pointing
out records v top25/top30/top10 or some
other level according to some poll, looking
at conference and/or road records, or
quoting some esoteric strength of schedule
that is often just a linear weighting of
opponents' computer ranking or based on
opponents' win percentage. This always
struck me as a very poor way of doing
things. I came across the colton index for
NCAA bball and its objections to the rpi's
use for that game. Many things in that
complaint struck a chord in me. What really
matters is how tough it is to win or lose
given a schedule. A linear rating is very poor
for that. For instance, a home favorite of 21.5
wins about 94.7% of the time while a home
favorite of 27.5 wins 97.5% of the time. That
isn't much of a difference for playing a team
that is 6 points better than another. Compare
that instead to a home favorite of 3 points
winning 54.5% of the time verse a 9 point
home favorite winning 74%. The same 6 point
difference is HUGE as far as the difference
between winning and losing. The system
advocated in this blog tries to play upon that
difference to point out whom are the best
teams in wins and losses. While arguing who
is/are the 'best' teams is a fun topic and leads
to interesting debate, the champion in nearly
every sport is given to the team with the best
win/loss records. Champion trophies are not
given to the team that 'experts' think is the
'best.' This rating system tries to reward the
teams that earn it on the field!
Now, for the how:
1) (edited in italics 10/20/08) Each team
is ordinally ranked 1 to 120 following the
massey combined rankings. Massey
combined is a system that uses weighting
of every available poll to create a consensus
poll. For every ranking, I gather that ranking's
sagarin overall score. Sagarin overall is the best
known computer evaluation system and the
most reliable from everything I've seen and used.
2) I then pull out the rating for the a base
level team according to sagarin predictor.
When trying to pick out the top teams, I've
compared to a #5 team. If I was looking
at the differences between teams about
number 20, I'd use the #20 team's score
as a baseline.
3) (edited in italics 10/20/08)
Next, I construct a ex post facto 'spread'
for each game by taking the difference
between the baseline ranking and each
opponent's sagarin predictor and add or
subtract a xxblanket 3xx point home-field
advantage. Beginning 2008, the home-field
advantage is no longer a blanket 3 points.
Instead, the HFA listed by Phil Steele for
each individual team will be used. These
are available in Phil Steele's yearly guides.
Phil Steele is a well known and respected
college football guru.
4) From there, I convert the 'spread' into
a win pct by comparing the 'spread' to a
database that has the actual win pcts for
each game played at that spread in college
football from 1993 to 2006 (ty to goldsheet
for that info).
5) After obtaining win pcts for a baseline
team against each team on the schedule, I
just use simple math to project the average
amount of wins the baseline team should
have against that schedule.
6) I then subtract the projected baseline
team's win total from the actual win total for
the specific team under consideration to
obtain a result for how many wins a team
has outperformed a generic baseline team.
7) For giggles, I go further and work through
every possible combination to see what would
a baseline teams' win total look like against
that schedule for all possible outcomes.
It's time for a ranking tool that isn't clouded
by 'brand name' schools or preseason polls.
I'm not arguing this ranking identifies the
'best' teams. I am arguing that this ranking
does a great job and should be a tool in
identifying the teams that have proven it on-
the-field with win/loss results.
Kansas Remains #1! Post Week 9
Methodology for ranking system. Rankings
are on-the-field win-loss results based.
So, another Saturday is in the books and it's
time to update the ratings. What follows is
the OTFRR#5 through Saturday, October
27th. The top 4 did not shift at all after all of
them surprisingly won their games, most in
dominating #1 fashion. The big news is that
Oregon has caught upto LSU among one loss
teams. Look for a post on the one-loss teams
coming up in the next few days.
Here are the rankings compared to a #5 team
Kansas +1.005W
Ohio State +0.887W
Arizona State +0.844W
Boston College +0.774W
Oregon +0.210W
LSU +0.204W
Kansas is over a full game ahead of what a
typical #5 team would be playing their
schedule. That's right-Kansas could've lost
a game this season and still had a top5 resume.
Oregon has played the toughest schedule so far
for the top 6 teams, but is essentially tied with
LSU for that honor. BC and Ohio State have
played the weakest schedules of the six teams
profiled here.
Expected #5 team performance for team schedules:
Oregon 6.790W 1.210L 0.8488winp
LSU 6.796W 1.204L 0.8495winp
Kansas 6.995W 1.005L 0.874winp
Arizona State 7.156W 0.844L 0.895winp
Ohio State 8.113W 0.887L 0.901winp
Boston College 7.226W 0.774L 0.903winp
Despite what the talking heads on tv say,
there are teams earning it on the field. The
tv pundits prefer to ignore it because it is
not the 'best' teams that are showing it on
the field. Sorry, it's not the 'best' team that
wins, it's the team with the best results.
Right now, I'd guess that Kansas and
Arizona State are the teams in control of
their destiny according to this ranking
system with BC a close third and Ohio
State a distant fourth.
Here are the details for each team:
Ohio State
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 82.83%
N'Western 97.51%
Minnesota 93.33%
Purdue 73.76%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 93.15%
Penn St 73.76%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.3707
8 0.4150
7 0.1753
6 0.0352
5 0.0036
4 0.0002
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Boston College
Wake Forest 89.33%
NC St 96.31%
G Tech 73.99%
Army 99.00%
Umass 99.00%
B Green 99.00%
N Dame 91.96%
V Tech 73.99%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.4203
7 0.4113
6 0.1443
5 0.0225
4 0.0017
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Arizona State
SJ ST 99.00%
Colorado 87.40%
SD ST 97.51%
Org St 80.02%
Stanford 86.57%
Wazzu 94.15%
Washington 94.74%
Cal 76.24%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.3975
7 0.4030
6 0.1622
5 0.0334
4 0.0038
3 0.0002
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Kansas
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 100.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 100.00%
K St 50.83%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 73.43%
Texas A&M 78.27%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2835
7 0.4641
6 0.2177
5 0.0339
4 0.0009
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
LSU
Miss St 94.15%
V Tech 88.44%
MTSU 99.00%
S Car 88.94%
Tulane (N) 99.00%
Florida 68.67%
Kentucky 69.15%
Auburn 72.23%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2490
7 0.4044
6 0.2547
5 0.0785
4 0.0124
3 0.0010
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Oregon
Houston 94.74%
Michigan 69.01%
Fresno St 95.05%
Stanford 86.57%
Cal 76.24%
Wazzu 97.51%
Washington 83.68%
USC 76.24%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2552
7 0.3969
6 0.2495
5 0.0817
4 0.0150
3 0.0016
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
are on-the-field win-loss results based.
So, another Saturday is in the books and it's
time to update the ratings. What follows is
the OTFRR#5 through Saturday, October
27th. The top 4 did not shift at all after all of
them surprisingly won their games, most in
dominating #1 fashion. The big news is that
Oregon has caught upto LSU among one loss
teams. Look for a post on the one-loss teams
coming up in the next few days.
Here are the rankings compared to a #5 team
Kansas +1.005W
Ohio State +0.887W
Arizona State +0.844W
Boston College +0.774W
Oregon +0.210W
LSU +0.204W
Kansas is over a full game ahead of what a
typical #5 team would be playing their
schedule. That's right-Kansas could've lost
a game this season and still had a top5 resume.
Oregon has played the toughest schedule so far
for the top 6 teams, but is essentially tied with
LSU for that honor. BC and Ohio State have
played the weakest schedules of the six teams
profiled here.
Expected #5 team performance for team schedules:
Oregon 6.790W 1.210L 0.8488winp
LSU 6.796W 1.204L 0.8495winp
Kansas 6.995W 1.005L 0.874winp
Arizona State 7.156W 0.844L 0.895winp
Ohio State 8.113W 0.887L 0.901winp
Boston College 7.226W 0.774L 0.903winp
Despite what the talking heads on tv say,
there are teams earning it on the field. The
tv pundits prefer to ignore it because it is
not the 'best' teams that are showing it on
the field. Sorry, it's not the 'best' team that
wins, it's the team with the best results.
Right now, I'd guess that Kansas and
Arizona State are the teams in control of
their destiny according to this ranking
system with BC a close third and Ohio
State a distant fourth.
Here are the details for each team:
Ohio State
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 82.83%
N'Western 97.51%
Minnesota 93.33%
Purdue 73.76%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 93.15%
Penn St 73.76%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.3707
8 0.4150
7 0.1753
6 0.0352
5 0.0036
4 0.0002
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Boston College
Wake Forest 89.33%
NC St 96.31%
G Tech 73.99%
Army 99.00%
Umass 99.00%
B Green 99.00%
N Dame 91.96%
V Tech 73.99%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.4203
7 0.4113
6 0.1443
5 0.0225
4 0.0017
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Arizona State
SJ ST 99.00%
Colorado 87.40%
SD ST 97.51%
Org St 80.02%
Stanford 86.57%
Wazzu 94.15%
Washington 94.74%
Cal 76.24%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.3975
7 0.4030
6 0.1622
5 0.0334
4 0.0038
3 0.0002
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Kansas
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 100.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 100.00%
K St 50.83%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 73.43%
Texas A&M 78.27%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2835
7 0.4641
6 0.2177
5 0.0339
4 0.0009
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
LSU
Miss St 94.15%
V Tech 88.44%
MTSU 99.00%
S Car 88.94%
Tulane (N) 99.00%
Florida 68.67%
Kentucky 69.15%
Auburn 72.23%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2490
7 0.4044
6 0.2547
5 0.0785
4 0.0124
3 0.0010
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Oregon
Houston 94.74%
Michigan 69.01%
Fresno St 95.05%
Stanford 86.57%
Cal 76.24%
Wazzu 97.51%
Washington 83.68%
USC 76.24%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.2552
7 0.3969
6 0.2495
5 0.0817
4 0.0150
3 0.0016
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Phil Fulmer: Coach Bad and Get There
OK, so Tennesse won an exciting OT game v
South Carolina 27-24 after having their
backs against the wall. While the Vols'
coaches deserve some credit, for the second
weekend in a row, the SEC night game on
ESPN showed some awful game/clock
management in the closing minutes. Last
week, it was Les Miles making a blunder but
still winning. This week was Phil Fulmer's
turn.
There was 1:30 seconds left in the 4th qtr in
a game tied at 21 as S Carolina's kicker Ryan
Succop lined up for a 49 yard FG. The Vols
had 2 timeouts remaining. With the clock
already stopped, Phil Fulmer decided to use
one of his two timeouts to 'ice' the kicker.
WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to get into
whether 'icing' the kicker works. No one has
shown that it positively has. There are no
studies on it, only anecdotes. What is truly
amazing is that this wasn't the time to use
an 'icing' timeout no matter what. This was
not the last play in regulation. There was 1:30
left in the game, an eternity it seems in
college football. Fulmer decided it would be
worth it to only have one timeout for that
time period for a winning or tying score for
the chance a timeout might 'ice' the kicker.
Succop, of course, drilled the 49 yarder.
After the Vols got a good return on the
following kickoff, they traveled 22 yards in 6
plays. The Vols had to 'spike' the ball on one
play to stop the clock. Then, the FG team had
a false start after rushing onto the field
following the spike. Fulmer's blunder was then
hidden as his freshman kicker, Lincoln, kicked
the longest FG of his career. Tennessee went
on to win in overtime, as previously
mentioned. However, that is beside the point.
Fulmer made a boneheaded move and the
Volunteers could've used that timeout in a
big way on their last regulation drive.
South Carolina 27-24 after having their
backs against the wall. While the Vols'
coaches deserve some credit, for the second
weekend in a row, the SEC night game on
ESPN showed some awful game/clock
management in the closing minutes. Last
week, it was Les Miles making a blunder but
still winning. This week was Phil Fulmer's
turn.
There was 1:30 seconds left in the 4th qtr in
a game tied at 21 as S Carolina's kicker Ryan
Succop lined up for a 49 yard FG. The Vols
had 2 timeouts remaining. With the clock
already stopped, Phil Fulmer decided to use
one of his two timeouts to 'ice' the kicker.
WTF?!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want to get into
whether 'icing' the kicker works. No one has
shown that it positively has. There are no
studies on it, only anecdotes. What is truly
amazing is that this wasn't the time to use
an 'icing' timeout no matter what. This was
not the last play in regulation. There was 1:30
left in the game, an eternity it seems in
college football. Fulmer decided it would be
worth it to only have one timeout for that
time period for a winning or tying score for
the chance a timeout might 'ice' the kicker.
Succop, of course, drilled the 49 yarder.
After the Vols got a good return on the
following kickoff, they traveled 22 yards in 6
plays. The Vols had to 'spike' the ball on one
play to stop the clock. Then, the FG team had
a false start after rushing onto the field
following the spike. Fulmer's blunder was then
hidden as his freshman kicker, Lincoln, kicked
the longest FG of his career. Tennessee went
on to win in overtime, as previously
mentioned. However, that is beside the point.
Fulmer made a boneheaded move and the
Volunteers could've used that timeout in a
big way on their last regulation drive.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
One Week Makes a Big Difference
Heading into this week's games, I want to use
the 4 undefeateds to highlight how big real
conference contests are at demonstrating who
are the best teams in the country.
Going into this week, we have four undefeateds
in the BCS conferences.
According to the OTFRR#5, here are the wins
ahead of a #5 team playing their schedule and
the chance a #5 team would be undefeated
right now having played those respective
schedules.
Kansas +0.703 0.4219
Ohio State +0.659 0.4872
Arizona State +0.619 0.5185
Boston College +0.461 0.6047
Now, assuming those teams all win and
using the post week 8 sagarin predictors,
we'd have the following:
Ohio State +0.951W 0.3452
Kansas +0.894W 0.3413
Arizona State +0.821W 0.4139
Boston College +0.663W 0.4828
There are quite a few things I want to
highlight from this exercise. One, notice
how each team's chances of being
undefeated are now below to way below
50% even assuming they were a #5 team.
Along with this, notice how the top teams
are nearly a full win above what one
would expect a top 5 team to be. That
means that even with one loss, they'd
almost be right on the pace of a top 5
team playing their schedule.
Secondly, the potential week 9
numbers show Ohio St jumping Kansas
even though Kansas still has the least
chance of being undefeated. In this case,
it shows how the depth of opponents
and more games can overweigh verse a
schedule that has a few more really
tough games.
Finally, the chart lends to the argument
that perhaps the voters have gotten it
right all this time in putting undefeated
teams into the title game ahead of very
talented one loss teams. It appears that
even the softest of BCS conference
schedules separates the wheat from the
chaff.
the 4 undefeateds to highlight how big real
conference contests are at demonstrating who
are the best teams in the country.
Going into this week, we have four undefeateds
in the BCS conferences.
According to the OTFRR#5, here are the wins
ahead of a #5 team playing their schedule and
the chance a #5 team would be undefeated
right now having played those respective
schedules.
Kansas +0.703 0.4219
Ohio State +0.659 0.4872
Arizona State +0.619 0.5185
Boston College +0.461 0.6047
Now, assuming those teams all win and
using the post week 8 sagarin predictors,
we'd have the following:
Ohio State +0.951W 0.3452
Kansas +0.894W 0.3413
Arizona State +0.821W 0.4139
Boston College +0.663W 0.4828
There are quite a few things I want to
highlight from this exercise. One, notice
how each team's chances of being
undefeated are now below to way below
50% even assuming they were a #5 team.
Along with this, notice how the top teams
are nearly a full win above what one
would expect a top 5 team to be. That
means that even with one loss, they'd
almost be right on the pace of a top 5
team playing their schedule.
Secondly, the potential week 9
numbers show Ohio St jumping Kansas
even though Kansas still has the least
chance of being undefeated. In this case,
it shows how the depth of opponents
and more games can overweigh verse a
schedule that has a few more really
tough games.
Finally, the chart lends to the argument
that perhaps the voters have gotten it
right all this time in putting undefeated
teams into the title game ahead of very
talented one loss teams. It appears that
even the softest of BCS conference
schedules separates the wheat from the
chaff.
Expect an 'Upset'
OK, so this season has seemed to have more
than the usual amount of 'uspets.' However,
the TV talking heads have taken it too far. It
seems more than likely we'll hear about a
giant surprise and another 'upset' this week.
However, the only true upset would be if the
final 4 BCS conference undefeateds did not
lose this week. Now, I don't exactly believe
the gambling markets are efficient, but they
are the best predictor out there. According to
Pinnacle (the most efficient gambling market),
here are the chances for the four remaining
unbeatens to win this week as of this post:
Boston College 39.11%
Arizona State 57.97%
Kansas 60.12%
Ohio State 61.03%
Assuming those are accurate, the undefeated 4
can expect to go 2.182W and 1.818L this week!
WINS P
4 0.08319927
3 0.29814069
2 0.37625854
1 0.20263412
0 0.03976737
There is only an 8.32% chance that all 4
win this weekend. There is a 20.26%
chance that only one remains unbeaten
after this weekend. Have faith LSU fans,
your team still has alot to say about the
way this year's title picture shakes out.
There is a better than 60/40 chance that
2 or less BCS teams will remain without
a loss after this week. Team's are getting
tested this weekend and it is great for
fans!
than the usual amount of 'uspets.' However,
the TV talking heads have taken it too far. It
seems more than likely we'll hear about a
giant surprise and another 'upset' this week.
However, the only true upset would be if the
final 4 BCS conference undefeateds did not
lose this week. Now, I don't exactly believe
the gambling markets are efficient, but they
are the best predictor out there. According to
Pinnacle (the most efficient gambling market),
here are the chances for the four remaining
unbeatens to win this week as of this post:
Boston College 39.11%
Arizona State 57.97%
Kansas 60.12%
Ohio State 61.03%
Assuming those are accurate, the undefeated 4
can expect to go 2.182W and 1.818L this week!
WINS P
4 0.08319927
3 0.29814069
2 0.37625854
1 0.20263412
0 0.03976737
There is only an 8.32% chance that all 4
win this weekend. There is a 20.26%
chance that only one remains unbeaten
after this weekend. Have faith LSU fans,
your team still has alot to say about the
way this year's title picture shakes out.
There is a better than 60/40 chance that
2 or less BCS teams will remain without
a loss after this week. Team's are getting
tested this weekend and it is great for
fans!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Les Miles managed the endgame terribly
In case anybody missed it, the final of the
LSU-Auburn game was fantastic this past
Saturday. LSU came back from a 17-7
deficit to gain a 23-17 lead. With 3:35 to go
in the game, Auburn scored a TD and hit
the xp for a 24-23 advantage. After six
plays and a nice spot, LSU had moved to
the Auburn 25 and Les Miles decided to
slow his offense down rather than stay in
a hurry-up scenario. LSU had a first down
and about 1:45 on the clock. This is a
crucial point where I believe Les Miles
really hurt his team's chances to win the
game.
Here is the yahoo summary of what
happened next:
1st-10, Aub25 1:30 M. Flynn rushed up
the middle for 2 yard gain
2nd-8, Aub23 0:50 M. Flynn passed to
R. Dickson to the right for 1 yard gain
3rd-7, Aub22 0:10 M. Flynn passed to
D. Byrd to the left for 22 yard touchdown.
C. David made PAT
Yuck! Despite a timeout and 1:30, LSU
under Miles direction played to make
that the last set of downs.
Basically, Miles decided to have one shot
at the goaline from 20+ yards away and
to have a FG chance, and I emphasize
the word chance, if that play didn't work
out. Now, many will point out how it
seemed Miles was playing for the FG and
how his deep pass suckered Auburn.
That just isn't the case; Auburn was not
suckered. The CB was running stride for
stride with the wideout. It took a near
perfect pass and a great reception to
complete that pass over very good
coverage.
In essence, Miles played for a 20+ yard
TD pass and a FG try of 36-40 versus
running the hurry-up for the last 1:30
to see if his team could drive and,
possibly, leaving some time on the clock
for Auburn if LSU scored early.
Even with a QB who was 21 0f 33 for 297
yards at that time, the chances of a 22 yd
TD pass are not good. Note that only 4
of LSU's passes during the rest of the
game were for more yards than that. At
this point, the best anyone can do is
guess at the likelihood of completing that
pass. I'll give Miles the benefit of the doubt
and say LSU had a 30% chance of hitting
the 22 yarder.
If they don't hit the pass, LSU would be
forced to attempt a FG about 39 yards.
Colt David was 14 of 19 for the year on
FGs, but those numbers are a fraud to
use out of context. This year, Colt David
is 12 for 12 inside 35 yards on FGs. He is
2 for 4 on 36-40, 0 for 2 on 41-45, and 0
for 1 on 50+. The misses in the 36-40
range where on his home field and in the
SuperDome! What does this mean?
It means that if LSU doesn't come up with
that TD pass, they are playing for a 50%
chance of making a FG.
For those that can do math, the way Les
Miles played the endgame gave LSU a
65% chance of winning the game.
Now, consider the alternative pathway for
Miles and the Bayou Bengals. 1:40 on the
clock and a first down at the Auburn 25.
Why not just stick with a slight hurry-up
version of the offense they'd run the whole
second half that allowed for first downs
and moving the ball in segments rather than
going for the whole chunk.
LSU had scored (2TDs, 2FGs) four times on
its five second half possessions. They were
averaging nearly 9 yards per pass attempt
and nearly 7 yards per play. For those that
don't track such things, that is extremely
successful movement of the ball. Their
recent drives were covering lots of yards,
40+ on all of them, and not taking much
time off the clock.
Yahoo's second half drive log for LSU:
time of poss/where drive began/# plays/
yards/result
3:39 LSU 32 8 56 FG
2:38 LSU 4 8 45 Int
1:07 LSU 33 5 58 FG
2:18 LSU 16 8 84 TD
2:54 LSU 29 7 55 FG
3:12 LSU 42 9 58 TD
Considering LSU was one first down from
Colt David's 100% zone, the endzone
was only 25 yards away, LSU was on a roll
offensively against a tired defense, and the
time pressure wasn't bad with over a 1:30
on the clock with a timeout, I am dumb-
founded for why Les Miles played for only
a 65% chance to win the game. If they just
continued with a slight hurry-up, I have LSU
scoring a td 50% of the time and getting a FG
90% of the time they don't get a TD. There
would be little chance of Auburn scoring again
after an LSU score considering a large number
of those scores come very late in the game, less
than 20 seconds, and Auburn's offense hadn't
been very good the entire game (4.7 yppl). The
scoring drives for Auburn had all taken numerous
plays and over 4:30 on the gameclock. This was
not an offense that had a good chance to drive
the field in less than a minute.
I'm being very nice on Mr. Miles here with the
numbers and erroring to his side of things on
the scale. However, it looks like Miles turned a
game that had an 80%+ chance of LSU victory
into a game with only a 65% chance for LSU to
pull down the 'W'! That's not a gamble, that is
a blunder!
LSU-Auburn game was fantastic this past
Saturday. LSU came back from a 17-7
deficit to gain a 23-17 lead. With 3:35 to go
in the game, Auburn scored a TD and hit
the xp for a 24-23 advantage. After six
plays and a nice spot, LSU had moved to
the Auburn 25 and Les Miles decided to
slow his offense down rather than stay in
a hurry-up scenario. LSU had a first down
and about 1:45 on the clock. This is a
crucial point where I believe Les Miles
really hurt his team's chances to win the
game.
Here is the yahoo summary of what
happened next:
1st-10, Aub25 1:30 M. Flynn rushed up
the middle for 2 yard gain
2nd-8, Aub23 0:50 M. Flynn passed to
R. Dickson to the right for 1 yard gain
3rd-7, Aub22 0:10 M. Flynn passed to
D. Byrd to the left for 22 yard touchdown.
C. David made PAT
Yuck! Despite a timeout and 1:30, LSU
under Miles direction played to make
that the last set of downs.
Basically, Miles decided to have one shot
at the goaline from 20+ yards away and
to have a FG chance, and I emphasize
the word chance, if that play didn't work
out. Now, many will point out how it
seemed Miles was playing for the FG and
how his deep pass suckered Auburn.
That just isn't the case; Auburn was not
suckered. The CB was running stride for
stride with the wideout. It took a near
perfect pass and a great reception to
complete that pass over very good
coverage.
In essence, Miles played for a 20+ yard
TD pass and a FG try of 36-40 versus
running the hurry-up for the last 1:30
to see if his team could drive and,
possibly, leaving some time on the clock
for Auburn if LSU scored early.
Even with a QB who was 21 0f 33 for 297
yards at that time, the chances of a 22 yd
TD pass are not good. Note that only 4
of LSU's passes during the rest of the
game were for more yards than that. At
this point, the best anyone can do is
guess at the likelihood of completing that
pass. I'll give Miles the benefit of the doubt
and say LSU had a 30% chance of hitting
the 22 yarder.
If they don't hit the pass, LSU would be
forced to attempt a FG about 39 yards.
Colt David was 14 of 19 for the year on
FGs, but those numbers are a fraud to
use out of context. This year, Colt David
is 12 for 12 inside 35 yards on FGs. He is
2 for 4 on 36-40, 0 for 2 on 41-45, and 0
for 1 on 50+. The misses in the 36-40
range where on his home field and in the
SuperDome! What does this mean?
It means that if LSU doesn't come up with
that TD pass, they are playing for a 50%
chance of making a FG.
For those that can do math, the way Les
Miles played the endgame gave LSU a
65% chance of winning the game.
Now, consider the alternative pathway for
Miles and the Bayou Bengals. 1:40 on the
clock and a first down at the Auburn 25.
Why not just stick with a slight hurry-up
version of the offense they'd run the whole
second half that allowed for first downs
and moving the ball in segments rather than
going for the whole chunk.
LSU had scored (2TDs, 2FGs) four times on
its five second half possessions. They were
averaging nearly 9 yards per pass attempt
and nearly 7 yards per play. For those that
don't track such things, that is extremely
successful movement of the ball. Their
recent drives were covering lots of yards,
40+ on all of them, and not taking much
time off the clock.
Yahoo's second half drive log for LSU:
time of poss/where drive began/# plays/
yards/result
3:39 LSU 32 8 56 FG
2:38 LSU 4 8 45 Int
1:07 LSU 33 5 58 FG
2:18 LSU 16 8 84 TD
2:54 LSU 29 7 55 FG
3:12 LSU 42 9 58 TD
Considering LSU was one first down from
Colt David's 100% zone, the endzone
was only 25 yards away, LSU was on a roll
offensively against a tired defense, and the
time pressure wasn't bad with over a 1:30
on the clock with a timeout, I am dumb-
founded for why Les Miles played for only
a 65% chance to win the game. If they just
continued with a slight hurry-up, I have LSU
scoring a td 50% of the time and getting a FG
90% of the time they don't get a TD. There
would be little chance of Auburn scoring again
after an LSU score considering a large number
of those scores come very late in the game, less
than 20 seconds, and Auburn's offense hadn't
been very good the entire game (4.7 yppl). The
scoring drives for Auburn had all taken numerous
plays and over 4:30 on the gameclock. This was
not an offense that had a good chance to drive
the field in less than a minute.
I'm being very nice on Mr. Miles here with the
numbers and erroring to his side of things on
the scale. However, it looks like Miles turned a
game that had an 80%+ chance of LSU victory
into a game with only a 65% chance for LSU to
pull down the 'W'! That's not a gamble, that is
a blunder!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Best Conference? SEC? No. PAC10? No. Big East! Actually, a tie?
rwperu at the twoplustwo forums brought up an interesting point and asked if the on-the-field results ranking (OTFRR) methodology could shed some light on the best conference.
GREAT IDEA!
I thought it could and, judging by the results,
it definitely does. I've always had a problem
with traditional conference ratings. Talking
heads on tv are just that--talking heads. The
computer rankings of conferences all suffer
from the same flaws that the rpi suffers from
in NCAAB, a linear weighting of opponents.
By a linear weighting, it says that a
conference that has the number 1, number
28, and number 61 team in the land is the
same as the conference with number 29,
number 30, number 31. Both average #30.
However, which of those is truly a better
conference? It's the age old debate of
weighting the top heavy verse the depth
heavy and all the combinations in between.
To paint a fuller picture of conference
strength, I decided to use the OTFRR to
test each conference. I tested to see the
expected win and loss total for the #5, #15,
and #50 teams in the country playing the
full conference slate. By looking at the
records, one obtains the win pct a team of
that quality would have playing against
every team in the conference. The results
are somewhat surprising. It seems most
talking heads have assumed this year to be
a two horse race between the SEC and Pac10.
The numbers make it seem a 3 horse race,
with the dark horse, the Big East, actually
being a nose ahead of the others. However,
it turns out the difference between the top 3,
Big East, SEC, and PAC10, are extremely
small and within therange of error. What we
actually have is strong competition
throughout the college landscape with some
subtle differencesthat get blown out of
proportion.
Here are the main results:
For a #5 team in the land playing every conference member:
Big East 6.042W 1.958L 0.755winp
SEC 9.129W 2.871L 0.761winp
PAC10 7.639W 2.361L 0.764winp
BIGXII 9.361W 2.639L 0.780winp
Big11Ten 9.374W 1.626L 0.852winp
ACC 10.602W 1.398L 0.884winp
For a #15 team
Big East 4.830W 3.170L 0.6038winp
SEC 7.249W 4.751L 0.6041winp
PAC10 6.052W 3.948L 0.605winp
BIGXII 7.607W 4.393L 0.634winp
Big11Ten 8.016W 2.984L 0.729winp
ACC 9.082W 2.918L 0.757winp
For a #50 team
SEC 4.543W 7.457L 0.379winp
PAC10 3.811W 6.190L 0.381winp
Big East 3.143W 4.858L 0.393winp
BigXII 5.086W 6.914L 0.424winp
Big11Ten 5.562W 5.438L 0.506winp
ACC 6.139W 5.861L 0.512winp
Many things are pretty telling from the analysis.
1) Looks like the talking heads are mainly right
--ACC isn't good (a #50 team would be above .500)
--Big11Ten isn't good (again, #50 > .500)
--BIGXII is somewhere in the middle
--SEC and PAC10 are good
2) Big East is severely underrated
3) The differences aren't that much on the whole
--hundredths and even thousandths of a proportion seperating
the top 3 in numerous categories.
4) The difference non-linearities create
--Sagarin has SEC a clear #1...this analysis, which uses his base,
shows otherwise.
5) The better teams have it tougher running through the
BigEast. The lower teams have a tougher road through the SEC.
GREAT IDEA!
I thought it could and, judging by the results,
it definitely does. I've always had a problem
with traditional conference ratings. Talking
heads on tv are just that--talking heads. The
computer rankings of conferences all suffer
from the same flaws that the rpi suffers from
in NCAAB, a linear weighting of opponents.
By a linear weighting, it says that a
conference that has the number 1, number
28, and number 61 team in the land is the
same as the conference with number 29,
number 30, number 31. Both average #30.
However, which of those is truly a better
conference? It's the age old debate of
weighting the top heavy verse the depth
heavy and all the combinations in between.
To paint a fuller picture of conference
strength, I decided to use the OTFRR to
test each conference. I tested to see the
expected win and loss total for the #5, #15,
and #50 teams in the country playing the
full conference slate. By looking at the
records, one obtains the win pct a team of
that quality would have playing against
every team in the conference. The results
are somewhat surprising. It seems most
talking heads have assumed this year to be
a two horse race between the SEC and Pac10.
The numbers make it seem a 3 horse race,
with the dark horse, the Big East, actually
being a nose ahead of the others. However,
it turns out the difference between the top 3,
Big East, SEC, and PAC10, are extremely
small and within therange of error. What we
actually have is strong competition
throughout the college landscape with some
subtle differencesthat get blown out of
proportion.
Here are the main results:
For a #5 team in the land playing every conference member:
Big East 6.042W 1.958L 0.755winp
SEC 9.129W 2.871L 0.761winp
PAC10 7.639W 2.361L 0.764winp
BIGXII 9.361W 2.639L 0.780winp
Big11Ten 9.374W 1.626L 0.852winp
ACC 10.602W 1.398L 0.884winp
For a #15 team
Big East 4.830W 3.170L 0.6038winp
SEC 7.249W 4.751L 0.6041winp
PAC10 6.052W 3.948L 0.605winp
BIGXII 7.607W 4.393L 0.634winp
Big11Ten 8.016W 2.984L 0.729winp
ACC 9.082W 2.918L 0.757winp
For a #50 team
SEC 4.543W 7.457L 0.379winp
PAC10 3.811W 6.190L 0.381winp
Big East 3.143W 4.858L 0.393winp
BigXII 5.086W 6.914L 0.424winp
Big11Ten 5.562W 5.438L 0.506winp
ACC 6.139W 5.861L 0.512winp
Many things are pretty telling from the analysis.
1) Looks like the talking heads are mainly right
--ACC isn't good (a #50 team would be above .500)
--Big11Ten isn't good (again, #50 > .500)
--BIGXII is somewhere in the middle
--SEC and PAC10 are good
2) Big East is severely underrated
3) The differences aren't that much on the whole
--hundredths and even thousandths of a proportion seperating
the top 3 in numerous categories.
4) The difference non-linearities create
--Sagarin has SEC a clear #1...this analysis, which uses his base,
shows otherwise.
5) The better teams have it tougher running through the
BigEast. The lower teams have a tougher road through the SEC.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Notre Dame (Charlie) v Washington (Ty) and some Island Love
I've recently come across many debates on the
whole Charlie Weis v Ty Willingham, ND v
Washington mumbo jumbo. While I hope to
keep my blog Irish free, since it's about
winning teams, I thought I'd add my two cents
based on the on-the-field Results Ranking for
a #50 teams (OTFRR50). OTFRR50 looks how
a generic #50 team in the country would do
verse a schedule and compare that to how the
actual team did based on the methodology here.
While, I'm at it, I'll throw in a comparison
between the 2 schools and Hawai'i so that the
island folk don't get on me too much for the
last post.
The results first
OTFRR50
Hawai'i
+0.933W expected 6.067W 0.933L 0.867winp
Washington
-0.255W expected 2.255W 4.746L 0.322winp
Notre Dame
-1.893W expected 2.893W 5.108L 0.362winp
While Ty's team has underperformed compared
to a #50 team, Notre Dame is a complete joke to
even be mentioned as a # 50 team. Also, the
Huskies have played a tougher schedule for a #50
team to compete against, while Notre Dame
still gets lots of credit for a schedule that isn't
that close to Washington's in difficulty. Finally,
we see that Hawai'i does stand out well above a
typical #50 team even with a light schedule.
What follows are the details:
Notre Dame if #50
G Tech 51.61%
Penn St 26.88%
Michigan 26.88%
Mich St 51.61%
Purdue 32.56%
UCLA 16.74%
B C 40.60%
USC 42.37%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0002
7 0.0031
6 0.0222
5 0.0865
4 0.2023
3 0.2907
2 0.2513
1 0.1196
0 0.0241
Washington if #50
Syracuse 82.50%
Boise ST 48.84%
Ohio St 18.83%
UCLA 16.74%
USC 42.37%
Arizona St 5.43%
Oregon 10.74%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.0000
6 0.0012
5 0.0157
4 0.0949
3 0.2782
2 0.3741
1 0.2065
0 0.0294
Hawai'i if #50
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 70.85%
UNLV 70.85%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 91.96%
Utah St 92.39%
SJST 80.66%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3440
6 0.4240
5 0.1907
4 0.0380
3 0.0033
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Sorry Domers, we deal in cold hard facts around here.
whole Charlie Weis v Ty Willingham, ND v
Washington mumbo jumbo. While I hope to
keep my blog Irish free, since it's about
winning teams, I thought I'd add my two cents
based on the on-the-field Results Ranking for
a #50 teams (OTFRR50). OTFRR50 looks how
a generic #50 team in the country would do
verse a schedule and compare that to how the
actual team did based on the methodology here.
While, I'm at it, I'll throw in a comparison
between the 2 schools and Hawai'i so that the
island folk don't get on me too much for the
last post.
The results first
OTFRR50
Hawai'i
+0.933W expected 6.067W 0.933L 0.867winp
Washington
-0.255W expected 2.255W 4.746L 0.322winp
Notre Dame
-1.893W expected 2.893W 5.108L 0.362winp
While Ty's team has underperformed compared
to a #50 team, Notre Dame is a complete joke to
even be mentioned as a # 50 team. Also, the
Huskies have played a tougher schedule for a #50
team to compete against, while Notre Dame
still gets lots of credit for a schedule that isn't
that close to Washington's in difficulty. Finally,
we see that Hawai'i does stand out well above a
typical #50 team even with a light schedule.
What follows are the details:
Notre Dame if #50
G Tech 51.61%
Penn St 26.88%
Michigan 26.88%
Mich St 51.61%
Purdue 32.56%
UCLA 16.74%
B C 40.60%
USC 42.37%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0002
7 0.0031
6 0.0222
5 0.0865
4 0.2023
3 0.2907
2 0.2513
1 0.1196
0 0.0241
Washington if #50
Syracuse 82.50%
Boise ST 48.84%
Ohio St 18.83%
UCLA 16.74%
USC 42.37%
Arizona St 5.43%
Oregon 10.74%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.0000
6 0.0012
5 0.0157
4 0.0949
3 0.2782
2 0.3741
1 0.2065
0 0.0294
Hawai'i if #50
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 70.85%
UNLV 70.85%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 91.96%
Utah St 92.39%
SJST 80.66%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3440
6 0.4240
5 0.1907
4 0.0380
3 0.0033
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Sorry Domers, we deal in cold hard facts around here.
Ducks, Warriors, and Rainbows
This post is a response for an interesting point
brought up by BobJoeJim and Semtex from
the twoplustwo forums.
What about Hawai'i?
They are obviously going to have an
outperformance number since they haven't
lost. Does this mean they are a better team
than Oregon? Ironically, if we are comparing
both by the top 5 standards, it appears so.
However, this points out how the
on-the-field results ranking (hereafter
OTFRR) needs to be used only for teams that qualify for it based
on previous rankings--such as: as the #50 team, as the #25 team,
as the #15 team, and so on. The same
process used to determine the top team can
be used to whittle down who qualifies to be
considered. As IggyMcfly(2p2er) said, "Yeah,
really comparing the Top 5's expected wins
only works with Top 5 caliber teams."
To show this point in action, let's look at
Hawai'i and see how they compare to Oregon
as a #15 team and see if Hawai'i are warriors
or rainbows.
The initial confusion is this
as a top 5 team playing their respective
schedules, Hawai'i is outperforming verse
their schedule while Oregon is
underperforming.
Hawai'i is +0.225 wins
Oregon is -0.029 wins (notice the correction
from the previous post)
Oregon if #5
Houston 92.11%
Michigan 70.86%
Fresno St 93.81%
Stanford 85.56%
Cal 79.82%
Wazzu 99.00%
Washington 81.70%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3382
6 0.4121
5 0.1964
4 0.0469
3 0.0059
2 0.0004
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Hawai'i if #5
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 90.24%
UNLV 90.24%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 99.00%
Utah St 99.00%
SJST 99.00%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.7901
6 0.1949
5 0.0147
4 0.0003
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
sidenote is that a #5 team should have a
0.968 win pct verse Hawai'i's schedule.
This is far easier than the top contenders
we visited in the previous post.
Now, let's look at how they are faring as a
#15 team playing their respective schedules.
Oregon
+0.838W expected 5.162W 1.838L 0.737winp
Hawai'i
+0.288W expected 6.712W 0.288L 0.959winp
The details are as follows:
Oregon if #15
Houston 79.81%
Michigan 53.94%
Fresno St 88.13%
Stanford 70.86%
Cal 61.20%
Wazzu 96.11%
Washington 66.13%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.1046
6 0.2969
5 0.3355
4 0.1929
3 0.0597
2 0.0096
1 0.0007
0 0.0000
Hawai'i if #15
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 91.96%
UNLV 87.50%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 99.00%
Utah St 99.00%
SJST 93.75%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.7393
6 0.2345
5 0.0251
4 0.0011
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
It's clear that Hawai'i's schedule isn't even
tough enough to test if they are truely a
top15 team. The #15 team would be
undefeated ~74% of the time facing that
schedule.
In essence, I think this knocks Hawai'i out
of competing for the top spot right now.
However, as the season goes on, there are
more 'losable' games that can 'test' and
'flesh out' where Hawai'i belongs in the
picture.
brought up by BobJoeJim and Semtex from
the twoplustwo forums.
What about Hawai'i?
They are obviously going to have an
outperformance number since they haven't
lost. Does this mean they are a better team
than Oregon? Ironically, if we are comparing
both by the top 5 standards, it appears so.
However, this points out how the
on-the-field results ranking (hereafter
OTFRR) needs to be used only for teams that qualify for it based
on previous rankings--such as: as the #50 team, as the #25 team,
as the #15 team, and so on. The same
process used to determine the top team can
be used to whittle down who qualifies to be
considered. As IggyMcfly(2p2er) said, "Yeah,
really comparing the Top 5's expected wins
only works with Top 5 caliber teams."
To show this point in action, let's look at
Hawai'i and see how they compare to Oregon
as a #15 team and see if Hawai'i are warriors
or rainbows.
The initial confusion is this
as a top 5 team playing their respective
schedules, Hawai'i is outperforming verse
their schedule while Oregon is
underperforming.
Hawai'i is +0.225 wins
Oregon is -0.029 wins (notice the correction
from the previous post)
Oregon if #5
Houston 92.11%
Michigan 70.86%
Fresno St 93.81%
Stanford 85.56%
Cal 79.82%
Wazzu 99.00%
Washington 81.70%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3382
6 0.4121
5 0.1964
4 0.0469
3 0.0059
2 0.0004
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Hawai'i if #5
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 90.24%
UNLV 90.24%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 99.00%
Utah St 99.00%
SJST 99.00%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.7901
6 0.1949
5 0.0147
4 0.0003
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
sidenote is that a #5 team should have a
0.968 win pct verse Hawai'i's schedule.
This is far easier than the top contenders
we visited in the previous post.
Now, let's look at how they are faring as a
#15 team playing their respective schedules.
Oregon
+0.838W expected 5.162W 1.838L 0.737winp
Hawai'i
+0.288W expected 6.712W 0.288L 0.959winp
The details are as follows:
Oregon if #15
Houston 79.81%
Michigan 53.94%
Fresno St 88.13%
Stanford 70.86%
Cal 61.20%
Wazzu 96.11%
Washington 66.13%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.1046
6 0.2969
5 0.3355
4 0.1929
3 0.0597
2 0.0096
1 0.0007
0 0.0000
Hawai'i if #15
N Colorado 100.00%
La Tech 91.96%
UNLV 87.50%
Charleston So 100.00%
Idaho 99.00%
Utah St 99.00%
SJST 93.75%
WINS
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.7393
6 0.2345
5 0.0251
4 0.0011
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
It's clear that Hawai'i's schedule isn't even
tough enough to test if they are truely a
top15 team. The #15 team would be
undefeated ~74% of the time facing that
schedule.
In essence, I think this knocks Hawai'i out
of competing for the top spot right now.
However, as the season goes on, there are
more 'losable' games that can 'test' and
'flesh out' where Hawai'i belongs in the
picture.
Kansas is #1! (post week 8 NCAAF musings)
Here's an interesting stat result about the 'top'
teams in the land:
Kansas +0.703
Ohio State +0.659
Arizona State +0.619
Boston College +0.461
LSU +0.376
Oregon -0.119
In my results oriented world, Kansas is the top
team in all the land. What are those numbers?
How did I get them? Well, I'll introduce that in
the rest of this post.
These are a pure results oriented ranking.
They represent how many more (or less) wins
each respective team has verse the schedule
they played than a generic #5 team in the
land would have. That's the general idea and,
of course, it requires some breaking down as
there are quite a few assumptions
(reasonable I hope) and explanations.
1) For each team, I gathered their opponents'
sagarin predictor rating after week 8
Saturday games. Sagarin predictor is the best
known computer evaluation system and the
most reliable from everything I've seen. (In
an ideal world, I'd probably find a weighted
combination of all rankings, like on Massey
compare web page, and assign a rating
through that.)
2) I then pull out the rating for the #5 team according to sagarin predictor
3) I construct a ex post facto 'spread' for
each game by taking the difference
between the #5 ranking and each
opponent's sagarin predictor and add or
subtract a blanket 3 point home-field
advantage.
4) From there, I convert the 'spread' into
a win pct by comparing
the 'spread' to the a database that has the
actual win pcts for
each game played at that spread in college
football from 1993 to 2006 (ty to goldsheet
for that info).
5) After obtaining a win pct for a generic
#5 team against each team on the schedule,
I just add simple math to get the average
amount of wins the #5 team should have
against that schedule.
6) I then subtract the projected #5 team
win total from the actual win total for the
specific team to obtain a result for how
many wins a team has outperformed a
generic #5 team.
7) For giggles, I go further and work through
every possible combination to see what
would a generic #5's teams win total look
like against that schedule for all possible
outcomes.
Without further ado, here is some of the
grunt work for each team
Kansas
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 99.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 99.00%
K St 57.34%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 77.37%
6.297W 0.703L 0.900%
WINS p
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.4219
6 0.4586
5 0.1143
4 0.0051
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Ohio State
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 81.70%
N'Western 96.48%
Minnesota 92.59%
Purdue 77.37%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 88.92%
7.341W 0.659L 0.918%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.4872
7 0.3839
6 0.1124
5 0.0154
4 0.0011
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Arizona State
SJ ST 99.00%
Colorado 88.13%
SD ST 96.48%
Org St 87.94%
Stanford 85.56%
Wazzu 90.24%
Washington 90.72%
6.381W 0.619L 0.912%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.5185
6 0.3617
5 0.1031
4 0.0154
3 0.0013
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Boston College
Wake Forest 92.08%
NC St 98.18%
G Tech 76.39%
Army 99.00%
Umass 99.00%
B Green 99.00%
N Dame 90.24%
6.539W 0.461L 0.934%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.6047
6 0.3338
5 0.0573
4 0.0041
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
LSU
Miss St 93.41%
V Tech 92.08%
MTSU 98.18%
S Car 88.10%
Tulane (N) 99.00%
Florida 62.03%
Kentucky 57.34%
Auburn 72.27%
6.624W 1.376L 0.828%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.1893
7 0.3900
6 0.2970
5 0.1043
4 0.0178
3 0.0015
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Oregon
Houston 92.11%
Michigan 70.86%
Fresno St 93.81%
Stanford 85.56%
Cal 79.82%
Wazzu 99.00%
Washington 90.72%
6.119W 0.881L 0.874%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3756
6 0.4119
5 0.1726
4 0.0357
3 0.0039
2 0.0002
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Now, don't get me wrong LSU fans. I do believe you might have the 'best' team. In no sport, however, is the title given to the 'best' team. It's given to the team that earns it on the field. While I don't think Kansas is as good as any of the teams I compared them against here. They've had the best results on the field. But, there are alot of games left and plenty of time for things to change.
BTW-I think LSU has had the toughest schedule and my analysis bears backs that notion. The key is the expected win pct for a #5 team playing the respective schedules.
LSU 0.828
Oregon 0.874
Kansas 0.900
Arizona State 0.912
Ohio State 0.918
Boston College 0.934
I might due some sensitivity analysis and see how the numbers come out if I go with the #1 sagarin predictor instead of #5.
teams in the land:
Kansas +0.703
Ohio State +0.659
Arizona State +0.619
Boston College +0.461
LSU +0.376
Oregon -0.119
In my results oriented world, Kansas is the top
team in all the land. What are those numbers?
How did I get them? Well, I'll introduce that in
the rest of this post.
These are a pure results oriented ranking.
They represent how many more (or less) wins
each respective team has verse the schedule
they played than a generic #5 team in the
land would have. That's the general idea and,
of course, it requires some breaking down as
there are quite a few assumptions
(reasonable I hope) and explanations.
1) For each team, I gathered their opponents'
sagarin predictor rating after week 8
Saturday games. Sagarin predictor is the best
known computer evaluation system and the
most reliable from everything I've seen. (In
an ideal world, I'd probably find a weighted
combination of all rankings, like on Massey
compare web page, and assign a rating
through that.)
2) I then pull out the rating for the #5 team according to sagarin predictor
3) I construct a ex post facto 'spread' for
each game by taking the difference
between the #5 ranking and each
opponent's sagarin predictor and add or
subtract a blanket 3 point home-field
advantage.
4) From there, I convert the 'spread' into
a win pct by comparing
the 'spread' to the a database that has the
actual win pcts for
each game played at that spread in college
football from 1993 to 2006 (ty to goldsheet
for that info).
5) After obtaining a win pct for a generic
#5 team against each team on the schedule,
I just add simple math to get the average
amount of wins the #5 team should have
against that schedule.
6) I then subtract the projected #5 team
win total from the actual win total for the
specific team to obtain a result for how
many wins a team has outperformed a
generic #5 team.
7) For giggles, I go further and work through
every possible combination to see what
would a generic #5's teams win total look
like against that schedule for all possible
outcomes.
Without further ado, here is some of the
grunt work for each team
Kansas
C Mich 99.00%
SE La 99.00%
Toledo 99.00%
FIU 99.00%
K St 57.34%
Baylor 99.00%
Colorado 77.37%
6.297W 0.703L 0.900%
WINS p
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.4219
6 0.4586
5 0.1143
4 0.0051
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Ohio State
Youngstown St 99.00%
Akron 99.00%
Washington 81.70%
N'Western 96.48%
Minnesota 92.59%
Purdue 77.37%
Kent St 99.00%
Mich St 88.92%
7.341W 0.659L 0.918%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.4872
7 0.3839
6 0.1124
5 0.0154
4 0.0011
3 0.0000
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Arizona State
SJ ST 99.00%
Colorado 88.13%
SD ST 96.48%
Org St 87.94%
Stanford 85.56%
Wazzu 90.24%
Washington 90.72%
6.381W 0.619L 0.912%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.5185
6 0.3617
5 0.1031
4 0.0154
3 0.0013
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Boston College
Wake Forest 92.08%
NC St 98.18%
G Tech 76.39%
Army 99.00%
Umass 99.00%
B Green 99.00%
N Dame 90.24%
6.539W 0.461L 0.934%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.6047
6 0.3338
5 0.0573
4 0.0041
3 0.0001
2 0.0000
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
LSU
Miss St 93.41%
V Tech 92.08%
MTSU 98.18%
S Car 88.10%
Tulane (N) 99.00%
Florida 62.03%
Kentucky 57.34%
Auburn 72.27%
6.624W 1.376L 0.828%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.1893
7 0.3900
6 0.2970
5 0.1043
4 0.0178
3 0.0015
2 0.0001
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Oregon
Houston 92.11%
Michigan 70.86%
Fresno St 93.81%
Stanford 85.56%
Cal 79.82%
Wazzu 99.00%
Washington 90.72%
6.119W 0.881L 0.874%
WINS P
12 0.0000
11 0.0000
10 0.0000
9 0.0000
8 0.0000
7 0.3756
6 0.4119
5 0.1726
4 0.0357
3 0.0039
2 0.0002
1 0.0000
0 0.0000
Now, don't get me wrong LSU fans. I do believe you might have the 'best' team. In no sport, however, is the title given to the 'best' team. It's given to the team that earns it on the field. While I don't think Kansas is as good as any of the teams I compared them against here. They've had the best results on the field. But, there are alot of games left and plenty of time for things to change.
BTW-I think LSU has had the toughest schedule and my analysis bears backs that notion. The key is the expected win pct for a #5 team playing the respective schedules.
LSU 0.828
Oregon 0.874
Kansas 0.900
Arizona State 0.912
Ohio State 0.918
Boston College 0.934
I might due some sensitivity analysis and see how the numbers come out if I go with the #1 sagarin predictor instead of #5.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Proposed Solution
This is something I originally worked on post the 2006 season. I will amend it some, but it stands the test of one year IMO. It also includes responses to some initial concern and feedback I received on the twoplustwo forums.
I'm interested in a BCS solution that is best for the future growth and appreciation of college football as the best sport in the United States. I love the sport and wish it only the best.
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come
my question then becomes what is the right system:
well, I have a few requirements.
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.
OK...so here goes
8 teams
---conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
-----Review to maintain big 6 status: conferences would need to average one top10 team at the end of the regular season and 2 in the top18 over the previous 7 years.
---2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, etc as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-----maybe a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion: such as top15 in BCS rankings and perfect record guarantees a spot.
---BCS ranking system used for seeding: still important to be #1 rather than #4
1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed
two semifinal games rotating around the 4 BCS sites 8 to 10 days later
---similar to the championship game movement now
---should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
---only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot
national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 8-9 days after the semi
Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition of the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (2006 Wisconsin anyone?).
My proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.
The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.
Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl. Honestly, there are never enough tickets for the big schools for each bowl. I see little problem with Ohio State, Florida, or USC filling the stadium for multiple games though it might not be the same fans at each game. It will be tougher for those without a football tradition and smaller alumi bases like the 2006 Wake Forest or Louisville to fill multiple games, but I think that is a secondary concern.
The proposed solution restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.
The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.
The system will likely mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again. sorry Auburn
ummm...I rambled alot
I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.
I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.
Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?
that was the original idea
now, the follow-up and original feedback
--------------------------------------------
Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time
for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all
one week extra for 4 teams from the current system
I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl.
The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.
-----------------------------------------------
to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS,
here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years
there is alot of flux and small edges
with the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc
Current 2006 Conference
1 PAC-10
2 SEC
3 BIG EAST
4 BIG TEN
5 BIG 12
2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC
2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC
2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12
2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC
--------------------------------------------
responding to:I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.
reply: This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult, almost impossible task of comparing schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year, yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.
By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.
Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.
I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.
I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.
I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
responding to:My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).
reply: you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.
I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.
But, in principal, I agree with you
--------------------------------------------------
It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.
The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in a BCS solution that is best for the future growth and appreciation of college football as the best sport in the United States. I love the sport and wish it only the best.
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come
my question then becomes what is the right system:
well, I have a few requirements.
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.
OK...so here goes
8 teams
---conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
-----Review to maintain big 6 status: conferences would need to average one top10 team at the end of the regular season and 2 in the top18 over the previous 7 years.
---2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, etc as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-----maybe a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion: such as top15 in BCS rankings and perfect record guarantees a spot.
---BCS ranking system used for seeding: still important to be #1 rather than #4
1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed
two semifinal games rotating around the 4 BCS sites 8 to 10 days later
---similar to the championship game movement now
---should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
---only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot
national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 8-9 days after the semi
Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition of the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (2006 Wisconsin anyone?).
My proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.
The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.
Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl. Honestly, there are never enough tickets for the big schools for each bowl. I see little problem with Ohio State, Florida, or USC filling the stadium for multiple games though it might not be the same fans at each game. It will be tougher for those without a football tradition and smaller alumi bases like the 2006 Wake Forest or Louisville to fill multiple games, but I think that is a secondary concern.
The proposed solution restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.
The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.
The system will likely mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again. sorry Auburn
ummm...I rambled alot
I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.
I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.
Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?
that was the original idea
now, the follow-up and original feedback
--------------------------------------------
Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time
for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all
one week extra for 4 teams from the current system
I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl.
The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.
-----------------------------------------------
to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS,
here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years
there is alot of flux and small edges
with the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc
Current 2006 Conference
1 PAC-10
2 SEC
3 BIG EAST
4 BIG TEN
5 BIG 12
2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC
2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC
2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12
2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC
--------------------------------------------
responding to:I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.
reply: This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult, almost impossible task of comparing schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year, yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.
By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.
Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.
I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.
I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.
I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
responding to:My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).
reply: you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.
I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.
But, in principal, I agree with you
--------------------------------------------------
It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.
The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)