ken don't be absurd. 14-9 isn't better than 9-9???

(10-24-2016 06:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  ken don't be absurd. 14-9 isn't better than 9-9???

What does that have to do with anything I said?

(10-24-2016 05:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's five extra non-conf opportunities to score points that the Big Ten, SEC, etc don't get.

IMO that would be a valid criticism if my system was just based on wins, e.g., you get a point for a win but no deductions for losses. But in my system it boosts your winning % if you win but hurts your winning % if you lose, so playing an extra game isn't, by itself, an advantage. It's an advantage if you win but a disadvantage if you lose.

But it still gives the ACC more opportunity to score more points, because a win over Notre Dame is likely going to earn more points than a win over some G5 (or worse).

So your system is still giving an unfair advantage to the ACC, because that conference forces some of its teams to schedule Notre Dame an extra number of times.


I still feel a better way to do it would be something like: the ratio of points earned to maximum points possible to earn, per game.

Conf A: has 7 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 5, 5, 6, 2, 1, 2, 1 points, but actually earned 5, 5, 0, 2, 1, -5, 1 points ---> earned 9/ could've earned 22 = 0.409 avg ratio per game

Conf B: has 3 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 2, 2, 2 points, and actually earned 2, 2, 0 points ---> earned 4/ could've earned 6 = 0.667 avg ratio per game


Then Conf B isn't penalized for how it scheduled non-conf games or how its opponents ranking/strength ebbed and flowed during the season.

(10-25-2016 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it still gives the ACC more opportunity to score more points, because a win over Notre Dame is likely going to earn more points than a win over some G5 (or worse).

So your system is still giving an unfair advantage to the ACC, because that conference forces some of its teams to schedule Notre Dame an extra number of times.


I still feel a better way to do it would be something like: the ratio of points earned to maximum points possible to earn, per game.

Conf A: has 7 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 5, 5, 6, 2, 1, 2, 1 points, but actually earned 5, 5, 0, 2, 1, -5, 1 points ---> earned 9/ could've earned 22 = 0.409 avg ratio per game

Conf B: has 3 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 2, 2, 2 points, and actually earned 2, 2, 0 points ---> earned 4/ could've earned 6 = 0.667 avg ratio per game


Then Conf B isn't penalized for how it scheduled non-conf games or how its opponents ranking/strength ebbed and flowed during the season.

Bison, when you are in a hole, you need to stop digging. Quo is correct. The only thing that gives any conference an advantage is winning more.

Every non-conference game between P5 schools has an equal chance of gaining a point or losing a point. Over the past three years, ACC teams have played Notre Dame 13 times. They won 5 and lost 8. Even if they win their remaining two games this season, they will still be below .500.

This year, the ACC does play more P5 opponents than the SEC does. The ACC plays 20, five of which are named Notre Dame. The SEC plays 14, none of which are Notre Dame. If the ACC goes 10-10 and the SEC goes 7-7, then neither has an advantage. The same would be true if those six extra P5 games were against schools like Illinois, Oklahoma State, Auburn, or California instead of Notre Dame.

Instead of playing more P5 opponents (where expected winning % is .500), the SEC chooses (for perfectly legitimate reasons) to play more G5 opponents, against whom they would expect to win 90% of the time.

If you think there is a better way to compare conferences, have at it. Make your own analysis. Quo's is fine the way it is.

I disagree

(10-25-2016 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it still gives the ACC more opportunity to score more points, because a win over Notre Dame is likely going to earn more points than a win over some G5 (or worse).

So your system is still giving an unfair advantage to the ACC, because that conference forces some of its teams to schedule Notre Dame an extra number of times.

I still feel a better way to do it would be something like: the ratio of points earned to maximum points possible to earn, per game.

Conf A: has 7 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 5, 5, 6, 2, 1, 2, 1 points, but actually earned 5, 5, 0, 2, 1, -5, 1 points ---> earned 9/ could've earned 22 = 0.409 avg ratio per game

Conf B: has 3 non-conf games, and could've possibly earned 2, 2, 2 points, and actually earned 2, 2, 0 points ---> earned 4/ could've earned 6 = 0.667 avg ratio per game

Then Conf B isn't penalized for how it scheduled non-conf games or how its opponents ranking/strength ebbed and flowed during the season.

You realize what you are stating is that you think going 3-0 against 3 weak teams is better than playing some strong teams and winning some of them... I don't think anyone outside of the Big Ten believes that.

It doesn't mean that, per se.

What it means is: there's no reason to punish teams for either a) a lack of opportunities, or b) that their opportunities diminished in value before they got to play them.

The point is to reward conferences that take care of business, regardless of how much business or how "high value" that business is.

(10-25-2016 12:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It doesn't mean that, per se.

What it means is: there's no reason to punish teams for either a) a lack of opportunities, or b) that their opportunities diminished in value before they got to play them.

The point is to reward conferences that take care of business, regardless of how much business or how "high value" that business is.

Thanks for volunteering to create this analysis. I can't wait to see how it turns out.

No need to take it away from quo, he does a great job.

It can be tuned pretty easily.

(10-25-2016 12:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  ...there's no reason to punish teams for ...a lack of opportunities...

Each school makes its own ooc schedule. If you don't hold them accountable for scheduling too easy, then you are punishing everyone else.

If a school schedules only one p5 type opponent and that team has a bad year, that's one data point.

If everyone in the conference does the same thing, that's a systematic problem.


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Each school makes its own ooc schedule. If you don't factor in that they're scheduling too difficult, then you are rewarding them unfairly.

If a school schedules three or four p5 type opponents and that team has a bad year, that's one data point.

If everyone in the conference does the same thing, that's a systematic preference that doesn't necessarily deserve a reward.

Updated for 10/29 results.

Updated for 11/5 results.

Updated for 11/12 results.

The SEC East is awful...Kentucky, South Carolina, and Florida will lose to their ACC rivals in a few weeks

I don't buy the SEC as the best conference this year

(11-13-2016 09:20 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The SEC East is awful...Kentucky, South Carolina, and Florida will lose to their ACC rivals in a few weeks

I don't buy the SEC as the best conference this year

Well time will tell. E.g., the same thing was said about the SEC East the past two seasons as well, and yet they are 7-1 in bowl games during that time.

Updated for 11/20.

As a USF fan, why would you propagate this P5 BS, especially when the AAC is as good as one of these "elite" conferences, and about on par with another?
#P6-stoptheBS