(10-08-2016 10:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  First of all -- your system is symmetric with respect to wins and losses. So you're doing more work than you need to, in order to arrive at the same conclusion. All you need to do is accumulate the win points for each conference, using the same criteria, to get the same ranking.

But my idea is then to simply normalize each win criteria by dividing the win points of that criteria by the number of opportunities the conference had to earn points in that criteria.


The rationale would be: if conf A wins 2 out of 4 super wins, while conf B wins 1 out of 1 super wins ... it could be argued that conf B could've won 4 out of 4 super wins had it been given the same opportunity as conf A. And so, we shouldn't penalize conf B simply for lack of opportunity.


Could you make a counter-argument/counter-example to that rationale? Certainly. So I'll understand if you don't adopt that modification.

First, thanks for the tips on how I can shorten my calculations and reach the same conclusion.

Second, I'm not comfortable with normalizing, because I just don't like the assumptive/speculative aspect of it. Just prefer to stick with what actually happens on the field.

Actually, I was wrong. I feel dumb now, haha.

Your system is quite a bit more complex than I thought. So while technically it's true, at the moment, that the ranking would be the same if you just sorted on the total win points ... you can easily construct a counter-example showing how the rankings changes would diverge between your current system vs. just sorting on the total win points.

Say for example, if the SEC had just FCS teams left non-conf and none of the other P5 had any non-conf left, and the SEC lost those FCS games. If just looking at win points, the rankings would be unchanged. But in your system, not only do their losses go up but they get docked extra losses to boot. So their ranking could drop considerably.


It could be argued that just counting win points is a better system (and easier to tabulate), but since you have your system down and it works for you, by all means. Keep up the good work!

(10-08-2016 04:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 02:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 09:02 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 08:50 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

A happy Memphis fan who sees a ranking that eliminates the AAC on purpose? The AAC ranks 5th. It's ahead of the Big 12. His rankings ignore that. And you are not only ok with that, but saluting Quo? I've see everything now.
Cheers!

What part of "it's a P5 conference comparison hasn't sunk through"? This isn't something anti-AAC. I've been doing this since 2009, and back then it was the "BCS" conference comparison, involving just the six BCS-AQ conferences, meaning it did include the forerunner of the AAC, the Big East. Because that's what I'm interested in comparing.

Do you just enjoy being weird?

Yes I do enjoy being weird.
In 2009, 2010 and 2011 when you examined the 6 BCS conferences you had a major flaw due to ignoring several ranked schools, several top 10 and top 5 schools,---Boise, TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston--and the MWC and CUSA were better than the Big East and ACC in 2009 and 2010. The MWC was better than 3 of the 6 BCS conferences in 2009. That's the flaw in your comparisons. This year you'd better hope the AAC doesn't finish higher than the Big 12 or it's another major flaw IMHO.
Cheers!

FWIW, for 2010, Sagarin had the #6 Big East clearly ahead of the #7 MWC and WAY ahead of CUSA, who was ranked #9 among all conferences.

And in 2009, Sagarin had the Big East at #2, ahead of all the other BCS-AQ conferences except the SEC, and WAY ahead of #7 MWC and #9 CUSA.

So as usual, you are off your billybob here.

But enjoy keeping track of all my flaws.

In 2010, the big east with an unranked UCONN champion was stronger than the MWC with Top 3 Rose Bowl winner TCU, and ranked Utah and ranked Air Force teams plus BYU and SDSU?...Hmmmm....idk. Doesn't pass the look test. Utah, the 3rd or 4th best team in the MWC that year beat Pitt. I don't see any other head to head match ups...Odd.
Cheers!

(10-08-2016 08:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Actually, I was wrong. I feel dumb now, haha.

Your system is quite a bit more complex than I thought. So while technically it's true, at the moment, that the ranking would be the same if you just sorted on the total win points ... you can easily construct a counter-example showing how the rankings changes would diverge between your current system vs. just sorting on the total win points.

Say for example, if the SEC had just FCS teams left non-conf and none of the other P5 had any non-conf left, and the SEC lost those FCS games. If just looking at win points, the rankings would be unchanged. But in your system, not only do their losses go up but they get docked extra losses to boot. So their ranking could drop considerably.


It could be argued that just counting win points is a better system (and easier to tabulate), but since you have your system down and it works for you, by all means. Keep up the good work!

Thanks!

Updated for 10/8 results.

(10-08-2016 09:20 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 04:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 02:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-08-2016 09:02 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  A happy Memphis fan who sees a ranking that eliminates the AAC on purpose? The AAC ranks 5th. It's ahead of the Big 12. His rankings ignore that. And you are not only ok with that, but saluting Quo? I've see everything now.
Cheers!

What part of "it's a P5 conference comparison hasn't sunk through"? This isn't something anti-AAC. I've been doing this since 2009, and back then it was the "BCS" conference comparison, involving just the six BCS-AQ conferences, meaning it did include the forerunner of the AAC, the Big East. Because that's what I'm interested in comparing.

Do you just enjoy being weird?

Yes I do enjoy being weird.
In 2009, 2010 and 2011 when you examined the 6 BCS conferences you had a major flaw due to ignoring several ranked schools, several top 10 and top 5 schools,---Boise, TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston--and the MWC and CUSA were better than the Big East and ACC in 2009 and 2010. The MWC was better than 3 of the 6 BCS conferences in 2009. That's the flaw in your comparisons. This year you'd better hope the AAC doesn't finish higher than the Big 12 or it's another major flaw IMHO.
Cheers!

FWIW, for 2010, Sagarin had the #6 Big East clearly ahead of the #7 MWC and WAY ahead of CUSA, who was ranked #9 among all conferences.

And in 2009, Sagarin had the Big East at #2, ahead of all the other BCS-AQ conferences except the SEC, and WAY ahead of #7 MWC and #9 CUSA.

So as usual, you are off your billybob here.

But enjoy keeping track of all my flaws.

In 2010, the big east with an unranked UCONN champion was stronger than the MWC with Top 3 Rose Bowl winner TCU, and ranked Utah and ranked Air Force teams plus BYU and SDSU?...Hmmmm....idk. Doesn't pass the look test. Utah, the 3rd or 4th best team in the MWC that year beat Pitt. I don't see any other head to head match ups...Odd.
Cheers!

Conferences are rated top to bottom not just on who the best 2-3 teams were.

I just checked Colley Matrix, and it had the Big East ahead of the MWC and CUSA in 2010 as well.

I think there's a typo for the 10/8 update. Should be 11.5-12, if I'm not mistaken.

(10-09-2016 08:43 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think there's a typo for the 10/8 update. Should be 11.5-12, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, could have swore I put that in! Thanks.

updated for 10/15 results.

Updated for 10/23.

Might be nice to indicate how many non-conf games each P5 has remaining, if it's not too much work.

(10-23-2016 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Might be nice to indicate how many non-conf games each P5 has remaining, if it's not too much work.

Sure:

Big 12 .... none, until bowl season.

ACC ....

Miami vs Notre Dame
Louisville vs Houston
BC vs UConn
UNC vs the Citadel
VT vs Notre Dame
FSU vs Florida
GT vs Georgia
Louisville vs Kentucky
Clemson vs South Carolina

Big 10 ... none, until bowl season.

PAC ...

Stanford vs Rice
USC vs Notre Dame

SEC ...

Mississippi State vs Samford
TAMU vs New Mexico State
Ole Miss vs Georgia Southern
Tennessee vs Tennessee Tech
Alabama vs Chattanooga
Auburn vs Alabama A/M
Georgia vs UL-Lafayette
Kentucky vs Austin Peay
South Carolina vs Western Carolina
TAMU vs UT-San Antonio
South Carolina vs Clemson
Georgia vs Georgia Tech
Florida vs FSU
Kentucky vs Louisville

Thanks.

So we have:

- the four SEC-ACC in-state rivalry games
- USC Notre Dame
- Stanford Rice
- BC UConn
- a bunch of games that fall into that dumb southern thing where they play a G5 or FCS team before facing a rival

and then that brings me to the Notre Dame vs ACC teams ---> those are not non-conference games. Those are ACC conference games. It's false to count wins by ACC schools over Notre Dame, and false to count losses by ACC schools to Notre Dame for/against the ACC in these standings.

(10-23-2016 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks.

So we have:

- the four SEC-ACC in-state rivalry games
- USC Notre Dame
- Stanford Rice
- BC UConn
- a bunch of games that fall into that dumb southern thing where they play a G5 or FCS team before facing a rival

and then that brings me to the Notre Dame vs ACC teams ---> those are not non-conference games. Those are ACC conference games. It's false to count wins by ACC schools over Notre Dame, and false to count losses by ACC schools to Notre Dame for/against the ACC in these standings.

Then somebody needs to tell both Notre Dame and the ACC that. They are both under the impression that Notre Dame is not a member of any football conference. And it seems the CFP committee believes this also.

When, exactly, did Notre Dame join the ACC for football? I'm surprised nobody in the media reported something that big.

(10-23-2016 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks.

So we have:

- the four SEC-ACC in-state rivalry games
- USC Notre Dame
- Stanford Rice
- BC UConn
- a bunch of games that fall into that dumb southern thing where they play a G5 or FCS team before facing a rival

and then that brings me to the Notre Dame vs ACC teams ---> those are not non-conference games. Those are ACC conference games. It's false to count wins by ACC schools over Notre Dame, and false to count losses by ACC schools to Notre Dame for/against the ACC in these standings.

When Notre Dame appears in the ACC standings, and when losses to Notre Dame and wins over Notre Dame count as wins and losses for ACC teams in the ACC standings, then I will agree with you, but until then, they are OOC games.

(10-23-2016 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks.

So we have:

- the four SEC-ACC in-state rivalry games
- USC Notre Dame
- Stanford Rice
- BC UConn
- a bunch of games that fall into that dumb southern thing where they play a G5 or FCS team before facing a rival

and then that brings me to the Notre Dame vs ACC teams ---> those are not non-conference games. Those are ACC conference games. It's false to count wins by ACC schools over Notre Dame, and false to count losses by ACC schools to Notre Dame for/against the ACC in these standings.

No the 12 games ND plays each year are OOC.
Cheers!

quo,

Your analysis is thus skewed in favor of the ACC, until you fix it.

(10-24-2016 11:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo,

Your analysis is thus skewed in favor of the ACC, until you fix it.

Why is that?

It's five extra non-conf opportunities to score points that the Big Ten, SEC, etc don't get.

(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.

The SEC has exactly the same number of opportunities to score points in this model as the ACC does. If they choose not to, that's on them. But more to the point, that's also five opportunities to lose points as well.

The ranking doesn't give more weight to the number of wins than it does to the number of losses. The ranking is based on a ratio of wins to losses. The ACC has no inherent advantage here that isn't equally available to every P5 conference.