(12-04-2013 07:06 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Provide me a link that show me where CUSA stated it would come down to computer rankings. Also provide me a link on the CUSA website that states they would solely use computer rankings as the deciding factor. You wont find that because CUSA says that BCS rankings would be the final determination.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/c-us...narios.pdf

I've bolded the important statement, but I've bolded it slowly so hopefully you can keep up.

Quote:Regarding the host of the Conference USA Football Championship game
–
East Carolina and Marshall currently each control their destiny to win the East Division
Rice currently controls its destiny to win the West Division
Based on the teams controlling their destinies to win the divisions, BCS ranking (i.e. average computer ranking) would be used to determine host, as Rice does not play East Carolina or Marshall in the regular season.

This is from Nov 24th. The last release before the final games and after ECU had already started to earn poll votes but was not ranked in the official BCS rankings.

Game. Set. Match.

Can you please provide the official CUSA documentation that says that attendance, or lower SAT scores, or lower stadium capacity, or mythical 'extended BCS formula', or most Matthew McCoughney and/or Randy Moss autographs, or other B.S. you claim should be revelant has any say in the matter?

Didn't think so.

(12-04-2013 07:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Prime example being that by doing this Rice ended up with a 0.628 computer factor that was equivalent to what 10th ranked Michigan State got.

Wrong. Michigan St would have gotten their 0.667 and 0.669 from the polls, and had a 0.805 input from the 125-team computer rankings and been well ahead of Rice.

Math is hard.

(12-04-2013 04:30 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  "I was NOT contacted at all by anyone from Conference USA nor anyone else about this," Sagarin said Monday via e-mail.

Sagarin compiles, with explanations, four different sets of numbers. The BCS uses the "PURE_ELO" number, in which only winning and losing matters. Sagarin's main ranking is simply known as "RATING," and he also uses a "DIMIN_CURVE" and a "PREDICTOR" index.

"You'll note that they evidently used my ELO ratings even though the explanation over the ratings says that the more accurate rating for predicting who will win is NOT the ELO," he said. "So Rice ends up as the home team even though I have Marshall as the better team in all three of my score-based ratings: RATING [53 to 72], DIMIN_CURVE [61 to 74], PREDICTOR [47 to 72]."

Did you just start following college football within the last week?

None of those Sagarin ratings (except for the ELO used) are in the official BCS ratings. Why do Marshall fans feel the need to try to move the goalposts?

I noticed banker has gone coward on the question of where Doc ranked his team in order to game the system.

Marshall got 13 votes in the coaches bowl. Based on 62 coaches poll voters, that represents about 1/4 of a place in the 1-25 rankings (assuming everyone ranks a straight ticket). In the Harris poll, they got 1/10 of a poll position,

Does a 1/4 place and a 1/10 place in the polls really outweigh a 10 position difference in the computer polls if the the rankings are split evenly?

I

(12-01-2013 10:49 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:17 PM)MUTeke Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 10:15 PM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  In all honesty I can see the beef Marshall fans have about how this went down unless the formula to be used was already in writing somewhere. When they say BCS Ranking then they should use the same formula used for the BCS Rankings….Not sure why they would say BCS ranking and then change the formula. So in fact it was not the BCS Ranking that determined who hosted the Championship game…It was some bastardized version of the BCS Formula.

That's all most of us are saying.

I understand being upset, but the conference's definition of BCS ranking was unfortunately, and irresponsibly vague (it had a parenthetical that said something like, e.g. computer rankings). Earlier today we were saying how stupid it seemed that we were 10 or so spots ahead of Marshall last week, and we both won- but if they got 1 or 2 votes in 'others receiving votes' they would somehow vault to 20 spots ahead of us. That's nonsense. Now I understand that was because the poll votes are overweighted for teams not in the actual top 25. I see how they corrected that and why Rice is hosting and it appears to me to be true to the spirit of the tiebreaker-- but I agree they totally messed up the message. There should never have been any doubt about who was hosting. Record against common opponents, net points against common opponents, etc.- but something more easily measurable and straightforward.

How about good old fashioned coin flip?

(12-04-2013 06:40 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:51 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:36 PM)gdunn Wrote:  One has to wonder if the roles had been reversed, if the Rice fans would be so damn whiney.

Man you are thick. This has nothing to do with anything other than transparency. These people 'supposedly' represent the entire conference, for them to arbitrarily take it upon themselves to change the rules (assumedly to suit themselves) what does that say about the next time an important decision comes up. Are we all going to be looking around to see who's back's being scratched? I sure hope not.

Point is, it's just a bad foot to be stepping off on as we attempt to rebuild this conference. Just tell us how the decision was made so we can debate the merit. The more they obfuscate, the more my skin begins to crawl; this is no way for conference leadership to behave.

Exactly to the point. Great post. This has nothing to do with Rice or whether Rice would be whiney about something. It has nothing to do about that. I has to do with the conference itself and how they come up with this decision. It could have been Southern Miss, ECU FIU or whoever that this happened to. Just happened to be us.

NM

(12-05-2013 02:04 AM)MU ATO Wrote:  How about good old fashioned coin flip?

CUSA wasn't able to find a weighted coin in time, since they obviously wanted the game in Texas.

(12-05-2013 12:26 AM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 07:06 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Provide me a link that show me where CUSA stated it would come down to computer rankings. Also provide me a link on the CUSA website that states they would solely use computer rankings as the deciding factor. You wont find that because CUSA says that BCS rankings would be the final determination.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/c-us...narios.pdf

I've bolded the important statement, but I've bolded it slowly so hopefully you can keep up.

Quote:Regarding the host of the Conference USA Football Championship game
–
East Carolina and Marshall currently each control their destiny to win the East Division
Rice currently controls its destiny to win the West Division
Based on the teams controlling their destinies to win the divisions, BCS ranking (i.e. average computer ranking) would be used to determine host, as Rice does not play East Carolina or Marshall in the regular season.

This is from Nov 24th. The last release before the final games and after ECU had already started to earn poll votes but was not ranked in the official BCS rankings.

Game. Set. Match.

Can you please provide the official CUSA documentation that says that attendance, or lower SAT scores, or lower stadium capacity, or mythical 'extended BCS formula', or most Matthew McCoughney and/or Randy Moss autographs, or other B.S. you claim should be revelant has any say in the matter?

Didn't think so.

Just to be clear - disclaimer: I do not believe CUSA purposefully set out to screw Marshall.

To reply with the same type of snark you have engaged -- gosh, reading comprehension is hard - for you, those that refuse to understand the problems with how the league office made this determination, and the league office.

Your link - did you read page 2? It is an almost verbatim copy of the tie-breaker provisions adopted by the league in 2005 and posted on the website well before the Nov. 24 release by the league. Here is why this is important:

* the 2005 tie-breaker provision identifies the highest BCS ranking (without the parenthetical explanation "i.e. average computer ranking added in the Nov. 24 press release) as the third tie-breaker;

* the "highest BCS ranking" per the BCS ranking formula is:
Coaches' Poll Component + Harris Poll Component + Average Computer Rating Component / 3;

* the Nov. 24 release states that the BCS ranking is the same as the average computer ranking -- it is not; when there are human votes to consider, the average computer ranking is but 1/3 of the consideration; only when there are no human votes in either poll is the average computer ranking equal to the BCS ranking (since the human poll components would be zero and zero).

What the link that you provided proves is that the league office was inept and sloppy, and was probably presumptuous. If ECU wins, under either formula (the BCS formula or the average computer ranking in isolation), the conversation is moot because ECU would have the higher BCS formula value and the higher average computer ranking value (regardless of the scale used). The league (probably) expected ECU to win, and assumed even if ECU lost to MU that MU would not pick up votes in the human polls (which was a stupidly presumptuous attitude to have). Under that scenario - MU and Rice wins, and neither have human votes in either poll, the average computer ranking becomes the deciding factor.

Except that didn't happen. Even excluding the now reverse-conspiracy theory that Doc alone voted for Marshall in the Coaches' Poll, and placing a zero value for that component, Marshall received 10 votes in the Harris Poll. That alone would have been enough to determine the highest BCS ranking according to the actual BCS formula. Instead, because certain expectations were not realized (no votes for MU and Rice), CUSA cobbled together a formula that went against its approved tie-breaker method for reasons truly known only to the league office.

(12-05-2013 12:26 AM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 07:06 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Provide me a link that show me where CUSA stated it would come down to computer rankings. Also provide me a link on the CUSA website that states they would solely use computer rankings as the deciding factor. You wont find that because CUSA says that BCS rankings would be the final determination.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/c-us...narios.pdf

I've bolded the important statement, but I've bolded it slowly so hopefully you can keep up.

Quote:Regarding the host of the Conference USA Football Championship game
–
East Carolina and Marshall currently each control their destiny to win the East Division
Rice currently controls its destiny to win the West Division
Based on the teams controlling their destinies to win the divisions, BCS ranking (i.e. average computer ranking) would be used to determine host, as Rice does not play East Carolina or Marshall in the regular season.

This is from Nov 24th. The last release before the final games and after ECU had already started to earn poll votes but was not ranked in the official BCS rankings.

Game. Set. Match.

Can you please provide the official CUSA documentation that says that attendance, or lower SAT scores, or lower stadium capacity, or mythical 'extended BCS formula', or most Matthew McCoughney and/or Randy Moss autographs, or other B.S. you claim should be revelant has any say in the matter?

Didn't think so.

C-USA TIEBREAKER
Home field for the C-USA Championship Game will be awarded
to the team that posts the highest regular season winning
percentage against conference opposition.
The following tiebreaker formula will be used for
the Conference USA Football Championship game:

•Two-team tie to determine host

1. Highest regular season winning percent
age based on overall Conference USA play.
2. If tied, head to head between tied teams.
3. If still tied, team with highest Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) ranking.


We have an official BCS score while Rice does not. How hard is that for you to understand?

(12-05-2013 12:39 AM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 04:30 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  "I was NOT contacted at all by anyone from Conference USA nor anyone else about this," Sagarin said Monday via e-mail.

Sagarin compiles, with explanations, four different sets of numbers. The BCS uses the "PURE_ELO" number, in which only winning and losing matters. Sagarin's main ranking is simply known as "RATING," and he also uses a "DIMIN_CURVE" and a "PREDICTOR" index.

"You'll note that they evidently used my ELO ratings even though the explanation over the ratings says that the more accurate rating for predicting who will win is NOT the ELO," he said. "So Rice ends up as the home team even though I have Marshall as the better team in all three of my score-based ratings: RATING [53 to 72], DIMIN_CURVE [61 to 74], PREDICTOR [47 to 72]."

Did you just start following college football within the last week?

None of those Sagarin ratings (except for the ELO used) are in the official BCS ratings. Why do Marshall fans feel the need to try to move the goalposts?

In case you didn't read the article...that is a quote by Jeff Sagarin himself. What he is essentially saying is that if you intend to drop the BCS ranking formula out of the equation (which they did) to rely solely on computer based rankings, that the ELO number is NOT for that purpose. According to Jeff Sagrain they should have used his score based rankings for a more accurate rating instead of the ELO. His very quote:

"The ultimate insult is they got Jerry Palm [of CBS Sportsline] - who has no connection with me or my rating system - to advise them on how to use the computer ratings," Sagarin said.

Is there a moderator who can just end this? Jeez.

(12-05-2013 11:04 AM)Greg H Wrote:  Is there a moderator who can just end this? Jeez.

simple solution....don't read this thread. The Marshall fans have been posting rational information regarding this issue. If you don't like what they're saying, refute it....otherwise you should just ignore it.

(12-05-2013 11:11 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:04 AM)Greg H Wrote:  Is there a moderator who can just end this? Jeez.

simple solution....don't read this thread. The Marshall fans have been posting rational information regarding this issue. If you don't like what they're saying, refute it....otherwise you should just ignore it.

it has been refuted. a dozen times in 5 different threads. but then another wave of people *looking at you* surf into the forum late and want to re-argue the entire spectacle from "whaddya mean the CCG is at rice?".

(12-05-2013 12:31 AM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 07:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Prime example being that by doing this Rice ended up with a 0.628 computer factor that was equivalent to what 10th ranked Michigan State got.

Wrong. Michigan St would have gotten their 0.667 and 0.669 from the polls, and had a 0.805 input from the 125-team computer rankings and been well ahead of Rice.

Math is hard.

That is the point... "Stretching" the computers completely changes the way the BCS formula weighs things contrary to what the conference says. In the real BCS formula Michigan State scores a .6529 according to the cusa "BCS" formula they score a .805. It changes everyone's score, and yes it also changes the rankings. Go ahead, compute the score for the BCS top 25 and see how their rankings change with the cusa "BCS" formula.

(12-05-2013 11:16 AM)EagleX Wrote:  it has been refuted. a dozen times in 5 different threads. but then another wave of people *looking at you* surf into the forum late and want to re-argue the entire spectacle from "whaddya mean the CCG is at rice?".

You mean proof like this: "You would get a lot more mileage out of your conspiracy theory if you accused the conference of doing whatever it could to keep the CCG out of WVA.
I mean, it's total bullsnit either way, but the thing was in Tulsa last year . . . That would seem to blow your theory to hell right there".

Those were the first words out of your mouth. Appears you had your mind made up right from the get-go. The only authoratitive information appears to be coming from the Marshall posters; so if you've got nothing to add, it might be time for you to step-off.

(12-05-2013 11:26 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:16 AM)EagleX Wrote:  it has been refuted. a dozen times in 5 different threads. but then another wave of people *looking at you* surf into the forum late and want to re-argue the entire spectacle from "whaddya mean the CCG is at rice?".

You mean proof like this: "You would get a lot more mileage out of your conspiracy theory if you accused the conference of doing whatever it could to keep the CCG out of WVA.
I mean, it's total bullsnit either way, but the thing was in Tulsa last year . . . That would seem to blow your theory to hell right there".

Those were the first words out of your mouth. Appears you had your mind made up right from the get-go. The only authoratitive information appears to be coming from the Marshall posters; so if you've got nothing to add, it might be time for you to step-off.

you have an odd definition of the word "authoritative". keep reading. you will get there sometime next week.

and I will "step-off" when I decide to.

(12-05-2013 11:25 AM)Dorrej Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 12:31 AM)Fiftysix Fortytwo Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 07:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Prime example being that by doing this Rice ended up with a 0.628 computer factor that was equivalent to what 10th ranked Michigan State got.

Wrong. Michigan St would have gotten their 0.667 and 0.669 from the polls, and had a 0.805 input from the 125-team computer rankings and been well ahead of Rice.

Math is hard.

That is the point... "Stretching" the computers completely changes the way the BCS formula weighs things contrary to what the conference says. In the real BCS formula Michigan State scores a .6529 according to the cusa "BCS" formula they score a .805. It changes everyone's score, and yes it also changes the rankings. Go ahead, compute the score for the BCS top 25 and see how their rankings change with the cusa "BCS" formula.

Exactly. Common sense says they should have just asked the official BCS people if they could extend the current BCS formula beyond 25 (like Jerry Palm does) until they reached either Marshall or Rice in those rankings. That's really all that had to be done. Problem is, it wasn't done that way. Instead they stretch it way out to 125 (for what reason who knows) and it ended up being a clustered mess.

It is what it is. Hopefully anything like this can be avoided in the future. It needs to be more simplified and clear cut that the current process. Just the fact that everyone had to wait around until Sunday night to get the results is stupid in itself.

(12-05-2013 11:32 AM)EagleX Wrote:  you have an odd definition of the word "authoritative". keep reading. you will get there sometime next week.
and I will "step-off" when I decide to.

Here's an authoritative comment provided by a Marshall poster:

"I worked with C-USA today on an extended BCS formula for breaking the tie between Marshall and Rice for home field advantage in the conference championship game," said Palm. "It doesn't match the formula I use for my ratings on CBSSports.com, which serve a different purpose, but I believe it was absolutely appropriate and fair."

You on the other hand have added nothing of real value to this conversation. So thanks for coming at me.

(12-05-2013 11:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:32 AM)EagleX Wrote:  you have an odd definition of the word "authoritative". keep reading. you will get there sometime next week.
and I will "step-off" when I decide to.

Here's an authoritative comment provided by a Marshall poster:

"I worked with C-USA today on an extended BCS formula for breaking the tie between Marshall and Rice for home field advantage in the conference championship game," said Palm. "It doesn't match the formula I use for my ratings on CBSSports.com, which serve a different purpose, but I believe it was absolutely appropriate and fair."

You on the other hand have added nothing of real value to this conversation. So thanks for coming at me.

I would direct your apparently overtaxed powers of concentration to the explanation of the never-before-used section of the tiebreaker on the conference web site. I'm not going to post it again; I'm not your web tutor.

the problem is that the expectations were wrong. what people thought was the tie breaker, and thus what they expected it to be, was not, in fact, what it turned out to be.

. . . and that's when the wailing started.

the definition of disappointment is, "the disparity between expectations and results". but that does not mean that the expectations were correct.