(10-25-2014 10:59 AM)axeme Wrote: Are the rankings objective if the creator adjusts (includes some data, omits other data) them to fit what he feels the outcome should be?
Absolutely yes they can still be objective. I publish my criteria because criticism is a necessary part of development.
When MileHigh told me to look at Western Michigan. I looked deeper, and found a way to strengthen my criteria (that applies every FBS team). I don't care where WMU ended up.
And then again, when MileHigh told me to look at Michigan State, I looked deeper, and again found a way to strengthen my criteria (that applies every FBS team). I didn't care how Michigan State was affected.
But whenever the guy who keeps complaining about Marshall being ranked Top 16, I just hear noise. The criteria gets stronger, and Marshall stays put. (so does Ole Miss, Mississippi State, et al)
I could give every blue team 1 pt and it would be objective (would it not??). Then I would leave it to you guys as to whether its fair that I give every blue team a point. Is that reasonable criteria? How can I justify that? If I can't then we can agree giving every blue team 1pt is terrible criteria.
But when I award points based on wins vs winning teams, and I tell you that every MAC team who has had 3 WVWTs since 2005 has played in the MAC Championship game (except for one year when Kent and NIU had 4) can you really call that weak criteria??
Don't judge my objectivity based on the number of revisions I make to the rankings. That's improvement. Judge my objectivity on the method and the criteria.
Which specific criteria of mine are weak? What criteria am I missing, and why is that specific missing criteria strong?