Case for South Florida and Virginia over USC, Oregon and Oklahoma?

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
View this:
(1-7) W 38-10
at (4-4) W 49-31
(2-5) W 47-14
at (2-5) W 27-24
(3-4) L 24-23
(2-6) W 20-13
at (1-7) W 38-0

compared to:

(5-2) W 28-13
at (5-3) W 26-23
(2-5) W 37-10
(6-1) W 21-13
at (4-3) W 35-23
(4-3) W 64-12
at (5-2) L 30-27

[/ QUOTE ]
This gives me an idea. I'm going to go through and list the current BCS top ten as "Team A, Team B, etc" with their schedules and results listed, but no team names. The game is to rank them from 1-10 without knowing who they are and see what interesting results emerge. If this sounds interesting to you, keep your eyes peeled for a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what the Colley Rankings (one of the BCS computers) does. ( http://www.colleyrankings.com/ ). It looks solely at the win loss records of each team. Unlike other computer polls, it does no preranking of teams, and does no forecasting. It simply rates teams based on their record and the record of the teams they play.

It leads to results that humans find odd. For example, the #1 team is LSU, over undefeated BC and OSU. The reason is that LSU has beaten 4 teams in the top 20 (and their only loss is to another top 20 team). OSU hasn't beaten a single team in the top 29.

[/ QUOTE ]
if it does no preranking of teams how does it know which teams are the top 20?

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you're not leveling:

Basically, every team starts out with a score of 0.50. (This is what I mean by the ranking having no pre-ranking--Each team starts at the exact same level). As the teams play more and more games, you get more credit for playing a "better" team (better meaning the team with the higher Colley ranking). Thus you gain more points for beating a higher ranked team.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/advan.html
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

The end result is exactly what the person I was responding to suggested, look solely at the records of the teams each team plays. So you have

LSU
W (4-4)
W (6-1)
W (3-5)
W (6-2)
W (2-5)
W (5-2)
L (6-2)
W (5-3)

being higher than OSU
W (0-7)
W (3-4)
W (2-5)
W (5-3)
W (1-7)
W (6-2)
W (3-5)
W (5-3)

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
You have every reason to believe that there is no chance in hell that USC can "run the table" and yet you're talking about them as a NC contender.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are a NC contender. If they run the table, they're in the argument...that makes them a contender. If you don't think it's possible for them to do so, you must not realize how loaded the team is. As the USC guy said, they've been hurt. Do I think they'll run the table? Probably not. Do I think they can? Without a doubt, yes.

Also, to the OSU people: yeah, you scheduled Texas. That's great, but you didn't schedule them this year. Your schedule is an absolute cakewalk THIS YEAR. Yeah, I'm impressed you scheduled Texas and USC this decade. But FOR 2007, your schedule is incredibly weak. That's all I'm saying.

And yes, I watched most of the Michigan State game, and I realize they didn't scrape by. I know they were in control the whole way, I'm just saying that MSU actually had a (very slim) shot at the end of the game...that's all.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course they are a threat to do so. But it's more likely they lose at least one more, and maybe even more likely they drop two.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to wonder if the University of Spoiled Children has more delusional fans than the Domers. I didn't think it was possible!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom,

Curious as to what part of the post you found delusional.

No USC fan, by the way, I just like watching and betting on college football.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
USC is playing tOSU the next two years in a row, at the Coliseum in 08 and in Columbus in 09. I can't wait for these games because it'll finally be a way to settle the 'how does the Big 10 really match up with the Pac 10' debate to some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't settle anything to any degree.

b

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
View this:
(1-7) W 38-10
at (4-4) W 49-31
(2-5) W 47-14
at (2-5) W 27-24
(3-4) L 24-23
(2-6) W 20-13
at (1-7) W 38-0

compared to:

(5-2) W 28-13
at (5-3) W 26-23
(2-5) W 37-10
(6-1) W 21-13
at (4-3) W 35-23
(4-3) W 64-12
at (5-2) L 30-27

[/ QUOTE ]
This gives me an idea. I'm going to go through and list the current BCS top ten as "Team A, Team B, etc" with their schedules and results listed, but no team names. The game is to rank them from 1-10 without knowing who they are and see what interesting results emerge. If this sounds interesting to you, keep your eyes peeled for a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what the Colley Rankings (one of the BCS computers) does. ( http://www.colleyrankings.com/ ). It looks solely at the win loss records of each team. Unlike other computer polls, it does no preranking of teams, and does no forecasting. It simply rates teams based on their record and the record of the teams they play.

It leads to results that humans find odd. For example, the #1 team is LSU, over undefeated BC and OSU. The reason is that LSU has beaten 4 teams in the top 20 (and their only loss is to another top 20 team). OSU hasn't beaten a single team in the top 29.

[/ QUOTE ]
if it does no preranking of teams how does it know which teams are the top 20?

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you're not leveling:

Basically, every team starts out with a score of 0.50. (This is what I mean by the ranking having no pre-ranking--Each team starts at the exact same level). As the teams play more and more games, you get more credit for playing a "better" team (better meaning the team with the higher Colley ranking). Thus you gain more points for beating a higher ranked team.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/advan.html
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

The end result is exactly what the person I was responding to suggested, look solely at the records of the teams each team plays. So you have

LSU
W (4-4)
W (6-1)
W (3-5)
W (6-2)
W (2-5)
W (5-2)
L (6-2)
W (5-3)

being higher than OSU
W (0-7)
W (3-4)
W (2-5)
W (5-3)
W (1-7)
W (6-2)
W (3-5)
W (5-3)

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually yeah I'm an idiot it determines the top 20 based on its own system. But I did this in the other thread bobjoe started about this and LSU did not come first, USF's opponents had the best combined win loss record

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
In case you're not leveling:

Basically, every team starts out with a score of 0.50. (This is what I mean by the ranking having no pre-ranking--Each team starts at the exact same level). As the teams play more and more games, you get more credit for playing a "better" team (better meaning the team with the higher Colley ranking). Thus you gain more points for beating a higher ranked team.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/advan.html
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

The end result is exactly what the person I was responding to suggested, look solely at the records of the teams each team plays. So you have

LSU
W (4-4)
W (6-1)
W (3-5)
W (6-2)
W (2-5)
W (5-2)
L (6-2)
W (5-3)

being higher than OSU
W (0-7)
W (3-4)
W (2-5)
W (5-3)
W (1-7)
W (6-2)
W (3-5)
W (5-3)

[/ QUOTE ]

I oversimplified. You don't just look at the records of the teams you played. You look at the records of the teams the opponent plays. You iteratively look at the result of each game, which is why LSU's 6-2 opponent (South Carolina) is ranked higher than OSU's 6-2 opponent (Purdue), in turn giving LSU more points for beating South Carolina than OSU got for beating Purdue (who hasn't beaten any team in the top 70).

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case you're not leveling:

Basically, every team starts out with a score of 0.50. (This is what I mean by the ranking having no pre-ranking--Each team starts at the exact same level). As the teams play more and more games, you get more credit for playing a "better" team (better meaning the team with the higher Colley ranking). Thus you gain more points for beating a higher ranked team.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/advan.html
http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

The end result is exactly what the person I was responding to suggested, look solely at the records of the teams each team plays. So you have

LSU
W (4-4)
W (6-1)
W (3-5)
W (6-2)
W (2-5)
W (5-2)
L (6-2)
W (5-3)

being higher than OSU
W (0-7)
W (3-4)
W (2-5)
W (5-3)
W (1-7)
W (6-2)
W (3-5)
W (5-3)

[/ QUOTE ]

I oversimplified. You don't just look at the records of the teams you played. You look at the records of the teams the opponent plays. You iteratively look at the result of each game, which is why LSU's 6-2 opponent (South Carolina) is ranked higher than OSU's 6-2 opponent (Purdue), in turn giving LSU more points for beating South Carolina than OSU got for beating Purdue (who hasn't beaten any team in the top 70).

[/ QUOTE ]
its definitely interesting. it seems margin of victory is necessary as a good team playing in a crappy conference has no shot of ending up on top, whether they are the best or not. but i've also argued at times that beating the pants off of crappy teams doesn't necessarily prove anything so i don't know.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
its definitely interesting. it seems margin of victory is necessary as a good team playing in a crappy conference has no shot of ending up on top, whether they are the best or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
FTR, he has historical rankings on his site.

In 2006, undefeated BSU was only #6. It even had 2 loss USC ahead of BSU. It also had Florida (#1) ahead of undefeated OSU (#2):
http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2006/rank15.html

In 2004, there were 5 undefeated teams. They were ranked 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7:
http://www.colleyrankings.com/foot2004/rank15.html

[NozeCandy]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, to the OSU people: yeah, you scheduled Texas. That's great, but you didn't schedule them this year. Your schedule is an absolute cakewalk THIS YEAR. Yeah, I'm impressed you scheduled Texas and USC this decade. But FOR 2007, your schedule is incredibly weak. That's all I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not an OSU person. Kind of the opposite really. But as long as we are typing IN CAPS, there's a reason I said you made it SOUND LIKE you were ripping on their year-in, year-out scheduling. That kind of implies that if that WAS NOT your intention, then everything I said would be invalid.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
here's the real question about polls: how does one evaluate the teams?

1) Who is the 'best' team?

2) Who has the best results on the field so far?

3) Who do we project to have the best results on the field at the end of the year?

These 3 things have some overlap, but are far from being the same.

Too often, it comes down to someone's opinion on who is the 'better' team.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. The typical AP voter is way too dumb to understand the differences among 1, 2 and 3. They're just guessing, mostly. Outside of really unusuall stuff, their thought process is "OK, this team was #7 last week, and they didn't lose, so they can't move down AMIRITE?"