11-14-2011, 08:25 AM | #1 | ||
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
cartman's FOFC College Football Top 25, Week 11 open for voting
Time to open up the voting for this week. Submissions are due by kickoff of the North Carolina-Virginia Tech game on Thursday, Nov. 17th. Here is how last week's poll fared:
Code:
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint |
||
11-14-2011, 09:39 AM | #2 | ||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
|
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-14-2011, 10:04 AM | #3 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma State 3. Alabama 4. Oklahoma 5. Oregon 6. Arkansas 7. Stanford 8. Wisconsin 9. Clemson 10. Virginia Tech 11. Nebraska 12. S Carolina 13. Boise St 14. Georgia 15. Kansas St 16. Houston 17. USC 18. Michigan St 19. Southern Miss 20. TCU 21. Penn St 22. Michigan 23. Notre Dame 24. W Virginia 25. Florida St |
11-14-2011, 11:59 AM | #4 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edmond, OK
|
1. LSU (1)
2. Oklahoma State (3) 3. Oregon (6) 4. Alabama (4) 5. Oklahoma (7) 6. Arkansas (8) 7. Clemson (9) 8. Virginia Tech (10) 9. Stanford (2) 10. Houston (11) 11. Boise State (5) 12. Michigan State (13) 13. Wisconsin (14) 14. South Carolina (15) 15. Georgia (16) 16. Nebraska (17) 17. Kansas State (19) 18. Michigan (20) 19. USC (21) 20. Penn State (12) 21. TCU (24) 22. Southern Mississippi (25) 23. Florida State (NR) 24. Georgia Tech (18) 25. Notre Dame (NR) With last week's ranking. Dropped out: Cincinnati, Texas |
11-14-2011, 12:04 PM | #5 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
1. Alabama
2. Louisiana State 3. Boise State 4. Oklahoma 5. Oklahoma State 6. Oregon 7. Michigan 8. Stanford 9. Wisconsin 10. Notre Dame 11. Texas Christian 12. Nebraska 13. Virginia Tech 14. Southern Mississippi 15. Southern California 16. Clemson 17. Florida State 18. Texas A&M 19. Georgia 20. Houston 21. Arkansas 22. South Carolina 23. Penn State 24. Tulsa 25. Toledo |
11-14-2011, 01:10 PM | #6 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
|
11-14-2011, 02:10 PM | #7 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
|
11-16-2011, 07:37 AM | #8 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma State 3. Alabama 4. Oregon 5. Oklahoma 6. Arkansas 7. Virginia Tech 8. Houston 9. Stanford 10. Clemson 11. Michigan State 12. Wisconsin 13. TCU 14. Boise State 15. South Carolina 16. Nebraska 17. Georgia 18. USC 19. Kansas State 20. Michigan 21. Penn State 22. Southern Miss 23. West Virginia 24. Florida State 25. Tulsa
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
11-16-2011, 08:01 AM | #9 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
|
11-16-2011, 08:34 AM | #10 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
|
11-16-2011, 08:41 AM | #11 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
Quote:
The math is weighing Arkansas down because they played a IAA team and New Mexico, which is a IAA team masquerading as a IA team. And although they crushed both of those schools, MOV is capped in this ranking, so Arkansas is deprived of that benefit. (By comparison, in the unbounded SRS, they're 16th.) With only the one loss, though, it's certainly a valid point. But I feel like this ranking is okay because presuming Arkansas is beaten by LSU in a couple weeks, they won't automatically drop several spots as would be the case in most polls; in fact, LSU's impact in the strength of schedule might offset the margin of defeat altogether. Last edited by britrock88 : 11-16-2011 at 08:42 AM. |
|
11-16-2011, 08:51 AM | #12 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
1 Oklahoma State
2 LSU 3 Alabama 4 Stanford 5 Oklahoma 6 Houston 7 USC 8 Clemson 9 Arkansas 10 Boise State 11 Oregon 12 Virginia Tech 13 Michigan 14 South Carolina 15 Kansas State 16 Nebraska 17 Notre Dame 18 Tulsa 19 Penn State 20 Southern Mississippi 21 Wisconsin 22 Georgia 23 TCU 24 Texas 25 Michigan State Top 120 |
11-16-2011, 08:52 AM | #13 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
I'd really not like to get into this again, but it's definitely a valid point when teams Arkansas has beaten and with worse records are ranked in the top 12 for several weeks while Arkansas is unranked. I mean, your polls are completely indefensible from top to bottom. Alabama-1 and LSU-2 is just one of a huge list of examples of this.
Seriously, why even play the games? The games themselves >>>>> the math. Last edited by MJ4H : 11-16-2011 at 08:53 AM. |
11-16-2011, 07:34 PM | #14 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
1) LSU
2) Oklahoma State 3) Oregon 4) Alabama 5) Oklahoma 6) Arkansas 7) Virginia Tech 8) Stanford 9) Clemson 10) Houston 11) Wisconsin 12) Boise State 13) Kansas State 14) Michigan State 15) South Carolina 16) Nebraska 17) Michigan 18) Georgia 19) Penn State 20) USC 21) Southern Mississippi 22) Baylor 23) TCU 24) Cincinnati 25) Notre Dame Last edited by Galaxy : 11-16-2011 at 07:36 PM. |
11-16-2011, 08:20 PM | #15 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
|
11-16-2011, 08:53 PM | #16 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific
|
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma St. 3. Oklahoma 4. Oregon 5. Alabama 6. Arkansas 7. Clemson 8. Virginia Tech 9. Stanford 10. Houston 11. Wisconsin 12. South Carolina 13. Georgia 14. Michigan St. 15. Kansas St. 16. Boise St. 17. Nebraska 18. USC 19. Michigan 20. TCU 21. Southern Mississippi 22. West Virginia 23. Florida St. 24. Penn St. 25. Cincinnati |
11-16-2011, 09:29 PM | #17 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NJ
|
1. LSU
2. Oklahoma State 3. Alabama 4. Oregon 5. Oklahoma 6. Houston 7. Arkansas 8. Clemson 9. Virginia Tech 10. Stanford 11. USC 12. Georgia 13. Boise State 14. Wisconsin 15. Michigan State 16. South Carolina 17. Michigan 18. Southern Miss 19. TCU 20. Nebraska 21. Cincinnati 22. Kansas State 23. Texas 24. Notre Dame 25. Penn State |
11-16-2011, 09:54 PM | #18 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
|
11-16-2011, 09:58 PM | #19 |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Federal Way, WA
|
Wow, rankings that rank teams solely based on yardage, and not just yardage per game, but strength of win and schedule based on yardage. What a horrible, horrible idea. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just get yards.
Last edited by Tigercat : 11-16-2011 at 09:58 PM. |
11-16-2011, 10:13 PM | #20 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
Exactly I don't see the point in ranking teams for anything other than the entire object of the game. Winning. Nothing else really matters. Citing other polls that are similarly flawed only proves that there is more than one person missing the point entirely out there. |
|
11-16-2011, 11:47 PM | #21 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
Quote:
So most polls implicitly combine W-L record and SoS; my ranking (and the simple rating score it's derived from) looks at margin of victory and SoS as measured by MOV; and Annar looks at yards per play while accounting for SoS through opponents' defenses' yards per play. Winning is certainly the ultimate objective of the game, but there are discrete parts of the game that have goals of their own. MOV judges teams based on their success per drive, so to speak, by paying attention to the number of points scored and allowed. Within the drive, Annar looks at the successes of a team on a play-by-play basis. I don't think that it's wrong to analyze teams based on any of these criteria; in fact, I'm sure there are many other inputs that could be informative as to the relative performance or strength of teams. But there's an interesting point raised in critiques of systems that look at factors other than wins and losses. Many of these critiques focus on how these rankings ignore an important part of the game, that is, the result in terms of winner and loser. That is valid, but shouldn't the reverse be true? Could others critique the number of polls that are subjective and correlate very strongly to W-L record because those polls perhaps underweight other measures of success such as margin of victory, yardage, turnover ratio, etc.? In an effort to clarify why polls that use data other than wins and losses exist, I'll just pull a couple points from the rankings I have. Alabama and LSU are 1 and 2, even though we are just weeks removed from LSU defeating Alabama 9 to 6 in overtime. To my spreadsheet, Alabama is not categorically ranked lower than LSU because of that loss. I see it that the fact that Alabama scored 3 fewer points than LSU is more informative than the actual victor/vanquished categorization, particularly because the game went to overtime. For another case, we'll take once-unbeaten Kansas State, who never cracked the Top 25 of my poll. I do not want to try to claim that this ranking has any predictive power. But the ranking did take into account the fact that Kansas State beat an FCS team (Eastern Kentucky) by only 3 points. (That is a _miserable_ outing, despite the tallied win.) That played no small part in holding Kansas State in the 30s, even as they won several games to start the season. In short, I think rankings should work like statistical regressions, by factoring in more and more variables until much of the distribution of team performance is explained, then stripping away the least useful variables to produce a lean, but powerful measure for teams' effectiveness. I am just a guy with a spreadsheet and the ESPN scores page in front of me; I decided that MOV was the most informative and efficient category of data to rely on. Despite whatever irregularities the ranking may produce in comparison to subjective polls, I rest assured in that no cognitive biases color my perception of teams and affect the way my ranking plays out. [One last point: Sagarin's ELO ranking is what the BCS uses (since it bars the use of margin of victory in its computer rankings (to keep down the Boise States of the world???)), but Sagarin also publishes his PREDICTOR ranking, which takes account of margin of victory, and directs readers to use that ranking for predictive purposes instead of the ELO ranking. Why? PREDICTOR has more data to better inform the results of the ranking!) |
|
11-16-2011, 11:57 PM | #22 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
As I said, no amount of justifying things "logically" can get around the fact that you have teams that lost to other teams and with worse records ranked ahead of the other team. That is just not excusable. And the reason the ELO rankings are used is because they use win/loss data only! Just like in chess (where Elo ratings are most commonly used), all that matters is who wins. The predictor rankings use all that other nonsense and come up with poorer rankings. The predictor rankings (according to Sagarin) are better at guessing who would win in a matchup, but (and remember this next part), that isn't how teams should be ranked. We aren't asking "who is the best team" when we rank teams, we are asking "who has had the best season, according to the results of their games." These are not equivalent questions. Asking the wrong question leads to absurd answers. Edit to add: Allowing nonsensical polls such as this is precisely why I don't participate in this poll. It's a complete waste of time. Last edited by MJ4H : 11-16-2011 at 11:59 PM. |
|
11-17-2011, 12:20 AM | #23 | |||||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Madison, WI
|
Quote:
There's an internal logic to your observation and your reaction to it, too. The syllogism looks something like this: Givens: 1. In general, a team X that has lost to a team Y should not be ranked higher than team Y. 2. In general, a team W that has more losses than a team Z should not be ranked higher than team Z. 3. If it is the case that a team A has lost to a team B AND team A has more losses than team B, then team A absolutely should not be ranked higher than team B. 4. Violating premiss 1, 2, or 3 is inexcusable. Assumptions: 1. Texas A&M has lost to Arkansas. 2. Texas A&M has lost more games than Arkansas. 3. Thus, Texas A&M has lost to Arkansas AND has lost more games than Arkansas. 4. Texas A&M is ranked higher than Arkansas. Assumptions 3 and 4 violate Given 3, leading to the conclusion: Ranking Texas A&M over Arkansas is inexcusable. You have an internal logic which I respect. I only use a different approach to assessing teams' success, one that I would say takes into account many more contextual factors (relative strengths of schedule, convincingness of victories). Quote:
The BCS's fiat is that it only allows the participation of computer rankings that do not weigh MOV. You cannot use the rule to justify the reason. Quote:
One of our points of contention. Agree to disagree here. The fact that Michigan lost at Ohio State 39-42 means something entirely different than that Michigan lost at Ohio State by... 14-28, 0-42, etc. MOV reflects (to some extent) a measure of the relative parity of the two teams playing each other. Quote:
As far as I'm aware, there is no central question that polls are meant to answer. I have this discussion with friends every year -- what are polls supposed to rank? A measure of past accomplishments? A prediction of potential success? Something in between? This was incredibly pronounced for that brief point in time where Dennis Dixon was hobbled, but Oregon was still undefeated. I'm not sure that poll voters knew what to do about the Ducks. Were they supposed to look at the Oregon that had crushed everybody, or imagine the sputtering Oregon without Dixon? Quote:
Far from a waste of time. I would welcome entries that subverted the results of my ranking, because that would provide the opportunity to learn what criteria are involved in producing that kind of result. Aside from that, the law of averages is against whatever aberrational results my rankings churn out. I've noticed very few instances where the extra 10-15 points a team like A&M or Notre Dame was awarded, or where Arkansas or Kansas State was not, resulted in a change of position in the aggregated poll. Again, the more factors that are involved in producing a result, the more completely the result will reflect its inputs. |
|||||
11-17-2011, 12:31 AM | #24 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Look, this all boils down to, as I can see by your last few sentences, the fact that you are trying to answer the wrong question. Of the two questions I posed, "what is the best team" and "what team has had the best season," only one of them makes sense for these rankings. If we attempted to answer the first question instead of the second question, the games themselves wouldn't actually matter. We would be allowed to think ridiculous things like "well even though Texas Tech beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma is still a better team, so I'm going to rank them as if they didn't lose that game. After all, they are better." Why did they even play? This is just an example of the horrible results that can occur when you ask the wrong question. The ONLY thing that should matter is the results on the field. Otherwise, there is no point to having results on the field. Furthermore, the only on-field result that matters is W or L. Otherwise, you fool with the integrity of the game. Teams start doing things like trying to win by as much as possible or trying to gain meaningless yards in games where the actual requirements of the game are to have more points than the other. Understand: number of yards gained don't matter, number of yards allowed don't matter, number of points scored minus number of points allowed doesn't matter. What matters is points > or < points allowed. That is all as defined by the rules of the game, and that is all that should be assessed. Using other things fundamentally alters the game. And I fully believe that your polls and others like it make the activity a total waste of time. I'm absolutely baffled that you continue to try to defend it. edit to add: There is value to things that do similar things to what you are trying to do, incidentally. Just not in ranking teams' season performance. It is noted that Sagarin predictor ratings do a pretty good job of predicting future results. That is certainly useful. BUT, it is also absolutely not what these rankings are supposed to be doing. Last edited by MJ4H : 11-17-2011 at 12:33 AM. |
11-17-2011, 07:00 AM | #25 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
I didn't know there was a set criteria for what rankings are "supposed" to do. To some extent, "good losses" & "bad wins" weigh on most human pollsters. Otherwise, we'd just have lists in pure rank order based on wins, and Houston would be no worse than #3. edit to add: Point being, while I think the poll under discussion goes overboard for my taste in how it weights some of the factors, it's unrealistic to pretend that aspects of what it's doing aren't present in a lot of polls.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 11-17-2011 at 07:02 AM. |
|
11-17-2011, 07:56 AM | #26 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
Well, I think it is pretty clear what the polls are supposed to be doing, personally, if for no other reason than one of the two options leads to absurdity while the other follows the same logic as every other sport (other sports use criteria like win/loss, head-to-head, etc. to decide whose season was the best...they don't ignore that info and decide one team was better despite that info). And I certainly realize that a lot of polls are rife with confusion about what they should be doing. It's one of my two major complaints about the whole sport. I'm quite certain a lot of human voters do the same thing. Last edited by MJ4H : 11-17-2011 at 07:58 AM. |
|
11-17-2011, 05:49 PM | #27 |
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
The Top 25 from Solecismic's Football Frontier:
1. LSU 2. Alabama 3. Oklahoma 4. Boise State 5. Oregon 6. Oklahoma State 7. Stanford 8. Michigan 9. Georgia 10. Texas 11. Virginia Tech 12. South Carolina 13. USC 14. Arkansas 15. Houston 16. Southern Mississippi 17. Kansas State 18. TCU 19. Penn State 20. Clemson 21. Wisconsin 22. Nebraska 23. Utah 24. Michigan State 25. Missouri
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint |
11-17-2011, 05:49 PM | #28 |
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
bump...
you have until kickoff of the North Carolina-Va Tech game to get polls submitted Here's my Top 25: 1. LSU 2. Oklahoma State 3. Alabama 4. Oregon 5. Arkansas 6. Virginia Tech 7. Oklahoma 8. Stanford 9. Boise State 10. Clemson 11. Houston 12. Nebraska 13. South Carolina 14. Michigan State 15. Wisconsin 16. Georgia 17. Kansas State 18. USC 19. Southern Mississippi 20. Penn State 21. Michigan 22. West Virginia 23. Florida State 24. Georgia Tech 25. Texas
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint Last edited by cartman : 11-19-2011 at 07:57 AM. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|