Question For CJ...

[GatorGrad]

Using your formula, which of the following two teams would be ranked higher?

TEAM A: Unbeaten team (12-0) with the combined record of their 12 opponents being an average of 48-144 (25% winning percentage.) So the average record of their opponents was just 4-8.

TEAM B: One loss team (11-1) with the combined record of their 12 opponents being an average of 144-48 (75% winning percentage.) So the average record of their opponents was 8-4.

Assume that the opponents opponents records in this case were both dead even at 50%.

Who would finish higher using your system?

[buckeyejim]

What if Team A won their games by an average score of 52-7 and Team B won their games by an average score of 21-17 and lost their only game 35-3 at home?

In that case you could make a case that Team A Should be ranked #1 because of their dominance even though the opponents were less than stellar.

Sometimes it's unfair to penalize a team because their opponents happen to be bad that particular season. Is it fair to penalize a school who happen to have Notre Dame on their schedule in 2007? Is is fair to rip Ohio State because Washington is down when historically Washington is normally very good?

Sometimes the records of opponets can be deceiving due to unusual circumstance or poor timing.

[GatorGrad]

I'm not suggesting that either team should be ranked higher...I am just curious as to which team CJ's formula would rank higher. And I don't think his formula considers MOV.

[buckeyejim]

I'm not suggesting that either team should be ranked higher...I am just curious as to which team CJ's formula would rank higher. And I don't think his formula considers MOV.

For the life of me I can not think of what MOV stands for. Please help me. Thanks.

[CJHawkeyes]

Going 11-1 vs. twelve 8-4 teams is > than going 12-0 versus twelve 4-8 teams under my system. In fact, the difference is significant. MOV is irrelevant.

[buckeyejim]

OK I'll ask again, what is MOV?

[CJHawkeyes]

What if Team A won their games by an average score of 52-7 and Team B won their games by an average score of 21-17 and lost their only game 35-3 at home?

In that case you could make a case that Team A Should be ranked #1 because of their dominance even though the opponents were less than stellar.

Sometimes it's unfair to penalize a team because their opponents happen to be bad that particular season. Is it fair to penalize a school who happen to have Notre Dame on their schedule in 2007? Is is fair to rip Ohio State because Washington is down when historically Washington is normally very good?

Sometimes the records of opponets can be deceiving due to unusual circumstance or poor timing.


Just to play devil's advocate, the reason for Team A's dominance could be directly related to the fact that they are playing 4-8 teams. As for punishing teams because opponents don't meet expectations, I see your point and think this a strong reason for a larger playoff. A poor Notre Dame team cannot cost you a 16 team playoff berth unless you lose mutiple times. The same is not true where a two team playoff is concerned. Even then, I still think it is appropriate to place team higher that scheduled and beat South Florida, Missouri, and Kansas this year as opposed Notre Dame, Washington, and Nebraska even though the latter group is almost always more successful.

[CJHawkeyes]

OK I'll ask again, what is MOV?


margin of victory

[buckeyejim]

Just to play devil's advocate, the reason for Team A's dominance could be directly related to the fact that they are playing 4-8 teams. As for punishing teams because opponents don't meet expectations, I see your point and think this a strong reason for a larger playoff. A poor Notre Dame team cannot cost you a 16 team playoff berth unless you lose mutiple times. The same is not true where a two team playoff is concerned. Even then, I still think it is appropriate to place team higher that scheduled and beat South Florida, Missouri, and Kansas this year as opposed Notre Dame, Washington, and Nebraska even though the latter group is almost always more successful.

What if the team that played a poorer schedule has obvious better players? Why should an obviously better team be penalized because their opponets (4 whom THEY schedule and 8 whom their conference schedules) are having bad seasons?

There comes a point where, if you're a voter, you simply vote who you believe is the better team higher and that is THE only reason you have, bottom line.

That's what Oklahoma will be hoping for if they go head-to-head against LSU for an opportunity to play for the National Championship. As an Ohio State fan, I'd rather face LSU than Oklahoma. Why? Because I think that Oklahoma is a better overall football team. LSU may end up playing a more difficult schedule but when I've watch the Sooners and Bengal Tigers, I've come away more impressed with the Oklahoma athletes, than the LSU athletes. Obviously, my opinion.

[GatorGrad]

OK so for my next question CJ, I am wondering what is the closest in opponent winning % that you can have where the 11-1 team would still come out on top. In other words, what difference in opponent winning % makes up for an entire loss under your system? Where does the scale tip? How much stronger does a team's schedule need to be to overcome a loss when compared to a team with no losses?

[GatorGrad]

Jim,

I get the sense that you are being defensive about OSU, perhaps because you think I am trying to make a point about OSU's schedule. I honestly am not. I was not even thinking about OSU's schedule or anything having to do with OSU or any other particular team. That's not where I was going with this. CJ always talks about his system and I am just curious as to how much SOS means compared to record in his system. I like his system and wish there was some form of objective criteria used for standings. IMO, the way we select teams in the BCS is more flawed than the # of teams that are selected (two.) In other words, I would rather change from a subjective to an objective system and keep the current 2-team playoff rather than expand the playoff field while keeping the same subjective system that relies on opinions. If I could only have one or the other, I would change the method of ranking teams instead of expanding the field. It's amazing that the polls can carry so much power.

[HellYeahHokie]

OK I'll ask again, what is MOV?

Margin of Victory is one of those parameters that many of the computer polls use to rank teams, because there seemed to be a high correlation coefficient with this parameter. However, the NCAA made all computer polls that are in the BCS formula to remove MOV from their algorithms because they didn't want coaches running up the scores (RUTS, if you didn't know that one either) of their games to improve their position.

[CJHawkeyes]

What if the team that played a poorer schedule has obvious better players? Why should an obviously better team be penalized because their opponets (4 whom THEY schedule and 8 whom their conference schedules) are having bad seasons?

There comes a point where, if you're a voter, you simply vote who you believe is the better team higher and that is THE only reason you have, bottom line.

That's what Oklahoma will be hoping for if they go head-to-head against LSU for an opportunity to play for the National Championship. As an Ohio State fan, I'd rather face LSU than Oklahoma. Why? Because I think that Oklahoma is a better overall football team. LSU may end up playing a more difficult schedule but when I've watch the Sooners and Bengal Tigers, I've come away more impressed with the Oklahoma athletes, than the LSU athletes. Obviously, my opinion.

I'm not interested in who has better athletes. I just want to determine a winner in fair, undisputed, and objective manner. Certainly, there are better ways to accomplish that than using my system but most of those ways involve drastic changes for college football. I simply devised an idea to account for the way college football is.

That said, I don't think having better athletes or a better team entitles a team a higher ranking. Games and competitions are won based on who performs better according to the prescribed rules. Talent is acquired and used to achieve the desired ranking. The best team does not get to be the first place team because it is the best team. Is it fair to have a team's fate rest so much on the success of its opponents? Perhaps not, which is one reason I favor a larger playoff. If a weaker than expected schedule saddles a team with a third place finish, it doesn't matter as much if there is a 16-team playoff as opposed to a two-team playoff. Even then, unbeaten and one-loss teams are the only records represented in the top two under my system so far. If teams were accountable to my system, their schools would understand the importance of scheduling and shouldn't count on just one typically successful opponent being enough. You don't schedule Notre Dame expecting a typical Irish team then schedule teams found at the bottom of the MAC or Sun Belt. If possible, you schedule 3-4 OOC teams that almost always win thereby limiting the possibility that a poor Notre Dame team will hurt your team's national title hopes.

Again, suppose you have two teams that play 11 common opponents (unlikely I know) and one uncommon opponent. These two teams sweep their 12 game schedules, but Team A plays South Florida and Team B plays Notre Dame. If we are limited to a two-team playoff, I simply think it is much more fair to favor Team A over Team B in this instance. It is arguably unfair to Team B to miss out on a playoff berth for this reason, but I think it is significantly better to differentiate between teams this way then by way of arbitrary and unaccountable opinions that are widely influenced by irrelevant matters. I would value the Hawkeyes finishing third under my system more than finishing first or second in polls based on voters believing Iowa has the best athletes. But again, a larger playoff would include Team A and Team B and the latter might get the opportunity down the line to demonstrate their superior talent.

[CJHawkeyes]

OK so for my next question CJ, I am wondering what is the closest in opponent winning % that you can have where the 11-1 team would still come out on top. In other words, what difference in opponent winning % makes up for an entire loss under your system? Where does the scale tip? How much stronger does a team's schedule need to be to overcome a loss when compared to a team with no losses?


It probably doesn't take as much as you might think. Assuming everyone plays 12 games, an 11-1 team's opponents must be one game better per opponent to match the points earned by a 12-0 team. For example, if Team A is 12-0 and its opponents are 72-72, Team A will have earned 72 PP. To earn 72 PP, an 11-1 team's opponents must be 84-60. Since the first tiebreaker is best record, the 11-1 team would actually need to earn 73 PP to place higher. Therefore, their opponents would need to be 85-59.

The simplest answer is this: With a 12-game schedule, opponents must be 13 games better to overcome a one game deficit, 25 games better to overcome a two game deficit, 37 games better to overcome a three game deficit, and so on. That said, higher ranked teams own an equal or better record 95% of the time. However, I haven't figured out the percentage where only teams separated by one game are concerned. Therefore, I don't know how often such deficits are overcome.

[GatorGrad]

I like your system a lot. It basically rankes teams by overall record first which makes sense, but has the ability to rank a one loss team with a very tough schedule over an unbeaten team with a much easier schedule if needed. Why don't you apply to be one of the computer polls in the BCS?

:)

[CJHawkeyes]

I like your system a lot. It basically rankes teams by overall record first which makes sense, but has the ability to rank a one loss team with a very tough schedule over an unbeaten team with a much easier schedule if needed. Why don't you apply to be one of the computer polls in the BCS?

:)

It would be fun to have the opportunity to make a case for it to BE the BCS formula. Ironically, I mentioned it in a letter I wrote to Roy Kramer not long before the BCS was created and I received a response. The response basically defended the continued use of polls. I have also sent emails to officials of nonBCS conferences urging them to push for objective rules. No one ever responded to those emails. That is all I have ever done to promote it.

[GatorGrad]

Maybe we should set up a website with the formula explained and then market the website...gotta get the word out!

[Bucs90]

I think along with the BCS wanting to keep it's money the pollsters want to keep their power. Pollsters lkke to feel important, and don't want to lose that feeling of power.

[CJHawkeyes]

I think along with the BCS wanting to keep it's money the pollsters want to keep their power. Pollsters lkke to feel important, and don't want to lose that feeling of power.


I actually believe polls allow BCS conferences to maintain a stranglehold on college football. Either nonBCS officials are not smart enough to recognize this and push for objective rules or they don't have their own schools' best interests at heart.

As for pollsters, anyone that wants their opinion to be a determining factor is someone I don't understand. I certainly wouldn't want my opinion to decide anyone's fate.