Sagarin Rankings: Um... Huh?

#1
FREE EARL

FREE EARL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
2,253
Likes
0
#1
Are.... um.... I'll allow you to choose the word.

USATODAY.com

1. Oregon
2. Auburn
3. Stanford
4. TCU
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma
7. Arkansas
8. Boise State
9. Missouri
10. LSU
11. Ohio State
12. Oklahoma State
13. Texas A&M
14. Nebraska
15. Wisconsin
16. Virginia Tech
17. South Carolina
18. Nevada
19. Florida State
20. Michigan State
21. Utah
22. USC
23. Arizona
24. Arizona State
25. Mississippi State
Click to expand...

That's BOP1 type rankings right there.

The bolded are the head scratchers. Why are Wisconsin and Michigan State ranked so low, and Alabama, Arizona State, Arizona, and USC so high? And if you look at the linked page, he has the 5-7 Oregon State team as the 31st best team in the nation. He also has Iowa, Florida, and Notre Dame far too high on his list, all being in the top 30.

And to think, that *insert word here* influences the BCS.
 
#2
#2
Well, check out his formula and you'll see why. It's just a formula.
 
#4
#4
It rewards margin of victory is all, and the BCS uses the ELO CHESS part of the rankings which doesn't take into account margin of victory.

Never been a fan of his rankings, as it always placed the high-scoring, low-defense conferences higher than they should be, but ehh, whatever.
 
#6
#6
In the 1990s, research by Jeff Sagarin, who compiles the Sagarin Computer Ratings for USA Today, indicated that UK is the national champion for the 1950 season under that ranking system.

Also in 1950 Tennessee was voted National Champions by several polls.
Tennessee (11-1)
1950 Border Battle Tennessee 7 - Kentucky 0
hmmm.
 
#7
#7
Auburn should be #1 in every computer poll, because there is absolutely no comparison between the schedules played by Auburn and Oregon.
 
#9
#9
ELO-CHESS, the BCS formula, is not "hidden", it's just wins and losses with recursions against opponents wins and losses.

The only number that means jack in this is the predictor. Those are the "real" computer rankings which the BCS tossed out a long time ago because they took too much control out of the voters hands. It also rates a team by how they are playing NOW not so much the "body of work".

Why he orders them by an average of the two I have no idea.
 
#10
#10
s1216 said:
ELO-CHESS, the BCS formula, is not "hidden", it's just wins and losses with recursions against opponents wins and losses.

The only number that means jack in this is the predictor. Those are the "real" computer rankings which the BCS tossed out a long time ago because they took too much control out of the voters hands. It also rates a team by how they are playing NOW not so much the "body of work".

Why he orders them by an average of the two I have no idea.
Click to expand...

The predictor looks pretty weird to. It looks like this...

1. Stanford
2. Oregon
3. Boise State
4. Alabama
5. TCU
6. Ohio State
7. Auburn
8. Oklahoma
9. Virginia Tech
10. Missouri
11. Florida State
12. Arkansas
13. Nebraska
14. Oklahoma State
15. LSU
16. Arizona
17. South Carolina
18. Texas A&M
19. Wisconsin
20. Arizona State
21. West Virginia
22. Miami
23. Nevada
24. Iowa
25. USC


:ermm:
 
#11
#11
Bumi said:
Are.... um.... I'll allow you to choose the word.

USATODAY.com



That's BOP1 type rankings right there.

The bolded are the head scratchers. Why are Wisconsin and Michigan State ranked so low, and Alabama, Arizona State, Arizona, and USC so high? And if you look at the linked page, he has the 5-7 Oregon State team as the 31st best team in the nation. He also has Iowa, Florida, and Notre Dame far too high on his list, all being in the top 30.

And to think, that *insert word here* influences the BCS.
Click to expand...

You seem to underestimate the Pac 10 and overestimate the Big 10.
 
#12
#12
s1216 said:
ELO-CHESS, the BCS formula, is not "hidden", it's just wins and losses with recursions against opponents wins and losses.
Click to expand...

Aha. Someone who knows their ratings.

s1216 said:
The only number that means jack in this is the predictor. Those are the "real" computer rankings which the BCS tossed out a long time ago because they took too much control out of the voters hands. It also rates a team by how they are playing NOW not so much the "body of work".
Click to expand...

This I'm not sure about. I believe that the reason margin of victory was taken out was because some coaches were running up scores against weak opponents to score higher in the ratings.

The ham-handed solution is the crap-fest we have now. All they needed to do was apply a diminishing return on the margins. Not only would it be a much more objective system, it would directly discourage scheduling cupcakes since teams would be playing against high average margins for those teams.

I believe that the Predictor column and Elo-Chess are actually the same recursive formula using the entire body of work. The difference is that instead of plugging in the margin of victory, elo-chess just uses "1" if they win and "0" if they lose.

s1216 said:
Why he orders them by an average of the two I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the rules allowed, that's what he would prefer to submit to the BCS? A merging of the accurate with the politically correct.

Ed12111 said:
You seem to underestimate the Pac 10 and overestimate the Big 10.
Click to expand...

He's hoping for some applause here. Give the guy a round!
:clapping:
 
#15
#15
wheaton4prez said:
Yes. Neither played particularly well against mediocre schedules.
Click to expand...

Lmao, Wisconsin hasn't played well? :lolabove:


Edit: I noticed how you tried to delete your post to save face. And you can kill the "mediocre" schedule talk. He has Boise State at 8.
 
#17
#17
Bumi said:
Lmao, Wisconsin hasn't played well? :lolabove:


Edit: I noticed how you tried to delete your post to save face. And you can kill the "mediocre" schedule talk. He has Boise State at 8.
Click to expand...

That's a good example of you misunderstanding a situation and falling on your face. I tried to delete the post because I realized that you weren't responding to me and had asked someone else that question.

Since you saw it, yes, I don't think Wisconsin has played particularly well against a mediocre schedule. Any questions?
 
#18
#18
wheaton4prez said:
That's a good example of you misunderstanding a situation and falling on your face. I tried to delete the post because I realized that you weren't responding to me and had asked someone else that question.
Click to expand...

Lol yea, I bet. :eek:lol:

Since you saw it, yes, I don't think Wisconsin has played particularly well against a mediocre schedule. Any questions?
Click to expand...

So why is Boise State ranked 7 spots above Wisconsin, seeing as they've played a weaker schedule, their loss is worse, and their signature win isn't as impressive?

And how is scoring above 70 points, 3 times, not impressive? I'm sure it was impressive when the Ducks were scoring big against mighty New Mexico.
Click to expand...
 
#19
#19
Bumi said:
So why is Boise State ranked 7 spots above Wisconsin, seeing as they've played a weaker schedule, their loss is worse, and their signature win isn't as impressive?
Click to expand...

Because they dominated the schedule they have.

How do you still not understand how it works after all of this back and forth about it?

Bumi said:
And how is scoring above 70 points, 3 times, not impressive? I'm sure it was impressive when the Ducks were scoring big against mighty New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Not as impressive as scoring 20 less against Stanford. See how that works? It's all relative to how good the opponent is.
 
#20
#20
wheaton4prez said:
Because they dominated the schedule they have.

How do you still not understand how it works after all of this back and forth about it?
Click to expand...

But it's "all relative to how good the opponent is" right? Boise's schedule is significantly weaker than Wisconsin's. There's no reason they should ranked 7 spots ahead of them. Why you can't admit that is beyond me.

Not as impressive as scoring 20 less against Stanford. See how that works? It's all relative to how good the opponent is.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with Wisconsin? You said Wisconsin hasn't played well. I'm asking you to explain, with your own reasoning, how they haven't.
 
#21
#21
Bumi said:
But it's "all relative to how good the opponent is" right? Boise's schedule is significantly weaker than Wisconsin's. There's no reason they should ranked 7 spots ahead of them. Why you can't admit that is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Actually, Boise State's schedule is not significantly weaker than Wisconsin's according to objective measure.

And they dominated their opponents from top to bottom more consistently than Wisconsin did. That's how they are ranked ahead of them in that criteria.

You keep mangling what we're discussing. First, you're criticizing Sagarin's output and completely misunderstanding how it works. Then, you're switching over to whether or not I will "admit" that Wisconsin has played better than Boise State this year. Two different things.

Bumi said:
What does that have to do with Wisconsin? You said Wisconsin hasn't played well. I'm asking you to explain, with your own reasoning, how they haven't.
Click to expand...

I was explaining why Sagarin's rating puts teams where they are. You seem baffled by how it works. It's math. It doesn't have judgment for you to have a beef with. Sagarin's ratings are not subjective.

You're basically arguing that 3+3 should not equal 6.
 
#22
#22
wheaton4prez said:
Actually, Boise State's schedule is not significantly weaker than Wisconsin's according to objective measure.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

And they dominated their opponents from top to bottom more consistently than Wisconsin did. That's how they are ranked ahead of them in that criteria.
Click to expand...

Because they're schedule is weaker.

You keep mangling what we're discussing. First, you're criticizing Sagarin's output and completely misunderstanding how it works. Then, you're switching over to whether or not I will "admit" that Wisconsin has played better than Boise State this year. Two different things.

I was explaining why Sagarin's rating puts teams where they are. You seem baffled by how it works. It's math. It doesn't have judgment for you to have a beef with. Sagarin's ratings are not subjective.

You're basically arguing that 3+3 should not equal 6.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you about Sagarin's ratings. They're irrelevant to my request. I'm ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN YOUR COMMENT ABOUT WISCONSIN NOT PLAYING WELL. The comment you deleted, the comment you're trying to duck(no pun intended) around.

So let me break it down once more. YOU CLAIMED Wisconsin wasn't playing well. I'm asking you to explain your comment. Meaning, explain why your post contained the words "Wisconsin isn't playing well".
 
#23
#23
Bumi said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...

Not according to Sagarin's ratings. Did you forget what the subject of your own thread was?

Bumi said:
Because they're schedule is weaker.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Not according to objective measure.

Bumi said:
I'm not asking you about Sagarin's ratings. They're irrelevant to my request. I'm ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN YOUR COMMENT ABOUT WISCONSIN NOT PLAYING WELL. The comment you deleted, the comment you're trying to duck(no pun intended) around.
Click to expand...

Bumi, as I've already explained once, I'm not trying to avoid posting that statement. I stand by it. Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that you aren't someone who can have a productive conversation about this. So, I was hoping to let someone else take up your question since you addressed it to them.

Bumi said:
So let me break it down once more. YOU CLAIMED Wisconsin wasn't playing well. I'm asking you to explain your comment. Meaning, explain why your post contained the words "Wisconsin isn't playing well".
Click to expand...

I wrote that Wisconsin hasn't played particularly well against a mediocre schedule. I was explaining why Sagarin's rating puts them where it does because that is the subject of the thread you started.

Scoring zillions of points against teams that many other teams also dominated doesn't score many points in Sagarin's rating. I agree that it shouldn't.
 
#24
#24
wheaton4prez said:
Not according to Sagarin's ratings. Did you forget what the subject of your own thread was?
Click to expand...

Sagarin's ratings being trash? No, which is why I don't take them seriously. I have the ability to think on my own.

Anyways. I'm done cluttering the forums. You post trash, someone calls you on it, and instead of owning up to it and defending your stance, you dance around the question. It's cool though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top