Toying Around with a Formula

[vegasvolfan]

So far, all I have is a basic scoring system for ranking teams within a conference. IF my math is at all accurate, seems fairly accurate when using the top of the SEC as an example.

Wins

(10-2 - 12-0)

8 - Quality win away

7 - Quality win at home



(8-4-9-3)

6 - better than average win away

5 - better than average win at home



(6-6-7-5)

4 - average win away

3 - average win at home



Losing record

2 - away

1 - home



Losses

(10-2 - 12-0)

-1 - Quality loss away

-2 - Quality loss at home



(8-4-9-3)

-3 better than average loss away

-4 - better than average loss at home



(6-6-7-5)

-5 - average loss away

-6 - average loss at home



losing record

-7 - bad loss away

-8 - bad loss at home



Texas 33 overall / 26 big 5



Co St - 5

@Mich - 5

UTSA - 3

ULM - 1

Miss St - 1

Ok - 3

GA - -2

@Vandy - 4

FL - 3

@Ark - 3

KY - 1

@A&M - 6



Georgia 28 overall / 26 Big 5

Clemson 5

Tntc 1

@uk 2

@bama -1

Aub 1

Miss st 1

@tx 8

FL 3

@Ole Miss -3

TN - 7

Umass - 1

Ga Tech - 3



Tennessee 23 / 18 Big 5

UTC - 3

NC St - 3

Kent St 1

OU - 4

@ark - -3

FL - 4

Bama - 5

KY - 1

Miss St - 1

GA —1

Utep - 1

@Vandy - 4



SC 17 overall / 14 big 5

ODU - 1

@ky - 2

LSU - -4

Akron - 1

Ole Miss - -4

@bama - -3

OK - 3

A&M - 5

&Vandy - 4

Missouri- 5

WOF - 1

@Clemson - 6



Bama 28 / 14 big 5

WKU - 5

SF - 2

Wisc - 1

GA - 7

@Vandy - -5

USC - 5

@TN - -1

Missouri - 5

@lsu - 6

Mercer - 7

@OK - -5

Auburn - 1





Ole miss 18 / 7 Big 5

Fur - 1

MTSU - 1

WF - 2

GA SO - 5

KY - -8

@SC - 6

@lsu - -5

OU - 3

@Ark - 4

GA - 7

@FL - -3

Miss St - 1

 

[bpalmer28]

Too subjective to to be a good formula. Need to define “quality win”, “average win”, etc.

 

[VOLdo Raine]

Too subjective to to be a good formula. Need to define “quality win”, “average win”, etc.

This

Also, when you beat a good team early in the year, and then they lose some starters to injury and the team gives up on the season, is that no longer a good win? What about when the reverse happens? When a team is crap and then gets it together and plays lights out at the end? Why does that average win suddenly become a good win; you played them when they looked like crap. CFB wants to compare apples to apples, but we are actually comparing apples to oranges to bananas to cauliflower. Hence, the million different opinions on who’s good. It’s not the NFL.

 

[vegasvolfan]

Too subjective to to be a good formula. Need to define “quality win”, “average win”, etc.

That’s in the opposing team’s record which is a cumulative stat of 12 games, 8 of which are in conference.. Albeit I am working on a way to incorporate points scored and points allowed and also a way to use OOC big 5 / ranked non big 5 games as a bench mark. Not sure how necessary that is.

 

[vegasvolfan]

This

Also, when you beat a good team early in the year, and then they lose some starters to injury and the team gives up on the season, is that no longer a good win? What about when the reverse happens? When a team is crap and then gets it together and plays lights out at the end? Why does that average win suddenly become a good win; you played them when they looked like crap. CFB wants to compare apples to apples, but we are actually comparing apples to oranges to bananas to cauliflower. Hence, the million different opinions on who’s good. It’s not the NFL.

See my response to him. One factor I also am thinking of is how a team finishes their season. The reality is, nothing is perfect. And if you think about it, there is no formula or philosophy that addresses entering you just said. So a decision has to be made. The way I see it is that the way a team wins or loses against other teams and the way they win and lose (which per my response will be factored in), changes and shows up as people get injured or stay healthy.) There are simply things like injuries that can’t be controlled. Staying healthy is key. We saw FSU b&m last year over not getting in and they got trounced in their bowl. They played poorly their last game or two I believe. Anyways, as simple as this little formula is, it’s pretty accurate.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

So far, all I have is a basic scoring system for ranking teams within a conference. IF my math is at all accurate, seems fairly accurate when using the top of the SEC as an example.

Wins

(10-2 - 12-0)

8 - Quality win away

7 - Quality win at home



(8-4-9-3)

6 - better than average win away

5 - better than average win at home



(6-6-7-5)

4 - average win away

3 - average win at home



Losing record

2 - away

1 - home



Losses

(10-2 - 12-0)

-1 - Quality loss away

-2 - Quality loss at home



(8-4-9-3)

-3 better than average loss away

-4 - better than average loss at home



(6-6-7-5)

-5 - average loss away

-6 - average loss at home



losing record

-7 - bad loss away

-8 - bad loss at home



Texas 33 overall / 26 big 5



Co St - 5

@Mich - 5

UTSA - 3

ULM - 1

Miss St - 1

Ok - 3

GA - -2

@Vandy - 4

FL - 3

@Ark - 3

KY - 1

@A&M - 6



Georgia 28 overall / 26 Big 5

Clemson 5

Tntc 1

@uk 2

@bama -1

Aub 1

Miss st 1

@tx 8

FL 3

@Ole Miss -3

TN - 7

Umass - 1

Ga Tech - 3



Tennessee 23 / 18 Big 5

UTC - 3

NC St - 3

Kent St 1

OU - 4

@ark - -3

FL - 4

Bama - 5

KY - 1

Miss St - 1

GA —1

Utep - 1

@Vandy - 4



SC 17 overall / 14 big 5

ODU - 1

@ky - 2

LSU - -4

Akron - 1

Ole Miss - -4

@bama - -3

OK - 3

A&M - 5

&Vandy - 4

Missouri- 5

WOF - 1

@Clemson - 6



Bama 28 / 14 big 5

WKU - 5

SF - 2

Wisc - 1

GA - 7

@Vandy - -5

USC - 5

@TN - -1

Missouri - 5

@lsu - 6

Mercer - 7

@OK - -5

Auburn - 1





Ole miss 18 / 7 Big 5

Fur - 1

MTSU - 1

WF - 2

GA SO - 5

KY - -8

@SC - 6

@lsu - -5

OU - 3

@Ark - 4

GA - 7

@FL - -3

Miss St - 1

I've been following this guy's attempt to recreate the BCS method of ranking which points out how flawed "pure math" was/is for ranking teams. His method is relatively complex and comprehensive but still really flawed and that's what he set out to show.

Edit: I've no idea how to link to a thread but it's in the NCAA from called "I created a...... " by bamawriter

Back in 2011, during the controversy surrounding the Bama-LSU rematch, I started putting together my own version of a BCS computer ranking system. I was going to use it in a future column to detail how stupid the very concept of the computers is when it comes to determining a champion. But, before I had the chance to write that column, the playoff was announced, and it seemed sort of pointless.

Anyway, I was clearing of a hard drive and found my system. Because I'm bored, I decided to update it for the past several seasons just to see what it would spit out for the four team playoff. Thought some on here might find it interesting. Certainly could spur some debate.

Here's the idea:

Bias is completely eliminated. Team names, history, and conference are all ignored. Winning % and strength of schedule are the most important factors. While the BCS eliminated margin of victory, I think that's ridiculous, so it's back in on mine. In order to adjust for home field advantage, I took the standard Vegas rule and subtracted 3 points for a game at home, and added 3 points for a road game, creating an adjusted point differential. I also included average yardage differential to help account for the way a game actually played out on the field. FCS opponents are given a standard .25 winning % and only their games against FBS teams count toward their point differential.

Here's the formula:

Winning % x 100 (too make it a whole number)
+
Opponents' Winning % x 100
+
Average Adjusted Point Differential
+
Opponents' Average Point Differential
+
Average Yardage Differential / 100
=
SCORE


As an example, 2015 Tennessee had the following score (bowl game not included):

(.6667 x 100) + (.5385 x 100) + 12.4167 + .5753 + (52.0833 / 100) = 134.0328

Interestingly, my system from last year produced the same 4 playoff teams, and even the same semifinal matchups, but with different seeding:

1. Alabama - 176.4984
2. Clemson - 175.6221
3. Oklahoma - 174.9711
4. Mich St. - 164.4958

Michigan State got in over Ohio State by .0007.

I went back to 2008 if anyone is interested in more.

 

[ftsandersvol]

Maybe you should just toy around with Formula 409.

 

[vegasvolfan]

Maybe you should just toy around with Formula 409.

Or perhaps offering up ideas like the Entettainmwnt District and Reveue growth and so much more to leadership. A simple formula shouldn’t get your shorts in a wad.

 

[vegasvolfan]

I've been following this guy's attempt to recreate the BCS method of ranking which points out how flawed "pure math" was/is for ranking teams. His method is relatively complex and comprehensive but still really flawed and that's what he set out to show.

Edit: I've no idea how to link to a thread but it's in the NCAA from called "I created a...... " by bamawriter

It’s a simple system for ranking teams within the BCS.

 

[sami]

This

Also, when you beat a good team early in the year, and then they lose some starters to injury and the team gives up on the season, is that no longer a good win? What about when the reverse happens? When a team is crap and then gets it together and plays lights out at the end? Why does that average win suddenly become a good win; you played them when they looked like crap. CFB wants to compare apples to apples, but we are actually comparing apples to oranges to bananas to cauliflower. Hence, the million different opinions on who’s good. It’s not the NFL.

You pretty much nailed why it is close to impossible to find any kind of system for ranking programs that play different levels of competition in leagues that vary greatly in quality from top to bottom.

While the group of bureacrats we currently have is about the least subjective and most prone to bias of any conceivable system, how do you factor all the variables involved in different schedules and how a team is playing at certain points of the season into an algorithm that could be trusted as being "fair" - if that even matters? That's the multi-billion dollar question.

 

[mscc1998]

Who would have to win/lose today on championship conference Saturday around the country to eliminate Alabama from consideration?
I know they are in there by their name (branding) only. Their very presence is like a fly that won't leave.
Thoughts?

 

[bpalmer28]

Would be cool to include some kind of factor that accounts for how recent a big win is. Like if it was 10 games ago multiply it by 1. If it was 1 game ago multiply it by 1.10. 5 games ago 1.05 and so on But you may have to raise it to some power to make it matter

 

[ftsandersvol]

Or perhaps offering up ideas like the Entettainmwnt District and Reveue growth and so much more to leadership. A simple formula shouldn’t get your shorts in a wad.

 

[vegasvolfan]

View attachment 704057

Fair enough. Probably a lot of other frustration goes into the way I take things.

 

[ftsandersvol]

Fair enough. Probably a lot of other frustration goes into the way I take things.

No biggie. You, like most of us on here, are just passionate about the Vols, and I respect that.

 

[VOLdo Raine]

You pretty much nailed why it is close to impossible to find any kind of system for ranking programs that play different levels of competition in leagues that vary greatly in quality from top to bottom.

While the group of bureacrats we currently have is about the least subjective and most prone to bias of any conceivable system, how do you factor all the variables involved in different schedules and how a team is playing at certain points of the season into an algorithm that could be trusted as being "fair" - if that even matters? That's the multi-billion dollar question.

Josh Pate kinda sorta commented on this recently. CFB is not the NFL, where there is some degree of parity in a relatively small league. FBS has 134 teams with a W I D E range of skill levels from team to team and conference to conference, being played by athletes who can also be wildly inconsistent from game to game. Objectively measuring the teams is near impossible, and subjectively measuring the teams is not easier. This is why there is so much argument between fanbases, BUT THIS ADDS VALUE. I don‘t watch the NFL, but there sure seems to be a lot less controversy surrounding it, and as a result, less talk. There is no committee to decide who goes to the playoffs in the NFL, they have an objective way to determine who gets in. But, obviously you can’t do that with college ball as it is structured right now.

 

[vegasvolfan]

Would be cool to include some kind of factor that accounts for how recent a big win is. Like if it was 10 games ago multiply it by 1. If it was 1 game ago multiply it by 1.10. 5 games ago 1.05 and so on But you may have to raise it to some power to make it matter

Yeah I’ve thought along those lines. It seems to me that even though this is a simple formula it still takes into account who teams were and are at the end of the season. The only scenario I can think of where it isn’t considerate is when a good team beats another team at the end of the season that was good before losing a lot of players. They would get 8 points at a like away game for beating a team that isn’t very good anymore.

If they are an average team, it matters less when it comes to figuring out who should be in or out, because they are an average team. So, shouldn’t matter.

If the team is above average and wins, that game may not say as much about that particular team, but the fact their record by the end of the year and their performance graded by other teams’ records putting them in the quality team realm is enough to say, so what… they beat a depleted team, but they proved enough to be a quality team throughout the season.

It also doesn’t heavily penalize the depleted team who has a great record, for losing to a quality team due to being depleted. They only lose one or two points. If they win, even being depleted, then they prove they should still be in the mix however.

I think while it doesn’t seem fair, a depleted team that isn’t beating average teams or even better teams by the end of the season will show up in their record and keep them out and perhaps should be out, because they are no longer the team that got there.

For example, Georgia beat us with many people out. They should be in. Had they lost, their record would keep them out or on the fringe.

 

[vegasvolfan]

Too subjective to to be a good formula. Need to define “quality win”, “average win”, etc.

That’s in their record and is fully quantified and qualified by their 12 game performance and their opponents’ 12 game performance. (Or better yet 8 game performances against conference opponents).

 

[sami]

Josh Pate kinda sorta commented on this recently. CFB is not the NFL, where there is some degree of parity in a relatively small league. FBS has 134 teams with a W I D E range of skill levels from team to team and conference to conference, being played by athletes who can also be wildly inconsistent from game to game. Objectively measuring the teams is near impossible, and subjectively measuring the teams is not easier. This is why there is so much argument between fanbases, BUT THIS ADDS VALUE. I don‘t watch the NFL, but there sure seems to be a lot less controversy surrounding it, and as a result, less talk. There is no committee to decide who goes to the playoffs in the NFL, they have an objective way to determine who gets in. But, obviously you can’t do that with college ball as it is structured right now.

Right, and the fact is that they want the controversy and the talk, which keeps CFB constantly in the headlines. If you think about it, there's no reason for any 'official' CFP rankings until the last couple of weeks, but starting the insanity in early November and just ratcheting it up each succeeding week is the whole idea - create controversy and thus more attention.

 

[VOLdo Raine]

Right, and the fact is that they want the controversy and the talk, which keeps CFB constantly in the headlines. If you think about it, there's no reason for any 'official' CFP rankings until the last couple of weeks, but starting the insanity in early November and just ratcheting it up each succeeding week is the whole idea - create controversy and thus more attention.

 

[EconVol92]

Please remember that the committee has Arkansas as being a good win for Texas and a bad loss for Tennessee.

I don’t see how the committee can say both statements are true, but they have and said them at the same time.

 

[vegasvolfan]

Please remember that the committee has Arkansas as being a good win for Texas and a bad loss for Tennessee.

I don’t see how the committee can say both statements are true, but they have and said them at the same time.

They can’t. The scoring system above qualifies them as an average win away +3 and a negative loss away for us -5. Quality win away by this system would give them 8 and bad loss away would have given us -7.

 

[lastlapuncle]

If your strength of schedule is rated 50 or lower,it doesn't matter if your record is 11-1 or 12-0,or 10-2.You must play someone of note to be ranked so high.

 

[vegasvolfan]

If your strength of schedule is rated 50 or lower,it doesn't matter if your record is 11-1 or 12-0,or 10-2.You must play someone of note to be ranked so I think the collective of teams you play that beat those teams suffices

I think this system takes into account the collective of teams that play those teams of note. Texas didn’t beat any quality wins. Neither did Tennessee. Missouri had the same W/L record as Bama, Ole Miss, SC, but look how much lower they are in score. They just aren’t included in the mix. Sure teams may have gotten too much credit for beating Missouri, but the collective seems to average them out. They did beat Vandy, Arkansas and Oklahoma. 3 teams other above average teams lost to.

Missouri 12/2

Murray - 1

Buffalo - 5

BC - 3

Vandy - 3

@A&M - -4

Mass - 1

Auburn - 1

@Alabama - -3

Oklahoma - 3

@sc - -3

@Miss St - 2

Ark - 3