|
What is a Moon Poll, exactly? A moon poll is a goon-created computer ranking of college football teams. In past years, my understanding is that they usually limited their focus to teams in FBS, but there's enough data for at least some systems to be able to rate pretty much every college with a varsity football team (except that one New England conference in DIII that doesn't play OOC games). I'll warn you that if you do this you're likely to see undefeated teams from lower divisions sneaking into the overall top 40, though. Being computer rankings, they're usually all over the map in a hilarious fashion for much of the season but will settle on something close to a consensus near the end. Last year's thread is here, if you have archives. (Older threads: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 also 2007, for some reason) Why are they called Moon Polls? I love the phrasing, but I can't say for sure. Some very old slightly-broken posts in the archives suggest that sometime in 2006, back when moon polls were posted in the regular N/V threads, someone or other slapped the label on a particularly goofy computer ranking and the name stuck. How do I make a Moon Poll? You're almost certainly going to need an algorithm of some sort. You can program it yourself, or work out something in Excel. As for your criteria, you can really pick anything you like, though most conventional systems don't use much more than who beat who and by how many points (and indeed the official BCS computers only used who beat who because reasons). David Wilson has a pretty substantial listing of a bunch of existing systems; most of them keep their formulas secret but some of them clearly explain the math behind what they're doing, if you want something to work from and can follow it. Once you get something going, post your rankings in this thread each week! Where do I get data? Peter Wolfe, whose rankings If you need stats, How do I get this stuff into a post without it looking like garbage? This handy tool has proved helpful in the past. Just throw some pre tags or whatever around it and you should be good to go. Anything else? Once upon a time I did weekly ranking compilations which compared and summarized everyone's data, but it's been a while since I did that and I don't know if I'll manage it this year or not, especially since I don't even have my own ranking system set up yet. In a fantasy world I would have a link to my retrorating thread which I was totally going to start It's important to note that most of the algorithms used in these sorts of ranking systems don't start producing results at all until two or three weeks into the season, and don't produce sensible results until most teams have played seven or eight games. Basil Hayden fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Oct 3, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
I think this year I'm gonna try to actually make a moon pool for this first time after years of thinking it was an interesting idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
I think maybe MC Fruitstripe called them Moon Polls
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:I think maybe MC Fruitstripe called them Moon Polls Basil Hayden posted:If you need stats, I still haven't been able to find a good source for those since the NCAA changed the way their site worked a couple years back and a lot of our polls disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 17:58
|
|
Someone clever could probably figure out how to scrape data from ESPN or wherever, but I'm not that clever someone. Please let me know if you've got any sources to add—the two links I have now only have win-loss and points data, which isn't very helpful if you want to base your rankings on yardage or turnover margin or cumulative number of fans played in front of per official attendance numbers or whatever.
|
I started a new job last week and I still don't have a lot of stuff to do but I do have time at a computer so I will look into it pretty hard tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
SBNation put up some sort of advanced stats page for all 128 FBS teams, but there's no way to output it so you'd have to create a way to parse the HTML. http://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/2015-college-football-advanced-statistical-profiles As for me and my poll, I'll have to get started on one. I think I might enter it into the moon poll collection over at r/cfb this year as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Can I continue using my gut poll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Alright, alright already! I posted the first one of these over in the smarthouse thread, but we can do this in here too. I am flexible! Mukai Moon Poll Week 4: Is Boston College Better Than Alabama Edition? (No) Alright! I went back to my roots and made my Simple poll. It's just based on net yards/play, really, offensive yards/play minus defensive yards/play. I still am not confident in the schedule adjustment, so I'll be putting that in next week; instead to try to mitigate some of the madness, I used the 2014 SRS with a 20% weighting here (i.e. I got my final rating normally and weighted it 4 times the 2014 final SRS, and let that be my rating this week). Next week if I have time I'll implement the schedule adjustment. In this poll, the rating is (offensive yards/play) - (defensive yards/play) - (losses) - (Midmajor Adjustment: The Boise State Rule, midmajors lose a half point on principle). I normalize that to a Z-score, (rating - average rating) / (standard deviation of all ratings) so that the final number is expressed in terms of number of standard deviations over the mean. So! Full sheet is here, so I don't clutter up the thread. Who've I got in my top ten? code:code:Mukaikubo fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
I may be up for attempting to write some sort of stats page scraper. I'll have a better idea of if that'll be feasible tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
gently caress you for making me believe nrr wasn't dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
OK, number crunching complete from the first four weeks. This poll has become really good at late season stuff and got all four playoff teams right last year, but in September it doesn't very well handle teams that play soft schedules and give up few points to them. Hence we get Florida State at #1, a team getting way too much credit for shutting out Boston College, whom itself shut out two FCS cupcakes. This should look a lot better in a couple weeks when everyone's got conference games in the books. pre:1. Florida State 3-0 1.9624 2. Northwestern 4-0 1.9103 3. UCLA 4-0 1.8128 4. Ohio State 4-0 1.7560 5. Michigan 3-1 1.7476 6. Ole Miss 4-0 1.6708 7. Utah 4-0 1.6414 8. Wisconsin 3-1 1.6070 9. West Virginia 3-0 1.5882 10. LSU 3-0 1.5327 11. NC State 4-0 1.5303 12. Georgia 4-0 1.5021 13. Notre Dame 4-0 1.4748 14. Alabama 3-1 1.4370 15. Florida 4-0 1.4268 16. Texas A&M 4-0 1.4054 17. Oklahoma 3-0 1.3932 18. USC 3-1 1.3778 19. Baylor 3-0 1.3525 20. Duke 3-1 1.3479 21. Toledo 3-0 1.3396 22. Clemson 3-0 1.3079 23. Oklahoma State 4-0 1.2953 24. Michigan State 4-0 1.2627 25. California 4-0 1.2443 119. Army 1-3 -0.3448 120. Idaho 1-3 -0.3598 121. Miami (OH) 1-3 -0.3766 122. New Mexico State 0-3 -0.3869 123. UTSA 0-4 -0.4342 124. SMU 1-3 -0.4356 125. North Texas 0-3 -0.4789 126. Kansas 0-3 -0.6625 127. UCF 0-4 -0.8288 128. Wyoming 0-4 -0.9021 pre:1. BYU 2. Texas 3. UTSA 4. Massachusetts 5. Alabama 6. Stanford 7. Michigan 8. Hawaii 9. South Carolina 10. Arkansas 11. Nebraska 12. Vanderbilt 13. UNLV 14. Western Michigan 15. LSU 16. Virginia 17. Louisiana-Monroe 18. Troy 19. Kentucky 20. Northern Illinois 20. Minnesota 21. Tulsa 22. Florida State 23. Arkansas State 24. Ball State 25. Utah 124. Baylor 125. Houston 126. Wyoming 127. North Carolina 128. Washington State
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Korranus posted:OK, number crunching complete from the first four weeks. Well it has the Big Ten having two teams in the playoffs and a third (with one loss) just outside, so it's got the endgame right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Korranus posted:OK, number crunching complete from the first four weeks. Your poll is good
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
WELLLLLLL NOW LOOK WHAT I FOUND http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=MFB&academicYear=2016 y'all are welcome. EDIT: Don't do the all statistics report, it'll time out and you'll just get a javascript error at the bottom of the csv. DOUBLE EDIT: Never mind, it works fine apparently. LSC fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Oct 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
John Rawl Tahd posted:WELLLLLLL NOW LOOK WHAT I FOUND http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=MFB&academicYear=2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Yay for Moon Polls! I still have to do some more coding to read in the new data format, but I'm hoping to have my first poll shortly. Anybody doing a human-poll Goon BCS this year? Might be an interesting addition to this thread, as well as driving some more traffic here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Anybody doing a human-poll Goon BCS this year? Might be an interesting addition to this thread, as well as driving some more traffic here. I make my own human ballot every week, would love to contribute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
A little about my poll: Chess uses the Elo system where a win is 1, a loss is 0, and a draw is 0.5. Your "expected" score in any given can be calculated as a function of the difference between your rating and theirs. If your opponent is rated much more highly than you, for instance, your expected score might be 0.02 or something. If you lose, your rating goes down just a little because the difference between actual (0.0) and expected (0.02) is pretty small. If you win, your score goes up a lot because the difference between actual (1.0) and expected (0.02) is pretty big. But in general this adjustment of your score after each game gives you a pretty good idea of what your chances are against an opponent with a different rating. My algorithm maps margin of victory to the range 0.0-1.0 using a logistic roll-off such that a tie is scored 0.5, a win by 7 is scored a 0.73, a win by 14 is scored 0.88, a win by 35 is scored a 0.993 and so forth so blowouts aren't weighted too highly. It then iterates over all games so that each team's rating minimizes the difference between actual and expected outcomes. It does so with games in random order, so late season losses mean no more or less than early season losses. This year I'm using the Wolfe text file mentioned in the OP (thanks!), so all 700+ teams are ranked on an equal footing. Obviously I'm not going to paste that kind of monstrosity here, so for now it'll be just Top 25. The poll doesn't know divisions or conferences are a thing. Let me know if you're curious about any given team not listed below. Very very roughly, the difference between ratings below is equivalent to the expected margin of victory. Yes, I know this particular ranking looks a little deranged at this early point in the season. But it does have a certain internal consistency that I'm kinda proud of! code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
John Rawl Tahd posted:WELLLLLLL NOW LOOK WHAT I FOUND http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?sportCode=MFB&academicYear=2016 Nice, I usually get my team stats from here, but I've been having to pull them off an HTML table. So, going straight to CSV saves me a few clicks. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
That poll looks good to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
The poll looks a lot better this week. At least it's got two Big Ten teams atop the poll (never mind which ones ok) and Alabama's out of the doghouse.pre:LW Team Record Score Strength of Schedule Conference SOS Conference Score 2 1. Northwestern 5-0 2.3321 1. Texas SEC 1.3270 Big 10 0.8926 5 2. Michigan 4-1 2.0429 2. BYU Big 10 1.0768 SEC 0.8769 15 3. Florida 5-0 1.8878 3. Minnesota MAC 1.0207 Pac 12 0.7763 1 4. Florida State 4-0 1.8539 4. Alabama Pac 12 0.8055 ACC 0.7509 14 5. Alabama 4-1 1.7992 5. Hawaii American 0.4161 Big 12 0.6948 16 6. Texas A&M 5-0 1.7283 6. Stanford Sun Belt 0.4075 American 0.3081 10 7. LSU 4-0 1.6825 7. Nebraska Big 12 0.3976 MAC 0.1213 7 8. Utah 4-0 1.6641 8. Arkansas Conf USA 0.2954 Conf USA 0.0555 17 9. Oklahoma 4-0 1.6241 9. Tulsa Mtn West 0.2940 Mtn West 0.0300 4 10. Ohio State 5-0 1.6171 10. South Carolina ACC 0.2735 Sun Belt -0.0893 21 11. Toledo 4-0 1.5326 11. Michigan 20 12. Duke 4-1 1.4850 12. Massachusetts Median 0.3544 Texas Tech 31 13. Boise State 4-1 1.4754 13. Bowling Green Average 0.4544 Arizona State 22 14. Clemson 4-0 1.4603 14. Tennessee 18 15. USC 3-1 1.4556 15. Arizona State 33 16. Iowa 5-0 1.4211 16. Wisconsin 35 17. Stanford 4-1 1.3910 17. UTSA 6 18. Ole Miss 4-1 1.3832 18. Ball State 24 19. Michigan State 5-0 1.3348 19. Louisville 36 20. Temple 4-0 1.3222 20. Louisiana-Monroe 8 21. Wisconsin 3-2 1.3175 21. Florida 19 22. Baylor 4-0 1.3120 22. Utah 28 23. TCU 5-0 1.3047 23. Western Michigan 23 24. Oklahoma State 5-0 1.2952 24. Vanderbilt 34 25. Navy 4-0 1.2917 25. Oklahoma 119. Idaho 1-4 -0.5080 124. Georgia State 120. Fresno State 1-4 -0.5083 125. NC State 121. New Mexico State 0-4 -0.5146 126. Baylor 122. Army 1-4 -0.5352 127. New Mexico 123. Georgia State 1-3 -0.5533 128. North Carolina 124. SMU 1-4 -0.5737 125. North Texas 0-4 -0.5828 126. Kansas 0-4 -0.8046 127. Wyoming 0-5 -1.0108 128. UCF 0-5 -1.0969
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
GAME OF THE CENTURY THIS SATURDAY
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Alright, had a bit of delays while my old schedule adjustment system was throwing a wobbler, but it's up now for the third moon poll of the week! Mukai Moon Poll Week 5: Allez Chaos Edition Okay! As mentioned every week, this is my fairly simple moon poll based on net yards/play, or offensive yards/play - defensive yards/play; in my experience this is a pretty solid indicator and it's hard to build a useful model on a better single statistical variable. New this week, enough teams are interconnected that adjusting for schedule actually matters! The trend is the same, but it tends to have the effect of reducing differences between teams that shouldn't have huge apparent differences between them. The #1's still the same. #2's a bit different, though. As always, final scores are given as Z-scores (standard deviations above the mean), which has the pleasant side effect of making most teams fit within +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean. Anyway! The top 25 and bottom 5: code:BONUS! Using a bit of an adjustment for home field advantage, based on these ratings I sussed out the final records of the 'new years day' bowl contenders, and tried to figure out what this rating system would project for the playoff. Orange Bowl: #1 - #4, LSU - Southern California Cotton Bowl: #2 - #3, Baylor - Ohio State Rose Bowl: Pac 12 - Big 10, Stanford-Michigan THE HARBOWL!!! Sugar Bowl: SEC - Big 12, Alabama-Oklahoma Peach Bowl: At Large-At Large, Florida State-TCU Fiesta Bowl: At Large- Group of Five, Florida-Houston God help us all. (Some more records are in the googledoc!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:New this week, enough teams are interconnected that adjusting for schedule actually matters! I assumed that all teams were interconncted at this point, and indeed all the important ones are. But if you parse through the whole NCAA/NAIA list, there's still six groups of teams that are connected to the teams within their group but which have no connections to other groups. Here are the five that aren't the main 697-team blob of mutually interconnected teams: {'Colby', 'Hamilton', 'Wesleyan', 'Amherst', 'Trinity CT', 'Tufts', 'Williams', 'Bowdoin', 'Bates', 'Middlebury'} {'Emporia St', 'Lindenwood', 'Central Oklahoma', 'Missouri Western', 'Washburn', 'Northeastern St OK', 'Central Missouri', 'Nebraska-Kearney', 'Pittsburg St', 'Fort Hays St', 'Missouri Southern', 'NW Missouri St'} {'Evangel', 'Benedictine KS', 'Grand View', 'Avila', 'MidAmerica Nazarene', 'Central Methodist', 'Peru St', 'Graceland', 'Baker', 'William Penn', 'Culver-Stockton', 'Missouri Valley'} {'Harding', 'Arkansas Tech', 'SE Oklahoma St', 'Oklahoma Baptist', 'Southern Arkansas', 'East Central OK', 'NW Oklahoma St', 'SW Oklahoma St', 'Arkansas-Monticello', 'Ouachita Baptist', 'Henderson St', 'Southern Nazarene'} {'Minnesota-Crookston', 'Minot St', 'Sioux Falls', 'Northern St SD', 'SW Minnesota St', 'Minn St-Moorhead', 'Augustana SD', 'Minn St-Mankato', 'Concordia-St Paul', 'Upper Iowa', 'Wayne St NE', 'Minnesota-Duluth', 'Winona St', 'St Cloud St', 'Bemidji St', 'Mary'}
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I assumed that all teams were interconncted at this point, and indeed all the important ones are. But if you parse through the whole NCAA/NAIA list, there's still six groups of teams that are connected to the teams within their group but which have no connections to other groups. Here are the five that aren't the main 697-team blob of mutually interconnected teams: Which is fine for me, since I only rank FBS teams! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I assumed that all teams were interconncted at this point, and indeed all the important ones are. But if you parse through the whole NCAA/NAIA list, there's still six groups of teams that are connected to the teams within their group but which have no connections to other groups. Here are the five that aren't the main 697-team blob of mutually interconnected teams: No idea what's up with the others, though (beyond that they represent the DII GAC, MIAA, and NSIC, and the NAIA HAAC. I guess it's just scheduling quirkiness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Mukai Moon Poll, Week 6: Merde After that week, I don't even know anymore. Numbers have lost all meaning, and North Texas has broken the -2.5 barrier. I think they have to bounce back, right? Dead cat principle? Oh, and Baylor is still basically lapping everyone. Top ten! Bottom five! The Full Poll! code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Basil Hayden posted:That first grouping (the NESCAC) will never be connected to the rest, since the conference decided to stop playing OOC games in football in 1992 (and in the process killed a whole bunch of traditional DIII rivalries, since some of the schools in that conference started playing as far back as the 1870s). I'm pretty sure there are no OOC games being played by MIAA teams this year. Conference membership changed to 12 not too long ago, and now everyone's playing an 11-game round-robin. I don't know if that's a permanent arrangement or a quirk of this year, though. Also, I'm glad to see this thread lives! Somehow the season started without me remembering to look for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
UrbanUrsine posted:I'm pretty sure there are no OOC games being played by MIAA teams this year. Conference membership changed to 12 not too long ago, and now everyone's playing an 11-game round-robin. I don't know if that's a permanent arrangement or a quirk of this year, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I guess if you squint and look purely at records and margins of victory (which is how this poll works), this makes sense.code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I guess if you squint and look purely at records and margins of victory (which is how this poll works), this makes sense. I don't understand how Baylor wouldn't make the top 25 given the things you say your poll looks at. Is it the wins being rated too highly since they only have 5 instead of 6? e: That can't be it. Just wondering how you ended up here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Looks good
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I don't understand how Baylor wouldn't make the top 25 given the things you say your poll looks at. Is it the wins being rated too highly since they only have 5 instead of 6? Actually not only is Baylor not in the top 25, they're sitting down at #59 (with a rating of 94.16). So far they've played: 86 SMU 89.6 176 Lamar 55.34 131 Rice 72.54 33 Texas Tech 98.19 76 Kansas 91.35 Problem is in an Elo-type system beating the stuffing out of much lower-ranked teams doesn't help much. You need some good performances against highly-ranked teams. The win versus Texas Tech is a good start, but for whatever reason a lot of teams can make similar claims at this point in the season. Baylor will probably jump a lot next week if they beat West Virginia - or even if they have a close loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Problem is in an Elo-type system beating the stuffing out of much lower-ranked teams doesn't help much. You need some good performances against highly-ranked teams. The win versus Texas Tech is a good start, but for whatever reason a lot of teams can make similar claims at this point in the season. Baylor will probably jump a lot next week if they beat West Virginia - or even if they have a close loss. Ah I didn't realize it was an Elo thing based on your description. In that case then yeah that makes total sense as far as Baylor goes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
If you don't let the other guys score, my poll likes you. Hence, Michigan above Utah (at least for now). Also, go Red Grimace or something. (updated because I originally typod Baylor's PF, which put them actually above Toledo) pre:LW Team Record Score Strength of Schedule Conferences by SOS Conferences by Score 2 1. Michigan 5-1 2.4668 1. Texas Big 10 1.6331 SEC 0.8636 3 2. Florida 6-0 2.2052 2. BYU SEC 1.5763 Big 10 0.8391 8 3. Utah 5-0 1.9314 3. Arkansas Pac 12 1.1992 Pac 12 0.7650 5 4. Alabama 5-1 1.8809 4. Northwestern MAC 1.1464 ACC 0.6795 4 5. Florida State 5-0 1.8449 5. Michigan Big 12 0.9786 Big 12 0.6130 6 6. Texas A&M 5-0 1.6727 6. Nebraska ACC 0.6378 American 0.3043 18 7. Ole Miss 5-1 1.6353 7. Massachusetts American 0.6149 MAC 0.1233 14 8. Clemson 5-0 1.6049 8. South Carolina Mountain West 0.5070 Mountain West 0.0363 1 9. Northwestern 5-1 1.5994 9. Hawaii Sun Belt 0.4927 Conference USA -0.0008 10 10. Ohio State 6-0 1.5874 10. Utah Conference USA 0.3849 Sun Belt -0.1391 7 11. LSU 5-0 1.5794 11. Alabama 20 12. Temple 5-0 1.5762 12. Minnesota Median 0.3015 Akron 13 13. Boise State 5-1 1.5721 13. UTSA Average 0.4239 Tennessee 22 14. Baylor 5-0 1.5372 14. East Carolina 11 15. Toledo 5-0 1.5343 15. Florida 29 16. Western Kentucky 5-1 1.5177 16. Maryland 12 17. Duke 5-1 1.4879 17. Tennessee 26 18. Notre Dame 5-1 1.4830 18. Washington 16 19. Iowa 6-0 1.4298 19. Virginia 23 20. TCU 6-0 1.4291 20. Notre Dame 37 21. Penn State 5-1 1.3598 21. New Mexico State 24 22. Oklahoma State 6-0 1.3197 22. Oklahoma 17 23. Stanford 4-1 1.2967 23. Purdue 19 24. Michigan State 6-0 1.2939 24. Georgia Tech 27 25. California 5-1 1.2557 25. Western Kentucky 119. Miami (OH) 1-5 -0.5801 124. Florida International 120. SMU 1-5 -0.5839 125. New Mexico 121. UTEP 2-4 -0.6437 126. Baylor 122. Eastern Michigan 1-5 -0.7012 127. Houston 123. Army 1-5 -0.7231 128. North Carolina 124. Georgia State 1-4 -0.7759 125. Kansas 0-5 -0.9952 126. North Texas 0-5 -1.1488 127. Wyoming 0-6 -1.1751 128. UCF 0-6 -1.3750 dirty shrimp money fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Mukai Moon Poll, Week 7: Wait, WHO'S in the Top Ten? Edition Oi. That sure was a week! Maybe I can stop thinking about how completely and utterly terrible the teams I like are by looking at how much better the teams I don't particularly like are! ...no, not really. This is, still, the poll that uses net yards per play and then a few adjustments for "being a filthy midmajor" and schedule strength to come up with a Z-score for how good a team is; that is, the final rankings can be read as 'number of standard deviations better than the average team'. This week, the team closest to being average is Louisiana Tech, at 0.014; Texas is just above them at 0.015. All five big conferences have top 10 teams at last; the Mid-Majors (including the AAC and independents) have 6 in the top 25, while the Actual Mid-Majors (not including the AAC and Notre Dame) have Appalachian State and Toledo in the top 25. Good job to them! There's not a chance in hell they're making the new years' bowls because that slot's going to whoever emerges from the bloody woodchipper the AAC became this year. Top ten and bottom five: code: FULL RANKINGS: HERE!Current projected new years day/playoff bowls: Peach Bowl: Florida State (11-1) vs. Notre Dame (10-2) Fiesta Bowl: Utah (11-2) vs. Houston (13-0) Sugar Bowl: TCU (11-1) vs. Alabama (10-2) Rose Bowl: Michigan State (11-1) vs. Stanford (12-1) Orange Bowl: Ohio State (13-0) vs. Baylor (12-0) Cotton Bowl: LSU (13-0) vs. Clemson (13-0) Yeah, I know there's no chance we're going to get 5 unbeaten teams; I think we'll end up with 3, myself, but we're at the point where any of those teams losing anything left would class as a significant upset and so, even though there's not much chance of all five avoiding it, a statistics approach isn't really comfortable projecting any single one of them not to. The real interesting question is how many teams have to lose how many times for an undefeated Memphis or Houston to get serious consideration as #4. I think they'd get in over anyone-but-the-SEC-champion-with-two-losses, and maybe a non-champion-with-1-loss-but-a-weak-schedule like, say, Iowa if they run the table and get massacred in the championship game, but that's it. So if we have 4 1-loss or better champions, the AAC gets shut out, because football ain't fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
I'm thinking of doing a poll combining a metric of last 6 games weighted against last 20 games. Maybe MoV/SoS recently multiplied by a coefficient based on the longer stretch. I'd also like to factor in home/away but I'm not sure how relevant it is or should be. If I can figure out how to script it and input data semi-easily I will do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Mine's looking a little more sensible this week, though #1 and #2 are somewhat eyebrow-raising. As far as I can tell it's simply because "loss to Alabama" is more impressive than "lost to Ole Miss".code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Mine's looking a little more sensible this week, though #1 and #2 are somewhat eyebrow-raising. As far as I can tell it's simply because "loss to Alabama" is more impressive than "lost to Ole Miss". So it turns out my poll was hideously bugged. The actual ranking code was fine (been using it for years with minor tweaks), but because I've pretty much had to find a new source of machine-readable scores every year I've had to write new "read in the text files" code every year. This year I accidentally made an off-by-one error and if the home team scored double digits, their score was only the last digit. Ie, score 45, it thinks you scored 5. It's shocking to me that the poll worked as relatively well as it did with data that wrong. But at any rate, here's the fixed poll. Obviously it makes a lot more sense. Please disregard all previous output of my poll in this thread.  (All SEC teams included because both my teams are in that conference and it's interesting to know how the division is shaping out) code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Okay so. Do you have to try to make this stuff look plausible, or can you put together some hilarious Bizarro Algorithm that ends up with Louisianna/LaFayette as the consensus champions? Please say the latter because I am ready for some math-based comedy. e: There's no columns for turnovers just ints this is bullshit Chokes McGee fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 03:28
|
|
