• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

My "Math" poll

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I like it, pretty interesting. Not that I want to do away with the human element for other polls. Injuries, travel distance, weather, rivalry games ect. still need considered but I think this poll would be handy to help judge teams that didn't get ranked high pre-season.

:)
 
Upvote 0
Rank Team Record Average Last Week
1 Oklahoma 5 - 0 12.2000 7
2 LSU 5 - 0 12.0000 1
3 Arizona 4 - 0 11.5000 4
4 Alabama 5 - 0 11.4000 7
5 Boise State 4 - 0 10.7500 5
6 TCU 5 - 0 10.6000 7
7 Kansas State 4 - 0 10.5000 10
8 Michigan 5 - 0 10.2000 13
9 Florida 4 - 1 9.8000 2
10 Auburn 5 - 0 9.4000 3
11 Oklahoma State 4 - 0 9.2500 12
12 Stanford 4 - 1 9.2000 5
13 Michigan State 5 - 0 9.0000 21
14 Oregon 5 - 0 8.6000 22
15 Missouri 4 - 0 8.5000 11
16 Ohio State 5 - 0 8.2000 19
17 Washington 2 - 2 7.7500 NR
18 Temple 4 - 1 7.6000 NR
19 Virginia Tech 3 - 2 7.4000 NR
- Mississippi 3 - 2 7.4000 NR
21 Northwestern 5 - 0 6.8000 16
- Iowa 4 - 1 6.8000 NR
- Nevada 5 - 0 6.8000 15
24 Nebraska 4 - 0 6.7500 NR
25 UCLA 3 - 2 6.4000 16

Dropped Out -- USC, NC State, South Carolina, Texas, Florida State, Penn State, West Virginia.
 
Upvote 0
64016_436676646363_596561363_5651973_963355_n.jpg


Just thought it might be easier to read this way.
 
Upvote 0
What I don't understand about this is the "secondary point" structure. Are you only dividing by the number of games that your team plays and not by the total number of games played between your team and the opponents?

That seems to be rewarding a team for wins by an opponent and deducting points for losses by their opponents too without changing the divisor. Does this mean playing an FCS team that only plays other shitty FCS teams (plus playoff games) is more points than playing a team with...say a Big Ten schedule?

I guess it works out for HS ball over an entire season so...:roll1:
 
Upvote 0
TS10HTW;1787852; said:
What I don't understand about this is the "secondary point" structure. Are you only dividing by the number of games that your team plays and not by the total number of games played between your team and the opponents?

That seems to be rewarding a team for wins by an opponent and deducting points for losses by their opponents too without changing the divisor. Does this mean playing an FCS team that only plays other [censored]ty FCS teams (plus playoff games) is more points than playing a team with...say a Big Ten schedule?

I guess it works out for HS ball over an entire season so...:roll1:
Click to expand...

It does reward a team for wins by opponents and punishes them for losses. It has a strength of schedule aspect to it. I am of the opinion that you should be rewarded for playing good teams.

The maximum secondary points you can get for beating an FCS team is 11. The playoff games do not count towards secondary points. With two wins a AQ FBS team gets you almost that many.
 
Upvote 0
Buck 'em up said:
That is where the secondary points come in. Boise and TCU will keep winning and keep giving secondary points. Duke will keep losing and will not add secondary points. Then a team like Duke will continue to hurt the average and a win over Boise would continue to help it.
Click to expand...
Yes, Boise State winning would continue to flush in points. However I just have to wonder about a poll that only rewards a victory over Boise 3/5 (maximum) compared with an equal team from a BCS conference. Obviously, you have drawn the line at BCS conference vs. non-BCS conference when evidence exists that teams from the BCS can and are quite worse than some teams from the non-BCS.

I like your math, I think it lines up heavily with reality at the end of the season, but I would think that the bias could be "mended" some. Perhaps instead of BCS vs. Non-BCS you could draw into a top-60 vs. bottom-60 and reward points over the "top" a full 5 points, and the bottom just the 3. If you beat Boise or Utah or TCU, you ought to be rewarded handsomely, and if you beat Duke or Washington State well... its just not the same.

Lets say that for the 2009 season, a team beat the 12-0 Boise State Broncos, they are awarded 3 primary points and 36 secondary points, for 39 total points. However, if you beat the 7-5 South Carolina Gamecocks you are awarded 5 primary points and 33 secondary points, for 38 points total. I think I have my math right on that one...

I don't think that the system that equalizes great non-BCS teams to the 7-5 middle of the road BCS teams is the best system.
 
Upvote 0
n't think that the system that equalizes great non-BCS teams to the 7-5 middle of the road BCS teams is the best system.
Click to expand...

The problem is that "middle of the road" BCS team plays in the SEC, while the "great" non-BCS team plays in the WAC. It is harder to go 7-5 in the SEC when you play 5 ranked teams (Including -- arguably -- the two best teams in the country last year in Alabama and Florida) as opposed to just 1 ranked team (Oregon) and a bunch of nobodys). I hate playing the "if they played in that conference game," but I am pretty sure that 7-5 SC team would have went 12-0 against that schedule too.
 
Upvote 0
Buck 'em up said:
The problem is that "middle of the road" BCS team plays in the SEC, while the "great" non-BCS team plays in the WAC. It is harder to go 7-5 in the SEC when you play 5 ranked teams (Including -- arguably -- the two best teams in the country last year in Alabama and Florida) as opposed to just 1 ranked team (Oregon) and a bunch of nobodys). I hate playing the "if they played in that conference game," but I am pretty sure that 7-5 SC team would have went 12-0 against that schedule too.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to state "equalize" in terms of those teams overall ranking in the week to week polls. I meant that a theoretical victory over them awards the same points. If Ohio State played (and won) a 13th game in 2009, and it was against 12-0 Boise State or 7-5 South Carolina, your poll equalizes those two victories. Your own poll has the Broncos (currently) ranked at #4, (and I assume last year they were at #4 or #5, while South Carolina was unranked?) yet you'd have that victory over a highly ranked team exceptionally marginalized.

If your poll were determining national championship teams, then it'd be best to play a non-conf schedule against low-level BCS teams. In 2009, your poll would award a team with this schedule for non-conf: Wake Forest (29 total points), Washington (28 total points), South Carolina (38 points) and UConn (34 points). If they all went 5-7 or 6-6, you'd have a lot of secondary points for relatively mediocre teams. Its all gravy to schedule a straight up BCS-team line-up, but what if you scheduled Utah (32 total points), Boise State (39 total points), Houston (37 points) and Navy (32 points) from last season? I would contend that those 4 would be much more difficult of a non-conference line-up for any team, but your formula makes the difference negligible.

That being said, I do think your poll is REALLY good at capturing the strengths/weaknesses of a team. It just has a heavy (in my opinion too heavy) of a BCS bias against non-BCS teams. I think there would be ways to amend that, unless you see nothing wrong with that issue.
 
Upvote 0
Coqui;1790649; said:
How is scUM ranked so high? They've played arguable worse teams than us. Or did EMU hurt us so much that it countered Miami?
Click to expand...

EMU AND Marshall are all killing OSU right now. Combined for a 1-10 record. Miami and Ohio aren't really helping that much either.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top