Congrove has Houston ranked #2

[Spence]

Why on the earth would I want an formula on a subjective subject where my opinion was not the predominant factor. My opinion is the only one I care about. If I wanted an opinion that regurgitated some algorithm that is a secret and only know to the members of the Illuminati and the Tallahassee Democrat. (and I am not talking newspaper here, either.)

[Spence]

Ghost, I think any system that was set up fairly would give you results you disagreed with from time to time. If you change it to reflect your opinion, then you are doing what the BCS has had the computer rankings doing. No system is going to be without flaws, otherwise the creator of the ranking would keep it a secret and make a fortune betting on games. The people who create the rankings try to get as close to perfect as they can, with 100% being the goal - though it can't be reached. I think the big problel is when you tweak the system to make it reflect what you think is right. It turns something that was created objectively into something subjective.

I am not a playoff guy. I never have been. I actually like the BCS system until the human voters and the BCS committee decide to manipulate the results. Whether or not the end result turns out to be the correct decision, if you start manipulating the system, you will eventually destroy it. That is what happened to the BCS.

[Grayghost]

Why on the earth would I want an formula on a subjective subject where my opinion was not the predominant factor. My opinion is the only one I care about. If I wanted an opinion that regurgitated some algorithm that is a secret and only know to the members of the Illuminati and the Tallahassee Democrat. (and I am not talking newspaper here, either.)

Sorry mister Donovan...your opinion means nothing to me...nothing!...well, at least not in my rankings...here on the forums though, your opinion is much appreciated.

As for my secret Illuminati ranking formula...it is not so secret, and rather simple. I dont share it becasue...well...math is a boring subject to discuss. (sure hope there are not math junkies on here )

But good god, if you really want it?...

[Grayghost]

I think the big problel is when you tweak the system to make it reflect what you think is right. It turns something that was created objectively into something subjective.

Well, in this case the thing I want to change is that for a game score (that takes in losing teams rank, home or away, and MOV) I only take the rank of the losing team on the day they played.

For example...Team A beats Team B in the second week of the season and in that week Team B was ranked 12th. Going through the year, Team B, which was projected as having a good year goes into a slump and ends up ranked 74th at the end of the year, yet Team A still gets credit for beating a 12th ranked team. That is where it gets time consuming because you have to go back and adjust the rank every week given the new results...makes my hand cramp just thinking about it, but it is a more accurate reflection of what team A faced.

I have contemplated this for years, and knew it would be a better system, but, like most people on here who do this for love of the game, we also have real lives that don't let us spend 2 days in front of our computer playing with football rankings. So, I opted for quicker but less accurate. It still works pretty well, but not as good as I know it could be. I figure as long as I stick with objective data I'm pretty safe.

[Spence]

That is the exact thing that messed me up when I ranked teams. It is tough to have a set of rules to rank because the exception always seems to bite you in the butt. I really never found a way to do it that worked so I decided to be honest about what I say and rank in that order. That is hard to do when there is a team you don't care for making a run. I have a hard time ranking Notre Dame fairly, but if I am being honest I can't rank them based on who they are just how they play. That is the only thing I have found that works.

[Grayghost]

I here ya. In my heart of hearts would I like to see Houston play LSU for the national championship...yea, but that is just my "root for the underdog" syndrome kicking in. I had this problem with Boise as well in those years they did go undefeated, but my numbers would always say "not quite", except for last year, when they went and choked at Nevada...but to be honest, I had that game circled all year as Boise's potential stumble, and god in his infinite wisdom had to go and prove me right. Well...perhaps it was "Murphy"...he is much more perverse.

[Eric]

That is the exact thing that messed me up when I ranked teams. It is tough to have a set of rules to rank because the exception always seems to bite you in the butt. I really never found a way to do it that worked so I decided to be honest about what I say and rank in that order. That is hard to do when there is a team you don't care for making a run. I have a hard time ranking Notre Dame fairly, but if I am being honest I can't rank them based on who they are just how they play. That is the only thing I have found that works.

I always try to do the same. My "formula", if you want to call it that, is just rating teams on where I think they deserve to be. How do I calculate that? Well, I have no idea . It's a mixture between who they've beaten, who they've lost to, and how good I happen to think they are. Do I think Houston is a top 25 team? Certainly. Are they better than Oklahoma, Oregon, USC, Boise State, Georgia, etc.? I would have to say probably not, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they stumble. Outside of two games all year (Louisiana Tech and UTEP), they have beaten those lesser teams much like those teams would.

The main problem with letting Houston play for the national title is that it would encourage other schools to do the schedule nobody. While the schedule isn't everything, a power program (like Notre Dame) could schedule complete cupcakes if they felt it would get them into the national title game. Obviously they wouldn't do that for a multitude of reasons, but theoretically a team could do that and get rewarded. You do want to encourage them to test themselves.

[donovan]

Why on the earth would I want an formula on a subjective subject where my opinion was not the predominant factor. My opinion is the only one I care about. If I wanted an opinion that regurgitated some algorithm that is a secret and only know to the members of the Illuminati and the Tallahassee Democrat. (and I am not talking newspaper here, either.)

Sorry mister Donovan...your opinion means nothing to me...nothing!...well, at least not in my rankings...here on the forums though, your opinion is much appreciated.

As for my secret Illuminati ranking formula...it is not so secret, and rather simple. I dont share it becasue...well...math is a boring subject to discuss. (sure hope there are not math junkies on here )

But good god, if you really want it?...

Grayghost....Whew..glad to hear that. One of us being screwed up is enough. I will tell you who else doesn't care about my opinion...they are called, adult children....ingratres

[donovan]

I thnk Eric is right...which is an contemplative issue in an of itself....Notre Dame is one of the schools free to schedule all 14 game with whomever they want. But they always have a reasonable schedule. Their motivation is multiple in nature, which is fine. So even with schools that could powder puff it, they don't. Some schools, the Houston's and Boise's could not schedule tough schedules if they wanted...maybe better than they do , but not as easily as it is bandied about. Some schools, the SEC ones, can not have a easy schedule even if they want to. So in the end...why are they all in the same gene pool?

[billybud]

My formula and Eric's are exactly the same.

Interestingly enough, our internal intuitions vary and we differ slightly, so we sometimes arrive at a different point.

And sometimes the formulas get it wrong. When I met my wife on a blind date, my first thought was "not my type", second thought.."Well, I can be a nice date and hope this evening passses quickly."

It was my template that had been wrong all along. The girls that I dated never seemed to be the one...but I doggedly stayed with what I thought that I liked (but not enough). My first and last blind date saved me from my formula.

I'm getting teary...let Houston play. Let Houston play. Naw..it was just a passing thought.

[Grayghost]

I'm getting teary...let Houston play. Let Houston play. Naw..it was just a passing thought.

Gah...you are killing me.

And that is why when it comes to football I don't listen to my heart.

[Spence]

I think the only thing you can do is rank by what you think is right. If you do that, it is an honest poll. As long as you do not rank based on prejudices against teams. It doesn't matter if you show favoritism to your team. I think if you rank honestly you almost have to rank your team higher than some other people who aren't fans of your team. I think if you try to have set "rules" they will end up not working.

As far as Houston and Boise State - I think they are very different cases. Boise State has a body of work over a course of time. They have played some top tier teams and won. If they were in position I would have no problem ranking them at the top. Houston, though, has no such history. They don't have a history of playing and beating good programs. There is no reason to believe they are in the same league as other teams with good records this year. They could be, of course, but there is no body of work to suggest they should be elevated to the same status of LSU, Oregon, Alabama, Oklahoma, or Oklahoma State.

[Grayghost]

The main problem with letting Houston play for the national title is that it would encourage other schools to do the schedule nobody. While the schedule isn't everything, a power program (like Notre Dame) could schedule complete cupcakes if they felt it would get them into the national title game. Obviously they wouldn't do that for a multitude of reasons, but theoretically a team could do that and get rewarded. You do want to encourage them to test themselves.

If everyone was an independent then that would certainly be the case. If you are in a conference...any conference, you have a definitive slate of games that you have to play, and a few open spots to schedule on your own. This is where most of the schedule arguing comes in, how did one schedule their OOC slate. The conference you are in is the conference you are in...at least for that year (since everyone is jumping from one conference to another to up there strength of schedule through conference affiliation). So yes, some conferences are stronger than others. Confernece strength goes up or down, usually about every decade or so, at least for the majors. Right now the SEC Dominates, although other than the top 5 the rest of SEC was less than spectacular.

I am sure we can all remember the days when the likes of Curly Hallman, Mike Archer, and Gerry Dinardo roamed the sidelines at LSU, or Bama during their down years when they were losing to teams like Northern Illinois. Or the days when Gerry Faust chased leprachauns around Notre Dame...sheesh, now I'm getting all teared up...I miss Gerry Faust.

[Eric]

The main problem with letting Houston play for the national title is that it would encourage other schools to do the schedule nobody. While the schedule isn't everything, a power program (like Notre Dame) could schedule complete cupcakes if they felt it would get them into the national title game. Obviously they wouldn't do that for a multitude of reasons, but theoretically a team could do that and get rewarded. You do want to encourage them to test themselves.

If everyone was an independent then that would certainly be the case. If you are in a conference...any conference, you have a definitive slate of games that you have to play, and a few open spots to schedule on your own. This is where most of the schedule arguing comes in, how did one schedule their OOC slate. The conference you are in is the conference you are in...at least for that year (since everyone is jumping from one conference to another to up there strength of schedule through conference affiliation). So yes, some conferences are stronger than others. Confernece strength goes up or down, usually about every decade or so, at least for the majors. Right now the SEC Dominates, although other than the top 5 the rest of SEC was less than spectacular.

I am sure we can all remember the days when the likes of Curly Hallman, Mike Archer, and Gerry Dinardo roamed the sidelines at LSU, or Bama during their down years when they were losing to teams like Northern Illinois. Or the days when Gerry Faust chased leprachauns around Notre Dame...sheesh, now I'm getting all teared up...I miss Gerry Faust.

Well the same argument could apply to any schedule. Even in a major conference (and with the conferences now aiming for 12 and/or 14 teams), you could very easily miss the best teams in the conference until the conference title game (or maybe not even that if the top team in a division gets upset along the way). This is one of the main reasons not many respect Virginia Tech's 11-1 record right now; the non-conference of Marshall, Appalachian State, Arkansas State, and ECU. A good schedule wouldn't be a couple of intraconference tests sprinkled into a big pile of nothing.

While the schedule has no bearing on how good the team is (LSU could play Houston's schedule and they wouldn't be any worse or better of a team for it), you have to use the results on the field against good teams to get an idea of how good they are. If we let Houston go to the national title game, there's nothing to discourage power teams from scheduling 4 cupcakes and not challenging themselves in the non-conference. And I know I said elsewhere I would prefer Houston in the national title over Alabama, but I would also prefer Oregon, the Big 10 champ, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma State instead of Houston in that order

[Grayghost]

Your argument about scheduling 4 cupcakes was exactly the case when Kansas went on it's run towards the NC. Luckily they lost that 1 tough game against Missouri and didn't even go to the CG game that year, but I believe they still played in a BCS bowl, which pissed of Missouri. I guess this is my way of agreeing with you.