Don't Understand Congrove's Algorithmns

[Spence]

Ktffan generally uses the official NCAA stats, at least that has been my experience when checking facts. I would look there to find what he is talking about. One thing about Ktffan, though, his facts are rarely wrong. Actually, I have never seen them wrong. Sometimes the differences are semantics, but not wrong.

[CFP Admin]

ktffan...day late and a dollar short...we covered that. I meant team in a IA conference other than the MAC.

Again, you are wrong.

Ball State, since 1975 (according to Howell's records), has not beaten a IA team in a conference...they have beaten Navy (Independent) and UConn (not while in a conference).

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... e&limit=50

If that's according to Howell (and I doubt it is), than Howell is wrong. Plus, anything you get of stassen's site could be wrong.

Yes, Ball State has wins over IA teams in conferences other than the MAC.

Not choosing sides - just checked to see if I could end this argument. What I found supports the claim that, since 1975, Ball State has not defeated any team outside the MAC that was affiliated with another 1-A conference at the time they played them. If I, billybud, Stassen and Howell are all incorrect in the research, please provide the opponent and the year that contradicts this so we can learn something.

By the way, the computer doesn't have them defeating any team with another conference affiliation this year. It projects 6 wins in conference, plus non-conference wins against Northeastern (FCS), Navy (Independent), and Western Kentucky (independent transition team this year). Indiana would be the only team that qualifies in the discussion as a 1-A team (FBS) affiliated with another conference, and the forecast says Ball State loses that game by 4.85.

And - as I clarified earlier - the computer also does not infer that it would beat Alabama and others that were referenced in a much earlier post. Go back for further info on that clarification, if you missed it.

[ktffan]

Ktffan...don't play coy and passive aggressive.

Just list the Ball state win and link...I did liNK the Ball StaTE record against conferences used by Howell, stassen, and others. If you have a link of Ball State's record...link it please.

It is much more helpful than the usual MO of "you're wrong...the sources are wrong"...Just spit out the fact and link the record. I'll buy it.

Passive aggressive? Grow up.

Simply put, you claim Ball State has not beat a team out of the MAC. Even if you exclude Independents and non-IA teams (though why you would is beyond me), you're wrong and frankly it's pretty easy to check. I'm surprised you didn't just plagiarize someone who knew what they were talking about and be done with it.

I-A teams that Ball State beat, non-conference:

Indiana State 1978, 1980
McNeese State 1981
Illinois State 1981
Wichita State 1983

Prior to the split, division I teams:

Richmond 1974, 1975
Louisiana Tech 1976
Appalachian State 1976, 1977

[ktffan]

ktffan...day late and a dollar short...we covered that. I meant team in a IA conference other than the MAC.

Again, you are wrong.

Ball State, since 1975 (according to Howell's records), has not beaten a IA team in a conference...they have beaten Navy (Independent) and UConn (not while in a conference).

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... e&limit=50

If that's according to Howell (and I doubt it is), than Howell is wrong. Plus, anything you get of stassen's site could be wrong.

Yes, Ball State has wins over IA teams in conferences other than the MAC.

Not choosing sides - just checked to see if I could end this argument. What I found supports the claim that, since 1975, Ball State has not defeated any team outside the MAC that was affiliated with another 1-A conference at the time they played them. If I, billybud, Stassen and Howell are all incorrect in the research, please provide the opponent and the year that contradicts this so we can learn something.

By the way, the computer doesn't have them defeating any team with another conference affiliation this year. It projects 6 wins in conference, plus non-conference wins against Northeastern (FCS), Navy (Independent), and Western Kentucky (independent transition team this year). Indiana would be the only team that qualifies in the discussion as a 1-A team (FBS) affiliated with another conference, and the forecast says Ball State loses that game by 4.85.

And - as I clarified earlier - the computer also does not infer that it would beat Alabama and others that were referenced in a much earlier post. Go back for further info on that clarification, if you missed it.

The Missouri Valley was certainly a I-A conference. So was was the Southland. Howell is not incorrect about this. As usual, Stassen has taken his excellent information and made hash out of it. Sometime I'm going to ask him how he feels to have all these incorrect stats people quote across the net attributed to him because Stassen has a piece of crap site.

[billybud]

Ktffan...why not just come out with the info rather than play games until we beg you? Grow up, indeed.

I haven't argued against your data..it is the presentation...instead of a "you're wrong"...if you would present the data, we would have an ending and an understanding. Stassen doesn't include those conferences in his report.

And heck...if a pro like Congrove uses the info available...I'm not embarrassed.

Is there a link where info about teams vs conference play over time is available other than Stassen? I'd like to add it to my faves if it is.

[ktffan]

Ktffan...why not just come out with the info rather than play games until we beg you? Grow up, indeed.

I haven't argued against your data..it is the presentation...instead of a "you're wrong"...if you would present the data, we would have an ending and an understanding. Stassen doesn't include those conferences in his report.

And heck...if a pro like Congrove uses the info available...I'm not embarrassed.

Is there a link where info about teams vs conference play over time is available other than Stassen? I'd like to add it to my faves if it is.

BB, it annoys me when I see stuff like "hasn't beat a team outside of the MAC". Perhaps I get chippy when that happens, but come on, Ball State has wins over UConn recently and a pretty good Navy team. I hate to a team getting dogged like that when it's not really fair. Ball State also came close to beating Michigan in 2006. I don't see an upset out of them is really out of the question.

[donovan]

This "discussion" really epitomizes the frustration all of us that support smaller schools have with the system. Now recognize nobody forced smaller schools to be IA. But the fact is, over half are non BCS schools and absolutely do not have any consideration for the big prize, regardless of their record. What happens is when a small school has a good record, then all of the sudden they get lamblasted with SOS and Conference Weakness. It sometimes feels like you are fodder for the self agrandizement of the Big Boys.

So back to the thread...one of the parts of Mr. Congrove's poll that I really like, is it seemingly takes his criteria and the chips fall where they may. What that means, is once in a while the Boise State's of the world get some recognition....it is consistent...and although foolish consistency is not an Emerson virture.. CFP's is.
Amen

[CFP Admin]

BB, it annoys me when I see stuff like "hasn't beat a team outside of the MAC". Perhaps I get chippy when that happens, but come on, Ball State has wins over UConn recently and a pretty good Navy team. I hate to a team getting dogged like that when it's not really fair. Ball State also came close to beating Michigan in 2006. I don't see an upset out of them is really out of the question.

Understandable, and to your point - "never has" doesn't mean "never will". A team has to start its improvement somewhere. What had Kansas done in football before last year? What little impact had Virginia Tech made prior to 1995? Who paid attention to Boise State until the last few years?

On a national scale, it may always be difficult for teams in the so-called smaller conferences to compete with the big boys year-in and year-out. It might even be tougher for the MAC than, say, the MWC, because of the concentration of bigger schools around them. But that doesn't mean pollsters and pundits should discount them altogether. Ball State does have wins over Navy and UConn in recent history, and that is worth mentioning (bringing up Wichita State and such doesn't really help your argument though I suppose it is technically correct). Just last season, Ball State nearly took advantage of Nebraska. In 2006, the Cardinals lost to Purdue, Indiana and Michigan by a total of 19 points.

The computer's forecast for Ball State to go 9-3 and be ranked 40th as a result shouldn't alarm anyone, IMO - yet it does. On the one hand, 40th is a sucky ranking for a 9-3 team. On the other hand, 40th is a good ranking historically for a MAC team. At what point should a 9-3 MAC team surpasses a 7-5 "big 6" conference team in ranking order? Because the answer to this question is surely debatable, I would hope the computer's attempt to answer the question fairly would be acceptable to some extent.

[billybud]

In the context of the discussion...I said that Ball State had potential...and that meant that they ain't done it yet..

Sure they beat Navy last year but I wouldn't really call that a great win. Navy had a quality win over Air Force but also lost to Delaware. Six of Navy's wins were over teams with four wins or less, five of their wins were over teams with three or less wins. Navy played the worst team in a BCS conference (IMHO) Duke, and snuck by them by three points. Poor Ole Duke has won one game against a IA team in four years.

And they did beat a 6-6 UConn before the Huskies got better...UConn was coming off a 2-9 season and a losing season before that one...maybe a good win, but no indicator of being ready to play with the big boys...

Until Ball State beats a quality team, I'm not ready to elevate them from the "potential" status.

[billybud]

I looked at the predicted finishes...Ball State predicted to finish 9-3 vs other teams with lesser win totals...

A 9-3 might look real good, but in context:

I sure would take an FSU (predicted 6-6) over a Ball State (predicted 9-3)...I'd put $$$ on that game straight up. Especially if later in the season.

I'd also take Colorado (4-8 predicted), Nebraska (6-6), Georgia Tech (4-8), Miami (3-9), South Carolina (6-6), Arkansas (4-8), Michigan (7-5), Michigan St. (7-5). etc., etc.

[CFP Admin]

I looked at the predicted finishes...Ball State predicted to finish 9-3 vs other teams with lesser win totals...

A 9-3 might look real good, but in context:

I sure would take an FSU (predicted 6-6) over a Ball State (predicted 9-3)...I'd put $$$ on that game straight up. Especially if later in the season.

I'd also take Colorado (4-8 predicted), Nebraska (6-6), Georgia Tech (4-8), Miami (3-9), South Carolina (6-6), Arkansas (4-8), Michigan (7-5), Michigan St. (7-5). etc., etc.

If those teams were actually playing Ball State the power rankings of all involved would be different, so you can't really draw a conclusion as to what the projected outcome would be. However, it appears that Michigan, Michigan State, Florida State, Arkansas, and South Carolina would all be clear winners. Nebraska, Colorado, Georgia Tech and Miami would be close. But you must also factor in that all of those schools would host Ball State so - when all is said and done - the computer would likely have BSU on the losing end of all of them.

[ktffan]

BB, it annoys me when I see stuff like "hasn't beat a team outside of the MAC". Perhaps I get chippy when that happens, but come on, Ball State has wins over UConn recently and a pretty good Navy team. I hate to a team getting dogged like that when it's not really fair. Ball State also came close to beating Michigan in 2006. I don't see an upset out of them is really out of the question.

Ball State does have wins over Navy and UConn in recent history, and that is worth mentioning (bringing up Wichita State and such doesn't really help your argument though I suppose it is technically correct).

Just what argument is that other than saying Ball State has no wins over non-MAC teams is pretty far off. They, in fact, have 249 such wins. If the statement had been 'Ball State has beaten no one of consequence', I'd say it's a fair statement (though not specifically true). You notice the Big West was included in the list of conferences not beaten, so recent times was not really the point, nor were old defunct conference excluded. Saying they've beaten no non-MAC teams is harsh, IMO.

To the point of what Ball State could do, look at Michigan and Nebraska. Both could have been huge wins for the program, though they lost. I think saying they could beat a big team is fair at this point.

[Spence]

I looked at the predicted finishes...Ball State predicted to finish 9-3 vs other teams with lesser win totals...

A 9-3 might look real good, but in context:

I sure would take an FSU (predicted 6-6) over a Ball State (predicted 9-3)...I'd put $$$ on that game straight up. Especially if later in the season.

I'd also take Colorado (4-8 predicted), Nebraska (6-6), Georgia Tech (4-8), Miami (3-9), South Carolina (6-6), Arkansas (4-8), Michigan (7-5), Michigan St. (7-5). etc., etc.

I would probably take those teams over Ball State too. That doesn't mean either one of us would be right. While I believe that a team like Ball State couldn't consistently do well against a schedule full of major teams, I do believe that any team from any of the conferences could do well for a season and/or a game. We tend to dismiss teams because of history and tradition. History and tradition do not matter a hill of beans whether team A can beat team B this year. The big problem CFB has is that they have no legit way to account for teams that are good for short periods of time. Some of the outcry from the mid majors is unfounded, but some of it has good basis in fact. It is very tough to win a national championship for any team, it is almost impossible for a mid major. They have to know what year they will be good and then they have to make sure they schedule three major conference teams who would also be good in that year. Then they have to beat them all and go undefeated and hope the three teams they beat win the rest of their games. On the other hand, teams with tradition and history mostly just have to win their games. CFB needs a way to even the playing field without giving teams an advantage either way. Scheduling is the only way I know of that could make it fair.

[Eric]

Mid-majors are at a disadvantage because when your demands of them are to schedule 3 or 4 top-flight programs in one season and beat them all soundly, that's not very realistic. Non-BCS teams that are good usually have 2, at the max, mid-level BCS schools. First off, the schedules are made well in advance and secondly, it is true that some teams chicken out. Michigan did it with Hawaii. Of course, Big Blue didn't mind scheduling the Warriors when they were irrelevant about 9 or 10 years ago. I think that claim has a little merit.

[Spence]

Mid-majors are at a disadvantage because when your demands of them are to schedule 3 or 4 top-flight programs in one season and beat them all soundly, that's not very realistic. Non-BCS teams that are good usually have 2, at the max, mid-level BCS schools. First off, the schedules are made well in advance and secondly, it is true that some teams chicken out. Michigan did it with Hawaii. Of course, Big Blue didn't mind scheduling the Warriors when they were irrelevant about 9 or 10 years ago. I think that claim has a little merit.

I do too. That was my point.