Burnt Orange Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Follow the @sbnation MMA Twitter List

The Numbers Game: 40 Days and 40 Nights of BCS Posts

So we've seen the new BCS poll, Peter's taken us through the various scenarios in which Texas can make a BCS game and/or the national championship game, and HornBrain has fired his perpetually delayed weekly salvo of hate in the war against Richard Billingsley's awful computer ranking system.  But what I want to focus on here is the nitty gritty of the numbers  that constitute the BCS rankings to see what we're looking at going forward and how likely things are to change given the various scenarios.  That's right, it's the 84th post in the last 2 days on the BCS!  Now with even more numbers!

Some might call this a useless exercise in "how can Texas back into the Big 12 and national championship games" and that's true in a sense.  But what's also true is that just because a team has 1 loss doesn't mean it's backing into anything.  A 2-loss team won the national championship last year.  This is the reality we're living with.  You're not out of anything until you're mathematically eliminated.  And Texas' math is very much alive for both the Big 12 and National Championship games.

So let's take a look at the numbers, shall we?

Star-divide

An Explanatory Prelude That Seems Simple But is Oh So Important:  It's important to realize that rankings in the BCS component polls (Harris, Coaches and Computers) mean very little.  It's the scores that establish those rankings that matter, not the rankings themselves.  In the Harris Poll, there are 114 voters for every #1 ranking, a team gets 25 points, for every #2 ranking, a team gets 24 points, and so on.  Thus the greatest number of points a team can get if it gets all 114 first place votes is 2,850, which is 25 times 114.  Alabama has 2,808 out of a possible 2,850, which gives them their Harris poll score of .9853 (which is 2808 divided by 2850).  If Alabama had, say, only 2770 points out of 2850, they would still be ranked #1, but their Harris Poll score for BCS purposes would only be .9719, significantly lower than it is now.  Thus rank doesn't matter, only points.

And because of that, you can have a "strong" ranking or a "weak" ranking.  Therefore, if the #4 team is just 1 point behind the #3 team in the Harris poll (thus #3 is weak and #4 is strong), and then if the #4 team then passes the #3 team the next week and now leads by 1 point, that means virtually nothing for the BCS because even though the rankings changed, the points stayed almost exactly the same.  It's not absolute rankings that matter, it's the points.

That being established, let's take a look at the Harris and Coaches Polls, points-wise:

Harris Poll
Rank Expected Pts Actual Pts Difference Team
1 2850 2808 -42 Alabama
2 2736 2768 32 Texas Tech
3 2622 2531 -91 Florida
4 2508 2471 -37 Texas
5 2394 2427 33 Oklahoma
6 2280 2329 49 USC
7 2166 2073 -93 PSU
8 2052 2034 -18 Utah
    
USA Today Coaches Poll
Rank Expected Pts Actual Pts Difference Team
1 1525 1508 -17 Alabama
2 1464 1469 5 Texas Tech
3 1403 1348 -55 Florida
4 1342 1314 -28 Oklahoma
5 1281 1300 19 Texas
6 1220 1268 48 USC
7 1159 1104 -55 Utah
8 1098 1074 -24 PSU

So now we've got something to work with.  Here's what we see: Bama and Tech are clearly 1 and 2, though a few brave souls have some other team (likely Florida) ahead of one or both of them.  Then there's a clumping from 3-6 as numbers 3 and 4 are both below what would be expected of their rankings, points-wise, while 5 and 6 have more points than would be expected for their rankings.  This seems to show that these 4 teams are clumped together and voters disagree on where to rank them relative to each other.  Only 80 points separates these four in the Coaches Poll rather than the expected 183 and only 202 points separate them in the Harris Poll rather than the expected 342.

It seems that barring a catastrophe of epic proportions, the national championship game contestants will likely be either Bama, Tech, or (should either or both of those two lose) one of these four clumped teams.  So let's unpack this a bit by establishing Five Facts.

Opinion Masquerading as Fact 1: USC's remaining schedule will not allow them togain many points on any team ahead of them unless those teams lose or play incredibly poorly.  Crushing victories over Stanford, Notre Dame and UCLA are not going to impress anyone.  USC needs several losses to make the national championship game. Only Florida, Alabama and Texas Tech control their own destinies.  Win out and they're into the national championship game.

Actual Fact 2: Texas' lead over OU in the Harris Poll is greater than OU's lead over Texas in the Coaches Poll.  Texas leads OU by 44 points in the Harris, where the expected lead for #4 over #5 is 114 points (or 37.61% of expected).  OU's lead over Texas in the Coaches poll is 14 out of an expected 61 (or 22.95% of expected).  This means that Texas is currently leading Oklahoma in the Human polls.

Opinion Bordering on Fact 3: OU has the most daunting schedule remaining in the regular season.  Florida plays South Carolina, The Citadel, and at Florida State, while Texas plays at Kansas and vs. Texas A&M.  OU, on the other hand, has Tech at home and Oklahoma State in Stillwater.  That's rough, but if they pull it off, they stand to gain some ground points-wise, if not rankings-wise.

Actual Fact 4 Followed by Reasoned Speculation: Texas plays Kansas in Lawrence this weekend while OU is idle.  A dominating win over a pretty decent Kansas team on the road while OU is idle might provide incentive for Texas to increase its points lead in the Harris poll while perhaps overtaking OU in the Coaches poll.  By which I mean that more voters in both polls would rank Texas ahead of OU than currently do.

Actual Fact 5 Followed by Somewhat Specious Speculation: Texas beat OU on a neutral field.  Head-to-head tends to resonate with human voters.  If Texas is ranked ahead of OU on most voters' ballots going into OU's final two games, then the head-to-head win by Texas on a neutral field might prevent some voters from moving OU ahead of Texas if OU wins out because it takes it takes a certain amount of audacity (by which I mean to connote "fearless daring" and not "insolence") to take the plunge and move a team like OU above a team like Texas when Texas beat OU on a neutral field.  However, it takes no audacity (of either connotation) to keep OU above Texas if they are already there.  Thus, if most voters have OU ahead of Texas to begin with, anything short of a loss by OU will not move Texas ahead of the Sooners on those particular ballots.

A Calming Word to Texas Tech Fans on Scenarios Leading to the Big 12 Championship Game: We know for a fact that Texas cannot make the Big 12 Championship game unless Texas wins out and Oklahoma beats Texas Tech.  In speaking at all about the possibility of Texas going to the Big 12 Championship game, we are implicitly assuming that these things will happen, not because we assume that they will, but because we know that they must under this hypothetical.  Okay, Tech fans?  So, if those things occur, then 1 of 2 things (or both) needs to happen: either Tech loses to Baylor and/or OU beats OSU.  If Tech loses to Baylor, Texas goes to Kansas City regardless of the outcome of the Bedlam game.  If Tech beats Baylor and OU beats OSU, then the team that's ahead in the BCS wins the South division and goes to Kansas City.

I think it's a fair assumption that if Tech loses to OU, they will be ranked below both Texas and OU in the BCS.  It's not necessarily fair that this will be the case, but as a matter of name recognition above anything, humans will put them below while I think the computers will as well (at least behind UT if not OU) given their gimpy early-season schedule.  Thus in this limited scenario, the question becomes who is ahead in the BCS, Texas or OU?  Fact 3 above states that OU has the possibility to impress the most, but Facts 4 and 5 give me some hope that a majority of Humans (or at least around half) will still have Texas on top of OU in their polls come season's end.  The important thing is for Texas to gain ground this weekend to offset to the greatest extent possible the ground that OU will gain back in the last 2 weeks.

If OU and Texas are approximately tied in the human polls or if OU has a slight advantage (i.e. something close to the advantage that Texas currently has), then it will come down to the computers.  Let's take a quick look at those.

Computers Poll

Rank A&H Billingsley Colley Massey Sagarin Wolfe Average Team
1 24 25 24 25 25 24 .980 Texas Tech
2 25 24 23 24 24 25 .970 Alabama
3 22 23 25 23 23 23 .920 Texas
4 23 19 21 22 22 22 .870 Utah
T-5 19 20 20 21 21 21 .820 Oklahoma
T-5 21 21 22 20 20 20 .820 Florida
7 18 18 17 19 19 19 .740 Georgia
8 17 22 19 18 16 18 .720 USC

 

Remember that the top ranking and the bottom ranking get thrown out (for some reason that I don't understand at all.....just throw out Billingsley's every time and be done with it) so only the middle 4 rankings get figured into the BCS score.  Notice also that Texas is the consensus #3 team.  The #3 team should have 92% of the possible points (23 times 4) and Texas has exactly that.  perhaps more importantly, though, note that Utah is ranked in between Texas and OU in 4 polls and that Florida is ranked in between Texas and OU in 3 polls and USC, Texas Tech and Alabama are ranked in between Texas and OU in 1 poll each (as is Boise St., which is not shown in the chart).  For Texas to have the best chance to be ranked ahead of OU at the end of the regular season, root for each and every one of these teams (particularly Utah and Florida) to win their remaining games in the regular season (except for Tech against OU of course) to keep as much buffer between Texas and OU in the computers as possible.  Also keep in mind that while humans tend to forget or not pay attention to what happened earlier in the season, computers don't.  Root for every one of OUs previous non-mutual opponents to lose (particularly TCU) and every one of Texas' non-mutual opponents to keep on winning (particularly Mizzou).

OU is ranked fairly low by the computers (they are a concensus 5.5, as is Florida), which is good for now, but it also means that the Sooners have plenty of room to move up with wins over Tech and OSU.  They have a lot of ground to make up to catch Texas though and I'm not sure they can do it.

Speculation Evincing My Poor Judgment Not Necessarily Due to the Substance of the Speculation but Rather Simply by Virtue of My Speculation on Such Matters at All: But let's say that Texas moves up to a consensus #2 after the necessarily-assumed loss by Tech to OU and then OU moves up to a consensus #3 due to their presumed wins over Tech and OSU.  Let's also say then that OU has an advantage over Texas in the human polls to the same degree as Texas currently has an advantage over OU.  Who leads in the BCS then?  Texas.  And it's not really all that close either.  

Granted, Texas current lead over OU in the human polls is quite small, so OU could indeed develop a bigger lead, but I think that there will be enough confusion among voters between Texas, OU, Florida and USC to keep things relatively close and prevent a consensus from arising.  That is, I think the top 2 among those four teams will have fewer points than expected for their rankings and the bottom 2 will have more points than expected, just as they do now.  And if things remain relatively close in the human polls, even if OU has a lead in them, they will have to gain a LOT of ground in the computers to catch Texas in the BCS.  They have the best schedule they can ask for to do it, but are there enough games left?  I'm just not sure.  

Paradox: But one thing we can be sure of is that nothing is certain.

Quick Note on the BCS if Texas Does Not Make the Conference Championship Game and More Vagarious Speculation:  Obviously, the best way to get into the national championship game for Texas is to win the conference.  It's practically a guaranteed invite for either Texas, Texas Tech or Oklahoma.  But various things can happen to send Texas to Miami without a detour in Kansas City, as Peter has outlined previously.  However, in none of these scenarios is BCS number crunching really necessary as far as Texas goes, at least at this point, because it relies too much on chaos and no one knows how anything is going to react in chaos.  We should revisist those issues if something unforeseen is to happen in the future.  

A few things are safe bets though.  Texas will go to the BCS championship game before USC and before any 2-loss team (even Florida), and likely before a 1-loss Texas Tech and a 1-loss Alabama.  They will not go to the BCS championship game over a 1-loss Florida.  So we're essentially down to one team: Oklahoma.  If Texas is fighting for 1 spot in the championship game with 1-loss Oklahoma, who goes?  I tend to think that if OU wins the Big 12 championship, they are ranked higher, and if neither 1-loss Texas nor 1-loss OU wins it, Texas is ranked higher.  But this is all speculation.  We just don't know what voters and computers will do with chaos.  It's a fool's errand to predict the reactions in times of chaos and tumult.

0 recs  |  Comment 67 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Burnt Orange Nation

2008 Season Send-Off

Jan 2009 by Peter Bean - 15 comments

The Annual Playoffs Post

Jan 2009 by Peter Bean - 98 comments

BCS Selection Process Explained

Dec 2008 by awiggo - 33 comments

Comments

Display:

Good analysis, but also this...

OU beats Tech that also gives Texas a bump in the quality wins department as we beat OU. Now if OU wins a squeaker vs. Tech, that helps us more than a pounding of Tech. We lost on a last second play and/or inability of one of our secondary to catch a punt-like interception in the last two minutes of play. Therefore, a nailbiter in Norman with OU on top probably helps us more.

Next, the only way Texas doesn’t make it into a BCS bowl game (not title) is if the Big 12 South representative loses in the title game. Whether it is us or another team, there is no way a one-loss Texas doesn’t get a piece of the BCS payout. National Title game would be nice, but there are three weeks more of game-playing left to do to figure that part out.

Texas needs to win out and hope that the rolling thunder from Norman keeps building up their confidence leading into their game vs. Tech. I personally believe OU in Norman wins by 10 pts.

In the meantime, let’s get Fozzy more and more involved with the running game so IF we do make it to the BCS title game, we show up with a running threat to go along with the 1-2 punch at WR with Shipley & Cosby.

by Robertpz on Nov 10, 2008 2:02 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

How about this...

Knowing that scores and not rankings mean more, wouldn’t it behoove a voter in the coaches poll (ie Mack Brown, Mike Leach) to cast a first place vote for his team and to leave his opponents off the ballot entirely consequently, the opponent will have no points for that ballot?

by HornsFaninCalifornia on Nov 10, 2008 2:09 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

In absolute economic terms, yes it would.

Of course this would undermine the entire system and cause terrible publicity for that coach and university, plus it would be an abdication of whatever fiduciary duties a coach owes to the polling system. And it’s also likely that whatever points are gained wouldn’t be enough to make a difference unless the rankings were very close, but in straight up economic terms, yes it would create a short-term benefit in the rankings.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 2:14 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I believe so, but...

With the exception of the final poll, does any poll actually matter?

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The polls/rankings prior to Dec's Championship Saturday

Has anyone else noticed that the current Coaches Poll has several former Stoops assistants and coaches he’s worked for? I wouldn’t put it past Stoops to lobby those folks to vote the way I just noted.

by HornsFaninCalifornia on Nov 10, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I highly doubt that any coach would ask his friends to change their votes as a favor to him.

I think that’s way over the top. Do loyalties and friendships in the coaching ranks influence votes? Probably to a certain extent, subconsciously. But to accuse someone of having the dearth of character to ask his friends to cheat for him is a low blow. Stoops is a lot of things (whiny and arrogant to name two of them), but he’s always struck me as an honorable guy.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Coaches Poll...

is all politics. Mack Brown has to realize that if it falls to a three-way tie between Tech, OU, and Texas he has to play hardball because you know Leach and Stoops will.

First things first, Texas not only has to win out but has to do so convincingly ie 30-40 point blowouts. If we win the next two games ugly, then we lose ground in the polls. OU put up 66 on aTm, Tech put 63 on Kansas. We have to look just as good if not better in the eyes of the voters. Stoops understands that this is a beauty contest, the more points on the scoreboard the merrier. Don’t think for a second he’ll let up if it helps his team.

by HornsFaninCalifornia on Nov 10, 2008 3:03 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Fidutiary duties....

and derarth of character? Awesome.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Nov 10, 2008 9:27 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

dearth....

keyboard is broken :)

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Nov 10, 2008 9:28 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

What?
With the exception of the final poll, does any poll actually matter?

If it is the difference between getting to the conference championship game, of course it matters.

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 3:38 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

You're right.

I was confusing myself. Regardless, I strongly believe that no coach would ever do what HornsFaninCalifornia is suggesting regardless of whether or not they would be “caught.”

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 3:47 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Far fetched scenario yes,

Do I think that a coach would leave a team off his ballot entirely no. Again, there is no stopping a coach from placing Texas at #10 and OU at #1. Happened in 2004 when someone placed Texas in the #8-9 range.

by HornsFaninCalifornia on Nov 10, 2008 4:06 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Florida

Excellent post . . . but why does Florida get the nod over Texas?

Texas’s loss (to No. 2 ranked team, away, on the last play) is far better than Florida’s, and our wins are better.

Similarly, given Texas beat OU, how can coaches rank OU above us?

by Allaha on Nov 10, 2008 2:18 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Florida

Florida has control of its own destiny at this point. If they win the remainder of their games including the SEC Championship Game, they’ll be one of the top 2 any way.

by HornsFaninCalifornia on Nov 10, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not saying Florida deserves it necessarily.

And I think Florida will stay behind Texas in the BCS until they play Alabama. If they beat Alabama, I believe they will consolidate their position in the human polls as the top 1-loss team and they will gain a few points in the computers. With that, they will jump Texas as the top 1-loss team in the BCS (assuming Texas doesn’t get to the Big 12 championship game and win). But if Texas wins the Big 12 and Florida beats Alabama (and wins out the regular season), then I’m not sure how they will be ranked, but Texas and Florida will play for the National Championship as 1-2 in some order.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 2:24 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

If we both are conference champions

I think we get the nod over Florida. If we arent, and Florida is, they will hop us easily.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 11, 2008 12:36 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Completely random question

Does anybody know why Gameday is at Hampton v FAMU? I’ve been looking all over and haven’t been able to find a good reason other than to just throw smaller schools a bone.

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Nov 10, 2008 2:19 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Only "straight forward" way in?

would be Texas winning out (including the Big 12 Championship), and the way to get there would be OU topping Tech probably in a close game (again probably more of an advantage than a blowout), and Tech dropping their game to KU. Assuming the Sooners win their next two games, and our win over them, we get the edge?

by Veeks! on Nov 10, 2008 2:43 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Tech plays BU not KU

Now if they happen to lose to Baylor then you’ll know we are a team of destiny.

But you are right, if Tech loses 2 games and both Texas and OU win out, Texas will win the division by having a better record than Tech, and having the same record with a head-to-head win over OU.

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 3:41 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Root for Utah

Utah losing would be catastrophic for us in the computer rankings.

What I hate about the computer rankings (even though they love us) is it is ranking dependent only. There’s no points like there are in the USA/Harris polls. Utah is ranked ahead of Florida and Oklahoma. If they lose, both Florida/OU will jump up a ranking, making their deficit to us less, meaning they could jump over us in the overall BCS rankings.

How silly is that? Utah losing directly leads to these two teams jumping over UT because of ranking dependent computer polls.

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 2:49 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Indeed

and they still have to play byu. go utes.

by hayzer13 on Nov 10, 2008 2:59 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

That's not correct about the computer polls.

The “Computers Poll” is a poll of 6 computers with the highest and lowest ranking being thrown out. There very much ARE points. But where the Harris Poll has 114 voters and the Coaches Poll has 61 voters, the Computers Poll only has 4 actual voters. Just like in the human polls, if 1 computer has a team 1st, they get 25 points, with 24 for second, etc. And just like in the human polls, those points are then added up and divided by the number of pollsters. It’s the exact same thing as the human polls but on a smaller scale.

If it were just rankings based, then whoever was #1 in the combined computers poll would get 1.000 (25 times 4), and #2 would get .960 (24 times 4) and #3 would get .920 (23 times 4) and #4 would get .880 (22 times 4). But look at the chart above. That’s not the case.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 2:59 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah I see

So then it turns out all polls are rankings based. That’s too bad.

But what I’m saying is Utah losing boosts up Florida’s and Oklahoma’s score, even if they had BYE weeks. This is because their rankings would go up by one. Do you see where I’m coming from?

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I have absolutely no idea.

I think you’re still a little confused. Utah is ranked ahead of both Oklahoma in all but 1 computer ballot and ahead of Florida in all but 2 computer ballots. If Utah loses, don’t you think they should go down in those ballots just like they would in a human ballot? And if they go down, someone has to come up to replace them. And if every ballot moves Utah down a few spots and Florida and Oklahoma up, then of course their “ranking” in the poll as a whole will go up, but that’s not what matters.

And no, NONE of the polls are rankings-based. They are ALL points based. Do yourself a favor and don’t even look at the “Rank” column in those charts. It’s completely irrelevant. Say there are 5 computers that fill out ballots in a poll. Three of them vote Texas #3 and OU #4 and 2 of them vote OU #3 and Texas #4. Texas will be “ranked” #3 and OU #4 in the poll of these 5 computers. But it will be close points-wise between Texas and OU because the computers are split. If all 5 computers rank Texas #3 and OU #4 then the “rankings” in the poll are the same as they were under the other scenario, but the points are more spread out because all 5 ballots have Texas ahead of OU.

Think of the Computers Poll as just another human poll and think of each computer as a human voter. If gets a little easier to process like that.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 3:18 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

This is what I want

I see now that all three portions of the BCS are really points based.

But what I’m saying is I think it would be better (at least for the computers) if they scored teams based on their own performance. Think of it like an individual stat for one player, like batting average in baseball. Only YOU control what your BA is by your hitting performance. Lets say you hit a single off of Pitcher A. Then in another game, if Pitcher A happens to give up a homer to some other hitter, it still wouldn’t have any bearing on YOUR average. It stays the same until your next at bat. I’m saying Utah losing should have no bearing on another team’s score. In the BCS, it does have an effect since only the rankings matter.

I wish the computer could use all their stats and formulas to score the teams individually instead of just ranking the top 25. That’s what I’m saying. Only problem with this is the possibility of having teams with the same score, but the ranking points in the other polls would be the tie breaker.

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 3:41 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, I see.

I’m not sure it’s possible, but it’s an interesting thought.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 3:52 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course it's possible

The computers have all the stats they need. Just get a formula, incorporate all the important variables, add some arbitrary constants, normalize them to some user-readable range, and POOF! you get a number.

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 3:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Possible was the wrong word.

It’s “possible” for me to come up with some arbitrary number assigned to each team. The questions is whether it’s possible to come up with a number that actually means what it says it means. That is, a number whose distance from another team’s number accurately reflects the distance in “goodness” between the two teams. I’m not sure THAT is possible.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 4:04 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The computers do this anyway Im sure

There is some formula that they all crunch based on teams’ stats that assigns some sort of value to each team, which they then sort in order to give their ranking.

We just see the end product, the ranking after the sort, but I can almost completely guarantee there is some arbitrary value assigned to each team in each of these polls. I don’t see any other way a computer would do it.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 11, 2008 12:43 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Right. It's not that they can't come up with something.

It’s that (a) its accuracy probably wouldn’t be as reliable as rankings. That’s the beauty of relativity as a measuring tool. If team X has a computer “score” of 46.1 and team Y has a computer “score” of 28.7, it’s sort of hard to state for certain that team X is 17.4 better than team Y because what does those numbers mean? 17.4 measures of goodness? What is that? They’re just numbers. But rankings mean something because they’re fixed relative to other teams.

And (b), how are you going to integrate all the computers’ different “scores” in with each other when they’re not using the same models, and even if you can do that, how are you going to integrate a pure “value” system like that into a pure “ranking” system like the humans have?

by billyzane on Nov 11, 2008 2:28 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ooh, just thought of something.

What if each pollster could weigh his own rankings? Everyone has to fill out rankings 1-25, but instead of forcing you to put a whole number in there, you can have decimals, say to a tenth of a percent. So since Alabama and Tech are close, Bama could be ranked 1.4 and Tech 1.6. Their combined rankings add up to 3 (just as they do now), but they’re weighted a bit. And the entire top 25 has to add up to 325 exactly (25+24+23+22, etc.).

We could perhaps only allow the computers to do this (by using their formulas to weight each team) or allow the humans to do it too. Either way, these can be integrated into one BCS formula.

This solves the problem that I was talking about before of not knowing what exactly the difference in between two teams’ computer “scores” actually means by allowing those scores to be converted into a more accurate ranking system.

Genius!

by billyzane on Nov 11, 2008 2:39 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

First off, I'm not abdicating that the system should change

But my point is, there already is some arbitrary value assigned, but any proximity of those is being thrown out by rounding them to the nearest whole number when ranking.

You could easily scale everyones formula by making the highest ranked team get 25 points, and then make every other team get a value based on the percentage of their value as compared to the top team. IE say one poll has bama as the top team at 47.85 points, and UT has 38.44 points. Bama then gets 25 for their number, and UT gets 20.1 If OU is really close by their formula (say 37.9) they would get a score of 19.8, whereas right now, they would probably get 21 and 20 from that poll.

The computer contribution would then be sum(computers-outliers)/100 just like the human polls are (netscore)/2850

Peoples problem when looking at these is really just your sampling size argument, but since they are computers with algorithms that I assume are generating some value with a higher order of number than 2, you can simulate what is going on by polling a ton of humans in the other polls, and make up for the sampling size somewhat by upping the accuracy of the reported rankings.

Right now its like each segment is being calculated differently, because we poll 4 computers, and hundreds of people, but if you just add one more decimal point to their rankings, it could greatly affect the gaps we see now, and each computer ranking is now affecting the rankings more like the human polls do, with different sized gaps. These then get mitigated out by using all 4 instead of just one.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 11, 2008 3:01 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

But with what you're saying...

…the second highest “score” from the computers could be 20.1. That is to say that if the best team is assigned 25, then the #2 team isn’t good enough to receive a score of 24, but should instead receive a score of 20.1.

Okay….that’s great. you’ve now calibrated the list to top out at 25, just like the human polls do. But that doesn’t mean they can be averaged together to get a meaningful number because they’re measuring different things. One is measuring “goodness” where the best “goodness” score is 25, and one is measuring a ranking of teams relative to each other where the best score is 25. If you average two polls that are measuring different things (even if they are calibrated to both top out at the same number), you don’t get a meaningful number. You get a number, certainly, but not a meaningful one.

The point is that you can’t average a ranking with a score. You have to average 2 scores together or 2 rankings together. I don’t trust humans to create accurate “scores” like the computers do so we’re stuck with rankings. Now, my idea above was to bring a scoring principle (i.e. not every team is the same amount better/worse than the teams ranked next to it as every other team in the rankings) to the ranking system by allowing you to weigh your rankings a bit. But you have to still be ranking, not JUST scoring. The combined rankings have to equal 325 (which is 25+24+23, etc.); you can’t just have the top team at 25, then 1 at 20 then 1 at 15, then one at 10 then a bunch under 10. Because that’s not a top 25 ranking. That’s pure scoring and you just can’t average that with a ranking.

by billyzane on Nov 11, 2008 3:39 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Without knowing the algorithms used

Then yes that could be possible, and I get what you are saying now.

And I also agree that I dont trust any individual to score instead rank. However, by using the aggregate numbers from humans, its turning a ranking into a score. Thats why Texas and OU are apart by 0.009 instead of 0.04

As well, by not taking into account the computer’s relative numbers, you are taking their scores and turning them into rankings.

Like you said, thats what doesnt jive with me, that the humans are providing an overall score, and the computers are not. I think everyone would agree that the humans allowing for smaller/larger gaps is appropriate, so why not do something similar with the computers?

It does to some extent with the averaging of 4, but being that they are computers, and that the rankings are derived from scores, there should be a smarter way to go about it to take that into account, and emulate the more “Accurate” ranking thats provided by hundreds of people ranking.

If not what I described, which as you pointed out could be skewed based on the nature of the scorings produced, then something like you described, with decimals that add up to 325.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 11, 2008 4:01 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Or we could just have more computers.

The only reason the humans provide more of a score than the computers is that there are more of them to average. If we had 50 computers, we’d be fine just letting them all rank, averaging the rankings and not bother with this whole mess. But I do like what you’re saying here — that in the absence of more computers, and given the capability of computers to make it happen, they should be able to weigh their rankings a little to approximate what happens naturally through sample size in the human polls.

I think that’s an excellent idea.

by billyzane on Nov 11, 2008 4:50 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ugh

Huck at BC has a fantastic computer rankings analysis, which reads to me that should OU win out, our fates lie in the hands of the voters. Which, in short, means we’re kinda screwed.

I posited this question over there, but I wonder:

Should we be rooting for Tech in two weeks? Because honestly, seeing Tech in the MNC would be sad, but seeing OU in the MNC after we beat them by 10 would be downright terrifying.

by jc25 on Nov 10, 2008 2:50 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Why?

“Our fates lie in the hands of the voters. Which, in short, means we’re kinda screwed.”

Why?

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Nov 10, 2008 3:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Reasoning
It means that if we maintain our current lead in the human polls over OU, our lead in the overall BCS standings would shrink from 0.0354 points to 0.0088 points. The key, then, is that we have to stay ahead of Oklahoma in the human polls. Even if OU wins out like we need them to do to get to the Championship Game, there’s no guarantee we stay in front of them in the BCS. It honestly looks like a 50/50 shot at this point. It would be time to lobby voters, one of the many stupid effects of the system we have right now. And if any of my guesses above are wrong in Texas’ favor at this point, we might need to be significantly ahead of OU in the polls. Time to hammer home the game locations and the Texas/OU head-to-head with the voters.

Taken from Huck’s article…means that if OU and Texas win out, our computer edge is practically non-existent. The actual differential isn’t proof-positive, but I don’t think the deviation (either in our favor or in OU’s) would be substantially great. Which leads me to opinion masquerading as fact #1, that our fates lie in the hands of the voters.

As for opinion masquerading as fact #2, that we’re kinda screwed, I write that because, like Massey’s ratings, the date of the game matters. I realize we hold the actual head-to-head advantage, but will the voters? I personally think not.

If Texas is ranked ahead of OU on most voters’ ballots going into OU’s final two games, then the head-to-head win by Texas on a neutral field might prevent some voters from moving OU ahead of Texas if OU wins out because it takes it takes a certain amount of audacity (by which I mean to connote “fearless daring” and not "insolence") to take the plunge and move a team like OU above a team like Texas when Texas beat OU on a neutral field. However, it takes no audacity (of either connotation) to keep OU above Texas if they are already there. Thus, if most voters have OU ahead of Texas to begin with, anything short of a loss by OU will not move Texas ahead of the Sooners on those particular ballots.

Per BZ, Texas fans would be left with the hope that human voters won’t jump OU, which is what Huck suggests. To reiterate:

It honestly looks like a 50/50 shot at this point. It would be time to lobby voters, one of the many stupid effects of the system we have right now.

It’s my opinion, masquerading as fact, that in that situation, we’re kinda screwed. I think the voters will look at an OU offensive juggernaut coming off wins over Tech and OSU (on the road) and propel them ahead of Texas. I hope I’m wrong.

To address your points:

1. Best win? Tech got their big win over Texas at home. Oklahoma got their big win over Tech at home. Texas got their big win over Oklahoma… on a neutral field.

Agree, but as I stated, OU’s two biggest wins will have been their last two. Ours will have come 1-2 months ago.

2. The loss? Texas and Texas Tech dropped one on the road. Oklahoma dropped theirs on a neutral field.

Yes, this is what we need to hang our hat on. But will it override the fact that OU would be “peaking at the right time?”

3. Oklahoma has some recent BCS history working against it.

Yes, but OU has also consistently dominated the Big XII. Will that work against Texas?

4. Texas Tech has some “gimmick”/no precedent history working against it.

Agree, if Tech loses one, I don’t see them having any shot.

The humans would have the final say, but Texas has at least as good an opportunity as would Tech and OU.

Which brings us back to the original point, that we’re kinda screwed. Huck is saying 50-50, and it sounds like you’re saying the same. I don’t see the same glass half-full view, not when our computer ranking is going to dwindle so heavily, and when you’re entrusting humans to remember what happened two months ago. So I guess you could say kinda screwed is the half-empty view, but since I added the kinda modifier, there’s a chance we won’t be?

To sum up…let’s hope I’m wrong.

Which brings me back to my original question: IF the choices are seeing Tech or OU as the South rep, which would you rather pick? And even if either is the South rep, who stands a better chance losing the Missouri (or whoever comes out of the South)? I know I’d rather see Tech in the Big XII (and subsequent MNC) than OU. Furthermore, it’s possible that an 11-1 OU team that already beat Mizzou twice last year and is “proven” in the Big XII Championship game has a better shot against the Tigers than an undefeated Tech (I know, I know, past performance has no bearing on future performance…whatever).

by jc25 on Nov 10, 2008 3:36 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

One other thing in our favor

In the Texas vs. OU debate is that we’ll have already beaten the Big 12 North champ.

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 3:53 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay

Just wanted to be sure what you’re saying, because “we’re screwed” doesn’t jive with how I see the situation.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Nov 10, 2008 4:16 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, it's a little too negative nancy

When I was reading Huck’s column, that’s all I was thinking, though.

Basically, I read it as, “It’s still possible, but not probable.”

by jc25 on Nov 10, 2008 5:39 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

This may be heresy.

I don’t understand the sentiment that it would be better for Tech to go to the Championship game than OU.

I hate OU as much as anyone and it would kill me if they got to go to the MNC game after we beat them by 10 in Dallas. But if we are thinking about the overall health of OUR program, i argue that it would be better for OU to go than Tech.

Recruiting is always going to be a battle between us and OU. We are going to lose blue chip recruits from our state to OU, and there isn’t much we can do about that. They also have a great football tradition and program.

Tech, on the other hand, is someone we have not really had to compete with for the recruits that we want in the state of Texas. For Tech to win a MNC, AND the corollary that Harrell would win the Heisman (not to mention the success and attention that Crabtree has gotten there), would possibly bring about a serious challenger to our in-state recruiting dominance.

That is scary, and i don’t really want to shake up the status quo in this regard.

by hornalum08 on Nov 10, 2008 11:05 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah hah! But what about this scenario....

Florida loses to Spurrier’s Gamecocks this weekend but beat Florida beats Bama in the SEC Championship?

Put on the lawyer pants and walk down that path.

"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison

by 512 on Nov 10, 2008 2:56 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Problems with the Big 12 tie breaker and BCS theory

First off, that was a superb analysis Billyzane. Although I disagree with you on the idea of there not being a “consensus” (more on that later).

The problem I have with the BCS is that the computer rankings are holistic, while the human polls are merit based. This means that the BCS system is giving the human voters more discretion to determine the “space” between ranks while the computers have no discretion. This is furthered as well by having to throw out the top and bottom rankings of the computers—-hence eliminating the biases that some computers may have for or against a team. So while we embrace bias in the human polls, we eliminate it (or assume we are eliminating it) in the computer polls. This is where the notion of “strong” and “weak” ranks come in — unfortunately it’s only determined by people who’s biases are not consistent or formulaic, could be based on some silly notions like “this could be JoPa’s last season” or “OU could be penalized by their performance in BCS bowls lately” that have no bearing on these teams this year, or even worse could be driven by a coach’s personal ambitions or goals.

All that said, if OU knocks off Tech you can expect Mack, Leach, and Stoops to be appearing all over the TV and calling everyone of their coaching buddies to lobby for their vote.

by BMG on Nov 10, 2008 3:00 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

You're sort of saying the same thing as goingforthecorner above, and it's not correct.

With respect to the part where you said that there is room for “space” between the ranks, I must clarify that there IS space between the ranks with the computers poll. Each computer ranks the teams 1-25 just like each human ranks the teams. Then you average those rankings. It’s the exact same thing except with a smaller number of “voters.” There are still “strong” and “weak” rankings. For instance, Utah is at .870, but a team ranked #4 would expect to be at .880 (22 points for 4th place times 4 voters, divided by 100 possible points). They are slightly weaker than what you would expect from a #4 team.

You’re correct in the sense that the smaller number of voters leads to less sample size, which is not a good thing. I suppose that’s a counterintuitive reason why the BCS throws out the top and bottom rankings. Because there is such a small sample size, outliers can affect the result a lot more so we’ll throw them out. But then you have an even smaller sample size.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 3:08 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Mack and running it up.............

“First things first, Texas not only has to win out but has to do so convincingly ie 30-40 point blowouts. If we win the next two games ugly, then we lose ground in the polls. OU put up 66 on aTm, Tech put 63 on Kansas. We have to look just as good if not better in the eyes of the voters. Stoops understands that this is a beauty contest, the more points on the scoreboard the merrier. Don’t think for a second he’ll let up if it helps his team.”

I posted something on this yesterday and today – Mack should of left Colt in at start of 4th qtr and scored the TD when they had 1st down at Baylor 30. Stoops would and so would Leach. We need style points and Mack needs to put the “foot on the throat” these last two games.

by texascfo on Nov 10, 2008 3:38 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

We still gained points in the human polls even without doing that

I thought the same thing as you up until I saw the polls come out and we went from being cumulatively behind OU in the human polls to cumulatively ahead of them.

Colt is apparently pretty banged up so I’m glad they took him out. Would have liked to have seen Chiles actually get to run the offense though.

Having said all of that, I completely agree that we should try to win by as big of a margin as possible (without incurring negative press ala Tech) in the next 2 games.

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 3:51 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I respectfully disagree

with you on this one. Winning is important but it is not everything.

NOT compromising your principles is priceless.

You DO NOT become tied for the 2nd winningest program of all time by running up the score.

It is too bad that character and class have been replaced by style points. As mentioned in my previous post, I am glad Mack Brown is our coach because his philosophy is to play it on the field and let the chips fall where they may. Keep winning and everything takes care of itself.

by TXStampede on Nov 10, 2008 8:04 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

My sisters DVR screwed up

And I was watching at her house, so I missed the beginning of the game.

I was also a little miffed that we didnt leave Colt in to at least put 50 up with how much OU has been scoring. If I remember right I think it was 11:30 left in the 4th when Chiles came in, I wanted one more Colt led drive.

However, the next morning I watched the game from the beginning on my DVR (yep I didnt trust her), and after seeing all the shots that Colt took, taking him out was definitely the correct call. He was beat up on Saturday, and keeping him as fresh as possible for KU is in everyones best interest.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Nov 11, 2008 12:49 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

If Mack has to lobby

It’s pretty sad. If playing 4 teams in a row ranked in the top 11 at the time, winning 3 of them, with the only loss being on the road at the last second, while Florida loses to an unranked team at home, and OU loses to US on a neutral field… if all that isn’t enough to get us to the MNC, nothing will.

texascfo, Mack did the right thing in resting Colt for the 4th quarter. He was getting killed out there.

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 3:47 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

And it's going to be interesting to see what Urban, Stoops

have to say if/when they lobby. How will they get around the fact that we have the best resume? And the best loss?

by goingforthecorner on Nov 10, 2008 3:51 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Voters need to be reminded

It will be very easy for them to get caught up in the heat of the big game on 11/22 and forget about us beating them head-to-head or the 4 game gauntlet we went through.

Problem is when Mack did this in 2004 he got labeled a whiner and we lost human votes.

He could have easily slipped something in in his press conference today (a portion about the BCS was replaid on Sporscenter) but he didn’t. Missed opportunity in my opinion.

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 4:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

There is psychology here I would like an opinion on.

I think something that helps is Texas is currently ranked ahead of OU in the BCS. Good or bad if people continually see Texas 3 OU 4, they will begin to belive this as fact. Information cascade where people see the actions of others (Texas being ahed of OU) and follow suit. BCS numbers are reported more often than USA today, so it becomes ingrained as “fact” that Texas is better than OU. Those who have OU ahead may relize thier mistake and switch or (in the case of the coaches poll especially) may not recall who they voted for last week and vote Texas ahead.

Thoughts?

by billb on Nov 10, 2008 3:53 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Self-fulfilling prophecy

I think there is some truth to that. Will it be enough?

by Horncasting on Nov 10, 2008 4:03 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

There's something to that probably.

But I think that most human pollsters don’t re-imagine their rankings every week. They open up a computer file of last week’s rankings and decide who needs to move up and who needs to move down. Perhaps some could be persuaded that Texas should be above OU (and right now, there should be no doubt whatsoever…we’ll see after OU’s last 2 games). It leads to inertia.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 4:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Stop!

This our dream season. Don’t ruin it for us!! This is just yet another year in the life of a Longhorn fan. But for Tech fans, this is the freaking rapture!!

Pleeeeease, just let Tech have it this year. Just this once. Then, next year we can all go back to the natural order of things. C’mon. We’re all Texans here, right? Be neighborly and just give us this one piece of glory to cling to!! : )

by Tech92 on Nov 10, 2008 4:38 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

If we can't have it, I want it for you.

Tech is my second favorite football team, believe it or not and if Texas had no dog in this fight, I’d be rooting like hell for Tech. But alas, Texas still has a shot. So screw you guys!

The thing about you guys this year though is that no one can ruin it for you at this point. Win and you’re in. No two ways about it. Polls, computers, nothing matters. It’s a luxury we just don’t have, unfortunately. That’s why I’m writing ridiculously long tomes on what might be IF something else happens. You don’t have an “if.” Congrats.

by billyzane on Nov 10, 2008 4:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

True to an extent...

But while the Horns are often in the title mix year in and year out unlike Tech, actually winning the whole thing is rather hard. We “only” have four national titles in our history and had a 35 year drought before our magical 2005 season. We still only have one Big 12 title in Mack’s 10 years.

So despite the sarcasm of your post, you do speak some truth, but still… No. We’re going to take it when we can.

by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 10, 2008 4:46 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I guess

it never hit me that you guys have only had one Big XII title in 10 yrs. That really surprises me, for some reason.

by Tech92 on Nov 10, 2008 7:25 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Correct, note zane, "Screw you guys".

And BTW, it’s 8:10 p.m. CST and OU still sucks.

by TXStampede on Nov 10, 2008 8:11 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh My...

…dude. Just stop.

... I'm just sayin'

by antiswarm on Nov 10, 2008 11:21 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the timing of the games helps us

As the post stated, we have a chance to gain votes with a good win over KU with Tech and OU not playing. Of course, the next weekend we are off while they play their big game. But then we all get to see how the voters and computers react to an OU victory and where it all settles out. Then, on Thanksgiving night in front of a national audience, we can smoke Aggy and have 2 days to campaign about the possible 3-way tie coming up. Mack will not have to worry about talking about it while his team still has games to play. The media can also chime in about our win being on a neutral field instead of at home like both Tech and OU, or that we’ve beaten the North champ while they didn’t have to play them, or that our final SOS and therefore overall resume will be stronger after the regular season is over.

by HookedinOKC on Nov 10, 2008 4:39 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

I keep hearing conflicting reports...

…if both Tech and we win out is there any chance we wind up at the Sugar Bowl and not the Fiesta Bowl?

by KevinJ on Nov 11, 2008 6:34 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics. Get BON updates via Twitter.
Start posting about the Longhorns »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Ut_vs_fau_8-30-2008_049_small
Tebow Apologizes, Resumes Place at Right Hand of God
Rose_bowl_1__small
SEC Bias is Intolerable - An Email to Pat Forde

Recent FanPosts

Elephantlogoorange_small
BCS System Alternatives
Small
Mock BCS talk between Fla, Bama, Tex, Iowa
Clock_tower_small
Weekly BON Hit Award osu
Small
TCU?
Small
Boise St.
Small
Earl is among Thorpe Award semifinalists named
2_small
Just Curious..
Img_1915_small
Down and Dirty....The life and crimes of Oklahoma Football
Elephantlogoorange_small
Toughest Opponent in Pasadena
Vy_rosebowl2006_small
Big XII Champ Tickets

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Site Editors

Pb6_small Peter Bean

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Menbooger_small GhostofBigRoy

Contributing Authors

Jersey_front_small 54b

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane

Small whills

Brandedbevo1024x768_small dimecoverage

Rosebowl_small txtwstr7

Small TheElusiveShadow

Me_small burnt in ny

Official Partner of CBS Sports