Originally posted by Doc_whiskeyIn regards to the 9 & 10 spots, did you miss the Orange Bowl?
Originally posted by My websiteMy computer rankings use only wins (against Bowl Subdivision teams) and ALL losses to calculate how "good" a win is and how "bad" a loss is. Score, location, MoV, and the like are not considered.
This system is NOT trying to find out which team is "better" than the other, just what each team has accomplished to-date. With this system, every team starts out with a rating of 1200 points and they gain or lose points based on their wins and losses Underdog wins and favorties losing will change the rating greatly, while beating cupcakes or losing to a heavy favorite will change little if at all.
The only variable used in my formulas are wins and losses. That is it. The score is never taken into account. I have slightly changed the formula I used last year, again. I no longer use the Elo system, but something I came up with.
GT had a rating of 1628.4017 and Iowa had 1529.0634
Iowa's win and GT's loss changed their ratings of course. Iowa gained 61.7 and change, and GT lost 31.4 and change.
Other things that hand an effect on their ratings: GT's opponents (5-2, because they played Clemson twice): Clemson beat Kentucky (and GT played they twice) FSU beat WVU VT beat TN GA beat TAMU Miami (FL) lost to Wisconsin NC lost to Pitt
The teams that won have better records so it gives them a slight bump if they beat them, and lessens the bump they took for beating them. Conversly, Miami and NC losing lowers their rating for those games a bit.
Iowa's Opponents (4-4): PSU beat LSU Wisconsin beat Miami (FL) Ohio State beat Oregon Iowa St beat Minnesota Minnesota lost to Iowa State AZ lost to Nebraska Michigan St lost to TX Tech Northwestern lost to Auburn
I could break it down further with opponent's opponents but you see where I'm headed. Iowa just came up a bit short with my formula to overtake GT.
I get that, though I think any rating system is flawed when one team is ranked behind another team even though that team beat the other team on a neutral field (and has a better record). If records are similar no team that loses to another team should be ranked in front of them (please note the first part of this sentence to make sure my words are not misconstrued later).
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that
Originally posted by Doc_whiskeyI get that, though I think any rating system is flawed when one team is ranked behind another team even though that team beat the other team on a neutral field (and has a better record). If records are similar no team that loses to another team should be ranked in front of them (please note the first part of this sentence to make sure my words are not misconstrued later).
I totally agree with you. It's not what my system is trying to do (who is better than who), but how good/bad wins/losses are and ranking them accordingly.
I once thought of doing a ranking system where winners are automatically ranked above losers but then what would you do if Oklahoma beat Texas, Texas beat Texas Tech, and Texas Tech beat Oklahoma.
Neither can be ranked above nor below.
I was REALLY hoping that Iowa would get the few points needed to pass GT as I was filling out the last few bowl games because to people who don't know how my system works nor what it's trying to do, it makes me look like an idiot. But for what I'm trying to, I'm happy with it. Sadly, I am compulsive enough to go back to previous years and rub out some of FSUs wins because of the NCAA hammer coming down
For me, it wasn't Summerall and Madden...it was Summerall and Tom Brookshire. I mean, he was great with Madden, too, but the pairing with Brookshire is where football was defined for me. Other than that, I completely agree.