SHUFELT Computer Poll; Week 6
Here are things about the poll:
- It has a memory. It will remember what happened in Week 1. Team A may look bad Week 1, but in Week 6, they don't look so bad.
- That means the values are dynamic. To take an example from this year, Boise State squeaked by a highly ranked Virginia Tech team. The next week, Virginia Tech lost to James Madison. Boise State's close call to Virginia Tech does not look NEARLY as impressive now. Week 1 scores will actually change dynamically based upon results, not just Week 1, but every week of college football.
- Style points matter. This includes the margin of victory. Nobody is impressed when you pull of a 1 point squeaker to Saint Mary’s school of the blind. But everyone would be impressed when Alabama is beaten 35-0. MOV matters, but it has diminishing returns. The point difference between winning by 50 and winning by 70 is practically infinitesimal.
- There is no pride in playing an FCS team.
- Location has a small influence on the scoring. A slight penalty for the home team, and a slight bonus for the visiting team. Neutral fields cancel each other out.
- NEW! There are bonus points for winning, and penalties for losing. This isn't a significant part of the formula, but it is factored.
- There are three main values. (There are several formulas that make up these values, but I am going to try and simplify it). A score of 0 is neither good nor bad.
- Team Avg (Team Average); This is simply your team’s performance in a game based upon a formula I’ve made up.
- Opp Avg (Opponent Average); This is an aggregated value of your opponent's Team Average.
- VoW Avg (Value of Win Average.); This is the resume score. Good team vs. Good team will = Great ; Bad team vs. bad team = Awful
- I’ll also be putting up a number next to each extra curricular awards. This is the VoW, (Value of Win). It is a score that factors in the Team's performance vs. their Opponent's resume. A team with a large win vs. a great team will result in a great VoW.
- I can make the numbers simple for you to understand. Negative is bad, positive is good. The further the number is from 0, the more extreme it is. -5 is bad, +5 is good. 0 represents neither good nor bad. This is applicable to all the scores you'll see.
- You get points for playing well against good teams, win or lose. You'll get more for beating good teams, but there is no shame for losing to a good team - as long as it is actually a good team. If you're 4-0, but it's all against FCS teams and the New Mexicos, you'll probably have a decent Team Avg, but your Opp Avg is going to make an embarrassment out of your team.
- Prior to week 1, ALL FBS teams are equal. Previous years have no influence on the poll.
- There are no bonus or penalty points for being in or absent in a BCS conference.
- A team's opponent's opponent's opponent's opponent's (potentiality infinite) score has influence on a team's perception. Meaning: Texas Tech's (Who played New Mexico, who played Oregon) score will influence Oregon's score.
- You now already know more about my computer poll than the ones that actually influence the BCS.
-
Here is the current standings of the Top 25.
| Rank | Team (W-L) | VoW Avg | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boise State (5-0) | 3.165 | 0.000 |
| 2 | LSU (6-0) | 2.641 | 0.524 |
| 3 | Ohio State (6-0) | 2.580 | 0.586 |
| 4 | TCU (6-0) | 2.420 | 0.745 |
| 5 | Alabama (5-1) | 2.388 | 0.777 |
| 6 | Oklahoma (5-0) | 2.198 | 0.967 |
| 7 | Auburn (6-0) | 2.125 | 1.040 |
| 8 | Oklahoma State (5-0) | 2.088 | 1.077 |
| 9 | Oregon (6-0) | 1.998 | 1.167 |
| 10 | Stanford (5-1) | 1.888 | 1.278 |
| 11 | Utah (5-0) | 1.816 | 1.349 |
| 12 | Florida (4-2) | 1.813 | 1.352 |
| 13 | Oregon State (3-2) | 1.805 | 1.360 |
| 14 | Missouri (5-0) | 1.634 | 1.531 |
| 15 | Arizona (4-1) | 1.561 | 1.604 |
| 16 | Nebraska (5-0) | 1.536 | 1.629 |
| 17 | Florida State (5-1) | 1.418 | 1.747 |
| 18 | South Carolina (4-1) | 1.204 | 1.961 |
| 19 | Michigan State (6-0) | 1.179 | 1.986 |
| 20 | USC (4-2) | 0.988 | 2.177 |
| 21 | California (3-2) | 0.970 | 2.195 |
| 22 | Iowa (4-1) | 0.932 | 2.233 |
| 23 | Nevada (6-0) | 0.921 | 2.244 |
| 24 | North Carolina (3-2) | 0.866 | 2.299 |
| 25 | NC State (5-1) | 0.832 | 2.334 |
Boise State gets their convincing win against mid-level team, Toledo. However, their schedule is going to start hurting them starting this upcoming week. San Jose State and Louisiana Tech are both bad teams, with bad schedules. They'll start to slide as their strong schedule starts to get leveled out while other teams start improving their weak schedules.
LSU's win over Florida puts them at No. 2 for this week. I would expect LSU to drop to high teens after this week, when their resume gets smacked down by an FCS opponent. Don't like it? Don't schedule it.
Oregon takes a hit due to putting a "meh" performance against WSU (VoW of 0.8079).
Florida jumps down a bit in the polls because they confirmed what everyone really thought - they aren't THAT good. They are still getting a great bump from their pretty tough schedule to date.
Flavor of the Week Award
This is awarded to the team that has the best win of the week. This is generally given to a team that has a solid win against a good team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Opp VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida State (2.805) | @ Miami (FL) (1.014) | W 45-17 | 4.983 |
| South Carolina (1.743) | vs. Alabama (2.643) | W 35-21 | 4.769 |
| Nebraska (3.749) | @ Kansas State (0.618) | W 48-13 | 4.709 |
| Utah (3.859) | @ Iowa State (-0.286) | W 68-27 | 4.533 |
| Michigan State (2.584) | @ Michigan (1.549) | W 34-17 | 4.290 |
That was a pretty significant win. Even though the ACC and the Big East aren't great conferences, these are two decent teams, and Florida State showed great dominance over their competition. Not far behind that is South Carolina's huge win over Alabama. They looked to really control the game, and Garcia looked pretty good (For a change)- except for that whole - "Bad snap! Oh crap, I'm going to get sacked, let me throw it between the uprights for a safety!". My mind still boggles over that. I wasn't too impressed with Saben in this game. Ingram had only 11 carries for 41 yards. While South Carolina looked prepared for most things thrown at them.
Bitter Sweet Award
This is awarded to the team that the most disastrous win of the week. This is generally given to the team that played close against a bad team. Teams will find themselves here if they fail to win very convincingly against an FCS team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Opp VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico State (-3.098) | vs. New Mexico (-3.838) | W 16-14 | -2.253 |
| Kent State (-0.210) | vs. Akron (-3.132) | W 28-17 | -1.459 |
| Florida International (-1.537) | vs. Western Kentucky (-2.979) | W 28-21 | -0.911 |
| ULM (-1.818) | vs. Florida Atlantic (-1.560) | W 20-17 | -0.561 |
| Nevada (3.339) | vs. San Jose State (-2.420) | W 35-13 | 0.001 |
It was like the Clash of the Titans, and by Titans I meant puppies. And not the cute kind, but the ragged and matted kind of puppy. The one that everyone goes "Aww, you poor thing", but never actually gets purchased, because people are afraid it might carry some sort of plague. NMS pulls of a breath taking 2 point win over New Mexico. So far, there are only 8 teams worse than New Mexico State, and New Mexico is one of them
No Shame in Losing Award
This is awarded to the team that had the most respectable loss of the week. This is generally given to the team that played well against a good team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Opp VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| USC (1.504) | @ Stanford (2.646) | L 35-37 | 1.428 |
| Kentucky (0.516) | vs. Auburn (2.346) | L 34-37 | 0.604 |
| Florida (1.309) | vs. LSU (2.151) | L 29-33 | 0.450 |
| Washington State (-2.771) | vs. Oregon (4.324) | L 23-43 | -0.063 |
| Indiana (1.504) | @ Ohio State (3.486) | L 10-38 | -0.252 |
After being the recipient of the award last week, they get to give it to USC personally. USC hasn't looked like USC of the '00s, but they still field a team of talented players, and they fought hard. Andrew Luck was able to boost his Heisman hopes with 20/24, 285 yards, 3 TDs and adding another 40 yards rushing. Barkley showed he can still match his Freshman hype by going 28/45, 390 yards, 3 TDs and his own 33 yards rushing. That bodes well for USC, as they showed they'll have to rely on their passing game by only going Taylor going only 33 yards on 13 attempts.
Face Palm Award
This is awarded to the team that really should be embarrassed for their loss. This is generally given to the team that played poorly against a bad team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Opp VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ball State (-1.172) | vs. Western Michigan (-0.304) | L 16-45 | -5.092 |
| Memphis (-2.763) | @ Louisville (1.288) | L 0-56 | -4.299 |
| Eastern Michigan (-3.411) | @ Vanderbilt (-0.167) | L 6-52 | -4.158 |
| Miami (OH) (-0.932) | @ Cincinnati (0.436) | L 3-45 | -4.157 |
| Utah State (-1.015) | @ Louisiana Tech (-1.053) | L 6-24 | -3.961 |
29 point loss at home will always sting. Ball State was probably looking to be excited after their "big" win over a poor CMU team. Whoops. The Cardinals run away with the Face Palm Award.
While Louisville isn't a terrible team, getting blown out and shut out by them is embarrassing. Oregon State fans probably had a smirk on their face after seeing this score.
Conference Rankings
| Rank | Conference | Win | Loss | Teams | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SEC | 45 | 23 | 12 | 0.782 |
| 2 | Pac-10 | 34 | 22 | 10 | 0.597 |
| 3 | Big 12 | 45 | 17 | 12 | 0.440 |
| 4 | Big Ten | 44 | 18 | 11 | -0.061 |
| 5 | Independent | 10 | 7 | 3 | -0.222 |
| 6 | MWC | 25 | 27 | 9 | -0.425 |
| 7 | ACC | 37 | 28 | 12 | -0.513 |
| 8 | Big East | 24 | 17 | 8 | -0.782 |
| 9 | WAC | 27 | 23 | 9 | -0.884 |
| 10 | C-USA | 31 | 35 | 12 | -1.181 |
| 11 | Sun Belt | 14 | 33 | 9 | -1.891 |
| 12 | MAC | 28 | 47 | 13 | -1.923 |
The only loss in the SEC West was Alabama, and only three SEC teams have losing records. Meanwhile, the Pac 10 beats itself up a little bit. We are still left with 3 good conferences, 1 mediocre conference, a few decent independent teams, and then a bunch of bad conferences and two AWFUL conferences.
Pac 10 Rankings
| Rank | Team | Wins | Loss | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon | 6 | 0 | 1.998 |
| 2 | Stanford | 5 | 1 | 1.888 |
| 3 | Oregon State | 3 | 2 | 1.805 |
| 4 | Arizona | 4 | 1 | 1.561 |
| 5 | USC | 4 | 2 | 0.988 |
| 6 | California | 3 | 2 | 0.970 |
| 7 | UCLA | 3 | 3 | 0.196 |
| 8 | Washington | 2 | 3 | -0.198 |
| 9 | Arizona State | 3 | 3 | -0.758 |
| 10 | Washington State | 1 | 5 | -2.476 |
By request, I have included the Pac 10 rankings this year, and it looks similar to most pecking orders. It should be noted Oregon and Oregon State are the only undefeated teams in Pac-10 play. The Civil War could end up being another big time game, if both teams keep rolling.
Games to Look Forward Too Watching
| Favored Team (Team VAvg) vs. Underdog Team (Team VAvg) | Average VAvg |
|---|---|
| Auburn (2.346) vs. Arkansas (1.924) | 2.135 |
| San Diego State (2.203) vs. Air Force (1.941) | 2.072 |
| California (1.758) @ USC (1.504) | 1.631 |
| Mississippi State (1.529) @ Florida (1.309) | 1.419 |
| Army (1.417) vs. Rutgers (0.783) | 1.100 |
Many people were pegging Auburn to give Alabama a run for their money. Arkansas did for a little while until Mallett let Alabama pick off his Heisman hopes at the end of the game. This week features another SEC vs. SEC matchup.
Games to Watch During a Root Canal
| Favored Team (Team VAvg) vs. Underdog Team (Team VAvg) | Average VAvg |
|---|---|
| LSU (2.151) vs. McNeese State (-7.571) | 9.722 |
| Boise State (3.957) @ San Jose State (-2.420) | 6.377 |
| Utah (3.859) @ Wyoming (-1.926) | 5.784 |
| TCU (4.127) vs. BYU (-1.519) | 5.647 |
| Arizona (2.322) @ Washington State (-2.771) | 5.092 |
We got through our very first week with no scheduled FCS teams. A few SEC teams have decided to take an easy win later in the schedule (Florida plays Appalachian State in week 12). I have no idea what to expect from Les Miles but the captain of anarchy may actually find a way to make this interesting, but I wouldn't count on it.
Top 10 Toughest Schedules
| Rank | Team (Record) | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon State (3-2) | 1.929 |
| 2 | BYU (2-4) | 1.767 |
| 3 | Marshall (1-4) | 1.144 |
| 4 | Washington (2-3) | 1.113 |
| 5 | Colorado State (1-5) | 1.070 |
| 6 | Wyoming (2-4) | 0.914 |
| 7 | UNLV (1-5) | 0.910 |
| 8 | New Mexico (0-6) | 0.859 |
| 9 | Florida (4-2) | 0.849 |
| 10 | Colorado (3-2) | 0.843 |
I have to give props to Oregon State. They have only one easy game, and as UCLA and Oregon saw, it's a rather feisty Washington State team.
BYU still has TCU, and Utah. They have to start looking at their schedule, and wonder if they'll be bowl eligible this year. They do have winnable games, but if Utah State and a 3 point win over San Diego State wasn't enough to wake them up, they may be missing out this year, and let another team have a shot at the Las Vegas Bowl.
Bottom 10 Toughest Schedules
| Rank | Team (Record) | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|
| 120 | Syracuse (4-1) | -3.069 |
| 119 | UTEP (5-1) | -2.928 |
| 118 | Ball State (2-4) | -2.244 |
| 117 | Kent State (2-3) | -2.219 |
| 116 | Ohio (3-3) | -2.141 |
| 115 | Middle Tennessee (2-3) | -1.965 |
| 114 | Nevada (6-0) | -1.944 |
| 113 | Oregon (6-0) | -1.923 |
| 112 | Northwestern (5-1) | -1.864 |
| 111 | Southern Miss (4-2) | -1.836 |
Let's see... Akron, Washington, Maine, Colgate, USF. Good job, Syracuse. The sad thing is, that the Big East is pretty bad this year, so there is a decent chance they will end up being bowl eligible.
Shout Outs!
Thanks to AKDuck for looking at things carefully, and helping some out this week. He provided great advice. Also thanks to CougarDuck for the suggestion. I took his suggestion and between AKDuck and him, I feel pretty good with how the diminished returns are shaping up.
Props to NewBorne. He wanted more information, and so I provided more information. It may take a bit of work, but each week the format has improved. I appreciate the feedback.
Please, feel free to provide feedback regarding the polls or extra curricular categories.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.
23 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmmm
Some things I really like about this weeks poll (Stanford and OSU’s position) but other things are hard to swallow. BSU as #1 and we’re #9? I don’t think there’s that much difference between us. But as you said, BSU should start falling soon. This is great stuff Shufelt – thank you!
ATQ's #1 Matt Daddy fan
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-S-N-I-C-E"
CaDuck: The hand of Juju
Boise State is also benefiting a little bit from their competition’s schedule. Boise State’s resume will take a hit by playing San Jose State, like I said last week, probably wouldn’t be in the top half if the Big Sky conference.
Oregon took a big resume hit by beating them only by 20. It’s a good win, but Oregon didn’t match their expected performance. If they would have won by 40, they probably would be #1 or #2.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-F-O-R-G-I-V-I-N-G-D-A-I-S-Y"
Nice work Shufelt.
But I take issue with this,
Boise State gets their convincing win against mid-level team, Toledo. However, their schedule is going to start hurting them starting this upcoming week. San Jose State and Louisiana Tech are both bad teams, with bad schedules.
San Jose State has had a more difficult road than most teams to date this season. Boise State will be their fifth ranked opponent in seven games. Not to mention they will have played both the no.1 and no.3 teams in the country. I’ll agree that they’re horrible, but their schedule is definitely not.
Alas, you are right that the Broncos will start to slide as they hit the “meat”, or lack thereof, in the schedule.
I keep hearing Sports Media say that Boise State should schedule nothing but Top BCS teams out of conference. So in effect, they're saying Boise State should play NONE of their non-conferences games at home? Yeah that makes sense.
That is true that San Jose State has played tough competition, but their tough competition is also nearly negated by beating Southern Utah by only 5, and losing to UC Davis.
My system also doesn’t recognize the “losing to no. 1 and no.3 teams in the country”, because the system is dynamic, and independent of the other polls. They’ve lost to the current “No. 5”, current “No. 11” and current “No. 23”, ranked according to the SHUFELT Computer Poll.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-F-O-R-G-I-V-I-N-G-D-A-I-S-Y"
They’ve lost to the current "No. 5", current "No. 11" and current "No. 23", ranked according to the SHUFELT Computer Poll.
And most assuredly the current No.3 team.
I keep hearing Sports Media say that Boise State should schedule nothing but Top BCS teams out of conference. So in effect, they're saying Boise State should play NONE of their non-conferences games at home? Yeah that makes sense.
excuse me, No.1
I keep hearing Sports Media say that Boise State should schedule nothing but Top BCS teams out of conference. So in effect, they're saying Boise State should play NONE of their non-conferences games at home? Yeah that makes sense.
I really like this poll.
Not because Boise’s at the top. I know we’ll start dropping to rock bottom soon. I also love seeing Nebraska out of the Top 10. Mind if I ask their schedule rank?
Jshu, all my base belong to yous (no, not in that way)
~ :: ~
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
"It takes no talent to give great effort."
"We’re not going to play to the outside noise." -- Chris Petersen
"[Kellen] Moore is a walking Staples® button." -- Ivan Maisel
Let’s see… Akron, Washington, Maine, Colgate, USF. Good job, Syracuse. The sad thing is, that the Big East is pretty bad this year, so there is a decent chance they will end up being bowl eligible.
After what Greg Robinson did to the Orange, Syracuse figured the Kansas State theory of scheduling might not be such a bad idea (and it isn’t, if you’re a rebuilding team; it’s if you keep up with it while you’re good that’s embarrassing). So playing BC (which surprisingly looks terrible this year), @Virginia Tech, and @Washington this year and playing both Virginia Tech and USC next year was right out. So we backed out of the Virginia Tech series (which allowed them to set up the Boise State game). And then couldn’t find an FBS cupcake to fill the spot on short notice (scheduling 5 non-conference games is a bit of a pain), so we ended up with two FCS games.
I’d be a lot harder on recently good teams with weak schedules than recently bad teams with weak schedules if I were signaling schools out. Though despite that, I’d probably rank you guys #1 if I did a subjective poll vote right now.
I can understand that. A team needs to get their stepping stones to success, and it isn’t like Syracuse has near future aspirations for a national championship.
I just don’t care for the Bill Snyder approach overall. I figured a team like Syracuse would like to be a paycheck game for Penn State. They could probably get more money that approach than from a low-tier bowl game.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
I think that LSU is going to take a plunge after their next 3 opponents
of McNeese State, Auburn, and Alabama. Just playing an FCS team is a big blow, pretty much no matter how much you beat them by, right? And I don’t think that they’ll hang in there with the #5 and #7 teams, but I guess we’ll see.
The results are starting to look really good, and I expect they’ll be even better as the season goes on!
Just playing an FCS team is a big blow, pretty much no matter how much you beat them by, right?
That is correct. With the values I have right now, it is mathematically impossible to get a Net Win, which is a VoW score higher than 0, against an FCS team. The closest a team can get is if a team plays play AT the FCS school, shuts them out and wins by a very significant margin. It gets to be around a VoW of -0.800
The best performance against an FCS school that I can think of is Oregon over Portland State, and that was a VoW of -1.639
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
So, just to clarify,
a win over a team like New Mexico is better than a win over any FCS team? Because I’m pretty sure the best FCS teams are better than the worst FBS teams.
Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice.
That's why I am considering that change...
Washington State beat Montana State and Montana State looks to be a legitimate playoff contender.
The concept is that every FBS team should be able to beat every FCS team. Scholarship allotment favors FBS teams. The level of competition favors FBS teams. The exposure favors FBS teams. It is considered a promotion when an FCS team becomes an FBS team. Western Kentucky was a good FCS team. They became an FBS team, and now they are one of the bottom feeders.
Does the concept match reality? No. But the bad FBS teams will lose FCS matchups. (Ref: San Jose State). Their resume takes a big hit. It still works out. There should be no reasonable excuse for an FBS team to lose to an FCS team. None. Generally, an FBS team’s third string players are offered scholarships OVER an FCS team’s starting players. By design, you should be able to beat an FCS team with your third string players.
However, because the concept doesn’t entirely match reality, I have thought about some ideas, and as you can see in my reply to 071903, I may create something to minimize the penalty if it was a good FCS team.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
On thing to consider though because this is resume based
is that teams should get penalized for playing FCS schools, win or lose. How else could you accurately account for a FCS school on the schedule when you’re looking at resumes? Especially since you’re trying to quantify the quality of victories.
Hey Daisy, git me anudder one!
Addicted to Quack
That's a fair point.
And like I said earlier, even a 69-0 win over Portland State was still a Net Loss. To minimize the penalty, it would have to be done very meticulously, as even a big win should still maintain a net loss, even to the best FCS school in the country, based on the fact that FCS, even the best teams, are scheduled under the basis of an easy win.
Does anybody think Michigan scheduled Appalachian State for the tough competition? Michigan had several key players return in 2007 in hopes of a National Championship. Appalachian State was suppose to be a cakewalk despite the fact that Appalachian State won the FCS NC in 2005, 2006 and later that year, in 2007.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
Exactly
The only other true way to incorporate a FCS game into a resume poll is to completely disregard the game for the FBS school. Personally, I think that giving a school a ZERO for the week is too nice for scheduling a FCS school. I like the fact that playing them detracts from your resume. It’s the opposite of what everyone else does with the ohhh and ahhh of pollsters as they look at how many points you scored. Instead it should be, ah crap, we’re going to take a hit in the polls because we have to play them.
Hey Daisy, git me anudder one!
Addicted to Quack
Giving a school a “zero” would also be a positive thing for bad teams, while being a negative thing for good teams That doesn’t make sense to me.
Furthermore, giving a “zero” would also make it less of a penalty to play an FCS team than a bad FBS team. Imagine if Notre Dame just scheduled FCS teams, they would get more “credit” than Temple’s run through the MAC.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
Badass, Shu!
This post should be rec’d big time every week. A lot of work goes into this and it should be appreciated more. There is no way I have the smarts or the ethic to do something like this in my free time. Not to mention, it seems to be the most unbiased ranking system I have ever seen. Good work.
Cheers!
i can't believe you survived on this blog --
by axemen23 on Sep 2, 2010 9:06 PM PDT
Thanks a lot!
I’ve enjoyed doing it so far, and I’m always thinking about other types of information I can extract out of it. I’m thinking I’m close to letting the formula stay as it is for now.
I’m rolling around the idea of not treating every FCS team the same, which means incorporating FCS teams, like Sagarin does, but I would still include a pretty harsh penalty – which could be minimized, based on the FCS team’s own performance. I half way thinking I’m going to be hitting the limitations of excel though. I’m already nearing the maximum nested IF statements in a few columns, so if I do, I’ll have to get creative. It’s a lot of data, even for a computer to process.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"
What if you just took their record
As a crude approximation to their quality? Make an undefeated FCS team a little better than what you would expect the worst FBS teams to be, and make the winless FCS teams absolutely awful. That way you wouldn’t have to essentially double what you do in your current excel sheet for a minimal number of cross FBS-FCS games. Might be a little screwy in the first couple weeks when there are a bunch of undefeated FCS teams, but since your calculations are dynamic, it would probably get more realistic with time.
Just for fun, I put in the results from last night games, and here is what happened to the top 25.
LSU’s VoW Avg went down by 0.004
Ohio State’s VoW Avg went down 0.037
Nebraska’s went up by 0.008
South Carolina’s went down by 0.004
NC State’s went up by 0.050, and they swapped positions with, now 25th North Carolina.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-I-T-T-L-E-T-I-G-H-T-A-T-T-H-E-H-E-E-L"

by 
















