S-H-U-F-E-L-T-L-I-K-E-P-O-L-L-I-N-G: Week 2 (TL;DR)
I practically doubled my data over the weekend! Unfortunately, that's still not enough to bring any solid resumes to the table. Many bad teams look good, and many good teams look bad. It takes a few weeks for some tangible results - but we're another week closer to that.
There's some wacky stuff here, so let us dive in to the top 25.
| Rank | Team | VoW Avg | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma (1-0) | 2.833 | ↑ 9 |
| 2 | Oklahoma State (2-0) | 1.916 | ↑ 10 |
| 3 | Baylor (1-0) | 1.760 | ↑ 36 |
| 4 | Texas A&M (1-0) | 1.725 | ↑ 7 |
| 5 | Auburn (2-0) | 1.565 | ↑ 31 |
| 6 | South Florida (2-0) | 1.449 | ↑ 20 |
| 7 | Texas (2-0) | 1.391 | ↑ 7 |
| 8 | Florida (2-0) | 1.183 | ↓ 2 |
| 9 | Tulsa (1-1) | 1.138 | ↑ 62 |
| 10 | TCU (1-1) | 1.080 | ↑ 33 |
| 11 | LSU (2-0) | 0.970 | ↑ 9 |
| 12 | Ohio State (2-0) | 0.944 | ↓ 9 |
| 13 | BYU (1-1) | 0.944 | ↑ 16 |
| 14 | Houston (2-0) | 0.936 | ↑ 21 |
| 15 | Stanford (2-0) | 0.870 | ↓ 13 |
| 16 | Alabama (2-0) | 0.849 | ↓ 11 |
| 17 | Michigan (2-0) | 0.842 | ↑ 1 |
| 18 | Bowling Green (2-0) | 0.824 | ↓ 14 |
| 19 | Florida State (2-0) | 0.794 | ↓ 11 |
| 20 | Illinois (2-0) | 0.733 | ↑ 7 |
| 21 | Georgia Tech (2-0) | 0.649 | ↑ 66 |
| 22 | Mississippi State (1-1) | 0.638 | ↓ 21 |
| 23 | Notre Dame (0-2) | 0.629 | ↑ 32 |
| 24 | UCF (2-0) | 0.538 | ↑ 58 |
| 25 | Wisconsin (2-0) | 0.454 | ↓ 16 |
You can see, quite a bit if movement, Tulsa shot up 62 spots, Georgia Tech went up 66 spots. The top is also dominated by teams that have only played, and won, one game.
Notre Dame is getting top 25 consideration by not being blown out to teams that have handed out sizable losses to other teams. The reality of it is, nobody listed here that isn't in the 5 aren't that far away from being ranked in the bottom half of the country.
There still is not a lot to really read into. It's week 2, many teams have only played one game. So given the small amount of data for each team to work with, a vast majority of teams are looking pretty mediocre. Quite a few crappy teams, and then there is Oklahoma - who has only played one game.
But the VoW Avg gap between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, is about the same between WSU (#35) and Florida (#8)
Now on to the extras.
Extra Curriculars
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 (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee (2.702) | vs. Cincinnati (1.080) | W 45-23 | 2.462 |
| Alabama (3.753) | @ Penn State (-0.155) | W 27-11 | 2.401 |
| Auburn (0.860) | vs. Mississippi State (2.321) | W 41-34 | 2.162 |
| Tulsa (0.689) | @ Tulane (-1.459) | W 31-3 | 2.104 |
| Georgia Tech (4.280) | @ Middle Tennessee (-2.636) | W 49-21 | 2.104 |
SEC Representin'. Auburn gets a resume boost from beating the computer's No. 1 team from last week. Tulsa over Tulane is a bit mind boggling, but it's really just both schools getting a little bit of resume credit for Tulsa playing Oklahoma. Not much data in 2 weeks - they have at least 10 more weeks to dilute that.
Bitter Sweet Award
This is awarded to the team that had the most disastrous win of the week. This is generally given to a team that played close against a bad team.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCLA (0.354) | vs. San Jose State (-2.831) | W 27-17 | -0.304 |
| Arkansas State (0.868) | vs. Memphis (-4.806) | W 47-3 | -0.298 |
| Rice (-1.183) | vs. Purdue (0.066) | W 24-22 | -0.176 |
| Michigan (1.691) | vs. Notre Dame (-1.470) | W 35-31 | -0.117 |
| San Diego State (2.636) | @ Army (-2.444) | W 23-20 | 0.079 |
I can't really say this any better. It's actually quite fitting, and probably the most accurate list the computer calculated out so far this year. UCLA had an embarrassing thriller - and yeah, they won by more than two scores, but it actually came down a lot closer than that. San Jose State had a legitimate chance to win late in the 4th quarter.
How about that Michigan/Notre Dame game? Games like that are what make college football great. The Big House looked fantastic under the lights too.
No Shame 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 (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notre Dame (-1.470) | @ Michigan (1.691) | L 31-35 | 1.078 |
| BYU (0.857) | @ Texas (1.533) | L 16-17 | 0.955 |
| Toledo (1.362) | @ Ohio State (2.590) | L 22-27 | 0.640 |
| Rutgers (2.103) | @ North Carolina (1.850) | L 22-24 | 0.272 |
| Mississippi State (2.321) | @ Auburn (0.860) | L 34-41 | 0.180 |
The computer just did this so I can talk more about the Michigan/Notre Dame game. Our friend Brian Floyd had an amusing quick take on the game and Denard Robinson.
I'm also thinking that the only thing "high" on Texas is my computer.
Facepalm 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 (Team VAvg) | Score | VoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane (-1.459) | vs. Tulsa (0.689) | L 3-31 | -3.198 |
| Memphis (-4.806) | @ Arkansas State (0.868) | L 3-47 | -2.254 |
| Kent State (-3.332) | vs. LA-Lafayette (-0.031) | L 12-20 | -2.210 |
| Western Kentucky (-3.034) | vs. Navy (3.600) | L 14-40 | -2.136 |
| Akron (-4.594) | vs. Temple (4.409) | L 3-41 | -2.102 |
Tulane lost to Tulsa who had one of the worst losses in week 1. It's pretty simple. It's just a lot of ugly blow outs here to bad one loss teams.
Conference Rankings
Conference resume strength, sorted by VoW Avg.
| Rank | Conference | Team VAvg | Opp VAvg | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SEC - (20-4) | 1.995 | -1.505 | 0.363 |
| 2 | Big 12 - (14-1) | 1.766 | -1.103 | 0.204 |
| 3 | Independent - (3-5) | 0.136 | 0.253 | 0.131 |
| 4 | Big Ten - (17-7) | 1.487 | -1.794 | -0.293 |
| 5 | Big East - (12-4) | 1.562 | -1.639 | -0.416 |
| 6 | C-USA - (11-12) | -0.642 | 0.269 | -0.494 |
| 7 | ACC - (15-7) | 1.096 | -1.365 | -0.544 |
| 8 | Pac-12 - (16-8) | 0.955 | -1.355 | -0.555 |
| 9 | WAC - (5-10) | -0.697 | 0.082 | -0.687 |
| 10 | MAC - (14-11) | 0.439 | -1.071 | -0.738 |
| 11 | Sun Belt - (5-12) | -1.480 | 1.089 | -0.777 |
| 12 | MWC - (9-6) | 0.534 | -1.202 | -0.928 |
The SEC takes a big leap from their dominate showing this week.Things are already looking fairly accurate with perception on the year. Just for kicks and giggles, I booted out OSU just to see what effect it would have on the Pac-12 rankings, and the conference would actually be up to 3rd. Losing to FCS teams suck, and it reflects on the whole conference.
Pac-12 Conference Rankings
| Rank | Conference | Team VAvg | Opp VAvg | VoW Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stanford - (2-0) | 4.571 | -3.164 | 0.870 |
| 2 | California - (2-0) | 1.983 | -1.942 | 0.416 |
| 3 | Oregon - (1-1) | 0.781 | 0.103 | 0.402 |
| 4 | UCLA - (1-1) | 0.354 | -0.122 | 0.348 |
| 5 | Washington State - (2-0) | 4.052 | -4.229 | 0.299 |
| 6 | Arizona State - (2-0) | 2.225 | -2.209 | -0.170 |
| 7 | USC - (2-0) | 0.845 | -0.587 | -0.298 |
| 8 | Arizona - (1-1) | 0.296 | -0.931 | -0.639 |
| 9 | Colorado - (0-2) | -2.180 | 1.226 | -1.060 |
| 10 | Washington - (2-0) | 0.854 | -2.087 | -1.505 |
| 11 | Utah - (1-1) | 0.412 | -1.899 | -1.685 |
| 12 | Oregon State - (0-2) | -2.732 | -0.421 | -3.630 |
The Oregon fan in me is laughing at CU being ranked ahead of UW. I wish I could say it was intentional. And yes - WSU is ranked in the top half of the conference.
Top 10 Toughest Schedules
These schools have so far had the most difficult opponents, according to their VAvg. This isn't always indicative of always playing great opponents, but playing opponents that have had a high Team Value, like explosive, high octane, high-winning opponents.
| Rank | Team (Record) | Conference | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UAB - (0-1) | C-USA | 3.978 |
| 2 | UNLV - (0-2) | MWC | 3.926 |
| 3 | Florida Atlantic - (0-2) | Sun Belt | 3.762 |
| 4 | Akron - (0-2) | MAC | 3.499 |
| 5 | Boston College - (0-2) | ACC | 3.282 |
| 6 | New Mexico - (0-2) | MWC | 3.181 |
| 7 | Georgia - (0-2) | SEC | 2.896 |
| 8 | East Carolina - (0-2) | C-USA | 2.888 |
| 9 | Miami (FL) - (0-1) | ACC | 2.873 |
| 10 | North Texas - (0-2) | Sun Belt | 2.679 |
I don't really have much commentary for this here. UAB is getting a nice boost because their only game has been against Florida. Unsurprisingly, nobody here has won a game yet.
Bottom 10 Toughest Schedules
These schools have so far had the easiest opponents, according to their VAvg. This isn't always indicative of always playing the weakest opponents, but playing opponents that have had a low Team Value, like low scoring teams that find themselves losing more than winning.
| Rank | Team (Record) | Conference | Opp VAvg |
|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | Eastern Michigan - (2-0) | MAC | -4.643 |
| 119 | Wyoming - (2-0) | MWC | -4.643 |
| 118 | Texas Tech - (1-0) | Big 12 | -4.643 |
| 117 | Kansas State - (1-0) | Big 12 | -4.643 |
| 116 | Temple - (2-0) | MAC | -4.618 |
| 115 | Washington State - (2-0) | Pac-12 | -4.229 |
| 114 | Michigan State - (2-0) | Big Ten | -4.212 |
| 113 | Arkansas - (2-0) | SEC | -3.950 |
| 112 | Colorado State - (2-0) | MWC | -3.950 |
| 111 | Navy - (2-0) | Independent | -3.839 |
Apparently Bill Snyder is in charge of 3 teams' scheduling now. EMU and Wyoming have played two FCS schools. Texas Tech and Kansas had to take a bye week after playing the tough week 1 FCS schools. Temple has gone with the "almost FCS" teams, Villanova and Akron.
Games to Watch/Stream/TiVo/"Acquire"
These are this week's matchups that have a high VoW Avg and also has a small disparity between the two teams.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Team VAvg Diff | Team VAvg Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida State (4.258) | vs. Oklahoma (3.345) | 0.913 | 3.802 |
| West Virginia (3.17) | @ Maryland (2.873) | 0.297 | 3.022 |
| LSU (3.286) | @ Mississippi State (2.321) | 0.965 | 2.803 |
| Illinois (3.221) | vs. Arizona State (2.225) | 0.996 | 2.723 |
| Eastern Michigan (2.162) | @ Michigan (1.691) | 0.471 | 1.927 |
This is Florida State's only game this year. They'll likely end up with one of the easiest schedules. They practically a shoe-in for a BCS game.
The LSU @ Mississippi State game could be very good.
Games to Watch During a Root Canal
These are this week's matchups with the largest discrepancies between the two. They are projected to be pretty big blowouts.
| Team (Team VAvg) | Opp (Team VAvg) | Team VAvg Diff | Team VAvg Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama (3.753) | vs. North Texas (-3.641) | 7.395 | 0.056 |
| Texas Tech (3.74) | @ New Mexico (-3.257) | 6.998 | 0.242 |
| Arkansas (4.026) | vs. Troy (-2.706) | 6.731 | 0.660 |
| Cincinnati (1.08) | vs. Akron (-4.594) | 5.674 | -1.757 |
| Ohio State (2.59) | @ Miami (FL) (-2.873) | 5.463 | -0.142 |
Alabama vs. North Texas? I think that would make my TiVo fall asleep.
I bet Ohio State and Miami weren't expecting to get on this list (I know you schools RSS this!), and I bet nobody last year was thinking this would be a bad match-up. Who knows - maybe it will be a good game. Neither school really has had much of a chance to do anything.
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 has been a bonus for shutting a team out, however, I lowered the base amount for this bonus, and added an additional formula that raises and lowers the bonus based upon the quality of the opponent. You will always get extra points for shutting a team out, but you won't get as much against a really bad team, however you can potentially earn MORE than before if you shutout a good team.
- 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.
- 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 probably know more about my computer poll than the ones that actually influence the BCS.
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.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I didn't even read the title, it was so goddamn long.
But seriously, I stopped reading at “Tulsa”.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
I love this.
It reminds me of the old RIP BCS rating. Keep up the great work!
STATEMENT! STATEMENT! STATEMENT!
You really really likes you some Big 12 dontcha?
Coincidence? I THINK NOT.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ.
Follow @MrBenzduck on the Twitters!
SUCK IT WAC
8 Pac-12 – (16-8) 0.955 -1.355 -0.555
9 WAC – (5-10) -0.697 0.082 -0.687
Now with mustache guarantee!
What week do you expect the rankings to start looking a bit more conventional? I love this method, but obviously right now these are based on very small sample sizes, most of which consist of a BCS school playing a patsy or two. So when do we start getting some meaningful results? I would guess around week 4 or 5 things start looking better, but maybe it’s later than that.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I never suspect it to look TOO conventional. Conventional polls are reactive, and over reactive. They are like training a dog, scold when they do something bad and praise when they do something well.
While this is more like the results of a race – yeah, there’s a 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place – but 1st place might win by a mile and could theoretically ease off the pedal a bit later on, and still remain in 1st place. ( put in the graph as an illustration of those existing gaps, where is one way a head of everyone, and then there are a few ahead of the pack.
But as each week goes by, the results get to be more and more meaningful. By week 6, I think you’ll have enough to really walk away with a good idea of where all the teams currently are at. That gives most teams a 5 to 6 game resume. Right now, everyone has 1 to 2.
In addition, there are 113 FBS vs. FCS games scheduled this year. A little more than half of those games have already been played (I omitted the FCS games from the results this week. There were so many of them). All but about 37 of them will be played after this week, and in Week 5, they’ll be pretty uncommon. So everyone’s resume is going to look bad right now. As more FBS vs FBS games are being played and as conference play gets in full swing, the more valuable cross-reference data there will be.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I'm curious, since you clearly spend a lot of time on this,
Have you looked into what kind of predictive value your rankings have for upcoming games? (I’m actually curious if anyone has done this kind of analysis for any of the polls; I suspect Sagarin has; links would be welcomed.)
I’m finding every year I give fewer and fewer fucks where teams are ranked, including Oregon. I give even fewer fucks what perceived conference strength is. If there was evidence anywhere that polls of any kind actually predict outcomes accurately, I might be convinced to join the groupwank (Is there a German word for that? If not, there should be.)
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 13, 2011 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
There really isn't any reliably predictive value.
But essentially 1.000 VAvg is approximately equal to 1 touchdown (7 points. I make the case that it isn’t the kicker’s job to make the extra point, but the kicker’s job to not miss it). A negative VAvg would indicate a team that is damaged by their own ineptitude. So a team with a VAvg of about -1 would be a team that is likely to give a TD than to force a TD. This is not balanced against the skill of their opponents. and those numbers are not exact, just a rough approximation.
So with a game like: Alabama (3.753) vs. North Texas (-3.641)
You’re looking at Alabama forcing over 21 points, and North Texas giving over 21 points. That isn’t to say Alabama should win by 42, but that’s about what they need to to improve their
If North Texas keeps it within about 21 points, they’ll get a positive Value of Win, despite the loss.
If Alabama forces over 21 points, they’ll get a positive Value of Win, but it still lower their VoW Avg until about 40 points.
All those numbers are not taking into consideration the diminishing of returns. So really, the fact that Alabama is playing North Texas at all, will have a negative effect on their resume – despite whatever they win by. (Unless North Texas somehow turns out to be good later in the season).
But I will say, just for shits and giggles, I used my poll last week to figure out who to pick for the bowl pickem, and for a lot of the mid-majors and lesser known teams, I did quite well. For the matches that were more competitive – or a low VoW Avg differential, I did less so.
But because college football is wildly inconsistent, Washington beat Nebraska.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-I-M-P-A-T-I-E-N-T".
"YOU ARE THE KING OF THE AWESOME GUYS, JSHUFELT!!!" - daisyduck
I Googled it for myself!
For the nerdily statistically inclined, here’s a PDF from 2002. They looked at predictive value of a bunch of computer ranking systems. R-squared values at best were around .28 (roughly 70% predictive of any given game’s outcome).
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Sep 13, 2011 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions

by 





















