No SRS this year

[bisonaudit]

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...-rating-system

They're going to start publishing it in October but it won't be a factor in the playoff selection this season.

Apparently the MVFC is going to use it as a tie-breaking criteria for the auto-bid spot but the story wasn't clear on if it was going to be the 1st factor of somewhere down the list.

This whole thing is probably going to get blown up the minute it recommends 5 MVFC, 5 Big Sky, and only 1 Ohio Valley, 1 Southern, or 1 Patriot anyway.

[tony]

I remember D2's simple ranking system - piss-poor.

If they want transparency they should use the GPI. It'll be a helluva lot better than something a committee can come up with.

[gumby013]

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...-rating-system

They're going to start publishing it in October but it won't be a factor in the playoff selection this season.

Apparently the MVFC is going to use it as a tie-breaking criteria for the auto-bid spot but the story wasn't clear on if it was going to be the 1st factor of somewhere down the list.

This whole thing is probably going to get blown up the minute it recommends 5 MVFC, 5 Big Sky, and only 1 Ohio Valley,1 Southern, or 1 Patriot anyway.

Even when they start releasing it in October, it is going to start throwing out some anomalies, thanks to the Ivy League. Not that the Ivies are in the playoffs. They don't start even playing this year until week 4. Having teams that badly connected to everyone else is going to screw things up in the early releases.

[bisonaudit]

I remember D2's simple ranking system - piss-poor.

If they want transparency they should use the GPI. It'll be a helluva lot better than something a committee can come up with.

The GPI is just an imitation BCS. The computers are neutered in the same way that the BCS computers are (no margin of victory). It's a subjective poll dressed up as an objective measure.

I do agree that there's plenty of room for the committee to screw this up and I have zero confidence that they won't.

What did D2 use? I only remember the poll era which was a joke. They just slotted the top vote getters in the 4 regional polls into 1-4, then 5-8, etc. plus or minus a slot here or there.

[HerdBot]

I'm with Coach Stig on disliking the margin of victory. It penalizes teams like the Bison and Jacks who build their teams around defense and ball control which generally lead to lower scoring games

[No_Skill]

I'm with Coach Stig on disliking the margin of victory. It penalizes teams like the Bison and Jacks who build their teams around defense and ball control which generally lead to lower scoring games

Maybe it shouldn't be a straight margin of victory number. It could be a ratio. For example a 14-7 win would have the same value as a 48-24 victory.

[bisonaudit]

I'm with Coach Stig on disliking the margin of victory. It penalizes teams like the Bison and Jacks who build their teams around defense and ball control which generally lead to lower scoring games

A) It's margin of victory. 20-0 counts the same as 40-20.
B) NDSU has come out on top of every objective system that includes margin of victory as a component that I've seen the last 2 seasons. And the MVFC (I think we'd agree the most physical of the FCS conferences) has sat on the top of the conference rankings as well.
C) Even if they're not capped explicitly (which the committee is talking about doing) the algorithms employed (from what I understand reading about Sagarin) are self limiting when it comes to blow outs. Properly understood, they don't encourage teams to run up the score because at some point the statistics recognize the outcome as an outlier and discount it.
D) The evidence is very strong that including margin of victory improves the ability of the model to predict the outcome of future contests.

[bisonaudit]

Maybe it shouldn't be a straight margin of victory number. It could be a ratio. For example a 14-7 win would have the same value as a 48-24 victory.

I don't think you're going to find may people who would agree that those two outcomes are of the same value?

Computationally, what do you do when someone wins 2-0? Calculate that ratio for me.

[Trumpster]

I don't think you're going to find may people who would agree that those two outcomes are of the same value?

Computationally, what do you do when someone wins 2-0? Calculate that ratio for me.

[HerdBot]

A) It's margin of victory. 20-0 counts the same as 40-20.
B) NDSU has come out on top of every objective system that includes margin of victory as a component that I've seen the last 2 seasons. And the MVFC (I think we'd agree the most physical of the FCS conferences) has sat on the top of the conference rankings as well.
C) Even if they're not capped explicitly (which the committee is talking about doing) the algorithms employed (from what I understand reading about Sagarin) are self limiting when it comes to blow outs. Properly understood, they don't encourage teams to run up the score because at some point the statistics recognize the outcome as an outlier and discount it.
D) The evidence is very strong that including margin of victory improves the ability of the model to predict the outcome of future contests.

Last year we won 3 conference games by a total of 13 points and lost to Indiana State by 3. In 4 games we have a +10 margin of victory.

Last year we were +130 in conference play. Take out the USD game and Youngstown (which was a little misleading) and its pretty average.

Of course we play in a beast of a conference. Depends how they measure it