NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Subjective Voting: Ya gotta Love It!
October 3, 2012, 06:11 PM
Ok, Most of you know my feelings on the polls and subjective voting running (or ru'i'ning) our NC. I'm not in favor, to say the least.

But today I read a article, and it made sense. I didn't like the 'bottom line', but it was was correct logical thinking, IMO. It was this weeks "Power Rankings" by SI's Andy Staples (http://tinyurl.com/Week -5-PR).

I also looked at the AP poll, which Mr Staples power rankings contribute to. They didn't make as much sense, tho I was better pleased with the outcome.

Here is the point of contention: you have 3 teams, say teams A, B, and C. All play in the same conference and therefore have roughly the same SOS. All have 1 loss. Team C lost to team B. Team B lost to team A. Team A lost to, at the time, the number 2 team, and still undefeated, LSU.

Andy's logic says that even tho team A's loss to LSU was a blowout, it could have been just "one of those days", an aberration, whatever... and it was to one of the 2 current CFB gods. Since the SOS is similar, same conference and all, Andy felt Team A, Washington, had to be rated above Team B, Stanford, and they must be ranked above team C, USC. I don't like it, but it is correct thinking to have U Dub, the Tree Peeps, and Troy at 16, 17, and 18 (I disagree with the placement but the relational concept is correct, and I agree that U Dubs blowout to LSU kinda forced his hand in putting all 3 so low).

Here's the rub: the "official" AP poll has it bass ackwards. USC is at 13, Stanford is at 18, and U Dub is at 23. The other major poll, the one with inherrant bias and compiled by individuals who delegate and don't watch the games, had them relationally the same: USC at 12, Stanford at 18, and U Dub not rated (sux to be U Dub). Additionally the poll voters have another little flaw; they don't switch teams around without some event forcing the issue, so if all 3 won out, their place in the poll would remain relative to each other and the rankings, as is often the case, would be the exact opposite of actual "On The Field" (OTF) results.

This representative scenario is, bottom line, why I dislike polls running the show.

OK, I've vented, what say ye? Take your best shot...
October 3, 2012  08:11 PM ET
QUOTE:

so if all 3 won out, their place in the poll would remain relative to each other and the rankings, as is often the case, would be the exact opposite of actual "On The Field" (OTF) results.

"So if all three won out" is a whole lot of conjecture and very unlikely, may I even say impossible since Washington hosts USC Oct. 13.

Second thing, about the "On The Field Results", are we supposed to disregard what happened to Washington on the field at LSU?

1. Wash. loses by 38 points at LSU.
2. USC loses by seven at Stanford.
3. Stanford loses by four at Wash.

Let the season play out and then we can re-visit your beef with the polls.

October 4, 2012  12:06 AM ET
QUOTE:

Andy's logic says that even tho team A's loss to LSU was a blowout, it could have been just "one of those days", an aberration, whatever...

Why isn't this "logic" applied to the other results? How can it apply in some cases and not others?

October 4, 2012  01:12 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

"So if all three won out" is a whole lot of conjecture and very unlikely, may I even say impossible since Washington hosts USC Oct. 13. Second thing, about the "On The Field Results", are we supposed to disregard what happened to Washington on the field at LSU?1. Wash. loses by 38 points at LSU.2. USC loses by seven at Stanford.3. Stanford loses by four at Wash.Let the season play out and then we can re-visit your beef with the polls.

That part was strictly a hypothetical my good bear, just using this in making a point. I meant to add the fact thatI realized it was impossible, but oldtimers smacked me up side the head (I forgot to add it).

This little rant is just meant as a real life scenario where polls put OTF results secondary to things like perception, tradition, and last weeks vote.

Re UDubs loss to LSU, I did state "(I disagree with the placement but the relational concept is correct, and I agree that U Dubs blowout to LSU kinda forced his hand in putting all 3 so low)", so I recognize that loss plays a part in all this.

But let me add this: last year one of the arguments FOR Alabama over Okie State was that Bama's loss was to a better team (LSU) than Okie States loss (ISU) was. Do we no longer hold that line of reasoning for some reason?

And you know me, I love to argue about how sucky the BCS and the subjective method of chosing our championship contenders are; with D2 being so nice lately I was going through withdrawals for a good fight, so I started one myself (the next on my list is the O'bannon case and how the NCAA should be letting the atheletes make money off their "brand").

October 4, 2012  01:16 PM ET

BTW, after coming back from med leave I changed my avatar and now it won't show up. I seem to remember something about Google Chrome instalation causing something like that.

Any IT guys out there that can tell me what to do to get my avi back?

October 4, 2012  01:19 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Why isn't this "logic" applied to the other results? How can it apply in some cases and not others?

Ask Andy. Bottom line is logic in polls is applied in some cases and not others all the time. but I hear your logic and mos def know its a weak link in my arg.

October 4, 2012  01:23 PM ET

There should be no coaches' poll. It's an embarrassment. Kill it.
The AP poll is compiled from ballots of folks paid to analyze and report on the games. It manifests its own bias (e.g. "National Champions Colorado" after the 5th down game season).
The computerized polls which include human poll inputs are tainted by those sources.
There should be one CFB Czar, me. Begin petitioning for my installation.

October 4, 2012  01:23 PM ET

BTW, I like reading Andy Staple's Power Rankings. I also like BBQ.

October 4, 2012  01:23 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

"So if all three won out" is a whole lot of conjecture and very unlikely, may I even say impossible since Washington hosts USC Oct. 13. Second thing, about the "On The Field Results", are we supposed to disregard what happened to Washington on the field at LSU?1. Wash. loses by 38 points at LSU.2. USC loses by seven at Stanford.3. Stanford loses by four at Wash.Let the season play out and then we can re-visit your beef with the polls.

BTW Nork, I have decided there is nothing I could do about the method of choosing a champion so there was no point in loosing any sleep over it (kinda my New Years resolution in July), which I'm not.

I just couldn't resist what I felt were largely hyppocritical poll standings.

October 4, 2012  01:25 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

There should be no coaches' poll. It's an embarrassment. Kill it. The AP poll is compiled from ballots of folks paid to analyze and report on the games. It manifests its own bias (e.g. "National Champions Colorado" after the 5th down game season). The computerized polls which include human poll inputs are tainted by those sources. There should be one CFB Czar, me. Begin petitioning for my installation.

Where do I put my John Hancock Tinnie?

October 5, 2012  08:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

1.That part was strictly a hypothetical my good bear, just using this in making a point. I meant to add the fact thatI realized it was impossible, but oldtimers smacked me up side the head (I forgot to add it).

This little rant is just meant as a real life scenario where polls put OTF results secondary to things like perception, tradition, and last weeks vote.

Re UDubs loss to LSU, I did state "(I disagree with the placement but the relational concept is correct, and I agree that U Dubs blowout to LSU kinda forced his hand in putting all 3 so low)", so I recognize that loss plays a part in all this.

2. But let me add this: last year one of the arguments FOR Alabama over Okie State was that Bama's loss was to a better team (LSU) than Okie States loss (ISU) was. Do we no longer hold that line of reasoning for some reason?

3. And you know me, I love to argue about how sucky the BCS and the subjective method of chosing our championship contenders are; with D2 being so nice lately I was going through withdrawals for a good fight, so I started one myself (the next on my list is the O'bannon case and how the NCAA should be letting the atheletes make money off their "brand").

1. That you would use such a subjective example in your argument against... subjectivity in the polls is kind of funny and more than kind of ironic!

2. LSU's three point overtime win over previously unbeaten Alabama is a far FAR cry from LSU's 38 point drubbing of Washington. 35 points of objective difference.

3. The thread title is about subjective voting, I'm not getting into the BCS. Any poll on any subject will have some bias and subjectivity, that's the nature of polls. Polls are used to predict the outcome, results may vary.

And the CFB AP poll is based on results, not fairy tails and superstition or any other whimsical musings (aka coaches poll) as some like to imagine.

October 5, 2012  10:40 AM ET

I posted my view on Staples's rankings in the "What we learned from UDub" thread. I think Andy Staples is the biggest idiot with an AP vote. I'm probably wrong because identifying the true biggest idiot is really hard. (Maybe we should start our own poll ranking the idiots in the AP poll.)

My feeling is voters should rank the teams where they think they belong based on performance thus far during the season. That's why it's called an opinion poll. The ballot should not put weight on individual results. The ballot should not apply rules. If you truly believe Washington is a better team than both Stanford and USC, then your ballot should reflect that. But don't rank them that way just because a rule says you're supposed to. If I want mindless adherence to rules, I'll ask a computer.

And as I said in the other thread: rules are for stupid people who can't think for themselves.

October 5, 2012  03:58 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

And the CFB AP poll is based on results, not fairy tails and superstition or any other whimsical musings (aka coaches poll) as some like to imagine.

And all else aside, my whole hypothesis is that the poll has ignored the most telling of results, head 2 head.

Ok, if you want to throw U-Dubs loss to LSU out the window cuz it was a blowout, fine (tho my arg would be we have no idea how USC or Stanford would have held up against LSU).

But that sez nothing about Stanford being ranked behind USC after beating USC in a fairly demonstrative way (God I hate arguing against USC this way). After the 1st quarter they made a joke of USC's lines, especially Offensive.

I just don't buy into ranking a team that deciseively beat another team, and has the same record as the other team, and realatively the same SOS, being outranked in the polls by that team. I didn't buy it in 1978 (USC beat Bama 24-14, but the game was worse than the score), and I don't but it now. Ignoring that H-2-H, to me, is ignoring the most important OTF results there are.

But it's all good, I understand that there are many who disagree with that logic. In 1978 I felt that USC should have been concensus #1 (or at least ahead of Bama) because of H2H. To now be OK with USC being rated higher than Stanford, in spite of the H2H, would, IMO, be hyppocritical of me.

October 5, 2012  04:42 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

1. That you would use such a subjective example in your argument against... subjectivity in the polls is kind of funny and more than kind of ironic!
2. LSU's three point overtime win over previously unbeaten Alabama is a far FAR cry from LSU's 38 point drubbing of Washington. 35 points of objective difference.
3. The thread title is about subjective voting, I'm not getting into the BCS. Any poll on any subject will have some bias and subjectivity, that's the nature of polls. Polls are used to predict the outcome, results may vary.And the CFB AP poll is based on results, not fairy tails and superstition or any other whimsical musings (aka coaches poll) as some like to imagine.

1. I quess I'm kinda thick, I didn't get the #1 arg. But generally speaking I consider hypothetical and subjective as 2 diff words with diff meanings applied differently.

2. Its relative. For team ranked #'s 1, 2, and 3 you would expect a loss to the top ranked team to be very close (say a 3 pt dif). If not the loser could be considered not in the same class, like Bama in '78. But for teams at the lower end of the top 25 to get beaten deciseively by a team in the top 3 isn't such a far cry, relatively speaking, as the 1st scenario. Kansas State beat Miami by 39, roughly the same delta as LSU beat U-Dub; yet most of the pundits who voted KSU 7 and ND 9 expect this weeks ND Miami game to be competitive.

IOW you would expect a larger margin of victory for #1 when they play #25 (say 30 to 40 pts) than when they play #2. So relatively speaking the same reasoning applies: It's not as bad to get beat by a very good team as it is to get beat by a mediocre team, margin of victory being relative. You would expect LSU's margin of victory over U-Dub to be greater than Stanfords margin over USC. Bottom line both victories were pretty decisive, but as expected U-Dubs loss was MORE decisive since they were playing #2 (or is it 3?). If the logic is valid once...

3. Cool, but the only reason that the polls are objectionable is because of the BCS. I would agree tho that the AP POLL is more based on on results than the coaches poll, but where humans are concerned bias, feelings, subjectivity are gonna b there no matter what.

October 5, 2012  04:46 PM ET

BTW tGB, good discussion as always. rarely are we in agreement on these types of subjects, but I can depend on you for a good civil well thought out debate, whether you believe any of my stories or not.

I love ya Man... er Beast... er Bear... whatever ;-)

October 5, 2012  04:49 PM ET
QUOTE(#11):

I think Andy Staples is the biggest idiot with an AP vote.

Maybe so, but he does appreciate the finer arts of 'Que, and that's a redeeming quality.

October 5, 2012  04:52 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Where do I put my John Hancock Tinnie?

Organize, and crash the NCAA servers repeatedly. Overwhelm them with demands that I be installed as CFB Czar. Be firm. Fanatical. All "experienced" souls are tainted. Only I will do. Then, split efforts. Continue the barrage upon the NCAA, but systematically focus on all CFB dominated sports sites. Crash them with the same demands and fanatical insistence that I am the one.

October 5, 2012  06:36 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Organize, and crash the NCAA servers repeatedly. Overwhelm them with demands that I be installed as CFB Czar. Be firm. Fanatical. All "experienced" souls are tainted. Only I will do. Then, split efforts. Continue the barrage upon the NCAA, but systematically focus on all CFB dominated sports sites. Crash them with the same demands and fanatical insistence that I am the one.

Hmm, crach servers... is that like tripping a waiter or something? I dunno, but I can overwhelm them with demands: my water isn't col enuff, my soups too cold, this steak isn't rare enuff, the eggs are runny... And then I'll tell them about you being CFB Czar.

Don't know how much pull waiters have with the NCAA or BCS tho... And the organize parts really hard for me, I'm too lazy. But I know a coupl'a guys that would pro'lly bug the waiters if I bought 'em a meal.

October 5, 2012  08:21 PM ET
QUOTE(#12):

But that sez nothing about Stanford being ranked behind USC after beating USC in a fairly demonstrative way (God I hate arguing against USC this way). After the 1st quarter they made a joke of USC's lines, especially Offensive.

I just don't buy into ranking a team that deciseively beat another team, and has the same record as the other team, and realatively the same SOS, being outranked in the polls by that team.

You make good points in many of your arguments about the polls but I think it's worth mentioning that Stanford was for two weeks in a row ranked above USC after the Cardinal beat USC. It was after the Stanford loss at Washington that they fell back behind USC.

And Ult, the only thing 'thick' about you is your hide! And good thing too. (;

October 5, 2012  09:09 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

BTW Nork, I have decided there is nothing I could do about the method of choosing a champion so there was no point in loosing any sleep over it (kinda my New Years resolution in July), which I'm not.

And yet you created a Message Board to discuss....

LOL.

Just picking UlT...you know I couldn't help it.

I am objectively subjective about this subject.

 
October 6, 2012  04:11 AM ET

The polls are simple.

- start with a pool of roughly 150 teams
- give them a 12 game schedule
- begin with subjective preseason rankings
- throw in all sorts of unpredictable circumstances
- toss in stadium attendance and recruiting rankings
- inject a healthy dose of media bias
- add circular logic based on the subjective preseason rankings
- get a group of rocket scientists together to figure this mess out

Wait.
Forget the rocket scientists. They're too smart. No people skills.

Let's use journalists. Yes journalists!
They know how to spell. And correctly place commas.
They have people skills.
Plus they are CFB experts. Ya?

And for one other opinion we'll use the coaches.
CFB coaches spend their Saturdays watching other CFB teams play.
Right?


Simple.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2163
    Comments
    866
  2. 2
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2011
    Comments
    527
  3. 3
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    2042
    Comments
    146
  4. 4
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2033
    Comments
    139
  5. 5
    Cup drought weighing on Sid
    Views
    2332
    Comments
    107

SI.com

SI Photos