menu
Logo
person
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
person
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Clearly the Worst 7-0 Team in the Country
Page: 3 of 3
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 10/11/2012 4:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Correct
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,764
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 10/11/2012 10:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF, I want to play the best competition we can in all sports, win or lose. I can't stand hearing all the rah rah comments about rankings and bowl games in basketball and football and we're going to be the next Boise State in football and Gonzaga in basketball. Oh by the way, we're playing teams like Gardner Webb and Norfolk State on a consistant basis. We have to go on the road and earn it, plain and simple. Then we can talk all that s!@#.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 10/11/2012 11:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
So you don't actually care if we win or lose or how to build and run a program as much as who we're playing against. Got it.
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:00 AM
settings_applications edit_note
oucs 1986 wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched.  The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only.  His page says that straight out and of course this is the case.  Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all.  That isn't to say it doesn't matter.  It matters a lot.  It is fundamental to the whole thing.  Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result  and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier.  If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80.  If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60  -  2 -  3 (for home field) or about 55.  Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results.  It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns.  This is easily solved by a computer.  The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much.  I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want.  I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours.  So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing.  It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns  247 coefficients... 247 constants...  

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"?  No?

-john



I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer.  I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown.  I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above.  I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent...  You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings.  It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done.  That would make it a much less accurate sequential system.  You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.
Last Edited: 10/12/2012 11:17:32 AM by Victory
oucs 1986
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Mason, OH
Post Count: 251
mail
oucs 1986
mail
Posted: 10/12/2012 7:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Victory wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.

Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 10/13/2012 12:08 AM
settings_applications edit_note
oucs 1986 wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea.  Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/13/2012 11:29 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea.  Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.

Yep, we've got one of those cool quote-box art things going here.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,700
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 10/13/2012 7:00 PM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea.  Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.

Yep, we've got one of those cool quote-box art things going here.


I believe that Monroe is the standing Guinness Book record holder.  However, that record was made entirely of Monroe quoting himself and then quoting himself quoting himself, etc.  So that record may stand as the individual record.  Here we are going for the team record.
Last Edited: 10/13/2012 7:06:32 PM by OhioCatFan
Nash'Cat
General User
Member Since: 3/29/2012
Location: Nashville, TN
Post Count: 156
mail
Nash'Cat
mail
Posted: 10/13/2012 7:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea.  Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.

Yep, we've got one of those cool quote-box art things going here.


I believe that Monroe is the standing Guinness Book record holder.  However, that record was made entirely of Monroe quoting himself and then quoting himself quoting himself, etc.  So that record may stand as the individual record.  Here we are going for the team record.


Go Team Go?
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,849
person
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 10/13/2012 9:36 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I expect this from slavin and ocf, but from LC?
nyghtmare
General User
N
Member Since: 2/12/2006
Post Count: 129
person
mail
nyghtmare
mail
Posted: 10/14/2012 8:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Nash'Cat wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea. Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.

Yep, we've got one of those cool quote-box art things going here.


I believe that Monroe is the standing Guinness Book record holder. However, that record was made entirely of Monroe quoting himself and then quoting himself quoting himself, etc. So that record may stand as the individual record. Here we are going for the team record.


Go Team Go?
I'm just trying to dot the i....
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,764
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 10/14/2012 10:14 AM
settings_applications edit_note
There is a pecking order in college football and basketball. If you choose to ignore it, then you choose to ignore it. If you're happy playing and beating teams like Gardner Webb, Norfolk State and the like, then you don't really know how good you are and you end up playing 6-6 teams from the Big Ten in the Motor City Bowl in front of 15,000 people. If you also think that having a bunch of great seasons against lower level teams gains you admission into the top 25 and elite program status, think again. You will always have to earn it against higher level competition.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,700
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 10/14/2012 10:26 AM
settings_applications edit_note

Game results

Date Winning team Losing team Attendance Game
December 26, 1997 Mississippi 34 Marshall 31 43,340 Game article
December 23, 1998 Marshall 48 Louisville 29 38,016 Game article
December 27, 1999 Marshall 21 BYU 3 52,449 Game article
December 27, 2000 Marshall 25 Cincinnati 14 52,911 Game article
December 29, 2001 Toledo 23 Cincinnati 16 44,164 Game article
December 26, 2002 Boston College 51 Toledo 25 45,761 Game article
December 26, 2003 Bowling Green 28 Northwestern 24 51,286 Game article
December 27, 2004[3] Connecticut 39 Toledo 10 52,552 Game article
December 26, 2005[4] Memphis 38 Akron 31 45,801 Game article
December 26, 2006[5] Central Michigan 31 Middle Tennessee 14 54,113 Game article
December 26, 2007 Purdue 51 Central Michigan 48 60,624 Game article
December 26, 2008 Florida Atlantic 24 Central Michigan 21 41,399 Game article
December 26, 2009 Marshall 21 Ohio 17 30,331 Game article
December 26, 2010 FIU 34 Toledo 32 32,431 Game article
December 27, 2011 Purdue 37 Western Michigan 32 46,177 Game article
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/14/2012 3:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
nyghtmare wrote:expand_more
Rank isn't going to be .85*PRE +.1*ELO + .05*sched. The rank is synthesized from PRE and ELO only. His page says that straight out and of course this is the case. Schedule strength won't figure in that synthesis at all. That isn't to say it doesn't matter. It matters a lot. It is fundamental to the whole thing. Your rating for predictive and ELO is figured off of the game result and the rating of your opponent.

As L.C described earlier. If you win a game by 10 points over a team with a 70 rating on a neutral field your predictive raking for that game is about 80. If you lose a game by 2 at home to a team with a 60 rating your predictive ranking for that game is about 60 - 2 - 3 (for home field) or about 55. Of course your opponents rating is solved the same way off of your rating and their opponents ratings and their game results. It is 246 equations in 246 unknowns. This is easily solved by a computer. The Sagarin Predictive rating is in actuality probably just a little more complicated than that description but not much. I have an Excel Program that can do just what I described and the result comes out very close to Sagarin Predictor.

You can Google ELO Ratings if you want. I won't bother to describe it here.

Basically, if you had the same game score results as a team whose opponents in each game was exactly 15 points lower than you then their rating would be exactly 15 points lower than yours. So SOS is fundamental to the whole thing. It just won't correlate the way you are looking at it.


So I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that there would be a large matrix... 247 unknowns 247 coefficients... 247 constants...

I'm guessing the 247 constants would be your current PREDICTOR rating, and the 247 coefficients would be "expected margin of victory"? No?

-john


I am sure that there is more than one way to get the answer. I took each teams predictive rating to be an unknown. I set up the equation calculating from game result and opponent rating as described in simple system above. I used an Newton-Raphson Numerical Method to solve for the ratings.


Right, but you need a "rating" for the opponent... You're using the one prior to the current one i assume

Interested in working on it more.. thx for the yack.

-john

Clearing this up.

I said Correct, but I should clear that in the Newton-Raphson Numerical Method I mean that the opponent's ratings are the ratings from the iteration prior to the current one during the solve for this week's ratings. It keeps iterating over and over until there is not a change in any schools rating. Just to be clear it isn't last week's rating and then you are done. That would make it a much less accurate sequential system. You could start the first iteration with last weeks rating but if you keep iterating until there isn't change it won't matter what ratings you start with because there is only one right answer to the system of equations.



Right, it's Newton's mehod; iterate until the error margin goes to zero...

-j


I have no idea. Just want to set the Guinness for nested quotes.

Yep, we've got one of those cool quote-box art things going here.


I believe that Monroe is the standing Guinness Book record holder. However, that record was made entirely of Monroe quoting himself and then quoting himself quoting himself, etc. So that record may stand as the individual record. Here we are going for the team record.


Go Team Go?


I'm just trying to dot the i....

and I have to be serious all the time?
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/14/2012 3:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
giacomo wrote:expand_more
There is a pecking order in college football and basketball. If you choose to ignore it, then you choose to ignore it. If you're happy playing and beating teams like Gardner Webb, Norfolk State and the like, then you don't really know how good you are and you end up playing 6-6 teams from the Big Ten in the Motor City Bowl in front of 15,000 people. If you also think that having a bunch of great seasons against lower level teams gains you admission into the top 25 and elite program status, think again. You will always have to earn it against higher level competition.

I don't think most people disagree with this, however some people think in terms of immediate results, others think in term of the longer picture. Miami, for example, played Ohio State, Boise, and Cincy this year. If they had beaten them, they would have clearly established themselves as an elite program. Obviously that wasn't going to happen, because they suck, so the effort was wasted. All they have accomplished is to gain 3 embarrassing losses, and to reduce the chances that they will become bowl eligible, putting them that much further from elite status.

By contrast Ohio has taken the slow road. They have slowly built their culture first, a culture of winning. That culture has carried over into a few key wins, like Penn State, and a lot of close near misses, and very few bad losses. If I recall correctly, Ohio has only two losses of more than 26 since 2005. By contrast Miami has 3 this year alone, in the three games I mentioned.

Ohio may get voted into the Top 25, and that's a nice sign, but I think most of us recognize that Ohio is not really the 25th best team in the country, especially with all the injuries, and the way they have been playing the last few games. The vote is more a hint of things to come - with the increased national attention, recruiting is improving, and with that the teams of the future will be better than those of today. As the teams improve, the schedule is being upgraded, too, with names like Kansas and Cincinnati replacing names like Wyoming and New Mexico State. The day may yet come when Ohio does belong in the Top 25. In the meantime, there is no reason to to enjoy the progress as we go.
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,764
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 9:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C., I agree with your assessment. Also, thanks for clarifying the Motor City Bowl attendance without calling me an idiot! Regarding Miami's schedule, if they were a better team, they wouldn't get pounded. What do you think we would do against that lineup? I'd sure like to find out. I know scheduling is not that easy, but I would prefer to go on the road against mid-level BCS teams like NC State, Maryland, Indiana, Minnesota, etc., not play 3 top ten teams every year.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 10:50 AM
settings_applications edit_note
giacomo wrote:expand_more
L.C., I agree with your assessment. Also, thanks for clarifying the Motor City Bowl attendance without calling me an idiot! Regarding Miami's schedule, if they were a better team, they wouldn't get pounded. What do you think we would do against that lineup? I'd sure like to find out. I know scheduling is not that easy, but I would prefer to go on the road against mid-level BCS teams like NC State, Maryland, Indiana, Minnesota, etc., not play 3 top ten teams every year.


And thats where it gets tricky: when schedules are made up years in advance (I think we've already contracted Cincinnati 8 years from now) its hard to know how you're going to be, which teams are going to be top10, which ones will be mid-level BCS, and which ones will be bottom of the pile BCS teams (and I think we can all name a few)

EDIT: Or kansas! just a couple 4 years ago Kansas was a top10 team, then they went through a phase where Turner Gill's current team (at liberty) would be even money against his Kansas teams, and now...well who can even say who their coach will be when we play them, let alone what sorta team they will be.
Last Edited: 10/16/2012 10:53:33 AM by mf279801
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,764
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 11:12 AM
settings_applications edit_note
That's true, but then again, THEY don't know what they are getting with us either. I'm sure Penn State penciled in a home win against a MAC team this year. But I would still rather play the bottom of the BCS then Norfolk State.
Doc Bobcat
General User
DB
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,421
person
mail
Doc Bobcat
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 11:35 AM
settings_applications edit_note
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
I expect this from slavin and ocf, but from LC?


He's clearly moved to the darkside of quotation etiquette.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 12:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Doc Bobcat wrote:expand_more
I expect this from slavin and ocf, but from LC?


He's clearly moved to the darkside of quotation etiquette.

Not true. I've always been on the darkside of quote box art. However, Monroe used to be very critical of them, and now it seems he's joined the darkside, too. Welcome, Monroe.


giacomo wrote:expand_more
That's true, but then again, THEY don't know what they are getting with us either. I'm sure Penn State penciled in a home win against a MAC team this year. But I would still rather play the bottom of the BCS then Norfolk State.

The games against Norfolk State, Gardner-Webb, etc, are necessary, for better or worse, in order to have 6 home games a year. The core problem is that 20,000 people at $10 a ticket is $200,000, while 100,000 people at $50 a ticket is $5 million. That is too huge of an economic disparity, so Ohio is going to end up playing games on the road for money to fund the program. The home Norfolk State game gets paired up with the away Penn State game, to keep the number of home and away games equal.

Looking at a micro piece of the schedule, 2 games, one option is the Norfolk State/Penn State pair. Ohio pays Norfolk State $200,000, keeps $200,000 from the home gate, and collects $800,000 from Penn State, netting $800,000. Another option is to play, a home-home with, say, Kansas. In that case, no money changes hands, and each team keeps their home gate. Thus Ohio ends up with $200,000 for the home game, nothing for the away. The Norfolk State/Penn State pair nets $600,000 more than the home-home pair with Kansas, and that $600,000 is why it is there.

Now, is there a way out of this? Well, yes. As the money from home games grows, the need to play "money games" subsides, as does the advantage of playing them. If the gate for home games was $800,000 they would cease to have an advantage, and even at $500,000 there isn't a lot of reason to do it. Could the day come when Peden is full, and the average ticket price is $25 (still a deal compared to OSU)?
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 2:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Good points, LC.

I'll add some of my thoughts on our OOC, here's how I think it should be structured-

1. BCS payday- make it a decent to good team, avoid the certain beat downs (Alabama, etc.). a good AQ team that gives us a puncher's chance at a victory and some early season recognition and credibility.
2. FCS- like LC said, couples well with #1, gives us a 6th home game and a good tune up game early.
3. Good to very good nonAQ- currently Marshall is in this spot and I think they are the ideal candidate given the proximity, history, rivalry, competitiveness, etc. This spot would be maximized if Marshall began winning 8+ games/season but overall they are still a good fit.


Then there is game #4. Currently we are filling it with the bottom of the nonAQ- NMSU, N Texas, Idaho. I would be ok that if we didn't already have 3 or 4 of the worst non-AQs on our conference schedule. No point in scheduling a strong nonAQ as that is supposed to be the role of game #3. So I think we should start with the bottom of the AQs and slowly overtime work  our way up. Kentucky is a good start. Indiana, Maryland, Wake Forrest, Temple, SMU, Boston College, Colorado, Kansas, etc. Plenty to work with. 

We just need to be careful to not get too ahead of ourselves with the #4 spot. I'll take a win over a weak team over a loss to a good one for a few more years.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 10/16/2012 11:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Home game in Cleveland vs. Oklahoma or Texas or USC.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 10/17/2012 8:49 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Home game in Cleveland vs. Oklahoma or Texas or USC.


Missouri might be rethinking going to the SEC, perhaps they would swap affiliations.  Not serious.
Cat4ever
General User
C4
Member Since: 12/29/2007
Location: Oakland, FL
Post Count: 447
person
mail
Cat4ever
mail
Posted: 10/17/2012 11:33 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Not to change the subject, but actually to do just that: Can Alex or someone please update the Subject to 7-0?
Last Edited: 10/17/2012 11:33:38 AM by Cat4ever
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 10/17/2012 1:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Unless I am misinterpreting the Blade article today, the "how can Toledo get mid-BCS teams to play them one for one and we can't?" mystery is solved.  Instead of getting $500-850k for a one and done, they pay the BCS team $300 net for the one for one.

I don't believe we are prepared to forego our once a year BCS payday to lose $300k, and I don't believe we can cash flow the $300k with our ticket prices where they are.  And if our one for one's with Cincy/Kansas are a net wash, then we are actually better negotiators than Tooleedoo. 
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 75
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)