From: acdendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY)
Subject: Re: Roger's Top 25--No dispute here
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  5 Jan 1993 10:32 EST  

In article <1993Jan5.032240.22081@nuscc.nus.sg>, elpwestg@nuscc.nus.sg (West) writes...
>acdendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY) writes:
>: The *Dendy system is robust enough, at least, to agree when the National 
>: Champion is obvious and indisputable.  Here are the final top 25 for 1992 
>: according to my computer.  The complete list for Div I-A will follow by a 
>: separate post.
>: 
>: Team			Record			Weight
>: ----			------			------
>: 1 Alabama		13-0			2.4
>: 2 Florida State		11-1			2.3
>: 3 Notre Dame		10-1-1			2.2
>: 4 Washington		9-3			2.1
>: 5 Miami Fl		11-1			2.1
>: 6 Stanford		10-3			2.0
>: 14 Washington St	9-3			1.7
>: 21 Arizona		6-5-1			1.5
>: 22 Southern Cal		6-5-1			1.4
>
>Roger, it's the end of the season so I'm going to indulge in just one more
>very minor FLAME. Yes of course Alabama is #1, but really, take a good
>hard look at your computer's opinion - isn't it possible that the PAC Ten
>has been over-rated just a tiny bit?

Actually, I had noticed this, and wondered if anyone would comment.

> Of course I'm referring to
>Washington's being rated #4 with 3 losses, three places ahead of Michigan,
>a team with no losses and a team to whom they lost and therefore are not
>better than.

Based on the whole season, I still think Washington had the better team 
this year.  Maybe not at this moment, but on the whole year.

> Forgetting for the moment that Stanford, with 3 losses, is
>probably over-rated as well, I'd also like to point out that the inclusion
>of Arizona and USC (especially!) in the top 25 seems to be, well,
>outrageously imbecilic - they only won half their games! Is this bias, or

Please.  It's a machine.  The term "imbecilic" doesn't apply.

>what?!?! I remember a day, long ago, when I had a lot of respect for your

No bias here.  Perhaps some poor handling of conference schedules, but no 
bias (it works the same way for other conferences too).

>computer, i.e. when Michigan was #1 :-). Oh, well, your computer can't always
>be right (it's not an Apple IIe is it?).

No, I outgrew my IIe a couple years ago.

>Gerald West

Here's the justification/reasons the computer came out with this.

1) Something I've always hated about AP voters and media in general is the 
thing Larry Smith said on his way to the exit: "You're never any better 
than your last game."  The program doen't include this principle--it 
weights the _whole_ season equally.  So early season non-conference games, 
which made the Pac-10 look good aren't totally erased by the Bowl games, 
which made the Pac-10 look bad.

2) The initial rankings were based on Heinrich, so the initial bias is his, 
not mine.  After the non-conference games, the Pac-10 looked very strong.  
At that point, they begin playing each other-->they all had strong 
schedules.  Thus, win or lose, they remain highly ranked, because they win 
or lose to good teams.  Let's look at the teams (and weights) each of the 
ranked Pac-10 teams played.

			Non-conf.		Conf.
		W		L		W		L
1 Wash (2.1)	Nebraska (1.7)	Michigan (2.0)	USC (1.4)	Arizona (1.5)	
						ASU (1.4)	WSU (1.7)

6 Stanf (2.0)	N Dame (2.2)	A&M (1.9)	USC (1.4)	Wash (2.1)
		Penn St(1.3)			WSU (1.7) 	Arizona(1.5)

14 WSU (1.7)	Fresno St (1.4)			Wash (2.1)	Stanf (2.0)
		Utah (1.0)			ASU (1.4)	Oregon(1.4)
						Ariz (1.5)	USC (1.4)

21 Ariz (1.5)			Miami (2.1)	Wash (2.1)	WSU (1.7)
				Baylor (1.3)	Stanf (2.0)	USC (1.4)
								ASU (1.4)

22 USC (1.4)	Oklahoma (1.1)	N Dame (2.2)	WSU (1.7)	Wash (2.1)
				Fresno (1.4)	Ariz (1.5)	Stanf (2.0)
				SDSU (tie)(1.2)	ASU (1.4)	UCLA (1.3)

Now, when you look at the conference side, the argument starts to become a 
little circular.  For example, we know Washington is a good team because 
they beat Nebraska.  We know UofA is a good team because they beat 
Washington and Stanford, and just barely lost to Miami and Baylor (who's 
not as bad as everyone says).  Since we know Arizona is a pretty good team, 
Washington's loss to them doesn't count as such a big negative.  And so on.
It may require some additional modifications in the off season, to remove 
the head-to-head game from future computations of strength (i.e. Arizona's 
victory over Washington should be valued based on Washington's games 
against all other opponents), as I know some of the other systems do, but 
that will increase the complexity of my program by an order of magnitude (I 
might outgrow my PC XT).


--------------------------------------------------------------------
     But that's just MY opinion.	Roger Dendy
					Analex Corp.
     acdendy@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov	(216) 433-2186
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 "Everybody says that we've got to have a low-cost, reliable 	   
  launch vehicle.  That's an oxymoron.  Boy, that's tougher than  
  a skunk."--John Young, Johnson Space Center, 12/14/92
--------------------------------------------------------------------