Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:33:06 CST
From:         Bapi Gupta <C31801AG@WUVMD>
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:      Re: Schmidt Computer Rankings through 13-Sep
Newsgroups:   rec.sport.football.college

>
>In article <1992Sep15.063946.19677@colorado.edu>, manu@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU
>(K. S. Manu) says:
>
>In article <1992Sep14.224045.19488@cco.caltech.edu> schmke@cco.caltech.edu
>(Kevin Todd Schmidt) writes:
>>Here are my rankings through 13-Sep-92.
>>
>>I know that I will get flamed to no end about Purdue, Kansas, and LSU but
>>I am trying to make my rankings be accurate for all 107 Div. I-A teams
>>and in the early season big wins/upsets will cause there to be "anomalous"
>>rankings.  A few more games should help settle things out.

I tend to settle down these "anomalies" by using the two final rating from
the two previous seasons to figure a preseason ranking.  I also consider
nfl draft losses since those players I consider irreplaceable, though other
players who just graduated can usually be replaced by second teamers.

I phase out the preseason ratings so that they are 1/n! of the total
number of games actually playing.  So they're still half the rating for
the first week but are down to 1/120 by week five.

I have Purdue at #36, but that more like 50% of a #6 team this year
and 50% of a #66 team last year.  Of course if the perform just as
well this week, they'll be only 1/6 of a #66 team from last year and
5/6 of a #6 team this year, so they'd be #18 - i.e. the computer will
start to get some respect for them.

>>This last week my rankings went an impressive 27-15-0 against the spread
>>and 27-15-2 in picking winners between between Div. I-A teams.  That puts
>>me at 44-25-2 against the spread and 59-25-4 in picking winners for the
>>year.  My rankings did ok in Chris Stassens pool but did beat Bapi Gupta's
>>and Sagarins entries.

That's great for you Kevin, I am way impressed, but I think it must largely
be lucky too.  I was 14-13 versus the spread and 37-29 weighted versus the
spread (my four and five star picks were 5-2).  I know Kevin's system just
assumes teams start the next season with the final previous year's rating.
I am surprised that simple assumption had worked so well.  My predictions
usually get better as the season wears on.  In November last year, I had
three straight weeks in Chris Stassen's top five.

>>I welcome comments and suggestions.
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>>
>Schedule
>>Rank Team                      Points  Record Strength  Last Week    Change
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>2    Purdue                    92.767   1-0-0  84.175  ( 52,  70.167)  +50
>>12   California                84.175   1-1-0  78.566  (  6,  88.578)  -6
>
>>29   Colorado                  78.412   2-0-0  65.523  ( 19,  81.302)  -10
>>75   Baylor                    65.580   0-2-0  72.105  ( 41,  73.753)  -34
>
>Hmm.. Colorado routed Baylor by more than the spread... Cal got blown
>out by a lowly Purdue ( Purdue was lower than Baylor last week! ).
>Colorado falls 10 places whereas Cal falls only 6!
>
>Maybe you should check your algorithm... It ought to be consistent, to say
>the least.
>
>Njan

Look these are the kind of idiot comments that really bug me.  The algorithm
probably just knows a little more than you do.  Colorado dropped in my
ratings because, while their margin of victory was okay, their ratio of
points was pretty lame.  That plus Colorado's first week opponent, CSU, was
devaluated by losing to division I-AA Idaho at home.  Louisiana Tech, who
beat Baylor the previous week did beat Eastern Michigan but by fewer points
than Akron had the week before, thus making Louisiana Tech and Baylor look
worse than Akron.  It's a complex thing, okay.

Bapi

ps - by the way, i am taking a poll this week again,
     but everything njan says is flammable.