From: elpwestg@nuscc.nus.sg (West)
Subject: Re: Roger's Top 25--No dispute here
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:32:02 GMT

acdendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY) writes:
: 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.

However, Washington isn't the same team it was at the beginning of the
season, and neither is Michigan, or any other team for that matter. It's
possible that Michigan got better and Washington got worse. Maybe the
whole PAC Ten got worse - I don't know. The point is that any poll,
regardless of how much objectivity it claims to have, is dealing
ultimately with an opinion. One thing is clear, and that is, rightly or
wrongly, polls are part of the system of rewards and punishments, and the
emphasis in your poll isn't the same as others. Personally, I think that
if two unbeaten teams play each other for the MNC and the one from a
weaker conference wins, they deserve the championship even if their
"weight" is less. On the other hand if a team that is 11-0 is beaten by a
team that is 0-11 I don't think the winning team should be ranked above
the loser. Lines have to be drawn somewhere and I appreciate your efforts
to do so, WRONG THOUGH THEY ARE! Oops, sorry. :-). I'll be honest -
Michigan finally wins the big one and you still don't give them the reward
they deserve - more recognition in your poll! WRONG WRONG WRONG!

: > 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.

I take back the word "imbecilic" - substitute "wrong".

: >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.

I've still got mine - 64K! There's a place in back of the CPU where a
hamster runs around in a little wheel. But I've got a bigger computer now
with a wolverine running around in a big wheel.

: >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."  

This is a cruel fact that can be applied to just about every aspect of our
twisted society - for "game" substitute movie, book, orgasm, etc etc.

: 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.

I don't know Mr. Heinrich.

: 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
: --------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, thanks for making rsfc more interesting. I'm looking forward to
your polls next season, after that big upgrade, of course.

Gerald West
National University of Singapore
elpwestg@nuscc.nus.sg
"So little time. So little to do."  - Oscar Levant