Wednesday, January 28, 2015

NCAA Men's Basketball Top 68 through 01-27

This is an approximation of the Power Points System using winning percentages found at warrennolan.com. AP and Coaches' poll ranks are listed to the right of each team's name.

1 Kentucky 1 1
2 Virginia 2 2
3 Kansas 9 11
4 Gonzaga 3 3
5 Virginia Commonwealth 14 15
6 Duke 4 4
7 Wisconsin 5 5
8 Arizona 6 6
9 Villanova 7 7
10 North Carolina 13 14
11 Utah 11 10
12 Wichita State 12 12
13 Maryland 16 13
14 West Virginia 17 17
15 Louisville 10 9
16 Northern Iowa 18 18
17 Notre Dame 8 8
18 Arkansas 27 25
19 Colorado State 26 24
20 SMU 28 30
21 Iowa State 15 16
22 Dayton 31 28
23 Providence 30 33
24 Georgia 31 40
25 Georgetown 21 22
26 Indiana 22 21
27 Baylor 20 19
28 Cincinnati
29 Butler 25 31
30 LSU 35 37
31 Texas 19 20
32 Miami (FL) 23 23
33 San Diego State 37 35
34 Saint Mary's College 40 39
35 Ohio State 28 27
36 Texas A&M 38 41
37 Tulsa 38 35
38 Old Dominion
39 Stanford 33 29
40 Davidson 40 42
41 Washington
42 Saint John's
43 Evansville
44 Oklahoma State
45 Xavier
46 Green Bay 40
47 North Carolina State
48 Wofford
49 Michigan State
50 Murray State
51 Iowa
52 Wyoming 34 32
53 Stephen F. Austin 40
54 Seton Hall 35
55 George Washington 37
56 Ole Miss
57 Western Kentucky
58 Oklahoma 24 26
59 Oregon
60 Bowling Green
61 Temple
62 Valparaiso
63 Boise State
64 Oregon State
65 Rhode Island
66 Memphis
67 Kent State
68 Tennessee

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Power Points System Dominates the Competition

The Power Points System makes no predictions or best team claims. Yet, in comparison to methods that do, it dominated in bowl picks. Teams ranked highest through regular season play were 29-10 in bowl/playoff games. In comparison, Sagarin favorites were 22-17 straight up. Vegasinsider.com favorites were 20-19. In bowl/playoff games matching disputed higher ranked teams, the PPS beat the selection committee 5 games to 3, beat the AP Poll 6 games to 2, beat the Coaches Poll 5 games to 1, and beat the ESPN Power Poll 6 games to 3.

2014 Power Points Standings through 01-12

ALL GAMES
1 -Ohio State 105
2 -Oregon 84
3 -Florida State 83
4 -Boise State 76
5 -Alabama 75
6 -Marshall 65
7 -Texas Christian 63
8 -Georgia Tech 63
9 -UCLA 63
10 -Michigan State 58
11 -Missouri 58
12 -Wisconsin 56
13 -Mississippi 55
14 -Arizona 52
15 -Baylor 50
16 -Georgia 50
17 -Arizona State 47
18 -Mississippi State 46
19 -Clemson 46
20 -Southern California 40
21 -Air Force 39
22 -Utah 38
23 -Northern Illinois 37
24 -Auburn 37
25 -Colorado State 35
26 -Kansas State 34
27 -Louisville 31
28 -Nebraska 31
29 -Memphis 30
30 -Notre Dame 30
31 -Utah State 29
32 -Louisiana Tech 27
33 -Cincinnati 26
34 -Texas A&M 26
35 -Louisiana State 26
36 -Stanford 25
37 -Minnesota 24
38 -North Carolina State 24
39 -Oklahoma 24
40 -Navy 24
41 -Western Kentucky 24
42 -Arkansas 24
43 -Toledo 23
44 -Louisiana-Lafayette 22
45 -Rutgers 21
46 Georgia Southern 19
47 -Florida 19
48 -Tennessee 18
49 -Central Florida 17
50 -Brigham Young 16
51 -Duke 15
52 -Virginia Tech 15
53 -Rice 14
54 -South Carolina 12
55 -Penn State 12
56 -West Virginia 11
57 -Boston College 10
58 -Maryland 9
59 -Oklahoma State 9
60 -Western Michigan 7
61 -Miami-Florida 7
62 -Bowling Green 5
63 -Washington 4
64 -Nevada 4
65 -North Carolina 3
66 -Houston 2
67 -Illinois 2
68 -East Carolina 1
69 -Texas 1
70 -Middle Tennessee State -1
71 -UTEP -2
72 -Michigan -3
73 -Iowa -4
74 Old Dominion -5
75 -Virginia -5
76 -Arkansas State -6
77 -UAB -7
78 -Texas State -8
79 -Temple -8
80 -Kentucky -8
81 -Central Michigan -9
82 -Northwestern -9
83 -San Diego State -10
84 -Appalachian State -11
85 -Pittsburgh -11
86 -Ohio -12
87 -South Alabama -12
88 -California -13
89 -Oregon State -13
90 -Fresno State -14
91 -Wyoming -19
92 -Indiana -20
93 -Ball State -23
94 -New Mexico -23
95 -Texas Tech -24
96 -Buffalo -26
97 -Akron -27
98 -Washington State -27
99 -UTSA -29
100 -South Florida -29
101 -Syracuse -30
102 -Southern Mississippi -30
103 -Louisiana-Monroe -31
104 -Purdue -31
105 -Wake Forest -32
106 -Vanderbilt -33
107 -Kansas -33
108 -Tulane -33
109 -Florida International -34
110 -Florida Atlantic -35
111 -Colorado -36
112 -Army -39
113 -Iowa State -43
114 -San Jose State -44
115 -Kent State -44
116 -North Texas -45
117 -Hawaii -45
118 -Troy -47
119 -Eastern Michigan -48
120 -Tulsa -49
121 -Connecticut -51
122 -Miami-Ohio -51
123 -Southern Methodist -53
124 -Massachusetts -55
125 -UNLV -55
126 -Idaho -58
127 -Georgia State -60
128 -New Mexico State -62

FBS GAMES ONLY
1 -Ohio State 95
2 -Oregon 74
3 -Florida State 71
4 -Boise State 66
5 -Alabama 64
6 -UCLA 57
7 -Marshall 56
8 -Texas Christian 55
9 -Georgia Tech 52
10 -Michigan State 49
11 -Missouri 47
12 -Mississippi 47
13 -Wisconsin 45
14 -Arizona 44
15 -Baylor 42
16 -Georgia 41
17 -Arizona State 41
18 -Mississippi State 37
19 -Clemson 37
20 -Southern California 34
21 -Louisiana Tech 33
22 -Utah 33
23 -Air Force 31
24 -Auburn 30
25 -Kansas State 29
26 -Northern Illinois 28
27 -Colorado State 28
28 -Notre Dame 24
29 -Memphis 23
30 -Louisville 23
31 -Nebraska 23
32 -Utah State 21
33 -Texas A&M 21
34 -Oklahoma 20
35 -Cincinnati 19
36 -Western Kentucky 19
37 -Louisiana State 19
38 -Louisiana-Lafayette 18
39 -Stanford 18
40 -Arkansas 18
41 -Toledo 17
42 -Minnesota 17
43 -Navy 17
44 -North Carolina State 16
45 Georgia Southern 14
46 -Rutgers 14
47 -Florida 12
48 -Tennessee 11
49 -Central Florida 10
50 -Virginia Tech 10
51 -Rice 9
52 -Brigham Young 9
53 -Duke 7
54 -Penn State 6
55 -South Carolina 6
56 -West Virginia 5
57 -Oklahoma State 5
58 -Boston College 5
59 -Maryland 4
60 -Miami-Florida 2
61 -Western Michigan 1
62 -Bowling Green 0
63 -Illinois -1
64 -Washington -3
65 -Nevada -3
66 -North Carolina -3
67 -Appalachian State -4
68 -Houston -4
69 -Texas -4
70 -Middle Tennessee State -4
71 -East Carolina -5
72 -UTEP -6
73 -Michigan -6
74 -UAB -8
75 Old Dominion -8
76 -Arkansas State -9
77 -Virginia -9
78 -Iowa -10
79 -Texas State -12
80 -Kentucky -12
81 -Northwestern -12
82 -Temple -13
83 -San Diego State -15
84 -Central Michigan -15
85 -South Alabama -15
86 -Ohio -16
87 -Ball State -16
88 -Pittsburgh -17
89 -California -17
90 -Oregon State -17
91 -Fresno State -19
92 -Wyoming -22
93 -Indiana -24
94 -New Mexico -26
95 -Florida International -26
96 -Texas Tech -26
97 -Buffalo -28
98 -Akron -29
99 -Washington State -30
100 -South Florida -31
101 -UTSA -32
102 -Louisiana-Monroe -32
103 -Southern Mississippi -32
104 -Army -33
105 -Syracuse -33
106 -Florida Atlantic -34
107 -Iowa State -34
108 -Purdue -34
109 -Vanderbilt -35
110 -Wake Forest -35
111 -Kansas -35
112 -Tulane -36
113 -Troy -37
114 -Colorado -37
115 -Miami-Ohio -40
116 -Kent State -45
117 -North Texas -46
118 -San Jose State -47
119 -Hawaii -49
120 -Tulsa -50
121 -Eastern Michigan -50
122 -Connecticut -52
123 -Southern Methodist -54
124 -Massachusetts -56
125 -Idaho -57
126 -UNLV -57
127 -Georgia State -59
128 -New Mexico State -63

Monday, January 5, 2015

2014 Power Points Standings through 01-04

1 -Ohio State 92
2 -Oregon 85
3 -Florida State 84
4 -Boise State 76
5 -Alabama 75
6 -Marshall 65
7 -UCLA 64
8 -Texas Christian 63
9 -Georgia Tech 63
10 -Michigan State 59
11 -Missouri 58
12 -Wisconsin 56
13 -Mississippi 55
14 -Arizona 53
15 -Baylor 50
16 -Georgia 50
17 -Arizona State 47
18 -Mississippi State 46
19 -Clemson 46
20 -Southern California 40
21 -Air Force 39
22 -Utah 39
23 -Northern Illinois 37
24 -Auburn 37
25 -Colorado State 35
26 -Kansas State 34
27 -Louisville 31
28 -Nebraska 31
29 -Memphis 30
30 -Notre Dame 30
31 -Utah State 29
32 -Louisiana Tech 27
33 -Cincinnati 26
34 -Texas A&M 26
35 -Louisiana State 26
36 -Stanford 26
37 -Minnesota 24
38 -North Carolina State 24
39 -Oklahoma 24
40 -Navy 24
41 -Western Kentucky 24
42 -Arkansas 24
43 -Toledo 23
44 -Louisiana-Lafayette 22
45 -Rutgers 21
46 Georgia Southern 19
47 -Florida 19
48 -Tennessee 18
49 -Central Florida 17
50 -Brigham Young 16
51 -Duke 15
52 -Rice 14
53 -Virginia Tech 14
54 -South Carolina 12
55 -Penn State 12
56 -West Virginia 11
57 -Boston College 10
58 -Maryland 9
59 -Oklahoma State 9
60 -Western Michigan 7
61 -Miami-Florida 7
62 -Washington 5
63 -Bowling Green 5
64 -Nevada 4
65 -North Carolina 3
66 -Houston 2
67 -Illinois 2
68 -East Carolina 1
69 -Texas 1
70 -Middle Tennessee State -1
71 -UTEP -2
72 -Michigan -3
73 -Iowa -4
74 Old Dominion -5
75 -Virginia -5
76 -Arkansas State -6
77 -UAB -7
78 -Texas State -8
79 -Temple -8
80 -Kentucky -8
81 -Central Michigan -9
82 -Northwestern -9
83 -San Diego State -10
84 -Appalachian State -11
85 -Pittsburgh -11
86 -Ohio -12
87 -South Alabama -12
88 -California -12
89 -Oregon State -12
90 -Fresno State -14
91 -Wyoming -18
92 -Indiana -20
93 -Ball State -23
94 -New Mexico -23
95 -Texas Tech -24
96 -Buffalo -26
97 -Washington State -26
98 -Akron -27
99 -UTSA -29
100 -South Florida -29
101 -Syracuse -30
102 -Southern Mississippi -30
103 -Louisiana-Monroe -31
104 -Purdue -31
105 -Wake Forest -32
106 -Vanderbilt -33
107 -Kansas -33
108 -Tulane -33
109 -Florida International -34
110 -Florida Atlantic -35
111 -Colorado -35
112 -Army -39
113 -Iowa State -43
114 -San Jose State -44
115 -Kent State -44
116 -North Texas -45
117 -Hawaii -45
118 -Troy -47
119 -Eastern Michigan -48
120 -Tulsa -49
121 -Connecticut -51
122 -Miami-Ohio -51
123 -Southern Methodist -53
124 -Massachusetts -55
125 -UNLV -55
126 -Idaho -58
127 -Georgia State -60
128 -New Mexico State -62

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Simplifying the NFL Tiebreaker System: Updated to include 2014

NFL tiebreaker procedures can be found here. For some time now I have thought the NFL's tiebreaker methods could be much simpler so I cut out everything but strength of victory, strength of schedule, and net points in all games which are currently tiebreakers #5, #6, and #10 where division ties are concerned and one spot higher where wildcard ties are concerned. So what remains is the following:

The six postseason participants from each conference are seeded as follows:

1-The division champion with the best record.
2-The division champion with the second-best record.
3-The division champion with the third-best record.
4-The division champion with the fourth-best record.
5-The Wild Card club with the best record.
6-The Wild Card club with the second-best record.

To break all ties regardless of number of teams involved and their respective divisions:

1-Strength of victory.
2-Strength of schedule.
3-Net points in all games.

This system was applied to the last 12 NFL seasons (2003-2014).

A. 23 of 24 top seeds remained the same.
B. 44 of 48 teams with byes remained the same.
C. 92 of 96 division champions remained the same.
D. 139 of 144 playoff teams remained the same.
E. 121 of 144 playoff teams retained the same seed.
F. The 2nd and 3rd tiebreakers were not needed in the last 12 seasons to determine a single top seed, bye, division champion, or playoff team.
G. Only 21 pairs of teams out of 5952 pairs over 12 seasons finished with the same record and strength of victory.

Monday, December 22, 2014

CFP Selection Committee Protocol Defines Nonsense

sELECTION COMMITTEE PROTOCOL


How To Select the Four Best Teams to Compete for the College Football National Championship
(Adopted unanimously by the BCS Group - June 20, 2012)

Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. There is nothing about ranking teams that requires it be done through voting. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the "unexpected bounce of the ball." So what? Still does not require voting. In any ranking system, perfection or consensus (are empty terms) is not possible and the physical impact of the game on student athletes prevents elaborate playoff systems of multiple games except that an FBS team could play as many as 16 games and lower divisions have playoff systems of multiple games. For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate. Nonsense. For the purposes of any playoff system, the process should advance the required number of teams whose seasons have greater value under the rules in play. Unless, of course, there are no rules because the BCS Group prefers a beauty contest to an objectively determined competition.

Proposed Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines). An objective system could do not this and maintain consistency?
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility to invent new justifications for desired outcomes and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
  • Championships won
  • Strength of schedule
  • Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) Except that Florida State was repeatedly punished for its lack of "game control" which clearly valued margin of victory.
We believe that a committee of experts properly instructed (based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process) has very strong support throughout the college football community. Experts at what? The "unique" regular season cannot be preserved by an objective ranking system? An objective ranking system cannot consider championships won on the field and strength of schedule? The college football community could not support the use of an objective ranking system?
Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. So one beauty contest method will do a better job of considering objective results like head-to-head competition and conference championships than another beauty contest method? Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who "deserve" to be selected. This is quite possibly the most nonsensical statement ever. How do math systems ignore any teams? The point system promoted by this blog ranks all FBS teams based on the results of their games. The fact that only four teams can place in the top four does not mean the remaining teams were ignored. How many teams deserve to place in the top four anyway?  And what does "deserve" have to do with the inevitable need to select the four best teams? "Best" and "deserve" are not synonyms.  
As we expand from two teams to four teams we want to establish a human selection committee that will accomplish none of the following goals: (1) will be provided a clear set of guidelines; (2) will be expected to take the facts of each case and specifically apply the guidelines; and (3) will be led by a Chairperson who will be expected to explain publicly the committee's decisions.
Some of the guidelines and protocols expected to be established to guide the committee would include, but not be limited to, the following:
  • While it is understood that committee members will take into consideration all kinds of data including polls, committee members will be required to discredit polls wherein initial rankings are established before competition has occurred; How do you prevent committee members from considering any information they are required to discredit?
  • Any polls that are taken into consideration by the selection committee must be completely open and transparent to the public;
  • Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar; How do we know what circumstances favor each of those tiebreakers? For example, when does strength of schedule trump head-to-head competition and vice versa?
  • Committee members associated with any team under consideration during the selection process will be required to recuse themselves from any deliberations associated with that team; How does this prevent a committee member from undermining the teams that are a threat to their associated school's playoff chances?
We would expect this same set of principles to be applied, particularly at the margins (teams 10-11-12).

College Football Playoff Selection Committee Protocol

  1. Mission. The committee's task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and, then assign the teams to sites.
  2. Principles. The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
    • Conference championships won,
    • Strength of schedule,
    • Head-to-head competition,
    • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
    • Other relevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team's performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance. So teams may be awarded mulligans for games determined to be lost due to injury or be denied advancement due to the absence of key players and this makes sense how? After all, if an injury occurs after selections are made perhaps during a semifinal win, there will be no substitutions. Besides that, injuries have no bearing on the standings of most every competition including conference play in college football. 
  1. Voting Process. The voting process will include a series of ballots through which the committee members first will select a pool of teams to be considered, then will rank those teams. Individual ballots will be compiled into a composite ranking. Each committee member will independently evaluate an immense amount of information during the process. This evaluation will lead to individual qualitative and quantitative opinions that will inform each member's votes.
  2. Number of Teams to Be Ranked. The committee will rank 25 teams. If no champion of a non-contract conference is among that group, then the committee will conduct an additional process to identify the top-ranked champion of those conference champions.
  3. Meeting Schedule. The committee will meet in person weekly beginning at mid-season to produce interim rankings before selection weekend.The dates in the fall of 2014 will be as follows:
    • Monday and Tuesday, October 27-28
    • Monday and Tuesday, November 3-4
    • Monday and Tuesday, November 10-11
    • Monday and Tuesday, November 17-18
    • Monday and Tuesday, November 24-25
    • Monday and Tuesday, December 1-2
    • Friday-Sunday, December 5-7
  4. Point Persons for Gathering Information. The committee has assigned two members to be the "point persons" to gather material about the teams in each conference and the independent teams. The process will assure that each team is fully reviewed and that no information is overlooked. The point persons will ensure that (1) the committee has complete, detailed information about each team, and (2) the conferences and independent institutions have an effective and efficient channel for providing facts to the committee. The committee wishes to be clear about the role of the point persons. They are not and will not be advocates for teams in any conference or for any independent institution. They will not speak on behalf of any conference or institution during the committee's deliberations or represent any conference's or independent institution's interests during those deliberations. Their function is to gather information and ensure that it is available to the committee. Their role as a liaison to a particular conference or independent institution is purely for the purpose of objective fact-gathering. The point persons will communicate with conference staff members on three teleconferences during the regular season. The point persons will accept objective factual information from a conference and may actively seek such information from a conference during a teleconference. They may take subjective viewpoints provided by a conference comparing the performance of one conference institution to another. They will ensure that all information provided by a conference is presented to the committee for its consideration. Outside of the three teleconferences, there will be no contact between the point persons and any conference staff member, or vice-versa; all information will be relayed through the CFP staff. Following are the point persons for 2014-15:
    • American - Mike Gould and Pat Haden
    • Atlantic Coast - Tom Jernstedt and Steve Wieberg
    • Big Ten - Pat Haden and Condoleezza Rice
    • Big 12 - Barry Alvarez and Mike Tranghese
    • Conference-USA - Tom Osborne and Condoleezza Rice
    • Mid-American - Barry Alvarez and Tyrone Willingham
    • Mountain West - Oliver Luck and Mike Tranghese
    • Pac-12 - Mike Gould and Tom Osborne
    • Southeastern - Oliver Luck and Steve Wieberg
    • Sun Belt - Dan Radakovich and Tyrone Willingham
    • Independents - Dan Radakovich and Steve Wieberg
  5. Metrics. There will not be one single metric to assist the committee. Rather, the committee will consider a wide variety of data and information. Of course not. One set of rules assisted by no committee makes too much sense. College football requires a panel of experts to produce an arbitrary outcome due to inconsistent reasons.
  6. Participants. There shall be no limit on the number of teams that may participate from one conference in the playoff semifinals and the associated bowl games.
  7. Pairings for Semifinals.
    1. The team ranked No. 1 by the selection committee will play team No. 4 in the semifinals. Team No. 2 will meet team No. 3.
    2. When assigning teams to sites, the committee will place the top two seeds at the most advantageous sites, weighing criteria such as convenience of travel for its fans, home-crowd advantage or disadvantage and general familiarity with the host city and its stadium. Preference will go to the No. 1 seed.
  8. Pairings for Selected Other Bowl Games.
    1. All displaced conference champions and the highest ranked champion from a non-contract conference, as ranked by the committee, will participate in selected other bowl games and will be assigned to those games by the committee. If berths in the selected other bowl games remain available after those teams have been identified, the highest ranked other teams, as ranked by the committee, will fill those berths in rank order.'(Note: A "displaced conference champion" is a champion of a contract conference that does not qualify for the playoff in a year when its contract bowl hosts a semifinal game.)
    2. The committee shall create the best matchups in these bowl games in light of the following considerations. None of these considerations shall affect the ranking of teams. Also, none of these considerations will be controlling in determining the assignment of teams to available bowl games.
      • The committee will use geography as a consideration in the pairing of teams and assigning them to available bowl games.
      • The committee will attempt to avoid regular-season rematches when assigning teams to bowls.
      • To benefit fans and student-athletes, the committee will attempt to avoid assigning a team, or conference, or the highest-ranked champion of a non-contract conference, to the same bowl game repeatedly.
      • The committee will consider regular-season head-to-head results when assigning teams to bowls.
      • The committee will consider conference championships when assigning teams to bowls.
  9. Selection Sequence.
    • Selection committee will rank teams 1-25.
    • Selection committee will place teams in the playoff semifinals bowls.
    • Contract bowls will fill their berths in accordance with their contracts.
    • Selection committee will assign teams to remainder of the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowl berths.
  10. Recusal Policy. If a committee member or an immediate family member, e.g., spouse, sibling or child, (a) is compensated by a school, (b) provides professional services for a school, or (c) is on the coaching staff or administrative staff at a school or is a football student-athlete at a school, that member will be recused. Such compensation shall include not only direct employment, but also current paid consulting arrangements, deferred compensation (e.g., contract payments continuing after employment has ended) or other benefits.The committee will have the option to add other recusals if special circumstances arise.A recused member shall not participate in any votes involving the team from which the individual is recused.A recused member is permitted to answer only factual questions about the institution from which the member is recused, but shall not be present during any deliberations regarding that team's selection or seeding.Recused members shall not participate in discussions regarding the placement of the reduced team into a bowl game.
      Following are the recusals for 2014-15:
    • Air Force - Mike Gould
    • Arkansas - Jeff Long
    • Clemson - Dan Radakovich
    • Mississippi - Archie Manning
    • Nebraska - Tom Osborne
    • Southern California - Pat Haden
    • Stanford - Condoleezza Rice
    • West Virginia - Oliver Luck
    • Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez
  11. Terms. Generally, the members shall serve three-year terms. Until the rotation has been achieved, certain terms may be shorter or longer. Terms shall be staggered to allow for an eventual rotation of members. Members will not be eligible for re-appointment
    Terms Expire February 2016
    Gould, Mike
    Haden, Pat
    Osborne, Tom
    Tranghese, Mike
    Terms Expire February 2017
    Alvarez, Barry
    Luck, Oliver
    Manning, Archie
    Rice, Condoleezza
    Terms Expire February 2018
    Jernstedt, Tom
    Long, Jeff
    Radakovich, Dan
    Wieberg, Steve
    Willingham, Tyrone
  12. Committee Chair. The Management Committee selected the first chair of the committee. The selection committee members will select future chairs.

College Football Playoff Selection Committee Voting Process

  1. Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.
  2. Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first ranking step.
  3. In the first ranking step, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next ranking step.
  4. Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next ranking step.
  5. Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded. There will be seven rounds of voting; each round will consist of a "listing step" and a "ranking step." Except for an excuse to have a weekly show dedicated to announcing the latest rankings, every ranking but the final one was completely meaningless as no one had any real idea where their team stood in relation to other teams regardless of their assigned ranking. For example, TCU was ranked third entering the final weekend but they like the rest of us had no idea what kind of "lead" they had over Florida State, Baylor, and Ohio State and how vulnerable that lead was based on who each of the teams played in their final game. Under the point system promoted by this blog, its certainly possible for the third place team to have less control over its destiny than the fourth, fifth, and sixth place teams based on the value of their remaining games. However, this would be quite apparent to everyone if competing under those rules. We have no idea where TCU actually stood entering the final weekend. Did Ohio State have to win 59-0 to pass TCU? Would 35-0 be enough? Or 2-0? After all, margin of victory is supposed to be ignored. Why did Baylor pass TCU? Baylor owned the head-to-head argument before the final weekend. Did the completion of the season move their overall strength of schedule close enough to TCU's to allow the committee to emphasize head-to-head? If the difference in strength of schedule between Minnesota and Buffalo is small enough to favor head-to-head, how great must the difference be to favor strength of schedule? The committee format fails to answer all of these questions.  
Notes:
  1. Any "recused" member can participate in Step No. 1, but cannot list the team for which he or she is recused. "Recused" teams (i.e., teams for whom a member has been recused) receiving at least three votes in Step No. 1 will remain under consideration.
  2. A recused member can participate in Step No. 2, but cannot list the recused team. If a recused team is within one vote of advancing to the pool, that team will be pooled with the team (or teams) receiving the fewest votes. A "tie-breaker" ranking vote will be conducted among those teams to identify the team or teams that would be added to the pool.
  3. A recused member cannot participate in Step No. 3 if the recused team is in the pool.
  4. Between each step, the committee members will conduct a thorough evaluation of the teams before conducting the vote.
  5. After each round is completed, any group of three or more teams can be reconsidered if more than three members vote to do so. Step No. 3 would be repeated to determine if adjustments should be made.
  6. After the first nine teams are seeded, the number of teams listed in Step No. 2 will be increased to eight, and the number of teams seeded and held in Steps No. 3 and 4 will be increased to four.
  7. At any time in the process, the number of teams to be included in a pool may be increased or decreased with approval of more than eight members of the committee.
  8. After any round of voting, a team or teams may be added to the initial pool by an affirmative vote of three or more committee members.
  9. All votes will be by secret ballot. The CFP Group does not value transparency? Of course, there is the "fear" that committee members might be harassed by fans of teams denied a playoff berth. If so, that is all the more reason to play by actual rules versus pretending the committee format has any integrity when its members must recuse themselves under some circumstances and their ballots are kept secret and the final result does nothing to explain what beats what at any moment in time.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Group of Five Teams Need Objectivity

The chart below lists the number of top one finishes through top 20 finishes for non-power league teams under five different ranking methods from 1978 to 2013. The five methods in order are the Associated Press Poll, the Power Points System, the Power Points System with major teams spotted a one game lead, the Net Wins System which is a best record wins method, and the Net Wins System with major teams spotted a one game lead. The results below show that even objective methods that spot major teams a one game advantage are more favorable to non-power teams than a purely subjective method.


# AP PP P1 NW N1
1 1 1 0 4 1
2 1 2 0 13 1
3 3 5 1 16 2
4 3 11 1 23 4
5 5 17 3 30 6
6 6 20 6 38 10
7 8 24 12 45 15
8 9 26 16 50 17
9 14 29 19 57 24
10 20 33 24 63 30
11 22 34 25 69 33
12 23 41 26 77 40
13 26 49 28 84 45
14 31 60 32 95 51
15 34 66 40 106 56
16 38 77 48 114 61
17 40 86 51 128 68
18 46 91 55 141 74
19 52 100 60 153 81
20 59 110 68 166 86

Sunday, December 14, 2014

2014 Power Points Standings through 12-13

1 -Florida State 79
2 -Ohio State 75
3 -Alabama 72
4 -Oregon 69
5 -Boise State 65
6 -Texas Christian 54
7 -Mississippi 53
8 -Marshall 52
9 -Arizona 52
10 -Georgia Tech 52
11 -UCLA 52
12 -Baylor 51
13 -Mississippi State 49
14 -Wisconsin 47
15 -Michigan State 46
16 -Missouri 45
17 -Auburn 39
18 -Colorado State 38
19 -Kansas State 38
20 -Northern Illinois 37
21 -Georgia 37
22 -Clemson 37
23 -Arizona State 35
24 -Nebraska 35
25 -Louisville 33
26 -Cincinnati 31
27 -Louisiana State 31
28 -Air Force 30
29 -Southern California 30
30 -Minnesota 28
31 -Utah 27
32 -Oklahoma 27
33 -Memphis 23
34 -Utah State 23
35 -Central Florida 21
36 -Notre Dame 21
37 -Arkansas 21
38 -Brigham Young 20
39 -Louisiana Tech 20
40 -Texas A&M 20
41 -Duke 19
42 Georgia Southern 19
43 -West Virginia 19
44 -North Carolina State 18
45 -Stanford 18
46 -Toledo 17
47 -Boston College 17
48 -Navy 17
49 -Louisiana-Lafayette 16
50 -Miami-Florida 16
51 -Rutgers 15
52 -Western Kentucky 15
53 -Maryland 14
54 -Washington 12
55 -Florida 12
56 -Tennessee 12
57 -Nevada 11
58 -Western Michigan 10
59 -Texas 10
60 -North Carolina 9
61 -Rice 8
62 -Illinois 8
63 -Virginia Tech 8
64 -East Carolina 7
65 -Oklahoma State 6
66 -Penn State 6
67 -Iowa 5
68 -South Carolina 5
69 -UTEP 3
70 -Bowling Green 1
71 -Middle Tennessee State 1
72 -Virginia -1
73 -Houston -2
74 -Arkansas State -2
75 -Michigan -2
76 -San Diego State -3
77 -Central Michigan -3
78 -Pittsburgh -4
79 -South Alabama -4
80 -Texas State -6
81 Old Dominion -6
82 -Temple -6
83 -Kentucky -6
84 -UAB -7
85 -Northwestern -7
86 -Fresno State -8
87 -Ohio -9
88 -California -9
89 -Appalachian State -11
90 -Oregon State -12
91 -Wyoming -18
92 -Texas Tech -19
93 -Indiana -19
94 -New Mexico -19
95 -Ball State -21
96 -Buffalo -24
97 -Washington State -24
98 -Syracuse -24
99 -South Florida -25
100 -Akron -27
101 -Purdue -27
102 -Kansas -27
103 -Southern Mississippi -27
104 -UTSA -28
105 -Louisiana-Monroe -29
106 -Wake Forest -29
107 -Tulane -30
108 -Vanderbilt -31
109 -Florida International -32
110 -Colorado -32
111 -Florida Atlantic -34
112 -San Jose State -38
113 -Army -39
114 -Iowa State -39
115 -Hawaii -40
116 -Kent State -42
117 -North Texas -43
118 -Troy -45
119 -Tulsa -45
120 -Eastern Michigan -45
121 -Miami-Ohio -47
122 -Connecticut -48
123 -Southern Methodist -49
124 -UNLV -50
125 -Massachusetts -54
126 -Idaho -54
127 -Georgia State -57
128 -New Mexico State -59

Saturday, December 6, 2014

2014 Power Points Standings through 12-06

1 -Florida State 79
2 -Ohio State 74
3 -Alabama 72
4 -Oregon 69
5 -Boise State 65
6 -Texas Christian 54
7 -Mississippi 53
8 -Marshall 52
9 -Arizona 52
10 -Georgia Tech 52
11 -UCLA 52
12 -Baylor 51
13 -Mississippi State 49
14 -Wisconsin 47
15 -Michigan State 46
16 -Missouri 45
17 -Auburn 39
18 -Colorado State 38
19 -Kansas State 38
20 -Northern Illinois 37
21 -Georgia 37
22 -Clemson 37
23 -Arizona State 35
24 -Nebraska 35
25 -Louisville 33
26 -Cincinnati 31
27 -Louisiana State 31
28 -Southern California 30
29 -Air Force 29
30 -Minnesota 28
31 -Utah 27
32 -Oklahoma 27
33 -Memphis 23
34 -Utah State 23
35 -Central Florida 21
36 -Arkansas 21
37 -Brigham Young 20
38 -Louisiana Tech 20
39 -Texas A&M 20
40 -Notre Dame 20
41 -Duke 19
42 Georgia Southern 19
43 -West Virginia 19
44 -Stanford 18
45 -North Carolina State 18
46 -Toledo 17
47 -Boston College 17
48 -Louisiana-Lafayette 16
49 -Miami-Florida 16
50 -Rutgers 14
51 -Maryland 14
52 -Western Kentucky 14
53 -Navy 13
54 -Washington 12
55 -Florida 12
56 -Tennessee 12
57 -Nevada 11
58 -Western Michigan 10
59 -Texas 10
60 -North Carolina 9
61 -Rice 8
62 -Illinois 8
63 -Virginia Tech 8
64 -East Carolina 7
65 -Oklahoma State 6
66 -Penn State 6
67 -Iowa 5
68 -South Carolina 5
69 -UTEP 3
70 -Bowling Green 1
71 -Middle Tennessee State 1
72 -Virginia -1
73 -Houston -2
74 -Arkansas State -2
75 -Michigan -2
76 -San Diego State -3
77 -Central Michigan -3
78 -Pittsburgh -4
79 -South Alabama -4
80 -Texas State -6
81 Old Dominion -6
82 -Temple -6
83 -Kentucky -6
84 -UAB -7
85 -Northwestern -7
86 -Fresno State -8
87 -Ohio -9
88 -California -9
89 -Appalachian State -11
90 -Oregon State -12
91 -Wyoming -18
92 -Texas Tech -19
93 -Indiana -19
94 -New Mexico -19
95 -Ball State -20
96 -Buffalo -23
97 -Washington State -24
98 -Syracuse -24
99 -South Florida -25
100 -Akron -27
101 -Purdue -27
102 -Kansas -27
103 -Southern Mississippi -27
104 -UTSA -28
105 -Louisiana-Monroe -29
106 -Wake Forest -29
107 -Tulane -30
108 -Vanderbilt -31
109 -Florida International -32
110 -Colorado -32
111 -Army -34
112 -Florida Atlantic -34
113 -San Jose State -38
114 -Iowa State -39
115 -Hawaii -40
116 -Kent State -42
117 -North Texas -43
118 -Troy -45
119 -Tulsa -45
120 -Eastern Michigan -45
121 -Connecticut -47
122 -Miami-Ohio -47
123 -Southern Methodist -49
124 -UNLV -50
125 -Massachusetts -54
126 -Idaho -54
127 -Georgia State -57
128 -New Mexico State -59

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Simplifying the NFL Tiebreaker System

NFL tiebreaker procedures can be found here. For some time now I have thought the NFL's tiebreaker methods could be much simpler so I cut out everything but strength of victory, strength of schedule, and net points in all games which are currently tiebreakers #5, #6, and #10 where division ties are concerned and one spot higher where wildcard ties are concerned. So what remains is the following:

The six postseason participants from each conference are seeded as follows:

1-The division champion with the best record.
2-The division champion with the second-best record.
3-The division champion with the third-best record.
4-The division champion with the fourth-best record.
5-The Wild Card club with the best record.
6-The Wild Card club with the second-best record.

To break all ties regardless of number of teams involved and their respective divisions:

1-Strength of victory.
2-Strength of schedule.
3-Net points in all games.

This system was applied to the last 11 NFL seasons (2003-2013).

A. 21 of 22 top seeds remained the same.
B. 40 of 44 teams with byes remained the same.
C. 84 of 88 division champions remained the same.
D. 127 of 132 playoff teams remained the same.
E. 109 of 132 playoff teams retained the same seed.
F. The 2nd and 3rd tiebreakers were not needed in the last 11 seasons to determine a single top seed, bye, division champion, or playoff team.
G. Only 21 pairs of teams out of 5456 pairs over 11 seasons finished with the same record and strength of victory.