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 #9 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.


Sunday, November 30, 2014

2014 Power Points Standings through 11-29

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

Sunday, November 23, 2014

2014 FCS Playoffs and the Power Points System

Here is how the 24 FCS playoff teams rank among each other under the Power Points System based on Division I games only. FBS wins and losses are equal to the most valuable FCS win and loss respectively. Actual NCAA selection committee seeds are listed in parentheses. Rank among playoff teams in The Sports Network FCS poll is listed to the right of each team's name.

1 North Dakota State(2) 2
2 Villanova(6) 5
3 New Hampshire(1) 1
4 Coastal Carolina(7) 6
5 Jacksonville State(3) 3
6 Illinois State(5) 7
7 Eastern Washington(4) 4
8 Northern Iowa 10
9 Liberty 19
10 Fordham 9
11 James Madison 14
12 Chattanooga(8) 8
13 Sam Houston State 18
14 Eastern Kentucky 15
15 Richmond 17
16 South Dakota State 13
17 Sacred Heart 21
18 SE Louisiana 11
19 San Diego 24
20 Indiana State 20
21 Montana 12
22 Montana State 16
23 Stephen F. Austin 22
24 Morgan State 23

2014 Power Points Standings through 11-22

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

Sunday, November 16, 2014

2014 Power Points Standings through 11-15

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

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Power Points and AP Poll: Separated by One Game?

The best case scenario for the Power Points System includes all FBS teams knowingly competing according to its rules while playing equal or equal maximum game regular season schedules versus FBS competition only. That said, I have 36 seasons worth of results based on FBS games only but without teams knowingly competing according to the Power Points System's rules or playing equal/equal maximum game regular season schedules. Since 1978, the average FBS season includes 619 FBS versus FBS games. If I change the outcome of just one game each year to see how close the Power Points System comes to matching the AP poll, I get the results posted below. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Power Points System needs to match the AP poll to be validated. I have no problem defending its actual results compared to the AP poll. I just find it interesting that the difference between a simple point system that only needs a team's wins and losses and its opponents' wins and losses to separate any pair of teams better than 99% of the time and the longest running college football poll where pollsters are free to arbitrarily and inconsistently apply any criteria to rank teams boils down to changing the outcome of a single game out of more than 600. The first set of numbers are the AP ranks of the Power Points System's top four teams at the end of the regular season. The second set are the AP ranks of the top four teams if I change the outcome of a single game to produce a result that best matches the AP poll. In some instances, changing the outcome of a single game was not required as a result closer to matching the AP than the original result could not be achieved.

1978 1 2 3 10 to 1 2 3 4
1979 1 4 6 9 to 1 3 4 6
1980 2 3 7 14 to 2 3 4 14
1981 1 7 9 10 to 1 3 7 10
1982 1 2 3 5 to 1 2 3 4
1983 1 2 3 9 to 1 2 3 4
1984 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1985 1 3 5 6 to 1 2 3 5
1986 1 2 4 5 to 1 2 3 4
1987 2 3 4 5 to 1 2 3 4
1988 1 2 5 6 to 1 2 5 6
1989 1 3 4 8 to 1 2 3 4
1990 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1991 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1992 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1993 1 2 3 8 to 1 2 3 5
1994 1 2 5 6 to 1 2 3 5
1995 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1996 1 2 3 5 to 1 2 3 4
1997 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
1998 1 2 6 8 to 1 2 3 8
1999 1 2 3 5 to 1 2 3 5
2000 1 2 3 7 to 1 2 3 4
2001 1 3 4 8 to 1 2 3 4
2002 1 2 4 5 to 1 2 4 5
2003 1 2 3 7 to 1 2 3 4
2004 1 2 3 6 to 1 2 3 4
2005 1 2 3 4 to 1 2 3 4
2006 1 2 3 9 to 1 2 3 4
2007 2 3 5 7 to 1 2 3 5
2008 1 2 3 7 to 1 2 3 5
2009 1 2 5 6 to 1 2 4 5
2010 1 3 9 10 to 1 2 3 9
2011 1 3 4 8 to 1 2 3 8
2012 1 3 4 8 to 1 2 3 4
2013 1 2 5 7 to 1 2 3 5