Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NHL Trade Rumors: Do You Make A Move For Rick Nash?

College BlogPoll Week 3: Rough Draft and Big Changes

This edition of the blogpoll ballot draft has been delayed for two reasons:  one is that I've been swamped in weekend work, and the other is that I was finally at the point where I could re-investigate the traditional RTT computerized BlogPoll ballot thingamajig that Joel used in previous years.  When he handed me the keys to the ballot, he handed me free reign over numbers.  Mmmm, tasty, tasty numbers.  So I tinkered around with it, but I was never happy with it - at least not enough to actually use - until now.  So we're returning to the computerized ballot for the draft, and I'm ok with listening to overrides for the final.  There's a lot of dialing in left to do, so we'll see how she goes.  But first, here's the ballot.  And remember, this is a 100% resume ballot, and as such, it doesn't care what your team's name is.  Performance metrics are everything, and early-season metrics are wonky (due largely to the lack of good, competitive games and the abundance of cupcake diets).  So yes, there's a lot of movement.

 

Dropped Out: Southern Cal (#3), Brigham Young (#7), Georgia Tech (#11), Virginia Tech (#12), Ohio State (#14), Oklahoma State (#17), Utah (#18), Georgia (#22), Nebraska (#23), Michigan (#24).

Star-divide

Ok, first the raw data.  Explanations and observations come next.

Rank

Team

WL

SOS

PED

RD

3DO

TD

PEO

OPPG

TO

3DD

W SUM

1 Florida 1.338 -1.318 1.627 0.723 2.586 1.449 1.756 1.705 2.054 0.626 113.315
2 Cincinnati 1.338 0.154 0.865 1.204 0.976 0.867 1.535 1.194 1.792 0.764 105.309
3 Alabama 1.338 -0.123 0.675 1.715 0.622 1.927 0.990 0.866 1.735 0.739 104.855
4 Penn St. 1.338 -0.822 0.558 1.634 1.666 1.593 0.750 1.777 0.229 0.814 98.539
5 Miami (FL) 1.338 1.984 -0.380 0.582 0.976 0.310 2.105 -0.284 1.115 -0.494 98.199
6 Arizona St. 1.338 -1.145 2.121 1.275 -0.191 2.371 -0.251 1.577 -0.096 1.529 90.775
7 LSU 1.338 0.995 1.023 0.080 1.348 0.261 0.496 1.230 -0.710 -0.562 90.034
8 North Carolina 1.338 -0.371 1.104 1.522 -0.474 1.762 0.488 1.303 -0.278 1.624 87.534
9 California 1.338 -0.416 -0.159 1.316 1.230 0.838 1.518 1.011 1.425 0.642 87.025
10 South Fla. 1.338 -2.519 1.783 -0.182 2.001 1.403 1.886 1.777 0.993 1.870 84.060
11 Iowa 1.338 0.679 1.325 -0.132 0.756 0.467 -0.196 1.194 -0.203 0.563 81.519
12 Kansas 1.338 -1.438 0.318 1.422 1.297 0.723 0.848 1.558 2.067 1.509 80.622
13 Boise St. 1.338 -0.366 1.449 0.074 0.356 0.702 1.149 0.975 0.622 0.922 80.209
14 Kentucky 1.338 -1.206 0.993 0.676 1.809 0.719 0.403 1.030 0.487 0.280 77.702
15 Texas 1.338 -0.427 0.332 1.378 0.667 0.158 0.478 0.537 1.338 1.379 74.829
16 Auburn 1.338 0.447 0.772 -0.432 1.195 -0.115 0.918 0.063 1.770 -1.061 74.138
17 Southern Miss. 1.338 -1.303 0.523 1.534 0.251 1.106 0.471 0.573 0.958 0.642 68.967
18 Oklahoma 0.278 -0.080 0.923 1.740 0.151 1.457 1.092 1.996 0.954 0.697 68.726
19 UCLA 1.338 -0.567 1.461 1.110 -0.715 1.115 -0.614 1.121 -1.029 1.132 66.908
20 Mississippi 1.338 -1.948 1.362 0.292 0.346 0.595 0.607 1.413 0.585 2.607 59.998
21 Missouri 1.338 -0.857 0.299 0.523 0.438 -0.082 1.277 1.011 0.788 -0.562 58.899
22 Houston 1.338 -0.496 0.431 -0.785 0.286 -0.092 1.709 0.209 1.901 -1.268 51.628
23 TCU 1.338 -2.627 0.366 1.687 -0.635 1.585 1.071 0.592 0.840 1.317 51.529
24 North Carolina St. 0.278 -1.888 1.026 1.191 1.099 2.138 1.170 1.486 -0.199 1.870 51.500
25 Pittsburgh 1.338 -1.185 -0.119 0.991 -0.161 0.603 1.201 0.902 0.002 -0.623 51.364
26 Indiana 1.338 -1.095 -0.348 1.079 0.622 0.356 0.033 0.573 -0.059 0.830 48.783
27 Wisconsin 1.338 -0.528 -0.217 -0.575 1.123 0.092 1.083 0.136 0.596 -0.832 47.620
28 Clemson 0.278 1.306 2.044 -0.132 -0.756 1.040 -0.868 0.647 -0.610 0.957 46.894
29 West Virginia 0.278 0.121 0.087 0.935 1.700 0.360 0.688 -0.448 1.382 -0.065 46.419
30 Washington 0.278 2.029 -0.479 -0.382 1.982 -0.288 0.306 0.063 0.024 0.971 45.753
31 Air Force 0.278 -1.320 0.795 0.092 1.432 1.053 1.726 1.303 0.845 1.989 45.015
32 Southern California 0.278 0.210 0.835 1.547 -1.647 1.420 -0.118 1.267 0.670 1.066 41.510
33 Connecticut 0.278 1.546 0.156 0.985 -0.066 0.999 -1.442 0.683 -0.767 0.575 40.937
34 Texas A&M 1.338 -2.397 0.210 0.554 0.476 -0.432 0.951 0.537 2.746 0.971 38.652
35 Arizona 0.278 0.415 0.669 0.792 -0.085 1.143 -0.710 0.683 0.526 -0.341 38.061

 

Abbreviations

WL = Win/Loss; SOS = Strength of Schedule; PED = Pass Efficiency Defense; RD = Run Defense; 3DO = 3rd Down Offense; TD = Total Defense; PEO = Pass Efficiency Offense; OPPG = Opponents' Points Per Game; TO = Total Offense; 3DD = 3rd Down Defense; and W SUM = Weighted Sum (the score that counts)

Explanations

  • What do those numbers mean?  Unlike previous editions of this ranking thingy, this one no longer relies on the rank values.  For example, the 3rd down defense (3DD) is not assigned as #1, #2, #3, etc., but instead is a scaled value of the actual 3rd down success rate of a team.  The technical term is mean centered, unit variance (MCUV).  So the most average 3rd down performance will score zero, and a 3rd down performance that is one standard deviation better than average scores one.  Subpar performances are negative.  This better captures slight and large differences.  For example, Florida's 3rd down offense (3DO) is the best in the nation at 2.586.  The next best is South Florida at 2.001 - a whopping half standard deviation difference.  In the old system, this would have been 1 and 2, respectively.
  • How is the weighted sum calculated?  The actual score is the weighted sum (W SUM) column.  This is done by adding up all the previous columns after having applied a weight to each one.  All of the weights will add up to 100, so a W SUM score of 100 means that your weighted average of all the columns is a standard deviation of 1 (note: this is not the actual average).  Negative scores mean your team scores below average.  This is where things will change over the season.  With the new system, I don't yet have a handle on how the weights should be distributed, so I will continue to tinker with them as time goes on.
  • Why the change?  This gives two advantages.  The first was discussed in point 1, where the large differences and small differences aren't forced to the same delta.  The second is that it's a lot easier to gauge the relative performance of teams in a given category, as well as across categories.  Florida's #D) of 2.586 is staggeringly high, and that value would be eye-popping high in any category.  (Note:  part of this is due to Florida playing 2 cupcakes.  Part is the Tebow extending drives in the second half against UT.)
  • Where did the strength of schedule data come from?  SOS is borrowed directly from the Colley Matrix.  Despite the hatred that some people have for it, I used it because (a) it does a better job of considering the opponent than most other SOS indices, and (b) it's updated every Sunday, so I can data link it.  (The NCAA puts theirs in pdf form, which makes it awkward for data mining.)  So Colley it is.

Observations

  • Southern Cal?  Southern Cal came in at 32 primarily because of their 3rd down offense (3DO).  Did you know they were 112th in the nation right now?  Neither did I.  3DO is a measure of the ability of a team to extend drives in a must-make situation, and USC isn't getting it done.  An average 3DO alone would bump them to around 21-22, but an average 3DO would likely have them beating Washington, bumping them right back up in the top 10ish.
  • Ohio State?  Ohio State has a slew of good-not-great meh numbers.  With the loss, they just don't have anything to bump them up. beyond some other one-loss teams.  They are at 40 and are immediately followed by BYU and FSU, who have terrible defensive metrics right now.
  • Cincinnati?  A good SOS (which is rare at the top) and solid all-around numbers.
  • Miami?  A ridiculously high SOS atones for pass efficiency defense (PED) problems.
  • Iowa?  Yeah, nearly-beaten-by-a-1-AA-team Iowa is way up there.  Part of that is an artifact of Colley's SoS, which lumps 1-AA teams together for composite scores, but it will settle down as the season goes on.
  • Texas?  Killed by SOS and a mediocre outing against Wyoming.  Teams above them have benefited from the slaughter of innocent women and children - another artifact that will die down as the season gets into conference play.
  • Tennessee?  Tennessee is at 55, and is the highest 2-loss team in the rankings.  I'll include their scores when I present my SEC Power Poll ballot.  The bottom line is that their defense is ridiculously good and the offense is not as shabby as you might fear.
  • Western Kentucky?  They're the bottom of the barrel, with a whopping -178.131 score.  It's bad down there.

For a glance at how the scores line up:

Score_medium

It's heavy at the bottom thanks to some truly horrific receiving ends of the cupcake games.  But the overall distribution is reasonable.  You can see some very slight banding due to the win/loss effect, but it's not overwhelming.  More to come on all of this later in the week.

Comment 20 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I like it!

Glad to see Auburn ranked somewhere!!

by wareaglerichmond on Sep 21, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions  

wow

I didn’t expect to see the first comment be one of praise with USC and OSU off the map. ;-)

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

USC

The only reason they’re at 112th in 3DO is because Holt and Sarkisian beat Petey at his own game… literally. They both have the entire playbook of USC’s Offense and Defense.

by ucla13_usc9 on Sep 21, 2009 10:19 AM EDT reply actions  

Agreed.

Though they weren’t all that hot offensively against OSU either.

That’s actually one reason I like resume rankings. They don’t allow us to dismiss numbers based on our intuition or extenuation circumstances. Whether UWash knew the playbook or not, they still beat USC and they still kept the offense in check.

And it’s only 3 weeks in. After about week 6 or so, that one game won’t be as influential. If USC fares better in the future, it’ll all average out.

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

Haha

Personally I’m loving every minute of it. USC not having an offense worth anything is pretty awesome… For me at least

by ucla13_usc9 on Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

Cinci- Whoa Nellie!

That’s a little too high. I’d keep ’em in the top 10, but #2? Bama almost has to be #2. Balance on both sides of the ball.

Cal cannot drop with that powerful offense they have. Boise should also be in the top 10.

UNC stays outside the top 10 unless (until) they win next week.

Miami about right- if they had not started at such a low ranking, more people would have them top 10.

Ball, oskie, cover, block, cut and slice, pursue and gang tackle... for this is the WINNING EDGE.

by pound the rock on Sep 21, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions  

As you said, early season numbers are wonky

You seriously need some eyeball override on that. Dismiss Arizona State and South Florida from the poll entirely. ASU has only played Idaho State and Louisiana Monroe. I don’t care.

South Florida’s BEST win is over Western Kentucky (their others are over Wofford and Charleston Southern), and they just lost their QB for the year. No ranking.

The numbers tell you that Cincy is good. Listen. But not #2 good. Try 10-15.

Kentucky? You can argue the #25 spot, but not much more.

TCU needs to jump Southern Miss if nothing else. They played the same opponent in back to back weeks (TCU on the road). TCU won by more than 20. USM won by 3.

Where is Florida State? They lost on the last play to the #5 team and then won a tough road game. That’s top 15 material.

Also, Southern Cal, BYU, Virginia Tech, Ohio State, and Oklahoma State should find their ways back into the poll, although none of them really need to jump back to a spot higher than about #15.

UNC and Iowa may have justified rankings, but not top 10.

NC State does not deserve a ranking unless South Carolina gets one too.

So. . . I’m suggesting lots of changes. I think this is because I disagree with your philosophy on ranking. Use your sense to rank teams and the numbers as your guide (sometimes overriding your initial opinion). Not vice versa.

by Incipient_Senescence on Sep 21, 2009 11:34 AM EDT reply actions  

I'm not against overrides right now.

I haven’t figured out how I’m going to do that at the moment, but I’ll look it over. The final is due Wednesday morning, so I’ll have that done by Tuesday evening.

I’m in a hurry at the moment, so I’ll read through your comments later when I can think through them (I just skimmed the top for the moment.) But keep ‘em coming. I’ve provided some numbers, but the talk is helpful.

Oh, would it help if I provided all numbers for all teams? I thought the table was too cumbersome that way, but would you all like to have that on hand?

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

Good points

Is it a good idea to pretend there were no preseason rankings?

Miami passes the eyeball test. Their OL and QB are for real.

As usual, good stuff I.S.

Ball, oskie, cover, block, cut and slice, pursue and gang tackle... for this is the WINNING EDGE.

by pound the rock on Sep 21, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

True

Especially early in the season. But sometimes the eyes can dim as well as illuminate. I love the fact that this thing spits out some surprises, both too-high and too-low surprises, because it can have the effect of getting around the problem of the colors of the jersey.

But yeah, it’s early, and the numbers aren’t very reliable. But I do think they’re somewhat informative.

Rocky Top Talk

by Joel Hollingsworth on Sep 21, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

My main philosophical argument with polls really has nothing to do with resume vs. intuitive.

It’s the early polls in general. Here we are, trying to figure out how good a team is when most of the anticipated ‘greats’ have done little more than a couple of tune-up games and maybe one actual respected opponent. The early polls make for great discussion points, but really amount to nothing. In resume polls, the early games make things look really screwy, but at least it’s a reflection of on-field events. In intuitive polls, the early results are largely ignored (so long as they’re not actual losses for the favorites) and we teach ourselves to anticipate certain teams as good or bad. It’s useful in its own right, but that’s also one of the larger sources of bias in the traditional polls later on in the season.

Right now, our computer poll is in the tuning phase. When teams like USC fall far lower than expected, we can look at the number and see why. Ditto for South Florida, who is obviously higher than anticipated. So far, I’m getting the feeling that SOS is not getting enough weight and that a lot of the queasiness would be helped here. (S. Fla., Kansas, Kentucky, Southern Miss, but not Cincinnati. Also, Southern Cal and Washington.)

My goal is for these numbers to be easier to digest in about week 6 or so. Until then, I’m just putting it out for test runs until we get a handle on it. Switching from the ordinal rankings to the continuous numerics was really a big deal, especially for the win/loss and strength of schedule components. I don’t have a solid handle on those yet.

(You should have seen the week 2 results. There was a reason this didn’t come out any earlier in the season. Florida was lucky to be at 15th then.)

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions  

I certainly agree with a degree of resume ranking

And the computer can do a good job of that. But it misses certain things that are obvious to the naked guy. Oops. Naked eye.

For instance, Florida State and Miami are very similar in quality. They played head-to-head, were evenly matched, and the game came down to the last play. Yet Miami is #5 and Florida State is not in the top 35. Some difference in ranking (5-10 spots) is legit when one team beats the other. But not 30 spots for a game so close.

Similarly, Southern Miss and TCU have a common opponent, which they played vastly differently (TCU dominated on the road, Southern Miss won a home squeaker). But the computer has USM higher because they barely beat UCF rather than destroying one of the Texas States. In reality, I don’t think squeaking by an average team is that much better than destroying a terrible team.

Adding more weight to SOS could fix some things, but it would definitely need eyeball adjustment as well. For instance, from our last example, TCU would drop out of the top 25 entirely. Maybe you’re okay with that. They play Clemson next week, so their fortunes really hinge on that game anyway. UNC would still be top 10. I still don’t think beating two average teams justifies a top 10 ranking unless you beat them in style. But whatever the case, something needs to be adjusted (either SOS or just eyeball adjustments). Three wins over Western Kentucky and a pair of I-AA teams should not justify a top 10 ranking, no matter how impressive you look.

by Incipient_Senescence on Sep 21, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

You’re hitting on exactly why resume systems are so wonky at first. The numbers just don’t correlate to anything early on.

Here’s Florida State (at #42), for comparison:
WL 0.278
SOS 1.3931
PED -1.223
RD 0.661
3DO 1.195
TD -0.97
PEO 0.4436
OPPG -0.2287
TO 0.78
3DD -0.102

The passing efficiency defense is killing them right now, while Miami’s is not nearly so deflating. Raising SOS would certainly help, as they would raise up and a whole lot of teams ahead of them would lose value.

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Allow me to take the predictable response:

Cincy’s ranked too low. ;)

Eric Berry for sending the guy who wins the Heisman spinning 720 degrees in the air at the podium - or for intercepting it and returning it to where it rightfully belongs

by Chris Pendley on Sep 21, 2009 2:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Funny you should mention that.

With all this talk about raising SOS: if I did, Cincy would end up #1. They’re already close, and the positive SOS would help while Florida’s negative SOS would move them down in points.

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Iowa's a pain.

I tried messing with the weights, and Iowa just keeps moving up. They’ve played N. Iowa, Iowa State, and Arizona. ISU and Ariz. have played cupcakes to 2-1 overall records (losses to Iowa). Until the computer learns which teams are good for SOS and which are bad, Iowa will break the system this early in the season.

by David Hooper on Sep 21, 2009 2:17 PM EDT reply actions  

Jim Delany approves.

I, on the other hand, would be in favor of removing them entirely.

Eric Berry for sending the guy who wins the Heisman spinning 720 degrees in the air at the podium - or for intercepting it and returning it to where it rightfully belongs

by Chris Pendley on Sep 21, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Tennessee Volunteers.

SHOP THE ROCKY TOP TALK STORE

Gameday Depot University Apparel

Animated Drive Charts

RTT Classics

RTT Classics 2008 Animated BlogPoll2007 Animated BlogPollLOL! Your logo is so scary! Welcome to Rocky Top Talk Tradition! Fiddlin' on the Roof2008 Animated BlogPoll The Season of Which We Do Not Speak Pearlfection Case Study: 2QB Systems and the 2005 Tennessee Volunteers The 2007 College Football Blogger Awards The 2006 College Football Blogger Awards The 20 coolest college football logos The 10 worst college football logos The 29 most boring college football logos 2006 Animated BCS Race 2005 Animated Race to the Rose Bowl

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Tee Martin leaves Kentucky for USC
Kenneth Bynum is All Vol!
Oh, look. Kentucky fans got their feelwins hurt.
Softball - #9 Tennessee defeats #1 Arizona State 3-0 in Tempe
#9 Lady Vols softball opens the season in the Kajikawa Classic
Peyton Manning's face is everywhere!!
Potential Alzheimer's treatment with results.
Volunteer baseball TV schedule announced
Feelslike98 Film Room
Your 2012 University of Tennessee Volunteers Recruiting Class

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

YouTube


Editor-in-Chief

Gameday_depot_hat_guy_190x190__no_drop_shadow__small Joel Hollingsworth

Senior Editor

Gromit_small David Hooper

Associated_20press_clayliston_1965_l_small kidbourbon

Tennessee_logo_small Will Shelton

Tumblr_lx1hpdd3yx1r2a42bo1_250_small Chris Pendley

Mutantenemy_small Incipient_Senescence

Ut_small Brad Shepard

Author

Avatar2_small rustytanton

Vols_dooley_hair_small Getoffmyvols

Pygmy_marmoset_small marmotman

Picture_081_small Joseph Stanley

Jackson_the_mule_avatar_small Jackson the Mule

Img_0171_small RockyTopinKY

6156218740_03c5ca84f5_m_small VolnVA

Top_small _trey_

Small Chien Rouge