|
Post by Bevo on Nov 6, 2017 16:46:56 GMT
On the raw (ABS) data, CJ and Sagarin differ by 2 spots per team. On the net data, it's a mere 1 spot per team. That's the reason I like CJ's system so much. I DIDN'T like it at first.. But, after watching it for a few years, it gets OBJECTIVE RESULTS that are damn near the same as the SUBJECTIVE RESULTS we all live by. So, who needs the committees?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 6, 2017 17:00:20 GMT
It is in the 70s under my system bit good enough thanks 9 games and many other 0-1 loss teams with weak schedules too. Hey CJ, remind me of your key factors and methodology - went to your site, but did not see it explicitly listed, nor did I search for it for a long time
Teams place most to least: 1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses) 2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses) 3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points) 4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against) For purposes here, I treat FCS wins and losses as equal to the least valuable FBS win and loss respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 6, 2017 17:25:20 GMT
Hey CJ, remind me of your key factors and methodology - went to your site, but did not see it explicitly listed, nor did I search for it for a long time
Teams place most to least: 1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses) 2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses) 3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points) 4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against) For purposes here, I treat FCS wins and losses as equal to the least valuable FBS win and loss respectively. So... is it correct to assume, each number is just a tie-breaker for the preceding number? Or, are you using ALL four factors on every ranking?
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Nov 6, 2017 17:31:13 GMT
Teams place most to least: 1-Power Points (Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses) 2-Net Wins (Wins - Losses) 3-Schedule Strength (Opponents' Power Points) 4-Net Points (Points For - Points Against) For purposes here, I treat FCS wins and losses as equal to the least valuable FBS win and loss respectively. So... is it correct to assume, each number is just a tie-breaker for the preceding number? Or, are you using ALL four factors on every ranking? Yes. Tiebreakers. Rarely do any two teams go beyond the first tiebreaker by season's end.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 6, 2017 17:37:18 GMT
So... is it correct to assume, each number is just a tie-breaker for the preceding number? Or, are you using ALL four factors on every ranking? Yes. Tiebreakers. Rarely do any two teams go beyond the first tiebreaker by season's end. So simple, yet so effective.
|
|