Dwiggins Poll (a GPI Component)

[BigApp]

The Youngstown and Northern Iowa folks gonna love this:

DPDwiggins
IAA Rankings
23 Oct 2006
50% Power, 50% Merit
1. Massachusetts 94.5
2. Illinois State 88.2
3. Appalachian State 87.9
4. Montana 86.8
5. James Madison 85.9
6. N. Dakota St. 85.8
7. Portland State 82.9
8. Princeton 82.0
9. Maine 79.9
10. San Diego 78.2
11. Charleston Southern 77.6
12. UT-Martin 77.4
13. Youngstown State 76.4
14. Yale 75.4
15. Northern Iowa 75.0
16. Harvard 73.7
17. New Hampshire 73.5
18. Cal Poly 72.8
19. Hampton 72.7
20. Southern Illinois 72.3
21. S. Dakota St. 72.3
22. Towson 72.3
23. Gardner-Webb 71.6
24. Coastal Carolina 71.5
25. Furman 71.5

[*****]

still no point? ho-hum smack? Again, which Dwiggins ranking (do you know the difference between a computer ranking and a poll).

[BigApp]

Nope, not smack. Clicked on the link provided at the bottom of the GPI page, http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=81685, scroll down to the bottom and you'll see it.

"Journalists" question things. I am questioning the legitimacy of the GPI, not being a cheerleader.

[Russ B]

Maybe you should critique each individual ranking that gets submitted to make up the AGS poll, too.

[BigApp]

critique or show each poll?

[PantherRob82]

I would like to see some of the GPI computer rankings removed or at least questioned a bit.

[FlyYtown]

Maine 9.
Ysu 13.

We beat Maine by 20.
nuf said.

[walliver]

DPDwiggins
IAA Rankings
23 Oct 2006
50% Power, 50% Merit
1. Massachusetts 94.5
2. Illinois State 88.2
3. Appalachian State 87.9
4. Montana 86.8
5. James Madison 85.9
6. N. Dakota St. 85.8
7. Portland State 82.9
8. Princeton 82.0
9. Maine 79.9
10. San Diego 78.2
11. Charleston Southern 77.6
12. UT-Martin 77.4
13. Youngstown State 76.4
14. Yale 75.4
15. Northern Iowa 75.0
16. Harvard 73.7
17. New Hampshire 73.5
18. Cal Poly 72.8
19. Hampton 72.7
20. Southern Illinois 72.3
21. S. Dakota St. 72.3
22. Towson 72.3
23. Gardner-Webb 71.6
24. Coastal Carolina 71.5
25. Furman 71.5

3 Big South Teams in the Top 25. Who wudda thunk it.

[GoAgs72]

San Diego 10th, UC Davis not in top 25 - I guess we will be severe underdogs if we still play on Nov.25.

[*****]

Nope, not smack. Clicked on the link provided at the bottom of the GPI page, http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=81685, scroll down to the bottom and you'll see it...and then you decided to clutter AGS with a thread for each system? Why? Here's how it finished last year:
1. Appalachian St
2. Furman
3. N Iowa
4. New Hampshire
5. Texas St
6. Richmond
7. Grambling
8. E Illinois
9. Brown
10. Hampton
11. Ga Southern
12. S Illinois
13. Youngstown St
14. Hofstra
15. Illinois St
16. Montana St
17. Montana
18. James Madison
19. Cal Poly
20. Nicholls St
21. Massachusetts
22. E Washington
23. N Dakota St
24. Portland St
25. UC Davis

[smallcollegefbfan]

and then you decided to clutter AGS with a thread for each system? Why? Here's how it finished last year:
1. Appalachian St
2. Furman
3. N Iowa
4. New Hampshire
5. Texas St
6. Richmond
7. Grambling
8. E Illinois
9. Brown
10. Hampton
11. Ga Southern
12. S Illinois
13. Youngstown St
14. Hofstra
15. Illinois St
16. Montana St
17. Montana
18. James Madison
19. Cal Poly
20. Nicholls St
21. Massachusetts
22. E Washington
23. N Dakota St
24. Portland St
25. UC Davis

Didn't everyone have App, Furman, and UNI in their top 3?.... :D

[*****]

Didn't everyone have App, Furman, and UNI in their top 3?.... :Dexcept the computer system was unbiased.

[BigApp]

and then you decided to clutter AGS with a thread for each system?

Well, we could start more San Diego threads

[*****]

Well, we could start more San Diego threadsI asked why.

[Russ B]

critique or show each poll?

Either/both. Since you seem to have a problem with every ranking/poll that goes into the GPI, you might as well critique *every* poll, right, including the 50 or so that make up the AGS poll...

I don't see any reason to post all these rankings/polls, they are linked from the GPI page already. :confused:

[BigApp]

Well, Ralph, if you must...

Some people just might be interested in seeing what comprises something that affects so many people, that's why.

And judging by some of the responses and amount of views, some apparently are interested.

[*****]

I would like to see some of the GPI computer rankings removed or at least questioned a bit.Go here and tell me which should be questioned and why:
http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=75205

[BigApp]

I don't see any reason to post all these rankings/polls, they are linked from the GPI page already. :confused:

yep, and one of the links is outdated and at least one poll is WRONG in the GPI.

You're telling me you don't care what's in your McNuggets as long as it tastes good, right?

[*****]

... Some people just might be interested in seeing what comprises something that affects so many people, that's why.That's why the GPI is listed with columns for each week and the links are there to the source.

Go here and tell me which component appears to require legitimization:
http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=75205

[*****]

yep, and one of the links is outdated and the other poll is WRONG in the GPI.
You're telling me you don't care what's in your McNuggets as long as it tastes good, right?Ah, you already stated your agenda and now come the lies and the putdowns ... :nonono2: I-AA.org apologizes if a link is not being updated by its owner but substantiate what you say is WRONG in the GPI.

[CCU97]

Well I am shocked by how high Chuck South is in this one....and that there are 3 Big South Schools in it....but then again according to the GPI the Big South is the 5th ranked conference so it is improving....

[Russ B]

You're telling me you don't care what's in your McNuggets as long as it tastes good, right?

No, I'm saying that I can look up the nutritional information and make my own conclusions without someone posting the ingredients one by one. :p

[BigApp]

Ah, you already stated your agenda and now come the lies and the putdowns ... :nonono2: I-AA.org apologizes if a link is not being updated by its owner but substantiate what you say is WRONG in the GPI.

Thanks for that attempt to put words in my mouth but, again, you've failed. Stop already, Ralph. Maybe you should read the Massey rating thread and answer your own question about what is wrong.

[*****]

... Maybe you should read the Massey rating thread and answer your own question about what is wrong.Thanks for the non-answers. No point, nothing's wrong... geez! You really shouldn't state something is wrong unless you are certain. I am certain it is correct. I guess you didn't read the Massey thread.

[Cincy App]

Ah, you already stated your agenda and now come the lies and the putdowns ... :nonono2:

Ralph, you again seem over-defensive about analysis of the GPI? Is this a forbidden subject?

I understand that Dwiggins is only one of the factors in the GPI. Still,
I don't believe that Dwiggins is a good barometer with USD at #10 and 3 Big South teams (including Gardner Webb) in the top 25 but that's just my opinion. Maybe it all washes out in the end. The GPI is one of the playoff team indicators so why not analyze the components?

[*****]

... analysis of the GPI? Is this a forbidden subject? ... The GPI is one of the playoff team indicators so why not analyze the components?Analysis is not saying something is wrong when it isn't. Just clearing up a misstatement. Some others seem offensive and defensive. All of this "analysis" seems to have certain I-AA teams as the butt of its joke. Even you did. That's why I asked if it was smack. I already showed the final of this ranking from last year. Is there a problem with it?

[AggiePride]

Is there a good central resource to see how each poll/ranking is attained and how each are used in the GPI?

I think it is unfair to critique a component in the absense of any context.

[*****]

Is there a good central resource to see how each poll/ranking is attained and how each are used in the GPI?
I think it is unfair to critique a component in the absense of any context.To see all the systems on one page click here:
http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm

To see how they are used in the GPI click here:
http://www.i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=564

[PantherRob82]

Go here and tell me which should be questioned and why:
http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=75205

Me? xcoffeex

I'll wait to reserve judgement for a few weeks. Some just seem very questionable right now.

[*****]

Me? xcoffeex

I'll wait to reserve judgement for a few weeks. Some just seem very questionable right now.They always work themselves out, like polls.

[89Hen]

They always work themselves out, like polls.
Yes and no. Polls can be more reactive to apparent mistakes, computers just keep plugging away no matter what.

[BigApp]

Ralph, the unbiased GPI cheerleader journalist. :nonono2:

What "lie" have I stated? Where is my "misstatement"? All I have done is cut and pasted from the various pollster's website and comparing it against what the evidently holier than thou GPI states.

Someone is wrong and, at least in this particular case, it's not me. If anything, it's YOU who is guilty. You're the one defending an obviously broken system.

You should be thankful, Ralph. I've uncovered about 3 weeks worth of material that you are free to use for your blog and ham radio broadcast.

[*****]

Yes and no. Polls can be more reactive to apparent mistakes, computers just keep plugging away no matter what.Computer systems don't forget, forgive, favor traditional power teams, have bias or bigotry, or play politics. Just don't unplug them! xlolx

[*****]

Ralph, the unbiased GPI cheerleader journalist. :nonono2:

What "lie" have I stated? Where is my "misstatement"? All I have done is cut and pasted from the various pollster's website and comparing it against what the evidently holier than thou GPI states.

Someone is wrong and, at least in this particular case, it's not me. If anything, it's YOU who is guilty. You're the one defending an obviously broken system.

You should be thankful, Ralph. I've uncovered about 3 weeks worth of material that you are free to use for your blog and ham radio broadcast.Ah yes, more putdowns when your error is pointed out. You repeatedly continued saying that the Massey ratings used in this week's GPI are wrong. They are not as I pointed out to you.

There is nothing "holier than thou" about the GPI, it is an index and is incapable of that.

The GPI is not broken and works amazingly well every single year.

I am not sorry that I have to point this out to you. If you want to call it cheerleading, that is your perogative. If you want to use it to slam me personally and all the others, that is your problem. What you think you've "uncovered" I-AA.org publishes every week. There is nothing secret about the GPI.

[89Hen]

Computer systems don't forget, forgive, favor traditional power teams...
And therein lies part of the problem. For example, computers don't know that the Hens are 27-6 at home under Keeler (13-7 away), so a win in Newark may be worth more than a win at home agaisnt the Hens or a win in some other .500 team at their house. :nod: ;)

[BigApp]

Ah yes, more putdowns when your error is pointed out. You repeatedly continued saying that the Massey ratings used in this week's GPI are wrong. They are not as I pointed out to you.

The GPI is not broken and works amazingly well every single year.

I am not sorry that I have to point this out to you. If you want to call it cheerleading, that is your perogative. If you want to use it to slam me personally and all the others, that is your problem. What you think you've "uncovered" I-AA.org publishes every week. There is nothing secret about the GPI.

As long as you attack me personally by calling me a liar and make false accusations against me, I will attack you back. I ain't above it. Let me put my example in caps so maybe you can see it better:

THE GPI STATES MASSEY RANKS SAN DIEGO AS #8:
http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=81685

ACCORDING TO MR MASSEY HIMSELF, HE STATES SAN DIEGO IS #18
http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.ph...ivision%20I-AA

So I-AA.org publishes this type of info "every week"? Really? I have yet to see an article questioning any GPI component this year. That sir, is a misstatement. Maybe you could direct me to one of those weekly articles.

[*****]

As long as you attack me personally by calling me a liar and make false accusations against me, I will attack you back. I ain't above it. Let me put my example in caps so maybe you can see it better: ...So I-AA.org publishes this type of info "every week"? Really?...Yes, I-AA.org publishes the GPI with each system's rankings clearly displayed. http://www.i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=564

I said it was a lie after you posted that the Massey rating used in the GPI was wrong and I told you it wasn't... then you posted that it was wrong over and over. With your stated intention and your constant posting of incorrect information it is obvious you are lying and not just mistaken.

Here's a picture to help you out... notice that Massey ranks San Diego #8, not #18. I already advised you that Massey has different systems and you posted the wrong one. Notice (from http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm):

[Guard Dawg]

Computer systems don't forget, forgive, favor traditional power teams, have bias or bigotry, or play politics. Just don't unplug them! xlolx

That's why the Old Guard doesn't really like them that much. San Diego is ranked way too high in all those polls. It will be silly when they rank so high, top team in a bunch of statistical categories, then they don't make the playoffs.

[BigApp]

Yes, I-AA.org publishes the GPI with each system's rankings clearly displayed. http://www.i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=564

I said it was a lie after you posted that the Massey rating used in the GPI was wrong and I told you it wasn't... then you posted that it was wrong over and over. With your stated intention and your constant posting of incorrect information it is obvious you are lying and not just mistaken.



Wrong again, YOU said I-AA.org published articles weekly that uncovered and questioned the GPI. I'm still waiting to see one. And thanks for (continually) hijacking threads by trying to change the subject.

Evidently you haven't bothered to click on the link I provided. It's directly from the I-AA site at the bottom of the poll. Try it one (more) time, Ralph. You can do it. Besides, the link is lifted directly from the I-AA.org website, so it's got to be 100% correct, right?

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.ph...ivision%20I-AA


RAH RAH
HIT 'EM LOW
HIT 'EM HIGH
HOW I LOVE
THE GPI

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM!!

[*****]

Wrong again, YOU said I-AA.org published articles weekly that uncovered and questioned the GPI...Another lie. Your first one has been encapsulated in a pic and you still persist with more. This is the I-AA Discussion Board, not a place for you to libel.

You've exposed yourself as a liar, hater and a personal smacker, have a nice life. : smh : :nonono2: : smh : :nonono2: xidiotx

[AggiePride]

I keep finding San Diego as #18 in the individual Massey link for I-AA.

Well every team is different than on this link, I was unaware there were different versions used for Massey. What are the different versions? And where is the one used in the GPI?

I see it somewhat on the comparison screenshot, but where is the full ranking list?

What is this link for anyways? Why is this one wrong?

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Division%20I-AA

[*****]

I keep finding San Diego as #18 in the individual Massey link for I-AA. Well every team is different than on this link, I was unaware there were different versions used for Massey. What are the different versions? And where is the one used in the GPI? I see it somewhat on the comparison screenshot, but where is the full ranking list? What is think for anyways? Why is this one wrong? http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Division%20I-AAIt is not the one the GPI uses. On the comparison page http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm , the "MB" column is the BCS one and the "MAS" column is the one the GPI uses. It is listed as the MOV column on his regular page http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Division%20I-AA

[AggiePride]

It is not the one the GPI uses. On the comparison page http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm , the "MB" column is the BCS one and the "MAS" column is the one the GPI uses. It is listed as the MOV column on his regular page http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Division%20I-AA

There it is! Never thought to look on the right. Thanks Ralph.

The difference when using MOV makes total sense. And again, it is just one cog in the GPI machine, which I will look at more when I have a chance.

[BigApp]

Another lie. Your first one has been encapsulated in a pic and you still persist with more. This is the I-AA Discussion Board, not a place for you to libel.

You've exposed yourself as a liar, hater and a personal smacker, have a nice life. : smh : :nonono2: : smh : :nonono2: xidiotx

As I expected, you didn't click the link. No problem. I see someone else has and noticed the exact same thing. If there's a problem, and the GPI doesn't use that particular ranking, then the "technical administrator" of that site should correct the links and apologize for the error.

Nice tone. You're wrong, you know it, so you start up with your spin and inaccurate legal jargon again? :nonono2: You been shown (on this board, no less) that you don't know anything about law, so please stop it.

I've noticed that anyone who doesn't agree with you are labeled as a "hater". That's fine. Just the opposite in this case, pal. If anything, I'm a bigger advocate for the truth than you'll ever be. Why? I'm bringing to light an obvious problem that you seem willing to cover up and defend.

"Smacker"? You're the one calling people a "hater", "libelor" and "liar".

[*****]

As I expected, you didn't click the link...Did you??? Whatever man... the Massey thing is your wrong... feel free to continue to post your HATE stuff but take it to the smack board please ...

[AggiePride]

As I expected, you didn't click the link. No problem. I see someone else has and noticed the exact same thing. If there's a problem, and the GPI doesn't use that particular ranking, then the "technical administrator" of that site should correct the links and apologize for the error.

Nice tone. You're wrong, you know it, so you start up with your spin and inaccurate legal jargon again? :nonono2: You been shown (on this board, no less) that you don't know anything about law, so please stop it.

I've noticed that anyone who doesn't agree with you are labeled as a "hater". That's fine. Just the opposite in this case, pal. If anything, I'm a bigger advocate for the truth than you'll ever be. Why? I'm bringing to light an obvious problem that you seem willing to cover up and defend.

"Smacker"? You're the one calling people a "hater", "libelor" and "liar".


There are two versions of that poll, one includes margin of victory and is labeled MOV, both are on the comparison link Ralph provided. As well as yours.

It is listed on your link in the far right column, and is noted at the top of the page.

It is what it is. And it might be a very good MOV component to the GPI?

[BigApp]

Thanks for noticing!

The GPI should, as a matter of policy, indicate which they use. It would certainly help!

[*****]

Yeah, like the pic I posted and explained over and over on many threads. There are many versions of many ratings (notice my questions on various threads?). But to say definitively that the GPI is wrong over and over... well, we know.

[BigApp]

http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=81685

[YoUDeeMan]

Another lie. Your first one has been encapsulated in a pic and you still persist with more. This is the I-AA Discussion Board, not a place for you to libel.

You've exposed yourself as a liar, hater and a personal smacker, have a nice life. : smh : :nonono2: : smh : :nonono2: xidiotx

Perhaps we should hide the children to protect them from the name calling. xlolx

Check the blood pressure, dude – there’s a gasket about to blow.

[BigApp]

still listed as 8 on the I-AA GPI website...xcoffeex

[*****]

Perhaps we should hide the children to protect them from the name calling...Definetly protect all from untruths.

[*****]

still listed as 8 on the I-AA GPI website...xcoffeexNighty night old pal.

[Keeper]

With all due respect to Ken Massey and Jeff Sagarin and others
who publish multiple versions of ranking formulae. Which ones
are we to believe in or agree with. And what would be the
purpose? Are we to think that they are not confident in any
one particular system, or are they displaying variant ways in
which to see a ranking solution depending on what you
consider important in the input. I think the latter, and therefore
it is best not to get too hung up on any one ranking system.
The number of ranking formula theories are endless. The better
ones should be each be considered as well as any one informed
opinion. So the best yardstick is the overall composite poll.

I am not partial to any particular team to cloud my judgement,
and even if they were partial, I don't think any system user out
there uses bias. Yet it is so very easy for those of you to attack
them relative to your own biases. None of us who work so hard
to produce an unbiased ranking would presume to tell any of you
how to think or what you should consider reasonable. Just enjoy
the forums, celebrate the differences, and keep an open mind.

Most of us who produce these football ratings are serious football
fans who love the game as much as you do, and enjoy taking
part in it somehow, even if only peripherally. All of us have taken
unto ourselves the task of finding an accurate and fair method of
rating football teams, some just for the sport, and some to try to
be the best. No system is always going to be the best all the time.
The best learned minds will not predict all the winners. That is
why they play the games. I for one will continue this hobby as
long as it is fun for me, whether anyone else enjoys or uses it or not.
I fully expect that if my system is deemed not worthy of consideration
by those whose opinions matter, then it will be rejected and rightly
so, because by then I will know myself of the subpar results. Until then,
develop your own system from scratch to be better than ours,
or provide adequate statistical documentation to prove our errors.
How is it fair that we must justify our systems to you, and still
respect your opinion without question? You hate the computers
when your team is ranked lower than you like, but is p/c to let
another fan have his smack. Any informed thought or serious
compilation of data has merit when discussing a subjective thing
as rankings.

We may all disagree with the results, but far be it from us to tell
the "informed" fan how to think. Please don't bother to tell me my
system is flawed when you can't name a single system or person's
opinion that truly isn't. I apologize in advance for any perceived
slight to any fan's favorite team, we mean no harm. If only we
exhibited as much passion for our local and national issues as much
as we do for our sports teams.

There soooo many opinions, and so few logical solutions.
We are trying our best to obtain the logical solutions.
Thank you for your time.

[bluehenbillk]

UNH #17 (no credit for beating N'western?)
Portland St #7 (3 losses but they get credit for 1-A losses?)

San Diego #10
Yale #14 (guess San Diego is pulling them up?)

Charleston Southern in the top 25????? #12?? zing, end of discussion...

geez, didn't even have to mention Richmond at #28...

[bluehenbillk]

You've exposed yourself as a liar, hater and a personal smacker, have a nice life. : smh : :nonono2: : smh : :nonono2: xidiotx

Nice to see that to the "No Personal Attacks" line is being followed here. If this was Big App Saying this there would be warnings & moderators involved, heck there'd even be police cars surrounding his house by now. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:

If you can't out-debate them, just call them names?

[BigApp]

But BHBK, there is a moderator involved. He goes by the name of RALPH.

He's got 3 questions on the board that he dancin' around like Barishnikov and Sammy Davis Jr. I don't anticipate he'll answer:


If polls are based on a team did, and not based on predictive outcomes, why do we have pre-season polls?
Why does the I-AA GPI webpage state Massey has USD at #8 when he's claiming they're actually using a different Massey ranking at #18? If the website is wrong, fix it. Until then, I'll continue to hold it up as the standard.
Does he (or anyone really) actually agree that a non-scholarship I-AA team is as good or better than Top 25 BCS teams?

[bluehenbillk]

But BHBK, there is a moderator involved. He goes by the name of RALPH.



I know he is, I've been told.

[BigApp]

With all due respect to Ken Massey and Jeff Sagarin and others who publish multiple versions of ranking formulae. Which ones are we to believe in or agree with. And what would be the
purpose? Are we to think that they are not confident in any
one particular system, or are they displaying variant ways in
which to see a ranking solution depending on what you
consider important in the input. I think the latter, and therefore
it is best not to get too hung up on any one ranking system.
The number of ranking formula theories are endless. The better
ones should be each be considered as well as any one informed
opinion. So the best yardstick is the overall composite poll.

I am not partial to any particular team to cloud my judgement,
and even if they were partial, I don't think any system user out
there uses bias. Yet it is so very easy for those of you to attack
them relative to your own biases. None of us who work so hard
to produce an unbiased ranking would presume to tell any of you
how to think or what you should consider reasonable. Just enjoy
the forums, celebrate the differences, and keep an open mind.

Most of us who produce these football ratings are serious football
fans who love the game as much as you do, and enjoy taking
part in it somehow, even if only peripherally.

There soooo many opinions, and so few logical solutions.
We are trying our best to obtain the logical solutions.
Thank you for your time.

Thanks Keeper. And I do appreciate your reasoned input. If I didn't care (I don't think you meant that to me personally, just making certain), I wouldn't have posed the question to begin with.

The root of what is being questioned here is, how can I be expected to trust a system that uses components that allow non-scholarship I-AA teams to be rated among Top 25 BCS teams?

What is being implied (not by yours but by others) is that it's ok to schedule and subsequently run up the score on poor teams, D2's and NAIA's. The more bad teams you play, and the higher you score the better chance you get a high ranking. Who really wins if Appalachian beats Savannah State 70-3, or if Montana beats Sacramento State 64-0? No one does. And that's why somethings amiss.

A deserving team could very well lose out on a playoff bid because their GPI is deceptively low or skewed because they played a really tough schedule.

A non-deserving team conversely could gain an undeserving spot if their GPI is deceptively high because of high scores against bad teams.

I know the GPI is only one factor the playoff committee looks at. I get that. The situation is that, since it is a factor, it should be held up for review not only by committee members, but by fans as well.

[BigApp]

The best learned minds will not predict all the winners.

This is another question that has been raised on here, Keeper.

Is your system meant to be predictive?

[89Hen]

Yale #14 (guess San Diego is pulling them up?)
That's been my one question that hasn't been answered AFAIK. I believe some of the models can self-implode. Ranking teams from a conference higher because teams from the conference are ranked higher and round and round. I've seen it happen with the Big Sky, I've seen it happen with the A10. The only answer I've received is from Ken Massey when he told me "It's all legit, no circular reasoning." Not really an explanation.

[*****]

But BHBK, there is a moderator involved. He goes by the name of RALPH. He's got 3 questions on the board that he dancin' around like Barishnikov and Sammy Davis Jr. I don't anticipate he'll answer:

If polls are based on a team did, and not based on predictive outcomes, why do we have pre-season polls?
Why does the I-AA GPI webpage state Massey has USD at #8 when he's claiming they're actually using a different Massey ranking at #18? If the website is wrong, fix it. Until then, I'll continue to hold it up as the standard.
Does he (or anyone really) actually agree that a non-scholarship I-AA team is as good or better than Top 25 BCS teams?I am not a Mod.
1. The GPI is not released pre-season and neither are the computer models.
2. Massey's websites list both of his versions, BCS and MOV. The GPI has always used his MOV.
3. I have no opinion to share with you on where teams should be ranked.

[BigApp]

I am not a Mod.

Oh, I forgot. You're a "Technical Admin"...:rolleyes:


1. The GPI is not released pre-season and neither are the computer models.

Ah but Ralph, some computer models ARE released pre-season. Sagarin is one that is.


2. Massey's websites list both of his versions, BCS and MOV. The GPI has always used his MOV.

If the GPI uses MOV, then it should state so. Currently, it doesn't mention either. Can you understand why it may be somewhat confusing?


3. I have no opinion to share with you on where teams should be ranked.

Not what I asked: "Does he (or anyone really) actually agree that a non-scholarship I-AA team is as good or better than Top 25 BCS teams?"

I asked if you (or anyone) agreed with it. But I'll take 2 attempts out of 3.

[bluehenbillk]

Oh, I forgot. You're a "Technical Admin"...:rolleyes:



Ah but Ralph, some computer models ARE released pre-season. Sagarin is one that is.


It's BigApp with a TKO. :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

[89Hen]

Not really. Sagarin is very much a predictive index. One of the few in the true sense of the definition.

[*****]

Oh, I forgot. You're a "Technical Admin"...:rolleyes:

Ah but Ralph, some computer models ARE released pre-season. Sagarin is one that is.

If the GPI uses MOV, then it should state so. Currently, it doesn't mention either. Can you understand why it may be somewhat confusing?

Not what I asked: "Does he (or anyone really) actually agree that a non-scholarship I-AA team is as good or better than Top 25 BCS teams?"

I asked if you (or anyone) agreed with it. But I'll take 2 attempts out of 3.That's right, I'm the tech guy for AGS. Most of the GPI computer systems are not released pre-season then, I had no idea Sag was. The GPI uses both MOV and BCS computer models. It may be confusing and cause folks to jump to incorrect conclusions. Did you admit you were wrong yet? As I answered before, I have no opinion to share with you on where teams should be ranked. That includes who is as good or better.

[bluehenbillk]

was. The GPI uses both MOV and BCS computer models.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

This is what I've been saying for it seems eons, even though some "PR people" talk more double speak than Saddam Hussein's old minister of information when he told the world that US troops weren't in Baghdad.

Let me speak at a 3rd grade level so we can all understand. BCS is bad.

Why replicate idiocy?

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[*****]

...BCS is bad. Why replicate idiocy?Exactly why are the computer models idiocy?

[bluehenbillk]

Multiple people including myself have pointed out the "oddities", picking a nice word for it, of the computer rankings. Try reading back in these threads as to what people say versus dismissing it.

[*****]

Multiple people including myself have pointed out the "oddities", picking a nice word for it, of the computer rankings. Try reading back in these threads as to what people say versus dismissing it.I asked you. Why are the computer models "idiocy"? You might want to look that word up because you have been having some problems with vocabulary.

[bluehenbillk]

I asked you. Why are the computer models "idiocy"? You might want to look that word up because you have been having some problems with vocabulary.

Ralph, I know it's hard for you to page back in a thread but you only have to go back one page, post #54, I outlined in my view what is wrong with this individual _-_-_ component. If you go through the countless other threads you'll get those opinions that I've previously stated as well.

No problems with my vocabulary Roy.

[*****]

... No problems with my vocabulary...faulty
adj. Non-functional; buggy

idiocy
n : extreme mental retardation

There's a couple definitions of words you misused today. Hope you have a nice weekend!

[bluehenbillk]

Ah, resort to a personal attack & skirt around the issue that you have nothing left to come back with regarding the _-_-_??

Typical. Those that live in glass houses.....

[*****]

Ah, resort to a personal attack & skirt around the issue......Yeah, I think you've summed up your thoughts on this thread. xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[bluehenbillk]

Ralph, I know it's hard for you to page back in a thread but you only have to go back one page, post #54, I outlined in my view what is wrong with this individual _-_-_ component. If you go through the countless other threads you'll get those opinions that I've previously stated as well.

No problems with my vocabulary Roy.

Yep, here's what I said, if you can't read it that's not my problem. Still looking for the 1st insightful comment of yours.

[AggiePride]

faulty
adj. Non-functional; buggy

idiocy
n : extreme mental retardation

There's a couple definitions of words you misused today. Hope you have a nice weekend!

Actually the correct definition for faulty is:


Main Entry: faulty
Pronunciation: 'fol-tE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fault·i·er; -est
: marked by fault or defect : IMPERFECT
- fault·i·ly /-t&-lE/ adverb
- fault·i·ness /-tE-n&s/ noun



I think they were reffering to the fact it is imperfect, which is the definitiopn of faulty. Since this is a now an english 101 thread, I thought I might add in.

[*****]

Actually the correct definition for faulty is:
Containing a fault or defect; imperfect or defective.
Since this is a now an english 101 thread, I thought I might add in.Yeah, I didn't toss in all the definitions of words that were misused. It is important in written communication to apply words correctly.

[AggiePride]

Yeah, I didn't toss in all the definitions of words that were misused. It is important in written communication to apply words correctly.

Well it was not misused IMO.

I you find something to not be perfect, it is then IMPERFECT.

Which is the definition for faulty.

But then again, since nothing in this world is perfect, I guess everything is faulty.. :)

I'm out, just had to chime in. Ths thread really is not productive.

[*****]

Well it was not misused IMO.
I you find something to not be perfect, it is then IMPERFECT.
Which is the definition for faulty.The APA and MLA list the definition as

faulty
adj. Non-functional; buggy.

Either way a result could not be achieved if the computer system was faulty. That is why the creator did not say his system was faulty.

[BigApp]

That's right, I'm the tech guy for AGS..

Good of you to admit that.



Most of the GPI computer systems are not released pre-season then, I had no idea Sag was.

So, now you're backing down to the word "most"...keep dancing



The GPI uses both MOV and BCS computer models. It may be confusing and cause folks to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Let's see, you've admitted you're an admin, now you're admitting something else in the process may be confusing. Attaboy, you've reached Step 2 of the Twelve Steps program!


Did you admit you were wrong yet?

When I see something to prove me otherwise, I've nothing to admit to. The GPI site still has the number "8" listed as the ranking it uses, not "18".
I can't understand why that is so difficult for you to comprehend. "8" is not the same as "18".


As I answered before, I have no opinion to share with you on where teams should be ranked. That includes who is as good or better.

You didn't answer. But, since we're making some progress with you, I'll retract the question as a reward.:smiley_wi

[*****]

... When I see something to prove me otherwise, I've nothing to admit to. The GPI site still has the number "8" listed as the ranking it uses, not "18".
I can't understand why that is so difficult for you to comprehend. "8" is not the same as "18".http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3422&stc=1&d=1161879367

Seems someone can't admit when they are wrong. xcoffeex

[bluehenbillk]

Seems someone can't admit when they are wrong.

If the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" was found in Webster's it couldn't be explained better.

[*****]

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3422&stc=1&d=1161879367

You and your buddies can't believe your own eyes?

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare1aa.htm

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf#Division%20I-AA

[Steven Bryant]

I think what people are missing is that on the page where San Diego is ranked #18, there is a seperate MOV ranking that they are listed as #8, which id what I guess the GPI is using. So the link is correct, and the #8 is correct, it's just a little difficult to figure out where the #8 comes from at first without reading the top of the page. :)

Steve

[YoUDeeMan]

The Youngstown and Northern Iowa folks gonna love this:

DPDwiggins
IAA Rankings
23 Oct 2006
50% Power, 50% Merit
1. Massachusetts 94.5
2. Illinois State 88.2
3. Appalachian State 87.9
4. Montana 86.8
5. James Madison 85.9
6. N. Dakota St. 85.8
7. Portland State 82.9
8. Princeton 82.0
9. Maine 79.9
10. San Diego 78.2
11. Charleston Southern 77.6
12. UT-Martin 77.4
13. Youngstown State 76.4
14. Yale 75.4
15. Northern Iowa 75.0
16. Harvard 73.7
17. New Hampshire 73.5
18. Cal Poly 72.8
19. Hampton 72.7
20. Southern Illinois 72.3
21. S. Dakota St. 72.3
22. Towson 72.3
23. Gardner-Webb 71.6
24. Coastal Carolina 71.5
25. Furman 71.5

This computer is dwiggin' out! xlolx xlolx