Thanks, Keeper

[DocMike]

Keeper your responses to all of the threads regarding the GPI and the specific elements that compose the GPI are what I have been struggling to indicate in my postings. Though I fully expect that there will be some for whom your postings will not deter from their appointed rounds of denigrating the computer models and polls for their "inaccuracies". When these "inaccuracies" arise from the failure of something to conform to what an individual thinks they "should" be then I take exception. There are some methodologies with which I don't agree but that does not mean they are wrong.

Still as you pointed out the most important thing is that the playoffs are selected by a committee and the games are played and a champion is crowned. That "imperfect" system will not select teams with a complete agreement on this board. They will be matched in a fashion that will provoke further disagreement. The games will be played and won in some cases in controversial fashion based on the calls of referees, untimely injuries, and other esoteric matters. Still the result will be a champion. And a lot more commetary on this board. That is the true reality every year.

[*****]

Thanks Keeper! Anyone can also listen to Kenneth Massey on the I-AA WAVES archive for further info too.

[bluehenbillk]

Still as you pointed out the most important thing is that the playoffs are selected by a committee and the games are played and a champion is crowned.

At least you said one thing right. You should have just stopped there rather than continually shoot yourself in the foot.

[DocMike]

My feet are just fine bluehenbillk. As to you and a couple of words that start with a c (computers and Chattanooga), I am sorry that you and 89Hen can't get the world to conform to your opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints. I guess my "arrogance" doesn't rise to the level of expecting things to be the way I think they "should" be, or how I believe, or be in accord with my opinion.

Just remember polls and computers are answers to questions that are asked about specific things but may appear so general as to lead to misunderstandings such as in the matter of the use of predictive, ranking, etc. I would be surprised if there is verifiable specific approach that poll voters use to justify their selections. The computer people don't have that luxury, but they do have a verifiable methodology which could be found in the algorithm they use or the specific items of data selected. Now, that said, the playoff committee will use both polls and computer models in selecting the playoff field. The result will be that usually 1-3 teams will be "woofed" based on what their fans or others feel were factors that were overlooked, nor valued enough, or they wus just plain robbed. That is the reality. A wonderfully imperfect way to pass the time until the games are played and dissected for more imperfections in terms of officiating, coaching, seeding, etc.

It doesn't get any better than that.

PS: Until somebody wants to outbid Chattanooga for the game, it will remain there.

[bluehenbillk]

My feet are just fine bluehenbillk. As to you and a couple of words that start with a c (computers and Chattanooga), I am sorry that you and 89Hen can't get the world to conform to your opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints. I guess my "arrogance" doesn't rise to the level of expecting things to be the way I think they "should" be, or how I believe, or be in accord with my opinion.

Just remember polls and computers are answers to questions that are asked about specific things but may appear so general as to lead to misunderstandings such as in the matter of the use of predictive, ranking, etc. I would be surprised if there is verifiable specific approach that poll voters use to justify their selections. The computer people don't have that luxury, but they do have a verifiable methodology which could be found in the algorithm they use or the specific items of data selected. Now, that said, the playoff committee will use both polls and computer models in selecting the playoff field. The result will be that usually 1-3 teams will be "woofed" based on what their fans or others feel were factors that were overlooked, nor valued enough, or they wus just plain robbed. That is the reality. A wonderfully imperfect way to pass the time until the games are played and dissected for more imperfections in terms of officiating, coaching, seeding, etc.

It doesn't get any better than that.

PS: Until somebody wants to outbid Chattanooga for the game, it will remain there.

I can live with the game being in Chatty, it's centrally located, I don't think there is much to do there but no argument from me.

Regardless of how many teams make the postseason, the 17th ranked, the 65th ranked whatever it is, they'll complain, that's life, do better next time during the regular season to not be a bubble team. "Arrogance" equals computer nerds throwing terms like methodology and algorithm on a football board. You can stop right there as to why this is wrong, football is a simple game, it's x's & o's. Yes, I know what those words mean before you go there, I do have a Master's Degree.

If you guys have fun formulating this process, knock yourselves out. To say that is anything above for entertainment purposes only is wrong (see the BCS). I've gone through the computer rankings, as have many others, that have been listed on this discussion board and listed those rankings that seem peculiar or out-of-whack, even Keeper admits his own rankings are faulty.

Thanks for the input, but no thanks.

[*****]

...Keeper admits his own rankings are faulty...Thanks again Keeper and we know you didn't say your rankings are faulty.

[bluehenbillk]

Thanks again Keeper and we know you didn't say your rankings are faulty.

This year, I admit I am not happy with the results and am not sure if the off-season tweaks are responsible. Guess I should have left it alone.
But it would be unethical to change the system back in the
middle of the season in my view. A complete review is
definitely in the works.

Sounds like he thinks it's faulty to me.

[*****]

This year, I admit I am not happy with the results...
Sounds like he thinks it's faulty to me.He said he was "not happy with the results" not that they were faulty. The results he receives from his system are without defect.

[bluehenbillk]

He said he was "not happy with the results" not that they were faulty. The results he receives from his system are without defect.

Now I know why you looked familiar when I met you Ralph. You're the bubble boy from Seinfeld. Step out of your bubble more often, you miss things. I guess if you tell yourself something over & over you actually believe it after a while.

[AggiePride]

These conversations are weird...

"The sky is blue"

"No it's not blue"

"Here's a picture of it"

"Thats not blue, its a shade of blue, but definately not blue"

Oh well...

[GannonFan]

He said he was "not happy with the results" not that they were faulty. The results he receives from his system are without defect.

It's when you make statements like that Ralph that your weird and over the top defense of the GPI just looks silly. The own creator of that particular ranking says that he doesn't like the results and would change it right now if he didn't think it's unethical to do so midstream and you take that comment as being that there's nothing wrong. To even call that position anywhere close to logical would be absurd. He doesn't like the ranking. He thinks the offseason tweaking of it may be responsible. He'll change it after the season's over. That all sums up to being that the numbers have flaws in them.

I may try to put 100 times 100 in my calculator, but if I mess up and hit 100 times 10 then sure the answer of 1000 is technically correct but far from my goal of 10000. xcoffeex

[bluehenbillk]

You have to like his spirit though, it kinda reminds of me of the movie Rudy. As wrong as he may be & as inane as his defenses get when he knows he's beat, he keeps on trying.

BTW, Rudy never went anywhere, I'm not a Notre Dame fan & still believe the movie was made to justify the excuse that they once ran the score up on GaTech.

[*****]

It is useless discussing anything with you two. You use the wrong words and try to pass them off as correct to denigrate computer systems. Keeper never said his system is faulty ("Keeper admits his own rankings are faulty") or flawed, the results are what he doesn't like, so far.

When you can't make a valid point you both resort to personal attacks. How mature of you.

[89Hen]

Keeper never said his system is faulty or flawed, the results are what he doesn't like
xlolx xlolx xlolx

[GannonFan]

It is useless discussing anything with you two. You use the wrong words and try to pass them off as correct to denigrate computer systems. Keeper never said his system is faulty ("Keeper admits his own rankings are faulty") or flawed, the results are what he doesn't like, so far.

When you can't make a valid point you both resort to personal attacks. How mature of you.

Whoa, settle down Ralph - this is why I let all the other threads and all the other posters who have similar complaints with the application of the GPI post without getting involved - the instant I make a post questioning something you lump BHBK and myself together, incorrectly say that we are the only ones questioning the GPI, make a false accusation of a personal attack, question my maturity, and then ignore the topic entirely. If you can't handle objective criticism of the GPI, then just say so. The purpose of these boards is to discuss things about I-AA football, not to try to cower posters of opposing viewpoints. I certainly welcome the discussion, and I would hope you would too.

My post questioned your statement that there was nothing wrong with the ranking in question when even the creator didn't like the results and would want to change them because he felt they could be better. The system creates the results, so the system, in its current configuration, must be faulty if the results are faulty. If he tweaks the results to be better (and by his admission he will for next year) that means that he needs to change the system - granted just an algorithm change, but a change nonetheless. How is that not the same as saying the system is faulty? It sounds pretty much the same to me.

[bluehenbillk]

You use the wrong words and try to pass them off as correct to denigrate computer systems. Keeper never said his system is faulty ("Keeper admits his own rankings are faulty") or flawed, the results are what he doesn't like, so far.



I was the only one who ever quoted him, yes he didn't use the word faulty but said as much otherwise. Excuse me for using facts, that would throw the whole _-_-_ system into further tizzy.

[*****]

... say that we are the only ones questioning the GPI...See? I never said that. Sorry if I feel compelled to point out incorrect use of vocabulary but you two have a history on this topic. I didn't know it would affect you so badly. Ease up.

[bluehenbillk]

If you can continue to take a beating regarding the _-_-_ then I'll continue to keep making coherent & appropriate points.

[GannonFan]

See? I never said that. Sorry if I feel compelled to point out incorrect use of vocabulary but you two have a history on this topic. I didn't know it would affect you so badly. Ease up.

Just because you didn't say it per se in this particular thread does not excuse the countless times in other threads were you made that accusation and devolved into name calling (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum rings a bell - I'm sure it does for you as well). I'm trying to take the high road here, Ralph, but now your questioning of my vocabulary is just one more shot across the bow that is unprovoked and uncalled for. If you don't want to talk about the GPI and the merits and flaws in it then call it a day and end it like that. Otherwise stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff to other boards.

[*****]

... I'll continue to keep making coherent & appropriate points.
... stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff to other boards.I look forward to the day you two do just that but remember, personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on AGS.

Have a nice weekend!

And thanks Keeper! :nod:

[bluehenbillk]

I look forward to the day you two do just that but remember, personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on AGS.


It'd be nice if you followed that yourself, <cough> BigApp <cough>.

[Keeper]

I am not happy with the results this year, true.
The system is not performing as well as years past, true.
That being said I am confident it is still one of the best
systems out there with a solid method behind it.
Show me a system with 100% accuracy, it shall be
proclaimed to be flaw-less.
My formula undergoes constant review no matter how
well it performs. I only wish it to be the best possible
with the data I have and the time to make it happen.
I am certainly no genius and never learned advanced
mathematics. Just another college football fanatic who
also enjoys stats and knows the basics of spreadsheets.

I can have my own opinion about some of the output,
can't I? To say that I disagree with some of the
predictions or rankings means I have reasonable
expectations as well as most fans. For example,
this weekend my system predicts Towson to win at
Delaware by 11 points (ironic, no?). My guts tell me
that UD probably should win, so I disagree with that, okay?
But I will not change predictions manually to appease
an opinion or to fit the norm. That goes against the
unbiased purpose of the exercise. On the whole,
I am confident this system exhibits some merit in
rating football teams, and that it will do better in the
future. After all, since last week when my system
picked Northeastern, No Iowa and S Carolina St all for upsets
over NH YSU & Hampton, I have good reason to continue.

To me the merits of any computer ranking or opinion voting
are equally open to review, that is only fair.
But until someone is elected the exalted commissioner
of NCAA football and bans all opinion and computer polls,
those who do not like them will hopefully find at least a
smidgen of inner peace.

[Cincy App]

Thanks Keeper for your insightful explanations and taking the high road where other defenders of the GPI have not. I'm a number-cruncher and enjoy reviewing all the components of the GPI and also like to evaluate the polls vs. the GPI vs. Sagarin-type ratings - especially as the playoffs approach.

The GPI has been proactive to attempt to add as many different ratings as possible to its rankings. The GPI has also been wise to wait until mid-season to release its first rankings. Some of the components look questionable to date but there are still games left in the season for that to change. After the season, I'm sure that all (ie - which ratings to include and how the individual ratings are calculated) will be re-evaluated before next year. It has been changed each year which is to the credit of the GPI. Typically though, ratings don't change much in the latter part of the existing year unless you lose your way out. For instance, I don't see San Diego dropping much before the end of the season.

Ultimately, I'm glad the GPI is around as long as we remember that it's simply another resource to predict at-large playoff teams and compare teams and conferences. It's not the "end all" to playoff selections nor should it be ignored. With manipulation (ie - dropping 4 loss teams), the GPI has regularly picked 7 of 8 at-large playoff teams similar to the success of the polls or predictions of individuals. No system can factor in that human or political factor! Thanks again Keeper for your input.