Final GPI (Gridiorn Power Index) released

[CSN-info]

Eastern Washington Wins National Championship And No. 1 Overall GPI ranking; CAA Wins GPI Conference Crown With Seven Teams in GPI Top 25


CHICAGO - The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection saw Eastern Washington conclude the 2010-2011 football season on top in the GPI rankings, punctuated with their 20-19 win over Delaware in the FCS National Championship game in Frisco, Texas on January 7th.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?404-GPI-1-21-2011-Eastern-Washington-Finishes-2010-2011-Football-Season-At-No.-1

[Go...gate]

Colgate #66, Princeton #111.

Patriot League way down in conference strength.

[CFBfan]

Eastern Washington Wins National Championship And No. 1 Overall GPI ranking; CAA Wins GPI Conference Crown With Seven Teams in GPI Top 25


CHICAGO - The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection saw Eastern Washington conclude the 2010-2011 football season on top in the GPI rankings, punctuated with their 20-19 win over Delaware in the FCS National Championship game in Frisco, Texas on January 7th.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?404-GPI-1-21-2011-Eastern-Washington-Finishes-2010-2011-Football-Season-At-No.-1

I can't see Penn over Lehigh or Mass nor can I see the Ivy 8th.....

[Big Al]

$3.50 and a GPI ranking will get you a small cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The reasoning behind the GPI and polls are completely backwards. I know this is will tick off a few people because it's a hard concept to wrap your head around but being the national champ doesn't mean you're the best team. They are trying to divine rankings among teams that didn't necessarily play each other and they start with the faulty premise that EWU must be ranked first.

Don't take this to be an attempt in any way to minimize EWU's achievement -- they did what the polls cannot and that is win on the field, rather than establish some artificial pedigree on paper.


Eastern Washington Wins National Championship And No. 1 Overall GPI ranking; CAA Wins GPI Conference Crown With Seven Teams in GPI Top 25


CHICAGO - The Gridiron Power Index (GPI), the index ranking for the NCAA Division I FCS and a top indicator of at-large playoff selection saw Eastern Washington conclude the 2010-2011 football season on top in the GPI rankings, punctuated with their 20-19 win over Delaware in the FCS National Championship game in Frisco, Texas on January 7th.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?404-GPI-1-21-2011-Eastern-Washington-Finishes-2010-2011-Football-Season-At-No.-1

[Squealofthepig]

The reasoning behind the GPI and polls are completely backwards. I know this is will tick off a few people because it's a hard concept to wrap your head around but being the national champ doesn't mean you're the best team.

Alright, I'll call you, Mr. Devil's Advocate. What DOES mean you're the best team, then? I'm not a huge fan of polls, human or computer, but if being the national champ doesn't mean you're the best team, what the heck does?

If the playoffs are held multiple times, yes, different teams will be the national champion - I will grant that. But if reality doesn't dictate the national champion, what - outside of the Gambler's Gambit - does?

[bluehenbillk]

Why? Why is this even done? Does anyone believe a collective sigh of relief occured over the greater Cheney, WA area last night? Even the system the GPI is modeled after, the BCS, doesn't release #'s after the games are played. That's the point of the playoff system. Just goes to show you how big the egos are of the people that push this fraudulent computer-ridden system out there.

[OL FU]

I understand the point of winning the national championship not meaning you are the best team, but it is a meaningless point. Not to mention an arbitraryand opinion based meaningless point.

[BEAR]

I can't give any credit to something that can't even get a school's season record correct.

31 Central Arkansas SLC 6-5 30.375 165

UCA went 7-4, not 6-5. Just hilarious. I wonder how much more is incorrect. xlolx

[Wildcat80]

WOW even NEAC rated higher than Patriot!

[bluehenbillk]

WOW even NEAC rated higher than Patriot!

They passed them I'd say 2 years ago by now.

[GSU Eagle]

Something that surprised me this year was when the playoff teams were announced the comiittee chair said the GPI was not considered by the committee at all in selecting teams.

[danefan]

Something that surprised me this year was when the playoff teams were announced the comiittee chair said the GPI was not considered by the committee at all in selecting teams.

Why is that surprising?

[darell1976]

#67!? Really? I wouldn't think we would be that high.

[Big Al]

Alright, I'll call you, Mr. Devil's Advocate. What DOES mean you're the best team, then? I'm not a huge fan of polls, human or computer, but if being the national champ doesn't mean you're the best team, what the heck does?

Win definitively. Win big. Trounce your opponents and erase any doubt as to who is the better team.

Don't take any of this as an attempt to minimize EWU's championship. Winning the NC means they had a combination of elite talent and coaching, coupled with a strong will, work ethic and a bit of luck. I would argue that winning when you aren't clearly the best (or are the inferior team) is more of an accomplishment. Winning the close games takes more effort and mental toughness than winning a blowout ever will.

[Big Al]

I understand the point of winning the national championship not meaning you are the best team, but it is a meaningless point. Not to mention an arbitraryand opinion based meaningless point.

I'll respectfully disagree with you. What I think is arbitrary is the expectation that playing a football game will always determine who is the better team. Putting two similarly talented (and coached) teams up against each other can result in no clear distinction between the two.

Maybe I'm just saying this because I miss the days of tie games. I think people like clear-cut answers when sometimes it's more shades of grey. It isn't even about EWU being ranked #1, necessarily -- like I said, they earned the right to be called the national champ. I just don't buy into the idea that a playoff system answers all of the questions people seem to expect it to.

[OL FU]

I'll respectfully disagree with you. What I think is arbitrary is the expectation that playing a football game will always determine who is the better team. Putting two similarly talented (and coached) teams up against each other can result in no clear distinction between the two.

Maybe I'm just saying this because I miss the days of tie games. I think people like clear-cut answers when sometimes it's more shades of grey. It isn't even about EWU being ranked #1, necessarily -- like I said, they earned the right to be called the national champ. I just don't buy into the idea that a playoff system answers all of the questions people seem to expect it to.

Unfortunately for your opinion, winning is what matters. Fortunately for my opinion, winning is what matters.

[OL FU]

But Al I will apologize I tend to be short when pushed for time. The point is that we pride ourselves in this division that the champion is selected on the field, Not in the opinion of people that think they know more than what the actual game. and in my opinion when you go through the five games and win it all, it is a little tough to here someone say, but................................


Hell we might as well have bowls.

I suppose my point was that winning is objective. You might not think they are the best team, but that is subjective. That is what I meant by meaningless point. We all know the cliche about opinions.

[eaglewraith]

Why is that surprising?

Because of this from the NCAA Division 1 Championship Handbook regarding criteria for selection.


Team finishes the season ranked 20 or higher in an average of the last regularseason
media, coaches and/or computer polls (which will be determined by the
committee on an annual basis). For 2010, the media poll will be the Sports
Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer
poll will be a variation of the Gridiron Power Index – using only the following
computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index.

The statement made by the committee member seems to imply they didn't look at it at all.

[danefan]

Because of this from the NCAA Division 1 Championship Handbook regarding criteria for selection.



The statement made by the committee member seems to imply they didn't look at it at all.

The "GPI" discussed in the handbook is not the GPI we are looking at in this thread.

The NCAA GPI only applies to teams that meet the other criterion of the "bridge AQ" and this year none did. So even the NCAA GPI was irrelevant and the committee had no reason to consider any computer ranking at all.

The CSN GPI which this thread is about has never officially been used by the NCAA for anything.

[eaglewraith]

The "GPI" discussed in the handbook is not the GPI we are looking at in this thread.

The NCAA GPI only applies to teams that meet the other criterion of the "bridge AQ" and this year none did. So even the NCAA GPI was irrelevant and the committee had no reason to consider any computer ranking at all.

The CSN GPI which this thread is about has never officially been used by the NCAA for anything.

Ah crap, my bad. I've been going cross eyed from working too much and been rendered unable to read apparently.

[Big Al]

I suppose my point was that winning is objective. You might not think they are the best team, but that is subjective. That is what I meant by meaningless point. We all know the cliche about opinions.

You're leading right back into my point -- the only objective thing we can say about EWU is they are the national champs. Anything else, such as "they are the best team", is purely subjective opinion.

I suspect EWU would agree with me that it's better to be the champs than the best team.

Polls -- especially preseason and post-season ones -- are barely worth the paper they're written on. I don't think they're a good indicator of the best team in the country, and I think they're even less reliable as you go down the list.

[OL FU]

You're leading right back into my point -- the only objective thing we can say about EWU is they are the national champs. Anything else, such as "they are the best team", is purely subjective opinion.

I suspect EWU would agree with me that it's better to be the champs than the best team.

Polls -- especially preseason and post-season ones -- are barely worth the paper they're written on. I don't think they're a good indicator of the best team in the country, and I think they're even less reliable as you go down the list.

Then I think we agree, some one thinking that a team is the best team means nothing (except to that individual) as long as we have a legitimate national champion.

[danefan]

Ah crap, my bad. I've been going cross eyed from working too much and been rendered unable to read apparently.

Its not your mistake really. Its commonly thought and publicized by some that the Committee uses the GPI for selection purposes, despite the fact that the Committee has never said that publiclly. In fact, as you mentioned, its been confirmed that it is not used by the Committee.

I've been saying this every year when the GPI comes out around the selection time and I always take flack for it.

The Committee has its own ranking system that they update on their weekly conference calls throughout the season. That is not, however, released.

[Big Al]

Then I think we agree, some one thinking that a team is the best team means nothing (except to that individual) as long as we have a legitimate national champion.

Bingo!

[OL FU]

Bingo!

I knew it all the time

[dudeitsaid]

You're leading right back into my point -- the only objective thing we can say about EWU is they are the national champs. Anything else, such as "they are the best team", is purely subjective opinion.

I suspect EWU would agree with me that it's better to be the champs than the best team.

Polls -- especially preseason and post-season ones -- are barely worth the paper they're written on. I don't think they're a good indicator of the best team in the country, and I think they're even less reliable as you go down the list.

As an EWU fan, I am definitely happy we are the champs. Though it's interesting to debate the merits of who is the best or who isn't, the trophy is more worthwhile to any team, any fan, and any school than the debate over who is, or isn't the "best" team.

The "best" is simply impossible to pin down because every team does not play every other team. Many teams may be called the best because they dominate the most statistical categories. But then again, who did they run their statistics up against. Or maybe the dominate the defensive categories, and defense wins championships. Or maybe they had the best record in the "toughest" conference. Or maybe they are just plain lucky. Or maybe they are scrappy, and well-conditioned, and know how to win the close games, etc, etc, etc.

Fact is, the "best" team, as has already been noted, is a reality that exists in the eye of the beholder. Because their will never be a real way to settle the issue once and for all, and the definition may be different for many people.

It does make for interesting discussion, and it is entertaining to hear so many perspectives. Heck, we can even debate what year was a better team, or what team was the best national champion, etc.

For all of the talk of who is the best in the opinion of the posters, and even the polsters, the hardware is so much sweeter than what anybody else thinks. Whether anybody disagrees with whether Eastern is the best team or not is ultimately irrelevant. Because we have the trophy. We are the champions. And that is not debatable, and can't be taken away.

[Mr. C]

The "GPI" discussed in the handbook is not the GPI we are looking at in this thread.

The NCAA GPI only applies to teams that meet the other criterion of the "bridge AQ" and this year none did. So even the NCAA GPI was irrelevant and the committee had no reason to consider any computer ranking at all.

The CSN GPI which this thread is about has never officially been used by the NCAA for anything.
Once again, you are totally wrong about this issue. I don't care what statements anyone has made to the contrary, the fact is that the NCAA has contracted for three years with College Sporting News to use the GPI as part of its deliberations.

We have signed contracts that prove that fact. As an attorney yourself, you should do better when you discuss this issue.

The NCAA has also contracted with the folks that run the Coaches Poll and with The Sports Network to use their polls as part of the process. Those are the facts and I've seen the contracts and the emails between the NCAA, CSN and TSN on the subject and have also been a part of the dialog about this subject between the NCAA and the parties.

[danefan]

Read my posts again.

The modified GPI is a completely different formula using inputs at are not even a part of the CSN GPI referenced in this thread. You offer no proof except your "advertising" that the CSN GPI is used for any official NCAA purpose.

You can spout all you want but until the NCAA officially acknowledges that the committee uses the GPI it's your biased word against what we know are facts:

A team that finished in the 50's of the CSN GPI got an at-large.
The NCAA has a modified version of a computer formula that it only uses for the bridge AQ.

Facts.

[Mr. C]

Read my posts again.

The modified GPI is a completely different formula using inputs at are not even a part of the CSN GPI referenced in this thread. You offer no proof except your "advertising" that the CSN GPI is used for any official NCAA purpose.

You can spout all you want but until the NCAA officially acknowledges that the committee uses the GPI it's your biased word against what we know are facts:

A team that finished in the 50's of the CSN GPI got an at-large.
The NCAA has a modified version of a computer formula that it only uses for the bridge AQ.

Facts.
Nice move, trying to change the argument. Typical attorney. I re-read your post that I quoted and it said nothing of the modified GPI. And for the record, the only thing different about the modified and regular GPI is that the modified GPI eliminates the AGS poll, which the NCAA did not want to use for these purposes. No one is "spouting" about anything. The facts are that the NCAA has contracted with CSN and TSN and the coaches poll to use those measures. There is even mention of it in the NCAA playoff handbook, in regards to the bridge AQ.

My "biased" word versus facts? What is biased about the fact that I have been with TWO organizations that the NCAA has signed contracts with for the media poll and the GPI. If you chose not to "believe" this, that is your problem. It doesn't make it any less true.

I have had to sign contracts from the NCAA each year for this. If you don't want to believe that, than that's your problem. It doesn't change the "facts." You have zero facts to bring to the table other than some self-serving comments by committee members. I have had committee members tell me they have used the GPI. You also know very little about the process used to select teams. We have been asked for three years to provide the NCAA with this information and that entails working all-nighters after the final day of the regular season to get this done. Damani Leech of the NCAA has been our contact person on this. He is the man who runs the Division I football and baseball championships. He personally requested this information and however they choose to use it after we provide it is up to them. I know for a fact that the committee is provided with all sorts of measures to break down the teams. Each committee member can do what they want with these measurements.

Your "facts" are not facts at all. If we were in court, all I would have to do is present the contracts I have referenced and the email correspondence and I would win the case. The only reason I don't do so here is that it is a private matter between our company and someone else. Your statements are not "facts." It boggles my mind to see you continue to argue about something you know absolutely nothing about.

[danefan]

Nice move, trying to change the argument. Typical attorney. I re-read your post that I quoted and it said nothing of the modified GPI. And for the record, the only thing different about the modified and regular GPI is that the modified GPI eliminates the AGS poll, which the NCAA did not want to use for these purposes. No one is "spouting" about anything. The facts are that the NCAA has contracted with CSN and TSN and the coaches poll to use those measures. There is even mention of it in the NCAA playoff handbook, in regards to the bridge AQ.

My "biased" word versus facts? What is biased about the fact that I have been with TWO organizations that the NCAA has signed contracts with for the media poll and the GPI. If you chose not to "believe" this, that is your problem. It doesn't make it any less true.

I have had to sign contracts from the NCAA each year for this. If you don't want to believe that, than that's your problem. It doesn't change the "facts." You have zero facts to bring to the table other than some self-serving comments by committee members. I have had committee members tell me they have used the GPI. You also know very little about the process used to select teams. We have been asked for three years to provide the NCAA with this information and that entails working all-nighters after the final day of the regular season to get this done. Damani Leech of the NCAA has been our contact person on this. He is the man who runs the Division I football and baseball championships. He personally requested this information and however they choose to use it after we provide it is up to them. I know for a fact that the committee is provided with all sorts of measures to break down the teams. Each committee member can do what they want with these measurements.

Your "facts" are not facts at all. If we were in court, all I would have to do is present the contracts I have referenced and the email correspondence and I would win the case. The only reason I don't do so here is that it is a private matter between our company and someone else. Your statements are not "facts." It boggles my mind to see you continue to argue about something you know absolutely nothing about.

I'll quote myself again so as to save you the "work" of actually reading anything I said.


The "GPI" discussed in the handbook is not the GPI we are looking at in this thread.

The NCAA GPI only applies to teams that meet the other criterion of the "bridge AQ" and this year none did. So even the NCAA GPI was irrelevant and the committee had no reason to consider any computer ranking at all.

The CSN GPI which this thread is about has never officially been used by the NCAA for anything.


Its not your mistake really. Its commonly thought and publicized by some that the Committee uses the GPI for selection purposes, despite the fact that the Committee has never said that publiclly. In fact, as you mentioned, its been confirmed that it is not used by the Committee.

I've been saying this every year when the GPI comes out around the selection time and I always take flack for it.

The Committee has its own ranking system that they update on their weekly conference calls throughout the season. That is not, however, released.

And you should learn about your own formula before you discuss it.

The modified GPI is different then the CSN GPI in the following ways:
1. It includes zero human polls - the Coaches poll and TSN are factored into the bridge AQ, but not as part of the Modified GPI.
2. It only includes the following four computer ratings: Wolfe, Lazarus, Massey, Ashburn and Self as opposed to the CSN GPI which includes two additional computer rankings - Keeper and Sauceda and does not include the Wolfe index.

So in other words the NCAA GPI (also commonly referred to as the Modified GPI) is a completely different computer ranking then the CSN GPI discussed above. Different inputs = different results = different system.

I'm not sure how you can dispute that.

And your personal attacks on me don't help your argument. Kind of makes you look a little crazy....xwhistlex

[bluehenbillk]

And you should learn about your own formula before you discuss it.

The modified GPI is different then the CSN GPI in the following ways:
1. It includes zero human polls - the Coaches poll and TSN are factored into the bridge AQ, but not as part of the Modified GPI.
2. It only includes the following four computer ratings: Wolfe, Lazarus, Massey, Ashburn and Self as opposed to the CSN GPI which includes two additional computer rankings - Keeper and Sauceda and does not include the Wolfe index.

So in other words the NCAA GPI (also commonly referred to as the Modified GPI) is a completely different computer ranking then the CSN GPI discussed above. Different inputs = different results = different system.



If this is true, and I have zero reason to doubt danefan it's case closed, and can we please close this thread about a fallacy of a system that has been exposed for it's holes once again.

[danefan]

If this is true, and I have zero reason to doubt danefan it's case closed, and can we please close this thread about a fallacy of a system that has been exposed for it's holes once again.

Some links to actually back up my point:

Division I FCS Handbook



For those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it,

a guaranteed at-large position shall be awarded in any year in which its conference

champion team meets

all of the following conditions:


a. Team wins a minimum of eight Division I games during the season;


b. Team wins a minimum of two non-conference games against Division I teams

representing a conference that has earned an automatic qualification in that year;





and

c. Team finishes the season ranked 20 or higher in an average of the last regularseason

media, coaches and/or computer polls (which will be determined by the
committee on an annual basis). For 2010, the media poll will be the Sports
Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer
poll will be a variation of the Gridiron Power Index – using only the following
computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index.



http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf) - Page 10-11, emphasis added.



CSN GPI Components (Directly linked to CSN's google Docs account):



Computer rankings:

MAS = Massey, SAG = Sagarin, LAZ = Laz Index, KEE = Keeper, SEL = Self, ASH = Ashburn, SAU=Sauceda..


Polls:.

SNW = Sports Network, FCP = FCS Coaches, AGS = Any Given Saturday



https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0At2w-dbZUZ2gdFhUSFBCdEFtRWFQZGJqc0hfRkZLRGc&hl=en&output=html (https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0At2w-dbZUZ2gdFhUSFBCdEFtRWFQZGJqc0hfRkZLRGc&hl=en&output=html)


linked on:
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/content.php?404-GPI-1-21-2011-Eastern-Washington-Finishes-2010-2011-Football-Season-At-No.-1


Once again - I have no reason to make this us.

[danefan]

I'm sure one of the CSN Bots will come back with a comment about how I'm biased against CSN and I have no clue what I am talking about because I don't have a press pass or have lunch with Andy Talley every day or blah blah blah.....

Have fun. I've made my point and its obviously clear to readers here.

The CSN GPI is what it is is. A computer ranking. Its a sum of its parts. Liking it or not is nothing more then an opinion which we are all entitled to.

Just don't try and make it out for anything other then it really is.