sagarin

[St George]

How did we flip flop with the gris? look at the schedule numbers.

[RockyBearCat]

because Sagarin is a moron and clown rankings. He factors strength of schedule way too much.

[onceacat]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

[nevadacat]

Doesn’t Sagarin use a Bayesian approach? If so, the “prior,” which is basically an initial guess, carries more weight early in the process.

[Catsrgrood]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

I think this is exactly it. People put too much into these rankings, especially early on. I like looking at them as something fun to watch through the season and to pass the time as a fan. But they’re nothing more than that. People analyze every last thing about them and get worked up when something doesn’t look quite right compared to what their view is.

The bottom line is that is a computer algorithm looking at results. It’s going to see team X that was ranked #10 lost to team Y that was ranked #20, and it was on the road, so them X will drop this many spots and team Y will go up this many spots. And it looks at all games and factors in all results and spits out a result each week. The formula/algorithm is obviously more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

It has no way of knowing there was a blown call in a game, giving a team the opportunity to kick a game winning fg, or that the starting qb went out in the first quarter so the offense was anemic after that, or that a team dominated so thoroughly that they put their 2’s and 3’s in for a full half, resulting in a closer score on the scoreboard than what actually happened on the field.

[Otis Campbell]

What does it matter? The proof is on the field, right? Once the pre-season is outa the way, THEN we'll all get a better idea of where everybody stands.

[TomCat88]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

I think this is exactly it. People put too much into these rankings, especially early on. I like looking at them as something fun to watch through the season and to pass the time as a fan. But they’re nothing more than that. People analyze every last thing about them and get worked up when something doesn’t look quite right compared to what their view is.

The bottom line is that is a computer algorithm looking at results. It’s going to see team X that was ranked #10 lost to team Y that was ranked #20, and it was on the road, so them X will drop this many spots and team Y will go up this many spots. And it looks at all games and factors in all results and spits out a result each week. The formula/algorithm is obviously more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

It has no way of knowing there was a blown call in a game, giving a team the opportunity to kick a game winning fg, or that the starting qb went out in the first quarter so the offense was anemic after that, or that a team dominated so thoroughly that they put their 2’s and 3’s in for a full half, resulting in a closer score on the scoreboard than what actually happened on the field.

That’s all good but what about Idaho vs UM? I see no possible combination that leads to UM being ranked over Idaho. They’ve done almost exactly the same thing except Idaho has played much stronger competition.

[DMMDCats]

What does it matter? The proof is on the field, right? Once the pre-season is outa the way, THEN we'll all get a better idea of where everybody stands.

Gambling. It’s all about gambling.

[Catsrgrood]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

I think this is exactly it. People put too much into these rankings, especially early on. I like looking at them as something fun to watch through the season and to pass the time as a fan. But they’re nothing more than that. People analyze every last thing about them and get worked up when something doesn’t look quite right compared to what their view is.

The bottom line is that is a computer algorithm looking at results. It’s going to see team X that was ranked #10 lost to team Y that was ranked #20, and it was on the road, so them X will drop this many spots and team Y will go up this many spots. And it looks at all games and factors in all results and spits out a result each week. The formula/algorithm is obviously more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

It has no way of knowing there was a blown call in a game, giving a team the opportunity to kick a game winning fg, or that the starting qb went out in the first quarter so the offense was anemic after that, or that a team dominated so thoroughly that they put their 2’s and 3’s in for a full half, resulting in a closer score on the scoreboard than what actually happened on the field.

That’s all good but what about Idaho vs UM? I see no possible combination that leads to UM being ranked over Idaho. They’ve done almost exactly the same thing except Idaho has played much stronger competition.

I don’t pretend to know the exact formula or algorithm behind the madness, but my understanding is in the early part of the season, the previous season still has some weight to it.

With any of these computer generated ratings, it’s usually about mid season that they’ll look a lot closer to how most people would rank teams, once there is more current season data to actually go off of.

[Montanabob]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

I think this is exactly it. People put too much into these rankings, especially early on. I like looking at them as something fun to watch through the season and to pass the time as a fan. But they’re nothing more than that. People analyze every last thing about them and get worked up when something doesn’t look quite right compared to what their view is.

The bottom line is that is a computer algorithm looking at results. It’s going to see team X that was ranked #10 lost to team Y that was ranked #20, and it was on the road, so them X will drop this many spots and team Y will go up this many spots. And it looks at all games and factors in all results and spits out a result each week. The formula/algorithm is obviously more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

It has no way of knowing there was a blown call in a game, giving a team the opportunity to kick a game winning fg, or that the starting qb went out in the first quarter so the offense was anemic after that, or that a team dominated so thoroughly that they put their 2’s and 3’s in for a full half, resulting in a closer score on the scoreboard than what actually happened on the field.

That’s all good but what about Idaho vs UM? I see no possible combination that leads to UM being ranked over Idaho. They’ve done almost exactly the same thing except Idaho has played much stronger competition.

I don’t pretend to know the exact formula or algorithm behind the madness, but my understanding is in the early part of the season, the previous season still has some weight to it.

With any of these computer generated ratings, it’s usually about mid season that they’ll look a lot closer to how most people would rank teams, once there is more current season data to actually go off of.

years ago sagarin came out and refused to talk about the exact formulas but did say it used preference to starting point of last season early in the season which caused it to not be as valuable in early weeks but had greater precision later in the year as it had better data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Saga ... %20applied.

[Bobcat Sig]

Without seeing the spreadsheet he uses, its impossible to know...

I think the shortest version is:

The computers 'see' a Griz win over an OK Missouri State team and a loss to a good UND team.

But the computers can't 'see' how dominant the Cats were against lower teams...the computer 'sees' the lats score by UT & the second half 'blowout'. The computer doesn't know that the Cats rested the #1s for the last 3 of 5 quarters.

Anyone who watched the games knows the Cats #2s would be a bubble team for the playoffs.

Anyone who actually watched the games see that the Griz are playing-at most-like a middle of the pack MVCC team.

But using a computer model cant see those differences.

Thats why I like to compare both a power poll by knowledgeable sources (like Sam Herder) with the computers...and not rely too much on either.

I think this is exactly it. People put too much into these rankings, especially early on. I like looking at them as something fun to watch through the season and to pass the time as a fan. But they’re nothing more than that. People analyze every last thing about them and get worked up when something doesn’t look quite right compared to what their view is.

The bottom line is that is a computer algorithm looking at results. It’s going to see team X that was ranked #10 lost to team Y that was ranked #20, and it was on the road, so them X will drop this many spots and team Y will go up this many spots. And it looks at all games and factors in all results and spits out a result each week. The formula/algorithm is obviously more complicated than that, but that is the gist of it.

It has no way of knowing there was a blown call in a game, giving a team the opportunity to kick a game winning fg, or that the starting qb went out in the first quarter so the offense was anemic after that, or that a team dominated so thoroughly that they put their 2’s and 3’s in for a full half, resulting in a closer score on the scoreboard than what actually happened on the field.

That’s all good but what about Idaho vs UM? I see no possible combination that leads to UM being ranked over Idaho. They’ve done almost exactly the same thing except Idaho has played much stronger competition.

I don’t pretend to know the exact formula or algorithm behind the madness, but my understanding is in the early part of the season, the previous season still has some weight to it.

With any of these computer generated ratings, it’s usually about mid season that they’ll look a lot closer to how most people would rank teams, once there is more current season data to actually go off of.

So the ol’ griz trope of, “we used to be good!”

Man, their reputation buys them way too many dinners.

[Otis Campbell]

What does it matter? The proof is on the field, right? Once the pre-season is outa the way, THEN we'll all get a better idea of where everybody stands.

Gambling. It’s all about gambling.

You may be right. I'm no gambler, so I would have no idea. Money and sports should be light years apart. Hells Bells, ever the ancient Greeks put their wars on hold for the Olympics. Money has ruined sports, football in particular. At this rate, Pete Rose will be MLB Commissioner soon.