Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

A computer poll preseason is bizarre to me.  What are the inputs?  Number of starters returning?

I guess they could take last year's finish and do something with starters returning, but or number of starts returning at each position, or something.

Quija board?

A computer poll preseason is bizarre to me.  What are the inputs?  Number of starters returning?

I guess they could take last year's finish and do something with starters returning, but or number of starts returning at each position, or something.

Quija board?

Starting Position- This is one of the most hotly debated subjects in rankings. Starting position DOES have an impact in rankings, but what I’ve done is create a system where the pre-season ranking is corrected early on (through strength of schedule and head to head results) so there is no undue advantage from the pre-season poll that remains past about the third week of September. I respect many different points of view here, ranging from creating a pre-season poll based on returning starters and media hype (as in the AP/Coaches), starting everyone equal (as in some computer polls), or having a starting position based on an average of 3-5 previous seasons (also in some computer models). I believe having a starting position is best, but starting everyone equal is not logical to me. We know through observation of past seasons that some teams are stronger than others. No disrespect to the Vandals, but in 2007 Idaho was not as strong a team as Texas. If we know this in advance, to a high degree of accuracy, then ranking Texas and Idaho equal is not only illogical, it is unfair to Texas and completely (in my mind) skews any hope of an accurate strength of schedule. In the past I kept teams in their earned rank positions from the end of one season to the beginning of the next. If a team finished #10 in 2007, they started #10 in 2008. For decades I felt it was the fairest way to establish a starting position. However, beginning in 2014 I began creating a pre-season ranking based on returning starters and coaching changes. It’s not so much that I changed my mind as it is the fact that enormous amounts of information are now available to me now through the internet, and being semi-retired, I have the time to devote to that process. I still adjust a team’s RATING to a standard point value that brings teams closer together, preventing an unfair advantage in points from one season to the next. Each year the #1 team starts at 270 points; #2, 269.250 points; #3, 268.500 points and so forth all the way to #128 starting at 174.150 points.

https://enc.cfrc.com/archives/ISO_08.htm

I have no doubt that preseason starting position was an influencer (modest or more) in the BCS era. But Cincy has persuaded me that the effect has been lost in the CoFoPO era. I guess that's a function of their independence and their discipline in delaying their first ranking until the season is more than half completed. If they are any amount affected by the preseason polls, it's so much smaller than the BCS era phenomenon as to not register on our measuring stick.

I like the idear of starting everyone equal and not releasing a poll until mid November

it would be more fair imo but, that wouldn't be as much fun

Are fairness and correctness the same thing?
If they're not, I'd go with the system that ends up with the best team ranked #1.
In the passage from Billingsley's website I posted above, he makes the hypothetical case about Idaho and Texas.  We know with a high degree of certainty that Texas is better than Idaho, so what's the point of starting them ranked the same?