header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down
Author

Topic: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP

 (Read 5035 times)

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2019, 10:36:30 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on January 15, 2019, 08:27:50 PM
lack of respect - #7?
Yeah, seems harsh considering a 4 loss team was #10
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18844
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2019, 10:38:50 PM »
While UM did go undefeated, they also had a win% of only .750......so maybe #7 wasn't so bad.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2019, 10:48:46 PM »
S&P+ has them #6, behind a pair of 3 loss teams in Nebraska and Washington.  But ahead of Miami (#7) and well ahead of Texas A&M (#16).

It really liked the Pac 10 that year.  Not just 3 loss Washington at #5, but a pair of 6-5-1 teams in Arizona and USC at #10 and #12
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2019, 11:14:45 AM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on January 15, 2019, 10:38:50 PM
While UM did go undefeated, they also had a win% of only .750......so maybe #7 wasn't so bad.
In the modern era (at least in the Big Ten / Big11Ten) ties were considered 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss for purposes of calculating winning percentage so Michigan's 9-0-3 record is mathematically 10.5-1.5 or .875.  
Looking at the B1G Media Guide:
  • In 1914 Chicago went 4-2-1 and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .667.  They just ignored ties because mathematically they won .571 of their total games (4/7) and if you treated ties as 1/2 of a win their winning percentage would be .643.  
  • Similarly, in 1915 Minnesota went 3-0-1 and Illinois went 3-0-2 and both were recorded as having a 1.000 winning percentage.  The ties were ignored.  
  • In 1992 Michigan went 6-0-2 in conference and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .875 which mathematically means that they treated the ties as 1/2 of a win such that Michigan's record for computational purposes was 7-1 (7/8=.875).  

There is a note in the B1G Media guide stating that "Beginning in 1946, ties counted as half-win, half-loss"  I do not know if the treatment of ties as 1/2 of a win was universal in CFB or limited to the BigTen.  
Logged

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2019, 11:38:19 AM »
Michigan's schedule was also not very impressive. The Wolverines played three ranked teams, including Washington in the bowl game. They tied a top 5 Irish team in week one, tied the teen-ranked Buckeyes, and beat a good Washington team in the Rose Bowl by one score. They crushed most of the teams they played, but only beat Purdue by one score and, of course, tied Illinois (that's really the game that bit them, I think; the pollsters dropped them from #3 to #8 for that).
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18844
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2019, 12:49:55 PM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on January 16, 2019, 11:14:45 AM
In the modern era (at least in the Big Ten / Big11Ten) ties were considered 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss for purposes of calculating winning percentage so Michigan's 9-0-3 record is mathematically 10.5-1.5 or .875.  
Looking at the B1G Media Guide:
  • In 1914 Chicago went 4-2-1 and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .667.  They just ignored ties because mathematically they won .571 of their total games (4/7) and if you treated ties as 1/2 of a win their winning percentage would be .643.  
  • Similarly, in 1915 Minnesota went 3-0-1 and Illinois went 3-0-2 and both were recorded as having a 1.000 winning percentage.  The ties were ignored.  
  • In 1992 Michigan went 6-0-2 in conference and that is recorded as a winning percentage of .875 which mathematically means that they treated the ties as 1/2 of a win such that Michigan's record for computational purposes was 7-1 (7/8=.875).  

There is a note in the B1G Media guide stating that "Beginning in 1946, ties counted as half-win, half-loss"  I do not know if the treatment of ties as 1/2 of a win was universal in CFB or limited to the BigTen.  
Yeah, I get all that, and I guess it makes sense in terms of what place you might finish in a conference or something, but I also know math, and if you played 12 games and only won 9 of them, your WINNING % is .750.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2019, 12:55:10 PM »
Agreed. Ties do funny things to winning percentage. Is a team that is 5-5-1 .500? It depends on what that .500 means: not .500 in winning or losing, but even in outcomes. So a team that is 11-1 has the same winning percentage as a team that is 11-0-1, but obviously they don't have the same record.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2019, 12:55:38 PM »
it's not called losing percentage

a pet peeve of mine.........  Huskers are up at the half 21-16 in the Shoe

announcers give the score and say Nebraska is winning 21-16

They were NOT winning, they were merely ahead at the half, they lost 36-31.
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2019, 05:02:01 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on January 16, 2019, 12:49:55 PM
Yeah, I get all that, and I guess it makes sense in terms of what place you might finish in a conference or something, but I also know math, and if you played 12 games and only won 9 of them, your WINNING % is .750.
I get that but my objection is that it treats Michigan's 9-0-3 as being the same as 9-3 or in @SFBadger96 's example, 11-1 = 11-0-1.  To me those aren't the same things.  
I don't like the old method of basically ignoring ties.  I think the newer method is the best compromise.  A tie is better than a loss (ie, 9-0-3 is better than 9-3 and 11-0-1>11-1) but worse than a win.  
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18844
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2019, 05:17:48 PM »
If it’s 3 ties and they’re half win/half loss, that’s 1.5 wins/losses and we have to round for an actual record, so it’s 11-2.

Messy.
Undefeated.
.750 win %
Yeah, making out with your own sister.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2019, 06:40:55 PM »
The 97 one will be epic on this board. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2019, 09:27:42 PM »
be patient, grasshopper
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18844
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2019, 11:56:24 PM »
I was thinking of flopping back and forth between going back further and progressing as we have, so do an '82 CFP poll then a '93, back to '81 before '94, and so on.  Mix it up a bit.  Thoughts?
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Vote - What if? 1992 CFP
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2019, 09:26:50 AM »
I love the 80's
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
FAFO No Trespassing Sign

FAFO No Trespassing Sign