CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

collegefbfan8898 wrote:New to the site here. Great to be here. Another college football forum I can add to the Bookmarks.

Anyway, just wondering if anyone does his own college football computer poll with a designated formula.

Thanks.

I use a system in a spread sheet format.
Copied out of a magazine many years ago.
Made some changes to it and I update it each week.
I pick all the game in div 1 (119 teams).
So far this year I came up with 395 correct winners.
It's sort of like a power rating system.

collegefbfan8898 wrote:Next season, maybe we can take some rather reliable polls and average them together like the BCS.

Just a thought.

We have a top 25 voting system for users here. If you hang out and what to be a part, you can get in next year. Some guys here use rankings systems. I believe Howdy and Vileborg. Most of us use our eyes and rank teams according to what we think is right. Anyway, in the end they are all averaged together and then listed on the poll page on the main CFP site under the heading "CFP users poll". You can use any method for determining your T25. We try and put guys into the poll that will give as honest a poll as is possible based on what we think is important while ranking teams. That is the only criteria.

The CCR ranking system is separate from what we do on the message board. It is the brainchild of Dave Congrove and it is his formula. He has his system play out the games before the season to give his predictions. He also predicts the outcomes of all games played every week. Then the computer ranks the teams each week based on the results from the previous week. He displays his results and averages for people see. The CCR computer rankings were set to be a part of the BCS rankings until the BCS decided to tell the computer rankings guys how to set up their systems - changing their results. He decided not to participate in a system that wanted him to skew his results.

That is pretty much what I know about the history. How's that CFPAdmin?

If I ever need to hire a PR guy, you're it!

I work on the cheap.

I know. You work here.

openSkies wrote:Hey there! I'm Matt, the head of this here forum. Welcome aboard.

To answer your question, this message board is the online community for College Football Poll.com, home of the Congrove Computer Rankings (declined-to-join-the-BCS-for-moral-reasons © 1997). The member on here who goes by 'CFP Admin' is the guy putting together the formula for that ranking. So he's one.

We also had one fan on here back in the day who ran his own poll, but he's long gone. He tended to think his poll was perfect, everyone else was wrong, and couldn't handle any criticism. But don't let that worry you. We always like to hear what everyone has to say about things, and if you want to put your poll up for some constructive criticism and discussion, be our guest.

We're all level-headed around here, and Spence, Eric, Dossenator and myself are here to make sure it stays that way. Should you have any questions just let us know.

Was that "ColoradoLovesFootball"?? In a weird way, I miss him.

Were you really offered a spot in the BCS? How come you declined.

Welcome to the forum!

The clarification:

I was initially requested to submit info for the first season of the rankings, but was not chosen as a "member". Original BCS computers included only Sagarin, Seattle Times and New York Times. Obviously, their criteria was merely that you be well-published. As the BCS altered its sytem over the next few years, I refused to submit each time because I didn't agree with the changes they were making which were redundant, trivial and misguided knee-jerk reactions to incessant whining by the media. The biggest reason came in 2001 when the computers were directly told to alter their systems in specific ways. To me, this was the final nail in the coffin to my belief that the BCS wasn't looking for the best ranking systems, but rather the most-obedient. Dunkel, Matthews and Rothman all opted out for basically the same reasons.

I enjoy my independent status. In 1993, I began these rankings for the same reason everyone else does - I thought I could be more accurate than what was already in existence. It continues to be a fun, yet interesting and serious, endeavor. It's moved from being a hobby to doubling as a job.

CFP Admin wrote:The clarification:

I was initially requested to submit info for the first season of the rankings, but was not chosen as a "member". Original BCS computers included only Sagarin, Seattle Times and New York Times. Obviously, their criteria was merely that you be well-published. As the BCS altered its sytem over the next few years, I refused to submit each time because I didn't agree with the changes they were making which were redundant, trivial and misguided knee-jerk reactions to incessant whining by the media. The biggest reason came in 2001 when the computers were directly told to alter their systems in specific ways. To me, this was the final nail in the coffin to my belief that the BCS wasn't looking for the best ranking systems, but rather the most-obedient. Dunkel, Matthews and Rothman all opted out for basically the same reasons.

I enjoy my independent status. In 1993, I began these rankings for the same reason everyone else does - I thought I could be more accurate than what was already in existence. It continues to be a fun, yet interesting and serious, endeavor. It's moved from being a hobby to doubling as a job.

DANG DUDE!!!!!!!!

WELL PUT!! I have had the same feelings about the rampant changing to the formulas. I felt the nail in the coffin was 2003 after USC got locked out of the CG. The turmoil that caused was absolutely ridiculous.

We might be on different sides of the issue, but the constant changing does nothing but make a mockery of it all.

And the talking hair-do's at ESPN only hurt things. IMO

I don't have a problem with the computer rankings or the human polls. My problem was that they decided that the computer rankings weren't enough like the human polls and that was a problem. Why have the computer rankings if they are fixed so that they only validate the human polls? If a computer puts BC or Kansas #1 who is to say that their formula isn't correct just because it doesn't jive with the human polls. I don't agree with plenty of computer rankings out, but that doesn't mean that I am not the one that is wrong.

If you put ten guys in separate rooms watching a football game they will all come out with different views on the game depending on what their bias was going into the game. On the other hand most computers don't see any difference in points allowed with the first team in the game and points allowed when the coach takes his foot off the neck of the opponent. Who is more right? Depends on the day IMO.

Spence wrote:I don't agree with plenty of computer rankings out, but that doesn't mean that I am not the one that is wrong.

Have you ever read the following?
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/games_preview_092005_bcs.html

It basically makes your same point.

Yeah I read it a while back. Actually, I remember not agreeing with the article. I liked the human polls better, now after spending a couple years doing a poll on this board I believe that it is impossible to be completely consistent or completely unbiased in the human polls. I knew people could just check their bias at the door, but I thought if you followed a consistent criteria that you could be fair. I know believe that you cannot be consistent in any criteria, you just have to list what you believe to be right. That doesn't mean you can't be honest in listing a poll, just not consistent. I know believe that the computer rankings, if done right, are important to the system. Even if they don't produce the results that I would like to see. I tend to rely on my eyes, but sometimes the eyes don't tell you everything. I know how to break down film and I know how to isolate on single players. Even doing that, which is all you can do to evaluate teams, you can't find out everything. Neither can the computers, but together they keep each other "thinking".

collegefbfan8898 wrote:Right. I was not saying that anyone was dumb, just that some of you thought that umber crunching for the sake of a college football poll was dumb. My poll has no media bias, no helmet factor, etc. Just a simple formula that applies to each and every team.

I will send the formula later but my poll is (the VT win over GT is not considered yet):

1. Boston College (8-0) 0.6033
2. Ohio State (9-0) 0.5750
3. Kansas (8-0) 0.5663
4. Arizona State (8-0) 0.5509
5. Oregon (7-1) 0.5068
6. LSU (7-1) 0.4973
7. Oklahoma (7-1) 0.4138
8. Connecticut (7-1) 0.4063
9. Missouri (7-1) 0.3980
10. West Virginia (7-1) 0.3822
11. South Florida (6-2) 0.3732
12. Boise State (7-1) 0.3676
13. Georgia (6-2) 0.3198
14. Alabama (6-2) 0.3188
15. Virginia Tech (6-2) 0.3008
16. Clemson (6-2) 0.2848
17. Michigan (7-2) 0.2800
18. Purdue (7-2) 0.2790
19. Cincinnati (6-2) 0.2602
20. Wake Forest (6-2) 0.2212
21. Texas (7-2) 0.2142
22. Wisconsin (7-2) 0.2134
23. Virginia (7-2) 0.1978
24. Illinois (6-3) 0.1922
25. Florida (5-3) 0.1891

Thanks fans.

collegefbfan8898 If you stay around here a while, you will find the responses of Donovan to quite often be confusing, but usually entertaining.

..fanatic wrote:

Spence wrote:I don't agree with plenty of computer rankings out, but that doesn't mean that I am not the one that is wrong.

Have you ever read the following?
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/games_preview_092005_bcs.html

It basically makes your same point.

Yep, I remember reading that article when it came out. I LOVED IT!!

i have LONG been a proponent of throwing out the human polls after week 6 when the BCS starts and after the computers have enough data to chew on, stop the voting.

I'm sure there are those that vehemently disagree, but I think the guy that wrote this article feels the same way as I do.

openSkies wrote:We're all level-headed around here, and Spence, Eric, Dossenator and myself are here to make sure it stays that way. Should you have any questions just let us know.

Speak for yourself. I have been called many things, level-headed is not one of them. You were probably talking just about you and the Big 3, not us common folk who post from time to time.

Speaking of Computer polls.....The propaganda campaign against the BCS continues.

http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/blog/article?message.uid=887758

What unnerves me more than ANYTHING ON THIS PLANET is statements like this...

The BCS system has routinely robbed well-deserving teams of a shot at the consensus national championship—Oregon in ’01, USC in ’03, Auburn in ’04, plus a plethora of solid teams that could have run the table in a playoff. So, with this fantastically crazy season nearing its climax, it’s only natural that most are predicting a BCS disaster of epic proportions.

As if it didn't happen before the BCS!!!!!

TOTAL hypocrisy!!!