The Official Unbiased Top Ten week 7

[80sRambler]

The algorithms are terrible. I'm unsure high school football can be solved by algorithms given the massive disparity between tiers and the turnover in talent every year.

I also notice that high school rankings are typically lost in a no man's land between traditional poll rankings (results-based, driving towards and end-of-season champion) and power rankings (head to head predictor).

 

[Cross Bones]

The algorithms are terrible. I'm unsure high school football can be solved by algorithms given the massive disparity between tiers and the turnover in talent every year.

I also notice that high school rankings are typically lost in a no man's land between traditional poll rankings (results-based, driving towards and end-of-season champion) and power rankings (head to head predictor).

I think end of regular season rankings need to be taken into account with the end of playoff rankings. It seems playoffs happen and all logic and reason gets thrown out.

 

[Topiarydan1]

I think end of regular season rankings need to be taken into account with the end of playoff rankings. It seems playoffs happen and all logic and reason gets thrown out.

My own is
ESL
Loyola - until they lose to MC
LWE
Rice
MC
DGN
Geneva
Hersey
Prospect
Maine South

 

[4Afan]

I think end of regular season rankings need to be taken into account with the end of playoff rankings. It seems playoffs happen and all logic and reason gets thrown out.

Get ready to potentially be very upset. In the post about the notes from the most recent competition committee meeting one of the things that was brought up was using MaxPreps to seed the playoffs.

 

[Cross Bones]

My own is
ESL
Loyola - until they lose to MC
LWE
Rice
MC
DGN
Geneva
Hersey
Prospect
Maine South

I think its valid. I would question whether beating Batavia would warrant Geneva jumping Oswego. An argument can be made, but in that case even trickier maybe how to justify Maine South jumping Batavia. Matter of fact, now that I think about it why no Rochester?

Rochester is the cause of all the problems.

 

[Cross Bones]

Get ready to potentially be very upset. In the post about the notes from the most recent competition committee meeting one of the things that was brought up was using MaxPreps to seed the playoffs.

I can see the schools possibly voting it in then having buyers remorse after they look into what it would actually produce, and voting to get rid of it. Or maybe they vote it down after these recent changes (districts, 2-7 teams making the playoffs) didnt pan out.

 

[jha618]

I can see the schools possibly voting it in then having buyers remorse after they look into what it would actually produce, and voting to get rid of it. Or maybe they vote it down after these recent changes (districts, 2-7 teams making the playoffs) didnt pan out.

I just dont see how someone can compare the two and say maxpreps is the one that would produce the worst outcomes for seeding the playoffs. Currently, with the IHSA format, ESL is an 8 seed and Brother Rice is a 14 in 7a. They are 2 and 1 respectively according to Maxpreps. Montini is 26th in 4a.

 

[Cross Bones]

I just dont see how someone can compare the two and say maxpreps is the one that would produce the worst outcomes for seeding the playoffs. Currently, with the IHSA format, ESL is an 8 seed and Brother Rice is a 14 in 7a. They are 2 and 1 respectively according to Maxpreps. Montini is 26th in 4a.

So. We know how ESL and BR got to be 8 and 14. If you want a higher seed you know what you have to do. The current process is an objective process (with the possible exception for the N/S dividing line below 7A).

Your mans just made a thread complaining about the algo rankings asking if the whole thing is based on the CCL blue. The answer is yes, it is. And those results are based on structural problems with our classifications.

The issue is that you assume you know who the best teams are AND that your assumptions deserve an easier path to the championship.

May as well just have a selection committee and we can let all the people who think ESL is undisciplined by definition seed the tournament.

I prefer everything to be above board.

 

[jha618]

So. We know how ESL and BR got to be 8 and 14. If you want a higher seed you know what you have to do. The current process is an objective process (with the possible exception for the N/S dividing line below 7A).

Your mans just made a thread complaining about the algo rankings asking if the whole thing is based on the CCL blue. The answer is yes, it is. And those results are based on structural problems with our classifications.

The issue is that you assume you know who the best teams are AND that your assumptions deserve an easier path to the championship.

May as well just have a selection committee and we can let all the people who think ESL is undisciplined by definition seed the tournament.

I prefer everything to be above board.

This post makes very little sense for a number of reasons. Just because I know how you seed doesnt make it make sense. Nor does it make it accurate or fair. By that logic, the IHSA can adopt a system and give the seeds out based on distance to the state capital and tie breakers will go by alphabetical order of the mascot? Seems silly, but hey atleast we all know how they came up with it right?

I saw the thread you were referring to which really doesn't help your argument at all. He was complaining about ESL being ranking #4 in the state (#2 in 7a). And somehow you think highlighting the fact the IHSA has them #8 in 7a is better? I dont get it.

Its not about who I assume is best. But there isnt an algorithm out there that would have...
Montini #26 in 4a
ESL #8 in 7a
BR #14 in 7a
Mt. Carmel #16 in 8a
...except for the IHSA. Which you admit has "structural problems with classification" but are defending it because of transparency?

 

[Cross Bones]

This post makes very little sense for a number of reasons. Just because I know how you seed doesnt make it make sense. Nor does it make it accurate or fair. By that logic, the IHSA can adopt a system and give the seeds out based on distance to the state capital and tie breakers will go by alphabetical order of the mascot? Seems silly, but hey atleast we all know how they came up with it right?

I saw the thread you were referring to which really doesn't help your argument at all. He was complaining about ESL being ranking #4 in the state (#2 in 7a). And somehow you think highlighting the fact the IHSA has them #8 in 7a is better? I dont get it.

Its not about who I assume is best. But there isnt an algorithm out there that would have...
Montini #26 in 4a
ESL #8 in 7a
BR #14 in 7a
Mt. Carmel #16 in 8a
...except for the IHSA. Which you admit has "structural problems with classification" but are defending it because of transparency?

Surely you dont think proximity to a location is even similar to winning games? I need you to recognize that before I address the rest of your post.

 

[jha618]

Surely you dont think proximity to a location is even similar to winning games? I need you to recognize that before I address the rest of your post.

If thats what you took from that you really missed the point. Which was to highlight your over emphasis on transparency. I dont care how transparent something is if its dumb...ie seeding teams based on geographical location.

 

[Cross Bones]

If thats what you took from that you really missed the point. Which was to highlight your over emphasis on transparency. I dont care how transparent something is if its dumb...ie seeding teams based on geographical location.

So you dont know the difference between proximity to a location and winning games?

 

[Still Missing34]

So what hurts Oswego more? Losing to Bolingbrook or Bolingbrook losing to HF? or maybe HF losing to LWC?

Is there another common denominator than Oswego beating Geneva who beat Batavia who beat Maine South?

 

[Cross Bones]

So what hurts Oswego more? Losing to Bolingbrook or Bolingbrook losing to HF?

Is there another common denominator than Oswego beating Geneva who beat Batavia who beat Maine South?

Or HF losing to LWC. I think some people want me to follow the loss chain rather than the win chain, but follow a win chain for other teams, which i dont think there's anything necessarily fundamentally wrong with. Where I think theyre messing up is they have no foundation to determine whether anyone is even good to begin with.

 

[Still Missing34]

Or HF losing to LWC. I think some people want me to follow the loss chain rather than the win chain, but follow a win chain for other teams, which i dont think there's anything necessarily fundamentally wrong with. Where I think theyre messing up is they have no foundation to determine whether anyone is even good to begin with.

I just added that before your message came through. Other than the usual suspects, there seems to be a lot of parity 6-20.

 

[jha618]

So you dont know the difference between proximity to a location and winning games?

Every post you make highlighting that just proves my point of how ridiculous it sounds to champion a system because of "transparency" when the system (as you yourself admitted) has obvious flaws. Why do you care if its transparent if its flawed?

 

[Cross Bones]

Every post you make highlighting that just proves my point of how ridiculous it sounds to champion a system because of "transparency" when the system (as you yourself admitted) has obvious flaws. Why do you care if its transparent if its flawed?

Admit your analogy was ridiculous and then Ill address the rest of your post.

 

[jha618]

Admit your analogy was ridiculous and then Ill address the rest of your post.

I dont need to admit it. That was the point. To show you how something can be both transparent and silly.

 

[Cross Bones]

I dont need to admit it. That was the point. To show you how something can be both transparent and silly.

So you think basing the seeding on wins is silly?

 

[jha618]

So you think basing the seeding on wins is silly?

Goodness gracious. You are defending your support of the current IHSA system based on transparency alone. The analogy was to show how transparency of a method means nothing if the method produces inaccurate results. Nearly every other method to determine seeds factors in wins in some way. So the answer to your question, no. What is silly is you defending it based on the transparent qualities of the formula and accepting, or disregarding, whatever gibberish that method or formula spits out.

 

[Cross Bones]

Goodness gracious. You are defending your support of the current IHSA system based on transparency alone. The analogy was to show how transparency of a method means nothing if the method produces inaccurate results. Nearly every other method to determine seeds factors in wins in some way. So the answer to your question, no. What is silly is you defending it based on the transparent qualities of the formula and accepting, or disregarding, whatever gibberish that method or formula spits out.

No you equated proximity to wins. So now I want to know how you plan on making a playoffs and seeding it without using wins.

 

[LHSTigers94]

There is a lot of money behind college football and seeding and selections are still an issue to this day. Whenever opinions are part of the process, issues will definitely be voiced.

 

[jha618]

No you equated proximity to wins. So now I want to know how you plan on making a playoffs and seeding it without using wins.

So I see you are uninterested in actually defending your point any further. Or even, in good faith, trying to debate mine. You responded to a post of mine where I stated every seeding system factors in wins by assuming I want to develop a seeding system that doesnt factor in wins at all?

 

[Cross Bones]

So I see you are uninterested in actually defending your point any further. Or even, in good faith, trying to debate mine. You responded to a post of mine where I stated every seeding system factors in wins by assuming I want to develop a seeding system that doesnt factor in wins at all?

I defended a system based strictly on wins and opponent wins and reject using algorithms that cant be explained and personal opinions.

Proximity to a location has nothing to do with football, wins does. I imagine thats why you dont want to defend your proximity position.

 

[jha618]

I defended a system based strictly on wins and opponent wins and reject using algorithms that cant be explained and personal opinions.

Proximity to a location has nothing to do with football, wins does. I imagine thats why you dont want to defend your proximity position.

Man you are as sharp as a door knob. Maybe I should have given you the definition of hyperbole before i made that post because you have latched on to that analogy like a tit and somehow thought it was a suggestion to be taken straight to the IHSA. Did you forget your immediate response in defense of the system was its transparency?

There are several ways, and even better ways, to seed brackets the IHSA can implement. But you don't want personal opinions to factor in because it allows bias, but also reject computers, which can then remove the bias. So you settle for the system that says a 9-0 Mt. Carmel team is as worthy of being a top seed as a 9-0 Taft? That all makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Cross Bones]

Man you are as sharp as a door knob. Maybe I should have given you the definition of hyperbole before i made that post because you have latched on to that analogy like a tit and somehow thought it was a suggestion to be taken straight to the IHSA. Did you forget your immediate response in defense of the system was its transparency?

There are several ways, and even better ways, to seed brackets the IHSA can implement. But you don't want personal opinions to factor in because it allows bias, but also reject computers, which can then remove the bias. So you settle for the system that says a 9-0 Mt. Carmel team is as worthy of being a top seed as a 9-0 Taft? That all makes perfect sense to me.

If you dont understand how the algorithms work just say that. The bias is built into their formula, it doesnt remove the bias just because a computer is doing it

Tell me you weren't being serious. Say you were just joking like your proximity proposal. Which in a way the algorithm IS using and partially why its so dumb. If you dont understand how maybe this discussion isnt for you.

 

[Alexander33]

So you think basing the seeding on wins is silly?

Yes, that is what he is saying. He chose an analogy that took transparency as the primary criteria for seeding to its logical extreme to demonstrate how silly that concept is. The fact that using wins is a little bit less silly than using geographic location doesn't mean using wins as the primary criteria isn't very, very silly. Why? Because it does not address the question of which team you played to obtain the win. Defeating (2-4) Nazareth is a much greater accomplishment than defeating any of the (5-1) Upstate Eight teams.

This is a debate that cannot be resolved. For one thing, a consensus is not likely to be obtained in answering the following two questions. Should seeding be based on football playing ability? Or, should seeding be based on which team earned the right to have the better seed? Let's use last year's Northwest Upstate Illini Conference as an example. Stockton defeated Lena-Winslow early in the regular season last year and went on to win the outright conference championship. Clearly, they earned the right to have the better 1A seed. And yet, many individuals (and some computer ratings) considered Lena-Winslow to still be the better team. This was seemingly confirmed by the result of the semifinal rematch as Lena-Winslow went on to win the 1A state championship. As the better team, should Lena-Winslow have been given the better seed?

The Massey computer ratings are the best that currently exist. If anyone thinks otherwise, let them try to do better than Massey in picking the outcomes of the eight year-end playoffs. No cheating, make your picks before you look at what Massey is picking. The sole focus of Massey is to determine the likely winner and point spread of the games. His "power ratings" do not care who has earned a better seeding. Still, occasionally his ratings can be wrong. [And I don't mean in terms of game outcomes. We all know upsets happen.] This happens because like almost all computer rating systems, his system uses a strength of schedule component. For every conference game East St. Louis plays, its strength of schedule goes down, which at least partially offsets the impressive nonconference games it plays. Nevertheless, even with that slight flaw, if one looks at Massey's current power rankings (PWR), he has East St. Louis ranked as the number one team in the state.

 

[Cross Bones]

Yes, that is what he is saying. He chose an analogy that took transparency as the primary criteria for seeding to its logical extreme to demonstrate how silly that concept is. The fact that using wins is a little bit less silly than using geographic location doesn't mean using wins as the primary criteria isn't very, very silly. Why? Because it does not address the question of which team you played to obtain the win. Defeating (2-4) Nazareth is a much greater accomplishment than defeating any of the (5-1) Upstate Eight teams.

This is a debate that cannot be resolved. For one thing, a consensus is not likely to be obtained in answering the following two questions. Should seeding be based on football playing ability? Or, should seeding be based on which team earned the right to have the better seed? Let's use last year's Northwest Upstate Illini Conference as an example. Stockton defeated Lena-Winslow early in the regular season last year and went on to win the outright conference championship. Clearly, they earned the right to have the better 1A seed. And yet, many individuals (and some computer ratings) considered Lena-Winslow to still be the better team. This was seemingly confirmed by the result of the semifinal rematch as Lena-Winslow went on to win the 1A state championship. As the better team, should Lena-Winslow have been given the better seed?

The Massey computer ratings are the best that currently exist. If anyone thinks otherwise, let them try to do better than Massey in picking the outcomes of the eight year-end playoffs. No cheating, make your picks before you look at what Massey is picking. The sole focus of Massey is to determine the likely winner and point spread of the games. His "power ratings" do not care who has earned a better seeding. Still, occasionally his ratings can be wrong. [And I don't mean in terms of game outcomes. We all know upsets happen.] This happens because like almost all computer rating systems, his system uses a strength of schedule component. For every conference game East St. Louis plays, its strength of schedule goes down, which at least partially offsets the impressive nonconference games it plays. Nevertheless, even with that slight flaw, if one looks at Massey's current power rankings (PWR), he has East St. Louis ranked as the number one team in the state.

I like this. This we can work with.

Transparency isn't the #1 criteria it would be a requirement. I think not having transparency is one of the most silly things we can do. I think it's important to understand that the seeding process isn't a ranking process. It's a way to systematically organize the tournament while removing as much bias as possible. As it stands the bias would be towards wins and opponents wins.

The question of who the wins came against doesn't matter unless you are trying to do a ranking, which we are (or I am) not in the discussion about seeding. The ranking will come at the conclusion of the playoff. And this is because as you said, its a debate that cannot be resolved. But I do think the current system resolves your Stockton/L-W issue by awarding the team with the higher wins the better seed, even if Stockton had won the game, but ended with a worse record I would be okay with L-W having the higher seed despite the H2H loss. Also, in 2016 the U-8's West Aurora gave champ to be, Maine South, their toughest game in round 1, doing better than 1 seed Loyola, 3 seed Palatine, 18 seed LWE, and 10 seed Barrington. With a 9-0 record they earned the #7 seed and shouldn't have been denied it because some football know it alls or algorithm didn't like their conference based on past results.

As for the algorithms, I don't know which is worse, I think they're all bad and not the kind of bad that the human polls can be, those ones are at least explicable. How are algorithms seeding/ranking closed conferences? How are they making their preseason ranking which affects every subsequent ranking/seeding? How are they determining which conferences are good and which are bad? And so many other questions.

If we're just talking about a ranking then it doesn't matter, it's fun to debate and discuss. However, if we're seeding the playoffs by these awful rankings then we're creating a feedback loop that becomes self fulfilling. Conference X is good therefore Conference X gets the easier games, Conference X wins easy game confirms that conference X is good resulting in high preseason rank next year.

 

[Anon17895065764288493]

ESL should be #1, however LA is firm #2 and if it beats the remaining 3 teams on its schedule, then it should be No.1 going into the playoff. LA could have beat the spread against BR if were not for the 2 missed FGs (part of the game) by the back up kicker.