Final Sagarin rankings have ND at 7–behind Michigan at 6

Author: Shadow_of_the_Dome (2137 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:09 am on Jan 8, 2019

Replies to: Final Sagarin rankings have ND at 7–behind Michigan at 6


Thread Level: 2

Another broken model. That's absurd...

Author: TakethetrainKnute (16880 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:25 am on Jan 8, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

Surprised he doesn't still have Bama ahead of Clemson...wonder how betting agencies who already paid

Author: Chrisb (9840 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:55 am on Jan 8, 2019

out for Bama winning feel right now.

Thread Level: 4

Oh, yeah . . . I kinda forgot about that early payout thing.

Author: Napoleon (2815 Posts - Joined: Apr 23, 2015)

Posted at 12:02 pm on Jan 8, 2019

Pretty funny. I guess they got the attention they were seeking, so they got what they wanted anyway.

Thread Level: 5

Exactly. It was a publicity calculation and they only paid out the pre-season bettors.

Author: TakethetrainKnute (16880 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:05 pm on Jan 8, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

8-5 Mississippi State checks in at #8.

Author: Napoleon (2815 Posts - Joined: Apr 23, 2015)

Posted at 11:33 am on Jan 8, 2019

Iowa rounds out the top 10. Sagarin needs to rethink things.

Thread Level: 4

...been saying that for a long time. His ""ranking"" is complete garbage unless its used for what

Author: Chrisb (9840 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:58 am on Jan 8, 2019

its intended, which is a guide for betting against sports lines.

Thread Level: 5

Is it not "garbage" as a betting data base?

Author: Napoleon (2815 Posts - Joined: Apr 23, 2015)

Posted at 12:00 pm on Jan 8, 2019

Seems to be garbage either way.

Thread Level: 6

Actually not a badmodel

Author: 86domer (405 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:41 pm on Jan 8, 2019

In this instance the early ND "close wins" count against them and hold them back.

If you look at the right hand column, which provides greater weight to games late in the season ND is 4 and Michigan is 22.

To me, seems pretty fair.

Go Irish


Thread Level: 7

That makes it seem even dumber.

Author: Napoleon (2815 Posts - Joined: Apr 23, 2015)

Posted at 3:17 pm on Jan 8, 2019

You can’t program common sense.

Thread Level: 8

It is just the math... guess we disagree

Author: 86domer (405 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:30 am on Jan 9, 2019

You could look at the "body of work" and essentially rate teams based on the entire year performance with some math/model

OR

You could give greater weight to the most recent games... again with some math/model

OR

use some other data set to assess performance... or just look at the games… no math/ "eye test"

each tries to assess the relative performance of teams and I am okay that different views will give different results.

and if I look at the Recent rankings, I think ND at 4 seems pretty fair.


Thread Level: 9

If it has UM ahead of ND at the end, it's retarded.

Author: Napoleon (2815 Posts - Joined: Apr 23, 2015)

Posted at 11:41 am on Jan 9, 2019

Sorry, but it is. Math is great. But like I said, you can't program common sense. There is absolutely no way to reasonably find that UM is ahead of ND in a ranking, especially if it is as a predictor. And that is how that model shakes out at the end. It's laughable.

Thread Level: 10

^^^This^^^

Author: Chrisb (9840 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 4:38 pm on Jan 9, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

Re: Actually not a bad model

Author: 86domer (405 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:42 pm on Jan 8, 2019

(no message)