- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Big 10 and ACC are setting the stage for locking up 3/4 playoff spots
Posted on 12/13/20 at 7:06 pm to JayWhite
Posted on 12/13/20 at 7:06 pm to JayWhite
Well I think maximizing objectivity should be a goal, and things like Massey are currently pretty great for that and have done a great job so I’m trying to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The creation of a minimum game threshold until we actually trust the Massey Composite doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me and I’d think we could track how much volatility the composite has week to week over the previous 20 seasons and once the volatility shrinks sufficiently in each season we can understand how many games are needed until the rankings are stable for your average season. There is no way to eliminate subjectivity here, but it seems like a pathway to minimize it.
The creation of a minimum game threshold until we actually trust the Massey Composite doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me and I’d think we could track how much volatility the composite has week to week over the previous 20 seasons and once the volatility shrinks sufficiently in each season we can understand how many games are needed until the rankings are stable for your average season. There is no way to eliminate subjectivity here, but it seems like a pathway to minimize it.
This post was edited on 12/13/20 at 7:08 pm
1
Posted on 12/13/20 at 7:23 pm to Ross
quote:
Well I think maximizing objectivity should be a goal, and things like Massey are currently pretty great for that and have done a great job so I’m trying to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
We tried that, and it got us right back to my point all along. Massey and Sagarin support what I've been saying.
quote:
The creation of a minimum game threshold until we actually trust the Massey Composite doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me and I’d think we could track how much volatility the composite has week to week over the previous 20 seasons and once the volatility shrinks sufficiently in each season we can understand how many games are needed until the rankings are stable for your average season. There is no way to eliminate subjectivity here, but it seems like a pathway to minimize it.
Minimum game requirements are inherently arbitrary. There's no way we could objectively say what they should be from year to year, and certainly no way to have done it prior to this season.
You admitted that the best option we currently have for objectivity mostly supports the current rankings.
If your point is simply that we should continue to improve the process, sure, I'd agree with that.
If it's that we have some better way of determining the best four teams this year, I don't think I'm convinced.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News