College Policy Debate Forums
December 15, 2018, 04:02:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: National Top 25 -- as of 12/5  (Read 4353 times)
Seth Gannon
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 79


« on: December 06, 2009, 05:05:04 PM »

Team (First Place Votes) – Points Per Eligible Ballot (Previous Position)

1. Emory IW (20) -- 24.95 (1)
2. Northwestern FS  (1) -- 23.52 (4)
3. Michigan State LW -- 23.45 (2)
4. UT Dallas BR -- 21.24 (5)
5. California BP -- 21.15 (3)
6. Whitman CS -- 19.48 (8)
7. West Georgia BS -- 18.52 (9)
8. Harvard JP -- 18.05 (6)
9. Mary Washington KS -- 18.00 (7)
10. Wake Forest CS -- 14.33 (10)
11. Kansas KS -- 14.19 (13)
12. Oklahoma GW -- 14.10 (12)
13. Kansas KQ -- 13.32 (11)
14. Georgia CL -- 11.52 (14)
15. California BJ -- 9.35 (15)
16. Missouri State FK -- 8.68    (24)
17. Georgetown HS -- 8.41 (NR)
18. Wake Forest CM -- 7.10 (16)
19. Southern California HL -- 6.86 (23)
20. Emory GJ -- 6.43 (17)
21. Towson JM -- 5.05 (18)
22. Texas CM -- 5.05 (20)
23. Baylor CM -- 3.59 (21)
24. Gonzaga CJ -- 1.05 (NR)
25. Central Oklahoma KS -- 1.05 (NR)

Dropped out: No. 19 Harvard KR, No. 22 Idaho State JJ, No. 25 Michigan LZ

Also receiving votes: California GW, Emory NS, Gonzaga KM, Harvard KR, Idaho State JJ, Michigan LZ, Northwestern GL, Northwestern BF, UT San Antonio MT, Vanderbilt BN


Top 25 Schools (by total points to that school per eligible ballot):

1. Emory  -- 31.47
2. California  -- 30.98
3. Kansas  -- 27.51
4. Northwestern  -- 24.57
5. Michigan State -- 23.45
6. Wake Forest  -- 21.43
7. UT Dallas -- 21.24
8. Whitman -- 19.48
9. Harvard  -- 18.73
10. West Georgia -- 18.52
11. Mary Washington -- 18.00
12. Oklahoma -- 14.10
13. Georgia -- 11.52
14. Missouri State -- 8.68
15. Georgetown -- 8.41
16. Southern California -- 6.86
17. Towson -- 5.05
18. Texas -- 5.05
19. Baylor -- 3.59
20. Gonzaga -- 1.29
21. Central Oklahoma -- 1.05
22. Idaho State -- 1.00
23. Michigan -- 0.64
24. Vandy -- 0.27
25. UT San Antonio -- 0.05
Logged
repko
Full Member
***
Posts: 110


« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2009, 05:42:21 PM »

I'd like to make a mild criticism of the coaches poll. Calling it a critique may even be a little off -- as I view it as more of a helpful warning to some folks for later on.

In a nutshell, I think the coaches poll voting differs from the first-round voting in a manner that could cause folks to be surprised (come February).

Very specifically, I think the coaches poll voters seem to place a lot more emphasis on elim depth and recency of results than bid voters. Speaking not only for myself (as a first-round voter), but also as someone that has tracked the first-round voting with great interest for some time, these criteria tend NOT to be best barometer for predicting the first-rounds. On balance, first-round voting has tended to place much more emphasis on "net record vs. high quality competition".

In short, if you are "bid concerned or bid curious" (and many of us are), the coaches poll could rather-easily lead one to misread the landscape.

The bid process is not an Illuminati-style secret, but I've always felt that a new wave of people become very curious about it each year (mostly students that are in various bid-races for the first time). Often, these folks feel kicked in the stomach when the process works-out differently than they expected -- even though there's actually a decent "stare decisis" to the process.

To (avoid) that end, I'd be happy to share (via backchannel) where you stand on my rankings and why. For each round of coaches poll voting I have sent Seth a document that uses the same system I will use for first-round voting. That document will have some weird math... but a pattern will emerge and February's rationale will not be so surprising (assuming my voting is somewhat indicative).

Since there's some likelihood that this critique could get mis-characterized, I'd like to point-out what this post is not:

1. Not a complaint about where MSU stands in the poll.
2. Not an indict on the poll itself -- Seth talked with me at length about his coaches poll idea before it happened. In those conversations, everyone understood that a great many voters would not have the time to run high-tech math every-other week. There's even a case to be made that the philosophy for the coaches poll should differ from that of the bid process. I like the coaches poll because I view it as an ongoing PR opportunity for a larger set of schools (than, say, solely the team that won last week's tourney).

I also know that there's a concern about making the bid process overly-transparent. I do not intend to publicly release my first-round or coaches poll ballot (in February)... I won't even vote in the final regular-season coaches poll for that reason (I'll make Strauss do it -- and there's zero "stare decisis" for that).

I just thought the semester-break was a good time to speak to the foreseeable differences between the two sets of rankings.

 -- Will
     repkowil@msu.edu


Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 156


« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2009, 12:31:06 PM »

as someone who's voted in all but one coach's poll and who'll be voting on 1st Round bids, i want to echo/confirm Will's points:

1) i don't go nearly as far in-depth when doing the poll as i will when voting on the bids. i treat it kinda like the difference between choosing who i'll date vs who i'll marry. the former is just an eyeball test, whereas the latter requires a background check.

2) gingers get bonus points in my poll (go Lanning, go Parkinson, go Sears!), no such bonus points in my bid voting.  Wink

3) Will's post is a good start in publicizing that the poll should not be read as a an accurate forecast of the 1st round bid voting. my response is just further confirmation - two different rankings, each with different electors, and different methods for each ranking done by some who vote on both.
Logged
rubaie
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2010, 04:12:13 PM »

Just wanted to make a quick post-season follow up to this thread. Relevant disclaimers; I don't mean this as a critique of where we finished -- I thought we were exactly where we should be. Also, I don't mean to suggest that variance is the best method; sometimes the sitter is right. I just need something to define as a norm since I'm weighing the strength of something as a prediction of eventual outcome, not weighing its validity or truth-value.

I wanted to measure the degree of variance between different statistical methods and the final first round rankings. In short, I wanted to determine which factors most closely determined the eventual Copeland rankings. 2009-2010 seemed like an ideal year since teams #1-5 seemed clear as can be: no voter differed over the order of teams #1-3.

Without going into too many math details, the weakest predictor of eventual rank was *by far* head-to-head, which had a variance of 36. Although head-to-head accounted for making a decision between two teams, it did a poor job alone of determining where teams should be ranked.

From weakest to strongest;

5. 'Big wins v. bad losses' as a *singular factor* had a variance of 24.

4. The top 25 had a variance of 20 v. the eventual first-round rankings. Contrasting that to the average variance of a first round voter (19.6), the top 25 seems to be a strong, though imperfect, indicator of eventual rank. As a side note, both Repko and Hester's ballots were stronger predictors than the final top 25 rankings.

3. Elim depth had a variance of 19, slightly above the top 25 polls and voters but not by much. As a predictor of the eventual outcome, Will's suggestion that voters focus heavily on elim-depth finds strong support here. Right or wrong, where you end seems to matter more as a singular factor than how you got there. 

2. I wanted to test a measure which applied a value of .4 to elim depth, .3 to big win/bad loss and .3 to HTH. This measure had a total variance of 10. That combination produced the following voting order:

Top 5
Emory
NU
MSU
Harvard
Whitman

6-10
UTD
UMW
WestGa
Wake
Georgia

11-16
Oklahoma
Wake CM
Cal BJ
Kansas KS
Kansas KQ
Mo St

17-20
Texas
Michigan
Emory GJ
GTown

1. DCH's ballot was the gold standard, with a variance of 8. No other voter had a variation below 14; 5 voters had a variance of 18.

Not sure if anyone else finds this interesting, but I thought I'd share that with people.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!