Calpreps playoff boost defined

[golfaddict1]

Those who reviewed Calpreps site or read the numerous posts about the subject on the forum are aware that Freeman added a playoff boost vs. regular season games.  But what exactly is that boost and how is it calculated in the team's rating?  

The answer is... 

 

Freeman decided that playoff games will be boosted 210% vs. regular season games.   He uses a factor of 2.1 in determining a team's power rating.  Whether the game is a first round matchup or a state final, the playoff boost stays the same.   The avg. of regular season games plus the avg. of playoff games divided by 2 gets your final power rating.  

Example 1 - Cass Tech 2016  you can find them at #14 in top 25 list and then click on trend

http://calpreps.com/2016/ratings/National_all25.htm

3 regular season boldfaced = 210.03 or 70.03 rounded...   5 playoff games = 361.6 boosted 210% to 759.36 or 75.94 rounded.   70.03 + 75.94 = 145.97/2= 72.99 rounded to 73

Example 2 - STA 2016  #7 in top 25 (see trend)

reg season/Geico game post season = 265.7 or 66.4  rounded...  3 playoff games = 262.8 boosted 210% to 551.88 or 91.98  66.4 + 91.8 = 158.38/2 = 79

Had Freeman opted to use the Geico game in TX vs. Bingham as a playoff game boost STA's final power rating would have been 61.4 + 90.38 = 151.78/2 = 76 ( 7th to 9th).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pops]

3 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Those who reviewed Calpreps site or read the numerous posts about the subject on the forum are aware that Freeman added a playoff boost vs. regular season games.  But what exactly is that boost and how is it calculated in the team's rating?  

The answer is... 

 

Freeman decided that playoff games will be boosted 210% vs. regular season games.   He uses a factor of 2.1 in determining a team's power rating.  Whether the game is a first round matchup or a state final, the playoff boost stays the same.   The avg. of regular season games plus the avg. of playoff games divided by 2 gets your final power rating.  

Example 1 - Cass Tech 2016  you can find them at #14 in top 25 list and then click on trend

http://calpreps.com/2016/ratings/National_all25.htm

3 regular season boldfaced = 210.03 or 70.03 rounded...   5 playoff games = 361.6 boosted 210% to 759.36 or 75.94 rounded.   70.03 + 75.94 = 145.97/2= 72.99 rounded to 73

Example 2 - STA 2016  #7 in top 25 (see trend)

reg season/Geico game post season = 265.7 or 66.4  rounded...  3 playoff games = 262.8 boosted 210% to 551.88 or 91.98  66.4 + 91.8 = 158.38/2 = 79

Had Freeman opted to use the Geico game in TX vs. Bingham as a playoff game boost STA's final power rating would have been 61.4 + 90.38 = 151.78/2 = 76 ( 7th to 9th).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll accept in face value

Question is are you complaining that it's too much or just communicating the facts?

im good with a boost since that's the most important time to be playing well -- don't know whether 2.1 or 1.4 or 3.0 is right #

[Pops]

PS. This is also a bit in contrast IMHO to a flaw inherently "built into" human polls, which is getting a big win early and then relying on the lack of fluidity of human polls to drop

see JC '12, BTW '13, BG every year as examples

[golfaddict1]

Relaying a fact not mentioned on the site initially, but you know it's not just that.  

But with that info in hand would be an interesting subject to discuss.   I don't mind STA being a punching bag, I can take it lol.  Look at the 210 pct boost in playoff games in that CP wheelhouse of beating teams 40-50 ratings value but gaining that 70+ rating or higher.  

As I've said many times I really dig CP and algorithms overall.  I like number crunching.  But I see areas where tinkering could improve the product imo.  

There is no question that Freeman is manipulating higher ratings in states based on a scaling effect and that is magnified at 210 pct for every playoff round.  At the least, set a tier for higher rated teams vs 1st round blowouts.  That's a start.  

[Pops]

10 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

Relaying a fact not mentioned on the site initially, but you know it's not just that.  

But with that info in hand would be an interesting subject to discuss.   I don't mind STA being a punching bag, I can take it lol.  Look at the 210 pct boost in playoff games in that CP wheelhouse of beating teams 40-50 ratings value but gaining that 70+ rating or higher.  

As I've said many times I really dig CP and algorithms overall.  I like number crunching.  But I see areas where tinkering could improve the product imo.  

There is no question that Freeman is manipulating higher ratings in states based on a scaling effect and that is magnified at 210 pct for every playoff round.  At the least, set a tier for higher rated teams vs 1st round blowouts.  That's a start.  

DBP '09 and '11 must have been REALLY good to win CP's MNC with a 2-round playoff 

[golfaddict1]

11 minutes ago, Pops said:

DBP '09 and '11 must have been REALLY good to win CP's MNC with a 2-round playoff 

'11 they beat 40 41-0 and beat 31 42-14.  

With playoff boost that's 41-0, 41-0, 42-14, 42-14 plus 10 pct additional lol vs top rated schools.  Yea, their playoff boost likely didn't go down vs reg season.  Their resume is as a good as their team was.  D wins big games.  DBP's was nasty.  

[954gator]

Epic drumroll

[Ararar]

Golf you are obviously a very talented guy in numbers do you think you could create your own algorithm? The golf prepgridiron algorithm perhaps. Just asking because I think it would be awesome for this site to have its own

[noonereal]

13 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Relaying a fact not mentioned on the site initially, but you know it's not just that.  

But with that info in hand would be an interesting subject to discuss.   I don't mind STA being a punching bag, I can take it lol.  Look at the 210 pct boost in playoff games in that CP wheelhouse of beating teams 40-50 ratings value but gaining that 70+ rating or higher.  

As I've said many times I really dig CP and algorithms overall.  I like number crunching.  But I see areas where tinkering could improve the product imo.  

There is no question that Freeman is manipulating higher ratings in states based on a scaling effect and that is magnified at 210 pct for every playoff round.  At the least, set a tier for higher rated teams vs 1st round blowouts.  That's a start.  

4th request

please supply a link to where Ned speaks to scaling. 

[noonereal]

6 hours ago, Ararar said:

Golf you are obviously a very talented guy in numbers do you think you could create your own algorithm? The golf prepgridiron algorithm perhaps. Just asking because I think it would be awesome for this site to have its own

ROTFLMAO

excellent post!

[noonereal]

13 hours ago, Pops said:

DBP '09 and '11 must have been REALLY good to win CP's MNC with a 2-round playoff 

and knowing this, I never bitched about Cal's short comings like GA people or Golf

I have merely mentioned on occasion on the payoff bump hurts NJ.

All one needs to do to enjoy Cal is to take it for what it is.

 

 

 

[Pops]

1 hour ago, noonereal said:

All one needs to do to enjoy Cal is to take it for what it is.

Everyone say Amen

 ? 

[TheRealCAJ]

How many MNCs did DLS win only playing 11, 12 and 13 games?

Some of those schedules were absolute garbage.

 

 

[954gator]

1 hour ago, Pops said:

Everyone say Amen

 ? 

Taking it for what it is and using it to try and explain everything are two different things.    

No one would care if people weren't taking Calpreps SOS ratings as if they were gospel.

[golfaddict1]

12 hours ago, Ararar said:

Golf you are obviously a very talented guy in numbers do you think you could create your own algorithm? The golf prepgridiron algorithm perhaps. Just asking because I think it would be awesome for this site to have its own

LOL... easy now.   I don't mind discussing improvements and if there was a college student math whiz major needing a project... well .

It's a long season... and while some wait for Oct. 1 or when starting points magically make a scaled rating system disappear...  we have human polls to give it a go.  

Sure it's handpicked, but this is an example of a smooth ranking DJ (Rivals) accepting a loss and getting them ranked soon after when he sees fit... while Freeman's review of Dywer resembles a balking lawnmower cut with a tuneup needed.   

http://calpreps.com/cgi-bin/2009/polls_view_team.pl?team=Dwyer_(Palm_Beach_Gardens,_FL) 

 

2 hours ago, 954gator said:

Taking it for what it is and using it to try and explain everything are two different things.    

No one would care if people weren't taking Calpreps SOS ratings and the PAM as if they were gospel.

FIFY   http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey97.pdf   (page 4)

"For most people", the results of rating systems are interesting primarily as a form of entertainment. They contribute to the controversies in sports as much as they help settle them. This proves an interesting fact: the mathematical sciences are not limited to theory and its meaningful application. Ratings are completely trivial except as yet another aspect of sports, whose purpose is not rooted in anything other than fun and relaxation.

http://www.masseyratings.com/theory/massey97.pdf  (page 2)  

"At this point, it is appropriate to discuss some terminology. First we make the distinction between a rating and a ranking. A ranking refers only to the ordering of the teams (first, second, third, ...). However, a rating comes from a continuous scale such that the relative strength of a team is directly reflected in the value of its rating (Stern 1995). Hence it is possible to determine the actual separation in ability for teams that may be adjacent in the rankings. A rating system assigns each team a single numerical value to represent that team’s strength relative to the rest of the league on some predetermined scale."

What this means in Echs and my non math whiz terminology is the example I shared with WI and NY scaling down, while GA and FL scaling up post 2007.  It also means that annual top 500 ratings don't vary much in totals because there is a scale in play and teams are manipulated to perform based on such scale, especially with such few OOS games played between states.   Individual "rogue" teams who venture out of state are breaking the chains, but OOS #'s vs. in-state are so minor that the scale is in tact and doesn't vary much annually.   This is why if anyone reviewed my excel sheets and see the #'s looking quite similar annually per state from 2008-2016.   

 

Question... if there is no scale involved in a continuous weekly rating process (which might be impossible but let's roll with it), can someone explain this to me?  

2007  top 500  (WI 18, NY 16, FL 16, GA 9),  2008 top 500  (FL  35, GA 25, NY 5, WI 4),  2016 top 500  (FL 39, GA 24, NY 4, WI 3)?  Did WI and NY magically suck post 2007? Look at FL and GA... did they magically learn football in 2008 to compete with powerhouse WI and NY?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[golfaddict1]

5 hours ago, noonereal said:

and knowing this, I never bitched about Cal's short comings like GA people or Golf

I have merely mentioned on occasion on the payoff bump hurts NJ.  

Care to share with the forum (with #'s and examples) how Freeman hurts NJ with a playoff bump?   Thanks.    

[noonereal]

9 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

Care to share with the forum (with #'s and examples) how Freeman hurts NJ with a playoff bump?   Thanks.    

sure mouth, soon as you submit the link to the state scale Ned uses. 5th request. 

[golfaddict1]

1 minute ago, noonereal said:

sure mouth, soon as you submit the link to the state scale Ned uses. 5th request. 

I brought up scale in the previous post.  

Does freeman mention 2.1 (210 pct) on his site?  Am I wrong?   

[noonereal]

Just now, golfaddict1 said:

I brought up scale in the previous post.  

Does freeman mention 2.1 (210 pct) on his site?  Am I wrong?   

still waiting

[CCBlackhatter]

1 hour ago, noonereal said:

sure mouth, soon as you submit the link to the state scale Ned uses. 5th request. 

I think Ned would rather keep that private from the masses. Thats probably his secret sauce that he refers to.

[noonereal]

Just now, CCBlackhatter said:

I think Ned would rather keep that private from the masses. Thats probably his secret sauce that he refers to.

Point is, Golf and Echo just make stuff up and act as if it's fact. 

Many here believe it! It's wild but a microcosm of how the world works. (failed species) 

They Golf gets nasty when VERY POLITELY challenged. 

I am still waiting for his apology. 

 

[CCBlackhatter]

1 minute ago, noonereal said:

Point is, Golf and Echo just make stuff up and act as if it's fact. 

Many here believe it! It's wild but a microcosm of how the world works. (failed species) 

They Golf gets nasty when VERY POLITELY challenged. 

I am still waiting for his apology. 

 

I'm sorry Nor.

Ned says he uses predetermined scales, so why do you feel they are "making stuff up"?

[noonereal]

3 minutes ago, CCBlackhatter said:

I'm sorry Nor.

Ned says he uses predetermined scales, so why do you feel they are "making stuff up"?

I am waiting for the link that says he scales states. I'll accept it from you since Golf and Echo don't offer it up. 

 

[NYHSFAN33]

9 minutes ago, noonereal said:

I am waiting for the link that says he scales states. I'll accept it from you since Golf and Echo don't offer it up. 

 

I don't think a link is necessary when someone with even the most fundamental understanding of statistics would know that manually scaling a starting point for every team is literally the only way to create an algorithm like CalPreps does.  The fact that overall state point totals do not / nominally change over the course of a season unless out of state games are introduced is the only proof that is necessary.  I am stepping out of this one, because I will choose not to live in a real life Groundhog Day re-hashing the same talking points over and over.  It is a fact not really up for debate.  Without getting into too much boring detail, CalPreps has set up a Linear Program where all values are contained.  Read up on it if you are a math fan, it is interesting stuff and a tough thing to create, so kudos to Ned on that.  Just not sure it is executed correctly in order to rate teams across the country.

[golfaddict1]

24 minutes ago, CCBlackhatter said:

I'm sorry Nor.

Ned says he uses predetermined scales, so why do you feel they are "making stuff up"?

Not Ned, Ken Massey... he uses it as a foundation of how sports teams are rated (any model).  But hey, if it's not written on Freeman's site, well... 

It's tiresome feeding this troll.  Intellects on this forum haven't contested my findings and Stanscript usually avoids my posts like the plague.   If they aren't replying, I think this thread will expire quickly.   PAM's will always rule the forum for it's entertainment value.  

Interestingly, Massey's top 25 last year included 3 GA and 3 TX teams (2 top 10).  Some crumbs for that troll.