Caesar's View, Part Two

[BDURHAM]

Lazarus,

 

Great idea! I have to review it more to fully comprehend it. A few of my immediate reactions:

 

I think the idea of a city or county champion makes a lot of sense. There will be natural pride in winning that type of play-off game, and there is something to be said for winning you city (Nashville) or county's (Rutherford) title.

 

The city champion of Nashville squaring off against either Chattanooga or Memphis would be huge! It would be something the entire cities and media could hang onto.

 

Would it be possible to incorporate Earl Nall's computer ratings into your wild card scenario?

[hardball03]

This is good Lazarus. The key is the "forced" movement of

teams.

 

Should any exceptions be made to the "forced moves"?

 

Sounds like this would be applied by sport?

 

It also sounds like it solves alot of the issues by creating

enough variability in the levels of competition from year to

year.

 

This is definitely thinking out of the proverbial "box".

 

Send it to TSSAA....of course they've probably already thought of it.

[lazarus]

we have now played 150 playoff games in football this year; enough to provide the numbers to do some meaningful analysis. as we all know at this point, there is overwhelming evidence that there is a major problem in the classification system as regards the private schools. if one takes the data, and searches for only that information, it is easy to produce support for that premise. however, i took a little time, and worked with the numbers from another perspective. can the same sort of evidence be found to support the premise that the entire classification system is flawed. the results might surprise some people. it appears that the whole private/public issue is only a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem. the focus on private schools reflects the fact that they are readily identifiable, not some pre-existing prejudice against them. however, focusing on the split as a solution to the problems in our championship competition is analogous to taking cough drops for lung cancer. everyone who is approaching the split as a panacea is in for a big disappointment, for the unfolding data tells me that BOTH sides are heading for greater inequities, not lesser. NO ONE is going to win.

 

assuming that no one is interested in plowing thru 20 pages of numbers, i would like to offer some summarized data for your contemplation:

 

as has been discussed ad infinitum, the privates have won 17 of 18 games against public schools. the average margin of those victories has been 28.5 points, compared to 20.5 points for all other games. that is a 40% greater margin, obviously a significant difference. however, the average margin of victory of private over private has been 27.2 points. it seems that the disparity between privates is every bit as great as that between public & private. those who are celebrating the split from the private side need to think long and hard about the desirability of entering a much smaller field with a greater disparity between the weak and the strong. an all-private organization would mean either playing a handful of opponents over and over, or entering into some horrendously one-sided contests. remember, this data does not include the d-II teams and their super-7.

 

returning to the entire pool of games, this year only 40 (27%) of the games were decided by a touchdown or less. 56 (37%) of the games were decided by 4 or more touchdowns. 91 games (61%) were decided by more than two touchdowns. that is an awful lot of blowouts for a supposed playoff situation. but that is a subjective opinion. what captures the attention is examining the margin of victory by class. in 1-A, the average margin has been 26.0 points; 2-A=20.8; 3-A=23.5, and 4-A=21.5. All of these are above the overall average, all but 2-A by a considerable amount. how can that be? because in 5-A, the only division without a cap, the average margin is only 14.8 points. again this is a subjective judgment, but 14.8 points actually sounds like a playoff situation. it seems the 23.0 average margin in the other 4 classes is an incredible 55% higher than that in 5-A. for the public supporters who think a split will benefit them, that is considerably more than the 40% margin between private-public and all other contests. the data would seem to support the proposal that a split would lead to GREATER inequities in the all public organization than exist now. it would only be harder to identify the characteristics leading to those inequities.

 

i tried hard to find any statistically identifiable factor that would account for the discrepancy between 5-A and all the other classes. i could find none. the difference in the school sizes was squarely in the middle between the others (in 1-A the largest school is 1.99 times the size of the smallest, 2-A is 1.85, 3-A is 1.42, 4-A is 1.40, and 5-A is 1.75). trolling thru the data revealed no other compelling characteristic, except that there is no division above 5-A. that theorized connection is supported by the fact that 1-A has easily the widest average margin, and there is no division below it.

from a mathematical perspective, i believe the evidence is undeniable that our classification system is flawed. clearly 5-A is the only class that is truly competitive. with or without the privates, that will not change, unless we re-think the way we classify teams. equally clear (at least to me), the proposed split will only serve to accentuate the failings of the current system FOR BOTH SIDES. the only people who will win in that scenario is those who are willing to suffer themselves in order to see that suffering is inflicted on their supposed opponents.

 

i reckon that everyone can draw their own conclusions from this information. and the raw data is readily available if anyone would like to take a shot at it. i would really like to see other peoples analysis. it is so easy to miss significant information in a big heap of numbers. for those who agree with my conclusions (or at least see a reason to hesitate before following the present course), i hope you will take another look at my proposal for a sea-change in the way we classify our sports. i believe that it addresses the inherent flaws in the way we currently operate. even if you dont agree with that solution, i hope you will consider some other option besides what we are fixing to do to ourselves.

[Edited by lazarus on 12-4-02 2:46P]

 

[nonews]

"everyone who is approaching the split as a panacea is in for a big disappointment, for the unfolding data tells me that BOTH sides are heading for greater inequities, not lesser. NO ONE is going to win."

 

... I would humbly disagree with this premise, based on the arguments presented below...

 

"as has been discussed ad infinitum, the privates have won 17 of 18 games against public schools. the average margin of those victories has been 28.5 points, compared to 20.5 points for all other games. that is a 40% greater margin, obviously a significant difference"

 

... obvious how? Upon what statistical basis are you postulating that assertion? Basic statistical analysis requires that you examine both the total population vs. the representative faction before drawing any conclusions...

 

"however, the average margin of victory of private over private has been 27.2 points. it seems that the disparity between privates is every bit as great as that between public & private"

 

...granted this would seem significant, but once again you need to present statistical evidence that this discrepancy is indeed beyond the realm of ordinary variation...

 

"those who are celebrating the split from the private side need to think long and hard about the desirability of entering a much smaller field with a greater disparity between the weak and the strong. an all-private organization would mean either playing a handful of opponents over and over, or entering into some horrendously one-sided contests. remember, this data does not include the d-II teams and their super-7"

 

... and thus the argument is rendered moot, as it does not include evidenciary statistics from the one classification wherein the afore-mentioned "private vs. private" playoff matchups are the norm rather than the exception...

 

"returning to the entire pool of games, this year only 40 (27%) of the games were decided by a touchdown or less. 56 (37%) of the games were decided by 4 or more touchdowns. 91 games (61%) were decided by more than two touchdowns. that is an awful lot of blowouts for a supposed playoff situation"

 

... is it then your assertion that any contest which ends in a 14+ point differential is a "blowout"?...

 

"what captures the attention is examining the margin of victory by class. in 1-A, the average margin has been 26.0 points; 2-A=20.8; 3-A=23.5, and 4-A=21.5. All of these are above the overall average, all but 2-A by a considerable amount"

 

...without having access to the original data, independent verification is impossible, however one wonders again what standards of comparison were employed, i.e. does the standard deviation of all classifications outside of 2A fall outside the normal range of statistical probability, or have you again presuppossed the "obvious"?...

 

"because in 5-A, the only division without a cap, the average margin is only 14.8 points. again this is a subjective judgment, but 14.8 points actually sounds like a playoff situation"

 

...why? What is magical about the 2 touchdown margin? One could also argue that 5A is the abberation, that this class tends to be more balanced BECAUSE of the wide range of enrollments...

 

"it seems the 23.0 average margin in the other 4 classes is an incredible 55% higher than that in 5-A. for the public supporters who think a split will benefit them, that is considerably more than the 40% margin between private-public and all other contests"

 

...again, I would ask if this is stastically relevant given the sample size...

 

"the data would seem to support the proposal that a split would lead to GREATER inequities in the all public organization than exist now. it would only be harder to identify the characteristics leading to those inequities"

 

... due to the points already mentioned, I would assert that the statistics quoted support no conclusions without further analysis...

 

"i tried hard to find any statistically identifiable factor that would account for the discrepancy between 5-A and all the other classes. i could find none. the difference in the school sizes was squarely in the middle between the others (in 1-A the largest school is 1.99 times the size of the smallest, 2-A is 1.85, 3-A is 1.42, 4-A is 1.40, and 5-A is 1.75). trolling thru the data revealed no other compelling characteristic, except that there is no division above 5-A. that theorized connection is supported by the fact that 1-A has easily the widest average margin, and there is no division below it"

 

... no arguments here...

 

"from a mathematical perspective, i believe the evidence is undeniable that our classification system is flawed. clearly 5-A is the only class that is truly competitive"

 

...again, the presupposition is arbitrary...

 

"with or without the privates, that will not change, unless we re-think the way we classify teams. equally clear (at least to me), the proposed split will only serve to accentuate the failings of the current system FOR BOTH SIDES. the only people who will win in that scenario is those who are willing to suffer themselves in order to see that suffering is inflicted on their supposed opponents"

 

... while I won't argue that your data is correct, I'm not altogether certain that you have drawn verifiable conclusions from the raw data...

 

"i reckon that everyone can draw their own conclusions from this information. and the raw data is readily available if anyone would like to take a shot at it. i would really like to see other peoples analysis. it is so easy to miss significant information in a big heap of numbers. for those who agree with my conclusions (or at least see a reason to hesitate before following the present course), i hope you will take another look at my proposal for a sea-change in the way we classify our sports. i believe that it addresses the inherent flaws in the way we currently operate. even if you dont agree with that solution, i hope you will consider some other option besides what we are fixing to do to ourselves"

 

... I take it then you are opposed to the split solution. Given the lack of statistical analysis mentioned, could the same data not be interpreted as actually supporting a split?...

[Guest Dingo]

nonews,

 

I must admit that your response has my salivatory glands so frothing that I must continually wipe my keyboard clean. You have found the thread you have been seeking. A chance to actually put your views to the test of evidentiary value.

 

The problem I have is that you never make a point. You make some rather obscure, but intellectually honest, conclusions against the argument being formulated, but you disingenuously ignore what are generally regarded as de facto (forgive me; I have yet to learn how to use the italics, bold, etc. buttons below) statistical givens. I do not blame you for this, but I find it rather sophomoric that you do not bring this to the table. Do you not think we could follow your reasoning? Begin with the basic assumptions and show why they are false before you launch into the more calculated and intricate obfuscations of statistical analysis. (At least that is what I was taught in SA201.)

 

"Basic statistical analysis requires that you examine both the total population vs. the representative faction before drawing any conclusions."

 

What post are we reading? He did this, albeit not in the stasis of a formal paper. Read all his posts before positing a defamation that is inaccurate.

 

"granted this would seem significant, but once again you need to present statistical evidence that this discrepancy is indeed beyond the realm of ordinary variation"

 

Come on, dear sir. This is the equivalent to asking a student to prove that it is a discrepancy between a corporation earning a 26.7% dividend as opposed to an industry-wide 6.5. As a professor of mine once said, "Sometimes it is true: the numbers speak for themselves apart from some purely academic proof of their veracity."

 

"... and thus the argument is rendered moot, as it does not include evidenciary (sic) statistics from the one classification wherein the afore-mentioned "private vs. private" playoff matchups are the norm rather than the exception..."

 

Thank you for the humor. I can now say, if I were given to, "This proves that the economy of the USA is not necessarily proven superior to that of Sierra Leone, since the evidentiary statistics of either economy have not been compared in a significant study which pits any of the manufacturing, information, credit, knowledge based, retail distribution, retail sale, etc., entities of one against the other." I love it. I wish I could retake some of my final exams under the dictates of your axioms of statistical relevance. Instead of a MAGNA I could, rather easily I think, get the coveted SUMMA!

 

I will not examine the rest of your statements, lest I risk your ire at my insouciant attitude. Actually, I am please beyond measure at such an intellectual response. Please excuse my flippancy. I am just trying to get to the point where you make your point.

 

I look forward to your response.

[PhantomII]

I am not a statistician, but any one with eyes can tell from the data lazarus collected that there is a flaw in the classification system. I am assuming that he is not a statistician either but I am impressed with the data he collected. Since he has gathered 20 pages of data, I would think someone who is familiar with statistical principles, could use his data, work with him and find statistical meaning with his figures instead of putting him down. I have found when posters work together rather than putting each other down, more is accomplished.

[pujo]

I believe both of you fellers are educated beyond your intelligence. Speak English ,everyone wants to know what you are talking about. But I agree.

[RHSfan]

Dingo,

 

I couldn't have said it better myself! Actually, I couldn't have said it half as well (OK, I couldn't have said it at all!). Yours is a good post, worthy of one good mark!

 

You're a good man Charlie Brown.

[silverpie]

can be compared to a court situation. The stats given show by preponderance of the evidence that a split would make things worse; they do not show how sure we can be, so it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[silverpie]

StanTrott,

Earl Nall's ratings are not well suited to the task of choosing playoff teams, for three reasons:

 

(1) There's no way to verify them independently. Now, realistically, we both know he ain't gonna cheat in generating them, but if the level of hostility we see on this board is any indication, accusations will be made.

(2) They use margin of victory. For predicting results, this is OK, maybe even good. But to use such a rating to select playoff teams will encourage running up the score.

(3) They are designed to compare same-class teams. The wild-cards would be chosen across classes.

 

This is by no means a knock on Earl's work. I have quite a bit of respect for it. But to use it for the wild cards would illustrate the words of Shakespeare's Friar Laurence (Romeo and Juliet):

 

Nor aught so good but strain'd from that fair use

Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse:

 

Related question--did any of you ever expect to see the Bard of Avon quoted on this message board?

[VolunteerGeneral]

Posted by pujo:

I believe both of you fellers are educated beyond your intelligence. Speak English ,everyone wants to know what you are talking about. But I agree.

 

LOL...pujo!

 

Dingo....I admire your wide use of the English language. But I have a much easier time reading pujo`s Roan mountain English version.

[silverpie]

(which is a more rigorous form of what lazarus did)

 

Note that there may be errors in what I did.

 

When analyzing by private/public, private/private, and public/public, the differences turn out not to be statistically significant (to put it in plain terms, you'd expect to see a difference at least that significant 11% of the time, a number we call alpha--to be considered significant, that percentage should be less than 5%). Adding in the Division II games makes the differences even less significant (alpha goes up to 17%). I think the structure of D2 distorts the data.

 

The difference by classification is significant--alpha there is just 2.2%. Again, adding the three D2 classes (which averaged 27.3 in small, 15.1 in medium--counting the overtime final as a margin of 0--and 17.4 in large) reduces the significance.

 

I also analyzed the D1 data by round. This turns out to be the most significant factor of all (alpha of just 1.6%); averages are 25 for the first round, 19 for the second, 16 for quarters, and 15 for semis.