re: UPDATE Dawgrant Playoff Committee (Dry-Run) RESULTS ARE IN

I'm in. From my cursory examination of the thread, it seems like you guys are trying to emulate the voting procedures for the playoff committee. I can help, I think, but you may have to be patient. Recently married, just bought a house, and I'm back in school again, so I get busy occasionally.

I'll start collecting requirements perhaps later tonight, we'll see where it goes from there.

So, after reading the thread, if you are attempting to do this in a similar manner to the Playoff Selection Committee, you're doin' it wrong. PSC voting protocol, from the site:

quote:

---

College Football Playoff Selection Committee Voting Protocol
1. Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by more than three members will remain under consideration.
2. Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.
3. In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.
4. Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.
5. Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

---

This is pretty hellishly byzantine, and we'd pretty much have to either exclude UGA from the poll or ignore the even more complicated recusal process, but can be fully automated if we make a key assumption.

Our key assumption: committee members vote consistently. This means that when picking the top six, you always go with the six highest ranked on your personal list. When ranking the six, you always rank them in the order that they are ranked on your personal list.

That simplifies the voting into a three step process that is slightly different from the PSC's.

1) Qualification vote. Everybody lists their top 25 in no particular order (that's important), any school listed by 3 or more is qualified to be ranked. If 25 schools aren't listed by 3 or more, the remaining schools listed by at least 1 person are ranked (in a particular order) by popular vote and some number are taken from the top of that ranking to fill in the qualification set.

2) Ranking vote. Everybody ranks all of the qualified teams only. If you happen to be really bullish on Georgia State this year, but they don't make the qualification set, too bad. You cannot rank them, and they cannot be ranked. This means that everyone might end up submitting more than a top 25, since it's mathematically possible for more than 25 to be qualified. The good news is that everyone only has to do this once.

3) Ridiculous voting procedure. An AI with our key assumption as its logic plays out the PSC's voting procedure to rank the top 25.

If y'all are interested in seeing how this would work, I can write a script to tally the qualification votes, and the voting AI pretty quickly. I can also hand it off to someone, or multiple someones, with just a touch of computer savvy who can run it more frequently than I can. That way you guys can have fun ranking and re ranking week in and week out without needing to find me, have two days of meetings, or start a week long thread to do it.

What I'd need from you:

1) Existing votes are thrown out and ignored.

2) Consistent naming of teams. We'd have to agree to refer to teams using the same nomenclature. For instance, if someone lists FSU, another lists Florida State, and a third lists Florida St, and a fourth lists Fla State (why, dude?), tallying the votes with a computer program becomes more complicated, and I don't want to deal with that.

3) Consistent format of lists. To make the data aggregation easy, each list has to be in the same overall format.

Qualification list format: Team Name{Newline}
Team A
Team B
Team C
etc

Ranking list format: Rank# Team Name{Newline}
1# Team B
2# Team A
3# Team C
etc

Yes, with the pound sign. This will make it easier for the input aggregator to read the lists and pull out the data, as well as leave it human readable. I use the pound sign because there are no NCAA teams that use it in their official name (yet), so the aggregator won't get confused. If I used a dash, a dot, a parenthesis, or an ampersand it could. Some examples of why: "Florida St.", "Miami (FL)", "Texas A&M", "Bethune-Cookman". Admit it, one of you was thinking about ranking them.

I may or may not check this thread to see whether deeprig / Jefferson Dawg want to go this way. If I'm not responding, have JF77 poke me again. I check StingTalk just about daily, so I should notice. If I'm not buried in work.

I'm fricking speechless...

I think we'll need JF77 to poke you again later.

I admire your input, appreciate it, and we'll take it under consideration.

As you mentioned, there are drawbacks to it. We need to discuss whether or not that's how we want to go. It would be authentic to their process, but is also quite retarded.

quote:

---

2) Consistent naming of teams. We'd have to agree to refer to teams using the same nomenclature. For instance, if someone lists FSU, another lists Florida State, and a third lists Florida St, and a fourth lists Fla State (why, dude?), tallying the votes with a computer program becomes more complicated, and I don't want to deal with that.

---

Question:

Wouldn't the group need more than 25 teams to choose from Chris?

I would think 40/50 would be better as when you get around 15 onward everybody's picks would vary wildly.

Throw some more teams out there and lets adopt it.

aint nobody gt time for all this shite....why does 25 matter...the top 4 get in...i like the top 8 ranking

Litigator,

You are hereby removed from the committee and relieved of your duties as Czar. Effective immediately.

LINK.....

Un-fricking-believable......


You've got a lot of nerve, a-hole. frick you.

quote:

---

Yep, he turned carpetbagger on us

---

So, i'm not hallucinating then? He actually went into the unwanted intrusive busy-body SECrant thread and handed them our idea? And suggested a merger? And a stcky on the sewer board? All while he's a guest on our board and a controversial czar pick to begin with??


I still don't believe it. I'm dreaming. Its the only explanation...

Ok guys, just for clarity here I honestly do not know why my post was offensive to anyone. I noted we had the best thing going and if our own thread was stickied over on tRant where it could be studied (which I doubt is even logistically possible if you really want to take it literally and it can be seen by those visiting the GSB anyway) then the rest of the RantWorld could learn a thing or two and see how a good thing gets done. If they can see us doing it here I don't know what would be wrong with them seeing us do it there. And then nothing else is really needed.

As far as the Committee goes y'all can constitute it however you want. My name was put out there and I said I'd play but if you want players other than me that's fine. I know there's alternates and others who want to play as well.