Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.

"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
  -- Daniel Webster

Monday, January 07, 2013 :::

The NCAA division 1-A championship game (as generally recognized) is going on right now. I was cheering for Notre Dame, but I am not surprised to see that Alabama is winning decisively.

The participating teams are the top two teams as decided by a weighted average of some human poll voters (2/3rds) and some computer algorithms that are provided very little information about the teams (1/3rd). My brother and I have discussed in the past that, technically, what you would want is not the top two teams but the two teams with the best claim to be the best team. So, for example, if half of America believes that team A is better than B is better than C and the other half believes that C is better than B is better than A, we shouldn't invite the consensus second-best team, we should invite the top two teams. A practical example of when this distinction might matter is when a team is undefeated, but against a mediocre schedule and, perhaps, having squeaked by in games that shouldn't have been that hard - having beaten Pittsburgh in overtime, for example. Such a team could reasonably point out that they had yet to meet the team that could beat them, yet could also reasonably be considered outside of the top two.

I've been wondering over the last few weeks whether we don't kind of have that here. Notre Dame is undefeated against a mediocre schedule (having beaten Pittsburgh in overtime) and was a 10-point underdog in this game. It is true that the point-spread is not exactly a prediction of the outcome, and is, in fact, designed to produce the same number of gamblers on each side, so it is possible that Alabama is a 10-point favorite largely because they have a wide-spread national following and are playing a school that most college football fans across the country have barely heard of, but that is unlikely to account for the full ten-point gap -- I think it's safe to say that most people looking forward to this game thought Alabama more likely to win. While I'm going to decline to cite any evidence, I suspect a lot of people agree with me that Oregon (which had only one loss, which was in overtime to a team better than Pittsburgh) or Florida or Kansas State would have provided a stronger challenge than Notre Dame as a consequence of being a better team than Notre Dame. Nonetheless, 116 of the 119 humans involved in picking the contenders chose Notre Dame as the best team in the country, as did every algorithm (the algorithms, it should be noted, were not allowed to consider margin-of-victory).

I'm guessing that if you plied these 116 people with veritaserum or alcohol (it is a truism of computer science that algorithms don't drink), some of them would confess that they aren't entirely astonished by Alabama's (I'm jumping the gun, as the game is still in the third quarter, but I'm going ahead and calling it) victory tonight. I wonder if some of them didn't just decide that Notre Dame had earned a place here and should be defeated on the field before being denied the title. The algorithms wouldn't have thought things through in quite this manner, but by being given information on which teams beat which teams and not much else, they were rigged to give a team that -- I can't emphasize this enough -- beat Pittsburgh in overtime credit solely for having beaten Pittsburgh. If the only information available is which teams beat which teams, this presumably helps teams that beat every team they play, but that would not look as good if other considerations (like how decisively they beat those teams) were taken into evidence.

This is all, of course, theoretical, and also somewhat moot after this year or next or whenever the new playoff system takes effect. But I think it's interesting to consider that the voters may have recognized that they aren't just voting on where they think the teams should be ranked, but also more specifically on which teams should be playing for the title.

::: posted by Steven at 11:05 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

Comment Policy

Dollars and Jens
Steven's web-site

Kitchen Cabinet
Colby Cosh
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Corner
The Bleat from James Lileks
Tim Blair
Daily Ablution
Mickey Kaus
Dave Barry
How Appealing
Virginia Postrel
Reason's "Hit and Run"
Captain's Quarters
Roger L. Simon
Power Line
IWF's InkWell
Blogs for Bush
Chetly Zarko
Signifying Nothing
Cosmo Macero
Hub Blog
Ex Parte from Harvard Law's Federalists
Harvard CR blog
Priorities & Frivolities
Daley News
Emil Levitin
Politica Obscura
Wave Maker
Town Watch
Worcester County Repubs

Election '08
Don't Vote
Dave Barry
John McCain

Other Sites of Note
Townhall columnists Cambridge Republican City Committee
Cambridge Chronicle
Robert Winters
Boston Herald
Boston Globe
Boston Metro
Channel 5
Commonwealth Mag
Fox News
Massachusetts Republican Assembly
Robert Benchley Society

U.S. Constitution
9/11 commission report [7 Meg PDF]
Iraq Survey Group report
Fahrenheight 9/11 deceits


Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.

Powered by Blogger