bleedinghuskerred
Walk-on
What exactly are you trying to find - the average rankings of a given team based on the current ranking lists people have made?
PM sent.What exactly are you trying to find - the average rankings of a given team based on the current ranking lists people have made?
I think total points is better. If you go by average, then teams near the bottom get a break because the times they aren't ranked don't go against them, inflating their average ranking. Unless you just average it out with all of the lists, but then that just gets you the same as total points, so it'd be fruitless.Do I want to rank by total points or average of points? Or does that get me the same thing? I've got each ranking pointed in reverse order, like you said (30 for first, 29 for second, etc) and my thought was to divide each team's total by the number of entries I get. At the moment there are 12, so Nebraska's total would be 175 with an average of 14.58, while Missouri's total would be 59 (they're ranked eight times) but their average would be 4.92 (59/12).
I think that's a better way of doing it than using point totals, but it may get me the same thing when I'm done.
I have another suggestion of running the same numbers twice - once with all totals, once removing high/low numbers. I'm thinking now I may not be able to eliminate hi/lo because of teams like Washington, who are only ranked three times, or Pittsburgh who is only ranked once. So I think that idea's out the window.
If I divide by the total ballots submitted rather than by the times they're ranked it would. But I think everyone is right - total points is better (and lots easier).broganreynik said:I think total points is better. If you go by average, then teams near the bottom get a break because the times they aren't ranked don't go against them, inflating their average ranking. Unless you just average it out with all of the lists, but then that just gets you the same as total points, so it'd be fruitless.knapplc said:Do I want to rank by total points or average of points? Or does that get me the same thing? I've got each ranking pointed in reverse order, like you said (30 for first, 29 for second, etc) and my thought was to divide each team's total by the number of entries I get. At the moment there are 12, so Nebraska's total would be 175 with an average of 14.58, while Missouri's total would be 59 (they're ranked eight times) but their average would be 4.92 (59/12).
I think that's a better way of doing it than using point totals, but it may get me the same thing when I'm done.
I have another suggestion of running the same numbers twice - once with all totals, once removing high/low numbers. I'm thinking now I may not be able to eliminate hi/lo because of teams like Washington, who are only ranked three times, or Pittsburgh who is only ranked once. So I think that idea's out the window.
Yeah if you divide every team by the same number of ballots, they would be in the same order. So you are skipping a step by using total points.If I divide by the total ballots submitted rather than by the times they're ranked it would. But I think everyone is right - total points is better (and lots easier).broganreynik said:I think total points is better. If you go by average, then teams near the bottom get a break because the times they aren't ranked don't go against them, inflating their average ranking. Unless you just average it out with all of the lists, but then that just gets you the same as total points, so it'd be fruitless.knapplc said:Do I want to rank by total points or average of points? Or does that get me the same thing? I've got each ranking pointed in reverse order, like you said (30 for first, 29 for second, etc) and my thought was to divide each team's total by the number of entries I get. At the moment there are 12, so Nebraska's total would be 175 with an average of 14.58, while Missouri's total would be 59 (they're ranked eight times) but their average would be 4.92 (59/12).
I think that's a better way of doing it than using point totals, but it may get me the same thing when I'm done.
I have another suggestion of running the same numbers twice - once with all totals, once removing high/low numbers. I'm thinking now I may not be able to eliminate hi/lo because of teams like Washington, who are only ranked three times, or Pittsburgh who is only ranked once. So I think that idea's out the window.