Big Data: How Data Analytics Is Transforming the World Course Guidebook
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chapter Two Massey’S Method
Chapter Two Massey’s Method The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a rating system for NCAA college football that wasdesignedtodeterminewhichteamsareinvitedtoplayinwhichbowlgames.The BCS has become famous, and perhaps notorious, for the ratings it generates for each team in the NCAA. These ratings are assembled from two sources, humans and computers. Human input comes from the opinions of coaches and media. Computer input comes from six computer and mathematical models—details are given in the aside on page 17. The BCS ratings for the 2001 and 2003 seasons are known as particularly controversial among sports fans and analysts. The flaws in the BCS selection system as opposed to a tournament playoff are familiar to most, including the President of the United States—read the aside on page 19. Initial Massey Rating Method In 1997, Kenneth Massey, then an undergraduate at Bluefield College, created a method for ranking college football teams. He wrote about this method, which uses the mathematical theory of least squares, as his honors thesis [52]. In this book we refer to this as the Massey method, despite the fact that there are actually several other methods attributed to Ken Massey. Massey has since become a mathematics professor at Carson-Newman College and today continues to refine his sports ranking models. Professor Massey has created various rat- ing methods, one of which is used by the Bowl Championship Series K. Massey (or BCS) system to select NCAA football bowl matchups—see the aside on page 17. The Colley method, described in the next chapter, is also one of the six computer rating sys- tems used by the BCS. -
The Rhetoric of the Bowl Championship Series: an Analysis of the Persuasive Methods Underlying an "Objective" System
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work Spring 5-2007 The Rhetoric of the Bowl Championship Series: An Analysis of the Persuasive Methods Underlying an "Objective" System Thomas Marion Gray University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Recommended Citation Gray, Thomas Marion, "The Rhetoric of the Bowl Championship Series: An Analysis of the Persuasive Methods Underlying an "Objective" System" (2007). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1074 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas M. Gray, III Bachelor of Arts The Rhetoric of the Bowl Championship Series: An Analysis of the Persuasive Methods Underlying an "Objective" System By ThomGray Ul1iversity of Tennessee Chancellor's Honors Program 2007 Graduate in English (Rhetoric and Writing) Introduction Since I began my formal education in 1990, I have been caught in the middle of the "technological revolution." I have watched the computer grow from a tool for playing The Oregon Trail between lessons to a vital part of every student's life from middle school to the university. I have watched the Internet encourage worldwide communication among diverse cultures and help us spread and gather information faster than ever before. -
Football for Dummies‰
01_125366 ffirs.qxp 5/15/07 7:03 PM Page i Football FOR DUMmIES‰ 3RD EDITION by Howie Long with John Czarnecki 01_125366 ffirs.qxp 5/15/07 7:03 PM Page iv 01_125366 ffirs.qxp 5/15/07 7:03 PM Page i Football FOR DUMmIES‰ 3RD EDITION by Howie Long with John Czarnecki 01_125366 ffirs.qxp 5/15/07 7:03 PM Page ii Football For Dummies®, 3rd Edition Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc. 111 River St. Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 www.wiley.com Copyright © 2007 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as per- mitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46256, 317-572-3447, fax 317-572-4355, or online at http:// www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Trademarks: Wiley, the Wiley Publishing logo, For Dummies, the Dummies Man logo, A Reference for the Rest of Us!, The Dummies Way, Dummies Daily, The Fun and Easy Way, Dummies.com and related trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. -
Properties of Sports Ranking Methods
Properties of sports ranking methods Citation for published version (APA): Vaziri, B., Dabadghao, S., Yih, Y., & Morin, T. L. (2018). Properties of sports ranking methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(5), 776-787. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-017-0266-8 DOI: 10.1057/s41274-017-0266-8 Document status and date: Published: 04/05/2018 Document Version: Accepted manuscript including changes made at the peer-review stage Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. -
Evidence from NCAA Football Coaches
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107 (2014) 51–63 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo Conflicts of interest distort public evaluations: Evidence from ଝ NCAA football coaches a,∗ b Matthew J. Kotchen , Matthew Potoski a Yale University and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, United States b University of California, Santa Barbara, 2400 Bren Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: This paper investigates how private incentives distort public evaluations. Exploiting a Received 24 March 2014 unique empirical setting, we study the influence of conflicts of interest among NCAA foot- Received in revised form 28 July 2014 ball coaches participating in the USA Today Coaches Poll of the top 25 teams from 2005 to Accepted 31 July 2014 2010. The research design takes advantage of a situation where many agents are evaluating Available online 2 September 2014 the same thing, private incentives are clearly defined and measurable, and there exists an alternative source of computer rankings that is bias free. We find evidence that coaches Keywords: distort their rankings to reflect their own financial and reputational interests. Most impor- Conflicts of interest tantly, we find that coaches show more favoritism toward their own team when they stand Financial incentives to gain more financially and toward other teams when it generates higher direct financial NCAA football payoffs for their own university. -
Retrodictive Rankings in College Football R
When Perfect Isn’t Good Enough: Retrodictive Rankings in College Football R. Drew Pasteur Abstract. Mathematical ranking systems, such as those used in college football’s Bowl Championship Series (BCS), can be classified in two broad categories. Predictive methods seek to forecast outcomes of future games, while retrodictive rankings aim to most closely match the results of contests already played. Ideally, a retrodictive method would order teams such that each team is ranked ahead of all teams it defeated, and behind all the teams to which it lost. However, this is generally impossible at the end of the season, as any ranking will "violate" the results of some games, by having the loser ranked above the winner. For any given set of game results, there is a minimum possible number of violations, and we call a ranking that induces the minimal number a perfect ranking; computing such rankings is an NP-complete problem. Jay Coleman, an operations research professor at the University of North Florida, developed a model called MinV to identify perfect rankings. For the 2008 season, each of the six computer ranking systems used in the BCS had at least 80% more violations than MinV. However, perfect rankings are not unique, raising the question of which perfect ranking is the best ranking. If all perfect rankings agreed on the top teams, this might not be a major concern, but in the 2008 season, there were five teams that could have been #1 in a perfect postseason ranking. Because of clustered scheduling, it is possible to move groups of teams up or down, and sometimes even whole conferences, while maintaining a perfect ranking.