I was thinking about how bad the "human element" in the football and basketball ranking systems are and wondered if there was an ideal solution. This is a bit long, but provides a good pro/con for using betting services and prediction systems to rank college FB and BB. What is the IDEAL solution? I think a hybrid system that includes these options would be better than what we have. What do you think?
ChatGPT offered some interesting feedback. Essentially, market-average prediction systems (Vegas sportsbooks, betting analytics companies, market-based prediction systems) would essentially create a market-driven, probability-based ranking system.
Pros:
1. Betting markets are highly efficient
This usually makes their implied team strength ratings more accurate than human polls
2. No bias issues
Markets don’t care about brands—only probabilities that make money'
3. Continuously updated
This produces rankings that reflect true current strength, not reputation
4. Well-correlated with scoring margin
Better than human voters
Cons:
1. Betting markets predict performance, not résumé
Markets predict who would win on a neutral field today
2. Public money influence
While odds are mostly driven by sharp bettors and algorithms, large public markets inflate big brands and deflate low-visibility teams
3. Not transparent
Books do not publicly disclose internal power ratings, how injury adjustments are weighted, how much of the line is public vs. professional influence. A ranking with hidden methodology gets criticized immediately.
4. Financial incentives distort the model
Books set odds to balance risk and maximize profit—not to create the truest ranking
5. Predictive ≠ deserves
College sports selection committees explicitly value résumé: Wins over ranked teams, championships, road/neutral wins
A market-based rating ignores all that.
A market-based rating would provide human-friendly rankings, analytics-supported rankings, and market-validated rankings all at once.
Final verdict, according to ChatGPT:
A betting-market consensus Top 25 would be accurate for predicting who is best right now, but would not be ideal as the sole ranking system for postseason selection.
It’s valuable—but only as one piece of a larger ranking ecosystem.
Don't you think a market-average prediction ranking system, utilizing an analytics-based rankings from sportsbooks, betting analytics companies, etc. would be able to provide a better system than we have today with the idiocy of the humans in the room?
cyclonefanatic.com
