FanNation - The Republic of Sport

this is proof that they have marginalized the effect of the computer polls TOO MUCH, thus allowing for more media bias to affect the rankings. At best, it should be 50% computers, 50% human polls instead of 66-33 split. USC is being overranked by the media, while they are only ranked 10th by the computer composite. If the BCS poll is going to simply mirror the media polls, what is the point of having any computer rankings? the whole idea is to get UNBIASED numbers in there to incorporate realistically strength of schedule etc. And if the Billingsley computer poll is using preseason rankings in theirs, get rid of that one and find a computer poll to replace it that doesn't use preseason rankings based on last year. That's simply silly.

The biggest change that needs to be made however is simply NOT ALLOWING ANY MEDIA POLLS AT ALL BEFORE THE 4th WEEK. Only then can you get rid of some of the preseason media bias. See Clemson as Exhibit 1, Missouri as Exhibit 2.

Majorly amusing, to say the least. Plus, thankfully, the crazies that part their tushies on Mandel's columns to argue amongst themselves apparently haven't yet come to here to 'debate' how many point afters can fit on the head of a pin.

Em - that would be "park their tushies"

by the way if Herbsteit and James etc can't figure out that if team A beats team B on the field, and A and B have the same record, that A should be ranked ahead of B, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all in these polls.

I do understand voting teams ahead of teams they have beaten but... while it seems easy to say GT then BC then VT in the ACC let's not forget VaTech beat Georgia Tech! It doesn't always work out so I wouldn't give these voters too hard of a time.

On the other hand, Craig James and "Herbie" should have their voter card revoked for putting Kansas ahead of USF. Come on now. 2 losses for the Jayhawks makes it even worse. Losing is still losing even if the game is relatively close.

The computer polls should be half of the rankings. Average all of the major computer polls to get a computer score, then average all of the human scores. These two should both have equal weight.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 07:33 PM ET  10.20 by Ryan Stevenson

The computer polls should be half of the rankings. Average all of the major computer polls to get a computer score, then average all of the human scores. These two should both have equal weight.

that is a great idea. I wish I had thought of that.....

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 06:08 PM ET  10.20 by norcalfella

I do understand voting teams ahead of teams they have beaten but... while it seems easy to say GT then BC then VT in the ACC let's not forget VaTech beat Georgia Tech! It doesn't always work out so I wouldn't give these voters too hard of a time.

VT now has two losses. Of course they should be ranked last. Head-to-Heads make most sense when the winner has the same or better record.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 05:35 PM ET  10.20 by Klee Irwin

by the way if Herbsteit and James etc can't figure out that if team A beats team B on the field, and A and B have the same record, that A should be ranked ahead of B, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all in these polls.

Give that man a medal! I agree whole heartedly. It is really agravating that voters put more emphasis on how they "feel" about the team and what they guess the team's final W/L record will be. Often teams get discounted because they are expected to lose the next game. USC rides this wave of, "they should win all of their games," to the top of the polls despite the same people admitting that beating up cream puffs proves nothing.

All polls are about now, not then... as in, what have you done for me lately? Team A beat Team B 2 months ago? So what. More importantly, it's not like any poll--computer or human--is ever accurate. (Hint: that's why playoffs are needed and the BCS will *never* find the best team in the country. If you didn't win it on the field, then you didn't win it at all... somebody just gave it to you 'cause you look pretty and they like you. :D)

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:09 PM ET  10.20 by GlennAllen

All polls are about now, not then... as in, what have you done for me lately? Team A beat Team B 2 months ago? So what. More importantly, it's not like any poll--computer or human--is ever accurate. (Hint: that's why playoffs are needed and the BCS will *never* find the best team in the country. If you didn't win it on the field, then you didn't win it at all... somebody just gave it to you 'cause you look pretty and they like you. :D)

that's why you use multiple computer polls which don't have any bias and do weigh the games from 6 weeks ago as well as one week ago nitcakes. the problem is they put too much emphasis on the media polls

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 09:45 PM ET  10.20 by Klee Irwin

that's why you use multiple computer polls which don't have any bias and do weigh the games from 6 weeks ago as well as one week ago nitcakes. the problem is they put too much emphasis on the media polls

Computer polls DO have bias. Statistics don't tell you everything. A team can play lousy early in the season or just the "wrong" game early, and the person(s) composing the data for a poll putting weights on what he/she thinks is significant can still screw up (or just skew) the poll and wind up with really strange (aka stupid) rankings. The human polls are supposed to balance the statistics with the intangibles... in theory. Theory regularly fails when it comes to polls. Remember, even the computer polls are designed by people, so they're just as subject to errors as the human polls are. Supposedly, the computer poll errors apply equally to every team, but still, I don't trust any poll or any combination of polls to determine which team is really better than any other team--not at the beginning of the year, not at the end of the year. Just let the players decide it on the field. Period.

Strength of schedule is a myth--there is no Transitive Law of football.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 09:57 PM ET  10.20 by GlennAllen

Computer polls DO have bias. Statistics don't tell you everything. A team can play lousy early in the season or just the "wrong" game early, and the person(s) composing the data for a poll putting weights on what he/she thinks is significant can still screw up (or just skew) the poll and wind up with really strange (aka stupid) rankings. The human polls are supposed to balance the statistics with the intangibles... in theory. Theory regularly fails when it comes to polls. Remember, even the computer polls are designed by people, so they're just as subject to errors as the human polls are. Supposedly, the computer poll errors apply equally to every team, but still, I don't trust any poll or any combination of polls to determine which team is really better than any other team--not at the beginning of the year, not at the end of the year. Just let the players decide it on the field. Period.Strength of schedule is a myth--there is no Transitive Law of football.

Strength of Schedule does not mean Transitive Law of Football. It does, however, attempt to evaluate the level of competition each team faces. Check out Jeff Sagarin's football rankings on the USA Today website. It gives a rough explanation of how he determines strength of schedule: it is a function of the rank of the teams played and the location of the game . . . he does claim the accuracy improves as teams become "connected" but I'm fairly sure that is because it provides a basis for performance not a direct prediction of a result. That is to say, if you have the SEC East where Georgia and Florida play at least three common opponents, if, on average Florida wins by 15 points in those games whereas on average Georgia wins by 12 points (against a sample of like opponents) it suggests Florida is the better team.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 11:22 PM ET  10.20 by ceteris paribus

Strength of Schedule does not mean Transitive Law of Football. It does, however, attempt to evaluate the level of competition each team faces. Check out Jeff Sagarin's football rankings on the USA Today website. It gives a rough explanation of how he determines strength of schedule: it is a function of the rank of the teams played and the location of the game . . . he does claim the accuracy improves as teams become "connected" but I'm fairly sure that is because it provides a basis for performance not a direct prediction of a result. That is to say, if you have the SEC East where Georgia and Florida play at least three common opponents, if, on average Florida wins by 15 points in those games whereas on average Georgia wins by 12 points (against a sample of like opponents) it suggests Florida is the better team.

And that's why conference standings mean something: for the most part, all the same teams play each other (sort of--divisions complicate the issue somewhat). Conference standings are based on the teams' records against each other, so they mean something. So, which Oregon St. team did USC play? The same one that Stanford played? I don't think so (or, clearly, Stanford will have no problem beating USC... then again, they might :D). Conference standings mean something; polls mean nothing. The BCS is worthless as anything other than filling the rosters for a bunch of bowl games; the BCS doesn't determine any national champion.

Well The BCS is better than what we had in the past lol.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 06:08 PM ET  10.20 by norcalfella

I do understand voting teams ahead of teams they have beaten but... while it seems easy to say GT then BC then VT in the ACC let's not forget VaTech beat Georgia Tech! It doesn't always work out so I wouldn't give these voters too hard of a time.On the other hand, Craig James and "Herbie" should have their voter card revoked for putting Kansas ahead of USF. Come on now. 2 losses for the Jayhawks makes it even worse. Losing is still losing even if the game is relatively close.

You may not be aware, but GA Tech beat Boston College at Boston College and then lost to Virginia Tech at Virginia Tech in the final moments of the game after having the lead when a questionable call gave the Hokies a first down when GA Tech's defense had stopped VA Tech and would have iced the game for GA Tech. This allowed Virginia Tech to move into position to score their final points to take the lead. Georgia Tech still almost won the game when a sure touchdown pass was missed by inches.

If that would have happened, GA Tech would be undefeated, including road wins at Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Clemson. At this juncture, however, their only loss is one on the road, at Virginia Tech, and by less than a touchdown.

And, as a simple reminder, Paul Johnson has accomplished this with one of the youngest teams in the BCS, a limited number of players on scholarship (all of which were recruited for a pro-style of offense), a late recruiting class, and having implemented new offensive and defensive schemes since taking over the program the first of this year. Bodes well for the program, wouldn't you say?

This is why the NCAA and various conference commissioners want nothing to do with a playoff. What other major sport brings out this much passion, anger, anguish, etc... ??As much as many of us think this BCS is total BS---why would they (ref: Communist NCAA and conference leaders) change when it brings in so much attention (read: money). What do they care, as long as one of their own conference members is in a major B-S Bowl to rake in some major $$$$... They are laughing their way all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, the players and the fans get bum-doped. Hey... until there is a true playoff (minimum 8 teams)---the "BCS" championship trophy is only worth as much as the crystal it is made of. Hey, if the NFL played this way... New England would be the "champs" not the Giants... (the Giants wouldn't even have been in the big game)... The BCS reminds me of being a kid... "my daddy is tougher than your daddy"---- my team is better than your team... ha!ha! ha! What fools we are!! Go Golden Gophers!!

The problem with a playoff is that any team MIGHT beat any other team one time (i.e. Ole Miss/Florida, Oregon State/USC, Giants/Patriots). What we really need is a playoff that has a best out of 3 series for each match-up. More like baseball.

OK, that's completely unrealistic, but the point is that football play-offs aren't perfect either, and sometimes the better team doesn't get to advance. Right now in college football, the whole season is a playoff, and that's why it is so fun.

"Likewise, Craig James, Kirk Herbstreit, Maurice Patton, Glenn Guilbeau and Jason Franchuck rank Kansas over USF even though the Bulls have a better record and beat Kansas."

Kansas lost by 3 to USF at USF (Home teams on average have a 3 point advantage). Kansas schedule, though weak, is tougher than USF. Sagarin's "Predictor," which is the most accurate measure of a team (by accurate, it is the best predictor of future performances), has Kansas ranked ahead of USF. Kudos to James, Herbstreit, Patton, Guilbeau and Franchuck

While I admire the Sagarin Ratings, these voters don't vote in the Sagarin Poll..it is the AP Poll. The AP guidelines clearly state "Pay attention to head-to-head results."

As for SOS, one team can play the toughest teams in the nation and not beat any of them. That doesn't make them better than a team with a weaker schedule and more wins. We have to look at the strength of the teams beaten. The best team Kansas has beaten is Colorado. The best team USF has beaten is ...well, Kansas. It seems like a pretty open and shut case (this week...it can change when Kansas plays more difficult teams and wins).

Finally, even Sagarin ranks USF over Kansas in both the ELO_CHESS and standard ratings. Good rankings don???t try to tell the future (which is what the Predictor rating tries to do). They report on actual performance (which is another AP guideline). There is no reason to predict the future. There are several weeks left for rankings to change based on actual performance. If voters would rank teams based on what they see instead of what they feel, the polls would be less biased and would still all work out in the end.