Pollspeak: Humans vs. computers

2008-11-03T09:16:29-05:00

2008-10-27T13:20:12-04:00

2008-11-03T09:16:29-05:00

OutsideBlitz

Erie 598272

23 BCS is ****!! We need playoffs..If Penn State gets left out they should boycott the rose bowl and not show up. The Big 12 and the SEC with their High Scoring Offense's and no Defense.. Texas,TT,Fl,whoever would be "Lucky" to score 20 on Penn States Defense. 3223732

2008-10-28T14:33:45-04:00

181

CuseFanInSoCal

San Diego 190925

they also got rid of the quality win bonus a few years ago for some unknown reason. You used to get a point for beating a top 10 team. Now they don't do that either. The whole strength of schedule factor is being minimized when, if anything, it should be emphasized. All this due to the extreme overreaction when USC was ranked third because of the computer factor the year Oklahoma got beat in the Big 12 Championship. As usual, they vastly overreacted and over corrected.

21 They got rid of it because it -- and the explicit strength of schedule component -- were effectively triple-counting, if not quadruple-counting, strength of schedule, since it's a major factor in every computer ranking and in the human polls (which is why Utah, Boise, Ball State, and Tulsa are ranked below several one loss teams). The current BCS formula is a lot easier to understand than the old one, and except for the silly restriction banning the BCS computers from using margin of victory (and including the absurd Billingsley ranking), it's better now. 3173557

2008-10-28T15:01:14-04:00

1595

Klee Irwin

Nome 582256

They got rid of it because it -- and the explicit strength of schedule component -- were effectively triple-counting, if not quadruple-counting, strength of schedule, since it's a major factor in every computer ranking and in the human polls (which is why Utah, Boise, Ball State, and Tulsa are ranked below several one loss teams). The current BCS formula is a lot easier to understand than the old one, and except for the silly restriction banning the BCS computers from using margin of victory (and including the absurd Billingsley ranking), it's better now.

22 its not better if it simply mirrors the human polls. Then there is no point to having a computer poll it and its not accomplishing its purpose. The computers are objective and should be weeding out and tempering the human biases. If its watered down so much that the human polls completely deterimine what the BCS rank is, then it has failed and the computer polls are thus meaningless. 3174137

2008-10-27T14:40:42-04:00

1595

Klee Irwin

Nome 582256

5 they also got rid of the quality win bonus a few years ago for some unknown reason. You used to get a point for beating a top 10 team. Now they don't do that either. The whole strength of schedule factor is being minimized when, if anything, it should be emphasized. All this due to the extreme overreaction when USC was ranked third because of the computer factor the year Oklahoma got beat in the Big 12 Championship. As usual, they vastly overreacted and over corrected. 3162128

2008-10-28T14:33:45-04:00

181

CuseFanInSoCal

San Diego 190925

2008-10-27T18:49:36-04:00

Bullschlitz

Thermopolis 482979

17 Klee Irwin, Yes that was my point. The other bowls are meaningless with no excitement. Sandy Underpants, You are obviously a kid who knows nothing about college football! I could give a rip about UGA or USC, but I make a living knowing college football and those two teams should have been in the mix last year. Your comment makes my post crystal clear. Thanks. 3165605

2008-10-28T00:36:33-04:00

2082

Sandy Underpants

Los Angeles 481510

You are obviously a kid who knows nothing about college football! I could give a rip about UGA or USC, but I make a living knowing college football and those two teams should have been in the mix last year.

20 You said that USC, UGA and LSU all should have been awarded championships. Championships aren't given, they're earned. And if UGA can't win their own DIVISION then they shouldn't be playing for a championship. If you make your money watching college football, I think your parents will throw you out of their basement before you get the money together to move out on your own. 3167706

2008-10-27T19:41:15-04:00

1595

Klee Irwin

Nome 582256

Head-to-head matters logically, but more practically it matters in the AP poll because it is an AP Guideline to pay attention to head-to-head results. If done right, the whole college football season is a less formal playoff.

18 Your quote here intrigues me immensely. If head to head is an actual guideline to the AP poll, can you explain how in the 1993 season, with Notre Dame and Florida St both at 11-1 records, and with Notre Dame owning a head to head victory over heavily favored Florida St in the "Game of the Century", 90s version, the AP writers voted Florida St over Notre Dame for the number one spot in the final poll? 3166083

2008-10-27T20:32:10-04:00

Pollspeak

169617

Your quote here intrigues me immensely. If head to head is an actual guideline to the AP poll, can you explain how in the 1993 season, with Notre Dame and Florida St both at 11-1 records, and with Notre Dame owning a head to head victory over heavily favored Florida St in the "Game of the Century", 90s version, the AP writers voted Florida St over Notre Dame for the number one spot in the final poll?

19 Unfortunately, I don't know how long those guidelines have been in place. They may not have existed in 1993. However, I do know there was no organization dedicated to enlightening the public about voting habits like Pollspeak does today. 3166442

2008-10-27T16:21:45-04:00

Pollspeak

169617

California beat Michigan State, but they are ranked below the Spartans nonetheless. This kind of stuff always happens. But since there is no tourney play in football, why should H2H matter, anyway?

12 Good catch. You're right....both teams have two losses. Cal should generally be ranked over Michigan State, like Maryland should generally be ranked over Cal. One thing working against Cal right now is that it has played less games. So Cal's record (5-2) is less impressive than the other teams sitting at 6-2 or 7-2. Cal's regular season schedule goes into December, and once they catch up in number of wins, the voters will hopefully sort it out properly (although sooner would be better). Head-to-head matters logically, but more practically it matters in the AP poll because it is an AP Guideline to pay attention to head-to-head results. If done right, the whole college football season is a less formal playoff. 3163620

2008-10-27T19:41:15-04:00

1595

Klee Irwin

Nome 582256

2008-10-27T18:49:36-04:00

Bullschlitz

Thermopolis 482979

2008-10-27T18:31:03-04:00

http://img.fannation.com/upload/user_profile/image/884/14/thumb/al.jpg 81 CA

Franco

San Francisco 88714

16 Interesting and insightful post - enjoyable reading as well. Appreciate that you took the time to respond to the two comments that actually contribute to the discussion. Keep up the good work! 3165339

2008-10-27T15:26:41-04:00

Bullschlitz

Thermopolis 482979

7 In years gone by long ago the BCS (Beauty Contest System) could have worked in some years. When Bama, Texas, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc could stack all the top scholarship players they wanted and some just to keep the other team from getting them. After the season and the bowl games you could pretty much pick two from the small list of teams. Now with limited scholarships and incredible competition for top athletes there is way to much parity to pick two schools and call the winner a champion. Yes, the winner of the BS bowl is a champion, but so are the winners of a few other bowls also and they should be justly rewarded. Last year LSU, Georgia and USC should have all been awarded championships because they all equally deserved it. This year again there will be 2-3 schools after the bowl games equally deserving. When two schools are picked from a list of 4-6 equally deserving schools the illigitamacy of the system is exposed. The only group of people who give the system any credibility at all are the fans of the fortunate winners of the Beauty Contest System. This justly creates intense anger and dissention among all other college football fans around the country who know that particular team is not The champion. Equal maybe to a couple others, but not the one and only. Therefore the lunacy of calling one a champion is rediculous. Again we will not have a major college football champion. If we can not have a playoff then please just go back to the way it was. It is a much better system with all the parity now. The top bowls will match the top teams and after the bowls sift it out give the top teams a trophy. Between all the polls out there all the deserving teams should get a trophy from somebody. You just can't leave deserving schools out of it. College football fans are rabid and will not tolerate this much longer before it all blows up. I see it coming now. Either come up with a fair system to have one champion or spread it around. Can you imagine the most anticipated, most profitable and most watched sporting event in the history of the world is not happenning. What if the top 8 teams were put into a playoff system throughout December using the existing bowl system making many bowls really mean something instead of just one. Instead of the WHOCARES.COM BOWL in mid December we have the SEC-Big 12 champs, Big 10-Pac 10 champs, ACC champs and a couple of other top teams all competing for a title. Then it is simple, win your conference and play for the big prize. You get the idea. I don't want to hear about who is #1 until they play for it or spread it around to all the deserving schools. The media can start by not creating this pick two scenario and should be inclusive of all the top bowl teams having a shot. This would create tremendous excitement in all the bowls when they are actually playing for something. Then pick after the bowls and spread it around! Right now we have about 35 WHOCARES.COM Bowls and one the media calls a champion. Everyone else in the country calls it the illigitimate BEAUTY CONTEST SYSTEM. Football ain't no beauty contest! 3162837

2008-10-27T17:55:26-04:00

2082

Sandy Underpants

Los Angeles 481510

Last year LSU, Georgia and USC should have all been awarded championships because they all equally deserved it.

15 Bullshlitz is right. Not his opinion, but the name. Honey, Georgia didn't win their conference OR their division. Placing 4th in your conference and arguing for a "Championship" sort of nullifies the respect that goes along with winning. I mean do you want to stop keeping score and just hand out trophies to all 119 teams in D1-A? This Mike DeArmond guy is a real imbecile. USC has played 5 BCS conference teams WITH winning records and he ranks the team USC beat by 30 points with 2 losses and NO quality wins ahead of them? Somebody harppon this dude. 3164945

2008-10-27T16:35:35-04:00

Pollspeak

169617

Nowadays, there is no way a 5th, 4th or even 3rd ranked team can claim the national title via a bowl game. The system has minimized the importance of all the bowl games but one.

13 Actually, there is still a way -- it's the AP Poll. The same poll that awarded the national championship in your 1977 example still awards a national championship every year. We still have potential for split-national championships each year. Instead of Coaches' and AP, now it is BCS and AP. The AP has been naming them since 1936, and as the longest running poll, it will always be important for historical record keeping. I'm sure the schools, coaches and players wouldn't refuse to accept an AP Championship. The only question is if the fans still consider it important. The BCS brand is very strong right now with the fans and media. 3163853

2008-10-27T16:42:14-04:00

1595

Klee Irwin

Nome 582256

Actually, there is still a way -- it's the AP Poll. The same poll that awarded the national championship in your 1977 example still awards a national championship every year. We still have potential for split-national championships each year. Instead of Coaches' and AP, now it is BCS and AP. The AP has been naming them since 1936, and as the longest running poll, it will always be important for historical record keeping. I'm sure the schools, coaches and players wouldn't refuse to accept an AP Championship. The only question is if the fans still consider it important. The BCS brand is very strong right now with the fans and media.

14 yeah, the AP was the de facto "official poll" ever since it started in 1936, and it is important, but the problem now is that the NCAA now recognizes the college football national champion as the one that wins the BCS title game. So we still can have theoretical split titles and already did with USC a few years ago, but the fact remains that the BCS system emphasizing one game has simply hurt and minimized the other bowl games, which is a huge mistake imo. 3163913

<div class="photo_container image_right"> <div class="photo"><img src="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/images/10/27/daryll-clark-swp.jpg" alt="Double Click to select a Photo" /></div> <div class="photo_attributes">Daryll Clark and Penn State are shaking up the BCS bliss.</div> <div class="photo_attributes">Aaron Josefczyk/Icon SMI</div> </div> By Hugh Falk, <a href="http://www.pollspeak.com/" target="_blank">Pollspeak.com</a> BCS perfection lasted all of one week. <a href="/si_blogs/the_sweep/posts/15941" target="_blank">Last week</a>, I pointed out that we had a consensus No. 1 (Texas) and No. 2 (Alabama) for the first time in BCS history. It was close this week, but the <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=105&t2=0&v=403&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Billingsley Report</a> ended that consensus by voting <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?r=T&s=5&p=8&w=10&t1=79&t2=0&v=405" target="_blank">Penn State</a> No. 2 over <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=3&v=406&w=10&r=T" target="_blank">Alabama</a>. Before Tide fans get angry, I suggest they take another Billingsley's advice. Barbara Billingsley, who played "Jive Lady" in the movie Airplane, said it best: "Jus' hang loose, blood" and "Cut me some slack, Jack!" Instead of getting upset, ponder this week's BCS question: Have the computer rankings been watered down too much in the BCS formula? Currently, the two human polls account for two-thirds of the formula while the six computer polls account for one-third. Additionally, the formula discards the highest and lowest computer ranking for each team. <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=8&t1=106&v=194&w=10&r=T" target="_blank">South Florida</a> provides a dramatic example this week. USF ranks 23rd in both human polls, but didn't get a single point from a computer (the school's not ranked in the top 25). Yet USF still ranks 23rd in the BCS. That doesn't sound right, does it? The formula received some tweaks a few years ago to give the human element more weight, but now it might have too much weight. There are of course some examples to the contrary, but 15 of the 25 ranked teams have a BCS ranking that's basically the same as their human poll ranking. • If you want to know who's on the "BCS bubble," check out the <a href="http://www.bcsguru.com/2008_bcs_standings.htm" target="_blank">BCS Guru</a>. There, you can see which teams rank 26th and lower (unofficially) in the BCS Standings. • Looking at the bottom of the AP Poll, <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=0&t2=0&v=14&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Craig James</a> was the only voter who ranked Notre Dame (No. 24) above North Carolina (unranked). In fact, he was <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?r=T&s=5&p=9&w=10&t1=72&t2=0&v=35" target="_blank">one of only six voters</a> to rank the Irish at all, but of those, he was the lone voter to leave the Tar Heels off his ballot. North Carolina (6-2) has a better record than Notre Dame (5-2) and won the head-to-head matchup. In addition, four people voted <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=23&t2=67&v=1&w=10&r=T&o1=diff" target="_blank">Connecticut over North Carolina</a> -- <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=23&t2=67&v=399&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Jeff White</a>, <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=23&t2=67&v=47&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Myron Patton</a>, <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=23&t2=67&v=29&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Jimmy Burch</a> and <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=23&t2=67&v=45&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Mike Strain</a>. Both teams are 6-2 and the Tar Heels beat the Huskies handily. Meanwhile, <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=48&t2=23&v=390&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Jim Mashek</a>, <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=48&t2=23&v=23&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Glenn Guilbeau</a> and <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=48&t2=23&v=33&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">John Hunt</a> voted <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=48&t2=23&v=14&w=10&r=T&o1=diff" target="_blank">Louisville over Connecticut</a> even though the Huskies (6-2) have a better record and beat the Cardinals (5-2) at Papa John's Stadium. • <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=62&t2=24&v=35&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Jon Wilner</a> was the only voter to rank Navy (5-3) this week. Interestingly, he left Duke and Pittsburgh unranked. No shock over Duke … nobody ranked the Bue Devils. But the Panthers (5-2) have a better record than the Midshipmen and trounced them in Annapolis. However, if you're going to rank Navy, you might as well rank Duke, too. The Blue Devils have the same number of losses (3) and also beat Navy. Duke would surely love some publicity after last week's victory over one-time SEC Cinderella, Vanderbilt. In fact, that win certainly contributed to both <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc08.htm" target="_blank">Sagarin</a> and <a href="http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html" target="_blank">Anderson/Hester</a> ranking the SEC the fourth strongest conference this week. • <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?s=5&p=9&t1=74&t2=105&v=43&w=10&r=V" target="_blank">Mike DeArmond</a> did something interesting this week when he voted Ohio State (No. 13) over USC (No. 15). He hasn't done that since his <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?r=V&s=5&p=9&w=2&t1=74&t2=105&v=43" target="_blank">first ballot</a> of the season. It's puzzling that DeArmond would rank the Trojans lower than the Buckeyes, since they beat the Buckeyes earlier this season and since the Buckeyes suffered their second loss this weekend. • Finally, with Kansas, Pittsburgh and USF losing this week, I can stop trying to compare them all (although <a href="http://pollspeak.com/pollstalker/pollstalker.php?r=T&s=5&p=9&w=10&t1=106&t2=0&v=35" target="_blank">USF</a> received the most votes of the three -- damn, couldn't help myself). Maybe with one or two more wins, I can start talking about Oregon State again. I'm always looking for another reason to quote Barbara Billingsley, and we all know as June Cleaver, she had a lot to say about the Beaver. For more poll analysis, go to <a href="http://www.pollspeak.com/">pollspeak.com.</a> 17901

The SI Staff

New York City 21244