TOP 25

[Teamski]

I guess this is the same arguement you could have (and has been had) regarding Oregon and Boise State. BSU beats the Ducks head-to-head, but I would bet that of those two teams, Oregon would be much more likely to go to the BCS Championship game.

Good point!

-Ski

[redswarm81]

I guess this is the same arguement you could have (and has been had) regarding Oregon and Boise State. BSU beats the Ducks head-to-head, but I would bet that of those two teams, Oregon would be much more likely to go to the BCS Championship game.

Good point!

-Ski

Many poll voters seem to vote based on what they think might happen, despite what actually happens or happened.

What's the difference though, between what might happen and what might not happen?

Last year, poll voters were certain that Alabama, runner up in the (bow your head, genuflect) Southeast Conference, might beat Utah.  Those poll voters weren't even close.

I bet those same poll voters are certain that Boise St. or TCU might not win a BCS bowl game.

[Pat Coleman]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

[TC]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, keep it down!  My computer's sitting RIGHT HERE!

[Ryan Tipps]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, keep it down!  My computer's sitting RIGHT HERE!

 
After going through a long election night here in Virginia. I needed that laugh. Thank you, TC!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, keep it down!  My computer's sitting RIGHT HERE!

Barring an electrical overload, or total kablooey, the computer is unlikely to be wrong.  But computer programmers may well be wrong.

"Garbage in. garbage out" is the only way I can figure the BCS computers having Iowa as #1!

[smedindy]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, keep it down!  My computer's sitting RIGHT HERE!

Barring an electrical overload, or total kablooey, the computer is unlikely to be wrong.  But computer programmers may well be wrong.

"Garbage in. garbage out" is the only way I can figure the BCS computers having Iowa as #1!

The BCS basically neutered the computers by taking away strength of schedule and margin of victory (even though MOV was weighted so killing a team by 50 was no different than 20...) They didn't TRUST the technology.

Morans!

[altor]

It always amazes me how the media can rip the computers until they tweak the computers to fix the perceived problem.  Then they rip the computers some more.

Last year I actually heard some ESPN mouthpiece complaining that the computers couldn't take margin of victory into account.  Well, they couldn't do that because people like him complained that they shouldn't.

At least a computer program can be verified.  I can give a computer program the same set of data and it will return the same results time and again, regardless of the names associated with that data.  If I give a voter identical sets of data, but flip a couple of names around, I will likely get different results.

[altor]

"Garbage in. garbage out" is the only way I can figure the BCS computers having Iowa as #1!

If Ohio State were 9-0, with wins over Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona; would the AP voters rank them behind Cincinnati, Boise St, TCU, and a 1-loss Oregon?

[cave2bens]

It always amazes me how the media can rip the computers until they tweak the computers to fix the perceived problem.  Then they rip the computers some more.

Last year I actually heard some ESPN mouthpiece complaining that the computers couldn't take margin of victory into account.  Well, they couldn't do that because people like him complained that they shouldn't.

At least a computer program can be verified.  I can give a computer program the same set of data and it will return the same results time and again, regardless of the names associated with that data.  If I give a voter identical sets of data, but flip a couple of names around, I will likely get different results.

Nicely done.  Computers and the programs are only as good as the raw data gathered and methods of collection (original baselines, consistency, and instruments of measurement) prior to input.  Problems seem to sprout when self-described experts "know the answers" before considering the questions.  Human emotions and/or intent coupled with money and sex appeal (THIS is what it should be, so manipulate a.), b.) and e.)  ) demand tweaks and ultimately bugger up the works.    Subject was broached concerning AQ criteria and ancient history on the NCAC board.   

Maybe Congressional intervention can fix it... 

The Hawkeyes will have a week or two in limelight, maybe, until the machinations of the SEC and Big 12 schedules overwhelm the system.   

[jam40jeff]

Shocker. Sometimes voters are wrong. Go figure. Computers are wrong too sometimes, right?

Computers are never wrong, only the programmer!

[redswarm81]

"Garbage in. garbage out" is the only way I can figure the BCS computers having Iowa as #1!

If Ohio State were 9-0, with wins over Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona; would the AP voters rank them behind Cincinnati, Boise St, TCU, and a 1-loss Oregon?

Can't disagree with Dr. Ypsi on the BSbcs computers.

Oklahoma is 5-3, with a monkeystomp win over ranked Kansas, a one point loss to ranked BYU, a one point loss to ranked Miami, and a three point loss to No. 3 Texas.  Why is Oklahoma ranked behind 7-2 Ohio State, with its 8 point loss to unranked Purdue, and its 3 point loss to 6-2 USC?

Polling is an inexact scie--um, . . . phenomenon.  But, considering that the only immutable law in college football is "on any given Saturday," I don't suppose it could be otherwise.

[Mr. Ypsi]

BTW, I may have to retract my defense of computers (as opposed to programmers).  My computer has been doing random jumps to different sites, and locked me off d3boards.com for several hours today.

Bad computer.  Bad.  Shape up or you WILL be replaced!

My dog responds to treats - what to do with a 'bad' computer?!

[jam40jeff]

I have a question that I know I have asked before but I don't think I have ever received an answer (or at least one that satisfied me).

How are "circular references" avoided when using wins over regionally ranked opponents to rank opponents regionally?  For example, let's say Team A and Team B are very close in ranking with all things considered except for wins over regionally ranked opponents.  Team A slips in at the #10 position just ahead of Team B.  However, Team B has beaten Team A, so when wins against regionally ranked opponents are taken into account, Team B now jumps ahead of Team A into the #10 spot.  However, now Team A isn't regionally ranked, so Team B loses those points and goes back behind Team A, and Team A is now #10.  But now Team A is regionally ranked, which pushes Team B back into the #10 spot.  But now Team A isn't regionally ranked.  You get the picture.

[retagent]

jeff - you've got too much time on your handa. GO TO YOUR ROOM!