TheTrashcanMan: Im a Oregon State fan, but these computer rankings are stupid.
Gdiguy: Well, the computer rankings aren't allowed to use margin of victory (for some stupid reason that I'll never understand)...
revrendjim: [i823.photobucket.com image 200x163]
Pray 4 Mojo: Obligatory.[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 300x232]
EngineerAU: Gdiguy: Well, the computer rankings aren't allowed to use margin of victory (for some stupid reason that I'll never understand)...Because Steve Spurrier kept running up the score on cupcakes and wasn't shy about telling everyone he was only doing it because it gave Florida a better ranking in the computers. Before then there was a sort of gentlemen's agreement* that if you schedule cupcakes, once the game was out of hand, you'd bring in the benchwarmers. Also if one of your traditional opponents was having a bad year, you didn't run up the score on them so they wouldn't do it to you next time you had a bad year. Human polls tended to take this into account but the computers only looked at numbers and when there was a BCS bid worth millions on the line, you pretty much had to run up the score. So the BCS banned using margin of victory before it got too far out of hand. Of course that has created its own problems but you can always check out the Sagarin ratings to see both versions of computer rankings.* Apparently Bear Bryant use to run up the score no matter what, even in charity games, but I'm pretty sure he was the product of someone having sex with a football so he gets a pass.
rcf1105: Really, what caused the margin of victory to be dropped was OU being sent to the BCS championship in 2003 after losing the Big XII championship, because that was the kind of thing that was offensive in 2003.
rugman11: rcf1105: Really, what caused the margin of victory to be dropped was OU being sent to the BCS championship in 2003 after losing the Big XII championship, because that was the kind of thing that was offensive in 2003.Margin of Victory was dropped in the summer of 2002. Bill James (and others) speculate that it was because of Nebraska's selection in 2001.I'll just let him speak for himself with respect to why the computer ratings suck:"Throughout the 11 years of the BCS, whenever the "computer" rankings have diverged markedly from the polls, the consensus reaction has been, we have to do something about those computers. And they have; whenever the computer rankings don't jibe with the "human polls," they fix the computers. In 2000, the computers didn't pick Miami as one of the top two teams. The coaches and sportswriters thought Miami should have been there, so they changed the computer system.In 2001, according to Stern, "the BCS selected once-beaten Nebraska over once-beaten Oregon despite the fact that Nebraska had lost badly in their last regular season game. Popular perception this time was that the computer ratings paid too much attention to the large margin of victory in Nebraska's early season triumphs while not putting enough value on Oregon's steady but unspectacular performances." What did they do? Fix the computers. In 2003, the computer rankings once more disagreed with the coaches' and the fans' and the writers' perceptions, and so, once more, the computer rankings were fixed to prevent a recurrence of whatever the problem was."
meanmutton: What's amusing to me is that instead of using an objective measure, the to tier of college football uses subjective polls. It's odd they they don't just have an end-of-year tournament among the conference champions.
rugman11: Margin of Victory was dropped in the summer of 2002. Bill James (and others) speculate that it was because of Nebraska's selection in 2001.
BlameMabel: Please come back in a few weeks when the computers that don't rely on arbitrary fudge factors have enough info to be useful. This early in the season they just aren't, but are actually doing it right, while computer rankings that favor 'Bama at this point are doing it wrong.
velvet_fog: Lol. My dream match-up would be an ACC vs. Big East BCS title game the next two years. Send out the BCS with yet two more giant turds of a "national title game" to remember it by.Let's look back at some of the amazing "title games" the BCS has given us:1999 - Florida State 46, Virginia Tech 292000 - OU 13, FSU 2 (not just a boring-ass game; biggest problem was taking FSU over Miami after the Seminoles had already lost to the Hurricanes)2001 - #1 Miami 37, #4 Nebraska 14 (didn't even win the Big 12 North)2003 - #1 LSU 21, #3 Oklahoma 14 (after KSU destroyed OU in the Big 12 title game)2004 - USC 55, Oklahoma 19 (while undefeated Auburn went to the Sugar Bowl)2006 - Florida 41, Ohio State 142007 - LSU 38, Ohio State 242008 - Florida 24, Oklahoma 14 (not as close as it looked)2009 - Alabama 37, Texas 212011 - Alabama 21, LSU 0 (rematch, and an overall shiatty game)
UNC_Samurai: Meanwhile, TCU has agreed to stoop to playing The Little Sisters of the Poor in 2018 and 2019.
velvet_fog: 2000 - OU 13, FSU 2 (not just a boring-ass game; biggest problem was taking FSU over Miami Washington after the Seminoles Hurricanes had already lost to the Hurricanes Huskies)
velvet_fog: 2008 - Florida 24, Oklahoma 14 (not as close as it looked)
Gdiguy: Well, the computer rankings aren't allowed to use margin of victory (for some stupid reason that I'll never understand)... so if you don't let them take that or "how good do we think this team is in the pre-season" into account, you're left with strength of schedule as the only way to distinguish between unbeaten teams... and they have the best SoS. So it's not really that shocking, it's just a way for humans to laugh at how stupid computers are when artificially handicapped as to what information the algorithms can use.
IlGreven: Or, in other words, "The computers don't say the traditional powers are the traditional powers, so the computers must be wrong!"
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 26 2018 08:12:33
Runtime: 0.314 sec (313 ms)