tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post3322806611876338613..comments2023-12-22T14:33:15.754-08:00Comments on Playoff Guru: Do Computers Really Even Matter?Samuel Chihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07694013336972776957noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-1114443424380988542010-12-02T17:33:36.165-08:002010-12-02T17:33:36.165-08:00There is a simple ranking system proposed at www.a...There is a simple ranking system proposed at www.acroterica.com that accomplishes most of what the BCS is intended to do without the need for a playoff system.<br /><br />Take a lookAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-23380770407679749752010-11-29T08:23:07.789-08:002010-11-29T08:23:07.789-08:00Question: IF Auburn loses and pollsters face the ...Question: IF Auburn loses and pollsters face the prospect of TCU or not in the championship game then they may decide to take another look at Wisconsin's November. <br /><br />Considering no one would want a rematch of Oregon and Stanford, and voters may worry about a repeat of '03 OU (with Auburn not winning the SEC), I think there is outside shot that UW gets moved up all the way to #2 in the human polls. HOWEVER, look at those computer scores (could you please explain UW's computer rankings by the way)...might we have the computers finally matter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-39841192935194214512010-11-01T17:47:55.144-07:002010-11-01T17:47:55.144-07:00what if the top team is the same in both polls but...what if the top team is the same in both polls but the #2 and #3 teams are swapped in the polls?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-74465670173703501822010-10-26T18:58:29.311-07:002010-10-26T18:58:29.311-07:00"the computer rankings will make very little ..."the computer rankings will make very little difference - this year will be no exception." <br /><br />Sorry guru, not so this season. The computers have it right, Oregon v. Auburn is the right match.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-71872588641501145672010-10-26T18:54:16.604-07:002010-10-26T18:54:16.604-07:00Guru, I was referring to the sample size of six ye...Guru, I was referring to the sample size of six years of current BCS formula to draw a definitive conclusion that because computers haven't played a role, they never will.<br /><br />To date, the lowest computer points for a top 2 BCS finisher was .89 (Florida in 2008), and they barely squeeked by Texas. Now take Boise State. In their 4 undefeated seasons, Boise State's final computer average has varied between .73 and .78. I wouldn't expect much better this season.<br /><br />So realistic hypothetical. Boise State is a fairly solid #1 and averages .98 from both voting polls, but pulls in a .8 from the computers (very realistic). For an average of .92. I hopefully don't need to explain to you that a .92 is unlikely to get into the NCG. In six years, lowest CG participant so far has been 2007 LSU at .9394 and 50% of the time the 3rd place team has scored better than .92. While not impossible, Boise State, even if #1 in the polls, will need the cards to fall just right with the #2 and #3 teams in the polls in order to get in.Southern Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-21292860545479168172010-10-26T17:41:59.707-07:002010-10-26T17:41:59.707-07:00@Southern Duck - Yes, small sample size (1), but t...@Southern Duck - Yes, small sample size (1), but the fact remains that the way the formula is tilted, the computer rankings will make very little difference - this year will be no exception.<br /><br />I have a full post on this that will go up shortly.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-38806509906798312142010-10-25T21:43:39.855-07:002010-10-25T21:43:39.855-07:00@Guru - Using a small sample size and a single yea...@Guru - Using a small sample size and a single year example (Boise St in 2009) is poor analysis. Using your 2009 example logic, Texas would have mad the CG in 2008 if they and Oklahoma would have swapped computer scores, despite being the voters #3. It is easy to cherry pick examples to show what you want to prove. <br /><br />This year will be interesting since BSU is unlikely to get much more than .8 to .84 from the computers at the end of the season. So while Boise St seems entrenched now in the voters top 2, if they do run the tables, the story will be the computers this year.Southern Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-68332066009086146502010-10-24T22:39:48.235-07:002010-10-24T22:39:48.235-07:00Obviously your facts on the last 6 years make a go...Obviously your facts on the last 6 years make a good case, but isn't possible the computer portion of the formula has too much weight. Here's why. Each of the parts of the formula (two human polls and the computer rankings) count 1/3 of the final ratings. However, if any one of the four computer rankings that are used is skewed, it has a far greater effect on the final ratings than any one of 75 voters screwing up their vote in the human polls. One counts 1/4 of its portion and one counts 1/75 of its portion. This doesn't make sense to me and could greatly affect the ratings in the end. I propose counting each of the human polls twice and the computer polls once so they only represent 1/5 of the total. What do you think? Although I know things will change, this week is a great example of how the computer polls have far too much weight with Oregon being #1 in both human polls (which should be 2/3 of the total) yet still end up #2 in the total ratings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-89220062308844637842010-10-19T20:04:25.176-07:002010-10-19T20:04:25.176-07:00Also, how may "shared" national champion...Also, how may "shared" national championship have there been? Yea, that is what I thought. How can an organization such as the NCAA have a "shared" champion? Do they have that in basketball, golf, tennis, baseball, volleyball, lacross, or any other sport? No!!! Because its all about keeping the money in certain hands. Maybe the NFL, NBA, NHL, and WNBA can have 2 or 3 champions. More parades = more money for their cities. I love College football but their so called national championship is only "mythical". That is why there are shared championships.tyamdalynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-80530077812285562902010-10-19T19:43:18.829-07:002010-10-19T19:43:18.829-07:00The computers don't matter because the BCS tol...The computers don't matter because the BCS told them not to use scores. All of their algorithms need to use the score to be "somewhat" accurate. Take the scores out it is just a wash. Yes they do matter. For the big boys. It helps keep them on top. Humans are biased they will put whoever they want in the BCS game. Do you like this BCS system? What changes do you think that could be made to better it? There are 6 computers but only 4 are used. That is not an accurate computer score. The NCAA can't decide how to divide by 6? 1/6=.16666667. Try that on your "simulated" standings. I can do those also. And yes, all 3 people I know,(You, Me, and Brad Edwards for ESPN) that do that had Boise in the top spot. Mine and yours had the same # for Boise. Peter Wolfe needs to be investigated for fraud.tyamdalynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-28339580313983842992010-10-18T23:18:33.885-07:002010-10-18T23:18:33.885-07:00The variation in the computer rankings narrows amo...The variation in the computer rankings narrows among the top teams as the season wears on. Most of the unbeaten or 1-loss teams invariably end up in the top few slots, rendering the computer influence negligible.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-1682066905010830362010-10-18T23:00:22.970-07:002010-10-18T23:00:22.970-07:00How can that be? Don't the computer rankings a...How can that be? Don't the computer rankings always count for one third of the ranking?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-52373515640167615272010-10-17T21:14:39.651-07:002010-10-17T21:14:39.651-07:00If you read this piece closely, you'll see the...If you read this piece closely, you'll see the reference is to the final standings. The computer ratings have less and less influence as the season wears on.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-28548716238785170982010-10-17T18:30:09.825-07:002010-10-17T18:30:09.825-07:00If the computer polls don't carry that much we...If the computer polls don't carry that much weight, how come they lifted OU all the way up to the #1 spot in the first rankings this season?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com