tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post7560898082974502014..comments2023-12-22T14:33:15.754-08:00Comments on Playoff Guru: Why Computers Still Won't MatterSamuel Chihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07694013336972776957noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-314728535824534012010-11-28T18:34:33.617-08:002010-11-28T18:34:33.617-08:00Man your fuckin crazy.......Your website sucks bad...Man your fuckin crazy.......Your website sucks bad.... Everything you say is insane...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-71058764857039268362010-11-06T20:14:01.646-07:002010-11-06T20:14:01.646-07:00Oh how wrong you are. The computers matter now mor...Oh how wrong you are. The computers matter now more than ever. Here is my projections as of 11/6/2010 at 11:10 edt. <br /><br />1. Oregon<br />2. TCU<br />3. Auburn<br />4. Boise St.<br />5. LSU<br />6. Wisconsin<br />7. Stanford<br />8. Nebraska<br />9. Ohio St.<br />10 - 25. Does it matter now?tyamdalynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-52428646518327394402010-11-01T22:51:31.142-07:002010-11-01T22:51:31.142-07:00No, that's exactly the point. The voters' ...No, that's exactly the point. The voters' massive defection from Boise is precisely the 1 always plays the 2 since 2004. They manipulate their ballots so the computers won't matter.<br /><br />It's more psychology than mathematics.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-12217685709948324092010-10-31T21:29:07.787-07:002010-10-31T21:29:07.787-07:00You are wrong -- the computers do matter. If Bois...You are wrong -- the computers do matter. If Boise State is #2 in the human polls at season end the computers will still send a #3 ranked Auburn. Am I wrong...or are you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-44725309790002277912010-10-31T08:13:24.416-07:002010-10-31T08:13:24.416-07:00"All other one-loss teams currently in conten..."All other one-loss teams currently in contention lost to teams that are still ahead of them but behind Boise State, making such a jump extremely unlikely."<br /><br />Stanford lost to Oregon, which is ahead of Boise. But I don't think Stanford will pass Boise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-84536195640562780682010-10-29T18:48:44.542-07:002010-10-29T18:48:44.542-07:00Not sure why the double post happened. Sorry bout...Not sure why the double post happened. Sorry bout that.Southern Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-81596567996507903272010-10-29T18:43:59.103-07:002010-10-29T18:43:59.103-07:00@Guru,
I don't have as much heartburn with th...@Guru,<br /><br />I don't have as much heartburn with this article as your first, mainly because you removed some of your hyperbole. Where I disagree with you is that I believe the computers do have an influence in two scenarios.<br /><br />First is settling a virtual tie amongst the voters. As you noted, they had the chance to decide things in 2006, but they were also deadlocked. I think it is naive to think that the voters will never be split again on who should be the #2 team, and that they will always arrive at this magical consensus.<br /><br />The second scenario (and the one I still believe we may see played out this year) is to keep a team with a particularly weak SOS out of the CG. I don't think this was an intentional function of the computers. But at some point the voters run out of power to overcome a weak computer ranking. <br /><br />Let's look at Boise State's four undefeated seasons. Assume for those years that Boise State actually got 100% of the #1 votes in both polls, and that the teams above them all lose .04 points from each voting poll to reflect BSU jumping ahead of them. In 2004 and 2008, the voter's would not have had enough power to vote BSU in even with all #1's. In 2006 and 2009 they would have had just barely enough, with BSU needing a .985 average from the voting polls in 2006 and .987 in 2009. My point is that there are limitations on how weak of a computer ranking the voters can actually overcome.<br /><br />Historically, an undefeated BSU has computer rankings behind all other undefeateds as well as almost all one loss AQ teams, finishing between .73 and .78 in the computers. Their final computer rankings this year will be dependent on how many no-loss and one-loss majors remain, but to state that "the computer-ranking differential between Alabama and Boise State will not be as significant as what the voters ultimately decide," ignores history. The computer advantage of a one-loss SEC champ over an undefeated BSU has ranged between .12 to .16. In BSU's favor is that the WAC as a whole is having its best season since the MWC split off in the late 90's. The WAC looks to post their best OOC winning pct since 1994, and that should help BSU. The voters will have very limited power if BSU finishes with a .73 computer score like they did in 2008. But, if they can post something in the mid .8s, then power shifts back to the voters.<br /><br />Bottom-line, you still haven't convinced me that the computers won't matter, especially for Boise State.Southern Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-9749556514514385762010-10-29T18:40:12.452-07:002010-10-29T18:40:12.452-07:00@Guru,
I don't have as much heartburn with th...@Guru,<br /><br />I don't have as much heartburn with this article as your first, mainly because you removed some of your hyperbole. Where I disagree with you is that I believe the computers do have an influence in two scenarios.<br /><br />First is settling a virtual tie amongst the voters. As you noted, they had the chance to decide things in 2006, but they were also deadlocked. I think it is naive to think that the voters will never be split again on who should be the #2 team, and that they will always arrive at this magical consensus.<br /><br />The second scenario (and the one I still believe we may see played out this year) is to keep a team with a particularly weak SOS out of the CG. I don't think this was an intentional function of the computers. But at some point the voters run out of power to overcome a weak computer ranking. <br /><br />Let's look at Boise State's four undefeated seasons. Assume for those years that Boise State actually got 100% of the #1 votes in both polls, and that the teams above them all lose .04 points from each voting poll to reflect BSU jumping ahead of them. In 2004 and 2008, the voter's would not have had enough power to vote BSU in even with all #1's. In 2006 and 2009 they would have had just barely enough, with BSU needing a .985 average from the voting polls in 2006 and .987 in 2009. My point is that there are limitations on how weak of a computer ranking the voters can actually overcome.<br /><br />Historically, an undefeated BSU has been ranked behind all other undefeateds as well as almost all one loss AQ teams, finishing between .73 and .78. Their final computer rankings this year will be dependent on how many no-loss and one-loss majors remain, but to state that "the computer-ranking differential between Alabama and Boise State will not be as significant as what the voters ultimately decide," ignores history. The computer advantage of a one-loss SEC champ over an undefeated BSU has ranged between .12 to .16. In BSU's favor is that the WAC as a whole is having its best season since the MWC split off in the late 90's. The WAC looks to post their best OOC winning pct since 1994, and that should help BSU. The voters will have very limited power if BSU finishes with a .73 computer score like they did in 2008. But, if they can post something in the mid .8s, then power shifts back to the voters.<br /><br />Bottom-line, you still haven't convinced me that the computers won't matter, especially for Boise State.Southern Ducknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-20943347929054214402010-10-29T13:40:25.105-07:002010-10-29T13:40:25.105-07:00Then why have the computer polls in the first plac...Then why have the computer polls in the first place. Since they don't matter. They would matter if they used all six. And those computer are allowed to use their "full" formulas. Even though there are only 2 that we know of that has different ranking in their full formula then what they are "told" to use. Those are the 2 that are pretty drastic in their rankings. Leave the system alone and take the top 8 and have a f***** playoff. You could still have your major bowls and you could add a few more great games in December. The lost NCAA football month. At least until X-Mas. It's all about the $$$$$ going to certain people. Thats it. When they could have more interesting games which would give them more money but then they couldn't control where it goes, could they?tyamdalynoreply@blogger.com