College Football

[drothgery]

The great thing about the BCS is it does its job but everyone yells at it for doing what it was designed to do. The reason the computers are there is to release some of the human bias. But when the final numbers disagree with the humans everyone yells at the computers. What really needs to be done is they need to stop doing the AP and Coached polls all together. We know they are heavily biased to teams that traditionally do good and towards the big conferences.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that every time there's been a "wrong" team in the BCS title game (not in the top 2 of the AP or coach's poll), the "wrong" team has gone on to lose the BCS title game in a pretty convincing fashion, while the human polls #2 team has gone on to win their bowl game in a pretty convincing fashion.

I wish the computers were better than humans here, as the human polls do have all sorts of inherent biases. But history says they're not.

 

[Mystery Man]

Tommy Lee is a Husker!

My coworker went to the game, he had the five pack on (five tom toms) and marched with the band.

 

[Dimwhit]

The great thing about the BCS is it does its job but everyone yells at it for doing what it was designed to do. The reason the computers are there is to release some of the human bias. But when the final numbers disagree with the humans everyone yells at the computers. What really needs to be done is they need to stop doing the AP and Coached polls all together. We know they are heavily biased to teams that traditionally do good and towards the big conferences.

Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.

Ya, have them play each other. But that doesn't happen. So, you have to goto the numbers to try to figure it out. There are what 117 teams so playing each other is not an option in the reguliar season.

 

[drothgery]

Yes, but that works under the assumption that what it was designed to do is the correct way to do it. I just can't agree. You can't crunch numbers to determine team rankings. Numbers don't mean a thing. It's all about playing the game and seeing who comes out on top. Computers track things that are irrelevant, like strength of schedule, quality wins, margin of victory, etc. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think those are all meaningless. There's only one way to know which team is better than another.

It may seem like I'm being inconsistent here (as just a few posts ago I noted that the BCS formula hasn't worked as well as the human pollsters over the last few years), but the computers do okay. They haven't done as well as the humans, at least at the top of the polls, but a lot of the biases that coaches and writers factor into their rankings tend to have a lot of foundation in reality (major conference schools are better; winning on the road means more; non-confernce games say more about strength of schedule than conference games; winning impressively is better than winning ugly, but winning by 70 is not more impressive than winning by 35). I think that given time, enough data, and no artificial limitations on what the computers can factor in (margin of victory can't be used by the BCS computers), computer rankings will eventually at least be better than the pollsters, even if they're not now.

Having said that, even the result on the field isn't indicative sometimes. For a lot of reasons (most notably injuries, failure to be emotional ready for the game, freak weather conditions, or one coach just having another's number) an inferior team can win a game. And when one team isn't better than the other by much in terms of talent and gameplanning (which is usually the case in the NFL), the luck factor is often enough for the worse team to win.

 

[Crothian]

OSU is back!! Here's to them starting the next big winning streak!!!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Funny mood here in Gainesville...people here aren't all that depressed about losing these games as the main goal seems to be shifting to getting rid of the coach. I know a couple people who are putting bets on how long he'll last

 

[Crothian]

Weren't people doing that when he was hired? Is fireronzook.com even still around??

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Weren't people doing that when he was hired? Is fireronzook.com even still around??

Yep, and the mood's getting stronger all the time. From the look of it, he probably won't be around next year. Well, if somehow the Gators beat Georgia or FSU, he might stay...but otherwise, methinks that loss today is just one more nail in the coffin.

...don't know about the site, though

 

[Crothian]

WEll, loosing to a tam that couldn't beat Maine is a pretty bad loose.....