Fix the F'n BcS Computers - Can't believe this. [Archive]

SoonerMom2

12/2/2007, 09:37 PM

That's what happens when the BCS tweaked the computers way too much on strength of schedule and margin of victory. They are also not penalizing schools that play a 1AA school but if you play a 1A school that is not very good, then you get penalized. Makes sense? Not on your life.

BTW, MO got points because they lost to a ranked school -- OU -- go figure that one out -- they get more points for beating us and looks like we got very little from defeating the #1 team in the Country.

BCS is a joke!

The Preach Man

12/2/2007, 09:39 PM

We beat Mizzou twice, by 10 and 21 points. So why in hell are they ranked above us in computers.

Final Computers Average Rankings

OU - Tied for 6th

Mizzou - 4th

I'd like to see the computer people explain that one.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

I now have Z E R O faith in the computers. Things like this gives them no credibility.

tulsaoilerfan

12/2/2007, 09:43 PM

Might as well go back to the old way and let the pollsters decide it

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 09:44 PM

Utah State

North Texas

We lost to a 6 - 6 team and an 8 - 4 team.

Va Tech lost to an 11 - 2 team and a 9 - 3 team.

Math is hard.

tbl

12/2/2007, 09:47 PM

Explain Missouri dude... That's the issue here, not VT being above us. If we had a higher pc ranking than the team we beat TWICE, that combined with the polls would have put us above VT in the BCS.

Try and keep up... ;)

jwlynn64

12/2/2007, 09:48 PM

Shouldn't it matter more who you beat as opposed to who you lost to? Confused about the whole who you lost too angle. :confused:

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 09:48 PM

Utah State

North Texas

We lost to a 6 - 6 team and an 8 - 4 team.

Va Tech lost to an 11 - 2 team and a 9 - 3 team.

Math is hard.

WTH does Va Tech have to do with Mizzou being ranked higher then us in the computers. Here's some real simple math in two OU vs Mizzou games this year, OU has 2 wins and Mizzou has none.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 09:48 PM

Mizzou lost to an 11 - 2 team and an 11 - 2 team.

They played Illinois in non-con.

Stitch Face

12/2/2007, 09:54 PM

Shouldn't it matter more who you beat as opposed to who you lost to? Confused about the whole who you lost too angle. :confused:

'Should matter' doesn't matter to the computers. Who you lose to and how many games your opponents lost mean more than who you beat to the computers.

Socrefbek

12/2/2007, 09:55 PM

Mizzou lost to an 11 - 2 team and an 11 - 2 team.

They played Illinois in non-con.

Let me understand this. You are stating that the computers should have OU ranked below Missouri even though OU beat them twice. Decisively. Is that true:confused:

Sooner_Havok

12/2/2007, 09:55 PM

LSU lost to a 7-5 team and an 8-4 team

Math is Hard, so that is why they are ranked above Mizzou who lost to an 11-2 team and an 11-2 team?

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 09:56 PM

Mizzou's non-con opp. went a combined 21 - 26, BUT they beat Illinois who went 9 - 3 and beat tOSU.

OU's non-con opp. went 18 - 31 with Tulsa being the lone team we faced that had a winning record (9 - 4). Tulsa did us no favors in their strength of schedule nor did Miami who was playing in a down ACC.

Mizzou's two losses are much better losses in the eyes of the computer than OU's two losses. The computer doesn't see anything more than Mizzou having two "good" losses and OU having two "average" losses.

OklahomaTuba

12/2/2007, 09:58 PM

Ron White said it best..

"You can't fix stupid"

GoTigers

12/2/2007, 09:59 PM

Being ranked higher than OU absolutely mystifies me. Head to head should definitely outweigh common opponents, strength of schedule, etc.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 10:02 PM

Being ranked higher than OU absolutely mystifies me. Head to head should definitely outweigh common opponents, strength of schedule, etc.

If it did, what would the point of the BCS be? The computers were pulled in to keep things like this in check.

Missouri has a better body of work in their season this year than OU does. It doesn't mean Missouri is better than OU (obviously :D).

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 10:03 PM

The computer doesn't see anything more than Mizzou having two "good" losses and OU having two "average" losses.

That's my point, the fact that the computers don't see that we beat Mizzou twice and ranks them above us is wrong. It needs to be fixed or computers need to be removed from the mix.

SoonerHawk

12/2/2007, 10:05 PM

These computer polls are absolutely ridiculous! How does some group of computer geeks who probably still live in their mother's basement get to control the outcome so much? And don't talk to me about Mizzou being higher because they lost to higher ranked teams. No one can give a convincing argument for OU being ranked below a team they beat TWICE including thumping them in a conference championship!

Socrefbek

12/2/2007, 10:05 PM

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 10:08 PM

That's my point, the fact that the computers don't see that we beat Mizzou twice and ranks them above us is wrong. It needs to be fixed or computers need to be removed from the mix.

I'm not trying to be a smart ***, but what exactly would you like fixed?

Let's look at common opponents for OU & Mizzou.

OU lost to CU 24 - 27
Mizzou beat CU 55 - 10

OU beat Iowa State 17 - 7
Mizzou beat Iowa State 42 - 28

OU lost to Texas Tech 27 - 34
Mizzou beat Texas Tech 44 - 10

OU beat Texas A&M 42 - 14
Mizzou beat Texas A&M 40 - 26

Think the way we finished against CU, Iowa State and Sand Aggie when compared to the way Mizzou finished against those three teams might have some impact on our computer rankings vs. Mizzou's?

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 10:09 PM

The computers were pulled in to keep things like this in check.

The computers were pulled in to this because they wouldn't show bias that humans do. However if they can't spit out a ranking at the end of the season with OU ahead of Mizzou (after we beat them twice) then they need to be fixed or removed. Any NCAA Football fan that thinks Mizzou should be ranked above us right now in any poll needs their head examined.

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 10:14 PM

Let's look at common opponents for OU & Mizzou.

I don't have to look at common opponents, we beat them twice. Common opponents is an argument used to seperate teams that din't have a head to head match-up winner, that's not the case here.

76soonergrad

12/2/2007, 10:15 PM

So who has the influence to change this system?

SoonerBBall

12/2/2007, 10:17 PM

The BCS has suffered greatly due to pressure and ignorant public outcry from fans and schools alike, namely Miami, USC, and Auburn. Because of this, essential statistics are witheld from computer calculations by rule. These statistics include margain of victory calculations. They also removed the explicit bonus given to a team that beat another highly BCS ranked team, which served to diminish the importance of scheduling and beating very good teams.

You can see very clearly at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm where this matters. In Sagarin's prefered computer formula (PREDICTOR) OU holds a very healthy #1 rating. This is opposed to tOSU being at #3 and LSU being at #8. However, in the formula he must use for the BCS (ELO-CHESS) we are at #3 while LSU is at #2 and tOSU is at #4.

The BCS itself isn't the problem, it is the people who run it being reactionary to negative pressure.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 10:18 PM

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. Do YOU think it makes sense for Missouri to be ranked above OU in the computer poll?

Yes.

You have to remove common sense from it and think of Mizzou as having played the following teams:

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
and then 107 again.

How did Mizzou do against those teams?

Then OU plays their own schedule comprised of the following teams:

201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
and then 207 again

How did OU do against those teams?

Then tell the computer that 205 = 109, 208 = 108, 209 = 110, 211 = 107.

Remove the names and see them simply as widgets or cogs or whatever you want to call them. That's what the computers have been asked to do. Remove the human element altogether.

Socrefbek

12/2/2007, 10:19 PM

I'm not trying to be a smart ***, but what exactly would you like fixed?

Let's look at common opponents for OU & Mizzou.

OU lost to CU 24 - 27
Mizzou beat CU 55 - 10

OU beat Iowa State 17 - 7
Mizzou beat Iowa State 42 - 28

OU lost to Texas Tech 27 - 34
Mizzou beat Texas Tech 44 - 10

OU beat Texas A&M 42 - 14
Mizzou beat Texas A&M 40 - 26

Think the way we finished against CU, Iowa State and Sand Aggie when compared to the way Mizzou finished against those three teams might have some impact on our computer rankings vs. Mizzou's?

Ok just answer this then ...

Johnny Mack is

a.) A poster that likes to create debate for his personal entertainment (stir the pot)

b.) A complete idiot

Stitch Face

12/2/2007, 10:20 PM

If it did, what would the point of the BCS be? The computers were pulled in to keep things like this in check.

Missouri has a better body of work in their season this year than OU does. It doesn't mean Missouri is better than OU (obviously :D).

It's true, as stupid as it looks...the computers are meant to balance out the voters who will naturally rank higher the teams that won the previous Saturday.

And Ohio State.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 10:25 PM

Ok just answer this then ...

Johnny Mack is

a.) A poster that likes to create debate for his personal entertainment (stir the pot)

b.) A complete idiot

I vote b!!!!

I think Mizzou has a better body work this season than OU does. I think that their wins and the margin of victory in those wins combined with their losses and who they lost to is more impressive than OU's resume. It's a compliment to OU, if you think about it.

Do you really not get that?

GottaHavePride

12/2/2007, 10:25 PM

Ok just answer this then ...

Johnny Mack is

a.) A poster that likes to create debate for his personal entertainment (stir the pot)

b.) A complete idiot
or

c.) a person who has repeatedly attempted to explain how the computer-based rankings work to people that refuse to actually listen to what he says.

Sure, the system in this one instance returns a seemingly goofy result, but there is a logic behind it. The system has to follow the parameters set for it.

tulsaoilerfan

12/2/2007, 10:25 PM

I'm not trying to be a smart ***, but what exactly would you like fixed?

Let's look at common opponents for OU & Mizzou.

OU lost to CU 24 - 27
Mizzou beat CU 55 - 10

OU beat Iowa State 17 - 7
Mizzou beat Iowa State 42 - 28

OU lost to Texas Tech 27 - 34
Mizzou beat Texas Tech 44 - 10

OU beat Texas A&M 42 - 14
Mizzou beat Texas A&M 40 - 26

Think the way we finished against CU, Iowa State and Sand Aggie when compared to the way Mizzou finished against those three teams might have some impact on our computer rankings vs. Mizzou's?

I can see what you are saying, but that shouldn't matter; shouldn't head to head take precedent over common opponents? I also thought margin of victory wasn't a factor in the computer rankings? I'm totally confused

sanantoniosooner

12/2/2007, 10:30 PM

I can see what you are saying, but that shouldn't matter; shouldn't head to head take precedent over common opponents? I also thought margin of victory wasn't a factor in the computer rankings? I'm totally confused
The computer only looks at what it's told to look at.

And, as far as I can remember, you only get credit for beating a team once. So OU beating MU twice doesn't help us that much.

tulsaoilerfan

12/2/2007, 10:30 PM

I vote b!!!!

I think Mizzou has a better body work this season than OU does. I think that their wins and the margin of victory in those wins combined with their losses and who they lost to is more impressive than OU's resume. It's a compliment to OU, if you think about it.

Do you really not get that?
If OU had taken care of business in Boulder we wouldn't be having this discussion

GottaHavePride

12/2/2007, 10:30 PM

Also: this argument is fairly irrelevant. Either way, We're the ones in the Fiesta bowl, and Mizzou is going to the Cotton Bowl.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 10:30 PM

I can see what you are saying, but that shouldn't matter; shouldn't head to head take precedent over common opponents?

That's not the computer's problem. It just cranks through the data that is put into it. Head to head is where common sense takes over (when we see OU's AP ranking vs. Mizzou's AP ranking).

I also thought margin of victory wasn't a factor in the computer rankings? I'm totally confused It isn't and I should have done a better job of stating that. We'll call that the Auburn-Gonna-Cry-Like-A-Little-Bitch-Rule.

tulsaoilerfan

12/2/2007, 10:31 PM

The computer only looks at what it's told to look at.

And, as far as I can remember, you only get credit for beating a team once. So OU beating MU twice doesn't help us that much.
I thought they changed that at one point?

GottaHavePride

12/2/2007, 10:31 PM

The computer only looks at what it's told to look at.

And, as far as I can remember, you only get credit for beating a team once. So OU beating MU twice doesn't help us that much.

See, that's why I wanted Kansas in the Big XII Championship.

tomtom

12/2/2007, 10:46 PM

kansas also rated higher in bcs computer poll than ou.

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 10:51 PM

JohnnyMack - look I understand it's not the computers promblem and it's not what the computers are programmed to do, my problem is why isn't it the computers problem and why not program it to take this into account. The computers provide a nice option because they are unbiased but let's work on the info we program into them so it doesn't spit out stupid rankings like it did in the latest edition of the BcS.

GottaHavePride - I do understand it's irrelevant concerning this years bowl situation for OU but that doesn't mean it's not worth looking at. Imagine how we'd all feel right now if the two polls had OU#2 instead of LSU and we still missed the title game because of the computers. Then when we finally get to looks at computer rankings we see a team we beat twice ranked above us, that would have a serious sting to it. I think the fact that it's irrelevant in this years bowl picture makes it the perfect time to look at it and see if we can make it better becuase next time it might not be irrelevant.

SoonerBBall

12/2/2007, 10:52 PM

I can see what you are saying, but that shouldn't matter; shouldn't head to head take precedent over common opponents? I also thought margin of victory wasn't a factor in the computer rankings? I'm totally confused

Well, take an extreme example.

Say LSU plays Eastern Michigan, Utah St, UConn, and OU. LSU loses to E. Michigan, Utah St and UConn, but comes up with the game of their lives and beat OU by a single point. OU, on the other hand, plays Missouri, Florida, Ohio St, and LSU. We beat the first three, but lose to LSU by 1 point. Which is the better team? Should head to head still count? There is a huge problem with using head to head outcomes when teams play such vastly different schedules.

stoopified

12/2/2007, 10:57 PM

Utah State

North Texas

We lost to a 6 - 6 team and an 8 - 4 team.

Va Tech lost to an 11 - 2 team and a 9 - 3 team.

Math is hard.not so fast JM.You want to talk about bad teams on the slate,OK UNT andUSU were (both 2-10) terrible BUT what about Duke(1-11) and William & Mary(4-7 and not even D-1).

You want to talk quality of losses ?OK we lost to a 6-6team(by 3) and an 8-4 team(by 7).HOWEVER what you neglect to mention is that VT did not just get beat by LSU but were destroyed 48-7!

Something you completely overlooked is quality wins.OU has (2) victories over the final BCS #6 team(MU),a victory over the #19 team(UT) and the #40 team (TU).VT had wins over the #14,15 teams(Clemson and BC) but no others in the BCS Final Poll.If the computers were properly weighted OU's 4 quality wins against teams in the final BCS Poll would far OUtweigh VT's quality wins.In fact the two wins over #6 MU do that by themselves .

In the final analysis,the math is not so clear.What is clear is that the computers as well as the BCS system are terribly flawed.Playoffs are the way to go.

Socrefbek

12/2/2007, 10:58 PM

or

c.) a person who has repeatedly attempted to explain how the computer-based rankings work to people that refuse to actually listen to what he says.

Sure, the system in this one instance returns a seemingly goofy result, but there is a logic behind it. The system has to follow the parameters set for it.

Noone needs it explained. We have listened. We know HOW it works. The point is IT doesn't work.

As an earlier poster stated. At one time the computer was designed properly to use margin of victory, head to head, quality wins etc. to balance out the human pollsters voting for the latest winner vs. the body of work.

Continued whining and complaining by teams that did not benefit from the computers resulted in watering down the computer rankings to the point that it the calcualtions are flawed and allow a team to be ranked higher than a team they lost twice to that won their conference and has the same number of losses.

There is no sense to it other than faulty programming and flawed logic. Defending it is ridiculous.

goingoneight

12/2/2007, 11:03 PM

I don't buy this whole "Missouri has a better body of work this year" nonsense. Computer-compschmuter... we own Mizzou, about as bad as you CAN own someone in a single season.

Computers will never decide truth. They don't understand the difference between someone playing without their star player, they don't understand home field advantage or referee screw jobs. The measure numbers just to spit out more numbers.

For that reason, the pollsters have and will always make more sense. You think OSU is better than OU because they beat Tech? Ya know... because defense doesn't matter as long as you get that W, eh?

Use your computers for All-America honors, individual awards, NCAA records, etc. Don't let some damn computer decide this stuff.

41-31, 38-17... end. of. story. The National Champion will not be decided on strength of schedule or statistics, it will be decided on the field... as it should be.

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 11:05 PM

Well, take an extreme example.

Say LSU plays Eastern Michigan, Utah St, UConn, and OU. LSU loses to E. Michigan, Utah St and UConn, but comes up with the game of their lives and beat OU by a single point. OU, on the other hand, plays Missouri, Florida, Ohio St, and LSU. We beat the first three, but lose to LSU by 1 point. Which is the better team? Should head to head still count? There is a huge problem with using head to head outcomes when teams play such vastly different schedules.

The thing is no one said head to head should trump all, just that there should be away for the computers to be able to consider it. Your example above wouldn't be a factor in the BCS because LSU would be no where near where OU was ranked. Mizzou and OU both had the same record and played in the same conference which means they will be ranked somewhat close to each other, so let's program the computers to reconise that OU beat them twice and have that factor in their rankings.

Pricetag

12/2/2007, 11:06 PM

The BCS has suffered greatly due to pressure and ignorant public outcry from fans and schools alike, namely Miami, USC, and Auburn. Because of this, essential statistics are witheld from computer calculations by rule. These statistics include margain of victory calculations. They also removed the explicit bonus given to a team that beat another highly BCS ranked team, which served to diminish the importance of scheduling and beating very good teams.

Yep. The BCS was pretty solid back in 2003, and we f'ed it all up by losing to K-State and still making the Sugar Bowl.

It's funny, the system was created to counter human bias, but the second it spit out something that the humans didn't want to see, they lobotomized it, and here we are.

Leroy Lizard

12/2/2007, 11:12 PM

Do YOU think it makes sense for Missouri to be ranked above OU in the computer poll?

Answer: YES, it makes sense. Do I agree? No, but it does make perfect sense.

And for reasons already stated here many times, for which you continuously ignore.

Colorado beat us. That does not mean they necessarily deserve being higher ranked than us. If we hadn't lost to two mediocre teams, our indignation over being ranked below Missouri would have some merit.

You have two teams, A and B.

Both have gone 5-1 throughout the season Team A beat Team B, but Team A lost to a lousy Team C. Team B should be ranked higher, as I see it.

RedstickSooner

12/2/2007, 11:13 PM

Shouldn't it matter more who you beat as opposed to who you lost to? Confused about the whole who you lost too angle. :confused:

Actually, that's a fundamental, philosophical question. They've been arguing about it for years. Frankly, I dig both sides of the argument, putting me on the fence.

I honestly don't know which should matter more: Beating someone good, or losing to someone bad.

I think the computers are rigged with the belief that it's more important who beats you, than who you beat.

It's easy to make the other argument, though, as when two good teams play that usually shows how good they both are more accurately than an upset win shows how "bad" a losing team is.

The BCS has actually see-sawed on this issued several times. After we won in 2000 (and Miami was left out of the game), they put in bonuses for "quality wins". I think after quality wins helped us get in for the 2003 game, they decided to take 'em back out again.

The BCS officials never stop to figure out whether a system is truly fair -- they just look at trying to figure out a system that would've precluded whatever controversy arose *last* season.

SoonerBBall

12/2/2007, 11:13 PM

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 11:16 PM

Yep. The BCS was pretty solid back in 2003, and we f'ed it all up by losing to K-State and still making the Sugar Bowl.

It's funny, the system was created to counter human bias, but the second it spit out something that the humans didn't want to see, they lobotomized it, and here we are.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's time they take a hard look at the computers now though and either start putting some of that stuff back in or just get rid of them. It angers me to see Mizzou ahead of us in computer rankings after we beat them twice because although it didn't matter this year what if it had. If the polls had placed us one spot higher it might of mattered and it might matter in the future. Simply put it's broken - fix it or remove it before it explodes.

Breadburner

12/2/2007, 11:16 PM

Mizzou was pumped and dumped.....heh.....

Leroy Lizard

12/2/2007, 11:19 PM

Computers will never decide truth. They don't understand the difference between someone playing without their star player, they don't understand home field advantage or referee screw jobs. The measure numbers just to spit out more numbers.

This is a good reason to favor computers.

Injuries are a part of the game. If they weren't, then the game should have been cancelled as soon as Bradford got hurt. After all, if the outcome of the game is meaningless because of his injury, why play the game?

Same goes for refereeing. You cannot overturn the score of a ball game simply because YOU don't think a ref made an improper call. Every fan of a losing team thinks that the refereeing screwed them out of a win. Why even play the games if we are going to not accept the outcome?

Home field advantage can be factored into a computer algorithm rather easily. But should it? A win is a win; a loss is a loss.

FirstandGoal

12/2/2007, 11:22 PM

Let's boycott all computers.

Who wants to go first?

:rolleyes:

Leroy Lizard

12/2/2007, 11:26 PM

Whoever goes first we will never hear from again.

I have a feeling that a lot of you want me to go first.

Sooner_Havok

12/2/2007, 11:33 PM

The problem is, the BCS won't be forced to make many changes this year. Adding Strength of schedule and quality wins back into the equation wouldn't have put SC in the game, but it would have kept tOSU out. That being the case, the BCS big wigs won't see a big problem with the system. They might add a rule that states clearly "Win your conference, or you can't play for a national championship" but other than that, the BCS was a success, it produced the game everyone wanted to see!:rolleyes:

INGRAM2

12/2/2007, 11:34 PM

Utah State

North Texas

We lost to a 6 - 6 team and an 8 - 4 team.

Va Tech lost to an 11 - 2 team and a 9 - 3 team.

Math is hard.

Good Point and the fact that the Big 12 is like the 5th best conference after the Sec and Big 10 then Pac 10 and acc then us. That is what the media feels.

GrapevineSooner

12/2/2007, 11:35 PM

Ok just answer this then ...

Johnny Mack is

a.) A poster that likes to create debate for his personal entertainment (stir the pot)
Johnny didn't start this thread.

b.) A complete idiot
For using logic and reason to explain how a well intentioned computer formula could give a flawed result?? I guess you could say so.

:rolleyes:

For those expecting the BCS to be a perfect system, the line forms to the left and has an interminable wait.

rainiersooner

12/2/2007, 11:36 PM

That's not the computer's problem. It just cranks through the data that is put into it. Head to head is where common sense takes over (when we see OU's AP ranking vs. Mizzou's AP ranking).

That's my issue - the parameters the humans have given the computers and weight those parameters are then given in the BCS formula.

JohnnyMack

12/2/2007, 11:38 PM

not so fast JM.You want to talk about bad teams on the slate,OK UNT andUSU were (both 2-10) terrible BUT what about Duke(1-11) and William & Mary(4-7 and not even D-1).

You want to talk quality of losses ?OK we lost to a 6-6team(by 3) and an 8-4 team(by 7).HOWEVER what you neglect to mention is that VT did not just get beat by LSU but were destroyed 48-7!

Something you completely overlooked is quality wins.OU has (2) victories over the final BCS #6 team(MU),a victory over the #19 team(UT) and the #40 team (TU).VT had wins over the #14,15 teams(Clemson and BC) but no others in the BCS Final Poll.If the computers were properly weighted OU's 4 quality wins against teams in the final BCS Poll would far OUtweigh VT's quality wins.In fact the two wins over #6 MU do that by themselves .

In the final analysis,the math is not so clear.What is clear is that the computers as well as the BCS system are terribly flawed.Playoffs are the way to go.

The quality of the loss refers to the record of the team you lost to, the "Auburn Whine Fest" has removed margin of victory (or in this case margin of loss) so the computers see the LSU loss as good loss, when common sense tells us they got their rollies cut off and handed to them.

VT's two losses were to teams with a combined 20 - 5 record. Ours were to teams with a combined 14 - 10 record. The computers are allowed to see that, but not the way in which they lost (check out the two versions of Sagarin rating, you'll see he has us at 1 and VT at 5 in the old version) so as far as the computers are concerned, VT has better losses than we do.

VT also beat UVA.

GrapevineSooner

12/2/2007, 11:38 PM

Actually, that's a fundamental, philosophical question. They've been arguing about it for years. Frankly, I dig both sides of the argument, putting me on the fence.

I honestly don't know which should matter more: Beating someone good, or losing to someone bad.

I think the computers are rigged with the belief that it's more important who beats you, than who you beat.

It's easy to make the other argument, though, as when two good teams play that usually shows how good they both are more accurately than an upset win shows how "bad" a losing team is.

The BCS has actually see-sawed on this issued several times. After we won in 2000 (and Miami was left out of the game), they put in bonuses for "quality wins". I think after quality wins helped us get in for the 2003 game, they decided to take 'em back out again.

The BCS officials never stop to figure out whether a system is truly fair -- they just look at trying to figure out a system that would've precluded whatever controversy arose *last* season.

In other words, the BCS is like the Matrix.

Everytime the masses won't accept it's result, it simply gets rebuilt. ;)

sooner KB

12/2/2007, 11:41 PM

Edited: Just realized I basically regurgitated everything in the thread.

But basically, I agree that it makes more sense mathematically, but intuition says OU is a better team. But of course, I'm a biased OU fan, and bias is what the computers were created to get around.

lauderdalesooner

12/2/2007, 11:50 PM

Johnny didn't start this thread.

For using logic and reason to explain how a well intentioned computer formula could give a flawed result?? I guess you could say so.

:rolleyes:

For those expecting the BCS to be a perfect system, the line forms to the left and has an interminable wait.

That's true - I started this thread and I think most people here feel it's discusion worthy atleast.

Flawed Result - He doesn't seem to think it's a flawed result and that's cool, it's his opinion after all.

I've heard alot of people saying the human polls are where the head to head match-ups and blowouts and other things like that are taken into account. I agree with that but I think the computers could be programmed to take stuff like that into account as well and still not be biased.

No one expects the BCS to be perfect, hence the BcS in the thread title. No one expects the BCS to do anything about the computers this year either but this will eventualy bite some team in A** and then the BCS will make changes. That's the #1 flaw in the BCS, they are reactive instead of proactive.

MI Sooner

12/2/2007, 11:57 PM

Explain Missouri dude

Missouri had the same record as we did and played a slightly more difficult schedule. That's the explanation.

sooner KB

12/3/2007, 12:00 AM

I suppose the computers could add to the formula that if Team A and Team B both have the same record, then B cannot be ranked ahead of A if they lost to A.

So in other words, Missouri would be dropped right below us, making us 5 and them 6.

But I still don't know if I agree with this. There could be more extreme cases. For example, what if we had lost to Baylor and Iowa State by 30 points at home, and Missouri, who had an injured Chase Daniel in both OU games, on the road, lost to us by a last second FG in both games? Also assume our schedule strengths were much more different. Say they beat LSU in a non-con game. If you still need help with this one, swap UM for OU. I'm sure there would be outrage amongst everyone here.

You have to take the most extreme example and apply it to that in order to change the formula.

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 12:00 AM

sooner KB, I think you got it.

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 12:03 AM

I suppose the computers could add to the formula that if Team A and Team B both have the same record, then B cannot be ranked ahead of A if they lost to A.

The problem is that you have to artificially raise a team higher or drop them lower. No problem if the two happened to be ranked next to each other, but otherwise teams get unfairly leapfrogged.

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 12:05 AM

I've heard alot of people saying the human polls are where the head to head match-ups and blowouts and other things like that are taken into account. I agree with that but I think the computers could be programmed to take stuff like that into account as well and still not be biased.

Well, the algorithm I designed takes care of this problem rather smoothly. So it can be done. I just wonder about the mathematical prowess behind some of the computer programmers. Sure, they can program. But do they understand math? I don't know, but the fact that they seem to have trouble with such a simple problem as margin-of-victory makes me wonder.

SoonerPriv

12/3/2007, 12:09 AM

this makes no sense.

lauderdalesooner

12/3/2007, 12:25 AM

Well, the algorithm I designed takes care of this problem rather smoothly. So it can be done. I just wonder about the mathematical prowess behind some of the computer programmers. Sure, they can program. But do they understand math? I don't know, but the fact that they seem to have trouble with such a simple problem as margin-of-victory makes me wonder.

You may very well be right, computers and/or programmers may not be able to handle it.

I'm just a big proponent of letting the computers have all the info they can handle, head to head info, margin of victory (up to 21 pts), penalizing teams who play Div 1AA teams, etc.

I agree with everyone that brings up these extreme cases as well but give the computers the info they need to tell the difference, something like this:

If Team A beat Team B and both teams are within 5 ranking spots of each other then Team B must be ranked lower then Team A.

To me the computers should be able to spit out a rankings that would be right on par with what a non biased human poll would look like. If not, then why use them.

OU-HSV

12/3/2007, 12:27 AM

No big surprise...the bcs as a whole seems to have it's flaws every year. I wish someone high up would get serious about installing some sort of playoff plan.

MI Sooner

12/3/2007, 12:32 AM

To me the computers should be able to spit out a rankings that would be right on par with what a non biased human poll would look like. If not, then why use them.

I think that what the programmers would tell you, but may just be too nice, is that "We are producing and unbiased result. You have biases. They are clouding your judgement."

I don't know if I'd agree with them, but style mis-matches are at least one potential reason why head-to-head competition isn't necessarily a good factor to determine relative ranking. If Nadal gets Federer on clay twice in one year and beats him both times, is he a better player? Even if they have the same record? Not necessarily. Not if Federer played better competition because Nadal cherry-picked events. Not if Federer won most matches in straight sets while Nadal struggled to finish off opponenets.

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 12:40 AM

I'm just a big proponent of letting the computers have all the info they can handle, head to head info, margin of victory (up to 21 pts), penalizing teams who play Div 1AA teams, etc.

There is no need to apply a cap to the MOV if you logarithmically scale it. Up by 30? Go ahead and pile on another TD, it won't do you much good. Up by 7? Another TD will help your cause significantly. As the MOV increases, the reward for scoring additional points dwindles.

If Team A beat Team B and both teams are within 5 ranking spots of each other then Team B must be ranked lower then Team A.

Any time you have to add arbitrary constraints, such as the number 5, then that is a flaw in the design. Why 5? Why not 4?

To me the computers should be able to spit out a rankings that would be right on par with what a non biased human poll would look like. If not, then why use them.

Who decides what a non-biased poll should look like?

Actually, there is a way. The idea I had was to dredge up a prior season, change the team names, and have a number of people rank the teams. If you have all of the scores, then with enough effort you should be able to come up with a top-10. Then check to see what the computer gives.

This would open up a lot of research ideas: For example, would a team that has been given the fake moniker "Fairy Shrimp" rank as highly as another team dubbed "Godzillas?" You have to be careful assigning fake names. For example, a team given the name "Longhorns" would be subconsciously labeled as losers, which could affect the results.

lauderdalesooner

12/3/2007, 12:40 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 12:42 AM

I'm sorry but you'll never convince me...

Okay. But there are others for which the system makes sense. I am one of them.

Here's another one for you - Va Tech was ranked 1st by the computers - that means they were ranked higher than LSU a team that beat them by 41 pts.

At some point, we told the computers to ignore margin-of-victory. Is that the computer programmer's fault?

Vaevictis

12/3/2007, 12:45 AM

The problem with the computers, as always, is the humans in control of them.

You can develop a completely unbiased algorithm that uses the data available to it to give the best predictions that can be made from that data set. And you can let it run.

... or you can post hoc decide that you didn't like the output, and tweak the algorithm (aka, introduce bias) so that the algorithms would have spit out the result that you now prefer.

... and then you can do it again a year later.

... and again, a year later.

... etc, etc.

Very frankly, it needs to ****ing stop. If you're going to use mathematics and algorithms to decide this sort of thing, let the mathematicians and computer scientists do their ****ing job and stop ****ing with their results. If you hired good ones to begin with, I assure you that they know much better than you what the **** they're doing. Otherwise, just go back to using the ****ing polls.

SoonerFaninAZ

12/3/2007, 12:47 AM

It's completely understandable why the computers would have Missouri ranked ahead of OU.

The outrage should probably be reserved for the coaches who placed an additional 79 points between LSU and the Sooners.

lauderdalesooner

12/3/2007, 12:49 AM

Okay. But there are others for which the system makes sense. I am one of them.

At some point, we told the computers to ignore margin-of-victory. Is that the computer programmer's fault?

1st off, I was responding to the previous post.

I understand you and others think the system makes sense, and that's cool, everyones entitled to their own opinion.

I never said it was the programmer's fault, I don't believe that all. I just think it's time to put margin-of-victory back into the formula.

GottaHavePride

12/3/2007, 01:01 AM

this makes no sense.

- Son, the present no longer exists. It was destroyed by the gigantic explosion! This is the future.

Ash

12/3/2007, 01:09 AM

This is hilarious. Fine if you like the bowl system. Fine if you think playoffs are better for other sports but not college football.

But saying the BCS system makes sense is just indefensible unless you toss out reality and only pay attention to numbers on a printed page or some geeks harddrive.

On that note, I do quite a bit with statistics including high level multivariate theoretical statistics for my job. All of this BCS computer crap would get a chuckle and an F by any of the guys that taught me quantitative methods. Objective my fat ***.

But forget about that egghead crap. We beat the number one team in the nation by double digits. That same team beat the hell out of two teams that got into the BCS over them. On the field, where games are played, where it all really counts. How the hell does it make sense?

Leroy Lizard

12/3/2007, 03:26 AM

But saying the BCS system makes sense is just indefensible unless you toss out reality and only pay attention to numbers on a printed page or some geeks harddrive.

Saying something is indefensible is arrogant. We can use better reasoning than that.

On that note, I do quite a bit with statistics including high level multivariate theoretical statistics for my job. All of this BCS computer crap would get a chuckle and an F by any of the guys that taught me quantitative methods. Objective my fat ***.

One of the biggest mistakes made by researchers is to comment without sufficient information. Have you seen the actual algorithms they use in their programs?

What sort of statistical analysis could you really perform on a system that has no known distribution and no way to measure accuracy? (Without a known distribution you cannot perform precision measurements.)

When trying to determine if Missouri should be ranked above OU, throw your ANOVA's and your chi-squares out the window

BoonesFarmSooner

12/3/2007, 10:10 AM

JohnnyMack

12/3/2007, 10:11 AM

I'm sorry but you'll never convince me that Mizzou should be ranked higher then us after we beat them twice. We were 21 pts better on a neutral field.

Here's another one for you - Va Tech was ranked 1st by the computers - that means they were ranked higher than LSU a team that beat them by 41 pts.

You seem to be putting too much emotion into your argument. This isn't about emotion (my team is better than your team!) but rather about analyzing team A's body of work and comparing it against team B's body of work. The polls control the human/emotional element. You can't chastise the computers for the results they spit out, they aren't thinking*, they're simply processing the data we give them.

*That is until the day SkyNet goes active. :(

Vaevictis

12/3/2007, 10:16 AM

(Without a known distribution you cannot perform precision measurements.)

*cough*cough*central limit theorem*cough*cough*cough*

Jason White's Third Knee

12/3/2007, 10:22 AM

I don't care if the where the computers have us.

We should be ahead of LSU and that is on the HUMAN POLLS.

Now let's go rout WV... Oh, it'll happen.

SoonerBBall

12/3/2007, 11:20 AM

Here's a shocker...

Computer Geeks on the interlink trying to justify why using them in ranking football teams makes sense.

I can't believe this hasn't turned out into a C++ or Visual Basic programming discussion?

We beat Missouri by 17 (or 10, depending on your point of view) in the regular season. We beat them by 21 on a neutral field in the Conference Championship Game. This is just as ridiculous as having VA Tech ranked above a team that gave them a beat down by 40+ points.

Did you purposefully forget the other pages in this thread or did you not read them?

Mizzou's two losses are better than OU's two losses, and VT's two losses are better than LSU's two losses. Period. That isn't debatable, it is fact.

Unless two teams play the exact same team every other team plays, you simply cannot rely only on head to head outcomes to determine rank. If you can't see that, well, go ahead and try to make a top 25 for this year without placing a team above another team that beat them. Besides Hawaii at you #1, you are going to be in for a lot of frustration and your final list will look like the ravings of a lunatic.

The Maestro

12/3/2007, 11:25 AM

Mizzou's two losses are better than OU's two losses, and VT's two losses are better than LSU's two losses. Period. That isn't debatable, it is fact.

No one is going to see eye to eye on this kind of debate, but this argument blows my mind.

Michael Spinks had better career "losses" than Mike Tyson.

So what happened when they got in the ring together?

Ask Missouri players, fans and coaches who is better...OU or themselves?

Jacie

12/3/2007, 12:00 PM

Well, the algorithm I designed takes care of this problem rather smoothly. So it can be done. I just wonder about the mathematical prowess behind some of the computer programmers. Sure, they can program. But do they understand math? I don't know, but the fact that they seem to have trouble with such a simple problem as margin-of-victory makes me wonder.

Leroy, in my experience math is the one subject computer programmers understand very well. Interpersonal relations, not so much, but definitely math!

KB, your idea might sound like a good solution to the perceived problem but I would ask you this, have you ever written a computer program? They have to be based on logic. If you deliberately write some code to circumvent the logic built into a program, the end result might be reams of computer paper with no useful content printed on it or possibly a program looping endlessly on itself until the computer operator pulls the plug and resets everything.

JohnnyMack

12/3/2007, 12:24 PM

No one is going to see eye to eye on this kind of debate, but this argument blows my mind.

Michael Spinks had better career "losses" than Mike Tyson.

So what happened when they got in the ring together?

Ask Missouri players, fans and coaches who is better...OU or themselves?

No one is saying Missouri is better than OU.

sanantoniosooner

12/3/2007, 12:27 PM

List of unsafe topics modification

religion
politics
BCS

on second thought.....the BCS part is covered by religion and politics together.

Never mind

BoonesFarmSooner

12/3/2007, 12:31 PM

Did you purposefully forget the other pages in this thread or did you not read them?

Mizzou's two losses are better than OU's two losses, and VT's two losses are better than LSU's two losses. Period. That isn't debatable, it is fact.

Yeah... You're right!

Last year, Florida lost to #10 Auburn. Ohio State lost to #2 Florida. Ohio State's loss was clearly better than Florida's loss.

Computer Geeks Claim Ohio State National Champs after getting destroyed in the National Championship Game.

BRILLIANT

Howzit

12/3/2007, 12:33 PM

It seems it is time to interject an anecdote.

I remember in the 80's being at a warehouse in Houston for work, and they had just gotten their first PC. nobody knew much about computers at the time, and this was even still in the Days o' DOS.

I was helping them set it up, just connecting cables and what not, and the warehouse manager was standing behind me. As I turned on the power, he said, "Ask it the average age in Houston."

The end. We now return to regular programming.

Get it? Programming?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

lauderdalesooner

12/3/2007, 02:00 PM

No one is saying Missouri is better than OU.

Thanks for proving my point with this comment.

No one except the computers. You can argue that they aren't saying that as well but the truth is that's exactly what the computer rankings say. That's why they need to be fixed or dumped.

I'd expect 99.9999999% of college football fans will agree that OU is better then Mizzou (a team they beat twice) and that LSU is better then Va Tech (a team they beat by 41 pts). Any poll that doesn't rank those teams that way is broke and should be fixed or removed from deciding who plays for it all.

Pricetag

12/3/2007, 02:16 PM

I wish everyone would stop it with the "computer geeks" stuff. IMO, this is an image that the analysts and sports writers purposely interjected into the debate in 2003 and 2004 to cloud the waters because they didn't understand them and they also threatened their influence.

SoonerBBall

12/3/2007, 02:20 PM

Thanks for proving my point with this comment.

No one except the computers. You can argue that they aren't saying that as well but the truth is that's exactly what the computer rankings say. That's why they need to be fixed or dumped.

I'd expect 99.9999999% of college football fans will agree that OU is better then Mizzou (a team they beat twice) and that LSU is better then Va Tech (a team they beat by 41 pts). Any poll that doesn't rank those teams that way is broke and should be fixed or removed from deciding who plays for it all.

Let me repost this for you so that you understand what we are saying.

Unless two teams play the exact same team every other team plays, you simply cannot rely only on head to head outcomes to determine rank. If you can't see that, well, go ahead and try to make a top 25 for this year without placing a team above another team that beat them. Besides Hawaii at you #1, you are going to be in for a lot of frustration and your final list will look like the ravings of a lunatic.

I obviously don't believe Missouri is a better team than OU, but if we are using a system that takes 119 teams into account and must rank them on an entire season worth of merits, there is absolutely an argument to be made that Missouri had a better season than OU.

Dan Thompson

12/3/2007, 03:05 PM

if computer are so fast, why does it take so long to get the bcs results.

I think they 'adjust' the results until they think the results are correct.

Ash

12/3/2007, 03:26 PM

See, this is the problem with the BCS debate as a whole. You go round and round about trivia and forget about what just happened right before your eyes.

This is sports, not an algorithm. You know when you toss out crap like who had better losses, blah, blah, blah?

When the teams play each other. Scoreboard, it's what always counts above all.

JohnnyMack

12/3/2007, 03:52 PM

OUGuf

12/3/2007, 04:28 PM

I personally find it rediculous that we lost so much ground to LSU in the coaches poll considering we beat the #1 team by 21 on a neutral field, and they won by 7 to the #14 team.
We should have jumped them based on this weeks performance, and how close we were to them last week.
Oh well there is always next year.

tulsaoilerfan

12/3/2007, 04:45 PM

But LSU plays in the mighty SEC so obviously they are better than us

Ash

12/3/2007, 04:47 PM

Saying something is indefensible is arrogant. We can use better reasoning than that.

One of the biggest mistakes made by researchers is to comment without sufficient information. Have you seen the actual algorithms they use in their programs?

What sort of statistical analysis could you really perform on a system that has no known distribution and no way to measure accuracy? (Without a known distribution you cannot perform precision measurements.)

When trying to determine if Missouri should be ranked above OU, throw your ANOVA's and your chi-squares out the window

Saying something is indefensible isn't arrogant, it's my opinion based on what I've seen. And obviously, you've got a dog in the fight so I want to make clear that I'm not trying to denigrate what you have done.

But you've touched on something that goes to the point: these "formulas" aren't substantive. There's no empirical (or heck, even theoretical) grounds for determining what a "correct" ranking would be comprised of let alone look like in the end.

The only way to do that is to find exactly what you admit is lacking: parameters.

BTW, no known distribution doesn't mean you can't figure out the parameters it just means it ain't going to be in the little booklet they give in stats 101. Simulations, bootstrapping, jackknifing, Monte Carlo among a slew of other methods can give you at least a heuristic tool to start with. For something as squirrelly as college sports I'd think Bayesian methods might be more applicable than simple number crunching.

Just my .02

But, in the end, my point is this: it ain't math, it's football. Play games, one wins, one loses, until you've got the champ.

PhilTLL

12/3/2007, 05:02 PM

Saying something is indefensible isn't arrogant, it's my opinion based on what I've seen.

Yes...it is. Declaring it "indefensible" is denying out of hand the existence of any sufficient argument in favor of it. Just a bit arrogant.

PS, in case no one's noticed, the computers only generate 1/3 of the BCS ranking. I swear this thread could kill brain cells.

Ash

12/3/2007, 05:09 PM

Yes...it is. Declaring it "indefensible" is denying out of hand the existence of any sufficient argument in favor of it. Just a bit arrogant.

PS, in case no one's noticed, the computers only generate 1/3 of the BCS ranking. I swear this thread could kill brain cells.

LOL

Some sensitive people in this thread. Maybe I should have prefaced it with IMHO. LOL

sanantoniosooner

12/3/2007, 05:11 PM

LOL

Some sensitive people in this thread. Maybe I should have prefaced it with IMHO. LOL
so it wouldn't be possible for you to defend it, but it would be possible for someone else to defend it?

PhilTLL

12/3/2007, 05:14 PM

LOL

Some sensitive people in this thread. Maybe I should have prefaced it with IMHO. LOL

No, but "it's my opinion" isn't automatically justification of an argument. It makes it an opinion, it doesn't give it validity. Just keeping the distinction between argument and expression intact. I don't really give a **** if you're arrogant, just don't claim otherwise.

Egeo

12/3/2007, 05:25 PM

i like computer polls in general - they are not biased (for example look at the coaches ballots)
sometimes the better team doesnt win (bc beat vt)

but when sagarin has a poll that has:
ou better than mizzou and lsu better than vt

and another poll that has:
mizzou better than OU and vt better than lsu

and we use the latter - its ridiculous
mizzou's sos may be better, but we have the same record and we beat them twice! there is no way you can convince me they should be ranked ahead of us.

sagarin puts on his page that the poll the bcs uses is less accurate

Ash

12/3/2007, 05:44 PM

so it wouldn't be possible for you to defend it, but it would be possible for someone else to defend it?

I don't know...now I'm feeling defensive.

Ash

12/3/2007, 05:50 PM

No, but "it's my opinion" isn't automatically justification of an argument. It makes it an opinion, it doesn't give it validity. Just keeping the distinction between argument and expression intact. I don't really give a **** if you're arrogant, just don't claim otherwise.

Well, I AM an arrogant bastard, but I didn't know "indefensible" was the tag line for arrogant bastards. I'll just put it as my sig so we're all clear about this from the beginning.

:twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies: :twinkies:

lauderdalesooner

12/3/2007, 08:35 PM

People can post pictures of people beating their head against a wall and say this thread kills brain cells all they want. It doesn't change the fact that the BCS has changed the information the programmers are allowed to input in to their fomulas so much that the end resulting rankings are garbage.

Others think I'm putting to much emotion into my thought process on the computers, fine forget OU beating Mizzou twice and still being ranked lower. It's still a garbage output from the computers because they have Va Tech ranked above LSU a team they lost to by 41pts.

And don't even give me that crap that it only counts as 1/3 of the BCS, the points is it does count in part to who gets to play for it all. Ignoring obvious problems is what gets the BCS in trouble - everything they do is reactive instead of proactive.

In the end the computers had nothing to do with deciding who played in the championship this year since both polls agreed on who was #1 & #2, I hope that trend continues or someone is going to get screwed.

sanantoniosooner

12/3/2007, 08:36 PM

Sounds like you've got it all figured out.

Congrats.

Vaevictis

12/3/2007, 08:39 PM

i like computer polls in general - they are not biased (for example look at the coaches ballots)

Just FWIW, the computer polls are biased. Against OU, specifically in my opinion.

When it was decided that the computer polls would be modified because of things that OU did, the BCS decided to make "changes" to the computer polls so that they would produce an outcome the BCS would have preferred.

Ask any math/stat geek, and they'll tell you -- this is introducing bias.

And, the fact is, just who are such biases most likely to affect in the future? Why, the same as who would have been affected by them in the past.

Namely, OU.

sanantoniosooner

12/3/2007, 08:41 PM

Just FWIW, the computer polls are biased. Against OU, specifically in my opinion.

When it was decided that the computer polls would be modified because of things that OU did, the BCS decided to make "changes" to the computer polls so that they would produce an outcome the BCS would have preferred.

Ask any math/stat geek, and they'll tell you -- this is introducing bias.

And, the fact is, just who are such biases most likely to affect in the future? Why, the same as who would have been affected by them in the past.

Namely, OU.
That is just plumb silly. The were modified as a reaction to OU, but the end result applies to everybody, not just OU, and the likelihood of OU exactly replicating that season themselves is slim to none.

Vaevictis

12/3/2007, 09:33 PM

That is just plumb silly. The were modified as a reaction to OU, but the end result applies to everybody, not just OU, and the likelihood of OU exactly replicating that season themselves is slim to none.

We have more similarities to that team than any other team in the nation -- most similar coaches, most similar players, most similar schemes, most similar schedule.

It applies to everyone, yes. But it's most likely to affect OU.

sanantoniosooner

12/3/2007, 09:37 PM

We have more similarities to that team than any other team in the nation -- most similar coaches, most similar players, most similar schemes, most similar schedule.

It applies to everyone, yes. But it's most likely to affect OU.
The "on the field" results are dependent on the teams we play as well as our own circumstances.

What are the odds of an undefeated regular season followed by a blowout loss in the Big12 Championship game again?

Vaevictis

12/3/2007, 09:57 PM

What are the odds of an undefeated regular season followed by a blowout loss in the Big12 Championship game again?

I'm pretty sure the tweaks are not quite that specific.

Sooner_Bob

12/3/2007, 09:59 PM

Good grief . . . some of you need to take a break from this whole discussion. I never thought there'd be this dramatic defense of the BCS around here. Especially to the point where you try to reason with folks about how Missouri should be ranked above OU in any poll. Computer or otherwise.

The BCS has been tweeked so many times I can't see how any of the data used to determine the final results isn't seen as being just a little biased.

I could understand a single head-to-head matchup not making much difference, but losing to a team twice that should count for a little more than it apparently does.

But hey, I only got a B in stats and trig and a C in Calculus 1 so what do I know. :D

Leroy Lizard

12/4/2007, 12:41 AM

I could understand a single head-to-head matchup not making much difference, but losing to a team twice that should count for a little more than it apparently does.

Sure it counts. OU beat Missouri twice. On the face of it, OU is definitely the better team. But then you have to wonder how the better team lost two other games that the weaker team didn't. Then it isn't so obvious, at least not from an objective point of view. Were the two losses flukes?

kevpks

12/4/2007, 01:07 AM

I think taking out the quality win component was BS. It would have offset the fact that computers ranked Mizzou ahead of us.

Crucifax Autumn

12/4/2007, 03:15 AM

I think taking out the quality win component was BS. It would have offset the fact that computers ranked Mizzou ahead of us.

I agree...that was a huge mistake.

SoonerBBall

12/4/2007, 02:04 PM

I think taking out the quality win component was BS. It would have offset the fact that computers ranked Mizzou ahead of us.

To a person, every single one of us that is trying to convince you that the computers (and the BCS) aren't as random and stupid as everyone lies to believe has said that the current incarnation of the BCS is deeply flawed and needs to be changed to take into account factors that are currently aren't included.