soonermeteor
12/1/2008, 01:28 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8870680/Computers-defy-logic-in-boosting-Sooners
Computers defy logic in boosting Sooners
by Don Borst, Special to FOXSports.com
Updated: December 1, 2008, 12:03 AM EST 689 comments
add this RSS blog email Print
What is it that Oklahoma has on these computers?
For the second time in six years, the computers — and only the computers — are the reason the Sooners get to play for the national championship.
Granted, the BCS computers still have another week to go in the 2008 season, and this time it's "only" the Big 12 championship game that the computers have punched Oklahoma's ticket for. But because of that opportunity Saturday in Kansas City, the Sooners have effectively aced out a team that beat them for first rights to play for the national championship.
We'll presume that national championship game will be against the champion of the SEC, but you never know. There's always the chance between now and then that the BCS computers will whirr and click and offer up some data that will deem Oklahoma's second string the No. 2 team in the country and turn it into an intrasquad game.
The humans, meantime, got it right: In a very close vote, the voters in the Coaches and Harris polls favored Texas over Oklahoma (the coaches gave OU a one-point edge, while Harris voters gave UT a six-point edge) — almost certainly owing to the fact that the Longhorns beat the Sooners on a neutral field this season, 45-35.
It stands to reason that when teams finish in a tie, the team that beat the other should receive at least some kind of benefit for that accomplishment. But "reason" isn't something the BCS computers are capable of.
Instead, Texas gets a message from the computers like, "you should have run up the score more on more opponents," or something.
I recognize that reasonable people can differ on this subject, but the computers did something very unreasonable. What's REALLY disturbing is the way Oklahoma leapfrogged Alabama along the way; it's as if the computers realized that to get their beloved Sooners into the Big 12 title game, they had to push OU past the 12-0 Crimson Tide, too.
So, Alabama finished off the season in absolutely perfect form, and both human polls are voting the Tide No. 1 by a wider margin than at any time since they took over the No. 1 spot Nov. 1.
Nick Saban's team charges into the SEC championship game with the kind of momentum that has even Florida followers double-checking their previously overexuberant optimism: The Crimson Tide, everyone finally realizes, are for real, which is why they're the only one of the 66 BCS programs to finish the regular season with a perfect 12-0 record.
This isn't to say that the Tide will beat Florida, or win the national championship. They might, but they still have to prove it. But by no reasonable measure should they be moved down after scoring a ridiculously impressive 36-0 victory in the Iron Bowl.
Yet, they're moved down by the computers, not just behind the mighty can-do-no-wrong Sooners, but behind Texas as well. Alabama No. 3? Because they went 12-0 and beat Auburn by 36 points?
What the what?
That's how ridiculous this has become.
The Bowl Championship Series — a misnomer to begin with — has found another way to undermine the very sport that gives it life.
Five years ago, the computers loved Bob Stoops and the Sooners even after OU was blown out of the Big 12 championship game by Kansas State, 35-7, on Dec. 6.
A day later, the humans moved the Sooners down to No. 3 — still a high placement for their laudable season of work. USC and LSU were No. 1 and No. 2 according to the humans. Somehow, the computers pretended the Big 12 championship game did not even happen, leaving Oklahoma ahead of both LSU and USC, by enough of a margin that they remained ahead of both of those teams in the overall BCS rankings.
That kept Oklahoma in the national championship game, where they lost to LSU (which had edged USC in the BCS rankings by the narrowest of margins). That prompted AP Top 25 voters to eventually award USC the No. 1 ranking, which is our most recent split national championship.
Of course, we can blame the Big 12 for selecting such a lousy way to break their own tie. There are many better ways to break ties than to hand that responsibility over to a Big Brother system that is not really accountable to anything or anyone.
Why did you decide this, computer? Because you break the games down to a series of numbers that have nothing to do with winning or losing on the field.
Back in the bad old days, when the bowls first got together to work out special rankings to place teams in the biggest of bowls, teams received special credit for having the fewest number of losses. After a couple of years, however, it was determined that teams were already being penalized for losses by voters and computers. So the BCS formula was tweaked.
And the "strength of schedule" component was scrapped because it's already built in to the computer models. So the BCS formula was tweaked.
And then there were the humans (namely, The Associated Press) who said, "Wait a minute � this is just plain, dumb � we're out!" So the BCS formula was tweaked.
So, we'll expect to see a little more tweaking after this season. Head-to-head contests should be considered significant. Conference champions should be considered significant.
In the meantime, the BCS got it wrong again.
Computers defy logic in boosting Sooners
by Don Borst, Special to FOXSports.com
Updated: December 1, 2008, 12:03 AM EST 689 comments
add this RSS blog email Print
What is it that Oklahoma has on these computers?
For the second time in six years, the computers — and only the computers — are the reason the Sooners get to play for the national championship.
Granted, the BCS computers still have another week to go in the 2008 season, and this time it's "only" the Big 12 championship game that the computers have punched Oklahoma's ticket for. But because of that opportunity Saturday in Kansas City, the Sooners have effectively aced out a team that beat them for first rights to play for the national championship.
We'll presume that national championship game will be against the champion of the SEC, but you never know. There's always the chance between now and then that the BCS computers will whirr and click and offer up some data that will deem Oklahoma's second string the No. 2 team in the country and turn it into an intrasquad game.
The humans, meantime, got it right: In a very close vote, the voters in the Coaches and Harris polls favored Texas over Oklahoma (the coaches gave OU a one-point edge, while Harris voters gave UT a six-point edge) — almost certainly owing to the fact that the Longhorns beat the Sooners on a neutral field this season, 45-35.
It stands to reason that when teams finish in a tie, the team that beat the other should receive at least some kind of benefit for that accomplishment. But "reason" isn't something the BCS computers are capable of.
Instead, Texas gets a message from the computers like, "you should have run up the score more on more opponents," or something.
I recognize that reasonable people can differ on this subject, but the computers did something very unreasonable. What's REALLY disturbing is the way Oklahoma leapfrogged Alabama along the way; it's as if the computers realized that to get their beloved Sooners into the Big 12 title game, they had to push OU past the 12-0 Crimson Tide, too.
So, Alabama finished off the season in absolutely perfect form, and both human polls are voting the Tide No. 1 by a wider margin than at any time since they took over the No. 1 spot Nov. 1.
Nick Saban's team charges into the SEC championship game with the kind of momentum that has even Florida followers double-checking their previously overexuberant optimism: The Crimson Tide, everyone finally realizes, are for real, which is why they're the only one of the 66 BCS programs to finish the regular season with a perfect 12-0 record.
This isn't to say that the Tide will beat Florida, or win the national championship. They might, but they still have to prove it. But by no reasonable measure should they be moved down after scoring a ridiculously impressive 36-0 victory in the Iron Bowl.
Yet, they're moved down by the computers, not just behind the mighty can-do-no-wrong Sooners, but behind Texas as well. Alabama No. 3? Because they went 12-0 and beat Auburn by 36 points?
What the what?
That's how ridiculous this has become.
The Bowl Championship Series — a misnomer to begin with — has found another way to undermine the very sport that gives it life.
Five years ago, the computers loved Bob Stoops and the Sooners even after OU was blown out of the Big 12 championship game by Kansas State, 35-7, on Dec. 6.
A day later, the humans moved the Sooners down to No. 3 — still a high placement for their laudable season of work. USC and LSU were No. 1 and No. 2 according to the humans. Somehow, the computers pretended the Big 12 championship game did not even happen, leaving Oklahoma ahead of both LSU and USC, by enough of a margin that they remained ahead of both of those teams in the overall BCS rankings.
That kept Oklahoma in the national championship game, where they lost to LSU (which had edged USC in the BCS rankings by the narrowest of margins). That prompted AP Top 25 voters to eventually award USC the No. 1 ranking, which is our most recent split national championship.
Of course, we can blame the Big 12 for selecting such a lousy way to break their own tie. There are many better ways to break ties than to hand that responsibility over to a Big Brother system that is not really accountable to anything or anyone.
Why did you decide this, computer? Because you break the games down to a series of numbers that have nothing to do with winning or losing on the field.
Back in the bad old days, when the bowls first got together to work out special rankings to place teams in the biggest of bowls, teams received special credit for having the fewest number of losses. After a couple of years, however, it was determined that teams were already being penalized for losses by voters and computers. So the BCS formula was tweaked.
And the "strength of schedule" component was scrapped because it's already built in to the computer models. So the BCS formula was tweaked.
And then there were the humans (namely, The Associated Press) who said, "Wait a minute � this is just plain, dumb � we're out!" So the BCS formula was tweaked.
So, we'll expect to see a little more tweaking after this season. Head-to-head contests should be considered significant. Conference champions should be considered significant.
In the meantime, the BCS got it wrong again.