Someone explain to me how VaTech is AHEAD of us in the final BCS...

We're #3 in the Coach's poll, they're #5. We're #3 in the Harris poll, they're #6. Are the computers that ****ed up?

 

lord, who knows how those idiotic things happen. I'm just glad the hokies didn't somehow get into the MNC ahead of OU. That would have been more of a disaster the the Oregon debacle imo.

 

We have the same record. The teams they lost to have better records than the teams we lost to.

 

Maybe it's the human polls that are ****ed up. Someone on another thread made the comment that I always make. Computer rankings were included as a minority component of the equation as a check on human bias. But 90%+ of people seem to complain that "the computers are ****ed up" whenever they have a different result than the human polls. If that's the case, then why include them at all? Just use the human polls, and should there be a tie, then maybe resort to computer rankings.

 

Right on... I quess I have had a bad understanding of the BCMess forumula and basic math. I thought the human polls were 1/3 each and the computer was 1/3 for a total.

 

Va Tech was #1 in the computers. Lost to LSU by 41 pts and still ranked ahead of them. This is what happens when you take key info away from the computers. Computer rankings need to be fixed or dumped.

 

I agree that point spread should be taken into account. The only argument against it is that teams would be more likely to run up the score, which is unsportsman like.

But it is considered unsportsman like because it is seen as "rubbing it into the faces" of your opponent. But with this, the intention of team for running up the score would be for rankings, nothing else.

It would also make college football a little more exciting, especially in blow out games. People would be more likely to watch until the end. You won't have entire quarters or halves with nothing but run plays. It would also give teams more of an incentive to "not give up" after they get way down.

 

Not if you have a well-designed algorithm.

 

Computers don't make mistakes, the humans that program them do.

 

I need some private time with that computer.. just long enough to shake all tha h4x out of it..

 

the reason for removing margin of victory isn't for sportsmanship, it's so that you don't get anything for meaningless points in blowouts

you shouldn't get bonus points for scoring 100 on North Texas or Utah State, it doesn't prove anything

the thing with the computers is that it's not that you average the rankings, you average the % of the maximum points you could have gotten. so if #2-#6 are really close in the human polls, but the computers think #5 or #6 are #1 by a large margin, then they could move up pretty significantly

 

also, i don't think the computers take much into account for non-unique opponents, but i could be wrong. if this is the case, it actually slightly drops us for beating Mizzou a second time since they now have another loss. things would have been better for us if KU had beaten them, i think

 

Its real simple. As someone else pointed out the teams Tech lost to are ranked and have better records and schedules. We lost to unranked opp. with weak schedules and subpar records.

 

Computers don't kill....computer programmers kill.

 

Perhaps losing to a craptacular CU team has something to do with it.

 

We actually liked the computers a few years ago, right?

 

way to simple of an explanation.

 

ssshhhhhh.....can't you see there's major complaining going on?

 

Yeah, before they took out the margin of victory factor.


Now, LSU gets rewarded for going 3-1 in a stretch where they very easily could have been 0-4.

 

They need to throw out the vote of anyone that goes outside the average by a fixed weight. That would put the human factor in check, unless there's a massive conspiracy. Then send that person a nice e-mail that their vote wasn't counted because they are whacked in the head.