I hear people trash the computer rankings used by the BCS all the time. They say the computers "hate" the Wisconsin Badgers or the computers "love" Oklahoma State. People say things like, "Well, our team would be ranked higher, but the computers are holding us down."
From the media I consume and the people I talk to, I'd say most people distrust the computer rankings and would be happier if they were removed from the BCS rankings completely. I totally disagree. In fact, I believe the human polls should be removed from the BCS formula and only the computer rankings should be used.
I'd argue that the computer rankings are the only fair way we have to sort these teams out. Please, read the methodology used by Richard Billingsley in his Billingsley Report (one of the six computer rankings used by the BCS) and tell me it doesn't make complete sense. Moreover, tell me that the coaches polled each week put even 1/100th of that kind of thought when they fill out their ballots each week. They don't, and they can't be expected to. So why would I think their rankings have more merit than the computers?
Coaches are biased, bar none. How can they not be? They are a part of this universe they're supposed to impartial about. They have friends and enemies on opposing teams. There is no possible way a Big 12 head coach can evaluate and compare their own schedule to that of a WAC school while still performing his normal coaching duties. Plus, because they're human, coaches are undoubtedly influenced by others (the media, other coaches), thus skewing their rankings.
Computers are unbiased. A computer takes all applicable data... ALL of it... into account when they sort these teams. Is a win over Texas on the road worth more than a win over Florida State at home? How about a win over UNLV at on the road versus a win over Nevada at home? Coaches, fans, and writers can only guess. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. Computers don't guess, they analyze. They look at the cold, hard facts and quantify them.
Also, coaches tend to take into account things like recruiting classes, potential draft picks, teams' past success, and future expectations. Coaches may assume that a team like Clemson has overachieved and therefore, hold them back in their rankings as they anticipate a fall from grace in the near future.
Computers don't assume anything. The computers simply take a look at what's happened so far, and produce objective analysis.
In our everyday lives, humans use computers to do all sorts of things and we usually trust their output without question. So why does everyone think we're smarter than the BCS computers?
-- Click here to view current Billingsley Report rankings.
From the media I consume and the people I talk to, I'd say most people distrust the computer rankings and would be happier if they were removed from the BCS rankings completely. I totally disagree. In fact, I believe the human polls should be removed from the BCS formula and only the computer rankings should be used.
I'd argue that the computer rankings are the only fair way we have to sort these teams out. Please, read the methodology used by Richard Billingsley in his Billingsley Report (one of the six computer rankings used by the BCS) and tell me it doesn't make complete sense. Moreover, tell me that the coaches polled each week put even 1/100th of that kind of thought when they fill out their ballots each week. They don't, and they can't be expected to. So why would I think their rankings have more merit than the computers?
Coaches are biased, bar none. How can they not be? They are a part of this universe they're supposed to impartial about. They have friends and enemies on opposing teams. There is no possible way a Big 12 head coach can evaluate and compare their own schedule to that of a WAC school while still performing his normal coaching duties. Plus, because they're human, coaches are undoubtedly influenced by others (the media, other coaches), thus skewing their rankings.
Computers are unbiased. A computer takes all applicable data... ALL of it... into account when they sort these teams. Is a win over Texas on the road worth more than a win over Florida State at home? How about a win over UNLV at on the road versus a win over Nevada at home? Coaches, fans, and writers can only guess. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. Computers don't guess, they analyze. They look at the cold, hard facts and quantify them.
Also, coaches tend to take into account things like recruiting classes, potential draft picks, teams' past success, and future expectations. Coaches may assume that a team like Clemson has overachieved and therefore, hold them back in their rankings as they anticipate a fall from grace in the near future.
Computers don't assume anything. The computers simply take a look at what's happened so far, and produce objective analysis.
In our everyday lives, humans use computers to do all sorts of things and we usually trust their output without question. So why does everyone think we're smarter than the BCS computers?
-- Click here to view current Billingsley Report rankings.
Comments
Post a Comment