In case there are any lingering doubts about BSC bias

[ponyte]

Check this out. One BSC computer gives ND the #1 spot even after getting blown out

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... ncaaf.html

No bias in the program

[MustangStealth]

It's called math.

[Digetydog]

It's called math.

Bad math!

[LHS81]

new math

[MustangStealth]

It's a published formula. http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

It ranked 2 teams with similar records, and the one with a higher overall schedule strength came out slightly ahead.

It still makes more sense than declaring the 14-6 Giants champions over the 18-1 Patriots (who beat the Giants in their own stadium).

If you want to determine the "best" team, playoffs aren't the answer.

[Oliver]

Can't compare nfl to college as far as parity goes. I don't think the computers can really gauge how football played in the southern US is truly better than football played in the Northen regions. B1G/ND football is slower, outdated, lower caliber athletes when you look at the leagues too to bottom (in my humble opinion)


There are too many teams out there to get a real feel for how they all stack up against each other. In the NFL, it's ver likely that teams playing in the Super Bowl have faced some similar opponents or even each other in the regular season...in college, far less likely. I think that's why. Playoff is necessary...

[ponyboy]

Agreed on playoff, though that is limited too. The second best, IMO, is Sagarin. End of season Sagarin in particular is a pretty good indicator of program quality.

Here's the final Sagarin top 10, which seems to me about right:

1 Alabama
2 Oregon
3 Texas A&M
4 Georgia
5 Notre Dame
6 South Carolina
7 Florida
8 Kansas State
9 Stanford
10 LSU

(SMU was 57)

[Topper]

I hate computers and polls. Football should have a championship earned on the field. Only conference champions should be eligible for consideration for anything. College football is a great sport which is being held back by greed and coalitions built by self serving ADs and coaches. The fans tolerate it because there are so many bowl games that almost everyone gets invited to one, and no matter how inconsequential the bowl might be, we all get excited about our team's prospects and are happy to have a few moments of happiness if they happen to win. To paraphrase Marx, bowls are the opiate of the masses.

[Digetydog]

It's a published formula. http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

It ranked 2 teams with similar records, and the one with a higher overall schedule strength came out slightly ahead.

It still makes more sense than declaring the 14-6 Giants champions over the 18-1 Patriots (who beat the Giants in their own stadium).

If you want to determine the "best" team, playoffs aren't the answer.

Head to head, Bama demolished ND. They are better by a mile.

[MustangStealth]

It's a published formula. http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

It ranked 2 teams with similar records, and the one with a higher overall schedule strength came out slightly ahead.

It still makes more sense than declaring the 14-6 Giants champions over the 18-1 Patriots (who beat the Giants in their own stadium).

If you want to determine the "best" team, playoffs aren't the answer.

Head to head, Bama demolished ND. They are better by a mile.

And by the same argument, A&M is better than Alabama, etc.. You have to look at the whole season. I'm not saying that ND is better than Alabama, because they aren't, but this is a computer ranking with no margin of victory component. Each team lost one game, and ND's loss was "better" than Alabama's.

[MustangStealth]

I hate computers and polls. Football should have a championship earned on the field. Only conference champions should be eligible for consideration for anything.

That's another flaw in the playoff system. Championships should be about the best teams. So who was the "best" team in the Big 10 this year, the one who would be playing in the playoffs? 8-5 Wisconsin. That type of system is far less legitimate than just going back to letting the voters pick a champion.

[PK]

I hate computers and polls. Football should have a championship earned on the field. Only conference champions should be eligible for consideration for anything.

That's another flaw in the playoff system. Championships should be about the best teams. So who was the "best" team in the Big 10 this year, the one who would be playing in the playoffs? 8-5 Wisconsin. That type of system is far less legitimate than just going back to letting the voters pick a champion.

If an 8-5 Wisconsin can make it to the title game and then win it, where is the flaw? If in reality an 8-5 team is not a good team, then they should have hardly any chance of making it to the title game much less winning it. Voters are subject to bias and plain stupidity at times. Win your game on the field and there is little doubt who is better.

[MustangStealth]

If an 8-5 Wisconsin can make it to the title game and then win it, where is the flaw? If in reality an 8-5 team is not a good team, then they should have hardly any chance of making it to the title game much less winning it. Voters are subject to bias and plain stupidity at times. Win your game on the field and there is little doubt who is better.

The flaw is that the whole season should be what matters, not the fact that they won the one game that mattered against Nebraska after lucking into the conference championship game. This is another case where Nebraska had already beaten them during the season, but the single game elimination format tosses that fact out. I happen to think that championships should go to the team that played the best ALL season, not in the last couple weeks.

[MustangStealth]

Furthermore, statistically speaking, playoffs are EXTREMELY biased. The bias is date based, i.e. game A matters more than game B because game A happened at a later date. This bias is inherent in any playoff system, including the BCS, which is a de facto 2 team playoff. The most complete picture comes from looking at the most complete data set. In the upcoming 4 team playoff, 3 games out of roughly 800 FBS games played will determine the championship.

[PK]

Furthermore, statistically speaking, playoffs are EXTREMELY biased. The bias is date based, i.e. game A matters more than game B because game A happened at a later date. This bias is inherent in any playoff system, including the BCS, which is a de facto 2 team playoff. The most complete picture comes from looking at the most complete data set. In the upcoming 4 team playoff, 3 games out of roughly 800 FBS games played will determine the championship.

Almost all the conference champions are determined in a championship game. Everyone in the conference has played every one else...for the most part . In other words their records within the conference determine the two teams that have the best overall records and play for the conference championship. So since these records include all the conference games it does not matter that the winner was better at the end of the season than at the beginning...they had the best in conference records when it was all said and done. So now when you get to the playoffs for the "national championship", the best of each conference is playing for the championship. Conference championships don't count the patsies played for out of conference games and therefore the sometimes inflated "won-loss" records. Therefore, if a team is the best of a weak conference the chances of winning the national championship are slim unless that team was a giant among midgets and might very well be the best team out there. Again, voters are often not totally objective in their votes and therefore it comes down to opinions and not actual head to head competion.