RM95's whole point is that a win is a win. The argument "Well USC hasn't had any close games" isn't valid, because, well, they have had several close games. He was just responding to your twin's post.
Does margin of vitory really matter at all? Is a team that wins 8 games (assuming 3 others were blowouts as well) by a wide margin against medicre to poor teams any better than a team that wins 8 games by a really small margin against good teams? If MOV counted for anything, then in 2002 Miami should have wiped the floor with OSU because OSU played alot of close, lucky games and Miami destroyed all the bad teams they played. (a la UT) MOV does coint for the voters, however, I will concede, but I don't think that (MOV) should ultimately decide who are the top 2 teams. Computers only take into account SOS. Voters only take into account Margin of Victory. MOV leads to players getting hurt because they are still in a game when its well in hand to just prove to voters they are better. This is a joke. Yeah, that's what college football should be about.
It's a good thing that mid-season standings don't matter then, eh? If they go 10-1 and 7-1 in conference play, they'll be as legit as any other 10-1 team. The BCS doesn't have an SOS component anymore - hasn't in a few years. The computers account for SOS, but in a far more sophisticated way than the BCS method used to. And yet, 6 different computers who all use different methodologies and different methods of ranking teams and weighing things like scoring margin, schedule strength and important of good wins, ALL pick Texas #1.
But the point is they didn't. If no one made any mistakes, you could just rank talent and decide which team is best without playing any games.
It was also last year. What does Kansas last year have to do with this year's national championship race?
With T_J and texxx both here I don't understand why we're wasting our time talking about UT football ... when we could be discussing Rice.
UT loses to Kansas. UT does not go to the Rose Bowl. UT does not beat Michigan. UT is not ranked #2 to start this year. UT would not be ranked #1 at this point.
Ya, I saw this after I posted and realized it was probably what you were lookin for - see below. So you want the SOS to be based on rank not W-L - I have no problem with that, it sounds better. Conference SOS Big-10 - 24.82 SEC - 36.17 PAC-10 - 42.2 ACC - 44.0 Big-12 - 49.75 Big East - 70.25
Yea, but thats the problem. Only the voters can consider, for example, if one conference is better than the other, or one team has played harder games than the other. Although, yes, that is an argument of OPINION, it's still important to the process, and when TT has played absolutely noone, coupled with the fact that the Big12 isn't as strong this year and that the Big12 teams have already played alot of their easy OOC games early, you can se that something is still wrong there. I know man, but Texas has obviously benefited from SOS. TT is a complete joke. At least UCLA has beaten all Div 1-A teams to my knowledge, and not two sub 110 ranked Div-1A teams and a Div 1AA team. Same goes for Oregon. Colorado hasn't beaten anyone besides the amazing Texas A&M and flopped to an overrated Miami team in their only real game outside of Texas. I'm not so sure BCS computers do the scoring margin anymore either, like I said above, but If they do then thats one more reason I hate the system. (explained above). What's going to be even more amazing is if VT and UT jump USC because of their Conference Championship games. Did I mention I hate the BCS?
I see that, but this problem won't be fixed until they do away completely with the BCS. If they adopted a SOS system based on rank instead, then there will be just as many flaws with that (as you can see by those ratings) as there is with the SOS based on WL. I know it seems like I'm just b****in' and can't be pleased but with that said my second favorite school is Texas and I don't mind one bit the jumping USC, I'm all for it. But you gotta stay objective, esspecially when dealing with this crap system.
But the computers already account for the schedule and still, based on results, have decided Tech is a good team. The B12 definitely isn't as strong this year, and that is shown in the computer rankings. And yet the computers still decided that, despite that, Texas was #1. Again, I'm not sure your point. The computers know all this. So do the voters. [/quote] They don't, as far as I know. If they do, it's limited to something like 15 or 20 points. But if the computers didn't consider scoring margin, they would only like Texas and Tech that much better. So despite all these drawbacks for Texas, they are #1 in the computers. What does that say? As far as your last scenario, it's virtually impossible unless USC barely is #1 in the polls over *both* UT and VaTech, which simply won't be the case. The polls count for 2/3rds of the total, so for the #3 team in the polls to leapfrog #1, it would take some crazy things. It was more possible in the past (2 years ago, when #1 USC was excluded) but they changed the system after that.
That should have said that if they DID consider scoring margin, they would like Texas (and Tech) that much better.
Sorry, that was a little unclear. What I was trying to say is that Texas benefited from a flawed SOS system in the BCS. According to it, a win over a 6-0 TT would be the same as say, UT beating LSU if they were at 6-0 (just an example). Say now that that win vs. LSU was in Death Valley and LSu had already beaten very good teams in Auburn, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee (again, just an example). It is sad to think that that win against a very good LSU on the road would count the same as a victory over TT at home. Also, say after that win vs. LSU UT jumps USC, however, the next week USC plays a highly overrated Cal team who has played absolutely noone at all, and they cream them. USC jumps back up to #1. Although USC never did beat a team like that immaginary LSU team, they have played a respectable schedule so far tand o get jumped by Texas who played a 6-0 cupcake in TT is ridiculous IMO.
The computers do not use Margin of Victory. The best system would be using the BCS rankings to fill out a 4-8 team playoff.
But this isn't true. The BCS doesn't have an SOS system. Each computer has its own methods of determining team's SOSes. The computers have extremely sophisticated methods of rating wins and losses, and beating two 6-0 teams doesn't have anything close to equal value in the computer rankings. And in all of these computers, each using different methods, Texas comes out as #1.
What highly sophisticated method? the Computers cannot calculate aspects of College football like home or away games, strength of conference, importance of a game, or the toughness of the opponent (which is different from SOS). Only voters can. All they can calculate is SOS, and lets face it although it may be considered scientific or sophisticated, there is only so many ways a computer can determine that, and right now it seems to purely be going off of Wins and Losses.
Some computer models use home/away advantages. Some count victory/losses against top 10, 25 & 50 as more significant. Some don't count victories against Division IIA schools.
It makes no sense. How can UT beat a team at home, who is 6-0 but has played Division IIA teams and unranked teams, and jump a #1 ranked team that has played ranked oponents away. the computers may truly determine all that but Im not really seeing it.
Computers definitely account for home/away and strength of conference. They certainly can't account for importance of a game. I'm not even sure what you mean by toughness of an an opponent. You would be surprised at the ways computers work. They look well beyond opponent record. Sagarin, I know, links every team to every other team before coming up with a functional unbiased system - it takes about 4 or 5 weeks of play so that every team is "linked" to every other team. The computer ranking models are nothing like you're thinking they are.
Here's a quick summary of what some of the computers account for. It's all over the map, but covers all of the things you mentioned: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/comment/jzcol21.htm <I> Jeff Sagarin: Takes into account who each team has played, the score of each game and where the game was played. The New York Times: Uses three factors - who won, by what margin and against what quality of opposition. Anderson and Hester of the Seattle Times: Computes strength of schedule combined with victories over quality opponents. Rankings do not appear until fifth week, so ratings reward actual accomplishments and not perceived potential. Richard Billingsley: Takes into account going from one season to the next, analyzing the performance, understanding the scenario (i.e. major upset, minor upset, poor performance, near upset, etc.), strength of opponent, won-loss record, where game was played. Dunkel Index: Combines many factors, including won-loss record, strength of schedule, upset factor and emphasis on recent performances. Massey Ratings: Utilizes overall team ratings, offensive and defensive ratings, schedule strength, home-field advantage, standard deviation, conference ratings, total interdependence, diminishing returns and optional use of preseason information. Herman Matthews: "A system of a family of systems," according to Matthews, using score of game and strength of schedule among other factors. David Rothman: Looks at parity, self-censorship, accessibility, wins, margins, opposition, comprehensiveness and regular-season games. </I>
