As most of you probably remember, last year I did a "Numbers Game" column that just devolved towards the end of the season into a BCS numbers analysis trying to figure out how Texas might be able to make the Big 12 Championship game and the National Championship game. That was fun. I thought I wouldn't have to do one of those again with the whole "win and you're in" mantra, but with everyone starting to worry about Iowa creeping up and dominating the computers, I thought I'd take a look at the numbers and the various scenarios and try to nip the widespread panic in the bud. Click through the jump to get a painful reminder of last years heartbreak!

From one of last year's posts:
An Explanatory Prelude That Seems Simple But is Oh So Important: It's important to realize that rankings in the BCS component polls (Harris, Coaches and Computers) mean very little. It's the scores that establish those rankings that matter, not the rankings themselves. In the Harris Poll, there are 114 voters, and for every #1 ranking a team gets 25 points, for every #2 ranking, a team gets 24 points, and so on. Thus the greatest number of points a team can get if it gets all 114 first place votes is 2,850, which is 25 times 114. Alabama has 2,808 out of a possible 2,850, which gives them their Harris poll score of .9853 (which is 2808 divided by 2850). If Alabama had, say, only 2770 points out of 2850, they would still be ranked #1, but their Harris Poll score for BCS purposes would only be .9719, significantly lower than it is now. Thus rank doesn't matter, only points.
And because of that, you can have a "strong" ranking or a "weak" ranking. Therefore, if the #4 team is just 1 point behind the #3 team in the Harris poll (thus #3 is weak and #4 is strong), and then if the #4 team then passes the #3 team the next week and now leads by 1 point, that means virtually nothing for the BCS because even though the rankings changed, the points stayed almost exactly the same. It's not absolute rankings that matter, it's the points.
That being established, let's take a look at the Harris and Coaches Polls, points-wise:
Note: just as happened last year, 1 Harris Poll voter occasionally decides not to vote, which no doubt inspires much confidence in the poll as a whole, so we only have 113 votes this week rather than 114. The expected points were adjusted accordingly.
|
|
|
| A&H | Billingsley | Colley | Massey | Sagarin | Wolfe | Average | Diff. from Expected | Team |
| 25 | 22 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 1.000 | -- | Iowa |
| 24 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | .950 | -.010 | Florida |
| 23 | 25 | 24 | 24 | 23 | 23 | .940 | +.020 | Alabama |
| 22 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 18 | 22 | .850 | -.030 | TCU |
| 21 | 23 | 22 | 16 | 12 | 20 | .790 | -.050 | Texas |
| 20 | 18 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 21 | .770 | -.030 | Cincinnati* |
| 17 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 19 | .770 | -.030 | Oregon* |
| 16 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 22 | 18 | .740 | +.020 | Boise St. |
| 18 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 17 | .720 | +.040 | USC |
*Because Cincinnati and Oregon are in a tie for 6th place, both of their "expecteds" are the equivalent of a 6th place ranking while BSU's "expected" is for an 8th-ranked team and USC's is for a 9th-ranked team.
Fact 1 is heartening for now: Iowa is ranked #8 in both human polls. That is absurdly low for an undefeated team from the Big 10 and likely has to do with a combination of poor preseason expectations, pollster inertia, and terrible on-the-field play that has miraculously not lost them a game yet. If computers were allowed to take into margin of victory (up to a certain amount), then I would venture to say that Iowa would not be ranked #1 in that facet of the BCS.
Fact 2 is a side effect of Fact 1 but is in fact disheartening: Iowa has a lot of room to move up in the human polls and gain points in the BCS relative to Texas. Iowa has been completely unimpressive thus far, but has a chance the rest of the season to turn it on. And if they beat Ohio State in Columbus, human voters will likely move them up ahead of Boise State, Cincinnati, TCU and perhaps USC (all of these teams are quite weak for their positions in the rankings, while Iowa is high for its rankings; to me this means that there is a lot of confusion about how to rank these teams and voters looking for someone to put at the high end of this group might find something they like in an undefeated Big 10 team). If that happens it's a very large jump that would make up a lot of the gap that currently exists between Texas and the Hawkeyes in the BCS standings. However, it must also be noted that a 1-loss Alabama or Florida may still be ranked ahead of Iowa (or, if not, will certainly be ranked ahead of them by some voters, taking away points from the Hawkeyes), but virtually no one will rank a 1-loss SEC team ahead of Texas.
Fact 3 gives some hope to those scared of Fact 2: While Texas, unlike Iowa, has very little room to move up because we are already a high #3, virtually identical to low #2 Alabama, the top 3 are essentially a consensus, with any vote shifts occurring by movement almost entirely within the top 3. This benefits Texas somewhat because it prevents teams from outside of the top 3 from breaking into the top 3 and it is a result of voters being willing to shift their votes around between the top 3. That is, the inertia exists as to the top 3 versus everyone else, rather than as #1 versus #2 and #2 versus #3. Because Texas is lowest on the Top-3 totem pole, this gives us some room for potential upward movement without much room for downward movement.
Fact 4 is the inverse of Fact 2: Texas is ranked so low by the computers and Iowa is ranked so high, that the difference between them cannot get any greater and will almost definitely get closer at the season goes on. For one thing, Texas' schedule should improve as we play 6-1 Oklahoma State this weekend and OU looks to continue winning as well. Perhaps more importantly, the SEC teams will overtake Iowa in the computers even if Texas cannot, meaning that Iowa's relative advantage over Texas will likely decrease. And, even if Iowa does stay #1, when one of the SEC teams loses, Texas will move up, decreasing Iowa's relative advantage over Texas.
Fact 5 gives you a worst case scenario and a reason to ignore it (both of which are actually opinions and not facts): With respect to Iowa, the worst thing that can happen to an undefeated Texas team is Texas ranked a solid #2 in both human polls, Iowa ranked a solid #3, Iowa as a unanimous #1 in the computer polls and Texas as a solid #3. In that absolute worst-case scenario, Texas would be tied with Iowa in the BCS and it would be a tossup based on a few points here and there. Which is cause for a little bit of worry. But of course that's not going happen. Texas will likely get a few #1 votes in addition to the SEC champion and will get virtually no votes lower than #2. Iowa will get virtually no votes higher than #3, but will get plenty of votes lower than #3 as voters try to figure out what to do with USC, the 1-loss SEC runner-up, Boise State, TCU, Cincinnati. It's virtually assured that Texas will be at least a solid #2, and that Iowa will be something less than a solid #3. I mean, they're currently ranked #8! They'd have to jump 4 teams who may not lose the rest of the season PLUS a 1-loss Florida/Alabama. As far as the computers go, Iowa got lucky (strength of schedule-wise) that they don't have to play bottom-dwellers Purdue and Illinois this year (though their OOC foe Iowa State does look to be poised to lose 3 more games, while Arizona still has to play Cal, Oregon, USC and ASU). Regardless, Iowa will almost certainly not be a consensus #1 in the computers at the end of the season. Whichever SEC team wins the conference will (if undefeated) take at least some of the #1 rankings, making Iowa at best a weak #1, if not #2. Texas, on the other hand will likely pass TCU (whose schedule gets much easier) and whichever SEC team loses. They may get some competition for points from a 1-loss team, but will likely reach a reasonably solid #3 in the computers. Essentially, it's called a worst-case scenario for a reason. Everything would have to go wrong for Iowa to come close to even tying Texas in the BCS. If one thing doesn't go wrong, Iowa can't catch us. I like the odds.
Fact 6 is a truism as old as time (or at least as old as the Warren G. Harding administration): Iowa always loses. They haven't finished a regular season undefeated since 1922 (the height of the teapot dome scandal!). They needed two blocked field goals in the last 5 seconds to beat D-1AA Northern Iowa by one point at home. They needed to recover an onside kick in the 4th quarter to hold on to a 3-point victory over Arkansas State at home. As a point of reference, ASU is 2-4, with its only victories being against a 1-AA team and Florida International, which itself is 1-6, with their only victory coming against 0-7 Western Kentucky. Iowa Hawkeye football: feel the excitement! The point is not to just denigrate Iowa's football team (though it's no doubt fun, the voters have done that enough by voting an undefeated Big 10 team #8 this late in the season...), but rather to say that it's not worth worrying about yet. If Iowa beats Ohio State in the Horseshoe, then we can talk again. But even if that happens, I still wouldn't be too worried.
[As an aside to you Pundit Roundup fans, apologies for my absence the last few weeks. Many reasons, most of them uninteresting. It'll be back this week sometime.]
0 recs | 41 comments
Great post
Thanks for the resurrection.
Agree with the entirety of your analysis and would add as yet another “don’t sweat Iowa” bullet that an undefeated Texas would, necessarily, get the last say on TV in the Big 12 championship game, not only giving the Horns the greater visibility but also giving pollsters time to do the math and decide if they really want Iowa in the title game over Texas. Though it’s not particularly fair to Iowa fans, I’m certain the vast majority of voters will do what they need to do to make sure Texas isn’t jumped by the Hawkeyes.
All fun speculation at this point. I can’t even contemplate the rest of the season if we lose on Saturday. Let’s not, then.
Peter Bean - October 26, 2009
One of the drawbacks for the Big 10 teams......
having no conference title game and ending their regular season in mid november. That conference can only blame themselves……….and the failure of the Big Ten in BCS games lately will no doubt get mentioned a few thousand times as well.
silky51 - October 26, 2009
that works both ways
teams can play themselves out of the national title by losing in their conference title game. without researching, i believe this has happened to a Big12 team, if not an SEC team.
KentuckyThunderPussy - October 26, 2009
Texas played their way out in 2001.
OU lost to K-State in 2003 but still made it over USC.
That may be true in theory, but with the way the Big 12 North has been recently, it’s not much more of a challenge.
billyzane - October 26, 2009
Also...
K-State lost to A&M in 1998 and fell all the way to the Alamo Bowl and Nebraska lost to Texas in 1996 but that was pre-BCS and may not have made a difference. It’s been a while.
billyzane - October 26, 2009
Let's not...
I honestly don’t expect a loss next week, nor do I want to try and contemplate it, but you started it:
IF Texas loses one and Iowa loses one (OSU?), could we see a SEC champ vs an undefeated TCU/Cincy/Boise? If not, then would we possibly see a FL vs Bama rematch in the MNC?
IF it happens, please no USC.
Infield Elephant - October 26, 2009
don't even want to think about this......
but come next week, it may be all we talk about.
USC and Iowa would have to lose……..Oklahoma would have to win out (which would include beating Okla St) to create a 3 way tiebreaker for south title….which would then go to Texas. I just don’t see the pollsters giving us a 2nd chance without winning the big 12 title game. Then yes, you’d have to hope the pollsters would not want a SEC rematch.
Now having said this……….let’s go fricking win this game saturday night!!
silky51 - October 26, 2009
BCS
PLAYOFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can’t say it enough.
Dawnpatrol - October 26, 2009
to recap
Shoeless Joe Jackson: Is this a potential BCSCG spoiler?
Ray Kinsella: No. It’s Iowa.
burrito - October 26, 2009
Good stuff, BZ
I’ve been craving a Media Curve of Undulating Hype for some time now. FYI, the DMN article I linked to earlier today said that the littlest McCoy and Shipley are planning on being roommates at Texas.
Wescott Eberts (GoBR) - October 26, 2009
naturally...
Pflash - October 26, 2009
Thank You
Crimson Fog - October 26, 2009
Good stuff..
Also important to note: Iowa has no ‘bye’ date on their schedule. Texas has already had theirs.
Iowa just ends their year earlier than most schools. Strange.
All that to say that Iowa now has 8 wins where most other conferences and teams in the upper echelon of BCS computer rankings have 7 wins.
Once we play Aggy we’ll be on an even footing with Iowa in terms of games played. Once we play in the Big XII CCG we’ll have one MORE game than Iowa.
From some of the comps. (not all) They give you points per game. So lets say Iowa has 8 × 10 pts. While we currently have 7 × 9.5 pts. You can see real quickly how Iowa is ahead. This is also why having a conference champ game can impact a team so beneficially. At that point its Iowa 12 × 10 pts compared to Texas with 13 × 9.5 pts. 120 vs 123.5 – Texas wins.
I just don’t see how your scenario five plays out because Texas WILL be ahead of Iowa in the comps.
It is no accident that the conferences with the CCG are most often represented in the BCG championship game. HUGE ADVANTAGE.
Orangechipper - October 26, 2009
Fair enough.
Do all of the computers count 1-AA games? I thought some didn’t, in which case Iowa only has 7 wins right now as far as they’re concerned.
billyzane - October 26, 2009
I don't believe that is accurate.
“Once we play Aggy we’ll be on an even footing with Iowa in terms of games played. Once we play in the Big XII CCG we’ll have one MORE game than Iowa.”
The Hawkeyes played a FCS team in their season opener. The BCS computers don’t count FCS games in their computations.
HornChamps - October 26, 2009
But,
if that’s the case, then if we’re undefeated we’ll have two more games counted than they will at the end (our 13 to their 11) which may be helpful.
tdwalsh - October 27, 2009
Going off memory...
One or two of the comps DO consider FCS teams. Not all of them though. You raised an excellent point, though.
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
Hawkeye fan here
Thanks for the solid analysis. I agree with points 1-5. Point #6 is negated by the fact that these Hawkeyes simply don’t know how to lose. It’s going to be an amazing end to the season.
Guancous - October 26, 2009
Thanks.
Texas had a similarly mediocre team in 2007. We barely pulled off wins against Arkansas State and Central Florida, and we needed miraculous comebacks to beat Nebraska, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. They didn’t all happen at the beginning of the season so we didn’t get to 8-0, but the team had something special in their hearts but were frankly just not very good.
I get the same vibe from Iowa this year. Sooner or later it catches up with you. You can try to claim the legacy of 2002 Ohio State with all of their close wins, but they had legitimate talent, at least on defense. Iowa is flying by the seat of its pants with inferior talent. Lucky for you guys, Ohio State’s a bit down this year so anything could happen. But I’m not betting on it.
Good luck though. If both Florida and Alabama lose, I’d love to play you guys in the championship game. 2006 Alamo Bowl rematch! What would the spread be in that game? Texas -19?
billyzane - October 26, 2009
Scratch the Tech game in 2007.
I was thinking of the 2006 comeback against Tech.
billyzane - October 26, 2009
Besides adding back in margin of victory the BCS should tweak the computer rankings...
The biggest problem with the computer rankings is that they are dealt with as aggregates rather than looking at the actual scores given by each algorithm. If they are going to drop the highest and lowest (The polls don’t drop the anomalous votes from their tallies why do they do it with the computers?) then why should they have to give 25 points to the number 1 team and 24 points to the #2 team rather than giving them a percentage score based on the difference between them in each algorithm.
Just like the Harris or Coaches’ polls, Sagarin and the other computers have weak and strong positions in their polls that are ignored by the BCS. If Sagarin has the #1 team as a strong #1 it should show up in the BCS rather than making Sagarin’s #2 team seem stronger by giving it only a 1 point disadvantage in the rankings. If three teams are clustered closely in the polls the BCS uses 2/3rds of its rankings to maintain that closeness and then just obliterates that fine distinction by not using the same method with regards to each computer ranking.
They have already blunted the computers’ abilities to distinguish teams by not allowing margin of victory and not directly penalizing teams for playing teams outside of the FBS, but the BCS turns even that blunted effort into something virtually useless by basically ignoring the computers’ actual results.
Rickyspub - October 27, 2009
We've had this discussion before and you're still wrong about this.
Write it down on a post-it note or something. Sagarin is not comparable to the harris/coaches poll as a whole. Sagarin is comparable to an individual human voter. The computer poll as a whole DOES have weak and strong positions because it’s an amalgamation of individual voters. See on the computers table above the “difference from expected” column? See how Florida has a -.010 there? That’s because Florida is a slightly weak #2 in the computer polls, just as they’re a weak #1 in the human polls. They’re the exact same.
To say that Sagarin should be able to rank teams as “strong #2’s or weak #2’s” is to say that each human voter should be able to do the same thing. A human voter may think that Florida and Alabama are virtually identical, and his thought process is directly comparable to a computer algorithm. But that human is required to put one of them #1 and one of them #2 without regard to his internal beliefs that maybe Alabama and Florida should both be ranked 1.5. Each human voter and each computer voter has to rank teams 1-25. Then, when you average all the human voters’ rankings, you get rankings that are not whole numbers (e.g. strong #2 or weak #3). And, in exactly the same fashion, you average the computer voters’ rankings and you get rankings that are not whole numbers (e.g. strong #2 or weak #3). They’re treated exactly the same. Seriously, they are. Post-it note.
As for throwing out the highest and lowest computer voters for each team, I agree with you that I don’t think they should do that, but I understand the reasoning behind it. The reason is that there is such a small sample of computers that 1 severe outlier either way could skew a ranking heavily whereas in the human polls, 1 outlier wouldn’t do much because there are so many voters. The best solution is to just add more computers, of course, but I think that short of that, a good solution would be to merely drop a computer vote if it is more than a certain number of standard deviations from the mean. But of course it would never happen because football fans would be up in arms about “nerds” deciding a champion because they don’t understand what a standard deviation is.
billyzane - October 27, 2009
I think...
the reason for all the confusion and disconnect is the dearth of computers. But you are correct, each computer is meant to simulate the thought process of one human, who, presumably, is taking into account all of these factors. And while each voter may internally prioritize stronger or weaker positions in his own poll, these priorities remain invisible on his external ballot.
How would you feel about having several more computers (perhaps dozens), so that the computer aggregate more closely resembles the human aggregate, and then giving them a greater share of the formula (say 55-45)?
BrooklynHorn - October 27, 2009
I would love the addition of more computers.
Anything that makes the computer poll as a whole more reliable would be welcome in my book. However, I’m not completely on board with increasing the computer poll’s percentage share of the final formula. I think computers are great for one thing, which is complete objectivity with respect to the name of the schools it is considering (which of course isn’t the case with Richard Billingsley’s computer because he programmed it to act like a human and take into account past performance, but that’s a topic for HornBrain).
But humans, by virtue of being able to actually watch the games rather than merely look at numbers from the games, can just take into account and process so much more information than computers that I think their determinations should be more heavily weighted than computers’. Now, of course, this presupposes that humans are taking into account the right types of information, which isn’t a safe supposition at all, but I think we’re making some progress on that front.
In short, the computer poll serves as a needed check on the unavoidable influence of memory in the human polls, but I don’t think that it deserves the same amount of weight that human polls do (or even 45%).
billyzane - October 27, 2009
55 human 45 computer, that is
BrooklynHorn - October 27, 2009
You have your take and I have mine...
I don’t see any reason why the formula has to look at each computer poll the same as an individual. There is nothing written in stone that says it has to be that way though you seem to approach the issue as if Tim Tebow brought the BCS formula on tablets down from the mountain. You think each computer should be treated like individual voters and so does the BCS but I don’t see any rational reason why that has to be the case, especially when they are already treating them differently by dropping two of the six.
The computers also give much more explicit information about how they rank teams than any individual voter, so why not use that advantage to make the computer component an accurate assessment of how each algorithm truly sees the pecking order and then use that to determine the computer rankings? Human voters too might make such distinctions, but there isn’t an easy way to enumerate this for most voters, so the polls take a brute force method of taking the average of many voters rather than picking a few ‘experts’ to come up with a more elaborate system that would generate similar results.
The fact that there are indeed only 4 computers that will count for any particular team’s number on the computer portion is the main reason that they shouldn’t look at them as they do individual poll voters. If you are going to rest a third of your credibility on the ‘unbiased’ nature of the computers than you should use their unbiased results which aren’t #1-25, but a collection of scores that are then ordered from greatest to lowest. If you go with this method you don’t have to add 100 additional algorithms either.
I can see treating the computers each like a human voter because as you say ‘standard deviation’ would spin people’s head, so taking a less biased version of the computers would cause even more head spinning, unfortunately I think they have so completely ruined the whole purpose of using the computers, between removing margin of victory and not using their raw scores, that they might as well drop them and just add back in the AP poll as the third leg of their shaky stool.
(I haven’t ever done nor seen an analysis to see if it is really the case that using the computers’ raw ranking scores would give different results, so perhaps it is a moot point. I believe though that such an analysis would probably show that such a change would give the computers less power to skew the end results, which wouldn’t be a bad thing in my eyes.)
Rickyspub - October 27, 2009
Still reason for concern
I’m looking at the current computer rankings, and frankly, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. I think you are underestimating exactly how much Sagarin and Massey will end up hurting us. In “Fact #5”, you state that Texas will be #3 in the computers. I really don’t think this will be the case. TCU’s remaining schedule is not all that much weaker than Texas’s if you actually look where their future opponents are ranked in the computers. There’s a good chance that the will stay ahead of us in 2 if not all 4 polls where they are currently ahead of us if they win out. Cincinatti may jump us in a couple of the computer rankings where they currently trail us based on Pitt’s and WV’s rankings. When I look at where Texas could end up in the computers (assuming all the undefeateds (excluding Fla/Bama) and the highly ranked once defeateds (excluding USC/Oregon) win out), I expect to see Texas getting a final cpu ranking around .830. I expect Iowa to be around .960. If that is the case, Texas would need to be 1.625 positions in the human polls better than Iowa. If a one loss SEC team and Iowa split 3rd/4th place votes evenly, it’s going to be very close and probably means Iowa is in ahead of us in the BCS standings.
This week will add a lot of clarity to the situation. We will play what will likely be our highest ranked (in the computers) opponent for the year. In other words, our computer score will be as good as it’s going to get. If we don’t gain much ground in the computers next week, there’s reason for major concern. Obviously, there’s a lot of football left to be played, but I don’t think the “win and we’re in” mantra is valid until Iowa loses.
rtchorn - October 27, 2009
My biggest concern
Is that we could feasibly play a 5-loss team as the north champion. We really needed one team to light it up and its just not happening. We need one of KSU or Nebraska to win out and I think we’ll be fine.
Still though, that extra game we’ll get from the CCG will be an advantage that Iowa, Cincy, TCU, & USC will not have.
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
That's pretty much what I see
And I haven’t been yet convinced otherwise. My main problem is the weakness of the Big XII, and the possibility that our computer position won’t improve much if inexplicable upsets keep occurring. So Tech needs not to lose to A&M and Kansas needs not to lose to Colorado.
Again, it is entirely possible that the Big East has more ranked opponents by season’s end than does the Big XII, and I think this possibility is going unrecognized.
BrooklynHorn - October 27, 2009
Projected SOS...
http://www.tellshowbcs.com/index.html
Click on projected SOS and also compare it to current SOS. You’ll see why TCU is no threat right away. They currently have SOS of 34 and a projected SOS of 62. What about Cincinnati? – Currently have SOS of 75 and projected SOS of 88. Not a threat at all!! Boise is not a threat for same reasons. USC – current 23 projected at 9. DEFINITELY A THREAT! Iowa @ 6 currently and projected to #3. Definitely a threat! But like BZ stated, they can’t really improve much in this component.
Finally Texas.. Our current SOS is 29 projected to 26…. and from what i can tell that does NOT include the champ game.
Conclusions: You can see us gaining a lot of ground relative to Cincy and TCU and Boise and a bunch of other squads we are currently behind. Same goes for USC. Whereas Iowa won’t gain much ground in this component because they have peaked.
Its fun to guess at right now.
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
Who to root for....
Ironically, USC is serving as a buffer between us & Iowa. Do we root for them to keep winning? Also, no doubt about it…. we need TCU & BOISE & Cincy to win out because they are NOT a BCS threat to us, but they are a grave threat to Iowa.
Tellshow’s Commentary section makes similar claims.
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
Yes, most definitely.
Root for Cincinnati, USC, TCU, and Boise State to win out. I’m not worried at all about Iowa unless they can get to a point where they’re a near-consensus #3 in the human polls. The more other teams that are fighting for that #3 spot, the less of a consensus there will be.
billyzane - October 27, 2009
Did you see any projections based on SOS that would tell us where we would most likely end up in the computers?
Brad Edwards on ESPN said that he would expect Iowa to remain #1 in the computers if they win out, but he didn’t make any suggestions for other teams. Have you seen any projections on where we most likely end up if we win out? It seems getting to a solid #3 is where we need to be to pretty much clinch our spot in the MNC and it really seems hard to think we wouldn’t get their by the time the SEC crowns its champion. So, is that a likely scenario?
If we win out (without having many Iowa v. MSU/AK St/N. IA type victories) our poll numbers will make us no worse than the consensus #2 (Even if Iowa gets some #1 or #2 votes over us, I am sure that will be more than balanced by our getting some #1 votes and people voting Iowa lower than #3), so the computer numbers are only critical if we can’t expect to be #3.
While rooting for Cincinnati, USC, TCU, and BSU are fine for us, the easiest thing to do is to root against Iowa!
Rickyspub - October 27, 2009
I haven't seen anything, no.
Number 1 in the computers will be between Iowa and the undefeated SEC champ. I think the SEC champ will at least take some of the #1 votes away from Iowa, if not displacing them at the top. Iowa as a weak #1 or a strong #2 rather than a unanimous #1 gives us some leeway in the computers too, so we can be a weak #3 or maybe a strong #4 and still lead depending on how the human polls shake out. I think there’s no way we’re lower than a strong #4 because we will be ahead of TCU in at least 4 of the computers and will at least close the gap (if not overtake them) in the other two. Then, the only threat comes from the Oregon/USC winner (presuming they win out) and whichever team loses the SEC championship game (assuming they have only 1 loss). The fact that those two teams will have one loss and we will (hypothetically) have none will, I think, give us an advantage. A computer or two might put one ahead of us which will weaken our claim to #3, but not to the point where we’ll sink below a strong #4.
But yeah, Fact 6 above is the most important. Root for Iowa to lose and nothing matters. I’m still not convinced it matters if they do win out, but it’d be nice to not have to think about it.
billyzane - October 27, 2009
Thanks...
I haven’t really followed the tendencies of any of the computers recently. I just know that Billingsley is widely considered a fraud. I usually look at the differential between Sagarin’s BCS and Predictor ratings just to see how we stack up on the broader spectrum in what I am assuming are two identical models except one adds margin of victory. I wish all the computer rankings would run their algorithms with and without margin of victory, just to see how things would look if the performance beyond W/L’s is also considered.
Rickyspub - October 27, 2009
Thanks for this.
While 1-loss USC or Oregon (whichever wins this weekend) will have a better SOS than Texas, they will still have a loss, while Texas (in this hypothetical) will not. I think that would enough to put Texas over the top of them in most computer polls.
We are already ahead of TCU in 2 computers and behind only 1 or 2 spots in two others. With TCU’s predicted decline in SOS and Texas predicted increase, we should lead in all four of those. The other two, Massey and Sagarin, have us pretty low, but in the next two weeks, at least 2 teams in between us and Iowa have to lose (either USC or Oregon, and either LSU or Alabama) and, in Sagarin, Arizona will likely lose again soon. And in just the normal course of events, 1 or 2 others will lose, which will increase our ranking a lot but will have no effect on Iowa’s ranking. I am absolutely not worried.
billyzane - October 27, 2009
Exactly...
Still boggles the mind how a 2-loss Zona is ahead of us in any poll at this juncture. WTF??
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
Sagarin ratings are insane...
4-3 Oregon State is ranked # 23 while 6-1 Okie State is #27
3-5 Washington is ranked #29 while 6-2 Ohio State is # 28.
What the heck is going on??
Orangechipper - October 27, 2009
Look at his Predictor numbers...
This is where you see just how stupid the BCS computer numbers are. Sagarin’s Predictor model has margin of victory in the algorithm and the order of teams looks a little more reasonable.
I imagine as the season progresses the Sagarin BCS ratings will shift towards the norm.
Rickyspub - October 27, 2009
A thing to remember
Is that the computers, moreso than the humans even, are more accurate as they get more data.
Its great that they wait until this long to come out in the first place, but really its all guessing until the majority of the data has been reconciled. The most obvious is losses to teams, and teams opponents. SOS will change, as will records. Theres only so much you can predict given the current data.
BoddickerIsClutch - October 28, 2009
Especially when you can't even take scores into account...
When the only data is W/L and home or away the data is never going to give you any deep insight. What is interesting is that it seems, from my recollections of Sagarin’s two models over the past couple of years, the Predictor model and the BCS model converge as the season progresses, but the Predictor model gives more reasonable results earlier and its the BCS model that final catches up (I should save this weeks results and then compare them with how they look at the end of year.). Performance beyond W/L does matter and the Predictor model seems more capable than the BCS model especially when you have less data.
Rickyspub - October 28, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Burnt Orange Nation to post a comment.