My Sunday Morning Top 25
- Thread starter therealUT
- Start date
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
sarcasm [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.
Example:
That is a great Top 25 poll. I think that it must be based on key statistics that underlie the exact standards of competition and are very dynamic in evaluating the credibility of each program! I can't possibly argue with the placement of any team. Congrats!
noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.
Example:
That is a great Top 25 poll. I think that it must be based on key statistics that underlie the exact standards of competition and are very dynamic in evaluating the credibility of each program! I can't possibly argue with the placement of any team. Congrats!
ignorant [ig-ner-uh nt]
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
3. uninformed; unaware
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training
This is a computer poll. You might want to actually consult other computer polls before you try to humor others with your remarkable wit concerning how off base my poll is.
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
3. uninformed; unaware
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training
This is a computer poll. You might want to actually consult other computer polls before you try to humor others with your remarkable wit concerning how off base my poll is.
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
Ouch! Man, you really got me that time. Please just take minimal offense. If it makes you feel better, I think all computer generated polls are inferior. It's kinda like these websites that match you up with the woman of your dreams. As far as Im concerned, Bill Gates hasn't produced a computer, nor will he ever, that is more efficient than the human mind at considering the intangibles of college football (or love for that matter! haha) that play a huge role in the game. Of course you could argue that computers create the only unbiased polls, but quite frankly, I'll take the flawed human polls(which are at least reasonable) over the computer polls (at best ridiculous) any day of the week. But, of course, as you noted, I'm ignorant. :clap:
You have now convinced me to put my faith in sports reporters, who are usually on site at the game they are covering, and coaches, who only see the game their team plays, in having their votes in Sunday morning. If you actually think that the human polls are based on anything other than preseason hype and final scores, then you are indeed misguided.
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
I'm a constant critic of the polls, especially the fact that preseason polls are even used as a basis for the week 1 rankings. I said myself, in my last post, as well as several other posts on Volnation, that the human polls are biased and far from perfect. My major point is that I'll take a flawed human generated poll that is at least debatable and within reason 10 times out of 10 before I will a computer- generated poll that is laughable and not even near the boundaries of logic. I try to be very open-minded, but from what I have seen, most, if not all of the comp polls feature glaring irregularities.
kidbourbon
Disgusting!
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,040
- Likes
- 20
VolFan1978
Head Nega-Vol
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 246
- Likes
- 0
First off, I've seen the math behind this "computer poll" and I can say with certainty that it is not a computer poll at all--instead, it is an index. A computer poll would involve an iterative calculation, the complexity of which would require, as the name implies, a computer. Not a shot at indices--in fact, the RPI, which is a big factor in determining basketball teams' placements in the postseason, is a well-respected index. But let's get the terminology correct.
Secondly, I find it amusing that many anti-objective rating types criticize computer rankings because "it's obvious that Team A from super-conference X would beat Team B from weak conference Y, but the computer says that B is better..." How do you know that? If we could know with certainty the outcome of every game before it is played, then how are upsets possible? They seem to happen every week. If upsets didn't happen, sports books would cease to exist.
The truth is that computer rankings, indices, and other objective ranking systems take into account certain data and rank teams accordingly. Many computer polls are simply probabilities in disguise. In other words, if Ohio State were to play Temple ten separate times, I think all of us would expect Ohio State to win all ten games. However, if Ohio State were to play USC ten times, it would probably be something more like OSU 6 games, USC 4 games. So for those three teams, Ohio State would have a slightly higher rank than USC, a much higher rank than Temple, and USC would accordingly be ranked far above Temple. That's an oversimplification, but you see how it works when you get enough common opponents linked together among teams.
Is it always right? Of course not. Partly because the football takes some funny bounces, but primarily because there isn't enough data in a short season to definitively rank 119 teams. Contrast this to the NFL, which is nearly a round robin format.
But what many objective rankings proponents seek is a system where all teams have an equal shot, not a system where reporters' and coaches' preconceived notions of how a team will perform have an effect on the end of season outcome. I think that's a worthwhile goal.
Secondly, I find it amusing that many anti-objective rating types criticize computer rankings because "it's obvious that Team A from super-conference X would beat Team B from weak conference Y, but the computer says that B is better..." How do you know that? If we could know with certainty the outcome of every game before it is played, then how are upsets possible? They seem to happen every week. If upsets didn't happen, sports books would cease to exist.
The truth is that computer rankings, indices, and other objective ranking systems take into account certain data and rank teams accordingly. Many computer polls are simply probabilities in disguise. In other words, if Ohio State were to play Temple ten separate times, I think all of us would expect Ohio State to win all ten games. However, if Ohio State were to play USC ten times, it would probably be something more like OSU 6 games, USC 4 games. So for those three teams, Ohio State would have a slightly higher rank than USC, a much higher rank than Temple, and USC would accordingly be ranked far above Temple. That's an oversimplification, but you see how it works when you get enough common opponents linked together among teams.
Is it always right? Of course not. Partly because the football takes some funny bounces, but primarily because there isn't enough data in a short season to definitively rank 119 teams. Contrast this to the NFL, which is nearly a round robin format.
But what many objective rankings proponents seek is a system where all teams have an equal shot, not a system where reporters' and coaches' preconceived notions of how a team will perform have an effect on the end of season outcome. I think that's a worthwhile goal.
therickbol
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 10,667
- Likes
- 13,468
Computer polls do not take into account, Team A has a 6'5 All-American WR and Team B has a 5'8 redshirt freshman CB, and other such details. These polls do not calculate anything based on the input of the teams rosters. It uses head-to-head wins and losses and margin of victory (or did they take that out?) and those things are not a true indication of what teams are better. Computer polls are as flawed as human polls, and there is no way for them not to be.
VolFan1978
Head Nega-Vol
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 246
- Likes
- 0
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
Well, I dont expect humans or computers to be right all of the time. The thing about the human polls is that there are checks and balances. Even if AP guy #1 is dishonest and ranks a team higher because he's an alumni/fan, there are 64 other AP guys across the country, who are likely to negate the strength of his irregularity. If a computer poll crunches numbers and spits out that California is much better than Tennessee and/or that the Pac-10 is the strongest conference, there is absolutely nothing to counteract this obvious error. Isn't the idea of the polls to rate who are the 25 best teams? How is that possible when numbers are skewed beyond recognition because some teams, like Tennessee, play five ranked teams (four that have been in the top 10), and other teams, llike Boise State, dont have one single ranked team on their schedule? If UT just scheduled 12 high school games, and they won them all by 100 points, then should they be selected for the National Championship Game? Absolutely not. ...well, unless you ask the computers. :blink: That scares me.
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
AP has 65 voters to ensure checks and balances. As far as the BCS, the Coaches Poll has 63 voters, and the Harris Poll has 114 voters. That's a total of 177 human votes to average and consider. Only 4 computers are averaged for 1/3 of the BCS. That hardly seems adequate. I assume that the computers have pretty different formulas for deciding their outcome. Well, the same is true for humans. The only difference is that 177 people can create a much more fair and balanced poll because of the size of the voter base, than four computer formulas can.
kevol80
El Maestro
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,961
- Likes
- 105
I'm sorry. I thought this thread was here for camaraderie, news, insight, discussion, and debate. Apparently I was wrong about the debate. Who needs logic anyway when you have witty comebacks like
Don't worry, I remember when I was a kid and had to use lines like that in defense of a point I knew was incorrect also. :thumbsup:
.
Don't worry, I remember when I was a kid and had to use lines like that in defense of a point I knew was incorrect also. :thumbsup:
kptvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 27,294
- Likes
- 1
At the beginning of the season, I definitely thought that USC would have 1 or 2 losses at this point. They have dodged bullets and their young backfield is getting better every week. Personally, I see USC losing at least 1 between ND and Cal. Until that happens though, USC is undefeated against teams with good records and that is reflected in my rankings.
I definitely think Boise State is overrated. However, they are the lowest rated undefeated in my rankings, and are ranked below a team with 1 loss. If I toyed with the margin of victory limits, then Boise would most likely drop out of the top 10. However, if I toyed with my rankings each week, then what would be the point in even doing this. I will most likely limit the margin of victory to about 17 points for next season. Until then, Boise stays in the top 10.
kptvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 27,294
- Likes
- 1
That's logical. The only problem I have is Boise's remaining schedule. I'm not familiar with their future opponents, but I'd be willing to guess they aren't very good. Thus, they have nowhere to go but up. I just don't think they've played the schedule necessary to warrant a spot in the top 10. Most likely, the top 10 is where your poll will have them at the end of the season. I hope the major polls look different.
VN Store
