SEC not the most powerful...

#27
#27
volmanjr said:
agreed, but the computer can't see that a game was not as close as the score indicated (3rd and 4th stringers getting some live game practice and let the losing team score late in the 4th) ....so which is worse?
Click to expand...

I agree. I've also always stated that computer rankings have basic flaws, too, one of which you stated. Also, computers don't notice head to head wins, so a 9-3 Cal team would be ahead of a 9-3 Tennessee team with similiar schedule strengths.

Everyone here is so quick to freaking blast me, but I'm in agreement that the SEC is the best and that computers have flaws.

However, the human polls are as flawed, if not more, and the majority of SEC fanatics can't rationally look at things.
 
#28
#28
VolinArizona said:
I agree. I've also always stated that computer rankings have basic flaws, too, one of which you stated. Also, computers don't notice head to head wins, so a 9-3 Cal team would be ahead of a 9-3 Tennessee team with similiar schedule strengths.

Everyone here is so quick to freaking blast me, but I'm in agreement that the SEC is the best and that computers have flaws.

However, the human polls are as flawed, if not more, and the majority of SEC fanatics can't rationally look at things.
Click to expand...
Man, Zona, you keep jumpin' from one side of the fence to the other.... :devilsmoke:
 
#30
#30
VolinArizona said:
I thought we were talking about 2006.

And I'll say again, I've always said the SEC is the best.
Click to expand...

Yes the poll states that this year the PAC-10 was the hardest conference because of who it played Out-of-Conference. That is still no reason to say the PAC-10 is the toughest conference. If USC doesn't dominate the past 5 years, the PAC is a mediocore conference at best. The SEC was this season, and always has been the toughest conference.
 
#31
#31
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Yes the poll states that this year the PAC-10 was the hardest conference because of who it played Out-of-Conference. That is still no reason to say the PAC-10 is the toughest conference. If USC doesn't dominate the past 5 years, the PAC is a mediocore conference at best. The SEC was this season, and always has been the toughest conference.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.
 
#32
#32
hatvol96 said:
Who chooses what information is put into the computers? I believe if you're deciding what is relevant, you're interjecting an opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% hat. I just think that computers should not be used at all for ANY reason to determine who is what in college football.
 
#33
#33
VolinArizona said:
How so? Search my posts, I've always said the SEC is the best and I've always said computers have flaws. I've ALWAYS said that.
Click to expand...
I'm just pulling your chain. I was sayin' on one hand you believe computers are the infallible word and then say they have flaws in how they are programmed. It's all good.
 
#35
#35
hmanvolfan said:
I'm just pilling your chain. I was sayin' on one hand you believe computers are the infallible word and then say they have flaws in how they are programmed. It's all good.
Click to expand...

I know you're pulling my chain, but I never said computers were infallible.

Both the computers and human voters are bad ways of determining anything in college football. I just trust the enemy I can understand than the ones I don't. Human voters are far more flawed than the computers.
 
#36
#36
Maybe some day somebody will invent a computer with an artificial intelligence that will watch all the games played across the country and then determine the pertinent info to load and come up with the perfect scenario for which teams should be in the playoffs. How's that??
 
#37
#37
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe some day somebody will invent a computer with an artificial intelligence that will watch all the games played across the country and then determine the pertinent info to load and come up with the perfect scenario for which teams should be in the playoffs. How's that??
Click to expand...

I would love it.
 
#38
#38
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe some day somebody will invent a computer with an artificial intelligence that will watch all the games played across the country and then determine the pertinent info to load and come up with the perfect scenario for which teams should be in the playoffs. How's that??
Click to expand...

I've got one of those in my closet, I'll dust it off and get it ready before next fall.
 
#39
#39
VolinArizona said:
I would love it.
Click to expand...
Would be a lot better than having a bunch of coaches and sports writers voting for who should be ranked where and they have seen a very small percentage of the teams they are voting on actually play a game.
 
#40
#40
hmanvolfan said:
Maybe some day somebody will invent a computer with an artificial intelligence that will watch all the games played across the country and then determine the pertinent info to load and come up with the perfect scenario for which teams should be in the playoffs. How's that??
Click to expand...

They already could from what I know about computers, but the problem with computers is they don't understand the GRITINESS that is on the field. The way players play, how defenses are really dominate on the field even if the other team scores 20 points, you know things of that nature is why computers shouldn't be used.
 
#41
#41
g8terh8ter_eric said:
They already could from what I know about computers, but the problem with computers is they don't understand the GRITINESS that is on the field. The way players play, how defenses are really dominate on the field even if the other team scores 20 points, you know things of that nature is why computers shouldn't be used.
Click to expand...
These computers would have artificial intelligence that all of us in the VN could teach them all those things.
 
#44
#44
VolinArizona said:
C) Jeff Sagarin knows more than you.
Click to expand...

Of all of the polls, computer and human, and all of their flaws, I find the Sagarin ratings to consistently produce the most unusual (read: wrong) results. For a simple indication, check out a sampling of past national champions:

2002 Consensus-Ohio St. Sagarin-USC
1998 Consensus-Tennessee Sagarin-Ohio St.
1992 Consensus-Alabama Sagarin-Florida St.
1990 Split-Colorado/Ga Tech Sagarin-Miami
1989 Consensus-Miami Sagarin-Notre Dame
1987 Consensus-Miami Sagarin-Florida St.
1986 Consensus-Penn St. Sagarin-Oklahoma
1985 Consensus-Oklahoma Sagarin-Michigan
1983 Consensus-Miami Sagarin-Nebraska
1980 Consensus-Georgia Sagarin-Nebraska
1978 Split-Alabama/USC Sagarin-Oklahoma
And, for the coup de grace, Sagarin retroactively awarded Kentucky the 1950 title (Consensus-Oklahoma.)

At second glance, maybe the rating isn't that bad. It generally awards the correct teams the national title (minus Kentucky, of course,) it just does so in the wrong years.
 
#45
#45
wooooow....the pac 10 doesnt match up with the SEC IMO. Did anybody see the cal game earlier this season? Living in Washington, I am forced to watch PAC 10 football and trust me its not in the same level as the sec.
 
#46
#46
utvols07 said:
wooooow....the pac 10 doesnt match up with the SEC IMO. Did anybody see the cal game earlier this season? Living in Washington, I am forced to watch PAC 10 football and trust me its not in the same level as the sec.
Click to expand...

did anyone see the USC-Arky game earlier this year?
 
#47
#47
utvols07 said:
wooooow....the pac 10 doesnt match up with the SEC IMO. Did anybody see the cal game earlier this season? Living in Washington, I am forced to watch PAC 10 football and trust me its not in the same level as the sec.
Click to expand...

Did you see the Arkansas-USC game?
 
#48
#48
VIA's mostly right. The humans making the calls (whether in polls or awards) are off far more often than the computers are.

Consider: Louisville was #3 in the BCS at one point. Had they won out, they would be in line to play the OSU-Michigan winner for the national championship. They lose to Rutgers, who (even if they had won out) would be behind the loser of that game plus the SEC champion plus USC.

Consider: The human polls to begin the year are normally based off what happened the previous year. Any movement up or down in the current year is predicated upon last year to some extent (i.e. "This team beat #2 so and so, so they go up to #6" even if #2 whoever ends up being 4-8). Much was made of Ohio State beating #2 Texas....Texas is a three-loss team with nary an impressive win outside of Oklahoma.

Consider: What counts for more when determining a ranking...a team's potential in a big game or their body of work to date?

Consider: What's more meaningful....beating good teams or losing to bad ones? We regularly hear "This team should be the best 1-loss team because they lost to (good team)." Well, if they beat 11 cupcakes and lost to the good one they play, how good is that team? By the same token, if you beat 7 quality opponents and lose to an average one, is that a better indication of how good you are?

Consider: Yes, Jeff Sagarin is a buffoon who seems to find a way to radically skew his poll. I do my own computer poll, and am fully aware that a computer is incapable of botching what gets programmed into it. The question then becomes what exactly is establishing the parameters for how it will compute the data.

I could find a way to skew my own poll system so that it makes the SEC have spots #1, 2, and 3, but that's unethical (even though my poll is not a BCS one).

Consider: It is impossible to influence a computer's data computation. If an announcer wants to talk about who should play who and why, a computer can't hear it. If a coach wants to suggest why his team is deserving, a computer won't consider it. If a certain matchup may happen in a bowl game, a computer is incapable of registering it.

Every screwed-up BCS situation has been a result of the human polls doing something stupid. Even in 1998....why Florida State over UCLA, Kansas State, Ohio State, or Arizona? Because Florida State lost the earliest. The final human polls before the bowl games simply reflected the order in which 1-loss teams lost their respective games.
 
#49
#49
Ohio Vol said:
VIA's mostly right. The humans making the calls (whether in polls or awards) are off far more often than the computers are.

Consider: Louisville was #3 in the BCS at one point. Had they won out, they would be in line to play the OSU-Michigan winner for the national championship. They lose to Rutgers, who (even if they had won out) would be behind the loser of that game plus the SEC champion plus USC.

Consider: The human polls to begin the year are normally based off what happened the previous year. Any movement up or down in the current year is predicated upon last year to some extent (i.e. "This team beat #2 so and so, so they go up to #6" even if #2 whoever ends up being 4-8). Much was made of Ohio State beating #2 Texas....Texas is a three-loss team with nary an impressive win outside of Oklahoma.

Consider: What counts for more when determining a ranking...a team's potential in a big game or their body of work to date?

Consider: What's more meaningful....beating good teams or losing to bad ones? We regularly hear "This team should be the best 1-loss team because they lost to (good team)." Well, if they beat 11 cupcakes and lost to the good one they play, how good is that team? By the same token, if you beat 7 quality opponents and lose to an average one, is that a better indication of how good you are?

Consider: Yes, Jeff Sagarin is a buffoon who seems to find a way to radically skew his poll. I do my own computer poll, and am fully aware that a computer is incapable of botching what gets programmed into it. The question then becomes what exactly is establishing the parameters for how it will compute the data.

I could find a way to skew my own poll system so that it makes the SEC have spots #1, 2, and 3, but that's unethical (even though my poll is not a BCS one).

Consider: It is impossible to influence a computer's data computation. If an announcer wants to talk about who should play who and why, a computer can't hear it. If a coach wants to suggest why his team is deserving, a computer won't consider it. If a certain matchup may happen in a bowl game, a computer is incapable of registering it.

Every screwed-up BCS situation has been a result of the human polls doing something stupid. Even in 1998....why Florida State over UCLA, Kansas State, Ohio State, or Arizona? Because Florida State lost the earliest. The final human polls before the bowl games simply reflected the order in which 1-loss teams lost their respective games.
Click to expand...
Florida State was ahead of UCLA and Kansas State because anyone who saw those three teams play and had more than a cursory knowledge of football could discern they were superior to the Bruins and Wildcats. As for Ohio State, lose at home to a bad Michigan State team and you get what you deserve.
 
#50
#50
hatvol,

Based on what, their dismantling of a pathetic ACC schedule (save for their loss to NC State)?

1998 was the first year of the BCS. I used that example for obvious reasons. Think about 2003, when the resulting outcry over LSU making it (justifiably) over USC forced the human polls into a position of dominance AND eliminated the loss penalties AND eliminated strength of schedule (based off USC playing 11 cupcakes).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top