Who is behind the Computer rankings?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:50 am

there are 6 computers that have a 1/3 say on who plays in the BCS title game, people argue that computers remove all the accountability from their rankings, the guys behind the computers can put whatever they want in to the computer and then say that what came out is from the program and not what they put in to the program, or garbage in, garbage out.

The 6 computer rankings that are used currently were put together by Kevin O'Malley who is a sports executive at CBS... CBS is not affiliated with the BCS, the BCS is a Disney/ABC/ESPN creation yet a CBS sports executive oversees the computer rankings. The only tie that CBS has to Major College Football is they are the network that covers SEC football

Jeff Anderson runs the Anderson & Hester ranking. Anderson was at the University of Washington when he and a frat brother named Chris Hester started tinkering with their football ranking system that has been published in the Seattle Times since 1993, or right about the time that the University of Washington got in to all their trouble that cost Don James his job. Anderson now teaches at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

Dr. Peter Wolfe is an infectious diseases specialist at UCLA's medical school, Wolffe is a native of Pittsburgh and went to Harvard before recently coming out to UCLA. He says he was a "football fan long before I was a doctor"

Richard Billingsley is a stress consultant from Oklahoma, Billingsley claims that he has no rooting interest since he didnt go to college

Jeff Sagarin is a MIT educated New Yorker who lives in Bloomington Indiana and has his worked published in USA Today

Wes Colley also went to MIT, he is an Astrophysicist who grew up in Virginia, his brother played at Georgia and Wes Colley is curerently a researcher for the University of Alabama..... makes one wonder how the Colley Matrix had USC 5th behind Virginia Tech, Alabama and Georgia with Texas #1. Colley said that it was "virtually a 4 way tie between USC, VT, Bama and Georgia" in his ranking so he chose to write them in the order he did

The final computer ranking is ran by a Virginia Tech season ticket holder named Kenneth Massey, Massey has been with the BCS from the start in 1999 when he was a 23 year old grad student from Virginia Tech

The BCS claims that these infalible computer rankings dont suffer the biases and prejudice that human voters do. It is impossible to be unbiased, at least human pollsters have to answer as to why they vote a certain way.
Does anyone question a Va Tech season ticket holder for having Va Tech ranked higher than the Miami squad that just came in to Blacksburg and kicked the shit out of the Hokies, ken massey also has Penn State and Ohio State ranked ahead of the Canes (sour grapes?) in his current ranking
How does Wes Colley defend having Alabama and Georgia ahead of USC in light of him being an employee at the University of Alabama and his family having played at Georgia?

No matter what Disney/ABC/ESPN claims the BCS computers are still garbage in, garbage out.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:11 pm

Go back to the AP/ Coaches Poll until everyone can figure out how to institute a playoff format.

Cross Traffic · Post by **Cross Traffic** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:59 pm

I've hated the computer rankings, at least with the AP poll there is accountability, since each voter's picks are published.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:10 pm

My biggest gripe with the BCS has to do with inconsistency- both in the ever-changing BCS formula and the way these computer rankings can change and evolve. I don't really buy that a conspiracy is behind the computers, lending more weight to a favored team. Possible, yes, but not probably by any means.

As flawed as the old system was, I think most here would admit that it was what made college football so great- the contraversy. And it was all right in front of you. AP voters. Coach voters.

This BCS creation...I don't get it. Only a playoff system has more credibility in my mind than how it used to be...

See You Next Wednesday · Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:27 pm

So do have an actual complaint with the algorithms or gjust with the people who created them?

Isaac Newton was a self-centered prick, but calculus still seems pretty useful.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:37 pm

Computer rankings and voted polls are fine for conversation but to determine a champion, it's garbage. In college hoops, the top 25 poll is pointless since the #1 and #2 teams don't automatically play for the title and all teams in the top 25 make the tournament. It's the most frustrating thing in sports...trying to understand why there isn't a college football playoff. I've yet to hear a good argument for why the BCS works.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:39 pm

While I agree with some of those points, the 6 computer polls that account for 1/3 of the BCS formula don't have that much weight on an individual basis. Each poll only counts for about 8.25% of the overall grade as the highest and lowest beind discounted (leaving 4 used polls). Thus, if Massey really held a grudge and made statistical changes, they would be excluded if they went too high or low.

Still, I agree that the AP/Coaches/Harris polls should be the only ones included. Along with that, each submission from a coach or writer should be published to hold them accountable.

Beyond that, this system is still far from perfect but it will (hopefully) provide a great NC game this year.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:49 pm

i don't think it's "the system" that's providing a great NC game....i think it's because there are two teams that are head and shoulders above everyone else.

now, sure, in the old days UT would play maybe ND in the Cotton Bowl (highest ranked non-conference committed to bowl) and SC play tOSU or PSU in the Rose...but, i don't see the limitations of the old system/conference commitments as de facto proof that the BCS is any good. that's the leap of logic BCS defenders want you to make.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:58 pm

Maybe its Dubya.

Sky · Post by **Sky** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:02 pm

King Crimson wrote:i don't think it's "the system" that's providing a great NC game....i think it's because there are two teams that are head and shoulders above everyone else.

now, sure, in the old days UT would play maybe ND in the Cotton Bowl (highest ranked non-conference committed to bowl) and SC play tOSU or PSU in the Rose...but, i don't see the limitations of the old system/conference commitments as de facto proof that the BCS is any good. that's the leap of logic BCS defenders want you to make.

Very good point, had the schedules not limited us down to two good teams, we would be lost.

See You Next Wednesday · Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:29 pm

Look, it aint' the computers. You could have a human only poll and you would've still had the problem like we had last year. You could've had God himself determine the NC game last year and we'd still have had a problem. It is the system, the BCS system. The no-playoff system.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:59 pm

yeah, settle it on the field.

i know all the bowl money cronies in their red or orange polyester blazers are the one's who are entrenched with college presidents and AD's so long as there is guaranteed MONEY for the smiling lackeys......

but i agree with a D-II guy (on the Broncs) i heard interviewed on Denver sports radio...and the radio guys are huslting him up about being D-II and he said: "hey, we settle it on the field in D-II".

word up.