College Football Week 11 Thoughts

I know you've mentioned it before, Aswaff, but where are you getting the 66th rank SOS from? Seriously, and not to be antagonistic, I'd like to find out why the BCS supercomputers are so high on THE U of NJ (ranked 2nd in 1 algorithm and 3rd in another). If SOS is so bad, then why are the computers so much higher than the anti-Big East pollsters?

I'm getting it from Jeff Sagarin. Maybe there's some other equation that has them higher, but that's the only one I know, so I keep using it. If you pull up Jeff Sagarin's power rankings, they show strength of schedule rank in one of the columns.

Oh, and as I've also said before, that's updated weekly. That's their SOS even with the game against Louisville.
http://www.k...s/cfsend.htm

So then, why are the BCS computers ranking RU 2 and 3?

I was just pointing out that IF Rutgers goes undefeated they will have and undefeated record with two wins over Top 10 programs. No one else can claim that except for the winner of tOSU/Michigan. I believe in that case they would deserve a shot.

BCS Computer rankings http://www.b...sfb/rankings

Wow, even more interesting: Sagarin ranks Lousville 3rd and WVA 6th. RU 8th. Florida 9th?!?! WTF?

Sagarin's rankings aren't less credible because he has Rutgers ranked lower than the other computers do. It's a large difference of equation, and this is exactly my beef with computers. Sagarin isn't my boy, and I'm not touting his rankings. I'm using this to point out how flawed the system is. Rutgers has played a bad schedule and has two fewer wins than Ohio State, but the computers have Rutgers ranked ahead of Ohio State. It makes zero sense. I'm not trying to make sense out of it, I'm pointint out that NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE.

I'll ask again, what exactly is a "top" bowl?

I don't know why I continue to waste my time talking to anonymous fanatics who'd rather rip me than talk about the points I'm actually making. But, I'll do it again. First of all, I'm not touting Texas, so stop trying to bring them into the mix. They got whooped by Ohio State. They got whooped by Kansas State. They've played a schedule that isn't worthy of such a good program, and they don't deserve consideration for the national championship. Now that I've cleared that up for the dozenth time, can we freaking let it go?

Secondly, stop saying I don't know anything about the Big East. I've watched as many of their games as were broadcast down here, and I've looked at the numbers. West Virginia defeated Georgia LAST YEAR. It isn't any more valid than UT defeating USC or OSU LAST YEAR. I'm talking about the Big East this year. If you want to actually talk instead of treating me like I'm an idiot (because I'm not), bring it. But you clearly don't have anything substantial to say, so shut up until you do.

Oh, and don't ask me rhetotical questions about things I've posted links to. Look them up yourself. I post the links for a reason.

Sorry, one more point - I've never disappeared. I didn't disappear after Texas lost to Ohio State. I actually wrote an article called "What UT Didn't Do," covering their mistakes in the game. I didn't disappear after Texas lost to Kansas State, I just didn't write a recap because I've had a busy schedule since Saturday and didn't feel like taking the time to write a recap. And I didn't disappear after Rutgers defeated Louisville. I came right out and said that I was wrong for saying Louisvile would spank Rutgers, and I clearly stood very corrected about that team.

"west virginia went to georgia and beat them in a bowl on their own turf." Are you an idiot? Georgia plays its home games in Athens, NOT the Georgia Dome. Plus, they weren't even that good last year. They were worse than Florida and LSU, but snuck in to the Sugar Bowl with Florida's loss and their upset in the SEC Championship. Also, West Virginia hardly beat them. Georgia nearly came back and won that football game.

It was their HOME state and if Georgia wasn't that good as you state, why were they even in a bowl? Oh, maybe it's because the program got a boat load of money to play in it and the whole system is about ratings and money.

Ambiguous much? Try saying a BCS bowl, or maybe a Jan. 1+ bowl (excluding the two weird ones). Give me something here, your blanket statments mean nothing.

Well I think the BE has a shot at one or two BCS bowls and another Jan. 1+ bowl. Don't you think so?

Big East will get one BCS bowl, the winner of the WVU v Rutgers game, and another team will go to the Gator Bowl (January 1st). There aren't enough open slots for them to squeeze in another team. That is the way I see it playing out. They may not even get the Gator Bowl, could lose it to a Big 12 team, although that's doubtful in my opinion. One of the big 3 teams in the Big East will most surely go to the Sun Bowl. These aren't top bowls, as you would claim.

I don't know, we'll see how it plays out, right now we have three teams in the top 10. If that remains, I would expect three big bowls, otherwise why have this bullcrap BCS ranking? If it's all about money, then don't even bother ranking teams, it's a joke. And btw, Rutgers would bring in more tv audience around the country then any other school less Notre Dame. Why? Because they are a good story for one, for two they play in the largest sports market in the world.

Yes, they play in a large market. However, that certainly does not guarantee television ratings. If Columbia University plays in an Ivy League championship game, do New Yorkers care, absolutely not. Same thing with Rutgers. Before their game with L'Ville, ESPN aired a piece shot on the streets of NYC asking people what they thought about Rutgers football. Nobody knew anything, nor did they care. Being in markets is more of a professional sports attribute, fan base is for the college game, and one cannot argue that Rutgers has the second largest fan base in college sports, its preposterous.

It is a good storyline, but that is all it is. Instead of just shooting from the hip, sit down and think about were the BCS bowl games are going. Ohio State/Michigan + 6 major conference champions + Boise State + Notre Dame + other team playing OSU/UM winner. Five games, ten teams. Only hope the Big East has for having two BCS games is the PAC 10 not filling the Rose Bowl bid and they get WVU/Rutgers out there to play Michigan. Even if that happened, the Big East would have to convince a bowl committee that their second place team is a better draw than Arkansas or Florida, whichever is the second place SEC team. These bowls will be played in Georgia and Florida, not an easy proposition. The reason Notre Dame travels so well is because many of its alumnus have expendable income and can afford bowl trips, and care about football. WVU certainly doesn't fill that mold, and Rutgers, although a great story, doesn't have a solid fan base either.

When comparing the predicament to the other conferences, the Big East certainly isn't getting anymore big bowl games than anyone else, less than the Big 10 and SEC actually. That is the way college football is set up, and contriving imaginary but impossible situations will not change that.

Tartan, that's not fair. Columbia has like a 500 game losing streak and it's not feasible to state that they could be playing in an Ivy League Championship. However, to placate you. If Columbia indeed made it to the Ivy League Champioinship, or became ranked in the top 20 somehow, you better believe New Yorkers would be all over it.

I don't think his point was that Columbia was on the cuft of being a bowl contender. The point is that being in a big market doesn't mean you draw big market numbers. The 2005 World Series is a great example. The Astros are in a huge market in Houston, and the White Sox are in a huge market in Chicago. The White Sox were a feel-good story, looking to break a curse that had spanned nearly a century. And Houston had accomplished the greatest come-back in baseball history to make an unlikely appearance in the World Series. Yet, it was one of the lowest-rated World Series of all-time. Nobody tuned in, nobody cared. That was his point. Being a big story in a big market doesn't always translate to big money. Especially when it's a team that's new to the national stage that doesn't guarantee to travel well.

If Rutgers makes the BCS, they would likely draw the worst rating of any BCS game in history. They're just not appealing to a non-sports fan.

So, if you take out their weakest link, their schedule isn't that bad? So, where would Texas be if they hadn't been forced to schedule a last-minute game against I-AA Sam Houston State because of a schedule change by the Big 12 to make the season 12 games instead of 11? EVERYONE'S schedule would be better if you took out their worst opponent. That argument doesn't mean anything.

It actually makes a lot of sense, sorry you can't see that.

I never said it didn't make sense. It makes perfect sense. But it applies to everyone. Everyone's schedule would be a lot better if they removed the worst team. The argument makes perfect sense. What I said is that it's irrelevant. If everyong eliminated their weakest opponent, everyone's SOS would be better. It's a completely worthless argument.

Why do you always minus people Aswaff? It is really wierd. Just because someone disagrees with your statements? Anyway, the point that you are obviously missing is that Rutgers played an extremely weak team in Howard. Not every school played someone as weak as that school, so it wouldn't have the same impact for everyone's schedule.

I don't give minuses to everyone I disagree with. You'll notice there are numerous people here I've disagreed with that I didn't minus. I minus comments that I think are unintelligent. Saying that their SOS would be better if they hadn't played Howard is a no-brainer. They did play Howard, so it's part of the SOS equation. It's a completely pointless argument to bring up.

Oh, sometimes I also give minuses because of condescending statements like "sorry you can't see that," and, "you know nothing about the Big East."

A bit of an exageration on the enrollment numbers, 31,234. Don't make stuff up.

Just because they have alumni, that doesn't mean fan base either. Those alumni certainly didn't attend Rutgers for its football history, so what will change their minds now. Many teams have great single years and then fall back down to medicority (Northwestern), and some teams have great years and use them as building blocks (Virginia Tech). Don't go counting your eggs just yet.

This idiotic gungho mentality is what turns people off. Make a structured arguement based on fact about 3 big time Big East bowls, or the recruiting losses (you read that) that Rutgers will have in the future. Or maybe about the possible gains (yes, them too) that they could realize should they position themselves as a viable annual contender.

To answer you last question, "They should be a top ranked team every year, why not?" You must be kidding me. What is the logic behind that, just because they are 40 (give or take) miles away from New York City? Please explain that ridiculous statement. If not, its just flat wrong and there are a million reasons why.

That was me obviously

Tartan, you're taking the words right out of my mouth. I'm not annoyed with Big East fans because of some bias I have with the Big East. I'm annoyed because these arguments simply don't make sense. I continue to give statistics and facts to back up what I'm saying, and y'all have never presented me with anything to back what you're saying, except insults. It keeps coming down to this "you don't know what you're talking about" argument. We can all do better than that.

Again, I think you're missing his point. And correct me if I'm wrong in defending you this way, Tartan. But it seems to me that he's not saying that people in the NY/NJ area aren't pulling for Rutgers. We saw in that game last Thursday that they are. But there is a difference between a city pulling for a feel-good story and having a fan base. People all over the country are pulling for Rutgers, but it doesn't mean they're Rutgers fans. Once the Cinderella season ends and it gets back to business as usual, the peole that are still hanging around are your real fans. They have a lot of people pulling for them, but that doesn't mean they have a broad fan base.

I know that last year Rutgers average attendance at 33K was well under its stadium capacity. I know that this year they rank 29th in attendance by stadium capacity percentage. I know that 40 miles from South Jersey won't get you the Bronx, it barely makes the other side of Philly. I know that the northeast rarely gets to see good college football, and they are getting way ahead of themselves.

Let me ask you guys a few things.

Have you ever been to Neyland Stadium? Have you ever been to the Swamp? Have you ever seen a game in the South? What about Texas A&M? What about a Red River Shootout game? Have you ever experienced the genuine hospitality from a nice Notre Dame fan? Have you ever seen an Ohio State Michigan game? This is what college football is all about. These are the fans that travel across the country to see their team, that travel to bowl games. Taking a train 40 miles to New Brunswick is not fan loyalty. It takes generations to build this up. Ask Wisconsin, they went to 3 Rose Bowls in the 90s, and still aren't considered college football royalty. One season does not do it, does not even put you in the conversation. Granted, this season is a great building block for what I hope is a bright future of Rutgers football, but you're putting the wagon before the horse here.

Your statement that everyone has their favorite team, but they also follow Rutgers now because they're good (cough fairweather cough) hits the nail right on the head. In Ohio, there is no other team, it's either Ohio or Michigan. In Alabama, its either Auburn or Alabama, Florida is the same way, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas. These places live and breathe college football, and follow their teams everywhere. This is the difference. Rutgers fans might go to the bowl game, make a vacation out of it. These fans go to bowl games because there isn't another option, if the Domers are playing, they are there, if the Buckeyes are playing, fans are there. That is the difference

first off i stated well over 40 miles. and i do agree to build up a tradition like these other top schools doesn't come overnight. i am just saying don't worry about rutgers selling out games or lacking a tv audience. we have that covered. of course we are not going to have that same tradition, i never stated that. i know that because i am a longtime Yankee fan and know the power of tradition and winning over decades. that said rutgers is in a unique position to capitalize on nj football talent and being the sole football college in the tri-state area.

Also, as I said before, since the team doesn't have a history of winning, we don't know how they'll travel. That plays a role in bowl games, too. We'll have to wait to see some of the important factors that determine just how large their fan base really is. Right now, you're only basing it on people that have bought into the hype. That's not the same thing as a large fan base, it's not the same thing as being a big market, it's not the same thing as having big money potential.

I AM happy for the program, as I've said numerous times. I WANT them to succeed. I'm not spinning anything into a different argument. Nobody said New Jersey didn't have talent, we just said that you're overstating your case when you call it one of the most talent-laden states in the country. I feel good for Rutgers, all I'm saying is chill with the rhetoric. Y'all are excited, and that's good, but you're letting your zeal get in the way of reason.

And Tartan is right - while it's possible that Rutgers is here to stay, that remains to be seen. Lots of teams have had a season or two of success only to fall back into mediocrity or even fall into periods where they flat-out suck. I'm not saying they're not here to stay, but that remains to be seen. Again, if you just cool it with the rhetoric, people will be much more likely to listen to you. I'm trying to give you advice here.

http://rutge...OG0007712986 You stated earlier that Rutgers had top high school talent in the country, which is preposterous and I showed you every direction why. Rutgers has top 10 high school talent, but that is as far as I'd place them. Mississippi has unbelievable high school players, but Ole Miss and Mississippi state aren't all that good. Just because you have great high school kids, that doesn't always translate to dominant college play. I'm not knocking the Big East or Rutgers, I'm presenting you with facts and explanations of the way college football is set up to disprove you crazy jumps in reason. Rutgers is having a good year, but their staying power remains to be seen. I hope they do well and get another part of the country interested in college football. Historically, interesingly enough major cities haven't been able to support major NFL and college programs. Most of the biggest and best programs are located outside of large cities, the fans just don't seem to care, real estate prices prevent college expansion, not sure why, but it just is the case. Rutgers is an example of this, and that's too bad. Historically they have been bad, they're on the up and up, but it takes longevity to enter the college football upper echelons. Wisconsin made 3 Rose Bowls in the 90s and people still don't think its that great of a program. I agree with ASwaff's statements as well, and his defense of my points. Relax, this is only one season, certainly nothing more than that.

http://www.b...LowWeb06.pdf http://regis...INAL-S06.HTM

So we're counting branch campus enrollment as well? Do you know how many colleges have branch campuses across the country? C'mon, gimme a break

You mean like Louisville crushed Rutgers when they were ranked #3 in the country?

LIke I said, check your facts. That list certainly isn't all encompassing. Ohio State sports nearly 60,000, Texas has a ton of students as well. That list only includes universities that are members of the National Student Exchange, an entire different organization that certainly doesn't come close to having every college listed, gimme a break, you're losing more footing the longer you try

haha. okay, i will give you that one. either way Rutgers has approx. 32K students which is a sizeable population in an area of the country with no other football college. so, not worried about tv coverage or stadium attendance.

Again, Tartan is right. You need to get a more exhaustive list. At 35,000, Rutgers has about 3,000 more students than the University of North Texas. That list didn't include the University of Texas, which has close to 50,000 students (UT Enrollment). Rutgers is a big school, but it's not one of the biggest in the country.

In fact, if you want to believe this Wikipedia article, Rutgers is almost 9,000 short of being in the top 10 in enrollment in the US.

Maybe THIS would be more helpful. In 2004, Rutgers was 24th among Universities in terms of enrollment, just ahead of BYU.

No, I don't care to discuss them, because I already said that I don't know why they're ranked so low. I ALREADY SAID that the computers make no sense, and that's why they bug me so much. I've already gone over that. There's no explaining it, there's no accounting for it. Some computers have Rutgers ranked high. I've always used Sagarin, I'm not just using it now because he has Rutgers ranked lower than eveyrone else does.

Well, you can sort of figure it out by going to the main page http://www.b...sfb/rankings

and then looking at the site for each one. Some explain it well while others don't.

In Rutgers case (might as well keep talking about them, they serve as a good example), Sagarin ranks them 8th while all other computers rank 2nd or 3rd. For BCS perspective, they throw out the lowest ranking (8th for RU) and the highest (one of the 2's) and basically average the rest.

Even though it's not affecting RU's ranking, I'd like to know why Sagarin's model is so different than the rest, all of which also weigh SOS.

Thanks Anon#1- I will check them out.

Aswaff- So i'm looking at Anderson's Ratings: He has RU at 44 SOS and OSU at 41? So, what does that tell anyone? That the human factor is what ranks OSU at number 1? Cause it sure ain't the SOS. I mean even Michigan is at 27 SOS.

I KNOW the human factor ranks OSU number one. But what I want to know is what equations they're using to figure the SOS. I don't know what they are, and it bugs me. They're obviously doing something very different to have Rutgers ranked 44th in one and 67th in another. But I will say this, and it's not my bias - looking at their schedule, I'm more inclined to believe that they are a 67 than a 44. And it's not just Howard. It's basically their entire schedule outside of Lousiville. They have not played a hard schedule at all.

I think that somehow they are factoring in the record of teams they played and the teams they played as well? also, they are indexing the conference and weighting that in somehow. They should just release the exact formulas so everyone knows. One of the reasons Rutgers is probably ranked high on some is cause of conference strength and second is they played some common opponents of good teams (Illinois, Louisville)

If 1/6 ranks them one way and 5/6 ranks them another (or at least v. similar) and without doing a v. detailed comparative analysis, I would lean towards the 5/6 being more accurate. Or more precisely, the average.

Perhaps you are underestimating their SOS? I mean, the whole idea behind using the computer formulas as part of the overall BCS rankings is to mitigate the bias-ness that is more susceptible in the human polls.

This is an intriguing topic (validity of the components behind the BCS rankings) that we should probably investigate separately, since it is so confusing to most people. Even we don't understand the equations fully after a brief look at it.

You keep talking about SOS as if it's the only factor that could be determining their ranking. I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're right, that's why I've been advocating FSU and U of Miami to play in the BCS title bowl this whole time. Win/loss record means nothing!!!!!!

You are the one, not me, who brought up brought up Sagarin in the first place as a supporting argument to say Rutgers has a lousy SOS. But didn't I take a look and say that he was ranking RU 8? If I had no idea and thought SOS was the only factor, wouldn't I conclude that RU should be ranked 67th?? C'mon dude.

All I am trying to do is understand his method vs the other methods . And you know what, I will guarantee you the way they calculate SOS is the primary difference. Further, I still haven't seen you put forth good rationale as to why the 67 SOS is sound and reasonable.

Sorry to question your faulty argument with actual reason. And let me commend you for taking take the low road, yet again, by claiming I know nothing. God forbid we have an intelligent debate around here.

And by the way, you said right above that you don't know what the equations are yourself. If you don't know that and you talking about the topic, I can then deduce that YOU don't have an idea as to what your talking about. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I agree I think the SOS is one of the main problems with the computers. Some are calculating them differently. I also believe that some of the computer models adjust for score differential among common opponents. So for instance, OSU played Illinois and won by 7, Rutgers played Illinois and won by 33. Right or wrong, I believe that plays into the overall rankings.

They should really release the actual methodologies for each BCS computer system or not use them at all. I mean are these that secretive? We could probably develop our own right here.

I would create a couple of different models (not 6) and then just average them. I cannot believe that you need 6 models, how different can they actually be??

Then I would take the top 8 teams and create a short playoffs to determine the TRUE NATIONAL CHAMPION. I don't think anyone could argue that the NC wouldn't be included in the top 8 by the end of the season. What says you Aswaff, Anon#9, Tarten??

I brought up the SOS calculations of a reliable computer that I always turn to for a general idea of certain statistics pertaining to college football. It was just one. But, by the best metric you can find, Rutgers has played the 44th toughest schedule in the country. Still nothing to crow about, so I'm still right. The point is, the teams they've defeated this year, coupled with WHAT I'VE SEEN WHEN I'VE WATCHED THEM PLAY hasn't got me sold on them being a contender for the national championship.

As for margin of victory against like opponents, that might be a component in some equations. Certainly, I've seen some use that to compare some teams. But, I think it's a ridiculous metric, and I'll tell you why. Playing teams in conference is always a different animal than playing teams out of conference. The way the teams play is different, and the way that coaches prepare for teams that they are more familiar with is different. While Ohio State beating Illinois by 7 while Rutgers beat them by 33 might be used in some equations, I think it's foolish. Unless someone actually wants to say that they think Rutgers is THAT MUCH better than Ohio State.

In other words, I'm not trying to defend Sagarin's rankings, and I never set out to explain why his metric is more reliable than another. I was just using one metric to point out that they don't appear to have played a very tough schedule. But, I should also point out that you're not using real reason, either. You're trying to throw out Sagarin's rankings as unreliable simply because of a discrepancy with other computer rankings. That's a curious thing to bring up, but it's not something that means we should throw it out. What if all the other computers are using the same bad metric to calculate SOS, making Sagarin's the ONLY reliable one? I'm not saying that's the case, just pointing out that your argument is not logical, it's completely flawed.

Well sort of, but it is not without reason or logic that I discard Sagarin, it wasn't even my idea to begin with. I'm doing it, again w/ RU as example, because that is what the BCS does (each wk, throw out the 1 best and the 1 worst computer ranking). Trying to look at understand it from a algorithmic, statistical perspective, though, and it makes sense that BCS discards the best and the worst formula ranking, I assume so that there can be less of a discrepancy. If the rankings for RU in the other computers were all like Sagarin's, then Sagarin's ranking would be more statistically significant and, I agree, would lead me to accepting Sagarin more.

Aswaff- I don't think your argument holds water. You are picking one particular computer out of six available and then throw out the rest saying that you think that one is more likely. That makes no sense and introduces bias, which is what having the computer rankings is supposed to eliminate. As far as your favorite computer sagarin, let's take a look at it more closely. You have Rutgers right now ranked 68th SOS, you also have OSU ranked 49th SOS, Texas ranked 41st, LSU ranked 35th, Wisconsin ranked 61st, Arkansas ranked 81st, heck even Michigan is ranked 26th. So, according to this computer alot of teams that had chances at the NC game this season ALL had extremely weak schedules, right? Now let's get back to Rutgers, you cannot argue out both sides of your mouth, if you feel Rutgers doesn't belong their because of SOS, then you have to say the same for all of these TOP teams I just mentioned.

To recap: you don't like computers cause they confuse you. You do like sagarin though because you feel that this computer is really good.

You do believe that sagarin has Rutgers SOS ranked correctly at 68th. You do not though believe that most of the other TOP TEAMS also ranked poorly as far as SOS goes is relevant.

You feel that Rutgers isn't that good because you saw a few games and that with your knowledge of college football they just weren't that good. Even though the writers and coaches strongly disagree with you.

IN CONCLUSION: 5/6 BCS computers have Rutgers ranked in the top 3, Coaches and writers have Rutgers ranked very high (7/8). Aswaff though has his OWN BIASED ranking and Rutgers just doesn't cut it.

Come back to us when you have something better, it's almost comical reading your posts.

Alright guys, here is why I place little weight in any strength of schedule metric, and this year is a perfect example. Well use a 10 game schedule for easy understanding. Michigan plays 10 games, and they win all 10, making their opponents have a combined much worse record than if Michigan wasn't as good. Say their opponents are 50-50, instead if Michigan lost every game, making their oppoenents 60-40. Now, add in the mix that Ohio State is also very good, beating 8 of Michigan's 10 opponents. So, hence, Michigan beat 8 of Ohio State's 10 opponents. If Michigan and Ohio State weren't as good, Michigan's opponents go from a respectable 50-50 to a ridiculous 68-32. Throw Wisconsin in the mix, at 11-1, only loss to Michigan, and have beaten 8 common opponents of Michigan (which is interchangeable with Ohio State at this point) and if they weren't any good, Michigan's opponent's record goes to a staggering 76- 24. This is the way conferences work, and the more teams you have at the top, the more artificially bad the bottom teams look in that conference. Imagine the records of the Big Ten teams if Ohio State and Michigan didn't play so well, everyone would have 2 less losses and 2 more wins, that changes everything. Only bad teams can have great SoS ratings, that is the way it is. The Sos is a metric, and I believe should only be used to evaluate out of conference matchups, because those don't feel the effects explained above. Too much weight is placed in SoS, and not enough in on field play, how good the team really looks.

Secondly, the transitive property certainly doesn't work in sports, especially college football. Arizona beat Cal, Cal crushed Tennessee, so by that train of thought, Arizona should be 40 point favorites against Tennessee. That is ridiculous. The BCS computers exist in theory to sort out differences between pollsters, and to disallow ties. They have in recent years had too much weight placed in them, and this was decided by athletic directions, not people trained in mathematics or statistics.

College football has existed in its entirety on biased rankings. As long as preseason polls exist, there will be a bias, its unavoidable. Wake Forrest, Wisconsin, and Rutgers this year are perfect examples of this. They all have as good or better schedules than those ranked higher, but still do not receive the highest rankings. That is the way college football is, the BCS has tried to combat that slightly, but it can't do that, too much history, too much of old time voters. Also too many idiot sportswriters and coaches that spend their Saturdays in press boxes watching one game then voting on all 119 teams that they couldn't have possibly seen anything more than a highlight of. Its frustrating sometimes, especially for Auburn or LSU fans, but its much better than the system we had, and its probably the best its going to get.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Like last night, as an RU fan, I suppose we must root for WVA to beat Pitt so that WVA SOS remains high. But then, Pitt's value worsens and since RU played and beat Pitt then RU's SOS worsens.

But I do think that it has some value, your idea to account for non conf games makes a lot of sense. And I do find it better than the polls, like you said are subject to biasness and people who might not even be watching the games.

Ultimately, it's unfortunate that the system is so tied to these rankings. I'm sure we could come up with tens of different formulas but they are still just that, rankings. The system needs some sort of playoff, I know NCAAA Basketball bracket is not feasible due to amount of games and I know the bowls who generate $ would be reluctant. But perhaps bowls + 1 playoff could be worked out.

^^ meant WVA to beat Pitt so RU SOS remains as high as possible (for when RU plays WVA)

A plus one system is a neat idea, but I feel only when necessary. Last year, certainly a plus one game would have been a falloff, no one would have watched after the great USC Texas game. However, the logistics of running an only if necessary bowl game in one week are ridiculous, and which city gets to host it, more money for Phoenix area, etc. That would be very difficult. And also, if its decided that the there needs to be a plus one game, and three teams are vying for it, which teams gets the easier first bowl game. And what does that do to the current bowl games money making ability, if fans know that there will always be another game after it? There are difficult questions to answer regarding any modification of the system

Aswaff- Still think you are missing your OWN point, which is why it's so comical. Try reading your own posts before you get trigger happy and minusing people.

"And no, the other contenders haven't played a top-tier schedule either, but they have played much harder schedules than Rutgers, at least by Sagarin's ranking."

This is flat out false, as i stated before, they all have weak SOS....from sag himself

Rutgers 68th SOS, OSU ranked 49th SOS, Texas ranked 41st, LSU ranked 35th, Wisconsin ranked 61st, Arkansas ranked 81st, heck even Michigan is ranked 26th.

and how did you pick Sag? why not pick another one? oh, because you are used to it. BUT YOU SAID YOURSELF YOU DON"T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!!! THAT IS WHAT IS SO COMICAL!!!

How can I not get my own point? IT'S MY POINT TO MAKE! You get less and less reasonable by the post, AF4. By the way, are you honestly going to contend that there's no difference between 67 and 44? What are you smokin'?

Yes, I use Sagaring because it's what I'm used to. I always use it because his equation is widely accepted as a generally reliable one. It's not any more or any less reputable than the other computers you're mentioning. So don't get pissed at me just because you don't like what Sagarin's equations come out with this time.

according to your theory then, wouldn't michigan be ranked above osu? osu is terrible sos at 41, just terrible. at least michigan is at 26.

According to the computers, Michigan is ranked above OSU. According to the computers, Michigan is #1, Rutgers #2, OSU #3. I don't know if that can all be chalked up to SOS or not, because none of us knows how the computers calculate their rankings.

And btw, transitive properties do work as ONE part of the rankings.

Team A Blows out Team B Team C barely beats Team B

With no other knowledge about these two teams, you would have to give an edge, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, to Team A. If you say otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Now of course, nothing is usally equal and there are always other more important factors. But the fact remains that this should be included in the evaluation of teams that never get to play each other directly.

Absolutely not, teams match up very differently from one another, and from team to team. Michigan's fantastic run defense wouldn't be nearly as much of a factor against a team like Hawaii, when another teams pass defense would shut them down. That is just an example. Each game is an individual occurance, on an individual weekend. These are human's battling eachother, not computers, and they do not perform the same week to week, especially against differing competition. Just because one team matches up a certain way against Team B, and that way is more advantageous than Team C, this doesn't give any insight into the matchup of Team A vs Team C.

Wow, I don't know. I took a look at Sagarin, Anderson, and the billingsey report (who which provides a great explanation of his system and BCS computer rankings in general) comp rankings. And all three include verbiage to say that they specificaly do not consider margin of victory as a weighing factor as, Sagarin says, it is not the objective of the game.

But from the human side, when people are filling out their polls. I guarantee that margin of victory will be considered as anon4 says, if everything else (record, SOS) are relatively equal.

For instance, Notre Dame got killed by Michigan earlier in the season. You better belive, that if Michigan loses a close one to Ohio St, that that will be brought up, if ND beats USC and is considered for the title bowl. Mike & the Mad Dog (hardly experts, but prob. equal to others who do vote) mentioned this yesterday.

I agree it will be brought up, but it shouldn't factor in my personal opinion. It is the natural why people think. However, teams are vastly different from week to week. There are too many variables to say "all things being equal". Coaching plans from week to week might be better or worse, play calling could be better or worse, players have off days, home vs away location, weather, injuries, meshing of the team, relationships on the team, what is at stake for the game. There are basically too many variables to say "all things being equal". Football games are not played in vaccuums, and shouldn't be regarded as so. Notre Dame is an interesting example, because in one calendar year, they have been crushed by both Ohio State and Michigan, so them in the title game, while maybe voted in and deserving, will seem like less of a game. Many times, when people fill out their polls, margin of victory is considered. If a team goes out and beats everyone 100-0, yes obviously that should be taken into consideration. However, the difference between a touchdown or two here in there in games isn't nearly as enormous as people think. Games develop over the course of each contest, and margin of victory can differ greatly between seperate occurances on seperate days. An example of that, match two teams over the course of 5 games, and I would be willing to bet that not one score is identical, maybe some similar, but there would be great differences in the outcomes, and that is the same two teams playing eachother, let alone completely different teams playing one game against common opponents.

But you could also argue that a low margin of victory increases the chances of the winning team to lose. I know it sounds funny when I write it, but hear me out.

Florida won 17-16 against SCAR, blocking 3 kicks (2 FG's and 1 PAT). Barely beating an unranked team by the margin of one blocked PAT cannot instill tremendous confidence in anyone that Florida can compete against Ohio St. or Michigan.

Seriously, if the same circumstances went down in the Rutgers game vs Howard, as opposed to them blowing Howard out 56-7, you had better believe that ASwaff would be throwing that in our faces like nobody's business.

Got off the point there but during a given game, that you have a higher chance of winning with a bigger scoring differential (more pts for, less against). If you have less a margin, then the chances of that team either tying or winning increases, as SCAR could've easily done had ONE kick not get blocked (a rare play in most football games).

Yes, I agree, the higher margin of victory does indicate that you have a better chance of winning games, but that higher margin of victory may not be due to the team being a better team. My prime example was Ohio State vs Miami for the national championship in the 2002 season. Ohio State won 7 games that year by less than 7 points, had to come from behind in many of them. Meanwhile, Miami that year was the greatest thing since sliced bread, crushing almost every team they played. Pitt was their closest opponent if I remember correctly. Ohio State squeked out some games, needed a last second touchdown against Purdue and Michigan, overtime against Illinois, but game into the national championship game heavy underdogs and won. Margin of victory is a good indication of how well a team plays from year to year against teams, but when comparing teams against other teams, its nearly useless. There are too many outside variables in games. For example, the Florida game that you mentioned, South Carolina won that game last year, so you can say that being able to beat a team that conquered you last year is very important. Florida was missing its best defensive player, who may have had an impact in other games changing those scores, Spurrier was involved (that has to weigh something). Furthermore, South Carolina may be 5-5, but if you look at their schedule, Arkansas beat them by 6, Tennessee by 7, Auburn by 10. Georgia is the only lopsided loss they had (0-18), and Georgia is a team Florida beat by 7. MoV is almost meaningless, you can think circles around yourself trying to place some meaning in such a trivial variable. The only way I think it is important is in comparing year to year success against a single team, because most of the players are the same, and the gameplans are relatively similar, however, even then there are a ton of differences making the comparision fairly weak.

Anon #2- you make no sense. Let me tell you why. Let's take Rutgers again cause it's fun. Rutgers BLEW OUT Howard 57 - 7. Howared BLEW OUT Bethune-Cookman 28 - 0. This does not, I repeat does not mean that Rutgers could beat Bethune-Cookman. Maybe they could, maybe they couldn't.

Haha. You know what, all else being equal and if all three teams had their starters in etc. I would bet the house on Rutgers beating Bethune-Cookman.

Sorry Tartan, don't really see your point. I'm not saying that Rutgers would win by 78 points (talking about your transitive ex.) BUT THEY WOULD BEAT Bethune-Cookman.

And you know what, money talks. Don't listen to AP/Coaches or sagarin or the aswafffff poll. Would you say that transitive properties don't work here?

Perhaps, Tartan, perhaps. I can sort of see where you're coming from but you're asking a lot from everyone else (coaches, sportwriters, pollsters) to agree with you.

Let's put it another way. Since your stance is MoV is an insignificant, especially to compare against other teams, aren't you then also implying that Victory, in and of itself, is similarly insignificant?

Let's face it, all those outside variables, transitive properties are in play to determine whether a score differential (in-game) results in a Victory. But definition, a margin of victory is needed in order to gain an Victory.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't say MoV = 0 (zero/neutral) while also saying that Victory = 1 (significant). It has to be at least 1. And if it is greater than 1 one then a team has a greater chance of getting a Victory.

Now bear with me, if you say a high MoV may not be the result of a team being a better team, by applying your logic, you must also conclude that a victory in and of itself may not be the result of a team being a better team.

If that's the case, what, if anything could we use to compare teams against each other.

Well said Anon#6, well said. That is what I was trying to get across to Tartan (gave up on Aswafff). Everything is relative, everything.

haha, good one. Aswaffff only likes the "Predictor" portion of Sagarin, didn't he tell you that?

Again, I apologize profusely for being consistent in the poll I use, which is considered by most outside of New Jersey, apparently, to be reliable. And apologize even more profusely that you don't like the one I've chosen to consisently use. Go back to the happy computer rankings that say what you want them to. I'm done talking to idiots.

Plese don't resort to cursing or offending people. But also don't apologize, your comic relief is worth it!!

Well there it is, the daily lowball by ASwaff, actually coming in a bit earlier than usual. Read the post (And by the way, ASwaff. After taking a closer look...), you dufus. I'm sorry that I offered the olive branch by complimemting your use of Sagarin and acknowledging that my arguments were slightly off base after scrutinizing the formula more closely.

I genuinely apologize, AF6. My comments were meant for AF4, and AF4 alone. You did extend an olive branch, and I appreciate that. I'm fine with your comments, I'm just not going to deal with AF4 putting my comments out of context and acting like I don't know what I'm talking about simply because he has nothing intelligent to say.

Why are you apologizing to Anon#6? Apologize to me too!! I will apologize to you too. Sorry Aswaff.

There are always upsets and anomalies, but yes on the whole transitive properties work and work well I might add. Again, if you were ranking the top college teams in the nation, you would definitely use this property. If you were making a wager, you would definitely use this property. To say differently is not being truthful. Is it the only way to evaluate teams? No, of course not, but it is a major factor.

As far as SOS, of course it is flawed, I agree with you. You could say the same for the Big East, the top 3, WV, Rutgers and Louisville have been beating everyone, giving all of them 3 losses on the year.

To solve this, you could add more non-conference games that are chosen by the NCAA, not individual schools or you could go to a playoff system.

And as far as some teams match up better than others is irrelevant. In baseball, you need to win the AL or NL first before you are allowed to go to the WS. You can say all day that the loser of the AL would have beaten the winner of the WS, but WHO CARES!!? The point is that you have to get there first!! In college, you have to win the games you should and sometimes win them convincingly. What's wrong with that?

Not just upsets or anomalies, this happens every week across the country. Look at Rutgers this past week getting stomped by Cincy, perfect example, and there are a lot every week. Yes, it matters, but not when comparing teams against other teams that have played common opponents, I firmly believe this, and if you look at the outcomes of college football every week, you woul too.

It does happen every week, I agree with you, but with nothing else to compare, you have to look at this. Rutgers did get stomped and they were definitely not up for this game. That is their fault and their problem, they do deserve to drop in the rankings and they did. My point is what else would you compare? To some extent you need to use MoV against common opponents. Again, there are anolmalies but on average throughout a season, they work themselves out.