Cane from the Bend wrote:There are so many veriabls that go into poll ranking problems.
An infinite number of them, in my opinion.
Cane from the Bend wrote:Back in 2001, the widely debated BCS was a standingargument from both sides:
Computer Poll Supporters
Human Poll Supporters
Actually, as I recall there were more 'camps' than those two, but you are vaguely correct.
Cane from the Bend wrote:We, as frequent participants of the site, wereasked to give our argument in favor of the Human poll.
Actally, I believe the question dawned on us, was;
Do the Human Polls have too much Say in Determining the Rankings?
Certainly.
Cane from the Bend wrote:Members were asked to e-mail their thoughts on the subject, and the site creaters were oing to choose one response to post up on the site.
It was my reponse that was posted, and, reminents of that topic have appeared, here, in this thread.
Let's look at some of the factors that influence judgement, and se if you agree with this context.
1.) The computers are flawed, do to human imput.
a.) a computer can only decipher what a human programs into it
b.) computers can not guage things such as; moion, heart, teamwork, individule efforts, coaching adjustments, appreciation of a well executed play, momentum shifts, tams getting rattled and losing focus, teams playing down to the wire and stepping up when it count, ect, ect...
c.) computers only filter statistics, numbers, analytical data
2.) Human polls are flawed because of bias opinions and inefficiant information.
a.) media preseason polls rank teams by who garners the most attention, ie. ND being ranked #3 simply because they played usc so close last year, Louisille being ranked so high due to a favorable schedule, ect...- which in effect harms a team who is unranked in the preseason because of an understanding by pollsters to not drop a ranked team too far down after a loss, ie. ND umping from ranked 42 to #10 after beating Michigan in their opening game, then dropping to #14 after losing to Michigan St in South Bend the next week
b.) caoches poll during the season, because there is no way a coach preparing for the next game has time enough to watch every taam they use in their rankings to accurately postion them accordingly
c.) a coach might rank a team higher so that when his team plays them it will benefit his own interest, people tend to vote in favor of their own favorite teams
d.) one poll may rank teams deliberately in contradictory to another poll in an effort to sway viewer opinion, and show lack of credibility to the rival poll
e.) teams being ranke by the strength of their schedules before they even play one game, based on what conference a team is in
In truth, there is no way to incur an unbias ranking system.
I don't know if I agree with that, I think there is a way to incur an unbiased ranking system but it would require a lot of 'work'. Those other points you make, I think have some basis in fact, but you can't really 'ignore' polls, altogether.
Cane from the Bend wrote:Someone is always going to feel left out.
And someone is always going to say their poll is more credble than someone else's.
My biggest complaint has been the preseason polls.
Too much confussion, and an unfair advantage for those ranked teams.
Take Colorado Loves Football's exhuasting rantings for example.
Takes one to know one.
Cane from the Bend wrote:Let's say their were no Preseason polls.
Instead, the first polls would be released after every teams has played their first game.
TCU would have been in the top 15 following their first game, in that for instance.
Now, if we were fair, then, we would have no set number of positions ateam could drop after one loss.
So, in affect, TCU would have still dropped out of the top 25 following their loss to SMU.
No, I dont' think they necessarily drop out after losing to SMU, a team that eventually came within an OT of qualifying for a bowl (1st one since 1982).
Cane from the Bend wrote:However, that ins't the case.
Thank God.
Cane from the Bend wrote:And, for those human polls that are calculated into the BCS equation, after week 8, the computer has an already predetermined analysis.
And when adding the compiled formula, the typical viewer is likely to be confused, because his or her favorite team, that was once ranked #12, is now ranked #22, without even losing a game.
That's not how it works, those figures are 'calculated' in advance, the teams themselves determine where they end up, not a computer. You are misinterpreting the 'results' to suit your position.
Cane from the Bend wrote:It has happened.
If the BCS wants to have an even field to start ith, then, all of the poll component should not be allowed a ranking list until week 5.
Week 8 is too long to wait for most viewers. People are impatient.
And weeks 1-4 are too soon to build a concise evaluation of team accomplishment & progress.
I dont' think so.
Teams establish themselves far in advance of the regular season. To suggest otherwise I think is a mistake, especially when we have 'evidence' in the bowls for how teams likely 'stack-up' relative to each other. No, those aren't the same teams, but they are the same programs.
Cane from the Bend wrote:And, if all BCS component were released at the same time, then, there would be no controversy due to position changes. As, all of the data would be released at the same time.
I doubt there would be no controversy, at all, guess again.
Cane from the Bend wrote:This would also slap the mdia in the face, as, they would be "Oh So" exposed for their bias opinions, and rating manipulations.
Remember:
There are 119 NCAA D-1A College Football Teams.
At the beginning of each season, the field, statistically is even -
0 = Offense
0 = Defense
0 = Special Teams
0 = Wins
0 = Losses
Giving a team a preseason ranking, is giving them an unfair advantage.
I don't think so, it's a 'valid' way of assessing a team, based on information, available to the media. If they are 'wrong' in how they 'size up' a team, it will become apparent, very quickly, in short order.
Cane from the Bend wrote:If a team is ranked #1 in the preseason polls, it will be difficult (next to impossible) to catch them as a team who was not given a preseason ranking.
No team I can think of is 'unfairly' ranked #1.
Cane from the Bend wrote:This is also why, preseason Heisman hype is unair.
Untrue, all pre-season Heisman 'hopeful's still have to play good, otherwise they are 'dropped'. Sure, there is some advantage to playing on a good team, but Brady Quinn won't win the Heisman all by himself, neither for that matter, has any other Heisman trophy winner.
Cane from the Bend wrote:To say someone is a candidate for the heisman trophy before the season even starts is taking away the chance of winning the award from the numerous other players who maybe even better.
No, I think a player 'earns' the right to be reprsented through his play, throughout the year. Same applies to any candidate, regardless of where they play.
Cane from the Bend wrote:All players start the same way as their respective team does -
0 = Yards
0 = Tackles
0 = Sacks
0 = Touchdowns
0 = Receptions
0 = Interceptions
0 = Blocks
0 = Deflections
0 = Fieldgoals
0 = Extra Points
0 = Punts
0 = Fumbles
0 = Performance
To base a player's heisman candidacy off of his previous years performances is to neglct the above.
I disagree, I think what you've done, over your career has a huge influence on the minds of the voters, and should. Vince Young should have won the Heisman Trophy, due in no small part to how he played in the 2005 Rose Bowl. It matters.
Cane from the Bend wrote:It also prelists that player's name into a heisman voters mind.
And for good reason.
Cane from the Bend wrote:Essentially, what I'm saying is:
"Preseason Favoritism = Unfair Bias"
And I disagree with your position.
Consider Pittsburgh, 1984. Was there 'bias', in putting them #3? or did they 'earn' it through competitve play?
I'm not basing my position on how Pittsburgh played, they obviously didn't live up to the 'hype' but was it 'unfair' to put them #3 overall?
I don't know, but they weren't a bad team, to begin the year. That's why I think your argument is flawed. Rankings aren't supposed to be 'fair'.
If they were, there wouldn't be a need to play any games at all. We could simply put Texas and Notre Dame (or whoever is #2), in a game let the results speak for themselves.
Thank heavens that isn't how it works. I like how we select a NC with one exception, no playoff.