Greatest college football team of all time

[colorado_loves_football]

For sure, your prowess when it comes to the history of the game and the things that surround the game is outstanding. It has proven to be enlightening and brings value to the various perspectives found on forums such as this.

I obviously have a different 'take' on that but when presented 'fairly' his data can be interpreted a number of ways, so for whatever that's worth.

I agree there are a number of good teams worthy of being considered as contenders this season ...... that keeps things more interesting. Of course there are some pretenders out there too.

The Big East is performing well, and while Louisville and West Virginia are the marquee teams, the road to the National Title Game will be tough for either team.

The primary reason I say that is the computer portion of the BCS Rankings factor in Strength of Schedule, which they should, and neither the Cardinals or the Mountaineers have highly ranked teams on their schedule besides each other.

That's true, but only to a point.
The Big East, has improved, and it's very possible, maybe even likely, there will be other teams listed among the top-25 (as Rutgers is now).

Both, I expect, will have to be ranked very high by the human polls that make up the remaining portion of the BCS Rankings to overcome what I believe is going to be poor computer rankings.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see how the season plays out and see if the 'people polls' can provide enough to overcome what I anticipate to be poor computer rankings.

As far as your position on Sagarin is concerned ....... you're a trip, ktffan.

Enjoy, and stop by and see us every so often.

I'm not sure I follow you, Mountainman, why would the computer discriminate against either team? You have to elaborate on that. Consider Boise St. a team that by most 'should' be ranked fairly low, assuming SOS was the primary component in a computer poll. CFP, I believe has them ranked #8, much higher than any human poll I can think of. Rankings are inherently subjective. Even computer polls, are 'designed' with components that could weigh 'partially' toward a particular point-of-view. I know a little about them. They aren't 'beyond' bias, depending on the programmer.

[mountainman]

I'm not sure I follow you, Mountainman, why would the computer discriminate against either team?

The BCS computers (all six of them) don't discriminate, CLF.

Instead they factor in the Strength of Schedule component on an equal basis to all teams. Since, as it currently appears, Louisville and West Virginia's schedules do not have equal strength as compared to other contenders, the Strength of Schedule component will most likely result in an overall ranking less than that of the other contenders who have a higher Strength of Schedule component.

[Spence]

Computer polls aren't biased at all. Some of the factoring data could be biased, but for the most part I believe they try to represent a fair poll. You don't necessarily have to agree with a poll for it to be correct. Actually everyone could disagree with a poll and it could be correct.

[billybud]

Right now...WVU's SOS is in the 100's (Sagarin)....pretty darn weak. It should improve after Louisville and Pitt.

What the first BCS will test is the relative effect of the computers and SOS vs human polls...my prediction...the SOS won't have much impact.

The computers only make up for a third...and SOS only makes up a small fraction of the computer's rank.

[Spence]

That is pretty much right on, the BCS committee has rendered the computer polls useless. If I were one of the computer polls used, I would pull out.

[colorado_loves_football]

The BCS computers (all six of them) don't discriminate, CLF.

Instead they factor in the Strength of Schedule component on an equal basis to all teams. Since, as it currently appears, Louisville and West Virginia's schedules do not have equal strength as compared to other contenders, the Strength of Schedule component will most likely result in an overall ranking less than that of the other contenders who have a higher Strength of Schedule component.

S.O.S. I always thought was something that meant trouble, and apparently it still does.
Louisville and W. Virginia play in the Big East Conference. Shouldn't keep them out of a BCS title game, assuming one of them goes undefeated. Either way, a computer ranking assuredly isn't the only way to assess the S.O.S. component, and it shouldn't be the primary factor.
Again I refer to Boise St. Ranked very high (#8) in CCP. Is that an aberration? If it is, why is Louisville ranked #4, and W. Va. #6?
Clearly you are assuming things, that aren't there (as far as CCP goes).
S.O.S. is some arbitrary component that has marginal impact, IMO.
And I believe even 'if' it does affect rankings, those teams are still ranked 'appropriately' according to the algorithm being applied.
Why does the BCS use 6 computers? One is sufficient. Give me a break.

[Spence]

SOS has to do with how well you play relative to your competition. It is very important. It is also used by everyone when ranking teams. If it weren't for SOS Rutgers would be tied for #1 in the country. SOS is and should be applied in accordance with how you "handle" the teams you have played. That doesn't mean how much you beat them by, it means how quickly did you control the game. Those two factors are the most important factors in order to compare teams. If you didn't consider it every undefeated team would be considered equal and every one loss team would be considered equal. I don't do it that way, you don't do it that way, nobody considers every undefeated team equal with another.

That is the hardest thing for the computers to judge, because they can't see the game. They can't get a "feel" for the game and when it was under control. On the other side of the equation human voters sometimes get too impressed with wins by teams against teams they believe to be strong and are not as strong as the believe.

For example, if a team is ranked #4 and plays and almost loses to a team ranked #35 early, humans would think about dropping them. The computers would maybe drop them, but if that team is better then believed the computers raise their SOS points every week. The humans tend to forget about those games.

[mountainman]

Guess we'll see when the first edition of the BCS Standing are released come October 15th.

The Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll and the Computer Poll are all listed and then summarized together to determine and arrive at the BCS Rankings ..... that will be pretty good evidence as to whether my thoughts and concerns are valid or not.

[colorado_loves_football]

SOS has to do with how well you play relative to your competition. It is very important. It is also used by everyone when ranking teams. If it weren't for SOS Rutgers would be tied for #1 in the country. SOS is and should be applied in accordance with how you "handle" the teams you have played. That doesn't mean how much you beat them by, it means how quickly did you control the game. Those two factors are the most important factors in order to compare teams. If you didn't consider it every undefeated team would be considered equal and every one loss team would be considered equal. I don't do it that way, you don't do it that way, nobody considers every undefeated team equal with another.

I disagree with you on this particular matter. I didn't bring Rutgers into this debate, you did. Should Rutgers be 'denied' opportunity to win a NC, simply because they are Rutgers? (assuming they win all their games).
I think the answer is fairly straight-forward: No!

That is the hardest thing for the computers to judge, because they can't see the game. They can't get a "feel" for the game and when it was under control. On the other side of the equation human voters sometimes get too impressed with wins by teams against teams they believe to be strong and are not as strong as the believe.

Computers are only as smart as the person who programs them. They dont' evaluate anything they aren't instructed to. Humans determine how a computer 'evaluates' a team, and its' an imperfect science. You can't remove the 'human' component, no matter how hard you try. But, a computer can make qualitative judgments, much better than a human.

For example, if a team is ranked #4 and plays and almost loses to a team ranked #35 early, humans would think about dropping them. The computers would maybe drop them, but if that team is better then believed the computers raise their SOS points every week. The humans tend to forget about those games.

Computers don't look at it like a human, it's one advantage a computer has. They don't look at rankings, unless they are 'instructed' to. SOS really isn't a component of a good computer ranking, anyway, IMO.

[mountainman]

Regardless of how one feels or what one believes about Strength of Schedule as a factor or component in the computer portion of the BCS Rankings and whether or not one believes it to be worthy of consideration for one reason or another, the reality is that Strength of Schedule is indeed a part of the equation and the process used in determining BCS Standings.

Therefore, Strength of Schedule must be acknowledged and considered as a component that influences the outcome of the BCS Standings, unlike Margin of Victory which was removed from consideration by the BCS Committee.

[billybud]

The reality is that SOS has very little real effect....it may change a ranking between two teams separated by 10ths of a point...but not much more.

[mountainman]

Not sure about that, billybud .... take a look at the historical BCS Standings on the BCS Wed Site. A 10th of a point is hugh ..... it's a few 100th's of points that separate many ..... and when it comes to the top three spots that difference looms large as those two spots determine which teams go the the Title Game.

A 10th or a 100th of a point may not sound like much, but it's makes a huge difference as used by the BCS ranking system.

[colorado_loves_football]

The reality is that SOS has very little real effect....it may change a ranking between two teams separated by 10ths of a point...but not much more.

I'm inclined to think it it's being applied, it will likely have a 'significant' effect on the overall rankings, one reason I'm not a proponent of it. But, I'm not really that interested in how the BCS arrives it's ranking. Neither, apparently, is the Associated Press who told them where to go, following the LSU/USC debacle of 2003.
We (CFP) have arrived at a place where we can consider doing our own poll, assuming there is an interest in it. A CFP computer poll exists, as does a "Harris" poll of sorts (User Poll). All we need now, is 'permission' to borrow the CNN/USA Today Poll, and we're in business! I think our poll would likely be more 'objective' and wouldn't carry the SOS component, within its' parameters (unless someone programmed it in!).
Any takers? I think we should jump in with both feet, myself.

[billybud]

Mountainman...I dunno...

2005 The final 2005 BCS computer ranking didn't effect the two in the NC...(and that's all the BCS does).

There was a difference between the final computer ranking and the final USA Today and Harris ranking that, on some teams, seemed significant...but had no effect.

...Notre Dame...computers had 10th...humans had 6th
...Auburn...computers had 12th...humans had 7th

2004 The final BCS computer rank did not effect the top two in the NC...and even given the controversy, didn't effect Auburn as #3.

2003 Wow...even though the AP had So Cal as #1...the BCS had LSU and Oklahoma as the two in the NC game.

It was not affected by SOS differences...close, but did not make the difference...the total computer score gave LSU a 8 tenths lead over So Cal (.16 of which was SOS).