The problem is that it's unfair to dictate how computer ratings authors
should write our systems when their is no way to enforce those dictums
upon the voters in AP and Coaches polls. Not to mention, the authors
have no voice comparable to that of the writers or the coaches who are
routinely on TV and the radio. About a week ago, we witnessed Kirk
Herbstreit, one of the best college football analysts out there, smash a
computer on the ground during his College Gameday show in a display of
his feelings about the computer systems. This is a huge conflict of
interest considering that Herbstreit is one of the AP voters and
therefore is saying that only the writers know what's best. I hate to
single him out, but this is the kind of thing that has been happening on
all of the media outlets with almost no retort from the computer system
proponents. When this is all that people see, most have no other
information but to think that the computers are wrong -- and that's
wrong and biased in and of itself.

As far as the debate about what's more important, I believe it's more
important to have a set of ratings that people understand and can point
out why such and such teams are rated where they are. This applies not
only to the computer ratings, but to the BCS and the pollsters. Right
now, the BCS system is so convoluted that most people don't understand
how it comes to the conclusions that it does. And since the votes of
the pollsters are anonymous, we have no recourse to question how they
voted, yet the computers are wide open to debate. Overall, the system
really isn't that complicated, but it's beyond the attention span of
most people. So what needs to happen?

First off, the BCS has to let the computers do thing their way. You
can't tell one group to do it one way and another to do it however they
feel -- it's a double-standard and it's the reason many of last year's
computer systems pulled out of the BCS this year. That means let them
determine the best way to rank. And if they want to tell the world how
they got there, then that's the authors' prerogative. It's no different
than the polls.

Second, we need to simplify the BCS by eliminating the frivolous bonuses
like SOS, QW's, loss counts, and other things that are already figured
into both the polls and the computers. All it really does is give
double bonuses (or penalties) to teams that trigger them, and since
that's considered already, why double (or even triple) consider it?
Without it, we probably would have had Oklahoma-Miami in 2000,
Miami-Oregon in 2001, and what seems to be a more correct ranking of
Miami-OSU at this point in the current season instead of the other way
around.

But most of all -- playoffs. Have the BCS system be the governing body
that selects the playoff members -- let's say the top 8 teams -- and it
finally becomes worthwhile. The problem lies with the bowl
commissioners and the AD's of the schools, but throw enough money at a
solution and they'll listen.

Just my $0.02...

--Jeff
imes@...
www.comprank.com



On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 15:25, Patrick E. Fleming wrote: Welcome to our
new members since the last post to the list!

Here is a topic on which I am interested in peoples' oppinions. It
seems
to me that the the court of public oppinion, computer rating systems get
low marks because people don't tliek the results. My contention is tha
tlooking at the results is exactly the wrong way to judge computer
ratings
systems. Rather, I prefer to look at the rating criteria - and decide
if
the criteria are fair. Trying to adjust the criteria in order to get
better results seems to be completely backwards to me. (Of course, this
is exactly what the BCS did this past summer when the eliminaterd margin
of victory from the computer data . . .presumably because they felt
oregon
got unduely screwed over . . . what they failed to consider was that is
was the average strength of schedule in the pac-10 tha tpulled oregon
down
. . but that's beside the point.)

What do you all think? Are the results more important than the method?
What sorts of methods (criteria) are most important?

- Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

CompRatings-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.