--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Palm" <jppalm@y...> wrote:
>
> The NCAA SOS is about as worthless as you can get.
>
That is most definitely true. However, the Big Ten does have the
toughest schedules this year, almost all due to conference games.

Using last week's average of 103 different computer rankings and then
taking the median of each team's opponents' ranks, you get something
like this:

Rank Best Median Worst Team
1 5 21 90 Michigan
2 5 21 111 Michigan St
3 3 29 106 North Carolina
4 1 31 120 Kansas
5 1 32 85 Oklahoma
6 1 32 120 Oklahoma St
7 12 32 112 Texas
8 1 32 120 Baylor
9 15 32 118 Kansas St
10 1 35 91 Ohio State
11 5 35 117 Illinois
12 11 35 91 Penn State
13 5 35 99 Purdue
14 10 36 106 Wake Forest
15 4 36 102 South Carolina
16 5 37 91 Northwestern
17 2 37 120 Stanford
18 2 37 115 Washington
19 7 37 99 Southern California
20 5 38 114 Minnesota
21 3 39 120 North Carolina St
22 10 39 116 Clemson
23 2 41 116 Arizona St
24 10 42 87 Temple
25 4 44 102 Tennessee

The NCAA SOS is about as worthless as you can get.



   _____

From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of John Martin
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:18 PM
To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Big Ten dominates NCAA's list of toughest
schedules



That's what I don't like about these schedule ranking systems.  I think that
basing it on cumulative records of opponents faced is a bit absurd.

Based on that the following is true.

1.  TCU is a harder opponent than Florida State.
2.  Boise State, Toledo, and Rutgers are the same difficulty as Florida and
Ohio State.
3.  All of these schools are better than Notre Dame.

Uh....Yeah.....I don't think that's going to work NCAA.  Here we are again
with these institutions of higher learning who can't figure out some math.
Yeah, it's a little difficult, but really doesn't college football generate
zillions of dollars every year.  Can't some of that money go to developing a
decent rating system that included a proper SOS?

John Martin

----- Original Message -----
   From: Trader Kevin
   To: BCS
   Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:01 PM
   Subject: [collegebcs] Big Ten dominates NCAA's list of toughest schedules


   http://tinyurl.com/89hb4

   1) Oklahoma
   2) Michigan
   3) Stanford
   4) The Ohio State
   5) Arkansas
   6) Florida
   7) North Carolina
   8) Penn State
   9) Tennessee
   10) Kansas
   11) Minnesota
   12) South Florida
   13) Northwestern
   14) North Carolina State
   15) Washington State
   16) Georgia Tech
   17) Virginia Tech
   18) Oklahoma State
   19) Texas A&M
   20t) Illinois
   20t) Southern California

   Texas is 28th. Notre Dame is 69th.





   __________________________________
   Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
   http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







SPONSORED LINKS


Colleges
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
and universities

American
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Coll
eges+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabil
ia+football&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17
tA>  college and university

Sports
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+f
ootball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
memorabilia football


Football
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
sports equipment







   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "collegebcs
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's what I don't like about these schedule ranking systems.  I think that
basing it on cumulative records of opponents faced is a bit absurd.

Based on that the following is true.

1.  TCU is a harder opponent than Florida State.
2.  Boise State, Toledo, and Rutgers are the same difficulty as Florida and Ohio
State.
3.  All of these schools are better than Notre Dame.

Uh....Yeah.....I don't think that's going to work NCAA.  Here we are again with
these institutions of higher learning who can't figure out some math.  Yeah,
it's a little difficult, but really doesn't college football generate zillions
of dollars every year.  Can't some of that money go to developing a decent
rating system that included a proper SOS?

John Martin

----- Original Message -----
   From: Trader Kevin
   To: BCS
   Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:01 PM
   Subject: [collegebcs] Big Ten dominates NCAA's list of toughest schedules


   http://tinyurl.com/89hb4

   1) Oklahoma
   2) Michigan
   3) Stanford
   4) The Ohio State
   5) Arkansas
   6) Florida
   7) North Carolina
   8) Penn State
   9) Tennessee
   10) Kansas
   11) Minnesota
   12) South Florida
   13) Northwestern
   14) North Carolina State
   15) Washington State
   16) Georgia Tech
   17) Virginia Tech
   18) Oklahoma State
   19) Texas A&M
   20t) Illinois
   20t) Southern California

   Texas is 28th. Notre Dame is 69th.





   __________________________________
   Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
   http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://tinyurl.com/89hb4

1) Oklahoma
2) Michigan
3) Stanford
4) The Ohio State
5) Arkansas
6) Florida
7) North Carolina
8) Penn State
9) Tennessee
10) Kansas
11) Minnesota
12) South Florida
13) Northwestern
14) North Carolina State
15) Washington State
16) Georgia Tech
17) Virginia Tech
18) Oklahoma State
19) Texas A&M
20t) Illinois
20t) Southern California

Texas is 28th. Notre Dame is 69th.





__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Sorry for the delayed response.  I had to dig some to verify some
facts.  A quick search revealed that many of the news articles which
reported on this issue are not longer available online.  But I made an
attempt to respond below.  And I apologize for those readers who got a
belly full of this debate last year.  You know were the delete key is:)

John Martin wrote:

> Just because voters changed their votes doesn't constitute foul play.
>
> True, but when Mack Brown goes out an publicly lobbies for votes and
> votes are then changed, it creates the *impression* that foul play
> happened.

Impressions can be, and often are, wrong.  Remember, half the people are
of below average intelligence (or median to be more precise).  That is a
joke of course; but it is also a fact.

Another fact is that indeed Cal lost ground in the AP poll after the A&M
game and Mack's pleas.  They lost 5 total points, to cut there _lead_
over Texas to 85.  Where did those points came from is a little more
interesting.  Before the AnM game and Mack's pleas all 5 Tx writers had
Cal over Tx.  Afterwards only 2 did; so 3 flipped.  In all 3 cases the 2
teams were ranked adjacent to each other both before and after, so not a
big flip and easily justifiable based solely on the game.  And about
enough points to account for the 5 points that Cal lost in that poll.

Additionally, McCready moved Texas from #9 to #6, just below Cal.  Now I
would bet most poll watchers would think that was an appropriate
correction of an unjustifiable prior vote, but that's just my opinion.
There may have been other vote changes but none that affected the
Cal-Texas relationship in those 2 polls as far as I could tell.

Now in all this voting it isn't possible to determine if it was the
Texas victory over a #25 ranked AnM or Mack's pleas that won the AP
voters over.  We will never know that one I suspect.

Another fact is that Texas lost ground to Cal in the coaches poll after
his plea following the A&M game.  That's right, they lost ground after
the plea; Cal picked up 9 points.  Did the plea back-fire?  Was the
victory over AnM insufficient?  Who knows, maybe neither, either or both.

So, when both human polls weighed in after Mack's pleas and the AnM
victory, the spread between Cal and Texas actually increased.  And the
votes that changed were not drastic and were completely justifiable
based on the victory over a top 25 team that went to the Cotton Bowl.
The vote changes were mostly a swap between 2 adjacent teams and 1 voter
coming to his senses and admitting as much.

My guess is that what sunk Cal was the computers where the
Texas-over-Cal spread increased after the AnM game.  All the computers
favored Cal over Texas the last 2 polls before the bowls.  I stated as
much in these forums last year.  I suspect that SOS played a part in that.

And Cal took a bigger BCS hit after the So Miss game if I'm not mistaken.

If you were to give the final pre-bowl 2004 BCS rankings to any
reasonable person on the street (above the median of course:)) and ask
them to determine why Cal is ranked below Texas despite being ranked
above them in the human polls, they would tell you it was the computers;
straight forward.

> Remember, Jeff Tedford wasn't stumping for votes.

Maybe he wasn't, but both Stoops and Tuberville were.  Coaches sometimes
do that for their kids/teams.  At least they used to, but after last
year maybe they will be reluctant to do it.  I really feel that Brown
felt bad for his seniors.  Remember they had lost 4 straight to OU and
had narrow misses with the BCS in recent years.   And contrary to
Roger's stipulation, Mack is not classless, few head coaches are at that
level.

> The majority of people who follow college football think that Cal got
> a raw deal.

Are you speaking of the shaft that the BCS administers annually to some
deserving team(s)?  Or is this a continuation of the unethical voter
argument?  I agree with the former.  As Mack Brown said, Cal also
deserved a BCS bowl; there were just not enough to go around.  And of
course your statement is just your opinion (or is this another
"impression" thing?).

> I believe that if you ran a statistical distribution of voting
> patterns for the last 20 years, last year's final vote would have
> deviated substantially from the mean.

Then do it.  Just saying it doesn't make it fact.  Also, see above about
the voting.

> That's why the subject came up in the first place.  The voting WAS
> strange.

Not the vote you brought up; at least not that I could tell with a quick
look.

> If you don't believe that, just call up any sports talk show outside
> of Texas and talk to the call screener.

Yeah, sports talk shows, that's where I get my undeniable facts for
sure.  And I think I can guess which side of the median most of those
folks fall on:)  Sorry for the sarcasm, I just don't think much of
sports talk show hosts or announcers.  They are entertainers, not
football statistics experts.

And I agree, some of the human votes did appear to be
unjustifiable.....before the A&M game.  Four AP voters had Texas down
around 7-9!?  Some had Utah between Cal and Texas, sup with that?  The
few changes that occurred later were detailed above, and Cal was still
rated a notch above Texas.  That's important to note, the human polls
actually had Cal on Top.  And 3 voters still had Texas at #7.

I won't bother to go into the SOS, and how many ranked teams each
played, and the strength of the respective conferences, unless you want to.

>
>
> I could make a similar argument about the voters who had UT way down
> the list where they didn't belong.  By all means, please do.

I did, above.

> Since you asked for an expanded statement and were provided one,

Yes, but short on facts.  Opinion just won't work when calling someone
out or claiming superiority of your team, or claiming the voting was
fixed.  I've tried to be factual with what data I could find quickly.
Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

> I'd like to ask the same of you.  Please let us know which voters had
> UT "way down the list."

I named one, and I can furnish the other names if you really need them,
they're in the public domain.

> If you can provide the information to corroborate your statement, you
> could disprove this whole theory.

Again, Neal McCready, Mobile Register, had Texas ranked #9 in the AP
poll just before the AnM game and Mack's pleas.  That was the lowest
Texas was ranked, and he was the only voter to rank them there.  When
the Austin American Statesman made the AP votes public he caught a lot
of <very bad word>.  He admitted that he only saw Texas in one game, the OU
game,
and voted them #9 based on that 1 game.  He later moved them up to #5, a
notch below Cal.  3 other AP voters had Texas at #7; they didn't change
their votes after the AnM game or Mack's pleas.

>
>
> I can't help but wonder how you would argue had the shoe been on the
> other foot.
>
> Believe it or not, this list isn't out to get Texas.

Maybe not, but the "impression" you leave is just that.

> Frankly, I could care less about where Cal plays or Texas plays.  I
> thought it was a great change of pace to have Texas in the Rose Bowl
> and it was a great game, but that doesn't change the fact that the
> voting system deviated in a very strange manner the last two weeks of
> the season.

I only addressed the polls before and after the AnM game with Mack's
pleas.  That was the pertinent time span for Mack's pleas affecting the
voting; and the polls you originally questioned.

>
> You have asked a lot of questions and were provided a lot of answers.

Not that many questions.  I just sought supporting facts for statements
that I thought were in error.  And I was provided mostly opinions.

> The ball is in your court.  It is up to you now to prove your case and
> back up your statements.  I really would like to see the other side of
> the argument, but you need to back up your statements with some facts.

Tag your it:)

>
> John Martin


You can read up some at these links:

http://www.dailytoreador.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/08/41b6720bbc91a
http://sports.intertext.com/archives/001199.html
alt.sports.college.utexas Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:45:35 GMT

I admit, not the best of supporting documents and to be taken with a
grain of salt, but many of the good references I read about were no
longer available.  The newsgroup post (cut-n-paste actually) is
interesting, but I didn't attempt to verify all of the calculations and
information, and the source is very biased.  However, I recognize much
of that post as being factual.


>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Donna & Norman Boyd
>   To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:11 PM
>   Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: Pac 10 exposure and the Holiday Bowl
>
>
>   Just because voters changed their votes doesn't constitute foul
> play.  I
>   could make a similar argument about the voters who had UT way down the
>   list where they didn't belong.  And I have seen as many arguments for
>   the outcome as against it.  I can't help but wonder how you would argue
>   had the shoe been on the other foot.  The problem was not the
> voters, it
>   was/is the system.
>
>   Michael Stehlin wrote:
>
>   >I believe it has been documented that several voters dropped Cal
> from 4 to
>   >7, 8 or so in order to boost Texas just enough to secure the
> guarenteed BCS
>   >spot that Cal had held until the polls dropped them.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >>From: Donna & Norman Boyd <theboyd@...>
>   >>Reply-To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>   >>To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>   >>Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: Pac 10 exposure and the Holiday Bowl
>   >>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:42:19 -0500
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>"...up til a few voters fudged the system."
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>Since you and others persist in claiming foul play last year,
> would you
>   >>
>   >>care to expand on your statement above?
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>Michael Stehlin wrote:
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>>I think the problem with the PAC and not having an ESPN deal is that
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>obviously they are not going to play in the noon slot due to time
> zone
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>differences. The late game around 3:30 or the early evening and nite
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>games(6:45, 7:45) Im sure are a matter of ratings. Far more
> people will
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>watch the SEC  or the B10 play in those slots. I dont know the exact
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>demographics but that would be my guess.
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>Also, the Holiday Bowl is one of my favorites. I can't agree that
> it's
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>always a consolation prize that is hard to get up for...but last
> year it
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>was
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>>for Cal due to their season and the fact it looked like they were
> going
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>to
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>>Pasadena right up til a few voters fudged the system. Other years
> that
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>destination is welcomed by the participants and offers a great
> matchup.
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>>From: "Jason Maxwell" <jrobertm@...>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Reply-To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Subject: [collegebcs] Re: Pac 10 exposure and the Holiday Bowl
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:19:37 -0000
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, "brotherdrew" <brotherdrew@y...>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>wrote:
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>>The bigger issue is not just that after the Rose Bowl the
> Pac-10 has
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>the worst set of Bowl arrangements of any other conference...it is
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>also that the Pac-10 has the worst set of TV deals amongst the
> major
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>conferences.
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>>
>   >>>>Good god, I find myself completely agreeing with a Coug.  Something
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>seriously wrong with that.  BTW, how's that dry caompus thing
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>going? ;)  This problem in some ways has probably contributed to the
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>reluctance of the Pac-10 and Rose Bowl to completely endorse a bowl
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>restructuring.  When your ONLY good bowl is the Rose Bowl, why would
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>you do anything to upset the apple cart?
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>The Pac-10 needs to get a better 2nd place bowl, one of the New
> Year's
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Day ones.  Then slide the rest of the bowl contracts down one notch
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>(Holiday 3rd, Sun 4th, etc.).
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Why doesn't the Pac-10 have a TV contract with ESPN?  They have one
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>with ABC and their both owned by Disney, so it's not a competition
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>thing.  A late afternoon/evening game on ESPN would go a long way in
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>getting the Pac-10 some more coverage.
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>Jason
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>    SPONSORED LINKS
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>        Colleges and universities
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>        American college and university
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>        Sports memorabilia football
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>        Football sports equipment
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>   Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>>
>   >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>   Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.
>   >>
>   >>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   >> collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   >>
>   >>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >Yahoo! Groups Links
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>   SPONSORED LINKS Colleges and universities  American college and
> university  Sports memorabilia football
>         Football sports equipment
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     a..  Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.
>
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Colleges and universities
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
>  American college and university
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Colleges\
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+footb\
all&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>
>  Sports memorabilia football
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+and\
+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&\
w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
>
> Football sports equipment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If anyone has access to the print edition of the Los Angeles Daily News,
please contact me offline at jppalm@....  Doesn't matter which
day, but the more recent, the better.



Thanks!



***

Jerry P. Palm

Schererville, IN

CollegeBCS.com and CollegeRPI.com

Currently blogging at http://palmreadings.blogspot.com



Is this the real life?  Is this just fantasy?







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ironically, after Tyrone started 8-0 and ND printed up about 8 zillion "Return
to Glory" t-shirts, he didn't get a ten year contract extension.  I guess the
powers that be at ND really do know a great coach from a fraud.  As an SC fan, I
hate to say it, but ND is back.  Now all I can do is pray that Weis can't
recruit because if he's actually able to land some talent....... SCARY!

John Martin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

2003: Oklahoma State leads Texas 16-7. Longhorns score a
touchdown late in the first half and outscores the Cowboys
41-0 after the intermission to win going away, 55-16.

2004: Oklahoma State leads Texas 35-7. Longhorns score a
touchdown on the final play of the first half and outscores
the Cowboys 42-0 after the intermission to win going away,
56-35.

2005: Oklahoma State leads Texas 28-6. Longhorns kick a
field goal on the final play of first half and outscores
the Cowboys 35-0 after the intermission to win going away,
47-28.






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

I guess Notre Dame likes what they've seen from Charlie
Weis: http://tinyurl.com/79jc2






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

I'm guessing that these sophisticated MOV systems were developed in Las
Vegas?


Marc Sulfridge wrote:

> Systems that use MOV almost universally do so based on a diminishing
> return
> scale.  So if the system awards some sort of "points" for MOV, it might
> award 1 point for a 1 point victory, 1.9 for a 2 point victory, 2.7
> points
> for a 3 point victory, 5.2 points for a 7 point victory, 7.7 points
> for a 14
> point victory, 8.9 points for a 21 point victory, etc.  This system would
> never award more than 10 points for a victory, no matter how big the
> MOV, so
> there is very little incentive to RUTS much beyond 21.  This is a simple
> example, but it illustrates the point.
>
> Really good systems not only have a diminishing return on MOV, but
> they also
> take into account how many total points are scored, so as not to be
> biased
> against strongly defensive teams.  In such a system, a 14 to 10 victory
> would be awarded more "points" than a 56 to 52 victory, even though they
> have the same MOV.
>
> Systems such as Sagarin's and Massey's original, non-"politically
> correct"
> systems were highly sophisticated in these regards.  Unfortunately, the
> sytems that these two now use are far more volatile, and (I believe) far
> less accurate in ranking college football teams.  What's really funny is
> that the computer systems that are currently used in the BCS were chosen
> because they were believed to be quite good, and yet after only a
> couple of
> years, they were forced to change.
>
> -Marc
>
> >From: Donna & Norman Boyd <theboyd@...>
> >Reply-To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
> >To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: Knight-Ridder article "BCS Computers
> Aren't
> >Adding  Up"
> >Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:54:33 -0500
> >
> >" Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
> >past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
> >worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies. "
> >
> >Do you recall how much weight it was given when used?  I can't believe
> >that if it was a significant weighting that coaches would not react with
> >more points, especially if they were borderline BCS.
> >
> >Mark Stang wrote:
> >
> > > Leaving aside the behavioral arguments for a second, from a pure
> > > philosophical point of view, ignoring MOV is ignorant.  IF you are
> > > designing a model for ranking something and purposely leave out not
> > > only revelant data sets, but the perhaps one of the most relevant data
> > > sets, your model will suffer.
> > >
> > > This is obvious.  We all see the arguments here, and around the sports
> > > world, that when Team A waxes Team B, and Team C barely beats Team B,
> > > that Team A must be better than Team C.  And this is surely common
> > > sense.  It's not the only thing to consider, but it should be
> > > considered.
> > >
> > > And anyway, the most important part of the BCS, the human polls,
> > > certainly take MOV into account, since none of the voters can watch
> > > more than highlights of the games, and the scores are really the only
> > > thing they have to go on.
> > >
> > > Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
> > > past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
> > > worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies.
> > >
> > > --- Boyd <theboyd@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If MOV were used everything would be different.  A lot of weaker
> > > > teams would
> > > > be humiliated even worse than they already are, a lot of first
> string
> > > >
> > > > players would stay in the game longer so stats would be more
> > > > impressive (and
> > > > maybe there would be more injuries), and a lot of coaches would be
> > > > making
> > > > enemies of other coaches.  Though MOV is a good predictor, it
> doesn't
> > > > follow
> > > > that it is necessarily a good thing to make it a determining factor
> > > > in BCS
> > > > bowl appearances.  I dislike the major powers playing 2nd tier
> > > > schools
> > > > already, I would dislike it more if they were forced to put up
> points
> > > > to
> > > > ensure a high ranking; and I'm sure some coaches would not like it
> > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Mark Stang writes:
> > > > Of course, with MOV involved, I bet USC would be ranked higher
> > > > in the computer rankings.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> > > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > Colleges and universities
> > >
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+\
universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w\
4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>>
> > >       American college and university
> > >
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=College\
s+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foot\
ball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Colleges\
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+footb\
all&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>>
> > >       Sports memorabilia football
> > >
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+an\
d+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football\
&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+and\
+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&\
w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>>
> > >
> > > Football sports equipment
> > >
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+\
universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w\
4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
> > >       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
> > >
> > >     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> ><mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Colleges and universities
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
>  American college and university
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Colleges\
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+footb\
all&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>
>  Sports memorabilia football
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+and\
+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&\
w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
>
> Football sports equipment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thx for the recap Jeff.


Jeff Imes wrote:

> It wasn't an explicit part of the equation, but computer systems were
> allowed to figure it into their algorithms towards their ratings.  Most,
> if not all, capped the MOV to one degree or another so that RUTS'ing was
> discounted.
>
> However, the BCS committee decided to force computers to remove it from
> their ratings after Nebraska made the BCS title game in 2001 (played in
> Jan 2002) without having even won their own conference.  Nebraska had
> gone 11-1 going into the Rose Bowl and had beaten their opponents by an
> average of 37.4-15.8 per game, but had been pummeled by Colorado in
> their regular season finale by 62-36, and lost their berth to the Big12
> conference championship as a result.  Despite that loss, those numbers
> were still adequate enough for a title berth, but Oregon and Colorado
> cried foul for not getting in, having gone 10-1 and 10-2 prior to their
> bowl game, respectively, and both having won their conferences.
> However, neither team's stats were as good as Nebraska's, with Oregon's
> pre-bowl game stats being 34.0-21.8 and Colorado's being 33.0-23.3.
>
> So the BCS' reaction was not to correct the bigger problem that Nebraska
> shouldn't have been eligible because they did not even win their
> conference, but instead they chose to attack the computers for what
> amounted to having "too many stats involved, causing some teams to look
> better than others" (it's incredible when you think about what this
> actually means).  When told to change, some of the BCS computers dropped
> out altogether and those that did change have not been as consistent
> since then (Kenneth Massey in particular, where his unadulterated
> ratings are far more consistent and relevant than the Massey BCS
> ratings, IMHO).  It's notable that the BCS still hasn't fixed this issue
> and that it happened again in 2003, when OU lost the Big12 championship
> game, but still played in the BCS title game vs. LSU.
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> Donna & Norman Boyd wrote:
>
> >" Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
> >past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
> >worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies. "
> >
> >Do you recall how much weight it was given when used?  I can't believe
> >that if it was a significant weighting that coaches would not react with
> >more points, especially if they were borderline BCS.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Colleges and universities
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
>  American college and university
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Colleges\
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+footb\
all&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>
>  Sports memorabilia football
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+and\
+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&\
w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
>
> Football sports equipment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Systems that use MOV almost universally do so based on a diminishing return
scale.  So if the system awards some sort of "points" for MOV, it might
award 1 point for a 1 point victory, 1.9 for a 2 point victory, 2.7 points
for a 3 point victory, 5.2 points for a 7 point victory, 7.7 points for a 14
point victory, 8.9 points for a 21 point victory, etc.  This system would
never award more than 10 points for a victory, no matter how big the MOV, so
there is very little incentive to RUTS much beyond 21.  This is a simple
example, but it illustrates the point.

Really good systems not only have a diminishing return on MOV, but they also
take into account how many total points are scored, so as not to be biased
against strongly defensive teams.  In such a system, a 14 to 10 victory
would be awarded more "points" than a 56 to 52 victory, even though they
have the same MOV.

Systems such as Sagarin's and Massey's original, non-"politically correct"
systems were highly sophisticated in these regards.  Unfortunately, the
sytems that these two now use are far more volatile, and (I believe) far
less accurate in ranking college football teams.  What's really funny is
that the computer systems that are currently used in the BCS were chosen
because they were believed to be quite good, and yet after only a couple of
years, they were forced to change.

-Marc

>From: Donna & Norman Boyd <theboyd@...>
>Reply-To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: Knight-Ridder article "BCS Computers Aren't
>Adding  Up"
>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:54:33 -0500
>
>" Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
>past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
>worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies. "
>
>Do you recall how much weight it was given when used?  I can't believe
>that if it was a significant weighting that coaches would not react with
>more points, especially if they were borderline BCS.
>
>Mark Stang wrote:
>
> > Leaving aside the behavioral arguments for a second, from a pure
> > philosophical point of view, ignoring MOV is ignorant.  IF you are
> > designing a model for ranking something and purposely leave out not
> > only revelant data sets, but the perhaps one of the most relevant data
> > sets, your model will suffer.
> >
> > This is obvious.  We all see the arguments here, and around the sports
> > world, that when Team A waxes Team B, and Team C barely beats Team B,
> > that Team A must be better than Team C.  And this is surely common
> > sense.  It's not the only thing to consider, but it should be
> > considered.
> >
> > And anyway, the most important part of the BCS, the human polls,
> > certainly take MOV into account, since none of the voters can watch
> > more than highlights of the games, and the scores are really the only
> > thing they have to go on.
> >
> > Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
> > past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
> > worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies.
> >
> > --- Boyd <theboyd@...> wrote:
> >
> > > If MOV were used everything would be different.  A lot of weaker
> > > teams would
> > > be humiliated even worse than they already are, a lot of first string
> > >
> > > players would stay in the game longer so stats would be more
> > > impressive (and
> > > maybe there would be more injuries), and a lot of coaches would be
> > > making
> > > enemies of other coaches.  Though MOV is a good predictor, it doesn't
> > > follow
> > > that it is necessarily a good thing to make it a determining factor
> > > in BCS
> > > bowl appearances.  I dislike the major powers playing 2nd tier
> > > schools
> > > already, I would dislike it more if they were forced to put up points
> > > to
> > > ensure a high ranking; and I'm sure some coaches would not like it
> > > either.
> > >
> > > Mark Stang writes:
> > > Of course, with MOV involved, I bet USC would be ranked higher
> > > in the computer rankings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Colleges and universities
> >
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+\
universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w\
4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
> >  American college and university
> >
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=College\
s+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foot\
ball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>
> >  Sports memorabilia football
> >
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+an\
d+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football\
&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
> >
> > Football sports equipment
> >
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+\
universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w\
4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
> >       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
> >
> >     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
><mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> >     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>

It wasn't an explicit part of the equation, but computer systems were
allowed to figure it into their algorithms towards their ratings.  Most,
if not all, capped the MOV to one degree or another so that RUTS'ing was
discounted.

However, the BCS committee decided to force computers to remove it from
their ratings after Nebraska made the BCS title game in 2001 (played in
Jan 2002) without having even won their own conference.  Nebraska had
gone 11-1 going into the Rose Bowl and had beaten their opponents by an
average of 37.4-15.8 per game, but had been pummeled by Colorado in
their regular season finale by 62-36, and lost their berth to the Big12
conference championship as a result.  Despite that loss, those numbers
were still adequate enough for a title berth, but Oregon and Colorado
cried foul for not getting in, having gone 10-1 and 10-2 prior to their
bowl game, respectively, and both having won their conferences.
However, neither team's stats were as good as Nebraska's, with Oregon's
pre-bowl game stats being 34.0-21.8 and Colorado's being 33.0-23.3.

So the BCS' reaction was not to correct the bigger problem that Nebraska
shouldn't have been eligible because they did not even win their
conference, but instead they chose to attack the computers for what
amounted to having "too many stats involved, causing some teams to look
better than others" (it's incredible when you think about what this
actually means).  When told to change, some of the BCS computers dropped
out altogether and those that did change have not been as consistent
since then (Kenneth Massey in particular, where his unadulterated
ratings are far more consistent and relevant than the Massey BCS
ratings, IMHO).  It's notable that the BCS still hasn't fixed this issue
and that it happened again in 2003, when OU lost the Big12 championship
game, but still played in the BCS title game vs. LSU.

--Jeff


Donna & Norman Boyd wrote:

>" Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
>past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
>worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies. "
>
>Do you recall how much weight it was given when used?  I can't believe
>that if it was a significant weighting that coaches would not react with
>more points, especially if they were borderline BCS.
>
>

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Chris Lawrence <chris@l...> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/05, Jerry Palm <jppalm@y...> wrote:
> > I can't imagine anything more uninformed than this.
>
> Mind you, the main reason why the computers spit out garbage rankings
...
OK, if you think that, please explain why the human polls spit out
garbage rankings....

" Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies. "

Do you recall how much weight it was given when used?  I can't believe
that if it was a significant weighting that coaches would not react with
more points, especially if they were borderline BCS.

Mark Stang wrote:

> Leaving aside the behavioral arguments for a second, from a pure
> philosophical point of view, ignoring MOV is ignorant.  IF you are
> designing a model for ranking something and purposely leave out not
> only revelant data sets, but the perhaps one of the most relevant data
> sets, your model will suffer.
>
> This is obvious.  We all see the arguments here, and around the sports
> world, that when Team A waxes Team B, and Team C barely beats Team B,
> that Team A must be better than Team C.  And this is surely common
> sense.  It's not the only thing to consider, but it should be
> considered.
>
> And anyway, the most important part of the BCS, the human polls,
> certainly take MOV into account, since none of the voters can watch
> more than highlights of the games, and the scores are really the only
> thing they have to go on.
>
> Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
> past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
> worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies.
>
> --- Boyd <theboyd@...> wrote:
>
> > If MOV were used everything would be different.  A lot of weaker
> > teams would
> > be humiliated even worse than they already are, a lot of first string
> >
> > players would stay in the game longer so stats would be more
> > impressive (and
> > maybe there would be more injuries), and a lot of coaches would be
> > making
> > enemies of other coaches.  Though MOV is a good predictor, it doesn't
> > follow
> > that it is necessarily a good thing to make it a determining factor
> > in BCS
> > bowl appearances.  I dislike the major powers playing 2nd tier
> > schools
> > already, I would dislike it more if they were forced to put up points
> > to
> > ensure a high ranking; and I'm sure some coaches would not like it
> > either.
> >
> > Mark Stang writes:
> > Of course, with MOV involved, I bet USC would be ranked higher
> > in the computer rankings.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Colleges and universities
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
>  American college and university
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Colleges\
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+footb\
all&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17tA>
>  Sports memorabilia football
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges+and\
+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&\
w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
>
> Football sports equipment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+and+u\
niversities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+football&w4\
=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "collegebcs
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs>" on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Leaving aside the behavioral arguments for a second, from a pure
philosophical point of view, ignoring MOV is ignorant.  IF you are
designing a model for ranking something and purposely leave out not
only revelant data sets, but the perhaps one of the most relevant data
sets, your model will suffer.

This is obvious.  We all see the arguments here, and around the sports
world, that when Team A waxes Team B, and Team C barely beats Team B,
that Team A must be better than Team C.  And this is surely common
sense.  It's not the only thing to consider, but it should be
considered.

And anyway, the most important part of the BCS, the human polls,
certainly take MOV into account, since none of the voters can watch
more than highlights of the games, and the scores are really the only
thing they have to go on.

Now as to the behavorial arguments, MOV was included in the BCS in the
past.  I don't recall seeing the run-up-the-score (RUTS) phenomena any
worse then than it is now.   And Teams are still scheduling patsies.

--- Boyd <theboyd@...> wrote:

> If MOV were used everything would be different.  A lot of weaker
> teams would
> be humiliated even worse than they already are, a lot of first string
>
> players would stay in the game longer so stats would be more
> impressive (and
> maybe there would be more injuries), and a lot of coaches would be
> making
> enemies of other coaches.  Though MOV is a good predictor, it doesn't
> follow
> that it is necessarily a good thing to make it a determining factor
> in BCS
> bowl appearances.  I dislike the major powers playing 2nd tier
> schools
> already, I would dislike it more if they were forced to put up points
> to
> ensure a high ranking; and I'm sure some coaches would not like it
> either.
>
> Mark Stang writes:
> Of course, with MOV involved, I bet USC would be ranked higher
> in the computer rankings.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home
> page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/nRUolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Cal is way overrated by the AP, coaches, and Harris polls.  Their
schedule is incredibly weak, and even so, they lost their only two games
against teams with winning records and then barely made it past Wazzu
last weekend.  I expect Cal to get thoroughly thumped next week and the
week after when they travel to Oregon and then host USC, and may not
even beat Stanford at the end of the year.

--Jeff


Jason Maxwell wrote:

>Oregon?  Cal?  Both ranked in the top 25 of both polls and the BCS.
>That's 4 of 10 in the top 25.  Seems like some won't be happy until the
>whole Pac-10 is in the top 25... ;)
>
>

Purdue never plays well at Penn St, even when they're good.  PSU will name the
score.

--- Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:


> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
> p.s. Jerry, does Purdue have any chance against PSU? Seems
> like it's asking an awful lot of Painter to make just his
> second career start againt the PSU defense in Happy Vally.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>


*********************************************
* Jerry Palm       *                        *
* CollegeRPI.com   * Is this the real life? *
* CollegeBCS.com   * Is this just fantasy?  *
* Schererville, IN *                        *
*********************************************

Trader Kevin: "Who in the world could possibly be the Big
Least's at-large candidate?"

Jerry Palm: "Sorry. I meant major conferences, of course."

LOL! Touché!

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Of course, the other problem (at least, if you're a USC fan) is that
> the Pac-10 outside of LA might as well be the WAC or Sunbelt this
> year.
>
Oregon?  Cal?  Both ranked in the top 25 of both polls and the BCS.
That's 4 of 10 in the top 25.  Seems like some won't be happy until the
whole Pac-10 is in the top 25... ;)

Jason

If MOV were used everything would be different.  A lot of weaker teams would
be humiliated even worse than they already are, a lot of first string
players would stay in the game longer so stats would be more impressive (and
maybe there would be more injuries), and a lot of coaches would be making
enemies of other coaches.  Though MOV is a good predictor, it doesn't follow
that it is necessarily a good thing to make it a determining factor in BCS
bowl appearances.  I dislike the major powers playing 2nd tier schools
already, I would dislike it more if they were forced to put up points to
ensure a high ranking; and I'm sure some coaches would not like it either.

Mark Stang writes:
Of course, with MOV involved, I bet USC would be ranked higher
in the computer rankings.

Jerry Palm:

>> Mental Freudian slip: When I first read this, I thought
it said, "In the immoral words of Bill Clinton." <<

If the shoe fits...

Any progress on identifying a Big Least at-large candidate?

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

p.s. Jerry, does Purdue have any chance against PSU? Seems
like it's asking an awful lot of Painter to make just his
second career start againt the PSU defense in Happy Vally.






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Miami is a bad at-large candidate, especially at 9-2.  They just don't draw.
VT for the Sugar could happen, but they were just there last year.



   _____

From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of K C
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:16 PM
To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [collegebcs] Let the at-large debate begin



What about a 9-2 Miami or a 10-1 VaTech? (Depending on which team gets to
beat FSU in the ACC Championship)

--- Jerry Palm <jppalm@...> wrote:

> ND at 9-2 is in.  Everything else is wide open.  Every conference has an
> at-large candidate, and a lot of it depends on who makes the Rose Bowl.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of huskysd
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:07 AM
> To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [collegebcs] Let the at-large debate begin
>
>
>
> Jerry and all,
>
> Is it too early to start talk about BCS at-large bids? Specifically,
> if a 10-0 USC team faces a 10-0 UCLA team on Dec 3, what are the
> chances of both teams getting to a BCS bowl game given the fact that
> one of them will end at 10-1? Is the fact that the one loss came at
> the end of the season going to have a more serious effect?
>
> I would think that a 10-1 USC team (with the loss to UCLA) would
> still likely be in the top 4 of the BCS and thus get an automatic BCS
> berth. But would a 10-1 UCLA team (with the one loss to USC) be in
> the BCS mix? I realize the 10-1 UCLA team would still likely be in
> the top 12 and BCS eligible, but with the Rose Bowl the Nat'l
> Championship game, I would think only the Fiesta would want to take
> UCLA as an at-large due to geographic reasons and match-up issues.
>
> Probably the biggest issue would be how far pollsters would drop UCLA
> if they lost to USC. If UCLA got to, say, #4 and lost a close game to
> the #1 team, how far do you drop that team? Personally, I wouldn't
> drop them more than 1 spot if they play well.
>
> I see the biggest at-large thorn to be Notre Dame. As long as ND
> stays BCS eligible, they're going to a BCS game. That would leave one
> spot for UCLA, the SEC #2 team, Florida St., and maybe a Penn
> St./Wisconsin if they win out and don't win the Big 10. Again, the
> scenario could be even worse if Florida St beats Va Tech in the ACC
> championship game. I would think a 1 loss Va Tech team would be a
> very strong BCS at-large candidate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> *      Visit your group "collegebcs
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.
>
> *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


KCCookieman12@...

test'; ">

test'; ">




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com





   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "collegebcs
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What about a 9-2 Miami or a 10-1 VaTech? (Depending on which team gets to
beat FSU in the ACC Championship)

--- Jerry Palm <jppalm@...> wrote:

> ND at 9-2 is in.  Everything else is wide open.  Every conference has an
> at-large candidate, and a lot of it depends on who makes the Rose Bowl.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of huskysd
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:07 AM
> To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [collegebcs] Let the at-large debate begin
>
>
>
> Jerry and all,
>
> Is it too early to start talk about BCS at-large bids? Specifically,
> if a 10-0 USC team faces a 10-0 UCLA team on Dec 3, what are the
> chances of both teams getting to a BCS bowl game given the fact that
> one of them will end at 10-1? Is the fact that the one loss came at
> the end of the season going to have a more serious effect?
>
> I would think that a 10-1 USC team (with the loss to UCLA) would
> still likely be in the top 4 of the BCS and thus get an automatic BCS
> berth. But would a 10-1 UCLA team (with the one loss to USC) be in
> the BCS mix? I realize the 10-1 UCLA team would still likely be in
> the top 12 and BCS eligible, but with the Rose Bowl the Nat'l
> Championship game, I would think only the Fiesta would want to take
> UCLA as an at-large due to geographic reasons and match-up issues.
>
> Probably the biggest issue would be how far pollsters would drop UCLA
> if they lost to USC. If UCLA got to, say, #4 and lost a close game to
> the #1 team, how far do you drop that team? Personally, I wouldn't
> drop them more than 1 spot if they play well.
>
> I see the biggest at-large thorn to be Notre Dame. As long as ND
> stays BCS eligible, they're going to a BCS game. That would leave one
> spot for UCLA, the SEC #2 team, Florida St., and maybe a Penn
> St./Wisconsin if they win out and don't win the Big 10. Again, the
> scenario could be even worse if Florida St beats Va Tech in the ACC
> championship game. I would think a 1 loss Va Tech team would be a
> very strong BCS at-large candidate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> *  Visit your group "collegebcs
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.
>
> *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


KCCookieman12@...

test'; ">

test'; ">




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Mental Freudian slip:  When I first read this, I thought it said, "In the
immoral words of Bill Clinton."



   _____

From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Trader Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:04 PM
To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Knight-Ridder article "BCS Computers Aren't Adding
Up"



Jeff Imes:

>>I'm sure there's quite a few of us on this forum that
would be willing to go toe-to-toe with the sports
writers.<<

In the immortal words of Bill Clinton, "Never pick a fight
with people who buy ink by the barrel."

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com





SPONSORED LINKS


Colleges
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
and universities

American
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Coll
eges+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabil
ia+football&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17
tA>  college and university

Sports
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+f
ootball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
memorabilia football


Football
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
sports equipment







   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "collegebcs
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually, stuff like this shows up every year.



   _____

From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mark Stang
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:51 PM
To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [collegebcs] Knight-Ridder article "BCS Computers Aren't Adding
Up"



Don't you remember the articles the first couple of years of the BCS?
This sounds just like that time.

--- Jerry Palm <jppalm@...> wrote:

> I can't imagine anything more uninformed than this.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com]
> On
> Behalf Of Jeff Imes
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:34 AM
> To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [collegebcs] Knight-Ridder article "BCS Computers Aren't
> Adding Up"
>
>
>
> **Story by Eric Gilmore of Knight-Ridder Newspapers
>
> =======================================
>
> "BCS Computers Aren't Adding Up"
> --------------------------------------
>
> Jeff Sagarin, take a bow. Peter Wolfe, pat yourself on the back.
> Richard
> Billingsley, you're the man. Kenneth Massey, two thumbs up. The rest
> of
> you computer geniuses who take part in the weekly Bowl Championship
> Series rankings, here's to you.
>
> I didn't think it was possible, but thanks in large part to you Bill
> Gates wannabes, the BCS got me again. Its latest rankings made my jaw
>
> drop and my eyes bulge.
>
> Considering the BCS's history of buffoonery and baffling rankings, I
> thought I was ready for anything.
>
> Then I saw that the BCS had moved Texas up one spot to No. 1 this
> week
> and dropped defending national champion USC to No. 2.
>
> Where's Ashton Kutcher? He must be hiding around the corner, waiting
> to
> laugh in my face and tell me I've been punked, that the latest BCS
> rankings are just part of an elaborate prank.
>
> USC is ranked No. 1 in the USA Today coaches' poll and the Harris
> Interactive poll, two of the three components in the BCS formula.
> Texas
> is No. 2 in both polls.
>
> If you believe the computers, the humans who vote in those polls
> don't
> know a football from a cue ball.
>
> Five of the six computers ranked Texas No. 1. The other computer
> ranked
> the Longhorns second.
>
> And USC? Well, only Sagarin's computer crunched its numbers and
> determined the Trojans were No. 1, one spot ahead of Texas.
>
> Wes Colley_he of the Colley Matrix_fed data into his computer and
> ranked
> USC fifth, behind Texas, Alabama, Georgia and Virginia Tech.
>
> Massey's computer ranked USC fourth, behind Texas, Alabama and
> Virginia
> Tech.
>
> Here we go again. Computers trumping humans in the BCS rankings.
>
> It happened in 2003 when USC was ranked No. 1 in the USA Today and
> Associated Press polls but finished third in the final BCS rankings.
> Oklahoma and LSU played in the BCS title game that year.
>
> It happened in 2001 when Oregon was ranked No. 2 in both human polls
> but
> fourth in the BCS rankings. Miami played Nebraska_fourth in both
> polls_in the BCS championship game.
>
> We apparently can't get rid of the BCS_no matter how hard we lobby
> for a
> true playoff system.
>
> So maybe we can at least get the BCS to pull the plugs on these
> computers. Better yet, give sledgehammers to all the players and
> coaches
> who have been hosed by these machines and let them have their
> revenge.
>
> I see two glaring problems when it comes to computer rankings and the
> BCS.
>
> One is that computer numbers carry far too much weight in the BCS
> rankings. Every year the BCS brass say they'll fix the problem. The
> problem still ain't fixed. If both polls say a team is No. 1, then
> that
> team should be No. 1. Period.
>
> The other problem is that these computer formulas seem flawed in many
> ways.
>
> I don't think it's a coincidence that the BCS saved its two lowest
> blows
> for Pac-10 teams, USC and Oregon.
>
> Strength of schedule is a huge component in these computer rankings.
> USC
> and Oregon were snubbed in large part because the Pac-10 was
> perceived
> to be weaker than conferences such as the Big 12 and Southeastern.
>
> You can't fight that type of bias.
>
> This time, those computers seem to think Texas' 7-0 record is
> significantly more impressive than USC's 7-0 mark.
>
> USC beat Oregon, Arizona State and Notre Dame - all on the road -
> when
> each was ranked.
>
> Texas' biggest wins came against Ohio State on the road, Texas Tech
> at
> home and Oklahoma at Dallas. This is clearly one of Oklahoma's worst
> teams in years. Ohio State is hardly special by its standards. Texas
> Tech is good but not great.
>
> I just don't see Texas' schedule being so strong that it deserves to
> vault over USC, a winner of 29 straight games.
>
> If you didn't know better, you'd think that Texas coach Mack Brown,
> who
> so shamelessly lobbied voters last year to Cal's detriment, had
> hacked
> into these BCS computers.
>
> A quick glance at this week's computer rankings tells you something's
> askew.
>
> Consider this example of BCS fuzzy math:
>
> Based on Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester's computer, Texas Tech (16th
> in
> the BCS rankings) ranks 24th. Colley ranks Tech 18th. Billingsley
> ranks
> it ninth. How can there be a 15-spot gap between two computers? That
> makes no sense. And the fact that they throw out the high and low
> scores
> doesn't fix all of these ills.
>
> BCS apologists tell us not to worry. They say USC will wind up back
> on
> top if they win out. That's because its schedule gets stronger with
> upcoming games against Cal, Fresno State and UCLA, all ranked among
> the
> Top 25 in the polls, while Texas' final four regular-season foes are
> unranked.
>
> Texas might want to watch its back, because Virginia Tech appears
> poised
> to make a computer-powered charge.
>
> Whatever happens, I won't be punked again.
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> *      Visit your group "collegebcs
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.
>
> *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home
> page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/nRUolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com





   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "collegebcs
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry.  I meant major conferences, of course.



   _____

From: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:collegebcs@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Trader Kevin
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:46 AM
To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [collegebcs] Let the at-large debate begin



Jerry Palm:

>> Every conference has an at-large candidate, and a lot of
it depends on who makes the Rose Bowl. <<

Who in the world could possibly be the Big Least's at-large
candidate?

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com





SPONSORED LINKS


Colleges
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Colleges+and+universities&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=PnD470iQlDLAjfHvfb4Tuw>
and universities

American
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=American+college+and+university&w1=Coll
eges+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabil
ia+football&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=M8ZX3ZttJvAKRjqPsv17
tA>  college and university

Sports
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sports+memorabilia+football&w1=Colleges
+and+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+f
ootball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=P-OM8dT77LKznQyvDt2bkA>
memorabilia football


Football
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Football+sports+equipment&w1=Colleges+a
nd+universities&w2=American+college+and+university&w3=Sports+memorabilia+foo
tball&w4=Football+sports+equipment&c=4&s=132&.sig=Aelb6q8VSeNB8yut-SVySw>
sports equipment







   _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



*  Visit your group "collegebcs
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegebcs> " on the web.

*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.



   _____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeff Imes:

>>I'm sure there's quite a few of us on this forum that
would be willing to go toe-to-toe with the sports
writers.<<

In the immortal words of Bill Clinton, "Never pick a fight
with people who buy ink by the barrel."

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Chris Lawrence <chris@...> wrote:

> On 10/28/05, Jerry Palm <jppalm@...> wrote:
> > I can't imagine anything more uninformed than this.
>
> Mind you, the main reason why the computers spit out garbage rankings
> is that the BCS weenies banned margin-of-victory from the
> calculations, in large part because of media whining--never mind that
> the human voters pay attention (almost slavishly, for the voters who
> only see the scores) to MOV.  Throw out MOV, and getting any
> algorithm
> based on pairwise comparisons to converge to anything useful
> (particularly without sticking your thumb on the scale--I suppose you
> could be Bayesian and stick a massive prior on USC being #1 to "fix"
> things) will be an inexact science until most of the season's done.

And even then, I am not convinced that even if we had completely random
schedules that a 12 game season among 119 teams provides enough data
points for a reliable pairwise ranking system.





__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

I think the most likely candidate would be the loser of an
Alabama/Georgia SEC championship, assuming both teams run the table on
the regular season.  Of course, that's a big if, since both teams having
2-3 very difficult matchups left (Bama has vs. LSU and @Auburn, and UGA
has Florida, Auburn, and @GaTech left).  LSU is a possible dark horse
candidate here, but with one loss already, they're either going to be in
as the SEC champion, or out if they suffer a second loss.

A possible alternative would be UCLA.  They're still undefeated as well
and only have one hard game on the schedule left, @USC, which even if
they run the table but lose that game, puts them at 10-1 and a strong
contender for the last BCS spot.  If they win out, then USC most likely
gets the at-large spot.

In the ACC, Miami or Florida State will likely have to win out,
including the ACC championship game to get a BCS bowl bid, as I can't
see a 2-loss team other than ND being eligible this year.  However, like
UCLA/USC, even if VT loses a game (only 1 game, mind you), they may
still get a bid, even if they don't play in the ACC championship game.
Was an impressive victory over BC last night -- Marcus Vick is the real
deal.

Outside of those teams, I can't see anyone else realistically having a
chance.  Everyone in the Big10 has some catching up to do and I just
can't see the 2nd place team overtaking these other teams unless some
big upsets happen.  PSU and Wisconsin match up next week as well and
like the others, the loser is probably out of the at-large picture with
two losses.  Similarly, OSU, NW, and Minnesota simply won't be able to
overcome their two losses each even if one of them should run the table.

The only possible scenario in the Big12 is if Texas wins their remaining
regular season games, but loses the Big12 championship and forces a
Big12 North team into a BCS bowl game, a la 2003 OU-KSU. Otherwise,
there's no one in the Big12 that is going to be able to make up the
ground, although Texas Tech would be the most likely candidate, as they
don't play Texas again and have a moderately hard remaining schedule.
Still, like the Big10, TT would need some churn up above to happen to
get a shot.  The Big East is easy to pick as it looks like just West
Virginia after they knocked off Louisville last weekend.  Way too much
ground for UL to make up.

Of course, there's lots of football left to be played and things
typically get interesting in November.  Next week is going to be crazy.

--Jeff


Michael Stehlin wrote:

>One thing for sure......  9-2 ND is an at-large, end of story. If eligible
>and 9-2 makes them elgible..they are in for sure. The other spot has sooo
>many possibilities right now its hard to imagaine for sure.....ACC, SEC, PAC
>will vye for the other spot.  BE is long gone, B12 almost as bad  The B10 is
>not likely to provide an at-large with possible exception of OSU if they win
>out and PSU does the same to get the conf championship bid. 9-2 OSU, highly
>ranked, could sneak in depending on what happens to the possible atlarges in
>those other 3 conferences. But in my opinio they would need some help.
>
>
>
>>From: "huskysd" <huskysd@...>
>>Reply-To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>>To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: [collegebcs] Let the at-large debate begin
>>Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:07:02 -0000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jerry and all,
>>
>>
>>
>>Is it too early to start talk about BCS at-large bids? Specifically,
>>
>>if a 10-0 USC team faces a 10-0 UCLA team on Dec 3, what are the
>>
>>chances of both teams getting to a BCS bowl game given the fact that
>>
>>one of them will end at 10-1? Is the fact that the one loss came at
>>
>>the end of the season going to have a more serious effect?
>>
>>
>>
>>I would think that a 10-1 USC team (with the loss to UCLA) would
>>
>>still likely be in the top 4 of the BCS and thus get an automatic BCS
>>
>>berth. But would a 10-1 UCLA team (with the one loss to USC) be in
>>
>>the BCS mix? I realize the 10-1 UCLA team would still likely be in
>>
>>the top 12 and BCS eligible, but with the Rose Bowl the Nat'l
>>
>>Championship game, I would think only the Fiesta would want to take
>>
>>UCLA as an at-large due to geographic reasons and match-up issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>Probably the biggest issue would be how far pollsters would drop UCLA
>>
>>if they lost to USC. If UCLA got to, say, #4 and lost a close game to
>>
>>the #1 team, how far do you drop that team? Personally, I wouldn't
>>
>>drop them more than 1 spot if they play well.
>>
>>
>>
>>I see the biggest at-large thorn to be Notre Dame. As long as ND
>>
>>stays BCS eligible, they're going to a BCS game. That would leave one
>>
>>spot for UCLA, the SEC #2 team, Florida St., and maybe a Penn
>>
>>St./Wisconsin if they win out and don't win the Big 10. Again, the
>>
>>scenario could be even worse if Florida St beats Va Tech in the ACC
>>
>>championship game. I would think a 1 loss Va Tech team would be a
>>
>>very strong BCS at-large candidate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Visit your group "collegebcs" on the web.
>>
>>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> collegebcs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>