bukie

Well sure, Billingsley's method is incredibly stupid and inaccurate. The point is that none of the computer ratings can take any sort of point margin analysis into account, and as a result Utah, Boise State and Texas Tech look better in computer ratings and USC, Florida and Penn State look worse.

Keep in mind though, in my analysis that you did not read, i gave half the first place votes to Florida, a fourth to OU and a fourth to Texas and it still does not appear to be enough for Florida to jump Texas. I have a hard time seeing Texas getting 1/4 of the first place votes even if OU loses. If Florida has a close win or something that could appear to be a "fluke", I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas pick up some first place votes.

You mean the computer polls that currently have Utah ahead of Florida and USC and Boise State also ahead of USC? The same computers that might not put Florida in the national title game if they beat Alabama? Those computers are useless as far as I'm concerned. If Florida wins on Saturday, the human polls will likely put them in the top 2 and the human polls also have USC ranked ahead of Utah and Boise State. While I don't always agree with the human polls, they're much more accurate right now than the computers are. I think you are misreading what I wrote. The BCS currently limits computer pulls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are, because computer ratings can only make use of W-L record and quality of opponents. For example, Jeff Sagarin runs 3 ratings. One is done completely by W-L only (his BCS one). It is also his least predictive one. That has the following top 10: 1. Oklahoma 2. Texas 3. Texas Tech 4. Alabama 5. Utah 6. Florida 7. Boise State 8. USC 9. TCU 10. Penn State A second rating looks only at the score margin, and not at all at W-L. This is the best predictor of future games. That one's top 10: 1. USC 2. Florida 3. Oklahoma 4. Texas 5. Penn State 6. Alabama 7. Texas Tech 8. Ohio State 9. Missouri 10. TCU His third rating is 50% W-L, 50% score margin. That one looks like: 1. Oklahoma 2. Texas 3. Florida 4. USC 5. Texas Tech 6. Alabama 7. Penn State 8. Utah 9. TCU 10. Ohio State Which is most accurate to determine how deserving a team is to go to the BCS championship? Hard to say for sure, since any computer rating is going to deal with somewhat of a sample size issue, and schedule strength (a large determining factor in any rating) is largely uncontrollable in at least 8 of 12 games a team plays. However, the most accurate predictor of future performance is based purely on point differential. Of course, there could also just be a situation where the best two teams in the country are from the same conference.

It might be mentioned in the reference to the weak system but not offering arbitration and passing on the picks is very much part of the consternation here. Yeah, it wasn't stated very well, but the "without doing anything to rectify that problem" of the farm system was in reference to not even trying to get compensation picks.

For the Big Ten to even have a shot at winning the challenge this year, they have to win both "push" matchups and Minnesota needs to win. So, 3 home wins. Even then, they need some other Big Ten team to steal a win on the road. Your pick of Michigan beating Maryland, IU beating Wake Forest, Iowa beating BC, Penn State beating Georgia Tech or Ohio State beating Miami. Most likely upset win would be OSU over Miami.

It's just too bad that a 16-team playoff can't work in college football.

I also find it odd that an IU team that will win single-digit games has to play on the road against a top-25 team. But that's just me. An unwritten component of the sanctions against IU. Also see Maui Tournament. IU shall suffer as many intense beatings as is feasibly possible during their probationary period.

Another reason the computer ratings are limited in effectiveness is that the only real factors a computer rating can use are W-L record and strength of opponent. So, if you are in a weaker conference, there's absolutely nothing you can do to improve your standing. They initially did this to prevent running up the score and with the guise of "giving everyone a chance to get into a BCS spot, regardless of conference", except that teams have no real control over whether or not they can make the BCS, because it depends largely on 7 or 8 other teams you have nothing to do with.

Much as I hate Florida, they should make it if they win Saturday. Another reason why the BCS is an utterly laughable system. The BCS is really a problem now because it depends far, far too much on human polls and limits computer polls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are. and some of the computer polls are terrible Billingsley's method is terrible, and Sagarin can't use his accurate model because it involves point differential.

Much as I hate Florida, they should make it if they win Saturday. Another reason why the BCS is an utterly laughable system. The BCS is really a problem now because it depends far, far too much on human polls and limits computer polls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are.

List for me the overpaid junk that's currently under contract with the Cubs, preventing the retention of Kerry Wood. I'll get you started: Jason Marquis. Most indications are that Hendry's trying to wiggle out of that one as we speak. Who else you got? You don't think the 40 million designated to Fukudome, Marquis and Soriano is a deterrent?

Today's BT/ACC games based on updated Sagarin ratings: Duke-Purdue: EVEN Clemson-Illinois: EVEN Ohio State-Miami: Miami by 5 Iowa-Boston College: Boston College by 7 Virginia-Minnesota: Minnesota by 9 Even though it isn't going to matter, it's a little weird that the ACC gets 6 home games while the Big Ten gets 4 and one "home-neutral" game. Usually it's 5-5 with one neutral site.

The frustration isn't over the Cubs not re-signing Kerry Wood, or even attempting to re-sign Kerry Wood. The frustration is that the Cubs are dumping their second most effective reliever for nothing, because of a payroll crunch caused by overpaying for other junk over the last 3 years, and then making a trade that absolutely didn't have to be made that early in the offseason, leaving no wiggle room to even try to get pick compensation. All this to save 3 million and weaken an already weak farm system without doing anything to rectify that problem.

Since Louisville/Cincinnati/Marquette/others left CUSA, there's been a huge dropoff between the "Big 6" and CUSA. Even last year, with a #2 overall Memphis team, the league was 10th overall, and the league was further behind the Missouri Valley than the gap between the top 6 conferences.

OU vs. Texas: results vs. common opponents Opponent OU Margin Texas Margin Baylor 49-17 32 45-21 24 A&M 66-28 38 49- 9 40 Tech 65-21 42 33-39 -6 OSU 61-41 20 28-24 4 Kansas 45-31 14 35- 7 28 Totals 146 90 Obvious advantage to OU. Overall point differential in all games: OU 342, Texas 304

Of the computer ratings that weight the entire season equally, Oklahoma leads Texas by a narrow margin. It's hilarious that apparently Oklahoma would have a better argument had they not beaten TT by so much to rule them out of the discussion.

It's to make sure the conference has its best chance at making the title game. If you have the #3 BCS team getting passed up in favor of the #15 team due to the #15 team running up the score in conference play it wouldn't help the conference at all. If there is a three-way tie for first in a conference in the section here for high school football, the first is head-to-head and the second is point differential in the games among the tied teams with a maximum of 13 points per game. I like the tiebreaker because it only uses the results of the games among the three tied teams and doesn't reward running up the score. If the Big 12 used that system, then Oklahoma would still be going to the title game.

I'll go ahead and guess that Florida wins on Saturday 41-30.

It apparently impressed one voter, which is more than I was expecting.

One more nerd post on the Big Ten/ACC Challenge....from Sagarin's numbers (actual numbers + home/home neutral factor): Monday, Dec. 1 Wisconsin (82.65) at Virginia Tech (79.01 + 4 = 83.01): EVEN Tuesday, Dec. 2 Duke (91.46) at Purdue (87.76 + 4 = 91.76): EVEN Clemson (88.08) at Illinois (84.25 + 4 = 88.25): EVEN Ohio State (84.21) at Miami (84.67 + 4 = 88.67): Miami by 4 Virginia (73.48) at Minnesota (78.63 + 4 = 82.63): Minnesota by 9 Iowa (79.95) at Boston College (83.25 + 4 = 87.25): Boston College by 7 Wednesday, Dec. 3 North Carolina (95.97) vs. Michigan State (from Ford Field) (85.64 + 2 = 87.64): North Carolina by 8 Indiana (72.11) at Wake Forest (84.50 + 4 = 88.50): Wake Forest by 16 Michigan (80.81) at Maryland (83.23 + 4 = 87.23): Maryland by 6 Florida State (78.80) at Northwestern (82.24 + 4 = 86.24): Northwestern by 7 Penn State (79.63) at Georgia Tech (80.75 + 4 = 84.75): Georgia Tech by 5 Sagarin shows clear advantages in 6 of the games for the ACC, and 2 of the games for the Big Ten. 3 that are essentially toss-ups, with slight edges towards Illinois and Purdue in 2 of the games, and Virginia Tech in the third.

I'd say USC? PAC-10 sucks this year USC was 5th of the 8. They played a good non-con schedule (Virginia, Ohio State, ND) to make up for some of the deficiency in the conference. Plus, UCLA hasn't factored into their schedule yet. Bama is also a good choice...By the way how did ND help out USC non-conference by the way? Err, ND finished 6-6. That's not bad for the worst team in your non-con schedule. ND was USC's "patsy". Compared to other teams' non-con patsies, USC's non-con schedule was far and away tougher.

I'd say USC? PAC-10 sucks this year USC was 5th of the 8. They played a good non-con schedule (Virginia, Ohio State, ND) to make up for some of the deficiency in the conference. Plus, UCLA hasn't factored into their schedule yet. I'm going to say Alabama. Correct. Alabama checks in at the 73rd toughest schedule in the country as of right now, due to an overall lousy non-con schedule (although Clemson was supposed to be good, so tough to fault them for that), and a comparatively weak SEC West (where Ole Miss was clearly the second-best team, and LSU, Auburn, Arkansas and Miss State were all either 3-5 or 2-6 in conference). Their best win on the year, by far, was their 41-30 win at Georgia, but that was a long time ago, too. Of course, the SEC championship game this week will certainly vault them over Utah. Just thought it was interesting to see it at this point, though.

I'd say USC? PAC-10 sucks this year USC was 5th of the 8. They played a good non-con schedule (Virginia, Ohio State, ND) to make up for some of the deficiency in the conference. Plus, UCLA hasn't factored into their schedule yet.

Pop Quiz question! Of the 8 teams with somewhat reasonable arguments to be in the BCS championship game (Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah), which has played the weakest schedule (according to Sagarin)? No cheating. ;)

How do you make this argument when the team that's going instead of them is one they beat head to head on a neutral field? Because the season consists of 12 games, not 1. Over those 12 games, Oklahoma has been the better team. Re-read my 1st post on this page. I accounted for the whole season. And Derwood, TTU is out of the equation because the got beat by 44 by OU. They aren't in the discussion anymore. It's pretty obvious they aren't as good as either OU or UT. Edit: I would bet that if Mizzou and TTU had switched when they played UT that the scores in the games would have ended up similar to what they were. (i.e. UT killing TTU and losing to Mizzou instead of the way it happened) So your argument is that UT wore themselves out in the process of killing Mizzou to the point that they didn't have enough energy to beat TTU? Yeah, not buying it. UT also had a close home victory against an OSU team that was blown out at TTU and lost by 20 at home against OU. Plus, the same arguments anyone makes for Texas can be turned right around to make for Texas Tech were it Texas making the Big 12 championship: - Beat Texas head-to-head - Lost to OU because they were worn out from playing four tough games in a row against ranked teams (Kansas, Texas, OSU, Oklahoma) and the results could easily have been different had you switched the order of play. Essentially, the argument for Texas becomes "OU doesn't deserve to go to the Big 12 championship because they beat TTU by too much to keep TTU in consideration."