2006 BCS talk

[Boogahz]

Well, they're ranked #8 in the AP and #7 in the coaches. So the answer to your question is "the computers like them" (or maybe "Harris likes them," I didn't look up Harris).

Why might the computers like them, you ask? Well, perhaps because they beat the #11, #12, #20 and #22 teams in the nation. Oh, and Oregon State is ranked now, so they only lost to one unranked team.

The teams that are ranked 5, 6, and 7 in the AP beat the following:

#5 Louisville: Beat the #13 team.
#6 Wisconsin: Did not beat a single ranked team.
#7 Oklahoma: Beat the #21 and the #22 team.

So I guess the answer to your question is: By having a better season than the teams ranked below them.

I could have sworn that the computer took the ranking at the time of the game into account rather than the ranking at the end of the season.

[Sueven]

The computers very well might. That would drop Arkansas out of the ranks of the ranked, raise Notre Dame's ranking to top 5, and add Oregon as a ranked win for USC.

[Sylvus]

I read this article last week. It makes the computer polls sound less infallible than I thought they were.

Anyway, in that article one of the computer polls is examined, and the specific point that you're talking about is addressed. Boogahz is correct, at least for the Billingsley formula.

For many years I struggled with whether a team's SOS should be calculated by using a teams rating and rank on the day the game was played, or use an opponents most recent rating and rank. There are excellent arguments for both sides. Early on I used ONLY GAME DAY stats. I felt very strongly that if Georgia was ranked #1 when they played #5 Florida, the Gators should get credit for playing a #1 team, even if Georgia later fell to #10. THE MIND SET OF THE GAME, THE INTENSITY OF THE GAME, REVOLVED AROUND PLAYING A #1 TEAM. How can the mind set and intensity of a game be overlooked 4 weeks later? But critics will say "but what if Georgia fell to #50, do the Gators still get credit for playing a #1 team?" Very good point. It does happen. Rankings can fluctuate dramatically during the course of a season. Look at Alabama in 2000.

Several years ago I made a compromise that I think has worked exceptionally well. I use a combination of both, with percentages tilted slightly towards the game day rating and rank. This way both are taken into account. The current rankings are not totally discounted but more credit is given to the original "mind set and intensity" of the game.

First of all, this is a man who thinks "mindset" is two words. Second... that's completely insane. USC gets little credit for playing Arkansas because Billingsley didn't think Arkansas was good going into the season. When reality disagrees with his rankings, he treats it as noise. If Notre Dame had proceeded to go 2-10 after Michigan waxed them, they'd still get a huge boost because ND was #2 when they played.

All the polls are flawed, human and computer. We need a playoff.

[masteen]

All the polls are flawed, human and computer. We need a playoff.

Agree 100%.

I think Herbi had it right when he pointed out that the two week layoff killed Michigan, not through any fault of their own, but just because of the "out of sight, out of mind" factor.

They may very well be the #2 (or even #1 on a neutral site) team, but we'll never know.

[Zamtuk]

Everything Kirk Herbstreit says is absolute truth.

that is all.