re: Hypothetical involving Alabama, Oregon and Notre Dame

quote:

---

I think margin of victory should be included in the BCS formula. Notre Dame is #1 in the computers despite beating Michigan, at home, by only 7 while Alabama beat Michigan at a neutral site by 27.

---

You think so doctor? Welcome to 2002.

quote:

---

The reasoning behind the decision to banish margin of victory before the 2002 season: The BCS didn’t want teams that beat up on weaker opponents to be rewarded for doing so. Never mind that the BCS was actively corrupting the impartiality of its system.

---

Computers are now a waste of time - which is why they were de-emphasized after USC in 2003 (lack of margin of victory hurt them) and are basically neutered by the polls.

quote:

---

The entire point of the BCS using computerized ranking systems was to provide some sort of impartiality and balance out the two human polls. The computers count for one-third of a team’s BCS score. Of course, the first time they tried, the computers didn’t jibe with the humans, so the BCS changed the formula three years after it started. Same for the second time the computers failed to agree with the voters. And the third. When the math didn’t satisfy its standards – prop up the big schools, stomp on the small ones – the BCS altered the formula.

“Stern’s analysis was clearly right,” said James, whose revolutionary work with baseball statistics was highlighted in the book “Moneyball” and who has since developed his own college football rating system. “This isn’t a sincere effort to use math to find the answer at all. It’s clearly an effort to use math as a cover for whatever you want to do. I don’t even know if the people who set up the system are aware of that.

“It’s just nonsense math.”

---