Online Now 1388

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

Online now 1690
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Understanding MSU, the BCS, computer rankings, and SOS

  • JEK said... (original post)

    And they scored a whopping 3 points on Michigan's defense. Like I said. Sucked. Badly.

    And we scored 3 points against a Nebraska defense that gave up 5 more ppg and 35 more ypg than Michigan's. We don't suck. Badly. So what, it's one game.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    And we scored 3 points against a Nebraska defense that gave up 5 more ppg and 35 more ypg than Michigan's. We don't suck. Badly. So what, it's one game.

    So even if we conclude SDSU is a marginally decent team, who cares? Does that justify a higher ranking for UM? Point remains MSU and scUM only played one real test out of conference, that being ND. UM played them at home, we played them on the road. We also beat them head to head, and had the tougher conference slate. This one is a no-brainer if you just look at it with a little common sense instead of number crunching.

    "RCMB: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainry." - some dude from MgoBlog

  • bulldogg

    When trying to compare good teams, you shouldn't just average the ratings of all the opponents. It should be heavily weighted toward the good teams that you have played.

    It is MUCH harder to go 3-0 against LSU, Stanford and Valparaiso then against Sam Houston State, Navy, and Montana .... but according to the Sagrin ratings, the SHS/Navy/Montana would be a more difficult schedule.

  • JEK said... (original post)

    So even if we conclude SDSU is a marginally decent team, who cares? Does that justify a higher ranking for UM? Point remains MSU and scUM only played one real test out of conference, that being ND. UM played them at home, we played them on the road. We also beat them head to head, and had the tougher conference slate. This one is a no-brainer if you just look at it with a little common sense instead of number crunching.

    I never said scUM should be ranked higher. I think we beat them and won the division, and screw the rest and the numbers, we should remain ranked higher than them. But i have this thing about people bashing unknown schools from regions they don't know. I have zero affiliation with the MWC, but their upper half teams are under-respected.

    There are some really crappy small school teams out there. No need to bash the ones that are decent.

  • Pylon St8ofmind

    dagomike said... (original post)

    How do things like when you play teams factor in? Like Michigan playing Northwestern away in the middle of a 5 game losing streak vs MSU playing them at the end of a 4 game stream? Or Northwestern and Ohio State's wins against Nebraska and Wisconsin after MSU put a hurt on them the week before? Or how does Miller going down late in the game factor into OSU's loss to Nebraska?

    Obviously MSU had a poor pre-conference schedule, but assigning a score to a team and granting that same score to everyone who plays them regardless of anything else is just bunk. Yes, it's an interesting datapoint, but to me it's for people who are too lazy to actually watch the games but still want to feel they can make an educated opinion about a team. I put limited stock into such things.

    Remember when I said 'Stats Lie' about 9,000 times earlier this season.

    They still lie.

    MSU would likely be 11-1 with Michigan's schedule and Michigan would be like 8-4 / 9-3 with MSU's, but these HAL level computers can't seem to figure that out.

    That being said, I COULD NOT care less about Michigan or them getting a BCS bid or not.

    Does not matter, it's not a meritocracy, it's the BCS, one of the most broken systems ever concocted. The car Homer designed was more sound. The microwave that Jack Donaghy designed which ended up being a small SUV was more sound.

    MSU has exactly what it wanted last year in front of us now. A chance to prove you are the best team in your conference.

    How about this gays? Win out and we likely finish top 5, That is something big to build off of. As is being + 2 on your previous high win total for a season.

    It really doesn't matter what Michigan is doing, they've always been recruiting well, nothing has changed, we get what runs down tO$U's leg (to be crude about it) and what's going to be running down Meyer's leg in recruiting is going to be some high level goo, We've always been pretty strong in PA, and there is a big window open right there RIGHT NOW.

    The CCG is a huge showcase and opportunity.

    Marriage is like flying with kids, if the flight had 500 connections, never ended, Ted Striker were your pilot and you ate the fish.

  • Andy_H said... (original post)

    For the 2nd year in a row, the MSU fanbase is discussing the BCS rankings, at-large eligibility, why the BCS "hates" MSU, why the computers "hate" MSU, etc. There's a lot of ignorance, misinformation, and confusion about what is going on with respect to us and our fellow Big Ten members. One area of confusion is why the BCS computers have UM (#15) ranked ahead of MSU (#17), even though MSU seemingly had a more difficult schedule than UM, and how this fact gives UM an all but certain BCS berth and leaves MSU ineligible for the BCS at-large if they lose to Wisconsin. I am using MSU and UM in this example, as it involves two teams we are very familiar with, have identical records, have many common opponents, etc.

    Logically, it would seem that MSU should have a better computer ranking than UM. After all... * MSU and UM had the same record * MSU beat UM head-to-head * MSU had 5 road games, while UM had 4 * MSU had its Leaders games against Wisconsin, @ OSU, and Indiana, while UM had theirs against Purdue, @ Illinois, OSU. MSU's clearly was more difficult. * MSU played at Nebraska, while UM played at home against them.

    On the surface, it would seem that MSU should have a much harder SOS, and therefore a better computer ranking average. But that is not the case. Let's see why...

    Below is a listing of all 24 games played by MSU and UM. I am using the Sagarin ELO-CHESS (BCS) ranking of each of the 24 opponents, and then adjusting appropriately up or down for home field advantage (2.37 points). I then rank the difficult of each game from 1-24. I have also inserted a line for the MEDIAN and MEAN for each opponent. Table is listed below, or in the image attachment (easier to read).

    Rank Team Opponent H/A SAG SAG-ADJ 1 UM Michigan State AWAY 83.49 85.86 2 MSU Nebraska AWAY 81.78 84.15 3 MSU Notre Dame AWAY 78.34 80.71 4 MSU Michigan HOME 82.44 80.07 5 UM Nebraska HOME 81.78 79.41 6 MSU Wisconsin HOME 81.62 79.25 7 UM Iowa AWAY 74.45 76.82 7 MSU Iowa AWAY 74.45 76.82 9 UM Notre Dame HOME 78.34 75.97 10 MSU Ohio State AWAY 72.53 74.90 MSU MEDIAN 70.89 73.26 11 UM Illinois AWAY 69.71 72.08 12 UM Northwestern AWAY 69.24 71.61 12 MSU Northwestern AWAY 69.24 71.61 UM MEAN 71.92 71.13 UM MEDIAN 70.76 70.89 14 UM Ohio State HOME 72.53 70.16 15 UM San Diego State HOME 71.81 69.44 MSU MEAN 68.14 67.75 16 UM Purdue HOME 68.94 66.57 17 UM Western Michigan HOME 66.70 64.33 18 UM Minnesota HOME 64.53 62.16 18 MSU Minnesota HOME 64.53 62.16 20 UM Eastern Michigan HOME 61.53 59.16 21 MSU Youngstown State HOME 57.68 55.31 22 MSU Central Michigan HOME 56.05 53.68 23 MSU Indiana HOME 51.65 49.28 24 MSU Florida Atlantic HOME 47.38 45.01

    Basically, MSU's hard games were harder than UM's, but their easy games were MUCH easier than UM's. This was very similar to last season, where MSU's computer ranking was really dragged down by the 4 or 5 worst opponents on their schedule (much more so than OSU or Wisconsin). This year, MSU played 4 games against teams that were worse than any on UM's schedule.

    Obviously, this is just one of the computer rankings, and they all have different formulas and criteria for making the rankings, and MSU is actually ahead of UM in a couple of them. But this is the second year that MSU's terrible nonconference schedule may end up hurting them in the postseason.

    This is very similar to what plagues MSU basketball most seasons, when even though it seems they play murderers row in the nonconference, their RPI and SOS don't really reflect it, as they do a terrible job in playing too many games against #300+ teams (Prairie Views of the world) that effectively cancel out the Duke and Carolina games, instead of more #150-200ish teams that don't.

    Thanks for posting Andy. All of this makes sense to me except why for the love of god is Home against Wisky not harder than home against Michigan or home against Nebraska. There is no way that is the 6th hardest game on the combined schedules.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    It's pretty easy to put together that comparison on your own. Go to ESPN, line up the 2 schedules, then go to usatoday and look up the Sagarin ratings for the opponents. I'd do it, but i can save some time and just tell you that Oklahoma's schedule was WAY WAY harder than MSU's, no matter how you weight it.

    To answer your other question, the computers don't know or care what conference a team plays in. It just assigns a point value to a win or loss, based on the current point total of the opponent. The first few weeks there's some subjectivity to that point total, but by October every opponent MSU or whoever faces will have played a team that's played a team that's played every team in the country, and the numbers are objective.

    lol Did you come up with the algorithm for one of the computer rankings or something? You're pretty defensive about the accuracy of the computer rankings and how "unbiased" they are despite the fact that they are constantly tweaked (by humans) and nobody really knows the formulas.

    Don't you see how absurd it is that computers have to be involved to tell us why Team X is better than Team Y? Who cares if you play a non-conference team that's ranked 125 or 240? They both suck really bad and, as much as I don't like it, everybody plays 3-4 cupcakes (2-3 in B12 and P12) in non-conference play. Is a team ranked 100 by computers really that much better than a team ranked 200? And who cares if you played a team that played a team that played a team that Oklahoma played? Every week is different.

    Sagarin has 7 (yes, SEVEN) B12 teams ranked ahead of MSU. How can you make an argument for 7 B12 teams being better than MSU?

    The BCS is a joke.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    I never said scUM should be ranked higher. I think we beat them and won the division, and screw the rest and the numbers, we should remain ranked higher than them. But i have this thing about people bashing unknown schools from regions they don't know. I have zero affiliation with the MWC, but their upper half teams are under-respected.

    There are some really crappy small school teams out there. No need to bash the ones that are decent.

    Whatever. Respect is earned on the field. Boise State? I respect them. If you want respect, then don't get clobbered by every good team on your schedule, such as SDSU did.

    "RCMB: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainry." - some dude from MgoBlog

  • spartan05 said... (original post)

    lol Did you come up with the algorithm for one of the computer rankings or something? You're pretty defensive about the accuracy of the computer rankings and how "unbiased" they are despite the fact that they are constantly tweaked (by humans) and nobody really knows the formulas.

    Don't you see how absurd it is that computers have to be involved to tell us why Team X is better than Team Y? Who cares if you play a non-conference team that's ranked 125 or 240? They both suck really bad and, as much as I don't like it, everybody plays 3-4 cupcakes (2-3 in B12 and P12) in non-conference play. Is a team ranked 100 by computers really that much better than a team ranked 200? And who cares if you played a team that played a team that played a team that Oklahoma played? Every week is different.

    Sagarin has 7 (yes, SEVEN) B12 teams ranked ahead of MSU. How can you make an argument for 7 B12 teams being better than MSU?

    The BCS is a joke.

    Computer formulas are never "tweaked" during a season. Conspiracy theorist?

    I find it absurd that it matters whether you beat #150 or #200...we agree on that much. But there are teams ranked #75 or so that can pull the big upset (see NU vs. NU), so it's a question of where you draw the line. I think the B12 is inflated this year, but i see why and how it happened. If the B10 had done the same, gone out and beat a bunch of BCS conference teams on the road, the B10 would have gotten the same bump the B12 is getting now.

    I get defensive about people thinking the computers suck because the polls suck even worse. You can pick out one computer system and find some teams that are ranked poorly, but you can also pick out the poll voters' individual rankings and see that they are even more laughable. Doesn't Chris Fowler have us #19? (I know that's an AP example, but the other polls' voters are just as bad.) So you have sucky computers that are unbiased and sucky polls that are biased. I'd rather have an accountable and knowledgeable committee sit down and make the decisions, but if i have to choose between polls and comps, i'll choose at least 50% comps. Right now it's only 33%.

    (Btw, i can't make an argument for 7 B12 teams ahead of MSU. I think only 3 should be (OU, OSU, KSU), 1 of those we'd probably beat anyway, i could make a case for 1 additional one ranked higher even though i don't agree (Baylor), and the other 3 are just wrong(A&M, Tech, Mizzou.)

    This post was edited by mark_v 3 years ago

  • So, wait. I'm confused. The computers say that UM's toughest game was at MSU, and that UM was MSU's 3rd hardest game??

    Thank god I'm not a rocket scientist, because if I was smarter, that statistic alone would make me thing MSU should be way higher in the BCS rankings.

    Also, if only there was a way to settle this on the field, instead of using a computer. That would be really cool. It's no wonder the system is so screwed. We are using a computer that plays "ELO-CHESS". What the fuck kind of game is that?

  • Pylon St8ofmind

    VanWilder said... (original post)

    So, wait. I'm confused. The computers say that UM's toughest game was at MSU, and that UM was MSU's 3rd hardest game??

    Thank god I'm not a rocket scientist, because if I was smarter, that statistic alone would make me thing MSU should be way higher in the BCS rankings.

    Also, if only there was a way to settle this on the field, instead of using a computer. That would be really cool. It's no wonder the system is so screwed. We are using a computer that plays "ELO-CHESS". What the fuck kind of game is that?

    Basically their crap games (thanks CMU and FAU for being dumpster fires, thanks to whatever dumbass scheduled YSU, Yep, I'll say it Coach D or Hollis was a dumbass if that was his doing) are stronger than our crap games. and Purdue / Minny is stronger than IU / Minny.

    Marriage is like flying with kids, if the flight had 500 connections, never ended, Ted Striker were your pilot and you ate the fish.

  • The schedules are made so far in advance it is very hard to know exactly what you are going to get. Plus, it's easy to say well go schedule an SEC or ACC team, those things take years of planning usually (although not all the time) and often you have to make concessions you wouldn't normally make such as 1 home for 2 away or the other teams want the home game on a certain year, etc. It is very difficult to create a great OOC schedule. The other issue is you just do not know how good or bad some teams might be. Florida right now is not very good, Alabama is terrific. Will that be the case five years from now? Sure, they probably will be good on some level but how great you do not know.

    I can bet Hollis and Co. probably did not think FAU would be a 1-10 football team this year and maybe the worst team in major college football and CMU is 3-9. If FAU was just so-so like a 5 or 6 win team, all of sudden the SOS is probably not nearly as weak as it is the same goes for CMU. Do not get me wrong I really wish MSU would schedule better teams however I do think the fact that CMU and FAU are having just awful seasons compared to what they have done in the recent past, really hurts MSU's SOS as well.

    This post was edited by kubrickfan 3 years ago

  • While I agree some human polls are absurd, they can atleast recognize when things dont make sense.

    For example, the sagarin rankings:
    1:LSU
    2:Alabama
    3:OSU
    4:Arkansas
    5:KSU
    6:OU
    7:Baylor
    8:Houston
    9:Oregon
    10:Stanford

    13:Texas (7-4)

    16: Mizzou (7-5)
    17:Texas A&M (6-6)

    21: MSU
    22: Iowa State (7-4)
    23: UM

    26: Wisconsin

    Its laughable that Texas/Baylor/A&M are above us. Also curious that Houston is not penalized very much for having a shitty SOS.

    This post was edited by Sigmakan 3 years ago

  • Pylon St8ofmind said... (original post)

    Basically their crap games (thanks CMU and FAU for being dumpster fires, thanks to whatever dumbass scheduled YSU, Yep, I'll say it Coach D or Hollis was a dumbass if that was his doing) are stronger than our crap games. and Purdue / Minny is stronger than IU / Minny.

    I'm sure its been said already, but the schedule still has MSU one win away from the Rosebowl. So it can't be all that bad.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    It's pretty easy to put together that comparison on your own. Go to ESPN, line up the 2 schedules, then go to usatoday and look up the Sagarin ratings for the opponents. I'd do it, but i can save some time and just tell you that Oklahoma's schedule was WAY WAY harder than MSU's, no matter how you weight it.

    To answer your other question, the computers don't know or care what conference a team plays in. It just assigns a point value to a win or loss, based on the current point total of the opponent. The first few weeks there's some subjectivity to that point total, but by October every opponent MSU or whoever faces will have played a team that's played a team that's played every team in the country, and the numbers are objective.

    Ok, let's look at it realistically (meaning, don't look at the absurd rankings that are out there right now)

    1. Oklahoma
    Good wins (according to the computers): @ FSU (they suck), looking, looking, looking, ok that's it.
    Losses: Texas Tech (they suck really bad), Baylor (ok, top 25 caliber team on the road - understandable)

    2. Kansas State
    Good wins: @ Miami (they suck), Baylor, @ Texas (2 top 25 caliber teams, but nothing special at all)
    Losses: Oklahoma and @ Oklahoma State

    3. Michigan State
    Good wins: Wisconsin, Michigan
    Losses: @ Notre Dame, @ Nebraska

    Looking at the three - I would say MSU's good wins are more impressive than both K-State and Oklahoma (and the human polls would agree). MSU's losses are clearly "better losses" than Oklahoma. K-State's losses are pretty clearly the "best" of the 3.

    Going off logic, the teams should be ranked in the following order:
    1) MSU
    2) K-State
    3) Oklahoma

    Like in most instances, the BCS is backward:
    1) Oklahoma
    2) K-State
    3) MSU

  • Pylon St8ofmind

    VanWilder said... (original post)

    I'm sure its been said already, but the schedule still has MSU one win away from the Rosebowl. So it can't be all that bad.

    Yeah... I guess... but.

    The schedule was both insanely difficult to get through but somehow not 'credit worthy'.

    Marriage is like flying with kids, if the flight had 500 connections, never ended, Ted Striker were your pilot and you ate the fish.

  • LittleGiants said... (original post)

    Ok, let's look at it realistically (meaning, don't look at the absurd rankings that are out there right now)

    1. Oklahoma Good wins (according to the computers): @ FSU (they suck), looking, looking, looking, ok that's it. Losses: Texas Tech (they suck really bad), Baylor (ok, top 25 caliber team on the road - understandable)

    2. Kansas State Good wins: @ Miami (they suck), Baylor, @ Texas (2 top 25 caliber teams, but nothing special at all) Losses: Oklahoma and @ Oklahoma State

    3. Michigan State Good wins: Wisconsin, Michigan Losses: @ Notre Dame, @ Nebraska

    Looking at the three - I would say MSU's good wins are more impressive than both K-State and Oklahoma (and the human polls would agree). MSU's losses are clearly "better losses" than Oklahoma. K-State's losses are pretty clearly the "best" of the 3.

    Going off logic, the teams should be ranked in the following order: 1) MSU 2) K-State 3) Oklahoma

    Like in most instances, the BCS is backward: 1) Oklahoma 2) K-State 3) MSU

    That's the kind of analysis a committee would do, but i think they'd have a very different opinion on what is a good win. If you're going to call Wiscy and scUM "good wins", for Oklahoma you have to call K St. a better win and Texas, Missouri, and A&M good wins. So you'd have Oklahoma with more quality wins than MSU. For K St. you'd have to add Missouri to your list and they'd have twice the quality wins of MSU. I think quality wins is what matters most, but if a committee looked at the level of losses, that would bring Oklahoma back to the pack and put KSU clearly ahead of MSU and Oklahoma. Then the committee would see that head to head Oklahoma beat KSU convincingly, and probably bump Oklahoma back up. So i don't think many impartial and accountable people could come up with anything other than Oklahoma, KSU, MSU, which happens to be what the computers agree on too.

    If only poll voters did this kind of team by team analysis based on the results of the field, instead of based on "the eye test" or guessing who would win if they played on Mars on December 32nd or who has the most famous name, etc...

  • Sigmakan said... (original post)

    While I agree some human polls are absurd, they can atleast recognize when things dont make sense.

    For example, the sagarin rankings: 1:LSU 2:Alabama 3:OSU 4:Arkansas 5:KSU 6:OU 7:Baylor 8:Houston 9:Oregon 10:Stanford

    13:Texas (7-4)

    16: Mizzou (7-5) 17:Texas A&M (6-6)

    21: MSU 22: Iowa State (7-4) 23: UM

    26: Wisconsin

    Its laughable that Texas/Baylor/A&M are above us. Also curious that Houston is not penalized very much for having a shitty SOS.

    Honestly, i only see 2 things that are absurd in the Sagarins you listed: that KSU is above OU when they've played very similar schedules and OU beat KSU, and that at some point losses are losses and have to count that way. That is, going 7-5 in a top conference doesn't mean you'd go 12-0 if your schedule were a little easier.

    Houston is 12-0. Their schedule sucks. #8 seems about right. 12-0 is still 12-0.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    That's the kind of analysis a committee would do, but i think they'd have a very different opinion on what is a good win. If you're going to call Wiscy and scUM "good wins", for Oklahoma you have to call K St. a better win and Texas, Missouri, and A&M good wins. So you'd have Oklahoma with more quality wins than MSU. For K St. you'd have to add Missouri to your list and they'd have twice the quality wins of MSU. I think quality wins is what matters most, but if a committee looked at the level of losses, that would bring Oklahoma back to the pack and put KSU clearly ahead of MSU and Oklahoma. Then the committee would see that head to head Oklahoma beat KSU convincingly, and probably bump Oklahoma back up. So i don't think many impartial and accountable people could come up with anything other than Oklahoma, KSU, MSU, which happens to be what the computers agree on too.

    If only poll voters did this kind of team by team analysis based on the results of the field, instead of based on "the eye test" or guessing who would win if they played on Mars on December 32nd or who has the most famous name, etc...

    you are right about Oklahoma over K-State - forgot to add that one. What I look for are wins against teams who can compete with top 10 teams consistently (which can change home vs. road). I don't put Texas, Missouri, A&M in that category (just my opinion, obviously). Going back to the way I laid it out, I'd change as follows:

    1) Take Oklahoma's win vs. Florida State off the board and replace it with K-State (even though I think K-State is a fraud).

    2) Take K-State's win @ Miami off the board

    3) Take MSU's win vs. scUM off the board

    Now, I'm just confused.

  • I will say this though, the fact that the BCS averages out 2 polls and the 6 computers is what saves it. I think we can all argue the rankings for certain polls/rankings. But they are all averaged out and the final result we get is a pretty good average.

    Sometimes its best not to look at the super-fine detals (like a specific computer ranking) and just look at the overall picture. We're a 2 loss team, and amongst 2 loss teams we're ranked right in the middle of the pack. Can't really argue with that I suppose.

    This post was edited by Sigmakan 3 years ago

  • @ChantelJennings: Hoke on BCS Bowl bid for Michigan: "Is it deserving? Probably."

    signature image signature image

    L.G.R.W.

  • JMCSpartan08

    beal99 said... (original post)

    @ChantelJennings: Hoke on BCS Bowl bid for Michigan: "Is it deserving? Probably."

    Really? A bullshit conference schedule, marginal improvement from last season and 1 win over a ranked team is now deserving of a BCS bowl? Really?

    This post was edited by JMCSpartan08 3 years ago

    signature image
  • Sigmakan said... (original post)

    I will say this though, the fact that the BCS averages out 2 polls and the 6 computers is what saves it. I think we can all argue the rankings for certain polls/rankings. But they are all averaged out and the final result we get is a pretty good average.

    Sometimes its best not to look at the super-fine detals (like a specific computer ranking) and just look at the overall picture. We're a 2 loss team, and amongst 2 loss teams we're ranked right in the middle of the pack. Can't really argue with that I suppose.

    Careful, it's that kind of "big picture" thinking that will get you in trouble around here.

  • mark_v said... (original post)

    Computer formulas are never "tweaked" during a season. Conspiracy theorist?

    I find it absurd that it matters whether you beat #150 or #200...we agree on that much. But there are teams ranked #75 or so that can pull the big upset (see NU vs. NU), so it's a question of where you draw the line. I think the B12 is inflated this year, but i see why and how it happened. If the B10 had done the same, gone out and beat a bunch of BCS conference teams on the road, the B10 would have gotten the same bump the B12 is getting now.

    I get defensive about people thinking the computers suck because the polls suck even worse. You can pick out one computer system and find some teams that are ranked poorly, but you can also pick out the poll voters' individual rankings and see that they are even more laughable. Doesn't Chris Fowler have us #19? (I know that's an AP example, but the other polls' voters are just as bad.) So you have sucky computers that are unbiased and sucky polls that are biased. I'd rather have an accountable and knowledgeable committee sit down and make the decisions, but if i have to choose between polls and comps, i'll choose at least 50% comps. Right now it's only 33%.

    (Btw, i can't make an argument for 7 B12 teams ahead of MSU. I think only 3 should be (OU, OSU, KSU), 1 of those we'd probably beat anyway, i could make a case for 1 additional one ranked higher even though i don't agree (Baylor), and the other 3 are just wrong(A&M, Tech, Mizzou.)

    Fair enough.

    I know the computers aren't tweaked during a season, but they are constantly being tinkered with at the end of each season. I don't think the computers are completely unbiased as humans are the ones programming the formulas, but they are more unbiased than the human polls.

    I don't necessarily like the human polls either, but I think there has to be some sort of "eye ball test" as witnessed with 7 B12 teams being ranked ahead of MSU in the Sagarin Rankings. Not even Chris Fowler or Sam McKewon (who apparently thinks Wisky is going to beat us by 21 Saturday) would do that. To the best of my knowledge you can't find each individual voters poll for either the Harris and Coaches Poll.

    I agree on the selection committee over the current abomination.