Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
SI talks to some of the people behind the Computer Polls used in the former BCS calculations.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley
The Computer Poll Uprising: Creators of the BCS's Most Controversial Component Look Back


I won't lie, I was a fan of the BCS system, and IMO the formula NEVER made a single mistake AFTER the last major "Corrections" following a pretty big mistake in 2003. But after that - I think the BCS got it "Right" every time.

I still think it would have made PERFECT sense for the new playoff to simply expand to 4 teams but STILL USE the same PROVEN formula to pick the 4 teams. Instead, "we" chose a secret committee that meets behind closed doors. "The American Way" - total Non-Transparency.

Anyway, mildly interesting read, IMO.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
FWIW, they computer polls were also secret - the actual formulas were not released, even to the BCS committee. So the whole "behind closed doors" CFP argument seems odd since you support the computer rankings.
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
SI talks to some of the people behind the Computer Polls used in the former BCS calculations.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/07/11/bcs-computer-rankings-polls-formula-sagarin-billingsley
The Computer Poll Uprising: Creators of the BCS's Most Controversial Component Look Back


I won't lie, I was a fan of the BCS system, and IMO the formula NEVER made a single mistake AFTER the last major "Corrections" following a pretty big mistake in 2003. But after that - I think the BCS got it "Right" every time.

I still think it would have made PERFECT sense for the new playoff to simply expand to 4 teams but STILL USE the same PROVEN formula to pick the 4 teams. Instead, "we" chose a secret committee that meets behind closed doors. "The American Way" - total Non-Transparency.

Anyway, mildly interesting read, IMO.
I'm pretty sure the committee has picked the same 4 teams that the BCS formula would've picked in every playoff. So, the outcome has been the same but just with a little more drama..
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
FWIW, they computer polls were also secret - the actual formulas were not released, even to the BCS committee. So the whole "behind closed doors" CFP argument seems odd since you support the computer rankings.
The BCS selection only used the computers as one aspect of their selections though. I actually liked the inclusion of the polls, they followed a sort of logic and reason that we could all understand. I mean most weeks before the polls came out we could have a pretty good idea of where teams would be ranked because we understood how it worked. That's always been harder to follow with the committee. It also preserved the historical importance of the polls (which predate most other methods of selection champions for major sports in America), yet another thing we've seen devalued under the current scheme (along with bowl games).

The role of the computers though, was literally to guarantee logic was part of the equation. If the polls got too emotional, ranked a team too high or too low because they just lost, or something that didn't necessarily make sense, the computers would step in and correct them, point out where the numbers say the rankings should be. This didn't just work on the final poll, it helped keep the polls in check throughout the season.

While the committee hasn't made any egregious errors yet, the biggest issue is there is nothing at all to keep them in check. Should they do something illogical, there's nothing to point them back in the right direction like the computers did for the BCS.
 

RollTide_HTTR

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2017
8,768
6,532
187
Doesn't the committee use some advanced stats while making their decision? I'm not in love with the committee format but so far I don't think they have done anything egregious
 

RedWave

All-SEC
Sep 26, 2000
1,579
3
0
Arlington, Tx
And honestly, we don't know what kind of multipliers or algorithms is going on behind the scenes to get to those numbers. They could arrange the formulas in any number of ways in order to favor one side versus the other. Ask any financial analyst to run a projection and he can give you different any number of answers based on what he thinks you want the answer to be (ask me how I know). The same could be done with the BCS formula.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
While the committee hasn't made any egregious errors yet, the biggest issue is there is nothing at all to keep them in check. Should they do something illogical, there's nothing to point them back in the right direction like the computers did for the BCS.
To be clear - they have NO mistakes. None. Get back to me when they make one.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
Just watch this a few times and forget about your doubts about the committee:

 

TomFromBama

Suspended
May 14, 2003
1,142
0
0
Lower Alabama
FWIW, they computer polls were also secret - the actual formulas were not released, even to the BCS committee. So the whole "behind closed doors" CFP argument seems odd since you support the computer rankings.
True, the actual formulas (except for Colley) were never made public. BUT - Respectfully, the result of EVERY Computer Poll was published EVERY WEEK. And the METHODOLOGY for arriving at the consensus of the computers (which was NEVER a simple "average" or "majority rule") was likewise published.
We always knew, and we could cross check to see if the final numbers were correctly calculated.

Do we know how any individual member of the "Double Secret Committee" has voted, at any point during the past 4 years?
Do we know which members voted UA #4 and which voted us #5 last December? (we know for the AP poll each week, and we know for the final "Coaches Poll" and we knew for the final Harris poll as well).
Do we know what Criteria (if any) MUST be considered by the committee?
Do we know the committee arives at it's results? What kinds of numbers are generated? or who they are tabulated?
Do the members vote by ordinals? or do they assign numerical scores?
Is the final poll a Simple average? Weighted average? Mean? Median?

Respectfully, the answer to ALL those questions, is "NO". We just don't know. It's all a SECRET. NOTHING can be "checked" or "verified".

All we know is the final result.


I'm pretty sure the committee has picked the same 4 teams that the BCS formula would've picked in every playoff. So, the outcome has been the same but just with a little more drama..
Well, RESPECTFULLY - yes and no. It's true that when we run "Proxy" BCS calculations, we almost always get the same result, but there are some problems there.

First and foremost - 1/3 of the BCS formula - the Harris Interactive Poll, no longer exists. So there's no way to guess how that Poll would have operated week to week - the Harris Poll DIDN'T always agree with the "Coaches" or the "Computers".

Second is the problem of cross-contamination, due to the "sheep" mentality of most of the Sportswriters (and many of the SID's and other functionaries who actually vote the "Coaches" poll). - NONE of them want to be singled out for being "Wrong" - at least not at the end. So once the first "Double Secret Committee" poll comes out - the AP and Coaches polls ALWAYS fall into line within a couple weeks. This is due to the FEAR of most sportswriters of someone asking them in January why they voted for the "Wrong" team.

So what happens is, by the time the final Four teams are selected, the AP and Coaches polls have each become nearly UNANIMOUS in Mirroring the Committee Poll, again, out of "fear" of being called out for being "wrong".

Here's just ONE example - last year, week 11 the first Committee poll is released, and 9-0 Wisconsin is ranked #8. The same week, the Coaches poll had Wisconsin at #3.
The next week Wisconsin wins again and goes to 10-0. And they didn't "Just" win - they beat a RANKED team, On the Road, by 24 points. But the Coaches moved them DOWN to #4???
Why?
Well, we all KNOW why, don't we? Because no one wants to be put on the spot by the media and asked why they voted differently than the "All Powerful OZ Committee".

So what you have is a classic "Self Fulfilling Prophecy". Happens every year.

The point being, this kind of "Cross contamination" really invalidates any serious attempt to divine what the ACTUAL BCS might have done.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
True, the actual formulas (except for Colley) were never made public. BUT - Respectfully, the result of EVERY Computer Poll was published EVERY WEEK. And the METHODOLOGY for arriving at the consensus of the computers (which was NEVER a simple "average" or "majority rule") was likewise published.
Computer polls are meaningless the first few months of the season - ask any one of these guys who created these models and they will tell you that. There simply is not enough data. So, yes, they were published, but they were also meaningless until November. And, as a result, the computer rankings change wildly until November. Not sure how this does anything to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Result - you have secret formulas producing meaningless data for months and that makes you feel better when we get to November, even though the November ranking are wildly different from the September and October rankings. But, hey, at least they released the results of their secret polls weekly.

The bottom line - when it matters, both publish their results every week, and both are very open about the methodology used. You are not going to be satisfied unless you get to sit in the room with them while they make their decisions. But you take off the tin foil hat while computer geeks play with their secret formulas every week, trusting them completely.

Either wear the hat or take it off. Please. I can't decide if you are really crazy, or maybe just trying to convince us that you are crazy. :wink:
 

tusks_n_raider

Hall of Fame
May 13, 2009
12,130
12,212
187
Mobile, AL
The committee has picked the correct 4 teams all 4 years with ZERO mistakes.

Their #4 pick has been validated TWICE by ultimately winning the NCG.

Last year was certainly entertaining for me. I knew they would pick us #4. There was no logical argument for the alternative.... yet so many people were freaking out about it.

I'm not going to dig up the old threads but if anyone is so inclined to search you will see dozens of posts by me trying to reassure everybody before the selection that the committee was on the up and up and would make the right decision. It fell on deaf ears mostly but I tried...lol

I'm more than happy with the Playoff committee and have no urge for the BCS to ever come back.

Now the New CFP NC Trophy is another matter.... THAT thing STILL looks gawd-awful. The Crystal Ball is 100000000X's better.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
And honestly, we don't know what kind of multipliers or algorithms is going on behind the scenes to get to those numbers. They could arrange the formulas in any number of ways in order to favor one side versus the other. Ask any financial analyst to run a projection and he can give you different any number of answers based on what he thinks you want the answer to be (ask me how I know). The same could be done with the BCS formula.
The BCS formula actually couldn't be changed. From what I recall for most of the BCS it was a simple formula, one third from one poll, one third from another poll, one third from computers. The BCS just took that data and then used them in a formula. Now, the computers hypothetically could be altered in some way, but there was a fail-safe for that. I believe there were 6 computers, but the automatically removed the highest and lowest ranking for each team. So, if one of the computers was rigged in some way, it would be automatically excluded. Also, since we could predict to a large extent what the computers would do, any major aberrations would be noted. The same can't be said for committee members, they have more power, but we have way of telling if they are up to any shenanigans, or any way of excluding them from the process if they are. We don't even know their votes, and there's no system to exclude aberrant voting as far as I am aware.

To be clear - they have NO mistakes. None. Get back to me when they make one.
I find myself in complete disagreement with that statement. Their final results I have no major issues with, but they have made mistakes. Big ones... their ranking Auburn over Alabama last year was atrocious. Now, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know Alabama was the champion, who beat three teams that beat Auburn, while Auburn suffered four losses. So, of course it's easier to tell how absolutely absurd that ranking was, but it was wrong when they did it. I argued that very thing here.

The problem was the committee took two teams with similarities in their schedule, one with two losses and one with one loss, and simply because the team with two losses was better for one week they ranked the two loss team ahead of the one loss team. That's nonsense, it erased the fact that LSU beat Auburn and Alabama beat LSU, it made that loss simply not count and it was not just a mistake, but a huge mistake. I can't think of the BCS doing that at any point for the entire time they existed, I can't think of a two loss team being ranked ahead of a one loss team with that much in common (I mean they both played in the same division), so... sorry but yeah, the committee screwed up badly. They ranked a two loss Auburn ahead of a one loss Alabama team, which ended up being a four loss Auburn and a championship Alabama team. Their bad. It was a bad move that looks even worse with the benefit of hindsight.
 

RedWave

All-SEC
Sep 26, 2000
1,579
3
0
Arlington, Tx
The committee has picked the correct 4 teams all 4 years with ZERO mistakes.

Their #4 pick has been validated TWICE by ultimately winning the NCG.

Last year was certainly entertaining for me. I knew they would pick us #4. There was no logical argument for the alternative.... yet so many people were freaking out about it.

I'm not going to dig up the old threads but if anyone is so inclined to search you will see dozens of posts by me trying to reassure everybody before the selection that the committee was on the up and up and would make the right decision. It fell on deaf ears mostly but I tried...lol

I'm more than happy with the Playoff committee and have no urge for the BCS to ever come back.

Now the New CFP NC Trophy is another matter.... THAT thing STILL looks gawd-awful. The Crystal Ball is 100000000X's better.
While I certainly agree with the part in bold, I believe the fans of Baylor, TCU, Penn State, and Ohio State (and possibly a few others) would not say the same. From our perspective, having not yet missed a playoff, we think they got it right every time. And even though we won out this year, I could see an Ohio State fan making the argument that, given the opportunity, they could have done the same. Penn State could claim they would have done much better in the playoff than Ohio State did the year PSU got snubbed, and how could we prove they were wrong? Baylor/TCU, while I don't either had much of a chance, how can we definitively state that they wouldn't have earned their spot given the opportunity? But this will always be true, regardless of the method of choosing or the number of teams taken.
 

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
4,442
3,058
187
Lancaster, PA
What happened this past season seemed to validate the BCS. Many people thought the BCS was flawed the year it was Alabama-LSU. Everyone thought "How could any team play for the championship when they didn't win their division?" But the BCS got it right and we won, so last season the committee picked us after not winning the division and we won again proving the committee also got it right. The committee and the simulated BCS rankings are almost identical. I remember last season I posted the final BCS rankings that put us #4 just moments before we were picked by the committee. I always liked the BCS when it was being used and continue to have a favorable opinion of it.
 

RollTide_HTTR

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2017
8,768
6,532
187
While I certainly agree with the part in bold, I believe the fans of Baylor, TCU, Penn State, and Ohio State (and possibly a few others) would not say the same. From our perspective, having not yet missed a playoff, we think they got it right every time. And even though we won out this year, I could see an Ohio State fan making the argument that, given the opportunity, they could have done the same. Penn State could claim they would have done much better in the playoff than Ohio State did the year PSU got snubbed, and how could we prove they were wrong? Baylor/TCU, while I don't either had much of a chance, how can we definitively state that they wouldn't have earned their spot given the opportunity? But this will always be true, regardless of the method of choosing or the number of teams taken.
I think that's really the key. There is no perfect system where everyone is happy. The best you can do is to reflect and consistently attempt to make the system better.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
T
I find myself in complete disagreement with that statement. Their final results I have no major issues with, but they have made mistakes. Big ones... their ranking Auburn over Alabama last year was atrocious. Now, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know Alabama was the champion, who beat three teams that beat Auburn, while Auburn suffered four losses. So, of course it's easier to tell how absolutely absurd that ranking was, but it was wrong when they did it. I argued that very thing here.
The CFP is there for a single purpose - get the final ranking correct. They have never erred in that. The other weeks that they offer their rankings are to please the masses, many of whom are wearing tin foil hats imagining all sorts of things. Those releases are totally meaningless and not a part of their charter.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,530
338
102
The CFP is there for a single purpose - get the final ranking correct. They have never erred in that. The other weeks that they offer their rankings are to please the masses, many of whom are wearing tin foil hats imagining all sorts of things. Those releases are totally meaningless and not a part of their charter.
+1

Judging them based on anything but the final rankings is totally pointless -- all of the rankings up to the final one are just for the benefit of ESPN and talking heads everywhere.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.