Schfourteenteen wrote:
No - but you can see the difference between the specific resume of a team and how voters view them.
What I gather from your post is that you believe that computer rankings should figure into the resume, but not the perception of a team?
Schfourteenteen wrote:
Neither are perfect, but by comparing the two you can see how voters give teams more credit(ABILITY) than they truly deserve(RESUME).
That's what I got from this.
So yes, voters will have the human element of being able to say "hey, a win over Stony Brook IS better than a win over Idaho State, and that game against JMU was pretty competitive for Liberty. And wow, they dominated their bad opponents, really showed they were the better team." Whereas the computers will just process "Played VMI, VMI has weak schedule, no wins, lower ranking." and even if Margin of Victory is in the formula, it doesn't balance out the terrible SoS that the whole conference has. So it doesn't determine our resume, because it's inherently flawed. Every team in the Big South has it's SoS exponentially decreased by the other teams in the Big South (because VMI has a weak schedule and a bad record, and they play Presby who has a weak schedule and a bad record, and those two add each other to their SoS which makes it even worse). If there were 6 Idaho State's in the Big Sky, Montana would be right down with us.
Schfourteenteen wrote:If App State played BCU's schedule, who would they have beaten? So no, they would not be deserving of a #2 ranking.
Their playoff opponents.
Schfourteenteen wrote:How many have you seen play? You can say - well this team beat that team, but how can you qualify what teams are good other than 1)knowing the scores of every single game or 2)watching every single game.
A good number, actually. And isn't that what we do when we make a poll, just in a condensed way? Isn't that what I did when evaluating Montana? I didn't look at every single game point by point, but I did look at every game, the same way I've looked at basic info on every game of every team in my top 35ish.
Schfourteenteen wrote:I think they're better than their resume suggests, and that's all a computer can do - calculate a resume.
I addressed this before, but I think you're wrong here. A computer can give you data that you can use to form a resume, but all it has is data. Jacksonville could win every PFL game by 100, lose to App State, and be a top 15 team. They'd be abusing the system (not on purpose, just a byproduct), but that happens sometimes. (Boise).
Schfourteenteen wrote:
At the same time, voters see maybe 3 games on a weekend and rely on name value for the rest of the scores. Neither are perfect, but by comparing the two you can see how voters give teams more credit(ABILITY) than they truly deserve(RESUME).
I am a voter, tho not in any poll that means anything, but I can tell you I watch 3 or 4 games, and look over box scores of many more, and read fans interpretations of what went on at the games on message boards, and take everything in perspective and try to make my poll. I don't say "Liberty beat VMI who beat Presby and Presby has a bad record so LU doesn't get any credit for the win."
I dunno, the more I look into computer rankings, the less I like them, at least in FCS where there's such a disparity in the conferences.
It was my privilege to serve you today. If you have any feedback, please direct it to my Assistant Director....