SynTex, I linked this to rec.sport.football.college, and one of the bigger Cal homers there actually changed his tune. Good job. He also noted that, were we to use Week 6 (pre-A&M) poll data along with the final computer rankings, Texas would still have come in #4 in the BCS. That's further evidence that all the poll jockeying amounted to a hill of beans.
OK Cal Fans -- I'm Removing the Voter Bias!
- Thread starter SynTex
- Start date
Texas94&96
First Time Poster
Syntex,
Great work.
As for validating your data. You may have already done so....but make sure that any of the changes you make for us, you consider IF there is also a need to change Cal. For example, taking points away from us by moving our #2 vote down to #5 and behind Cal...obviously we lose three points...but wouldn't Cal also gain one by going from #5 to #4? Some of your changes may not have the same impact but I suspect most, if not all, do.
I still think we come out ahead, but maybe by not as much.
The point remains, however, that the computer polls overwhelmingly put us ahead and that is why we are smelling roses.
Great work.
As for validating your data. You may have already done so....but make sure that any of the changes you make for us, you consider IF there is also a need to change Cal. For example, taking points away from us by moving our #2 vote down to #5 and behind Cal...obviously we lose three points...but wouldn't Cal also gain one by going from #5 to #4? Some of your changes may not have the same impact but I suspect most, if not all, do.
I still think we come out ahead, but maybe by not as much.
The point remains, however, that the computer polls overwhelmingly put us ahead and that is why we are smelling roses.
DiabloTejano
< 25 Posts
Seems to me the Pac-10 should keep it's mouth shut about problems w/ the polls, unless of course it wants to see OU and Auburn in the championship game.
Texas94&96,
You are right, and that is perhaps the most subjective area of my theory. I said I was moving Texas in 4 coach's polls to #5. So I indicated that this demotion of one #2 and three #3 votes to four #5 votes would cost Texas 9pts.
However, I did not give Cal any benefit on those votes. Here's my reasoning. Cal could already be ranked #4 on those 4 ballots, so demoting Texas to #5 would have no impact on Cal's score (holding them constant). Also, Cal could have ranked #6 on those 4 ballots, so putting Texas at #5 would not benefit Cal.
Clearly, if Cal was #5 on those ballots, then, in theory, they would nudge up from #5 to #4, as Texas supplanted them in #5.
Without knowing the specific ballots, we can't really assume. So on average, I think my projection is about right.
But even in the case where we nudge Cal up on four coach's ballots by one spot (adding another 4 points to their coach's score, so giving them an increase of 24 total, a new adjusted coach's total of 1310 and 0.8590 coach's score), Cal's adjusted BCS ranking would be only 0.8406, which is still 0.0036 behind Texas, and almost 3x the margin of how much Cal led Texas (0.0013) in the 2nd to last BCS poll.
Again, given the lack of info (and the fact that I think we are bending over backwards to adjust the ballots as much in Cal's favor as possible already), I'm comfortable just penalizing Texas for those 4 coach's ballots, and leaving Cal constant.
You are right, and that is perhaps the most subjective area of my theory. I said I was moving Texas in 4 coach's polls to #5. So I indicated that this demotion of one #2 and three #3 votes to four #5 votes would cost Texas 9pts.
However, I did not give Cal any benefit on those votes. Here's my reasoning. Cal could already be ranked #4 on those 4 ballots, so demoting Texas to #5 would have no impact on Cal's score (holding them constant). Also, Cal could have ranked #6 on those 4 ballots, so putting Texas at #5 would not benefit Cal.
Clearly, if Cal was #5 on those ballots, then, in theory, they would nudge up from #5 to #4, as Texas supplanted them in #5.
Without knowing the specific ballots, we can't really assume. So on average, I think my projection is about right.
But even in the case where we nudge Cal up on four coach's ballots by one spot (adding another 4 points to their coach's score, so giving them an increase of 24 total, a new adjusted coach's total of 1310 and 0.8590 coach's score), Cal's adjusted BCS ranking would be only 0.8406, which is still 0.0036 behind Texas, and almost 3x the margin of how much Cal led Texas (0.0013) in the 2nd to last BCS poll.
Again, given the lack of info (and the fact that I think we are bending over backwards to adjust the ballots as much in Cal's favor as possible already), I'm comfortable just penalizing Texas for those 4 coach's ballots, and leaving Cal constant.
SynTex,
Even if your calculations aren't 100.00% accurate, the amount of tangible, logistical effort put into this is admirable. If weighing in virtually all relevant factors gives you a confidence level of 99.995%, I'll take it over a confidence level of 10.00% earned from a process of rampant bitching and conspiracy hypotheses.
Even if your calculations aren't 100.00% accurate, the amount of tangible, logistical effort put into this is admirable. If weighing in virtually all relevant factors gives you a confidence level of 99.995%, I'll take it over a confidence level of 10.00% earned from a process of rampant bitching and conspiracy hypotheses.
H
Hornin NYC
Guest
Lance obviously didn't like the result
LonghornLawyer
500+ Posts
Can we also dispense with the "outrage" of the coaches who voted Cal seventh or eighth? As SynTex pointed out, the USA Today published a breakdown of the coaches vote:
This week Last week
Cal 2nd 0 0
3rd 1 0
4th 27 39
5th 17 16
6th 10 6
7th 4 0
8th 2 0
Tex 2nd 1 1
3rd 3 1
4th 18 8
5th 23 33
6th 8 10
7th 5 6
8th 3 2
It is difficult to extrapolate anything from these numbers, but I think we can speculate as to a few things: (1) four coaches dropped Cal from sixth to seventh or eighth after the Southern Miss game; (2) one coach dropped Texas from seventh to eighth during their off week; (3) sixteen coaches had Texas and Cal either 6th, 7th, or 8th.
With respect to the sixteen coaches, I suspect that they are the same coaches. That is to say that I doubt the coach who had Texas 2nd had Cal 8th. I also doubt that the coach who had Cal 3rd had Texas 8th. The math just doesn't really work for that to happen. And even if it did, the voting shennanigans of these two votes would cancel each other out.
So what we probably have is sixteen coaches who voted something along the lines of (1) USC, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Auburn, (4) Utah, (5) Louisville. While I don't agree with it, there is a logic to this: i.e., all of these schools played in real conferences or semi-real conferences--sorry, Boise State--and there is an inherent value to going undefeated that should place you ahead of any one-loss team, regardless of strength of schedule.
After those five, these sixteen voters put the teams in some sort of combination of (6) Boise State, (7) Cal, (8) Texas.
And if that is the case, then where is the Big 12 conspiracy?
This week Last week
Cal 2nd 0 0
3rd 1 0
4th 27 39
5th 17 16
6th 10 6
7th 4 0
8th 2 0
Tex 2nd 1 1
3rd 3 1
4th 18 8
5th 23 33
6th 8 10
7th 5 6
8th 3 2
It is difficult to extrapolate anything from these numbers, but I think we can speculate as to a few things: (1) four coaches dropped Cal from sixth to seventh or eighth after the Southern Miss game; (2) one coach dropped Texas from seventh to eighth during their off week; (3) sixteen coaches had Texas and Cal either 6th, 7th, or 8th.
With respect to the sixteen coaches, I suspect that they are the same coaches. That is to say that I doubt the coach who had Texas 2nd had Cal 8th. I also doubt that the coach who had Cal 3rd had Texas 8th. The math just doesn't really work for that to happen. And even if it did, the voting shennanigans of these two votes would cancel each other out.
So what we probably have is sixteen coaches who voted something along the lines of (1) USC, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Auburn, (4) Utah, (5) Louisville. While I don't agree with it, there is a logic to this: i.e., all of these schools played in real conferences or semi-real conferences--sorry, Boise State--and there is an inherent value to going undefeated that should place you ahead of any one-loss team, regardless of strength of schedule.
After those five, these sixteen voters put the teams in some sort of combination of (6) Boise State, (7) Cal, (8) Texas.
And if that is the case, then where is the Big 12 conspiracy?
If the Cal-USM game were played earlier we would have overtaken Cal in the BCS after AZ State lost to AZ. It wasn't until that loss that we gained our winning advantage in the computers.
I was very happy when we lost votes after the aggy game. If we had not lost votes then, we would have been ahead of Cal that week. The media would have then thrown the BCS game to Cal on the final ballot, even with an ugly USM game.
I was very happy when we lost votes after the aggy game. If we had not lost votes then, we would have been ahead of Cal that week. The media would have then thrown the BCS game to Cal on the final ballot, even with an ugly USM game.
Here is the latest e-mails with 610 KILT - the original message from them and then my response. Please not that his respones to me have been short and not filled with anything but opinion.
--------------------------------------------
Yes, the timing DID matter. Do you honestly believe voters would have jumped teams ahead of them the way they did with a 10 point win in week 2? The point change in the polls is what made the difference in getting Texas in .
------------------
Lance, (or John or whomever is responding)
The point is that this guy has made the calculations on what the
rankings would have been without the changes in the polls. Maintain
status quo from the previous week and Texas still would be #4 BCS.
Granted we do not know exactly how the computer polls are calculated,
however it is safe to assume that they are simply a data set and that
the owners of those polls aren't changing their criteria as the season
goes on. Thus, IF Cal had played USM back in Sept and had the exact
same result in the game the computers would not have changed anything.
And in the end it was the computers that are leaving Cal out, not the
voters.
Texas LOST ground to Cal after beating aTm, and Cal lost ground to
Texas after beating USM. It is the exact same scenario only that it
wound up bumping Cal out of the BCS. Was it fair for Texas to lose
ground after easily handling the top 25 ranked Aggies who are their #2
rival? Is it fair that Cal lost ground after eeking by unranked USM on
the road? Who knows? But in the end the computers made the
difference, not the voters. Cal isn't getting screwed out of
anything. The BCS rankings aren't done till every vote has been cast
and every computer has run it's calculations. The problem is that Cal
as well as most of the Nat'l media seemed to have already put the
Bears into the Rose Bowl and weren't thinking otherwise.
Teams flip flop all the time in the BCS even when teams don't lose.
This cannot be denied. This year it happened one last time on the
last week to a team that had become everyone's "Cinderella Story" and
so it ruined it for them. Thus the public outcry and annoying bias in
the national media. Texas ruined their good story. Ooopss.. only we
didn't.... the stupid BCS did. Hopefully this will further push the
NCAA to a playoff, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Lucas
--------------------------------------------
Yes, the timing DID matter. Do you honestly believe voters would have jumped teams ahead of them the way they did with a 10 point win in week 2? The point change in the polls is what made the difference in getting Texas in .
------------------
Lance, (or John or whomever is responding)
The point is that this guy has made the calculations on what the
rankings would have been without the changes in the polls. Maintain
status quo from the previous week and Texas still would be #4 BCS.
Granted we do not know exactly how the computer polls are calculated,
however it is safe to assume that they are simply a data set and that
the owners of those polls aren't changing their criteria as the season
goes on. Thus, IF Cal had played USM back in Sept and had the exact
same result in the game the computers would not have changed anything.
And in the end it was the computers that are leaving Cal out, not the
voters.
Texas LOST ground to Cal after beating aTm, and Cal lost ground to
Texas after beating USM. It is the exact same scenario only that it
wound up bumping Cal out of the BCS. Was it fair for Texas to lose
ground after easily handling the top 25 ranked Aggies who are their #2
rival? Is it fair that Cal lost ground after eeking by unranked USM on
the road? Who knows? But in the end the computers made the
difference, not the voters. Cal isn't getting screwed out of
anything. The BCS rankings aren't done till every vote has been cast
and every computer has run it's calculations. The problem is that Cal
as well as most of the Nat'l media seemed to have already put the
Bears into the Rose Bowl and weren't thinking otherwise.
Teams flip flop all the time in the BCS even when teams don't lose.
This cannot be denied. This year it happened one last time on the
last week to a team that had become everyone's "Cinderella Story" and
so it ruined it for them. Thus the public outcry and annoying bias in
the national media. Texas ruined their good story. Ooopss.. only we
didn't.... the stupid BCS did. Hopefully this will further push the
NCAA to a playoff, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Lucas
2
2003NatlChamps
Guest
For a $8 domain name, this post could have even more publicity. Cal Fans are doing it :http://www.rosebowlrobbery.com/Maybehttp://www.texasfansfortruth.com ?
So think of a name and I'll put it up...
So think of a name and I'll put it up...
I am nominating this for post of the millennium. Outstanding!!
OT Special
25+ Posts
Longhorns96
< 25 Posts
I haven't read this entire post, but was told about it on a different board. That is amazing, and this should be moved to the Classics as soon as possible. Un-freaking-believable!!!
Jive_Turkey
1,000+ Posts
SigPi_Horn
500+ Posts
babysdaddy
100+ Posts
all your cal voter bias are belong to us
2
2003NatlChamps
Guest
texasfansfortruth.com
bcstruth.com
calwasnotrobbed.com
Are all available. I was thinking I would just put up the post (if that is OK with Syntex), with the credit & link to the hornfans.com original post being the only link on the page. Maybe some roses, but no trademarked symbols. What do you think? With DNS propagation, it could be up in about 24 hrs. Hosting is not a problem.
bcstruth.com
calwasnotrobbed.com
Are all available. I was thinking I would just put up the post (if that is OK with Syntex), with the credit & link to the hornfans.com original post being the only link on the page. Maybe some roses, but no trademarked symbols. What do you think? With DNS propagation, it could be up in about 24 hrs. Hosting is not a problem.
OT Special
25+ Posts
Is 'ThecomputersfuckedCalnotthevoterssoquityourbitchingandfocusonsandaggy.com' available?
Prediction Results Threads
