Exalted_Horn
< 25 Posts
i ******* love this website.
OK Cal Fans -- I'm Removing the Voter Bias!
- Thread starter SynTex
- Start date
JuniorHorn11
25+ Posts
Excellent post. This is a post for the ages. One day people will think SynTex was nothing more than a myth. But we will know. We will know.....
PunkRockinHorn
100+ Posts
great post, already emailed it out to many friends, and family!
StreetHookd
< 25 Posts
More kudos to Syntex. My old roommate I used to live with in NYC (OU grad who still lives there) just sent this it to me along with about 8 others. It's still making waves 24 hours later!
WestGAHorn
500+ Posts
Man, thats is a post legends are made of.....
William Wallace : Yes, i've heard. He Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and lightening from his arse. He is SynTex.
William Wallace: Go back to England and tell them that Scotlands daughters and sons are yours no more. Tell them that by the hand of SynTex, Scotland is free.
William Wallace : Yes, i've heard. He Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and lightening from his arse. He is SynTex.
William Wallace: Go back to England and tell them that Scotlands daughters and sons are yours no more. Tell them that by the hand of SynTex, Scotland is free.
BurntOrangeOrder
100+ Posts
H
horn26
Guest
Excellent work Syntex. The local (Seattle) sports radio geeks here keeps harping on the Rose bowl robbery.
Your post is the only thing that is keeping me sane. I have already told the doubters in my office about it. Now let's rout Michigan and root for Tech to murder Cal.
These PAC fudge 10 folks here are even making me want to root for OU... just this one time.
Your post is the only thing that is keeping me sane. I have already told the doubters in my office about it. Now let's rout Michigan and root for Tech to murder Cal.
These PAC fudge 10 folks here are even making me want to root for OU... just this one time.
wooderson72
25+ Posts
Hey, SynTex....in case you were wondering, that was one HELL of a post. Simple, clear and ***-kicking. Pure, unadulterated greatness. It's making the email rounds with my crew as well. You da man.
llanoflash
25+ Posts
thanks Mr. SynTex......(heavy on the Mr.)
orange_pride
100+ Posts
Long time lurker, first time poster.
Simply the best.
Simply the best.
Ill take on this challenge as a Cal fan and provide a rebuttal. First off I find no fault with your number crunching. Not that I tried to verify it but simply there is no reason why I should. Now, I draw your attention to the 7th BCS rankings through Nov29th, days after your victory over AM. The BCS computer ranking (one part of the 3 needed for the final BCS rankings, which are a simple avg of the current AP poll, coaches poll, and BCS computer rankings) has Texas at .880 and Cal at .800. Dec5th, the final BCS computer ranking, Texas is again at .880 and Cal is at .800. Nothing changed in the BCS computer rankings between the last 2 polls. This is explained easily, no team that Cal played was active the last week and on Texas's schedule only OU and Colorado were active and they played against each other. So, the only thing that changed was the human polls..
If you buy the above statements, you agree the voters decided the final rankings, NOT the BCS computers. We Cal fans find it odd with an idle Texas ,Utah, and Georgia(other teams in the BCS top7), followed up with an expected win by Cal we lost 11 points in the AP poll and 28 points in the coaches poll. To those who point out Cal's last performance was not representative of a 4th ranked team, I'd argue you were already convinced Cal was a 4th ranked team in your previous BCS coaches vote when Texas won against AM, now what makes Texas a better team all of a sudden? Was it the cal offense? Their passing defense? Team passing offense: Cal 41th, Texas 103th. Team rushing offense: Texas 2nd, Cal 7th. Team scoring offense: Cal 6th, Texas 14th. Team total offense: Cal 5th, Texas 9th. Team passing defense: Cal 45th, Texas 59th. Team rushing defense: Cal 4th, Texas 16th. Team scoring defense: Cal 4th, Texas 14th. Team total defense: Cal 11th, Texas 22nd. Notice any reoccuring themes? You got us beat only in rushing offense and we average more yards per carry than you do. Cal dominates all other stats. Quality opponents? We held USC to 75 yards rushing while Oklahoma put up over 304 yards rushing against you. That said, I give credit to southern miss they played their hearts out, stopping our offense when they needed to, before their D ran out of gas. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, like most Cal fans, have trouble believing UNBIASED, reasonably informed voters, after seeing this game, could provide CREDIBLE REASONING to justify pushing an idle Texas up over winning or idle higher ranked teams. What changed from last week??? Cal put up over 300 yards on the ground and 200+ in the air. We gave up 320 combined to Smiss. Did we almost lose the game? Nope, never trailed after the half. Did we need lady luck? Nope, we dominated them on the ground. What changed those voters' minds? Score? 10 point margin of vicorty, 17 if you include a bad call. 20-24 if we run up the score. I sincerely doubt it was Cals performance. So you big12 fans will have accusations of bias and conspiracy against your conference from those of us who feel we were very much wronged. At least 12 coaches voting for Cal moved them down in their rankings, at least 1 moved them up. At least 1 coach moved Texas down, at least 12 others moved them up, and at least 11 coaches moved Texas OVER Cal (Texas recieved 10 more 4th place votes and 2 more 3rd place votes in the final vote - as Cal wasnt higher than 4th -except for 1 vote - and you cant have Texas and Cal both at 4th, naturally Cal had to be moved lower). This is what changed the status quo. Publicize the names of the coaches and their rankings. The truth will only be known then. The BCS computer rankings did not do Cal in, the voters did. This will be my only post here, I have no malice towards Texas fans, just those biased human voters.
If you buy the above statements, you agree the voters decided the final rankings, NOT the BCS computers. We Cal fans find it odd with an idle Texas ,Utah, and Georgia(other teams in the BCS top7), followed up with an expected win by Cal we lost 11 points in the AP poll and 28 points in the coaches poll. To those who point out Cal's last performance was not representative of a 4th ranked team, I'd argue you were already convinced Cal was a 4th ranked team in your previous BCS coaches vote when Texas won against AM, now what makes Texas a better team all of a sudden? Was it the cal offense? Their passing defense? Team passing offense: Cal 41th, Texas 103th. Team rushing offense: Texas 2nd, Cal 7th. Team scoring offense: Cal 6th, Texas 14th. Team total offense: Cal 5th, Texas 9th. Team passing defense: Cal 45th, Texas 59th. Team rushing defense: Cal 4th, Texas 16th. Team scoring defense: Cal 4th, Texas 14th. Team total defense: Cal 11th, Texas 22nd. Notice any reoccuring themes? You got us beat only in rushing offense and we average more yards per carry than you do. Cal dominates all other stats. Quality opponents? We held USC to 75 yards rushing while Oklahoma put up over 304 yards rushing against you. That said, I give credit to southern miss they played their hearts out, stopping our offense when they needed to, before their D ran out of gas. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, like most Cal fans, have trouble believing UNBIASED, reasonably informed voters, after seeing this game, could provide CREDIBLE REASONING to justify pushing an idle Texas up over winning or idle higher ranked teams. What changed from last week??? Cal put up over 300 yards on the ground and 200+ in the air. We gave up 320 combined to Smiss. Did we almost lose the game? Nope, never trailed after the half. Did we need lady luck? Nope, we dominated them on the ground. What changed those voters' minds? Score? 10 point margin of vicorty, 17 if you include a bad call. 20-24 if we run up the score. I sincerely doubt it was Cals performance. So you big12 fans will have accusations of bias and conspiracy against your conference from those of us who feel we were very much wronged. At least 12 coaches voting for Cal moved them down in their rankings, at least 1 moved them up. At least 1 coach moved Texas down, at least 12 others moved them up, and at least 11 coaches moved Texas OVER Cal (Texas recieved 10 more 4th place votes and 2 more 3rd place votes in the final vote - as Cal wasnt higher than 4th -except for 1 vote - and you cant have Texas and Cal both at 4th, naturally Cal had to be moved lower). This is what changed the status quo. Publicize the names of the coaches and their rankings. The truth will only be known then. The BCS computer rankings did not do Cal in, the voters did. This will be my only post here, I have no malice towards Texas fans, just those biased human voters.
SouthAfricanHorn
250+ Posts
I am not qualified to answer this post, but you play in the PAC -10. Texas plays in the Big XII South Division. That seriously hurts credibility when referring to stats.
However, I for one appreciate the lack of venom towards Longhorns. Anger, from anyone and everyone, should be directed toward the BCS system as it stands today.
Thanks for posting.
Hook 'em.
However, I for one appreciate the lack of venom towards Longhorns. Anger, from anyone and everyone, should be directed toward the BCS system as it stands today.
Thanks for posting.
Hook 'em.
Welcome to our last year.
Actually, depending on how you look at it. The computers did do you in. If you had our computer ranking, you would have gone to the BCS instead of relying on the biased human polls. Believe me, this is the first time Horns have been appreciative of the computers.
Actually, depending on how you look at it. The computers did do you in. If you had our computer ranking, you would have gone to the BCS instead of relying on the biased human polls. Believe me, this is the first time Horns have been appreciative of the computers.
hollisdude
500+ Posts
ya, thanks for posting Cal dude. But ... if the crux of your post is based on stats, then it is only fair to examine the teams you played against to get those stats. That means you must include your strength of schedule as the basis for supporting all your stat championships over us. Someone will have to run this by me again, but what is Texas and Cal's SOS for this year? I may be wrong, but I'm betting our stats were achieved against a stonger set of opponents.
The real problem in this for Cal (I suspect) is that this year was your one shot and you didn't make it.
All I do know is we're closing ranks on our end and hoping you guys take the sand aggies lightly. If you do, you will be in for 55 or so before you blink.
The real problem in this for Cal (I suspect) is that this year was your one shot and you didn't make it.
All I do know is we're closing ranks on our end and hoping you guys take the sand aggies lightly. If you do, you will be in for 55 or so before you blink.
Thanks for the position statement, Redruin. While I am probably not nearly as knowledgeable as others here, they must be off doing something else, so I'll take a first shot at replying.
Even if the computer poll positions didn't change in the last two weeks, I think what folks like SynTex and others are saying is that the score difference between Cal and Texas in the computer polls was determinative in an absolute score sense. Apart from the potential, but ultimately moot differences among the computer polls having highest and lowest scores for each of our teams, the SOS differences between the teams that Cal played and won against paled against that of teams that Texas played and won against. This ended up being just too big a hill for Cal to climb and overcome by any rational change in human voters.
While you may have a different view of it, human nature being what it is the pollsters in AP and the coaches had unfulfilled expectations regarding Cal's performance against Southern Miss. USM is, what, the 4th best team in Conference USA, and the Cal Bears should NOT have struggled against them as you did. The claims your coach made about it being a big game and a "hostile environment" (puh-leeeze!) were disingenuous at best, and evidently were viewed by objective pollsters as a smokescreen. You guys had it right there in front of you to slam the door on a BCS bid, and you just didn't get it done. It is simple as that. At the highest levels of college football, it isn't just about winning, especially against a demonstrably mediocre opponent late inthe season. No conspiracy needs to be invoked -- the pollsters, both the media and coaches, all saw it the same way and Cal lost votes for that in each poll. The compelling point is that either the coaches scores or the media scores acting alone were enough to insure Cal would be #5. In fact, even if ALL pollsters had Cal #4 and Texas #5, which is a preposterous expectation, that would have resulted in a BCS dead heat. Texas was 10-1 like Cal overall, and was 5-1 against teams with 7 or more wins, while Cal was 1-1. No conspiracy. No robbery. Just the facts, viewed objectively, became determinative. And in our view, correctly so.
We know it sucks for you, we have been there. We know it is disappointing. (We have had 10 wins the past four years.) But your gripe shouldn't be directed to Texas, which is rationally as deserving of a BCS invite as you, if not more so. Your gripe should be with the BCS system that allows lower ranked teams to take slots in BCS bowls. Look at it this way -- after this season, the eight teams that play in the BCS bowls are not the eight best football teams in the country. But Texas is definitely one of them. And so is Cal. It just didn't work out for you guys this year.
Even if the computer poll positions didn't change in the last two weeks, I think what folks like SynTex and others are saying is that the score difference between Cal and Texas in the computer polls was determinative in an absolute score sense. Apart from the potential, but ultimately moot differences among the computer polls having highest and lowest scores for each of our teams, the SOS differences between the teams that Cal played and won against paled against that of teams that Texas played and won against. This ended up being just too big a hill for Cal to climb and overcome by any rational change in human voters.
While you may have a different view of it, human nature being what it is the pollsters in AP and the coaches had unfulfilled expectations regarding Cal's performance against Southern Miss. USM is, what, the 4th best team in Conference USA, and the Cal Bears should NOT have struggled against them as you did. The claims your coach made about it being a big game and a "hostile environment" (puh-leeeze!) were disingenuous at best, and evidently were viewed by objective pollsters as a smokescreen. You guys had it right there in front of you to slam the door on a BCS bid, and you just didn't get it done. It is simple as that. At the highest levels of college football, it isn't just about winning, especially against a demonstrably mediocre opponent late inthe season. No conspiracy needs to be invoked -- the pollsters, both the media and coaches, all saw it the same way and Cal lost votes for that in each poll. The compelling point is that either the coaches scores or the media scores acting alone were enough to insure Cal would be #5. In fact, even if ALL pollsters had Cal #4 and Texas #5, which is a preposterous expectation, that would have resulted in a BCS dead heat. Texas was 10-1 like Cal overall, and was 5-1 against teams with 7 or more wins, while Cal was 1-1. No conspiracy. No robbery. Just the facts, viewed objectively, became determinative. And in our view, correctly so.
We know it sucks for you, we have been there. We know it is disappointing. (We have had 10 wins the past four years.) But your gripe shouldn't be directed to Texas, which is rationally as deserving of a BCS invite as you, if not more so. Your gripe should be with the BCS system that allows lower ranked teams to take slots in BCS bowls. Look at it this way -- after this season, the eight teams that play in the BCS bowls are not the eight best football teams in the country. But Texas is definitely one of them. And so is Cal. It just didn't work out for you guys this year.
It bears repeating that were the formula that was in place last year--which included a heavier strength of schedule component--used this year, we wouldn't even be having the discussion. UT would have outdistanced Cal substantially more.
I do appreciate the recognition that reasonable parties can disagree, but it makes no sense for so much venom to be directed at UT. The real problem is the system, and the fact that a four-loss Pitt team goes ahead of either Cal or UT.
I do appreciate the recognition that reasonable parties can disagree, but it makes no sense for so much venom to be directed at UT. The real problem is the system, and the fact that a four-loss Pitt team goes ahead of either Cal or UT.
StreetHookd
< 25 Posts
So let me get this straight RE: Cal fans logic here and on other boards:1) Even though voters have been switching their votes among various teams consistently the entire season (and have every right to do so, these are opinions afterall)...if it goes against Cal, there's a bias. However, if Texas stays the same or loses votes at any point, it's fair.
2) It's about the entire season, not about one game. Therefore the USM game should not be the focus, and Cal did win, no matter how close it was. Yet pointing out the Kansas win and "the penalty that wasn't" is an exception to this rule. Because it serves Cal's agenda, focus on the KU and OU games as much as possible.
3) A close loss is better than any other kind of loss. And again focusing on the USC game as the main reason Cal is better than Texas is also an exception to #2. A Cal loss to undefeated USC is in their favor, a Texas loss to undefeated OU is to wiegh heavily against them in the BCS. But wait...I almost couldn't tell! Weren't they both ::gasp:: losses???
4) Higher ranking among NCAA D1 schools on offense and defense = better team. Sure Cal's Total Defense is ranked 13th and Texas is 24th (updated), but a 5-6 North Carolina St. is #1. But shhh...don't mention that. So if superior teams always equaled better offensive and defensive rankings then why are USC, OU, and Auburn not at the top of each list? Oh that's right, because it doesn't necessarily equate to the team's overall ability or potential. I mean, hell, even though we beat them by 20+ Rice has the best rushing offense so we are inferior to them. Plus a 4-7 Rutgers has the 6th best passing offense so they must be better than both Cal AND Texas!!! What a travesty to keep them out of the BCS!
Really, there are many more hypocrisies and fallacies floating around, even with Syntex's post circulating. I don't think half of those (unlike the Cal fan above) even read the thing before disputing it. What a dishonor to The Post.
2) It's about the entire season, not about one game. Therefore the USM game should not be the focus, and Cal did win, no matter how close it was. Yet pointing out the Kansas win and "the penalty that wasn't" is an exception to this rule. Because it serves Cal's agenda, focus on the KU and OU games as much as possible.
3) A close loss is better than any other kind of loss. And again focusing on the USC game as the main reason Cal is better than Texas is also an exception to #2. A Cal loss to undefeated USC is in their favor, a Texas loss to undefeated OU is to wiegh heavily against them in the BCS. But wait...I almost couldn't tell! Weren't they both ::gasp:: losses???
4) Higher ranking among NCAA D1 schools on offense and defense = better team. Sure Cal's Total Defense is ranked 13th and Texas is 24th (updated), but a 5-6 North Carolina St. is #1. But shhh...don't mention that. So if superior teams always equaled better offensive and defensive rankings then why are USC, OU, and Auburn not at the top of each list? Oh that's right, because it doesn't necessarily equate to the team's overall ability or potential. I mean, hell, even though we beat them by 20+ Rice has the best rushing offense so we are inferior to them. Plus a 4-7 Rutgers has the 6th best passing offense so they must be better than both Cal AND Texas!!! What a travesty to keep them out of the BCS!
Really, there are many more hypocrisies and fallacies floating around, even with Syntex's post circulating. I don't think half of those (unlike the Cal fan above) even read the thing before disputing it. What a dishonor to The Post.
Not only is SynTex's work a masterpiece, but several other good points are made in the replies. I'll try to add one:
The "conspiracy" theory seems to depend irretrievably on the concept that some coaches either felt sorry for Mack or like him better than Tedford. What actual evidence is there of THAT? Is Tedford an *******? He doesn't seem like one, so I can't fathom why a given coach (or SID, or whoever) would decide "Aw, hell, let's **** Jeff over and give Mack a little sumpin'."
The "conspiracy" theory seems to depend irretrievably on the concept that some coaches either felt sorry for Mack or like him better than Tedford. What actual evidence is there of THAT? Is Tedford an *******? He doesn't seem like one, so I can't fathom why a given coach (or SID, or whoever) would decide "Aw, hell, let's **** Jeff over and give Mack a little sumpin'."
I love this website because when I read something I usually don't have to reply with my argument. I can sit back and keep scrolling because at least 5 other people will type, almost verbatim, the same words I was thinking. Then, rest assured, another 10 people will come up with ideas that are far more profound than my feeble mind can fathom. Thanks Syntex and Hornfans, all of you.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Redruin-In the scope of the whole season, the computers did do Cal in relative to Texas. In the scope of week 7 and the final week 8 of the BCS calculations, the vote totals in the polls changed as they have during every interval and did Cal in once and for all. This is not bias. Moreover, the votes changed by such an extent that even when removing votes that could somehow be considered a 'biased' attempt at gaming the system, it accounts for only half the difference created by the total shift in votes for both human polls.
What is so great about SynTex's post is not only how he runs the numbers to refute theories of a rigged outcome, but also how he uses that evidence as support, imo, of his own correct observation:
"Here's a thought.... maybe Cal lost ground in the human polls in the following week (a full 9 days after Mack's "whining") because of a subpar performance against a mediocre conference USA opponent. Because they were virtually tied with Southern Miss with only 6 minutes remaining in the game. Not because of Mack's "whining." And if you think it is wrong for Cal to be penalized on ballots because they didn't look good against a mediocre opponent -- welcome to college football. Teams have constantly been tweaked because of soft performances."
Cal dude, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Cal beat one team with 7 or more victories, Texas beat 5. Stats like the ones you give frequently give false perceptions and that was evident when Cal repeatedly got forced to punt by So. Miss in the second half of a close game. Then, the nation watches a Cal defense get virtually zero pressure on the So. Miss QB. Cal appeared smallish and weak as they had pass after pass completed against them. It was the wrong place at the wrong time for Cal to look so plain under the microscope to the unbiased eye.
It was close. I'll give you that.
What is so great about SynTex's post is not only how he runs the numbers to refute theories of a rigged outcome, but also how he uses that evidence as support, imo, of his own correct observation:
"Here's a thought.... maybe Cal lost ground in the human polls in the following week (a full 9 days after Mack's "whining") because of a subpar performance against a mediocre conference USA opponent. Because they were virtually tied with Southern Miss with only 6 minutes remaining in the game. Not because of Mack's "whining." And if you think it is wrong for Cal to be penalized on ballots because they didn't look good against a mediocre opponent -- welcome to college football. Teams have constantly been tweaked because of soft performances."
Cal dude, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Cal beat one team with 7 or more victories, Texas beat 5. Stats like the ones you give frequently give false perceptions and that was evident when Cal repeatedly got forced to punt by So. Miss in the second half of a close game. Then, the nation watches a Cal defense get virtually zero pressure on the So. Miss QB. Cal appeared smallish and weak as they had pass after pass completed against them. It was the wrong place at the wrong time for Cal to look so plain under the microscope to the unbiased eye.
It was close. I'll give you that.
eflow24
1,000+ Posts
Cal guy, what you fail to realize is that the AP votes were enough to give us the bid. Even if the coaches had stayed the same we would have passed you.
Did you think it was fair that some AP voter had us 9th? DO you also realize that in the final polls, WE were dropped to 7th and 8th in the coaches poll as well. You were also moved to #3 in the coaches poll. There was movement on both sides.
In the end, the computers did you in more than the voters.
Furthermore, we would easily have your stats or better if we played in the Pac 10. We play in the Big 12 South, which is the second toughest conference in college football.
Your SOS is in the 50's, ours in the Top 10. Your stats BETTER be better. Also, the same Southern Miss team who was so tough to play, lost AT HOME to Cincy 52-27. They also lost to TCU 42-17. We beat their conference opponent North Texas, 65-0. The SOS argument is easy.
I promise you, we know the feeling. Almost all of us believe Cal should be in the BCS. We know you got screwed, we just don't think Texas did it to you. We DESERVED To be there as well.
Did you think it was fair that some AP voter had us 9th? DO you also realize that in the final polls, WE were dropped to 7th and 8th in the coaches poll as well. You were also moved to #3 in the coaches poll. There was movement on both sides.
In the end, the computers did you in more than the voters.
Furthermore, we would easily have your stats or better if we played in the Pac 10. We play in the Big 12 South, which is the second toughest conference in college football.
Your SOS is in the 50's, ours in the Top 10. Your stats BETTER be better. Also, the same Southern Miss team who was so tough to play, lost AT HOME to Cincy 52-27. They also lost to TCU 42-17. We beat their conference opponent North Texas, 65-0. The SOS argument is easy.
I promise you, we know the feeling. Almost all of us believe Cal should be in the BCS. We know you got screwed, we just don't think Texas did it to you. We DESERVED To be there as well.
2
2003NatlChamps
Guest
Ok, after Cedric Benson getting snubbed, I was pretty creatively deprived. But take a look -
http://bcstruth.com/
If any photoshoppers out there want to have a go with the PSDs, pm or email and I will send you the link. Maybe a hookem sign instead of the rose.
edit - Aw, what the heck. I'll just put it up as is for now.
http://bcstruth.com/
If any photoshoppers out there want to have a go with the PSDs, pm or email and I will send you the link. Maybe a hookem sign instead of the rose.
edit - Aw, what the heck. I'll just put it up as is for now.
Prediction Results Threads
