http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics/coaches_fb_poll_2007/flash.htm So Tuberville believes Hawaii is better than UGA? Okay.
well <r>it looks like he voted 2 loss LSU #1.<br/> <br/> hell, you wanted the guy as your coach <E></E></r>
Charlie Weis voted Georgia #2 and said he thought Richt had a legit complaint that Georgia didn't play and dropped down while a couple of other teams didn't play and moved up. He said he and Richt are friends, I wonder if Mark has a big enough refrigerator to invite Charlie over for dinner!!
Lloyd had Hawaii as No. 5! Wow, the severity of his Parkinson's disease was far worse than what was made public.
Notre Dame isn't part of a conference so basically they didn't have a dog in the hunt. After West Virginia lost, the Big East didn't either. look at the Coaches that voted UGA #2 and the ones that didn't and you tell me there was no agenda!
Of course there's an agenda. The best two teams were USC and Georgia. You don't think anyone wanted to play them at the end of the season do you?
I'm pissed that Charlie didn't vote the Irish in at #25, were one of the hottest teams in the country right now!!
Sagarin overall ratings: SoCal #8 (SOS #32), GA #10 (SOS #30). Of course there is an agenda. The question is, whose?
I agree, Terry. Didn't we have something like 10 bowl teams on our schedule? Plus a two game win streak. Plus we beat Stanford who beat SoCal, and Stanford beat Cal who beat Tennessee who beat Georgia. :twisted:
Frankly, I think ND deserves consideration for a BCS Bowl based on the following rationale: Notre Dame: beat Stanford, who beat USC, who beat Nebraska, who beat Ball State, who beat Western Michigan, who beat Iowa, who beat Illinois, who beat Ohio State
LOL! Thanks, Bobda. I like the way your logical mind works. I know you are very sincere in your analysis.
Let's see...Lloyd Carr...the biggest culprit...voted Michigan #21...they were rated #26 by Sagarin's Predictor ratings (which Sagarin believes is more accurate than his ELO_CHESS. Wow, that's a scandal... Mike Belloti is part of this scandal for voting Oregon in at #25...Sagarin has them at #5 by the Predictor method (#26 by ELO_CHESS...quite a spread but still spot on with his vote.) Chris Peterson voted Boise St. all the way up from 22 to 14 (By the way, that's a jump of 8...not 6...this guy can't even do math.) Sagarin has them at #16...ooh! Mike Riley commited the cardinal sin of voting Oregon State in at #24...Sagarin's Predictor has them at #21. Randy Edsall committed the outrage of voting his UConn team #23, while they finished #20 in the combined computer rankings and #25 overall in the BCS. Tommy Bowden marked his Clemson team at #14, while Sagarin's Predictor had them at #19 and the overall BCS had them at #15. Mike Leach?...put Texas Tech in at #22 while Sagarin had them at #15...scandalous! Ron Zook??...moved Illinois up from #13 to #9. They are #13 in the BCS while Sagarin has them at...oh, never mind...(#24) :roll: Phil Fulmer jumped Tenn 4 spots to #14...BCS has them at #16. Frank Beamer had the gall to vote his Hokies #2 and eligible for the title while nobody else did (except for the BCS computer avg. which had them at #1. This author is an idiot...tell me where the scandal is. You look at that chart and you know what amazes me is the CONSISTENCY of the votes.
Aha!...I just went to the link for that article... This guy who masquerades as a guy who wants appropriate voting is nothing but a shill for the hometown boys (Va. and Va. Tech)... It's OK to move the homeboys up: This was interesting, too:
Bobda: Stop the room from spinning! I LOVE the interactive graphic from USAToday. I wonder if it makes a difference in how the coaches vote that they know their ballots are made public. Has it always been this way? I don't think it is scandalous that coaches vote their agenda. The poll includes enough different coaches from enough different conferences that their biases should average out. It takes more than one or two wacky votes to send Hawaii to the championship.
Hmmmm .... so maybe Sagarin's "Predictor" ranking is "more accurate" in ranking teams than the voter polls and a better indicator as to which teams should be in the BCS+1?
Maybe...I don't know. All I'm saying is that IMHO the Sagarin ratings are pretty good, and he himself feels that his "Predictor" is better than his "ELO_CHESS" but the BCS insists on the ELO_CHESS which doesn't take score margins into account. His predictor has Oklahoma #1 and Fla. #2...and they certainly are two teams amongst the best. The Predictor ranking has Ohio State at #3, ahead of many teams that some folks describe as "much more deserving" than Ohio State. The computer rankings are not the end-all...they are as disparate as the coaches votes. Nobody wanted (nor should have wanted) to pick one computer method and make it the end-all. A meld of polls and computer rankings is put together and used, as you know. What I do like about computer rankings is that there is none of this lobbying and proving the worthiness of your team by emphasizing all it's accomplishments while ignoring all it's warts, and doing exactly the opposite for the other guy. The computer formulas just run the numbers and either you got it or you don't. I wasn't using the Predictor as the Holy Grail...I was using it to show that most of those coaches weren't necessarily so far off with their assesments of their own teams.
I'll always be suspicious of Sagarin as long as his process is a black box. I don't think he has any obvious biases but there is no way to know where his data comes from, particularly early in the season. I like the Colley Matrix a lot more because his methodology is an open book and because there is no credit for blowouts which is how I think it should be in collegeball. Disadvantages: no rankings early in the season and nobody pays any attention to it. ~Matt