Why isn't the computer ranking the most accurate?

[SeattleUte]

Meant to say most credible. Substitute credible.

[TripletDaddy]

Two nights ago, the Pacers beat the Lakers on a last second tip in. They actually outrebounded the Lakers and scored more points in the paint.

The Lakers are odds-on favorites to win the NBA title, but they lost a game.

The Pacers aren't even predicted to make the playoffs in the Eastern conference.

If you were to ask a computer, the computer would tell you that the Pacers are 1-0 vs the Lakers this season. Yet nobody in their right mind would claim that the Pacers are actually the better team. Good teams have off nights. Bad teams have good nights. A computer cannot consider intangibles.

Put it this way....when you were up for admission into the partnership, would you have wanted a computer to generate statistics and the admissions committee make its decision strictly based on your work statistics, or do you want a chance to plead your case in person and add context to those statistics?

[BlueHair]

The computers are less accurate at the beginning of the season and more accurate at the end.

[il Padrino Ute]

Perhaps because computers can only do what humans tell them to do.

[ERCougar]

Two nights ago, the Pacers beat the Lakers on a last second tip in. They actually outrebounded the Lakers and scored more points in the paint.

The Lakers are odds-on favorites to win the NBA title, but they lost a game.

The Pacers aren't even predicted to make the playoffs in the Eastern conference.

If you were to ask a computer, the computer would tell you that the Pacers are 1-0 vs the Lakers this season. Yet nobody in their right mind would claim that the Pacers are actually the better team. Good teams have off nights. Bad teams have good nights. A computer cannot consider intangibles.

Put it this way....when you were up for admission into the partnership, would you have wanted a computer to generate statistics and the admissions committee make its decision strictly based on your work statistics, or do you want a chance to plead your case in person and add context to those statistics?

No computer would tell you the Pacers are a better team either. They all deal with probabilities of winning, accepting the possibility that a worse team could win. Given the choice, I'll take computers over people any day, although I think the ideal is a mix (a la BCS standings).

[TripletDaddy]

Perhaps because computers can only do what humans tell them to do.

I'm Sorry, EPU. I'm afraid I cannot agree with that.

This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

[TripletDaddy]

No computer would tell you the Pacers are a better team either. They all deal with probabilities of winning, accepting the possibility that a worse team could win. Given the choice, I'll take computers over people any day, although I think the ideal is a mix (a la BCS standings).

The BCS ranking differential between SC and Utah is minimal.

What do you think the human odds would be in a game with SC v Utah? A push? No way. USC would be heavy favorites.

The computers tell us that some teams are really comparable. In reality they are not.

What was the computer ranking for BYU and for TCU the day before both teams played each other? What happened there?

[SeattleUte]

Perhaps because computers can only do what humans tell them to do.

The algorithms are based on abstract principles evenyone agrees on as being relevant to determining the pecking order. They function without bias deploying data with pure objectivity. Computers are not crystal balls. But it seems to me they're more credible than the bias-fraught human polls. Human polls are fraught with the very bias you decry.

[il Padrino Ute]

The algorithms are based on abstract principles evenyone agrees on as being relevant to determining the pecking order. They function without bias deploying data with pure objectivity. Computers are not crystal balls. But it seems to me they're more credible than the bias-fraught human polls. Human polls are fraught with the very bias you decry.

I realize that. But again, the algorithms are what humans have agreed upon. There is still that human element.

The computers are not biased, but the humans feeding the data are.

[ERCougar]

The BCS ranking differential between SC and Utah is minimal.

What do you think the human odds would be in a game with SC v Utah? A push? No way. USC would be heavy favorites.

The computers tell us that some teams are really comparable. In reality they are not.

What was the computer ranking for BYU and for TCU the day before both teams played each other? What happened there?

Rankings should be a combination of both achievement on the season and quality of the team. An underperforming 9-3 bunch of superstars shouldn't be #1, even if they could blow anyone away if they decided to show up. I'm not convinced USC would be "heavy" favorites anyway, even if that did matter. Utah deserves a reward for beating everyone they played, particularly given their common opponent.

I don't recall the exact computer ratings of BYU and TCU at gametime, but their computer ranking differential was much less than the human ranking differential, which would seem to argue against your point, right?

[SeattleUte]

I realize that. But again, the algorithms are what humans have agreed upon. There is still that human element.

The computers are not biased, but the humans feeding the data are.

Whatever bias you're talking about isn't like the popularity contest of the polls.

[il Padrino Ute]

Whatever bias you're talking about isn't like the popularity contest of the polls.

Probably so, but my point still stands that computers can only do what they're told to do by humans.

[SeattleUte]

Probably so, but my point still stands that computers can only do what they're told to do by humans.

Of course. I said the most credible. We're talking about relative credibility.

[il Padrino Ute]

Of course. I said the most credible. We're talking about relative credibility.

Fair enough. And as much as I hate to agree, the computer rankings are most likely more credible than anything else.

[Flystripper]

Meant to say most credible. Substitute credible.

The computer rankings in the BCS are a sham because they do not allow the statisticians use MOV in any way. Any computer model that does not have a factor for MOV is pretty weak IMHO. The most accurate poll is the Vegas poll that combines proprietary statistical models with human observation.