Congrats to the Utah Utes

[ERCougar]

Unless my reading comprehension is poor and yours is exceptionally strong, we were discussing that which USC has done and Utah has not.

Again, take a deep breath and go slowly. Stay on topic.

If there is no way to demonstrably show which team is better, why are you discussing it?

Also, which computer rankings are you talking about? The BCS rankings?

I'm on topic. Try to follow...

1) What has USC done that Utah hasn't? Lost to OSU. Badly.

2) All I said is that there is no rational evidence (based on game outcomes) to show that USC>Utah. There's plenty to show Utah > USC--see points 1 and 3.

3) Yes, I'm referring to the BCS rankings.

Still confused?

[TripletDaddy]

I'm on topic. Try to follow...

1) What has USC done that Utah hasn't? Lost to OSU. Badly.

2) All I said is that there is no rational evidence (based on game outcomes) to show that USC>Utah. There's plenty to show Utah > USC--see points 1 and 3.

3) Yes, I'm referring to the BCS rankings.

Still confused?

Yes, still confused.

USC lost to OSU by 6 points. That is losing badly?

Also, SC is ahead of Utah in the BCS rankings, so that is kind of confusing to me, too.

You aren't making sense. Stick to medicine.

[ERCougar]

Yes, still confused.

USC lost to OSU by 6 points. That is losing badly?

Also, SC is ahead of Utah in the BCS rankings, so that is kind of confusing to me, too.

You aren't making sense. Stick to medicine.

I wish I could type slowly. Then maybe you'd pick this up...

1) Yes, USC came back to make that one close (sort of). Did you think they were going to win it? I didn't.

2) BCS computer rankings. Did you catch that? COMPUTER rankings. Remember how this all started? Overrated teams depend on ridiculous human polls to get their high BCS rankings? Again...talking about COMPUTER rankings.

Wow...is this that confusing?

[TripletDaddy]

I wish I could type slowly. Then maybe you'd pick this up...

1) Yes, USC came back to make that one close (sort of). Did you think they were going to win it? I didn't.

2) BCS computer rankings. Did you catch that? COMPUTER rankings. Remember how this all started? Overrated teams depend on ridiculous human polls to get their high BCS rankings? Again...talking about COMPUTER rankings.

Wow...is this that confusing?

Apologies. I thought the BCS ranking was done by a computer and that human polls are only one component of the overall computer ranking. I guess you are saying that BCS rankings are human polls, not computer rankings? When I see numbers like .8756 and .7754, I sometimes mistaken assume that those are comuter rankings, not human rankings. My bad! Go Utes, ranked higher in the BCS COMPUTER rankings than SC!

Also, 6 points is a bad loss. Got it. Good point.

Someone better inform Vegas of this new info you have unearthed.

Also, I wonder why SC wasn't getting more credit for blowing out teams like Arizona by more than 6 points?

[Surfah]

I wish I could type slowly. Then maybe you'd pick this up...

1) Yes, USC came back to make that one close (sort of). Did you think they were going to win it? I didn't.

Maybe you could type slower for me too then. I thought USC was going to pull it out while watching that game.

[ERCougar]

OK, since we're getting worked up over "bad", drop that part. I just remember seeing something like 21-0 at some point during that game, but I'm sure I didn't follow it as closely.

Computer rankings look at what was shown on the field, per final outcome. They don't care about what ESPN is saying, they don't care about who had better stats, they don't care about reputation, they don't care about how many 5-star recruits everyone has. They care about who won on the field, and how well those teams did against the rest of the competition. So, I don't think it's totally crazy to refer to BCS computer rankings when discussing what teams are getting a huge benefit-of-the-doubt by the human polls. USC is arguably one of those teams. Do they deserve it, based on past performance, underachieving, etc? Maybe. But the fact remains that if we measure USC and Utah by on-the-field performance, Utah wins.

[pelagius]

OK, since we're getting worked up over "bad", drop that part. I just remember seeing something like 21-0 at some point during that game, but I'm sure I didn't follow it as closely.

Computer rankings look at what was shown on the field, per final outcome. They don't care about what ESPN is saying, they don't care about who had better stats, they don't care about reputation, they don't care about how many 5-star recruits everyone has. They care about who won on the field, and how well those teams did against the rest of the competition. So, I don't think it's totally crazy to refer to BCS computer rankings when discussing what teams are getting a huge benefit-of-the-doubt by the human polls. USC is arguably one of those teams. Do they deserve it, based on past performance, underachieving, etc? Maybe. But the fact remains that if we measure USC and Utah by on-the-field performance, Utah wins.

This is not entirely true. MOV victory based computer models (I am talking about statistical models not formula "models") like USC a lot. A pure MOV of victory model places USC at #2 and most MOV models with a dimminishing component would have USC ahead of Utah. As you get closer to a W/L based model (in terms of the functional form of the MOV component) then Utah final passes SC. The computers like SC too, just not the bad models the BCS is using.

[TripletDaddy]

This is not entirely true. MOV victory based computer models (I am talking about statistical models not formula "models") like USC a lot. A pure MOV of victory model places USC at #2 and most MOV models with a dimminishing component would have USC ahead of Utah. As you get closer to a W/L based model (in terms of the functional form of the MOV component) then Utah final passes SC. The computers like SC too, just not the bad models the BCS is using.

smack down!

[pelagius]

smack down!

Let's not get carried away.