[mark3k]

I understand why margin-of-victory was eliminated from the computer models used, Garvin, but that decision is clearly "penalizing" Stanford this year, since we've been winning by the biggest margins in the land.  I don't think any of us are calling that decision a conspiracy (though most of us do seem to believe that Wilner has some personal disdain or other anti-Stanford angle), since you're obviously correct in noting that the decision predated this season... but to suggest that an evenly applied "bias" isn't a bias to a ranking system, simply because it was applied ex ante is absurd.  Using that intentionally (even if "fairly") distorted ranking methodology to justify Wilner's rankings undermines your credibility, with all due respect.

[mark3k]

I understand why margin-of-victory was eliminated from the computer models used, Garvin, but that decision is clearly "penalizing" Stanford this year, since we've been winning by the biggest margins in the land.  I don't think any of us are calling that decision a conspiracy (though most of us do seem to believe that Wilner has some personal disdain or other anti-Stanford angle), since you're obviously correct in noting that the decision predated this season... but to suggest that an evenly applied "bias" isn't a bias to a ranking system, simply because it was applied ex ante is absurd.  Using that intentionally (even if "fairly") distorted ranking methodology to justify Wilner's rankings undermines your credibility, with all due respect.