[Farm93]

This week Wilner votes us one place above the average of the BCS computers, which have us No. 8.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...validation

So does that mean the computers are also pursuing a vendetta against Stanford, one even stronger than Wilner's? No, it means the computers -- like Wilner -- put a high value on strength of schedule. You may not agree that strength of schedule should be the main criterion in voting, but that's very, very different than saying that somebody who uses it -- be it Wilner or the computers -- is trying to hurt Stanford.

Actually, yes the computers do have a vendetta against Stanford, or at least their dominating play.  The BCS masters told the computer formula guys to remove margin of error a long time ago.  So the computers, thanks to their BCS masters, are systematically ignoring the reality that Stanford is cruising.  When that instruction came down the computer formula guys were not happy and almost all have a different formula for those that care to see their best rankings.

So why did the BCS masters decide to remove margin or error?  Because they realized that the human voters often use MoV as their proxy for excellence.  Except Wilner goes out of his way to ignore margin of victory.  If everyone was like Wilner, then the computers would get to include margin of victory and Stanford would be certainly be in the top 5 with the computers.

Thankfully, this particular flaw ways fixed when everyone began to realize that these media guys have professional biases that could ruin the image that the BCS system was somewhat equivalent to the NCAA selection committees.

As it stands, FBS college football is unique in that polls are the standard.  If this was happening in hoops, it would not be a big deal.  #2 & #3 seeds win the title all of the time.  But in FBS if you are not #1 or #2 then you don't get a chance to prove you were overlooked on the field.  So this perception stuff is big.  SC, Oregon, and C.a.l fans can tell the terrible stories about how the BCS systematically hurt them.

[Farm93]

This week Wilner votes us one place above the average of the BCS computers, which have us No. 8.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...validation

So does that mean the computers are also pursuing a vendetta against Stanford, one even stronger than Wilner's? No, it means the computers -- like Wilner -- put a high value on strength of schedule. You may not agree that strength of schedule should be the main criterion in voting, but that's very, very different than saying that somebody who uses it -- be it Wilner or the computers -- is trying to hurt Stanford.

Actually, yes the computers do have a vendetta against Stanford, or at least their dominating play.  The BCS masters told the computer formula guys to remove margin of error a long time ago.  So the computers, thanks to their BCS masters, are systematically ignoring the reality that Stanford is cruising.  When that instruction came down the computer formula guys were not happy and almost all have a different formula for those that care to see their best rankings.

So why did the BCS masters decide to remove margin or error?  Because they realized that the human voters often use MoV as their proxy for excellence.  Except Wilner goes out of his way to ignore margin of victory.  If everyone was like Wilner, then the computers would get to include margin of victory and Stanford would be certainly be in the top 5 with the computers.

Thankfully, this particular flaw ways fixed when everyone began to realize that these media guys have professional biases that could ruin the image that the BCS system was somewhat equivalent to the NCAA selection committees.

As it stands, FBS college football is unique in that polls are the standard.  If this was happening in hoops, it would not be a big deal.  #2 & #3 seeds win the title all of the time.  But in FBS if you are not #1 or #2 then you don't get a chance to prove you were overlooked on the field.  So this perception stuff is big.  SC, Oregon, and C.a.l fans can tell the terrible stories about how the BCS systematically hurt them.

[washingtonismoney]

... but the computers are totally depersonalized, and they're voting the same way.

This isn't quite true. The computers are only as depersonalized as the programmers who code them, who value certain things and don't value certain things in ranking teams that's somewhat idiosyncratic. Consequently, you can see a wide spread of opinions for Stanford, for example, here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

Most feel we're in the 6-9 range; two feel we're 14th and 21st. That's very odd. And of course it's not true their disregard for margin of victory hurts teams equally, otherwise there'd be no difference between margin of victory rankings and rankings without margin of victory. That's why the measurement Sagarin prefers ranks us 6th and the measurement he's forced to used ranks us 21st.

At any rate, I'm not quite sure how this applies to the central point, which is that analytically Wilner is a putz who doesn't consistently apply the metrics he claims to use in ranking teams, if those even are the correct ones. Like I said, he's explained (previously) ranking Wisconsin above Stanford by saying Stanford ranks low on Sagarin's Strength of Schedule. But of course Wisconsin ranked even lower when he said that. And accepting Sagarin's strength of schedule as a valid metric implicitly accepts the rest of his rankings, which consistently ranked Stanford above Wisconsin.

Wilner, like a lot of newspaper reporters, is pretty good about finding out facts that people want him to know, somewhat less good at finding out facts people don't want him to know, and mediocre at actually telling us what these facts mean.

[washingtonismoney]

... but the computers are totally depersonalized, and they're voting the same way.

This isn't quite true. The computers are only as depersonalized as the programmers who code them, who value certain things and don't value certain things in ranking teams that's somewhat idiosyncratic. Consequently, you can see a wide spread of opinions for Stanford, for example, here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs

Most feel we're in the 6-9 range; two feel we're 14th and 21st. That's very odd. And of course it's not true their disregard for margin of victory hurts teams equally, otherwise there'd be no difference between margin of victory rankings and rankings without margin of victory. That's why the measurement Sagarin prefers ranks us 6th and the measurement he's forced to used ranks us 21st.

At any rate, I'm not quite sure how this applies to the central point, which is that analytically Wilner is a putz who doesn't consistently apply the metrics he claims to use in ranking teams, if those even are the correct ones. Like I said, he's explained (previously) ranking Wisconsin above Stanford by saying Stanford ranks low on Sagarin's Strength of Schedule. But of course Wisconsin ranked even lower when he said that. And accepting Sagarin's strength of schedule as a valid metric implicitly accepts the rest of his rankings, which consistently ranked Stanford above Wisconsin.

Wilner, like a lot of newspaper reporters, is pretty good about finding out facts that people want him to know, somewhat less good at finding out facts people don't want him to know, and mediocre at actually telling us what these facts mean.

[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.

[jacketree]

Such a shame.  Apparently computer scientists on retainer to the BCS had the ability to time travel and used their advanced knowledge that Stanford would be crushing weak teams in 2011 to create a program that expressly penalizes a specific institution, which at the time the BCS code was being written, was essentially irrelevant to the entire process.

To think they could have cured cancer instead.....


P.S.  Garvin is pretty close to the lone voice of reason vis a vis Wilner and BCS conspiracies.

P.P.S.  When can we start the playoff?

[jacketree]

Such a shame.  Apparently computer scientists on retainer to the BCS had the ability to time travel and used their advanced knowledge that Stanford would be crushing weak teams in 2011 to create a program that expressly penalizes a specific institution, which at the time the BCS code was being written, was essentially irrelevant to the entire process.

To think they could have cured cancer instead.....


P.S.  Garvin is pretty close to the lone voice of reason vis a vis Wilner and BCS conspiracies.

P.P.S.  When can we start the playoff?

[FarmBoy]

It's amazing the amount of energy spent arguing the merits of one writer's opinion. Personally, I've followed JW's blog for 3 years and have historically appreciated his non-conformist, unapologetic ranking system. I'm glad that there are some lone wolves out there using different ranking systems. The argument "his rankings are so different from everyone, therefore he's wrong" that so many people post on the Hotline is way off base (I know that's not what people here are arguing.) If everyone voted the same way +/- a couple of spots, what's the point of having a poll?

I don't think JW has anything against Stanford, but he's just a critical curmudgeon at heart and since he watches Stanford and C.al more than other teams, he sees their flaws more than those of other teams. If he lived in South Carolina and followed Clemson and the other U.SC, I don't doubt he would rank them lower than the nation does as well. On the other hand, his writing styles is condescending and he often throws childish barbs at his readership, so overall he's pretty much a hack. But the forum is fun for bantering with Pac12 rivals without having to go to their boards, so I continue to visit.

The flaw in his ranking logic is that he doesn't take margin of error into account. He thinks, like the computers, that a "quality win" is a 1-0 event. Sure, Duke isn't a "quality opponent", but the way we beat them, as we've beaten our other opponents, is so impressive that those wins should also be considered "quality," IMO.

[FarmBoy]

It's amazing the amount of energy spent arguing the merits of one writer's opinion. Personally, I've followed JW's blog for 3 years and have historically appreciated his non-conformist, unapologetic ranking system. I'm glad that there are some lone wolves out there using different ranking systems. The argument "his rankings are so different from everyone, therefore he's wrong" that so many people post on the Hotline is way off base (I know that's not what people here are arguing.) If everyone voted the same way +/- a couple of spots, what's the point of having a poll?

I don't think JW has anything against Stanford, but he's just a critical curmudgeon at heart and since he watches Stanford and C.al more than other teams, he sees their flaws more than those of other teams. If he lived in South Carolina and followed Clemson and the other U.SC, I don't doubt he would rank them lower than the nation does as well. On the other hand, his writing styles is condescending and he often throws childish barbs at his readership, so overall he's pretty much a hack. But the forum is fun for bantering with Pac12 rivals without having to go to their boards, so I continue to visit.

The flaw in his ranking logic is that he doesn't take margin of error into account. He thinks, like the computers, that a "quality win" is a 1-0 event. Sure, Duke isn't a "quality opponent", but the way we beat them, as we've beaten our other opponents, is so impressive that those wins should also be considered "quality," IMO.

[oman]

This is why I love Stanford.  We are getting down into the fine points of this.

Here in everyplace East of Arizona, someone says "Yeah, well, the Pac12 sucks" and people just nod and move on to the next topic.

Until Stanford beats Alabama in the MNC, it's all details.

[oman]

This is why I love Stanford.  We are getting down into the fine points of this.

Here in everyplace East of Arizona, someone says "Yeah, well, the Pac12 sucks" and people just nod and move on to the next topic.

Until Stanford beats Alabama in the MNC, it's all details.

[Griffins78]

The Scripps Legends Poll...made up of retired successful college coaches....has us #3, behind LSU and Alabama.
http://www.legendschannel.com/tag/legend...-football/

Thanks for the link.

This is really great. These are former coaches that really know the game and to some extent may have a bias against us. For them to put us at #3 (by the way John Ralston only has us at #5) really says a lot and is extraordinary.

There is a really good article on us on the Legends with some great quotes: (Legends’ Take: Stanford still has long road ahead):

John Robinson (former SC and Ram's coach) - Stanford, Alabama and LSU, you turn them on TV and you think you’re back in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. I mean, those teams are just going to knock the crap out of you and Stanford’s like that and it’s hard for me to even say that, but it’s true.

John Robinson about our secondary - The secondary looks like they’ve got a bunch of non-scholarship guys all over the country and can’t seem to play against the deep receivers. So, SC does a pretty good job of that so they may have a chance.

[Griffins78]

The Scripps Legends Poll...made up of retired successful college coaches....has us #3, behind LSU and Alabama.
http://www.legendschannel.com/tag/legend...-football/

Thanks for the link.

This is really great. These are former coaches that really know the game and to some extent may have a bias against us. For them to put us at #3 (by the way John Ralston only has us at #5) really says a lot and is extraordinary.

There is a really good article on us on the Legends with some great quotes: (Legends’ Take: Stanford still has long road ahead):

John Robinson (former SC and Ram's coach) - Stanford, Alabama and LSU, you turn them on TV and you think you’re back in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. I mean, those teams are just going to knock the crap out of you and Stanford’s like that and it’s hard for me to even say that, but it’s true.

John Robinson about our secondary - The secondary looks like they’ve got a bunch of non-scholarship guys all over the country and can’t seem to play against the deep receivers. So, SC does a pretty good job of that so they may have a chance.

[bazza97]

Thanks to CowboyIndian and Griffin78 for the links to the legends site.

Here is Robinson's quote in full:

“So, I think the Oregon-Stanford game is a classic match, but you know, the Trojans are going to show up here Saturday now. I know Stanford is good. But SC is an extremely young team maybe the youngest that’s playing right now with any kind of success. Certainly they are the youngest team with a 6-1 record. So, I think those kids are getting older and that’s one of things about college football. Those freshmen teams, the inexperienced teams get better as the year goes on. So, SC played well and their defense has improved dramatically. They play a very soft zone and, but don’t give up the ball – college football right now – it looks like the old All American Football Conference used to look way back in the ‘50’s. The guys just run straight down the field, people throw them long passes and they run for touchdowns there. The secondary looks like they’ve got a bunch of non-scholarship guys all over the country and can’t seem to play against the deep receivers. So, SC does a pretty good job of that so they may have a chance.”

I had to read it a couple of times, but is he talking about Stanford's secondary or the state of college football in general?

[bazza97]

Thanks to CowboyIndian and Griffin78 for the links to the legends site.

Here is Robinson's quote in full:

“So, I think the Oregon-Stanford game is a classic match, but you know, the Trojans are going to show up here Saturday now. I know Stanford is good. But SC is an extremely young team maybe the youngest that’s playing right now with any kind of success. Certainly they are the youngest team with a 6-1 record. So, I think those kids are getting older and that’s one of things about college football. Those freshmen teams, the inexperienced teams get better as the year goes on. So, SC played well and their defense has improved dramatically. They play a very soft zone and, but don’t give up the ball – college football right now – it looks like the old All American Football Conference used to look way back in the ‘50’s. The guys just run straight down the field, people throw them long passes and they run for touchdowns there. The secondary looks like they’ve got a bunch of non-scholarship guys all over the country and can’t seem to play against the deep receivers. So, SC does a pretty good job of that so they may have a chance.”

I had to read it a couple of times, but is he talking about Stanford's secondary or the state of college football in general?

[Farm93]

I think Stanford?? But his transitions between SC, Stanford, and college football were hard to identify.

"The secondary looks like they've got a bunch of non-scholarship guys is a reference to Stanford."  That must be Stanford bashing.  It is an odd and stereotypical reference, as Stanford's DBs look more NFL ready than most in the conference.  In any event, the soft zone strategy has prevented the deep receiver plays.  So I am not quite sure how to reconcile observation #1 about the soft zone with the last observation.  Has any Stanford opponent caught a ball in stride and continued to the end-zone for a TD in the last 10+ games?  (The SJSU player should have been tackled, so that play does not count)

What Robinson seemed to ignore is that few team's O-Lines have given their QB and WRs any time to exploit this deep ball weakness.  If it was so easy, you'd think some of these teams that are down by 20+ points might throw a few deep passes to get back into the game.  That deep ball stuff is how Stanford lost games back in the day, so I suspect Robinson is just using his historic understanding of Stanford and applying that to his much better understanding of the SC team.

If Woods scores three big TDs, then that might be enough.  Or to put it a different way, I don't see SC winning without Woods getting three or four big plays.

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.

[Farm93]

I think Stanford?? But his transitions between SC, Stanford, and college football were hard to identify.

"The secondary looks like they've got a bunch of non-scholarship guys is a reference to Stanford."  That must be Stanford bashing.  It is an odd and stereotypical reference, as Stanford's DBs look more NFL ready than most in the conference.  In any event, the soft zone strategy has prevented the deep receiver plays.  So I am not quite sure how to reconcile observation #1 about the soft zone with the last observation.  Has any Stanford opponent caught a ball in stride and continued to the end-zone for a TD in the last 10+ games?  (The SJSU player should have been tackled, so that play does not count)

What Robinson seemed to ignore is that few team's O-Lines have given their QB and WRs any time to exploit this deep ball weakness.  If it was so easy, you'd think some of these teams that are down by 20+ points might throw a few deep passes to get back into the game.  That deep ball stuff is how Stanford lost games back in the day, so I suspect Robinson is just using his historic understanding of Stanford and applying that to his much better understanding of the SC team.

If Woods scores three big TDs, then that might be enough.  Or to put it a different way, I don't see SC winning without Woods getting three or four big plays.

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.

[bazza97]

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.

It was a very confusing sentence!

[bazza97]

Robinson's thoughts were all over the map, but I think I get it.

It was a very confusing sentence!

[KartyFan]

As Garvin says, a voter who differs wildly from the average is not necessarily a bad voter.  So let's take a look at Wilner's preseason poll to see how his "extreme" predictions have held up so far, recognizing that the jury is still out on many of these teams.

Preseason Poll:
http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...w,1/w_1,1/

Parentheses show Wilner's preseason ranking for each team.

Wrong:
Texas A&M (preseason #4, already have 2 losses)
West Virginia (preseason #7, just got blown out by Syracuse)
Mississippi State (preseason #11, team is 3-4)
BYU (preseason #15, lost 54-10 to Utah)
Air Force (preseason #19, now 3-4)
Hawaii (preseason #25, lost to SJSU and UNLV)
Arkansas (preseason unranked, now he has them at #6 above Stanford)


Right so far:
Arizona State (preseason #21, Wilner was 2nd highest)
TCU (unranked preseason; TCU now unranked in AP poll)
USC (#17, 3rd highest; USC is now #21)

Jury still out:
Boise State (preseason #2, high)
Oklahoma State (preseason #16, low)
Virginia Tech (preseason #24, lowest)
Wisconsin (preseason #20)


Looks to me like his extreme predictions have turned out much more bad than good.

[KartyFan]

As Garvin says, a voter who differs wildly from the average is not necessarily a bad voter.  So let's take a look at Wilner's preseason poll to see how his "extreme" predictions have held up so far, recognizing that the jury is still out on many of these teams.

Preseason Poll:
http://www.pollspeak.com/component/optio...w,1/w_1,1/

Parentheses show Wilner's preseason ranking for each team.

Wrong:
Texas A&M (preseason #4, already have 2 losses)
West Virginia (preseason #7, just got blown out by Syracuse)
Mississippi State (preseason #11, team is 3-4)
BYU (preseason #15, lost 54-10 to Utah)
Air Force (preseason #19, now 3-4)
Hawaii (preseason #25, lost to SJSU and UNLV)
Arkansas (preseason unranked, now he has them at #6 above Stanford)


Right so far:
Arizona State (preseason #21, Wilner was 2nd highest)
TCU (unranked preseason; TCU now unranked in AP poll)
USC (#17, 3rd highest; USC is now #21)

Jury still out:
Boise State (preseason #2, high)
Oklahoma State (preseason #16, low)
Virginia Tech (preseason #24, lowest)
Wisconsin (preseason #20)


Looks to me like his extreme predictions have turned out much more bad than good.