10-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Just got around to perusing the BCS rankings. Put me in the camp of people who will focus on where we stand in the Pac12 North more than where we stand in the BCS. Winning the Pac12 North should be first and foremost on those young men's minds (well, after the objective of winning the next game.)
Still, I found it curious that the computers loved BSU so consistently. Conversely, Stanford is ranked anywhere between 8 and 20 by the computers. Their rankings range between 5 and 8 across the board. I don't know much about how the computers rank, aside from the requirement that they not adjust for margin of win, but I don't understand why they would be so much higher ranked. Aside from Georgia, all of their wins are on par with our wins. And you can look at Georgia and wonder if they're a paper dragon, having lost the only meaningful games they've played (BSU and the other U.S.C.) Are these computer programs sophisticated enough to look a second level deeper than "the record of the teams you've beaten" to see the record of the team beaten by the teams you beat?
If the only difference is that BSU beat a 5-2 Georgia, if we beat UW next week, I wonder if the computers will rate us on par. Is one meaningful win on the resume enough to keep a team in the upper echelon of the computers for the rest of the season?
Still, the number one focus on the team better be UW. BCS ranking talk better not be a distraction for the boys. I suspect at worst it will create motivation for them. It may be the best thing for the team, honestly. Better than if they'd popped up in the top 4 out the gate. But right now, the UW team, at 3-0 in conference, is in serious contention for the north title. They have all the motivation in the world to show up on Saturday.
I can't wait.
Still, I found it curious that the computers loved BSU so consistently. Conversely, Stanford is ranked anywhere between 8 and 20 by the computers. Their rankings range between 5 and 8 across the board. I don't know much about how the computers rank, aside from the requirement that they not adjust for margin of win, but I don't understand why they would be so much higher ranked. Aside from Georgia, all of their wins are on par with our wins. And you can look at Georgia and wonder if they're a paper dragon, having lost the only meaningful games they've played (BSU and the other U.S.C.) Are these computer programs sophisticated enough to look a second level deeper than "the record of the teams you've beaten" to see the record of the team beaten by the teams you beat?
If the only difference is that BSU beat a 5-2 Georgia, if we beat UW next week, I wonder if the computers will rate us on par. Is one meaningful win on the resume enough to keep a team in the upper echelon of the computers for the rest of the season?
Still, the number one focus on the team better be UW. BCS ranking talk better not be a distraction for the boys. I suspect at worst it will create motivation for them. It may be the best thing for the team, honestly. Better than if they'd popped up in the top 4 out the gate. But right now, the UW team, at 3-0 in conference, is in serious contention for the north title. They have all the motivation in the world to show up on Saturday.
I can't wait.
