Rankings Fun
Who gained more in the BCS-approved Billingsley computer rankings last weekend, USC or UCLA?
Billingsley starts with last years rankings, and then adds or subtracts points based on a team's winning or losing. You gain more points by beating higher-ranked teams. The starting positions had Texas No. 1 with 270 points and USC with 269.
Anyways, USC won on the road at Arkansas and UCLA won at home against Utah. Margin of victory is ignored. Answer: UCLA picked up 6.873 points beating previously no. 34 Utah; SC picked up 3.635 points beating no. 62 Arkansas.
USC is no. 1 in Billingsley this week (the Billingsley computer didn't give much to Texas for picking on North Texas).
http://www.cfrc.com/Ratings_2006/WK_2.htm
Who were the two clowns last yr. that had their computer ranking always knocking SC?
I think Dodger rookie pitcher Chad Billingsley operates this wacky poll.
Before I continue... lemme guess... nevermind.
Well, I don't know exactly how Billingsley's formula works, but it seems likely that since USC was already #2, it had less room for improvement than UCLA. I generally favor computer rankings, since they are at least somewhat objective, but it is ludicrous for the BCS to include a ranking that in any way factors in a team's performance in a previous year (if that is in fact how this ranking works). Teams should be evaluated based on their performance in the current season alone. You should not get "credit" towards this year's championship for games you won or lost in prior years with different players and/or coaches.
Having said that, Mr. Wolf lacks credibility to question the ratings of others. After all, Mr. Wolf jumped Tennessee eight spots on his ballot for beating Cal-- at home-- when Cal did not rank among his Top 25 going into the game. At the same time, he held USC steady on his ballot despite its road trouncing of Arkansas, a team he had pegged at #25.
It might have made sense to have held USC at #8 if all the teams above the Trojans had "held serve," but Mr. Wolf dropped Notre Dame five spots. Instead of moving USC up a notch, he leapfrogged Florida State over the Trojans.
There is a link to the Billingsley Report, so you can see for yourself how it works.
It is not a case of "less room for improvement," because Billingsley simply adds or subtracts points, depending on the ranking of your opponent. And, in the first game of the season, the ranking is based entirely on last year's final positions.
Clearly, the "human polls" take into account the previous year, especially at the start of the season. And that makes a certain amount of sense, since every college team returns most of their previous year's teams.
Some computer rankings use ONLY this year's results...and the resulting rankings are, in a word, nonsensical, especially at the start of the season. In the full college rankings of Massey, found here
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cf
Grand Valley St. is No. 1, Fresno St. is No. 239. In the 1-A rankings, Miami (Fla.) is ranked no. 119--even behind No. 83 Colorado, which lost at home to Montana St.