clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

SOS - Your responses

New, comments

Your responses to my discussion topic were mixed.

Several good points were made that I'd like to address.

  1.  detr0 noted that deciding what matters in a computer poll is in itself objective, causing him to support use of only human polls.
  2.  I, however, agree with Red Blooded, who argues that despite the subjectivity in making a formula, at least a formula can be critiqued in an abstract fashion and cannot be biased toward any particular team, but only a certain type of schedule.
  3.  billyzane goes in a different direction, noting that human voters tend to focus on 1 or 2 big games to determine schedule strength
  4.  Some wonder out loud how strong a one-loss team's schedule should have to be to trump an undefeated like WVA
  5.  Finally, in what I think is the most important point, cornnation argues that SOS has to emphasized for the good of college football, lest weak scheduling prevail in boring us all.
I want to talk a little more about the final point.  If West Virginia were to make it to the national title game, college football would be in bad shape.  We would be, in a sense, rewarding a team whose toughest non-conference test was East Carolina.  Not being an athletic director, I don't know exactly how difficult it would have been for West Virginia to use their 12th game to schedule a decent ACC team like Clemson or Virginia Tech, but I know that it would get a lot easier if teams felt like they needed a big time non-conference game to compete for an MNC.  Another side effect of this would be that human pollsters and computer polls would have more information with which to make decisions about which team is better.

With WVA at 4 in both the AP and Coaches' polls I feel that the answer lies in the computers, and that's a big reason I asked for feedback on this question.  Most times these problems work themselves out, but essentially we're working with a ticking time-bomb here.

--AR--