Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:05:45 -0700
From: Eric Sandage <esandage@viawest.net>
Subject: Response to the critique of Bob Kirlin

"Not that ranking the teams this way is illegal. You can rank Kansas State 
number one in 1965 if you want. But why are these strange and unusual 
rankings of teams acceptable if a math system and not a poll voter produced 
them? Are off-the-wall rankings acceptable if a formula rating number is 
placed after them? "

Aside from being incredibly smug, that statement has a fairly simple answer 
to it. Yes, they are, because the formula has no bias. A mathematical 
system actually applies to every game played. A team's performance is held 
to the same standard, the formula, whether the person plugging that formula 
into the computer watched a second of their game, hates their school, had a 
bad day or went to bed before kickoff. The AP poll, as with the coaches 
poll, depends NOT on the qualifications of the voter or their relative 
ability to rate the teams, it without regard or remorse gives a vote to 
somebody with no stipulation that they follow all of the teams that they 
will vote on every snap of every game. I don't think even the most 
ridiculous media fool would suggest he knows college football better then 
the most ignorant coach , proving that if that were the case the Coaches' 
Poll would be the only standard. What these "polls" depend on are their 
electoral body being informed enough to make a decision about any and all 
teams. And EVEN in this era where 90% of college football games are 
televised, it is impossible for a person to apply THEIR standard to every 
college football game equally. It is NOT impossible for math to do that.

Attempting to decide a champion, whether it's from 1902 or 1991, is openly 
invited by both the NCAA, which doesn't feel the need to determine an 
actual champion, and the schools, who openly promote themselves for 
National Championships they did not win. So criticizing systems that have 
arisen to do just that, seems awful presumptuous.

The ultimate example of how SILLY it is to dismiss one ranking system over 
another is 1983, Nebraska, 12-0 and ranked #1, loses by one point to Miami 
AT Miami. Miami, having lost 28-3 to a really mediocre Florida team, rises 
from #4 to #1, because undefeated #2 Texas loses and #3 Auburn wins only 
9-7 in the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. There are a million ways you could 
look at that, Miami won the most important game of the year, that's TRUE. 
Auburn was ranked higher then Miami, but they dropped after losing to the 
#1 program in wins of all-time, that's TRUE. Nebraska lost one game, by one 
point, on the road, to the far and away the best team to beat any of the 
contenders, that's TRUE. The point of the proceedings would seem to be that 
unless you play a true playoff game, it's silly to be so derogatory toward 
a system with just as much credibility as a group of sportswriters who 
don't play or coach the game, and certainly don't watch EVERY single team, 
to determine their rank order, and even if they could, would probably not 
be qualified to do so.

Eric Sandage
Littleton, CO