Computers give Big East edge on SEC in rankings

[TyBull]

 

Computers give Big East edge on SEC in rankings

Thursday, November 09, 2006

RAY MELICK

News staff writer

The men behind the six computer rankings that make up one-third of the BCS formula hear the objections from Southeastern Conference fans that an undefeated Louisville team should not be ranked above a one-loss SEC team, or that the entire Big East Conference can't possibly be rated better than the SEC.

Which is exactly why they believe computers are a vital part of the championship equation.

"I think this season has been a perfect example of a shift in the strength of some teams," said Richard Billingsley, an Oklahoma-based consultant who operates The Billingsley Report.

"It's so difficult for a fan or a coach or a sportswriter to make that kind of adjustment in their mind, because we're so tied to tradition, to personal bias. And that's OK, that's part of being human and what makes college football so great.

"But this year, the Big East - there really has been a shift in the strength of those teams. And a computer can look at that and be very objective about it. A computer doesn't care if the name of the team is Louisville or Ohio State. All it cares about is the development of the team, and it's very clear from an objective standpoint that those teams in the Big East are good teams."

All six computers use some formula to determine strength of schedule. Some, but not all, also figure overall conference strength.

How they arrive at those figures is what often causes controversy.

"The main component to my rankings is just the teams' record," said Dr. Wes Colley, a senior research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. "But college football's problem is, there are 119 teams and only 12 games. So you've got to do something for strength of schedule."

That formula varies.

Colley takes each teams' opponents' record, and each of those opponents opponents' records, and continues following that until there becomes virtually no more change in rankings, using what he calls "simple matrix algebra."

Billingsley, on the other hand, ranks all teams one through 119, and then bases strength of schedule on the rank of the opponent each team plays based on the rank at the time the game was played. For example, Auburn gets credit for beating a No. 2-ranked Florida all season long, no matter what happens to Florida later in the year, because Billingsley believes Auburn should not be penalized for what happens to a team after they play.

"Once a game is played, it's over," Billingsley said. "My system gives the most recent performance more weight. The opponents' strength in my system is based on the ranking of the day they were played, while other systems tend to take the entire season into account equally."

On Billingsley's site, you can see each team's ranking in each game. For example, last Saturday "then No. 8 Auburn beat then No. 102 Arkansas State, 27-0."

Dr. Peter Wolfe, a Los Angeles internist, says, "Every team's schedule connects to every other team's schedule, even teams that haven't played. For example, UAB doesn't play Miles, but you could connect the two because eventually they have a common opponent. It's like six degrees of separation."

To see the variation in strength-of-schedule rankings, consider:

Auburn's strength of schedule is 44 in the Colley Matrix; 19 in the Massey Rankings; and 25 in Anderson & Hester.

Louisville, by comparison, has a strength of schedule of 57 in Colley; 36 in Massey; and 41 in Anderson and Hester.

Florida, in the same three rankings, comes in at 19, 10, and five.

A strength-of-schedule number should give a good indication of how different teams would fare against each other, said Wolfe.

"Strength of schedule is highly important," he said. "You give a team a strength-of-schedule number, and it predicts the outcome of a game against another team with a different strength-of-schedule number. And four of the computer systems that rank conferences have the Big East just a little big ahead of the SEC in strength of overall conference.

"That doesn't sound right to SEC fans, because they have a long tradition of football in the SEC. But the computer has no memory of the past. It's all what happens this year. That's the disconnect in most people's minds."

While it is not part of his BCS ranking, Colley does rank conferences by treating entire conferences as one unit.

"I treat the entire SEC as one team, the entire Big East as one team, and so on," Colley said. "It's not perfect, because you do lump in Baylor with Texas, for example, and Vanderbilt with Florida. It's not perfect. But you look at the system, and the Big East is easily No. 1. The Big 10 and the SEC are tied for No. 2."

"The higher-ranked team will beat the lower-ranked team 78 percent of the time in my rankings," Billingsley said. "That's a pretty good percentage. I know that in an actual game, anything can happen. But those Big East teams are comparable to SEC teams. I'll stand by that.

"I look at my rankings and see West Virginia and LSU right together, then to me, it means if those two teams played, they'd be going right down to the fourth quarter. They are comparable."

E-mail: rmelick@bhamnews.com

© 2006 The Birmingham News

© 2006 al.com All Rights Reserved.

[bulls96go]

the bottom 4 of our conference helps us a lot.

and with  the top 3 ranked so high i am not surprised.

we will not have perrenial losers in the BE

All of BE teams have been to a bowl in last 3 years

we have balance.