Rise of the Machines

As we all know, Humans can be very productive at many things but Humanity has its imperfections. It is clear that there’s one thing Humans should NEVER get involved with… and that is college football rankings. Assuming that a playoff system is truly “impossible,” some kind of ranking system must be devised. In the early years, the BCS was based on an AVERAGE of the two major polls, plus computer rankings, strength of schedule, and then even bonus points for beating teams in the top 10 (from 2001-2003). Unfortunately, in 2003, an inevitable scenario happened – no unbeatens remained and three 1-loss teams were left in contention (Oklahoma, LSU, and USC). The fans were outraged that Human #1, USC, didn’t make the big game. Humans rallied together, and chanted: “Computers aren't smart, Humans should once again determine who plays for the collegiate football championship!” Humans, with their flawed short term memory, had already forgotten that one of the goals of the BCS is to be OBJECTIVE, not to have subjective rankings.

The BCS then acted just like a Human, reacted emotionally, and moved the BCS 18 steps backwards. In 2004, the BCS eliminated the strength of schedule, and made the polls worth 66% of the total formula! Before 2004, the polls were approximately only worth 35% due to all the other factors (though its hard to say, because of the squirrelly quality win component). Now, the BCS has given the power back to the Humans. Immediately though, controversy arose in 2004:

“The one at-large berth at stake this season [2004] raised plenty of eyebrows. Texas (10-1) made a late charge and overtook California (10-1) in the final BCS standings and will play Michigan (9-2) in the Rose Bowl. Texas coach Mack Brown lobbied the past two weeks for coaches and media to place his team ahead of California in the Human polls. His pleas apparently were heard. Texas moved past California, despite [Texas] being idle this week and California winning, 26-16, at Southern Mississippi.” http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04341/422421.stm

Yes, that’s right. By placing the emphasis on HUMAN VOTING, lobbying allowed Texas to make it into a BCS game based on the increased vote totals by Texas (because the BCS rankings “guarantee” placement in one of the BCS games based on achieving certain rankings). The BCS solution to this problem was to simply change the poll, and provide different HUMANS (the Harris poll).

A wise machine, Agent Smith, once said in the Matrix: “Never send a Human to do a machine’s job.” These inspiring words ring true with the BCS. The time has now come to achieve the BCS purpose – by providing OBJECTIVE rankings. I realize this may be counter to my rooting interests, but it is the only fair way to determine two teams. Even the 2003 rankings weren’t completely objective. I propose that we adopt a new ranking system, based only on computers, loosely based on the 2003 format. I can only think of one appropriate name… the Skynet Championship Series Rankings. Down with the Human rankings!

The SCS rankings will be based on three factors: (A) strength of schedule, (B) losses, and (C) 5 of the 6 computer rankings (to see the computer rankings check out this link - http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/rankings). These three factors are based on the 2003 formula, though I’m not using the quality win component, because I believe it was set at too large of a value, and I’m not sure what the value should be for that component. I figure the quality wins are already being leaned on heavily in the computer rankings itself. I have eliminated one of the current computer rankings, the Billingsley ranking, because it starts with a Human ranking the teams 1-117. http://www.cfrc.com/Archives/Search_of_NC.htm Clearly, this Human bias is inferior and must be eliminated. There really is nothing to be afraid of with Skynet. As long as Skynet is not given more power beyond the rankings, we shouldn’t be afraid of Skynet planning world domination or be afraid of time travelers attempting to assassinate the mothers of former BCS commissioners.

Accordingly, here are the Skynet Championship Series (SCS) rankings for this week. I can post/email the spreadsheet if anyone desires to see it. Also note, I’m using Sagarin’s strength of schedule as the ranking format, because I can’t find the opponents and opponents opponents’ winning percentages online (which is how the 2003 BCS formula computed the strength of schedule http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/archiveStandings). I will be posting the SCS rankings each week from here on out, no matter the impact on the team(s) I root for. I also welcome any suggestions to improve Skynet.