![]() |
Quote:
http://espn.go.com/ncf/notebook/_/pa...nal-title-game Quote:
|
Quote:
Prison Bitch in DC: You can't trust those computers that show global warming to be a global threat. Prison Bitch in the lounge: The computers are gospel. |
Quote:
As for Wash they got hammered in all but one of their losses and don't really have any marquee wins. Looking at their schedule losing to a bunch of good teams is probably driving them being ranked higher than they ought be. It's nothing I haven't said before. I like computer polls, they take bias out and make you think about teams maybe a little differently than you would otherwise but they're just a tool, there isn't one that exists that's perfect. ASU & Wash highlight that. Marrying yourself to those results regardless can paint you into a corner. |
Quote:
That said if MU wins they will jump Bammer. I think it is a virtual certainty, they are ahead of us by a pretty slim margin. |
Quote:
Your concessions amuse me not. http://replygif.net/thumbnail/1197.gif |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You can look at Vegas lines as well, they too are extremely accurate. I don't discuss them very often because they're on a game basis and not a composite rank. For these discussion here and on TV studios computers should be given 90% weight and polls 10% at most. Computers and Vegas utterly annihilate polls in predictive ability and the research is crystal clear on that. If anyone thinks polls are accurate, just watch the Heisman ceremony. See the regional vote breakdown. Laugh when you see the blatant bias. Why would people trust their team voting any better? |
Vegas lines are rarely "right". They are simply good at missing each direction an equal number of times over the long run. Computers are the same way. If you take everything in aggregate, they tend to be correct. In the short term, they are extremely unreliable because they are susceptible to outliers (Washington, Arizona State, etc.).
Relying on them to be accurate on an individual basis is about as smart as flipping a coin ten times and, when it comes up heads seven times, declaring that heads is definitively a more likely outcome in coin flips. Computer models sacrifice accuracy for precision. Even in the long term (especially in the long term), this is true. If it weren't true, the computers would agree with one another. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Prison Bitch. Not holding up well in this thread.
|
Quote:
Get a life man. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.