[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's just such a pathetic system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No more pathetic than the BCS forcing the computers to use the ELO method instead of the true predictor method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predictors have no place in deciding what teams play in the post-season. It should be entirely based on what has been done, not what's likely to happen. (Otherwise there's no point in playing the regular season games.)

FWIW, I don't know what the ELO method is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Jeff Sagarin summed it up best:

In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).

In Sagarin’s predictor formula, USC is ranked 1st. In the BCS mandated ELO system, they are ranked 7th, which is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank's for the info. I think that ELO-chess is a better formula to use to determine who makes the post season, because the idea is not to predict who will win, but who has earned it. If USC keeps winning, their ranking will get sufficently high before the end of the season. Ranking the seventh now is not so absurd, because they really haven't beaten anyone.