Do you ever wonder what goes through the minds of the human subjective voters when they rank the FBS teams 1 through 25? Since the human subjective voters are two-thirds of the numerical data used to determine who are the best FBS programs “supposedly”; what did the human cognitive minds miss when ranking their FBS programs 1-25?
Upon further review of this weeks “BCS” rankings, I examined how many of the “Top 10” BCS/FBS programs already played a ranked or previously ranked team within the USA Today Coaches Poll, to determine the significance and accuracy of the current BCS Top 10 rankings. Future scheduled games do not count towards ranked teams played since the rankings are subject to change on a week to week basis.
1. Alabama(SEC)- number of ranked or previously ranked teams played to date(2). Michigan and Arkansas with a combined record of (7-6); but yet ranked unanimously number 1 in all the polls.
2. Florida(SEC)- (1) LSU (6-1). Definitively an un-balanced ranking among all the polls between subjective voters ranked between 3 through 4.
3. Oregon(PAC 12) (1) Arizona(3-3). Unanimously ranked 2 in both human subjective voters.
4. Kansas State(B12)- (3) Miami(Fla.), Oklahoma, and Iowa State(12-6). Split decision within the human subjective voters being ranked 3 and 4.
5. Notre Dame(IND)- (4) Michigan State, Michigan, Miami(Fla.) and Stanford(16-10). Unanimously ranked number 5 among both human subjective voters and computer polls.
6. LSU(SEC)-(3)Auburn, Florida and South Carolina(13-6). Unanimously ranked number 6 among both human subjective voters and computer polls.
7. South Carolina(SEC)-(2) Georgia and LSU(11-2). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 8 and 9.
8. Oregon State(PAC 12)- (3) Wisconsin, UCLA and Arizona(13-7). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 8 and 11.
9. Oklahoma(B12)-(3) Kansas State, Texas Tech and Texas(15-3). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 7 and 10.
10. USC(PAC 12)- (1) Stanford(4-2). Split decision within the human subjective voters between ranked 9 and 11.
I can significantly determine that the human subjective voters are not being as investigative as need be to rank their FBS programs 1 through 25. What I can possibly determined is that the human voters are using a biased base format in their subjective rankings. With a plethora of money on the line at the end of the regular season, voting alliances are possibly formed to possess a misrepresentation of reality due to the fact of the money involved.
“College football is in need of change…….” cfbpoexpert