ROFL @ The BCS
The Continuation...
Week 14, 12/05/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Florida above Alabama, and Cincinnati #12 in NTC. Oregon #3 in WLT.
Week 13, 11/28/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Nebraska is way too low at #28 in the WLT ratings.
Week 12, 11/21/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Oklahoma #6 in NTC; Boise State #11 in WLT.
Week 11, 11/14/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Southern Cal #13, Stanford #19 in WLT; Oklahoma #5 in NTC, #46 in WLT; Oregon two spots above Boise State in both.
Week 10, 11/07/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Boise State #10 in WLT. Oklahoma #6 in NTC.
Week 9, 10/31/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Montana #24 in WLT, Richmond above Oklahoma in WLT, Iowa #23 in NTC. Notice how Nebraska is #55 by WLT, and #12 by NTC - how on Earth can we ever know the "truth" about such a team?
Week 8, 10/24/09:
NTC ratings
WLT ratings
Highlight absurdities: Boise State #12 by WLT, Virginia Tech #4 by NTC.
This page is a continuation from an essay written after the release of the first BCS rankings of the 2009/10 season. The article explains the NTC and WLT systems and their relevance for analysis/criticism of the BCS. Click here to read it.
In brief, the WLT ratings only consider who beat whom, and they mimic the computer ratings of the BCS pretty well. The NTC ratings consider margins of victory and home field advantage. There is no attempt to dampen or diminish large margins of victory. The two methods are polar opposites, and produce drastically different rankings for some teams.
My assertion is that neither approach is right. Further, no mixture of approaches is right. There is no "right answer" in power ratings. They are interesting, but we should admit that no team can be encapsulated with a mere number. The BCS's attempt at science is simply good for a ROFL!