Checking in on the week 13 polls; a few oddities in the AP poll

I analyzed last week polls looking for inconsistencies and any interesting observations and was able to go into more depth on the AP poll since they publish the pollsters votes, and it is time to do the same this week.

First, the Coaches Poll.  There were five first place votes up for grabs with Boise State losing, and they all went to Auburn and TCU, plus Oregon lost two going to those teams.  Auburn was the big winner picking up a total of six and narrowing the gap from Oregon from 61 to 40.  Interestingly, Oregon's total is exactly the same even with the loss of two first place votes so they still benefited by moving up on some ballots due to Boise's loss.  Was Auburn's one point win over a then 2-loss Alabama that impressive that they should gain first place votes?

With Boise losing 472 points and LSU 379, there were plenty of points available for others to move up and they did.  Wisconsin gained 71, Stanford 121, Ohio State 97, and Michigan State a whopping 156.  Arkansas' win gave them a big boost too, 228 points.  Nothing terribly odd here.

Like before, lets look at the total for the undefeateds though.  With 4,248 points available from the voters top-3 picks and the top-3 teams only totaling 4,221, there are some voters that have a one or two loss team in their top-3.  You can certainly make a case for doing that (my computer has Stanford #2), but I'm somewhat surprised there are that many.  It will be interesting to see if this changes at all next week when the votes will be public, and if not, what if any bias there is from the coaches.  With Wisconsin's 1,282 total pretty close to a perfect (for 4th place) 1,298, it is likely that they are the primary beneficiaries of probably TCU being 4th or lower on some ballots.  Fair, perhaps as TCU's schedule being #82 according to my computer, but Wisconsin's isn't much better at only #72.  Stay tuned next week for analysis once we know the votes.

The Harris Poll, Boise 14 first place votes had to go somewhere and Oregon picked up 2, Auburn 11, and TCU 1, all gaining a good number of points.  The top-3 here have 8,194 of a perfect 8,208 points, so a few voters have likely TCU 4th or lower, but a far smaller percentage than the coaches.  Similar changes to the coaches in the rest of the top-10.  It will be interesting to see specifics on the voting next week.

The AP is where we can get a lot more detailed though.  Here, there were 10 first place votes from Boise to dole out and like the coaches poll, Oregon actually got fewer dropping 1.  Auburn picked up 10 and TCU 1 but all gained points as you would expect.  What exactly happened here?

It wasn't just one voter that made a switch from voting Oregon #1.  Surprisingly, 7 voters actually made Oregon their #1 but 8 that had them #1 swapped them out for another team.  I'm not sure the logic here as Oregon beat a good Oregon team by 19 while Auburn had to eke out a 1 point win, albeit on the road.  Was Auburn's win really so impressive as to overshadow Oregon's 19 point win?

Now, there were 2 voters that had Auburn #1 last week and dropped them which, to me at least, is more understandable.  The voters really seem to give a lot of credit for a 1 point win at Alabama.  Strange.

Oregon and Auburn are voted 1, 2, or 3 on every ballot, but TCU is voted #4 on 4 ballots and #5 on 1.  The beneficiaries are Stanford 4 times and Wisconsin twice.

How about the Wisconsin vs Ohio State debate?  Wisconsin has a clear overall lead, and in fact every single ballot has them ahead of Ohio State.  The AP voters are either A) impressed by Wisconsin's late season push or B) abide by head to head.  But if they really did that then Michigan State should be closer shouldn't they?

How about the Wisconsin vs Stanford debate?  Wisconsin is ahead of Stanford 33 times and Stanford is voted higher 27 times.  When Wisconsin is ahead, the average gap is 1.21 spots and when Stanford is ahead the average gap is 1.26.  This has narrowed a bit as last week Wisky was ahead on 35 vs 25 for Stanford.

As I did last week, I've created a chart that shows the high and low vote for each team so you can see the range.

Things are pretty close at the top, but then there is some awfully big variance, especially for Boise State.  But the voters aren't on the same page with Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Missouri too.  And someone thinks awfully highly of 3-loss and #18 South Carolina voting them #8 ahead of 1-loss Boise State and Nevada and a host of 2-loss teams in Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Utah, and Northern Illinois.  Ahead of a few of those, sure, but all of them?  Seems questionable, although they do have the 16th hardest schedule according to my computer.

If you have questions, leave a comment or send me a tweet @computerratings.

Today's BCS Bowl Analysis/Prediction; Who should and will be the BCS at large teams

There is much debate about who the best one-loss team is and who will be selected for the BCS bowls, and I'm not shy to weigh in so here is what my computer says about who should be in the bowls based on merit and who likely will be given the priorities of the bowls (money).

There are still a few games to play and with championship games, things could change, but as of now it appears the AQ teams will be Oregon, Auburn, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma/Nebraska (virtual tie in my ratings), Wisconsin/Ohio State (waiting on BCS, very close), and West Virginia (they'll win, UConn likely to lose).  TCU is in line for an automatic berth, and with Boise and LSU losing, Stanford should move to #4 in the BCS and get an auto-berth.  That leaves two spots and the following teams available:

• Boise State
• Ohio State/Wisconsin
• Arkansas
• Oklahoma/Nebraska loser
• Missouri

Boise State should be seriously considered but won't be given the perception of their schedule.  But that is an incorrect perception as my computer has them with a 57th rated schedule which is ahead of Ohio State (62) and Wisconsin (72).  So on merit, they should be picked, but throw in the bowls desire to have hordes of people come to town for the game and that second strike means Boise State won't get a BCS berth.

Since the Big-Televen doesn't have a championship game, their second best team won't incur another loss and is pretty much a lock to get a berth in a BCS bowl and that is probably fair with my computer having Ohio State at #6 and Wisconsin at #11.  You can right this one in in ink.

Assuming Auburn wins the SEC championship, the Sugar Bowl will be looking for another SEC team and would have gladly taken LSU, but with their loss, Arkansas is the most likely candidate and is worthy of it as my computer has them at #8.  I'd say you can right this one in ink too.

What about the OU/NU loser?  Well, that right there is the problem.  The loser is going to incur another loss and go to 10-3 while Arkansas gets to stand pat on their 10-2 record.  My computer has OU and NU at #9 and #10 respectively so they are worthy, but I expect they'll lose out.  What about Missouri?  They are really outside the being worthy rank at #13 in my computer but could move up a bit if Nebraska wins, but given that it is likely the Sugar Bowl making the pick, they'll lose out to Arkansas.

That would make the bowl games:

• NC - Oregon vs Auburn
• Rose - Wisconsin/Ohio State vs TCU
• Sugar - Arkansas vs Ohio State/Wisconsin
• Orange - Virginia Tech vs West Virginia
• Fiesta - Oklahoma/Nebraska vs Stanford

The NC and Rose are fixed, the Sugar gets to pick next and would take Arkansas and the Big-Televen team to get the big crowd.  The Orange would stay away from asking Stanford alum to travel across the country and take the neighbor state battle leaving Stanford in the Fiesta.

Now, what happens if something unexpected occurs in the championship games?  Really the only one that would impact anything is if Auburn loses to South Carolina.  In this scenario it all depends on how far Auburn falls and there may be resistance to elevate TCU to the championship game, but that is what should happen and I expect it would.  If Auburn does manage to stay #2, the above stays the same, just replace Arkansas with South Carolina.

If Auburn falls to #3 or below, then things juggle around and I'd expect:

• NC - Oregon vs TCU
• Rose - Wisconsin/Ohio State vs Stanford
• Sugar - South Carolina vs Ohio State/Wisconsin
• Orange - Virginia Tech vs Auburn
• Fiesta - Oklahoma/Nebraska vs West Virginia

The Rose would be alleviated of the requirement to take TCU and would jump at Stanford to keep the traditional matchup.  The Sugar would probably rather have Auburn but I believe would be obligated to the SEC champ meaning Auburn falls to the Orange to select and West Virginia ends up in the Fiesta.

Now, if Stanford is somehow passed for the #4 spot in the BCS by Wisconsin or Ohio State, that leaves the door open for a Big-12 team, the most likely would be Missouri as again, I think it would be hard to take a three-loss OU/NU loser.

Thoughts?

2010 Week 13 College Football Ratings and Rankings; Oregon #1, Stanford #2, TCU #3

After an entertaining Friday, and ok a few good games Saturday too, of college football, here are my computer's latest ratings and rankings.

The top two teams stay the same in Oregon and Stanford, both winning, and Stanford actually making up a bit of ground in the ratings on Oregon, but Oregon remains far and away the #1 team.  They could likely endure a loss and still be #1 in my computer at this point they've built such a strong resume of dominating their opponents.

Behind them, Boise falls from the #3 spot allowing TCU to move up to #3, but interestingly Boise drops only to #4 (see below).  Auburn's rating improves a bit but they stay at #5 and Ohio State moves to #6 ahead of Alabama who dropped a bit after losing to Auburn.  Arkansas beat LSU as expected and stays at #8 and OU's big win over OSU moves them up 3 spots to #9 ahead of their likely Big-12 championship foe, Nebraska at #10.

Many of you will be curious, stunned, perhaps even outraged that my computer could keep Boise #4 given their loss.  To understand that, it helps to understand a bit how my computer and other similar power ratings systems work.

First, my computer is tuned to predict points spreads well, not reflect who has won or lost or tell you who the most "deserving" team is.  My computer could care less who wins or loses, it only cares about the score and how it relates to what it "should be" or "should have been".  If a result, win or lose, is close to what it should have been, there will be little to no movement in a teams rating.  Correspondingly if they do better or worse than expected, there will be movement in that direction.  This means a team can win and have their rating drop, or lose and having it rise.

In this case, Boise was favored by Vegas by 15.5 but my computer had it much closer (respecting Nevada) favoring them by 6.2.  When Boise lost by 3, that was a poor result and their rating suffered dropping a healthy 1.8 points.  By comparison, Auburn's rating rose nearly 0.4 points with their win and Alabama's dropped over 0.5 points, so Boise's result was 3-4 times more significant as far as a ratings change.  So their rating definitely dropped.

Second, and to explain why their ranking only dropped one spot, my computer doesn't look at a teams ranking at all.  The ranking is just the order after you sort on the rating.  So a teams rise or fall in the rankings is due in part to their performance and its affect on their rating, but just as much or more on how close other teams are and what they do.  In this case, Boise had TCU close behind but a 3 point gap back to Auburn.  So unlike the polls where there is a discrete ranking and folks feel compelled to raise or drop a team X spots after a win or loss, my computer simply fairly rates a team, then lets the ranking just be a side effect.  Correspondingly, a ranking can move quite a bit with less of a ratings change, as Oklahoma State fell 1.3 ratings points but a full 5 spots.

Similar to Boise, my computer likes Stanford.  One might argue they don't "deserve" to be ranked as high as they are, but their results indicate that they would be favored and win over the majority of teams.  The bowl matchups and points spreads will be interesting to see if the polls are right or if computers like mine are right.  And for the record, my computer picked the Auburn/Alabama, Boise/Nevada, Arizona/Oregon, and LSU/Arkansas games all correct against the spread.

Enjoy!

Rank	Team	Rating	Record	Schedule	Change
1	Oregon	91.245	11-0	68.971	+0, +0.021
2	Stanford	86.994	11-1	72.454	+0, +0.785
3	TCU	84.457	12-0	63.149	+1, -0.224
4	Boise St	84.060	10-1	65.839	-1, -1.849
5	Auburn	83.187	12-0	68.902	+0, +0.376
6	Ohio State	82.077	11-1	65.213	+1, +0.257
7	Alabama	82.064	9-3	68.382	-1, -0.554
8	Arkansas	81.448	10-2	68.480	+0, +0.052
9	Oklahoma	81.071	10-2	70.828	+3, +1.362
10	Nebraska	81.042	10-2	67.610	-1, +0.443
11	Wisconsin	80.258	11-1	64.097	+0, +0.395
12	South Carolina	80.203	9-3	69.429	+2, +0.731
13	Missouri	79.880	10-2	69.064	+0, +0.337
14	Virginia Tech	79.368	10-2	65.739	+2, +0.338
15	Oklahoma St	79.324	10-2	67.738	-5, -1.254
16	Texas A&M	79.201	9-3	70.382	-1, +0.069
17	Nevada	78.075	11-1	62.706	+4, +1.379
18	Florida St	77.708	9-3	67.969	+7, +2.234
19	LSU	77.476	10-2	68.735	-2, -0.334
20	Arizona St	77.032	5-6	72.094	+2, +0.445
21	Arizona	76.821	7-4	71.562	-3, -0.687
22	Michigan St	76.145	11-1	65.218	+1, +0.342
23	Iowa	75.661	7-5	66.721	-4, -1.836
24	Southern Cal	75.632	7-5	73.988	-4, -1.246
25	Oregon St	74.683	5-6	75.497	-1, -1.105
26	West Virginia	74.427	8-3	64.315	+14, +2.928
27	Notre Dame	73.993	7-5	69.537	+8, +1.298
28	California	73.882	5-7	73.321	-2, -1.236
29	North Carolina St	73.876	8-4	66.792	+0, -0.298
30	Florida	73.621	7-5	69.844	-3, -1.320

All the stats you never wanted to know about each conference; SEC not clearly the strongest conference, Big-Televen only #4 conference

There has been a lot of debate lately about schedule strengths and if a non-AQ conference team deserves to be considered for a BCS bowl game.  In light of that, here are a bunch of status and ratings for all the conferences, many of which you probably never knew you cared about but now do.

Note some of this was triggered by seeing @DufresneLATimes retweet @socalspud saying the SEC has no road wins over BCS teams.  I'm not sure that's true (see below), but do follow me on Twitter as @computerratings to see other snippets of information and data like this analysis.

First, here is the average, high, and low rating for each conference using my computer's latest ratings.

Rank	Conference	Average	High	Low
1	Pac-10	76.473	91.224	65.286
2	SEC	73.962	82.811	59.807
3	Big-12	72.900	80.599	59.948
4	Big-Televen	70.186	81.820	59.281
5	ACC	68.736	79.030	57.141
6	Independent	68.372	72.695	63.198
7	Big-East	66.257	72.975	60.017
8	WAC	65.155	85.909	47.955
9	Mountain-West	64.565	84.681	47.408
10	C-USA	60.459	69.780	47.824
11	MAC	58.095	71.087	45.308
12	Sun-Belt	53.582	60.101	48.552

This goes against the conventional wisdom that the SEC is the strongest conference with the Pac-10 being a 2.5 point #1.  The SEC is followed closely by the Big-12 and there is a bit of a gap back to the Big-Televen.  Clearly, the Big-East is down this year finding themselves just ahead of the WAC and Mountain West.  It is interesting that Boise is moving to the Mountain West next year but right now the WAC has a higher average.

Now, this is skewed a bit by Oregon having such a high rating so if we throw out the high and low from each conference we get:

Rank	Conference	Average	High	Low
1	Pac-10	76.027	86.209	69.737
2	SEC	74.493	82.618	64.074
3	Big-12	73.425	80.578	67.830
4	Big-Televen	70.105	79.863	60.113
5	Independent	69.224	69.224	69.224
6	ACC	68.866	75.474	60.996
7	Big-East	66.177	71.499	64.682
8	WAC	64.648	76.696	52.446
9	Mountain-West	64.142	73.704	55.457
10	C-USA	60.790	68.432	54.223
11	MAC	58.077	66.610	49.563
12	Sun-Belt	53.370	57.220	50.660

The gap from #1 to #2 is a bit smaller, but still over 1.5 points, so this seems to say the Pac-10 is indeed the toughest conference.

Another way to look at it though is to look at just games a conference plays against non-conference opponents.  Treating each conference as a single team in my algorithm, this results in:

Rank	Conference	Average	Record	Schedule
1	SEC	73.253	39-5-0	58.260
2	Pac-10	70.864	21-9-0	63.054
3	Big-12	70.088	38-8-0	60.638
4	Big-Televen	68.660	35-8-0	58.950
5	Independent	67.330	18-11-0	62.271
6	ACC	67.124	27-15-0	60.288
7	Big-East	66.894	23-15-0	60.950
8	WAC	65.086	21-17-0	63.218
9	Mountain-West	63.705	17-19-0	65.050
10	C-USA	61.719	20-27-0	64.725
11	MAC	59.043	15-37-0	64.805
12	Sun-Belt	56.225	4-31-0	68.467
13	FCS	52.390	7-83-0	69.713

The SEC, Pac-10, Big-12, and Big-Televen are again the top-four, but the SEC has moved ahead of the Pac-10 looking at it this way.  Their non-conference record is better (39-5 vs 21-9) but it is against a much weaker schedule.  This is likely explained by the SEC playing only 8 conference games, leaving 4 non-conference games for each of the 12 teams vs the Pac-10 playing 9 conference games and only 3 non-conference for each of the 10 teams.  The SEC usually uses the fourth non-conference game to play a very weak opponent dragging their schedule strength down.

But the Big-Televen also plays 8 conference games leaving 4 non-conference and similarly has a weak schedule but not as weak as the SEC's.  The Big-12 does the same but manages to have a stronger schedule than the SEC or Big-Televen.

If we take a deeper look at the non-conference schedules we see some interesting items in comparing the Pac-10 and SEC:

• The Pac-10 played 7 FCS schools, the SEC 11, in both cases all at the Pac-10/SEC school.
• The SEC lost against an FCS school (Jacksonville State at Ole Miss 49-48) and the Pac-10 had one close call against an FCS school (Montana St at WSU 22-23)
• The Pac-10 and SEC played head to head in one game where Oregon walloped Tennessee in Tennessee 48-13
• Of the Pac-10's other 23 non-conference games, 13 (57%) were against AQ conference schools, 6 on the road, going 3-3 on the road and 6-1 at home, for a total record of 9-4.
• Of the SEC's other 33 non-conference games, only 12 (36%) were against AQ conference schools, 4 on the road, 2 at a neutral site, going 2-2 on the road, 2-0 neutral, and 4-2 at home, for a total record of 8-4.

So, these are very similar profiles, the head to head win not being a big factor as it was the best Pac-10 team against a lower tier SEC team.  The knock against the SEC though is that they pad their schedule with an extra weak non-conference opponent while the Pac-10 plays an extra conference game, on average the Pac-10 opponent being stronger than the extra SEC non-conference opponent.

In any case, the perception that the SEC has the strongest schedule is clearly not an open and shut case, in fact one could argue the Pac-10's schedule is tougher.  And all the noise coming from the Big-Televen seems completely unfounded as they aren't even that close a #4 to the top-three conferences.

Thoughts or questions on the subject?  Leave a comment or message me on Twitter.

More checking in on the week 12 polls; AP has LSU as high as #2? Stanford as low as #12?

I wrote earlier about a quick analysis of the polls to see if there was any obvious manipulation or biased voting going on.  I couldn't help but dig deeper and thankfully the Associated Press publishes the votes of all their pollsters so we can take a deeper look.

First, I just looked at the votes and a few things jumped out, but as is often the case, visualizing data like this is usually a lot easier.  With that, I unveil a new chart I'll continue to update showing the top-25 teams, their current ranking on the nicely sloped line in the middle, and then the highest and lowest vote each team received.  Here it is for the most recent AP top-25 poll.

There is no surprise really at the top, Oregon and Auburn both fall within the range of #1 thru #4, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, both Boise and TCU are outside of the top-four on some ballots and TCU is no longer receiving any first place votes.  You can see this nicely on this chart and see that Boise's low is #5 and TCU's #6.  Who has them outside the top-four and who do they have in their place?

• Craig James of ESPN has Boise #5 and TCU #6 with Stanford and Wisconsin slotting in at #3 and #4.
• Ferd Lewis of the Honolulu Star has TCU #5 with LSU at #4.
• Tom Murphy of the Arkansas Democratic Gazette has TCU #5 with LSU #4.
• Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News has TCU #5 with LSU at #2!

It is this last one that is a little bizarre and you can't accuse him of regional bias.  He seems to be using the logic that Auburn is #1 and LSU lost to them but would beat anyone else so must be #2.  I can't argue that a one-loss team can be rated ahead of an undefeated (my computer has Stanford #2), but given how unimpressive LSU's wins have been this one is a little hard to understand.

You might expect a fairly consistent "window" around the actual ranking for each team, but as can be seen above it actually is quite jagged and jumps around a bit.  A few other interesting observations:

• Wisconsin's best and worst are both below LSU's, but they come out ahead.  This is due to the skewing of Jon Wilner and Wisconsin still being ahead shows the general consensus is that LSU is not close to #2.
• Stanford's only loss is to #1 Oregon but Mark Anderson from Las Vegas has them #12!  He has them behind two-loss Missouri (10) and Oklahoma (11) as well as Alabama (6).
• Oklahoma State has a low of #16 but manages to stay ahead of Michigan State and Arkansas that both have lows of #14.
• Oklahoma is another like LSU that is getting a few pollsters rating them overly highly as they are behind a Virginia Tech that has a high and low both behind Oklahoma's.
• Utah, at #23 is still getting support with one pollster having them as high as #16!

Wouldn't it be great if we had this transparency into the Coaches and Harris polls?

What do you think?  Leave a comment or send me a message on Twitter at @computerratings.  If you have questions or want more details on a particular team or pollster, let me know too.

I'll do this again next week and include a look into how voters change their votes from week to week.

Enjoy!

2010 Week 12 BCS Bowl Game Predictions; Oregon/BSU, Wisconsin/Stanford, Auburn/tOSU, VaTech/TCU, Nebraska/Pitt

Time has passed and it is time to update my prior bowl game predictions.

Using my latest projections, there would be three undefeated teams; Oregon, Boise State, and TCU.  My computer currently projects Alabama to beat Auburn this week although it has Auburn winning the SEC championship game.

While Boise State is currently behind TCU, I expect them to move ahead after they beat Nevada and I don't expect Auburn to get back to #2 after the loss, so Oregon vs Boise State would be the BCS NC game.

The Rose Bowl would have the Big-Televen champ against their pick of teams since they lost Oregon to the NC game.  But since BSU would be the non-AQ conference AQ, they would not be obligated to take TCU.  An 11-1 Stanford would be very attractive to preserve the Big-Televen vs Pac-10 tradition, and my computer says Stanford is the better team so I'd like to think that is the direction they go, but if you believe the talking heads, they are talking about taking TCU to fulfill the non-AQ obligation now when they can get an undefeated TCU.  I doubt it happens though.  And I expect Wisconsin to keep the slim margin over Ohio State, even though the computers could narrow it a bit.

The Sugar would have Auburn as the SEC champ and they pick next.  If TCU is available, they could go that direction, but figure they'll go after the money/attendance and whomever the #2 Big-Televen team would fit that bill.  And should the Rose take TCU, I doubt the Sugar would pick Stanford.

The Orange goes next and should already have Virginia Tech and would likely go with TCU as the opponent.  If TCU does go to the Rose Bowl, they'd likely take Stanford just because any other choice would be a two-loss team as I predict LSU to lose to Arkansas.

That leaves the Fiesta Bowl which would have Nebraska or Oklahoma State (hard to pick between the two right now, I have them virtually tied) against the default of Pitt as the Big-East champ.

• BCS NCG - Oregon 12-0 vs Boise State 12-0
• Rose Bowl - Wisconsin 11-1 vs Stanford 11-1 (possibly TCU 12-0)
• Sugar Bowl - Auburn 12-1 vs Ohio State 11-1
• Orange Bowl - Virginia Tech 11-2 vs TCU 12-0 (possibly Stanford 11-1)
• Fiesta Bowl - Nebraska 11-2 (or possibly Oklahoma State) vs Pitt 8-4

Hopefully I'm not biased, as I'm pleased that both TCU and Stanford get into BCS games.  This does depend on LSU losing to Arkansas as if they don't, there is a good chance they go to the Orange Bowl instead of TCU/Stanford.

Thoughts?

Checking in on the week 12 polls; Voter manipulation of the BCS?

As we get closer to the end of the regular season, the polls become increasingly important given their impact on the BCS rankings, so the skeptical amongst us may start to be suspicious about what voters might be doing to manipulate the rankings to get the result they want.  So, it is fun to do a little analysis to see how the votes change from week to week and what might be the reason.

In the AP poll, Oregon and TCU lost a first place vote each and Auburn and Boise picked them up.  Oregon lost two points though so at least one other that had them #2 or lower also dropped them a spot, or the person dropping Oregon dropped them multiple spots.  Similarly, Auburn picked up three points so either they were farther back on the poll that added a first place vote or they were moved up on some other ballots too.  But Boise is the big gainer, picking up 17 points, mostly at the expense of TCU which lost 21.

These changes don't seem severe, but given that only one of the teams played, what is going on here?  Boise's move up is certainly understandable given their 51-0 win over a good Fresno State, and the likely culprit for that would be TCU so that is fine.  But what about the swings in first place votes?  Boise getting one is understandable, but how does an idle Auburn pick one up from an idle Oregon to TCU?  Especially when my computer had the impact of other games improving TCU's rating higher than that of Auburn and Oregon's about the same?  It is only one vote, but something is slightly fishy.

Another check is to see if the four teams that are a clear #1 thru #4 are getting all of those votes.  The answer right now is no with a 9 point gap.  So there are either 9 ballots with one of the top-4 teams at #5, one of the top-4 teams is as low as #13, or something in between.  So clearly someone thinks a one-loss team is better than an undefeated team (likely Boise State or TCU).  My computer believes Stanford is better than Boise State and TCU so I can't argue with that.

But the AP doesn't matter as far as the BCS goes, so let's look at the Coaches Poll.  There, Boise and TCU hold their first place votes while Oregon picks up two from Auburn.  However, even while losing at least two points because of that, Auburn picked up a point in their total.  They didn't get those from Boise as they gained 12 points, instead they likely got them from TCU as they lost 18.

The Coaches poll however, has far more voters with the top-4 at #5 or lower on their ballots.  The gap here is a full 48 points meaning there are a lot of coaches that think a one-loss team is better than the undefeated teams.  Again, I can't argue with that, but that is sure a lot of them since there are only 59 voters.  Nearly ever voter has an undefeated team behind a one-loss team, or a few coaches have quite a few one-loss teams ahead of an undefeated.  Anyone interested in transparency here?

The Harris Poll is the other poll used by the BCS, and here Oregon gains 3 first place votes and 5 points, Auburn loses 4 first place votes and 6 points, Boise picks up 3 first place votes and a whopping 29 points, and TCU loses 2 first place votes and 26 points.  Boise's change is understandable, but it is interesting that Auburn loses ground here while they gained ground in the other two polls.

In the Harris poll, despite there being about twice as many voters (114), the top-4 all being #1 thru #4 gap is just 20 points.  This would seem to indicate these voters respect an undefeated season more than the coaches do.

So, is there a conspiracy?  One certainly can't say so from just analyzing the totals.  There are some oddities, and I suspect some voters making changes this week they wish they would have last week as the reason, and while that is unfortunate and may indicate they didn't do their homework before voting, it is better to get it right before it really matters.

It is interesting that a far higher percentage of the coaches are apt to vote a one-loss team ahead of an undefeated team though.  If you think the voting is stacked towards a particular conference though, the answer is no with the following representation:

• ACC - 6
• Big-Televen - 6
• Big-12 - 6
• Big-East - 4
• C-USA - 6
• Independent - 2
• MAC - 6
• Mtn-West - 4
• Pac-10 - 5
• SEC - 6
• Sun-Belt - 4
• WAC - 4

Basically, all conferences have roughly 50% of their coaches voting.  You could argue the Big-Televen and Independent's are over represented (6 of 11 and 2 of 3) and the MAC, Mountain West, Sun-Belt, and WAC are under (6 of 13, 4 of 9, 4 of 9, and 4 of 9) but it is pretty close.  It is probably safe to say that the coaches from the SEC and Big-Televen are most likely to have one of their one-loss teams ahead of one or both of Boise and TCU, but if it is limited to these conferences all 12 of those voters would have to have two of their one-loss teams ahead of both Boise and TCU.  Actually, that exact scenario would make the 48 point gap I mentioned above.  Might these coaches drop TCU and Boise further down if required to keep them out of the championship game?  Interesting to think about.

Wouldn't it be great if all the voting was transparent?