Conosticator wrote:

1. In both five yr periods since the formation of the BCS, the Big12 has been the most over-rated conference by far.

2. The Pac10 has been the most underrated BCS conference and the MWC the most underrated overall.

3. Prior to the BCS, the Pac10 was the most underrated of the future BCS conferences and the WAC (including most MWC teams) was the most underrated overall.

4. I discount the "Indy" category because since the advent of the BCS the number of independent schools has become extremely small (hard to get a representative sample without ND skewing things).

5. If one ignores the Big12 factor (I call it the Texas football effect), the amount a conference is "underrated" appears to be directly related to the distance of the conference from the east coast. The Pac10 is consistently the most underrated of the BCS conferences. The MWC and WAC are the two most underrated overall.

6. The biggest beneficiary of the BCS (ratings-wise) is easily the Big12. The Pac10 & Big10 gave up control of the Rose Bowl to the BCS in exchange for being screwed in the rankings.

7. The difference between the most overrated and most underrated has grown during each five year period. The BCS has allowed a non-BCS school to play in one of the BCS bowl games since 2004. It does not appear to have affected the consistent underrating of the MWC or WAC in the pre-season rankings.

East coast bias is for real. It's funny how WAC, MWC, and Pac-10 teams "come out of nowhere" to finish in the top 25.

mormonrasta wrote:

Conosticator wrote:

1. In both five yr periods since the formation of the BCS, the Big12 has been the most over-rated conference by far.

2. The Pac10 has been the most underrated BCS conference and the MWC the most underrated overall.

3. Prior to the BCS, the Pac10 was the most underrated of the future BCS conferences and the WAC (including most MWC teams) was the most underrated overall.

4. I discount the "Indy" category because since the advent of the BCS the number of independent schools has become extremely small (hard to get a representative sample without ND skewing things).

5. If one ignores the Big12 factor (I call it the Texas football effect), the amount a conference is "underrated" appears to be directly related to the distance of the conference from the east coast. The Pac10 is consistently the most underrated of the BCS conferences. The MWC and WAC are the two most underrated overall.

6. The biggest beneficiary of the BCS (ratings-wise) is easily the Big12. The Pac10 & Big10 gave up control of the Rose Bowl to the BCS in exchange for being screwed in the rankings.

7. The difference between the most overrated and most underrated has grown during each five year period. The BCS has allowed a non-BCS school to play in one of the BCS bowl games since 2004. It does not appear to have affected the consistent underrating of the MWC or WAC in the pre-season rankings.

East coast bias is for real. It's funny how WAC, MWC, and Pac-10 teams "come out of nowhere" to finish in the top 25.

I have to agree with you on this one rasta. A project that I worked on for one of my stats classes showed that there was no significant difference between east coast and west coast coaches in how they voted for BYU.

As has been stated the way the do the over/under rankings is biased, and there are lurking variables that effect the rankings. One such variable is injuries. The thing is that a preseason poll is not a prediction of who is going to be the best at the end of the season, but who is believed to be the best at the beginning of the season.

StatCougar wrote:

The thing is that a preseason poll is not a prediction of who is going to be the best at the end of the season, but who is believed to be the best at the beginning of the season.

Are you sure? Many on this site say the opposite. I wonder if the voters disagree on how they're supposed to vote.

jeremygeorge wrote:

StatCougar wrote:

The thing is that a preseason poll is not a prediction of who is going to be the best at the end of the season, but who is believed to be the best at the beginning of the season.

Are you sure? Many on this site say the opposite. I wonder if the voters disagree on how they're supposed to vote.

I don't know what the direction the votes receive for any of the polls, but in reading blogs of some the voters, they have said that their ballot is a current snap-shot of college football, not predictions on how it is going to end.

mormonrasta wrote:

Conosticator wrote:

1. In both five yr periods since the formation of the BCS, the Big12 has been the most over-rated conference by far.

2. The Pac10 has been the most underrated BCS conference and the MWC the most underrated overall.

3. Prior to the BCS, the Pac10 was the most underrated of the future BCS conferences and the WAC (including most MWC teams) was the most underrated overall.

4. I discount the "Indy" category because since the advent of the BCS the number of independent schools has become extremely small (hard to get a representative sample without ND skewing things).

5. If one ignores the Big12 factor (I call it the Texas football effect), the amount a conference is "underrated" appears to be directly related to the distance of the conference from the east coast. The Pac10 is consistently the most underrated of the BCS conferences. The MWC and WAC are the two most underrated overall.

6. The biggest beneficiary of the BCS (ratings-wise) is easily the Big12. The Pac10 & Big10 gave up control of the Rose Bowl to the BCS in exchange for being screwed in the rankings.

7. The difference between the most overrated and most underrated has grown during each five year period. The BCS has allowed a non-BCS school to play in one of the BCS bowl games since 2004. It does not appear to have affected the consistent underrating of the MWC or WAC in the pre-season rankings.

East coast bias is for real. It's funny how WAC, MWC, and Pac-10 teams "come out of nowhere" to finish in the top 25.

So what would be the best method to prevent "east coast bias"?

SkumBucket wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

Conosticator wrote:

1. In both five yr periods since the formation of the BCS, the Big12 has been the most over-rated conference by far.

2. The Pac10 has been the most underrated BCS conference and the MWC the most underrated overall.

3. Prior to the BCS, the Pac10 was the most underrated of the future BCS conferences and the WAC (including most MWC teams) was the most underrated overall.

4. I discount the "Indy" category because since the advent of the BCS the number of independent schools has become extremely small (hard to get a representative sample without ND skewing things).

5. If one ignores the Big12 factor (I call it the Texas football effect), the amount a conference is "underrated" appears to be directly related to the distance of the conference from the east coast. The Pac10 is consistently the most underrated of the BCS conferences. The MWC and WAC are the two most underrated overall.

6. The biggest beneficiary of the BCS (ratings-wise) is easily the Big12. The Pac10 & Big10 gave up control of the Rose Bowl to the BCS in exchange for being screwed in the rankings.

7. The difference between the most overrated and most underrated has grown during each five year period. The BCS has allowed a non-BCS school to play in one of the BCS bowl games since 2004. It does not appear to have affected the consistent underrating of the MWC or WAC in the pre-season rankings.

East coast bias is for real. It's funny how WAC, MWC, and Pac-10 teams "come out of nowhere" to finish in the top 25.

So what would be the best method to prevent "east coast bias"?

Simple. Beat east coast teams the overwhelmingly majority of the time.