<
>

What computers say about the Big East

The six computer rankings that make up one-third of the BCS formula have all been made public this week in conjunction with the release of the first BCS standings.

These computer rankings are considered so trustworthy that the BCS allows them to help determine the national champion. OK, computers, let's see how your Big East power rankings look (the first number is national ranking, according to the computer formula; strength of schedule numbers in parenthesis where available):

Sagarin (Elo Chess)

44. West Virginia (135)

57. Cincinnati (32)

65. Pittsburgh (26)

90. Connecticut (91)

91. Rutgers (130)

92. Syracuse (128)

119. Louisville (102)

155. South Florida (142)

So, Jeff Sagarin's numbers think there are 43 teams better than West Virginia and a whopping 154 better than South Florida? I think not.

Anderson & Hester

25. West Virginia (84)

61. Rutgers (101)

64. Cincinnati (35)

72. Pittsburgh (64)

76. Connecticut (78)

80. Syracuse (119)

81. Louisville (93)

85. South Florida (104)

Rutgers is the second-best team in the Big East, according to Messrs. Anderson & Hester. Not a lot of humans outside of New Jersey would agree.

Richard Billingsley

22. West Virginia

40. Pittsburgh

52. Cincinnati

61. Rutgers

67. Connecticut

70. Syracuse

71. South Florida

88. Louisville

These numbers don't seem too far off, though it's curious why Louisville is so far below USF and Syracuse.

Colley Matrix

21. West Virginia (95)

59. Rutgers (114)

63. Cincinnati (37)

71. Pittsburgh (82)

74. Syracuse (132)

77. Louisville (99)

79. Connecticut (100)

86. South Florida (121)

Another formula likes Rutgers, or else we're all part of the Matrix. Also, there is no spoon.

Kenneth Massey

37. Pittsburgh (27)

40. West Virginia (93)

49. Cincinnati (48)

70. Connecticut (96)

74. Rutgers (110)

80. Syracuse (112)

82. Louisville (88)

86. South Florida (105)

I'm guessing Mr. Massey won't be invited to many dinners in Morgantown anytime soon. Also interesting: the wide spectrum of views on Pitt's schedule. I don't understand how a slate that includes Utah, Miami and Notre Dame can be rated so low by other formulas.

Dr. Peter Wolfe

24. West Virginia

59. Cincinnati

64. Pittsburgh

70. Rutgers

76. Connecticut

77. Syracuse

85. Louisville

93. South Florida

Dr. Wolfe, who I'm assuming got his doctorate in BCS methodology, has the same top four as my power rankings this week. Clearly, great minds think alike.

Just for fun, here is an aggregate average of where all Big East teams rank according to the six computer polls, along with their strength of schedule ratings from those formulas which include it:

Average

29. West Virginia (SOS: 102)

57. Cincinnati (38)

58. Pittsburgh (50)

69. Rutgers (114)

76. Connecticut (91)

78. Syracuse (123)

87. Louisville (96)

96. South Florida (118)

If you flip-flop Louisville and Connecticut, this matches my most recent power rankings exactly. And, hey, Rutgers can gloat by saying it only has played the third-worst schedule, according to the computers.