Bias in Polls

[Nick Douglas]

USC has certainly been on both the positive and negative ends of poll bias in the past. In 2003 pollsters gave use much more credit than unbiased computers did, while in 2002 the opposite was true.

I took a look at the current (11/26/2006) BCS Standings to see possible instances of poll bias. The idea here is to find schools that are either underrated or overrated by pollsters in reference to their unbiased computer ranking average. I'm only listing teams where the poll numbers are at least 3 off from the computer average. Take a look:

UNDERRATED
-Notre Dame (Polls: 11; Computers: 8)
-Tennessee (Polls: 18.5; Computers: 13.5)
-California (Polls: 20.5; Computers: 13.5)
-Oregon State (Polls: 28.5; Computers: 19)

OVERRATED
-Wisconsin (Polls:6; Computers: 12)
-Oklahoma (Polls: 11.5; Computers: 15)
-Texas (Polls: 17; Computers: 21)
-Nebraska (Polls: 19; Computers: 23.5)
-Georgia Tech (Polls: 22; Computers: Below 25)

I think there are a few conclusions we can draw, although anything has to be taken lightly since it's only a small sample. The first thing I'd note is that there seems to be a strong anti-Pac 10 bias. Also, somewhat of a pro-Big 12 bias.

The other thing I see here is that scheduling non-conference softies seems to be the way to go. Wisconsin (as much as I hate to admit it) does not seem to be hurt as much in the polls as they should by scheduling terrible non-conference opponents. In a conference like the SEC it's more forgivable because there are more tough teams, but in top-heavy conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12, apparently you can get away with scheduling a bunch of panty-waists and the voters will forget when they cast their ballots towards the end of the season.

 

[MonkeyPants]

Didn't one of these computers have Rutgers #2 at one point a couple weeks ago?

 

[layinwood]

Or maybe you have it opposite Nick, maybe the polls are correct and the computers are biased by how they're set. The only reason I really say this is because I think ND is very overated.

 

[Nick Douglas]

You make a great point, layinwood. Since the computer algorithms are created by humans, it's very possible that they are flawed.

I will say that, on balance, I find that computers tend to tell a better story than polls. I can just remember a lot of examples where pollsters get wrapped up in hype and forget how good or bad these teams have been over the course of the season.

I'll tell ya. I'm definitely going to pay attention to the teams mentioned in my original post when they hit the bowls. We'll see if the underrated teams shine and the overrated teams flounder.

 

[mw]

Or maybe you have it opposite Nick, maybe the polls are correct and the computers are biased by how they're set.

Remember, the computer programmers are not allowed to factor in margin of victory any more. The human voters have much more information than the computers.