Human polls vs. the BCS rankings

Human polls vs. the BCS rankings

Why is there an ongoing discrepancy between the human polls and the BCS rankings?
It’s simple, really. The BCS formula is flawed. That’s how Oklahoma was No. 1 in the BCS rankings last week while Oregon was No. 1 in both human polls (Harris and the coaches). The two human polls and the computer rankings each carry one-third of the weight in the BCS standings. Doesn’t it seem odd that a bank of computers that simply process data are on equal footing with people who cover, follow and/or coach the sport? The formula should be 40 percent each for the human polls and 20 percent for the computers. Otherwise, why not just play out the season on a video game?

NJ.com
10/25/10