Very often in college football, especially early in the season, we see a difference in results between the human polls and the computer rankings. After all, they generally do two different things.

There are two different types of major computer rankings. The first judges what a team has accomplished. It looks at wins and losses and strength of schedule to create an overall picture of a team’s accomplishments. Those rankings are still somewhat useless (and often hilarious), because teams haven’t played enough games for a real SOS measurement to be accurate.

The second type are power ratings, often called “advanced metrics” or “analytic rankings.” These look at every drive, every play, that a team has made, and uses it to look forward and predict who is more likely to win future matchups. Who’s the better team on a neutral field? These rankings try to tell you.

Human polls, on the other hand, are some kind of subjective synthesis of the two. Voters take into account how good a team looks/seems, but generally use wins and losses to override that. At the end of the day, the record trumps the potential in human polls, as it should.

This year, so far, the advanced metrics computers like Ohio State a lot more than the human voters do. Just how wide is the difference? Let’s look at the nitty gritty.

Next… Voters are severely underrating Ohio State