..even though its a computer. The biases of the individuals are in the underlying methodologies used by the computers.

For example, the BPI added a way of accounting for missing players. Specifically, "If a team or its opponent is missing one of its most important players (determined by minutes per game) for a contest, that game is less important for ranking the teams compared to games in which both teams are at full strength." (Source: ESPN) I guess this cuts both ways: (1) our games without Chris Clarke are now undervalued (thus, our performances against Louisville, Clemson, and BC now count less along with our remaining games)(this also dilutes the value of our Duke win since Greyson was out - should VT be punished and Duke be rewarded for Allen being a scum?); (2) i'll note that this could have helped us rankings wise if we went on a skid - however, if we DID go on a skid, the NCAA would have likely punished us for no longer being tourney caliber with the lost player (this was discussed extensively). Thus, this metric, in my view - is no good.

Really wish we could get a comprehensive methodology breakdown of each computer rankings. Such info is probably trade secret however (unless someone can direct me to a link!).