The W
Views: 100063332
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 2258
The W - Football - Bloodbath Weekend, Part Deux (Page 3)
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.94
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
(1025 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (70 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    What has Oklahoma done that USF hasn't? How about Oregon? USC? Florida?

    South Florida has two wins thus far that are more impressive than anything any of the one-loss teams have done. But they didn't win a bunch of games in the 50s and 60s, so it doesn't count. USC loses to Stanford (at home!) and squeaks by Washington and is still a top-10 team, apparently, but when USF loses to Rutgers or Cincinnati - and I will say the Bulls will probably stumble somewhere, though I sure as hell hope not - they will likely be around 20 or so.


All data from http://tellshowbcs.com

Summery:
USF's (5-0) Opp record is (13-7) 0.650, OppOpp record is (55-50) 0.524
Oklahoma's (5-1) Opp record is (14-14) 0.500, OppOpp record is (72-75) 0.490
Oregon's (4-1) Opp record is (14-6) 0.700, OppOpp record is (50-51) 0.495
USC's (4-1) Opp record is (9-13) 0.409, OppOpp record is (65-48) 0.575
FL's Opp record is (18-8) 0.692, OppOpp record is (67-61) 0.523

Based on what they have accomplished so far, I think it's fair to have USF at #5 RIGHT NOW, considering how their Opp's record and OppOpp's record is better than #6 Oklahoma's records.

EDIT: Of the 4 of 6 computer polls reporting this week:
Massey, Sagarin, Billingsley, and the Colley Matrix

USF has the best average of this bunch (2, 2, 3, 3 = 2.50)
Oregon has (11, 15, 23, 11 = 15.00)
Florida has (15, 20, 12, 19 = 16.50)
USC has (24, 26, 8, 25 = 20.75)
Oklahoma has (30, 25, 18, 20 = 23.25)


Long version:

Oklahoma (5-1) beat:
North Texas (0-5)
Miami (FL) (4-2)
Utah St (0-6)
Tulsa (3-2)
*Texas (4-2)

Lost to *Colorado (4-2)

OK's opponent's record is (14-14) 0.500, and 4 of their opponents have 2 losses and winning records. OK's opponent's opponent's record is (72-75) 0.490

--

South Florida (5-0) beat:
Elon (0-2)
Auburn (4-2)
UNC (2-4)
*WVU (5-1)
FAU (3-3)

USF's opponent's record is (13-7) 0.650, 4 teams are in the BSD, 3 of them are .500 or better. USF's opponent's opponent's record is (55-50) 0.524

--

Oregon (4-1) beat:
Houston (2-3)
Michigan (4-2)
Fresno St (2-2)
*Stanford (2-3)

Lost to *Cal (5-0)

Oregon's opponent's record is (14-6) 0.700, 3 have a .500 or better record. Oregon's opponent's opponent's record is (50-51) 0.495

--

USC (4-1) beat:
Idaho (0-5)
Nebraska (4-2)
*WA St (2-4)
*WA (2-3)

Lost to *Stanford (2-3)

USC's opponent's record is (9-13) 0.409, 1 team is above .500, USC's opponent's opponent's record is (65-48) 0.575

--

Florida (4-2) beat
Western KY (1-2)
Troy (4-2)
*TN (3-2)
Miss (2-4)

Lost to:
Auburn (4-2)
LSU (6-0)

FL's opponent's record is (18-8) 0.692, 4 teams are above 0.500, FL's opponent's opponent's record is (67-61) 0.523

(edited by Zeruel on 9.10.07 1600)

(edited by Zeruel on 9.10.07 1608)

-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"Let me see if I can get inside his mouth." -- Michael Wilbon on PTI August 28, 2007
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 75 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
Some selected info from an ESPN article here if you have Insider access:


    The BCS computers, however, have a different take. Three of them dropped USC all the way out of the top 20, and that will certainly hold the Trojans back until they can re-establish themselves with a quality victory or two. But don't be deceived by what you see when the official BCS standings make their debut on Sunday. Respect in the polls is what matters most on the road to the BCS, so the Trojans are much closer to the top than they may appear.

    Mock BCS standings
    Team Average
    1. LSU 1.000
    2. California .912
    3. Ohio State .907
    4. Boston College .827
    5. South Florida .826
    6. Missouri .683
    7. South Carolina .654
    8. Virginia Tech .596
    9. West Virginia .5902
    10. Oregon .5899
    Others of note: (12) Oklahoma, (13) USC, (20) Hawaii
    With both polls and five of the six computer ratings now available, here's a glimpse at what the BCS standings would look like this week. LSU is the clear-cut No. 1 team. The Tigers are top-ranked on all but two ballots in the coaches' poll and in all but one computer, which rounds up to a seemingly perfect BCS average. Cal and Ohio State are basically in a dead heat for second. They have equal computer scores after the high and low rankings are thrown out, so the Bears' narrow advantage over the Buckeyes comes from the polls.



    South Florida, on average, is ranked as the second-best team by the computers. The Anderson & Hester ratings have the Bulls at No. 1, and every other computer has them ranked second or third.

    The human voters like Oklahoma, but the computer ratings say Missouri is the best team in the Big 12. The Tigers are ranked in the top five of four computers, which boosts them to sixth in the BCS. The Sooners, in contrast, have a best computer ranking of 18th and don't even appear in the top 25 of some ratings. Therefore, OU is all the way down at No. 12 in the mock standings.

    Hawaii in BCS computers
    Ranking SOS
    Colley 30th 130th
    Billingsley 34th N/A
    Anderson & Hester 35th 119th
    Sagarin 54th 170th
    Massey 76 218


As long as people continue to judge teams by what they did in the past - in some cases the very distant past - these numbers won't matter, though. Keep believing the myths, wmatistic. USF may not go undefeated, but they have proven themselves at least as much as Oklahoma, UF, USC and all the rest of them have this year. Those losses to Colorado, Auburn (at home!) and Stanford (at home!) were all really impressive.

I'm as close to supporting a playoff as I've ever been.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    As long as people continue to judge teams by what they did in the past - in some cases the very distant past - these numbers won't matter, though.

    I'm as close to supporting a playoff as I've ever been.


Ah, BucsFan. I weep with happiness at the sentiment.

Everybody knows where I stand on the playoff/BCS debate, of course, but I think it would be a good first step if the polls were eliminated in the discussion for the BCS rankings. There is too much of a gray area in the criteria for how the polls are made and too much room for agendas and bias to enter the discussion.

For example, Ted Miller writes for the Seattle P-I and ESPN.com, and he is a Harris Poll-voter. Here is an excerpt from his blog entry explaining his rankings this week (even though the poll comes out next week, I think).

9) USC
-At first, I dropped them further (13th). The Trojans have done nothing. Their win over Nebraska doesn't hold much weight after Missouri ripped the Huskers. But here's part of the challenge of ranking teams: How much do you factor in pure potential? Or is all about what a team has done?

For example, if USC were playing any team in the top-25, other than LSU, next weekend, I'd pick the Trojans without hesitation. I expect them to tear Arizona apart Saturday.

Truth is: USC's schedule (at Oregon, at California, at Arizona State) is so tough that if the Trojans win out it's entirely possible they will end up at No. 2. The biggest question might be: Could USC still pass an unbeaten team (Ohio State? South Florida? BC?) if it runs the table?


I don't think any part of his comment is untrue. I'd rather have computers judge if USC's (theoretical) 11-1 season with wins over Oregon, Cal, and Arizona State but also a loss to Stanford is superior to USF's 12-0 season. People have too hard of a time getting past the fact that USC is USC and USF is USF, and at the end of the season it shouldn't be about potential any more, it should ONLY be about the results of the games played.

(edited by JayJayDean on 10.10.07 0751)


Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Keep believing the myths, wmatistic. USF may not go undefeated, but they have proven themselves at least as much as Oklahoma, UF, USC and all the rest of them have this year. Those losses to Colorado, Auburn (at home!) and Stanford (at home!) were all really impressive.

    I'm as close to supporting a playoff as I've ever been.


I don't believe myths, I believe what I see on the football field. And I see a very sloppy USF team that hasn't impressed me enough to say they should be in the top five. That's all there is to it. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about, saying Auburn is a big win because they beat someone else and they are Auburn it seems. Mississippi State beat Auburn too!!!!! It's really not that big a deal. Or would you have me believe that anyone else who beats Stanford this year is better than USC??

It's not me saying they aren't any good because they are South Florida. I don't care what the school name is. It's first, they don't have the talent and depth of the top teams. Second, they play sloppy football and are barely getting away with it against poor competition. Third, this is essentially the same team that lost games it should not have last year. In college football if you don't have a lot of guys leaving, I normally find you end up about the same. People always say oh they've got so many kids coming back from a four loss team, they'll be much improved. But reality tends to show that no, they're still a four loss team cause those kids were playing about as well as they can last year.

Why are you not crying for poor Hawaii or Missouri? Only your school is getting screwed?

Wait, why are you crying at all about a hypothetical screwjob that hasn't and may never happen?

And you can take the playoff nonsense and go watch the boring NFL games. Leave my college football alone, thanks.

(edited by wmatistic on 10.10.07 0940)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 75 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Why are you not crying for poor Hawaii or Missouri?


Hawaii has a strength of schedule that ranks below those of several Division II teams. That you think USF and Hawaii are an apt comparison is pretty silly. Missouri's SOS is decent - it's better than Boston College's - but they haven't beaten anyone particularly good. If the Tigers beat the Sooners this weekend, and aren't ranked in or near the top 5, something will be wrong. But you can't compare those teams to USF, which has played a top-10 schedule so far.

By the way, on a completely unrelated note, Boston College being No. 4 is a joke.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 10.10.07 1452)
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      Why are you not crying for poor Hawaii or Missouri?


    Hawaii has a strength of schedule that ranks below those of several Division II teams. That you think USF and Hawaii are an apt comparison is pretty silly. Missouri's SOS is decent - it's better than Boston College's - but they haven't beaten anyone particularly good. If the Tigers beat the Sooners this weekend, and aren't ranked in or near the top 5, something will be wrong. But you can't compare those teams to USF, which has played a top-10 schedule so far.

    By the way, on a completely unrelated note, Boston College being No. 4 is a joke.

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 10.10.07 1452)


You can certainly compare them talent wise. I don't know why none of you have even touched on the repeated point that USF does not have the same talent level of the other top teams. They just don't. How then can I watch them struggle against poor teams and think that this talent level difference won't cost them if they played a top school? In what way would that be logical right now?

Now I'm not calling Missouri or Hawaii top schools, but I think they're right on par with USF talent wise. I would have USF ranked one ahead of Missouri and a few ahead of Hawaii right now, as is the case. But if Missouri beat Oklahoma, they move ahead, period, no question. Sure OU has a loss to Colorado, but with the talent Stoops has, Mizzou being undefeated with a win there is huge to me.

As for Boston College, they've handled their business and have a great QB. Why exactly does everything think they're shit and USF is all that? Cause of a win over an Auburn team that lost to another crappy team already? Cause of a one score win over an over-rated Big East rival that turned the ball over SIX times and still almost pulled it out? No, people want to give USF extra credit cause they're the hot little program right now. Nobody cares about Boston College cause they've been around long enough to get boring. Have you even watched a BC game or are you just going on reading the box scores?

To me that's what's happening here. People looking at scores only and making their decisions based on that. But if you watch as many games as you can you get a totally different feel for which teams are where, and in my view it's a much more accurate measure. I can honestly say that while BC will suffer a loss somewhere, that if they played USF I would have them favored. No question. They don't make as many mistakes and are much more consistent on offense. So they haven't played two over-rated teams like USF. Doesn't make them clearly inferior in my view.

In college football there are far too many freakish upsets and too few games to not use more than just the score to determine which team is better, if they don't actually play each other and have similar records. You MUST take into account talent, depth, results, schedule and recent history in my view.

But hey that's just my opinion and I don't get a vote. Only thing we can do to settle this is let the season play out and see who was more accurate about the strength of the teams involved.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    No, people want to give USF extra credit cause they're the hot little program right now. Nobody cares about Boston College cause they've been around long enough to get boring.


The computers, who feel nothing about anybody and give no one extra credit for being the hot little anything, look at it this way.

Sagarin (BCS) - USF #2, BC #8
Sagarin (Official) - USF #10, BC #13
Billingsley - USF #3, BC #5
Massey - USF #2, BC #4
Colley - USF #3, BC #8

The computers take in a variety of factors, only one of which is the score of the games played. None of those factors include a school's perceived talent-level, which is a purely subjective judgment. (I'm pretty sure we could have a 500-post thread between TBF and Wade about USF's position-by-position talent and whether they are "good" or not.)

Computers = good. Voters, not so much.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 482 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
    Originally posted by wmatistic
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
        Originally posted by wmatistic
        Why are you not crying for poor Hawaii or Missouri?


      Hawaii has a strength of schedule that ranks below those of several Division II teams. That you think USF and Hawaii are an apt comparison is pretty silly. Missouri's SOS is decent - it's better than Boston College's - but they haven't beaten anyone particularly good. If the Tigers beat the Sooners this weekend, and aren't ranked in or near the top 5, something will be wrong. But you can't compare those teams to USF, which has played a top-10 schedule so far.

      By the way, on a completely unrelated note, Boston College being No. 4 is a joke.

      (edited by TheBucsFan on 10.10.07 1452)


    You can certainly compare them talent wise. I don't know why none of you have even touched on the repeated point that USF does not have the same talent level of the other top teams. They just don't. How then can I watch them struggle against poor teams and think that this talent level difference won't cost them if they played a top school? In what way would that be logical right now?

    Now I'm not calling Missouri or Hawaii top schools, but I think they're right on par with USF talent wise. I would have USF ranked one ahead of Missouri and a few ahead of Hawaii right now, as is the case. But if Missouri beat Oklahoma, they move ahead, period, no question. Sure OU has a loss to Colorado, but with the talent Stoops has, Mizzou being undefeated with a win there is huge to me.

    As for Boston College, they've handled their business and have a great QB. Why exactly does everything think they're shit and USF is all that? Cause of a win over an Auburn team that lost to another crappy team already? Cause of a one score win over an over-rated Big East rival that turned the ball over SIX times and still almost pulled it out? No, people want to give USF extra credit cause they're the hot little program right now. Nobody cares about Boston College cause they've been around long enough to get boring. Have you even watched a BC game or are you just going on reading the box scores?

    To me that's what's happening here. People looking at scores only and making their decisions based on that. But if you watch as many games as you can you get a totally different feel for which teams are where, and in my view it's a much more accurate measure. I can honestly say that while BC will suffer a loss somewhere, that if they played USF I would have them favored. No question. They don't make as many mistakes and are much more consistent on offense. So they haven't played two over-rated teams like USF. Doesn't make them clearly inferior in my view.

    In college football there are far too many freakish upsets and too few games to not use more than just the score to determine which team is better, if they don't actually play each other and have similar records. You MUST take into account talent, depth, results, schedule and recent history in my view.

    But hey that's just my opinion and I don't get a vote. Only thing we can do to settle this is let the season play out and see who was more accurate about the strength of the teams involved.





On Boston College: Problem with them is they struggled to beat Division IAA UMASS 2 weeks ago by 10 at home, and their 'quality' win against Georgia Tech doesn't look that good right now. Plus, Boston College will screw up and the point will be moot. Please God let it be this weekend, please. If not, they'll get ambushed on Thursday Night in Blacksburg next week.
That Missouri has no quality wins is incorrect. They knocked off a 1 loss Illinois team on a neutral field that beat a (fraud) Top 5 team in Wisconsin last weekend. If they were to knock off Oklahoma this weekend, they actually would be opening the door for a wacky team like Texas Tech to come out of the Big XII South to play in the conference title game, as both Texas and Oklahoma would have 2 losses should Mizzou win.
Outside of quarterback, South Florida has more talent than Hawaii. Do they have the talent of USC? No, few if any do. However, the talent at USC has found ways to lose games they had no business losing the past 2 years. Texas has far more talent than Kansas State, yet Kansas State has hung over 40 in wins the past 2 years. Figuring out how to win ugly is an equalizer to talent in college football, as USC showed against Oregon State, UCLA and Stanford the last 2 years, teams whose starters might have been less talented than USC's 3rd string in some spots.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      No, people want to give USF extra credit cause they're the hot little program right now. Nobody cares about Boston College cause they've been around long enough to get boring.


    The computers, who feel nothing about anybody and give no one extra credit for being the hot little anything, look at it this way.

    Sagarin (BCS) - USF #2, BC #8
    Sagarin (Official) - USF #10, BC #13
    Billingsley - USF #3, BC #5
    Massey - USF #2, BC #4
    Colley - USF #3, BC #8

    The computers take in a variety of factors, only one of which is the score of the games played. None of those factors include a school's perceived talent-level, which is a purely subjective judgment. (I'm pretty sure we could have a 500-post thread between TBF and Wade about USF's position-by-position talent and whether they are "good" or not.)

    Computers = good. Voters, not so much.


Yes the computers don't think much of BC, but you're ignoring that computers don't watch the games. They probably didn't calculate that Michigan would win a single game after the first two this season either. Still want to pretend like they really know what's going on? The computers are needed in my view to balance some of the definite favoritism that goes on by the human voters. But to pretend like the computer themselves can really judge who should be ranked where is not in any way accurate. They get much better as the season goes on, but for the most part have very large flaws too.

As for talent, it's not a hard question. Look at recruiting classes. Sure there are huge hits and misses, but a team like USC that pulls five star recruits like crazy can be expected to outperform a team that gets excited about three star guys. It's not a perfect science as coaching and work ethic factor in, but it's a definite obvious factor. Look what Illinois is doing. Think they'd be doing that if they didn't have awesome classes since Zook got there? I can forgive a team for one loss or struggling here or there if they have a ton of talent and have won in the past. I know it's likely a blip instead of the norm. If they keep losing, then you know the coaches just aren't up to the challenge and you drop them. Think FSU the past few years where they had the recruits but they never developed them.

Like I've said, sure you can have a situation where a coach takes lesser talent and wins big. Great coaches can do that, but in the end they eventually come up against a team that's just pure awesome on the talent spectrum and can't keep up. It's happened way too often to say it won't again. When I look at USF I see a team that has talent to be sure but it's not got overall talent or, almost as important, depth. You're going to have injuries and tough games and it's a long season, you're going to need guys to step up. Teams like Florida and USC rely on four and five star recruits as backups and rotate them in and out all game long. South Florida can call on good players to start, but obviously they can't put in the backups with much confidence yet. At least not near as well as the top teams can.

As was said, great coaching and luck can overcome great talent. It happens all the time. But to bet or rank on that, is a tough call. USC may have lost to Stanford, but to think they have no chance of beating Cal or Oregon is crazy. Maybe they had a bad game, maybe they gel in the next few weeks, maybe they suck. Who knows, but to ignore that talent and say they aren't going to be any good is nuts. To do that would be to say that Florida had zero chance of even hanging with LSU last week. But the coaches that have proven it in the past adjust and use that great talent and boom, we've got a good looking team again.

I will certainly agree that Hawaii is a pretender. They haven't played anyone and really won't. Their history and recruiting is a large reason why they aren't ranked higher and they aren't bitching about it. Why USF, who does have more talent, think they are so exempt from that same thinking doesn't work for me. You have about the same talent level you had last year when you lost games you shouldn't have. Why am I supposed to expect different from you now? You have to prove it first. Consistency matters.

Last year USF had a minus four turnover ratio. Not a good sign and this season is doing nothing to change the bad image. They play sloppy. And what do we have drilled into our head every day? Turnovers lose you games you should win. USF lost a few games last year against talent they matched up well with. So to say they always get more out of their talent than others is not correct.

As for BC, yeah they will lose. I wouldn't be shocked if it's this weekend. But unlike USF they play smart. They are plus 10 in TO's so far. USF is plus four, and barely won games in which they got a ton of turnovers. And let's not get crazy saying they "force" all those. Against West Virginia, most of those were just sloppy play, not forced in any way.

So if you match up a sloppy team with talent probably equal to a team that's the opposite, I'm taking that other team.

How about Navy tonight? Fun game.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Yes the computers don't think much of BC, but you're ignoring that computers don't watch the games. They probably didn't calculate that Michigan would win a single game after the first two this season either. Still want to pretend like they really know what's going on?


The computers don't need to watch the games. The take data from games that happened and use a formula (or formulae) to rank the teams.

The computer wouldn't calculate WHETHER Michigan would win future games or not, it calculated Michigan's two losses versus everyone else's results and ranked them objectively, with no regard to how many five-star recruits they have or how many games the program won in the past.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      Yes the computers don't think much of BC, but you're ignoring that computers don't watch the games. They probably didn't calculate that Michigan would win a single game after the first two this season either. Still want to pretend like they really know what's going on?


    The computers don't need to watch the games. The take data from games that happened and use a formula (or formulae) to rank the teams.

    The computer wouldn't calculate WHETHER Michigan would win future games or not, it calculated Michigan's two losses versus everyone else's results and ranked them objectively, with no regard to how many five-star recruits they have or how many games the program won in the past.


And those calculations would have lead you to what? That Michigan would be where they are now? The point is that if you rely only on the stats to predict what will happen, you're likely to be very wrong.

The polls aren't there to just tell you what has happened. They are an image of what has happened as well as what we who can actually see the games think will happen next. It's that way to keep us from dropping Michigan to the bottom of DI when they lost twice, then having to jump them way back up when they showed it wasn't their full ability.

Apparently you think teams should be ranked only on stats. The computers had Florida and Michigan tied to end last season. Do you agree that it was the correct assessment?

(edited by wmatistic on 10.10.07 2217)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    The polls aren't there to just tell you what has happened. They are an image of what has happened as well as what we who can actually see the games think will happen next.


So wait, you're saying that there shouldn't be any upsets because the polls say that the #5 team is better than #6 and worse teams and won't lose except to the top 5? By that logic, there should be no more "Bloodbath weekends" because the polls ranked in the right order. There would be no:

Week 1, #5 Michican loses to App State, a team that plays in the Football Championship Subdivision. Michigan ended up tied for 32nd place (with the Gamecocks) with 39 pts in the poll.

Week 5, #5 West Virginia loses to #18 South Florida and drops to 13th. USF jumps up to 6th.

Week 6, #5 Wisconsin loses to #28 Illinois and drops to 19th. Illinois breaks the top 25 and ends up at #18.

In half the games played this year, the #5 teams loses, and in a third of the games played, the #5 team loses to a team outside of the top 25.

Some accurate polling, eh?




-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"Let me see if I can get inside his mouth." -- Michael Wilbon on PTI August 28, 2007
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      The polls aren't there to just tell you what has happened. They are an image of what has happened as well as what we who can actually see the games think will happen next.


    So wait, you're saying that there shouldn't be any upsets because the polls say that the #5 team is better than #6 and worse teams and won't lose except to the top 5? By that logic, there should be no more "Bloodbath weekends" because the polls ranked in the right order. There would be no:

    Week 1, #5 Michican loses to App State, a team that plays in the Football Championship Subdivision. Michigan ended up tied for 32nd place (with the Gamecocks) with 39 pts in the poll.

    Week 5, #5 West Virginia loses to #18 South Florida and drops to 13th. USF jumps up to 6th.

    Week 6, #5 Wisconsin loses to #28 Illinois and drops to 19th. Illinois breaks the top 25 and ends up at #18.

    In half the games played this year, the #5 teams loses, and in a third of the games played, the #5 team loses to a team outside of the top 25.

    Some accurate polling, eh?



I never said it was perfectly accurate, no. Not even close. Are you saying the computers alone would be more accurate without the human element? That them dropping Michigan to #130 or whatever they likely did after the first couple weeks would have been accurate?

Sagarin right now says that OU is the third best team in the country. Do you think that's more accurate than the human polls? His system says Cal is sixth! It has Texas ahead of Kansas State! Illinois isn't even in the top 25!

This is better to you?
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Sagarin right now says that OU is the third best team in the country. Do you think that's more accurate than the human polls? His system says Cal is sixth! It has Texas ahead of Kansas State! Illinois isn't even in the top 25!

    This is better to you?


Here is where our opinions differ. The computers are NOT saying Oklahoma is the third-best team in the country. The computers are saying that Oklahoma's RESULTS are the third-best in the country. I would prefer the robotic, non-emotional analysis of the results by a computer than the subjective, likely-biased analyses of people, be the compelling factor.

(And by "the computers", I'm actually just referring to Sagarin's, which has Oklahoma at #27 in his official BCS formula.)

Furthermore, none of the computer's rankings are really relevant until the season's final week, when they have all of the necessary factors from ALL of the necessary games, to a MUCH higher degree than any person can have unless they literally watch EVERY game, which is impossible.

And Sagarin may have Illinois ranked #31, but Billingsley has them at #11, so I think that using several computers (one thing the BCS does that is correct, IMO) would help to balance things out since some of the rankings emphasize different things.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30


I think one of the key points (that I think JJD agrees with) is that humans cannot possibly be a very good judge of EVERY team in the country. The coaches or writers polls? How many other games does a coach watch other than his team and future opponents? How many other games does a college football writer watch? If I had to choose one side, I would go with the computers, since at the end of the season, it should be the RESULTS that matter, not the POTENTIAL that a lot of poll voters base their decisions on.




CRZ had to edit my profile and close my table for me before, but I did this one all by myself with Frosty's help!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      Sagarin right now says that OU is the third best team in the country. Do you think that's more accurate than the human polls? His system says Cal is sixth! It has Texas ahead of Kansas State! Illinois isn't even in the top 25!

      This is better to you?


    Here is where our opinions differ. The computers are NOT saying Oklahoma is the third-best team in the country. The computers are saying that Oklahoma's RESULTS are the third-best in the country. I would prefer the robotic, non-emotional analysis of the results by a computer than the subjective, likely-biased analyses of people, be the compelling factor.

    (And by "the computers", I'm actually just referring to Sagarin's, which has Oklahoma at #27 in his official BCS formula.)

    Furthermore, none of the computer's rankings are really relevant until the season's final week, when they have all of the necessary factors from ALL of the necessary games, to a MUCH higher degree than any person can have unless they literally watch EVERY game, which is impossible.

    And Sagarin may have Illinois ranked #31, but Billingsley has them at #11, so I think that using several computers (one thing the BCS does that is correct, IMO) would help to balance things out since some of the rankings emphasize different things.


Like I said the computers are needed, but they just can't take everything into account that I feel they should. Not to mention a human creates the formula's they use, which lends to them being less than perfect in what data they give what emphasis to. They don't have ALL The neccessary factors because the creator doesn't take into account all the factors. Some don't bother with homefield advantage, they don't do margin of victory, date of the game, etc. The only info they even get from what I understand is date, location, score, who played. They decide what points are given to what. No other data at all and some as I said don't even use all of that!! They don't know who's got the best rushing defense, what QB is amazing and which is prone to throwing interceptions, what team can't be beat at home, which RB can take over a game, what coach is a moron, NO STATS BUT WHEN, WHERE, WHO, AND SCORE!!?!?!?!?!? That's having all the data they need? Really? You mean it? Are you sure you mean it? Maybe think about it again and get back to me.

Heck some of the computer rankings don't include any games against non-D-IA opponants. So I was wrong before. They wouldn't have had Michigan in last place. They wouldn't have even known they lost a game!!! What if they had gone undefeated the rest of the year! The computers might have put them in the national title game. You'd be cool with that?

Notice how many times the makers have changed their formula because the computers in the past put teams in the bowl games that the people who actually watched the games felt shouldn't be there. It's far from a perfect system.

We need both the humans and computers, no question about it. Both are far from perfect but together they do alright at least.


(edited by wmatistic on 11.10.07 0846)
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 4 days
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
I think we all agree that until all the games are played, we won't truly know the correct order, regardless of whether the polls or computers are used. So, to say that the computers aren't truly accurate until the final week of the season is true for the polls as well.

But, the subjective nature of the polls has both positive and negative implications. Although the human voters can't watch all the games, I do think they can better analyze the games that they have seen. The computers can't distinguish if there were a couple of fluky plays or bad calls that decide the game. Or, if the game ended in a 3 point victory because one team scored a touchdown as time expired against a prevent defense or because one team kicked a field goal as time expired. That's a pretty major weakness. Eliminating margin of victory is also a double edged sword for the computers because sometimes it's more accurate and other times less so.

To me, the most galling thing is that both computers and polls consistently rank a team only a few spots ahead of a team that they recently beat.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Like I said the computers are needed, but they just can't take everything into account that I feel they should. Not to mention a human creates the formula's they use, which lends to them being less than perfect in what data they give what emphasis to. They don't have ALL The neccessary factors because the creator doesn't take into account all the factors. Some don't bother with homefield advantage, they don't do margin of victory, date of the game, etc. The only info they even get from what I understand is date, location, score, who played. They decide what points are given to what. No other data at all and some as I said don't even use all of that!! They don't know who's got the best rushing defense, what QB is amazing and which is prone to throwing interceptions, what team can't be beat at home, which RB can take over a game, what coach is a moron, NO STATS BUT WHEN, WHERE, WHO, AND SCORE!!?!?!?!?!? That's having all the data they need? Really? You mean it? Are you sure you mean it? Maybe think about it again and get back to me.


If you think it is just as simplistic as putting scores in and spitting out results, I'm not sure there is anything to be said. There are other compelling stats that are weighed depending on the formula.


    Heck many of the computer rankings don't include any games against non-D-IA opponants. So I was wrong before. They wouldn't have had Michigan in last place. They wouldn't have even known they lost a game!!! What if they had gone undefeated the rest of the year! The computers might have put them in the national title game. You'd be cool with that?


They don't count WINS against non I-A opponents. Losses do count in those cases. Michigan is ranked #41 by Sagarin, worse than a bunch of teams that haven't lost to I-AA teams.


    Notice how many times the makers have changed their formula because the computers in the past put teams in the bowl games that the people who actually watched the games felt shouldn't be there. It's far from a perfect system.


More factual inaccuracy here. The computer guys have left their systems largely unchanged, except when the BCS MADE THEM remove margin-of-victory. Your imagined changes to the computer rankings were ACTUALLY changes to the BCS FORMULA, which they tinker with just about every year.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
No, there really aren't other compelling stats used. I even went and double checked the computer polls. Maybe one of the secret formulas we aren't allowed to see uses other stats. They won't tell us.

Edit: here you can see what they use. I count one poll that uses offensive and defensive "ratings". Everyone else is just playing with that same "date, location, score, teams" data.

"A brief synopsis of each computer rating used in the BCS formula:
Jeff Sagarin: Takes into account who each team has played, the score of each game and where the game was played.

The New York Times: Uses three factors - who won, by what margin and against what quality of opposition.

Anderson and Hester of the Seattle Times: Computes strength of schedule combined with victories over quality opponents. Rankings do not appear until fifth week, so ratings reward actual accomplishments and not perceived potential.

Richard Billingsley: Takes into account going from one season to the next, analyzing the performance, understanding the scenario (i.e. major upset, minor upset, near upset, etc.), strength of opponent, won-loss record, where game was played.

Massey Ratings: Utilizes overall team ratings, offensive and defensive ratings, schedule strength, home-field advantage, standard deviation, conference ratings, total interdependence, diminishing returns and optional use of preseason information. "

No, losses don't count in every case. Colley's ratings only considered games between I-A opponents. Sagarin, as you mentioned, does take it into account. That's why I didn't say "every" poll. Now that Colley looks like a fool, he's made a change to include those results. He tries to pretend like it was something he saw coming and prepared for, but everyone knows it didn't happen until after the Michigan loss and was done to save face.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/iaagroups.html

Again, it's proof that these computer polls are only as accurate as the guy creating them allows them to be.

But I guess I imagined that change to his formula too, like I imagined the others.


(edited by wmatistic on 11.10.07 0901)
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    No, there really aren't other compelling stats used. I even went and double checked the computer polls. Maybe one of the secret formulas we aren't allowed to see uses other stats. They won't tell us.

    Edit: here you can see what they use. I count one poll that uses offensive and defensive "ratings". Everyone else is just playing with that same "date, location, score, teams" data.

    "A brief synopsis of each computer rating used in the BCS formula:


It says "brief". And it doesn't even bother me if that is the case, anyway, although I had assumed (and still continue to, to a degree) that there are other things in play.


    No, losses don't count in every case. Colley's ratings only considered games between I-A opponents. Sagarin, as you mentioned, does take it into account. That's why I didn't say "every" poll. Now that Colley looks like a fool, he's made a change to include those results. He tries to pretend like it was something he saw coming and prepared for, but everyone knows it didn't happen until after the Michigan loss and was done to save face.


Well, that's just dumb. Even *I* can't defend that.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread rated: 4.94
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread ahead: Carolina has a new QB
Next thread: Temporarily Nameless Weekend
Previous thread: Dallas/Bills make MNF fun again!
(1025 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/salcap Group ID# 1444 Password: crz Got 11 people so far and your picks are editable until 5 minutes before the games start. (Meaning if you wait until Friday you can still use people in Sunday and Monday games.)...
- JayJayDean, Salary Cap League - Last call! (2004)
Related threads: Bloodbath Weekend - Announcers are annoying me - Defense? - More...
The W - Football - Bloodbath Weekend, Part Deux (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.