The W
Views: 100922477
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.14 1939
The W - Football - Bloodbath Weekend, Part Deux (Page 4)
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.94
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
(1031 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (70 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    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.


I don't think USF has the overall most talented roster in the country. This is not the same as deserving to be rewarded for a great season. Michigan probably has more talent than USF; on a related note, Michigan lost at home to Appalachian State. You can get caught up in your silly star ratings all you want, but at the end of the day, USF is winning against a tougher schedule than most, despite your assessment. Sooner or later a win has to count for something. The "more talented" team doesn't always win. Should UF's loss to Auburn not count because the Gators are probably "more talented?" Things like coaching and preparation play just as much of a role as whose QB can throw the ball with a tighter spiral.

Now obviously if USF collapses and loses three games, all this early season success will be forgotten. But if/when the Bulls lose one game, they're not going to get the consideration one-loss OU, USC, etc., will, because to many people, like you, are obsessed with things other than the final score. Hell, USF is undefeated still and the Bulls are ALREADY not getting equal consideration from some voters. Winning is all that matters. Winning against tougher competition gets bonus points. There's the formula.

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    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.


Yeah I had forgotten about that Illinois win. That's certainly looking more and more impressive. But silly, the Tigers didn't win a national title seven years ago and didn't hang 79 on that vaunted North Texas defense, so they haven't earned their way to the top 10 yet. That said, I give the edge to OU in this game, only because it's in Norman.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 11.10.07 1043)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 2 days
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    "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 computers can use up to 28 points if MoV if they take score into account. Sagarin also releases 3 different poll numbers, a BCS one, a poll that used to predict win-loss based on potential, and a melding of the two.



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




The New York Times would matter if they were actually part of the BCS.



    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.


I like how they wait until week 5 so their poll isn't skewed by teams that haven't even played yet.




    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.


I've never like taking into account location. How does one boil down into a formula how "harder" it is to play in the Swamp or South Bend or Hawaii?




    No, losses don't count in every case. Colley's ratings only considered games between I-A opponents.



Colley takes into account games between I-A and I-AA teams as of this year. Just look at the link you posted. Week 1, the Colley Matrix dropped Michigan from #1 (tied with everyone else, as no games were played yet) to #94 tied with 49 other schools (his I-AA "groups" all were ranked above them).




    Sagarin, as you mentioned, does take it into account. That's why I didn't say "every" poll.


It depends on which of his polls you are looking at



    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.


Every year a I-AA will beat a I-A but it was never made such a big deal until Michigan did it.

Who is the bigger fool, Colley who ranks everyone tied for 1st for the 1st week because NO GAMES have been played yet, or the pollsters who declared Michigan the 5th best team in the nation with NO GAMES having been played yet?

I didn't see them play like the 5th best in the nation. Not even the 5th best in the I-AA.

(edited by Zeruel on 11.10.07 1559)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

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








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 27 days
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.90
USF is ranked so highly for two reasons: a bazillion upsets in the Top 25, and the overranking of West Virginia and Auburn in the preseason.

USF hasn't lost yet in a college football season full of upsets in the Top 25. In a normal football season, an undefeated USF would be in the top 20 AT BEST. Why? For starters, their schedule sucks. While their schedule isn't as weak as Missouri's or Hawaii's, it's still weak. I mean, other than West Virginia who were they going to lose to, UNC? Florida Atlantic?? Elon??? Teams that win their first 3, 4, 5 games with a weak(ish) schedule like that normally get some votes but do NOT normally find themselves in the top 10 unless they began the season ranked. Second, there usually isn't that much upward mobility in the rankings for unestablished programs like USF no matter how well they do. At this point in the season the Top 25 is usually full of the teams that started there, either still undefeated or with only 1 or 2 losses. It's not really fair because it rewards teams with "reputations" and "established programs" but that's the way college football works. As a result, teams like Hawaii that run the table early (and often in an impressive fashion) are lucky to crack the Top 25. This year, 21 of the 25 teams that started in the Top 25 have lost at least 1 game. That means there's suddenly room in the rankings for the next tier of teams that have managed to run the table. Enter USF, the beneficiary of some extremely lucky circumstances.

Ironically, while USF fans lament the LACK of respect they get because they aren't an established program, it's the EXCESS of respect that West Virginia and Auburn got in the preseason for being established programs that has most contributed to USF's newfound position in the spotlight. Unless you're one of those already-established teams, you're not going to make it into the rankings unless you BEAT one of those teams. Period. "To be the man, you've got to beat the man." If WVU and Auburn didn't start the season as the #3 and #18 teams in the country, respectively, beating them wouldn't mean any more than beating UConn (another Big East team with a better record than WVU) and Mississippi State (another SEC team with the same record as Auburn). Just look at what WVU has done so far: they've played two not-terrible teams (Maryland, USF) and lost to one of them. Meanwhile, Auburn managed to knock off a pretty good Florida team, but they also managed to lose to a bad Mississippi State team. Face it: WVU and Auburn were ranked so highly for reputation and potential, not for performance on the field. Their preseason rankings were a complete mistake. As a result, USF got a huge boost by beating them. Once again, USF is the beneficiary of some extremely lucky circumstances.

If you ask me, USF has proven only that they can beat 3 terrible teams and 2 overrated teams. Does that make you the fifth-best team in the country? Simply not fucking up hardly justifies that. In fact, you could make an excellent argument that 1-loss South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon have proven more.

- StingArmy
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 48 min.
AIM:  
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Yeah I thought that list was slightly off, but I was in a hurry. The New York Times was used previously, but now they use:

Jeff Sagarin
Anderson & Hester
Richard Billingsley
Colley Matrix
Kenneth Massey
Dr. Peter Wolfe

Yes, I know and wrote in that message, that Colley changed his thing. That was my whole point there. The biggest part being he didn't change it until after Michigan lost. That very week. Just a great example of how not so wonderful these computer polls can be.

And yeah, they still all use the basic stats.

Here's the problem I have with your argument. You're not talking about polls. You don't want polls. You want standings. Plain and simple won/loss standings. That's it.

I, what with over 100 teams involved, find that kinda impossible to deal with. Too many teams with similar records, not enough common opponants, so you have to look at more factors to seperate them. And until the last poll of the season, I expect the polls to include what people feel that team will do the rest of the year. That way we don't get silly stuff like a team moving up or down 50 spots every other week when any non computer could see they were still a good team despite an upset.

Why is it foolish in any way to do preseason rankings? It's not like they had a hard time dropping Michigan out of the poll entirely after that loss. So what do you have to complain about there?

And I'm not saying, and never have, that the humans get it right. I'm just easily showing how the computers are far from perfect too. Which is why we use both.

Edit: I'd just like to add...Seminoles...uh, you've got me kinda starting to believe in you a little. But I'm scared. I'm scared you're gonna go in the tank one of these weeks and get exposed. I don't think it'll happen. I think you've got much better coaching now. But I need to see you whup someone's ass before I get really excited and start moving my expectations up to their previous unrealistic levels(pre-Jeff Bowden). Please beat Wake. Just...please. Please.

Oh and can you move kickoff back to 7:30 so I'll have time to put my kid to bed before the game? Thanks.

(edited by wmatistic on 11.10.07 1435)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#65 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    USF is ranked so highly for two reasons: a bazillion upsets in the Top 25, and the overranking of West Virginia and Auburn in the preseason.

    USF hasn't lost yet in a college football season full of upsets in the Top 25. In a normal football season, an undefeated USF would be in the top 20 AT BEST. Why? For starters, their schedule sucks. While their schedule isn't as weak as Missouri's or Hawaii's, it's still weak. I mean, other than West Virginia who were they going to lose to, UNC? Florida Atlantic?? Elon??? Teams that win their first 3, 4, 5 games with a weak(ish) schedule like that normally get some votes but do NOT normally find themselves in the top 10 unless they began the season ranked. Second, there usually isn't that much upward mobility in the rankings for unestablished programs like USF no matter how well they do. At this point in the season the Top 25 is usually full of the teams that started there, either still undefeated or with only 1 or 2 losses. It's not really fair because it rewards teams with "reputations" and "established programs" but that's the way college football works. As a result, teams like Hawaii that run the table early (and often in an impressive fashion) are lucky to crack the Top 25. This year, 21 of the 25 teams that started in the Top 25 have lost at least 1 game. That means there's suddenly room in the rankings for the next tier of teams that have managed to run the table. Enter USF, the beneficiary of some extremely lucky circumstances.

    Ironically, while USF fans lament the LACK of respect they get because they aren't an established program, it's the EXCESS of respect that West Virginia and Auburn got in the preseason for being established programs that has most contributed to USF's newfound position in the spotlight. Unless you're one of those already-established teams, you're not going to make it into the rankings unless you BEAT one of those teams. Period. "To be the man, you've got to beat the man." If WVU and Auburn didn't start the season as the #3 and #18 teams in the country, respectively, beating them wouldn't mean any more than beating UConn (another Big East team with a better record than WVU) and Mississippi State (another SEC team with the same record as Auburn). Just look at what WVU has done so far: they've played two not-terrible teams (Maryland, USF) and lost to one of them. Meanwhile, Auburn managed to knock off a pretty good Florida team, but they also managed to lose to a bad Mississippi State team. Face it: WVU and Auburn were ranked so highly for reputation and potential, not for performance on the field. Their preseason rankings were a complete mistake. As a result, USF got a huge boost by beating them. Once again, USF is the beneficiary of some extremely lucky circumstances.

    If you ask me, USF has proven only that they can beat 3 terrible teams and 2 overrated teams. Does that make you the fifth-best team in the country? Simply not fucking up hardly justifies that. In fact, you could make an excellent argument that 1-loss South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon have proven more.

    - StingArmy


According to tellshowbcs.com, the Bulls have played the ninth-hardest schedule so far. Who has played a tougher schedule and isn't ranked ahead of them? There's UF, but what good does playing tough teams do when you lose to them? Only LSU is undefeated and with a tougher schedule so far. Sorry they couldn't find a way (yet) to lose to Colorado or Stanford, but the Bulls so far have won games that the Michigans, USCs and Oklahomas have lost. It's that simple.

And I want to say two more things about wmatistic's "the other teams have more TALENT" nonsense:

1) I'll use Mike Ford as an example to illustrate this point. Ford signed with Alabama as a running back out of Sarasota High School in Florida. He was a five-star recruit then, according to rivals.com. When the Tide fired Shula and hired Saban, Ford changed his mind and went to USF. He was then dropped to a four-star recruit. Similar things happened with Jamar Taylor, another Tide-commit-turned-Bull. You wind up with circular logic like, "School X signs stud athletes like Player Y, they MUST be good; Player Y was signed by School X, he MUST be good!"

2) Even pretending those star ratings had any credibility, look at someone like George Selvie. USF was the only 1A school to make an offer to Selvie, a one-star center coming out of high school. Jim Leavitt moved him to defensive end, and Selvie as a sophomore is leading the nation in sacks and tackles for loss. Star ratings mean nothing.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#66 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Here's the problem I have with your argument. You're not talking about polls. You don't want polls. You want standings. Plain and simple won/loss standings. That's it.


No sir. I want a way to figure out if my team's 11-1 is better than your team's 11-1 other than "they are always better" or "I THINK they would win on a neutral field" or "that team's coach has choked three years in a row so it will surely happen again". I would like the basis for the separation between my team and your team to be more than someone's perception of their schedule or conference or talent-level.

The only thing that happens just like you would expect all the time in college football is a Seminole kicker hitting one wide-right.



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
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 27 days
#67 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.90
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    According to tellshowbcs.com, the Bulls have played the ninth-hardest schedule so far. Who has played a tougher schedule and isn't ranked ahead of them? There's UF, but what good does playing tough teams do when you lose to them? Only LSU is undefeated and with a tougher schedule so far. Sorry they couldn't find a way (yet) to lose to Colorado or Stanford, but the Bulls so far have won games that the Michigans, USCs and Oklahomas have lost. It's that simple.

There are a ton of different sources for strength of schedule, and I have no reason to think that some guy with a crudely designed website, complete with PayPal donation button, is any sort of authority. I'd rather trust Sagarin (#32), teamrankings.com (#44), etc. Either way, no matter whose rankings you trust, there's no getting around the fact that USF's meteoric rise to the top has more to do with the extraordinary circumstances I discussed before than it has to do with legitimately being one of the top 5 teams in the country. Seriously, when have you ever seen a team go from unranked to #6 in three weeks??
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Star ratings mean nothing.

Seriously? NOTHING?? Hyperbole isn't a good way of making an argument. And if you legitimately believe that there's no difference between a 1-star recruit and a 5-star recruit, then I hope you didn't have your heart set on coaching college football any time soon.

- StingArmy
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 2 days
#68 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by StingArmy
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      According to tellshowbcs.com, the Bulls have played the ninth-hardest schedule so far. Who has played a tougher schedule and isn't ranked ahead of them? There's UF, but what good does playing tough teams do when you lose to them? Only LSU is undefeated and with a tougher schedule so far. Sorry they couldn't find a way (yet) to lose to Colorado or Stanford, but the Bulls so far have won games that the Michigans, USCs and Oklahomas have lost. It's that simple.

    There are a ton of different sources for strength of schedule, and I have no reason to think that some guy with a crudely designed website, complete with PayPal donation button, is any sort of authority. I'd rather trust Sagarin (#32), teamrankings.com (#44), etc. Either way, no matter whose rankings you trust, there's no getting around the fact that USF's meteoric rise to the top has more to do with the extraordinary circumstances I discussed before than it has to do with legitimately being one of the top 5 teams in the country. Seriously, when have you ever seen a team go from unranked to #6 in three weeks??


USF, LSU, UF's SOS according to the computers
Anderson/Hester -- 53 -- 2 -- 8
Colley -- 48 -- 14 -- 5
Massey -- 14 -- 5 -- 4
Sagarin -- 32 -- 28 -- 8
Wolfe doesn't post until the 14th
Billingsley -- couldn't find any SOS data

USF's average SOS: 36.75
LSU: 12.25
UF: 6.25

So, which calculation is right and which one is wrong? Some use only the non-conference record to determine SOS, some use the conference as a whole to determine SOS.

Also, some computers use only YTD teams played, some use the full schedule.




-- 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: 9 days
Last activity: 48 min.
AIM:  
#69 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
None are really right, because SOS is too hard to compute this early in a season. You have teams like West Virginia with clear problems, ranked way too high to start the season and still likely overrated today. But they have only one loss and are ranked high, so it makes USF's SOS look much better than it really is. Many have already said that the computers get much more accurate as the season comes to a close. SOS is the same way. Especially now when most teams have only played maybe one meaningful game and a bunch of cupcakes. I still haven't seen one USF supporter here tell us why the Auburn win is so meaningful since they also lost to Mississippi State.

The assessment of star rankings is so blatantly ridiculous I don't even know if I should comment. Just the worst point brought up so far by a huge margin. Go look at the recruiting rankings the past decade and then look at the records of the top teams in that list. See if you can just maybe spot any correlation.

edit: well crap FSU. I knew they'd lose a few games this season, it's still not fun to watch. They played a solid first half, with a couple horrible calls, but I hate ever blaming things on calls. They had their shots and just play so poor in the second half. I know they'll improve as time goes on, I've seen enough to tell me that. But it's just disappointing. They need another year to get better with the running game before they can win these things. Hopefully they can still give Miami hell.

(edited by wmatistic on 11.10.07 2030)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 514 days
Last activity: 514 days
#70 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.56
A quarterback who isn't inept would help Florida State, and it seems like night games where the coaches miss the early bird special preparing their team have been a hazard for Florida State. Since talent is the key factor though, I guess it is pretty obvious over the past 2 seasons that Big, Bad Wake Forest has far better talent than that spunky little Florida State.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Thread rated: 4.94
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Thread ahead: Carolina has a new QB
Next thread: Temporarily Nameless Weekend
Previous thread: Dallas/Bills make MNF fun again!
(1031 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Tagliabue just morphed into a cross between Knute Rockne, Norman Dale, and Al Pacino's character in "Any Given Sunday" by being able to pull the owners to this point.
- spf, It's Done (2006)
Related threads: Bloodbath Weekend - Announcers are annoying me - Defense? - More...
The W - Football - Bloodbath Weekend, Part Deux (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.125 seconds.