| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 15:05:53
Rank Team Average
1 Ohio St 103.4
2 Michigan 102.6
3 Rutgers 100.3
4 Louisville 99.5
5 Florida 98.9
6 USC 98.3
7 Arkansas 97.8
8 W. Virginia 96.6
9 LSU 95.6
10 Notre Dame 91.7
11 Texas 91.2
12 Wisconsin 91.2
13 Tennessee 91.0
14 Auburn 90.2
15 Oklahoma 89.8
16 Cal 89.3
17 Boise St 89.0
18 Wake Forest 88.0
19 Boston College 87.6
20 Georgia Tech 84.0
21 Virginia Tech 84.0
22 Maryland 83.7
23 Nebraska 83.1
24 Clemson 83.0
25 BYU 80.7
26 Texas A&M 80.2
27 Missouri 80.0
28 Oregon 78.5
29 Penn St 71.8
30 Oklahoma St 69.6
31 Georgia 68.7
32 S. Carolina 68.6
33 TCU 68.3
34 Texas Tech 67.4
35 Arizona St 66.5
36 Washington St 66.1
37 UCLA 65.7
38 Oregon St 65.7
39 Alabama 64.9
40 Hawaii 64.8
41 Cincinnati 64.0
42 S. Florida 63.9
43 Pitt 63.8
44 Kansas St 63.0
45 Kentucky 61.6
46 Houston 61.4
47 C. Michigan 60.8
48 Washington 60.3
49 Arizona 60.3
50 Tulsa 60.3
51 Navy 59.3
52 Florida St 56.7
53 Miami-Fl 56.4
54 Iowa 56.1
55 Ohio 54.3
56 Kansas 53.5
57 USM 52.0
58 NC St 51.2
59 Purdue 50.0
60 Minnesota 49.6
61 Air Force 48.2
62 Vanderbilt 47.5
63 Syracuse 47.1
64 Nevada 45.6
65 Connecticut 44.1
66 E. Carolina 43.7
67 Rice 43.1
68 San Jose St 41.9
69 Indiana 41.7
70 W. Michigan 41.5
71 Virginia 40.5
72 Wyoming 39.6
73 Akron 38.2
74 Baylor 38.2
75 Ole Miss 37.3
76 New Mexico 36.4
77 Utah 36.0
78 UTEP 35.5
79 MTSU 34.1
80 Kent 33.6
81 N. Illinois 33.4
82 Michigan St 31.5
83 Miss St 31.5
84 Colorado St 29.0
85 Bowling Green 28.9
86 Colorado 28.4
87 Fresno St 26.1
88 SMU 25.8
89 Illinois 25.4
90 Troy St 25.2
91 Iowa St 24.0
92 Northwestern 22.4
93 Ball St 22.1
94 C. Florida 20.0
95 Toledo 20.0
96 Marshall 19.9
97 Tulane 19.9
98 UAB 19.9
99 Army 19.8
100 Stanford 18.2
101 UL-Lafayette 16.6
102 Arkansas St 15.9
103 San Diego St 15.8
104 Idaho 15.1
105 Miami-O 14.4
106 La Tech 13.4
107 N. Texas 12.9
108 Buffalo 10.6
109 E. Michigan 10.5
110 Utah St 10.1
111 Florida Atlantic 9.8
112 UL-Monroe 8.8
113 Duke 7.4
114 Temple 6.0
115 Memphis 5.2
116 New Mexico St 4.7
117 UNC 4.5
118 Florida Internat 4.0
119 UNLV 2.7
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Red Cavalier |
Posted - 12/07/2007 : 10:16:39
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
quote:
Originally posted by Red Cavalier
MTT, I believe phil steele publishes this information on his website, so you'd just have to steal someone else's hardwork!
I'll put that on my off-season to-do list. Thanks for the info.
Actually, I think I have an even better proposal. I'll send you a PM or email when I get a chance. |
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 12/07/2007 : 09:09:02
quote:
Originally posted by Red Cavalier
MTT, I believe phil steele publishes this information on his website, so you'd just have to steal someone else's hardwork!
I'll put that on my off-season to-do list. Thanks for the info. |
| Red Cavalier |
Posted - 12/07/2007 : 09:05:02
MTT, I believe phil steele publishes this information on his website, so you'd just have to steal someone else's hardwork!
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
quote:
I-Mark said:
Again, say it was 35-7 and there are two garbage scores. Does the MOV take "garbage time" into account?
I have tossed about the idea of somehow adjusting for late scores, but the amount of data and manual input needed to accomplish such a task is just too daunting. There is no doubt that MOV isn't always the most accurate measure of the degree to which one team controlled the game. That doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
While your hypothetical does happen on occasion, the much more common occurrence is for a team to get one late score to either tighten or extend a lead beyond what would be the best reflection of what actually occurred. In those cases, 35-21 or 42-14 warp the "true" difference of 35-14. What's the alternative? The alternative is to treat 35-14 the same as 17-14. Which is the greater distortion, 35-21 or 17-14? Even 35-28 would be less of a distortion than ignoring MOV altogether.
|
| Domer |
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 11:27:11
Here's the thing. Using your ratings, here are the ratings of the teams each team beat:
Auburn - 5, 9, 32, 36, 75, 83, 97, 102, 108 Lost to 7, 31
Arkansas - 13, 14, 32, 39, 62, 75, 110, 112, 1AA Lost to 6
Florida - 9, 13, 31, 32, 39, 45, 57, 62, 94 Lost to 14
LSU - 13, 39, 45, 49, 83, 87, 97, 101 Lost to 5, 14
Auburn beat Florida and LSU.
Arkansas beat Auburn.
Arkansas has the "best" loss.
How can the relative placement not be Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, LSU?
|
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 09:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by Domer
They also did not play the #2 rated team.
You'd have a point if ND hadn't lost by 26 points.
quote:
Domer said:
Who sets standard or substandard?
Comparison to what Top 5-10 teams have done historically against teams of that caliber.
quote:
Domer said:
LSU could go either way.
Heh. Heh. |
| Domer |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 19:47:37
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
quote:
Originally posted by Domer
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND.
I have no argument with that. I question why LSU and Florida are rated ahead of ND.
Florida has over LSU that ND cannot match.
My comprehension skills are diminished. What does this mean?
quote:
They also did not get blownout in their loss nor did they lose at home.
They also did not play the #2 rated team.
quote:
Both teams have had some struggles with lesser teams, but Florida has only one substandard performance against a team outside the Top 35-40. ND has at least two.
Who sets standard or substandard?
quote:
LSU could go either way. LSU has an extra loss, but it was by 4 points on the road against a Top 15 team. ND is 0-1 with a blowout loss against the Top 15, so they've done nothing to show that they wouldn't also have two losses had they faced 3 Top 15 teams. And, as I said before, a 3 point win over Michigan St was a worse performance than LSU's loss. If you argue that it was still a win, then you open the door to put Boise St ahead of ND since they don't have any losses at all. At some point you agree that a win could be worse than a loss depending on the level of the competition.
LSU could go either way.
|
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 17:46:14
quote:
Originally posted by Domer
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND.
I have no argument with that. I question why LSU and Florida are rated ahead of ND.
Florida has a win over LSU that ND cannot match. They also did not get blownout in their loss nor did they lose at home. Both teams have had some struggles with lesser teams, but Florida has only one substandard performance against a team outside the Top 35-40. ND has at least two.
LSU could go either way. LSU has an extra loss, but it was by 4 points on the road against a Top 15 team. ND is 0-1 with a blowout loss against the Top 15, so they've done nothing to show that they wouldn't also have two losses had they faced 3 Top 15 teams. And, as I said before, a 3 point win over Michigan St was a worse performance than LSU's loss. If you argue that it was still a win, then you open the door to put Boise St ahead of ND since they don't have any losses at all. At some point you agree that a win could be worse than a loss depending on the level of the competition. |
| Domer |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 17:08:54
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND.
I have no argument with that. I question why LSU and Florida are rated ahead of ND.
|
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 15:24:30
quote:
Originally posted by Irishmark
There is no way in hell that you can clear cut say that Louisville, Rutgers or West Virginia is clear cut better then anyone in this poll. I don't care if you think your system is objective or not. Not with the non-conference schedule they play.
It's not that I think that that is an incorrect statement. It's that you can say the same thing about just about everyone else as well. I'm fine with the notion that none of us really know anything for sure, so long as that sentiment is applied consistently. I don't know that the Big East teams are better than ND any more than I know that ND is better than any team they haven't played. If you're okay with it being equally valid to argue that Tennessee is better than ND (heck, even that S. Carolina is better than ND), I have no issue. It's just when you imply that the Ratings are clearly wrong for having ND at #10 that you interject the notion that we can clearly rank teams. At that point, there needs to be ample justification to back up that position.
quote:
I-Mark said:
I'll give you that Arkansas could be ranked ahead of Notre Dame. But if ND loses to USC next week, I'll be willing to eat a little crow. But if ND wins will you serve it up and say that ND deserves their ranking?
I'm not saying that ND isn't better than Arkansas, USC, Florida or anyone else I have ahead of the Irish. They may very well be the better team. They just haven't proven it on the field to this point. A win at USC would go a long way toward proving that point. Given that I re-evaluate my opinions (and the Ratings go through new iterations) every week, I will adjust to the additional information. For now, I'm comfortable with my position as far as we have the ability to know things. That is, I'm comfortable that ND's level of performance to-date is at best #8 in the country. |
| eric |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 15:20:43
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND.
I agree. Both teams suffered early season losses, but Arkansas has since look pretty impressive. Once they got by Alabama by 1, and shocked Auburn by 17, they haven't looked back, dominating the opposition, including that 17-pointer over Tennessee. It's a very different team, one that still might lose to LSU and Florida, but at this point in the season, I'm comfortable in giving the edge to the Hogs. ND winning over USC may have me reassessing that. |
| Irishmark |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 15:13:16
OMG Mike. This is exactly why I hate this system.
There is no way in hell that you can clear cut say that Louisville, Rutgers or West Virginia is clear cut better then anyone in this poll. I don't care if you think your system is objective or not. Not with the non-conference schedule they play.
I'll give you that Arkansas could be ranked ahead of Notre Dame. But if ND loses to USC next week, I'll be willing to eat a little crow. But if ND wins will you serve it up and say that ND deserves their ranking? |
| Iconoclast |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 15:07:41
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND.
Arkansas is a state, ND is just a school. States > schools.  |
| *YNC* MikeTheTiger |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 14:40:25
quote:
Originally posted by Irishmark
Notre Dame has 4 wins against the BCS Top 50. Not 3. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Purdue and Navy. I went by the BCS standings at www.tellshowbcs.com
The BCS is designed to rank teams in the Top 25. Using it to rate teams beyond that doesn't make much sense since 2/3 of the formula (the polls) doesn't even come into play. I was actually counting UCLA as a Top 50 win and not counting Purdue and Navy. Purdue may be 7-4, but they haven't beaten anyone with a winning record and lost by 30 to Iowa, who is #49 in the composite computers, #49 in the BCS and #54 in the GASF Ratings. I don't see how that translates in any way, shape or form into being a Top 50 team. Likewise, Navy has no wins over the Top 60 and a loss to Tulsa (#41, #41, #50 in the previously cited ratings). Either way, wins over teams who haven't defeated anyone with a winning record (apart from E. Carolina - #60, #60, #66) don't exactly make a case for being a Top 5 team.
quote:
I-Mark said:
Rutgers, Louisville and West Virginia. All 3, outside of playing each other have played nobody.
In addition to playing the other two, Louisville has played Kentucky (#42, #35, #45), Kansas St (#44, #43, #44), Cincinnati (#52, #53, #41), and Miami (#59, #65, #53). MTSU is also in the Top 60 of the composite computers and Top 50 of the BCS. So, ND has played 4-6 teams in the Top 50-60. Louisville has played 4-7.
quote:
I-Mark said:
Outside of Rutgers and West Virginia, Louisville will have played 9 teams outside of the BCS Top 40. Kentucky is the only other one at 35.
I don't care about the rest of their schedule. I'm talking about what they have faced so far. If you want to cut it off at Top 40, that's still 3 for Louisville and 3 for ND so far. You really have to stretch to declare that ND has played a tougher schedule to this point. Then, by extension, Rutgers has the win over Louisville and no losses.
quote:
I-Mark said:
I do not for one second believe that any of these teams in the Big East could survive in any other conference.
You might be right, but what they have done is at least comparable to the top teams in the major conferences AND ND.
quote:
I-Mark said:
And of course your argument for Arkansas is what I expected because they are in the SEC.
Auburn and Tennessee are ahead of Georgia Tech in the composite computers and the GASF Ratings. Auburn is ahead of them almost universally. But I suppose it's my SEC bias that caused that.
quote:
I-Mark said:
In my opinion Notre Dame IS a better football team then Arkansas.
It's just an opinion, just like yours.
Your opinion is fine, but that's not a valid criticism of an objective rating system. Objectively, Arkansas deserves to be rated ahead of ND. |
| Iconoclast |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 14:19:51
quote:
Originally posted by MikeTheTiger
quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
And THAT in a nutshell, is why a playoff is a dumb idea. Because what you are saying is "lets fix the system by employing the same exact systemt that we are using today, but lets extend it out to more teams." You mentioned the circular arguement in a previous topic, and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
My primary problem with the BCS is that it tries to use an instrument to measure something to a degree of precision that it is just not capable of measuring. An instrument is not necessarily broken if it cannot achieve perfect precision. It simply needs to be used only within reasonable tolerances. While I also feel that the BCS formula is poor, I do believe that a similar instrument can be created that can be useful for playoff selection. That instrument just needs to be used recognizing the degree of precision it can achieve. No system will ever be accurate in determining who the best two teams are. A system should be accurate enough that when selecting 8 or 16 teams, the best team is included. That's all any of us want.
I understand your position. I very much don't agree with it, but I understand. |
| Irishmark |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 13:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by Griff
Just a question to see peoples thoughts.
And yes, I-Mark, I see you're done with it.
But...
I have seen on other boards, lets just say some discussion about how ND is such a different, better team than they were the third week of the season, when Michigan beat them, but then they (in discussions discussing the 1 loss teams) totally disregard Arkansas because they got beat by USC in the first week of the season?
I don't think this is right? Or am I missing something?
I don't think I'm dissmissing Arkansas. Truthfully, we'll find out the difference between ND and Arkansas next week.
Subject done. |
|
|
