Cal #2 in Latest Sagarin Rankings

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:00 am

Pretty amazing, but there we are, right behind Ohio State.
See http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

The whole point of having computer programs is for objectivity, and the consistent inclusion of relevant factors. Love (or luv) should have nothing to do with it, unlike the Coaches and Harris where the human factor makes this more of a possibility...

Having coaches (past & present), former players and media types presents some issues, more so than what the computers alone might present.

I say, computer based only, and have appeals, sort of like what we see on the field (a challenge) where one can present their case against the computer's rationale. Will probably never happen....

the truth

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:06 am

And when did that dipshit's ratings matter any?

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:09 am

*YAWN*

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:35 am

TenTallBen wrote:And when did that dipshit's ratings matter any?

The last few years... but you basically have the brain of a swamp squirrel.

Basically, this has been explained before, but it simply comes down to the fact that the Pac-10's "bad" teams are seen as being tougher than the SEC's, and with good reason. Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Kentucky are pretty bad.

The other factor is obviously the Out-Of-Conference schedule:

The SEC will play 48 non-conference games this year and 13 are against BCS conference teams. Before this last weekend, the SEC is 4-6 in those games and most are held either at home or in the same state ( against a rival ). IN FACT, THE ENTIRE SEC PLAYS 40 HOME NON-CONFERENCE GAMES AND 8 AWAY!

And only 4 of those 8 away games involve a team leaving its home state.

Meanwhile, our having scheduled a 12th game against another conference rival obviously helps. Also helpful is the fact that the PAC-10 will have played 31 non-conference games this year and 10 are against BCS conference teams, plus ND is scheduled 3 times so that makes a total of 13 "quality" opponents.

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:51 am

PS...

The Sagarin formula actually use's an arithmetic sum, as opposed to a geometric one, or form of recaliberation.

the truth

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:55 am

montinelevin wrote: The whole point of having computer programs is for objectivity, and the consistent inclusion of relevant factors. Love (or luv) should have nothing to do with it, unlike the Coaches and Harris where the human factor makes this more of a possibility...

I could make a computer poll that just involves factors to make Boise State #1 in the land. For every game played on Blue Turf +100 points and for every win +1. Computer polls are worthless....

Just look...

1 Ohio State
2 California
3 Michigan
4 Florida
5 Texas
6 Southern California
7 West Virginia
8 Louisville
9 Auburn
10 Tennessee

Didnt the vols beat the ever loving shit out of kal?

If you put kal behind the vols and move everyone else up one spot, then I have no problem with this poll.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:56 am

montinelevin wrote: The other factor is obviously the Out-Of-Conference schedule:

I agree the SEC plays a pretty easy OOC sked.

Hell just look at the Vols OOC sked. Pretty bad if you ask me.

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:05 am

Mr.T

I believe most formulas use W/L record of opponents and opponents opponents. If the formulas incorporate ranking, then I believe it's typically only to provide bonus points for playing higher ranked teams. So it's better to play two top teams and one lousy teams than to play three average teams. For instance, Cal played Tennessee, Minnesota, and Portland St (one great, one average, and one lousy) and had one of the toughest OOC schedules. Clearly, the result of averaging those teams was not the same as playing three average opponents.

the truth

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:09 am

A computer cant watch the game.

The vols beat cal. There was no point in that game that the vols were even worried about losing. Why would anyone put cal above any of those teams besides USC, Texas, or Auburn?

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:15 am

montinelevin wrote:Mr.T

I believe most formulas use W/L record of opponents and opponents opponents. If the formulas incorporate ranking, then I believe it's typically only to provide bonus points for playing higher ranked teams. So it's better to play two top teams and one lousy teams than to play three average teams. For instance, Cal played Tennessee, Minnesota, and Portland St (one great, one average, and one lousy) and had one of the toughest OOC schedules. Clearly, the result of averaging those teams was not the same as playing three average opponents.

the truth

Bullshit... Minn is hardly average. 0-5 in conf... 3-6 overall. This is a team that will not play in any bowl this year and probably next. They are "lousy."

The only team worth mentioning while discussing CAL's OOC schedule is Tenn, and we know what happened in that one.

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:16 am

I don't have a problem with the averaging of the teams for determining sos. I agree that it should be weighted, but it punishes teams for scheduling real creampuffs. If you're good enough to schedule a couple of top ten teams, why schedule a team in the 100-150 range? I think that should be punished. If your team really is good enough to be a national champion, then schedule some top ten teams and some top 50 teams - don't go all the way to the bottom. Granted, you can't help what you've got in conference, but when you have a choice OOC, you shouldn't pick too low.

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:23 am

montinelevin wrote:Mr.T

I believe most formulas use W/L record of opponents and opponents opponents. If the formulas incorporate ranking, then I believe it's typically only to provide bonus points for playing higher ranked teams. So it's better to play two top teams and one lousy teams than to play three average teams. For instance, Cal played Tennessee, Minnesota, and Portland St (one great, one average, and one lousy) and had one of the toughest OOC schedules. Clearly, the result of averaging those teams was not the same as playing three average opponents.

the truth

Tenn Minn and Portland St?

one is a loss
Minn is terrible as pointed out by my fellow buckeye
and isnt portland st a D1AA school?

you should be embarassed!

montinelevin · Post by **montinelevin** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:37 am

peter dragon wrote:
montinelevin wrote:Mr.T

I believe most formulas use W/L record of opponents and opponents opponents. If the formulas incorporate ranking, then I believe it's typically only to provide bonus points for playing higher ranked teams. So it's better to play two top teams and one lousy teams than to play three average teams. For instance, Cal played Tennessee, Minnesota, and Portland St (one great, one average, and one lousy) and had one of the toughest OOC schedules. Clearly, the result of averaging those teams was not the same as playing three average opponents.

the truth
Tenn Minn and Portland St?

one is a loss
Minn is terrible as pointed out by my fellow buckeye
and isnt portland st a D1AA school?

you should be embarassed!

Who did you play out of conference?

Texas?

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:59 am

montinelevin wrote:
peter dragon wrote:
montinelevin wrote:Mr.T

I believe most formulas use W/L record of opponents and opponents opponents. If the formulas incorporate ranking, then I believe it's typically only to provide bonus points for playing higher ranked teams. So it's better to play two top teams and one lousy teams than to play three average teams. For instance, Cal played Tennessee, Minnesota, and Portland St (one great, one average, and one lousy) and had one of the toughest OOC schedules. Clearly, the result of averaging those teams was not the same as playing three average opponents.

the truth
Tenn Minn and Portland St?

one is a loss
Minn is terrible as pointed out by my fellow buckeye
and isnt portland st a D1AA school?

you should be embarassed!
Who did you play out of conference?

Texas?

at Texas
No Illinois
Cincinnati
Bowling green

@ teams from maj BCS conferences one ranked #2 at the time on the Road which we won by the way.. And the other two, from Divison 1-A Mac schools. all except Bowling Green have a winning record.

What has cal done? lost to an ok Tenn team.. beat a terrible Minny team and beat a D1-AA portland state? (a team you wanted to tell everybody how good they are.. currently they wont come anything close to winning their own conference) Cal should be commended on that terribly tough OOC scheduling! how is it that you can run smack about the Tenn game that you lost? a Tenn team that wont go to a BCS game?
Cal is a team on a prayer.. How does a 4-4 washington team coached by Tyrone Willingham take cal to OT? the USC game will only invite you back to talk smack about how many yards your team had in the losing effort..

your next banning is just around the corner!

BlindRef · Post by **BlindRef** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:13 pm

I hate to defend m2ool on this....but Sagarin is trying to predict what the poll is going to look like at the END of the season against what he things the teams are worth right now.

Since Michigan and Ohio State have to play each other one has to lose. The computer predicts that Michigan will lose to Ohio State and finish 7th overall...which is why Michigan is number 3

The computer predicts that Cal will win the rest of its games, which will leave CAL 2nd overall.

Since the BCS rankings don't matter until the end, and I think Sagarin romoves the predicter factor from the formula at that point and only uses the ELO-Chess it isn't a bad way to do things.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:24 pm

montinelevin wrote:Basically, this has been explained before, but it simply comes down to the fact that the Pac-10's "bad" teams are seen as being tougher than the SEC's, and with good reason. Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Kentucky are pretty bad.

...and UCLA, Arizona, Washington and Stanford aren't? Right now I'd put Vandy up against any of them with a reasonable expectation of victory. Sagarin is a joke. A couple of years ago, this guy was trying to sell Harvard as one of his top teams. Take a look at Boise State's positioning. Computer polls are retarded. I hope Cal enjoys their computer poll ranking while it lasts. USC is about to bring those commie fucks back to planet earth...then we can all wait with baited breath for Cal's annual embarassment come bowl season.

L45B · Post by **L45B** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:16 pm

mTwat wrote:Who did you play out of conference? Texas?

Uh douchebag... we beat Texas. In Austin. 24-7. The Horns' only loss of the season.

Who did you play out of conference? Uhh wait, let me rephrase that: Which SEC team buttfucked you on national tv?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:18 pm

TenTallBen wrote:And when did that dipshit's ratings matter any?

When they became a component of the BCS formula, genius.

T1B

Cal #2 in Latest Sagarin Rankings

Cal #2 in Latest Sagarin Rankings

Re: Cal #2 in Latest Sagarin Rankings