Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:57 pm
by Goober McTuber
Did I miss something in how those “rankings” were arrived at, or is that just one hack’s opinion?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:57 pm
by Dinsdale
I'm suprised, too...
Suprised that SI would engage in such shoddy journalism. Their methodology is the epitomy of "circular logic."
Of course, if you use strictly statistics, rather than subjective bullshit, things take quite a turn.
According to Sagarin, which is strictly "who beat who" numbers crunching --
1 SOUTHEASTERN
2 BIG EAST
3 PAC-10
4 BIG 12
5 ATLANTIC COAST
6 BIG TEN
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:08 pm
by Mr T
Dinsdale wrote:
1 SOUTHEASTERN
2 BIG EAST
3 PAC-10
4 BIG 12
5 ATLANTIC COAST
6 BIG TEN
Looks about right to me.
2 and 3 could be swapped but looks pretty accurate.
SIs rating is a joke
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:15 pm
by Dinsdale
Mr T wrote:
2 and 3 could be swapped but looks pretty accurate.
I didn't include the actual ratings numbers, but they mirror your take -- the difference was negligible between 2 and 3.
There aren't really huge gaps between successive ratings to the next-lowest rated conference in the 1-6 rankings, although most besides the #2 and #3 differential are worth noting.
There's a significant dropoff from the #6 to the #7 and lower conferences.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:17 pm
by buckeye_in_sc
I agree the SI is crap...
I have looked at Sagarin just about every week...the Big 10 and ACC have battled between 5 and 6 all year...how all of a sudden according to SI hack Big 10 is 3...WTF...
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:30 pm
by Dinsdale
Sudden Sam wrote:Sagarin's football and basketball ratings are a joke. There have been situations where you just have to say the guy's completely insane. Got no examples right now, but I recall instances that were just total garbage.
You mean like early in the season, when a guy by the name of Jeff Sagarin claims his own rating system isn't particularly accurate?
While Sagarins are far from the end-all be-all, when it comes to basic statistical stuff like SoS and conference rankings, it's probably the best numbers-crunching system out there once a full-season's worth of stats are out there.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:52 pm
by Adelpiero
sec
pac10
big12
Bigeast
big10
acc
how i see it
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:50 pm
by Dinsdale
Sudden Sam wrote:I'll check his basketball ratings currently
Duke, NC, KU 1-2-3.
Must be a fluke.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:59 pm
by War Wagon
Oh goody, another conference dick measuring and rope pissing contest.
Perhaps the Big XII having 3 teams (more than any other BCS conference) in the BCS top 10 at seasons end has something to do with the writer ranking them 2nd?
For those who strongly disagree with the SI writer, seems to be just a case of sour grapes and who's ox is being gored.
I like SI. Think I'll renew my subscription.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:04 am
by Dinsdale
Sudden Sam wrote:Dixon's injury has a major impact on the PAC 10's ranking.
Oh...
I didn't even realize that Oregon played any OOC games after Dixon went down.
Silly me.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:12 am
by Dinsdale
War Wagon wrote:Perhaps the Big XII having 3 teams (more than any other BCS conference) in the BCS top 10 at seasons end has something to do with the writer ranking them 2nd?
Which would further call the writer's credibility into question... but no small wonder B12 bandwagoner can't figure that out.
Let's see... of those 3, which conferences did they prove superiority to?
Oklahoma won one freaking game against a major conference opponent(a middle of the road ACC team at that)
Kansas proved they could dominate THE WORST team in D1, and obviously PWN! lower-tier D1AA teams
Mizzou did have a decent win against a B11 team, and showed utter dominance against a sub-.500 team from a conference many people have never heard of. They also showed an ability to beat the SEC's doormat
I guess if the B12 deserves props for anything, it's following the SEC's blueprint for ruining the integrity of the game and scabdicking your way to a decent record while playing shitty opponents. But if you think that gives them cred over other conferences, you're an even bigger douche than you've made yourself out to be.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:48 am
by War Wagon
Dinsdale wrote:
Let's see... of those 3, which conferences did they prove superiority to?
They're damn sure superior to anything the Wack 9 + 1 can muster on their resume.
But let's allow the SI writer's words to sink in a bit further, shall we?
Skinny: I have warned my inbox to prepare for a mountain of West Coast emails. Facts are facts, however. The Pac-10 has the fewest Top 25 teams at season's end (demonstrating a lack of power teams) and the fewest percentage of bowl teams (demonstrating an abundance of sub-.500 teams). The Pac-10 also has the worst non-conference winning percentage. Cal's landmark win over Tennessee seems like decades ago. Oregon and Cal had late-season collapses and Arizona State, the league's No. 2 team, beat one team with a winning record all season. It appeared the rest of the league had caught up to USC, but now that the season has played out, it is clear it is still "the Trojans and Everyone Else" ... and Everyone Else isn't very good.
Which parts of that damning paragraph do you dispute?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:50 am
by SoCalTrjn
All of those hack reporters are full of shit, they write shit to stir interest and if theyre wrong, theyre wrong, nothing else comes up from it. if you have no accountability, how can you have accuracy? Take your little ideas of who is better and go to Vegas where if youre wrong, youre broke.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:30 am
by T REX
SoCalTrjn wrote:WAh. I refuse to the SEC their props. WAAAAHHHHH!!! I don't understand the lovefest with the SEc WAhhhhhh. It doesn't matter that they have the best coaches, best recruiting classes, highest attendance, some of best traditions.....wah, wah ,wah. I'm a bitch.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:54 pm
by Killian
Cripple fight!
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:20 pm
by buckeye_in_sc
WW - I disagree with the Big 10 being where they are at and the ACC...not the SEC or the Big 12...and yes I think the Pac 10 as the bottom feeder in that SI analysis is a little comical...
but that is my $.02
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:33 pm
by T REX
Killian wrote:Cripple fight!
The second I posted that I knew somebody would say that.
You are so predictable. LOL!!!!!
What a bunch of losers.
New material? never.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:45 pm
by MuchoBulls
Adelpiero wrote:sec
pac10
big12
Bigeast
big10
acc
how i see it
Good call
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:52 pm
by Killian
T REX wrote:Killian wrote:Cripple fight!
The second I posted that I knew somebody would say that.
You are so predictable. LOL!!!!!
What a bunch of losers.
New material? never.
You calling another poster a bitch, and then playing the "New material?" card is high comedy, considering you're the biggest fucking parrot on these boards.
If we're such losers, why do you keep coming back? Is it to get slapped around when you want to have a "serious" discussion? Because I can do that all day. Is it because you like the fact that people on an internet message board can work you up to the point of virtual mumbling and foaming at the mouth?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:38 pm
by SunCoastSooner
Dinsdale wrote:War Wagon wrote:Perhaps the Big XII having 3 teams (more than any other BCS conference) in the BCS top 10 at seasons end has something to do with the writer ranking them 2nd?
Which would further call the writer's credibility into question... but no small wonder B12 bandwagoner can't figure that out.
Let's see... of those 3, which conferences did they prove superiority to?
Oklahoma won one freaking game against a major conference opponent(a middle of the road ACC team at that)
Kansas proved they could dominate THE WORST team in D1, and obviously PWN! lower-tier D1AA teams
Mizzou did have a decent win against a B11 team, and showed utter dominance against a sub-.500 team from a conference many people have never heard of. They also showed an ability to beat the SEC's doormat
I guess if the B12 deserves props for anything, it's following the SEC's blueprint for ruining the integrity of the game and scabdicking your way to a decent record while playing shitty opponents. But if you think that gives them cred over other conferences, you're an even bigger douche than you've made yourself out to be.
Hey now OU is getting a raw deal on your call. We have a contract for ten games over a 32 year period for North Texas and when it was signed UNT had won the Sun Belt 3 of the previous 4 years, had the nations leading rusher twice and was dominating its conference; we didn't know their AD would have a brain fart and fire a coach after ONE bad season and hire a high school guy to totally take the team in the opposite direction philosophically on offense. Miami had just won the national title, in
very impressive fashion, against Nebraska when we signed the 2 year contract with them. We had Washington on the schedule for this season but they used a pay clause in the contract and ponied up a little cash (I think it was 50k) to push back the game in Seattle to next year (the last Pac 10 game for Oklahoma OOC regular season unless the Pac 10 conference changes it's policies on home field officials); so we ended up having to scramble for a replacement. All mighty Hawaii "we'll play anybody" backed out of negotions for a home and home not once but twice and we got stuck having to bring in another patsy late (Utah State). Tulsa isn't a great team but they are by no means a bad one either; run of the mill in state decent team to load on the schedule.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:54 pm
by T REX
Killian wrote:T REX wrote:Killian wrote:Cripple fight!
The second I posted that I knew somebody would say that.
You are so predictable. LOL!!!!!
What a bunch of losers.
New material? never.
You calling another poster a bitch, and then playing the "New material?" card is high comedy, considering you're the biggest fucking parrot on these boards.
If we're such losers, why do you keep coming back? Is it to get slapped around when you want to have a "serious" discussion? Because I can do that all day. Is it because you like the fact that people on an internet message board can work you up to the point of virtual mumbling and foaming at the mouth?
I HAVE slapped you around.....its not hard. Again, YOU DON'T MATTER!!!!
Why do you think you and this insignificant board matter so much?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:00 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Why do you think you and this insignificant board matter so much?
I see you play this card a lot. Where are you going with this?
Smacking dipshits like yourself around, and believing this board is some Divine Right aren't all-inclusive things.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:11 pm
by Killian
T REX wrote:Again, YOU DON'T MATTER!!!!
Why do you think you and this insignificant board matter so much?
As Mgo pointed out, what else should we judge you by? You choose to come to this message board. I don't have a gun to your head, making you log on. By coming to this or any message board, you are being judged by the quailty of your posts, not the quality of your job, car, spouse, etc. By that measure you have failed time and time again.
You wanted to have a serious discussion about the spread offense and as soon as I posted my thoughts on it (which I will gladly conceed contain many points that will likely be found on any web posting about the offense because my thoughts were correct), you lost your shit and started with the name calling. For someone who likes to play the "How old are you?" card, that was a comical move.
The vast majority of this board can carry on a respectable level of discussion. For the most part, we leave out the chat speak and internet yelling.
Starting to see a pattern here? I didn't think so.
If you don't like the way things are done around here, leave. No one will miss you. And just so you don't think I'm under any misconceptions that I MATTER, I fully realize that if I leave I won't be missed either. That's the beauty of a message board. The people that want to continue on, continue on. I've found a place that I enjoy talking about college football, and people I enjoy speaking with about the subject. Obviously you haven't found that board.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:32 pm
by SunCoastSooner
Killian wrote:T REX wrote:If you don't like the way things are done around here, leave. No one will miss you. And just so you don't think I'm under any misconceptions that I MATTER, I fully realize that if I leave I won't be missed either. That's the beauty of a message board. The people that want to continue on, continue on. I've found a place that I enjoy talking about college football, and people I enjoy speaking with about the subject. Obviously you haven't found that board.
I'd miss your posts Killian. I find them informative and well thought through... no comment on Trixiehomer.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:24 pm
by Goober McTuber
T REX wrote:I HAVE slapped you around.....its not hard.
Yes indeed, I have often seen you beating Killian about the fists with your face. Good job.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:25 pm
by Dinsdale
Sudden Sam wrote:Dins,
I was suggesting that Dixon's injury effectively removed Oregon from the list of elite teams, thus hurting the PAC 10's ranking. His demise pared the PAC 10 from three good teams to two.
I got your point, for sure.
But it's only valid when you start using subjective means to compare the conferences. If you're using straight stats, in-conference games don't have all that huge an æffect on interconference rankings, although it depends on who played who, of course.
SunCoastSooner wrote:Hey now OU is getting a raw deal on your call.
Yes and no.
I wasn't neccessarily indicting OU for the schedule, but sometimes... them's the breaks. Regardless whether you scheduled with the best of intentions, it just didn't work out like you planned.
Was it OU's fault? Not neccessarly.
Should the rest of us give a crap about the extenuating circumstances that led to a weak schedule?
Do I really need to answer that?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:05 am
by OUMO
Dinsdale wrote:Sudden Sam wrote:Dins,
I was suggesting that Dixon's injury effectively removed Oregon from the list of elite teams, thus hurting the PAC 10's ranking. His demise pared the PAC 10 from three good teams to two.
I got your point, for sure.
But it's only valid when you start using subjective means to compare the conferences. If you're using straight stats, in-conference games don't have all that huge an æffect on interconference rankings, although it depends on who played who, of course.
SunCoastSooner wrote:Hey now OU is getting a raw deal on your call.
Yes and no.
I wasn't neccessarily indicting OU for the schedule, but sometimes... them's the breaks. Regardless whether you scheduled with the best of intentions, it just didn't work out like you planned.
Was it OU's fault? Not neccessarly.
Should the rest of us give a crap about the extenuating circumstances that led to a weak schedule?
Do I really need to answer that?
No.
Shit happens like that when games are schedule that far ahead of time.
It can also go in the reverse where teams are better than you thought they would be, in Oklahoma's case "TCU 11-1" last year.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:49 am
by King Crimson
OUMO wrote: in Oklahoma's case "TCU 11-1" last year.
two years ago. we also lost to Karl Dorrell that year.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 am
by OUMO
You are right, my bad. I seem to have blocked Bomar out of my memory for some reason.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:14 pm
by M Club
Killian wrote:T REX wrote:Again, YOU DON'T MATTER!!!!
Why do you think you and this insignificant board matter so much?
As Mgo pointed out, what else should we judge you by? You choose to come to this message board. I don't have a gun to your head, making you log on. By coming to this or any message board, you are being judged by the quailty of your posts, not the quality of your job, car, spouse, etc. By that measure you have failed time and time again.
trex is the opposite of a troll. usually a troll throws out a grenade just to enjoy the predictable response. trex logs on to follow the bait and melt. i actually think a couple of people have access to that account. that or he's genuinely disassociative.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:40 pm
by Snake
Tfuck=Meatlicker......................
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:28 am
by SoCalTrjn
accountability, they need to fire commentators who say stupid shit
http://s224.photobucket.com/albums/dd22 ... vpick3.flv
not just send them to CSTV