T1B

Advanced metrics have gotten to the point where actual wins are the least important statistic.

Reminds me of toolio when Cal would lose 56-3 but he'd claim bode cuz they had more yards per pass on 3rd downs in the 2nd half.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Reminds me of toolio when Cal would lose 56-3 but he'd claim bode cuz they had more yards per pass on 3rd downs in the 2nd half.

RIP 200lio.

Snoop needs to tie up with Megaskeet420 (if he's still alive).

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Advanced metrics have gotten to the point where actual wins are the least important statistic.

I realize all the wannabe pundits want to come up with some new "secret formula" for rating teams, but when your slick maths have an 0-1 team ranked #4, while the team that kicked their ass doesn't crack the top 25, I'd say there's a strong possibility that your formula sucks some serious ass. I mean, if only there was a way to determine whether Houston is a better team that OU, right?

And USC lost... what was it, like 150-3, and they're #11? So, from this we can infer that their system doesn't factor in either offense nor defense. Tell me they didn't publish this with a straight face.

Dinsdale wrote:I realize all the wannabe pundits want to come up with some new "secret formula" for rating teams, but when your slick maths have an 0-1 team ranked #4, while the team that kicked their ass doesn't crack the top 25, I'd say there's a strong possibility that your formula sucks some serious ass. I mean, if only there was a way to determine whether Houston is a better team that OU, right?

LSU is 3rd. Wisconsin? 34th.

Well, LSU is obviously wayyyyy better on offense, defense, and special teams than Wisconsin... duh.

Look, Wisky may have been the better team on Saturday. That doesn't mean they're the better team RIGHT NOW.

Besides, final scores can be misleading.

Oregon earned their #12 ranking based on its dominant defense. Any time a team can hold the mighty Aggies of Cal-Davis under 30 points and 400 yards, they're obviously a force to be reckoned with on D (the ranking is better than both Florida State and Ole Miss).

Oh, scoring isn't going to be Oregon's problem -- unless we're talking about the other team scoring, which at this point, looks like it could be a big problem.

Every year, I think the skill positions on offense can't get any faster, and then they do.

But DE Troy Dye, playing in his first game as a true freshman, was named PAC12 defensive player of the week... so there was a very small bright spot. Dude is a badass... and a rather large, athletic fellow. Fucker jumped about 12 feet and intercepted a screen pass.

Papa Willie wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Oregon earned their #12 ranking based on its dominant defense. Any time a team can hold the mighty Aggies of Cal-Davis under 30 points and 400 yards, they're obviously a force to be reckoned with on D (the ranking is better than both Florida State and Ole Miss).

I dunno, dude. I might be willing to trade Auburn's D for Oregon's O.

You think Oregon's offense could play defense better than Auburn's defense?

schmick wrote:Only thing usc should be ranked high on is worst coaching staffs or least heart in college football

What's Helton's record since being named HC?

schmick wrote:Only thing usc should be ranked high on is worst coaching staffs or least heart in college football

Yup.

While USC fan likes to use the "sanctions" excuse... that doesn't fly. They have full scholarships, and a full roster. In reality, they're running out 4 and 5 star guys 2-deep at every position.

Bad coaching is really the only logical explanation. They need a bigtime hire -- preferably a USC alum. But at least someone competent.

Papa Willie wrote:
Well - I kind of meant we'd give you our defense for your offense. Our offense is worse than your defense, evidently. :(

Your defense could play better offense than our offense can play offense.

That would be Dinsdale's offense...err...defense. Or something.

http://www.scout.com/college/usc/story/ ... rship-math

So, USC would be playing 102 players if it wasn't for those pesky sanctions (that ended a couple of years ago)?

You think anybody is actually buying that?

Blah blah blah. In 2014 you were telling us they had 40 recruited players for a bowl game. 2015 and 2016 allowed them to recruit another 50. Not all of those original 40 were Jr or Srs so with the 2017 recruiting class they will be full.

But the bottom line is they cheated and have to deal with the consequences.

So a player cheating means the school should get a free pass? Uh no.

The compliance dept at SC should have all been fired on the spot when it was determined RB's family was living where they were. The fact that they weren't tells us all we need to know about SC.

Nobody cares. You aren't going to garner any sympathy or change anyone's mind, no matter how much you peck away at your keyboard.

Dinsdale wrote:They need a bigtime hire -- preferably a USC alum. But at least someone competent.

i'm not sure that guy exists. hiring an alum is the fastway to 3-4 wins instead of the current crisis 5-6. that's been proven many many times. you hire the best coach available....screw nostalgia and glory days. everybody loves the old days but everybody loves winning more.

sam, would you have posted this if Bama wasn't #1?

i didn't look through this....all this "metrics" and "advanced this and that"...bores me. talking about the playoff the second week in september bores me. i just care about what happens between the first and last whistles. people are so in love with turning sports (and everything else) into a knowable science....with an app or a DNA code.

the cool thing about sports and BTPCF.....is just goes off script.