 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » One lousy vote for Michigan
lvnwrth
It was a great game between two great teams and it turned out exactly the way you'd expect a game between #1, #2 to turn out when it's played at #1's house.
November 19, 2006 at 05:03PM View BBCode
Why not, Scaff? A three point loss on the road hardly indicates that they were horribly overmatched. If Sagarin allows 2.76 ( I think that's right) points for home field, doesn't that mean that these two teams were basically equal and the margin of victory was the home field advantage?It was a great game between two great teams and it turned out exactly the way you'd expect a game between #1, #2 to turn out when it's played at #1's house.
Bones2484
Do you really think it would have been that close had OSU's Center not been playing with a cast on his snap hand?
The score was a lot closer than the game should have been. Look at the total yards, or first downs, or conversions, or TOP, or whatever else you want to look at. And if the final score is your only argument, then there isn't really much to say.
November 19, 2006 at 06:13PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Why not, Scaff? A three point loss on the road hardly indicates that they were horribly overmatched. If Sagarin allows 2.76 ( I think that's right) points for home field, doesn't that mean that these two teams were basically equal and the margin of victory was the home field advantage?
It was a great game between two great teams and it turned out exactly the way you'd expect a game between #1, #2 to turn out when it's played at #1's house.
Do you really think it would have been that close had OSU's Center not been playing with a cast on his snap hand?
The score was a lot closer than the game should have been. Look at the total yards, or first downs, or conversions, or TOP, or whatever else you want to look at. And if the final score is your only argument, then there isn't really much to say.
ruggs26
OSU is the best team in college football (God it hurts to say that!). Michigan is by far the best 1 loss team in the country save for Arkansas but we will find out about them in the next 2 weeks. USC thumped Arkansas long before all the Razorback players were healthy and if you watched the game instead of the score you know Pete Caroll ran it up in the 2nd half against the backups. Thats what the west coast teams do, actually so does the BIG 12 and SEC alot, they pad their numbers when it does not matter (Adrian Peterson and a collar bone vs Iowa St. ring a bell).
And by the way the PAC 10 sucks! USC would go about 5-3 in the big ten and thats only if they got to play MSU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue and Illinois all in the same year. Don't be fooled by records Penn St. healthy is every bit as good as USC.
Ironically enough I will be rooting for Norte Dame this weekend. And LSU to beat Arkansas. Arkansas beats Florida and UM plays OSU for the national title. JUST AS IT SHOULD BE!
ruggs
November 21, 2006 at 12:23AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Ahh! Bones. This coming from a guy who has a USC player as an Avatar! Week after week when USC was barely beating crap PAC-10 teams the argument for them keeping their rankings was "they won and thats that matters".
OSU is the best team in college football (God it hurts to say that!). Michigan is by far the best 1 loss team in the country save for Arkansas but we will find out about them in the next 2 weeks. USC thumped Arkansas long before all the Razorback players were healthy and if you watched the game instead of the score you know Pete Caroll ran it up in the 2nd half against the backups. Thats what the west coast teams do, actually so does the BIG 12 and SEC alot, they pad their numbers when it does not matter (Adrian Peterson and a collar bone vs Iowa St. ring a bell).
And by the way the PAC 10 sucks! USC would go about 5-3 in the big ten and thats only if they got to play MSU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue and Illinois all in the same year. Don't be fooled by records Penn St. healthy is every bit as good as USC.
Ironically enough I will be rooting for Norte Dame this weekend. And LSU to beat Arkansas. Arkansas beats Florida and UM plays OSU for the national title. JUST AS IT SHOULD BE!
ruggs
drew
November 21, 2006 at 12:29AM View BBCode
Nobody ever has an agenda. That's what I love about these discussions.
rkinslow19
Good luck finding a t-shirt with that on it.
November 21, 2006 at 01:43AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ruggs26
Ironically enough I will be rooting for Norte Dame this weekend.
Good luck finding a t-shirt with that on it.
Bones2484
Thanks.
November 21, 2006 at 06:39AM View BBCode
Someone please tell me if they make sense of Ruggs' post.Thanks.
ruggs26
My point is this. USC ran it up Arkansas way back before all the kiddies were even on campus and Arkansas was banged up. Don't even imagine for a minute that USC would win 50-17 if they played this Saturday. Now if you want to use that as a reason for USC to be ranked higher than Arkansas I'll give it to you.
All things being equal then... NO WAY is USC better than Michigan. The only other team that should even be able to slide past Michigan with one loss is Florida, IF they win out and I don't think they will.
Does this clear up the mud for you?
Oh and I'll adjust USC's potential record in the BIG TEN to 6-2. Wisconsin is no where near as good as that shiny 11-1 record they have and USC would probably take 'em by a safety snapped out of the end zone on a punt late in the game to win 9-7! lol!
BTW I have the perfect solution to the whole mess, it includes a playoff system AND keeps the integrity (man I use that word loosely) of the bowl system in tact!
ruggs
November 21, 2006 at 08:14AM View BBCode
What don't want to tackle it?My point is this. USC ran it up Arkansas way back before all the kiddies were even on campus and Arkansas was banged up. Don't even imagine for a minute that USC would win 50-17 if they played this Saturday. Now if you want to use that as a reason for USC to be ranked higher than Arkansas I'll give it to you.
All things being equal then... NO WAY is USC better than Michigan. The only other team that should even be able to slide past Michigan with one loss is Florida, IF they win out and I don't think they will.
Does this clear up the mud for you?
Oh and I'll adjust USC's potential record in the BIG TEN to 6-2. Wisconsin is no where near as good as that shiny 11-1 record they have and USC would probably take 'em by a safety snapped out of the end zone on a punt late in the game to win 9-7! lol!
BTW I have the perfect solution to the whole mess, it includes a playoff system AND keeps the integrity (man I use that word loosely) of the bowl system in tact!
ruggs
FuriousGiorge
[Edited on 11-21-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
November 21, 2006 at 03:32PM View BBCode
Well then what are you waiting for? Contact the NCAA, tout de suite![Edited on 11-21-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
Bones2484
Wow!! I sure am happy there are people like you with such amazing ideas in this world! Hurry! Get this idea out to the people in charge of the NCAA!!!
No, quite the opposite actually. You give me no reason to tackle it.
Such comments as "Michigan is by far the best 1 loss team in the country save for Arkansas" and "and if you watched the game instead of the score you know Pete Caroll ran it up in the 2nd half against the backups. Thats what the west coast teams do" and "USC would go about 5-3 in the big ten" oh, and "Don't be fooled by records Penn St. healthy is every bit as good as USC" really don't lead any credibility or points to your arguement.
Anyone can make outlandish claims, the only people worth arguing with are the ones that try to back them up.
Happen to miss the previous three weeks? This point was completely valid a month ago. Too bad you have horrible timing.
[Edited on 11-21-2006 by Bones2484]
November 21, 2006 at 04:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ruggs26
BTW I have the perfect solution to the whole mess, it includes a playoff system AND keeps the integrity (man I use that word loosely) of the bowl system in tact!
Wow!! I sure am happy there are people like you with such amazing ideas in this world! Hurry! Get this idea out to the people in charge of the NCAA!!!
Originally posted by ruggs26
What don't want to tackle it?
No, quite the opposite actually. You give me no reason to tackle it.
Such comments as "Michigan is by far the best 1 loss team in the country save for Arkansas" and "and if you watched the game instead of the score you know Pete Caroll ran it up in the 2nd half against the backups. Thats what the west coast teams do" and "USC would go about 5-3 in the big ten" oh, and "Don't be fooled by records Penn St. healthy is every bit as good as USC" really don't lead any credibility or points to your arguement.
Anyone can make outlandish claims, the only people worth arguing with are the ones that try to back them up.
Originally posted by ruggs26
Week after week when USC was barely beating crap PAC-10 teams the argument for them keeping their rankings was "they won and thats that matters".
Happen to miss the previous three weeks? This point was completely valid a month ago. Too bad you have horrible timing.
[Edited on 11-21-2006 by Bones2484]
Damien435
If Florida or Arkansas finishes the season with one loss they should be in the National Championship game, the SEC is the toughest conference in college football, it has been for years. In my mind it has been since the fall of Nebraska which dragged the Big XII North down and turned the Big XII championship game into a route by the Big XII South over the North. The Pac-10 had dropped a long ways from it's glory years when whoever won the Rose Bowl was the best team in the country, of course the Rose Bowl was the only Bowl game for quite a while. This year there will be 32 bowl games, 64 of 119 D-IA teams will be playing a bowl with, with so many teams what happens when there are not enough bowl eligible teams to fill all the bowl games?
Here's how I would eleviate this. 8 team playoff, ACC, Big East/Notre Dame, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10 and SEC champs get automatic births, the other two spots would be the two highest ranked teams according to the BCS that were not already given births.
Actually, I would prefer a 16 team playoff, but that's way too hard to explain in one sitting, either way we get to keep the minor bowls, which is what the coaches want, that way their can use it as a recruiting tool.
November 21, 2006 at 11:51PM View BBCode
I look at it like this: Michigan's one loss is by three points to the number one team in the country, USC"s loss was to an unranked team, the opponents names have been omitted because it would greatly decrease the credibility if my argument.If Florida or Arkansas finishes the season with one loss they should be in the National Championship game, the SEC is the toughest conference in college football, it has been for years. In my mind it has been since the fall of Nebraska which dragged the Big XII North down and turned the Big XII championship game into a route by the Big XII South over the North. The Pac-10 had dropped a long ways from it's glory years when whoever won the Rose Bowl was the best team in the country, of course the Rose Bowl was the only Bowl game for quite a while. This year there will be 32 bowl games, 64 of 119 D-IA teams will be playing a bowl with, with so many teams what happens when there are not enough bowl eligible teams to fill all the bowl games?
Here's how I would eleviate this. 8 team playoff, ACC, Big East/Notre Dame, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10 and SEC champs get automatic births, the other two spots would be the two highest ranked teams according to the BCS that were not already given births.
Actually, I would prefer a 16 team playoff, but that's way too hard to explain in one sitting, either way we get to keep the minor bowls, which is what the coaches want, that way their can use it as a recruiting tool.
ruggs26
Division 1-A should be broken down into 4 tiers based upon school size. (Examples of tier 1 schools... Michigan, USC, OSU, Florida... etc. Tier 2 schools like Boston College, Louisville, Iowa. Tier 3 schools like Air Force, Army, Nevada, Boise St., Rutgers. And tier 4 schools like North Texas, Central Michigan, Idaho.)
I believe that in order to solve the whole probelm you have a 16 team playoff beginning after week 10 (8 conference games + 2 non-conference games scheduled at the schools discresion). The top 16 teams go to a playoff using a computer formula that based upon 3 criteria.
1: W-L Differential X 10
2: Additional points given based upon the strength of the records of the team you beat. But a Tier 1 win against a Tier 3 school would get less weight than a Tier 1 win over another tier 1 school. So the big boys would have to beef up the non-conference schedules some.
3: Additional 5 points given for winning your conference.
So a tier 1 school's formula would look something like this: (W-L differential X10)+((Tier 1 opponent wins x 1.7) + (Tier 2 opponent wins x 1.5) + (Tier 3 opponent wins X 1.3) + (Tier 4 opponent wins X 1.1))
A tier 2's formula would be: (W-L differential X 10) + ((Tier 1 opponent wins X 1.9) + (Tier 2 opponent wins X 1.7) + (Tier 3 opponent wins X 1.5) + (Tier 4 opponent wins X 1.3))
So if as a tier 1 school you defeat a tier 2 or lower school you are rewarded less for their strength of record, conversely if you are a tier 3 school that knocks off a tier 1 school you are more richly rewarded for their strength of record. Also this formula allows for teams with worse records say and 8-2 team with alot of quality wins to be ranked higher than say a 9-1 team who does not play anyone. The quality of a teams wins can be enough to overcome another teams advantage in W/L differential especially late in the season. Interestingly another group of equations can be added to the mix to adjust ratings down for bad losses as well.
After the 16 teams are determined they play tournament style winner and loser side for three weeks . 1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc... losers go into a losers bracket and also continue to play but have no chance at the title once they lose in the tournament format. The rest of the country plays a pre-determined league cross-over schedule. i.e. 3rd place SEC vs 3rd place BIG EAST, BIG 10 vs ACC, whatever. This way teams can still play 12 + games like they do this season (I think Florida gets 14 with thier bowl game) After week 13, there will be 2 teams left to play for the national title. The rest of the bowls then pick their teams all the way down to the Booger Bowl sponsored by Kleenex in Iowa City or something. All the bowls are still in tact. And with the added hype of quarter finals and semi-finals the NCAA surely would benefit in the pocket book by the added hype. Everybody is happy and the NCAA and Universities continue to get filthy richer.
ruggs
November 22, 2006 at 06:19AM View BBCode
Damien you are right. About much in fact. The SEC is tougher than the Big 10. If the winner of Arkansas and Florida is a 1 loss team then I think that is where the bid should go, but if USC beats Norte Dame then the whole thing is a cluster#&*%^ with someone going away very unhappy.Division 1-A should be broken down into 4 tiers based upon school size. (Examples of tier 1 schools... Michigan, USC, OSU, Florida... etc. Tier 2 schools like Boston College, Louisville, Iowa. Tier 3 schools like Air Force, Army, Nevada, Boise St., Rutgers. And tier 4 schools like North Texas, Central Michigan, Idaho.)
I believe that in order to solve the whole probelm you have a 16 team playoff beginning after week 10 (8 conference games + 2 non-conference games scheduled at the schools discresion). The top 16 teams go to a playoff using a computer formula that based upon 3 criteria.
1: W-L Differential X 10
2: Additional points given based upon the strength of the records of the team you beat. But a Tier 1 win against a Tier 3 school would get less weight than a Tier 1 win over another tier 1 school. So the big boys would have to beef up the non-conference schedules some.
3: Additional 5 points given for winning your conference.
So a tier 1 school's formula would look something like this: (W-L differential X10)+((Tier 1 opponent wins x 1.7) + (Tier 2 opponent wins x 1.5) + (Tier 3 opponent wins X 1.3) + (Tier 4 opponent wins X 1.1))
A tier 2's formula would be: (W-L differential X 10) + ((Tier 1 opponent wins X 1.9) + (Tier 2 opponent wins X 1.7) + (Tier 3 opponent wins X 1.5) + (Tier 4 opponent wins X 1.3))
So if as a tier 1 school you defeat a tier 2 or lower school you are rewarded less for their strength of record, conversely if you are a tier 3 school that knocks off a tier 1 school you are more richly rewarded for their strength of record. Also this formula allows for teams with worse records say and 8-2 team with alot of quality wins to be ranked higher than say a 9-1 team who does not play anyone. The quality of a teams wins can be enough to overcome another teams advantage in W/L differential especially late in the season. Interestingly another group of equations can be added to the mix to adjust ratings down for bad losses as well.
After the 16 teams are determined they play tournament style winner and loser side for three weeks . 1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc... losers go into a losers bracket and also continue to play but have no chance at the title once they lose in the tournament format. The rest of the country plays a pre-determined league cross-over schedule. i.e. 3rd place SEC vs 3rd place BIG EAST, BIG 10 vs ACC, whatever. This way teams can still play 12 + games like they do this season (I think Florida gets 14 with thier bowl game) After week 13, there will be 2 teams left to play for the national title. The rest of the bowls then pick their teams all the way down to the Booger Bowl sponsored by Kleenex in Iowa City or something. All the bowls are still in tact. And with the added hype of quarter finals and semi-finals the NCAA surely would benefit in the pocket book by the added hype. Everybody is happy and the NCAA and Universities continue to get filthy richer.
ruggs
Bones2484
We can hold out hope, but why even bother talking about it?
50-14. At Arkansas. Enough said. USC will have beaten three teams (Cal, Nebraska, Arkansas, not to mention ND) that have played or are playing for a Conference title. No other team, except OSU (Texas, Michigan) has beaten two.
Yes we lost to a crappy opponent in Oregon St, but it's losses like those that get a team rolling.
And just incase you SEC homers were wondering who is currently ranked as the highest conference: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc06.htm
I'm not trying to say that the SEC is horrible and needs to die in a fire, but stop trying to say that the Pac10 sucks. The Pac10 has 8 bowl eligable teams and the 9th missed by one win, and unlike the SEC, they actually play good schedules out of conference instead of 1-AA teams. The WORST strength of schedule in the Pac10 is 15th overall. The SEC only has ONE team with a schedule in the top 20 which is Tennesse (who scheduled a tough out of conference game in Cal and came away with an impressive home win).
I think that the SEC has the better top 4-5 teams as a bunch, but as a conference, the Pac10 is better overall.
And just because I'm an asshole:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/gaming/sheridan.htm
USC favored by 7.5 over ND.
[Edited on 11-22-2006 by Bones2484]
November 22, 2006 at 04:21PM View BBCode
Stop discussing a playoff system. The NCAA says it is not going to happen even though everyone wants it to.We can hold out hope, but why even bother talking about it?
If Florida or Arkansas finishes the season with one loss they should be in the National Championship game
50-14. At Arkansas. Enough said. USC will have beaten three teams (Cal, Nebraska, Arkansas, not to mention ND) that have played or are playing for a Conference title. No other team, except OSU (Texas, Michigan) has beaten two.
Yes we lost to a crappy opponent in Oregon St, but it's losses like those that get a team rolling.
And just incase you SEC homers were wondering who is currently ranked as the highest conference: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc06.htm
I'm not trying to say that the SEC is horrible and needs to die in a fire, but stop trying to say that the Pac10 sucks. The Pac10 has 8 bowl eligable teams and the 9th missed by one win, and unlike the SEC, they actually play good schedules out of conference instead of 1-AA teams. The WORST strength of schedule in the Pac10 is 15th overall. The SEC only has ONE team with a schedule in the top 20 which is Tennesse (who scheduled a tough out of conference game in Cal and came away with an impressive home win).
I think that the SEC has the better top 4-5 teams as a bunch, but as a conference, the Pac10 is better overall.
And just because I'm an asshole:
Originally posted by scaffdog
I dont think they will be favored in the ND game.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/gaming/sheridan.htm
USC favored by 7.5 over ND.
[Edited on 11-22-2006 by Bones2484]
barterer2002
The top 11 are the 90th percentile
12-23 are the 80th percentile and so forth
Conference A has 12 teams. Three of them are in the 90th percentile, 2 are in the 70th, 3 in the 40th, 2 in the 20th and 2 are in the 10th (that's the really bad teams).
In Conference B there is one team in the 90th percentile, 3 in the 80th, 3 in the 70th, 2 in the 50th, and 3 in the 40th.
The team at the top of conference B will have a tougher strength of schedule than any of the three teams at the top of Conference A because they don't have to play those two really bad teams. That doesn't mean they play a tougher schedule. They actually play an easier one because none of the teams in the conference are anywhere close to being in the same class as them. The teams in Conference A who get the walk overs against the worst teams still have to fight several games during the season playing relatively equal opponants that can go either way.
November 22, 2006 at 08:14PM View BBCode
The problem with conference ratings is that its not overly indicitive of the strength at the top of the conference. Look at it this way. There are 116 Division I teams (so thereabouts I could be off a little on the exact number).The top 11 are the 90th percentile
12-23 are the 80th percentile and so forth
Conference A has 12 teams. Three of them are in the 90th percentile, 2 are in the 70th, 3 in the 40th, 2 in the 20th and 2 are in the 10th (that's the really bad teams).
In Conference B there is one team in the 90th percentile, 3 in the 80th, 3 in the 70th, 2 in the 50th, and 3 in the 40th.
The team at the top of conference B will have a tougher strength of schedule than any of the three teams at the top of Conference A because they don't have to play those two really bad teams. That doesn't mean they play a tougher schedule. They actually play an easier one because none of the teams in the conference are anywhere close to being in the same class as them. The teams in Conference A who get the walk overs against the worst teams still have to fight several games during the season playing relatively equal opponants that can go either way.
Bones2484
This is exactly why I said that the top 4-5 teams in the SEC are better than the top 4-5 in the Pac10. But I still think that top to bottom, even including Stanford, the Pac10 is stronger at it's median than the SEC is. In fact, Sagarin would argue this same thing. From Florida to Auburn (the top 5 in the SEC) the teams range from 5th to 17th (average = 11). In the Pac10 from USC to UCLA (the top 5 in the Pac10) the teams range from 2 to 25(average = 13.5).
However, once you look past that, the next Pac 10 teams are 30,31,34,45 and lowly Stanford at 103, whereas the SEC then goes: 32, 35, 51, 52, 76, 82, 90. The Pac10 has 9 teams in the top 45, whereas the SEC has 7 (and 2 more teams).
And what helps this is the Pac10 playing strong out of conference games. People say that the SEC beats each other up and thus it knocks down their SoS. But by this logic, no conference should have a SoS with multiple teams at the most difficult since the will play and beat each other. How do these same people then explain how the Pac10 has the 8 hardest SoS as well as the 10th and 15th most difficult?
November 22, 2006 at 09:17PM View BBCode
You're absolutely right Bart.This is exactly why I said that the top 4-5 teams in the SEC are better than the top 4-5 in the Pac10. But I still think that top to bottom, even including Stanford, the Pac10 is stronger at it's median than the SEC is. In fact, Sagarin would argue this same thing. From Florida to Auburn (the top 5 in the SEC) the teams range from 5th to 17th (average = 11). In the Pac10 from USC to UCLA (the top 5 in the Pac10) the teams range from 2 to 25(average = 13.5).
However, once you look past that, the next Pac 10 teams are 30,31,34,45 and lowly Stanford at 103, whereas the SEC then goes: 32, 35, 51, 52, 76, 82, 90. The Pac10 has 9 teams in the top 45, whereas the SEC has 7 (and 2 more teams).
And what helps this is the Pac10 playing strong out of conference games. People say that the SEC beats each other up and thus it knocks down their SoS. But by this logic, no conference should have a SoS with multiple teams at the most difficult since the will play and beat each other. How do these same people then explain how the Pac10 has the 8 hardest SoS as well as the 10th and 15th most difficult?
rkinslow19
Evil USC beating up on a helpless SEC team! How dare they!
Booty made his very first career start in that game, and 3 true freshmen scored rushing touchdowns. That's stat padding if I've ever seen it.
November 22, 2006 at 10:55PM View BBCode
I love how people are marginalizing USC's 50-14 victory at #5 Arkansas, yet glorifying Michigan's loss to Ohio State.Evil USC beating up on a helpless SEC team! How dare they!
Booty made his very first career start in that game, and 3 true freshmen scored rushing touchdowns. That's stat padding if I've ever seen it.
scaffdog
you answered your own question there Bones. The SEC doesnt need to schedule huge out of conference games to get thier SoS up there because they play in the SEC. The Pac 10 needs to schedule an extra in-conference game AND have strong out of conference games to keep up.
Me personally I love it and give the Pac 10 mega props for it, but I dnt bash the SEC for playing weak out of conference games because most of the time thier in conference schedule is daunting.
I also withdraw my previous statement about USC being overrated. Pete Carrol is a genius and Booty will probably be the Heisman favorite next year.
November 27, 2006 at 05:18AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bones2484
And what helps this is the Pac10 playing strong out of conference games. People say that the SEC beats each other up and thus it knocks down their SoS. But by this logic, no conference should have a SoS with multiple teams at the most difficult since the will play and beat each other. How do these same people then explain how the Pac10 has the 8 hardest SoS as well as the 10th and 15th most difficult?
you answered your own question there Bones. The SEC doesnt need to schedule huge out of conference games to get thier SoS up there because they play in the SEC. The Pac 10 needs to schedule an extra in-conference game AND have strong out of conference games to keep up.
Me personally I love it and give the Pac 10 mega props for it, but I dnt bash the SEC for playing weak out of conference games because most of the time thier in conference schedule is daunting.
I also withdraw my previous statement about USC being overrated. Pete Carrol is a genius and Booty will probably be the Heisman favorite next year.