This has NO bias from polls, is not based on previous years performance or preseason, and does NOT factor in margin of victory.

ACC - SEC - Big East

Georgia Tech (21) - Auburn (7) - Louisville (4)
Maryland (23) - Florida (8) - Rutgers (12)
BC (24) - Arkansas (9) - WVU (16)
Wake Forest (25) - LSU (14) - Cincy (46)
Clemson (26) - Tennessee (15) - Pitt (48)
Va Tech (27) - Kentucky (32) - USF (58)
FSU (54) - South Carolina (36) - UConn (66)
Miami (69) - Georgia (45) - Syracuse (77)
NC State (72) - Alabama (52)
Virginia (82) - Vandy (80)
UNC (123) - Miss St (84)
Duke (178) - Ole Miss (87)

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:15 AM. Reason : I'm going to bed. I'll get back to it in the AM at work if I'm not too busy]

11/7/2006 12:14:40 AM

I'd pretty much say that spells it out. I'd like to see what the idiot has to say to this..

11/7/2006 12:17:50 AM

you still have no idea why the acc teams are mysteriously lower when they matchup to the human I.

the code is flawed, OBVIOUSLY

11/7/2006 12:19:30 AM

CAUSE THEY SUCK YOU RETARD

11/7/2006 12:20:44 AM

STOP POSTING

ITS A GOD DAMN COMPUTER, HOW IS IT BIASED????

11/7/2006 12:21:06 AM

The programmers are just out to get the ACC man! dont you know!

11/7/2006 12:21:53 AM

STILL NO REASONS OTHER THAN

THE ACC TEAMS SUCK BECAUSE THE SUCK

THE SEC TEAMS ARE GREAT BECAUSE THEY ARE GREAT.

THE COMPUTERS MUST HAVE A SUCKYNESS SNIFFER BUILT INTO THE CODE, HUH?

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:23 AM. Reason : COMPUTERS ARENT BIASED THEY ARE JUST FUCKED UP]

11/7/2006 12:23:14 AM

^ glad you finally agree, gg

11/7/2006 12:23:48 AM

^NO, MY LOGIC IS UNDENYABLE
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=443232
SEE THE FIRST POST AND I AM RIGHT

11/7/2006 12:26:16 AM

Maybe....just maybe because NC State lost to fucking Akron and Southern Miss.

Maybe....just maybe that UNC cannot beat anyone and barely beat 1-AA Furman.

Maybe because they have a team that cannot beat anyone in Duke as well.

Miami got waxed by Louisville....the list goes on....what good OOC win does the ACC have?

11/7/2006 12:37:00 AM

way to talk about the bottom acc teams. i could go on all day about why ole miss miss state and kentucky arent good too but its pointless.

people say its great because of the top 5 teams

the top 5 acc teams stack up pretty close to those 5 teams

nobody is way better than the other conf.

11/7/2006 12:52:30 AM

ahaha

you honestly think wake, gt, vt, umd, and clemson could hang with auburn, uf, arkansas, lsu, and ut?

you realize all five sec teams are ranked above all five acc teams for a reason, don't you?

11/7/2006 12:55:11 AM

Kentucky is ranked 32 by Sagarin you dumbass...they are actually good this year. If you actually kept up with football you would know that.

11/7/2006 12:55:32 AM

^^^ No they dont, not close

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 12:55 AM. Reason : d]

11/7/2006 12:55:40 AM

they are ranked above them because they were ranked above them at the begin of the season. if they werent they woudlnt be right now.

and yes they were ranked ahead of them at teh begini of the season for a reason: speculation

maimi and fsu were also ranked really high but that proves the preseason rankings arent right. so enries argument is compelely shot down in about 2 sentences....next...jaybe

lets see

wake:8-1
maryland bc vt gt:7-2

only ooc losses were to nd and wvu- and the wvu game was much closer than usc akansas which was 50-14. a top acc team would never lose 50-14.

11/7/2006 1:02:21 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm

fuck the polls then

i still win

7. LSU
8. UF
11. Auburn
14. UT
16. Arkansas

...

19. Clemson
21. BC
22. VT
26. GT
27. WF

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:04:00 AM

Acc is the strongest conference.

11/7/2006 1:07:24 AM

^^also has cal the #2 team in the country. computers are laughable.

11/7/2006 1:08:03 AM

WHAT A WELL-FORMED ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT, EARL

SURELY YOU CAN'T BE WRONG

--

cal would roll on any acc team

and a computer isn't just making that shit up

read the god damn page

jeff sagarin's method is undeniable

you are fucking fool

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:08:09 AM

and lousiville and michigan according to your pc

11/7/2006 1:09:20 AM

People rather use computer than their brains, that startles me. There is no computer like the human mind.

11/7/2006 1:10:14 AM

ok you win, cal is the 2nd best team in the country


washing ton state and penn state(both 6-4) are better than wake

lets see...4-5 ucla is better than 8-2 texas andm


SAGARINS LOGIC IS FLAWLESS

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:15 AM. Reason : GG COMPUTERS]

11/7/2006 1:10:57 AM

IT'S NOT A GOD DAMN COMPUTER

IT IS JEFF SAGARIN

A PERSON

WITH BLOOD

AND ARMS

AND A BRAIN

JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE NUMBERS

AND DECIMALS

DOESN'T MEAN ITS A FUCKING COMPUTER

FUCK

11/7/2006 1:11:05 AM

Can the real Sports Talk posters just have one thread?

I mean do you fucks have to take over every single thread with your idioticity???

11/7/2006 1:13:22 AM

^^so there can be bias?

can you explain what in the fuck jeff sagarin was thinking when he made a system that puts 4-5 losing record ucla ahead of 8-2 tamu?

11/7/2006 1:17:01 AM

goddamn

ucla has the nation's 8th hardest schedule

tcu has the nation's 77th (!) hardest schedule

this isn't rocket science

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : charlotte independence has won 100+ games in a row!! why aren't they number 1?!??!?!]

11/7/2006 1:18:03 AM

His system is flawed. A playoff system will settle all this junk.

11/7/2006 1:19:14 AM

so playing good teams is more important than winning to jeff sagarin?

uclas toughest scheule includes losses to wash and wasu

their only 4 measly wins came against

stanford, rice, utah and arizona

they are just playing some damn good competition!!!

whew how cna they handle that week in week out?


and cal being #2 helps skew thier sos. the whole system is shit

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:24 AM. Reason : how can people belive a system that thinks 4-5 is better than 8-2?]

11/7/2006 1:23:07 AM

tamus 8 wins

missouri
baylor
oklahoma state
citadel
lafayette
army
kansas
latech

missouri and the sheer # of wins vs losses makes thiers more impressive than ucla.





ucla is losing more games than they are winning. and they arent beating anybody. the good teams they play, they lose to.

if 4-5 is better than 8-2 then im fine with the sec being better than the sec

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:28 AM. Reason : IF WINNING IS WRONG I DONT WANNA BE RIGHT]

11/7/2006 1:27:00 AM

tcu beat texas tech and seven creampuffs

QUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY

if we went 12-0 against I-AA teams, would we be the best team in the country?

how can you be so fucking wrong about everything

--

ok i misread texas a&m as tcu, my bad

but replace texas tech with missouri above and i'm still right

even moreso

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:30 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:27:25 AM

WHERE IS UCLAS QUALITY?


stanford, rice, utah and arizona =QUALITY?

missouri
baylor
oklahoma state
citadel
lafayette
army
kansas
latech

=CREAMPUFFS?


THIS GUY IS ACTUALLY ARGUING 4-5 IS BETTER THAN 8-2 AND THE 8-2 TEAM HAS~QUALITY WINS + A GOOD MIZZOURI WIN

AAHAHAHAHA HES DOING IT?

11/7/2006 1:30:19 AM

Do you realize other than Mizz and OSU that the rest of those teams are SHIT?

11/7/2006 1:31:59 AM

missouri - decent
baylor - fucking horrible
oklahoma state - not very good
citadel - 1-AA
lafayette - fucking horrible
army - fucking horrible
kansas - almost fucking horrible
latech - fucking horrible

if herb sendek coached football, that would be his schedule

11/7/2006 1:32:06 AM

baylor
citadel
lafayette
army
kansas
latech

All = CREAMPUFFS you douche.

App State kicked the Citadel's ass. Lafayette? Army? Kansas? La Tech? Those schools have football?

11/7/2006 1:33:15 AM

Quote :

" stanford, rice, utah and arizona =QUALITY? "

11/7/2006 1:33:45 AM

Quote :

" stanford, rice, utah and arizona =QUALITY? "

certainly moreso than a&m's victories

don't forget ucla got robbed at ND and played a pretty decent game at cal

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:34:35 AM

Quote :

"don't forget ucla got robbed at ND and played a pretty decent game at cal"

losing games is better than winning games? i don't even need to argue with this

11/7/2006 1:37:03 AM

losing by 3 to a top ten team on the road in the final minutes is more impressive than anything on a&m's schedule

it's not just black and white, wins and losses

that's why boise plays all its bowl games at home, asshat

11/7/2006 1:39:24 AM

The point is they are playing GOOD teams you fuck.

That schedule listed above is about the worst Ive ever seen a D-1A team play.

11/7/2006 1:39:35 AM

according to your perfect computer that "top 10" team is #17. even you know its wrong.


they are playing good teams and losing (+wash +wasu)

the 4 bad teams they played are there 4 wins. well guess what. amu has 7 wins over bad teams and a win over a good team

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:42 AM. Reason : they have a losing record in the pac 10]

11/7/2006 1:41:16 AM

ITS NOT A GODDAMN COMPUTER

#17

#10

WHATTHEFUCKEVER

A&M IS HORRIBLE

YOU ARE A DUMB FUCKING CUNT

11/7/2006 1:42:00 AM

missouri isn't really a "good" team by any metric

not exactly the kind of win you wanna hang your hat on

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:44:02 AM

so 10 and 17 are the same thing now? nd is a top 10 team to you (why else would you say they are) and they are 17 to the computer. you disagree too you just dont want to admit im right

jeff sagarin : losing=good winning =bad


^you honestly gonna sit there and tell me stanford arizona rice and utah are better than missouri?

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:46 AM. Reason : all those teams are 4-5 too sot htey are prolly top 25 teams]

11/7/2006 1:45:28 AM

OH YEAH

CALL ME OUT CAUSE I FUCKED UP BY 7 SPOTS

WHEREAS YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING LOGIC IS FLAWED TO THE GODDAMN CORE

you get my fucking point, stop being a fucking shitstain and man up

11/7/2006 1:46:32 AM

Fucking A. Can't fall asleep... anyway this will pretty much shut hcnasian up..

Quote :

"For the first few weeks of the season, the starting ratings have weight in the process(BAYESIAN), but once the teams are all CONNECTED, then the starting ratings are no longer used and all teams are started equal and the ELO-CHESS is then done in an UNBIASED manner from that point on."

just to clarify Ernie. Sagarin is the guy who came up with the formulas so it is a human who did it but it IS a computer rating. The most reputable one out there.

I need to take a unisom

11/7/2006 1:47:23 AM

Quote :

"^you honestly gonna sit there and tell me stanford arizona rice and utah are better than missouri?"

Quote :

"losing by 3 to a top ten SEVENTEEN team on the road in the final minutes is more impressive than anything on a&m's schedule"

--

yeah i know a computer does the computations

i wasn't inferring that sagarin sits there with an abacus and does this shit by candlelight

i figured those of us with a brain knew that

i should have been more explicit for the hcnguyen's out there

my bad

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2006 1:47:45 AM

^^ hahahahaha, hes back

11/7/2006 1:48:35 AM

i'm glad to know the acc is bad for the same reason 8-2 tamu is worse than a 4-5 team with less impressive wins. i can rest easy now

how cam i sit here and argue sports with a bunch off people that pretty much think 4-5 is better than 8-2

11/7/2006 1:54:38 AM

STRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULESTRENGTH OF SCHEDULE

11/7/2006 1:55:53 AM

They think a 4-5 record is better than an 8-2 record??!?! Wow. But we're the dumb ones .

Strength of schedule does play a mojor role in that, but, THAT record crosses the line. There is just no way around that. 4-5 c'mon man, you can't be serious.


With that logic, you could schedule the toughest record ever and nearly lose every game,and still be ahead of others. wow.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 1:56:30 AM