lol, if your brain was jello i'd want to know what flavor it is

11/7/2006 3:22:43 AM

GET A ROOM

11/7/2006 3:34:32 AM

just looked into the sagarin standings further and noticed some more trends.

-the pac 10 looks the best out of these rankings. 2 teams better than all sec teams. 5 top 24 teams. 8 teams in the top 40 and 9/10 teams in the top 52.

-8 of the top 10 sos belong to pac10 teams. this si really flawed because sure the pac10 has some good schedules usc is the only team that has played a amazingly tough schedule overall. the entire pac10 sos shouldnt in general be better than every other team's.

things like this skew this poll. the pac10 is not the clear best conference in football.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 11:04 AM. Reason : sagarin loses crdibility here ]

11/7/2006 11:03:52 AM

You guys are cute.

I love when any forum has an arguement about something VIA TEXT.

And arguement in text can be taken in so many wrong ways its ridiculous(sp?).

Take it to PM's because nothing gets solved on boards, or hell call each other, or meet up for a brisket.

11/7/2006 11:14:57 AM

Earl

Quote :

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

If you lose every game you wouldn't be bowl eligible anyway and the whole computer rating is pointless. Further you wouldn't be rated in the Top 75 if you lost EVERY game. That's just stupid.

Quote :

"Still be ranked higher than someone with a better record. That's insane, and also the reason why we need a playoff system."

No, it's not. Teams that have a losing record wouldn't be CLOSE to any playoff unless you are insinuating you want a 64 team format, which is asinine.

hcnguyen

Quote :

"ernie thinks ucla(4-5) is better than tamu(8-2)"

God, that isn't what Ernie or Sagarin are saying. Christ. All it means is that UCLAs body of work RIGHT NOW is more impressive than A&Ms. If UCLA wins games now that their schedule eases up until SC they will level off. If A&M continues to win games now that their schedule becomes tougher, they will move up. It's not static, it's constantly changing.

Quote :

"if its so respected and trusted why do they have the human polls and bcs polls. why not just go solely by "the most respected and trusted poll in sports"?"

I'll put this in the simplest terms I can think of. It's similar to the US governements system of checks and balances. The human polls are subject to biases whether you think so or not. Regional biases, conference biases, and even program prestige biases. They are checked by the computer ratings, which hold no biases. However, these computer ratings are sometimes subject to anomaly's, such as the UCLA versus A&M scenario, so they are checked by the human polls. Understand?

Quote :

"the pac10 is not the clear best conference in football."

Again, the Pac-10 and the Big East have no true bottom feeders other then Stanford. This is huge in the computer ratings of conferences. They have no Duke, UNC, Ole Miss, or Miss St to bring them down. The conference ratings don't mean much anyway when evaluating the best conference imo.

Ernie

Quote :

"STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE MARGIN OF VICTORY"

The second numbers I posted don't factor in Margin of Victory. That is the 'ELO-CHESS' portion of the Sagarin ratings. That is what the BCS uses as 1/6th of it's computer formula. Just a FYI for everyone, nearly all the computer ratings, while different in formula, come to generally the same consensus for these teams.

drunknloaded

Quote :

"lol, if i was gay i'd totally be turned on by ernie"

Get the fuck out of Sports Talk god damn it.

-------------

Real quick to address Cal being #2. As someone who sees nearly all of their games I think they are the best team in the country right now. Yes, I said the best team in the country. Do they deserve to play for the national championship? Of course not. They lost a game and therefore do NOT deserve to play for it. No chance. They are playing better football than anyone in the country though. Similar to Colorado in 2001-2002..

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : z]

11/7/2006 11:26:12 AM

Quote :

"God, that isn't what Ernie or Sagarin are saying. Christ. All it means is that UCLAs body of work RIGHT NOW is more impressive than A&Ms. If UCLA wins games now that their schedule eases up until SC they will level off. If A&M continues to win games now that their schedule becomes tougher, they will move up. It's not static, it's constantly changing. "

Good gracious man. It is still a terrible loop hole. And yes, it justifys everything I said. There is no rationality to a 4-5 team being ranked higher than an 8-2 team. I could understand if the records were A LITTLE BIT CLOSER. BUT THIS CASE IS SO POLORIZED. People notice this loop hole. The flaw is how they determine a teams "strength". Preseason ranking are also "voted" on so thats another flaw. So there you have to very determining factors who's input are heavily flawed.

A playoff system is reasonable not asinine, what are you talking about? We have a month before bowls even start, and we could start the reg season a couple of weeks earlier. This is very realistic and has been in the makings. This poll system has worked about 2 times properly since it's been in effect. Somone gets snubbed every year by it. Now, you have to be undefeated nearly two years in a row to have a shot at a national title, if you weren't ranked in a preseason top 10 or 15. Thats asinine!!

Quote :

"No, it's not. Teams that have a losing record wouldn't be CLOSE to any playoff unless you are insinuating you want a 64 team format, which is asinine."

You misunderstood my entire point. I was never arguing for a losing team to make playoffs. I was going against the "strength of schedule" aspect by making that point. In this case we have a team who's record is 4-5, BUT, they are ranked higher than a team who is 8-2. This all falls back on strength of schedule, which is insane because its giving s-o-c to much weight here.



[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 11:44:11 AM

they are totally clueless

11/7/2006 12:28:34 PM

Quote :

"There is no rationality to a 4-5 team being ranked higher than an 8-2 team."

Yes there is. It will equal out once the respective schools finish out their schedules. The 4-5 team that has played much higher rated schedule will either win their remaining games and justify their slot or lose their games and fall further. Same as the 8-2 team will either lose their games when the schedule intensifies, leveling off, or move up if they keep winning.

Quote :

"The flaw is how they determine a teams "strength". Preseason ranking are also "voted" on so thats another flaw."

Once again, if any of you peabrains actually read the fucking page that was linked you'd realize that preseason rankings have NOTHING to do with this rating. It is purely based on this year and has NOTHING to do with the polls.

Quote :

"I was never arguing for a losing team to make playoffs. I was going against the "strength of schedule" aspect by making that point."

Then why the fuck did you bring it up. God damn, it's like I'm arguing with a 4 year old.

11/7/2006 3:30:40 PM

^the sos is what im refuting also. 8 of the top 10 teams are in the pac 10. somethings wrong. and with the way this works when one thing goes wrong it knocks everything off and that is why we cannot use this to say the acc is bad.

(also duke and unc beign sooooo bad makes the acc look bad) every conference has bad teams that are automatic wins (stanford is an auto win just like unc and duke but since they have #1sos beating stanford is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>beat ing duke or unc when they are all really easy.

flawed system

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:35 PM. Reason : formatting of teh whole page]

11/7/2006 3:34:35 PM

Stanford is rated 13 slots lower than UNC (and Duke got shut out by 1-AA Richmond at home for fucks sake). There goes that argument.

** well the Pac-10 does schedule the best OOC games year in and year out. maybe the ACC shoudl start scheduling some real schools instead of Akron and Ball State

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : x]

11/7/2006 3:36:31 PM

getting blown out should never help a teams cause.

washington ucla cal and whoever else got BLOWN OUT by some good ooc teams ihelps make the pac10 so high.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : gosh waht a terrible system sagarin]

11/7/2006 3:41:50 PM

You're right. The human polls are biased against the ACC because the teams they did rank turned out to be shit and the teams they didn't rank have beat the teams that turned out to be shit. The computer ratings are a bad system because they don't think ACC's OOC wins (or losses) against Richmond, App State, and University of Lizard Lick for the Blind and Deaf are impressive.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:46 PM. Reason : i give up.. no sense arguing with the ignorant anymore.]

11/7/2006 3:46:35 PM

because your litle sagarin makes the sec look better for beating 8th graders while the acc is beating 5th graders

when in reality both grades are easy as hell cupcakes for a good d1 team to beat.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : you are not capable of original thought. only what the media feeds you. you are an ms4. ]

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : at least earl is an ms5.... I am V.I.C.K.I.]

11/7/2006 3:51:52 PM

How come you cannot realize that everyone on this board hates you and that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about? The Sagarin ratings are the most respected and used in the country.

LEAVE THIS BOARD.

11/7/2006 3:53:43 PM

and they are flawed. you guys edmited they are flawed. the horsemen win again!

11/8/2006 1:27:00 AM

edmited

11/8/2006 1:28:53 AM

Quote :

"Congress to look into 'deeply flawed' BCS system Associated Press HOUSTON -- Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion. A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined. "College football is not just an exhilarating sport, but a billion-dollar business that Congress cannot ignore," said committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican. Barton's panel is separate from the House Government Reform panel that tackled steroids in baseball. The committee announcement called the hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, a "comprehensive review" of the BCS and postseason college football. "Too often college football ends in sniping and controversy, rather than winners and losers," Barton said. "The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed." Barton said he does not have legislation in mind to force a change, but said he hopes congressional hearings will spur discussion and improvements. It won't be the first time Congress has looked at the BCS. In 2003, the Senate probed whether the system was unfairly tilted against smaller schools. NCAA Division I-A football does not have a playoff. The Bowl Championship Series was established in 1998 to determine a national champion using the traditional bowl system and a mix of computer and human polls to set up a championship game. Because of the controversy surrounding the bowl selection process last season, The Associated Press told BCS officials to stop using its writers polls in its formula. The committee invited testimony from Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, the current chairman of the BCS. "If members of the subcommittee have ideas on how the college football postseason can be improved, we welcome that input," Weiberg said. "The current structure is designed to match the No. 1 and 2 ranked teams, identified through a ranking system, in a bowl game. It is an extension of the bowl system and a method to determine a national champion through the bowls," Weiberg said. "It has paired teams in bowl games that would not have been possible under the bowl arrangements existing before its creation." Along with the acclaim of a national champion, the BCS also created a financial windfall with tens of millions of dollars at stake for teams and conferences who participate. But it has seldom been without controversy."

11/8/2006 1:37:40 AM

Quote :

"Dec. 2, 2005"

11/8/2006 1:40:15 AM

That dosn't make the article less rellevant. It takes time to implement something. You just got proven wrong. That time is basically before this season began. If they were to come up with something new, it would probably take a couple of years for them to enforce it. Not overnight.

So the poin that congress will "look into something" means we are not the only individuals that notice this flaw you peeps are totally oblivous too. Fact.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 1:46 AM. Reason : YOU LOSE]

11/8/2006 1:43:59 AM

^but congress is retarded too

11/8/2006 1:49:29 AM

You fucksticks should really do some research to follow up what you post. It makes you look stupid to post things over a year old that have long since been resolved. The 'new action' they took was to add a 5th BCS bowl game to give non-BCS teams a better shot.

God, this thread has been won by every non-Earl/hcnguyen user like twenty times over.

V thread changed directions

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:02 AM. Reason : x]

11/8/2006 10:00:14 AM

thread is about the strength of the ACC not the BCS

11/8/2006 10:02:13 AM

^^That isn't the entire article. He left out a very critical bit of information where it discusses how an undefeated team is snubbed over a team with a loss or two, and how the bcs system jerks someone year after year. It has something to do with the 'ranking' system > s.o.s > what we've been debating the past two pages.

An extra bowl dosn't do anything. The ranking system is flawed. Here, you have an article in your face telling you this and yet you still try to avoid it. Fact.

Quote :

"add a 5th BCS bowl game to give non-BCS teams a better shot."

A better shot a what? Pacifying them becaues they got snubbed and probably are supposed to be in the NC game? Or, sharing a NC title? Yeah, that totally resolves the whole flawed system. Way to go on the rebuttal there doggy!


[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 11:15:30 AM

God I hate you.

Why can't you get hit by a bus?

11/8/2006 11:22:25 AM

Quote :

"He left out a very critical bit of information where it discusses how an undefeated team is snubbed over a team with a loss or two, and how the bcs system jerkes someone year after year."

Well considering that a BCS conference undefeated team has never been snubbed by a 1 loss team, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Maybe you are saying that Boise St, with one of the easier schedules in the country, should be ranked higher than a 1 loss SEC team. In which case I would laugh in your face.

Quote :

"Yeah, that totally resolves the whole flawed system. Way to go on the rebuttal there doggy!"

God, you are so dumb. I didn't use that as a rebuttal. That is what resulted from Congresses stupid investigation into the BCS. I'm done arguing with you. At least hcnguyen can make an argument on his own. You need someone to hold your hand to do it.

V so which undefeated team got snubbed by a 1 loss team? oh wait...

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 11:27 AM. Reason : z]

11/8/2006 11:22:44 AM

The "left out bit of the article"

Quote :

" For example, Southeastern Conference champion Auburn was undefeated in 2004 but was shut out of the BCS title game, which matched USC against Oklahoma. Utah also finished the season undefeated but could not play for the title. "

wow.

Quote :

"I'm done arguing with you. At least hcnguyen can make an argument on his own. You need someone to hold your hand to do it. "

Typical debate cop-out. You're no match for me.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 11:25:34 AM

^gtfo

11/8/2006 11:34:50 AM

it didnt swtich to bcs.


the only thing you guys could find to support the sec being better than the acc were ranking components that are part of the bcs. So, my job was to refute the bcs as an incredible source and Earl did a heck of a job helping.

you guys can't think for yourselves anyway. all you can do is say "look at the rankings the sec teams are higher so they are better'

3rd graders can look at rankings and say the highger team is better.

11/8/2006 12:12:13 PM

Quote :

"it didnt swtich to bcs. "

I don't even know what that is supposed to be mean.

Quote :

"the only thing you guys could find to support the sec being better than the acc were ranking components that are part of the bcs."

Um, no. It is backed by every human poll (Harris, AP, and Coaches) and every computer poll. There is really no way to argue otherwise without introducing your own biases into it. None at all.

Quote :

"Earl did a heck of a job helping."

All that assclown did was repeat everything you said.

I'm done with this thread. Nothing left to say.

11/8/2006 12:16:16 PM

Quote :

"thread is about the strength of the ACC not the BCS"

aren't all those polls part of the bcs?

either way its not your opinion you have no idea why they are like that (preseason or just being flawed)
and you can't come up with anything on your own. all you can do is take what the media spoon mouth feeds you and regurgitate it onto this board.

11/8/2006 12:19:39 PM

Im just mad that in College football 2007(the game), I've won 6 titles in a row and they still preranked me 2 to Notre Dame ( even though I have won 82 games in a row)

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ha]

11/9/2006 4:26:55 PM

thats cuz the game is realistic to the point

11/9/2006 4:28:07 PM

aha

11/9/2006 4:31:27 PM