Sagarin

Quote :

"1 PAC-10 (A) = 80.37 80.01 ( 1) 10 2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.55 78.33 ( 2) 12 3 BIG EAST (A) = 77.39 77.57 ( 4) 8 4 BIG TEN (A) = 77.14 77.67 ( 3) 11 5 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 74.14 73.28 ( 6) 12 6 BIG 12 (A) = 73.95 74.37 ( 5) 12 7 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 69.10 68.64 ( 7) 9 8 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 67.89 66.83 ( 8) 4 9 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 64.98 65.94 ( 9) 9 10 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 64.28 64.93 ( 10) 12"

How the heck? That is odd having Pac-10 there and Big East ahead of Big 10. Yikes

Nolan

Quote :

"1 Big Ten I-A 75.7406 29 11 0.7250 2 SEC I-A 75.2886 30 7 0.8108 3 Pac 10 I-A 75.0646 19 9 0.6786 4 Big East I-A 74.2281 32 8 0.8000 5 ACC I-A 72.5926 26 12 0.6842 6 Big XII I-A 72.2679 33 15 0.6875 "

Ok, this is how I'd do it with SEC and Big 10 switched. This one looks about right.

Anyone know where I can any others?

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : formatting]

10/24/2006 2:01:27 PM

(code)blah blah blah(/code)

10/24/2006 2:07:21 PM

The SEC is definitely stronger than the Pac-10 IMO (see Tennessee vs Cal this year). The Big Ten is solid, but really is just two great teams with a bunch of middle of the pack guys. The SEC is the only conference with 5 legit BCS caliber teams IMO (LSU, Arkansas, UF, UT, and Auburn).

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:30 PM. Reason : Arkansas]

10/24/2006 2:27:10 PM

^ yup, aside from OSU, and Michigan and maybe Iowa, the Big Ten is garbage

10/24/2006 3:18:36 PM

Quote :

"The SEC is definitely stronger than the Pac-10 IMO (see Tennessee vs Cal this year)."

i absolutely hate the pac-10, but you could also say the opposite (see USC vs Arkansas this year)

of course, there are some excuses for both of those games here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2636798

10/24/2006 3:24:57 PM

but the difference is at the time, Cal was supposed to beat Tennessee's ass and USC was supposed to beat Arkansas' ass... one of those two happened, the other didnt.

Arkansas (at the time of that game) was probably the 8th or 9th best SEC team playing the Pac-10's #1 team. If you reversed that and took the Pac-10s 8th best team (Arizona? Arizona St.?) and played them against the SEC's best (Florida? Auburn?) they would get killed as well.


And people never get it, in a "one game series" any top 50 team could possibly beat any other top 50 team, its the season long grind of ALWAYS playing tough games every week that kills the SEC (aside from maybe one or two breaks with Miss/Miss. St). I think for a single game West Virginia could beat any SEC team, but I also KNOW that if they played EVERY game aside from OOC in the SEC that they wouldnt win all of them

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:31 PM. Reason : d]

10/24/2006 3:29:28 PM

^^ You're right about that - I forgot about the USC-Arkansas game. Overall though the Pac-10 is always USC and a bunch of pretenders like Cal, Oregon, UCLA, etc that get exposed by good teams at bowl time. I never consider the Pac-10 on the level of the SEC other than USC.

Quote :

"^ yup, aside from OSU, and Michigan and maybe Iowa, the Big Ten is garbage"

Wisconsin is decent this year as well, but they always beat the teams they're supposed to (i.e. Northwestern, Michigan State, etc) and then lose the big games against Michigan and OSU.



[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ^ Also Mustain wasn't starting yet in that USC game]

10/24/2006 3:31:25 PM

How would you guys do the rankings AS OF RIGHT NOW?

I don't think there is anyway to argue that the Big XII and ACC are not 5 and 6 respectively and I don't think there is anyway to argue the Big East is higher then 4. To me it's only about what order 5/6 are and what order 1/2/3 are.

Quote :

"I think for a single game West Virginia could beat any SEC team, but I also KNOW that if they played EVERY game aside from OOC in the SEC that they wouldnt win all of them"

Of course, which is why it will be very hard, given the current format, for a SEC team to win a nat'l championship with zero losses.

V well to a certain extent you have to base them on conference records versus OOC, conference records versus BCS opponents OOC. Lets face it, we probably don't have a grasp on the lower level BCS teams like the NWs, the Vandys, the USFs, the Oregon States, etc, etc.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : x]

10/24/2006 3:32:30 PM

I never do the ranking based on team records, I base them on what I actually see on the field, the actual talent/playing ability. Sure WV and Louisville are great teams, and Rutgers is so so but the rest of that conference is garbage

^ well, then you fuckers STOP pointing out that fucking WVU-Georgia game as "proof" that the Big East is just as good as the SEC haha

Quote :

"Of course, which is why it will be very hard, given the current format, for a SEC team to win a nat'l championship with zero losses. "

yeah, this is why so many of us have given up on a National Championship and just cheer for an SEC championship until we get a playoff system

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:37 PM. Reason : d]

10/24/2006 3:34:48 PM

I never did use that as proof. Just as proof that a team that wins a BCS conference can beat the best from another conference on any given day.. especially if they are taken lightly.

It's only Nate (ihatespida) that tries to use that bogus argument..

10/24/2006 3:36:57 PM

I'd put the ACC 6th just because Clemson is good, but not great and the rest of the league is average at best. A team like Iowa could probably beat every team in the ACC and they aren't that good either.

The Big 12 atleast has one solid team in Texas and two good teams in Oklahoma and Nebraska (Texas AM is pretty good too). The ACC has more depth than the Big 12, but the lack of a truly BCS worthy team makes me put the ACC lower than the Big 12.

As for 1-2-3, I say SEC, Big Ten, Pac-10 for the reasons stated above.






[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : s]

10/24/2006 3:37:54 PM

speaking of Iowa... Tate is out for this saturday

10/24/2006 3:39:00 PM

Quote :

"The ACC has more depth than the Big 12, but the lack of a truly BCS worthy team makes me put the ACC lower than the Big 12."

I'm still a bit torn on Clemson. To me they can be a Top 5 team if they play with consistency. They certainly have the talent and team speed. But I need to see them play a few more games at that level.

Personally, I thought GT was the class of the ACC but then Evil Reggie Ball began making more and more appearances. You know that Reggie Ball, right? The one that for no apparent reason decides it's not nice to throw to Calvin Johnson for quarters at a time even though there is no one within 20 yards of him.

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 3:44 PM. Reason : grammar]

10/24/2006 3:42:23 PM

if only calvin johnson had someone that resembled a consistent QB, he would be unstoppable.

10/24/2006 3:45:12 PM

I tend to go by the Sagarin

10/24/2006 3:49:41 PM

^^^ I will be happy when Reggie Ball dies

10/24/2006 4:32:33 PM

Quote :

"It's only Nate (ihatespida) that tries to use that bogus argument.."

SORRY BUT BASED UPON MY MATH THE EQUATION GOES AS FOLLOWS:

SEC WINNER < BIG EAST WINNER

THEREFORE

WVU WOULD RUN THE TABLE IN THE SEC

NO IN ALL SERIOUSNESS OF COURSE I KNOW THAT WVU WOULDN'T BE UNDEFEATED RIGHT NOW IF THEY WERE IN THE SEC..THEY WOULD BE IF THEY WERE IN THE ACC THOUGH

10/24/2006 4:47:40 PM

i'd like to see Michigan play West By God Virginia

10/24/2006 5:13:54 PM