WOW! No Official Ranking Thread. I Will Start One - Page 12

iggymcfly · #**111** 10-29-2007, 10:03 PM

With USC a full point ahead of OU and Auburn, it makes me wonder, where did Cal finish on that system? Seems like they could have easily been ahead of OU and Auburn.

BobJoeJim · #**112** 10-29-2007, 10:20 PM

Cal comes in just marginally behind Auburn:

California Schedule:
@ Air Force (90.2%)
New Mexico State (99%)
@ Oregon State (56%)
@ USC (19.5%)
UCLA (78.7%)
@ Arizona (90%)
Arizona State (74.8%)
Oregon (90%)
@ Washington (94.2%)
Stanford (87.25%)
@ Southern Miss (94.35%)
Average record for #5: 8.75 - 2.26
Cal: 10-1, +1.26

I suspect the gap was larger if you use pre-bowl rankings, as a #5 team would have been a noticably smaller dog against USC before they destroyed Oklahoma as opposed to after. So no, Cal didn't deserve a rematch... but it was pretty close.

BobJoeJim · #**113** 10-29-2007, 11:16 PM

Wow... I just ran 2001 using Sagarin's post-bowl results and was pretty shocked...

BCS #2 Nebraska was 11-1 against a schedule that a #5 team would go 10.1-1.9 (.838) against. +0.9415. But Nebraska did NOT deserve to go the the title game against Miami.

Unanimous human #2 Oregon was 10-1 against a schedule that a #5 team would go 9.2-1.8 (.835) against. +0.816. Not quite as good as Nebraska, but more importantly, not as good as:

BCS #3 Colorado went 10-2 against a schedule that a #5 team should only have gone 8.7-3.3 against. +1.308, and according to MT2R's system, deserving of a title game berth. Of course that's if you *don't* include their 38-6 shellacking at the hands of Oregon that I must mention by law, as a Duck fan [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

pvn · #**114** 10-29-2007, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does Arizona State move up to #1 if they beat Oregon? I don't see how you can't put them there.

On a similar note, does Oregon move above LSU with a win?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and yes

[/ QUOTE ]
So there is nothing LSU can do to avoid being jumped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. It is mathematically impossible for LSU to beat Alabama. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MyTurn2Raise · #**115** 10-30-2007, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow... I just ran 2001 using Sagarin's post-bowl results and was pretty shocked...

BCS #2 Nebraska was 11-1 against a schedule that a #5 team would go 10.1-1.9 (.838) against. +0.9415. But Nebraska did NOT deserve to go the the title game against Miami.

Unanimous human #2 Oregon was 10-1 against a schedule that a #5 team would go 9.2-1.8 (.835) against. +0.816. Not quite as good as Nebraska, but more importantly, not as good as:

BCS #3 Colorado went 10-2 against a schedule that a #5 team should only have gone 8.7-3.3 against. +1.308, and according to MT2R's system, deserving of a title game berth. Of course that's if you *don't* include their 38-6 shellacking at the hands of Oregon that I must mention by law, as a Duck fan [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

did you run Illinois and Maryland for that year?

BobJoeJim · #**116** 10-30-2007, 01:46 AM

Of course not, why would I? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

For the record, you are the only person I've ever heard say that Illinois should have been in the hunt that year, in a few different posts, and your mention of Maryland in the post directly above this is literally the only time I've heard them mentioned in this discussion ever. But I'm happy to oblige:

Illinois: 10-1 against an expected win% of .847, they score a respectable +0.678, but don't match up with Oregon/Nebraska, much less Colorado. They do, however, outperform...

Maryland: Expected win% of .858, +0.558 rating.

If you get ahold of pre-bowl rankings for 2001 and run them, I'd love to see how diffent all those numbers come out.

MyTurn2Raise · #**117** 10-30-2007, 01:51 AM

nah...I've never seriously argued for Illinois...they were far behind all those other teams since they had no defense whatsoever

I just find it funny sometimes how the media decides which one-loss are worthy of consideration and which are not. Often times, it's just the 'name' on the jersey, preseason polls, and what week the loss happened.

I don't think Illinois or Maryland were as good as the other teams; I'm just surprised how the media dismissed them without a thought.

got to admit, that Colorado result really shocks me.

BobJoeJim · #**118** 10-30-2007, 02:19 AM

Shocked me too, at the time I thought it was completely ridiculous for a two-loss team to be in the discussion at all. Of course I was biased, and then the Fiesta Bowl helped confirm my (apparently incorrect) opinion. Now I'm thinking I should run Florida too, but I'm sick of doing these for now, since I'm at work and have to do it without a spreadsheet [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

BTW, your PMs were full, MyTurn, so I sent you a MySpace message.

MyTurn2Raise · #**119** 10-30-2007, 02:45 AM

ugh...that means I have to goto myspace...I avoid that

anyway, PMs should have some space now... I get asked about shortstacking way too much

Austiger · #**120** 10-30-2007, 08:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BSF- That's true if you're looking only at their SOS. Under MyTurn's system it would not be true, since he can't take it out.

Also, if Tennessee is not the team I'm making them out to be, why did the beat TAMU in Dallas by a bajillion points when you beat them by 7?

I really don't feel like rehashing this debate any more because it only ticks me off. You guys had your shot. You got blown out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, while you guys eeked out an impressive three point win over Va Tech. Congrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks? It was impressive. Very impressive actually, when you consider what a downer it was not getting the title shot we deserved. All I can say to anyone still trying to prove that Oklahoma wasn't a pretender after that championship game is LOL.

Also, anyone who runs those numbers based on Sagarin needs to consider this: LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee weren't top 20 teams that year. Right. And Auburn was 8th. LOL. A combined 40-2 against other teams after the bowls and that's how they're ranked.