|
|
#131
11-12-2007, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
yeah...and ASU kind of won that game...
that last TD catch in the endzone was a gift 
|
|
#132
11-12-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For those ranking Kansas #3 behind LSU and Oregon, do you think that if all three win out that an undefeated BCS conference champion should be left out of the BCS championship behind TWO one-loss teams? [/ QUOTE ] no but until they beat Mizzouri and Oklahoma they don't belong above LSU/Oregon [/ QUOTE ] So if the season ended today you'd leave them out? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, without a second thought. For the same reason that Brigham Young didn't deserve to be NC in 1984. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. This is great. I really hope it happens, it would be the greatest argument for ending the bowl cartel ever. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, Kansas is highly likely to cancel their game with Missouri and then get left out of the Big XII championship with an undefeated record.
|
|
#133
11-12-2007, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
Iggy, while I agree with you to an extent I still think you're pretty far off.
Turnover margin, I would assume, is very heavily dependent on one player, the QB. I believe you said you've watched several of KU's games recently. If you saw any last year then you will know that Reesing has been light years better than Meier both in terms of accuracy and decision-making. 26 TDs, 4 INTs is probably a bit lucky, but it's obvious that he's much much better. Additionally, you've said yourself that KU's schedule is much weaker this year. Shouldn't we expect a major improvement in turnover margin accordingly? The computers are already penalizing KU for their "weak" schedule. It's not fair to penalize them again here. Reesing is a great decision-maker, our HBs both take great care of the ball, and McClinton might be the best DT in the country wreaking all sorts of havoc on every play. I do think our TO margin is partially luck, but I think you're drastically overstating that aspect
|
|
#134
11-12-2007, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For those ranking Kansas #3 behind LSU and Oregon, do you think that if all three win out that an undefeated BCS conference champion should be left out of the BCS championship behind TWO one-loss teams? [/ QUOTE ] no but until they beat Mizzouri and Oklahoma they don't belong above LSU/Oregon [/ QUOTE ] So if the season ended today you'd leave them out? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, without a second thought. For the same reason that Brigham Young didn't deserve to be NC in 1984. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. This is great. I really hope it happens, it would be the greatest argument for ending the bowl cartel ever. [/ QUOTE ] You think KU is going to cancel it's game against Missouri?
|
|
#135
11-12-2007, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
[ QUOTE ]
Iggy, while I agree with you to an extent I still think you're pretty far off. Turnover margin, I would assume, is very heavily dependent on one player, the QB. I believe you said you've watched several of KU's games recently. If you saw any last year then you will know that Reesing has been light years better than Meier both in terms of accuracy and decision-making. 26 TDs, 4 INTs is probably a bit lucky, but it's obvious that he's much much better. Additionally, you've said yourself that KU's schedule is much weaker this year. Shouldn't we expect a major improvement in turnover margin accordingly? The computers are already penalizing KU for their "weak" schedule. It's not fair to penalize them again here. Reesing is a great decision-maker, our HBs both take great care of the ball, and McClinton might be the best DT in the country wreaking all sorts of havoc on every play. I do think our TO margin is partially luck, but I think you're drastically overstating that aspect [/ QUOTE ] FWIW USC was #1 in TO margin in '05-'06, #2 in '04-'05, and I couldn't find stats for '03-'04 but I expect that they were top 5. Those three years they were in the national championship, and the TO margin is considered to be key to the dominance (USC dropped off significantly in '06-'07 and weren't nearly as dominant as before). I don't know what exactly this proves, but it looks like following the logic that TO margin is 95% luck, coupled with the fact that you can correlate or even directly relate TO margin with success means that USC's success was due in a huge part to luck and I can't buy that. Talent and coaching I would assume account for more than luck or at least as much when considering TO margin.
|
|
#136
11-12-2007, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
Obviously, teams that do well on turnover margin are more likely to be successful. All you have to do is look at the Cal game to see that the '04 USC team caught some breaks that they wouldn't have won the title without. The fact that they were +4 on turnovers last year and -4 on turnovers this year would suggest that luck played a large role however.
With that said, I never claimed that turnovers were "100%" luck. There are a few special players that can influence them positively. Leinart and Palmer would qualify for USC as would Brian Brohm this year. I'm not going to adjust TO margin for a QB like Dixon who threw 14 picks last year or a lightly recruited sophomore like Todd Reesing though. I'd say USC's expected turnovers were probably about +6 those years due to a combination of them having good QB play and running the ball more than their opponents, but a large portion was also just good luck that made USC appear much more dominant than they actually were talent-wise.
|
|
#137
11-13-2007, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, teams that do well on turnover margin are more likely to be successful. All you have to do is look at the Cal game to see that the '04 USC team caught some breaks that they wouldn't have won the title without. The fact that they were +4 on turnovers last year and -4 on turnovers this year would suggest that luck played a large role however. With that said, I never claimed that turnovers were "100%" luck. There are a few special players that can influence them positively. Leinart and Palmer would qualify for USC as would Brian Brohm this year. I'm not going to adjust TO margin for a QB like Dixon who threw 14 picks last year or a lightly recruited sophomore like Todd Reesing though. I'd say USC's expected turnovers were probably about +6 those years due to a combination of them having good QB play and running the ball more than their opponents, but a large portion was also just good luck that made USC appear much more dominant than they actually were talent-wise. [/ QUOTE ] I swear somewhere you said that turnover margin was 95% luck. Or were you just saying that KU being #1 was 95% luck? All I know is in 2006 USC lost a lot more players than they did the previous 2-3 years, maybe even more than the previous 2-3 years combined. They dropped from being first in turnover margin to tied for 38th. They lost their starting QB, both starting RBs, most of their offensive line and I think three defenders. This was the reason that they were committing more turnovers on offense and less on defense, not that the dice stopped rolling their way.
|
|
#138
11-13-2007, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
Florida has home & home with Miami for 2 years to go along with FSU, so the rest of the SEC needs to get their [censored] together.
Fortunately they suck or next year's OOC schedule would be ridiculous if any of these teams were going to be good and Colt Brennan was coming back: @FSU vs Miami vs Hawaii
|
|
#139
11-13-2007, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
home v Hawai'i isn't a tough game for a top 25 team
congrats to Florida for scheduling hard...I will give them mad props for it all of next year like I currently give to the Pac10
|
|
#140
11-13-2007, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NCAA College Football Week 11 -- Rank\'em
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For those ranking Kansas #3 behind LSU and Oregon, do you think that if all three win out that an undefeated BCS conference champion should be left out of the BCS championship behind TWO one-loss teams? [/ QUOTE ] no but until they beat Mizzouri and Oklahoma they don't belong above LSU/Oregon [/ QUOTE ] So if the season ended today you'd leave them out? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, without a second thought. For the same reason that Brigham Young didn't deserve to be NC in 1984. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. This is great. I really hope it happens, it would be the greatest argument for ending the bowl cartel ever. [/ QUOTE ] You think KU is going to cancel it's game against Missouri? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, exactly. Did the IQ of this forum suddenly drop? The "it" that I hope happens is "undefeated BCS conference champion left out of championship game in favor of two one-loss teams". How would Kansas cancelling a game make a great argument for playoffs? Oh, I get it, you thought you were being cute. Haw haw.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
