Week 10 Rank'em

[bonds]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it'd be higher given Henne and Hart injuries. I'd say -6.5, maybe even across the 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't they pretty much healthy at this point? Hart ran for 110 yards against Michigan State and Henne was 18/33 for 211 with 4 TDs. Even if they aren't at 100% now, I'd think they would be by a week from Saturday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. Hart reinjured himself and barely played in the second half - got most of his yards on a couple long runs on the two TD drives in the first half. He hobbled off the field several times. Ankle problems take time to heal, so he won't be anywhere close to 100%. If Michigan hadn't been behind (and if Minor or Brown could pass block AT ALL), he would have sat for most of the game. Hart is a big question mark for OSU and should really sit against Wisky.

Henne is also very dinged up. Reports say didn't practice at all last week, other than lobbing a few balls to a trainer on Thursday. Shoulder injury. He looked HORRIBLE for most of the game - I spent the second and third quarters saying repetitively "he's gotta be hurt, he's never *this* bad" - but looked good in the fourth quarter. He couldn't make anything resembling a touch throw, though - it was all bombs and outs. Given how bad the line is (other than Long and to a lesser extent Kraus and maybe Boren), he takes a beating. The only way Henne might be close to 100% is if he sits next week.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a reprise of the Penn State game plan - Mallett at QB, run left, run left, chuck and duck, punt on fourth down, hope like heck that the defense rises to the occasion.

I'm an admitted Michigan homer, but without Henne and Hart at close to 100% this isn't even a top 25 team, let alone one that should be less than a touchdown underdog to tOSU.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Ohio State, 9-0
2. Kansas, 9-0
3. Oregon, 8-1
4. Louisiana State, 8-1
5. Arizona State, 8-1
6. Oklahoma, 8-1
7. Missouri, 8-1
8. West Virginia, 7-1
9. Boston College, 8-1
10. Hawaii, 8-0
11. Michigan, 8-2
12. Georgia, 7-2
13. Virginia Tech, 7-2
14. Southern Cal, 7-2
15. Conneticut, 8-1
16. Florida, 6-3
17. Auburn, 7-3
18. Clemson, 7-2
19. Texas, 8-2
20. Alabama, 7-3
21. California, 6-3
22. Tennessee, 6-3
23. Kentcuky, 6-3
24. Penn State, 7-3
25. Boise State, 8-1

[/ QUOTE ]
I think USC is better than VT, Georgia, Michigan and Hawaii. Like a lot better. Sagarin predictor agrees with me.

[BobJoeJim]

The Billingsley Report is a joke. #6 Boston College, #7 Kansas.

Sagarin's ELO-Chess rankings are an even bigger joke. #10 NORTHERN IOWA.

Combined, these two systems make up 33% of the BCS computer rankings, and therefore 11% of the FINAL BCS STANDINGS. Now there's nothing wrong with having computers be part of the BCS, the system would be much worse without them (although it would be nice if they weren't crippled by having to ignore margin of victory). The fact that an individual computer can have something stupid in its "ballot" is fine, obviously there are incredibly stupid humans doing similar things when they vote in the polls. The problem is that when a computer does it it gets drastically overemphasised because there are only six computers. The BCS computer rankings NEED A LARGER SAMPLE SIZE. They need to include FAR MORE computer systems than they currently account for.

The current computer rankings are the equivalent of a human poll with 6 voters... and two of them might be Corso and Holtz. Would anyone accept a poll like that as one-third of the BCS? Of course not, yet for some reason we turn a blind eye to the computers being the exact same thing, or else try to "fix" the system by de-emphasising the computers or not letting them use margin of victory or dropping the highest or lowest computer ranking or whatever. JUST ADD MORE COMPUTERS and turn it into a normal style poll.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
The Billingsley Report is a joke. #6 Boston College, #7 Kansas.

Sagarin's ELO-Chess rankings are an even bigger joke. #10 NORTHERN IOWA.

Combined, these two systems make up 33% of the BCS computer rankings, and therefore 11% of the FINAL BCS STANDINGS. Now there's nothing wrong with having computers be part of the BCS, the system would be much worse without them (although it would be nice if they weren't crippled by having to ignore margin of victory). The fact that an individual computer can have something stupid in its "ballot" is fine, obviously there are incredibly stupid humans doing similar things when they vote in the polls. The problem is that when a computer does it it gets drastically overemphasised because there are only six computers. The BCS computer rankings NEED A LARGER SAMPLE SIZE. They need to include FAR MORE computer systems than they currently account for.

The current computer rankings are the equivalent of a human poll with 6 voters... and two of them might be Corso and Holtz. Would anyone accept a poll like that as one-third of the BCS? Of course not, yet for some reason we turn a blind eye to the computers being the exact same thing, or else try to "fix" the system by de-emphasising the computers or not letting them use margin of victory or dropping the highest or lowest computer ranking or whatever. JUST ADD MORE COMPUTERS and turn it into a normal style poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what you get when you don't include margin-of-victory.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suppose OSU was playing Michigan this week instead of next (it's at Michigan) -- what is the point spread?

-4.5 OSU sound about right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it'd be higher given Henne and Hart injuries. I'd say -6.5, maybe even across the 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't they pretty much healthy at this point? Hart ran for 110 yards against Michigan State and Henne was 18/33 for 211 with 4 TDs. Even if they aren't at 100% now, I'd think they would be by a week from Saturday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither is anywhere near 100%. They're just that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why didn't they beat MSU worse?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhh they still won despite being way more injured than they or Carr or anyone is probably letting on? It was still a rivalry game on the road against a team with a good pass rush. Henne came up huge.

Oh, and our playcalling blew so hard for all of the 3rd and half the 4th quarters. But that's standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right....and I hope it all clears up soon. I'll be rooting for you guys against OSU. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MyTurn2Raise]

1. Kansas
2. Ohio State
3. Oregon

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
1. Ohio State (10-0) 1 2823 0.9993 1 1493 0.9953 1 99 0.990 0.9949 1
2. LSU (8-1) 2 2640 0.9345 2 1393 0.9287 2 96 0.960 0.9411 3
3. Oregon (8-1) 3 2590 0.9168 3 1376 0.9173 3 92 0.920 0.9180 5
4. Kansas (9-0) 5 2322 0.8219 5 1241 0.8273 4 88 0.880 0.8431 8
5. Oklahoma (8-1) 4 2518 0.8913 4 1330 0.8867 7 74 0.740 0.8393 6
6. Missouri (8-1) 7 2111 0.7473 7 1143 0.7620 8 72 0.720 0.7431 9
7. West Virginia (7-1) 6 2291 0.8110 6 1222 0.8147 12 60 0.600 0.7419 7
8. Boston College (8-1) 8 1836 0.6499 8 951 0.6340 6 81 0.810 0.6980 2
9. Arizona State (8-1) 9 1720 0.6088 9 946 0.6307 5 84 0.840 0.6932 4
10. Georgia (7-2) 11 1651 0.5844 10 927 0.6180 9 62 0.620 0.6075 10
11. Virginia Tech (7-2) 13 1500 0.5310 11 829 0.5527 10 61 0.610 0.5645 11
12. Michigan (8-2) 15 1332 0.4715 13 770 0.5133 13 49 0.490 0.4916 12
13. Connecticut (8-1) 16 1137 0.4025 16 568 0.3787 10 61 0.610 0.4637 13
14. Texas (8-2) 12 1540 0.5451 14 757 0.5047 18 27 0.270 0.4399 15
15. Florida (6-3) 17 1079 0.3819 18 529 0.3527 15 47 0.470 0.4015 20
16. Hawaii (8-0) 10 1677 0.5936 12 807 0.5380 NR 0 0.000 0.3772 14
17. USC (7-2) 14 1404 0.4970 15 706 0.4707 23 16 0.160 0.3759 19
18. Auburn (7-3) 18 975 0.3451 17 551 0.3673 17 28 0.280 0.3308 16
19. Virginia (8-2) 21 486 0.1720 21 259 0.1727 14 48 0.480 0.2749 23
20. Boise State (8-1) 19 747 0.2644 19 368 0.2453 22 19 0.190 0.2333 22
21. Clemson (7-2) 20 493 0.1745 20 318 0.2120 16 30 0.300 0.2288 25
22. Alabama (6-3) 22 437 0.1547 23 174 0.1160 20 23 0.230 0.1669 17
23. Penn State (7-3) 26 178 0.0630 25 105 0.0700 19 24 0.240 0.1243 NR
24. Tennessee (6-3) 24 251 0.0888 24 114 0.0760 24 15 0.150 0.1049 NR
25. Kentucky (6-3) 23 288 0.1019 22 197 0.1313 26 4 0.040 0.0911 NR </pre><hr />

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow so much for USC squeaking into a bcs game. USC was ahead of UF in the BCS, loses to Oregon, while UF loses to Georgia, and 3 loss Florida somehow jumps them a couple weeks later. What a joke. Wins over Cal and ASU are going to have to count for a lot, but I doubt the voters give USC any love for a Cal win given how they've dropped off the map recently.

[capone0]

USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
USC is good? They don't deserve to squeak in anywhere. USC lost to Stanford for god sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great logic. Classic. So you think both Oklahoma and Michigan are terrible as well and neither deserves a BCS bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see. Oklahoma beat one top ten team in Sagarin's top 10 and another in his top 30. USC hasn't beaten a top 30 team. Stanford (3-6) is worse than Colorado (5-5) according to his rankings (78th vs 43rd). So, based on that, Oklahoma cannot currently be considered as bad as USC.