New Year's Six Predictions: Week 9(According to SportsHoopla Poll)

[ericd7633]

They should be 7th at best. Ohio State, Louisville, and even Wisconsin have better resumes.

Louisville definitely doesn't. Best win over #22 FSU. Other wins over .500+ teams = None.
Wisconsin has one more top 25 win, but is tied with A&M with wins over .500+ teams and has an extra loss.
Ohio State has one more top 25 win, but only has 2 wins over teams with a .500+ record, A&M has 3, plus has played a tougher SoS, which they mentioned numerous times tonight.

Add it all up it's not surprising they are the highest ranked 1 loss team at the moment.

 

[Across The Field]

Louisville definitely doesn't. Best win over #22 FSU. Other wins over .500+ teams = None.
Wisconsin has one more top 25 win, but is tied with A&M with wins over .500+ teams and has an extra loss.
Ohio State has one more top 25 win, but only has 2 wins over teams with a .500+ record, A&M has 3, plus has played a tougher SoS, which they mentioned numerous times tonight.

Add it all up it's not surprising they are the highest ranked 1 loss team at the moment.

They have 1 ranked win, and then wins over mediocre Tennessee, Arkansas and South Carolina. They also have an uncompetitive blowout loss to Alabama.
OSU has a blowout road win over #14 and another road win over #8, both at night, along with a fluke road night loss to #12.
Louisville has a blowout win over #22 and an extremely close road loss at #2, a game that was far more impressive than any of those others wins A&M has.
Wisconsin has 2 losses to elite teams, both by 7 points, along with wins over #10 and #13.

Trying to pimp wins over mediocre teams as being more impressive than wins over top 15 teams is, as usual, absurd. Then again, you are team SEC, so no shock here.

 

[ericd7633]

They have 1 ranked win, and then wins over mediocre Tennessee, Arkansas and South Carolina. They also have an uncompetitive blowout loss to Alabama.
OSU has a blowout road win over #14 and another road win over #8, both at night, along with a fluke road night loss to #12.
Louisville has a blowout win over #22 and an extremely close road loss at #2, a game that was far more impressive than any of those others wins A&M has.
Wisconsin has 2 losses to elite teams, both by 7 points, along with wins over #10 and #13.

Trying to pimp wins over mediocre teams as being more impressive than wins over top 15 teams is, as usual, absurd. Then again, you are team SEC, so no shock here.

I'm not pimping anything dumbass, I'm using the same wording coming directly from the committee's mouth. They don't care about close losses, they care about how many top 25 wins you have, how many wins against .500+ competition you have and your overall strength of schedule. You call the wins over Tennessee and Arkansas as mediocre, but the committee doesn't see it that way.

I honestly don't give a shit what the SEC does, I mean it would nice for a conference to be better than for a change, but that's pretty clearly not happening.

 

[Across The Field]

I'm not pimping anything dumbass, I'm using the same wording coming directly from the committee's mouth. They don't care about close losses, they care about how many top 25 wins you have, how many wins against .500+ competition you have and your overall strength of schedule. You call the wins over Tennessee and Arkansas as mediocre, but the committee doesn't see it that way.

I honestly don't give a shit what the SEC does, I mean it would nice for a conference to be better than for a change, but that's pretty clearly not happening.

Yeah, that's kinda my point. Since when does being .500 suddenly mean so much? Tennessee is hot garbage and should rightfully be 4-4 if only Appy State had a kicker that could hit XPs. Arkansas is 5-3 with big wins over, well, nobody at all. But they do have 3 losses by an average of 31 points vs. the only ranked teams they've played, so that's cool. South Carolina is even worse yet, and even they beat shitty Tennessee. These are not feathers in the cap.

The Auburn win was nice, I'll give them credit. That's all they have. Being ranked ahead of an unbeaten Washington team is absurd at this point. If Washington was barely getting by, I'd maybe understand, but they're winning games by an average of 30 points. If you really, truly believe A&M is a better team than Washington, Louisville, OSU and Wisconsin, well, I guess that's your choice.

 

[ericd7633]

Yeah, that's kinda my point. Since when does being .500 suddenly mean so much? Tennessee is hot garbage and should rightfully be 4-4 if only Appy State had a kicker that could hit XPs. Arkansas is 5-3 with big wins over, well, nobody at all. But they do have 3 losses by an average of 31 points vs. the only ranked teams they've played, so that's cool. South Carolina is even worse yet, and even they beat shitty Tennessee. These are not feathers in the cap.

The Auburn win was nice, I'll give them credit. That's all they have. Being ranked ahead of an unbeaten Washington team is absurd at this point. If Washington was barely getting by, I'd maybe understand, but they're winning games by an average of 30 points. If you really, truly believe A&M is a better team than Washington, Louisville, OSU and Wisconsin, well, I guess that's your choice.

At this point it means something. It's why Clemson is ranked ahead of Michigan because beating Ga. Tech and Troy is better than anything Michigan has done after their 3 good/great wins. Again, Tennessee and Arkansas aren't great wins, they are quality wins though at this point, it's just something you should accept because it is what it is.

And you really come off sounding like a whiny little bitch. There isn't much of a separation between those 4 schools as is, somebody has to be ranked 4th and somebody has to be ranked 7th. A&M just has the best resume of the 1 loss teams, at the moment.

I'm beginning to think the only ranking/metric you think is reliable is the AP poll, which has been rendered useless long before all these others, kind of ironic.

 

[Across The Field]

At this point it means something. It's why Clemson is ranked ahead of Michigan because beating Ga. Tech and Troy is better than anything Michigan has done after their 3 good/great wins. Again, Tennessee and Arkansas aren't great wins, they are quality wins though at this point, it's just something you should accept because it is what it is.

And you really come off sounding like a whiny little bitch. There isn't much of a separation between those 4 schools as is, somebody has to be ranked 4th and somebody has to be ranked 7th. A&M just has the best resume of the 1 loss teams, at the moment.

I'm beginning to think the only ranking/metric you think is reliable is the AP poll, which has been rendered useless long before all these others, kind of ironic.

Then I guess everyone is a whiny little bitch, because that's pretty much the only thing anyone is talking about in regards to these rankings. I don't fully agree with the AP, but far less outlandish than the different metrics you hold to like Gospel. I think it's funny that you rip on me so much for ignoring your metrics, yet everyone else on this board seems to agree with me as well. Your little poll pretty much proved that.

 

[ericd7633]

Then I guess everyone is a whiny little bitch, because that's pretty much the only thing anyone is talking about in regards to these rankings. I don't fully agree with the AP, but far less outlandish than the different metrics you hold to like Gospel. I think it's funny that you rip on me so much for ignoring your metrics, yet everyone else on this board seems to agree with me as well. Your little poll pretty much proved that.

Yeah and everybody that is being whiny, is being dumb because if UW wins out they're going to get in. Right now they have an awful SoS which is why they are where they are.

And all my poll did was make people see how using ppg and ppg allowed and total offense and total defense as an evaluation of determining how good teams were, a complete joke.

Also, I don't hold anything to gospel, I only bring certain things about because you say outlandish stuff like OU would absolutely beat Colorado by 2 TD's+, or that USC is a bad team, or that Washington State is a bad team etc...

 

[The Q]

scum. what a joke. They would get humiliated by Clemson or Bama.

Bama I agree. Michigan plays right into Bama's hands. Just like MSU did last year.

Clemson has been vulnerable and maybe with anything resembling competent officiating would have 2 losses already.

But god damn is Watson just an absolute stud. He can flat out win a game on his own, hell he almost did against Bama last year, and UM is no Bama from last year.

 

[Across The Field]

Yeah and everybody that is being whiny, is being dumb because if UW wins out they're going to get in. Right now they have an awful SoS which is why they are where they are.

And all my poll did was make people see how using ppg and ppg allowed and total offense and total defense as an evaluation of determining how good teams were, a complete joke.

Also, I don't hold anything to gospel, I only bring certain things about because you say outlandish stuff like OU would absolutely beat Colorado by 2 TD's+, or that USC is a bad team, or that Washington State is a bad team etc...

Haha that's complete bullshit and you know it. Nearly every single person that posted in that thread said that all 3 were complete bullshit but that choice C was just not quite as much bullshit as the other two.

Washington State is an average team at very best. Sorry, but you lose to an FCS team at home, you're at best average. They're no better than Iowa, who is not very good. USC could be good, we'll see. They've got the talent, no doubt. Getting stomped out by a bad Stanford team isn't impressive. Maybe you still think Stanford is good?

 

[ericd7633]

Haha that's complete bullshit and you know it. Nearly every single person that posted in that thread said that all 3 were complete bullshit but that choice C was just not quite as much bullshit as the other two.

Washington State is an average team at very best. Sorry, but you lose to an FCS team at home, you're at best average. They're no better than Iowa, who is not very good. USC could be good, we'll see. They've got the talent, no doubt. Getting stomped out by a bad Stanford team isn't impressive. Maybe you still think Stanford is good?

Yeah and ranking A was by far the worst, which was no surprise, considering it didn't take into account SoS, or any advanced line of thinking.

Washington State is average, yet here they sit in the top 25. They are different than Iowa because they are better than Iowa. But no surprise you can't take off your B1G homer glasses. USC is a fringe top 25 team. Whatever that makes them in yours eyes that's what they are. There's no disputing it at this point. They have a win over a top 15 team. 2 losses to the #1 team and #14 team then a road loss at an above .500 Stanford team.

 

[Across The Field]

Yeah and ranking A was by far the worst, which was no surprise, considering it didn't take into account SoS, or any advanced line of thinking.

Washington State is average, yet here they sit in the top 25. They are different than Iowa because they are better than Iowa. But no surprise you can't take off your B1G homer glasses. USC is a fringe top 25 team. Whatever that makes them in yours eyes that's what they are. There's no disputing it at this point. They have a win over a top 15 team. 2 losses to the #1 team and #14 team then a road loss at an above .500 Stanford team.

No dude, you're the only one making a distinction here. Saying "oh well this pile of shit is slightly less smelly than these other two piles of shit" doesn't prove your point. What we actually all learned is that you're the only one who has to turn to algorithms and spreadsheets to determine which college football teams are good.

Washington State is average. They're in the top 25 because it's a very mediocre year. You also believe they're mediocre. If you don't, then don't ever use efficiency rankings for an argument again, because they're 48th according to that. USC could have turned things around, we'll see. I still imagine they finish no better than 8-4, which would put them right around the top 25.

 

[ericd7633]

No dude, you're the only one making a distinction here. Saying "oh well this pile of shit is slightly less smelly than these other two piles of shit" doesn't prove your point. What we actually all learned is that you're the only one who has to turn to algorithms and spreadsheets to determine which college football teams are good.

Washington State is average. They're in the top 25 because it's a very mediocre year. You also believe they're mediocre. If you don't, then don't ever use efficiency rankings for an argument again, because they're 48th according to that. USC could have turned things around, we'll see. I still imagine they finish no better than 8-4, which would put them right around the top 25.

Washington State is 26th in efficiency, not sure what you're looking at, but then again, I'm not really surprised. Washington State is 17th in the Massey Composite, 25th in the AP, Coaches Poll and CFP. They are clearly better than Iowa at this point in the season. EVERY metric would agree with that. Except you because you have a built in bias.

Also, FWIW, I only turn to those things to help supplement my arguments. I never pull them to prove a point, big difference.

 

[Across The Field]

Washington State is 26th in efficiency, not sure what you're looking at, but then again, I'm not really surprised. Washington State is 17th in the Massey Composite, 25th in the AP, Coaches Poll and CFP. They are clearly better than Iowa at this point in the season. EVERY metric would agree with that. Except you because you have a built in bias.

Also, FWIW, I only turn to those things to help supplement my arguments. I never pull them to prove a point, big difference.

Totally my fault, had it sorted by the wrong column. That said, it doesn't really change my opinion. Again, they lost at home to an FCS team. They're average. They would be no higher than 6th in the B1G, SEC, or ACC. Congrats to them for being barely ranked in a very mediocre year of college football. It's really a banner year for the Cougars.

 

[ericd7633]

Totally my fault, had it sorted by the wrong column. That said, it doesn't really change my opinion. Again, they lost at home to an FCS team. They're average. They would be no higher than 6th in the B1G, SEC, or ACC. Congrats to them for being barely ranked in a very mediocre year of college football. It's really a banner year for the Cougars.

You can't compare previous years to this year, that's the problem. Washington State has performed like a top 25 team THIS SEASON. Yes they lost to an FCS team, but according to advanced metrics, that's no different than losing to a mediocre P5 team. Had Iowa not lost to an average NW team at home, they'd be sniffing the top 25, but they didn't so they aren't.

 

[The Q]

You can't compare previous years to this year, that's the problem. Washington State has performed like a top 25 team THIS SEASON. Yes they lost to an FCS team, but according to advanced metrics, that's no different than losing to a mediocre P5 team. Had Iowa not lost to an average NW team at home, they'd be sniffing the top 25, but they didn't so they aren't.

So losing an FCS team is better than losing to say, San Jose St? WTF?

 

[ericd7633]

So losing an FCS team is better than losing to say, San Jose St? WTF?

I detect a little sarcasm here.

 

[Across The Field]

You can't compare previous years to this year, that's the problem. Washington State has performed like a top 25 team THIS SEASON. Yes they lost to an FCS team, but according to advanced metrics, that's no different than losing to a mediocre P5 team. Had Iowa not lost to an average NW team at home, they'd be sniffing the top 25, but they didn't so they aren't.

And I couldn't give two shits about this. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet, poindexter. According to your precious efficiency metrics, Kansas St. is the 18th best team in the nation. Should they be in the top 25 now too? Is Miami the 23rd best team in the nation?

Wazzou doesn't have a single quality win all year, unless you still want to try and pimp Stanford as being quality somehow. They've looked like shit for 3 weeks in a row against 3 average to very below average teams. They're not good if you actually know football. When you simply rely on formulas to tell you who is good, your view is skewed. As I said, though, it's a really mediocre year of college football, so they get to be ranked. 6-2 is a nice record on paper until you really get into it. They're simply an OK team.

 

[ericd7633]

And I couldn't give two shits about this. The game isn't played on a spreadsheet, poindexter. According to your precious efficiency metrics, Kansas St. is the 18th best team in the nation. Should they be in the top 25 now too? Is Miami the 23rd best team in the nation?

Wazzou doesn't have a single quality win all year, unless you still want to try and pimp Stanford as being quality somehow. They've looked like shit for 3 weeks in a row against 3 average to very below average teams. They're not good if you actually know football. When you simply rely on formulas to tell you who is good, your view is skewed. As I said, though, it's a really mediocre year of college football, so they get to be ranked. 6-2 is a nice record on paper until you really get into it. They're simply an OK team.

Efficiency metrics are just that, how efficient a team has been on offense, defense and special teams. It's a baseline for how good teams play during the actual game on a play by play basis. There's no perfect metric, which I've been saying forever. But the more information we have the better. It's pretty obvious to see that even though Eastern Washington is an FCS team, they have performed like an average P5 team this season. My guess is they would be favored over half the teams at the FBS level.

So while it's not a good look, it's actually better than say them losing to a team like Purdue. And yes Wazzu doesn't have a high quality win(although Stanford with another couple wins would be), but neither does Nebraska and they're ranked 10th.

 

[Across The Field]

Efficiency metrics are just that, how efficient a team has been on offense, defense and special teams. It's a baseline for how good teams play during the actual game on a play by play basis. There's no perfect metric, which I've been saying forever. But the more information we have the better. It's pretty obvious to see that even though Eastern Washington is an FCS team, they have performed like an average P5 team this season. My guess is they would be favored over half the teams at the FBS level.

So while it's not a good look, it's actually better than say them losing to a team like Purdue. And yes Wazzu doesn't have a high quality win(although Stanford with another couple wins would be), but neither does Nebraska and they're ranked 10th.

It is? You follow Eastern Washington pretty closely, huh? What the hell are you talking about "it's pretty obvious"? Have you even seen a single game of their's this year? Stop acting like this is common knowledge.

Nebraska has 1 loss, and it was vs. #8, on the road in one of the harshest environments in the nation, and it was by 7 points in OT. Washington State has a home loss to an FCS team and a road loss (in a decent game, I'll admit) to Boise State, who is good. However, the team that beat Boise (Wyoming) was throttled by Nebraska, so I'd call that better than any win Wazzou has.

 

[ericd7633]

It is? You follow Eastern Washington pretty closely, huh? What the hell are you talking about "it's pretty obvious"? Have you even seen a single game of there's this year? Stop acting like this is common knowledge.

Nebraska has 1 loss, and it was vs. #8, on the road in one of the harshest environments in the nation, and it was by 7 points in OT. Washington State has a home loss to an FCS team and a road loss (in a decent game, I'll admit) to Boise State, who is good. However, the team that beat Boise (Wyoming) was throttled by Nebraska, so I'd call that better than any win Wazzou has.

If we're going to use the transitive property theory, I don't see how Eastern Washington is any different than Iowa. You can probably make a case they are better than Iowa. I didn't want to do that because I don't think they're as good as Iowa though.

Yes, Nebraska has a good loss, which is the best thing going for them at this point. They'll add another good loss this weekend.