Post your Final Top 25 here

[Wild Turkey]

South Carolina has a slightly better SoS than Auburn. Slightly better power rating(makes up very little, but some). Points wise, they are extremely close, South Carolina is only ahead by 9 points, so it's a virtual tie really.

OK I disagree but they still have two loses one of them to Tennessee no way they should be ranked ahead of Auburn. If they had played and beaten Alabama this year maybe.

I don't think the SOS is taking into account the Missouri game for Auburn either.

 

[4down20]

OK I disagree but they still have two loses one of them to Tennessee no way they should be ranked ahead of Auburn. If they had played and beaten Alabama this year maybe.

I don't think the SOS is taking into account the Missouri game for Auburn either.

Would have thought the Tennessee loss would have made a difference as well. But

That said, South Carolina did beat some quality teams as well. You can debate if they should be ahead of Auburn, but either way I still think they are top5.

 

[Smart]

1 game does not make a schedule. That is the difference between you and the computer. You want to pretend that 1 bowl game was the entire year. That it's the only head to head matchup that matters.

How far ahead of Nebraska should I have Minnesota? Since head to head is what matters most?

How far ahead should I have UCLA? is #16 high enough? Or do I need to rank UCLA higher than that to make room for Nebraska?

I have Michigan St #6, I guess they need to be up to #2 like others here.

And Iowa St, I'll suppose I need to add them to the top 25 as well.

And gosh, now that we've got those guys in the top25, I suppose we need to look at who beat those teams and add them ahead, since they won head to head as well. Minnesota lost to Syracuse(7-6), where in the top 25 do I need to rank Syracuse?

Bottom line, your method sucks and it's not really a method at all, it's just you looking for any thing to throw out there to rank your own team higher to support your bias. All the while throwing shit at me because I don't follow your bias.

Exactly. If you favor head to head, you are by definition favoring one loss (the head to head) over another. And while that may work in a 2 team race, it becomes complicated when you add a third team (ie that one who gave them the extra loss). And it becomes worse when you add the fourth, fifth, and so on. And by the end, head to head produces arbitrary results that rewards a team for starting near someone else in their poll. In other words, you are allowing arbitrary human poll norms decide your poll.

The only way to rank teams should be based on the total resume. Head to head should be completely irrelevant except for the role it pays in a team's overall resume.

 

[4down20]

Exactly. If you favor head to head, you are by definition favoring one loss (the head to head) over another. And while that may work in a 2 team race, it becomes complicated when you add a third team (ie that one who gave them the extra loss). And it becomes worse when you add the fourth, fifth, and so on. And by the end, head to head produces arbitrary results that rewards a team for starting near someone else in their poll. In other words, you are allowing arbitrary human poll norms decide your poll.

The only way to rank teams should be based on the total resume. Head to head should be completely irrelevant except for the role it pays in a team's overall resume.

If the rankings had come out Georgia #24, Nebraska #25, then it would have moved Nebraska to #24 and Georgia to #25. That is when head to head matters in my poll. After it does the ranks, it goes down the list looking for these things and moves teams up. Teams can move up multiple spots as well, it keeps going until the team above them isn't one they've beaten.

That's the extent of head to head.

 

[The Crimson King]

4down20 is such a crybaby about people criticizing his computer rankings. Why do you post them if you don't want to hear criticism? They put out screwy results that only you think are "unbiased" and "correct". When you write the ranking system you inject your bias into it by weighting what you believe to be important in your criteria. Why you can't grasp that I will never understand. Computer rankings have a place and I enjoy looking at them and using them as a source for ranking teams. They are not the end all be all of unbiased ranking though. They just are a different method that doesn't really fit in an opinion poll. It screws up the results. We should have our own computer rankings poll. I bet it would end up awesome if we could get enough people who participated.

anyone can come up with some broken computer program

 

[4down20]

anyone can come up with some broken computer program

 

[mutiger]

Would have thought the Tennessee loss would have made a difference as well. But

That said, South Carolina did beat some quality teams as well. You can debate if they should be ahead of Auburn, but either way I still think they are top5.

No way you can rank South Carolina in front of Auburn……they shouldn't be ranked above Mizzou either IMO. Mizzou was playing without Franklin and EJ Gaines. With Mizzou up 17-0, Pinkel went way conservative with his Freshman QB in his first night game. Mizzou lost 27-24 in 2OT. Mizzou doesn't lose that game if Franklin or EJ Gaines plays.

Sorry, the Tennessee lost is also a major factor. 5-7 team

 

[24seven]

No way you can rank South Carolina in front of Auburn……they shouldn't be ranked above Mizzou either IMO. Mizzou was playing without Franklin and EJ Gaines. With Mizzou up 17-0, Pinkel went way conservative with his Freshman QB in his first night game. Mizzou lost 27-24 in 2OT. Mizzou doesn't lose that game if Franklin or EJ Gaines plays.

Sorry, the Tennessee lost is also a major factor. 5-7 team

And again, we were playing without our starting QB until late in the 3rd quarter. We put him in and he whipped your asses immediately, even injured. Had he played the whole game it would have been even worse.
If Franklin and Shaw played the whole game it might have been a good one, but certainly not an automatic win for Mizzou.
The Tennessee loss sucked and it hurt, but doesn't wipe out the actual achievements of the team, which were very good (beating 6 bowl winners, 4 10-win teams, 2 BCS bowl winners, and 5 of the final Top 25). You have to consider those on the overall resume. Not many can match that (if any).

 

[Wild Turkey]

Just to be clear I don't have a problem if people want to rank Michigan State in front of Auburn they had a better record. If I had an official vote I would put Auburn ahead but that is a biased opinion.

No one remembers who was 2nd or 3rd anyway after about a year it's who is number one then the other top 10 tens get to feel good and sing Kumbaya. After the 10 spot it's just best not feel too proud IMO.

 

[KansasSooner]

4down20 is such a crybaby about people criticizing his computer rankings. Why do you post them if you don't want to hear criticism? They put out screwy results that only you think are "unbiased" and "correct". When you write the ranking system you inject your bias into it by weighting what you believe to be important in your criteria. Why you can't grasp that I will never understand. Computer rankings have a place and I enjoy looking at them and using them as a source for ranking teams. They are not the end all be all of unbiased ranking though. They just are a different method that doesn't really fit in an opinion poll. It screws up the results. We should have our own computer rankings poll. I bet it would end up awesome if we could get enough people who participated.

How do you know the bold part to be true. I wrote one using a regression method that chose the variables based on the correlation coefficient of independent/dependent variables and an F-test method for inclusion/exclusion. From a statistical stand point it was totally an unbiased model yet no one like the rankings so...

You might say that maybe I picked the wrong data but I used the NCAA data for the model, what other data should I have used?

 

[4down20]

No way you can rank South Carolina in front of Auburn……they shouldn't be ranked above Mizzou either IMO. Mizzou was playing without Franklin and EJ Gaines. With Mizzou up 17-0, Pinkel went way conservative with his Freshman QB in his first night game. Mizzou lost 27-24 in 2OT. Mizzou doesn't lose that game if Franklin or EJ Gaines plays.

Sorry, the Tennessee lost is also a major factor. 5-7 team

The computer doesn't actually rank 1 team above another. What happens is each teams season is evaluated based on who they win and lose against, and the team is given a score for that. Then that score is taken and ordered from highest to lowest, and that is the rank of the team.

People like to focus in on 1 game or another as their reason for why X team should be above Y team, completely ignoring all other games, or treating all the other games as being insignificant. But the computer looks at all games.

In the case of South Carolina, Auburn and Missouri, the gap between South Carolina and Missouri is a total of 15 points. Extremely close.

South Carolina: 975 points
Auburn: 966 points
Missouri: 960 points

I don't see a huge injustice and people can make their cases for any of these teams being where they were. I don't see it as a big deal.

 

[mutiger]

And again, we were playing without our starting QB until late in the 3rd quarter. We put him in and he whipped your asses immediately, even injured. Had he played the whole game it would have been even worse.
If Franklin and Shaw played the whole game it might have been a good one, but certainly not an automatic win for Mizzou.
The Tennessee loss sucked and it hurt, but doesn't wipe out the actual achievements of the team, which were very good (beating 6 bowl winners, 4 10-win teams, 2 BCS bowl winners, and 5 of the final Top 25). You have to consider those on the overall resume. Not many can match that (if any).

If you believe that then you are dumb as hell.

 

[sooner4life130]

1. Florida St
2. Michigan St
3. Auburn
4. South Carolina
5. Missouri
6. UCF
7. Oregon
8. Oklahoma
9. Alabama
10. Baylor
11. Louisville
12. Clemson
13. Ohio St
14. Stanford
15. UCLA
16. Oklahoma St
17. LSU
18. Fresno St
19. Northern Illinois
20. Arizona St
21. Washington
22. USC
23. Texas A&M
24. Notre Dame
25. Wisconsin

Let's see who can rustle up some jimmies.

Teams I thought were best fit for their rankings

1. FSU
2. Auburn
3. Michigan State
4. Oregon
5. Alabama
6. Oklahoma
7. UCF
8. South Carolina
9. Missouri
10. Stanford
11. Clemson
12. Ohio State
13. LSU
14. Texas A&M (With Johny football they can beat anyone)
15. Louisville
16. Oklahoma State
17. Baylor (An unhealthy Baylor isn't nearly as good)
18. UCLA
19. USC
20. Duke
21. Wisconsin
22. ND
23. Nebraska
24. Texas Tech
25. ASU

 

[24seven]

If you believe that then you are dumb as hell.

Your mom is ugly.